Maryn McKenna

Journalist and Author

Incentives for making new antibiotics: What would it take?

By Leave a Comment

Let’s play a thought experiment. Imagine that you’re a major pharmaceutical company, a public company, with shareholders that you answer to, and market analysts looking over your shoulder to see whether this quarter’s earnings are up to projections. Imagine that you want to make a new drug. Let’s make it an antibiotic, because — as we talk about here all the time (and SUPERBUG explores in detail) — new antibiotics that can leapfrog over existing drug resistance are very needed. Thus, you imagine, a new antibiotic ought to sell well, even though any individual course of that antibiotic will only be a few weeks by mouth, or maybe a few months by IV if the patient is very sick. You know there’s a big market out there.

But: Imagine — as is generally accepted to be true — that it will take about 10 years, and about $1 billion dollars, to get that novel antibiotic through the development pipeline and into the marketplace. And then imagine that — as has been shown for a number of drugs, most recently the new antibiotic daptomycin — bacteria begin developing resistance to your drug within a year of its deployment in patients. And after that, imagine — as has been cited in a number of papers — that once local resistance to your antibiotic appears in approximately 20% of isolates, physicians will cease prescribing your antibiotic, for fear their patient will be one of that 20%.

So, to recap: 10 years, $1 billion; short course; short market life; rapid obsolescence.

Would you make that investment? Or would you, if you were a pharma company, opt instead to make insulin, which Type 1 diabetics will take every day for the rest of their lives? Or statins, which at this point we’re practically ready to put in the water supply? Or a cancer drug that costs $10,000 per dose? Or Viagra, or Cialis?

If you’re a company that is responsible to its shareholders, or listening to its analysts — or even capable of doing basic math — the answer’s obvious: Antibiotics lose. Which goes a long way to explaining why so many companies have backed off from making antibiotics, and why many of the few antibiotics in the pipeline are “me too” formulations, rather than new compounds with truly new mechanisms of action.

How to respond to this impasse has been an active debate for a while, largely focused on proposals to give market incentives, changes in tax credits, or patent extensions to pharma companies to persuade them to stay in or re-enter the marketplace. The Infectious Diseases Society of America, the specialty society for infectious-disease physicians (many of whom are also academic researchers), has been addressing this through its campaign “10x 20”, which has a goal of getting 10 new compounds into if not through the pipeline by the year 2020.

But, as a new article in the British Medical Journal points out, good incentivizing demands complexity — not just in developing both “push” and “pull” mechanisms (say, tax incentives to fund research v. prizes and wildcard patent extensions), but also in making sure that the incentives can be taken advantage of by companies of all sizes, not just the international mega-pharmas:

The characteristics of an ideal incentive mechanism and the desire for an equitable approach that engages developers of all sizes would suggest that neither push, pull, nor lego-regulatory mechanisms would be optimal to spur the desired investment in antibiotics …. Rather, elements of each should be combined. The exact shape of the ideal package is, however, as yet unclear. (Morel et al.)

 And an accompanying editorial emphasizes that new antibiotics are not the only things needed; new diagnostic tests, for instance, need funding as well:

Catchy as 10×20 sounds, the public sector strategy for funding such research and development must prioritise among different health technologies, such as diagnostics and vaccines, to combat antibiotic resistance. For example, three million children die each year from acute respiratory bacterial infections in developing countries, but penicillin sensitive pneumococcal strains have declined to a half, even a quarter, in some countries. A diagnostic test for bacterial pneumonia would save an estimated 405 000 lives a year, by targeting treatment and avoiding overprescription of antibiotics. New vaccines may also reduce reliance on drugs as the use of pneumococcal vaccine has suggested. (So et al.)

This is a hard discussion. I confess, as a longtime reporter, I flinch reflexively at the thought of handing more money to the pharmacos. At the same time, the state of the market demonstrates that the current model is not working. And though I would much prefer we focus on the ecological model of preserving antibiotics as a resource — dialing back on overuse and encouraging rigorous stewardship — it’s clear that we’ll always need new drugs for the most serious, most resistant infections.

