Maryn McKenna

Journalist and Author

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

(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.

Past time to pay attention to polio

By Leave a Comment

In the winter of 1999, I stood in an outpatient clinic in a pediatric hospital in New Delhi and listened to a father sobbing over the paralysis of his only son. He was a farmer and lived in Uttar Pradesh; counting walks, minibuses and trains, it had taken him 24 hours to get to the hospital. He had carried the toddler the entire way.

His son had gotten the drops, he insisted: Every time the teams came to his neighborhood — which they did three, four times each year — he or his wife had lined up all their children, the boy and his older sisters. His son had had 11, 12 doses, the man said. How could he have gotten polio? And it was polio, the doctor treating him confirmed, not one of the transient febrile paralyses that exist alongside the disease and make detection and diagnosis so complex in resource-poor settings. She saw this all the time, she confided. The massive polio-eradication campaigns that continually blanketed India had trouble reaching some resistant populations, and those children contracted polio because they were not vaccinated — but children whose parents were compliant, who believed in the drops and made sure their children received them, became paralyzed as well.

I was in India that winter because the long-hoped-for goal of the worldwide eradication of polio was supposed to be achieved the following year, in 2000. The global eradication initiative — led by the WHO, the CDC and a massive volunteer effort by Rotary International — didn’t make that goal that year. Or in 2002, or in 2005. For a variety of reasons, from the biology of the disease in the tropics to political manipulation in service of unrelated ends, several countries have remained stubborn hot spots. And as long as the disease persists within their borders, it can leak outside them and become re-established in any area where vaccination has slowed down because the goal of stopping local transmission appears to have been achieved.

[Read more…]

News break: CDC alert on imported novel resistance

By Leave a Comment

There’s a troubling item in this afternoon’s issue of the CDC’s Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report or MMWR: The first report in the United States of a novel resistance mechanism that renders gram-negative bacteria extremely drug-resistant and that has been linked to medical care carried out in India or Pakistan.

The short item describes three isolates (E. coli, Klebsiella pneumoniae and Enterobacter cloacae) found in three patients in three states between January and June of this year. All three isolates produced New Delhi metallo-beta-lactamase (NDM-1), which has never been recorded in the US before. Because of that novel mechanism, the three isolates were resistant to the carbapenems usually used on the most serious gram-negative infections, in fact to all beta-lactam antibiotics (penicillins, cephalosporins, carbapenems, monobactams, etc.) except for one monobactam, aztreonam — and they were also resistant to aztreonam through another mechanism that hasn’t been identified yet. All three of the patients found carrying this novel resistance factor had undergone medical care in South Asia recently.

This may be the first finding of this mechanism in the US, but it’s been causing alarm in Europe for at least two years.

[Read more…]

Pan-resistant?? The rise of Acinetobacter

By Leave a Comment

A set of papers published this month in two journals provide an unsettling glimpse into the rocketing incidence and complex epidemiology of one really scary pathogen, Acinetobacter baumanii.

In the all-star annals of resistant bugs, A. baumanii is an underappreciated player. If people — other than, you know, disease geeks — recognize it, that is because it’s become known in the past few years for its propensity to attack wounded veterans shipped to military hospitals from Iraq and Afghanistan, earning it the nickname “Iraqibacter.” (Important note: Steve Silberman of Wired magazine took an early look at this phenomenon in 2007, in a great story that analyzed the epidemiology of Iraqibacter to show that military infection control, not the environment of Iraq, was to blame for the bug’s rapid emergence.) A. baumanii is a nasty bug, causing not just wound infections but pneumonia, urinary tract infections, meningitis and bacteremia. Even more nasty, it collects resistance factors like baseball cards, and is commonly resistant to at least 4 antibiotic classes. The most resistant strains are susceptible only to the so-toxic-we-put-it-back-on-the-shelf-decades-ago antibiotic colistin.

This is a particular concern because A. baumanii is a Gram-negative bacterium — and while the drug-development pipeline for Gram-positives such as MRSA has slowed practically to a trickle, the one for Gram-negatives has dripped itself dry. As the Infectious Diseases Society of America and Jerome Groopman of the New Yorker highlighted back in 2008, drugs for Gram-negatives are barely on the agenda for the few companies still conducting antibiotic development.

