The dearth of new antibiotic development: why we should be worried and what we can do about it

Patrick G P Charles and M Lindsay Grayson
Med J Aust 2004; 181 (10): 549-553. || doi: 10.5694/j.1326-5377.2004.tb06444.x
Published online: 15 November 2004


  • The emergence and spread of multidrug-resistant pathogens has increased substantially over the past 20 years.

  • Over the same period, the development of new antibiotics has decreased alarmingly, with many pharmaceutical companies pulling out of antibiotic research in favour of developing “lifestyle” drugs.

  • Reasons given for withdrawing from antibiotic development include poor “net present value” status of antibiotics, changes in regulations requiring larger drug trials and prolonged post-marketing surveillance, clinical preference for narrow-spectrum rather than broad-spectrum agents, and high new-drug purchase costs.

  • Major improvements in infection control in Australia are needed to prevent further spread of resistant clones, buying some time to develop urgently needed new antibiotic agents.

  • Perpetuating a culture of “pharma bashing” will simply lead to more pharmaceutical companies withdrawing from the market. A change in the health and research culture is needed to improve cooperation between public, academic and private sectors.

Antibiotic resistance is a natural phenomenon — resistant strains of Staphylococcus aureus were encountered soon after the introduction of penicillin into clinical medicine in 1941 by Florey, Chain and colleagues.1-3 The story of penicillin’s discovery and then manufacture in sufficient quantities to treat injured troops at the D-Day landing in 1944 is also notable, because it was probably the last time an antimicrobial was developed to such an initial extent by anyone other than a large pharmaceutical company.4 To our knowledge, since the time of Florey, no government (regardless of its rhetoric) has developed a single new antimicrobial, and, while many clinicians criticise the activities of the big drug manufacturers, it is these companies that have been responsible for almost all new antimicrobial research and development during the past half-century.5 Although antibiotic development was rapid between the 1950s and the 1970s, with multiple new drugs being developed, many of these gains have been eroded over the past 30 years because of the rapid emergence of and spread of resistance to antimicrobials.6 Here, we explain what lies behind the developing resistance and why, despite a seemingly crowded current antibiotic market, the true picture is that our antibiotic development pipeline has been reduced to a trickle. We propose some problem-based solutions that could help prevent, or at least delay, a return to the dangers of the pre-antibiotic era.

Why do we need new antibiotics?
Burgeoning resistance

The increasing prevalence of resistant pathogens is mainly related to either the emergence of new strains or the spread of existing resistant clones. The specific mechanisms of drug resistance are important in determining its likely reversibility. For instance, plasmid-mediated resistance (eg, ampicillin resistance in Escherichia coli) is more likely to be reversible when exposure to the relevant antibiotic is withdrawn than chromosomally mediated resistance (eg, fluoroquinolone resistance in gram-negative bacteria), which is often a “one-way street”, with reversal much less likely.7

Although the emergence of resistant clones is crucial, the factor responsible for most resistance problems is patient-to-patient spread of existing resistant clones, usually on the hands of healthcare workers or on shared equipment in hospitals,8-11 aided by the increasing immunological frailty of many hospital inpatients.7

Inappropriate antibiotic use is a key driver of resistance, but the reasons for such use can be complex.7 In developed countries, the obsession with “zero risk” has distorted the decision-making process for many clinicians, with broad-spectrum antibiotics being used even when not indicated. Pharmaceutical marketing often targets such clinician insecurity, and rational debate is not always helped by the growing band of “microbiology accountants”, who report the percentage of resistant strains among their laboratory collections of pathogens rather than the likelihood of resistant pathogens among patients presenting with a particular disease.

Appropriate antibiotic prescribing has also been affected by the threat of bioterrorism.12 For instance, although the anthrax strain used in the 2001 US anthrax attacks was susceptible to both tetracyclines and penicillin, 32 000 government workers and other contacts were treated with oral ciprofloxacin for up to 60 days as prophylaxis, just in case the strain was capable of producing β-lactamase.13

Underpowered response?

The current antibiotic market is fairly crowded with agents, but many of these are “me-too” antibiotics — drugs from the same class developed by competing companies (eg, fluoroquinolones and third-generation cephalosporins). There has been a decline in registration of new antibiotics. A summary of new antibiotics and older antibiotics with new indications or treatment options is given in Box 1.

