U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

21–484 2017

COMBATING SUPERBUGS: U.S. PUBLIC HEALTH 

RESPONSES TO ANTIBIOTIC RESISTANCE 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND 

INVESTIGATIONS 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND 

COMMERCE 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

JUNE 14, 2016 

Serial No. 114–153 

( 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Energy and Commerce 

energycommerce.house.gov 

(II) 

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE 

FRED UPTON, Michigan 

Chairman 

JOE BARTON, Texas 

Chairman Emeritus 

ED WHITFIELD, Kentucky 

JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois 

JOSEPH R. PITTS, Pennsylvania 

GREG WALDEN, Oregon 

TIM MURPHY, Pennsylvania 

MICHAEL C. BURGESS, Texas 

MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee 

Vice Chairman 

STEVE SCALISE, Louisiana 

ROBERT E. LATTA, Ohio 

CATHY MCMORRIS RODGERS, Washington 

GREGG HARPER, Mississippi 

LEONARD LANCE, New Jersey 

BRETT GUTHRIE, Kentucky 

PETE OLSON, Texas 

DAVID B. MCKINLEY, West Virginia 

MIKE POMPEO, Kansas 

ADAM KINZINGER, Illinois 

H. MORGAN GRIFFITH, Virginia 

GUS M. BILIRAKIS, Florida 

BILL JOHNSON, Ohio 

BILLY LONG, Missouri 

RENEE L. ELLMERS, North Carolina 

LARRY BUCSHON, Indiana 

BILL FLORES, Texas 

SUSAN W. BROOKS, Indiana 

MARKWAYNE MULLIN, Oklahoma 

RICHARD HUDSON, North Carolina 

CHRIS COLLINS, New York 

KEVIN CRAMER, North Dakota 

FRANK PALLONE, JR., New Jersey 

Ranking Member 

BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois 

ANNA G. ESHOO, California 

ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York 

GENE GREEN, Texas 

DIANA DEGETTE, Colorado 

LOIS CAPPS, California 

MICHAEL F. DOYLE, Pennsylvania 

JANICE D. SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois 

G.K. BUTTERFIELD, North Carolina 

DORIS O. MATSUI, California 

KATHY CASTOR, Florida 

JOHN P. SARBANES, Maryland 

JERRY MCNERNEY, California 

PETER WELCH, Vermont 

BEN RAY LUJA ́ N, New Mexico 

PAUL TONKO, New York 

JOHN A. YARMUTH, Kentucky 

YVETTE D. CLARKE, New York 

DAVID LOEBSACK, Iowa 

KURT SCHRADER, Oregon 

JOSEPH P. KENNEDY, III, Massachusetts 

TONY CA ́ RDENAS, California 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND INVESTIGATIONS

TIM MURPHY, Pennsylvania 

Chairman 

DAVID B. MCKINLEY, West Virginia 

Vice Chairman 

MICHAEL C. BURGESS, Texas 

MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee 

H. MORGAN GRIFFITH, Virginia 

LARRY BUCSHON, Indiana 

BILL FLORES, Texas 

SUSAN W. BROOKS, Indiana 

MARKWAYNE MULLIN, Oklahoma 

RICHARD HUDSON, North Carolina 

CHRIS COLLINS, New York 

KEVIN CRAMER, North Dakota 

JOE BARTON, Texas 

FRED UPTON, Michigan (ex officio) 

DIANA DEGETTE, Colorado 

Ranking Member 

JANICE D. SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois 

KATHY CASTOR, Florida 

PAUL TONKO, New York 

JOHN A. YARMUTH, Kentucky 

YVETTE D. CLARKE, New York 

JOSEPH P. KENNEDY, III, Massachusetts 

GENE GREEN, Texas 

PETER WELCH, Vermont 

FRANK PALLONE, JR., New Jersey (ex 

officio) 

(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

Hon. Tim Murphy, a Representative in Congress from the Commonwealth 

of Pennsylvania, opening statement ................................................................... 1 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 3 

Hon. Diana DeGette, a Representative in Congress from the state of Colorado, 

opening statement ................................................................................................ 4 

Hon. Fred Upton, a Representative in Congress from the State of Michigan, 

opening statement ................................................................................................ 6 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 7 

Hon. David B. McKinley, a Representative in Congress from the State of 

West Virginia, opening statement ...................................................................... 8 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 8 

Hon. Frank Pallone, Jr., a Representative in Congress from the State of 

New Jersey, opening statement .......................................................................... 9 

WITNESSES

Beth Bell, Director, National Center for Emerging and Zoonotic Infectious 

Disease, Centers for Disease Control ................................................................. 12 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 14 

Janet Woodcock, Director, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food 

and Drug Administration .................................................................................... 21 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 23 

Richard J. Hatchett, Acting Director, Biomedical Advanced Research And 

Development Authority ........................................................................................ 34 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 36 

Dennis M. Dixon, Division of Microbiology and Infectious Diseases, National 

Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, National Institutes of Health ... 45 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 47 

SUBMITTED MATERIAL

Committee memorandum ........................................................................................ 79 

(1) 

COMBATING SUPERBUGS: U.S. PUBLIC 

HEALTH RESPONSES TO ANTIBIOTIC RESISTANCE 

TUESDAY, JUNE 14, 2016 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND INVESTIGATIONS, 

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE, 

Washington, DC. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:00 a.m., in room 

2322, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Tim Murphy (chairman 

of the subcommittee) presiding. 

Present: Representatives Murphy, McKinley, Burgess, Blackburn, Bucshon, Flores, Brooks, Mullin, Hudson, Collins, Upton (ex 

officio), DeGette, Schakowsky, Castor, Tonko, Clarke, Kennedy, 

Green, and Pallone (ex officio). 

Staff Present: Gary Andres, Staff Director; Emily Felder, Counsel, Oversight and Investigations; Jay Gulshen, Staff Assistant; 

Brittany Havens, Oversight Associate, Oversight and Investigations; Charles Ingebretson, Chief Counsel, Oversight and Investigations; Alan Slobodin, Deputy Chief Counsel, Oversight; Dylan 

Vorbach, Deputy Press Secretary; Jeff Carroll, Minority Staff Director; Tiffany Guarascio, Minority Deputy Staff Director and Chief 

Health Advisor; Chris Knauer, Minority Oversight Staff Director; 

Una Lee, Minority Chief Oversight Counsel; Elizabeth Letter, Minority Professional Staff Member; and Andrew Souvall, Minority 

Director of Communications, Outreach and Member Services. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. TIM MURPHY, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA 

Mr. MURPHY. Good morning, meeting here of the Energy and 

Commerce Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations. I do 

want to announce to members this hearing is here and not in Room 

2123. I just want you to know. I was there, you were not. It was 

a very powerful, moving—— 

Mr. UPTON. There was a very long line of folks to get in. 

Mr. MURPHY. There was, so I figured it must be this hearing, but 

my apologies. It happens. 

So this is a hearing on U.S. public health response to antibiotic 

resistance. The subcommittee convenes this hearing today to examine public health responses to the challenge of antibiotic-resistant 

superbugs. One of the world’s most pressing health problems is the 

emergence of bacterial infections that are resistant to antibiotics. 

2 

And according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 

each year, 2 million Americans become sick with antibiotic-resistant infections, and of that, about 23,000 die. Globally, some institutions estimate up to 700,000 die each year from antibiotic-resistant 

infections, and without action, the researchers estimate 10 million 

people will die per year by 2050 from drug-resistant infections. 

The World Health Organization has declared that humanity is on 

the precipice of a post-antibiotic era where common infections may 

once again be lethal because bacteria have become resistant to the 

antibiotics existing to treat them. 

The antibiotic-resistance threat just got greater. Last month, a 

woman in my home State of Pennsylvania was diagnosed with an 

E. coli infection that had a rare gene called MCR–1, a new kind 

of superbug never before seen in the United States. Medical professionals were alarmed for two reasons. One, this new superbug is 

resistant to colistin, an antibiotic of last resort, which is used when 

no other antibiotics can fight the infection. And two, this MCR–1 

gene can move from one bacteria to another. Eventually, MCR–1 

could emerge with another superbug that is resistant to all antibiotics except for colistin and form an unstoppable superbug. 

In response to the discovery of the MCR–1 gene, CDC Director 

Dr. Tom Frieden commented that the medicine cabinet is empty for 

some patients. It is the end of the road unless we act urgently. If 

this threat is not stopped, minor infections may become life-threatening and treatment for diseases such as cancer, diabetes, or routine surgeries will be at risk. 

Fortunately, the end of the road is not here yet, and Congress 

and Federal agencies are working diligently to counter the effects 

of antibiotic resistance. These efforts confront the two main contributors to the spread of antibiotic resistance: the overprescription 

of antibiotics and the lack of new antibiotic development. 

Since the discovery of penicillin in the early 20th century, almost 

every type of bacteria has become less responsive to antibiotics. As 

soon as an antibiotic goes into wide use among the general public, 

bacteria evolve to become resistant. 

A study published last month in the Journal of the American 

Medical Association, known as JAMA, found that nearly a third of 

antibiotics prescribed in doctors’ offices, emergency rooms and hospital-based clinics in the United States are not needed. This 

amounts to nearly 47 million unnecessary prescriptions given out 

each year. That is 47 million unnecessary prescriptions each year. 

And the number in this report most likely undercount the use of 

antibiotics because the data did not include urgent care clinics, retail pharmacies, dentist offices, and prescriptions given over the 

phone by nurse practitioners and physician assistants. 

To combat antibiotic overuse, the CDC has partnered with the 

FDA to advocate for antibiotic stewardship programs in health care 

facilities throughout the United States. The CDC has issued guidelines about how hospitals can minimize inappropriate or excessive 

use of antibiotics, which could help reduce antibiotic overprescription. Reducing the inappropriate use of antibiotics will help, but it 

can only slow the spread of antibiotic-resistant bacteria, new antibiotics, and alternative therapies must be developed. 

3 

Despite the need for antibiotic development, as of March 2016 

there were only 37 new antibiotics in development, and just 13 

were in phase 3 clinical trials. These drugs would potentially address many resistant bacteria, but they are not enough. To combat 

this, in February of this year the Biomedical Advanced Research 

and Development Authority, known as BARDA, has collaborated 

with NIH to establish a biopharmaceutical accelerator that will 

support research and development to incentivize antibacterial drug 

development. This accelerator will, one, fund development of antibacterial products; and two, quickly move successful drug candidates through early development; three, provide business and 

drug development guidance; and four, decrease barriers to research 

and development of antibiotics. 

The CDC, FDA, NIH, and BARDA have and continue to make 

significant and ongoing contributions to implement the National 

Action Plan for Combating Antibiotic-Resistant Bacteria released 

last year, which outlines steps to implement a national strategy to 

combat antibiotic resistance. Additionally, Congress has increased 

funding for these initiatives by 57 percent over last fiscal year for 

a total of more than $375 million. 

Despite these promising developments, we are facing a public 

health challenge, and we need to ensure that the Federal Government is taking the appropriate action to protect the American public. 

So I want to thank the witnesses for appearing here today before 

the subcommittee. I look forward to hearing all of your testimony 

on this very, very important issue. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Murphy follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. TIM MURPHY

The subcommittee convenes this hearing today to examine public health responses 

to the challenge of antibiotic resistant ‘‘superbugs.’’ 

One of the world’s most pressing health problems is the emergence of bacterial 

infections that are resistant to antibiotics. 

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, each year 2 million 

Americans become sick every year with antibiotic-resistant infections, and of that 

about 23,000 die. 

Globally, some institutions estimate up to 700,000 die each year from antibiotic 

resistant infections. Without action, the researchers estimate 10 million people will 

die per year by 2050 from drug resistant infections. 

The World Health Organization has declared that humanity is on the precipice 

of a ‘‘post-antibiotic era,’’ where common infections may once again be lethal because 

bacteria have become resistant to the antibiotics existing to treat them. 

The antibiotic-resistance threat just got greater. Last month, a woman in my 

home state of Pennsylvania was diagnosed with an E. coli infection that had a rare 

gene called MCR–1, a new kind of superbug never before seen in the United States. 

Medical professionals were alarmed for two reasons. One, this new superbug is 

resistant to colistin [Co—liss—tin], an antibiotic of last resort which is used when 

no other antibiotics can fight the infection. 

Two, this MCR–1 gene can move from one bacteria to another. Eventually, MCR– 

1 could merge with another superbug that is resistant to all antibiotics, except for 

colistin, and form an unstoppable superbug. 

In response to the discovery of the MCR–1 gene, CDC Director Dr. Tom Frieden 

commented that ‘‘the medicine cabinet is empty for some patients . . . . It is the 

end of the road unless we act urgently.’’ If the threat is not stopped, minor infections may become life threatening and treatment for disease such as cancer, diabetes or routine surgeries will be at risk. 

Fortunately, the end of the road is not here yet. Congress and Federal agencies 

are working diligently to counter the effects of antibiotic resistance. 

4 

These efforts confront the two main contributors to the spread of antibiotic resistance: The over-prescription of antibiotics and the lack of new antibiotic development. 

Since the discovery of penicillin in the early 20th century, almost every type of 

bacteria has become less responsive to antibiotics. As soon as an antibiotic goes in 

to wide use among the general public, bacteria evolve to become resistant. 

A study published last month in the Journal of the American Medical Association 

(JAMA) found that nearly a third of antibiotics prescribed in doctors’ offices, emergency rooms, and hospital-based clinics in the United States are not needed. This 

amounts to nearly 47 million unnecessary prescriptions given out each year. 

And the numbers in this report most likely undercount the use of antibiotics, because the data did not include urgent care clinics, retail pharmacies, dentists’ offices, and prescriptions given over the phone, and by nurse practitioners and physician assistants. 

To combat antibiotic over-use, the CDC has partnered with FDA to advocate for 

antibiotic ‘‘stewardship’’ programs in health care facilities throughout the United 

States. The CDC has issued guidelines about how hospitals can minimize inappropriate or excessive use of antibiotics, which could help reduce antibiotic over-prescription. 

Reducing the inappropriate use of antibiotics will help, but it can only slow the 

spread of antibiotic resistant bacteria. New antibiotics and alternative therapies 

must be developed. 

