ESBL

Acinetobacter contamination: is anywhere safe?

Jon Otter (@jonotter) Acinetobacter, Contamination , , , ,

A study from New York City describes an environmental survey of contamination with antibiotic-resistant Gram-negative bacteria on surfaces in the community. The authors hypothesise that resistant Gram-negatives could be carried by staff, patients and visitors beyond the confines of the hospital.

Almost 500 environemntal samples were collected from surfaces in the public areas of six hospitals and surrounding communities (<1 mile from the hospital) (443 samples), with a further surfaces from communities >1.5 miles from any hospital as a control (50 samples). A total of 70 GNR were identified (Figure), mostly fairly inoccousous species from a human disease viewpoint. However, some potential human pathogens were identified (Table).

Figure: breakdown of Gram-negative rods identified from surfaces in public areas of the hospital and surrounding community.GNR contam

Table: potential human pathogens identified from surfaces in public areas of the hospital and surrounding community.

n % Species
15 3.0 Acinetobacter baumannii
3 0.6 Citrobacter freundii
2 0.4 Escherichia coli
2 0.4 Stenotrophomonas maltophilia
1 0.2 Enterobacter cloacae

Some other important findings:

  • All of the A. baumannii isolates were resistant to ceftazidime, and one was resistant to imipenem (i.e. carbapenem-resistant). Eleven of the 15 were clonally related to one another and to a patient isolate from one of the hospitals.
  • One of the S. maltophilia isolates carried an integron-encoded VIM carbapenemase, which is potentially transmissible to other Gram-negative species (including Enterobacteriaceae).  
  • Each sample was cultured in an enrichment broth, and the broth was probed for the presence of a range of beta-lactamase genes (including ESBLs and carbapenemases). No beta-lactamases were detected (other than the S. maltophilia isolate). I suspect the picture would have been rather difference in New Dehli!
  • Although the survey included both surfaces in public areas of hospitals and in the community, it seems that most of the A. baumannii were identified on surfaces in the community.

So, is it a surprise to see environmental contamination with antibiotic-resistant Gram-negatvies on touch-surfaces in the community? Not really, A. baumannii in particular can survive on surfaces for ages, and ‘mimics’ Gram-positive bacteria in terms of its environmental longevity (i.e. months / years). That said, I performed a similar study looking for MRSA on touch surfaces in the community in London, and didn’t find any. More importantly, do we need to do anything about this? As the authors state, A. baumannii can be virtually impossible to eliminate from hospital surfaces without resorting to hydrogen peroxide vapour. So is it time to roll hydrogen peroxide vapour into your local Pizza Hut? Clearly not. You’d hope that cleaning and disinfection protocols, which should deal with this sort of contamination, are already established in these public places, but it would be prudent to reinforce these basic hygienic practices. Also, I agree with the authors that these findings represent and opportunity for the promotion of hand hygiene in the community.

The authors use strong words to describe NYC as ‘plagued’ with resistant Gram-negative bacteria, and a ‘dismal failure to control A. baumannii.’ If this epidemic continues, we can expect to see the focus of the problem – and the target for our interventions – shift from the acute hospital setting to encompass the community.

ESCMID MDR-GNR guidelines

Jon Otter (@jonotter) Acinetobacter, CRE , , , , ,

ESCMID experts recently released comprehensive guidelines for the control of MDR-GNR. Working with a limited evidence base, the experts managed to compile a coherent set of guidelines with graded recommendations. Given the important differences in the epidemiology of the various species and resistance patterns of MDR-GNR, this is really a 6-for-the-price-of-one set of guidelines, with separate recommendations for: ESBL-producing Enterobacteriaceae, MDR K. pneumoniae, MDR A. baumannnii, MDR P. aeruginosa, Burkholderia cepacia and Stenotrophmonas maltophilia.

Five key interventions are identified: hand hygiene measures, active screening cultures, contact precautions, environmental cleaning, and antimicrobial stewardship. ‘Selective’ decontamination using antibiotics, topical ‘source control’ using chlorhexidine, and infrastructure / education are also reviewed. Which of these is most important? Most studies included multiple interventions simultaneously, so it’s difficult to tell and it will probably depend on species and setting.

MDR-GNR controlFigure: The cornerstones of MDR-GNR control (but we don’t have enough data to say which is most important, and which are redundant).