Several of the “new” antibiotics were actually discovered in the 1980s. Their development stalled because of poor initial results or problems with toxicity, but, more recently, desperation has led to renewed research interest in these drug classes, especially agents for treating gram-positive pathogens (Box 2). For example, daptomycin was initially studied in the early 1990s but was “shelved” due to toxicity, especially its potential to cause myositis. Its use at a lower dose has now been reassessed.18,19

Oritavancin, tigecycline and ramoplanin are the only truly new antibiotic agents that are likely to enter the Australian market in the next 5 years, with only tigecycline likely to be active against gram-negative bacteria.20,21 Because of this and the worsening problem of multiresistant Acinetobacter spp., Pseudomonas aeruginosa and Klebsiella spp., clinicians have been forced to use more toxic older agents such as colistin (Box 1).22

Why is the new-antibiotic pipeline running dry?

Large pharmaceutical companies are primarily responsible for new antibiotic development, with 93% of new agents developed between 1980 and 2003 coming from this source, rather than small biotechnology companies or small pharmaceutical manufacturers.5 The cost of researching and developing any new drug is generally in excess of US$500 million, and it usually takes about 8–10 years from the time a drug is first developed to the time it is released for sale.5,6 Naturally, pharmaceutical companies will only take this risk if there is reasonable likelihood of recouping development costs and making a profit. The pharmaceutical industry is under considerable financial pressure, with many companies believing they need to get bigger to survive and to afford the research needed for drug licensing. However, with more than 40 companies merging and consolidating over the past 20 years, there are now only about eight companies still undertaking some antibiotic research and development.23,24 This is because, during the past 10–15 years, a number of key factors (discussed below) have combined to reduce pharmaceutical companies’ interest in antibiotic development.

Relatively low “net present value”

For an increasing number of pharmaceutical companies, antibiotics are financially less attractive to develop than drugs for other indications (Box 3). Antibiotics are generally used for short periods for specific, relatively narrow indications. In comparison, other agents (eg, lipid-lowering agents) are often commenced at a relatively young age, are taken by a large proportion of the population for many years without much restriction, and are not subject to the emergence of resistance. Further, in contrast to the restrictions placed on antibiotics, there are few guidelines (or physician experts) advising against widespread use of these agents.25

Conducting clinical trials is one of the major expenditures in developing any new drug, and a separate clinical trial is needed for each potential indication for a drug. The complexity of conducting clinical trials for antibiotics adds to the costs associated with their development and licensure.

Such financial considerations are often summarised by a drug’s “net present value” (NPV). This is what the drug’s future is worth in today’s money. Usually, the NPV is then risk-adjusted (rNPV), based on the extent to which the drug has been developed. For instance, an antibiotic in Phase III trials carries less risk than one early in development (most antibiotics in Phase III trials have an 87% “success rate”).24 Thus, it is no surprise that antibiotics have a lower rNPV than many other drug classes. In fact, in some industry estimates, injectable antibiotics rank well behind musculoskeletal, neuroscience and oncology agents and vaccines in terms of rNPV.24

Stricter standards for equivalence

Most antibiotic trials are “equivalence” trials, whereby the new drug is required to have equivalent or similar efficacy to an older, comparator agent that is already licensed for the relevant indication. The amount to which the efficacy of the new agent can differ from the comparator and still be considered sufficiently similar to be “equivalent” is called the “delta” value. Until recently, the standard for most antibiotic trials in which a drug’s efficacy was estimated to be 80%–90% was a delta value of 15% — that is, as long as the new antibiotic was within 15% of the efficacy of the comparator (ie, no more than 15% better or worse) it was considered statistically equivalent. Such trials would generally be used to support the licensure of the new drug for the studied indication. Because of concerns about possible “downward” drift in efficacy over time, some regulatory authorities have proposed that the delta value be reduced to 10%. The effect of this proposal would be to more than double the number of patients who need to be enrolled in antibiotic trials to demonstrate the new standard of “equivalence” (eg, for a study of community-acquired pneumonia, 1500–2200 patients would be required instead of 600–1000).25 Increased patient recruitment would add to trial costs.

Further, for some relatively uncommon, but important, indications, this increase in required patient recruitment would be unachievable from a clinical perspective, or would result in the trial becoming so prolonged that the comparator drug may no longer be considered appropriate due to the emergence of antibiotic resistance. It is believed that the proposed change in the trial delta value was a key reason for at least two major manufacturers withdrawing from antibiotic research prior to 2002.26

How can we improve the situation?

