Skip to main content

The context you need, when you need it

When news breaks, you need to understand what actually matters — and what to do about it. At Vox, our mission to help you make sense of the world has never been more vital. But we can’t do it on our own.

We rely on readers like you to fund our journalism. Will you support our work and become a Vox Member today?

Join now

New study finds a five-fold increase in superbugs we can’t treat

This is a very scary chart: the solid line in the middle shows the incredibly fast rise of antibiotic superbugs, the type of infections that are resistant to our current arsenal of medical treatments.

superbugs

The rate of infections with one particularly scary superbug — carbapenem-resistant Enterobacteriaceae, or CRE — has grown five-fold since 2008, according to a new study of 25 Southwestern hospitals that are part of an infectious disease network run by Duke University.

Yes, the rates are still relatively low: in 2012, there were 1.4 recorded cases of CRE per 100,000 patient days spent in the hospital. But the rapid rise is still alarming — back in 2008, there were only 0.26 cases per 100,000 patient. And this is an infection that kills as many as half of those infected.

And this isn’t something people go to the hospital to get treatment for; it’s something they typically catch in the course of treatment for something entirely different. Ninety-four percent of the cases in this study involved infections that happened during a trip to the hospital for something completely different, maybe an appendectomy or hip replacement.

There are a few possible explanations for this trend, researchers writing in the journal Infection Control and Hospital Epidemiology say. One is that this particular infection appears to be on the rise; that’s something that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has warned about since at least 2012.

One other theory, which is just barely more comforting, is that we’ve simply developed better technology for detecting CRE. Labs now use “more sensitive detection methods,” and that could mean some cases that slipped by them earlier are now turning up in later statistics.

At the same time, the authors think their work still underestimates the rate of CRE infections, largely because not all hospitals have adopted the best detection methods. There are probably even more cases out there that hospitals never even detected, and that could be a huge problem all unto itself.

“The inability to detect and control CRE,” the study authors write, “makes in-hospital transmission more likely and could further drive the increasing trend and lead to hospital outbreaks.”

(Hat tip to WBUR’s Here and Now, where I noticed the study)

See More:

More in archives

archives
Ethics and Guidelines at Vox.comEthics and Guidelines at Vox.com
archives
By Vox Staff
Supreme Court
The Supreme Court will decide if the government can ban transgender health careThe Supreme Court will decide if the government can ban transgender health care
Supreme Court

Given the Court’s Republican supermajority, this case is unlikely to end well for trans people.

By Ian Millhiser
archives
On the MoneyOn the Money
archives

Learn about saving, spending, investing, and more in a monthly personal finance advice column written by Nicole Dieker.

By Vox Staff
archives
Total solar eclipse passes over USTotal solar eclipse passes over US
archives
By Vox Staff
archives
The 2024 Iowa caucusesThe 2024 Iowa caucuses
archives

The latest news, analysis, and explainers coming out of the GOP Iowa caucuses.

By Vox Staff
archives
The Big SqueezeThe Big Squeeze
archives

The economy’s stacked against us.

By Vox Staff