THE RISE OF SUPERBUGS

How Doctors Misuse Antibiotics

Antibiotic misuse happens in many ways:

Using the drugs to treat illnesses caused by viruses, not bacteria.

Doctors know, of course, that antibiotics don’t work against viruses, like those that cause the common cold or the flu. But in some cases tests can’t help distinguish between the two. Or doctors may feel that they just don’t have the time to determine the cause, and figure “it’s better to be safe than sorry.” One recent study of 204 doctors suggested some physicians may be more likely to prescribe antibiotics for viral infections toward the end of their office hours—a sign they may be taking the easy route to handling patients’ complaints.

Prescribing the drugs just to satisfy patient demand.

Doctors may also just want to make their patients happy—and patients often want antibiotics. For example, in a recent Consumer Reports poll of 1,000 adults, one in five people who got an antibiotic had asked for the drug. “I often have patients who ask for antibiotics,” says Marnie Doubek, who sees many sick children in her practice. “So I understand the pressure to just say OK. But now, especially with Zachary’s experience, no way.”

Rushing to drugs too quickly.

Even when infections are caused by bacteria, doctors sometimes prescribe antibiotics when it might be wise to wait a few days to see whether mild symptoms clear up on their own. One example: ear infections in children older than 6 months. When mild, those infections often improve untreated. But as many parents know, a crying child can be a powerful motivator to seek a quick fix even if, in the long run, repeated use of antibiotics may be more likely to cause problems than solve them.

Abusing broad-spectrum drugs.

When antibiotics are called for, doctors often reach too quickly for “broad spectrum” ones that attack multiple bacteria types at once. That shotgun approach is not only more likely to breed resistance but also to wipe out protective bacteria. The drug that triggered Lillis’ C. diff infection, clindamycin, is one such drug.

Those drugs were developed with the thought that “killing as many bugs as you possibly can in every patient” was a good idea, says John Powers, M.D., former lead medical officer of Antimicrobial Drug Development and Resistance Initiatives at the Food and Drug Administration.

Doctors loved the broad-spectrum antibiotics and, spurred by aggressive marketing from drug companies, began using them for common problems such as ear and sinus infections. Given that widespread use, “it’s hardly a shock that we now have a problem with resistance and C. diff,” Powers says.

The Danger of New Drugs

Many of those broad-spectrum drugs were introduced 30 years ago, when antibiotic development was in its heyday. More than 50 antibiotics were introduced in the 1980s and 1990s. But that once-steady drug pipeline has slowed to a trickle, for several reasons.

One is that coming up with new classes of antibiotics that target superbugs is proving to be a tough scientific puzzle. Most of the new antibiotics introduced since 2000 have been minor tweaks to existing drugs, not major breakthroughs.

The other big reason? Money. “Developing antibiotics is not that profitable,” says Henry Chambers, M.D., an infectious disease specialist at the University of California San Francisco School of Medicine. Drug companies would rather focus on medications that many people take for a long time, he explains, because the market, and profit potential, is larger.

The government is trying to sweeten the economic incentive. In 2012, the FDA began to fast-track certain antibiotics and told drugmakers that patent protection on the drugs would last an additional five years. Since then, 49 new drugs have entered the pipeline’s fast lane and six have been approved.

The FDA has proposed further streamlining—allowing companies to test drugs using smaller, shorter, or fewer studies—for antibiotics that are meant to treat serious infections in patients with no other options. Legislation now with Congress would also lower the requirements needed to get new antibiotics on the market.

When Big Pharma Pushes Drugs

That approach means the FDA “is willing to accept less safety and efficacy data,” acknowledges Edward Cox, M.D., director of the Office of Antimicrobial Products in the FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research. But he says that’s a trade-off that many doctors are willing to make.

Still, some researchers and patient advocates worry about fast-tracking drugs. “We absolutely need new antibiotics,” says Lisa McGiffert, director of Consumer Reports’ Safe Patient Project. “But that doesn’t justify lowering the bar on the standards for drug approval. These can be dangerous drugs, so they should be thoroughly tested for safety and efficacy before we unleash them on the public.”

Perhaps the biggest concern is that even if effective new antibiotics make it to market, they may not provide much long-term help if health care professionals and patients continue to misuse the drugs. And, Chambers says, there may be pressure on doctors to use the drugs widely, despite the growing threat of antibiotic resistance.

Some pressure may come from drug companies, which have a history of marketing new drugs aggressively, and even illegally. Pfizer agreed to pay $1 billion in 2009 to settle allegations that the company illegally promoted four drugs, including the antibiotic linezolid (Zyvox), which was pushed to treat forms of MRSA for which it was not approved.