ArticleJournal of pharmaceutical policy and practice2016
An assessment of the future impact of alternative technologies on antibiotics markets.
Article in Journal of pharmaceutical policy and practice, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- Probiotics beyond the farm: Benefits, costs, and considerations of using antibiotic alternatives in livestock.Frontiers in antibiotics · 2022Review
- Antimicrobial Peptides: the Achilles' Heel of Antibiotic Resistance?Probiotics and antimicrobial proteins · 2019Review
- Microbial-derived products as potential new antimicrobials.Veterinary research · 2018Review
- Phage therapy: awakening a sleeping giant.Emerging topics in life sciences · 2017Article
- Future pandemics might be caused by bacteria and not viruses: Recent advances in medical preventive practice.International journal of health sciencesArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 3 institutions in 5 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe increasing threat of antimicrobial resistance combined with the paucity of new classes of antibiotics represents a serious public health challenge. New treatment technologies could, in theory, have a significant impact on the future use of traditional antibiotics, be it by facilitating rational and responsible use or by product substitution in the existing antibiotics markets, including by reducing the incidence of bacterial infections through preventative approaches. The aim of this paper is to assess the potential of alternative technologies in reducing clinical use of and demand for antibiotics, and to briefly indicate which segments of the antibiotics market that might be impacted by these technologies.
methodsAn initial mapping exercise to identify the alternative technologies was followed by a review of relevant published and grey literature (
resultsTen alternative technologies were identified and analyzed for their potential impact on the antibiotics market. Of these, rapid point-of-care diagnostics, vaccines, fecal microbiota transplantation, and probiotics were considered to have a "high" or "medium" potential impact over a 10-20 year horizon. Therapeutic antibodies, antibiotic biomaterials, bacteriophages, antimicrobial nanoparticles, antimicrobial peptides, and anti-virulence materials were rated as having "low" potential impact.
conclusionDespite the apparent potential of the most promising alternative technologies to reduce demand, that reduction will likely only happen in limited segments of the antibiotics market or, in the case of preventing community acquired streptococcal infections by vaccination, in a low-price generics market segment. Thus, alternative technologies are not expected to represent any disincentive to antibiotics developers. Finally, it is unlikely that alternative technologies will displace the need for new classes, and sub-classes, of antibiotics in the short and medium terms.
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.