So, the first piece of bad news. In Infection Control and Hospital Epidemiology (ICHE), a team from Brooke Army Medical Center in San Antonio take a look at their incidence of resistant Ab and find it exploding. Between 2001 and 2008, the percentage of A. baumanii isolates that were resistant to at least 3 classes of drugs went from 4% to 55%; of all the isolates, 17% (127) were resistant to at least 4 drug classes, and one was resistant to, well, everything.

How does A. baumanii spread so fast? A second paper in ICHE suggests a reason: The bug seems to do a better job than other resistant pathogens of contaminating the gear and hands of health care workers. A study done at University of Maryland found that when health care workers took care of A. baumanii patients, they ended up with contaminated gowns and gloves 39% of the time, and with contaminated hands (after glove removal) 4.5% of the time. Those are higher rates than for MRSA (18.5% of encounters) or VRE (8.5%).

A review article in Clinical Infectious Diseases reminds us why we should care about this: It examines the drugs to which some strains of A. baumanii are still susceptible, and finds all of them significantly toxic to different organs (kidneys, liver, pancreas, red blood cells, ) at the doses necessary to wipe out the bug.

Which is all troubling by itself. But a paper and editorial also appearing in Clinical Infectious Diseases make the case for A. baumanii as a bigger threat than has been understood. The bug’s recent epidemiology has shown a distinct split, between the highly resistant forms affecting veterans, most of them being treated in the military evacuation chain, and less-resistant forms affecting civilians in hospitals (including in the Brooks data in the paper above). The severe wounds, aggressive treatment and rapid multiple transfers of personnel in the military system inadvertently created an environment that not only put A. baumanii under great selective pressure, but also spread it with startling efficiency.

The paper, reporting data from 4 community hospitals near Detroit, shows that the civilian medical system — that would be the one that most of us live in — has duplicated that churning as well. Between 2003 and 2008, all A. baumanii in their network increased 25%. A. baumanii resistant to the first 2 front-line drugs went from 2% to 33% of isolates. And “pan-resistant” A. baumanii — resistant to all 8 drugs available for it, an essentially untreatable strain — went from nonexistent to 14% of all the isolates that network found.

The effect on the patients was dramatic, of course: The more resistant their strains were, the more likely they were to never go home from the hospital, but (if they did not die there) to be discharged instead to a nursing home, long-term acute care facility, or hospice. But the larger point is that they carried that multiply-resistant strain with them, distributing it throughout the region: Patients came to those 4 hospitals, carrying A. baumanii, from 17 different nursing homes; from the 4 hospitals, carrying A. baumanii, they were transferred out to 28 different nursing homes.

This is a smart analysis, and devastating in its implications. American hospitals do a debatable job right now of handling infection control — but overwhelmingly, they are handling infection control as individual institutions, not as competitors in a local market, and certainly not as members of a geographic region. Yet this data demonstrates clearly that cooperation between hospitals and other healthcare institutions — most of which don’t have hospitals’ infection-control budgets or personnel — is going to be essential if we want to put the brakes on Acinetobacter before it soars in the civilian medical system in the same way it did in the military one.

Bad news: From MRSA to LRSA

By Leave a Comment

Via the Journal of the American Medical Association, a report from Spain: the first recorded outbreak, in a Madrid hospital, of Staphylococcus aureus resistant to linezolid (Zyvox), one of only a few drugs still available to treat very serious infections of drug-resistant staph, MRSA. This is bad news.

Background: The M in MRSA stands for methicillin, the first of the semi-synthetic penicillins, created by Beecham Laboratories in 1960 in response to a worldwide 1950s outbreak of penicillin-resistant staph. The central feature of the chemical structure of both penicillin and methicillin is an arrangement of four atoms, known as the beta-lactam ring, that governs both drugs’ ability to interfere with bacterial cell-wall synthesis. That structure was copied into the formulas of a number of other drug families — the cephalosporins, carbapenems and monobactams — and so MRSA is resistant to them as well. And in addition, the bug has picked up resistance to yet other drug families through horizontal transfer; so increasing the census of new drugs that can treat resistant staph infections is a high priority for drug development. It’s especially critical for severe infections such as ventilator-associated pneumonia, osteomyelitis, endocarditis and bacteremia, since all the remaining last-resort drugs have challenges from toxicities to ineffectiveness in certain organs.

