Infectious Diseases

Chest Infections & Disaster Response Network

Disaster Response & Global Health Section

In recent years, the importance of inpatient vaccinations against respiratory viral illnesses has become increasingly clear. As the world grapples with the ever-present threat of contagious diseases like influenza, COVID-19, Respiratory Syncytial Virus (RSV) and other respiratory viruses, the significance of vaccinating individuals during hospital stays cannot be overstated. Notably, the rates of inpatient vaccinations have significantly increased in recent years.

Numerous studies have demonstrated the success of various strategies to boost vaccine delivery to hospitalized patients. These strategies include personalized catch-up plans, electronic medical record (EMR) prompts, visual reminders, staff education and training, and allowing nonphysicians to screen and order vaccines. The implementation of nonphysician protocols has proven effective in increasing inpatient influenza vaccinations in multiple studies (Mihalek AJ, et al. Hosp Pediatr. 2021 Dec 1. doi: 10.1542/hpeds.2021-005924; Skull S, et al. J Paediatr Child Health. 1999;35[5]:472).

Optimizing the delivery of vaccines to hospitalized patients carries substantial public health benefits. This is especially vital for patients who face challenges accessing primary care and during periods of health care systems disruptions, such as those experienced during the COVID-19 pandemic.

In conclusion, inpatient vaccinations against respiratory viral illnesses are supported by a growing body of evidence. These vaccinations not only prevent disease transmission within health care facilities but also protect vulnerable patients, alleviate the burden on health care systems and with the recent approval of the RSV vaccine, we have a new tool to combat respiratory viruses effectively. As we continue to navigate the challenges posed by respiratory viruses, prioritizing inpatient vaccinations is a wise and necessary step toward a healthier, safer future for all.

Stella Ogake, MD – Section Member-at-Large

Chest Infections & Disaster Response Network

Disaster Response & Global Health Section

In recent years, the importance of inpatient vaccinations against respiratory viral illnesses has become increasingly clear. As the world grapples with the ever-present threat of contagious diseases like influenza, COVID-19, Respiratory Syncytial Virus (RSV) and other respiratory viruses, the significance of vaccinating individuals during hospital stays cannot be overstated. Notably, the rates of inpatient vaccinations have significantly increased in recent years.

Numerous studies have demonstrated the success of various strategies to boost vaccine delivery to hospitalized patients. These strategies include personalized catch-up plans, electronic medical record (EMR) prompts, visual reminders, staff education and training, and allowing nonphysicians to screen and order vaccines. The implementation of nonphysician protocols has proven effective in increasing inpatient influenza vaccinations in multiple studies (Mihalek AJ, et al. Hosp Pediatr. 2021 Dec 1. doi: 10.1542/hpeds.2021-005924; Skull S, et al. J Paediatr Child Health. 1999;35[5]:472).

Optimizing the delivery of vaccines to hospitalized patients carries substantial public health benefits. This is especially vital for patients who face challenges accessing primary care and during periods of health care systems disruptions, such as those experienced during the COVID-19 pandemic.

In conclusion, inpatient vaccinations against respiratory viral illnesses are supported by a growing body of evidence. These vaccinations not only prevent disease transmission within health care facilities but also protect vulnerable patients, alleviate the burden on health care systems and with the recent approval of the RSV vaccine, we have a new tool to combat respiratory viruses effectively. As we continue to navigate the challenges posed by respiratory viruses, prioritizing inpatient vaccinations is a wise and necessary step toward a healthier, safer future for all.

Stella Ogake, MD – Section Member-at-Large

Chest Infections & Disaster Response Network

Disaster Response & Global Health Section

In recent years, the importance of inpatient vaccinations against respiratory viral illnesses has become increasingly clear. As the world grapples with the ever-present threat of contagious diseases like influenza, COVID-19, Respiratory Syncytial Virus (RSV) and other respiratory viruses, the significance of vaccinating individuals during hospital stays cannot be overstated. Notably, the rates of inpatient vaccinations have significantly increased in recent years.

Numerous studies have demonstrated the success of various strategies to boost vaccine delivery to hospitalized patients. These strategies include personalized catch-up plans, electronic medical record (EMR) prompts, visual reminders, staff education and training, and allowing nonphysicians to screen and order vaccines. The implementation of nonphysician protocols has proven effective in increasing inpatient influenza vaccinations in multiple studies (Mihalek AJ, et al. Hosp Pediatr. 2021 Dec 1. doi: 10.1542/hpeds.2021-005924; Skull S, et al. J Paediatr Child Health. 1999;35[5]:472).

Optimizing the delivery of vaccines to hospitalized patients carries substantial public health benefits. This is especially vital for patients who face challenges accessing primary care and during periods of health care systems disruptions, such as those experienced during the COVID-19 pandemic.

In conclusion, inpatient vaccinations against respiratory viral illnesses are supported by a growing body of evidence. These vaccinations not only prevent disease transmission within health care facilities but also protect vulnerable patients, alleviate the burden on health care systems and with the recent approval of the RSV vaccine, we have a new tool to combat respiratory viruses effectively. As we continue to navigate the challenges posed by respiratory viruses, prioritizing inpatient vaccinations is a wise and necessary step toward a healthier, safer future for all.

Stella Ogake, MD – Section Member-at-Large

Chest Infections & Disaster Response Network

Chest Infections Section

November 12 marks World Pneumonia Day, and while it has long been recognized that viruses play a significant role in causing pneumonia, awareness has surged due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Furthermore, with the advent of rapid molecular diagnostics, the contribution of respiratory viral pathogens in pneumonia has become clearer (Seema J, et al. N Engl J Med. 2015 Jul 30;373[5]:415-27). Despite COVID-19 remaining a substantial threat, infection rates with other respiratory viruses are on the rise and will continue to increase during colder months. Here, we will provide an update on influenza and RSV:
 

Currently, influenza activity in the United States is low (National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases. FluView. 2023 Oct 4. https://www.cdc.gov/flu/weekly/index.htm). Vaccination coverage for US adults during the previous influenza season stood at 47% (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. FluVaxView Vaccination Dashboard. 2023 Oct 4. https://www.cdc.gov/flu/fluvaxview/dashboard/vaccination-dashboard.html). Hospitalizations were estimated to range between 300,000 and 650,000, a significant increase from the 2021-2022 season, which saw about 100,000 hospitalizations (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Preliminary In-Season Estimates of Influenza Burden. 2023 Oct 4. https://www.cdc.gov/flu/about/burden/preliminary-in-season-estimates.htm). Data from the Southern Hemisphere’s recent influenza season indicates a 52% vaccine efficacy in preventing influenza-associated hospitalizations (Fowlkes AL, et al. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2023 Sep 15;72[37]:1010-5). Influenza hospitalization rates are likely returning to higher pre-COVID-19 levels.

Respiratory Syncytial Virus (RSV) is a seasonal pathogen causing substantial morbidity and mortality. This year, two new vaccines have become available to prevent RSV-associated lower respiratory tract diseases, boasting a vaccine effectiveness of over 80% for the first and over 70% for the second season post-administration (Melgar M, et al. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2023 Jul 21;72[29]:793-801). The CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices recommends a single dose for adults over 60, and one vaccine is FDA-approved for pregnant individuals (32-36 weeks gestation) to provide passive infant immunity.

In summary, both the current influenza vaccine and the new RSV vaccines demonstrate effectiveness and are strongly recommended, alongside an updated COVID-19 vaccine.

John Huston, MD

Jamie Felzer, MD, MPH – Section Fellow-in-Training

Charles Dela Cruz, MD – Section Member-at-Large

Sebastian Kurz, MD, FCCP – Network Member-at-Large

Chest Infections & Disaster Response Network

Chest Infections Section

November 12 marks World Pneumonia Day, and while it has long been recognized that viruses play a significant role in causing pneumonia, awareness has surged due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Furthermore, with the advent of rapid molecular diagnostics, the contribution of respiratory viral pathogens in pneumonia has become clearer (Seema J, et al. N Engl J Med. 2015 Jul 30;373[5]:415-27). Despite COVID-19 remaining a substantial threat, infection rates with other respiratory viruses are on the rise and will continue to increase during colder months. Here, we will provide an update on influenza and RSV:
 

Currently, influenza activity in the United States is low (National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases. FluView. 2023 Oct 4. https://www.cdc.gov/flu/weekly/index.htm). Vaccination coverage for US adults during the previous influenza season stood at 47% (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. FluVaxView Vaccination Dashboard. 2023 Oct 4. https://www.cdc.gov/flu/fluvaxview/dashboard/vaccination-dashboard.html). Hospitalizations were estimated to range between 300,000 and 650,000, a significant increase from the 2021-2022 season, which saw about 100,000 hospitalizations (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Preliminary In-Season Estimates of Influenza Burden. 2023 Oct 4. https://www.cdc.gov/flu/about/burden/preliminary-in-season-estimates.htm). Data from the Southern Hemisphere’s recent influenza season indicates a 52% vaccine efficacy in preventing influenza-associated hospitalizations (Fowlkes AL, et al. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2023 Sep 15;72[37]:1010-5). Influenza hospitalization rates are likely returning to higher pre-COVID-19 levels.

