Infectious Diseases

From testing to treatment, Global Fund HIV services have been hampered by COVID-19. “We’ve been set back by COVID but we’ve seen remarkable resilience, a lot of innovation and creativity,” Siobhan Crowley MD, head of HIV at the Global Fund, said in an interview. 

“If you consider that 21.9 million people are getting antiretrovirals at this point through the Global Fund, I think that needs to be appreciated. Ten years ago, that wouldn’t have been the case; all of those people would have disappeared into the ethers,” she said.

Through close partnerships with the U.S. Agency for International Development, the U.S. President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief, and other Western countries and organizations, the Global Fund has invested $22.7 billion in programs to prevent and treat HIV and AIDS, and $3.8 billion in tuberculosis (TB)/HIV programs, according to the organization’s 2021 Results Report. 

But the report also underscores the significant effect that the COVID-19 pandemic has had on funded countries’ progress toward achieving renewed 90-90-90 targets for HIV testing/diagnosis, treatment, and viral suppression by 2030.

The setbacks have been challenging and have touched nearly every service from prevention to treatment. According to the report, between 2019 and 2020:

• Voluntary male circumcision declined by 27%.
• Numbers reached by HIV prevention programs fell by 11%.
• 4.5% fewer mothers received medications to prevent HIV transmission to their babies.
• HIV testing services, including initiation, decreased by 22%.

The numbers tell only a part of the story, according to Dr. Crowley.

“We put in place an emergency mechanism to make funds available for countries to do everything except vaccines in support of COVID,” Dr. Crowley explained. (As of August 2021, these funds had been allocated to 107 countries and 16 multicountry programs.)

Countries were advised that they could use the emergency funds three different ways: 1) for COVID-specific purposes (e.g., diagnostics, oxygen, personal protective equipment; 2) to support mitigation strategies geared toward protecting existing HIV, tuberculosis, and malaria programs and getting them back on track; and 3) for so-called “health system fixes,” such as investing in data systems to track COVID, HIV, and other core diseases, as well as the community workforce.

With regard to HIV, each country supported by the Global Fund was asked to ensure that multimonth (3-6 months) dispensing was implemented and/or accelerated so that patients could avoid congested facilities, and, wherever possible, that drugs were delivered or accessed outside the facility. One example of the success of this effort was found in South Africa, where the number of people on antiretrovirals increased almost threefold, from 1.2 million to 4.2 million people.

Countries also were asked to adapt HIV testing procedures by, for example, moving organized testing out of the facilities and into neighborhoods to meet people where they are. Rapid diagnostic testing and triage care linkage using technologies such as WhatsApp were the result, as were opportunities for home testing which, Dr. Crowley noted, remains a critical component of the overall strategy. 

“The self-test is important for two reasons, not just because you are trying to find people with HIV, but also, when people know that they’re negative, they know what they can or should do to stay negative,” she said. “It’s quite a powerful motivator.” 

Self-testing might also help countries motivate the 6 million people who know that they have HIV but are not on treatment. But there are still 4.1 million residing in these countries who aren’t aware that they are infected, according to the report. This figure is especially troubling, considering that some may also be harboring TB coinfections, including multidrug-resistant TB (MDR-TB).
 

The imperfect storm globally and in the U.S.

“One of the things that was striking in the report was the decline in the number of people reached with testing and prevention services,” Chris Beyrer, MD, MPH, the Desmond M. Tutu Professor of Public Health and Human Rights at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health in Baltimore, said in an interview. Dr. Beyrer was not involved in the report’s development.

“You know, a 10% decline in 1 year to reach people in need is substantial,” he said. “Let’s say it continues; many people are predicting that we won’t have reasonable coverage for low-income countries with COVID until 2023. That adds up to a substantial decline in people reached with these services.”

Dr. Beyrer also expressed concern about the convergence of HIV and TB in already overburdened, fragile health care systems. “Globally, the No. 1 cause of death for people living with HIV is TB, and of course, it’s highly transmissible. So, in many high-burden countries, children are exposed, typically from household members early on, and so the number of people with latent TB infection is just enormous.

“If you look at the report, the worst outcomes are MDR-TB. Those multidrug-resistant and extensively-drug-resistant strains are really a threat to everybody,” Dr. Beyrer said.

But it’s not time for U.S. providers to rest on their laurels either. Dr. Beyrer noted that the 22% decline in HIV testing reported by the Global Fund is similar to what has been happening in the United States with elective procedures such as HIV testing and even preventive procedures like medical male circumcision. 

“It’s very clear here in the Global Fund data that the majority of new infections worldwide are in key populations [that] include gay and bisexual men, men who have sex with men, transgender women who have sex with men, people who inject drugs, and sex workers of all genders. Those are people who already faced barriers to health care access and were made worse by COVID.”

Dr. Beyrer noted that, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, in 2019 in the United States, 68% of new HIV infections occurred in gay and bisexual men, and the effect that COVID-19 will have is still unknown. He also noted the similarity between the most marginalized populations in the Global Fund report and African American men, who have not realized the same increase in the use of preexposure prophylaxis or the same decline in new infections as have their White counterparts. 

“It’s also where we are seeing the worst of COVID, low immunization coverage, and high rates of hospitalization and death. ... It’s a dark, dark time for many,” Dr. Crowley said. “And there has also been some amazing resilience and adaptation. The weird thing is, the HIV platform is a natural platform; I mean, if we can keep 21.9 million people on treatment, we can probably deliver them a COVID test and a vaccine.”

Dr. Crowley and Dr. Beyrer report no relevant financial relationships.

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

From testing to treatment, Global Fund HIV services have been hampered by COVID-19. “We’ve been set back by COVID but we’ve seen remarkable resilience, a lot of innovation and creativity,” Siobhan Crowley MD, head of HIV at the Global Fund, said in an interview. 

“If you consider that 21.9 million people are getting antiretrovirals at this point through the Global Fund, I think that needs to be appreciated. Ten years ago, that wouldn’t have been the case; all of those people would have disappeared into the ethers,” she said.

Through close partnerships with the U.S. Agency for International Development, the U.S. President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief, and other Western countries and organizations, the Global Fund has invested $22.7 billion in programs to prevent and treat HIV and AIDS, and $3.8 billion in tuberculosis (TB)/HIV programs, according to the organization’s 2021 Results Report. 

But the report also underscores the significant effect that the COVID-19 pandemic has had on funded countries’ progress toward achieving renewed 90-90-90 targets for HIV testing/diagnosis, treatment, and viral suppression by 2030.

The setbacks have been challenging and have touched nearly every service from prevention to treatment. According to the report, between 2019 and 2020:

• Voluntary male circumcision declined by 27%.
• Numbers reached by HIV prevention programs fell by 11%.
• 4.5% fewer mothers received medications to prevent HIV transmission to their babies.
• HIV testing services, including initiation, decreased by 22%.

The numbers tell only a part of the story, according to Dr. Crowley.

“We put in place an emergency mechanism to make funds available for countries to do everything except vaccines in support of COVID,” Dr. Crowley explained. (As of August 2021, these funds had been allocated to 107 countries and 16 multicountry programs.)

Countries were advised that they could use the emergency funds three different ways: 1) for COVID-specific purposes (e.g., diagnostics, oxygen, personal protective equipment; 2) to support mitigation strategies geared toward protecting existing HIV, tuberculosis, and malaria programs and getting them back on track; and 3) for so-called “health system fixes,” such as investing in data systems to track COVID, HIV, and other core diseases, as well as the community workforce.

With regard to HIV, each country supported by the Global Fund was asked to ensure that multimonth (3-6 months) dispensing was implemented and/or accelerated so that patients could avoid congested facilities, and, wherever possible, that drugs were delivered or accessed outside the facility. One example of the success of this effort was found in South Africa, where the number of people on antiretrovirals increased almost threefold, from 1.2 million to 4.2 million people.

Countries also were asked to adapt HIV testing procedures by, for example, moving organized testing out of the facilities and into neighborhoods to meet people where they are. Rapid diagnostic testing and triage care linkage using technologies such as WhatsApp were the result, as were opportunities for home testing which, Dr. Crowley noted, remains a critical component of the overall strategy. 

“The self-test is important for two reasons, not just because you are trying to find people with HIV, but also, when people know that they’re negative, they know what they can or should do to stay negative,” she said. “It’s quite a powerful motivator.” 

Self-testing might also help countries motivate the 6 million people who know that they have HIV but are not on treatment. But there are still 4.1 million residing in these countries who aren’t aware that they are infected, according to the report. This figure is especially troubling, considering that some may also be harboring TB coinfections, including multidrug-resistant TB (MDR-TB).
 

The imperfect storm globally and in the U.S.

“One of the things that was striking in the report was the decline in the number of people reached with testing and prevention services,” Chris Beyrer, MD, MPH, the Desmond M. Tutu Professor of Public Health and Human Rights at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health in Baltimore, said in an interview. Dr. Beyrer was not involved in the report’s development.

“You know, a 10% decline in 1 year to reach people in need is substantial,” he said. “Let’s say it continues; many people are predicting that we won’t have reasonable coverage for low-income countries with COVID until 2023. That adds up to a substantial decline in people reached with these services.”

Dr. Beyrer also expressed concern about the convergence of HIV and TB in already overburdened, fragile health care systems. “Globally, the No. 1 cause of death for people living with HIV is TB, and of course, it’s highly transmissible. So, in many high-burden countries, children are exposed, typically from household members early on, and so the number of people with latent TB infection is just enormous.

“If you look at the report, the worst outcomes are MDR-TB. Those multidrug-resistant and extensively-drug-resistant strains are really a threat to everybody,” Dr. Beyrer said.

But it’s not time for U.S. providers to rest on their laurels either. Dr. Beyrer noted that the 22% decline in HIV testing reported by the Global Fund is similar to what has been happening in the United States with elective procedures such as HIV testing and even preventive procedures like medical male circumcision. 

“It’s very clear here in the Global Fund data that the majority of new infections worldwide are in key populations [that] include gay and bisexual men, men who have sex with men, transgender women who have sex with men, people who inject drugs, and sex workers of all genders. Those are people who already faced barriers to health care access and were made worse by COVID.”

Dr. Beyrer noted that, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, in 2019 in the United States, 68% of new HIV infections occurred in gay and bisexual men, and the effect that COVID-19 will have is still unknown. He also noted the similarity between the most marginalized populations in the Global Fund report and African American men, who have not realized the same increase in the use of preexposure prophylaxis or the same decline in new infections as have their White counterparts. 

“It’s also where we are seeing the worst of COVID, low immunization coverage, and high rates of hospitalization and death. ... It’s a dark, dark time for many,” Dr. Crowley said. “And there has also been some amazing resilience and adaptation. The weird thing is, the HIV platform is a natural platform; I mean, if we can keep 21.9 million people on treatment, we can probably deliver them a COVID test and a vaccine.”

Dr. Crowley and Dr. Beyrer report no relevant financial relationships.

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

From testing to treatment, Global Fund HIV services have been hampered by COVID-19. “We’ve been set back by COVID but we’ve seen remarkable resilience, a lot of innovation and creativity,” Siobhan Crowley MD, head of HIV at the Global Fund, said in an interview. 

“If you consider that 21.9 million people are getting antiretrovirals at this point through the Global Fund, I think that needs to be appreciated. Ten years ago, that wouldn’t have been the case; all of those people would have disappeared into the ethers,” she said.

Through close partnerships with the U.S. Agency for International Development, the U.S. President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief, and other Western countries and organizations, the Global Fund has invested $22.7 billion in programs to prevent and treat HIV and AIDS, and $3.8 billion in tuberculosis (TB)/HIV programs, according to the organization’s 2021 Results Report. 

But the report also underscores the significant effect that the COVID-19 pandemic has had on funded countries’ progress toward achieving renewed 90-90-90 targets for HIV testing/diagnosis, treatment, and viral suppression by 2030.

The setbacks have been challenging and have touched nearly every service from prevention to treatment. According to the report, between 2019 and 2020:

• Voluntary male circumcision declined by 27%.
• Numbers reached by HIV prevention programs fell by 11%.
• 4.5% fewer mothers received medications to prevent HIV transmission to their babies.
• HIV testing services, including initiation, decreased by 22%.

The numbers tell only a part of the story, according to Dr. Crowley.

“We put in place an emergency mechanism to make funds available for countries to do everything except vaccines in support of COVID,” Dr. Crowley explained. (As of August 2021, these funds had been allocated to 107 countries and 16 multicountry programs.)

Countries were advised that they could use the emergency funds three different ways: 1) for COVID-specific purposes (e.g., diagnostics, oxygen, personal protective equipment; 2) to support mitigation strategies geared toward protecting existing HIV, tuberculosis, and malaria programs and getting them back on track; and 3) for so-called “health system fixes,” such as investing in data systems to track COVID, HIV, and other core diseases, as well as the community workforce.

With regard to HIV, each country supported by the Global Fund was asked to ensure that multimonth (3-6 months) dispensing was implemented and/or accelerated so that patients could avoid congested facilities, and, wherever possible, that drugs were delivered or accessed outside the facility. One example of the success of this effort was found in South Africa, where the number of people on antiretrovirals increased almost threefold, from 1.2 million to 4.2 million people.

Countries also were asked to adapt HIV testing procedures by, for example, moving organized testing out of the facilities and into neighborhoods to meet people where they are. Rapid diagnostic testing and triage care linkage using technologies such as WhatsApp were the result, as were opportunities for home testing which, Dr. Crowley noted, remains a critical component of the overall strategy. 

“The self-test is important for two reasons, not just because you are trying to find people with HIV, but also, when people know that they’re negative, they know what they can or should do to stay negative,” she said. “It’s quite a powerful motivator.” 

Self-testing might also help countries motivate the 6 million people who know that they have HIV but are not on treatment. But there are still 4.1 million residing in these countries who aren’t aware that they are infected, according to the report. This figure is especially troubling, considering that some may also be harboring TB coinfections, including multidrug-resistant TB (MDR-TB).
 

The imperfect storm globally and in the U.S.

“One of the things that was striking in the report was the decline in the number of people reached with testing and prevention services,” Chris Beyrer, MD, MPH, the Desmond M. Tutu Professor of Public Health and Human Rights at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health in Baltimore, said in an interview. Dr. Beyrer was not involved in the report’s development.

“You know, a 10% decline in 1 year to reach people in need is substantial,” he said. “Let’s say it continues; many people are predicting that we won’t have reasonable coverage for low-income countries with COVID until 2023. That adds up to a substantial decline in people reached with these services.”

Dr. Beyrer also expressed concern about the convergence of HIV and TB in already overburdened, fragile health care systems. “Globally, the No. 1 cause of death for people living with HIV is TB, and of course, it’s highly transmissible. So, in many high-burden countries, children are exposed, typically from household members early on, and so the number of people with latent TB infection is just enormous.

“If you look at the report, the worst outcomes are MDR-TB. Those multidrug-resistant and extensively-drug-resistant strains are really a threat to everybody,” Dr. Beyrer said.

But it’s not time for U.S. providers to rest on their laurels either. Dr. Beyrer noted that the 22% decline in HIV testing reported by the Global Fund is similar to what has been happening in the United States with elective procedures such as HIV testing and even preventive procedures like medical male circumcision. 

“It’s very clear here in the Global Fund data that the majority of new infections worldwide are in key populations [that] include gay and bisexual men, men who have sex with men, transgender women who have sex with men, people who inject drugs, and sex workers of all genders. Those are people who already faced barriers to health care access and were made worse by COVID.”

Dr. Beyrer noted that, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, in 2019 in the United States, 68% of new HIV infections occurred in gay and bisexual men, and the effect that COVID-19 will have is still unknown. He also noted the similarity between the most marginalized populations in the Global Fund report and African American men, who have not realized the same increase in the use of preexposure prophylaxis or the same decline in new infections as have their White counterparts. 

“It’s also where we are seeing the worst of COVID, low immunization coverage, and high rates of hospitalization and death. ... It’s a dark, dark time for many,” Dr. Crowley said. “And there has also been some amazing resilience and adaptation. The weird thing is, the HIV platform is a natural platform; I mean, if we can keep 21.9 million people on treatment, we can probably deliver them a COVID test and a vaccine.”

Dr. Crowley and Dr. Beyrer report no relevant financial relationships.

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

Case

A 56 year-old male with hypertension, alcohol use disorder, stage II chronic kidney disease, and biopsy-proven cirrhosis presents with fever and chills, pyuria, flank pain, and an acute kidney injury concerning for pyelonephritis. Is there a benefit in treating with albumin in addition to guideline-based antibiotics?

fruttipics/Getty Images

Brief overview of the issue

Albumin is a negatively charged human protein produced by the liver. Albumin comprises 50% of plasma protein and over 75% of plasma oncotic pressure.¹ It was first used at Walter Reed Hospital in 1940 and subsequently for burn injuries after the attack on Pearl Harbor in 1941.²

Albumin serves several important physiologic functions including maintaining oncotic pressure, endothelial support, antioxidation, nitrogen oxide scavenging, and buffering and transport of solutes and drugs, including antibiotics. In cirrhosis, albumin is diluted due to sodium and water retention. There is increased redistribution, decreased synthesis by the liver, and impaired albumin molecule binding.³

For patients with liver disease, per the European Association for the Study of the Liver (EASL) and the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases (AASLD), albumin should be administered to prevent post paracentesis circulatory dysfunction after large volume paracentesis, to prevent renal failure and mortality in the setting of spontaneous bacterial peritonitis (SBP), and in the diagnosis and treatment of hepatorenal syndrome (HRS) type I to potentially improve mortality.^4,5 Beyond these three guideline-based indications, other uses for albumin for patients with liver disease have been proposed, including treatment of hyponatremia, posttransplant fluid resuscitation, diuretic unresponsive ascites, and long-term management of cirrhosis. There has yet to be strong evidence supporting these additional indications. However, given the known benefits of albumin in patients with SBP, there has been recent research into treatment of non-SBP infections, including urinary tract infections.
 

Overview of the data

There have been three randomized controlled trials (RCTs) regarding albumin administration for the treatment of non-SBP infections for hospitalized patients with cirrhosis. All three trials randomized patients to a treatment arm of albumin and antibiotics versus a control group of antibiotics alone. The treatment protocol prescribed 20% albumin with 1.5 g/kg on day 1 and 1.0 g/kg on day 3. The most common infections studied were pneumonia and urinary tract infection. These RCTs found that albumin administration was associated with improved renal and/or circulatory function, but not with a reduction in mortality.

