|
This is an archive page. The links are no longer being updated.
STATEMENT OF
JEFFREY P. KOPLAN, M.D., M.P.H.
DIRECTOR
CENTERS FOR DISEASE CONTROL AND PREVENTION
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
SUBCOMMITTEE ON LABOR, HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, EDUCATION
UNITED STATES SENATE
September 20, 2000
I am Dr. Jeffrey P. Koplan, Director, Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention (CDC). Thank you, Mr. Chairman and
members of the Subcommittee, for your invitation to testify
today on the emerging national and global problem of antimicrobial
resistance and the response by CDC.
Antimicrobial Resistance as a Public Health Issue
In March 1942, a 33-year-old woman was hospitalized for a
month with a life-threatening streptococcal infection at a
New Haven, Connecticut, hospital. She was delirious, and her
temperature reached almost 107 F. Treatments with sulfa drugs,
blood transfusions, and surgery had no effect. As a last resort,
her doctors injected her with a tiny amount of an obscure
experimental drug called penicillin. Her hospital chart, now
at the Smithsonian Institution,
indicates a sharp overnight drop in temperature; by the next
day she was no longer delirious. That woman was the first
U.S. civilian whose life was saved by penicillin, and she
died last year at the age of 90.
The typical medical ward of a large city hospital was very
different in the 1930s than it is today. Today=s
wards are filled with patients with cancer, heart disease,
or the complications of diabetes or high blood pressure. In
contrast, the wards of the pre-antimicrobial era were populated
by patients with pneumonia, meningitis, sepsis, typhoid fever,
diphtheria, syphilis, tuberculosis, and rheumatic fever. There
were few effective therapies for most of these conditions.
Many of the patients were young, and most would die of the
disease or its complications. But within a few years, many
of these bacterial infections, and particularly their complications,
rapidly faded to become memories of the pre-antimicrobial
era.
Unfortunately, the emergence of drug resistance threatens
to reverse the progress prompted by the discovery of penicillin
and other miracle drugs that have been developed over the
last 50 years. Even with these miracle drugs, infectious diseases
are a leading cause of death worldwide and the third leading
overall cause of death in the United States. Antimicrobial
resistance contributes to the burden of infectious diseases
domestically and globally including bacterial, fungal, parasitic
and viral diseases. Antimicrobial resistance already affects
virtually all of the pathogens we have previously considered
to be easily treatable. Here in the 21st century, drug options
for the treatment of common infections are becoming increasingly
limited, and reliance on more expensive options contributes
to escalating health care costs. A 1995 Office of Technology
Assessment report estimated that the emergence of antimicrobial
resistance among six common bacteria in hospitals adds approximately
$661 million per year in hospital charges, and this estimate
does not include indirect costs. Many other scientific, policy,
and government organizations have called attention to this
issue, including, in the United States, the American Society
for Microbiology, the Infectious Diseases Society of America,
the Institute of Medicine, and the General Accounting Office.
International organizations that have expressed concern about
this issue include the World Health Organization, the European
Union, the United Kingdom House of Lords, and Health Canada.
Antimicrobial resistance is a complex and multifaceted public
health issue. The use of antimicrobials in agriculture can
lead to the development of resistant strains of pathogens
that can spread to humans through the food supply or through
contact with infected animals. International travel and trade
increases the likelihood that drug-resistant pathogens from
distant corners of the world can appear in the United States.
For example, malaria is frequently brought into our country
by U.S. travelers, and is being transmitted domestically at
an increasing rate. Because drug-resistant strains of malaria
now predominate across the globe, they present a growing problem
here. This complexity highlights the importance of a coordinated,
overarching multidisciplinary public health approach that
involves physicians, epidemiologists, laboratory and behavioral
scientists, veterinarians, and health educators. We are all
striving to make antimicrobial resistance a manageable problem
that does not compromise the availability of safe and effective
drugs to treat infectious diseases.
Drug resistance is one of the target areas in CDC's plan,
Preventing Emerging Infectious Diseases: A Strategy for
the 21st Century. Public health priorities
in the plan are organized under four broad, interdependent
goals, each of which can be applied to antimicrobial resistance:
improving surveillance and response capacity, addressing applied
research priorities, repairing the Nation's public health
infrastructure and training programs, and strengthening prevention
and control programs. Copies of CDC's plan have been provided
to the Subcommittee.
