Staph: MRSA and VRSA

MMAPlayground.com » MMA General » MMA Training » Staph: MRSA and VRSA
POLL: Should Staph (MRSA, VRSA) testing be stricter?
Yes 90% (9)
No 10% (1)
bjj1605
7/9/10 4:32:03PM
Article

Scary stuff. I'm an active grappler and train in MMA. About a year ago my daughter then 11 month old daughter contracted MRSA and was hospitalized for a week. Eventually necessitating IV antibiotics and a minor surgery to drain a boil.

What do you guys think? Is a system like the one mentioned at the end of the article a good idea?
BlueSkiesBurn
7/9/10 6:35:29PM
Wow, man, that's rough. I'm really sorry about that. To the thread subject, YES. An emphatic yes.
Rush
7/11/10 12:26:26AM
lol, Sherdog is about a year late on this. I posted an article about this ages ago.
Taylor8766
7/12/10 11:07:59AM
Ya they should test it more, especially after reading that article. And didnt Hammill fight Jardine with a staph infection on his back last fight,
telnights
7/12/10 4:04:53PM
This has been a known issue for a long time in the grappling/wrestling community. Its good that its starting to get more press coverage but seams to me this should have been covered a long time ago.
Rush
7/12/10 10:03:34PM

Posted by telnights

This has been a known issue for a long time in the grappling/wrestling community. Its good that its starting to get more press coverage but seams to me this should have been covered a long time ago.




The issue for the fighters is not to spread the infection by being stupid about it and taking their full course of antibiotics.

However, the onus of multi-drug resistance is still largely on the medical community and how (and what) they administer as antibiotics.

Here is the original article I posted ages ago if you want a more scientific angle.

thread
Jackelope
7/13/10 1:36:31AM

Posted by Rush


Posted by telnights

This has been a known issue for a long time in the grappling/wrestling community. Its good that its starting to get more press coverage but seams to me this should have been covered a long time ago.




The issue for the fighters is not to spread the infection by being stupid about it and taking their full course of antibiotics.

However, the onus of multi-drug resistance is still largely on the medical community and how (and what) they administer as antibiotics.

Here is the original article I posted ages ago if you want a more scientific angle.

thread



Knowing you're clearly more educated on the subject than I am, correct me if I'm wrong about bacteria here-

I'm no doctor at all, but what I do know of bacteria is that they have the ability to morph very quickly through generations (of which there are millions of for every one generation we have as humans) and in some cases to literally assimilate the resistive traits of other bacteria they come into contact with virtually on the spot.

This being said (and awaiting the confirmation from our resident Phd holder of its validity) isn't it logical to assume that the medical community, in one way or another, will more than likely almost always be one step behind the bacteria?

To me it seems logical unless some kind of rotation could be built in regards to how we treat these bacteria in which they drop their immunities for some reason or another at a time just before the rotation switches over to an old antibiotic that will now work again. That, or unless we come up with some kind of antibiotic that is somewhat of a "super" antibiotic which can not possibly have a resistance developed to. Which opens a whole 'nother can of worms based on the fact that it surely would damage our own "good bacterias" within our bodies as well.

I'm still friends with a truly brilliant biology professor from my college and I'm thinking of asking him to weigh in on the subject. Bacteria truly are amazing and IMO are most definitely the reason we are all here today. When you study this stuff and realize what it can do it will absolutely blow your mind. If you're into that kind of thing.
Rush
7/14/10 1:52:16AM
I don't have a lot of time to expand on this right now, but in short


Bacteria gain resistance to antibiotics by evolution. For example, a number of bacterial antibiotics target the ribosome (the macromolecule that makes protein). The antibiotic is a chemical that specifically bind to the ribosome and render it non-functional. Ribosomes can acquire random mutations in their RNA which prevent a certain antibiotic from binding. Thus, it is resistant to that antibiotic.

There are other mechanisms of antibiotic resistance such as the bacteria produce enzymes that break down or remove the antibiotic as well, but most bacterial antibiotics target the ribosome.

Now, there are a number of antibiotics that can treat bacterial infections. Off the bat, there are limitations for using some antibiotics based on how they are administered. i.e. some antibiotics cannot be taken orally and need to be applied topically. That reduces the options for treatment. Some antibiotics are administered to kill the bacteria and some just slow down growth.

Now here is where the issue arises. There are antibiotics that are general bacterial treatments. i.e. if you take them they will kill/affect all bacteria in your body (good and bad) and there are some that are specific to a certain strain or type of bacteria. Gram negative bacteria are harder to kill and the repertoire of antibiotics is small. Many of these were wonderful new drugs just 20 years ago, able to treat a wide variety of bugs, both inside and outside the hospital. Now we're at a point where some of them are next to useless, because they've been used for everything.