So some sort of incentivizing seems necessary. And the multi-layered approach recommended in the BMJ, with appropriate attention paid to incentivizing the development of tests and vaccines as well, seems worth heeding.

Antibiotics and farming — how superbugs happen

By Leave a Comment

Constant readers: There’s an important new paper that’s been out for a week that I haven’t gotten to you. I apologize; it’s been busy. (Let’s not even talk about the important paper that’s been out for two weeks. Maybe over the weekend…)

We’ve talked for ages now about the potential dangers of unrestricted antibiotic use in agriculture, and how it’s analogous to the inappropriate antibiotic use that human health authorities disapprove of in humans. The main culprits, in farming, are subtherapeutic dosing, also known as growth promotion — that’s giving routine smaller-than-treatment doses to animals to increase their weight — and prophylactic dosing, which is giving a treatment dose to an entire herd or flock either routinely, if there is thought to be a disease threat, or when there is known to be disease in some members of the herd/flock. In either case, animals are getting antibiotics when they do not need them — when they are not sick. And just as in humans who take antibiotics when they are not sick, or take too-low doses when they are sick (such as not finishing a prescription), these practices in animals encourage the development of resistant bacteria.

(Necessary comment here: No one, to my knowledge, objects to giving the appropriate doses of antibiotics to animals that are sick. Why would you?)

The interesting research question is how, exactly, resistance develops. (My real scientist readers may want to take a break, or cut me a break, for the next few sentences. Please.) The classical assumption has been that, through a variety of stimuli and the random copying errors of reproduction, bacteria are constantly acquiring small mutations. Some of those may give the bugs an advantage when they are exposed to a drug, some slight difference that allows the bacteria to disarm or turn aside that drug’s particular method of assault — so that the weak die, the strong survive, and the strong then reproduce more abundantly into that extra living space freed up by the death of the weak. The survivors and their descendants retain that mutation, because it gave them an advantage against the drug. And because bacteria can share resistance factors not only vertically mother-to-daughter, but horizontally in the same generation, once the resistance has emerged, it is likely to spread.

But no matter how quickly it spreads, that process I’ve just described involves acquiring resistance to just one drug or drug family at a time. Provocative new research from Boston University’s medical school and deoartment of biomedical engineering now suggests, though, that multi-drug resistance can be acquired in one pass, through a different mutational process triggered by sublethal doses of antibiotics — the same sort of doses that are given to animals on farms.

In earlier work, the authors found that antibiotics attack bacteria not only in the ways they are designed to (the beta-lactams such as methicillin, for instance, interfere with staph’s ability to make new cell walls as the bug reproduces, causing the daughter cells to burst and die), but also in an unexpected way. They stimulate the production of free radicals, oxygen molecules with an extra electron, that bind to and damage the bacteria’s DNA.

That research used lethal doses of antibiotics, and ascertained that the free-radical production killed the bacteria. In the new research, the team uses sublethal doses, and here’s what they find: The same free-radical production doesn’t kill the bacteria, but it acts as a dramatic stimulus to mutation, triggering production of a wide variety of mutations — what the researchers, in a press release, called “a zoo of mutants.” The plentiful, scattershot mutations included ones that created resistance to a number of different drugs — in some cases, even though no mutation was present that created resistance to the drug being administered.

You can easily see how this is applicable to factory farming: The sublethal dosing applied experimentally is analogous to the subtherapeutic dosing used in agriculture. Is it applicable to MRSA? Yes, absolutely. The two organisms the researchers used to test their hypothesis were S. aureus and E. coli.

making the implication clear, senior author James J. Collins said on the paper’s release:

“These findings drive home the need for tighter regulations on the use of antibiotics, especially in agriculture; for doctors to be more disciplined in their prescription of antibiotics; and for patients to be more disciplined in following their prescriptions.”