Surveillance and Response
Public health surveillance is the ongoing, systematic collection,
analysis, interpretation, and dissemination of health data
that results in public health action. These data are used
to detect outbreaks, characterize disease transmission patterns,
evaluate prevention and control programs, and project future
health care needs. In the case of drug resistance, surveillance
data available in a timely manner at national, state, and
local levels are needed to help clinicians know which antimicrobials
to prescribe, help researchers focus their efforts to develop
new drugs and vaccines, and help mount campaigns to improve
antimicrobial use and infection control practices.
With the exception of drug-resistant tuberculosis, which
is reportable in all 50 states, many states do not require
reporting of other drug-resistant infections. In those states
where drug-resistant infections are reportable, the extent
and type of reporting varies. To obtain more systematic information,
CDC, in collaboration with state and local health departments
and other partners, conducts limited surveillance in some
areas to monitor resistance for several important pathogens.
For example, surveillance for resistance among invasive pneumococcal
infections is conducted through the nine state health departments
involved in CDC=s
Emerging Infections Program cooperative agreements. Surveillance
is also conducted in 300 hospitals for healthcare-acquired
infections, in 15 states in collaboration with the Food and
Drug Administration (FDA) and the Department of Agriculture
for foodborne infections, and in 25 clinics for gonoccocal
infections. Other projects monitor drug resistance in Helicobacter
pylori, typhoid fever, HIV, and malaria, but only in a
handful of sites. In many communities, the rates of drug resistance
for common, serious infections are based on limited and potentially
unreliable data or are simply unknown. Existing systems are
not well-coordinated.
For many infections, resistance rates vary widely among communities
and among hospitals within communities. As one example, data
show that the penicillin resistance of Streptococcus pneumoniae
can vary considerably by location: 15 percent of strains in
parts of Maryland are resistant to penicillin, whereas in
five Tennessee counties, 38 percent are resistant. In Connecticut
the frequency of resistance varies from zero to 39 percent
among hospitals. These data highlight the need for such information
at all levelsBlocal,
state, and federalBin
order to guide clinical decisions and target interventions.
None of these surveillance systems is operational in all
50 states, in all hospitals, or covers all organisms for which
antimicrobial resistance is a problem. Coordinated national
antimicrobial resistance surveillance is needed to monitor
antimicrobial resistance in microorganisms that pose a threat
to public health. Core capacities at state and local levels
need to be defined. A system to monitor patterns of antimicrobial
drug use needs to be developed and implemented. This information
is essential to interpret trends and variations in rates of
antimicrobial resistance, improve our understanding of the
relationship between drug use and resistance, and help identify
interventions to prevent and control antimicrobial resistance.
Applied Research
Applied research needs include developing new drugs and vaccines;
identifying molecular mechanisms of drug resistance and risk
factors associated with its development and spread; developing
new and improved rapid diagnostic laboratory tests; and, in
collaboration with other agencies and private industry, assessing
the role of new vaccines and orphan drugs in preventing and
controlling the spread of resistant infections. These and
related research needs will require collaboration with other
agencies and private industry.
CDC has entered into a promising research collaboration with
a consortium formed by the University of Mississippi, Tulane
University, and Xavier University in New Orleans to develop
and test new antimalarial drugs. This work builds on the complementary
strengths of the universities. It focuses on the use of computer-assisted
drug design and natural products in the development and testing
of promising new medicines.
We also need to develop, implement, and evaluate preventive
interventions, including infection control strategies, such
as those in hospitals, day care centers, long-term care and
home health care settings; improve drug-prescribing practices
of health care providers; and the use of vaccines to prevent
drug-resistant infections. For example, a new conjugate vaccine
for children against Streptococcus pneumoniae, the
leading cause of pneumonia, meningitis, and ear infections,
was licensed for use in February 2000. CDC is evaluating the
impact of introduction of this vaccine on drug-resistant pneumococcal
infections in children. Research is also necessary to evaluate
the impact of drug resistance, including clinical outcomes
and economic costs of treating resistant infections. Without
these kinds of studies, it is extremely difficult to develop
and recommend prevention and control measures to institutions
and communities.
