Incentivizing Narrow-Spectrum Antibiotics Development with Refunding

A. Treatment of infections with n antibiotics

In order to motivate the refunding scheme and model population-level dynamics of antibiotic resistance, we first introduce a corresponding mathematical framework that is able to account for an arbitrary number of antibiotics. We describe the interaction between infectious and susceptible individuals in terms of a susceptible-infected-susceptible (SIS) model [36] whose infected compartment is sub-divided into compartments that can each be treated with certain antibiotics. We indicate a susceptible state by X and use Y_i to denote infected states that are sensitive to antibiotics in the set 𝒜_i. If the set 𝒜₂ contains two antibiotics A and B (i.e., 𝒜₂ = {A, B}), individuals in state Y₂ can be treated with these two antibiotics but not with a potentially available third antibiotic C that can be used to treat individuals in state Y₁, where 𝒜₁ = {A, B, C} (see Fig. 2).

We describe antibiotic-resistance dynamics in terms of a mass-action model of multiple antibiotic therapy (see Fig. 2):

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Figure 2. Model schematic.

Susceptible individuals (X) can be infected with bacterial strain i at rate b_i. Infected individuals in state Y_i recover spontaneously at rate r_i. The corresponding antibiotic-induced recovery rate of antibiotic A is f_iBh_iB. However, only a fraction 1 − s_iB of individuals in state Y_i recovers after a treatment with antibiotic B. The remaining fraction s_iB becomes resistant against antibiotic B and ends up in a compartment Y_j of bacterial strains exhibiting more resistances. The sets of effective antibiotics in compartments Y_i and Y_j are 𝒜_i and 𝒜_j, respectively. Infection and recovery processes with the respective rates are also present in compartment Y_j. For the case of n = 3 antibiotics, we show the possible antibiotic-treatment classes 𝒜₁, 𝒜₂, …, 𝒜₈.

where x and y_i are the fractions of individuals in states X and Y_i, respectively. An infection with bacterial strain i occurs at rate b_i and the corresponding (spontaneous) recovery rate is r_i. Throughout the manuscript, we use the convention that as i increases, the corresponding bacteria become more resistant. We also account for the fitness cost associated with antibiotic resistance (i.e., r_i − r₁ > 0 for all i ∈ {2, …, N}) [37]. Additional antibiotic-induced recovery from compartment i with antibiotic j ∈ 𝒜_i occurs with rate f_ijh_ij, where f_ij is the proportion of antibiotic j ∈ 𝒜_i, relative to other antibiotics, that is used to treat Y_i. However, only a fraction 1 − s_ij actually recovers, whereas the remaining fraction s_ij develops a resistance against antibiotic j ∈ 𝒜_i. The birth rate of new susceptible individuals is λ and the corresponding death rate is d. For infected individuals in state Y_i, the death rate is c_i. The set 𝒮 (𝒜_i) contains all antibiotics that were used to arrive at the partially or completely resistant compartment Y_i from other states Y_k (k < i) with less resistances. For example, the use of single antibiotics (i.e., one per patient) is described by and, in this case, each antibiotic is used with proportions f_ij = 1/|𝒜 _i|, where |𝒜|is the cardinality of set 𝒜. We illustrate an example of a corresponding antibiotic-resistance network for n = 4 antibiotics in Fig. 3. Nodes in such a resistance network represent states Y_i and edges describe treatment strategies. In the example we show in Fig. 3, only single antibiotics (no combinations) are being used for treatment.

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Figure 3. Antibiotic-resistance network.

For the case of n = 4 antibiotics, we show the antibiotic-resistance network. Nodes correspond to states in which the indicated antibiotics are effective and edges between nodes represent the development of resistant strains due to the usage of certain antibiotics. In the shown example, single-antibiotic therapy is being used. That is, no combinations of antibiotics are being administered to patients.

