Cure for MRSA Near?

British scientists say they have found a way to destroy deadly hospital superbugs such as MRSA with drugs already on the market. Researchers have discovered that three compounds used to treat other illnesses can also batter down the defences of even the toughest antibiotic-resistant bugs.

It is hoped that the drugs – which are being kept a closely-guarded commercial secret – will be in use on NHS wards within three years. Normally, a new treatment could take almost a decade to pass through the regulatory system. But, because these compounds are already being used on humans and so are known to be safe, the early stages of testing can be bypassed. The breakthrough was hailed as a “tremendous boost” for patients.

Because of the secrecy, the full nature and names of the drugs, which are chemically very similar, are being referred to only by the code name ETS1153. All that is known about them is that they are currently used to treat some types of acute conditions.

However, the team behind the project is so confident of success that they are ready to begin large-scale clinical trials – the last step before full approval. Professor Malcolm Young, who is leading the work, said the discovery was made while testing existing drugs against MRSA on a unique computer model. The practice of putting old therapies to new use, called “repurposing”, is becoming increasingly popular in medical research.

One of the best-known examples is thalidomide, the once notorious anti-morning sickness pill blamed for birth defects which is now used against some cancers. Prof Young said: “We were looking for any compound, old or new, to do a very specific job with MRSA. “Effectively, we got lucky in that we found a compound already doing a job in a completely different area – we already know it’s safe.”

He made the discovery while working with the Newcastle-based company e-Therapeutics. The professor, who is also pro-vice-chancellor of Newcastle University, used his background in mathematics to develop systems to analyse the effects of drugs on superbugs.

He said that, when staff tested the drugs in the laboratory, they were “delighted” with results which proved that even the most resistant strains of MRSA were killed. They also knocked out other dangerous bacteria, such as vancomycin-resistant enterococci and Staphylococcus epidermidis, which are an increasing menace in hospitals, by attacking the proteins that allow the infections to grow.

Prof Young said old-fashioned laboratory methods had so far failed to offer a solution to the superbug crisis.
He added: “These new therapies for MRSA and other dangerous hospital-based infections are a tremendous boost for our new approach”. Dr Roy Drucker, medical director of e-Therapeutics, said: “We’re very encouraged by this medically important success”.

The breakthrough was applauded by Tony Field, chairman of the group MRSA Support, which assists victims of the bug and their families. He said: “This is very good news. Anything which helps in this way is to be welcomed.”

But he added that hospitals and medical staff should not drop their guard. Until the laboratory breakthrough becomes reality, he emphasised that the best way to combat superbugs is through controlling infection. “We want to see a change in hospital cleaning regimes – to do the job properly with disinfectants and not detergents,” he added.

Cases of MRSA and other infections caused by antibiotic-resistant bacteria are rising year on year, with a 24-fold increase in MRSA-linked deaths over the last decade in England and Wales, according to the Office for National Statistics.

Hospital infections, including MRSA, are said to kill about 5,000 patients a year in Britain, although MRSA Support maintains the figure is closer to 20,000. Earlier this month, it emerged that a Government promise made in 2005 to cut MRSA infection rates in half by 2008 will not be kept. Even extending the deadline to 2009 would not be enough, and a leaked government memo appeared to suggest that superbugs were out of control. The memo also revealed that cases of infection of another bug, Clostridium difficile or C. diff, had become “endemic” throughout the health service.

Although an estimated 1,000 of the superbug deaths are blamed on MRSA, it is feared that C. diff could be an even bigger problem – more than 64,000 patients were struck down with it last year.

January 17, 2007
By Mark Blacklock

Hospital Infection Rates to be Posted Online

Excerpts from the Eagle Tribune, Andover, New Hampshire
January 16, 2007

New Hampshire hospitals will be required to make information on infections patients get while being treated there available under a new law that takes effect July 1.

The law requires every hospital in the state to report the number and type of hospital-acquired infections to the state Department of Health and Human Services. Officials there will be responsible for collecting and analyzing the information and creating a database that consumers can access from the Internet to compare infection rates by hospital.

Officials hope the regulations will reduce what is a leading cause of death in the United States, while giving consumers more information to help them choose a hospital.

"We believe once (hospitals) see what their infection rates are, they're going to want to do something about it," said Lisa McGiffert, director of Consumers Union's "Stop Hospital Infections" campaign.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimate that 2 million people get infections from hospital stays every year. That's about 10 percent of the total number of hospital patients nationwide. Advocates of the new law think that by reporting the information and publicizing it, hospitals will do more to reduce infections, which kill 90,000 people a year. "Imagine if 90,000 people died from bird flu," said Rep. Howie Lund, R-Derry, one of the bill's sponsors. "The whole world would be on alert. But this is kept so quiet."

There is no federal requirement or standard by which hospitals must report this information, so states are left to set their own. Including New Hampshire, 15 states have laws requiring hospitals to report infection rates. So far, only three states - Florida, Missouri and Pennsylvania - have made the data available to the public.

"This will enable the consumer public to make a better, more informed decision about whose hands they're going to put their life into," said former Keene state Rep. Bob Guida, one of the bill's sponsors.

Currently, New Hampshire's 32 hospitals aren't required to report any information on hospital-acquired infections to the state. But data Guida gathered and analyzed while arguing the bill showed that 400 people die from hospital-acquired infections every year, and about 4,000 people get them.

"More than one person a day dies from hospital-acquired infections in our state right now," Guida said. "Hospitals don't want it known because it reflects a laxity in standards."

But reporting infection rates isn't as simple as it may seem, according to Andrea Alley, director of communications for the New Hampshire Hospital Association, which represents all of the state's hospitals. She said that even though it is now a law, hospitals can't gather the information because there are no standards by which to do so.

"Though we want to be able to provide the information, it's not useful for anybody because you're not comparing apples to apples," Alley said. "Everyone is using different criteria to define an infection. They're using different methods of even keeping track."

She said while hospitals can look at ways to prevent infections, they can't do much about reporting infections until the state tells them how. That means it will be at least a year before consumers have access to this information.

If no guidance on defining infections is provided by the federal government by July 1, the state will put rules in place for reporting infections, Department of Health and Human Services spokesman Greg Moore said.