The cite is: Kohanski MA, DePristo MA and Collins, JJ. Sublethal Antibiotic Treatment Leads to Multidrug Resistance via Radical-Induced Mutagenesis. Molecular Cell, Volume 37, Issue 3, 311-320, 12 February 2010.

UPDATE: There’s a great discussion of the paper at the blog Mental Indigestion.

Postscript: I suppose I’ve been working too long without a break, because while I was reading about this process of creating multiple resistance factors at once, what I heard in my head was Mickey Mouse chirping: “Seven at one blow!”

Antibiotics and farming — CBS follow-up video

By Leave a Comment

Constant readers, CBS News has posted some follow-up video to its two-part series last week on antibiotics in agriculture. It features Dr. David Kessler, former Commissioner of the Food and Drug Administration (which under its current leadership has vowed to re-examine farm-antibiotic use), and Eric Schlosser, author of Fast Food Nation.

They talk about the protests CBS has received for airing the package, the concerns public health authorities have over the lack of  data on the amounts and types of antibiotics used, and much more. I especially love Schlosser’s comment: “I’m a meat-eater.” It’s important, I think, to say that being critical of antibiotic use does not mean being opposed to animal agriculture, or wanting to see farms shut down. It means being concerned for the health of farm animals, farm families, and everyone affected by growing antibiotic resistance — which is, you know, everyone.

(H/t @EdibleSF for flagging the video’s release.)


Watch CBS News Videos Online

(Hey, that’s my first embedded video!)

CBS antibiotics and farming, day 2 – and more on the Danish experience

By Leave a Comment

Constant readers, I hope you watched the second day of CBS News’ series on antibiotic use in farming, and how it promotes the emergence of antibiotic-resistant infections in animal and humans. I found it surprisingly hard-hitting. Here’s the video and the text version.

Most of the report explored the farm experience in Denmark, which in 1998 banned its farmers from using small doses of antibiotics to make animals gain weight faster — the practice that’s various called subtherapeutic dosing or growth promotion. Important distinction: The country still permits sick animals to be treated with antibiotics; the ban extends only to giving drugs to animals who are not sick.

That ban has often been represented as a failure for Danish farming [NB: See the update below], but research on the results shows that it was actually a success. Here’s an article by Laura Rogers of the Pew Charitable Trusts explaining what happened in Denmark from her own on-the-ground reporting:

Antibiotic use on industrial farms has dropped by half while productivity has increased by 47 percent since 1992. Danish swine production has increased from 18.4 million in 1992 to 27.1 million in 2008. A decrease in antibiotic-resistant bacteria in food animals and meat has followed the reduced use of these vital drugs. …

The average number of pigs produced per sow per year has increased from 21 to 25 (this is an important indicator of swine health and welfare, according to veterinarians). Most important, total antibiotic use has declined by 51 percent since an all-time high in 1992. Plus, the Danish industry group told us that the ban did not increase the cost of meat for the consumer.

 There are multiple scientific papers done by Danish authors backing up her observations. Here are just a few from just last year:

  • Antibiotic-resistant organisms in chickens raised in Denmark declined since the ban — but they remain high in chicken meat imported from other countries that do not have such bans, and passed to Danish consumers who ate that imported meat. (Skjot-Rasmussen et al., May 2009)
  • Antibiotic resistance in E. coli in pigs increases when pigs are given antibiotics, and those antibiotic-resistant organisms pass to humans (Hammerum et al., April 2009)
  • Antibiotic-resistant organisms found in pigs when they are slaughtered increase when pigs receive more antibiotics (Abatih et al., March 2009)

The industry that supports industrial-sized farms has strongly objected to the CBS series. You can see one detailed response here, from Pork Magazine. The Minneapolis-based Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy predicts that this is likely just the first wave, and that opposition to any change in agricultural practices will grow stronger as a bill to curb unnecessary antibiotic use gains traction in Congress.

And — you knew I had to do this — here comes the obligatory self-promotion: There is a primer on antibiotic use in farming, and an account of the emergence of MRSA ST398 as a result of antibiotic use in pigs, in SUPERBUG. Which is now 41 days away from publication. And is available for pre-order at a discount! But you knew that.)

