Health, Medical, Research, Science, Society

What can we do about antibiotic resistance?

ANTIBIOTICS

Intro: In 2014, the World Health Organisation (WHO) stated that antibiotic resistance was “happening right now in every region of the world” – leaving us at risk of entering a “post-antibiotic era”, where common infections could once again become fatal.

The WHO’s first global report on antibiotic resistance may sound alarmist, but it reflects the crucial role antibiotics have played in treating microbial diseases and infections since first becoming available in the 1930s.

Antibiotics were discovered in 1928 by the Scottish bacteriologist Alexander Fleming while he was working at the St Mary’s Hospital Medical School in London. During the First World War he had served as a medic in military hospitals behind the Western Front, where he witnessed the death of many soldiers from wounds that had become septic as a consequence of bacterial infections. After the war, Fleming directed his research efforts towards finding better ways of dealing with such infections and, according to his later account, discovered penicillin through chance and luck. A fungal mould of the genus Penicillium had infected a Petri dish containing a bacterial culture, after the spores had apparently blown into Fleming’s laboratory through a window that had accidentally been left open. As he was about to throw the Petri dish away, Fleming noticed that the bacteria around the mould had been killed, leading him to isolate the active substance produced by the mould, which he named penicillin.

A Medical Revolution

It took ten years for any serious work to start on developing penicillin into a usable antibiotic and, in the meantime, the German pharmaceutical company Bayer developed the sulphonamide antibacterial drugs, sold under the name of Prontosil. The beginning of the Second World War led to renewed interest in penicillin, and a team at Oxford University – led by Howard Florey and including the Jewish, German-born Ernst Chain, who had fled Germany in 1933 to escape persecution – developed a method of producing penicillin for medicinal use. For this work they, together with Fleming, were later awarded the Nobel Prize for medicine.

Making enough penicillin for armies during the Second World War proved difficult until deep fermentation was developed in America, coming just in time to provide sufficient supplies for the armed forces during the invasion of Normandy in June 1944. After the war, further research improved penicillin, and other antibiotics were developed, leading to a medical revolution that, coupled with the widespread use of vaccines, has dramatically reduced the impact of fatal or debilitating diseases and infections.

Growing Resistance

Almost as soon as he began to work on penicillin, Alexander Fleming recognised the potential for bacteria to develop resistance, because of the capacity such microbes have to replicate very rapidly, providing the opportunity for evolution to occur. Should a mutation arise which confers resistance, it can spread quickly – facilitated by the further use of antibiotics, because these would then wipe out any non-resistant bacteria that would otherwise compete with the resistant strain. Despite repeated warnings by Fleming and many others not to misuse antibiotics, it quickly became common practice for doctors to prescribe them for a much wider range of illnesses than they should have, often simply because patients demanded them.

Today, antibiotics are still being given to patients who have colds or flu – viral infections against which such treatments are ineffective – and are also widely used in veterinary medicine as a preventative measure in livestock farming rather than as a treatment for a specific disease. In some countries, antibiotics are also used as growth promoters in livestock, it having been found that animals treated in this way often perform better. About two-thirds of all antibiotics are now used on farms, and while these are different from the ones used to treat people, such use can nevertheless result in a build-up of resistance, which has the potential through genetic mutation to transfer to medicinal human antibiotics.

Resistance will build up in bacteria even where antibiotics are used responsibly, but the more they are used, the quicker this will happen, so it is vitally important that they are not overprescribed or misused in livestock farming. Unfortunately, this advice has not always been followed, leading to a number of infectious diseases becoming increasingly difficult to treat. Some of the best-known examples are those particularly associated with hospitals, known by most people as “superbugs”, such as MRSA (methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus). These bacteria are not necessarily any more virulent than strains that remain sensitive to antibiotics – the problem being that they are much more difficult to treat, particularly those which have become what is known as multidrug-resistance. Stricter regimes of hygiene in hospitals have been found to minimise the spread of MRSA, but it nevertheless represents a serious and ongoing problem for healthcare.

Multidrug-resistant Mycobacterium tuberculosis is another microbe becoming more common worldwide. As its name suggests, this bacterium is responsible for tuberculosis, a potentially fatal infectious disease of the respiratory system, which was thought to be under control through the use of antibiotics until the 1980s, when resistant strains began to emerge. Today, more than 100,000 people are thought to die every year as a consequence of this resistance – many of whom live on the African continent, where treatment may not be available and where, in some cases, those infected already have an immune system weakened by HIV.

Developing Solutions

One potential solution to antibiotic resistance would be the regular introduction of new classes of antibiotics to which pathogens have no resistance, but so far this has not happened. Big pharmaceutical companies, responsible for the design and introduction of most new drugs, have been reluctant to invest in developing new antibiotics because it is difficult and expensive, and antibiotics are not very lucrative compared to other classes of drugs. Patients usually only need antibiotics for about a week, and new ones would only remain effective for as long as it took for resistance to build up, which can take just a few years. Drugs for conditions such as heart disease, for example, are often used for long-term treatments so, once pharmaceutical companies have made the initial investment involved in development and clinical trials, they can expect to sell successful drugs for a much longer period.

In its 2014 report, the WHO identified serious gaps in available information on the types of antibiotic resistance occurring globally, which, together with a lack of coordination between countries, was impeding possible responses to what has become a serious problem. As well as stating that increased information gathering, and sharing is needed, the report recommended greater government investment in research, and the responsible use of antibiotics in medicine and agriculture. Everybody has a part to play, though, from doctors not overprescribing antibiotics to patients using them exactly as prescribed.

