Infectious Diseases

Background: There is consensus that LR-SAB can be safely treated with 14 days of antibiotic therapy, but the use of and/or proportion of duration of oral antibiotics is not clear. There is evidence that oral therapy has fewer treatment complications, compared with IV treatments. Objective of this study was to assess the safety of early oral switch (EOS) prior to 14 days for LR-SAB.

Study design: Retrospective cohort study.

Setting: Single institution tertiary care hospital in Wellington, New Zealand.

Synopsis: Study population included adults with health care–associated SAB deemed low risk (no positive blood cultures >72 hours after initial positive culture, no evidence of deep infection as determined by an infectious disease consultant, no nonremovable prosthetics). The primary outcome was occurrence of SAB-related complication (recurrence of SAB, deep-seated infection, readmission, attributable mortality) within 90 days.

Of the initial 469 episodes of SAB, 100 met inclusion, and 84 of those patients had EOS. Line infection was the source in a majority of patients (79% and 88% in EOS and IV, respectively). Only 5% of patients had MRSA. Overall, 86% of EOS patients were treated with an oral beta-lactam, within the EOS group, median duration of IV and oral antibiotics was 5 and 10 days, respectively. SAB recurrence within 90 days occurred in three (4%) and one (6%) patients in EOS vs. IV groups, respectively (P = .64). No deaths within 90 days were deemed attributable to SAB. Limitations include small size, single center, and observational, retrospective framework.

Bottom line: The study suggests that EOS with oral beta-lactams in selected patients with LR-SAB may be adequate; however, the study is too small to provide robust high-level evidence. Instead, the authors hope the data will lead to larger, more powerful prospective studies to examine if a simpler, cheaper, and in some ways safer treatment course is possible.

Citation: Bupha-Intr O et al. Efficacy of early oral switch with beta-lactams for low-risk Staphylococcus aureus bacteremia. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2020 Feb 3;AAC.02345-19. doi: 10.1128/AAC.02345-19.

Dr. Sneed is assistant professor of medicine, section of hospital medicine, at the University of Virginia School of Medicine, Charlottesville.

Background: There is consensus that LR-SAB can be safely treated with 14 days of antibiotic therapy, but the use of and/or proportion of duration of oral antibiotics is not clear. There is evidence that oral therapy has fewer treatment complications, compared with IV treatments. Objective of this study was to assess the safety of early oral switch (EOS) prior to 14 days for LR-SAB.

Study design: Retrospective cohort study.

Setting: Single institution tertiary care hospital in Wellington, New Zealand.

Synopsis: Study population included adults with health care–associated SAB deemed low risk (no positive blood cultures >72 hours after initial positive culture, no evidence of deep infection as determined by an infectious disease consultant, no nonremovable prosthetics). The primary outcome was occurrence of SAB-related complication (recurrence of SAB, deep-seated infection, readmission, attributable mortality) within 90 days.

Of the initial 469 episodes of SAB, 100 met inclusion, and 84 of those patients had EOS. Line infection was the source in a majority of patients (79% and 88% in EOS and IV, respectively). Only 5% of patients had MRSA. Overall, 86% of EOS patients were treated with an oral beta-lactam, within the EOS group, median duration of IV and oral antibiotics was 5 and 10 days, respectively. SAB recurrence within 90 days occurred in three (4%) and one (6%) patients in EOS vs. IV groups, respectively (P = .64). No deaths within 90 days were deemed attributable to SAB. Limitations include small size, single center, and observational, retrospective framework.

Bottom line: The study suggests that EOS with oral beta-lactams in selected patients with LR-SAB may be adequate; however, the study is too small to provide robust high-level evidence. Instead, the authors hope the data will lead to larger, more powerful prospective studies to examine if a simpler, cheaper, and in some ways safer treatment course is possible.

Citation: Bupha-Intr O et al. Efficacy of early oral switch with beta-lactams for low-risk Staphylococcus aureus bacteremia. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2020 Feb 3;AAC.02345-19. doi: 10.1128/AAC.02345-19.

Dr. Sneed is assistant professor of medicine, section of hospital medicine, at the University of Virginia School of Medicine, Charlottesville.

Background: There is consensus that LR-SAB can be safely treated with 14 days of antibiotic therapy, but the use of and/or proportion of duration of oral antibiotics is not clear. There is evidence that oral therapy has fewer treatment complications, compared with IV treatments. Objective of this study was to assess the safety of early oral switch (EOS) prior to 14 days for LR-SAB.

Study design: Retrospective cohort study.

Setting: Single institution tertiary care hospital in Wellington, New Zealand.

Synopsis: Study population included adults with health care–associated SAB deemed low risk (no positive blood cultures >72 hours after initial positive culture, no evidence of deep infection as determined by an infectious disease consultant, no nonremovable prosthetics). The primary outcome was occurrence of SAB-related complication (recurrence of SAB, deep-seated infection, readmission, attributable mortality) within 90 days.

Of the initial 469 episodes of SAB, 100 met inclusion, and 84 of those patients had EOS. Line infection was the source in a majority of patients (79% and 88% in EOS and IV, respectively). Only 5% of patients had MRSA. Overall, 86% of EOS patients were treated with an oral beta-lactam, within the EOS group, median duration of IV and oral antibiotics was 5 and 10 days, respectively. SAB recurrence within 90 days occurred in three (4%) and one (6%) patients in EOS vs. IV groups, respectively (P = .64). No deaths within 90 days were deemed attributable to SAB. Limitations include small size, single center, and observational, retrospective framework.

Bottom line: The study suggests that EOS with oral beta-lactams in selected patients with LR-SAB may be adequate; however, the study is too small to provide robust high-level evidence. Instead, the authors hope the data will lead to larger, more powerful prospective studies to examine if a simpler, cheaper, and in some ways safer treatment course is possible.

Citation: Bupha-Intr O et al. Efficacy of early oral switch with beta-lactams for low-risk Staphylococcus aureus bacteremia. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2020 Feb 3;AAC.02345-19. doi: 10.1128/AAC.02345-19.

Dr. Sneed is assistant professor of medicine, section of hospital medicine, at the University of Virginia School of Medicine, Charlottesville.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Director Rochelle Walensky, MD, MPH, made a dire prediction during a media briefing this week that, if we weren’t already living within the reality of the COVID-19 pandemic, would sound more like a pitch for a movie about a dystopian future.

“For the amount of virus circulating in this country right now largely among unvaccinated people, the largest concern that we in public health and science are worried about is that the virus … [becomes] a very transmissible virus that has the potential to evade our vaccines in terms of how it protects us from severe disease and death,” Dr. Walensky told reporters on July 27. 

A new, more elusive variant could be “just a few mutations away,” she said.

“That’s a very prescient comment,” Lewis Nelson, MD, professor and clinical chair of emergency medicine and chief of the division of medical toxicology at Rutgers New Jersey Medical School in Newark, told this news organization.

“We’ve gone through a few mutations already that have been named, and each one of them gets a little more transmissible,” he said. “That’s normal, natural selection and what you would expect to happen as viruses mutate from one strain to another.”

“What we’ve mostly seen this virus do is evolve to become more infectious,” said Stuart Ray, MD, when also asked to comment. “That is the remarkable feature of Delta – that it is so infectious.”

He said that the SARS-CoV-2 has evolved largely as expected, at least so far. “The potential for this virus to mutate has been something that has been a concern from early on.”

“The viral evolution is a bit like a ticking clock. The more we allow infections to occur, the more likely changes will occur. When we have lots of people infected, we give more chances to the virus to diversify and then adapt to selective pressures,” said Dr. Ray, vice-chair of medicine for data integrity and analytics and professor in the division of infectious diseases at Johns Hopkins School of Medicine in Baltimore.

“The problem is if the virus changes in such a way that the spike protein – which the antibodies from the vaccine are directed against – are no longer effective at binding and destroying the virus, and the virus escapes immune surveillance,” Dr. Nelson said.

If this occurs, he added, “we will have an ineffective vaccine, essentially. And we’ll be back to where we were last March with a brand-new disease.”
 

Technology to the rescue?

The flexibility of mRNA vaccines is one potential solution. These vaccines could be more easily and quickly adapted to respond to a new, more vaccine-elusive variant.

“That’s absolutely reassuring,” Dr. Nelson said. For example, if a mutation changes the spike protein and vaccines no longer recognize it, a manufacturer could identify the new protein and incorporate that in a new mRNA vaccine.

“The problem is that some people are not taking the current vaccine,” he added. “I’m not sure what is going to make them take the next vaccine.”
 

Nothing appears certain

When asked how likely a new strain of SARS-CoV-2 could emerge that gets around vaccine protection, Dr. Nelson said, “I think [what] we’ve learned so far there is no way to predict anything” about this pandemic.

“The best way to prevent the virus from mutating is to prevent hosts, people, from getting sick with it,” he said. “That’s why it’s so important people should get immunized and wear masks.”

Both Dr. Nelson and Dr. Ray pointed out that it is in the best interest of the virus to evolve to be more transmissible and spread to more people. In contrast, a virus that causes people to get so sick that they isolate or die, thus halting transmission, works against viruses surviving evolutionarily.

Some viruses also mutate to become milder over time, but that has not been the case with SARS-CoV-2, Dr. Ray said.
 

Mutations not the only concern

Viruses have another mechanism that produces new strains, and it works even more quickly than mutations. Recombination, as it’s known, can occur when a person is infected with two different strains of the same virus. If the two versions enter the same cell, the viruses can swap genetic material and produce a third, altogether different strain.

Recombination has already been seen with influenza strains, where H and N genetic segments are swapped to yield H1N1, H1N2, and H3N2 versions of the flu, for example.

“In the early days of SARS-CoV-2 there was so little diversity that recombination did not matter,” Dr. Ray said. However, there are now distinct lineages of the virus circulating globally. If two of these lineages swap segments “this would make a very new viral sequence in one step without having to mutate to gain those differences.”

“The more diverse the strains that are circulating, the bigger a possibility this is,” Dr. Ray said.
 

Protected, for now

Dr. Walensky’s sober warning came at the same time the CDC released new guidance calling for the wearing of masks indoors in schools and in any location in the country where COVID-19 cases surpass 50 people per 100,000, also known as substantial or high transmission areas.

On a positive note, Dr. Walensky said: “Right now, fortunately, we are not there. The vaccines operate really well in protecting us from severe disease and death.”

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

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Director Rochelle Walensky, MD, MPH, made a dire prediction during a media briefing this week that, if we weren’t already living within the reality of the COVID-19 pandemic, would sound more like a pitch for a movie about a dystopian future.

“For the amount of virus circulating in this country right now largely among unvaccinated people, the largest concern that we in public health and science are worried about is that the virus … [becomes] a very transmissible virus that has the potential to evade our vaccines in terms of how it protects us from severe disease and death,” Dr. Walensky told reporters on July 27. 

A new, more elusive variant could be “just a few mutations away,” she said.

“That’s a very prescient comment,” Lewis Nelson, MD, professor and clinical chair of emergency medicine and chief of the division of medical toxicology at Rutgers New Jersey Medical School in Newark, told this news organization.

“We’ve gone through a few mutations already that have been named, and each one of them gets a little more transmissible,” he said. “That’s normal, natural selection and what you would expect to happen as viruses mutate from one strain to another.”

“What we’ve mostly seen this virus do is evolve to become more infectious,” said Stuart Ray, MD, when also asked to comment. “That is the remarkable feature of Delta – that it is so infectious.”

He said that the SARS-CoV-2 has evolved largely as expected, at least so far. “The potential for this virus to mutate has been something that has been a concern from early on.”

“The viral evolution is a bit like a ticking clock. The more we allow infections to occur, the more likely changes will occur. When we have lots of people infected, we give more chances to the virus to diversify and then adapt to selective pressures,” said Dr. Ray, vice-chair of medicine for data integrity and analytics and professor in the division of infectious diseases at Johns Hopkins School of Medicine in Baltimore.

“The problem is if the virus changes in such a way that the spike protein – which the antibodies from the vaccine are directed against – are no longer effective at binding and destroying the virus, and the virus escapes immune surveillance,” Dr. Nelson said.

If this occurs, he added, “we will have an ineffective vaccine, essentially. And we’ll be back to where we were last March with a brand-new disease.”
 

Technology to the rescue?

The flexibility of mRNA vaccines is one potential solution. These vaccines could be more easily and quickly adapted to respond to a new, more vaccine-elusive variant.

“That’s absolutely reassuring,” Dr. Nelson said. For example, if a mutation changes the spike protein and vaccines no longer recognize it, a manufacturer could identify the new protein and incorporate that in a new mRNA vaccine.

“The problem is that some people are not taking the current vaccine,” he added. “I’m not sure what is going to make them take the next vaccine.”
 

Nothing appears certain

When asked how likely a new strain of SARS-CoV-2 could emerge that gets around vaccine protection, Dr. Nelson said, “I think [what] we’ve learned so far there is no way to predict anything” about this pandemic.

“The best way to prevent the virus from mutating is to prevent hosts, people, from getting sick with it,” he said. “That’s why it’s so important people should get immunized and wear masks.”

Both Dr. Nelson and Dr. Ray pointed out that it is in the best interest of the virus to evolve to be more transmissible and spread to more people. In contrast, a virus that causes people to get so sick that they isolate or die, thus halting transmission, works against viruses surviving evolutionarily.

Some viruses also mutate to become milder over time, but that has not been the case with SARS-CoV-2, Dr. Ray said.
 

Mutations not the only concern

Viruses have another mechanism that produces new strains, and it works even more quickly than mutations. Recombination, as it’s known, can occur when a person is infected with two different strains of the same virus. If the two versions enter the same cell, the viruses can swap genetic material and produce a third, altogether different strain.

Recombination has already been seen with influenza strains, where H and N genetic segments are swapped to yield H1N1, H1N2, and H3N2 versions of the flu, for example.

“In the early days of SARS-CoV-2 there was so little diversity that recombination did not matter,” Dr. Ray said. However, there are now distinct lineages of the virus circulating globally. If two of these lineages swap segments “this would make a very new viral sequence in one step without having to mutate to gain those differences.”

“The more diverse the strains that are circulating, the bigger a possibility this is,” Dr. Ray said.
 

Protected, for now

Dr. Walensky’s sober warning came at the same time the CDC released new guidance calling for the wearing of masks indoors in schools and in any location in the country where COVID-19 cases surpass 50 people per 100,000, also known as substantial or high transmission areas.

On a positive note, Dr. Walensky said: “Right now, fortunately, we are not there. The vaccines operate really well in protecting us from severe disease and death.”

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

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Director Rochelle Walensky, MD, MPH, made a dire prediction during a media briefing this week that, if we weren’t already living within the reality of the COVID-19 pandemic, would sound more like a pitch for a movie about a dystopian future.

“For the amount of virus circulating in this country right now largely among unvaccinated people, the largest concern that we in public health and science are worried about is that the virus … [becomes] a very transmissible virus that has the potential to evade our vaccines in terms of how it protects us from severe disease and death,” Dr. Walensky told reporters on July 27. 

A new, more elusive variant could be “just a few mutations away,” she said.

“That’s a very prescient comment,” Lewis Nelson, MD, professor and clinical chair of emergency medicine and chief of the division of medical toxicology at Rutgers New Jersey Medical School in Newark, told this news organization.

“We’ve gone through a few mutations already that have been named, and each one of them gets a little more transmissible,” he said. “That’s normal, natural selection and what you would expect to happen as viruses mutate from one strain to another.”

“What we’ve mostly seen this virus do is evolve to become more infectious,” said Stuart Ray, MD, when also asked to comment. “That is the remarkable feature of Delta – that it is so infectious.”

He said that the SARS-CoV-2 has evolved largely as expected, at least so far. “The potential for this virus to mutate has been something that has been a concern from early on.”

“The viral evolution is a bit like a ticking clock. The more we allow infections to occur, the more likely changes will occur. When we have lots of people infected, we give more chances to the virus to diversify and then adapt to selective pressures,” said Dr. Ray, vice-chair of medicine for data integrity and analytics and professor in the division of infectious diseases at Johns Hopkins School of Medicine in Baltimore.

“The problem is if the virus changes in such a way that the spike protein – which the antibodies from the vaccine are directed against – are no longer effective at binding and destroying the virus, and the virus escapes immune surveillance,” Dr. Nelson said.

If this occurs, he added, “we will have an ineffective vaccine, essentially. And we’ll be back to where we were last March with a brand-new disease.”
 

Technology to the rescue?

The flexibility of mRNA vaccines is one potential solution. These vaccines could be more easily and quickly adapted to respond to a new, more vaccine-elusive variant.

“That’s absolutely reassuring,” Dr. Nelson said. For example, if a mutation changes the spike protein and vaccines no longer recognize it, a manufacturer could identify the new protein and incorporate that in a new mRNA vaccine.

“The problem is that some people are not taking the current vaccine,” he added. “I’m not sure what is going to make them take the next vaccine.”
 

Nothing appears certain

When asked how likely a new strain of SARS-CoV-2 could emerge that gets around vaccine protection, Dr. Nelson said, “I think [what] we’ve learned so far there is no way to predict anything” about this pandemic.

“The best way to prevent the virus from mutating is to prevent hosts, people, from getting sick with it,” he said. “That’s why it’s so important people should get immunized and wear masks.”

Both Dr. Nelson and Dr. Ray pointed out that it is in the best interest of the virus to evolve to be more transmissible and spread to more people. In contrast, a virus that causes people to get so sick that they isolate or die, thus halting transmission, works against viruses surviving evolutionarily.

Some viruses also mutate to become milder over time, but that has not been the case with SARS-CoV-2, Dr. Ray said.
 

Mutations not the only concern

Viruses have another mechanism that produces new strains, and it works even more quickly than mutations. Recombination, as it’s known, can occur when a person is infected with two different strains of the same virus. If the two versions enter the same cell, the viruses can swap genetic material and produce a third, altogether different strain.

Recombination has already been seen with influenza strains, where H and N genetic segments are swapped to yield H1N1, H1N2, and H3N2 versions of the flu, for example.

“In the early days of SARS-CoV-2 there was so little diversity that recombination did not matter,” Dr. Ray said. However, there are now distinct lineages of the virus circulating globally. If two of these lineages swap segments “this would make a very new viral sequence in one step without having to mutate to gain those differences.”

“The more diverse the strains that are circulating, the bigger a possibility this is,” Dr. Ray said.
 

Protected, for now

Dr. Walensky’s sober warning came at the same time the CDC released new guidance calling for the wearing of masks indoors in schools and in any location in the country where COVID-19 cases surpass 50 people per 100,000, also known as substantial or high transmission areas.

On a positive note, Dr. Walensky said: “Right now, fortunately, we are not there. The vaccines operate really well in protecting us from severe disease and death.”

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

Administering hyperimmune globulin to pregnant women who tested positive for cytomegalovirus did not reduce CMV infections or deaths among their fetuses or newborns, according to a randomized controlled trial published online July 28 in the New England Journal of Medicine.

Up to 40,000 infants a year have congenital CMV infections, which can lead to stillbirth, neonatal death, deafness, and cognitive and motor delay. An estimated 35%-40% of fetuses of women with a primary CMV infection will develop an infection, write Brenna Hughes, MD, an associate professor of ob/gyn and chief of the division of maternal fetal medicine at Duke University, Durham, N.C., and colleagues.

Previous trials and observational studies have shown mixed results with hyperimmune globulin for the prevention of congenital CMV infection.

“It was surprising to us that none of the outcomes in this trial were in the direction of potential benefit,” Dr. Hughes told this news organization. “However, this is why it is important to do large trials in a diverse population.”

The study cohort comprised 206,082 pregnant women who were screened for CMV infection before 23 weeks’ gestation. Of those women, 712 (0.35%) tested positive for CMV. The researchers enrolled 399 women who had tested positive and randomly assigned them to receive either a monthly infusion of CMV hyperimmune globulin (100 mg/kg) or placebo until delivery. The researchers used a composite of CMV infection or, if no testing occurred, fetal/neonatal death as the primary endpoint.

The trial was stopped early for futility when data from 394 participants revealed that 22.7% of offspring in the hyperimmune globulin group and 19.4% of those in the placebo group had had a CMV infection or had died (relative risk = 1.17; P = .42).

When individual endpoints were examined, trends were detected in favor of the placebo, but they did not reach statistical significance. The incidence of death was higher in the hyperimmune globulin group (4.9%) than in the placebo group (2.6%). The rate of preterm birth was also higher in the intervention group (12.2%) than in the group that received placebo (8.3%). The incidence of birth weight below the fifth percentile was 10.3% in the intervention group and 5.4% in the placebo group.

One woman who received hyperimmune globulin experienced a severe allergic reaction to the first infusion. Additionally, more women in the hyperimmune globulin group experienced headaches and shaking chills during infusions than did those who received placebo. There were no differences in maternal outcomes between the groups. There were no thromboembolic or ischemic events in either group.

“These findings suggest CMV hyperimmune globulin should not be used for the prevention of congenital CMV in pregnant patients with primary CMV during pregnancy,” Dr. Hughes said in an interview.

“A CMV vaccine is likely to be the most effective public health measure that we can offer, and that should be at the forefront of research investments,” she said. “But some of the other medications that work against CMV should be tested on a large scale as well,” she said. For example, a small trial in Israel showed that high-dose valacyclovir in early pregnancy decreased congenital CMV, and thus the drug merits study in a larger trial, she said.

Other experts agree that developing a vaccine should be the priority.

“The ultimate goal for preventing the brain damage and birth defects caused by congenital CMV infection is a vaccine that is as effective as the rubella vaccine has been for eliminating congenital rubella syndrome and that can be given well before pregnancy,” said Sallie Permar, MD, PhD, chair of pediatrics at Weill Cornell Medicine and pediatrician-in-chief at New York–Presbyterian/Weill Cornell Medical Center and the New York–Presbyterian Komansky Children’s Hospital in New York.

“While trials of vaccines are ongoing, there is a need to have a therapeutic option, especially for the high-risk setting of a mother acquiring the virus for the first time during pregnancy,” Dr. Permar said in an interview.

Dr. Permar was not involved in this study but is involved in follow-up studies of this cohort and is conducting research on CMV maternal vaccines. She noted the need for safe, effective antiviral treatments and for research into newer immunoglobulin products, such as monoclonal antibodies.

Both Dr. Permar and Dr. Hughes highlighted the challenge of raising awareness about the danger of CMV infections during pregnancy.

“Pregnant women, and especially those who have or work with young children, who are frequently carriers of the infection, should be informed of this risk,” Dr. Permar said. She hopes universal testing of newborns will be implemented and that it enables people to recognize the frequency and burden of these infections. She remains optimistic about a vaccine.

“After 60 years of research into a CMV vaccine, I believe we are currently in a ‘golden age’ of CMV vaccine development,” she said. She noted that Moderna is about to launch a phase 3 mRNA vaccine trial for CMV. “Moreover, immune correlates of protection against CMV have been identified from previous partially effective vaccines, and animal models have improved for preclinical studies. Therefore, I believe we will have an effective and safe vaccine against this most common congenital infection in the coming years.”

The research was funded by the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development and the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences. Dr. Hughes has served on Merck’s scientific advisory board. Various coauthors have received personal fees from Medela and nonfinancial support from Hologic; personal fees from Moderna and VBI vaccines, and grants from Novavax. Dr. Permar consults for Pfizer, Moderna, Merck, Sanofi, and Dynavax on their CMV vaccine programs, and she has a sponsored research program with Merck and Moderna on CMV vaccines.

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

Administering hyperimmune globulin to pregnant women who tested positive for cytomegalovirus did not reduce CMV infections or deaths among their fetuses or newborns, according to a randomized controlled trial published online July 28 in the New England Journal of Medicine.

Up to 40,000 infants a year have congenital CMV infections, which can lead to stillbirth, neonatal death, deafness, and cognitive and motor delay. An estimated 35%-40% of fetuses of women with a primary CMV infection will develop an infection, write Brenna Hughes, MD, an associate professor of ob/gyn and chief of the division of maternal fetal medicine at Duke University, Durham, N.C., and colleagues.