Linezolid is a relatively new drug, out since 2000 (and, as a downside, still under patent and, according to patients who have been prescribed it, very expensive). It was the first of a new drug class, the oxazolidinones; since there were no “me too” similarities to older drugs, clinicians hoped that resistance to linezolid would be slow in coming.

No such luck.

The first recognized case of linezolid resistance in staph was recorded in 2001. Still, there have been relatively few cases of LRSA, or staph that possesses both linezolid and beta-lactam resistance: 8 cases in the US to date, 2 in Germany and 1 each in Brazil, Colombia and the UK.They have all been caused by a particular point mutation, G2576T.

This Spanish outbreak, though, had a different cause, the importation of the cfr gene, which also mediates resistance to the older drugs clindamycin and chloramphenicol, apparently on a plasmid, possibly from a staph strain common in cows. The outbreak caused by this new mechanism was as large as the entire known burden of LRSA to date: 12 patients, over 10 weeks in 2008, in 3 linked ICUs, pls 3 patients who were not in intensive care, but had had previous ICU stays. Six of the patients had ventilator-associated pneumonia and 3 were bacteremic. Six died — though the authors are careful to say that all of these patients were critically ill, with brain tumor and esophageal cancer among other problems, and that LRSA was not directly responsible for all of the deaths.

More bad news: There were actually 4 clones of LRSA within this outbreak, with slightly different resistance patterns. Troublingly, one of the 4 had reduced sensitivity to glycopeptides; the chief glycopeptide is vancomycin, which has been the go-to drug for MRSA for 50 years.

The hospital checked its staff and the ICU environments, and found nothing of significance; there was no reservoir in the hospital that was passing this newly resistant strain to patients. With no obvious solution there, they dialed back sharply on their linezolid use, going from more than 200 doses per day in April 2008 to 25 doses per day in June. That aggressive antibiotic stewardship appears to have put the brakes on the outbreak, and after June, no additional cases were recorded.

An accompanying editorial underlines how critical antibiotic stewardship was in controlling this outbreak, while also pointing out how very liberal the hospital was in prescribing linezolid before the outbreak began — suggesting that if the institution had used its antibiotics more conservatively from the start, this outbreak might not have arisen, or at least not have been as large.

No one doubts the importance of infection-control practices in limiting outbreaks with antibiotic-resistant organisms, but optimizing antibiotic use remains essential for successful control of such outbreaks…No longer can clinicians’ unrestricted use of antibiotics and ignoring suggestions from those who attempt to improve or alter antibiotic use be tolerated. Clinicians must understand the sense of urgency about the appropriate use of antibiotics.

Indeed.

(NB, this outbreak was also written up a few months ago in Clinical Infectious Diseases, and was a late-breaker paper at the 2008 ICAAC meeting.)

News break: Developing-world drug resistance

By Leave a Comment

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

The Center for Global Development, a DC think-tank, is releasing what looks like a thoughtful report aimed at refocusing policy debates over drug resistance toward the epidemic’s global impact, with particular attention to the the developing world.

From the report’s preface:

Problems with drug resistance have moved from the patient’s bedside to threaten global public health. Drug resistance has dramatically increased the costs of fighting tuberculosis (TB) and malaria, has slowed gains against childhood dysentery and pneumonia, and threatens to undermine the push to treat people living with HIV/AIDS effectively. Global health funders and development agencies have cause to worry about whether their investments in access to drugs, and global health programming more broadly, are being undone by the relentless advance of drug resistance.

It calls out a sustained lack of leadership:

Past efforts to energize global action to more comprehensively address drug resistance have been sidetracked by poor timing or over-stretched budgets… In an unfortunate coincidence of timing, a WHO Strategy on Antimicrobial Resistance was launched on September 11, 2001. As a result, the action plan prepared for the Strategy did not get carried out, and over time the interest in cross-cutting drug resistance at WHO withered, even while disease-specific attention grew. For many years, the U.S. Government provided support for research, technical support, surveillance, and policy development on drug resistance in developing countries through an annual budget appropriation to the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID). That support has become narrowed to programming in only a few areas.

