Dr%20Claas%20Kirchhelle: List of publications

160 years after the discovery of its waterborne transmission and 120 years after the development of the first-generation of vaccines, typhoid fever remains a major health threat globally. In this Historical Review, we use WHO's Institutional Repository for Information Sharing to examine changes in typhoid control policy from January, 1940, to December, 2019. We used a mixed-methods approach in the analysis of infection control priorities, combining semi-inductive thematic coding with historical analysis to show major thematic shifts in typhoid control policy, away from water, sanitation, and hygiene (WASH)-based control towards vaccine-based interventions concurrent with declining attention to the disease. Documentary analysis shows that, although international planners never officially disavowed WASH and low-income countries persistently lobbied for WASH, vaccines emerged as a permanent stopgap while meaningful support of sustained WASH strengthening lost momentum-with serious, long-term ramifications for typhoid control.

In the wake of COVID-19, antimicrobial resistance (AMR) has become termed the 'silent pandemic', with a growing number of editorials warning that international momentum for AMR mitigation is being lost amidst the global turmoil of COVID-19, economic crises and the climate emergency. Yet, is it sufficient to now simply turn the volume of the pre-existing AMR policy discourse back up? Although existing AMR initiatives have previously achieved high levels of international attention, their impact remains limited. We believe it is time to critically reflect on the achievements of the past 7 years and adapt our AMR policies based on the substantial literature and evidence base that exists on the socioecological drivers of AMR. We argue that developing a more sustainable and impactful response requires a shift away from framing AMR as a unique threat in competition with other global challenges. Instead, we need to move towards an approach that emphasizes AMR as inherently interlinked and consciously hardwires upstream interventions into broader global developmental agendas.

Intestinal helminth parasites (worms) have afflicted humans throughout history and their eggs are readily detected in archaeological deposits including at locations where intestinal parasites are no longer considered endemic (e.g. the UK). Parasites provide valuable archaeological insights into historical health, sanitation, hygiene, dietary and culinary practices, as well as other factors. Differences in the prevalence of helminths over time may help us understand factors that affected the rate of infection of these parasites in past populations. While communal deposits often contain relatively high numbers of parasite eggs, these cannot be used to calculate prevalence rates, which are a key epidemiological measure of infection. The prevalence of intestinal helminths was investigated through time in England, based on analysis of 464 human burials from 17 sites, dating from the Prehistoric to Industrial periods. Eggs from two faecal-oral transmitted nematodes (Ascaris sp. and Trichuris sp.) and the food-derived cestodes (Taenia spp. and Diphyllobothrium latum syn Dibothriocephalus latus) were identified, although only Ascaris was detected at a high frequency. The changing prevalence of nematode infections can be attributed to changes in effective sanitation or other factors that affect these faecal-oral transmitted parasites and the presence of cestode infections reflect dietary and culinary preferences. These results indicate that the impact of helminth infections on past populations varied over time, and that some locations witnessed a dramatic reduction in parasite prevalence during the industrial era (18th-19th century), whereas other locations continued to experience high prevalence levels. The factors underlying these reductions and the variation in prevalence provide a key historical context for modern anthelmintic programs.

Antibiotic research and development is at an inflection point. Faced with ongoing problems with commercial innovation, we argue for a networked public approach to support and coordinate existing research and development initiatives by sustainably moving promising compounds through clinical trials. We propose a global public infrastructure of institutes tasked with (1) conducting all trial stages up to market authorisation, including small-scale compound production; (2) negotiating licensing agreements for global production and distribution by industry partners; and (3) using public purchasing agreements or subscription models to ensure commercially viable drug production at equitable prices. We invite stakeholders to consider our Networked Institute Model's benefits for unblocking the public and private antibiotic pipeline.

