CBS antibiotics and farming package, day one

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

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.

Bad news in the President's budget request

It's been a few days since the rollout of the White House's proposed 2011 budget request, time enough for people to dig deep into the minutiae and figure out what that massive document really says. The Infectious Diseases Society of America has done the drilling for the health and infectious disease line items, and I'm sorry to say the news is not good.

Worst first: The proposed budget would cut funding for the CDC's antimicrobial resistance programs by 50%, $8.6 million. That means that only 20 state or local health departments, or health care institutions, will get money from CDC for surveillance and control of resistant bugs. That's only 40% of what was funded this year, when 48 health departments and health systems were funded. Which is very disturbing: If there's one thing almost everyone agrees on with regard to MRSA, it's that we need more surveillance, not less.

In addition, all state grants in the Get Smart About Antibiotics program, which runs campaigns to reduce inappropriate use, get zeroed out.

There are other cuts as well to infectious-disease program at CDC and elsewhere in HHS, including to to a major childhood immunization program and to pandemic defenses. And funding for HIV/AIDS, TB and other NIH research programs barely tiptoe upward.But these frank cuts in programs to combat antimicrobial resistance, at a time when MRSA is burgeoning, Gram negative organisms such as Acinetobacter are gaining ground, and drug development is stalling, surely cannot be smart.

The IDSA analyis is here.

SUPERBUG named a Top 50 public health blog

Constant readers, the website The Science of Health has named SUPERBUG one of its Top 50 public health blogs. I'm flattered to say we're in excellent company — the other blogs listed there are very good. Please go take a look.

Back again to MRSA in animals, and spreading to humans

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

Recommending: Consumer Reports on hospital infections

Constant readers, the magazine Consumer Reports has done an extended, state-by-state analysis of which hospitals do well, or very badly, in preventing one important category of infections: central line-associated bloodstream infections, or CLABSIs (pronounced klab-sees). It's a comprehensive package in easily understandable language. It's based on the state reporting data that some activists have managed to persuade states to disclose, along with another set of data that some hospitals voluntarily tender to the nonprofit firm The Leapfrog Group.

From the Consumer Reports story:

Poorly performing hospitals included some major teaching institutions. For instance, New York University Langone Medical Center in New York City reported 39 infections in 10,119 central-line days in 2008, roughly twice the national average for its mix of ICUs. The University of Virginia Medical Center in Charlottesville didn't do much better, reporting 77 infections in 18,572 days for the 15 months ending in September 2009, also about two times the national average.

More encouragingly, nationwide, we counted 105 hospitals whose most recent public reports tallied zero central-line infections. They ranged from modest rural institutions to urban giants such as the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center Presbyterian hospital, which reported no infections among patients who were on central lines a total of 13,596 days in 2008.

It's well worth reading, and checking to see whether a hospital you may have used, or may be considering using, is on the good list or the bad list. Take a look.

Once again, flu and bacterial co-infection

With the H1N1 pandemic trending down, it may seem that the question of how much bacterial co-infection affects the outcome of flu is less important than it was. But though the pandemic is subsiding — for ever, for this season, or just until a third wave, who can say — researchers are just now getting enough good data to be able to make solid observations about what happened during the past 10 months.

Case in point: Writing in the journal Public Library of Science (PLoS) ONE, a team of researchers from Australia has pinpointed the incidence of MRSA co-infection during flu in two hospitals in Perth last summer, which was the Australian winter and the height of their flu season. Of 252 patients admitted for H1N1 infection, 3 were identified during treatment as having MRSA pneumonia. They survived, but two other patients who died were found to have MRSA pneumonia during post-mortem exams.

There were 3 female and 2 males, aged between 34 and 79 years... Two patients lived at the same long-term care facility, whilst the other patients lived independently in the community. Four of the 5 patients had conditions that may have increased their risk of pneumonia, including quadriplegia (two patients) asthma (one patient), cirrhosis (one patient) and diabetes mellitus (one patient). Two of the 5 cases (patients 3 and 4) had known MRSA infection/colonization prior to the onset of their illness (with the same cMRSA clone that subsequently caused their co-infection).

 There are some interesting points embedded here. First, incidence: In the Australian patients, MRSA pneumonia was much more common. The Perth researchers found 5 MRSA cases out of 252 flu patients. When the CDC analyzed the occurrence of MRSA pneumonia in flu last summer, it found only 1 case out of 272. Second, treatment: None of the 5 patients got antibiotics that would have affected MRSA — even though two of them were already known to be MRSA carriers. The possibility of MRSA pneumonia subsequent to flu seems not to have occurred to the health professionals taking care of them.

And third, the pathogen: The 5 Australian cases were caused by 3 community MRSA strains that are common in Australia — but only one of the 3 made PVL, the toxin that has so frequently been associated with MRSA pneumonia. That is interesting, and troubling at the same time. At this point, the association of PVL and necrotizing pneumonia has become practically taken for granted; and yet here are two strains that did not make PVL and yet caused severe and fatal pneumonia. It may be an indication that the inflammation that flu causes in the lung can open the door to more severe damage even when PVL is not present; it's certainly an indication that the absence of PVL does not signal a mild or not-dangerous strain.

The cite is: Murray RJ, Robinson JO, White JN, et al. 2010 Community-Acquired Pneumonia Due to Pandemic A(H1N1)2009 Influenzavirus and Methicillin Resistant Staphylococcus aureus Co-Infection. PLoS ONE 5(1): e8705. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0008705.

Simultaneously, a new paper in the American Journal of Pathology seeks to clarify how often and in what circumstances bacterial superinfection becomes a risk during flu. Using a range of mice — both healthy ones, and "knockout" mice bred to be without particular immune-system components — researchers from San Diego confirmed that infections with flu and with Haemophilus influenzae can be lethal when the flu infection precedes the bacterial one. That was true even for infections that, if experienced separately, would not have been lethal; it was the synergy of the two infections, flu first followed by the bacterial infection, that caused the high mortality rate. The results may not be directly applicable to human medicine (Do you all know the old flu-research saying, "Mice lie and ferrets mislead?"), but they are an important indicator both of the seriousness of bacterial infection after flu, and also of the potential vulnerability of even healthy beings to that one-two punch.

The cite is: Lee LN, Dias P, Han D, et al.: A mouse model of lethal synergism between influenza virus and Haemophilus influenzae. Am J Pathol 176: 800-811.