Loading...

Overview: Evolution moves fast


Infectious pathogens are constantly getting stronger and more strategic, adapting to new environments,
and evolving to resist existing treatments. Despite this constant evolution, the technologies crucial to
fighting antimicrobial resistance (AMR) often fail to keep pace. While the most formidable pathogens
are always the latest and greatest version, clinical tools can become archaic and outdated, unable to
reliably equip physicians with the most accurate and actionable information in a timely fashion.

Even the most basic medical technologies have gone through stages of innovation as they advanced
over time—consider, for example, the stethoscope. Now an iconic item slung around the neck of
practicing physicians, this tool originated as improvisation, in the form of a rolled-up sheet of paper.
Early stethoscopes were based on (and looked like!) the musical flute, and even today the stethoscope
continues to evolve in its efficacy and accuracy.

If we understand medical technologies must evolve, shouldn't it be the same for our lab reporting and
analysis processes?

Technology has to keep pace, and lab reporting is no exception


Much like the stethoscope, lab reporting originated as a piece of paper: traditional lab reports were
designed to be used with manual typewriters. But because lab reports never evolved beyond their
original design, today’s providers are confronted with the limited dimensionality of these reports—
making it difficult to interpret results in a larger context, compare outcomes data, or take into account
specific patient characteristics and needs.

Outdated lab reporting technologies are not merely inefficient, they can also be especially dangerous in
the fight against antimicrobial resistance (AMR). The United States sees more than 2.8 million AMR
infections each year, resulting in over 35,000 annual deaths. These figures are just a portion of a larger
global crisis, with over 1 million yearly deaths caused by AMR-related illnesses, and AMR as a
contributing factor to another 5 million deaths each year. Alongside the heavy human toll comes
resource strain and cost burden as well: in the United States alone, the yearly cost of treating infections
caused by drug-resistant pathogens exceeds $4.6 billion.

In the face of these numbers, outdated lab reporting technologies simply won't cut it.

Stop relying on archaic tech for your lab needs


Providers seek out the latest and most advanced tools available in order to stay ahead of the curve in
patient care. Delivering optimal patient care requires using clinical tools for diagnostic support that are
capable of precisely considering the individual patient. That’s precisely what Arkstone delivers in our
OneChoice and Medsmatrix solutions.

With AI-backed precision analysis and interpretation and real-time patient-specific treatment plans,
Arkstone equips users with the optimal treatment regimen in a matter of seconds. Backed by advanced
artificial intelligence and a deep understanding of infectious diseases, our decision-supporting clinical
tools delivers capabilities that match the pace of development in today’s digital age: putting modern
technologies to use toward precise, rapid, and effective patient care.

Diagnostic-supporting clinical tools built for the future


Typical lab reports only offer a static interpretation of test results, but Arkstone’s recommendations
provide dosages and duration of treatment, tailored to the unique needs of each patient.

  • OneChoice includes numerical ArkScores assessing infection complexity, antibiotic adverse
    reactions, and resistance gene implications.

  • Medsmatrix provides a drug-to-microbe relationship, shows why a drug may not work, and
    includes NIH data and standard-of-care references for evidence-based recommendations.

  • Arkstone’s other interactive tools enable:

    • Cross-checking of drug interactions

    • Calculating GFR and CrCl for appropriate dosage

    • Determination of dosing adjustments for renal or hepatic dysfunction




Partner with Arkstone to drive precision patient care


Outdated lab reporting methods are inefficient, inaccurate, and unnecessary—and like any obsolete
technology can cause more harm than good.

Don’t settle for outdated methods when it comes to providing care for your patients. Choose Arkstone
for the latest and most advanced clinical tools in diagnostic support.

Arkstone and its partners are introducing a new era of more precise, rapid, and effective patient care.

Reach out to Arkstone today and let’s talk about the future of precision patient care.

