Infectious Diseases

New cases of COVID-19 in children are trending downward again after dropping for a second consecutive week, according to a report from the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Children’s Hospital Association.

Despite that drop, however, children made up a larger share (22.4%) of all cases reported during the week of April 23-29, compared with the previous week, when the proportion reached what was then a pandemic high of 20.8%, based on data in the weekly AAP/CHA report.

New cases totaled 71,649 for the week of April 23-29, down by 10.3% from the week before and by 19.0% over this most recent 2-week decline, but still a ways to go before reaching the low point of the year (52,695) recorded during the second week of March, the report shows.

Since the beginning of the pandemic, just over 3.78 million children have been infected by SARS-CoV-2, which is 13.8% of all cases reported in 49 states (excluding New York), the District of Columbia, New York City, Puerto Rico, and Guam.

The overall rate of COVID-19 has reached 5,026 cases per 100,000 children, or 5% of the total pediatric population, although there is considerable variation among the states regarding age ranges used to define child cases. Most states use a range of 0-17 or 0-19 years, but Florida and Utah use a range of 0-14 years and South Carolina and Tennessee go with 0-20, the AAP and CHA noted.

There is also much variation between the states when it comes to cumulative child COVID-19 rates, with the lowest rate reported in Hawaii (1,264 per 100,000) and the highest in North Dakota (9,416 per 100,000). The lowest proportion of child cases to all cases is found in Florida (8.7%) and the highest in Vermont (22.2%), the AAP and CHA said.

The number of COVID-19–related deaths was 303 as of April 29, up by 7 from the previous week in the 43 states, along with New York City, Puerto Rico, and Guam, that are reporting mortality data by age. The proportion of child deaths to child cases remains at 0.01%, and children represent just 0.06% of all COVID-19 deaths, according to the AAP/CHA report.

[email protected]

New cases of COVID-19 in children are trending downward again after dropping for a second consecutive week, according to a report from the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Children’s Hospital Association.

Despite that drop, however, children made up a larger share (22.4%) of all cases reported during the week of April 23-29, compared with the previous week, when the proportion reached what was then a pandemic high of 20.8%, based on data in the weekly AAP/CHA report.

New cases totaled 71,649 for the week of April 23-29, down by 10.3% from the week before and by 19.0% over this most recent 2-week decline, but still a ways to go before reaching the low point of the year (52,695) recorded during the second week of March, the report shows.

Since the beginning of the pandemic, just over 3.78 million children have been infected by SARS-CoV-2, which is 13.8% of all cases reported in 49 states (excluding New York), the District of Columbia, New York City, Puerto Rico, and Guam.

The overall rate of COVID-19 has reached 5,026 cases per 100,000 children, or 5% of the total pediatric population, although there is considerable variation among the states regarding age ranges used to define child cases. Most states use a range of 0-17 or 0-19 years, but Florida and Utah use a range of 0-14 years and South Carolina and Tennessee go with 0-20, the AAP and CHA noted.

There is also much variation between the states when it comes to cumulative child COVID-19 rates, with the lowest rate reported in Hawaii (1,264 per 100,000) and the highest in North Dakota (9,416 per 100,000). The lowest proportion of child cases to all cases is found in Florida (8.7%) and the highest in Vermont (22.2%), the AAP and CHA said.

The number of COVID-19–related deaths was 303 as of April 29, up by 7 from the previous week in the 43 states, along with New York City, Puerto Rico, and Guam, that are reporting mortality data by age. The proportion of child deaths to child cases remains at 0.01%, and children represent just 0.06% of all COVID-19 deaths, according to the AAP/CHA report.

[email protected]

New cases of COVID-19 in children are trending downward again after dropping for a second consecutive week, according to a report from the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Children’s Hospital Association.

Despite that drop, however, children made up a larger share (22.4%) of all cases reported during the week of April 23-29, compared with the previous week, when the proportion reached what was then a pandemic high of 20.8%, based on data in the weekly AAP/CHA report.

New cases totaled 71,649 for the week of April 23-29, down by 10.3% from the week before and by 19.0% over this most recent 2-week decline, but still a ways to go before reaching the low point of the year (52,695) recorded during the second week of March, the report shows.

Since the beginning of the pandemic, just over 3.78 million children have been infected by SARS-CoV-2, which is 13.8% of all cases reported in 49 states (excluding New York), the District of Columbia, New York City, Puerto Rico, and Guam.

The overall rate of COVID-19 has reached 5,026 cases per 100,000 children, or 5% of the total pediatric population, although there is considerable variation among the states regarding age ranges used to define child cases. Most states use a range of 0-17 or 0-19 years, but Florida and Utah use a range of 0-14 years and South Carolina and Tennessee go with 0-20, the AAP and CHA noted.

There is also much variation between the states when it comes to cumulative child COVID-19 rates, with the lowest rate reported in Hawaii (1,264 per 100,000) and the highest in North Dakota (9,416 per 100,000). The lowest proportion of child cases to all cases is found in Florida (8.7%) and the highest in Vermont (22.2%), the AAP and CHA said.

The number of COVID-19–related deaths was 303 as of April 29, up by 7 from the previous week in the 43 states, along with New York City, Puerto Rico, and Guam, that are reporting mortality data by age. The proportion of child deaths to child cases remains at 0.01%, and children represent just 0.06% of all COVID-19 deaths, according to the AAP/CHA report.

[email protected]

Primary care for LGBTQ+ patients should focus on early identification and management of unique health risks, according to a leading expert.

Patients who are transgender, for instance, are nine times more likely to commit suicide than the general population (2015 U.S. Transgender Survey (USTS). Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research. 2019 May 22. doi: 10.3886/ICPSR37229.v1), and those who are also Black have an estimated HIV prevalence of 62%, demonstrating the cumulative, negative health effects of intersectionality (www.cdc.gov/hiv/group/gender/transgender/hiv-prevalence.html).

“Experiences with marginalization and stigma directly relate to some of the poor physical and mental health outcomes that these patients experience,” Megan McNamara, MD, said during a presentation at the American College of Physicians annual Internal Medicine meeting.

Dr. McNamara, who is director of the Gender Identity Veteran’s Experience (GIVE) Clinic, Veterans Affairs Northeast Ohio Healthcare System, Cleveland, offered a brief guide to managing LGBTQ+ patients. She emphasized increased rates of psychological distress and substance abuse, and encouraged familiarity with specific risks associated with three subgroups: men who have sex with men (MSM), women who have sex with women (WSW), and those who are transgender.

Men who have sex with men

According to Dr. McNamara, preexposure prophylaxis (PrEP) should be offered based on Centers for Disease Control and Prevention eligibility criteria, which require that the patient is HIV negative, has had a male sex partner in the past 6 months, is not in a monogamous relationship, and has had anal sex or a bacterial sexually transmitted infection in the past 6 months. The two PrEP options, emtricitabine/tenofovir disoproxil fumarate and emtricitabine/tenofovir alafenamide, are equally effective and have similar safety profiles, Dr. McNamara said, but patients with impaired renal function should receive the alafenamide formulation.

Dr. McNamara also advised screening gay men for extragenital STIs, noting a 13.3% increased risk. When asked about anal Pap testing for HPV, Dr. McNamara called the subject “very controversial,” and ultimately recommended against it, citing a lack of data linking anal HPV infection and dysplasia with later development of rectal carcinoma, as well as the nonactionable impact of a positive result.

“For me, the issue is ... if [a positive anal Pap test] is not going to change my management, if I don’t know that the anal HPV that I diagnose will result in cancer, should I continue to monitor it?” Dr. McNamara said.

Women who have sex with women

Beyond higher rates of psychological distress and substance abuse among lesbian and bisexual women, Dr. McNamara described increased risks of overweight and obesity, higher rates of smoking, and lower rates of Pap testing, all of which should prompt clinicians to advise accordingly, with cervical cancer screening in alignment with guidelines. Clinicians should also discuss HPV vaccination with patients, taking care to weigh benefits and risks, as “catch-up” HPV vaccination is not unilaterally recommended for adults older than 26 years.

Transgender patients

Discussing transgender patients, Dr. McNamara focused on cross-sex hormone therapy (CSHT), first noting the significant psychological benefits, including improvements in depression, somatization, interpersonal sensitivity, hostility, anxiety, phobic anxiety/agoraphobia, and quality of life.

According to Dr. McNamara, CSHT is relatively simple and may be safely administered by primary care providers. For transmasculine patients, testosterone supplementation is all that is needed, whereas transfeminine patients will require spironolactone or GnRH agonists to reduce testosterone and estradiol to increase feminizing hormones to pubertal levels.

CSHT is not without risks, Dr. McNamara said, including “very high” risks of erythrocytosis among transmasculine patients and venous thromboembolic disease among transfeminine patients; but these risks need to be considered in the context of an approximate 40% suicide rate among transgender individuals.

“I can tell you in my own practice that these [suicide] data ring true,” Dr. McNamara said. “Many, many of my patients have attempted suicide, so [CSHT] is something that you really want to think about right away.”

Even when additional risk factors are present, such as preexisting cardiovascular disease, Dr. McNamara suggested that “there are very few absolute contraindications to CSHT,” and described it as a “life-sustaining treatment” that should be viewed analogously with any other long-term management strategy, such as therapy for diabetes or hypertension.

Fostering a transgender-friendly practice

In an interview, Nicole Nisly, MD, codirector of the LGBTQ+ Clinic at the University of Iowa Hospitals and Clinics, Iowa City, reflected upon Dr. McNamara’s presentation, noting that primary care providers – with a little education – are the best candidates to care for transgender patients.

“I think [primary care providers] do a better job [caring for transgender patients] than endocrinologists, honestly, because they can provide care for the whole person,” Dr. Nisly said. “They can do a Pap, they can do STI screening, they can assess mood, they can [evaluate] safety, and the whole person, as opposed to endocrinologists, who do hormone therapy, but somebody else does everything else.”

Dr. Nisly emphasized the importance of personalizing care for transgender individuals, which depends upon a welcoming practice environment, with careful attention to language.

Foremost, Dr. Nisly recommended asking patients for their preferred name, sexual orientation, and gender identity.

“One of the most difficult things [for transgender patients] is to see notes with the wrong name – the name that makes them feel uncomfortable – or the wrong pronoun,” Dr. Nisly said. “That’s very important to the community.”

Dr. Nisly also recommended an alternative term for cross-sex hormone therapy.

“I hate cross-sex hormone therapy terminology, honestly,” Dr. Nisly said. “I just think it’s so unwelcoming, and I think most of our patients don’t like the terminology, so we use ‘gender-affirming hormone therapy.’”

Dr. Nisly explained that the term “cross-sex” assumes a conventional definition of sex, which is inherently flawed.

When discussing certain medical risk factors, such as pregnancy or HIV, it is helpful to know “sex assigned at birth” for both patients and their sexual partners, Dr. Nisly said. It’s best to ask in this way, instead of using terms like “boyfriend” or “girlfriend,” as “sex assigned at birth” is “terminology the community recognizes, affirms, and feels comfortable with.”

Concerning management of medical risk factors, Dr. Nisly offered some additional perspectives.

For one, she recommended giving PrEP to any patient who has a desire to be on PrEP, noting that this desire can indicate a change in future sexual practices, which the CDC criteria do not anticipate. She also advised in-hospital self-swabbing for extragenital STIs, as this can increase patient comfort and adherence. And, in contrast with Dr. McNamara, Dr. Nisly recommended anal Pap screening for any man that has sex with men and anyone with HIV of any gender. She noted that rates of anal dysplasia are “pretty high” among men who have sex with men, and that detection may reduce cancer risk.

For clinicians who would like to learn more about caring for transgender patients, Dr. Nisly recommended that they start by reading the World Professional Association for Transgender Health guidelines.

“It’s about 300 pages,” Dr. Nisly said, “but it is great.”

Dr. McNamara and Dr. Nisly reported no conflicts of interest.

Primary care for LGBTQ+ patients should focus on early identification and management of unique health risks, according to a leading expert.

Patients who are transgender, for instance, are nine times more likely to commit suicide than the general population (2015 U.S. Transgender Survey (USTS). Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research. 2019 May 22. doi: 10.3886/ICPSR37229.v1), and those who are also Black have an estimated HIV prevalence of 62%, demonstrating the cumulative, negative health effects of intersectionality (www.cdc.gov/hiv/group/gender/transgender/hiv-prevalence.html).

“Experiences with marginalization and stigma directly relate to some of the poor physical and mental health outcomes that these patients experience,” Megan McNamara, MD, said during a presentation at the American College of Physicians annual Internal Medicine meeting.

Dr. McNamara, who is director of the Gender Identity Veteran’s Experience (GIVE) Clinic, Veterans Affairs Northeast Ohio Healthcare System, Cleveland, offered a brief guide to managing LGBTQ+ patients. She emphasized increased rates of psychological distress and substance abuse, and encouraged familiarity with specific risks associated with three subgroups: men who have sex with men (MSM), women who have sex with women (WSW), and those who are transgender.

Men who have sex with men

According to Dr. McNamara, preexposure prophylaxis (PrEP) should be offered based on Centers for Disease Control and Prevention eligibility criteria, which require that the patient is HIV negative, has had a male sex partner in the past 6 months, is not in a monogamous relationship, and has had anal sex or a bacterial sexually transmitted infection in the past 6 months. The two PrEP options, emtricitabine/tenofovir disoproxil fumarate and emtricitabine/tenofovir alafenamide, are equally effective and have similar safety profiles, Dr. McNamara said, but patients with impaired renal function should receive the alafenamide formulation.

Dr. McNamara also advised screening gay men for extragenital STIs, noting a 13.3% increased risk. When asked about anal Pap testing for HPV, Dr. McNamara called the subject “very controversial,” and ultimately recommended against it, citing a lack of data linking anal HPV infection and dysplasia with later development of rectal carcinoma, as well as the nonactionable impact of a positive result.

“For me, the issue is ... if [a positive anal Pap test] is not going to change my management, if I don’t know that the anal HPV that I diagnose will result in cancer, should I continue to monitor it?” Dr. McNamara said.

Women who have sex with women

Beyond higher rates of psychological distress and substance abuse among lesbian and bisexual women, Dr. McNamara described increased risks of overweight and obesity, higher rates of smoking, and lower rates of Pap testing, all of which should prompt clinicians to advise accordingly, with cervical cancer screening in alignment with guidelines. Clinicians should also discuss HPV vaccination with patients, taking care to weigh benefits and risks, as “catch-up” HPV vaccination is not unilaterally recommended for adults older than 26 years.