Respiratory Syncytial Virus (RSV) is a seasonal pathogen causing substantial morbidity and mortality. This year, two new vaccines have become available to prevent RSV-associated lower respiratory tract diseases, boasting a vaccine effectiveness of over 80% for the first and over 70% for the second season post-administration (Melgar M, et al. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2023 Jul 21;72[29]:793-801). The CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices recommends a single dose for adults over 60, and one vaccine is FDA-approved for pregnant individuals (32-36 weeks gestation) to provide passive infant immunity.

In summary, both the current influenza vaccine and the new RSV vaccines demonstrate effectiveness and are strongly recommended, alongside an updated COVID-19 vaccine.

John Huston, MD

Jamie Felzer, MD, MPH – Section Fellow-in-Training

Charles Dela Cruz, MD – Section Member-at-Large

Sebastian Kurz, MD, FCCP – Network Member-at-Large

Chest Infections & Disaster Response Network

Chest Infections Section

November 12 marks World Pneumonia Day, and while it has long been recognized that viruses play a significant role in causing pneumonia, awareness has surged due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Furthermore, with the advent of rapid molecular diagnostics, the contribution of respiratory viral pathogens in pneumonia has become clearer (Seema J, et al. N Engl J Med. 2015 Jul 30;373[5]:415-27). Despite COVID-19 remaining a substantial threat, infection rates with other respiratory viruses are on the rise and will continue to increase during colder months. Here, we will provide an update on influenza and RSV:
 

Currently, influenza activity in the United States is low (National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases. FluView. 2023 Oct 4. https://www.cdc.gov/flu/weekly/index.htm). Vaccination coverage for US adults during the previous influenza season stood at 47% (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. FluVaxView Vaccination Dashboard. 2023 Oct 4. https://www.cdc.gov/flu/fluvaxview/dashboard/vaccination-dashboard.html). Hospitalizations were estimated to range between 300,000 and 650,000, a significant increase from the 2021-2022 season, which saw about 100,000 hospitalizations (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Preliminary In-Season Estimates of Influenza Burden. 2023 Oct 4. https://www.cdc.gov/flu/about/burden/preliminary-in-season-estimates.htm). Data from the Southern Hemisphere’s recent influenza season indicates a 52% vaccine efficacy in preventing influenza-associated hospitalizations (Fowlkes AL, et al. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2023 Sep 15;72[37]:1010-5). Influenza hospitalization rates are likely returning to higher pre-COVID-19 levels.

Respiratory Syncytial Virus (RSV) is a seasonal pathogen causing substantial morbidity and mortality. This year, two new vaccines have become available to prevent RSV-associated lower respiratory tract diseases, boasting a vaccine effectiveness of over 80% for the first and over 70% for the second season post-administration (Melgar M, et al. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2023 Jul 21;72[29]:793-801). The CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices recommends a single dose for adults over 60, and one vaccine is FDA-approved for pregnant individuals (32-36 weeks gestation) to provide passive infant immunity.

In summary, both the current influenza vaccine and the new RSV vaccines demonstrate effectiveness and are strongly recommended, alongside an updated COVID-19 vaccine.

John Huston, MD

Jamie Felzer, MD, MPH – Section Fellow-in-Training

Charles Dela Cruz, MD – Section Member-at-Large

Sebastian Kurz, MD, FCCP – Network Member-at-Large

TOPLINE: 

A new study shows that piperacillin-tazobactam and cefepime are equally safe for acute kidney injury (AKI) in acute infection, with cefepime linked to more neurological issues.

METHODOLOGY:

The coadministration of piperacillin-tazobactam and vancomycin may raise the risk for AKI, according to a warning from the Food and Drug Administration.

The ACORN trial included 2,511 adults presenting to emergency department or intensive care unit with suspected infection.

Within 12 hours of presentation, these individuals were prescribed either cefepime (n = 1,214) or piperacillin-tazobactam (n = 1,297).

The primary outcome was the risk for the highest stage of AKI or death within 14 days of randomization.
 

TAKEAWAY:

The highest stage of AKI or death within 14 days did not differ significantly between the cefepime and piperacillin-tazobactam groups (odds ratio, 0.95; P = .56).

The incidence of major adverse kidney events by day 14 was not significantly different between the two groups (absolute risk difference, 1.4%; 95% confidence interval, −1.0% to 3.8%).

Patients in the cefepime versus piperacillin-tazobactam group had fewer days alive and free of delirium and coma within 14 days (OR, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.65-0.95).
 

IN PRACTICE:

In an accompanying editorial, Steven Y. C. Tong, department of infectious diseases, University of Melbourne, and colleagues wrote: “Because institutions must make decisions about which antibiotics to position on medical wards for rapid administration in patients meeting sepsis criteria, these data should offer solace that if the choice is made to use piperacillin-tazobactam, there is not an increased risk of AKI.”

SOURCE:

The study was led by Edward T. Qian, MD, of Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tenn. It was published online in JAMA with an accompanying editorial.

LIMITATIONS:

The study was conducted at a single academic center, which may limit the generalizability of findings.

Both patients and clinicians were not blinded to group assignment, which may have influenced clinical assessments like Richmond Agitation-Sedation Scale and CAM-ICU or the frequency of laboratory measurements like creatinine.
 

DISCLOSURES:

The project was supported by the Vanderbilt Institute for Clinical and Translational Research and several other sources, including grants from the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences. Some authors declared receiving travel grant, personal fees, honoraria, and unrelated research support from various sources.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE: 

A new study shows that piperacillin-tazobactam and cefepime are equally safe for acute kidney injury (AKI) in acute infection, with cefepime linked to more neurological issues.

METHODOLOGY:

The coadministration of piperacillin-tazobactam and vancomycin may raise the risk for AKI, according to a warning from the Food and Drug Administration.

The ACORN trial included 2,511 adults presenting to emergency department or intensive care unit with suspected infection.

Within 12 hours of presentation, these individuals were prescribed either cefepime (n = 1,214) or piperacillin-tazobactam (n = 1,297).

The primary outcome was the risk for the highest stage of AKI or death within 14 days of randomization.
 

TAKEAWAY:

The highest stage of AKI or death within 14 days did not differ significantly between the cefepime and piperacillin-tazobactam groups (odds ratio, 0.95; P = .56).

The incidence of major adverse kidney events by day 14 was not significantly different between the two groups (absolute risk difference, 1.4%; 95% confidence interval, −1.0% to 3.8%).

Patients in the cefepime versus piperacillin-tazobactam group had fewer days alive and free of delirium and coma within 14 days (OR, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.65-0.95).
 

IN PRACTICE:

In an accompanying editorial, Steven Y. C. Tong, department of infectious diseases, University of Melbourne, and colleagues wrote: “Because institutions must make decisions about which antibiotics to position on medical wards for rapid administration in patients meeting sepsis criteria, these data should offer solace that if the choice is made to use piperacillin-tazobactam, there is not an increased risk of AKI.”

SOURCE:

The study was led by Edward T. Qian, MD, of Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tenn. It was published online in JAMA with an accompanying editorial.

LIMITATIONS:

The study was conducted at a single academic center, which may limit the generalizability of findings.

Both patients and clinicians were not blinded to group assignment, which may have influenced clinical assessments like Richmond Agitation-Sedation Scale and CAM-ICU or the frequency of laboratory measurements like creatinine.
 

DISCLOSURES:

The project was supported by the Vanderbilt Institute for Clinical and Translational Research and several other sources, including grants from the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences. Some authors declared receiving travel grant, personal fees, honoraria, and unrelated research support from various sources.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE: 

A new study shows that piperacillin-tazobactam and cefepime are equally safe for acute kidney injury (AKI) in acute infection, with cefepime linked to more neurological issues.

METHODOLOGY:

The coadministration of piperacillin-tazobactam and vancomycin may raise the risk for AKI, according to a warning from the Food and Drug Administration.

The ACORN trial included 2,511 adults presenting to emergency department or intensive care unit with suspected infection.

