Maryn McKenna

Journalist and Author

More on NDM-1

By Leave a Comment

One of the frustrations of being a working journalist and a blogger is that, when a big blog-story breaks, you’re likely already to be working on something else. And so it is, unfortunately, with NDM-1: I’m on a magazine assignment and will be off interviewing people when I should be blogging.

(This s a great time to recommend that, for any breaking infectious disease news, you follow Crof at H5N1 (@crof) and Michael Coston at Avian Flu Diary (@Fla_Medic), who are dedicated, thoughtful, nimble and smart.)

Since I last posted, there’s been lots of additional coverage of the “Indian superbug.” Much of it, blog and media, is just echo chamber cannibalizing of the earliest reports (including but certainly not only mine), but there are some important new developments worth noting, which I’ll list below.

There are also some important points that are getting lost in the echo-chamber bounce: First, it is not correct to say that every person who acquired this was seeking cheap medical care or engaged in medical tourism; a few of them were treated on an emergency basis while traveling, and a few have no apparent healthcare tie. So this is not a situation of people seeking to save money and, as some commenters seem to be suggesting, receiving their karmic payback. (C’mon: Seriously?) Second, it is also not correct to say that every case of this has been linked to a hospital — it’s quite clear in the Lancet ID paper that in South Asia, a number of the cases were community infections. So it is not just a case of hospitals that are dirty or have poor infection control (which by the way is a problem in the US as well, right?); NDM-1 is already a community bug, which will make detection and defense much more complex.

OK, curated list:

First, if you’re interested in more from me, CNBC asked me to write up a piece about NDM-1, which ran Thursday; and Friday morning I was on the WNYC-FM (and nationally syndicated) radio show The Takeaway.

Second, the list of potential victims of NDM-1 is growing. Most of them have survived, so marking their cases is really a way of measuring the resistance factor’s previously undetected spread:

The UK has released a new statement, updating its earlier warning, and says it has found “around 50” cases carrying NDM-1, an update from the Lancet ID paper. (Side note: This statement, and the earlier warnings, came from the UK’s Health Protection Agency. The UK has just announced that it will be shutting down that agency in a cost-cutting measure. Great timing.)

The government of Hong Kong has announced that it has seen one case of NDM-1, but the patient recovered.

Canada has disclosed that it has had two cases, not the one mentioned in the Lancet ID editorial, in two different provinces.

Australia says that it has had three cases scattered across the country.

Belgium has announced one death.

And finally — sadly but probably not surprisingly — India is objecting to the stigma of being characterized as the source of NDM-1. The study’s first author has disassociated himself from the paper and members of the government are claiming a “pharma conspiracy.” Medical tourism has become a significant industry in India, and it is true  some of these reports cast doubt on its safety. But still, I find this reaction disappointing.

Evading the stigma of an emerging disease is not a new impulse: Recall how the government of China suppressed for 6 months the news of the start of the SARS epidemic. They did not stop the epidemic, of course — it eventually sicked more than 8000 people across the globe and killed about 775 — but their suppression of the details of its spread kept other jurisdictions from mounting a defense in time. From my teaching gigs in Hong Kong I can testify how much bitterness endures in Hong Kong over this.

China’s actions in 2002-03 led to the enactment of the new International Health Regulations by the WHO, which specify that, because expanding epidemics take no notice of borders, it is inappropriate for any government to attempt to impede the free flow of information about their spread. India is a signatory to the IHRs.

I am not suggesting that India is attempting any suppression of news about NDM-1 — there’s no evidence of that — but the volatile language being used does concern me. I acknowledge that India is an extremely open society, with degrees of political expression that can sound surprising from this distance. But let’s hope the government takes its commitment to the IHRs as seriously as any signatory should.

More on NDM-1

By Leave a Comment

One of the frustrations of being a working journalist and a blogger is that, when a big blog-story breaks, you’re likely already to be working on something else. And so it is, unfortunately, with NDM-1: I’m on a magazine assignment and will be off interviewing people when I should be blogging.

(This s a great time to recommend that, for any breaking infectious disease news, you follow Crof at H5N1 (@crof) and Michael Coston at Avian Flu Diary (@Fla_Medic), who are dedicated, thoughtful, nimble and smart.)

Since I last posted, there’s been lots of additional coverage of the “Indian superbug.” Much of it, blog and media, is just echo chamber cannibalizing of the earliest reports (including but certainly not only mine), but there are some important new developments worth noting, which I’ll list below.

There are also some important points that are getting lost in the echo-chamber bounce: First, it is not correct to say that every person who acquired this was seeking cheap medical care or engaged in medical tourism; a few of them were treated on an emergency basis while traveling, and a few have no apparent healthcare tie. So this is not a situation of people seeking to save money and, as some commenters seem to be suggesting, receiving their karmic payback. (C’mon: Seriously?) Second, it is also not correct to say that every case of this has been linked to a hospital — it’s quite clear in the Lancet ID paper that in South Asia, a number of the cases were community infections. So it is not just a case of hospitals that are dirty or have poor infection control (which by the way is a problem in the US as well, right?); NDM-1 is already a community bug, which will make detection and defense much more complex.

OK, curated list:

First, if you’re interested in more from me, CNBC asked me to write up a piece about NDM-1, which ran Thursday; and Friday morning I was on the WNYC-FM (and nationally syndicated) radio show The Takeaway.

Second, the list of potential victims of NDM-1 is growing. Most of them have survived, so marking their cases is really a way of measuring the resistance factor’s previously undetected spread:

The UK has released a new statement, updating its earlier warning, and says it has found “around 50” cases carrying NDM-1, an update from the Lancet ID paper. (Side note: This statement, and the earlier warnings, came from the UK’s Health Protection Agency. The UK has just announced that it will be shutting down that agency in a cost-cutting measure. Great timing.)

The government of Hong Kong has announced that it has seen one case of NDM-1, but the patient recovered.

Canada has disclosed that it has had two cases, not the one mentioned in the Lancet ID editorial, in two different provinces.

Australia says that it has had three cases scattered across the country.

Belgium has announced one death.

And finally — sadly but probably not surprisingly — India is objecting to the stigma of being characterized as the source of NDM-1. The study’s first author has disassociated himself from the paper and members of the government are claiming a “pharma conspiracy.” Medical tourism has become a significant industry in India, and it is true  some of these reports cast doubt on its safety. But still, I find this reaction disappointing.

Evading the stigma of an emerging disease is not a new impulse: Recall how the government of China suppressed for 6 months the news of the start of the SARS epidemic. They did not stop the epidemic, of course — it eventually sicked more than 8000 people across the globe and killed about 775 — but their suppression of the details of its spread kept other jurisdictions from mounting a defense in time. From my teaching gigs in Hong Kong I can testify how much bitterness endures in Hong Kong over this.

China’s actions in 2002-03 led to the enactment of the new International Health Regulations by the WHO, which specify that, because expanding epidemics take no notice of borders, it is inappropriate for any government to attempt to impede the free flow of information about their spread. India is a signatory to the IHRs.

I am not suggesting that India is attempting any suppression of news about NDM-1 — there’s no evidence of that — but the volatile language being used does concern me. I acknowledge that India is an extremely open society, with degrees of political expression that can sound surprising from this distance. But let’s hope the government takes its commitment to the IHRs as seriously as any signatory should.

NDM-1: Novel, global, complex and a serious threat

By Leave a Comment

There’s news today in the journal Lancet Infectious Diseases of the further spread of a troubling new resistance problem that I first talked about in June: Gram-negative bacteria carrying a novel resistance factor that has been dubbed New Delhi metallo-beta-lactamase, or NDM-1.