Ideally one would want to take a specific antibiotic because not only does it leave the good bacteria alone, but it reduces the chance of developing resistant strains (purely by statistical reasons).

The drawback is that it takes time and resources to find out the type of bacteria causing the infection. i.e. in many cases you cannot just look at a patient and say "you're infected with x bacterium". Not only that, many bacteria such as staph are generally not infectious and only become infectious on certain occasions, i.e. when they get in the bloodstream.

To identify the bacteria, a sample must be taken and cultured. This takes days and resources to do so many doctors do not do it. Many times physicians prescribe combination "broad-spectrum" antibiotics when a single "narrow-spectrum" antibiotic would do the trick. Physicians are unwilling to wait to treat serious infections until the bug is cultured and they learn to which antibiotics it's still susceptible. But once the crisis is over, usually 1 to 3 days after starting therapy, physicians could switch their patients to the appropriate narrow-spectrum antibiotic.

Now when bacteria acquire resistance they can mingle with other bacteria and swap gene cassettes or plasmids, giving the other bacteria resistance.

Now, the topic at hand is not drug resistance. This is inevitable. However the problem at hand is multi-drug resistance. Multi-drug resistant strains are commonly found in hospitals, but can spread to areas outside the hospital.

The problem has been exacerbated by the gradual exodus of pharmaceutical companies from antibiotic development--a trend that began in the 1980s and has accelerated since 2000, in large part because the market is iffy and the chances of success are slim. Of the 15 major pharmaceutical companies that once had flourishing antibiotic discovery programs, eight have left the field entirely, and two others have reduced their efforts significantly. That leaves only five--GlaxoSmithKline, Novartis, AstraZeneca, Merck, and Pfizer--that still have antibiotic discovery efforts commensurate with the size of the problem.

Even though the market for antibiotics is in the neighborhood of $25 billion a year, says Steve Projan, vice president of biological technologies at Wyeth Research in Cambridge, Massachusetts, other drugs, such as antidepressants or antihypertensives, offer a greater bang for the buck because they are often taken for years or decades rather than just a 7-to 14-day course. Resistance only compounds the problem: A drug that takes a decade to develop might be useful clinically for only a handful of years. Though I have heard that the vaccination market is making a come back, which is positive.

What's more, the better the antibiotic, the less health experts want to see it used to avoid the development of resistance.
Rush
7/15/10 1:08:44AM
ok, I said more than I expected. Most of it is out of my own knowledge, which is not that deep regarding the topic.

And Jackalope, FYI, bacteria is a plural word, so bacterias is plural redundant.

Rush
7/15/10 1:13:59AM

Posted by bjj1605

Article

Scary stuff. I'm an active grappler and train in MMA. About a year ago my daughter then 11 month old daughter contracted MRSA and was hospitalized for a week. Eventually necessitating IV antibiotics and a minor surgery to drain a boil.

What do you guys think? Is a system like the one mentioned at the end of the article a good idea?




That's horrible to hear about your daughter. Coincidentally, a coworker from my wife's lab spent time in the hospital because her daughter caught an infection. Her daughter was about 1 year old and had to be anesthetized 4 times to drain the puss.

So the answer to your question is yes, I think it needs to be taken more seriously by everyone. I am always disgusted to hear about fighters fighting with staph infections.
Jackelope
7/15/10 2:12:22AM

Posted by Rush

ok, I said more than I expected. Most of it is out of my own knowledge, which is not that deep regarding the topic.

And Jackalope, FYI, bacteria is a plural word, so bacterias is plural redundant.




Thanks, ass Guess I should have known that if I'd have thought more about it

Anyways I'm speaking above my level on the subject as well. I mean I know certain things because I've been told them, but I don't want to overstep my bounds because I don't have the living proof obtained during lab time to back up the things that I've been told about bacteria. (s) ... ha!

I've been told there is some kind of assimilation process certain bacteria can utilize to gain resistance to different things and that they can actually secrete proteins based on the genetic mutations that occur after introduction of said substances which initiated the assimilation process.

Again, though... I originally deferred to you on this topic because I knew you'd be more knowledgeable on it than I. It just seems that by virtue of genetic mutations as a result of a new harmful environment the bacteria simply evolve too quickly to ever really get a good handle on and therefore to quell the danger for future generations. As opposed to something like a virus which, in the case of smallpox for example, can be hunted down and exterminated on much easier terms.


(BTW I'm not speaking in absolutes by any means. Obviously within one single host or place a bacteria could probably be eradicated, but I'm talking about on the whole as a world it seems like it would be much harder to control a bacterium)
Related Topics