Discovery highlights how ongoing microbiome research points to new opportunities that can lead to development of more effective cancer screening clinical laboratory tests
New research from the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center in Seattle once again demonstrates that the human microbiome plays a sophisticated role in many biological processes. Microbiologists and anatomic pathologists who diagnose tissue/biopsies will find this study’s findings intriguing.
This breakthrough in colon cancer research came from the discovery that a “subspecies” of a common type of a bacteria that resides in the mouth and causes dental plaque also “shields tumor cells from cancer treatment,” according to NBC News.
The scientists inspected colorectal cancer (CRC) tumors and found that 50% of those examined featured a subspecies of Fusobacterium nucleatum (F. nucleatum or Fn) and that this anaerobic bacterium was “shielding tumor cells from cancer-fighting drugs,” NBC News noted. Many of these tumors were considered aggressive cases of cancer.
“The discovery, experts say, could pave the way for new treatments and possibly new methods of screening,” NBC News reported.
“Patients who have high levels of this bacteria in their colorectal tumors have a far worse prognosis,” Susan Bullman, PhD (above), who jointly supervised the Fred Hutch research team and who is now Associate Professor of Immunology at MD Anderson Cancer Center, told NBC News. “They don’t respond as well to chemotherapy, and they have an increased risk of recurrence,” she added. Microbiologists and clinical laboratories working with oncologists on cancer treatments will want to follow this research as it may lead to new methods for screening cancer patients. (Photo copyright: Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center.)
Developing Effective Treatments
Susan Bullman, PhD, Associate Professor of Immunology at MD Anderson Cancer Center, who along with her husband and fellow researcher Christopher D. Johnston, PhD, Assistant Professor at Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center, jointly supervised an international team of scientists that examined the genomes of 80 F. nucleatum strains from the mouths of cancer-free patients and 55 strains from tumors in patients with colorectal cancer, according to the National Institutes of Health (NIH). The NIH funded the research.
The researchers targeted a subspecies of F. nucleatum called F. nucleatum animalis (Fna) that “was more likely to be present in colorectal tumors. Further analyses revealed that there were two distinct types of Fna. Both were present in mouths, but only one type, called Fna C2, was associated with colorectal cancer” the NIH wrote in an article on its website titled, “Gum Disease-related Bacteria Tied to Colorectal Cancer.”
“Tumor-isolated strains predominantly belong to Fn subspecies animalis (Fna). However, genomic analyses reveal that Fna, considered a single subspecies, is instead composed of two distinct clades (Fna C1 and Fna C2). Of these, only Fna C2 dominates the CRC tumor niche,” the Fred Hutch researchers wrote in their Nature paper.
“We have pinpointed the exact bacterial lineage that is associated with colorectal cancer, and that knowledge is critical for developing effective preventive and treatment methods,” Johnston told the NIH.
How Bacteria Got from Mouth to Colon Not Fully Understood
Traditionally, F. nucleatum makes its home in the mouth in minute quantities. Thus, it is not fully understood how these bacteria travel from the mouth to the colon. However, the Fred Hutch researchers showed that Fna C2 could survive in acidic conditions, like those found in the gut, longer than the other types of Fna. This suggests that the bacteria may travel along a direct route through the digestive tract.
The study, which focused on participants over 50, comes at a time when colorectal cancer rates are trending upward. Rates are doubling for those under 55, jumping from 11% in 1995 to 20% in 2019. CRC is the second-leading cancer death and over 53,000 will succumb to the disease in 2024, according to NBC News.
Many of the newer diagnoses are in later stages with no clear reason why, and the Fred Hutch scientists are trying to understand how their findings tie into the increase of younger cases of colon cancer.
Bullman says it will be important to look at “whether there are elevated levels of this bacterium in young onset colorectal cancer, which is on the rise globally for unknown reasons,” she told NBC News.
Possibility of More Effective Cancer Screening
There is hope that scientists equipped with this knowledge can develop new and more effective screening and treatment options for colon cancer, as well as studying the microbiome’s impact on other diseases.