In writing about resistant bacteria, it’s difficult to avoid overusing superlatives — but this resistance mechanism has spread widely, been transported globally, and brings common bacteria up to the brink of untreatable. It already has been found in India and Pakistan, Sweden, the Netherlands, Australia, Canada and the US, and has been distributed not just by travel but specifically by medical tourism. It has the potential to become an extremely serious global threat.

Necessary background: One major way that microbiologists classify bacteria is on the basis of the organisms’ cell membranes; some have a single membrane, and others have two separated by fluid. The groups are identified by their response to a 4-step staining process, called Gram stain for the Danish physician who invented it in the 1880s. Cells that pick up the first stain applied, which is usually violet but sometimes blue, are single-walled; cells that resist the bath of the first stain, but pick up a lighter tint from another chemical in a later step, are double-walled. The single-membrane, dark-stained organisms are dubbed Gram-positive; the double-membrane organisms are known as Gram-negative.

Here’s why that distinction is so important for understanding antibiotic resistance: Most of the drugs that kill or control bacteria act by attaching to or penetrating through cell membrane. The double membrane of the Gram-negatives presents a greater obstacle to drug-molecule interference than the single membrane of the Gram-positives — and thus makes developing drugs that can control Gram-negatives a more complex task. Hence, while there’s abundant concern about the narrowing drug pipeline for Gram-positives including MRSA, there is even more alarm about the dearth of new drugs for Gram-negatives (as captured last year in this article from Clinical Infectious Diseases).

The novel resistance factor that is described today in Lancet ID appears only in Gram-negatives, primarily in E. coli and K. pneumoniae but also in other species. Bacteria that have acquired this mechanism are resistant to multiple classes of drugs commonly used against Gram-negatives: beta-lactams, fluoroquinolones, aminoglycosides, and most troublingly carbapenems, generally considered the drug class of last resort for those organisms. Several of the isolates found in the study were susceptible only to colistin, a drug that dates back to the 1960s and is considered toxic to the kidneys, and tigecycline, which was only licensed in the US in 2005. Several responded only to aztreonam. One was susceptible to nothing.

The real threat in today’s news, though, is not only how resistant these organisms have become; it is also how they got that way, and how and by what means they are spreading.

As the Lancet ID paper reports, NDM-1 resides on a plasmid — a snippet of DNA, not on a chromosome, that reproduces on its own and can move freely between organisms. Intuitively, you would think that bacteria either inherit resistance from their progenitors or develop it on their own when they encounter a drug. Plasmids short-circuit both those processes, allowing resistance to spread rapidly within a single bacterial generation to organisms that have never experienced the drug they are acquiring defenses against. And as the paper testifies, NDM-1 has spread: The authors surveyed for NDM-1 in India, Pakistan and the UK, and found it both widely distributed in South Asia, and also present in UK residents who had family or business ties to South Asia, or had gone to the subcontinent for medical care. And unlike some resistant organisms, the bacteria carrying NDM-1 were not confined to the bug-friendly environment of hospitals or the the debilitated systems of hospital patients. Instead, it was out in the community, causing common illnesses such as urinary tract infections.

There are a couple of points embedded in that report that bear unpicking because they are so foreboding.

First, that this is happening in India, which not only harbors some of the world’s largest manufacturers of generics, but also (and possibly synergistically) has some of the world’s highest rates of antibiotic use. Some Indian researchers have been warning for years that the subcontinent is on the verge of a homebrewed crisis of drug resistance (Indian Journal of Bioscience, Indian Journal of Medical Microbiology, Indian Journal of Medical Ethics).

Second, that it is linked to medical care, and especially to medical tourism — which has become a booming international industry, not only for elective options such as cosmetic surgery, but because it offers an inexpensive way to perform major procedures that health systems might once have wanted to have done close to the patient’s home. A study covered last January by The Independent in London recommended shipping UK patients to India for care, suggesting it could save the beleaguered health service more than $200 million.

And third, that these isolates were found in community infections caused by common organisms such as E. coli. That testifies not only to their wide distribution, but also to how difficult it might be to conduct surveillance for their presence — or, put another way, how easily they could evade detection while they continue to spread. It is not likely that physicians are going to culture every UTI that comes their way, either in the resource-poor developing world or in the overstressed conditions of Western medicine.

One example of the importance of surveillance: That’s how NDM-1’s first appearance in the United States was detected, via three isolates from three states that were tested at the CDC’s national labs in the first half of this year. In a bulletin in June (the subject of my first post on NDM-1), the CDC urged clinicians to be alert for resistant infections in any patients who reported receiving medical care in India or Pakistan.

Unfortunately, given the drought of new drugs for Gram-negatives, surveillance may be the best bet for controlling or at least slowing NDM-1’s further spread. It’s the urgent recommendation of the author of a companion Lancet ID editorial, also published today (and who appears to have seen Canada’s first case):

The spread of these multiresistant bacteria merits very close monitoring and worldwide, internationally funded, multicentre surveillance studies, especially in countries that actively promote medical tourism. Patients who have had medical procedures in India should be actively screened for multiresistant bacteria before they receive medical care in their home country. …The consequences will be serious if family doctors have to treat infections caused by these multiresistant bacteria on a daily basis.

 Cites:
Kumarasamy KK, Toleman MA, Walsh TR et al. Emergence of a new antibiotic resistance mechanism in India, Pakistan, and the UK: a molecular, biological, and epidemiological study. The Lancet Infectious Diseases, early online publication, 11 August 2010doi:10.1016/S1473-3099(10)70143-2
Pitout JDD, The latest threat in the war on antimicrobial resistance. The Lancet Infectious Diseases, early online publication, 11 August 2010. doi:10.1016/S1473-3099(10)70168-7

NDM-1: Novel, global, complex and a serious threat

By Leave a Comment

There’s news today in the journal Lancet Infectious Diseases of the further spread of a troubling new resistance problem that I first talked about in June: Gram-negative bacteria carrying a novel resistance factor that has been dubbed New Delhi metallo-beta-lactamase, or NDM-1.

In writing about resistant bacteria, it’s difficult to avoid overusing superlatives — but this resistance mechanism has spread widely, been transported globally, and brings common bacteria up to the brink of untreatable. It already has been found in India and Pakistan, Sweden, the Netherlands, Australia, Canada and the US, and has been distributed not just by travel but specifically by medical tourism. It has the potential to become an extremely serious global threat.

News break: Hospital-acquired MRSA trending down – but why?

By Leave a Comment

There’s good news today in the Journal of the American Medical Association: A 4-year study by the CDC and its partners in the Active Bacterial Core Surveillance System reports significant declines in invasive MRSA infections contracted in hospitals. The study, which covers 2005 through 2008, finds a decline of 9.4% per year among infections that were contracted in hospitals and also diagnosed there, and a parallel decline of 5.7% per year in what the CDC calls “hospital-acquired community-onset” infections, ones that were acquired in the hospital but didn’t become evident until after the patient was discharged. Overall, the decline over the study period of hospital-onset infections was 28%, and the decline in hospital-acquired community-onset infections was 17%.

MRSA is the leading organism in the vast national epidemic of hospital-acquired infections (HAIs), which conservatively sicken 1.7 million Americans per year and kills 99,000 of them. (Those numbers date back a decade to an Institute of Medicine report, and have been challenged by Consumers’ Union as an underestimate.) So any solid indication that the epidemic is decreasing is good news. And the CDC study is a solid indication, built on a population-based survey that covers about 15 million people in 9 geographical areas.

So it’s a great pity that we don’t really know why MRSA has declined in this fashion. The study can’t tell us. And because we don’t know, we’ll find it harder than it ought to be to keep the trend going in the appropriate direction.

