Infectious Diseases

HIV-positive patients who are adherent with antiretroviral medications are achieving undetectable or very low levels of HIV viremia and living longer. In response, clinical care is continually adapting to the dramatically altered natural history of disease.

Today, the cutting edge of clinical care overlaps with primary care. The clinical vanguard addresses the medical vulnerabilities of patients with HIV, seeking to eliminate preventable morbidity and premature death. Among this clinical vanguard is the screening for and prevention of anal cancer. With the increased longevity of people living with HIV and the nearly universal exposure to human papillomavirus (HPV), there is now potential for progression to mucosal cellular dysplasia and eventual malignancy.

We know that prevention is possible because of the example of cervical cancer, the etiology of which is exposure to oncogenic serotypes of HPV (16 and 18 are most common). Screenings for cervical cancer (regular clinical examinations and Pap smears) and treatments to eliminate high-grade dysplasia have decreased the incidence rate by over 50% since the 1970s. Vaccination against HPV has been available since 2006 and offers the prospect of preventing HPV-associated malignancies, including head and neck cancer, in future decades.

However, rates of anal cancer are increasing. The CDC estimates that about 4,700 new cases of HPV-associated anal cancers are diagnosed in women and about 2,300 are diagnosed in men each year in the United States. Anal cancer rates in individuals with HIV have increased in the era of effective antiretrovirals and greater longevity. The highest rates, at 95 per 100,000, are in HIV-positive men who have sex with men. Very similar rates were noted in a more recent study that found increased risk with advancing age and in those with an AIDS diagnosis.
 

All patients with HIV should be screened

The New York State AIDS Institute Clinical Guidelines Program recommends screening for anal dysplasia in all patients with HIV. A proactive approach similar to cervical cancer screening is appropriate and includes measures easily implemented by all clinicians.

• History: Assess for rectal symptoms, anal pain, discharge, and lumps.
• Physical exam: Assess for presence of perianal lesions; perform a thorough digital rectal exam.
• Anal Pap test for anal cytology: Insert a Dacron swab moistened with tap water about 3 inches into the anal canal, applying pressure to lateral anal walls and rotating the swab. Then remove and place the swab into liquid cytology solution, shake vigorously for a full 30 seconds, and assess for any dysplasia (high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion, low-grade intraepithelial lesion, atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance), which would warrant further evaluation by high-resolution anoscopy (HRA).

High-resolution anoscopy

HRA for anal dysplasia corresponds to colposcopy for cervical dysplasia. The ability to treat and eliminate high-risk precursor lesions interrupts the progression to malignancy. The efficacy of this strategy is being evaluated in a National Institutes of Health prospective trial called the Anchor Study. The epidemiology of HPV; the clinical horror of witnessing the painful, preventable deaths of young patients with well-controlled HIV caused by anal cancer; and the example of controlling cervical cancer have motivated my practice to assure comprehensive care for our patients.

Unfortunately, establishing HRA in one’s practice is challenging. Barriers to practice include the expense of required equipment and the absence of consensus on specific products. In addition, hands-on precepting to ease newcomers to competence is not generally available. Considerable skill is required for complete visualization of the anal transformative zone in the folds of the anal canal, and recognizing high-risk lesions requires study and accumulated experience. The International Anal Neoplasia Society is a useful resource that also offers a training course. We are invited to train ourselves, and to rely on the eventual feedback of biopsy results and the forbearance of our early patients.

The expanding scope of our medical practices must shift to meet the evolving needs of the growing population of virologically suppressed patients who are living longer. HIV care involves curing life-threatening opportunistic infections, encouraging antiretroviral adherence, and providing comprehensive care – which now includes preventing anal cancer.

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

HIV-positive patients who are adherent with antiretroviral medications are achieving undetectable or very low levels of HIV viremia and living longer. In response, clinical care is continually adapting to the dramatically altered natural history of disease.

Today, the cutting edge of clinical care overlaps with primary care. The clinical vanguard addresses the medical vulnerabilities of patients with HIV, seeking to eliminate preventable morbidity and premature death. Among this clinical vanguard is the screening for and prevention of anal cancer. With the increased longevity of people living with HIV and the nearly universal exposure to human papillomavirus (HPV), there is now potential for progression to mucosal cellular dysplasia and eventual malignancy.

We know that prevention is possible because of the example of cervical cancer, the etiology of which is exposure to oncogenic serotypes of HPV (16 and 18 are most common). Screenings for cervical cancer (regular clinical examinations and Pap smears) and treatments to eliminate high-grade dysplasia have decreased the incidence rate by over 50% since the 1970s. Vaccination against HPV has been available since 2006 and offers the prospect of preventing HPV-associated malignancies, including head and neck cancer, in future decades.

However, rates of anal cancer are increasing. The CDC estimates that about 4,700 new cases of HPV-associated anal cancers are diagnosed in women and about 2,300 are diagnosed in men each year in the United States. Anal cancer rates in individuals with HIV have increased in the era of effective antiretrovirals and greater longevity. The highest rates, at 95 per 100,000, are in HIV-positive men who have sex with men. Very similar rates were noted in a more recent study that found increased risk with advancing age and in those with an AIDS diagnosis.
 

All patients with HIV should be screened

The New York State AIDS Institute Clinical Guidelines Program recommends screening for anal dysplasia in all patients with HIV. A proactive approach similar to cervical cancer screening is appropriate and includes measures easily implemented by all clinicians.

• History: Assess for rectal symptoms, anal pain, discharge, and lumps.
• Physical exam: Assess for presence of perianal lesions; perform a thorough digital rectal exam.
• Anal Pap test for anal cytology: Insert a Dacron swab moistened with tap water about 3 inches into the anal canal, applying pressure to lateral anal walls and rotating the swab. Then remove and place the swab into liquid cytology solution, shake vigorously for a full 30 seconds, and assess for any dysplasia (high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion, low-grade intraepithelial lesion, atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance), which would warrant further evaluation by high-resolution anoscopy (HRA).

High-resolution anoscopy

HRA for anal dysplasia corresponds to colposcopy for cervical dysplasia. The ability to treat and eliminate high-risk precursor lesions interrupts the progression to malignancy. The efficacy of this strategy is being evaluated in a National Institutes of Health prospective trial called the Anchor Study. The epidemiology of HPV; the clinical horror of witnessing the painful, preventable deaths of young patients with well-controlled HIV caused by anal cancer; and the example of controlling cervical cancer have motivated my practice to assure comprehensive care for our patients.

Unfortunately, establishing HRA in one’s practice is challenging. Barriers to practice include the expense of required equipment and the absence of consensus on specific products. In addition, hands-on precepting to ease newcomers to competence is not generally available. Considerable skill is required for complete visualization of the anal transformative zone in the folds of the anal canal, and recognizing high-risk lesions requires study and accumulated experience. The International Anal Neoplasia Society is a useful resource that also offers a training course. We are invited to train ourselves, and to rely on the eventual feedback of biopsy results and the forbearance of our early patients.

The expanding scope of our medical practices must shift to meet the evolving needs of the growing population of virologically suppressed patients who are living longer. HIV care involves curing life-threatening opportunistic infections, encouraging antiretroviral adherence, and providing comprehensive care – which now includes preventing anal cancer.

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

HIV-positive patients who are adherent with antiretroviral medications are achieving undetectable or very low levels of HIV viremia and living longer. In response, clinical care is continually adapting to the dramatically altered natural history of disease.

Today, the cutting edge of clinical care overlaps with primary care. The clinical vanguard addresses the medical vulnerabilities of patients with HIV, seeking to eliminate preventable morbidity and premature death. Among this clinical vanguard is the screening for and prevention of anal cancer. With the increased longevity of people living with HIV and the nearly universal exposure to human papillomavirus (HPV), there is now potential for progression to mucosal cellular dysplasia and eventual malignancy.

We know that prevention is possible because of the example of cervical cancer, the etiology of which is exposure to oncogenic serotypes of HPV (16 and 18 are most common). Screenings for cervical cancer (regular clinical examinations and Pap smears) and treatments to eliminate high-grade dysplasia have decreased the incidence rate by over 50% since the 1970s. Vaccination against HPV has been available since 2006 and offers the prospect of preventing HPV-associated malignancies, including head and neck cancer, in future decades.

However, rates of anal cancer are increasing. The CDC estimates that about 4,700 new cases of HPV-associated anal cancers are diagnosed in women and about 2,300 are diagnosed in men each year in the United States. Anal cancer rates in individuals with HIV have increased in the era of effective antiretrovirals and greater longevity. The highest rates, at 95 per 100,000, are in HIV-positive men who have sex with men. Very similar rates were noted in a more recent study that found increased risk with advancing age and in those with an AIDS diagnosis.
 

All patients with HIV should be screened

The New York State AIDS Institute Clinical Guidelines Program recommends screening for anal dysplasia in all patients with HIV. A proactive approach similar to cervical cancer screening is appropriate and includes measures easily implemented by all clinicians.

• History: Assess for rectal symptoms, anal pain, discharge, and lumps.
• Physical exam: Assess for presence of perianal lesions; perform a thorough digital rectal exam.
• Anal Pap test for anal cytology: Insert a Dacron swab moistened with tap water about 3 inches into the anal canal, applying pressure to lateral anal walls and rotating the swab. Then remove and place the swab into liquid cytology solution, shake vigorously for a full 30 seconds, and assess for any dysplasia (high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion, low-grade intraepithelial lesion, atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance), which would warrant further evaluation by high-resolution anoscopy (HRA).

High-resolution anoscopy

HRA for anal dysplasia corresponds to colposcopy for cervical dysplasia. The ability to treat and eliminate high-risk precursor lesions interrupts the progression to malignancy. The efficacy of this strategy is being evaluated in a National Institutes of Health prospective trial called the Anchor Study. The epidemiology of HPV; the clinical horror of witnessing the painful, preventable deaths of young patients with well-controlled HIV caused by anal cancer; and the example of controlling cervical cancer have motivated my practice to assure comprehensive care for our patients.

Unfortunately, establishing HRA in one’s practice is challenging. Barriers to practice include the expense of required equipment and the absence of consensus on specific products. In addition, hands-on precepting to ease newcomers to competence is not generally available. Considerable skill is required for complete visualization of the anal transformative zone in the folds of the anal canal, and recognizing high-risk lesions requires study and accumulated experience. The International Anal Neoplasia Society is a useful resource that also offers a training course. We are invited to train ourselves, and to rely on the eventual feedback of biopsy results and the forbearance of our early patients.

The expanding scope of our medical practices must shift to meet the evolving needs of the growing population of virologically suppressed patients who are living longer. HIV care involves curing life-threatening opportunistic infections, encouraging antiretroviral adherence, and providing comprehensive care – which now includes preventing anal cancer.

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

A novel minimal monitoring (MINMON) approach to hepatitis C virus (HCV) treatment was safe and achieved sustained virology response (SVR) compared to current clinical standards in treatment-naive patients without evidence of decompensated cirrhosis, according to a recent study.

©Jezperklauzen/ThinkStock

“This model may allow for HCV elimination, while minimizing resource use and face-to-face contact,” said investigator Sunil S. Solomon, MBBS, PhD, of Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore. “The COVID-19 pandemic has highlighted the urgent need for simple and safe models of HCV [care] delivery.”

Dr. Solomon described the new approach to HCV treatment during a presentation at this year’s Conference on Retroviruses and Opportunistic Infections virtual meeting.
 

Study design

ACTG A5360 was an international, single-arm, open-label, phase 4 trial that enrolled 400 patients across 38 treatment sites.

The researchers evaluated the efficacy and safety of the MINMON approach in treatment-naive individuals who had no evidence of decompensated cirrhosis. Study participants received a fixed-dose, single-tablet regimen of sofosbuvir 400 mg/velpatasvir 100 mg once daily for 12 weeks.

The MINMON approach comprised four key elements: no pretreatment genotyping, all tablets dispensed at study entry, no scheduled on-treatment clinic visits/labs, and two remote contacts at weeks 4 (adherence evaluation) and 22 (scheduled SVR visit). Unplanned visits for patients concerns were permitted.

Key eligibility criteria included active HCV infection (HCV RNA > 1,000 IU/mL) and no prior HCV treatment history. Persons with HIV coinfection (50% or less of sample) and compensated cirrhosis (20% or less of sample) were also eligible. Persons with chronic hepatitis B virus (HBV) infection and decompensated cirrhosis were excluded.

The primary efficacy endpoint was SVR, defined as HCV RNA less than the lower limit of quantification in the first sample at least 22 weeks post treatment initiation. The primary safety endpoint was any serious adverse events (AEs) occurring between treatment initiation and week 28.
 

Results

Among 400 patients enrolled, 399 (99.8%) were included in the primary efficacy analysis and 397 (99.3%) were included in the safety analysis. The median age of participants was 47 years, and 35% were female sex at birth. At baseline, 166 (42%) patients had HIV coinfection and 34 (9%) had compensated cirrhosis.

After analysis, the researchers found that remote contact was successful at weeks 4 and 22 for 394 (98.7%) and 335 (84.0%) participants, respectively.

In total, 15 (3.8%) participants recorded 21 unplanned visits, 3 (14.3%) of which were due to AEs, none of which were treatment related. Three participants reported losing study medications and one participant prematurely discontinued therapy due to an AE.

HCV RNA data at SVR were available for 396 participants. Overall, 379 patients (95.0%) achieved SVR (95% confidence interval [CI], 92.4%-96.7%).

“The study was not powered for SVR by subgroups, which explains why we observed wide confidence intervals in our forest plot,” Dr. Solomon said.

With respect to safety, serious AEs were reported in 14 (3.5%) participants through week 24 visit, none of which were treatment related or resulted in death.

Dr. Solomon acknowledged that a key limitation of the study was the single-arm design. As a result, there was no direct comparison to standard monitoring practices. In addition, these results may not be generalizable to all nonresearch treatment sites.

“The COVID-19 pandemic has required us to pivot clinical programs to minimize in-person contact, and promote more remote approaches, which is really the essence of the MINMON approach,” Dr. Solomon explained.

“There are really wonderful results in the population that was studied, but may reflect a more adherent patient population,” said moderator Robert T. Schooley, MD, of the University of California, San Diego.

During a discussion, Dr. Solomon noted that the MINMON approach may be further explored in patients who are actively injecting drugs, as these patients were not well represented in the present study.

Dr. Solomon disclosed financial relationships with Gilead Sciences and Abbott Diagnostics. The study was funded by the National Institutes of Health and Gilead Sciences.

A novel minimal monitoring (MINMON) approach to hepatitis C virus (HCV) treatment was safe and achieved sustained virology response (SVR) compared to current clinical standards in treatment-naive patients without evidence of decompensated cirrhosis, according to a recent study.

©Jezperklauzen/ThinkStock

“This model may allow for HCV elimination, while minimizing resource use and face-to-face contact,” said investigator Sunil S. Solomon, MBBS, PhD, of Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore. “The COVID-19 pandemic has highlighted the urgent need for simple and safe models of HCV [care] delivery.”

Dr. Solomon described the new approach to HCV treatment during a presentation at this year’s Conference on Retroviruses and Opportunistic Infections virtual meeting.
 

Study design

ACTG A5360 was an international, single-arm, open-label, phase 4 trial that enrolled 400 patients across 38 treatment sites.

The researchers evaluated the efficacy and safety of the MINMON approach in treatment-naive individuals who had no evidence of decompensated cirrhosis. Study participants received a fixed-dose, single-tablet regimen of sofosbuvir 400 mg/velpatasvir 100 mg once daily for 12 weeks.

The MINMON approach comprised four key elements: no pretreatment genotyping, all tablets dispensed at study entry, no scheduled on-treatment clinic visits/labs, and two remote contacts at weeks 4 (adherence evaluation) and 22 (scheduled SVR visit). Unplanned visits for patients concerns were permitted.

Key eligibility criteria included active HCV infection (HCV RNA > 1,000 IU/mL) and no prior HCV treatment history. Persons with HIV coinfection (50% or less of sample) and compensated cirrhosis (20% or less of sample) were also eligible. Persons with chronic hepatitis B virus (HBV) infection and decompensated cirrhosis were excluded.

The primary efficacy endpoint was SVR, defined as HCV RNA less than the lower limit of quantification in the first sample at least 22 weeks post treatment initiation. The primary safety endpoint was any serious adverse events (AEs) occurring between treatment initiation and week 28.
 

Results

Among 400 patients enrolled, 399 (99.8%) were included in the primary efficacy analysis and 397 (99.3%) were included in the safety analysis. The median age of participants was 47 years, and 35% were female sex at birth. At baseline, 166 (42%) patients had HIV coinfection and 34 (9%) had compensated cirrhosis.

After analysis, the researchers found that remote contact was successful at weeks 4 and 22 for 394 (98.7%) and 335 (84.0%) participants, respectively.

In total, 15 (3.8%) participants recorded 21 unplanned visits, 3 (14.3%) of which were due to AEs, none of which were treatment related. Three participants reported losing study medications and one participant prematurely discontinued therapy due to an AE.

HCV RNA data at SVR were available for 396 participants. Overall, 379 patients (95.0%) achieved SVR (95% confidence interval [CI], 92.4%-96.7%).

“The study was not powered for SVR by subgroups, which explains why we observed wide confidence intervals in our forest plot,” Dr. Solomon said.

With respect to safety, serious AEs were reported in 14 (3.5%) participants through week 24 visit, none of which were treatment related or resulted in death.

Dr. Solomon acknowledged that a key limitation of the study was the single-arm design. As a result, there was no direct comparison to standard monitoring practices. In addition, these results may not be generalizable to all nonresearch treatment sites.

“The COVID-19 pandemic has required us to pivot clinical programs to minimize in-person contact, and promote more remote approaches, which is really the essence of the MINMON approach,” Dr. Solomon explained.

“There are really wonderful results in the population that was studied, but may reflect a more adherent patient population,” said moderator Robert T. Schooley, MD, of the University of California, San Diego.

During a discussion, Dr. Solomon noted that the MINMON approach may be further explored in patients who are actively injecting drugs, as these patients were not well represented in the present study.

Dr. Solomon disclosed financial relationships with Gilead Sciences and Abbott Diagnostics. The study was funded by the National Institutes of Health and Gilead Sciences.

A novel minimal monitoring (MINMON) approach to hepatitis C virus (HCV) treatment was safe and achieved sustained virology response (SVR) compared to current clinical standards in treatment-naive patients without evidence of decompensated cirrhosis, according to a recent study.

