Infectious Diseases

The White House Coronavirus Task Force appeared at a press briefing March 2 to provide updates about testing strategies and public health coordination to address the current outbreak of the coronavirus COVID-19. Speaking at the briefing, led by Vice President Mike Pence, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) director Robert Redfield, MD, said, “Working with our public health partners we continue to be able to identify new community cases and use our public health efforts to aggressively confirm, isolate, and do contact tracking.” Calling state, local, tribal, and territorial public health departments “the backbone of the public health system in our country,” Dr. Redfield noted that he expected many more confirmed COVID-19 cases to emerge.

At least some of the expected increase in confirmed cases of COVID-19 will occur because of expanded testing capacity, noted several of the task force members. On Feb. 29, the Food and Drug Administration issued a new policy to expedite the process for some laboratories to develop new diagnostic tests for SARS-CoV2, the virus that is causing the current outbreak of COVID-19.

Highly qualified laboratories, including both those run by public agencies and private labs, are now authorized to begin using their own validated test for the virus as long as they submit an Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) to the Food and Drug Administration within 15 days of notifying the agency of validation.

“To effectively respond to the COVID-19 outbreak, rapid detection of cases and contacts, appropriate clinical management and infection control, and implementation of community mitigation efforts are critical. This can best be achieved with wide availability of testing capabilities in health care settings, reference and commercial laboratories, and at the point of care,” the agency wrote in a press announcement of the expedited test expansion.

On Feb. 4, the Secretary of the Department of Health & Human Services declared a coronavirus public health emergency. The FDA was then authorized to allow individual laboratories with validated coronavirus tests to begin testing samples immediately. The goal is a more rapid and expanded testing capacity in the United States.

“The global emergence of COVID-19 is concerning, and we appreciate the efforts of the FDA to help bring more testing capability to the U.S.,” Nancy Messonnier, MD, director of the CDC’s National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases (NCIRD), said in the press release.

The new guidance that permits the immediate use of clinical tests after individual development and validation, said the FDA, only applies to labs already certified to perform high complexity testing under Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments. Many governmental, academic, and private laboratories fall into this category, however.

“Under this policy, we expect certain laboratories who develop validated tests for coronavirus would begin using them right away prior to FDA review,” said Jeffrey Shuren, MD, JD, director of the FDA’s Center for Devices and Radiological Health. “We believe this action will support laboratories across the country working on this urgent public health situation,” he added in the press release.

“By the end of this week, close to a million tests will be available,” FDA Commissioner Stephen M. Hahn, MD, said during the March 2 briefing.*

Updated criteria

The CDC is maintaining updated criteria for the virus testing on its website. Testing criteria are based both on clinical features and epidemiologic risk.

Individuals with less severe clinical features – those who have either fever or signs and symptoms of lower respiratory disease such as cough or shortness of breath, but who don’t require hospitalization – should be tested if they have high epidemiologic risk. “High risk” is defined by the CDC as any individual, including health care workers, who has had close contact with a person with confirmed COVID-19 within the past 2 weeks. For health care workers, testing can be considered even if they have relatively mild respiratory symptoms or have had contact with a person who is suspected, but not yet confirmed, to have coronavirus.

In its testing guidance, the CDC recognizes that defining close contact is difficult. General guidelines are that individuals are considered to have been in close contact with a person who has COVID-19 if they were within about six feet of the person for a prolonged period, or cared for or have spent a prolonged amount of time in the same room or house as a person with confirmed COVID-19.

Individuals who have both fever and signs or symptoms of lower respiratory illness who require hospitalization should be tested if they have a history of travel from any affected geographic area within 14 days of the onset of their symptoms. The CDC now defines “affected geographic area” as any country or region that has at least a CDC Level 2 Travel Health Notice for COVID-19, so that the testing criteria themselves don’t need to be updated when new geographic areas are included in these alerts. As of March 3, China, Iran, Italy, Japan, and South Korea all have Level 2 or 3 travel alerts.

The CDC now recommends that any patient who has severe acute lower respiratory illness that requires hospitalization and doesn’t have an alternative diagnosis should be tested, even without any identified source of exposure.

“Despite seeing these new cases, the risk to the American people is low,” said the CDC’s Dr. Redfield. In response to a question from the press about how fast the coronavirus will spread across the United States, Dr. Redfield said, “From the beginning we’ve anticipated seeing community cases pop up.” He added that as these cases arise, testing and public health strategies will focus on unearthing linkages and contacts to learn how the virus is spreading. “We’ll use the public health strategies that we can to limit that transmission,” he said.

[email protected]

*An earlier version of this article misattributed this quote.

The White House Coronavirus Task Force appeared at a press briefing March 2 to provide updates about testing strategies and public health coordination to address the current outbreak of the coronavirus COVID-19. Speaking at the briefing, led by Vice President Mike Pence, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) director Robert Redfield, MD, said, “Working with our public health partners we continue to be able to identify new community cases and use our public health efforts to aggressively confirm, isolate, and do contact tracking.” Calling state, local, tribal, and territorial public health departments “the backbone of the public health system in our country,” Dr. Redfield noted that he expected many more confirmed COVID-19 cases to emerge.

At least some of the expected increase in confirmed cases of COVID-19 will occur because of expanded testing capacity, noted several of the task force members. On Feb. 29, the Food and Drug Administration issued a new policy to expedite the process for some laboratories to develop new diagnostic tests for SARS-CoV2, the virus that is causing the current outbreak of COVID-19.

Highly qualified laboratories, including both those run by public agencies and private labs, are now authorized to begin using their own validated test for the virus as long as they submit an Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) to the Food and Drug Administration within 15 days of notifying the agency of validation.

“To effectively respond to the COVID-19 outbreak, rapid detection of cases and contacts, appropriate clinical management and infection control, and implementation of community mitigation efforts are critical. This can best be achieved with wide availability of testing capabilities in health care settings, reference and commercial laboratories, and at the point of care,” the agency wrote in a press announcement of the expedited test expansion.

On Feb. 4, the Secretary of the Department of Health & Human Services declared a coronavirus public health emergency. The FDA was then authorized to allow individual laboratories with validated coronavirus tests to begin testing samples immediately. The goal is a more rapid and expanded testing capacity in the United States.

“The global emergence of COVID-19 is concerning, and we appreciate the efforts of the FDA to help bring more testing capability to the U.S.,” Nancy Messonnier, MD, director of the CDC’s National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases (NCIRD), said in the press release.

The new guidance that permits the immediate use of clinical tests after individual development and validation, said the FDA, only applies to labs already certified to perform high complexity testing under Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments. Many governmental, academic, and private laboratories fall into this category, however.

“Under this policy, we expect certain laboratories who develop validated tests for coronavirus would begin using them right away prior to FDA review,” said Jeffrey Shuren, MD, JD, director of the FDA’s Center for Devices and Radiological Health. “We believe this action will support laboratories across the country working on this urgent public health situation,” he added in the press release.

“By the end of this week, close to a million tests will be available,” FDA Commissioner Stephen M. Hahn, MD, said during the March 2 briefing.*

Updated criteria

The CDC is maintaining updated criteria for the virus testing on its website. Testing criteria are based both on clinical features and epidemiologic risk.

Individuals with less severe clinical features – those who have either fever or signs and symptoms of lower respiratory disease such as cough or shortness of breath, but who don’t require hospitalization – should be tested if they have high epidemiologic risk. “High risk” is defined by the CDC as any individual, including health care workers, who has had close contact with a person with confirmed COVID-19 within the past 2 weeks. For health care workers, testing can be considered even if they have relatively mild respiratory symptoms or have had contact with a person who is suspected, but not yet confirmed, to have coronavirus.

