Existing Drugs Fight Antibiotic-Resistant Bugs 110
sciencehabit writes "Medical experts have been powerless to stop the rise of antibiotic-resistant bacteria and are increasingly desperate to develop novel drugs. But a new study finds that smarter use of current antibiotics could offer a solution. Researchers were able to keep resistant bacteria from thriving by alternating antibiotics to specifically exploit the vulnerabilities that come along with resistance—a strategy that could extend the lifespan of existing drugs to continue fighting even the most persistent pathogens."
Another strategy (Score:5, Insightful)
Don't use them unless they are necessary.
There, fixed that for ya (Score:4, Insightful)
"*Big Pharma Companies* have been powerless to stop the rise of antibiotic-resistant bacteria and are increasingly desperate to develop novel drugs."
Here's a hint: Stop indiscriminately throwing antibiotics at everything that moves. It's precisely the over-use of these drugs that has created the problem in the first place.
Re:The bacteria are like the Borg. (Score:5, Insightful)
Except that bacteria don't adapt to a "strategy". They adapt to the conditions at exist at the moment, with no consideration of the future implications of that adaptation. Because, you know, bacteria aren't intelligent.
Re:Another strategy (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Perhaps if (Score:4, Insightful)
> phase out one type of antibiotic for a decade ...
Nice idea in theory, but remember that infection types aren't monolithic. In your region, a given bacterium might have developed a strong resistance to amoxicillin, while in the next city over, they've become resistant to something else. Now add travel to the mix: a guy with methicillin-resistant germs flies across country, then shares his infection with the folks in that region.
NOW add in the fact that these things are most commonly spread in hospitals by overworked staff not washing their hands each and every time they visit a patient's room. One study I read several years ago found that the keyboards on the computers were loaded with MRSA, for example -- which could easily have been controlled with a puff of Lysol and a bottle of hand sanitizer.
At any rate, the article's premise makes sense to me. My doctor told me a few years ago that these things seemed to move in cycles: bacteria would became resistant to one antibiotic, then another ... but it might eventually go full circle. He said he was having a lot of success treating some patients with plain ol' penicillin and doxycycline again.
It's not just an Asia thing (Score:4, Insightful)
Seem quite simple, doesnt it? The fact that cattle, fish and shrimp feed in asia have huge amounts of antibiotics as a "preventive" measure to keep the animal from going sick, and the resistance the bacteria gain dealing in that sick field, and whatever trickles up the food chain doesnt seem to bother anyone, has long money is made. And nobody will care until it is too late. Big pharma also doesnt care, quite by the contrary the patents have long expired, and antibiotics are bought by the shovel, as soon as they stop working they will have then gov "fund" to further develop very expensive nanomeds. This seems like a stupid plot from a bad scifi movie.
This isn't just an Asia thing. You have described at exactly how food production in the USA works. I'm sure that there are other countries where it's the same. Food production in the USA is Big Business and Big Business always gets what it wants. What they want is zero loss and the way to achieve this is to use high amounts of pesticides that kill any bug that dares to get near produce and feed antibiotics to animals to keep them alive long enough to slaughter them.