©Jezperklauzen/ThinkStock

“This model may allow for HCV elimination, while minimizing resource use and face-to-face contact,” said investigator Sunil S. Solomon, MBBS, PhD, of Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore. “The COVID-19 pandemic has highlighted the urgent need for simple and safe models of HCV [care] delivery.”

Dr. Solomon described the new approach to HCV treatment during a presentation at this year’s Conference on Retroviruses and Opportunistic Infections virtual meeting.
 

Study design

ACTG A5360 was an international, single-arm, open-label, phase 4 trial that enrolled 400 patients across 38 treatment sites.

The researchers evaluated the efficacy and safety of the MINMON approach in treatment-naive individuals who had no evidence of decompensated cirrhosis. Study participants received a fixed-dose, single-tablet regimen of sofosbuvir 400 mg/velpatasvir 100 mg once daily for 12 weeks.

The MINMON approach comprised four key elements: no pretreatment genotyping, all tablets dispensed at study entry, no scheduled on-treatment clinic visits/labs, and two remote contacts at weeks 4 (adherence evaluation) and 22 (scheduled SVR visit). Unplanned visits for patients concerns were permitted.

Key eligibility criteria included active HCV infection (HCV RNA > 1,000 IU/mL) and no prior HCV treatment history. Persons with HIV coinfection (50% or less of sample) and compensated cirrhosis (20% or less of sample) were also eligible. Persons with chronic hepatitis B virus (HBV) infection and decompensated cirrhosis were excluded.

The primary efficacy endpoint was SVR, defined as HCV RNA less than the lower limit of quantification in the first sample at least 22 weeks post treatment initiation. The primary safety endpoint was any serious adverse events (AEs) occurring between treatment initiation and week 28.
 

Results

Among 400 patients enrolled, 399 (99.8%) were included in the primary efficacy analysis and 397 (99.3%) were included in the safety analysis. The median age of participants was 47 years, and 35% were female sex at birth. At baseline, 166 (42%) patients had HIV coinfection and 34 (9%) had compensated cirrhosis.

After analysis, the researchers found that remote contact was successful at weeks 4 and 22 for 394 (98.7%) and 335 (84.0%) participants, respectively.

In total, 15 (3.8%) participants recorded 21 unplanned visits, 3 (14.3%) of which were due to AEs, none of which were treatment related. Three participants reported losing study medications and one participant prematurely discontinued therapy due to an AE.

HCV RNA data at SVR were available for 396 participants. Overall, 379 patients (95.0%) achieved SVR (95% confidence interval [CI], 92.4%-96.7%).

“The study was not powered for SVR by subgroups, which explains why we observed wide confidence intervals in our forest plot,” Dr. Solomon said.

With respect to safety, serious AEs were reported in 14 (3.5%) participants through week 24 visit, none of which were treatment related or resulted in death.

Dr. Solomon acknowledged that a key limitation of the study was the single-arm design. As a result, there was no direct comparison to standard monitoring practices. In addition, these results may not be generalizable to all nonresearch treatment sites.

“The COVID-19 pandemic has required us to pivot clinical programs to minimize in-person contact, and promote more remote approaches, which is really the essence of the MINMON approach,” Dr. Solomon explained.

“There are really wonderful results in the population that was studied, but may reflect a more adherent patient population,” said moderator Robert T. Schooley, MD, of the University of California, San Diego.

During a discussion, Dr. Solomon noted that the MINMON approach may be further explored in patients who are actively injecting drugs, as these patients were not well represented in the present study.

Dr. Solomon disclosed financial relationships with Gilead Sciences and Abbott Diagnostics. The study was funded by the National Institutes of Health and Gilead Sciences.

People with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) experienced significantly higher rates of first severe infections, a higher number of severe infections overall, and greater infection-related mortality, compared with controls, based on data from a population-based cohort study of more than 30,000 individuals.

Infections remain a leading cause of morbidity and early mortality in patients with SLE, wrote Kai Zhao, MSc, of Arthritis Research Canada, Richmond, and colleagues. However, “limitations from existing studies including selected samples, small sizes, and prevalent cohorts can negatively affect the accuracy of both the absolute and relative risk estimates of infections in SLE at the population level,” they said.

In a study published in Rheumatology, the researchers identified 5,169 people newly diagnosed with SLE between Jan. 1, 1997, and March 31, 2015, and matched them with 25,845 non-SLE controls using an administrative health database of all health care services funded in British Columbia during the time period. The investigators said the study is the first “to evaluate the risk of severe infections in a large population-based and incident SLE cohort.”

The average age of the patients was 46.9 at the time of their index SLE diagnosis, and 86% were women. The average follow-up period was approximately 10 years.

The primary outcome was the first severe infection after the onset of SLE that required hospitalization or occurred in the hospital setting. A total of 955 (18.5%) first severe infections occurred in the SLE group, compared with 1,988 (7.7%) in the controls, for incidence rates of 19.7 events per 1,000 person-years and 7.6 events per 1,000 person-years, respectively, yielding an 82% increased risk of severe infection for SLE patients after adjustment for confounding baseline factors.

Secondary outcomes of the total number of severe infections and infection-related mortality both showed significant increases in SLE patients, compared with controls. The total number of severe infections in the SLE and control groups was 1,898 and 3,114, respectively, with an adjusted risk ratio of 2.07.

As for mortality, a total of 539 deaths occurred in SLE patients during the study period, and 114 (21%) were related to severe infection. A total of 1,495 deaths occurred in the control group, including 269 (18%) related to severe infection. The adjusted hazard ratio was 1.61 after adjustment for confounding baseline variables.

The risks for first severe infection, total number of severe infections, and infection-related mortality were “independent of traditional risk factors for infection and the results remain robust in the presence of an unmeasured confounder (smoking) and competing risk of death,” the researchers said. Reasons for the increased risk are uncertain, but likely result from intrinsic factors such as immune system dysfunction and extrinsic factors such as the impact of immunosuppressive medications. “Future research can focus on quantifying the relative contributions of these intrinsic and extrinsic factors on the increased infection risk in SLE patients,” they added.

The study findings were limited by several factors linked to the observational design, including possible misdiagnosis of SLE and inaccurate measure of SLE onset, the researchers noted. In addition, no data were available for certain confounders such as smoking and nonhospitalized infections, they said.

However, the results were strengthened by the large size and general population and the use of sensitivity analyses, they noted. For SLE patients, “increased awareness of the risk of infections can identify their early signs and potentially prevent hospitalizations,” and clinicians can promote infection prevention strategies, including vaccinations when appropriate, they added.

Based on their findings, “we recommend a closer surveillance for severe infections in SLE patients and risk assessment for severe infections for SLE patients after diagnosis,” the researchers emphasized. “Further studies are warranted to further identify risk factors for infections in SLE patients to develop personalized treatment regimens and to select treatment in practice by synthesizing patient information,” they concluded.

The study was supported by the Canadian Institutes for Health Research. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.

People with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) experienced significantly higher rates of first severe infections, a higher number of severe infections overall, and greater infection-related mortality, compared with controls, based on data from a population-based cohort study of more than 30,000 individuals.

Infections remain a leading cause of morbidity and early mortality in patients with SLE, wrote Kai Zhao, MSc, of Arthritis Research Canada, Richmond, and colleagues. However, “limitations from existing studies including selected samples, small sizes, and prevalent cohorts can negatively affect the accuracy of both the absolute and relative risk estimates of infections in SLE at the population level,” they said.

In a study published in Rheumatology, the researchers identified 5,169 people newly diagnosed with SLE between Jan. 1, 1997, and March 31, 2015, and matched them with 25,845 non-SLE controls using an administrative health database of all health care services funded in British Columbia during the time period. The investigators said the study is the first “to evaluate the risk of severe infections in a large population-based and incident SLE cohort.”

The average age of the patients was 46.9 at the time of their index SLE diagnosis, and 86% were women. The average follow-up period was approximately 10 years.

The primary outcome was the first severe infection after the onset of SLE that required hospitalization or occurred in the hospital setting. A total of 955 (18.5%) first severe infections occurred in the SLE group, compared with 1,988 (7.7%) in the controls, for incidence rates of 19.7 events per 1,000 person-years and 7.6 events per 1,000 person-years, respectively, yielding an 82% increased risk of severe infection for SLE patients after adjustment for confounding baseline factors.

Secondary outcomes of the total number of severe infections and infection-related mortality both showed significant increases in SLE patients, compared with controls. The total number of severe infections in the SLE and control groups was 1,898 and 3,114, respectively, with an adjusted risk ratio of 2.07.

As for mortality, a total of 539 deaths occurred in SLE patients during the study period, and 114 (21%) were related to severe infection. A total of 1,495 deaths occurred in the control group, including 269 (18%) related to severe infection. The adjusted hazard ratio was 1.61 after adjustment for confounding baseline variables.

The risks for first severe infection, total number of severe infections, and infection-related mortality were “independent of traditional risk factors for infection and the results remain robust in the presence of an unmeasured confounder (smoking) and competing risk of death,” the researchers said. Reasons for the increased risk are uncertain, but likely result from intrinsic factors such as immune system dysfunction and extrinsic factors such as the impact of immunosuppressive medications. “Future research can focus on quantifying the relative contributions of these intrinsic and extrinsic factors on the increased infection risk in SLE patients,” they added.

The study findings were limited by several factors linked to the observational design, including possible misdiagnosis of SLE and inaccurate measure of SLE onset, the researchers noted. In addition, no data were available for certain confounders such as smoking and nonhospitalized infections, they said.

However, the results were strengthened by the large size and general population and the use of sensitivity analyses, they noted. For SLE patients, “increased awareness of the risk of infections can identify their early signs and potentially prevent hospitalizations,” and clinicians can promote infection prevention strategies, including vaccinations when appropriate, they added.

Based on their findings, “we recommend a closer surveillance for severe infections in SLE patients and risk assessment for severe infections for SLE patients after diagnosis,” the researchers emphasized. “Further studies are warranted to further identify risk factors for infections in SLE patients to develop personalized treatment regimens and to select treatment in practice by synthesizing patient information,” they concluded.

The study was supported by the Canadian Institutes for Health Research. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.

People with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) experienced significantly higher rates of first severe infections, a higher number of severe infections overall, and greater infection-related mortality, compared with controls, based on data from a population-based cohort study of more than 30,000 individuals.

Infections remain a leading cause of morbidity and early mortality in patients with SLE, wrote Kai Zhao, MSc, of Arthritis Research Canada, Richmond, and colleagues. However, “limitations from existing studies including selected samples, small sizes, and prevalent cohorts can negatively affect the accuracy of both the absolute and relative risk estimates of infections in SLE at the population level,” they said.

In a study published in Rheumatology, the researchers identified 5,169 people newly diagnosed with SLE between Jan. 1, 1997, and March 31, 2015, and matched them with 25,845 non-SLE controls using an administrative health database of all health care services funded in British Columbia during the time period. The investigators said the study is the first “to evaluate the risk of severe infections in a large population-based and incident SLE cohort.”

The average age of the patients was 46.9 at the time of their index SLE diagnosis, and 86% were women. The average follow-up period was approximately 10 years.

The primary outcome was the first severe infection after the onset of SLE that required hospitalization or occurred in the hospital setting. A total of 955 (18.5%) first severe infections occurred in the SLE group, compared with 1,988 (7.7%) in the controls, for incidence rates of 19.7 events per 1,000 person-years and 7.6 events per 1,000 person-years, respectively, yielding an 82% increased risk of severe infection for SLE patients after adjustment for confounding baseline factors.

Secondary outcomes of the total number of severe infections and infection-related mortality both showed significant increases in SLE patients, compared with controls. The total number of severe infections in the SLE and control groups was 1,898 and 3,114, respectively, with an adjusted risk ratio of 2.07.

As for mortality, a total of 539 deaths occurred in SLE patients during the study period, and 114 (21%) were related to severe infection. A total of 1,495 deaths occurred in the control group, including 269 (18%) related to severe infection. The adjusted hazard ratio was 1.61 after adjustment for confounding baseline variables.

The risks for first severe infection, total number of severe infections, and infection-related mortality were “independent of traditional risk factors for infection and the results remain robust in the presence of an unmeasured confounder (smoking) and competing risk of death,” the researchers said. Reasons for the increased risk are uncertain, but likely result from intrinsic factors such as immune system dysfunction and extrinsic factors such as the impact of immunosuppressive medications. “Future research can focus on quantifying the relative contributions of these intrinsic and extrinsic factors on the increased infection risk in SLE patients,” they added.

The study findings were limited by several factors linked to the observational design, including possible misdiagnosis of SLE and inaccurate measure of SLE onset, the researchers noted. In addition, no data were available for certain confounders such as smoking and nonhospitalized infections, they said.

However, the results were strengthened by the large size and general population and the use of sensitivity analyses, they noted. For SLE patients, “increased awareness of the risk of infections can identify their early signs and potentially prevent hospitalizations,” and clinicians can promote infection prevention strategies, including vaccinations when appropriate, they added.

Based on their findings, “we recommend a closer surveillance for severe infections in SLE patients and risk assessment for severe infections for SLE patients after diagnosis,” the researchers emphasized. “Further studies are warranted to further identify risk factors for infections in SLE patients to develop personalized treatment regimens and to select treatment in practice by synthesizing patient information,” they concluded.

The study was supported by the Canadian Institutes for Health Research. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Any level of hepatitis B virus (HBV) viremia was associated with increased hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) risk in adults with HIV/HBV coinfection, according to new research presented at the Conference on Retroviruses and Opportunistic Infections (Abstract 136).

sarathsasidharan/Thinkstock

“Chronic HBV coinfection is common among people with HIV, but the determinants of HBV-associated HCC are not well characterized,” said presenter H. Nina Kim MD, MSc, of the University of Washington, Seattle. “We sought to identify factors that contribute to HCC development in persons with HIV/HBV coinfection to guide early detection and prevention measures.”

The researchers conducted a longitudinal cohort study within the North American AIDS Cohort Collaboration on Research and Design (NA-ACCORD), a collaboration of single-site and multisite cohorts throughout the United States and Canada; 22 cohorts from NA-ACCORD were included in the analysis.

Potential HIV and HBV risk factors were examined, including viremia and CD4 percentage, as well as HBV DNA levels. Traditional risk factors for liver disease progression, including age, sex, and heavy alcohol use, were also assessed.

Eligible patients were 18 years of age or older who were followed for at least 6 months, had evidence of chronic HBV, and had HIV RNA or CD4+ cell measurement during this period. Persons with prevalent HCC at baseline were excluded.

The primary outcome was first occurrence of HCC, which was adjudicated by medical chart review and/or cancer registry. Multivariable Cox regression was used to determine adjusted hazard ratios of risk factors.
 

Results

Among 9,383 HIV/HBV-coinfected individuals identified, 8,354 (89%) were included in the analysis. The median age of participants was 43 years and 93.1% were male. Heavy alcohol use (35.3%) and chronic hepatitis C virus (HCV) coinfection (21.6%) were common among participants.

Among 8,354 eligible participants, 115 developed HCC over a median 6.9 years of follow-up (incidence rate, 1.8 events per 1,000 person-years; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.5-2.1).

Independent risk factors for HCC were chronic HCV coinfection (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 1.60 [95% confidence interval, 1.07-2.39]), age 40 years and older (aHR, 2.14 [1.36-3.37]), and heavy alcohol use (aHR, 1.51 [1.03-2.21]); however, time-updated CD4+ percentage less than 14% (aHR, 1.03 [0.56-1.90]) and time-updated HIV RNA level over 500 copies/mL (aHR, 0.88 [0.55-1.41]) were not associated with HCC risk.

In a second model, among 3,054 patients who had HBV DNA measured, the risk of HCC was higher with HBV DNA levels greater than 200 IU/mL (aHR, 2.70 [1.23-5.93]), and the risk was particularly elevated at levels greater than 200,000 IU/mL (aHR, 4.34 [1.72-10.94]).

The researchers also found that the risk of HCC was significantly lower in patients with HBV DNA suppression less than 200 IU/mL receiving HBV-active ART for 1 year or more (aHR, 0.42 [0.24-0.73]). In addition, a dose-response relationship was observed between the duration of suppression and this protective effect.

Dr. Nina Kim acknowledged that a key limitation of the study was inconsistent monitoring of HBV DNA level while patients were on treatment. Furthermore, given the demographics of the cohort, these results may not be generalizable outside of North America.

“Our study was the first to show that any level of HBV viremia using 200 as a threshold of detection was associated with HCC risk in a large regionally diverse cohort of adults outside of Asia,” Dr. Kim said. “To gain maximal protective benefit from antiviral therapy for HCC prevention, sustained and ideally uninterrupted suppression of HBV may be necessary over years.”

“HIV/HBV coinfected patients can take much longer than a year to achieve less than 200 copies on HBV DNA due to their baseline levels, but we still don’t know if HBV therapy intensification could hasten this process,” said moderator Robert T. Schooley, MD, of the University of California, San Diego.

Dr. Kim disclosed no conflicts of interest. The study was supported by multiple sources, including the National Institutes of Health, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and the National Cancer Institute.

Any level of hepatitis B virus (HBV) viremia was associated with increased hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) risk in adults with HIV/HBV coinfection, according to new research presented at the Conference on Retroviruses and Opportunistic Infections (Abstract 136).

sarathsasidharan/Thinkstock

“Chronic HBV coinfection is common among people with HIV, but the determinants of HBV-associated HCC are not well characterized,” said presenter H. Nina Kim MD, MSc, of the University of Washington, Seattle. “We sought to identify factors that contribute to HCC development in persons with HIV/HBV coinfection to guide early detection and prevention measures.”

The researchers conducted a longitudinal cohort study within the North American AIDS Cohort Collaboration on Research and Design (NA-ACCORD), a collaboration of single-site and multisite cohorts throughout the United States and Canada; 22 cohorts from NA-ACCORD were included in the analysis.

Potential HIV and HBV risk factors were examined, including viremia and CD4 percentage, as well as HBV DNA levels. Traditional risk factors for liver disease progression, including age, sex, and heavy alcohol use, were also assessed.

Eligible patients were 18 years of age or older who were followed for at least 6 months, had evidence of chronic HBV, and had HIV RNA or CD4+ cell measurement during this period. Persons with prevalent HCC at baseline were excluded.

The primary outcome was first occurrence of HCC, which was adjudicated by medical chart review and/or cancer registry. Multivariable Cox regression was used to determine adjusted hazard ratios of risk factors.
 