Previous trials and observational studies have shown mixed results with hyperimmune globulin for the prevention of congenital CMV infection.

“It was surprising to us that none of the outcomes in this trial were in the direction of potential benefit,” Dr. Hughes told this news organization. “However, this is why it is important to do large trials in a diverse population.”

The study cohort comprised 206,082 pregnant women who were screened for CMV infection before 23 weeks’ gestation. Of those women, 712 (0.35%) tested positive for CMV. The researchers enrolled 399 women who had tested positive and randomly assigned them to receive either a monthly infusion of CMV hyperimmune globulin (100 mg/kg) or placebo until delivery. The researchers used a composite of CMV infection or, if no testing occurred, fetal/neonatal death as the primary endpoint.

The trial was stopped early for futility when data from 394 participants revealed that 22.7% of offspring in the hyperimmune globulin group and 19.4% of those in the placebo group had had a CMV infection or had died (relative risk = 1.17; P = .42).

When individual endpoints were examined, trends were detected in favor of the placebo, but they did not reach statistical significance. The incidence of death was higher in the hyperimmune globulin group (4.9%) than in the placebo group (2.6%). The rate of preterm birth was also higher in the intervention group (12.2%) than in the group that received placebo (8.3%). The incidence of birth weight below the fifth percentile was 10.3% in the intervention group and 5.4% in the placebo group.

One woman who received hyperimmune globulin experienced a severe allergic reaction to the first infusion. Additionally, more women in the hyperimmune globulin group experienced headaches and shaking chills during infusions than did those who received placebo. There were no differences in maternal outcomes between the groups. There were no thromboembolic or ischemic events in either group.

“These findings suggest CMV hyperimmune globulin should not be used for the prevention of congenital CMV in pregnant patients with primary CMV during pregnancy,” Dr. Hughes said in an interview.

“A CMV vaccine is likely to be the most effective public health measure that we can offer, and that should be at the forefront of research investments,” she said. “But some of the other medications that work against CMV should be tested on a large scale as well,” she said. For example, a small trial in Israel showed that high-dose valacyclovir in early pregnancy decreased congenital CMV, and thus the drug merits study in a larger trial, she said.

Other experts agree that developing a vaccine should be the priority.

“The ultimate goal for preventing the brain damage and birth defects caused by congenital CMV infection is a vaccine that is as effective as the rubella vaccine has been for eliminating congenital rubella syndrome and that can be given well before pregnancy,” said Sallie Permar, MD, PhD, chair of pediatrics at Weill Cornell Medicine and pediatrician-in-chief at New York–Presbyterian/Weill Cornell Medical Center and the New York–Presbyterian Komansky Children’s Hospital in New York.

“While trials of vaccines are ongoing, there is a need to have a therapeutic option, especially for the high-risk setting of a mother acquiring the virus for the first time during pregnancy,” Dr. Permar said in an interview.

Dr. Permar was not involved in this study but is involved in follow-up studies of this cohort and is conducting research on CMV maternal vaccines. She noted the need for safe, effective antiviral treatments and for research into newer immunoglobulin products, such as monoclonal antibodies.

Both Dr. Permar and Dr. Hughes highlighted the challenge of raising awareness about the danger of CMV infections during pregnancy.

“Pregnant women, and especially those who have or work with young children, who are frequently carriers of the infection, should be informed of this risk,” Dr. Permar said. She hopes universal testing of newborns will be implemented and that it enables people to recognize the frequency and burden of these infections. She remains optimistic about a vaccine.

“After 60 years of research into a CMV vaccine, I believe we are currently in a ‘golden age’ of CMV vaccine development,” she said. She noted that Moderna is about to launch a phase 3 mRNA vaccine trial for CMV. “Moreover, immune correlates of protection against CMV have been identified from previous partially effective vaccines, and animal models have improved for preclinical studies. Therefore, I believe we will have an effective and safe vaccine against this most common congenital infection in the coming years.”

The research was funded by the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development and the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences. Dr. Hughes has served on Merck’s scientific advisory board. Various coauthors have received personal fees from Medela and nonfinancial support from Hologic; personal fees from Moderna and VBI vaccines, and grants from Novavax. Dr. Permar consults for Pfizer, Moderna, Merck, Sanofi, and Dynavax on their CMV vaccine programs, and she has a sponsored research program with Merck and Moderna on CMV vaccines.

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

Administering hyperimmune globulin to pregnant women who tested positive for cytomegalovirus did not reduce CMV infections or deaths among their fetuses or newborns, according to a randomized controlled trial published online July 28 in the New England Journal of Medicine.

Up to 40,000 infants a year have congenital CMV infections, which can lead to stillbirth, neonatal death, deafness, and cognitive and motor delay. An estimated 35%-40% of fetuses of women with a primary CMV infection will develop an infection, write Brenna Hughes, MD, an associate professor of ob/gyn and chief of the division of maternal fetal medicine at Duke University, Durham, N.C., and colleagues.

Previous trials and observational studies have shown mixed results with hyperimmune globulin for the prevention of congenital CMV infection.

“It was surprising to us that none of the outcomes in this trial were in the direction of potential benefit,” Dr. Hughes told this news organization. “However, this is why it is important to do large trials in a diverse population.”

The study cohort comprised 206,082 pregnant women who were screened for CMV infection before 23 weeks’ gestation. Of those women, 712 (0.35%) tested positive for CMV. The researchers enrolled 399 women who had tested positive and randomly assigned them to receive either a monthly infusion of CMV hyperimmune globulin (100 mg/kg) or placebo until delivery. The researchers used a composite of CMV infection or, if no testing occurred, fetal/neonatal death as the primary endpoint.

The trial was stopped early for futility when data from 394 participants revealed that 22.7% of offspring in the hyperimmune globulin group and 19.4% of those in the placebo group had had a CMV infection or had died (relative risk = 1.17; P = .42).

When individual endpoints were examined, trends were detected in favor of the placebo, but they did not reach statistical significance. The incidence of death was higher in the hyperimmune globulin group (4.9%) than in the placebo group (2.6%). The rate of preterm birth was also higher in the intervention group (12.2%) than in the group that received placebo (8.3%). The incidence of birth weight below the fifth percentile was 10.3% in the intervention group and 5.4% in the placebo group.

One woman who received hyperimmune globulin experienced a severe allergic reaction to the first infusion. Additionally, more women in the hyperimmune globulin group experienced headaches and shaking chills during infusions than did those who received placebo. There were no differences in maternal outcomes between the groups. There were no thromboembolic or ischemic events in either group.

“These findings suggest CMV hyperimmune globulin should not be used for the prevention of congenital CMV in pregnant patients with primary CMV during pregnancy,” Dr. Hughes said in an interview.

“A CMV vaccine is likely to be the most effective public health measure that we can offer, and that should be at the forefront of research investments,” she said. “But some of the other medications that work against CMV should be tested on a large scale as well,” she said. For example, a small trial in Israel showed that high-dose valacyclovir in early pregnancy decreased congenital CMV, and thus the drug merits study in a larger trial, she said.

Other experts agree that developing a vaccine should be the priority.

“The ultimate goal for preventing the brain damage and birth defects caused by congenital CMV infection is a vaccine that is as effective as the rubella vaccine has been for eliminating congenital rubella syndrome and that can be given well before pregnancy,” said Sallie Permar, MD, PhD, chair of pediatrics at Weill Cornell Medicine and pediatrician-in-chief at New York–Presbyterian/Weill Cornell Medical Center and the New York–Presbyterian Komansky Children’s Hospital in New York.

“While trials of vaccines are ongoing, there is a need to have a therapeutic option, especially for the high-risk setting of a mother acquiring the virus for the first time during pregnancy,” Dr. Permar said in an interview.

Dr. Permar was not involved in this study but is involved in follow-up studies of this cohort and is conducting research on CMV maternal vaccines. She noted the need for safe, effective antiviral treatments and for research into newer immunoglobulin products, such as monoclonal antibodies.

Both Dr. Permar and Dr. Hughes highlighted the challenge of raising awareness about the danger of CMV infections during pregnancy.

“Pregnant women, and especially those who have or work with young children, who are frequently carriers of the infection, should be informed of this risk,” Dr. Permar said. She hopes universal testing of newborns will be implemented and that it enables people to recognize the frequency and burden of these infections. She remains optimistic about a vaccine.

“After 60 years of research into a CMV vaccine, I believe we are currently in a ‘golden age’ of CMV vaccine development,” she said. She noted that Moderna is about to launch a phase 3 mRNA vaccine trial for CMV. “Moreover, immune correlates of protection against CMV have been identified from previous partially effective vaccines, and animal models have improved for preclinical studies. Therefore, I believe we will have an effective and safe vaccine against this most common congenital infection in the coming years.”

The research was funded by the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development and the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences. Dr. Hughes has served on Merck’s scientific advisory board. Various coauthors have received personal fees from Medela and nonfinancial support from Hologic; personal fees from Moderna and VBI vaccines, and grants from Novavax. Dr. Permar consults for Pfizer, Moderna, Merck, Sanofi, and Dynavax on their CMV vaccine programs, and she has a sponsored research program with Merck and Moderna on CMV vaccines.

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

I have been in the business of medicine for more than 15 years and I will never forget the initial surge of the COVID-19 pandemic in Massachusetts.

As a hospitalist, I admitted patients infected with COVID-19, followed them on the floor, and, since I had some experience working in an intensive care unit (ICU), was assigned to cover a “COVID ICU.” This wing of the hospital used to be a fancy orthopedic floor that our institution was lucky enough to have. So began the most life-changing experience in my career as a physician.

In this role, we witness death more than any of us would care to discuss. It comes with the territory, and we never expected this to change once COVID hit. However, so many patients succumbed to this disease, especially during the first surge, which made it difficult to handle emotionally. Patients that fell ill initially stayed isolated at home, optimistic they would turn the corner only to enter the hospital a week later after their conditioned worsened. After requiring a couple of liters of supplemental oxygen in the emergency room, they eventually ended up on a high flow nasal cannula in just a matter of hours.

Patients slowly got sicker and felt more helpless as the days passed, leading us to prescribe drugs that eventually proved to have no benefit. We checked countless inflammatory markers, most of which we were not even sure what to do with. Many times, we hosted a family meeting via FaceTime, holding a patient’s hand in one hand and an iPad in the other to discuss goals of care. Too often, a dark cloud hung over these discussions, a realization that there was not much else we could do.

I have always felt that helping someone have a decent and peaceful death is important, especially when the prognosis is grim, and that patient is suffering. But the sheer number of times this happened during the initial surge of the pandemic was difficult to handle. It felt like I had more of those discussions in 3 months than I did during my entire career as a hospitalist.

We helped plenty of people get better, with some heading home in a week. They thanked us, painted rocks and the sidewalks in front of the hospital displaying messages of gratitude, and sent lunches. Others, though, left the hospital 2 months later with a tube in their stomach so they could receive some form of nutrition and another in their neck to help them breathe.

These struggles were by no means special to me; other hospitalists around the world faced similar situations at one point or another during the pandemic. Working overtime, coming home late, exhausted, undressing in the garage, trying to be there for my 3 kids who were full of energy after a whole day of Zoom and doing the usual kid stuff. My house used to have strict rules about screen time. No more.

The summer months provided a bit of a COVID break, with only 1 or 2 infected patients entering my care. We went to outdoor restaurants and tried to get our lives back to “normal.” As the weather turned cold, however, things went south again. This time no more hydroxychloroquine, a drug used to fight malaria but also treat other autoimmune diseases, as it was proven eventually over many studies that it is not helpful and was potentially harmful. We instead shifted our focus to remdesivir—an antiviral drug that displayed some benefits—tocilizumab, and dexamethasone, anti-inflammatory drugs with the latter providing some positive outcomes on mortality.

Patient survival rates improved slightly, likely due to a combination of factors. We were more experienced at fighting the disease, which led to things in the hospital not being as chaotic and more time available to spend with the patients. Personal protective equipment (PPE) and tests were more readily available, and the population getting hit by the disease changed slightly with fewer elderly people from nursing homes falling ill because of social distancing, other safety measures, or having already fought the disease. Our attention turned instead to more young people that had returned to work and their social lives.

The arrival of the vaccines brought considerable relief. I remember a few decades ago debating and sometimes fighting with friends and family over who was better: Iron Man or Spider-Man. Now I found myself having the same conversation about the Pfizer and Moderna COVID vaccines.

Summer 2021 holds significantly more promise. Most of the adult population is getting vaccinated, and I am very hopeful that we are approaching the end of this nightmare. In June, our office received word that we could remove our masks if we were fully vaccinated. It felt weird, but represented another sign that things are improving. I took my kids to the mall and removed my mask. It felt odd considering how that little blue thing became part of me during the pandemic. It also felt strange to not prescribe a single dose of remdesivir for an entire month.

It feels good—and normal—to care for the patients that we neglected for a year. It has been a needed boost to see patients return to their health care providers for their colonoscopy screenings, mammograms, and managing chronic problems like coronary artery disease, congestive heart failure, or receiving chemotherapy.

I learned plenty from this pandemic and hope I am not alone. I learned to be humble. We started with a drug that was harmful, moved on to a drug that is probably neutral and eventually were able to come up with a drug that seems to decrease mortality at least in some COVID patients. I learned it is fine to try new therapies based on the best data in the hope they result in positive clinical outcomes. However, it is critical that we all keep an eye on the rapidly evolving literature and adjust our behavior accordingly.

I also learned, or relearned, that if people are desperate enough, they will drink bleach to see if it works. Others are convinced that the purpose of vaccination is to inject a microchip allowing ourselves to be tracked by some higher power. I learned that we must take the first step to prepare for the next pandemic by having a decent reserve of PPE.

It is clear synthetic messenger RNA (mRNA) technology is here to stay, and I believe it has a huge potential to change many areas of medicine. mRNA vaccines proved to be much faster to develop and probably much easier to change as the pathogen, in this case coronavirus, changes.

The technology could be used against a variety of infectious diseases to make vaccines against malaria, tuberculosis, HIV, or hepatitis. It can also be very useful for faster vaccine development needed in future possible pandemics such as influenza, Ebola, or severe acute respiratory syndrome. It may also be used for cancer treatment.

As John P. Cooke, MD, PhD, the medical director for the Center of RNA Therapeutics Program at the Houston Methodist Research Institute, said, “Most vaccines today are still viral vaccines – they are inactivated virus, so it’s potentially infectious and you have to have virus on hand. With mRNA, you’re just writing code which is going to tell the cell to make a viral protein – one part of a viral protein to stimulate an immune response. And, here’s the wonderful thing, you don’t even need the virus in hand, just its DNA code.”¹

Corresponding author: Dragos Vesbianu, MD, Attending Hospitalist, Newton-Wellesley Hospital, 2014 Washington St, Newton, MA 02462; [email protected].

Financial dislosures: None.

I have been in the business of medicine for more than 15 years and I will never forget the initial surge of the COVID-19 pandemic in Massachusetts.

As a hospitalist, I admitted patients infected with COVID-19, followed them on the floor, and, since I had some experience working in an intensive care unit (ICU), was assigned to cover a “COVID ICU.” This wing of the hospital used to be a fancy orthopedic floor that our institution was lucky enough to have. So began the most life-changing experience in my career as a physician.

In this role, we witness death more than any of us would care to discuss. It comes with the territory, and we never expected this to change once COVID hit. However, so many patients succumbed to this disease, especially during the first surge, which made it difficult to handle emotionally. Patients that fell ill initially stayed isolated at home, optimistic they would turn the corner only to enter the hospital a week later after their conditioned worsened. After requiring a couple of liters of supplemental oxygen in the emergency room, they eventually ended up on a high flow nasal cannula in just a matter of hours.

Patients slowly got sicker and felt more helpless as the days passed, leading us to prescribe drugs that eventually proved to have no benefit. We checked countless inflammatory markers, most of which we were not even sure what to do with. Many times, we hosted a family meeting via FaceTime, holding a patient’s hand in one hand and an iPad in the other to discuss goals of care. Too often, a dark cloud hung over these discussions, a realization that there was not much else we could do.

I have always felt that helping someone have a decent and peaceful death is important, especially when the prognosis is grim, and that patient is suffering. But the sheer number of times this happened during the initial surge of the pandemic was difficult to handle. It felt like I had more of those discussions in 3 months than I did during my entire career as a hospitalist.

We helped plenty of people get better, with some heading home in a week. They thanked us, painted rocks and the sidewalks in front of the hospital displaying messages of gratitude, and sent lunches. Others, though, left the hospital 2 months later with a tube in their stomach so they could receive some form of nutrition and another in their neck to help them breathe.

These struggles were by no means special to me; other hospitalists around the world faced similar situations at one point or another during the pandemic. Working overtime, coming home late, exhausted, undressing in the garage, trying to be there for my 3 kids who were full of energy after a whole day of Zoom and doing the usual kid stuff. My house used to have strict rules about screen time. No more.

The summer months provided a bit of a COVID break, with only 1 or 2 infected patients entering my care. We went to outdoor restaurants and tried to get our lives back to “normal.” As the weather turned cold, however, things went south again. This time no more hydroxychloroquine, a drug used to fight malaria but also treat other autoimmune diseases, as it was proven eventually over many studies that it is not helpful and was potentially harmful. We instead shifted our focus to remdesivir—an antiviral drug that displayed some benefits—tocilizumab, and dexamethasone, anti-inflammatory drugs with the latter providing some positive outcomes on mortality.

Patient survival rates improved slightly, likely due to a combination of factors. We were more experienced at fighting the disease, which led to things in the hospital not being as chaotic and more time available to spend with the patients. Personal protective equipment (PPE) and tests were more readily available, and the population getting hit by the disease changed slightly with fewer elderly people from nursing homes falling ill because of social distancing, other safety measures, or having already fought the disease. Our attention turned instead to more young people that had returned to work and their social lives.

The arrival of the vaccines brought considerable relief. I remember a few decades ago debating and sometimes fighting with friends and family over who was better: Iron Man or Spider-Man. Now I found myself having the same conversation about the Pfizer and Moderna COVID vaccines.

Summer 2021 holds significantly more promise. Most of the adult population is getting vaccinated, and I am very hopeful that we are approaching the end of this nightmare. In June, our office received word that we could remove our masks if we were fully vaccinated. It felt weird, but represented another sign that things are improving. I took my kids to the mall and removed my mask. It felt odd considering how that little blue thing became part of me during the pandemic. It also felt strange to not prescribe a single dose of remdesivir for an entire month.

It feels good—and normal—to care for the patients that we neglected for a year. It has been a needed boost to see patients return to their health care providers for their colonoscopy screenings, mammograms, and managing chronic problems like coronary artery disease, congestive heart failure, or receiving chemotherapy.

I learned plenty from this pandemic and hope I am not alone. I learned to be humble. We started with a drug that was harmful, moved on to a drug that is probably neutral and eventually were able to come up with a drug that seems to decrease mortality at least in some COVID patients. I learned it is fine to try new therapies based on the best data in the hope they result in positive clinical outcomes. However, it is critical that we all keep an eye on the rapidly evolving literature and adjust our behavior accordingly.

I also learned, or relearned, that if people are desperate enough, they will drink bleach to see if it works. Others are convinced that the purpose of vaccination is to inject a microchip allowing ourselves to be tracked by some higher power. I learned that we must take the first step to prepare for the next pandemic by having a decent reserve of PPE.

It is clear synthetic messenger RNA (mRNA) technology is here to stay, and I believe it has a huge potential to change many areas of medicine. mRNA vaccines proved to be much faster to develop and probably much easier to change as the pathogen, in this case coronavirus, changes.

The technology could be used against a variety of infectious diseases to make vaccines against malaria, tuberculosis, HIV, or hepatitis. It can also be very useful for faster vaccine development needed in future possible pandemics such as influenza, Ebola, or severe acute respiratory syndrome. It may also be used for cancer treatment.

As John P. Cooke, MD, PhD, the medical director for the Center of RNA Therapeutics Program at the Houston Methodist Research Institute, said, “Most vaccines today are still viral vaccines – they are inactivated virus, so it’s potentially infectious and you have to have virus on hand. With mRNA, you’re just writing code which is going to tell the cell to make a viral protein – one part of a viral protein to stimulate an immune response. And, here’s the wonderful thing, you don’t even need the virus in hand, just its DNA code.”¹

Corresponding author: Dragos Vesbianu, MD, Attending Hospitalist, Newton-Wellesley Hospital, 2014 Washington St, Newton, MA 02462; [email protected].

Financial dislosures: None.

I have been in the business of medicine for more than 15 years and I will never forget the initial surge of the COVID-19 pandemic in Massachusetts.

As a hospitalist, I admitted patients infected with COVID-19, followed them on the floor, and, since I had some experience working in an intensive care unit (ICU), was assigned to cover a “COVID ICU.” This wing of the hospital used to be a fancy orthopedic floor that our institution was lucky enough to have. So began the most life-changing experience in my career as a physician.

In this role, we witness death more than any of us would care to discuss. It comes with the territory, and we never expected this to change once COVID hit. However, so many patients succumbed to this disease, especially during the first surge, which made it difficult to handle emotionally. Patients that fell ill initially stayed isolated at home, optimistic they would turn the corner only to enter the hospital a week later after their conditioned worsened. After requiring a couple of liters of supplemental oxygen in the emergency room, they eventually ended up on a high flow nasal cannula in just a matter of hours.

Patients slowly got sicker and felt more helpless as the days passed, leading us to prescribe drugs that eventually proved to have no benefit. We checked countless inflammatory markers, most of which we were not even sure what to do with. Many times, we hosted a family meeting via FaceTime, holding a patient’s hand in one hand and an iPad in the other to discuss goals of care. Too often, a dark cloud hung over these discussions, a realization that there was not much else we could do.

I have always felt that helping someone have a decent and peaceful death is important, especially when the prognosis is grim, and that patient is suffering. But the sheer number of times this happened during the initial surge of the pandemic was difficult to handle. It felt like I had more of those discussions in 3 months than I did during my entire career as a hospitalist.

We helped plenty of people get better, with some heading home in a week. They thanked us, painted rocks and the sidewalks in front of the hospital displaying messages of gratitude, and sent lunches. Others, though, left the hospital 2 months later with a tube in their stomach so they could receive some form of nutrition and another in their neck to help them breathe.

These struggles were by no means special to me; other hospitalists around the world faced similar situations at one point or another during the pandemic. Working overtime, coming home late, exhausted, undressing in the garage, trying to be there for my 3 kids who were full of energy after a whole day of Zoom and doing the usual kid stuff. My house used to have strict rules about screen time. No more.

The summer months provided a bit of a COVID break, with only 1 or 2 infected patients entering my care. We went to outdoor restaurants and tried to get our lives back to “normal.” As the weather turned cold, however, things went south again. This time no more hydroxychloroquine, a drug used to fight malaria but also treat other autoimmune diseases, as it was proven eventually over many studies that it is not helpful and was potentially harmful. We instead shifted our focus to remdesivir—an antiviral drug that displayed some benefits—tocilizumab, and dexamethasone, anti-inflammatory drugs with the latter providing some positive outcomes on mortality.

Patient survival rates improved slightly, likely due to a combination of factors. We were more experienced at fighting the disease, which led to things in the hospital not being as chaotic and more time available to spend with the patients. Personal protective equipment (PPE) and tests were more readily available, and the population getting hit by the disease changed slightly with fewer elderly people from nursing homes falling ill because of social distancing, other safety measures, or having already fought the disease. Our attention turned instead to more young people that had returned to work and their social lives.

The arrival of the vaccines brought considerable relief. I remember a few decades ago debating and sometimes fighting with friends and family over who was better: Iron Man or Spider-Man. Now I found myself having the same conversation about the Pfizer and Moderna COVID vaccines.

