Maryn McKenna

Journalist and Author

News round-up

By Leave a Comment

I’m deep into writing again and therefore slipping on posting; apologies to regular readers! But here are some items of importance from the past week:

  • Wednesday (Aug. 20) marked the first anniversary of Illinois‘ signing and immediately enacting the MRSA Screening & Reporting Act, the first state law to mandate that hospitals screen all ICU and other high-risk patients for MRSA colonization and to isolate and treat them until they are clear. This law would never have been passed without the extraordinary advocacy of MRSA survivor Jeanine Thomas, founder of the MRSA Survivors Network (site here and in the blogroll).
  • Also as of Wednesday, California came within one step of passing its own MRSA laws, SB 1058 and SB 158. They await the signature of Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger — but with California’s budget in a $15.2 billion deficit freefall, new legislation there may be held hostage until a budget deal is agreed. Important addition: SB 1058 is also called “Nile’s Law,” after Nile Calvin Moss, who died of MRSA in April 2006. His parents Carole and Ty have pushed relentlessly for a MRSA law in his memory.
  • Plus, a great find thanks to Carole Moss: The Washington State Department of Health has put together an excellent pamphlet, Living with MRSA, that explains MRSA infection, colonization, decolonization and infection-control care at home in excellent everyday language.
  • And finally, another blog worth knowing about: GERMblog, written by Dr. Harley Rotbart, professor and vice-chair of pediatrics at University of Colorado School of Medicine and author of Germ Proof Your Kids: The Complete Guide to Protecting (Without Overprotecting) Your Family from Infections. I interviewed Dr. Rotbart recently for a magazine story and his advice was clear, science-based and sensible. His blog is now in the blogroll.

Surveillance to stop MRSA: Where, when, how costly, how much?

By Leave a Comment

My colleague Joanne Kenen — longtime health policy correspondent for Reuters, now a staff member at the New American Foundation, and a Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation Media Fellow with me in 2006-07 — very kindly invited me to guest-blog at the New Health Dialogue. Most of the post is reproduced below, but please be kind and visit them so they can record the hits!

Stopping the spread of MRSA in hospitals is one of the most contentious topics in infectious disease policy right now. A small sample of the, umm, highly divergent views on the subject filled up the letters pages of the Journal of the American Medical Association last week. Community-associated MRSA has grabbed the public’s attention over the past year, but hospital-acquired MRSA remains a huge problem — so much so that the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services has proposed treating it as a medical error and declining to reimburse hospitals for the extra care that must be given to a patient when it occurs.

Within health care, there is vociferous debate over how to control MRSA. Because MRSA can live on the skin, nostrils and other body sites for a long period of time before causing an infection — either in the person colonized by the bug or in someone else who acquired it from the colonized person — many hospitals espouse a program of checking new patients who are most likely to be carriers, including patients in high-risk units such as ICUs, new admits from long-term care facilities, and people who have had MRSA infections on the past. But a small set of institutions are pursuing a more aggressive program, variously called “active surveillance and testing,” “universal screening” or “search and destroy,” that checks every inpatient for MRSA colonization and confines them to isolation until the bug has cleared.

“Search and destroy” was the topic of an important JAMA paper and editorial last March that decided the effort wasn’t worthwhile. (A simultaneously published paper in the Annals of Internal Medicine completely disagreed.) The five letters in JAMA tear the topic apart, examining definitions, methodology, cost-effectiveness, adherence to infection control and more. The most intriguing suggests that “search and destroy” contains a hidden agenda: That if hospitals can demonstrate patients were carrying MRSA on admission, they may be able to make a case for any subsequent infections not being their fault — and so escape the lowered reimbursement rates that CMS proposes.

Oh no they *didn’t*…

By Leave a Comment

The Environmental Protection Agency will allow apple growers in Michigan to spray the human antibiotic gentamicin on apples to control an apple-tree disease, fire blight.

This because the disease had already become resistant to a previously used, different human antibiotic, streptomycin.

The Infectious Diseases Society of America tries to get them to see reason:

“At a time when bacteria are becoming increasingly resistant to many of our best antibiotics, it is an extremely bad idea to risk undermining gentamicin’s effectiveness for treating human disease by using it to treat a disease in apples.” (IDSA President Donald Poretz, MD in a press release.)

Gentamicin is used against staph and against a range of Gram-negative bacteria, and is an important drug for bloodstream infections in newborns. In a bizarre irony, the EPA bans its use on imported fruits/vegetables — because of fears of fostering resistance.

The decision in the Federal Register here. The original EPA proposal here. A Clinical Infectious Diseases article about human antibiotic use in plant agriculture here. And somewhere in the immediate vicinity, me clutching my head and wandering away muttering.

A note on flackery.

By Leave a Comment

I believe in transparency (see Operating Instructions in the right-hand column), and some comments have been submitted to the blog recently that I was not willing to publish. So it’s time to declare a policy.

Here it is: I will not allow any comments that advertise any products, explicitly or by linkage, period full stop.