A few points for discussion:

  • We still don’t really know what works to control MDR-GNR. Reflecting on my recent blog on influenza transmission, where the relative importance of various transmission routes varies by context, this also seems likely for MDR-GNR. The relative importance of say, environment vs. hands, is likely to vary by setting for a given MDR-GNR species. This makes definitive guidelines difficult to write!
  • The guidelines begin with a useful review of the differing transmission routes for the various MDR-GNR species. This shows that person-to-person spread of Klebsiella species and some other Enterobacteriaceae (such as Enterobacter species and Serratia species) seems to be more important than for E. coli. The non-fermenters A. baumannii and P. aeruginosa have some fundamental differences with one another and with the Enterobacteriace in terms of transmission routes. If I had to rate the importance of patient-to-patient spread vs. other routes for the various MDR-GNR I would say A. baumannii > Klebsiella species > other Enterobacteriaceae > P. aeruginosa > E. coli. But don’t hold me to it!
  • It seems odd that all of the recommendations are ‘strong’ but the evidence is graded mainly as ‘moderate’, ‘low’ or ‘very low’. Perhaps more ‘conditional’ recommendations would be a better fit with the quality of the evidence?
  • The recommendations are stratified by organism-group and setting (endemic or outbreak), which is a workable approach. What you’d do in an outbreak does probably differ from what you’d do in an endemic setting.
  • There’s a useful recommendation for the identification of a new CRE case to prompt contact tracing and enhanced local surveillance, in line with PHE and CDC recommendations.
  • There’s a little fence sitting when it comes to a recommendation for active surveillance cultures in the endemic setting: ‘the implementation of ASC [active surveillance cultures] should be suggested only as an additional measure and not included in the basic measures to control the spread of MDR-GNB in the endemic setting.’ Still not clear whether this is a recommendation for or against ASC in the endemic setting!
  • I was surprised not to see a recommendation to use a disinfectant to help bring A. baumannii outbreaks under control. I appreciate that there is little evidence in endemic settings, but controlling the environmental reservoir does seem to be important in controlling A. baumannii outbreaks.
  • The remit of the guidelines is for adult patients, but what to do on neonatal units and in paediatrics?
  • The guidelines are restricted to hospitalized patients, but what about long-term acute care facilities (that are riddled with CRE in some parts of the world) and long-term care facilities (that have an unknown but probably sizable burden of resistance)?
  • The searches were restricted to MDR bacteria according to ECDC criteria, but what about all those literature on preventing the transmission of resistant (but not multiresistant) and sensitive GNR? If something works to control GNR, there’s no reason why it shouldn’t work to control MDR-GNR (except, perhaps, for antibiotic stewardship).
  • Finally, if all else fails (and only then), consider closing the ward!

In summary, these guidelines are very well written and will provide useful guidance for those on the front line try to deal with endemic and epidemic MDR-GNR. However, above all else, they highlight the need for high-quality studies telling us what works to control MDR-GNR.

Article citation: Tacconelli E, Cataldo MA, Dancer SJ et al. ESCMID guidelines for the management of the infection control measures to reduce transmission of multidrug-resistant Gram-negative bacteria in hospitalized patients. Clin Microbiol Infect 2014; 20 Suppl 1: 1-55.

What works to control antibiotic-resistant bacteria in the ICU? A two-for-the-price-of-one study

Jon Otter (@jonotter) Antibiotic resistance, Epidemiology , , , , , , , , , , ,

Not content with a single well-planned study to provide information on what works to control multidrug-resistant organisms (MDROs) in the ICU, the MOSAR study group published an interrupted time series and a cluster randomized trial of various interventions in the Lancet ID. This makes the study rather complex to read and follow, but there are a number of important findings.

Interrupted time series – ‘hygiene’ intervention (chlorhexidine and hand hygiene)

Following a 6-month pre-intervention period, a 6-month interrupted time series of a ‘hygiene’ intervention (universal chlorhexidine bathing combined with hand-hygiene improvement) was performed. The key outcomes were twofold: whether there was a change in trend during each phase, and whether there was a step-change between the phases. The hygiene intervention effected a trend change reduction in all MDROs combined and MRSA individually, but not in VRE or ESBLs (Table). However, there was no step-change compared with the baseline period.

Table: Summary of reduced acquisition of all MDROs combined, or MRSA, VRE and ESBLs individually.

Derde table

Cluster RCT – screening and isolation

In the 12-month cluster RCT of screening and isolation, the 13 ICUs in 8 European countries were randomized to either rapid screening (PCR for MRSA and VRE plus chromogenic media for ESBL-Enterobacteriaceae) or conventional screening (chromogenic media for MRSA and VRE only). When analysed together, the introduction of rapid or conventional screening was not associated with a trend or step-change reduction in the acquisition of MDROs (Table).  In fact, there was an increase in the trend of MRSA acquisition. When comparing rapid with conventional screening, rapid screening was associated with a step-change increase in all MDROs and ESBLs.