The general antibiotic-resistance model (see Eq. (1)) has N different compartments, which correspond to N resistance states, each accounting for a certain set of effective antibiotics. We denote the total number of antibiotics by n. What is the number of resistance states N that belongs to a certain number of antibiotics n? Considering the antibiotic-resistance network of Fig. 3, we observe that the total number of resistance states N is the sum over all possible combinations of single antibiotics plus one (representing the completely resistant state). For n different antibiotics, we thus have to consider different states Y_i (i ∈ {1, 2, …, N}). We order them in the following way. We denote by Y₁ the infected state that can be successfully treated with all antibiotics, whereas Y_N represents an infection with a completely resistant strain. Let k ≤ n be the number of effective antibiotics. For a wild-type strain, the number of effective antibiotics is k = n. In each layer of the antibiotic-resistance network, there are different strains. For a treatment with single antibiotics (see Fig. 3), there are always nodes with k edges in a certain layer that need to be connected to nodes in the following layer. The relative difference is This equation implies that n − k + 1 elements from the current layer are mapped to one element in the next layer. In the first layer (k = 4) of the network that we show in Fig. 3, one element from the current layer is mapped to one element in the next layer. In the second layer (k = 3), two elements are mapped to one element in the third layer. Similar considerations apply to other treatment protocols (e.g., combination treatment with multiple antibiotics) and help to formulate the corresponding set of rate equations.

Previous models only considered the treatment with two and three antibiotics [24–26]. Our generalization to N compartments enables us to provide insights into the higher-dimensional nature of the dynamical development of antibiotic resistances. In Appendices A and B we compare the outlined single-antibiotic therapy approach with combination treatment for different numbers of antibiotics. We also demonstrate in Appendix B that the mathematical form of the stationary solution of Eq. (1) is unaffected by the number of antibiotics. Still, more antibiotics can be useful to slow down the development of completely resistant strains, suggesting that rolling out more antibiotics is useful. However, as we will discuss below, fostering the development of particular types of narrow-spectrum antibiotics is much more powerful to slow down the occurrence of completely resistant strains and reduce the number of deaths than developing broad-spectrum antibiotics.

B. Performance measures

We can compare different treatment protocols in terms of different metrics including the total stationary population where the asterisk denotes the stationary densities of x and y_i. Another possible metric is the gain of healthy individuals through antibiotic treatment during some time, denoted by T, where x(t; h_ij = 0) denotes the proportion of susceptible individuals in the absence of treatment (i.e., h_ij = 0 for all i, j).

Finally, we can calculate the time until half of the infected individuals are infected by bacterial strains that are resistant against any antibiotic. This “half-life” of non-resistance is given by: As mentioned above and proven in the Appendix, the long-term stationary population P ^∗ is no suitable performance measure, since P ^∗ is identical for all treatment protocols that we will consider in the following sections. However, both G(T) and T_1/2 are suitable measures to compare different development strategies for antibiotics. In addition, we will also use G_1/2 := G(T_1/2) as performance metric.

A. Research and development opportunities

To provide a formal representation of both the antibiotics dilemma and the refunding scheme, we consider the simplest case with n = 2 antibiotics. In Sec. VI, we discuss a more general refunding approach that can be used in conjunction with the general antibiotic-resistance model of Sec. III.

For the model variant with n = 2 antibiotics, the corresponding sets of antibiotics for the N = 2² = 4 infected compartments are 𝒜₁ = {A, B}, 𝒜₂ = {A}, 𝒜₃ = {B}, and 𝒜₄ = ∅

We assume that antibiotic A is already on the market. For the development of a second antibiotic, there are two possibilities for pharmaceutical companies.

• Antibiotic B₁: This is a broad-spectrum antibiotic that is as effective as antibiotic A against wild-type strains. It is also effective against strains that are resistant against A.

• Antibiotic B₂: This is a narrow-spectrum antibiotic that is, by a factor 1 − α_B (0 ≤ α_B ≤ 1), less effective against wild-type strains. However, antibiotic B₂ is, by a factor 1 + γ_B (γ_B > 0), more effective against strains that are resistant against A than A is effective against strains that are resistant to B₂.

Note that we use the terms “narrow” and “broad” to classify antibiotics according to their effectiveness against certain bacterial strains ⁴.

We will later turn to costs and chances to develop such antibiotics, but at the moment, we consider what happens if either B₁ or B₂ is being developed and used for treating patients.

