'End of the road' for antibiotics

[Shaker]

Scary stuff from the USA: http://goo.gl/330cRx

[Sriram]

That bacteria has been around in other countries. They are making a big deal of it because it is now found is the US.

[Shaker]

That bacteria has been around in other countries. They are making a big deal of it because it is now found is the US.

You didn't read the article, then.

The bacterium in this case is E. coli - present in everyone everywhere all the time, massively common in urinary infections.

The difference here is that the woman's UTI didn't respond to the antibiotic regarded as a last resort. Fortunately she recovered anyway, but the resistance is seriously worrying news.

[Sriram]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/to-your-health/wp/2016/05/26/the-superbug-that-doctors-have-been-dreading-just-reached-the-u-s/

************

It's the first time this colistin-resistant strain has been found in a person in the United States. In November, public health officials worldwide reacted with alarm when Chinese and British researchers reported finding the colistin-resistant strain in pigs, raw pork meat and in a small number of people in China. The deadly strain was later discovered in Europe, Africa, South America and Canada.

************

[Enki]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/to-your-health/wp/2016/05/26/the-superbug-that-doctors-have-been-dreading-just-reached-the-u-s/

************

It's the first time this colistin-resistant strain has been found in a person in the United States. In November, public health officials worldwide reacted with alarm when Chinese and British researchers reported finding the colistin-resistant strain in pigs, raw pork meat and in a small number of people in China. The deadly strain was later discovered in Europe, Africa, South America and Canada.

************

Which, of course, Shaker's original article also makes clear. It seems to me that the use of such antibiotics has to be curtailed for them to remain effective. I take some comfort from the fact that, here in the UK, there has been a 7.9% reduction in the prescription and use of antibiotics from 2014 to 2015. At least that is a step in the right direction, but more, much more, needs to be done worldwide in limiting the use of antibiotics in both people and animals.

[Rhiannon]

Yes, the overuse on animal husbandry is of huge concern.

[Shaker]

Yes, the overuse on animal husbandry is of huge concern.

http://goo.gl/LKrwYe

The government’s Chief Veterinary Office Prof Nigel Gibbens said that farmers should be encouraged to keep their livestock in better conditions to cut down on disease and the need for antibiotics.

“Often we find that because animals are kept in a group if one gets an illness they all go down, so you will often end up treating the whole group, which is sensible but means a lot of drugs are used.

I would like to think that this would ultimately mean better conditions for farm animals, but since these are regarded as dispensible commodities and money is involved I won't be holding my breath.

[Brownie]

It is gradually happening Shaker, I have seen a great difference in the treatment of farm animals over the past years, since going to Norfolk regularly.  Poultry too, thank God.  The pigs now root around in fields and have their own little huts.  Cattle is treated with some respect.  Still a way to go of course but we're getting there.   

We all need to be a bit more careful but when an infection is resistant to an antibiotic, other antibiotics are tried and generally the infection clears up. The ones given in the first instance are the ones most commonly used, after that a less commonly prescribed antibiotic is administered.  Plus other treatment because antibiotics are not the only things to counter infection.

Every so often there is a scare about antibiotic-resistant infection and then we hear no more of it, because it's sorted.  Of course we know that they are over prescribed but most of us would not be alive today without them.

[Harrowby Hall]

I don't wish to be seen by anyone as being less than seriously concerned by growing resistance of bacteria to antibiotics, but are there some who contribute to this forum who do not accept that this is a clear demonstration of the reality of Darwinian evolution?

[Gonnagle]

Dear Harrowby,

A clear demonstration!! Is it? would you care to enlighten me on why this is a clear demonstration, thank you.

Boy! It's a slow day at the office on the forum today.

Gonnagle.

[BeRational]

Dear Harrowby,

A clear demonstration!! Is it? would you care to enlighten me on why this is a clear demonstration, thank you.

Boy! It's a slow day at the office on the forum today.

Gonnagle.

It's quite simple.

If the antibiotic worked, then it would work forever.
It stops working that the disease acquires immunity through evolving.

If you hit a bottle with a hammer it will smash. It will ALWAYS smash.

The bacteria evolve that's the key, the bottles and the glass they are made of do not.

[Gonnagle]

Dear Berational,

If the antibiotic worked, then it would work forever.
It stops working that the disease acquires immunity through evolving.

With you so far, although it does show that evolution can work fast, yes/no.

Help me out with your bottle analogy, you may be on to something

Gonnagle.

[Shaker]

With you so far, although it does show that evolution can work fast, yes/no

What makes the difference is organisms - like bacteria - with very short reproductive turnaround times. The quicker things reproduce, the quicker you can see an effect.

Drosophila fruit flies are universally used in laboratories for the same reason.