First, there was a single center RCT by Guevara et al. in 2012 of 110 patients with cirrhosis and infection based on SIRS criteria.⁶ The primary outcome was 90-day survival with secondary outcomes of renal failure development, renal function at days 3,7 and 14, and circulatory function measured by plasma renin, aldosterone, and norepinephrine. Renal function and circulatory function improved in the albumin group, but not mortality. In a multivariable regression analysis, albumin was statistically predictive of survival (hazard ratio of 0.294).

Second, there was a multicenter RCT by Thévenot et al. in 2015 of 193 patients.⁷ The primary outcome was 90-day renal failure and the secondary outcome was 90-day survival. Renal failure was chosen as the primary endpoint because of its association with survival in this patient population. The treatment group had delayed onset of renal failure, but no difference in the development of 90-day renal failure or 90-day mortality rate. Notably, eight patients (8.3%) in the albumin group developed pulmonary edema with two deaths. This led the oversight committee to prematurely terminate the study.

Third and most recently, there was a multicenter RCT by Fernández et al. in 2019 of 118 patients.⁸ The primary outcome was in-hospital mortality, with secondary outcomes of circulatory dysfunction measured by plasma renin concentration, systemic inflammation measured by plasma IL-6 and biomarkers, complications including acute-on-chronic liver failure (ACLF) and nosocomial bacterial infections, and 90-day mortality. Between the albumin and control group, there were no differences in in-hospital mortality (13.1% vs. 10.5%, P > .66), inflammation, circulatory dysfunction, or liver severity. However, a significantly higher proportion of patients in the albumin group had resolution of their ACLF (82.3% vs. 33.3%, P = .003) and a lower proportion developed nosocomial infections (6.6% vs. 24.6%, P = .007). A major weakness of this study was that patients in the albumin group had a higher combined rate of ACLF and kidney dysfunction (44.3% vs. 24.6%, P = .02).

Beyond these three randomized controlled trials, there was a study on the long-term administration of albumin for patients with cirrhosis and ascites. Patients who received twice weekly albumin infusions had a lower 2-year mortality rate and a reduction in the incidence of both SBP and non-SBP infections.⁹ Another long-term study of albumin administration found similar results with greater 18-month survival and fewer non-SBP infections.¹⁰ A trial looking at inflammation in patients without bacterial infections and in biobanked samples from cirrhotic patients with bacterial infections found that treatment with albumin reduced systemic inflammation.¹¹

In summary, the three RCTs looked at comparable patients with cirrhosis and a non-SBP infection and all underwent similar treatment protocols with 20% albumin dosed at 1.5 g/kg on day 1 and 1.0 g/kg on day 3. All studies evaluated mortality in either the primary or secondary outcome, and none found significant differences in mortality between treatment and control groups. Each study also evaluated and found improvement in renal and/or circulatory function. Fernández et al. also found increased resolution of ACLF, fewer nosocomial infections, and reduction in some inflammatory markers. However, all studies had relatively small sample sizes that were underpowered to detect mortality differences. Furthermore, randomization did not lead to well-matched groups, with the treatment group patients in the Fernández study having higher rates of ACLF and kidney dysfunction.

The data suggest that albumin may be beneficial in improving renal and circulatory function. In select patients with ACLF and elevated serum creatinine, albumin treatment may be considered. There has been discussion about the use of albumin preferentially in patients with subdiaphragmatic bacterial infections, most related to increased risk of renal failure such as biliary and urinary tract infections.¹² The authors of these studies also note that albumin may be more beneficial in patients with higher baseline creatinine. Caution is warranted for patients with impaired cardiac function or poor respiratory status given the possibility of pulmonary edema. Finally, the high cost of albumin in many medical centers is a major limitation of this treatment approach.
 

Application of data to our patient

Our patient has cirrhosis and is acutely presenting with pyelonephritis and acute kidney injury. He has no baseline pulmonary disease or oxygen requirement. His recent transthoracic echocardiogram is reviewed and he has no evidence of cardiac disease.

Because he has an elevated creatinine, an infectious process associated with progressive renal failure, and is not at an elevated baseline risk of developing pulmonary edema, albumin would be reasonable to administer at 1.5 g/kg on day 1 and 1.0 g/kg on day 3 of hospitalization.
 

Bottom line

In certain patients with cirrhosis and a non-SBP infection, the use of albumin to help improve renal and circulatory function is reasonable. There is no evidence that albumin will improve mortality and caution is warranted for patients at risk for pulmonary edema.

Dr. Rambachan is an academic hospital medicine fellow at the University of California, San Francisco.

References

1. Caironi P and Gattinoni L. The clinical use of albumin: the point of view of a specialist in intensive care. Blood Transfus. 2009;7(4):259-67. doi: 10.2450/2009.0002-09.

2. Paine CH et al. Albumin in cirrhosis: More than a colloid. Curr Treat Options Gastroenterol. 2019;17(2):231-43. doi: 10.1007/s11938-019-00227-4.

3. Walayat S et al. Role of albumin in cirrhosis: from a hospitalist’s perspective. J Community Hosp Intern Med Perspect. 2017;7(1):8-14. 2017 Mar 31. doi: 10.1080/20009666.2017.1302704.

4. Runyon BA; AASLD. Introduction to the revised American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases Practice Guideline [for the] management of adult patients with ascites due to cirrhosis 2012. Hepatology. 2013 Apr;57(4):1651-3. doi: 10.1002/hep.26359.

5. European Association for the Study of the Liver. EASL Clinical Practice Guidelines for the management of patients with decompensated cirrhosis [published correction appears in J Hepatol. 2018 Nov;69(5):1207]. J Hepatol. 2018 Aug;69(2):406-60. doi: 10.1016/j.jhep.2018.03.024.

6. Guevara M et al. Albumin for bacterial infections other than spontaneous bacterial peritonitis in cirrhosis. A randomized, controlled study. J Hepatol. 2012 Oct;57(4):759-65. doi: 10.1016/j.jhep.2012.06.013.

7. Thévenot T et al. Effect of albumin in cirrhotic patients with infection other than spontaneous bacterial peritonitis. A randomized trial. J Hepatol. 2015 Apr;62(4):822-30. doi: 10.1016/j.jhep.2014.11.017.

8. Fernández J et al. Efficacy of albumin treatment for patients with cirrhosis and infections unrelated to spontaneous bacterial peritonitis. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2020 Apr;18(4):963-73.e14. doi: 10.1016/j.c gh.2019.07.055.

9. Di Pascoli M et al. Long-term administration of human albumin improves survival in patients with cirrhosis and refractory ascites. Liver Int. 2019 Jan;39(1):98-105. doi: 10.1111/liv.13968.

10. Caraceni P et al. Long-term albumin administration in decompensated cirrhosis (ANSWER): an open-label randomised trial [published correction appears in Lancet. 2018 Aug 4;392(10145):386]. Lancet. 2018 June;391(10138):2417-29. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(18)30840-7.

11. Fernández J et al. Effects of albumin treatment on systemic and portal hemodynamics and systemic inflammation in patients with decompensated cirrhosis. Gastroenterology. 2019 July;157(1):149-62. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2019.03.021.

12. Fasolato S et al. Renal failure and bacterial infections in patients with cirrhosis: Epidemiology and clinical features. Hepatology. 2007;45(1):223-9. doi: 10.1002/hep.21443.
 

Key points

• In patients with spontaneous bacterial peritonitis, hepatorenal syndrome, and for large volume paracentesis, albumin improves outcomes and is recommended by guidelines.
• In patients with cirrhosis and a non-SBP infection, there is some evidence that albumin may improve renal and circulatory function.
• Clinicians should be cautious about albumin use in patients at an elevated risk for development of pulmonary edema.

Quiz

Which of the following is not a guideline-recommended use of albumin for patients with cirrhosis?

A. Treatment of type 1 hepatorenal syndrome

B. Treatment of spontaneous bacterial peritonitis

C. To correct plasma albumin < 2.5 g/dL in nontransplant patients

D. Post large-volume paracentesis

The answer is C. Per the EASL and AASLD, A,B, and D are recommended. There is not strong evidence to support administering albumin to correct low plasma albumin.
 

Additional reading

• Bernardi M et al. Albumin in decompensated cirrhosis: new concepts and perspectives. Gut. 2020 June;69(6):1127-38. doi: 10.1136/gutjnl-2019-318843.
• Runyon BA; AASLD. Introduction to the revised American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases Practice Guideline [for the] management of adult patients with ascites due to cirrhosis 2012. Hepatology. 2013 Apr;57(4):1651-3. doi: 10.1002/hep.26359.
• Paine CH et al. Albumin in cirrhosis: More than a colloid. Curr Treat Options Gastroenterol. 2019 June;17(2):231-43. doi: 10.1007/s11938-019-00227-4.

Case

A 56 year-old male with hypertension, alcohol use disorder, stage II chronic kidney disease, and biopsy-proven cirrhosis presents with fever and chills, pyuria, flank pain, and an acute kidney injury concerning for pyelonephritis. Is there a benefit in treating with albumin in addition to guideline-based antibiotics?

fruttipics/Getty Images

Brief overview of the issue

Albumin is a negatively charged human protein produced by the liver. Albumin comprises 50% of plasma protein and over 75% of plasma oncotic pressure.¹ It was first used at Walter Reed Hospital in 1940 and subsequently for burn injuries after the attack on Pearl Harbor in 1941.²

Albumin serves several important physiologic functions including maintaining oncotic pressure, endothelial support, antioxidation, nitrogen oxide scavenging, and buffering and transport of solutes and drugs, including antibiotics. In cirrhosis, albumin is diluted due to sodium and water retention. There is increased redistribution, decreased synthesis by the liver, and impaired albumin molecule binding.³

For patients with liver disease, per the European Association for the Study of the Liver (EASL) and the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases (AASLD), albumin should be administered to prevent post paracentesis circulatory dysfunction after large volume paracentesis, to prevent renal failure and mortality in the setting of spontaneous bacterial peritonitis (SBP), and in the diagnosis and treatment of hepatorenal syndrome (HRS) type I to potentially improve mortality.^4,5 Beyond these three guideline-based indications, other uses for albumin for patients with liver disease have been proposed, including treatment of hyponatremia, posttransplant fluid resuscitation, diuretic unresponsive ascites, and long-term management of cirrhosis. There has yet to be strong evidence supporting these additional indications. However, given the known benefits of albumin in patients with SBP, there has been recent research into treatment of non-SBP infections, including urinary tract infections.
 

Overview of the data

There have been three randomized controlled trials (RCTs) regarding albumin administration for the treatment of non-SBP infections for hospitalized patients with cirrhosis. All three trials randomized patients to a treatment arm of albumin and antibiotics versus a control group of antibiotics alone. The treatment protocol prescribed 20% albumin with 1.5 g/kg on day 1 and 1.0 g/kg on day 3. The most common infections studied were pneumonia and urinary tract infection. These RCTs found that albumin administration was associated with improved renal and/or circulatory function, but not with a reduction in mortality.

First, there was a single center RCT by Guevara et al. in 2012 of 110 patients with cirrhosis and infection based on SIRS criteria.⁶ The primary outcome was 90-day survival with secondary outcomes of renal failure development, renal function at days 3,7 and 14, and circulatory function measured by plasma renin, aldosterone, and norepinephrine. Renal function and circulatory function improved in the albumin group, but not mortality. In a multivariable regression analysis, albumin was statistically predictive of survival (hazard ratio of 0.294).

Second, there was a multicenter RCT by Thévenot et al. in 2015 of 193 patients.⁷ The primary outcome was 90-day renal failure and the secondary outcome was 90-day survival. Renal failure was chosen as the primary endpoint because of its association with survival in this patient population. The treatment group had delayed onset of renal failure, but no difference in the development of 90-day renal failure or 90-day mortality rate. Notably, eight patients (8.3%) in the albumin group developed pulmonary edema with two deaths. This led the oversight committee to prematurely terminate the study.

Third and most recently, there was a multicenter RCT by Fernández et al. in 2019 of 118 patients.⁸ The primary outcome was in-hospital mortality, with secondary outcomes of circulatory dysfunction measured by plasma renin concentration, systemic inflammation measured by plasma IL-6 and biomarkers, complications including acute-on-chronic liver failure (ACLF) and nosocomial bacterial infections, and 90-day mortality. Between the albumin and control group, there were no differences in in-hospital mortality (13.1% vs. 10.5%, P > .66), inflammation, circulatory dysfunction, or liver severity. However, a significantly higher proportion of patients in the albumin group had resolution of their ACLF (82.3% vs. 33.3%, P = .003) and a lower proportion developed nosocomial infections (6.6% vs. 24.6%, P = .007). A major weakness of this study was that patients in the albumin group had a higher combined rate of ACLF and kidney dysfunction (44.3% vs. 24.6%, P = .02).

Beyond these three randomized controlled trials, there was a study on the long-term administration of albumin for patients with cirrhosis and ascites. Patients who received twice weekly albumin infusions had a lower 2-year mortality rate and a reduction in the incidence of both SBP and non-SBP infections.⁹ Another long-term study of albumin administration found similar results with greater 18-month survival and fewer non-SBP infections.¹⁰ A trial looking at inflammation in patients without bacterial infections and in biobanked samples from cirrhotic patients with bacterial infections found that treatment with albumin reduced systemic inflammation.¹¹

In summary, the three RCTs looked at comparable patients with cirrhosis and a non-SBP infection and all underwent similar treatment protocols with 20% albumin dosed at 1.5 g/kg on day 1 and 1.0 g/kg on day 3. All studies evaluated mortality in either the primary or secondary outcome, and none found significant differences in mortality between treatment and control groups. Each study also evaluated and found improvement in renal and/or circulatory function. Fernández et al. also found increased resolution of ACLF, fewer nosocomial infections, and reduction in some inflammatory markers. However, all studies had relatively small sample sizes that were underpowered to detect mortality differences. Furthermore, randomization did not lead to well-matched groups, with the treatment group patients in the Fernández study having higher rates of ACLF and kidney dysfunction.

The data suggest that albumin may be beneficial in improving renal and circulatory function. In select patients with ACLF and elevated serum creatinine, albumin treatment may be considered. There has been discussion about the use of albumin preferentially in patients with subdiaphragmatic bacterial infections, most related to increased risk of renal failure such as biliary and urinary tract infections.¹² The authors of these studies also note that albumin may be more beneficial in patients with higher baseline creatinine. Caution is warranted for patients with impaired cardiac function or poor respiratory status given the possibility of pulmonary edema. Finally, the high cost of albumin in many medical centers is a major limitation of this treatment approach.
 

Application of data to our patient

Our patient has cirrhosis and is acutely presenting with pyelonephritis and acute kidney injury. He has no baseline pulmonary disease or oxygen requirement. His recent transthoracic echocardiogram is reviewed and he has no evidence of cardiac disease.

Because he has an elevated creatinine, an infectious process associated with progressive renal failure, and is not at an elevated baseline risk of developing pulmonary edema, albumin would be reasonable to administer at 1.5 g/kg on day 1 and 1.0 g/kg on day 3 of hospitalization.
 

Bottom line

In certain patients with cirrhosis and a non-SBP infection, the use of albumin to help improve renal and circulatory function is reasonable. There is no evidence that albumin will improve mortality and caution is warranted for patients at risk for pulmonary edema.

Dr. Rambachan is an academic hospital medicine fellow at the University of California, San Francisco.

References

1. Caironi P and Gattinoni L. The clinical use of albumin: the point of view of a specialist in intensive care. Blood Transfus. 2009;7(4):259-67. doi: 10.2450/2009.0002-09.

2. Paine CH et al. Albumin in cirrhosis: More than a colloid. Curr Treat Options Gastroenterol. 2019;17(2):231-43. doi: 10.1007/s11938-019-00227-4.

3. Walayat S et al. Role of albumin in cirrhosis: from a hospitalist’s perspective. J Community Hosp Intern Med Perspect. 2017;7(1):8-14. 2017 Mar 31. doi: 10.1080/20009666.2017.1302704.

4. Runyon BA; AASLD. Introduction to the revised American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases Practice Guideline [for the] management of adult patients with ascites due to cirrhosis 2012. Hepatology. 2013 Apr;57(4):1651-3. doi: 10.1002/hep.26359.

5. European Association for the Study of the Liver. EASL Clinical Practice Guidelines for the management of patients with decompensated cirrhosis [published correction appears in J Hepatol. 2018 Nov;69(5):1207]. J Hepatol. 2018 Aug;69(2):406-60. doi: 10.1016/j.jhep.2018.03.024.

6. Guevara M et al. Albumin for bacterial infections other than spontaneous bacterial peritonitis in cirrhosis. A randomized, controlled study. J Hepatol. 2012 Oct;57(4):759-65. doi: 10.1016/j.jhep.2012.06.013.

7. Thévenot T et al. Effect of albumin in cirrhotic patients with infection other than spontaneous bacterial peritonitis. A randomized trial. J Hepatol. 2015 Apr;62(4):822-30. doi: 10.1016/j.jhep.2014.11.017.

8. Fernández J et al. Efficacy of albumin treatment for patients with cirrhosis and infections unrelated to spontaneous bacterial peritonitis. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2020 Apr;18(4):963-73.e14. doi: 10.1016/j.c gh.2019.07.055.

9. Di Pascoli M et al. Long-term administration of human albumin improves survival in patients with cirrhosis and refractory ascites. Liver Int. 2019 Jan;39(1):98-105. doi: 10.1111/liv.13968.

10. Caraceni P et al. Long-term albumin administration in decompensated cirrhosis (ANSWER): an open-label randomised trial [published correction appears in Lancet. 2018 Aug 4;392(10145):386]. Lancet. 2018 June;391(10138):2417-29. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(18)30840-7.

11. Fernández J et al. Effects of albumin treatment on systemic and portal hemodynamics and systemic inflammation in patients with decompensated cirrhosis. Gastroenterology. 2019 July;157(1):149-62. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2019.03.021.

12. Fasolato S et al. Renal failure and bacterial infections in patients with cirrhosis: Epidemiology and clinical features. Hepatology. 2007;45(1):223-9. doi: 10.1002/hep.21443.
 

