Some hospital organizations are pushing back, stating that the new regulations are ‘too rigid’ and interfere with doctors’ treatment of patients
In August, the Biden administration finalized provisions for hospitals to meet specific treatment metrics for all patients with suspected sepsis. Hospitals that fail to meet these requirements risk the potential loss of millions of dollars in Medicare reimbursements annually. This new federal rule did not go over well with some in the hospital industry.
Sepsis kills about 350,000 people every year. One in three people who contract the deadly blood infection in hospitals die, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Thus, the federal government has once again implemented a final rule that requires hospitals, clinical laboratories, and medical providers to take immediate actions to diagnose and treat sepsis patients.
The effort has elicited pushback from several healthcare organizations that say the measure is “too rigid” and “does not allow clinicians flexibility to determine how recommendations should apply to their specific patients,” according to Becker’s Hospital Review.
Perform blood tests within a specific period of time to look for biomarkers in patients that may indicate sepsis, and to
Administer antibiotics within three hours after a possible case is identified.
It also mandates that certain other tests are performed, and intravenous fluids administered, to prevent blood pressure from dipping to dangerously low levels.
“These are core things that everyone should do every time they see a septic patient,” said Steven Simpson, MD, Professor of medicine at the University of Kansas told Fierce Healthcare. Simpson is also the chairman of the Sepsis Alliance, an advocacy group that works to battle sepsis.
Simpson believes there is enough evidence to prove that the SEP-1 guidelines result in improved patient care and outcomes and should be enforced.
“It is quite clear that this works better than what was present before, which was nothing,” he said. “If the current sepsis mortality rate could be cut by even 5%, we could save a lot of lives. Before, even if you were reporting 0% compliance, you didn’t lose your money. Now you actually have to do it,” Simpson noted.
“We are encouraged by the increased attention to sepsis and support CMS’ creation of a sepsis mortality measure that will encourage hospitals to pay more attention to the full breadth of sepsis care,” Chanu Rhee, MD (above), Infectious Disease/Critical Care Physician and Associate Hospital Epidemiologist at Brigham and Women’s Hospital told Healthcare Finance. The new rule, however, requires doctors and medical laboratories to conduct tests and administer antibiotic treatment sooner than many healthcare providers deem wise. (Photo copyright: Brigham and Women’s Hospital.)
Healthcare Organizations Pushback against Final Rule
“By encouraging the use of broad spectrum antibiotics when more targeted ones will suffice, this measure promotes the overuse of the antibiotics that are our last line of defense against drug-resistant bacteria,” the AHA’s letter states.
In its recent coverage of the healthcare organizations’ pushback to CMS’ final rule, Healthcare Finance News explained, “The SEP-1 measure requires clinicians to provide a bundle of care to all patients with possible sepsis within three hours of recognition. … But the SEP-1 measure doesn’t take into account that many serious conditions present in a similar fashion to sepsis … Pushing clinicians to treat all these patients as if they have sepsis … leads to overuse of broad-spectrum antibiotics, which can be harmful to patients who are not infected, those who are infected with viruses rather than bacteria, and those who could safely be treated with narrower-spectrum antibiotics.”
CMS’ latest rule follows the same evolutionary path as previous federal guidelines. In August 2007, CMS announced that Medicare would no longer pay for additional costs associated with preventable errors, including situations known as Never Events. These are “adverse events that are serious, largely preventable, and of concern to both the public and healthcare providers for the purpose of public accountability,” according to the Leapfrog Group.
In 2014, the CDC suggested that all US hospitals have an antibiotic stewardship program (ASP) to measure and improve how antibiotics are prescribed by clinicians and utilized by patients.
Research Does Not Show Federal Sepsis Programs Work
He points to analysis which showed that though use of broad-spectrum antibiotics increased after the original 2015 SEP-1 regulations were introduced, there has been little change to patient outcomes.
“Unfortunately, we do not have good evidence that implementation of the sepsis policy has led to an improvement in sepsis mortality rates,” Rhee told Fierce Healthcare.
Rhee believes that the latest regulations are a step in the right direction, but that more needs to be done for sepsis care. “Retiring past measures and refining future ones will help stimulate new innovations in diagnosis and treatment and ultimately improve outcomes for the many patients affected by sepsis,” he told Healthcare Finance.
Sepsis is very difficult to diagnose quickly and accurately. Delaying treatment could result in serious consequences. But clinical laboratory blood tests for blood infections can take up to three days to produce a result. During that time, a patient could be receiving the wrong antibiotic for the infection, which could lead to worse problems.