Summer 2021 holds significantly more promise. Most of the adult population is getting vaccinated, and I am very hopeful that we are approaching the end of this nightmare. In June, our office received word that we could remove our masks if we were fully vaccinated. It felt weird, but represented another sign that things are improving. I took my kids to the mall and removed my mask. It felt odd considering how that little blue thing became part of me during the pandemic. It also felt strange to not prescribe a single dose of remdesivir for an entire month.

It feels good—and normal—to care for the patients that we neglected for a year. It has been a needed boost to see patients return to their health care providers for their colonoscopy screenings, mammograms, and managing chronic problems like coronary artery disease, congestive heart failure, or receiving chemotherapy.

I learned plenty from this pandemic and hope I am not alone. I learned to be humble. We started with a drug that was harmful, moved on to a drug that is probably neutral and eventually were able to come up with a drug that seems to decrease mortality at least in some COVID patients. I learned it is fine to try new therapies based on the best data in the hope they result in positive clinical outcomes. However, it is critical that we all keep an eye on the rapidly evolving literature and adjust our behavior accordingly.

I also learned, or relearned, that if people are desperate enough, they will drink bleach to see if it works. Others are convinced that the purpose of vaccination is to inject a microchip allowing ourselves to be tracked by some higher power. I learned that we must take the first step to prepare for the next pandemic by having a decent reserve of PPE.

It is clear synthetic messenger RNA (mRNA) technology is here to stay, and I believe it has a huge potential to change many areas of medicine. mRNA vaccines proved to be much faster to develop and probably much easier to change as the pathogen, in this case coronavirus, changes.

The technology could be used against a variety of infectious diseases to make vaccines against malaria, tuberculosis, HIV, or hepatitis. It can also be very useful for faster vaccine development needed in future possible pandemics such as influenza, Ebola, or severe acute respiratory syndrome. It may also be used for cancer treatment.

As John P. Cooke, MD, PhD, the medical director for the Center of RNA Therapeutics Program at the Houston Methodist Research Institute, said, “Most vaccines today are still viral vaccines – they are inactivated virus, so it’s potentially infectious and you have to have virus on hand. With mRNA, you’re just writing code which is going to tell the cell to make a viral protein – one part of a viral protein to stimulate an immune response. And, here’s the wonderful thing, you don’t even need the virus in hand, just its DNA code.”¹

Corresponding author: Dragos Vesbianu, MD, Attending Hospitalist, Newton-Wellesley Hospital, 2014 Washington St, Newton, MA 02462; [email protected].

Financial dislosures: None.

From the Department of Pharmaceutical and Health Economics, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA, (Drs. Sangha and McCombs), Department of Pediatrics, Keck School of Medicine, and Department of Clinical Pharmacy, School of Pharmacy, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA, (Dr. Steinberg), and Leonard Schaeffer Center for Health Policy and Economics, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA (Dr. McCombs).

Objective: The recommended treatment for children and adolescents under 18 years of age who have a positive test for group A Streptococcus (GAS) are antibiotics using the “test and treat” strategy to detect and treat GAS for pediatric pharyngitis. This study used paid claims data to document the extent to which real-world treatment patterns are consistent with these recommendations. We document the factors correlated with testing and treatment, then examine the effects of receiving a GAS test and being treated with an antibiotic impact the likelihood of a revisit for an acute respiratory tract infection within 28 days.

Methods: This retrospective cohort study used Optum Insight Clinformatics data for medical and pharmacy claims from 2011-2013 to identify episodes of care for children and adolescents with pharyngitis around their index visit (± 6 months). The sample population included children and adolescents under 18 years of age with a diagnosis of pharyngitis. Multivariable logistic regression analyses were used to document factors associated with receipt of GAS test and antibiotic treatment. Next, we used logistic regression models to estimate the impact of test and treat recommendation on revisit risk.

Results: There were 24 685 treatment episodes for children and adolescents diagnosed with pharyngitis. Nearly 47% of these episodes included a GAS test and 48% of tested patients were prescribed an antibiotic prescription. Failing to perform a GAS test increased the risk of a revisit within 28 days by 44%. The use of antibiotics by tested and untested patients had no impact on revisit risk.

Conclusion: While the judicious use of antibiotics is important in managing pharyngitis infections and managing complications, the use of rapid diagnostic tools was found to be the determining factor in reducing revisits for pediatric patients with pharyngitis.

Keywords: pediatrics; pharyngitis; respiratory infections; acute infections; diagnostic tests; group A Streptococcus; antibiotics; revisits.

Acute pharyngitis is a common acute respiratory tract infection (ARTI) in children. Group A β-hemolytic streptococci (GABHS) is the most common bacterial etiology for pediatric pharyngitis, accounting for 15% to 30% of cases.¹

Beyond clinical assessment, laboratory diagnostic testing generally plays a limited role in guiding appropriate antibiotic prescribing for patients with an ARTI.^2,3 Most diagnostic tests require 2 or 3 days to result, incur additional costs, and may delay treatment.⁴ While these tests do not provide clear and timely guidance on which specific antibiotic is appropriate for ARTI patients, this is not the case for patients with pharyngitis.^5,6,7 A rapid diagnostic test exists to identify pharyngitis patients with GABHS which accounts for 1 in 4 children with acute sore throat.^1,4,6 Both the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Infectious Diseases Society of America recommend antibiotic treatment for children and adolescents under 18 years of age who have a positive test for group A Streptococcus (GAS).^8,9 This “test and treat” protocol has been consistently included in the Healthcare Effectiveness Data and Information Set (HEDIS) standards over time for pediatric pharyngitis patients aged 3 to 18 years before dispensing an antibiotic.¹⁰

Sinusitis, pneumonia, and acute otitis media are considered ARTIs where antibiotic treatment is justified. Therefore, pharyngitis of unclear etiology seen with these comorbid infections may not always undergo GAS testing but move directly to the patient being prescribed antibiotics. This analysis enumerates ARTI-related comorbidities present together with the initial coded pharyngitis diagnosis to evaluate their impact on the provider’s decision to test and treat, and on revisit risk.

Antibiotic treatment for GAS patients is likely to eradicate the acute GABHS infection within 10 days. Penicillin and amoxicillin are commonly recommended because of their narrow spectrum of activity, few adverse effects, established efficacy, and modest cost. Alternative antibiotics for patients with penicillin allergy, or with polymicrobial infection seen on culture results, include a first-generation cephalosporin, clindamycin, clarithromycin (Biaxin), or azithromycin (Zithromax).^1,8,11 However, while compliance with these HEDIS guidelines has been evaluated, the outcome effects of following the HEDIS “test and treat” recommendations for children with pharyngitis have not been adequately evaluated.

These outcome evaluations have increasing importance as the latest HEDIS survey has shown testing rates in commercial Preferred Provider Organizations (PPO) falling from 86.4% in 2018 to 75.9% in 2019, the lowest rate of testing since 2009, with similar reductions under 80% for Health Maintenance Organizations (HMO).¹⁰ While health plans may execute cost-benefit analyses and algorithms to forge best practices for GAS testing in children and adolescents presenting with symptoms of pharyngitis, it is important to regard the wasteful resource utilization and additional cost of revisits that may offset any gains accrued by more focused GAS testing outside the existing clinical guidelines and HEDIS measures. This may be of particular importance in documenting infection and sparing antibiotic therapy in toddlers and younger.

The objective of this study was to investigate the correlation between testing and antibiotic use on the likelihood of a revisit for an acute respiratory tract infection within 28 days. To achieve this objective, this investigation consists of 3 sequential analyses. First, we document the factors associated with the decision to test the patient for a GABHS infection using the GAS test. Next, we document the factors associated with the decision to use an antibiotic to treat the patient as a function of having tested the patient. Finally, we investigate the impact of the testing and treatment decisions on the likelihood of a revisit within 28 days.

Methods

Study design

This was a retrospective cohort study of episodes of treatment for pediatric patients with pharyngitis. Episodes were identified using data derived from the Optum Insight Clinformatics claims database provided to the University of Southern California to facilitate the training of graduate students. These data cover commercially insured patients with both medical and pharmacy benefits. Data were retrieved from the 3-year period spanning 2011-2013. An episode of care was identified based on date of the first (index) outpatient visit for a pharyngitis diagnosis (International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision [ICD-9]: 462, 463, 034.0). Outpatient visits were defined by visit setting: ambulatory clinics, physician offices, emergency rooms, and urgent care facilities. Each pharyngitis treatment episode was then screened for at least a 6-month enrollment in a health insurance plan prior and subsequent to the index visit using Optum enrollment data. Finally, eligible treatment episodes were restricted to children and adolescents under 18 years of age, who had an index outpatient visit for a primary diagnosis of acute pharyngitis.

A diagnostic profile was created for each episode using the diagnoses recorded for the index visit. Up to 3 diagnoses may be recorded for any outpatient visit and the first recorded diagnosis was assumed to be the primary diagnosis for that episode. Any secondary diagnoses recorded on the index visit were used to define comorbidities present at the index visit. ARTI-related comorbidities included: acute otitis media (AOM), bronchitis, sinusitis, pneumonia, and upper respiratory infection (URI). Other comorbid medical diagnoses were documented using diagnostic data from the pre-index period. Dichotomous variables for the following categories were created: mental disorders, nervous system disorders, respiratory symptoms, fever, injury and poisoning, other, or no diseases.

Prior visits for other respiratory infections in the previous 90 days were also identified for patients based on their index visit for pharyngitis. Similarly, any subsequent visits, within 28 days of the index visit, were also recorded to measure the health outcome for analysis. Practice settings include physician offices and federally qualified health centers, state and local health clinics, outpatient hospitals facilities, emergency departments, and other outpatient settings such as walk-in retail health clinic or ambulatory centers. Providers include primary care physicians (family practice, pediatricians, internal medicine), specialty care physicians (emergency medicine, preventive medicine), nonphysician providers (nurse practitioners, physician assistants) and other providers (urgent care, acute outpatient care, ambulatory care centers). Seasons of the year were determined based on the index date of the episode to account for possible seasonality in pharyngitis treatment. Lastly, a previous visits variable was created to identify whether the child had nonpharyngitis ARTI visits in the 3 months prior to the index visit.

Demographic variables were created based on enrollment and the socioeconomic data available in the Optum socioeconomic status file. These variables include patient age, race, sex, household income, geographic location, practice setting type, provider specialty, and type of insurance. An estimate of patient household income was based on algorithms using census block groups. Income categories were informed by the federal guidelines for a family of 4. A low-income family was defined as earning less than $50 000; a middle-income family earned between $50 000 and $75 000, and a high-income family earned $75 000 and above.¹² Patient insurance type was categorized as HMO, Exclusive Provider Organization (EPO), Point of Service (POS), and PPO. Race was identified as White, Black, Hispanic, and Asian. Patient location was defined according to national census regions.

Outcomes

GAS test

The HEDIS measures for pharyngitis recommend using the GAS test to identify the bacterial etiology of the pharyngitis infection. Patients who received the test were identified based on Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) codes 87070-71, 87081, 87430, 87650-52, and 87880.¹⁰

The pharmacy administrative claims dataset was used to identify study patients who filled a prescription for an antibiotic during their pharyngitis treatment episode. Optum pharmacy data identify the medications received, specifies the date of prescription filling, National Drug Codes, and American Hospital Formulary Service (AHFS) Classification System codes for each medication. We used the AHFS Pharmacologic-Therapeutic classification of antibiotics to create dichotomous variables documenting the antibacterial used by each patient.¹³ These are categorized under antibacterial including penicillins, cephalosporins (first, second, third, fourth generation cephalosporins), macrolides (first generation and others), tetracyclines, sulfonamides, fluoroquinolones (ciprofloxacin, levofloxacin, moxifloxacin), cephamycin, carbapenems, and β-lactam antibiotics (amoxicillin, amoxicillin/clavulanate, cephalexin, cefuroxime, cefdinir).

Revisits to physician or other provider

Revisits within 28 days were used as the measure of patient outcomes related to testing and filling of an antibiotic prescription for acute pharyngitis. Revisits may also be due to a patient returning for a follow-up, alternative treatment, worsening pharyngitis, or for another ARTI. An ARTI-related revisit also increases total resources used to treat pediatric pharyngitis patients.

Statistical analysis

Logistic regression was used for all 3 analyses conducted in this study. First, we determined the patient and treating physician characteristics that impact the decision to use GAS testing for pharyngitis. Second, we identified those factors that impact the decision to use antibiotic prescriptions among children who were diagnosed with pharyngitis adding in the dichotomous variable indicating if the patient had received a GAS test. Third, we used a logit regression analysis to document if receiving a GAS test and/or an antibiotic impacted the likelihood of a revisit by comparing revisit risk. To estimate the effect of testing and/or antibiotic use, we divided patients into 4 groups based on whether the patient received a GAS test and/or an antibiotic prescription. This specification of the analysis of revisits as an outcome focuses on adherence to HEDIS “test and treat” guidelines¹⁰:

1. Patients who were not tested yet filled an antibiotic prescription. This decision was likely based on the clinician’s judgment of the patient’s signs and symptoms, and confirmational testing not performed.
2. Patients who were not tested and did not fill an antibiotic prescription. Apparently, in the clinician’s judgment the patient’s signs and symptoms were such that the infection did not warrant treatment and the clinical presentation did not necessitate the GAS test to confirm the recorded diagnosis of pharyngitis.
3. Patients who were tested and received antibiotic prescription, likely because the test was positive for GABHS.
4. Patients who were tested and did not receive antibiotic prescription.

We tested for statistically significant differences in baseline characteristics across these 4 patient groups using t tests for continuous variables and χ² tests for categorical variables. Odds ratios (OR) and CI were computed for the influential variables included the regression analyses.

We conducted a sensitivity analysis using a model specification which included the dichotomous variables for testing and for treatment, and the interaction term between these variables to assess if treatment effects varied in tested and untested patients. We also estimated this model of revisit risk using revisits within 7 days as the outcome variable.

All analyses were completed using STATA/IC 13 (StataCorp, College Station, TX).

Results

There were 24 685 treatment episodes for children diagnosed with pharyngitis. Nearly 47% of these episodes included GAS testing and 47% of the tested patients filled an antibiotic prescription. Similarly, 53% of patients were not tested and 49% of untested patients filled an antibiotic prescription. As a result, the 4 groups identified for analysis were evenly distributed: untested and no prescription (26.9%), untested and prescription (26.3%), tested and prescription (21.9%), and tested and no prescription (24.9%) (Figure).

Table 1 presents the descriptive statistics for these 4 patient groups. Note first that the rate of revisits within 28 days is under 5% across all groups. Second, the 2 tested groups have a lower revisit rate than the untested groups: the tested and treated have a revisit rate of 3.3%, and the tested and untreated have a revisit rate of 2.4%, while both the untested groups have a revisit rate of nearly 5%. These small absolute differences in revisit rates across groups were statistically significant.

Factors associated with receiving GAS test

Several factors were found to impact the decision to test (Table 2). Only 9.7% of children were reported to have any ARTI coinfection. As expected, these comorbidities resulted in a significantly lower likelihood of receiving the GAS test: AOM, bronchitis, sinusitis, pneumonia, and URI as comorbid infections had a 48%, 41%, 37%, 63%, and 13% lower likelihood of receiving the GAS test, respectively, than those with no comorbidities. Similarly, children with fever and respiratory symptoms were 35% and 45% less likely to receiving the GAS test, respectively. This is consistent with our expectation that comorbid ARTI infections will lead many providers to forgo testing.

Provider type and patient age also plays a role in receipt of the GAS test. Relative to outpatient facility providers, primary care physicians were 24% more likely and specialty physicians were 38% less likely of employing the GAS test. The child’s age played a significant role in receipt of the GAS test. Children aged 1 to 5 years and 5 to 12 years were 15% and 14% more likely to receive the test compared to children older than 12 years.

Pharyngitis patients have disproportionately higher odds of receiving a GAS test in most regions of the country compared to the Pacific region. For instance, children in the Mid-Atlantic region have 51% higher odds of receiving a GAS test while children in New England have 80% higher odds of receiving the same test.

Black children have 11% lower odds of receiving the GAS test compared to White children. Both middle-income and high-income children have 12% and 32% higher odds of receiving the test compared to low-income children. Compared to office-based visits, children visiting a clinic were twice as likely to receive a GAS test while those seen in the emergency room have 43% lower odds of receiving a GAS test. Hospital outpatient departments, which account for less than 1% of all visits, rarely used a GAS test which could be a statistical artifact due to small sample size. Lastly, insurance and season of the year had no significant impact of receipt of a GAS test.

Factors associated with receiving antibiotic prescription

Surprisingly, receiving the GAS test has a small but insignificant impact on the likelihood that the patient will receive an antibiotic prescription (Table 3) (Adjusted OR = 1.055, P = .07). After controlling for receipt of a GAS test, children with AOM and sinusitis comorbidities have an increased likelihood of being prescribed an antibiotic. Children with URI have a lower likelihood of being prescribed an antibiotic. Additionally, relative to primary care physicians, children visiting nonphysician providers for pharyngitis were more likely to be prescribed an antibiotic.

Children under 12 years of age were more likely to use an antibiotic compared to children 12 years and older. Geographically, there is some evidence of regional variation in antibiotic use as well. Children in the south Atlantic, west-south central, and southeast central regions had a significantly lower odds of being prescribed an antibiotic respectively than pharyngitis patients in the Pacific region. Black children had a 10% lower likelihood of being prescribed an antibiotic compared to White children, possibly related to their lower rate of GAS testing. Compared to office-based visits, children visiting a clinic were less likely to use an antibiotic. Household income, insurance type, and season had no significant impact on revisit risk.

Effects of GAS test and antibiotic prescriptions on likelihood of revisits

The multivariate analysis of the risk of a revisit within 28 days is presented in Table 4. Children with pharyngitis who tested and did not receive an antibiotic serve as the reference comparison group for this analysis to illustrate the impact of using the GAS test and treatment with an antibiotic. The results in Table 4 are quite clear: patients who receive the GAS test were significantly less likely to have a revisit within 28 days. Moreover, within the group of patients who were tested, those not receiving an antibiotic, presumedly because their GAS test was negative, experienced the lowest risk of a revisit. This result is consistent with the data in Table 1. Moreover, using an antibiotic had no impact on the likelihood of a revisit in patients not receiving the GAS test. This result is also consistent with Table 1.

Other results from the analysis of revisit risk may be of interest to clinicians. Pharyngitis patients with a prior episode of treatment within 90 days for an acute respiratory tract infection were more than 7 times more likely to experience a revisit within 28 days of the pharyngitis diagnosis than patients without a history of recent ARTI infections. Age is also a risk factor in likelihood of initiating a revisit. Children under 1 year and children aged 1 to 5 years were more likely to have a revisit than children aged more than 12 years. Compared to White children, Black children were 25% (P = .04) less likely to have a revisit. The care setting also has a significant impact on revisit risk. Children visiting outpatient hospital and other care settings had a significantly higher revisit risk than those visiting a physician’s office. Lastly, household income, geographic region, season, medical comorbidities, gender, and insurance type have no significant impact on revisit risk.

Sensitivity analysis

The results from the analysis of 7-day and 28-day revisit risk are summarized in Table 5. These results indicate that patients who were tested had a more significant decrease in revisit risk at 7 days (72%) than was evident at 28 days (47% reduction). Receiving an antibiotic, with or without the test, had no impact on revisit risk.

Discussion

Published data on revisits for pharyngitis are lacking with the concentration of prior research focused more on systemic complications of undertreated GABHS disease or on identifying carrier status. Our study results suggest that GAS testing is the most important factor in reducing revisit risk. Being prescribed an antibiotic, on its own, does not have a significant impact on the risk of a revisit. However, once the GAS test is used, the decision not to use an antibiotic was correlated with the lowest revisit rate, likely because the source of the pharyngitis infection was viral and more likely to resolve without a revisit. Prior studies have reported variable rates of testing among children with pharyngitis prescribed an antibiotic, ranging from 23% to 91%,^14,15 with testing important toward more appropriate antibiotic use.¹⁶ More recently, among more than 67 000 patients aged 3 to 21 years presenting with sore throat and receiving a GAS test, 32.6% were positive.¹⁷

Our analysis found that more than 46% of pediatric pharyngitis patients were given the rapid GAS test. While this testing rate is substantially lower than HEDIS recommendations and lower than testing rates achieved by several health maintenance organizations,¹⁰ it is similar to the 53% of children receiving such testing in a recent National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey.¹⁸ Furthermore, we found that when antibiotics are prescribed following a GAS test, the revisit risk is not significantly reduced, possibly because antibiotics lower revisit risk when informed by diagnostic testing tools that determine the infectious organism. This is supported by a similar population analysis in which we observed reduced revisit rates in children with AOM managed with antibiotics within 3 days of index diagnosis.¹⁹

Several other factors also affect the likelihood of a child receiving the GAS test. Children aged 1 to 12 years were significantly more likely to receive the GAS test than children over the age of 12. This included children in the 1 to 5 years old bracket who had a 15% higher likelihood of undergoing a GAS test, despite children less than 3 years of age as not recommended targets for GAS testing.²⁰ As expected, children with reported ARTI-associated comorbidities were also less likely to receive a GAS test. Additionally, specialty care physicians were less inclined to implement the GAS test, possibly because of diagnostic confidence without testing or referral after GAS was ruled out. Black and low-income children had statistically lower odds of receiving the test, even after controlling for other factors, and yet were less likely to consume a revisit. As the overall data suggested more revisits in those not tested, further study is needed to examine if race or income discrepancies are equity based. Finally, children in the Pacific region, compared to the rest of the nation, were the least likely to receive a GAS test and yet there were no significant differences in revisit rates by region. Regional differences in antibiotic use were also observed in our study, as has been seen by others.²¹

After statistically controlling for having received the diagnostic GAS test and filled a prescription for an antibiotic, there are multitude of factors that independently affect the revisit risk, the most important of which if which was a history of an ARTI infection in the prior 90 days. While prior visit history had no impact on the likelihood of being tested or filling an antibiotic, patients with prior visits were more than 7 times more likely to consume a revisit. This was not reflected in nor related to comorbid ARTIs as these patients did not have statistically higher revisits than those with pharyngitis as the sole-coded diagnosis. Moreover, speculation for bacterial etiology of primary or superinfection based on a recent history of ARTI accounting for revisits seems unlikely as it did not yield greater antibiotic use in that group. Further analysis is required to determine the clinical and behavioral factors that promote for prior ARTI history as a major factor in revisit risk after an index visit for pharyngitis.

Children aged between 1 and 5 years, though 15% more likely to be tested than those aged 12 through 17 years, were also 39% more likely to initiate a revisit compared to older children when statistically controlling for other covariates. This perhaps suggests longer illness, wrong diagnosis, delay in appropriate treatment, or more caution by parents and providers in this age group. Justification for testing children less than 3 years of age who are outside of the HEDIS suggested age group, when clinical judgement does not point to another infection source, can result in positivity rates between 22% and 30% as previously observed.^22,23 Patients visiting nonphysician providers and outpatient facility providers were less likely to have a revisit than those visiting primary and specialty care physicians, though slightly higher propensity for antibiotic prescriptions was seen for nonphysician providers. Pediatricians have been noted to be less likely to prescribe antibiotics without GAS testing than nonpediatric providers, and more guidelines-compliant in prescribing.²⁴

Recommendations to not test children under 3 years of age are based on the lack of acute rheumatic fever and other complications in this age group together with more frequent viral syndromes. Selectivity in applying clinical criteria to testing can be attempted to separate bacterial from viral illness. Postnasal drainage/rhinorrhea, hoarse voice, and cough have been used successfully to identify those with viral illness and less need for testing, with greater certainty of low risk for GABHS in those over 11 years of age without tonsillar exudates, cervical adenopathy, or fever.¹⁷ However, the marginal benefits of those who have all 3 features of viral illness versus none in identifying GAS positivity was 23.3% vs 37.6% - helpful, but certainly not diminishing the need for testing. These constitutional findings of viral URI also do not exclude the GAS carrier state that features these symptoms.²⁵ Others have reinforced the doubt of pharyngeal exudates as the premier diagnostic finding for test-positive GAS.²⁶

This study had several limitations. The Optum claims dataset only contains ICD-9 codes for diagnoses. It does not include data on infection severity and clinical findings related to symptoms, thus empiric treatment warranted based in clinical severity is not assessed. Antibiotics are commonly available as generics and very inexpensive. Patients may fill and pay for these prescriptions directly, in which case, a claim for payment may not be filed with Optum. This could result in an undercount of treated patients in our study.