Results

Among 9,383 HIV/HBV-coinfected individuals identified, 8,354 (89%) were included in the analysis. The median age of participants was 43 years and 93.1% were male. Heavy alcohol use (35.3%) and chronic hepatitis C virus (HCV) coinfection (21.6%) were common among participants.

Among 8,354 eligible participants, 115 developed HCC over a median 6.9 years of follow-up (incidence rate, 1.8 events per 1,000 person-years; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.5-2.1).

Independent risk factors for HCC were chronic HCV coinfection (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 1.60 [95% confidence interval, 1.07-2.39]), age 40 years and older (aHR, 2.14 [1.36-3.37]), and heavy alcohol use (aHR, 1.51 [1.03-2.21]); however, time-updated CD4+ percentage less than 14% (aHR, 1.03 [0.56-1.90]) and time-updated HIV RNA level over 500 copies/mL (aHR, 0.88 [0.55-1.41]) were not associated with HCC risk.

In a second model, among 3,054 patients who had HBV DNA measured, the risk of HCC was higher with HBV DNA levels greater than 200 IU/mL (aHR, 2.70 [1.23-5.93]), and the risk was particularly elevated at levels greater than 200,000 IU/mL (aHR, 4.34 [1.72-10.94]).

The researchers also found that the risk of HCC was significantly lower in patients with HBV DNA suppression less than 200 IU/mL receiving HBV-active ART for 1 year or more (aHR, 0.42 [0.24-0.73]). In addition, a dose-response relationship was observed between the duration of suppression and this protective effect.

Dr. Nina Kim acknowledged that a key limitation of the study was inconsistent monitoring of HBV DNA level while patients were on treatment. Furthermore, given the demographics of the cohort, these results may not be generalizable outside of North America.

“Our study was the first to show that any level of HBV viremia using 200 as a threshold of detection was associated with HCC risk in a large regionally diverse cohort of adults outside of Asia,” Dr. Kim said. “To gain maximal protective benefit from antiviral therapy for HCC prevention, sustained and ideally uninterrupted suppression of HBV may be necessary over years.”

“HIV/HBV coinfected patients can take much longer than a year to achieve less than 200 copies on HBV DNA due to their baseline levels, but we still don’t know if HBV therapy intensification could hasten this process,” said moderator Robert T. Schooley, MD, of the University of California, San Diego.

Dr. Kim disclosed no conflicts of interest. The study was supported by multiple sources, including the National Institutes of Health, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and the National Cancer Institute.

Any level of hepatitis B virus (HBV) viremia was associated with increased hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) risk in adults with HIV/HBV coinfection, according to new research presented at the Conference on Retroviruses and Opportunistic Infections (Abstract 136).

sarathsasidharan/Thinkstock

“Chronic HBV coinfection is common among people with HIV, but the determinants of HBV-associated HCC are not well characterized,” said presenter H. Nina Kim MD, MSc, of the University of Washington, Seattle. “We sought to identify factors that contribute to HCC development in persons with HIV/HBV coinfection to guide early detection and prevention measures.”

The researchers conducted a longitudinal cohort study within the North American AIDS Cohort Collaboration on Research and Design (NA-ACCORD), a collaboration of single-site and multisite cohorts throughout the United States and Canada; 22 cohorts from NA-ACCORD were included in the analysis.

Potential HIV and HBV risk factors were examined, including viremia and CD4 percentage, as well as HBV DNA levels. Traditional risk factors for liver disease progression, including age, sex, and heavy alcohol use, were also assessed.

Eligible patients were 18 years of age or older who were followed for at least 6 months, had evidence of chronic HBV, and had HIV RNA or CD4+ cell measurement during this period. Persons with prevalent HCC at baseline were excluded.

The primary outcome was first occurrence of HCC, which was adjudicated by medical chart review and/or cancer registry. Multivariable Cox regression was used to determine adjusted hazard ratios of risk factors.
 

Results

Among 9,383 HIV/HBV-coinfected individuals identified, 8,354 (89%) were included in the analysis. The median age of participants was 43 years and 93.1% were male. Heavy alcohol use (35.3%) and chronic hepatitis C virus (HCV) coinfection (21.6%) were common among participants.

Among 8,354 eligible participants, 115 developed HCC over a median 6.9 years of follow-up (incidence rate, 1.8 events per 1,000 person-years; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.5-2.1).

Independent risk factors for HCC were chronic HCV coinfection (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 1.60 [95% confidence interval, 1.07-2.39]), age 40 years and older (aHR, 2.14 [1.36-3.37]), and heavy alcohol use (aHR, 1.51 [1.03-2.21]); however, time-updated CD4+ percentage less than 14% (aHR, 1.03 [0.56-1.90]) and time-updated HIV RNA level over 500 copies/mL (aHR, 0.88 [0.55-1.41]) were not associated with HCC risk.

In a second model, among 3,054 patients who had HBV DNA measured, the risk of HCC was higher with HBV DNA levels greater than 200 IU/mL (aHR, 2.70 [1.23-5.93]), and the risk was particularly elevated at levels greater than 200,000 IU/mL (aHR, 4.34 [1.72-10.94]).

The researchers also found that the risk of HCC was significantly lower in patients with HBV DNA suppression less than 200 IU/mL receiving HBV-active ART for 1 year or more (aHR, 0.42 [0.24-0.73]). In addition, a dose-response relationship was observed between the duration of suppression and this protective effect.

Dr. Nina Kim acknowledged that a key limitation of the study was inconsistent monitoring of HBV DNA level while patients were on treatment. Furthermore, given the demographics of the cohort, these results may not be generalizable outside of North America.

“Our study was the first to show that any level of HBV viremia using 200 as a threshold of detection was associated with HCC risk in a large regionally diverse cohort of adults outside of Asia,” Dr. Kim said. “To gain maximal protective benefit from antiviral therapy for HCC prevention, sustained and ideally uninterrupted suppression of HBV may be necessary over years.”

“HIV/HBV coinfected patients can take much longer than a year to achieve less than 200 copies on HBV DNA due to their baseline levels, but we still don’t know if HBV therapy intensification could hasten this process,” said moderator Robert T. Schooley, MD, of the University of California, San Diego.

Dr. Kim disclosed no conflicts of interest. The study was supported by multiple sources, including the National Institutes of Health, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and the National Cancer Institute.

MYTH: I shouldn’t get the vaccine because of potential long-term side effects

We know that 68 million people in the United States and 244 million people worldwide have already received messenger RNA (mRNA) SARS-CoV-2 vaccines (Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna). So for the short-term side effects we already know more than we would know about most vaccines.

What about the long-term side effects? There are myths that these vaccines somehow could cause autoimmunity. This came from three publications where the possibility of mRNA vaccines to produce autoimmunity was brought up as a discussion point.^1-3 There was no evidence given in these publications, it was raised only as a hypothetical possibility.

There’s no evidence that mRNA or replication-defective DNA vaccines (AstraZeneca/Oxford and Johnson & Johnson) produce autoimmunity. Moreover, the mRNA and replication-defective DNA, once it’s inside of the muscle cell, is gone within a few days. What’s left after ribosome processing is the spike (S) protein as an immunogen. We’ve been vaccinating with proteins for 50 years and we haven’t seen autoimmunity.
 

MYTH: The vaccines aren’t safe because they were developed so quickly

These vaccines were developed at “warp speed” – that doesn’t mean they were developed without all the same safety safeguards that the Food and Drug Administration requires. The reason it happened so fast is because the seriousness of the pandemic allowed us, as a community, to enroll the patients into the studies fast. In a matter of months, we had all the studies filled. In a normal circumstance, that might take 2 or 3 years. And all of the regulatory agencies – the National Institutes of Health, the FDA, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention – were ready to take the information and put a panel of specialists together and immediately review the data. No safety steps were missed. The same process that’s always required of phase 1, of phase 2, and then at phase 3 were accomplished.

The novelty of these vaccines was that they could be made so quickly. Messenger RNA vaccines can be made in a matter of days and then manufactured in a matter of 2 months. The DNA vaccines has a similar timeline trajectory.
 

MYTH: There’s no point in getting the vaccines because we still have to wear masks

Right now, out of an abundance of caution, until it’s proven that we don’t have to wear masks, it’s being recommended that we do so for the safety of others. Early data suggest that this will be temporary. In time, I suspect it will be shown that, after we receive the vaccine, it will be shown that we are not contagious to others and we’ll be able to get rid of our masks.

MYTH: I already had COVID-19 so I don’t need the vaccine

Some people have already caught the SARS-CoV-2 virus that causes this infection and so they feel that they’re immune and they don’t need to get the vaccine. Time will tell if that’s the case. Right now, we don’t know for sure. Early data suggest that a single dose of vaccine in persons who have had the infection may be sufficient. Over time, what happens in the vaccine field is we measure the immunity from the vaccine, and from people who’ve gotten the infection, and we find that there’s a measurement in the blood that correlates with protection. Right now, we don’t know that correlate of protection level. So, out of an abundance of caution, it’s being recommended that, even if you had the disease, maybe you didn’t develop enough immunity, and it’s better to get the vaccine than to get the illness a second time.

MYTH: The vaccines can give me SARS-CoV-2 infection

The new vaccines for COVID-19, released under emergency use Authorization, are mRNA and DNA vaccines. They are a blueprint for the Spike (S) protein of the virus. In order to become a protein, the mRNA, once it’s inside the cell, is processed by ribosomes. The product of the ribosome processing is a protein that cannot possibly cause harm as a virus. It’s a little piece of mRNA inside of a lipid nanoparticle, which is just a casing to protect the mRNA from breaking down until it’s injected in the body. The replication defective DNA vaccines (AstraZeneca/Oxford and Johnson & Johnson) are packaged inside of virus cells (adenoviruses). The DNA vaccines involve a three-step process:

• 1. The adenovirus, containing replication-defective DNA that encodes mRNA for the Spike (S) protein, is taken up by the host cells where it must make its way to the nucleus of the muscle cell.
• 2. The DNA is injected into the host cell nucleus and in the nucleus the DNA is decoded to an mRNA.
• 3. The mRNA is released from the nucleus and transported to the cell cytoplasm where the ribosomes process the mRNA in an identical manner as mRNA vaccines.

MYTH: The COVID-19 vaccines can alter my DNA

The mRNA and replication-defective DNA vaccines never interact with your DNA. mRNA vaccines never enter the nucleus. Replication-defective DNA vaccines cannot replicate and do not interact with host DNA. The vaccines can’t change your DNA.

Here is a link to YouTube videos I made on this topic: https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PLve-0UW04UMRKHfFbXyEpLY8GCm2WyJHD.

Here is a photo of me receiving my first SARS-CoV-2 shot (Moderna) in January 2021. I received my second shot in February. I am a lot less anxious. I hope my vaccine card will be a ticket to travel in the future.

Dr. Pichichero is a specialist in pediatric infectious diseases and director of the Research Institute at Rochester (N.Y.) General Hospital. He has no conflicts of interest to report.

References

1. Peck KM and Lauring AS. J Virol. 2018. doi: 10.1128/JVI.01031-17.

2. Pepini T et al. J Immunol. 2017 May 15. doi: 10.4049/jimmunol.1601877.

3. Theofilopoulos AN et al. Annu Rev Immunol. 2005. doi: 10.1146/annurev.immunol.23.021704.115843.

MYTH: I shouldn’t get the vaccine because of potential long-term side effects

We know that 68 million people in the United States and 244 million people worldwide have already received messenger RNA (mRNA) SARS-CoV-2 vaccines (Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna). So for the short-term side effects we already know more than we would know about most vaccines.

What about the long-term side effects? There are myths that these vaccines somehow could cause autoimmunity. This came from three publications where the possibility of mRNA vaccines to produce autoimmunity was brought up as a discussion point.^1-3 There was no evidence given in these publications, it was raised only as a hypothetical possibility.

There’s no evidence that mRNA or replication-defective DNA vaccines (AstraZeneca/Oxford and Johnson & Johnson) produce autoimmunity. Moreover, the mRNA and replication-defective DNA, once it’s inside of the muscle cell, is gone within a few days. What’s left after ribosome processing is the spike (S) protein as an immunogen. We’ve been vaccinating with proteins for 50 years and we haven’t seen autoimmunity.
 

MYTH: The vaccines aren’t safe because they were developed so quickly

These vaccines were developed at “warp speed” – that doesn’t mean they were developed without all the same safety safeguards that the Food and Drug Administration requires. The reason it happened so fast is because the seriousness of the pandemic allowed us, as a community, to enroll the patients into the studies fast. In a matter of months, we had all the studies filled. In a normal circumstance, that might take 2 or 3 years. And all of the regulatory agencies – the National Institutes of Health, the FDA, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention – were ready to take the information and put a panel of specialists together and immediately review the data. No safety steps were missed. The same process that’s always required of phase 1, of phase 2, and then at phase 3 were accomplished.

The novelty of these vaccines was that they could be made so quickly. Messenger RNA vaccines can be made in a matter of days and then manufactured in a matter of 2 months. The DNA vaccines has a similar timeline trajectory.
 

MYTH: There’s no point in getting the vaccines because we still have to wear masks

Right now, out of an abundance of caution, until it’s proven that we don’t have to wear masks, it’s being recommended that we do so for the safety of others. Early data suggest that this will be temporary. In time, I suspect it will be shown that, after we receive the vaccine, it will be shown that we are not contagious to others and we’ll be able to get rid of our masks.

MYTH: I already had COVID-19 so I don’t need the vaccine

Some people have already caught the SARS-CoV-2 virus that causes this infection and so they feel that they’re immune and they don’t need to get the vaccine. Time will tell if that’s the case. Right now, we don’t know for sure. Early data suggest that a single dose of vaccine in persons who have had the infection may be sufficient. Over time, what happens in the vaccine field is we measure the immunity from the vaccine, and from people who’ve gotten the infection, and we find that there’s a measurement in the blood that correlates with protection. Right now, we don’t know that correlate of protection level. So, out of an abundance of caution, it’s being recommended that, even if you had the disease, maybe you didn’t develop enough immunity, and it’s better to get the vaccine than to get the illness a second time.

MYTH: The vaccines can give me SARS-CoV-2 infection

The new vaccines for COVID-19, released under emergency use Authorization, are mRNA and DNA vaccines. They are a blueprint for the Spike (S) protein of the virus. In order to become a protein, the mRNA, once it’s inside the cell, is processed by ribosomes. The product of the ribosome processing is a protein that cannot possibly cause harm as a virus. It’s a little piece of mRNA inside of a lipid nanoparticle, which is just a casing to protect the mRNA from breaking down until it’s injected in the body. The replication defective DNA vaccines (AstraZeneca/Oxford and Johnson & Johnson) are packaged inside of virus cells (adenoviruses). The DNA vaccines involve a three-step process:

• 1. The adenovirus, containing replication-defective DNA that encodes mRNA for the Spike (S) protein, is taken up by the host cells where it must make its way to the nucleus of the muscle cell.
• 2. The DNA is injected into the host cell nucleus and in the nucleus the DNA is decoded to an mRNA.
• 3. The mRNA is released from the nucleus and transported to the cell cytoplasm where the ribosomes process the mRNA in an identical manner as mRNA vaccines.

MYTH: The COVID-19 vaccines can alter my DNA

The mRNA and replication-defective DNA vaccines never interact with your DNA. mRNA vaccines never enter the nucleus. Replication-defective DNA vaccines cannot replicate and do not interact with host DNA. The vaccines can’t change your DNA.

Here is a link to YouTube videos I made on this topic: https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PLve-0UW04UMRKHfFbXyEpLY8GCm2WyJHD.

Here is a photo of me receiving my first SARS-CoV-2 shot (Moderna) in January 2021. I received my second shot in February. I am a lot less anxious. I hope my vaccine card will be a ticket to travel in the future.

Dr. Pichichero is a specialist in pediatric infectious diseases and director of the Research Institute at Rochester (N.Y.) General Hospital. He has no conflicts of interest to report.

References

1. Peck KM and Lauring AS. J Virol. 2018. doi: 10.1128/JVI.01031-17.

2. Pepini T et al. J Immunol. 2017 May 15. doi: 10.4049/jimmunol.1601877.

3. Theofilopoulos AN et al. Annu Rev Immunol. 2005. doi: 10.1146/annurev.immunol.23.021704.115843.

MYTH: I shouldn’t get the vaccine because of potential long-term side effects

We know that 68 million people in the United States and 244 million people worldwide have already received messenger RNA (mRNA) SARS-CoV-2 vaccines (Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna). So for the short-term side effects we already know more than we would know about most vaccines.

What about the long-term side effects? There are myths that these vaccines somehow could cause autoimmunity. This came from three publications where the possibility of mRNA vaccines to produce autoimmunity was brought up as a discussion point.^1-3 There was no evidence given in these publications, it was raised only as a hypothetical possibility.

There’s no evidence that mRNA or replication-defective DNA vaccines (AstraZeneca/Oxford and Johnson & Johnson) produce autoimmunity. Moreover, the mRNA and replication-defective DNA, once it’s inside of the muscle cell, is gone within a few days. What’s left after ribosome processing is the spike (S) protein as an immunogen. We’ve been vaccinating with proteins for 50 years and we haven’t seen autoimmunity.
 

MYTH: The vaccines aren’t safe because they were developed so quickly

These vaccines were developed at “warp speed” – that doesn’t mean they were developed without all the same safety safeguards that the Food and Drug Administration requires. The reason it happened so fast is because the seriousness of the pandemic allowed us, as a community, to enroll the patients into the studies fast. In a matter of months, we had all the studies filled. In a normal circumstance, that might take 2 or 3 years. And all of the regulatory agencies – the National Institutes of Health, the FDA, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention – were ready to take the information and put a panel of specialists together and immediately review the data. No safety steps were missed. The same process that’s always required of phase 1, of phase 2, and then at phase 3 were accomplished.

The novelty of these vaccines was that they could be made so quickly. Messenger RNA vaccines can be made in a matter of days and then manufactured in a matter of 2 months. The DNA vaccines has a similar timeline trajectory.
 

MYTH: There’s no point in getting the vaccines because we still have to wear masks

Right now, out of an abundance of caution, until it’s proven that we don’t have to wear masks, it’s being recommended that we do so for the safety of others. Early data suggest that this will be temporary. In time, I suspect it will be shown that, after we receive the vaccine, it will be shown that we are not contagious to others and we’ll be able to get rid of our masks.

