Latest News Archive

Please select Category, Year, and then Month to display items
Previous Archive
22 February 2024 | Story André Damons | Photo SUPPLIED
Prof Robert Bragg
Prof Robert Bragg is a researcher in the Department of Microbiology and Biochemistry at the University of the Free State (UFS) and believes hospital-acquired infections (HAIs) might already be “Disease X”.

During the World Governments Summit, the World Health Organisation (WHO) warned world leaders about the likelihood of a Disease X outbreak, saying it is “a matter of when, not if” a new pathogen and pandemic will strike. If there is an outbreak of this disease tomorrow, the world still would not be ready. 

During his speech earlier this month at the summit in Dubai, Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, Director-General of the WHO, said COVID-19 was a Disease X – a new pathogen causing a new disease. He said: “There will be another Disease X, or a Disease Y or a Disease Z. And as things stand, the world remains unprepared for the next Disease X, and the next pandemic. If it struck tomorrow, we would face many of the same problems we faced with COVID-19.”

Though Disease X is a hypothetical placeholder representing yet-to-be-encountered pathogens, Prof Robert Bragg, researcher in the Department of Microbiology and Biochemistry at the University of the Free State (UFS), believes hospital-acquired infections (HAI) might already be “Disease X”. He says data shows that deaths from HAIs will become the leading cause of human deaths. This problem is rapidly growing as most of the pathogens which people contract while in hospital are now resistant to antibiotics, making them very difficult to treat.  

Prof Bragg, whose main research is in disease-control, first in the agricultural industry, and now human health, also previously warned about a disease that would make COVID-19, which killed more than seven million people to date globally, look like a dress rehearsal. His PhD student, Samantha Mc Carlie, investigating how bacteria become resistant to disinfectant and sanitiser products. This is a serious problem for the future, as disinfection could be our last line of defence.

Heading for a crisis in health care

“The world is rapidly heading for a crisis in health care regarding hospital-acquired infections. It is common knowledge that we are quickly running out of antibiotics (and antifungals) to treat bacterial and yeast infections. Without antibiotics and antifungals, the outcome of many of these bacterial and yeast hospital-acquired infections will be very severe. They will, unfortunately, in many cases, result in the death of the patient,” says Prof Bragg. 

According to him, the WHO suggests that 30% of patients in ICUs in developed countries and 70% in underdeveloped countries will contract a HAI. Of these, the mortality rate can be as high as 70%. 

“Most of these infections are caused by multiple drug resistance strains of bacteria such as Enterococcus faecium, Staphylococcus aureus, Klebsiella pneumoniae, Acinetobacter baumannii, Pseudomonas aeruginosa and Enterobacter species. Additional bacteria and yeast, which can also cause HAIs, such as Serratia species, are also becoming a concern due to their intrinsic higher levels of disinfectant resistance.”

Prof Bragg explains that in 2014, a high-profile review was first published, commissioned by the UK Prime Minister, entitled, “Antimicrobial Resistance: Tackling a crisis for the Health and Wealth of Nations” (the AMR Review). This review estimated that antimicrobial resistance (AMR) could cause 10 million deaths annually by 2050 (The Review on Antimicrobial Resistance 2016). This is the same number of deaths caused by cancer today, making AMR the leading cause of human mortality by 2050. When it was finalised, this report was highly criticised as an over-dramatisation, as when this prediction was made, the number of mortalities related to HAIs was around 700 000 – a very long way off 10 000 000. However, according to recent estimates, five years later, in 2019, 1.27 million deaths were directly attributed to drug-resistant infections globally, and this had reached 4.95 million deaths associated with bacterial AMR (including those directly attributable to AMR) by 2022 (Murray et al. 2022). 

The overuse of disinfectants during the COVID-19 pandemic, according to Prof Bragg and Mc Calie, has contributed to the crisis by fostering resistant strains and contaminating environments. Based on the current trajectory of mortalities, the 10 million mark will be reached way before 2050.

Need for a paradigm shift

The researchers say an urgent need to change the paradigm in medicine from “treatment” to “prevention” is necessary and that the old saying ‘prevention is better than cure’ has never been truer. 

According to Bragg: “The golden era of antibiotics is rapidly coming to an end. It is highly unlikely that we will discover new antibiotics, and even if we do, the likelihood that the bacteria will already have or will be able to develop resistance in a very short time is highly likely. 

“We need to think of what happed with quinolones, where we thought we had won the war with a groundbreaking new antimicrobial agent. The bacteria did not have millions of years of evolution to develop resistance to quinolone, yet in only three years, the first resistant bacteria were isolated. There is currently great excitement around AI-derived new antibiotics. However, the end result is likely to be the same. We need an alternative to treatment – in other words, a paradigm shift.” 

