The need to incentivise antibiotic research | Letters

Thoughtful governmental action can make development of new drugs for small patient populations viable, saysProf David Roblin,whileDr Georgina Crayford responds to an article on efforts to cut the use of antibiotics in farmingDavid Cox reports on the “war on bugs” and development of “superantibiotics” (23 October). A blunderbuss is effective against the enemy, but what of the collateral damage? We humans contain more bacteria than human cells – our microbiome – which are key for many aspects of health. A more modern approach is to identify precisely the bacteria responsible for a disease, and use a narrow-spectrum antibiotic to target it. A neat example of the pitfalls of killing too wide a range of bacteria is provided by vancomycin, mentioned in the article, which is used to treatClostridium difficile-associated diarrhoea. Unfortunately, it also kills the normal bacteria in the bowel, leaving a vacuum into whichC difficile can recur, and studies have now shown vancomycin to be less effective than more targeted antibiotics in preventing recurrence.The current commercial landscape does not favour development of new antibiotics. Efforts, such as those discussed at the G20 in Hamburg, are being made to change this with “push and pull mechanisms” to create incentives for innovation. History shows that thoughtful governmental action can make development of new drugs for small patient populations viable: the Orphan Drug Act, signed into law in the US in 1984 an...

Source: Guardian Unlimited Science - November 2, 2017 Category: Science Authors: Letters Tags: Antibiotics Pharmaceuticals industry Health Farming Environment Society UK news Business Medical research Science Source Type: news