Transgender patients

Discussing transgender patients, Dr. McNamara focused on cross-sex hormone therapy (CSHT), first noting the significant psychological benefits, including improvements in depression, somatization, interpersonal sensitivity, hostility, anxiety, phobic anxiety/agoraphobia, and quality of life.

According to Dr. McNamara, CSHT is relatively simple and may be safely administered by primary care providers. For transmasculine patients, testosterone supplementation is all that is needed, whereas transfeminine patients will require spironolactone or GnRH agonists to reduce testosterone and estradiol to increase feminizing hormones to pubertal levels.

CSHT is not without risks, Dr. McNamara said, including “very high” risks of erythrocytosis among transmasculine patients and venous thromboembolic disease among transfeminine patients; but these risks need to be considered in the context of an approximate 40% suicide rate among transgender individuals.

“I can tell you in my own practice that these [suicide] data ring true,” Dr. McNamara said. “Many, many of my patients have attempted suicide, so [CSHT] is something that you really want to think about right away.”

Even when additional risk factors are present, such as preexisting cardiovascular disease, Dr. McNamara suggested that “there are very few absolute contraindications to CSHT,” and described it as a “life-sustaining treatment” that should be viewed analogously with any other long-term management strategy, such as therapy for diabetes or hypertension.

Fostering a transgender-friendly practice

In an interview, Nicole Nisly, MD, codirector of the LGBTQ+ Clinic at the University of Iowa Hospitals and Clinics, Iowa City, reflected upon Dr. McNamara’s presentation, noting that primary care providers – with a little education – are the best candidates to care for transgender patients.

“I think [primary care providers] do a better job [caring for transgender patients] than endocrinologists, honestly, because they can provide care for the whole person,” Dr. Nisly said. “They can do a Pap, they can do STI screening, they can assess mood, they can [evaluate] safety, and the whole person, as opposed to endocrinologists, who do hormone therapy, but somebody else does everything else.”

Dr. Nisly emphasized the importance of personalizing care for transgender individuals, which depends upon a welcoming practice environment, with careful attention to language.

Foremost, Dr. Nisly recommended asking patients for their preferred name, sexual orientation, and gender identity.

“One of the most difficult things [for transgender patients] is to see notes with the wrong name – the name that makes them feel uncomfortable – or the wrong pronoun,” Dr. Nisly said. “That’s very important to the community.”

Dr. Nisly also recommended an alternative term for cross-sex hormone therapy.

“I hate cross-sex hormone therapy terminology, honestly,” Dr. Nisly said. “I just think it’s so unwelcoming, and I think most of our patients don’t like the terminology, so we use ‘gender-affirming hormone therapy.’”

Dr. Nisly explained that the term “cross-sex” assumes a conventional definition of sex, which is inherently flawed.

When discussing certain medical risk factors, such as pregnancy or HIV, it is helpful to know “sex assigned at birth” for both patients and their sexual partners, Dr. Nisly said. It’s best to ask in this way, instead of using terms like “boyfriend” or “girlfriend,” as “sex assigned at birth” is “terminology the community recognizes, affirms, and feels comfortable with.”

Concerning management of medical risk factors, Dr. Nisly offered some additional perspectives.

For one, she recommended giving PrEP to any patient who has a desire to be on PrEP, noting that this desire can indicate a change in future sexual practices, which the CDC criteria do not anticipate. She also advised in-hospital self-swabbing for extragenital STIs, as this can increase patient comfort and adherence. And, in contrast with Dr. McNamara, Dr. Nisly recommended anal Pap screening for any man that has sex with men and anyone with HIV of any gender. She noted that rates of anal dysplasia are “pretty high” among men who have sex with men, and that detection may reduce cancer risk.

For clinicians who would like to learn more about caring for transgender patients, Dr. Nisly recommended that they start by reading the World Professional Association for Transgender Health guidelines.

“It’s about 300 pages,” Dr. Nisly said, “but it is great.”

Dr. McNamara and Dr. Nisly reported no conflicts of interest.

Primary care for LGBTQ+ patients should focus on early identification and management of unique health risks, according to a leading expert.

Patients who are transgender, for instance, are nine times more likely to commit suicide than the general population (2015 U.S. Transgender Survey (USTS). Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research. 2019 May 22. doi: 10.3886/ICPSR37229.v1), and those who are also Black have an estimated HIV prevalence of 62%, demonstrating the cumulative, negative health effects of intersectionality (www.cdc.gov/hiv/group/gender/transgender/hiv-prevalence.html).

“Experiences with marginalization and stigma directly relate to some of the poor physical and mental health outcomes that these patients experience,” Megan McNamara, MD, said during a presentation at the American College of Physicians annual Internal Medicine meeting.

Dr. McNamara, who is director of the Gender Identity Veteran’s Experience (GIVE) Clinic, Veterans Affairs Northeast Ohio Healthcare System, Cleveland, offered a brief guide to managing LGBTQ+ patients. She emphasized increased rates of psychological distress and substance abuse, and encouraged familiarity with specific risks associated with three subgroups: men who have sex with men (MSM), women who have sex with women (WSW), and those who are transgender.

Men who have sex with men

According to Dr. McNamara, preexposure prophylaxis (PrEP) should be offered based on Centers for Disease Control and Prevention eligibility criteria, which require that the patient is HIV negative, has had a male sex partner in the past 6 months, is not in a monogamous relationship, and has had anal sex or a bacterial sexually transmitted infection in the past 6 months. The two PrEP options, emtricitabine/tenofovir disoproxil fumarate and emtricitabine/tenofovir alafenamide, are equally effective and have similar safety profiles, Dr. McNamara said, but patients with impaired renal function should receive the alafenamide formulation.

Dr. McNamara also advised screening gay men for extragenital STIs, noting a 13.3% increased risk. When asked about anal Pap testing for HPV, Dr. McNamara called the subject “very controversial,” and ultimately recommended against it, citing a lack of data linking anal HPV infection and dysplasia with later development of rectal carcinoma, as well as the nonactionable impact of a positive result.

“For me, the issue is ... if [a positive anal Pap test] is not going to change my management, if I don’t know that the anal HPV that I diagnose will result in cancer, should I continue to monitor it?” Dr. McNamara said.

Women who have sex with women

Beyond higher rates of psychological distress and substance abuse among lesbian and bisexual women, Dr. McNamara described increased risks of overweight and obesity, higher rates of smoking, and lower rates of Pap testing, all of which should prompt clinicians to advise accordingly, with cervical cancer screening in alignment with guidelines. Clinicians should also discuss HPV vaccination with patients, taking care to weigh benefits and risks, as “catch-up” HPV vaccination is not unilaterally recommended for adults older than 26 years.

Transgender patients

Discussing transgender patients, Dr. McNamara focused on cross-sex hormone therapy (CSHT), first noting the significant psychological benefits, including improvements in depression, somatization, interpersonal sensitivity, hostility, anxiety, phobic anxiety/agoraphobia, and quality of life.

According to Dr. McNamara, CSHT is relatively simple and may be safely administered by primary care providers. For transmasculine patients, testosterone supplementation is all that is needed, whereas transfeminine patients will require spironolactone or GnRH agonists to reduce testosterone and estradiol to increase feminizing hormones to pubertal levels.

CSHT is not without risks, Dr. McNamara said, including “very high” risks of erythrocytosis among transmasculine patients and venous thromboembolic disease among transfeminine patients; but these risks need to be considered in the context of an approximate 40% suicide rate among transgender individuals.

“I can tell you in my own practice that these [suicide] data ring true,” Dr. McNamara said. “Many, many of my patients have attempted suicide, so [CSHT] is something that you really want to think about right away.”

Even when additional risk factors are present, such as preexisting cardiovascular disease, Dr. McNamara suggested that “there are very few absolute contraindications to CSHT,” and described it as a “life-sustaining treatment” that should be viewed analogously with any other long-term management strategy, such as therapy for diabetes or hypertension.

Fostering a transgender-friendly practice

In an interview, Nicole Nisly, MD, codirector of the LGBTQ+ Clinic at the University of Iowa Hospitals and Clinics, Iowa City, reflected upon Dr. McNamara’s presentation, noting that primary care providers – with a little education – are the best candidates to care for transgender patients.

“I think [primary care providers] do a better job [caring for transgender patients] than endocrinologists, honestly, because they can provide care for the whole person,” Dr. Nisly said. “They can do a Pap, they can do STI screening, they can assess mood, they can [evaluate] safety, and the whole person, as opposed to endocrinologists, who do hormone therapy, but somebody else does everything else.”

Dr. Nisly emphasized the importance of personalizing care for transgender individuals, which depends upon a welcoming practice environment, with careful attention to language.

Foremost, Dr. Nisly recommended asking patients for their preferred name, sexual orientation, and gender identity.

“One of the most difficult things [for transgender patients] is to see notes with the wrong name – the name that makes them feel uncomfortable – or the wrong pronoun,” Dr. Nisly said. “That’s very important to the community.”

Dr. Nisly also recommended an alternative term for cross-sex hormone therapy.

“I hate cross-sex hormone therapy terminology, honestly,” Dr. Nisly said. “I just think it’s so unwelcoming, and I think most of our patients don’t like the terminology, so we use ‘gender-affirming hormone therapy.’”

Dr. Nisly explained that the term “cross-sex” assumes a conventional definition of sex, which is inherently flawed.

When discussing certain medical risk factors, such as pregnancy or HIV, it is helpful to know “sex assigned at birth” for both patients and their sexual partners, Dr. Nisly said. It’s best to ask in this way, instead of using terms like “boyfriend” or “girlfriend,” as “sex assigned at birth” is “terminology the community recognizes, affirms, and feels comfortable with.”

Concerning management of medical risk factors, Dr. Nisly offered some additional perspectives.

For one, she recommended giving PrEP to any patient who has a desire to be on PrEP, noting that this desire can indicate a change in future sexual practices, which the CDC criteria do not anticipate. She also advised in-hospital self-swabbing for extragenital STIs, as this can increase patient comfort and adherence. And, in contrast with Dr. McNamara, Dr. Nisly recommended anal Pap screening for any man that has sex with men and anyone with HIV of any gender. She noted that rates of anal dysplasia are “pretty high” among men who have sex with men, and that detection may reduce cancer risk.

For clinicians who would like to learn more about caring for transgender patients, Dr. Nisly recommended that they start by reading the World Professional Association for Transgender Health guidelines.

“It’s about 300 pages,” Dr. Nisly said, “but it is great.”

Dr. McNamara and Dr. Nisly reported no conflicts of interest.

Although vaccination rates against the human papillomavirus remain low for young adults across the United States, the number of self-reported HPV vaccinations among women and men aged between 18 and 21 years has markedly increased since 2010, according to new research findings.

The findings were published online April 27, 2021, as a research letter in JAMA.

In 2006, the Food and Drug Administration approved the HPV vaccine for the prevention of cervical cancer and genital warts in female patients. Three years later, the FDA approved the vaccine for the prevention of anogenital cancer and warts in male patients.

The Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommend two doses of the HPV vaccine for children aged 11-12 years. Adolescents and young adults may need three doses over the course of 6 months if they start their vaccine series on or following their 15th birthday.

For persons who have not previously received the HPV vaccine or who did not receive adequate doses, the HPV vaccine is recommended through age 26. Data on the rates of vaccination among young adults between 18 and 21 years of age in the United States are sparse, and it is not known how well vaccination programs are progressing in the country.

In the recently published JAMA research letter, investigators from the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, examined data for the period 2010-2018 from the cross-sectional National Health Interview Survey. Respondents included in the analysis were aged 18-21 years. They were asked whether they had received the HPV vaccine before age 18 and at what age they had been vaccinated against the virus.

The researchers also assessed whether the respondents had received any HPV vaccine dose between the ages of 18 and 21 years. The findings were limited to self-reported vaccination status.

In total, 6,606 women and 6,038 men were included in the analysis. Approximately 42% of women and 16% of men said they had received at least one HPV vaccine dose at any age. The proportion of female patients who reported receiving an HPV vaccine dose significantly increased from 32% in 2010 to 55% in 2018 (P =.001). Similarly, among men, the percentage significantly increased from 2% in 2010 to 34% in 2018 (P <.001).

Approximately 4% of the female respondents and 3% of the male respondents reported that they had received an HPV vaccine between the ages of 18 and 21 years; 46% of women and 29% of men who received the vaccine between these ages completed the recommended vaccination series.

Findings from the study highlight the continual need for improving vaccination rates among vulnerable populations. Lead study author Michelle Chen, MD, MHS, a professor in the department of otolaryngology–head and neck surgery at the University of Michigan, explained in an interview that there are multiple barriers to HPV vaccination among young adults. “These barriers to vaccination among young adults primarily include cost, lack of knowledge and awareness, missed opportunities for vaccination, rapidly changing guidelines, and initial gender-based guidelines,” said Dr. Chen.

Clinicians play a large role in improving vaccination rates among young adults, who may lack awareness of the overall importance of inoculation against the potentially debilitating and deadly virus. Dr. Chen noted that clinicians can lead the way by increasing gender-inclusive awareness of HPV-associated diseases and HPV vaccination, by performing routine vaccine eligibility assessments for young adults regardless of sex, by developing robust reminder and recall strategies to improve series completion rates, and by offering patients resources regarding assistance programs to address cost barriers for uninsured patients.

“Young adult men are particularly vulnerable [to HPV], because they start to age out of pediatric health practices,” added Dr. Chen. “Thus, a multilevel gender-inclusive approach is needed to target clinicians, patients, parents, and community-based organizations.”

Gypsyamber D’Souza, PhD, professor of epidemiology at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, said in an interview that the initial uptake of HPV vaccination was slow in the United States but that progress has been made in recent years among persons in the targeted age range of 11-12 years. “However, catch-up vaccination has lagged behind, and sadly, we’re still seeing low uptake in those older ages that are still eligible and where we know there still is tremendous benefit,” she said.

Dr. D’Souza is a lead investigator in the MOUTH trial, which is currently enrolling patients. That trial will examine potential biomarkers for oropharyngeal cancer risk among people with known risk factors for HPV who came of age prior to the rollout of the vaccine.

She explained that many parents want their children to be vaccinated for HPV after they hear about the vaccine, but because the health care system in the United States is an “opt-in” system, rather than an “opt-out” one, parents need to actively seek out vaccination. Children then move toward adulthood without having received the recommended vaccine course. “There are individuals who did not get vaccinated at the ages of 11 and 12 and then forget to ask about it later, or the provider asks about it and the patients don’t have enough information,” Dr. D’Souza said.

