How uncanny! Just as we begin the section on antimicrobial agents, the following opinion piece was recently published in the New York Times: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/24/opinion/how-to-develop-new-antibiotics.html?ref=opinion. Tell me what you think.
Post a thoughtful response (my determination) by noon on Monday, March 2nd and receive up to two (2) bonus points (again, subject to my determination).
Let the conversation begin!
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI would have to say that this article was very interesting to read. It had a lot of interesting information about antibiotics that I was not aware about. For example, the fact that the health care cost is about twenty billion annually.
ReplyDeleteWhen I read the statistic that there were 180 patients exposed to CRE superbug responsible for two deaths I was surprised. I was also shocked that 30% of severe strep pneumonia infections are resistant to multiple drugs. It’s scary to think about that specific fact.
I had no idea that the number of F.D.A- approved antibiotics has decreased. It probably has to do with a number of companies stopping their research. I can’t imagine why some antibiotic developers have stopped their research. The need for antibiotics never ends. However, when I read further in the article I now understand that profits need to be made on the brief usage because antibiotics are not taken for long periods of time (it was stated about a few months at most). Perhaps companies were not making enough money.
The fact that it costs at least one billion to develop a new drug was shocking to me. It is very interesting to know this and puts a lot of things into perspective for me. It definitely makes me appreciate antibiotics more.
This article was very informative and I enjoyed learning more information about antibiotics. I never realized how important and how expensive the research and development of antibiotics are. I hope to learn more in the future.
This was an interesting article. It was alarming to learn how some infections are resistant to antibiotics. As stated in the article, I think that it's time that we use a new approach to treating these infections. I think awarding prize money to the first few companies or academic centers that develop and get regulatory approval for a new class of antibiotics would be very beneficial to drug development. People would be thinking of many novel approaches to old problems, which is crucial to develop new drugs.
ReplyDeleteA couple facts that surprised me in this article were that 23,000 people die from bacterial infections that could have been treated with antibiotics and that it cost 1 billion to develop a new drug. I think its ashamed people either can’t afford the antibiotics or are to negligent to get them. One resolution suggested in this article is to lessen the amount of bacteria becoming resistant to antibiotics by reducing the frequency of prescribing them. I think antibiotics are over used. Seems like when people get sick they just want a pill for everything. This problem is now catching up with us since strep pneumonia and gonorrhea are becoming resistant to multiple drugs. Another point brought up in this article is how people are willing to pay big money for knee replacements and cancer drugs but don’t want to pay for "lifesaving" antibiotics. I agree with the idea that maybe because we don’t think much about dying from bacterial infections as we do of cancer or heart disease. These chronic infections are discussed more in the media.
ReplyDeleteI thought this article was interesting. I think that it is scary that some illnesses are resistant to antibiotics. I believe drug resistant illnesses are a huge threat and that we should fund further research. I never thought about why we don’t value antibiotic research as much as other research. The article gave a good perspective saying that we will pay $100,000 for cancer drugs and $10,000 for knee surgery that is not life threatening. But we don’t put up the same research and money towards antibiotics. I think that we don’t fear a bacterial infection as much as something like cancer, a heart attack or Alzheimer’s. Because we have seen others die from these, and in turn fear them, we are willing to put up the money and research. However, since it’s not often someone has a life threatening illness, we don’t worry about it as much, but we should be. We should educate the public on life threatening illnesses and try to raise funding for antibiotics.
ReplyDeleteI thought this article was very interesting and actually left me a bit upset. The statement "it's estimated that half of all antibiotics used are unnecessary." That statement gets me fired up for a few reasons. First, just like the article talked about spending a ton of money of things that are potentially useless. Why are we paying all this money for drugs to actually make matters worse?! Secondly, my brother is younger and plays a lot of sports and is always exposed to diseases, sicknesses and every germ a young boys sports team may carry. He seems to catch almost everything and every time my parents take him to the doctor he comes home with an antibiotic. My parents wonder why he seems to catch everything... Maybe it's because his body has no chance to ever fight anything on his own when he is constantly given drugs that cost money and may not even be helping every time he gets sick! I can get angry at doctors but I feel like that is their automatic response when patients come in and don't feel good to just prescribe them something. This article touched on many great points like that focus of cancer drugs and the fact that antibiotics may not even treat phenmoneua sicknesses. I really hope this subject is looked closer at be not only physicians but all healthy care providers and drug providers. The body is smart!