MYTH: I already had COVID-19 so I don’t need the vaccine

Some people have already caught the SARS-CoV-2 virus that causes this infection and so they feel that they’re immune and they don’t need to get the vaccine. Time will tell if that’s the case. Right now, we don’t know for sure. Early data suggest that a single dose of vaccine in persons who have had the infection may be sufficient. Over time, what happens in the vaccine field is we measure the immunity from the vaccine, and from people who’ve gotten the infection, and we find that there’s a measurement in the blood that correlates with protection. Right now, we don’t know that correlate of protection level. So, out of an abundance of caution, it’s being recommended that, even if you had the disease, maybe you didn’t develop enough immunity, and it’s better to get the vaccine than to get the illness a second time.

MYTH: The vaccines can give me SARS-CoV-2 infection

The new vaccines for COVID-19, released under emergency use Authorization, are mRNA and DNA vaccines. They are a blueprint for the Spike (S) protein of the virus. In order to become a protein, the mRNA, once it’s inside the cell, is processed by ribosomes. The product of the ribosome processing is a protein that cannot possibly cause harm as a virus. It’s a little piece of mRNA inside of a lipid nanoparticle, which is just a casing to protect the mRNA from breaking down until it’s injected in the body. The replication defective DNA vaccines (AstraZeneca/Oxford and Johnson & Johnson) are packaged inside of virus cells (adenoviruses). The DNA vaccines involve a three-step process:

• 1. The adenovirus, containing replication-defective DNA that encodes mRNA for the Spike (S) protein, is taken up by the host cells where it must make its way to the nucleus of the muscle cell.
• 2. The DNA is injected into the host cell nucleus and in the nucleus the DNA is decoded to an mRNA.
• 3. The mRNA is released from the nucleus and transported to the cell cytoplasm where the ribosomes process the mRNA in an identical manner as mRNA vaccines.

MYTH: The COVID-19 vaccines can alter my DNA

The mRNA and replication-defective DNA vaccines never interact with your DNA. mRNA vaccines never enter the nucleus. Replication-defective DNA vaccines cannot replicate and do not interact with host DNA. The vaccines can’t change your DNA.

Here is a link to YouTube videos I made on this topic: https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PLve-0UW04UMRKHfFbXyEpLY8GCm2WyJHD.

Here is a photo of me receiving my first SARS-CoV-2 shot (Moderna) in January 2021. I received my second shot in February. I am a lot less anxious. I hope my vaccine card will be a ticket to travel in the future.

Dr. Pichichero is a specialist in pediatric infectious diseases and director of the Research Institute at Rochester (N.Y.) General Hospital. He has no conflicts of interest to report.

References

1. Peck KM and Lauring AS. J Virol. 2018. doi: 10.1128/JVI.01031-17.

2. Pepini T et al. J Immunol. 2017 May 15. doi: 10.4049/jimmunol.1601877.

3. Theofilopoulos AN et al. Annu Rev Immunol. 2005. doi: 10.1146/annurev.immunol.23.021704.115843.

Officials have previously linked being overweight or obese to a greater risk for more severe COVID-19. A report today from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention adds numbers and some nuance to the association.

Data from nearly 150,000 U.S. adults hospitalized with COVID-19 nationwide indicate that risk for more severe disease outcomes increases along with body mass index (BMI). The risk of COVID-19–related hospitalization and death associated with obesity was particularly high among people younger than 65.

“As clinicians develop care plans for COVID-19 patients, they should consider the risk for severe outcomes in patients with higher BMIs, especially for those with severe obesity,” the researchers note. They add that their findings suggest “progressively intensive management of COVID-19 might be needed for patients with more severe obesity.”

People with COVID-19 close to the border between a healthy and overweight BMI – from 23.7 kg/m² to 25.9 kg/m² – had the lowest risks for adverse outcomes.

The study was published online today in Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report.
 

Greater need for critical care

The risk of ICU admission was particularly associated with severe obesity. For example, those with a BMI in the 40-44.9 kg/m² category had a 6% increased risk, which jumped to 16% higher among those with a BMI of 45 or greater.

Compared to people with a healthy BMI, the need for invasive mechanical ventilation was 12% more likely among overweight adults with a BMI of 25-29.2. The risked jumped to 108% greater among the most obese people, those with a BMI of 45 or greater, lead CDC researcher Lyudmyla Kompaniyets, PhD, and colleagues reported.

Moreover, the risks for hospitalization and death increased in a dose-response relationship with obesity.

For example, risks of being hospitalized were 7% greater for adults with a BMI between 30 and 34.9 and climbed to 33% greater for those with a BMI of 45. Risks were calculated as adjusted relative risks compared with people with a healthy BMI between 18.5 and 24.9.

Interestingly, being underweight was associated with elevated risk for COVID-19 hospitalization as well. For example, people with a BMI of less than 18.5 had a 20% greater chance of admission vs. people in the healthy BMI range. Unknown underlying medical conditions or issues related to nutrition or immune function could be contributing factors, the researchers note.
 

Elevated risk of dying

The risk of death in adults with obesity ranged from 8% higher in the 30-34.9 range up to 61% greater for those with a BMI of 45.

Chronic inflammation or impaired lung function from excess weight are possible reasons that higher BMI imparts greater risk, the researchers note.

The CDC researchers evaluated 148,494 adults from 238 hospitals participating in PHD-SR database. Because the study was limited to people hospitalized with COVID-19, the findings may not apply to all adults with COVID-19.

Another potential limitation is that investigators were unable to calculate BMI for all patients in the database because about 28% of participating hospitals did not report height and weight.

The study authors had no relevant financial relationships to disclose. 

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

Officials have previously linked being overweight or obese to a greater risk for more severe COVID-19. A report today from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention adds numbers and some nuance to the association.

Data from nearly 150,000 U.S. adults hospitalized with COVID-19 nationwide indicate that risk for more severe disease outcomes increases along with body mass index (BMI). The risk of COVID-19–related hospitalization and death associated with obesity was particularly high among people younger than 65.

“As clinicians develop care plans for COVID-19 patients, they should consider the risk for severe outcomes in patients with higher BMIs, especially for those with severe obesity,” the researchers note. They add that their findings suggest “progressively intensive management of COVID-19 might be needed for patients with more severe obesity.”

People with COVID-19 close to the border between a healthy and overweight BMI – from 23.7 kg/m² to 25.9 kg/m² – had the lowest risks for adverse outcomes.

The study was published online today in Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report.
 

Greater need for critical care

The risk of ICU admission was particularly associated with severe obesity. For example, those with a BMI in the 40-44.9 kg/m² category had a 6% increased risk, which jumped to 16% higher among those with a BMI of 45 or greater.

Compared to people with a healthy BMI, the need for invasive mechanical ventilation was 12% more likely among overweight adults with a BMI of 25-29.2. The risked jumped to 108% greater among the most obese people, those with a BMI of 45 or greater, lead CDC researcher Lyudmyla Kompaniyets, PhD, and colleagues reported.

Moreover, the risks for hospitalization and death increased in a dose-response relationship with obesity.

For example, risks of being hospitalized were 7% greater for adults with a BMI between 30 and 34.9 and climbed to 33% greater for those with a BMI of 45. Risks were calculated as adjusted relative risks compared with people with a healthy BMI between 18.5 and 24.9.

Interestingly, being underweight was associated with elevated risk for COVID-19 hospitalization as well. For example, people with a BMI of less than 18.5 had a 20% greater chance of admission vs. people in the healthy BMI range. Unknown underlying medical conditions or issues related to nutrition or immune function could be contributing factors, the researchers note.
 

Elevated risk of dying

The risk of death in adults with obesity ranged from 8% higher in the 30-34.9 range up to 61% greater for those with a BMI of 45.

Chronic inflammation or impaired lung function from excess weight are possible reasons that higher BMI imparts greater risk, the researchers note.

The CDC researchers evaluated 148,494 adults from 238 hospitals participating in PHD-SR database. Because the study was limited to people hospitalized with COVID-19, the findings may not apply to all adults with COVID-19.

Another potential limitation is that investigators were unable to calculate BMI for all patients in the database because about 28% of participating hospitals did not report height and weight.

The study authors had no relevant financial relationships to disclose. 

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

Officials have previously linked being overweight or obese to a greater risk for more severe COVID-19. A report today from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention adds numbers and some nuance to the association.

Data from nearly 150,000 U.S. adults hospitalized with COVID-19 nationwide indicate that risk for more severe disease outcomes increases along with body mass index (BMI). The risk of COVID-19–related hospitalization and death associated with obesity was particularly high among people younger than 65.

“As clinicians develop care plans for COVID-19 patients, they should consider the risk for severe outcomes in patients with higher BMIs, especially for those with severe obesity,” the researchers note. They add that their findings suggest “progressively intensive management of COVID-19 might be needed for patients with more severe obesity.”

People with COVID-19 close to the border between a healthy and overweight BMI – from 23.7 kg/m² to 25.9 kg/m² – had the lowest risks for adverse outcomes.

The study was published online today in Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report.
 

Greater need for critical care

The risk of ICU admission was particularly associated with severe obesity. For example, those with a BMI in the 40-44.9 kg/m² category had a 6% increased risk, which jumped to 16% higher among those with a BMI of 45 or greater.

Compared to people with a healthy BMI, the need for invasive mechanical ventilation was 12% more likely among overweight adults with a BMI of 25-29.2. The risked jumped to 108% greater among the most obese people, those with a BMI of 45 or greater, lead CDC researcher Lyudmyla Kompaniyets, PhD, and colleagues reported.

Moreover, the risks for hospitalization and death increased in a dose-response relationship with obesity.

For example, risks of being hospitalized were 7% greater for adults with a BMI between 30 and 34.9 and climbed to 33% greater for those with a BMI of 45. Risks were calculated as adjusted relative risks compared with people with a healthy BMI between 18.5 and 24.9.

Interestingly, being underweight was associated with elevated risk for COVID-19 hospitalization as well. For example, people with a BMI of less than 18.5 had a 20% greater chance of admission vs. people in the healthy BMI range. Unknown underlying medical conditions or issues related to nutrition or immune function could be contributing factors, the researchers note.
 

Elevated risk of dying

The risk of death in adults with obesity ranged from 8% higher in the 30-34.9 range up to 61% greater for those with a BMI of 45.

Chronic inflammation or impaired lung function from excess weight are possible reasons that higher BMI imparts greater risk, the researchers note.

The CDC researchers evaluated 148,494 adults from 238 hospitals participating in PHD-SR database. Because the study was limited to people hospitalized with COVID-19, the findings may not apply to all adults with COVID-19.

Another potential limitation is that investigators were unable to calculate BMI for all patients in the database because about 28% of participating hospitals did not report height and weight.

The study authors had no relevant financial relationships to disclose. 

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

More than one-third of adults aged 18-64 years in the United States delayed or went without medical care because of efforts by patients or providers to reduce the spread of COVID-19, according to a new report from the Urban Institute.

Among the adults who postponed or missed care, 32.6% said the gap worsened one or more health conditions or limited their ability to work or perform daily activities. The findings highlight “the detrimental ripple effects of delaying or forgoing care on overall health, functioning, and well-being,” researchers write.

The survey, conducted among 4,007 U.S. adults aged 18-64 in September 2020, found that adults with one or more chronic conditions were more likely than adults without chronic conditions to have delayed or missed care (40.7% vs. 26.4%). Adults with a mental health condition were particularly likely to have delayed or gone without care, write Dulce Gonzalez, MPP, a research associate in the Health Policy Center at the Urban Institute, and colleagues.

Doctors are already seeing the consequences of the missed visits, says Jacqueline W. Fincher, MD, president of the American College of Physicians.

Two of her patients with chronic conditions missed appointments last year. By the time they resumed care in 2021, their previsit lab tests showed significant kidney deterioration.

“Lo and behold, their kidneys were in failure. … One was in the hospital for 3 days and the other one was in for 5 days,” said Dr. Fincher, who practices general internal medicine in Georgia.

Dr. Fincher’s office has been proactive about calling patients with chronic diseases who missed follow-up visits or laboratory testing or who may have run out of medication, she said.

In her experience, delays mainly have been because of patients postponing visits. “We have stayed open the whole time now,” Dr. Fincher said. Her office offers telemedicine visits and in-person visits with safety precautions.

Still, some patients have decided to postpone care during the pandemic instead of asking their primary care doctor what they should do.

“We do know that chronic problems left without appropriate follow-up can create worse problems for them in terms of stroke, heart attack, and end organ damage,” Dr. Fincher said.
 

Lost lives

Future studies may help researchers understand the effects of delayed and missed care during the pandemic, said Russell S. Phillips, MD, director of the Center for Primary Care at Harvard Medical School, Boston.

“Although it is still early, and more data on patient outcomes will need to be collected, I anticipate that the ... delays in diagnosis, in cancer screening, and in management of chronic illness will result in lost lives and will emphasize the important role that primary care plays in saving lives,” Dr. Phillips said.

During the first several months of the pandemic, there were fewer diagnoses of hypertension, diabetes, and depression, Dr. Phillips said.

“In addition, and most importantly, the mortality rate for non-COVID conditions increased, suggesting that patients were not seeking care for symptoms of stroke or heart attack, which can be fatal if untreated,” he said. “We have also seen substantial decreases in cancer screening tests such as colonoscopy, and modeling studies suggest this will cost more lives based on delayed diagnoses of cancer.”

Vaccinating patients against COVID-19 may help primary care practices and patients get back on track, Dr. Phillips suggested.

In the meantime, some patients remain reluctant to come in. “Volumes are still lower than prepandemic, so it is challenging to overcome what is likely to be pent-up demand,” he told this news organization in an email. “Additionally, the continued burden of evaluating, testing, and monitoring patients with COVID or COVID-like symptoms makes it difficult to focus on chronic illness.”
 

Care most often skipped

The Urban Institute survey asked respondents about delays in prescription drugs, general doctor and specialist visits, going to a hospital, preventive health screenings or medical tests, treatment or follow-up care, dental care, mental health care or counseling, treatment or counseling for alcohol or drug use, and other types of medical care.

Dental care was the most common type of care that adults delayed or did not receive because of the pandemic (25.3%), followed by general doctor or specialist visits (20.6%) and preventive health screenings or medical tests (15.5%).

Black adults were more likely than White or Hispanic/Latinx adults to have delayed or forgone care (39.7% vs. 34.3% and 35.5%), the researchers found. Compared with adults with higher incomes, adults with lower incomes were more likely to have missed multiple types of care (26.6% vs. 20.3%).

The report by the Urban Institute researchers was supported by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. Dr. Phillips is an adviser to two telemedicine companies, Bicycle Health and Grow Health. Dr. Fincher has disclosed no relevant financial disclosures.

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

More than one-third of adults aged 18-64 years in the United States delayed or went without medical care because of efforts by patients or providers to reduce the spread of COVID-19, according to a new report from the Urban Institute.

Among the adults who postponed or missed care, 32.6% said the gap worsened one or more health conditions or limited their ability to work or perform daily activities. The findings highlight “the detrimental ripple effects of delaying or forgoing care on overall health, functioning, and well-being,” researchers write.

The survey, conducted among 4,007 U.S. adults aged 18-64 in September 2020, found that adults with one or more chronic conditions were more likely than adults without chronic conditions to have delayed or missed care (40.7% vs. 26.4%). Adults with a mental health condition were particularly likely to have delayed or gone without care, write Dulce Gonzalez, MPP, a research associate in the Health Policy Center at the Urban Institute, and colleagues.

Doctors are already seeing the consequences of the missed visits, says Jacqueline W. Fincher, MD, president of the American College of Physicians.

Two of her patients with chronic conditions missed appointments last year. By the time they resumed care in 2021, their previsit lab tests showed significant kidney deterioration.

“Lo and behold, their kidneys were in failure. … One was in the hospital for 3 days and the other one was in for 5 days,” said Dr. Fincher, who practices general internal medicine in Georgia.

Dr. Fincher’s office has been proactive about calling patients with chronic diseases who missed follow-up visits or laboratory testing or who may have run out of medication, she said.

In her experience, delays mainly have been because of patients postponing visits. “We have stayed open the whole time now,” Dr. Fincher said. Her office offers telemedicine visits and in-person visits with safety precautions.

Still, some patients have decided to postpone care during the pandemic instead of asking their primary care doctor what they should do.

“We do know that chronic problems left without appropriate follow-up can create worse problems for them in terms of stroke, heart attack, and end organ damage,” Dr. Fincher said.
 

Lost lives

Future studies may help researchers understand the effects of delayed and missed care during the pandemic, said Russell S. Phillips, MD, director of the Center for Primary Care at Harvard Medical School, Boston.

“Although it is still early, and more data on patient outcomes will need to be collected, I anticipate that the ... delays in diagnosis, in cancer screening, and in management of chronic illness will result in lost lives and will emphasize the important role that primary care plays in saving lives,” Dr. Phillips said.

During the first several months of the pandemic, there were fewer diagnoses of hypertension, diabetes, and depression, Dr. Phillips said.

“In addition, and most importantly, the mortality rate for non-COVID conditions increased, suggesting that patients were not seeking care for symptoms of stroke or heart attack, which can be fatal if untreated,” he said. “We have also seen substantial decreases in cancer screening tests such as colonoscopy, and modeling studies suggest this will cost more lives based on delayed diagnoses of cancer.”

Vaccinating patients against COVID-19 may help primary care practices and patients get back on track, Dr. Phillips suggested.

In the meantime, some patients remain reluctant to come in. “Volumes are still lower than prepandemic, so it is challenging to overcome what is likely to be pent-up demand,” he told this news organization in an email. “Additionally, the continued burden of evaluating, testing, and monitoring patients with COVID or COVID-like symptoms makes it difficult to focus on chronic illness.”
 

Care most often skipped

The Urban Institute survey asked respondents about delays in prescription drugs, general doctor and specialist visits, going to a hospital, preventive health screenings or medical tests, treatment or follow-up care, dental care, mental health care or counseling, treatment or counseling for alcohol or drug use, and other types of medical care.

Dental care was the most common type of care that adults delayed or did not receive because of the pandemic (25.3%), followed by general doctor or specialist visits (20.6%) and preventive health screenings or medical tests (15.5%).

Black adults were more likely than White or Hispanic/Latinx adults to have delayed or forgone care (39.7% vs. 34.3% and 35.5%), the researchers found. Compared with adults with higher incomes, adults with lower incomes were more likely to have missed multiple types of care (26.6% vs. 20.3%).