She noted that one reason why HPV vaccination rates remain low among young adults is that the vaccine is not often kept in stock other than in pediatric clinics. “Because vaccines expire and clinics don’t have a lot of people in that age group getting vaccinated, they may not have it regularly in stock, making this one reason it might be hard for someone to get vaccinated.”

The HPV vaccine is not effective for clearing HPV once a patient acquires the infection, she added. “So young adulthood is a critical time where we have individuals who still can benefit from being vaccinated, but if we wait too long, they’ll age out of those ages where we see the highest efficacy.”

Ultimately, said Dr. D’Souza, clinicians need to catch people at multiple time points and work to remove barriers to vaccination, including letting patients know that HPV vaccination is covered by insurance. “There’s a lot of opportunity to prevent future cancers in young adults by having care providers for that age group talk about the vaccine and remember to offer it.”

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

Although vaccination rates against the human papillomavirus remain low for young adults across the United States, the number of self-reported HPV vaccinations among women and men aged between 18 and 21 years has markedly increased since 2010, according to new research findings.

The findings were published online April 27, 2021, as a research letter in JAMA.

In 2006, the Food and Drug Administration approved the HPV vaccine for the prevention of cervical cancer and genital warts in female patients. Three years later, the FDA approved the vaccine for the prevention of anogenital cancer and warts in male patients.

The Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommend two doses of the HPV vaccine for children aged 11-12 years. Adolescents and young adults may need three doses over the course of 6 months if they start their vaccine series on or following their 15th birthday.

For persons who have not previously received the HPV vaccine or who did not receive adequate doses, the HPV vaccine is recommended through age 26. Data on the rates of vaccination among young adults between 18 and 21 years of age in the United States are sparse, and it is not known how well vaccination programs are progressing in the country.

In the recently published JAMA research letter, investigators from the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, examined data for the period 2010-2018 from the cross-sectional National Health Interview Survey. Respondents included in the analysis were aged 18-21 years. They were asked whether they had received the HPV vaccine before age 18 and at what age they had been vaccinated against the virus.

The researchers also assessed whether the respondents had received any HPV vaccine dose between the ages of 18 and 21 years. The findings were limited to self-reported vaccination status.

In total, 6,606 women and 6,038 men were included in the analysis. Approximately 42% of women and 16% of men said they had received at least one HPV vaccine dose at any age. The proportion of female patients who reported receiving an HPV vaccine dose significantly increased from 32% in 2010 to 55% in 2018 (P =.001). Similarly, among men, the percentage significantly increased from 2% in 2010 to 34% in 2018 (P <.001).

Approximately 4% of the female respondents and 3% of the male respondents reported that they had received an HPV vaccine between the ages of 18 and 21 years; 46% of women and 29% of men who received the vaccine between these ages completed the recommended vaccination series.

Findings from the study highlight the continual need for improving vaccination rates among vulnerable populations. Lead study author Michelle Chen, MD, MHS, a professor in the department of otolaryngology–head and neck surgery at the University of Michigan, explained in an interview that there are multiple barriers to HPV vaccination among young adults. “These barriers to vaccination among young adults primarily include cost, lack of knowledge and awareness, missed opportunities for vaccination, rapidly changing guidelines, and initial gender-based guidelines,” said Dr. Chen.

Clinicians play a large role in improving vaccination rates among young adults, who may lack awareness of the overall importance of inoculation against the potentially debilitating and deadly virus. Dr. Chen noted that clinicians can lead the way by increasing gender-inclusive awareness of HPV-associated diseases and HPV vaccination, by performing routine vaccine eligibility assessments for young adults regardless of sex, by developing robust reminder and recall strategies to improve series completion rates, and by offering patients resources regarding assistance programs to address cost barriers for uninsured patients.

“Young adult men are particularly vulnerable [to HPV], because they start to age out of pediatric health practices,” added Dr. Chen. “Thus, a multilevel gender-inclusive approach is needed to target clinicians, patients, parents, and community-based organizations.”

Gypsyamber D’Souza, PhD, professor of epidemiology at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, said in an interview that the initial uptake of HPV vaccination was slow in the United States but that progress has been made in recent years among persons in the targeted age range of 11-12 years. “However, catch-up vaccination has lagged behind, and sadly, we’re still seeing low uptake in those older ages that are still eligible and where we know there still is tremendous benefit,” she said.

Dr. D’Souza is a lead investigator in the MOUTH trial, which is currently enrolling patients. That trial will examine potential biomarkers for oropharyngeal cancer risk among people with known risk factors for HPV who came of age prior to the rollout of the vaccine.

She explained that many parents want their children to be vaccinated for HPV after they hear about the vaccine, but because the health care system in the United States is an “opt-in” system, rather than an “opt-out” one, parents need to actively seek out vaccination. Children then move toward adulthood without having received the recommended vaccine course. “There are individuals who did not get vaccinated at the ages of 11 and 12 and then forget to ask about it later, or the provider asks about it and the patients don’t have enough information,” Dr. D’Souza said.

She noted that one reason why HPV vaccination rates remain low among young adults is that the vaccine is not often kept in stock other than in pediatric clinics. “Because vaccines expire and clinics don’t have a lot of people in that age group getting vaccinated, they may not have it regularly in stock, making this one reason it might be hard for someone to get vaccinated.”

The HPV vaccine is not effective for clearing HPV once a patient acquires the infection, she added. “So young adulthood is a critical time where we have individuals who still can benefit from being vaccinated, but if we wait too long, they’ll age out of those ages where we see the highest efficacy.”

Ultimately, said Dr. D’Souza, clinicians need to catch people at multiple time points and work to remove barriers to vaccination, including letting patients know that HPV vaccination is covered by insurance. “There’s a lot of opportunity to prevent future cancers in young adults by having care providers for that age group talk about the vaccine and remember to offer it.”

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

Although vaccination rates against the human papillomavirus remain low for young adults across the United States, the number of self-reported HPV vaccinations among women and men aged between 18 and 21 years has markedly increased since 2010, according to new research findings.

The findings were published online April 27, 2021, as a research letter in JAMA.

In 2006, the Food and Drug Administration approved the HPV vaccine for the prevention of cervical cancer and genital warts in female patients. Three years later, the FDA approved the vaccine for the prevention of anogenital cancer and warts in male patients.

The Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommend two doses of the HPV vaccine for children aged 11-12 years. Adolescents and young adults may need three doses over the course of 6 months if they start their vaccine series on or following their 15th birthday.

For persons who have not previously received the HPV vaccine or who did not receive adequate doses, the HPV vaccine is recommended through age 26. Data on the rates of vaccination among young adults between 18 and 21 years of age in the United States are sparse, and it is not known how well vaccination programs are progressing in the country.

In the recently published JAMA research letter, investigators from the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, examined data for the period 2010-2018 from the cross-sectional National Health Interview Survey. Respondents included in the analysis were aged 18-21 years. They were asked whether they had received the HPV vaccine before age 18 and at what age they had been vaccinated against the virus.

The researchers also assessed whether the respondents had received any HPV vaccine dose between the ages of 18 and 21 years. The findings were limited to self-reported vaccination status.

In total, 6,606 women and 6,038 men were included in the analysis. Approximately 42% of women and 16% of men said they had received at least one HPV vaccine dose at any age. The proportion of female patients who reported receiving an HPV vaccine dose significantly increased from 32% in 2010 to 55% in 2018 (P =.001). Similarly, among men, the percentage significantly increased from 2% in 2010 to 34% in 2018 (P <.001).

Approximately 4% of the female respondents and 3% of the male respondents reported that they had received an HPV vaccine between the ages of 18 and 21 years; 46% of women and 29% of men who received the vaccine between these ages completed the recommended vaccination series.

Findings from the study highlight the continual need for improving vaccination rates among vulnerable populations. Lead study author Michelle Chen, MD, MHS, a professor in the department of otolaryngology–head and neck surgery at the University of Michigan, explained in an interview that there are multiple barriers to HPV vaccination among young adults. “These barriers to vaccination among young adults primarily include cost, lack of knowledge and awareness, missed opportunities for vaccination, rapidly changing guidelines, and initial gender-based guidelines,” said Dr. Chen.

Clinicians play a large role in improving vaccination rates among young adults, who may lack awareness of the overall importance of inoculation against the potentially debilitating and deadly virus. Dr. Chen noted that clinicians can lead the way by increasing gender-inclusive awareness of HPV-associated diseases and HPV vaccination, by performing routine vaccine eligibility assessments for young adults regardless of sex, by developing robust reminder and recall strategies to improve series completion rates, and by offering patients resources regarding assistance programs to address cost barriers for uninsured patients.

“Young adult men are particularly vulnerable [to HPV], because they start to age out of pediatric health practices,” added Dr. Chen. “Thus, a multilevel gender-inclusive approach is needed to target clinicians, patients, parents, and community-based organizations.”

Gypsyamber D’Souza, PhD, professor of epidemiology at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, said in an interview that the initial uptake of HPV vaccination was slow in the United States but that progress has been made in recent years among persons in the targeted age range of 11-12 years. “However, catch-up vaccination has lagged behind, and sadly, we’re still seeing low uptake in those older ages that are still eligible and where we know there still is tremendous benefit,” she said.

Dr. D’Souza is a lead investigator in the MOUTH trial, which is currently enrolling patients. That trial will examine potential biomarkers for oropharyngeal cancer risk among people with known risk factors for HPV who came of age prior to the rollout of the vaccine.

She explained that many parents want their children to be vaccinated for HPV after they hear about the vaccine, but because the health care system in the United States is an “opt-in” system, rather than an “opt-out” one, parents need to actively seek out vaccination. Children then move toward adulthood without having received the recommended vaccine course. “There are individuals who did not get vaccinated at the ages of 11 and 12 and then forget to ask about it later, or the provider asks about it and the patients don’t have enough information,” Dr. D’Souza said.

She noted that one reason why HPV vaccination rates remain low among young adults is that the vaccine is not often kept in stock other than in pediatric clinics. “Because vaccines expire and clinics don’t have a lot of people in that age group getting vaccinated, they may not have it regularly in stock, making this one reason it might be hard for someone to get vaccinated.”

The HPV vaccine is not effective for clearing HPV once a patient acquires the infection, she added. “So young adulthood is a critical time where we have individuals who still can benefit from being vaccinated, but if we wait too long, they’ll age out of those ages where we see the highest efficacy.”

Ultimately, said Dr. D’Souza, clinicians need to catch people at multiple time points and work to remove barriers to vaccination, including letting patients know that HPV vaccination is covered by insurance. “There’s a lot of opportunity to prevent future cancers in young adults by having care providers for that age group talk about the vaccine and remember to offer it.”

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

Background: After a first episode of CDI, almost 20% of patients will have a recurrence. Recurrent CDI (rCDI) is more likely to be associated with life-threatening complications including toxic megacolon, perforation, bloodstream infections, and death. Most BSIs are caused by intestinal microbes. Some evidence suggests that vancomycin therapy creates conditions that favor intestinal colonization by health care–associated pathogens. FMT aims to restore the normal composition of gut microbiota, is superior to vancomycin, and might decrease the incidence of BSI and related complications including death.

Five patients in the FMT group and 40 in the antibiotic group (16% of total patients) developed BSIs during the 90-day follow-up. Because of baseline characteristic differences in the patients treated with FMT versus antibiotics, comparative analyses were limited to the matched cohort. Risk for BSIs was 23% lower in the FMT group (95% confidence interval, 10%-35%); the FMT group also had 14 fewer days of hospitalization (95% CI, 9-20 fewer days) and a 32% increase in overall survival (95% CI, 16%-47%), compared with the antibiotic group. Limitations of the study include its observational nature, single-center design, and differences in several baseline characteristics between the groups remaining after the match.

Bottom line: Patients with rCDI who received FMT were less likely to develop primary BSIs and related complications, including hospital length of stay and death when compared with patients who received antibiotics.

Citation: Ianiro G et al. Incidence of bloodstream infections, length of hospital stay, and survival in patients with recurrent Clostridioides difficile infection treated with fecal microbiota transplantation or antibiotics: A prospective cohort study. Ann Intern Med. 2019, Nov 5;171:695-702.

Dr. Santa is assistant professor in the division of hospital medicine, Loyola University Medical Center, Maywood, Ill.

Background: After a first episode of CDI, almost 20% of patients will have a recurrence. Recurrent CDI (rCDI) is more likely to be associated with life-threatening complications including toxic megacolon, perforation, bloodstream infections, and death. Most BSIs are caused by intestinal microbes. Some evidence suggests that vancomycin therapy creates conditions that favor intestinal colonization by health care–associated pathogens. FMT aims to restore the normal composition of gut microbiota, is superior to vancomycin, and might decrease the incidence of BSI and related complications including death.

Five patients in the FMT group and 40 in the antibiotic group (16% of total patients) developed BSIs during the 90-day follow-up. Because of baseline characteristic differences in the patients treated with FMT versus antibiotics, comparative analyses were limited to the matched cohort. Risk for BSIs was 23% lower in the FMT group (95% confidence interval, 10%-35%); the FMT group also had 14 fewer days of hospitalization (95% CI, 9-20 fewer days) and a 32% increase in overall survival (95% CI, 16%-47%), compared with the antibiotic group. Limitations of the study include its observational nature, single-center design, and differences in several baseline characteristics between the groups remaining after the match.

Bottom line: Patients with rCDI who received FMT were less likely to develop primary BSIs and related complications, including hospital length of stay and death when compared with patients who received antibiotics.

Citation: Ianiro G et al. Incidence of bloodstream infections, length of hospital stay, and survival in patients with recurrent Clostridioides difficile infection treated with fecal microbiota transplantation or antibiotics: A prospective cohort study. Ann Intern Med. 2019, Nov 5;171:695-702.

Dr. Santa is assistant professor in the division of hospital medicine, Loyola University Medical Center, Maywood, Ill.

Background: After a first episode of CDI, almost 20% of patients will have a recurrence. Recurrent CDI (rCDI) is more likely to be associated with life-threatening complications including toxic megacolon, perforation, bloodstream infections, and death. Most BSIs are caused by intestinal microbes. Some evidence suggests that vancomycin therapy creates conditions that favor intestinal colonization by health care–associated pathogens. FMT aims to restore the normal composition of gut microbiota, is superior to vancomycin, and might decrease the incidence of BSI and related complications including death.

