A study just published in ICHE investigates tweeting activity at several IPC / ID / AMR conferences (the 2016 editions of IPS, ID Week, FIS/HIS, and ACIPC). Perhaps the most interesting finding is that including a weblink or tweeting on certain topics (including C. difficile and the media) increase the chances of a tweet being retweeted, whereas, surprisingly, including a picture reduces the changes of a tweet being retweeted.
This one is for lovers of the brown stuff (no, the other brown stuff). I was taken by a large impressive epi study published in AIM showing that coffee consumption is associated with reduced all-cause mortality. Part of this seems to be tied up in a modified inflammatory response. Whilst the study didn’t mention infection specifically, clearly infection and inflammation are closely linked. So, this got me to asking whether anybody has looked at coffee consumption and infection / AMR outcomes?
If you pick an AMR bacterium of your choice, go to EARS-Net and plot prevalence across Europe, in most cases you’ll see a rough ‘north-south’ divide, with northern European countries doing better than southern European countries in terms of AMR rates (e.g. see below for antibiotic-resistant K. pneumoniae). What is driving this difference in AMR rates? A session at this year’s ECCMID asked just that question, hypothesising that weather / climate, economics, patient mix, or culture explain the difference. It was a fascinating session, so I thought I’d share some highlights!
PHE have just launched an interactive database for HCAI and AMR data from England using their ‘Fingertips’ platform. The HCAI data in the module has been available for years, but was buried in pretty dense Excel spreadsheets so tricky to visualise. The Fingertips platform makes data extraction and visualisation so easy even I can do it (example below).
The Review on AMR published their final instalment today: a report on Infection Prevention and Control, and Surveillance. A report on IPC was not planned at the start of the Review, so the existence of this report illustrates the responsiveness of the Review team. Also, having been peripherally involved in reviewing this report, I am aware that it was written within an extremely short timeframe but it does not show: it is comprehensive and thought-provoking (as it should be) with some useful recommendations.