B. The model

For both types of antibiotics, we derive the corresponding population-level dynamics according to Eq. (1): where we have set γ_B = α_B = ϵ ∈ [0, 1] (see Sec. IV A). Furthermore, we assumed that the antibiotic-induced recovery rate, the infection rate, and the fraction of individuals that develop an antibiotic resistance is constant for all antibiotics, i.e. h_ij = h, b_i = b and s_ij = s. For modeling antibiotic B₁, we simply set ϵ = 0. If antibiotic B₂ is present, we set the values of these parameters to the efficiency disadvantages and advantages of B₂ relative to A. Note that the assumption of an equal infection rate b of different strains is justified by corresponding empirical findings [38]. We now focus on four different treatment strategies:

1. Treatment with antibiotic B₁ and symmetric use of antibiotics (i.e., 50/50): Hence, we have ϵ = 0. Moreover, since we consider a symmetric use, f_1A = 0.5 and f_1B = 0.5, this case describes a treatment strategy where 50% of patients with a wild-type-strain infection receive antibiotic A and the remaining 50% receive antibiotic B₁. Both antibiotics A and B₁ have the same effect on strains 1 and 2 and 1 and 3, respectively.

2. Treatment with antibiotic B₁ and asymmetric use of antibiotics (i.e., 100/0): Hence, we again have ϵ = 0. We only use the new antibiotic B₁ against strains that are resistant against A. All patients with a wild-type-strain infection receive antibiotic A, i.e. f_1A = 1 and f_1B = 0.

3. Treatment with antibiotic B₂ and symmetric use of antibiotics: The symmetric use implies f_1A/f_1B = 50/50 for wild-type-strain infections. The prefactor 1 − ϵ accounts for the corresponding recovery-rate difference in the wild-type compartment. However, antibiotic B₂ is more effective in compartment 3, where individuals have an antibiotic-induced recovery rate of h(1 + ϵ).

4. Treatment with antibiotic B₂ and asymmetric use of antibiotics: In this scenario, we only use antibiotic A in compartment Y₁ and thus set f_1A = 1 and f_1B = 0.

C. Comparisons

We now compare treatment strategies I–IV in terms of P ^∗, G, T_1/2, G_1/2 (see Figs. 5 and 6), and the use of the antibiotics A and B₁ and B₂, respectively. We can keep track of the consumption of antibiotics A and B by integrating over time. We now compare scenarios I–IV, by varying ϵ from 0 to 1.

We first look for differences between the evolution of the wild-type and fully resistant compartments under 50/50 and 100/0 treatment. Based on the simulation data that we show in Fig. 4, we conclude that the variability in y₁ and y₄ is much larger under 50/50 treatment than under 100/0 treatment. Comparing the performance measures P ^∗, G, T_1/2, and G_1/2 (see Figs. 5 and 6), we find that the 50/50 and 100/0 are equivalent for ϵ = 0. For larger values of ϵ, the gain G of the 50/50 strategy is smaller than the gain of the 100/0 strategy. Differences between the two treatment strategies are also reflected in the final consumption C_A and C_B of antibiotics A and B (see Fig. 7). For ϵ ≳ 0.5, the 100/0 treatment leads to a significantly lower consumption/return of both antibiotics compared to 50/50 protocol.

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Figure 4. Growth of multi-resistant strains under 50/50 and 100/0 treatment.

The evolution of wild-type y₁ (black solid line) and completely resistant infections y₄ (red solid line) under 50/50 treatment with (a) and 100/0 treatment with f_1A = 1 and (b). To obtain the solutions shown, we numerically solve Eqs. (7) with a classical Runge-Kutta scheme in the time interval [0, T] with T = 100 setting λ = 100, d = 1, c = 1.5, b = 0.03, r_i = (2 − k)0.1 (k is the number of effective antibiotics in the respective layer), h = 1, s = 0.05, α_B = γ_B = E ≥ 0. The initial conditions are x(0) = 50, y₁(0) = 33.33, y₂(0) = y₃(0) = y₄(0) = 0.

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Figure 5. Treatment with two antibiotics (50/50 strategy).

We numerically solve Eqs. (7) with a classical Runge-Kutta scheme in the time interval [0, T] with T = 100 setting λ = 100, d = 1, c = 1.5, b = 0.03, r_i = (2 − k)0.1 (k is the number of effective antibiotics in the respective layer), h = 1, s = 0.05, and f_1A = f_1B1 = 0.5, α_B = γ_B = ϵ ≥ 0. The initial conditions are x(0) = 50, y₁(0) = 33.33, y₂(0) = y₃(0) = y₄(0) = 0.