Improved biosecurity 

Prof Bragg says highly improved biosecurity is the only viable option for disease control in a post-antibiotic era. By using good biosecurity in poultry production, he says the mortality rates were reduced by 50%. 

Research has shown a direct link between the environmental microbial load in a hospital and HAIs; with a lower microbial load linked to lower incidence of HAIs including C. difficile infections (Boyce et al. 2008; Suleyman et al. 2018; Umemura et al., 2022). Therefore, the new paradigm is to reduce microbial contamination in the hospital environment to prevent HAIs. If there are fewer dangerous microorganisms in an environment, patient and staff exposure to these microorganisms will decrease, reducing the level of HAIs for staff and patients. However, to reduce the microbial loads in healthcare settings, effective cleaning and disinfection products need to be used. 

News Archive

To tan or not to tan: a burning issue
2009-12-08

 Prof. Werner Sinclair

“Some evidence exists which implies that sunscreens could indeed be responsible for the dramatic rise in the incidence of melanoma over the past three decades, the period during which the use of sunscreens became very popular,” says Prof. Werner Sinclair, Head of the Department of Dermatology at the University of the Free State. His inaugural lecture was on the topic Sunscreens – Curse or Blessing?

Prof. Sinclair says the use of sunscreen preparations is widely advocated as a measure to prevent acute sunburn, chronic sun damage and resultant premature skin aging as well as skin malignancies, including malignant melanoma. There is inconclusive evidence to prove that these preparations do indeed achieve all of these claims. The question is whether these preparations are doing more harm than good?

He says the incidence of skin cancer is rising dramatically and these tumours are induced mostly by the ultra-violet rays.

Of the UV light that reaches the earth 90-95% belongs to the UVA fraction. UVC is normally filtered out by the ozone layer. UVB leads to sunburn while UVA leads to pigmentation (tanning). Because frequent sunburn was often associated with skin cancer, UVB was assumed, naively, to be the culprit, he says.

Exposure to sunlight induces a sense of well-being, increases the libido, reduces appetite and induces the synthesis of large amounts of vitamin D, an essential nutritional factor. The use of sunscreen creams reduces vitamin D levels and low levels of vitamin D have been associated with breast and colon cancer. Prof. Sinclair says the 17% increase in breast cancer from 1981 to 1991 parallels the vigorous use of sunscreens over the same period.

Among the risk factors for the development of tumours are a family history, tendency to freckle, more than three episodes of severe sunburn during childhood, and the use of artificial UV light tanning booths. He says it remains a question whether to tan or not. It was earlier believed that the main carcinogenic rays were UVB and that UVA merely induced a tan. The increase in UVA exposure could have severe consequences.

Prof. Sinclair says the UV light used in artificial tanning booths consists mainly of pure UVA which are highly dangerous rays. It has been estimated that six per cent of all melanoma deaths in the UK can be directly attributed to the use of artificial tanning lights. The use of an artificial tanning booth will double the melanoma risk of a person. “UVA is solely responsible for solar skin aging and it is ironical that tanning addicts, who want to look beautiful, are inflicting accelerated ageing in the process,” he says.

On the use of sunscreens he says it can prevent painful sunburn, but UVA-induced damage continues unnoticed. UVB blockers decrease vitamin D synthesis, which is a particular problem in the elderly. It also prevents the sunburn warning and therefore increases the UVA dosage that an individual receives. It creates a false sense of security which is the biggest problem associated with sunscreens.

Evidence obtained from the state of Queensland in Australia, where the heaviest and longest use of sunscreens occurred, boasted the highest incidence of melanoma in the world. A huge study in Norway has shown a 350% increase in melanoma for men and 440% for women. This paralleled the increase in the use of UVB blocking sunscreens while there was no change in the ozone layer. It did however, occur during that time when tanning became fashionable in Norway and there was an increase especially in artificial tanning.

Prof. Sinclair says: “We believe that sunscreen use does not directly lead to melanoma, but UVA exposure does. The Melanoma Epidemic is a reality. Sunscreen preparations are not the magical answer in the fight against melanoma and the irresponsible use of these preparations can worsen the problem.”

Media Release
Issued by: Mangaliso Radebe
Assistant Director: Media Liaison
Tel: 051 401 2828
Cell: 078 460 3320
E-mail: radebemt.stg@ufs.ac.za
7 December 2009

We use cookies to make interactions with our websites and services easy and meaningful. To better understand how they are used, read more about the UFS cookie policy. By continuing to use this site you are giving us your consent to do this.

Accept