On the prevention side, researchers have seen that in mice the addition of Fna “appeared to cause precancerous polyps to form, one of the first warning signs of colorectal cancer, though Bullman added that this causation hasn’t yet been proven in humans.” NBC reported.
Future research may find that screening for Fna could determine if colorectal tumors will be aggressive, NIH reported.
“It’s possible that scientists could identify the subspecies while it’s still in the mouth and give a person antibiotics at that point, wiping it out before it could travel to the colon,” Bullman told NBC News. “Even if antibiotics can’t successfully eliminate the bacteria from the mouth, its presence there could serve as an indication that someone is at higher risk for aggressive colon cancer.”
There is also the thought of developing antibiotics to target a specific subtype of bacteria. Doing so would eliminate the need to be “wiping out both forms of the bacteria or all of the bacteria in the mouth. Further, it’s relevant to consider the possibility of harnessing the bacteria to do the cancer-fighting work,” NBC noted.
“The subtype has already proven that it can enter cancer cells quite easily, so it might be possible to genetically modify the bacteria to carry cancer-fighting drugs directly into the tumors,” Bullman told NBC News.
Further studies and research are needed. However, the Fred Hutch researchers’ findings highlight the sophistication of the human microbiome and hint at the potential role it can play in the diagnosis of cancer by clinical laboratories and pathology groups, along with better cancer treatments in the future.
Scientists turned to metabolomics to find cause of biological aging and release index of 25 metabolites that predict healthy and rapid agers
Researchers at the University of Pittsburg Medical Center and the University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine have identified biomarkers in human blood which appear to affect biological aging (aka, senescence). Since biological aging is connected to a person’s overall condition, further research and studies confirming UPMC’s findings will likely lead to a new panel of tests clinical laboratories can run to support physicians’ assessment of their patients’ health.
UPMC’s research “points to pathways and compounds that may underlie biological age, shedding light on why people age differently and suggesting novel targets for interventions that could slow aging and promote health span, the length of time a person is healthy,” according to a UPMC news release.
“We decided to look at metabolites because they’re very dynamic,” Aditi Gurkar, PhD, the study’s senior author, told the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette. Gurkar is Assistant Professor of Medicine, Division of Geriatric Medicine, Aging Institute at the University of Pittsburg. “They can change because of the diet, they can change because of exercise, they can change because of lifestyle changes like smoking,” she added.
The scientists identified 25 metabolites that “showed clear differences” in the metabolomes of both healthy and rapid agers. Based on those findings, the researchers developed the Healthy Aging Metabolic (HAM) Index, a panel of metabolites that predicted healthy agers regardless of gender or race.
“Age is more than just a number,” said Aditi Gurkar, PhD (above), Assistant Professor of Geriatric Medicine at University of Pittsburg School of Medicine and the study’s senior author in a news release. “Imagine two people aged 65: One rides a bike to work and goes skiing on the weekends and the other can’t climb a flight of stairs. They have the same chronological age, but very different biological ages. Why do these two people age differently? This question drives my research.” Gurkar’s research may one day lead to new clinical laboratory tests physicians will order when evaluating their patients’ health. (Photo copyright: University of Pittsburg.)
Clear Differences in Metabolites
According to the National Cancer Institute, a metabolite is a “substance made or used when the body breaks down food, drugs, or chemicals, or its own tissue (for example, fat or muscle tissue). This process, called metabolism, makes energy and the materials needed for growth, reproduction, and maintaining health. It also helps get rid of toxic substances.”
The UPMC researchers used metabolomics—the study of chemical process in the body that involves metabolites, other processes, and biproducts of cell metabolism—to create a “molecular fingerprint” of blood drawn from individuals in two separate study groups.
They included:
People over age 75 able to walk a flight of stairs or walk for 15 minutes without a break, and
People, age 65 to 75, who needed to rest during stair climbing and walk challenges.
The researchers found “clear differences” in the metabolomes of healthy agers as compared to rapid agers, suggesting that “metabolites in the blood could reflect biological age,” according to the UPMC news release.
“Other studies have looked at genetics to measure biological aging, but genes are very static. The genes you’re born with are the genes you die with,” said Gurkar in the news release.
