Infectious Diseases

“One of the most important considerations before switching HIV patients to injectable long-acting cabotegravir/rilpivirine [CAB/RPV LA; Cabenuva, ViiV Healthcare] is for the patient and the clinician to arrive at this decision together,” Elliot DeHaan, MD, told this news organization. “This therapy is not necessarily for everyone.”

Dr. DeHaan is lead author of the newly released clinical guideline from the New York State Department of Health AIDS Institute for use of CAB/RPV LA as replacement antiretroviral therapy (ART) in virally suppressed adults with HIV. He explained that the guidance expands upon Health & Human Services’ Feb. 24 CAB/RPV LA recommendations, highlighting some of the most important clinical and patient considerations necessary to implement injectable ART. “There are a lot of things that need to be laid out beforehand,” he said.
 

Gaining consensus

Approved by the FDA in late January 2021, CAB/RPV LA is considered an optimization strategy for individuals with HIV whose virus is suppressed by oral ART and who might prefer monthly injections to daily oral therapy. While there are various reasons why patients might wish to switch to a long-acting injectable, one of the primary concerns is adherence. Of note, the guidance points to phase 3 clinical study findings that suggest high levels (86%-91%) of patient satisfaction with CAB/RPV LA, which portends a promising future for this therapeutic approach.

With regard to patient preference, recommendations focus on the need to thoroughly discuss several critical requisites with potential candidates, including a 4-week lead-in daily oral ART course (CAB [Vocabria] 30 mg, RPV [Edurant] 25 mg) before initiating a loading dose. Patients should be advised of the potential for development of resistance should dosing be interrupted for any reason (CAB and RPV have extended half-lives ranging from mean 5.6 to 11.5 weeks for CAB and 13 to 28 weeks for RPV), as well as the need to return to oral bridging therapy if subsequent injections are not administered within the 7-day window period. If the maintenance dose is delayed beyond 2 months, a loading dose and restart is necessary.

CAB/RPV LA therapy is administered into opposing gluteal muscles (CAB into one gluteus medius and RPV into the contralateral gluteus medius), and injection-site pain beginning 1 day post-injection and lasting 3-4 days is common. In phase 3 clinical trials, as many as 83% of patients experienced adverse effects (AEs), which also include nodules, induration, and swelling at the injection sites. Fortunately, 99% of AEs were of mild to moderate severity. While pain tends to decline over several injections, Dr. DeHaan said that it’s an important part of the initial discussion about switching therapies.
 

Other considerations

Prior resistance testing, ART treatment history, and/or baseline genotypic resistance testing that includes both reverse transcriptase and integrase genes should be reviewed or conducted before initiating treatment. K103 mutations alone are not considered exclusionary. Virologic failures (defined as two consecutive plasma HIV-1 RNA measurements greater than 200 copies/mL), while rare, were reported in 13 clinical trial participants. Recent data suggest that patients who developed resistance despite adherence had at least two of three factors: a body mass index greater than 30 kg/m², the HIV-1 subtype A6/A1, and the presence of proviral RPV RAMS.

CAB/RPV LA does not treat hepatitis B (HBV) coinfections, reinforcing the need for concurrent oral HBV therapy.

And there’s a paucity of data on the safety and efficacy of CAB/RPV in children and adolescents, or during pregnancy/lactation, precluding its use in those patient populations.
 

Clinical, institutional considerations

Adaptation of CAB/RPV LA as ART requires specific clinical institutional planning, especially in light of current pandemic-related resource and staffing limitations. Monthly dosing must be done within a 7-day window and requires preparations akin to initial loading doses. In addition to pharmacy resources and onsite storage requirements, the guidance points to patient scheduling and reminder systems, access (patient transportation, work constraints, parking), and most importantly, contingency plans for care (including oral bridging therapy) should a clinic be forced to shut down for any reason. Additional factors include billing protocols, insurance or third party authorizations, and provision of counseling and education training.

“Given that this is a completely new way of thinking among providers, we’re all learning together,” said David Koren, PharmD, MPH, a clinical pharmacy specialist in infectious diseases at Temple University, Philadelphia. “The guidelines provide a nice framework for taking the next step to operationalize these processes into practice, taking into account that barriers to implementation are still unknown.” Dr. Koren was not involved in the development of the guidelines.

Dr. DeHaan has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Koren disclosed serving on a prior Advisory Panel for ViiV Healthcare US.

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

“One of the most important considerations before switching HIV patients to injectable long-acting cabotegravir/rilpivirine [CAB/RPV LA; Cabenuva, ViiV Healthcare] is for the patient and the clinician to arrive at this decision together,” Elliot DeHaan, MD, told this news organization. “This therapy is not necessarily for everyone.”

Dr. DeHaan is lead author of the newly released clinical guideline from the New York State Department of Health AIDS Institute for use of CAB/RPV LA as replacement antiretroviral therapy (ART) in virally suppressed adults with HIV. He explained that the guidance expands upon Health & Human Services’ Feb. 24 CAB/RPV LA recommendations, highlighting some of the most important clinical and patient considerations necessary to implement injectable ART. “There are a lot of things that need to be laid out beforehand,” he said.
 

Gaining consensus

Approved by the FDA in late January 2021, CAB/RPV LA is considered an optimization strategy for individuals with HIV whose virus is suppressed by oral ART and who might prefer monthly injections to daily oral therapy. While there are various reasons why patients might wish to switch to a long-acting injectable, one of the primary concerns is adherence. Of note, the guidance points to phase 3 clinical study findings that suggest high levels (86%-91%) of patient satisfaction with CAB/RPV LA, which portends a promising future for this therapeutic approach.

With regard to patient preference, recommendations focus on the need to thoroughly discuss several critical requisites with potential candidates, including a 4-week lead-in daily oral ART course (CAB [Vocabria] 30 mg, RPV [Edurant] 25 mg) before initiating a loading dose. Patients should be advised of the potential for development of resistance should dosing be interrupted for any reason (CAB and RPV have extended half-lives ranging from mean 5.6 to 11.5 weeks for CAB and 13 to 28 weeks for RPV), as well as the need to return to oral bridging therapy if subsequent injections are not administered within the 7-day window period. If the maintenance dose is delayed beyond 2 months, a loading dose and restart is necessary.

CAB/RPV LA therapy is administered into opposing gluteal muscles (CAB into one gluteus medius and RPV into the contralateral gluteus medius), and injection-site pain beginning 1 day post-injection and lasting 3-4 days is common. In phase 3 clinical trials, as many as 83% of patients experienced adverse effects (AEs), which also include nodules, induration, and swelling at the injection sites. Fortunately, 99% of AEs were of mild to moderate severity. While pain tends to decline over several injections, Dr. DeHaan said that it’s an important part of the initial discussion about switching therapies.
 

Other considerations

Prior resistance testing, ART treatment history, and/or baseline genotypic resistance testing that includes both reverse transcriptase and integrase genes should be reviewed or conducted before initiating treatment. K103 mutations alone are not considered exclusionary. Virologic failures (defined as two consecutive plasma HIV-1 RNA measurements greater than 200 copies/mL), while rare, were reported in 13 clinical trial participants. Recent data suggest that patients who developed resistance despite adherence had at least two of three factors: a body mass index greater than 30 kg/m², the HIV-1 subtype A6/A1, and the presence of proviral RPV RAMS.

CAB/RPV LA does not treat hepatitis B (HBV) coinfections, reinforcing the need for concurrent oral HBV therapy.

And there’s a paucity of data on the safety and efficacy of CAB/RPV in children and adolescents, or during pregnancy/lactation, precluding its use in those patient populations.
 

Clinical, institutional considerations

Adaptation of CAB/RPV LA as ART requires specific clinical institutional planning, especially in light of current pandemic-related resource and staffing limitations. Monthly dosing must be done within a 7-day window and requires preparations akin to initial loading doses. In addition to pharmacy resources and onsite storage requirements, the guidance points to patient scheduling and reminder systems, access (patient transportation, work constraints, parking), and most importantly, contingency plans for care (including oral bridging therapy) should a clinic be forced to shut down for any reason. Additional factors include billing protocols, insurance or third party authorizations, and provision of counseling and education training.

“Given that this is a completely new way of thinking among providers, we’re all learning together,” said David Koren, PharmD, MPH, a clinical pharmacy specialist in infectious diseases at Temple University, Philadelphia. “The guidelines provide a nice framework for taking the next step to operationalize these processes into practice, taking into account that barriers to implementation are still unknown.” Dr. Koren was not involved in the development of the guidelines.

Dr. DeHaan has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Koren disclosed serving on a prior Advisory Panel for ViiV Healthcare US.

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

“One of the most important considerations before switching HIV patients to injectable long-acting cabotegravir/rilpivirine [CAB/RPV LA; Cabenuva, ViiV Healthcare] is for the patient and the clinician to arrive at this decision together,” Elliot DeHaan, MD, told this news organization. “This therapy is not necessarily for everyone.”

Dr. DeHaan is lead author of the newly released clinical guideline from the New York State Department of Health AIDS Institute for use of CAB/RPV LA as replacement antiretroviral therapy (ART) in virally suppressed adults with HIV. He explained that the guidance expands upon Health & Human Services’ Feb. 24 CAB/RPV LA recommendations, highlighting some of the most important clinical and patient considerations necessary to implement injectable ART. “There are a lot of things that need to be laid out beforehand,” he said.
 

Gaining consensus

Approved by the FDA in late January 2021, CAB/RPV LA is considered an optimization strategy for individuals with HIV whose virus is suppressed by oral ART and who might prefer monthly injections to daily oral therapy. While there are various reasons why patients might wish to switch to a long-acting injectable, one of the primary concerns is adherence. Of note, the guidance points to phase 3 clinical study findings that suggest high levels (86%-91%) of patient satisfaction with CAB/RPV LA, which portends a promising future for this therapeutic approach.

With regard to patient preference, recommendations focus on the need to thoroughly discuss several critical requisites with potential candidates, including a 4-week lead-in daily oral ART course (CAB [Vocabria] 30 mg, RPV [Edurant] 25 mg) before initiating a loading dose. Patients should be advised of the potential for development of resistance should dosing be interrupted for any reason (CAB and RPV have extended half-lives ranging from mean 5.6 to 11.5 weeks for CAB and 13 to 28 weeks for RPV), as well as the need to return to oral bridging therapy if subsequent injections are not administered within the 7-day window period. If the maintenance dose is delayed beyond 2 months, a loading dose and restart is necessary.

CAB/RPV LA therapy is administered into opposing gluteal muscles (CAB into one gluteus medius and RPV into the contralateral gluteus medius), and injection-site pain beginning 1 day post-injection and lasting 3-4 days is common. In phase 3 clinical trials, as many as 83% of patients experienced adverse effects (AEs), which also include nodules, induration, and swelling at the injection sites. Fortunately, 99% of AEs were of mild to moderate severity. While pain tends to decline over several injections, Dr. DeHaan said that it’s an important part of the initial discussion about switching therapies.
 

Other considerations

Prior resistance testing, ART treatment history, and/or baseline genotypic resistance testing that includes both reverse transcriptase and integrase genes should be reviewed or conducted before initiating treatment. K103 mutations alone are not considered exclusionary. Virologic failures (defined as two consecutive plasma HIV-1 RNA measurements greater than 200 copies/mL), while rare, were reported in 13 clinical trial participants. Recent data suggest that patients who developed resistance despite adherence had at least two of three factors: a body mass index greater than 30 kg/m², the HIV-1 subtype A6/A1, and the presence of proviral RPV RAMS.

CAB/RPV LA does not treat hepatitis B (HBV) coinfections, reinforcing the need for concurrent oral HBV therapy.

And there’s a paucity of data on the safety and efficacy of CAB/RPV in children and adolescents, or during pregnancy/lactation, precluding its use in those patient populations.
 

Clinical, institutional considerations

Adaptation of CAB/RPV LA as ART requires specific clinical institutional planning, especially in light of current pandemic-related resource and staffing limitations. Monthly dosing must be done within a 7-day window and requires preparations akin to initial loading doses. In addition to pharmacy resources and onsite storage requirements, the guidance points to patient scheduling and reminder systems, access (patient transportation, work constraints, parking), and most importantly, contingency plans for care (including oral bridging therapy) should a clinic be forced to shut down for any reason. Additional factors include billing protocols, insurance or third party authorizations, and provision of counseling and education training.

“Given that this is a completely new way of thinking among providers, we’re all learning together,” said David Koren, PharmD, MPH, a clinical pharmacy specialist in infectious diseases at Temple University, Philadelphia. “The guidelines provide a nice framework for taking the next step to operationalize these processes into practice, taking into account that barriers to implementation are still unknown.” Dr. Koren was not involved in the development of the guidelines.

Dr. DeHaan has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Koren disclosed serving on a prior Advisory Panel for ViiV Healthcare US.

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

The Centers for Disease Control has issued the first recommendations for the prevention and treatment of plague since 2000. The new guidelines focus on the possibility of bioterrorism with mass casualty events from an intentional release of Yersinia pestis.

Plague, a deadly infection caused by Y. pestis, has been feared throughout history because of large pandemics. The most well-known pandemic was the so-called Black Death in the fourteenth century, during which more than 50 million Europeans died. The biggest concern now is the spread of the bacteria by bioterrorism.

The CDC based their revised guidelines on an extensive systematic review of the literature and multiple sessions with about 90 experts in infectious disease, public health, emergency medicine, obgyn, maternal-fetal health, and pediatrics, in addition to representatives from a wide range of federal agencies.
 

Key changes

Christina Nelson, a medical officer with the CDC’s Division of Vector-Borne Diseases, told this news organization that now “we have been fortunate to have extended options for treatment.” Previously, “streptomycin and gentamicin were the first-line options for adults,” she said. Now, on the basis of additional evidence, “[we’re] able to … elevate the fluoroquinolones to first-line treatments.”

On the basis of the Animal Rule, which allows approval of antibiotics without human testing if such testing is not possible, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration has approved several quinolones for both treatment and prophylaxis of plague.

The guidelines offer same-class alternative antibiotics to meet surge capacity. Similarly, trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole is now an alternative for prophylaxis.

There are additional oral options to conserve IV medications and supplies in a mass casualty event.

For the first time, the CDC added specific recommendations for pregnant women. Gigi Kwik Gronvall, PhD, senior scholar at the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security, Baltimore, told this news organization that she was pleased to see this addition, because “effects on women and during pregnancy are not fully addressed, and it leads to problems down the road, like with COVID, [for which] they didn’t include pregnant people in their clinical trials for the vaccines [and] don’t have enough data to convince pregnant women to actually get the vaccine.”
 

Bubonic plague

Plague occurs globally, with natural sylvatic (wild animal) outbreaks occurring among rodents and small mammals. It is spread by fleas. When an infected flea bites a human, the person can become infected, most commonly as “bubonic” plague, with swollen lymph nodes, called buboes. Transmission can also occur between people by contact with infected fluids or inhalation of infectious droplets.

Gentamicin or streptomycin remain first-line agents for treating bubonic plague. When used as monotherapy, the survival rate is 91%. They have to be given parenterally and are associated with both nephroroxicity and ototoxicity; patients require monitoring.

Alternative first-line drugs now include high-dose ciprofloxicin, levofloxacin, moxifloxacin, and doxycycline. Each is administered either intravenously or orally.

Physicians should consider dual therapy and drainage for patients with large buboes. Treatment is for 10 to 14 days.
 