The new federal regulation is designed to ensure that patients receive the best care possible when dealing with sepsis and to lower mortality rates in those patients. It remains to be seen if it will have the desired effect.
Clinical laboratories can play a critical role in helping doctors to order correct tests and interpret the results
Nearly 800,000 Americans die or are permanently disabled each year due to diagnostic errors. That’s according to research conducted at Johns Hopkins School of Medicine that found most misdiagnoses are due to cognitive errors on the part of the treating physicians. Many diagnoses typically begin with–and are often achieved through—clinical laboratory testing. For that reason, the range of diagnostic errors identified in this study will interest pathologists and lab managers.
Of course, many types of diagnostic errors have nothing to do with lab tests. That said, the research team noted that some diagnostic errors take place when physicians do not pay attention to test results that indicate a patient is not doing well, or do not understand the significance of the test results. There are also examples where doctors order the wrong lab tests for patients’ symptoms.
The Johns Hopkins study findings were published in the journal BMJ Quality and Safety titled, “Burden of Serious Harms from Diagnostic Error in the USA.” The research team determined that only 15 diseases “accounted for 50.7% of total serious harms” and nearly 40% of those harms involved just five medical conditions:
These can be narrowed down even further to just three categories, the researchers noted in BMJ Quality and Safety. They are:
Major vascular events,
Infections, and
Cancers.
In an interview with CNN Health, lead author of the study David Newman-Toker, MD, PhD, a neurology professor at Johns Hopkins and Director of the Division of Neuro-Visual and Vestibular Disorders, said “These are relatively common diseases that are missed relatively commonly and are associated with significant amounts of harm.”
“We focused here on the serious harms, but the number of diagnostic errors that happen out there in the US each year is probably somewhere on the order of magnitude of 50 to 100 million,” neurologist David Newman-Toker, MD, PhD (above), professor and Director of the Division of Neuro-Visual and Vestibular Disorders at Johns Hopkins, who led the study, told STAT. “If you actually look, you see it’s happening all the time.” Clinical laboratories play a key role in ensuring correct understanding of the tests they perform. (Photo copyright: Johns Hopkins University.)
Changes to Healthcare Risk Management
According to Newman-Toker, the Johns Hopkins study is “the first population health estimate of the number of patients seriously harmed. It also provides more information about the distribution of the diseases that are involved,” Relias Media reported.
The sheer volume of this issue is not lost on the researchers. Newman-Toker likens it to measuring an iceberg.
“You dive below the surface, and you measure the circumference of the iceberg, and [you] will say, ‘Oh my gosh, it’s really big down here.’ And then you go five more feet, and you measure the circumference, and it keeps getting bigger. By the time you’re 20 feet below the surface, you realize this is huge,” he told Relias Media.
Newman-Toker believes his team’s research offers an opportunity for physicians and healthcare risk managers to better understand how exactly to prioritize their resources and focus their efforts. “In terms of how it informs their day-to-day decision-making, it really is rebalancing some of the efforts a little bit in the direction of conditions that are more common and more commonly misdiagnosed than perhaps indicated by simply looking at claims data,” he noted.
Vascular events can present in symptoms typical of much less serious conditions. Strokes, for example, can present with vague symptoms such as a headache or dizziness. This is similar to heart attacks, which can just present as chest pains. However, heart attacks are far less misdiagnosed than strokes because of a decades-long effort to eradicate those diagnostic errors.
“Diagnostic errors are errors of omission,” Daniel Yang, MD, an internist and Program Director for the Diagnostic Excellence Initiative at the Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation, told CNN Health. “The question is: Could [the outcome] be prevented if we had done something differently earlier on? Oftentimes, that’s a judgment call that two doctors might disagree on.”
Physicians and risk managers can work together to determine the best course of action to identify vague symptoms and prevent the deaths and serious injuries that can come from diagnostic errors.
“A patient comes into the ED with a headache or dizziness, and they get told it’ll go away, and then they go home. And then a week later, you find out that they [had] a stroke,” he explained. “By then, the stroke has compounded so much that what could have been addressed in the moment … for $10,000 now becomes a $100,000 issue. … So, there’s a margin of $90,000 that has been added to the US health system burden because of the misdiagnosis.”
Padula estimates that the total cost for these misdiagnoses could come to as much as $100 billion on the healthcare system.