Key points

• In patients with spontaneous bacterial peritonitis, hepatorenal syndrome, and for large volume paracentesis, albumin improves outcomes and is recommended by guidelines.
• In patients with cirrhosis and a non-SBP infection, there is some evidence that albumin may improve renal and circulatory function.
• Clinicians should be cautious about albumin use in patients at an elevated risk for development of pulmonary edema.

Quiz

Which of the following is not a guideline-recommended use of albumin for patients with cirrhosis?

A. Treatment of type 1 hepatorenal syndrome

B. Treatment of spontaneous bacterial peritonitis

C. To correct plasma albumin < 2.5 g/dL in nontransplant patients

D. Post large-volume paracentesis

The answer is C. Per the EASL and AASLD, A,B, and D are recommended. There is not strong evidence to support administering albumin to correct low plasma albumin.
 

Additional reading

• Bernardi M et al. Albumin in decompensated cirrhosis: new concepts and perspectives. Gut. 2020 June;69(6):1127-38. doi: 10.1136/gutjnl-2019-318843.
• Runyon BA; AASLD. Introduction to the revised American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases Practice Guideline [for the] management of adult patients with ascites due to cirrhosis 2012. Hepatology. 2013 Apr;57(4):1651-3. doi: 10.1002/hep.26359.
• Paine CH et al. Albumin in cirrhosis: More than a colloid. Curr Treat Options Gastroenterol. 2019 June;17(2):231-43. doi: 10.1007/s11938-019-00227-4.

Case

A 56 year-old male with hypertension, alcohol use disorder, stage II chronic kidney disease, and biopsy-proven cirrhosis presents with fever and chills, pyuria, flank pain, and an acute kidney injury concerning for pyelonephritis. Is there a benefit in treating with albumin in addition to guideline-based antibiotics?

fruttipics/Getty Images

Brief overview of the issue

Albumin is a negatively charged human protein produced by the liver. Albumin comprises 50% of plasma protein and over 75% of plasma oncotic pressure.¹ It was first used at Walter Reed Hospital in 1940 and subsequently for burn injuries after the attack on Pearl Harbor in 1941.²

Albumin serves several important physiologic functions including maintaining oncotic pressure, endothelial support, antioxidation, nitrogen oxide scavenging, and buffering and transport of solutes and drugs, including antibiotics. In cirrhosis, albumin is diluted due to sodium and water retention. There is increased redistribution, decreased synthesis by the liver, and impaired albumin molecule binding.³

For patients with liver disease, per the European Association for the Study of the Liver (EASL) and the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases (AASLD), albumin should be administered to prevent post paracentesis circulatory dysfunction after large volume paracentesis, to prevent renal failure and mortality in the setting of spontaneous bacterial peritonitis (SBP), and in the diagnosis and treatment of hepatorenal syndrome (HRS) type I to potentially improve mortality.^4,5 Beyond these three guideline-based indications, other uses for albumin for patients with liver disease have been proposed, including treatment of hyponatremia, posttransplant fluid resuscitation, diuretic unresponsive ascites, and long-term management of cirrhosis. There has yet to be strong evidence supporting these additional indications. However, given the known benefits of albumin in patients with SBP, there has been recent research into treatment of non-SBP infections, including urinary tract infections.
 

Overview of the data

There have been three randomized controlled trials (RCTs) regarding albumin administration for the treatment of non-SBP infections for hospitalized patients with cirrhosis. All three trials randomized patients to a treatment arm of albumin and antibiotics versus a control group of antibiotics alone. The treatment protocol prescribed 20% albumin with 1.5 g/kg on day 1 and 1.0 g/kg on day 3. The most common infections studied were pneumonia and urinary tract infection. These RCTs found that albumin administration was associated with improved renal and/or circulatory function, but not with a reduction in mortality.

First, there was a single center RCT by Guevara et al. in 2012 of 110 patients with cirrhosis and infection based on SIRS criteria.⁶ The primary outcome was 90-day survival with secondary outcomes of renal failure development, renal function at days 3,7 and 14, and circulatory function measured by plasma renin, aldosterone, and norepinephrine. Renal function and circulatory function improved in the albumin group, but not mortality. In a multivariable regression analysis, albumin was statistically predictive of survival (hazard ratio of 0.294).

Second, there was a multicenter RCT by Thévenot et al. in 2015 of 193 patients.⁷ The primary outcome was 90-day renal failure and the secondary outcome was 90-day survival. Renal failure was chosen as the primary endpoint because of its association with survival in this patient population. The treatment group had delayed onset of renal failure, but no difference in the development of 90-day renal failure or 90-day mortality rate. Notably, eight patients (8.3%) in the albumin group developed pulmonary edema with two deaths. This led the oversight committee to prematurely terminate the study.

Third and most recently, there was a multicenter RCT by Fernández et al. in 2019 of 118 patients.⁸ The primary outcome was in-hospital mortality, with secondary outcomes of circulatory dysfunction measured by plasma renin concentration, systemic inflammation measured by plasma IL-6 and biomarkers, complications including acute-on-chronic liver failure (ACLF) and nosocomial bacterial infections, and 90-day mortality. Between the albumin and control group, there were no differences in in-hospital mortality (13.1% vs. 10.5%, P > .66), inflammation, circulatory dysfunction, or liver severity. However, a significantly higher proportion of patients in the albumin group had resolution of their ACLF (82.3% vs. 33.3%, P = .003) and a lower proportion developed nosocomial infections (6.6% vs. 24.6%, P = .007). A major weakness of this study was that patients in the albumin group had a higher combined rate of ACLF and kidney dysfunction (44.3% vs. 24.6%, P = .02).

Beyond these three randomized controlled trials, there was a study on the long-term administration of albumin for patients with cirrhosis and ascites. Patients who received twice weekly albumin infusions had a lower 2-year mortality rate and a reduction in the incidence of both SBP and non-SBP infections.⁹ Another long-term study of albumin administration found similar results with greater 18-month survival and fewer non-SBP infections.¹⁰ A trial looking at inflammation in patients without bacterial infections and in biobanked samples from cirrhotic patients with bacterial infections found that treatment with albumin reduced systemic inflammation.¹¹

In summary, the three RCTs looked at comparable patients with cirrhosis and a non-SBP infection and all underwent similar treatment protocols with 20% albumin dosed at 1.5 g/kg on day 1 and 1.0 g/kg on day 3. All studies evaluated mortality in either the primary or secondary outcome, and none found significant differences in mortality between treatment and control groups. Each study also evaluated and found improvement in renal and/or circulatory function. Fernández et al. also found increased resolution of ACLF, fewer nosocomial infections, and reduction in some inflammatory markers. However, all studies had relatively small sample sizes that were underpowered to detect mortality differences. Furthermore, randomization did not lead to well-matched groups, with the treatment group patients in the Fernández study having higher rates of ACLF and kidney dysfunction.

The data suggest that albumin may be beneficial in improving renal and circulatory function. In select patients with ACLF and elevated serum creatinine, albumin treatment may be considered. There has been discussion about the use of albumin preferentially in patients with subdiaphragmatic bacterial infections, most related to increased risk of renal failure such as biliary and urinary tract infections.¹² The authors of these studies also note that albumin may be more beneficial in patients with higher baseline creatinine. Caution is warranted for patients with impaired cardiac function or poor respiratory status given the possibility of pulmonary edema. Finally, the high cost of albumin in many medical centers is a major limitation of this treatment approach.
 

Application of data to our patient

Our patient has cirrhosis and is acutely presenting with pyelonephritis and acute kidney injury. He has no baseline pulmonary disease or oxygen requirement. His recent transthoracic echocardiogram is reviewed and he has no evidence of cardiac disease.

Because he has an elevated creatinine, an infectious process associated with progressive renal failure, and is not at an elevated baseline risk of developing pulmonary edema, albumin would be reasonable to administer at 1.5 g/kg on day 1 and 1.0 g/kg on day 3 of hospitalization.
 

Bottom line

In certain patients with cirrhosis and a non-SBP infection, the use of albumin to help improve renal and circulatory function is reasonable. There is no evidence that albumin will improve mortality and caution is warranted for patients at risk for pulmonary edema.

Dr. Rambachan is an academic hospital medicine fellow at the University of California, San Francisco.

References

1. Caironi P and Gattinoni L. The clinical use of albumin: the point of view of a specialist in intensive care. Blood Transfus. 2009;7(4):259-67. doi: 10.2450/2009.0002-09.

2. Paine CH et al. Albumin in cirrhosis: More than a colloid. Curr Treat Options Gastroenterol. 2019;17(2):231-43. doi: 10.1007/s11938-019-00227-4.

3. Walayat S et al. Role of albumin in cirrhosis: from a hospitalist’s perspective. J Community Hosp Intern Med Perspect. 2017;7(1):8-14. 2017 Mar 31. doi: 10.1080/20009666.2017.1302704.

4. Runyon BA; AASLD. Introduction to the revised American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases Practice Guideline [for the] management of adult patients with ascites due to cirrhosis 2012. Hepatology. 2013 Apr;57(4):1651-3. doi: 10.1002/hep.26359.

5. European Association for the Study of the Liver. EASL Clinical Practice Guidelines for the management of patients with decompensated cirrhosis [published correction appears in J Hepatol. 2018 Nov;69(5):1207]. J Hepatol. 2018 Aug;69(2):406-60. doi: 10.1016/j.jhep.2018.03.024.

6. Guevara M et al. Albumin for bacterial infections other than spontaneous bacterial peritonitis in cirrhosis. A randomized, controlled study. J Hepatol. 2012 Oct;57(4):759-65. doi: 10.1016/j.jhep.2012.06.013.

7. Thévenot T et al. Effect of albumin in cirrhotic patients with infection other than spontaneous bacterial peritonitis. A randomized trial. J Hepatol. 2015 Apr;62(4):822-30. doi: 10.1016/j.jhep.2014.11.017.

8. Fernández J et al. Efficacy of albumin treatment for patients with cirrhosis and infections unrelated to spontaneous bacterial peritonitis. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2020 Apr;18(4):963-73.e14. doi: 10.1016/j.c gh.2019.07.055.

9. Di Pascoli M et al. Long-term administration of human albumin improves survival in patients with cirrhosis and refractory ascites. Liver Int. 2019 Jan;39(1):98-105. doi: 10.1111/liv.13968.

10. Caraceni P et al. Long-term albumin administration in decompensated cirrhosis (ANSWER): an open-label randomised trial [published correction appears in Lancet. 2018 Aug 4;392(10145):386]. Lancet. 2018 June;391(10138):2417-29. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(18)30840-7.

11. Fernández J et al. Effects of albumin treatment on systemic and portal hemodynamics and systemic inflammation in patients with decompensated cirrhosis. Gastroenterology. 2019 July;157(1):149-62. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2019.03.021.

12. Fasolato S et al. Renal failure and bacterial infections in patients with cirrhosis: Epidemiology and clinical features. Hepatology. 2007;45(1):223-9. doi: 10.1002/hep.21443.
 

Key points

• In patients with spontaneous bacterial peritonitis, hepatorenal syndrome, and for large volume paracentesis, albumin improves outcomes and is recommended by guidelines.
• In patients with cirrhosis and a non-SBP infection, there is some evidence that albumin may improve renal and circulatory function.
• Clinicians should be cautious about albumin use in patients at an elevated risk for development of pulmonary edema.

Quiz

Which of the following is not a guideline-recommended use of albumin for patients with cirrhosis?

A. Treatment of type 1 hepatorenal syndrome

B. Treatment of spontaneous bacterial peritonitis

C. To correct plasma albumin < 2.5 g/dL in nontransplant patients

D. Post large-volume paracentesis

The answer is C. Per the EASL and AASLD, A,B, and D are recommended. There is not strong evidence to support administering albumin to correct low plasma albumin.
 

Additional reading

• Bernardi M et al. Albumin in decompensated cirrhosis: new concepts and perspectives. Gut. 2020 June;69(6):1127-38. doi: 10.1136/gutjnl-2019-318843.
• Runyon BA; AASLD. Introduction to the revised American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases Practice Guideline [for the] management of adult patients with ascites due to cirrhosis 2012. Hepatology. 2013 Apr;57(4):1651-3. doi: 10.1002/hep.26359.
• Paine CH et al. Albumin in cirrhosis: More than a colloid. Curr Treat Options Gastroenterol. 2019 June;17(2):231-43. doi: 10.1007/s11938-019-00227-4.

A second consecutive week of falling COVID-19 cases in children, along with continued declines in new admissions, may indicate that the latest surge has peaked.

New child cases totaled 226,000 for the week of Sept. 10-16, down from 243,000 the previous week and from a pandemic high of 252,000 just 2 weeks earlier. Children made up over 25% of all new cases each week over that 3-week period covering the end of August and the first half of September, according to a report from the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Children’s Hospital Association.

New hospitalizations in children aged 0-17 years peaked on Sept. 4 – when the rate reached 0.51 per 100,000 population – and were down to 0.47 as of Sept. 11, the latest date for which data should be considered reliable, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention said.

The CDC’s data largely agree with the AAP/CHA report, showing that cases peaked during the week of Aug. 22-28. Cases per 100,000 for children that week looked like this: 154.7 (age 0-4 years), 276.6 (5-11 years), 320.0 (12-15), and 334.1 (16-17). The highest rates that week among adults were 288.6 per 100,000 in 30- to 39-year-olds and 286.5 for those aged 18-29, the CDC said on its COVID Data Tracker.

By the week of Sept. 5-11 – reporting delays can affect more recent data – the rates in children were down more than 20% in each of the four age groups, according to the CDC.

Vaccinations among children, unfortunately, continue to decline. Vaccine initiations for 12- to 15-year-olds slipped from 199,000 (Sept. 7-13) to 179,000 during the week of Sept. 14-20, while the 16- to 17-year-olds went from almost 83,000 down to 75,000. Initiations have dropped for 6 straight weeks in both age groups, based on the CDC data.

Despite those declines, however, the 16- and 17-year-olds just passed a couple of vaccination milestones. More than 60% – 60.9%, to be exact – have now received at least one dose of COVID vaccine, and 50.3% can be considered fully vaccinated. For those aged 12-15, the corresponding figures are 53.1% and 42.0%, the CDC reported.

When children under age 12 years are included – through clinical trial involvement or incorrect birth dates – the CDC data put the total count of Americans under age 18 who have received at least one dose of vaccine at almost 12.8 million, with vaccination complete in 10.3 million.

Total cases, as calculated by the APA and CHA, are now over 5.5 million, although that figure includes cases in individuals as old as 20 years, since many states differ from the CDC on the age range for a child. The CDC’s COVID Data Tracker put the total for children aged 0-17 at nearly 4.6 million.

The total number of COVID-related deaths in children is 480 as of Sept. 16, the AAP and CHA said, based on data from 45 states, New York, City, Puerto Rico, and Guam, but the CDC provides a higher number, 548, since the pandemic began. Children aged 0-4 years represent the largest share (32.3%) of those 548 deaths, followed by the 12- to 15-year-olds (26.5%), based on the CDC data.

[email protected]

A second consecutive week of falling COVID-19 cases in children, along with continued declines in new admissions, may indicate that the latest surge has peaked.

New child cases totaled 226,000 for the week of Sept. 10-16, down from 243,000 the previous week and from a pandemic high of 252,000 just 2 weeks earlier. Children made up over 25% of all new cases each week over that 3-week period covering the end of August and the first half of September, according to a report from the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Children’s Hospital Association.

New hospitalizations in children aged 0-17 years peaked on Sept. 4 – when the rate reached 0.51 per 100,000 population – and were down to 0.47 as of Sept. 11, the latest date for which data should be considered reliable, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention said.

The CDC’s data largely agree with the AAP/CHA report, showing that cases peaked during the week of Aug. 22-28. Cases per 100,000 for children that week looked like this: 154.7 (age 0-4 years), 276.6 (5-11 years), 320.0 (12-15), and 334.1 (16-17). The highest rates that week among adults were 288.6 per 100,000 in 30- to 39-year-olds and 286.5 for those aged 18-29, the CDC said on its COVID Data Tracker.

By the week of Sept. 5-11 – reporting delays can affect more recent data – the rates in children were down more than 20% in each of the four age groups, according to the CDC.

Vaccinations among children, unfortunately, continue to decline. Vaccine initiations for 12- to 15-year-olds slipped from 199,000 (Sept. 7-13) to 179,000 during the week of Sept. 14-20, while the 16- to 17-year-olds went from almost 83,000 down to 75,000. Initiations have dropped for 6 straight weeks in both age groups, based on the CDC data.

Despite those declines, however, the 16- and 17-year-olds just passed a couple of vaccination milestones. More than 60% – 60.9%, to be exact – have now received at least one dose of COVID vaccine, and 50.3% can be considered fully vaccinated. For those aged 12-15, the corresponding figures are 53.1% and 42.0%, the CDC reported.

When children under age 12 years are included – through clinical trial involvement or incorrect birth dates – the CDC data put the total count of Americans under age 18 who have received at least one dose of vaccine at almost 12.8 million, with vaccination complete in 10.3 million.

Total cases, as calculated by the APA and CHA, are now over 5.5 million, although that figure includes cases in individuals as old as 20 years, since many states differ from the CDC on the age range for a child. The CDC’s COVID Data Tracker put the total for children aged 0-17 at nearly 4.6 million.

The total number of COVID-related deaths in children is 480 as of Sept. 16, the AAP and CHA said, based on data from 45 states, New York, City, Puerto Rico, and Guam, but the CDC provides a higher number, 548, since the pandemic began. Children aged 0-4 years represent the largest share (32.3%) of those 548 deaths, followed by the 12- to 15-year-olds (26.5%), based on the CDC data.

[email protected]

A second consecutive week of falling COVID-19 cases in children, along with continued declines in new admissions, may indicate that the latest surge has peaked.

New child cases totaled 226,000 for the week of Sept. 10-16, down from 243,000 the previous week and from a pandemic high of 252,000 just 2 weeks earlier. Children made up over 25% of all new cases each week over that 3-week period covering the end of August and the first half of September, according to a report from the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Children’s Hospital Association.