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Figure 6. Treatment with two antibiotics (100/0 strategy).

We numerically solve Eqs. (7) with a classical Runge-Kutta scheme in the time interval [0, T] with T = 100 setting λ = 100, d = 1, c = 1.5, b = 0.03, r_i = (2 − k)0.1 (k is the number of effective antibiotics in the respective layer), h = 1, s = 0.05, and , α_B = γ_B = ϵ ≥ 0. The initial conditions are x(0) = 50, y₁(0) = 33.33, y₂(0) = y₃(0) = y₄(0) = 0.

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Figure 7. Antibiotic consumption.

We show the stationary antibiotic consumption lim_t→∞ C_A and lim_t→∞ C_B for the 50/50 treatment with (a) and 100/0 treatment with f_1A = 1 and f_1B2 = 0 (b). We numerically solve Eqs. (7) with a classical Runge-Kutta scheme in the time interval [0, T] with T = 100 setting λ = 100, d = 1, c = 1.5, b = 0.03, r_i = (2 − k)0.1 (k is the number of effective antibiotics in the respective layer), h = 1, s = 0.05, and α_B = γ_B = ϵ ≥ 0. The initial conditions are x(0) = 50, y₁(0) = 33.33, y₂(0) = y₃(0) = y₄(0) = 0.

These figures highlight a fundamental dilemma. Developing a narrow-spectrum antibiotic B₂ is highly beneficial for society, but then it should only be used very little, namely against the strains which are resistant against antibiotic A. We refer to this issue as the antibiotics dilemma: Developing a narrow-spectrum antibiotic against resistant bacteria is most attractive for society, but least attractive for companies, since usage is should be limited, so that sales are low.

A. The basic principles

The situation is further complicated by additional properties of antibiotics development and usage. First, the development costs are enormous, in the range of several billion USD, and second the chances to succeed are low. This is true in general for new drugs [22] but more pronounced for antibiotics, where the success probability may be as low as 5% [23]. Third, once a narrow-spectrum antibiotics is developed and it is also effective to some degree against wild-type strains, using it for wild-type strains should not be commercially attractive.

To overcome the antibiotics dilemma and associated complications, we suggest to introduce a refunding scheme for the use of newly developed antibiotics. The refunding scheme works as follows:

1. An antibiotics fund should be started by initial contributions from the industry and public institutions like the establishment of the recent AMR Action fund. In addition all antibiotic use is charged with a small fee which is channeled continuously into the antibiotics fund.

2. Firms that develop new antibiotics obtain a refund from the fund.

3. The refund for a particular antibiotic is calculated with a formula that satisfies the following three properties:

   • There is a fixed payment for a successful development of an antibiotic, i.e. an antibiotic that is approved by the public health agency responsible for such approvals (e.g., the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA)). This part is in the spirit of Ref. [39], as it is equivalent to an advanced market commitment. Pharmaceutical companies know that once an approved patent for a new antibiotics is awarded, they will be reimbursed part of their development costs.

   • The refund is strongly increasing with the use of the new antibiotic for currently resistant bacteria, compared to other newly developed antibiotics for this purpose. This part is the resistance premium.

   • The refund is weakly or strongly declining in the use of the antibiotics for non-resistant bacteria, compared to other antibiotics used for this purpose.

The objective of our refunding scheme is to financially incentivize pharmaceutical companies to undertake R&D for new narrow-spectrum antibiotics, by using a minimum-size antibiotics fund. As we will demonstrate below, all three elements are necessary to achieve this purpose.