In its testing guidance, the CDC recognizes that defining close contact is difficult. General guidelines are that individuals are considered to have been in close contact with a person who has COVID-19 if they were within about six feet of the person for a prolonged period, or cared for or have spent a prolonged amount of time in the same room or house as a person with confirmed COVID-19.

Individuals who have both fever and signs or symptoms of lower respiratory illness who require hospitalization should be tested if they have a history of travel from any affected geographic area within 14 days of the onset of their symptoms. The CDC now defines “affected geographic area” as any country or region that has at least a CDC Level 2 Travel Health Notice for COVID-19, so that the testing criteria themselves don’t need to be updated when new geographic areas are included in these alerts. As of March 3, China, Iran, Italy, Japan, and South Korea all have Level 2 or 3 travel alerts.

The CDC now recommends that any patient who has severe acute lower respiratory illness that requires hospitalization and doesn’t have an alternative diagnosis should be tested, even without any identified source of exposure.

“Despite seeing these new cases, the risk to the American people is low,” said the CDC’s Dr. Redfield. In response to a question from the press about how fast the coronavirus will spread across the United States, Dr. Redfield said, “From the beginning we’ve anticipated seeing community cases pop up.” He added that as these cases arise, testing and public health strategies will focus on unearthing linkages and contacts to learn how the virus is spreading. “We’ll use the public health strategies that we can to limit that transmission,” he said.

[email protected]

*An earlier version of this article misattributed this quote.

The White House Coronavirus Task Force appeared at a press briefing March 2 to provide updates about testing strategies and public health coordination to address the current outbreak of the coronavirus COVID-19. Speaking at the briefing, led by Vice President Mike Pence, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) director Robert Redfield, MD, said, “Working with our public health partners we continue to be able to identify new community cases and use our public health efforts to aggressively confirm, isolate, and do contact tracking.” Calling state, local, tribal, and territorial public health departments “the backbone of the public health system in our country,” Dr. Redfield noted that he expected many more confirmed COVID-19 cases to emerge.

At least some of the expected increase in confirmed cases of COVID-19 will occur because of expanded testing capacity, noted several of the task force members. On Feb. 29, the Food and Drug Administration issued a new policy to expedite the process for some laboratories to develop new diagnostic tests for SARS-CoV2, the virus that is causing the current outbreak of COVID-19.

Highly qualified laboratories, including both those run by public agencies and private labs, are now authorized to begin using their own validated test for the virus as long as they submit an Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) to the Food and Drug Administration within 15 days of notifying the agency of validation.

“To effectively respond to the COVID-19 outbreak, rapid detection of cases and contacts, appropriate clinical management and infection control, and implementation of community mitigation efforts are critical. This can best be achieved with wide availability of testing capabilities in health care settings, reference and commercial laboratories, and at the point of care,” the agency wrote in a press announcement of the expedited test expansion.

On Feb. 4, the Secretary of the Department of Health & Human Services declared a coronavirus public health emergency. The FDA was then authorized to allow individual laboratories with validated coronavirus tests to begin testing samples immediately. The goal is a more rapid and expanded testing capacity in the United States.

“The global emergence of COVID-19 is concerning, and we appreciate the efforts of the FDA to help bring more testing capability to the U.S.,” Nancy Messonnier, MD, director of the CDC’s National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases (NCIRD), said in the press release.

The new guidance that permits the immediate use of clinical tests after individual development and validation, said the FDA, only applies to labs already certified to perform high complexity testing under Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments. Many governmental, academic, and private laboratories fall into this category, however.

“Under this policy, we expect certain laboratories who develop validated tests for coronavirus would begin using them right away prior to FDA review,” said Jeffrey Shuren, MD, JD, director of the FDA’s Center for Devices and Radiological Health. “We believe this action will support laboratories across the country working on this urgent public health situation,” he added in the press release.

“By the end of this week, close to a million tests will be available,” FDA Commissioner Stephen M. Hahn, MD, said during the March 2 briefing.*

Updated criteria

The CDC is maintaining updated criteria for the virus testing on its website. Testing criteria are based both on clinical features and epidemiologic risk.

Individuals with less severe clinical features – those who have either fever or signs and symptoms of lower respiratory disease such as cough or shortness of breath, but who don’t require hospitalization – should be tested if they have high epidemiologic risk. “High risk” is defined by the CDC as any individual, including health care workers, who has had close contact with a person with confirmed COVID-19 within the past 2 weeks. For health care workers, testing can be considered even if they have relatively mild respiratory symptoms or have had contact with a person who is suspected, but not yet confirmed, to have coronavirus.

In its testing guidance, the CDC recognizes that defining close contact is difficult. General guidelines are that individuals are considered to have been in close contact with a person who has COVID-19 if they were within about six feet of the person for a prolonged period, or cared for or have spent a prolonged amount of time in the same room or house as a person with confirmed COVID-19.

Individuals who have both fever and signs or symptoms of lower respiratory illness who require hospitalization should be tested if they have a history of travel from any affected geographic area within 14 days of the onset of their symptoms. The CDC now defines “affected geographic area” as any country or region that has at least a CDC Level 2 Travel Health Notice for COVID-19, so that the testing criteria themselves don’t need to be updated when new geographic areas are included in these alerts. As of March 3, China, Iran, Italy, Japan, and South Korea all have Level 2 or 3 travel alerts.

The CDC now recommends that any patient who has severe acute lower respiratory illness that requires hospitalization and doesn’t have an alternative diagnosis should be tested, even without any identified source of exposure.

“Despite seeing these new cases, the risk to the American people is low,” said the CDC’s Dr. Redfield. In response to a question from the press about how fast the coronavirus will spread across the United States, Dr. Redfield said, “From the beginning we’ve anticipated seeing community cases pop up.” He added that as these cases arise, testing and public health strategies will focus on unearthing linkages and contacts to learn how the virus is spreading. “We’ll use the public health strategies that we can to limit that transmission,” he said.

[email protected]

*An earlier version of this article misattributed this quote.

In a typical year, March marks the start of conference season, made all the more attractive by collegial gatherings and travel to warmer climes. But 2020 has already proven anything but typical as the number of novel coronavirus cases continues to increase around the globe. As a potential pandemic looms, these meetings – full of handshakes and crowded lecture halls – are also nirvana for opportunistic viruses. As are the airports, airplanes, and cabs required to get there.

So, as COVID-19 continues to spread, medical and scientific societies must make some difficult decisions. In Europe, at least a few societies have already suspended their upcoming meetings, while France has temporarily banned all gatherings over 5000 people.

In the United States, however, most medical conferences are moving forward as planned – at least for now. But one conference of 10,000 attendees, the American Physical Society annual meeting, which was scheduled for March 2-6 in Denver, was canceled the day before the meeting started. Although it’s not a medical conference, it speaks to the “rapidly escalating health concerns” that all conference organizers must grapple with.

APS Physics Meetings

@APSMeetings

Due to rapidly escalating health concerns relating to the spread of the coronavirus disease (COVID-19), the 2020 APS March Meeting in Denver, CO, has been canceled. Please do not travel to Denver to attend the March Meeting. More information will follow shortly. #apsmarch

734 9:59 PM - Feb 29, 2020

Just one smaller medical meeting, the Ataxia Conference, which was scheduled for March 6-7 in Denver, has been canceled.

Most societies hosting these meetings have put out statements to their attendees saying that they’re monitoring the situation and will adapt as necessary. The United States and Canadian Academy of Pathology, which is holding its annual meeting in Los Angeles this week, sent out an email beforehand asking international travelers to consider staying home. The Healthcare Information and Management Systems Society (HIMSS) Global Health Conference, which is slated to have about 50,000 attendees from around the world, has declared itself a “handshake-free” conference but otherwise intends to move ahead as planned.

