The myth of the medical breakthrough: Smallpox, vaccination, and Jenner reconsidered

AbstractA discussion of the particulars leading to the eradication of smallpox is pertinent to both investigators and the public as the clamor for more “breakthroughs” intensifies. The rational allocation of biomedical research funds is increasingly threatened by disease-advocacy groups and congressional earmarking. An overly simplistic view of how advances truly occur promises only to stunt the growth of researchers and research areas not capable of immediate great breakthroughs. The authors review the contributions of Jenner and his countless predecessors to give a more accurate account of how “overnight medical breakthroughs” truly occur—through years of work conducted by many people, often across several continents.In the public eye, few achievements are regarded with such excitement and awe as the medical breakthrough. Developments such as the discovery of penicillin and the eradication of polio and smallpox have each become a great story built around a singular hero. Edward Jenner, for example, is credited with discovering a means of safely conferring immunity to smallpox. The success of vaccination and subsequent eradication of this disease elevated Jenner to a status in medical history that is rivaled by few.However, the story of the eradication of smallpox does not start or end with the work of Jenner. Men such as Benjamin Jesty and Reverend Cotton Mather as well as unnamed physicians from tenth century China to eighteenth century Turkey also made critical contributions to the crowning achievement. Inoculation to prevent smallpox was commonplace in Europe for generations prior to Jenner's work. Jenner himself was inoculated as a child. In fact, vaccination with cowpox matter was documented in England over 20 years prior to Jenner's work.The authors' review of primary and secondary sources indicates that although Jenner's contribution was significant, it was only one of many. It is extremely rare that a single individual or experiment generates a quantum leap in understanding; this “lone genius” paradigm is potentially injurious to the research process. Wildly unrealistic expectations can only yield unsuccessful scientific investigation, but small steps by investigators supported by an informed public can build toward a giant leap, as the story of smallpox eradication clearly demonstrates

Occupational Deaths among Healthcare Workers

Recent experiences with severe acute respiratory syndrome and the US smallpox vaccination program have demonstrated the vulnerability of healthcare workers to occupationally acquired infectious diseases. However, despite acknowledgment of risk, the occupational death rate for healthcare workers is unknown. In contrast, the death rate for other professions with occupational risk, such as police officer or firefighter, has been well defined. With available information from federal sources and calculating the additional number of deaths from infection by using data on prevalence and natural history, we estimate the annual death rate for healthcare workers from occupational events, including infection, is 17–57 per 1 million workers. However, a much more accurate estimate of risk is needed. Such information could inform future interventions, as was seen with the introduction of safer needle products. This information would also heighten public awareness of this often minimized but essential aspect of patient care

Clinicians' Knowledge, Attitudes, and Concerns Regarding Bioterrorism After a Brief Educational Program

We conducted this study to determine the knowledge, attitudes, and intended behaviors of New York City clinicians regarding bioterrorism-related diseases after a brief educational program. Data on clinicians’ knowledge and attitudes toward bioterrorism and related diseases were collected using a self-administered questionnaire following a 3.5-hour educational program. Participants (n = 310, 82% response rate) reported increased confidence in recognizing symptoms of bioterrorism-related diseases (89%), in addressing patients’ bioterrorism concerns (83%), and ability to treat bioterrorism victims (75%). Despite a high level of confidence in the efficacy of infection control precautions, participants’ knowledge scores regarding safe work practices suggest that additional education is warranted. Educational programs are useful in enhancing the public health response to bioterrorism and its consequences