I am my readers’ filter; that’s the responsibility I accepted when I started this blog, and I take it seriously. So anything that might be published in this space goes through me first. If anyone out there has a product — pharma, natural, alternative, antibacterial, whatever — my email is on the right. Send me a note, send me some literature; especially send me some data. I’m happy to engage offline.

I may post on what you send, or I may not. But it will be my post, not someone else’s cloaked advertising. Just so we’re clear.

Sermon over. Donuts and coffee, anyone?

Maybe we just build them better? (But who pays?)

By Leave a Comment

OK, campers, I know I’m tossing crumbs here, but I drove 6 hours today and am now, umm, well, not in any major metropolitan area, that’s for sure. But I’m visiting a very interesting hospital program tomorrow. And my chain motel is smack-dab between a Denny’s and a Waffle House. Just think of the breakfast options. (And imagine my arteries clogging. OK, don’t.)

Skittering back to the reason why we’re here: Via the LA Times, an intriguing article about the possibilities of reducing hospital-acquired infections by designing hospitals better: single rooms, improved airflow, more sinks, etc.

“Private rooms are the most important design element that reduces the spread of infection between patients,” says Richard Van Enk, director of infection control and epidemiology for Bronson Methodist Hospital in Kalamazoo, Mich. Bronson is a pioneer of evidence-based design and was among the first hospitals in the United States to build a facility with all private patient rooms.
The hospital’s new design also incorporates two sinks in each patient room, one of which is dedicated for the exclusive use of the healthcare worker. Many easily cleaned surface materials such as water-based low VOC (volatile organic chemical) paint, plastic counter coverings and linoleum floorings with antimicrobial properties were also used throughout the hospital. (Byline: Lisa Zamosky)

It sounds plausible to me. Superbug Spouse is an expert in human-factors design, and we both do photography and web design (he’s better), so issues like this – which way do your eyes go? what button do you naturally want to push? – get tossed about a lot in our house. And just yesterday I listened to an infection-control nurse describe the difficulty of getting healthcare workers to use sinks in older rooms in which the sinks are within the bathrooms; the HCWs perceived the bathrooms as the patients’ private space, not as accessible to all. So there may be something to this.

But retrofitting is expensive. And the bill will be paid by… ??

Limiting prescriptions – can it be done, will it help?

By Leave a Comment

I’m on the road reporting for two weeks, which makes keeping up with MRSA news fairly challenging. (Hangs head in shame, promises to do better in August when I will be chaining myself to my computer in vain hope of meeting a manuscript deadline.)

Meanwhile, here is a tidbit of news on the MRSA front, from the UK. As our international readers will know (oh yes, we have them, Google Analytics makes a very nice map – hi, London! say hello, Rotherham!), MRSA has been a ferocious hospital pathogen in the UK, but community strains have been less problematic there until recently.

The National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence, an agency that does cost-benefit analysis on behalf of the National Health System, has asked doctors to limit prescribing antibiotics for most of the upper-respiratory infections they see in private practice on the assumption that most URIs will be viral and therefore not helped by antibiotics anyway.

…Doctors in the state’s health system should not prescribe antibiotics for most cases of sore throats, colds, bronchitis or other types of respiratory infections, the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence, or NICE, said.
They should also delay writing such prescriptions and reassure people the drugs are not needed immediately and would make little difference because most respiratory infections are viral, the new guidelines said. …
The drugs watchdog said a quarter of people in England and Wales visit the doctor because of respiratory tract infections, which account for 60 percent of all antibiotic prescriptions in general practice. (Reuters, byline Michael Kahn)

Note that this is a guideline, which is to say voluntary — though because it is promulgated by a regulatory body within a single-payer health system, may well have more force than similar guidelines that have been promulgated in the US by professional societies such as the Infectious Diseases Society of America. This article from IDSA from last April captures how effective guidelines have been here. Answer: Overall, not much, because they are a matter of asking, not compelling.

I’m interested in hearing from any readers who have experience with antibiotic stewardship programs at the society level or in institutions: Do they work, what does it take to implement them, how draconian do you have to be? If anyone can offer thoughts, please comment or send me a private email to the address in the right-hand column.

On to North Carolina.

Please route to the Dept. of Unintended Consequences.

By Leave a Comment

Via the open-access Journal PLoS One, an unnerving report of Canadian researchers finding fluoroquinolone resistance in E. coli in a group who are vanishingly unlikely to have ever taken a quinolone: indigenous Indians in isolated villages in the Guyanese rainforest.

For most people the most familiar quinolone is likely to be ciprofloxacin (Cipro), a very valuable antibiotic in the arsenal because it works against a broad array of Gram-positive and Gram-negative organisms and is off-patent and therefore relatively inexpensive. (Cipro became a household word in the US during the anthrax attacks — it is given prophylactically on suspicion of exposure to inhalational anthrax — and was recently given a “black box” warning by the FDA because of an association with tendon ruptures.)

Quinolone resistance has certainly been recorded: In 2003, a team found 4.0 percent of E. coli in US intensive care units were resistant to cipro. The Canadians — 20 volunteer medical personnel from Ontario — found 5.4 percent among the Guyanese. That’s in a setting where there is no selective antibiotic pressure, because no one is taking antibiotics.