All of these conferences will be pushing forward without at least one prominent group of attendees. New York University’s Langone Health has removed its employees from the decision-making process and instead is taking a proactive stance: The health system just declared a 60-day (minimum) ban preventing employees from attending any meetings or conferences and from all domestic and international work-related travel.

Here’s what some of the societies have said to attendees about their intent to proceed or modify their plans:

• Conference on Retroviruses and Opportunistic Infections (CROI), Boston, 3/8/20 - 3/11/20: Monitoring the situation and seeking input from local, state, and federal infectious-disease and public-health experts. Final decision expected by the evening of March 3.
• American Academy of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology (AAAAI), Philadelphia, 3/13/20 - 3/16/20: Monitoring developments but no plans to cancel or postpone at this time.
• American Academy of Orthopedic Surgeons (AAOS), Orlando, 3/24/20 - 3/28/20: Proceeding as planned.
• American Academy of Dermatology (AAD), Denver, 3/20/20 - 3/24/20: The AAD’s 2020 Annual Meeting is scheduled to take place as planned. The organization will increase the number of hand-sanitizing stations throughout the convention center, and it is adding a nursing station specifically designated for anyone with flu-like symptoms.
• American College of Cardiology (ACC), Chicago, 3/28/20 - 3/30/20: The organization is working with attendees, faculty, exhibitors, and other stakeholders in affected countries to ensure access to research and education from the meeting, but is otherwise proceeding as planned.
• Endocrine Society (ENDO), San Francisco, 3/28/20 - 3/31/20: ENDO 2020 will take place as scheduled, but this is an evolving situation worldwide. The society will continue to monitor and provide updates on its FAQ page.
• American College of Physicians Internal Medicine (ACP IM), Los Angeles, 4/23/20 - 4/25/20: ACP leadership is closely monitoring the COVID-19 situation and is actively working with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) to ensure authoritative communication of safety updates and recommendations as the situation evolves.
• American Association for Cancer Research (AACR), San Diego, 4/24/20 - 4/29/20: At this time, there is no plan to cancel or postpone any scheduled AACR meetings. The organization is tracking all travel restrictions as well as information and guidance from the CDC and World Health Organization.
• American Academy of Neurology (AAN), Toronto, 4/25/20 - 5/1/20: The group is continuing to closely monitor the situation in Toronto and will provide updates as the situation warrants.

This article originally appeared on Medscape.com.

In a typical year, March marks the start of conference season, made all the more attractive by collegial gatherings and travel to warmer climes. But 2020 has already proven anything but typical as the number of novel coronavirus cases continues to increase around the globe. As a potential pandemic looms, these meetings – full of handshakes and crowded lecture halls – are also nirvana for opportunistic viruses. As are the airports, airplanes, and cabs required to get there.

So, as COVID-19 continues to spread, medical and scientific societies must make some difficult decisions. In Europe, at least a few societies have already suspended their upcoming meetings, while France has temporarily banned all gatherings over 5000 people.

In the United States, however, most medical conferences are moving forward as planned – at least for now. But one conference of 10,000 attendees, the American Physical Society annual meeting, which was scheduled for March 2-6 in Denver, was canceled the day before the meeting started. Although it’s not a medical conference, it speaks to the “rapidly escalating health concerns” that all conference organizers must grapple with.

APS Physics Meetings

@APSMeetings

Due to rapidly escalating health concerns relating to the spread of the coronavirus disease (COVID-19), the 2020 APS March Meeting in Denver, CO, has been canceled. Please do not travel to Denver to attend the March Meeting. More information will follow shortly. #apsmarch

734 9:59 PM - Feb 29, 2020

Just one smaller medical meeting, the Ataxia Conference, which was scheduled for March 6-7 in Denver, has been canceled.

Most societies hosting these meetings have put out statements to their attendees saying that they’re monitoring the situation and will adapt as necessary. The United States and Canadian Academy of Pathology, which is holding its annual meeting in Los Angeles this week, sent out an email beforehand asking international travelers to consider staying home. The Healthcare Information and Management Systems Society (HIMSS) Global Health Conference, which is slated to have about 50,000 attendees from around the world, has declared itself a “handshake-free” conference but otherwise intends to move ahead as planned.

All of these conferences will be pushing forward without at least one prominent group of attendees. New York University’s Langone Health has removed its employees from the decision-making process and instead is taking a proactive stance: The health system just declared a 60-day (minimum) ban preventing employees from attending any meetings or conferences and from all domestic and international work-related travel.

Here’s what some of the societies have said to attendees about their intent to proceed or modify their plans:

• Conference on Retroviruses and Opportunistic Infections (CROI), Boston, 3/8/20 - 3/11/20: Monitoring the situation and seeking input from local, state, and federal infectious-disease and public-health experts. Final decision expected by the evening of March 3.
• American Academy of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology (AAAAI), Philadelphia, 3/13/20 - 3/16/20: Monitoring developments but no plans to cancel or postpone at this time.
• American Academy of Orthopedic Surgeons (AAOS), Orlando, 3/24/20 - 3/28/20: Proceeding as planned.
• American Academy of Dermatology (AAD), Denver, 3/20/20 - 3/24/20: The AAD’s 2020 Annual Meeting is scheduled to take place as planned. The organization will increase the number of hand-sanitizing stations throughout the convention center, and it is adding a nursing station specifically designated for anyone with flu-like symptoms.
• American College of Cardiology (ACC), Chicago, 3/28/20 - 3/30/20: The organization is working with attendees, faculty, exhibitors, and other stakeholders in affected countries to ensure access to research and education from the meeting, but is otherwise proceeding as planned.
• Endocrine Society (ENDO), San Francisco, 3/28/20 - 3/31/20: ENDO 2020 will take place as scheduled, but this is an evolving situation worldwide. The society will continue to monitor and provide updates on its FAQ page.
• American College of Physicians Internal Medicine (ACP IM), Los Angeles, 4/23/20 - 4/25/20: ACP leadership is closely monitoring the COVID-19 situation and is actively working with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) to ensure authoritative communication of safety updates and recommendations as the situation evolves.
• American Association for Cancer Research (AACR), San Diego, 4/24/20 - 4/29/20: At this time, there is no plan to cancel or postpone any scheduled AACR meetings. The organization is tracking all travel restrictions as well as information and guidance from the CDC and World Health Organization.
• American Academy of Neurology (AAN), Toronto, 4/25/20 - 5/1/20: The group is continuing to closely monitor the situation in Toronto and will provide updates as the situation warrants.

This article originally appeared on Medscape.com.

In a typical year, March marks the start of conference season, made all the more attractive by collegial gatherings and travel to warmer climes. But 2020 has already proven anything but typical as the number of novel coronavirus cases continues to increase around the globe. As a potential pandemic looms, these meetings – full of handshakes and crowded lecture halls – are also nirvana for opportunistic viruses. As are the airports, airplanes, and cabs required to get there.

So, as COVID-19 continues to spread, medical and scientific societies must make some difficult decisions. In Europe, at least a few societies have already suspended their upcoming meetings, while France has temporarily banned all gatherings over 5000 people.

In the United States, however, most medical conferences are moving forward as planned – at least for now. But one conference of 10,000 attendees, the American Physical Society annual meeting, which was scheduled for March 2-6 in Denver, was canceled the day before the meeting started. Although it’s not a medical conference, it speaks to the “rapidly escalating health concerns” that all conference organizers must grapple with.

APS Physics Meetings

@APSMeetings

Due to rapidly escalating health concerns relating to the spread of the coronavirus disease (COVID-19), the 2020 APS March Meeting in Denver, CO, has been canceled. Please do not travel to Denver to attend the March Meeting. More information will follow shortly. #apsmarch

734 9:59 PM - Feb 29, 2020

Just one smaller medical meeting, the Ataxia Conference, which was scheduled for March 6-7 in Denver, has been canceled.

