Maryn McKenna

Journalist and Author

Outbreak of Zyvox-resistant staph (breaking news from ICAAC 2)

By Leave a Comment

Physicians from Madrid reported today on what’s believed to be the first outbreak of MRSA caused by a strain that was resistant to linezolid, usually known as Zyvox, a relatively new and costly drug that is used for complicated MRSA infections and when older drugs fail.

Linezolid resistance in single cases has been recorded before — the first isolate I can see in a quick scan of the literature dates to 2002 — but this appears to be the first outbreak.

Dr. Miguel Sanchez of the Hospital Clinico San Carlos said the outbreak was discovered April 13, 2008 in an ICU patient and subsequently spread to 11 other patients in the ICU and two elsewhere in the hospital. The patients, 8 men and 4 women, had been in the unit for at least three weeks for a variety of reasons; they were intubated, had central venous catheters, and had been receiving broad-spectrum antibiotics. None of them were colonized with MRSA on admission. The outbreak went on for 12 weeks, until June 27.

It was eventually shut down by a combination of strategies: taking the patients off linezolid in favor of other anti-staph drugs (vancomycin and tigecycline); drastically restricting linezolid use, a policy that is already followed by many US hospitals; checking the patients very frequently for colonization; and cohorting them, which means grouping them together physically, away from uninfected patients, and putting them under isolation.

In a quick briefing with reporters, Sanchez seemed to suggest that the hospital does not believe its infection control failed. The hospital swabbed 91 environmental surfaces (such as bed rails and room furniture) and the hands of 47 health-care personnel and found only one sample that grew the linezolid-resistant strain on a culture. A case-control study to find the cause is being conducted, he said.

Half of the patients died, he said, but not as a result of the linezolid-resistant strain.

Sanchez’ data slides were not available to reporters this evening. (More precisely, they were delivered to the press room, but in a format that wasn’t readable). I’ll update with more details if/when we get access to them. Meanwhile, the cite is: M. De la Torre, M. Sanchez, G. Morales et al. “Outbreak of Linezolid-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus in Intensive Care.” Abstract C2-1835a.

Much new news on hospital-acquired infections

By Leave a Comment

There’s a ton of new, and conflicting, findings on prevention and detection of hospital-acquired MRSA and other infections.

First: Today, in the journal Infection Control and Hospital Epidemiology, three researchers from Virginia Commonwealth University add to the ferocious debate on “search and destroy,” the colloquial name for active surveillance and testing: that is, checking admitted patients for MRSA, isolating them until you have a result, and and if they are positive, treating them while continuing to isolate them until they are clear. “Search and destroy” has kept in-hospital MRSA rates very low in Europe, and has proven successful in some hospitals in the United States; in addition, four states (Pennsylvania, Illinois, California and New Jersey) have mandated it for some admitted patients at least. Nevertheless, it remains a controversial tactic, with a variety of arguments levelled against it, many of them based on cost-benefit.

Comes now Richard P. Wenzel, M.D., Gonzalo Bearman, M.D., and Michael B. Edmond, M.D., of the VCU School of Medicine, to say that the moment for MRSA search and destroy has already passed, because hospitals are now dealing with so many highly resistant bugs (Acinetobacter, vancomycin-resistant enterococci (VRE), and so on). They contend that hospitals would do better to pour resources into aggressive infection-control programs that broadly target a spectrum of HAIs.

The abstract is here and the cite is: Richard P. Wenzel, MD, MSc; Gonzalo Bearman, MD, MPH; Michael B. Edmond, MD, MPH, MPA. Screening for MRSA: A Flawed Hospital Infection Control Intervention. Infection Control and Hospital Epidemiology 2008 29:11, 1012-1018.

Meanwhile, the US Government Accountability Office recently released a substantive examination of HAI surveillance and response programs, in states and in hospitals, that looks at:

  • the design and implementation of state HAI public reporting systems,
  • the initiatives hospitals have undertaken to reduce MRSA infections, and
  • the experience of certain early-adopting hospitals in overcoming challenges to implement such initiatives. (from the cover letter)

The report is too thick to summarize here, but here are some key points:

  • No two places are doing this the same way — which means that data still does not match state to state
  • Experts are still divided about how much MRSA control is necessary
  • Hospitals that have undertaken MRSA-reduction programs have taken different paths
  • But MRSA control does work: It does reduce in-hospital infections, but at a cost.