Discussion

  • The study suggests, prima facie, not to bother with screening and isolation. Indeed, the authors conclude: “In the context of a sustained high level of compliance to hand hygiene and chlorhexidine bathing, screening and isolation of carriers do not reduce acquisition rates of multidrug-resistant bacteria, whether or not screening is done with rapid testing or conventional testing”. However, the major limitation here is that many of the ICUs were already doing screening and isolation during the baseline and hygiene intervention phases! I checked the manuscript carefully (including the supplemental material) to determine exactly how many units were, but it is not disclosed. To make this conclusion, surely the cluster RCT should have been ‘no screening and isolation’ vs. ‘screening and isolation’.
  • The increasing trend of MRSA associated with screening and isolation by either method, and step-change increases in all MDROs and ESBLs associated with rapid screening are difficult to interpret. Is an increase in acquisition due to screening and isolation plausible? Can more rapid detection of carriers really increase transmission (the turnaround time was 24 hours for rapid screening, and 48 hours for chromogenic screening)? The rapid screening arm also included chromogenic screening for ESBLs, whereas the conventional screening arm did not, so perhaps this apparent increase in acquisition is due to improved case ascertainment somehow?
  • Looking at the supplemental material, a single hospital seemed to contribute the majority of MRSA, with an increasing trend in the baseline period, and a sharp decrease during the hygiene intervention. There’s a suspicion, therefore, that an outbreak in a single ICU influenced the whole study in terms of MRSA. Similarly, a single hospital had a sharp increase in the ESBL rate throughout the screening intervention period, which may explain, to a degree, the increasing trend of ESBL in the rapid screening arm.
  • There was an evaluation of length of stay throughout the study phases, with a significant decrease during the hygiene intervention (26%), a significant increase during the rapid screening intervention, and no significant change during the conventional screening intervention. It seems likely that improved sensitivity of rapid screening identified more colonized patients who are more difficult to step down, resulting in an overall increase in length of stay.
  • The carriage of qacA and qacB was compared in the baseline and hygiene intervention phase, finding no difference in carriage rate (around 10% for both). This does not match our experience in London, where carriage rates of qacA increased when we introduced universal chlorhexidine bathing. However, this was restricted to a single clone; the acquisition of genes associated with reduced susceptibility to chlorhexidine seems to be clone-specific.
  • ICUs varied from open plan to 100% single rooms. Whilst the average proportion of patients in single rooms (15-22%) exceeded the average requirement of patients requiring isolation (around 10%), there was no measure of unit-level variation of single room usage. Since the study was analysed by cluster, the lack of single rooms on some units could have been more important than would appear from looking at the overall average. Put another way, a 100% open plan unit would have been forced to isolate all carriers on the open bay, and vice versa for a 100% single room unit.
  • The impact of the various interventions was moderate, even though a ‘high’ MRDO rate was necessary for enrollment (MRSA bacteraemia rate >10%, VRE bacteraemia rate >5%, or ESBL bacteraemia rate >10%). Would the impact of screening and isolation be different on a unit with a lower rate of MDROs? It’s difficult to tell.
  • Some of the microbiology is quite interesting: 8% of MRSA were not MRSA and 49% of VRE were not VRE! Also, 29% of the ESBLs were resistant to carbapenems (although it’s not clear how many of these were carbapenemase producers).

In summary, this is an excellent and ambitious study. The lack of impact on ESBL transmission in particular is disappointing, and may lead towards more frequent endogenous transmission for this group. The results do indicate screening and isolation did little to control MDRO transmission in units with improved hand hygiene combined with universal chlorhexidine. However, we need a ‘no screening and isolation’ vs. ‘screening and isolation’ cluster RCT before we ditch screening and isolation.

Article citation: Derde LP, Cooper BS, Goossens H et al. Interventions to reduce colonisation and transmission of antimicrobial-resistant bacteria in intensive care units: an interrupted time series study and cluster randomised trial. Lancet Infect Dis 2014; 14: 31-39.

HIS / IPS Spring Meeting: What’s that coming over the hill? It’s a MDR-GNR monster!

Jon Otter (@jonotter) Conferences , , , , , , , , ,

HISIPS logos2

The HIS / IPS Spring Meeting was on “What’s That Coming Over the Hill? Rising to the Challenge of Multi-Resistant Gram Negative Rods”. For those unfamiliar with the 2006 hit by the band “The Automatic”, the chorus goes: “What’s that coming over the hill? Is it a monster?”, hence the title to this post in light of the CDC-described “nightmare bacteria”! The full room (>250 delegates) illustrates how topical this issue is in the UK, and, indeed, globally. I enjoyed the day thoroughly, so thanks to all those involved in organizing the meeting.

Global Perspective – Professor Peter Hawkey

Prof Hawkey kicked off the day by considering how globalization has driven globalization in MDR-GNR, focusing mainly on ESBL-producing Enterobacteriaceae. Asia in particular is a hub of population (8/10 global ‘megacities’ are in Asia), antibiotic use (China was already the second largest consumer of imipenem back in 2002), aquaculture (Asia produces 62% of the world’s farmed fish) and travel. Prof Hawkey has been to India twice, and both times he returned colonized with an ESBL-producing Enterobacteriaceae (incidentally, we should probably start calling these ‘EPEs’.) The UK receives almost 3 million international arrivals from India and Pakistan; 80% will carry ESBL-producing bacteria.1 So, since people carry their faeces with them, the global trend of increasing rates of ESBL faecal carriage is concerning.2 Medical tourism is a related and increasingly common risk for the importation of ESBL and carbapenemase producing bacteria.3 The increasing rates of carbapenem usage is largely the consequence of the emergence of ESBL. The CPE picture in the USA is bleak, and perhaps a sign of things to come, where only two states have not yet had confirmed reports.