It recommends 4 specific steps:

  1. Improve surveillance by collecting and sharing resistance information across networks of laboratories
  2. Secure the drug supply chain to ensure quality products and practices
  3. Strengthen national drug regulatory authorities in developing countries
  4. Catalyze research and innovation to speed the development of resistance-fighting technologies

A policy brief is here and the full report is here.

Update: Access to dental care

By Leave a Comment

A couple of days ago, I talked about the link between a potentially massive hepatitis B outbreak in West Virginia and the lack of access to primary dental care. I was mushy qualitatively descriptive, ahem, about the number of people who lack access to dental insurance.

Comes now the CDC to save the day. In a statistical brief posted today, the National Center for Health Statistics gives a concise but thorough overview of the state of dental insurance in the US. Short version: Ain’t pretty.

Crude preliminary population math:

  • There are currently 309 million Americans.
  • Based on census tables from last summer, 39 million are 65 or older (i.e., eligible for Medicare).
  • Based on other census tables from last summer, 52 million are 17 or younger (of which some percentage, based on family income, would be eligible for Medicaid).
  • That leaves, with wiggle room, about 218 million working adults.

According to the NCHS:

  • 172 million non-elderly Americans have private health insurance. (NB, leaving 46 million non-elderly with no health insurance, which matches the usually accepted figures.)
  • Of them, 45 million have no dental coverage — which, added to the 46 million with no insurance at all, means that more than 90 million Americans have no dental coverage at all. (I believe the technical term for a number that large is a crapton. Maybe a metric crapton.)

In addition:

  • If you have employer-provided health insurance, your chances of having dental coverage are pretty good: 80%.
  • If you have privately purchased insurance of any kind, not so much: 30%.

So, reinforcing Monday’s point: There are multiple millions of Americans who get no assistance paying for dental care, which is a largely cash-only business. (And judging from my own experience — thanks to my childhood in the UK, I have teeth like chalk and consume more than my share of dental care — dental insurance negotiates discounts. So self-pay dental care is relatively more costly.) And therefore, it is not surprising that thousands of people attended that free dental clinic in northeastern West Virginia, and were potentially exposed to hepatitis B as a result.

News break: House hearing on antibiotic pipeline

By Leave a Comment

The Subcommittee on Health of the Energy and Commerce Committee of the House of Representatives has announced a hearing for Wednesday: “Promoting the Development of Antibiotics and Ensuring Judicious Use in Humans.”

The witness line-up is:

  • Janet Woodcock, M.D., Director, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration
  • Robin Robinson, Ph.D., Director, Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority, Department of Health and Human Services
  • Brad Spellberg, M.D., F.I.D.S.A., Associate Professor of Medicine, David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA and Member, Infectious Diseases Society of America Antimicrobial Availability Task Force
  • Sandra Fryhofer, M.D., Council on Science and Public Health, American Medical Association
  • John S. Bradley, M.D., American Academy of Pediatrics, Chief, Division of Infectious Diseases, Department of Pediatrics, University of California, San Diego, School of Medicine, Clinical Director, Division of Infectious Diseases, Rady Children’s Hospital
  • Barry Eisenstein, M.D., F.A.C.P., F.I.D.S.A., Senior Vice President, Scientific Affairs, Cubist Pharmaceuticals
  • Jeffrey Levi, Ph.D., Executive Director, Trust for America’s Health

This is the second hearing the Health Subcommittee has had this spring, apparently at the prompting of the chairman of Energy and Commerce, Rep. Henry Waxman, who made the opening statement at the first such hearing in April:

We need to debate the health care bill and review its implementation. But we ought to be able to chew gum and walk at the same time. Because it is not going to make much difference if you have health insurance or not if you are going to die from something that could have been prevented from an antibiotic. And we are seeing more and more antibiotic resistance. (Transcript)

Reading between the lines, I’m going to guess this hearing will lean heavily on the IDSA’s campaign to improve market conditions for pharma companies in order to revive antibiotic development (an issue I discussed recently at the old Superbug — we’re working on getting the archives moved over).