There is no corresponding problem of missing medical claims for GAS testing which were obtained from the CPT codes within the Optum claims data set. However, we elected not to verify the test results due to these data being missing for 75% of the study population. Nevertheless, this study’s focus was less about justifying antibiotic treatment, but dealt with the outcomes generated by testing and treatment. Toward that end, we used CPT codes to identify a revisit, and while those can at times be affected by financial reimbursement incentives, differences related to revisits in the 4 patient groups should not be subject to bias.

Conclusion

This study used data from real world practices to document the patterns of GAS testing and antibiotic use in pediatric pharyngitis patients. Revisit rates were under 5% for all patient groups and the use of rapid diagnostic tools were found to be the determining factor in further reducing the risk of revisits. This supports the need for compliance with the HEDIS quality metric for pharyngitis to the recommended levels of rapid testing which have been falling in recent years. Use of more accurate antigen and newer molecular detection testing methods may help further delineate important factors in determining pediatric pharyngitis treatment and need for revisits.²⁷

Corresponding author: Jeffrey McCombs, MD, University of Southern California School of Pharmacy, Department of Pharmaceutical and Health Economics, Leonard D. Schaeffer Center for Health Policy & Economics, 635 Downey Way, Verna & Peter Dauterive Hall 310, Los Angeles, CA 90089-3333; [email protected].

Financial disclosures: None.

From the Department of Pharmaceutical and Health Economics, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA, (Drs. Sangha and McCombs), Department of Pediatrics, Keck School of Medicine, and Department of Clinical Pharmacy, School of Pharmacy, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA, (Dr. Steinberg), and Leonard Schaeffer Center for Health Policy and Economics, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA (Dr. McCombs).

Objective: The recommended treatment for children and adolescents under 18 years of age who have a positive test for group A Streptococcus (GAS) are antibiotics using the “test and treat” strategy to detect and treat GAS for pediatric pharyngitis. This study used paid claims data to document the extent to which real-world treatment patterns are consistent with these recommendations. We document the factors correlated with testing and treatment, then examine the effects of receiving a GAS test and being treated with an antibiotic impact the likelihood of a revisit for an acute respiratory tract infection within 28 days.

Methods: This retrospective cohort study used Optum Insight Clinformatics data for medical and pharmacy claims from 2011-2013 to identify episodes of care for children and adolescents with pharyngitis around their index visit (± 6 months). The sample population included children and adolescents under 18 years of age with a diagnosis of pharyngitis. Multivariable logistic regression analyses were used to document factors associated with receipt of GAS test and antibiotic treatment. Next, we used logistic regression models to estimate the impact of test and treat recommendation on revisit risk.

Results: There were 24 685 treatment episodes for children and adolescents diagnosed with pharyngitis. Nearly 47% of these episodes included a GAS test and 48% of tested patients were prescribed an antibiotic prescription. Failing to perform a GAS test increased the risk of a revisit within 28 days by 44%. The use of antibiotics by tested and untested patients had no impact on revisit risk.

Conclusion: While the judicious use of antibiotics is important in managing pharyngitis infections and managing complications, the use of rapid diagnostic tools was found to be the determining factor in reducing revisits for pediatric patients with pharyngitis.

Keywords: pediatrics; pharyngitis; respiratory infections; acute infections; diagnostic tests; group A Streptococcus; antibiotics; revisits.

Acute pharyngitis is a common acute respiratory tract infection (ARTI) in children. Group A β-hemolytic streptococci (GABHS) is the most common bacterial etiology for pediatric pharyngitis, accounting for 15% to 30% of cases.¹

Beyond clinical assessment, laboratory diagnostic testing generally plays a limited role in guiding appropriate antibiotic prescribing for patients with an ARTI.^2,3 Most diagnostic tests require 2 or 3 days to result, incur additional costs, and may delay treatment.⁴ While these tests do not provide clear and timely guidance on which specific antibiotic is appropriate for ARTI patients, this is not the case for patients with pharyngitis.^5,6,7 A rapid diagnostic test exists to identify pharyngitis patients with GABHS which accounts for 1 in 4 children with acute sore throat.^1,4,6 Both the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Infectious Diseases Society of America recommend antibiotic treatment for children and adolescents under 18 years of age who have a positive test for group A Streptococcus (GAS).^8,9 This “test and treat” protocol has been consistently included in the Healthcare Effectiveness Data and Information Set (HEDIS) standards over time for pediatric pharyngitis patients aged 3 to 18 years before dispensing an antibiotic.¹⁰

Sinusitis, pneumonia, and acute otitis media are considered ARTIs where antibiotic treatment is justified. Therefore, pharyngitis of unclear etiology seen with these comorbid infections may not always undergo GAS testing but move directly to the patient being prescribed antibiotics. This analysis enumerates ARTI-related comorbidities present together with the initial coded pharyngitis diagnosis to evaluate their impact on the provider’s decision to test and treat, and on revisit risk.

Antibiotic treatment for GAS patients is likely to eradicate the acute GABHS infection within 10 days. Penicillin and amoxicillin are commonly recommended because of their narrow spectrum of activity, few adverse effects, established efficacy, and modest cost. Alternative antibiotics for patients with penicillin allergy, or with polymicrobial infection seen on culture results, include a first-generation cephalosporin, clindamycin, clarithromycin (Biaxin), or azithromycin (Zithromax).^1,8,11 However, while compliance with these HEDIS guidelines has been evaluated, the outcome effects of following the HEDIS “test and treat” recommendations for children with pharyngitis have not been adequately evaluated.

These outcome evaluations have increasing importance as the latest HEDIS survey has shown testing rates in commercial Preferred Provider Organizations (PPO) falling from 86.4% in 2018 to 75.9% in 2019, the lowest rate of testing since 2009, with similar reductions under 80% for Health Maintenance Organizations (HMO).¹⁰ While health plans may execute cost-benefit analyses and algorithms to forge best practices for GAS testing in children and adolescents presenting with symptoms of pharyngitis, it is important to regard the wasteful resource utilization and additional cost of revisits that may offset any gains accrued by more focused GAS testing outside the existing clinical guidelines and HEDIS measures. This may be of particular importance in documenting infection and sparing antibiotic therapy in toddlers and younger.

The objective of this study was to investigate the correlation between testing and antibiotic use on the likelihood of a revisit for an acute respiratory tract infection within 28 days. To achieve this objective, this investigation consists of 3 sequential analyses. First, we document the factors associated with the decision to test the patient for a GABHS infection using the GAS test. Next, we document the factors associated with the decision to use an antibiotic to treat the patient as a function of having tested the patient. Finally, we investigate the impact of the testing and treatment decisions on the likelihood of a revisit within 28 days.

Methods

Study design

This was a retrospective cohort study of episodes of treatment for pediatric patients with pharyngitis. Episodes were identified using data derived from the Optum Insight Clinformatics claims database provided to the University of Southern California to facilitate the training of graduate students. These data cover commercially insured patients with both medical and pharmacy benefits. Data were retrieved from the 3-year period spanning 2011-2013. An episode of care was identified based on date of the first (index) outpatient visit for a pharyngitis diagnosis (International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision [ICD-9]: 462, 463, 034.0). Outpatient visits were defined by visit setting: ambulatory clinics, physician offices, emergency rooms, and urgent care facilities. Each pharyngitis treatment episode was then screened for at least a 6-month enrollment in a health insurance plan prior and subsequent to the index visit using Optum enrollment data. Finally, eligible treatment episodes were restricted to children and adolescents under 18 years of age, who had an index outpatient visit for a primary diagnosis of acute pharyngitis.

A diagnostic profile was created for each episode using the diagnoses recorded for the index visit. Up to 3 diagnoses may be recorded for any outpatient visit and the first recorded diagnosis was assumed to be the primary diagnosis for that episode. Any secondary diagnoses recorded on the index visit were used to define comorbidities present at the index visit. ARTI-related comorbidities included: acute otitis media (AOM), bronchitis, sinusitis, pneumonia, and upper respiratory infection (URI). Other comorbid medical diagnoses were documented using diagnostic data from the pre-index period. Dichotomous variables for the following categories were created: mental disorders, nervous system disorders, respiratory symptoms, fever, injury and poisoning, other, or no diseases.

Prior visits for other respiratory infections in the previous 90 days were also identified for patients based on their index visit for pharyngitis. Similarly, any subsequent visits, within 28 days of the index visit, were also recorded to measure the health outcome for analysis. Practice settings include physician offices and federally qualified health centers, state and local health clinics, outpatient hospitals facilities, emergency departments, and other outpatient settings such as walk-in retail health clinic or ambulatory centers. Providers include primary care physicians (family practice, pediatricians, internal medicine), specialty care physicians (emergency medicine, preventive medicine), nonphysician providers (nurse practitioners, physician assistants) and other providers (urgent care, acute outpatient care, ambulatory care centers). Seasons of the year were determined based on the index date of the episode to account for possible seasonality in pharyngitis treatment. Lastly, a previous visits variable was created to identify whether the child had nonpharyngitis ARTI visits in the 3 months prior to the index visit.

Demographic variables were created based on enrollment and the socioeconomic data available in the Optum socioeconomic status file. These variables include patient age, race, sex, household income, geographic location, practice setting type, provider specialty, and type of insurance. An estimate of patient household income was based on algorithms using census block groups. Income categories were informed by the federal guidelines for a family of 4. A low-income family was defined as earning less than $50 000; a middle-income family earned between $50 000 and $75 000, and a high-income family earned $75 000 and above.¹² Patient insurance type was categorized as HMO, Exclusive Provider Organization (EPO), Point of Service (POS), and PPO. Race was identified as White, Black, Hispanic, and Asian. Patient location was defined according to national census regions.

Outcomes

GAS test

The HEDIS measures for pharyngitis recommend using the GAS test to identify the bacterial etiology of the pharyngitis infection. Patients who received the test were identified based on Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) codes 87070-71, 87081, 87430, 87650-52, and 87880.¹⁰

The pharmacy administrative claims dataset was used to identify study patients who filled a prescription for an antibiotic during their pharyngitis treatment episode. Optum pharmacy data identify the medications received, specifies the date of prescription filling, National Drug Codes, and American Hospital Formulary Service (AHFS) Classification System codes for each medication. We used the AHFS Pharmacologic-Therapeutic classification of antibiotics to create dichotomous variables documenting the antibacterial used by each patient.¹³ These are categorized under antibacterial including penicillins, cephalosporins (first, second, third, fourth generation cephalosporins), macrolides (first generation and others), tetracyclines, sulfonamides, fluoroquinolones (ciprofloxacin, levofloxacin, moxifloxacin), cephamycin, carbapenems, and β-lactam antibiotics (amoxicillin, amoxicillin/clavulanate, cephalexin, cefuroxime, cefdinir).

Revisits to physician or other provider

Revisits within 28 days were used as the measure of patient outcomes related to testing and filling of an antibiotic prescription for acute pharyngitis. Revisits may also be due to a patient returning for a follow-up, alternative treatment, worsening pharyngitis, or for another ARTI. An ARTI-related revisit also increases total resources used to treat pediatric pharyngitis patients.

Statistical analysis

Logistic regression was used for all 3 analyses conducted in this study. First, we determined the patient and treating physician characteristics that impact the decision to use GAS testing for pharyngitis. Second, we identified those factors that impact the decision to use antibiotic prescriptions among children who were diagnosed with pharyngitis adding in the dichotomous variable indicating if the patient had received a GAS test. Third, we used a logit regression analysis to document if receiving a GAS test and/or an antibiotic impacted the likelihood of a revisit by comparing revisit risk. To estimate the effect of testing and/or antibiotic use, we divided patients into 4 groups based on whether the patient received a GAS test and/or an antibiotic prescription. This specification of the analysis of revisits as an outcome focuses on adherence to HEDIS “test and treat” guidelines¹⁰:

1. Patients who were not tested yet filled an antibiotic prescription. This decision was likely based on the clinician’s judgment of the patient’s signs and symptoms, and confirmational testing not performed.
2. Patients who were not tested and did not fill an antibiotic prescription. Apparently, in the clinician’s judgment the patient’s signs and symptoms were such that the infection did not warrant treatment and the clinical presentation did not necessitate the GAS test to confirm the recorded diagnosis of pharyngitis.
3. Patients who were tested and received antibiotic prescription, likely because the test was positive for GABHS.
4. Patients who were tested and did not receive antibiotic prescription.

We tested for statistically significant differences in baseline characteristics across these 4 patient groups using t tests for continuous variables and χ² tests for categorical variables. Odds ratios (OR) and CI were computed for the influential variables included the regression analyses.

We conducted a sensitivity analysis using a model specification which included the dichotomous variables for testing and for treatment, and the interaction term between these variables to assess if treatment effects varied in tested and untested patients. We also estimated this model of revisit risk using revisits within 7 days as the outcome variable.

All analyses were completed using STATA/IC 13 (StataCorp, College Station, TX).

Results

There were 24 685 treatment episodes for children diagnosed with pharyngitis. Nearly 47% of these episodes included GAS testing and 47% of the tested patients filled an antibiotic prescription. Similarly, 53% of patients were not tested and 49% of untested patients filled an antibiotic prescription. As a result, the 4 groups identified for analysis were evenly distributed: untested and no prescription (26.9%), untested and prescription (26.3%), tested and prescription (21.9%), and tested and no prescription (24.9%) (Figure).

Table 1 presents the descriptive statistics for these 4 patient groups. Note first that the rate of revisits within 28 days is under 5% across all groups. Second, the 2 tested groups have a lower revisit rate than the untested groups: the tested and treated have a revisit rate of 3.3%, and the tested and untreated have a revisit rate of 2.4%, while both the untested groups have a revisit rate of nearly 5%. These small absolute differences in revisit rates across groups were statistically significant.

Factors associated with receiving GAS test

Several factors were found to impact the decision to test (Table 2). Only 9.7% of children were reported to have any ARTI coinfection. As expected, these comorbidities resulted in a significantly lower likelihood of receiving the GAS test: AOM, bronchitis, sinusitis, pneumonia, and URI as comorbid infections had a 48%, 41%, 37%, 63%, and 13% lower likelihood of receiving the GAS test, respectively, than those with no comorbidities. Similarly, children with fever and respiratory symptoms were 35% and 45% less likely to receiving the GAS test, respectively. This is consistent with our expectation that comorbid ARTI infections will lead many providers to forgo testing.

Provider type and patient age also plays a role in receipt of the GAS test. Relative to outpatient facility providers, primary care physicians were 24% more likely and specialty physicians were 38% less likely of employing the GAS test. The child’s age played a significant role in receipt of the GAS test. Children aged 1 to 5 years and 5 to 12 years were 15% and 14% more likely to receive the test compared to children older than 12 years.

Pharyngitis patients have disproportionately higher odds of receiving a GAS test in most regions of the country compared to the Pacific region. For instance, children in the Mid-Atlantic region have 51% higher odds of receiving a GAS test while children in New England have 80% higher odds of receiving the same test.

Black children have 11% lower odds of receiving the GAS test compared to White children. Both middle-income and high-income children have 12% and 32% higher odds of receiving the test compared to low-income children. Compared to office-based visits, children visiting a clinic were twice as likely to receive a GAS test while those seen in the emergency room have 43% lower odds of receiving a GAS test. Hospital outpatient departments, which account for less than 1% of all visits, rarely used a GAS test which could be a statistical artifact due to small sample size. Lastly, insurance and season of the year had no significant impact of receipt of a GAS test.

Factors associated with receiving antibiotic prescription

Surprisingly, receiving the GAS test has a small but insignificant impact on the likelihood that the patient will receive an antibiotic prescription (Table 3) (Adjusted OR = 1.055, P = .07). After controlling for receipt of a GAS test, children with AOM and sinusitis comorbidities have an increased likelihood of being prescribed an antibiotic. Children with URI have a lower likelihood of being prescribed an antibiotic. Additionally, relative to primary care physicians, children visiting nonphysician providers for pharyngitis were more likely to be prescribed an antibiotic.

Children under 12 years of age were more likely to use an antibiotic compared to children 12 years and older. Geographically, there is some evidence of regional variation in antibiotic use as well. Children in the south Atlantic, west-south central, and southeast central regions had a significantly lower odds of being prescribed an antibiotic respectively than pharyngitis patients in the Pacific region. Black children had a 10% lower likelihood of being prescribed an antibiotic compared to White children, possibly related to their lower rate of GAS testing. Compared to office-based visits, children visiting a clinic were less likely to use an antibiotic. Household income, insurance type, and season had no significant impact on revisit risk.

Effects of GAS test and antibiotic prescriptions on likelihood of revisits

The multivariate analysis of the risk of a revisit within 28 days is presented in Table 4. Children with pharyngitis who tested and did not receive an antibiotic serve as the reference comparison group for this analysis to illustrate the impact of using the GAS test and treatment with an antibiotic. The results in Table 4 are quite clear: patients who receive the GAS test were significantly less likely to have a revisit within 28 days. Moreover, within the group of patients who were tested, those not receiving an antibiotic, presumedly because their GAS test was negative, experienced the lowest risk of a revisit. This result is consistent with the data in Table 1. Moreover, using an antibiotic had no impact on the likelihood of a revisit in patients not receiving the GAS test. This result is also consistent with Table 1.

Other results from the analysis of revisit risk may be of interest to clinicians. Pharyngitis patients with a prior episode of treatment within 90 days for an acute respiratory tract infection were more than 7 times more likely to experience a revisit within 28 days of the pharyngitis diagnosis than patients without a history of recent ARTI infections. Age is also a risk factor in likelihood of initiating a revisit. Children under 1 year and children aged 1 to 5 years were more likely to have a revisit than children aged more than 12 years. Compared to White children, Black children were 25% (P = .04) less likely to have a revisit. The care setting also has a significant impact on revisit risk. Children visiting outpatient hospital and other care settings had a significantly higher revisit risk than those visiting a physician’s office. Lastly, household income, geographic region, season, medical comorbidities, gender, and insurance type have no significant impact on revisit risk.

Sensitivity analysis

The results from the analysis of 7-day and 28-day revisit risk are summarized in Table 5. These results indicate that patients who were tested had a more significant decrease in revisit risk at 7 days (72%) than was evident at 28 days (47% reduction). Receiving an antibiotic, with or without the test, had no impact on revisit risk.

Discussion

Published data on revisits for pharyngitis are lacking with the concentration of prior research focused more on systemic complications of undertreated GABHS disease or on identifying carrier status. Our study results suggest that GAS testing is the most important factor in reducing revisit risk. Being prescribed an antibiotic, on its own, does not have a significant impact on the risk of a revisit. However, once the GAS test is used, the decision not to use an antibiotic was correlated with the lowest revisit rate, likely because the source of the pharyngitis infection was viral and more likely to resolve without a revisit. Prior studies have reported variable rates of testing among children with pharyngitis prescribed an antibiotic, ranging from 23% to 91%,^14,15 with testing important toward more appropriate antibiotic use.¹⁶ More recently, among more than 67 000 patients aged 3 to 21 years presenting with sore throat and receiving a GAS test, 32.6% were positive.¹⁷

Our analysis found that more than 46% of pediatric pharyngitis patients were given the rapid GAS test. While this testing rate is substantially lower than HEDIS recommendations and lower than testing rates achieved by several health maintenance organizations,¹⁰ it is similar to the 53% of children receiving such testing in a recent National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey.¹⁸ Furthermore, we found that when antibiotics are prescribed following a GAS test, the revisit risk is not significantly reduced, possibly because antibiotics lower revisit risk when informed by diagnostic testing tools that determine the infectious organism. This is supported by a similar population analysis in which we observed reduced revisit rates in children with AOM managed with antibiotics within 3 days of index diagnosis.¹⁹

Several other factors also affect the likelihood of a child receiving the GAS test. Children aged 1 to 12 years were significantly more likely to receive the GAS test than children over the age of 12. This included children in the 1 to 5 years old bracket who had a 15% higher likelihood of undergoing a GAS test, despite children less than 3 years of age as not recommended targets for GAS testing.²⁰ As expected, children with reported ARTI-associated comorbidities were also less likely to receive a GAS test. Additionally, specialty care physicians were less inclined to implement the GAS test, possibly because of diagnostic confidence without testing or referral after GAS was ruled out. Black and low-income children had statistically lower odds of receiving the test, even after controlling for other factors, and yet were less likely to consume a revisit. As the overall data suggested more revisits in those not tested, further study is needed to examine if race or income discrepancies are equity based. Finally, children in the Pacific region, compared to the rest of the nation, were the least likely to receive a GAS test and yet there were no significant differences in revisit rates by region. Regional differences in antibiotic use were also observed in our study, as has been seen by others.²¹

After statistically controlling for having received the diagnostic GAS test and filled a prescription for an antibiotic, there are multitude of factors that independently affect the revisit risk, the most important of which if which was a history of an ARTI infection in the prior 90 days. While prior visit history had no impact on the likelihood of being tested or filling an antibiotic, patients with prior visits were more than 7 times more likely to consume a revisit. This was not reflected in nor related to comorbid ARTIs as these patients did not have statistically higher revisits than those with pharyngitis as the sole-coded diagnosis. Moreover, speculation for bacterial etiology of primary or superinfection based on a recent history of ARTI accounting for revisits seems unlikely as it did not yield greater antibiotic use in that group. Further analysis is required to determine the clinical and behavioral factors that promote for prior ARTI history as a major factor in revisit risk after an index visit for pharyngitis.

Children aged between 1 and 5 years, though 15% more likely to be tested than those aged 12 through 17 years, were also 39% more likely to initiate a revisit compared to older children when statistically controlling for other covariates. This perhaps suggests longer illness, wrong diagnosis, delay in appropriate treatment, or more caution by parents and providers in this age group. Justification for testing children less than 3 years of age who are outside of the HEDIS suggested age group, when clinical judgement does not point to another infection source, can result in positivity rates between 22% and 30% as previously observed.^22,23 Patients visiting nonphysician providers and outpatient facility providers were less likely to have a revisit than those visiting primary and specialty care physicians, though slightly higher propensity for antibiotic prescriptions was seen for nonphysician providers. Pediatricians have been noted to be less likely to prescribe antibiotics without GAS testing than nonpediatric providers, and more guidelines-compliant in prescribing.²⁴

Recommendations to not test children under 3 years of age are based on the lack of acute rheumatic fever and other complications in this age group together with more frequent viral syndromes. Selectivity in applying clinical criteria to testing can be attempted to separate bacterial from viral illness. Postnasal drainage/rhinorrhea, hoarse voice, and cough have been used successfully to identify those with viral illness and less need for testing, with greater certainty of low risk for GABHS in those over 11 years of age without tonsillar exudates, cervical adenopathy, or fever.¹⁷ However, the marginal benefits of those who have all 3 features of viral illness versus none in identifying GAS positivity was 23.3% vs 37.6% - helpful, but certainly not diminishing the need for testing. These constitutional findings of viral URI also do not exclude the GAS carrier state that features these symptoms.²⁵ Others have reinforced the doubt of pharyngeal exudates as the premier diagnostic finding for test-positive GAS.²⁶

This study had several limitations. The Optum claims dataset only contains ICD-9 codes for diagnoses. It does not include data on infection severity and clinical findings related to symptoms, thus empiric treatment warranted based in clinical severity is not assessed. Antibiotics are commonly available as generics and very inexpensive. Patients may fill and pay for these prescriptions directly, in which case, a claim for payment may not be filed with Optum. This could result in an undercount of treated patients in our study.

