LONDON - November marked a setback in the fight against drug-resistant infections. Scientists announced they had found bacteria resistant to colistin, known as an antibiotic of last resort. Even more alarming, they discovered the gene providing resistance could migrate from one strain of bacteria to another, meaning other types of infections could also become untreatable. The announcement prompted public health experts to renew warnings that the world risks slipping into a deadly, post-antibiotic era.
But November also brought good news - even if it received less notice. When the Group of 20 met in Antalya, Turkey, leaders of the world’s largest economies agreed antimicrobial resistance was a threat to global growth. Buried in the last paragraph of the communique issued at the conclusion was an agreement to put the issue on the agenda of the organization’s next meeting.
This is an important development. The G-20 would be an ideal forum in which to take international action against antimicrobial resistance. The countries most at risk include Brazil, Russia, India, and China, none of which is a Group of 7 member. These countries are also among those most likely to find solutions to the challenge. Furthermore, attendees at the G-20’s summits include heads of state and economic ministers, without whom no solution can be implemented.
The G-20 commitment is just one example of momentum gathering around the issue. In October, G-7 health ministers committed their countries to combatting antimicrobial resistance. The problem was also discussed by British Prime Minister David Cameron, Chancellor George Osborne and counterparts from India, China and Brazil. A number of leaders, including Cameron, German Chancellor Angela Merkel, U.S. President Barack Obama and, most recently, Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi, have made personal commitments to address the issue.
Growing recognition of the gravity of the threat is an opportunity that must not be lost. Part of the war has already been won. We know what must be done to address the challenge, and much is already being accomplished. More people are being encouraged to wash their hands to minimize the spread of infections. Major campaigns are underway to alert people to the risk that antimicrobial resistance poses to their health and wealth. And we are improving the surveillance of superbugs, as we learn more about the dangers they pose to humans and animals. The U.K., for example, has committed $300 million to support microbiology surveillance capacity in developing countries.
Specific steps have also been proposed to speed up the adoption of state-of-the-art diagnostics in hospitals, clinics, pharmacies, and homes, so that the unnecessary use of antibiotics can be reduced. And we have also begun to combat the misuse of antibiotics in agriculture. Indeed, there are encouraging signs that leading U.S.-based food manufacturers are changing their operations in response to consumer pressure. This could be the start of a big shift.
Meanwhile, pharmaceutical companies and government agencies are gaining a better understanding of the role vaccines and alternative therapies can play in reducing antimicrobial resistance. And we are starting to prioritize the development of new drugs, as well as redoubling efforts to extend the lifespan of existing treatments. In October, the U.K. and China agreed to establish a global research and development fund, with the aim of attracting 1 billion British pounds ($1.5 billion) in investment in research to reduce the spread of antimicrobial resistance.
The biggest question that remains to be addressed is how to divide the cost among governments, the pharmaceutical industry, health systems, development agencies and large charitable foundations. This is where the focus of the discussion needs to be now.
Fortunately, tackling the problem need not break the bank. Ensuring that future generations have access to effective antimicrobial treatments will cost little compared to other global challenges. We estimate that market-entry rewards for about 15 new drugs would cost $16-35 billion over 10 years. This is a small price to pay relative to the estimated $100 trillion in lost global economic output if we do not act.
Finding about $2 billion a year over 10 years to stop the return of infectious diseases is well within the means of the world’s 20 richest countries or 20 of its largest pharmaceutical companies. If they joined forces to fund a solution, the cost would be a rounding error in their bottom lines. But, given the size of the returns, it would be one of the wisest investments that they - or anyone - could make.
Copyright: Project Syndicate, 2015.
*The author, a former chairman of Goldman Sachs Asset Management, is commercial secretary to the U.K. Treasury, honorary professor of Economics at Manchester University and chairman of the Review on Antimicrobial Resistance.
by Jim O’Neill
More in Columns
Room for alignment
A cautionary tale
A government in disarray
China’s thin skin