Dept. of Unintended Consequences: Hepatitis B in West Virginia

By Leave a Comment

Via ProMED Mail comes a news report that about 2,000 people in 5 states are being sought by health departments so they can be checked for hepatitis B infection. The potential source: the Mission of Mercy Dental Clinic, a free dental-care fair held just about a year ago in Berkeley County in the far north-east corner of West Virginia. The potentially infected include 1,137 people who were treated at the two-day clinic and 826 of the volunteers who worked there, from West Virginia, Washington, D.C., Virginia, Maryland, Pennsylvania and North Carolina. Three patients and two volunteers have already been diagnosed. The virus in four of the five matched on molecular fingerprinting, suggesting a common source; the fifth patient refused further testing.

Hepatitis B is blood-borne, so on the surface, this is a story of the tragic consequences of some failure somewhere in the clinic’s infection-control procedures. (One reason why it caught my eye, since I’m interested in healthcare-associated infections.) Except that it’s not — or not only. It’s important to unpick why such an extraordinarily large number of people may have been exposed at one time. Looked at through that lens, it becomes a story about what can happen when we don’t fund basic health care in a timely way.

Some background: West Virginia is one of the poorest states in the country and has some of the highest rates of the usually recognized diseases of poverty: tobacco use, chronic kidney disease, asthma, cardiovascular disease. (Look for West Virginia on these CDC maps of incidence of heart disease and stroke.) But it also has extraordinarily high rates of another health problem that ought to be linked in the public mind to low socioeconomic status, but usually isn’t: untreated dental disease. Eric Eyre of the Charleston Gazette (disclosure: a friend and fellow Kaiser Foundation Fellow) took a year-long close look at dental disease in the state in 2006-07 (slideshow, stories). If you’re squeamish, I advise skipping the one about the woman yanking her own teeth with pliers after a few shots of moonshine.

Dental disease — that’s not just cavities, but tooth loss, bone loss, abscess, Ludwig’s angina, septicemia in the most serious cases — isn’t only a problem for West Virginia, though it happens to be worst there. It’s a problem all over the US because, without ever intending to, we’ve allowed dental care to become a primarily cash-based form of medicine.

If you have a job, you may have dental insurance, though it’s a less-common employment benefit than health insurance, and covers comparatively less of the cost of any procedure. If you don’t have a job, dental care is entirely out of pocket. If you’re poor enough to be on Medicaid, whether or not you have dental coverage depends on which state you live in, because Medicaid dental coverage for adults falls under the portion of Medicaid funded by the states, not the federal government. In the past 12 months, California, Hawaii, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, North Carolina, and Washington state all cut or tried to cut their contributions to dental Medicaid from their state budgets. If you’re the child of a poor family, you are hypothetically entitled to Medicaid-funded dental care, though that depends on being able to find a local dentist willing to accept Medicaid reimbursement; last year, the Government Accountability Office said that children have trouble finding Medicaid-accepting dentists in 43 out of 50 states.

Net result: Untreated dental disease is now the most common disease of childhood, five times more common than asthma according to a 2000 Surgeon General’s report, and emergency room visits for dental crises are rising steadily. ERs are not the right place to treat dental problems — they don’t fill cavities or do extractions, though they can drain abscesses and give antibiotics and pain meds — but as with so much else in US medicine, ERs offer a mandated clinic of last resort when there’s nowhere else to go. (For more about the interplay between dental care and ER overcrowding, here’s a story I wrote for the June Annals of Emergency Medicine.)

All of that explains why thousands of people from a wide swath of the East Coast were so desperate for free dental care that they were willing to stand in line overnight in a high school parking lot. (The first free dental clinic in West Virginia had to close its doors early after it got 1,100 patients in the first 2 hours.) And also why hundreds of dental-care professionals and students and community volunteers were so eager to help. And why they’re all now waiting by the mailbox, wondering whether they’re in line for a letter that will tell them where to get tested for infection with a life-long chronic disease.

Hospital infections – good, bad, or too little data?

By Leave a Comment

Some of you may have spotted an announcement last week from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention about a release of data from the National Healthcare Safety Network (NHSN), a repository of hospital infection data. You can guess the big news in the report from its title,  “First State-Specific Healthcare-Associated Infections Summary Data Report”: For the first time, database users are able to calculate healthcare-associated infections (let’s call them HAIs for short) by state, as well as nationally.