UPDATE: FairFoodFight has a great post and a long comments conversation about the CBS series, ag antibiotic use, and particularly the World Health Organizaton research that originally made people doubt the “Danish experiment,” The WHO report is here and a Pew analysis of it is here.

CBS antibiotics and farming package, day one

By Leave a Comment

Constant readers, I hope you saw the CBS News package on antibiotics in farming Tuesday night. (It continues Wednesday.) MRSA played a prominent role, in an account of infections among workers at a chicken plant (the same outbreak, I think, as was described by Prevention magazine last August) and in questions about MRSA in pig farms in the Midwest (with a prominent mention of Tara Smith’s research into “pig MRSA” ST398).

Here’s the 7-minute video and the text version.

Earlier Tuesday, CBS’s Early Show ran an additional package on the death of a Chicago toddler from MRSA. That toddler’s name is Simon Sparrow, and you’ll be able to read his sad story — told by his mother, Everly Macario — in SUPERBUG.

Farming and antibiotics – and voices from the ag side

By Leave a Comment

There’s a tremendous amount of buzz in the blogosphere about a series of pieces that are supposed to run on CBS News over the next several days, looking at the use of antibiotics in agriculture. For one of many posts on the topic, look at this piece from Food Safety News, an online newsletter founded by the food-safety attorney Bill Marler.

[UPDATE: CBS has put up the first video teaser for the package.]
[SECOND UPDATE: An excerpt from the Early Show, likening growth promoters to a “ticking time bomb” and to “putting (antibiotics) in your kid’s cereal so they won’t get sick”] 

The whole issue of how antibiotics get used in agriculture — as growth promoters, as prophylatic treatment to prevent spread of infection within a farm, or as true treatment — is intensely controversial. For a sense of how farmers feel embattled, read the comments to this entry at FairFoodFight on whether there is a distinction between “Big Ag” and “small ag.” and consider that the PAMTA legislation I posted about in December, which would require veterinarian oversight of farm use of antibiotics,  has been strongly opposed by agricultural interests every time it has been introduced. (Large-farm use of antibiotics, let me remind you, has been concluded to be the driver behind the emergence of “pig MRSA” ST398.)

But I recently ran across two pieces online that I want to draw your attention to, because they demonstrate that thinking in agriculture about antibiotic use is not monolithic, and may be changing. Both were posted on the same site, the Illinois-based Agri-News Online.

First, from James Pettigrew, a professor of animal sciences at University of Illinois, a pessimistic but realistic assessment of how changing public attitudes about antibiotic use will affect what farmers can do, “Broad restrictions on antibiotic use would reduce animal welfare and productivity”:

Many of us hope there will not be a broad ban on antibiotic use, but it is difficult to predict what will happen. Restrictions on antibiotic use may come from Congress, from regulatory agencies or from customers. The nature and extent of future restrictions are now unknown, but the direction is clear. There will be tighter restrictions on antibiotic use in the future. …
…Planning for restrictions on antibiotic use can be valuable even if those restrictions are never imposed. The things you might do in the absence of antibiotics are also likely to be quite valuable if you continue to use antibiotics as you do now….

Second, from a writer named Darryl Ray, who isn’t otherwise identified, a plea for refraining from demonizing critics of antibiotic use, “Animal producers should take antibiotics criticism seriously”:

…Many — and we would suggest it is the vast majority — of those who question the present practices of antibiotic use in animal agriculture eat meat on a regular basis.
Rather than malign the critics, a better course of action for meat animal producers might be to take the issue seriously.
…To categorically claim that it is a reasonable practice to routinely administer antibiotics to animals that are not diseased will strike many as being outside what they have come to believe to be an appropriate use of antibiotics.
…It is important to consider the possibility that indisputable evidence will emerge that the continued and persistent “overuse” of antibiotics in livestock production causes or accelerates the development of super-germs for which there are virtually no effective medications.That would be a public relations and economic nightmare for production agriculture. Thought of in that light, taking the issue seriously and making meaningful adjustments in antibiotic use may have the most appeal of all.