Pneumonic and septicemic plague

The pneumonic and septicemic forms of infection are deadlier than the bubonic. Pneumonic plague can be acquired from inhalation of infected bacteria from animals or people, from lab accidents, or from intentional aerosolization. Without treatment, these forms are almost always fatal. With treatment with aminoglycosides, fluoroquinolones, or tetracyclines, alone or in combination, survival is 82% to 83%. With naturally occurring pneumonic plague, the CDC now recommends levofloxacin or moxifloxacin to cover for community-acquired pneumonia if the source of the infection is uncertain.

Because plague is life threatening, doxycycline is not considered contraindicated in children. It has not been shown to cause tooth staining, unlike other tetracyclines, which should still be avoided if possible.
 

Meningitis

About 10% of people infected with bubonic plague develop plague meningitis. Symptoms are stiff neck, fever, headache, and coma. The current recommendation for treating plague meningitis is chloramphenicol and moxifloxacin or levofloxacin. However, quinolones can cause seizures, and clinicians should take that into account.

Infection control

Plague is transmitted between people by droplets, so caretakers should wear a mask in addition to taking standard precautions. They should add eye protection and a face shield if splashing is likely. Airborne precautions are not needed. Plague is not very transmissible from person to person; each infected person on average infects only 1.18 other people. In comparison, someone with chicken pox infects 9 to 10 people on average.

Bioterrorism

A deliberate attack would likely go undetected until a cluster or unusual pattern of disease became evident. With Y. pestis, the infectious dose is low. According to the guidelines, modeling suggests that a “release of 50 kg of Y. pestis into the air over a city of 5 million persons could result in 150,000 cases of pneumonic plague and 36,000 deaths.”

Because the former Union of the Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) engineered antibiotic-resistant Y. pestis, antibiotics from two different classes should be used empirically until sensitivity tests become available.

Antibiotic prophylaxis would also have to be considered for exposed individuals. Recommendations would be developed at the time by federal and state experts, based in part on the magnitude of the event and the availability of masks and different classes of antibiotics.

Dr. Gronvall stressed the need for awareness, saying, “It’s important for people to remember that the first sign of the potential attack could be somebody coming into your hospital.”

Dr. Nelson added, “One of the main take-home messages ... is that plague still happens, it still happens in the western United States, it still happens around the world ... It’s not just a relic of history.” She emphasized that clinicians need to be thinking about it, because “it’s very important to get antibiotics on board early ... Then patients generally have a good prognosis.”

Dr. Nelson and Dr. Gronvall have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

The Centers for Disease Control has issued the first recommendations for the prevention and treatment of plague since 2000. The new guidelines focus on the possibility of bioterrorism with mass casualty events from an intentional release of Yersinia pestis.

Plague, a deadly infection caused by Y. pestis, has been feared throughout history because of large pandemics. The most well-known pandemic was the so-called Black Death in the fourteenth century, during which more than 50 million Europeans died. The biggest concern now is the spread of the bacteria by bioterrorism.

The CDC based their revised guidelines on an extensive systematic review of the literature and multiple sessions with about 90 experts in infectious disease, public health, emergency medicine, obgyn, maternal-fetal health, and pediatrics, in addition to representatives from a wide range of federal agencies.
 

Key changes

Christina Nelson, a medical officer with the CDC’s Division of Vector-Borne Diseases, told this news organization that now “we have been fortunate to have extended options for treatment.” Previously, “streptomycin and gentamicin were the first-line options for adults,” she said. Now, on the basis of additional evidence, “[we’re] able to … elevate the fluoroquinolones to first-line treatments.”

On the basis of the Animal Rule, which allows approval of antibiotics without human testing if such testing is not possible, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration has approved several quinolones for both treatment and prophylaxis of plague.

The guidelines offer same-class alternative antibiotics to meet surge capacity. Similarly, trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole is now an alternative for prophylaxis.

There are additional oral options to conserve IV medications and supplies in a mass casualty event.

For the first time, the CDC added specific recommendations for pregnant women. Gigi Kwik Gronvall, PhD, senior scholar at the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security, Baltimore, told this news organization that she was pleased to see this addition, because “effects on women and during pregnancy are not fully addressed, and it leads to problems down the road, like with COVID, [for which] they didn’t include pregnant people in their clinical trials for the vaccines [and] don’t have enough data to convince pregnant women to actually get the vaccine.”
 

Bubonic plague

Plague occurs globally, with natural sylvatic (wild animal) outbreaks occurring among rodents and small mammals. It is spread by fleas. When an infected flea bites a human, the person can become infected, most commonly as “bubonic” plague, with swollen lymph nodes, called buboes. Transmission can also occur between people by contact with infected fluids or inhalation of infectious droplets.

Gentamicin or streptomycin remain first-line agents for treating bubonic plague. When used as monotherapy, the survival rate is 91%. They have to be given parenterally and are associated with both nephroroxicity and ototoxicity; patients require monitoring.

Alternative first-line drugs now include high-dose ciprofloxicin, levofloxacin, moxifloxacin, and doxycycline. Each is administered either intravenously or orally.

Physicians should consider dual therapy and drainage for patients with large buboes. Treatment is for 10 to 14 days.
 

Pneumonic and septicemic plague

The pneumonic and septicemic forms of infection are deadlier than the bubonic. Pneumonic plague can be acquired from inhalation of infected bacteria from animals or people, from lab accidents, or from intentional aerosolization. Without treatment, these forms are almost always fatal. With treatment with aminoglycosides, fluoroquinolones, or tetracyclines, alone or in combination, survival is 82% to 83%. With naturally occurring pneumonic plague, the CDC now recommends levofloxacin or moxifloxacin to cover for community-acquired pneumonia if the source of the infection is uncertain.

Because plague is life threatening, doxycycline is not considered contraindicated in children. It has not been shown to cause tooth staining, unlike other tetracyclines, which should still be avoided if possible.
 

Meningitis

About 10% of people infected with bubonic plague develop plague meningitis. Symptoms are stiff neck, fever, headache, and coma. The current recommendation for treating plague meningitis is chloramphenicol and moxifloxacin or levofloxacin. However, quinolones can cause seizures, and clinicians should take that into account.

Infection control

Plague is transmitted between people by droplets, so caretakers should wear a mask in addition to taking standard precautions. They should add eye protection and a face shield if splashing is likely. Airborne precautions are not needed. Plague is not very transmissible from person to person; each infected person on average infects only 1.18 other people. In comparison, someone with chicken pox infects 9 to 10 people on average.

Bioterrorism

A deliberate attack would likely go undetected until a cluster or unusual pattern of disease became evident. With Y. pestis, the infectious dose is low. According to the guidelines, modeling suggests that a “release of 50 kg of Y. pestis into the air over a city of 5 million persons could result in 150,000 cases of pneumonic plague and 36,000 deaths.”

Because the former Union of the Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) engineered antibiotic-resistant Y. pestis, antibiotics from two different classes should be used empirically until sensitivity tests become available.

Antibiotic prophylaxis would also have to be considered for exposed individuals. Recommendations would be developed at the time by federal and state experts, based in part on the magnitude of the event and the availability of masks and different classes of antibiotics.

Dr. Gronvall stressed the need for awareness, saying, “It’s important for people to remember that the first sign of the potential attack could be somebody coming into your hospital.”

Dr. Nelson added, “One of the main take-home messages ... is that plague still happens, it still happens in the western United States, it still happens around the world ... It’s not just a relic of history.” She emphasized that clinicians need to be thinking about it, because “it’s very important to get antibiotics on board early ... Then patients generally have a good prognosis.”

Dr. Nelson and Dr. Gronvall have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

The Centers for Disease Control has issued the first recommendations for the prevention and treatment of plague since 2000. The new guidelines focus on the possibility of bioterrorism with mass casualty events from an intentional release of Yersinia pestis.

Plague, a deadly infection caused by Y. pestis, has been feared throughout history because of large pandemics. The most well-known pandemic was the so-called Black Death in the fourteenth century, during which more than 50 million Europeans died. The biggest concern now is the spread of the bacteria by bioterrorism.

The CDC based their revised guidelines on an extensive systematic review of the literature and multiple sessions with about 90 experts in infectious disease, public health, emergency medicine, obgyn, maternal-fetal health, and pediatrics, in addition to representatives from a wide range of federal agencies.
 

Key changes

Christina Nelson, a medical officer with the CDC’s Division of Vector-Borne Diseases, told this news organization that now “we have been fortunate to have extended options for treatment.” Previously, “streptomycin and gentamicin were the first-line options for adults,” she said. Now, on the basis of additional evidence, “[we’re] able to … elevate the fluoroquinolones to first-line treatments.”

On the basis of the Animal Rule, which allows approval of antibiotics without human testing if such testing is not possible, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration has approved several quinolones for both treatment and prophylaxis of plague.

The guidelines offer same-class alternative antibiotics to meet surge capacity. Similarly, trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole is now an alternative for prophylaxis.

There are additional oral options to conserve IV medications and supplies in a mass casualty event.

For the first time, the CDC added specific recommendations for pregnant women. Gigi Kwik Gronvall, PhD, senior scholar at the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security, Baltimore, told this news organization that she was pleased to see this addition, because “effects on women and during pregnancy are not fully addressed, and it leads to problems down the road, like with COVID, [for which] they didn’t include pregnant people in their clinical trials for the vaccines [and] don’t have enough data to convince pregnant women to actually get the vaccine.”
 

Bubonic plague

Plague occurs globally, with natural sylvatic (wild animal) outbreaks occurring among rodents and small mammals. It is spread by fleas. When an infected flea bites a human, the person can become infected, most commonly as “bubonic” plague, with swollen lymph nodes, called buboes. Transmission can also occur between people by contact with infected fluids or inhalation of infectious droplets.

Gentamicin or streptomycin remain first-line agents for treating bubonic plague. When used as monotherapy, the survival rate is 91%. They have to be given parenterally and are associated with both nephroroxicity and ototoxicity; patients require monitoring.

Alternative first-line drugs now include high-dose ciprofloxicin, levofloxacin, moxifloxacin, and doxycycline. Each is administered either intravenously or orally.

Physicians should consider dual therapy and drainage for patients with large buboes. Treatment is for 10 to 14 days.
 

Pneumonic and septicemic plague

The pneumonic and septicemic forms of infection are deadlier than the bubonic. Pneumonic plague can be acquired from inhalation of infected bacteria from animals or people, from lab accidents, or from intentional aerosolization. Without treatment, these forms are almost always fatal. With treatment with aminoglycosides, fluoroquinolones, or tetracyclines, alone or in combination, survival is 82% to 83%. With naturally occurring pneumonic plague, the CDC now recommends levofloxacin or moxifloxacin to cover for community-acquired pneumonia if the source of the infection is uncertain.

Because plague is life threatening, doxycycline is not considered contraindicated in children. It has not been shown to cause tooth staining, unlike other tetracyclines, which should still be avoided if possible.
 

Meningitis

About 10% of people infected with bubonic plague develop plague meningitis. Symptoms are stiff neck, fever, headache, and coma. The current recommendation for treating plague meningitis is chloramphenicol and moxifloxacin or levofloxacin. However, quinolones can cause seizures, and clinicians should take that into account.

Infection control

Plague is transmitted between people by droplets, so caretakers should wear a mask in addition to taking standard precautions. They should add eye protection and a face shield if splashing is likely. Airborne precautions are not needed. Plague is not very transmissible from person to person; each infected person on average infects only 1.18 other people. In comparison, someone with chicken pox infects 9 to 10 people on average.

Bioterrorism

A deliberate attack would likely go undetected until a cluster or unusual pattern of disease became evident. With Y. pestis, the infectious dose is low. According to the guidelines, modeling suggests that a “release of 50 kg of Y. pestis into the air over a city of 5 million persons could result in 150,000 cases of pneumonic plague and 36,000 deaths.”

Because the former Union of the Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) engineered antibiotic-resistant Y. pestis, antibiotics from two different classes should be used empirically until sensitivity tests become available.

Antibiotic prophylaxis would also have to be considered for exposed individuals. Recommendations would be developed at the time by federal and state experts, based in part on the magnitude of the event and the availability of masks and different classes of antibiotics.

Dr. Gronvall stressed the need for awareness, saying, “It’s important for people to remember that the first sign of the potential attack could be somebody coming into your hospital.”

Dr. Nelson added, “One of the main take-home messages ... is that plague still happens, it still happens in the western United States, it still happens around the world ... It’s not just a relic of history.” She emphasized that clinicians need to be thinking about it, because “it’s very important to get antibiotics on board early ... Then patients generally have a good prognosis.”

Dr. Nelson and Dr. Gronvall have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

After SARS-CoV-2 spread at a sleepaway camp in Georgia last summer, researchers described the efficient spread and high attack rates at camp.

In a report published online in The New England Journal of Medicine, researchers found that campers spread COVID to household members after returning home – but transmission was more likely from some than others. Distancing and masking helped reduce the risk.

Victoria T. Chu, MD, MPH, with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, and colleagues with the agency and the Georgia Department of Health followed up with 224 camp attendees, aged 7 to 19 years, who had evidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection on laboratory testing.

These index patients – 88% of whom had symptoms – had 526 household contacts, mainly parents and siblings. Of 377 household contacts who underwent testing, 46 (12%) tested positive. Another two cases in household contacts were identified using clinical and epidemiologic criteria.
 

Family members hospitalized

Of the 41 adult household contacts who were infected, four (about 10%) were hospitalized. Their hospital stays ranged from 5 to 11 days. Of the seven infected household contacts who were younger than 18 years, none were hospitalized.

The four hospitalized adults were parents and grandparents aged 45 to 80 years, Dr. Chu said. Two of the four had underlying conditions. None of the household contacts died.

In an adjusted analysis, campers who had practiced physical distancing were less likely to transmit the virus at home, compared with those who had not practiced physical distancing (adjusted odds ratio, 0.4). Household members who had had close or direct contact with the index patients were more than 5 times more likely to become infected, compared with family members with minimal or no contact, analyses showed.

“This retrospective study showed that the efficient transmission of SARS-CoV-2 from school-age children and adolescents to household members led to the hospitalization of adults with secondary cases of COVID-19,” the researchers write. “In households in which transmission occurred, half the household contacts were infected.”

The secondary attack rates in this report may be an underestimate because testing was voluntary and participants reported the results themselves, the authors note. It is possible that infected household contacts spread the virus further, but this study did not address that question, Dr. Chu said.

For the study, investigators interviewed all camp attendees and their parents or guardians by phone between July 17, 2020 and Aug. 24, 2020, to collect information about demographic and clinical characteristics, SARS-CoV-2 testing, and preventive measures. The researchers’ analysis excluded households in which illness onset in a household contact occurred before or less than 2 days after a camper became sick.

About a third of the index patients began to have symptoms while still at camp. These campers may have been less infectious by the time they got home, compared with those whose symptoms started after they returned.

Two-thirds of the index patients adopted physical distancing at home, which “probably reduced the transmission of SARS-CoV-2 in the household,” Dr. Chu and colleagues wrote.

“Children who have had a known COVID-19 exposure should quarantine and obtain testing if they develop symptoms within the 14 days of returning home,” Dr. Chu advised. “If a child develops COVID-19, the child should be cared for and monitored using the proper combination of physical distancing, isolation when feasible, and mask use to prevent household transmission as much as possible. In addition, any person over the age of 12 is now eligible for vaccination in the United States. If eligible, children attending camp and their family members should get vaccinated to protect themselves and others, as vaccinations are our most effective public health prevention strategy.”
 