Alternative Theories

In January 2015, researchers at Northeastern University in Boston, Massachusetts, reported that they had discovered a new antibiotic named teixobactin, which they had isolated from the soil bacterium Eleftheria terrae through a new culturing method. It was the first new class of antibiotic to be found for almost 30 years, and in tests proved effective against a range of bacteria, including MRSA and Mycobacterium tuberculosis, neither of which appeared to develop resistance to it. Teixobactin works by inhibiting the production of those fats that form a constituent part of cell walls and preventing bacteria from growing, while most other antibiotics target proteins in the cell wall or inside the cell to kill fully grown bacteria. The research team thought that E. terrae might have developed this function in response to naturally occurring resistance.

If they are correct, resistance to teixobactin is less likely to develop in the first place and, even if it does, will take much longer to build up than resistance against existing antibiotics. Clinical trials should take about five years and, if it passes, the research team predicts that teixobactin could remain effective for over 30 years. Even if teixobactin fails these trials, this new method of culturing soil bacteria in the laboratory can be used to investigate the potential of many other species of bacteria to produce antibiotics. This on its own could lead to a whole new era in the fight against antibiotic resistance.

Standard
Britain, Health, Medical, Research, Science

A breakthrough test to tell if you really need antibiotics…

CRP TEST

A simple three-minute blood test could tell doctor’s whether a patient needs antibiotics.

Not only could this help patients avoid suffering nasty side-effects from taking unnecessary drugs, but it could also tackle one of the greatest threats to modern health – antibiotic resistance. The test tells a doctor whether the patient is suffering from a viral or bacterial infection – that way, they will know whether or not to prescribe antibiotic medication.

Antibiotics are only effective against bacteria – they do not kill viruses. Currently, the type of infection can only be confirmed with a blood test which must be analysed in a laboratory, a process that can take two to three days.

GPs say they often give antibiotics as a full-safe measure, and that patients pressure them for the pills. According to Public Health England (formerly the Health Protection Agency), if patients ask their doctor for an antibiotic, the vast majority will get one.

Over-prescribing of antibiotics has consequences both for the patient and the population. As well as causing side-effects, over-use can lead to bacteria becoming resistant, making antibiotics less effective at fighting infections. The Government’s chief medical officer has described this as ‘one of the greatest threats to modern health.’

Over the past five years alone, the number of antibiotic prescriptions has risen by 10 per cent to 41 million prescriptions at a cost of £170 million to the NHS. A third of all Britons have taken them in the past 12-months.

A simple finger-stick test could solve this ‘catastrophic threat’. The test – which involves taking a drop of blood from the finger – can tell doctors within three minutes whether an illness is caused by a bacterial infection which requires antibiotics, or a virus, which does not.

It measures a substance called C-Reactive Protein (CRP) in the blood. The amount of this protein increases when the body is fighting a bacterial infection, but not when it is fighting a virus, which triggers a different immune response.

So a doctor would know that if the CRP level was shown to be low, antibiotics would not be required.

Studies show that providing ‘proof’ that they are unnecessary to patients who demand antibiotics can significantly reduce the number of prescriptions.

One EU-funded study, presented at the World Association of Family Doctors conference in 2010, looked at how respiratory infections which are generally caused by viruses were treated by 600 GPs in six different countries. It found that antibiotic prescriptions fell by 25 per cent when doctors used the CRP test.

British scientists say the test could be a useful tool for significantly reducing antibiotic prescriptions.

A senior clinical research fellow at Cardiff University who specialises in antibiotic resistance in primary care, said:

… Unfortunately, it is very difficult to accurately determine whether an infection is viral or bacterial.

… Markers such as CRP have evolved to help where there is lingering uncertainty after a clinical assessment or where the patient has strong beliefs that antibiotics are needed.

… (However, not everyone needs the test) … Patients who appear very unwell should be treated with antibiotics or admitted to hospital without the test because they could develop complications.

… But for those patients where there is doubt, or where the GP feels antibiotics are not needed but the patient is putting pressure on to prescribe them, the test can be helpful.

The test is currently only available in laboratories in the UK (it can be carried out privately for around £50) because the NHS does not yet fund it in GP practices. The machine to analyse the test would initially cost £1,000 and then £3 per test.

A spokesman for the Royal Pharmaceutical Society says it is likely to be some time before the test is routinely available on the NHS.

… CRP testing would be a natural extension to the clinical services we offer but it will be two or three years before there is enough evidence for it to be made widely available.

Other concerns about the test are that the results are not always clear – levels of CRP also increase as a result of inflammation caused by other conditions such as rheumatoid arthritis as well as infections.

The test is deemed to be a guide and does not categorically imply that a patient has a bacterial infection if the results are synonymous with having an infection. It gives the doctor a number that has to be interpreted in light of the other symptoms and the patient’s overall risk profile.

For example, a doctor is more likely to treat an elderly person with diabetes with antibiotics than a young healthy person, as the elderly person is more likely to develop complications.

Clinical experts say the best way to reduce antibiotic prescriptions is to educate doctors and patients about common complaints and when antibiotics are necessary.

The Royal Pharmaceutical Society warns that to see this test as the panacea would be an extremely dangerous idea. The Society says it needs to work hard to educate patients about when it is appropriate to take antibiotics and by making sure they take them correctly as prescribed by finishing the course.

Public Health England adds:

… CRP may be useful in a small range of infections provided the test is robustly quality controlled.

… But nothing can replace taking a detailed patient history and thorough examination.

Standard