Several remarks are in order: First, refunding schemes are widely discussed in the environmental literature to provide incentives for firms to reduce pollution [40]. Second, simple forms of refunding schemes could also be used in other contexts where pharmaceutical companies have only little financial interest to investing in drug research, due to potentially low sales volumes. This is, for instance, the case for orphan drug development and vaccine research for viral infections including SARS and Ebola or enduring epidemic diseases in the sense of Ref. [41]. However, for such cases, refunding schemes are much easier to construct, since they can solely rely on the usage, e.g. the number of vaccinated individuals. For antibiotics—because of the antibiotics dilemma—one has to construct new types of refunding schemes with “sticks and carrots”: The carrot for using the antibiotic against bacterial strains resistant against other antibiotics and sticks for using the antibiotics against wild-type strains. Those complications do not arise with the aforementioned (simple) refunding schemes in the environmental sciences. Third, one might also achieve sufficiently-strong incentives to develop new antibiotics without a refunding scheme by allowing for very high prices when an antibiotic is used against bacterial strains that are resistant against other antibiotics. We do not pursue this approach since enormously high prices for a treatment would raise ethical and health concerns, since certain therapies might then not be affordable anymore, which, in turn, would further fuel the spreading of resistant bacteria. Moreover, since the use of an antibiotic against wild-type strains exerts a negative externality on all individuals—due to the possible emergence of resistant bacteria in response to this use—all cases of antibiotics use contribute to the financing of narrow-spectrum antibiotics. Levying a fee on antibiotic use not only fills up the antibiotic fund and incentives the development of narrow-spectrum antibiotics, it also promotes the cautious use of existing antibiotics. Both effects internalize the negative externality caused by antibiotic use.

B. Refunding schemes for two antibiotics

The mathematical model we formulate for the proposed refunding and incentivization scheme discussed above includes two elements:

• There is a fixed amount, denoted by α, which a pharmaceutical company obtains if it successfully develops a new antibiotic B_i, i.e. an antibiotic approved by a public health authority.

• There is a variable refund that is determined by the following refunding function: where i ∈ {1, 2} (to represents antibiotics B₁ and B₂) and β and γ are scaling parameters, with β being a large number and γ satisfying γ ≥ 1. The refunding function g(f_1Bi y₁, f_3Bi y₃) determines the relative use of the new antibiotic in compartment 3 (A-resistant strains) compared to the total use of the antibiotic weighted by the parameter γ. We require the refunding function to be

  • – bounded according to ,

  • – increasing in the use for currently resistant bacteria in comparison with other newly developed antibiotics used for this purpose: ,

  • – declining in the use of antibiotics for non-resistant bacteria in comparison with other antibiotics used for this purpose: ,

  • – maximal if the antibiotic is only used to treat A-resistant strains and 0 if it is only used for nonresistant strain treatment.

Note that refunding scheme uses three free parameters α, β, and γ. While in the simplest cases, only one or two parameters would be needed, we will see in the subsequent section that all three parameters are necessary to achieve the objective of the refunding scheme.

The total refund that a successful pharmaceutical company receives in the time interval [0, T] for developing an antibiotic B_i is given by We note that for γ = 1, the refund is solely determined by f_3By₃ and the use for compartment 1 is irrelevant for the refund. For γ > 1, the use of antibiotics for compartment 1 decreases the refund.

C. Incentivizing development

We next focus on the research and development efforts of pharmaceutical companies and on how antibiotics are used once they have been developed. For this purpose, we first consider the situation without refunding. Companies are assumed to make a risk-neutral evaluation of the profit opportunities and loss risks from investing in such developments. For simplicity, we neglect discounting. Then, without refunding (i.e., without R_i(T)), the net profit of a company that develops an antibiotic B_i is given by: where K_i denotes the total development costs of B_i, and q_i the probability of success when the development is undertaken. Moreover, p_i is the revenue per unit of the antibiotic used in medical treatments and v_i are the production costs per unit.

Note that in our example with two antibiotics, , since only drug B_i can be used for A-resistant strains. We assume that without refunding, π_i is (strongly) negative, because of high development costs K_i and low success probabilities q_i. The task of a refunding scheme is now three-fold: First, it has to render developing new antibiotics commercially viable. Second, it has to render developing narrow-spectrum antibiotics more attractive than developing broad-spectrum antibiotics. Third, if a narrow-spectrum antibiotic is developed that is also effective against wild-type strains, but less so than others, the refunding scheme should make the use against wild-type strains unattractive.

With a refunding scheme in place, we directly look at the conditions for such a scheme to achieve the break-even condition, i.e. a situation at which π becomes zero and investing into antibiotics development becomes just commercially viable. The general break-even condition for a newly developed antibiotic B_i is given by Clearly, refunding increases the profits from developing new antibiotics. There are many combinations of the refunding parameters α, β, and γ that can achieve this break-even condition. However and more subtly, the refunding has to increase the incentives for the development of narrow-spectrum antibiotics more than those for broad-spectrum antibiotics. This can be achieved by an appropriate choice of the scaling parameter, as we will illustrate next.

