Life in the Post-Antibiotic Era

Record-High Antibiotic Sales for Meat and Poultry Production Last week I was struck by this article in The Verge, Dead meat: how to raise livestock in a post-antibiotic era. I was particularly interested in this because only a week earlier I had been teaching our first year students about emerging infectious diseases and the growing feeling that we are entering the post-antibiotic era. As this paper published in 2005 put it:

“The indiscriminate and inappropriate use of antibiotics in outpatient clinics, hospitalized patients and in the food industry is the single largest factor leading to antibiotic resistance. In recent years, the number of new antibiotics licensed for human use in different parts of the world has been lower than in the recent past. In addition, there has been less innovation in the field of antimicrobial discovery research and development. The pharmaceutical industry, large academic institutions or the government are not investing the necessary resources to produce the next generation of newer safe and effective antimicrobial drugs. In many cases, large pharmaceutical companies have terminated their anti-infective research programs altogether due to economic reasons. The potential negative consequences of all these events are relevant because they put society at risk for the spread of potentially serious MDR bacterial infections.”
Alanis, A. J. (2005) Resistance to antibiotics: are we in the post-antibiotic era? Archives of medical research, 36(6), 697-705

The medical profession has rightly received a lot of criticism for undermining antibiotics by handing them out far too freely for trivial infections which though inconvenient, are self-limiting. That situation is now largely historic, and in most countries over-prescribing of antibiotics has ended, or at least decreased, although it is still worrying that in some countries antibiotics are still available without prescription to anyone who can afford to buy them. But medics don’t deserve a fraction of the criticism due to the worst offenders – the agricultural industry, where antibiotics have been used for decades as “growth promoters” in livestock production. The term “growth promoter” means that these valuable compounds are not being used for animal welfare to treat veterinary infections – which is entirely justified – but in a blanket fashion to make animals put on weight faster so they can be sold at a younger age, increasing profit.

I first became aware of this problem many years ago when I was visiting a student on an industrial placement with a major pharmaceutical company who told me proudly about their production of growth promoters and how many thousands of tons and antibiotics they sold to farmers each year. The recent report from Johns Hopkins University puts this ongoing problem into perspective. After decades of this misuse, we are paying the price, with multidrug-resistant bacteria now common in foodstuffs.

For decades we kept ahead of this impending catastrophe by discovering and marketing new antibiotics, but that pipeline has essentially run dry. Although we may find a few useful new compounds from coral reefs or deep sea hydrothermal vents, we are having to admit that we can no longer run fast enough to outpace bacterial evolution. And as future prospects decrease, so economics pays us back.

“In many cases, large pharmaceutical companies have terminated their anti-infective research programs altogether due to economic reasons.”

This is not a problem that the free market is likely to solve. So where do we go from here? Personally I’m not optimistic about the prospects for probiotics making all our problems go away. I don’t think persuading cows to gargle garlic tea is going to save us at this point. So what will (if anything?). The only realistic hope I can see on the horizon is the application of nanotechnology to build new anti-infective compounds rather than relying on snatching them from nature. Realistically, that prospect is decades away. Less realistically, it is also not without risks, such as the grey goo scenario of runaway nano-machines which keeps Prince Charles awake at night.

So are we all going to die? Yes, of course we are – such is the nature of life. But we have a choice of how and when depending on how hard we work on the problem. If future generations of microbiologists can learn enough about the molecular mechanisms which pathogens need to function, then we will have the opportunity to build a new generation of nanobiotics which will keep us ahead of the bacteria. For a little while. But never forget that bacteria have been around a lot longer than we have, and they’re not about to give up just yet.




This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

2 Responses to Life in the Post-Antibiotic Era

  1. Mary Thornton says:

    What about the prospect of really investing in development of treatments using bacteriophages? Nature has tools to fight bacteria that have been around as long as bacteria have and they evolve as fast or faster.

  2. Alan Cann says:

    That’s a good question. I’ve written about phage therapy before, here:
    Personally, I’m a bit sceptical about the prospects for widespread succes, other than treating superficial, infections, e.g. skin or surface wounds, or for a few very special conditions. People have been working on phage therapy for a long time, and if was easy to do, we’d be using it by now.

Comments are closed.