Maryn McKenna

Journalist and Author

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.

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.)

Antibiotic use in animals: The feds move, a little

By Leave a Comment

This is an addition for archival purposes of a post that originally appeared at Scienceblogs.

(You leave the country for a few days — I spoke at a conference in Brussels, which was was lovely, thanks for asking — and all kinds of news breaks out. So, sorry to be late on this, but it’s an important issue.)

Last week, the Food and Drug Adminstration took the first (baby, mincing, tentative) steps to address the problem of antibiotics being used in animal agriculture, not to treat disease, but to make animals grow up to market weight faster. This practice — variously called subtherapeutic dosing, growth promotion, and “for production purposes” in the FDA’s exceedingly careful language — has been fully banned in the European Union for 4 years, and some aspects of the practice have been banned longer.

The simple reason for the ban: There’s decades of good science and real-world experience showing that it contributes to the development of drug-resistant organisms in farm animals and the farm environment, organisms that leave farms in the animals and in their manure, and also contaminate the environment beyond farm borders via leakage into groundwater and dust blowing off manure lagoons.That movement off the farm is critical because many of the drugs used in agriculture are the same, or close analogs, of drugs used in human medicine; so resistance that develops on the farm endangers human health as well. (MRSA ST398, livestock-associated MRSA, is the latest example of this. Find a long archive of posts on ST398 here.)

Just to be clear, growth-promoters don’t treat disease; they’re given to healthy animals solely for the purpose of getting them up to sale weight and to market faster. The ways in which antibiotics are given to livestock to treat or prevent disease have their own issues, but those are not part of the FDA effort. (Historical note: The growth-promoting effect of trace amounts of antibiotics was first recognized in 1947, when scientists at Lederle were looking for something to do with the leftover fermentation mash from the manufacture of chlortetracycline, fed it to chickens, and discovered they thrived on it. Stuart Levy’s The Antibiotic Paradox tells this story in detail.)

In human medicine, when we give antibiotics to people who are not sick with a bacterial illness, we call it inappropriate use — and aim massive education campaigns at the practice in an attempt to dial it down. In contract, the animal side has had a free pass for a long time, to the extent that it remains unclear how many antibiotics are used in farming in the US (best estimate: about 70% of all antibiotic use in the US per year), and there is no organized surveillance that would look at what organisms are emerging in animals from that use.

The FDA has been trying to put curbs on growth promoters since the 1970s, always without success; the lobbying against it, by agriculture and also by pharmaceutical interests, is reliably intense. There’s been a parallel effort in Congress to limit the use in animals of drugs that have close analogs in human medicine, via the Preservation of Antibiotics for Medical Treatment Act, or PAMTA, authored by Rep. Louise Slaughter (D-NY), Congress’s only microbiologist. PAMTA has been introduced in several Congresses but this year finally gained some traction. Last year, the Obama administration signaled, in testimony by then-new assistant FDA commissioner Joshua Sharfstein, that it might be friendly to the idea of dialing back on growth-promoter antibiotic use, and it looked as though the long logjam might finally be broken.

Well, OK: Not broken, exactly. Just shifted a little, and maybe showing a tiny bit of light.

On Tuesday, the FDA released a “draft guidance” that proposes animal ag do two things: stop using growth-promoting subtherapeutic dosing, and administer antibiotics to animals under the supervision of a veterinarian. That’s the good news.

The bad news: It’s only a guidance, not a regulation. In other words, it has no force in law. It’s more like a request — though in a press conference last week, Sharfstein suggested it might also be a shot across agriculture’s collective bow:

We have the regulatory mechanisms and the industry knows that. But we are also interested in what things can be done just voluntarily that they would do them. And I think it’ll be interesting to see how the industry responds to this and how – what direction their comments take. …We’re not handcuffed to the steering wheel of a particular strategy at this point. We really want to understand what people think. And but we’re also – I’m not ruling out anything that we could do to accomplish these important public health goals. (Transcript)

Reactions to the FDA announcement were predictable — effectively “No science, more research needed”: Here’s the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association, the National Pork Producers Council, and a standing statement by the Animal Health Institute. (Supporting the FDA move: the Pew Charitable Trusts, the New York Times.)

The draft guidance stays open for public comment for 60 days, until Aug. 30. The required Federal Register posting is here, with the mailing address. Electronic comments can be left at Regulations.gov; the docket number for the guidance is FDA-2010-D-0094; 33 comments have been posted already.

Antibiotic resistance in food — some governments pay attention

By Leave a Comment

Folks, I told you Tuesday about a Congressional hearing on antibiotic resistance, featuring NIAID Director Dr. Anthony Fauci and CDC Director Dr. Thomas Frieden. Not much new was said, but it’s encouraging that the hearing was held at all. (Fauci testimony here, Frieden here.)

Coincidentally, constant reader Pat Gardiner of the UK alerted me to a gathering being held on the same day in Ireland, by the quasi-government agency SafeFood—which reports to the North-South Ministerial Council of Ireland, which deals with whole-island issues under the Good Friday agreement, which is more about the Irish political structure than you probably ever wanted to know.

