4 ms·
Unfortunately, drug companies have few economic incentives to develop novel antibiotics given the immense costs/risks of human trials and the minimal expected m
by rcdmd 9y ago
Unfortunately, drug companies have few economic incentives to develop novel antibiotics given the immense costs/risks of human trials and the minimal expected monetary reward. Clinicians reserve the "big gun" antibiotics for the rare cases that need them-- which reduces the cash drug companies get from pushing them through clinical trials.
Compared to other drugs, antibiotics are relatively easy and cheap to discover or "invent" with modern techniques. Getting them through clinical trials, on the other hand, is not cheap.
Many clinicians should be less loose with antibiotics, sure. But, that won't eliminate resistance. Realistically, when superbugs become common, the incentives pharmaceutical companies face will shift. It's just there will be a lot of morbidity and mortality while we're waiting for their drugs to make it to hospital pharmacies.
- candiodari 9y agoSounds like the solution is to have a very effective, very expensive antibiotic.
- xherberta 9y agoI don't know. With the third-party payer system, cost is hardly a factor in medical decisions.
- epmaybe 9y agoIs it not? I was under the impression that as providers we should provide affordable care as well. For example, theres no reason to throw every test at a patient that has clear signs of a certain bacterial infection. Maybe cost is less of a factor in life threatening situations.
- danieltillett 9y agoThat would work if you could prevent companies in China and India just making it and selling it. The problem right now is this is what happens to each new "last line of defence" antibiotic - by the time it gets used in the west it has been in high use in other countries and resistance is wide spread.
- refurb 9y agoantibiotics are relatively easy and cheap to discover or "invent" with modern techniques As someone who used to do antibiotic R&D I strongly disagree with statement. Making a drug that kills bacteria but not the host is really damn hard. Your point about the economic incentives is very true.
- autokad 9y agoyeah, I think the article said a new one hasn't been invented in 30 years or so
- FooBarWidget 9y ago> Clinicians reserve the "big gun" antibiotics for the rare cases that need them-- which reduces the cash drug companies get from pushing them through clinical trials. This statement seems to directly contradict what the article says: "According to Sprenger, “there are no legal instruments to prohibit the use of a new antibiotic.” What that means is if a new antibiotic is released there’s no way to stop the world from overusing it. At current usage levels a new antibiotic, he says, would only have about two years on the market before bacterial resistance to it develops." If the world overuses a new antibiotic then the pharma company should be swimming in cash. And if the pharma company isn't swimming in cash because people reserve them for rare cases, then it should not be possible for the world to overuse the new antibiotic.
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]