But it won't be easy. "Everyone would agree that this is good policy," Moore said. "But the devil is in the details." Not only will the state have to get hospitals to agree on standards, they'll have to put people in charge of collecting and analyzing the results, which Moore said could be expensive. Plus, there are downsides to making this information public, he said.

"We don't want to stigmatize a hospital because they tackle the hard cases," Moore said. "We could end up in a situation (where) there's an appearance that what's going on there is resulting in a high rate of infection." But preventing infection in hospitals, advocates of the law argue, is as simple as doctors washing their hands.

"It's about being meticulous about cleanliness," Consumers Union's McGiffert said. "It doesn't cost a lot of money to do these things. And in the long run, it could end up saving the state money. "If there is higher quality, and that quality results in savings, the state will benefit financially," Moore said. "Fewer sick people just cost less."

By Courtney Paquette , Staff Writer
Eagle-Tribune

The Killer in the Locker Room

By: Christopher McDougall, Men's Health

If it weren't so real, so tragic, and such a Critical wake-up call, it could be a sick joke: Ricky Lannetti, 21 years old and tough as a truck tire, was killed by a pimple on his butt.

He'd noticed the little welt last fall, when he was dressing for football practice at Lycoming College in Williamsport, Pennsylvania. It was right under the back strap of his jock and getting a little raw, but he sure as hell wasn't going to ask the trainers to look at a pimple, not while other guys were waiting to have real injuries wrapped and taped.

Besides, apart from that, he felt great. As a senior and a starting wide receiver for Lycoming, Lannetti was having the best season of his life: He set a school record with 16 catches in a game, then the following week broke the record for catches in a season. The next Saturday, he snagged five balls as the Warriors won in overtime to advance in the playoffs. The next Saturday, he was dead.

What was found in Lannetti's blood was a "superbug," an especially aggressive type of bacterial infection called MRSA. Until recently, few family doctors had ever seen methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus, and even fewer people had died of it. But over the past year, it has spread so quickly--and mutated into such frighteningly powerful strains--that even paramedics now know it by its phonetic nickname: "Mersa."

"Two years ago, it was completely unheard of," says Greg Moran, M.D., an infectious-disease specialist at the UCLA school of medicine. His E.R. has seen an "amazing" increase in MRSA cases. "Of the people who come in with skin infections, 64 percent have MRSA," he says. "It's remarkable how fast it's become one of the most common things we see."

Recent estimates by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) place the number of people hospitalized with communiyt-acquired MRSA annually at approximately 130,000. "The majority of the infected seem to be men," says Dr. Moran, "although no one knows why. It's such a new thing, there's not a whole lot of published information out there." So little is known about this sudden surge in MRSA cases that Dr. Moran is leading a nationwide study of skin infections seen in emergency rooms. Until then, he says, "we're learning on the fly."

Just 10 years ago, chronically ill patients in hospital settings accounted for most MRSA infections. Kidney-dialysis patients, burn victims, and HIV-AIDS sufferers were among the high-risk groups, because their immune systems were weak and they took such heavy doses of strong antibiotics that their bodies became veritable petri dishes for the growth of superbugs. And even if they weren't growing their own germs, these patients often had bedsores that allowed bacteria to worm their way in.
But now, MRSA is turning up most among the people who'd least expect to get it: young, healthy men who are often in very good shape. Last year, several members of the Miami Dolphins, including star linebacker Junior Seau and kickoff-return ace Charlie Rogers, were infected with MRSA. Seau and Rogers had to be hospitalized, as did Tampa Bay Buccaneer Kenyatta Walker and the Cleveland Browns' Ben Taylor, who needed an emergency operation to beat the infection.

It's not just pro athletes who've been hit: Five members of a fencing team in Colorado were also stricken, as were two high-school wrestlers in Indiana, 10 college football players in Pennsylvania, and two more in California. Although no quantitative studies have broken down the MRSA outbreak by gender, the CDC has found that the majority of new infections are among young men who share some kind of skin-to-skin contact, such as through sports. Outbreaks have also been reported among military recruits (235 cases were diagnosed at one basic-training site in the South), gay men, police cadets, and prisoners. All those men recovered, but many needed hospitalization and heavy antibiotics.

"You don't even need direct contact to become infected," points out Barry Kreiswirth, Ph.D., the director of the Public Health Research Institute Tuberculosis Center. "Staph has been spread in locker rooms by towel snapping. If he's got turf burn on his leg and you've got the bacteria on the towel, he can become infected."

And the more MRSA spreads, the more aggressive it seems to become. Not long ago, a person infected with staph would show up in a doctor's office with nothing worse than an abscess. But by 1999, MRSA had killed four otherwise healthy children in North Dakota and Minnesota. By December 2003, it was strong enough to kill Ricky Lannetti.

"He called Tuesday and said he was throwing up, but it wasn't that bad," recalls Ricky's mother, Theresa Lannetti, who looks like a grown-up cheerleader with her gentle smile and gymnast-lithe appearance. First thing the next morning, Ricky dragged himself to the school clinic. "Just a stomach bug," the nurse said, and sent Ricky back to his dorm. On Thursday, Theresa called the football trainer to check on her son, which led to a visit to a local doctor for blood work. But Theresa didn't wait for the results: When she heard Ricky was still feverish on Friday, she drove 5 hours through a blizzard to reach him. The Lannettis are as tough as they come--after raising three kids on a secretary's salary, Theresa joined the Philadelphia Police Academy at age 39--so she knew if her son was hurting this badly, it wasn't a touch of the flu.
When she arrived at Ricky's dorm, she was shocked. Ricky was deathly pale, and so weak his roommate had to carry him downstairs. He had a raging thirst and kept gulping Gatorade, even though he hadn't urinated in days.

By the time they got to Williamsport Hospital, Ricky was vomiting blood. Every specialist in the hospital crowded into his room, but they were all mystified: They were looking at a muscular young man with zero medical history whose body was acting like that of an ailing geriatric. The doctors tried one antibiotic, then another, and another, until Ricky had five in his system, but he was still burning with fever and passing blood through his catheter. The hospital called for a medevac chopper to fly him to an infectious-disease unit in Philadelphia, but just that fast, it was too late: Within hours, Ricky's vital functions were shutting down. His kidneys went, then his liver, and when surgeons tried to keep his heart beating with a catheter, they lost him.