ReplyDeleteThis article was interesting to read, it is surprising to know that some of the major drug manufacturing companies have stopped their antibiotic research. However there are over 100 different types of antibiotics out there, how many times are there superbugs that can't be treated with these antibiotics? Also 30% seems to be a low amount that are resistant to these antibiotics. It does make sense that companies wouldn't be making much of a profit on these drugs considering most pharmacies are selling commonly used anitibiotics for free. Animal feed however is a big issue with increased antibiotic resistantance. Chicken and cows are being beefed up with steriods, and given antibiotics to produce a large amount of meat within the meat industry and that is a whole other issue in itself, that is a large cause for the antibiotic resistance that needs to be changed. The article makes a very good point about how there are tons of cancer drugs awaiting to be tested and approved that won't actually prevent death for sure, but a simple antibiotic can do so, and people aren't realizing that a bacterial infection can be just as fatal if not treated.
ReplyDeleteI suppose I was always aware of drug resistant bacteria, but never really understood the severity of it and how it is a never ending battle because bacteria figure out a way to become resistant to every new drug. It is not surprising, however, that money is such a huge issue. Yes, it obviously costs a lot of money to produce and test new medications, but I think that of all things this is one of the more important causes our money should be going to. I think it is ridiculous that a competition needs to be put into place in order for people to get more involved and work a little harder. Either way, I hope that producers can somehow be better funded so we can reduce the 23,000 deaths while also raising awareness. I think it is important for the population to be better informed of bacterial diseases, rather then always focusing on only the "popularized" conditions such as heart disease, cancer, and Alzheimer's.
ReplyDeleteAs I was reading the article, a couple things surprised me. One thing that immediately jumped out was the fact that the amount of new antibiotics has been decreasing steadily for a while now. I never knew the drug companies were no longer looking into antibiotics as much as other aspects of the healthcare system. The other thing that surprised me was how great of a solution the author had come up with. The two billion dollar prize, offered by a joint force of governments, is a fantastic way to get companies and individual research teams interested in coming up with a new and effective antibiotic. I believe that with a commitment like this, the world could see a new, powerful, and safe antibiotic within the next 10 years. This would be pivotal in preventing a superbug from going around and being untreatable.
ReplyDeleteThis was an interesting article, and an even more interesting comments section to accommodate it. As many pointed out, an opinion I agree with, the problem isn't creating new antibiotics to stop these super-bacteria. The problem is that we are the ones creating them! 80% of antibiotics are used on livestock! Can the people not see how this might create some issues with bacterial evolution? If a species is constantly being killed by their environment, eventually somewhere down the line, one of them is going to adapt, and then a drug-resistant bacteria is created. The same goes for people too, we over-prescribe antibiotics. When my mom was a nurse one of her biggest complaints was the overuse of penicillin, the other doctors, nurses, etc. used it for everything! Nowadays there are a slew of bacteria completely immune to its effects. This situation, in my opinion, is very similar to the vaccine article we read a while back. People just aren't that scared of the diseases anymore. Just like the article said, everyone knows someone who has died of heart disease, or cancer, or Alzheimer's, so that's what drug companies are obviously going to research, they go where the money is, they go where the people are most afraid, and right no diseases quite scare us like those.
ReplyDeleteI found this article highly enlightening. Bacteria are evolving so rapidly because we believe we have lost the ability to fight things such as infections or minor diseases without the use of antibiotics. This means they have to be everywhere, even in the food our food eats, to keep us from getting sick. With such a highly selective environment, new strains of bacteria are bound to come about. And these new strains will be resistant to the antibiotics we have already developed.
ReplyDeleteI was also saddened at the fact that human life is not enough to begin the pursuit of new antibiotics. Major pharmaceutical centers focus instead on diseases such as cancer, which is by no means a minor or trivial disease, instead of antibiotics. However, there is no major progress being made in the field of cancer research, and so there is practically nothing being done! Hopefully, such an incentive solution as mentioned at the end of the article could be passed, and possibly some new antibiotics might be synthesized to fight the growing amount of resistant bacteria.