Within 12 hours of presentation, these individuals were prescribed either cefepime (n = 1,214) or piperacillin-tazobactam (n = 1,297).

The primary outcome was the risk for the highest stage of AKI or death within 14 days of randomization.
 

TAKEAWAY:

The highest stage of AKI or death within 14 days did not differ significantly between the cefepime and piperacillin-tazobactam groups (odds ratio, 0.95; P = .56).

The incidence of major adverse kidney events by day 14 was not significantly different between the two groups (absolute risk difference, 1.4%; 95% confidence interval, −1.0% to 3.8%).

Patients in the cefepime versus piperacillin-tazobactam group had fewer days alive and free of delirium and coma within 14 days (OR, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.65-0.95).
 

IN PRACTICE:

In an accompanying editorial, Steven Y. C. Tong, department of infectious diseases, University of Melbourne, and colleagues wrote: “Because institutions must make decisions about which antibiotics to position on medical wards for rapid administration in patients meeting sepsis criteria, these data should offer solace that if the choice is made to use piperacillin-tazobactam, there is not an increased risk of AKI.”

SOURCE:

The study was led by Edward T. Qian, MD, of Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tenn. It was published online in JAMA with an accompanying editorial.

LIMITATIONS:

The study was conducted at a single academic center, which may limit the generalizability of findings.

Both patients and clinicians were not blinded to group assignment, which may have influenced clinical assessments like Richmond Agitation-Sedation Scale and CAM-ICU or the frequency of laboratory measurements like creatinine.
 

DISCLOSURES:

The project was supported by the Vanderbilt Institute for Clinical and Translational Research and several other sources, including grants from the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences. Some authors declared receiving travel grant, personal fees, honoraria, and unrelated research support from various sources.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Access to technology, particularly cellphones, is tied to a higher awareness of pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) in women, according to survey results presented at the Association of Nurses in AIDS Care 2023 Annual Meeting.

Those with limited access to technology, older women, and women who had been incarcerated were also less likely to be aware of their medication options.

Researchers collected responses from 206 women in New York and Philadelphia by computer survey. The women were HIV negative and eligible to receive medication but were not currently taking any.

Most participants were Black (61%) or Hispanic (24%), and the average age of participants was 39 years. Nearly 60% of the group reported they were not aware of PrEP.

Younger women, Hispanic women, women who had not been incarcerated, and women with access to technology were most likely to be aware that they could take medication to prevent HIV.

“Women who utilized their cell phones for activities such as texting, emailing, watching videos, playing games, downloading apps, and accessing social media were more likely to be aware of PrEP,” point out the researchers led by Su Kyung Kim, PhD, WHNP-BC, an assistant professor at Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia.

These findings could help direct efforts to increase awareness among women where uptake has remained low, the researchers report. “Mobile technologies, in particular, offer a nimble, customizable, and accessible way to reach this target population and increase awareness of PrEP.”

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
 

Access to technology, particularly cellphones, is tied to a higher awareness of pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) in women, according to survey results presented at the Association of Nurses in AIDS Care 2023 Annual Meeting.

Those with limited access to technology, older women, and women who had been incarcerated were also less likely to be aware of their medication options.

Researchers collected responses from 206 women in New York and Philadelphia by computer survey. The women were HIV negative and eligible to receive medication but were not currently taking any.

Most participants were Black (61%) or Hispanic (24%), and the average age of participants was 39 years. Nearly 60% of the group reported they were not aware of PrEP.

Younger women, Hispanic women, women who had not been incarcerated, and women with access to technology were most likely to be aware that they could take medication to prevent HIV.

“Women who utilized their cell phones for activities such as texting, emailing, watching videos, playing games, downloading apps, and accessing social media were more likely to be aware of PrEP,” point out the researchers led by Su Kyung Kim, PhD, WHNP-BC, an assistant professor at Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia.

These findings could help direct efforts to increase awareness among women where uptake has remained low, the researchers report. “Mobile technologies, in particular, offer a nimble, customizable, and accessible way to reach this target population and increase awareness of PrEP.”

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
 

Access to technology, particularly cellphones, is tied to a higher awareness of pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) in women, according to survey results presented at the Association of Nurses in AIDS Care 2023 Annual Meeting.

Those with limited access to technology, older women, and women who had been incarcerated were also less likely to be aware of their medication options.

Researchers collected responses from 206 women in New York and Philadelphia by computer survey. The women were HIV negative and eligible to receive medication but were not currently taking any.

Most participants were Black (61%) or Hispanic (24%), and the average age of participants was 39 years. Nearly 60% of the group reported they were not aware of PrEP.

Younger women, Hispanic women, women who had not been incarcerated, and women with access to technology were most likely to be aware that they could take medication to prevent HIV.

“Women who utilized their cell phones for activities such as texting, emailing, watching videos, playing games, downloading apps, and accessing social media were more likely to be aware of PrEP,” point out the researchers led by Su Kyung Kim, PhD, WHNP-BC, an assistant professor at Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia.

These findings could help direct efforts to increase awareness among women where uptake has remained low, the researchers report. “Mobile technologies, in particular, offer a nimble, customizable, and accessible way to reach this target population and increase awareness of PrEP.”

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
 

It’s upper respiratory infection (URI) season. The following is a clinical scenario drawn from my own practice. I’ll tell you what I plan to do, but I’m most interested in crowdsourcing a response from all of you to collectively determine best practice. So please answer the polling questions and contribute your thoughts in the comments, whether you agree or disagree with me.

The patient

The patient is a 69-year-old woman with a 3-day history of cough, nasal congestion, malaise, tactile fever, and poor appetite. She has no sick contacts. She denies dyspnea, presyncope, and chest pain. She has tried guaifenesin and ibuprofen for her symptoms, which helped a little.

She is up to date on immunizations, including four doses of COVID-19 vaccine and the influenza vaccine, which she received 2 months ago.

The patient has a history of heart failure with reduced ejection fraction, coronary artery disease, hypertension, chronic kidney disease stage 3aA2, obesity, and osteoarthritis. Current medications include atorvastatin, losartan, metoprolol, and aspirin.

Her weight is stable at 212 lb, and her vital signs today are:

• Temperature: 37.5° C
• Pulse: 60 beats/min
• Blood pressure: 150/88 mm Hg
• Respiration rate: 14 breaths/min
• SpO₂: 93% on room air

What information is most critical before deciding on management?

Your peers chose: 

• The patient’s history of viral URIs

 14%

 

• Whether her cough is productive and the color of the sputum

 38%

 

• How well this season’s flu vaccine matches circulating influenza viruses

 8%

 

• Local epidemiology of major viral pathogens (e.g., SARS-CoV-2, influenza, RSV)

 40%
 

Dr. Vega’s take

To provide the best care for our patients when they are threatened with multiple viral upper respiratory pathogens, it is imperative that clinicians have some idea regarding the epidemiology of viral infections, with as much local data as possible. This knowledge will help direct appropriate testing and treatment.

Modern viral molecular testing platforms are highly accurate, but they are not infallible. Small flaws in specificity and sensitivity of testing are magnified when community viral circulation is low. In a U.K. study conducted during a period of low COVID-19 prevalence, the positive predictive value of reverse-transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) testing was just 16%. Although the negative predictive value was much higher, the false-positive rate of testing was still 0.5%. The authors of the study describe important potential consequences of false-positive results, such as being temporarily removed from an organ transplant list and unnecessary contact tracing.
 

Testing and treatment

Your county public health department maintains a website describing local activity of SARS-CoV-2 and influenza. Both viruses are in heavy circulation now.

What is the next best step in this patient’s management?

Your peers chose: 

• Treat empirically with ritonavir-boosted nirmatrelvir

 7%

 

• Treat empirically with oseltamivir or baloxavir

 14%

 

• Perform lab-based multiplex RT-PCR testing and wait to treat on the basis of results

 34%

 

• Perform rapid nucleic acid amplification testing (NAAT) and treat on the basis of results

 45%

Every practice has different resources and should use the best means available to treat patients. Ideally, this patient would undergo rapid NAAT with results available within 30 minutes. Test results will help guide not only treatment decisions but also infection-control measures.

The Infectious Diseases Society of America has provided updates for testing for URIs since the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic. Both laboratory-based and point-of-care rapid NAATs are recommended for testing. Rapid NAATs have been demonstrated to have a sensitivity of 96% and specificity of 100% in the detection of SARS-CoV-2. Obviously, they also offer a highly efficient means to make treatment and isolation decisions.

There are multiple platforms for molecular testing available. Laboratory-based platforms can test for dozens of potential pathogens, including bacteria. Rapid NAATs often have the ability to test for SARS-CoV-2, influenza, and respiratory syncytial virus (RSV). This functionality is important, because these infections generally are difficult to discriminate on the basis of clinical information alone.