"I couldn't believe this was happening," says Theresa. She'd just seen Ricky slamming his 5'9", 170-pound body all over the field a few days before, and now he was lying dead on a gurney and no one could explain how it had happened. A few days later, however, the coroner discovered two things: Ricky had MRSA in his blood and a tiny red welt on his buttocks. "He told me the infection must have spread from that little pimple," Theresa says.

"We're seeing more people who've been infected with abscesses on their buttocks, and the truth is, we don't know why," says Kreiswirth. It might be because a larger, fleshier area is more vulnerable to soft-tissue sores, or because the buttocks tend to be more damp with sweat and less exposed to air, but that's just speculation. "Until we understand more about how this staph operates," says Kreiswirth, "we won't know why it seems to favor certain parts of the body . . . or why one person will get a boil, and another will die."

Until MRSA came along, the game plan of Staphylococcus aureus was pretty simple: If four guys play two-on-two hoops, statistically one of them will be a staph carrier, since more than 30 percent of all humans have the bacteria in their noses at any time. You could be a carrier your entire life, though, and never know it: For staph to become a problem, you'd have to be carrying a strain that's strong enough to cause infection and have it come in contact with a break in someone's skin. Ironically, that skin could be your own--a carrier can infect himself, by wiping his nose and then touching an open cut.

"What's new is that some of the strains carry a toxin that destroys white blood cells," says Frank Lowy, M.D., a professor of medicine at Columbia University school of medicine who is studying staph colonization. "If you get staph under your skin, a white blood cell eats the bug, and that's the end of it. But this bug easily kills the white blood cell, which attracts more white blood cells. Eventually, a pus pocket builds up, allowing the bacteria to survive."

Like most of its contagious cousins, MRSA also has three great loves: humidity, skin cuts, and a weakened immune system. The opportunity for infection increases dramatically when these factors come together, perfect-storm-style, as they do in a gym. Locker rooms are damp and steamy, that game of two-on-two can lead to cut lips and scraped knees, and an exhausting workout temporarily lowers the body's resistance. Add to that workout gear that may not have been washed in days and you have the bacterial version of the Playboy grotto.

"If you're active and do anything that would traumatize the skin, you're potentially at risk," says David Gilbert, M.D., a past president of the Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA). "I've had professionals, lawyers, doctors, who have all gotten boils from this strain." Fortunately, none died, but they all required stronger antibiotics than Dr. Gilbert is comfortable giving--not because of what they'll do to the patients but because of what they're doing to the bacteria. That's the catch-22: Powerful antibiotics are needed to kill MRSA, but using them will eventually create an even more lethal version of the bug.

"It's natural selection at work," says Dr. Lowy. "There will always be mutant bacteria the antibiotic can't kill, and these may develop into a more virulent strain." And unfortunately, as antibiotics have become more prevalent--not just in doctors' offices but also in our food supply--we've sped up this evolution. For example, methicillin is the big-gun antibiotic that came after penicillin, but its current effectiveness is summarized in MRSA's name: methicillin-resistant.

We still might be holding staph infections in check if pharmaceutical companies hadn't shifted their R&D focus; instead of constantly trying to concoct updated antibiotics, says Dr. Gilbert, they turned more of their attention toward erectile dysfunction, hypertension, and heart disease. The IDSA reports that, as of 2002, "Bristol-Myers Squibb Company, Abbott Laboratories, Eli Lilly and Company, and Wyeth all halted or substantially reduced their anti-infective discovery efforts." Over the past 30 years, in fact, only three new classes of antibiotics have been developed, and resistance to one emerged before the FDA had approved it.

Nevertheless, it's hard to fault the drug companies, Dr. Gilbert says. "Why spend a billion dollars on a drug that a patient will take for only 2 weeks, when you can spend the same money on a product he'll take for the rest of his life?" On top of that, antibiotics can quickly become obsolete. Pfizer could take 10 years to get an anti- biotic developed and approved, only to see it become defunct in 2. It's doubtful the penis will ever become resistant to Viagra.

Right now, the "drug of last resort" in MRSA cases is Vancomycin. Already, there have been three cases of Vancomycin-resistant MRSA. "That's very troubling," says Dr. Lowy. "The genetic information for this resistance can be transferred from one strain to another. And if that happens, we're facing a potential crisis over the next 5 years." There are other antibiotics, but they're not always available and can't beat all infections, warns Dr. Lowy. "Vancomycin is our workhorse, but it doesn't have the legs for a long race."

On a sweltering July afternoon 7 months after Ricky Lannetti's death, one of his buddies from high school, 20-year-old Derek Talley, was preparing to take a postworkout soak in a kiddie pool behind his Philadelphia home when he saw a sore spot on his right thumb. "Must've gotten stung by something," Talley figured. He ignored it. But over the next few days, his entire hand began to swell. He went to the hospital, where they gave him Benadryl and sent him home.

That night, his hand ached so badly, he couldn't sleep. He returned to the E.R., and this time he was admitted and put on antibiotics. The next morning, his infection was even worse. The doctors then made a long Z incision in Talley's hand to drain the abscess, and put him on stronger antibiotics. "That should take care of it," he was told.

It didn't. By his second morning in the hospital, the infection had spread further. His doctors were getting worried, so they ordered a more extensive round of blood work. When they received the results, they sat down to brief Talley. "Have you ever heard of MRSA?" they asked. He nearly fell off the bed. "Yeah," he responded. "It killed my buddy."

He was immediately started on Vancomycin, every 12 hours around the clock, two IV bags a day. Because the infection was in his hand, the doctors told him, it was especially dangerous, since it had nowhere to travel but straight up toward his heart. Talley remembered something Ricky's mother had told him: "If Ricky could have made it through that first day in the hospital, he would have been okay."

So when Talley woke the next morning, he felt he was already winning. He checked his hand; for the first time in a week, it was back to normal size. For him, the Vancomycin worked. He would still need extensive physical therapy; a month after his touch-and-go week in the hospital, he had recovered only 75 percent of his hand function.