Most societies hosting these meetings have put out statements to their attendees saying that they’re monitoring the situation and will adapt as necessary. The United States and Canadian Academy of Pathology, which is holding its annual meeting in Los Angeles this week, sent out an email beforehand asking international travelers to consider staying home. The Healthcare Information and Management Systems Society (HIMSS) Global Health Conference, which is slated to have about 50,000 attendees from around the world, has declared itself a “handshake-free” conference but otherwise intends to move ahead as planned.

All of these conferences will be pushing forward without at least one prominent group of attendees. New York University’s Langone Health has removed its employees from the decision-making process and instead is taking a proactive stance: The health system just declared a 60-day (minimum) ban preventing employees from attending any meetings or conferences and from all domestic and international work-related travel.

Here’s what some of the societies have said to attendees about their intent to proceed or modify their plans:

• Conference on Retroviruses and Opportunistic Infections (CROI), Boston, 3/8/20 - 3/11/20: Monitoring the situation and seeking input from local, state, and federal infectious-disease and public-health experts. Final decision expected by the evening of March 3.
• American Academy of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology (AAAAI), Philadelphia, 3/13/20 - 3/16/20: Monitoring developments but no plans to cancel or postpone at this time.
• American Academy of Orthopedic Surgeons (AAOS), Orlando, 3/24/20 - 3/28/20: Proceeding as planned.
• American Academy of Dermatology (AAD), Denver, 3/20/20 - 3/24/20: The AAD’s 2020 Annual Meeting is scheduled to take place as planned. The organization will increase the number of hand-sanitizing stations throughout the convention center, and it is adding a nursing station specifically designated for anyone with flu-like symptoms.
• American College of Cardiology (ACC), Chicago, 3/28/20 - 3/30/20: The organization is working with attendees, faculty, exhibitors, and other stakeholders in affected countries to ensure access to research and education from the meeting, but is otherwise proceeding as planned.
• Endocrine Society (ENDO), San Francisco, 3/28/20 - 3/31/20: ENDO 2020 will take place as scheduled, but this is an evolving situation worldwide. The society will continue to monitor and provide updates on its FAQ page.
• American College of Physicians Internal Medicine (ACP IM), Los Angeles, 4/23/20 - 4/25/20: ACP leadership is closely monitoring the COVID-19 situation and is actively working with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) to ensure authoritative communication of safety updates and recommendations as the situation evolves.
• American Association for Cancer Research (AACR), San Diego, 4/24/20 - 4/29/20: At this time, there is no plan to cancel or postpone any scheduled AACR meetings. The organization is tracking all travel restrictions as well as information and guidance from the CDC and World Health Organization.
• American Academy of Neurology (AAN), Toronto, 4/25/20 - 5/1/20: The group is continuing to closely monitor the situation in Toronto and will provide updates as the situation warrants.

This article originally appeared on Medscape.com.

Although wild poliovirus type 3 has not been detected globally for 7 years, the number of wild type 1 cases increased from 33 in 2018 to 173 in 2019. In response, a modified oral vaccine is being developed, according to Stephen Cochi, MD, of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Center for Global Health.

Several factors, including a Taliban ban on house-to-house vaccination in Afghanistan and a delay of large-scale vaccinations in Pakistan contributed to the surge in polio infections, Dr. Cochi said in a presentation at the February meeting of the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP).

In addition, circulating vaccine-derived polioviruses (cVDPV) outbreaks have occurred in multiple countries including sub-Saharan Africa, China, Pakistan, and the Philippines. These outbreaks threaten the success of the bivalent oral polio vaccine introduced in April 2016 in 155 countries, Dr. Cochi said.

Outbreaks tend to occur just outside targeted areas for campaigns, caused by decreasing population immunity, he said.

To help contain the outbreaks, the CDC is fast-tracking development of a novel oral polio vaccine, OPV2, through the Emergency Use Listing. The novel OPV2 (nOPV2) is a genetic modification of the existing OPV2 vaccine designed to improve genetic stability, Dr. Cochi explained. The modifications would “decrease the risk of seeding new cVDPVs and the risk of vaccine-associated paralytic poliomyelitis (VAPP),” he said.

The Emergency Use Listing (EUL) was developed by the World Health Organization in response to the Ebola virus outbreak in 2014-2016 and is the fastest way to obtain regulatory review and approval of drug products, said Dr. Cochi.

A pilot plant has been established in Indonesia, and upon EUL approval, 4-8 million doses of the nOPV2 should be available for use in the second quarter of 2020, he concluded.

Dr. Cochi had no relevant financial conflicts to disclose.

Although wild poliovirus type 3 has not been detected globally for 7 years, the number of wild type 1 cases increased from 33 in 2018 to 173 in 2019. In response, a modified oral vaccine is being developed, according to Stephen Cochi, MD, of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Center for Global Health.

Several factors, including a Taliban ban on house-to-house vaccination in Afghanistan and a delay of large-scale vaccinations in Pakistan contributed to the surge in polio infections, Dr. Cochi said in a presentation at the February meeting of the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP).

In addition, circulating vaccine-derived polioviruses (cVDPV) outbreaks have occurred in multiple countries including sub-Saharan Africa, China, Pakistan, and the Philippines. These outbreaks threaten the success of the bivalent oral polio vaccine introduced in April 2016 in 155 countries, Dr. Cochi said.

Outbreaks tend to occur just outside targeted areas for campaigns, caused by decreasing population immunity, he said.

To help contain the outbreaks, the CDC is fast-tracking development of a novel oral polio vaccine, OPV2, through the Emergency Use Listing. The novel OPV2 (nOPV2) is a genetic modification of the existing OPV2 vaccine designed to improve genetic stability, Dr. Cochi explained. The modifications would “decrease the risk of seeding new cVDPVs and the risk of vaccine-associated paralytic poliomyelitis (VAPP),” he said.

The Emergency Use Listing (EUL) was developed by the World Health Organization in response to the Ebola virus outbreak in 2014-2016 and is the fastest way to obtain regulatory review and approval of drug products, said Dr. Cochi.

A pilot plant has been established in Indonesia, and upon EUL approval, 4-8 million doses of the nOPV2 should be available for use in the second quarter of 2020, he concluded.

Dr. Cochi had no relevant financial conflicts to disclose.

Although wild poliovirus type 3 has not been detected globally for 7 years, the number of wild type 1 cases increased from 33 in 2018 to 173 in 2019. In response, a modified oral vaccine is being developed, according to Stephen Cochi, MD, of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Center for Global Health.

Several factors, including a Taliban ban on house-to-house vaccination in Afghanistan and a delay of large-scale vaccinations in Pakistan contributed to the surge in polio infections, Dr. Cochi said in a presentation at the February meeting of the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP).

In addition, circulating vaccine-derived polioviruses (cVDPV) outbreaks have occurred in multiple countries including sub-Saharan Africa, China, Pakistan, and the Philippines. These outbreaks threaten the success of the bivalent oral polio vaccine introduced in April 2016 in 155 countries, Dr. Cochi said.

Outbreaks tend to occur just outside targeted areas for campaigns, caused by decreasing population immunity, he said.

To help contain the outbreaks, the CDC is fast-tracking development of a novel oral polio vaccine, OPV2, through the Emergency Use Listing. The novel OPV2 (nOPV2) is a genetic modification of the existing OPV2 vaccine designed to improve genetic stability, Dr. Cochi explained. The modifications would “decrease the risk of seeding new cVDPVs and the risk of vaccine-associated paralytic poliomyelitis (VAPP),” he said.