Past studies on aging have explored other markers of biological age such as low grade-inflammation, muscle mass, and physical strength. But those markers fell short in “representing complexity of biological aging,” the UPMC study authors wrote in Aging Cell.
“One potential advantage of metabolomics over other ‘omic’ approaches is that metabolites are the final downstream products, and changes are closely related to the immediate (path) physiologic state of an individual,” they added.
The researchers used an artificial intelligence (AI) model that could identify “potential drivers of biological traits” and found three metabolites “that were most likely to promote healthy aging or drive rapid aging. In future research, they plan to delve into how these metabolites, and the molecular pathways that produce them, contribute to biological aging and explore interventions that could slow this process,” the new release noted.
“While it’s great that we can predict biological aging in older adults, what would be even more exciting is a blood test that, for example, can tell someone who’s 35 that they have a biological age more like a 45-year-old,” Gurkar said. “That person could then think about changing aspects of their lifestyle early—whether that’s improving their sleep, diet or exercise regime—to hopefully reverse their biological age.”
Looking Ahead
The UPMC scientists plan more studies to explore metabolites that promote healthy aging and rapid aging, and interventions to slow disease progression.
It’s possible that the blood-based HAM Index may one day become a diagnostic tool physicians and clinical laboratories use to aid monitoring of chronic diseases. As a commonly ordered blood test, it could help people find out biological age and make necessary lifestyle changes to improve their health and longevity.
With the incidence of chronic disease a major problem in the US and other developed countries, a useful diagnostic and monitoring tool like HAM could become a commonly ordered diagnostic procedure. In turn, that would allow clinical laboratories to track the same patient over many years, with the ability to use multi-year lab test data to flag patients whose biomarkers are changing in the wrong direction—thus enabling physicians to be proactive in treating their patients.
Clinical laboratory scientists and microbiologists could play a role in helping doctors explain to patients the potential dangers of do-it-yourself medical treatments
Be careful what you wish for when you perform do-it-yourself (DIY) medical treatments. That’s the lesson learned by a woman who was seeking relief for irritable bowel syndrome (IBS). When college student Daniell Koepke did her own fecal transplant using poop from her brother and her boyfriend as donors her IBS symptoms improved, but she began to experience medical conditions that afflicted both fecal donors.
“It’s possible that the bacteria in the stool can influence inflammation in the recipient’s body, by affecting their metabolism and activating their immune response,” microbial ecologist Jack Gilbert, PhD, Professor and Associate Vice Chancellor at University of California San Diego (UC San Diego) told Business Insider. “This would cause shifts in their hormonal activity, which could promote the bacteria that can cause acne on the skin. We nearly all have this bacterium on skin, but it is often dormant,” he added.
A Fecal Microbiota Transplant (FMT) is a procedure where stool from a healthy donor is transplanted into the microbiome of a patient plagued by a certain medical condition.
Our guts are home to trillions of microorganisms (aka, microbes), known as the gut microbiota, that serve many important functions in the body. The microbiome is a delicate ecosystem which can be pushed out of balance when advantageous microbes are outnumbered by unfavorable ones. An FMT is an uncomplicated and powerful method of repopulating the microbiome with beneficial microbes.
“With fecal microbiome transplants there is really compelling evidence, but the science is still developing. We’re still working on if it actually has benefits for wider populations and if the benefit is long-lasting,” said Gilbert in a Netflix documentary titled, “Hack Your Health: The Secrets of Your Gut.”
“The microbial community inside our gut can have surprising influences on different parts of our body,” microbial ecologist Jack Gilbert, PhD (above), of the Gilbert Lab at University of California San Diego told Business Insider. “Stools are screened before clinical FMTs, and anything that could cause major problems, such as certain pathogens, would be detected. When you do this at home, you don’t get that kind of screening.” Doctors and clinical laboratories screening patients for IBS understand the dangers of DIY medical treatments. (Photo copyright: University of California San Diego.)
Changing Poop Donors
When Koepke began experiencing symptoms of IBS including indigestion, stabbing pains from trapped gas and severe constipation, she initially turned to physicians for help.