The IDSA clearly recognizes the challenges of trying to manage cases of URI. For example, they state that testing of the anterior nares (AN) or oropharynx (OP) is acceptable, even though testing from the nasopharynx offers increased sensitivity. However, testing at the AN/OP allows for patient self-collection of samples, which is also recommended as an option by the IDSA. In an analysis of six cohort studies, the pooled sensitivity of patient-collected nasopharyngeal samples from the AN/OP was 88%, whereas the respective value for samples taken by health care providers was 95%.

The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention also provides recommendations for the management of patients with acute upper respiratory illness. Patients who are sick enough to be hospitalized should be tested at least for SARS-CoV-2 and influenza using molecular assays. Outpatients should be tested for SARS-CoV-2 with either molecular or antigen testing, and influenza testing should be offered if the findings will change decisions regarding treatment or isolation. Practically speaking, the recommendations for influenza testing mean that most individuals should be tested, including patients at high risk for complications of influenza and those who might have exposure to individuals at high risk.

Treatment of COVID-19 should only be provided in cases of a positive test within 5 days of symptom onset. However, clinicians may treat patients with anti-influenza medications presumptively if test results are not immediately available and the patient has worsening symptoms or is in a group at high risk for complications.

What are some of the challenges that you have faced during the COVID-19 pandemic regarding the management of patients with acute URIs? What have you found in terms of solutions, and where do gaps in quality of care persist? Please add your comments. I will review and circle back with a response. Thank you!

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

It’s upper respiratory infection (URI) season. The following is a clinical scenario drawn from my own practice. I’ll tell you what I plan to do, but I’m most interested in crowdsourcing a response from all of you to collectively determine best practice. So please answer the polling questions and contribute your thoughts in the comments, whether you agree or disagree with me.

The patient

The patient is a 69-year-old woman with a 3-day history of cough, nasal congestion, malaise, tactile fever, and poor appetite. She has no sick contacts. She denies dyspnea, presyncope, and chest pain. She has tried guaifenesin and ibuprofen for her symptoms, which helped a little.

She is up to date on immunizations, including four doses of COVID-19 vaccine and the influenza vaccine, which she received 2 months ago.

The patient has a history of heart failure with reduced ejection fraction, coronary artery disease, hypertension, chronic kidney disease stage 3aA2, obesity, and osteoarthritis. Current medications include atorvastatin, losartan, metoprolol, and aspirin.

Her weight is stable at 212 lb, and her vital signs today are:

• Temperature: 37.5° C
• Pulse: 60 beats/min
• Blood pressure: 150/88 mm Hg
• Respiration rate: 14 breaths/min
• SpO₂: 93% on room air

What information is most critical before deciding on management?

Your peers chose: 

• The patient’s history of viral URIs

 14%

 

• Whether her cough is productive and the color of the sputum

 38%

 

• How well this season’s flu vaccine matches circulating influenza viruses

 8%

 

• Local epidemiology of major viral pathogens (e.g., SARS-CoV-2, influenza, RSV)

 40%
 

Dr. Vega’s take

To provide the best care for our patients when they are threatened with multiple viral upper respiratory pathogens, it is imperative that clinicians have some idea regarding the epidemiology of viral infections, with as much local data as possible. This knowledge will help direct appropriate testing and treatment.

Modern viral molecular testing platforms are highly accurate, but they are not infallible. Small flaws in specificity and sensitivity of testing are magnified when community viral circulation is low. In a U.K. study conducted during a period of low COVID-19 prevalence, the positive predictive value of reverse-transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) testing was just 16%. Although the negative predictive value was much higher, the false-positive rate of testing was still 0.5%. The authors of the study describe important potential consequences of false-positive results, such as being temporarily removed from an organ transplant list and unnecessary contact tracing.
 

Testing and treatment

Your county public health department maintains a website describing local activity of SARS-CoV-2 and influenza. Both viruses are in heavy circulation now.

What is the next best step in this patient’s management?

Your peers chose: 

• Treat empirically with ritonavir-boosted nirmatrelvir

 7%

 

• Treat empirically with oseltamivir or baloxavir

 14%

 

• Perform lab-based multiplex RT-PCR testing and wait to treat on the basis of results

 34%

 

• Perform rapid nucleic acid amplification testing (NAAT) and treat on the basis of results

 45%

Every practice has different resources and should use the best means available to treat patients. Ideally, this patient would undergo rapid NAAT with results available within 30 minutes. Test results will help guide not only treatment decisions but also infection-control measures.

The Infectious Diseases Society of America has provided updates for testing for URIs since the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic. Both laboratory-based and point-of-care rapid NAATs are recommended for testing. Rapid NAATs have been demonstrated to have a sensitivity of 96% and specificity of 100% in the detection of SARS-CoV-2. Obviously, they also offer a highly efficient means to make treatment and isolation decisions.

There are multiple platforms for molecular testing available. Laboratory-based platforms can test for dozens of potential pathogens, including bacteria. Rapid NAATs often have the ability to test for SARS-CoV-2, influenza, and respiratory syncytial virus (RSV). This functionality is important, because these infections generally are difficult to discriminate on the basis of clinical information alone.

The IDSA clearly recognizes the challenges of trying to manage cases of URI. For example, they state that testing of the anterior nares (AN) or oropharynx (OP) is acceptable, even though testing from the nasopharynx offers increased sensitivity. However, testing at the AN/OP allows for patient self-collection of samples, which is also recommended as an option by the IDSA. In an analysis of six cohort studies, the pooled sensitivity of patient-collected nasopharyngeal samples from the AN/OP was 88%, whereas the respective value for samples taken by health care providers was 95%.

The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention also provides recommendations for the management of patients with acute upper respiratory illness. Patients who are sick enough to be hospitalized should be tested at least for SARS-CoV-2 and influenza using molecular assays. Outpatients should be tested for SARS-CoV-2 with either molecular or antigen testing, and influenza testing should be offered if the findings will change decisions regarding treatment or isolation. Practically speaking, the recommendations for influenza testing mean that most individuals should be tested, including patients at high risk for complications of influenza and those who might have exposure to individuals at high risk.

Treatment of COVID-19 should only be provided in cases of a positive test within 5 days of symptom onset. However, clinicians may treat patients with anti-influenza medications presumptively if test results are not immediately available and the patient has worsening symptoms or is in a group at high risk for complications.

What are some of the challenges that you have faced during the COVID-19 pandemic regarding the management of patients with acute URIs? What have you found in terms of solutions, and where do gaps in quality of care persist? Please add your comments. I will review and circle back with a response. Thank you!

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

It’s upper respiratory infection (URI) season. The following is a clinical scenario drawn from my own practice. I’ll tell you what I plan to do, but I’m most interested in crowdsourcing a response from all of you to collectively determine best practice. So please answer the polling questions and contribute your thoughts in the comments, whether you agree or disagree with me.

The patient

The patient is a 69-year-old woman with a 3-day history of cough, nasal congestion, malaise, tactile fever, and poor appetite. She has no sick contacts. She denies dyspnea, presyncope, and chest pain. She has tried guaifenesin and ibuprofen for her symptoms, which helped a little.

She is up to date on immunizations, including four doses of COVID-19 vaccine and the influenza vaccine, which she received 2 months ago.

The patient has a history of heart failure with reduced ejection fraction, coronary artery disease, hypertension, chronic kidney disease stage 3aA2, obesity, and osteoarthritis. Current medications include atorvastatin, losartan, metoprolol, and aspirin.

Her weight is stable at 212 lb, and her vital signs today are:

• Temperature: 37.5° C
• Pulse: 60 beats/min
• Blood pressure: 150/88 mm Hg
• Respiration rate: 14 breaths/min
• SpO₂: 93% on room air

What information is most critical before deciding on management?

Your peers chose: 

• The patient’s history of viral URIs

 14%

 

• Whether her cough is productive and the color of the sputum

 38%

 

• How well this season’s flu vaccine matches circulating influenza viruses

 8%

 

• Local epidemiology of major viral pathogens (e.g., SARS-CoV-2, influenza, RSV)

 40%
 

Dr. Vega’s take

To provide the best care for our patients when they are threatened with multiple viral upper respiratory pathogens, it is imperative that clinicians have some idea regarding the epidemiology of viral infections, with as much local data as possible. This knowledge will help direct appropriate testing and treatment.