Mitigation can help

Another report regarding four overnight camps in Maine – in which three campers tested positive after they arrived last summer – shows that “aggressive mitigation strategies can be effective” in limiting transmission of the virus, William T. Basco Jr., MD, writes in a commentary for this news organization.

This summer, a range of factors, including vaccination rates at the camp, may influence transmission dynamics, Dr. Chu said in an interview. In July, the Associated Press reported outbreaks tied to summer camps in several states.

“Transmission dynamics will probably vary from summer camp to summer camp depending on many factors, such as vaccination rates of camp attendees, the mitigation measures in place, and the number of individual introductions during camp,” Dr. Chu said. “We would expect that a camp with a low vaccination rate among attendees and no enforcement of mitigation measures” still may experience a large outbreak.

“On the other hand, a large proportion of vaccinated individuals and appropriate implementation of multiple mitigation measures, such as wearing masks, may be quite effective at keeping their transmission rates low,” Dr. Chu added. “For camps with younger children who are not currently eligible for vaccination, implementing layered prevention strategies (e.g., mask use, physical distancing, and encouraging outdoor activities when feasible) is important to prevent transmission.”

Although COVID-19 transmission from children to adults, potentially leading to hospitalization, is not a new phenomenon, “data on the extent of transmission driven by children and adolescents in different settings are still quite sparse,” Dr. Chu said. “A better understanding of their impact on household and community transmission to help guide public health recommendations is particularly important, as most children are still not eligible for vaccination, and in-person schools will be reopening this fall.”

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

After SARS-CoV-2 spread at a sleepaway camp in Georgia last summer, researchers described the efficient spread and high attack rates at camp.

In a report published online in The New England Journal of Medicine, researchers found that campers spread COVID to household members after returning home – but transmission was more likely from some than others. Distancing and masking helped reduce the risk.

Victoria T. Chu, MD, MPH, with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, and colleagues with the agency and the Georgia Department of Health followed up with 224 camp attendees, aged 7 to 19 years, who had evidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection on laboratory testing.

These index patients – 88% of whom had symptoms – had 526 household contacts, mainly parents and siblings. Of 377 household contacts who underwent testing, 46 (12%) tested positive. Another two cases in household contacts were identified using clinical and epidemiologic criteria.
 

Family members hospitalized

Of the 41 adult household contacts who were infected, four (about 10%) were hospitalized. Their hospital stays ranged from 5 to 11 days. Of the seven infected household contacts who were younger than 18 years, none were hospitalized.

The four hospitalized adults were parents and grandparents aged 45 to 80 years, Dr. Chu said. Two of the four had underlying conditions. None of the household contacts died.

In an adjusted analysis, campers who had practiced physical distancing were less likely to transmit the virus at home, compared with those who had not practiced physical distancing (adjusted odds ratio, 0.4). Household members who had had close or direct contact with the index patients were more than 5 times more likely to become infected, compared with family members with minimal or no contact, analyses showed.

“This retrospective study showed that the efficient transmission of SARS-CoV-2 from school-age children and adolescents to household members led to the hospitalization of adults with secondary cases of COVID-19,” the researchers write. “In households in which transmission occurred, half the household contacts were infected.”

The secondary attack rates in this report may be an underestimate because testing was voluntary and participants reported the results themselves, the authors note. It is possible that infected household contacts spread the virus further, but this study did not address that question, Dr. Chu said.

For the study, investigators interviewed all camp attendees and their parents or guardians by phone between July 17, 2020 and Aug. 24, 2020, to collect information about demographic and clinical characteristics, SARS-CoV-2 testing, and preventive measures. The researchers’ analysis excluded households in which illness onset in a household contact occurred before or less than 2 days after a camper became sick.

About a third of the index patients began to have symptoms while still at camp. These campers may have been less infectious by the time they got home, compared with those whose symptoms started after they returned.

Two-thirds of the index patients adopted physical distancing at home, which “probably reduced the transmission of SARS-CoV-2 in the household,” Dr. Chu and colleagues wrote.

“Children who have had a known COVID-19 exposure should quarantine and obtain testing if they develop symptoms within the 14 days of returning home,” Dr. Chu advised. “If a child develops COVID-19, the child should be cared for and monitored using the proper combination of physical distancing, isolation when feasible, and mask use to prevent household transmission as much as possible. In addition, any person over the age of 12 is now eligible for vaccination in the United States. If eligible, children attending camp and their family members should get vaccinated to protect themselves and others, as vaccinations are our most effective public health prevention strategy.”
 

Mitigation can help

Another report regarding four overnight camps in Maine – in which three campers tested positive after they arrived last summer – shows that “aggressive mitigation strategies can be effective” in limiting transmission of the virus, William T. Basco Jr., MD, writes in a commentary for this news organization.

This summer, a range of factors, including vaccination rates at the camp, may influence transmission dynamics, Dr. Chu said in an interview. In July, the Associated Press reported outbreaks tied to summer camps in several states.

“Transmission dynamics will probably vary from summer camp to summer camp depending on many factors, such as vaccination rates of camp attendees, the mitigation measures in place, and the number of individual introductions during camp,” Dr. Chu said. “We would expect that a camp with a low vaccination rate among attendees and no enforcement of mitigation measures” still may experience a large outbreak.

“On the other hand, a large proportion of vaccinated individuals and appropriate implementation of multiple mitigation measures, such as wearing masks, may be quite effective at keeping their transmission rates low,” Dr. Chu added. “For camps with younger children who are not currently eligible for vaccination, implementing layered prevention strategies (e.g., mask use, physical distancing, and encouraging outdoor activities when feasible) is important to prevent transmission.”

Although COVID-19 transmission from children to adults, potentially leading to hospitalization, is not a new phenomenon, “data on the extent of transmission driven by children and adolescents in different settings are still quite sparse,” Dr. Chu said. “A better understanding of their impact on household and community transmission to help guide public health recommendations is particularly important, as most children are still not eligible for vaccination, and in-person schools will be reopening this fall.”

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

After SARS-CoV-2 spread at a sleepaway camp in Georgia last summer, researchers described the efficient spread and high attack rates at camp.

In a report published online in The New England Journal of Medicine, researchers found that campers spread COVID to household members after returning home – but transmission was more likely from some than others. Distancing and masking helped reduce the risk.

Victoria T. Chu, MD, MPH, with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, and colleagues with the agency and the Georgia Department of Health followed up with 224 camp attendees, aged 7 to 19 years, who had evidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection on laboratory testing.

These index patients – 88% of whom had symptoms – had 526 household contacts, mainly parents and siblings. Of 377 household contacts who underwent testing, 46 (12%) tested positive. Another two cases in household contacts were identified using clinical and epidemiologic criteria.
 

Family members hospitalized

Of the 41 adult household contacts who were infected, four (about 10%) were hospitalized. Their hospital stays ranged from 5 to 11 days. Of the seven infected household contacts who were younger than 18 years, none were hospitalized.

The four hospitalized adults were parents and grandparents aged 45 to 80 years, Dr. Chu said. Two of the four had underlying conditions. None of the household contacts died.

In an adjusted analysis, campers who had practiced physical distancing were less likely to transmit the virus at home, compared with those who had not practiced physical distancing (adjusted odds ratio, 0.4). Household members who had had close or direct contact with the index patients were more than 5 times more likely to become infected, compared with family members with minimal or no contact, analyses showed.

“This retrospective study showed that the efficient transmission of SARS-CoV-2 from school-age children and adolescents to household members led to the hospitalization of adults with secondary cases of COVID-19,” the researchers write. “In households in which transmission occurred, half the household contacts were infected.”

The secondary attack rates in this report may be an underestimate because testing was voluntary and participants reported the results themselves, the authors note. It is possible that infected household contacts spread the virus further, but this study did not address that question, Dr. Chu said.

For the study, investigators interviewed all camp attendees and their parents or guardians by phone between July 17, 2020 and Aug. 24, 2020, to collect information about demographic and clinical characteristics, SARS-CoV-2 testing, and preventive measures. The researchers’ analysis excluded households in which illness onset in a household contact occurred before or less than 2 days after a camper became sick.

About a third of the index patients began to have symptoms while still at camp. These campers may have been less infectious by the time they got home, compared with those whose symptoms started after they returned.

Two-thirds of the index patients adopted physical distancing at home, which “probably reduced the transmission of SARS-CoV-2 in the household,” Dr. Chu and colleagues wrote.

“Children who have had a known COVID-19 exposure should quarantine and obtain testing if they develop symptoms within the 14 days of returning home,” Dr. Chu advised. “If a child develops COVID-19, the child should be cared for and monitored using the proper combination of physical distancing, isolation when feasible, and mask use to prevent household transmission as much as possible. In addition, any person over the age of 12 is now eligible for vaccination in the United States. If eligible, children attending camp and their family members should get vaccinated to protect themselves and others, as vaccinations are our most effective public health prevention strategy.”
 

Mitigation can help

Another report regarding four overnight camps in Maine – in which three campers tested positive after they arrived last summer – shows that “aggressive mitigation strategies can be effective” in limiting transmission of the virus, William T. Basco Jr., MD, writes in a commentary for this news organization.

This summer, a range of factors, including vaccination rates at the camp, may influence transmission dynamics, Dr. Chu said in an interview. In July, the Associated Press reported outbreaks tied to summer camps in several states.

“Transmission dynamics will probably vary from summer camp to summer camp depending on many factors, such as vaccination rates of camp attendees, the mitigation measures in place, and the number of individual introductions during camp,” Dr. Chu said. “We would expect that a camp with a low vaccination rate among attendees and no enforcement of mitigation measures” still may experience a large outbreak.

“On the other hand, a large proportion of vaccinated individuals and appropriate implementation of multiple mitigation measures, such as wearing masks, may be quite effective at keeping their transmission rates low,” Dr. Chu added. “For camps with younger children who are not currently eligible for vaccination, implementing layered prevention strategies (e.g., mask use, physical distancing, and encouraging outdoor activities when feasible) is important to prevent transmission.”

Although COVID-19 transmission from children to adults, potentially leading to hospitalization, is not a new phenomenon, “data on the extent of transmission driven by children and adolescents in different settings are still quite sparse,” Dr. Chu said. “A better understanding of their impact on household and community transmission to help guide public health recommendations is particularly important, as most children are still not eligible for vaccination, and in-person schools will be reopening this fall.”

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

School-aged children with SARS-CoV-2 infection had only a few mild symptoms and typically recovered in 6 days, with more than 98% recovering in 8 weeks, a large U.K. study of smartphone data reassuringly reports.

In a small proportion (4.4%), however, COVID-19 symptoms such as fatigue, headache, or loss of smell persisted beyond a month, highlighting the need for ongoing pediatric care, according to Erika Molteni, PhD, a research fellow at King’s College, London, and colleagues.

The results, published online in The Lancet Child & Adolescent Health, also indicated that some children who had non-COVID infections were also susceptible to prolonged symptoms. “Our data highlight that other illnesses, such as colds and flu, can also have prolonged symptoms in children and it is important to consider this when planning for pediatric health services during the pandemic and beyond,” Michael Absoud, PhD, a senior coauthor and a King’s College consultant and senior lecturer, said in a news release. “All children who have persistent symptoms – from any illness – need timely multidisciplinary support linked with education, to enable them to find their individual pathway to recovery.”

Using a “citizen science” approach, the study extracted data from a smartphone app for tracking COVID symptoms in the ZOE COVID Study. The researchers looked at 258,790 children aged 5-17 years whose details were reported by adult proxies such as parents and carers from March 24, 2020, to Feb. 22, 2021. Of these, 75,529 had undergone a valid SARS-CoV-2 test.

The study also assessed symptoms in a randomly selected, age- and sex-matched cohort of 1,734 children in the app database who tested negative for COVID-19 but may have had other illnesses such as colds or flu.

In the 1,734 children testing positive for COVID-19 (approximately 50% each boys and girls), the most common symptoms were headache (62.2%) and fatigue (55.0%). More than 10% of the entire cohort had underlying asthma, but other comorbidities were very rare.

To assess the effect of age, the children were assessed in two groups: 5-11 years (n = 588) and 12-17 years (n = 1,146).

While unable to cross-check app reporting against actual medical records, the study suggested that illness lasted longer in COVID-positive than COVID-negative children, with a median of 6 days (interquartile range, 3-11) versus 3 days (IQR, 2-7). Furthermore, illness duration was positively associated with age: older children (median, 7 days; IQR, 3-12) versus younger children (median, 5 days; IQR, 2-9).

In 77 (4.4%) of the 1,734 COVID-positive children, illness persisted for at least 28 days, again more often in older than younger children: 5.1% of older children versus 3.1% of younger children (P = .046).

In addition, those with COVID-19 were more likely than children with non-COVID illness to be sick for more than 4 weeks: 4.4% versus 0.9%. At 4 weeks, however, the few children with other illnesses tended to have more symptoms, exhibiting a median of five symptoms versus two symptoms in the COVID-positive group.

“I tend to agree with the U.K. findings. COVID-19 in most school-age children is asymptomatic or a brief, self-limiting illness,” Sindhu Mohandas, MD, a pediatric infectious disease specialist at the Children’s Hospital Los Angeles, said in an interview. “The few children who need hospitalization have also mostly fully recovered by the time they are seen for their first outpatient clinic follow-up visit.”

Dr. Mohandas, who was not involved in the U.K. study, added that in her experience a small percentage, particularly adolescents, have some lingering symptoms after infection including fatigue, loss of appetite, and changes in smell and taste. “Identifying children with persistent illness and providing support and multidisciplinary care based on their symptomatology can make a positive impact on patients and their families.”

Recent research has suggested that long symptoms can persist for 3 months in 6% of children with COVID-19. And data from China have indicated that the prevalence of coinfection may be higher than in older patients.

In an accompanying comment, Dana Mahr, PhD, and Bruno J. Strasser, PhD, researchers in the faculty of science at the University of Geneva, said the app-based study “illustrates the potential and challenges of what has been called citizenship science,” in which projects rely on data input from nonscientists.

But while potentially democratizing participation in medical research, this subjective approach has the inherent bias of self-reporting (and in the case of the current study, proxy reporting), and can introduce potential conflicts of interest owing to the politicization of certain diseases.

In the case of the current study, Dr. Mahr and Dr. Strasser argued that, since the COVID-19 test result is known to participants, a pediatrician using objective criteria is better positioned to control for reporting biases than a parent asking a child about symptoms. “Entering data on a smartphone app is not equivalent to discussing with a pediatrician or health care worker who can answer further questions and concerns of participants, an especially important factor for underserved communities,” they wrote. “Citizen science will continue to require a close interaction with professional medical researchers to turn unique illness experiences into research data.”

This study was funded by Zoe Limited, the U.K. Government Department of Health and Social Care, Wellcome Trust, the U.K. Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council, the U.K. Research and Innovation London Medical Imaging and Artificial Intelligence Centre for Value Based Healthcare, the U.K. National Institute for Health Research, the U.K. Medical Research Council, the British Heart Foundation, and the Alzheimer’s Society. Several study authors have disclosed support from various research-funding agencies and Zoe Limited supported all aspects of building and running the symptom-tracking application. Dr. Mahr and Dr. Strasser declared no competing interests. Dr. Mohandas disclosed no competing interests with regard to her comments.
 

School-aged children with SARS-CoV-2 infection had only a few mild symptoms and typically recovered in 6 days, with more than 98% recovering in 8 weeks, a large U.K. study of smartphone data reassuringly reports.

