Antibiotic susceptibility and resistance among bacterial enteropathogens isolated from international travelers to Mexico, Guatemala, and India, 2006--2008

The incidence rates of travelers' diarrhea (TD) have remained unchanged for the last fifty years. More recently, there have been increasing recommendations for self-initiated therapy and even prophylactic therapy for TD. There is no recent data on the in vitro activities of commonly used antibiotics for TD therapy and whether there have been any changes in susceptibilities over the last ten years. 456 enteropathogens were isolated from adult travelers to Mexico, India, and Guatemala between the years 2006 to 2008. MICs were determined for 10 different antimicrobials by the agar dilution method. Traditional antibiotics such as ampicillin, trimethoprim/sulfamethoxazole, and doxycycline continue to show high levels of resistance. Current first line antibiotic agents including fluoroquinolones and azithromycin had significantly higher MICs when compared to 10 years ago and MIC90 levels were beyond the CSLI cutoffs for resistance. There were significant geographical differences in resistance patterns when comparing Central America with India. Entertoxigenic Escherichia coli (ETEC) isolates were more resistant to ciprofloxacin (p=0.023), and levofloxacin (p=0.0078) in India; whereas, enteroaggregative Escherichia coli (EAEC) isolates from Central America showed more resistance. When compared to MICs of isolates 10 years prior, there was a four to ten-fold increase in MIC90s for ceftriaxone, ciprofloxacin, levofloxacin and azithromycin for both ETEC and EAEC. There were no significant changes in rifaximin MICs over the last ten years, which makes it a promising agent for TD. Rising MICs over time implicate the need for continuous surveillance of susceptibility patterns worldwide and for geography specific recommendations in TD therapy.^

Campaign contributions to congressional candidates by the healthcare sector from 1990 to 2008

Stakeholder groups with special interests as donors to finance congressional campaigns have been a controversial issue in the United Sates. While previous studies concentrated on whether a connection existed between the campaign contributions provided by stakeholder groups and the voting behavior of congressional members, there is little evidence to show the trend of allocation of their campaign contributions to their favorite candidates during the elections. This issue has become increasingly important in the health sector since the health care reform bill was passed in early 2010.^ This study examined the long-term trend of campaign contributions offered by various top healthcare stakeholder groups to particular political parties (i.e. Democrat and Republican). The main focus of this paper was to observe and describe the financial donations provided by these healthcare stakeholder groups in the congressional election cycles from 1990 to 2008 in order to obtain an overview of their patterns of campaign contributions. Their contributing behaviors were characterized based on the campaign finance data collected by the Center for Responsive Politics (CRP). Specifically, I answered the questions: (1) to which political party did specific healthcare stakeholder groups give money and (2) what was the pattern of their campaign contributions from 1990 to 2008?^ The findings of my study revealed that the healthcare stakeholder groups had different political party preferences and partisanship orientations regarding the Democratic or Republican Party. These differences were obvious throughout the election cycles from 1990 to 2008 and their distinct patterns of financial contribution were evident across industries in the health sector as well. Among all the healthcare stakeholder groups in this study, physicians were the top contributors in the congressional election. The pharmaceutical industry was the only group where the majority of contribution funds were allocated to Republicans in every election period studied. This study found that no interest group has succeeded in electing the preferred congressional candidate by giving the majority of its financial support to the winning party in every election. Chiropractors, hospitals/nursing homes, and health services/HMOs performed better than other healthcare stakeholder groups by supporting the electoral winner 8 out of 9 election cycles.^