Though developing a new class of antibiotics would be helpful, I believe our main focus should be on maximizing the potential of the current antibiotics. Even if drug companies did invest time into developing new drugs there's no guarantee on how long this would take or if it is even possible. By implementing harsher regulations , on things such as restrictions on antibiotics in animal feed, would prove to be far more beneficial to the issue at hand.
ReplyDeleteI think this article was interesting as it tells us of the serious issues that are occurring due to bacteria and their resistance to antibiotics and the majority of the society is not even aware of it. Most people think that if they have a virus or they are sick they just go to the doctor and get a prescription for antibiotics and everything will be fine. Which is part of the problem because according to this article antibiotics are over prescribed which created so many drug resistant bacteria. Maybe if the society was more informed about this issue they would learn to fear it as they fear cancer and heart disease. Maybe then this part of the scientific world would get the funding they need to fight off these newer drug resistant bacteria. While the government offered money to help this research area it only promised the money to the first five companies or academic research who created a new antibiotic which means the other companies would not have gotten anything for their effort, which at 1 billion dollars to make just ONE antibiotic does not really help them. If the society was more aware of these new issues with bacteria the research facilities would probably get more money like the researchers for cancer. They get a lot of donations because cancer is well known and most people do know someone that has is or died from it. I am sure that the friends and relatives of the two people who died from the C R E super bug are more aware and fearful of the bacteria and maybe having more public knowledge will help prevent deaths due to drug resistant bacteria.
ReplyDeleteIt seems to me that drug companies and developers are no longer as concerned with what the people need but rather what will make them the most money. Back when penicillin and antibiotics were first discovered, scientists were simply content with saving lives and devoted their lives researching effective methods to do so. Unfortunately this is no longer the case, big corporations are always looking out for their own interests and drugs that would result in great profits. Antibiotics apparently do not belong to this case, they have low profitability and efforts are being concentrated to develop drugs that treat chronic, more serious diseases than ones that can be caused by bacteria. I believe the true solution to this problem does not lay in developing new antibiotics that work better, but rather reserve their use to extraneous cases and focusing more on preventive methods and new health standards that prevent infection in the first place.
ReplyDeleteI found this article to be refreshing because it seems as though people do not realize the danger of antibiotics becoming resistant. Although it really is not preventable, as it is a part of nature, I agree with the article when it mentioned over prescription being accountable for some of the issue. I grew up in a household where my parents educated us early on the potential harm in taking antibiotics when it isn't necessary, and why it is important to use antibiotics as a last resort. I believe this is where the majority of the issue comes from. These unnecessary prescriptions are a result of the lack of education society receives about antibiotics. There is not much discussion about antibiotics, and what a threat they could cause, because like the article stated, there is no monetary reward behind the progress in research. I think more money and focus should be put into the field of antibiotic research, and that it will stem from educating the public on antibiotics, their role in the body, and how they evolve like any other organism. When the public understands that they are speeding up the process of resistance every time they use an antibiotic, maybe there will be less prescription of them, as well as more support and money behind research in the field.
ReplyDeleteThis article was an interesting read. I have to be honest though, I am not surprised that scientists have slowed the production of new antibiotics so drastically. The article made a good point in saying that people are more willing to pay enormous amounts of money for cancer treatments that may not even work or non life threatening issues like knee replacements. I suppose since people dying or being affected by those types of situations are more publicized than bacterial infections that people don't quite understand the severity of it. Perhaps an important effort towards change could be getting more stories of people suffering from severe bacterial infections out into the news. I think if people see with their own eyes that the issue is relevant then they'd be more willing to pay to fix the problem. And with that would bring scientists' and corporations' focus back on continuing research in antibiotic drugs.The motive here is clearly money and there is no changing that, so sidetracking the consumers focus just a bit could bring change. I also thought the prize money was an interesting thought as well.