Controlling a national outbreak of CRE in Israel – Dr Mitchell Schwaber

Dr Schwaber described the impressive and successful national intervention to control CRE in Israel.4 Dr Schwaber began in the beginning (Genesis 1) where the infection control landscape was ‘without form and void’ in Israel; the emergence of CRE changed that. The problems began in 2007 after which CRE spread like wild-fire. Local interventions failed and 22% of K. pneumoniae were carbapenem-resistant at the peak of the epidemic. Long-term and long-term acute care facilities were identified as particular issues, as has been recently reported in the USA.5 CRE carriage was found to be 17% at the height of the epidemic in long-term acute care facilities.6 In these “black-hole” CRE reservoirs, there is little focus on infection prevention and control, and social contact is a necessary part of the rehabilitation process, so complete segregation is unhelpful. Active detection, isolation of carriers, and staff cohorting were cornerstones of the effective intervention, but implementation was challenging and required a “top down” approach. Directives and feedback were administered through hospital chief executives. In Dr Schwaber’s view, Israel began their national programme too late and succeeded by the skin of their teeth. Israel is a small country with a well-funded and connected healthcare system. Will the national programme succeed elsewhere, even if implemented earlier?

Dissecting the Epidemiology of the Enterobacteriaceae and Non-Fermenters – Dr Jon Otter (who he?)

My exploration of the differences in the epidemiology of resistant Enterobacteriaceae and non-fermenters (mainly A. baumannii) was designed to prompt anybody tempted to conflate these two related problems to think twice; not all monsters are created equal. Resistant Enterobacteriaceae and non-fermenters do share the same response to the Gram-stain (more or less) and can be resistant to key antibiotics occasionally through shared mechanisms (principally the carbapenemases). But that’s about it. Otherwise they’re like chalk and cheese. (A. baumannii = chalk, which turns to dust; Enterobacteriaeae = a good cheese, which ultimately ends up in the gut.) You can read more about my talk and download my slides in yesterday’s post.

Infection prevention and control in the acute setting – Sheila Donlon

Sheila Donlon began by describing the low prevalence of MDR-GNR in Ireland. Around 2% of Enterobacteriaceae are carbapenem resistant, according to a recent point prevalence survey. Sheila’s comment that you need to go above and beyond standard precautions to control MDR-GNR resonated with Dr Schwaber’s talk, and with Dr Thom’s assessment from the SHEA meeting last week. Sheila spent the remainder of the talk discussing some of the approaches outlined in the Irish MDRO screening and control guidelines. Is hand hygiene for patients a black spot?7 How do we isolate patients effectively when we only have 20% single rooms? How and when should we cohort staff? What is the appropriate PPE? When should we consider ward closure, environmental screening or hydrogen peroxide vapour disinfection? Can we or should we discontinue contact precautions for CRE carriers?

Getting the message over: strategies for ensuring new guidance is put into practice – Dr Evonne Curran

Dr Curran outlined a frequent gap between theory and practice; guidance written in an ‘ivory tower’ without the correct stakeholders around the table will fail to influence practice. Even if the guidance is carefully crafted with implementation in mind, what happens on the wards will never perfectly reflect the guidance; we need a healthy dose of pragmatism. The addition of ‘adjectives’ don’t add clarity: ‘aggressive’, ‘robust’, ‘effective’, ‘strict’, ‘excellent’ are all vague; guidelines need to be specific.8 Dr Curran’s analysis of the differing definitions of ‘standard precautions’ was outstanding, and illustrates the challenges of local interpretation of international guidelines. We need to speak to front-line staff in a language they understand to implement guidance into practice.9

Dealing with Multidrug-Resistant Acinetobacter and Stenotrophomonas – Dr Beryl Oppenheim

Dr Beryl Oppenheim considered MDR Acinetobacter and Stenotrophomonas. These environmental non-fermenters are more of a niche problem than the resistant Enterobacteriaceae, but tend to be more resistant. Dr Oppenheim spent most of the time considering A. baumannii, which can be considered an “honorary Staphylococcus”; it’s more than a little Gram-positive!10 MDR A. baumannii combine inherent and acquired resistant mechanisms, survive for prolonged periods on dry surfaces and have the ability to produce biofilms.10-12 This makes them ideally suited for survival in the antibiotic-rich ICU environment, where they are most commonly problematic. MDR A. baumannii are also associated with infection following trauma in military hospitals.13 MDR A. baumannii is a problematic pathogen for a number of reasons. The epidemiology of hospital outbreaks can be difficult to dissect, with whole genome sequencing now the gold standard typing method.14 Contact isolation, perhaps even pre-emptive, is a must. Cleaning is critical, but the best approach is not obvious; ‘no-touch’ automated disinfection systems may be warranted sometimes.15 Active screening is rational but practically challenging: which sites to screen (a rectal swab alone is not sufficient) and which methods to use? Dr Oppenheim concluded by reflecting on the patchy prevalence of MDR A. baumannii (and Stenotrophomonas); it’s not a problem everywhere, but it’s a major problem where it rears its monstrous head.