Five patients in the FMT group and 40 in the antibiotic group (16% of total patients) developed BSIs during the 90-day follow-up. Because of baseline characteristic differences in the patients treated with FMT versus antibiotics, comparative analyses were limited to the matched cohort. Risk for BSIs was 23% lower in the FMT group (95% confidence interval, 10%-35%); the FMT group also had 14 fewer days of hospitalization (95% CI, 9-20 fewer days) and a 32% increase in overall survival (95% CI, 16%-47%), compared with the antibiotic group. Limitations of the study include its observational nature, single-center design, and differences in several baseline characteristics between the groups remaining after the match.

Bottom line: Patients with rCDI who received FMT were less likely to develop primary BSIs and related complications, including hospital length of stay and death when compared with patients who received antibiotics.

Citation: Ianiro G et al. Incidence of bloodstream infections, length of hospital stay, and survival in patients with recurrent Clostridioides difficile infection treated with fecal microbiota transplantation or antibiotics: A prospective cohort study. Ann Intern Med. 2019, Nov 5;171:695-702.

Dr. Santa is assistant professor in the division of hospital medicine, Loyola University Medical Center, Maywood, Ill.

In a global meta-analysis of more than 7,000 patients who were hospitalized with COVID-19, individuals with overweight or obesity were more likely to need respiratory support but were not more likely to die in the hospital, compared to individuals of normal weight.
 

Compared to patients without diabetes, those with diabetes had higher odds of needing invasive respiratory support (with intubation) but not for needing noninvasive respiratory support or of dying in the hospital.

“Surprisingly,” among patients with diabetes, being overweight or having obesity did not further increase the odds of any of these outcomes, the researchers wrote. The finding needs to be confirmed in larger studies, they said, because the sample sizes in these subanalyses were small and the confidence intervals were large.

The study by Danielle K. Longmore, PhD, of Murdoch Children’s Research Institute (MCRI), Melbourne, and colleagues from the International BMI-COVID consortium, was published online April 15 in Diabetes Care.

This new research “adds to the known data on the associations between obesity and severe COVID-19 disease and extends these findings” to patients who are overweight and/or have diabetes, Dr. Longmore, a pediatric endocrinologist with a clinical and research interest in childhood and youth obesity, said in an interview.

Immunologist Siroon Bekkering, PhD, of Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, the Netherlands, explained that never before have so much data of different types regarding obesity been combined in one large study. Dr. Bekkering is a coauthor of the article and was a principal investigator.

“Several national and international observations already showed the important role of overweight and obesity in a more severe COVID-19 course. This study adds to those observations by combining data from several countries with the possibility to look at the risk factors separately,” she said in a statement from her institution.

“Regardless of other risk factors (such as heart disease or diabetes), we now see that too high a BMI [body mass index] can actually lead to a more severe course in [coronavirus] infection,” she said.
 

Study implications: Data show that overweight, obesity add to risk

These latest findings highlight the urgent need to develop public health policies to address socioeconomic and psychological drivers of obesity, Dr. Longmore said.

“Although taking steps to address obesity in the short term is unlikely to have an immediate impact in the COVID-19 pandemic, it will likely reduce the disease burden in future viral pandemics and reduce risks of complications like heart disease and stroke,” she observed in a statement issued by MCRI.

Coauthor Kirsty R. Short, PhD, a research fellow at the University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia, noted that “obesity is associated with numerous poor health outcomes, including increased risk of cardiometabolic and respiratory disease and more severe viral disease including influenza, dengue, and SARS-CoV-1.

“Given the large scale of this study,” she said, “we have conclusively shown that being overweight or obese are independent risk factors for worse outcomes in adults hospitalized with COVID-19.”

“At the moment, the World Health Organization has not had enough high-quality data to include being overweight or obese as a risk factor for severe COVID-19 disease,” added another author, David P. Burgner, PhD, a pediatric infectious diseases clinician scientist from MCRI.

Bruce Jancin/MDedge News

Does being overweight up risk of worse COVID-19 outcomes?

About 13% of the world’s population are overweight, and 40% have obesity. There are wide between-country variations in these data, and about 90% of patients with type 2 diabetes are overweight or obese, the researchers noted.

The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development reported that the prevalence of obesity in 2016-2017 was 5.7% to 8.9% in Asia, 9.8% to 16.8% in Europe, 26.5% in South Africa, and 40.0% in the United States, they added.

Obesity is common and has emerged as an important risk factor for severe COVID-19. However, most previous studies of COVID-19 and elevated BMI were conducted in single centers and did not focus on patients with overweight.

To investigate, the researchers identified 7,244 patients (two-thirds were overweight or obese) who were hospitalized with COVID-19 in 69 hospitals (18 sites) in 11 countries from Jan. 17, 2020, to June 2, 2020.

Most patients were hospitalized with COVID-19 in the Netherlands (2,260), followed by New York City (1,682), Switzerland (920), St. Louis (805), Norway, Italy, China, South Africa, Indonesia, Denmark, Los Angeles, Austria, and Singapore.

Just over half (60%) of the individuals were male, and 52% were older than 65.

Overall, 34.8% were overweight, and 30.8% had obesity, but the average weight varied considerably between countries and sites.
 

Increased need for respiratory support, same mortality risk

Compared with patients with normal weight, patients who were overweight had a 44% increased risk of needing supplemental oxygen/noninvasive ventilation, and those with obesity had a 75% increased risk of this, after adjustment for age (< 65, ≥ 65), sex, hypertension, diabetes, or preexisting cardiovascular disease or respiratory conditions.

Patients who were overweight had a 22% increased risk of needing invasive (mechanical) ventilation, and those with obesity had a 73% increased risk of this, after multivariable adjustment.

Being overweight or having obesity was not associated with a significantly increased risk of dying in the hospital, however.

“In other viral respiratory infections, such as influenza, there is a similar pattern of increased requirement for ventilatory support but lower in-hospital mortality among individuals with obesity, when compared to those with normal range BMI,” Dr. Longmore noted. She said that larger studies are needed to further explore this finding regarding COVID-19.

Compared to patients without diabetes, those with diabetes had a 21% increased risk of requiring invasive ventilation, but they did not have an increased risk of needing noninvasive ventilation or of dying in the hospital.

As in previous studies, individuals who had cardiovascular and preexisting respiratory diseases were not at greater risk of needing oxygen or mechanical ventilation but were at increased risk for in-hospital death. Men had a greater risk of needing invasive mechanical ventilation, and individuals who were older than 65 had an increased risk of requiring oxygen or of dying in the hospital.
 

A living meta-analysis, call for more collaborators

“We consider this a ‘living meta-analysis’ and invite other centers to join us,” Dr. Longmore said. “We hope to update the analyses as more data are contributed.”

No specific project funded the study. The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

In a global meta-analysis of more than 7,000 patients who were hospitalized with COVID-19, individuals with overweight or obesity were more likely to need respiratory support but were not more likely to die in the hospital, compared to individuals of normal weight.
 

Compared to patients without diabetes, those with diabetes had higher odds of needing invasive respiratory support (with intubation) but not for needing noninvasive respiratory support or of dying in the hospital.

“Surprisingly,” among patients with diabetes, being overweight or having obesity did not further increase the odds of any of these outcomes, the researchers wrote. The finding needs to be confirmed in larger studies, they said, because the sample sizes in these subanalyses were small and the confidence intervals were large.

The study by Danielle K. Longmore, PhD, of Murdoch Children’s Research Institute (MCRI), Melbourne, and colleagues from the International BMI-COVID consortium, was published online April 15 in Diabetes Care.

This new research “adds to the known data on the associations between obesity and severe COVID-19 disease and extends these findings” to patients who are overweight and/or have diabetes, Dr. Longmore, a pediatric endocrinologist with a clinical and research interest in childhood and youth obesity, said in an interview.

Immunologist Siroon Bekkering, PhD, of Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, the Netherlands, explained that never before have so much data of different types regarding obesity been combined in one large study. Dr. Bekkering is a coauthor of the article and was a principal investigator.

“Several national and international observations already showed the important role of overweight and obesity in a more severe COVID-19 course. This study adds to those observations by combining data from several countries with the possibility to look at the risk factors separately,” she said in a statement from her institution.

“Regardless of other risk factors (such as heart disease or diabetes), we now see that too high a BMI [body mass index] can actually lead to a more severe course in [coronavirus] infection,” she said.
 

Study implications: Data show that overweight, obesity add to risk

These latest findings highlight the urgent need to develop public health policies to address socioeconomic and psychological drivers of obesity, Dr. Longmore said.

“Although taking steps to address obesity in the short term is unlikely to have an immediate impact in the COVID-19 pandemic, it will likely reduce the disease burden in future viral pandemics and reduce risks of complications like heart disease and stroke,” she observed in a statement issued by MCRI.

Coauthor Kirsty R. Short, PhD, a research fellow at the University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia, noted that “obesity is associated with numerous poor health outcomes, including increased risk of cardiometabolic and respiratory disease and more severe viral disease including influenza, dengue, and SARS-CoV-1.

“Given the large scale of this study,” she said, “we have conclusively shown that being overweight or obese are independent risk factors for worse outcomes in adults hospitalized with COVID-19.”

“At the moment, the World Health Organization has not had enough high-quality data to include being overweight or obese as a risk factor for severe COVID-19 disease,” added another author, David P. Burgner, PhD, a pediatric infectious diseases clinician scientist from MCRI.

Bruce Jancin/MDedge News

Does being overweight up risk of worse COVID-19 outcomes?

About 13% of the world’s population are overweight, and 40% have obesity. There are wide between-country variations in these data, and about 90% of patients with type 2 diabetes are overweight or obese, the researchers noted.

The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development reported that the prevalence of obesity in 2016-2017 was 5.7% to 8.9% in Asia, 9.8% to 16.8% in Europe, 26.5% in South Africa, and 40.0% in the United States, they added.

Obesity is common and has emerged as an important risk factor for severe COVID-19. However, most previous studies of COVID-19 and elevated BMI were conducted in single centers and did not focus on patients with overweight.

To investigate, the researchers identified 7,244 patients (two-thirds were overweight or obese) who were hospitalized with COVID-19 in 69 hospitals (18 sites) in 11 countries from Jan. 17, 2020, to June 2, 2020.

Most patients were hospitalized with COVID-19 in the Netherlands (2,260), followed by New York City (1,682), Switzerland (920), St. Louis (805), Norway, Italy, China, South Africa, Indonesia, Denmark, Los Angeles, Austria, and Singapore.

Just over half (60%) of the individuals were male, and 52% were older than 65.

Overall, 34.8% were overweight, and 30.8% had obesity, but the average weight varied considerably between countries and sites.
 

Increased need for respiratory support, same mortality risk

Compared with patients with normal weight, patients who were overweight had a 44% increased risk of needing supplemental oxygen/noninvasive ventilation, and those with obesity had a 75% increased risk of this, after adjustment for age (< 65, ≥ 65), sex, hypertension, diabetes, or preexisting cardiovascular disease or respiratory conditions.

Patients who were overweight had a 22% increased risk of needing invasive (mechanical) ventilation, and those with obesity had a 73% increased risk of this, after multivariable adjustment.

Being overweight or having obesity was not associated with a significantly increased risk of dying in the hospital, however.

“In other viral respiratory infections, such as influenza, there is a similar pattern of increased requirement for ventilatory support but lower in-hospital mortality among individuals with obesity, when compared to those with normal range BMI,” Dr. Longmore noted. She said that larger studies are needed to further explore this finding regarding COVID-19.

Compared to patients without diabetes, those with diabetes had a 21% increased risk of requiring invasive ventilation, but they did not have an increased risk of needing noninvasive ventilation or of dying in the hospital.

As in previous studies, individuals who had cardiovascular and preexisting respiratory diseases were not at greater risk of needing oxygen or mechanical ventilation but were at increased risk for in-hospital death. Men had a greater risk of needing invasive mechanical ventilation, and individuals who were older than 65 had an increased risk of requiring oxygen or of dying in the hospital.
 

A living meta-analysis, call for more collaborators

“We consider this a ‘living meta-analysis’ and invite other centers to join us,” Dr. Longmore said. “We hope to update the analyses as more data are contributed.”

No specific project funded the study. The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

In a global meta-analysis of more than 7,000 patients who were hospitalized with COVID-19, individuals with overweight or obesity were more likely to need respiratory support but were not more likely to die in the hospital, compared to individuals of normal weight.
 

Compared to patients without diabetes, those with diabetes had higher odds of needing invasive respiratory support (with intubation) but not for needing noninvasive respiratory support or of dying in the hospital.

“Surprisingly,” among patients with diabetes, being overweight or having obesity did not further increase the odds of any of these outcomes, the researchers wrote. The finding needs to be confirmed in larger studies, they said, because the sample sizes in these subanalyses were small and the confidence intervals were large.

The study by Danielle K. Longmore, PhD, of Murdoch Children’s Research Institute (MCRI), Melbourne, and colleagues from the International BMI-COVID consortium, was published online April 15 in Diabetes Care.

This new research “adds to the known data on the associations between obesity and severe COVID-19 disease and extends these findings” to patients who are overweight and/or have diabetes, Dr. Longmore, a pediatric endocrinologist with a clinical and research interest in childhood and youth obesity, said in an interview.

Immunologist Siroon Bekkering, PhD, of Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, the Netherlands, explained that never before have so much data of different types regarding obesity been combined in one large study. Dr. Bekkering is a coauthor of the article and was a principal investigator.

“Several national and international observations already showed the important role of overweight and obesity in a more severe COVID-19 course. This study adds to those observations by combining data from several countries with the possibility to look at the risk factors separately,” she said in a statement from her institution.

“Regardless of other risk factors (such as heart disease or diabetes), we now see that too high a BMI [body mass index] can actually lead to a more severe course in [coronavirus] infection,” she said.
 

Study implications: Data show that overweight, obesity add to risk

These latest findings highlight the urgent need to develop public health policies to address socioeconomic and psychological drivers of obesity, Dr. Longmore said.

“Although taking steps to address obesity in the short term is unlikely to have an immediate impact in the COVID-19 pandemic, it will likely reduce the disease burden in future viral pandemics and reduce risks of complications like heart disease and stroke,” she observed in a statement issued by MCRI.

Coauthor Kirsty R. Short, PhD, a research fellow at the University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia, noted that “obesity is associated with numerous poor health outcomes, including increased risk of cardiometabolic and respiratory disease and more severe viral disease including influenza, dengue, and SARS-CoV-1.

“Given the large scale of this study,” she said, “we have conclusively shown that being overweight or obese are independent risk factors for worse outcomes in adults hospitalized with COVID-19.”