Try this link: http://goo.gl/IPzdlh

[Harrowby Hall]

Dear Gonners

Just like us - and every other living organism - bacteria are "defined" by their DNA. In our case, half our DNA comes from one parent half from the other. A bacterium reproduces by splitting in half, each half having a full copy of the "parent" bacterium's DNA.

Errors can occur in the splitting process meaning that the new organism is not an identical copy of the parent. The new bacterium's DNA may be slightly different from that of its parent and this variation may just give it immunity from a particular antibiotic. All the other bacteria will die if that antibiotic is present but this one doesn't. When it splits then two bacteria have the immunity and when they split there will be four ... and so on.

If, for instance, a bacterium exists for ten minutes before splitting, then after an hour there will be 2 to the power of 6 bacteria carrying the new immunity - that's 64 individuals. After 24 hours there will be 2 to the power of 144 individual bacteria - that is a very big number, possibly one with 50 noughts on the end.

Providing nothing wipes these out then they will be a new strain of bacteria which possesses immunity to the antibiotic - evolution in action.

[BeRational]

Dear Berational,



With you so far, although it does show that evolution can work fast, yes/no.

Help me out with your bottle analogy, you may be on to something

Gonnagle.

Due to speed of reproduction.

If evolution is not involved, then why are they changing. Not only changing but developing a resistance to what they see as something bad in their environment stopping them doing what they want to do?

[Udayana]

Due to speed of reproduction.

If evolution is not involved, then why are they changing. Not only changing but developing a resistance to what they see as something bad in their environment stopping them doing what they want to do?

They may have a vision of a greater destiny?

[Rhiannon]

http://goo.gl/LKrwYe

I would like to think that this would ultimately mean better conditions for farm animals, but since these are regarded as dispensible commodities and money is involved I won't be holding my breath.

And I think what happens in UK agriculture is but a drop in the ocean.

[Enki]

It is gradually happening Shaker, I have seen a great difference in the treatment of farm animals over the past years, since going to Norfolk regularly.  Poultry too, thank God.  The pigs now root around in fields and have their own little huts.  Cattle is treated with some respect.  Still a way to go of course but we're getting there.   

We all need to be a bit more careful but when an infection is resistant to an antibiotic, other antibiotics are tried and generally the infection clears up. The ones given in the first instance are the ones most commonly used, after that a less commonly prescribed antibiotic is administered.  Plus other treatment because antibiotics are not the only things to counter infection.

Every so often there is a scare about antibiotic-resistant infection and then we hear no more of it, because it's sorted.  Of course we know that they are over prescribed but most of us would not be alive today without them.

The trouble with this is that certain infections are increasingly resistant to many antibiotics so that only one or two antibiotics have any potency against them, and if the bacterial infections develop a resistance  to these, then the cupboard is bare. Remember, no new class of antibiotics has been discovered since the 1980s. In such situations our only answers are those from the pre-antibiotic era and a much greater reliance on a person's immune system, both of which do not compare in their effectiveness with the sensible use of antibiotics, especially in extreme cases.

Unfortunately the overuse of antibiotics has caused other problems, as with the infection c difficile which resides in the gut and usually causes no harm. But, especially in hospitals, it has become a major problem because antibiotics used to treat other infections also kill bacteria which keeps the infection c difficile in check. That is why there has been a rapid increase in the spread of virulent strains of c difficile in hospitals. One of the ways in which one can control this distressing infection is absolute cleanliness as regards both personal and hospital hygiene as the infection is present in the stools of the patient.

I have to disagree with you that scare stories about antibiotic-resistant infections disappearing from media headlines means that they have been sorted. It is usually the case that the media have simply moved on to other stories. For instance, the Lancet reported in 2015 that more than 6000 deaths in the US could be caused by a 30% fall in the effectiveness of antibiotics. The same report suggested that as many as half of all bacteria that cause infections after surgery are resistant to antibiotics in the US. As far as I know, this hasn't gone away, even though the media has lost interest in such stories.

http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancetid/article/PIIS1473-3099(15)00270-4/abstract

Or take this story from the Guardian about the antibiotic resistant superbug MRSA in pig products, especially those from animals incubated in industrial livestock units.

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/jun/18/mrsa-pork-responsible-farming-superbug-antibiotics-farms-meat

As far as I know, nothing has really changed. It hasn't been 'sorted'. It's just not in the headlines at the moment.

My wife was a lay member of the Health Protection Agency and she assures me that it constantly paid attention to the indiscriminate use of antibiotics by patients, doctors and hospitals because of the very real dangers associated with the evolving strains of antibiotic resistant bacteria. Of course antibiotics save lives and some of us would not be alive today without them. That seems to me a very good reason to treat them with very great care, and heed the warnings that many in the medical profession give about their indiscriminate use.