In the near future, there appears to be little that can be done to overcome the current and impending shortage of new agents. Instead, there must be a greater focus on appropriate infection control measures to limit the spread of resistant clones within hospitals and reduce the emergence of new resistant strains by restricting unnecessary antibiotic use in humans and in agriculture.7,27

In Australia, the current hyperendemic spread of methicillin-resistant S. aureus within most large hospitals is a reflection of past apathy and woeful infection control measures in the 1970s and 1980s. The same mistakes must not be repeated with vancomycin-resistant enterococci, S aureus with reduced vancomycin susceptibility, and multiresistant Acinetobacter.28-30 Governments need to prioritise funding for effective infection control measures, such as patient cohorting and isolation (ie, greater access to single rooms) and improved hand hygiene among healthcare workers through the use of alcohol/chlorhexidine-based handrub to minimise transmission of resistant pathogens.11 Neglecting these issues will inevitably undermine current healthcare gains.

To encourage renewed interest in antibiotic research and development, a number of approaches have been suggested, many of which we believe could be effective:

  • Standardise regulation and licensure. Standard requirements for drug regulation in the United States, United Kingdom, Europe and other regions could have substantial benefits by reducing the number of clinical trials needed to obtain widespread licensure.

  • Specify appropriate antibiotic comparators. The proposal for a 10% delta value arose in response to concerns about downward drift in comparator efficacy. An alternative way of reducing the likelihood of inadequate efficacy would be for regulatory agencies to specify the appropriate antibiotic comparator required for each indication. This approach would allow the 15% delta value (and thus the current number of patients required for each trial) to be maintained.

  • Broaden the funding base for drug research and development. To reduce the financial risk of developing new drugs, antibiotic research and development could be co-funded by pharmaceutical companies, governments and public academic institutions.27 Tax incentives for companies to perform work in identifying new drugs might help.7

  • Increase cooperation between academic institutions and pharmaceutical companies. More research into the mechanisms of antibiotic resistance and bacterial physiology would allow the development of antimicrobials with new mechanisms of action, as occurred with the recently discovered CBR703 class of molecules, which inhibit bacterial RNA polymerase.31

  • Fast-track drug licensure when needed. For high-priority diseases, where resistance is a major clinical problem, a new system of fast-tracking licensure of potential agents is necessary to enhance clinical availability while continuing to monitor potential adverse reactions. The current system of fast-tracking drugs for treating HIV could serve as a useful model.7

Extending the duration of patent protection (so-called “exclusivity”) has also been proposed as a way of encouraging antibiotic research and development. However, we believe this is unlikely to be particularly effective, as the later years of a drug’s patent are heavily discounted in the NPV calculation because of the emergence of resistance and higher likelihood of generic pharmaceutical companies ignoring patent regulations and producing the drug at lower cost.


Declining antibiotic research and development at a time of increasing emergence and spread of resistant pathogens poses a major challenge to our society if we are to avoid a return to the pre-antibiotic era for many infections. Perpetuating a culture of “pharma bashing” will simply lead to more pharmaceutical companies withdrawing from the market. Crucial to success will be a change in the health and research culture towards greater cooperation between the public, academic and private sectors. Improving infection control initiatives will buy some time, but, given the lag between antibiotic development and eventual availability, we need to develop a sensible strategy soon to avoid problems in the next one to two decades.

1 New antibiotics, and older antibiotics with new indications or treatment options


Drug class

Initial development period

Antibacterial spectrum

Limitations/adverse effects or new issues

Current status*

New agents

Gemifloxacin, garenoxacin, sitafloxacin


Early 1960s

Variety of gram-positives (not VRE, MRSA) and gram-  negatives

Resistance already established in some places, due to widespread ciprofloxacin use. Role uncertain, given availability of older agents

NAv Aust. Garenoxacin development halted



Early 1980s

Gram-positives, including VRE

Not absorbed orally — used for temporary suppression of faecal VRE colonisation

NAv Aust. Not US FDA-approved. In Phase III trials



Late 1980s

Gram-positives: VRE, MRSA, SA-RVS

Myalgia at high doses

NAv Aust. US FDA-approved Sep 2003



Late 1980s

Gram-positives: VRE, MRSA, SA-RVS, some Mycobacteria spp., Nocardia spp.