New hospitalizations in children aged 0-17 years peaked on Sept. 4 – when the rate reached 0.51 per 100,000 population – and were down to 0.47 as of Sept. 11, the latest date for which data should be considered reliable, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention said.

The CDC’s data largely agree with the AAP/CHA report, showing that cases peaked during the week of Aug. 22-28. Cases per 100,000 for children that week looked like this: 154.7 (age 0-4 years), 276.6 (5-11 years), 320.0 (12-15), and 334.1 (16-17). The highest rates that week among adults were 288.6 per 100,000 in 30- to 39-year-olds and 286.5 for those aged 18-29, the CDC said on its COVID Data Tracker.

By the week of Sept. 5-11 – reporting delays can affect more recent data – the rates in children were down more than 20% in each of the four age groups, according to the CDC.

Vaccinations among children, unfortunately, continue to decline. Vaccine initiations for 12- to 15-year-olds slipped from 199,000 (Sept. 7-13) to 179,000 during the week of Sept. 14-20, while the 16- to 17-year-olds went from almost 83,000 down to 75,000. Initiations have dropped for 6 straight weeks in both age groups, based on the CDC data.

Despite those declines, however, the 16- and 17-year-olds just passed a couple of vaccination milestones. More than 60% – 60.9%, to be exact – have now received at least one dose of COVID vaccine, and 50.3% can be considered fully vaccinated. For those aged 12-15, the corresponding figures are 53.1% and 42.0%, the CDC reported.

When children under age 12 years are included – through clinical trial involvement or incorrect birth dates – the CDC data put the total count of Americans under age 18 who have received at least one dose of vaccine at almost 12.8 million, with vaccination complete in 10.3 million.

Total cases, as calculated by the APA and CHA, are now over 5.5 million, although that figure includes cases in individuals as old as 20 years, since many states differ from the CDC on the age range for a child. The CDC’s COVID Data Tracker put the total for children aged 0-17 at nearly 4.6 million.

The total number of COVID-related deaths in children is 480 as of Sept. 16, the AAP and CHA said, based on data from 45 states, New York, City, Puerto Rico, and Guam, but the CDC provides a higher number, 548, since the pandemic began. Children aged 0-4 years represent the largest share (32.3%) of those 548 deaths, followed by the 12- to 15-year-olds (26.5%), based on the CDC data.

[email protected]

I began thinking of a topic for this column weeks ago determined to discuss anything except COVID-19. Yet, news reports from all sources blasted daily reminders of rising COVID-19 cases overall and specifically in children.

In August, school resumed for many of our patients and the battle over mandating masks for school attendance was in full swing. The fact that it is a Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommendation supported by both the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Pediatric Infectious Disease Society fell on deaf ears. One day, I heard a report that over 25,000 students attending Texas public schools were diagnosed with COVID-19 between Aug. 23 and Aug. 29. This peak in activity occurred just 2 weeks after the start of school and led to the closure of 45 school districts. Texas does not have a monopoly on these rising cases. Delta, a more contagious variant, began circulating in June 2021 and by July it was the most predominant. Emergency department visits and hospitalizations have increased nationwide. During the latter 2 weeks of August 2021, COVID-19–related ED visits and hospitalizations for persons aged 0-17 years were 3.4 and 3.7 times higher in states with the lowest vaccination coverage, compared with states with high vaccination coverage (MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2021;70:1249-54). Specifically, the rates of hospitalization the week ending Aug. 14, 2021, were nearly 5 times the rates for the week ending June 26, 2021, for 0- to 17-year-olds and nearly 10 times the rates for children 0-4 years of age. Hospitalization rates were 10.1 times higher for unimmunized adolescents than for fully vaccinated ones (MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2021;70:1255-60).

Multiple elected state leaders have opposed interventions such as mandating masks in school, and our children are paying for it. These leaders have relinquished their responsibility to local school boards. Several have reinforced the no-mask mandate while others have had the courage and insight to ignore state government leaders and have established mask mandates.

How is this lack of enforcement of national recommendations affecting our patients? Let’s look at two neighboring school districts in Texas. School districts have COVID-19 dashboards that are updated daily and accessible to the general public. School District A requires masks for school entry. It serves 196,171 students and has 27,195 teachers and staff. Since school opened in August, 1,606 cumulative cases of COVID-19 in students (0.8%) and 282 in staff (1%) have been reported. Fifty-five percent of the student cases occurred in elementary schools. In contrast, School District B located in the adjacent county serves 64,517 students and has 3,906 teachers and staff with no mask mandate. Since August, there have been 4,506 cumulative COVID-19 cases in students (6.9%) and 578 (14.7%) in staff. Information regarding the specific school type was not provided; however, the dashboard indicates that 2,924 cases (64.8%) occurred in children younger than 11 years of age. County data indicate 62% of those older than 12 years of age were fully vaccinated in District A, compared with 54% of persons older than 12 years in District B. The county COVID-19 positivity rate in District A is 17.6% and in District B it is 20%. Both counties are experiencing increased COVID-19 activity yet have had strikingly different outcomes in the student/staff population. While supporting the case for wearing masks to prevent disease transmission, one can’t ignore the adolescents who were infected and vaccine eligible (District A: 706; District B: 1,582). Their vaccination status could not be determined.

As pediatricians we have played an integral part in the elimination of diseases through educating and administering vaccinations. Adolescents are relatively healthy, thus limiting the number of encounters with them. The majority complete the 11-year visit; however, many fail to return for the 16- to 18-year visit.

So how are we doing? CDC data from 10 U.S. jurisdictions demonstrated a substantial decrease in vaccine administration between March and May of 2020, compared with the same period in 2018 and 2019. A decline was anticipated because of the nationwide lockdown. Doses of HPV administered declined almost 64% and 71% for 9- to 12-year-olds and 13- to 17-year-olds, respectively. Tdap administration declined 66% and 61% for the same respective age groups. Although administered doses increased between June and September of 2020, it was not sufficient to achieve catch-up coverage. Compared to the same period in 2018-2019, administration of the HPV vaccine declined 12.8% and 28% (ages 9-12 and ages 13-17) and for Tdap it was 21% and 30% lower (ages 9-12 and ages 13-17) (MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2021;70:840-5).

Now, we have another adolescent vaccine to discuss and encourage our patients to receive. We also need to address their concerns and/or to at least direct them to a reliable source to obtain accurate information. For the first time, a recommended vaccine may not be available at their medical home. Many don’t know where to go to receive it (http://www.vaccines.gov). Results of a Kaiser Family Foundation COVID-19 survey (August 2021) indicated that parents trusted their pediatricians most often (78%) for vaccine advice. The respondents voiced concern about trusting the location where the child would be immunized and long-term effects especially related to fertility. Parents who received communications regarding the benefits of vaccination were twice as likely to have their adolescents immunized. Finally, remember: Like parent, like child. An immunized parent is more likely to immunize the adolescent. (See Fig. 1.)

Dr. Word is a pediatric infectious disease specialist and director of the Houston Travel Medicine Clinic. She said she had no relevant financial disclosures.

I began thinking of a topic for this column weeks ago determined to discuss anything except COVID-19. Yet, news reports from all sources blasted daily reminders of rising COVID-19 cases overall and specifically in children.

In August, school resumed for many of our patients and the battle over mandating masks for school attendance was in full swing. The fact that it is a Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommendation supported by both the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Pediatric Infectious Disease Society fell on deaf ears. One day, I heard a report that over 25,000 students attending Texas public schools were diagnosed with COVID-19 between Aug. 23 and Aug. 29. This peak in activity occurred just 2 weeks after the start of school and led to the closure of 45 school districts. Texas does not have a monopoly on these rising cases. Delta, a more contagious variant, began circulating in June 2021 and by July it was the most predominant. Emergency department visits and hospitalizations have increased nationwide. During the latter 2 weeks of August 2021, COVID-19–related ED visits and hospitalizations for persons aged 0-17 years were 3.4 and 3.7 times higher in states with the lowest vaccination coverage, compared with states with high vaccination coverage (MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2021;70:1249-54). Specifically, the rates of hospitalization the week ending Aug. 14, 2021, were nearly 5 times the rates for the week ending June 26, 2021, for 0- to 17-year-olds and nearly 10 times the rates for children 0-4 years of age. Hospitalization rates were 10.1 times higher for unimmunized adolescents than for fully vaccinated ones (MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2021;70:1255-60).

Multiple elected state leaders have opposed interventions such as mandating masks in school, and our children are paying for it. These leaders have relinquished their responsibility to local school boards. Several have reinforced the no-mask mandate while others have had the courage and insight to ignore state government leaders and have established mask mandates.

How is this lack of enforcement of national recommendations affecting our patients? Let’s look at two neighboring school districts in Texas. School districts have COVID-19 dashboards that are updated daily and accessible to the general public. School District A requires masks for school entry. It serves 196,171 students and has 27,195 teachers and staff. Since school opened in August, 1,606 cumulative cases of COVID-19 in students (0.8%) and 282 in staff (1%) have been reported. Fifty-five percent of the student cases occurred in elementary schools. In contrast, School District B located in the adjacent county serves 64,517 students and has 3,906 teachers and staff with no mask mandate. Since August, there have been 4,506 cumulative COVID-19 cases in students (6.9%) and 578 (14.7%) in staff. Information regarding the specific school type was not provided; however, the dashboard indicates that 2,924 cases (64.8%) occurred in children younger than 11 years of age. County data indicate 62% of those older than 12 years of age were fully vaccinated in District A, compared with 54% of persons older than 12 years in District B. The county COVID-19 positivity rate in District A is 17.6% and in District B it is 20%. Both counties are experiencing increased COVID-19 activity yet have had strikingly different outcomes in the student/staff population. While supporting the case for wearing masks to prevent disease transmission, one can’t ignore the adolescents who were infected and vaccine eligible (District A: 706; District B: 1,582). Their vaccination status could not be determined.

As pediatricians we have played an integral part in the elimination of diseases through educating and administering vaccinations. Adolescents are relatively healthy, thus limiting the number of encounters with them. The majority complete the 11-year visit; however, many fail to return for the 16- to 18-year visit.

So how are we doing? CDC data from 10 U.S. jurisdictions demonstrated a substantial decrease in vaccine administration between March and May of 2020, compared with the same period in 2018 and 2019. A decline was anticipated because of the nationwide lockdown. Doses of HPV administered declined almost 64% and 71% for 9- to 12-year-olds and 13- to 17-year-olds, respectively. Tdap administration declined 66% and 61% for the same respective age groups. Although administered doses increased between June and September of 2020, it was not sufficient to achieve catch-up coverage. Compared to the same period in 2018-2019, administration of the HPV vaccine declined 12.8% and 28% (ages 9-12 and ages 13-17) and for Tdap it was 21% and 30% lower (ages 9-12 and ages 13-17) (MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2021;70:840-5).

Now, we have another adolescent vaccine to discuss and encourage our patients to receive. We also need to address their concerns and/or to at least direct them to a reliable source to obtain accurate information. For the first time, a recommended vaccine may not be available at their medical home. Many don’t know where to go to receive it (http://www.vaccines.gov). Results of a Kaiser Family Foundation COVID-19 survey (August 2021) indicated that parents trusted their pediatricians most often (78%) for vaccine advice. The respondents voiced concern about trusting the location where the child would be immunized and long-term effects especially related to fertility. Parents who received communications regarding the benefits of vaccination were twice as likely to have their adolescents immunized. Finally, remember: Like parent, like child. An immunized parent is more likely to immunize the adolescent. (See Fig. 1.)

Dr. Word is a pediatric infectious disease specialist and director of the Houston Travel Medicine Clinic. She said she had no relevant financial disclosures.

I began thinking of a topic for this column weeks ago determined to discuss anything except COVID-19. Yet, news reports from all sources blasted daily reminders of rising COVID-19 cases overall and specifically in children.

In August, school resumed for many of our patients and the battle over mandating masks for school attendance was in full swing. The fact that it is a Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommendation supported by both the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Pediatric Infectious Disease Society fell on deaf ears. One day, I heard a report that over 25,000 students attending Texas public schools were diagnosed with COVID-19 between Aug. 23 and Aug. 29. This peak in activity occurred just 2 weeks after the start of school and led to the closure of 45 school districts. Texas does not have a monopoly on these rising cases. Delta, a more contagious variant, began circulating in June 2021 and by July it was the most predominant. Emergency department visits and hospitalizations have increased nationwide. During the latter 2 weeks of August 2021, COVID-19–related ED visits and hospitalizations for persons aged 0-17 years were 3.4 and 3.7 times higher in states with the lowest vaccination coverage, compared with states with high vaccination coverage (MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2021;70:1249-54). Specifically, the rates of hospitalization the week ending Aug. 14, 2021, were nearly 5 times the rates for the week ending June 26, 2021, for 0- to 17-year-olds and nearly 10 times the rates for children 0-4 years of age. Hospitalization rates were 10.1 times higher for unimmunized adolescents than for fully vaccinated ones (MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2021;70:1255-60).

Multiple elected state leaders have opposed interventions such as mandating masks in school, and our children are paying for it. These leaders have relinquished their responsibility to local school boards. Several have reinforced the no-mask mandate while others have had the courage and insight to ignore state government leaders and have established mask mandates.

How is this lack of enforcement of national recommendations affecting our patients? Let’s look at two neighboring school districts in Texas. School districts have COVID-19 dashboards that are updated daily and accessible to the general public. School District A requires masks for school entry. It serves 196,171 students and has 27,195 teachers and staff. Since school opened in August, 1,606 cumulative cases of COVID-19 in students (0.8%) and 282 in staff (1%) have been reported. Fifty-five percent of the student cases occurred in elementary schools. In contrast, School District B located in the adjacent county serves 64,517 students and has 3,906 teachers and staff with no mask mandate. Since August, there have been 4,506 cumulative COVID-19 cases in students (6.9%) and 578 (14.7%) in staff. Information regarding the specific school type was not provided; however, the dashboard indicates that 2,924 cases (64.8%) occurred in children younger than 11 years of age. County data indicate 62% of those older than 12 years of age were fully vaccinated in District A, compared with 54% of persons older than 12 years in District B. The county COVID-19 positivity rate in District A is 17.6% and in District B it is 20%. Both counties are experiencing increased COVID-19 activity yet have had strikingly different outcomes in the student/staff population. While supporting the case for wearing masks to prevent disease transmission, one can’t ignore the adolescents who were infected and vaccine eligible (District A: 706; District B: 1,582). Their vaccination status could not be determined.

As pediatricians we have played an integral part in the elimination of diseases through educating and administering vaccinations. Adolescents are relatively healthy, thus limiting the number of encounters with them. The majority complete the 11-year visit; however, many fail to return for the 16- to 18-year visit.

So how are we doing? CDC data from 10 U.S. jurisdictions demonstrated a substantial decrease in vaccine administration between March and May of 2020, compared with the same period in 2018 and 2019. A decline was anticipated because of the nationwide lockdown. Doses of HPV administered declined almost 64% and 71% for 9- to 12-year-olds and 13- to 17-year-olds, respectively. Tdap administration declined 66% and 61% for the same respective age groups. Although administered doses increased between June and September of 2020, it was not sufficient to achieve catch-up coverage. Compared to the same period in 2018-2019, administration of the HPV vaccine declined 12.8% and 28% (ages 9-12 and ages 13-17) and for Tdap it was 21% and 30% lower (ages 9-12 and ages 13-17) (MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2021;70:840-5).

Now, we have another adolescent vaccine to discuss and encourage our patients to receive. We also need to address their concerns and/or to at least direct them to a reliable source to obtain accurate information. For the first time, a recommended vaccine may not be available at their medical home. Many don’t know where to go to receive it (http://www.vaccines.gov). Results of a Kaiser Family Foundation COVID-19 survey (August 2021) indicated that parents trusted their pediatricians most often (78%) for vaccine advice. The respondents voiced concern about trusting the location where the child would be immunized and long-term effects especially related to fertility. Parents who received communications regarding the benefits of vaccination were twice as likely to have their adolescents immunized. Finally, remember: Like parent, like child. An immunized parent is more likely to immunize the adolescent. (See Fig. 1.)

Dr. Word is a pediatric infectious disease specialist and director of the Houston Travel Medicine Clinic. She said she had no relevant financial disclosures.

More than one-quarter of patients undergoing dermatologic surgery said they would prefer not to take an oral antibiotic, even if it could eliminate the risk of a surgical-site infection (SSI) and had negligible side effects, in a prospective multicenter study.

In addition, a similar proportion of patients preferred to take an antibiotic if there was no SSI reduction and a high risk of adverse events.

Those are two key findings from the study aimed at understanding patient preferences for prophylactic oral antibiotic use following dermatologic surgery, which was published in Dermatologic Surgery.

“Patient risk-benefit thresholds for using antibiotics vary considerably,” the study’s corresponding author, Jeremy R. Etzkorn, MD, MS, of the department of dermatology at the Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, told this news organization. “Physicians should appreciate and consider the variation between patients before deciding to send in a prescription after skin surgery.”

To investigate patient preferences about taking antibiotics to prevent SSI relative to antibiotic efficacy and antibiotic-associated adverse drug reactions, Dr. Etzkorn and colleagues at six U.S. medical centers prospectively administered a web-based survey and discrete choice experiment to 388 adults including dermatologic surgery patients and their family members, as well as health care workers (defined as dermatologic surgery patients who work in health care, individuals who work in health care and are accompanying patients to their surgery, or staff in the dermatology clinic.) “A lot has been published about physician preferences and practice patterns with respect to antibiotic prescribing after dermatologic surgery,” Dr. Etzkorn noted. “This is the first study to evaluate patient preferences in a rigorous way.”

He and his coinvestigators used a technique from marketing and product research (conjoint analysis/discrete choice experiments) to quantify what patients think about using antibiotics and what trade-offs they are – or are not – willing to make to reduce their risk of infection.

Nearly half of the respondents (47%) were patients, 29% were family members of patients, 19% were health care workers, and the rest were described as patient caregivers or “other.” More than half (59%) were female, the mean age at surgery was 59 years, and 69% had college or postgraduate degrees.

More than half of respondents (55%) would choose to take an antibiotic if it reduced the SSI rate from 5% to 2.5% and if the risk of adverse drug reactions was low (defined as a 1% risk gastrointestinal upset, 0.5% risk itchy skin rash, and 0.01% risk ED visit). Even if an antibiotic could eliminate SSI risk entirely and had a low adverse drug reaction profile, 27% of respondents preferred not to take prophylactic oral antibiotics.