Despite the need for antibiotic development, as of March 2016, there were only 

37 new antibiotics in development. Just 13 were in phase 3 clinical trials. These 

drugs would potentially address many resistant bacteria—but they are not enough. 

To combat this, in February of this year, the Biomedical Advanced Research and 

Development Authority (BARDA) has collaborated with NIH to establish a ‘‘Biopharmaceutical Accelerator’’ that will support research and development to 

incentivize antibacterial drug development. This Accelerator will (1) fund development of antibacterial products, (2) quickly move successful drug candidates through 

early development, (3) provide business and drug development guidance, and (4) decrease barriers to research and development of antibiotics. 

The CDC, FDA, NIH, and BARDA have, and continue to make, significant and 

ongoing contributions to implement the National Action Plan for Combating Antibiotic-Resistant Bacteria released last year, which outlines steps to implement a national strategy to combat antibiotic resistance. 

Additionally, Congress has increased funding for these initiatives by 57 percent 

over last fiscal year, for a total of more than $375 million. 

Despite these promising developments, we are facing a public health challenge 

and we need to ensure that the federal government is taking the appropriate action 

to protect the American public. 

I would like to thank the witnesses for appearing before the Subcommittee today 

and I look forward to hearing your testimony on this very important issue. 

Mr. MURPHY. I now recognize the Ranking Member of the subcommittee, Ms. DeGette of Colorado, for 5 minutes. 

And I now recognize the ranking member of the subcommittee, 

Ms. DeGette of Colorado, for 5 minutes. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. DIANA DEGETTE, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF COLORADO 

Ms. DEGETTE. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman. This is a really important hearing. We have been worried for quite some time 

here in Congress and at the agencies about the risk of resistant 

antibiotics. And this report last month about the superbug has 

been quite concerning to all of us. 

The bacterium’s resistance to colistin is particularly concerning 

because in this country physicians use colistin as the treatment of 

last resort when other antibiotics are no longer effective. Public 

health experts fear that this gene could jump to other bacteria that 

are already resistant to most other antibiotics. 

5 

Here is another observation about Dr. Frieden. He said, ‘‘It basically shows that the end of the road isn’t very far away for antibiotics, that we may be in a situation where we have patients in 

our intensive care units or patients getting urinary tract infections 

for which we do not have antibiotics.’’ 

Obviously, we are all concerned about this, and I know all the 

witnesses and the members share this concern. We really don’t 

want to revert to a time when physicians no longer have the tools 

to treat infections. Even common and once easily treated infections 

could once again prove life-threatening. 

That this newest superbug has emerged on our home turf should 

not surprise us. Public health and infectious disease experts have 

been sounding the alarm for years. But I hope that this new discovery will lend urgency to efforts to monitor and fight antibiotic 

resistance. 

The CDC has reported for decades that overuse of antibiotics and 

poor hygiene practices in hospitals and other inpatient health care 

settings contribute to the formation of drug-resistant bacteria. For 

example, studies showed that 30 to 50 percent of antibiotics prescribed in hospitals were unnecessary or inappropriate. Public 

health experts have similarly warned us about overprescribing of 

antibiotics in outpatient settings. A recent Pew study, for example, 

found that about 30 percent of all outpatient office visits in the 

U.S. resulted in the prescribing of an antibiotic, but 30 percent of 

those, which is almost 50, 5–0 million prescriptions are unnecessary. 

Now, in the last decade these issues have received increased attention and funding, but as our witnesses will testify today, there 

is still far more to do. And I want to hear from our witnesses in 

particular in two different areas. The first one is antibiotic stewardship programs, which can both decrease the spread of infections 

and reduce the inappropriate use of antibiotics. 

We need to improve public health education to ensure that patients and physicians understand how and when antibiotics should 

be prescribed. We need such stewardship programs both in health 

care facilities like hospitals and also in communities. I am hoping 

I can hear from our witnesses about antibiotic stewardship and 

whether we are seeing positive outcomes from current efforts. 

I also am interested to see how antibiotic stewardship programs 

can result in more appropriate and effective use of antibiotics in 

animals. I think more needs to be done to shed a light on these 

issues, and I am interested to see what the witnesses will have to 

say. I do wish that we had a witness from the USDA because antibiotic overuse in animals is a really big problem. 

The second area I want to hear about is the development of new 

antibiotics, diagnostics, and even vaccines to address the issue of 

antibiotic resistance. All of these agencies today play a critical role 

in the development of new drugs and other tools. 

I can’t lose the opportunity to talk about our wonderful bill that 

Chairman Upton and I have cosponsored, along with all the other 

members of this subcommittee. Earlier this year, the 21st Century 

Cures Act passed out of the Energy and Commerce Committee 

unanimously and was then passed by the full House on an overwhelming basis. The bill includes the text of the Antibiotic DevelVerDate Nov 24 2008 10:33 Apr 12, 2017 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 I:\MY DOCS\HEARINGS 114\114-153 CHRIS
6 

opment to Advance Patient Treatment Act, or ADAPT Act. This is 

a really important bill that was originally cosponsored by Congressman Green and Congressman Shimkus, and it creates a new FDA 

approval pathway for limited population antibacterial drugs. 

This legislation is designed to provide an approval process for 

drugs that affect a limited population of patients with serious or 

life-threatening infections or for drugs that fill an unmet need. We 

really need to pass the ADAPT Act. The easiest way to do this is 

of course for the Senate to pass the 21st Century Cures bill, and 

frankly, we keep hearing assurances that this will be happening 

any day. So maybe this urgent issue can be used to help enact this 

important law into law. 

So, Mr. Chairman, I really want to thank you for having this 

hearing. It is an important one. And I want to thank our witnesses 

again for coming today, and I yield back. 

Mr. MURPHY. The gentlelady yields back. I now recognize the 

chairman of the full committee, Mr. Upton, for 5 minutes. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. FRED UPTON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MICHIGAN 

Mr. UPTON. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

So today, we gather to discuss the U.S. public health response to 

antibiotic resistance in light of the recent discovery of a new 

superbug. This superbug gene was first discovered by Chinese and 

British researchers in pigs, raw pork, and in a small number of 

folks in China in November of last year, but a recent case of course 

of the woman in Pennsylvania with the E. coli is the first discovery 

of this rare gene known as MCR here in the U.S. 

A headline in the Post captured the urgency: ‘‘The superbug that 

doctors have been dreading just reached the U.S.’’ Concerns about 

this new threat are real indeed and they are being felt in Michigan 

and throughout the country. 

The detection of this new antibiotic-resistant gene is very troubling because it signals the potential arrival of an unstoppable 

superbug. The gene is resistant to a last-report antibiotic and has 

the ability to move from one bacterium to another. While MCR–1 

on its own is treatable by other antibiotics, disease experts tell us 

that the fear is not if but when this gene transfers and merges 

with another superbug that is resistant to all other antibiotics. 

This would create the nightmare scenario of a bacterial infection 

that cannot be stopped with any known antibiotic treatment. 

The continuing evolution of bacteria, the overprescription of antibiotics, and the lack of new antibiotic development have all contributed to the problem. Our understanding of the MCR–1 gene is 

growing by the day, but there are still many questions that remain 

to be answered before we can be assured that we are doing everything that we can to protect the American people from this 

superbug and future challenges that arise from antibiotic resistance. 

The questions include how did the bug get here to the U.S.? 

Where did it come from? How does it spread? Are we prepared for 

an outbreak of antibiotic-resistant bacterium? What is the Federal 

Government’s plan to confront the public health challenge? In addition to our concerns about this particular superbug, we need to 

7 

take a look at antibiotic resistance as a whole. And in response to 

the discovery of MCR gene in Pennsylvania, Dr. Frieden commented that it basically shows us that the end of the road isn’t 

very far away for antibiotics. If that is true, minor bacterial infections could suddenly become fatal. 

So we need to evaluate antibiotic development and assess where 

the science is, what barriers exist. How do we promote the discovery of new antibiotics? And as my good friend and colleague Ms. 

DeGette said, through the GAIN Act of 2012 and the ADAPT Act, 

which is part of 21st Century Cures, this committee has made a 

good number of strides to foster and encourage the development of 

new antibiotics that can fight the superbugs. In the meantime, we 

need to take appropriate measures such as antibiotic stewardship 

program to ensure that the antibiotics that already exist are being 

prescribed appropriately. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Upton follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. FRED UPTON

Today, we gather to discuss the U.S. public health response to antibiotic resistance in light of the recent discovery of a new superbug. 

This superbug gene was first discovered by Chinese and British researchers in 

pigs, raw pork, and in a small number of people in China in November last year, 

but a recent case of a woman in Pennsylvania with E. coli is the first discovery of 

this rare gene, known as MCR–1, in the United States. A headline in The Washington Post captured the urgency—‘‘The superbug that doctors have been dreading 

just reached the U.S.’’ Concerns about this new threat are real, and they are being 

felt in Michigan and throughout the country. 

The detection of this new antibiotic-resistant gene is troubling because it signals 

the potential arrival of an unstoppable superbug. This gene is resistant to a lastresort antibiotic and has the ability to move from one bacterium to another. While 

MCR–1 on its own is treatable by other antibiotics, disease experts tell us the fear 

is not if, but when, this gene transfers and merges with another superbug that is 

resistant to all other antibiotics. This would create the nightmare scenario of a bacterial infection that cannot be stopped with any known antibiotic treatment. 

The continuing evolution of bacteria, the over-prescription of antibiotics, and the 

lack of new antibiotic development have all contributed to this problem. Our understanding of the MCR–1 gene is growing by the day, but there are still many questions that remain to be answered before we can be assured that we are doing everything that we can to protect the American people from this superbug and future 

challenges that arise from antibiotic-resistance. 

The questions include: How did the bug get to the United States? Where did it 

come from? How does it spread? Are we prepared for an outbreak of an antibioticresistant bacterium? What is the federal government’s plan to confront this public 

health challenge? 

In addition to our concerns about this particular superbug, we need to take a look 

at antibiotic resistance as a whole. In response to the discovery of the MCR–1 gene 

in the Pennsylvania case, the CDC Director, Dr. Tom Frieden, commented that ‘‘[i]t 

basically shows us that the end of the road isn’t very far away for antibiotics.’’ If 

that is true, minor bacterial infections could suddenly become fatal. 

We need to evaluate antibiotic development and assess where the science is, what 

barriers exist, and how we can promote the discovery of new antibiotics. Through 

the GAIN Act in 2012, and the ADAPT Act which is part of 21st Century Cures, 

this committee has made numerous strides to foster and encourage the development 

of new antibiotics that can fight these superbugs. 

In the meantime, we need to take appropriate measures, such as antibiotic stewardship programs, to ensure that antibiotics that already exist are being prescribed 

appropriately. 

We thank the experts joining us this morning to discuss the federal response to 

this superbug and how antibiotic resistance is being addressed both as a nation and 

globally. The last thing we can afford is looking back to today, and wishing we had 

done more. 

8 

Mr. UPTON. I appreciate the testimony and the dialogue with our 

experts, and I yield back to Mr. McKinley. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. DAVID B. MCKINLEY, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF WEST 

VIRGINIA 

Mr. MCKINLEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Antibiotics, it is my understanding—I am the engineer in the 

room, not the practicing physician, but my understanding is that 

the antibiotics are not effective against viruses, and this seems to 

be a good scientific fact from which to begin with. But yet in America you have heard the statistics. A third of the antibiotics are 

overprescribed by doctors. The CDC said that 47 million prescriptions were unnecessarily prescribed or inappropriately prescribed 

for cases that don’t respond to the antibiotics. 

And then the other point it comes down to is that we only represent 5 percent of the population in the world, so we have got 95 

percent of the world out there—in many respects we know there 

are 20 nations in Europe and we know Mexico gives you antibiotics 

over the counter. And that tends to get to a point where we are 

probably going to overprescribe or they are going to be inappropriately used and our body will be able to build up resistance to that 

as a result of this inappropriate use for that. 

And then we go to this, fast-forward to today with the woman in 

Pennsylvania. The interesting part is going to be how we are going 

to respond to that because how did she get it and what are we 

going to do to respond to that? So watching the time frame with 

this, we don’t know if these antibiotics are used to help will even 

be effective in the future because of this overuse, overprescription. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. McKinley follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. DAVID B. MCKINLEY

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for holding this hearing on this important public health challenge. 

When we think about superbugs, or antibiotic resistant bacteria, we think about 

two different categories: what we know, and what we don’t know. 

We know that doctors and patients alike are partially to blame for the over-use 

of antibiotics. Doctors prescribe antibiotics when they are not necessary, and patients ask for antibiotics, thinking they will make them better, faster. 

We know that antibiotics are becoming less effective in treating bacterial infections, because bacteria are evolving to become resistant. This will make it harder 

to treat not only common infections, such as strep throat, but also more serious conditions like cancer. 

Patients fighting cancer undergo treatment that damages the immune system, 

which makes them more susceptible to infections. The same is true for organ transplant patients. 

We know that the current crop of antibiotics in development and clinical trials 

are not sufficient. Researchers are starting to examine alternative therapies, other 

than antibiotics, to treat bacterial infections. 

Now, on to what we don’t know. We don’t know how the dangerous MCR–1 gene 

came into the United States. We don’t know how the woman in Pennsylvania contracted the MCR–1 gene, since she had not traveled outside the United States recently, and tests did not find the gene in her close family and friends. 

We don’t know how long it will take for the MCR–1 gene to transfer to bacteria 

that are resistant to all other antibiotics to create bacteria that cannot be treated 

with existing antibiotics. And when that happens, we don’t know how far or how 

quickly it will spread, and how doctors will treat it. 

Fortunately, Congress and Federal agencies are taking action, and they did not 

wait until this MCR–1 gene showed up. Over the last several years, the Federal govVerDate Nov 24 2008 10:33 Apr 12, 2017 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 I:\MY DOCS\HEARINGS 114\114-153 CHRIS
9 

ernment has ramped up its efforts to surveil and track these dangerous bacteria so 

that scientists and medical professionals can be as prepared as possible to confront 

these threats. 

