During her time as head of the World Health Organization, a former leader famously remarked that all of the “easy” antimicrobials had already been found. The argument was that in tackling the urgent danger of antibiotic-resistant infections, we would struggle to find new medicines – or conserve the current arsenal – without developing novel approaches of operating. This assessment proved accurate.
Since the late 2010s, only sixteen antibiotics have gained broad regulatory approval – mostly close relatives of drugs already in use and thus not expected to overcome bacterial resistance for an extended period. The creation of new ones is a slow and unprofitable endeavor, given that one-off treatments are not as profitable as ones managing chronic ailments. The overall prospect continues to be bleak.
Nevertheless, the recent announcement of a pair of novel FDA-approved antibiotics against gonorrhea is a welcome development and, importantly, confirms a innovative method of encouraging research. A particular of the recently approved medications, Zoliflodacin, is the result of a unique type of collaboration between a global health organization and a drug firm. The non-profit supplied funding and managed clinical trials to offset costs and navigate approval processes. This type of support upfront helps steer the industry towards fields of most pressing public health necessity.
This model and a separate praised “subscription model” – initiated to guarantee income to firms investing in certain antimicrobials – constitute the strongest chance of maintaining a dripfeed of novel treatments from the current system.
But even hurrying the development of drugs currently in development isn't sufficient. Zoliflodacin is at times categorized as a novel type of antibiotic, indicating it targets a part of the infectious bacteria that existing treatments does, theoretically forcing the pathogen to start from zero in developing a defense to it. Researchers and physicians are grateful to have a new drug for gonorrhea – which has resistant strains to all existing treatments – but caution that eventual drug resistance to this compound is certain.
As has grown customary with recent antimicrobials, there is consequently an debate about whether it should be held in reserve, restricted to highly resistant cases only – limiting its use to situations where high‑end lab testing is accessible. This sort of rational approach should be the global standard, but often can't be deployed easily in many regions.
More broadly, it is hard to see where the stream of additional novel antimicrobials we need could realistically originate. The former official's statement acknowledged the fact that searching the natural world for biological compounds – as with penicillin – has had diminishing returns. The application of AI has been proposed to accelerate the discovery process, although a much-celebrated initial discovery identified in 2020 has not yet progressed past preclinical studies. Synthetic drugs, that are mainly or fully synthesized, are constantly in development, but often confront the iron laws of chemistry – the fact that we envision a molecule doesn't mean we can synthesise it easily.
The dominant expert assessment is that when it comes to antibiotics, we must run very fast indeed just to stay in the current position. Careful, internationally coordinated deployment is the sole method to preserve our therapeutic edge. Regrettably, the magnitude of future discoveries is likely to seem miserly in contrast to the therapeutic revolution of the previous century.