“At the moment, the World Health Organization has not had enough high-quality data to include being overweight or obese as a risk factor for severe COVID-19 disease,” added another author, David P. Burgner, PhD, a pediatric infectious diseases clinician scientist from MCRI.

Bruce Jancin/MDedge News

Does being overweight up risk of worse COVID-19 outcomes?

About 13% of the world’s population are overweight, and 40% have obesity. There are wide between-country variations in these data, and about 90% of patients with type 2 diabetes are overweight or obese, the researchers noted.

The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development reported that the prevalence of obesity in 2016-2017 was 5.7% to 8.9% in Asia, 9.8% to 16.8% in Europe, 26.5% in South Africa, and 40.0% in the United States, they added.

Obesity is common and has emerged as an important risk factor for severe COVID-19. However, most previous studies of COVID-19 and elevated BMI were conducted in single centers and did not focus on patients with overweight.

To investigate, the researchers identified 7,244 patients (two-thirds were overweight or obese) who were hospitalized with COVID-19 in 69 hospitals (18 sites) in 11 countries from Jan. 17, 2020, to June 2, 2020.

Most patients were hospitalized with COVID-19 in the Netherlands (2,260), followed by New York City (1,682), Switzerland (920), St. Louis (805), Norway, Italy, China, South Africa, Indonesia, Denmark, Los Angeles, Austria, and Singapore.

Just over half (60%) of the individuals were male, and 52% were older than 65.

Overall, 34.8% were overweight, and 30.8% had obesity, but the average weight varied considerably between countries and sites.
 

Increased need for respiratory support, same mortality risk

Compared with patients with normal weight, patients who were overweight had a 44% increased risk of needing supplemental oxygen/noninvasive ventilation, and those with obesity had a 75% increased risk of this, after adjustment for age (< 65, ≥ 65), sex, hypertension, diabetes, or preexisting cardiovascular disease or respiratory conditions.

Patients who were overweight had a 22% increased risk of needing invasive (mechanical) ventilation, and those with obesity had a 73% increased risk of this, after multivariable adjustment.

Being overweight or having obesity was not associated with a significantly increased risk of dying in the hospital, however.

“In other viral respiratory infections, such as influenza, there is a similar pattern of increased requirement for ventilatory support but lower in-hospital mortality among individuals with obesity, when compared to those with normal range BMI,” Dr. Longmore noted. She said that larger studies are needed to further explore this finding regarding COVID-19.

Compared to patients without diabetes, those with diabetes had a 21% increased risk of requiring invasive ventilation, but they did not have an increased risk of needing noninvasive ventilation or of dying in the hospital.

As in previous studies, individuals who had cardiovascular and preexisting respiratory diseases were not at greater risk of needing oxygen or mechanical ventilation but were at increased risk for in-hospital death. Men had a greater risk of needing invasive mechanical ventilation, and individuals who were older than 65 had an increased risk of requiring oxygen or of dying in the hospital.
 

A living meta-analysis, call for more collaborators

“We consider this a ‘living meta-analysis’ and invite other centers to join us,” Dr. Longmore said. “We hope to update the analyses as more data are contributed.”

No specific project funded the study. The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Background: Intravenous drug use is an increasingly common risk factor for candidemia as the opioid crisis worsens. This study quantifies this change and characterizes the changing epidemiology of candidemia.

The study did not quantify or address complications that many hospitalists see, such as endocarditis, endophthalmitis, and osteomyelitis. The study looked at only nine states, so results may not be generalizable. Nevertheless, the robust analysis suggests an alarming, increasing trend.

Bottom line: As the opioid crisis worsens, hospitalists should consider candidemia in hospitalized IV drug users and should evaluate patients with candidemia for IV drug use.

Citation: Zhang AY et al. The changing epidemiology of candidemia in the United States: Injection drug use as an increasingly common risk factor – Active surveillance in selected sites, United States, 2014-2017. Clin Infect Dis. 2019 Nov 2. doi: 10.1093/cid/ciz1061.

Dr. Raghavan is assistant professor in the division of hospital medicine, Loyola University Medical Center, Maywood, Ill.

Background: Intravenous drug use is an increasingly common risk factor for candidemia as the opioid crisis worsens. This study quantifies this change and characterizes the changing epidemiology of candidemia.

The study did not quantify or address complications that many hospitalists see, such as endocarditis, endophthalmitis, and osteomyelitis. The study looked at only nine states, so results may not be generalizable. Nevertheless, the robust analysis suggests an alarming, increasing trend.

Bottom line: As the opioid crisis worsens, hospitalists should consider candidemia in hospitalized IV drug users and should evaluate patients with candidemia for IV drug use.

Citation: Zhang AY et al. The changing epidemiology of candidemia in the United States: Injection drug use as an increasingly common risk factor – Active surveillance in selected sites, United States, 2014-2017. Clin Infect Dis. 2019 Nov 2. doi: 10.1093/cid/ciz1061.

Dr. Raghavan is assistant professor in the division of hospital medicine, Loyola University Medical Center, Maywood, Ill.

Background: Intravenous drug use is an increasingly common risk factor for candidemia as the opioid crisis worsens. This study quantifies this change and characterizes the changing epidemiology of candidemia.

The study did not quantify or address complications that many hospitalists see, such as endocarditis, endophthalmitis, and osteomyelitis. The study looked at only nine states, so results may not be generalizable. Nevertheless, the robust analysis suggests an alarming, increasing trend.

Bottom line: As the opioid crisis worsens, hospitalists should consider candidemia in hospitalized IV drug users and should evaluate patients with candidemia for IV drug use.

Citation: Zhang AY et al. The changing epidemiology of candidemia in the United States: Injection drug use as an increasingly common risk factor – Active surveillance in selected sites, United States, 2014-2017. Clin Infect Dis. 2019 Nov 2. doi: 10.1093/cid/ciz1061.

Dr. Raghavan is assistant professor in the division of hospital medicine, Loyola University Medical Center, Maywood, Ill.

Personal protective equipment (PPE) is an important component in limiting transmission of SARS-CoV-2. The World Health Organization and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention issued guidelines for appropriate PPE use, but recommendations for head and shoe coverings are lacking. In this article, we analyze the literature on pathogen transmission via hair and shoes and make evidence-based recommendations for PPE selection during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Pathogens on Shoes and Hair

Hair and shoes may act as vehicles for pathogen transmission. In a study that simulated contamination of uncovered skin in health care workers after intubating manikins in respiratory distress, 8 (100%) had fluorescent markers on the hair, 6 (75%) on the neck, and 4 (50%) on the shoes.¹ In another study of postsurgical operating room (OR) surfaces (517 cultures), uncovered shoe tops and reusable hair coverings had 10-times more bacterial colony–forming units compared to other surfaces. On average, disposable shoe covers/head coverings had less than one-third bacterial colony–forming units compared with uncovered shoes/reusable hair coverings.²

Hair characteristics and coverings may affect pathogen transmission. Exposed hair may collect bacteria, as Staphylococcus aureus and Staphylococcus epidermidis attach to both scalp and facial hair. In one case, β-hemolytic streptococci cultured from the scalp of a perioperative nurse was linked to postsurgical infections in 20 patients.³ Hair coverings include bouffant caps and skullcaps. The bouffant cap is similar to a shower cap; it is relatively loose and secured around the head with elastic. The skullcap, or scrub cap, is tighter but leaves the neck nape and sideburns exposed. In a study comparing disposable bouffant caps, disposable skullcaps, and home-laundered cloth skullcaps worn by 2 teams of 5 surgeons, the disposable bouffant caps had the highest permeability, penetration, and microbial shed of airborne particles.⁴

Physicians’ shoes may act as fomites for transmission of pathogens to patients. In a study of 41 physicians and nurses in an acute care hospital, shoe soles were positive for at least one pathogen in 12 (29.3%) participants; methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus was most common. Additionally, 98% (49/50) of shoes worn outdoors showed positive bacterial cultures compared to 56% (28/50) of shoes reserved for the OR only.⁵ In a study examining ventilation effects on airborne pathogens in the OR, 15% of OR airborne bacteria originated from OR floors, and higher bacterial counts correlated with a higher number of steps in the OR.² In another study designed to evaluate SARS-CoV-2 distribution on hospital floors, 70% (7/10) of quantitative polymerase chain reaction assays performed on floor samples from intensive care units were positive. In addition, 100% (3/3) of swabs taken from hospital pharmacy floors with no COVID-19 patients were positive for SARS-CoV-2, meaning contaminated shoes likely served as vectors.⁶ Middle East respiratory syndrome, SARS-CoV-2, and influenza viruses may survive on porous and nonporous materials for hours to days.⁷Enterococcus, Candida, and Aspergillus may survive on textiles for up to 90 days.³

Recommendations for Hair and Shoe Coverings

We recommend that physicians utilize disposable skullcaps to cover the hair and consider a hooded gown or coverall for neck/ear coverage. We also recommend that physicians designate shoes that remain in the workplace and can be easily washed or disinfected at least weekly; physicians may choose to wash or disinfect shoes more often if they frequently are performing procedures that generate aerosols. Additionally, physicians should always wear shoe coverings when caring for patients (Table 1).

Our hair and shoe covering recommendations may serve to protect dermatologists when caring for patients. These protocols may be particularly important for dermatologists performing high-risk procedures, including facial surgery, intraoral/intranasal procedures, and treatment with ablative lasers and facial injectables, especially when the patient is unmasked. These recommendations may limit viral transmission to dermatologists and also protect individuals living in their households. Additional established guidelines by the American Academy of Dermatology, American Society for Dermatologic Surgery, and World Health Organization are listed in Table 2.^8-10

Current PPE recommendations that do not include hair and shoe coverings may be inadequate for limiting SARS-CoV-2 exposure between and among physicians and patients. Adherence to head covering and shoe recommendations may aid in reducing unwanted SARS-CoV-2 transmission in the health care setting, even as the pandemic continues.

Personal protective equipment (PPE) is an important component in limiting transmission of SARS-CoV-2. The World Health Organization and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention issued guidelines for appropriate PPE use, but recommendations for head and shoe coverings are lacking. In this article, we analyze the literature on pathogen transmission via hair and shoes and make evidence-based recommendations for PPE selection during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Pathogens on Shoes and Hair

Hair and shoes may act as vehicles for pathogen transmission. In a study that simulated contamination of uncovered skin in health care workers after intubating manikins in respiratory distress, 8 (100%) had fluorescent markers on the hair, 6 (75%) on the neck, and 4 (50%) on the shoes.¹ In another study of postsurgical operating room (OR) surfaces (517 cultures), uncovered shoe tops and reusable hair coverings had 10-times more bacterial colony–forming units compared to other surfaces. On average, disposable shoe covers/head coverings had less than one-third bacterial colony–forming units compared with uncovered shoes/reusable hair coverings.²

Hair characteristics and coverings may affect pathogen transmission. Exposed hair may collect bacteria, as Staphylococcus aureus and Staphylococcus epidermidis attach to both scalp and facial hair. In one case, β-hemolytic streptococci cultured from the scalp of a perioperative nurse was linked to postsurgical infections in 20 patients.³ Hair coverings include bouffant caps and skullcaps. The bouffant cap is similar to a shower cap; it is relatively loose and secured around the head with elastic. The skullcap, or scrub cap, is tighter but leaves the neck nape and sideburns exposed. In a study comparing disposable bouffant caps, disposable skullcaps, and home-laundered cloth skullcaps worn by 2 teams of 5 surgeons, the disposable bouffant caps had the highest permeability, penetration, and microbial shed of airborne particles.⁴

Physicians’ shoes may act as fomites for transmission of pathogens to patients. In a study of 41 physicians and nurses in an acute care hospital, shoe soles were positive for at least one pathogen in 12 (29.3%) participants; methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus was most common. Additionally, 98% (49/50) of shoes worn outdoors showed positive bacterial cultures compared to 56% (28/50) of shoes reserved for the OR only.⁵ In a study examining ventilation effects on airborne pathogens in the OR, 15% of OR airborne bacteria originated from OR floors, and higher bacterial counts correlated with a higher number of steps in the OR.² In another study designed to evaluate SARS-CoV-2 distribution on hospital floors, 70% (7/10) of quantitative polymerase chain reaction assays performed on floor samples from intensive care units were positive. In addition, 100% (3/3) of swabs taken from hospital pharmacy floors with no COVID-19 patients were positive for SARS-CoV-2, meaning contaminated shoes likely served as vectors.⁶ Middle East respiratory syndrome, SARS-CoV-2, and influenza viruses may survive on porous and nonporous materials for hours to days.⁷Enterococcus, Candida, and Aspergillus may survive on textiles for up to 90 days.³

Recommendations for Hair and Shoe Coverings

We recommend that physicians utilize disposable skullcaps to cover the hair and consider a hooded gown or coverall for neck/ear coverage. We also recommend that physicians designate shoes that remain in the workplace and can be easily washed or disinfected at least weekly; physicians may choose to wash or disinfect shoes more often if they frequently are performing procedures that generate aerosols. Additionally, physicians should always wear shoe coverings when caring for patients (Table 1).

Our hair and shoe covering recommendations may serve to protect dermatologists when caring for patients. These protocols may be particularly important for dermatologists performing high-risk procedures, including facial surgery, intraoral/intranasal procedures, and treatment with ablative lasers and facial injectables, especially when the patient is unmasked. These recommendations may limit viral transmission to dermatologists and also protect individuals living in their households. Additional established guidelines by the American Academy of Dermatology, American Society for Dermatologic Surgery, and World Health Organization are listed in Table 2.^8-10

Current PPE recommendations that do not include hair and shoe coverings may be inadequate for limiting SARS-CoV-2 exposure between and among physicians and patients. Adherence to head covering and shoe recommendations may aid in reducing unwanted SARS-CoV-2 transmission in the health care setting, even as the pandemic continues.