The Emergency Use Listing (EUL) was developed by the World Health Organization in response to the Ebola virus outbreak in 2014-2016 and is the fastest way to obtain regulatory review and approval of drug products, said Dr. Cochi.

A pilot plant has been established in Indonesia, and upon EUL approval, 4-8 million doses of the nOPV2 should be available for use in the second quarter of 2020, he concluded.

Dr. Cochi had no relevant financial conflicts to disclose.

Every year the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) updates the recommended immunization schedules for children/adolescents and adults on the Web site of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (www.cdc.gov/vaccines/schedules/hcp/index.html). The schedules for 2020 reflect additions and changes adopted by ACIP in 2019 and are discussed in this Practice Alert.

Hepatitis A: New directives on homelessness, HIV, and vaccine catch-up

Hepatitis A (HepA) vaccination is recommended for children ages 12 to 23 months, and for those at increased risk for hepatitis A virus (HAV) infection or for complications from HAV infection (TABLE 1).^1-3 Routine vaccination is either 2 doses of HepA given 6 months apart or a 3-dose schedule of combined hepatitis A and B vaccine (Twinrix). Vaccines licensed in the United States for the prevention of HAV infection are listed in TABLE 2.¹

ACIP recently added homeless individuals to the list of those who should receive HepA vaccine.⁴ This step was taken in response to numerous outbreaks among those who are homeless or who use illicit drugs. These outbreaks have increased rates of HAV infection overall as well as rates of hospitalization (71%) and death (3%) among those infected.⁵ Concern about a homeless individual’s ability to complete a 2- or 3-dose series should not preclude initiating HepA vaccination; even 1 dose achieves protective immunity in 94% to 100% of those who have intact immune systems.²

At its June 2019 meeting, ACIP made 2 other additions to its recommendations regarding HepA vaccination.¹ First, those infected with the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) are now among the individuals who should receive HepA vaccine. Those who are HIV-positive and ≥ 1 year old were recommended for HepA vaccination because they often have one of the other risks for HAV infection and have higher rates of complications and prolonged infections if they contract HAV.¹ Second, catch-up HepA vaccination is indicated for children and adolescents ages 2 through 18 years who have not been previously vaccinated.¹Also at the June 2019 meeting, the safety of HepA vaccination during pregnancy was confirmed. ACIP recommends HepA vaccine for any pregnant woman not previously vaccinated who is at risk for HAV infection or for a severe outcome from HAV infection.¹

Japanese encephalitis: Vaccination can be accelerated

Japanese encephalitis (JE) is a serious mosquito-borne vaccine-preventable infection endemic to most of Asia and parts of the western Pacific. Most travelers to countries with endemic JE are at low risk of infection. But risk increases with prolonged visits to these areas and particularly during the JE virus transmission season (summer/fall in temperate areas; year-round in tropical climates). Risk is also heightened by traveling to, or living in, rural Asian areas, by participating in extensive outdoor activities, and by staying in accommodations without air-conditioning, screens, or bed nets.⁶

The only JE vaccine licensed in the United States is JE-VC (Ixiaro), manufactured by Valneva Austria GmbH. It is approved for use in children ≥ 2 months and adults. It requires a 2-dose series with 28 days between doses, and a booster after 1 year. ACIP recently approved an accelerated schedule for adults ages 18 to 65 years that allows the second dose to be administered as early as 7 days after the first. A full description of the epidemiology of JE and ACIP recommendations regarding ­JE-VC were published in July 2019.⁶

Meningococcal B vaccine booster doses recommended

Meningococcal B (MenB) vaccine is recommended for individuals ≥ 10 years old who are at increased risk of meningococcal infection, including those with complement deficiency, complement inhibitor use, or asplenia; microbiologists; and individuals exposed during an outbreak.⁷ It is also recommended for those ages 16 to 23 years who desire vaccination after individual clinical decision making.⁸

Continue to: Two MenB vaccines...

Consider HepA vaccine for any pregnant woman not previously vaccinated who is at risk for hepatitis A virus infection.

Two MenB vaccines are available in the United States: MenB-FHbp (Trumenba, ­Wyeth Pharmaceuticals, Inc.) and MenB-4C (Bexsero, GlaxoSmithKline). Either MenB vaccine can be used; however, they are not interchangeable and the same product must be used for all doses an individual receives. MenB-FHbp is licensed as a 3-dose series given at 0, 1-2, and 6 months, or as a 2-dose series given at 0 and 6 months. ACIP recommends the 3-dose schedule for individuals at increased risk for meningococcal disease or for use during community outbreaks of serogroup B meningococcal disease.⁹ For healthy adolescents who are not at increased risk for meningococcal disease, ACIP recommends using the 2-dose schedule of MenB-FHbp.⁹ MenB-4C is licensed as a 2-dose series, with doses administered at least 1 month apart.

At the June 2019 meeting, ACIP voted to recommend a MenB booster dose for those who are still at increased risk 1 year following completion of a MenB primary series, followed by booster doses every 2 to 3 years thereafter for as long as increased risk remains. This recommendation was made because of a rapid waning of immunity following the primary series and subsequent booster doses. A booster dose was not recommended for those who choose to be vaccinated after clinical decision making unless they are exposed during an outbreak and it has been at least a year since they received the primary series. An interval of 6 months for the booster can be considered, depending on the outbreak situation.¹⁰

A new DTaP product, and substituting Tdap for Td is approved

Diphtheria and tetanus toxoids and acellular pertussis vaccine (DTaP) is recommended for children as a 3-dose primary series (2, 4, 6 months) followed by 2 booster doses (at 15-18 months and at 4-6 years). These 3 antigens are available as DTaP products solely or as part of vaccines that combine other antigens with DTaP (TABLE 3).^11,12 In addition, as a joint venture between Merck and Sanofi Pasteur, a new pediatric hexavalent vaccine containing DTaP5, polio, Haemophilus influenzae type b, and hepatitis B antigens is now available to be given at ages 2, 4, and 6 months.¹²

Tetanus toxoid, reduced diphtheria toxoid, and acellular pertussis (Tdap) vaccine is recommended for adolescents ages 11 to 12 years.¹¹ It is also recommended once for adults who have not previously received it. The exception to the single Tdap dose for adults is during pregnancy; it is recommended as a single dose during each pregnancy regardless of the previous number of Tdap doses received.¹¹

A booster dose of meningococcal-B vaccine is indicated for individuals still at increased risk 1 year after completing the MenB primary series.

Td is recommended every 10 years after Tdap given at ages 11 to 12, for protection against tetanus and diphtheria. Tdap can be substituted for one of these decennial Td boosters. Tdap can also be substituted for Td for tetanus prophylaxis after a patient sustains a wound.¹¹ The recommended single dose of Tdap for adolescents/adults also can be administered as part of a catch-up 3-dose Td series in previously unvaccinated adolescents and adults.

Continue to: It has become common...