There is no corresponding problem of missing medical claims for GAS testing which were obtained from the CPT codes within the Optum claims data set. However, we elected not to verify the test results due to these data being missing for 75% of the study population. Nevertheless, this study’s focus was less about justifying antibiotic treatment, but dealt with the outcomes generated by testing and treatment. Toward that end, we used CPT codes to identify a revisit, and while those can at times be affected by financial reimbursement incentives, differences related to revisits in the 4 patient groups should not be subject to bias.

Conclusion

This study used data from real world practices to document the patterns of GAS testing and antibiotic use in pediatric pharyngitis patients. Revisit rates were under 5% for all patient groups and the use of rapid diagnostic tools were found to be the determining factor in further reducing the risk of revisits. This supports the need for compliance with the HEDIS quality metric for pharyngitis to the recommended levels of rapid testing which have been falling in recent years. Use of more accurate antigen and newer molecular detection testing methods may help further delineate important factors in determining pediatric pharyngitis treatment and need for revisits.²⁷

Corresponding author: Jeffrey McCombs, MD, University of Southern California School of Pharmacy, Department of Pharmaceutical and Health Economics, Leonard D. Schaeffer Center for Health Policy & Economics, 635 Downey Way, Verna & Peter Dauterive Hall 310, Los Angeles, CA 90089-3333; [email protected].

Financial disclosures: None.

From the Department of Pharmaceutical and Health Economics, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA, (Drs. Sangha and McCombs), Department of Pediatrics, Keck School of Medicine, and Department of Clinical Pharmacy, School of Pharmacy, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA, (Dr. Steinberg), and Leonard Schaeffer Center for Health Policy and Economics, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA (Dr. McCombs).

Objective: The recommended treatment for children and adolescents under 18 years of age who have a positive test for group A Streptococcus (GAS) are antibiotics using the “test and treat” strategy to detect and treat GAS for pediatric pharyngitis. This study used paid claims data to document the extent to which real-world treatment patterns are consistent with these recommendations. We document the factors correlated with testing and treatment, then examine the effects of receiving a GAS test and being treated with an antibiotic impact the likelihood of a revisit for an acute respiratory tract infection within 28 days.

Methods: This retrospective cohort study used Optum Insight Clinformatics data for medical and pharmacy claims from 2011-2013 to identify episodes of care for children and adolescents with pharyngitis around their index visit (± 6 months). The sample population included children and adolescents under 18 years of age with a diagnosis of pharyngitis. Multivariable logistic regression analyses were used to document factors associated with receipt of GAS test and antibiotic treatment. Next, we used logistic regression models to estimate the impact of test and treat recommendation on revisit risk.

Results: There were 24 685 treatment episodes for children and adolescents diagnosed with pharyngitis. Nearly 47% of these episodes included a GAS test and 48% of tested patients were prescribed an antibiotic prescription. Failing to perform a GAS test increased the risk of a revisit within 28 days by 44%. The use of antibiotics by tested and untested patients had no impact on revisit risk.

Conclusion: While the judicious use of antibiotics is important in managing pharyngitis infections and managing complications, the use of rapid diagnostic tools was found to be the determining factor in reducing revisits for pediatric patients with pharyngitis.

Keywords: pediatrics; pharyngitis; respiratory infections; acute infections; diagnostic tests; group A Streptococcus; antibiotics; revisits.

Acute pharyngitis is a common acute respiratory tract infection (ARTI) in children. Group A β-hemolytic streptococci (GABHS) is the most common bacterial etiology for pediatric pharyngitis, accounting for 15% to 30% of cases.¹

Beyond clinical assessment, laboratory diagnostic testing generally plays a limited role in guiding appropriate antibiotic prescribing for patients with an ARTI.^2,3 Most diagnostic tests require 2 or 3 days to result, incur additional costs, and may delay treatment.⁴ While these tests do not provide clear and timely guidance on which specific antibiotic is appropriate for ARTI patients, this is not the case for patients with pharyngitis.^5,6,7 A rapid diagnostic test exists to identify pharyngitis patients with GABHS which accounts for 1 in 4 children with acute sore throat.^1,4,6 Both the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Infectious Diseases Society of America recommend antibiotic treatment for children and adolescents under 18 years of age who have a positive test for group A Streptococcus (GAS).^8,9 This “test and treat” protocol has been consistently included in the Healthcare Effectiveness Data and Information Set (HEDIS) standards over time for pediatric pharyngitis patients aged 3 to 18 years before dispensing an antibiotic.¹⁰

Sinusitis, pneumonia, and acute otitis media are considered ARTIs where antibiotic treatment is justified. Therefore, pharyngitis of unclear etiology seen with these comorbid infections may not always undergo GAS testing but move directly to the patient being prescribed antibiotics. This analysis enumerates ARTI-related comorbidities present together with the initial coded pharyngitis diagnosis to evaluate their impact on the provider’s decision to test and treat, and on revisit risk.

Antibiotic treatment for GAS patients is likely to eradicate the acute GABHS infection within 10 days. Penicillin and amoxicillin are commonly recommended because of their narrow spectrum of activity, few adverse effects, established efficacy, and modest cost. Alternative antibiotics for patients with penicillin allergy, or with polymicrobial infection seen on culture results, include a first-generation cephalosporin, clindamycin, clarithromycin (Biaxin), or azithromycin (Zithromax).^1,8,11 However, while compliance with these HEDIS guidelines has been evaluated, the outcome effects of following the HEDIS “test and treat” recommendations for children with pharyngitis have not been adequately evaluated.

These outcome evaluations have increasing importance as the latest HEDIS survey has shown testing rates in commercial Preferred Provider Organizations (PPO) falling from 86.4% in 2018 to 75.9% in 2019, the lowest rate of testing since 2009, with similar reductions under 80% for Health Maintenance Organizations (HMO).¹⁰ While health plans may execute cost-benefit analyses and algorithms to forge best practices for GAS testing in children and adolescents presenting with symptoms of pharyngitis, it is important to regard the wasteful resource utilization and additional cost of revisits that may offset any gains accrued by more focused GAS testing outside the existing clinical guidelines and HEDIS measures. This may be of particular importance in documenting infection and sparing antibiotic therapy in toddlers and younger.

The objective of this study was to investigate the correlation between testing and antibiotic use on the likelihood of a revisit for an acute respiratory tract infection within 28 days. To achieve this objective, this investigation consists of 3 sequential analyses. First, we document the factors associated with the decision to test the patient for a GABHS infection using the GAS test. Next, we document the factors associated with the decision to use an antibiotic to treat the patient as a function of having tested the patient. Finally, we investigate the impact of the testing and treatment decisions on the likelihood of a revisit within 28 days.

Methods

Study design

This was a retrospective cohort study of episodes of treatment for pediatric patients with pharyngitis. Episodes were identified using data derived from the Optum Insight Clinformatics claims database provided to the University of Southern California to facilitate the training of graduate students. These data cover commercially insured patients with both medical and pharmacy benefits. Data were retrieved from the 3-year period spanning 2011-2013. An episode of care was identified based on date of the first (index) outpatient visit for a pharyngitis diagnosis (International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision [ICD-9]: 462, 463, 034.0). Outpatient visits were defined by visit setting: ambulatory clinics, physician offices, emergency rooms, and urgent care facilities. Each pharyngitis treatment episode was then screened for at least a 6-month enrollment in a health insurance plan prior and subsequent to the index visit using Optum enrollment data. Finally, eligible treatment episodes were restricted to children and adolescents under 18 years of age, who had an index outpatient visit for a primary diagnosis of acute pharyngitis.

A diagnostic profile was created for each episode using the diagnoses recorded for the index visit. Up to 3 diagnoses may be recorded for any outpatient visit and the first recorded diagnosis was assumed to be the primary diagnosis for that episode. Any secondary diagnoses recorded on the index visit were used to define comorbidities present at the index visit. ARTI-related comorbidities included: acute otitis media (AOM), bronchitis, sinusitis, pneumonia, and upper respiratory infection (URI). Other comorbid medical diagnoses were documented using diagnostic data from the pre-index period. Dichotomous variables for the following categories were created: mental disorders, nervous system disorders, respiratory symptoms, fever, injury and poisoning, other, or no diseases.

Prior visits for other respiratory infections in the previous 90 days were also identified for patients based on their index visit for pharyngitis. Similarly, any subsequent visits, within 28 days of the index visit, were also recorded to measure the health outcome for analysis. Practice settings include physician offices and federally qualified health centers, state and local health clinics, outpatient hospitals facilities, emergency departments, and other outpatient settings such as walk-in retail health clinic or ambulatory centers. Providers include primary care physicians (family practice, pediatricians, internal medicine), specialty care physicians (emergency medicine, preventive medicine), nonphysician providers (nurse practitioners, physician assistants) and other providers (urgent care, acute outpatient care, ambulatory care centers). Seasons of the year were determined based on the index date of the episode to account for possible seasonality in pharyngitis treatment. Lastly, a previous visits variable was created to identify whether the child had nonpharyngitis ARTI visits in the 3 months prior to the index visit.

Demographic variables were created based on enrollment and the socioeconomic data available in the Optum socioeconomic status file. These variables include patient age, race, sex, household income, geographic location, practice setting type, provider specialty, and type of insurance. An estimate of patient household income was based on algorithms using census block groups. Income categories were informed by the federal guidelines for a family of 4. A low-income family was defined as earning less than $50 000; a middle-income family earned between $50 000 and $75 000, and a high-income family earned $75 000 and above.¹² Patient insurance type was categorized as HMO, Exclusive Provider Organization (EPO), Point of Service (POS), and PPO. Race was identified as White, Black, Hispanic, and Asian. Patient location was defined according to national census regions.

Outcomes

GAS test

The HEDIS measures for pharyngitis recommend using the GAS test to identify the bacterial etiology of the pharyngitis infection. Patients who received the test were identified based on Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) codes 87070-71, 87081, 87430, 87650-52, and 87880.¹⁰

The pharmacy administrative claims dataset was used to identify study patients who filled a prescription for an antibiotic during their pharyngitis treatment episode. Optum pharmacy data identify the medications received, specifies the date of prescription filling, National Drug Codes, and American Hospital Formulary Service (AHFS) Classification System codes for each medication. We used the AHFS Pharmacologic-Therapeutic classification of antibiotics to create dichotomous variables documenting the antibacterial used by each patient.¹³ These are categorized under antibacterial including penicillins, cephalosporins (first, second, third, fourth generation cephalosporins), macrolides (first generation and others), tetracyclines, sulfonamides, fluoroquinolones (ciprofloxacin, levofloxacin, moxifloxacin), cephamycin, carbapenems, and β-lactam antibiotics (amoxicillin, amoxicillin/clavulanate, cephalexin, cefuroxime, cefdinir).

Revisits to physician or other provider

Revisits within 28 days were used as the measure of patient outcomes related to testing and filling of an antibiotic prescription for acute pharyngitis. Revisits may also be due to a patient returning for a follow-up, alternative treatment, worsening pharyngitis, or for another ARTI. An ARTI-related revisit also increases total resources used to treat pediatric pharyngitis patients.

Statistical analysis

Logistic regression was used for all 3 analyses conducted in this study. First, we determined the patient and treating physician characteristics that impact the decision to use GAS testing for pharyngitis. Second, we identified those factors that impact the decision to use antibiotic prescriptions among children who were diagnosed with pharyngitis adding in the dichotomous variable indicating if the patient had received a GAS test. Third, we used a logit regression analysis to document if receiving a GAS test and/or an antibiotic impacted the likelihood of a revisit by comparing revisit risk. To estimate the effect of testing and/or antibiotic use, we divided patients into 4 groups based on whether the patient received a GAS test and/or an antibiotic prescription. This specification of the analysis of revisits as an outcome focuses on adherence to HEDIS “test and treat” guidelines¹⁰:

1. Patients who were not tested yet filled an antibiotic prescription. This decision was likely based on the clinician’s judgment of the patient’s signs and symptoms, and confirmational testing not performed.
2. Patients who were not tested and did not fill an antibiotic prescription. Apparently, in the clinician’s judgment the patient’s signs and symptoms were such that the infection did not warrant treatment and the clinical presentation did not necessitate the GAS test to confirm the recorded diagnosis of pharyngitis.
3. Patients who were tested and received antibiotic prescription, likely because the test was positive for GABHS.
4. Patients who were tested and did not receive antibiotic prescription.

We tested for statistically significant differences in baseline characteristics across these 4 patient groups using t tests for continuous variables and χ² tests for categorical variables. Odds ratios (OR) and CI were computed for the influential variables included the regression analyses.

We conducted a sensitivity analysis using a model specification which included the dichotomous variables for testing and for treatment, and the interaction term between these variables to assess if treatment effects varied in tested and untested patients. We also estimated this model of revisit risk using revisits within 7 days as the outcome variable.

All analyses were completed using STATA/IC 13 (StataCorp, College Station, TX).

Results

There were 24 685 treatment episodes for children diagnosed with pharyngitis. Nearly 47% of these episodes included GAS testing and 47% of the tested patients filled an antibiotic prescription. Similarly, 53% of patients were not tested and 49% of untested patients filled an antibiotic prescription. As a result, the 4 groups identified for analysis were evenly distributed: untested and no prescription (26.9%), untested and prescription (26.3%), tested and prescription (21.9%), and tested and no prescription (24.9%) (Figure).

Table 1 presents the descriptive statistics for these 4 patient groups. Note first that the rate of revisits within 28 days is under 5% across all groups. Second, the 2 tested groups have a lower revisit rate than the untested groups: the tested and treated have a revisit rate of 3.3%, and the tested and untreated have a revisit rate of 2.4%, while both the untested groups have a revisit rate of nearly 5%. These small absolute differences in revisit rates across groups were statistically significant.

Factors associated with receiving GAS test

Several factors were found to impact the decision to test (Table 2). Only 9.7% of children were reported to have any ARTI coinfection. As expected, these comorbidities resulted in a significantly lower likelihood of receiving the GAS test: AOM, bronchitis, sinusitis, pneumonia, and URI as comorbid infections had a 48%, 41%, 37%, 63%, and 13% lower likelihood of receiving the GAS test, respectively, than those with no comorbidities. Similarly, children with fever and respiratory symptoms were 35% and 45% less likely to receiving the GAS test, respectively. This is consistent with our expectation that comorbid ARTI infections will lead many providers to forgo testing.

Provider type and patient age also plays a role in receipt of the GAS test. Relative to outpatient facility providers, primary care physicians were 24% more likely and specialty physicians were 38% less likely of employing the GAS test. The child’s age played a significant role in receipt of the GAS test. Children aged 1 to 5 years and 5 to 12 years were 15% and 14% more likely to receive the test compared to children older than 12 years.

Pharyngitis patients have disproportionately higher odds of receiving a GAS test in most regions of the country compared to the Pacific region. For instance, children in the Mid-Atlantic region have 51% higher odds of receiving a GAS test while children in New England have 80% higher odds of receiving the same test.

Black children have 11% lower odds of receiving the GAS test compared to White children. Both middle-income and high-income children have 12% and 32% higher odds of receiving the test compared to low-income children. Compared to office-based visits, children visiting a clinic were twice as likely to receive a GAS test while those seen in the emergency room have 43% lower odds of receiving a GAS test. Hospital outpatient departments, which account for less than 1% of all visits, rarely used a GAS test which could be a statistical artifact due to small sample size. Lastly, insurance and season of the year had no significant impact of receipt of a GAS test.

Factors associated with receiving antibiotic prescription

Surprisingly, receiving the GAS test has a small but insignificant impact on the likelihood that the patient will receive an antibiotic prescription (Table 3) (Adjusted OR = 1.055, P = .07). After controlling for receipt of a GAS test, children with AOM and sinusitis comorbidities have an increased likelihood of being prescribed an antibiotic. Children with URI have a lower likelihood of being prescribed an antibiotic. Additionally, relative to primary care physicians, children visiting nonphysician providers for pharyngitis were more likely to be prescribed an antibiotic.

Children under 12 years of age were more likely to use an antibiotic compared to children 12 years and older. Geographically, there is some evidence of regional variation in antibiotic use as well. Children in the south Atlantic, west-south central, and southeast central regions had a significantly lower odds of being prescribed an antibiotic respectively than pharyngitis patients in the Pacific region. Black children had a 10% lower likelihood of being prescribed an antibiotic compared to White children, possibly related to their lower rate of GAS testing. Compared to office-based visits, children visiting a clinic were less likely to use an antibiotic. Household income, insurance type, and season had no significant impact on revisit risk.

Effects of GAS test and antibiotic prescriptions on likelihood of revisits

The multivariate analysis of the risk of a revisit within 28 days is presented in Table 4. Children with pharyngitis who tested and did not receive an antibiotic serve as the reference comparison group for this analysis to illustrate the impact of using the GAS test and treatment with an antibiotic. The results in Table 4 are quite clear: patients who receive the GAS test were significantly less likely to have a revisit within 28 days. Moreover, within the group of patients who were tested, those not receiving an antibiotic, presumedly because their GAS test was negative, experienced the lowest risk of a revisit. This result is consistent with the data in Table 1. Moreover, using an antibiotic had no impact on the likelihood of a revisit in patients not receiving the GAS test. This result is also consistent with Table 1.

Other results from the analysis of revisit risk may be of interest to clinicians. Pharyngitis patients with a prior episode of treatment within 90 days for an acute respiratory tract infection were more than 7 times more likely to experience a revisit within 28 days of the pharyngitis diagnosis than patients without a history of recent ARTI infections. Age is also a risk factor in likelihood of initiating a revisit. Children under 1 year and children aged 1 to 5 years were more likely to have a revisit than children aged more than 12 years. Compared to White children, Black children were 25% (P = .04) less likely to have a revisit. The care setting also has a significant impact on revisit risk. Children visiting outpatient hospital and other care settings had a significantly higher revisit risk than those visiting a physician’s office. Lastly, household income, geographic region, season, medical comorbidities, gender, and insurance type have no significant impact on revisit risk.

Sensitivity analysis

The results from the analysis of 7-day and 28-day revisit risk are summarized in Table 5. These results indicate that patients who were tested had a more significant decrease in revisit risk at 7 days (72%) than was evident at 28 days (47% reduction). Receiving an antibiotic, with or without the test, had no impact on revisit risk.

Discussion

Published data on revisits for pharyngitis are lacking with the concentration of prior research focused more on systemic complications of undertreated GABHS disease or on identifying carrier status. Our study results suggest that GAS testing is the most important factor in reducing revisit risk. Being prescribed an antibiotic, on its own, does not have a significant impact on the risk of a revisit. However, once the GAS test is used, the decision not to use an antibiotic was correlated with the lowest revisit rate, likely because the source of the pharyngitis infection was viral and more likely to resolve without a revisit. Prior studies have reported variable rates of testing among children with pharyngitis prescribed an antibiotic, ranging from 23% to 91%,^14,15 with testing important toward more appropriate antibiotic use.¹⁶ More recently, among more than 67 000 patients aged 3 to 21 years presenting with sore throat and receiving a GAS test, 32.6% were positive.¹⁷

Our analysis found that more than 46% of pediatric pharyngitis patients were given the rapid GAS test. While this testing rate is substantially lower than HEDIS recommendations and lower than testing rates achieved by several health maintenance organizations,¹⁰ it is similar to the 53% of children receiving such testing in a recent National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey.¹⁸ Furthermore, we found that when antibiotics are prescribed following a GAS test, the revisit risk is not significantly reduced, possibly because antibiotics lower revisit risk when informed by diagnostic testing tools that determine the infectious organism. This is supported by a similar population analysis in which we observed reduced revisit rates in children with AOM managed with antibiotics within 3 days of index diagnosis.¹⁹

Several other factors also affect the likelihood of a child receiving the GAS test. Children aged 1 to 12 years were significantly more likely to receive the GAS test than children over the age of 12. This included children in the 1 to 5 years old bracket who had a 15% higher likelihood of undergoing a GAS test, despite children less than 3 years of age as not recommended targets for GAS testing.²⁰ As expected, children with reported ARTI-associated comorbidities were also less likely to receive a GAS test. Additionally, specialty care physicians were less inclined to implement the GAS test, possibly because of diagnostic confidence without testing or referral after GAS was ruled out. Black and low-income children had statistically lower odds of receiving the test, even after controlling for other factors, and yet were less likely to consume a revisit. As the overall data suggested more revisits in those not tested, further study is needed to examine if race or income discrepancies are equity based. Finally, children in the Pacific region, compared to the rest of the nation, were the least likely to receive a GAS test and yet there were no significant differences in revisit rates by region. Regional differences in antibiotic use were also observed in our study, as has been seen by others.²¹

After statistically controlling for having received the diagnostic GAS test and filled a prescription for an antibiotic, there are multitude of factors that independently affect the revisit risk, the most important of which if which was a history of an ARTI infection in the prior 90 days. While prior visit history had no impact on the likelihood of being tested or filling an antibiotic, patients with prior visits were more than 7 times more likely to consume a revisit. This was not reflected in nor related to comorbid ARTIs as these patients did not have statistically higher revisits than those with pharyngitis as the sole-coded diagnosis. Moreover, speculation for bacterial etiology of primary or superinfection based on a recent history of ARTI accounting for revisits seems unlikely as it did not yield greater antibiotic use in that group. Further analysis is required to determine the clinical and behavioral factors that promote for prior ARTI history as a major factor in revisit risk after an index visit for pharyngitis.

Children aged between 1 and 5 years, though 15% more likely to be tested than those aged 12 through 17 years, were also 39% more likely to initiate a revisit compared to older children when statistically controlling for other covariates. This perhaps suggests longer illness, wrong diagnosis, delay in appropriate treatment, or more caution by parents and providers in this age group. Justification for testing children less than 3 years of age who are outside of the HEDIS suggested age group, when clinical judgement does not point to another infection source, can result in positivity rates between 22% and 30% as previously observed.^22,23 Patients visiting nonphysician providers and outpatient facility providers were less likely to have a revisit than those visiting primary and specialty care physicians, though slightly higher propensity for antibiotic prescriptions was seen for nonphysician providers. Pediatricians have been noted to be less likely to prescribe antibiotics without GAS testing than nonpediatric providers, and more guidelines-compliant in prescribing.²⁴

Recommendations to not test children under 3 years of age are based on the lack of acute rheumatic fever and other complications in this age group together with more frequent viral syndromes. Selectivity in applying clinical criteria to testing can be attempted to separate bacterial from viral illness. Postnasal drainage/rhinorrhea, hoarse voice, and cough have been used successfully to identify those with viral illness and less need for testing, with greater certainty of low risk for GABHS in those over 11 years of age without tonsillar exudates, cervical adenopathy, or fever.¹⁷ However, the marginal benefits of those who have all 3 features of viral illness versus none in identifying GAS positivity was 23.3% vs 37.6% - helpful, but certainly not diminishing the need for testing. These constitutional findings of viral URI also do not exclude the GAS carrier state that features these symptoms.²⁵ Others have reinforced the doubt of pharyngeal exudates as the premier diagnostic finding for test-positive GAS.²⁶

This study had several limitations. The Optum claims dataset only contains ICD-9 codes for diagnoses. It does not include data on infection severity and clinical findings related to symptoms, thus empiric treatment warranted based in clinical severity is not assessed. Antibiotics are commonly available as generics and very inexpensive. Patients may fill and pay for these prescriptions directly, in which case, a claim for payment may not be filed with Optum. This could result in an undercount of treated patients in our study.

There is no corresponding problem of missing medical claims for GAS testing which were obtained from the CPT codes within the Optum claims data set. However, we elected not to verify the test results due to these data being missing for 75% of the study population. Nevertheless, this study’s focus was less about justifying antibiotic treatment, but dealt with the outcomes generated by testing and treatment. Toward that end, we used CPT codes to identify a revisit, and while those can at times be affected by financial reimbursement incentives, differences related to revisits in the 4 patient groups should not be subject to bias.

