Maryn McKenna

Journalist and Author

MRSA at the beach

By Leave a Comment

Am I the only person whose grandmother said it was healthy to swim in the sea because the salt would disinfect any cuts or skin nastinesses? Well, apparently my grandmother — and who knows, maybe yours too — was wrong:

The annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science concluded today in Chicago. Among the presentations: Physicians at the University of Miami tested seawater at popular Florida beaches and found that swimmers have a 37% chance of coming into contact with drug-sensitive staph, and 3% chance of encountering MRSA. The organisms are deposited into the water by infected or colonized humans.

Dr. Lisa Pisano said in a precis distributed to press for the meeting (I don’t think I am able to link to this, but am checking):

Our hypothesis is that the bathers using recreational waters not only contribute to the organisms in the water, and therefore serve as a source of staph, but they might also become colonized or infected by the organisms that they are exposed to while in the water or on the beaches. Investigators from our team had previously shown that staph was shed by adults into marine water filled pools after short exposures, supporting that people could serve as a source for the bacteria. In the studies I will present, we confirm that adults who are known to be colonized indeed shed their own bacteria into marine waters. We also show that children, in diapers, both known and some not known to be colonized with staph also shed bacterial into marine waters.
…
37% of the water samples contained staph and 3% of these were MRSA. Genetic analyses of the isolated organisms revealed that the majority of the staph, not MRSA, appeared to be non-aggressive strains lacking the key virulence factors known to be associated with more aggressive strains of bacteria. However the majority of the isolated MRSA were those likely to of the more aggressive variety.

To prevent colonization, or infection of any abrasions or open wounds, the researchers recommend showering before entering the water and before leaving the beach.

Until I figure out what of the materials can be linked to, or whether press releases were put online by funders of the research, here’s a Reuters story carried by ScientificAmerican.com.

An inside look at combating HAIs

By Leave a Comment

I’ve been moving my RSS feeds over to a new reader and so am behind in reading things. That’s my lame excuse for not noticing an excellent story in the Washington Post Tuesday, a first-person account tracing the “conversion” of one skeptical physician to the cause of reducing hospital infections.

The story was highlighted at the New Health Dialogue, a must-read health-reform blog, by my friend and former fellow Kaiser fellow, Joanne Kenen.

HAI money in the stimulus bill

By Leave a Comment

Constant readers, for those of you who are following the back-and-forth over the economic stimulus bill, I wanted to let you know that the Association of Professionals in Infection Control (APIC) is saying that the compromise may cut money for state programs to reduce hospital-associated infections.

Here is APIC’s alert:

ACT NOW TO PRESERVE HAI AND PUBLIC HEALTH FUNDING IN STIMULUS BILL

Your urgent action is needed now to preserve public health funding related to HAIs in the stimulus bill pending in Congress.
The stimulus bill passed by the House of Representatives includes $3 billion in funding for overall public health, prevention and wellness programs. Part of this funding includes $150 million for carrying out activities to implement a national action plan to prevent healthcare-associated infections, $50 million of which would be provided to states to implement HAI reduction strategies.
Because of the fast-moving action on this legislation, and the fact that an agreement has been reached to remove prevention and wellness from the Senate stimulus bill, your Members of Congress need to hear from you today as the House and Senate prepare to confer over a final version of the bill. We need them to support the House-passed provisions for public health, prevention and wellness and the HAI language in the stimulus bill (the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009).

I apologize that, being deep in book production, I don’t know the details of the HAI-reduction programs they are talking about, whether it means support for new mandatory reporting programs or some other thing. (I’ll ask some of the HAI-focused organizations to weigh in back-channel if they can.)

But if you are concerned about the recent new initiatives in various states to report, track and control HAIs, this is probably worth looking at.

Hospital MRSA – taking local action

By Leave a Comment

If you follow hospital-acquired infections, you know there’s enormous debate nationally over the best strategies to use: “search and destroy” versus targeted surveillance; guidelines from SHEA, APIC, CDC, or elsewhere. The competing assertions and the lack of clarity can be dizzying.