Surprisingly, the greatest source of hope in the fight against MRSA may come from the most common defense: soap and water. By making sure to wash their hands thoroughly and by keeping all cuts well disinfected and bandaged, most people can avoid spreading or contracting MRSA. "It's not going away," Dr. Lowy says, "but we have a chance of slowing it until new antibiotics, or even a vaccine, are created."

The NFL has begun sponsoring hygiene workshops for players and is encouraging trainers to disinfect hot tubs and showers regularly, according to Steve Antonopolus, ATC, head of the NFL's Trainers' Association. "There's a potential for MRSA to be everywhere in the locker room," he says. "Around trash cans, in cleats--everywhere."

Meanwhile, the IDSA has been lobbying Congress to treat MRSA like a terrorist threat. It proposes a "10 Most Wanted" list of bacterial infections, so that any drug company that goes after one would be rewarded with a "bounty" of tax breaks and extended patents. One Florida company, Nabi Biopharmaceuticals, is already in phase three of clinical trials of a staph vaccine, which would immunize recipients. A request for FDA approval is expected by the end of 2005.

"At this point, we project it for use only among high-risk candidates, like kidney patients," says Nabi spokesman Mark Soufleris. "But potentially, it could be used for millions of people." Best of all, Soufleris points out, it could take a tremendously long time before MRSA develops resistance to the vaccine. "Antibiotics attack the bacteria at one point of entry, but our vaccine creates antibodies that attack at multiple points."

Dr. Gilbert likes what he's heard about the Nabi vaccine. "Won't that be great, to get a shot and never worry about staph again?" he says. Till then, he urges, do what your mom always told you: "Change your clothes, wash your hands, and no roughhousing."

Fighting Surgical Wound Infections

According to Catherine Statz, RN, BSN, MPH, a nurse performing surgical wound-infection surveillance for the Surgical Infectious Disease service at the University of Minnesota Department of Surgery in Minneapolis, one antiseptic is safer and more efficacious than those used historically for treating surgical wounds.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) estimates that 27 million surgical procedures are performed each year in the United States with 756,000 surgical-site infections. Many of these surgical-site infections result in open wounds. It is not unusual for large wounds to remain open, to heal poorly, to be colonized with bacteria, and to remain infected for long periods.

The treatment of open wounds with topical agents that have broad-spectrum microbicidal activity is becoming increasingly important and desirable—especially before additional surgery can be done. Plastic surgeons are responsible for managing a significant percentage of colonized or infected open wounds.

The current treatment of many open wounds consists of operative debridement, parenteral antimicrobial agents, frequent dressing changes, and topically applied agents aimed at reducing microbial populations within the wound. The topical application of agents—other than sterile saline solution—on open wounds has remained controversial, as discussed below.

Typical Topical Agents

Saline is not antimicrobial, yet it is the only topical treatment used on most open or infected postoperative wounds. Treatment with saline alone significantly increases microbial titers, according to the report of a 1989 randomized emergency-department trial, in which contaminated traumatic open wounds were treated with sterile saline, povidone–iodine, or dry gauze. In that trial, the wounds were covered with gauze soaked with saline or povidone–iodine; for the control group, only dry gauze was used.

Quantitative cultures were run before and after treatment. The only significant trend was an increase in bacterial counts in the saline-soaked wounds after treatment (a 50-fold increase, compared to the controls). This effect was greater with higher initial levels of bacterial contamination. The group that was treated with saline had a higher wound-infection rate than the other groups.

Saline irrigation of open wounds is another common treatment. But irrigation as typically delivered—even with voluminous amounts of saline solution—removes little but surface contamination. Saline irrigation in the operating room (OR) should not be relied upon to completely reduce bacterial contamination, although it does remove debris, foreign material, and clots—all of which often contain bacteria—from surgical wounds.

An in vitro study showed that saline irrigation reduced colony counts of Staphylococcus aureus, S. epidermidis, and Escherichia coli by 12%–56%. However, the reduction in colony numbers was not always statistically significant, and even when it was, the amount of reduction was not clinically significant.

Chlorhexidine gluconate is the active ingredient in many antiseptic formulations, and it is used in dilute solutions for wound care. A 1988 study found little or no adverse impact to patients at concentrations of 0.05%–4%. The study also found that chlorhexidine gluconate does not appear to deter wound healing; its cytotoxic effect on fibroblasts in vitro does not exist in vivo. The study also showed that patients in the chlorhexidine gluconate group healed significantly faster than those in the saline-treated group.

A 1992 burn-unit study found chlor­hexidine gluconate to be toxic to cultured human fibroblasts; thus, it recommended that chlorhexidine gluconate should not be used before making cultured skin grafts.

In the United States, few formulations are available that can be used on open wounds. Most 4% chlor­hexidine gluconate formulations contain alcohol and detergents that can cause irritation, so they are not used on open wounds. Even so, dilutions of this formulation are widely used with positive results.

Acetic acid, which has an antimicrobial effect, has been used to treat open, infected wounds as long ago as 1778, during the American Revolution. Today, it is primarily used for wounds infected with Pseudomonas spp. Solutions of 0.25% acetic acid are estimated to decrease bacterial counts by only 20%. One in vitro trial showed that a 0.0025% solution (a factor of 100 less concentrated than the generally used dilution) of acetic acid lacked toxicity to fibroblasts but could inhibit only P. aeruginosa.

A 1985 comparison of the bactericidal and cytotoxic effects of serial dilutions of acetic acid showed that its cytotoxicity outweighed its bactericidal potency. Therefore, acetic acid is considered by many health care professionals to deter wound healing and should not be used. Moreover, its bactericidal ability is only selective.

Hypochlorite was first used to treat open wounds in France in 1825. In 1915, Dakin introduced a solution of 0.5% sodium hypochlorite that was used to disinfect open wounds during World War I. Now called Dakin solution, it is still used today, but its cytotoxicity makes it unsuitable for use in wound care.

However, bactericidal, noncytotoxic dilutions of sodium hypochlorite have been identified. McKenna and Lineaweaver showed 0.005% dilutions of sodium hypochlorite to be noncytotoxic yet bactericidal; such dilutions are 100 times less concentrated than the 0.5% solution that is commonly used in wounds. A study of capillary circulation of granulation tissue concluded that, “Hypochlorite solutions may be sufficiently toxic to preclude their clinical value.”