D. Critical conditions for refunding parameters

To derive the critical refunding parameters, we assume that the parameter α, with 0 < α < K_i, is given and thus a fixed share of the R&D costs is covered by the antibiotics fund. Based on the break-even condition (see Eq. (12)), we obtain the following general condition that the parameters β and γ have to satisfy: The goal of our refunding scheme is to incentivize pharmaceutical companies to produce narrow-spectrum antibiotics B₂ that are only used against currently resistant strains (see treatment strategy IV in Sec. IV). Thus, the refunding scheme has to satisfy two conditions: first, with the development of the antibiotic B₂, the company achieves break-even. Second, developing antibiotic B₁ is not attractive, i.e. the profit is negative. To satisfy the first condition, we use Eq. (13) and obtain the optimal value where we used that (see Sec. IV). To achieve negative profit for using B₁, we need to choose the parameter γ such that developing a broad-spectrum antibiotic B₁ and applying it in y₁ and y₃ (see treatment strategy I in Sec. IV) is not more attractive than developing a narrow-spectrum antibiotic B₂ according to treatment strategy IV (see Sec. IV). Thus, the refunding scheme needs to satisfy If we evaluate inequality 15 as an equality, we obtain a critical value for γ, denoted by , for certain values of β^∗, p₁, and v₁. For , it is more profitable to produce a narrow-spectrum antibiotic B₂ and get a higher refund than to develop a broad-spectrum antibiotic B₁ and sell more units. We observe that this critical value is uniquely determined, since the left side is strictly decreasing in γ. We discuss conditions for the existence of in the next section.

Third, we need to make sure that a narrow-spectrum antibiotic B₂ is not used for wild-type bacterial strains (see the 50/50 treatment strategy III in Sec. IV). Since a narrow-spectrum antibiotic may be also effective for wild-type strains, the refunding scheme should exclude any incentives to use B₂ in compartment Y₁. In terms of our refunding scheme, this could be achieved by replacing the 50/50 treatment strategy involving antibiotic B₁ on the left-hand side of Eq. (15) with the 50/50 treatment strategy involving antibiotic B₂. Note that the resulting critical value for γ, which we denote by , is different from . An alternative to imposing this additional constraint on the refunding scheme is to implement strict medical guidelines which demand that less-effective antibiotics should not be used in compartment Y₁.

Together, Eqs. (14) and (15) determine the refunding scheme that ensures that a pharmaceutical company breaks even at time T by developing a narrow-spectrum antibiotic, does not focus on broad-spectrum antibiotics and the narrow-spectrum antibiotics is not misused once it is developed.

E. Numerical example

We now focus on a simple example to illustrate how our refunding scheme can incentivize the development of narrow-spectrum antibiotics. For this purpose, we use the parameters listed in Tab. I. To work with reasonable population sizes, we apply our refunding scheme to populations with 50, 100, and 150 million people and rescale the corresponding compartments that we used to determine the antibiotic consumption in Fig. 7.

We first determine β^∗ according to Eq. (14) and show the results in Fig. 8 (a). Since the consumption decreases with ϵ (see Fig. 7), the critical refunding parameter β^∗ has to increase with ϵ. Before discussing the corresponding values of and , we briefly summarize the conditions for the existence of a critical value γ^∗ and distinguish three cases.

Case I: If (i = 1, 2 and f(·) is chosen according to some treatment strategy), we find that Eq. (15) is satisfied for any γ > 0 independent of the underlying refunding scheme since, for finite γ, Case II: If and there exists a γ^∗ > 0 such that the left-hand side of Eq. (15) (for B_i and corresponding refunding parameters) is equal to zero.

Case III: If , it is not possible to satisfy Eq. (15) (for B and corresponding refunding parameters), since p_i − v_i is too large.

For the parameters of Tab. I, we show the resulting and in Fig. 8 (b–d). We observe that always exists for the chosen parameters, whereas only exists for certain values of ϵ (case II). Case I does not exist in the outlined example, since the chosen β^∗ (Eq. (14)) is too large to satisfy Eq. (15) (evaluated for B₂ and corresponding refunding parameters) for any γ > 0. At the boundary separating cases II and III, we find that diverges. Note that the size of region associated with case III increases with population size. To avoid such scenarios in real-world applications of our refunding scheme, we could, for instance, reduce the refunding offset α.

