Clinical laboratory data was key in identifying antibiotic-resistant bacteria responsible for surge in BSIs in hospitals and other healthcare facilities in 2020 and 2021
Clinical laboratory data compiled by the European Antimicrobial Resistance Surveillance Network (EARS-Net) shows that a massive increase in bloodstream infections (BSIs) occurred among EU nations during the first two years of the COVID-19 pandemic. The study found that BSIs caused by certain antimicrobial-resistant (AMR) pathogens, known as superbugs, more than doubled in EU hospitals and healthcare facilities in 2020 and 2021.
Microbiologists and clinical laboratory managers in the US may find it valuable to examine this peer-reviewed study into AMR involved in blood stream infections. It could contain useful insights for diagnosing patients suspected of BSIs in US hospitals where sepsis prevention and antibiotic stewardship programs are major priorities.
“Antimicrobial resistance undermines modern medicine and puts millions of lives at risk,” said Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, PhD, Director-General, World Health Organization, in a WHO press release. “To truly understand the extent of the global threat and mount an effective public health response to [antimicrobial resistance], we must scale up microbiology testing and provide quality-assured data across all countries, not just wealthier ones.” Clinical laboratories in the US may be called upon to submit data on bloodstream infections in this country. (Photo copyright: WHO.)
Clinical Laboratories in EU Report Huge Increase in Carbapenem Resistance
To perform their study, researchers measured the increase in Acinetobacter BSIs between 2020 and 2021, the first two years of the COVID-19 pandemic. Their data originated from qualitative regular antimicrobial susceptibility testing (AST) from blood samples collected by local clinical laboratories in the European Union/European economic area (EU/EEA) nations.
The researchers limited their dataset to Acinetobacter BSI information from the European medical laboratories that documented results of carbapenem susceptibility testing for the bacterial species.
Carbapenems are a class of very powerful antibiotics that are typically used to treat severe bacterial infections. A total of 255 EU/EEA clinical laboratories reported their data for the study. The scientists found that the percentages of Acinetobacter resistance varied considerably between EU/EEA nations, so they separated the countries into three different groups:
Nations in Group One—The Netherlands, Belgium, Austria, Estonia, Denmark, Germany, Iceland, Finland, Luxembourg, Ireland, Norway, Sweden, and Malta—experienced less than 10% resistance to carbapenems.
Nations in Group Two—Slovenia, Czech Republic, and Portugal—had carbapenem resistance between 10% and 50%.
Nations in Group Three—Croatia, Bulgaria, Greece, Cyprus, Italy, Hungary, Lithuania, Latvia, Romania, Poland, Spain, and Slovakia—demonstrated carbapenem resistance equal or greater than 50%.
The study also found that Acinetobacter BSIs rose by 57% and case counts increased by 114% in 2020 and 2021 when compared to 2018 and 2019. The percentage of resistance to carbapenems rose to 66% in 2020 and 2021, up from 48% in 2018 and 2019.
Antimicrobial Resistance Especially High in Hospital Settings
The researchers further arranged the data into three hospital ward types: intensive care unit (ICU), non-ICU, and unknown. The increase in BSIs caused by Acinetobacter species resistant to carbapenems was greater in ICU-admitted individuals (144%) than non-ICU-admitted individuals (41%).
There are more than 50 species of Acinetobacter bacteria and various strains are often resistant to many types of commonly-used antibiotics. Symptoms of an Acinetobacter infection usually appear within 12 days after a person comes into contact with the bacteria. These symptoms may include:
Blood infections,
Urinary tract infections,
Pneumonia, and
Wound infections.
Healthy people have a low risk of contracting an Acinetobacter infection with the highest number of these infections occurring in hospitals and other healthcare settings. Acinetobacter bacteria can survive for a long time on surfaces and equipment, and those working in healthcare or receiving treatment are in the highest risk category.
The prevalence of this type of bacteria increases in relation to the use of medical equipment, such as ventilators and catheters, as well as antibiotic treatments.