In a small proportion (4.4%), however, COVID-19 symptoms such as fatigue, headache, or loss of smell persisted beyond a month, highlighting the need for ongoing pediatric care, according to Erika Molteni, PhD, a research fellow at King’s College, London, and colleagues.

The results, published online in The Lancet Child & Adolescent Health, also indicated that some children who had non-COVID infections were also susceptible to prolonged symptoms. “Our data highlight that other illnesses, such as colds and flu, can also have prolonged symptoms in children and it is important to consider this when planning for pediatric health services during the pandemic and beyond,” Michael Absoud, PhD, a senior coauthor and a King’s College consultant and senior lecturer, said in a news release. “All children who have persistent symptoms – from any illness – need timely multidisciplinary support linked with education, to enable them to find their individual pathway to recovery.”

Using a “citizen science” approach, the study extracted data from a smartphone app for tracking COVID symptoms in the ZOE COVID Study. The researchers looked at 258,790 children aged 5-17 years whose details were reported by adult proxies such as parents and carers from March 24, 2020, to Feb. 22, 2021. Of these, 75,529 had undergone a valid SARS-CoV-2 test.

The study also assessed symptoms in a randomly selected, age- and sex-matched cohort of 1,734 children in the app database who tested negative for COVID-19 but may have had other illnesses such as colds or flu.

In the 1,734 children testing positive for COVID-19 (approximately 50% each boys and girls), the most common symptoms were headache (62.2%) and fatigue (55.0%). More than 10% of the entire cohort had underlying asthma, but other comorbidities were very rare.

To assess the effect of age, the children were assessed in two groups: 5-11 years (n = 588) and 12-17 years (n = 1,146).

While unable to cross-check app reporting against actual medical records, the study suggested that illness lasted longer in COVID-positive than COVID-negative children, with a median of 6 days (interquartile range, 3-11) versus 3 days (IQR, 2-7). Furthermore, illness duration was positively associated with age: older children (median, 7 days; IQR, 3-12) versus younger children (median, 5 days; IQR, 2-9).

In 77 (4.4%) of the 1,734 COVID-positive children, illness persisted for at least 28 days, again more often in older than younger children: 5.1% of older children versus 3.1% of younger children (P = .046).

In addition, those with COVID-19 were more likely than children with non-COVID illness to be sick for more than 4 weeks: 4.4% versus 0.9%. At 4 weeks, however, the few children with other illnesses tended to have more symptoms, exhibiting a median of five symptoms versus two symptoms in the COVID-positive group.

“I tend to agree with the U.K. findings. COVID-19 in most school-age children is asymptomatic or a brief, self-limiting illness,” Sindhu Mohandas, MD, a pediatric infectious disease specialist at the Children’s Hospital Los Angeles, said in an interview. “The few children who need hospitalization have also mostly fully recovered by the time they are seen for their first outpatient clinic follow-up visit.”

Dr. Mohandas, who was not involved in the U.K. study, added that in her experience a small percentage, particularly adolescents, have some lingering symptoms after infection including fatigue, loss of appetite, and changes in smell and taste. “Identifying children with persistent illness and providing support and multidisciplinary care based on their symptomatology can make a positive impact on patients and their families.”

Recent research has suggested that long symptoms can persist for 3 months in 6% of children with COVID-19. And data from China have indicated that the prevalence of coinfection may be higher than in older patients.

In an accompanying comment, Dana Mahr, PhD, and Bruno J. Strasser, PhD, researchers in the faculty of science at the University of Geneva, said the app-based study “illustrates the potential and challenges of what has been called citizenship science,” in which projects rely on data input from nonscientists.

But while potentially democratizing participation in medical research, this subjective approach has the inherent bias of self-reporting (and in the case of the current study, proxy reporting), and can introduce potential conflicts of interest owing to the politicization of certain diseases.

In the case of the current study, Dr. Mahr and Dr. Strasser argued that, since the COVID-19 test result is known to participants, a pediatrician using objective criteria is better positioned to control for reporting biases than a parent asking a child about symptoms. “Entering data on a smartphone app is not equivalent to discussing with a pediatrician or health care worker who can answer further questions and concerns of participants, an especially important factor for underserved communities,” they wrote. “Citizen science will continue to require a close interaction with professional medical researchers to turn unique illness experiences into research data.”

This study was funded by Zoe Limited, the U.K. Government Department of Health and Social Care, Wellcome Trust, the U.K. Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council, the U.K. Research and Innovation London Medical Imaging and Artificial Intelligence Centre for Value Based Healthcare, the U.K. National Institute for Health Research, the U.K. Medical Research Council, the British Heart Foundation, and the Alzheimer’s Society. Several study authors have disclosed support from various research-funding agencies and Zoe Limited supported all aspects of building and running the symptom-tracking application. Dr. Mahr and Dr. Strasser declared no competing interests. Dr. Mohandas disclosed no competing interests with regard to her comments.
 

School-aged children with SARS-CoV-2 infection had only a few mild symptoms and typically recovered in 6 days, with more than 98% recovering in 8 weeks, a large U.K. study of smartphone data reassuringly reports.

In a small proportion (4.4%), however, COVID-19 symptoms such as fatigue, headache, or loss of smell persisted beyond a month, highlighting the need for ongoing pediatric care, according to Erika Molteni, PhD, a research fellow at King’s College, London, and colleagues.

The results, published online in The Lancet Child & Adolescent Health, also indicated that some children who had non-COVID infections were also susceptible to prolonged symptoms. “Our data highlight that other illnesses, such as colds and flu, can also have prolonged symptoms in children and it is important to consider this when planning for pediatric health services during the pandemic and beyond,” Michael Absoud, PhD, a senior coauthor and a King’s College consultant and senior lecturer, said in a news release. “All children who have persistent symptoms – from any illness – need timely multidisciplinary support linked with education, to enable them to find their individual pathway to recovery.”

Using a “citizen science” approach, the study extracted data from a smartphone app for tracking COVID symptoms in the ZOE COVID Study. The researchers looked at 258,790 children aged 5-17 years whose details were reported by adult proxies such as parents and carers from March 24, 2020, to Feb. 22, 2021. Of these, 75,529 had undergone a valid SARS-CoV-2 test.

The study also assessed symptoms in a randomly selected, age- and sex-matched cohort of 1,734 children in the app database who tested negative for COVID-19 but may have had other illnesses such as colds or flu.

In the 1,734 children testing positive for COVID-19 (approximately 50% each boys and girls), the most common symptoms were headache (62.2%) and fatigue (55.0%). More than 10% of the entire cohort had underlying asthma, but other comorbidities were very rare.

To assess the effect of age, the children were assessed in two groups: 5-11 years (n = 588) and 12-17 years (n = 1,146).

While unable to cross-check app reporting against actual medical records, the study suggested that illness lasted longer in COVID-positive than COVID-negative children, with a median of 6 days (interquartile range, 3-11) versus 3 days (IQR, 2-7). Furthermore, illness duration was positively associated with age: older children (median, 7 days; IQR, 3-12) versus younger children (median, 5 days; IQR, 2-9).

In 77 (4.4%) of the 1,734 COVID-positive children, illness persisted for at least 28 days, again more often in older than younger children: 5.1% of older children versus 3.1% of younger children (P = .046).

In addition, those with COVID-19 were more likely than children with non-COVID illness to be sick for more than 4 weeks: 4.4% versus 0.9%. At 4 weeks, however, the few children with other illnesses tended to have more symptoms, exhibiting a median of five symptoms versus two symptoms in the COVID-positive group.

“I tend to agree with the U.K. findings. COVID-19 in most school-age children is asymptomatic or a brief, self-limiting illness,” Sindhu Mohandas, MD, a pediatric infectious disease specialist at the Children’s Hospital Los Angeles, said in an interview. “The few children who need hospitalization have also mostly fully recovered by the time they are seen for their first outpatient clinic follow-up visit.”

Dr. Mohandas, who was not involved in the U.K. study, added that in her experience a small percentage, particularly adolescents, have some lingering symptoms after infection including fatigue, loss of appetite, and changes in smell and taste. “Identifying children with persistent illness and providing support and multidisciplinary care based on their symptomatology can make a positive impact on patients and their families.”

Recent research has suggested that long symptoms can persist for 3 months in 6% of children with COVID-19. And data from China have indicated that the prevalence of coinfection may be higher than in older patients.

In an accompanying comment, Dana Mahr, PhD, and Bruno J. Strasser, PhD, researchers in the faculty of science at the University of Geneva, said the app-based study “illustrates the potential and challenges of what has been called citizenship science,” in which projects rely on data input from nonscientists.

But while potentially democratizing participation in medical research, this subjective approach has the inherent bias of self-reporting (and in the case of the current study, proxy reporting), and can introduce potential conflicts of interest owing to the politicization of certain diseases.

In the case of the current study, Dr. Mahr and Dr. Strasser argued that, since the COVID-19 test result is known to participants, a pediatrician using objective criteria is better positioned to control for reporting biases than a parent asking a child about symptoms. “Entering data on a smartphone app is not equivalent to discussing with a pediatrician or health care worker who can answer further questions and concerns of participants, an especially important factor for underserved communities,” they wrote. “Citizen science will continue to require a close interaction with professional medical researchers to turn unique illness experiences into research data.”

This study was funded by Zoe Limited, the U.K. Government Department of Health and Social Care, Wellcome Trust, the U.K. Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council, the U.K. Research and Innovation London Medical Imaging and Artificial Intelligence Centre for Value Based Healthcare, the U.K. National Institute for Health Research, the U.K. Medical Research Council, the British Heart Foundation, and the Alzheimer’s Society. Several study authors have disclosed support from various research-funding agencies and Zoe Limited supported all aspects of building and running the symptom-tracking application. Dr. Mahr and Dr. Strasser declared no competing interests. Dr. Mohandas disclosed no competing interests with regard to her comments.
 

To the Editor:

A range of dermatologic manifestations of COVID-19 have been reported, including nonspecific maculopapular exanthems, urticaria, and varicellalike eruptions.¹ Additionally, there have been sporadic accounts of cutaneous vasculopathic signs such as perniolike lesions, acro-ischemia, livedo reticularis, and retiform purpura.² We describe exuberant hemorrhagic bullae occurring on the extremities of 2 critically ill patients with COVID-19. We hypothesized that the bullae were vasculopathic in nature and possibly exacerbated by peripheral intravenous (IV)–related injury.

A 62-year-old woman with a history of diabetes mellitus and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease was admitted to the intensive care unit for acute hypoxemic respiratory failure secondary to COVID-19 infection. Dermatology was consulted for evaluation of blisters on the right arm. A new peripheral IV line was inserted into the patient’s right forearm for treatment of secondary methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus pneumonia. The peripheral IV was inserted into the right proximal forearm for 2 days prior to development of ecchymosis and blisters. Intravenous medications included vancomycin, cefepime, methylprednisolone, and famotidine, as well as maintenance fluids (normal saline). Physical examination revealed extensive confluent ecchymoses with overlying tense bullae (Figure 1). Notable laboratory findings included an elevated D-dimer (peak of 8.67 μg/mL fibrinogen-equivalent units [FEUs], reference range <0.5 μg/mL FEU) and fibrinogen (789 mg/dL, reference range 200–400 mg/dL) levels. Three days later she developed worsening edema of the right arm, accompanied by more extensive bullae formation (Figure 2). Computed tomography of the right arm showed extensive subcutaneous stranding and subcutaneous edema. An orthopedic consultation determined that there was no compartment syndrome, and surgical intervention was not recommended. The patient’s course was complicated by multiorgan failure, and she died 18 days after admission.

Extravasation injury results from unintentional administration of potentially vesicant substances into tissues surrounding the intended vascular channel.⁴ The mechanism of action of these injuries is postulated to arise from direct tissue injury from cytotoxic substances, elevated osmotic pressure, and reduced blood supply if vasoconstrictive substances are infused.⁵ In our patients, these injuries also may have promoted vascular occlusion leading to the brisk reaction observed. Although ecchymoses typically are associated with hypocoagulable states, both of our patients were noted to have normal platelet levels throughout hospitalization. Additionally, findings of elevated D-dimer and fibrinogen levels point to a hypercoagulable state. However, there is a possibility of platelet dysfunction leading to the observed cutaneous findings of ecchymoses. Thrombocytopenia is a common finding in patients with COVID-19 and is found to be associated with increased in-hospital mortality.⁶ Additional study of these reactions is needed given the propensity for multiorgan failure and death in patients with COVID-19 from suspected diffuse microvascular damage.³

To the Editor:

A range of dermatologic manifestations of COVID-19 have been reported, including nonspecific maculopapular exanthems, urticaria, and varicellalike eruptions.¹ Additionally, there have been sporadic accounts of cutaneous vasculopathic signs such as perniolike lesions, acro-ischemia, livedo reticularis, and retiform purpura.² We describe exuberant hemorrhagic bullae occurring on the extremities of 2 critically ill patients with COVID-19. We hypothesized that the bullae were vasculopathic in nature and possibly exacerbated by peripheral intravenous (IV)–related injury.

A 62-year-old woman with a history of diabetes mellitus and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease was admitted to the intensive care unit for acute hypoxemic respiratory failure secondary to COVID-19 infection. Dermatology was consulted for evaluation of blisters on the right arm. A new peripheral IV line was inserted into the patient’s right forearm for treatment of secondary methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus pneumonia. The peripheral IV was inserted into the right proximal forearm for 2 days prior to development of ecchymosis and blisters. Intravenous medications included vancomycin, cefepime, methylprednisolone, and famotidine, as well as maintenance fluids (normal saline). Physical examination revealed extensive confluent ecchymoses with overlying tense bullae (Figure 1). Notable laboratory findings included an elevated D-dimer (peak of 8.67 μg/mL fibrinogen-equivalent units [FEUs], reference range <0.5 μg/mL FEU) and fibrinogen (789 mg/dL, reference range 200–400 mg/dL) levels. Three days later she developed worsening edema of the right arm, accompanied by more extensive bullae formation (Figure 2). Computed tomography of the right arm showed extensive subcutaneous stranding and subcutaneous edema. An orthopedic consultation determined that there was no compartment syndrome, and surgical intervention was not recommended. The patient’s course was complicated by multiorgan failure, and she died 18 days after admission.

Extravasation injury results from unintentional administration of potentially vesicant substances into tissues surrounding the intended vascular channel.⁴ The mechanism of action of these injuries is postulated to arise from direct tissue injury from cytotoxic substances, elevated osmotic pressure, and reduced blood supply if vasoconstrictive substances are infused.⁵ In our patients, these injuries also may have promoted vascular occlusion leading to the brisk reaction observed. Although ecchymoses typically are associated with hypocoagulable states, both of our patients were noted to have normal platelet levels throughout hospitalization. Additionally, findings of elevated D-dimer and fibrinogen levels point to a hypercoagulable state. However, there is a possibility of platelet dysfunction leading to the observed cutaneous findings of ecchymoses. Thrombocytopenia is a common finding in patients with COVID-19 and is found to be associated with increased in-hospital mortality.⁶ Additional study of these reactions is needed given the propensity for multiorgan failure and death in patients with COVID-19 from suspected diffuse microvascular damage.³

To the Editor:

A range of dermatologic manifestations of COVID-19 have been reported, including nonspecific maculopapular exanthems, urticaria, and varicellalike eruptions.¹ Additionally, there have been sporadic accounts of cutaneous vasculopathic signs such as perniolike lesions, acro-ischemia, livedo reticularis, and retiform purpura.² We describe exuberant hemorrhagic bullae occurring on the extremities of 2 critically ill patients with COVID-19. We hypothesized that the bullae were vasculopathic in nature and possibly exacerbated by peripheral intravenous (IV)–related injury.