What’s the Solution?
How can physicians avoid misdiagnoses and keep their patients safe? Newman-Toker suggests that physicians consult with other doctors. “I believe that the quickest way to solve the diagnostic error problem in the real world would be to construct approaches that basically rely on the ‘phone a friend’ model,” he told STAT News.
“This doesn’t mean that the patient should have to seek a second opinion, but rather that providers should make it standard practice to consult with a colleague before providing a diagnosis or dismissing a patient,” STAT News added.
Clinical laboratory professionals should note that while these misdiagnoses do not take place in the lab, doctor may order incorrect tests for patients by misreading their symptoms. Thus, clinical pathologists and lab scientists can play a critical role in helping doctors to order the correct tests for their patients and accurately interpret the results.
Clinical laboratory leaders may be aware that many hospitals still do not have capabilities to make a timely diagnosis of sepsis
Despite the fact that “one in three people who dies in a hospital had sepsis during that hospitalization,” recent data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) show that many hospitals in the US lack the resources to identify sepsis and begin treatment as soon as possible, CNN reported.
According to the CDC, 1.7 million Americans develop sepsis annually. And of that group, at least 350,000 adults die in hospitals or hospice care centers. Clinical laboratories tasked with performing the plethora of tests needed to diagnose sepsis will agree that it is one of the gravest healthcare dangers patients face.
To address this potentially deadly threat, the CDC developed the “Hospital Sepsis Program Core Elements: 2023” to support the implementation of sepsis protocols at all hospitals, to optimize any existing sepsis programs, and to organize staff and identify resources to lower sepsis rates and raise survivability.
“Modeled after CDC’s Core Elements of Antibiotic Stewardship, which has proven to be an impactful resource to protect patients from the harms caused by unnecessary antibiotic use and to combat antimicrobial resistance, the Sepsis Core Elements were created with the expectation that all hospitals, regardless of size and location, would benefit from this resource,” a CDC press release noted.
“CDC’s Hospital Sepsis Program Core Elements are a guide for structuring sepsis programs that put your healthcare providers in the best position to rapidly identify and provide effective care for all types of patients with sepsis,” said Raymund Dantes, MD (above), Medical Advisor, National Healthcare Safety Network, CDC, and Associate Professor, Emory University School of Medicine, in a CDC press release. Hospital medical laboratories will play a key role in the success of the CDC’s sepsis program. (Photo copyright: Emory School of Medicine.)
Seven Elements to Improve Sepsis Diagnosis
Sepsis can occur when chemicals released into the bloodstream to fight off an infection produce massive inflammation throughout the body. This potentially fatal reaction can cause a deluge of changes within the body that damage multiple organs, leading them to fail.
The CDC designed its hospital sepsis program to improve and monitor the management and outcomes of patients with sepsis. The core elements of the program include seven main points:
Hospital Leadership Commitment: Management must dedicate the necessary staff, financial, and information technology resources.
Accountability: Appoint a team responsible for program goals and outcomes.
Multi-professional Expertise: Make sure key personnel throughout the healthcare system are engaged in the program.
Action: Implement structures and processes to improve the identification of the illness and patient outcomes.
Tracking: Develop initiatives to measure sepsis epidemiology, management, overall outcomes, and progress towards established goals.
Reporting: Provide information on sepsis management and outcomes to relevant partners.
Education: Provide healthcare professionals, patients, and family/caregivers with information on sepsis.
“Sepsis is taking too many lives. One in three people who dies in a hospital has sepsis during that hospitalization. Rapid diagnosis and immediate appropriate treatment, including antibiotics, are essential to saving lives, yet the challenges of awareness about and recognition of sepsis are enormous,” said CDC Director Mandy Cohen, MD, in the CDC press release. “That’s why CDC is calling on all US hospitals to have a sepsis program and raise the bar on sepsis care by incorporating these seven core elements.”
Early Diagnosis Presents Challenges
Sepsis care is complex. The condition requires urgent medical intervention to prevent organ damage and death. But the symptoms, which include fever or low temperature, shivering, confusion, breathing difficulties, extreme body pain or discomfort, high heart rate, weak pulse or low blood pressure, and low urine output, can be general and indicative of other illnesses.
The diagnosis of sepsis usually requires the collection of a blood culture specimen that is then incubated until there is enough bacterial growth to identify the specific strains of bacteria in a particular patient. This process can take several days, which can delay the administering of the most effective treatment for the condition. Treatment usually includes antibiotics and intravenous fluids.