The conference was titled Antimicrobial resistance and food safety and featured government officials and academic researchers from across Ireland. Here’s the agenda, and here’s the press release with the names of key speakers. Even more important, here are links to a report on antibiotic resistance in food that Safefood released in advance of this conference: executive summary and whole thing.  I especially recommend from p.25 in the big report for an accessible discussion of the connections between ag antibiotic use and human health. Key quote among many:

The majority of the evidence acquired through outbreak and epidemiological investigations of sporadic infections, field studies, case reports, ecological and temporal associations and molecular sub-typing studies support the causal link between the use of antimicrobial agents in food animals and human illness. A few papers have questioned this but these have not survived detailed scrutiny.

 It’s refreshing to see a government body engage seriously with this emerging issue, which we’ve been talking about for, well, years now, on this blog (sometime this month we passed our 3-year anniversary). I wish, wistfully, that the government doing the discussing was ours.

A blog reaction so perfect I want to print the whole thing…

By Leave a Comment

(…but I won’t, because it’s not fair use or good blogger behavior. But I want to!)

Melissa Graham of Chicago had a great corporate life — and then she re-evaluated, became a chef and caterer, and began organizing in Chicago for sustainable local food, farmers’ markets, and a family-friendly food system. She blogs at the food and food-policy blog The Local Beet. And she’s written a reaction to SUPERBUG that not only completely gets the book, but is emotional and thoughtful and moving besides.

She says, in part:

Before reading Superbug, the question of confinement raised animals was an ethical one for me – whether the misery inflicted upon animals and, for that matter, the humans working in those facilities by the putrid conditions outweighed the need to eat cheap meat. Even the environmental degradation resulting from the inevitable careless management of CAFOs seemed a distant and intangible casualty. For me, Superbug has changed the argument from one of ethics to a moral imperative. In every hamburger of unknown origin, I see Tony Love’s face or even worse that of Carlos Don IV.

Carlos was another healthy kid who left on a school trip to the mountain and returned with a 104°F fever. The first doctor diagnosed Carlos with walking pneumonia so his mother kept him home bundled and hydrated until she realized that he was beginning to hallucinate. She rushed Carlos to the hospital and the doctor’s ultimately diagnosed his condition as MRSA. A long slow death march ensued during which Carlos’s lungs dissolved and clotting choked off the blood to his lower intestines, legs and arms. In two weeks, he was dead.

After reading Carlos’s story late in the evening, I woke a bewildered little locavore from a dead sleep to scrub his hands clean. I hugged him as tightly as I could.

…[recently] I had the pleasure to hear Ruth Reichl speak and she implored the audience to stop eating confinement raised animals. As she put it, if everyone stopped buying them and eating them, the practice would be history. Knowing what I now know, I think it’s our moral duty.

To give the post the traffic it deserves, please go here.

Catching up to MRSA news (not about me)

By Leave a Comment

Constant readers: I’m looking forward to having the breathing space to get back to in-depth blogging. Meanwhile, though, news is zipping by — so here’s a quick list of recent things worth reading.

“Cows on Drugs” — a superb history of the 30-year-old fight to get unnecessary antibiotics out of food animals. Note, written by a former commissioner of the Food and Drug Administration, not exactly a wild-eyed radical:

More than 30 years ago, when I was commissioner of the United States Food and Drug Administration, we proposed eliminating the use of penicillin and two other antibiotics to promote growth in animals raised for food. When agribusiness interests persuaded Congress not to approve that regulation, we saw firsthand how strong politics can trump wise policy and good science.Even back then, this nontherapeutic use of antibiotics was being linked to the evolution of antibiotic resistance in bacteria that infect humans. To the leading microbiologists on the F.D.A.’s advisory committee, it was clearly a very bad idea to fatten animals with the same antibiotics used to treat people. But the American Meat Institute and its lobbyists in Washington blocked the F.D.A. proposal.

 Antibiotic resistance in your kitchen, playroom, car... — After years of begging from health advocates, the FDA and EPA are taking a second look at the chemical compound triclosan, an antibacterial that is put into, well, almost anything you can name: soaps, hand sanitizers, cutting boards, toys. Triclosan is suspected of interfering with hormone regulation in the body, and also increases resistance in organisms in our environment. (When I ask you to use hand sanitizers that contain only alcohol or salts, not antibacterials, triclosan is one of the things I’m thinking of.) The FDA will report its findings in a year. I’d rather see it happen sooner, but it’s a great move.

No progress on hospital-acquired infections — The Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, part of the Department of Health and Human Services, has published its 2009 National Healthcare Quality Report. The news is not good. To quote the agency’s own language: “Very little progress has been made on eliminating health care-associated infections.” This is all hospital-acquired infections, not just MRSA, but MRSA is a leading organism. The ugly details:

  • Post-operative bloodstream infections up 8%
  • Post-operative catheter-associated urinary-tract infections up 3.6%
  • “Selected infections due to medical care” up by 1.6%
  • Bloodstream infections as a result of central lines unchanged.