Haematological toxicity, especially thrombocytopenia; peripheral neuropathy (rare)

RAc Aust

Quinupristin, dalfopristin


Early 1990s

Gram-positives: VRE (not Enterococcus faecalis), MRSA, SA-RVS

Infusion site pain, arthralgia, myalgia

RAc Aust

Oritavancin, dalbavancin

Novel glycopeptide

Late 1990s

Gram-positives: VRE (oritavancin only), MRSA, SA-RVS

Toxicity uncertain

NAv Aust. Not US FDA-approved. In Phase III trials

Telithromycin, cethromycin

Ketolide (related to macrolides)

Late 1990s

Typical and atypical respiratory pathogens, including Mycoplasma, Chlamydia spp.

Hepatotoxicity, blurred vision, QT changes on ECG

NAv Aust. Available in Europe and the United States.


Glycylcycline (semisynthetic derivative of minocycline)

Late 1990s

Gram-positives: VRE, MRSA, SA-RVS; some gram-negatives

Nausea, vomiting, headaches

NAv Aust. Not US FDA-approved. In Phase III trials

Older agents

Penicillin G


Late 1930s

Gram-positives: streptococci, enterococci, Clostridium, Listeria spp.

Continuous infusion provides high serum levels for intermediate-resistant strains (eg, some VRE). Suitable for hospital-in-the-home treatment in some cases14,15

Av Aust

Colistin, polymyxin B

Cationic peptides


Gram-negatives, including Pseudomonas aeruginosa, Acinetobacter baumannii, Klebsiella pneumoniae

Renal toxicity, neurotoxicity

Av Aust

Amphotericin B


Late 1950s

Most fungi

Preliminary data suggest that continuous infusion may reduce renal toxicity and hence reduce the need to switch to newer, more expensive liposomal analogues16,17

Av Aust



Early 1960s

Many gram-negatives

Meta-analyses suggest a once-daily dose of 4–6 mg/kg daily† is associated with reduced renal and ototoxicity, but efficacy is similar to multidose regimens

Av Aust

ECG = electrocardiogram. FDA = Food and Drug Administration. MRSA = methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus. SA-RVS = Staphylococcus aureus with reduced vancomycin susceptibility. VRE = vancomycin-resistant enterococci.

* Availability: Av Aust = available in Australia; RAc Aust = restricted access in Australia; NAv Aust = not available in Australia.

† Recommended dose for an adult with normal renal function.

  • Patrick G P Charles1
  • M Lindsay Grayson2

  • Infectious Diseases Department, Austin Health, Heidelberg, VIC.


Competing interests:

None identified.