Modern viral molecular testing platforms are highly accurate, but they are not infallible. Small flaws in specificity and sensitivity of testing are magnified when community viral circulation is low. In a U.K. study conducted during a period of low COVID-19 prevalence, the positive predictive value of reverse-transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) testing was just 16%. Although the negative predictive value was much higher, the false-positive rate of testing was still 0.5%. The authors of the study describe important potential consequences of false-positive results, such as being temporarily removed from an organ transplant list and unnecessary contact tracing.
 

Testing and treatment

Your county public health department maintains a website describing local activity of SARS-CoV-2 and influenza. Both viruses are in heavy circulation now.

What is the next best step in this patient’s management?

Your peers chose: 

• Treat empirically with ritonavir-boosted nirmatrelvir

 7%

 

• Treat empirically with oseltamivir or baloxavir

 14%

 

• Perform lab-based multiplex RT-PCR testing and wait to treat on the basis of results

 34%

 

• Perform rapid nucleic acid amplification testing (NAAT) and treat on the basis of results

 45%

Every practice has different resources and should use the best means available to treat patients. Ideally, this patient would undergo rapid NAAT with results available within 30 minutes. Test results will help guide not only treatment decisions but also infection-control measures.

The Infectious Diseases Society of America has provided updates for testing for URIs since the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic. Both laboratory-based and point-of-care rapid NAATs are recommended for testing. Rapid NAATs have been demonstrated to have a sensitivity of 96% and specificity of 100% in the detection of SARS-CoV-2. Obviously, they also offer a highly efficient means to make treatment and isolation decisions.

There are multiple platforms for molecular testing available. Laboratory-based platforms can test for dozens of potential pathogens, including bacteria. Rapid NAATs often have the ability to test for SARS-CoV-2, influenza, and respiratory syncytial virus (RSV). This functionality is important, because these infections generally are difficult to discriminate on the basis of clinical information alone.

The IDSA clearly recognizes the challenges of trying to manage cases of URI. For example, they state that testing of the anterior nares (AN) or oropharynx (OP) is acceptable, even though testing from the nasopharynx offers increased sensitivity. However, testing at the AN/OP allows for patient self-collection of samples, which is also recommended as an option by the IDSA. In an analysis of six cohort studies, the pooled sensitivity of patient-collected nasopharyngeal samples from the AN/OP was 88%, whereas the respective value for samples taken by health care providers was 95%.

The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention also provides recommendations for the management of patients with acute upper respiratory illness. Patients who are sick enough to be hospitalized should be tested at least for SARS-CoV-2 and influenza using molecular assays. Outpatients should be tested for SARS-CoV-2 with either molecular or antigen testing, and influenza testing should be offered if the findings will change decisions regarding treatment or isolation. Practically speaking, the recommendations for influenza testing mean that most individuals should be tested, including patients at high risk for complications of influenza and those who might have exposure to individuals at high risk.

Treatment of COVID-19 should only be provided in cases of a positive test within 5 days of symptom onset. However, clinicians may treat patients with anti-influenza medications presumptively if test results are not immediately available and the patient has worsening symptoms or is in a group at high risk for complications.

What are some of the challenges that you have faced during the COVID-19 pandemic regarding the management of patients with acute URIs? What have you found in terms of solutions, and where do gaps in quality of care persist? Please add your comments. I will review and circle back with a response. Thank you!

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Half of kids with COVID-19 become noninfectious 3 days after testing positive, whether they were vaccinated or not, according to a new study. The findings indicate that return-to-school policies for infected children may not need to differ on the basis of vaccine or booster status.

METHODOLOGY:

• The study looked at 76 children, both vaccinated and unvaccinated, aged 7-18 years who had tested positive for COVID-19. 
• Researchers performed nasal swabs every other day for 10 days, sending the swab to a lab to be tested for cytopathic effect (CPE), or cell death, an indicator of infectivity.
• They took pictures of the lab cultures to look for signs of CPE starting at 6 days after the test, which corresponds to the 2nd day after testing positive.
• If CPE characteristics were present in at least 30% of images, children were considered infectious.

TAKEAWAY:

• By day 3, half of study participants were noninfectious, independent of whether they had been vaccinated.
• By day 5, less than 25% of children were infectious, regardless of vaccination status.
• Among vaccinated children, the duration of infectivity was similar for children who received a booster and for those who had not.
• The authors state that these results are consistent with those of a study in adults with the Omicron variant, which found no association between vaccination status and infectivity duration.

IN PRACTICE:

“Our findings suggest that current policies requiring isolation for 5 days after a positive test might be appropriate, as the majority of children were not infectious by day 5. Additionally, return-to-school policies may not need to discriminate by vaccine or booster status,” the authors wrote. 

SOURCE:

The study was led by Neeraj Sood, PhD, of the University of Southern California in Los Angeles, and was published in JAMA Pediatrics.

LIMITATIONS:

The sample size was small, and the authors identified the potential for nonresponse bias. The research did not include data from children who didn’t receive a test. CPE is the standard for estimating infectivity, but it can still carry inaccuracies.

DISCLOSURES:

The authors report no disclosures. The study was funded by RF Catalytic Capital.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Half of kids with COVID-19 become noninfectious 3 days after testing positive, whether they were vaccinated or not, according to a new study. The findings indicate that return-to-school policies for infected children may not need to differ on the basis of vaccine or booster status.

METHODOLOGY:

• The study looked at 76 children, both vaccinated and unvaccinated, aged 7-18 years who had tested positive for COVID-19. 
• Researchers performed nasal swabs every other day for 10 days, sending the swab to a lab to be tested for cytopathic effect (CPE), or cell death, an indicator of infectivity.
• They took pictures of the lab cultures to look for signs of CPE starting at 6 days after the test, which corresponds to the 2nd day after testing positive.
• If CPE characteristics were present in at least 30% of images, children were considered infectious.

TAKEAWAY:

• By day 3, half of study participants were noninfectious, independent of whether they had been vaccinated.
• By day 5, less than 25% of children were infectious, regardless of vaccination status.
• Among vaccinated children, the duration of infectivity was similar for children who received a booster and for those who had not.
• The authors state that these results are consistent with those of a study in adults with the Omicron variant, which found no association between vaccination status and infectivity duration.

IN PRACTICE:

“Our findings suggest that current policies requiring isolation for 5 days after a positive test might be appropriate, as the majority of children were not infectious by day 5. Additionally, return-to-school policies may not need to discriminate by vaccine or booster status,” the authors wrote. 

SOURCE:

The study was led by Neeraj Sood, PhD, of the University of Southern California in Los Angeles, and was published in JAMA Pediatrics.

LIMITATIONS:

The sample size was small, and the authors identified the potential for nonresponse bias. The research did not include data from children who didn’t receive a test. CPE is the standard for estimating infectivity, but it can still carry inaccuracies.

DISCLOSURES:

The authors report no disclosures. The study was funded by RF Catalytic Capital.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Half of kids with COVID-19 become noninfectious 3 days after testing positive, whether they were vaccinated or not, according to a new study. The findings indicate that return-to-school policies for infected children may not need to differ on the basis of vaccine or booster status.

METHODOLOGY:

• The study looked at 76 children, both vaccinated and unvaccinated, aged 7-18 years who had tested positive for COVID-19. 
• Researchers performed nasal swabs every other day for 10 days, sending the swab to a lab to be tested for cytopathic effect (CPE), or cell death, an indicator of infectivity.
• They took pictures of the lab cultures to look for signs of CPE starting at 6 days after the test, which corresponds to the 2nd day after testing positive.
• If CPE characteristics were present in at least 30% of images, children were considered infectious.

TAKEAWAY:

• By day 3, half of study participants were noninfectious, independent of whether they had been vaccinated.
• By day 5, less than 25% of children were infectious, regardless of vaccination status.
• Among vaccinated children, the duration of infectivity was similar for children who received a booster and for those who had not.
• The authors state that these results are consistent with those of a study in adults with the Omicron variant, which found no association between vaccination status and infectivity duration.

IN PRACTICE:

“Our findings suggest that current policies requiring isolation for 5 days after a positive test might be appropriate, as the majority of children were not infectious by day 5. Additionally, return-to-school policies may not need to discriminate by vaccine or booster status,” the authors wrote. 

SOURCE:

The study was led by Neeraj Sood, PhD, of the University of Southern California in Los Angeles, and was published in JAMA Pediatrics.

LIMITATIONS:

The sample size was small, and the authors identified the potential for nonresponse bias. The research did not include data from children who didn’t receive a test. CPE is the standard for estimating infectivity, but it can still carry inaccuracies.

DISCLOSURES:

The authors report no disclosures. The study was funded by RF Catalytic Capital.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has approved a meningococcal vaccine against the five most common serogroups causing disease in children and young adults.

