5 ms·

It's interesting to me that people are working on a cure for Ebola yet no one is deeply interested in working on new antibiotics. Ebola is a scary disease yet r

It's interesting to me that people are working on a cure for Ebola yet no one is deeply interested in working on new antibiotics. Ebola is a scary disease yet rare (across the entire planet) so there doesn't seem to be a lot of monetary reason to invest in it. Antibiotic resistance is far more widespread. I guess I don't always understand how the pharmaceutical industry decides what to look at.

legomylibrum 12y ago
I don't know if Ebola qualifies, but there are 'orphan drug' laws in many places that help pay for the development of medicine to treat rare diseases or conditions.
lutusp 12y ago
> Ebola is a scary disease yet rare (across the entire planet) so there doesn't seem to be a lot of monetary reason to invest in it. Antibiotic resistance is far more widespread. All true, but once one understands the microbiology, it becomes obvious why drug companies are giving up on antibiotics. It's perfectly rational behavior -- no matter what antibiotics we invent, the microbes will evolve resistance to them in a short time. That's been the history of antibiotics until now, and there's no reason to expect the future to be any different -- if anything, it will probably become worse. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/health-science-technology/hunting-the-nightmare-bacteria/dr-arjun-srinivasan-weve-reached-the-end-of-antibiotics-period/ http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/health-science-techn... Title: "Dr. Arjun Srinivasan: We’ve Reached 'The End of Antibiotics, Period'"
argonaut 12y ago
Ebola has been around for decades, and this is an experimental drug. The fact is that interest in experimental drugs for Ebola has only cropped up recently, so this doesn't really prove any point about interest in antibiotics.
sliverstorm 12y ago
New antibiotics are in the works all the time. We are currently in an arms race with infections; I recall reading that new antibiotics are expected to last for only 10 years, and future antibiotics are going to last even less time (before resistance develops) Why doesn't it get more press? I don't know for sure, but it is: - Ongoing, which makes for bad news - Kind of depressing, because we are slowly losing the battle - Feels a little bit hopeless, because foolish choices by individuals accelerate the development of resistance, and inventing new antibiotics doesn't fix that fundamental problem
- richardwigley 12y ago
  Yeah, it is depressing in the UK - the usage of antibiotics on colds (i.e. of no value to most people with colds) has increased 40% this century even with a campaign to limit usage. I've personally spoken to a couple of GPs/Docs and they said after a few hours of people coming in and asking they get tired and give in. Between that and farms using them like M&Ms (smarties ;-) ) on the cattle it seems like people are taking a precious resource and throwing it on the floor. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-28648785 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-28648785
icegreentea 12y ago
The treatment in question (Zmapp) are heavily funded supported by various DoD entities. Weaponized ebola (along with smallpox) were always something of a bogey-man that received perhaps outsized attention from various sources. Secondly, if it weren't for this outbreak, all of these treatments and vaccines would likely sit around in clinical trial hell for quite a while. Cynically speaking, since clinical trials are so risky and expensive, its best if the developers can off-load some of that risk and expense. Picking something like Ebola, surviving on government funding (because its seen as strategic), and waiting for an emergency to allow you to skip a lot of red tape, and get dollops of support, isn't really a terrible choice. Oh, and antibiotics are hard. For an overview of the current state of antibiotic development, you can take a look here: http://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and-analysis/issue-briefs/2014/03/12/tracking-the-pipeline-of-antibiotics-in-development http://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and-analysis/issue-brie... Note that 43 drugs are in the pipeline.

legomylibrum 12y ago

I don't know if Ebola qualifies, but there are 'orphan drug' laws in many places that help pay for the development of medicine to treat rare diseases or conditions.

lutusp 12y ago

> Ebola is a scary disease yet rare (across the entire planet) so there doesn't seem to be a lot of monetary reason to invest in it. Antibiotic resistance is far more widespread. All true, but once one understands the microbiology, it becomes obvious why drug companies are giving up on antibiotics. It's perfectly rational behavior -- no matter what antibiotics we invent, the microbes will evolve resistance to them in a short time. That's been the history of antibiotics until now, and there's no reason to expect the future to be any different -- if anything, it will probably become worse. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/health-science-technology/hunting-the-nightmare-bacteria/dr-arjun-srinivasan-weve-reached-the-end-of-antibiotics-period/ http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/health-science-techn... Title: "Dr. Arjun Srinivasan: We’ve Reached 'The End of Antibiotics, Period'"

argonaut 12y ago

Ebola has been around for decades, and this is an experimental drug. The fact is that interest in experimental drugs for Ebola has only cropped up recently, so this doesn't really prove any point about interest in antibiotics.

sliverstorm 12y ago

New antibiotics are in the works all the time. We are currently in an arms race with infections; I recall reading that new antibiotics are expected to last for only 10 years, and future antibiotics are going to last even less time (before resistance develops) Why doesn't it get more press? I don't know for sure, but it is: - Ongoing, which makes for bad news - Kind of depressing, because we are slowly losing the battle - Feels a little bit hopeless, because foolish choices by individuals accelerate the development of resistance, and inventing new antibiotics doesn't fix that fundamental problem

richardwigley 12y ago
Yeah, it is depressing in the UK - the usage of antibiotics on colds (i.e. of no value to most people with colds) has increased 40% this century even with a campaign to limit usage. I've personally spoken to a couple of GPs/Docs and they said after a few hours of people coming in and asking they get tired and give in. Between that and farms using them like M&Ms (smarties ;-) ) on the cattle it seems like people are taking a precious resource and throwing it on the floor. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-28648785 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-28648785

icegreentea 12y ago

The treatment in question (Zmapp) are heavily funded supported by various DoD entities. Weaponized ebola (along with smallpox) were always something of a bogey-man that received perhaps outsized attention from various sources. Secondly, if it weren't for this outbreak, all of these treatments and vaccines would likely sit around in clinical trial hell for quite a while. Cynically speaking, since clinical trials are so risky and expensive, its best if the developers can off-load some of that risk and expense. Picking something like Ebola, surviving on government funding (because its seen as strategic), and waiting for an emergency to allow you to skip a lot of red tape, and get dollops of support, isn't really a terrible choice. Oh, and antibiotics are hard. For an overview of the current state of antibiotic development, you can take a look here: http://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and-analysis/issue-briefs/2014/03/12/tracking-the-pipeline-of-antibiotics-in-development http://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and-analysis/issue-brie... Note that 43 drugs are in the pipeline.