(NB, three professional organizations — the Infectious Diseases Society of America, the Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America, and the Association for Professionals in Infection Control — put out a statement in response to this report saying it “presents an outdated and incomplete picture on healthcare-associated infections (HAIs) in our healthcare system.” The gist of the statement seems to be that they’ve got better numbers coming… soon. When there’s actual data, I’ll let you know.)

SUPERBUG on Capitol Hill

By Leave a Comment

Constant readers, I’ve been shamefully absent from the blog, but with reason, since I’ve been traveling promoting the book. There was a pretty interesting opportunity this week that I wanted to tell you about: I was asked to be part of two Congressional briefings in Washington, DC Wednesday, addressing the overuse of antibiotics in agriculture and the contribution that makes to the emergence of resistant organisms such as MRSA. I went specifically to tell the story of the emergence of MRSA ST398, which we’ve been talking about for years here.

The briefings (FYI, “hearings” are for Congresspersons, “briefings” are for their staff) were cosponsored by the Pew Charitable Trusts, Union of Concerned Scientists, American Public Health Association, Infectious Diseases Society of America, and the nonprofit Keep Antibiotics Working.

Here’s Pew’s announcement, here’s the UCS version, here’s a write-up from the Washington Examiner, and here’s a longer one from the site Spectrum Science.

MRSA research round-up: hospitals, vitamins, pets

By Leave a Comment

Because I’ve been so behind, there’s so much to cover! So let’s dive in:

In today’s Archives of Surgery, researchers from Seattle’s Harborview Medical Center report that one simple addition to the routine of caring for trauma patients made a significant difference to the patients’ likelihood of acquiring a hospital-associated infection: bathing them once a day with the antiseptic chlorhexidine (in an impregnated wipe). Patients who were bathed with the antiseptic wipe, compared with patients wiped down with an inert solution, had one-fourth the likelihood of developing a catheter-related bloodstream infection and one-third the likelihood of ventilator-associated MRSA pneumonia. Cite: Evans HL et al. Effect of Chlorhexidine Whole-Body Bathing on Hospital-Acquired Infections Among Trauma Patients. Arch Surg. 2010;145(3):240-246.

How important are hospital-acquired infections? Here’s a piece of research from a few weeks ago that I sadly failed to blog at the time: Just two categories of HAIs, sepsis and pneumonia, account for 48,000 deaths and $8.1 billion in health care costs in a single year. Writing in the Archives of Internal Medicine, researchers from the nonprofit project Extending the Cure analyzed 69 million hospital-discharge records issued in 40 states between 1998 and 2006. Hospital charges and number of days that patients had to stay in the hospital were 40% higher because of those infections, many of which are caused by MRSA — and all of which are completely preventable. Cite: Eber, MR et al. Clinical and Economic Outcomes Attributable to Health care-Associated Sepsis and Pneumonia. Arch Intern Med. 2010; 170(4): 347-53.

 What else could reduce the rate of MRSA infections? How about Vitamin D? South Carolina scientists analyze data from the NHANES (National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey 2001-2004), a massive database overseen by the CDC, and find an association between low blood levels of Vit. D and the likelihood of MRSA colonization. More than 28% of the population is Vitamin D deficient. MRSA colonization is increasing in the US. Can giving Vit. D decrease MRSA carriage? More research needed. Cite: Matheson EM et al. Vitamin D and methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus nasal carriage. Scand J Infect Dis. 2010 Mar 8. [Epub ahead of print]

And finally: Who else carries MRSA? Some unlucky pet owners have found that animals can harbor human strains, long enough at least to pass the strain back to a human whose colonization has been cleared. So it makes sense to ask whether humans who spend time with pets are carrying the bug. Last month’s Veterinary Surgery reports that the answer is Yes. Veterinarians are carrying MRSA in very significant numbers: 17% of vets and 18% of vet technicians at an international veterinary symposium held in San Diego in 2008. Cite: Burstiner, LC et al. Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus Colonization in Personnel Attending a Veterinary Surgery Conference. Vet Surg. 2010 Feb;39(2):150-7.

“Pig MRSA” causing human infections

By Leave a Comment

Hi, everyone. Apologies for dropping out of sight! As SUPERBUG’s publication draws closer (and it’s very close now), I keep finding new tasks that I have do to. Last week’s was to go to New York to shoot a video for the Simon & Schuster website — and while there, I got caught in Snowpocalypse, got delayed coming home, and picked up a nasty cold. So I’m a bit behind.

But there’s exciting news tonight to start us up again: “pig MRSA,” ST398, causing human infections in Canada and Denmark.

“Infections” is important, because up til now, most evidence for  the spread of MRSA ST398 in humans has been through detection of colonization, the symptomless carriage of MRSA on the skin and in the nostrils. The first finding of ST398 in the Netherlands was via colonization; so was its first identification in humans in Canada, and also in the United States just about a year ago.