Personal protective equipment (PPE) is an important component in limiting transmission of SARS-CoV-2. The World Health Organization and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention issued guidelines for appropriate PPE use, but recommendations for head and shoe coverings are lacking. In this article, we analyze the literature on pathogen transmission via hair and shoes and make evidence-based recommendations for PPE selection during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Pathogens on Shoes and Hair

Hair and shoes may act as vehicles for pathogen transmission. In a study that simulated contamination of uncovered skin in health care workers after intubating manikins in respiratory distress, 8 (100%) had fluorescent markers on the hair, 6 (75%) on the neck, and 4 (50%) on the shoes.¹ In another study of postsurgical operating room (OR) surfaces (517 cultures), uncovered shoe tops and reusable hair coverings had 10-times more bacterial colony–forming units compared to other surfaces. On average, disposable shoe covers/head coverings had less than one-third bacterial colony–forming units compared with uncovered shoes/reusable hair coverings.²

Hair characteristics and coverings may affect pathogen transmission. Exposed hair may collect bacteria, as Staphylococcus aureus and Staphylococcus epidermidis attach to both scalp and facial hair. In one case, β-hemolytic streptococci cultured from the scalp of a perioperative nurse was linked to postsurgical infections in 20 patients.³ Hair coverings include bouffant caps and skullcaps. The bouffant cap is similar to a shower cap; it is relatively loose and secured around the head with elastic. The skullcap, or scrub cap, is tighter but leaves the neck nape and sideburns exposed. In a study comparing disposable bouffant caps, disposable skullcaps, and home-laundered cloth skullcaps worn by 2 teams of 5 surgeons, the disposable bouffant caps had the highest permeability, penetration, and microbial shed of airborne particles.⁴

Physicians’ shoes may act as fomites for transmission of pathogens to patients. In a study of 41 physicians and nurses in an acute care hospital, shoe soles were positive for at least one pathogen in 12 (29.3%) participants; methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus was most common. Additionally, 98% (49/50) of shoes worn outdoors showed positive bacterial cultures compared to 56% (28/50) of shoes reserved for the OR only.⁵ In a study examining ventilation effects on airborne pathogens in the OR, 15% of OR airborne bacteria originated from OR floors, and higher bacterial counts correlated with a higher number of steps in the OR.² In another study designed to evaluate SARS-CoV-2 distribution on hospital floors, 70% (7/10) of quantitative polymerase chain reaction assays performed on floor samples from intensive care units were positive. In addition, 100% (3/3) of swabs taken from hospital pharmacy floors with no COVID-19 patients were positive for SARS-CoV-2, meaning contaminated shoes likely served as vectors.⁶ Middle East respiratory syndrome, SARS-CoV-2, and influenza viruses may survive on porous and nonporous materials for hours to days.⁷Enterococcus, Candida, and Aspergillus may survive on textiles for up to 90 days.³

Recommendations for Hair and Shoe Coverings

We recommend that physicians utilize disposable skullcaps to cover the hair and consider a hooded gown or coverall for neck/ear coverage. We also recommend that physicians designate shoes that remain in the workplace and can be easily washed or disinfected at least weekly; physicians may choose to wash or disinfect shoes more often if they frequently are performing procedures that generate aerosols. Additionally, physicians should always wear shoe coverings when caring for patients (Table 1).

Our hair and shoe covering recommendations may serve to protect dermatologists when caring for patients. These protocols may be particularly important for dermatologists performing high-risk procedures, including facial surgery, intraoral/intranasal procedures, and treatment with ablative lasers and facial injectables, especially when the patient is unmasked. These recommendations may limit viral transmission to dermatologists and also protect individuals living in their households. Additional established guidelines by the American Academy of Dermatology, American Society for Dermatologic Surgery, and World Health Organization are listed in Table 2.^8-10

Current PPE recommendations that do not include hair and shoe coverings may be inadequate for limiting SARS-CoV-2 exposure between and among physicians and patients. Adherence to head covering and shoe recommendations may aid in reducing unwanted SARS-CoV-2 transmission in the health care setting, even as the pandemic continues.

The order in which tocilizumab (Actemra) is used in the sequence of treatments for rheumatoid arthritis could be muddying the waters when it comes to evaluating patients’ risk for serious infection.

According to new data emerging from the British Society for Rheumatology Biologics Register – Rheumatoid Arthritis (BSRBR-RA), the line of therapy is a confounding factor when examining the risk for serious infection with not only tocilizumab but also other biologic agents.

The good news for patients, however, is that there doesn’t appear to be any overall greater risk for serious infection with one biologic over another when the line of therapy is taken into account.

“We don’t have any strong signal that there is an increased risk of serious infections with tocilizumab, compared to TNF inhibitors,” rheumatologist Kim Lauper, MD, of Geneva University Hospitals, said in an interview after presenting the data at the annual conference of the British Society for Rheumatology.

This is in contrast to studies where an increased risk of infections with tocilizumab has been seen when compared to TNF inhibitors. However, those studies did not account for the line of therapy, explained Dr. Lauper, who is also a clinical research fellow in the Centre for Epidemiology Versus Arthritis at the University of Manchester (England), where the BSRBR-RA is managed.

“Tocilizumab is a treatment that we often give to patients after several other treatments, so they’re really different patients,” Dr. Lauper observed. Indeed, in the “real-world” setting, patients taking tocilizumab tend to be older, have longer disease duration, and have worse functional status than do those who might receive other biologics.

To look at the effect of line of therapy on the serious infection risk associated with commonly used biologic drugs, Dr. Lauper and associates examined data on more than 33,000 treatment courses, representing more than 62,500 patient-years.

Using etanercept as the comparator – because it represents the largest group of patients in the BSRBR-RA – the serious infection risk for tocilizumab, rituximab, adalimumab, infliximab, certolizumab pegol, and abatacept were calculated as an overall rate, and for their use as first-, second-, third-, fourth-, or fifth-line therapy.

The researchers adjusted their analysis for some clear baseline differences between the treatment groups, including age, prior treatment, disease duration, and comorbidities. Seropositivity, smoking status, general health status, and disease activity scores were also adjusted for in the analysis.

Crude hazard ratios (HRs), compared with etanercept, before and after adjusting for these already-known confounding factors were 1.0 and 1.2 for tocilizumab, 1.1 and 1.1 for adalimumab, 1.4 and 1.3 for infliximab, 0.6 and 0.8 for certolizumab pegol, 0.9 and 1.0 for rituximab, and 0.9 and 1.2 for abatacept.

Stratifying by line of therapy, however, changed the results: HRs were no longer significantly different, compared with etanercept, for tocilizumab, adalimumab, and infliximab for most lines of therapy.

Indeed, while the risk for serious infection occurring with tocilizumab was 20% higher overall, compared with etanercept, that risk was actually lower if tocilizumab had been used as first- or fifth-line therapy (HRs for both, 0.9) but higher if it had been used as a third- or fourth-line therapy (HR of 1.4 for both).

“We often use tocilizumab as a second-line, third-line, or even fourth-line therapy, and if we don’t adjust for anything, we can have the impression that there are more infections with tocilizumab. But then, when we adjust for confounding factors and the line of therapy, we don’t have this anymore,” Dr. Lauper said.

“Line of therapy in itself is not a risk for serious infections,” she said in qualifying the conclusions that could be drawn from the study. “It may be a marker of the disease or some patient characteristic that is associated with a higher risk of infections.” Nevertheless, it should be taken into account when evaluating serious outcomes and possibly other safety and effectiveness outcomes.

“I understand concentrating on the hospitalized infections because the data are so much more robust,” observed consultant rheumatologist Jon Packham, BM, DM, of Haywood Hospital in Stoke-on-Trent, England, who chaired the session. He queried if there were any data on milder or just antibiotic-treated infections. At present, there aren’t those data to look at, Dr. Lauper responded, as this is something that’s difficult for registers to capture because doctors often do not log them in the databases.

There are also too few data on Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors currently in the BSRBR-RA at present to be able to look at their rate of serious infection by line of therapy, Dr. Lauper noted. Because JAK inhibitors act on cytokines different from those affected by biologics for RA, there may be a difference there, but more data are needed on the JAK inhibitors before that question can be analyzed.

Dr. Lauper did not state having any disclosures. The BSRBR-RA is funded by the BSR via restricted income grants from several U.K. pharmaceutical companies, which has included or currently includes AbbVie, Celltrion, Hospira, Pfizer, UCB, Roche, Swedish Orphan Biovitrum, and Merck.

The order in which tocilizumab (Actemra) is used in the sequence of treatments for rheumatoid arthritis could be muddying the waters when it comes to evaluating patients’ risk for serious infection.

According to new data emerging from the British Society for Rheumatology Biologics Register – Rheumatoid Arthritis (BSRBR-RA), the line of therapy is a confounding factor when examining the risk for serious infection with not only tocilizumab but also other biologic agents.

The good news for patients, however, is that there doesn’t appear to be any overall greater risk for serious infection with one biologic over another when the line of therapy is taken into account.

“We don’t have any strong signal that there is an increased risk of serious infections with tocilizumab, compared to TNF inhibitors,” rheumatologist Kim Lauper, MD, of Geneva University Hospitals, said in an interview after presenting the data at the annual conference of the British Society for Rheumatology.

This is in contrast to studies where an increased risk of infections with tocilizumab has been seen when compared to TNF inhibitors. However, those studies did not account for the line of therapy, explained Dr. Lauper, who is also a clinical research fellow in the Centre for Epidemiology Versus Arthritis at the University of Manchester (England), where the BSRBR-RA is managed.

“Tocilizumab is a treatment that we often give to patients after several other treatments, so they’re really different patients,” Dr. Lauper observed. Indeed, in the “real-world” setting, patients taking tocilizumab tend to be older, have longer disease duration, and have worse functional status than do those who might receive other biologics.

To look at the effect of line of therapy on the serious infection risk associated with commonly used biologic drugs, Dr. Lauper and associates examined data on more than 33,000 treatment courses, representing more than 62,500 patient-years.

Using etanercept as the comparator – because it represents the largest group of patients in the BSRBR-RA – the serious infection risk for tocilizumab, rituximab, adalimumab, infliximab, certolizumab pegol, and abatacept were calculated as an overall rate, and for their use as first-, second-, third-, fourth-, or fifth-line therapy.

The researchers adjusted their analysis for some clear baseline differences between the treatment groups, including age, prior treatment, disease duration, and comorbidities. Seropositivity, smoking status, general health status, and disease activity scores were also adjusted for in the analysis.

Crude hazard ratios (HRs), compared with etanercept, before and after adjusting for these already-known confounding factors were 1.0 and 1.2 for tocilizumab, 1.1 and 1.1 for adalimumab, 1.4 and 1.3 for infliximab, 0.6 and 0.8 for certolizumab pegol, 0.9 and 1.0 for rituximab, and 0.9 and 1.2 for abatacept.

Stratifying by line of therapy, however, changed the results: HRs were no longer significantly different, compared with etanercept, for tocilizumab, adalimumab, and infliximab for most lines of therapy.

Indeed, while the risk for serious infection occurring with tocilizumab was 20% higher overall, compared with etanercept, that risk was actually lower if tocilizumab had been used as first- or fifth-line therapy (HRs for both, 0.9) but higher if it had been used as a third- or fourth-line therapy (HR of 1.4 for both).

“We often use tocilizumab as a second-line, third-line, or even fourth-line therapy, and if we don’t adjust for anything, we can have the impression that there are more infections with tocilizumab. But then, when we adjust for confounding factors and the line of therapy, we don’t have this anymore,” Dr. Lauper said.

“Line of therapy in itself is not a risk for serious infections,” she said in qualifying the conclusions that could be drawn from the study. “It may be a marker of the disease or some patient characteristic that is associated with a higher risk of infections.” Nevertheless, it should be taken into account when evaluating serious outcomes and possibly other safety and effectiveness outcomes.

“I understand concentrating on the hospitalized infections because the data are so much more robust,” observed consultant rheumatologist Jon Packham, BM, DM, of Haywood Hospital in Stoke-on-Trent, England, who chaired the session. He queried if there were any data on milder or just antibiotic-treated infections. At present, there aren’t those data to look at, Dr. Lauper responded, as this is something that’s difficult for registers to capture because doctors often do not log them in the databases.

There are also too few data on Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors currently in the BSRBR-RA at present to be able to look at their rate of serious infection by line of therapy, Dr. Lauper noted. Because JAK inhibitors act on cytokines different from those affected by biologics for RA, there may be a difference there, but more data are needed on the JAK inhibitors before that question can be analyzed.

Dr. Lauper did not state having any disclosures. The BSRBR-RA is funded by the BSR via restricted income grants from several U.K. pharmaceutical companies, which has included or currently includes AbbVie, Celltrion, Hospira, Pfizer, UCB, Roche, Swedish Orphan Biovitrum, and Merck.

The order in which tocilizumab (Actemra) is used in the sequence of treatments for rheumatoid arthritis could be muddying the waters when it comes to evaluating patients’ risk for serious infection.

According to new data emerging from the British Society for Rheumatology Biologics Register – Rheumatoid Arthritis (BSRBR-RA), the line of therapy is a confounding factor when examining the risk for serious infection with not only tocilizumab but also other biologic agents.

The good news for patients, however, is that there doesn’t appear to be any overall greater risk for serious infection with one biologic over another when the line of therapy is taken into account.

“We don’t have any strong signal that there is an increased risk of serious infections with tocilizumab, compared to TNF inhibitors,” rheumatologist Kim Lauper, MD, of Geneva University Hospitals, said in an interview after presenting the data at the annual conference of the British Society for Rheumatology.

This is in contrast to studies where an increased risk of infections with tocilizumab has been seen when compared to TNF inhibitors. However, those studies did not account for the line of therapy, explained Dr. Lauper, who is also a clinical research fellow in the Centre for Epidemiology Versus Arthritis at the University of Manchester (England), where the BSRBR-RA is managed.

“Tocilizumab is a treatment that we often give to patients after several other treatments, so they’re really different patients,” Dr. Lauper observed. Indeed, in the “real-world” setting, patients taking tocilizumab tend to be older, have longer disease duration, and have worse functional status than do those who might receive other biologics.

To look at the effect of line of therapy on the serious infection risk associated with commonly used biologic drugs, Dr. Lauper and associates examined data on more than 33,000 treatment courses, representing more than 62,500 patient-years.

Using etanercept as the comparator – because it represents the largest group of patients in the BSRBR-RA – the serious infection risk for tocilizumab, rituximab, adalimumab, infliximab, certolizumab pegol, and abatacept were calculated as an overall rate, and for their use as first-, second-, third-, fourth-, or fifth-line therapy.

The researchers adjusted their analysis for some clear baseline differences between the treatment groups, including age, prior treatment, disease duration, and comorbidities. Seropositivity, smoking status, general health status, and disease activity scores were also adjusted for in the analysis.

Crude hazard ratios (HRs), compared with etanercept, before and after adjusting for these already-known confounding factors were 1.0 and 1.2 for tocilizumab, 1.1 and 1.1 for adalimumab, 1.4 and 1.3 for infliximab, 0.6 and 0.8 for certolizumab pegol, 0.9 and 1.0 for rituximab, and 0.9 and 1.2 for abatacept.