It has become common practice throughout the country to substitute Tdap for Td when Td is indicated, even if Tdap has been received previously. ACIP looked at the safety of repeated doses of Tdap and found no safety concerns. For practicality, ACIP voted to recommend either Td or Tdap for these situations: the decennial booster, when tetanus prophylaxis is indicated in wound management, and when catch-up is needed in previously unvaccinated or inadequately vaccinated individuals who are 7 years of age and older. The resulting increase in the number of Tdap doses is not expected to have a major impact on the incidence of pertussis.¹³

Additional recommendations

Recommendations for preventing influenza in the 2019-2020 season are discussed in a previous Practice Alert.¹⁴

In 2019, ACIP also changed a previous recommendation on the routine use of 13-valent pneumococcal conjugate vaccine (PCV13) in adults ≥ 65 years. The new recommendation, covered in another Practice Alert, states that PCV13 should be used in immunocompetent adults ≥ 65 years only after individual clinical decision making.¹⁵

ACIP also changed its recommendations pertaining to human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine. Catch-up vaccination is now recommended for all individuals through age 26 years. Previously catch up was recommended only for women and for men who have sex with men. And, even though use of HPV vaccine has been approved by the US Food and Drug Administration for adults ages 27 to 45 years, ACIP did not recommend its routine use in this age group but instead recommended it only after individual clinical decision making.^16,17

Every year the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) updates the recommended immunization schedules for children/adolescents and adults on the Web site of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (www.cdc.gov/vaccines/schedules/hcp/index.html). The schedules for 2020 reflect additions and changes adopted by ACIP in 2019 and are discussed in this Practice Alert.

Hepatitis A: New directives on homelessness, HIV, and vaccine catch-up

Hepatitis A (HepA) vaccination is recommended for children ages 12 to 23 months, and for those at increased risk for hepatitis A virus (HAV) infection or for complications from HAV infection (TABLE 1).^1-3 Routine vaccination is either 2 doses of HepA given 6 months apart or a 3-dose schedule of combined hepatitis A and B vaccine (Twinrix). Vaccines licensed in the United States for the prevention of HAV infection are listed in TABLE 2.¹

ACIP recently added homeless individuals to the list of those who should receive HepA vaccine.⁴ This step was taken in response to numerous outbreaks among those who are homeless or who use illicit drugs. These outbreaks have increased rates of HAV infection overall as well as rates of hospitalization (71%) and death (3%) among those infected.⁵ Concern about a homeless individual’s ability to complete a 2- or 3-dose series should not preclude initiating HepA vaccination; even 1 dose achieves protective immunity in 94% to 100% of those who have intact immune systems.²

At its June 2019 meeting, ACIP made 2 other additions to its recommendations regarding HepA vaccination.¹ First, those infected with the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) are now among the individuals who should receive HepA vaccine. Those who are HIV-positive and ≥ 1 year old were recommended for HepA vaccination because they often have one of the other risks for HAV infection and have higher rates of complications and prolonged infections if they contract HAV.¹ Second, catch-up HepA vaccination is indicated for children and adolescents ages 2 through 18 years who have not been previously vaccinated.¹Also at the June 2019 meeting, the safety of HepA vaccination during pregnancy was confirmed. ACIP recommends HepA vaccine for any pregnant woman not previously vaccinated who is at risk for HAV infection or for a severe outcome from HAV infection.¹

Japanese encephalitis: Vaccination can be accelerated

Japanese encephalitis (JE) is a serious mosquito-borne vaccine-preventable infection endemic to most of Asia and parts of the western Pacific. Most travelers to countries with endemic JE are at low risk of infection. But risk increases with prolonged visits to these areas and particularly during the JE virus transmission season (summer/fall in temperate areas; year-round in tropical climates). Risk is also heightened by traveling to, or living in, rural Asian areas, by participating in extensive outdoor activities, and by staying in accommodations without air-conditioning, screens, or bed nets.⁶

The only JE vaccine licensed in the United States is JE-VC (Ixiaro), manufactured by Valneva Austria GmbH. It is approved for use in children ≥ 2 months and adults. It requires a 2-dose series with 28 days between doses, and a booster after 1 year. ACIP recently approved an accelerated schedule for adults ages 18 to 65 years that allows the second dose to be administered as early as 7 days after the first. A full description of the epidemiology of JE and ACIP recommendations regarding ­JE-VC were published in July 2019.⁶

Meningococcal B vaccine booster doses recommended

Meningococcal B (MenB) vaccine is recommended for individuals ≥ 10 years old who are at increased risk of meningococcal infection, including those with complement deficiency, complement inhibitor use, or asplenia; microbiologists; and individuals exposed during an outbreak.⁷ It is also recommended for those ages 16 to 23 years who desire vaccination after individual clinical decision making.⁸

Continue to: Two MenB vaccines...

Consider HepA vaccine for any pregnant woman not previously vaccinated who is at risk for hepatitis A virus infection.

Two MenB vaccines are available in the United States: MenB-FHbp (Trumenba, ­Wyeth Pharmaceuticals, Inc.) and MenB-4C (Bexsero, GlaxoSmithKline). Either MenB vaccine can be used; however, they are not interchangeable and the same product must be used for all doses an individual receives. MenB-FHbp is licensed as a 3-dose series given at 0, 1-2, and 6 months, or as a 2-dose series given at 0 and 6 months. ACIP recommends the 3-dose schedule for individuals at increased risk for meningococcal disease or for use during community outbreaks of serogroup B meningococcal disease.⁹ For healthy adolescents who are not at increased risk for meningococcal disease, ACIP recommends using the 2-dose schedule of MenB-FHbp.⁹ MenB-4C is licensed as a 2-dose series, with doses administered at least 1 month apart.

At the June 2019 meeting, ACIP voted to recommend a MenB booster dose for those who are still at increased risk 1 year following completion of a MenB primary series, followed by booster doses every 2 to 3 years thereafter for as long as increased risk remains. This recommendation was made because of a rapid waning of immunity following the primary series and subsequent booster doses. A booster dose was not recommended for those who choose to be vaccinated after clinical decision making unless they are exposed during an outbreak and it has been at least a year since they received the primary series. An interval of 6 months for the booster can be considered, depending on the outbreak situation.¹⁰

A new DTaP product, and substituting Tdap for Td is approved

Diphtheria and tetanus toxoids and acellular pertussis vaccine (DTaP) is recommended for children as a 3-dose primary series (2, 4, 6 months) followed by 2 booster doses (at 15-18 months and at 4-6 years). These 3 antigens are available as DTaP products solely or as part of vaccines that combine other antigens with DTaP (TABLE 3).^11,12 In addition, as a joint venture between Merck and Sanofi Pasteur, a new pediatric hexavalent vaccine containing DTaP5, polio, Haemophilus influenzae type b, and hepatitis B antigens is now available to be given at ages 2, 4, and 6 months.¹²

Tetanus toxoid, reduced diphtheria toxoid, and acellular pertussis (Tdap) vaccine is recommended for adolescents ages 11 to 12 years.¹¹ It is also recommended once for adults who have not previously received it. The exception to the single Tdap dose for adults is during pregnancy; it is recommended as a single dose during each pregnancy regardless of the previous number of Tdap doses received.¹¹

A booster dose of meningococcal-B vaccine is indicated for individuals still at increased risk 1 year after completing the MenB primary series.

Td is recommended every 10 years after Tdap given at ages 11 to 12, for protection against tetanus and diphtheria. Tdap can be substituted for one of these decennial Td boosters. Tdap can also be substituted for Td for tetanus prophylaxis after a patient sustains a wound.¹¹ The recommended single dose of Tdap for adolescents/adults also can be administered as part of a catch-up 3-dose Td series in previously unvaccinated adolescents and adults.

Continue to: It has become common...