A recent CDC survey of 5,221 US hospitals showed that in 2022, only 73% of hospitals reported having a sepsis program, ranging from 53% among hospitals with less than 25 beds to 95% among hospitals with over 500 beds.
That survey, released in the CDC’s August Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report (MMWR), also discovered that only 55% of all hospitals had personnel with dedicated time to manage and conduct necessary daily activities for a sepsis program.
Raymund Dantes, MD, Medical Advisor, National Healthcare Safety Network, CDC, and Associate Professor, Emory University School of Medicine, told CNN that as many as 1,400 hospitals have no sepsis program in place at all. Therefore, he added, the CDC’s Hospital Sepsis Program Core Elements documents also include a “getting started guide” to help those hospitals create the needed committees.
“For those hospitals that already have sepsis programs underway and have available resources, we have a lot more details and best practices that we’ve collected from hospitals about how to better improve your sepsis programs,” he said. “The seven elements complement clinical guidelines by describing the leadership, expertise, tracking, education, and other elements that can be implemented in a wide variety of hospitals to improve the quality of sepsis care.”
Hospital Laboratories Play a Key Role in Reducing Sepsis
According to the CDC, anyone can get an infection and almost any infection can lead to sepsis. However, some populations are more vulnerable to sepsis than others. They include:
Older persons
Pregnant or recently pregnant women
Neonates
Hospitalized Patients
Patients in Intensive Care Units
People with weakened immune systems
People with chronic medical conditions
According to the World Health Organization (WHO), there were 48.9 million sepsis cases and 11 million sepsis-related deaths worldwide in 2017. This number accounted for almost 20% of all global deaths. Almost half of all the global sepsis cases occurred in children, resulting in 2.9 million deaths in children under the age of five.
“Sepsis is complex, often difficult to identify, and takes a tremendous societal toll in the United States,” said Steven Simpson, MD, Professor of Medicine at the University of Kansas and Chair, Board of Directors, Sepsis Alliance, a non-profit organization dedicated to raising awareness and reducing suffering from sepsis, in a press release. “To tackle the number one killer in American hospitals, we need a comprehensive National Action Plan to find cures, get them in the hands of professionals, and educate the public and professionals alike.”
Hospital medical laboratories can help reduce sepsis by finding ways to support their physicians’ diagnoses of this infection that has taken so many lives.
Molecular probes designed to spot minute amounts of pathogens in biological samples may aid clinical laboratories’ speed-to-answer
Driven to find a better way to isolate minute samples of pathogens from among high-volumes of other biological organisms, researchers at Canada’s McMaster University in Hamilton, Ontario, have unveiled a bioinformatics algorithm which they claim shortens time-to-answer and speeds diagnosis of deadly diseases.
Two disease pathogens the researchers specifically targeted in their study are responsible for sepsis and SARS-CoV-2, the coronavirus causing COVID-19. Clinical laboratories would welcome a technology which both shortens time-to-answer and improves diagnostic accuracy, particularly for pathogens such as sepsis and SARS-CoV-2.
Their design of molecular probes that target the genomic sequences of specific pathogens can enable diagnosticians and clinical laboratories to spot extremely small amounts of viral and bacterial pathogens in patients’ biological samples, as well as in the environment and wildlife.
“There are thousands of bacterial pathogens and being able to determine which one is present in a patient’s blood sample could lead to the correct treatment faster when time is very important,” Zachery Dickson, a lead author of the study, told Brighter World. Dickson is a bioinformatics PhD candidate in the Department of Biology at McMaster University. “The probe makes identification much faster, meaning we could potentially save people who might otherwise die,” he added.
Sepsis is a life-threatening response to infection that leads to organ failure, tissue damage, and death in hospitals worldwide. According to Sepsis Alliance, about 30% of people diagnosed with severe sepsis will die without quick and proper treatment. Thus, a “shortcut” to identifying sepsis in its early stages may well save many lives, the McMaster researchers noted.
And COVID-19 has killed millions. Such a tool that identifies sepsis and SARS-CoV-2 in minute biological samples would be a boon to hospital medical laboratories worldwide.
“We currently need faster, cheaper, and more succinct ways to detect pathogens in human and environmental samples that democratize the hunt, and this pipeline does exactly that,” Hendrik Poinar, PhD (above), McMaster Professor of Anthropology and a lead author of the study, told Brighter World. Poinar is Director of the McMaster University Ancient DNA Center. Hospital medical laboratories could help save many lives if sepsis and COVID-19 could be detected earlier. (Graphic copyright: McMaster University.)