Prior to the development of antibiotics, an infection could more often than not, lead to one’s demise. A sore throat, simple skin infection, or a urinary tract infection could potentially be life-threatening. However, with the development of the first antibiotic, new possibilities arose, along with hope and optimism. Previous diseases that would ultimately lead to death could now be cured and sometimes in a matter of days.





Penicillin was initially hailed as a “miracle drug,” as it had rapidly become the cure for many diseases. Penicillin was widely used after it first came to the market and was used to treat infections such as sexually transmitted diseases, skin and soft tissue, pharyngitis, and respiratory infections. Penicillin even found its way into World War II, as the United States pushed for penicillin to be used to save soldiers’ lives by treating a variety of diseases such as bloodstream infections or infections secondary to injury or surgical operations.





The United States, through commercial-scale fermentation, produced 4 million sterile packages of penicillin per month during World War II. However, as the use of penicillin soared to meet the demand of those that needed its cure, an interesting and frightening side effect was noted, called antimicrobial resistance. For bacteria to survive exposure to penicillin, it would ultimately “learn” or adapt to overcome and defend themselves against this new powerful weapon designed to protect humanity. This natural selection of more resistant bacteria was inevitable and an evolutionary process, as bacteria soon developed mechanisms of becoming resistant. These mechanisms include the development of antibiotic-resistance genes harbored by the bacteria. When a bacteria mutated and developed these resistance genes, penicillin would no longer be effective against it, making the bacteria even more dangerous.





Penicillin-resistant bacteria was initially noted by the father and creator of this miracle drug himself, Alexander Fleming. Alexander Fleming is credited with the penicillin discovery in 1928, although it took him many more years to convince the scientific community of its possibility of curing people of infections. In 1940, it finally came to the market with the help of other scientists. In 1945, in an interview with the New York Times, Alexander Fleming, a recent Nobel Prize recipient for this amazing discovery, warned the world that the misuse of this new drug could lead to antimicrobial resistance. Fleming went as far as to say, “The thoughtless person playing with penicillin treatment is morally responsible for the death of the man who succumbs to infection with the penicillin-resistant organism.”





Eighty-two years after the first antibiotic was introduced, we are now seeing antimicrobial resistance in an unprecedented manner. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) notes that 2.8 million antibiotic-resistant infections occur in the U.S. each year with more than 35,000 people dying as a result. Side effects of antibiotics such as Clostridioides difficile lead to an additional 3 million infections with 48,000 deaths. In addition to the CDC, the World Health Organization (WHO), and the United Nations (UN) have now identified antimicrobial resistance as a global and public health concern. The WHO has implemented the Global AMR response in an effort to combat this rising threat. The UN has warned that if no action is taken, drug resistance disease can lead to 10 million deaths by each year by 2050 and force up to 24 million people into extreme poverty by 2030.





Although antimicrobial resistance is a natural phenomenon that occurs when bacteria are exposed to antibiotics, this process is exacerbated and accelerated with the overutilization of antibiotics. The CDC estimates that at least 30% of antibiotic prescriptions are unnecessary. This translates to 47 million excess antibiotic prescriptions each year. In 2015, the White House released the National Action Plan for combating antibiotic-resistant bacteria, which set a goal of reducing inappropriate antibiotics. The Joint Commission, an institution that provides regulator standards for hospitals and nursing homes, and the Centers of Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) has made it mandatory to implement programs to reduce the overuse of antibiotics, called antimicrobial stewardship programs. However, despite the global effort to reduce antibiotic overutilization and regulatory standards implemented, we are still seeing antimicrobial resistance rise, along with increased mortality and morbidity. This global health crisis has no borders, as countries around the world are seeing similar trends.





Antimicrobial resistance can be viewed similarly to climate change in many ways. Both issues are attributed to human activity and their resolution involves global collaboration. As noted by Andrew Jameton and Howard Frumkin, in Chapter 10 of Environmental Health Ethics, in order to effectively solve these large problems, environmental justice needs to be addressed. As it pertains to antimicrobial resistance, low socioeconomic regions with limited resources are often left without the tools needed to combat antimicrobial resistance. In some studies, it was noted that 80% of counties have below-average infectious disease specialists or no infectious disease specialists at all. This disproportionately affects rural parts of the United States.