There is an increasingly urgent need for new antibiotics, yet there is a significant and persistent economic problem when it comes to developing such medicines. The problem stems from the perceived need for a "market" to drive commercial antibiotic development. In this article, we explore abandoning the market as a prerequisite for successful antibiotic research and development. Once one stops trying to fix a market model that has stopped functioning, one is free to carry out research and development (R&D) in ways that are more openly collaborative, a mechanism that has been demonstrably effective for the R&D underpinning the response to the COVID pandemic. New "open source" research models have great potential for the development of medicines for areas of public health where the traditional profit-driven model struggles to deliver. New financial initiatives, including major push/pull incentives, aimed at fixing the broken antibiotics market provide one possible means for funding an openly collaborative approach to drug development. We argue that now is therefore the time to evaluate, at scale, whether such methods can deliver new medicines through to patients, in a timely manner.

There is increasing concern globally about the enormity of the threats posed by antimicrobial resistance (AMR) to human, animal, plant and environmental health. A proliferation of international, national and institutional reports on the problems posed by AMR and the need for antibiotic stewardship have galvanised attention on the global stage. However, the AMR community increasingly laments a lack of action, often identified as an 'implementation gap'. At a policy level, the design of internationally salient solutions that are able to address AMR's interconnected biological and social (historical, political, economic and cultural) dimensions is not straightforward. This multidisciplinary paper responds by asking two basic questions: (A) Is a universal approach to AMR policy and antibiotic stewardship possible? (B) If yes, what hallmarks characterise 'good' antibiotic policy? Our multistage analysis revealed four central challenges facing current international antibiotic policy: metrics, prioritisation, implementation and inequality. In response to this diagnosis, we propose three hallmarks that can support robust international antibiotic policy. Emerging hallmarks for good antibiotic policies are: Structural, Equitable and Tracked. We describe these hallmarks and propose their consideration should aid the design and evaluation of international antibiotic policies with maximal benefit at both local and international scales.

Antimicrobial resistance (AMR) is an urgent threat to global public health and development. Mitigating this threat requires substantial short-term action on key AMR priorities. While international legal agreements are the strongest mechanism for ensuring collaboration among countries, negotiating new international agreements can be a slow process. In the second article in this special issue, we consider whether harnessing existing international legal agreements offers an opportunity to increase collective action on AMR goals in the short-term. We highlight ten AMR priorities and several strategies for achieving these goals using existing “legal hooks” that draw on elements of international environmental, trade and health laws governing related matters that could be used as they exist or revised to include AMR. We also consider the institutional mandates of international authorities to highlight areas where additional steps could be taken on AMR without constitutional changes. Overall, we identify 37 possible mechanisms to strengthen AMR governance using the International Health Regulations, the Agreement on the Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures, the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights, the Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade, the International Convention on the Harmonized Commodity Description and Coding System, and the Basel, Rotterdam, and Stockholm conventions. Although we identify many shorter-term opportunities for addressing AMR using existing legal hooks, none of these options are capable of comprehensively addressing all global governance challenges related to AMR, such that they should be pursued simultaneously with longer-term approaches including a dedicated international legal agreement on AMR.

The human microbiome is an important emergent area of cross, multi and transdisciplinary study. The complexity of this topic leads to conflicting narratives and regulatory challenges. It raises questions about the benefits of its commercialisation and drives debates about alternative models for engaging with its publics, patients and other potential beneficiaries. The social sciences and the humanities have begun to explore the microbiome as an object of empirical study and as an opportunity for theoretical innovation. They can play an important role in facilitating the development of research that is socially relevant, that incorporates cultural norms and expectations around microbes and that investigates how social and biological lives intersect. This is a propitious moment to establish lines of collaboration in the study of the microbiome that incorporate the concerns and capabilities of the social sciences and the humanities together with those of the natural sciences and relevant stakeholders outside academia. This paper presents an agenda for the engagement of the social sciences with microbiome research and its implications for public policy and social change. Our methods were informed by existing multidisciplinary science-policy agenda-setting exercises. We recruited 36 academics and stakeholders and asked them to produce a list of important questions about the microbiome that were in need of further social science research. We refined this initial list into an agenda of 32 questions and organised them into eight themes that both complement and extend existing research trajectories. This agenda was further developed through a structured workshop where 21 of our participants refined the agenda and reflected on the challenges and the limitations of the exercise itself. The agenda identifies the need for research that addresses the implications of the human microbiome for human health, public health, public and private sector research and notions of self and identity. It also suggests new lines of research sensitive to the complexity and heterogeneity of human–microbiome relations, and how these intersect with questions of environmental governance, social and spatial inequality and public engagement with science.