Here’s news though of one local area that has decided to cut through the fog. A private healthcare organization, state universities and a state hospital association have teamed together to create the South Carolina Healthcare Quality Trust, a partnership that says it will test evidence-based best practices and use IT tools to rapidly distribute them to the 60+ smaller hospitals in the state.

There’s not a lot of detail up yet about what the trust plans, so let’s applaud the effort while reserving judgment until we see what strategies they choose to test and why. Meanwhile, though, here is the announcement from Health Sciences South Carolina, which is a collaborative of several universities, and a FAQ; a story from the national publication Modern Healthcare; and one from the state newspaper, the Columbia State.

MRSA in kid athletes – simple but not easy

By Leave a Comment

It’s been almost a week since this came out — told you there had been a lot of research released — but I wanted to make sure everyone saw it: The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention released results of an investigation into an outbreak of MRSA on a high school football team in Brooklyn, NY. (My home town, in case anyone cares. But it must have gotten gentrified, since the only organized activities I remember were somewhat less, umm, licit.)

Out of 59 players who attended a pre-season training camp where they practiced all day and bunked in the gym at night, 6 had MRSA skin abscesses (4 confirmed by culture, 2 suspected). The four confirmed cases all began as a pustule or blister that the kids ignored until the infections blew up; three of them subsequently needed the abscesses surgically incised and drained and also took antibiotics.

So, this will sound like not a big deal, right? Fifty-nine kids, 6 infections, attack rate of 11.8%, no one harmed in the long term. Well, in one sense, yes. On the other hand, without sounding like a Cassandra, there have been plenty of sports infections that did not turn out to be so minor: Kellen Winslow, Kenny George, Brandon Noble, Ricky Lannetti. (And if you’ll stay tuned til this book is published, there will be an entire chapter on MRSA and sports, both amateur and pro, and the story of a teen athlete who almost died of invasive MRSA following what looked like an innocuous minor infection.)

The difficult thing here is that the steps for preventing such infections — or, at least, vastly reducing their likelihood — are simple: Washing hands, showering after practice, not sharing towels or razors, keeping uniforms and gear clean, and keeping on top of what look like minor abrasions and bug bites. But, as this investigation demonstrates, it’s not so easy to get kids to take those things seriously:

The school had supplied antibacterial soap in pump dispensers in the showers; however, several players brought their own soap. Players supplied their own towels. Players reported that they usually left their towels on their cots or on the floor when not in use. The school offered a daily laundry service for uniforms and towels during the camp; however, most players did not have their towels washed and wore their uniforms two or three times between launderings. Players often remained in sweat-soaked clothes between the morning and afternoon practices. (MMWR Jan.30, 2009. 58(03);52-55)

As with hospital infections, where the simple act of handwashing remains one of the most difficult tasks to accomplish, the steps that could prevent MRSA among kid athletes are not complex. What is challenging is getting the kids to understand — over-against the hypermasculinity of sports, where it’s cool to be sweaty, dirty and banged-up — how important it is to perform those steps: routinely, thoughtfully, time after time after time.

“Alarming” increase in MRSA infections in children

By Leave a Comment

I’ve been waiting to post on this paper from last week because there was something odd about the math in it. It’s an important and troubling finding, though, so even though I haven’t heard back from the authors, I’m going to describe it for you and explain where I think the error is. (NB, When corrected the error makes their findings more significant, not less.)

So: Authors from Emory University in Atlanta reviewed a national database of head and neck infections in children that were reported by 300 hospitals between 2001 and 2006. In those years, there were 21,009 S. aureus infections: ear infections, sinus infections and so on. But, in 2001, the proportion of S. aureus that was MRSA was 11.8%. In 2006, it was 28.1%. That’s more than a doubling — it’s a 138% increase. (Here’s the error: The authors say it was a “16.3% increase“. I believe they mean “16.3 percentage points,” which would be correct but significantly undersells their finding.)

Because 60% of the infections were outpatient, the authors make the reasonable assumption that these are community-associated MRSA (CA-MRSA). CA-MRSA is generally resistant to fewer drug than the hospital (HA-MRSA) variety. Unfortunately, they also find that this community strain is gaining additional resistance factors: More than 48% of all MRSA stains in this study were resistant to clindamycin, which is not a traditional resistance for CA-MRSA but recently has been reported more and more. Also, head and neck infections are not traditional presentations for MRSA, suggesting the bug is expanding its range.

