Constant readers, about a dozen of us who are interested in global health are co-blogging today in a Global Health Blog Carnival. If you are on Twitter, search the hashtag #ghnews. If you’re not, we will try to get them all linked somewhere. This was organized (to the degree that blogger organize, which as you can guess is like herding small felines) by reporter and blogger Christine Gorman, formerly of TIME Magazine.
Our theme for today is prevention v. treatment. Fortuitously, the New England Journal of Medicine today is publishing an editorial (for which they have posted the free full text) that reminds us of the full burden and cost of MRSA. Drs. Cesar A. Arias and Barbara E. Murray say:
Faced with this gloomy picture, 21st-century clinicians must turn to compounds developed decades ago and previously abandoned because of toxicity — or test everything they can think of and use whatever looks active. …
It is more difficult than ever to eradicate infections caused by antibiotic-resistant “superbugs,” and the problem is exacerbated by a dry pipeline for new antimicrobials with bactericidal activity against gram-negative bacteria and enterococci. A concerted effort on the part of academic researchers and their institutions, industry, and government is crucial if humans are to maintain the upper hand in this battle against bacteria — a fight with global consequences. (NEJM 360(5):439-443)
As we’ve discussed time and time again, MRSA is increasingly common worldwide and increasingly costly to treat. Moreover, what has been presented by some as the first line of prevention for hospital-acquired MRSA — active surveillance and testing programs, also called “search and destroy” — is deeply controversial.
So what’s the next step? Well, in the past, when medicine has wanted to nullify an infectious disease threat, it did not rely only on surveillance or asepsis; it developed a vaccine. And there have been a few efforts to develop a MRSA vaccine, which are recapped in a new article in Infectious Disease Clinics of North America (yes, that’s a journal):
The most extensively tested vaccine against S aureus, which is a capsular polysaccharide-based vaccine known as StaphVAX, showed promise in an initial phase 3 trial, but was found to be ineffective in a confirmatory trial, leading to its development being halted. Likewise, a human IgG preparation known as INH-A21 (Veronate) with elevated levels of antibodies to the staphylococcal surface adhesins ClfA and SdrG made it into phase 3 testing, where it failed to show a clinical benefit. … Given the multiple and sometimes redundant virulence factors of S aureus that enable it to be such a crafty pathogen, if a vaccine is to prove effective, it will have to be multicomponent, incorporating several surface proteins, toxoids, and surface polysaccharides. (23 (1): 153-171)
Several longtime MRSA researchers, including Dr. Robert S. Daum of the University of Chicago, who wrote the first paper calling attention to community-associated MRSA in 1998, have called for a vaccine to be made a research priority.
Any thoughts, constant readers? In the public mind, right now, vaccines are at a low point: People are turning away from them, manufacturing problems have led to shortages, and pharma no longer finds vaccine manufacturing a lucrative business sector. If a MRSA vaccine were developed, would you take it yourself before surgery, or give one to your children?