Decontamination of instruments, equipment and the environment – Peter Hoffman

Peter Hoffman in his inimitable style reviewed the risks and environmental interventions specific to MDR-GNR. Contrary to the view of some, you can’t take a “leave them and they’ll die off approach” for Gram-negative rods; they will survive on dry surfaces.16 The issues covered by Peter included:

  • Outbreaks linked to endoscopes (like the recent outbreak of CRE in Illinous).17
  • The problems associated with designating equipment as single-use. Oftentimes only part can feasibly be single-use, meaning that there is a body of the equipment that needs to be decontaminated (and often isn’t). Portable ultrasound machines are a particular challenge. Safe working methods (one hand for the patient, one for the machine) are sound in theory, but challenging in practice (requiring considerable manual dexterity)! Ultrasound gel must be single-use sachets, regardless of cost implications.
  • Don’t rely on privacy curtains with antimicrobial claims; they should be changed between MDR-GNR patients. (I wonder whether disinfection using advanced formulations of liquid hydrogen peroxide may be another option.18)
  • Don’t rely on wipes for disinfecting mattress covers, especially ‘dynamic’ mattresses, which are full of bug-trapping folds. They probably don’t provide enough wetting (amongst other things).
  • Should we invest in single-use pillows?19
  • Water systems require careful management, particularly for P. aeruginosa.20
  • Bed-pan washers represent a real risk for faecally-associated MDR-GNR. Why are they not more often foot pedal operated?
  • Physiotherapy equipment on rehabilitation units is made for physiotherapy, not for effective decontamination. Careful design, with a dose of compromise, is required.
  • Peter rarely believes negative results from environmental sampling due to a high risk of spot contamination.21

Peter’s somewhat provocative conclusion was that “there are no special decontamination requirements to control MDR-GNR.” I think the point here was that the issues outlined above are generic, such that addressing them would improve the safety of all patients, not just those with MDR-GNR. However, I fear that the conclusion could be misinterpreted to mean that increased focus on the potential environmental reservoir is not warranted when dealing with MDR-GNR. This does not concur with Peter’s citation of the surprising survival capacity of MDR-GNR, and Dr Oppenheim’s discussion of the ‘critical’ environmental reservoir for MDR A. baumannii.

Controversy: Decolonization and Staff Screening – Prof Peter Wilson

Prof Wilson began by challenging the feasibility of the recommended PHE screening approach. It would result in a lot of patients being identified for screening, and a high proportion of those held preemptively in contact isolation until confirmed negative. Prof Wilson suggesting prioritizing NDM and KPC producers over OXA-48 producers. Whilst I like this idea in principle, I am not sure that we have enough epidemiological data to support this distinction. The recent ESCMID guidelines are a useful resource on screening approaches, if a little wordy.22 Staff screening should be avoided, unless a member of staff is clearly implicated in transmission; what would you do with a carrier? Peter’s view is that clearance swabs are a waste of time, and advocated a “once positive, always positive” approach to CRE. “Once positive, always positive” works in a low prevalence setting, but comes increasingly unstuck as prevalence increases. Is selective decontamination the answer?23,24 Not really; whilst individual patient mortality is decreased, neither selective oral decontamination (SOD) nor selective digestive decontamination (SDD) decolonize carriers. The potential collateral damage of SOD and SDD when applied to MDR-GNR is clear: hastening the arrival of pan-drug resistance.

Therapeutic Options and Looking to the Future – Prof David Livermore

The resistance profile of MDR-GNR leaves few antibiotic classes left; sometimes only colistin, and colistin-resistance is emerging in both Enterobacteriaceae25 and non-fermenters26. Indeed, a national Italian survey found that 22% of KPC-producing K. pneumoniae were resistant to colistin.27 Leaving aside the risk of nephrotoxicity,28 colistin monotherapy results in the development of colistin resistance.29 Another issue relates to challenges in laboratory testing. Apparent MDR-GNR susceptibility depends on the testing methods used, and may not match clinical outcome:30 the mice who died despite antibiotic treatment in one study would surely query the EUCAST and CLSI breakpoints that defined their K. pneumoniae isolates as susceptible.31 The use of existing and more creative combinations of existing antibiotics can help. Also, a small number of new antibiotics are in development (although we have run out of truly novel targets, meaning that they are modifications of existing classes). A more promising approach is the use of antibiotics combined with β-lactamase inbibitors, but these are currently at a fairly early stage of clinical trial.32

Summary and points for discussion:

  • People carry their faeces with them, so the global trend of increasing rates of carriage of resistant Enterobacteriaceae is concerning.
  • Will the successful national CRE control programme in Israel (a small country with a well-funded, connected healthcare system) be feasible elsewhere?
  • Can we safely ‘de-isolate’ CRE carriers? Israel has managed to do it, but I suspect the answer will depend on your level of prevalence and pragmatism.
  • Do not conflate the epidemiology of resistant non-fermenters and Enterobacteriaceae; they’re like chalk and cheese!
  • Do we have the right stakeholders around the table to write national guidance, and is it written with implementation in mind?
  • How best to address the environmental reservoir for A. baumannii and, to a lesser extent, CRE?
  • We need to carefully consider the likely collateral damage before applying SOD / SDD when applied to MDR-GNR: pan-drug resistance!
  • How far can combinations of existing antibiotics, novel combination and new treatment options go in treating MDR-GNR? Probably not that far; prevention is better than cure.