Good news, you would think. And it is. According to the CDC’s announcement (press release, press conference transcript), the national rate of one particular type of HAIs, central line associated bloodstream infections or CLABSIs (like it looks — pronounced “klab-sees”) is down 18% from the previous 3 years. Taken together, all HAIs kill at least 100,000 Americans each year (an old number that is probably an underestimate) and cost at least $30 billion per year. CLABSIs are an important component of the spectrum of HAIs and may account for a third of all HAI deaths — so any reduction is a positive development.

And yet: The bigger news about this report, unfortunately, is that it lays bare how little we really know about HAIs, and how little progress has been made in preventing or even documenting them.

Consider:

  • The report includes data from only 17 states
  • The data does not match state to state, so state rates cannot be compared
  • Participation in the NHSN by hospitals is voluntary (except in states that recently have passed mandatory reporting laws) and data is self-reported
  • Hospitals that report to the NHSN are not identified (in fact, unless state laws say otherwise, they are guaranteed anonymity)
  • The NHSN does not collect data on the most problematic HAI organisms, MRSA and C. difficile.

If you think for a moment about how incomplete this data is, and how much the data collection allows hospitals to avoid saying, then Dr. Peter Pronovost‘s remarks to the Association of Health Care Journalists in April begin to make sense. Pronovost is a MacArthur Fellow for his championship of evidence-based infection prevention, and said (sorry, no verbatim record that I know of, but I live-tweeted his speech) that if hospital infection reporting were truly transparent and truly accountable — right now, it’s neither — the problem of HAIs would end tomorrow, because consumers would be so shocked that they would rise up and demand change.

The CDC says there will be additional data and a new comparison with this first snapshot within about 6 months. Again, that’s all good news. But it’s worth taking a deep look at this report to really understand how little we know — which will also help to explain why this problem so persistently fails to get better.

(NB: The CDC announcement and the relevant background were covered thoughtfully by my friends Dan DeNoon of WebMD and Barbara Feder Ostrov of Reportingonhealth.org, whose post, FWIW, quotes me.)

Incentives for making new antibiotics: What would it take?

By Leave a Comment

Let’s play a thought experiment. Imagine that you’re a major pharmaceutical company, a public company, with shareholders that you answer to, and market analysts looking over your shoulder to see whether this quarter’s earnings are up to projections. Imagine that you want to make a new drug. Let’s make it an antibiotic, because — as we talk about here all the time (and SUPERBUG explores in detail) — new antibiotics that can leapfrog over existing drug resistance are very needed. Thus, you imagine, a new antibiotic ought to sell well, even though any individual course of that antibiotic will only be a few weeks by mouth, or maybe a few months by IV if the patient is very sick. You know there’s a big market out there.

But: Imagine — as is generally accepted to be true — that it will take about 10 years, and about $1 billion dollars, to get that novel antibiotic through the development pipeline and into the marketplace. And then imagine that — as has been shown for a number of drugs, most recently the new antibiotic daptomycin — bacteria begin developing resistance to your drug within a year of its deployment in patients. And after that, imagine — as has been cited in a number of papers — that once local resistance to your antibiotic appears in approximately 20% of isolates, physicians will cease prescribing your antibiotic, for fear their patient will be one of that 20%.

So, to recap: 10 years, $1 billion; short course; short market life; rapid obsolescence.

Would you make that investment? Or would you, if you were a pharma company, opt instead to make insulin, which Type 1 diabetics will take every day for the rest of their lives? Or statins, which at this point we’re practically ready to put in the water supply? Or a cancer drug that costs $10,000 per dose? Or Viagra, or Cialis?

If you’re a company that is responsible to its shareholders, or listening to its analysts — or even capable of doing basic math — the answer’s obvious: Antibiotics lose. Which goes a long way to explaining why so many companies have backed off from making antibiotics, and why many of the few antibiotics in the pipeline are “me too” formulations, rather than new compounds with truly new mechanisms of action.