Is Bioinformatics ‘Shortcut’ Faster than PCR Testing?
The researchers say their probes enable a shortcut to detection—even in an infection’s early stages—by “targeting, isolating, and identifying the DNA sequences specifically and simultaneously.”
The probes’ design makes possible simultaneous targeted capture of diverse metagenomics targets, Biocompare explained.
But is it faster than PCR (polymerase chain reaction) testing?
The McMaster scientists were motivated by the “challenges of low signal, high background, and uncertain targets that plague many metagenomic sequencing efforts,” they noted in their paper.
They pointed to challenges posed by PCR testing, a popular technique used for detection of sepsis pathogens as well as, more recently, for SARS-CoV-2, the coronavirus causing COVID-19.
“The (PCR) technique relies on primers that bind to nucleic acid sequences specific to an organism or group of organisms. Although capable of sensitive, rapid detection and quantification of a particular target, PCR is limited when multiple loci are targeted by primers,” the researchers wrote in Cell Reports Methods.
According to LabMedica, “A wide array of metagenomic study efforts are hampered by the same challenge: low concentrations of targets of interest combined with overwhelming amounts of background signal. Although PCR or naive DNA capture can be used when there are a small number of organisms of interest, design challenges become untenable for large numbers of targets.”
Detecting Pathogens Faster, Cheaper, and More Accurately
As part of their study, researchers tested two probe sets:
one to target bacterial pathogens linked to sepsis, and
another to detect coronaviruses including SARS-CoV-2.
They were successful in using the probes to capture a variety of pathogens linked to sepsis and SARS-CoV-2.
“We validated HUBDesign by generating probe sets targeting the breadth of coronavirus diversity, as well as a suite of bacterial pathogens often underlying sepsis. In separate experiments demonstrating significant, simultaneous enrichment, we captured SARS-CoV-2 and HCoV-NL63 [Human coronavirus NL 63] in a human RNA background and seven bacterial strains in human blood. HUBDesign has broad applicability wherever there are multiple organisms of interest,” the researchers wrote in Cell Reports Methods.
The findings also have implications to the environment and wildlife, the researchers noted.
Of course, more research is needed to validate the tool’s usefulness in medical diagnostics. The McMaster University researchers intend to improve HUBDesign’s efficiency but note that probes cannot be designed for unknown targets.
Nevertheless, the advanced application of novel technologies to diagnose of sepsis, which causes 250,000 deaths in the US each year, according to the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, is a positive development worth watching.
The McMaster scientists’ discoveries—confirmed by future research and clinical studies—could go a long way toward ending the dire effects of sepsis as well as COVID-19. That would be a welcome development, particularly for hospital-based laboratories.
On top of everything else during this pandemic, drug-resistant infections are threatening the most vulnerable patients in COVID-19 ICUs
New study by researchers at the University of Minnesota highlights the continuing need for microbiologists and clinical laboratories to stay alert for COVID-19 patients with drug-resistant infections. In their study, researchers highlighted CDC statistics about the number of Candida auris (C. auris) infections reported in the United States during 2020, for example.
In a paper, titled, “Three Cases of Worrisome Pan-Resistant C Auris Found in New York,” the Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy (CIDRAP) at the University of Minnesota reported that “As of Dec 11, the CDC said 941 confirmed and probable C. auris cases have been reported in 13 states, and an additional 1,830 patients have been found to be colonized with the multidrug-resistant fungus. Most of the cases have been detected in the New York City area, New Jersey, and the Chicago area.”
Candida auris is a particularly nasty fungus. It spreads easily, is difficult to remove from surfaces, and can kill. Worst of all, modern drugs designed to combat this potentially deadly fungus are becoming less effective at eradicating it, and COVID-19 ICU patients appear especially vulnerable to C. auris infections.
COVID-19 and C. auris a Potentially Devastating Combination
Hospitals in many areas are at a critical capacity. Thus, hospital-acquired infections such as sepsis can be particularly dangerous for COVID-19 patients. Adding to the problem, C. auris requires special equipment to identify, and standard medical laboratory methods are not always enough. Misidentification is possible, even probable.