The new formulation called Penbraya is manufactured by Pfizer and combines the components from two existing meningococcal vaccines, Trumenba the group B vaccine and Nimenrix groups A, C, W-135, and Y conjugate vaccine.

This is the first pentavalent vaccine for meningococcal disease and is approved for use in people aged 10-25.

“Today marks an important step forward in the prevention of meningococcal disease in the U.S.,” Annaliesa Anderson, PhD, head of vaccine research and development at Pfizer, said in a news release. “In a single vaccine, Penbraya has the potential to protect more adolescents and young adults from this severe and unpredictable disease by providing the broadest meningococcal coverage in the fewest shots.”
 

One shot, five common types

“Incomplete protection against invasive meningococcal disease,” is common, added Jana Shaw, MD, MPH, a pediatric infectious diseases specialist from Upstate Golisano Children’s Hospital in Syracuse, N.Y. Reducing the number of shots is important because streamlining the vaccination process should help increase the number of young people who get fully vaccinated against meningococcal disease.

Rates are low in the United States, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and in 2021 there were around 210 cases reported. But a statewide outbreak has been going on in Virginia since June 2022, with 29 confirmed cases and 6 deaths.

The FDA’s decision is based on the positive results from phase 2 and phase 3 trials, including a randomized, active-controlled and observer-blinded phase 3 trial assessing the safety, tolerability, and immunogenicity of the pentavalent vaccine candidate, compared with currently licensed meningococcal vaccines. The phase 3 trial evaluated more than 2,400 patients from the United States and Europe.

The CDC Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices is meeting on Oct. 25 to discuss recommendations for the appropriate use of Penbraya in young people.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has approved a meningococcal vaccine against the five most common serogroups causing disease in children and young adults.

The new formulation called Penbraya is manufactured by Pfizer and combines the components from two existing meningococcal vaccines, Trumenba the group B vaccine and Nimenrix groups A, C, W-135, and Y conjugate vaccine.

This is the first pentavalent vaccine for meningococcal disease and is approved for use in people aged 10-25.

“Today marks an important step forward in the prevention of meningococcal disease in the U.S.,” Annaliesa Anderson, PhD, head of vaccine research and development at Pfizer, said in a news release. “In a single vaccine, Penbraya has the potential to protect more adolescents and young adults from this severe and unpredictable disease by providing the broadest meningococcal coverage in the fewest shots.”
 

One shot, five common types

“Incomplete protection against invasive meningococcal disease,” is common, added Jana Shaw, MD, MPH, a pediatric infectious diseases specialist from Upstate Golisano Children’s Hospital in Syracuse, N.Y. Reducing the number of shots is important because streamlining the vaccination process should help increase the number of young people who get fully vaccinated against meningococcal disease.

Rates are low in the United States, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and in 2021 there were around 210 cases reported. But a statewide outbreak has been going on in Virginia since June 2022, with 29 confirmed cases and 6 deaths.

The FDA’s decision is based on the positive results from phase 2 and phase 3 trials, including a randomized, active-controlled and observer-blinded phase 3 trial assessing the safety, tolerability, and immunogenicity of the pentavalent vaccine candidate, compared with currently licensed meningococcal vaccines. The phase 3 trial evaluated more than 2,400 patients from the United States and Europe.

The CDC Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices is meeting on Oct. 25 to discuss recommendations for the appropriate use of Penbraya in young people.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has approved a meningococcal vaccine against the five most common serogroups causing disease in children and young adults.

The new formulation called Penbraya is manufactured by Pfizer and combines the components from two existing meningococcal vaccines, Trumenba the group B vaccine and Nimenrix groups A, C, W-135, and Y conjugate vaccine.

This is the first pentavalent vaccine for meningococcal disease and is approved for use in people aged 10-25.

“Today marks an important step forward in the prevention of meningococcal disease in the U.S.,” Annaliesa Anderson, PhD, head of vaccine research and development at Pfizer, said in a news release. “In a single vaccine, Penbraya has the potential to protect more adolescents and young adults from this severe and unpredictable disease by providing the broadest meningococcal coverage in the fewest shots.”
 

One shot, five common types

“Incomplete protection against invasive meningococcal disease,” is common, added Jana Shaw, MD, MPH, a pediatric infectious diseases specialist from Upstate Golisano Children’s Hospital in Syracuse, N.Y. Reducing the number of shots is important because streamlining the vaccination process should help increase the number of young people who get fully vaccinated against meningococcal disease.

Rates are low in the United States, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and in 2021 there were around 210 cases reported. But a statewide outbreak has been going on in Virginia since June 2022, with 29 confirmed cases and 6 deaths.

The FDA’s decision is based on the positive results from phase 2 and phase 3 trials, including a randomized, active-controlled and observer-blinded phase 3 trial assessing the safety, tolerability, and immunogenicity of the pentavalent vaccine candidate, compared with currently licensed meningococcal vaccines. The phase 3 trial evaluated more than 2,400 patients from the United States and Europe.

The CDC Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices is meeting on Oct. 25 to discuss recommendations for the appropriate use of Penbraya in young people.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

HONOLULU – The diversity of species in the sputum of patients undergoing therapy for nontuberculosis mycobacterial pulmonary disease (NTM-PD) could be a marker for treatment efficacy, authors of a small prospective study suggest.

Neil Osterweil/MDedge

Among 14 patients treated for NTM-PD, 7 of whom had treatment-refractory disease and 7 of whom had microbiological cures after antibiotic therapy, the diversity of the microbiome in sputum was greater for those patients who were cured, indicating that the variety of species found in sputum during treatment could help clinicians evaluate the efficacy of therapy and guide patient management, said Noeul Kang, MD, PhD, from Samsung Medical Center in Seoul, South Korea.

“What we found was that in NTM-PD patients, the sputum of the patients who remained in long-time stabilization without recurrence exhibited higher microbiome diversity than that of treatment-refractory patients, and several genera were identified in the samples of the cured group. We hope to do more research on this, and we are planning to compare the patients who have never been treated with those who respond to treatment,” she said at the annual meeting of the American College of Chest Physicians (CHEST).
 

NTM-PD on the rise

The incidence and prevalence of NTM-PD in both South Korea and the United States have been rising steadily since 2007, with the highest incidence occurring among those 65 and older.

“NTM-PD is becoming a global burden,” Dr. Kang said.

Across the world the most commonly occurring organisms in NTM-PD patients are Mycobacterium avium complex (MAC), with other mycobacteria species varying in frequency by region.

Outcomes of treatment differ according to the etiologic organism, with M. avium complex infections being successfully treated in about 60% of patients, compared with 70% of patients’ infections with the M. abscessus massiliense, and 30%-40% of infections yielding to antibiotics in patients with M. abscessus abscessus, Dr. Kang said.

To compare the characteristics of the sputum microbiota of NTM-PD patients based on their treatment outcomes, Dr. Kang and colleagues looked at sputum from all patients with NTM-PD who agreed to provide samples at their center from 2018 through 2022.

After excluding those who did not receive antibiotics, those who were on treatment but did not have refractory disease, and those who were lost to follow-up or whose samples did not pass quality control, they identified seven patients who had microbiological cures, and seven whose disease remained refractory to treatment.

They defined culture conversion at three or more consecutive negative sputum cultures after treatment, collected at least 4 weeks apart, and microbiological cures at maintenance of multiple consecutive negative cultures without any positive cultures of the causative species from respiratory samples.

Infections were deemed to be refractory if there were sustained positive cultures from respiratory samples of causative NTM species after at least 1 year of antibiotic therapy.
 

Diversity analysis

Samples from 8 of the 14 participants had M. abscessus-PD, with the proportion higher among those who had a sustained microbiological cure (71.4% vs. 42.9%).

At baseline, patients with refractory disease were found to have significantly lower alpha diversity, a measure of microbial diversity within a single sample, compared with those whose infections were cured (P = .025).

In addition, samples at 6-month follow-up from those with baseline ­refractory infections ­had differences in the species level of beta-diversity (that is, differences among samples), compared with both baseline and follow-up samples from the cured group (P = .022 and .024, respectively).

The investigators also used linear discriminant analysis to look at taxonomic biomarkers, and observed that several species were more abundant in samples from the microbiological cure group than from the refractory disease group (P < .05) These species included organisms in the Streptococcus pneumoniae group, Prevotella melaninogenica, and Haemophilus parahaemolyticus group.
 

Promising start

A pulmonologist who was not involved in the study commented in an interview that, although the findings need further study, the microbiome of sputum samples has the potential for predictive value.