Conclusion

This study used data from real world practices to document the patterns of GAS testing and antibiotic use in pediatric pharyngitis patients. Revisit rates were under 5% for all patient groups and the use of rapid diagnostic tools were found to be the determining factor in further reducing the risk of revisits. This supports the need for compliance with the HEDIS quality metric for pharyngitis to the recommended levels of rapid testing which have been falling in recent years. Use of more accurate antigen and newer molecular detection testing methods may help further delineate important factors in determining pediatric pharyngitis treatment and need for revisits.²⁷

Corresponding author: Jeffrey McCombs, MD, University of Southern California School of Pharmacy, Department of Pharmaceutical and Health Economics, Leonard D. Schaeffer Center for Health Policy & Economics, 635 Downey Way, Verna & Peter Dauterive Hall 310, Los Angeles, CA 90089-3333; [email protected].

Financial disclosures: None.

Over the past 25 years, antiretroviral therapy (ART) has led to a dramatic decrease in HIV-associated morbidity and mortality. Patients who initiate ART today can now expect a nearly normal life expectancy.¹ Despite the overwhelming benefits of ART, some patients experience immune reconstitution inflammatory syndrome (IRIS), a disease- or pathogen-specific immune response that can mimic the presentation of an active opportunistic infection (OI). IRIS can occur at any CD4 count. However, it is most often associated with the rapid increase in CD4 count and decrease in viral load that typically follows ART initiation in patients who are severely immunocompromised and have high viral loads.^2-6

IRIS manifests in two primary ways. Paradoxical IRIS refers to the worsening of a previously diagnosed disease after ART initiation, whereas unmasking IRIS refers to the appearance of a previously undiagnosed disease following ART initiation.

The Medical Care Criteria Committee of the New York State Department of Health AIDS Institute Clinical Guidelines Program recently published an update to its guideline, Management of IRIS . This update incorporates recent data and summarizes how to identify and manage IRIS associated with several OIs. Important goals of this update were to raise awareness among healthcare providers about IRIS, including its clinical presentation, and provide treatment recommendations.
 

For most patients, ART should be started quickly

Over the past few years, rapid initiation of ART has become the new standard of care, with same-day initiation on the day of HIV diagnosis recommended whenever possible. For many years, however, the presence of an active OI was felt to justify delaying ART initiation until the OI was completely treated. This approach changed in 2009 when a randomized trial by the AIDS Clinical Trials Group demonstrated that patients who initiated ART within 2 weeks of OI diagnosis did not experience more adverse events than those who waited.⁷ Moreover, although the finding did not reach statistical significance, participants in the early ART arm appeared to experience lower mortality and progression of AIDS than those in the delayed ART arm. Therefore, patients diagnosed with most OIs can start ART as soon as they are tolerating the treatment for the OI.

Some OIs do require a delay in ART

Symptoms associated with IRIS are typically mild or moderate; life-threatening complications are rare. Most patients newly diagnosed with HIV who have an active OI can therefore initiate ART quickly. However, IRIS involving the central nervous system or eye carries a much greater risk of morbidity and mortality. OIs that do warrant a delay in ART initiation, therefore, include tuberculosis (TB) meningitis, cryptococcal meningitis, and cytomegalovirus (CMV) retinitis.

Several randomized clinical trials have found that in patients with HIV and pulmonary TB coinfection, ART should be started as soon as the patient is tolerating anti-TB therapy.^8-10 What’s more, in patients with CD4 counts less than 50 cells/microL, there is a mortality benefit when ART is initiated within 2 weeks of starting TB treatment, compared with waiting 8 weeks.

For TB meningitis, however, a clinical trial conducted in Vietnam did not show any mortality benefit when ART was started within 7 days (vs. 2 months); however, severe adverse events were more common in the immediate ART group, raising the concern that patients in that group had experienced complications of IRIS of the central nervous system.¹¹ Limited data are available to guide specific timing of ART in patients with TB meningitis, but based on the results of this trial, most clinicians wait approximately 2 months before initiating ART, and consultation with an expert is recommended.

Optimal timing of ART in patients with cryptococcal meningitis is also uncertain, and there have been contradictory results from several small studies. However, in 2014, the larger COAT trial, conducted in Uganda and South Africa, found 15% higher mortality in patients who initiated ART within 2 weeks, compared with more than 5 weeks.¹² Although exactly how long to wait is still unknown, ART should be delayed by at least 2 weeks after a patient starts antifungal therapy.

CMV-IRIS can have devastating effects, including vision loss or blindness. Therefore, ART initiation should be delayed in patients with diagnosed or strongly suspected CMV.¹³ Importantly, however, patients with advanced HIV may have asymptomatic or subclinical CMV retinitis. As a result, all patients with HIV who have CD4 counts less than 100 cells/mm³ who do not have known or strongly suspected CMV should be screened for signs of CMV by dilated ophthalmological examination as soon as possible after initiation of ART. If signs of CMV are seen on dilated exam, clinicians should consult with an experienced HIV care provider to determine if ART must be temporarily paused.
 

Diagnosing IRIS

Broadly, IRIS presents as a clinical deterioration after ART initiation, with localized tissue inflammation, with or without a systemic inflammatory response, but the presentation of IRIS varies depending on the underlying OI or illness. In most cases, IRIS occurs within 4-8 weeks of ART initiation or regimen change. A rise in CD4 count often but does not always precede IRIS and is not a diagnostic criterion. There is no diagnostic test for IRIS, and when assessing a patient for possible IRIS, clinicians should exclude HIV disease progression, new infections, OI drug resistance, OI treatment nonadherence, and drug reactions as possible causes for inflammatory signs or symptoms.

Treatment of IRIS

Most cases of IRIS are mild, and patients can be reassured that the symptoms will resolve with time. Clinicians should interrupt ART only if a patient has a severe, life-threatening case of IRIS. Unnecessary ART interruption may increase a patient’s risk of new opportunistic infections, recurring IRIS upon resumption of ART, and development of HIV-drug resistance. Any newly unmasked OIs should be treated promptly while ART is continued. For patients with severe IRIS, clinicians can use prednisone to treat inflammatory symptoms – generally for 1-2 weeks, followed by a taper as needed. Prednisone, however, should not be used in patients with cryptococcal meningitis or Kaposi sarcoma as it is associated with worse outcomes.^14-17

In patients newly diagnosed with HIV, prompt initiation of ART is, with the exceptions outlined above, the highest priority. IRIS is an unfortunate complication of ART, and patients may be discouraged when they find themselves feeling worse shortly after starting treatment. While providing supportive and symptomatic care, clinicians can reassure patients by explaining that immune reconstitution is, in fact, the goal of ART and that their symptoms do not represent the progression of HIV disease. It is hoped that with more frequent HIV testing, earlier diagnosis, and earlier ART initiation at higher CD4 counts, IRIS will become a less frequent nuisance to patients and providers. 

Dr. Brust is in the department of medicine at Albert Einstein College of Medicine/Montefiore Medical Center, New York. He reported having no relevant financial relationships. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

References

1. Marcus JL et al. JAMA Netw Open. 2020;3:e207954.

2. Breton G et al. Clin Infect Dis. 2004;39:1709-12.

3. Shelburne SA et al. Clin Infect Dis. 2005;40:1049-52.

4. Shelburne SA et al. AIDS. 2005;19:399-406.

5. Muller M et al. Lancet Infect Dis. 2010;10:251-61.

6. Novak RM et al. AIDS. 2012;26:721-30.

7. Zolopa A et al. PLoS One. 2009;4:e5575.

8. Havlir DV et al. N Engl J Med. 2011;365:1482-91.

9. Abdool Karim SS et al. N Engl J Med. 2011;365:1492-501.

10. Blanc FX et al. N Engl J Med. 2011;365:1471-81.

11. Torok ME et al. Clin Infect Dis. 2011;52:1374-83.

12. Boulware DR et al. N Engl J Med. 2014;370:2487-98.

13. Ortega-Larrocea G et al. AIDS. 2005;19:735-8.

14. Beardsley J et al. N Engl J Med. 2016;374:542-54.

15. Gill PS, Loureiro C et al.  Ann Intern Med. 1989;110:937-40.

16. Elliott AM et al. J Infect Dis. 2004;190:869-78.

17. Volkow PF et al. AIDS. 2008;22:663-5.

Over the past 25 years, antiretroviral therapy (ART) has led to a dramatic decrease in HIV-associated morbidity and mortality. Patients who initiate ART today can now expect a nearly normal life expectancy.¹ Despite the overwhelming benefits of ART, some patients experience immune reconstitution inflammatory syndrome (IRIS), a disease- or pathogen-specific immune response that can mimic the presentation of an active opportunistic infection (OI). IRIS can occur at any CD4 count. However, it is most often associated with the rapid increase in CD4 count and decrease in viral load that typically follows ART initiation in patients who are severely immunocompromised and have high viral loads.^2-6

IRIS manifests in two primary ways. Paradoxical IRIS refers to the worsening of a previously diagnosed disease after ART initiation, whereas unmasking IRIS refers to the appearance of a previously undiagnosed disease following ART initiation.

The Medical Care Criteria Committee of the New York State Department of Health AIDS Institute Clinical Guidelines Program recently published an update to its guideline, Management of IRIS . This update incorporates recent data and summarizes how to identify and manage IRIS associated with several OIs. Important goals of this update were to raise awareness among healthcare providers about IRIS, including its clinical presentation, and provide treatment recommendations.
 

For most patients, ART should be started quickly

Over the past few years, rapid initiation of ART has become the new standard of care, with same-day initiation on the day of HIV diagnosis recommended whenever possible. For many years, however, the presence of an active OI was felt to justify delaying ART initiation until the OI was completely treated. This approach changed in 2009 when a randomized trial by the AIDS Clinical Trials Group demonstrated that patients who initiated ART within 2 weeks of OI diagnosis did not experience more adverse events than those who waited.⁷ Moreover, although the finding did not reach statistical significance, participants in the early ART arm appeared to experience lower mortality and progression of AIDS than those in the delayed ART arm. Therefore, patients diagnosed with most OIs can start ART as soon as they are tolerating the treatment for the OI.

Some OIs do require a delay in ART

Symptoms associated with IRIS are typically mild or moderate; life-threatening complications are rare. Most patients newly diagnosed with HIV who have an active OI can therefore initiate ART quickly. However, IRIS involving the central nervous system or eye carries a much greater risk of morbidity and mortality. OIs that do warrant a delay in ART initiation, therefore, include tuberculosis (TB) meningitis, cryptococcal meningitis, and cytomegalovirus (CMV) retinitis.

Several randomized clinical trials have found that in patients with HIV and pulmonary TB coinfection, ART should be started as soon as the patient is tolerating anti-TB therapy.^8-10 What’s more, in patients with CD4 counts less than 50 cells/microL, there is a mortality benefit when ART is initiated within 2 weeks of starting TB treatment, compared with waiting 8 weeks.

For TB meningitis, however, a clinical trial conducted in Vietnam did not show any mortality benefit when ART was started within 7 days (vs. 2 months); however, severe adverse events were more common in the immediate ART group, raising the concern that patients in that group had experienced complications of IRIS of the central nervous system.¹¹ Limited data are available to guide specific timing of ART in patients with TB meningitis, but based on the results of this trial, most clinicians wait approximately 2 months before initiating ART, and consultation with an expert is recommended.

Optimal timing of ART in patients with cryptococcal meningitis is also uncertain, and there have been contradictory results from several small studies. However, in 2014, the larger COAT trial, conducted in Uganda and South Africa, found 15% higher mortality in patients who initiated ART within 2 weeks, compared with more than 5 weeks.¹² Although exactly how long to wait is still unknown, ART should be delayed by at least 2 weeks after a patient starts antifungal therapy.

CMV-IRIS can have devastating effects, including vision loss or blindness. Therefore, ART initiation should be delayed in patients with diagnosed or strongly suspected CMV.¹³ Importantly, however, patients with advanced HIV may have asymptomatic or subclinical CMV retinitis. As a result, all patients with HIV who have CD4 counts less than 100 cells/mm³ who do not have known or strongly suspected CMV should be screened for signs of CMV by dilated ophthalmological examination as soon as possible after initiation of ART. If signs of CMV are seen on dilated exam, clinicians should consult with an experienced HIV care provider to determine if ART must be temporarily paused.
 

Diagnosing IRIS

Broadly, IRIS presents as a clinical deterioration after ART initiation, with localized tissue inflammation, with or without a systemic inflammatory response, but the presentation of IRIS varies depending on the underlying OI or illness. In most cases, IRIS occurs within 4-8 weeks of ART initiation or regimen change. A rise in CD4 count often but does not always precede IRIS and is not a diagnostic criterion. There is no diagnostic test for IRIS, and when assessing a patient for possible IRIS, clinicians should exclude HIV disease progression, new infections, OI drug resistance, OI treatment nonadherence, and drug reactions as possible causes for inflammatory signs or symptoms.

Treatment of IRIS

Most cases of IRIS are mild, and patients can be reassured that the symptoms will resolve with time. Clinicians should interrupt ART only if a patient has a severe, life-threatening case of IRIS. Unnecessary ART interruption may increase a patient’s risk of new opportunistic infections, recurring IRIS upon resumption of ART, and development of HIV-drug resistance. Any newly unmasked OIs should be treated promptly while ART is continued. For patients with severe IRIS, clinicians can use prednisone to treat inflammatory symptoms – generally for 1-2 weeks, followed by a taper as needed. Prednisone, however, should not be used in patients with cryptococcal meningitis or Kaposi sarcoma as it is associated with worse outcomes.^14-17

In patients newly diagnosed with HIV, prompt initiation of ART is, with the exceptions outlined above, the highest priority. IRIS is an unfortunate complication of ART, and patients may be discouraged when they find themselves feeling worse shortly after starting treatment. While providing supportive and symptomatic care, clinicians can reassure patients by explaining that immune reconstitution is, in fact, the goal of ART and that their symptoms do not represent the progression of HIV disease. It is hoped that with more frequent HIV testing, earlier diagnosis, and earlier ART initiation at higher CD4 counts, IRIS will become a less frequent nuisance to patients and providers. 

Dr. Brust is in the department of medicine at Albert Einstein College of Medicine/Montefiore Medical Center, New York. He reported having no relevant financial relationships. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

References

1. Marcus JL et al. JAMA Netw Open. 2020;3:e207954.

2. Breton G et al. Clin Infect Dis. 2004;39:1709-12.

3. Shelburne SA et al. Clin Infect Dis. 2005;40:1049-52.

4. Shelburne SA et al. AIDS. 2005;19:399-406.

5. Muller M et al. Lancet Infect Dis. 2010;10:251-61.

6. Novak RM et al. AIDS. 2012;26:721-30.

7. Zolopa A et al. PLoS One. 2009;4:e5575.

8. Havlir DV et al. N Engl J Med. 2011;365:1482-91.

9. Abdool Karim SS et al. N Engl J Med. 2011;365:1492-501.

10. Blanc FX et al. N Engl J Med. 2011;365:1471-81.

11. Torok ME et al. Clin Infect Dis. 2011;52:1374-83.

12. Boulware DR et al. N Engl J Med. 2014;370:2487-98.

13. Ortega-Larrocea G et al. AIDS. 2005;19:735-8.

14. Beardsley J et al. N Engl J Med. 2016;374:542-54.

15. Gill PS, Loureiro C et al.  Ann Intern Med. 1989;110:937-40.

16. Elliott AM et al. J Infect Dis. 2004;190:869-78.

17. Volkow PF et al. AIDS. 2008;22:663-5.

Over the past 25 years, antiretroviral therapy (ART) has led to a dramatic decrease in HIV-associated morbidity and mortality. Patients who initiate ART today can now expect a nearly normal life expectancy.¹ Despite the overwhelming benefits of ART, some patients experience immune reconstitution inflammatory syndrome (IRIS), a disease- or pathogen-specific immune response that can mimic the presentation of an active opportunistic infection (OI). IRIS can occur at any CD4 count. However, it is most often associated with the rapid increase in CD4 count and decrease in viral load that typically follows ART initiation in patients who are severely immunocompromised and have high viral loads.^2-6

IRIS manifests in two primary ways. Paradoxical IRIS refers to the worsening of a previously diagnosed disease after ART initiation, whereas unmasking IRIS refers to the appearance of a previously undiagnosed disease following ART initiation.

The Medical Care Criteria Committee of the New York State Department of Health AIDS Institute Clinical Guidelines Program recently published an update to its guideline, Management of IRIS . This update incorporates recent data and summarizes how to identify and manage IRIS associated with several OIs. Important goals of this update were to raise awareness among healthcare providers about IRIS, including its clinical presentation, and provide treatment recommendations.
 

For most patients, ART should be started quickly

Over the past few years, rapid initiation of ART has become the new standard of care, with same-day initiation on the day of HIV diagnosis recommended whenever possible. For many years, however, the presence of an active OI was felt to justify delaying ART initiation until the OI was completely treated. This approach changed in 2009 when a randomized trial by the AIDS Clinical Trials Group demonstrated that patients who initiated ART within 2 weeks of OI diagnosis did not experience more adverse events than those who waited.⁷ Moreover, although the finding did not reach statistical significance, participants in the early ART arm appeared to experience lower mortality and progression of AIDS than those in the delayed ART arm. Therefore, patients diagnosed with most OIs can start ART as soon as they are tolerating the treatment for the OI.

Some OIs do require a delay in ART

Symptoms associated with IRIS are typically mild or moderate; life-threatening complications are rare. Most patients newly diagnosed with HIV who have an active OI can therefore initiate ART quickly. However, IRIS involving the central nervous system or eye carries a much greater risk of morbidity and mortality. OIs that do warrant a delay in ART initiation, therefore, include tuberculosis (TB) meningitis, cryptococcal meningitis, and cytomegalovirus (CMV) retinitis.

Several randomized clinical trials have found that in patients with HIV and pulmonary TB coinfection, ART should be started as soon as the patient is tolerating anti-TB therapy.^8-10 What’s more, in patients with CD4 counts less than 50 cells/microL, there is a mortality benefit when ART is initiated within 2 weeks of starting TB treatment, compared with waiting 8 weeks.

For TB meningitis, however, a clinical trial conducted in Vietnam did not show any mortality benefit when ART was started within 7 days (vs. 2 months); however, severe adverse events were more common in the immediate ART group, raising the concern that patients in that group had experienced complications of IRIS of the central nervous system.¹¹ Limited data are available to guide specific timing of ART in patients with TB meningitis, but based on the results of this trial, most clinicians wait approximately 2 months before initiating ART, and consultation with an expert is recommended.

Optimal timing of ART in patients with cryptococcal meningitis is also uncertain, and there have been contradictory results from several small studies. However, in 2014, the larger COAT trial, conducted in Uganda and South Africa, found 15% higher mortality in patients who initiated ART within 2 weeks, compared with more than 5 weeks.¹² Although exactly how long to wait is still unknown, ART should be delayed by at least 2 weeks after a patient starts antifungal therapy.

CMV-IRIS can have devastating effects, including vision loss or blindness. Therefore, ART initiation should be delayed in patients with diagnosed or strongly suspected CMV.¹³ Importantly, however, patients with advanced HIV may have asymptomatic or subclinical CMV retinitis. As a result, all patients with HIV who have CD4 counts less than 100 cells/mm³ who do not have known or strongly suspected CMV should be screened for signs of CMV by dilated ophthalmological examination as soon as possible after initiation of ART. If signs of CMV are seen on dilated exam, clinicians should consult with an experienced HIV care provider to determine if ART must be temporarily paused.
 

Diagnosing IRIS

Broadly, IRIS presents as a clinical deterioration after ART initiation, with localized tissue inflammation, with or without a systemic inflammatory response, but the presentation of IRIS varies depending on the underlying OI or illness. In most cases, IRIS occurs within 4-8 weeks of ART initiation or regimen change. A rise in CD4 count often but does not always precede IRIS and is not a diagnostic criterion. There is no diagnostic test for IRIS, and when assessing a patient for possible IRIS, clinicians should exclude HIV disease progression, new infections, OI drug resistance, OI treatment nonadherence, and drug reactions as possible causes for inflammatory signs or symptoms.

Treatment of IRIS

Most cases of IRIS are mild, and patients can be reassured that the symptoms will resolve with time. Clinicians should interrupt ART only if a patient has a severe, life-threatening case of IRIS. Unnecessary ART interruption may increase a patient’s risk of new opportunistic infections, recurring IRIS upon resumption of ART, and development of HIV-drug resistance. Any newly unmasked OIs should be treated promptly while ART is continued. For patients with severe IRIS, clinicians can use prednisone to treat inflammatory symptoms – generally for 1-2 weeks, followed by a taper as needed. Prednisone, however, should not be used in patients with cryptococcal meningitis or Kaposi sarcoma as it is associated with worse outcomes.^14-17

In patients newly diagnosed with HIV, prompt initiation of ART is, with the exceptions outlined above, the highest priority. IRIS is an unfortunate complication of ART, and patients may be discouraged when they find themselves feeling worse shortly after starting treatment. While providing supportive and symptomatic care, clinicians can reassure patients by explaining that immune reconstitution is, in fact, the goal of ART and that their symptoms do not represent the progression of HIV disease. It is hoped that with more frequent HIV testing, earlier diagnosis, and earlier ART initiation at higher CD4 counts, IRIS will become a less frequent nuisance to patients and providers. 

Dr. Brust is in the department of medicine at Albert Einstein College of Medicine/Montefiore Medical Center, New York. He reported having no relevant financial relationships. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

References

1. Marcus JL et al. JAMA Netw Open. 2020;3:e207954.

2. Breton G et al. Clin Infect Dis. 2004;39:1709-12.

3. Shelburne SA et al. Clin Infect Dis. 2005;40:1049-52.

4. Shelburne SA et al. AIDS. 2005;19:399-406.

5. Muller M et al. Lancet Infect Dis. 2010;10:251-61.

6. Novak RM et al. AIDS. 2012;26:721-30.

7. Zolopa A et al. PLoS One. 2009;4:e5575.

8. Havlir DV et al. N Engl J Med. 2011;365:1482-91.

9. Abdool Karim SS et al. N Engl J Med. 2011;365:1492-501.

10. Blanc FX et al. N Engl J Med. 2011;365:1471-81.

11. Torok ME et al. Clin Infect Dis. 2011;52:1374-83.

12. Boulware DR et al. N Engl J Med. 2014;370:2487-98.

13. Ortega-Larrocea G et al. AIDS. 2005;19:735-8.

14. Beardsley J et al. N Engl J Med. 2016;374:542-54.

15. Gill PS, Loureiro C et al.  Ann Intern Med. 1989;110:937-40.

16. Elliott AM et al. J Infect Dis. 2004;190:869-78.

17. Volkow PF et al. AIDS. 2008;22:663-5.

Younger children may be vulnerable to the reemergence of common respiratory viruses such as influenza and respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) as COVID-19 restrictions wane, experts say. The impact could be detrimental.

The COVID-19 pandemic and the implementation of preventative measures such as social distancing, travel restrictions, mask use, and shelter in place, reduced the transmission of respiratory viruses, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. However, because older infants and toddlers have not been exposed to these bugs during the pandemic, they are vulnerable to suffering severe viral infections.

“[We’ve] been in the honeymoon for 18 months,” said Christopher J. Harrison, MD, professor of pediatrics and pediatric infectious diseases at Children’s Mercy Hospitals and Clinics in Kansas City, Mo. “We are going to be coming out of the honeymoon and the children who didn’t get sick are going to start packing 2 years’ worth of infections into the next 9 months so there’s going to be twice as many as would be normal.”