But comes now a team of public and university scientists from Canada to say that ST398 is also causing infections in Canada. They analyzed 3,687 MRSA isolates that had been collected from patients seen for infections in Manitoba and Saskatchewan. Five were ST398. That is an exceedingly low percentage, of course. But it is striking, and odd, that the infections were present at all:

The earliest identified LA-MRSA isolate (08 BA 2176) associated with an infection was obtained from a postoperative surgical site. … This patient is unlikely to have had any recent direct contact with livestock because she had been confined to her home with limited mobility for several years before her hospitalization. Additional nasal swabs from this patient remained positive for this strain for at least 7 months. …
The isolate submitted to the NML by Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre… was from a 59-year-old man from Ontario. He had been hospitalized in December 2007 for treatment of metastatic squamous cell carcinoma of the larynx. In the previous year, he had undergone a total laryngectomy, neck node dissection, and tracheostomy. …. He was unaware of any animal contact and had no history of exposure to pigs or pig farms. A review of the medical records and standard epidemiologic investigations determined that this was not a nosocomial or healthcare-associated isolate.

Just to underline, we have here a MRSA strain that is strongly associated with close contact with pigs, or with pig meat, and that has spread far enough from farms to be present in people who had no connection with pigs. You can argue that its very low prevalence means that it is not so much a threat as a curiosity. But I’d counter-argue that this is significant: because it establishes that this strain is spreading; because it demonstrates that the strain is causing infections, not just colonization; and because it inserts, into the swarm of isolates that make up MRSA, additional resistance factors that can be traded and exchanged unpredictably among the bacteria — and are likely not to be detected because our surveillance in animals is so sparse.

The authors say:

…additional surveillance efforts are required to monitor the emergence and clinical relevance of this MRSA strain in Canada, including communities, the environment, livestock, farmers, and production facility workers. Whether these strains pose a major threat to human health in light of the low livestock density and continued spread of epidemic hospital and community strains of MRSA in Canada remains unknown.

There’s also a new and tantalizing report from Denmark that appears to describe not only human infections, but human to human transmission, resulting in a very serious pneumonia in a baby. I can’t access the full-text even through my university account, but the abstract says:

Carriage of pig-associated methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) is known to occur in pig farmers. Zoonotic lineages of MRSA have been considered of low virulence and with limited capacity for inter-human spread. We present a case of family transmission of pig-associated MRSA ST398, which resulted in a severe infection in a newborn.

Not good.

The cites for these are:
Golding GR, Bryden L, Levett PN, McDonald RR, Wong A, Wylie J, et al. Livestock-associated methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus sequence type 398 in humans, Canada. Emerg Infect Dis; [Epub ahead of print] DOI: 10.3201/eid1604.091435
Hartmeyer GN, Gahrn-Hansen B, Skov RL, Kolmos HJ. Pig-associated methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus: Family transmission and severe pneumonia in a newborn. Scand J Inf Dis. Epub Feb. 3, 2010 ahead of print.

Antibiotics and farming — how superbugs happen

By Leave a Comment

Constant readers: There’s an important new paper that’s been out for a week that I haven’t gotten to you. I apologize; it’s been busy. (Let’s not even talk about the important paper that’s been out for two weeks. Maybe over the weekend…)

We’ve talked for ages now about the potential dangers of unrestricted antibiotic use in agriculture, and how it’s analogous to the inappropriate antibiotic use that human health authorities disapprove of in humans. The main culprits, in farming, are subtherapeutic dosing, also known as growth promotion — that’s giving routine smaller-than-treatment doses to animals to increase their weight — and prophylactic dosing, which is giving a treatment dose to an entire herd or flock either routinely, if there is thought to be a disease threat, or when there is known to be disease in some members of the herd/flock. In either case, animals are getting antibiotics when they do not need them — when they are not sick. And just as in humans who take antibiotics when they are not sick, or take too-low doses when they are sick (such as not finishing a prescription), these practices in animals encourage the development of resistant bacteria.

(Necessary comment here: No one, to my knowledge, objects to giving the appropriate doses of antibiotics to animals that are sick. Why would you?)

The interesting research question is how, exactly, resistance develops. (My real scientist readers may want to take a break, or cut me a break, for the next few sentences. Please.) The classical assumption has been that, through a variety of stimuli and the random copying errors of reproduction, bacteria are constantly acquiring small mutations. Some of those may give the bugs an advantage when they are exposed to a drug, some slight difference that allows the bacteria to disarm or turn aside that drug’s particular method of assault — so that the weak die, the strong survive, and the strong then reproduce more abundantly into that extra living space freed up by the death of the weak. The survivors and their descendants retain that mutation, because it gave them an advantage against the drug. And because bacteria can share resistance factors not only vertically mother-to-daughter, but horizontally in the same generation, once the resistance has emerged, it is likely to spread.

But no matter how quickly it spreads, that process I’ve just described involves acquiring resistance to just one drug or drug family at a time. Provocative new research from Boston University’s medical school and deoartment of biomedical engineering now suggests, though, that multi-drug resistance can be acquired in one pass, through a different mutational process triggered by sublethal doses of antibiotics — the same sort of doses that are given to animals on farms.

In earlier work, the authors found that antibiotics attack bacteria not only in the ways they are designed to (the beta-lactams such as methicillin, for instance, interfere with staph’s ability to make new cell walls as the bug reproduces, causing the daughter cells to burst and die), but also in an unexpected way. They stimulate the production of free radicals, oxygen molecules with an extra electron, that bind to and damage the bacteria’s DNA.