Pyrrhic Progress analyses over half a century of antibiotic use, regulation, and resistance in US and British food production. Mass-introduced after 1945, antibiotics helped revolutionize post-war agriculture. Food producers used antibiotics to prevent and treat disease, protect plants, preserve food, and promote animals’ growth. Many soon became dependent on routine antibiotic use to sustain and increase production. The resulting growth of antibiotic infrastructures came at a price. Critics blamed antibiotics for leaving dangerous residues in food, enabling bad animal welfare, and selecting for antimicrobial resistance (AMR) in bacteria, which could no longer be treated with antibiotics. Pyrrhic Progress reconstructs the complicated negotiations that accompanied this process of risk prioritization between consumers, farmers, and regulators on both sides of the Atlantic. Unsurprisingly, solutions differed: while Europeans implemented precautionary antibiotic restrictions to curb AMR, consumer concerns and cost-benefit assessments made US regulators focus on curbing drug residues in food. The result was a growing divergence of antibiotic stewardship and a rise of AMR. Kirchhelle’s comprehensive analysis of evolving non-human antibiotic use and the historical complexities of antibiotic stewardship provides important insights for current debates on the global burden of AMR.

The pipeline for new antibiotics is dry. Despite the creation of public/private initiatives like Combating Antibiotic Resistant Bacteria Biopharmaceutical Accelerator (Carb-X) and the Antimicrobial Resistance (AMR) Centre, the current focus on ‘push-pull’ incentives for the pharmaceutical industry still relies on economic return. We propose a joint, internationally-funded antimicrobial development institute that would fund permanent staff to take on roles previously assigned to pharmaceutical companies. This institute would receive ring-fenced, long-term, core funding from participating countries as well as charities, with the aim to focus on transforming the largely dormant antimicrobial pipeline. Resulting drugs would be sold globally and according to a principle of shared burdens. Our proposed model for antimicrobial development aims to maximise society’s investment, through open science, investment in people, and the sharing of intellectual property.

Since their advent during the 1930s, antibiotics have not only had a dramatic impact on human medicine, but also on food production. On farms, whaling and fishing fleets as well as in processing plants and aquaculture operations, antibiotics were used to treat and prevent disease, increase feed conversion, and preserve food. Their rapid diffusion into nearly all areas of food production and processing was initially viewed as a story of progress on both sides of the Iron Curtain. However, from the mid-1950s onwards, agricultural antibiotic use also triggered increasing conflicts about drug residues and antimicrobial resistance (AMR). Significantly, antibiotic concerns did not develop evenly but instead gave rise to an international patchwork of different regulatory approaches. During a time of growing concerns about AMR and a post-antibiotic age, this article reconstructs the origins, global proliferation, and international regulation of agricultural antibiotics. It argues that policymakers need to remember the long history of regulatory failures that has resulted in current antibiotic infrastructures. For effective international stewardship to develop, it is necessary to address the economic dependencies, deep-rooted notions of development, and fragmented cultural understandings of risk, which all contribute to drive global antibiotic consumption and AMR.

The past two decades have seen a surge of publications on the histories of various toxic substances. Often fusing approaches from environmental history and the histories of science, medicine, and technology, historians have explored the manufacturing of hazardous products and by-products; the various uses and cultural perceptions of toxic substances; their impact on health and the environment; and attempts to regulate toxic risk. This review summarises major themes arising from the growing body of historical work on the ‘toxic’. In synthesising these themes, the review highlights a common ‘toxic chronology’ that emerges from existing literature and discusses three new monographs in relation to gaps and weaknesses identified in current research.

Antibiotic development and usage, and antibiotic resistance in particular, are today considered global concerns, simultaneously mandating local and global perspectives and actions. Yet such global considerations have not always been part of antibiotic policy formation, and those who attempt to formulate a globally coordinated response to antibiotic resistance will need to confront a history of heterogeneous, often uncoordinated, and at times conflicting reform efforts, whose legacies remain apparent today. Historical analysis permits us to highlight such entrenched trends and processes, helping to frame contemporary efforts to improve access, conservation and innovation.