It has become common practice throughout the country to substitute Tdap for Td when Td is indicated, even if Tdap has been received previously. ACIP looked at the safety of repeated doses of Tdap and found no safety concerns. For practicality, ACIP voted to recommend either Td or Tdap for these situations: the decennial booster, when tetanus prophylaxis is indicated in wound management, and when catch-up is needed in previously unvaccinated or inadequately vaccinated individuals who are 7 years of age and older. The resulting increase in the number of Tdap doses is not expected to have a major impact on the incidence of pertussis.¹³

Additional recommendations

Recommendations for preventing influenza in the 2019-2020 season are discussed in a previous Practice Alert.¹⁴

In 2019, ACIP also changed a previous recommendation on the routine use of 13-valent pneumococcal conjugate vaccine (PCV13) in adults ≥ 65 years. The new recommendation, covered in another Practice Alert, states that PCV13 should be used in immunocompetent adults ≥ 65 years only after individual clinical decision making.¹⁵

ACIP also changed its recommendations pertaining to human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine. Catch-up vaccination is now recommended for all individuals through age 26 years. Previously catch up was recommended only for women and for men who have sex with men. And, even though use of HPV vaccine has been approved by the US Food and Drug Administration for adults ages 27 to 45 years, ACIP did not recommend its routine use in this age group but instead recommended it only after individual clinical decision making.^16,17

Every year the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) updates the recommended immunization schedules for children/adolescents and adults on the Web site of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (www.cdc.gov/vaccines/schedules/hcp/index.html). The schedules for 2020 reflect additions and changes adopted by ACIP in 2019 and are discussed in this Practice Alert.

Hepatitis A: New directives on homelessness, HIV, and vaccine catch-up

Hepatitis A (HepA) vaccination is recommended for children ages 12 to 23 months, and for those at increased risk for hepatitis A virus (HAV) infection or for complications from HAV infection (TABLE 1).^1-3 Routine vaccination is either 2 doses of HepA given 6 months apart or a 3-dose schedule of combined hepatitis A and B vaccine (Twinrix). Vaccines licensed in the United States for the prevention of HAV infection are listed in TABLE 2.¹

ACIP recently added homeless individuals to the list of those who should receive HepA vaccine.⁴ This step was taken in response to numerous outbreaks among those who are homeless or who use illicit drugs. These outbreaks have increased rates of HAV infection overall as well as rates of hospitalization (71%) and death (3%) among those infected.⁵ Concern about a homeless individual’s ability to complete a 2- or 3-dose series should not preclude initiating HepA vaccination; even 1 dose achieves protective immunity in 94% to 100% of those who have intact immune systems.²

At its June 2019 meeting, ACIP made 2 other additions to its recommendations regarding HepA vaccination.¹ First, those infected with the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) are now among the individuals who should receive HepA vaccine. Those who are HIV-positive and ≥ 1 year old were recommended for HepA vaccination because they often have one of the other risks for HAV infection and have higher rates of complications and prolonged infections if they contract HAV.¹ Second, catch-up HepA vaccination is indicated for children and adolescents ages 2 through 18 years who have not been previously vaccinated.¹Also at the June 2019 meeting, the safety of HepA vaccination during pregnancy was confirmed. ACIP recommends HepA vaccine for any pregnant woman not previously vaccinated who is at risk for HAV infection or for a severe outcome from HAV infection.¹

Japanese encephalitis: Vaccination can be accelerated

Japanese encephalitis (JE) is a serious mosquito-borne vaccine-preventable infection endemic to most of Asia and parts of the western Pacific. Most travelers to countries with endemic JE are at low risk of infection. But risk increases with prolonged visits to these areas and particularly during the JE virus transmission season (summer/fall in temperate areas; year-round in tropical climates). Risk is also heightened by traveling to, or living in, rural Asian areas, by participating in extensive outdoor activities, and by staying in accommodations without air-conditioning, screens, or bed nets.⁶

The only JE vaccine licensed in the United States is JE-VC (Ixiaro), manufactured by Valneva Austria GmbH. It is approved for use in children ≥ 2 months and adults. It requires a 2-dose series with 28 days between doses, and a booster after 1 year. ACIP recently approved an accelerated schedule for adults ages 18 to 65 years that allows the second dose to be administered as early as 7 days after the first. A full description of the epidemiology of JE and ACIP recommendations regarding ­JE-VC were published in July 2019.⁶

Meningococcal B vaccine booster doses recommended

Meningococcal B (MenB) vaccine is recommended for individuals ≥ 10 years old who are at increased risk of meningococcal infection, including those with complement deficiency, complement inhibitor use, or asplenia; microbiologists; and individuals exposed during an outbreak.⁷ It is also recommended for those ages 16 to 23 years who desire vaccination after individual clinical decision making.⁸

Continue to: Two MenB vaccines...

Consider HepA vaccine for any pregnant woman not previously vaccinated who is at risk for hepatitis A virus infection.

Two MenB vaccines are available in the United States: MenB-FHbp (Trumenba, ­Wyeth Pharmaceuticals, Inc.) and MenB-4C (Bexsero, GlaxoSmithKline). Either MenB vaccine can be used; however, they are not interchangeable and the same product must be used for all doses an individual receives. MenB-FHbp is licensed as a 3-dose series given at 0, 1-2, and 6 months, or as a 2-dose series given at 0 and 6 months. ACIP recommends the 3-dose schedule for individuals at increased risk for meningococcal disease or for use during community outbreaks of serogroup B meningococcal disease.⁹ For healthy adolescents who are not at increased risk for meningococcal disease, ACIP recommends using the 2-dose schedule of MenB-FHbp.⁹ MenB-4C is licensed as a 2-dose series, with doses administered at least 1 month apart.

At the June 2019 meeting, ACIP voted to recommend a MenB booster dose for those who are still at increased risk 1 year following completion of a MenB primary series, followed by booster doses every 2 to 3 years thereafter for as long as increased risk remains. This recommendation was made because of a rapid waning of immunity following the primary series and subsequent booster doses. A booster dose was not recommended for those who choose to be vaccinated after clinical decision making unless they are exposed during an outbreak and it has been at least a year since they received the primary series. An interval of 6 months for the booster can be considered, depending on the outbreak situation.¹⁰

A new DTaP product, and substituting Tdap for Td is approved

Diphtheria and tetanus toxoids and acellular pertussis vaccine (DTaP) is recommended for children as a 3-dose primary series (2, 4, 6 months) followed by 2 booster doses (at 15-18 months and at 4-6 years). These 3 antigens are available as DTaP products solely or as part of vaccines that combine other antigens with DTaP (TABLE 3).^11,12 In addition, as a joint venture between Merck and Sanofi Pasteur, a new pediatric hexavalent vaccine containing DTaP5, polio, Haemophilus influenzae type b, and hepatitis B antigens is now available to be given at ages 2, 4, and 6 months.¹²

Tetanus toxoid, reduced diphtheria toxoid, and acellular pertussis (Tdap) vaccine is recommended for adolescents ages 11 to 12 years.¹¹ It is also recommended once for adults who have not previously received it. The exception to the single Tdap dose for adults is during pregnancy; it is recommended as a single dose during each pregnancy regardless of the previous number of Tdap doses received.¹¹

A booster dose of meningococcal-B vaccine is indicated for individuals still at increased risk 1 year after completing the MenB primary series.

Td is recommended every 10 years after Tdap given at ages 11 to 12, for protection against tetanus and diphtheria. Tdap can be substituted for one of these decennial Td boosters. Tdap can also be substituted for Td for tetanus prophylaxis after a patient sustains a wound.¹¹ The recommended single dose of Tdap for adolescents/adults also can be administered as part of a catch-up 3-dose Td series in previously unvaccinated adolescents and adults.

Continue to: It has become common...