In the Netflix documentary, Koepke stated that she was being prescribed antibiotics “like candy.” Over the course of five years, she completed six rounds of antibiotics per year, but to no avail.
She also changed her diet, removing foods that were making her symptoms worse. This caused her to lose weight and she eventually reached a point where she could only eat 10 to 15 foods.
“It’s really hard for me to remember what it was like to eat food before it became associated with anxiety and pain and discomfort,” she said.
In an attempt to relieve her IBS symptoms, Koepke made her own homemade fecal transplant pills using donated stool from her brother. After taking them her IBS symptoms subsided and she slowly gained weight. But she developed hormonal acne just like her brother.
Koepke then changed donors, using her boyfriend’s poop to make new fecal transplant pills. After she took the new pills, her acne dissipated but she developed depression, just like her boyfriend.
“Over time, I realized my depression was worse than it’s ever been in my life,” Koepke stated in the documentary.
She believes the microbes that were contributing to her boyfriend’s depression were also transplanted into her via the fecal transplant pills. When she reverted to using her brother’s poop, her depression abated within a week.
Gilbert told Business Insider his research illustrates that people who suffer from depression are lacking certain bacteria in their gut microbiome.
“She may have had the ‘anti-depressant’ bacteria in her gut, but when she swapped her microbiome with his, her anti-depressant bacteria got wiped out,” he said.
FDA Approves FMT Therapy for Certain Conditions
Typically, the fecal material for an FMT procedure performed by a doctor comes from fecal donors who have been rigorously screened for infections and diseases. The donations are mixed with a sterile saline solution and filtered which produces a liquid solution. That solution is then administered to a recipient or frozen for later use.
On November 30, 2022, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved the first FMT therapy, called Rebyota, for the prevention of Clostridioides difficile (C. diff.) in adults whose symptoms do not respond to antibiotic therapies. Rebyota is a single-dose treatment that is administered rectally into the gut microbiome at a doctor’s office.
Then, in April of 2023, the FDA approved the use of a medicine called Vowst, which is the first oral FMT approved by the FDA.
According to the Cleveland Clinic, scientists are exploring the possibility that fecal transplants may be used as a possible treatment for many health conditions, including:
Doctors and clinical laboratories know that do-it-yourself medicine is typically not a good idea for obvious reasons. Patients seldom appreciate all the implications of the symptoms of an illness, nor do they fully understand the potentially dangerous consequences of self-treatment. Scientists are still researching the benefits of fecal microbiota transplants and hope to discover more uses for this treatment.
Study of the 50 Omicron variants could lead to new approaches to clinical laboratory testing and medical treatments for long COVID
Patients infected with SARS-CoV-2 can usually expect the COVID-19 illness to subside within a couple of weeks. However, one Dutch patient remained infected with the coronavirus for 612 days and fought more than 50 mutations (aka, variants) before dying late last year of complications due to pre-existing conditions. This extreme case has given doctors, virologists, microbiologists, and clinical laboratories new insights into how the SARS-CoV-2 virus mutates and may lead to new treatments for long COVID.
The medication the patient was taking for his pre-existing conditions may have contributed to his body being unable to produce antibodies in response to three shots of the Moderna mRNA COVID vaccine he received.
Magda Vergouwe, MD, PhD candidate at the Center for Experimental and Molecular Medicine (CEMM), Amsterdam UMC, who lead a study into the patient, theorized that some of the medications the patient was on for his pre-existing conditions could have destroyed healthy cells alongside the abnormal cancer-causing B cells the drugs were meant to target.
“This case underscores the risk of persistent SARS-CoV-2 infections in immunocompromised individuals,” the researchers said prior to presenting their report about the case at a meeting of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases (ESCMID) in Barcelona, Spain, Time reported. “We emphasize the importance of continuing genomic surveillance of SARS-CoV-2 evolution in immunocompromised individuals with persistent infections.”