A subgroup analysis revealed that only 21% of health care workers would choose a moderate efficacy antibiotic (2.5% SSI risk) with a high adverse effect profile, compared with 41% of those who do not work in health care. Respondent age also drove treatment choice. For example, only 33% of respondents younger than age 65 would choose a moderate efficacy antibiotic (2.5% SSI risk) with a high adverse effect profile, compared with 45% of those aged 65 years and older.

“We knew patients would likely trade some antibiotic efficacy for some side effects, just as one would trade price for features when shopping for a car,” Dr. Etzkorn said. “We were shocked to see that over a quarter – 27% – of respondents preferred to not take antibiotics even if they were able to prevent all infections and had minimal side effects.”

“It’s interesting that between 27% [and] 55% of patients preferred no operative antibiotic prophylaxis despite a theoretical 100% cure rate for surgical-site infections,” said Lawrence J. Green, MD, clinical professor of dermatology at George Washington University, Washington, who was asked to comment on the study results.

“I think this mirrors dermatologist’s preferences, as a majority also prefer not to prescribe postoperative antibiotic therapy, unless operating in an area of or a patient with a high risk for infection. It would also be interesting to see if a less educated population would also have similar preferences.”

Dr. Etzkorn acknowledged certain limitations of the study, including that while it evaluated patient reported preferences, it did not include all possible risks and benefits, and “it does not measure actual patient behaviors.”

The researchers reported having no relevant financial disclosures. Dr. Etzkorn disclosed that he serves as a data safety monitoring board member for a clinical trial of Replimmune. Dr. Green disclosed that he is a speaker, consultant, or investigator for numerous pharmaceutical companies.

[email protected]

More than one-quarter of patients undergoing dermatologic surgery said they would prefer not to take an oral antibiotic, even if it could eliminate the risk of a surgical-site infection (SSI) and had negligible side effects, in a prospective multicenter study.

In addition, a similar proportion of patients preferred to take an antibiotic if there was no SSI reduction and a high risk of adverse events.

Those are two key findings from the study aimed at understanding patient preferences for prophylactic oral antibiotic use following dermatologic surgery, which was published in Dermatologic Surgery.

“Patient risk-benefit thresholds for using antibiotics vary considerably,” the study’s corresponding author, Jeremy R. Etzkorn, MD, MS, of the department of dermatology at the Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, told this news organization. “Physicians should appreciate and consider the variation between patients before deciding to send in a prescription after skin surgery.”

To investigate patient preferences about taking antibiotics to prevent SSI relative to antibiotic efficacy and antibiotic-associated adverse drug reactions, Dr. Etzkorn and colleagues at six U.S. medical centers prospectively administered a web-based survey and discrete choice experiment to 388 adults including dermatologic surgery patients and their family members, as well as health care workers (defined as dermatologic surgery patients who work in health care, individuals who work in health care and are accompanying patients to their surgery, or staff in the dermatology clinic.) “A lot has been published about physician preferences and practice patterns with respect to antibiotic prescribing after dermatologic surgery,” Dr. Etzkorn noted. “This is the first study to evaluate patient preferences in a rigorous way.”

He and his coinvestigators used a technique from marketing and product research (conjoint analysis/discrete choice experiments) to quantify what patients think about using antibiotics and what trade-offs they are – or are not – willing to make to reduce their risk of infection.

Nearly half of the respondents (47%) were patients, 29% were family members of patients, 19% were health care workers, and the rest were described as patient caregivers or “other.” More than half (59%) were female, the mean age at surgery was 59 years, and 69% had college or postgraduate degrees.

More than half of respondents (55%) would choose to take an antibiotic if it reduced the SSI rate from 5% to 2.5% and if the risk of adverse drug reactions was low (defined as a 1% risk gastrointestinal upset, 0.5% risk itchy skin rash, and 0.01% risk ED visit). Even if an antibiotic could eliminate SSI risk entirely and had a low adverse drug reaction profile, 27% of respondents preferred not to take prophylactic oral antibiotics.

A subgroup analysis revealed that only 21% of health care workers would choose a moderate efficacy antibiotic (2.5% SSI risk) with a high adverse effect profile, compared with 41% of those who do not work in health care. Respondent age also drove treatment choice. For example, only 33% of respondents younger than age 65 would choose a moderate efficacy antibiotic (2.5% SSI risk) with a high adverse effect profile, compared with 45% of those aged 65 years and older.

“We knew patients would likely trade some antibiotic efficacy for some side effects, just as one would trade price for features when shopping for a car,” Dr. Etzkorn said. “We were shocked to see that over a quarter – 27% – of respondents preferred to not take antibiotics even if they were able to prevent all infections and had minimal side effects.”

“It’s interesting that between 27% [and] 55% of patients preferred no operative antibiotic prophylaxis despite a theoretical 100% cure rate for surgical-site infections,” said Lawrence J. Green, MD, clinical professor of dermatology at George Washington University, Washington, who was asked to comment on the study results.

“I think this mirrors dermatologist’s preferences, as a majority also prefer not to prescribe postoperative antibiotic therapy, unless operating in an area of or a patient with a high risk for infection. It would also be interesting to see if a less educated population would also have similar preferences.”

Dr. Etzkorn acknowledged certain limitations of the study, including that while it evaluated patient reported preferences, it did not include all possible risks and benefits, and “it does not measure actual patient behaviors.”

The researchers reported having no relevant financial disclosures. Dr. Etzkorn disclosed that he serves as a data safety monitoring board member for a clinical trial of Replimmune. Dr. Green disclosed that he is a speaker, consultant, or investigator for numerous pharmaceutical companies.

[email protected]

More than one-quarter of patients undergoing dermatologic surgery said they would prefer not to take an oral antibiotic, even if it could eliminate the risk of a surgical-site infection (SSI) and had negligible side effects, in a prospective multicenter study.

In addition, a similar proportion of patients preferred to take an antibiotic if there was no SSI reduction and a high risk of adverse events.

Those are two key findings from the study aimed at understanding patient preferences for prophylactic oral antibiotic use following dermatologic surgery, which was published in Dermatologic Surgery.

“Patient risk-benefit thresholds for using antibiotics vary considerably,” the study’s corresponding author, Jeremy R. Etzkorn, MD, MS, of the department of dermatology at the Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, told this news organization. “Physicians should appreciate and consider the variation between patients before deciding to send in a prescription after skin surgery.”

To investigate patient preferences about taking antibiotics to prevent SSI relative to antibiotic efficacy and antibiotic-associated adverse drug reactions, Dr. Etzkorn and colleagues at six U.S. medical centers prospectively administered a web-based survey and discrete choice experiment to 388 adults including dermatologic surgery patients and their family members, as well as health care workers (defined as dermatologic surgery patients who work in health care, individuals who work in health care and are accompanying patients to their surgery, or staff in the dermatology clinic.) “A lot has been published about physician preferences and practice patterns with respect to antibiotic prescribing after dermatologic surgery,” Dr. Etzkorn noted. “This is the first study to evaluate patient preferences in a rigorous way.”

He and his coinvestigators used a technique from marketing and product research (conjoint analysis/discrete choice experiments) to quantify what patients think about using antibiotics and what trade-offs they are – or are not – willing to make to reduce their risk of infection.

Nearly half of the respondents (47%) were patients, 29% were family members of patients, 19% were health care workers, and the rest were described as patient caregivers or “other.” More than half (59%) were female, the mean age at surgery was 59 years, and 69% had college or postgraduate degrees.

More than half of respondents (55%) would choose to take an antibiotic if it reduced the SSI rate from 5% to 2.5% and if the risk of adverse drug reactions was low (defined as a 1% risk gastrointestinal upset, 0.5% risk itchy skin rash, and 0.01% risk ED visit). Even if an antibiotic could eliminate SSI risk entirely and had a low adverse drug reaction profile, 27% of respondents preferred not to take prophylactic oral antibiotics.

A subgroup analysis revealed that only 21% of health care workers would choose a moderate efficacy antibiotic (2.5% SSI risk) with a high adverse effect profile, compared with 41% of those who do not work in health care. Respondent age also drove treatment choice. For example, only 33% of respondents younger than age 65 would choose a moderate efficacy antibiotic (2.5% SSI risk) with a high adverse effect profile, compared with 45% of those aged 65 years and older.

“We knew patients would likely trade some antibiotic efficacy for some side effects, just as one would trade price for features when shopping for a car,” Dr. Etzkorn said. “We were shocked to see that over a quarter – 27% – of respondents preferred to not take antibiotics even if they were able to prevent all infections and had minimal side effects.”

“It’s interesting that between 27% [and] 55% of patients preferred no operative antibiotic prophylaxis despite a theoretical 100% cure rate for surgical-site infections,” said Lawrence J. Green, MD, clinical professor of dermatology at George Washington University, Washington, who was asked to comment on the study results.

“I think this mirrors dermatologist’s preferences, as a majority also prefer not to prescribe postoperative antibiotic therapy, unless operating in an area of or a patient with a high risk for infection. It would also be interesting to see if a less educated population would also have similar preferences.”

Dr. Etzkorn acknowledged certain limitations of the study, including that while it evaluated patient reported preferences, it did not include all possible risks and benefits, and “it does not measure actual patient behaviors.”

The researchers reported having no relevant financial disclosures. Dr. Etzkorn disclosed that he serves as a data safety monitoring board member for a clinical trial of Replimmune. Dr. Green disclosed that he is a speaker, consultant, or investigator for numerous pharmaceutical companies.

[email protected]

An important ingredient in the contemporary perfume and cosmetics industries, vetiver, is the only grass cultivated throughout the world to retain its essential oil, which contains sesquiterpene alcohols and hydrocarbons.^1-3 Field and glasshouse studies have revealed that vetiver grass can tolerate extreme variations in climate well, including protracted drought, floods, submergence, temperature, and soils high in acidity, alkalinity, and various heavy metals. Its heartiness may explain its continuing or even increasing use in fragrances and other products pertinent to skin health as humanity strives to adapt to climate change.⁴ In a 2017 review of various commercial essential oils as antimicrobial therapy for cutaneous disorders, Orchard and van Vuuren identified vetiver as warranting particular attention for its capacity to confer broad benefits to the skin in addressing acne, cuts, eczema, oiliness, sores, wounds, and aging skin.⁵ The focus of this column will be the dermatologic potential of vetiver.

Naomi Morris/EyeEm/EyeEm

Chemical constituents

Vetiver is thought to be one of the most complex of the essential oils owing to the hundreds of sesquiterpene derivatives with large structural diversity that contribute to its composition. ³

In a 2012 analysis of the components of South Indian vetiver oils, Mallavarapu et al. found an abundance of sesquiterpenes and oxygenated sesquiterpenes with cedrane, bisabolane, eudesmane, eremophilane, and zizaane skeletons. The primary constituents identified in the four oils evaluated included eudesma-4,6-diene (delta-selinene) + beta-vetispirene (3.9%-6.1%), beta-vetivenene (0.9%-9.4%), 13-nor-trans-eudesma-4(15),7-dien-11-one + amorph-4-en-10-ol (5.0%-6.4%), trans-eudesma-4(15),7-dien-12-ol (vetiselinenol) + (E)-opposita-4(15),7(11)-dien-12-ol (3.7%-5.9%), eremophila-1 (10),11-dien-2alpha-ol (nootkatol) + ziza-6(13)-en-12-ol (khusimol) (16.1%-19.2%), and eremophila-1(10),7(11)-dien-2alpha-ol (isonootkatol) + (E)-eremophila-1(10),7(11)-12-ol (isovalencenol) (5.6%-6.9%).⁶

Antimicrobial activity

In 2012, Saikia et al. assessed the antimycobacterial activity of Vetiveria zizanioides against Mycobacterium tuberculosis H(37)Rv and H(37)Ra strains. Their results showed that ethanolic extracts and hexane fractions displayed robust antimycobacterial properties, buttressing the traditional medical uses of the plant, as well as consideration of this agent as a modern antituberculosis agent.⁷

Two years later, Dos Santos et al. showed that Vetiveria zizanioides roots grown in Brazil exhibited notable antimicrobial effects against various pathogenic organisms.⁸In 2017, Burger et al. showed that vetiver essential oil primarily contributes its scent to cosmetic formulations but also displayed antimicrobial activity against Gram-positive bacterial strains, as well as one strain of Candida glabrata. They suggest that vetiver should be considered for its antimicrobial capacity as an added bonus to cosmetic formulations.²

In a 2018 study to ascertain the antimicrobial activity of 247 essential oil combinations against five reference strains of wound pathogens, Orchard et al. found that 26 combinations exhibited extensive antimicrobial activity. Sandalwood and vetiver were found to contribute most to antimicrobial function when used in combination. The investigators concluded that such combinations warrant consideration for wound therapy.⁹

Antiacne activity

In 2018, Orchard et al. conducted another study of the efficacy of commercial essential oil combinations against the two pathogens responsible for acne, Propionibacterium acnes and Staphlyococcus epidermidis. They investigated 408 combinations, of which 167 exhibited notable antimicrobial activity. They observed that the combination with the lowest minimum inhibitory concentration value against P. acnes and S. epidermidis was vetiver and cinnamon bark.¹⁰ This usage points to the potential of vetiver use as an antiacne ingredient.
 

Safety

The Scientific Committee on Consumer Safety (SCCS) offered a final opinion on the safety of the fragrance ingredient acetylated vetiver oil in 2019, declaring its use with 1% alpha-tocopherol in cosmetic leave-on and rinse-off products safe at proposed concentration levels. They noted that acetylated vetiver oil has been used for several years without provoking contact allergies.¹1
 

Conclusion

Vetiver is an important ingredient in modern perfumery. It also has potential to impart benefits to the skin in topical formulations. Much more research is necessary to determine just what kind of a role this perfumery powerhouse can play in dermatology.

Dr. Baumann is a private practice dermatologist, researcher, author, and entrepreneur who practices in Miami. She founded the Cosmetic Dermatology Center at the University of Miami in 1997. Dr. Baumann has written two textbooks and a New York Times Best Sellers book for consumers. Dr. Baumann has received funding for advisory boards and/or clinical research trials from Allergan, Galderma, Revance, Evolus, and Burt’s Bees. She is the CEO of Skin Type Solutions Inc., a company that independently tests skin care products and makes recommendations to physicians on which skin care technologies are best. Write to her at [email protected].

References

1. Del Giudice L et al. Environ Microbiol. 2008 Oct;10(10):2824-41.

2. Burger P et al. Medicines (Basel). 2017 Jun 16;4(2):41.

3. Belhassen E et al. Chem Biodivers. 2014 Nov;11(11):1821–42.

4. Danh LT et al. Int J Phytoremediation. 2009 Oct-Dec;11(8):664–91.

5. Orchard A and van Vuuren S. Evid Based Complement Alternat Med. 2017;2017:4517971.

6. Mallavarapu GR et al. Nat Prod Commun. 2012 Feb;7(2):223–5.

7. Saikia D et al. Complement Ther Med. 2012 Dec;20(6):434–6.

8. Dos Santos DS et al. Acta Pharm. 2014 Dec;64(4):495-501.

9. Orchard A et al. Chem Biodivers. 2018 Dec;15(12):e1800405.

10. Orchard A et al. Int J Cosmet Sci. 2018 Mar 24. [Epub ahead of print].

11. SCCS members & External experts. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol. 2019 Oct;107:104389.

An important ingredient in the contemporary perfume and cosmetics industries, vetiver, is the only grass cultivated throughout the world to retain its essential oil, which contains sesquiterpene alcohols and hydrocarbons.^1-3 Field and glasshouse studies have revealed that vetiver grass can tolerate extreme variations in climate well, including protracted drought, floods, submergence, temperature, and soils high in acidity, alkalinity, and various heavy metals. Its heartiness may explain its continuing or even increasing use in fragrances and other products pertinent to skin health as humanity strives to adapt to climate change.⁴ In a 2017 review of various commercial essential oils as antimicrobial therapy for cutaneous disorders, Orchard and van Vuuren identified vetiver as warranting particular attention for its capacity to confer broad benefits to the skin in addressing acne, cuts, eczema, oiliness, sores, wounds, and aging skin.⁵ The focus of this column will be the dermatologic potential of vetiver.

Naomi Morris/EyeEm/EyeEm

Chemical constituents

Vetiver is thought to be one of the most complex of the essential oils owing to the hundreds of sesquiterpene derivatives with large structural diversity that contribute to its composition. ³

In a 2012 analysis of the components of South Indian vetiver oils, Mallavarapu et al. found an abundance of sesquiterpenes and oxygenated sesquiterpenes with cedrane, bisabolane, eudesmane, eremophilane, and zizaane skeletons. The primary constituents identified in the four oils evaluated included eudesma-4,6-diene (delta-selinene) + beta-vetispirene (3.9%-6.1%), beta-vetivenene (0.9%-9.4%), 13-nor-trans-eudesma-4(15),7-dien-11-one + amorph-4-en-10-ol (5.0%-6.4%), trans-eudesma-4(15),7-dien-12-ol (vetiselinenol) + (E)-opposita-4(15),7(11)-dien-12-ol (3.7%-5.9%), eremophila-1 (10),11-dien-2alpha-ol (nootkatol) + ziza-6(13)-en-12-ol (khusimol) (16.1%-19.2%), and eremophila-1(10),7(11)-dien-2alpha-ol (isonootkatol) + (E)-eremophila-1(10),7(11)-12-ol (isovalencenol) (5.6%-6.9%).⁶

Antimicrobial activity

In 2012, Saikia et al. assessed the antimycobacterial activity of Vetiveria zizanioides against Mycobacterium tuberculosis H(37)Rv and H(37)Ra strains. Their results showed that ethanolic extracts and hexane fractions displayed robust antimycobacterial properties, buttressing the traditional medical uses of the plant, as well as consideration of this agent as a modern antituberculosis agent.⁷

Two years later, Dos Santos et al. showed that Vetiveria zizanioides roots grown in Brazil exhibited notable antimicrobial effects against various pathogenic organisms.⁸In 2017, Burger et al. showed that vetiver essential oil primarily contributes its scent to cosmetic formulations but also displayed antimicrobial activity against Gram-positive bacterial strains, as well as one strain of Candida glabrata. They suggest that vetiver should be considered for its antimicrobial capacity as an added bonus to cosmetic formulations.²

In a 2018 study to ascertain the antimicrobial activity of 247 essential oil combinations against five reference strains of wound pathogens, Orchard et al. found that 26 combinations exhibited extensive antimicrobial activity. Sandalwood and vetiver were found to contribute most to antimicrobial function when used in combination. The investigators concluded that such combinations warrant consideration for wound therapy.⁹

Antiacne activity

In 2018, Orchard et al. conducted another study of the efficacy of commercial essential oil combinations against the two pathogens responsible for acne, Propionibacterium acnes and Staphlyococcus epidermidis. They investigated 408 combinations, of which 167 exhibited notable antimicrobial activity. They observed that the combination with the lowest minimum inhibitory concentration value against P. acnes and S. epidermidis was vetiver and cinnamon bark.¹⁰ This usage points to the potential of vetiver use as an antiacne ingredient.
 