An important argument that can be made, is that the healthcare system has a moral obligation to provide the resources needed to combat antimicrobial resistance. There is a clear gap in the ability to provide effective antimicrobial stewardship throughout the US. Most effective antimicrobials stewardship programs are in academic institutions or large hospital centers with the resources to fund these programs. For outpatient facilities, or those facilities with limited resources, antimicrobial stewardship programs remain on the wayside either by not being implemented at all or by implementation of a less-than-par program to meet minimal requirements.





Newer technologies using artificial intelligence (AI) and machine learning give access to infectious disease expertise in settings that otherwise would not. Data analyzed by AI systems can track, record, and monitor infection and antimicrobial resistance trends while also providing real-time evidence-based guidance on the appropriate utilization of antimicrobials. The ethical consideration of this level of automation for disease surveillance was addressed in the article by Michelle M. Mello and C. Jason Wang, Ethics in Governance for Digital Disease Surveillance. Although using advanced technologies to provide the tools needed to solve antimicrobial resistance appears logical, it’s important to assure inequities and bias still do not persist based on limited excess to facilities using these newer technologies. Patients’ privacy can be a potential ethical concern as this may go beyond what patients are accustomed to as it pertains to who is viewing their data.





Clinicians must be cognizant of antimicrobial resistance and that their direct actions can have indirect dire consequences. Currently, there are no regulations or mandates that require antimicrobial stewardship programs in the outpatient setting. This is particularly concerning, as a large portion of inappropriate antibiotic prescribing occurs in the outpatient setting. There is currently no accountability for healthcare providers prescribing antibiotics outside of evidence-based recommendations. In many situations, healthcare providers may not even be aware of new evidence and the latest guidelines on antimicrobial prescribing. Most healthcare providers are not specifically trained in the specialty of infectious disease. In addition, infectious disease specialists are paid considerably less than other medical specialties, which may account for the many medical school graduates gravitating away from this specialty. It is clear that the growth of infectious disease specialists is not meeting demand.





Global health issues are often difficult to solve as it involves collaboration on multiple levels, including the individual level, local and federal government, and collaboration between nations. We see this level of complexity when trying to find solutions to climate change, and similar obstacles exist with regard to antimicrobial resistance. An emphasis on the ethical and moral responsibilities of healthcare providers, insurance companies, and the government, in providing solutions is essential. Left without accountability, we are bound to see these problems worsen. In addition, counties must unite and work together to solve these global issues. What will affect one country, is bound to affect another, as COVID-19 has clearly demonstrated. Newer technologies can help bridge the gap and provide important tools to underserved areas, that otherwise would have no access to innovative solutions. An open mind should be kept so that new innovations can be implemented to help solve these issues while maintaining the ethical and moral standards expected.



Antimicrobial resistance continues to play a significant role in clinicians’ everyday practice. Healthcare providers are now faced with clinical scenarios where selecting an antibiotic to treat an infection is becoming increasingly more difficult, and in some cases impossible. Highly resistant microbes, or “superbugs”, are becoming increasingly common, and for many physicians, the everyday norm. One of the ways in which bacteria become resistant is through the acquisition of resistance genes. These resistance genes can be shared between species of bacteria, rapidly amplifying the spread and threat of these organisms. An important example is the OXA-48 resistance gene, which can cause bacteria to become resistant to last-line antibiotics. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) estimates that 2.8 million people are infected with an antibiotic-resistant infection, with more than 35,000 people dying as a result. The World Health Organization (WHO) has adopted a Global Action Plan and the White House has included strategic actions to improve the health and well-being of Americans by changing the course of antibiotic resistance in their 2020 National Action Plan.