Iodine use on wounds was first reported in 1839. Iodine was used successfully during the US Civil War to treat open wounds. Molecular iodine can rapidly penetrate the cell walls of microorganisms; however, exactly how it kills living cells is not known.

Iodine is used today in the form of an iodophor, in which the carrier of the iodine is an inert polymer. This type of delivery agent increases the solubility of iodine by means of a sustained-release reservoir of the halogen. When iodophors are diluted, the amount of free iodine in solution increases. Thus, it is very important to follow the directions for use of this microbicidal product, because as the amount of free iodine increases, so does cell toxicity.

A solution of 1% povidone–iodine is the dilution most commonly used for wound care. This dilution is considered by many researchers to be unsuitable for use in wounds because of its cytotoxicity. Mckenna and Lineaweaver found that a 0.001% dilution was not cytotoxic, but remained effective against some strains of bacteria. One clinical study found that absorption from povidone–iodine preparations after topical administration resulted in possible metabolic complications.

Hydrogen peroxide was first used as a disinfectant by an English physician in 1858 and was marketed under the name Sanitas. The 3% solution was popular for use on wounds from about 1920 to 1950. Hydrogen peroxide kills bacteria by decomposing to hydroxy radicals. It is produced by living cells to protect the body from harm caused by bacteria.

Catalase, a cell enzyme, adequately protects cells from damage by regulating steady-state levels of metabolically produced hydrogen peroxide. This defense overwhelms concentrations of hydrogen peroxide used as a disinfectant on human tissues.Today, hydrogen peroxide has been generally abandoned for use in wounds because of its unfavorable results, and it is a better disinfectant on inanimate objects.

Ethyl alcohol (ethanol) has a long history of medical use. In 1903, it was shown that a 60%–70% solution was the most effective at killing bacteria, but no concentration is sporicidal.

Isopropyl alcohol has a slightly greater bactericidal action than does ethyl alcohol. Both alcohols are relatively nontoxic in topical applications, have a cleansing action, and evaporate readily. They are widely used preceding veni­punctures, hypodermic injections, finger sticks, and other procedures that break the intact skin; they are also used as a hand rinse.
But generally, they are not used in open wounds.

Parenteral antibiotics are frequently applied directly to open wounds, even though their efficacy in this regard has not been established.17 The effectiveness of topical antibiotic irrigation has been shown in vitro and in the surgical research literature.

The focus of that research has been on antibiotic irrigation in the OR. Transferring the use of triple antibiotic irrigation from the OR to the care of open wounds has not been therapeutically beneficial. Moreover, the cost of producing topical antibiotic solutions is significant. Also of concern is the development of, and selection for, resistant organisms after the use of antibiotic topical treatments.

In summary, topical treatment of colonized or infected open wounds is not novel, and several agents have been used over the years. Saline, the most commonly used solution, has no microbicidal activity and has been shown to significantly increase bacterial counts. But the other topical agents (acetic acid, hypochlorite, iodine, hydrogen peroxide, and ethyl or isopropyl alcohol) tend to be toxic to healing tissues or ineffective in reducing bacterial counts. Parenteral antimicrobials have no established therapeutic benefit in the treatment of open wounds, and there is grave concern that their topical use is leading to the emergence of resistant organisms.

Preferred Antiseptic

A topical antiseptic used on open wounds should be nontoxic to healing tissues, should be indiscriminately microbicidal, should promote wound healing, and should not facilitate microbial resistance in the concentrations commonly used in health care settings. The antiseptic introduced for use on open wounds in 1995 in our institution has all of these attributes. It contains 3% p-chloro-m-xylenol and 3% phosholipid PTC as the active ingredients. The formulation, generically called PCMX-PL, is supplied commercially.

PCMX-PL exhibits broad activity against bacteria and fungi. Its mode of action is generalized cell-wall disruption and enzyme inactivation. A 30-second exposure to PCMX-PL results in a 6-log reduction (99.9%) of methicillin-sensitive and methicillin-resistant S. aureus (MRSA) and E. coli.

Our experience with PCMX-PL since 1995 shows that it is associated with markedly improved outcomes for patients with complex, infected open wounds. The impetus to begin using it in our institution was a report from Everett et al in 1994 that showed a 59% first-year survival rate for pancreas-transplant recipients with open, deep infections. Since we began using it, we have noticed a significant improvement in overall survival for our own pancreas-transplant recipients with open, deep, complex infections.

Caring for Surgical Wounds

Our antimicrobial wound-care procedure was developed by the University of Minnesota Department of Surgery’s Surgical Infectious Disease Service, along with infection-control and wound-care professionals from the University of Minnesota Medical Center, Fairview. It was written to accommodate all types of open wounds, from the simple to the complex. Instituted in 2000, it is used widely within our hospital and for outpatients.

The likelihood that a surgical wound will become infected is determined by three factors:

• the inoculum size and the type of contaminating microorganisms;
• the host’s defenses; and
• the extent of wounding (including the amount of time in the OR).

It has been well-established that the risk of wound infection increases with high microbial titers. Wounds contaminated with more than 100,000 microbes per gram of tissue frequently become infected, as shown in experimental and clinical trials. By using PCMX-PL on open wounds that require a surgical procedure, we decrease the inoculum size of the colonizing or infecting microorganisms and decrease the risk of infection.

Multiple environmental studies have shown that microorganisms that colonize or infect an open wound can be cultured from all areas of the patient’s room and from the hands and clothing of health care workers. When hospitalized patients’ wounds become colonized with multidrug-resistant bacteria, such as MRSA, 11%–38% of them will become infected.

Patients infected with multidrug-resistant bacteria have significantly increased morbidity and mortality.Therefore, it is beneficial to attain a significant log reduction of bacteria colonizing or infecting an open wound by using a topical antiseptic such as PCMX-PL. Doing so will lower the risk of bacterial contamination on the patients’ skin and in the hospital environment, and it will prevent the spread of microorganisms from colonized open wounds.

The use of antiseptics becomes increasingly important as reports of multidrug-resistant microorganisms in hospital environments and the community become more prevalent. Our institution’s antimicrobial-resistant bacteria rates compare favorably to those reported by the National Nosocomial Surveillance System.