“I think this will be clinically useful, actually, if we’re able to identify and diagnose patients with MAC disease and then we identify their sputum microbiome, it might give us an idea whether these patients are more sensitive or refractory to treatment,” said Muhammad U. Khawar, MD, from the University of Cincinnati.

Dr. Khawar moderated the session where Dr. Kang reported her data.

The investigators did not report a funding source. Dr. Kang and Dr. Khawar reported that they had no relevant disclosures.
 

HONOLULU – The diversity of species in the sputum of patients undergoing therapy for nontuberculosis mycobacterial pulmonary disease (NTM-PD) could be a marker for treatment efficacy, authors of a small prospective study suggest.

Neil Osterweil/MDedge

Among 14 patients treated for NTM-PD, 7 of whom had treatment-refractory disease and 7 of whom had microbiological cures after antibiotic therapy, the diversity of the microbiome in sputum was greater for those patients who were cured, indicating that the variety of species found in sputum during treatment could help clinicians evaluate the efficacy of therapy and guide patient management, said Noeul Kang, MD, PhD, from Samsung Medical Center in Seoul, South Korea.

“What we found was that in NTM-PD patients, the sputum of the patients who remained in long-time stabilization without recurrence exhibited higher microbiome diversity than that of treatment-refractory patients, and several genera were identified in the samples of the cured group. We hope to do more research on this, and we are planning to compare the patients who have never been treated with those who respond to treatment,” she said at the annual meeting of the American College of Chest Physicians (CHEST).
 

NTM-PD on the rise

The incidence and prevalence of NTM-PD in both South Korea and the United States have been rising steadily since 2007, with the highest incidence occurring among those 65 and older.

“NTM-PD is becoming a global burden,” Dr. Kang said.

Across the world the most commonly occurring organisms in NTM-PD patients are Mycobacterium avium complex (MAC), with other mycobacteria species varying in frequency by region.

Outcomes of treatment differ according to the etiologic organism, with M. avium complex infections being successfully treated in about 60% of patients, compared with 70% of patients’ infections with the M. abscessus massiliense, and 30%-40% of infections yielding to antibiotics in patients with M. abscessus abscessus, Dr. Kang said.

To compare the characteristics of the sputum microbiota of NTM-PD patients based on their treatment outcomes, Dr. Kang and colleagues looked at sputum from all patients with NTM-PD who agreed to provide samples at their center from 2018 through 2022.

After excluding those who did not receive antibiotics, those who were on treatment but did not have refractory disease, and those who were lost to follow-up or whose samples did not pass quality control, they identified seven patients who had microbiological cures, and seven whose disease remained refractory to treatment.

They defined culture conversion at three or more consecutive negative sputum cultures after treatment, collected at least 4 weeks apart, and microbiological cures at maintenance of multiple consecutive negative cultures without any positive cultures of the causative species from respiratory samples.

Infections were deemed to be refractory if there were sustained positive cultures from respiratory samples of causative NTM species after at least 1 year of antibiotic therapy.
 

Diversity analysis

Samples from 8 of the 14 participants had M. abscessus-PD, with the proportion higher among those who had a sustained microbiological cure (71.4% vs. 42.9%).

At baseline, patients with refractory disease were found to have significantly lower alpha diversity, a measure of microbial diversity within a single sample, compared with those whose infections were cured (P = .025).

In addition, samples at 6-month follow-up from those with baseline ­refractory infections ­had differences in the species level of beta-diversity (that is, differences among samples), compared with both baseline and follow-up samples from the cured group (P = .022 and .024, respectively).

The investigators also used linear discriminant analysis to look at taxonomic biomarkers, and observed that several species were more abundant in samples from the microbiological cure group than from the refractory disease group (P < .05) These species included organisms in the Streptococcus pneumoniae group, Prevotella melaninogenica, and Haemophilus parahaemolyticus group.
 

Promising start

A pulmonologist who was not involved in the study commented in an interview that, although the findings need further study, the microbiome of sputum samples has the potential for predictive value.

“I think this will be clinically useful, actually, if we’re able to identify and diagnose patients with MAC disease and then we identify their sputum microbiome, it might give us an idea whether these patients are more sensitive or refractory to treatment,” said Muhammad U. Khawar, MD, from the University of Cincinnati.

Dr. Khawar moderated the session where Dr. Kang reported her data.

The investigators did not report a funding source. Dr. Kang and Dr. Khawar reported that they had no relevant disclosures.
 

HONOLULU – The diversity of species in the sputum of patients undergoing therapy for nontuberculosis mycobacterial pulmonary disease (NTM-PD) could be a marker for treatment efficacy, authors of a small prospective study suggest.

Neil Osterweil/MDedge

Among 14 patients treated for NTM-PD, 7 of whom had treatment-refractory disease and 7 of whom had microbiological cures after antibiotic therapy, the diversity of the microbiome in sputum was greater for those patients who were cured, indicating that the variety of species found in sputum during treatment could help clinicians evaluate the efficacy of therapy and guide patient management, said Noeul Kang, MD, PhD, from Samsung Medical Center in Seoul, South Korea.

“What we found was that in NTM-PD patients, the sputum of the patients who remained in long-time stabilization without recurrence exhibited higher microbiome diversity than that of treatment-refractory patients, and several genera were identified in the samples of the cured group. We hope to do more research on this, and we are planning to compare the patients who have never been treated with those who respond to treatment,” she said at the annual meeting of the American College of Chest Physicians (CHEST).
 

NTM-PD on the rise

The incidence and prevalence of NTM-PD in both South Korea and the United States have been rising steadily since 2007, with the highest incidence occurring among those 65 and older.

“NTM-PD is becoming a global burden,” Dr. Kang said.

Across the world the most commonly occurring organisms in NTM-PD patients are Mycobacterium avium complex (MAC), with other mycobacteria species varying in frequency by region.

Outcomes of treatment differ according to the etiologic organism, with M. avium complex infections being successfully treated in about 60% of patients, compared with 70% of patients’ infections with the M. abscessus massiliense, and 30%-40% of infections yielding to antibiotics in patients with M. abscessus abscessus, Dr. Kang said.

To compare the characteristics of the sputum microbiota of NTM-PD patients based on their treatment outcomes, Dr. Kang and colleagues looked at sputum from all patients with NTM-PD who agreed to provide samples at their center from 2018 through 2022.

After excluding those who did not receive antibiotics, those who were on treatment but did not have refractory disease, and those who were lost to follow-up or whose samples did not pass quality control, they identified seven patients who had microbiological cures, and seven whose disease remained refractory to treatment.

They defined culture conversion at three or more consecutive negative sputum cultures after treatment, collected at least 4 weeks apart, and microbiological cures at maintenance of multiple consecutive negative cultures without any positive cultures of the causative species from respiratory samples.

Infections were deemed to be refractory if there were sustained positive cultures from respiratory samples of causative NTM species after at least 1 year of antibiotic therapy.
 

Diversity analysis

Samples from 8 of the 14 participants had M. abscessus-PD, with the proportion higher among those who had a sustained microbiological cure (71.4% vs. 42.9%).

At baseline, patients with refractory disease were found to have significantly lower alpha diversity, a measure of microbial diversity within a single sample, compared with those whose infections were cured (P = .025).

In addition, samples at 6-month follow-up from those with baseline ­refractory infections ­had differences in the species level of beta-diversity (that is, differences among samples), compared with both baseline and follow-up samples from the cured group (P = .022 and .024, respectively).

The investigators also used linear discriminant analysis to look at taxonomic biomarkers, and observed that several species were more abundant in samples from the microbiological cure group than from the refractory disease group (P < .05) These species included organisms in the Streptococcus pneumoniae group, Prevotella melaninogenica, and Haemophilus parahaemolyticus group.
 

Promising start

A pulmonologist who was not involved in the study commented in an interview that, although the findings need further study, the microbiome of sputum samples has the potential for predictive value.

“I think this will be clinically useful, actually, if we’re able to identify and diagnose patients with MAC disease and then we identify their sputum microbiome, it might give us an idea whether these patients are more sensitive or refractory to treatment,” said Muhammad U. Khawar, MD, from the University of Cincinnati.

Dr. Khawar moderated the session where Dr. Kang reported her data.

The investigators did not report a funding source. Dr. Kang and Dr. Khawar reported that they had no relevant disclosures.
 

Artificial intelligence (AI) models are typically a year out of date and have this “charming problem of hallucinating made-up data and saying it with all the certainty of an attending on rounds,” Isaac Kohane, MD, PhD, Harvard Medical School, Boston, told a packed audience at plenary at an annual scientific meeting on infectious diseases.