Infrastructure and Training
CDC's ongoing effort to rebuild the U.S. public health infrastructure
to address infectious diseases is critical in improving the
capacity of health departments, health care delivery organizations,
and clinical and public health laboratories to detect and
report drug-resistant infections and to implement prevention
and control strategies. Part of this effort includes enhancing
capacity to respond to outbreaks and training public health
professionals to be able to respond to emerging threats now
and in the future. Antimicrobial resistance is a constantly
changing challenge requiring that laboratory testing methods
be kept up-to-date. For example, a 1998 survey was conducted
among laboratories that routinely collaborate with CDC. Only
18 percent were actively using appropriate methods to detect
emerging resistance in Staphylococcus aureus, and only
32 percent were using appropriate methods to find resistance
in organisms that typically cause infections in intensive
care units. Thus for two important groups of hospital-acquired
infections, less than one-third of laboratories were performing
proficiently.
We need to ensure that laboratories remain up-to-date with
training and that whenever a doctor sends a specimen for culture
to a laboratory, the correct test will be done to detect drug
resistant infections, the test result will be interpreted
correctly and reported to the doctor in a way that helps to
select the appropriate drugs, and, if appropriate, reported
to a surveillance system. CDC=s
Epidemiology and Laboratory Capacity agreements to health
departments in 43 states and localities currently help support
these types of efforts. In addition, the Emerging Infectious
Diseases Laboratory Fellowship Program is a partnership between
CDC and the Association of Public Health Laboratories designed
to prepare laboratory scientists for careers in public health.
Prevention and Control
Perhaps the most daunting challenge is to develop a coordinated
program to prevent the spread of antimicrobial resistance
by translating information gleaned from surveillance and research
into practical public health prevention and control measures.
We can all relate to the parent awake at night with a sick
child. All that person wants is for his or her child to feel
better. For too long, that has often meant requesting an antibiotic
from the child=s
doctor. Although antibiotics work for bacterial infections,
we now know that they are not effective for many conditions
for which they have been prescribed including fluid accumulation
in the middle ear, colds, and bronchitis.
CDC has conducted focus groups with parents and physicians
to better understand the factors behind inappropriate antibiotic
use. We learned many things from these conversations. For
example, parents told us they need an antibiotic in order
for their children to return to daycare. This led us to develop
a daycare letter that parents can use to get around this ill-conceived
policy. Physicians told us that they do not typically have
enough time to educate a patient about the problem of antimicrobial
resistance and the reasons why antibiotics do not work for
viral infections. This reinforced our belief that we must
move forward on a nationwide public information campaign.
A key component of CDC=s
plan to address antimicrobial resistance is promoting appropriate
antimicrobial drug use. CDC is developing a national campaign
to improve physician prescribing practices and to educate
parents and patients about the proper use of antibiotics.
By promoting better communication between the public and the
medical community, we are attempting to change the entire
culture around which antibiotics are prescribed. We are working
towards a day when a patient or parent sees his or her health
care provider and rather than requesting an antibiotic, asks
for the best treatment available. Where antibiotic use is
appropriate, CDC promotes methods to increase adherence to
and completion of treatment. For instance, CDC uses directly
observed therapy, short-course (DOTS), to ensure patient compliance
with tuberculosis treatment. Use of DOTS has increased the
proportion of patients completing therapy, lowering the incidence
of multidrug-resistant tuberculosis. CDC and FDA have also
worked with the American Veterinary Medical Association in
its activities to develop prudent-use guidelines for therapeutic
veterinary uses of antimicrobials, and CDC strongly supports
the new framework articulated by FDA to consider the impact
on human drug resistance as part of the approval process for
antimicrobials used in food animal production.
In cooperation with professional societies, CDC has developed
educational materials for physicians and parents, including
a "prescription pad" for physicians to provide patients written
instructions for treating symptoms of viral illnesses, for
which antibiotics would be inappropriate. In collaboration
with AAP and the American Society for Microbiology, CDC has
also developed a brochure for parents, Your Child and Antibiotics,
explaining why antibiotics should not be given for most colds,
coughs, sore throats, and runny noses. These materials have
been distributed widely and are available on the CDC website.