Their comment:

…[T]he results of this study depict an alarming increase in MRSA in the United States. There is an increasing trend of clindamycin resistance among MRSA isolates. Expeditious culture of suspected head and neck infections leading to more appropriate antimicrobial drug selection is highly recommended to avoid further resistant patterns.

The cite is: Iman Naseri; Robert C. Jerris; Steven E. Sobol. Nationwide Trends in Pediatric Staphylococcus aureus Head and Neck Infections. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2009;135(1):14-16.

More MRSA, more meat – poultry, this time

By Leave a Comment

Constant readers: Fresh from the journal Emerging Infectious Diseases — posted AOP (electronic publication/ahead of print) this afternoon — comes more news of MRSA ST 398, the “pig strain,” in food animals. This time, it’s chickens, in Belgium.

The authors (from Ghent University and the Veterinary and Agrochemical Research Center in Brussels) took swabs from living chickens — laying hens and broilers — from 24 farms, 50 layers and 75 broilers total; one broiler-raising farm was sampled twice. They found no MRSA in the layers, which is important for reasons I’ll get to in a moment, and ST 398 in 8 broilers. From each chicken, they took two samples, nasal and cloacal, and in the 8 positive chickens, they got 15 MRSA isolations; one cloacal swab was negative. Of the positive chickens, several (I deduce three, but the math is a bit cloudy) were spread across the two visits to the farm that was sampled twice. Since chicken farms are depopulated between batches — yes, just what it sounds like, farms sell/kill all the birds and clean the place — that finding suggests that MRSA is persisting in the environment on that farm.

Important point: This strain was ST 398, which we here have been calling the pig strain from many previous findings, most of them in pigs. However, ST 398 is an identification using a particular technique called MLST (multi-locus sequence typing), which is used for this strain because the standard typing method, PFGE (pulsed-field gel electrophoresis), did not return a readable result when the strain was first identfied back in 2004. (Trivia: That’s why the initial reports of this strain called it NT, for “nontypeable.”) It’s becoming increasingly clear, though, that ST 398 is actually a category, not a single strain. And within that category, today’s research is a new find: a strain with the unusual spa type t1456, which has only been found 10 times in the past three years, in Germany and the Netherlands, not in Belgium. The author suggest that this particular strain may be adapting to poultry in the same manner that the ST 398 we have been talking about (different spa type — sorry, I will have to look it up) has adapted to pigs.

So, as before: Why do we care? We care for two reasons: First, because since this strain is in a food animal, the possibility exists that it could contaminate the chickens’ meat during slaughter and pass to humans. As has happened with some ST 398, the humans could be only colonized, and not become ill. But, second, any increase in colonization is a bad thing: The more strains out there, the greater the chance that they will exchange virulence and resistance factors and become something unpredictable.

Now, about those layers, here’s an interesting factor that the authors call out in their paper: Layers, unlike broilers, do not receive antibiotics. The layers did not carry MRSA. The broilers did. It’s a pretty potent argument, in case anyone needed convincing, of the effect of the selective pressure that antibiotic use in food animals exerts on these strains.

The site is: Persoons D, Van Hoorebeke S, Hermans K, Butaye P, de Kruif A, Haesebrouck F, et al. Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus in poultry. Emerg Infect Dis. 2009 Mar; [Epub ahead of print] DOI: 10.3201/eid1503.080696

1st Global Health Blog Carnival: The posts are in!

By Leave a Comment

Readers, there has been a metric ton of new MRSA research released in the past few days, and I am slogging my way through it. (On your behalf. No, no, no need to thank me.)

So, more to come. But in the meantime, I wanted to draw your attention to the aggregated posts of the Global Health Blog Carnival, which I mentioned yesterday. They are listed at Christine Gorman’s very fine blog Global Health Report. Malaria, decision-making, anti-smoking, current health v. future health … oh, go click. I’ll be back soon.

Prevention v. treatment (1st Global Health Blog Carnival!)