The CDC issued a health advisory in June for parts of the southern United States, such as Texas, the Carolinas, and Oklahoma, encouraging broader testing for RSV – a virus that usually causes mild, cold-like symptoms and is the most common cause of bronchiolitis and pneumonia in children – among those who test negative for COVID-19. Virtually all children get an RSV infection by the time they are 2 years old, according to the CDC.

In previous years, RSV usually spread during the fall and spring seasons and usually peaked late December to mid-February. However, there’s been an offseason spike in the common illness this year, with nearly 2,000 confirmed cases each week of July.

Richard J. Webby, PhD, of the infectious diseases department at St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital, Memphis, Tenn., said that although RSV transmits more easily during the winter, the virus is able to thrive during this summer because many children have limited immunity and are more vulnerable to catching the virus than before. Population immunity normally limits a virus to circulating under its most favorable conditions, which is usually the winter. However, because there are a few more “susceptible hosts,” it gives the virus the ability to spread during a time when it typically wouldn’t be able to.

“Now we have a wider range of susceptible kids because they haven’t had that exposure over the past 18 months,” said Dr. Webby, who is on the World Health Organization’s Influenza Vaccine Composition Advisory Team. “It gives the virus more chances to transmit during conditions that are less favorable.”

Dr. Harrison said that, if children continue to take preventative measures such as wearing masks and sanitizing, they can delay catching the RSV – which can be severe in infants and young children – until they’re older and symptoms won’t be as severe.

“The swelling that these viruses cause in the trachea and the bronchial tubes is much bigger in proportion to the overall size of the tubes, so it takes less swelling to clog up the trachea or bronchial tube for the 9-month-old than it does of a 9-year-old,” Dr. Harrison said. “So if a 9-year-old was to get RSV, they’re not going to have nearly the same amount symptoms as the 9-month-old.

Dr. Harrison said delaying RSV in children was never an option before because it’s a virus that’s almost impossible to avoid.

“Hopefully, the mask means that if you get exposed, instead of getting a million virus particles from your classmate or your playmate, you may only get a couple thousand,” Dr. Harrison explained. “And maybe that’s enough that you can fight it off or it may be small enough that you get a mild infection instead of a severe infection.”

A summer surge of RSV has also occurred in Australia. A study published in Clinical Infectious Diseases found that Western Australia saw a 98% reduction in RSV cases. This suggests that COVID-19 restrictions also delayed the RSV season.

Dr. Webby said the lax in penetrative measures against COVID-19 may also affect this upcoming flu season. Usually, around 10%-30% of the population gets infected with the flu each year, but that hasn’t happened the past couple of seasons, he said.

“There might be slightly less overall immunity to these viruses,” Dr. Webby said. “When these viruses do come back, there’s a little bit more room for them to take off.”

Although a severe influenza season rebound this winter is a possibility, Australia continues to experience a historically low flu season. Dr. Harrison, who said the northern hemisphere looks at what’s happening in Australia and the rest of the “southern half of the world because their influenza season is during our summer,” hopes this is an indication that the northern hemisphere will also experience a mild season.

However, there’s no indication of how this upcoming flu season will hit the United States and there isn’t any guidance on what could happen because these historically low levels of respiratory viruses have never happened before, Dr. Webby explained.

He said that, if COVID-19’s delta variant continues to circulate during the fall and winter seasons, it will keep other viruses at low levels. This is because there is rarely a peak of activity of different viruses at the same time.

“When you get infected with the virus, your body’s immune response has this nonspecific reaction that protects you from anything else for a short period of time,” Dr. Webby explained. “When you get a lot of one virus circulating, it’s really hard for these other viruses to get into that population and sort of set off an epidemic of their own.”

To prepare for an unsure influenza season, Dr. Harrison suggests making the influenza vaccine available in August as opposed to October.

Dr. Harrison and Dr. Webby reported no conflicts of interest.

Younger children may be vulnerable to the reemergence of common respiratory viruses such as influenza and respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) as COVID-19 restrictions wane, experts say. The impact could be detrimental.

The COVID-19 pandemic and the implementation of preventative measures such as social distancing, travel restrictions, mask use, and shelter in place, reduced the transmission of respiratory viruses, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. However, because older infants and toddlers have not been exposed to these bugs during the pandemic, they are vulnerable to suffering severe viral infections.

“[We’ve] been in the honeymoon for 18 months,” said Christopher J. Harrison, MD, professor of pediatrics and pediatric infectious diseases at Children’s Mercy Hospitals and Clinics in Kansas City, Mo. “We are going to be coming out of the honeymoon and the children who didn’t get sick are going to start packing 2 years’ worth of infections into the next 9 months so there’s going to be twice as many as would be normal.”

The CDC issued a health advisory in June for parts of the southern United States, such as Texas, the Carolinas, and Oklahoma, encouraging broader testing for RSV – a virus that usually causes mild, cold-like symptoms and is the most common cause of bronchiolitis and pneumonia in children – among those who test negative for COVID-19. Virtually all children get an RSV infection by the time they are 2 years old, according to the CDC.

In previous years, RSV usually spread during the fall and spring seasons and usually peaked late December to mid-February. However, there’s been an offseason spike in the common illness this year, with nearly 2,000 confirmed cases each week of July.

Richard J. Webby, PhD, of the infectious diseases department at St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital, Memphis, Tenn., said that although RSV transmits more easily during the winter, the virus is able to thrive during this summer because many children have limited immunity and are more vulnerable to catching the virus than before. Population immunity normally limits a virus to circulating under its most favorable conditions, which is usually the winter. However, because there are a few more “susceptible hosts,” it gives the virus the ability to spread during a time when it typically wouldn’t be able to.

“Now we have a wider range of susceptible kids because they haven’t had that exposure over the past 18 months,” said Dr. Webby, who is on the World Health Organization’s Influenza Vaccine Composition Advisory Team. “It gives the virus more chances to transmit during conditions that are less favorable.”

Dr. Harrison said that, if children continue to take preventative measures such as wearing masks and sanitizing, they can delay catching the RSV – which can be severe in infants and young children – until they’re older and symptoms won’t be as severe.

“The swelling that these viruses cause in the trachea and the bronchial tubes is much bigger in proportion to the overall size of the tubes, so it takes less swelling to clog up the trachea or bronchial tube for the 9-month-old than it does of a 9-year-old,” Dr. Harrison said. “So if a 9-year-old was to get RSV, they’re not going to have nearly the same amount symptoms as the 9-month-old.

Dr. Harrison said delaying RSV in children was never an option before because it’s a virus that’s almost impossible to avoid.

“Hopefully, the mask means that if you get exposed, instead of getting a million virus particles from your classmate or your playmate, you may only get a couple thousand,” Dr. Harrison explained. “And maybe that’s enough that you can fight it off or it may be small enough that you get a mild infection instead of a severe infection.”

A summer surge of RSV has also occurred in Australia. A study published in Clinical Infectious Diseases found that Western Australia saw a 98% reduction in RSV cases. This suggests that COVID-19 restrictions also delayed the RSV season.

Dr. Webby said the lax in penetrative measures against COVID-19 may also affect this upcoming flu season. Usually, around 10%-30% of the population gets infected with the flu each year, but that hasn’t happened the past couple of seasons, he said.

“There might be slightly less overall immunity to these viruses,” Dr. Webby said. “When these viruses do come back, there’s a little bit more room for them to take off.”

Although a severe influenza season rebound this winter is a possibility, Australia continues to experience a historically low flu season. Dr. Harrison, who said the northern hemisphere looks at what’s happening in Australia and the rest of the “southern half of the world because their influenza season is during our summer,” hopes this is an indication that the northern hemisphere will also experience a mild season.

However, there’s no indication of how this upcoming flu season will hit the United States and there isn’t any guidance on what could happen because these historically low levels of respiratory viruses have never happened before, Dr. Webby explained.

He said that, if COVID-19’s delta variant continues to circulate during the fall and winter seasons, it will keep other viruses at low levels. This is because there is rarely a peak of activity of different viruses at the same time.

“When you get infected with the virus, your body’s immune response has this nonspecific reaction that protects you from anything else for a short period of time,” Dr. Webby explained. “When you get a lot of one virus circulating, it’s really hard for these other viruses to get into that population and sort of set off an epidemic of their own.”

To prepare for an unsure influenza season, Dr. Harrison suggests making the influenza vaccine available in August as opposed to October.

Dr. Harrison and Dr. Webby reported no conflicts of interest.

Younger children may be vulnerable to the reemergence of common respiratory viruses such as influenza and respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) as COVID-19 restrictions wane, experts say. The impact could be detrimental.

The COVID-19 pandemic and the implementation of preventative measures such as social distancing, travel restrictions, mask use, and shelter in place, reduced the transmission of respiratory viruses, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. However, because older infants and toddlers have not been exposed to these bugs during the pandemic, they are vulnerable to suffering severe viral infections.

“[We’ve] been in the honeymoon for 18 months,” said Christopher J. Harrison, MD, professor of pediatrics and pediatric infectious diseases at Children’s Mercy Hospitals and Clinics in Kansas City, Mo. “We are going to be coming out of the honeymoon and the children who didn’t get sick are going to start packing 2 years’ worth of infections into the next 9 months so there’s going to be twice as many as would be normal.”

The CDC issued a health advisory in June for parts of the southern United States, such as Texas, the Carolinas, and Oklahoma, encouraging broader testing for RSV – a virus that usually causes mild, cold-like symptoms and is the most common cause of bronchiolitis and pneumonia in children – among those who test negative for COVID-19. Virtually all children get an RSV infection by the time they are 2 years old, according to the CDC.

In previous years, RSV usually spread during the fall and spring seasons and usually peaked late December to mid-February. However, there’s been an offseason spike in the common illness this year, with nearly 2,000 confirmed cases each week of July.

Richard J. Webby, PhD, of the infectious diseases department at St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital, Memphis, Tenn., said that although RSV transmits more easily during the winter, the virus is able to thrive during this summer because many children have limited immunity and are more vulnerable to catching the virus than before. Population immunity normally limits a virus to circulating under its most favorable conditions, which is usually the winter. However, because there are a few more “susceptible hosts,” it gives the virus the ability to spread during a time when it typically wouldn’t be able to.

“Now we have a wider range of susceptible kids because they haven’t had that exposure over the past 18 months,” said Dr. Webby, who is on the World Health Organization’s Influenza Vaccine Composition Advisory Team. “It gives the virus more chances to transmit during conditions that are less favorable.”

Dr. Harrison said that, if children continue to take preventative measures such as wearing masks and sanitizing, they can delay catching the RSV – which can be severe in infants and young children – until they’re older and symptoms won’t be as severe.

“The swelling that these viruses cause in the trachea and the bronchial tubes is much bigger in proportion to the overall size of the tubes, so it takes less swelling to clog up the trachea or bronchial tube for the 9-month-old than it does of a 9-year-old,” Dr. Harrison said. “So if a 9-year-old was to get RSV, they’re not going to have nearly the same amount symptoms as the 9-month-old.

Dr. Harrison said delaying RSV in children was never an option before because it’s a virus that’s almost impossible to avoid.

“Hopefully, the mask means that if you get exposed, instead of getting a million virus particles from your classmate or your playmate, you may only get a couple thousand,” Dr. Harrison explained. “And maybe that’s enough that you can fight it off or it may be small enough that you get a mild infection instead of a severe infection.”

A summer surge of RSV has also occurred in Australia. A study published in Clinical Infectious Diseases found that Western Australia saw a 98% reduction in RSV cases. This suggests that COVID-19 restrictions also delayed the RSV season.

Dr. Webby said the lax in penetrative measures against COVID-19 may also affect this upcoming flu season. Usually, around 10%-30% of the population gets infected with the flu each year, but that hasn’t happened the past couple of seasons, he said.

“There might be slightly less overall immunity to these viruses,” Dr. Webby said. “When these viruses do come back, there’s a little bit more room for them to take off.”

Although a severe influenza season rebound this winter is a possibility, Australia continues to experience a historically low flu season. Dr. Harrison, who said the northern hemisphere looks at what’s happening in Australia and the rest of the “southern half of the world because their influenza season is during our summer,” hopes this is an indication that the northern hemisphere will also experience a mild season.

However, there’s no indication of how this upcoming flu season will hit the United States and there isn’t any guidance on what could happen because these historically low levels of respiratory viruses have never happened before, Dr. Webby explained.

He said that, if COVID-19’s delta variant continues to circulate during the fall and winter seasons, it will keep other viruses at low levels. This is because there is rarely a peak of activity of different viruses at the same time.

“When you get infected with the virus, your body’s immune response has this nonspecific reaction that protects you from anything else for a short period of time,” Dr. Webby explained. “When you get a lot of one virus circulating, it’s really hard for these other viruses to get into that population and sort of set off an epidemic of their own.”

To prepare for an unsure influenza season, Dr. Harrison suggests making the influenza vaccine available in August as opposed to October.

Dr. Harrison and Dr. Webby reported no conflicts of interest.

The COVID-19 pandemic has overwhelmed health care facilities and health care providers (HCPs) due to the limited resources available to treat a rapidly expanding patient population. Health care providers have been required to work long hours and put themselves at increased risk of infection by coming into frequent contact with infected patients. In addition to the risk of becoming infected with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2, HCPs might be required to wear personal protective equipment (PPE) for the entirety of the workday, which can cause a variety of adverse effects.

During the COVID-19 pandemic, there has been an increase in reported cases of facial acne, pressure injury, urticaria, allergic contact dermatitis (ACD), irritant contact dermatitis (ICD), and exacerbation of underlying cutaneous conditions among health care workers.^1-4 This increase in dermatologic disorders among HCPs has been associated with the increased utilization of and duration of exposure to PPE—particularly N95 respirator masks and surgical masks.^5-7 Most studies of these reactions have attributed them to local pressure, friction, hyperhydration, elevated pH, and occlusion caused by prolonged wearing of the masks, resulting ultimately in acne and other rashes^8-10; however, a few studies have suggested that formaldehyde is a potential culprit underlying the increase in skin reactions to face masks.^11-14

Formaldehyde is a known skin irritant and has been found to cause ACD and ICD from exposure to textiles and cosmetics treated with this chemical.^15-18 Both N95 and surgical masks previously have been found to contain sufficient levels of formaldehyde or formaldehyde-releasing resins (FRRs) to induce ACD or ICD in susceptible people.^12-14 In this article, we focus on the role of formaldehyde in N95 masks as a potential cause of ACD and ICD in HCPs who have been wearing PPE during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Formaldehyde: Benefits With Significant Problems

Formaldehyde is nearly ubiquitous in the textile industry because it confers advantageous properties, including resistance to flames, water, and wrinkling.¹⁵ Despite these advantages, it has long been established that consumers can become sensitized to formaldehyde and FRRs in textiles after chronic exposure.^15-18

A study of Australian HCPs found that 5.2% of those tested had ACD in response to formaldehyde, which was attributed to their PPE.¹¹ In a case report of ACD caused by FRRs, Donovan and Skotnicki-Grant¹² suggested that individuals who are sensitive to formaldehyde are vulnerable to reactions that are exacerbated by friction, warmth, moisture, and tight-fitting materials—all of which can occur when wearing an N95 mask. In that report, a formaldehyde-sensitive patient had a strong positive reaction on patch testing to melamine formaldehyde and to a piece of her N95 mask while taking prednisone 8 mg/d, suggesting that some sensitized patients have a strong reaction to their mask even when they are immunosuppressed.¹²

This finding, along with the known formaldehyde content of some N95 masks, suggests that these masks might be a cause of contact dermatitis in some HCPs. Somewhat complicating the situation is that false-negative patch testing can occur in and might contribute to the underdiagnosis of formaldehyde-induced N95 mask facial dermatitis.^12,13 Some HCPs have reported mild respiratory symptoms and eye irritation associated with the use of an N95 mask—symptoms that are consistent with formaldehyde exposure. In some cases, those symptoms have caused discomfort sufficient to prompt HCPs to take leave from work.^13,14

Development of contact dermatitis in response to an N95 mask is not novel; this problem also was observed during the severe acute respiratory syndrome pandemic of the early 2000s.^9,17 Some HCPs noticed onset of skin reactions after they were required to wear an N95 mask in the workplace, which some studies attributed to material in the mask increasing the likelihood of developing an adverse reaction.^2,6,8 The components of N95 masks and the materials from which they are manufactured are listed in the Table.¹⁹

Face Masks, Adverse Reactions, and Formaldehyde

Allergic contact dermatitis and ICD typically are rare responses to wearing facial masks, but the recent COVID-19 pandemic has forced HCPs to wear masks for longer than 6 hours at a time and to reuse a single mask, which has been shown to increase the likelihood of adverse reactions.^1,4,6 Additionally, humid environments, tight-fitting materials, and skin abrasions—all of which can be induced by wearing an N95 mask—have been found to increase the likelihood of formaldehyde-related contact dermatitis by increasing the release of free formaldehyde or by enhancing its penetration into the skin.^6,20,21

Formaldehyde is an ubiquitous chemical agent that is part of indoor and outdoor working and residential environments. Health care professionals have many opportunities to be exposed to formaldehyde, which is a well-known mucous membrane irritant and a primary skin-sensitizing agent associated with both contact dermatitis (type IV hypersensitivity reaction), and an immediate anaphylactic reaction (type I hypersensitivity reaction).^22-25 Exposure to formaldehyde by inhalation has been identified as a potential cause of asthma.^26,27 More studies on the prevalence of formaldehyde-induced hypersensitivity reactions would be beneficial to HCPs for early diagnosis of hypersensitivity, adequate prophylaxis, and occupational risk assessment.

N95 mask dermatitis also heightens the potential for breaches of PPE protocols. The discomfort that HCPs experience in response to adverse skin reactions to masks can cause an increased rate of inappropriate mask-wearing, face-touching during mask adjustment, and removal of the mask in the health care setting.²⁸ These acts of face-touching and PPE adjustment have been shown to increase microbial transmission and to reduce the efficacy of PPE in blocking pathogens.^29,30

Considering the mounting evidence that widespread use of masks effectively prevents viral transmission, it is crucial that all HCPs wear appropriate PPE when treating patients during the COVID-19 pandemic.^31,32 The recent surge in ACD and ICD among HCPs in response to wearing N95 masks creates a need to determine the underlying cause of these dermatoses and find methods of mitigating sensitization of HCPs to the offending agents. The current epidemiology of COVID-19 in the United States suggests that PPE will be necessary for much longer than originally anticipated and will continue to be worn for long hours by HCPs.

Formaldehyde-Free Alternatives?

Some researchers have proposed that using materials that are free of allergens like formaldehyde might be a long-term solution to the development of contact dermatitis.^15,33 Formaldehyde is used in the finishing process of N95 masks for wrinkle and crease resistance and to prevent mildew. It is possible that formaldehyde could be completely removed from the manufacturing process, although no studies on the effects of such alternatives on mask efficacy have been performed.

Formaldehyde-free alternatives that would confer similar properties on textiles have been explored; the most promising alternative to formaldehyde in cross-linking cellulose fibers is polycarboxylic acid in combination with sodium hypophosphite, which can help avoid the adverse health outcomes and environmental impact of formaldehyde.^34-36 Studies of such alternatives in the manufacturing of N95 masks would be needed to establish the efficacy and durability of formaldehyde-free PPE.

Final Thoughts

Additional studies are needed to confirm the presence of formaldehyde in N95 masks and to confirm that the mask material yields a positive patch test in sensitized individuals. The paucity of available studies that quantify formaldehyde or FRR content of N95 and surgical masks makes it difficult to establish an association between the chemical content of masks and the prevalence of mask dermatitis among HCPs; however, available reports of skin reactions, including contact dermatitis, from PPE suggest that formaldehyde sensitivity might be at least part of the problem. As such, we propose that manufacturers of N95 and surgical masks be required to reveal the chemical components of their products so that consumers can make educated purchasing decisions.

The COVID-19 pandemic has overwhelmed health care facilities and health care providers (HCPs) due to the limited resources available to treat a rapidly expanding patient population. Health care providers have been required to work long hours and put themselves at increased risk of infection by coming into frequent contact with infected patients. In addition to the risk of becoming infected with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2, HCPs might be required to wear personal protective equipment (PPE) for the entirety of the workday, which can cause a variety of adverse effects.

During the COVID-19 pandemic, there has been an increase in reported cases of facial acne, pressure injury, urticaria, allergic contact dermatitis (ACD), irritant contact dermatitis (ICD), and exacerbation of underlying cutaneous conditions among health care workers.^1-4 This increase in dermatologic disorders among HCPs has been associated with the increased utilization of and duration of exposure to PPE—particularly N95 respirator masks and surgical masks.^5-7 Most studies of these reactions have attributed them to local pressure, friction, hyperhydration, elevated pH, and occlusion caused by prolonged wearing of the masks, resulting ultimately in acne and other rashes^8-10; however, a few studies have suggested that formaldehyde is a potential culprit underlying the increase in skin reactions to face masks.^11-14

Formaldehyde is a known skin irritant and has been found to cause ACD and ICD from exposure to textiles and cosmetics treated with this chemical.^15-18 Both N95 and surgical masks previously have been found to contain sufficient levels of formaldehyde or formaldehyde-releasing resins (FRRs) to induce ACD or ICD in susceptible people.^12-14 In this article, we focus on the role of formaldehyde in N95 masks as a potential cause of ACD and ICD in HCPs who have been wearing PPE during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Formaldehyde: Benefits With Significant Problems

Formaldehyde is nearly ubiquitous in the textile industry because it confers advantageous properties, including resistance to flames, water, and wrinkling.¹⁵ Despite these advantages, it has long been established that consumers can become sensitized to formaldehyde and FRRs in textiles after chronic exposure.^15-18

A study of Australian HCPs found that 5.2% of those tested had ACD in response to formaldehyde, which was attributed to their PPE.¹¹ In a case report of ACD caused by FRRs, Donovan and Skotnicki-Grant¹² suggested that individuals who are sensitive to formaldehyde are vulnerable to reactions that are exacerbated by friction, warmth, moisture, and tight-fitting materials—all of which can occur when wearing an N95 mask. In that report, a formaldehyde-sensitive patient had a strong positive reaction on patch testing to melamine formaldehyde and to a piece of her N95 mask while taking prednisone 8 mg/d, suggesting that some sensitized patients have a strong reaction to their mask even when they are immunosuppressed.¹²

This finding, along with the known formaldehyde content of some N95 masks, suggests that these masks might be a cause of contact dermatitis in some HCPs. Somewhat complicating the situation is that false-negative patch testing can occur in and might contribute to the underdiagnosis of formaldehyde-induced N95 mask facial dermatitis.^12,13 Some HCPs have reported mild respiratory symptoms and eye irritation associated with the use of an N95 mask—symptoms that are consistent with formaldehyde exposure. In some cases, those symptoms have caused discomfort sufficient to prompt HCPs to take leave from work.^13,14

Development of contact dermatitis in response to an N95 mask is not novel; this problem also was observed during the severe acute respiratory syndrome pandemic of the early 2000s.^9,17 Some HCPs noticed onset of skin reactions after they were required to wear an N95 mask in the workplace, which some studies attributed to material in the mask increasing the likelihood of developing an adverse reaction.^2,6,8 The components of N95 masks and the materials from which they are manufactured are listed in the Table.¹⁹

Face Masks, Adverse Reactions, and Formaldehyde

Allergic contact dermatitis and ICD typically are rare responses to wearing facial masks, but the recent COVID-19 pandemic has forced HCPs to wear masks for longer than 6 hours at a time and to reuse a single mask, which has been shown to increase the likelihood of adverse reactions.^1,4,6 Additionally, humid environments, tight-fitting materials, and skin abrasions—all of which can be induced by wearing an N95 mask—have been found to increase the likelihood of formaldehyde-related contact dermatitis by increasing the release of free formaldehyde or by enhancing its penetration into the skin.^6,20,21

Formaldehyde is an ubiquitous chemical agent that is part of indoor and outdoor working and residential environments. Health care professionals have many opportunities to be exposed to formaldehyde, which is a well-known mucous membrane irritant and a primary skin-sensitizing agent associated with both contact dermatitis (type IV hypersensitivity reaction), and an immediate anaphylactic reaction (type I hypersensitivity reaction).^22-25 Exposure to formaldehyde by inhalation has been identified as a potential cause of asthma.^26,27 More studies on the prevalence of formaldehyde-induced hypersensitivity reactions would be beneficial to HCPs for early diagnosis of hypersensitivity, adequate prophylaxis, and occupational risk assessment.