Safety

The Scientific Committee on Consumer Safety (SCCS) offered a final opinion on the safety of the fragrance ingredient acetylated vetiver oil in 2019, declaring its use with 1% alpha-tocopherol in cosmetic leave-on and rinse-off products safe at proposed concentration levels. They noted that acetylated vetiver oil has been used for several years without provoking contact allergies.¹1
 

Conclusion

Vetiver is an important ingredient in modern perfumery. It also has potential to impart benefits to the skin in topical formulations. Much more research is necessary to determine just what kind of a role this perfumery powerhouse can play in dermatology.

Dr. Baumann is a private practice dermatologist, researcher, author, and entrepreneur who practices in Miami. She founded the Cosmetic Dermatology Center at the University of Miami in 1997. Dr. Baumann has written two textbooks and a New York Times Best Sellers book for consumers. Dr. Baumann has received funding for advisory boards and/or clinical research trials from Allergan, Galderma, Revance, Evolus, and Burt’s Bees. She is the CEO of Skin Type Solutions Inc., a company that independently tests skin care products and makes recommendations to physicians on which skin care technologies are best. Write to her at [email protected].

References

1. Del Giudice L et al. Environ Microbiol. 2008 Oct;10(10):2824-41.

2. Burger P et al. Medicines (Basel). 2017 Jun 16;4(2):41.

3. Belhassen E et al. Chem Biodivers. 2014 Nov;11(11):1821–42.

4. Danh LT et al. Int J Phytoremediation. 2009 Oct-Dec;11(8):664–91.

5. Orchard A and van Vuuren S. Evid Based Complement Alternat Med. 2017;2017:4517971.

6. Mallavarapu GR et al. Nat Prod Commun. 2012 Feb;7(2):223–5.

7. Saikia D et al. Complement Ther Med. 2012 Dec;20(6):434–6.

8. Dos Santos DS et al. Acta Pharm. 2014 Dec;64(4):495-501.

9. Orchard A et al. Chem Biodivers. 2018 Dec;15(12):e1800405.

10. Orchard A et al. Int J Cosmet Sci. 2018 Mar 24. [Epub ahead of print].

11. SCCS members & External experts. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol. 2019 Oct;107:104389.

An important ingredient in the contemporary perfume and cosmetics industries, vetiver, is the only grass cultivated throughout the world to retain its essential oil, which contains sesquiterpene alcohols and hydrocarbons.^1-3 Field and glasshouse studies have revealed that vetiver grass can tolerate extreme variations in climate well, including protracted drought, floods, submergence, temperature, and soils high in acidity, alkalinity, and various heavy metals. Its heartiness may explain its continuing or even increasing use in fragrances and other products pertinent to skin health as humanity strives to adapt to climate change.⁴ In a 2017 review of various commercial essential oils as antimicrobial therapy for cutaneous disorders, Orchard and van Vuuren identified vetiver as warranting particular attention for its capacity to confer broad benefits to the skin in addressing acne, cuts, eczema, oiliness, sores, wounds, and aging skin.⁵ The focus of this column will be the dermatologic potential of vetiver.

Naomi Morris/EyeEm/EyeEm

Chemical constituents

Vetiver is thought to be one of the most complex of the essential oils owing to the hundreds of sesquiterpene derivatives with large structural diversity that contribute to its composition. ³

In a 2012 analysis of the components of South Indian vetiver oils, Mallavarapu et al. found an abundance of sesquiterpenes and oxygenated sesquiterpenes with cedrane, bisabolane, eudesmane, eremophilane, and zizaane skeletons. The primary constituents identified in the four oils evaluated included eudesma-4,6-diene (delta-selinene) + beta-vetispirene (3.9%-6.1%), beta-vetivenene (0.9%-9.4%), 13-nor-trans-eudesma-4(15),7-dien-11-one + amorph-4-en-10-ol (5.0%-6.4%), trans-eudesma-4(15),7-dien-12-ol (vetiselinenol) + (E)-opposita-4(15),7(11)-dien-12-ol (3.7%-5.9%), eremophila-1 (10),11-dien-2alpha-ol (nootkatol) + ziza-6(13)-en-12-ol (khusimol) (16.1%-19.2%), and eremophila-1(10),7(11)-dien-2alpha-ol (isonootkatol) + (E)-eremophila-1(10),7(11)-12-ol (isovalencenol) (5.6%-6.9%).⁶

Antimicrobial activity

In 2012, Saikia et al. assessed the antimycobacterial activity of Vetiveria zizanioides against Mycobacterium tuberculosis H(37)Rv and H(37)Ra strains. Their results showed that ethanolic extracts and hexane fractions displayed robust antimycobacterial properties, buttressing the traditional medical uses of the plant, as well as consideration of this agent as a modern antituberculosis agent.⁷

Two years later, Dos Santos et al. showed that Vetiveria zizanioides roots grown in Brazil exhibited notable antimicrobial effects against various pathogenic organisms.⁸In 2017, Burger et al. showed that vetiver essential oil primarily contributes its scent to cosmetic formulations but also displayed antimicrobial activity against Gram-positive bacterial strains, as well as one strain of Candida glabrata. They suggest that vetiver should be considered for its antimicrobial capacity as an added bonus to cosmetic formulations.²

In a 2018 study to ascertain the antimicrobial activity of 247 essential oil combinations against five reference strains of wound pathogens, Orchard et al. found that 26 combinations exhibited extensive antimicrobial activity. Sandalwood and vetiver were found to contribute most to antimicrobial function when used in combination. The investigators concluded that such combinations warrant consideration for wound therapy.⁹

Antiacne activity

In 2018, Orchard et al. conducted another study of the efficacy of commercial essential oil combinations against the two pathogens responsible for acne, Propionibacterium acnes and Staphlyococcus epidermidis. They investigated 408 combinations, of which 167 exhibited notable antimicrobial activity. They observed that the combination with the lowest minimum inhibitory concentration value against P. acnes and S. epidermidis was vetiver and cinnamon bark.¹⁰ This usage points to the potential of vetiver use as an antiacne ingredient.
 

Safety

The Scientific Committee on Consumer Safety (SCCS) offered a final opinion on the safety of the fragrance ingredient acetylated vetiver oil in 2019, declaring its use with 1% alpha-tocopherol in cosmetic leave-on and rinse-off products safe at proposed concentration levels. They noted that acetylated vetiver oil has been used for several years without provoking contact allergies.¹1
 

Conclusion

Vetiver is an important ingredient in modern perfumery. It also has potential to impart benefits to the skin in topical formulations. Much more research is necessary to determine just what kind of a role this perfumery powerhouse can play in dermatology.

Dr. Baumann is a private practice dermatologist, researcher, author, and entrepreneur who practices in Miami. She founded the Cosmetic Dermatology Center at the University of Miami in 1997. Dr. Baumann has written two textbooks and a New York Times Best Sellers book for consumers. Dr. Baumann has received funding for advisory boards and/or clinical research trials from Allergan, Galderma, Revance, Evolus, and Burt’s Bees. She is the CEO of Skin Type Solutions Inc., a company that independently tests skin care products and makes recommendations to physicians on which skin care technologies are best. Write to her at [email protected].

References

1. Del Giudice L et al. Environ Microbiol. 2008 Oct;10(10):2824-41.

2. Burger P et al. Medicines (Basel). 2017 Jun 16;4(2):41.

3. Belhassen E et al. Chem Biodivers. 2014 Nov;11(11):1821–42.

4. Danh LT et al. Int J Phytoremediation. 2009 Oct-Dec;11(8):664–91.

5. Orchard A and van Vuuren S. Evid Based Complement Alternat Med. 2017;2017:4517971.

6. Mallavarapu GR et al. Nat Prod Commun. 2012 Feb;7(2):223–5.

7. Saikia D et al. Complement Ther Med. 2012 Dec;20(6):434–6.

8. Dos Santos DS et al. Acta Pharm. 2014 Dec;64(4):495-501.

9. Orchard A et al. Chem Biodivers. 2018 Dec;15(12):e1800405.

10. Orchard A et al. Int J Cosmet Sci. 2018 Mar 24. [Epub ahead of print].

11. SCCS members & External experts. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol. 2019 Oct;107:104389.

In August I shared with you my observations on two opposing op-ed pieces from two major newspapers, one was in favor of masking mandates for public schools, the other against. (Masking in school: A battle of the op-eds. MDedge Pediatrics. Letters from Maine, 2021 Aug 12). Neither group of authors could offer us evidence from controlled studies to support their views. However, both agreed that returning children to school deserves a high priority. But neither the authors nor I treaded into the uncharted waters of exactly how masking fits into our national goals for managing the pandemic because ... no one in this country has articulated what these goals should be. A third op-ed appearing 3 weeks later suggests why we are floundering in this goal-deficient limbo.

Writing in the New York Times, two epidemiologists in Boston ask the simple question: “What are we actually trying to achieve in the United States?” when it comes to the pandemic. (Allen AG and Jenkins H. The Hard Covid-19 Questions We’re Not Asking. 2021 Aug 30). Is our goal zero infections? Is it hammering on the virus until we can treat it like the seasonal flu? We do seem to agree that not having kids in school has been a disaster economically, educationally, and psychologically. But, where does the goal of getting them back in school fit into a larger and as yet undefined national goal? Without that target we have little idea of what compromises and risks we should be willing to accept.

How much serious pediatric disease is acceptable? It appears that the number of fatal complications in the pediatric population is very small in comparison with other demographic groups. Although few in number, there have been and there will continue to be pediatric deaths because of COVID. Is our goal zero pediatric deaths? If it is then this dictates a level of response that ripples back upstream to every child in every classroom and could threaten our overarching goal of returning children to school. Because none of us likes the thought of a child dying, some of us may be hesitant to even consider a strategy that doesn’t include zero pediatric deaths as a goal.

Are we looking to have zero serious pediatric infections? Achieving this goal is unlikely. Even if we develop a pediatric vaccine in the near future it probably won’t be in the arms of enough children by the end of this school year to make a significant dent in the number of serious pediatric infections. Waiting until an optimal number of children are immunized doesn’t feel like it will achieve a primary goal of getting kids back in school if we continue to focus on driving the level of serious pediatric infections to zero. We have already endured a year in which many communities made decisions that seemed to have prioritized an unstated goal of no school exposure–related educator deaths. Again, a goal based on little if any evidence.

The problem we face in this country is that our response to the pandemic has been nonuniform. Here in Brunswick, Maine, 99% of the eligible adults have been vaccinated. Even with the recent surge, we may be ready for a strategy that avoids wholesale quarantining. A targeted and robust antibody testing system might work for us and make an unproven and unpopular masking mandate unnecessary. Britain seems to be moving in a similar direction to meet its goal of keeping children in school.

However, there are large population groups in regions of this country that have stumbled at taking the initial steps to get the pandemic under control. Articulating a national goal that covers both communities where the response to the pandemic has been less thoughtful and robust along with states that have been more successful is going to be difficult. But it must be done.

Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine, for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics, including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.” Other than a Littman stethoscope he accepted as a first-year medical student in 1966, Dr. Wilkoff reports having nothing to disclose. Email him at [email protected].

In August I shared with you my observations on two opposing op-ed pieces from two major newspapers, one was in favor of masking mandates for public schools, the other against. (Masking in school: A battle of the op-eds. MDedge Pediatrics. Letters from Maine, 2021 Aug 12). Neither group of authors could offer us evidence from controlled studies to support their views. However, both agreed that returning children to school deserves a high priority. But neither the authors nor I treaded into the uncharted waters of exactly how masking fits into our national goals for managing the pandemic because ... no one in this country has articulated what these goals should be. A third op-ed appearing 3 weeks later suggests why we are floundering in this goal-deficient limbo.

Writing in the New York Times, two epidemiologists in Boston ask the simple question: “What are we actually trying to achieve in the United States?” when it comes to the pandemic. (Allen AG and Jenkins H. The Hard Covid-19 Questions We’re Not Asking. 2021 Aug 30). Is our goal zero infections? Is it hammering on the virus until we can treat it like the seasonal flu? We do seem to agree that not having kids in school has been a disaster economically, educationally, and psychologically. But, where does the goal of getting them back in school fit into a larger and as yet undefined national goal? Without that target we have little idea of what compromises and risks we should be willing to accept.

How much serious pediatric disease is acceptable? It appears that the number of fatal complications in the pediatric population is very small in comparison with other demographic groups. Although few in number, there have been and there will continue to be pediatric deaths because of COVID. Is our goal zero pediatric deaths? If it is then this dictates a level of response that ripples back upstream to every child in every classroom and could threaten our overarching goal of returning children to school. Because none of us likes the thought of a child dying, some of us may be hesitant to even consider a strategy that doesn’t include zero pediatric deaths as a goal.

Are we looking to have zero serious pediatric infections? Achieving this goal is unlikely. Even if we develop a pediatric vaccine in the near future it probably won’t be in the arms of enough children by the end of this school year to make a significant dent in the number of serious pediatric infections. Waiting until an optimal number of children are immunized doesn’t feel like it will achieve a primary goal of getting kids back in school if we continue to focus on driving the level of serious pediatric infections to zero. We have already endured a year in which many communities made decisions that seemed to have prioritized an unstated goal of no school exposure–related educator deaths. Again, a goal based on little if any evidence.

The problem we face in this country is that our response to the pandemic has been nonuniform. Here in Brunswick, Maine, 99% of the eligible adults have been vaccinated. Even with the recent surge, we may be ready for a strategy that avoids wholesale quarantining. A targeted and robust antibody testing system might work for us and make an unproven and unpopular masking mandate unnecessary. Britain seems to be moving in a similar direction to meet its goal of keeping children in school.

However, there are large population groups in regions of this country that have stumbled at taking the initial steps to get the pandemic under control. Articulating a national goal that covers both communities where the response to the pandemic has been less thoughtful and robust along with states that have been more successful is going to be difficult. But it must be done.

Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine, for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics, including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.” Other than a Littman stethoscope he accepted as a first-year medical student in 1966, Dr. Wilkoff reports having nothing to disclose. Email him at [email protected].

In August I shared with you my observations on two opposing op-ed pieces from two major newspapers, one was in favor of masking mandates for public schools, the other against. (Masking in school: A battle of the op-eds. MDedge Pediatrics. Letters from Maine, 2021 Aug 12). Neither group of authors could offer us evidence from controlled studies to support their views. However, both agreed that returning children to school deserves a high priority. But neither the authors nor I treaded into the uncharted waters of exactly how masking fits into our national goals for managing the pandemic because ... no one in this country has articulated what these goals should be. A third op-ed appearing 3 weeks later suggests why we are floundering in this goal-deficient limbo.

Writing in the New York Times, two epidemiologists in Boston ask the simple question: “What are we actually trying to achieve in the United States?” when it comes to the pandemic. (Allen AG and Jenkins H. The Hard Covid-19 Questions We’re Not Asking. 2021 Aug 30). Is our goal zero infections? Is it hammering on the virus until we can treat it like the seasonal flu? We do seem to agree that not having kids in school has been a disaster economically, educationally, and psychologically. But, where does the goal of getting them back in school fit into a larger and as yet undefined national goal? Without that target we have little idea of what compromises and risks we should be willing to accept.

How much serious pediatric disease is acceptable? It appears that the number of fatal complications in the pediatric population is very small in comparison with other demographic groups. Although few in number, there have been and there will continue to be pediatric deaths because of COVID. Is our goal zero pediatric deaths? If it is then this dictates a level of response that ripples back upstream to every child in every classroom and could threaten our overarching goal of returning children to school. Because none of us likes the thought of a child dying, some of us may be hesitant to even consider a strategy that doesn’t include zero pediatric deaths as a goal.

Are we looking to have zero serious pediatric infections? Achieving this goal is unlikely. Even if we develop a pediatric vaccine in the near future it probably won’t be in the arms of enough children by the end of this school year to make a significant dent in the number of serious pediatric infections. Waiting until an optimal number of children are immunized doesn’t feel like it will achieve a primary goal of getting kids back in school if we continue to focus on driving the level of serious pediatric infections to zero. We have already endured a year in which many communities made decisions that seemed to have prioritized an unstated goal of no school exposure–related educator deaths. Again, a goal based on little if any evidence.

The problem we face in this country is that our response to the pandemic has been nonuniform. Here in Brunswick, Maine, 99% of the eligible adults have been vaccinated. Even with the recent surge, we may be ready for a strategy that avoids wholesale quarantining. A targeted and robust antibody testing system might work for us and make an unproven and unpopular masking mandate unnecessary. Britain seems to be moving in a similar direction to meet its goal of keeping children in school.

However, there are large population groups in regions of this country that have stumbled at taking the initial steps to get the pandemic under control. Articulating a national goal that covers both communities where the response to the pandemic has been less thoughtful and robust along with states that have been more successful is going to be difficult. But it must be done.

Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine, for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics, including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.” Other than a Littman stethoscope he accepted as a first-year medical student in 1966, Dr. Wilkoff reports having nothing to disclose. Email him at [email protected].

Persistent human papillomavirus (HPV) 16 and HPV 18 during a pregnancy may be associated with an increased risk of premature birth.

Findings published online in JAMA Network Open found that 15.9% of individuals who had a persistent HPV 16 or 18 infection during the first and third trimesters of their pregnancy gave birth prematurely, compared with 5.6% of those who did not have an HPV infection at all.