Interventions using these materials and behavioral strategies,
such as physician-peer discussions, have proved successful
in several locations, including managed care settings in Boston
and Seattle, rural communities in northern Wisconsin, Alaska
Native villages, and on a county-wide basis in Knoxville,
Tennessee. Preliminary data suggest that these approaches
are effective. For example, in certain rural Alaskan villages,
an education intervention for the public and health care providers
successfully reduced antibiotic prescribing by 31 percent.
No change was seen in communities not receiving the intervention.
Although work is ongoing to measure the impact of reduced
antibiotic prescriptions on drug-resistance in the community,
these data hold promise that we do have the ability to make
a difference.
Appropriate drug-use policies should be implemented through
a public health education campaign that promotes appropriate
antimicrobial drug use as a national health priority. Improved
diagnostic practices should be promoted, including the use
of rapid diagnostic methods to guide drug prescribing. Reduced
infection transmission should be addressed through campaigns
that promote vaccination and hygienic practices such as hand
washing and safe food handling. Infection control in health
care settings should be enhanced by developing new interventions
based on rapid diagnosis, improved understanding of the factors
that promote cross-infection, and modified medical devices
or procedures that reduce the risk of infection.
Comprehensive, multi-faceted programs involving a wide variety
of non-federal partners and the public are required to prevent
and control antimicrobial resistance. We need to support demonstration
projects that use multiple interventions to prevent and control
antimicrobial resistance. We need to encourage the incorporation
of effective programs into routine practice
by implementing model programs in federal health-care systems
and promoting the inclusion of antimicrobial resistance prevention
and control activities as part of quality assurance and accreditation
standards for health care delivery nationwide.
Examples of Successes in Preventing Antimicrobial Resistance
Although there has been much discussion of how the problem
of antimicrobial resistance is increasing, it is also important
to note some successes that provide models for future programs.
Public health officials in Iowa, in partnership with physicians
and health departments in Nebraska and South Dakota, the Indian
Health Service, and CDC, recently succeeded in halting an
increase in acquisition of vancomycin-resistant enterococci
(VRE) among hospitalized patients and residents of long-term
care facilities in the tri-state Siouxland region surrounding
Sioux City, Iowa.
VRE is a highly resistant organism that is transmitted in
health-care settings. Some patients carry the organism without
experiencing symptoms, but others develop infections that
may be life-threatening. After a rapid increase in VRE was
reported in early 1997, a task force was formed by the Siouxland
district health department, consisting of local physicians,
infection control practitioners, and public health officials.
The VRE task force formulated several interventions, including
performing screening cultures on admitted patients, implementing
strict infection control policies based on CDC guidelines,
and educating health care workers about the epidemiology of
VRE and prudent use of antibiotics, especially vancomycin.
This strategy was effective. Over a two year period, the overall
prevalence of VRE at all the healthcare facilities decreased
from 2.5 to 0.5 percent. There was an elimination of VRE from
all the hospitals and a significant reduction in VRE at the
long-term care facilities. The key to success was the partnership
between public health and clinical medicine so that when surveillance
data indicated an emerging problem, science-based prevention
and control measures could be implemented rapidly to prevent
the spread of a serious drug-resistant infection in this community.
Other countries are grappling with problems of drug resistance
as well, and we can learn important lessons from their experiences.
In the early 1990s, Finland noted a dramatic increase in resistance
of Group A streptococci to the antimicrobial drug erythromycin.
Use of erythromycin had tripled and drug-resistance rates
correlated with the level of use in local areas. A program
of public and physician awareness combined with changes in
recommendations for prescribing resulted in reduced erythromycin
prescribing for minor outpatient infections and a steady decrease
in erythromycin resistance rates among Group A streptococci.
It was uncertain if this success could be replicated in a
country like the United States with a more heterogeneous population
and health care system, but preliminary findings from intervention
studies sponsored by CDC and others are encouraging.