That research used lethal doses of antibiotics, and ascertained that the free-radical production killed the bacteria. In the new research, the team uses sublethal doses, and here’s what they find: The same free-radical production doesn’t kill the bacteria, but it acts as a dramatic stimulus to mutation, triggering production of a wide variety of mutations — what the researchers, in a press release, called “a zoo of mutants.” The plentiful, scattershot mutations included ones that created resistance to a number of different drugs — in some cases, even though no mutation was present that created resistance to the drug being administered.

You can easily see how this is applicable to factory farming: The sublethal dosing applied experimentally is analogous to the subtherapeutic dosing used in agriculture. Is it applicable to MRSA? Yes, absolutely. The two organisms the researchers used to test their hypothesis were S. aureus and E. coli.

making the implication clear, senior author James J. Collins said on the paper’s release:

“These findings drive home the need for tighter regulations on the use of antibiotics, especially in agriculture; for doctors to be more disciplined in their prescription of antibiotics; and for patients to be more disciplined in following their prescriptions.”

The cite is: Kohanski MA, DePristo MA and Collins, JJ. Sublethal Antibiotic Treatment Leads to Multidrug Resistance via Radical-Induced Mutagenesis. Molecular Cell, Volume 37, Issue 3, 311-320, 12 February 2010.

UPDATE: There’s a great discussion of the paper at the blog Mental Indigestion.

Postscript: I suppose I’ve been working too long without a break, because while I was reading about this process of creating multiple resistance factors at once, what I heard in my head was Mickey Mouse chirping: “Seven at one blow!”

Antibiotics and farming — CBS follow-up video

By Leave a Comment

Constant readers, CBS News has posted some follow-up video to its two-part series last week on antibiotics in agriculture. It features Dr. David Kessler, former Commissioner of the Food and Drug Administration (which under its current leadership has vowed to re-examine farm-antibiotic use), and Eric Schlosser, author of Fast Food Nation.

They talk about the protests CBS has received for airing the package, the concerns public health authorities have over the lack of  data on the amounts and types of antibiotics used, and much more. I especially love Schlosser’s comment: “I’m a meat-eater.” It’s important, I think, to say that being critical of antibiotic use does not mean being opposed to animal agriculture, or wanting to see farms shut down. It means being concerned for the health of farm animals, farm families, and everyone affected by growing antibiotic resistance — which is, you know, everyone.

(H/t @EdibleSF for flagging the video’s release.)


Watch CBS News Videos Online

(Hey, that’s my first embedded video!)

New film on organic farming (for European readers and others)

By Leave a Comment

This is a little outside our usual subject matter, but it follows nicely on the past two days’ discussion of the CBS packages on antibiotics in farming, so:

What looks like a marvelous new documentary exploring environmental damage and human illness from pesticides and other farming chemicals is coming out in France, but needs assistance to get onto the international festival circuit. It’s called Nos enfants nous accuseront (Our Children Will Hold Us Responsible), and among other things, looks at the efforts of a French village to make all the food served in its schools organic — which, even in food-centric France, is much harder than it sounds.

You can view the trailer here. The more clicks, the more the film will be taken to have support, and the higher its rankings will go for festival consideration.

It comes well-recommended by friends of mine in Paris, so I hope you’ll take a look.

CBS antibiotics and farming, day 2 – and more on the Danish experience

By Leave a Comment

Constant readers, I hope you watched the second day of CBS News’ series on antibiotic use in farming, and how it promotes the emergence of antibiotic-resistant infections in animal and humans. I found it surprisingly hard-hitting. Here’s the video and the text version.

Most of the report explored the farm experience in Denmark, which in 1998 banned its farmers from using small doses of antibiotics to make animals gain weight faster — the practice that’s various called subtherapeutic dosing or growth promotion. Important distinction: The country still permits sick animals to be treated with antibiotics; the ban extends only to giving drugs to animals who are not sick.

That ban has often been represented as a failure for Danish farming [NB: See the update below], but research on the results shows that it was actually a success. Here’s an article by Laura Rogers of the Pew Charitable Trusts explaining what happened in Denmark from her own on-the-ground reporting:

Antibiotic use on industrial farms has dropped by half while productivity has increased by 47 percent since 1992. Danish swine production has increased from 18.4 million in 1992 to 27.1 million in 2008. A decrease in antibiotic-resistant bacteria in food animals and meat has followed the reduced use of these vital drugs. …

The average number of pigs produced per sow per year has increased from 21 to 25 (this is an important indicator of swine health and welfare, according to veterinarians). Most important, total antibiotic use has declined by 51 percent since an all-time high in 1992. Plus, the Danish industry group told us that the ban did not increase the cost of meat for the consumer.