References

1.       Tham J, Odenholt I, Walder M, Brolund A, Ahl J, Melander E. Extended-spectrum beta-lactamase-producing Escherichia coli in patients with travellers’ diarrhoea. Scand J Infect Dis 2010; 42: 275-280.

2.       Woerther PL, Burdet C, Chachaty E, Andremont A. Trends in human fecal carriage of extended-spectrum beta-lactamases in the community: toward the globalization of CTX-M. Clin Microbiol Rev 2013; 26: 744-758.

3.       Hanefeld J, Horsfall D, Lunt N, Smith R. Medical tourism: a cost or benefit to the NHS? PLoS ONE 2013; 8: e70406.

4.       Schwaber MJ, Carmeli Y. An ongoing national intervention to contain the spread of carbapenem-resistant Enterobacteriaceae. Clin Infect Dis 2014; 58: 697-703.

5.       Lin MY, Lyles-Banks RD, Lolans K et al. The importance of long-term acute care hospitals in the regional epidemiology of Klebsiella pneumoniae carbapenemase-producing Enterobacteriaceae. Clin Infect Dis 2013; 57: 1246-1252.

6.       Ben-David D, Masarwa S, Navon-Venezia S et al. Carbapenem-resistant Klebsiella pneumoniae in post-acute-care facilities in Israel. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2011; 32: 845-853.

7.       Landers T, Abusalem S, Coty MB, Bingham J. Patient-centered hand hygiene: the next step in infection prevention. Am J Infect Control 2012; 40: S11-17.

8.       Rouse W, Fuzzy Models of Human Problem Solving, in Advances in Fuzzy Sets, Possibility Theory, and Applications, Wang P., Editor. 1983, Springer US. p. 377-386.

9.       Pronovost PJ, Berenholtz SM, Needham DM. Translating evidence into practice: a model for large scale knowledge translation. BMJ 2008; 337: a1714.

10.     Wagenvoort JH, Joosten EJ. An outbreak Acinetobacter baumannii that mimics MRSA in its environmental longevity. J Hosp.Infect 2002; 52: 226-227.

11.     Strassle P, Thom KA, Johnson JK et al. The effect of terminal cleaning on environmental contamination rates of multidrug-resistant Acinetobacter baumannii. Am J Infect Control 2012; 40: 1005-1007.

12.     Espinal P, Marti S, Vila J. Effect of biofilm formation on the survival of Acinetobacter baumannii on dry surfaces. J Hosp Infect 2012; 80: 56-60.

13.     Scott P, Deye G, Srinivasan A et al. An outbreak of multidrug-resistant Acinetobacter baumannii-calcoaceticus complex infection in the US military health care system associated with military operations in Iraq. Clin Infect Dis 2007; 44: 1577-1584.

14.     Lewis T, Loman NJ, Bingle L et al. High-throughput whole-genome sequencing to dissect the epidemiology of Acinetobacter baumannii isolates from a hospital outbreak. J Hosp Infect 2010; 75: 37-41.

15.     Otter JA, Yezli S, Perl TM, Barbut F, French GL. Is there a role for “no-touch” automated room disinfection systems in infection prevention and control? J Hosp Infect 2013; 83: 1-13.

16.     Kramer A, Schwebke I, Kampf G. How long do nosocomial pathogens persist on inanimate surfaces? A systematic review. BMC Infect Dis 2006; 6: 130.

17.     Centers for Disease C, Prevention. Notes from the Field: New Delhi metallo-beta-lactamase-producing Escherichia coli associated with endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography – Illinois, 2013. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 2014; 62: 1051.

18.     Rutala WA, Gergen MF, Sickbert-Bennett EE, Williams DA, Weber DJ. Effectiveness of improved hydrogen peroxide in decontaminating privacy curtains contaminated with multidrug-resistant pathogens. Am J Infect Control 2014; 42: 426-428.

19.     Reiss-Levy E, McAllister E. Pillows spread methicillin-resistant staphylococci. Med J Aust 1979; 1: 92.

20.     Loveday HP, Wilson J, Kerr K, Pitchers R, Walker JT, Browne J. Pseudomonas infection and healthcare water systems – a rapid systematic review. J Hosp Infect 2014; 86: 7-15.

21.     Lerner A, Adler A, Abu-Hanna J, Meitus I, Navon-Venezia S, Carmeli Y. Environmental contamination by carbapenem-resistant Enterobacteriaceae. J Clin Microbiol 2013; 51: 177-181.

22.     Tacconelli E, Cataldo MA, Dancer SJ et al. ESCMID guidelines for the management of the infection control measures to reduce transmission of multidrug-resistant Gram-negative bacteria in hospitalized patients. Clin Microbiol Infect 2014; 20 Suppl 1: 1-55.