A 62-year-old woman with a history of diabetes mellitus and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease was admitted to the intensive care unit for acute hypoxemic respiratory failure secondary to COVID-19 infection. Dermatology was consulted for evaluation of blisters on the right arm. A new peripheral IV line was inserted into the patient’s right forearm for treatment of secondary methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus pneumonia. The peripheral IV was inserted into the right proximal forearm for 2 days prior to development of ecchymosis and blisters. Intravenous medications included vancomycin, cefepime, methylprednisolone, and famotidine, as well as maintenance fluids (normal saline). Physical examination revealed extensive confluent ecchymoses with overlying tense bullae (Figure 1). Notable laboratory findings included an elevated D-dimer (peak of 8.67 μg/mL fibrinogen-equivalent units [FEUs], reference range <0.5 μg/mL FEU) and fibrinogen (789 mg/dL, reference range 200–400 mg/dL) levels. Three days later she developed worsening edema of the right arm, accompanied by more extensive bullae formation (Figure 2). Computed tomography of the right arm showed extensive subcutaneous stranding and subcutaneous edema. An orthopedic consultation determined that there was no compartment syndrome, and surgical intervention was not recommended. The patient’s course was complicated by multiorgan failure, and she died 18 days after admission.

Extravasation injury results from unintentional administration of potentially vesicant substances into tissues surrounding the intended vascular channel.⁴ The mechanism of action of these injuries is postulated to arise from direct tissue injury from cytotoxic substances, elevated osmotic pressure, and reduced blood supply if vasoconstrictive substances are infused.⁵ In our patients, these injuries also may have promoted vascular occlusion leading to the brisk reaction observed. Although ecchymoses typically are associated with hypocoagulable states, both of our patients were noted to have normal platelet levels throughout hospitalization. Additionally, findings of elevated D-dimer and fibrinogen levels point to a hypercoagulable state. However, there is a possibility of platelet dysfunction leading to the observed cutaneous findings of ecchymoses. Thrombocytopenia is a common finding in patients with COVID-19 and is found to be associated with increased in-hospital mortality.⁶ Additional study of these reactions is needed given the propensity for multiorgan failure and death in patients with COVID-19 from suspected diffuse microvascular damage.³

Because the Delta variant of SARS-CoV-2 spreads more easily than the original virus, the proportion of the population that needs to be vaccinated to reach herd immunity could be upward of 80% or more, experts say.

Also, it could be time to consider wearing an N95 mask in public indoor spaces regardless of vaccination status, according to a media briefing on Aug. 3 sponsored by the Infectious Diseases Society of America.

Furthermore, giving booster shots to the fully vaccinated is not the top public health priority now. Instead, third vaccinations should be reserved for more vulnerable populations – and efforts should focus on getting first vaccinations to unvaccinated people in the United States and around the world.

“The problem here is that the Delta variant is ... more transmissible than the original virus. That pushes the overall population herd immunity threshold much higher,” Ricardo Franco, MD, assistant professor of medicine at the University of Alabama at Birmingham, said during the briefing.

“For Delta, those threshold estimates go well over 80% and may be approaching 90%,” he said.

To put that figure in context, the original SARS-CoV-2 virus required an estimated 67% of the population to be vaccinated to achieve herd immunity. Also, measles has one of the highest herd immunity thresholds at 95%, Dr. Franco added.

Herd immunity is the point at which enough people are immunized that the entire population gains protection. And it’s already happening. “Unvaccinated people are actually benefiting from greater herd immunity protection in high-vaccination counties compared to low-vaccination ones,” he said.
 

Maximize mask protection

Unlike early in the COVID-19 pandemic with widespread shortages of personal protective equipment, face masks are now readily available. This includes N95 masks, which offer enhanced protection against SARS-CoV-2, Ezekiel J. Emanuel, MD, PhD, said during the briefing.

Following the July 27 CDC recommendation that most Americans wear masks indoors when in public places, “I do think we need to upgrade our masks,” said Dr. Emanuel, who is Diane v.S. Levy & Robert M. Levy professor at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.

“It’s not just any mask,” he added. “Good masks make a big difference and are very important.”

Mask protection is about blocking 0.3-mcm particles, “and I think we need to make sure that people have masks that can filter that out,” he said. Although surgical masks are very good, he added, “they’re not quite as good as N95s.” As their name implies, N95s filter out 95% of these particles.

Dr. Emanuel acknowledged that people are tired of COVID-19 and complying with public health measures but urged perseverance. “We’ve sacrificed a lot. We should not throw it away in just a few months because we are tired. We’re all tired, but we do have to do the little bit extra getting vaccinated, wearing masks indoors, and protecting ourselves, our families, and our communities.”
 

Dealing with a disconnect

In response to a reporter’s question about the possibility that the large crowd at the Lollapalooza music festival in Chicago could become a superspreader event, Dr. Emanuel said, “it is worrisome.”

“I would say that, if you’re going to go to a gathering like that, wearing an N95 mask is wise, and not spending too long at any one place is also wise,” he said.

On the plus side, the event was held outdoors with lots of air circulation, Dr. Emanuel said.

However, “this is the kind of thing where we’ve got a sort of disconnect between people’s desire to get back to normal ... and the fact that we’re in the middle of this upsurge.”

Another potential problem is the event brought people together from many different locations, so when they travel home, they could be “potentially seeding lots of other communities.”
 

Boosters for some, for now

Even though not officially recommended, some fully vaccinated Americans are seeking a third or booster vaccination on their own.

Asked for his opinion, Dr. Emanuel said: “We’re probably going to have to be giving boosters to immunocompromised people and people who are susceptible. That’s where we are going to start.”

More research is needed regarding booster shots, he said. “There are very small studies – and the ‘very small’ should be emphasized – given that we’ve given shots to over 160 million people.”

“But it does appear that the boosters increase the antibodies and protection,” he said.

Instead of boosters, it is more important for people who haven’t been vaccinated to get fully vaccinated.

“We need to put our priorities in the right places,” he said.

Emanuel noted that, except for people in rural areas that might have to travel long distances, access to vaccines is no longer an issue. “It’s very hard not to find a vaccine if you want it.”

A remaining hurdle is “battling a major disinformation initiative. I don’t think this is misinformation. I think there’s very clear evidence that it is disinformation – false facts about the vaccines being spread,” Dr. Emanuel said.
 

The breakthrough infection dilemma

Breakthrough cases “remain the vast minority of infections at this time ... that is reassuring,” Dr. Franco said.

Also, tracking symptomatic breakthrough infections remains easier than studying fully vaccinated people who become infected with SARS-CoV-2 but remain symptom free.

“We really don’t have a good handle on the frequency of asymptomatic cases,” Dr. Emanuel said. “If you’re missing breakthrough infections, a lot of them, you may be missing some [virus] evolution that would be very important for us to follow.” This missing information could include the emergence of new variants.

The asymptomatic breakthrough cases are the most worrisome group,” Dr. Emanuel said. “You get infected, you’re feeling fine. Maybe you’ve got a little sneeze or cough, but nothing unusual. And then you’re still able to transmit the Delta variant.”
 

The big picture

The upsurge in cases, hospitalizations, and deaths is a major challenge, Dr. Emanuel said. “We need to address that by getting many more people vaccinated right now with what are very good vaccines.”

“But it also means that we have to stop being U.S. focused alone.” He pointed out that Delta and other variants originated overseas, “so getting the world vaccinated ... has to be a top priority.”

“We are obviously all facing a challenge as we move into the fall,” Dr. Emanuel said. “With schools opening and employers bringing their employees back together, even if these groups are vaccinated, there are going to be major challenges for all of us.”

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

Because the Delta variant of SARS-CoV-2 spreads more easily than the original virus, the proportion of the population that needs to be vaccinated to reach herd immunity could be upward of 80% or more, experts say.

Also, it could be time to consider wearing an N95 mask in public indoor spaces regardless of vaccination status, according to a media briefing on Aug. 3 sponsored by the Infectious Diseases Society of America.

Furthermore, giving booster shots to the fully vaccinated is not the top public health priority now. Instead, third vaccinations should be reserved for more vulnerable populations – and efforts should focus on getting first vaccinations to unvaccinated people in the United States and around the world.

“The problem here is that the Delta variant is ... more transmissible than the original virus. That pushes the overall population herd immunity threshold much higher,” Ricardo Franco, MD, assistant professor of medicine at the University of Alabama at Birmingham, said during the briefing.

“For Delta, those threshold estimates go well over 80% and may be approaching 90%,” he said.

To put that figure in context, the original SARS-CoV-2 virus required an estimated 67% of the population to be vaccinated to achieve herd immunity. Also, measles has one of the highest herd immunity thresholds at 95%, Dr. Franco added.

Herd immunity is the point at which enough people are immunized that the entire population gains protection. And it’s already happening. “Unvaccinated people are actually benefiting from greater herd immunity protection in high-vaccination counties compared to low-vaccination ones,” he said.
 

Maximize mask protection

Unlike early in the COVID-19 pandemic with widespread shortages of personal protective equipment, face masks are now readily available. This includes N95 masks, which offer enhanced protection against SARS-CoV-2, Ezekiel J. Emanuel, MD, PhD, said during the briefing.

Following the July 27 CDC recommendation that most Americans wear masks indoors when in public places, “I do think we need to upgrade our masks,” said Dr. Emanuel, who is Diane v.S. Levy & Robert M. Levy professor at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.

“It’s not just any mask,” he added. “Good masks make a big difference and are very important.”

Mask protection is about blocking 0.3-mcm particles, “and I think we need to make sure that people have masks that can filter that out,” he said. Although surgical masks are very good, he added, “they’re not quite as good as N95s.” As their name implies, N95s filter out 95% of these particles.

Dr. Emanuel acknowledged that people are tired of COVID-19 and complying with public health measures but urged perseverance. “We’ve sacrificed a lot. We should not throw it away in just a few months because we are tired. We’re all tired, but we do have to do the little bit extra getting vaccinated, wearing masks indoors, and protecting ourselves, our families, and our communities.”
 

Dealing with a disconnect

In response to a reporter’s question about the possibility that the large crowd at the Lollapalooza music festival in Chicago could become a superspreader event, Dr. Emanuel said, “it is worrisome.”

“I would say that, if you’re going to go to a gathering like that, wearing an N95 mask is wise, and not spending too long at any one place is also wise,” he said.

On the plus side, the event was held outdoors with lots of air circulation, Dr. Emanuel said.

However, “this is the kind of thing where we’ve got a sort of disconnect between people’s desire to get back to normal ... and the fact that we’re in the middle of this upsurge.”

Another potential problem is the event brought people together from many different locations, so when they travel home, they could be “potentially seeding lots of other communities.”
 

Boosters for some, for now

Even though not officially recommended, some fully vaccinated Americans are seeking a third or booster vaccination on their own.

Asked for his opinion, Dr. Emanuel said: “We’re probably going to have to be giving boosters to immunocompromised people and people who are susceptible. That’s where we are going to start.”

More research is needed regarding booster shots, he said. “There are very small studies – and the ‘very small’ should be emphasized – given that we’ve given shots to over 160 million people.”

“But it does appear that the boosters increase the antibodies and protection,” he said.

Instead of boosters, it is more important for people who haven’t been vaccinated to get fully vaccinated.

“We need to put our priorities in the right places,” he said.

Emanuel noted that, except for people in rural areas that might have to travel long distances, access to vaccines is no longer an issue. “It’s very hard not to find a vaccine if you want it.”

A remaining hurdle is “battling a major disinformation initiative. I don’t think this is misinformation. I think there’s very clear evidence that it is disinformation – false facts about the vaccines being spread,” Dr. Emanuel said.
 

The breakthrough infection dilemma

Breakthrough cases “remain the vast minority of infections at this time ... that is reassuring,” Dr. Franco said.

Also, tracking symptomatic breakthrough infections remains easier than studying fully vaccinated people who become infected with SARS-CoV-2 but remain symptom free.

“We really don’t have a good handle on the frequency of asymptomatic cases,” Dr. Emanuel said. “If you’re missing breakthrough infections, a lot of them, you may be missing some [virus] evolution that would be very important for us to follow.” This missing information could include the emergence of new variants.

The asymptomatic breakthrough cases are the most worrisome group,” Dr. Emanuel said. “You get infected, you’re feeling fine. Maybe you’ve got a little sneeze or cough, but nothing unusual. And then you’re still able to transmit the Delta variant.”
 

The big picture

The upsurge in cases, hospitalizations, and deaths is a major challenge, Dr. Emanuel said. “We need to address that by getting many more people vaccinated right now with what are very good vaccines.”

“But it also means that we have to stop being U.S. focused alone.” He pointed out that Delta and other variants originated overseas, “so getting the world vaccinated ... has to be a top priority.”

“We are obviously all facing a challenge as we move into the fall,” Dr. Emanuel said. “With schools opening and employers bringing their employees back together, even if these groups are vaccinated, there are going to be major challenges for all of us.”

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

Because the Delta variant of SARS-CoV-2 spreads more easily than the original virus, the proportion of the population that needs to be vaccinated to reach herd immunity could be upward of 80% or more, experts say.

Also, it could be time to consider wearing an N95 mask in public indoor spaces regardless of vaccination status, according to a media briefing on Aug. 3 sponsored by the Infectious Diseases Society of America.

Furthermore, giving booster shots to the fully vaccinated is not the top public health priority now. Instead, third vaccinations should be reserved for more vulnerable populations – and efforts should focus on getting first vaccinations to unvaccinated people in the United States and around the world.

“The problem here is that the Delta variant is ... more transmissible than the original virus. That pushes the overall population herd immunity threshold much higher,” Ricardo Franco, MD, assistant professor of medicine at the University of Alabama at Birmingham, said during the briefing.

“For Delta, those threshold estimates go well over 80% and may be approaching 90%,” he said.

To put that figure in context, the original SARS-CoV-2 virus required an estimated 67% of the population to be vaccinated to achieve herd immunity. Also, measles has one of the highest herd immunity thresholds at 95%, Dr. Franco added.

Herd immunity is the point at which enough people are immunized that the entire population gains protection. And it’s already happening. “Unvaccinated people are actually benefiting from greater herd immunity protection in high-vaccination counties compared to low-vaccination ones,” he said.
 

Maximize mask protection

Unlike early in the COVID-19 pandemic with widespread shortages of personal protective equipment, face masks are now readily available. This includes N95 masks, which offer enhanced protection against SARS-CoV-2, Ezekiel J. Emanuel, MD, PhD, said during the briefing.

Following the July 27 CDC recommendation that most Americans wear masks indoors when in public places, “I do think we need to upgrade our masks,” said Dr. Emanuel, who is Diane v.S. Levy & Robert M. Levy professor at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.

“It’s not just any mask,” he added. “Good masks make a big difference and are very important.”

Mask protection is about blocking 0.3-mcm particles, “and I think we need to make sure that people have masks that can filter that out,” he said. Although surgical masks are very good, he added, “they’re not quite as good as N95s.” As their name implies, N95s filter out 95% of these particles.

