{"id":8672,"date":"2018-04-01T14:54:04","date_gmt":"2018-04-01T18:54:04","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/blogs.nejm.org\/hiv-id-observations\/?p=8672"},"modified":"2018-04-06T15:28:21","modified_gmt":"2018-04-06T19:28:21","slug":"news-flash-world-isnt-sterile","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/blogs.nejm.org\/hiv-id-observations\/index.php\/news-flash-world-isnt-sterile\/2018\/04\/01\/","title":{"rendered":"News Flash — The World Isn’t Sterile"},"content":{"rendered":"
\"\"<\/a>

I am a serious biothreat.<\/p><\/div>\n

You might have missed this press release from the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID):<\/p>\n

Bethesda, MD
\nApril 1, 2018
\nThe National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, at the National Institutes of Health, invites grant applications which propose research in the following 3 critical world health challenges:
\n1.\u00a0 Development of an effective HIV vaccine. <\/strong>
\n2.\u00a0 Global eradication of malaria.<\/strong>
\n3.\u00a0 Identification of the germs you can find lurking on or inside everyday objects.<\/strong> Priority items for this research include the kitchen drying rack, the shower curtain, and bathtub toys.<\/p>\n

Well, not really.<\/p>\n

But the inspiration for that (lame) April Fools’ Day joke was this recently published study finding\u00a0bacteria inside your kid’s rubber duck<\/em>.<\/a><\/p>\n

And it’s not just rubber ducks. A prior study found these and other scary bugs in your office coffee maker<\/em><\/a>.<\/p>\n

While we’re at it, let’s take a look at your flight’s tray table<\/em><\/a>.<\/p>\n

On your kitchen sponge<\/em><\/a>.<\/p>\n

Or in the other room, on your TV remote control<\/em><\/a>.<\/p>\n

Outside, in the playground sandbox<\/em><\/a>.<\/p>\n

And beware your\u00a0doctor’s necktie<\/a><\/em> and stethoscope<\/em><\/a>. And that white coat<\/a><\/em>? Teeming. I could go on and on.<\/p>\n

(In fact, I already did<\/a>!)<\/p>\n

Indeed, if you look hard enough, bacteria can be found literally everywhere\u00a0<\/a>— except perhaps inside your hospital’s autoclave.<\/p>\n

What’s missing from all these studies, of course, is a correlation between identification of these bugs and any<\/em> subsequent diseases. It’s not as if kids with rubber ducks are coming down with more infections than kids who don’t have them.<\/p>\n

Perhaps a competing bath toy company will fund a clinical outcomes study, but don’t hold your breath. The rubber ducks have quite a stranglehold on this market.<\/p>\n

In summary, bacteria on common household, work, and travel items are ubiquitous; furthermore, we lack any clinical data that this is important in any way.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a>Hence, I wonder — why are these “we found bacteria on [common-item]” studies so common? Even more perplexing, why are they such popular news fodder? The press can’t seem to get enough.<\/p>\n

According to its Altmetric score<\/a>\u00a0(pictured to the right), the above-mentioned rubber duck study is a bigger news story than the fact that\u00a0rates of tuberculosis in the USA have reached historic lows<\/a>.<\/p>\n

(Since TB control is one of the few things our crazy U.S. healthcare system does really well, I like to publicize these data whenever possible. You’re welcome.)<\/p>\n

And what do we call these studies? Clearly the very category deserves a name:<\/p>\n

\n

I need a clever word or phrase to describe this category of study: "We cultured [common household\/work\/travel item]; here are the [scary sounding microbes] we found."
Suggestions? https:\/\/t.co\/jSPg8LTi5n<\/a><\/p>\n

— Paul Sax (@PaulSaxMD) April 1, 2018<\/a><\/p><\/blockquote>\n