This report is an important bookend to an earlier GAO report from last April that explored the poor state of MRSA surveillance nationwide. Read it if you wonder why we don’t really know how much MRSA – in hospitals or in the community – we have.

I am stillworking my way through the new Compendium of Strategies to Prevent Healthcare-Associated Infections in Acute Care Hospitals, released a week ago by a slew of health agencies (Joint Commission, CDC, et al.) and health organizations (American Hospital Association, ACIP, SHEA, IDSA et al.), to see how much the MRSA strategies have actually changed. If anyone has any comments, please weigh in!

How to wash your hands, a tutorial

By Leave a Comment

More still to come on hospital-acquired infections. (No, really. I mean it.) But first:

Somehow I sadly missed that last Wednesday, Oct. 15, was Global Handwashing Day, sponsored by the World Bank, CDC, UNICEF and a number of other organizations including several soap manufacturers. Here’s a BBC story describing massive social mobilization efforts that were supposed to take place across South Asia last week. (Can any Asian readers report in whether they saw anything? Mumbai and Hyderabad readers, I’m looking at you.)

Though we missed the festivities, here’s an excellent take-away: A great series of videos produced by the Grey-Bruce Health Unit, a local health department northwest of Toronto, about the right way to wash hands with soap and water and/or alcohol gel.

Sign of the times: Taking your own cleaning materials to the hospital

By Leave a Comment


There are several new and important reports out on hospital-acquired infections (HAIs) that I hope to get to this week, but I spotted something today that I just had to highlight first:

Constant readers may know that I’ve done a lot of reporting in the developing world. In parts of Asia and Africa, it is assumed that patients or their families bring food to the hospital. People do not trust the hospitals to feed them, with good reason: Hospitals can’t afford it. Provision of food in the hospital, which we take for granted, is not part of the health-care culture. (In particularly poor countries, the family may feed not only the patient, but the health care workers taking care of the patient as well.)

Here now is an industrialized-world version of that developing-world practice. A company in England (which, as we’ve discussed, has ferocious rates of hospital MRSA and C. difficile) has begun marketing the PatientPak, the “world’s first personal anti-superbug kit.” It’s a $28 sample-sized collection of antimicrobial hair and body wash, hand wipes, hand sanitizer and a germ-killing spray for sheets and cubicle curtains, along with lip balm, bar soap, and a disposable nail brush and pen.

It’s entirely possible that using products like this might protect a patient from some hospital-acquired infections; the company suggests that a patient use the wipes and the hand spray when going to and from the bathroom or after touching any surfaces. But the difficult reality, of course, is that most hospital-acquired infections are not the patient’s fault: They are due to infection-control breaches by hospital staff, something over which a patient — with antimicrobial wipes or without — has little control.

This company will probably sell quite a few of these kits — and I don’t know that I can criticize them for doing so. If one of my family members was being admitted to hospital, I might well send something like this with them. But what a sad commentary on our own health-care culture that any of us would consider this necessary.

Good news from California

By Leave a Comment

Last night, California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger signed an extremely important bill, California SB 1058. The new law, formally called the Medical Facility Infection Control and Prevention Act, requires California hospitals to do MRSA screening on high-risk patients (such as in ICUs, admitted from long-term care facilities, or known to have a previous MRSA infection) and to report their rates for hospital-acquired infections including MRSA to a newly created body with the state Department of Public Health.

This new law puts California in the vanguard of states who are requiring healthcare institutions to count and track MRSA infections. (For a complete list, visit the database maintained by Consumers’ Union’s Stop Hospital Infections project.) This is vital not only for controlling MRSA, but also simply for helping us to understand how much MRSA is out there. Because MRSA has not been a reportable disease, and is not subject to any national surveillance, state counts like these are one of the best ways of assembling a fuller picture of the bug’s spread.

The most important reason to hail the passage of this law, though, is that it represents a memorial to a MRSA victim, and a determination by his survivors that no one else should meet the same fate. SB 1058 is also known as “Nile’s Law.” Nile is Nile Calvin Moss, who died in 2006. In response, his parents Carole and Ty Moss founded Nile’s Project and became tireless advocates for MRSA surveillance and screening. Among other efforts, Carole was appointed by Schwarzenegger to a state commission on hospital-acquired infections, where she is the sole voting member representing health-care consumers.

