U.S. Army Captain Michael Kelvington, commander of the Battle company, 1-508 Parachute Infantry battalion, 4th Brigade Combat Team, 82nd Airborne Division, bows next to remains of Gulam Dostager, a member of Afghan Local Police who was killed in the blast of an Improvised Explosive Device (IED) during the joint Tor Janda (Black Flag in Pashtu) operation, in Zahri district of Kandahar province, southern Afghanistan May 25, 2012.  REUTERS/Shamil Zhumatov  (AFGHANISTAN - Tags: MILITARY CIVIL UNREST CONFLICT TPX IMAGES OF THE DAY)

Reuters Photojournalism

Our day's top images, in-depth photo essays and offbeat slices of life. See the best of Reuters photography.  See more | Photo caption 

Members of the U.S. Navy Blue Angels fly over the World Trade Center in lower Manhattan as part of the 25th annual Fleet Week celebration in New York, May 23, 2012.  REUTERS/Eduardo Munoz (UNITED STATES - Tags: MILITARY ANNIVERSARY TPX IMAGES OF THE DAY)

Fleet Week

The U.S. Navy takes Manhattan for a week.  Slideshow 

Photo

The SpaceX mission

A privately owned unmanned rocket blasts off on a mission to be the first commercial flight to the International Space Station.  Slideshow 

Regulators urged to help develop antibiotics

Related Topics

CHICAGO | Wed Jun 9, 2010 4:54pm EDT

CHICAGO (Reuters) - U.S. regulators need to provide a clear path for drug companies to develop new antibiotics and should consider offering financial incentives, experts told a Congressional panel on Wednesday.

They said doctors are running out of effective antibiotics, yet inconsistent regulatory guidelines at the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and the need to reduce the use of antibiotics has given companies little incentive to develop new drugs, experts told the House of Representatives Committee on Energy and Commerce's Subcommittee on Health.

Several experts acknowledged the need for more judicious use of existing antibiotics to slow the rise of antibiotic resistant strains of bacteria, but virtually all agreed that several routes are needed to solve the problem.

Robin Robinson, director of the Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority at the Department of Health and Human Services, called antibiotic resistance a biodefense threat and said the federal government should provide financial incentives to encourage companies to develop new antibiotics.

He said his agency is supporting the development of new dual-purpose antibiotics that could be used to improve both public health and national security.

"The lengthy drug development process means that new classes of drugs to supplement or replace current ones are still years away at best," Robinson told the panel.

He noted that newer drugs are typically saved for the sickest patients, reducing their sales potential.

LONGER PATENTS?

Dr. Barry Eisenstein, a senior vice president at Cubist Pharmaceuticals, has one answer for this -- extending the time patent protections are in place.

"We are approaching a "crisis point" with antimicrobial resistance," Eisenstein told the panel.

He complained that the FDA has been inconsistent in what it requires drug companies to prove to win marketing approval.

"Over the last decade, regulatory uncertainty, including ever-shifting FDA guidelines, have had a significant negative impact on approval of antibiotics," he added.

Dr. Janet Woodcock, director of the Center for Drug Evaluation and Research at the FDA, agreed that more needs to be done to encourage drug companies to develop new antibiotics.

"The pipeline is diminished at a time when the need could not be greater," she said.

But she said scientists have disagreed over what the bar should be for proving an antibiotic works as well or better than existing drugs, especially for the treatment of common conditions like sinus infections or ear infections.

Approving an inferior drug that would be so widely used would only contribute to the problem of antibiotic resistance, she said.

"FDA plans to publish additional guidance on these methods within the next six months to establish new standards for antimicrobial drugs," Woodcock said.

Almost as soon as penicillin was introduced in the 1940s, bacteria began to develop resistance to its effects, prompting researchers to develop many new generations of antibiotics.

But their overuse and misuse have helped fuel the rise of drug-resistant "superbugs." The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention says most infections that people get while in the hospital are resistant to at least one antibiotic.

For example, half of all S. aureus infections in the United States are resistant to penicillin, methicillin, tetracycline and erythromycin.

(Editing by Maggie Fox and Eric Walsh)

Related Quotes and News

Company
Price
Related News
We welcome comments that advance the story through relevant opinion, anecdotes, links and data. If you see a comment that you believe is irrelevant or inappropriate, you can flag it to our editors by using the report abuse links. Views expressed in the comments do not represent those of Reuters. For more information on our comment policy, see http://blogs.reuters.com/fulldisclosure/2010/09/27/toward-a-more-thoughtful-conversation-on-stories/
Comments (2)
MidwestVoice wrote:
Pharmaceautical companies think they should be paid “incentives” to develop new drugs?!? Really?! And they can actually propose this with a straight face? I guess then if taxpayers give them “incentives”, the resulting new antibiotics will be provided to those same taxpayers (consumers) at cost?? NO? What a surprise (not!).

Jun 10, 2010 4:27pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
KDiggityDog76 wrote:
You might think differently when someone you know or love is afflicted with a drug-resistant infection. The fact is, the public is largely unaware of the costs associated with bringing a drug to the market, literally hundreds of millions of dollars. Companies only begin to recoup those costs IF their drugs are actually approved, a scenario proving ever more unlikely due to regulatory uncertainty. I don’t envy the FDA’s position, caught between political pressure to make sure drugs are safe prior to approval, while still getting effective drugs to market where need is greatest. But until they can make up their collective mind about what exact clinical endpoints should be required for approval, the public is really going to be the one suffering.

Jun 11, 2010 11:25am EDT  --  Report as abuse
This discussion is now closed. We welcome comments on our articles for a limited period after their publication.