Multidrug-Resistant Tuberculosis in Patients without HIV Infection

BACKGROUND Investigations of outbreaks of multidrug-resistant tuberculosis have found low rates of treatment response and very high mortality, and they have mainly involved patients with advanced human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infection. For patients without HIV infection, one study reported an overall rate of response to treatment of 56 percent, and the mortality from tuberculosis was 22 percent. We investigated treatment response and mortality rates in 26 HIV-negative patients in New York with multidrug-resistant tuberculosis. METHODS We obtained detailed data from seven teaching hospitals in New York City on patients with multidrug-resistant tuberculosis--defined as tuberculosis resistant at least to isoniazid and rifampin--who were HIV-negative on serologic testing. Lengths of times from diagnosis to the initiation of appropriate therapy and from the initiation of appropriate therapy to conversion to negative cultures were assessed. Therapeutic responses were evaluated by both microbiologic and clinical criteria. RESULTS Between March 1991 and September 1994, 26 HIV-negative patients were identified and treated. Of the 25 patients for whom adequate data were available for analysis, 24 (96 percent) had clinical responses; all 17 patients for whom data on microbiologic response were available had such a response. The median times from diagnosis to the initiation of appropriate therapy and from the initiation of therapy to culture conversion were 44 days (range, 0 to 181) and 69 days (range, 2 to 705), respectively. Side effects requiring the discontinuation of medication occurred in 4 of 23 patients (17 percent) who were treated with second-line antituberculosis medications. The median follow-up for the 23 patients who responded and who received appropriate therapy was 91 weeks (range, 41 to 225). CONCLUSIONS In this report from New York City, HIV-negative patients with multidrug-resistant tuberculosis, contrary to previous reports, responded well to appropriate chemotherapy, both clinically and microbiologically

SHEA Guideline for Management of Healthcare Workers Who Are Infected with Hepatitis B Virus, Hepatitis C Virus, and/or Human Immunodeficiency Virus

This guideline provides the updated recommendations of the Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America (SHEA) regarding the management of healthcare providers who are infected with hepatitis B virus (HBV), hepatitis C virus (HCV), and/or the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV). For the reasons cited in the guideline, SHEA continues to recommend that, although some aspects of the approach to and administrative management of each of these infectious syndromes in healthcare providers are similar, separate management strategies for healthcare workers who are infected with these unrelated viruses remain appropriate. As we did in both prior iterations of this document, SHEA emphasizes the use of appropriate infection control procedures to minimize exposure of patients or providers to blood, emphasizes that transfers of blood from patients to providers and from providers to patients should be avoided, and recommends that infected healthcare providers should not be totally prohibited from participating in patient-care activities solely on the basis of a bloodborne pathogen infection. The types of procedures assessed by the panel as associated with an increased risk for provider-to-patient transmission of these pathogens are discussed in detail. For each pathogen, recommendations are graduated according to the relative viral load level of the infected provider (Tables 1 and 2). However, SHEA emphasizes that, because of the complexity of these cases, each such case will be slightly different from the next, and each should be independently considered in context

Effect of daily chlorhexidine bathing on hospital-acquired infection

BACKGROUND Results of previous single-center, observational studies suggest that daily bathing of patients with chlorhexidine may prevent hospital-acquired bloodstream infections and the acquisition of multidrug-resistant organisms (MDROs). METHODS We conducted a multicenter, cluster-randomized, nonblinded crossover trial to evaluate the effect of daily bathing with chlorhexidine-impregnated washcloths on the acquisition of MDROs and the incidence of hospital-acquired bloodstream infections. Nine intensive care and bone marrow transplantation units in six hospitals were randomly assigned to bathe patients either with no-rinse 2% chlorhexidine– impregnated washcloths or with nonantimicrobial washcloths for a 6-month period, exchanged for the alternate product during the subsequent 6 months. The incidence rates of acquisition of MDROs and the rates of hospital-acquired bloodstream infections were compared between the two periods by means of Poisson regression analysis. RESULTS A total of 7727 patients were enrolled during the study. The overall rate of MDRO acquisition was 5.10 cases per 1000 patient-days with chlorhexidine bathing versus 6.60 cases per 1000 patient-days with nonantimicrobial washcloths (P=0.03), the equivalent of a 23% lower rate with chlorhexidine bathing. The overall rate of hospital-acquired bloodstream infections was 4.78 cases per 1000 patient-days with chlorhexidine bathing versus 6.60 cases per 1000 patient-days with nonantimicrobial washcloths (P=0.007), a 28% lower rate with chlorhexidine-impregnated washcloths. No serious skin reactions were noted during either study period. CONCLUSIONS Daily bathing with chlorhexidine-impregnated washcloths significantly reduced the risks of acquisition of MDROs and development of hospital-acquired bloodstream infections. (Funded by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and Sage Products; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00502476.