N95 mask dermatitis also heightens the potential for breaches of PPE protocols. The discomfort that HCPs experience in response to adverse skin reactions to masks can cause an increased rate of inappropriate mask-wearing, face-touching during mask adjustment, and removal of the mask in the health care setting.²⁸ These acts of face-touching and PPE adjustment have been shown to increase microbial transmission and to reduce the efficacy of PPE in blocking pathogens.^29,30

Considering the mounting evidence that widespread use of masks effectively prevents viral transmission, it is crucial that all HCPs wear appropriate PPE when treating patients during the COVID-19 pandemic.^31,32 The recent surge in ACD and ICD among HCPs in response to wearing N95 masks creates a need to determine the underlying cause of these dermatoses and find methods of mitigating sensitization of HCPs to the offending agents. The current epidemiology of COVID-19 in the United States suggests that PPE will be necessary for much longer than originally anticipated and will continue to be worn for long hours by HCPs.

Formaldehyde-Free Alternatives?

Some researchers have proposed that using materials that are free of allergens like formaldehyde might be a long-term solution to the development of contact dermatitis.^15,33 Formaldehyde is used in the finishing process of N95 masks for wrinkle and crease resistance and to prevent mildew. It is possible that formaldehyde could be completely removed from the manufacturing process, although no studies on the effects of such alternatives on mask efficacy have been performed.

Formaldehyde-free alternatives that would confer similar properties on textiles have been explored; the most promising alternative to formaldehyde in cross-linking cellulose fibers is polycarboxylic acid in combination with sodium hypophosphite, which can help avoid the adverse health outcomes and environmental impact of formaldehyde.^34-36 Studies of such alternatives in the manufacturing of N95 masks would be needed to establish the efficacy and durability of formaldehyde-free PPE.

Final Thoughts

Additional studies are needed to confirm the presence of formaldehyde in N95 masks and to confirm that the mask material yields a positive patch test in sensitized individuals. The paucity of available studies that quantify formaldehyde or FRR content of N95 and surgical masks makes it difficult to establish an association between the chemical content of masks and the prevalence of mask dermatitis among HCPs; however, available reports of skin reactions, including contact dermatitis, from PPE suggest that formaldehyde sensitivity might be at least part of the problem. As such, we propose that manufacturers of N95 and surgical masks be required to reveal the chemical components of their products so that consumers can make educated purchasing decisions.

The COVID-19 pandemic has overwhelmed health care facilities and health care providers (HCPs) due to the limited resources available to treat a rapidly expanding patient population. Health care providers have been required to work long hours and put themselves at increased risk of infection by coming into frequent contact with infected patients. In addition to the risk of becoming infected with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2, HCPs might be required to wear personal protective equipment (PPE) for the entirety of the workday, which can cause a variety of adverse effects.

During the COVID-19 pandemic, there has been an increase in reported cases of facial acne, pressure injury, urticaria, allergic contact dermatitis (ACD), irritant contact dermatitis (ICD), and exacerbation of underlying cutaneous conditions among health care workers.^1-4 This increase in dermatologic disorders among HCPs has been associated with the increased utilization of and duration of exposure to PPE—particularly N95 respirator masks and surgical masks.^5-7 Most studies of these reactions have attributed them to local pressure, friction, hyperhydration, elevated pH, and occlusion caused by prolonged wearing of the masks, resulting ultimately in acne and other rashes^8-10; however, a few studies have suggested that formaldehyde is a potential culprit underlying the increase in skin reactions to face masks.^11-14

Formaldehyde is a known skin irritant and has been found to cause ACD and ICD from exposure to textiles and cosmetics treated with this chemical.^15-18 Both N95 and surgical masks previously have been found to contain sufficient levels of formaldehyde or formaldehyde-releasing resins (FRRs) to induce ACD or ICD in susceptible people.^12-14 In this article, we focus on the role of formaldehyde in N95 masks as a potential cause of ACD and ICD in HCPs who have been wearing PPE during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Formaldehyde: Benefits With Significant Problems

Formaldehyde is nearly ubiquitous in the textile industry because it confers advantageous properties, including resistance to flames, water, and wrinkling.¹⁵ Despite these advantages, it has long been established that consumers can become sensitized to formaldehyde and FRRs in textiles after chronic exposure.^15-18

A study of Australian HCPs found that 5.2% of those tested had ACD in response to formaldehyde, which was attributed to their PPE.¹¹ In a case report of ACD caused by FRRs, Donovan and Skotnicki-Grant¹² suggested that individuals who are sensitive to formaldehyde are vulnerable to reactions that are exacerbated by friction, warmth, moisture, and tight-fitting materials—all of which can occur when wearing an N95 mask. In that report, a formaldehyde-sensitive patient had a strong positive reaction on patch testing to melamine formaldehyde and to a piece of her N95 mask while taking prednisone 8 mg/d, suggesting that some sensitized patients have a strong reaction to their mask even when they are immunosuppressed.¹²

This finding, along with the known formaldehyde content of some N95 masks, suggests that these masks might be a cause of contact dermatitis in some HCPs. Somewhat complicating the situation is that false-negative patch testing can occur in and might contribute to the underdiagnosis of formaldehyde-induced N95 mask facial dermatitis.^12,13 Some HCPs have reported mild respiratory symptoms and eye irritation associated with the use of an N95 mask—symptoms that are consistent with formaldehyde exposure. In some cases, those symptoms have caused discomfort sufficient to prompt HCPs to take leave from work.^13,14

Development of contact dermatitis in response to an N95 mask is not novel; this problem also was observed during the severe acute respiratory syndrome pandemic of the early 2000s.^9,17 Some HCPs noticed onset of skin reactions after they were required to wear an N95 mask in the workplace, which some studies attributed to material in the mask increasing the likelihood of developing an adverse reaction.^2,6,8 The components of N95 masks and the materials from which they are manufactured are listed in the Table.¹⁹

Face Masks, Adverse Reactions, and Formaldehyde

Allergic contact dermatitis and ICD typically are rare responses to wearing facial masks, but the recent COVID-19 pandemic has forced HCPs to wear masks for longer than 6 hours at a time and to reuse a single mask, which has been shown to increase the likelihood of adverse reactions.^1,4,6 Additionally, humid environments, tight-fitting materials, and skin abrasions—all of which can be induced by wearing an N95 mask—have been found to increase the likelihood of formaldehyde-related contact dermatitis by increasing the release of free formaldehyde or by enhancing its penetration into the skin.^6,20,21

Formaldehyde is an ubiquitous chemical agent that is part of indoor and outdoor working and residential environments. Health care professionals have many opportunities to be exposed to formaldehyde, which is a well-known mucous membrane irritant and a primary skin-sensitizing agent associated with both contact dermatitis (type IV hypersensitivity reaction), and an immediate anaphylactic reaction (type I hypersensitivity reaction).^22-25 Exposure to formaldehyde by inhalation has been identified as a potential cause of asthma.^26,27 More studies on the prevalence of formaldehyde-induced hypersensitivity reactions would be beneficial to HCPs for early diagnosis of hypersensitivity, adequate prophylaxis, and occupational risk assessment.

N95 mask dermatitis also heightens the potential for breaches of PPE protocols. The discomfort that HCPs experience in response to adverse skin reactions to masks can cause an increased rate of inappropriate mask-wearing, face-touching during mask adjustment, and removal of the mask in the health care setting.²⁸ These acts of face-touching and PPE adjustment have been shown to increase microbial transmission and to reduce the efficacy of PPE in blocking pathogens.^29,30

Considering the mounting evidence that widespread use of masks effectively prevents viral transmission, it is crucial that all HCPs wear appropriate PPE when treating patients during the COVID-19 pandemic.^31,32 The recent surge in ACD and ICD among HCPs in response to wearing N95 masks creates a need to determine the underlying cause of these dermatoses and find methods of mitigating sensitization of HCPs to the offending agents. The current epidemiology of COVID-19 in the United States suggests that PPE will be necessary for much longer than originally anticipated and will continue to be worn for long hours by HCPs.

Formaldehyde-Free Alternatives?

Some researchers have proposed that using materials that are free of allergens like formaldehyde might be a long-term solution to the development of contact dermatitis.^15,33 Formaldehyde is used in the finishing process of N95 masks for wrinkle and crease resistance and to prevent mildew. It is possible that formaldehyde could be completely removed from the manufacturing process, although no studies on the effects of such alternatives on mask efficacy have been performed.

Formaldehyde-free alternatives that would confer similar properties on textiles have been explored; the most promising alternative to formaldehyde in cross-linking cellulose fibers is polycarboxylic acid in combination with sodium hypophosphite, which can help avoid the adverse health outcomes and environmental impact of formaldehyde.^34-36 Studies of such alternatives in the manufacturing of N95 masks would be needed to establish the efficacy and durability of formaldehyde-free PPE.

Final Thoughts

Additional studies are needed to confirm the presence of formaldehyde in N95 masks and to confirm that the mask material yields a positive patch test in sensitized individuals. The paucity of available studies that quantify formaldehyde or FRR content of N95 and surgical masks makes it difficult to establish an association between the chemical content of masks and the prevalence of mask dermatitis among HCPs; however, available reports of skin reactions, including contact dermatitis, from PPE suggest that formaldehyde sensitivity might be at least part of the problem. As such, we propose that manufacturers of N95 and surgical masks be required to reveal the chemical components of their products so that consumers can make educated purchasing decisions.

COVID-19 vaccine initiations rose in U.S. children for the second consecutive week, but new pediatric cases jumped by 64% in just 1 week, according to new data.

The new-case count was 38,654 for the week of July 16-22, an increase of 64% over the 23,551 child cases reported during the week of July 9-15, the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Children’s Hospital Association said in their weekly COVID-19 report.

“After decreases in weekly reported cases over the past couple of months, in July we have seen steady increases in cases added to the cumulative total,” the AAP noted. In this latest reversal of COVID fortunes, the steady increase in new cases is in its fourth consecutive week since hitting a low of 8,447 in late June.

As of July 22, the total number of reported cases was over 4.12 million in 49 states, the District of Columbia, New York City, Puerto Rico, and Guam, and there have been 349 deaths in children in the 46 jurisdictions reporting age distributions of COVID-19 deaths, the AAP and CHA said in their report.

Meanwhile, over 9.3 million children received at least one dose of COVID vaccine as of July 26, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Vaccine initiation rose for the second week in a row after falling for several weeks as 301,000 children aged 12-15 years and almost 115,000 children aged 16-17 got their first dose during the week ending July 26. Children aged 12-15 represented 14.1% (up from 13.5% a week before) of all first vaccinations and 16- to 17-year-olds were 5.4% (up from 5.1%) of all vaccine initiators, according to the CDC’s COVID Data Tracker.

Just over 37% of all 12- to 15-year-olds have received at least one dose of the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine since the CDC approved its use for children under age 16 in May, and almost 28% are fully vaccinated. Use in children aged 16-17 started earlier (December 2020), and 48% of that age group have received a first dose and over 39% have completed the vaccine regimen, the CDC said.

[email protected]

COVID-19 vaccine initiations rose in U.S. children for the second consecutive week, but new pediatric cases jumped by 64% in just 1 week, according to new data.

The new-case count was 38,654 for the week of July 16-22, an increase of 64% over the 23,551 child cases reported during the week of July 9-15, the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Children’s Hospital Association said in their weekly COVID-19 report.

“After decreases in weekly reported cases over the past couple of months, in July we have seen steady increases in cases added to the cumulative total,” the AAP noted. In this latest reversal of COVID fortunes, the steady increase in new cases is in its fourth consecutive week since hitting a low of 8,447 in late June.

As of July 22, the total number of reported cases was over 4.12 million in 49 states, the District of Columbia, New York City, Puerto Rico, and Guam, and there have been 349 deaths in children in the 46 jurisdictions reporting age distributions of COVID-19 deaths, the AAP and CHA said in their report.

Meanwhile, over 9.3 million children received at least one dose of COVID vaccine as of July 26, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Vaccine initiation rose for the second week in a row after falling for several weeks as 301,000 children aged 12-15 years and almost 115,000 children aged 16-17 got their first dose during the week ending July 26. Children aged 12-15 represented 14.1% (up from 13.5% a week before) of all first vaccinations and 16- to 17-year-olds were 5.4% (up from 5.1%) of all vaccine initiators, according to the CDC’s COVID Data Tracker.

Just over 37% of all 12- to 15-year-olds have received at least one dose of the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine since the CDC approved its use for children under age 16 in May, and almost 28% are fully vaccinated. Use in children aged 16-17 started earlier (December 2020), and 48% of that age group have received a first dose and over 39% have completed the vaccine regimen, the CDC said.

[email protected]

COVID-19 vaccine initiations rose in U.S. children for the second consecutive week, but new pediatric cases jumped by 64% in just 1 week, according to new data.

The new-case count was 38,654 for the week of July 16-22, an increase of 64% over the 23,551 child cases reported during the week of July 9-15, the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Children’s Hospital Association said in their weekly COVID-19 report.

“After decreases in weekly reported cases over the past couple of months, in July we have seen steady increases in cases added to the cumulative total,” the AAP noted. In this latest reversal of COVID fortunes, the steady increase in new cases is in its fourth consecutive week since hitting a low of 8,447 in late June.

As of July 22, the total number of reported cases was over 4.12 million in 49 states, the District of Columbia, New York City, Puerto Rico, and Guam, and there have been 349 deaths in children in the 46 jurisdictions reporting age distributions of COVID-19 deaths, the AAP and CHA said in their report.

Meanwhile, over 9.3 million children received at least one dose of COVID vaccine as of July 26, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Vaccine initiation rose for the second week in a row after falling for several weeks as 301,000 children aged 12-15 years and almost 115,000 children aged 16-17 got their first dose during the week ending July 26. Children aged 12-15 represented 14.1% (up from 13.5% a week before) of all first vaccinations and 16- to 17-year-olds were 5.4% (up from 5.1%) of all vaccine initiators, according to the CDC’s COVID Data Tracker.

Just over 37% of all 12- to 15-year-olds have received at least one dose of the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine since the CDC approved its use for children under age 16 in May, and almost 28% are fully vaccinated. Use in children aged 16-17 started earlier (December 2020), and 48% of that age group have received a first dose and over 39% have completed the vaccine regimen, the CDC said.

[email protected]

A body mass index (BMI) of at least 30 kg/m², rilpivirine resistance–associated mutations, and the HIV-1 subtype A6/A1 can raise a person’s risk for confirmed virologic failure (CVF) of long-acting cabotegravir (CAB) and rilpivirine (RPV) therapy, new research suggests. A combination of at least two of these factors was necessary to increase risk.

Long-acting CAB/RPV (Cabenuva) is a Food and Drug Administration–approved antiretroviral therapy that is administered intramuscularly on a monthly basis. Although CVF was rare in all three clinical trials of the drug regimen, understanding the factors that may predispose patients to this outcome is necessary, the authors wrote. “This information will help inform clinicians and patients, allowing them to assess the potential benefits and risks of this novel long-acting therapy.” The results were published July 15, 2021, in AIDS.

In the study, researchers pooled the clinical data from the FLAIR, ATLAS, and ATLAS-2M trials for long-acting CAB/RPV. Using these data, they examined whether participant factors such as sex, body weight, resistance mutations, and dosing regimen influenced risk for CVF using a multivariable analysis.

Of the 1,039 participants included in the analysis, 13 (1.3%) experienced CVF; 272 participants (26%) in the study population had at least one of the three risk factors, but no single variable raised risk on its own.

“When we looked at the presence of only one baseline factor, it was no different than having no baseline factors,” Bill Spreen, PharmD, an author of the study, said in an interview. Dr. Spreen is the medicine development leader for cabotegravir at ViiV Healthcare, in Research Triangle Park, N.C. CVF rates for participants with no risk factors and those with only one risk factor were 0.4%.

In comparison, CVF occurred in 9 of the 35 participants (25.7%) who had at least two risk factors, and the 1 participant who had all three risk factors also experienced CVF. The HIV subtype A1/A6, a subtype largely limited to Russia, together with a BMI greater than 30 was the most common combination, occurring in 21 individuals. Ten participants had both RPV resistance mutations and a BMI greater than 30, and only three had HIV subtype A1/A6 and RPV resistance mutations.

“The higher the BMI, typically, the lower the absorption rate of the drug, so it was not surprising to see that come out,” Dr. Spreen said. Previous research has associated subtype A1/A6 with L74I polymorphism, which may lower the barrier to resistance to integrase strand transfer inhibitors such as CAB. In the current study, researchers found that the L74I polymorphism mutation was not associated with CVF, in particular among those individuals with non-A1/A6 subtypes.

Although A1/A6 was the most common risk factor in the study, testing patients for the subtype prior to initiating CAB/RPV is likely unnecessary in the United States, where the subtype is very rare, Susan Swindells, MBBS, an expert in HIV/AIDS therapeutics from the University of Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha, said in an interview. Dr. Swindells was not an author of this study but was involved in all three CAB/RPV clinical trials. The most common risk factors health care professionals will likely encounter are high BMI and resistance mutations.

In cases in which a patient may have both a high BMI and resistance mutations, Dr. Swindells would not recommend starting a CAB/RPV regimen “unless there was a very pressing reason to do it,” as, for example, in rare cases in which a patient can’t take medications orally. “It’s all a question of balancing the risk and benefit.”

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

A body mass index (BMI) of at least 30 kg/m², rilpivirine resistance–associated mutations, and the HIV-1 subtype A6/A1 can raise a person’s risk for confirmed virologic failure (CVF) of long-acting cabotegravir (CAB) and rilpivirine (RPV) therapy, new research suggests. A combination of at least two of these factors was necessary to increase risk.

Long-acting CAB/RPV (Cabenuva) is a Food and Drug Administration–approved antiretroviral therapy that is administered intramuscularly on a monthly basis. Although CVF was rare in all three clinical trials of the drug regimen, understanding the factors that may predispose patients to this outcome is necessary, the authors wrote. “This information will help inform clinicians and patients, allowing them to assess the potential benefits and risks of this novel long-acting therapy.” The results were published July 15, 2021, in AIDS.

In the study, researchers pooled the clinical data from the FLAIR, ATLAS, and ATLAS-2M trials for long-acting CAB/RPV. Using these data, they examined whether participant factors such as sex, body weight, resistance mutations, and dosing regimen influenced risk for CVF using a multivariable analysis.

Of the 1,039 participants included in the analysis, 13 (1.3%) experienced CVF; 272 participants (26%) in the study population had at least one of the three risk factors, but no single variable raised risk on its own.

“When we looked at the presence of only one baseline factor, it was no different than having no baseline factors,” Bill Spreen, PharmD, an author of the study, said in an interview. Dr. Spreen is the medicine development leader for cabotegravir at ViiV Healthcare, in Research Triangle Park, N.C. CVF rates for participants with no risk factors and those with only one risk factor were 0.4%.

In comparison, CVF occurred in 9 of the 35 participants (25.7%) who had at least two risk factors, and the 1 participant who had all three risk factors also experienced CVF. The HIV subtype A1/A6, a subtype largely limited to Russia, together with a BMI greater than 30 was the most common combination, occurring in 21 individuals. Ten participants had both RPV resistance mutations and a BMI greater than 30, and only three had HIV subtype A1/A6 and RPV resistance mutations.

“The higher the BMI, typically, the lower the absorption rate of the drug, so it was not surprising to see that come out,” Dr. Spreen said. Previous research has associated subtype A1/A6 with L74I polymorphism, which may lower the barrier to resistance to integrase strand transfer inhibitors such as CAB. In the current study, researchers found that the L74I polymorphism mutation was not associated with CVF, in particular among those individuals with non-A1/A6 subtypes.

Although A1/A6 was the most common risk factor in the study, testing patients for the subtype prior to initiating CAB/RPV is likely unnecessary in the United States, where the subtype is very rare, Susan Swindells, MBBS, an expert in HIV/AIDS therapeutics from the University of Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha, said in an interview. Dr. Swindells was not an author of this study but was involved in all three CAB/RPV clinical trials. The most common risk factors health care professionals will likely encounter are high BMI and resistance mutations.

In cases in which a patient may have both a high BMI and resistance mutations, Dr. Swindells would not recommend starting a CAB/RPV regimen “unless there was a very pressing reason to do it,” as, for example, in rare cases in which a patient can’t take medications orally. “It’s all a question of balancing the risk and benefit.”

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

A body mass index (BMI) of at least 30 kg/m², rilpivirine resistance–associated mutations, and the HIV-1 subtype A6/A1 can raise a person’s risk for confirmed virologic failure (CVF) of long-acting cabotegravir (CAB) and rilpivirine (RPV) therapy, new research suggests. A combination of at least two of these factors was necessary to increase risk.

Long-acting CAB/RPV (Cabenuva) is a Food and Drug Administration–approved antiretroviral therapy that is administered intramuscularly on a monthly basis. Although CVF was rare in all three clinical trials of the drug regimen, understanding the factors that may predispose patients to this outcome is necessary, the authors wrote. “This information will help inform clinicians and patients, allowing them to assess the potential benefits and risks of this novel long-acting therapy.” The results were published July 15, 2021, in AIDS.

In the study, researchers pooled the clinical data from the FLAIR, ATLAS, and ATLAS-2M trials for long-acting CAB/RPV. Using these data, they examined whether participant factors such as sex, body weight, resistance mutations, and dosing regimen influenced risk for CVF using a multivariable analysis.

Of the 1,039 participants included in the analysis, 13 (1.3%) experienced CVF; 272 participants (26%) in the study population had at least one of the three risk factors, but no single variable raised risk on its own.

“When we looked at the presence of only one baseline factor, it was no different than having no baseline factors,” Bill Spreen, PharmD, an author of the study, said in an interview. Dr. Spreen is the medicine development leader for cabotegravir at ViiV Healthcare, in Research Triangle Park, N.C. CVF rates for participants with no risk factors and those with only one risk factor were 0.4%.

In comparison, CVF occurred in 9 of the 35 participants (25.7%) who had at least two risk factors, and the 1 participant who had all three risk factors also experienced CVF. The HIV subtype A1/A6, a subtype largely limited to Russia, together with a BMI greater than 30 was the most common combination, occurring in 21 individuals. Ten participants had both RPV resistance mutations and a BMI greater than 30, and only three had HIV subtype A1/A6 and RPV resistance mutations.

“The higher the BMI, typically, the lower the absorption rate of the drug, so it was not surprising to see that come out,” Dr. Spreen said. Previous research has associated subtype A1/A6 with L74I polymorphism, which may lower the barrier to resistance to integrase strand transfer inhibitors such as CAB. In the current study, researchers found that the L74I polymorphism mutation was not associated with CVF, in particular among those individuals with non-A1/A6 subtypes.

Although A1/A6 was the most common risk factor in the study, testing patients for the subtype prior to initiating CAB/RPV is likely unnecessary in the United States, where the subtype is very rare, Susan Swindells, MBBS, an expert in HIV/AIDS therapeutics from the University of Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha, said in an interview. Dr. Swindells was not an author of this study but was involved in all three CAB/RPV clinical trials. The most common risk factors health care professionals will likely encounter are high BMI and resistance mutations.

In cases in which a patient may have both a high BMI and resistance mutations, Dr. Swindells would not recommend starting a CAB/RPV regimen “unless there was a very pressing reason to do it,” as, for example, in rare cases in which a patient can’t take medications orally. “It’s all a question of balancing the risk and benefit.”

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