Here’s the problem: Though it is about healthcare infections, this study doesn’t use data from hospitals. The study itself says: “National data describing changes in incidence in US healthcare institutions are not available.” The data that hospitals report on infections that occur within their walls or result from their actions, contained in the CDC’s National Healthcare Safety Network,  is voluntary, partial and anonymous; in fact, to participate, hospitals are guaranteed confidentiality. The only surveillance systems in the US where hospitals are not anonymous are the various states where legislators, out of exasperation or in response to citizen pressure, have passed laws mandating that infections be reported.

So the declines in MRSA incidence that are reported in this study can’t be linked to specific practices — and that’s important, because for more than a decade, American healthcare has been locked in a ferocious argument over the best way to reduce MRSA and other HAIs in hospitals.

On the one hand, there are institutions such as the Pittsburgh VA (in a project partially funded by the CDC and since adopted across the entire VA) and Evanston Northwestern Healthcare (now called Northshore University Health System) that follow some variant of “active surveillance and testing” or simply “search and destroy,” which tests incoming patients for MRSA carriage and isolates and treats them until they are clear. On the other hand, there are institutions that reject “search and destroy” as too MRSA-specific (and too dependent on expensive rapid-test technology) and opt instead for broader infection-control programs with special emphasis on hand hygiene and antibiotic stewardship. (This paper by physicians from Virginia Commonwealth University summarizes the issues well.) The patients whose data ended up in the JAMA CDC study might have attended hospitals that followed either of these paths, or neither. There’s no way to know.

In addition, a significant proportion of the decline in the CDC study fell into the category of bloodstream infections — which are now also being targeted by the checklist approach espoused by Macarthur Fellow Dr. Peter Pronovost and New Yorker writer and surgeon Dr. Atul Gawande, and adopted patchily across the US. Plus, there’s a further confounder: Since 2009, the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services has been applying a carrot-and-stick approach — refusal to reimburse for the extra care needed — to certain preventable hospital-caused conditions, including central-line associated bloodstream infections (which are caused by a variety of organisms including MRSA). How successful that has been, or how much influence it has exerted, has not been assessed.

So, to recap: MRSA appears to be declining in hospitals; that’s good. From this study, we can’t say why: That’s frustrating. And, one more point: If we had truly accountable, truly transparent hospital reporting for preventable infections and other medical errors, we would not be in this data fog. Surely it’s past time to clear the air.

Cite:
Kallen AJ, Mu Y, Bulens S et al. Health Care–Associated Invasive MRSA Infections, 2005-2008. JAMA. 2010;304(6):641-647. doi:10.1001/jama.2010.1115
Accompanying editorial:
Perencevich EN, Diekema DJ. Decline in Invasive MRSA Infection: Where to Go From Here? JAMA. 2010;304(6):687-689. doi:10.1001/jama.2010.1125

News break: Hospital-acquired MRSA trending down – but why?

By Leave a Comment

There’s good news today in the Journal of the American Medical Association: A 4-year study by the CDC and its partners in the Active Bacterial Core Surveillance System reports significant declines in invasive MRSA infections contracted in hospitals. The study, which covers 2005 through 2008, finds a decline of 9.4% per year among infections that were contracted in hospitals and also diagnosed there, and a parallel decline of 5.7% per year in what the CDC calls “hospital-acquired community-onset” infections, ones that were acquired in the hospital but didn’t become evident until after the patient was discharged. Overall, the decline over the study period of hospital-onset infections was 28%, and the decline in hospital-acquired community-onset infections was 17%.

MRSA is the leading organism in the vast national epidemic of hospital-acquired infections (HAIs), which conservatively sicken 1.7 million Americans per year and kills 99,000 of them. (Those numbers date back a decade to an Institute of Medicine report, and have been challenged by Consumers’ Union as an underestimate.) So any solid indication that the epidemic is decreasing is good news. And the CDC study is a solid indication, built on a population-based survey that covers about 15 million people in 9 geographical areas.

So it’s a great pity that we don’t really know why MRSA has declined in this fashion. The study can’t tell us. And because we don’t know, we’ll find it harder than it ought to be to keep the trend going in the appropriate direction.

Here’s the problem: Though it is about healthcare infections, this study doesn’t use data from hospitals. The study itself says: “National data describing changes in incidence in US healthcare institutions are not available.” The data that hospitals report on infections that occur within their walls or result from their actions, contained in the CDC’s National Healthcare Safety Network,  is voluntary, partial and anonymous; in fact, to participate, hospitals are guaranteed confidentiality. The only surveillance systems in the US where hospitals are not anonymous are the various states where legislators, out of exasperation or in response to citizen pressure, have passed laws mandating that infections be reported.

So the declines in MRSA incidence that are reported in this study can’t be linked to specific practices — and that’s important, because for more than a decade, American healthcare has been locked in a ferocious argument over the best way to reduce MRSA and other HAIs in hospitals.

On the one hand, there are institutions such as the Pittsburgh VA (in a project partially funded by the CDC and since adopted across the entire VA) and Evanston Northwestern Healthcare (now called Northshore University Health System) that follow some variant of “active surveillance and testing” or simply “search and destroy,” which tests incoming patients for MRSA carriage and isolates and treats them until they are clear. On the other hand, there are institutions that reject “search and destroy” as too MRSA-specific (and too dependent on expensive rapid-test technology) and opt instead for broader infection-control programs with special emphasis on hand hygiene and antibiotic stewardship. (This paper by physicians from Virginia Commonwealth University summarizes the issues well.) The patients whose data ended up in the JAMA CDC study might have attended hospitals that followed either of these paths, or neither. There’s no way to know.

In addition, a significant proportion of the decline in the CDC study fell into the category of bloodstream infections — which are now also being targeted by the checklist approach espoused by Macarthur Fellow Dr. Peter Pronovost and New Yorker writer and surgeon Dr. Atul Gawande, and adopted patchily across the US. Plus, there’s a further confounder: Since 2009, the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services has been applying a carrot-and-stick approach — refusal to reimburse for the extra care needed — to certain preventable hospital-caused conditions, including central-line associated bloodstream infections (which are caused by a variety of organisms including MRSA). How successful that has been, or how much influence it has exerted, has not been assessed.

So, to recap: MRSA appears to be declining in hospitals; that’s good. From this study, we can’t say why: That’s frustrating. And, one more point: If we had truly accountable, truly transparent hospital reporting for preventable infections and other medical errors, we would not be in this data fog. Surely it’s past time to clear the air.

Cite:
Kallen AJ, Mu Y, Bulens S et al. Health Care–Associated Invasive MRSA Infections, 2005-2008. JAMA. 2010;304(6):641-647. doi:10.1001/jama.2010.1115
Accompanying editorial:
Perencevich EN, Diekema DJ. Decline in Invasive MRSA Infection: Where to Go From Here? JAMA. 2010;304(6):687-689. doi:10.1001/jama.2010.1125

Unintended consequences: C. diff death after extended Lyme treatment

By Leave a Comment

The ongoing fight over long-term Lyme disease treatment has to be one of the most ferocious in health care. If you don’t live in the Northeast or upper Midwest, Lyme disease may not be on your radar, so here’s a super-quick version: There are patients and physicians  who say that Lyme disease symptoms persist following the 28 days of antibiotic treatment that is the standard recommendation of the CDC and the Infectious Diseases Society of America, and also say that patients benefit from additional antibiotic regimens — sometimes IV, sometimes oral — that can last months more. The CDC, IDSA and some other medical authorities say there is no evidence to support these regimens. The ongoing bitterness has extended to antitrust charges by the Connecticut Attorney General that forced a re-evaluation of the IDSA guidelines, which physicians follow and insurance companies refer to when authorizing payment. The disagreements have continued into this year.