ReplyDeleteI found this article very interesting and educating. I found it very interesting because I never really thought about the production of antibiotics or new antibiotics being created. In the article it states that society is willing to pay greats amount of money for cancer treatments that might not work and only possibly add weeks or months to a persons life but they will not pay to be able to find a lifesaving antibiotic. In my opinion this is because you don't really hear stories of people dying from bacterial infections like you do about people with cancer. Of course that doesn't mean that people aren't still dying from bacterial infections. I really like the authors suggestion for prize money. That would definitely spark researchers interest in finding new antibiotics for bacterial infections. Money is always something that starts to spark peoples interest in just about anything.
ReplyDeleteOne of the points that I found interesting and wish the author had elaborated on was the fact that there are more ways then just drugs to combat bacterial infection, something as simple as washing your hands is enough to eliminate the spread of infections. Also it was interesting to see that so many antibiotics are used in livestock, and how it can lead to antibiotic resistance in humans.
ReplyDeleteOne of the reasons that I feel that antibiotic drug development is not progressing is the fact it is not an immediate concern such as cancer or heart disease. However if there was a mass outbreak of bacterial infections, that cannot be combated by current drugs, then I feel that companies would start investing more resources into developing new antibiotic drugs.
To learn that the reason pharmaceutical companies are not producing antibiotics is because they would not gain a profit by them is scary. Its scary that the world has become so focused on the amount of money the product may revenue rather than the good it may do. Medicines these days have a huge mark up value, I did some research and the lowest mark up I came across was 3,000%. At this rate the pharmaceutical companies should be able to count their losses with antibiotics and move on. Yes, many people may not use them for the long term, but there will always be a need for them.
ReplyDeleteThe article makes it apparent of how essential it is to keep the public well-educated on exactly how antibiotics work within the body and the mechanisms in which bacteria can become resistant to these antibiotics.People insist upon not having their children vaccinated, but at the first symptom of illness rush to a doctor for a prescription! It did not surprise me to know that tens of thousands of people die annually from bacteria that simple cannot be wiped out. Bacteria change and reduce or eliminate the effectiveness of the designed drugs; this is just a fact of life so it is vital for companies to be working hard to develop new agents that can be effective for treatment! Though I believe new FDA-approved drugs would make a tremendous difference, the most important thing one can do is be smart when it comes to antibiotic use and protection against germs. Like the article stated, wash your hands! Something so easy and simple can make a difference. One should only turn to antibiotics when absolutely necessary. Realize that antibiotics are for bacterial infections not viruses and that overuse of antibiotics is the primary cause of the increase in drug-resistant bacteria. I understand money is a big issue, like it is in every situation, but I do feel more focus should be placed on antibiotic research. We all want a cure for cancer and Alzheimer's; these diseases are "scarier" and it is natural for people to fear them more than bacterial infections, but anything that can potentially threaten your life or the life of someone you love deserves attention, funding and research.
ReplyDeleteOverall, the public needs to do their part by staying educated and running for antibiotics only when they are necessary; also, these antibiotics should not be so freely prescribed just for the sake of comforting the patient if it is clear they have a viral infection or a sickness that will go away with time. Along with this, the drug companies need to do their part by trying to focus attention on developing new antibiotics despite the costs. Everybody needs to play their part for a healthier society.
I see how using a incentive could be extremely helpful in getting the research going, but like it described, it wasn't enough to get them fully interested. I can only imagine the initial cost of creating a new antibiotic; paying for the researchers time, lab equipment, chemicals, and housing bills. I'm sure that if the offer still stands though there should be a few willing companies willing to take on the challenge and get the ball rolling on the opportunity to create even more life-saving antibiotics.
ReplyDeleteFor the severity that these microbes seem to be having it's interesting that there isn't a law preventing a certain amount of antibiotics being put in animal feed. The laws of evolution that act on the microbes also act on us, so wouldn't it make since to let nature take it's course and go from there?
Some of the easiest ways to prevent the spread of disease is hand washing, and yet we still see that there is a lack of hand washing in hospitals where caregivers are still infecting their patients. If this simple problem could be fixed, we could prevent several infections and possible deaths without the extreme expenses of creating and administering new antibiotics.
The article also makes an effort to say that they are looking for new and innovative ways to tackle these microbes since the development of microbes has been "glacial". It will be interesting to see what new researchers develop in the future.
