For 70 years antibiotics have saved countless lives and enabled the development of modern medicine, but it is becoming clear that the success of antibiotics may have only been temporary and we now anticipate a long-term, generational and perhaps never-ending challenge to find new therapies to combat antibiotic-resistant bacteria. As the search for new conventional antibiotics has become less productive and there are no clear strategies to improve success, a broader approach to address bacterial infection is needed. This review of potential alternatives to antibiotics (A2As) was commissioned by the Wellcome Trust, jointly funded by the Department of Health, and involved scientists and physicians from academia and industry. For the purpose of this review, A2As were defined as non-compound approaches (that is, products other than classical antibacterial agents) that target bacteria or approaches that target the host. In addition, the review was limited to agents that had potential to be administered orally, by inhalation or by injection for treatment of systemic/invasive infection. Within these criteria, the review has identified 19 A2A approaches now being actively progressed. The feasibility and potential clinical impact of each approach was considered. The most advanced approaches (and the only ones likely to deliver new treatments by 2025) are antibodies, probiotics, and vaccines now in Phase II and Phase III trials. These new agents will target infections caused by P. aeruginosa, C. difficile and S. aureus. However, other than probiotics for C. difficile, this first wave will likely best serve as adjunctive or preventive therapies. This suggests that conventional antibiotics will still be needed. The economics of pathogen-specific therapies must improve to encourage innovation, and greater investment into A2As with broad-spectrum activity (e.g. antimicrobial-, host defense-and, anti-biofilm peptides) is needed. Increased funding, estimated at >£1.5 bn over 10 years is required to validate and then develop these A2As. Investment needs to be partnered with translational expertise and targeted to support the validation of these approaches at Clinical Phase II proof of concept. Such an approach could transform our understanding of A2As as effective new therapies and should provide the catalyst required for both active engagement and investment by the pharma/biotech industry. Only a sustained, concerted and coordinated international effort will provide the solutions needed for the next decade.

The emergence of resistance to antibacterial agents is a pressing concern for human health. New drugs to combat this problem are therefore in great demand, but as past experience indicates, the time for resistance to new drugs to develop is often short. Conventionally, antibacterial drugs have been developed on the basis of their ability to inhibit bacterial multiplication, and this remains at the core of most approaches to discover new antibacterial drugs. Here, we focus primarily on an alternative novel strategy for antibacterial drug development that could potentially alleviate the current situation of drug resistance--targeting non-multiplying latent bacteria, which prolong the duration of antimicrobial chemotherapy and so might increase the rate of development of resistance.

The dwindling supply of new antibiotics largely reflects regulatory and commercial challenges, but also a failure of discovery. In the 1990s the pharmaceutical industry abandoned its classical ways of seeking antibiotics and instead adopted a strategy that combined genomics with high-throughput screening of existing compound libraries. Too much emphasis was placed on identifying targets and molecules that bound to them, and too little emphasis was placed on the ability of these molecules to permeate bacteria, evade efflux and avoid mutational resistance; moreover, the compound libraries were systematically biased against antibiotics. The sorry result is that no antibiotic found by this strategy has yet entered clinical use and many major pharmaceutical companies have abandoned antibiotic discovery. Although a raft of start-up companies-variously financed by venture capital, charity or public money--are now finding new antibiotic compounds (some of them very promising in vitro or in early trials), their development through Phase III depends on financial commitments from large pharmaceutical companies, where the discouraging regulatory environment and the poor likely return on investment remain paramount issues.

Staphylococcus aureus in the nose is a risk factor for endogenous staphylococcal infection. UK guidelines recommend the use of mupirocin for nasal decolonization in certain groups of patients colonized with methicillin-resistant S. aureus (MRSA). Mupirocin is effective at removing S. aureus from the nose over a few weeks, but relapses are common within several months. There are only a few prospective randomized clinical trials that have been completed with sufficient patients, but those that have been reported suggest that clearance of S. aureus from the nose is beneficial in some patient groups for the reduction in the incidence of nosocomial infections. There is no convincing evidence that mupirocin treatment reduces the incidence of surgical site infection. New antibiotics are needed to decolonize the nose because bacterial resistance to mupirocin is rising, and so it will become less effective. Furthermore, a more bactericidal antibiotic than mupirocin is needed, on the grounds that it might reduce the relapse rate, and so clear the patient of MRSA for a longer period of time than mupirocin.

No abstract