I’ve been curious about the long-term Lyme regimens from the antibiotic-resistance POV: whether giving Lyme patients such long courses of antibiotics would encourage the development or spread of resistant organisms. (NB, I don’t know of any research that would answer that question, but if anyone does, cites would be welcome.)

Today, though, I spotted a new paper that describes an unintended consequence I hadn’t thought of: the death of a Lyme patient from Clostridium difficile or C.diff, an infection that becomes more likely after long courses of antibiotics.

Quick lesson: C. diff (here’s the CDC info page) is a toxin-producing bacteria that causes a life-threatening infection of the gut. It’s normally resident in the intestines, but can roar out of control when prolonged courses of antibiotics wipe out the gut’s complex and very abundant population of bacteria. (Ed Yong’s post from a few days ago has excellent detail on the gut microbiome.) C. diff is rising in incidence, becoming drug-resistant, and also is extraordinarily difficult to eradicate from hospital environments — because it is spore-forming and thus protected against the alcohol in the hand gels that hospitals have encouraged in order to balance the need for hand hygiene with the time consumed by hand washing.

The paper, a letter to Clinical Infectious Diseases by representatives of the Minnesota Department of Health (Holzbauer et al., DOI: 10.1086/654808), describes the experience of a 52-year-old woman who had Lyme-like symptoms for about 5 years. She consulted a doctor in June 2009, was tested for Lyme, and was put on 5 weeks of doxycycline. She got better, but then her symptoms returned, and she sought care from a different physician who prescribed an additional 2- to 4-month course of two other antibiotics.

Five weeks after initiating this therapy, the patient developed diarrhea for 3 days and received a diagnosis of C. difficile colitis. … The patient was started on oral metronidazole therapy but was hospitalized 2 days later with severe abdominal pain secondary to diffuse colitis and abdominal ascites. The next morning, she experienced cardiac arrest twice and succumbed to cardiac arrest during an emergency [removal of her colon].

I’ve been talking to Lyme patients recently, including some who decided to take long-term antibiotic regimens. Some of them describe themselves as sick enough to take any risk in an attempt to get better. I wonder whether it’s made clear to them how substantial the risks might be.

Unintended consequences: C. diff death after Lyme treatment

By Leave a Comment

The ongoing fight over long-term Lyme disease treatment has to be one of the most ferocious in health care. If you don’t live in the Northeast or upper Midwest, Lyme disease may not be on your radar, so here’s a super-quick version: There are patients and physicians  who say that Lyme disease symptoms persist following the 28 days of antibiotic treatment that is the standard recommendation of the CDC and the Infectious Diseases Society of America, and also say that patients benefit from additional antibiotic regimens — sometimes IV, sometimes oral — that can last months more. The CDC, IDSA and some other medical authorities say there is no evidence to support these regimens. The ongoing bitterness has extended to antitrust charges by the Connecticut Attorney General that forced a re-evaluation of the IDSA guidelines, which physicians follow and insurance companies refer to when authorizing payment. The disagreements have continued into this year.

I’ve been curious about the long-term Lyme regimens from the antibiotic-resistance POV: whether giving Lyme patients such long courses of antibiotics would encourage the development or spread of resistant organisms. (NB, I don’t know of any research that would answer that question, but if anyone does, cites would be welcome.)

Today, though, I spotted a new paper that describes an unintended consequence I hadn’t thought of: the death of a Lyme patient from Clostridium difficile or C.diff, an infection that becomes more likely after long courses of antibiotics.

Quick lesson: C. diff (here’s the CDC info page) is a toxin-producing bacteria that causes a life-threatening infection of the gut. It’s normally resident in the intestines, but can roar out of control when prolonged courses of antibiotics wipe out the gut’s complex and very abundant population of bacteria. (Ed Yong’s post from a few days ago has excellent detail on the gut microbiome.) C. diff is rising in incidence, becoming drug-resistant, and also is extraordinarily difficult to eradicate from hospital environments — because it is spore-forming and thus protected against the alcohol in the hand gels that hospitals have encouraged in order to balance the need for hand hygiene with the time consumed by hand washing.

The paper, a letter to Clinical Infectious Diseases by representatives of the Minnesota Department of Health (Holzbauer et al., DOI: 10.1086/654808), describes the experience of a 52-year-old woman who had Lyme-like symptoms for about 5 years. She consulted a doctor in June 2009, was tested for Lyme, and was put on 5 weeks of doxycycline. She got better, but then her symptoms returned, and she sought care from a different physician who prescribed an additional 2- to 4-month course of two other antibiotics.

Five weeks after initiating this therapy, the patient developed diarrhea for 3 days and received a diagnosis of C. difficile colitis. … The patient was started on oral metronidazole therapy but was hospitalized 2 days later with severe abdominal pain secondary to diffuse colitis and abdominal ascites. The next morning, she experienced cardiac arrest twice and succumbed to cardiac arrest during an emergency [removal of her colon].

I’ve been talking to Lyme patients recently, including some who decided to take long-term antibiotic regimens. Some of them describe themselves as sick enough to take any risk in an attempt to get better. I wonder whether it’s made clear to them how substantial the risks might be.

Update: The French case — not MRSA but so interesting

By Leave a Comment

I’m flattered to have as a regular reader Dr. Peter Davies, a professor of swine health and production in the University of Minnesota’s Department of Veterinary Population Medicine. (Disclosure: I worked part-time at U Minn from mid-2006 to mid-2010, but in a different school.) In a comment on my previous post, he points out — perils of reading on a smartphone — an important point where I erred: The staph strain involved in the death of the French 14-year-old was not MRSA, but MSSA, drug-sensitive staph, that had picked up a resistance factor.

Unpacking that a bit: At a minimum, MRSA is resistant to all beta-lactam antibiotics — penicillin, the semi-synthetic penicillins (including methicillin, what the M in MRSA stands for), several generations of cephalosporins, monobactams, and carbapenems. It is also separately, but variably, resistant to macrolides (such as erythromycin), lincosamides (clindamycin), aminoglycosides (gentamicin), fluoroquinolones (ciprofloxacin) and tetracycline.

Livestock-associated MRSA, known as ST398 for its performance on a particular test (multi-locus sequence typing) was first identified as having a tie to pig-farming because it was also resistant to tetracycline, which was being given to the pigs on the farms where the first human carriers worked. (Hence its jocular name, “pig MRSA,” though it’s since been found in other animals.)

The ST398 strain involved in the French girl’s death does not have that broad array of resistance. Chiefly, it was not resistant to beta-lactams, and so can’t be considered MRSA. On analysis, it was resistant to the macrolides, of which the best-known are erythromycin and azithromycin (Zithromax or Z-Pak). Here’s something else intriguing: On another test (spa typing), the ST398 strain in the French girl was one known as t571; the ST398 that has spread from pigs to humans in the European Union, and subsequently to Canada and the United States, is usually t034.

Here’s why this is all so interesting: MSSA ST398 t571 was reported just a few years ago in New York City, in a Bronx community that has close ties to the Dominican Republic, and also in the towns in the Dominican Republic where those Bronx residents come from and visit. (Here’s my initial post on that finding from a medical meeting, and subsequent post when the paper was published.) In that case, the ST398 was fully drug-sensitive — and there was no visible link to pigs, though the authors speculated that livestock, perhaps poultry, might be playing a role on either side of the “air bridge” connecting the two communities.