Another success relies on modern information technology,
which can facilitate rapid collection, analysis, and feedback
of information to clinicians. A pioneering program of computer-assisted
decision support developed at LDS Hospital in Salt Lake City
offers antibiotic recommendations to clinicians based upon
computerized assessment of the patient's medical record and
surveillance data on drug resistance in the health care system.
This program was developed with input from local physicians,
who view it as a valuable resource. The program is associated
with decreased inappropriate antibiotic use, reduced frequency
of adverse drug reactions, reduced patient care costs, and
a stable rate of drug resistance.
Collaboration to Address Antimicrobial Resistance
Combating antimicrobial resistance will require federal leadership
and close collaboration among public and private sector partners.
Federal agencies need to work together with partners in clinical
medicine, laboratory and behavioral science, state and local
public health agencies, industry, and the public. International
cooperation is also critical. Together, we need to develop
public health goals and objectives, along with time frames
for implementation.
Beginning in June 1999, CDC, FDA, and the National Institutes
of Health joined with seven other federal agencies and departments
to form an Interagency Task Force on Antimicrobial Resistance
to develop A Public Health Action Plan to Combat Antimicrobial
Resistance. In addition to the three lead agencies, the
Task Force includes members from the Department of Agriculture,
the Department of Defense, the Department of Veterans Affairs,
the Environmental Protection Agency, and other agencies of
the Department of Health and Human Services, including the
Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, the Health Care
Financing Administration, and the Health Resources and Services
Administration. The Action Plan provides a blueprint
for specific, coordinated federal actions to address the emerging
threat of antimicrobial resistance. It reflects a broad-based
consensus of federal agencies, which was reached with input
from consultants from state and local health agencies, universities,
professional societies, pharmaceutical companies, health care
delivery organizations, agricultural producers, consumer groups,
and other members of the public. Implementation of this plan
will require close collaboration with all of these partners,
which is a major goal of the process. This summer, the draft
of the Action Plan was provided for public comment.
The Interagency Task Force has recently completed reviewing
comments received through this process and is now modifying
the Action Plan for final publication. This draft plan
identifies 11 top priority action items, and overall it has
87 specific action items addressing the important areas of
surveillance, prevention and control, research and product
development.
The Action Plan includes a summary and a list of issues,
goals, and action items and specifies Acoordinator@
and Acollaborator@
agencies or departments, and timelines for each. CDC=s
primary role is in the areas of surveillance and prevention
and control, addressing the needs I have detailed already
in this testimony. The Interagency Task Force will facilitate
coordination among agencies and monitor implementation of
the Action Plan. The Task Force plans to produce periodic
reports detailing how the plan is being implemented, solicit
comments from the public, and update the Plan as new information
and issues arise. Copies of this draft plan have been distributed
to the Subcommittee members. This document is Part I of the
Action Plan, focusing on domestic issues. Since resistance
transcends national borders and requires a global approach
to its prevention and control, Part II of the plan, to be
developed subsequently, will identify actions that address
international issues.
Conclusions
In conclusion, recent increases in antimicrobial resistance
are cause for serious concern but not pessimism. The rapid
spread of resistance demands an immediate and aggressive response
domestically and globally. Preliminary data suggest that antibiotic
prescribing practices can be improved. By forming effective
partnerships involving clinicians, researchers, public health
officials, and patients, we can prolong the effectiveness
of currently available antimicrobial drugs; accelerate the
development of needed new tools, including rapid diagnostic
tests, new antimicrobial agents, and new or improved vaccines;
and reduce the threat of antimicrobial resistance for patients
today and in future generations.
Thank you very much for your attention. I will be happy to
answer any questions you may have.
HHS Home (www.hhs.gov) |
Topics (www.hhs.gov/SiteMap.html) |
What's New (www.hhs.gov/about/index.html#topiclist) |
For Kids (www.hhs.gov/kids/) |
FAQs (answers.hhs.gov) |
Site Info (www.hhs.gov/SiteMap.html) |
Disclaimers (www.hhs.gov/Disclaimer.html) |
Privacy Notice (www.hhs.gov/Privacy.html) |
FOIA (www.hhs.gov/foia/) |
Accessibility (www.hhs.gov/Accessibility.html) |
Contact Us (www.hhs.gov/ContactUs.html)
|