How to respond to this impasse has been an active debate for a while, largely focused on proposals to give market incentives, changes in tax credits, or patent extensions to pharma companies to persuade them to stay in or re-enter the marketplace. The Infectious Diseases Society of America, the specialty society for infectious-disease physicians (many of whom are also academic researchers), has been addressing this through its campaign “10x 20”, which has a goal of getting 10 new compounds into if not through the pipeline by the year 2020.

But, as a new article in the British Medical Journal points out, good incentivizing demands complexity — not just in developing both “push” and “pull” mechanisms (say, tax incentives to fund research v. prizes and wildcard patent extensions), but also in making sure that the incentives can be taken advantage of by companies of all sizes, not just the international mega-pharmas:

The characteristics of an ideal incentive mechanism and the desire for an equitable approach that engages developers of all sizes would suggest that neither push, pull, nor lego-regulatory mechanisms would be optimal to spur the desired investment in antibiotics …. Rather, elements of each should be combined. The exact shape of the ideal package is, however, as yet unclear. (Morel et al.)

And an accompanying editorial emphasizes that new antibiotics are not the only things needed; new diagnostic tests, for instance, need funding as well:

Catchy as 10×20 sounds, the public sector strategy for funding such research and development must prioritise among different health technologies, such as diagnostics and vaccines, to combat antibiotic resistance. For example, three million children die each year from acute respiratory bacterial infections in developing countries, but penicillin sensitive pneumococcal strains have declined to a half, even a quarter, in some countries. A diagnostic test for bacterial pneumonia would save an estimated 405 000 lives a year, by targeting treatment and avoiding overprescription of antibiotics. New vaccines may also reduce reliance on drugs as the use of pneumococcal vaccine has suggested. (So et al.)

This is a hard discussion. I confess, as a longtime reporter, I flinch reflexively at the thought of handing more money to the pharmacos. At the same time, the state of the market demonstrates that the current model is not working. And though I would much prefer we focus on the ecological model of preserving antibiotics as a resource — dialing back on overuse and encouraging rigorous stewardship — it’s clear that we’ll always need new drugs for the most serious, most resistant infections.

So some sort of incentivizing seems necessary. And the multi-layered approach recommended in the BMJ, with appropriate attention paid to incentivizing the development of tests and vaccines as well, seems worth heeding.

Brand-new research: Vast increase MRSA, CA-MRSA diagnoses among kids

By Leave a Comment

I’m on the road today and have what feels like seconds between commitments, but there’s a brand new piece of research this morning that I think you folks should know about. It’s an early-online release from Pediatrics by researchers from 3 states. It uses a database called the Pediatric Health Information Systems analyze diagnosis codes and antibiotic treatment of kids treated for staph at 25 US children’s hospitals  from 1999 to 2008, and it finds:

The incidence of methicillin-resistant S aureus (MRSA) infections during this period increased 10-fold, from 2 to 21 cases per 1000 admissions, whereas the methicillin-susceptible S aureus infection rate remained stable. Among patients with S aureus infections, antibiotics that treat MRSA increased from 52% to 79% of cases, whereas those that treat only methicillin-susceptible S aureus declined from 66% to <30% of cases. Clindamycin showed the greatest increase, from 21% in 1999 to 63% in 2008.

To translate, for those not used to reading scientific literature:

  • a 10-fold increase in MRSA diagnoses over 10 years
  • a 3-fold increase in what was not the most commonly prescribed drug, one useful for the different resistance profile of community infections
  • clindamycin (used in mild and also invasive infections) eclipsing vancomycin (last-resort drug for invasive cases) as the most-used drug — which could be a sign of changes in prescribing patterns, changes in seriousness of the cases seen, or a warning that with so much use, clindamycin resistance could emerge more quickly, as happened when vancomycin came off the shelf in the 1990s and began to be used more.

It will take me a while to download and read the paper (hard to do in the car), but that’s the topline news. Update to come.

A great blog leaves the 'sphere

By Leave a Comment

Constant readers: Well, the bug finally got me, or one of its close cousins did. I’ve been on the road almost nonstop, and after a book event at University of Wisconsin last week, was felled by a violent bout of foodborne illness that was almost certainly staph — not MRSA, but the related strain of staph that causes very rapid food poisoning. (And, umm, thorough. Ick.) So I’ve been out of commission both physically and mentally. And on a plane again tonight. Back soon in both ways, promise.

