I'm thrilled to see you! But I'd love even more for you to join the conversation at this blog's new home at Wired:
http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/superbug
-- Maryn
14 September 2010
Gone. (Again.) And it's really exciting. (And some NDM-1, too.)
Constant readers, cast your minds back to early summer, when SUPERBUG briefly bugged out of here to Scienceblogs. Scienceblogs was a great community, but not quite the right fit, and so I ended up happily back here, doing my own thing, and you very kindly followed me. And it's been an exciting few months back here, with lots of news on NDM-1 (look here for the archive), and flu and C. diff and HAIs.
And now, some real news. SUPERBUG is moving again. And this is going to be great.
I'm thrilled to be one of seven launch bloggers in a new network set up at Wired.com: Wired Science. It's an amazing, diverse group, high-performance and hyper-cool: Frontal Cortex, Neuron Culture, Laelaps, Dot Physics, Clastic Detritus, Genetic Future, and me. I'm beyond flattered to be among them.
Our launch announcement is here. My new page is here. (The complete addy, which may change in a few weeks after a tweak, but keep it for now:
http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/superbug/)
My inaugural post is the latest news, from the ICAAC meeting, on NDM-1.
We're having some issues with the archives, so I'll be leaving this site up as a resource. But I'd love to see you there as well as here. Please come check us out. And thank you, so much, for your loyalty, interest and attention over these years.
And now, some real news. SUPERBUG is moving again. And this is going to be great.
I'm thrilled to be one of seven launch bloggers in a new network set up at Wired.com: Wired Science. It's an amazing, diverse group, high-performance and hyper-cool: Frontal Cortex, Neuron Culture, Laelaps, Dot Physics, Clastic Detritus, Genetic Future, and me. I'm beyond flattered to be among them.
Our launch announcement is here. My new page is here. (The complete addy, which may change in a few weeks after a tweak, but keep it for now:
http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/superbug/)
My inaugural post is the latest news, from the ICAAC meeting, on NDM-1.
We're having some issues with the archives, so I'll be leaving this site up as a resource. But I'd love to see you there as well as here. Please come check us out. And thank you, so much, for your loyalty, interest and attention over these years.
08 September 2010
Antibiotic resistance: Scandinavia gets it
Odd but interesting fact: Scandinavia takes antibiotic resistance incredibly seriously. Denmark has one of the most thorough programs for preventing antibiotic misuse in agriculture; Norway has very tough regulations regarding antibiotic stewardship in hospitals (as captured in this AP story last year). Sweden has pressed the issue as well; drug resistance was a major issue for the Swedish Presidency of the European Union in the last half of 2009 and led to a major conference there on creating incentives to bring antibiotic manufacturers back into the market.
The presidency has since been relinquished to more southern countries (Spain in the first half of this year and now Belgium) but the Swedish focus on resistance persists, pushed along by the nonprofit organization ReAct, based at Uppsala University. Earlier this week, ReAct hosted a three-day international conference on antibiotic resistance in Uppsala. They haven't posted the full conference report yet, but they have come out with a closing press release, which says some interesting things (emphases mine):
People who've worked in this field for a long time will know, of course, that up-front commitments are easy to make; it's downstream action, carried out over the long term, that makes a difference. But this looks like a promising start: Even just stimulating international recognition of the program is an encouraging beginning.
Until the final conference report is posted, you can see video of the opening and final sessions here.
The presidency has since been relinquished to more southern countries (Spain in the first half of this year and now Belgium) but the Swedish focus on resistance persists, pushed along by the nonprofit organization ReAct, based at Uppsala University. Earlier this week, ReAct hosted a three-day international conference on antibiotic resistance in Uppsala. They haven't posted the full conference report yet, but they have come out with a closing press release, which says some interesting things (emphases mine):
At a historic three day conference at Uppsala University, Sweden, 190 delegates representing 45 countries and many leading stake holders – civil society, academia, industry, governments, authorities, supranational organizations – agreed on Wednesday to turn a new page and move towards concerted action on antibiotic resistance...The release also mentions some promising events coming next year:
The new signals from the Uppsala meeting include:
- A shared conviction that antibiotic resistance is a universal problem. Like global warming, it requires joint action, not least by governmental alliances.