 There are multiple scientific papers done by Danish authors backing up her observations. Here are just a few from just last year:

  • Antibiotic-resistant organisms in chickens raised in Denmark declined since the ban — but they remain high in chicken meat imported from other countries that do not have such bans, and passed to Danish consumers who ate that imported meat. (Skjot-Rasmussen et al., May 2009)
  • Antibiotic resistance in E. coli in pigs increases when pigs are given antibiotics, and those antibiotic-resistant organisms pass to humans (Hammerum et al., April 2009)
  • Antibiotic-resistant organisms found in pigs when they are slaughtered increase when pigs receive more antibiotics (Abatih et al., March 2009)

The industry that supports industrial-sized farms has strongly objected to the CBS series. You can see one detailed response here, from Pork Magazine. The Minneapolis-based Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy predicts that this is likely just the first wave, and that opposition to any change in agricultural practices will grow stronger as a bill to curb unnecessary antibiotic use gains traction in Congress.

And — you knew I had to do this — here comes the obligatory self-promotion: There is a primer on antibiotic use in farming, and an account of the emergence of MRSA ST398 as a result of antibiotic use in pigs, in SUPERBUG. Which is now 41 days away from publication. And is available for pre-order at a discount! But you knew that.)

UPDATE: FairFoodFight has a great post and a long comments conversation about the CBS series, ag antibiotic use, and particularly the World Health Organizaton research that originally made people doubt the “Danish experiment,” The WHO report is here and a Pew analysis of it is here.

CBS antibiotics and farming package, day one

By Leave a Comment

Constant readers, I hope you saw the CBS News package on antibiotics in farming Tuesday night. (It continues Wednesday.) MRSA played a prominent role, in an account of infections among workers at a chicken plant (the same outbreak, I think, as was described by Prevention magazine last August) and in questions about MRSA in pig farms in the Midwest (with a prominent mention of Tara Smith’s research into “pig MRSA” ST398).

Here’s the 7-minute video and the text version.

Earlier Tuesday, CBS’s Early Show ran an additional package on the death of a Chicago toddler from MRSA. That toddler’s name is Simon Sparrow, and you’ll be able to read his sad story — told by his mother, Everly Macario — in SUPERBUG.

Farming and antibiotics – and voices from the ag side

By Leave a Comment

There’s a tremendous amount of buzz in the blogosphere about a series of pieces that are supposed to run on CBS News over the next several days, looking at the use of antibiotics in agriculture. For one of many posts on the topic, look at this piece from Food Safety News, an online newsletter founded by the food-safety attorney Bill Marler.

[UPDATE: CBS has put up the first video teaser for the package.]
[SECOND UPDATE: An excerpt from the Early Show, likening growth promoters to a “ticking time bomb” and to “putting (antibiotics) in your kid’s cereal so they won’t get sick”] 

The whole issue of how antibiotics get used in agriculture — as growth promoters, as prophylatic treatment to prevent spread of infection within a farm, or as true treatment — is intensely controversial. For a sense of how farmers feel embattled, read the comments to this entry at FairFoodFight on whether there is a distinction between “Big Ag” and “small ag.” and consider that the PAMTA legislation I posted about in December, which would require veterinarian oversight of farm use of antibiotics,  has been strongly opposed by agricultural interests every time it has been introduced. (Large-farm use of antibiotics, let me remind you, has been concluded to be the driver behind the emergence of “pig MRSA” ST398.)

But I recently ran across two pieces online that I want to draw your attention to, because they demonstrate that thinking in agriculture about antibiotic use is not monolithic, and may be changing. Both were posted on the same site, the Illinois-based Agri-News Online.

First, from James Pettigrew, a professor of animal sciences at University of Illinois, a pessimistic but realistic assessment of how changing public attitudes about antibiotic use will affect what farmers can do, “Broad restrictions on antibiotic use would reduce animal welfare and productivity”:

Many of us hope there will not be a broad ban on antibiotic use, but it is difficult to predict what will happen. Restrictions on antibiotic use may come from Congress, from regulatory agencies or from customers. The nature and extent of future restrictions are now unknown, but the direction is clear. There will be tighter restrictions on antibiotic use in the future. …
…Planning for restrictions on antibiotic use can be valuable even if those restrictions are never imposed. The things you might do in the absence of antibiotics are also likely to be quite valuable if you continue to use antibiotics as you do now….

Second, from a writer named Darryl Ray, who isn’t otherwise identified, a plea for refraining from demonizing critics of antibiotic use, “Animal producers should take antibiotics criticism seriously”:

…Many — and we would suggest it is the vast majority — of those who question the present practices of antibiotic use in animal agriculture eat meat on a regular basis.
Rather than malign the critics, a better course of action for meat animal producers might be to take the issue seriously.
…To categorically claim that it is a reasonable practice to routinely administer antibiotics to animals that are not diseased will strike many as being outside what they have come to believe to be an appropriate use of antibiotics.
…It is important to consider the possibility that indisputable evidence will emerge that the continued and persistent “overuse” of antibiotics in livestock production causes or accelerates the development of super-germs for which there are virtually no effective medications.That would be a public relations and economic nightmare for production agriculture. Thought of in that light, taking the issue seriously and making meaningful adjustments in antibiotic use may have the most appeal of all.

I don’t know that I agree entirely with either writer. But I’m tremendously encouraged that a publication that speaks entirely about farming, to farmers, can run thoughtful pieces looking at ag antibiotic use from several angles, as something to be evaluated, debated and potentially adjusted, and not as a practice that cannot be examined but must be maintained unchanged.

