Help or hindrance? - Recognising the threat of AMR

In 2016 it seems that we’ve jumped a new hurdle in tackling AMR – it’s a little bit like the stages of grief – you have to reach acceptance.

That’s not to say that as an industry we’ve been burying our heads in the sand. Many of our brightest minds have been striving to address the problem for years.

But beyond the industry, healthcare providers, the national press and the public at large are now starting to get on board with the scale of the problem.

Actually it’s the pharma sector which is responsible for kicking off a good year. In January’s World Economic Forum, 80 companies from pharma, medtech and biotech signed the Davos Declaration – a new pledge to work closely with governments around the world to tackle the problem.

Hot on the heels of that news, May saw the release of the UK’s O’Neill review – a long-anticipated, highly detailed report on the scale of the issue, and recommendations going forward.

So where are we now? The O’Neill team have highlighted the need to maintain momentum into 2017 and beyond, and it’s a valid point.

AMR in the public eye poses a similar threat to global warming. The mainstream media have done a great job in supporting the cause this year, but as time goes on we’re in danger of the subject falling into the doldrums of ‘slow news day’ editorials.

In the battle against climate change, scientists were frustrated when the media started using images of polar bears as the flag bearers (no pun intended) for a greener world. The problem with a polar bear is that it implies something distant, too distant to really worry about - somebody else’s problem.

And perhaps the threat of AMR falls into the same category, at least in media terms.

The emergence of the O’Neill review, whilst extremely useful, has a comforting effect on the public at large – the experts are dealing with it. We don’t need to worry.

But of course, people do need to worry. Or rather, they need to be thinking differently about antibiotics. The most urgent steps to be taken involve dramatically curbing their use in medicine and agriculture. But how do you take a household item out of the household?

That’s the first challenge.

Nevertheless, thanks to the media coverage of the past couple of years, we can now say that most people know there is a problem. That seems to be where we are in 2016 – we’ve reached that critical ‘acceptance’ step. But do enough people truly understand the problem?

If we return to the global warming example, we’re talking about an issue which has been making headlines for far longer than AMR. You’d think the general public would be pretty well versed on the matter, right? Wrong!

In just the same way that many people believe that global warming is a result of the hole in the ozone layer, a recent WHO study found that 76% of people think antibiotic resistance happens “when the body becomes resistant to antibiotics”.

66% of people apparently believe they’re at no risk of infection as long as they take antibiotics as prescribed, and most worryingly of all, 64% believe “medical experts” will solve the problem before it becomes too serious. It’s that polar bear problem all over again.

We’ve achieved a lot this year, and we have some focus and direction in fighting the good fight. But the mainstream media must continue to deliver a consistent and coherent message if we’re going to get everyone’s support.