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Figure 8. Critical refunding parameters.

We show the critical refunding parameters β^∗ (a) and γ^∗ (b–d) for different ϵ and population sizes 50 ×10⁶, 100 × 10⁶, and 150 × 10⁶. The critical refunding parameter β^∗ increases with population size (a). A finite and is indicated by the black solid line, whereas the left hand side of Eq. (15) is always positive in the grey-shaded region (b–d). We numerically solve Eqs. (7) with a classical Runge-Kutta scheme in the time interval [0, T] with T = 100 setting λ = 100, d = 1, c = 1.5, b = 0.03, r_i = (2 − k)0.1 (k is the number of effective antibiotics in the respective layer), h = 1, s = 0.05, α_B = γ_B = ϵ ≥ 0. The initial conditions are x(0) = 50, y₁(0) = 33.33, y₂(0) = y₃(0) = y₄(0) = 0. All compartments were rescaled according to the shown population sizes.

To summarize:

• For intermediate consumption of B₂ in 50/50 treatment (see treatment strategy III in Sec. IV) and corresponding returns, a finite exists (see Fig. 8 (b–d)). Within the green-shaded regions of Fig. 8 (b–d), Eq. (15) is satisfied for B₁ and B₂ ( and ), whereas the left-hand side of Eq. (15) is positive for B₁ and B₂ within the red-shaded regions ( and ).

• Within the orange-shaded regions of Fig. 8 (b–d), either or .

• If the expected return associated with the B₂ treatment strategy III of Sec. IV is too large, there is no γ > 0 that discourages pharmaceuticals from developing such drugs (grey-shaded regions in Fig. 8 (c) and (d)).

A. Generalizations

We first generalize the refunding scheme for possible treatment with more than 2 antibiotics. We assume that currently, N₁ antibiotics are used. Now, N₂ new antibiotics are potentially developed, such that the total number of antibiotics is N = N₁ + N₂. Note that before new antibiotics are introduced, there is 1 non-resistant strain and a total of strains that are resistant to some antibiotic. Furthermore, there is one class of bacterial strains that is resistant to all antibiotics currently on the market. The class of microbes that is resistant to all N antibiotics has the index . The generalized refunding scheme still consists of a fixed refund α and a variable refund that depends on the use of the antibiotic in the different compartments. The scaling parameter γ₁ “punishes” the use of the antibiotic for wild-type strains by decreasing the refund. In addition, γ₂ scales the reward of the use of the antibiotic for strains that are resistant to some, but not all, antibiotics currently on the market. Note that γ₂ could be negative, such that the refund still increases in the use for partially resistant strains. Lastly, the refund strongly increases in the use for fully-resistant strains in the class .

The refunding scheme is given by: where denotes the vector of the usage of a newly developed drug B_i in all compartments Y_j with j ∈ {1, …, N}. The use in each compartment is given by .

The break-even conditions can be established as for the 2-antibiotics case, but now with adjusted total consumption per antibiotic and with the generalized refunding scheme.

Similarly to the extension to more than 2 antibiotics, the refunding scheme can be generalized when more than one pharmaceutical company should be given incentives to do R&D on narrow-spectrum antibiotics. In such cases, the refunding parameters have to be adjusted, such that with lower sales volumes for each company, it is still profitable to undertake the R&D investments.

B. Multi-dimensional R&D uncertainties

The development and usage of antibiotics is subject to a variety of uncertainties. In particular, companies may not know at the beginning of a development process against which type of bacterial strains the drug that might emerge will be effective. Such uncertainties can be taken into account as follows: Suppose a pharmaceutical company starts an R&D process for an antibiotic, but does not know initially, whether it will turn out to be broad or narrow-spectrum, as this will only become known during or, in the worst case, at the end of the development process.