The report by the Urban Institute researchers was supported by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. Dr. Phillips is an adviser to two telemedicine companies, Bicycle Health and Grow Health. Dr. Fincher has disclosed no relevant financial disclosures.

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

More than one-third of adults aged 18-64 years in the United States delayed or went without medical care because of efforts by patients or providers to reduce the spread of COVID-19, according to a new report from the Urban Institute.

Among the adults who postponed or missed care, 32.6% said the gap worsened one or more health conditions or limited their ability to work or perform daily activities. The findings highlight “the detrimental ripple effects of delaying or forgoing care on overall health, functioning, and well-being,” researchers write.

The survey, conducted among 4,007 U.S. adults aged 18-64 in September 2020, found that adults with one or more chronic conditions were more likely than adults without chronic conditions to have delayed or missed care (40.7% vs. 26.4%). Adults with a mental health condition were particularly likely to have delayed or gone without care, write Dulce Gonzalez, MPP, a research associate in the Health Policy Center at the Urban Institute, and colleagues.

Doctors are already seeing the consequences of the missed visits, says Jacqueline W. Fincher, MD, president of the American College of Physicians.

Two of her patients with chronic conditions missed appointments last year. By the time they resumed care in 2021, their previsit lab tests showed significant kidney deterioration.

“Lo and behold, their kidneys were in failure. … One was in the hospital for 3 days and the other one was in for 5 days,” said Dr. Fincher, who practices general internal medicine in Georgia.

Dr. Fincher’s office has been proactive about calling patients with chronic diseases who missed follow-up visits or laboratory testing or who may have run out of medication, she said.

In her experience, delays mainly have been because of patients postponing visits. “We have stayed open the whole time now,” Dr. Fincher said. Her office offers telemedicine visits and in-person visits with safety precautions.

Still, some patients have decided to postpone care during the pandemic instead of asking their primary care doctor what they should do.

“We do know that chronic problems left without appropriate follow-up can create worse problems for them in terms of stroke, heart attack, and end organ damage,” Dr. Fincher said.
 

Lost lives

Future studies may help researchers understand the effects of delayed and missed care during the pandemic, said Russell S. Phillips, MD, director of the Center for Primary Care at Harvard Medical School, Boston.

“Although it is still early, and more data on patient outcomes will need to be collected, I anticipate that the ... delays in diagnosis, in cancer screening, and in management of chronic illness will result in lost lives and will emphasize the important role that primary care plays in saving lives,” Dr. Phillips said.

During the first several months of the pandemic, there were fewer diagnoses of hypertension, diabetes, and depression, Dr. Phillips said.

“In addition, and most importantly, the mortality rate for non-COVID conditions increased, suggesting that patients were not seeking care for symptoms of stroke or heart attack, which can be fatal if untreated,” he said. “We have also seen substantial decreases in cancer screening tests such as colonoscopy, and modeling studies suggest this will cost more lives based on delayed diagnoses of cancer.”

Vaccinating patients against COVID-19 may help primary care practices and patients get back on track, Dr. Phillips suggested.

In the meantime, some patients remain reluctant to come in. “Volumes are still lower than prepandemic, so it is challenging to overcome what is likely to be pent-up demand,” he told this news organization in an email. “Additionally, the continued burden of evaluating, testing, and monitoring patients with COVID or COVID-like symptoms makes it difficult to focus on chronic illness.”
 

Care most often skipped

The Urban Institute survey asked respondents about delays in prescription drugs, general doctor and specialist visits, going to a hospital, preventive health screenings or medical tests, treatment or follow-up care, dental care, mental health care or counseling, treatment or counseling for alcohol or drug use, and other types of medical care.

Dental care was the most common type of care that adults delayed or did not receive because of the pandemic (25.3%), followed by general doctor or specialist visits (20.6%) and preventive health screenings or medical tests (15.5%).

Black adults were more likely than White or Hispanic/Latinx adults to have delayed or forgone care (39.7% vs. 34.3% and 35.5%), the researchers found. Compared with adults with higher incomes, adults with lower incomes were more likely to have missed multiple types of care (26.6% vs. 20.3%).

The report by the Urban Institute researchers was supported by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. Dr. Phillips is an adviser to two telemedicine companies, Bicycle Health and Grow Health. Dr. Fincher has disclosed no relevant financial disclosures.

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

The risk of perioperative stroke in noncardiac, nonneurologic, nonvascular surgery ranges from 0.1 to 1.9% and is associated with increased mortality.^1,2 Stroke mechanisms include both ischemia (large and small vessel occlusion, cardioembolism, anemic-tissue hypoxia, cerebral hypoperfusion) and hemorrhage.¹ Risk factors for perioperative stroke include prior cerebral vascular accident (CVA), hypertension, aged > 62 years, acute renal insufficiency, dialysis, and recent myocardial infarction (MI).²

Introduction

COVID-19 was declared a pandemic by the World Health Organization in March 2020.³ COVID-19 has certainly affected the veteran population; between February and May 2020, more than 60,000 veterans were tested for COVID-19 with a positive rate of about 9%.⁴ While primarily affecting the respiratory system, there are increasing reports of COVID-19 neurologic manifestations: headache, hypogeusia, hyposomia, seizure, encephalitis, and acute stroke.⁵ In an early case series from Wuhan, China, 36% of 214 patients with COVID-19 reported neurologic complications, and acute CVAs were more common in patients with severe (compared to milder) viral disease presentations (5.7% vs 0.8%).⁶ Large vessel stroke was a presenting feature in another report of 5 patients aged < 50 years.⁷

The mechanism of ischemic stroke in the setting of COVID-19 is unclear.⁸ Indeed, stroke and COVID-19 share similar risk factors (eg, hypertension, diabetes mellitus [DM], older age), and immobile critically ill patients may already be prone to developing stroke.^5,9 However, COVID-19 is associated with arterial and venous thromboembolism, elevated D-dimer and fibrinogen levels, and antiphospholipid antibody production. This prothrombotic state may be linked to cytokine-induced endothelial damage, mononuclear cell activation, tissue factor expression, and ultimately thrombin propagation and platelet activation.⁸

The rates of perioperative stroke may change as more patients with COVID-19 present for surgery, and the anesthesiology care team must prioritize mitigation efforts in high-risk patients, including veterans. Reducing the elevated stroke burden within the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Veterans Health Administration (VHA) is a public health priority.¹⁰ We present the case of a veteran with prior CVA and recent positive COVID-19 testing who experienced transient weakness and dysarthria following plastic surgery. The patient discussed provided written Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act consent for publication of this report.

Case Presentation 

A 75-year-old male veteran presented to the Minneapolis VA Medical Center in Minnesota with chronic left foot ulceration necessitating debridement and flap coverage. His medical history was significant for hypertension, type 2 DM, anemia of chronic disease, and coronary artery disease (left ventricular ejection fraction, 50%). Additionally, he had prior ischemic strokes in the oculomotor nucleus (in 2004 with internuclear ophthalmoplegia) and left ventral medulla (in 2019 with right hemiparesis). During his 2019 poststroke rehabilitation, he was diagnosed with mild neurocognitive deficit not attributable to his strokes. The patient’s medications included amlodipine, lisinopril, atorvastatin, clopidogrel (lifelong for secondary stroke prevention), metformin, and glipizide. The debridement procedure was initially delayed 3 weeks due to positive routine preoperative COVID-19 nasopharyngeal testing, though he reported no respiratory symptoms or fever. During the delay, the primary team prescribed daily oral rivaroxaban for thrombosis prophylaxis in addition to clopidogrel. One week prior to surgery, his repeat COVID-19 test was negative and prophylactic anticoagulation stopped.

On the day of surgery, the patient was hemodynamically stable: heart rate 86 beats/min, blood pressure 167/93 mm Hg (baseline 120-150 mm Hg systolic pressure), respiratory rate 16 breaths/min, oxygen saturation 99% without supplemental oxygen, temperature 97.1 °F. He received amlodipine and clopidogrel, but not lisinopril, that morning. No focal neurologic deficits were appreciated on preoperative examination, and resolution of symptoms related to the 2 prior MIs was confirmed. Preoperative glucose was 163 mg/dL. Femoral and sciatic peripheral nerve blocks were done for postoperative analgesia. A preinduction arterial line was placed and 2 mg of midazolam was administered for anxiolysis. Induction of general anesthesia with oral endotracheal intubation proceeded uneventfully; he was positioned prone.

Given his stroke risk factors, mean arterial pressure was maintained > 70 mm Hg for the duration of surgery. No vasoactive infusions were necessary and no β-blocking agents were administered. Insulin infusion was required; the maximum-recorded glucose was 219 mg/dL. Arterial blood gas samples were routinely drawn; acid-base balance was well maintained, PaO₂ was > 185 mm Hg, and PaCO₂ ranged from 29.4 to 38.5 mm Hg. The patient received 2 units of packed red blood cells for nadir hemoglobin of 7.5 mg/dL. At surgery end, we fully reversed neuromuscular blockade with suggamadex. The patient was returned to a supine position and extubated uneventfully after demonstrating the ability to follow commands.

During postanesthesia care unit (PACU) handoff, the patient exhibited acute speech impairment. He was able to state his name on repetition but seemed confused and sedated. Prompt formal neurology evaluation (stroke code) was sought. Initial National Institutes of Health (NIH) stroke scale score was 8 (1 for level of consciousness, 1 for minor right facial droop, 1 for right arm drift, 3 for right leg with no effort against gravity, 1 for right partial sensory loss, and 1 for mild dysarthria). The patient was oriented only to self. Other findings included mild right facial droop and dysarthria. On a 5-point strength scale, he scored 4 for the right deltoid, biceps, triceps, wrist extensors, right knee flexion, right dorsiflexion, and plantarflexion, 2 for right hip flexion, and ≥ 4 for right knee extension. Positive sensory findings were notable for decreased pin prick sensation on the right limbs.

We obtained emergent head computed tomography (CT) that was negative for acute abnormalities; CT angiography was negative for large vessel occlusion or clinically significant stenosis (Figure). On returning to the PACU from the CT scanner, the patient regained symmetric strength in both arms, right leg was antigravity, and his speech had normalized. Prior to PACU discharge 2 hours later, the patient was back to his prehospitalization neurologic function and NIH stroke scale was 0. Given this rapid clinical resolution, no acute stroke interventions were done, though permissive hypertension was recommended by the neurologist during PACU recovery.

Discussion

We report a veteran with prior stroke and COVID-19 who experienced postoperative speech and motor deficit despite deliberate risk factor mitigation. This case calls for increased vigilance by anesthesia providers to employ proper perioperative stroke management and anticoagulation strategies, and to be prepared for prompt intervention with COVID-19-sensitive practices should the need for advanced airway management or thrombectomy arises.

The exact etiology of the postoperative neurologic deficit in our patient is unknown. The most likely possibility is that this represents poststroke recrudescence (PSR), knowing he had a previous left medullary infarct that presented similarly.¹¹ PSR is a phenomenon in which prior stroke symptoms recur acutely and transiently in the setting of physiologic stressors—also known as locus minoris resistantiae.¹² Triggers include γ aminobutyric acid (GABA) mediating anesthetic agents such as midazolam, opioids (eg, fentanyl or hydromorphone), infection, or relative cerebral hypoperfusion.^11,13,14 The focality of our patient’s presentation favors PSR in the context of brief POD; of note, these entities share similar risk factors.¹⁵ Our patient did indeed receive low-dose preoperative midazolam in the context of mild preoperative neurocognitive deficit, which may have predisposed him to POD.

Conclusions

We discuss a surgical patient with prior SARS-CoV-2 infection at elevated stroke risk that experienced recurrence of neurologic deficits postoperatively. This case informs anesthesia providers of the broad differential diagnosis for focal neurological deficits to include PSR and the possible contribution of COVID-19 to elevated acute stroke risk. Perioperative physicians, including VHA practitioners, with knowledge of current COVID-19 practices are primed to coordinate multidisciplinary efforts during stroke codes and ensuring appropriate anticoagulation.

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank perioperative care teams across the world caring for COVID-19 patients safely.

The risk of perioperative stroke in noncardiac, nonneurologic, nonvascular surgery ranges from 0.1 to 1.9% and is associated with increased mortality.^1,2 Stroke mechanisms include both ischemia (large and small vessel occlusion, cardioembolism, anemic-tissue hypoxia, cerebral hypoperfusion) and hemorrhage.¹ Risk factors for perioperative stroke include prior cerebral vascular accident (CVA), hypertension, aged > 62 years, acute renal insufficiency, dialysis, and recent myocardial infarction (MI).²

Introduction

COVID-19 was declared a pandemic by the World Health Organization in March 2020.³ COVID-19 has certainly affected the veteran population; between February and May 2020, more than 60,000 veterans were tested for COVID-19 with a positive rate of about 9%.⁴ While primarily affecting the respiratory system, there are increasing reports of COVID-19 neurologic manifestations: headache, hypogeusia, hyposomia, seizure, encephalitis, and acute stroke.⁵ In an early case series from Wuhan, China, 36% of 214 patients with COVID-19 reported neurologic complications, and acute CVAs were more common in patients with severe (compared to milder) viral disease presentations (5.7% vs 0.8%).⁶ Large vessel stroke was a presenting feature in another report of 5 patients aged < 50 years.⁷

The mechanism of ischemic stroke in the setting of COVID-19 is unclear.⁸ Indeed, stroke and COVID-19 share similar risk factors (eg, hypertension, diabetes mellitus [DM], older age), and immobile critically ill patients may already be prone to developing stroke.^5,9 However, COVID-19 is associated with arterial and venous thromboembolism, elevated D-dimer and fibrinogen levels, and antiphospholipid antibody production. This prothrombotic state may be linked to cytokine-induced endothelial damage, mononuclear cell activation, tissue factor expression, and ultimately thrombin propagation and platelet activation.⁸

The rates of perioperative stroke may change as more patients with COVID-19 present for surgery, and the anesthesiology care team must prioritize mitigation efforts in high-risk patients, including veterans. Reducing the elevated stroke burden within the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Veterans Health Administration (VHA) is a public health priority.¹⁰ We present the case of a veteran with prior CVA and recent positive COVID-19 testing who experienced transient weakness and dysarthria following plastic surgery. The patient discussed provided written Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act consent for publication of this report.

Case Presentation 

A 75-year-old male veteran presented to the Minneapolis VA Medical Center in Minnesota with chronic left foot ulceration necessitating debridement and flap coverage. His medical history was significant for hypertension, type 2 DM, anemia of chronic disease, and coronary artery disease (left ventricular ejection fraction, 50%). Additionally, he had prior ischemic strokes in the oculomotor nucleus (in 2004 with internuclear ophthalmoplegia) and left ventral medulla (in 2019 with right hemiparesis). During his 2019 poststroke rehabilitation, he was diagnosed with mild neurocognitive deficit not attributable to his strokes. The patient’s medications included amlodipine, lisinopril, atorvastatin, clopidogrel (lifelong for secondary stroke prevention), metformin, and glipizide. The debridement procedure was initially delayed 3 weeks due to positive routine preoperative COVID-19 nasopharyngeal testing, though he reported no respiratory symptoms or fever. During the delay, the primary team prescribed daily oral rivaroxaban for thrombosis prophylaxis in addition to clopidogrel. One week prior to surgery, his repeat COVID-19 test was negative and prophylactic anticoagulation stopped.

On the day of surgery, the patient was hemodynamically stable: heart rate 86 beats/min, blood pressure 167/93 mm Hg (baseline 120-150 mm Hg systolic pressure), respiratory rate 16 breaths/min, oxygen saturation 99% without supplemental oxygen, temperature 97.1 °F. He received amlodipine and clopidogrel, but not lisinopril, that morning. No focal neurologic deficits were appreciated on preoperative examination, and resolution of symptoms related to the 2 prior MIs was confirmed. Preoperative glucose was 163 mg/dL. Femoral and sciatic peripheral nerve blocks were done for postoperative analgesia. A preinduction arterial line was placed and 2 mg of midazolam was administered for anxiolysis. Induction of general anesthesia with oral endotracheal intubation proceeded uneventfully; he was positioned prone.

Given his stroke risk factors, mean arterial pressure was maintained > 70 mm Hg for the duration of surgery. No vasoactive infusions were necessary and no β-blocking agents were administered. Insulin infusion was required; the maximum-recorded glucose was 219 mg/dL. Arterial blood gas samples were routinely drawn; acid-base balance was well maintained, PaO₂ was > 185 mm Hg, and PaCO₂ ranged from 29.4 to 38.5 mm Hg. The patient received 2 units of packed red blood cells for nadir hemoglobin of 7.5 mg/dL. At surgery end, we fully reversed neuromuscular blockade with suggamadex. The patient was returned to a supine position and extubated uneventfully after demonstrating the ability to follow commands.

During postanesthesia care unit (PACU) handoff, the patient exhibited acute speech impairment. He was able to state his name on repetition but seemed confused and sedated. Prompt formal neurology evaluation (stroke code) was sought. Initial National Institutes of Health (NIH) stroke scale score was 8 (1 for level of consciousness, 1 for minor right facial droop, 1 for right arm drift, 3 for right leg with no effort against gravity, 1 for right partial sensory loss, and 1 for mild dysarthria). The patient was oriented only to self. Other findings included mild right facial droop and dysarthria. On a 5-point strength scale, he scored 4 for the right deltoid, biceps, triceps, wrist extensors, right knee flexion, right dorsiflexion, and plantarflexion, 2 for right hip flexion, and ≥ 4 for right knee extension. Positive sensory findings were notable for decreased pin prick sensation on the right limbs.

We obtained emergent head computed tomography (CT) that was negative for acute abnormalities; CT angiography was negative for large vessel occlusion or clinically significant stenosis (Figure). On returning to the PACU from the CT scanner, the patient regained symmetric strength in both arms, right leg was antigravity, and his speech had normalized. Prior to PACU discharge 2 hours later, the patient was back to his prehospitalization neurologic function and NIH stroke scale was 0. Given this rapid clinical resolution, no acute stroke interventions were done, though permissive hypertension was recommended by the neurologist during PACU recovery.

Discussion

We report a veteran with prior stroke and COVID-19 who experienced postoperative speech and motor deficit despite deliberate risk factor mitigation. This case calls for increased vigilance by anesthesia providers to employ proper perioperative stroke management and anticoagulation strategies, and to be prepared for prompt intervention with COVID-19-sensitive practices should the need for advanced airway management or thrombectomy arises.

