Clinical and microbiological aspects of linezolid resistance mediated by the cfr gene encoding a 23S rRNA methyltransferase.

The cfr (chloramphenicol-florfenicol resistance) gene encodes a 23S rRNA methyltransferase that confers resistance to linezolid. Detection of linezolid resistance was evaluated in the first cfr-carrying human hospital isolate of linezolid and methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (designated MRSA CM-05) by dilution and diffusion methods (including Etest). The presence of cfr was investigated in isolates of staphylococci colonizing the patient's household contacts and clinical isolates recovered from patients in the same unit where MRSA CM-05 was isolated. Additionally, 68 chloramphenicol-resistant Colombian MRSA isolates recovered from hospitals between 2001 and 2004 were screened for the presence of the cfr gene. In addition to erm(B), the erm(A) gene was also detected in CM-05. The isolate belonged to sequence type 5 and carried staphylococcal chromosomal cassette mec type I. We were unable to detect the cfr gene in any of the human staphylococci screened (either clinical or colonizing isolates). Agar and broth dilution methods detected linezolid resistance in CM-05. However, the Etest and disk diffusion methods failed to detect resistance after 24 h of incubation. Oxazolidinone resistance mediated by the cfr gene is rare, and acquisition by a human isolate appears to be a recent event in Colombia. The detection of cfr-mediated linezolid resistance might be compromised by the use of the disk diffusion or Etest method.

Federally regulated institutional review boards: The aspects of a "model" IRB---Is the current system in need of a tune up or complete overhaul?

Institutional Review Boards (IRBs) are the primary gatekeepers for the protection of ethical standards of federally regulated research on human subjects in this country. This paper focuses on what general, broad measures that may be instituted or enhanced to exemplify a "model IRB". This is done by examining the current regulatory standards of federally regulated IRBs, not private or commercial boards, and how many of those standards have been found either inadequate or not generally understood or followed. The analysis includes suggestions on how to bring about changes in order to make the IRB process more efficient, less subject to litigation, and create standardized educational protocols for members. The paper also considers how to include better oversight for multi-center research, increased centralization of IRBs, utilization of Data Safety Monitoring Boards when necessary, payment for research protocol review, voluntary accreditation, and the institution of evaluation/quality assurance programs. ^ This is a policy study utilizing secondary analysis of publicly available data. Therefore, the research for this paper focuses on scholarly medical/legal journals, web information from the Department of Health and Human Services, Federal Drug Administration, and the Office of the Inspector General, Accreditation Programs, law review articles, and current regulations applicable to the relevant portions of the paper. ^ Two issues are found to be consistently cited by the literature as major concerns. One is a need for basic, standardized educational requirements across all IRBs and its members, and secondly, much stricter and more informed management of continuing research. There is no federally regulated formal education system currently in place for IRB members, except for certain NIH-based trials. Also, IRBs are not keeping up with research once a study has begun, and although regulated to do so, it does not appear to be a great priority. This is the area most in danger of increased litigation. Other issues such as voluntary accreditation and outcomes evaluation are slowing gaining steam as the processes are becoming more available and more sought after, such as JCAHO accrediting of hospitals. ^ Adopting the principles discussed in this paper should promote better use of a local IRBs time, money, and expertise for protecting the vulnerable population in their care. Without further improvements to the system, there is concern that private and commercial IRBs will attempt to create a monopoly on much of the clinical research in the future as they are not as heavily regulated and can therefore offer companies quicker and more convenient reviews. IRBs need to consider the advantages of charging for their unique and important services as a cost of doing business. More importantly, there must be a minimum standard of education for all IRB members in the area of the ethical standards of human research and a greater emphasis placed on the follow-up of ongoing research as this is the most critical time for study participants and may soon lead to the largest area for litigation. Additionally, there should be a centralized IRB for multi-site trials or a study website with important information affecting the trial in real time. There needs to be development of standards and metrics to assess the performance of the IRBs for quality assurance and outcome evaluations. The boards should not be content to run the business of human subjects' research without determining how well that function is actually being carried out. It is important that federally regulated IRBs provide excellence in human research and promote those values most important to the public at large.^

The Effect of Proximity, Explicitness, and Representation of Basic Science Information on Student Clinical Problem-Solving

Problem: Medical and veterinary students memorize facts but then have difficulty applying those facts in clinical problem solving. Cognitive engineering research suggests that the inability of medical and veterinary students to infer concepts from facts may be due in part to specific features of how information is represented and organized in educational materials. First, physical separation of pieces of information may increase the cognitive load on the student. Second, information that is necessary but not explicitly stated may also contribute to the student’s cognitive load. Finally, the types of representations – textual or graphical – may also support or hinder the student’s learning process. This may explain why students have difficulty applying biomedical facts in clinical problem solving. Purpose: To test the hypothesis that three specific aspects of expository text – the patial distance between the facts needed to infer a rule, the explicitness of information, and the format of representation – affected the ability of students to solve clinical problems. Setting: The study was conducted in the parasitology laboratory of a college of veterinary medicine in Texas. Sample: The study subjects were a convenience sample consisting of 132 second-year veterinary students who matriculated in 2007. The age of this class upon admission ranged from 20-52, and the gender makeup of this class consisted of approximately 75% females and 25% males. Results: No statistically significant difference in student ability to solve clinical problems was found when relevant facts were placed in proximity, nor when an explicit rule was stated. Further, no statistically significant difference in student ability to solve clinical problems was found when students were given different representations of material, including tables and concept maps. Findings: The findings from this study indicate that the three properties investigated – proximity, explicitness, and representation – had no statistically significant effect on student learning as it relates to clinical problem-solving ability. However, ad hoc observations as well as findings from other researchers suggest that the subjects were probably using rote learning techniques such as memorization, and therefore were not attempting to infer relationships from the factual material in the interventions, unless they were specifically prompted to look for patterns. A serendipitous finding unrelated to the study hypothesis was that those subjects who correctly answered questions regarding functional (non-morphologic) properties, such as mode of transmission and intermediate host, at the family taxonomic level were significantly more likely to correctly answer clinical case scenarios than were subjects who did not correctly answer questions regarding functional properties. These findings suggest a strong relationship (p < .001) between well-organized knowledge of taxonomic functional properties and clinical problem solving ability. Recommendations: Further study should be undertaken investigating the relationship between knowledge of functional taxonomic properties and clinical problem solving ability. In addition, the effect of prompting students to look for patterns in instructional material, followed by the effect of factors that affect cognitive load such as proximity, explicitness, and representation, should be explored.