“Chronic infections and viral evolution [are] commonly described in [the] literature, and there are other cases of immunocompromised patients who have had [COVID] infections for hundreds of days,” Magda Vergouwe, MD, PhD candidate (above), Center for Experimental and Molecular Medicine at Amsterdam UMC, told Scientific American. “But this is unique due to the extreme length of the infection … and with the virus staying in his body for so long, it was possible for mutations to just develop and develop and develop.” Microbiologists, virologists, and clinical laboratories involved in testing patients with long COVID may want to follow this story. (Photo copyright: LinkedIn.)
Risks to Immunocompromised Patients
Pre-existing conditions increase the risk factor for COVID-19 infections. A 2021 study published in the Journal of the American Board of Family Medicine (JABFM) titled, “Prevalence of Pre-existing Conditions among Community Health Center Patients with COVID-19,” found that about 61% of that study’s test group had a pre-existing condition prior to the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic.
When the Dutch man was admitted to Amsterdam UMC with common and serious COVID-19 symptoms, such as shortness of breath, a cough, and low blood oxygen levels, he was prescribed sotrovimab (a monoclonal antibody) along with other COVID treatments.
About a month after being admitted his COVID-19 symptoms decreased, so he was first discharged to a rehab facility and then finally to his home. However, he continued to test positive for the coronavirus and developed other infections that may have been complicated by the persistent case of COVID-19.
The Amsterdam UMC doctors emphasized that the man ultimately succumbed to his pre-existing conditions and not necessarily COVID-19.
“It’s important to note that in the end he did not die from his COVID-19,” Vergouwe told Scientific American. “But he did keep it with him for a very long period of time until then, and this is why we made sure to sample [the virus in his body] as much as we could.”
One in Five Adults Develop Long COVID
Long COVID does not necessarily indicate an active infection. However, in as many as one in five US adults COVID symptoms persist after the acute phase of the infection is over, according to a study published recently in JAMA Network Open titled, “Epidemiologic Features of Recovery from SARS-CoV-2 Infection.”
“In this cohort study, more than one in five adults did not recover within three months of SARS-CoV-2 infection. Recovery within three months was less likely in women and those with pre-existing cardiovascular disease and more likely in those with COVID-19 vaccination or infection during the Omicron variant wave,” the JAMA authors wrote.
The origins of long COVID are not entirely clear, but according to the National Institutes of Health (NIH) it can develop when a patient is unable to sufficiently rest while battling off the initial virus. According to Vergouwe, the SARS-CoV-2 genome will always grow quicker when found in a patient with a compromised immune system.
Unique COVID-19 Mutations
More than 50 new mutations of the original Omicron variant were identified in the Dutch patient. According to Vergouwe, “while that number can sound shocking, mutations to the SARS-CoV-2 genome are expected to evolve more quickly in those who are immunocompromised (the average mutation rate of the virus is estimated to be two mutations per person per month),” Scientific American reported. “What does make these mutations unusual, she noted, is how their features differed vastly from mutations observed in other people with COVID. [Vergouwe] hypothesizes that the exceptional length of the individual’s infection, and his pre-existing conditions, allowed the virus to evolve extensively and uniquely.”
COVID-19 appears to be here to stay, and most clinical laboratory managers and pathologists understand why. As physicians continue to learn about the SARS-CoV-2 coronavirus, this is another example of how the knowledge about SARS-CoV-2 is growing as different individuals are infected with different variants of the virus.
Development of the Critical Values system redefined what STAT means in clinical laboratory testing turnaround times
Where did the concept of critical values and having clinical laboratories report them to referring physicians originate? How did the concept blossom into a standard practice in laboratory medicine? Given the importance of critical values, a lookback into how this aspect of laboratory medicine was developed is helpful to understand how and why this has become an essential element in the practice of medicine and an opportunity for labs to add value in patient care.
According to Stanford Medicine, critical/panic values are defined as “values that are outside the normal range to a degree that may constitute an immediate health risk to the individual or require immediate action on the part of the ordering physician.”
What you’ll read below is an insider’s account of the “birth of critical values reporting.”