  • 1. Chain E, Florey HW, Gardner AD, et al. Penicillin as a chemotherapeutic agent. Lancet 1940; ii: 226.
  • 2. Abraham EP. Fleming’s discovery. Rev Infect Dis 1980; 2: 140.
  • 3. Richmond MH. Beta-lactam antibiotics and beta-lactamases: two sides of a continuing story. Rev Infect Dis 1979; 1: 30-38.
  • 4. Bickel L. Florey: the man who made penicillin. South Melbourne: Sun Books, 1983.
  • 5. Spellberg B, Powers JH, Brass EP, et al. Trends in antimicrobial drug development: implications for the future. Clin Infect Dis 2004; 38: 1279-1286.
  • 6. Smolinski MS, Hamburg MA, Lederberg J, editors. Microbial threats to health: emergence, detection, and response. Washington, DC: Institute of Medicine, 2003.
  • 7. WHO global strategy for containment of antimicrobial resistance. Geneva: World Health Organization, 2001.
  • 8. Jarvis WR. Handwashing – the Semmelweis lesson forgotten? Lancet 1994; 344: 1311-1312.
  • 9. Goldmann DA, Huskins WC. Control of nosocomial antimicrobial-resistant bacteria: a strategic priority for hospitals worldwide. Clin Infect Dis 1997; 24(Suppl 1): S139-S145.
  • 10. Pittet D, Harbarth S, Ruef C, et al. Prevalence and risk factors for nosocomial infections in four university hospitals in Switzerland. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 1999; 20: 37-42.
  • 11. Pittet D, Hugonnet S, Harbath S, et al. Effectiveness of a hospital-wide programme to improve compliance with hand hygiene. Lancet 2000; 356: 1307-1312.
  • 12. Grayson ML. The difference between biological warfare and bioterrorism: Australia finally makes a start towards real preparedness for bioterrorism. Intern Med J 2003; 33: 213-214.
  • 13. Jernigan DB, Raghunathan PL, Bell BP, et al. Investigation of bioterrorism-related anthrax, United States, 2001: epidemiologic findings. Emerg Infect Dis 2002, 8: 1019-1028.
  • 14. Howden BP, Grayson ML. Hospital-in-the-home treatment of infectious diseases. Med J Aust 2002; 176: 440-445. <MJA full text>
  • 15. Vella-Brincat JW, Begg EJ, Gallagher K, et al. Stability of benzylpenicillin during continuous home intravenous therapy. J Antimicrob Chemother 2004; 53: 675-677.
  • 16. Eriksson U, Seifert B, Schaffner A. Comparison of effects of amphotericin B deoxycholate infused over 4 or 24 hours: randomised controlled trial. BMJ 2001; 322: 579-582.
  • 17. Peleg AY, Woods ML. Continuous and 4 h infusion of amphotericin B: a comparative study involving high-risk haematology patients. J Antimicrob Chemother 2004; 54: 803-808.
  • 18. Tally FP, DeBruin MF. Development of daptomycin for Gram-positive infections. J Antimicrob Chemother 2000; 46: 523-526.
  • 19. Carpenter CF, Chambers HF. Daptomycin: another novel agent for treating infections due to drug-resistant Gram-positive pathogens. Clin Infect Dis 2004; 38: 994-1000.
  • 20. Wong MT, Kauffman CA, Standiford HC, et al. Effective suppression of vancomycin-resistant Enterococcus species in asymptomatic gastrointestinal carriers by a novel glycolipodepsipeptide, ramoplanin. Clin Infect Dis 2001; 33: 1476-1482.
  • 21. Guay DR. Oritavancin and tigecycline: investigational antimicrobials for multidrug-resistant bacteria. Pharmacotherapy 2004; 24: 58-68.
  • 22. Polymyxins. In: The use of antibiotics. Kucers A, Crowe S, Grayson ML, Hoy J, editors. 5th ed. Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann, 1997: 667-675.
  • 23. Projan SJ. Why is big Pharma getting out of antibacterial drug discovery? Curr Opin Microbiol 2003; 6: 427-430.
  • 24. Projan SJ. New drug development. When and where are our new antibacterial drugs coming from? Australian Society for Antimicrobials 5th Annual Scientific Meeting; 2004 Feb 26–28; Sydney, Australia.
  • 25. Therapeutic guidelines: antibiotic. 12th ed. North Melbourne: Therapeutic Guidelines Limited, 2003.
  • 26. Shlaes DM, Moellering RC Jr. The United States Food and Drug Administration and the end of antibiotics [letter]. Clin Infect Dis 2002; 34: 420-422.
  • 27. World Health Organization report on infectious diseases 2000. Overcoming antimicrobial resistance. Geneva: WHO, 2000. Available at: (accessed Oct 2004).
  • 28. Turnidge JD, Nimmo GR, Francis G, on behalf of the Australian Group on Antimicrobial Resistance (AGAR). Evolution of resistance in Staphylococcus aureus in Australian teaching hospitals. Med J Aust 1996; 164: 68-71.
  • 29. Turnidge JD, Bell JM. Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcal aureus evolution in Australia over 35 years. Microb Drug Resist 2000; 6: 223-229.
  • 30. Nimmo GR, Bell JM, Mitchell D, et al. Antimicrobial resistance in Staphylococcus aureus in Australian teaching hospitals, 1989-1999. Microb Drug Resist 2003; 9: 155-160.
  • 31. Artsimovitch I, Chu C, Lynch AS, Landick R. A new class of bacterial RNA polymerase inhibitor affects nucleotide addition. Science 2003; 302: 650-654.


remove_circle_outline Delete Author
add_circle_outline Add Author

Do you have any competing interests to declare? *

I/we agree to assign copyright to the Medical Journal of Australia and agree to the Conditions of publication *
I/we agree to the Terms of use of the Medical Journal of Australia *
Email me when people comment on this article

Online responses are no longer available. Please refer to our instructions for authors page for more information.