By Leave a Comment

Constant readers, about a dozen of us who are interested in global health are co-blogging today in a Global Health Blog Carnival. If you are on Twitter, search the hashtag #ghnews. If you’re not, we will try to get them all linked somewhere. This was organized (to the degree that blogger organize, which as you can guess is like herding small felines) by reporter and blogger Christine Gorman, formerly of TIME Magazine.

Our theme for today is prevention v. treatment. Fortuitously, the New England Journal of Medicine today is publishing an editorial (for which they have posted the free full text) that reminds us of the full burden and cost of MRSA. Drs. Cesar A. Arias and Barbara E. Murray say:

Faced with this gloomy picture, 21st-century clinicians must turn to compounds developed decades ago and previously abandoned because of toxicity — or test everything they can think of and use whatever looks active. …
It is more difficult than ever to eradicate infections caused by antibiotic-resistant “superbugs,” and the problem is exacerbated by a dry pipeline for new antimicrobials with bactericidal activity against gram-negative bacteria and enterococci. A concerted effort on the part of academic researchers and their institutions, industry, and government is crucial if humans are to maintain the upper hand in this battle against bacteria — a fight with global consequences. (NEJM 360(5):439-443)

As we’ve discussed time and time again, MRSA is increasingly common worldwide and increasingly costly to treat. Moreover, what has been presented by some as the first line of prevention for hospital-acquired MRSA — active surveillance and testing programs, also called “search and destroy” — is deeply controversial.

So what’s the next step? Well, in the past, when medicine has wanted to nullify an infectious disease threat, it did not rely only on surveillance or asepsis; it developed a vaccine. And there have been a few efforts to develop a MRSA vaccine, which are recapped in a new article in Infectious Disease Clinics of North America (yes, that’s a journal):

The most extensively tested vaccine against S aureus, which is a capsular polysaccharide-based vaccine known as StaphVAX, showed promise in an initial phase 3 trial, but was found to be ineffective in a confirmatory trial, leading to its development being halted. Likewise, a human IgG preparation known as INH-A21 (Veronate) with elevated levels of antibodies to the staphylococcal surface adhesins ClfA and SdrG made it into phase 3 testing, where it failed to show a clinical benefit. … Given the multiple and sometimes redundant virulence factors of S aureus that enable it to be such a crafty pathogen, if a vaccine is to prove effective, it will have to be multicomponent, incorporating several surface proteins, toxoids, and surface polysaccharides. (23 (1): 153-171)

Several longtime MRSA researchers, including Dr. Robert S. Daum of the University of Chicago, who wrote the first paper calling attention to community-associated MRSA in 1998, have called for a vaccine to be made a research priority.

Any thoughts, constant readers? In the public mind, right now, vaccines are at a low point: People are turning away from them, manufacturing problems have led to shortages, and pharma no longer finds vaccine manufacturing a lucrative business sector. If a MRSA vaccine were developed, would you take it yourself before surgery, or give one to your children?

About handwashing: Here’s a resource for kids

By Leave a Comment

If you have young teens or younger, here’s a fun resource aimed at persuading them to wash their hands. (And if you don’t, it might tune you up to pre-teen culture):

Mitchel Musso, who plays the boy best friend on the Disney TV Show Hannah Montana, has filmed a public service announcement TV spot: “Clean Hands Are Cool Hands.”

It’s part of a campaign sponsored by the Hospital Corporation of America (HCA) and Steris Corp., which makes infection-control and surgical gear. The kid side of the site has behind-the-scenes cuteness — music, photos, video outtakes; the parent/teacher side, medical information, lesson plans, posters and stickers.

Can’t hurt. May help. Cute.

More MRSA in meat, and not just pork

By Leave a Comment

In my excitement over the paper by Tara Smith and team on Friday, I failed to sufficiently emphasize an important new finding. (I included it in my story for ScientificAmerican.com, but it was toward the end.) I feel it deserves a post of its own, so here it is:

The Food and Consumer Product Safety Authority of the Netherlands has found MRSA in 12% of 2,217 samples of meat on sale in the country, including not just pork, but beef, lamb, chicken, turkey and game birds, and 85% of the bacterial isolates were the”pig strain” ST 398.