The CDC has led the coordinated effort between the DOD and the USDA to respond to the discovery of the MCR–1 gene. The USDA has also been investigating 

the source of the MCR–1 gene, and discovered the gene in a pig in the United 

States. The USDA is currently working to identify the source of that gene as well. 

Through the National Antimicrobial Resistance Monitoring System, the FDA, 

CDC, and USDA all conduct research on bacteria found in food, animals, and humans. These surveillance methods track the bacteria and determine how resistance 

arises and transfers between bacteria. 

Also, as part of a National Action Plan, CDC is ramping up its network of regional and local labs to track the spread of the MCR–1 gene and other new forms 

of antibiotic resistance. 

The more we know about these superbugs—where they are, how they become resistant, and how they are transmitted to humans—the more we can prepare as a 

nation to combat these challenges. 

Thank you to our witnesses for testifying today, and I look forward to a productive 

conversation. 

Mr. MCKINLEY. So I am looking forward to your testimony today, 

and I yield back the balance of my time to Dr. Burgess. 

Mr. BURGESS. I thank the gentleman for yielding. And I do want 

to thank our panelists for being here today. And I am most interested in knowing how you all are going to be working together on 

an interagency basis to see that we achieve the goals. I would like 

to hear from you perhaps some of your thoughts on what the legislative branch might do in addition to getting the Cures bill passed 

over in the other body. 

And then finally, there was a significant amount of money made 

available in this area last December, and I would like to hear from 

each of you how that money has been allocated and utilized and 

as to whether or not you thought it had been of any benefit. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will yield back. 

Mr. MURPHY. Thank you. I now recognize the ranking member 

of the full committee, Mr. Pallone, for 5 minutes. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. FRANK PALLONE, JR., A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY 

Mr. PALLONE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Antibiotic resistance is a significant domestic and global threat 

to both public health and national security, and I am glad we are 

taking the opportunity to examine this issue. I want to begin by 

emphasizing that antibiotics are incredibly valuable tools that have 

made once-fatal infections easily treatable, and antibiotics have 

transformed our health care system. 

But as the use of antibiotics has spread, the threat posed by antibiotic-resistant bacteria or superbugs has grown. For that effective, 

coordinated, and decisive government action, we risk entering into 

a post-antibiotic world where common infections could once again 

become life-threatening. 

The recent discovery of the MCR–1 gene on a colistin-resistant 

strain of the E. coli bacteria signals that this day is closer than it 

has ever been before. We see alarming statistics about the rates of 

overprescribing of antibiotics both for unnecessary and inappropriate use. At the same time, we have seen that drug manufacturers are unable to produce enough new drugs to meet this threat. 

10 

There is no question that our arsenal of effective antibiotics is dangerously low today as a result of antibiotic resistance, and it is a 

dire situation. 

That said, I am encouraged by the attention and funding we 

have placed on antibiotic resistance in recent years. Last year, the 

White House unveiled its National Action Plan for Combating Antibiotic-Resistant Bacteria, which sets forth ambitious goals to fight 

antibiotic resistance. All the agencies before us today play critical 

roles in that effort. In fiscal year 2016, we are devoting over $830 

million to fighting antibiotic resistance, and President Obama has 

requested $1.1 billion towards this effort for fiscal year 2017. And 

these are important investments. 

But in order for us to effectively address antibiotic resistance we 

need to make this a priority for the foreseeable future. This is not 

an issue we can address for a few years and then ignore. Antibiotic 

resistance is a reality of nature. Bacteria begin to mutate and develop resistance as soon as a new antibiotic begins to be used. We 

must develop long-term strategies and guarantee long-term funding 

to fight antibiotic resistance, and once we have begun implementing those strategies and ramping up funding, we must follow 

through on our commitments. 

It is also important to emphasize that this is a global threat. It 

is not enough to address resistance here in the United States and 

hope that it will keep us protected. And from a global perspective, 

we must recognize that we are only as strong as our weakest link. 

In some places, antibiotics are used sparingly in the United States 

are available over the counter. In many countries, a lack of hygiene, sanitation, and basic infection control in medical settings results in increased antibiotic consumption. 

If we do not want these superbugs here in the United States, we 

need to stop them from developing both here and abroad, and we 

must also improve global surveillance of antibiotic-resistant bacteria and antibiotic consumption. Stopping the spread of antibioticresistant bacteria is a global threat, and therefore, solutions must 

be global in nature. 

So I just want to thank the witnesses, look forward to the promising work at each of your agencies and how we in Congress can 

be your partners in moving forward. And I yield my remaining 

time to Mr. Green of Texas. 

Mr. GREEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thanks to our ranking 

member for yielding to me. 

As said before, researchers have found a person in the United 

States carrying bacteria resistance to antibiotics of last resort, an 

alarming development that could mean the end of the road for antibiotics. For years, scientific leaders across the globe have been 

warning if we don’t take swift, aggressive action, a post-antibiotic 

era in which modern medicine we take for granted is no longer safe 

because we will not be able to control infection from childbirth, in 

surgery, to dialysis and chemotherapy. Even simple cuts and 

wounds could be at increased risk of turning fatal without effective 

antibiotic treatments. 

Alarmingly, at a time when resistance is rising, a pipeline for 

new antibiotics has dried up. Resistance can and must be slowed, 

11 

but it cannot be stopped, and we need new classes of antibiotics to 

combat drug-resistant antibiotics. 

The public value of antibiotics is difficult to overestimate, yet 

there is a widening acknowledged market fail when it comes to 

antibiotics. We need meaningful research incentives, strong publicprivate partnerships, and flexible clinical trials. That is why not 

only myself but our committee championed the ADAPT Act. It 

passed in the 21st Century Cures. It would enable the FDA to work 

with sponsors and reduce regulatory barriers to antibiotic drug development. 

ADAPT offers one tool Congress can enact to address the lack of 

effective treatments against superbugs. I look forward to hearing 

more about that proposal and other ideas Congress should consider 

in the ongoing efforts to address this public health crisis. 

And again, I will yield back my 14 seconds. 

Mr. MURPHY. The gentleman yields back. 

I ask unanimous consent that the members’ written opening 

statements be introduced into the record. And without objections, 

the documents will be entered into the record. 

I would now like to introduce the witnesses of our first panel for 

today’s hearing. The first witness on today’s panel is Dr. Beth Bell. 

Dr. Bell is a Director of the National Center for Emerging and 

Zoonotic Infectious Diseases with the CDC. 

We would also like to welcome again Dr. Janet Woodcock. Dr. 

Woodcock is currently Director of the FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research. 

Our third witness on today’s panel is Dr. Richard Hatchett. Dr. 

Hatchett is currently serving as acting director for the Biomedical 

Advanced Research and Development Authority within HHS Office 

of the Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and Response. 

Our final witness is Dr. Dennis Dixon. Dr. Dixon joins us from 

the NIAID’s Division of Microbiology and Infectious Diseases. 

I would like to thank all the witnesses for appearing before the 

subcommittee today. You are all aware that the committee is holding an investigative hearing, and when doing so has the practice 

of taking testimony under oath. Do any of you have an objection 

to taking testimony under oath? 

The chair then advises that you are under the rules of the House 

and the rules of the committee you are entitled to be advised by 

counsel. Do any of you desire to be advised by counsel during the 

testimony today? 

Seeing no request for that, in that case, will you all please rise, 

raise your right hand, and I will swear you in. 

[Witnesses sworn.] 

Mr. MURPHY. Thank you. All the witnesses have answered in the 

affirmative, and you are now under oath and subject to the penalties set forth in title 18, section 1001 of the United States Code. 

I will have you each give a 5-minute summary of your written 

statement. Please pay attention to the timing and turn the microphone on and bring it as close to your mouth as you can. Thank 

you. You may begin, Dr. Bell. You are recognized for 5 minutes. 

12 

STATEMENTS OF DR. BETH BELL, DIRECTOR, NATIONAL CENTER FOR EMERGING AND ZOONOTIC INFECTIOUS DISEASE, 

CENTERS FOR DISEASE CONTROL; DR. JANET WOODCOCK, 

DIRECTOR, CENTER FOR DRUG EVALUATION AND RESEARCH, FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION; DR. RICHARD 

J. HATCHETT, ACTING DIRECTOR, BIOMEDICAL ADVANCED 

RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY; AND DENNIS 

M. DIXON, DIVISION OF MICROBIOLOGY AND INFECTIOUS 

DISEASES, NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF ALLERGY AND INFECTIOUS DISEASES, NATIONAL INSTITUTES OF HEALTH 

STATEMENT OF DR. BETH BELL 

Dr. BELL. Thank you. Good morning, Chairman Murphy, Ranking Member DeGette, and members of the subcommittee. I am Dr. 

Beth Bell, director of the National Center for Emerging and 

Zoonotic Infectious Diseases at the Centers for Disease Control and 

Prevention. And thank you for the opportunity to testify before you 

today. 

CDC works 24/7 to save lives and protect people against health 

threats, including the threat of potentially untreatable infections. 

With support from Congress, CDC is working to improve the Nation’s capacity to detect, respond, and prevent antibiotic-resistant 

threats in health care settings and across communities to protect 

Americans and save lives. 

Using the resources provided by Congress in fiscal year 2016, 

CDC is working on four fronts to support transformative improvements in our national capability to identify and respond to antibiotic resistance. First, CDC will invest the largest portion of this 

funding in our 50 states, six largest cities, and Puerto Rico. CDC 

will support state activities to improve the detection and prevention of AR infections transmitted across health care and community 

settings. These are just-in-time investments as the pace and challenges of antibiotic resistance are accelerating and every state 

needs capacity to take appropriate action. 

Second, CDC’s antibiotic resistance lab network will provide infrastructure and lab capacity through seven regional labs across 

the country. These labs will be able to detect resistant organisms 

recovered from human samples and new forms of antibiotic resistance. CDC will also provide support for labs in all States to test 

for CRE, the nightmare bacteria. 

Third, CDC’s Advanced Molecular Detection initiative is another 

important tool in our efforts to identify and solve more outbreaks 

faster. Because of innovations developed through this AMD initiative, CDC will be able to scale up whole genome sequencing of multiple foodborne pathogens to better understand foodborne antibiotic 

resistance patterns. Through the National Antimicrobial Resistance 

Monitoring System, NARMS, sequences from animals, from retail 

meat, and from humans will be compared to identify new ways of 

preventing human infections. 

Finally, our ability to reduce antibiotic resistance will depend in 

part on improving antibiotic use, and we are working towards that 

through better measurement, through expansion of stewardship 

programs, and through educational campaigns. 

13 

The administration’s budget request for fiscal year 2017 includes 

an increase of $40 million for year 2 of CDC’s Antibiotic Resistance 

Solutions initiative. And so in fiscal year 2017, in addition to sustaining AR capacity started in ’16, CDC will expand state antibiotic 

resistance prevention programs to better respond to outbreaks, to 

improve prescribing, and prevent antibiotic-resistant infections 

across all health care settings. 

These collective investments have a direct impact on the response to AR threats, including the emergence of the MCR–1 gene 

in the United States. In May, Department of Defense scientists announced the first discovery of the MCR–1 gene in bacteria isolated 

from a person in the United States. Although there is not an immediate threat to the public or the current health of this patient, this 

is an important development for the United States. The antibiotic 

colistin is used as a rescue drug to treat patients with multidrugresistant infections like CRE. 

The MCR–1 gene makes bacteria resistant to colistin. The gene 

exists on a plasmid, which is a small piece of DNA that is capable 

of moving from one bacterium to another, spreading antibiotic resistance among bacterial species. The presence of the MCR–1 gene 

and its ability to share its colistin resistance with other bacteria 

such as CRE raises the possibility of a bacteria that is resistant to 

every antibiotic. 

USDA also discovered MCR–1 in E. coli isolates collected from 

two different pig intestines. By comparing the DNA sequences of 

all three isolates, Federal scientists have determined that the isolates from the pigs are different from that from the human. 

Yesterday, CDC issued an alert to proactively notify states, hospitals, and clinical laboratories about the availability of new detection tools for MCR–1 and to reiterate recommendations for infection prevention, environmental cleaning, and reporting to public 

health. 

The identification of MCR–1 vividly illustrates our domestic and 

global challenges of antibiotic resistance. MCR–1 was first identified in China in November of last year, and in less than 6 months 

has been identified in a human and two animals in the United 

States. Antibiotic use anywhere can potentially affect any one of 

us. 

The emergence and reemergence of health threats, including 

those caused by antibiotic-resistant bacteria, is something we can 

expect to continue to see in the future. If we lose antibiotics, we 

could lose the ability to effectively treat sepsis and to provide the 

care to cancer patients, to organ transplant recipients, or burn and 

trauma victims. 

So thank you again for the opportunity to appear before you 

today, and I look forward to the opportunity to answer your questions. 

[The prepared statement of Beth Bell follows:] 

14 


21484.001
15 


21484.002
16 


21484.003
17 


21484.004
18 


21484.005
19 


21484.006
20 


21484.007
21 

Mr. MURPHY. Thank you. Dr. Woodcock, you are recognized for 

5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF DR. JANET WOODCOCK 

Dr. WOODCOCK. Thank you for holding a hearing on this critical 

topic. 

FDA is involved in many fronts in the fight against resistant organisms. We’re participating actively in the CARB initiative and 

collaborating internationally and also of course with our Federal 

partners represented here. Our Center for Veterinary Medicine 

oversees animal drugs. They have received commitments from the 

manufacturers are medically important antibiotics to submit supplements by the end of the year. As a result of this, these drugs 

will have to be prescribed by a veterinarian and can’t be used for 

growth promotion purposes. 

Our Center for Devices and Radiologic Health regulates in vitro 

diagnostics or test kits, including antimicrobial susceptibility tests 

and diagnostics. They’re seeing a growing pipeline of rapid diagnostic tests under development. This is very good news. These tests 

are intended to identify if a person has a bacterial infection or— 

versus a virus or has bacteria circulating in the blood or even rapidly diagnose certain types of resistant organisms. So we hope 

these development programs are successful. 

They also plan to issue guidance on what they call coordinated 

development of susceptibility tests. So as we have new 

antimicrobials approved by Center for Drugs, we could have susceptibility tests also available that could be interpreted by clinicians. 