23.     Price R, MacLennan G, Glen J. Selective digestive or oropharyngeal decontamination and topical oropharyngeal chlorhexidine for prevention of death in general intensive care: systematic review and network meta-analysis. BMJ 2014; 348:

24.     Daneman N, Sarwar S, Fowler RA, Cuthbertson BH, Su DCSG. Effect of selective decontamination on antimicrobial resistance in intensive care units: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Lancet Infect Dis 2013; 13: 328-341.

25.     Bogdanovich T, Adams-Haduch JM, Tian GB et al. Colistin-Resistant, Klebsiella pneumoniae Carbapenemase (KPC)-Producing Klebsiella pneumoniae Belonging to the International Epidemic Clone ST258. Clin Infect Dis 2011; 53: 373-376.

26.     Agodi A, Voulgari E, Barchitta M et al. Spread of a carbapenem- and colistin-resistant Acinetobacter baumannii ST2 clonal strain causing outbreaks in two Sicilian hospitals. J Hosp Infect 2014; 86: 260-266.

27.     Giani T, Pini B, Arena F et al. Epidemic diffusion of KPC carbapenemase-producing Klebsiella pneumoniae in Italy: results of the first countrywide survey, 15 May to 30 June 2011. Euro Surveill 2013; 18:

28.     Drekonja DM, Beekmann SE, Elliott S et al. Challenges in the Management of Infections due to Carbapenem-Resistant Enterobacteriaceae. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2014; 35: 437-439.

29.     Lee GC, Burgess DS. Treatment of Klebsiella pneumoniae carbapenemase (KPC) infections: a review of published case series and case reports. Ann Clin Microbiol Antimicrob 2012; 11: 32.

30.     Weisenberg SA, Morgan DJ, Espinal-Witter R, Larone DH. Clinical outcomes of patients with Klebsiella pneumoniae carbapenemase-producing K. pneumoniae after treatment with imipenem or meropenem. Diagn Microbiol Infect Dis 2009; 64: 233-235.

31.     Mimoz O, Gregoire N, Poirel L, Marliat M, Couet W, Nordmann P. Broad-spectrum beta-lactam antibiotics for treating experimental peritonitis in mice due to Klebsiella pneumoniae producing the carbapenemase OXA-48. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 2012; 56: 2759-2760.

32.     Drawz SM, Papp-Wallace KM, Bonomo RA. New beta-Lactamase Inhibitors: a Therapeutic Renaissance in an MDR World. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 2014; 58: 1835-1846.

Dissecting the epidemiology of resistant Enterobacteriaceae and non-fermenters

Jon Otter (@jonotter) Conferences , , , , , , , , , ,

chalk cheese

It was a great privilege to speak at the HIS / IPS Spring Meeting today. You can download my slides here. The meeting was entitled: “What’s that coming over the hill? Rising to the challenge of multi-resistant Gram-negative rods”. This, I think, is an (oblique) reference to the signature hit of a Welsh band ‘The Automatic’: “What’s that coming over the hill? Is it a monster?”. So, are multi-resistant Gram-negative rods monsters lurking underneath the bed? Dr Tom Frieden, CDC Director, has described CRE as “nightmare bacteria” and Dr Sally Davies, CMO, has painted a bleak post-antibiotic era picture in reference to the emergence of these bacteria. So, is it a monster? Yes, I think it probably is. But all monsters are not created equal…

My exploration of the differences in the epidemiology of resistant Enterobacteriaceae and non-fermenters (mainly A. baumannii) was designed to prompt anybody tempted to conflate these two related problems to think twice. Resistant Enterobacteriaceae and non-fermenters do share the same response to the Gram-stain and can be resistant to key antibiotics occasionally through shared mechanisms (principally the carbapenemases). But that’s about it. Otherwise they’re like chalk and cheese. (A. baumannii = chalk, which turns to dust; Enterobacteriaeae = a good cheese, which ultimately ends up in the gut.) (Table).

Table: Comparing the epidemiology of resistant Enterobacteriaceae and non-fermenters. 

Enterobacteriaceae (K. pneumoniae) Non-fermenters (A. baumannii)
At-risk population Primarily acute pts ICU, burns
Risk factors Travel Trauma, ICU stay
Epidemic potential High Low
Clinical UTI VAP
Mortality Stark increase (CPE) Minimal increase
Prevalence Emerging (rapidly) Patchy but stable
Sites of colonisation GI tract Skin, resp & GI
Colonization duration Months to >1 year Days to weeks
Transmission routes Hands ++, Env +/- Hands +, Env ++
Resistance Mainly acquired Intrinsic & acquired
Common clones KPC-producing ST258 Intl clones I-III

Probably the most important difference between the Enterobacteriaceae and the non-fermenters is their at-risk populations. A. baumannii is restricted mainly to high-risk patients in intensive care units. This is not so for the resistant Enterobacteriaceae, which have the potential to cause infection and colonization in a wide group of hospitalized patients and, perish the thought, the community. Related to this is their epidemic potential: resistant Enterobacteriaceae, including CRE, have already demonstrated the capacity to spread rapidly and broadly in hospital and to a lesser extent community populations. Rates of antibiotic resistance in A. baumannii can be high, but it does not possess the tools to spread outside of high-risk hospitalized patients.