Dr. Emanuel acknowledged that people are tired of COVID-19 and complying with public health measures but urged perseverance. “We’ve sacrificed a lot. We should not throw it away in just a few months because we are tired. We’re all tired, but we do have to do the little bit extra getting vaccinated, wearing masks indoors, and protecting ourselves, our families, and our communities.”
 

Dealing with a disconnect

In response to a reporter’s question about the possibility that the large crowd at the Lollapalooza music festival in Chicago could become a superspreader event, Dr. Emanuel said, “it is worrisome.”

“I would say that, if you’re going to go to a gathering like that, wearing an N95 mask is wise, and not spending too long at any one place is also wise,” he said.

On the plus side, the event was held outdoors with lots of air circulation, Dr. Emanuel said.

However, “this is the kind of thing where we’ve got a sort of disconnect between people’s desire to get back to normal ... and the fact that we’re in the middle of this upsurge.”

Another potential problem is the event brought people together from many different locations, so when they travel home, they could be “potentially seeding lots of other communities.”
 

Boosters for some, for now

Even though not officially recommended, some fully vaccinated Americans are seeking a third or booster vaccination on their own.

Asked for his opinion, Dr. Emanuel said: “We’re probably going to have to be giving boosters to immunocompromised people and people who are susceptible. That’s where we are going to start.”

More research is needed regarding booster shots, he said. “There are very small studies – and the ‘very small’ should be emphasized – given that we’ve given shots to over 160 million people.”

“But it does appear that the boosters increase the antibodies and protection,” he said.

Instead of boosters, it is more important for people who haven’t been vaccinated to get fully vaccinated.

“We need to put our priorities in the right places,” he said.

Emanuel noted that, except for people in rural areas that might have to travel long distances, access to vaccines is no longer an issue. “It’s very hard not to find a vaccine if you want it.”

A remaining hurdle is “battling a major disinformation initiative. I don’t think this is misinformation. I think there’s very clear evidence that it is disinformation – false facts about the vaccines being spread,” Dr. Emanuel said.
 

The breakthrough infection dilemma

Breakthrough cases “remain the vast minority of infections at this time ... that is reassuring,” Dr. Franco said.

Also, tracking symptomatic breakthrough infections remains easier than studying fully vaccinated people who become infected with SARS-CoV-2 but remain symptom free.

“We really don’t have a good handle on the frequency of asymptomatic cases,” Dr. Emanuel said. “If you’re missing breakthrough infections, a lot of them, you may be missing some [virus] evolution that would be very important for us to follow.” This missing information could include the emergence of new variants.

The asymptomatic breakthrough cases are the most worrisome group,” Dr. Emanuel said. “You get infected, you’re feeling fine. Maybe you’ve got a little sneeze or cough, but nothing unusual. And then you’re still able to transmit the Delta variant.”
 

The big picture

The upsurge in cases, hospitalizations, and deaths is a major challenge, Dr. Emanuel said. “We need to address that by getting many more people vaccinated right now with what are very good vaccines.”

“But it also means that we have to stop being U.S. focused alone.” He pointed out that Delta and other variants originated overseas, “so getting the world vaccinated ... has to be a top priority.”

“We are obviously all facing a challenge as we move into the fall,” Dr. Emanuel said. “With schools opening and employers bringing their employees back together, even if these groups are vaccinated, there are going to be major challenges for all of us.”

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

A week of antibiotics appears just as effective as 2 weeks in treating afebrile men with urinary tract infections (UTIs), researchers say.

Shortening the course of treatment could spare patients side effects from the medications and reduce the risk that bacteria will develop resistance to the drugs, said Dimitri Drekonja, MD, chief of infectious diseases at the Minneapolis VA Medical Center.

“You’d like to be on these drugs for as short [an] amount of time as gets the job done,” he told this news organization. The study was published online July 28 in JAMA.

Researchers have recently found that shorter courses of antimicrobials are effective in the treatment of other types of infection and for UTIs in women. However, UTIs in men are thought to be more complicated because the male urethra is longer.

To see whether reducing length of treatment could be effective in men as well, Dr. Drekonja and colleagues compared 7-day and 14-day regimens in men treated at U.S. Veterans Affairs medical centers in Minnesota and Texas.

They recruited 272 men who had symptoms of UTI and were willing to participate. All the men received trimethoprim/sulfamethoxazole or ciprofloxacin for 7 days. Half the men were randomly assigned to continue this treatment for an additional 7 days; the other half received placebo pills for an additional 7 days.

The average age of the men was 69 years. Urine samples were cultured from 87.9% of the men. In 60.7% of these samples, the researchers found more than 100,000 CFU/mL; in 16.3%, they found lower colony counts; and in 23.0%, they found no growth of bacteria. The most common organism they isolated was Escherchia coli.

Results for the two groups were similar. Symptoms resolved 14 days after completion of the course of treatment in 90.4% of those who received 14 days of antibiotics, versus 91.9% of those who received 7 days of antibiotics plus 7 days of placebo pills. At 1.5%, the difference between the two arms was within the predetermined boundary for noninferiority.

The percentage of those who experienced recurrence of symptoms within 28 days of stopping medication was also similar between the two groups. Among those who received 7 days of antibiotics, 10.3% experienced recurrence of symptoms, compared to 16.9% of those assigned to 14 days of antibiotics.

There was no significant difference in the resolution of UTI symptoms between the two groups by type of antibiotic, pretreatment bacteriuria count, or study site.

Adverse events were also similar in the two groups, occurring in 20.6% of the men who received 7 days of antibiotics, versus 24.3% of the men who received 14 days of treatment. In both groups, 8.8% of patients had diarrhea, which was the most common adverse event.

Clinicians should not worry that antibiotic resistance is more likely to develop or that symptoms will recur when patients don’t finish a prescribed course of treatment, Dr. Drekonja said. “That is an old piece of guidance that has persisted for such a long time,” he said. “And it makes all of us in the infectious disease field cringe.”

Rather, the current thinking is that the more antibiotics patients take, the more resistance bacteria will develop, he said.

The success of the 7-day regimen raises the question of whether an even shorter course would work equally well. It’s not clear how short a course of antibiotics will do the trick. Research in certain populations, such as patients with spinal cord injuries, has suggested that recurrences are more frequent with 3 days of antibiotics than with 14, “so there could be a floor that you do need to go beyond,” Dr. Drekonja said.

“We’re not really sure how much people need,” agreed Daniel Morgan, MD, a professor of epidemiology and public health and medicine at the University of Maryland, Baltimore, which is why this study is important. “It really defined that 1 week is better than 2 weeks,” he said in an interview.

Another way that clinicians can reduce the use of antibiotics by men with UTIs is to consider alternative diagnoses and to culture urine samples when UTI seems like the most likely cause of their symptoms, said Dr. Morgan, who co-authored an accompanying editorial.

He pointed out that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration has issued a black box warning on fluoroquinolones, including ciprofloxacin, because they increase the risk for tendinitis and tendon rupture. Nitrofurantoin and amoxicillin-clavulanate are better alternatives for UTIs, he said.

Even some men with fevers and UTIs may need no more than 7 days of antibiotics, said Dr. Morgan. Dr. Drekonja said he generally prescribes at least 10 days antibiotics for these men.

The study was funded by the VA Merit Review Program. Dr. Drekonja and Dr. Morgan have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

A week of antibiotics appears just as effective as 2 weeks in treating afebrile men with urinary tract infections (UTIs), researchers say.

Shortening the course of treatment could spare patients side effects from the medications and reduce the risk that bacteria will develop resistance to the drugs, said Dimitri Drekonja, MD, chief of infectious diseases at the Minneapolis VA Medical Center.

“You’d like to be on these drugs for as short [an] amount of time as gets the job done,” he told this news organization. The study was published online July 28 in JAMA.

Researchers have recently found that shorter courses of antimicrobials are effective in the treatment of other types of infection and for UTIs in women. However, UTIs in men are thought to be more complicated because the male urethra is longer.

To see whether reducing length of treatment could be effective in men as well, Dr. Drekonja and colleagues compared 7-day and 14-day regimens in men treated at U.S. Veterans Affairs medical centers in Minnesota and Texas.

They recruited 272 men who had symptoms of UTI and were willing to participate. All the men received trimethoprim/sulfamethoxazole or ciprofloxacin for 7 days. Half the men were randomly assigned to continue this treatment for an additional 7 days; the other half received placebo pills for an additional 7 days.

The average age of the men was 69 years. Urine samples were cultured from 87.9% of the men. In 60.7% of these samples, the researchers found more than 100,000 CFU/mL; in 16.3%, they found lower colony counts; and in 23.0%, they found no growth of bacteria. The most common organism they isolated was Escherchia coli.

Results for the two groups were similar. Symptoms resolved 14 days after completion of the course of treatment in 90.4% of those who received 14 days of antibiotics, versus 91.9% of those who received 7 days of antibiotics plus 7 days of placebo pills. At 1.5%, the difference between the two arms was within the predetermined boundary for noninferiority.

The percentage of those who experienced recurrence of symptoms within 28 days of stopping medication was also similar between the two groups. Among those who received 7 days of antibiotics, 10.3% experienced recurrence of symptoms, compared to 16.9% of those assigned to 14 days of antibiotics.

There was no significant difference in the resolution of UTI symptoms between the two groups by type of antibiotic, pretreatment bacteriuria count, or study site.

Adverse events were also similar in the two groups, occurring in 20.6% of the men who received 7 days of antibiotics, versus 24.3% of the men who received 14 days of treatment. In both groups, 8.8% of patients had diarrhea, which was the most common adverse event.

Clinicians should not worry that antibiotic resistance is more likely to develop or that symptoms will recur when patients don’t finish a prescribed course of treatment, Dr. Drekonja said. “That is an old piece of guidance that has persisted for such a long time,” he said. “And it makes all of us in the infectious disease field cringe.”

Rather, the current thinking is that the more antibiotics patients take, the more resistance bacteria will develop, he said.

The success of the 7-day regimen raises the question of whether an even shorter course would work equally well. It’s not clear how short a course of antibiotics will do the trick. Research in certain populations, such as patients with spinal cord injuries, has suggested that recurrences are more frequent with 3 days of antibiotics than with 14, “so there could be a floor that you do need to go beyond,” Dr. Drekonja said.

“We’re not really sure how much people need,” agreed Daniel Morgan, MD, a professor of epidemiology and public health and medicine at the University of Maryland, Baltimore, which is why this study is important. “It really defined that 1 week is better than 2 weeks,” he said in an interview.

Another way that clinicians can reduce the use of antibiotics by men with UTIs is to consider alternative diagnoses and to culture urine samples when UTI seems like the most likely cause of their symptoms, said Dr. Morgan, who co-authored an accompanying editorial.

He pointed out that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration has issued a black box warning on fluoroquinolones, including ciprofloxacin, because they increase the risk for tendinitis and tendon rupture. Nitrofurantoin and amoxicillin-clavulanate are better alternatives for UTIs, he said.

Even some men with fevers and UTIs may need no more than 7 days of antibiotics, said Dr. Morgan. Dr. Drekonja said he generally prescribes at least 10 days antibiotics for these men.

The study was funded by the VA Merit Review Program. Dr. Drekonja and Dr. Morgan have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

A week of antibiotics appears just as effective as 2 weeks in treating afebrile men with urinary tract infections (UTIs), researchers say.

Shortening the course of treatment could spare patients side effects from the medications and reduce the risk that bacteria will develop resistance to the drugs, said Dimitri Drekonja, MD, chief of infectious diseases at the Minneapolis VA Medical Center.

“You’d like to be on these drugs for as short [an] amount of time as gets the job done,” he told this news organization. The study was published online July 28 in JAMA.

Researchers have recently found that shorter courses of antimicrobials are effective in the treatment of other types of infection and for UTIs in women. However, UTIs in men are thought to be more complicated because the male urethra is longer.

To see whether reducing length of treatment could be effective in men as well, Dr. Drekonja and colleagues compared 7-day and 14-day regimens in men treated at U.S. Veterans Affairs medical centers in Minnesota and Texas.

They recruited 272 men who had symptoms of UTI and were willing to participate. All the men received trimethoprim/sulfamethoxazole or ciprofloxacin for 7 days. Half the men were randomly assigned to continue this treatment for an additional 7 days; the other half received placebo pills for an additional 7 days.

The average age of the men was 69 years. Urine samples were cultured from 87.9% of the men. In 60.7% of these samples, the researchers found more than 100,000 CFU/mL; in 16.3%, they found lower colony counts; and in 23.0%, they found no growth of bacteria. The most common organism they isolated was Escherchia coli.

Results for the two groups were similar. Symptoms resolved 14 days after completion of the course of treatment in 90.4% of those who received 14 days of antibiotics, versus 91.9% of those who received 7 days of antibiotics plus 7 days of placebo pills. At 1.5%, the difference between the two arms was within the predetermined boundary for noninferiority.

The percentage of those who experienced recurrence of symptoms within 28 days of stopping medication was also similar between the two groups. Among those who received 7 days of antibiotics, 10.3% experienced recurrence of symptoms, compared to 16.9% of those assigned to 14 days of antibiotics.

There was no significant difference in the resolution of UTI symptoms between the two groups by type of antibiotic, pretreatment bacteriuria count, or study site.

Adverse events were also similar in the two groups, occurring in 20.6% of the men who received 7 days of antibiotics, versus 24.3% of the men who received 14 days of treatment. In both groups, 8.8% of patients had diarrhea, which was the most common adverse event.

Clinicians should not worry that antibiotic resistance is more likely to develop or that symptoms will recur when patients don’t finish a prescribed course of treatment, Dr. Drekonja said. “That is an old piece of guidance that has persisted for such a long time,” he said. “And it makes all of us in the infectious disease field cringe.”

Rather, the current thinking is that the more antibiotics patients take, the more resistance bacteria will develop, he said.

The success of the 7-day regimen raises the question of whether an even shorter course would work equally well. It’s not clear how short a course of antibiotics will do the trick. Research in certain populations, such as patients with spinal cord injuries, has suggested that recurrences are more frequent with 3 days of antibiotics than with 14, “so there could be a floor that you do need to go beyond,” Dr. Drekonja said.

“We’re not really sure how much people need,” agreed Daniel Morgan, MD, a professor of epidemiology and public health and medicine at the University of Maryland, Baltimore, which is why this study is important. “It really defined that 1 week is better than 2 weeks,” he said in an interview.

Another way that clinicians can reduce the use of antibiotics by men with UTIs is to consider alternative diagnoses and to culture urine samples when UTI seems like the most likely cause of their symptoms, said Dr. Morgan, who co-authored an accompanying editorial.

He pointed out that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration has issued a black box warning on fluoroquinolones, including ciprofloxacin, because they increase the risk for tendinitis and tendon rupture. Nitrofurantoin and amoxicillin-clavulanate are better alternatives for UTIs, he said.

Even some men with fevers and UTIs may need no more than 7 days of antibiotics, said Dr. Morgan. Dr. Drekonja said he generally prescribes at least 10 days antibiotics for these men.

The study was funded by the VA Merit Review Program. Dr. Drekonja and Dr. Morgan have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

The CDC has reported two clusters of Candida auris infections resistant to all antifungal medications in long-term care facilities in 2021. Because these panresistant infections occurred without any exposure to antifungal drugs, the cases are even more worrisome. These clusters are the first time such nosocomial transmission has been detected.

In the District of Columbia, three panresistant isolates were discovered through screening for skin colonization with resistant organisms at a long-term acute care facility (LTAC) that cares for patients who are seriously ill, often on mechanical ventilation.