WHO Report Validates EARS-Net Research
In December of 2022, the World Health Organization (WHO) issued a Global Antimicrobial Resistance and Use Surveillance System (GLASS) report that revealed the presence of an increasing resistance to antibiotics in some bacterial infections. That report showed high levels (above 50%) of resistance in bacteria that frequently caused bloodstream infections in hospitals, such as Klebsiella pneumonia and Acinetobacter.
The WHO report examined data collected during 2020 from 87 different countries and found that common bacterial infections are becoming increasingly resistant to treatments. Both Klebsiella pneumoniae and Acinetobacter can be life threatening and often require treatment with strong antibiotics, such as carbapenems.
More research is needed to determine the reasons behind increases in Acinetobacter infections as reported in European hospitals and other healthcare settings, and to ascertain the extent to which they are related to hospitalizations and the upsurge in antimicrobial resistance during the COVID-19 pandemic.
Microbiologists and clinical laboratory managers in the US may want to learn more about the fIndings of this European study involving AMR and use those insights to plan accordingly for any future increase in bloodstream infections in this country.
Media reports in the United Kingdom cite bad timing and centralization of public health laboratories as reasons the UK is struggling to meet testing goals
Clinical pathologists and medical laboratories in UK and the US function within radically different healthcare systems. However, both countries faced similar problems deploying widespread diagnostic testing for SARS-CoV-2, the novel coronavirus that causes COVID-19. And the differences between America’s private healthcare system and the UK’s government-run, single-payer system are exacerbating the UK’s difficulties expanding coronavirus testing to its citizens.
The Dark Daily reported in March that a manufacturing snafu had delayed distribution of a CDC-developed diagnostic test to public health laboratories. This meant virtually all testing had to be performed at the CDC, which further slowed testing. Only later that month was the US able to significantly ramp up its testing capacity, according to data from the COVID Tracking Project.
However, the UK has fared even worse, trailing Germany, the US, and other countries, according to reports in Buzzfeed and other media outlets. On March 11, the UK government established a goal of administering 10,000 COVID-19 tests per day by late March, but fell far short of that mark, The Guardian reported. The UK government now aims to increase this to 25,000 tests per day by late April.
This compares with about 70,000 COVID-19 tests per day in
Germany, the Guardian reported, and about 130,000 per day in the US
(between March 26 and April 14), according to the COVID Tracking Project.
“Ministers need to explain why the NHS [National Health Service] is not testing to capacity, why we are falling behind other countries, and what measures they will put in place to address this situation as a matter of urgency,” MP Keir Starmer (above) said in Parliament in late March, The Guardian reported. (Photo copyright: The Guardian.)
What’s Behind the UK’s Lackluster COVID-19 Testing
Response
In January, when the outbreak first hit, Public Health England (PHE) “began a strict program of contact tracing and testing potential cases,” Buzzfeed reported. But due to limited medical laboratory capacity and low supplies of COVID-19 test kits, the government changed course and de-emphasized testing, instead focusing on increased ICU and ventilator capacity. (Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland each have separate public health agencies and national health services.)
Later, when the need for more COVID-19 testing became
apparent, UK pathology laboratories had to contend with global shortages of
testing kits and chemicals, The Guardian reported. At present, COVID-19 testing
is limited to healthcare workers and patients displaying symptoms of pneumonia,
acute
respiratory distress syndrome, or influenza-like illness, PHE stated in “COVID-19:
Investigation and Initial Clinical Management of Possible Cases” guidance.
Another factor that has limited widespread COVID-19 testing is the country’s highly-centralized system of public health laboratories, Buzzfeed reported. “This has limited its ability to scale and process results at the same speed as other countries, despite its efforts to ramp up capacity,” Buzzfeed reported. Public Health England, which initially performed COVID-19 testing at one lab, has expanded to 12 labs. NHS laboratories also are testing for the SARS-CoV-2 coronavirus, PHE stated in “COVID-19: How to Arrange Laboratory Testing” guidance.
Sharon Peacock, PhD, PHE’s National Infection Service Interim Director, Professor of Public Health and Microbiology at the University of Cambridge, and honorary consultant microbiologist at the Cambridge clinical and public health laboratory based at Addenbrookes Hospital, defended this approach at a March hearing of the Science and Technology Committee (Commons) in Parliament.