- A clear signal from the pharmaceutical industry that return of investment on research and development of new antibiotics and diagnostic tools will have to be de-linked from market sales in order to boost necessary innovation while yet limiting the use of antibiotics. This requires a new business model where private and public sectors cooperate.
- A strong recommendation to all stakeholders to speed up the efforts to limit unnecessary use of antibiotics, while at the same time making the medicines affordable and accessible in developing countries.
- A commitment to improve the monitoring of antibiotic resistance across the world, through shared data and increased efforts. A global network of surveillance will require common methods, and is crucial for both prudent use and needs driven development of new agents.
- A final report from TATFAR, The Transatlantic Task Force on Antibiotic Resistance.(Hmm. Surely it is time for me to go back to India...)
- A policy meeting on antibiotic resistance in Delhi, India.
- A WHO Action Plan on Antibiotic Resistance.
- A number of regional initiatives, including in Southeast Asia, Africa and The Middle East.
People who've worked in this field for a long time will know, of course, that up-front commitments are easy to make; it's downstream action, carried out over the long term, that makes a difference. But this looks like a promising start: Even just stimulating international recognition of the program is an encouraging beginning.
Until the final conference report is posted, you can see video of the opening and final sessions here.
02 September 2010
Every once in a while: Some stuff about me
Drowning in work here, folks, which is a pity because there's lots of news to talk about. Back soon. Meanwhile: I try not to do this very often, because most of what we have to talk about is so much more interesting than me — but my week at UGA, which is capped by an appearance at the Decatur Book Festival, has generated some ink. So here's some amusements for your morning coffee:
- A very kind Q&A with me, done by excellent pal Barth Anderson, operator of the feisty food-policy site Fair Food Fight
- Another Q&A by my former colleague Phil Kloer, for the great arts blog Arts Critic ATL
- And a video about one of my speeches at UGa, done by student TV station WNEG-TV. (The last line of the report? I didn't say that. But otherwise, well done.)
31 August 2010
On the road this week, and a reading rec
Constant readers, I'm teaching this week at the University of Georgia's Grady College of Journalism and New Media Institute, so blogging will be light. If you're in the Athens or Atlanta area, please come say hello, I'll also be speaking publicly:
Meanwhile, some reading: When we're talking about MRSA control, we often talk, somewhat lightly, about isolating people within a hospital or nursing home in order to control MRSA's spread. For instance, isolation is the key technique on which "search and destroy" hinges.
In today's New York Times, Dr. Abigail Zuger writes a thoughtful column on the historic roots and present-day challenges of putting patients into isolation. It's very much worth reading, particularly for understanding why tending to patients in isolation is such a time-burden for health care staff. Also, her description of how C. diff spreads will make you want to wash your hands immediately.
More soon.
- Tuesday: 4 p.m., Room 175 of the University of Georgia's Coverdell Center for Biomedical and Health Sciences, Athens.
- Wednesday: 6 p.m., the Vaccine Dinner Club of Emory University (Whitehead Health Science Center Administration Building), Atlanta.
- Thursday: 4:15 p.m., Athens-Clarke County Library, Baxter Street, Athens.
Meanwhile, some reading: When we're talking about MRSA control, we often talk, somewhat lightly, about isolating people within a hospital or nursing home in order to control MRSA's spread. For instance, isolation is the key technique on which "search and destroy" hinges.
In today's New York Times, Dr. Abigail Zuger writes a thoughtful column on the historic roots and present-day challenges of putting patients into isolation. It's very much worth reading, particularly for understanding why tending to patients in isolation is such a time-burden for health care staff. Also, her description of how C. diff spreads will make you want to wash your hands immediately.
More soon.
26 August 2010
New CDC flu numbers: This may not go well
(Constant readers: Apologies for the slow blogging. Casa Superbug's little medical crisis from a week ago has recurred, and things are a bit distracting. Back to normal soon, I hope.)