We have talked before (all posts here) about the potential risk of MRSA in meat, especially ST 398 because it seems to have found a preferred host in pigs. In this study, however, the meat most likely to carry ST 398 was not pork, but turkey, followed by chicken and then by veal, and then by pork.

So what does all this mean? It’s still probably too early to tell: Recall that the first isolations of this bug were in 2004, there have still been only a few papers on it, and this finding by Smith and team is the first identification of the strain in the United States. (Though not in North America, as it was identified in Canada in 2007.) It seems likely that ST 398 may have found a niche in other food animals, and that it contaminates the meat when the animals are slaughtered.

The consensus among the Dutch, though, is that this is an effect of the use of antibiotics in food animals. The romantic image of the Netherlands is as a cute little collection of postage-stamp family farms, but the reality, especially in the southeast of the country, is that they have substantial industrial-sized farms housing thousands of animals on relatively small properties. The only way to grow animals efficiently under such conditions is to keep very close tabs on potential illness, and liberally deploy antibiotics when necessary. (NB, I am not talking here about sub-therapeutic, growth-promoting use, but rather prophylactic antibiotics, given to an entire herd when a certain percentage of the herd shows sign of illness.) Evidence for this, according to the current study’s authors: Meat sold as “biologic” — that’s “organic,” in the US — had a much lower rate of contamination with ST 398.

There are still very few reports of human illness from ST 398, though of those reports, some are quite serious, including wound infections and endocarditis. The concern here, as the researchers interested in it have been saying from the start, is that someone will inadvertently colonize themselves with the organism by touching their eyes or nose while handling meat contaminated with ST 398. Colonization does not necessarily lead to disease, but it does lead to a far greater pool of organism potentially spreading unmonitored through human and animal populations, swapping resistance and virulence factors as it goes.

So, you know what I’m going to say: Wash your hands, wash your hands, wash your hands.

The havoc resistant bugs can wreak: Mariana Bridi, RIP

By Leave a Comment

Constant readers, you may not have seen this story: It has been moving very fast over the past few days, has now concluded, and is very sad.

Mariana Bridi, a 20-year-old Brazilian who was twice a finalist in her country’s preliminaries of the Miss World competition, died this morning of severe sepsis after a brutal battle that included amputations of her hands and feet.

The bug that caused her death: drug-resistant Pseudomonas aeruginosa. Pseudomonas is a Gram-negative bacterium, and there is a great deal of concern in the infectious disease world about the lack of drugs in the pipeline for Gram negatives.

Bridi apparently had a urinary tract infection. She was initially diagnosed with kidney stones, which she apparently did not have; but the diagnosis suggests she was having sharp pains around the areas of her kidneys or in her lower back, which a UTI can cause if it spreads upward from the bladder. Ascending UTIs are more likely to spill over into the bloodstream, causing bacteremia and triggering sepsis, in which the immune system goes into overdrive in response to the overload of bacteria in the blood. One of the hallmarks of severe sepsis is DIC, disseminated intravascular coagulation, in which micro-clots form in small blood vessels and block circulation, killing the tissue downstream. Sepsis is an extreme emergency; in the past, one-third of people who developed sepsis died, though new modes of treatment have improved those numbers.

What a sad story.

UPDATE: KevinMD.com has an excellent analysis of the case, with contributions from other physicians in the comments. Important point: Pseudomonas is usually a nosocomial organism. If it is correct that Bridi picked up the bug out in her daily life, as opposed to during a prior hospital admission, that would be a very troubling development.

Appearing tonight at SciAm.com

By Leave a Comment

Folks, last summer I told you about the very exciting though disturbing development of ST 398 MRSA — the “untypable” Dutch strain that originated in pigs and spread to humans — being found in pigs in the US for the first time.

But here’s the brand-new second half of that story: It was found in pig handlers as well, on a set of linked farms — a closed production system that takes pigs from birth to just before slaughter — in Iowa and Illinois.

The full study has just been published, in the online Public Library of Science journal PLoS One.

And I have a story describing the research and the background — and the alarming spread of ST 398 in Europe — up tonight at ScientificAmerican.com.