Our Center for Biologics regulates vaccines. We know that prevention is a best approach to disease, and of course there are some 

vaccines for microbial diseases, and we would hope that more are 

going to be developed. 

The Center for Drug Evaluation and Research that I head regulates antimicrobials. We’ve seen the percent of infections treated by 

common antibiotics shrink over time, as everybody’s been saying, 

as resistance grows. CDER’s been actively implementing the GAIN 

Act that Congress passed several years ago. We’ve granted 107 

qualified infectious disease product designations to 63 different 

molecules. The designated products can receive fast-track designation, and they get a priority review. On approval, they receive additional 5 years of market exclusivity, so this is an incentive of 

course. Five designated antibacterial drugs and one antifungal 

drug have been approved since GAIN was enacted. 

We continue to work on streamlining drug development. We’ve 

issued guidelines. We’re trying to lower the barriers, but many of 

the barriers, as I’m sure we’ll discuss, are either scientific or economic barriers to new antimicrobials. 

Now, there are further efforts going on in lowering the barriers. 

I really commend BARDA who is exploring the use of a master 

common protocol. We’re working with them, novel ways of studying 

these that lower the barriers and make some types of studies actually feasible. 

The 21st Century Cures bill that was passed in the House contains provisions for the limited population use provision, and the 

22 

Senate PATH Act does mirror that. We’re also very interested in 

the issue of antimicrobial break points and the use of a more rapid 

and agile method for changing the break point designations. 

Finally, though, drug development in this area remains fragile 

and weak. The incentives that have been put in place apparently 

are not enough to overcome the scientific challenges that the industry faces in finding new targets and developing these and then actually making money on them. Much more needs to be done, I 

think, to address this threat across all the groups represented here, 

but the drug development area in particular needs further examination. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Janet Woodcock follows:] 

23 


21484.008
24 


21484.009
25 


21484.010
26 


21484.011
27 


21484.012
28 


21484.013
29 


21484.014
30 


21484.015
31 


21484.016
32 


21484.017
33 


21484.018
34 

Mr. MURPHY. Thank you, Dr. Woodcock. 

I now recognize Dr. Hatchett for 5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF DR. RICHARD J. HATCHETT 

Dr. HATCHETT. Good morning, Chairman Murphy, Ranking Member DeGette, and members of the committee. Thank you for inviting me to testify about our efforts to combat antibiotic-resistant 

bacteria. I am Dr. Richard Hatchett, acting director of the Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority within the 

Office of the Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and Response. 

BARDA was established in December 2006 to support the advanced research development and procurement of medical countermeasures against chemical, biological, radiological, and nuclear 

threats, pandemic influenza, and emerging diseases such as Ebola 

and Zika. 

In 2010, BARDA initiated its Broad Spectrum Antimicrobials 

program, or the BSA program that I’ll refer to, and in 2016, Congress awarded BARDA substantial new funding specifically to combat antibiotic-resistant bacteria. The BSA program was established 

to support the development of new classes of antibiotics for both 

biodefense and commercial applications. Under the auspices of the 

program, we now manage seven public-private partnerships and a 

pipeline of nine antibacterials. 

BARDA’s objectives have been to revitalize the antibiotic pipeline, emphasize programs that address the immediate public health 

threat of multidrug-resistant organisms, and enhance our biodefense capabilities. We have achieved notable success. Our portfolio is quite mature at this point. Five BARDA products are in 

phase 3 clinical development, and two have completed the pivotal 

studies required for FDA approval. 

Several products show promise for the treatment of infections 

due to carbapenem-resistant Enterobacteriaceae or CRE, one of the 

most urgent threats that we face, and a few have shown in vitro 

activity against bacteria harboring the MCR–1 colistin-resistance 

gene recently identified in a patient in Pennsylvania. 

And we are working with our international partners. One of our 

partnerships has facilitated groundbreaking coordination of funding with the EU’s Innovative Medicines Initiative to speed the development of a drug called aztreonam-avibactam. 

BARDA also supports the development of improved clinical 

diagnostics. Without better diagnostics to guide antibiotic therapy, 

it will be difficult to prevent the emergence of resistant bacteria. 

BARDA would thus support a diverse set of tools to differentiate 

viral and bacterial infections, identify resistant infections in the 

physician’s office, and measure antimicrobial susceptibility. 

BARDA aims to simplify genetic sequencing tools so that they can 

be used in clinical laboratories for the evaluation of resistant infections. 

Finally, BARDA and NIH will offer a $20 million prize for the 

development of truly novel diagnostics for drug-resistant bacteria. 

We will be announcing more details about this prize later this year. 

To achieve these goals, BARDA employs innovative partnership 

models. Within HHS, BARDA has pioneered the use of portfolio 

partnerships that can advance multiple drug candidates simultaVerDate Nov 24 2008 10:33 Apr 12, 2017 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00038 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 I:\MY DOCS\HEARINGS 114\114-153 CHRIS
35 

neously. BARDA has established these flexible cost-sharing business partnerships using our other transaction authority. We have 

found that portfolio-based funding reduces risk by allowing for the 

reallocation of resources across activities and among drug candidates as technical and business risks materialize. 

Clearly, the early-stage antimicrobial pipeline is too thin. To enrich it, BARDA and NIAID are working together to establish an 

initiative we are calling the CARB accelerator. Innovation frequently occurs in small biotechnology companies and in academic 

laboratories with limited resources and expertise to move product 

candidates forward. In such circumstances, promising early-stage 

candidates often fail to advance. The accelerator will serve as an 

incubator for new products and explicitly seeks to improve success 

rates in the early-stage antibiotic pipeline. 

BARDA will launch the accelerator in 2016 and support the program for at least 5 years while NIAID will provide an array of 

product development support services. Both entities will collaborate 

in managing the program and its investments through a joint oversight committee. Stay tuned. We certainly will have a lot more to 

report on this initiative in coming years. 

In summary, as new forms of antibiotic resistance continue to 

spread worldwide, the prospect of bacterial strains resistant to all 

available antibiotics can no longer be ignored. Developing new tools 

for diagnosing and treating drug-resistant bacteria will be essential 

to preserving the practice of modern medicine. 

ASPR and its partners play a critical role in leading the charge 

against such threats, and we look forward to working with Congress to address the global challenge of antimicrobial resistance. I 

look forward to addressing your questions. 

[The prepared statement of Richard J. Hatchett follows:] 

36 


21484.019
37 


21484.020
38 


21484.021
39 


21484.022
40 


21484.023
41 


21484.024
42 


21484.025
43 


21484.026
44 


21484.027
45 

Mr. MURPHY. Thank you, Doctor. 

Now, Dr. Dixon, you are recognized for 5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF DENNIS M. DIXON 

Mr. DIXON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member 

DeGette—— 

Mr. MURPHY. Make sure the microphone is on and pulled close 

to you, OK? 

Mr. DIXON. Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member DeGette, and members of the subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to discuss 

antibiotic resistance, a serious and growing global health threat. I 

am Dr. Dennis Dixon, and I serve as chief of the Bacteriology and 

Mycology Branch in the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious 

Diseases. 

The NIAID is the lead institute at the NIH for research on infectious diseases, including research on antibiotic resistance. NIAID’s 

longstanding research efforts in this area aim to understand the 

molecular basis of antibiotic resistance, as well as to develop specific and sensitive diagnostics, vaccines to prevent infections, and 

to partner with pharmaceutical industry companies in the development of novel and improved treatments. 

The recent detection in the U.S. of bacteria resistant to colistin, 

an antibiotic of last resort, reminds us of the urgent challenge of 

drug resistance and the need to address its underlying causes. Fortunately, this particular bacterial strain was treatable by other 

antibiotics. However, the threat remains that this type of resistance could emerge in other bacteria resistant to most antibiotics 

making them untreatable with currently available drugs. 

Through our research mission, NIAID plays a critical role in the 

administration’s national strategy and action plan on Combating 

Antibiotic-Resistant Bacteria or CARB. NIAID’s antibiotic resistance research portfolio includes basic research on how bacteria develop resistance and cause disease; translational research to develop diagnostics, therapeutics, and vaccines; and clinical research 

to evaluate antibacterial products and strategies. 

Additional funding provided by Congress in fiscal year 2016 for 

CARB have been instrumental to our efforts. NIAID-supported 

basic research provides the foundational knowledge essential for 

the development of vaccines to prevent antibiotic-resistant infections and therapeutics to treat them. 

As part of the CARB initiative, NIAID supports genome sequencing for a national database of antibiotic-resistant bacteria. This 

database, developed by NIH in collaboration with FDA and CDC, 

will provide a comprehensive resource for surveillance, epidemiology, and basic research into the mechanisms of antibiotic resistance. 

NIAID also facilitates product development by providing nonmonetary support to researchers, including genome sequences, access to clinical specimens, drug screening, and animal model testing. These resources provided much-needed support for the field 

and help to reduce the risk for product developers. 

We also provide clinical trials capacity for evaluating new antibacterial products and strategies through our Antibacterial Resistance Leadership Group and other clinical trial networks for clinical 

46 

research on antibiotic resistance. We are currently in the process 

of expanding this infrastructure. 

NIAID is also pursuing the development of point-of-care diagnostic tests critical to determining which drugs will be effective 

against given infections and recently awarded funding for research 

projects that develop rapid, sensitive, and specific diagnostic tools. 

NIAID is working to discover better treatments to treat antibiotic-resistant infections by screening new compounds and optimizing the use of existing drugs. NIAID recently awarded funding 

for research projects to develop nontraditional therapeutics for bacterial infections and funds clinical studies testing new formulations, dosing regimens, or combination therapies of currently licensed drugs such as colistin. 

In summary, NIAID is committed to a robust and comprehensive 

research effort to address antibiotic resistance and is fostering collaborations with partners in academia, industry, and the Federal 

Government. NIAID will continue support promising research to 

develop and test new antibiotics as well as methods to prevent the 

further spread of antibiotic resistance. 

Thank you for bringing attention to this important topic. I’d be 

pleased to answer any questions. 

[The prepared statement of Dennis M. Dixon follows:] 

47 


21484.028
48 


21484.029
49 


21484.030
50 


21484.031
51 


21484.032
52 


21484.033
53 


21484.034
54 


21484.035
55 


21484.036
56 

Mr. MURPHY. I thank all the panel for their comments here. I am 

going to recognize myself for 5 minutes of questions. 

On September 20 of 2000, then CDC director Dr. Jeffrey Koplan 

testified before Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Labor, 

HHS, and Education on the emerging national and global problems 

of antimicrobial resistance and the response by CDC. And at that 

hearing the CDC unveiled its plan that targeted drug resistance. 

In particular, Dr. Koplan testified that a key part of this plan was 

developing a national campaign to improve physician prescribing 

practices and educate parents and patients about the proper use of 

antibiotics. 

Dr. Bell, despite the CDC’s campaign as well as the efforts of 

others, the overprescribing of antibiotics still exists. So why did the 

overprescribing and overuse of antibiotics continue even with the 

CDC’s campaign? 

Dr. BELL. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

The campaign that I think you’re referring to is a campaign 

which is called Get Smart, and this is something that we’ve been 

working on for quite some time. But actually, we’ve had quite a bit 

of impact. Actually, we’ve been able to show decline. The Get 

Smart campaign was really focused on outpatient prescribing. And 

while we are very concerned about the continued overuse of antibiotics in outpatients, we’ve actually seen considerable improvements over the years and they’ve been able to show an impact of 

the Get Smart program. 

Antibiotic overprescribing and stewardship is a complex issue, 

and we really need to attack it on many different fronts. The Get 

Smart and outpatient facilities is just one piece of the puzzle, and 

we’ve been really redoubling our efforts in the area of stewardship 

over the last few years releasing guidelines for stewardship programs and essential elements for hospitals and for long-term care 

facilities. 

Mr. MURPHY. Do you see trends changing, that it is getting 

through to physicians because—— 

Dr. BELL. Well, we now know that there are about 40 percent of 

hospitals in the United States that have all the elements of a stewardship program, and we’ve set a target of 100 percent of inpatient 

facilities by 2020. There are a lot of positive developments. I 

think—— 

Mr. MURPHY. But go back to that number of the huge—— 

Dr. BELL. Yes. 

Mr. MURPHY [continuing]. Amount of prescriptions written every 

year—— 

Dr. BELL. Yes. 

Mr. MURPHY [continuing]. That shouldn’t be. So that doesn’t 

sound like it is working to me. I just want to know what else—we 

are here to help you. 

Dr. BELL. Yes. 

Mr. MURPHY. We are all on the same team here. I know the 

White House Action Plan at Combating Antibiotic-Resistant Bacteria—— 

Dr. BELL. Yes. 

57 

Mr. MURPHY [continuing]. It is there. How is that going to be different? What do we see that is really going to get through to people 

this time? 

Dr. BELL. Well, we really I think are just over the last few years 

really attacking this on lots of different fronts. As I said, the initial 

Get Smart program was really an educational campaign focused in 

one area, and now we have many different modalities. We’ve been 

collaborating very effectively also with CMS, with the American 

Hospital Association. CMS will be developing conditions of participation both for hospitals and long-term care that will require—— 

Mr. MURPHY. Will this also—excuse me. 

Dr. BELL. Excuse me. 

Mr. MURPHY. I have to jump in because we are short on time. 

Dr. BELL. Oh, sorry. 

Mr. MURPHY. Will this also include—and I ask the panelists. Will 

this also include information for patients? 

Dr. BELL. Yes—— 

Mr. MURPHY. I mean, let’s face it. People go to the doctor and 

say I want a prescription. He says, well, you have got a virus, it 

is not going to work; I want it anyways. And doctors now especially 

because they get rated on—— 

Dr. BELL. Yes. 

Mr. MURPHY [continuing]. Were you treated satisfactorily and 

hospitals then get dinged. They don’t get paid as much. 

Dr. BELL. Yes. 

Mr. MURPHY. And I have heard time and time again hospitals 

say, look, we are afraid of these ratings and so they will show up 

in Web sites, everything else. So what are we doing to combat that? 