According to Lundberg, an unaccompanied man was brought to the hospital in a coma and an examination revealed a laceration to his scalp. The patient was admitted to the neurosurgical unit where clinical laboratory tests were performed, including a complete blood count (CBC) analysis, urinalysis, and serum electrolytes. All the test results came back normal except the patient’s serum glucose (blood sugar level) which was 6 mg% in concentration.
“The hard-copy laboratory results were returned to the ward of origin within two hours of receipt of the specimens in the laboratory. However, the results were not noticed by the house officers who were busy with several other seriously ill patients. Ward personnel also failed to communicate the lab results to the responsible physicians,” Lundberg wrote.
When hospital staff did finally notice the test result the next morning glucose was immediately administered to the patient, but it was too late to prevent irreversible brain damage. The man soon passed away.
Following this incident, the hospital developed a “Critical Value Recognition and Reporting System.” The system generated new numbers that were termed “Panic Values.”
However, “critics complained that good doctors should never panic, so the name was changed to Critical Values,” Lundberg explained.
When any of these critical test values were out of the norm, “we required the responsible laboratory person to quickly verify the result and use the telephone (long before laboratory computers) to personally notify a responsible individual (no messages left) who agreed to find a physician who could quickly act on the result. All was documented with times and names,” he wrote.
“We understand that when a physician wants something, he/she wants it, no matter what. Well, in this patient-focused approach, the physician cannot have it, except as offered by the patient-focused approach, based on TAT [turnaround times of clinical laboratory tests],” wrote George Lundberg, MD (above), President and Chair of the Board of Directors of the Lundberg Institute, and Clinical Professor of Pathology at Northwestern University in an article he penned for the National Medical Journal of India (Photo copyright: Dark Intelligence Group. Shows Dr. Lundberg in 2011 addressing the Executive War College on Diagnostics, Clinical Laboratory, and Pathology Management.)
New Clinical Laboratory Standards
Recognition of the urgency to adopt new hospital standards related to certain clinical laboratory test results came swiftly. In 1972, Lundberg was invited to publish an article explaining the new Critical Value Recognition and Reporting System in Medical Laboratory Observer.
According to Lundberg, “most laboratory tests that are done do not need to be done; the results are either negative, normal, or show no change from a prior result. But some are crucial.”
The original set of Critical Values included the following testing results:
The list of values were later expanded to include “vital values.” These values describe lab results for which “action” is important, but where timing is less urgent. Examples of vital values include:
Lundberg and his colleagues went on to redefine what constitutes a laboratory test and what renders a test successful. They discussed laboratory procedures with committees of clinicians, lab personnel and patients, and reorganized hematology, chemistry, and toxicology based on the turnaround time (TAT) of tests.
“We ‘started the clock’—any and all days/times 24×7—when a specimen arrived at some place within the laboratory, and stopped the clock when a final result was available somewhere in the laboratory,” Lundberg wrote in NMJI. “We categorized all tests as: less than one hour, less than four hours, less than 24 hours, and more than 24 hours, guaranteed, 24×7. As a trade-off, we abolished the concept of ‘STAT’ orders … NO EXCEPTIONS. The rationale of each TAT was the speed with which a result was needed to render proper medical care that mattered to the welfare of the patient, and, of course, that was technically possible.”
Since then, very little has changed for the Critical Values System over the past 50 years. The majority of values added have fallen under the “Vital” category and not the “Critical” category. Today, most health systems and clinical laboratories create their own internal processes and procedures regarding which values need to be reported immediately (critical), which values are not urgent (vital), and how those results should be handled.
Study results from Switzerland come as clinical laboratory scientists seek new ways to tackle the problem of antimicrobial resistance in hospitals
Microbiologists and clinical laboratory scientists engaged in the fight against antibiotic-resistant (aka, antimicrobial resistant) bacteria will be interested in a recent study conducted at the University of Basel and University Hospital Basel in Switzerland. The epidemiologists involved in the study discovered that some of these so-called “superbugs” can remain in the body for as long as nine years continuing to infect the host and others.