The cite is: Smith, TC, Male, MJ, Harper, AL et al. Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) Strain ST398 Is Present in Midwestern U.S. Swine and Swine Workers. PLoS ONE 4(1): e4258 doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0004258

UPDATE: Lead author Tara Smith talks about the paper at her own blog, Aetiology. And for good measure, her Science Blogs sibling (AKA “scibling”) Ed Yong discusses the paper at Not Exactly Rocket Science.

Well, this is bad news.

By Leave a Comment

Hi again, constant readers – yes, eye-deep again in a chapter, and sinking. About which: Is there anyone there who remembers staph 80/81 and would like to talk about it? Email me, address in the right-hand bar.

And now to the bad news. I am coming to this story late, but truthfully I am not even sure how late, as it seems to have trickled out without fanfare, and different media have covered it at different times over the past month. At any rate: The FDA has quietly reversed a decision it took last summer, and will allow cephalosporins, a human medicine, to be used without restriction in food animals.

What’s a cephalosporin? The best-known one is the very commonly used drug Keflex (cephalexin), which you might take for tonsillitis or bronchitis – not a drug that you want to stop working because bacteria have developed resistance to it. (Yes, MRSA already has.)

Supporting material, tracking backward: A notice from the National Academies of Science news office from two days ago is here. An NPR story from Dec. 29 is here. A lengthy essay hosted by food-safety expert/attorney Bill Marler is here. A statement from the Pew Charitable Trusts’ Campaign on Human Health and Industrial Farming, dated Dec. 12, is here. A short story from the Wall Street Journal, dated Dec. 9, is here.

Here’s where I think this all ends up: On Nov. 25, the FDA put a note in the Federal Register announcing that it was reversing its earlier, July 3 decision to put curbs on the “extra-label” — anything not specifically allowed by the label — use of cephalosporins in animals. (Here’s a July 16 Q and A explaining what it was prohibiting.)

The reason for the revocation of the ban/permission to use without restrictions, the FDA said in the Nov. 25 notice, was that it had gotten so many public comments on the ban — which was supposed to take effect Nov. 30 — that it decided the only appropriate action was to lift the ban until it could fully consider whether to reimpose it. And, because it was a revocation of a previous order and not a new order, it did not have to give advance notice.

As to what this means, consider this stinging op-ed from John Carling, former governor of the very agricultural state of Kansas, and chairman of the Pew Commission, which produced a mammoth report last year on industrial-scale agriculture:

The rest of the world has leapt ahead of us on this issue. In Europe, antibiotics have long been eliminated from food production. South Korea followed suit this summer. Our refusal to turn away from this practice could cost us markets for our food products overseas and, by extension, precious jobs here at home.
The Pew Commission was composed of farmers, doctors, veterinarians, economists and other talented professionals who took on the challenge of finding a model that would allow U.S. farmers and ranchers the freedom to pursue their livelihoods in a way that does not adversely impact public health, the environment and the economies of their communities.
We believe we found such a model, and it included phasing out the indiscriminate overuse of antibiotics.
Changing the way agriculture works in this country will likely prove challenging, and involve many difficult decisions.
It’s a tragedy that on this occasion the FDA took the easy — and more dangerous — way out.

US Air 1549 and the relevance of checklists

By Leave a Comment

Constant readers, when we discussed the importance of surgical checklists last week, I mentioned parenthetically that I am a licensed pilot. (For av geeks: single engine, taildragger, VFR. And, just to complete the geekery, married to an avionics engineer.) So I’ve been particularly fascinated by the story and back-story of US Air flight 1549, which — as I am sure most of you know — bellied into the Hudson last week after losing both its engines to bird ingestion and landed beautifully, with no injuries to its passengers or crew.

The landing is being called a miracle, but to a pilot, it’s no miracle: It’s a testament to excellent performance under pressure by pilot-in-command Chesley “Sully” Sullenberger III and his first officer and crew. How did they perform so well? They ran down a checklist. Why did they reach for the checklist immediately, almost instinctively, and perform so well as a group? Because they trained many, many, many times to do exactly that.

Last week’s New England Journal of Medicine article made clear the value of checklists to medicine. But patient-safety analyst Bob Wachter asks an additional vital question: Even when medicine has such measures, how often do we train to implement them? The answer, he finds, is not often:

We need to continue to work, as aviation has for the past generation, to train our “pilots” to become Sullys. Because we in healthcare are flying over some pretty cold rivers, each and every day.