The use of topical antiseptics, including PCMX-PL, as an adjunct treatment of open wounds plays an important role in preventing the spread of multidrug-resistant microorganisms. Their use is an important addition to the CDC’s campaign to prevent antimicrobial resistance.

Catherine L. Statz, RN, BSN, MPH

Next Generation Antibiotics on the Horizon

Jan 03, 2007: Theravance, Inc. announced today that the first patient was dosed in a Phase 2 clinicalstudy of TD-1792, an investigational heterodimer antibiotic, for the treatment of complicated skin and skin structure infections (cSSSI) caused by Gram-positive bacteria, including resistant strains such as methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA).

The goal of this program is to develop a next-generation antibiotic that is more efficacious than vancomycin, the current standard of care for the treatment of serious infections caused by MRSA, and which has an improved resistance profile relative to other available antibiotics.

TD-1792 is a unique heterodimer antibiotic discovered by Theravance that combines the antibacterial activities of a glycopeptide and a beta-lactam in one molecule. Theravance initiated the Phase 2 program based upon favorable data from preclinical studies and Phase 1 studies completed during 2006. In randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, single- and multiple-ascending dose Phase 1 studies, which enrolled a total of 51 healthy volunteers, TD-1792 was generally well tolerated and displayed linear pharmacokinetics and exposure profiles consistent with once-daily dosing. In preclinical in-vitro studies, TD-1792 demonstrated marked bactericidal activity and was approximately 30-fold more potent than vancomycin against MRSA and approximately 100-fold more potent than oxacillin against methicillin-sensitive Staphylococcus aureus (MSSA).

The Phase 2 randomized, double-blind, active-controlled study is designed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of TD-1792 in patients with cSSSI due to Gram-positive bacteria such as MRSA. Patients will be randomized to receive either TD-1792 dosed once daily or vancomycin dosed twice daily for up to 14 days. The Phase 2 study will be conducted in the United States with a goal of enrolling approximately 200 patients.

"We are excited about the potential of this compound as a next-generation treatment for serious Gram-positive infections, including those caused by MRSA," said Michael Kitt, MD, Senior Vice President of Development at Theravance. "MRSA is a worldwide health problem. We are striving to provide the best medicines to treat the increasing number of patients who are infected with MRSA."

Theravance is a biopharmaceutical company with a pipeline of internally discovered product candidates. Theravance is focused on the discovery, development and commercialization of small molecule medicines across a number of therapeutic areas including respiratory disease, bacterial infections and gastrointestinal motility dysfunction.

Study Finds Simple Steps Reduce CV Catheter Infections by 66%

Simple and inexpensive steps taken by 108 intensive care unit teams reduced infections related to central venous catheters by 66% in Michigan hospitals, according to a new study published in The New England Journal of Medicine. The dramatic results reported by researchers from the Johns Hopkins University’s School of Medicine were achieved by nurses and doctors taking a team approach to adhering to safety protocols by following checklists and meeting daily performance goals, according to The Baltimore Sun.

The precautions the teams followed were basic but consistently applied: rigorous hand washing; careful cleaning of the skin around the catheters; use of sterile gowns, masks, and gloves; removing catheters quickly; and avoiding inserting catheters in the groin area. The collaborative approach to following safety guidelines can also be applied to reducing other hospital-acquired infections. “We think this model really helps to advance the science of patient safety,” lead author Peter Pronovost, MD, told the Sun. “It shows what’s possible. We no longer have to accept the infections as inevitable.”

Of ICU patients that develop infections from catheters each year around 35% die as a result. The average cost of treating a patient with a catheter-related infection is $45,000.

The above was an excerpt from, "An Intervention to Decrease Catheter-Related Bloodstream Infections in the ICU"
Peter Pronovost, M.D., Ph.D., Dale Needham, M.D., Ph.D., Sean Berenholtz, M.D., David Sinopoli, M.P.H., M.B.A., Haitao Chu, M.D., Ph.D., Sara Cosgrove, M.D., Bryan Sexton, Ph.D., Robert Hyzy, M.D., Robert Welsh, M.D., Gary Roth, M.D., Joseph Bander, M.D., John Kepros, M.D., and Christine Goeschel, R.N., M.P.A.

Doctors' Apparel Tied to Spread of Infection

Doctors are not known for making fashion statements especially in the type of neck ties they wear but you now have to look at their neck wear in a new way - as potentially dangerous.

A study at Queens Hospital, New York, discovered that 47% of the 42 ties worn by medical staff at the hospital harbored illness causing bacteria. Clinicians ties were eight times more infectious than security guards ties but does give cause for concern in a job were it is so important to minimize the microbes.

The study isolated some nasty bugs being carried around with them, 12 of the staff's ties carried staphylococcus aureus, five gram-negative bacteria, one tie carried aspergillus and two ties carried multiple pathogens. Out of the 10 security guard's ties, only one carried staphylococcus aureus.

The study backs up previous research findings where stethoscopes, pagers, pens and other doctors everyday equipment and work wear were tested and found to be harboring dangerous pathogens. And it is not just doctors. It said that all care staff in general need to change their habits.

So should doctors stop wearing a tie, a symbol of professionalism and efficiency? Well maybe so. This research is tying doctors to the spread of infection.

10/28/2005 About.com ARTICLE

Old Bugs Learn New Tricks

When antibiotics arrived 60 years ago, many experts thought it was the beginning of the end for infectious diseases. Sadly, they were wrong. Infections caused by viruses, fungi and other assorted critters never respond to antibiotics. As special drugs are developed for some of them, new foes such as bird flu crop up. And even bacteria, the true targets of antibiotics, have found ways to beat the rap. In most cases they change their genes to thwart antibiotics. Smart scientists fight back by creating new drugs—but, more often than not, the bugs find a way to give them the slip.

To see how it works—and what we can do about it—consider three important bugs that have recently found new ways to make us sick. The first is staph aureus, which has been part of the human condition since the beginning of recorded history. The bacterium's natural habitat is the human nose; at any one time, at least 25 percent of us harbor the germ. In most, it's a harmless fellow traveler, but it often travels from nose to hand to skin, where it causes pesky boils and infects "ingrown" hairs and nails. In an unlucky few, staph causes devastating infections of the blood and organs. These were highly lethal until penicillin came along. The drug was dramatically effective, but the bug rapidly changed its genes to produce penicillinase, an enzyme that chews up the antibiotic. Penicillin-resistant strains appeared first in hospitals, then spread to the community. By now, 95 percent of staph shrug off penicillin.