In Texas, the resistant organisms were found both by screening and in specimens from ill patients at an LTAC and a short-term acute care hospital that share patients. Two were panresistant, and five others were resistant to fluconazole and echinocandins.

These clusters occurred simultaneously and independently of each other; there were no links between the two institutions.

Colonization of skin with C. auris can lead to invasive infections in 5%-10% of affected patients. Routine skin surveillance cultures are not commonly done for Candida, although perirectal cultures for vancomycin-resistant enterococci and nasal swabs for MRSA have been done for years. Some areas, like Los Angeles, have recommended screening for C. auris in high-risk patients – defined as those who were on a ventilator or had a tracheostomy admitted from an LTAC or skilled nursing facility in Los Angeles County, New York, New Jersey, or Illinois.

In the past, about 85% of C. auris isolates in the United States have been resistant to azoles (for example, fluconazole), 33% to amphotericin B, and 1% to echinocandins. Because of generally strong susceptibility, an echinocandin such as micafungin or caspofungin has been the drug of choice for an invasive Candida infection.

C. auris is particularly difficult to deal with for several reasons. First, it can continue to live in the environment, on both dry or moist surfaces, for up to 2 weeks. Outbreaks have occurred both from hand (person-to-person) transmission or via inanimate surfaces that have become contaminated. Equally troublesome is that people become colonized with the yeast indefinitely.

Meghan Lyman, MD, of the fungal diseases branch of the CDC’s National Center for Emerging and Zoonotic Infectious Diseases, said in an interview that facilities might be slow in recognizing the problem and in identifying the organism. “We encounter problems in noninvasive specimens, especially urine,” Dr. Lyman added.

“Sometimes ... they consider Candida [to represent] colonization so they will often not speciate it.” She emphasized the need for facilities that care for ventilated patients to consider screening. “Higher priority ... are places in areas where there’s a lot of C. auris transmission or in nearby areas that are likely to get introductions.” Even those that do speciate may have difficulty identifying C. auris.

Further, Dr. Lyman stressed “the importance of antifungal susceptibility testing and testing for resistance. Because that’s also something that’s not widely available at all hospitals and clinical labs ... you can send it to the [CDC’s] antimicrobial resistance lab network” for testing.

COVID-19 has brought particular challenges. Rodney E. Rohde, PhD, MS, professor and chair, clinical lab science program, Texas State University, San Marcos, said in an interview that he is worried about all the steroids and broad-spectrum antibiotics patients receive.

They’re “being given medical interventions, whether it’s ventilators or [extracorporeal membrane oxygenation] or IVs or central lines or catheters for UTIs and you’re creating highways, right for something that may be right there,” said Dr. Rohde, who was not involved in the CDC study. “It’s a perfect storm, not just for C. auris, but I worry about bacterial resistance agents, too, like MRSA and so forth, having kind of a spike in those types of infections with COVID. So, it’s kind of a doubly dangerous time, I think.”

Multiresistant bacteria are a major health problem, causing illnesses in 2.8 million people annually in the United States, and causing about 35,000 deaths.

Dr. Rohde raised another, rarely mentioned concern. “We’re in crisis mode. People are leaving our field more than they ever had before. The medical laboratory is being decimated because people have burned out after these past 14 months. And so I worry just about competent medical laboratory professionals that are on board to deal with these types of other crises that are popping up within hospitals and long-term care facilities. It kind of keeps me awake.”

Dr. Rohde and Dr. Lyman shared their concern that COVID caused a decrease in screening for other infections and drug-resistant organisms. Bare-bones staffing and shortages of personal protective equipment have likely fueled the spread of these infections as well.

In an outbreak of C. auris in a Florida hospital’s COVID unit in 2020, 35 of 67 patients became colonized, and 6 became ill. The epidemiologists investigating thought that contaminated gowns or gloves, computers, and other equipment were likely sources of transmission.

Low pay, especially in nursing homes, is another problem Dr. Rohde mentioned. It’s an additional problem in both acute and long-term care that “some of the lowest-paid people are the environmental services people, and so the turnover is crazy.” Yet, we rely on them to keep everyone safe. He added that, in addition to pay, he “tries to give them the appreciation and the recognition that they really deserve.”

There are a few specific measures that can be taken to protect patients. Dr. Lyman concluded. “The best way is identifying cases and really ensuring good infection control to prevent the spread.” It’s back to basics – limiting broad-spectrum antibiotics and invasive medical devices, and especially good handwashing and thorough cleaning.

Dr. Lyman and Dr. Rohde have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

The CDC has reported two clusters of Candida auris infections resistant to all antifungal medications in long-term care facilities in 2021. Because these panresistant infections occurred without any exposure to antifungal drugs, the cases are even more worrisome. These clusters are the first time such nosocomial transmission has been detected.

In the District of Columbia, three panresistant isolates were discovered through screening for skin colonization with resistant organisms at a long-term acute care facility (LTAC) that cares for patients who are seriously ill, often on mechanical ventilation.

In Texas, the resistant organisms were found both by screening and in specimens from ill patients at an LTAC and a short-term acute care hospital that share patients. Two were panresistant, and five others were resistant to fluconazole and echinocandins.

These clusters occurred simultaneously and independently of each other; there were no links between the two institutions.

Colonization of skin with C. auris can lead to invasive infections in 5%-10% of affected patients. Routine skin surveillance cultures are not commonly done for Candida, although perirectal cultures for vancomycin-resistant enterococci and nasal swabs for MRSA have been done for years. Some areas, like Los Angeles, have recommended screening for C. auris in high-risk patients – defined as those who were on a ventilator or had a tracheostomy admitted from an LTAC or skilled nursing facility in Los Angeles County, New York, New Jersey, or Illinois.

In the past, about 85% of C. auris isolates in the United States have been resistant to azoles (for example, fluconazole), 33% to amphotericin B, and 1% to echinocandins. Because of generally strong susceptibility, an echinocandin such as micafungin or caspofungin has been the drug of choice for an invasive Candida infection.

C. auris is particularly difficult to deal with for several reasons. First, it can continue to live in the environment, on both dry or moist surfaces, for up to 2 weeks. Outbreaks have occurred both from hand (person-to-person) transmission or via inanimate surfaces that have become contaminated. Equally troublesome is that people become colonized with the yeast indefinitely.

Meghan Lyman, MD, of the fungal diseases branch of the CDC’s National Center for Emerging and Zoonotic Infectious Diseases, said in an interview that facilities might be slow in recognizing the problem and in identifying the organism. “We encounter problems in noninvasive specimens, especially urine,” Dr. Lyman added.

“Sometimes ... they consider Candida [to represent] colonization so they will often not speciate it.” She emphasized the need for facilities that care for ventilated patients to consider screening. “Higher priority ... are places in areas where there’s a lot of C. auris transmission or in nearby areas that are likely to get introductions.” Even those that do speciate may have difficulty identifying C. auris.

Further, Dr. Lyman stressed “the importance of antifungal susceptibility testing and testing for resistance. Because that’s also something that’s not widely available at all hospitals and clinical labs ... you can send it to the [CDC’s] antimicrobial resistance lab network” for testing.

COVID-19 has brought particular challenges. Rodney E. Rohde, PhD, MS, professor and chair, clinical lab science program, Texas State University, San Marcos, said in an interview that he is worried about all the steroids and broad-spectrum antibiotics patients receive.

They’re “being given medical interventions, whether it’s ventilators or [extracorporeal membrane oxygenation] or IVs or central lines or catheters for UTIs and you’re creating highways, right for something that may be right there,” said Dr. Rohde, who was not involved in the CDC study. “It’s a perfect storm, not just for C. auris, but I worry about bacterial resistance agents, too, like MRSA and so forth, having kind of a spike in those types of infections with COVID. So, it’s kind of a doubly dangerous time, I think.”

Multiresistant bacteria are a major health problem, causing illnesses in 2.8 million people annually in the United States, and causing about 35,000 deaths.

Dr. Rohde raised another, rarely mentioned concern. “We’re in crisis mode. People are leaving our field more than they ever had before. The medical laboratory is being decimated because people have burned out after these past 14 months. And so I worry just about competent medical laboratory professionals that are on board to deal with these types of other crises that are popping up within hospitals and long-term care facilities. It kind of keeps me awake.”

Dr. Rohde and Dr. Lyman shared their concern that COVID caused a decrease in screening for other infections and drug-resistant organisms. Bare-bones staffing and shortages of personal protective equipment have likely fueled the spread of these infections as well.

In an outbreak of C. auris in a Florida hospital’s COVID unit in 2020, 35 of 67 patients became colonized, and 6 became ill. The epidemiologists investigating thought that contaminated gowns or gloves, computers, and other equipment were likely sources of transmission.

Low pay, especially in nursing homes, is another problem Dr. Rohde mentioned. It’s an additional problem in both acute and long-term care that “some of the lowest-paid people are the environmental services people, and so the turnover is crazy.” Yet, we rely on them to keep everyone safe. He added that, in addition to pay, he “tries to give them the appreciation and the recognition that they really deserve.”

There are a few specific measures that can be taken to protect patients. Dr. Lyman concluded. “The best way is identifying cases and really ensuring good infection control to prevent the spread.” It’s back to basics – limiting broad-spectrum antibiotics and invasive medical devices, and especially good handwashing and thorough cleaning.

Dr. Lyman and Dr. Rohde have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

The CDC has reported two clusters of Candida auris infections resistant to all antifungal medications in long-term care facilities in 2021. Because these panresistant infections occurred without any exposure to antifungal drugs, the cases are even more worrisome. These clusters are the first time such nosocomial transmission has been detected.

In the District of Columbia, three panresistant isolates were discovered through screening for skin colonization with resistant organisms at a long-term acute care facility (LTAC) that cares for patients who are seriously ill, often on mechanical ventilation.

In Texas, the resistant organisms were found both by screening and in specimens from ill patients at an LTAC and a short-term acute care hospital that share patients. Two were panresistant, and five others were resistant to fluconazole and echinocandins.

These clusters occurred simultaneously and independently of each other; there were no links between the two institutions.

Colonization of skin with C. auris can lead to invasive infections in 5%-10% of affected patients. Routine skin surveillance cultures are not commonly done for Candida, although perirectal cultures for vancomycin-resistant enterococci and nasal swabs for MRSA have been done for years. Some areas, like Los Angeles, have recommended screening for C. auris in high-risk patients – defined as those who were on a ventilator or had a tracheostomy admitted from an LTAC or skilled nursing facility in Los Angeles County, New York, New Jersey, or Illinois.

In the past, about 85% of C. auris isolates in the United States have been resistant to azoles (for example, fluconazole), 33% to amphotericin B, and 1% to echinocandins. Because of generally strong susceptibility, an echinocandin such as micafungin or caspofungin has been the drug of choice for an invasive Candida infection.

C. auris is particularly difficult to deal with for several reasons. First, it can continue to live in the environment, on both dry or moist surfaces, for up to 2 weeks. Outbreaks have occurred both from hand (person-to-person) transmission or via inanimate surfaces that have become contaminated. Equally troublesome is that people become colonized with the yeast indefinitely.

Meghan Lyman, MD, of the fungal diseases branch of the CDC’s National Center for Emerging and Zoonotic Infectious Diseases, said in an interview that facilities might be slow in recognizing the problem and in identifying the organism. “We encounter problems in noninvasive specimens, especially urine,” Dr. Lyman added.

“Sometimes ... they consider Candida [to represent] colonization so they will often not speciate it.” She emphasized the need for facilities that care for ventilated patients to consider screening. “Higher priority ... are places in areas where there’s a lot of C. auris transmission or in nearby areas that are likely to get introductions.” Even those that do speciate may have difficulty identifying C. auris.

Further, Dr. Lyman stressed “the importance of antifungal susceptibility testing and testing for resistance. Because that’s also something that’s not widely available at all hospitals and clinical labs ... you can send it to the [CDC’s] antimicrobial resistance lab network” for testing.

COVID-19 has brought particular challenges. Rodney E. Rohde, PhD, MS, professor and chair, clinical lab science program, Texas State University, San Marcos, said in an interview that he is worried about all the steroids and broad-spectrum antibiotics patients receive.

They’re “being given medical interventions, whether it’s ventilators or [extracorporeal membrane oxygenation] or IVs or central lines or catheters for UTIs and you’re creating highways, right for something that may be right there,” said Dr. Rohde, who was not involved in the CDC study. “It’s a perfect storm, not just for C. auris, but I worry about bacterial resistance agents, too, like MRSA and so forth, having kind of a spike in those types of infections with COVID. So, it’s kind of a doubly dangerous time, I think.”

Multiresistant bacteria are a major health problem, causing illnesses in 2.8 million people annually in the United States, and causing about 35,000 deaths.

Dr. Rohde raised another, rarely mentioned concern. “We’re in crisis mode. People are leaving our field more than they ever had before. The medical laboratory is being decimated because people have burned out after these past 14 months. And so I worry just about competent medical laboratory professionals that are on board to deal with these types of other crises that are popping up within hospitals and long-term care facilities. It kind of keeps me awake.”

Dr. Rohde and Dr. Lyman shared their concern that COVID caused a decrease in screening for other infections and drug-resistant organisms. Bare-bones staffing and shortages of personal protective equipment have likely fueled the spread of these infections as well.

In an outbreak of C. auris in a Florida hospital’s COVID unit in 2020, 35 of 67 patients became colonized, and 6 became ill. The epidemiologists investigating thought that contaminated gowns or gloves, computers, and other equipment were likely sources of transmission.

Low pay, especially in nursing homes, is another problem Dr. Rohde mentioned. It’s an additional problem in both acute and long-term care that “some of the lowest-paid people are the environmental services people, and so the turnover is crazy.” Yet, we rely on them to keep everyone safe. He added that, in addition to pay, he “tries to give them the appreciation and the recognition that they really deserve.”

There are a few specific measures that can be taken to protect patients. Dr. Lyman concluded. “The best way is identifying cases and really ensuring good infection control to prevent the spread.” It’s back to basics – limiting broad-spectrum antibiotics and invasive medical devices, and especially good handwashing and thorough cleaning.

Dr. Lyman and Dr. Rohde have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

New COVID-19 cases in children soared by almost 86% over the course of just 1 week, while the number of 12- to 17-year-old children who have received at least one dose of vaccine rose by 5.4%, according to two separate sources.

There were 71,726 new cases reported during the week of July 23-29, compared with 38,654 the previous week, an increase of 85.6%. Meanwhile, the increase over the past 2 weeks – from 23,551 new cases for July 16-22 to almost 72,000 – works out to almost 205%, according to a report from the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Children’s Hospital Association.

Children represented 19.0% of the cases reported during the week of July 23-29, and they have made up 14.3% of all cases since the pandemic began, with the total number of cases in children now approaching 4.2 million, the AAP and CHA said in their weekly COVID report. About 22% of the U.S. population is under the age of 18 years.

As of Aug. 2, just over 9.8 million children aged 12-17 years had received at least one dose of the COVID vaccine, which was up by about 500,000, or 5.4%, from a week earlier, based on data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Children aged 16-17 have reached a notable milestone on the journey that started with vaccine approval in December: 50.2% have gotten at least one dose and 40.3% are fully vaccinated. Among children aged 12-15 years, the proportion with at least one dose of vaccine is up to 39.5%, compared with 37.1% the previous week, while 29.0% are fully vaccinated (27.8% the week before), the CDC said on its COVID Data Tracker.

