Hacker News Reader

Comment by Tharkun | Hacker News Reader

Is this becoming a serious problem? Or is this just getting more press attention suddenly? We've had outbreaks and near-hysteria of various sorts (HIV, SARS, swine flu etc). But those seem orders of magnitude easier to manage than this fungal infection. You don't need to tear down hospital rooms after an HIV patient spent time in it.

View on HN

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/06/health/drug-resistant-can...

> Over the last five years, it has hit a neonatal unit in Venezuela, swept through a hospital in Spain, forced a prestigious British medical center to shut down its intensive care unit, and taken root in India, Pakistan and South Africa.

> Recently C. auris reached New York, New Jersey and Illinois, leading the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to add it to a list of germs deemed “urgent threats.”

...

> C. auris is so tenacious, in part, because it is impervious to major antifungal medications, making it a new example of one of the world’s most intractable health threats: the rise of drug-resistant infections.

Antifungal resistant fungal infections are common in the Cystic Fibrosis community. I haven't participated for several years on any CF lists, but I used to be on several.

I checked my old emails. There is zero mention of candida auris.

This appears to be fairly new and becoming very serious, from what I gather.

(Updated to say "antifungal.")

Pedant: All fungal infections are antibiotic-resistant, because antibiotics kill bacteria. Antifungal-resistant fungi have long been a problem for anyone who spends time in hospitals, though.

The term is ambiguous, but Merriam-Webster defines antibiotic as ...

> a substance produced by or a semisynthetic (see semisynthetic sense 1) substance derived from a microorganism and able in dilute solution to inhibit or kill another microorganism

Bacteria and fungi are microorganisms, so antibacterial and antifungal agents are all antibiotics.

Edit: OK, upon reflection, some fungi are microorganisms. Others form filaments. Candida spp. can do either, depending on growth conditions. I'm not sure about Candida auris. There are references to colonies on growth media, but that doesn't necessarily mean filaments.

I suspect the parent's confusion is due to the misapplication of antibiotics to treat viral infections (it's not really clear if viruses are alive or what, but, don't take abx for a cold please). However, as you note, antibiotics do treat other things like yeast/microorganisms in addition to bacteria. For whatever reason you'll more often see antifungals described as "antifungal agents" rather than antibiotics.

Anyhow, fungal infection is bad news, often systemic, hard to eliminate.

Antibacterials kill bacteria.antibiotics can kill a number of different living things but not viruses

The article indicates it's been deadly for the elderly and people with weakened immune systems. In the case of this patient, it probably entered the bloodstream via a catheter.

It's probably difficult for it to infect people from skin contact.

The cases are accelerating, and the information is actively being suppressed from the public (for what they see as good reasons, I guess). Something tells me that candida auris will change the way hospitals are built and maintained.

>The cases are accelerating, and the information is actively being suppressed from the public (for what they see as good reasons, I guess).

Do you have any sources for these claims or is this tinfoil-hattery? What would be these "good reasons" for suppressing information? And if the information is unavailable, how do you know that "the cases are accelerating"?

The linked articles explicitly say that hospitals are not publicizing the infections because they want to avoid panic. Previously rare fungal infection showing up in five hospitals is a pretty significant uptick.

The fact that it’s extraordinarily hard to eradicate is notable as well. One of the linked articles mentioned having to tear out ceiling tiles and flooring to get at it.

There is a difference between being reluctant to disclose information and suppressing it; the article says the former, the poster recast it as the latter.

The CDC and health department are specifically prevented from disclosing what institutions have had outbreaks. That seems like “suppression”

With bacteria and fungi alike, hospitals and local governments are reluctant to disclose outbreaks for fear of being seen as infection hubs. Even the C.D.C., under its agreement with states, is not allowed to make public the location or name of hospitals involved in outbreaks. State governments have in many cases declined to publicly share information beyond acknowledging that they have had cases.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/06/health/drug-resistant-can...

If he had sources, it wouldn't be a very good cover up.

The nondisclosure has been the subject of several news reports, e.g.:

In January, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention sent out an urgent public alert about a deadly bacteria, resistant to virtually every known antibiotic, that sickened more than a dozen Americans who had elective surgery at Grand View Hospital in Tijuana, Mexico.

But when similar outbreaks take place at hospitals on American soil, the C.D.C. makes no such public announcement. That is because under its agreement with states, the C.D.C. is barred from publicly identifying hospitals that are battling to contain the spread of dangerous pathogens.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/08/health/candida-auris-hosp...

> the information is actively being suppressed from the public (for what they see as good reasons, I guess)

It's about malpractice, I'm sure.

I don't think that's why the CDC suppressing the names of hospitals with infections.

Why do you think that it's doing so?

From what I've seen, I gather that CDC is getting pressure from lobbyists for hospitals and nursing homes. Directly, and indirectly through the federal government and states.

For those doubting parent post's claim, the CDC had previously been barred from disclosing which hospitals were affected by outbreaks. NYTimes on 8 April 2019:

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/08/health/candida-auris-hosp...

Yes. See for example:

https://www.mdpi.com/2076-0817/8/2/45

Frankly, it's hard to say. The year before it, we had super gonnerhea scare. Before that the hospital super bacteria scare. Before that, it was the ebola scare. Ever since I'd started paying attention to the news, we have a medical (bacteria/virus/fungi/etc) related scare every few months so I've just learn to ignore it mostly. It seems to come in waves. Now, we seem to be in a medical scare phase with fungi, measles, etc. Invariably this scare will die down and we'll all forget it and a new scare ( asteroids, supervolcanoes, ? ) will take over. Then it'll be climate or AI or social media or maybe north korea or terrorism or whatever is in queue. I've just learned to not care. I'm numb to the incessant fearmongering.

You have to judge each scare by weighing the evidence yourself. The news business model relies on scaring the snuff out of us for clicks so we are left weigh the evidence ourselves. I think people do a better job at this then we realize. Like Ebola< low concern because its not transmitted by air only with open wound contact very few cases in the US. All people infected are quarantined> Super valcanos..we have a ten percent chance for it to blow up by the end of the century. For me not too worried. But everything i read on fungus infections...this is going to be a problem. This is going to be a huge challenge for this coming decade. These links below explain>

https://today.oregonstate.edu/archives/2010/mar/fungi-can-ch...

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5095543/

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/10/061021115712.h...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com