In response to the growing problem, researchers developed penicillinase-proof antibiotics. The first, in 1959, was methicillin, and a family of related drugs soon followed. But by 1960, methicillin-resistant staph aureus (MRSA) began to crop up in hospitals; by now it constitutes the majority of strains in some hospitals and has also exploded in the community.

Hospitals try to contain the spread of MRSA by handling infected patients with latex gloves and other precautions. At home, we should stress hand washing with soap and water as well as alcohol-based rubs. So far, community strains of MRSA are reassuringly susceptible to certain older oral antibiotics, but major infections should be treated with the same injected drugs used for hospital patients.

Compared with staph, Clostridium difficile (C. diff) is a newcomer. It was first diagnosed in 1978, when it appeared as an occasional cause of diarrhea in patients who were taking a particular antibiotic (clindamycin). By now, though, it is clear that virtually any antibiotic can trigger the problem. C. diff strikes at least 300,000 people in the United States each year, even some who haven't taken antibiotics. Many healthy people harbor a few C. diff among the millions of bacteria in the colon. When C. diff hangs out in the form of inert spores, it's harmless. But if antibiotic therapy knocks off the normal bacteria, C. diff springs to life, producing two toxins that attack the colon. Doctors can treat most cases by stopping the offending drug and prescribing metronidazole or vancomycin, oral antibiotics that target C. diff. But spore forms of the bug defy even these drugs, and diarrhea often recurs when treatment stops.

The next threat is a novel, highly virulent strain of C. diff that produces 16 to 23 times more toxin than its predecessors. Because the bug is so new, doctors have not yet determined if revised treatment guidelines are warranted. This new and dangerous form of C. diff makes it even more urgent that people with diarrhea, or people caring for people with diarrhea, scrupulously wash their hands with soap and water after any possible contact with the infected material to avoid spreading the germ or becoming infected themselves.

Finally, there's tuberculosis—a historic scourge of humankind. Even now, it is the leading infectious cause of death in the world, accounting for more than 2 million deaths a year. We've been much luckier in this country. As a result of improved social and economic conditions, the incidence of TB began to decline around 1900 and nearly disappeared with the discovery of anti-TB drugs in midcentury. But in 1984, an alarming upturn developed. It was fueled by HIV and homelessness, and it featured a rise in multidrug-resistant (MDR) TB. Ordinary TB can be cured by six months of combination therapy. But MDR strains defy the standard drugs.

In this country, TB plateaued in 1992 and has declined steadily since because of aggressive diagnosis and strict isolation of cases. Still, there's no room for complacency. In 2006, doctors in South Africa identified a new, extensively drug-resistant (XDR) strain of TB. So far it has been confined to AIDS patients in South Africa, but it's a small world, and infections respect no borders. We need new drugs for TB. But we also need to use the resources that we already have to deliver medical care to the developing world. If we fight the war against TB on that turf, we may not have to fight it on our own turf.

By Harvey B. Simon, M.D.
Newsweek, Dec. 11, 2006 issue

JaniceCarr / CDC-Reuters

Overuse of Antibiotics Strengthens Bacteria

Your nose is dripping green and yellow fluid, your sinuses are plugged and your child has an ear infection, so you need antibiotics. Right? Wrong, say public health officials, alarmed at the growing number of antibiotic-resistant infections such as MRSA and C-difficile.

Overuse of antibiotics means bacteria, which have the single-minded purpose of surviving and multiplying, will start to develop an immunity.

"Eventually, if you give enough antibiotics, with enough germs around, some of them will become resistant," said Dr. Richard Stanwick, Vancouver Island chief medical officer. "We have some absolutely magic bullets to deal with infection," he said, "and we shouldn't squander them."

The ultimate horror movie for medical practitioners is a world where bacteria have become resistant to all antibiotics.
"There's not a lot of research and development going into new antibiotics," said Dr. Bonnie Henry, epidemiologist with the B.C. Centre for Disease Control. "As we haven't developed new ones, we should be careful to better use the ones we have."
The major problem is over-prescribing, sometimes for viral infections, which cannot be helped by antibiotics. Most coughs and colds are caused by viruses, not bacteria. Patients often pressure general practitioners to prescribe antibiotics for problems that can be addressed by other means, Henry said.

The Center for Disease Control in the U.S. uses an innovative website (www.dobugsneeddrugs.org) to get the message out to the public and doctors.

The website, with sections for everyone from children to health professionals, hammers home the message that many infections do not need antibiotics and gives tips on how to avoid picking up bugs.

There is also growing concern over the amount of antibiotics used in commercial food industries, and the Center for Disease Control is one of the leaders in a collaborative project called Farm to Fork, looking at antibiotic use in feed animals.
"We're not yet sure what the link is," Henry said.

Judith Lavoie, Times Colonist, Monday, January 08, 2007

Clostridium Difficile Infection

Clostridium difficile, or C. difficile (a gram-positive anaerobic bacterium), is now recognized as the major causative agent of colitis (inflammation of the colon) and diarrhea that may occur following antibiotic intake. C. difficile infection represents one of the most common hospital (nosocomial) infections around the world. In the United States alone, it causes approximately three million cases of diarrhea and colitis per year. This bacterium is primarily acquired in hospitals and chronic care facilities following antibiotic therapy covering a wide variety of bacteria (broad-spectrum) and is the most frequent cause of outbreaks of diarrhea in hospitalized patients. One of the main characteristics of C. difficile-associated colitis is severe inflammation in the colonic tissue (mucosa) associated with destruction of cells of the colon (colonocytes).

The disease involves, initially, alterations of the beneficial bacteria, which are normally found in the colon, by antibiotic therapy. The alterations lead to colonization by C. difficile when this bacterium or its spores are present in the environment. In hospitals or nursing home facilities where C. difficile is prevalent and patients frequently receive antibiotics, C. difficile infection is very common. In contrast, individuals treated with antibiotics as outpatients have a much smaller risk of developing C. difficile infection. Laboratory studies show that when C. difficile colonize the gut, they release two potent toxins, toxin A and toxin B, which bind to certain receptors in the lining of the colon and ultimately cause diarrhea and inflammation of the large intestine, or colon (colitis). Thus, the toxins are involved in the pathogenesis, or development of the disease.