It is a scary thought that some bacteria are antibiotic resistant. It almost seems like the bacteria are becoming smarter than the scientists who people look towards to help them out to find answers and cures to these illnesses. The statistics in this article are also very staggering, such as the two million people being infected with an illness that cannot be cured with antibiotics and also, the money that is being spent on the treatment. It's also hard to believe that some large companies quit their research operations. That is definitely not comforting to the general public but mainly to the people who are sick and looking and hoping for a cure. I think it's a great idea for different countries to work together to try and speed up the process of researching and developing new antibiotics. If two heads are better than one, maybe two countries would be better than one as well.
ReplyDeletei dislike how the thesis of the article is "The development of antibiotics has been glacial. We need a completely new approach" yet there were only three obvious suggestions listed and the largest paragraph of the article is the author suggesting that the government make some sort of game or competition out of life-saving drug development. I was shocked to learn that 80% of antibiotic development is performed by smaller biotech companies as opposed to Pfizer, etc. I am interested to know the facts on bacterial resistance among different animal populations since animal feed accounts for 80% of the antibiotics used in the country. I know veterinarians at this time are not as concerned with this issue as human physicians. I do still believe, however, that antibiotics should not be available over the counter for farm animals since it contributes to the human bacteria resistance, and could eventually develop into an issue in the veterinary field. Lastly, I was also a bit frustrated with the government's last big 'grand' idea to encourage drug development was preventing generic drug production. I do not see this inciting big companies to start developing again. They still are not. That is only skewing with the big business capitalist market, not solving any drug resistance problems. I think they should promote better management on how they are prescribed/distributed.
ReplyDeleteI don't think that bacteria building tolerance to antibiotics is a surprise. Our bodies develop a tolerance to any kind of drug this includes alcohol. Think about it..the more you drink the more you have to drink for the same effect. Same goes with antibiotics. The more you use antibiotics the quicker your body is going to grow immune to the antibiotic. Doctors just want to get you in and out of the office or hospital as quick as they can so they just prescribe something and send you on your way. The overuse of antibiotics or any kind of drug is ridiculously high these days. Although, offering a prize is generally a good motivation it is a temporary fix. Coming up with new antibiotics will only be beneficial if the company continues looking for new antibiotics or treatments, otherwise eventually bacteria will become immune to the new antibiotics as well. I think a better fix would be for the government to invest into a larger company and look for some of the better scientists and employ them. Keep them looking for new ways and making new antibiotics that could be beneficial. Everybody is money driven in todays world so why not use that to the advantage by employing them. its beneficial for both groups of people and if successful it will benefit everybody. P.s. I think the fact that people are sitting on so many possible treatments for cancer with out even trying all of them is ridiculous.
ReplyDeleteI agree with most that offering a prize would generate a lot of new ideas and interest in developing new antibiotics, but I also find it slightly depressing that like everything else in the world, science has turned to money for an answer. What ever happened to making an amazing discovery just for the pure joy of the science involved and helping people? Is that not the pure foundation for research? While funding for different research projects would be difficult because of the costly obligations involved, I agree with the point made in the article that the successful research studies would be compensated. I also find it very simple and almost silly that a lot of illnesses can be avoided by washing our hands, which would be something relatively cheap to promote.
ReplyDeleteIt all rolls with the time and people. Currently, like the author mentioned, people are not overly concerned with bacterial infections and superbugs, therefore efforts to protect against them are not at the top of priorities. People today are more worried about cancer, obesity, heart diseases, etc; conditions that are in the back everyone's mind that we ultimately fear. I believe the fear just hasn't struck for bacterial infections yet and when it does, it may be too late.
ReplyDeleteI found this article very interesting, especially because the author talks about the other incentives behind biomedical research, particularly the need for profit in developing a drug. Lately, I have been hearing a lot about antibiotic resistance on the news and other media, but I find myself agreeing with the author's sentiment that people still do not fear getting an infection of MRSA, for example, as opposed to developing cancer. In addition, I was surprised by the fact that developing a new drug costs around $1 billion, and even then, the drug may not pass FDA regulations. This definitely made the author's solution of a monetary prize seem very realistic. In the end, it seems like there are two options to spur up interest in developing new antibiotics: make it more cost-effective with the promise of some monetary reward or wait until a severe outbreak comes along. I would certainly prefer the former.