The findings prompted the question of “the pathophysiology of HPV in pregnancy and how the virus is affecting the placenta,” said Lisette Davidson Tanner, MD, MPH, FACOG, who was not involved in the study.

Researchers said the findings are the first to show the association between preterm birth and HPV, which is an incurable virus that most sexually active individuals will get at some point in their lives, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

“The results of this study are very important in helping us understand the burden caused by HPV in pregnancy,” study author Helen Trottier, MSc, PhD, researcher at the Centre Hospitalier Universitaire Sainte-Justine, said in an interview. “We may have just pinpointed an important cause of preterm birth that has so far been unexplained.”

Dr. Trottier and colleagues examined data from 1,052 pregnant women from three university-affiliated health care centers in Montreal between Nov. 8, 2010, and Oct. 16, 2016.

Only 5.6% of those who did not have an HPV infection had a premature birth, compared with 6.9% of those who tested positive for any HPV infection in the first trimester.

When looking at the first trimester, researchers found 12% of those diagnosed with HPV 16 and 18 had a preterm birth, compared to 4.9% of those who had a high-risk HPV infection other than HPV 16/18. When looking at the third trimester, researchers found that 15.9% of those with HPV 16/18 had an increased risk of giving birth prematurely, compared to those who had other high-risk HPV infections.

When researchers looked at the persistence of these HPV infections, they found that most HPV infections detected in the first trimester persist to the third trimester. The findings also revealed that persistent vaginal HPV 16/18 detection was significantly associated with all preterm births and spontaneous preterm births. This association was also found among those who had HPV infections detected in their placentas.

Meanwhile, 5.8% of those who had an HPV infection only during the first trimester experienced a preterm birth.

The researchers also found that HPV infections were frequent in pregnancy even among populations “considered to be at low risk based on sociodemographic and sexual history characteristics,” they wrote. Dr. Trottier said she hopes the findings will strengthen support for HPV vaccination.

Dr. Trottier’s study adds to a growing body of research regarding the adverse effects of HPV, according to Dr. Tanner, assistant professor of gynecology and obstetrics at Emory University, Atlanta. “It is already well known that HPV is associated with a number of anogenital and oropharyngeal cancers,” Dr. Tanner said in an interview. “The potential association with preterm birth only adds weight to the recommendations to screen for and prevent HPV infection.”

HPV 16 and 18 are high-risk types that cause about 70% of cervical cancers and precancerous cervical lesions, according to the World Health Organization. However, there are three HPV vaccines – 9-valent HPV vaccine (Gardasil), quadrivalent HPV vaccine (Gardasil®, 4vHPV), and bivalent HPV vaccine (Cervarix) – that help protect against HPV 16/18.

The findings strengthen the benefits of HPV vaccination, Dr. Trottier explained. “There is no cure when the HPV infection is present,” Dr. Trottier said. “If the link [between preterm birth and HPV infections] is indeed causal, we can expect a greater risk of preterm delivery in these women. The effective tool we have is the HPV vaccination, but it should ideally be received before the start of sexual activity in order to prevent future infections that could occur in women.”

The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists recommends HPV vaccination for girls and women between the ages of 11 and 26 years old. However, Dr. Tanner said, women aged 27-45 who were previously unvaccinated may still receive benefit from the vaccine. 

“Despite the known efficacy of the vaccine, only 50% of patients are up to date with their HPV vaccination,” Dr. Tanner explained. “This study further highlights the need to educate and encourage patients to be vaccinated.”

The researchers said future studies should investigate the association of HPV vaccination and vaccination programs with the risk of preterm birth.

The experts disclosed no conflicts of interest.

Persistent human papillomavirus (HPV) 16 and HPV 18 during a pregnancy may be associated with an increased risk of premature birth.

Findings published online in JAMA Network Open found that 15.9% of individuals who had a persistent HPV 16 or 18 infection during the first and third trimesters of their pregnancy gave birth prematurely, compared with 5.6% of those who did not have an HPV infection at all.

The findings prompted the question of “the pathophysiology of HPV in pregnancy and how the virus is affecting the placenta,” said Lisette Davidson Tanner, MD, MPH, FACOG, who was not involved in the study.

Researchers said the findings are the first to show the association between preterm birth and HPV, which is an incurable virus that most sexually active individuals will get at some point in their lives, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

“The results of this study are very important in helping us understand the burden caused by HPV in pregnancy,” study author Helen Trottier, MSc, PhD, researcher at the Centre Hospitalier Universitaire Sainte-Justine, said in an interview. “We may have just pinpointed an important cause of preterm birth that has so far been unexplained.”

Dr. Trottier and colleagues examined data from 1,052 pregnant women from three university-affiliated health care centers in Montreal between Nov. 8, 2010, and Oct. 16, 2016.

Only 5.6% of those who did not have an HPV infection had a premature birth, compared with 6.9% of those who tested positive for any HPV infection in the first trimester.

When looking at the first trimester, researchers found 12% of those diagnosed with HPV 16 and 18 had a preterm birth, compared to 4.9% of those who had a high-risk HPV infection other than HPV 16/18. When looking at the third trimester, researchers found that 15.9% of those with HPV 16/18 had an increased risk of giving birth prematurely, compared to those who had other high-risk HPV infections.

When researchers looked at the persistence of these HPV infections, they found that most HPV infections detected in the first trimester persist to the third trimester. The findings also revealed that persistent vaginal HPV 16/18 detection was significantly associated with all preterm births and spontaneous preterm births. This association was also found among those who had HPV infections detected in their placentas.

Meanwhile, 5.8% of those who had an HPV infection only during the first trimester experienced a preterm birth.

The researchers also found that HPV infections were frequent in pregnancy even among populations “considered to be at low risk based on sociodemographic and sexual history characteristics,” they wrote. Dr. Trottier said she hopes the findings will strengthen support for HPV vaccination.

Dr. Trottier’s study adds to a growing body of research regarding the adverse effects of HPV, according to Dr. Tanner, assistant professor of gynecology and obstetrics at Emory University, Atlanta. “It is already well known that HPV is associated with a number of anogenital and oropharyngeal cancers,” Dr. Tanner said in an interview. “The potential association with preterm birth only adds weight to the recommendations to screen for and prevent HPV infection.”

HPV 16 and 18 are high-risk types that cause about 70% of cervical cancers and precancerous cervical lesions, according to the World Health Organization. However, there are three HPV vaccines – 9-valent HPV vaccine (Gardasil), quadrivalent HPV vaccine (Gardasil®, 4vHPV), and bivalent HPV vaccine (Cervarix) – that help protect against HPV 16/18.

The findings strengthen the benefits of HPV vaccination, Dr. Trottier explained. “There is no cure when the HPV infection is present,” Dr. Trottier said. “If the link [between preterm birth and HPV infections] is indeed causal, we can expect a greater risk of preterm delivery in these women. The effective tool we have is the HPV vaccination, but it should ideally be received before the start of sexual activity in order to prevent future infections that could occur in women.”

The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists recommends HPV vaccination for girls and women between the ages of 11 and 26 years old. However, Dr. Tanner said, women aged 27-45 who were previously unvaccinated may still receive benefit from the vaccine. 

“Despite the known efficacy of the vaccine, only 50% of patients are up to date with their HPV vaccination,” Dr. Tanner explained. “This study further highlights the need to educate and encourage patients to be vaccinated.”

The researchers said future studies should investigate the association of HPV vaccination and vaccination programs with the risk of preterm birth.

The experts disclosed no conflicts of interest.

Persistent human papillomavirus (HPV) 16 and HPV 18 during a pregnancy may be associated with an increased risk of premature birth.

Findings published online in JAMA Network Open found that 15.9% of individuals who had a persistent HPV 16 or 18 infection during the first and third trimesters of their pregnancy gave birth prematurely, compared with 5.6% of those who did not have an HPV infection at all.

The findings prompted the question of “the pathophysiology of HPV in pregnancy and how the virus is affecting the placenta,” said Lisette Davidson Tanner, MD, MPH, FACOG, who was not involved in the study.

Researchers said the findings are the first to show the association between preterm birth and HPV, which is an incurable virus that most sexually active individuals will get at some point in their lives, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

“The results of this study are very important in helping us understand the burden caused by HPV in pregnancy,” study author Helen Trottier, MSc, PhD, researcher at the Centre Hospitalier Universitaire Sainte-Justine, said in an interview. “We may have just pinpointed an important cause of preterm birth that has so far been unexplained.”

Dr. Trottier and colleagues examined data from 1,052 pregnant women from three university-affiliated health care centers in Montreal between Nov. 8, 2010, and Oct. 16, 2016.

Only 5.6% of those who did not have an HPV infection had a premature birth, compared with 6.9% of those who tested positive for any HPV infection in the first trimester.

When looking at the first trimester, researchers found 12% of those diagnosed with HPV 16 and 18 had a preterm birth, compared to 4.9% of those who had a high-risk HPV infection other than HPV 16/18. When looking at the third trimester, researchers found that 15.9% of those with HPV 16/18 had an increased risk of giving birth prematurely, compared to those who had other high-risk HPV infections.

When researchers looked at the persistence of these HPV infections, they found that most HPV infections detected in the first trimester persist to the third trimester. The findings also revealed that persistent vaginal HPV 16/18 detection was significantly associated with all preterm births and spontaneous preterm births. This association was also found among those who had HPV infections detected in their placentas.

Meanwhile, 5.8% of those who had an HPV infection only during the first trimester experienced a preterm birth.

The researchers also found that HPV infections were frequent in pregnancy even among populations “considered to be at low risk based on sociodemographic and sexual history characteristics,” they wrote. Dr. Trottier said she hopes the findings will strengthen support for HPV vaccination.

Dr. Trottier’s study adds to a growing body of research regarding the adverse effects of HPV, according to Dr. Tanner, assistant professor of gynecology and obstetrics at Emory University, Atlanta. “It is already well known that HPV is associated with a number of anogenital and oropharyngeal cancers,” Dr. Tanner said in an interview. “The potential association with preterm birth only adds weight to the recommendations to screen for and prevent HPV infection.”

HPV 16 and 18 are high-risk types that cause about 70% of cervical cancers and precancerous cervical lesions, according to the World Health Organization. However, there are three HPV vaccines – 9-valent HPV vaccine (Gardasil), quadrivalent HPV vaccine (Gardasil®, 4vHPV), and bivalent HPV vaccine (Cervarix) – that help protect against HPV 16/18.

The findings strengthen the benefits of HPV vaccination, Dr. Trottier explained. “There is no cure when the HPV infection is present,” Dr. Trottier said. “If the link [between preterm birth and HPV infections] is indeed causal, we can expect a greater risk of preterm delivery in these women. The effective tool we have is the HPV vaccination, but it should ideally be received before the start of sexual activity in order to prevent future infections that could occur in women.”

The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists recommends HPV vaccination for girls and women between the ages of 11 and 26 years old. However, Dr. Tanner said, women aged 27-45 who were previously unvaccinated may still receive benefit from the vaccine. 

“Despite the known efficacy of the vaccine, only 50% of patients are up to date with their HPV vaccination,” Dr. Tanner explained. “This study further highlights the need to educate and encourage patients to be vaccinated.”

The researchers said future studies should investigate the association of HPV vaccination and vaccination programs with the risk of preterm birth.

The experts disclosed no conflicts of interest.

The judge’s order was a major affront to many clinical ethicists. A county judge in Ohio ordered a hospital to give ivermectin to a COVID-19 patient on a ventilator. This order occurred against the advice and judgment of the local physicians. It occurred in spite of the hospital’s lawyers fighting the order. How could such a situation occur?

This column is not the appropriate forum to debate the use of ivermectin. The Food and Drug Administration has not approved the drug for treating COVID-19. Indeed, the FDA has specifically recommended against its use.¹ So has the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.² Poison control centers report a large uptick in exposures this summer because of self-medication, sometimes from veterinary sources.³

Fortunately for this case, the judge who overruled the order, Judge Michael A. Oster, wrote in his decision a summary of facts presented by both sides. The topic here is how a judge could order a medical institution and its staff to provide care against medical judgment. A key tenet of clinical ethics consultation is that the consultant needs to do their own investigation. Most veteran consultants have a litany of anecdotes wherein the initial story changed markedly as new facts were uncovered. The more outrageous the initial story, the more likely a major distortion is found. Therefore, most clinical ethics consultants are reluctant to discuss case studies based solely on publicly available information. Often, it is nearly impossible to obtain further information. One side of the story may be gagged by privacy laws. However, cases must sometimes be discussed based on the limited information available because, without that discussion, egregious violations of medical ethics would not be brought to light.

Fortunately for this case, Judge Osler’s decision contains a summary of facts presented by both sides. In August 2021, a 51-year-old patient with severe COVID-19 is in an Ohio intensive care unit on a ventilator. His wife seeks and obtains a prescription for ivermectin from a physician who has an Ohio state medical license but lives elsewhere, has no clinical privileges at the involved hospital, and has never examined the patient. The wife, as a surrogate decision maker, demands her husband receive the medication. The medical staff involved do not consider it a valid treatment. The wife seeks an injunction. A county judge orders the hospital to administer a specified dose of ivermectin daily for 21 days.⁴ That judge further grants an emergency preliminary injunction for 14 days that orders administration of the medication while legal appeals are made. Two weeks later, a second county judge hearing the case rules that the wife has not presented convincing evidence that she is likely to ultimately win the case on the merits.⁵ Therefore, the second judge reverses the preliminary injunction. The hospital need not continue to give the medication while further legal proceedings take place.

Cases like this are uncommon. Judges generally defer the authority for medical decisions to physicians. Various attitudes combine to make such an event happen. The judge may view the hospital as a local monopoly of health care and the patient may be too unstable to transport elsewhere. A judge in that situation, combined with a “the consumer is always right” mentality, and a sympathetic plaintiff, may seek to make miracles happen.

Judges overriding science are more likely to manifest when they see the science as ambiguous. Scientists have lost some of the gravitas they had when men walked on the moon. The spectacular success of the mRNA vaccines has surprisingly not reversed that loss. Science has been tainted by mercenary scientists, biased researchers seeking publications, and the large volume of published medical research that is false.

But there is more going on here. In the United States there has been a significant rebellion against any form of expertise and any form of authority. The echo chambers of misinformation on social media have led to polarization, conspiracy theories, and loyalty to political tribe rather than truth; hence the battle over masks and vaccines. This breakdown in authority is accompanied by losses in virtues such as civic duty and loving one’s neighbor. This is a failure of modern moral institutions. When major medical journals print opinion pieces portraying physicians as interchangeable automatons,⁶ it should not be surprising to see judges tempted by similar imagery.

One part of the solution is accountability in peer review. With 30,000 county judges scattered in 50 states, there will always be a few rogue and maverick attitudes among judges. The judiciary has a means of reassigning rebels to less impactful tasks. Similarly, if the physician who counseled the wife to use ivermectin had privileges at the admitting hospital, then peer review and credential committees could discipline behaviors that were too far outside accepted norms. Even when a consensus on best practice is hard to establish, damage can be mitigated by creating consequences for promoting aberrant care.

Dr. Powell is a retired pediatric hospitalist and clinical ethics consultant living in St. Louis. Email him at [email protected].

References

1. “Why you should not use ivermectin to treat or prevent COVID-19,” FDA Consumer Updates, Sept. 3, 2021.

2. “Rapid increase in ivermectin prescriptions and reports of severe illness associated with use of products containing ivermectin to prevent or treat COVID-19,” CDC Health Advisory, Aug. 26, 2021.

3. National Poison Data System Bulletin: COVID-19 (Ivermectin), American Association of Poison Control Centers, 2021.

4. Smith v West Chester Hosptial, LLC, DBA West Chester Hospital, Butler County Clerk of Courts, Aug. 23, 2021.

5. Smith v West Chester Hosptial, LLC, Decision denying plaintiff’s action for a preliminary injunction, Butler County Clerk of Courts, Sept. 6, 2021.

6. “Conscientious objection in medicine,” BMJ 2006 Feb 2. doi: 10.1136/bmj.332.7536.294.

The judge’s order was a major affront to many clinical ethicists. A county judge in Ohio ordered a hospital to give ivermectin to a COVID-19 patient on a ventilator. This order occurred against the advice and judgment of the local physicians. It occurred in spite of the hospital’s lawyers fighting the order. How could such a situation occur?

This column is not the appropriate forum to debate the use of ivermectin. The Food and Drug Administration has not approved the drug for treating COVID-19. Indeed, the FDA has specifically recommended against its use.¹ So has the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.² Poison control centers report a large uptick in exposures this summer because of self-medication, sometimes from veterinary sources.³

Fortunately for this case, the judge who overruled the order, Judge Michael A. Oster, wrote in his decision a summary of facts presented by both sides. The topic here is how a judge could order a medical institution and its staff to provide care against medical judgment. A key tenet of clinical ethics consultation is that the consultant needs to do their own investigation. Most veteran consultants have a litany of anecdotes wherein the initial story changed markedly as new facts were uncovered. The more outrageous the initial story, the more likely a major distortion is found. Therefore, most clinical ethics consultants are reluctant to discuss case studies based solely on publicly available information. Often, it is nearly impossible to obtain further information. One side of the story may be gagged by privacy laws. However, cases must sometimes be discussed based on the limited information available because, without that discussion, egregious violations of medical ethics would not be brought to light.

Fortunately for this case, Judge Osler’s decision contains a summary of facts presented by both sides. In August 2021, a 51-year-old patient with severe COVID-19 is in an Ohio intensive care unit on a ventilator. His wife seeks and obtains a prescription for ivermectin from a physician who has an Ohio state medical license but lives elsewhere, has no clinical privileges at the involved hospital, and has never examined the patient. The wife, as a surrogate decision maker, demands her husband receive the medication. The medical staff involved do not consider it a valid treatment. The wife seeks an injunction. A county judge orders the hospital to administer a specified dose of ivermectin daily for 21 days.⁴ That judge further grants an emergency preliminary injunction for 14 days that orders administration of the medication while legal appeals are made. Two weeks later, a second county judge hearing the case rules that the wife has not presented convincing evidence that she is likely to ultimately win the case on the merits.⁵ Therefore, the second judge reverses the preliminary injunction. The hospital need not continue to give the medication while further legal proceedings take place.

