Doctors use poo pills to flush out dangerous superbugs
The focus is on the bowels which are "the biggest reservoir of antibiotic resistance in humans" says Dr Blair Merrick, who has been testing the pills at Guys and St Thomas' hospitals.Drug-resistant superbugs can escape their intestinal home and cause trouble elsewhere in the body – such as urinary tract or bloodstream infections."So there's a lot of interest in 'can you get rid of them from the gut?'," says Dr Merrick.The idea of poo-pills isn't as far-fetched as it might seem. Faecal transplants – also known as a trans-poo-tion - are already approved for treating severe diarrhoea caused by Clostridium difficile bacteria.But scientists noticed hints that faecal transplants for C. difficile also seemed to get rid of superbugs.
New research has focused on patients who had an infection caused by drug-resistant bacteria in the past six months.They were given pills made from faeces which people had donated to a stool bank.Each stool sample is tested to ensure it does not contain any harmful bugs, undigested food is removed and then it is freeze dried into a powder.This is stored inside a pill that can pass through the stomach unscathed and reach the intestines where it dissolves to release its poopy powdery payload.
The trial has taken place on 41 patients at Guy's and St Thomas' hospitals in London to lay the groundwork for a large-scale study. It showed patients were up for taking a poo pill and the donated bacteria were still being detected in the bowels at least a month later.Dr Merrick says there are "really promising signals" that poo pills could help tackle the rising scourge of superbugs and that donor bacteria could be going to microbial war with the superbugs as they compete over food and space on the lining of the gut and either rid the body of them completely or "reduce them down to a level that doesn't cause problems".The study also suggests the array of gut bacteria becomes more varied after the therapy. This is a sign of good health and "may well be promoting colonisation resistance" so it is harder for new infectious bugs to get in."It's very exciting. There's a real shift from 20 years ago where all bacteria and viruses were assumed to do you harm; to now where we realise they are completely necessary to our overall health," says Dr Merrick.Earlier this week scientists showed the good bacteria our bodies meet – in the hours after we are born – seem to halve the risk of young children being admitted to hospital with lung infections.
Our body's own human cells are outnumbered by the bacteria, fungi and others that live inside us - known as the microbiome.This has led to research implicating the microbiome in everything from Crohn's disease to cancer to mental health. If poo pills are proven to work against superbugs in larger studies then the researchers think they could be used for both treatment and prevention in people at risk. Medical procedures that suppress the immune system - including cancer therapies and organ transplants - can make the body more vulnerable."A lot of these individuals come to a lot of harm from drug resistant organisms," Dr Merrick.The UK's drugs regulator – the Medicines and Healthcare Products Agency – said there were more than 450 microbiome medicines currently in development."Some of them will success, so I do think we will seem them coming through quite soon," said Dr Chrysi Sergaki, the head of microbiome research at the MHRA."We could potentially, in the future, replace antibiotics with microbiome [therapies] - that's the big picture, so there's a lot of potential."
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Daily Mail
10 minutes ago
- Daily Mail
When cold sores can kill or cause brain damage: Doctor warns what you should NEVER do if you have one
Two weeks after a straightforward birth by planned caesarean, baby Violet Stevens became ill. 'One day she vomited a lot, the next she looked like she had conjunctivitis brewing and felt a bit warm,' says her mother Holly, who lives in south London with her son Freddy, six, and Violet, now aged five months.
Telegraph
10 minutes ago
- Telegraph
Ulrika Jonsson's comments about ageing are heartwarming and dangerous in equal measure
As part of the last generation to sunbathe with immunity, I can relate to Ulrika Jonsson's sun loving past. The presenter, who took to social media last week to hit back at trolls who had criticised her tanned appearance, told her followers she's 'a self-confessed sun worshipper' and not ashamed to use sunbeds. 'I understand that an over-tanned, imperfect and AGEING female face offends you. But try to listen to the words rather than constantly judge a woman's appearance,' Jonsson wrote on the below Instagram post. View this post on Instagram A post shared by Ulrika Jonsson🍉 (@ulrikajonssonofficial) Like Ulrika, I'm a Gen Xer who grew up in the tan-obsessed 1980s – an inconvenience when you're born with a clotted cream complexion that refuses to mimic the bronzed aesthetic of the day. As an insecure adolescent, each summer, I embarked on a two-month-long project to turn my Celtic limbs David Dickinson brown. Back then, the route to copper-tone glow was to bake under the sun for hours unprotected, often coated in oil – Hawaiian Tropic if you could, baby oil if not. The burn-to-tan method was shockingly unchallenged and a sacrifice pasty Britons like me were willing to endure to fit in. I cringe now, but peeling and skin blisters were par for the course; the tanner you were, the healthier, prettier you were to the opposite sex. No one spoke of skin cancer, let alone about sun-induced ageing. In fact, tanning was such an integral part of 1980s culture that the mahogany tan actor George Hamilton reportedly had a sunbed installed in his Rolls-Royce. And yet the rise of indoor tanning beds is where it all went wrong. In 2012, a study conducted by the Mayo Clinic found that melanoma in women aged 18-39 increased eightfold from 1970 to 2009. The report cited sunbeds as the main source of skin cancer rates during that period. And herein lies the complexity of Ulrika Jonsson's impassioned plea to leave her ageing face alone. On the one hand, her stance is incredibly rock and roll, a proverbial two fingers up at the impossible beauty standards women are held to – the ones that shame you for having wrinkles and for going under the knife in equal measure. The one that wags its finger at she who dares to soak up a few sunrays while toiling away in their garden, as Jonsson likes to do. The standards that I as a 51-year-old beauty writer are undoubtedly a part of, and the ones I too am personally wrestling with. In today's age-obsessed culture it's so rare to see a 50-something public figure with a face as wizened as Jonsson's that it's almost cool. And still, what's really going on here is not the rejection of a face that's ageing faster than the average celebrity's. It's projection of our own unchecked insecurities; a warning sign of what decades of UV exposure can do to a once-pristine complexion, damage that doesn't rear its head until years after the sunbathing actually occurred. There are two ways of looking at the 50-odd years of sun worship etched on Ulrika Jonsson's face: a sign of a life well lived, or an unpaid advertisement for the merits of wearing SPF. My sunbathing years ended in the early 1990s when news began filtering through that tanning was not the panacea we once thought it was. Since then, it's been my job to interview hundreds of experts who specialise in the downstream effects of sun exposure, from dermatologists to longevity scientists and product formulators. Sure there are benefits to a certain amount of sun exposure (Jonsson has severe eczema, which can be treated with controlled UV exposure), but the overwhelming evidence on its negative effects is hard to deny. UV damage has been proved time and again to be the number-one cause of ageing, whereas skin cancer rates are at a record high, according to Cancer Research UK. Which is why the ghastly trend for tan lines and tan tattoos accelerated by a rise in sunbed use on TikTok, the social media platform influencing my daughter's generation, worryingly reeks of a Trumpian-style U-turn on sun safety. I look back on my own adolescent quest for a tan line and smile in the same way I do when I reminisce about the time I got caught smoking for the first time or cruising around in my boyfriend's car without a seat belt. But blaming one's teenage misgivings for a lifetime of unhealthy habits reeks of a cop-out. Particularly since self-tanning and SPF formulations have got so sophisticated since then. You never can tell how well someone's skin is going to age. And hats off to the ones who don't give a toss. That kind of unabashed self-assurance is something I long to possess. But let's not abandon years of cancer research to make a point. Embracing the signs of ageing is admirable; tanning excessively is not. My three favourite high-factor facial SPFs for women over 50 La Roche-Posay Anthelios UVMune 400 Invisible Fluid Non-Perfumed Sunscreen SPF50+, £16, Cult Beauty It's a classic and for a reason. It's an ultra-lightweight fluid with high-factor broad spectrum protection, and I've yet to find anyone who didn't get on with this sun cream. I carry this in my make-up bag at all times. Lloyds Pharmacy marks this suitable for those suffering from eczema. CeraVe AM Facial Moisturising Lotion SPF50, £12.37, Boots Perfect for skin that needs youth-preserving and moisturising, you get high UV protection with moisturising antioxidant vitamin E, along with ceramides to restore the lipids that keep hydration locked in. What I love about this the most is that it's UVB, UVA and HEV protective – while being especially formulated for dry, sensitive skin. It also imparts a discreet illuminating tint, which I never say no to. Plus it's sweat-resistant, a bonus on heatwave days.
Sky News
34 minutes ago
- Sky News
US doctor in Gaza asks Trump's envoy to come and see reality on ground
An American doctor working at a hospital in Gaza has pleaded with Donald Trump's Middle East envoy to come and see the reality of what is happening on the ground. Doctor Tom Adamkiewicz, a paediatrician working at Nasser Hospital in Gaza, told Sky News the majority of the hospital's patients have signs of malnutrition and "many children are passing out literally during the day and injuring themselves". He said it was "particularly difficult" to see children with chronic illnesses "suffering from extreme severe malnutrition, because there's a combination of the chronic illness and malnutrition". Dr Adamkiewicz said his colleagues "have not eaten for a day" and are "gaunt", but added: "Yet they're incredibly resilient and doing amazing work." He said the prices in Gaza were "absolutely crazy" and 1kg of meat or sugar "costs the equivalent of $100 (£75). "So if people are saying there's plenty supply of food, that does not explain these absolutely crazy prices that people have to endure, and most people can't afford this," he said. "So this is an absolutely inhumane situation." Mr Adamkiewicz also spoke of what he had seen in the emergency room, with boys between the ages of 11 and 13 having "massive bullet wounds". Asked for his response to Donald Trump being told there is no famine in Gaza, Dr Adamkiewicz said: "This is an absolute lie. "This is absolutely not true, because I've seen that with my own eyes." He appeared emotional as he said of the US president's special envoy, Steve Witkoff, who arrived in Israel on Thursday: "I would like to have Mr Witkoff come here and talk to me, to my face, and I'll show him. "Mr Witkoff, just come here right now." Israel's war against Hamas and blockade of Gaza has led to the "worst-case scenario of famine" in the enclave of around two million Palestinians, according to the Integrated Food Security Phase Classification (IPC), the leading world authority on hunger crises. Mr Witkoff has led Washington's efforts to bring an end to the nearly 22-month war between Israel and Hamas. He will arrive in Israel on Thursday for talks on the situation in Gaza.