But there’s important sad news today that I want you all to know about. Revere, the peerless author of the marvelous public health blog Effect Measure, is bowing out of the blogosphere. For more than 5 years now, Revere (a collective voice of an unknown number of public health experts —for simplicity, let’s say “he”) has been a reliable, thoughtful, expert, humorous and deeply knowledgeable guide to the intricacies of public health and public health politics. He has taken a particular interest in the possibility of pandemic flu and has been the unofficial leader of the loosely knit but fiercely loyal group of bloggers and crowdsourcers who call themselves Flublogia. And though few would admit it, Revere’s posts have been consistent agenda-setters in newsrooms all across the planet; insiders knew that, if Revere said something, it would start showing up in newspapers and on wires about 12 hours later.

If you are a Revere reader and missed this news, get over there and leave a note in the quickly lengthening comment string. If you never made the blog’s acquaintance, now would not be too soon.

A good start?

By Leave a Comment

I happened to notice today that the WHO has posted an update to its campaign Save Lives: Clean Your Hands, which aims to get 10,000 hospitals around the world to sign on — by May 5, 2010, which is next week — to a global commitment to improved hand hygiene in hospitals.

As of last week, 8,173 hospitals had signed up (1899 in the United States, FYI).

If I sound skeptical, it’s because we all know that merely supporting hand-washing (or the gel equivalent) is an easy thing to do. If you asked any hospital in the US, you would hear 100% support for hand-washing — including in the hospitals where healthcare workers miss 50% of opportunities to wash their hands. It’s in the granular details of implementation — and the relentless laser-like focus on execution practiced, for instance, by Novant Health Care in North Carolina, whose story is told in SUPERBUG — that change really happens.

Whether this WHO campaign can bring that focus and create that change… we’ll just have to see.

The WHO campaign’s page includes videos, guidelines, and plans for a global survey to be executed on May 5.

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.

SUPERBUG on BoingBoing!

By Leave a Comment

I was thrilled to see a review of SUPERBUG on the incredibly important blog BoingBoing.net, written by (my friend and fellow Minneapolis author) Maggie Koerth-Baker.

It’s so exciting to see people completely get the book, and twice that when it is people you know.

Sample quote:

Superbug is not about an entomological caped crusader.

It’s more like a grown-up version of Scary Stories to Tell in the Dark.

The bug in question is MRSA, an antibiotic-resistant bacteria that kills more Americans every year than AIDS. Superbug is the story of how we created our own monster-under-the-bed, how it spreads through hospitals and communities, and why it’s damn near impossible to control. If you have a cut or a pimple while reading this book, you are pretty much guaranteed to freak yourself out. And I mean that in the best possible way.

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.

Quick alert: Congressional hearing Wednesday

By Leave a Comment

Constant readers, I’m on the road again: Georgia Center for the Book tonight in Decatur, 7:15 p.m. But if you can’t make that, take a look at this: The Energy and Commerce Subcommittee of the US House of Representatives has announced a hearing for Wednesday on “Antibiotic resistance and the threat to public health.”

This is not a hearing on PAMTA, but apparently a broader hearing on the whole issue, featuring two VIPs: Dr. Anthony Fauci of NIH and Dr. Tom Frieden of the CDC. To my eye, this indicates that official, policy interest in this issue is (finally, at last) ramping up.

The hearing page is here and the preliminary memo on it is here.

SUPERBUG interest from collegial fellow bloggers

By Leave a Comment

I haven’t been posting it all here — because, you know, that’s why the book has its own website — but SUPERBUG has been getting lots of positive press and reviews. (Yay us.)

But a piece over the weekend was especially meaningful to me and I wanted to call it out: Flu blogger and DailyKos diarist DemfromCT featured the book on his DailyKos page. (And, behold the power of networks: 178 comments this morning. Wow.)

Liz Borkowski at The Pump Handle kindly reproduced Dem’s post.

This builds, of course, on early, consistent and indefatigable support from flu blogger Mike Coston of Avian Flu Diary.

As the book’s acknowledgments say (p. 218!), I am so grateful for our blog community’s support. Sincere thanks to all.