Dr. BELL. I appreciate your point. And we have been developing 

a lot of educational campaigns focused on patients. And I think 

you’re right. Our objective would be for patients, when they go to 

the doctor and the doctor wants to prescribe an antibiotic, the patient says why do I need this antibiotic? Please explain that to me. 

And we do really need a sea change, and we’re certainly working 

in lots of different ways to educate the patient. The patient really 

is pivotal in terms of solving this problem. 

Mr. MURPHY. Dr. Woodcock, it is always good to see you. Why 

haven’t we developed rapid diagnostic testing for bacterial infections yet? And can you tell us about some of the commercial and 

technical impediments here? 

Dr. WOODCOCK. Well, it’s just harder than it sounds. There are 

a few. We have strep test, and that’s great, OK, so there’s something where people can differentiate quickly and put people at ease 

perhaps that they don’t have—don’t need an antibiotic, an outpatient setting, right? The technology is advancing, as I said in my 

oral statement. The Center for Devices is seeing technologies come 

along in the development pipeline so we expect over the next several years we will see more rapid diagnostic tests in a variety of 

settings. 

It’s urgent that we try to find some that differentiate bacterial 

and virus infections. People are working on expression profiles that 

you can do a blood test and make that determination, and then you 

could reassure the patient you don’t have a bacterial infection. And 

that would be very helpful. 

58 

Mr. MURPHY. Thank you. I see I am out of time so I will recognize Ms. DeGette for 5 minutes. 

Ms. DEGETTE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

As I said in my opening, I want to talk about how we can 

incentivize development of new antibiotics, and as we heard, earlier 

this year BARDA and NIAID collaborated to establish the Combating Antibiotic-Resistant Bacteria, or CARB, by a pharmaceutical 

accelerator. So, Dr. Hatchett, I am wondering if you can tell me 

very briefly why this program is important. 

Dr. HATCHETT. Well, thank you, Ms. DeGette for the question. As 

I said in my opening testimony, BARDA is very concerned. We do 

currently have a mature portfolio of antibiotics that are close to 

achieving licensure, but we are concerned that the upstream pipeline is very weak—— 

Ms. DEGETTE. Right. 

Dr. HATCHETT [continuing]. And that reflects the progressive disinvestment over several decades by biopharmaceutical firms not 

viewing antibiotics as providing sufficient return on investment. 

The goal of the biopharmaceutical accelerator will be in collaboration with our partners at NIAID, and we’ve worked very closely 

with them to structure the accelerator to support that early development, bring resources and capabilities to early-stage innovators 

and help them move rapidly through the development process and 

advance those products hopefully to a point where they can transition to direct support for it. 

Ms. DEGETTE. Thank you. And, Dr. Woodcock, I want to follow 

up on this because when you testified before this committee in 

2014 about 21st Century Cures, you talked about this issue of lack 

of commercial incentives for drug developers and that being a reason why we don’t have new investigational drugs. Can you quickly 

update us on what the situation is since 2014 with this? Do we 

have some promising drugs in the pipeline? Are we fixing some of 

these commercial issues? 

Dr. WOODCOCK. There are some promising drugs in the pipeline, 

but the pipeline is still very fragile. And what we need is not just 

a few superstars here. We need a full panoply of investment in the 

research, the basic science, the drug discovery and drug development that lasts, as Dr. Hatchett just said, over decades because we 

don’t just need a few antimicrobials, we need a whole continuing—— 

Ms. DEGETTE. Range. Range. 

Dr. WOODCOCK [continuing]. Platform and range of them for a 

wide variety of diseases, and we’re just not seeing that, not all of 

the ones under development are going to succeed. And that’s true 

of all drug development. 

Ms. DEGETTE. So Chairman Murphy and I got a letter yesterday 

from the Infectious Disease Society of America, and that organization said in their letter that the administration promised to release 

a report and recommendations on economic incentives for antibiotics, but the reported recommendations have not been released. 

I am wondering what the status of that report is and when it will 

be released. 

Dr. WOODCOCK. I don’t know. It’s not under my purview, but we 

can get back to you. 

59 

Ms. DEGETTE. I wish you would, thanks, because maybe that can 

help illuminate—yes, Dr. Hatchett? 

Dr. HATCHETT. I just want to mention that Secretary Burwell did 

ask the Presidential Advisory Committee on Combating AntibioticResistant Bacteria to look explicitly at the issue of necessary economic incentives for the development of antibiotics. That letter was 

sent to the committee at the end of March, so they are actively undertaking that review. 

Ms. DEGETTE. All right. Does anybody here know what this report is and when we are going to get it? 

Dr. HATCHETT. The report was an internal report at the White 

House, and I don’t know the status of it. You’ll have to address the 

question to them. 

Ms. DEGETTE. Dr. Dixon, can you talk to me about the clinical 

trials that are going on on strategies for using existing drugs more 

effectively? 

Mr. DIXON. Absolutely. Thank you for the question. And it is important not only to develop new drugs but to optimize the ones we 

have left. And in fact, we have a clinical trial underway with 

colistin because we don’t know how long it will be before we run 

out of use of colistin. But knowing how to use it wisely—— 

Ms. DEGETTE. Right. 

Mr. DIXON [continuing]. Will reduce the risk of emergence of resistance. 

Ms. DEGETTE. OK. 

Mr. DIXON. So we have looked at how the body metabolizes 

colistin—in other words, the pharmacokinetics—to maximize the 

presence of drug in the blood and maximize the activity of the drug 

and minimize the emergence of resistance. And so we have completed a study there that helped to inform better dosing of 

colistin—— 

Ms. DEGETTE. Right. 

Mr. DIXON [continuing]. And we’re now looking at colistin alone 

versus colistin in combination with another drug for carbapenemresistant Enterobacteriaceae, or CRE, and other resistant pathogens. 

Ms. DEGETTE. Thank you. 

Mr. DIXON. And so—— 

Ms. DEGETTE. Thank you very much. I want to ask Dr. Bell a 

quick question about why improved diagnostics are an important 

part of addressing the threat of antibiotics resistance. 

Dr. BELL. Yes, thank you. As we’ve been talking, the issue of 

stewardship is so pivotal to addressing this whole issue of antibiotic resistance, and improved diagnostics, having the capability to 

be able to differentiate between a viral infection and a bacterial infection right there when the patient is sitting in front of you would 

be a really important tool that would help us in all of our stewardship efforts. So we really do hope that diagnostics that can at least 

perform that basic function will be something that’ll be available—— 

Ms. DEGETTE. Thank you. 

Dr. BELL [continuing]. Relatively soon. 

Ms. DEGETTE. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman. I yield back. 

60 

Mr. MCKINLEY [presiding]. Thank you. I recognize myself for 5 

minutes. 

This discussion reminds me a little bit of some of the environmental issues we have been dealing with over the last 5 years. The 

fact that we only represent such a small part, 5 percent of the population of the world, yet we consume so much of our energy, and 

what Gina McCarthy from the EPA there other day said that it 

makes no difference what we do; it is what happens around the 

world is what is really going to affect the environment, so notwithstanding all the issues that we have done in rules and regulations. 

So my question goes back to my opening statement, was when 

with 95 percent of the rest of the world perhaps overprescribing 

antibiotics and we don’t know what is happening in some other nations around the world. We know 20 nations at least and Mexico 

are over-the-counter for antibiotics. This global issue, what should 

we be doing? We can solve it here, but if indeed the patients, people are coming in that have drug resistance to our antibiotics, what 

do we do? So if the four of you could just give me a sense. This 

fight is a global fight, not a United States. Please, Dr. Bell. 

Dr. BELL. Thank you. Yes, you’re absolutely right. This is definitely a global fight. These microbes move around the world, and 

we have to look at this from a global perspective. 

So we are working in a number of different areas. So, first of all, 

we do have a number of really excellent collaborations with the Europeans and the Transatlantic Task Force for Antimicrobial Resistance, which allows us to share information very quickly, develop 

common standards, and also pool our resources to help other countries around the world. That’s a very effective collaboration. 

The World Health Organization is actually getting serious about 

antibiotic resistance. The World Health Assembly has passed several resolutions with all nations basically committing to do something about antibiotic use. So we have to do everything we can to 

support them—— 

Mr. MCKINLEY. But even with our education—— 

Dr. BELL [continuing]. And we are—— 

Mr. MCKINLEY [continuing]. We are still at—— 

Dr. BELL. That’s right. It’s a hard problem. And we haven’t 

solved it here—— 

Mr. MCKINLEY [continuing]. Forty percent, so even with our education level here—— 

Dr. BELL. That’s right. It’s a hard problem. 

Mr. MCKINLEY [continuing]. I am troubled about other areas, 

emerging nations—— 

Dr. BELL. Yes. 

Mr. MCKINLEY [continuing]. What is happening. So please continue. 

Dr. BELL. I think—— 

Mr. MCKINLEY. I am not sure I am buying into all the educational part of it. I am trying to figure out what the other solution 

is. 

Dr. BELL. Yes. No, I think there are many parts of this. It can’t 

just be education, you’re absolutely right. There have to be national 

policies and there has to be national legislation that supports this 

61 

sort of antibiotic stewardship around the world. And as I say, I 

think that there is a fair amount of interest in that. 

We’ve been working also a lot on improving detection so that at 

least we know what’s emerging where, and this is something 

that—— 

Mr. MCKINLEY. Let—— 

Dr. BELL. Go ahead. I’m sorry. 

Mr. MCKINLEY. Let’s go to that point. 

Dr. BELL. Yes. 

Mr. MCKINLEY. Are there nations that are more prone to have 

problems that we need to deal with—— 

Dr. BELL. Well—— 

Mr. MCKINLEY [continuing]. Around the world? Because we are 

not all equal so—— 

Dr. BELL. No, we’re not all equal, and there certainly are some 

countries that do have already a significant problem with, for example, bacteria that are resistant to all antibiotics. Colistin that 

we’ve been talking a lot about here is actually used quite a bit 

more to treat human infections in other parts of the world, in 

India, for example, because there are unfortunately a large number 

of patients that show up in intensive care units, for example, that 

are infected with bacteria that are resistant to all other antibiotics. 

So this is a larger problem in some other parts of the world. There 

are some hot spots. And this issue of detection and focusing on the 

hot spots and knowing where the hot spots are is something that 

we’ve been working on. 

The Global Health Security Initiative includes antibiotic resistance as one of the areas that the countries have agreed to focus on 

so—— 

Mr. MCKINLEY. Should we be spending more of our monies overseas to try to work those problems out over there? 

Dr. BELL. Well, I think that we—it would be not wise for us not 

to focus on our local problem here. If we don’t know what’s going 

on here, we’re not going to be able to protect Americans. We have 

to be doing both because we have to be both strengthening our ability to prevent and detect and respond in the United States while 

at the same time supporting global efforts. 

Mr. MCKINLEY. OK. So two quick questions. One, Colistin, is 

that a reasonably marketable, affordable drug or is this something—— 

Dr. BELL. No, colistin is a very old antibiotic. It’s been around 

for a long time. As a physician, I hate to prescribe colistin to patients. And actually in any country doctors really don’t want to use 

it. It has a lot of potential side effects. It has kidney toxicity, it has 

brain toxicity. So it really is a last-resort antibiotic. 

Mr. MCKINLEY. I am afraid my time is expired, but thank you 

very much for your responses. 

If I could, next line of questioning from Mr. Pallone, 5 minutes. 

Mr. PALLONE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I wanted to ask each of you a question about investment in fighting antibiotic resistance, so I am going to go through quickly so I 

can get to each of you. 

In the last few years, we have seen increased investment in this 

fight. The President released the National Action Plan for ComVerDate Nov 24 2008 10:33 Apr 12, 2017 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00065 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 I:\MY DOCS\HEARINGS 114\114-153 CHRIS
62 

bating Antibiotic-Resistant Bacteria in March of last year with ambitious goals for many Federal departments and agencies. And I 

am encouraged by the over $830 million we directed toward this effort in fiscal year 2016. And the President, as you know, has requested $1.1 billion for fiscal year 2017 for antibiotic resistance. 

So let me start with Dr. Bell. In your prepared testimony, you noted that CDC has received $160 million in fiscal year 2016 to implement the National Action Plan noting that, ‘‘These resources are 

transforming how our nation tackles and slows antibiotic resistance 

comprehensively, efficiently, and systematically.’’ 

So just tell me, how will the increased investment requested for 

the next fiscal year build on this capacity, and why is sustained investment critically important to our success in combating antibiotic 

resistance? 

Dr. BELL. Thank you. So antibiotic resistance is a problem in 

communities, so a lot of our funding in 2016, for which we are very 

grateful to Congress, is being used to fund states and large cities 

to build their capacity to detect and to respond and to prevent. And 

so the additional funding in 2017 will go towards being able to go 

even further in that regard. So we’ll be able to fund more states 

to have the kind of antibiotic-resistant prevention programs. We’ll 

be able to strengthen our laboratory networks so that we can look 

for more types of antibiotic-resistant organisms. And in general, 

we’ll be able to take the kind of investments that we’re making in 

2016 to more states and to a higher level. 

Mr. PALLONE. Thank you. Dr. Dixon, in your testimony you noted 

that the additional funding for fiscal year 2016 has been instrumental to NIH efforts. Again, why is sustained investment in fighting antibiotic resistance critical to your agency? 

Mr. DIXON. Thank you for the question. We appreciate the additional funding, and we’re applying that to such key resources as 

the National Sequence Database that will inform the sequences 

and tracking genes like the MCR–1 and others; and diagnosis and 

going particularly after the problem of diagnostics, which could certainly help to reduce the overprescribing whether or not you have 

a bacterial infection or a viral infection; advancing basic 

translational and clinical research overall, fundamentally addresses 

the problems that can help to identify new candidate drugs, new 

candidate vaccines, and new candidate diagnostics. And to close up, 

just to say that we are contributing with BARDA the $20 million 

diagnostics prize to try and draw key manufacturers into the space. 

Mr. PALLONE. Well, thank you. So, Dr. Hatchett, you work with 

industry to bring new antibiotics to market. How is sustained investment important to your work, and what message does that 

send to your private partners? The same question. 

Dr. HATCHETT. Yes, I was going to say. Let me address the question of the value of the funding—— 

Mr. PALLONE. Sure. Sure. 