I don’t know that I agree entirely with either writer. But I’m tremendously encouraged that a publication that speaks entirely about farming, to farmers, can run thoughtful pieces looking at ag antibiotic use from several angles, as something to be evaluated, debated and potentially adjusted, and not as a practice that cannot be examined but must be maintained unchanged.

Questioning meat-raising and meat-eating — in eat-everything France

By Leave a Comment

Happy New Year, constant readers. I’m honored and flattered to have had the chance to spend the past few years with you here. 2010 is going to be a big year — not just because SUPERBUG will be published, but because the issue of antibiotic resistance really, really is gathering force in the public mind. I not only believe that, I see it in the news that flows through my computer everyday. The wind is shifting.

Here’s one excellent example. In France of all places, a culture that embraces meat-eating and finds the idea of animal rights quixotic. a book has been published that questions the environmental and moral effects of modern factory farming. It’s called Bidoche, L’industrie de la viande menace le monde (“Bidoche” is a slangy, dismissive term for meat), and it has made enough of a splash that the newspaper Le Monde ran both an article on the book and a readers’ Q&A with the author, journalist Fabrice Nicolino. (The article ran two days before Christmas but was called out on Twitter today by Paula Crossfield of CivilEats.com, who spotted it while on holiday, and to whom hat/tip.)

Sadly, the article is behind a paywall; you can see the first 100 words or so here. The Q&A is open though. It’s titled, “To save the planet, should we eat less meat?”and makes fascinating reading (GoogleTranslate into English here), as do the comments, some of which raise the issue of the use of antibiotics in agriculture. But what’s most striking to me is that the conversation is taking place at all, actively and in a public forum, in a place where only a few years ago the local culture would not have been open to the debate. Things are changing indeed.

Antibiotics in chickens and links to human infections

By Leave a Comment


From the January issue of Emerging Infectious Diseases, published by the CDC (and therefore free. Must I keep urging you to read it? Go, already), here’s a roundup of bad news about bad bugs.

In Canada, researchers from that country’s Public Health Agency have found a “strong correlation” between the use of ceftiofur, a third-generation cephalosporin, in chickens; the rates of a resistant strain of Salmonella in chickens; and the appearance of that same strain in humans. The strain is Salmonella enterica serovar Heidelberg, one of the most common salmonella strains in North America, and one which can be nasty: It may cause mild illness, but also causes septicemia and myocarditis and can kill. Quebec created an unplanned natural experiment: Hatcheries there were broadly using ceftiofur until 2004, backed off from its use in 2005 and 2006, and then began using it again in 2007 in response to a growing problem with a particular infection. When the drug was withdrawn, resistant infections in birds and humans plunged; when it was reintroduced, they rose again. (Look at the black and red lines in the graph above left.)

Meanwhile, broiler chickens in Iceland are passing fluoroquinolone-resistant E. coli to humans there. Researchers at the University of Iceland were puzzled by an earlier finding that bacteria resistant to fluoroquinolones (a family that includes the human drug Cipro) were increasing among chickens raised in Iceland, despite strict controls on antibiotic use in food animals and stringent disinfection in chicken batteries after cohorts of birds were sold for slaughter and removed. They have two findings: The source of the resistant bacteria in the birds appears to be feed contaminated with resistant E. coli; and resistant bacteria in Iceland residents are microbiologically indistinguishable from those in the birds. Because E. coli is a very diverse organism, the very close resemblance between the isolates from chickens and the isolates from humans pins chickens as the likely source.

And just to make clear we’re not blaming every microbiological evil on farming: Seagulls in Portugal have been found carrying multi-drug resistant E. coli in their feces. The public health concern here is obvious: Just think back to the last time you were at a beach, or anywhere else seagulls frequent, and envision a seagull perch — and the masses of seagull droppings streaking it. Now imagine those droppings transmitting antibiotic-resistant E. coli into the surrounding environment: the boardwalk, the beach, the towels… Additional problem: Seagulls are migratory birds, so the resistant bacteria easily cross borders and oceans.