Aha: But they are taking malaria prophylaxis, including the extremely common and cheap antimalarial chloroquine. The team theorizes that chloroquine is sufficiently chemically similar to the quinolones to provoke the development of resistance. If correct, this is very bad news: Malaria is a major killer especially of children, so no one is about to stop prescribing a cheap, effective antimalarial in a highly malarious area. In fact, the WHO and other agencies are preparing a new antimalarial program called ACT (for “artemisin combination therapy”; artemisin is a botanical) that includes a drug family called quinolines that are chemically similar to chloroquine.

Controlling malaria is an important public health goal, but so is controlling antibiotic resistance, especially resistance to effective drugs that poor countries can afford. As one of the authors, Michael Silverman of Oshawa, Ont. warned as the study was releasing:”Chloroquine use for malaria may make the fluoroquinolones less effective for many common tropical diseases such as typhoid fever, diarrheal illnesses, and possibly also tuberculosis and pneumonia in the developing world.”

The cite is: Davidson RJ, Davis I, Willey BM, Rizg K, Bolotin S, et al. (2008) Antimalarial Therapy Selection for Quinolone Resistance among Escherichia coli in the Absence of Quinolone Exposure, in Tropical South America. PLoS ONE 3(7): e2727. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0002727

Of course we would never have thought of that.

By Leave a Comment

A new paper in the Annals of Internal Medicine suggests an astounding technique for figuring out whether patients experienced an adverse event while in the hospital:

Asking them.

No, really.

The study by Massachusetts researchers (from University of Massachusetts, Brown, Harvard, Massachusetts Department of Public Health and Massachusetts Hospital Association) looked back at the experience of more than 2,600 patients in 16 Massachusetts hospitals during 6 months in 2003. The researchers started from the assumption that the medical-records review done by many hospitals to spot adverse events was not capturing enough information — and that the interviews that some hospitals do with patients after discharge were asking the wrong questions because they focus only on satisfaction.

So the team did a 20-minute phone interview 6 to 12 months after discharge for 2,600 patients, asking about “negative effects, complications or injuries,” and also reviewed the medical records of 1,000 patients who agreed to their charts’ being released for review. For each arm of the study, two physician-reviewers checked results to be sure what was scored as an adverse event actually qualified as one.

And they found: That twice as many adverse events were uncovered when patients were asked about their experience. Among the interviewees, 23 percent reported an adverse event; when records were reviewed, only 11 percent of patients were judged to have experienced one.

Now, let’s be clear: I’m very glad these researchers had the courage to do this study. Anything that supports better care, more transparency in care and more responsiveness to the patient’s experience is a good thing and I support it.

But when I think of the dozens of hospital patients and family members who have told me about their experiences with poor infection control — lack of hand-washing, lack of housekeeping, bloody gauze on floors — and with being completely unable to get anyone in those hospitals to pay attention, it just makes me want to beat my head against a wall. Coming up with the idea of asking the patients about their experience… this is so hard?

As one of the co-authors, Saul Weingart of Dana-Farber Cancer Institute in Boston, said in an accompanying press release: “It’s pretty clear that they can teach us important things about improving patient safety, if only we ask them.”

The cite is: Weissman, JS et al. Comparing Patient-Reported Hospital Adverse Events with Medical Record Review: Do Patients Know Something That Hospitals Do Not? Ann Intern Med 2008; 100-108.

Antibiotic resistance in food animals all across Europe

By Leave a Comment

Via a journal that’s new to me — the Acta Veterinaria Scandinavica, the open-access journal of the Veterinary Associations of the Nordic Countries — comes an amazing review of the prevalence of antibiotic resistance in cattle in 13 European countries. Based on 25,241 isolates collected over three years, Denmark, Britain, the Netherlands, Norway, Sweden and Switzerland do well, but “many isolates from Belgium, France, Italy, Latvia and Spain were resistant to most antimicrobials tested.“

Most resistant pathogen: E. coli. MRSA is present as well:

Of major concern is the level of resistance to oxacillin and 3rd generation cephalosporins (i.e. ceftiofur) in S. aureus. The prevalence of oxacillin resistance in Spain (3.7%) and France (8.3%) and the resistance towards cephalosporins in Spain (0.9% in 2004) and France (4.2% in 2002; 1% in 2003) indicate the presence of methicillin resistant S. aureus (MRSA) in these two countries.

The authors ascribe the differences among countries to different patterns of antimicrobial use by veterinarians and stress that it is time for veterinarians to begin using measurements of local resistance patterns (in human medicine, an “antibiogram”) before prescribing. Cite coming when the Acta site is updated. UPDATE: The paper is here; cite is: Hendriksen, RS et al. Prevalence of antimicrobial resistance among bacterial pathogens isolated from cattle in different European countries: 2002-2004. Acta Veterinaria Scandinavica 2008, 50:28doi:10.1186/1751-0147-50-28.

I wasn’t aware that this same set of authors (Hendriksen, RS et al.) just a few weeks ago published a similar review of antimicrobial resistance in pigs in Europe. It looks at several bacterial species in pigs, but unfortunately for our purposes, no S. aureus.