ReplyDeleteReading this article makes me think that antibiotics might not be the best method to treat microbial infection. Unless the government starts to regulate the amount of antibiotics used on livestock and doctors use their antibiotics less generously on patients the problem will continue and worsen. There may be a virtually limitless amount of potential drugs to be developed but it won't matter if we can't control our usage of them. I think it is entirely possible to see a shift away from antibiotics to something more efficient. Now I don't know what that new method could be but I think it is worth looking into. Who knows maybe some day in the future we'll all have little nanobots in our systems killing all the harmful microbes that cause infection.
ReplyDeleteAll very interesting comments. Keep them coming!
ReplyDeletePharmaceutical companies are not producing antibiotics because they would not gain a profit is horrible. The world is so obsessed with the amount of money the product may makes instead of the good it may do. Pharmaceutical companies should be able to count their losses with antibiotics and move on. Yes, many people may not use them for the long term, but there will always be a need for them. This was so disappointing to read. People will always need antibiotics.
ReplyDeleteThis is a very interesting article. I was familiar that drug resistance was a problem but I did not realize how serious it was or that animal antibiotics were also causing it. I am from the country and live around a lot of farms. The use of antibiotics on the animals is a very heated topic. I am assuming that the majority of the people who live around me have no idea that by using antibiotics on their farm animals that they could be creating new drug resistant strains of bacteria.
ReplyDeleteI think that the idea of a contest would possibly help with finding new drugs. Unfortunately I think that once we get new drugs that we will just become resistant to them also. I think until we start to stop the actions that are causing drug resistance that this is going to be an ongoing process. It won't matter how many new drugs we are able to come up with.
I hope that this cycle gets stopped because when I am a physician someday I don't want to lose my life do to drug resistant infections.
I found this article quite interesting, especially how they mentioned that pharmaceutical companies are not producing antibiotics because they would not gain a profit. I feel like all we worry about it how much things cost or how much money will be spent. Although this should be a factor in some companies, I don't think that pharmaceutical companies should have this standard above the standard of helping people in need and getting them the medicine they need. I understand that once an infection is under control, then there is no longer a need for the antibiotic, but the companies shouldn't hold off on making an antibiotic for that reason. Yes, it costs over $1 billion to create a new drug, and yes, companies need to make a profit from this, but I still think that the health of the people in the US comes first to prevent outbreaks or major sickness.
ReplyDeleteI was really surprised by this article. We learned in lecture that drug resistance is becoming a bigger problem, especially in drugs that were previously considered "last resort" such as Vancomycin, but I did not know what a huge problem it is. I did not know that it costs the healthcare system 20 billion dollars to help people with illnesses that are resistant to these drugs. I agree that a competition would definitely help with the develop of new drugs! The biggest problem that I can see with that, would be that eventually we will become resistant to them also. The best solution that I can see would be to continue things like hand-washing and discontinuing the over-prescription of antibiotics. I will remember to take this into consideration throughout my medical career.
ReplyDeleteI was very intrigued by the content of this article. This article showed how ineffective current antibiotics are becoming in today’s society. This is because bacteria and other microorganisms are developing resistances to the commonly used antibiotics, and there are now many resistant strains of microorganisms that cause disease. However, the article also explained why drug companies have slowed down and stopped developing new and improved antibiotics. The reason is simple – the profit return on antibiotics is simply not worth the time and money put into developing new antibiotics. As a society, we are willing to pay large amounts of money for potential cancer cures or surgeries, but not for antibiotics. Because of this, drug companies have shifted their focus towards the more profitable drugs. The article states that the government could do something like a reward system to encourage companies to develop more microbial antibiotics.
ReplyDeleteThe information in this article was surprising for me. I knew that bacteria are constantly developing resistances to antibiotics, which is why some that were very effective twenty years ago don’t have the same effect now. I was also aware that the over prescribing of antibiotics has caused resistances to develop quicker than before. However, I did not know about the financial aspect being antibiotics. The fact that drug companies are now shifting away from antibiotics because they are not as profitable. This is valuable information that I will remember further into my career.