It is no small thing to step out of your grief and make your loss into a force for change. Carole and Ty Moss deserve congratulations.

Disease-related Do Not Fly list?

By Leave a Comment

This is not strictly MRSA-related, but it is so striking it’s worth posting on. This morning, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the US public health agency, revealed in its weekly bulletin that it has begun maintaining a “Do Not Board” list for people who are thought to be a communicable-disease risk to others.

In slightly more than a year, 33 people have been refused transportation because of the list, which is operated in conjunction with the Department of Homeland Security.

The CDC began operating the list in June 2007, shortly after tuberculosis patient Andrew Speaker flew to Europe and back despite requests by public-health authorities that he not fly; he returned via Canada, driving into the United States to evade an alert given to airlines to locate him. At the time, Speaker was thought to have extensively drug-resistant (XDR) TB, an extremely dangerous form of the disease. Later, his doctors asserted and the CDC agreed that his TB was multi-drug resistant (MDR) — still dangerous, but nowhere near as dangerous as the almost-untreatable XDR form.

Patients’ names can be placed on the list by several entities though all requests are reviewed, the CDC says:

…state or local public health officials contact the CDC Quarantine Station for their region†; health-care providers make requests by contacting their state or local public health departments, and foreign and U.S. government agencies contact the Director’s Emergency Operations Center (DEOC) at CDC in Atlanta.
To include someone on the list, CDC must determine that the person 1) likely is contagious with a communicable disease that would constitute a serious public health threat should the person be permitted to board a flight; 2) is unaware of or likely to be nonadherent with public health recommendations, including treatment; and 3) likely will attempt to board a commercial aircraft.
Once a person is placed on the list, airlines are instructed not to issue a boarding pass to the person for any commercial domestic flight or for any commercial international flight arriving in or departing from the United States. (MMWR 57(37);1009-1012)

An important point here is the phrase “would constitute a serious public health threat.” Under US law (42 USC 264), most public health functions belong to the states, but the federal government is empowered to detain and isolate or quarantine people known or suspected to have a small list of communicable diseases: cholera, diphtheria, infectious tuberculosis, plague, smallpox, yellow fever, viral hemorrhagic fevers (such as Ebola), SARS, and novel strains of flu. The Do Not Board list, however, reaches beyond that list, according to the CDC bulletin:

The public health DNB list is not limited to those communicable diseases for which the federal government can legally impose isolation and quarantine; the list can be used for other communicable diseases that would pose a serious health threat to air travelers. However, to date, the list has only been used for persons with suspected or confirmed pulmonary TB, which is transmitted via the respiratory route and which has had transmission documented during commercial air travel.

Detecting and protecting against disease threats to the US is well within the CDC’s mandate. Still, this raises a huge list of questions, from how medical privacy is maintained when a patient’s name is so widely circulated, to whether healthy people with similar names will be mistaken for sick ones, to how easily people get off the list once they are deemed well.

The CDC says that, of the 33 people placed on the list in the past 15 months, 18 already have been removed. But the persistent problems with the original No-Fly list — snagging air marshals and toddlers and causing passengers to change their names — suggests that this may not be as easy to manage as the CDC thinks. It would be good to hear more about what safeguards they propose — or whether they have left that part of the issue to be handled by DHS.

Not-reimbursing hospitals for MRSA: The reaction

By Leave a Comment

You’ll remember that early in the summer we talked about the proposal by the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services to cease reimbursing hospitals for the additional care of a patient that is required when a hospital gives a patient a nosocomial infection. CMS has been debating whether to include several types of hospital-acquired infection in the 2009 iteration of its “never event” no-reimbursement list. (CMS has not announced its final choices.)

Healthcare’s reaction has been, hmmm, not positive. At The New Health Dialogue, Joanne Kenen captures the reactions, many of which run along the lines of “infections are inevitable because patients are so sick.” But she’s also found a marvelous (and appalling?) argument that goes, more or less, “Preventing infections will be more costly, not less, because hospitals will introduce additional procedures to protect themselves.”

This recalls the intriguing and dismaying suggestion in JAMA a few weeks ago that “search and destroy” active surveillance is driven less by wanting to halt in-hospital transmission and more by hospitals wanting to build a case that patients brought the infection with them.

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.

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… ??

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.