In public health, one of the numbers you hear most often — and especially so the past few years — is 36,000. That's the number of deaths that the CDC estimates occur in an average year from influenza.
Or rather, estimated. Because today, in its weekly bulletin MMWR and also in a teleconference for the press, the CDC announced that it is discarding that widely used number, in favor of newer numbers from newer studies that take into account the wide variation in illness and death from one flu season to the next.
The new estimate is: 23,607. Or, a range that goes from 3,349 to 48,614. Or, in the language recommended by a CDC scientist and a communications specialist in the press call, "tens of thousands of people [who] may die each year in an average flu season."
If that sounds difficult to communicate in a concise manner, well, the reporters on the CDC call today clearly thought so too. And while reporting study results forthrightly is transparent, and more precise numbers are almost always better, I can't help but wonder whether this attempt at precision and transparency will not be received well. After all, we are only a few months (or a few weeks, depending whose end date you accept) away from the dribbling conclusion of a worldwide pandemic that was taken so not-seriously by the public that, in the US, 71 million doses of H1N1 vaccine went unused — and in Europe, some public representatives alleged that the entire emergency was a concoction by pharmaceutical companies.
Given that history, putting out a public message that flu kills fewer people than we thought — but is, still, a serious disease that should be planned for and vaccinated against — sounds like a hard sell.
Here's how today's new numbers came about:
The mortality rate from flu has always been difficult to assess: People die of influenza directly, but they also die of underlying conditions — heart disease or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, among others — that might not kill the person if influenza were not putting an extra strain on the system. In either case, but especially in the latter, the death may not be attributed to flu, particularly if the victim has not been tested for the presence of the flu virus.
So, to arrive at an estimate, the CDC has used a statistical model. As explained in the briefing today by Dr. David Shay of the CDC's Influenza Division:
When the range of years was broadened to 31 flu seasons (1976-77 to 2006-07), here's what shook out:
When the 36,000-death estimate was re-examined, Shay said:
So that's the rationale behind today's dialed-down numbers. Here's the potential problem with it: It just took me about 1,000 words to (somewhat talkily) explain. It requires patience and detail to impart, which in the current media environment are in very short supply. As one of the participants on the call said today:
To repeat: This is an effort at transparency and accountability; those are worth applauding. But it's also a nuanced and difficult health-communication message, launched into a zeitgeist already tuned toward conspiracy theories and a media marketplace with little time or expertise to counter them.
Pessimistically, I wonder how long it will be before this message gets transformed into something like, "See? I told you so. Flu isn't that big a deal after all." I hope the CDC is prepared when it does.
(Here's today's MMWR article, the transcript of the press briefing, and a Q&A on the new calculation. The cite is: Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, "Estimates of Deaths Associated with Seasonal Influenza --- United States, 1976--2007." August 27, 2010. 59(33);1057-1062)
In public health, one of the numbers you hear most often — and especially so the past few years — is 36,000. That's the number of deaths that the CDC estimates occur in an average year from influenza.
Or rather, estimated. Because today, in its weekly bulletin MMWR and also in a teleconference for the press, the CDC announced that it is discarding that widely used number, in favor of newer numbers from newer studies that take into account the wide variation in illness and death from one flu season to the next.
The new estimate is: 23,607. Or, a range that goes from 3,349 to 48,614. Or, in the language recommended by a CDC scientist and a communications specialist in the press call, "tens of thousands of people [who] may die each year in an average flu season."
If that sounds difficult to communicate in a concise manner, well, the reporters on the CDC call today clearly thought so too. And while reporting study results forthrightly is transparent, and more precise numbers are almost always better, I can't help but wonder whether this attempt at precision and transparency will not be received well. After all, we are only a few months (or a few weeks, depending whose end date you accept) away from the dribbling conclusion of a worldwide pandemic that was taken so not-seriously by the public that, in the US, 71 million doses of H1N1 vaccine went unused — and in Europe, some public representatives alleged that the entire emergency was a concoction by pharmaceutical companies.
Given that history, putting out a public message that flu kills fewer people than we thought — but is, still, a serious disease that should be planned for and vaccinated against — sounds like a hard sell.