Cases like this are uncommon. Judges generally defer the authority for medical decisions to physicians. Various attitudes combine to make such an event happen. The judge may view the hospital as a local monopoly of health care and the patient may be too unstable to transport elsewhere. A judge in that situation, combined with a “the consumer is always right” mentality, and a sympathetic plaintiff, may seek to make miracles happen.

Judges overriding science are more likely to manifest when they see the science as ambiguous. Scientists have lost some of the gravitas they had when men walked on the moon. The spectacular success of the mRNA vaccines has surprisingly not reversed that loss. Science has been tainted by mercenary scientists, biased researchers seeking publications, and the large volume of published medical research that is false.

But there is more going on here. In the United States there has been a significant rebellion against any form of expertise and any form of authority. The echo chambers of misinformation on social media have led to polarization, conspiracy theories, and loyalty to political tribe rather than truth; hence the battle over masks and vaccines. This breakdown in authority is accompanied by losses in virtues such as civic duty and loving one’s neighbor. This is a failure of modern moral institutions. When major medical journals print opinion pieces portraying physicians as interchangeable automatons,⁶ it should not be surprising to see judges tempted by similar imagery.

One part of the solution is accountability in peer review. With 30,000 county judges scattered in 50 states, there will always be a few rogue and maverick attitudes among judges. The judiciary has a means of reassigning rebels to less impactful tasks. Similarly, if the physician who counseled the wife to use ivermectin had privileges at the admitting hospital, then peer review and credential committees could discipline behaviors that were too far outside accepted norms. Even when a consensus on best practice is hard to establish, damage can be mitigated by creating consequences for promoting aberrant care.

Dr. Powell is a retired pediatric hospitalist and clinical ethics consultant living in St. Louis. Email him at [email protected].

References

1. “Why you should not use ivermectin to treat or prevent COVID-19,” FDA Consumer Updates, Sept. 3, 2021.

2. “Rapid increase in ivermectin prescriptions and reports of severe illness associated with use of products containing ivermectin to prevent or treat COVID-19,” CDC Health Advisory, Aug. 26, 2021.

3. National Poison Data System Bulletin: COVID-19 (Ivermectin), American Association of Poison Control Centers, 2021.

4. Smith v West Chester Hosptial, LLC, DBA West Chester Hospital, Butler County Clerk of Courts, Aug. 23, 2021.

5. Smith v West Chester Hosptial, LLC, Decision denying plaintiff’s action for a preliminary injunction, Butler County Clerk of Courts, Sept. 6, 2021.

6. “Conscientious objection in medicine,” BMJ 2006 Feb 2. doi: 10.1136/bmj.332.7536.294.

The judge’s order was a major affront to many clinical ethicists. A county judge in Ohio ordered a hospital to give ivermectin to a COVID-19 patient on a ventilator. This order occurred against the advice and judgment of the local physicians. It occurred in spite of the hospital’s lawyers fighting the order. How could such a situation occur?

This column is not the appropriate forum to debate the use of ivermectin. The Food and Drug Administration has not approved the drug for treating COVID-19. Indeed, the FDA has specifically recommended against its use.¹ So has the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.² Poison control centers report a large uptick in exposures this summer because of self-medication, sometimes from veterinary sources.³

Fortunately for this case, the judge who overruled the order, Judge Michael A. Oster, wrote in his decision a summary of facts presented by both sides. The topic here is how a judge could order a medical institution and its staff to provide care against medical judgment. A key tenet of clinical ethics consultation is that the consultant needs to do their own investigation. Most veteran consultants have a litany of anecdotes wherein the initial story changed markedly as new facts were uncovered. The more outrageous the initial story, the more likely a major distortion is found. Therefore, most clinical ethics consultants are reluctant to discuss case studies based solely on publicly available information. Often, it is nearly impossible to obtain further information. One side of the story may be gagged by privacy laws. However, cases must sometimes be discussed based on the limited information available because, without that discussion, egregious violations of medical ethics would not be brought to light.

Fortunately for this case, Judge Osler’s decision contains a summary of facts presented by both sides. In August 2021, a 51-year-old patient with severe COVID-19 is in an Ohio intensive care unit on a ventilator. His wife seeks and obtains a prescription for ivermectin from a physician who has an Ohio state medical license but lives elsewhere, has no clinical privileges at the involved hospital, and has never examined the patient. The wife, as a surrogate decision maker, demands her husband receive the medication. The medical staff involved do not consider it a valid treatment. The wife seeks an injunction. A county judge orders the hospital to administer a specified dose of ivermectin daily for 21 days.⁴ That judge further grants an emergency preliminary injunction for 14 days that orders administration of the medication while legal appeals are made. Two weeks later, a second county judge hearing the case rules that the wife has not presented convincing evidence that she is likely to ultimately win the case on the merits.⁵ Therefore, the second judge reverses the preliminary injunction. The hospital need not continue to give the medication while further legal proceedings take place.

Cases like this are uncommon. Judges generally defer the authority for medical decisions to physicians. Various attitudes combine to make such an event happen. The judge may view the hospital as a local monopoly of health care and the patient may be too unstable to transport elsewhere. A judge in that situation, combined with a “the consumer is always right” mentality, and a sympathetic plaintiff, may seek to make miracles happen.

Judges overriding science are more likely to manifest when they see the science as ambiguous. Scientists have lost some of the gravitas they had when men walked on the moon. The spectacular success of the mRNA vaccines has surprisingly not reversed that loss. Science has been tainted by mercenary scientists, biased researchers seeking publications, and the large volume of published medical research that is false.

But there is more going on here. In the United States there has been a significant rebellion against any form of expertise and any form of authority. The echo chambers of misinformation on social media have led to polarization, conspiracy theories, and loyalty to political tribe rather than truth; hence the battle over masks and vaccines. This breakdown in authority is accompanied by losses in virtues such as civic duty and loving one’s neighbor. This is a failure of modern moral institutions. When major medical journals print opinion pieces portraying physicians as interchangeable automatons,⁶ it should not be surprising to see judges tempted by similar imagery.

One part of the solution is accountability in peer review. With 30,000 county judges scattered in 50 states, there will always be a few rogue and maverick attitudes among judges. The judiciary has a means of reassigning rebels to less impactful tasks. Similarly, if the physician who counseled the wife to use ivermectin had privileges at the admitting hospital, then peer review and credential committees could discipline behaviors that were too far outside accepted norms. Even when a consensus on best practice is hard to establish, damage can be mitigated by creating consequences for promoting aberrant care.

Dr. Powell is a retired pediatric hospitalist and clinical ethics consultant living in St. Louis. Email him at [email protected].

References

1. “Why you should not use ivermectin to treat or prevent COVID-19,” FDA Consumer Updates, Sept. 3, 2021.

2. “Rapid increase in ivermectin prescriptions and reports of severe illness associated with use of products containing ivermectin to prevent or treat COVID-19,” CDC Health Advisory, Aug. 26, 2021.

3. National Poison Data System Bulletin: COVID-19 (Ivermectin), American Association of Poison Control Centers, 2021.

4. Smith v West Chester Hosptial, LLC, DBA West Chester Hospital, Butler County Clerk of Courts, Aug. 23, 2021.

5. Smith v West Chester Hosptial, LLC, Decision denying plaintiff’s action for a preliminary injunction, Butler County Clerk of Courts, Sept. 6, 2021.

6. “Conscientious objection in medicine,” BMJ 2006 Feb 2. doi: 10.1136/bmj.332.7536.294.

The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) announced on Tuesday that it is standing by its 2014 recommendations that sexually active girls and young women be screened for chlamydia and gonorrhea. But the panel is not ready to provide guidance about screening males even amid an outbreak of gonorrhea infections among men who have sex with men (MSM).

“For men in general, there’s not enough evidence to determine whether screening will reduce the risk of complications or spreading infections to others,” said Marti Kubik, PhD, RN, in an interview. Dr. Kubik is a professor at the George Mason University School of Nursing, Fairfax, Va., and is a member of the task force. “We need further research so we will know how to make those recommendations,” she said.

The screening recommendations for chlamydia and gonorrhea were published Sept. 14 in the Journal of the American Medical Association. The guidance is identical to the panel’s 2014 recommendations. The task force recommends screening for chlamydia and gonorrhea in all sexually active females aged 24 years or younger and in sexually active women aged 25 and older if they are at higher risk because of factors such as new or multiple sex partners.

“We continue to see rising rates of these infections in spite of consistent screening recommendations,” Dr. Kubik said. “In 2019, the CDC recorded nearly 2 million cases of chlamydia and a half million cases of gonorrhea. The big clincher is that chlamydia and gonorrhea can occur without symptoms. It’s critical to screen if we’re going to prevent serious health complications.”

The report notes that chlamydia and gonorrhea may lead to pelvic inflammatory disease in women and to multiple complications in infants born to infected mothers. Men can develop urethritis and epididymitis. Both diseases can boost the risk for HIV infection and transmission.

“We want clinicians to review the new recommendation and feel confident about the evidence base that supports a need for us to be screening young women and older women who are at increased risk,” Dr. Kubik said. She noted that almost two-thirds of chlamydia cases and more than half of gonorrhea cases occur in men and women aged 15-24.

Unlike the CDC, which recommends annual chlamydia and gonorrhea screening in appropriate female patients, the task force provides no guidance on screening frequency. “We didn’t have the evidence base to make a recommendation about how often to screen,” Dr. Kubik said. “But recognizing that these often occur without symptoms, it’s reasonable for clinicians to screen patients whose sexual history reveals new or consistent risk factors.”

Philip A. Chan, MD, an associate professor at Brown University, Providence, R.I., who directs a sexually transmitted disease clinic, told this news organization that he found it frustrating that the task force didn’t make recommendations about screening of MSM. According to a commentary accompanying the new recommendations, the rate of gonorrhea in MSM – 5,166 cases per 100,000, or more than 5% – is at a historic high.

In contrast to the task force, the CDC recommends annual or more frequent testing for gonorrhea and chlamydia plus HIV and syphilis in sexually active MSM.

Dr. Chan noted that the task force’s guidance “tends to be the most evidence-based recommendations that exist. If the evidence isn’t there, they usually don’t make a recommendation.” Still, he said, “I would argue that there’s good evidence that in MSM, the risk for HIV acquisition warrants routine screening.”

Jeanne Marrazzo, MD, MPH, director of the division of infectious diseases at the University of Alabama at Birmingham, also noted the limits of the task force’s insistence on certain kinds of evidence. Dr. Marrazzo, who coauthored a commentary that accompanies the recommendations, said in an interview that the panel’s “reliance on randomized-controlled-trial-level evidence tends to limit its ability to evolve their recommendations in a way that could account for evolving epidemiology or advances in our understanding of pathophysiology of these infections.”

Dr. Chan noted that obstacles exist for patients even when screening recommendations are in place. Although insurers typically cover costs of chlamydia and gonorrhea screening tests, he said, the uninsured may have to pay $100 or more each.

The USPSTF is supported by the U.S. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. Dr. Kubik, Dr. Chan, and Dr. Marrazzo report no relevant financial relationships.

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

The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) announced on Tuesday that it is standing by its 2014 recommendations that sexually active girls and young women be screened for chlamydia and gonorrhea. But the panel is not ready to provide guidance about screening males even amid an outbreak of gonorrhea infections among men who have sex with men (MSM).

“For men in general, there’s not enough evidence to determine whether screening will reduce the risk of complications or spreading infections to others,” said Marti Kubik, PhD, RN, in an interview. Dr. Kubik is a professor at the George Mason University School of Nursing, Fairfax, Va., and is a member of the task force. “We need further research so we will know how to make those recommendations,” she said.

The screening recommendations for chlamydia and gonorrhea were published Sept. 14 in the Journal of the American Medical Association. The guidance is identical to the panel’s 2014 recommendations. The task force recommends screening for chlamydia and gonorrhea in all sexually active females aged 24 years or younger and in sexually active women aged 25 and older if they are at higher risk because of factors such as new or multiple sex partners.

“We continue to see rising rates of these infections in spite of consistent screening recommendations,” Dr. Kubik said. “In 2019, the CDC recorded nearly 2 million cases of chlamydia and a half million cases of gonorrhea. The big clincher is that chlamydia and gonorrhea can occur without symptoms. It’s critical to screen if we’re going to prevent serious health complications.”

The report notes that chlamydia and gonorrhea may lead to pelvic inflammatory disease in women and to multiple complications in infants born to infected mothers. Men can develop urethritis and epididymitis. Both diseases can boost the risk for HIV infection and transmission.

“We want clinicians to review the new recommendation and feel confident about the evidence base that supports a need for us to be screening young women and older women who are at increased risk,” Dr. Kubik said. She noted that almost two-thirds of chlamydia cases and more than half of gonorrhea cases occur in men and women aged 15-24.

Unlike the CDC, which recommends annual chlamydia and gonorrhea screening in appropriate female patients, the task force provides no guidance on screening frequency. “We didn’t have the evidence base to make a recommendation about how often to screen,” Dr. Kubik said. “But recognizing that these often occur without symptoms, it’s reasonable for clinicians to screen patients whose sexual history reveals new or consistent risk factors.”

Philip A. Chan, MD, an associate professor at Brown University, Providence, R.I., who directs a sexually transmitted disease clinic, told this news organization that he found it frustrating that the task force didn’t make recommendations about screening of MSM. According to a commentary accompanying the new recommendations, the rate of gonorrhea in MSM – 5,166 cases per 100,000, or more than 5% – is at a historic high.

In contrast to the task force, the CDC recommends annual or more frequent testing for gonorrhea and chlamydia plus HIV and syphilis in sexually active MSM.

Dr. Chan noted that the task force’s guidance “tends to be the most evidence-based recommendations that exist. If the evidence isn’t there, they usually don’t make a recommendation.” Still, he said, “I would argue that there’s good evidence that in MSM, the risk for HIV acquisition warrants routine screening.”

Jeanne Marrazzo, MD, MPH, director of the division of infectious diseases at the University of Alabama at Birmingham, also noted the limits of the task force’s insistence on certain kinds of evidence. Dr. Marrazzo, who coauthored a commentary that accompanies the recommendations, said in an interview that the panel’s “reliance on randomized-controlled-trial-level evidence tends to limit its ability to evolve their recommendations in a way that could account for evolving epidemiology or advances in our understanding of pathophysiology of these infections.”

Dr. Chan noted that obstacles exist for patients even when screening recommendations are in place. Although insurers typically cover costs of chlamydia and gonorrhea screening tests, he said, the uninsured may have to pay $100 or more each.

The USPSTF is supported by the U.S. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. Dr. Kubik, Dr. Chan, and Dr. Marrazzo report no relevant financial relationships.

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

The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) announced on Tuesday that it is standing by its 2014 recommendations that sexually active girls and young women be screened for chlamydia and gonorrhea. But the panel is not ready to provide guidance about screening males even amid an outbreak of gonorrhea infections among men who have sex with men (MSM).

“For men in general, there’s not enough evidence to determine whether screening will reduce the risk of complications or spreading infections to others,” said Marti Kubik, PhD, RN, in an interview. Dr. Kubik is a professor at the George Mason University School of Nursing, Fairfax, Va., and is a member of the task force. “We need further research so we will know how to make those recommendations,” she said.

The screening recommendations for chlamydia and gonorrhea were published Sept. 14 in the Journal of the American Medical Association. The guidance is identical to the panel’s 2014 recommendations. The task force recommends screening for chlamydia and gonorrhea in all sexually active females aged 24 years or younger and in sexually active women aged 25 and older if they are at higher risk because of factors such as new or multiple sex partners.

“We continue to see rising rates of these infections in spite of consistent screening recommendations,” Dr. Kubik said. “In 2019, the CDC recorded nearly 2 million cases of chlamydia and a half million cases of gonorrhea. The big clincher is that chlamydia and gonorrhea can occur without symptoms. It’s critical to screen if we’re going to prevent serious health complications.”

The report notes that chlamydia and gonorrhea may lead to pelvic inflammatory disease in women and to multiple complications in infants born to infected mothers. Men can develop urethritis and epididymitis. Both diseases can boost the risk for HIV infection and transmission.

“We want clinicians to review the new recommendation and feel confident about the evidence base that supports a need for us to be screening young women and older women who are at increased risk,” Dr. Kubik said. She noted that almost two-thirds of chlamydia cases and more than half of gonorrhea cases occur in men and women aged 15-24.

Unlike the CDC, which recommends annual chlamydia and gonorrhea screening in appropriate female patients, the task force provides no guidance on screening frequency. “We didn’t have the evidence base to make a recommendation about how often to screen,” Dr. Kubik said. “But recognizing that these often occur without symptoms, it’s reasonable for clinicians to screen patients whose sexual history reveals new or consistent risk factors.”

Philip A. Chan, MD, an associate professor at Brown University, Providence, R.I., who directs a sexually transmitted disease clinic, told this news organization that he found it frustrating that the task force didn’t make recommendations about screening of MSM. According to a commentary accompanying the new recommendations, the rate of gonorrhea in MSM – 5,166 cases per 100,000, or more than 5% – is at a historic high.

In contrast to the task force, the CDC recommends annual or more frequent testing for gonorrhea and chlamydia plus HIV and syphilis in sexually active MSM.

Dr. Chan noted that the task force’s guidance “tends to be the most evidence-based recommendations that exist. If the evidence isn’t there, they usually don’t make a recommendation.” Still, he said, “I would argue that there’s good evidence that in MSM, the risk for HIV acquisition warrants routine screening.”

Jeanne Marrazzo, MD, MPH, director of the division of infectious diseases at the University of Alabama at Birmingham, also noted the limits of the task force’s insistence on certain kinds of evidence. Dr. Marrazzo, who coauthored a commentary that accompanies the recommendations, said in an interview that the panel’s “reliance on randomized-controlled-trial-level evidence tends to limit its ability to evolve their recommendations in a way that could account for evolving epidemiology or advances in our understanding of pathophysiology of these infections.”

Dr. Chan noted that obstacles exist for patients even when screening recommendations are in place. Although insurers typically cover costs of chlamydia and gonorrhea screening tests, he said, the uninsured may have to pay $100 or more each.

The USPSTF is supported by the U.S. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. Dr. Kubik, Dr. Chan, and Dr. Marrazzo report no relevant financial relationships.

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