The researchers wanted to see how two species of drug-resistant bacteria—K. pneumoniae and E. coli—changed over time in the body, according to a press release from the university. They analyzed samples of the bacteria collected from patients who were admitted to the hospital over a 10-year period, focusing on older individuals with pre-existing conditions. They found that K. pneumoniae persisted for up to 4.5 years (1,704 days) and E. coli persisted for up to nine years (3,376 days).
“These patients not only repeatedly become ill themselves, but they also act as a source of infection for other people—a reservoir for these pathogens,” said Lisandra Aguilar-Bultet, PhD, the study’s lead author, in the press release.
“This is crucial information for choosing a treatment,” explained Sarah Tschudin Sutter, MD, Head of the Division of Infectious Diseases and Hospital Epidemiology, and of the Division of Hospital Epidemiology, who specializes in hospital-acquired infections and drug-resistant pathogens. Sutter led the Basel University study.
“The issue is that when patients have infections with these drug-resistant bacteria, they can still carry that organism in or on their bodies even after treatment,” said epidemiologist Maroya Spalding Walters, MD (above), who leads the Antimicrobial Resistance Team in the Division of Healthcare Quality Promotion at the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). “They don’t show any signs or symptoms of illness, but they can get infections again, and they can also transmit the bacteria to other people.” Clinical laboratories working with microbiologists on antibiotic resistance will want to follow the research conducted into these deadly pathogens. (Photo copyright: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.)
COVID-19 Pandemic Increased Antibiotic Resistance
The Basel researchers looked at 76 K. pneumoniae isolates recovered from 19 patients and 284 E. coli isolates taken from 61 patients, all between 2008 and 2018. The study was limited to patients in which the bacterial strains were detected from at least two consecutive screenings on admission to the hospital.
“DNA analysis indicates that the bacteria initially adapt quite quickly to the conditions in the colonized parts of the body, but undergo few genetic changes thereafter,” the Basel University press release states.
The researchers also discovered that some of the samples, including those from different species, had identical mechanisms of drug resistance, suggesting that the bacteria transmitted mobile genetic elements such as plasmids to each other.
One limitation of the study, the authors acknowledged, was that they could not assess the patients’ exposure to antibiotics.
Meanwhile, recent data from the World Health Organization (WHO) suggests that the COVID-19 pandemic might have exacerbated the challenges of antibiotic resistance. Even though COVID-19 is a viral infection, WHO scientists found that high percentages of patients hospitalized with the disease between 2020 and 2023 received antibiotics.
“While only 8% of hospitalized patients with COVID-19 had bacterial co-infections requiring antibiotics, three out of four or some 75% of patients have been treated with antibiotics ‘just in case’ they help,” the WHO stated in a press release.
WHO uses an antibiotic categorization system known as AWaRe (Access, Watch, Reserve) to classify antibiotics based on risk of resistance. The most frequently prescribed antibiotics were in the “Watch” group, indicating that they are “more prone to be a target of antibiotic resistance and thus prioritized as targets of stewardship programs and monitoring.”
“When a patient requires antibiotics, the benefits often outweigh the risks associated with side effects or antibiotic resistance,” said Silvia Bertagnolio, MD, Unit Head in the Antimicrobial resistance (AMR) Division at the WHO in the press release. “However, when they are unnecessary, they offer no benefit while posing risks, and their use contributes to the emergence and spread of antimicrobial resistance.”
Citing research from the National Institutes of Health (NIH), NPR reported that in the US, hospital-acquired antibiotic-resistant infections increased 32% during the pandemic compared with data from just before the outbreak.
“While that number has dropped, it still hasn’t returned to pre-pandemic levels,” NPR noted.
The UPenn researchers have already developed an antimicrobial treatment derived from guava plants that has proved effective in mice, Vox reported. They’ve also trained an AI model to scan the proteomes of extinct organisms.
“The AI identified peptides from the woolly mammoth and the ancient sea cow, among other ancient animals, as promising candidates,” Vox noted. These, too, showed antimicrobial properties in tests on mice.
These findings can be used by clinical laboratories and microbiologists in their work with hospital infection control teams to better identify patients with antibiotic resistant strains of bacteria who, after discharge, may show up at the hospital months or years later.