A possible solution to this issue is setting the value of β equal to β^∗ + δ for some small δ > 0. Moreover, we set γ at the critical value γ^∗ for the value of β^∗ + δ. Then, starting the R&D investment is profitable and the incentives for a narrow-spectrum antibiotic are maximal. If during the R&D process, a narrow-spectrum opportunity emerges, it will be chosen, since profits will be higher than for a broad-spectrum antibiotic. However, the company also breaks even for a broad-spectrum antibiotic. Hence, the company faces no additional risk if it is impossible at the beginning to evaluate whether a broad or narrow-spectrum antibiotics will result from the R&D investment.

C. Diagnostics and treatment uncertainties

The refunding scheme depends on the ability of doctors to rapidly identify the strain of bacteria that caused a certain infection. For a fraction of such treatments, this may be impossible - in particular in emergency situations or when rapid, high-throughput diagnostic devices are unavailable. Note that certain bacterial strains can already be identified in a few hours by using peptide nucleic acid (PNA) fluorescent in-situ hybridization (FISH) tests, mass spectroscopy, and polymerase chain reaction (PCR)-based methods [14].

The refunding scheme can be readily adapted to allow for diagnostic and treatment uncertainties. For instance, one could base refunding only on diagnosed strains of bacteria against which the antibiotics is used. The refunding parameters have to be adapted accordingly. Basing refunding only on cases in which the bacterial strain has been diagnosed and reported would provide further incentives for pharmaceuticals to develop fast diagnostic tests to identify the sources of infections.

A further refinement would be to provide a refund in case a newly developed antibiotic is used and turns out to be effective. Such success targeting would be desirable, but may not be easily implementable in practice. As long as the success rates of an antibiotic that is effective against particular bacterial strains are known or can be estimated with sufficient precision, taking the usage/bacterial strain data would be sufficient to provide desirable incentives to engage in R&D for narrow-spectrum antibiotics.

D. Small firms and the R&D ecosystem

Both small biotech companies and large pharmaceutical companies play a significant role in developing new antibiotics. The flexibility, nimbleness, and flat organizational structure of smaller biotech companies that specialize in innovative antibacterial treatments can be very effective for the development of new antibiotics. Therefore, while refunding will mostly benefit large pharmaceutical companies, the anticipation of such refunds is expected to also motivate smaller biotech companies to step up with R&D efforts. These smaller companies can expect significant rewards when they sell or license their patents to larger companies. Moreover, small biotech companies may receive much more start-up funding both from venture capitalists and larger pharmaceutical companies, and one might even consider using the antibiotics fund for this purpose as well. Hence, it is expected that the refunding scheme will be nourishing for the entire ecosystem that develops new antibiotics.

E. The antibiotics fund and participating countries

A necessary condition for the functioning of our refunding scheme is the existence of an antibiotics fund with sufficient equity to cover R&D incentives. Similar to the recently established AMR Action Fund, which aims at bridging the gap between the pipeline for innovative antibiotics and patients, an antibiotics fund should be started by initial contributions from industry and public institutions. Since it is in the collective self-interest of the pharmaceutical industry to solve the antibiotics dilemma—as otherwise many other business lines and their reputation will be harmed—a significant contribution from the industry to set up the antibiotics fund can be expected, as was the case for the AMR Action Fund.

In addition, a continuous refilling of the fund can be achieved by levying a fee on every use of existing antibiotics. These fees have to be set in such a way that the antibiotics fund will never be empty. Since the (sometimes excessive) use of existing antibiotics (e.g., in agricultural settings [42–44]) creates the resistance problem, levying this fee not only helps to continuously refill the fund, but it may also help to use existing antibiotics cautiously. Ultimately, the antibiotics fund and the refunding scheme are a mechanism to internalize the externality in antibiotics use, namely the creation of resistant bacteria.

As in the context of slowing down climate change, the ideal implementation would involve a global refunding scheme administered by an international agency, because reducing resistance is a global public good. However, also similar to implementing climate-change policies, worldwide adoption should be extremely difficult and might be impossible to achieve. As a starting point, a set of industrialized countries should agree to a treaty that fails if any of them does not participate. Once an antibiotic fund has been initiated, a treaty should establish the continuing financing of the antibiotics fund and the refunding scheme. The gains would be large and may lead to long-standing self-enforcing incentives to substantially and continuously increase the chances to develop antibiotics against resistant bacteria. If attempts to build a larger coalition fail, the European Union or the US could take the lead and become the first country or coalition of countries that implements a refunding scheme for antibiotics.