Other differences between these two groups of resistant Gram-negative bacteria include the types of infection they cause and associated attributable mortality, their prevalence, their sites and duration of colonization, their transmission routes, their resistance mechanisms and their population structure and clonal dissemination patterns (Table).

One of the many acronyms in current circulation to describe resistant Gram-negatives is CRO (carbapenem-resistant organisms), which is used as a catch-all term to encompass both Enterobacteriaceae and non-fermenters. Given the fundamental differences in epidemiology, I don’t think it’s very helpful. After all, MRSA is a ‘CRO’ but we wouldn’t dream of lumping it together with K. pneumoniae or A. baumannii! So, we should expunge ’CRO’ from our collective vernacular and stick to CRE and CRAB.

I accept that there are limitations with my presentation. You could (and probably should) further dissect the epidemiology of K. pneumoniae vs. E. coli, A. baumannii vs. P. aeruginosa, and ESBL vs. carbapenemase producers. I suspect we will eventually have data to demonstrate different clinical manifestations associated with the various common carbapenemase genes.

That said, I think a separation of the resistant Enterobacteriaceae and non-fermenters is a useful distinction in terms of at-risk populations, epidemic potential, and effective control measures.

Finally, my preparation for the talk raised several challenging questions:

  • Which interventions work?
  • Are they different for Enterobacteriaceae and non-fermenters? (Probably, given their epidemiology.)
  • Has our focus on CPE taken our eye off CPNF, which are the ‘clear and present danger’ for many of us?
  • What is the prevalence of CPE in the UK?
  • How much do we believe a single negative screen?
  • Do we need rapid molecular diagnostics?
  • What is the duration of colonisation?
  • Are there decolonisation strategies other than “selective” decontamination using antibiotics?

Image credit: ‘Chalk and Cheese’ by Jackson Boyle.

No need to worry about environmental contamination with Enterobacteriaceae…or is there?

Jon Otter (@jonotter) Contamination, CRE , , , , ,

It was once thought that only bacterial endospores would survive on dry hospital surfaces for extended periods (measured in days and weeks rather than hours). Microbiological data indicates that a range of vegetative bacteria can survive on dry surfaces for extended periods. Whilst differing testing methods and conditions make comparison of survival times between studies difficult, it is clear that non-fermenting Gram-negative bacteria (such as Acinetobacter baumannii and Pseudomonas aeruginosa) survive considerably longer than the Enterobacteriaceae (such as Klebsiella pneumoniae and Escherichia coli).  However, the Enterobacteriaceae can survive for more than a month on dry surfaces. Indeed, a 2009 laboratory study highlighted substantial strain variation in the survival of K. pneumoniae, with the survival of three strains ranging from a 6-log reduction inside 3 weeks to a 1-log reduction over six weeks.

Several recent studies have evaluated environmental contamination with ESBL-producing Enterobacteriaceae. One French study evaluated surface contamination on five standardized sites surrounding patients infected or colonized with ESBL-producing Klebsiella spp. (n=48) or ESBL-producing E. coli (n=46). Environmental contamination was significantly more likely in the rooms of Klebsiella spp. patients (31% of 48 rooms positive; 6% of 240 sites positive) vs. E. coli patients (4% of 46 rooms positive; 1% of 230 sites sites). Multiple regression identified carriage of ESBL-producing K. pneuomiae as the only independent predictor of ESBL environmental contamination (adjusted odds ratio=10.38, 95% confidence interval = 1.24-228.58). Surprisingly, only 52% of the ESBL-producing isolates were identical to the patients in the room, suggesting survival of ESBL-producing bacteria from prior occupants or importation into the room. Another French study with a similar design identified comparable rates of contamination, and also found that contamination was significantly more likely with K. pneumoniae than with E. coli.

environmental sampling

Environmental contamination with C. difficile spores, VRE and non-fermenting Gram-negative bacteria is now a well-established route of transmission. Whilst the same cannot be said for the Enterobacteriaceae, these studies combined with an Israeli article recently featured on this Micro Blog, show that environmental contamination with Enterobacteriaceae may be more important than previously thought. These findings are particularly important in light of the recent global spread of carbapenemase-producing K. pneumoniae.

Article citations:

Guet-Revillet H, Le Monnier A, Breton N et al. Environmental contamination with extended-spectrum beta-lactamases: is there any difference between Escherichia coli and Klebsiella spp? Am J Infect Control 2012; 40: 845-848.

Gbaguidi-Haore H, Talon D, Hocquet D, Bertrand X. Hospital environmental contamination with Enterobacteriaceae producing extended-spectrum β-lactamase. Am J Infect Cont 2013; Jan 18 [Epub ahead of print].