Another resistant bug rising: Acinetobacter

By Leave a Comment

From the excellent and forward-thinking research team at Extending the Cure comes a dismaying report: over 7 years, a more than 3-fold increase in resistance in the Gram-negative bacterium Acinetobacter baumanii to its drug of last resort, imipenem.

Because MRSA is a Gram-positive, we don’t talk much here about the Gram-negatives — the two categories of bacteria have different cell-wall structures and thus are treated using different categories of drugs. (That structural difference causes them to react in different ways to a stain invented by a scientist named Gram in the 19th century.) But the resistance situation with Gram-negatives is at least as dire as with MRSA, possible more so, because there are fewer new drugs for Gram-negatives in the pharmacology pipeline (as discussed in a New Yorker article by Dr. Jerome Groopman last year.)

And Acinetobacter is one nasty bug, as science journalist Steve Silberman ably documented in Wired in 2007 when he traced the spread of the organism through the military medical-evacuation chain from Iraq, demonstrating that the vast increase in resistant Acinetobacter among US forces was due to our own poor infection control.

The Extending the Cure paper (which will be published in February in Infection Control and Hospital Epidemiology) puts hard numbers to the Acinetobacter problem. Drawing on data from the private Surveillance Network, which gathers real-time electronic results from 300 US hospitals, they find:

  • full resistance to imipenem rose from 4.5% of isolates in 1999 to 18.2% in 2006 — a 300% increase
  • intermediate resistance rose from 1.3% of isolates to 9.4 — a 623% increase
  • susceptible isolates declined from 94.1% to 72.4% — a 23% decrease.

The authors write:
Our results demonstrate substantial national and regional increases in carbapenem resistance among clinical isolates of Acinetobacter species over the period 1999–2006. Increasing carbapenem resistance among Acinetobacter species is particularly troubling, because it is very often associated with multidrug resistance and because it is occurring in the context of increases in the incidence of Acinetobacter infection.

There’s a further point to be made that is not explicit in the paper that I can see (though it is often made by Extending the Cure researchers). Acinetobacter needs attention, just as MRSA does — but if we focus just on the individual organisms, we are not going far enough. Antibiotic resistance is a system problem: It is an issue of infection control, of drug development, of agricultural organization, of federal priorities. It needs sustained attention and comprehensive, thoughtful, wide-ranging response. Now would not be too soon.

Antibiotics in animals – a warning from the poultry world

By Leave a Comment

Constant reader Pat Gardiner guided me to an enlightening post at the website of the agricultural magazine World Poultry that questions the routine use of antibiotics in food animals. It’s written by Wiebe van der Sluis, a Netherlands journalist from a farming background, founder of World Poultry and also the magazines Pig Progress and Poultry Processing.

The Netherlands, let’s recall, is the place where MRSA ST398 first emerged, and also the place where that livestock-MRSA strain has caused the most serious human cases and triggered the largest changes in hospital infection-control practices. In the Netherlands, swine farmers and veterinarians are considered serious infection risks because of their exposure to animals, and are pre-emptively isolated when they check into hospitals until they can be checked for MRSA colonization.

Van der Sluis takes seriously the tie between the use of antibiotics in animals and the emergence of MRSA:

Although most of the time MRSA is linked to pig production, it is also related to the veal and poultry industry. The industry, therefore, cannot shrug its shoulders and move on if nothing was wrong. In this case it would be wise to redefine the term prudent use of antibiotics. Time is up for those who use antibiotics to cover up bad management, poor housing conditions or insufficient health care. The standard rule should be: Do not use antibiotics unless there is a serious health issue and no other remedy applies. Veterinary practitioners, who usually authorise producers to use antibiotics, should also take responsibility and prevent unnecessary antibiotic use and the development of antibiotic resistance in animals and humans.

It’s unusual in the US context so hear someone so immersed in agriculture speak so candidly about antibiotic use. It’s refreshing.