Stratifying by line of therapy, however, changed the results: HRs were no longer significantly different, compared with etanercept, for tocilizumab, adalimumab, and infliximab for most lines of therapy.

Indeed, while the risk for serious infection occurring with tocilizumab was 20% higher overall, compared with etanercept, that risk was actually lower if tocilizumab had been used as first- or fifth-line therapy (HRs for both, 0.9) but higher if it had been used as a third- or fourth-line therapy (HR of 1.4 for both).

“We often use tocilizumab as a second-line, third-line, or even fourth-line therapy, and if we don’t adjust for anything, we can have the impression that there are more infections with tocilizumab. But then, when we adjust for confounding factors and the line of therapy, we don’t have this anymore,” Dr. Lauper said.

“Line of therapy in itself is not a risk for serious infections,” she said in qualifying the conclusions that could be drawn from the study. “It may be a marker of the disease or some patient characteristic that is associated with a higher risk of infections.” Nevertheless, it should be taken into account when evaluating serious outcomes and possibly other safety and effectiveness outcomes.

“I understand concentrating on the hospitalized infections because the data are so much more robust,” observed consultant rheumatologist Jon Packham, BM, DM, of Haywood Hospital in Stoke-on-Trent, England, who chaired the session. He queried if there were any data on milder or just antibiotic-treated infections. At present, there aren’t those data to look at, Dr. Lauper responded, as this is something that’s difficult for registers to capture because doctors often do not log them in the databases.

There are also too few data on Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors currently in the BSRBR-RA at present to be able to look at their rate of serious infection by line of therapy, Dr. Lauper noted. Because JAK inhibitors act on cytokines different from those affected by biologics for RA, there may be a difference there, but more data are needed on the JAK inhibitors before that question can be analyzed.

Dr. Lauper did not state having any disclosures. The BSRBR-RA is funded by the BSR via restricted income grants from several U.K. pharmaceutical companies, which has included or currently includes AbbVie, Celltrion, Hospira, Pfizer, UCB, Roche, Swedish Orphan Biovitrum, and Merck.

A common cause of infant morbidity and hospitalization in developed countries, infant viral bronchiolitis, has long been bedeviled by treatment uncertainty beyond supportive care.

Rationales for most pharmacologic treatments continue to be debated, and clinical practice guidelines generally advise respiratory and hydration support, discouraging the use of chest radiography, albuterol, glucocorticoids, antibiotics, and epinephrine.

Despite evidence that the latter interventions are ineffective, they are still too often applied, according to two recent studies, one in Pediatrics, the other in JAMA Pediatrics.

“The pull of the therapeutic vacuum surrounding this disease has been noted in the pages of this journal for at least 50 years, with Wright and Beem writing in 1965 that ‘energies should not be frittered away by the annoyance of unnecessary or futile medications and procedures’ for the child with bronchiolitis,” said emergency physicians Matthew J. Lipshaw, MD, MS, of the Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center, and Todd A. Florin, MD, MSCE, of Ann and Robert H. Lurie Children’s Hospital of Chicago.

These remarks came in their editorial in Pediatrics wryly titled: “Don’t Just Do Something, Stand There” and published online to accompany a recent study of three network meta-analyses.

Led by Sarah A. Elliott, PhD, of the Alberta Research Centre for Health Evidence at the University of Alberta in Edmonton, this analysis amalgamated 150 randomized, controlled trials comparing a placebo or active comparator with any bronchodilator, glucocorticoid steroid, hypertonic saline solution, antibiotic, helium-oxygen therapy, or high-flow oxygen therapy. It then looked at the following outcomes in children aged 2 years and younger: hospital admission rate on day 1, hospital admission rate within 7 days, and total hospital length of stay.

Few treatments seemed more effective than nebulized placebo (0.9% saline) for short-term outcomes, the authors found. While nebulized epinephrine and nebulized hypertonic saline plus salbutamol appeared to reduce admission rates during the index ED presentation, and hypertonic saline, alone or in combination with epinephrine, seemed to reduce hospital stays, such treatment had no effect on admissions within 7 days of initial presentation. Furthermore, most benefits disappeared in higher-quality studies.

Concluding, albeit with weak evidence and low confidence, that some benefit might accrue with hypertonic saline with salbutamol to reduce admission rates on initial presentation to the ED, the authors called for well-designed studies on treatments in inpatients and outpatients.

According to Dr. Lipshaw, assistant professor of clinical pediatrics, the lack of benefit observed in superior studies limits the applicability of Dr. Elliott and colleagues’ results to immediate clinical practice. “These findings could be used, however, to target future high-quality studies toward the medications that they found might be useful,” he said in an interview.

For the present, other recent research augurs well for strategically reducing unnecessary care. In a paper published online in JAMA Pediatrics, Libby Haskell, MN, of the ED at Starship Children’s Hospital in Auckland, New Zealand, and associates reported on a cluster-randomized, controlled trial of targeted interventions.

Conducted in 2017 at 26 hospitals and with 3,727 babies in New Zealand and Australia, the study addressed drivers of non–evidence-based approaches with behavior-modifying approaches such as on-site clinical leads, stakeholder meetings, a train-the-trainer workshop, education, and audit and feedback.

The authors reported a 14.1% difference in rates of compliance during the first 24 hours of hospitalization favoring the intervention group for all five bronchiolitis guideline recommendations. The greatest change was seen in albuterol and chest radiography use, with other improvements in ED visits, inpatient consultations, and throughout hospitalization.

“These results provide clinicians and hospitals with clear implementation strategies to address unnecessary treatment of infants with bronchiolitis,” Dr. Haskell’s group wrote. Dr. Lipshaw agreed that multifaceted deimplementation packages including clinician and family education, audit and feedback, and clinical decision support have been successful. “Haskell et al. demonstrated that it is possible to successfully deimplement non–evidence-based practices for bronchiolitis with targeted inventions,” he said. “It would be wonderful to see their success replicated in the U.S.”


 

Why the slow adoption of guidelines?

The American Academy of Pediatrics issued bronchiolitis guidelines for babies to 23 months in 2014 and updated them in 2018. Why, then, has care in some centers been seemingly all over the map and counter to guidelines? “Both parents and clinicians are acting in what they believe to be the best interests of the child, and in the absence of high-value interventions, can feel the need to do something, even if that something is not supported by evidence,” Dr. Lipshaw said. 

Furthermore, with children in obvious distress, breathing fast and with difficulty, and sometimes unable to eat or drink, “we feel like we should have some way to make them feel better quicker. Unfortunately, none of the medications we have tried seem to be useful for most children, and we are left with supportive care measures such as suctioning their noses, giving them oxygen if their oxygen is low, and giving them fluids if they are dehydrated.”

Other physicians agree that taking a less-is-more approach can be challenging and even counterintuitive. “To families, seeing their child’s doctor ‘doing less’ can be frustrating,” admitted Diana S. Lee, MD, assistant professor of pediatrics at Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York.

Beyond that, altering practice behavior will need more than guidelines, Dr. Lee said in an interview. “Haskell et al. showed targeted behavior-change interventions improved compliance with bronchiolitis guidelines, but such change requires motivation and resources, and the sustainability of this effect over time remains to be seen.”

At Dr. Lipshaw’s institution, treatment depends on the attending physician, “but we have an emergency department care algorithm, which does not recommend any inhaled medications or steroids in accordance with the 2014 AAP guidelines,” he said.

Similarly at Mount Sinai, practitioners strive to follow the AAP guidelines, although their implementation has not been immediate, Dr. Lee said. “This is a situation where we must make the effort to choose not to do more, given current evidence.”

But Michelle Dunn, MD, an attending physician in the division of general pediatrics at the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, said the American practice norm already tends more to the observance than the breach of the guidelines, noting that since 2014 quality improvement efforts have been made throughout the country. “At our institution, we have effectively reduced the use of albuterol in patients with bronchiolitis and we use evidence-based therapy as much as possible, which in the case of bronchiolitis generally involves supportive management alone,” she said in an interview.

Still, Dr. Dunn added, many patients receive unnecessary diagnostic testing and ineffective therapies, with some providers facing psychological barriers to doing less. “However, with more and more evidence to support this, hopefully, physicians will become more comfortable with this.”

To that end, Dr. Lipshaw’s editorial urges physicians to “curb the rampant use of therapies repeatedly revealed to be ineffective,” citing team engagement, clear practice guidelines, and information technology as key factors in deimplementation. In the meantime, his mantra remains: “Don’t just do something, stand there.”

The study by Dr. Elliot and colleagues was supported by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research Knowledge Synthesis grant program. One coauthor is supported by a University of Ottawa Tier I Research Chair in Pediatric Emergency Medicine. Another is supported by a Tier 1 Canada Research Chair in Knowledge Synthesis and Translation and the Stollery Science Laboratory. Dr. Lipshaw and Dr. Florin disclosed no financial relationships relevant to their commentary. Dr. Haskell and colleagues were supported, variously, by the National Health and Medical Research Council of New Zealand, the Center of Research Excellence for Pediatric Emergency Medicine, the Victorian Government’s Operational Infrastructure Support Program, Cure Kids New Zealand, the Royal Children’s Hospital Foundation, and the Starship Foundation. Dr. Lee and Dr. Dunn had no competing interests to disclose with regard to their comments.

A common cause of infant morbidity and hospitalization in developed countries, infant viral bronchiolitis, has long been bedeviled by treatment uncertainty beyond supportive care.

Rationales for most pharmacologic treatments continue to be debated, and clinical practice guidelines generally advise respiratory and hydration support, discouraging the use of chest radiography, albuterol, glucocorticoids, antibiotics, and epinephrine.

Despite evidence that the latter interventions are ineffective, they are still too often applied, according to two recent studies, one in Pediatrics, the other in JAMA Pediatrics.

“The pull of the therapeutic vacuum surrounding this disease has been noted in the pages of this journal for at least 50 years, with Wright and Beem writing in 1965 that ‘energies should not be frittered away by the annoyance of unnecessary or futile medications and procedures’ for the child with bronchiolitis,” said emergency physicians Matthew J. Lipshaw, MD, MS, of the Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center, and Todd A. Florin, MD, MSCE, of Ann and Robert H. Lurie Children’s Hospital of Chicago.

These remarks came in their editorial in Pediatrics wryly titled: “Don’t Just Do Something, Stand There” and published online to accompany a recent study of three network meta-analyses.

Led by Sarah A. Elliott, PhD, of the Alberta Research Centre for Health Evidence at the University of Alberta in Edmonton, this analysis amalgamated 150 randomized, controlled trials comparing a placebo or active comparator with any bronchodilator, glucocorticoid steroid, hypertonic saline solution, antibiotic, helium-oxygen therapy, or high-flow oxygen therapy. It then looked at the following outcomes in children aged 2 years and younger: hospital admission rate on day 1, hospital admission rate within 7 days, and total hospital length of stay.

Few treatments seemed more effective than nebulized placebo (0.9% saline) for short-term outcomes, the authors found. While nebulized epinephrine and nebulized hypertonic saline plus salbutamol appeared to reduce admission rates during the index ED presentation, and hypertonic saline, alone or in combination with epinephrine, seemed to reduce hospital stays, such treatment had no effect on admissions within 7 days of initial presentation. Furthermore, most benefits disappeared in higher-quality studies.

Concluding, albeit with weak evidence and low confidence, that some benefit might accrue with hypertonic saline with salbutamol to reduce admission rates on initial presentation to the ED, the authors called for well-designed studies on treatments in inpatients and outpatients.

According to Dr. Lipshaw, assistant professor of clinical pediatrics, the lack of benefit observed in superior studies limits the applicability of Dr. Elliott and colleagues’ results to immediate clinical practice. “These findings could be used, however, to target future high-quality studies toward the medications that they found might be useful,” he said in an interview.

For the present, other recent research augurs well for strategically reducing unnecessary care. In a paper published online in JAMA Pediatrics, Libby Haskell, MN, of the ED at Starship Children’s Hospital in Auckland, New Zealand, and associates reported on a cluster-randomized, controlled trial of targeted interventions.

Conducted in 2017 at 26 hospitals and with 3,727 babies in New Zealand and Australia, the study addressed drivers of non–evidence-based approaches with behavior-modifying approaches such as on-site clinical leads, stakeholder meetings, a train-the-trainer workshop, education, and audit and feedback.

The authors reported a 14.1% difference in rates of compliance during the first 24 hours of hospitalization favoring the intervention group for all five bronchiolitis guideline recommendations. The greatest change was seen in albuterol and chest radiography use, with other improvements in ED visits, inpatient consultations, and throughout hospitalization.

“These results provide clinicians and hospitals with clear implementation strategies to address unnecessary treatment of infants with bronchiolitis,” Dr. Haskell’s group wrote. Dr. Lipshaw agreed that multifaceted deimplementation packages including clinician and family education, audit and feedback, and clinical decision support have been successful. “Haskell et al. demonstrated that it is possible to successfully deimplement non–evidence-based practices for bronchiolitis with targeted inventions,” he said. “It would be wonderful to see their success replicated in the U.S.”


 

Why the slow adoption of guidelines?

The American Academy of Pediatrics issued bronchiolitis guidelines for babies to 23 months in 2014 and updated them in 2018. Why, then, has care in some centers been seemingly all over the map and counter to guidelines? “Both parents and clinicians are acting in what they believe to be the best interests of the child, and in the absence of high-value interventions, can feel the need to do something, even if that something is not supported by evidence,” Dr. Lipshaw said. 

Furthermore, with children in obvious distress, breathing fast and with difficulty, and sometimes unable to eat or drink, “we feel like we should have some way to make them feel better quicker. Unfortunately, none of the medications we have tried seem to be useful for most children, and we are left with supportive care measures such as suctioning their noses, giving them oxygen if their oxygen is low, and giving them fluids if they are dehydrated.”

Other physicians agree that taking a less-is-more approach can be challenging and even counterintuitive. “To families, seeing their child’s doctor ‘doing less’ can be frustrating,” admitted Diana S. Lee, MD, assistant professor of pediatrics at Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York.

Beyond that, altering practice behavior will need more than guidelines, Dr. Lee said in an interview. “Haskell et al. showed targeted behavior-change interventions improved compliance with bronchiolitis guidelines, but such change requires motivation and resources, and the sustainability of this effect over time remains to be seen.”