Urinary tract infections (UTIs) are described as the most common type of infection seen by healthcare providers in the outpatient setting. Studies demonstrate that incidence can be as high as 60% in women, with risks increasing with age, and with sexual activity in younger women. In addition, healthcare-associated UTIs acquired in a hospital or healthcare setting are the most common form of healthcare-acquired infection. The CDC notes that in 2015 there were 62,700 UTIs in acute care hospitals and that UTIs account for more than 9.5% of infections reported there. Furthermore, indwelling urinary catheterization for hospitalized patients is a significant risk of urinary tract infection. With estimates as high as 25% of hospitalized patients receiving a short-term indwelling urinary catheter, the risk for UTIs is increased. Urinary catheters are also used in many nursing home patients, representing approximately 5% of the residents, translating to about 50,000 patients at a given time.





Many studies have demonstrated that the overdiagnosis of UTIs is a significant cause of antibiotic prescription and overutilization. In one study, patients were prescribed antibiotics, even when urine cultures were negative. Another study demonstrated that excessive workup for UTIs resulted in overtreatment with antibiotics, placing an exponential burden and cost on the healthcare system. In 2011, it was estimated that an average hospitalization with a primary diagnosis of a UTI was $2.8 billion in healthcare costs.





A focus on improving how healthcare providers diagnose and treat UTIs can have a profound effect on limiting risks of antimicrobial resistance, direct patient care and their subsequent outcomes, and the costs to the healthcare system. Programs put in place to improve the appropriate utilization of antibiotics are called antimicrobial stewardship programs. These programs are currently endorsed by the CDC and WHO and are required in many settings by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) and the Joint Commission.





An important point of focus to improve antibiotic prescription for UTIs is education on the distinction between symptomatic bacteriuria, and asymptomatic bacteriuria. Bacteriuria is defined as the presence of bacteria in a patient’s urine. However, in the absence of symptoms consistent with UTI, or asymptomatic bacteriuria, an infection may not be implicated and antibiotics may not be required. With few exceptions (preoperatively for urological procedures and during pregnancy to name a few) antibiotics are typically not indicated for asymptomatic bacteriuria. Many studies demonstrate that bacteria can be detected in the absence of infection. According to the Infectious Disease Society of America’s (IDSA) most recent guidelines on asymptomatic bacteriuria, elderly men and women in long-term care may have an incidence of asymptomatic bacteriuria as high as 50%. Furthermore, the IDSA notes that patients with long-term urinary catheterization can have an incidence of asymptomatic bacteriuria up to 100%.





Another important point to consider when treating UTIs is deciding which antibiotic to use. Often, providers erroneously believe that so long as an antibiotic has activity, it doesn’t matter which antibiotic is selected for treatment. However, the appropriate selection of an antibiotic is key to proper antimicrobial stewardship and can have a significant impact on both the outcome of the infection and the patient. Certain antibiotics, like fluoroquinolones (such as ciprofloxacin or levofloxacin), should be reserved when no other options are available, due to significant adverse reactions associated with its use. Other antibiotics which are considered broad-spectrum (such as meropenem or ertapenem) should only be used when resistant microbes are suspected. There are many other intricate nuances that should be considered prior to selecting antibiotic therapy.





Lastly, the duration of therapy makes a significant impact as well on the development of antimicrobial resistance and adverse drug reactions. Multiple studies demonstrate that shorter courses of antibiotics for UTIs are just as effective as longer durations. The longer a patient is exposed to an antibiotic, the more at risk they are for potential side effects such as Clostridioides difficile, renal failure, and hepatic toxicity, amongst others. Therefore, it is imperative that the appropriate duration of treatment is selected, one with the minimal amount of exposure necessary to cure the infection adequately.





Without drastic change and intervention antimicrobial resistance will continue to worsen. UTIs are among the most common causes of infection, and therefore one of the most common reasons antibiotics are used. Therefore, intervention in regard to the management of UTIs can provide a significant impact on the reduction of antibiotic use. Education on the appropriate criteria for treatment, the antibiotic of choice, as well as the appropriate duration of therapy, is vital for optimal and effective antimicrobial stewardship.