Dr. HATCHETT [continuing]. For BARDA. As I mentioned, we established our Broad Spectrum Antimicrobials program in 2010. We 

did that with funding that was provided by Congress for biodefense 

purposes. And so we were very diligent in making sure that every 

antibiotic that we were developing had a biodefense application. 

For better or worse, what that meant was that we had to develop 

63 

broad spectrum antimicrobials, which are part of the problem that 

has contributed to the spread of resistance because of the overuse 

of broad spectrum antimicrobials. 

The funding that Congress provided in 2016 is specifically dedicated to the problem of antimicrobial resistance, and it allows us 

to think in much more nuanced ways about how we can build up 

an armamentarium to treat patients who have antibiotic-resistant 

bacteria so we can make investments in vaccines, we can make investments in monoclonal antibodies and alternative therapies. So 

strategically, it’s very important. 

In 2016, we are making a number of investments. You’ve heard 

about the CARB accelerator. That’s a major investment this year. 

You’ve heard about the diagnostics prize. We’re also going to be expanding our portfolio partnership this year. All of those efforts are 

going to take years to mature and to convince our industry partners to enter into partnerships with us in an area that they have 

traditionally viewed as not providing an adequate return on investment. They have to see that sustained commitment of funding over 

many, many years and recognize that the government is a reliable 

partner. 

Mr. PALLONE. Thank you. I am out of time for you, Dr. 

Woodcock. Sorry. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. MCKINLEY. Thank you. And next, Dr. Burgess from Texas for 

5 minutes. 

Mr. BURGESS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Probably of all the members on this committee I have prescribed 

the most doses of antibiotics. Dr. Bucshon, who was here, is actually significantly younger than I am, so I think I probably have seniority on his as far as the doses of antibiotics. 

And it is worth considering just a couple of historic notes as we 

talk about this, 1929, Sir Alexander Fleming noticed the zone of inhibition around a mole that had grown on his agar plate, and that 

led to the development of what we now know as penicillin. But it 

was really 15 years later when the Pfizer Corporation figured out 

how to manufacture this on a large scale so literally making this 

wonder drug, which previously was kind of a parlor trick, making 

it available to the masses and having it available to treat our soldiers on the days that they stormed the beaches at Normandy, thus 

resulting in significantly lower loss of life and limb from those soldiers who took that beach on that heroic day. 

My grandfather practiced obstetrics. He was an academic physician. He unfortunately died in 1940 so he practiced obstetrics in 

the pre-antibiotic days, and I always kind of look at that with kind 

of wonder and amazement. Here was an individual that chose a 

profession before the development of good anesthesia, blood banks, 

and most of all, antibiotics because anyone who has practiced obstetrics knows that without the ability to prescribe good antibiotics 

and antibiotics that work well, our ability to fix problems has become severely limited. So we want the antibiotics that we have 

available to continue to work, and we want them to work well. 

The JAMA article that was referenced is of interest, and I thank 

the staff for pulling it for me so quickly. And just glancing through 

it, it seems like pharyngitis, otitis media, and sinusitis are the illnesses or the diagnoses that sort of achieve the lion’s share of the 

64 

antibiotic prescriptions. And easy to be critical of the doctors and 

practitioners who are prescribing those antibiotics, but let us not 

forget that 130 years before penicillin was discovered, the father of 

our country succumbed to an illness that was treatable by penicillin, a complication of pharyngitis, tonsillitis, that led to a 

peritonsillar abscess and ultimately took his life. So bacterial diseases are interwoven within our country’s history for the last, 

what, 85 years, have become part of the story of American medicine. 

Dr. Dixon, let me just ask you because this is such an unusual 

situation with this woman that had the infection. She had an 

Enterobacter infection? Is that correct? Do I understand the story 

correctly? 

Mr. DIXON. I think you do. It might be better of Dr. Bell, who 

followed that case and did the case study, could talk about the clinical workup of that individual. 

Mr. BURGESS. So how in the world did you find this plasmid or 

this gene that was so unusual? Was there something about this patient’s presentation that said we better look for this rare gene? 

Dr. BELL. No. Actually, this story really begins with—it’s sort of 

a case study in how beefing up surveillance can really make a big 

difference in terms of prevention and response. So since we first 

heard about this MCR–1 identification in China, all of us in the 

Federal partners, including the Department of Defense, have been 

looking for evidence of this gene. And so the Department of Defense has a surveillance system where patients with bacterial infections or isolates within their system that have certain characteristics—in this case, show resistance to some of the extended spectrum beta lactamases—are shuttled eventually to the Walter Reed 

where they fully characterize these unusual isolates. And it was in 

the context of that that this was actually—that this was identified. 

Mr. BURGESS. But there was nothing in the patient’s clinical 

course or her diagnostic presentation that said, oh, boy, we better 

be looking for this one needle in the haystack? 

Dr. BELL. No, that’s right, there wasn’t. And actually, just to 

clarify that this bacteria actually is not a pan-resistant bacteria. So 

the bacteria that infected this patient is actually treatable by some 

antibiotics, and the patient herself is actually fine. Indeed, in our 

field investigation and follow-up we’ve been able to verify that she 

no longer has that bacteria in her urine. 

Mr. BURGESS. Well, that is good news, but I guess the other 

question that comes up is how do you know this hasn’t occurred on 

other occasions—— 

Dr. BELL. Absolutely. 

Mr. BURGESS [continuing]. In all of the vast number—— 

Dr. BELL. We—— 

Mr. BURGESS [continuing]. Of specimens—— 

Dr. BELL. Right. 

Mr. BURGESS [continuing]. That aren’t subject to that type of 

scrutiny? 

Dr. BELL. We do not know, and I think that’s to the point about 

what are we doing with the investments that are available to us 

because of Congress’ appropriation is that we are going to be—and 

this is one of the things I think we’ve been concerned about for a 

65 

long time, that, for example, the CDC being the only lab in the 

country that can actually look for some of these unusual types of 

resistance, that’s not a good state of affairs. And with the additional investments, we’re going to be able to have a much more robust system for systematically looking for these and for looking for 

other and new, more emerging forms of resistance. In terms of responding to this finding, that’s really the first thing that we want 

to do. We need to figure out how bit a problem this is—— 

Mr. BURGESS. Yes. 

Dr. BELL [continuing]. As you say, Congressman. 

Mr. BURGESS. Right. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will yield back. 

Maybe we will have time for a second round. 

Mr. MCKINLEY. Our next is Congressman Green from Texas for 

5 minutes. 

Mr. GREEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Antibiotic resistance is a significant public health challenge, and 

we need think creatively to address it. And I want to hear from our 

witnesses today about the regulatory and scientific challenge in developing new antibiotics, especially focused on what we can do to 

tackle them. 

Dr. Hatchett, what are some of the challenges facing manufacturers in the antibiotics market? 

Dr. HATCHETT. Thank you for the question, Congressman Green. 

Certainly there are scientific challenges, and I may turn to my colleague Dr. Dixon to let him address the scientific challenges. I’m 

just a dumb oncologist so this is not my field, but I do understand 

the medicinal chemistry particularly for gram-negative bacteria, 

which are some of the bacteria that we are most concerned about 

is particularly challenging. 

From where I’m sitting, I think the biggest challenges relate to 

the economic incentives in fact to convince companies to make the 

long-term investment to do the development. But that wasn’t your 

question. 

Mr. GREEN. But what I was trying to get at is that we have both 

scientific challenges but we also have financial challenges because 

vaccines are not the next miracle drug. In some cases it could be. 

But, Dr. Woodcock, would you like to add anything on the issue 

between—— 

Dr. WOODCOCK. Well, I do believe that—— 

Mr. GREEN [continuing]. The economics and the scientific—— 

Dr. WOODCOCK. I’ve talked to some of the large pharmaceutical 

companies. In the past they have run very broad scientific discovery programs and discovery means they’re looking for 

antimicrobials, OK, they’re trying to find candidates. And these 

programs have failed. So down at the science level, this is hard, 

and I think this is where NIAID’s investment in the science of determining what are the bacteria like and how do they generate resistance and what is very important to advance that science because this is a hard area to develop drugs in. 

Mr. GREEN. Thank you. Dr. Hatchett, these next questions are 

for you. Is BARDA exploring any new ways to incentivize development of these new antibiotics and other therapeutics? 

Dr. HATCHETT. Yes, sir, we are. I mentioned our use of our other 

transaction authority that Congress granted to us in the Pandemic 

66 

and All-Hazards Preparedness Act. And that allows us to work 

with companies, particularly large companies that have multiple 

products in their pipeline. And so we can invest in their entire 

pipeline as opposed to making a specific investment in a single 

product. 

That approach has attracted a great deal of attention from large 

pharmaceutical partners. We have two of those portfolio partnerships now, one with GSK, one with AstraZeneca, a number of others are actually in negotiations. The companies find it very attractive because it allows them to keep a focus on the development of 

anti-infectives in a way that makes economic sense to them. So 

that’s very important. 

There is an emerging consensus about economic incentives, that 

it’s going to require both a combination of traditional what we call 

push incentives or investments in R&D, R&D contracts, as well as 

pull incentives, the market-entry incentives. If you make it to market, there’s a guaranteed market, a guaranteed return on investment, potentially a prize. 

Mr. GREEN. OK. That brings us to the GAIN Act from last Congress and the ADAPT Act in this Congress, both individually but 

also as part of the 21st Century Cures. Envision a scenario where 

more adaptive clinical trials may be used to help drug developers 

seeking to create the next antibiotic drug effective against drug-resistant bacteria. Dr. Woodcock, can you tell me your thoughts on 

how the pathway laid out in ADAPT might benefit drug companies 

in the pursuit of the new novel antibiotics? 

Dr. WOODCOCK. Certainly. Well, after a candidate is discovered 

and it’s for a resistant organism, then you have another scientific 

problem of how do you find these people who are infected who are 

maybe scattered around and then test the drug in them when 

they’re critically ill and they need to be treated right away. And so 

doing these clinical trials, even small clinical programs are extremely challenging. And of course we want the drug to be used in 

the most resistant organisms, so we want it to be tested there to 

see if it works. But those are hard to find. And so you have this 

big problem. 

And we are interested in having a limited development program 

where you’d really have a great deal more uncertainty, but you 

wouldn’t use the drug for sinusitis and otitis media and so forth. 

This would be signaled that there was only a limited amount of information, but the drug could be used in these desperate situations. 

And that pathway, we think, would be a reasonable pathway to 

make the drug available but with a stewardship signal. 

Mr. GREEN. OK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I know I am out of 

time, but, Dr. Burgess, I have sinus troubles and every once in a 

while I get an infection. I will not call you for a prescription. 

Mr. BURGESS. Flonase, bubba. 

Mr. GREEN. I already take everything else. 

Mr. MCKINLEY. All right. The chair recognizes Mr. Collins from 

New York for 5 minutes. 

Mr. COLLINS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank the witnesses as well. It has always been a concern to many of us, but 

maybe to answer a question that I know goes through a lot of families when our kids say I have got an infection, I need an antibiotic. 

67 

And many moms and dads say, well, no, if you take these antibiotics, you will become antibiotic resistant, and some day when 

you are older and you really need one, it is not going to work. 

Contrasted to what we are talking about today is it is not a person who becomes antibiotic resistant, which is kind of this old 

wives’ tale versus there are bugs that are figuring out a way to become antibiotic resistant. And a person getting one of those bugs, 

even if they have never taken an antibiotic in their life, has the 

same risk. Would that be a fair—— 

Dr. WOODCOCK. Yes. 

Mr. COLLINS [continuing]. Summary? 

Dr. WOODCOCK. Yes, Congressman. If I could use that—— 

Mr. COLLINS. Yes. 

Dr. WOODCOCK [continuing]. Myself, it would be helpful. That’s— 

no, that’s absolutely right. And that’s part of the point about how 

antibiotic resistance is really a problem for everybody because it’s 

not an individual that develops resistance. It’s the bacteria. And 

these bacteria are constantly replicating and they share genetic 

material and they spread around the community. So this is exactly—your explanation is exactly correct. And I’ve often thought 

we need a better term than resistance because people think that 

applies to them, and actually—— 

Mr. COLLINS. As a person. 

Dr. WOODCOCK [continuing]. It doesn’t. It applies to the microbe 

itself. So again, we’ve oftentimes thought, you know, perhaps we 

need a better way to explain this to break that old idea—— 

Mr. COLLINS. Well, sure. I mean—— 

Dr. WOODCOCK [continuing]. That it’s a person. 

Mr. COLLINS [continuing]. You can actually have in a family 

someone who should take an antibiotic, but because of this misconception—— 

Dr. WOODCOCK. Yes. 

Mr. COLLINS [continuing]. The parents are saying, no, no, no, no. 

Dr. WOODCOCK. Yes. 

Mr. COLLINS. We are going to fight this for a few days, fight this 

for a week—— 

Dr. WOODCOCK. Yes. 

Mr. COLLINS [continuing]. Because we don’t want you to become 

antibiotic resistant. 

Dr. WOODCOCK. Yes, you’re absolutely right. I mean, antibiotics, 

as we’ve heard are—you know, they’re a treasure and they’re incredibly important and we need to—when we talk about stewardship, we don’t mean don’t use antibiotics. We mean use the right 

antibiotic at the right dose for the right duration for the right indication. And it is a very important part of our message. 

Mr. COLLINS. Well, I think that is. That is why these hearings 

can be important. 

Now, I have got a question for Dr. Dixon. I understand at Washington State University—and maybe this will translate to Dr. 

Woodcock—but I understand they have like an e-bandaid, an electromagnetic thing that they are going to put on someone, they pass 

the electric current through, they have now determined that is producing hydrogen peroxide. And if they control this, they have gotten some interesting results as a way to treat bacterial infections 

68 

and wounds without antibiotics. Are you familiar with some of 

that, and do you have a comment on—I know it sounds a little scifi-ish, but it actually seems to have some possibilities. 

Mr. DIXON. I understand the question. I’m not familiar with that 

particular example. It is entirely consistent, though, with our approach of looking at things other than traditional drugs, so we’re 

looking at exploiting the host immunity a better way. We’re exploiting things like bacteriophage. We’re exploring things like 

microbiota using microbial ecology to outcompete and prevent infections and other alternative approaches that don’t provoke the emergence of resistance. 

