ShareThis Page

Pitt team wages war on antibiotic resistance

| Wednesday, Nov. 12, 2014, 12:13 a.m.

Antibiotics won't do an ounce of good for most cases of acute bronchitis, a nasty chest cold that can stir up a bone-jarring cough for months.

Yet doctors prescribe the bacteria-killing drugs for as many as 70 percent of patients with the sickness, often because they just can't tell whether a bacterial infection or a virus is the underlying cause, University of Pittsburgh researchers warn.

They say a simple blood test might solve the mystery and prevent unnecessary antibiotic use, a move that could help inhibit antibiotic-resistant germs that sicken thousands. Pitt researchers began a study of the blood test last week on patients with suspected lung infections.

“Over the long term, you will induce antibiotic resistance in that specific patient and in the world at large,” said Dr. David T. Huang, a Pitt associate professor in emergency medicine who cautioned against antibiotic overuse for lung infections.

He called antibiotic resistance “a disaster, because as the bacteria get more and more resistant, it's going to get harder and harder to treat them, which is why it's so important to use antibiotics only when they're truly needed.”

Huang's five-year study with Drs. Aaron Brown and Franziska Jovin at Pitt will expand on earlier findings in Switzerland, where researchers discovered a protein known as procalcitonin at high rates in patients with bacterial infections, but not in those with viral infections.

At UPMC Presbyterian in Oakland, medical students in the next three years will monitor emergency patients for coughs or fevers that could suggest a lung infection.

Researchers will take a closer look at those who might be eligible to join the study and ask their permission.

Lung infection patients who enroll in the research, called the Procalcitonin Antibiotic Consensus Trial, will receive either standard treatment or standard treatment with an extra blood test to measure procalcitonin levels.

Test results will be available within an hour for attending emergency physicians, who will decide whether to prescribe antibiotics, according to Pitt. Researchers will follow up with patients to check on their health, antibiotic use and — for those admitted to the hospital — procalcitonin levels.

Huang said the results should illustrate how well the protein can serve as a detector for bacteria-induced infections. He hopes patient recoveries will be just as robust while antibiotic use drops off, he said.

The project follows an executive order in September from President Obama, who ordered federal agencies to tamp down antibiotic-resistant bacteria. About 23,000 deaths and 2 million illnesses each year nationwide are tied to antibiotic-resistant infections, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in Atlanta.

That costs the domestic economy as much as $20 billion in health care costs and $35 billion in lost productivity, the White House said in a statement. The National Institutes of Health supplied a $5 million grant for the procalcitonin trial, which is set to expand to about 10 other hospitals nationwide and enroll more than 1,500 lung infection patients within several years.

“I don't think the problem these days is so much clinical,” said Ellen Silbergeld, a professor of environmental health sciences and epidemiology at the Johns Hopkins School of Public Health in Baltimore.

She praised the health care sector for cutting down on avoidable antibiotic use and raising awareness through education.

Now the agriculture sector should follow suit, Silbergeld said. She said federal estimates show about 80 percent of antibiotics manufactured in the U.S. go into animal feed.

“Getting control of that is not insignificant. If we can do that without suffering any economic or other consequences, it seems to me it's something we can do as a high priority,” Silbergeld said.

Adam Smeltz is a staff writer for Trib Total Media. He can be reached at 412-380-5676 or

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.