“Laboratories in this country have largely been merged, so we have a smaller number of larger [medical] laboratories,” she said. “The alternative is to have a single large testing site. From my perspective, it is more efficient to have a bigger testing site than dissipating our efforts into a lot of laboratories around the country.”
Writing in The Guardian, Paul Hunter, MB ChB MD, a microbiologist and Professor of Medicine at University of East Anglia, cites historic factors behind the testing issue. The public health labs, he explained, were established in 1946 as part of the National Health Service. At the time, they were part of the country’s defense against bacteriological warfare. They became part of the UK’s Health Protection Agency (now PHE) in 2003. “Many of the laboratories in the old network were shut down, taken over by local hospitals or merged into a smaller number of regional laboratories,” he wrote.
US Facing Different Clinical Laboratory Testing Problems
Meanwhile, a few medical laboratories in the US are now contending with a different problem: Unused testing capacity, Nature reported. For example, the Broad Institute of MIT and Harvard in Cambridge, Mass., can run up to 2,000 tests per day, “but we aren’t doing that many,” Stacey Gabriel, PhD, a human geneticist and Senior Director of the Genomics Platform at the Broad Institute, told Nature. Factors include supply shortages and incompatibility between electronic health record (EHR) systems at hospitals and academic labs, Nature reported.
Politico
cited the CDC’s narrow testing criteria, and a lack of supplies for collecting
and analyzing patient samples—such as swabs and personal protective equipment—as
reasons for the slowdown in testing at some clinical laboratories in the US.
Challenges Deploying Antibody Tests in UK
The UK has also had problems deploying serology tests designed to detect whether people have developed antibodies against the virus. In late March, Peacock told members of Parliament that at-home test kits for COVID-19 would be available to the public through Amazon and retail pharmacy chains, the Independent reported. And, Politico reported that the government had ordered 3.5 million at-home test kits for COVID-19.
However, researchers at the University of Oxford who had been charged with validating the accuracy of the kits, reported on April 5 that the tests had not performed well and did not meet criteria established by the UK Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA). “We see many false negatives (tests where no antibody is detected despite the fact we know it is there), and we also see false positives,” wrote Professor Sir John Bell, GBE, FRS, Professor of Medicine at the university, in a blog post. No test [for COVID-19], he wrote, “has been acclaimed by health authorities as having the necessary characteristics for screening people accurately for protective immunity.”
He added that it would be “at least a month” before suppliers could develop an acceptable COVID-19 test.
In the United States, the Cellex COVID-19 test is intended for use by medical laboratories. As well, many research sites, academic medical centers, clinical laboratories, and in vitro diagnostics (IVD) companies in the US are working to develop and validate serological tests for COVID-19.
Within weeks, it is expected that a growing number of such
tests will qualify for a Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Emergency Use
Authorization (EUA) and become available for use in patient care.
By consolidating information, automating data collection, and harnessing new cloud computing technologies, doctors hope to silence the endless array of alarms and inject efficiency and personalization into the critical care experience
Some healthcare experts believe it is time that intensive care units undergo a workflow redesign to improve the quality of care they deliver, while reducing or eliminating design elements that contribute to errors. Clinical laboratories have a stake in this redesign effort, as they provide medical laboratory tests for patients in ICUs.
“What I want to do for the ICU is what Steve Jobs did for the iPhone,” said Peter Pronovost, PhD, MD, in an article published in STAT. Pronovost is working to improve both the flow of information and delivery of care in the ICU of Johns Hopkins Hospital in Baltimore, Maryland. (more…)
Some healthcare experts attribute this significant reduction in ICU infections to greater transparency in outcomes data. The CDC’s report, released on March 1, 2011, covered the period from 2001 through 2009. The CDC said that, in 2001, 43,000 ICU patients experienced what today is called a hospital acquired infection (HAI). But by 2009, that number had dropped to 18,000!
The CDC calculates that, thanks to hospital diligence and participation in programs designed to reduce HAIs, at least $1.8 billion and 27,000 lives were saved between 2001 and 2009. However, the CDC noted that other areas of healthcare did not show similar improvements in patient outcomes. (more…)