(Hat tip to KevinMD.com for calling attention to Wachter’s post.)

Are *you* a germophobe?

By Leave a Comment

I have a feature in the new February edition of SELF Magazine. (For readers outside the US, SELF is one of the largest magazines aimed at women 18-40 — and it has a ton of international editions, so it may well be on your newsstands too.)

It’s titled “Germophobia,” and it’s a light-hearted but also serious look at how we can live without paranoia in a microbial world.

A timely reminder on using antibiotics well (and badly)

By Leave a Comment

The Infectious Diseases Society of America, the professional organization for ID physicians, is criticizing large grocery store and pharmacy chains for giving antibiotics away for free. (Yes, you read that right: Not generic, not cheap, free. Here is a Wall Street Journal Health blog post explaining the practice, which has become quite common over the past two years.)

IDSA is concerned of course that these antibiotics will be used inappropriately because, being free, they will have a perceived lesser value. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has been campaigning for years against inappropriate antibiotic use, via its Get Smart: Keep Antibiotics Working campaign.

(Why is it important to use antibiotics only for the things they work against? All together now: Because if used inappropriately — in too-low doses, too-short courses, or against an illness where they are not useful — they will encourage the development of resistant bacteria, and also may kill your own commensal bacteria, clearing a niche that resistant ones can then occupy. Very good, class, early dismissal today.)

There’s an additional, interesting twist to these campaigns, though, which IDSA very rightly raises: They are taking place now, in flu season. One of the most common inappropriate uses of antibiotics is against viral diseases such as flu; the CDC says:

Tens of millions of antibiotics prescribed in doctors’ offices each year are for viral infections, which cannot effectively be treated with antibiotics. Doctors cite diagnostic uncertainty, time pressure on physicians, and patient demand as the primary reasons why antibiotics are over-prescribed.

IDSA is quite rightly concerned that the launch of these free-pill programs in flu season will reinforce the association between flu and antibiotics, which is precisely the association that causes antibiotics to be most overused. An excellent point.

This is what hand hygiene looks like

By Leave a Comment


Contant reader Robyn pointed out an amazing image in the New England Journal of Medicine issue I discussed below. I missed it (thanks, Robyn!), so I went back and retrieved it. Here’s what you’re looking at:

The Cleveland Veterans Affairs Medical Center discovered via a routine nasal swab that a quadriplegic patient was colonized with MRSA; the patient had not had any signs that would have indicated an infection. To satisfy their curiosity over how much MRSA a healthcare worker might pick up from a patient whom they did not know was colonized, they had a health care worker do an abdominal exam of the patient — let’s underline that: abdominal; nowhere near his nose. Then they pressed the worker’s hand onto a growth medium that had been tuned with antibiotics so that it would allow MRSA to grow but suppress other bacteria.

That’s what you’re looking at above. All of that red is MRSA. The image on the right is what grew after the same worker did hand-sanitizing with alcohol foam and then pressed the same hand onto an identical culture plate. What’s growing? Nothing at all.

Here’s the back story, quoted from NEJM (re-paragraphed):

A 24-year-old man who had quadriplegia due to a traumatic spinal cord injury was found on routine surveillance cultures to have methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) colonization of his anterior nares. He had no history of MRSA infection or colonization.
To assess the potential implications of the patient’s MRSA carriage for infection control, an imprint of a health care worker’s ungloved hand was obtained for culture after the worker had performed an abdominal examination of the patient. The MRSA colonies grown from this handprint on the plate (CHROMagar Staph aureus), which contained 6 µg of cefoxitin per milliliter to inhibit methicillin-susceptible S. aureus, are pink and show the outline of the worker’s fingers and thumb (Panel A).
With the use of a polymerase-chain-reaction assay, the mecA gene, which confers methicillin resistance, was amplified from nares and imprint isolates. After the worker’s hand had been cleaned with alcohol foam, another hand imprint was obtained, and the resulting culture was negative for MRSA (Panel B).
These images illustrate the critical importance of hand hygiene in caring for patients, including those not known to carry antibiotic-resistant pathogens.