The exact etiology of the postoperative neurologic deficit in our patient is unknown. The most likely possibility is that this represents poststroke recrudescence (PSR), knowing he had a previous left medullary infarct that presented similarly.¹¹ PSR is a phenomenon in which prior stroke symptoms recur acutely and transiently in the setting of physiologic stressors—also known as locus minoris resistantiae.¹² Triggers include γ aminobutyric acid (GABA) mediating anesthetic agents such as midazolam, opioids (eg, fentanyl or hydromorphone), infection, or relative cerebral hypoperfusion.^11,13,14 The focality of our patient’s presentation favors PSR in the context of brief POD; of note, these entities share similar risk factors.¹⁵ Our patient did indeed receive low-dose preoperative midazolam in the context of mild preoperative neurocognitive deficit, which may have predisposed him to POD.

Conclusions

We discuss a surgical patient with prior SARS-CoV-2 infection at elevated stroke risk that experienced recurrence of neurologic deficits postoperatively. This case informs anesthesia providers of the broad differential diagnosis for focal neurological deficits to include PSR and the possible contribution of COVID-19 to elevated acute stroke risk. Perioperative physicians, including VHA practitioners, with knowledge of current COVID-19 practices are primed to coordinate multidisciplinary efforts during stroke codes and ensuring appropriate anticoagulation.

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank perioperative care teams across the world caring for COVID-19 patients safely.

The risk of perioperative stroke in noncardiac, nonneurologic, nonvascular surgery ranges from 0.1 to 1.9% and is associated with increased mortality.^1,2 Stroke mechanisms include both ischemia (large and small vessel occlusion, cardioembolism, anemic-tissue hypoxia, cerebral hypoperfusion) and hemorrhage.¹ Risk factors for perioperative stroke include prior cerebral vascular accident (CVA), hypertension, aged > 62 years, acute renal insufficiency, dialysis, and recent myocardial infarction (MI).²

Introduction

COVID-19 was declared a pandemic by the World Health Organization in March 2020.³ COVID-19 has certainly affected the veteran population; between February and May 2020, more than 60,000 veterans were tested for COVID-19 with a positive rate of about 9%.⁴ While primarily affecting the respiratory system, there are increasing reports of COVID-19 neurologic manifestations: headache, hypogeusia, hyposomia, seizure, encephalitis, and acute stroke.⁵ In an early case series from Wuhan, China, 36% of 214 patients with COVID-19 reported neurologic complications, and acute CVAs were more common in patients with severe (compared to milder) viral disease presentations (5.7% vs 0.8%).⁶ Large vessel stroke was a presenting feature in another report of 5 patients aged < 50 years.⁷

The mechanism of ischemic stroke in the setting of COVID-19 is unclear.⁸ Indeed, stroke and COVID-19 share similar risk factors (eg, hypertension, diabetes mellitus [DM], older age), and immobile critically ill patients may already be prone to developing stroke.^5,9 However, COVID-19 is associated with arterial and venous thromboembolism, elevated D-dimer and fibrinogen levels, and antiphospholipid antibody production. This prothrombotic state may be linked to cytokine-induced endothelial damage, mononuclear cell activation, tissue factor expression, and ultimately thrombin propagation and platelet activation.⁸

The rates of perioperative stroke may change as more patients with COVID-19 present for surgery, and the anesthesiology care team must prioritize mitigation efforts in high-risk patients, including veterans. Reducing the elevated stroke burden within the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Veterans Health Administration (VHA) is a public health priority.¹⁰ We present the case of a veteran with prior CVA and recent positive COVID-19 testing who experienced transient weakness and dysarthria following plastic surgery. The patient discussed provided written Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act consent for publication of this report.

Case Presentation 

A 75-year-old male veteran presented to the Minneapolis VA Medical Center in Minnesota with chronic left foot ulceration necessitating debridement and flap coverage. His medical history was significant for hypertension, type 2 DM, anemia of chronic disease, and coronary artery disease (left ventricular ejection fraction, 50%). Additionally, he had prior ischemic strokes in the oculomotor nucleus (in 2004 with internuclear ophthalmoplegia) and left ventral medulla (in 2019 with right hemiparesis). During his 2019 poststroke rehabilitation, he was diagnosed with mild neurocognitive deficit not attributable to his strokes. The patient’s medications included amlodipine, lisinopril, atorvastatin, clopidogrel (lifelong for secondary stroke prevention), metformin, and glipizide. The debridement procedure was initially delayed 3 weeks due to positive routine preoperative COVID-19 nasopharyngeal testing, though he reported no respiratory symptoms or fever. During the delay, the primary team prescribed daily oral rivaroxaban for thrombosis prophylaxis in addition to clopidogrel. One week prior to surgery, his repeat COVID-19 test was negative and prophylactic anticoagulation stopped.

On the day of surgery, the patient was hemodynamically stable: heart rate 86 beats/min, blood pressure 167/93 mm Hg (baseline 120-150 mm Hg systolic pressure), respiratory rate 16 breaths/min, oxygen saturation 99% without supplemental oxygen, temperature 97.1 °F. He received amlodipine and clopidogrel, but not lisinopril, that morning. No focal neurologic deficits were appreciated on preoperative examination, and resolution of symptoms related to the 2 prior MIs was confirmed. Preoperative glucose was 163 mg/dL. Femoral and sciatic peripheral nerve blocks were done for postoperative analgesia. A preinduction arterial line was placed and 2 mg of midazolam was administered for anxiolysis. Induction of general anesthesia with oral endotracheal intubation proceeded uneventfully; he was positioned prone.

Given his stroke risk factors, mean arterial pressure was maintained > 70 mm Hg for the duration of surgery. No vasoactive infusions were necessary and no β-blocking agents were administered. Insulin infusion was required; the maximum-recorded glucose was 219 mg/dL. Arterial blood gas samples were routinely drawn; acid-base balance was well maintained, PaO₂ was > 185 mm Hg, and PaCO₂ ranged from 29.4 to 38.5 mm Hg. The patient received 2 units of packed red blood cells for nadir hemoglobin of 7.5 mg/dL. At surgery end, we fully reversed neuromuscular blockade with suggamadex. The patient was returned to a supine position and extubated uneventfully after demonstrating the ability to follow commands.

During postanesthesia care unit (PACU) handoff, the patient exhibited acute speech impairment. He was able to state his name on repetition but seemed confused and sedated. Prompt formal neurology evaluation (stroke code) was sought. Initial National Institutes of Health (NIH) stroke scale score was 8 (1 for level of consciousness, 1 for minor right facial droop, 1 for right arm drift, 3 for right leg with no effort against gravity, 1 for right partial sensory loss, and 1 for mild dysarthria). The patient was oriented only to self. Other findings included mild right facial droop and dysarthria. On a 5-point strength scale, he scored 4 for the right deltoid, biceps, triceps, wrist extensors, right knee flexion, right dorsiflexion, and plantarflexion, 2 for right hip flexion, and ≥ 4 for right knee extension. Positive sensory findings were notable for decreased pin prick sensation on the right limbs.

We obtained emergent head computed tomography (CT) that was negative for acute abnormalities; CT angiography was negative for large vessel occlusion or clinically significant stenosis (Figure). On returning to the PACU from the CT scanner, the patient regained symmetric strength in both arms, right leg was antigravity, and his speech had normalized. Prior to PACU discharge 2 hours later, the patient was back to his prehospitalization neurologic function and NIH stroke scale was 0. Given this rapid clinical resolution, no acute stroke interventions were done, though permissive hypertension was recommended by the neurologist during PACU recovery.

Discussion

We report a veteran with prior stroke and COVID-19 who experienced postoperative speech and motor deficit despite deliberate risk factor mitigation. This case calls for increased vigilance by anesthesia providers to employ proper perioperative stroke management and anticoagulation strategies, and to be prepared for prompt intervention with COVID-19-sensitive practices should the need for advanced airway management or thrombectomy arises.

The exact etiology of the postoperative neurologic deficit in our patient is unknown. The most likely possibility is that this represents poststroke recrudescence (PSR), knowing he had a previous left medullary infarct that presented similarly.¹¹ PSR is a phenomenon in which prior stroke symptoms recur acutely and transiently in the setting of physiologic stressors—also known as locus minoris resistantiae.¹² Triggers include γ aminobutyric acid (GABA) mediating anesthetic agents such as midazolam, opioids (eg, fentanyl or hydromorphone), infection, or relative cerebral hypoperfusion.^11,13,14 The focality of our patient’s presentation favors PSR in the context of brief POD; of note, these entities share similar risk factors.¹⁵ Our patient did indeed receive low-dose preoperative midazolam in the context of mild preoperative neurocognitive deficit, which may have predisposed him to POD.

Conclusions

We discuss a surgical patient with prior SARS-CoV-2 infection at elevated stroke risk that experienced recurrence of neurologic deficits postoperatively. This case informs anesthesia providers of the broad differential diagnosis for focal neurological deficits to include PSR and the possible contribution of COVID-19 to elevated acute stroke risk. Perioperative physicians, including VHA practitioners, with knowledge of current COVID-19 practices are primed to coordinate multidisciplinary efforts during stroke codes and ensuring appropriate anticoagulation.

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank perioperative care teams across the world caring for COVID-19 patients safely.

The US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) is the largest health care organization in the US, staffing more than 1,200 facilities and servicing about 9 million veterans.¹ Identifying VA practices that promote effective health care delivery has the potential to impact thousands of patients every day. The Surgical service at the Minneapolis VA Medical Center (MVAMC) in Minnesota often questioned colleagues whether many of the ordered tests, including blood cultures for patients with suspected infections, were clinically necessary. Despite recommendations for utilizing culture-driven results in choosing appropriate antimicrobials, it was debated whether these additional tests were simply drawn and ignored resulting only in increased costs and venipuncture discomfort for the patient. Thus, the purpose of this quality improvement study was to determine whether positive blood culture results actually influence clinical management at MVAMC.

Background

Accepted best practice when responding to positive blood culture results entails empiric treatment with broad-spectrum antibiotics that subsequently narrows in breadth of coverage once the pathogen has been identified.^2-4 This strategy has been labeled deescalation. Despite the acceptance of these standards, surveys of clinician attitudes towards antibiotics showed that 90% of physicians and residents stated they wanted more education on antimicrobials and 80% desired better schooling on antibiotic choices.^5,6 Additionally, in an online survey 18% of 402 inpatient and emergency department providers, including residents, fellows, intensive care unit (ICU) and emergency department attending physicians, hospitalists, physician assistants, and nurse practitioners, described a lack of confidence when deescalating antibiotic therapy and 45% reported that they had received training on antimicrobial prescribing that was not fully adequate.⁷

These surveys hint at a potential gap in provider education or confidence, which may serve as a barrier to ideal care, further confounding other individualized considerations taken into account when deescalating care. These considerations include patient renal toxicity profiles, the potential for missed pathogens not identified in culture results, unknown sources of infection, and the mindset of many providers to remain on broad therapy if the patient’s condition is improving.^8-10 A specific barrier to deescalation within the VA is the variance in antimicrobial stewardship practices between facilities. In a recent widespread survey of VA practices, Chou and colleagues identified that only 29 of 130 (22.3%) responding facilities had a formal policy to establish an antimicrobial stewardship program.¹¹

Overcoming these barriers to deescalation through effective stewardship practices can help to promote improved clinical outcomes. Most studies have demonstrated that outcomes of deescalation strategies have equivalent or improved mortalityand equivalent or even decreased length of ICU stay.^12-26 Although a 2014 study by Leone and colleagues reported longer overall ICU stay in deescalation treatment groups with equivalent mortality outcomes, newer data do not support these findings.^16,20,22

Furthermore, antibiotics can be expensive. Deescalation, particularly in response to positive blood culture results, has been associated with reduced antibiotic cost due to both a decrease in overall antibiotic usage and the utilization of less expensive choices.^22,24,26,27 The findings of these individual studies were corroborated in 2013 by a meta-analysis, including 89 additional studies.²⁸ Besides the direct costs of the drugs, the development of regional antibiotic resistance has been labeled as one of the most pressing concerns in public health, and major initiatives have been undertaken to stem its spread.^29,30 The majority of clinicians believe that deescalation of antibiotics would reduce antibiotic resistance. Thus, deescalation is widely cited as one of the primary goals in the management of resistance development.^{5,24,26,28,31,32}

Due to the proposed benefits and challenges of implementation, MVAMC instituted a program where the electronic health records (EHR) for all patients with positive blood culture results were reviewed by the on-call infectious disease attending physician to advise the primary care team on antibiotic administration. The MVAMC system for notification of positive blood culture results has 2 components. The first is phone notification to the on-call resident when the positive result of the pathogen identification is noted by the microbiology laboratory staff. Notably, this protocol of phone notification is only performed when identifying the pathogen and not for the subsequent sensitivity profile. The second component occurs each morning when the on-call infectious disease attending physician reviews all positive blood culture results and the current therapy. If the infectious disease attending physician feels some alterations in management are warranted, the physician calls the primary service. Additionally, the primary service may always request a formal consult with the infectious disease team. This quality improvement study was initiated to examine the success of this deescalation/stewardship program to determine whether positive blood culture results influenced clinical management.

Methods

From July 1, 2015 to June 30, 2016, 212 positive blood cultures at the MVAMC were analyzed. Four cases that did not have an antibiotic spectrum score were excluded, leaving 208 cases reviewed. Duplicate blood cultures were excluded from analysis. The microbiology laboratory used the BD Bactec automated blood culture system using the Plus aerobic and Lytic anaerobic media (Becton, Dickinson and Company).

Antibiotic alterations in response to culture results were classified as either deescalation or escalation, using a spectrum score developed by Madaras-Kelly and colleagues.³³ These investigators performed a 3-round modified Delphi survey of infectious disease staff of physicians and pharmacists. The resulting consensus spectrum score for each respective antibiotic reflected the relative susceptibilities of various pathogens to antibiotics and the intrinsic resistance of the pathogens. It is a nonlinear scale from 0 to 60 with a score of 0 indicating no antibacterial activity and a score of 60 indicating complete coverage of all critically identified pathogens. For example, a narrow-spectrum antibiotic such as metronidazole received a spectrum score of 4.0 and a broad-spectrum antibiotic such as piperacillin/tazobactam received a 42.3 score.

Data Recording and Analysis

Charts for review were flagged based on positive blood culture results from the microbiology laboratory. EHRs were manually reviewed to determine when antibiotics were started/stopped and when a member of the primary care team, usually a resident, was notified of culture results as documented by the microbiology laboratory personnel. Any alteration in antibiotics that fit the criteria of deescalation or escalation that occurred within 24 hours of notification of either critical laboratory value was recorded. The identity of infectious pathogens and the primary site of infection were not recorded as these data were not within the scope of the purpose of this study. We did not control for possible contaminants within positive blood cultures.

There were 3 time frames considered when determining culture driven alterations to the antibiotic regimen. The first 2 were changes within the 24 hours after notification of either (1) pathogen identification or (2) pathogen sensitivity. These were defined as culture-driven alterations in response to those particular laboratory findings. The third—whole case time frame—spanned from pathogen identification to 24 hours after sensitivity information was recorded. In cases where ≥ 1 antibiotic alteration was noted within a respective time frame, a classification of deescalation or escalation was still assigned. This was done by summing each change in spectrum score that occurred from antibiotic regimen alterations within the time frame, and classifying the net effect on the spectrum of coverage as either deescalation or escalation. Data were recorded in spreadsheet. RStudio 3.5.3 was used for statistical analysis.

Results

Of 208 cases assigned a spectrum score, 47 (22.6%) had the breadth of antibiotic coverage deescalated by the primary care team within 24 hours of pathogen identification with a mean (SD) physician response time of 8.0 (7.3) hours. Fourteen cases (6.7%) had the breadth of antibiotic coverage escalated from pathogen identification with a mean (SD) response time of 8.0 (7.4) hours. When taken together, within 24 hours of pathogen identification from positive blood cultures 61 cases (29.3%) had altered antibiotics, leaving 70.7% of cases unaltered (Tables 1 and 2). In this nonquantitative spectrum score method, deescalations typically involved larger changes in spectrum score than escalations.

Physician notification of pathogen sensitivities resulted in deescalation in 69 cases (33.2%) within 24 hours, with a mean (SD) response time of 10.4 (7) hours. The mean time to deescalation in response to pathogen identification was significantly shorter than the mean time to deescalation in response to sensitivities (P = .049). Broadening of coverage based on sensitivity information was reported for 17 cases (8.2%) within 24 hours, with a mean (SD) response time of 7.6 (6) hours (Table 3). In response to pathogen sensitivity results from positive blood cultures, 58.6% of cases had no antibiotic alterations. Deescalations involved notably larger changes in spectrum score than escalations.

More than half (58.6%) of cases resulted in an antibiotic alteration from empiric treatment when considering the time frame from empiric antibiotics to 24 hours after receiving sensitivity information. These were deemed the whole-case, culture-driven results. In addition to antibiotic alterations that occurred within 24 hours of either pathogen identification or sensitivity information, the whole-case category also considered antibiotic alterations that occurred more than 24 hours after pathogen identification was known and before sensitivity information was available, although this was rare. Some of these patients may have had their antibiotics altered twice, first after pathogen identification and later once sensitivities became available with the net effect recorded as the whole-case administration. Of those that had their antibiotics modified in response to laboratory results, by a ratio of 6.4:1, the change was a deescalation rather than an escalation.

Discussion

The strategy of the infectious disease team at MVAMC is one of deescalation. One challenge of quantifying deescalation was to make a reliable and agreed-upon definition of just what deescalation entails. In 2003, the pharmaceutical company Merck was granted a trademark for the phrase “De-Escalation Therapy” under the international class code 41 for educational and entertainment services. This seemed to correspond to marketing efforts for the antibiotic imipenem/cilastatin. Although the company trademarked the term, it was never defined. The usage of the phrase evolved from a reduction of the dosage of a specific antibiotic to a reduction in the number of antibiotics prescribed to that of monotherapy. The phrase continues to evolve and has now become associated with a change from combination therapy or broad-spectrum antibiotics to monotherapy, switching to an antibiotic that covers fewer pathogens, or even shortening the duration of antibiotic therapy.³⁴ The trademark expired at about the same time the imipenem/cilastatin patent expired. Notably, this drug had initially been marketed for use in empiric antibiotic therapy.³⁵

Barriers

The goal of the stewardship program was not to see a narrowing of the antibiotic spectrum in all patients. Some diseases such as diverticulitis or diabetic foot infections are usually associated with multiple pathogens where relatively broad-spectrum antibiotics seem to be preferred.^36,37 Heenen and colleagues reported that infectious disease specialists recommended deescalation in < 50% of cases they examined.³⁸

Comparing different institutions’ deescalation rates can be confusing due to varying definitions, differing patient populations, and health care provider behavior. Thus, the published rates of deescalation range widely from 10 to 70%.^2,39,40 In addition to the varied definitions of deescalation, it is challenging to directly compare the rate of deescalation between studies due to institutional variation in empirical broad-spectrum antibiotic usage. A hospital that uses broad-spectrum antibiotics at a higher rate than another has the potential to deescalate more often than one that has low rates of empirical broad-spectrum antibiotic use. Some studies use a conservative definition of deescalation such as narrowing the spectrum of coverage, while others use a more general definition, including both the narrowing of spectrum and/or the discontinuation of antibiotics from empirical therapy.^41-45 The more specific and validated definition of deescalation used in this study may allow for standardized comparisons. Another unique feature of this study is that all positive blood cultures were followed, not only those of a particular disease.