Transmission Factors - An important characteristic of C. difficile-associated diarrhea and colitis is its high prevalence among hospitalized patients. Thus, C. difficile contributes significantly to hospital length of stay, and may be associated in some elderly adults with chronic diarrhea, and occasionally other serious or potentially life-threatening consequences. One study demonstrated that 20% of patients admitted to a hospital for various reasons were either positive for C. difficile on admission or acquired the microorganism during hospitalization. Interestingly, only one-third of these patients developed diarrhea while the remainder were asymptomatic carriers serving as a reservoir of C. difficile infection. The organism and its spores were also demonstrated in the hospital environment, including toilets, telephones, stethoscopes, and hands of healthcare personnel.

While patient-to-patient spread and environmental contamination can be some of the reasons of cross-infection in C. difficile-associated diarrhea and colitis, antibiotic therapy is the major risk factor for this disease. Thus, antibiotic use only when necessary is the most effective measure of preventing C. difficile infection.

Clinical Features - A wide range of conditions is associated with C. difficile infection. Most cases develop 4 to 9 days after the beginning of antibiotic intake. It should be noted, however, that some patients develop diarrhea after antibiotics are discontinued and this may lead to diagnostic confusion. Although nearly all antibiotics have been implicated with the disease, the commonest antibiotics associated with C. difficile infection are ampicillin, amoxicillin, cephalosporins, and clindamycin.

The most common presentation is either mild colitis, or simple diarrhea that is watery and contains mucus but not blood. Examination by sigmoidoscopy usually reveals normal colonic tissue. General symptoms are commonly absent and diarrhea usually stops when antibiotics are discontinued. C. difficile can also cause non-specific colitis quite reminiscent of other intestinal bacterial infections such as Shigella or Campylobacter. This is a more serious illness than simple antibiotic-associated diarrhea; patients experience watery diarrhea 10 to 20 times a day and lower, crampy abdominal pain. Low-grade fever, dehydration, and non-specific colitis are common manifestations.

Pseudomembranous colitis represents the characteristic manifestation of full-blown C. difficile-associated colitis. Sigmoidoscopic examination reveals the presence of characteristic plaque-like pseudomembranes, scattered over the colonic tissue. The presence of these plaques is a distinctive indicator of C. difficile infection in patients with diarrhea following antibiotic treatment.

The most serious manifestation of C. difficile infection, fulminant colitis (severe sudden inflammation of the colon), is frequently associated with very serious complications. This can be a life-threatening form of C. difficile infection and occurs in 3% of patients; most are elderly and debilitated from other diseases. Patients with this form of the disease experience severe lower abdominal pain, diarrhea, high fever with chills, and rapid heart beat. Timely treatment of fulminant colitis is essential; this condition can be life threatening.

C. difficile infection in patients with other intestinal diseases - It is well documented that C. difficile may complicate the course of ulcerative colitis or Crohn's disease and it is responsible for 4 to 12% of diarrhea in AIDS patients. In this case, patients develop the typical symptoms of C. difficile colitis, including diarrhea, abdominal pain, and fever reminiscent of exacerbation of inflammatory bowel disease. The reason for this complication is not entirely clear. It may be that the frequent hospitalizations and exposure to antibiotics of patients with inflammatory bowel disease or AIDS places them at increased risk for the infection. So far there is no evidence to indicate that C. difficile can complicate the symptoms associated with irritable bowel syndrome (IBS).

Laboratory Diagnosis - The laboratory diagnosis of C. difficile infection is primarily related to the demonstration of C. difficile toxins in the stool of suspected patients. The detection of C. difficile toxins in the stool can be made by a laboratory test (cytotoxicity assay) where the toxins can be easily observed in the microscope. This tissue culture assay is considered the gold standard because of its high sensitivity and specificity. Since there is no correlation between levels of C. difficile toxins in the stool and severity of the disease, the results are reported simply as "positive" or "negative." However, time is a drawback of this assay since it requires 24 to 48 hours to read the results.

Over the past few years several rapid tests that take just a few hours, and which do not require specialized personnel to run, have been developed (immuno-enzymatic assays) for the detection of C. difficile toxins in the stool. These tests are commercially available in the form of diagnostic kits. Although they are relatively less sensitive and demonstrate lower specificity compared to the laboratory tests, they are very useful not only in the every day practice when specialized personnel is not available, but also in emergency situations and in rapid screening of patients during spreading of the disease in hospitals.

Therapy - Therapy of C. difficile is directed against eradication of the microorganism from the colonic microflora. No therapy is required for asymptomatic carriers. In noncomplicated patients with mild diarrhea, no fever, and modest lower abdominal pain, discontinuation of antibiotics (if possible) is often enough to alleviate symptoms and stop diarrhea. When severe diarrhea is present and in cases of established colitis, the patients should receive the antibiotics, metronidazole or vancomycin, for 10 to 14 days. Several clinical trials have shown that these antibiotics are equally effective in cases of mild to moderate C. difficile infection and more than 95% of patients respond very well to this treatment. Diarrhea following treatment with either vancomycin or metronidazole is expected to improve after 1 to 4 days with complete resolution within 2 weeks. However, some patients do not respond despite aggressive medical therapy and require surgical intervention.

Therapy for relapsing C. difficile infection - Although C. difficile infection usually responds well to treatment with metronidazole or vancomycin, approximately 15 to 20% of patients will experience re-appearance of diarrhea and other symptoms weeks or even months after initial therapy has been discontinued. The usual therapy for relapse is to repeat the 10 to 14 day course of either metronidazole or vancomycin and this is successful in most patients. However, a subset of patients continues to relapse whenever antibiotics are discontinued and this represents a therapeutic challenge. Some authorities recommend switching to the alternative antibiotic from the one used initially. A variety of other therapies have also been described for relapsing disease. It is hoped that development of vaccines against C. difficile toxins may someday control the problem of C. difficile infection in hospitals.


Article by: Charalabos Pothoulakis, M.D., Division of Gastroenterology, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA.