We review 2 important viral infections in this article. One, parvovirus, poses a major threat to the fetus. The second, varicella, poses less risk to the fetus but significantly greater risk to the mother. We focus on the epidemiology, clinical presentation, diagnosis, and management of each infection.

Parvovirus infection and its risks to the fetus

CASE #1 Pregnant teacher exposed to fifth disease

A 28-year-old primigravid woman at 16 weeks’ gestation works as an elementary school teacher. Over the past 3 weeks, she has been exposed to 4 children who had fifth disease. She now requests evaluation because she has malaise, arthralgias, myalgias, fever of 38.2°C, and a fine lacelike erythematous rash on her trunk, arms, and cheeks.

• What is the most likely diagnosis?
• What diagnostic tests are indicated?
• Is her fetus at risk?

Epidemiology of parvovirus

Parvovirus B19 is a small, single-stranded DNA virus. It is highly contagious and is transmitted primarily by respiratory droplets. Transmission also can occur via infected blood, for example, through a blood transfusion. The incubation period is 10 to 20 days. Among adults, the individuals at greatest risk for infection are those who have close contact with young children, such as parents, day-care workers, and elementary school teachers. With sustained exposure in the household or classroom, the risk of seroconversion approaches 50%.¹ Approximately 50% to 60% of reproductive-aged women have evidence of prior infection, and immunity is usually lifelong.

Clinical manifestations

The classic presentation of parvovirus infection is erythema infectiosum, also called fifth disease. This condition is characterized by a “slapped cheek” facial rash, malaise, myalgias, arthralgias, and low-grade fever. A fine lacelike rash often develops over the torso. In adults, the characteristic rash may be absent, and the most common presentation is a flu-like illness with joint pains.^1,2 In children and in adults with an underlying hemoglobinopathy, parvovirus can cause transient aplastic crisis, and patients present with signs of a severe anemia, such as dyspnea, pallor, and fatigue.

Although parvovirus infection usually poses no serious risk in otherwise healthy children and adults, it can cause major fetal injury when the pregnant woman is infected early in pregnancy. The principal manifestation of fetal infection is hydrops. Hydrops primarily results when the virus crosses the placenta and attaches to the P antigen on the surface of red cell progenitors in the fetal marrow, causing an aplastic anemia with resultant high-output congestive heart failure. The virus also may directly injure the fetal myocardium, thus exacerbating heart failure. Other manifestations of congenital parvovirus include thrombocytopenia and hepatitis.³

The severity of fetal injury is inversely proportional to the gestational age at the time of maternal infection. When primary maternal infection occurs in the first trimester, the frequency of fetal hydrops is 5% to 10%. If infection develops in weeks 13 to 20, the risk of hydrops decreases to 5% or less. If infection develops beyond week 20, the incidence of fetal hydrops is 1% or lower.²

Continue to: Diagnostic steps...

Diagnostic steps

Appropriate diagnostic evaluation for a pregnant woman with exposure to parvovirus or clinical manifestations suggestive of parvovirus infection is outlined in FIGURE 1.

If infection is confirmed, serial ultrasound monitoring should be performed on a weekly to biweekly basis for 8 to 12 weeks, as delineated in FIGURE 2. Extended surveillance is necessary because the incubation period in the fetus is longer than that in the mother.

Management may necessitate intrauterine transfusion

Although some cases of fetal hydrops may resolve spontaneously, most authors agree that intrauterine transfusion is essential. In most instances, only a single intrauterine transfusion is necessary. In some fetuses, however, the infection is so prolonged and the anemia so severe that 2 to 3 transfusions may be required.

Infants who survive the intrauterine transfusion usually have an excellent long-term prognosis. However, isolated case reports have documented neurologic morbidity and prolonged transfusion-dependent anemia.⁴ In light of these reports, we recommend that a third trimester ultrasound exam be performed to assess fetal growth and evaluate the anatomy of the fetal brain. For the fetus with abnormal intracranial findings on ultrasonography, fetal magnetic resonance imaging is indicated.⁵

CASE #1 Diagnosis is probable parvovirus

The most likely diagnosis in this case is erythema infectiosum. This diagnosis can be confirmed by identifying positive immunogloblulin M (IgM) antibody and by detecting parvovirus in the maternal serum by polymerase chain reaction. Given the gestational age of 16 weeks, the risk of serious fetal injury should be less than 5%. Nevertheless, serial ultrasound examinations should be performed to assess for signs of fetal anemia.

Varicella exposure in pregnancy

CASE #2 Pregnant woman exposed to chickenpox has symptoms

Two weeks ago, a 32-year-old woman (G3P2002) at 24 weeks’ gestation was exposed to a neighbor’s child who had chickenpox. The patient has no history of natural infection or vaccination. She now has a fever of 38.6°C, malaise, headache, and a diffuse pruritic vesicular rash on her trunk and extremities. She also is experiencing a dry cough and mild dyspnea.

• What diagnostic tests are indicated?
• What treatment is indicated?
• What risk does this condition pose to the fetus?

Epidemiology of varicella

Varicella (chickenpox) is caused by the DNA varicella-zoster virus, an organism that is a member of the herpesvirus family. The disease occurs predominantly in children, and the infection is transmitted by respiratory droplets and by direct contact. Its incubation period is short (10–14 days), and it is highly contagious. More than 90% of susceptible close contacts will become infected after exposure to the index case. Like other herpesviruses, the varicella virus can establish a latent infection and then become manifest years later as herpes zoster (shingles).^5,6

Continue to: Clinical manifestations...

Clinical manifestations

Patients with varicella usually have prodromal symptoms and signs that include malaise, fatigue, arthralgias, myalgias, and a low-grade fever. Varicella’s pathognomonic manifestation is a pruritic, macular rash that starts on the face and trunk and then spreads centripetally to the extremities. The lesions typically appear in “crops” and evolve through several distinct phases: macule, papule, vesicle, pustule, ulcer, and crust.⁵

In children, varicella is manifest almost entirely by mucocutaneous lesions. In adults, however, 2 serious and potentially life-threatening complications can occur. Approximately 1% of infected adults develop encephalitis and about 20% develop viral pneumonia, often accompanied by a severe superimposed bacterial pneumonia.⁵

When maternal infection develops in the first half of pregnancy, approximately 2% of fetuses will have evidence of congenital infection, usually manifested by circular, constricting scars on the extremities. These lesions typically occur in a dermatomal distribution. Spontaneous abortion and fetal death in utero also have been reported, but fortunately they are quite rare. When maternal infection occurs beyond 20 weeks of gestation, fetal injury is very uncommon.⁷

Interestingly, when maternal infection occurs at the time of delivery or shortly thereafter (from 5 days before until 2 days after delivery), neonatal varicella may develop. This infection may take 3 forms: disseminated mucocutaneous lesions, a deep-seated visceral infection, or severe pneumonia. In the era before the ready availability of antiviral agents, the case fatality rate from neonatal varicella was approximately 30%.⁵

Diagnosis is clinical

The diagnosis of varicella usually is established on the basis of clinical examination. It can be confirmed by identification of anti–varicella-zoster IgM.

Management includes assessing immunity

If a patient is seen for a preconception appointment, ask her whether she has ever had varicella or been vaccinated for this disease. If she is uncertain, a varicella-zoster immunoglobulin G (IgG) titer should be ordered. If the IgG titer is negative, denoting susceptibility to infection, the patient should be vaccinated before she tries to conceive (see below).⁸

If a patient has not had a preconception appointment and now presents for her first prenatal appointment, she should be asked about immunity to varicella. If she is uncertain, a varicella-zoster IgG assay should be obtained. Approximately 75% of patients who are uncertain about immunity will, in fact, be immune. Those who are not immune should be counseled to avoid exposure to individuals who may have varicella, and they should be targeted for vaccination immediately postpartum.^5,9

If a susceptible pregnant patient has been exposed to an individual with varicella, she should receive 1 of 2 regimens within 72 to 96 hours to minimize the risk of maternal infection.^5,9,10 One option is intramuscular varicella-zoster immune globulin (VariZIG), 125 U/10 kg body weight, with a maximum dose of 625 U (5 vials). The distributor of this agent is FFF Enterprises in Temucula, California (telephone: 800-843-7477). A company representative will assess the patient’s eligibility and deliver the drug within 24 hours if the patient is considered eligible. An alternative prophylactic regimen is oral acyclovir, 800 mg 5 times daily for 7 days, or oral valacyclovir, 1,000 mg 3 times daily for 7 days.

If, despite prophylaxis, the pregnant woman becomes infected, she should immediately be treated with 1 of the oral antiviral regimens described above. If she has evidence of encephalitis, pneumonia, or severe disseminated mucocutaneous infection, or if she is immunosuppressed, she should be hospitalized and treated with intravenous acyclovir, 10 mg/kg infused over 1 hour every 8 hours for 10 days.

Ultrasonography is the most valuable test to identify fetal infection. Key findings that suggest congenital varicella are fetal growth restriction, microcephaly, ventriculomegaly, echogenic foci in the liver, and limb abnormalities. There is no proven therapy for congenital varicella.

When a patient has varicella at the time of delivery, she should be isolated from her infant until all lesions have crusted over. In addition, the neonate should be treated with either VariZIG or an antiviral agent.^5,9

Prevention with varicella vaccine

The varicella vaccine (Varivax) is a live-virus vaccine that is highly immunogenic. The vaccine is now part of the routine childhood immunization sequence. Children ages 1 to 12 years require only a single dose of the vaccine. Individuals older than 12 years of age require 2 doses, administered 4 to 6 weeks apart. The vaccine should not be administered during pregnancy. It also should not be administered to individuals who are severely immunocompromised, are receiving high-dose systemic steroids, have untreated tuberculosis, or have an allergy to neomycin, which is a component of the vaccine. The vaccine does not pose a risk to the breastfeeding infant.¹¹

CASE #2 Hospitalization is recommended for this patient

The patient in this case developed acute varicella pneumonia as a result of her exposure to the neighbor’s child. The diagnosis can be confirmed by demonstrating a positive varicella-zoster IgM and by obtaining a chest x-ray that identifies the diffuse patchy infiltrates characteristic of viral pneumonia. Because this is such a potentially serious illness, the patient should be hospitalized and treated with intravenous acyclovir or valacyclovir. Antibiotics such as ceftriaxone and azithromycin may be indicated to treat superimposed bacterial pneumonia. Given the later gestational age, the fetus is at low risk for serious injury. ●

We review 2 important viral infections in this article. One, parvovirus, poses a major threat to the fetus. The second, varicella, poses less risk to the fetus but significantly greater risk to the mother. We focus on the epidemiology, clinical presentation, diagnosis, and management of each infection.

Parvovirus infection and its risks to the fetus

CASE #1 Pregnant teacher exposed to fifth disease

A 28-year-old primigravid woman at 16 weeks’ gestation works as an elementary school teacher. Over the past 3 weeks, she has been exposed to 4 children who had fifth disease. She now requests evaluation because she has malaise, arthralgias, myalgias, fever of 38.2°C, and a fine lacelike erythematous rash on her trunk, arms, and cheeks.

• What is the most likely diagnosis?
• What diagnostic tests are indicated?
• Is her fetus at risk?

Epidemiology of parvovirus

Parvovirus B19 is a small, single-stranded DNA virus. It is highly contagious and is transmitted primarily by respiratory droplets. Transmission also can occur via infected blood, for example, through a blood transfusion. The incubation period is 10 to 20 days. Among adults, the individuals at greatest risk for infection are those who have close contact with young children, such as parents, day-care workers, and elementary school teachers. With sustained exposure in the household or classroom, the risk of seroconversion approaches 50%.¹ Approximately 50% to 60% of reproductive-aged women have evidence of prior infection, and immunity is usually lifelong.

Clinical manifestations

The classic presentation of parvovirus infection is erythema infectiosum, also called fifth disease. This condition is characterized by a “slapped cheek” facial rash, malaise, myalgias, arthralgias, and low-grade fever. A fine lacelike rash often develops over the torso. In adults, the characteristic rash may be absent, and the most common presentation is a flu-like illness with joint pains.^1,2 In children and in adults with an underlying hemoglobinopathy, parvovirus can cause transient aplastic crisis, and patients present with signs of a severe anemia, such as dyspnea, pallor, and fatigue.

Although parvovirus infection usually poses no serious risk in otherwise healthy children and adults, it can cause major fetal injury when the pregnant woman is infected early in pregnancy. The principal manifestation of fetal infection is hydrops. Hydrops primarily results when the virus crosses the placenta and attaches to the P antigen on the surface of red cell progenitors in the fetal marrow, causing an aplastic anemia with resultant high-output congestive heart failure. The virus also may directly injure the fetal myocardium, thus exacerbating heart failure. Other manifestations of congenital parvovirus include thrombocytopenia and hepatitis.³

The severity of fetal injury is inversely proportional to the gestational age at the time of maternal infection. When primary maternal infection occurs in the first trimester, the frequency of fetal hydrops is 5% to 10%. If infection develops in weeks 13 to 20, the risk of hydrops decreases to 5% or less. If infection develops beyond week 20, the incidence of fetal hydrops is 1% or lower.²

Continue to: Diagnostic steps...

Diagnostic steps

Appropriate diagnostic evaluation for a pregnant woman with exposure to parvovirus or clinical manifestations suggestive of parvovirus infection is outlined in FIGURE 1.

If infection is confirmed, serial ultrasound monitoring should be performed on a weekly to biweekly basis for 8 to 12 weeks, as delineated in FIGURE 2. Extended surveillance is necessary because the incubation period in the fetus is longer than that in the mother.

Management may necessitate intrauterine transfusion

Although some cases of fetal hydrops may resolve spontaneously, most authors agree that intrauterine transfusion is essential. In most instances, only a single intrauterine transfusion is necessary. In some fetuses, however, the infection is so prolonged and the anemia so severe that 2 to 3 transfusions may be required.

Infants who survive the intrauterine transfusion usually have an excellent long-term prognosis. However, isolated case reports have documented neurologic morbidity and prolonged transfusion-dependent anemia.⁴ In light of these reports, we recommend that a third trimester ultrasound exam be performed to assess fetal growth and evaluate the anatomy of the fetal brain. For the fetus with abnormal intracranial findings on ultrasonography, fetal magnetic resonance imaging is indicated.⁵

CASE #1 Diagnosis is probable parvovirus

The most likely diagnosis in this case is erythema infectiosum. This diagnosis can be confirmed by identifying positive immunogloblulin M (IgM) antibody and by detecting parvovirus in the maternal serum by polymerase chain reaction. Given the gestational age of 16 weeks, the risk of serious fetal injury should be less than 5%. Nevertheless, serial ultrasound examinations should be performed to assess for signs of fetal anemia.

Varicella exposure in pregnancy

CASE #2 Pregnant woman exposed to chickenpox has symptoms

Two weeks ago, a 32-year-old woman (G3P2002) at 24 weeks’ gestation was exposed to a neighbor’s child who had chickenpox. The patient has no history of natural infection or vaccination. She now has a fever of 38.6°C, malaise, headache, and a diffuse pruritic vesicular rash on her trunk and extremities. She also is experiencing a dry cough and mild dyspnea.

• What diagnostic tests are indicated?
• What treatment is indicated?
• What risk does this condition pose to the fetus?

Epidemiology of varicella

Varicella (chickenpox) is caused by the DNA varicella-zoster virus, an organism that is a member of the herpesvirus family. The disease occurs predominantly in children, and the infection is transmitted by respiratory droplets and by direct contact. Its incubation period is short (10–14 days), and it is highly contagious. More than 90% of susceptible close contacts will become infected after exposure to the index case. Like other herpesviruses, the varicella virus can establish a latent infection and then become manifest years later as herpes zoster (shingles).^5,6

Continue to: Clinical manifestations...

Clinical manifestations

Patients with varicella usually have prodromal symptoms and signs that include malaise, fatigue, arthralgias, myalgias, and a low-grade fever. Varicella’s pathognomonic manifestation is a pruritic, macular rash that starts on the face and trunk and then spreads centripetally to the extremities. The lesions typically appear in “crops” and evolve through several distinct phases: macule, papule, vesicle, pustule, ulcer, and crust.⁵

In children, varicella is manifest almost entirely by mucocutaneous lesions. In adults, however, 2 serious and potentially life-threatening complications can occur. Approximately 1% of infected adults develop encephalitis and about 20% develop viral pneumonia, often accompanied by a severe superimposed bacterial pneumonia.⁵

When maternal infection develops in the first half of pregnancy, approximately 2% of fetuses will have evidence of congenital infection, usually manifested by circular, constricting scars on the extremities. These lesions typically occur in a dermatomal distribution. Spontaneous abortion and fetal death in utero also have been reported, but fortunately they are quite rare. When maternal infection occurs beyond 20 weeks of gestation, fetal injury is very uncommon.⁷

Interestingly, when maternal infection occurs at the time of delivery or shortly thereafter (from 5 days before until 2 days after delivery), neonatal varicella may develop. This infection may take 3 forms: disseminated mucocutaneous lesions, a deep-seated visceral infection, or severe pneumonia. In the era before the ready availability of antiviral agents, the case fatality rate from neonatal varicella was approximately 30%.⁵

Diagnosis is clinical

The diagnosis of varicella usually is established on the basis of clinical examination. It can be confirmed by identification of anti–varicella-zoster IgM.

Management includes assessing immunity

If a patient is seen for a preconception appointment, ask her whether she has ever had varicella or been vaccinated for this disease. If she is uncertain, a varicella-zoster immunoglobulin G (IgG) titer should be ordered. If the IgG titer is negative, denoting susceptibility to infection, the patient should be vaccinated before she tries to conceive (see below).⁸

If a patient has not had a preconception appointment and now presents for her first prenatal appointment, she should be asked about immunity to varicella. If she is uncertain, a varicella-zoster IgG assay should be obtained. Approximately 75% of patients who are uncertain about immunity will, in fact, be immune. Those who are not immune should be counseled to avoid exposure to individuals who may have varicella, and they should be targeted for vaccination immediately postpartum.^5,9

If a susceptible pregnant patient has been exposed to an individual with varicella, she should receive 1 of 2 regimens within 72 to 96 hours to minimize the risk of maternal infection.^5,9,10 One option is intramuscular varicella-zoster immune globulin (VariZIG), 125 U/10 kg body weight, with a maximum dose of 625 U (5 vials). The distributor of this agent is FFF Enterprises in Temucula, California (telephone: 800-843-7477). A company representative will assess the patient’s eligibility and deliver the drug within 24 hours if the patient is considered eligible. An alternative prophylactic regimen is oral acyclovir, 800 mg 5 times daily for 7 days, or oral valacyclovir, 1,000 mg 3 times daily for 7 days.

If, despite prophylaxis, the pregnant woman becomes infected, she should immediately be treated with 1 of the oral antiviral regimens described above. If she has evidence of encephalitis, pneumonia, or severe disseminated mucocutaneous infection, or if she is immunosuppressed, she should be hospitalized and treated with intravenous acyclovir, 10 mg/kg infused over 1 hour every 8 hours for 10 days.

Ultrasonography is the most valuable test to identify fetal infection. Key findings that suggest congenital varicella are fetal growth restriction, microcephaly, ventriculomegaly, echogenic foci in the liver, and limb abnormalities. There is no proven therapy for congenital varicella.

When a patient has varicella at the time of delivery, she should be isolated from her infant until all lesions have crusted over. In addition, the neonate should be treated with either VariZIG or an antiviral agent.^5,9

Prevention with varicella vaccine

The varicella vaccine (Varivax) is a live-virus vaccine that is highly immunogenic. The vaccine is now part of the routine childhood immunization sequence. Children ages 1 to 12 years require only a single dose of the vaccine. Individuals older than 12 years of age require 2 doses, administered 4 to 6 weeks apart. The vaccine should not be administered during pregnancy. It also should not be administered to individuals who are severely immunocompromised, are receiving high-dose systemic steroids, have untreated tuberculosis, or have an allergy to neomycin, which is a component of the vaccine. The vaccine does not pose a risk to the breastfeeding infant.¹¹

CASE #2 Hospitalization is recommended for this patient

The patient in this case developed acute varicella pneumonia as a result of her exposure to the neighbor’s child. The diagnosis can be confirmed by demonstrating a positive varicella-zoster IgM and by obtaining a chest x-ray that identifies the diffuse patchy infiltrates characteristic of viral pneumonia. Because this is such a potentially serious illness, the patient should be hospitalized and treated with intravenous acyclovir or valacyclovir. Antibiotics such as ceftriaxone and azithromycin may be indicated to treat superimposed bacterial pneumonia. Given the later gestational age, the fetus is at low risk for serious injury. ●

We review 2 important viral infections in this article. One, parvovirus, poses a major threat to the fetus. The second, varicella, poses less risk to the fetus but significantly greater risk to the mother. We focus on the epidemiology, clinical presentation, diagnosis, and management of each infection.

Parvovirus infection and its risks to the fetus

CASE #1 Pregnant teacher exposed to fifth disease

A 28-year-old primigravid woman at 16 weeks’ gestation works as an elementary school teacher. Over the past 3 weeks, she has been exposed to 4 children who had fifth disease. She now requests evaluation because she has malaise, arthralgias, myalgias, fever of 38.2°C, and a fine lacelike erythematous rash on her trunk, arms, and cheeks.

• What is the most likely diagnosis?
• What diagnostic tests are indicated?
• Is her fetus at risk?

Epidemiology of parvovirus

Parvovirus B19 is a small, single-stranded DNA virus. It is highly contagious and is transmitted primarily by respiratory droplets. Transmission also can occur via infected blood, for example, through a blood transfusion. The incubation period is 10 to 20 days. Among adults, the individuals at greatest risk for infection are those who have close contact with young children, such as parents, day-care workers, and elementary school teachers. With sustained exposure in the household or classroom, the risk of seroconversion approaches 50%.¹ Approximately 50% to 60% of reproductive-aged women have evidence of prior infection, and immunity is usually lifelong.

Clinical manifestations

The classic presentation of parvovirus infection is erythema infectiosum, also called fifth disease. This condition is characterized by a “slapped cheek” facial rash, malaise, myalgias, arthralgias, and low-grade fever. A fine lacelike rash often develops over the torso. In adults, the characteristic rash may be absent, and the most common presentation is a flu-like illness with joint pains.^1,2 In children and in adults with an underlying hemoglobinopathy, parvovirus can cause transient aplastic crisis, and patients present with signs of a severe anemia, such as dyspnea, pallor, and fatigue.

Although parvovirus infection usually poses no serious risk in otherwise healthy children and adults, it can cause major fetal injury when the pregnant woman is infected early in pregnancy. The principal manifestation of fetal infection is hydrops. Hydrops primarily results when the virus crosses the placenta and attaches to the P antigen on the surface of red cell progenitors in the fetal marrow, causing an aplastic anemia with resultant high-output congestive heart failure. The virus also may directly injure the fetal myocardium, thus exacerbating heart failure. Other manifestations of congenital parvovirus include thrombocytopenia and hepatitis.³

The severity of fetal injury is inversely proportional to the gestational age at the time of maternal infection. When primary maternal infection occurs in the first trimester, the frequency of fetal hydrops is 5% to 10%. If infection develops in weeks 13 to 20, the risk of hydrops decreases to 5% or less. If infection develops beyond week 20, the incidence of fetal hydrops is 1% or lower.²

Continue to: Diagnostic steps...

Diagnostic steps

Appropriate diagnostic evaluation for a pregnant woman with exposure to parvovirus or clinical manifestations suggestive of parvovirus infection is outlined in FIGURE 1.

If infection is confirmed, serial ultrasound monitoring should be performed on a weekly to biweekly basis for 8 to 12 weeks, as delineated in FIGURE 2. Extended surveillance is necessary because the incubation period in the fetus is longer than that in the mother.

Management may necessitate intrauterine transfusion

Although some cases of fetal hydrops may resolve spontaneously, most authors agree that intrauterine transfusion is essential. In most instances, only a single intrauterine transfusion is necessary. In some fetuses, however, the infection is so prolonged and the anemia so severe that 2 to 3 transfusions may be required.

Infants who survive the intrauterine transfusion usually have an excellent long-term prognosis. However, isolated case reports have documented neurologic morbidity and prolonged transfusion-dependent anemia.⁴ In light of these reports, we recommend that a third trimester ultrasound exam be performed to assess fetal growth and evaluate the anatomy of the fetal brain. For the fetus with abnormal intracranial findings on ultrasonography, fetal magnetic resonance imaging is indicated.⁵

CASE #1 Diagnosis is probable parvovirus

The most likely diagnosis in this case is erythema infectiosum. This diagnosis can be confirmed by identifying positive immunogloblulin M (IgM) antibody and by detecting parvovirus in the maternal serum by polymerase chain reaction. Given the gestational age of 16 weeks, the risk of serious fetal injury should be less than 5%. Nevertheless, serial ultrasound examinations should be performed to assess for signs of fetal anemia.

Varicella exposure in pregnancy

CASE #2 Pregnant woman exposed to chickenpox has symptoms

Two weeks ago, a 32-year-old woman (G3P2002) at 24 weeks’ gestation was exposed to a neighbor’s child who had chickenpox. The patient has no history of natural infection or vaccination. She now has a fever of 38.6°C, malaise, headache, and a diffuse pruritic vesicular rash on her trunk and extremities. She also is experiencing a dry cough and mild dyspnea.

• What diagnostic tests are indicated?
• What treatment is indicated?
• What risk does this condition pose to the fetus?

Epidemiology of varicella

Varicella (chickenpox) is caused by the DNA varicella-zoster virus, an organism that is a member of the herpesvirus family. The disease occurs predominantly in children, and the infection is transmitted by respiratory droplets and by direct contact. Its incubation period is short (10–14 days), and it is highly contagious. More than 90% of susceptible close contacts will become infected after exposure to the index case. Like other herpesviruses, the varicella virus can establish a latent infection and then become manifest years later as herpes zoster (shingles).^5,6

Continue to: Clinical manifestations...

Clinical manifestations

Patients with varicella usually have prodromal symptoms and signs that include malaise, fatigue, arthralgias, myalgias, and a low-grade fever. Varicella’s pathognomonic manifestation is a pruritic, macular rash that starts on the face and trunk and then spreads centripetally to the extremities. The lesions typically appear in “crops” and evolve through several distinct phases: macule, papule, vesicle, pustule, ulcer, and crust.⁵

In children, varicella is manifest almost entirely by mucocutaneous lesions. In adults, however, 2 serious and potentially life-threatening complications can occur. Approximately 1% of infected adults develop encephalitis and about 20% develop viral pneumonia, often accompanied by a severe superimposed bacterial pneumonia.⁵

When maternal infection develops in the first half of pregnancy, approximately 2% of fetuses will have evidence of congenital infection, usually manifested by circular, constricting scars on the extremities. These lesions typically occur in a dermatomal distribution. Spontaneous abortion and fetal death in utero also have been reported, but fortunately they are quite rare. When maternal infection occurs beyond 20 weeks of gestation, fetal injury is very uncommon.⁷

Interestingly, when maternal infection occurs at the time of delivery or shortly thereafter (from 5 days before until 2 days after delivery), neonatal varicella may develop. This infection may take 3 forms: disseminated mucocutaneous lesions, a deep-seated visceral infection, or severe pneumonia. In the era before the ready availability of antiviral agents, the case fatality rate from neonatal varicella was approximately 30%.⁵

Diagnosis is clinical

The diagnosis of varicella usually is established on the basis of clinical examination. It can be confirmed by identification of anti–varicella-zoster IgM.

Management includes assessing immunity

If a patient is seen for a preconception appointment, ask her whether she has ever had varicella or been vaccinated for this disease. If she is uncertain, a varicella-zoster immunoglobulin G (IgG) titer should be ordered. If the IgG titer is negative, denoting susceptibility to infection, the patient should be vaccinated before she tries to conceive (see below).⁸

If a patient has not had a preconception appointment and now presents for her first prenatal appointment, she should be asked about immunity to varicella. If she is uncertain, a varicella-zoster IgG assay should be obtained. Approximately 75% of patients who are uncertain about immunity will, in fact, be immune. Those who are not immune should be counseled to avoid exposure to individuals who may have varicella, and they should be targeted for vaccination immediately postpartum.^5,9

If a susceptible pregnant patient has been exposed to an individual with varicella, she should receive 1 of 2 regimens within 72 to 96 hours to minimize the risk of maternal infection.^5,9,10 One option is intramuscular varicella-zoster immune globulin (VariZIG), 125 U/10 kg body weight, with a maximum dose of 625 U (5 vials). The distributor of this agent is FFF Enterprises in Temucula, California (telephone: 800-843-7477). A company representative will assess the patient’s eligibility and deliver the drug within 24 hours if the patient is considered eligible. An alternative prophylactic regimen is oral acyclovir, 800 mg 5 times daily for 7 days, or oral valacyclovir, 1,000 mg 3 times daily for 7 days.

If, despite prophylaxis, the pregnant woman becomes infected, she should immediately be treated with 1 of the oral antiviral regimens described above. If she has evidence of encephalitis, pneumonia, or severe disseminated mucocutaneous infection, or if she is immunosuppressed, she should be hospitalized and treated with intravenous acyclovir, 10 mg/kg infused over 1 hour every 8 hours for 10 days.

Ultrasonography is the most valuable test to identify fetal infection. Key findings that suggest congenital varicella are fetal growth restriction, microcephaly, ventriculomegaly, echogenic foci in the liver, and limb abnormalities. There is no proven therapy for congenital varicella.

When a patient has varicella at the time of delivery, she should be isolated from her infant until all lesions have crusted over. In addition, the neonate should be treated with either VariZIG or an antiviral agent.^5,9

Prevention with varicella vaccine

The varicella vaccine (Varivax) is a live-virus vaccine that is highly immunogenic. The vaccine is now part of the routine childhood immunization sequence. Children ages 1 to 12 years require only a single dose of the vaccine. Individuals older than 12 years of age require 2 doses, administered 4 to 6 weeks apart. The vaccine should not be administered during pregnancy. It also should not be administered to individuals who are severely immunocompromised, are receiving high-dose systemic steroids, have untreated tuberculosis, or have an allergy to neomycin, which is a component of the vaccine. The vaccine does not pose a risk to the breastfeeding infant.¹¹

CASE #2 Hospitalization is recommended for this patient

The patient in this case developed acute varicella pneumonia as a result of her exposure to the neighbor’s child. The diagnosis can be confirmed by demonstrating a positive varicella-zoster IgM and by obtaining a chest x-ray that identifies the diffuse patchy infiltrates characteristic of viral pneumonia. Because this is such a potentially serious illness, the patient should be hospitalized and treated with intravenous acyclovir or valacyclovir. Antibiotics such as ceftriaxone and azithromycin may be indicated to treat superimposed bacterial pneumonia. Given the later gestational age, the fetus is at low risk for serious injury. ●

Hypertension is a prevalent medical problem among US women, with a higher prevalence among Black women, than among White, Hispanic, or Asian women (TABLE 1).¹ Among US women aged 55 to 64 years, approximately 50% have hypertension or are taking a hypertension medicine.¹ Hypertension is an important risk factor for cardiovascular disease, including stroke, coronary heart disease, heart failure, atrial fibrillation, and peripheral vascular disease.^1,2 In a study of 1.3 million people, blood pressure (BP) ≥ 130/80 mm Hg was associated with an increased risk of a cardiovascular event, including myocardial infarction and stroke.² Excessive sodium intake is an important risk factor for developing hypertension.³ In 2015–2016, 87% of US adults consumed >2,300 mg/d of sodium,⁴ an amount that is considered excessive.¹ Less well known is the association between low potassium intake and hypertension. This editorial reviews the evidence that diets high in sodium and low in potassium contribute to the development of hypertension and cardiovascular disease.

Sodium and potassium dueling cations

Many cohort studies report that diets high in sodium and low in potassium are associated with hypertension and an increased risk of cardiovascular disease. For example, in a cohort of 146,000 Chinese people, high sodium and low potassium intake was positively correlated with higher BP.⁵ In addition, the impact of increasing sodium intake or decreasing potassium intake was greater for people with a BMI ≥24 kg/m², than people with a BMI <24 kg/m². In a cohort of 11,095 US adults, high sodium and low potassium intake was associated with an increased risk of hypertension.⁶

In a study of 13,696 women, high potassium intake was associated with lower BP in participants with either a low or high sodium intake.⁷ In addition, over a 19-year follow up, higher potassium intake was associated with a lower risk of cardiovascular events.⁷ Comparing the highest (5,773 mg/d) vs lowest (2,783 mg/d) tertile of potassium intake, the decreased risk of a cardiovascular event was 0.89 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.83–0.95).⁷

In a meta-analysis of data culled from 6 cohort studies, 10,709 adults with a mean age of 52 years, 54% of whom identified as women, were followed for a median of 8.8 years.⁸ Each adult contributed at least two 24-hour urine samples for measurement of sodium and potassium content. (Measurement of sodium and potassium in multiple 24-hour urine specimens from the same participant is thought to be the best way to assess sodium and potassium consumption.) The primary outcome was a cardiovascular event, including heart attack, stroke, or undergoing coronary revascularization procedures. In this study increasing consumption of sodium was associated with an increase in cardiovascular events, and increasing consumption of potassium was associated with a decrease in cardiovascular events. The hazard ratio for a cardiovascular event comparing high versus low consumption of sodium was 1.60 (95% CI, 1.19–2.14), and comparing high versus low consumption of potassium was 0.69 (95% CI, 0.51–0.91) (TABLE 2).⁸

Continue to: Clinical trial data on decreasing Na and/or increasing K consumption on CV outcomes...

Clinical trial data on decreasing Na and/or increasing K consumption on CV outcomes

Building on the cohort studies reporting that diets high in sodium and low in potassium are associated with hypertension and cardiovascular disease, clinical trials report that decreasing dietary sodium intake reduces BP and the risk of a cardiovascular event. For example, in a meta-analysis of 85 clinical trials studying the link between sodium and BP, the investigators concluded that there was a linear relationship between sodium intake and BP, with larger reductions in sodium intake associated with greater reductions in BP, down to a daily sodium intake of 1,000 to 1,500 mg.⁹ The effect of sodium reduction on BP was greatest in study participants with higher BP at baseline.

In a cluster-randomized clinical trial in China, people living in 600 villages were assigned to a control group, continuing to use sodium chloride in their food preparation or an experimental intervention, replacing sodium chloride with a substitute product containing 75% sodium chloride and 25% potassium chloride by weight.¹⁰ The inclusion criteria included people ≥60 years of age with high BP or a history of stroke. The mean duration of follow-up was 4.7 years. Half of the participants were female. A total of 73% of the participants had a history of stroke and 88% had hypertension. In this study, the rate of death was lower in the group that used the salt substitute than in the group using sodium chloride (39 vs 45 deaths per 1,000 person-years; rate ratio (RR) 0.88; 95% CI, 0.82–0.95, P<.001). The rate of major cardiovascular events (nonfatal stroke, nonfatal acute coronary syndrome or death from vascular causes) was decreased in the group that used salt substitute compared with the group using sodium chloride (49 vs 56 events per 1,000 person-years, rate ratio (RR), 0.87; 95% CI, 0.80–0.94; P<.001). Similarly, the rate of stroke was decreased in the group that used salt substitute compared with the group using sodium chloride (29 vs 34 events per 1,000 person-years; rate ratio (RR), 0.86; 95% CI, 0.77–0.96; P = .006). This study shows that by decreasing sodium intake and increasing potassium, cardiovascular outcomes are improved in people at high risk for a cardiovascular event.¹⁰ People with kidney disease or taking medications that decrease renal excretion of potassium should consult with their health care provider before using potassium chloride containing salt substitutes.

What is your daily intake of sodium and potassium?

Almost all packaged prepared foods have labels indicating the amount of sodium in one serving. Many packaged foods also report the amount of potassium in one serving. Many processed foods contain high amounts of sodium and low amounts of potassium. Processed and ultra-processed foods are a major dietary source of sodium.¹¹ In contrast to processed foods, fresh fruits, vegetables, and milk have high quantities of potassium and low amounts of sodium. As an example, a major brand of canned chicken broth has 750 mg of sodium and 40 mg of potassium per one-half cup, a ratio of sodium to potassium of 19:1. By contrast, canned red kidney beans have 135 mg of sodium and 425 mg of potassium in one-half cup, a ratio of sodium to potassium of 1:3. Patients can better understand their daily sodium and potassium intake by reading the food labels. Calculating a sodium to potassium ratio for a food may help people better understand their salt intake and identify foods associated with positive health outcomes.

The optimal target for daily consumption of sodium and potassium is controversial (TABLE 2). The mean daily intakes of sodium and potassium in the United States are approximately 3,380 mg and 2,499 mg,respectively.¹² The American College of Cardiology (ACC) recommends that an optimal diet contains <1,500 mg/d of sodium, a stringent target.¹ If that target is unattainable, people should at least aim for a 1,000 mg/d-reduction in their current sodium intake.¹ The World Health Organization strongly recommends that adults consume <2,000 mg/d of sodium.¹³ The National Academy of Science recommends adults seeking to reduce the risk of cardiovascular disease consume <2,300 mg/d of sodium.¹⁴ The top dietary sources of sodium include deli meat, pizza, burritos and tacos, soups, savory snacks (chips, crackers, popcorn), fried poultry, burgers, and eggs.¹⁵

The optimal target for daily consumption of potassium is controversial. The ACC recommends that an optimal diet contains 3,500–5,000 mg/d of potassium.¹ The World Health Organization recommends that adults consume >3,510 mg/d of potassium.¹⁶ The top dietary sources of potassium include milk, fruit, vegetables, coffee, savory snacks (chips, crackers, popcorn), fruit juice, white potatoes, deli meats, burritos, and tacos.¹⁵ The foods with the greatest amount of potassium include banana, avocado, acorn squash, spinach, sweet potatoes, salmon, apricots, grapefruit, broccoli, and white beans. People with kidney disease or those who are taking medications that interfere with renal excretion of potassium should consult with their health care provider before adding more potassium to their diet.

The ACC also recommends¹:

• Maintaining an optimal weight (a 1-kg reduction in weight is associated with a 1-mm Hg reduction in BP).
• Eating a healthy diet rich in fruits, vegetables, whole grains, and low-fat dairy products with reduced saturated and total fat.
• Regular aerobic physical activity 90 to 150 min/wk.
• Moderation in alcohol consumption, with men limiting consumption ≤ 2 drinks/d and women limiting consumption to ≤ 1 drink/d.
• Smoking cessation.

Most adults in the US have too much sodium and too little potassium in their daily diet. Diets high in sodium and low in potassium increase the risk of hypertension. In turn, this increases the risk of cardiovascular disease, including myocardial infarction and stroke. Many personal choices and societal factors contribute to our current imbalanced and unhealthy diet, rich in sodium and deficient in potassium. Our best approach to improve health and reduce cardiovascular disease is to guide people to modify unhealthy lifestyle behaviors.¹⁷ For patients who are ready to change, a counseling intervention using the 5 A’s (including assess risk behaviors, advise change, agree on goals/action plan, assist with treatment, and arrange follow-up) has been shown to result in improved dietary choices, increased physical activity, and reduced use of tobacco products.¹⁸ ●

Hypertension is a prevalent medical problem among US women, with a higher prevalence among Black women, than among White, Hispanic, or Asian women (TABLE 1).¹ Among US women aged 55 to 64 years, approximately 50% have hypertension or are taking a hypertension medicine.¹ Hypertension is an important risk factor for cardiovascular disease, including stroke, coronary heart disease, heart failure, atrial fibrillation, and peripheral vascular disease.^1,2 In a study of 1.3 million people, blood pressure (BP) ≥ 130/80 mm Hg was associated with an increased risk of a cardiovascular event, including myocardial infarction and stroke.² Excessive sodium intake is an important risk factor for developing hypertension.³ In 2015–2016, 87% of US adults consumed >2,300 mg/d of sodium,⁴ an amount that is considered excessive.¹ Less well known is the association between low potassium intake and hypertension. This editorial reviews the evidence that diets high in sodium and low in potassium contribute to the development of hypertension and cardiovascular disease.

Sodium and potassium dueling cations

Many cohort studies report that diets high in sodium and low in potassium are associated with hypertension and an increased risk of cardiovascular disease. For example, in a cohort of 146,000 Chinese people, high sodium and low potassium intake was positively correlated with higher BP.⁵ In addition, the impact of increasing sodium intake or decreasing potassium intake was greater for people with a BMI ≥24 kg/m², than people with a BMI <24 kg/m². In a cohort of 11,095 US adults, high sodium and low potassium intake was associated with an increased risk of hypertension.⁶

In a study of 13,696 women, high potassium intake was associated with lower BP in participants with either a low or high sodium intake.⁷ In addition, over a 19-year follow up, higher potassium intake was associated with a lower risk of cardiovascular events.⁷ Comparing the highest (5,773 mg/d) vs lowest (2,783 mg/d) tertile of potassium intake, the decreased risk of a cardiovascular event was 0.89 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.83–0.95).⁷

In a meta-analysis of data culled from 6 cohort studies, 10,709 adults with a mean age of 52 years, 54% of whom identified as women, were followed for a median of 8.8 years.⁸ Each adult contributed at least two 24-hour urine samples for measurement of sodium and potassium content. (Measurement of sodium and potassium in multiple 24-hour urine specimens from the same participant is thought to be the best way to assess sodium and potassium consumption.) The primary outcome was a cardiovascular event, including heart attack, stroke, or undergoing coronary revascularization procedures. In this study increasing consumption of sodium was associated with an increase in cardiovascular events, and increasing consumption of potassium was associated with a decrease in cardiovascular events. The hazard ratio for a cardiovascular event comparing high versus low consumption of sodium was 1.60 (95% CI, 1.19–2.14), and comparing high versus low consumption of potassium was 0.69 (95% CI, 0.51–0.91) (TABLE 2).⁸

Continue to: Clinical trial data on decreasing Na and/or increasing K consumption on CV outcomes...

Clinical trial data on decreasing Na and/or increasing K consumption on CV outcomes

Building on the cohort studies reporting that diets high in sodium and low in potassium are associated with hypertension and cardiovascular disease, clinical trials report that decreasing dietary sodium intake reduces BP and the risk of a cardiovascular event. For example, in a meta-analysis of 85 clinical trials studying the link between sodium and BP, the investigators concluded that there was a linear relationship between sodium intake and BP, with larger reductions in sodium intake associated with greater reductions in BP, down to a daily sodium intake of 1,000 to 1,500 mg.⁹ The effect of sodium reduction on BP was greatest in study participants with higher BP at baseline.

In a cluster-randomized clinical trial in China, people living in 600 villages were assigned to a control group, continuing to use sodium chloride in their food preparation or an experimental intervention, replacing sodium chloride with a substitute product containing 75% sodium chloride and 25% potassium chloride by weight.¹⁰ The inclusion criteria included people ≥60 years of age with high BP or a history of stroke. The mean duration of follow-up was 4.7 years. Half of the participants were female. A total of 73% of the participants had a history of stroke and 88% had hypertension. In this study, the rate of death was lower in the group that used the salt substitute than in the group using sodium chloride (39 vs 45 deaths per 1,000 person-years; rate ratio (RR) 0.88; 95% CI, 0.82–0.95, P<.001). The rate of major cardiovascular events (nonfatal stroke, nonfatal acute coronary syndrome or death from vascular causes) was decreased in the group that used salt substitute compared with the group using sodium chloride (49 vs 56 events per 1,000 person-years, rate ratio (RR), 0.87; 95% CI, 0.80–0.94; P<.001). Similarly, the rate of stroke was decreased in the group that used salt substitute compared with the group using sodium chloride (29 vs 34 events per 1,000 person-years; rate ratio (RR), 0.86; 95% CI, 0.77–0.96; P = .006). This study shows that by decreasing sodium intake and increasing potassium, cardiovascular outcomes are improved in people at high risk for a cardiovascular event.¹⁰ People with kidney disease or taking medications that decrease renal excretion of potassium should consult with their health care provider before using potassium chloride containing salt substitutes.

What is your daily intake of sodium and potassium?

Almost all packaged prepared foods have labels indicating the amount of sodium in one serving. Many packaged foods also report the amount of potassium in one serving. Many processed foods contain high amounts of sodium and low amounts of potassium. Processed and ultra-processed foods are a major dietary source of sodium.¹¹ In contrast to processed foods, fresh fruits, vegetables, and milk have high quantities of potassium and low amounts of sodium. As an example, a major brand of canned chicken broth has 750 mg of sodium and 40 mg of potassium per one-half cup, a ratio of sodium to potassium of 19:1. By contrast, canned red kidney beans have 135 mg of sodium and 425 mg of potassium in one-half cup, a ratio of sodium to potassium of 1:3. Patients can better understand their daily sodium and potassium intake by reading the food labels. Calculating a sodium to potassium ratio for a food may help people better understand their salt intake and identify foods associated with positive health outcomes.

The optimal target for daily consumption of sodium and potassium is controversial (TABLE 2). The mean daily intakes of sodium and potassium in the United States are approximately 3,380 mg and 2,499 mg,respectively.¹² The American College of Cardiology (ACC) recommends that an optimal diet contains <1,500 mg/d of sodium, a stringent target.¹ If that target is unattainable, people should at least aim for a 1,000 mg/d-reduction in their current sodium intake.¹ The World Health Organization strongly recommends that adults consume <2,000 mg/d of sodium.¹³ The National Academy of Science recommends adults seeking to reduce the risk of cardiovascular disease consume <2,300 mg/d of sodium.¹⁴ The top dietary sources of sodium include deli meat, pizza, burritos and tacos, soups, savory snacks (chips, crackers, popcorn), fried poultry, burgers, and eggs.¹⁵

The optimal target for daily consumption of potassium is controversial. The ACC recommends that an optimal diet contains 3,500–5,000 mg/d of potassium.¹ The World Health Organization recommends that adults consume >3,510 mg/d of potassium.¹⁶ The top dietary sources of potassium include milk, fruit, vegetables, coffee, savory snacks (chips, crackers, popcorn), fruit juice, white potatoes, deli meats, burritos, and tacos.¹⁵ The foods with the greatest amount of potassium include banana, avocado, acorn squash, spinach, sweet potatoes, salmon, apricots, grapefruit, broccoli, and white beans. People with kidney disease or those who are taking medications that interfere with renal excretion of potassium should consult with their health care provider before adding more potassium to their diet.

The ACC also recommends¹:

• Maintaining an optimal weight (a 1-kg reduction in weight is associated with a 1-mm Hg reduction in BP).
• Eating a healthy diet rich in fruits, vegetables, whole grains, and low-fat dairy products with reduced saturated and total fat.
• Regular aerobic physical activity 90 to 150 min/wk.
• Moderation in alcohol consumption, with men limiting consumption ≤ 2 drinks/d and women limiting consumption to ≤ 1 drink/d.
• Smoking cessation.

Most adults in the US have too much sodium and too little potassium in their daily diet. Diets high in sodium and low in potassium increase the risk of hypertension. In turn, this increases the risk of cardiovascular disease, including myocardial infarction and stroke. Many personal choices and societal factors contribute to our current imbalanced and unhealthy diet, rich in sodium and deficient in potassium. Our best approach to improve health and reduce cardiovascular disease is to guide people to modify unhealthy lifestyle behaviors.¹⁷ For patients who are ready to change, a counseling intervention using the 5 A’s (including assess risk behaviors, advise change, agree on goals/action plan, assist with treatment, and arrange follow-up) has been shown to result in improved dietary choices, increased physical activity, and reduced use of tobacco products.¹⁸ ●

Hypertension is a prevalent medical problem among US women, with a higher prevalence among Black women, than among White, Hispanic, or Asian women (TABLE 1).¹ Among US women aged 55 to 64 years, approximately 50% have hypertension or are taking a hypertension medicine.¹ Hypertension is an important risk factor for cardiovascular disease, including stroke, coronary heart disease, heart failure, atrial fibrillation, and peripheral vascular disease.^1,2 In a study of 1.3 million people, blood pressure (BP) ≥ 130/80 mm Hg was associated with an increased risk of a cardiovascular event, including myocardial infarction and stroke.² Excessive sodium intake is an important risk factor for developing hypertension.³ In 2015–2016, 87% of US adults consumed >2,300 mg/d of sodium,⁴ an amount that is considered excessive.¹ Less well known is the association between low potassium intake and hypertension. This editorial reviews the evidence that diets high in sodium and low in potassium contribute to the development of hypertension and cardiovascular disease.

Sodium and potassium dueling cations

Many cohort studies report that diets high in sodium and low in potassium are associated with hypertension and an increased risk of cardiovascular disease. For example, in a cohort of 146,000 Chinese people, high sodium and low potassium intake was positively correlated with higher BP.⁵ In addition, the impact of increasing sodium intake or decreasing potassium intake was greater for people with a BMI ≥24 kg/m², than people with a BMI <24 kg/m². In a cohort of 11,095 US adults, high sodium and low potassium intake was associated with an increased risk of hypertension.⁶

In a study of 13,696 women, high potassium intake was associated with lower BP in participants with either a low or high sodium intake.⁷ In addition, over a 19-year follow up, higher potassium intake was associated with a lower risk of cardiovascular events.⁷ Comparing the highest (5,773 mg/d) vs lowest (2,783 mg/d) tertile of potassium intake, the decreased risk of a cardiovascular event was 0.89 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.83–0.95).⁷

In a meta-analysis of data culled from 6 cohort studies, 10,709 adults with a mean age of 52 years, 54% of whom identified as women, were followed for a median of 8.8 years.⁸ Each adult contributed at least two 24-hour urine samples for measurement of sodium and potassium content. (Measurement of sodium and potassium in multiple 24-hour urine specimens from the same participant is thought to be the best way to assess sodium and potassium consumption.) The primary outcome was a cardiovascular event, including heart attack, stroke, or undergoing coronary revascularization procedures. In this study increasing consumption of sodium was associated with an increase in cardiovascular events, and increasing consumption of potassium was associated with a decrease in cardiovascular events. The hazard ratio for a cardiovascular event comparing high versus low consumption of sodium was 1.60 (95% CI, 1.19–2.14), and comparing high versus low consumption of potassium was 0.69 (95% CI, 0.51–0.91) (TABLE 2).⁸

Continue to: Clinical trial data on decreasing Na and/or increasing K consumption on CV outcomes...

Clinical trial data on decreasing Na and/or increasing K consumption on CV outcomes

Building on the cohort studies reporting that diets high in sodium and low in potassium are associated with hypertension and cardiovascular disease, clinical trials report that decreasing dietary sodium intake reduces BP and the risk of a cardiovascular event. For example, in a meta-analysis of 85 clinical trials studying the link between sodium and BP, the investigators concluded that there was a linear relationship between sodium intake and BP, with larger reductions in sodium intake associated with greater reductions in BP, down to a daily sodium intake of 1,000 to 1,500 mg.⁹ The effect of sodium reduction on BP was greatest in study participants with higher BP at baseline.

In a cluster-randomized clinical trial in China, people living in 600 villages were assigned to a control group, continuing to use sodium chloride in their food preparation or an experimental intervention, replacing sodium chloride with a substitute product containing 75% sodium chloride and 25% potassium chloride by weight.¹⁰ The inclusion criteria included people ≥60 years of age with high BP or a history of stroke. The mean duration of follow-up was 4.7 years. Half of the participants were female. A total of 73% of the participants had a history of stroke and 88% had hypertension. In this study, the rate of death was lower in the group that used the salt substitute than in the group using sodium chloride (39 vs 45 deaths per 1,000 person-years; rate ratio (RR) 0.88; 95% CI, 0.82–0.95, P<.001). The rate of major cardiovascular events (nonfatal stroke, nonfatal acute coronary syndrome or death from vascular causes) was decreased in the group that used salt substitute compared with the group using sodium chloride (49 vs 56 events per 1,000 person-years, rate ratio (RR), 0.87; 95% CI, 0.80–0.94; P<.001). Similarly, the rate of stroke was decreased in the group that used salt substitute compared with the group using sodium chloride (29 vs 34 events per 1,000 person-years; rate ratio (RR), 0.86; 95% CI, 0.77–0.96; P = .006). This study shows that by decreasing sodium intake and increasing potassium, cardiovascular outcomes are improved in people at high risk for a cardiovascular event.¹⁰ People with kidney disease or taking medications that decrease renal excretion of potassium should consult with their health care provider before using potassium chloride containing salt substitutes.

What is your daily intake of sodium and potassium?

Almost all packaged prepared foods have labels indicating the amount of sodium in one serving. Many packaged foods also report the amount of potassium in one serving. Many processed foods contain high amounts of sodium and low amounts of potassium. Processed and ultra-processed foods are a major dietary source of sodium.¹¹ In contrast to processed foods, fresh fruits, vegetables, and milk have high quantities of potassium and low amounts of sodium. As an example, a major brand of canned chicken broth has 750 mg of sodium and 40 mg of potassium per one-half cup, a ratio of sodium to potassium of 19:1. By contrast, canned red kidney beans have 135 mg of sodium and 425 mg of potassium in one-half cup, a ratio of sodium to potassium of 1:3. Patients can better understand their daily sodium and potassium intake by reading the food labels. Calculating a sodium to potassium ratio for a food may help people better understand their salt intake and identify foods associated with positive health outcomes.

The optimal target for daily consumption of sodium and potassium is controversial (TABLE 2). The mean daily intakes of sodium and potassium in the United States are approximately 3,380 mg and 2,499 mg,respectively.¹² The American College of Cardiology (ACC) recommends that an optimal diet contains <1,500 mg/d of sodium, a stringent target.¹ If that target is unattainable, people should at least aim for a 1,000 mg/d-reduction in their current sodium intake.¹ The World Health Organization strongly recommends that adults consume <2,000 mg/d of sodium.¹³ The National Academy of Science recommends adults seeking to reduce the risk of cardiovascular disease consume <2,300 mg/d of sodium.¹⁴ The top dietary sources of sodium include deli meat, pizza, burritos and tacos, soups, savory snacks (chips, crackers, popcorn), fried poultry, burgers, and eggs.¹⁵

The optimal target for daily consumption of potassium is controversial. The ACC recommends that an optimal diet contains 3,500–5,000 mg/d of potassium.¹ The World Health Organization recommends that adults consume >3,510 mg/d of potassium.¹⁶ The top dietary sources of potassium include milk, fruit, vegetables, coffee, savory snacks (chips, crackers, popcorn), fruit juice, white potatoes, deli meats, burritos, and tacos.¹⁵ The foods with the greatest amount of potassium include banana, avocado, acorn squash, spinach, sweet potatoes, salmon, apricots, grapefruit, broccoli, and white beans. People with kidney disease or those who are taking medications that interfere with renal excretion of potassium should consult with their health care provider before adding more potassium to their diet.

The ACC also recommends¹:

• Maintaining an optimal weight (a 1-kg reduction in weight is associated with a 1-mm Hg reduction in BP).
• Eating a healthy diet rich in fruits, vegetables, whole grains, and low-fat dairy products with reduced saturated and total fat.
• Regular aerobic physical activity 90 to 150 min/wk.
• Moderation in alcohol consumption, with men limiting consumption ≤ 2 drinks/d and women limiting consumption to ≤ 1 drink/d.
• Smoking cessation.

Most adults in the US have too much sodium and too little potassium in their daily diet. Diets high in sodium and low in potassium increase the risk of hypertension. In turn, this increases the risk of cardiovascular disease, including myocardial infarction and stroke. Many personal choices and societal factors contribute to our current imbalanced and unhealthy diet, rich in sodium and deficient in potassium. Our best approach to improve health and reduce cardiovascular disease is to guide people to modify unhealthy lifestyle behaviors.¹⁷ For patients who are ready to change, a counseling intervention using the 5 A’s (including assess risk behaviors, advise change, agree on goals/action plan, assist with treatment, and arrange follow-up) has been shown to result in improved dietary choices, increased physical activity, and reduced use of tobacco products.¹⁸ ●

BUENOS AIRES – Emerging invasive fungal infections represent a new diagnostic and therapeutic challenge. To address their growing clinical impact on immunocompromised patients requires better local epidemiologic records, said a specialist at the XXII Congress of the Argentine Society of Infectology.
 

“To know that these fungal infections exist, we need epidemiologists, doctors, and microbiologists to join in constant and ongoing multidisciplinary work to generate the necessary databases and to know the pathologies that we have. I believe that in this respect we are falling short,” said Javier Afeltra, PhD, a mycologist at the Ramos Mejía Hospital in Buenos Aires, professor of microbiology at the School of Medicine of the University of Buenos Aires, and coordinator of the commission of immunocompromised patients of the Argentine Society of Infectious Diseases.

“There is some change in mentality that encourages professionals to report the cases they detect – for example, in scientific meetings,” Dr. Afeltra told this news orgnization. “But the problem is that there is no unified registry.

“That’s what we lack: a place to record all those isolated cases. Records where clinical and microbiological data are together within a click. Perhaps the microbiologists report their findings to the Malbrán Institute, an Argentine reference center for infectious disease research, but we do not know what the patients had. And we doctors may get together to make records of what happens clinically with the patient, but the germ data are elsewhere. We need a common registry,” he stressed.

“The main importance of a registry of this type is that it would allow a diagnostic and therapeutic decision to be made that is appropriate to the epidemiological profile of the country and the region, not looking at what they do in the North. Most likely, the best antifungal treatment for our country differs from what is indicated in the guidelines written elsewhere,” said Dr. Afeltra.

Dr. Afeltra pointed out that in the United States, when an oncohematology patient does not respond to antimicrobial treatment, the first thing that doctors think is that the patient has aspergillosis or mucormycosis, in which the fungal infection is caused by filamentous fungi.

But an analysis of data from the REMINI registry – the only prospective, observational, multicenter surveillance registry for invasive mycoses in immunocompromised patients (excluding HIV infection) in Argentina, which has been in existence since 2010 – tells a different story. The most prevalent fungal infections turned out to be those caused by Aspergillus species, followed by Fusarium species. Together, they account for more than half of cases. Mucoral infections (mucormycosis) account for less than 6%. And the initial treatments for these diseases could be different.

Changes in the local epidemiology can occur because the behavior of phytopathogenic fungi found in the environment can be modified. For example, cases of chronic mucormycosis can be detected in China but are virtually nonexistent on this side of the Greenwich meridian, Dr. Afeltra said.

“Nature is not the same in geographical areas, and the fungi … we breathe are completely different, so patients have different infections and require different diagnostic and treatment approaches,” he stressed.

Dr. Afeltra mentioned different fungi that are emerging locally and globally, including yeasts, septate, dimorphic, and pigmented hyaline fungi, that have a variable response to antifungal drugs and are associated with high mortality, “which has a lot to do with a later diagnosis,” he said, noting that reports have increased worldwide. A barrier to sharing this information more widely with the professional community, in addition to the lack of records, is the difficulty in publishing cases or series of cases in indexed journals.

Another challenge in characterizing the phenomenon is in regard to taxonomic reclassifications of fungi. Such reclassifications can mean that “perhaps we are speaking of the same pathogen in similar situations, believing that we are referring to different pathogens,” said Dr. Afeltra.
 

Clinical pearls related to emerging fungal pathogens

Candida auris. This organism has emerged simultaneously on several continents. It has pathogenicity factors typical of the genus, such as biofilm formation and production of phospholipases and proteinases, although it has greater thermal tolerance. In hospitals, it colonizes for weeks and months. In Argentina, it is resistant to multiple antifungal agents. Sensitivity is variable in different geographical regions. Most strains are resistant to fluconazole, and there is variable resistance to the other triazoles [which are not normally used to treat candidemia]. In the United States, in vitro resistance to amphotericin B is up to 30%, and resistance to echinocandins is up to 5%. New drugs such as rezafungin and ibrexafungerp are being studied. Infection control is similar to that used to control Clostridium difficile.

Fusarium. This genus affects immunocompromised patients, including transplant recipients of solid organs and hematopoietic progenitor cells and patients with neutropenia. The genus has various species, included within complexes, such as F. solani SC, F. oxysporum SC, and F. fujikuroi SC, with clinical manifestations similar to those of aspergillosis. In addition to the pulmonary and disseminated forms, there may be skin involvement attributable to dissemination from a respiratory focus or by contiguity from a focus of onychomycosis. In general, mortality is high, and responses to antifungal agents are variable. Some species are more sensitive to voriconazole or posaconazole, and others less so. All show in vitro resistance to itraconazole. In Argentina, voriconazole is usually used as initial treatment, and in special cases, liposomal amphotericin B or combinations. Fosmanogepix is being evaluated for the future.

Azole-resistant aspergillosis. This infection has shown resistance to itraconazole and third-generation azole drugs. In immunocompromised patients, mortlaity is high. Early detection is key. It is sensitive to amphotericin B and echinocandins. It is generally treated with liposomal amphotericin B. Olorofim and fosmanogepix are being studied.

Pulmonary aspergillosis associated with COVID-19. This infection is associated with high mortality among intubated patients. Signs and symptoms include fever, pleural effusion, hemoptysis, and chest pain, with infiltrates or cavitations on imaging. Determining the diagnosis is difficult. “We couldn’t perform lung biopsies, and it was difficult for us to get patients out of intensive care units for CT scans. We treated the proven cases. We treated the probable cases, and those that had a very low certainty of disease were also treated. We came across this emergency and tried to do the best we could,” said Dr. Afeltra. A digital readout lateral flow trial (Sona Aspergillus Galactomannan LFA) for the quantification of galactomannan, a cell wall component of the Aspergillus genus, proved to be a useful tool for screening and diagnosing patients with probable pulmonary aspergillosis associated with COVID-19. The incidence of invasive mycosis was around 10% among 185 seriously ill COVID-19 patients, according to an Argentine multicenter prospective study in which Dr. Afeltra participated.

Scedosporium and Lomentospora. These genera are rarer septate hyaline fungi. Scedosporium is a complex of species. One species, S. apiospermum, can colonize pediatric patients with cystic fibrosis. Lomentospora prolificans is a multiresistant fungus. It produces pulmonary compromise or disseminated infection. The response to antifungal agents is variable, with a high minimum inhibitory concentration for amphotericin B and isavuconazole. Patients are usually treated with voriconazole alone or in combination with terbinafine or micafungin. Olorofim is emerging as a promising treatment.

Dr. Afeltra has received fees from Biotoscana, Gador, Pfizer, Merck, and Sandoz.

This article was translated from the Medscape Spanish edition, a version appeared on Medscape.com.

BUENOS AIRES – Emerging invasive fungal infections represent a new diagnostic and therapeutic challenge. To address their growing clinical impact on immunocompromised patients requires better local epidemiologic records, said a specialist at the XXII Congress of the Argentine Society of Infectology.
 

“To know that these fungal infections exist, we need epidemiologists, doctors, and microbiologists to join in constant and ongoing multidisciplinary work to generate the necessary databases and to know the pathologies that we have. I believe that in this respect we are falling short,” said Javier Afeltra, PhD, a mycologist at the Ramos Mejía Hospital in Buenos Aires, professor of microbiology at the School of Medicine of the University of Buenos Aires, and coordinator of the commission of immunocompromised patients of the Argentine Society of Infectious Diseases.

“There is some change in mentality that encourages professionals to report the cases they detect – for example, in scientific meetings,” Dr. Afeltra told this news orgnization. “But the problem is that there is no unified registry.

“That’s what we lack: a place to record all those isolated cases. Records where clinical and microbiological data are together within a click. Perhaps the microbiologists report their findings to the Malbrán Institute, an Argentine reference center for infectious disease research, but we do not know what the patients had. And we doctors may get together to make records of what happens clinically with the patient, but the germ data are elsewhere. We need a common registry,” he stressed.

“The main importance of a registry of this type is that it would allow a diagnostic and therapeutic decision to be made that is appropriate to the epidemiological profile of the country and the region, not looking at what they do in the North. Most likely, the best antifungal treatment for our country differs from what is indicated in the guidelines written elsewhere,” said Dr. Afeltra.

Dr. Afeltra pointed out that in the United States, when an oncohematology patient does not respond to antimicrobial treatment, the first thing that doctors think is that the patient has aspergillosis or mucormycosis, in which the fungal infection is caused by filamentous fungi.

But an analysis of data from the REMINI registry – the only prospective, observational, multicenter surveillance registry for invasive mycoses in immunocompromised patients (excluding HIV infection) in Argentina, which has been in existence since 2010 – tells a different story. The most prevalent fungal infections turned out to be those caused by Aspergillus species, followed by Fusarium species. Together, they account for more than half of cases. Mucoral infections (mucormycosis) account for less than 6%. And the initial treatments for these diseases could be different.

Changes in the local epidemiology can occur because the behavior of phytopathogenic fungi found in the environment can be modified. For example, cases of chronic mucormycosis can be detected in China but are virtually nonexistent on this side of the Greenwich meridian, Dr. Afeltra said.

“Nature is not the same in geographical areas, and the fungi … we breathe are completely different, so patients have different infections and require different diagnostic and treatment approaches,” he stressed.

Dr. Afeltra mentioned different fungi that are emerging locally and globally, including yeasts, septate, dimorphic, and pigmented hyaline fungi, that have a variable response to antifungal drugs and are associated with high mortality, “which has a lot to do with a later diagnosis,” he said, noting that reports have increased worldwide. A barrier to sharing this information more widely with the professional community, in addition to the lack of records, is the difficulty in publishing cases or series of cases in indexed journals.

Another challenge in characterizing the phenomenon is in regard to taxonomic reclassifications of fungi. Such reclassifications can mean that “perhaps we are speaking of the same pathogen in similar situations, believing that we are referring to different pathogens,” said Dr. Afeltra.
 

Clinical pearls related to emerging fungal pathogens

Candida auris. This organism has emerged simultaneously on several continents. It has pathogenicity factors typical of the genus, such as biofilm formation and production of phospholipases and proteinases, although it has greater thermal tolerance. In hospitals, it colonizes for weeks and months. In Argentina, it is resistant to multiple antifungal agents. Sensitivity is variable in different geographical regions. Most strains are resistant to fluconazole, and there is variable resistance to the other triazoles [which are not normally used to treat candidemia]. In the United States, in vitro resistance to amphotericin B is up to 30%, and resistance to echinocandins is up to 5%. New drugs such as rezafungin and ibrexafungerp are being studied. Infection control is similar to that used to control Clostridium difficile.

Fusarium. This genus affects immunocompromised patients, including transplant recipients of solid organs and hematopoietic progenitor cells and patients with neutropenia. The genus has various species, included within complexes, such as F. solani SC, F. oxysporum SC, and F. fujikuroi SC, with clinical manifestations similar to those of aspergillosis. In addition to the pulmonary and disseminated forms, there may be skin involvement attributable to dissemination from a respiratory focus or by contiguity from a focus of onychomycosis. In general, mortality is high, and responses to antifungal agents are variable. Some species are more sensitive to voriconazole or posaconazole, and others less so. All show in vitro resistance to itraconazole. In Argentina, voriconazole is usually used as initial treatment, and in special cases, liposomal amphotericin B or combinations. Fosmanogepix is being evaluated for the future.

Azole-resistant aspergillosis. This infection has shown resistance to itraconazole and third-generation azole drugs. In immunocompromised patients, mortlaity is high. Early detection is key. It is sensitive to amphotericin B and echinocandins. It is generally treated with liposomal amphotericin B. Olorofim and fosmanogepix are being studied.

Pulmonary aspergillosis associated with COVID-19. This infection is associated with high mortality among intubated patients. Signs and symptoms include fever, pleural effusion, hemoptysis, and chest pain, with infiltrates or cavitations on imaging. Determining the diagnosis is difficult. “We couldn’t perform lung biopsies, and it was difficult for us to get patients out of intensive care units for CT scans. We treated the proven cases. We treated the probable cases, and those that had a very low certainty of disease were also treated. We came across this emergency and tried to do the best we could,” said Dr. Afeltra. A digital readout lateral flow trial (Sona Aspergillus Galactomannan LFA) for the quantification of galactomannan, a cell wall component of the Aspergillus genus, proved to be a useful tool for screening and diagnosing patients with probable pulmonary aspergillosis associated with COVID-19. The incidence of invasive mycosis was around 10% among 185 seriously ill COVID-19 patients, according to an Argentine multicenter prospective study in which Dr. Afeltra participated.

Scedosporium and Lomentospora. These genera are rarer septate hyaline fungi. Scedosporium is a complex of species. One species, S. apiospermum, can colonize pediatric patients with cystic fibrosis. Lomentospora prolificans is a multiresistant fungus. It produces pulmonary compromise or disseminated infection. The response to antifungal agents is variable, with a high minimum inhibitory concentration for amphotericin B and isavuconazole. Patients are usually treated with voriconazole alone or in combination with terbinafine or micafungin. Olorofim is emerging as a promising treatment.

Dr. Afeltra has received fees from Biotoscana, Gador, Pfizer, Merck, and Sandoz.

This article was translated from the Medscape Spanish edition, a version appeared on Medscape.com.

BUENOS AIRES – Emerging invasive fungal infections represent a new diagnostic and therapeutic challenge. To address their growing clinical impact on immunocompromised patients requires better local epidemiologic records, said a specialist at the XXII Congress of the Argentine Society of Infectology.
 

“To know that these fungal infections exist, we need epidemiologists, doctors, and microbiologists to join in constant and ongoing multidisciplinary work to generate the necessary databases and to know the pathologies that we have. I believe that in this respect we are falling short,” said Javier Afeltra, PhD, a mycologist at the Ramos Mejía Hospital in Buenos Aires, professor of microbiology at the School of Medicine of the University of Buenos Aires, and coordinator of the commission of immunocompromised patients of the Argentine Society of Infectious Diseases.

“There is some change in mentality that encourages professionals to report the cases they detect – for example, in scientific meetings,” Dr. Afeltra told this news orgnization. “But the problem is that there is no unified registry.

“That’s what we lack: a place to record all those isolated cases. Records where clinical and microbiological data are together within a click. Perhaps the microbiologists report their findings to the Malbrán Institute, an Argentine reference center for infectious disease research, but we do not know what the patients had. And we doctors may get together to make records of what happens clinically with the patient, but the germ data are elsewhere. We need a common registry,” he stressed.

“The main importance of a registry of this type is that it would allow a diagnostic and therapeutic decision to be made that is appropriate to the epidemiological profile of the country and the region, not looking at what they do in the North. Most likely, the best antifungal treatment for our country differs from what is indicated in the guidelines written elsewhere,” said Dr. Afeltra.

Dr. Afeltra pointed out that in the United States, when an oncohematology patient does not respond to antimicrobial treatment, the first thing that doctors think is that the patient has aspergillosis or mucormycosis, in which the fungal infection is caused by filamentous fungi.

But an analysis of data from the REMINI registry – the only prospective, observational, multicenter surveillance registry for invasive mycoses in immunocompromised patients (excluding HIV infection) in Argentina, which has been in existence since 2010 – tells a different story. The most prevalent fungal infections turned out to be those caused by Aspergillus species, followed by Fusarium species. Together, they account for more than half of cases. Mucoral infections (mucormycosis) account for less than 6%. And the initial treatments for these diseases could be different.

Changes in the local epidemiology can occur because the behavior of phytopathogenic fungi found in the environment can be modified. For example, cases of chronic mucormycosis can be detected in China but are virtually nonexistent on this side of the Greenwich meridian, Dr. Afeltra said.

“Nature is not the same in geographical areas, and the fungi … we breathe are completely different, so patients have different infections and require different diagnostic and treatment approaches,” he stressed.

Dr. Afeltra mentioned different fungi that are emerging locally and globally, including yeasts, septate, dimorphic, and pigmented hyaline fungi, that have a variable response to antifungal drugs and are associated with high mortality, “which has a lot to do with a later diagnosis,” he said, noting that reports have increased worldwide. A barrier to sharing this information more widely with the professional community, in addition to the lack of records, is the difficulty in publishing cases or series of cases in indexed journals.

Another challenge in characterizing the phenomenon is in regard to taxonomic reclassifications of fungi. Such reclassifications can mean that “perhaps we are speaking of the same pathogen in similar situations, believing that we are referring to different pathogens,” said Dr. Afeltra.
 

Clinical pearls related to emerging fungal pathogens

Candida auris. This organism has emerged simultaneously on several continents. It has pathogenicity factors typical of the genus, such as biofilm formation and production of phospholipases and proteinases, although it has greater thermal tolerance. In hospitals, it colonizes for weeks and months. In Argentina, it is resistant to multiple antifungal agents. Sensitivity is variable in different geographical regions. Most strains are resistant to fluconazole, and there is variable resistance to the other triazoles [which are not normally used to treat candidemia]. In the United States, in vitro resistance to amphotericin B is up to 30%, and resistance to echinocandins is up to 5%. New drugs such as rezafungin and ibrexafungerp are being studied. Infection control is similar to that used to control Clostridium difficile.

Fusarium. This genus affects immunocompromised patients, including transplant recipients of solid organs and hematopoietic progenitor cells and patients with neutropenia. The genus has various species, included within complexes, such as F. solani SC, F. oxysporum SC, and F. fujikuroi SC, with clinical manifestations similar to those of aspergillosis. In addition to the pulmonary and disseminated forms, there may be skin involvement attributable to dissemination from a respiratory focus or by contiguity from a focus of onychomycosis. In general, mortality is high, and responses to antifungal agents are variable. Some species are more sensitive to voriconazole or posaconazole, and others less so. All show in vitro resistance to itraconazole. In Argentina, voriconazole is usually used as initial treatment, and in special cases, liposomal amphotericin B or combinations. Fosmanogepix is being evaluated for the future.

Azole-resistant aspergillosis. This infection has shown resistance to itraconazole and third-generation azole drugs. In immunocompromised patients, mortlaity is high. Early detection is key. It is sensitive to amphotericin B and echinocandins. It is generally treated with liposomal amphotericin B. Olorofim and fosmanogepix are being studied.

Pulmonary aspergillosis associated with COVID-19. This infection is associated with high mortality among intubated patients. Signs and symptoms include fever, pleural effusion, hemoptysis, and chest pain, with infiltrates or cavitations on imaging. Determining the diagnosis is difficult. “We couldn’t perform lung biopsies, and it was difficult for us to get patients out of intensive care units for CT scans. We treated the proven cases. We treated the probable cases, and those that had a very low certainty of disease were also treated. We came across this emergency and tried to do the best we could,” said Dr. Afeltra. A digital readout lateral flow trial (Sona Aspergillus Galactomannan LFA) for the quantification of galactomannan, a cell wall component of the Aspergillus genus, proved to be a useful tool for screening and diagnosing patients with probable pulmonary aspergillosis associated with COVID-19. The incidence of invasive mycosis was around 10% among 185 seriously ill COVID-19 patients, according to an Argentine multicenter prospective study in which Dr. Afeltra participated.

Scedosporium and Lomentospora. These genera are rarer septate hyaline fungi. Scedosporium is a complex of species. One species, S. apiospermum, can colonize pediatric patients with cystic fibrosis. Lomentospora prolificans is a multiresistant fungus. It produces pulmonary compromise or disseminated infection. The response to antifungal agents is variable, with a high minimum inhibitory concentration for amphotericin B and isavuconazole. Patients are usually treated with voriconazole alone or in combination with terbinafine or micafungin. Olorofim is emerging as a promising treatment.

Dr. Afeltra has received fees from Biotoscana, Gador, Pfizer, Merck, and Sandoz.

This article was translated from the Medscape Spanish edition, a version appeared on Medscape.com.

A new international consensus paper is recommending that eosinophilic GI diseases (EGIDs) should be named according to more specific criteria. The paper seeks to update nomenclature to improve research and bolster clinical clarity.

The involved part of the GI tract should be specifically named, and the abbreviation “Eo” should be used. Furthermore, the umbrella term should be EGID instead of the currently used “eosinophilic gastroenteritis,” according to the statement published in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology. The statement included 91 authors from five continents who filled out two rounds of surveys. In total, 93% completed the first and 90% completed the second. The paper produced 22 statements, with a consensus reached on all but 2.

EGIDs are chronic, immune-driven disorders that produce gastrointestinal symptoms and are characterized by eosinophil-dominant inflammation in specific GI regions. Although eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) is the most well known of these conditions, other EGIDs have become more commonly recognized in recent years and are the subject of intense study. Other affected areas include the stomach, small bowel, and colon, where it can occur individually or in combination.

Efforts are underway to develop guidelines for diagnosis and treatment of EGIDs, but there was initial confusion surrounding the term eosinophilic gastroenteritis since its definition varied significantly in different clinical and research settings, according to the authors. That term varyingly referred to stomach alone, small bowel alone, stomach and small bowel, or any region of the GI tract.

“This nonstandardized use of nomenclature highlighted a need for a common language for non-EoE eosinophilic GI disease names, not only for clinical practice, but also for the consistent data collection required for research to continue to advance the field,” co–first authors Evan S. Dellon, MD, MPH, AGAF, from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, and Nirmala Gonsalves, MD, from Northwestern University, Chicago, and colleagues wrote. “This step, while seemingly rudimentary, was essential to inform the guideline efforts that are now underway.”

After responses to the surveys were analyzed, respondents participated in one of two scheduled meetings held on a video conferencing platform in May 2021. Feedback from these meetings was then used to create a second round of 29 statements which were again distributed, and participants were asked to either agree or disagree with each statement. Agreement was set a priori at 70%. In all, 38% of the participants were women, and 91% worked in academic or university settings.

In routine clinical practice, conditions with eosinophil-dominant inflammation in the absence of secondary causes outside of the esophagus can collectively be referred to clinically as non-EoE EGID. Stomach involvement should be called eosinophilic gastritis (EoG), small bowel involvement eosinophilic enteritis (EoN), and colon involvement eosinophilic colitis (EoC).

For research use, and clinical use if desired, the authors called for greater granularity in description of the conditions, with each location named. For example, if the stomach and small bowel are both involved, the condition should be termed eosinophilic gastritis and enteritis. The authors could not reach a consensus for terminology when the esophagus is also involved, leading to the recommendation that it can be included using the phrase “with esophageal involvement” or by using EoE, although they note that this could be confusing since EoE is the current term for eosinophilia isolated in the esophagus.

The authors came to universal agreement in many areas, but there were exceptions that mostly centered on how to name conditions that affect multiple areas of the GI tract. It remains uncertain whether eosinophilia in different regions is caused by the same pathogenesis. Some experts felt that a “primary” location of EGID should be identified using predominant symptoms, endoscopic features, and complications. However, the authors anticipate that this nomenclature will change over time.

The authors noted that the clinical manifestation of the disease should remain the driving factor behind classification. Testing should be driven by clinically relevant questions, and overtesting should be avoided. More details on this are likely to be forthcoming in future guidelines.

The consensus statement is limited by the fact that most participants were from academic settings. These recommendations do not apply to eosinophilic disorders of the gallbladder, liver, or pancreas. Application of the recommendations to the small bowel may be too general or specific, but are meant primarily as a starting point for further refinement.

These limitations should help to drive further research. For example, molecular and pathogenic data could help distinguish EoE from “esophageal involvement” by determining if pathogenic mechanisms are the same or different, which would in turn lead to lumping the conditions into a single term or keeping them separate.

“The iterative and collaborative process led to agreement on nearly all aspects of the proposed nomenclature framework, and has identified future research directions. It is expected that as more data are collected, the nomenclature will again be updated to reflect best practices and the underlying pathogenesis of these disorders,” the authors concluded.

The authors disclosed relationships with various industry companies, including AstraZeneca, Celgene, GlaxoSmithKline, Regeneron, Sanofi, and Takeda.

A new international consensus paper is recommending that eosinophilic GI diseases (EGIDs) should be named according to more specific criteria. The paper seeks to update nomenclature to improve research and bolster clinical clarity.

The involved part of the GI tract should be specifically named, and the abbreviation “Eo” should be used. Furthermore, the umbrella term should be EGID instead of the currently used “eosinophilic gastroenteritis,” according to the statement published in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology. The statement included 91 authors from five continents who filled out two rounds of surveys. In total, 93% completed the first and 90% completed the second. The paper produced 22 statements, with a consensus reached on all but 2.

EGIDs are chronic, immune-driven disorders that produce gastrointestinal symptoms and are characterized by eosinophil-dominant inflammation in specific GI regions. Although eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) is the most well known of these conditions, other EGIDs have become more commonly recognized in recent years and are the subject of intense study. Other affected areas include the stomach, small bowel, and colon, where it can occur individually or in combination.

Efforts are underway to develop guidelines for diagnosis and treatment of EGIDs, but there was initial confusion surrounding the term eosinophilic gastroenteritis since its definition varied significantly in different clinical and research settings, according to the authors. That term varyingly referred to stomach alone, small bowel alone, stomach and small bowel, or any region of the GI tract.

“This nonstandardized use of nomenclature highlighted a need for a common language for non-EoE eosinophilic GI disease names, not only for clinical practice, but also for the consistent data collection required for research to continue to advance the field,” co–first authors Evan S. Dellon, MD, MPH, AGAF, from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, and Nirmala Gonsalves, MD, from Northwestern University, Chicago, and colleagues wrote. “This step, while seemingly rudimentary, was essential to inform the guideline efforts that are now underway.”

After responses to the surveys were analyzed, respondents participated in one of two scheduled meetings held on a video conferencing platform in May 2021. Feedback from these meetings was then used to create a second round of 29 statements which were again distributed, and participants were asked to either agree or disagree with each statement. Agreement was set a priori at 70%. In all, 38% of the participants were women, and 91% worked in academic or university settings.

In routine clinical practice, conditions with eosinophil-dominant inflammation in the absence of secondary causes outside of the esophagus can collectively be referred to clinically as non-EoE EGID. Stomach involvement should be called eosinophilic gastritis (EoG), small bowel involvement eosinophilic enteritis (EoN), and colon involvement eosinophilic colitis (EoC).

For research use, and clinical use if desired, the authors called for greater granularity in description of the conditions, with each location named. For example, if the stomach and small bowel are both involved, the condition should be termed eosinophilic gastritis and enteritis. The authors could not reach a consensus for terminology when the esophagus is also involved, leading to the recommendation that it can be included using the phrase “with esophageal involvement” or by using EoE, although they note that this could be confusing since EoE is the current term for eosinophilia isolated in the esophagus.

The authors came to universal agreement in many areas, but there were exceptions that mostly centered on how to name conditions that affect multiple areas of the GI tract. It remains uncertain whether eosinophilia in different regions is caused by the same pathogenesis. Some experts felt that a “primary” location of EGID should be identified using predominant symptoms, endoscopic features, and complications. However, the authors anticipate that this nomenclature will change over time.

The authors noted that the clinical manifestation of the disease should remain the driving factor behind classification. Testing should be driven by clinically relevant questions, and overtesting should be avoided. More details on this are likely to be forthcoming in future guidelines.

The consensus statement is limited by the fact that most participants were from academic settings. These recommendations do not apply to eosinophilic disorders of the gallbladder, liver, or pancreas. Application of the recommendations to the small bowel may be too general or specific, but are meant primarily as a starting point for further refinement.

These limitations should help to drive further research. For example, molecular and pathogenic data could help distinguish EoE from “esophageal involvement” by determining if pathogenic mechanisms are the same or different, which would in turn lead to lumping the conditions into a single term or keeping them separate.

“The iterative and collaborative process led to agreement on nearly all aspects of the proposed nomenclature framework, and has identified future research directions. It is expected that as more data are collected, the nomenclature will again be updated to reflect best practices and the underlying pathogenesis of these disorders,” the authors concluded.

The authors disclosed relationships with various industry companies, including AstraZeneca, Celgene, GlaxoSmithKline, Regeneron, Sanofi, and Takeda.

A new international consensus paper is recommending that eosinophilic GI diseases (EGIDs) should be named according to more specific criteria. The paper seeks to update nomenclature to improve research and bolster clinical clarity.

The involved part of the GI tract should be specifically named, and the abbreviation “Eo” should be used. Furthermore, the umbrella term should be EGID instead of the currently used “eosinophilic gastroenteritis,” according to the statement published in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology. The statement included 91 authors from five continents who filled out two rounds of surveys. In total, 93% completed the first and 90% completed the second. The paper produced 22 statements, with a consensus reached on all but 2.

EGIDs are chronic, immune-driven disorders that produce gastrointestinal symptoms and are characterized by eosinophil-dominant inflammation in specific GI regions. Although eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) is the most well known of these conditions, other EGIDs have become more commonly recognized in recent years and are the subject of intense study. Other affected areas include the stomach, small bowel, and colon, where it can occur individually or in combination.

Efforts are underway to develop guidelines for diagnosis and treatment of EGIDs, but there was initial confusion surrounding the term eosinophilic gastroenteritis since its definition varied significantly in different clinical and research settings, according to the authors. That term varyingly referred to stomach alone, small bowel alone, stomach and small bowel, or any region of the GI tract.

“This nonstandardized use of nomenclature highlighted a need for a common language for non-EoE eosinophilic GI disease names, not only for clinical practice, but also for the consistent data collection required for research to continue to advance the field,” co–first authors Evan S. Dellon, MD, MPH, AGAF, from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, and Nirmala Gonsalves, MD, from Northwestern University, Chicago, and colleagues wrote. “This step, while seemingly rudimentary, was essential to inform the guideline efforts that are now underway.”

After responses to the surveys were analyzed, respondents participated in one of two scheduled meetings held on a video conferencing platform in May 2021. Feedback from these meetings was then used to create a second round of 29 statements which were again distributed, and participants were asked to either agree or disagree with each statement. Agreement was set a priori at 70%. In all, 38% of the participants were women, and 91% worked in academic or university settings.

In routine clinical practice, conditions with eosinophil-dominant inflammation in the absence of secondary causes outside of the esophagus can collectively be referred to clinically as non-EoE EGID. Stomach involvement should be called eosinophilic gastritis (EoG), small bowel involvement eosinophilic enteritis (EoN), and colon involvement eosinophilic colitis (EoC).

For research use, and clinical use if desired, the authors called for greater granularity in description of the conditions, with each location named. For example, if the stomach and small bowel are both involved, the condition should be termed eosinophilic gastritis and enteritis. The authors could not reach a consensus for terminology when the esophagus is also involved, leading to the recommendation that it can be included using the phrase “with esophageal involvement” or by using EoE, although they note that this could be confusing since EoE is the current term for eosinophilia isolated in the esophagus.

The authors came to universal agreement in many areas, but there were exceptions that mostly centered on how to name conditions that affect multiple areas of the GI tract. It remains uncertain whether eosinophilia in different regions is caused by the same pathogenesis. Some experts felt that a “primary” location of EGID should be identified using predominant symptoms, endoscopic features, and complications. However, the authors anticipate that this nomenclature will change over time.

The authors noted that the clinical manifestation of the disease should remain the driving factor behind classification. Testing should be driven by clinically relevant questions, and overtesting should be avoided. More details on this are likely to be forthcoming in future guidelines.

The consensus statement is limited by the fact that most participants were from academic settings. These recommendations do not apply to eosinophilic disorders of the gallbladder, liver, or pancreas. Application of the recommendations to the small bowel may be too general or specific, but are meant primarily as a starting point for further refinement.

These limitations should help to drive further research. For example, molecular and pathogenic data could help distinguish EoE from “esophageal involvement” by determining if pathogenic mechanisms are the same or different, which would in turn lead to lumping the conditions into a single term or keeping them separate.

“The iterative and collaborative process led to agreement on nearly all aspects of the proposed nomenclature framework, and has identified future research directions. It is expected that as more data are collected, the nomenclature will again be updated to reflect best practices and the underlying pathogenesis of these disorders,” the authors concluded.

The authors disclosed relationships with various industry companies, including AstraZeneca, Celgene, GlaxoSmithKline, Regeneron, Sanofi, and Takeda.

As the United States enters a third fall with COVID-19, the virus for many is seemingly gone – or at least out of mind. But for those keeping watch, it is far from forgotten as deaths and infections continue to mount at a lower but steady pace.

What does that mean for the upcoming months? Experts predict different scenarios, some more dire than others – with one more encouraging.

In the United States, more than 300 people still die every day from COVID and more than 44,000 new daily cases are reported, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

But progress is undeniable. The stark daily death tolls of 2020 have plummeted. Vaccines and treatments have dramatically reduced severe illness, and mask requirements have mostly turned to personal preference.

Epidemiologists and other medical experts laud the progress, but as they look at the maps and the numbers, they see several scenarios ahead that signal a coming wave of disease, among them more-resistant variants coupled with waning immunity, the potential for a “twindemic” with a flu/COVID onslaught, and underuse of lifesaving vaccines and treatments.
 

Variants loom/waning immunity

Omicron variant BA.5 still makes up about 80% of infections in the United States, followed by BA4.6, according to the CDC, but other subvariants are emerging and showing signs of resistance to current antiviral treatments.

Eric Topol, MD, founder and director of the Scripps Research Translational Institute in San Diego, said about COVID this fall: “There will be another wave, magnitude unknown.”

He said subvariants XBB and BQ.1.1 “have extreme levels of immune evasion and both could pose a challenge,” explaining that XBB is more likely to cause trouble than BQ.1.1 because it is even more resistant to natural or vaccine-induced immunity.

Dr. Topol pointed to new research on those variants in a preprint posted on bioRxiv. The authors’ conclusion: “These results suggest that current herd immunity and BA.5 vaccine boosters may not provide sufficiently broad protection against infection.” 

Another variant to watch, some experts say, is Omicron subvariant BA.2.75.2, which has shown resistance to antiviral treatments. It is also growing at a rather alarming rate, says Michael Sweat, PhD, director of the Medical University of South Carolina Center for Global Health in Charleston. That subvariant currently makes up under 2% of U.S. cases but has spread to at least 55 countries and 43 U.S. states after first appearing at the end of last year globally and in mid-June in the United States.

A non–peer-reviewed preprint study from Sweden found that the variant in blood samples was neutralized on average “at titers approximately 6.5 times lower than BA.5, making BA.2.75.2 the most [neutralization-resistant] variant evaluated to date.”

Katelyn Jetelina, PhD, assistant professor in the department of epidemiology at University of Texas Health Science Center, Houston, said in an interview the U.S. waves often follow Europe’s, and Europe has seen a recent spike in cases and hospitalizations not related to Omicron subvariants, but to weather changes, waning immunity, and changes in behavior.

The World Health Organization reported on Oct. 5 that, while cases were down in every other region of the world, Europe’s numbers stand out, with an 8% increase in cases from the week before. 

Dr. Jetelina cited events such as Oktoberfest in Germany, which ended in the first week of October after drawing nearly 6 million people over 2 weeks, as a potential contributor, and people heading indoors as weather patterns change in Europe.

Ali Mokdad, PhD, chief strategy officer for population health at the University of Washington, Seattle, said in an interview he is less worried about the documented variants we know about than he is about the potential for a new immune-escape variety yet to emerge.

“Right now we know the Chinese are gearing up to open up the country, and because they have low immunity and little infection, we expect in China there will be a lot of spread of Omicron,” he said. “It’s possible because of the number of infections we could see a new variant.”

Dr. Mokdad said waning immunity could also leave populations vulnerable to variants.

“Even if you get infected, after about 5 months, you’re susceptible again. Remember, most of the infections from Omicron happened in January or February 2022, and we had two waves after that,” he said.

The new bivalent vaccines tweaked to target some Omicron variants will help, Dr. Mokdad said, but he noted, “people are very reluctant to take it.”

Jennifer Nuzzo, DrPH, professor of epidemiology and director of the Pandemic Center at Brown University, Providence, R.I., worries that in the United States we have less ability this year to track variants as funding has receded for testing kits and testing sites. Most people are testing at home – which doesn’t show up in the numbers – and the United States is relying more on other countries’ data to spot trends.

“I think we’re just going to have less visibility into the circulation of this virus,” she said in an interview.
 

‘Twindemic’: COVID and flu

Dr. Jetelina noted Australia and New Zealand just wrapped up a flu season that saw flu numbers returning to normal after a sharp drop in the last 2 years, and North America typically follows suit.

“We do expect flu will be here in the United States and probably at levels that we saw prepandemic. We’re all holding our breath to see how our health systems hold up with COVID-19 and flu. We haven’t really experienced that yet,” she said.

There is some disagreement, however, about the possibility of a so-called “twindemic” of influenza and COVID.

Richard Webby, PhD, an infectious disease specialist at St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital in Memphis, said in an interview he thinks the possibility of both viruses spiking at the same time is unlikely.

“That’s not to say we won’t get flu and COVID activity in the same winter,” he explained, “but I think both roaring at the same time is unlikely.”

As an indicator, he said, at the beginning of the flu season last year in the Northern Hemisphere, flu activity started to pick up, but when the Omicron variant came along, “flu just wasn’t able to compete in that same environment and flu numbers dropped right off.” Previous literature suggests that when one virus is spiking it’s hard for another respiratory virus to take hold.
 

Vaccine, treatment underuse

Another threat is vaccines, boosters, and treatments sitting on shelves.

Dr. Sweat referred to frustration with vaccine uptake that seems to be “frozen in amber.”

As of Oct. 4, only 5.3% of people in the United States who were eligible had received the updated booster launched in early September.

Dr. Nuzzo said boosters for people at least 65 years old will be key to severity of COVID this season.

“I think that’s probably the biggest factor going into the fall and winter,” she said.

Only 38% of people at least 50 years old and 45% of those at least 65 years old had gotten a second booster as of early October.

“If we do nothing else, we have to increase booster uptake in that group,” Dr. Nuzzo said.

She said the treatment nirmatrelvir/ritonavir (Paxlovid, Pfizer) for treating mild to moderate COVID-19 in patients at high risk for severe disease is greatly underused, often because providers aren’t prescribing it because they don’t think it helps, are worried about drug interactions, or are worried about its “rebound” effect.

Dr. Nuzzo urged greater use of the drug and education on how to manage drug interactions.

“We have very strong data that it does help keep people out of hospital. Sure, there may be a rebound, but that pales in comparison to the risk of being hospitalized,” she said.
 

Calm COVID season?

Not all predictions are dire. There is another little-talked-about scenario, Dr. Sweat said – that we could be in for a calm COVID season, and those who seem to be only mildly concerned about COVID may find those thoughts justified in the numbers.

Omicron blew through with such strength, he noted, that it may have left wide immunity in its wake. Because variants seem to be staying in the Omicron family, that may signal optimism.

“If the next variant is a descendant of the Omicron lineage, I would suspect that all these people who just got infected will have some protection, not perfect, but quite a bit of protection,” Dr. Sweat said.

Dr. Topol, Dr. Nuzzo, Dr. Sweat, Dr. Webby, Dr. Mokdad, and Dr. Jetelina reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

As the United States enters a third fall with COVID-19, the virus for many is seemingly gone – or at least out of mind. But for those keeping watch, it is far from forgotten as deaths and infections continue to mount at a lower but steady pace.

What does that mean for the upcoming months? Experts predict different scenarios, some more dire than others – with one more encouraging.

In the United States, more than 300 people still die every day from COVID and more than 44,000 new daily cases are reported, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

But progress is undeniable. The stark daily death tolls of 2020 have plummeted. Vaccines and treatments have dramatically reduced severe illness, and mask requirements have mostly turned to personal preference.

Epidemiologists and other medical experts laud the progress, but as they look at the maps and the numbers, they see several scenarios ahead that signal a coming wave of disease, among them more-resistant variants coupled with waning immunity, the potential for a “twindemic” with a flu/COVID onslaught, and underuse of lifesaving vaccines and treatments.
 

Variants loom/waning immunity

Omicron variant BA.5 still makes up about 80% of infections in the United States, followed by BA4.6, according to the CDC, but other subvariants are emerging and showing signs of resistance to current antiviral treatments.

Eric Topol, MD, founder and director of the Scripps Research Translational Institute in San Diego, said about COVID this fall: “There will be another wave, magnitude unknown.”

He said subvariants XBB and BQ.1.1 “have extreme levels of immune evasion and both could pose a challenge,” explaining that XBB is more likely to cause trouble than BQ.1.1 because it is even more resistant to natural or vaccine-induced immunity.

Dr. Topol pointed to new research on those variants in a preprint posted on bioRxiv. The authors’ conclusion: “These results suggest that current herd immunity and BA.5 vaccine boosters may not provide sufficiently broad protection against infection.” 

Another variant to watch, some experts say, is Omicron subvariant BA.2.75.2, which has shown resistance to antiviral treatments. It is also growing at a rather alarming rate, says Michael Sweat, PhD, director of the Medical University of South Carolina Center for Global Health in Charleston. That subvariant currently makes up under 2% of U.S. cases but has spread to at least 55 countries and 43 U.S. states after first appearing at the end of last year globally and in mid-June in the United States.

A non–peer-reviewed preprint study from Sweden found that the variant in blood samples was neutralized on average “at titers approximately 6.5 times lower than BA.5, making BA.2.75.2 the most [neutralization-resistant] variant evaluated to date.”

Katelyn Jetelina, PhD, assistant professor in the department of epidemiology at University of Texas Health Science Center, Houston, said in an interview the U.S. waves often follow Europe’s, and Europe has seen a recent spike in cases and hospitalizations not related to Omicron subvariants, but to weather changes, waning immunity, and changes in behavior.

The World Health Organization reported on Oct. 5 that, while cases were down in every other region of the world, Europe’s numbers stand out, with an 8% increase in cases from the week before. 

Dr. Jetelina cited events such as Oktoberfest in Germany, which ended in the first week of October after drawing nearly 6 million people over 2 weeks, as a potential contributor, and people heading indoors as weather patterns change in Europe.

Ali Mokdad, PhD, chief strategy officer for population health at the University of Washington, Seattle, said in an interview he is less worried about the documented variants we know about than he is about the potential for a new immune-escape variety yet to emerge.

“Right now we know the Chinese are gearing up to open up the country, and because they have low immunity and little infection, we expect in China there will be a lot of spread of Omicron,” he said. “It’s possible because of the number of infections we could see a new variant.”

Dr. Mokdad said waning immunity could also leave populations vulnerable to variants.

“Even if you get infected, after about 5 months, you’re susceptible again. Remember, most of the infections from Omicron happened in January or February 2022, and we had two waves after that,” he said.

The new bivalent vaccines tweaked to target some Omicron variants will help, Dr. Mokdad said, but he noted, “people are very reluctant to take it.”

Jennifer Nuzzo, DrPH, professor of epidemiology and director of the Pandemic Center at Brown University, Providence, R.I., worries that in the United States we have less ability this year to track variants as funding has receded for testing kits and testing sites. Most people are testing at home – which doesn’t show up in the numbers – and the United States is relying more on other countries’ data to spot trends.

“I think we’re just going to have less visibility into the circulation of this virus,” she said in an interview.
 

‘Twindemic’: COVID and flu

Dr. Jetelina noted Australia and New Zealand just wrapped up a flu season that saw flu numbers returning to normal after a sharp drop in the last 2 years, and North America typically follows suit.

“We do expect flu will be here in the United States and probably at levels that we saw prepandemic. We’re all holding our breath to see how our health systems hold up with COVID-19 and flu. We haven’t really experienced that yet,” she said.

There is some disagreement, however, about the possibility of a so-called “twindemic” of influenza and COVID.

Richard Webby, PhD, an infectious disease specialist at St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital in Memphis, said in an interview he thinks the possibility of both viruses spiking at the same time is unlikely.

“That’s not to say we won’t get flu and COVID activity in the same winter,” he explained, “but I think both roaring at the same time is unlikely.”

As an indicator, he said, at the beginning of the flu season last year in the Northern Hemisphere, flu activity started to pick up, but when the Omicron variant came along, “flu just wasn’t able to compete in that same environment and flu numbers dropped right off.” Previous literature suggests that when one virus is spiking it’s hard for another respiratory virus to take hold.
 

Vaccine, treatment underuse

Another threat is vaccines, boosters, and treatments sitting on shelves.

Dr. Sweat referred to frustration with vaccine uptake that seems to be “frozen in amber.”

As of Oct. 4, only 5.3% of people in the United States who were eligible had received the updated booster launched in early September.

Dr. Nuzzo said boosters for people at least 65 years old will be key to severity of COVID this season.

“I think that’s probably the biggest factor going into the fall and winter,” she said.

Only 38% of people at least 50 years old and 45% of those at least 65 years old had gotten a second booster as of early October.

“If we do nothing else, we have to increase booster uptake in that group,” Dr. Nuzzo said.

She said the treatment nirmatrelvir/ritonavir (Paxlovid, Pfizer) for treating mild to moderate COVID-19 in patients at high risk for severe disease is greatly underused, often because providers aren’t prescribing it because they don’t think it helps, are worried about drug interactions, or are worried about its “rebound” effect.

Dr. Nuzzo urged greater use of the drug and education on how to manage drug interactions.

“We have very strong data that it does help keep people out of hospital. Sure, there may be a rebound, but that pales in comparison to the risk of being hospitalized,” she said.
 

Calm COVID season?

Not all predictions are dire. There is another little-talked-about scenario, Dr. Sweat said – that we could be in for a calm COVID season, and those who seem to be only mildly concerned about COVID may find those thoughts justified in the numbers.

Omicron blew through with such strength, he noted, that it may have left wide immunity in its wake. Because variants seem to be staying in the Omicron family, that may signal optimism.

“If the next variant is a descendant of the Omicron lineage, I would suspect that all these people who just got infected will have some protection, not perfect, but quite a bit of protection,” Dr. Sweat said.

Dr. Topol, Dr. Nuzzo, Dr. Sweat, Dr. Webby, Dr. Mokdad, and Dr. Jetelina reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

As the United States enters a third fall with COVID-19, the virus for many is seemingly gone – or at least out of mind. But for those keeping watch, it is far from forgotten as deaths and infections continue to mount at a lower but steady pace.

What does that mean for the upcoming months? Experts predict different scenarios, some more dire than others – with one more encouraging.

In the United States, more than 300 people still die every day from COVID and more than 44,000 new daily cases are reported, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

But progress is undeniable. The stark daily death tolls of 2020 have plummeted. Vaccines and treatments have dramatically reduced severe illness, and mask requirements have mostly turned to personal preference.

Epidemiologists and other medical experts laud the progress, but as they look at the maps and the numbers, they see several scenarios ahead that signal a coming wave of disease, among them more-resistant variants coupled with waning immunity, the potential for a “twindemic” with a flu/COVID onslaught, and underuse of lifesaving vaccines and treatments.
 

Variants loom/waning immunity

Omicron variant BA.5 still makes up about 80% of infections in the United States, followed by BA4.6, according to the CDC, but other subvariants are emerging and showing signs of resistance to current antiviral treatments.

Eric Topol, MD, founder and director of the Scripps Research Translational Institute in San Diego, said about COVID this fall: “There will be another wave, magnitude unknown.”

He said subvariants XBB and BQ.1.1 “have extreme levels of immune evasion and both could pose a challenge,” explaining that XBB is more likely to cause trouble than BQ.1.1 because it is even more resistant to natural or vaccine-induced immunity.

Dr. Topol pointed to new research on those variants in a preprint posted on bioRxiv. The authors’ conclusion: “These results suggest that current herd immunity and BA.5 vaccine boosters may not provide sufficiently broad protection against infection.” 

Another variant to watch, some experts say, is Omicron subvariant BA.2.75.2, which has shown resistance to antiviral treatments. It is also growing at a rather alarming rate, says Michael Sweat, PhD, director of the Medical University of South Carolina Center for Global Health in Charleston. That subvariant currently makes up under 2% of U.S. cases but has spread to at least 55 countries and 43 U.S. states after first appearing at the end of last year globally and in mid-June in the United States.

A non–peer-reviewed preprint study from Sweden found that the variant in blood samples was neutralized on average “at titers approximately 6.5 times lower than BA.5, making BA.2.75.2 the most [neutralization-resistant] variant evaluated to date.”

Katelyn Jetelina, PhD, assistant professor in the department of epidemiology at University of Texas Health Science Center, Houston, said in an interview the U.S. waves often follow Europe’s, and Europe has seen a recent spike in cases and hospitalizations not related to Omicron subvariants, but to weather changes, waning immunity, and changes in behavior.

The World Health Organization reported on Oct. 5 that, while cases were down in every other region of the world, Europe’s numbers stand out, with an 8% increase in cases from the week before. 

Dr. Jetelina cited events such as Oktoberfest in Germany, which ended in the first week of October after drawing nearly 6 million people over 2 weeks, as a potential contributor, and people heading indoors as weather patterns change in Europe.

Ali Mokdad, PhD, chief strategy officer for population health at the University of Washington, Seattle, said in an interview he is less worried about the documented variants we know about than he is about the potential for a new immune-escape variety yet to emerge.

“Right now we know the Chinese are gearing up to open up the country, and because they have low immunity and little infection, we expect in China there will be a lot of spread of Omicron,” he said. “It’s possible because of the number of infections we could see a new variant.”

Dr. Mokdad said waning immunity could also leave populations vulnerable to variants.

“Even if you get infected, after about 5 months, you’re susceptible again. Remember, most of the infections from Omicron happened in January or February 2022, and we had two waves after that,” he said.

The new bivalent vaccines tweaked to target some Omicron variants will help, Dr. Mokdad said, but he noted, “people are very reluctant to take it.”

Jennifer Nuzzo, DrPH, professor of epidemiology and director of the Pandemic Center at Brown University, Providence, R.I., worries that in the United States we have less ability this year to track variants as funding has receded for testing kits and testing sites. Most people are testing at home – which doesn’t show up in the numbers – and the United States is relying more on other countries’ data to spot trends.

“I think we’re just going to have less visibility into the circulation of this virus,” she said in an interview.
 

‘Twindemic’: COVID and flu

Dr. Jetelina noted Australia and New Zealand just wrapped up a flu season that saw flu numbers returning to normal after a sharp drop in the last 2 years, and North America typically follows suit.

“We do expect flu will be here in the United States and probably at levels that we saw prepandemic. We’re all holding our breath to see how our health systems hold up with COVID-19 and flu. We haven’t really experienced that yet,” she said.

There is some disagreement, however, about the possibility of a so-called “twindemic” of influenza and COVID.

Richard Webby, PhD, an infectious disease specialist at St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital in Memphis, said in an interview he thinks the possibility of both viruses spiking at the same time is unlikely.

“That’s not to say we won’t get flu and COVID activity in the same winter,” he explained, “but I think both roaring at the same time is unlikely.”

As an indicator, he said, at the beginning of the flu season last year in the Northern Hemisphere, flu activity started to pick up, but when the Omicron variant came along, “flu just wasn’t able to compete in that same environment and flu numbers dropped right off.” Previous literature suggests that when one virus is spiking it’s hard for another respiratory virus to take hold.
 

Vaccine, treatment underuse

Another threat is vaccines, boosters, and treatments sitting on shelves.

Dr. Sweat referred to frustration with vaccine uptake that seems to be “frozen in amber.”

As of Oct. 4, only 5.3% of people in the United States who were eligible had received the updated booster launched in early September.

Dr. Nuzzo said boosters for people at least 65 years old will be key to severity of COVID this season.

“I think that’s probably the biggest factor going into the fall and winter,” she said.

Only 38% of people at least 50 years old and 45% of those at least 65 years old had gotten a second booster as of early October.

“If we do nothing else, we have to increase booster uptake in that group,” Dr. Nuzzo said.

She said the treatment nirmatrelvir/ritonavir (Paxlovid, Pfizer) for treating mild to moderate COVID-19 in patients at high risk for severe disease is greatly underused, often because providers aren’t prescribing it because they don’t think it helps, are worried about drug interactions, or are worried about its “rebound” effect.

Dr. Nuzzo urged greater use of the drug and education on how to manage drug interactions.

“We have very strong data that it does help keep people out of hospital. Sure, there may be a rebound, but that pales in comparison to the risk of being hospitalized,” she said.
 

Calm COVID season?

Not all predictions are dire. There is another little-talked-about scenario, Dr. Sweat said – that we could be in for a calm COVID season, and those who seem to be only mildly concerned about COVID may find those thoughts justified in the numbers.

Omicron blew through with such strength, he noted, that it may have left wide immunity in its wake. Because variants seem to be staying in the Omicron family, that may signal optimism.

“If the next variant is a descendant of the Omicron lineage, I would suspect that all these people who just got infected will have some protection, not perfect, but quite a bit of protection,” Dr. Sweat said.

Dr. Topol, Dr. Nuzzo, Dr. Sweat, Dr. Webby, Dr. Mokdad, and Dr. Jetelina reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

A new international consensus paper is recommending that eosinophilic GI diseases (EGIDs) should be named according to more specific criteria. The paper seeks to update nomenclature to improve research and bolster clinical clarity.

The involved part of the GI tract should be specifically named, and the abbreviation “Eo” should be used. Furthermore, the umbrella term should be EGID instead of the currently used “eosinophilic gastroenteritis,” according to the statement published in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology. The statement included 91 authors from five continents who filled out two rounds of surveys. In total, 93% completed the first and 90% completed the second. The paper produced 22 statements, with a consensus reached on all but 2.

EGIDs are chronic, immune-driven disorders that produce gastrointestinal symptoms and are characterized by eosinophil-dominant inflammation in specific GI regions. Although eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) is the most well known of these conditions, other EGIDs have become more commonly recognized in recent years and are the subject of intense study. Other affected areas include the stomach, small bowel, and colon, where it can occur individually or in combination.

Efforts are underway to develop guidelines for diagnosis and treatment of EGIDs, but there was initial confusion surrounding the term eosinophilic gastroenteritis since its definition varied significantly in different clinical and research settings, according to the authors. That term varyingly referred to stomach alone, small bowel alone, stomach and small bowel, or any region of the GI tract.

“This nonstandardized use of nomenclature highlighted a need for a common language for non-EoE eosinophilic GI disease names, not only for clinical practice, but also for the consistent data collection required for research to continue to advance the field,” co–first authors Evan S. Dellon, MD, MPH, AGAF, from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, and Nirmala Gonsalves, MD, from Northwestern University, Chicago, and colleagues wrote. “This step, while seemingly rudimentary, was essential to inform the guideline efforts that are now underway.”

After responses to the surveys were analyzed, respondents participated in one of two scheduled meetings held on a video conferencing platform in May 2021. Feedback from these meetings was then used to create a second round of 29 statements which were again distributed, and participants were asked to either agree or disagree with each statement. Agreement was set a priori at 70%. In all, 38% of the participants were women, and 91% worked in academic or university settings.

In routine clinical practice, conditions with eosinophil-dominant inflammation in the absence of secondary causes outside of the esophagus can collectively be referred to clinically as non-EoE EGID. Stomach involvement should be called eosinophilic gastritis (EoG), small bowel involvement eosinophilic enteritis (EoN), and colon involvement eosinophilic colitis (EoC).

For research use, and clinical use if desired, the authors called for greater granularity in description of the conditions, with each location named. For example, if the stomach and small bowel are both involved, the condition should be termed eosinophilic gastritis and enteritis. The authors could not reach a consensus for terminology when the esophagus is also involved, leading to the recommendation that it can be included using the phrase “with esophageal involvement” or by using EoE, although they note that this could be confusing since EoE is the current term for eosinophilia isolated in the esophagus.

The authors came to universal agreement in many areas, but there were exceptions that mostly centered on how to name conditions that affect multiple areas of the GI tract. It remains uncertain whether eosinophilia in different regions is caused by the same pathogenesis. Some experts felt that a “primary” location of EGID should be identified using predominant symptoms, endoscopic features, and complications. However, the authors anticipate that this nomenclature will change over time.

The authors noted that the clinical manifestation of the disease should remain the driving factor behind classification. Testing should be driven by clinically relevant questions and overtesting should be avoided. More details on this are likely to be forthcoming in future guidelines.

The consensus statement is limited by the fact that most participants were from academic settings. These recommendations do not apply to eosinophilic disorders of gallbladder, liver, or pancreas. Application of the recommendations to the small bowel may be too general or specific, but are meant primarily as a starting point for further refinement.

These limitations should help to drive further research. For example, molecular and pathogenic data could help distinguish EoE from “esophageal involvement” by determining if pathogenic mechanisms are the same or different, which would in turn lead to lumping the conditions into a single term or keeping them separate.

“The iterative and collaborative process led to agreement on nearly all aspects of the proposed nomenclature framework, and has identified future research directions. It is expected that as more data are collected, the nomenclature will again be updated to reflect best practices and the underlying pathogenesis of these disorders,” the authors concluded.

The authors disclosed relationships with various industry companies, include AstraZeneca, Celgene, GlaxoSmithKline, Regeneron, Sanofi, and Takeda.

A new international consensus paper is recommending that eosinophilic GI diseases (EGIDs) should be named according to more specific criteria. The paper seeks to update nomenclature to improve research and bolster clinical clarity.

The involved part of the GI tract should be specifically named, and the abbreviation “Eo” should be used. Furthermore, the umbrella term should be EGID instead of the currently used “eosinophilic gastroenteritis,” according to the statement published in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology. The statement included 91 authors from five continents who filled out two rounds of surveys. In total, 93% completed the first and 90% completed the second. The paper produced 22 statements, with a consensus reached on all but 2.

EGIDs are chronic, immune-driven disorders that produce gastrointestinal symptoms and are characterized by eosinophil-dominant inflammation in specific GI regions. Although eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) is the most well known of these conditions, other EGIDs have become more commonly recognized in recent years and are the subject of intense study. Other affected areas include the stomach, small bowel, and colon, where it can occur individually or in combination.

Efforts are underway to develop guidelines for diagnosis and treatment of EGIDs, but there was initial confusion surrounding the term eosinophilic gastroenteritis since its definition varied significantly in different clinical and research settings, according to the authors. That term varyingly referred to stomach alone, small bowel alone, stomach and small bowel, or any region of the GI tract.

“This nonstandardized use of nomenclature highlighted a need for a common language for non-EoE eosinophilic GI disease names, not only for clinical practice, but also for the consistent data collection required for research to continue to advance the field,” co–first authors Evan S. Dellon, MD, MPH, AGAF, from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, and Nirmala Gonsalves, MD, from Northwestern University, Chicago, and colleagues wrote. “This step, while seemingly rudimentary, was essential to inform the guideline efforts that are now underway.”

After responses to the surveys were analyzed, respondents participated in one of two scheduled meetings held on a video conferencing platform in May 2021. Feedback from these meetings was then used to create a second round of 29 statements which were again distributed, and participants were asked to either agree or disagree with each statement. Agreement was set a priori at 70%. In all, 38% of the participants were women, and 91% worked in academic or university settings.

In routine clinical practice, conditions with eosinophil-dominant inflammation in the absence of secondary causes outside of the esophagus can collectively be referred to clinically as non-EoE EGID. Stomach involvement should be called eosinophilic gastritis (EoG), small bowel involvement eosinophilic enteritis (EoN), and colon involvement eosinophilic colitis (EoC).

For research use, and clinical use if desired, the authors called for greater granularity in description of the conditions, with each location named. For example, if the stomach and small bowel are both involved, the condition should be termed eosinophilic gastritis and enteritis. The authors could not reach a consensus for terminology when the esophagus is also involved, leading to the recommendation that it can be included using the phrase “with esophageal involvement” or by using EoE, although they note that this could be confusing since EoE is the current term for eosinophilia isolated in the esophagus.

The authors came to universal agreement in many areas, but there were exceptions that mostly centered on how to name conditions that affect multiple areas of the GI tract. It remains uncertain whether eosinophilia in different regions is caused by the same pathogenesis. Some experts felt that a “primary” location of EGID should be identified using predominant symptoms, endoscopic features, and complications. However, the authors anticipate that this nomenclature will change over time.

The authors noted that the clinical manifestation of the disease should remain the driving factor behind classification. Testing should be driven by clinically relevant questions and overtesting should be avoided. More details on this are likely to be forthcoming in future guidelines.

The consensus statement is limited by the fact that most participants were from academic settings. These recommendations do not apply to eosinophilic disorders of gallbladder, liver, or pancreas. Application of the recommendations to the small bowel may be too general or specific, but are meant primarily as a starting point for further refinement.

These limitations should help to drive further research. For example, molecular and pathogenic data could help distinguish EoE from “esophageal involvement” by determining if pathogenic mechanisms are the same or different, which would in turn lead to lumping the conditions into a single term or keeping them separate.

“The iterative and collaborative process led to agreement on nearly all aspects of the proposed nomenclature framework, and has identified future research directions. It is expected that as more data are collected, the nomenclature will again be updated to reflect best practices and the underlying pathogenesis of these disorders,” the authors concluded.

The authors disclosed relationships with various industry companies, include AstraZeneca, Celgene, GlaxoSmithKline, Regeneron, Sanofi, and Takeda.

A new international consensus paper is recommending that eosinophilic GI diseases (EGIDs) should be named according to more specific criteria. The paper seeks to update nomenclature to improve research and bolster clinical clarity.

The involved part of the GI tract should be specifically named, and the abbreviation “Eo” should be used. Furthermore, the umbrella term should be EGID instead of the currently used “eosinophilic gastroenteritis,” according to the statement published in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology. The statement included 91 authors from five continents who filled out two rounds of surveys. In total, 93% completed the first and 90% completed the second. The paper produced 22 statements, with a consensus reached on all but 2.

EGIDs are chronic, immune-driven disorders that produce gastrointestinal symptoms and are characterized by eosinophil-dominant inflammation in specific GI regions. Although eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) is the most well known of these conditions, other EGIDs have become more commonly recognized in recent years and are the subject of intense study. Other affected areas include the stomach, small bowel, and colon, where it can occur individually or in combination.

Efforts are underway to develop guidelines for diagnosis and treatment of EGIDs, but there was initial confusion surrounding the term eosinophilic gastroenteritis since its definition varied significantly in different clinical and research settings, according to the authors. That term varyingly referred to stomach alone, small bowel alone, stomach and small bowel, or any region of the GI tract.

“This nonstandardized use of nomenclature highlighted a need for a common language for non-EoE eosinophilic GI disease names, not only for clinical practice, but also for the consistent data collection required for research to continue to advance the field,” co–first authors Evan S. Dellon, MD, MPH, AGAF, from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, and Nirmala Gonsalves, MD, from Northwestern University, Chicago, and colleagues wrote. “This step, while seemingly rudimentary, was essential to inform the guideline efforts that are now underway.”

After responses to the surveys were analyzed, respondents participated in one of two scheduled meetings held on a video conferencing platform in May 2021. Feedback from these meetings was then used to create a second round of 29 statements which were again distributed, and participants were asked to either agree or disagree with each statement. Agreement was set a priori at 70%. In all, 38% of the participants were women, and 91% worked in academic or university settings.

In routine clinical practice, conditions with eosinophil-dominant inflammation in the absence of secondary causes outside of the esophagus can collectively be referred to clinically as non-EoE EGID. Stomach involvement should be called eosinophilic gastritis (EoG), small bowel involvement eosinophilic enteritis (EoN), and colon involvement eosinophilic colitis (EoC).

For research use, and clinical use if desired, the authors called for greater granularity in description of the conditions, with each location named. For example, if the stomach and small bowel are both involved, the condition should be termed eosinophilic gastritis and enteritis. The authors could not reach a consensus for terminology when the esophagus is also involved, leading to the recommendation that it can be included using the phrase “with esophageal involvement” or by using EoE, although they note that this could be confusing since EoE is the current term for eosinophilia isolated in the esophagus.

The authors came to universal agreement in many areas, but there were exceptions that mostly centered on how to name conditions that affect multiple areas of the GI tract. It remains uncertain whether eosinophilia in different regions is caused by the same pathogenesis. Some experts felt that a “primary” location of EGID should be identified using predominant symptoms, endoscopic features, and complications. However, the authors anticipate that this nomenclature will change over time.

The authors noted that the clinical manifestation of the disease should remain the driving factor behind classification. Testing should be driven by clinically relevant questions and overtesting should be avoided. More details on this are likely to be forthcoming in future guidelines.

The consensus statement is limited by the fact that most participants were from academic settings. These recommendations do not apply to eosinophilic disorders of gallbladder, liver, or pancreas. Application of the recommendations to the small bowel may be too general or specific, but are meant primarily as a starting point for further refinement.

These limitations should help to drive further research. For example, molecular and pathogenic data could help distinguish EoE from “esophageal involvement” by determining if pathogenic mechanisms are the same or different, which would in turn lead to lumping the conditions into a single term or keeping them separate.

“The iterative and collaborative process led to agreement on nearly all aspects of the proposed nomenclature framework, and has identified future research directions. It is expected that as more data are collected, the nomenclature will again be updated to reflect best practices and the underlying pathogenesis of these disorders,” the authors concluded.

The authors disclosed relationships with various industry companies, include AstraZeneca, Celgene, GlaxoSmithKline, Regeneron, Sanofi, and Takeda.

[polldaddy:11216821]

[polldaddy:11216821]

[polldaddy:11216821]

Increased core body temperature is a likely trigger of disease flares in the rare genetic autoinflammatory disorder mevalonate kinase deficiency (MKD), based on a study involving new mouse models.

The study also uncovered potential strategies for treating MKD, lead author Marcia A. Munoz, PhD, of the Garvan Institute of Medical Research and the University of New South Wales, Sydney, and colleagues reported in Journal of Clinical Investigation.

courtesy Garvan Institute of Medical Research

“MKD encompasses a severe manifestation – mevalonic aciduria, and a milder form – a periodic fever syndrome known as hyperimmunoglobulinemia D syndrome,” the investigators wrote.

They noted that severity inversely correlates with the amount of mevalonate kinase in the body. To date, however, it’s been unclear why reduced levels of the enzyme lead to inflammation, or exactly how body temperature plays a role in this process, despite observations that disease flares can be triggered by temperature-raising activities like strenuous exercise.

“The underlying disease mechanisms in MKD have been very difficult to elucidate, because newly identified patients are usually young children (and it’s very difficult to obtain any samples of tissues or cells other than small samples of blood), and also because until now there were no laboratory models that truly mimic the human disease,” senior author Michael J. Rogers, PhD, of the Garvan Institute said in a written comment.

Dr. Rogers and colleagues addressed this gap by creating the first murine models to carry the relevant mutant allele in MVK, the gene encoding mevalonate kinase. These mice had lower levels of the enzyme, which led to increased levels of mevalonic acid and defects in protein prenylation (the addition of hydrophobic moieties), the latter of which were significantly associated with inflammation.

“The discovery that shortage of geranylgeranyl diphosphate, the substrate necessary for prenylation of over 300 substrates including small GTPases, and not the elevated mevalonic acid levels, correlated with inflammation was an important finding that ultimately provided a pathomechanism that linked the mevalonate kinase deficiency to inflammasome activation,” said Raphaela T. Goldbach-Mansky, MD, chief of the translational autoinflammatory disease studies unit at the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases.

Dr. Goldbach-Mansky said the new mouse models can serve as “preclinical platforms” to test the efficacy and safety of possible treatments, such as supplementing geranylgeraniol, an intermediate product in the mevalonate pathway, or blocking NLRP3, the inflammasome in question.

While both of these interventions showed efficacy in mice, it is unclear whether the same therapies will work in people, as the models may not reflect all human disease characteristics.

“It remains unclear which human features are modeled in the mouse model,” Dr. Goldbach-Mansky said, noting that humans may exhibit unique inflammasomes and disease triggers.

Dr. Rogers aims to find out. After 8 years of work that culminated in the present publication, he and his colleagues are now exploring ways of circumventing the defective enzyme to restore normal metabolism. He expects “many more years of work” to understand exactly how MKD affects the immune system and other organs, and how these processes can be mitigated.

Still, he is optimistic.

“Of the many autoinflammatory diseases that are known so far, we believe that new treatments are truly within reach to overcome MKD,” Dr. Rogers said.

The study was supported by the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council, St. Vincent’s Clinic Foundation, the Allergy and Immunology Foundation of Australasia, and others. The investigators and Dr. Goldbach-Mansky declared no competing interests.

Increased core body temperature is a likely trigger of disease flares in the rare genetic autoinflammatory disorder mevalonate kinase deficiency (MKD), based on a study involving new mouse models.

The study also uncovered potential strategies for treating MKD, lead author Marcia A. Munoz, PhD, of the Garvan Institute of Medical Research and the University of New South Wales, Sydney, and colleagues reported in Journal of Clinical Investigation.

courtesy Garvan Institute of Medical Research

“MKD encompasses a severe manifestation – mevalonic aciduria, and a milder form – a periodic fever syndrome known as hyperimmunoglobulinemia D syndrome,” the investigators wrote.

They noted that severity inversely correlates with the amount of mevalonate kinase in the body. To date, however, it’s been unclear why reduced levels of the enzyme lead to inflammation, or exactly how body temperature plays a role in this process, despite observations that disease flares can be triggered by temperature-raising activities like strenuous exercise.

“The underlying disease mechanisms in MKD have been very difficult to elucidate, because newly identified patients are usually young children (and it’s very difficult to obtain any samples of tissues or cells other than small samples of blood), and also because until now there were no laboratory models that truly mimic the human disease,” senior author Michael J. Rogers, PhD, of the Garvan Institute said in a written comment.

Dr. Rogers and colleagues addressed this gap by creating the first murine models to carry the relevant mutant allele in MVK, the gene encoding mevalonate kinase. These mice had lower levels of the enzyme, which led to increased levels of mevalonic acid and defects in protein prenylation (the addition of hydrophobic moieties), the latter of which were significantly associated with inflammation.