Back again to MRSA in animals, and spreading to humans

By Leave a Comment

There are two new reports out regarding new findings of “pig MRSA” ST398 (about which we have talked a lot; archive of posts here.)

First, researchers from the Complejo Hospitalario Universitario de Vigo and Complejo Hospitalario de Pontevedra, both in Pontevedra in northwest Spain, report that they have identified that country’s first human cases of infection with ST398. (It was only last fall that Spain reported the first identification of the strain in animals.)

The age of the three patients was 59, 82, and 83 years, respectively. Two patients owned pigs and the other a calf. Two patients were diabetic and were hospitalized because they developed skin and soft-tissue infections by MRSA ST398. The third patient had bronchitis and the strain was isolated from a respiratory secretion submitted to the laboratory from an outpatient clinic. The three patients had had multiple hospital admissions in the last 12 months.

Tellingly, the researchers spotted these particular isolates (out of 44 analyzed at the two hospitals in 2006) because they were resistant to tetracycline. Tetracycline resistance is not common among community strains of MRSA, because the drug isn’t the first-line choice for skin and soft-tissue infections; and when it is given, it’s usually for a short course, so the drug does not exert much selection pressure on the bug. But tetracycline is a very common animal antibiotic, and tetracycline resistance is a hallmark of ST398; it is one of the factors that led the Dutch researchers who first identified the strain to take a second look at the bug.

Second, researchers from several institutions in Italy report a very troubling case of ST398 infection that produced necrotizing fasciitis — better known as flesh-eating disease.

In early April 2008, a 52-year-old man was admitted to an intensive care unit in Manerbio, Italy, because of severe sepsis and a large ulcerative and suppurative lesion on the right side of his neck. His medical history was unremarkable. He was a worker at a dairy farm, was obese, and did not report any previous contact with the healthcare system.

Necrotizing fasciitis is a terrible disease: If doctors don’t respond very quickly, it can kill, whle the emergency surgery that forestalls death often carves away large areas of flesh or sacrifices entire limbs. This patient was fortunate: He was in the hospital for 31 days, but recovered and went home.

The Italian researchers are alert to, and troubled by, the larger meaning of this case:

… cattle-to-human transmission cannot be proven. However, because our patient did not have any other potential risk factor, dairy cows were probably the source of the human infection. … It is difficult to prevent persons with constant exposure to MRSA in their work or home setting from becoming MRSA carriers. Revisiting policies for the use of antimicrobial drugs on livestock farms, as well as improving hygiene measures, may therefore be necessary in infection control programs.

Cites for these papers:

Potel C et al. First human isolates of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus sequence type 398 in Spain. Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis. 2010 Jan 23. [Epub ahead of print] DOI 10.1007/s10096-009-0860-z

Soavi L, Stellini R, Signorini L, Antonini B, Pedroni P, Zanetti L, et al. Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus ST398, Italy [letter]. Emerg Infect Dis 2010 Feb

Warning on ST398: Monitor this now

By Leave a Comment

Drawing your attention: I have a story up tonight at CIDRAP on a new paper by Dr. Jan Kluytmans, a Dutch physician and microbiologist and one of the lead researchers tracking “pig MRSA,” ST398. (All past stories on ST398 here.) It’s a review paper, which is to say that it summarizes key existing findings rather than presenting original research.

Still, it’s important reading because Kluytmans is one of the few scientists who have some history with this bug and understand how quickly and unpredictably it has spread across borders and oceans, from pigs to other livestock, to pig farmers and veterinarians, into health care workers and hospital patients who have no known livestock contact, and now into retail meat in Europe, Canada and the United States.

Take-away: A plea and warning for better surveillance, so that we can track not only the bug’s vast range, but also its evolution as it moves into new ecological niches — including humans who are buying that retail meat and possibly becoming colonized with it as they prep it for cooking in their home kitchens.

To honor fair use (and in hopes you’ll kindly click over to CIDRAP), I won’t quote much, but here’s the walk-off:

Because the novel strain has spread so widely and has already been identified as a cause of hospital outbreaks, it should not be allowed to spread further without surveillance, Kluytmans argues.”It is unlikely that this reservoir will be eradicated easily,” he writes. “Considering the potential implications of the reservoir in food production animals and the widespread presence in meat, the epidemiology of [MRSA] ST398 in humans needs to be monitored carefully.”

The cite is: Kluytmans JAJW. Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus in food products: cause for concern or case for complacency? Clin Microbiol Infect 2010 Jan;16(1):11-5. The abstract is here.

Questioning meat-raising and meat-eating — in eat-everything France

By Leave a Comment

Happy New Year, constant readers. I’m honored and flattered to have had the chance to spend the past few years with you here. 2010 is going to be a big year — not just because SUPERBUG will be published, but because the issue of antibiotic resistance really, really is gathering force in the public mind. I not only believe that, I see it in the news that flows through my computer everyday. The wind is shifting.