Mr. COLLINS. Yes, I think it makes a lot of sense sometimes 

to—— 

Mr. DIXON. Absolutely. 

Mr. COLLINS [continuing]. Actually think out of the box, and if 

you had a chance, you should maybe look into this. It was Washington State University last November, about 6 months ago. The 

results sounded very encouraging because instead of by guess and 

by golly, they finally figured out why electric currents sometimes 

work and sometimes didn’t, and it was controlling the process and 

it all came down to the hydrogen peroxide at a level of consistency 

that would say, on Shark Tank, this one might get funded. Who 

knows? 

Mr. DIXON. Absolutely. A lot of exciting things going on out 

there. 

Mr. COLLINS. So question for you, Dr. Woodcock. Let’s say something like this happens. Now, this is an electrical therapeutic if you 

will. It is not a ‘‘drug.’’ What role would the FDA have, and would 

you have to run clinical trials like it would be a drug or is there 

something else when it is almost like a device or something instead 

of a drug? 

Dr. WOODCOCK. Well, there has to be a determination first 

whether it’s a drug or device, and we have a process that’s been 

set up by Congress, an office that sorts that out and what has to 

be done to study it. It depends on whether it’s a device, a medical 

device or a drug, and those are appropriate to the two different 

kinds of—— 

Mr. COLLINS. Being one or the other, it would still have to go 

through your agency for approval—— 

Dr. WOODCOCK. Yes. 

Mr. COLLINS [continuing]. Final signoff if you will. 

Dr. WOODCOCK. These type of therapeutics, whether they’re devices or drugs, are regulated by the FDA. 

Mr. COLLINS. OK. And no idea what this one would be, but I 

think all of us are encouraged there may be in this high-tech world 

we live in now something other than antibiotics. At the same time, 

we have got to keep searching, and it is kind of an all-of-the-above 

search if you will. Thank you for your testimony. My time is expired and I yield back, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. MCKINLEY. Thank you. And I now recognize for the next 

round of questions Ms. Castor from Florida for 5 minutes. 

Ms. CASTOR. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you all for your 

expert testimony today. 

69 

I want to return to the discussion of how we tackle this internationally, as Mr. McKinley focused on, because no single country 

like the U.S. can do this alone. We are so interconnected now. People travel. You said microbes travel, animals travel, food travels. 

In July of 2014, the U.K. commissioned a study on the global 

problem of antimicrobial resistance. The study concluded that we 

must be concerned about drug resistance globally if we expect to 

be safe at home. An important theme discussed in the report is 

that infectious diseases profoundly affect poorer countries due to 

unsanitary living conditions. Unsanitary conditions, the report 

says, ‘‘act as a catalyst of rapid person-to-person spread, which can 

lead to an increase in the use and overuse of antibiotics.’’ 

Dr. Bell, what effect do poor living conditions and access to clean 

food and water have on the spread of infectious diseases, and how 

can poor sanitation contribute to the overuse of antibiotics? 

Dr. BELL. Yes, thank you. This is unfortunately very much the 

case that—and you could imagine how, if you think about our prevention strategies in terms of infection control and in terms of hygiene how countries where people really just don’t have the option 

of this sort of hygiene that we can—the level that we can establish 

here in the United States, but this does contribute to spread. And 

we see this in many countries around the world. 

I think one of the things that we’ve learned is that I think it 

makes sense to sort of break some of this down in order to approach it. And infection control in hospitals, for example, is one 

component that we’ve really been working now with a lot of countries to at least improve infection control in facilities. If we see 

that, a lot of the most resistant bacteria are in facilities. We’ve 

been working with a number of countries in India, in West Africa— 

you heard with Ebola that’s not about antibiotic resistance, but we 

certainly saw what the importance of infection control was. 

Ms. CASTOR. So when poor countries address problems such as 

sanitation, access to clean water and infections in their medical facilities—this is basic—that helps reduce antibiotic resistance. And 

what more can be done then? We have so many fantastic nonprofit 

organizations, academics, churches, the developed world. What else 

can that group be doing to reduce the spread of infection? 

Dr. BELL. Yes, you’re absolutely right. And actually, I’ll go back 

again to Ebola while that isn’t a resistant organism. In our work 

in West Africa to improve infection control, we used many nongovernmental organizations, church groups, and other sorts of nongovernmental groups as trainers, as extenders, and as groups that 

can stay in the area and help the ministries of health and the hospitals with infection control. 

Ms. CASTOR. So some experts have said and the U.K. report said 

and I think Mr. McKinley had said what needs to be done. They 

emphasized kind of some global organizing, collaborative or campaign. How could we go about such an effort? 

Dr. BELL. The World Health Organization actually is in the process of organizing such a campaign, and while we all need to participate in that and provide some leadership. 

Ms. CASTOR. So that would include tackling the over-the-counter 

prescriptions of antibiotics? The U.K. study reported that in parts 

of Southern and Eastern Europe, 20 to 30 percent of antibiotics are 

70 

consumed without a prescription, and in parts of Africa, the figure 

rises to 100? 

Dr. BELL. Yes. That’s definitely part of what we have to tackle. 

Ms. CASTOR. OK. And then, Dr. Woodcock, Internet sales of antibiotics is a huge problem that this committee has documented extensively. You have testified before this committee multiple times 

on the use of Internet drugs. What role does FDA believe that 

Internet drug sales have on drug resistance across the globe? 

Dr. WOODCOCK. I don’t think we know in the United States. We 

intercept some packages and so forth. Most of the ones that we 

intercept are not antimicrobials. But certainly that could play a 

role. But I think that’s something that’s very difficult to get your 

hands around because, again, it’s an international problem. Some 

of these are counterfeit, and that often plays a big role, especially 

in places like Africa or potentially even here because they don’t 

have the right amount in there but they may have a low amount 

of antimicrobial in them, which then promotes the generation of resistance. So the free flow of antimicrobials, whether from over-thecounter use or through the Internet, is a potentially continuing 

large problem and very difficult to manage. 

Ms. CASTOR. Thank you very much. 

Mr. BURGESS [presiding]. The chair thanks the gentlelady. The 

gentlelady yields back. The chair recognizes the gentlelady from 

Tennessee 5 minutes for questions. 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And I appreciate the patience you all have had with us this 

morning as we are running up and down to committees, hearings 

going on at the same time. So we have been in and out and you 

have been patient. 

Dr. Hatchett, I want to come to you. Going back into February 

BARDA established the accelerator to support and research and development—and of course as we have worked on 21st Century 

Cures, we have been so interested in that, and then looking at the 

candidates that you were going to accelerate through this program 

with the drugs and vaccines and diagnostics and move that into development. And for us then moving it on to commercialization and 

into the mainstream. 

I would like it if you could take just a minute and talk a little 

bit about the specific candidates that you all have put in that, 

about some of the vaccines or the microbials, some of the alternative therapies that you are reviewing in that program. 

Dr. HATCHETT. Yes, ma’am. Thank you for the question. Just to 

be clear, the accelerator has not been established yet. We put out 

the solicitation earlier this year, and we have received the proposals. We had a good response, and we actually are in the process 

of negotiating with the lead candidates right now. So we 

haven’t—— 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. OK. 

Dr. HATCHETT [continuing]. Made the award—— 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. When you say a good response, quantify that 

for me a little bit. 

Dr. HATCHETT. We had a pre-proposal conference where we had 

a—I don’t remember the specific number, and I’m under oath, but 

I can get it for you. 

71 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. That would be great. 

Dr. HATCHETT. But we ended up with five proposals, which really 

aggregated—actually some of the people that came to the pre-proposal conference met each other and then decided to partner, which 

made the proposals stronger. So I believe we had five proposals. 

And one of the requirements of—I don’t think it was a requirement, but we requested it. It was that people making a proposal 

to us could leverage the U.S. Government funding by gaining access to additional funding either from other funders or other venture capital entities, for example, that was going to be viewed as 

a positive. And fortunately, we had tremendous success with that, 

so we think when we make the final award, actually our investment, which this year could be as much as $30 million—— 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. OK. 

Dr. HATCHETT [continuing]. May serve as a catalyst for additional investment coming in from other funders, even other countries that may be interested because of the way we’ve structured 

it. The—Ms. Castor mentioned the July 2014 U.K. study that was 

put together and led by Jim O’Neill, who was the former CEO of 

Goldman Sachs, and one of the recommendations of that study was 

to create a global innovation fund for antibiotic development. And 

actually, the United Kingdom and China have already made contributions of about $50 million to such a fund. 

We think the accelerator will certainly bring in that level of funding. We are committed to providing up to $250 million for the 

accelerator over the next 5 years, and that could be a major, major 

catalyst for international collaboration to support this early-stage 

development. 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. OK. And what is your expectation once you are 

able to populate the accelerator basically? Then how long do you 

think it will be before we begin to see next-generation products 

that are ready to go to the marketplace? 

Dr. HATCHETT. So the accelerator, as I mentioned earlier, we are 

partnering very closely with our colleagues at NIAID. And NIAID 

has a full suite of what we call product development support services that can help innovators in the early stage accelerate their development. Our funding will allow those innovators to accelerate 

their timelines for bringing these products forward, and so we may 

be able to shorten the timelines. If those innovators were left to 

their own devices and left to the vagaries of the capital markets, 

it might take them many years to bring those products to the point 

that they would be ready for advanced development. The things 

that are in the accelerator are not going to pop out of the accelerator right into the marketplace. They’re going to be brought to 

the stage of clinical development—— 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. Right. We—— 

Dr. HATCHETT [continuing]. Which could take several years. 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. We understand that, but we—— 

Dr. HATCHETT. Right. 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. When we look at some of these drugs that are 

taking 10 years, 12 years to get through the process, and you look 

at the entire compendium and you look at what goes on with them, 

the innovators working with the FDA, our hope is that we are 

going to see your process work and help to push this to the marketVerDate Nov 24 2008 10:33 Apr 12, 2017 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00075 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 I:\MY DOCS\HEARINGS 114\114-153 CHRIS
72 

place sooner, that there will be some efficiencies. We know you 

have got some challenges, but we are hopeful there will be some 

efficiencies in moving it forward. 

Dr. HATCHETT. Ours too, ma’am. The perhaps relevant example—its slightly different scale of urgency—but when we have had 

to respond to events like the Ebola epidemic—— 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. Yes. 

Dr. HATCHETT [continuing]. Or to the pandemic in 2009, we were 

able to push things forward with incredible velocity and so shorten 

normal development time frames. It might be 5, 7, 10 years down 

to even, you know, 9 months, a year, 2 years—— 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. OK. 

Dr. HATCHETT. I’m not promising—— 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. That is helpful. 

Dr. HATCHETT [continuing]. That we can do that with the accelerator—— 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. Right. 

Dr. HATCHETT [continuing]. But that’s the idea. 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. That is helpful. That is what we want to hear. 

Thank you. I yield back. 

Mr. BURGESS. The gentlelady yields back. The chair thanks the 

gentlelady. 

And the chair recognizes the gentleman from New York, Mr. 

Tonko, for 5 minutes, please. 

Mr. TONKO. Thank you, Mr. Chair. 

My good friend and colleague, Representative Louise Slaughter, 

to my knowledge the only microbiologist in Congress, has been 

raising alarm bells for quite some time about the excessive use of 

antibiotics in our farm animals and feedstock. 

I know that the FDA has shared similar concerns about antibiotic use and resistance in farm animals. In fact, FDA’s Center for 

Veterinary Medicine has developed a multipronged effort to limit or 

reverse resistance arising from the use of antibiotics in food-producing animals. 

Dr. Woodcock, I understand that FDA’s efforts to control antibiotic use in farm animals are not entirely in your wheelhouse 

given where you sit in the agency. However, can you walk us 

through what FDA is doing to address the nexus between antibiotic 

resistance and the overuse of antibiotics at the farm? 

Dr. WOODCOCK. Yes. As I said in my oral testimony, the Center 

for Veterinary medicine has sought commitments from the manufacturers of animal drugs that have important medical uses, and 

they have all committed to submit supplements that would basically change these drugs to prescription only. And that means they 

would not be used for growth promotion purposes, and they would 

need to be prescribed by a veterinarian. The Center for Veterinary 

Medicine expects this to occur at the end of the year, the supplement submission. And so soon after that the changeover could be 

accomplished is my understanding. 

Mr. TONKO. And with that in mind, in any way are we making 

progress in overuse of antibiotics in our food supplies? 

Dr. WOODCOCK. That I can’t answer but we could get back to you 

on that. 

73 

Mr. TONKO. Thank you. I would appreciate that. And, Dr. 

Woodcock, how are we tracking how much and what kinds of antibiotics food producers are using, and who is in charge of that effort? And just what is being done? 

Dr. WOODCOCK. Well, in speaking to the Center for Veterinary 

medicine, I understand that tracking down to that level is difficult 

right now. We don’t have a billing system similar to what we have 

for human drugs where we understand what prescriptions are 

issued for what animals and so forth. So my understanding is that 

that’s a difficult set of information to find out. 

Mr. TONKO. And I understand that one concern of regulators is 

that antibiotics have been used extensively for feed production purposes and not only for therapeutic purposes. So can you describe 

how antibiotics have been misused in that regard? 

Dr. WOODCOCK. Well, there’s been a long tradition as I understand—I’m not a veterinarian—but I understand there’s been a 

long tradition of using certain amounts of antimicrobials preventively or in food that—in feed for the animals that results in some 

growth acceleration of the animals. And it’s not treating an infection or anything like that. It’s simply to put it in the feed and then 

the growth accelerates. And of course they’re being produced as 

food animals, and so that is an economic benefit. That type of use 

is what’s been addressed by the step that the Center for Veterinary 

Medicine is taking. 

Mr. TONKO. And what are FDA and USDA planning to do to address that aspect of the problem? 

Dr. WOODCOCK. Well, we expect the manufacturers will honor 

their commitments. They will submit supplements, and these will 

be changed. They cannot be used for growth-promoting purposes, 

these medically important antibiotics. 