“The discovery that shortage of geranylgeranyl diphosphate, the substrate necessary for prenylation of over 300 substrates including small GTPases, and not the elevated mevalonic acid levels, correlated with inflammation was an important finding that ultimately provided a pathomechanism that linked the mevalonate kinase deficiency to inflammasome activation,” said Raphaela T. Goldbach-Mansky, MD, chief of the translational autoinflammatory disease studies unit at the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases.

Dr. Goldbach-Mansky said the new mouse models can serve as “preclinical platforms” to test the efficacy and safety of possible treatments, such as supplementing geranylgeraniol, an intermediate product in the mevalonate pathway, or blocking NLRP3, the inflammasome in question.

While both of these interventions showed efficacy in mice, it is unclear whether the same therapies will work in people, as the models may not reflect all human disease characteristics.

“It remains unclear which human features are modeled in the mouse model,” Dr. Goldbach-Mansky said, noting that humans may exhibit unique inflammasomes and disease triggers.

Dr. Rogers aims to find out. After 8 years of work that culminated in the present publication, he and his colleagues are now exploring ways of circumventing the defective enzyme to restore normal metabolism. He expects “many more years of work” to understand exactly how MKD affects the immune system and other organs, and how these processes can be mitigated.

Still, he is optimistic.

“Of the many autoinflammatory diseases that are known so far, we believe that new treatments are truly within reach to overcome MKD,” Dr. Rogers said.

The study was supported by the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council, St. Vincent’s Clinic Foundation, the Allergy and Immunology Foundation of Australasia, and others. The investigators and Dr. Goldbach-Mansky declared no competing interests.

Increased core body temperature is a likely trigger of disease flares in the rare genetic autoinflammatory disorder mevalonate kinase deficiency (MKD), based on a study involving new mouse models.

The study also uncovered potential strategies for treating MKD, lead author Marcia A. Munoz, PhD, of the Garvan Institute of Medical Research and the University of New South Wales, Sydney, and colleagues reported in Journal of Clinical Investigation.

courtesy Garvan Institute of Medical Research

“MKD encompasses a severe manifestation – mevalonic aciduria, and a milder form – a periodic fever syndrome known as hyperimmunoglobulinemia D syndrome,” the investigators wrote.

They noted that severity inversely correlates with the amount of mevalonate kinase in the body. To date, however, it’s been unclear why reduced levels of the enzyme lead to inflammation, or exactly how body temperature plays a role in this process, despite observations that disease flares can be triggered by temperature-raising activities like strenuous exercise.

“The underlying disease mechanisms in MKD have been very difficult to elucidate, because newly identified patients are usually young children (and it’s very difficult to obtain any samples of tissues or cells other than small samples of blood), and also because until now there were no laboratory models that truly mimic the human disease,” senior author Michael J. Rogers, PhD, of the Garvan Institute said in a written comment.

Dr. Rogers and colleagues addressed this gap by creating the first murine models to carry the relevant mutant allele in MVK, the gene encoding mevalonate kinase. These mice had lower levels of the enzyme, which led to increased levels of mevalonic acid and defects in protein prenylation (the addition of hydrophobic moieties), the latter of which were significantly associated with inflammation.

“The discovery that shortage of geranylgeranyl diphosphate, the substrate necessary for prenylation of over 300 substrates including small GTPases, and not the elevated mevalonic acid levels, correlated with inflammation was an important finding that ultimately provided a pathomechanism that linked the mevalonate kinase deficiency to inflammasome activation,” said Raphaela T. Goldbach-Mansky, MD, chief of the translational autoinflammatory disease studies unit at the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases.

Dr. Goldbach-Mansky said the new mouse models can serve as “preclinical platforms” to test the efficacy and safety of possible treatments, such as supplementing geranylgeraniol, an intermediate product in the mevalonate pathway, or blocking NLRP3, the inflammasome in question.

While both of these interventions showed efficacy in mice, it is unclear whether the same therapies will work in people, as the models may not reflect all human disease characteristics.

“It remains unclear which human features are modeled in the mouse model,” Dr. Goldbach-Mansky said, noting that humans may exhibit unique inflammasomes and disease triggers.

Dr. Rogers aims to find out. After 8 years of work that culminated in the present publication, he and his colleagues are now exploring ways of circumventing the defective enzyme to restore normal metabolism. He expects “many more years of work” to understand exactly how MKD affects the immune system and other organs, and how these processes can be mitigated.

Still, he is optimistic.

“Of the many autoinflammatory diseases that are known so far, we believe that new treatments are truly within reach to overcome MKD,” Dr. Rogers said.

The study was supported by the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council, St. Vincent’s Clinic Foundation, the Allergy and Immunology Foundation of Australasia, and others. The investigators and Dr. Goldbach-Mansky declared no competing interests.

Adenoma detection rate (ADR) targets for endoscopists performing colonoscopy after a positive fecal immunochemical test (FIT) should be markedly higher compared with ADR targets used in primary colonoscopy, researchers report.

Data from the Netherlands FIT-based screening program show that the ADR is “linearly and inversely” associated with interim colorectal cancer (CRC) occurrence, first author Pieter H.A. Wisse, MD, with Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands, told this news organization.

“Endoscopists should strive to obtain ADRs as high as possible” in FIT-positive screenees, Wisse said.

The study was published online in Annals of Internal Medicine.
 

Small differences, huge consequences

The ADR is a key quality indicator for endoscopists performing colonoscopies for CRC because it reflects their ability to detect lesions and is inversely associated with the risk of interval postcolonoscopy CRC (PCCRC).

Adults with a positive FIT result have a high prevalence of adenomas, leading to high ADRs for endoscopists performing colonoscopies in this setting. However, data on optimal ADRs of endoscopists performing colonoscopies in FIT-based screening are scarce.

To investigate, Dr. Wisse and colleagues evaluated the association between the ADR and interval PCCRC in patients undergoing colonoscopy after a positive FIT result. The analysis included 362 accredited and audited endoscopists who performed 116,360 colonoscopies.

During a median follow-up of 52 months, 209 interval PCCRCs were identified.

The quality of the colonoscopic examinations in FIT-positive screenees was high; endoscopists’ ADRs ranged between 40% and 82%, with a median ADR of 67%.

A higher ADR was strongly associated with lower incidence of interval PCCRC, with an adjusted hazard ratio of 0.95 (95% confidence interval, 0.92-0.97) per 1% increase in ADR.

For endoscopists with an ADR of 60%, the cumulative incidence of interval PCCRC was nearly two times as high as that of endoscopists with an ADR of 70%. The risk was even higher for endoscopists with ADRs less than 60%.

For every 1,000 FIT-positive colonoscopies, the expected number of patients diagnosed with interval PCCRC in 5 years was roughly 2 for endoscopists with an ADR of 70%, compared with almost 3.5 for ADRs of 60% and more than 4.5 for ADRs of 55%.

The authors note that the relatively short duration of follow-up (median, 52 months) could be considered a study limitation.
 

Quality metrics needed

“These seemingly small ADR differences are deceptive – if an endoscopist increases their ADR by just 10%, their patients’ associated decrease in relative interval cancer risk is a remarkable 40% to 50%,” Douglas Corley, MD, PhD, MPH, from Kaiser Permanente, Oakland, Calif., points out in an accompanying editorial.

Dr. Wisse and colleagues add that FIT-based colonoscopy has now surpassed primary colonoscopy as the most commonly used primary CRC-screening method.

They say there is a need to determine specific ADR targets for FIT-positive screenees to assure quality of colonoscopies and optimize the effect of screening programs by reducing interval PCCRC risk.

For primary colonoscopy, most professional societies recommend an ADR of at least 25% as an indicator of adequate performance. The new study suggests that FIT-positive colonoscopy “demands a markedly higher ADR target than primary colonoscopy,” the authors write.

Dr. Corley said this study provides “an excellent framework for evaluating nine concepts regarding effective quality metrics and how these can illustrate pathways for meaningful metrics for the care of other cancers and disorders.”

Quality metrics must be trustworthy, important, strategic, relevant, actionable, simple, gaming-resistant, time-stamped, and owned, he explained.

Questions concerning goals, plans for implementation of interventions, and the application of goals while maintaining simplicity must be considered in metric development, Dr. Corley said.

The study had no funding.

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

Adenoma detection rate (ADR) targets for endoscopists performing colonoscopy after a positive fecal immunochemical test (FIT) should be markedly higher compared with ADR targets used in primary colonoscopy, researchers report.

Data from the Netherlands FIT-based screening program show that the ADR is “linearly and inversely” associated with interim colorectal cancer (CRC) occurrence, first author Pieter H.A. Wisse, MD, with Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands, told this news organization.

“Endoscopists should strive to obtain ADRs as high as possible” in FIT-positive screenees, Wisse said.

The study was published online in Annals of Internal Medicine.
 

Small differences, huge consequences

The ADR is a key quality indicator for endoscopists performing colonoscopies for CRC because it reflects their ability to detect lesions and is inversely associated with the risk of interval postcolonoscopy CRC (PCCRC).

Adults with a positive FIT result have a high prevalence of adenomas, leading to high ADRs for endoscopists performing colonoscopies in this setting. However, data on optimal ADRs of endoscopists performing colonoscopies in FIT-based screening are scarce.

To investigate, Dr. Wisse and colleagues evaluated the association between the ADR and interval PCCRC in patients undergoing colonoscopy after a positive FIT result. The analysis included 362 accredited and audited endoscopists who performed 116,360 colonoscopies.

During a median follow-up of 52 months, 209 interval PCCRCs were identified.

The quality of the colonoscopic examinations in FIT-positive screenees was high; endoscopists’ ADRs ranged between 40% and 82%, with a median ADR of 67%.

A higher ADR was strongly associated with lower incidence of interval PCCRC, with an adjusted hazard ratio of 0.95 (95% confidence interval, 0.92-0.97) per 1% increase in ADR.

For endoscopists with an ADR of 60%, the cumulative incidence of interval PCCRC was nearly two times as high as that of endoscopists with an ADR of 70%. The risk was even higher for endoscopists with ADRs less than 60%.

For every 1,000 FIT-positive colonoscopies, the expected number of patients diagnosed with interval PCCRC in 5 years was roughly 2 for endoscopists with an ADR of 70%, compared with almost 3.5 for ADRs of 60% and more than 4.5 for ADRs of 55%.

The authors note that the relatively short duration of follow-up (median, 52 months) could be considered a study limitation.
 

Quality metrics needed

“These seemingly small ADR differences are deceptive – if an endoscopist increases their ADR by just 10%, their patients’ associated decrease in relative interval cancer risk is a remarkable 40% to 50%,” Douglas Corley, MD, PhD, MPH, from Kaiser Permanente, Oakland, Calif., points out in an accompanying editorial.

Dr. Wisse and colleagues add that FIT-based colonoscopy has now surpassed primary colonoscopy as the most commonly used primary CRC-screening method.

They say there is a need to determine specific ADR targets for FIT-positive screenees to assure quality of colonoscopies and optimize the effect of screening programs by reducing interval PCCRC risk.

For primary colonoscopy, most professional societies recommend an ADR of at least 25% as an indicator of adequate performance. The new study suggests that FIT-positive colonoscopy “demands a markedly higher ADR target than primary colonoscopy,” the authors write.

Dr. Corley said this study provides “an excellent framework for evaluating nine concepts regarding effective quality metrics and how these can illustrate pathways for meaningful metrics for the care of other cancers and disorders.”

Quality metrics must be trustworthy, important, strategic, relevant, actionable, simple, gaming-resistant, time-stamped, and owned, he explained.

Questions concerning goals, plans for implementation of interventions, and the application of goals while maintaining simplicity must be considered in metric development, Dr. Corley said.

The study had no funding.

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

Adenoma detection rate (ADR) targets for endoscopists performing colonoscopy after a positive fecal immunochemical test (FIT) should be markedly higher compared with ADR targets used in primary colonoscopy, researchers report.

Data from the Netherlands FIT-based screening program show that the ADR is “linearly and inversely” associated with interim colorectal cancer (CRC) occurrence, first author Pieter H.A. Wisse, MD, with Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands, told this news organization.

“Endoscopists should strive to obtain ADRs as high as possible” in FIT-positive screenees, Wisse said.

The study was published online in Annals of Internal Medicine.
 

Small differences, huge consequences

The ADR is a key quality indicator for endoscopists performing colonoscopies for CRC because it reflects their ability to detect lesions and is inversely associated with the risk of interval postcolonoscopy CRC (PCCRC).

Adults with a positive FIT result have a high prevalence of adenomas, leading to high ADRs for endoscopists performing colonoscopies in this setting. However, data on optimal ADRs of endoscopists performing colonoscopies in FIT-based screening are scarce.

To investigate, Dr. Wisse and colleagues evaluated the association between the ADR and interval PCCRC in patients undergoing colonoscopy after a positive FIT result. The analysis included 362 accredited and audited endoscopists who performed 116,360 colonoscopies.

During a median follow-up of 52 months, 209 interval PCCRCs were identified.

The quality of the colonoscopic examinations in FIT-positive screenees was high; endoscopists’ ADRs ranged between 40% and 82%, with a median ADR of 67%.

A higher ADR was strongly associated with lower incidence of interval PCCRC, with an adjusted hazard ratio of 0.95 (95% confidence interval, 0.92-0.97) per 1% increase in ADR.

For endoscopists with an ADR of 60%, the cumulative incidence of interval PCCRC was nearly two times as high as that of endoscopists with an ADR of 70%. The risk was even higher for endoscopists with ADRs less than 60%.

For every 1,000 FIT-positive colonoscopies, the expected number of patients diagnosed with interval PCCRC in 5 years was roughly 2 for endoscopists with an ADR of 70%, compared with almost 3.5 for ADRs of 60% and more than 4.5 for ADRs of 55%.

The authors note that the relatively short duration of follow-up (median, 52 months) could be considered a study limitation.
 

Quality metrics needed

“These seemingly small ADR differences are deceptive – if an endoscopist increases their ADR by just 10%, their patients’ associated decrease in relative interval cancer risk is a remarkable 40% to 50%,” Douglas Corley, MD, PhD, MPH, from Kaiser Permanente, Oakland, Calif., points out in an accompanying editorial.

Dr. Wisse and colleagues add that FIT-based colonoscopy has now surpassed primary colonoscopy as the most commonly used primary CRC-screening method.

They say there is a need to determine specific ADR targets for FIT-positive screenees to assure quality of colonoscopies and optimize the effect of screening programs by reducing interval PCCRC risk.

For primary colonoscopy, most professional societies recommend an ADR of at least 25% as an indicator of adequate performance. The new study suggests that FIT-positive colonoscopy “demands a markedly higher ADR target than primary colonoscopy,” the authors write.

Dr. Corley said this study provides “an excellent framework for evaluating nine concepts regarding effective quality metrics and how these can illustrate pathways for meaningful metrics for the care of other cancers and disorders.”

Quality metrics must be trustworthy, important, strategic, relevant, actionable, simple, gaming-resistant, time-stamped, and owned, he explained.

Questions concerning goals, plans for implementation of interventions, and the application of goals while maintaining simplicity must be considered in metric development, Dr. Corley said.

The study had no funding.

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

The Food and Drug Administration has approved a whooping cough vaccine that protects newborns under 2 months of age.

The federal agency on Oct. 7 approved Boostrix for use during the last 3 months of pregnancy to prevent pertussis in infants under 2 months old. The vaccine, manufactured by GlaxoSmithKline, was previously approved among pregnant people for their own protection.

“Infants younger than 2 months of age are too young to be protected by the childhood pertussis vaccine series,” Peter Marks, MD, PhD, director of the FDA’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, said in a press release. “This is the first vaccine approved specifically for use during pregnancy to prevent a disease in young infants whose mothers are vaccinated during pregnancy.”

Pertussis is a highly contagious respiratory tract infection caused by the bacterium Bordetella pertussis. Most cases that result in hospitalizations and death are among infants within 2 months of birth.

The FDA said its decision was based on data from observational studies, which included 108 cases of pertussis in infants younger than 2 months old. According to data evaluated by the agency, the vaccine was 78% effective in preventing whooping cough.

Boostrix is administered as a single 0.5-mL dose.

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

The Food and Drug Administration has approved a whooping cough vaccine that protects newborns under 2 months of age.

The federal agency on Oct. 7 approved Boostrix for use during the last 3 months of pregnancy to prevent pertussis in infants under 2 months old. The vaccine, manufactured by GlaxoSmithKline, was previously approved among pregnant people for their own protection.

“Infants younger than 2 months of age are too young to be protected by the childhood pertussis vaccine series,” Peter Marks, MD, PhD, director of the FDA’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, said in a press release. “This is the first vaccine approved specifically for use during pregnancy to prevent a disease in young infants whose mothers are vaccinated during pregnancy.”

Pertussis is a highly contagious respiratory tract infection caused by the bacterium Bordetella pertussis. Most cases that result in hospitalizations and death are among infants within 2 months of birth.

The FDA said its decision was based on data from observational studies, which included 108 cases of pertussis in infants younger than 2 months old. According to data evaluated by the agency, the vaccine was 78% effective in preventing whooping cough.

Boostrix is administered as a single 0.5-mL dose.

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

The Food and Drug Administration has approved a whooping cough vaccine that protects newborns under 2 months of age.

The federal agency on Oct. 7 approved Boostrix for use during the last 3 months of pregnancy to prevent pertussis in infants under 2 months old. The vaccine, manufactured by GlaxoSmithKline, was previously approved among pregnant people for their own protection.

“Infants younger than 2 months of age are too young to be protected by the childhood pertussis vaccine series,” Peter Marks, MD, PhD, director of the FDA’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, said in a press release. “This is the first vaccine approved specifically for use during pregnancy to prevent a disease in young infants whose mothers are vaccinated during pregnancy.”

Pertussis is a highly contagious respiratory tract infection caused by the bacterium Bordetella pertussis. Most cases that result in hospitalizations and death are among infants within 2 months of birth.

The FDA said its decision was based on data from observational studies, which included 108 cases of pertussis in infants younger than 2 months old. According to data evaluated by the agency, the vaccine was 78% effective in preventing whooping cough.

Boostrix is administered as a single 0.5-mL dose.

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