Here's how today's new numbers came about:
The mortality rate from flu has always been difficult to assess: People die of influenza directly, but they also die of underlying conditions — heart disease or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, among others — that might not kill the person if influenza were not putting an extra strain on the system. In either case, but especially in the latter, the death may not be attributed to flu, particularly if the victim has not been tested for the presence of the flu virus.
So, to arrive at an estimate, the CDC has used a statistical model. As explained in the briefing today by Dr. David Shay of the CDC's Influenza Division:
We have two categories that we look at... One is death certificates that have an underlying diagnosis of pneumonia or influenza. 99% of those deaths are actually coded as pneumonia. So, that's to make an estimate of deaths in a particular season from pneumonia that are associated with flu. And typically, that's about 8.5% of deaths over the time period that we looked at... The broader category of respiratory and circulatory deaths we think encompasses the full picture of influenza-associated deaths, including things such as people who might die because of worsening chronic obstructive pulmonary disease or worsening congestive heart failure that results in death after an infection. And we estimate that about 2% of that broader category in any typical year is associated with influenza.One other factor affects flu mortality: Which flu strain type is dominant in the season being measures. Flu is generally taken to cause the most severe disease, and the greatest number of deaths, in the elderly; but some strains cause more severe disease than others, and some (H1N1 "swine" flu, for instance) attack the young, who are healthier and less likely to die, more than they do the old. Again, Shay:
[I]t's important to keep in context, which we don't really describe in this article because of space, that there's at least four factors that affect sort of flu mortality in any particular year, and those four would be the specific strain or influenza strains that are in circulation, sort of the length of the season or how long influenza is circulating in the united states, how many people get sick, because of course, the more people get sick, there is more likely to be more serious outcomes, and finally, who gets sick.In the study released today, the CDC did two things: It broadened the range of flu seasons from which it took data to feed into the statistical model, and it took a second look at the years on which the previous model, the one that produced the 36,000-death estimate, was based.
When the range of years was broadened to 31 flu seasons (1976-77 to 2006-07), here's what shook out:
- For deaths from influenza and pneumonia: from 961 in 1986-87 to 14,715 in 2003-04, an average of 6,309
- For deaths from respiratory and circulatory complications: from 3,349 in 1986-87 to 48,614 in 2003-04, an average of 23,607.
When the 36,000-death estimate was re-examined, Shay said:
The 36,000 number that's often used pertains to a very specific time period from 1990 to 1999. And in that decade, where we had prominent circulation of H3N2 viruses, they were prominent in eight of the nine seasons that are contained within the data that were used to make that estimate, and those are, as you know, typically more severe seasons. We had a high mortality for that nine-year period.According to the MMWR analysis, mortality rates in the H3N2 years were 2.7 times higher than in years when other types were dominant.
So that's the rationale behind today's dialed-down numbers. Here's the potential problem with it: It just took me about 1,000 words to (somewhat talkily) explain. It requires patience and detail to impart, which in the current media environment are in very short supply. As one of the participants on the call said today:
I'm really scratching my head here wondering what I'm going to use, because we really don't have a lot of time ... to present a lot of numbers, and I think in a sense to say that the range is 3,000 or 3,300 to 49,000 raises a lot of questions, and I think we don't have time to answer those questions in every report. And I also wonder if it's not a bit misleading to use 3,300 as the bottom number since it's been 20 years since it was that low, and even in the last 20 years, the mortality has never been much below 12,000.You see the problem.
To repeat: This is an effort at transparency and accountability; those are worth applauding. But it's also a nuanced and difficult health-communication message, launched into a zeitgeist already tuned toward conspiracy theories and a media marketplace with little time or expertise to counter them.
Pessimistically, I wonder how long it will be before this message gets transformed into something like, "See? I told you so. Flu isn't that big a deal after all." I hope the CDC is prepared when it does.
(Here's today's MMWR article, the transcript of the press briefing, and a Q&A on the new calculation. The cite is: Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, "Estimates of Deaths Associated with Seasonal Influenza --- United States, 1976--2007." August 27, 2010. 59(33);1057-1062)
20 August 2010
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)