In the paper (Bhat, Dumortier, Taylor et al., EID 2009, DOI: 10.3201/eid1502.080609), the authors expressed concern that, given staph’s promiscuous ability to acquire resistance — and the fact that ST398 is not regularly surveilled for —  the ST398 in New York could become an undetected resistant strain:

Given ST398’s history of rapid dissemination in the Netherlands, its potential for the acquisition of methicillin resistance, and its ability to cause infections in both community and hospital settings, monitoring the prevalence of this strain in northern Manhattan and the Dominican Republic will be important to understand more about its virulence and its ability to spread in these communities.

And now it appears it has become resistant — but in France, not New York City or the Dominican Republic, and to macrolides, not  beta-lactams. It’s one more reminder of staph’s genius at acquiring genetic defenses, and of how our lack of attention to its mutability and spread continues to allow it to take us by surprise.

Must-read: Scientopia, a new science-blog collective

By Leave a Comment

Constant readers will remember that Superbug exited this space in early June to go hang out at Scienceblogs, and returned in late July after an ethical dilemma there wasn’t solved to my comfort level. Nothing special about me; a number of bloggers there left, about 20 or one-quarter of the roster if the numbers I’ve heard are correct.

Scienceblogs was a great blog community, and its implosion is a pity. But the unintended consequences turn out to be good news, which is the seeding of that concentrated array of talent back throughout the blogosphere. All kinds of exciting new arrangements are being rumored and chatted up.

And today, one makes its debut: Scientopia!

It’s a very cool-looking new network — employee-owned, as it were — that turns out to be hosting a number of my former Sciblings, including Book of Trogool, Christina’s LIS Rant, The Questionable Authority, Good Math/Bad Math, and excellent physician-blogger PAL MD of White Coat Underground.

There’s a Twitter addy and an RSS feed and all kinds of shiny newness. Check them out, please.

Update: The French case — not MRSA but so interesting

By Leave a Comment

I’m flattered to have as a regular reader Dr. Peter Davies, a professor of swine health and production in the University of Minnesota’s Department of Veterinary Population Medicine. (Disclosure: I worked part-time at U Minn from mid-2006 to mid-2010, but in a different school.) In a comment on my previous post, he points out — perils of reading on a smartphone — an important point where I erred: The staph strain involved in the death of the French 14-year-old was not MRSA, but MSSA, drug-sensitive staph, that had picked up a resistance factor.

Unpacking that a bit: At a minimum, MRSA is resistant to all beta-lactam antibiotics — penicillin, the semi-synthetic penicillins (including methicillin, what the M in MRSA stands for), several generations of cephalosporins, monobactams, and carbapenems. It is also separately, but variably, resistant to macrolides (such as erythromycin), lincosamides (clindamycin), aminoglycosides (gentamicin), fluoroquinolones (ciprofloxacin) and tetracycline.

Livestock-associated MRSA, known as ST398 for its performance on a particular test (multi-locus sequence typing) was first identified as having a tie to pig-farming because it was also resistant to tetracycline, which was being given to the pigs on the farms where the first human carriers worked. (Hence its jocular name, “pig MRSA,” though it’s since been found in other animals.)

The ST398 strain involved in the French girl’s death does not have that broad array of resistance. Chiefly, it was not resistant to beta-lactams, and so can’t be considered MRSA. On analysis, it was resistant to the macrolides, of which the best-known are erythromycin and azithromycin (Zithromax or Z-Pak). Here’s something else intriguing: On another test (spa typing), the ST398 strain in the French girl was one known as t571; the ST398 that has spread from pigs to humans in the European Union, and subsequently to Canada and the United States, is usually t034.

Here’s why this is all so interesting: MSSA ST398 t571 was reported just a few years ago in New York City, in a Bronx community that has close ties to the Dominican Republic, and also in the towns in the Dominican Republic where those Bronx residents come from and visit. (Here’s my initial post on that finding from a medical meeting, and subsequent post when the paper was published.) In that case, the ST398 was fully drug-sensitive — and there was no visible link to pigs, though the authors speculated that livestock, perhaps poultry, might be playing a role on either side of the “air bridge” connecting the two communities.

In the paper (Bhat, Dumortier, Taylor et al., EID 2009, DOI: 10.3201/eid1502.080609), the authors expressed concern that, given staph’s promiscuous ability to acquire resistance — and the fact that ST398 is not regularly surveilled for —  the ST398 in New York could become an undetected resistant strain:

Given ST398’s history of rapid dissemination in the Netherlands, its potential for the acquisition of methicillin resistance, and its ability to cause infections in both community and hospital settings, monitoring the prevalence of this strain in northern Manhattan and the Dominican Republic will be important to understand more about its virulence and its ability to spread in these communities.

 And now it appears it has become resistant — but in France, not New York City or the Dominican Republic, and to macrolides, not  beta-lactams. It’s one more reminder of staph’s genius at acquiring genetic defenses, and of how our lack of attention to its mutability and spread continues to allow it to take us by surprise.

News break: "Pig MRSA" ST398 involved in the death of a child?

By Leave a Comment

The latest postings to the website of the CDC journal Emerging Infectious Diseases include a sad and very troubling letter from physicians in Lyon and Paris, reporting the death from necrotizing pneumonia of a previously healthy 14-year-old girl. That would be sad under any conditions, but here’s what makes the death so troubling: It appears to have been caused by MRSA — but not by the community strain, USA300, that has been implicated in a number of deaths from necrotizing pneumonia. (Several such stories are told in SUPERBUG the book.)

Instead, her death appears to have been caused by infection with MRSA ST398 — the livestock-associated strain that was first noted in pigs raised with antibiotics, and the pig-farm workers caring for them, in the Netherlands 6 years ago, and that has since spread across the European Union, Canada and into the United States. (My 3-year archive of ST398 posts is here.)

This may be the first death associated with ST398, though I can’t say that for sure as I am away from my big computer and working without my database. I’ll update later today and confirm or knock that down.

The physicians say that the girl came in with flu-like symptoms and abdominal pain, was put on IV antibiotics (cefotaxime and amikacin), underwent an exploratory laparotomy that showed nothing, and shortly afterward developed acute respiratory distress and was put on a vent. A chest X-ray was shadowy on both sides. She went rapidly downhill and died 6 days later.

On analysis, the staph strain infecting her was ST398; there was no indication where she had picked it up. The strain had an unusual characteristic: It possessed the ability to make the cell-destroying toxin Panton-Valentine leukocidin, PVL for short, a genetic trick that until now has been a property only of community MRSA strains such as USA300. Though its role is disputed, PVL has been linked to community MRSA’s ability to start infections on intact skin, and to the cellular damage that destroys children’s lungs in cases of pneumonia caused by USA300. Until now, ST398 has been PVL-negative.

The physicians’ letter is short and there’s much more to find out about this case. But if the report and analysis are correct, this is bad news. One of the repeated themes in the 50-year evolution of MRSA has been its ability — all staph’s ability — to promiscuously swap and share the bits of DNA that confer resistance and enhance virulence. Another, since the emergence of ST398, has been the potential peril of a staph strain adapting and mutating in the millions of farm animals around the world that are routinely given antibiotics — and that for the most part are not checked to see whether they harbor resistant organisms. If this report (and my interpretation) are correct, then those two trends are converging in a way that cannot bode well.

News break: “Pig MRSA” ST398 involved in the death of a child?

By Leave a Comment

The latest postings to the website of the CDC journal Emerging Infectious Diseases include a sad and very troubling letter from physicians in Lyon and Paris, reporting the death from necrotizing pneumonia of a previously healthy 14-year-old girl. That would be sad under any conditions, but here’s what makes the death so troubling: It appears to have been caused by MRSA — but not by the community strain, USA300, that has been implicated in a number of deaths from necrotizing pneumonia. (Several such stories are told in SUPERBUG the book.)

Instead, her death appears to have been caused by infection with MRSA ST398 — the livestock-associated strain that was first noted in pigs raised with antibiotics, and the pig-farm workers caring for them, in the Netherlands 6 years ago, and that has since spread across the European Union, Canada and into the United States. (My 3-year archive of ST398 posts is here.)

This may be the first death associated with ST398, though I can’t say that for sure as I am away from my big computer and working without my database. I’ll update later today and confirm or knock that down.

The physicians say that the girl came in with flu-like symptoms and abdominal pain, was put on IV antibiotics (cefotaxime and amikacin), underwent an exploratory laparotomy that showed nothing, and shortly afterward developed acute respiratory distress and was put on a vent. A chest X-ray was shadowy on both sides. She went rapidly downhill and died 6 days later.

On analysis, the staph strain infecting her was ST398; there was no indication where she had picked it up. The strain had an unusual characteristic: It possessed the ability to make the cell-destroying toxin Panton-Valentine leukocidin, PVL for short, a genetic trick that until now has been a property only of community MRSA strains such as USA300. Though its role is disputed, PVL has been linked to community MRSA’s ability to start infections on intact skin, and to the cellular damage that destroys children’s lungs in cases of pneumonia caused by USA300. Until now, ST398 has been PVL-negative.

The physicians’ letter is short and there’s much more to find out about this case. But if the report and analysis are correct, this is bad news. One of the repeated themes in the 50-year evolution of MRSA has been its ability — all staph’s ability — to promiscuously swap and share the bits of DNA that confer resistance and enhance virulence. Another, since the emergence of ST398, has been the potential peril of a staph strain adapting and mutating in the millions of farm animals around the world that are routinely given antibiotics — and that for the most part are not checked to see whether they harbor resistant organisms. If this report (and my interpretation) are correct, then those two trends are converging in a way that cannot bode well.

Advice for science writers, from science writers

By Leave a Comment

Ed Yong, an incisive and prolific science blogger-writer-communications officer, opened up his blog to the science-writing community earlier today, with this invitation:

Every now and then, I get an email from someone who’s keen to get into science writing and wants to know how I started. Whenever I reply, and I always try to, I’m always left with the nagging feeling that my experience is but one of a multitude of routes that people have taken. Science writing (whether you want to call it journalism, blogging, communication and so on) is a diverse field, as are the people working in it. It would be far more illuminating for a newbie to see a variety of stories rather than just one.
…I will be asking science writers around the world to do what they do best – tell a story – about the thing they know best – themselves. This will be a perpetual thread that I hope will act as a lasting resource for the writers of tomorrow to take inspiration from.

That was about 18 hours ago. So far there are 59 comment/stories posted, from some of the brightest and sharpest writers working today, with more to come tomorrow, I am sure. (Also, umm, me. I didn’t get in til #51, because I was trying to catch a plane.) Collectively, the comment string is both a peek behind the curtain of how science writers and authors work and think — and think about their work — as well as a trove of advice for anyone else who wants to try this odd and taxing profession.

A selection:

Mark Henderson (#2), science editor of the Times of London: “If you can’t find great stories from everything that’s pouring out of the world’s laboratories, you’re not much of a journalist.”

Jonah Lehrer (#4), author of How We Decide and Proust Was a Neuroscientist: “Writing is a craft. There are no born writers. One has to practice and practice and practice.”

Maggie Koerth-Baker (#5), BoingBoing.com: “Think of yourself as a business, ask to be paid what you’re worth and stick to your guns, always turn things in on time, learn that editing is not your enemy, and work really, really hard at writing nuanced, factual stories that are still fun to read. Luck helps those who help themselves.”

Raima Larter (#16), writer and former chemistry professor: ” I don’t think you can go wrong when you make your choices based on what most excites you. Passion can go a long way in carrying you forward in any career.”

John Pavlus (#21), writer/filmmaker: “BE curious and ACT curious. Everything else will work itself out from there.”

TR Gregory (#29), an evolutionary biologist who has started a companion thread on his own blog: ” There is a lot of frustration among scientists and educators with the way new studies are portrayed in the media, but when someone is recognized as an honest and skilled communicator, he or she will be among the ones that scientists hope will discuss their research.”

Brendan Maher (#34), features editor, Nature: “Humility and self-assured enthusiasm can coexist.”

Eric Michael Johnson (#41), blogger at The Primate Diaries: ” Take risks. Make mistakes. Fall flat on your face. The difference between wanting to be a writer and actually being one is in how often you pick yourself back up.”

(Stripped of the biographical material, here’s my contribution: “Work nights and weekends. Seek mentors. Stay alert to serendipity. When someone wants to tell you a story, listen. Develop expertise. Distrust everyone’s motives, including your own. Always ask another question. Talk to people face to face. Rejoice in complexity, in systems and in persons, and accept that it takes its time revealing its intricacies. Try to tell the truth.”)

Advice for science writers, from science writers

By Leave a Comment

Ed Yong, an incisive and prolific science blogger-writer-communications officer, opened up his blog to the science-writing community earlier today, with this invitation:

Every now and then, I get an email from someone who’s keen to get into science writing and wants to know how I started. Whenever I reply, and I always try to, I’m always left with the nagging feeling that my experience is but one of a multitude of routes that people have taken. Science writing (whether you want to call it journalism, blogging, communication and so on) is a diverse field, as are the people working in it. It would be far more illuminating for a newbie to see a variety of stories rather than just one.
…I will be asking science writers around the world to do what they do best – tell a story – about the thing they know best – themselves. This will be a perpetual thread that I hope will act as a lasting resource for the writers of tomorrow to take inspiration from.

That was about 18 hours ago. So far there are 59 comment/stories posted, from some of the brightest and sharpest writers working today, with more to come tomorrow, I am sure. (Also, umm, me. I didn’t get in til #51, because I was trying to catch a plane.) Collectively, the comment string is both a peek behind the curtain of how science writers and authors work and think — and think about their work — as well as a trove of advice for anyone else who wants to try this odd and taxing profession.

A selection:

Mark Henderson (#2), science editor of the Times of London: “If you can’t find great stories from everything that’s pouring out of the world’s laboratories, you’re not much of a journalist.”

Jonah Lehrer (#4), author of How We Decide and Proust Was a Neuroscientist: “Writing is a craft. There are no born writers. One has to practice and practice and practice.”

Maggie Koerth-Baker (#5), BoingBoing.com: “Think of yourself as a business, ask to be paid what you’re worth and stick to your guns, always turn things in on time, learn that editing is not your enemy, and work really, really hard at writing nuanced, factual stories that are still fun to read. Luck helps those who help themselves.”

Raima Larter (#16), writer and former chemistry professor: ” I don’t think you can go wrong when you make your choices based on what most excites you. Passion can go a long way in carrying you forward in any career.”

John Pavlus (#21), writer/filmmaker: “BE curious and ACT curious. Everything else will work itself out from there.”

TR Gregory (#29), an evolutionary biologist who has started a companion thread on his own blog: ” There is a lot of frustration among scientists and educators with the way new studies are portrayed in the media, but when someone is recognized as an honest and skilled communicator, he or she will be among the ones that scientists hope will discuss their research.”

Brendan Maher (#34), features editor, Nature: “Humility and self-assured enthusiasm can coexist.”

Eric Michael Johnson (#41), blogger at The Primate Diaries: ” Take risks. Make mistakes. Fall flat on your face. The difference between wanting to be a writer and actually being one is in how often you pick yourself back up.”

(Stripped of the biographical material, here’s my contribution: “Work nights and weekends. Seek mentors. Stay alert to serendipity. When someone wants to tell you a story, listen. Develop expertise. Distrust everyone’s motives, including your own. Always ask another question. Talk to people face to face. Rejoice in complexity, in systems and in persons, and accept that it takes its time revealing its intricacies. Try to tell the truth.”)

Whooping cough: Back, with a vengeance

By Leave a Comment

A few years ago, I went to India on a reporting trip. When I came back, I had a troublesome cough. I figured I’d picked up a bronchitis aggravated by New Delhi’s smog-laden air, or by the dung smoke from the fires in the villages where I’d spent most of my time. The cough got worse instead of better. It was especially bad at night: I’d lie down to sleep and that would trigger a paroxysm. Sometimes I’d cough until I couldn’t breathe. A few times, I vomited. Eventually my side began to hurt. (Months later, I discovered I’d cracked a rib.)

As a medical reporter, I spent most of my time around doctors and nurses, but I had a rule about never bothering them — first because I was pretty healthy, and second because no one wants to be the guy at the cocktail party who finds out someone’s a doc and backs them into the corner of the buffet table. But one day, worn out by the spasms, I mentioned my symptoms to a friend. His eyes got big. He went and got a textbook.

I didn’t have bronchitis. I had pertussis — whooping cough.

This made no sense, of course. Between a day job as Scary Disease Girl and a childhood spent moving between continents, I am pretty much the most vaccinated person on the planet.  I’d had my full series of pertussis vaccinations as a child. Surely I was protected?

Actually, no — and unless you’ve had a booster, neither are you. The immunity created by the 5-dose childhood series wanes over time; by the age of 12, even fully vaccinated people are vulnerable to pertussis again. Since 2006, the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices has been recommending a single additional pertussis (Tdap) booster for anyone between the ages of 11 and 64. That may seem like overkill — adult cases of pertussis in previously vaccinated people are often milder than the child version; after all, I survived my bout. But as with so many vaccines, the beneficiary here isn’t just the adult taking the booster. Even more, it’s the more vulnerable person to whom that adult might pass the disease: an elderly person with age-related immune decay; someone with a chronic disease; an infant too young to be vaccinated. In those people, the disease can and does kill — as it did an 18-day-old infant, Nelyn Baker, whom I wrote about in 2004.

Because vaccine immunity fades, pertussis is always with us: in good years, about 1,000 cases across the United States. Lately, though, we’re in bad years. Pertussis cases are rising dramatically, in Alabama, Georgia, Arkansas, Texas, South Carolina, Michigan, Oregon and Ohio. The worst by far is California, where so far this year almost 1,500 cases of pertussis have been reported and another 700 are suspected — compared to 258 for the same time period in 2009.

“We are facing what could be the worst year for pertussis that this state has seen in more than 50 years,” Dr. Gilberto Chávez of the California Department of Public Health said last week in a statement put out by the agency’s Center for Infectious Disease.

The worst news in this upsetting trend is this: We’re doing it to ourselves. As far as anyone can tell, the rise in pertussis is not due to any change in the organism, or to any mysterious error among the manufacturers who make pertussis vaccines. It’s due to vaccine refusal, to parents turning away from vaccines because they think the vaccines are more harmful than the diseases they prevent — or, more selfishly, because they think the wall of immunity created by other vaccinated children will protect their unimmunized ones.

That’s an incorrect assumption, by the way. Work published last year by several scientists at Kaiser Permanente of Colorado found that unvaccinated children were 23 times more likely to contract pertussis than vaccinated ones. (Glanz, McClure, Magid et al., Pediatrics 2009, doi:10.1542/peds.2008-2150.) And yet, as numerous stories (LA Times, MedPage Today) have pointed out, California’s epidemic has blossomed in a state that gives some of the most generous “personal belief exemptions” from vaccination — and the epidemic’s worst hot spots neatly correlate with the most concentrated areas of vaccine refusal.

Pertussis is an awful disease. A child in the throes of a paroxysm sounds like nothing else on earth. Children turn blue, give themselves black eyes, die. We kept it down to manageable levels with the help of a vaccine. That we would willingly bring it back it is beyond belief.

(For a physician’s take on pertussis, see this post by my fellow former Scibling Pal MD. The CDC’s information page on pertussis is here and the National Network on Immunization Information explains the vaccination schedule here. H/t to the infectious-disease mailing list ProMED for starting me thinking.)

Whooping cough: Back, with a vengeance

By Leave a Comment

A few years ago, I went to India on a reporting trip. When I came back, I had a troublesome cough. I figured I’d picked up a bronchitis aggravated by New Delhi’s smog-laden air, or by the dung smoke from the fires in the villages where I’d spent most of my time. The cough got worse instead of better. It was especially bad at night: I’d lie down to sleep and that would trigger a paroxysm. Sometimes I’d cough until I couldn’t breathe. A few times, I vomited. Eventually my side began to hurt. (Months later, I discovered I’d cracked a rib.)

As a medical reporter, I spent most of my time around doctors and nurses, but I had a rule about never bothering them — first because I was pretty healthy, and second because no one wants to be the guy at the cocktail party who finds out someone’s a doc and backs them into the corner of the buffet table. But one day, worn out by the spasms, I mentioned my symptoms to a friend. His eyes got big. He went and got a textbook.

I didn’t have bronchitis. I had pertussis — whooping cough.

This made no sense, of course. Between a day job as Scary Disease Girl and a childhood spent moving between continents, I am pretty much the most vaccinated person on the planet.  I’d had my full series of pertussis vaccinations as a child. Surely I was protected?

Actually, no — and unless you’ve had a booster, neither are you. The immunity created by the 5-dose childhood series wanes over time; by the age of 12, even fully vaccinated people are vulnerable to pertussis again. Since 2006, the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices has been recommending a single additional pertussis (Tdap) booster for anyone between the ages of 11 and 64. That may seem like overkill — adult cases of pertussis in previously vaccinated people are often milder than the child version; after all, I survived my bout. But as with so many vaccines, the beneficiary here isn’t just the adult taking the booster. Even more, it’s the more vulnerable person to whom that adult might pass the disease: an elderly person with age-related immune decay; someone with a chronic disease; an infant too young to be vaccinated. In those people, the disease can and does kill — as it did an 18-day-old infant, Nelyn Baker, whom I wrote about in 2004.

Because vaccine immunity fades, pertussis is always with us: in good years, about 1,000 cases across the United States. Lately, though, we’re in bad years. Pertussis cases are rising dramatically, in Alabama, Georgia, Arkansas, Texas, South Carolina, Michigan, Oregon and Ohio. The worst by far is California, where so far this year almost 1,500 cases of pertussis have been reported and another 700 are suspected — compared to 258 for the same time period in 2009.

“We are facing what could be the worst year for pertussis that this state has seen in more than 50 years,” Dr. Gilberto Chávez of the California Department of Public Health said last week in a statement put out by the agency’s Center for Infectious Disease.

The worst news in this upsetting trend is this: We’re doing it to ourselves. As far as anyone can tell, the rise in pertussis is not due to any change in the organism, or to any mysterious error among the manufacturers who make pertussis vaccines. It’s due to vaccine refusal, to parents turning away from vaccines because they think the vaccines are more harmful than the diseases they prevent — or, more selfishly, because they think the wall of immunity created by other vaccinated children will protect their unimmunized ones.

That’s an incorrect assumption, by the way. Work published last year by several scientists at Kaiser Permanente of Colorado found that unvaccinated children were 23 times more likely to contract pertussis than vaccinated ones. (Glanz, McClure, Magid et al., Pediatrics 2009, doi:10.1542/peds.2008-2150.) And yet, as numerous stories (LA Times, MedPage Today) have pointed out, California’s epidemic has blossomed in a state that gives some of the most generous “personal belief exemptions” from vaccination — and the epidemic’s worst hot spots neatly correlate with the most concentrated areas of vaccine refusal.

Pertussis is an awful disease. A child in the throes of a paroxysm sounds like nothing else on earth. Children turn blue, give themselves black eyes, die. We kept it down to manageable levels with the help of a vaccine. That we would willingly bring it back it is beyond belief.

(For a physician’s take on pertussis, see this post by my fellow former Scibling Pal MD. The CDC’s information page on pertussis is here and the National Network on Immunization Information explains the vaccination schedule here. H/t to the infectious-disease mailing list ProMED for starting me thinking.)

Hospitals want patients to eat antibiotic-free meat

By Leave a Comment

Huge news, and hat tip to excellent food-policy writer Monica Eng at the Chicago Tribune: In a piece published Tuesday, she details that 300 hospitals in the Chicago area and nationwide have begun preferentially buying and serving meat that is raised without the use of antibiotics.

Using the ingredients is primarily a response to patient demand, said (Carolyn Lammersfeld, national director of nutrition at Cancer Treatment Centers of America) but the centers are also “watching the controversy over the nontherapeutic use of antibiotics and their potential to cause resistant strains of bacteria.”

The issue is of particular concern for cancer patients, who have compromised immune systems, she noted. “Many also might already being taking antibiotics, so they don’t want additional ones in food if they can avoid it,” Lammersfeld said.

The drug-free meat is more expensive, but the cost balances out within the budget:

(Diane Imrie, director of nutrition services at Fletcher Allen Health Care in Vermont) estimated that her food costs rose about $67,000 last year when she switched to antibiotic-free chicken from conventional. “But that’s also about the same cost as treating a single MRSA infection,” she said.

It’s interesting to see this story land just as a new paper in Foodborne Pathogens and Disease is making the rounds. The paper (Jiayi Zhang, Samantha K. Wall, Li Xu, Paul D. Ebner. “Contamination Rates and Antimicrobial Resistance in Bacteria Isolated from “Grass-Fed” Labeled Beef Products,” doi:10.1089/fpd.2010.0562) compares the bacterial burden in grass-fed and conventionally raised beef and finds no significant  differences: equivalent amounts of both drug-sensitive and drug-resistant bacteria in both types of beef.

It concludes, “There are no clear food safety advantages to grass-fed beef products over conventional beef products” — an assertion that’s likely to be seized on by those who see no need to change current antibiotic use in agriculture. (For an example of that POV, here’s the testimony from last week’s House of Representatives hearing by Richard Carnevale, DVM of the Animal Health Institute.)

I suspect though that the paper’s analysis doesn’t look far enough. Here’s one example: the authors found that Enterococcus species in both conventional and grass-fed meat were resistant to chloramphenicol, erythromycin, flavomycin, penicillin, and tetracyline — drugs that are used in agriculture (and that could have been given to the grass-fed animals, which were not guaranteed to have been raised drug-free). But  Enterococcus spp. isolates from conventional beef were more frequently resistant to daptomycin and linezolid — which are new-to-market drugs of last resort in human medicine that are not given to animals

That finding, right there — the migration of resistance to a human-only drug into an organism carried by an animal — signals one of the insoluble problems of overuse of antibiotics. Once created, resistance factors move horizontally among bacteria, from the farm to humans, and apparently in this case, from humans to the farm as well. We have almost no control over their movement, and on the agricultural side, almost no surveillance to detect it, either. That argues for reducing the overuse of antibiotics in human medicine and on the farm.

If this health care coalition’s refusal to purchase meat raised using antibiotics helps to enlarge the market for drug-free meat, then it may reduce ag antibiotic use, and therefore the selective pressure that encourages resistant organisms to emerge. That can only be a good thing.

(The paper in Foodborne Pathogens has also been covered by my former colleagues at CIDRAP; here’s their link.)

Hospitals want patients to eat antibiotic-free meat

By Leave a Comment

Huge news, and hat tip to excellent food-policy writer Monica Eng at the Chicago Tribune: In a piece published Tuesday, she details that 300 hospitals in the Chicago area and nationwide have begun preferentially buying and serving meat that is raised without the use of antibiotics.

Using the ingredients is primarily a response to patient demand, said (Carolyn Lammersfeld, national director of nutrition at Cancer Treatment Centers of America) but the centers are also “watching the controversy over the nontherapeutic use of antibiotics and their potential to cause resistant strains of bacteria.”

The issue is of particular concern for cancer patients, who have compromised immune systems, she noted. “Many also might already being taking antibiotics, so they don’t want additional ones in food if they can avoid it,” Lammersfeld said.

The drug-free meat is more expensive, but the cost balances out within the budget:

(Diane Imrie, director of nutrition services at Fletcher Allen Health Care in Vermont) estimated that her food costs rose about $67,000 last year when she switched to antibiotic-free chicken from conventional. “But that’s also about the same cost as treating a single MRSA infection,” she said.

It’s interesting to see this story land just as a new paper in Foodborne Pathogens and Disease is making the rounds. The paper (Jiayi Zhang, Samantha K. Wall, Li Xu, Paul D. Ebner. “Contamination Rates and Antimicrobial Resistance in Bacteria Isolated from “Grass-Fed” Labeled Beef Products,” doi:10.1089/fpd.2010.0562) compares the bacterial burden in grass-fed and conventionally raised beef and finds no significant  differences: equivalent amounts of both drug-sensitive and drug-resistant bacteria in both types of beef. 
It concludes, “There are no clear food safety advantages to grass-fed beef products over conventional beef products” — an assertion that’s likely to be seized on by those who see no need to change current antibiotic use in agriculture. (For an example of that POV, here’s the testimony from last week’s House of Representatives hearing by Richard Carnevale, DVM of the Animal Health Institute.)
I suspect though that the paper’s analysis doesn’t look far enough. Here’s one example: the authors found that Enterococcus species in both conventional and grass-fed meat were resistant to chloramphenicol, erythromycin, flavomycin, penicillin, and tetracyline — drugs that are used in agriculture (and that could have been given to the grass-fed animals, which were not guaranteed to have been raised drug-free). But  Enterococcus spp. isolates from conventional beef were more frequently resistant to daptomycin and linezolid — which are new-to-market drugs of last resort in human medicine that are not given to animals.
That finding, right there — the migration of resistance to a human-only drug into an organism carried by an animal — signals one of the insoluble problems of overuse of antibiotics. Once created, resistance factors move horizontally among bacteria, from the farm to humans, and apparently in this case, from humans to the farm as well. We have almost no control over their movement, and on the agricultural side, almost no surveillance to detect it, either. That argues for reducing the overuse of antibiotics in human medicine and on the farm. 
If this health care coalition’s refusal to purchase meat raised using antibiotics helps to enlarge the market for drug-free meat, then it may reduce ag antibiotic use, and therefore the selective pressure that encourages resistant organisms to emerge. That can only be a good thing.
(The paper in Foodborne Pathogens has also been covered by my former colleagues at CIDRAP; here’s their link.)

Hi, I’m back.

By Leave a Comment

Hello again, constant readers. If you’ve been following the ongoing implosion at my briefly-new-and-now-former home at Scienceblogs, you’ll know why we’re back here blowing the dust off things. If not, never mind: There’s way too much news to talk about, anyway.

To maintain some continuity, I’ve changed the URL for this site to Superbugtheblog.com, though the former address, drugresistantstaph.blogspot.com, will also now redirect here. RSS feed buttons are in the sidebar.

I’ll be cleaning things up in the next day or so and updating the archives. But in the meantime, I’m back and I hope you are too.