Clinical Response

This quality improvement study was initiated to determine whether positive blood culture results actually affect clinical management at MVAMC. The answer seems to be yes, with blood culture results altering antibiotic administration in about 60% of cases with the predominant change being deescalation. This overall rate of deescalation is toward the higher end of previously documented rates and coincides with the upper bound of the clinically advised deescalation rate described by Heenen and colleagues.³⁸

As noted, the spectrum score is not quantitative. Still, one may be able to contend that the values may provide some insight into the magnitude of the changes in antibiotic selection. Deescalations were on average much larger changes in spectrum than escalations. The larger magnitude of deescalations reflects that when already starting with a very broad spectrum of coverage, it is much easier to get narrower than even broader. Stated another way, when starting therapy using piperacillin/tazobactam at a spectrum score of 42.3 on a 60-point scale, there is much more room for deescalation to 0 than escalation to 60. Additionally, escalations were more likely with much smaller of a spectrum change due to accurate empirical judgment of the suspected pathogens with new findings only necessitating a minor expansion of the spectrum of coverage.

Future Study

Similar studies designed using the spectrum score methodology would allow for more meaningful interinstitutional comparison of antibiotic administration through the use of a unified definition of deescalation and escalation. Comparison of deescalation and escalation rates between hospital systems with similar patient populations with and without prompt infectious disease review and phone notification of blood culture results could further verify the value of such a protocol. It could also help determine which empiric antibiotics may be most effective in individual patient morbidity and mortality outcomes, length of stay, costs, and the development of antibiotic resistance. Chou and colleagues found that only 49 of 130 responding VA facilities had antimicrobial stewardship teams in place with even fewer (29) having a formal policy to establish an antimicrobial stewardship program.¹¹ This significant variation in the practices of VA facilities across the nation underscores the benefit to be gained from implementation of value-added protocols such as daily infectious disease case monitoring and microbiology laboratory phone notification of positive blood culture results as it occurs at MVAMC.

They also noted that systems of patient-level antibiotic review, and the presence of at least one full-time infectious disease physician were both associated with a statistically significant decrease in the use of antimicrobials, corroborating the results of this analysis.¹¹ Adapting the current system of infectious disease specialist review of positive blood culture results to use remote monitoring through the EHR could help to defer some of the cost of needing an in-house specialist while retaining the benefit of the oversite.

Another option for study would be a before and after design to determine whether the program of infectious disease specialist review led to increased use of deescalation strategies similar to studies investigating the efficacy of antimicrobial subcommittee implementation.^{13,20,23,24,26}

Conclusions

This analysis of empiric antibiotic use at the MVAMC indicates promising rates of deescalation. The results indicate that the medical service may be right and that positive blood culture results appear to affect clinical decision making in an appropriate and timely fashion. The VA is the largest health care organization in the US. Thus, identifying and propagating effective stewardship practices on a widespread basis can have a significant effect on the public health of the nation.

These data suggest that the program implemented at the MVAMC of phone notification to the primary care team along with daily infectious disease staff monitoring of blood culture information should be widely adopted at sister institutions using either in-house or remote specialist review.

The US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) is the largest health care organization in the US, staffing more than 1,200 facilities and servicing about 9 million veterans.¹ Identifying VA practices that promote effective health care delivery has the potential to impact thousands of patients every day. The Surgical service at the Minneapolis VA Medical Center (MVAMC) in Minnesota often questioned colleagues whether many of the ordered tests, including blood cultures for patients with suspected infections, were clinically necessary. Despite recommendations for utilizing culture-driven results in choosing appropriate antimicrobials, it was debated whether these additional tests were simply drawn and ignored resulting only in increased costs and venipuncture discomfort for the patient. Thus, the purpose of this quality improvement study was to determine whether positive blood culture results actually influence clinical management at MVAMC.

Background

Accepted best practice when responding to positive blood culture results entails empiric treatment with broad-spectrum antibiotics that subsequently narrows in breadth of coverage once the pathogen has been identified.^2-4 This strategy has been labeled deescalation. Despite the acceptance of these standards, surveys of clinician attitudes towards antibiotics showed that 90% of physicians and residents stated they wanted more education on antimicrobials and 80% desired better schooling on antibiotic choices.^5,6 Additionally, in an online survey 18% of 402 inpatient and emergency department providers, including residents, fellows, intensive care unit (ICU) and emergency department attending physicians, hospitalists, physician assistants, and nurse practitioners, described a lack of confidence when deescalating antibiotic therapy and 45% reported that they had received training on antimicrobial prescribing that was not fully adequate.⁷

These surveys hint at a potential gap in provider education or confidence, which may serve as a barrier to ideal care, further confounding other individualized considerations taken into account when deescalating care. These considerations include patient renal toxicity profiles, the potential for missed pathogens not identified in culture results, unknown sources of infection, and the mindset of many providers to remain on broad therapy if the patient’s condition is improving.^8-10 A specific barrier to deescalation within the VA is the variance in antimicrobial stewardship practices between facilities. In a recent widespread survey of VA practices, Chou and colleagues identified that only 29 of 130 (22.3%) responding facilities had a formal policy to establish an antimicrobial stewardship program.¹¹

Overcoming these barriers to deescalation through effective stewardship practices can help to promote improved clinical outcomes. Most studies have demonstrated that outcomes of deescalation strategies have equivalent or improved mortalityand equivalent or even decreased length of ICU stay.^12-26 Although a 2014 study by Leone and colleagues reported longer overall ICU stay in deescalation treatment groups with equivalent mortality outcomes, newer data do not support these findings.^16,20,22

Furthermore, antibiotics can be expensive. Deescalation, particularly in response to positive blood culture results, has been associated with reduced antibiotic cost due to both a decrease in overall antibiotic usage and the utilization of less expensive choices.^22,24,26,27 The findings of these individual studies were corroborated in 2013 by a meta-analysis, including 89 additional studies.²⁸ Besides the direct costs of the drugs, the development of regional antibiotic resistance has been labeled as one of the most pressing concerns in public health, and major initiatives have been undertaken to stem its spread.^29,30 The majority of clinicians believe that deescalation of antibiotics would reduce antibiotic resistance. Thus, deescalation is widely cited as one of the primary goals in the management of resistance development.^{5,24,26,28,31,32}

Due to the proposed benefits and challenges of implementation, MVAMC instituted a program where the electronic health records (EHR) for all patients with positive blood culture results were reviewed by the on-call infectious disease attending physician to advise the primary care team on antibiotic administration. The MVAMC system for notification of positive blood culture results has 2 components. The first is phone notification to the on-call resident when the positive result of the pathogen identification is noted by the microbiology laboratory staff. Notably, this protocol of phone notification is only performed when identifying the pathogen and not for the subsequent sensitivity profile. The second component occurs each morning when the on-call infectious disease attending physician reviews all positive blood culture results and the current therapy. If the infectious disease attending physician feels some alterations in management are warranted, the physician calls the primary service. Additionally, the primary service may always request a formal consult with the infectious disease team. This quality improvement study was initiated to examine the success of this deescalation/stewardship program to determine whether positive blood culture results influenced clinical management.

Methods

From July 1, 2015 to June 30, 2016, 212 positive blood cultures at the MVAMC were analyzed. Four cases that did not have an antibiotic spectrum score were excluded, leaving 208 cases reviewed. Duplicate blood cultures were excluded from analysis. The microbiology laboratory used the BD Bactec automated blood culture system using the Plus aerobic and Lytic anaerobic media (Becton, Dickinson and Company).

Antibiotic alterations in response to culture results were classified as either deescalation or escalation, using a spectrum score developed by Madaras-Kelly and colleagues.³³ These investigators performed a 3-round modified Delphi survey of infectious disease staff of physicians and pharmacists. The resulting consensus spectrum score for each respective antibiotic reflected the relative susceptibilities of various pathogens to antibiotics and the intrinsic resistance of the pathogens. It is a nonlinear scale from 0 to 60 with a score of 0 indicating no antibacterial activity and a score of 60 indicating complete coverage of all critically identified pathogens. For example, a narrow-spectrum antibiotic such as metronidazole received a spectrum score of 4.0 and a broad-spectrum antibiotic such as piperacillin/tazobactam received a 42.3 score.

Data Recording and Analysis

Charts for review were flagged based on positive blood culture results from the microbiology laboratory. EHRs were manually reviewed to determine when antibiotics were started/stopped and when a member of the primary care team, usually a resident, was notified of culture results as documented by the microbiology laboratory personnel. Any alteration in antibiotics that fit the criteria of deescalation or escalation that occurred within 24 hours of notification of either critical laboratory value was recorded. The identity of infectious pathogens and the primary site of infection were not recorded as these data were not within the scope of the purpose of this study. We did not control for possible contaminants within positive blood cultures.

There were 3 time frames considered when determining culture driven alterations to the antibiotic regimen. The first 2 were changes within the 24 hours after notification of either (1) pathogen identification or (2) pathogen sensitivity. These were defined as culture-driven alterations in response to those particular laboratory findings. The third—whole case time frame—spanned from pathogen identification to 24 hours after sensitivity information was recorded. In cases where ≥ 1 antibiotic alteration was noted within a respective time frame, a classification of deescalation or escalation was still assigned. This was done by summing each change in spectrum score that occurred from antibiotic regimen alterations within the time frame, and classifying the net effect on the spectrum of coverage as either deescalation or escalation. Data were recorded in spreadsheet. RStudio 3.5.3 was used for statistical analysis.

Results

Of 208 cases assigned a spectrum score, 47 (22.6%) had the breadth of antibiotic coverage deescalated by the primary care team within 24 hours of pathogen identification with a mean (SD) physician response time of 8.0 (7.3) hours. Fourteen cases (6.7%) had the breadth of antibiotic coverage escalated from pathogen identification with a mean (SD) response time of 8.0 (7.4) hours. When taken together, within 24 hours of pathogen identification from positive blood cultures 61 cases (29.3%) had altered antibiotics, leaving 70.7% of cases unaltered (Tables 1 and 2). In this nonquantitative spectrum score method, deescalations typically involved larger changes in spectrum score than escalations.

Physician notification of pathogen sensitivities resulted in deescalation in 69 cases (33.2%) within 24 hours, with a mean (SD) response time of 10.4 (7) hours. The mean time to deescalation in response to pathogen identification was significantly shorter than the mean time to deescalation in response to sensitivities (P = .049). Broadening of coverage based on sensitivity information was reported for 17 cases (8.2%) within 24 hours, with a mean (SD) response time of 7.6 (6) hours (Table 3). In response to pathogen sensitivity results from positive blood cultures, 58.6% of cases had no antibiotic alterations. Deescalations involved notably larger changes in spectrum score than escalations.

More than half (58.6%) of cases resulted in an antibiotic alteration from empiric treatment when considering the time frame from empiric antibiotics to 24 hours after receiving sensitivity information. These were deemed the whole-case, culture-driven results. In addition to antibiotic alterations that occurred within 24 hours of either pathogen identification or sensitivity information, the whole-case category also considered antibiotic alterations that occurred more than 24 hours after pathogen identification was known and before sensitivity information was available, although this was rare. Some of these patients may have had their antibiotics altered twice, first after pathogen identification and later once sensitivities became available with the net effect recorded as the whole-case administration. Of those that had their antibiotics modified in response to laboratory results, by a ratio of 6.4:1, the change was a deescalation rather than an escalation.

Discussion

The strategy of the infectious disease team at MVAMC is one of deescalation. One challenge of quantifying deescalation was to make a reliable and agreed-upon definition of just what deescalation entails. In 2003, the pharmaceutical company Merck was granted a trademark for the phrase “De-Escalation Therapy” under the international class code 41 for educational and entertainment services. This seemed to correspond to marketing efforts for the antibiotic imipenem/cilastatin. Although the company trademarked the term, it was never defined. The usage of the phrase evolved from a reduction of the dosage of a specific antibiotic to a reduction in the number of antibiotics prescribed to that of monotherapy. The phrase continues to evolve and has now become associated with a change from combination therapy or broad-spectrum antibiotics to monotherapy, switching to an antibiotic that covers fewer pathogens, or even shortening the duration of antibiotic therapy.³⁴ The trademark expired at about the same time the imipenem/cilastatin patent expired. Notably, this drug had initially been marketed for use in empiric antibiotic therapy.³⁵

Barriers

The goal of the stewardship program was not to see a narrowing of the antibiotic spectrum in all patients. Some diseases such as diverticulitis or diabetic foot infections are usually associated with multiple pathogens where relatively broad-spectrum antibiotics seem to be preferred.^36,37 Heenen and colleagues reported that infectious disease specialists recommended deescalation in < 50% of cases they examined.³⁸

Comparing different institutions’ deescalation rates can be confusing due to varying definitions, differing patient populations, and health care provider behavior. Thus, the published rates of deescalation range widely from 10 to 70%.^2,39,40 In addition to the varied definitions of deescalation, it is challenging to directly compare the rate of deescalation between studies due to institutional variation in empirical broad-spectrum antibiotic usage. A hospital that uses broad-spectrum antibiotics at a higher rate than another has the potential to deescalate more often than one that has low rates of empirical broad-spectrum antibiotic use. Some studies use a conservative definition of deescalation such as narrowing the spectrum of coverage, while others use a more general definition, including both the narrowing of spectrum and/or the discontinuation of antibiotics from empirical therapy.^41-45 The more specific and validated definition of deescalation used in this study may allow for standardized comparisons. Another unique feature of this study is that all positive blood cultures were followed, not only those of a particular disease.

Clinical Response

This quality improvement study was initiated to determine whether positive blood culture results actually affect clinical management at MVAMC. The answer seems to be yes, with blood culture results altering antibiotic administration in about 60% of cases with the predominant change being deescalation. This overall rate of deescalation is toward the higher end of previously documented rates and coincides with the upper bound of the clinically advised deescalation rate described by Heenen and colleagues.³⁸

As noted, the spectrum score is not quantitative. Still, one may be able to contend that the values may provide some insight into the magnitude of the changes in antibiotic selection. Deescalations were on average much larger changes in spectrum than escalations. The larger magnitude of deescalations reflects that when already starting with a very broad spectrum of coverage, it is much easier to get narrower than even broader. Stated another way, when starting therapy using piperacillin/tazobactam at a spectrum score of 42.3 on a 60-point scale, there is much more room for deescalation to 0 than escalation to 60. Additionally, escalations were more likely with much smaller of a spectrum change due to accurate empirical judgment of the suspected pathogens with new findings only necessitating a minor expansion of the spectrum of coverage.

Future Study

Similar studies designed using the spectrum score methodology would allow for more meaningful interinstitutional comparison of antibiotic administration through the use of a unified definition of deescalation and escalation. Comparison of deescalation and escalation rates between hospital systems with similar patient populations with and without prompt infectious disease review and phone notification of blood culture results could further verify the value of such a protocol. It could also help determine which empiric antibiotics may be most effective in individual patient morbidity and mortality outcomes, length of stay, costs, and the development of antibiotic resistance. Chou and colleagues found that only 49 of 130 responding VA facilities had antimicrobial stewardship teams in place with even fewer (29) having a formal policy to establish an antimicrobial stewardship program.¹¹ This significant variation in the practices of VA facilities across the nation underscores the benefit to be gained from implementation of value-added protocols such as daily infectious disease case monitoring and microbiology laboratory phone notification of positive blood culture results as it occurs at MVAMC.

They also noted that systems of patient-level antibiotic review, and the presence of at least one full-time infectious disease physician were both associated with a statistically significant decrease in the use of antimicrobials, corroborating the results of this analysis.¹¹ Adapting the current system of infectious disease specialist review of positive blood culture results to use remote monitoring through the EHR could help to defer some of the cost of needing an in-house specialist while retaining the benefit of the oversite.

Another option for study would be a before and after design to determine whether the program of infectious disease specialist review led to increased use of deescalation strategies similar to studies investigating the efficacy of antimicrobial subcommittee implementation.^{13,20,23,24,26}

Conclusions

This analysis of empiric antibiotic use at the MVAMC indicates promising rates of deescalation. The results indicate that the medical service may be right and that positive blood culture results appear to affect clinical decision making in an appropriate and timely fashion. The VA is the largest health care organization in the US. Thus, identifying and propagating effective stewardship practices on a widespread basis can have a significant effect on the public health of the nation.

These data suggest that the program implemented at the MVAMC of phone notification to the primary care team along with daily infectious disease staff monitoring of blood culture information should be widely adopted at sister institutions using either in-house or remote specialist review.

The US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) is the largest health care organization in the US, staffing more than 1,200 facilities and servicing about 9 million veterans.¹ Identifying VA practices that promote effective health care delivery has the potential to impact thousands of patients every day. The Surgical service at the Minneapolis VA Medical Center (MVAMC) in Minnesota often questioned colleagues whether many of the ordered tests, including blood cultures for patients with suspected infections, were clinically necessary. Despite recommendations for utilizing culture-driven results in choosing appropriate antimicrobials, it was debated whether these additional tests were simply drawn and ignored resulting only in increased costs and venipuncture discomfort for the patient. Thus, the purpose of this quality improvement study was to determine whether positive blood culture results actually influence clinical management at MVAMC.