Mr. TONKO. Are there any other efforts that can be made by FDA 

to control the use of antibiotics in our food supplies? 

Dr. WOODCOCK. Well, I think there’s always more that can be 

done, and I also believe that the norm system is very important 

and probably needs to continue to be strengthened. I think the 

value of surveillance just can’t be overestimated because we need 

to know what’s going on and at every level, from production all the 

way through to the food itself, that monitoring is extremely important for us to know what’s going on. 

Mr. TONKO. I take the efforts obviously are very important to the 

public—— 

Dr. WOODCOCK. Yes. 

Mr. TONKO [continuing]. And we are at least pleased to hear that 

there is that kind of review being conducted, but I would love to 

see efforts go forward to make certain that there is every bit of 

safety and consumer-oriented response so that we can move forward progressively. 

Dr. WOODCOCK. Thank you. 

Mr. TONKO. With that, I yield back. 

Mr. BURGESS. The gentleman yields back. The chair thanks the 

gentleman. 

The chair recognizes the gentleman from Oklahoma, Mr. Mullin, 

5 minutes for questions, please. 

74 

Mr. MULLIN. Well, I don’t know about the antibiotics in cattle, 

but I live on a farm and I am on three different antibiotics as we 

speak. I literally just got off Bactrim and I am on a Z–Pak and I 

have got another one that was prescribed to me yesterday. And so 

to say that they are overprescribed, I thank the Lord for them, but 

I will probably say you are accurate on that. 

With that being said, the University of Oklahoma has done a 

phenomenal job on trying to close the gap on what they call the 

superbug, and they recently developed a new antibiotic to go after 

what a lot of people refer to as MRSA or a staph infection. But 

even with all that development, Dr. Woodcock, despite the recent 

success at the University of Oklahoma, are there concerns that new 

drugs aren’t being developed quickly enough to help close this gap? 

Dr. WOODCOCK. Yes. There are major concerns because the microbes are kind of like the criminals. They’re always one step 

ahead of us, right, and if you expose people and you expose the bacteria to an antimicrobial, some of them will develop resistance. So 

we need a robust pipeline. 

We have approved a number of antibacterials recently for MRSA 

infections, new ones, but the general pipeline of antimicrobials is 

not robust. It’s very fragile. We don’t just need very targeted 

antimicrobials, we need a broad set of antimicrobials for the future. 

And that’s still not happening, although there—you know, certainly 

there are discoveries being made. 

Mr. MULLIN. So with the current crop of antibiotics out there, do 

you see where we are going to be able to catch up or we are going 

to continue to stay behind or get farther behind? 

Dr. WOODCOCK. I think we need to be very concerned because it’s 

not the work of a year to catch up, it’s the work of decades. And 

these development programs—Dr. Burgess mentioned Pfizer earlier; they’re no longer in the space of development. These development programs were terminated by lots of companies several decades ago. 

Mr. MULLIN. Due to? 

Dr. WOODCOCK. Lack of economic incentives and the fact that at 

that time there was of course a broad range of antimicrobials available. And even though we could foresee resistance occurring in the 

future, the return on investment wasn’t there compared to, say, 

cancer or other fields. 

Mr. MULLIN. Well, Dr. Woodcock, how long does it take, say, a 

company that is wanting to develop this, how long does it take 

them from when they start to when they can probably bring a 

product to the market? 

Dr. WOODCOCK. If you start from discovery, probably 10 years. 

Mr. MULLIN. At the cost of what? 

Dr. WOODCOCK. The estimates are very controversial. Many people have said between $1 billion and $2 billion for a new molecular 

entity. 

Mr. MULLIN. So is there a way to speed this up? I mean, if we 

are behind because, my goodness, I can understand why a company 

would be hesitant to invest $1–2 million on an—— 

Dr. WOODCOCK. Billion. 

75 

Mr. MULLIN. Billion, I am sorry, $1–2 billion on an antibiotic and 

it takes 10 years to bring it to market and the success rate is, I 

am sure, pretty low. Do you know what the success rate is on that? 

Dr. WOODCOCK. For antimicrobials, it’s—if you start from discovery, it’s going to be one in many thousands, OK—— 

Mr. MULLIN. One in many thousands, so—— 

Dr. WOODCOCK. You start into entry into the clinic, it might be 

1 in 10. 

Mr. MULLIN. So what is the incentive for a company to do this? 

I mean, I am thinking as a business owner I am going, OK, I am 

going to invest $1–2 billion and I am going to have 1 out of 1,000— 

let’s just use that number—of a chance of it actually coming to 

market. Is there an incentive? Is there a way to bring this number 

down? Is there a way to help improve that? 

Dr. WOODCOCK. Well, I would also add that we would urge you 

as a business owner once you develop this drug to make sure it’s 

used very narrowly and not widely used because otherwise resistance would develop. 

Mr. MULLIN. Well, I agree with that, but you have got to get your 

money back. 

Dr. WOODCOCK. I understand that. 

Mr. MULLIN. I mean, $1–2 billion—— 

Dr. WOODCOCK. I’m just saying that’s the market—that’s the return-on-investment problem. What Dr. Hatchett and Dr. Dixon 

have been talking about are Federal Government efforts to accelerate this pipeline and ease the barriers to getting so it doesn’t cost 

so much and the success rate could be higher. 

Mr. MULLIN. Is the FDA looking into this to help ease those barriers, help speed that process up? Because we can all tell this is 

going to be a major problem, and so it seems like we should be 

working together on this. 

Dr. WOODCOCK. Oh, yes. And we’ve been doing things for years. 

We have issued a number of new guidances on new pathways. 

We’re working with outside public-private partnerships on new end 

points, different ways to study the drugs, and then what was mentioned earlier, the limited population use that’s in the 21st Century 

Cures would be another way of streamlining the development programs. 

Mr. MULLIN. Dr. Woodcock, thank you. I am out of time. 

Mr. BURGESS. The gentleman yields back. The chair thanks the 

gentleman. 

The chair recognizes the gentlelady from Illinois, Ms. Schakowsky, 5 minutes for questions. 

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. This is exactly the conversation that I have 

been wanting to get into. 

Dr. Woodcock, in conclusion you say ‘‘It is virtually undisputed 

that we are facing a public health crisis because of the rise of serious resistant infections and the simultaneous decline in R&D in 

this area.’’ What I am hearing is that there is not enough profit in 

addressing this problem. And that sets my hair on fire. If this is 

a worldwide public health issue and the reason that we cannot 

make progress is because—as have been called—our industry partners are unwilling to do that because there is not enough money, 

76 

then it seems to me exactly the space then that government needs 

to step in and deal with this. 

I just don’t understand the word ‘‘incentives’’—and there may be 

other ways besides money. I don’t know. But what are we talking 

about here, that these companies are getting out of the business, 

that the Pfizers are getting out of the business. There is just not 

enough dough here when at some point this could be just a worldwide problem of the bug that is going to kill, I don’t know, millions 

of people. Somebody answer me. 

Dr. BELL. Well, I would say there are two problems. One is it’s 

very hard to discover and develop these—— 

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Right. 

Dr. BELL [continuing]. OK, scientifically. And then once you get 

them on the market, we’re going to—everyone will ask them is 

don’t sell them, OK, don’t sell them very much because they’re too 

valuable to waste on—that was the paradigm in the past, and 

that’s why antimicrobials are so overprescribed, OK, is they were 

used for minor infections—— 

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Well, can I—— 

Dr. BELL [continuing]. And viruses—— 

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY [continuing]. Interrupt for a second? I think 

one of the other issues that contributes to that problem is TV advertising of drugs, which has created an atmosphere among consumers that I am in charge of my health, I am going to go to my 

doctor, I am going to say what I want, I will find a way to get that 

drug. I just wanted to add that. I think that is part of the culture 

that contributes to this problem. Anybody? 

Dr. HATCHETT. Thank you. It’s a critically important question. 

And I have seen an estimate that the market for antibiotics in the 

United States is about $40 billion. But of that $40 billion for that 

market, only about $4–5 billion is for drugs that are unpatented. 

So any new drug that enters the market enters a market where 

there are dozens of competing generic antibiotics. And so the new 

entries can’t charge a premium unless they can fully differentiate 

themselves from all of the other antibiotics that are on the market. 

And so it suppresses the ability to achieve profit for a new drug. 

And you’ve heard the estimates of what it costs to bring a new 

drug to market, and so companies, to recoup their investment over 

many, many years have to see opportunities in the marketplace 

that they can achieve that return even almost just to a breakeven. 

The model that BARDA has implemented in other areas where 

the market is failing to deliver public health requirements so 

against agents of bioterrorism or pandemic influenza, for example, 

we over the past decade have evolved a model where we provide 

substantial advanced research and development funding for products that have reached the stage of clinical development. So these 

are things that are being tested in human clinical trials. We also 

provide a market entry incentive, a pull incentive in terms of a procurement of the product. So for something that we’re developing for 

bioterrorism, we then buy a large quantity of it and put it into the 

strategic national stockpile so a person working under it has a 

guaranteed market commitment. 

And the other thing that we provide, which is very, very critical, 

we found this to be extremely critical is we provide access to a core 

77 

of experts on all aspects of product development who can assist potentially smaller companies that don’t have all of this expertise inhouse and to access to product development infrastructure. And so 

it’s a multi-legged stood in terms of the support that we provide. 

It wasn’t until we put all of those components together for our 

bioterrorism threats, for pandemic influenza threats that we really 

started to see our program succeed. We think many of those elements are going to be required to overcome these adverse market 

courses that are leading to disinvestments. 

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Well, I hope that bottom line isn’t that we 

have to look at the bottom line of for-profit companies to figure out 

whether we are going to protect the health of this planet. 

Mr. BURGESS. The gentlelady yields back. 

Let me if I could, I would like to ask a follow-up question because the Center for Medicare and Medicaid services yesterday put 

out a relatively lengthy proposed rule on the stewardship program. 

You have had a chance to familiarize yourself with the proposed 

rule that CMS put out. Now, the question is, once again, do we get 

the right balance between the regulatory burden and effective governance? So, again, I would just appreciate your thoughts on the 

proposed rule. 

Dr. BELL. I haven’t actually seen the rule itself, Congressman, 

but we have been working with CMS around this concept for quite 

some time. They have already actually had previously issued some 

comments for similar kind of conditions of participation for longterm care. Now, this is the one for acute care. 

So I appreciate your point about a balance between regulation 

and individual clinical judgment. In general, these conditions of 

participation, they’ve been working closely with us and they basically are meant to incorporate the core principles of stewardship 

that we published in 2014 for inpatient and 2015 for long-term 

care. So these are really just fundamental kind of necessary pieces 

of a puzzle so that a facility has a stewardship program that actually is able to influence the process. 

And I will say also that this whole process of coming up with the 

core elements and CMS’s participation has really been very broadly 

supported in general by American Hospital Association and by lots 

of kind of industry partners. I think there really is a broad agreement now that the concept of helping physicians and facilities and 

patients prescribe wisely is really pivotal. 

We’ve been talking a lot about drug development and what all 

the gaps are there, but really—and, as you’ve heard, I think this 

whole issue of antibiotic resistance is a long-term problem that has 

many components, and we really have to address them all in order 

to tackle it. And one of the pivotal components is this issue of stewardship, of getting serious about doing something about overprescribing, not stopping people from prescribing but being able to preserve the antibiotics that we have now. And that’s sort of about 

saving lives now, as well as these areas of prevention and 

diagnostics and new drug development. 

So as I say, I’m not familiar with the specifics, but it has been 

really a very broad process that CMS has gone through and has 

collaborated quite closely with us. 

78 

Mr. BURGESS. Dr. Woodcock, on the issue of stewardship—and 

you have mentioned in your opening statement in response to Mr. 

Tonko’s question about involving the USDA and the veterinarian 

space in this. It is one thing to come down hard on the private 

practice doc in the United States for overprescribing antibiotics, 

and I probably include myself in that group that would feel put 

upon by some of these directions. But honestly, we can’t compete 

with what is being used in feedlots. 

Dr. WOODCOCK. Yes. Well, as I said, the Center for Veterinary 

Medicine has taken steps around that and secured commitments 

from those manufacturers of medically important antimicrobials 

that they will submit a supplement that will eliminate that use basically. 

Mr. BURGESS. And let me just—— 

Dr. BELL. If I could just add that the concept of stewardship and 

stewardship for veterinarians, in addition to stewardship for 

human doctors is something that the American Veterinary Medical 

Association has been quite interested in, and we’ve been providing 

them actually with a lot of tools that they could use with veterinarians. And actually we haven’t spoken about companion animals, 

but this is another area actually where we really don’t have a very 

good sense—— 

Mr. BURGESS. Sure. 

Dr. BELL [continuing]. Of what’s happening, and we will be—— 

Mr. BURGESS. Let me—— 

Dr. BELL [continuing]. Looking to establish something there. 

Mr. BURGESS. I am going to stop there for—I want to ask one 

other question, Dr. Woodcock, since we are speaking about animal 

products. The issuance under an emergency use authorization for 

a genetically modified mosquito in parts of the world that are affected by the Zika virus, why is that taking so long? Why is it so 

difficult? Why is a genetically modified mosquito having to go 

through a new drug application? 

Dr. WOODCOCK. Well, that is out of my wheelhouse, and we’d 

have to get back to you on that particular question. 

Mr. BURGESS. OK. 

Dr. WOODCOCK. It’s not a drug—— 

Mr. BURGESS. But my understanding, it is being treated as if it 

was a new drug application, so I appreciate that is not part of today’s discussion, but I really do want to follow up with you on that, 

because I think it is an important issue. 

Seeing no further members wishing to ask—you have a question? 

The gentlelady from Illinois just wants me to conclude, so I do 

want to thank all our witnesses and members who have participated in today’s hearing. I remind members they have 10 business 

days to submit questions for the record, and I ask all the witnesses 

to agree to respond promptly to these questions. 

With that, the subcommittee stands adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 12:01 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] 

[Material submitted for inclusion in the record follows:] 

79 


21484.037
80 


21484.038
81 


21484.039
82 


21484.040
83 


21484.041
84 


21484.042
85 


21484.043
86 


21484.044
87 

Æ 


21484.045