At Dr. Lipshaw’s institution, treatment depends on the attending physician, “but we have an emergency department care algorithm, which does not recommend any inhaled medications or steroids in accordance with the 2014 AAP guidelines,” he said.

Similarly at Mount Sinai, practitioners strive to follow the AAP guidelines, although their implementation has not been immediate, Dr. Lee said. “This is a situation where we must make the effort to choose not to do more, given current evidence.”

But Michelle Dunn, MD, an attending physician in the division of general pediatrics at the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, said the American practice norm already tends more to the observance than the breach of the guidelines, noting that since 2014 quality improvement efforts have been made throughout the country. “At our institution, we have effectively reduced the use of albuterol in patients with bronchiolitis and we use evidence-based therapy as much as possible, which in the case of bronchiolitis generally involves supportive management alone,” she said in an interview.

Still, Dr. Dunn added, many patients receive unnecessary diagnostic testing and ineffective therapies, with some providers facing psychological barriers to doing less. “However, with more and more evidence to support this, hopefully, physicians will become more comfortable with this.”

To that end, Dr. Lipshaw’s editorial urges physicians to “curb the rampant use of therapies repeatedly revealed to be ineffective,” citing team engagement, clear practice guidelines, and information technology as key factors in deimplementation. In the meantime, his mantra remains: “Don’t just do something, stand there.”

The study by Dr. Elliot and colleagues was supported by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research Knowledge Synthesis grant program. One coauthor is supported by a University of Ottawa Tier I Research Chair in Pediatric Emergency Medicine. Another is supported by a Tier 1 Canada Research Chair in Knowledge Synthesis and Translation and the Stollery Science Laboratory. Dr. Lipshaw and Dr. Florin disclosed no financial relationships relevant to their commentary. Dr. Haskell and colleagues were supported, variously, by the National Health and Medical Research Council of New Zealand, the Center of Research Excellence for Pediatric Emergency Medicine, the Victorian Government’s Operational Infrastructure Support Program, Cure Kids New Zealand, the Royal Children’s Hospital Foundation, and the Starship Foundation. Dr. Lee and Dr. Dunn had no competing interests to disclose with regard to their comments.

A common cause of infant morbidity and hospitalization in developed countries, infant viral bronchiolitis, has long been bedeviled by treatment uncertainty beyond supportive care.

Rationales for most pharmacologic treatments continue to be debated, and clinical practice guidelines generally advise respiratory and hydration support, discouraging the use of chest radiography, albuterol, glucocorticoids, antibiotics, and epinephrine.

Despite evidence that the latter interventions are ineffective, they are still too often applied, according to two recent studies, one in Pediatrics, the other in JAMA Pediatrics.

“The pull of the therapeutic vacuum surrounding this disease has been noted in the pages of this journal for at least 50 years, with Wright and Beem writing in 1965 that ‘energies should not be frittered away by the annoyance of unnecessary or futile medications and procedures’ for the child with bronchiolitis,” said emergency physicians Matthew J. Lipshaw, MD, MS, of the Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center, and Todd A. Florin, MD, MSCE, of Ann and Robert H. Lurie Children’s Hospital of Chicago.

These remarks came in their editorial in Pediatrics wryly titled: “Don’t Just Do Something, Stand There” and published online to accompany a recent study of three network meta-analyses.

Led by Sarah A. Elliott, PhD, of the Alberta Research Centre for Health Evidence at the University of Alberta in Edmonton, this analysis amalgamated 150 randomized, controlled trials comparing a placebo or active comparator with any bronchodilator, glucocorticoid steroid, hypertonic saline solution, antibiotic, helium-oxygen therapy, or high-flow oxygen therapy. It then looked at the following outcomes in children aged 2 years and younger: hospital admission rate on day 1, hospital admission rate within 7 days, and total hospital length of stay.

Few treatments seemed more effective than nebulized placebo (0.9% saline) for short-term outcomes, the authors found. While nebulized epinephrine and nebulized hypertonic saline plus salbutamol appeared to reduce admission rates during the index ED presentation, and hypertonic saline, alone or in combination with epinephrine, seemed to reduce hospital stays, such treatment had no effect on admissions within 7 days of initial presentation. Furthermore, most benefits disappeared in higher-quality studies.

Concluding, albeit with weak evidence and low confidence, that some benefit might accrue with hypertonic saline with salbutamol to reduce admission rates on initial presentation to the ED, the authors called for well-designed studies on treatments in inpatients and outpatients.

According to Dr. Lipshaw, assistant professor of clinical pediatrics, the lack of benefit observed in superior studies limits the applicability of Dr. Elliott and colleagues’ results to immediate clinical practice. “These findings could be used, however, to target future high-quality studies toward the medications that they found might be useful,” he said in an interview.

For the present, other recent research augurs well for strategically reducing unnecessary care. In a paper published online in JAMA Pediatrics, Libby Haskell, MN, of the ED at Starship Children’s Hospital in Auckland, New Zealand, and associates reported on a cluster-randomized, controlled trial of targeted interventions.

Conducted in 2017 at 26 hospitals and with 3,727 babies in New Zealand and Australia, the study addressed drivers of non–evidence-based approaches with behavior-modifying approaches such as on-site clinical leads, stakeholder meetings, a train-the-trainer workshop, education, and audit and feedback.

The authors reported a 14.1% difference in rates of compliance during the first 24 hours of hospitalization favoring the intervention group for all five bronchiolitis guideline recommendations. The greatest change was seen in albuterol and chest radiography use, with other improvements in ED visits, inpatient consultations, and throughout hospitalization.

“These results provide clinicians and hospitals with clear implementation strategies to address unnecessary treatment of infants with bronchiolitis,” Dr. Haskell’s group wrote. Dr. Lipshaw agreed that multifaceted deimplementation packages including clinician and family education, audit and feedback, and clinical decision support have been successful. “Haskell et al. demonstrated that it is possible to successfully deimplement non–evidence-based practices for bronchiolitis with targeted inventions,” he said. “It would be wonderful to see their success replicated in the U.S.”


 

Why the slow adoption of guidelines?

The American Academy of Pediatrics issued bronchiolitis guidelines for babies to 23 months in 2014 and updated them in 2018. Why, then, has care in some centers been seemingly all over the map and counter to guidelines? “Both parents and clinicians are acting in what they believe to be the best interests of the child, and in the absence of high-value interventions, can feel the need to do something, even if that something is not supported by evidence,” Dr. Lipshaw said. 

Furthermore, with children in obvious distress, breathing fast and with difficulty, and sometimes unable to eat or drink, “we feel like we should have some way to make them feel better quicker. Unfortunately, none of the medications we have tried seem to be useful for most children, and we are left with supportive care measures such as suctioning their noses, giving them oxygen if their oxygen is low, and giving them fluids if they are dehydrated.”

Other physicians agree that taking a less-is-more approach can be challenging and even counterintuitive. “To families, seeing their child’s doctor ‘doing less’ can be frustrating,” admitted Diana S. Lee, MD, assistant professor of pediatrics at Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York.

Beyond that, altering practice behavior will need more than guidelines, Dr. Lee said in an interview. “Haskell et al. showed targeted behavior-change interventions improved compliance with bronchiolitis guidelines, but such change requires motivation and resources, and the sustainability of this effect over time remains to be seen.”

At Dr. Lipshaw’s institution, treatment depends on the attending physician, “but we have an emergency department care algorithm, which does not recommend any inhaled medications or steroids in accordance with the 2014 AAP guidelines,” he said.

Similarly at Mount Sinai, practitioners strive to follow the AAP guidelines, although their implementation has not been immediate, Dr. Lee said. “This is a situation where we must make the effort to choose not to do more, given current evidence.”

But Michelle Dunn, MD, an attending physician in the division of general pediatrics at the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, said the American practice norm already tends more to the observance than the breach of the guidelines, noting that since 2014 quality improvement efforts have been made throughout the country. “At our institution, we have effectively reduced the use of albuterol in patients with bronchiolitis and we use evidence-based therapy as much as possible, which in the case of bronchiolitis generally involves supportive management alone,” she said in an interview.

Still, Dr. Dunn added, many patients receive unnecessary diagnostic testing and ineffective therapies, with some providers facing psychological barriers to doing less. “However, with more and more evidence to support this, hopefully, physicians will become more comfortable with this.”

To that end, Dr. Lipshaw’s editorial urges physicians to “curb the rampant use of therapies repeatedly revealed to be ineffective,” citing team engagement, clear practice guidelines, and information technology as key factors in deimplementation. In the meantime, his mantra remains: “Don’t just do something, stand there.”

The study by Dr. Elliot and colleagues was supported by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research Knowledge Synthesis grant program. One coauthor is supported by a University of Ottawa Tier I Research Chair in Pediatric Emergency Medicine. Another is supported by a Tier 1 Canada Research Chair in Knowledge Synthesis and Translation and the Stollery Science Laboratory. Dr. Lipshaw and Dr. Florin disclosed no financial relationships relevant to their commentary. Dr. Haskell and colleagues were supported, variously, by the National Health and Medical Research Council of New Zealand, the Center of Research Excellence for Pediatric Emergency Medicine, the Victorian Government’s Operational Infrastructure Support Program, Cure Kids New Zealand, the Royal Children’s Hospital Foundation, and the Starship Foundation. Dr. Lee and Dr. Dunn had no competing interests to disclose with regard to their comments.

New cases of COVID-19 dropped among children for just the second time in the past 6 weeks, but that was not enough to reverse the trend in children’s share of the weekly total, according to a report from the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Children’s Hospital Association.

Despite the decline in new cases, which fell from 88,000 to just under 80,000, or 9.7%, during the week of April 16-22, children represented 20.8% of all COVID-19 cases reported for the week, surpassing the pandemic-high 20.6% seen just a week earlier, the AAP/CHA report shows.

The total number of cases in children is now over 3.7 million – that’s 13.7% of cases in all ages – since the start of the pandemic, and the cumulative rate of infection has reached 4,931 per 100,000 children, based on data from 49 states (excluding New York), the District of Columbia, New York City, Puerto Rico, and Guam.

Cases of more severe illness in children continue to trend lower. The cumulative number of hospitalizations in children (15,187) is only 2.0% of the total of almost 760,000 in the 25 jurisdictions (24 states and New York City) that report such data, and deaths in children now number 296, which is just 0.06% of all COVID-19–related mortality in 43 states, New York City, Puerto Rico, and Guam, the AAP and CHA said in their report.

Among those 46 jurisdictions, Texas has reported the most deaths (51) in children, followed by Arizona (29) and New York City (23), while 9 states and the District of Columbia have reported no deaths so far. Children represent the highest proportion of deaths (0.19%) in Colorado, but Guam, with 2 child deaths among its total of 136, has by far the highest rate at 1.47%, the AAP/CHA data show.

Data from the 25 reporting jurisdictions show that children make up the largest share of hospitalizations (3.1%) in Colorado and Minnesota, while New York City (1.9%), Georgia (1.3%), and Rhode Island (1.3%) have the highest hospitalization rates among children diagnosed with SARS-CoV-2 infection, the two groups reported.

[email protected]

New cases of COVID-19 dropped among children for just the second time in the past 6 weeks, but that was not enough to reverse the trend in children’s share of the weekly total, according to a report from the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Children’s Hospital Association.

Despite the decline in new cases, which fell from 88,000 to just under 80,000, or 9.7%, during the week of April 16-22, children represented 20.8% of all COVID-19 cases reported for the week, surpassing the pandemic-high 20.6% seen just a week earlier, the AAP/CHA report shows.

The total number of cases in children is now over 3.7 million – that’s 13.7% of cases in all ages – since the start of the pandemic, and the cumulative rate of infection has reached 4,931 per 100,000 children, based on data from 49 states (excluding New York), the District of Columbia, New York City, Puerto Rico, and Guam.

Cases of more severe illness in children continue to trend lower. The cumulative number of hospitalizations in children (15,187) is only 2.0% of the total of almost 760,000 in the 25 jurisdictions (24 states and New York City) that report such data, and deaths in children now number 296, which is just 0.06% of all COVID-19–related mortality in 43 states, New York City, Puerto Rico, and Guam, the AAP and CHA said in their report.

Among those 46 jurisdictions, Texas has reported the most deaths (51) in children, followed by Arizona (29) and New York City (23), while 9 states and the District of Columbia have reported no deaths so far. Children represent the highest proportion of deaths (0.19%) in Colorado, but Guam, with 2 child deaths among its total of 136, has by far the highest rate at 1.47%, the AAP/CHA data show.

Data from the 25 reporting jurisdictions show that children make up the largest share of hospitalizations (3.1%) in Colorado and Minnesota, while New York City (1.9%), Georgia (1.3%), and Rhode Island (1.3%) have the highest hospitalization rates among children diagnosed with SARS-CoV-2 infection, the two groups reported.

[email protected]

New cases of COVID-19 dropped among children for just the second time in the past 6 weeks, but that was not enough to reverse the trend in children’s share of the weekly total, according to a report from the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Children’s Hospital Association.

Despite the decline in new cases, which fell from 88,000 to just under 80,000, or 9.7%, during the week of April 16-22, children represented 20.8% of all COVID-19 cases reported for the week, surpassing the pandemic-high 20.6% seen just a week earlier, the AAP/CHA report shows.

The total number of cases in children is now over 3.7 million – that’s 13.7% of cases in all ages – since the start of the pandemic, and the cumulative rate of infection has reached 4,931 per 100,000 children, based on data from 49 states (excluding New York), the District of Columbia, New York City, Puerto Rico, and Guam.

Cases of more severe illness in children continue to trend lower. The cumulative number of hospitalizations in children (15,187) is only 2.0% of the total of almost 760,000 in the 25 jurisdictions (24 states and New York City) that report such data, and deaths in children now number 296, which is just 0.06% of all COVID-19–related mortality in 43 states, New York City, Puerto Rico, and Guam, the AAP and CHA said in their report.

Among those 46 jurisdictions, Texas has reported the most deaths (51) in children, followed by Arizona (29) and New York City (23), while 9 states and the District of Columbia have reported no deaths so far. Children represent the highest proportion of deaths (0.19%) in Colorado, but Guam, with 2 child deaths among its total of 136, has by far the highest rate at 1.47%, the AAP/CHA data show.

Data from the 25 reporting jurisdictions show that children make up the largest share of hospitalizations (3.1%) in Colorado and Minnesota, while New York City (1.9%), Georgia (1.3%), and Rhode Island (1.3%) have the highest hospitalization rates among children diagnosed with SARS-CoV-2 infection, the two groups reported.

[email protected]