A paper in the Journal of Global Antimicrobial Resistance (JGAR), titled, “The Lurking Scourge of Multidrug Resistant Candida Auris in Times of COVID-19 Pandemic,” notes that “A particularly disturbing feature of COVID-19 patients is their tendency to develop acute respiratory distress syndrome that requires ICU admission, mechanical ventilation, and/or extracorporeal membrane oxygenation. … This haunting facet of COVID-19 pandemic has severely challenged even the most advanced hospital settings. Yet one potential confounder, not in the immediate attention of most healthcare professionals, is the secondary transmission of multidrug resistant organisms like the fungus Candida auris in COVID-19 ICUs. … C. auris outbreaks occur in critically ill hospitalized patients and can result in mortalities rates ranging from 30% to 72%. … Both C. auris and SARS-CoV-2 have been found on hospital surfaces including on bedrails, IV poles, beds, air conditioner ducts, windows and hospital floors. Therefore, the standard COVID-19 critical care of mechanical ventilation and protracted ventilator-assisted management makes these patients potentially susceptible to colonization and infections by C. auris.”
One study mentioned in the JGAR paper conducted in New Delhi, India, looked at 596 cases where patients were admitted to the ICU with COVID-19. Fifteen of them had infections caused by C. auris. Eight of those patients died. “Of note, four patients who died experienced persistent fungemia and despite five days of micafungin therapy, C. auris again grew in blood culture,” according to reporting on the study in Infection Control Today (ICT).
Some C. auris mortality rates are as high as 72%. And patients with weakened immune systems are at particular risk, “making it an even more serious concern when 8% to 9% of roughly 530,000 ICU patients in the United States have COVID-19,” ICT reported.
Apparently, the COVID-19 pandemic has created circumstances that are particularly suited for C. auris to spread. “Given the nosocomial transmission of SARS-CoV-2 by those infected, many hospital environments may serve as venues for C. auris transmission as it is a known environmental colonizer of ICUs,” wrote the JGAR paper authors.
CDC Reports and Recommendations
Along with being especially dangerous for people with weakened immune systems, C. auris infections also produce symptoms similar to those of COVID-19, “including fever, cough, and shortness of breath,” according to the CDC’s website. People admitted to ICUs with COVID-19 are especially vulnerable to bacterial and fungal co-infections. “These fungal co-infections are reported with increasing frequency and can be associated with severe illness and death,” says the CDC.
C. auris outbreaks in the United States have mostly been in long-term care facilities, but the pandemic seems to be changing that and more outbreaks have been detected in acute care facilities, the CDC reported. The lack of appropriate personal protective equipment (PPE), changes in infection control routines, and other factors could be to blame for the increase.
Just as community spread is an issue with COVID-19 variants, so too is it a concern with C. auris infections. “New C. auris cases without links to known cases or healthcare abroad have been identified recently in multiple states, suggesting an increase in undetected transmission,” the CDC noted.
As of January 19, 2021, according to the CDC the case count of C. auris infections in the US was 1,625, with California, Florida, Illinois, New Jersey, and New York having more than 100 cases each.
According to a CDC report, “Candida auris (C. auris) is an emerging multidrug-resistant yeast (a type of fungus). It can cause severe infections and spreads easily between hospitalized patients and nursing home residents.” The graphic above, taken from the report, illustrates how “C. auris began spreading in the United States in 2015. Reported cases increased 318% in 2018 when compared to the average number of cases reported in 2015 to 2017.” (Graphic copyright: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.)
Using Clinical Laboratory Tests to Identify C. Auris
One of the big concerns about C. auris is that it is so difficult to detect, and that medical laboratories in some countries simply do not have the technology and resources to identify and tackle the infection.
“As C. auris diagnostics in resource-limited countries is yet another challenge, we feel that alerting the global medical community about the potential of C. auris as a confounding factor in COVID-19 is a necessity,” wrote the authors of the paper published in the Journal of Global Antimicrobial Resistance.
As if the COVID-19 pandemic has not been enough, drug resistant bacteria, viruses, and deadly fungi are threatening to wreak havoc among SARS-CoV-2 infected patients. Microbiologists and medical laboratory scientists know that testing for all types of infections is vitally important, but especially when it comes to infections caused by antibiotic-resistant bacteria (ARB) and other dangerous organisms that demonstrate antimicrobial resistance (AMR).
Microbiologists and clinical laboratory professionals will want to stay informed about the number of C. auris cases identified in the US and the locations and settings where the fungus was detected. They will want to be on the alert within their hospitals and health networks, as well as with the doctor’s offices served by their labs.