The national rates for child vaccination, however, tend to hide the disparities between states. There is a gap between Mississippi (lowest), where just 17% of children aged 12-17 years have gotten at least one dose, and Vermont (highest), which is up to 69%. Vermont also has the highest rate of vaccine completion (60%), while Alabama and Mississippi have the lowest (10%), according to a solo report from the AAP.

[email protected]

New COVID-19 cases in children soared by almost 86% over the course of just 1 week, while the number of 12- to 17-year-old children who have received at least one dose of vaccine rose by 5.4%, according to two separate sources.

There were 71,726 new cases reported during the week of July 23-29, compared with 38,654 the previous week, an increase of 85.6%. Meanwhile, the increase over the past 2 weeks – from 23,551 new cases for July 16-22 to almost 72,000 – works out to almost 205%, according to a report from the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Children’s Hospital Association.

Children represented 19.0% of the cases reported during the week of July 23-29, and they have made up 14.3% of all cases since the pandemic began, with the total number of cases in children now approaching 4.2 million, the AAP and CHA said in their weekly COVID report. About 22% of the U.S. population is under the age of 18 years.

As of Aug. 2, just over 9.8 million children aged 12-17 years had received at least one dose of the COVID vaccine, which was up by about 500,000, or 5.4%, from a week earlier, based on data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Children aged 16-17 have reached a notable milestone on the journey that started with vaccine approval in December: 50.2% have gotten at least one dose and 40.3% are fully vaccinated. Among children aged 12-15 years, the proportion with at least one dose of vaccine is up to 39.5%, compared with 37.1% the previous week, while 29.0% are fully vaccinated (27.8% the week before), the CDC said on its COVID Data Tracker.

The national rates for child vaccination, however, tend to hide the disparities between states. There is a gap between Mississippi (lowest), where just 17% of children aged 12-17 years have gotten at least one dose, and Vermont (highest), which is up to 69%. Vermont also has the highest rate of vaccine completion (60%), while Alabama and Mississippi have the lowest (10%), according to a solo report from the AAP.

[email protected]

New COVID-19 cases in children soared by almost 86% over the course of just 1 week, while the number of 12- to 17-year-old children who have received at least one dose of vaccine rose by 5.4%, according to two separate sources.

There were 71,726 new cases reported during the week of July 23-29, compared with 38,654 the previous week, an increase of 85.6%. Meanwhile, the increase over the past 2 weeks – from 23,551 new cases for July 16-22 to almost 72,000 – works out to almost 205%, according to a report from the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Children’s Hospital Association.

Children represented 19.0% of the cases reported during the week of July 23-29, and they have made up 14.3% of all cases since the pandemic began, with the total number of cases in children now approaching 4.2 million, the AAP and CHA said in their weekly COVID report. About 22% of the U.S. population is under the age of 18 years.

As of Aug. 2, just over 9.8 million children aged 12-17 years had received at least one dose of the COVID vaccine, which was up by about 500,000, or 5.4%, from a week earlier, based on data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Children aged 16-17 have reached a notable milestone on the journey that started with vaccine approval in December: 50.2% have gotten at least one dose and 40.3% are fully vaccinated. Among children aged 12-15 years, the proportion with at least one dose of vaccine is up to 39.5%, compared with 37.1% the previous week, while 29.0% are fully vaccinated (27.8% the week before), the CDC said on its COVID Data Tracker.

The national rates for child vaccination, however, tend to hide the disparities between states. There is a gap between Mississippi (lowest), where just 17% of children aged 12-17 years have gotten at least one dose, and Vermont (highest), which is up to 69%. Vermont also has the highest rate of vaccine completion (60%), while Alabama and Mississippi have the lowest (10%), according to a solo report from the AAP.

[email protected]

People who are seen after a patient with an influenzalike illness are 31.8% more likely to return to a their doctor’s office within 2 weeks with similar symptoms, new research shows.

Prior research has examined the issue of hospital-acquired infections. A 2014 study published in the New England Journal of Medicine, for example, found that 4% of hospitalized patients acquired a health care–associated infection during their stay. Furthermore, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimates that, on any given day, one in 31 hospital patients has at least one health care–associated infection. However, researchers for the new study, published in Health Affairs, said evidence about the risk of acquiring respiratory viral infections in medical office settings is limited.

“Hospital-acquired infections has been a problem for a while,” study author Hannah Neprash, PhD, of the department of health policy and management at the University of Minnesota School of Public Health, Minneapolis, said in an interview. “However, there’s never been a similar study of whether a similar phenomenon happens in physician offices. This is especially relevant now when we’re dealing with respiratory infections.”

Methods and results

For the new study, Dr. Neprash and her colleagues analyzed deidentified billing and scheduling data from 2016-2017 for 105,462,600 outpatient visits that occurred at 6,709 office-based primary care practices. They used the World Health Organization case definition for influenzalike illness “to capture cases in which the physician may suspect this illness even if a specific diagnosis code was not present.” Their control conditions included exposure to urinary tract infections and back pain.

Doctor visits were considered unexposed if they were scheduled to start at least 90 minutes before the first influenzalike illness visit of the day. They were considered exposed if they were scheduled to start at the same time or after the first influenzalike illness visit of the day at that practice.

Researchers quantified whether exposed patients were more likely to return with a similar illness in the next 2 weeks, compared with nonexposed patients seen earlier in the day

They found that 2.7 patients per 1,000 returned within 2 weeks with an influenzalike illness.

Patients were more likely to return with influenzalike illness if their visit occurred after an influenzalike illness visit versus before, the researchers said.

The authors of the paper said their new research highlights the importance of infection control in health care settings, including outpatient offices.

Where did the exposure occur?

Diego Hijano, MD, MSc, pediatric infectious disease specialist at St. Jude’s Children’s Research Hospital, Memphis, Tenn., said he was not surprised by the findings, but noted that it’s hard to say if the exposure to influenzalike illnesses happened in the office or in the community.

“If you start to see individuals with influenza in your office it’s because [there’s influenza] in the community,” Dr. Hijano explained. “So that means that you will have more patients coming in with influenza.”

To reduce the transmission of infections, Dr. Neprash suggested that doctors’ offices follow the CDC guidelines for indoor conduct, which include masking, washing hands, and “taking appropriate infection control measures.”

So potentially masking within offices is a way to minimize transmission between whatever people are there to be seen when it’s contagious, Dr. Neprash said.

“Telehealth really took off in 2020 and it’s unclear what the state of telehealth will be going forward. [These findings] suggest that there’s a patient safety argument for continuing to enable primary care physicians to provide visits either by phone or by video,” he added.

Dr. Hijano thinks it would be helpful for doctors to separate patients with respiratory illnesses from those without respiratory illnesses.

Driver of transmissions

Dr. Neprash suggested that another driver of these transmissions could be doctors not washing their hands, which is a “notorious issue,” and Dr. Hijano agreed with that statement.

“We did know that the hands of physicians and nurses and care providers are the main driver of infections in the health care setting,” Dr. Hijano explained. “I mean, washing your hands properly between encounters is the single best way that any given health care provider can prevent the spread of infections.”

“We have a unique opportunity with COVID-19 to change how these clinics are operating now,” Dr. Hijano said. “Many clinics are actually asking patients to call ahead of time if you have symptoms of a respiratory illness that could be contagious, and those who are not are still mandating the use of mask and physical distance in the waiting areas and limiting the amount of number of patients in any given hour. So I think that those are really big practices that would kind of make an impact in respiratory illness in terms of decreasing transmission in clinics.”

The authors, who had no conflicts of interest said their hope is that their study will help inform policy for reopening outpatient care settings. Dr. Hijano, who was not involved in the study also had no conflicts.

People who are seen after a patient with an influenzalike illness are 31.8% more likely to return to a their doctor’s office within 2 weeks with similar symptoms, new research shows.

Prior research has examined the issue of hospital-acquired infections. A 2014 study published in the New England Journal of Medicine, for example, found that 4% of hospitalized patients acquired a health care–associated infection during their stay. Furthermore, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimates that, on any given day, one in 31 hospital patients has at least one health care–associated infection. However, researchers for the new study, published in Health Affairs, said evidence about the risk of acquiring respiratory viral infections in medical office settings is limited.

“Hospital-acquired infections has been a problem for a while,” study author Hannah Neprash, PhD, of the department of health policy and management at the University of Minnesota School of Public Health, Minneapolis, said in an interview. “However, there’s never been a similar study of whether a similar phenomenon happens in physician offices. This is especially relevant now when we’re dealing with respiratory infections.”

Methods and results

For the new study, Dr. Neprash and her colleagues analyzed deidentified billing and scheduling data from 2016-2017 for 105,462,600 outpatient visits that occurred at 6,709 office-based primary care practices. They used the World Health Organization case definition for influenzalike illness “to capture cases in which the physician may suspect this illness even if a specific diagnosis code was not present.” Their control conditions included exposure to urinary tract infections and back pain.

Doctor visits were considered unexposed if they were scheduled to start at least 90 minutes before the first influenzalike illness visit of the day. They were considered exposed if they were scheduled to start at the same time or after the first influenzalike illness visit of the day at that practice.

Researchers quantified whether exposed patients were more likely to return with a similar illness in the next 2 weeks, compared with nonexposed patients seen earlier in the day

They found that 2.7 patients per 1,000 returned within 2 weeks with an influenzalike illness.

Patients were more likely to return with influenzalike illness if their visit occurred after an influenzalike illness visit versus before, the researchers said.

The authors of the paper said their new research highlights the importance of infection control in health care settings, including outpatient offices.

Where did the exposure occur?

Diego Hijano, MD, MSc, pediatric infectious disease specialist at St. Jude’s Children’s Research Hospital, Memphis, Tenn., said he was not surprised by the findings, but noted that it’s hard to say if the exposure to influenzalike illnesses happened in the office or in the community.

“If you start to see individuals with influenza in your office it’s because [there’s influenza] in the community,” Dr. Hijano explained. “So that means that you will have more patients coming in with influenza.”

To reduce the transmission of infections, Dr. Neprash suggested that doctors’ offices follow the CDC guidelines for indoor conduct, which include masking, washing hands, and “taking appropriate infection control measures.”

So potentially masking within offices is a way to minimize transmission between whatever people are there to be seen when it’s contagious, Dr. Neprash said.

“Telehealth really took off in 2020 and it’s unclear what the state of telehealth will be going forward. [These findings] suggest that there’s a patient safety argument for continuing to enable primary care physicians to provide visits either by phone or by video,” he added.

Dr. Hijano thinks it would be helpful for doctors to separate patients with respiratory illnesses from those without respiratory illnesses.

Driver of transmissions

Dr. Neprash suggested that another driver of these transmissions could be doctors not washing their hands, which is a “notorious issue,” and Dr. Hijano agreed with that statement.

“We did know that the hands of physicians and nurses and care providers are the main driver of infections in the health care setting,” Dr. Hijano explained. “I mean, washing your hands properly between encounters is the single best way that any given health care provider can prevent the spread of infections.”

“We have a unique opportunity with COVID-19 to change how these clinics are operating now,” Dr. Hijano said. “Many clinics are actually asking patients to call ahead of time if you have symptoms of a respiratory illness that could be contagious, and those who are not are still mandating the use of mask and physical distance in the waiting areas and limiting the amount of number of patients in any given hour. So I think that those are really big practices that would kind of make an impact in respiratory illness in terms of decreasing transmission in clinics.”

The authors, who had no conflicts of interest said their hope is that their study will help inform policy for reopening outpatient care settings. Dr. Hijano, who was not involved in the study also had no conflicts.

People who are seen after a patient with an influenzalike illness are 31.8% more likely to return to a their doctor’s office within 2 weeks with similar symptoms, new research shows.

Prior research has examined the issue of hospital-acquired infections. A 2014 study published in the New England Journal of Medicine, for example, found that 4% of hospitalized patients acquired a health care–associated infection during their stay. Furthermore, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimates that, on any given day, one in 31 hospital patients has at least one health care–associated infection. However, researchers for the new study, published in Health Affairs, said evidence about the risk of acquiring respiratory viral infections in medical office settings is limited.

“Hospital-acquired infections has been a problem for a while,” study author Hannah Neprash, PhD, of the department of health policy and management at the University of Minnesota School of Public Health, Minneapolis, said in an interview. “However, there’s never been a similar study of whether a similar phenomenon happens in physician offices. This is especially relevant now when we’re dealing with respiratory infections.”

Methods and results

For the new study, Dr. Neprash and her colleagues analyzed deidentified billing and scheduling data from 2016-2017 for 105,462,600 outpatient visits that occurred at 6,709 office-based primary care practices. They used the World Health Organization case definition for influenzalike illness “to capture cases in which the physician may suspect this illness even if a specific diagnosis code was not present.” Their control conditions included exposure to urinary tract infections and back pain.

Doctor visits were considered unexposed if they were scheduled to start at least 90 minutes before the first influenzalike illness visit of the day. They were considered exposed if they were scheduled to start at the same time or after the first influenzalike illness visit of the day at that practice.

Researchers quantified whether exposed patients were more likely to return with a similar illness in the next 2 weeks, compared with nonexposed patients seen earlier in the day

They found that 2.7 patients per 1,000 returned within 2 weeks with an influenzalike illness.

Patients were more likely to return with influenzalike illness if their visit occurred after an influenzalike illness visit versus before, the researchers said.

The authors of the paper said their new research highlights the importance of infection control in health care settings, including outpatient offices.

Where did the exposure occur?

Diego Hijano, MD, MSc, pediatric infectious disease specialist at St. Jude’s Children’s Research Hospital, Memphis, Tenn., said he was not surprised by the findings, but noted that it’s hard to say if the exposure to influenzalike illnesses happened in the office or in the community.

“If you start to see individuals with influenza in your office it’s because [there’s influenza] in the community,” Dr. Hijano explained. “So that means that you will have more patients coming in with influenza.”

To reduce the transmission of infections, Dr. Neprash suggested that doctors’ offices follow the CDC guidelines for indoor conduct, which include masking, washing hands, and “taking appropriate infection control measures.”

So potentially masking within offices is a way to minimize transmission between whatever people are there to be seen when it’s contagious, Dr. Neprash said.

“Telehealth really took off in 2020 and it’s unclear what the state of telehealth will be going forward. [These findings] suggest that there’s a patient safety argument for continuing to enable primary care physicians to provide visits either by phone or by video,” he added.

Dr. Hijano thinks it would be helpful for doctors to separate patients with respiratory illnesses from those without respiratory illnesses.

Driver of transmissions

Dr. Neprash suggested that another driver of these transmissions could be doctors not washing their hands, which is a “notorious issue,” and Dr. Hijano agreed with that statement.

“We did know that the hands of physicians and nurses and care providers are the main driver of infections in the health care setting,” Dr. Hijano explained. “I mean, washing your hands properly between encounters is the single best way that any given health care provider can prevent the spread of infections.”

“We have a unique opportunity with COVID-19 to change how these clinics are operating now,” Dr. Hijano said. “Many clinics are actually asking patients to call ahead of time if you have symptoms of a respiratory illness that could be contagious, and those who are not are still mandating the use of mask and physical distance in the waiting areas and limiting the amount of number of patients in any given hour. So I think that those are really big practices that would kind of make an impact in respiratory illness in terms of decreasing transmission in clinics.”

The authors, who had no conflicts of interest said their hope is that their study will help inform policy for reopening outpatient care settings. Dr. Hijano, who was not involved in the study also had no conflicts.