The cite is: Donskey, Curtis J., Eckstein, Brittany C. IMAGES IN CLINICAL MEDICINE: The Hands Give It Away. N Engl J Med 2009 360: e3

UPDATE: The tireless and too-seldom-thanked crew at ZoneGrippeAviare, who provide pandemic news for the Francophone community, have translated this post into French. Mes mercis respectueuses!

Reducing errors: Worldwide proof that it’s not so hard

By Leave a Comment

There’s an encouraging joint announcement coming this afternoon from the World Health Organization and the New England Journal of Medicine. (I’ve set the timer on this post to publish when the embargo lifts.)

Using a simple but detailed checklist, eight hospitals in a mix of high-income and resource-poor areas were able to reduce their rates of surgical complications by one-third and their rate of death due to surgical complications by almost one-half.

The checklist study was sponsored by the WHO’s Safe Surgery Saves Lives campaign. It was headed by surgeon and author Atul Gawande, MD, who is lead author of the NEJM paper and has spoken passionately about checklists as a simple, reliable, reproducible, low-cost intervention that can return extraordinary improvements.

The checklist idea originates in medicine with Dr. Peter Provonost, Johns Hopkins University critical-care researcher and MacArthur “genius” fellow. Gawande wrote a profile of Provonost, and plea for checklist implementation, in the New Yorker in Dec. 2007, and followed that article two weeks later with a New York Times op-ed piece.

The checklist idea has been borrowed from other tech-intensive fields, notably aviation. As a licensed pilot, I can testify that no pilot or crew, no matter how experienced, would ever dare take off without running through a checklist. To believe that you can keep everything you need to do in your head without reference to an external reminder is, in aviation, simply not a credible position. It is considered an absurd display of ego that puts others at unnecessary risk. (For a taste of how aviation looks at medicine’s resistance to improvement, see Sir Richard Branson’s comments last month.)

In the current study, one hospital in each of eight cities — Toronto, New Delhi, Amman, Auckland, Manila, London, Seattle and Ifakara, Tanzania — agreed to follow a pre-, during- and post-surgery checklist for every noncardiac surgery on patients older than 16. The study group collected data before implementation of the checklist on 3,733 consecutively enrolled patients, and during the checklist implementation, on 3,955 patients.

The checklist is on the WHO website (.pdf in English) along with toolkits for implementation. If you look, you’ll see it is very simple. For instance, before anesthesia:

  • Patient has confirmed: identity, site, procedure, consent
  • Site marked (or marking confirmed not applicable)
  • Anaesthesia safety check completed
  • Pulse oximeter on patient and functioning
  • Does patient have a known allergy? (No/Yes)
  • Does patient have a difficult airway/aspiration risk? (No/Yes, and equipment/assistance available)
  • Is there a risk of >500ml blood loss (7ml/kg in children)? (No/Yes, and adequate intravenous access and fluids planned)

There are similar short, thorough and noncomplex checklists for before skin incision and before patient leaves the operating room. Amazingly — or not, for those of you who follow the struggle against medical errors — these interventions, simple as they are, were new to most of the study hospitals.

Now, the research team is careful to point out the possible confounders to this study: It introduced changes in systems at the hospitals that may have created independent effects. It may suffer from the Hawthorne effect (“Observation changes the behavior of the observed.”) Given that it used consecutively enrolled patients, it may be affected by secular trends at the individual institutions. And it does not track complications post-discharge.

All that being said, I think we can take this as a very potent argument for the adoption of surgical checklists as a component of campaigns to reduce medical errors. And, as Gawande says in the press release that WHO put out this afternoon, a pointer to possible improvements in other specialties as well:

These findings have implications beyond surgery, suggesting that checklists could increase the safety and reliability of care in numerous medical fields… [I]n specialties ranging from cardiac care to pediatric care, they could become as essential in daily medicine as the stethoscope.

The cite on the study is: Haynes, AB, Weiser, TG, Berry, WR et al. Surgical Safety Checklist to Reduce Morbidity and Mortality in a Global Population. N Eng J Med 2009: 260: 491-9. Published ahead of print Jan. 14, 2009.

UPDATE: The full text has been placed online for free.