Background

Accepted best practice when responding to positive blood culture results entails empiric treatment with broad-spectrum antibiotics that subsequently narrows in breadth of coverage once the pathogen has been identified.^2-4 This strategy has been labeled deescalation. Despite the acceptance of these standards, surveys of clinician attitudes towards antibiotics showed that 90% of physicians and residents stated they wanted more education on antimicrobials and 80% desired better schooling on antibiotic choices.^5,6 Additionally, in an online survey 18% of 402 inpatient and emergency department providers, including residents, fellows, intensive care unit (ICU) and emergency department attending physicians, hospitalists, physician assistants, and nurse practitioners, described a lack of confidence when deescalating antibiotic therapy and 45% reported that they had received training on antimicrobial prescribing that was not fully adequate.⁷

These surveys hint at a potential gap in provider education or confidence, which may serve as a barrier to ideal care, further confounding other individualized considerations taken into account when deescalating care. These considerations include patient renal toxicity profiles, the potential for missed pathogens not identified in culture results, unknown sources of infection, and the mindset of many providers to remain on broad therapy if the patient’s condition is improving.^8-10 A specific barrier to deescalation within the VA is the variance in antimicrobial stewardship practices between facilities. In a recent widespread survey of VA practices, Chou and colleagues identified that only 29 of 130 (22.3%) responding facilities had a formal policy to establish an antimicrobial stewardship program.¹¹

Overcoming these barriers to deescalation through effective stewardship practices can help to promote improved clinical outcomes. Most studies have demonstrated that outcomes of deescalation strategies have equivalent or improved mortalityand equivalent or even decreased length of ICU stay.^12-26 Although a 2014 study by Leone and colleagues reported longer overall ICU stay in deescalation treatment groups with equivalent mortality outcomes, newer data do not support these findings.^16,20,22

Furthermore, antibiotics can be expensive. Deescalation, particularly in response to positive blood culture results, has been associated with reduced antibiotic cost due to both a decrease in overall antibiotic usage and the utilization of less expensive choices.^22,24,26,27 The findings of these individual studies were corroborated in 2013 by a meta-analysis, including 89 additional studies.²⁸ Besides the direct costs of the drugs, the development of regional antibiotic resistance has been labeled as one of the most pressing concerns in public health, and major initiatives have been undertaken to stem its spread.^29,30 The majority of clinicians believe that deescalation of antibiotics would reduce antibiotic resistance. Thus, deescalation is widely cited as one of the primary goals in the management of resistance development.^{5,24,26,28,31,32}

Due to the proposed benefits and challenges of implementation, MVAMC instituted a program where the electronic health records (EHR) for all patients with positive blood culture results were reviewed by the on-call infectious disease attending physician to advise the primary care team on antibiotic administration. The MVAMC system for notification of positive blood culture results has 2 components. The first is phone notification to the on-call resident when the positive result of the pathogen identification is noted by the microbiology laboratory staff. Notably, this protocol of phone notification is only performed when identifying the pathogen and not for the subsequent sensitivity profile. The second component occurs each morning when the on-call infectious disease attending physician reviews all positive blood culture results and the current therapy. If the infectious disease attending physician feels some alterations in management are warranted, the physician calls the primary service. Additionally, the primary service may always request a formal consult with the infectious disease team. This quality improvement study was initiated to examine the success of this deescalation/stewardship program to determine whether positive blood culture results influenced clinical management.

Methods

From July 1, 2015 to June 30, 2016, 212 positive blood cultures at the MVAMC were analyzed. Four cases that did not have an antibiotic spectrum score were excluded, leaving 208 cases reviewed. Duplicate blood cultures were excluded from analysis. The microbiology laboratory used the BD Bactec automated blood culture system using the Plus aerobic and Lytic anaerobic media (Becton, Dickinson and Company).

Antibiotic alterations in response to culture results were classified as either deescalation or escalation, using a spectrum score developed by Madaras-Kelly and colleagues.³³ These investigators performed a 3-round modified Delphi survey of infectious disease staff of physicians and pharmacists. The resulting consensus spectrum score for each respective antibiotic reflected the relative susceptibilities of various pathogens to antibiotics and the intrinsic resistance of the pathogens. It is a nonlinear scale from 0 to 60 with a score of 0 indicating no antibacterial activity and a score of 60 indicating complete coverage of all critically identified pathogens. For example, a narrow-spectrum antibiotic such as metronidazole received a spectrum score of 4.0 and a broad-spectrum antibiotic such as piperacillin/tazobactam received a 42.3 score.

Data Recording and Analysis

Charts for review were flagged based on positive blood culture results from the microbiology laboratory. EHRs were manually reviewed to determine when antibiotics were started/stopped and when a member of the primary care team, usually a resident, was notified of culture results as documented by the microbiology laboratory personnel. Any alteration in antibiotics that fit the criteria of deescalation or escalation that occurred within 24 hours of notification of either critical laboratory value was recorded. The identity of infectious pathogens and the primary site of infection were not recorded as these data were not within the scope of the purpose of this study. We did not control for possible contaminants within positive blood cultures.

There were 3 time frames considered when determining culture driven alterations to the antibiotic regimen. The first 2 were changes within the 24 hours after notification of either (1) pathogen identification or (2) pathogen sensitivity. These were defined as culture-driven alterations in response to those particular laboratory findings. The third—whole case time frame—spanned from pathogen identification to 24 hours after sensitivity information was recorded. In cases where ≥ 1 antibiotic alteration was noted within a respective time frame, a classification of deescalation or escalation was still assigned. This was done by summing each change in spectrum score that occurred from antibiotic regimen alterations within the time frame, and classifying the net effect on the spectrum of coverage as either deescalation or escalation. Data were recorded in spreadsheet. RStudio 3.5.3 was used for statistical analysis.

Results

Of 208 cases assigned a spectrum score, 47 (22.6%) had the breadth of antibiotic coverage deescalated by the primary care team within 24 hours of pathogen identification with a mean (SD) physician response time of 8.0 (7.3) hours. Fourteen cases (6.7%) had the breadth of antibiotic coverage escalated from pathogen identification with a mean (SD) response time of 8.0 (7.4) hours. When taken together, within 24 hours of pathogen identification from positive blood cultures 61 cases (29.3%) had altered antibiotics, leaving 70.7% of cases unaltered (Tables 1 and 2). In this nonquantitative spectrum score method, deescalations typically involved larger changes in spectrum score than escalations.

Physician notification of pathogen sensitivities resulted in deescalation in 69 cases (33.2%) within 24 hours, with a mean (SD) response time of 10.4 (7) hours. The mean time to deescalation in response to pathogen identification was significantly shorter than the mean time to deescalation in response to sensitivities (P = .049). Broadening of coverage based on sensitivity information was reported for 17 cases (8.2%) within 24 hours, with a mean (SD) response time of 7.6 (6) hours (Table 3). In response to pathogen sensitivity results from positive blood cultures, 58.6% of cases had no antibiotic alterations. Deescalations involved notably larger changes in spectrum score than escalations.

More than half (58.6%) of cases resulted in an antibiotic alteration from empiric treatment when considering the time frame from empiric antibiotics to 24 hours after receiving sensitivity information. These were deemed the whole-case, culture-driven results. In addition to antibiotic alterations that occurred within 24 hours of either pathogen identification or sensitivity information, the whole-case category also considered antibiotic alterations that occurred more than 24 hours after pathogen identification was known and before sensitivity information was available, although this was rare. Some of these patients may have had their antibiotics altered twice, first after pathogen identification and later once sensitivities became available with the net effect recorded as the whole-case administration. Of those that had their antibiotics modified in response to laboratory results, by a ratio of 6.4:1, the change was a deescalation rather than an escalation.

Discussion

The strategy of the infectious disease team at MVAMC is one of deescalation. One challenge of quantifying deescalation was to make a reliable and agreed-upon definition of just what deescalation entails. In 2003, the pharmaceutical company Merck was granted a trademark for the phrase “De-Escalation Therapy” under the international class code 41 for educational and entertainment services. This seemed to correspond to marketing efforts for the antibiotic imipenem/cilastatin. Although the company trademarked the term, it was never defined. The usage of the phrase evolved from a reduction of the dosage of a specific antibiotic to a reduction in the number of antibiotics prescribed to that of monotherapy. The phrase continues to evolve and has now become associated with a change from combination therapy or broad-spectrum antibiotics to monotherapy, switching to an antibiotic that covers fewer pathogens, or even shortening the duration of antibiotic therapy.³⁴ The trademark expired at about the same time the imipenem/cilastatin patent expired. Notably, this drug had initially been marketed for use in empiric antibiotic therapy.³⁵

Barriers

The goal of the stewardship program was not to see a narrowing of the antibiotic spectrum in all patients. Some diseases such as diverticulitis or diabetic foot infections are usually associated with multiple pathogens where relatively broad-spectrum antibiotics seem to be preferred.^36,37 Heenen and colleagues reported that infectious disease specialists recommended deescalation in < 50% of cases they examined.³⁸

Comparing different institutions’ deescalation rates can be confusing due to varying definitions, differing patient populations, and health care provider behavior. Thus, the published rates of deescalation range widely from 10 to 70%.^2,39,40 In addition to the varied definitions of deescalation, it is challenging to directly compare the rate of deescalation between studies due to institutional variation in empirical broad-spectrum antibiotic usage. A hospital that uses broad-spectrum antibiotics at a higher rate than another has the potential to deescalate more often than one that has low rates of empirical broad-spectrum antibiotic use. Some studies use a conservative definition of deescalation such as narrowing the spectrum of coverage, while others use a more general definition, including both the narrowing of spectrum and/or the discontinuation of antibiotics from empirical therapy.^41-45 The more specific and validated definition of deescalation used in this study may allow for standardized comparisons. Another unique feature of this study is that all positive blood cultures were followed, not only those of a particular disease.

Clinical Response

This quality improvement study was initiated to determine whether positive blood culture results actually affect clinical management at MVAMC. The answer seems to be yes, with blood culture results altering antibiotic administration in about 60% of cases with the predominant change being deescalation. This overall rate of deescalation is toward the higher end of previously documented rates and coincides with the upper bound of the clinically advised deescalation rate described by Heenen and colleagues.³⁸

As noted, the spectrum score is not quantitative. Still, one may be able to contend that the values may provide some insight into the magnitude of the changes in antibiotic selection. Deescalations were on average much larger changes in spectrum than escalations. The larger magnitude of deescalations reflects that when already starting with a very broad spectrum of coverage, it is much easier to get narrower than even broader. Stated another way, when starting therapy using piperacillin/tazobactam at a spectrum score of 42.3 on a 60-point scale, there is much more room for deescalation to 0 than escalation to 60. Additionally, escalations were more likely with much smaller of a spectrum change due to accurate empirical judgment of the suspected pathogens with new findings only necessitating a minor expansion of the spectrum of coverage.

Future Study

Similar studies designed using the spectrum score methodology would allow for more meaningful interinstitutional comparison of antibiotic administration through the use of a unified definition of deescalation and escalation. Comparison of deescalation and escalation rates between hospital systems with similar patient populations with and without prompt infectious disease review and phone notification of blood culture results could further verify the value of such a protocol. It could also help determine which empiric antibiotics may be most effective in individual patient morbidity and mortality outcomes, length of stay, costs, and the development of antibiotic resistance. Chou and colleagues found that only 49 of 130 responding VA facilities had antimicrobial stewardship teams in place with even fewer (29) having a formal policy to establish an antimicrobial stewardship program.¹¹ This significant variation in the practices of VA facilities across the nation underscores the benefit to be gained from implementation of value-added protocols such as daily infectious disease case monitoring and microbiology laboratory phone notification of positive blood culture results as it occurs at MVAMC.

They also noted that systems of patient-level antibiotic review, and the presence of at least one full-time infectious disease physician were both associated with a statistically significant decrease in the use of antimicrobials, corroborating the results of this analysis.¹¹ Adapting the current system of infectious disease specialist review of positive blood culture results to use remote monitoring through the EHR could help to defer some of the cost of needing an in-house specialist while retaining the benefit of the oversite.

Another option for study would be a before and after design to determine whether the program of infectious disease specialist review led to increased use of deescalation strategies similar to studies investigating the efficacy of antimicrobial subcommittee implementation.^{13,20,23,24,26}

Conclusions

This analysis of empiric antibiotic use at the MVAMC indicates promising rates of deescalation. The results indicate that the medical service may be right and that positive blood culture results appear to affect clinical decision making in an appropriate and timely fashion. The VA is the largest health care organization in the US. Thus, identifying and propagating effective stewardship practices on a widespread basis can have a significant effect on the public health of the nation.

These data suggest that the program implemented at the MVAMC of phone notification to the primary care team along with daily infectious disease staff monitoring of blood culture information should be widely adopted at sister institutions using either in-house or remote specialist review.

A third COVID-19 vaccine is now in circulation and states are starting to drop mask mandates, but the latest decline in weekly child cases barely registers as a decline, according to new data from the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Children’s Hospital Association.

The number of new COVID-19 cases in children fell from 64,264 (Feb. 19-25) to 63,562 (Feb. 26 to March 4). That’s only 702 cases – a drop of just 1.1% – the smallest by far since weekly cases peaked in mid-January, the AAP and CHA said in their weekly COVID-19 report. Since that peak, the last 7 weeks of declines have looked like this: 21.7%, 15.3%, 16.2%, 15.7%, 28.7%, 9.0%, and 1.1%.

Meanwhile, children’s share of the COVID-19 burden increased to its highest point ever: 18.0% of all new cases occurred in children during the week ending March 4, climbing from 15.7% the week before and eclipsing the previous high of 16.9%. Cumulatively, the 3.23 million cases in children represent 13.2% of all COVID-19 cases reported in 49 states (excluding New York), the District of Columbia, New York City, Puerto Rico, and Guam.

At the state level, the new leader in cumulative share of cases is Vermont at 19.4%, which just edged past Wyoming’s 19.3% as of the week ending March 4. The other states above 18% are Alaska (19.2%) and South Carolina (18.2%). The lowest rates can be found in Florida (8.1%), New Jersey (10.2%), Iowa (10.4%), and Utah (10.5%), the AAP and CHA said.

The overall rate of COVID-19 cases nationwide was 4,294 cases per 100,000 children as of March 4, up from 4,209 per 100,000 the week before. That measure had doubled between Dec. 3 (1,941 per 100,000) and Feb. 4 (3,899) but has only risen about 10% in the last month, the AAP/CHA data show.

Perhaps the most surprising news of the week involves the number of COVID-19 deaths in children, which went from 256 the previous week to 253 after Ohio made a downward revision of its mortality data. So far, children represent just 0.06% of all coronavirus-related deaths, a figure that has held steady since last summer in the 43 states (along with New York City and Guam) that are reporting mortality data by age, the AAP and CHA said.

[email protected]

A third COVID-19 vaccine is now in circulation and states are starting to drop mask mandates, but the latest decline in weekly child cases barely registers as a decline, according to new data from the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Children’s Hospital Association.

The number of new COVID-19 cases in children fell from 64,264 (Feb. 19-25) to 63,562 (Feb. 26 to March 4). That’s only 702 cases – a drop of just 1.1% – the smallest by far since weekly cases peaked in mid-January, the AAP and CHA said in their weekly COVID-19 report. Since that peak, the last 7 weeks of declines have looked like this: 21.7%, 15.3%, 16.2%, 15.7%, 28.7%, 9.0%, and 1.1%.

Meanwhile, children’s share of the COVID-19 burden increased to its highest point ever: 18.0% of all new cases occurred in children during the week ending March 4, climbing from 15.7% the week before and eclipsing the previous high of 16.9%. Cumulatively, the 3.23 million cases in children represent 13.2% of all COVID-19 cases reported in 49 states (excluding New York), the District of Columbia, New York City, Puerto Rico, and Guam.

At the state level, the new leader in cumulative share of cases is Vermont at 19.4%, which just edged past Wyoming’s 19.3% as of the week ending March 4. The other states above 18% are Alaska (19.2%) and South Carolina (18.2%). The lowest rates can be found in Florida (8.1%), New Jersey (10.2%), Iowa (10.4%), and Utah (10.5%), the AAP and CHA said.

The overall rate of COVID-19 cases nationwide was 4,294 cases per 100,000 children as of March 4, up from 4,209 per 100,000 the week before. That measure had doubled between Dec. 3 (1,941 per 100,000) and Feb. 4 (3,899) but has only risen about 10% in the last month, the AAP/CHA data show.

Perhaps the most surprising news of the week involves the number of COVID-19 deaths in children, which went from 256 the previous week to 253 after Ohio made a downward revision of its mortality data. So far, children represent just 0.06% of all coronavirus-related deaths, a figure that has held steady since last summer in the 43 states (along with New York City and Guam) that are reporting mortality data by age, the AAP and CHA said.

[email protected]

A third COVID-19 vaccine is now in circulation and states are starting to drop mask mandates, but the latest decline in weekly child cases barely registers as a decline, according to new data from the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Children’s Hospital Association.

The number of new COVID-19 cases in children fell from 64,264 (Feb. 19-25) to 63,562 (Feb. 26 to March 4). That’s only 702 cases – a drop of just 1.1% – the smallest by far since weekly cases peaked in mid-January, the AAP and CHA said in their weekly COVID-19 report. Since that peak, the last 7 weeks of declines have looked like this: 21.7%, 15.3%, 16.2%, 15.7%, 28.7%, 9.0%, and 1.1%.

Meanwhile, children’s share of the COVID-19 burden increased to its highest point ever: 18.0% of all new cases occurred in children during the week ending March 4, climbing from 15.7% the week before and eclipsing the previous high of 16.9%. Cumulatively, the 3.23 million cases in children represent 13.2% of all COVID-19 cases reported in 49 states (excluding New York), the District of Columbia, New York City, Puerto Rico, and Guam.

At the state level, the new leader in cumulative share of cases is Vermont at 19.4%, which just edged past Wyoming’s 19.3% as of the week ending March 4. The other states above 18% are Alaska (19.2%) and South Carolina (18.2%). The lowest rates can be found in Florida (8.1%), New Jersey (10.2%), Iowa (10.4%), and Utah (10.5%), the AAP and CHA said.

The overall rate of COVID-19 cases nationwide was 4,294 cases per 100,000 children as of March 4, up from 4,209 per 100,000 the week before. That measure had doubled between Dec. 3 (1,941 per 100,000) and Feb. 4 (3,899) but has only risen about 10% in the last month, the AAP/CHA data show.

Perhaps the most surprising news of the week involves the number of COVID-19 deaths in children, which went from 256 the previous week to 253 after Ohio made a downward revision of its mortality data. So far, children represent just 0.06% of all coronavirus-related deaths, a figure that has held steady since last summer in the 43 states (along with New York City and Guam) that are reporting mortality data by age, the AAP and CHA said.

[email protected]