Here’s one excellent example. In France of all places, a culture that embraces meat-eating and finds the idea of animal rights quixotic. a book has been published that questions the environmental and moral effects of modern factory farming. It’s called Bidoche, L’industrie de la viande menace le monde (“Bidoche” is a slangy, dismissive term for meat), and it has made enough of a splash that the newspaper Le Monde ran both an article on the book and a readers’ Q&A with the author, journalist Fabrice Nicolino. (The article ran two days before Christmas but was called out on Twitter today by Paula Crossfield of CivilEats.com, who spotted it while on holiday, and to whom hat/tip.)

Sadly, the article is behind a paywall; you can see the first 100 words or so here. The Q&A is open though. It’s titled, “To save the planet, should we eat less meat?”and makes fascinating reading (GoogleTranslate into English here), as do the comments, some of which raise the issue of the use of antibiotics in agriculture. But what’s most striking to me is that the conversation is taking place at all, actively and in a public forum, in a place where only a few years ago the local culture would not have been open to the debate. Things are changing indeed.

MRSA in pets – a closer look

By Leave a Comment

From the research team at the University of Guelph Ontario Veterinary College — who have probably done more than any other group to elucidate MRSA in companion animals — comes a look at MRSA infections in dogs.

In order to get better data, the team used a study model that is much-employed in human epidemiology — and has often been used for MRSA — but under-employed in veterinary medicine: a case-control study matching MRSA infections against MSSA, or drug-sensitive staph. Studies matching MRSA against MSSA have been able, for instance, to show that certain (human) MRSA infections have higher death rates, keep patients in the hospital longer, and cause more healthcare expense.

The Guelph team used the same method to compare the presentation and outcome for 40 MRSA-infected dogs and 80 dogs with MSSA who were seen between 2001 and 2007 in three veterinary hospitals, in Guelph, Philadelphia and Boston. Their verdict:
MRSA is an emerging problem in dogs, and the risk factors for MRSA infections are similar to those in humans, particularly the use of IV catheters and both beta-lactam and fluoroquinolone antibiotics.

The researchers were not able to say whether MRSA in dogs causes more deaths than MSSA, because the infections that were recorded by the hospitals were mostly superficial ones in skin and ears:

Infection types for which death would be a more realistic possible outcome were limited… Comparison of mortality rates between patients with MRSA or MSSA infections would be best performed among on ly those with invasive infections and should be considered for future studies. Here, mortality rate information was obtained retrospectively and only recorded up to the time of discharge. Therefore, whether dogs died from their infections after discharge from the referral hospital, causing an underestimate of deaths, is unknown.

Dr. Scott Weese, senior author of this paper and chief of the Guelph group, has an excellent blog on infections in companion animals, called Worms and Germs. (It’s in the blogroll.) And if you are looking for further information on MRSA in pets, the best resource I know of is the UK-based, but international, Bella Moss Foundation, named for a dog that died of a MRSA infection.

Antibiotics in chickens and links to human infections

By Leave a Comment


From the January issue of Emerging Infectious Diseases, published by the CDC (and therefore free. Must I keep urging you to read it? Go, already), here’s a roundup of bad news about bad bugs.

In Canada, researchers from that country’s Public Health Agency have found a “strong correlation” between the use of ceftiofur, a third-generation cephalosporin, in chickens; the rates of a resistant strain of Salmonella in chickens; and the appearance of that same strain in humans. The strain is Salmonella enterica serovar Heidelberg, one of the most common salmonella strains in North America, and one which can be nasty: It may cause mild illness, but also causes septicemia and myocarditis and can kill. Quebec created an unplanned natural experiment: Hatcheries there were broadly using ceftiofur until 2004, backed off from its use in 2005 and 2006, and then began using it again in 2007 in response to a growing problem with a particular infection. When the drug was withdrawn, resistant infections in birds and humans plunged; when it was reintroduced, they rose again. (Look at the black and red lines in the graph above left.)

Meanwhile, broiler chickens in Iceland are passing fluoroquinolone-resistant E. coli to humans there. Researchers at the University of Iceland were puzzled by an earlier finding that bacteria resistant to fluoroquinolones (a family that includes the human drug Cipro) were increasing among chickens raised in Iceland, despite strict controls on antibiotic use in food animals and stringent disinfection in chicken batteries after cohorts of birds were sold for slaughter and removed. They have two findings: The source of the resistant bacteria in the birds appears to be feed contaminated with resistant E. coli; and resistant bacteria in Iceland residents are microbiologically indistinguishable from those in the birds. Because E. coli is a very diverse organism, the very close resemblance between the isolates from chickens and the isolates from humans pins chickens as the likely source.

And just to make clear we’re not blaming every microbiological evil on farming: Seagulls in Portugal have been found carrying multi-drug resistant E. coli in their feces. The public health concern here is obvious: Just think back to the last time you were at a beach, or anywhere else seagulls frequent, and envision a seagull perch — and the masses of seagull droppings streaking it. Now imagine those droppings transmitting antibiotic-resistant E. coli into the surrounding environment: the boardwalk, the beach, the towels… Additional problem: Seagulls are migratory birds, so the resistant bacteria easily cross borders and oceans.