Dr. Kohane, chair of the department of biomedical informatics, says the future intersection between AI and health care is “muddy.”

Echoing questions about the accuracy of new AI tools, researchers at the meeting presented the results of their new test of ChatGPT.

The AI chatbot is designed for language processing – not scientific accuracy – and does not guarantee that responses to medical queries are fully factual.

To test the accuracy of ChatGPT’s version 3.5, the researchers asked it if there are any boxed warnings on the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s label for common antibiotics, and if so, what they are.

ChatGPT provided correct answers about FDA boxed warnings for only 12 of the 41 antibiotics queried – a matching rate of just 29%.

For the other 29 antibiotics, ChatGPT either “incorrectly reported that there was an FDA boxed warning when there was not, or inaccurately or incorrectly reported the boxed warning,” Rebecca Linfield, MD, infectious diseases fellow, Stanford (Calif.) University, said in an interview.
 

Uncritical AI use risky

Nine of the 41 antibiotics included in the query have boxed warnings. And ChatGPT correctly identified all nine, but only three were the matching adverse event (33%). For the 32 antibiotics without an FDA boxed warning, ChatGPT correctly reported that 28% (9 of 32) do not have a boxed warning.

For example, ChatGPT stated that the antibiotic fidaxomicin has a boxed warning for increased risk for Clostridioides difficile, “but it is the first-line antibiotic used to treat C. difficile,” Dr. Linfield pointed out.

ChatGPT also reported that cefepime increased the risk for death in those with pneumonia and fabricated a study supporting that assertion. “However, cefepime is a first-line drug for those with hospital-acquired pneumonia,” Dr. Linfield explained.

“I can imagine a worried family member finding this through ChatGPT, and needing to have extensive reassurances from the patient’s physicians about why this antibiotic was chosen,” she said.

ChatGPT also incorrectly stated that aztreonam has a boxed warning for increased mortality.

“The risk is that both physicians and the public uncritically use ChatGPT as an easily accessible, readable source of clinically validated information, when these large language models are meant to generate fluid text, and not necessarily accurate information,” Dr. Linfield told this news organization.

Dr. Linfield said that the next step is to compare the ChatGPT 3.5 used in this analysis with ChatGPT 4, as well as with Google’s Med-PaLM 2 after it is released to the public.
 

Advancing fast

At plenary, Dr. Kohane pointed out that AI is a quick learner and improvements in tools are coming fast.

As an example, just 3 years ago, the best AI tool could score about as well as the worst student taking the medical boards, he told the audience. “Three years later, the leading large language models are scoring better than 90% of all the candidates. What’s it going to be doing next year?” he asked.

“I don’t know,” Dr. Kohane said, “but it will be better than this year.” AI will “transform health care.”

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Artificial intelligence (AI) models are typically a year out of date and have this “charming problem of hallucinating made-up data and saying it with all the certainty of an attending on rounds,” Isaac Kohane, MD, PhD, Harvard Medical School, Boston, told a packed audience at plenary at an annual scientific meeting on infectious diseases.

Dr. Kohane, chair of the department of biomedical informatics, says the future intersection between AI and health care is “muddy.”

Echoing questions about the accuracy of new AI tools, researchers at the meeting presented the results of their new test of ChatGPT.

The AI chatbot is designed for language processing – not scientific accuracy – and does not guarantee that responses to medical queries are fully factual.

To test the accuracy of ChatGPT’s version 3.5, the researchers asked it if there are any boxed warnings on the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s label for common antibiotics, and if so, what they are.

ChatGPT provided correct answers about FDA boxed warnings for only 12 of the 41 antibiotics queried – a matching rate of just 29%.

For the other 29 antibiotics, ChatGPT either “incorrectly reported that there was an FDA boxed warning when there was not, or inaccurately or incorrectly reported the boxed warning,” Rebecca Linfield, MD, infectious diseases fellow, Stanford (Calif.) University, said in an interview.
 

Uncritical AI use risky

Nine of the 41 antibiotics included in the query have boxed warnings. And ChatGPT correctly identified all nine, but only three were the matching adverse event (33%). For the 32 antibiotics without an FDA boxed warning, ChatGPT correctly reported that 28% (9 of 32) do not have a boxed warning.

For example, ChatGPT stated that the antibiotic fidaxomicin has a boxed warning for increased risk for Clostridioides difficile, “but it is the first-line antibiotic used to treat C. difficile,” Dr. Linfield pointed out.

ChatGPT also reported that cefepime increased the risk for death in those with pneumonia and fabricated a study supporting that assertion. “However, cefepime is a first-line drug for those with hospital-acquired pneumonia,” Dr. Linfield explained.

“I can imagine a worried family member finding this through ChatGPT, and needing to have extensive reassurances from the patient’s physicians about why this antibiotic was chosen,” she said.

ChatGPT also incorrectly stated that aztreonam has a boxed warning for increased mortality.

“The risk is that both physicians and the public uncritically use ChatGPT as an easily accessible, readable source of clinically validated information, when these large language models are meant to generate fluid text, and not necessarily accurate information,” Dr. Linfield told this news organization.

Dr. Linfield said that the next step is to compare the ChatGPT 3.5 used in this analysis with ChatGPT 4, as well as with Google’s Med-PaLM 2 after it is released to the public.
 

Advancing fast

At plenary, Dr. Kohane pointed out that AI is a quick learner and improvements in tools are coming fast.

As an example, just 3 years ago, the best AI tool could score about as well as the worst student taking the medical boards, he told the audience. “Three years later, the leading large language models are scoring better than 90% of all the candidates. What’s it going to be doing next year?” he asked.

“I don’t know,” Dr. Kohane said, “but it will be better than this year.” AI will “transform health care.”

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Artificial intelligence (AI) models are typically a year out of date and have this “charming problem of hallucinating made-up data and saying it with all the certainty of an attending on rounds,” Isaac Kohane, MD, PhD, Harvard Medical School, Boston, told a packed audience at plenary at an annual scientific meeting on infectious diseases.

Dr. Kohane, chair of the department of biomedical informatics, says the future intersection between AI and health care is “muddy.”

Echoing questions about the accuracy of new AI tools, researchers at the meeting presented the results of their new test of ChatGPT.

The AI chatbot is designed for language processing – not scientific accuracy – and does not guarantee that responses to medical queries are fully factual.

To test the accuracy of ChatGPT’s version 3.5, the researchers asked it if there are any boxed warnings on the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s label for common antibiotics, and if so, what they are.

ChatGPT provided correct answers about FDA boxed warnings for only 12 of the 41 antibiotics queried – a matching rate of just 29%.

For the other 29 antibiotics, ChatGPT either “incorrectly reported that there was an FDA boxed warning when there was not, or inaccurately or incorrectly reported the boxed warning,” Rebecca Linfield, MD, infectious diseases fellow, Stanford (Calif.) University, said in an interview.
 

Uncritical AI use risky

Nine of the 41 antibiotics included in the query have boxed warnings. And ChatGPT correctly identified all nine, but only three were the matching adverse event (33%). For the 32 antibiotics without an FDA boxed warning, ChatGPT correctly reported that 28% (9 of 32) do not have a boxed warning.

For example, ChatGPT stated that the antibiotic fidaxomicin has a boxed warning for increased risk for Clostridioides difficile, “but it is the first-line antibiotic used to treat C. difficile,” Dr. Linfield pointed out.

ChatGPT also reported that cefepime increased the risk for death in those with pneumonia and fabricated a study supporting that assertion. “However, cefepime is a first-line drug for those with hospital-acquired pneumonia,” Dr. Linfield explained.

“I can imagine a worried family member finding this through ChatGPT, and needing to have extensive reassurances from the patient’s physicians about why this antibiotic was chosen,” she said.

ChatGPT also incorrectly stated that aztreonam has a boxed warning for increased mortality.

“The risk is that both physicians and the public uncritically use ChatGPT as an easily accessible, readable source of clinically validated information, when these large language models are meant to generate fluid text, and not necessarily accurate information,” Dr. Linfield told this news organization.

Dr. Linfield said that the next step is to compare the ChatGPT 3.5 used in this analysis with ChatGPT 4, as well as with Google’s Med-PaLM 2 after it is released to the public.
 

Advancing fast

At plenary, Dr. Kohane pointed out that AI is a quick learner and improvements in tools are coming fast.

As an example, just 3 years ago, the best AI tool could score about as well as the worst student taking the medical boards, he told the audience. “Three years later, the leading large language models are scoring better than 90% of all the candidates. What’s it going to be doing next year?” he asked.

“I don’t know,” Dr. Kohane said, “but it will be better than this year.” AI will “transform health care.”

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.