It has become common practice throughout the country to substitute Tdap for Td when Td is indicated, even if Tdap has been received previously. ACIP looked at the safety of repeated doses of Tdap and found no safety concerns. For practicality, ACIP voted to recommend either Td or Tdap for these situations: the decennial booster, when tetanus prophylaxis is indicated in wound management, and when catch-up is needed in previously unvaccinated or inadequately vaccinated individuals who are 7 years of age and older. The resulting increase in the number of Tdap doses is not expected to have a major impact on the incidence of pertussis.¹³

Additional recommendations

Recommendations for preventing influenza in the 2019-2020 season are discussed in a previous Practice Alert.¹⁴

In 2019, ACIP also changed a previous recommendation on the routine use of 13-valent pneumococcal conjugate vaccine (PCV13) in adults ≥ 65 years. The new recommendation, covered in another Practice Alert, states that PCV13 should be used in immunocompetent adults ≥ 65 years only after individual clinical decision making.¹⁵

ACIP also changed its recommendations pertaining to human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine. Catch-up vaccination is now recommended for all individuals through age 26 years. Previously catch up was recommended only for women and for men who have sex with men. And, even though use of HPV vaccine has been approved by the US Food and Drug Administration for adults ages 27 to 45 years, ACIP did not recommend its routine use in this age group but instead recommended it only after individual clinical decision making.^16,17

Adults are interested in a dengue vaccine for themselves and their children, and physicians recognize that dengue is a public health problem, according to data from parents and physicians in Puerto Rico. Most doctors, but fewer parents, found the idea of protecting children with Dengue vaccine acceptable.

itsmejust/Thinkstock

Lack of detailed information about the vaccine is the greatest barrier to parents’ consent to vaccination, noted Ines Esquilin, MD, of the University of Puerto Rico, San Juan, in a presentation at the February meeting of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP).

The ACIP dengue vaccines work group reviewed data from 102 physicians in Puerto Rico, 82% of which were pediatricians, regarding potential dengue vaccination. Overall, 98% said they considered dengue a significant public health problem in Puerto Rico, and 73% said they would recommend the dengue vaccine to patients if a laboratory test with acceptable specificity were available. Among the physicians who said they would not recommend the vaccine, the most common reason (71%) was concern about the risks of vaccinating individuals with false-positive tests.

The availability of a test that can be performed in the medical office and avoid repeat visits is a major factor in the feasibility of dengue vaccination, Dr. Esquilin said.

The ACIP dengue vaccines work group also sought public opinion on the acceptability of a generic dengue vaccine through focus group sessions with parents of children aged 9-16 years in Puerto Rico, said Dr. Esquilin.

Approximately one-third of the parents said they were willing to vaccinate their children, one-third were unwilling, and one-third were unsure. The most commonly identified barriers to vaccination included lack of information or inconsistent information about the vaccine, high cost/lack of insurance coverage, time-consuming lab test to confirm infection, side effects, potential for false-positive lab results, and low vaccine effectiveness.

Motivating factors for vaccination included correct information about the vaccine, desire to prevent infection, lab-confirmed positive test, support from public health organizations, the presence of a dengue epidemic, and educational forums.

Based in part on these findings, the ACIP dengue vaccines work group noted that the need for an acceptably specific screening lab test is the greatest concern in their consideration of recommendations, and the work group expects to review a CDC assessment of laboratory tests for prevaccination screening at a future meeting.

Dr. Esquilin had no financial conflicts to disclose.

SOURCE: Esquilin E. 2020. February meeting of the CDC Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) presentation.

Adults are interested in a dengue vaccine for themselves and their children, and physicians recognize that dengue is a public health problem, according to data from parents and physicians in Puerto Rico. Most doctors, but fewer parents, found the idea of protecting children with Dengue vaccine acceptable.

itsmejust/Thinkstock

Lack of detailed information about the vaccine is the greatest barrier to parents’ consent to vaccination, noted Ines Esquilin, MD, of the University of Puerto Rico, San Juan, in a presentation at the February meeting of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP).

The ACIP dengue vaccines work group reviewed data from 102 physicians in Puerto Rico, 82% of which were pediatricians, regarding potential dengue vaccination. Overall, 98% said they considered dengue a significant public health problem in Puerto Rico, and 73% said they would recommend the dengue vaccine to patients if a laboratory test with acceptable specificity were available. Among the physicians who said they would not recommend the vaccine, the most common reason (71%) was concern about the risks of vaccinating individuals with false-positive tests.

The availability of a test that can be performed in the medical office and avoid repeat visits is a major factor in the feasibility of dengue vaccination, Dr. Esquilin said.

The ACIP dengue vaccines work group also sought public opinion on the acceptability of a generic dengue vaccine through focus group sessions with parents of children aged 9-16 years in Puerto Rico, said Dr. Esquilin.

Approximately one-third of the parents said they were willing to vaccinate their children, one-third were unwilling, and one-third were unsure. The most commonly identified barriers to vaccination included lack of information or inconsistent information about the vaccine, high cost/lack of insurance coverage, time-consuming lab test to confirm infection, side effects, potential for false-positive lab results, and low vaccine effectiveness.

Motivating factors for vaccination included correct information about the vaccine, desire to prevent infection, lab-confirmed positive test, support from public health organizations, the presence of a dengue epidemic, and educational forums.

Based in part on these findings, the ACIP dengue vaccines work group noted that the need for an acceptably specific screening lab test is the greatest concern in their consideration of recommendations, and the work group expects to review a CDC assessment of laboratory tests for prevaccination screening at a future meeting.

Dr. Esquilin had no financial conflicts to disclose.

SOURCE: Esquilin E. 2020. February meeting of the CDC Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) presentation.

Adults are interested in a dengue vaccine for themselves and their children, and physicians recognize that dengue is a public health problem, according to data from parents and physicians in Puerto Rico. Most doctors, but fewer parents, found the idea of protecting children with Dengue vaccine acceptable.

itsmejust/Thinkstock

Lack of detailed information about the vaccine is the greatest barrier to parents’ consent to vaccination, noted Ines Esquilin, MD, of the University of Puerto Rico, San Juan, in a presentation at the February meeting of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP).

The ACIP dengue vaccines work group reviewed data from 102 physicians in Puerto Rico, 82% of which were pediatricians, regarding potential dengue vaccination. Overall, 98% said they considered dengue a significant public health problem in Puerto Rico, and 73% said they would recommend the dengue vaccine to patients if a laboratory test with acceptable specificity were available. Among the physicians who said they would not recommend the vaccine, the most common reason (71%) was concern about the risks of vaccinating individuals with false-positive tests.

The availability of a test that can be performed in the medical office and avoid repeat visits is a major factor in the feasibility of dengue vaccination, Dr. Esquilin said.

The ACIP dengue vaccines work group also sought public opinion on the acceptability of a generic dengue vaccine through focus group sessions with parents of children aged 9-16 years in Puerto Rico, said Dr. Esquilin.

Approximately one-third of the parents said they were willing to vaccinate their children, one-third were unwilling, and one-third were unsure. The most commonly identified barriers to vaccination included lack of information or inconsistent information about the vaccine, high cost/lack of insurance coverage, time-consuming lab test to confirm infection, side effects, potential for false-positive lab results, and low vaccine effectiveness.

Motivating factors for vaccination included correct information about the vaccine, desire to prevent infection, lab-confirmed positive test, support from public health organizations, the presence of a dengue epidemic, and educational forums.

Based in part on these findings, the ACIP dengue vaccines work group noted that the need for an acceptably specific screening lab test is the greatest concern in their consideration of recommendations, and the work group expects to review a CDC assessment of laboratory tests for prevaccination screening at a future meeting.

Dr. Esquilin had no financial conflicts to disclose.

SOURCE: Esquilin E. 2020. February meeting of the CDC Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) presentation.

A multifaceted intervention significantly changed clinicians’ use of antibiotics to treat urinary tract infections (UTIs) in children, according to data from more than 2,000 cases observed between January 2014 and September 2018.

“Changing clinicians’ antibiotic prescribing practices can be challenging; barriers to change include lack of awareness of new evidence, competing clinical demands, and concern about treatment failure,” wrote Matthew F. Daley, MD, of Kaiser Permanente Colorado, Aurora, and colleagues in Pediatrics.

To promote judicious antibiotic use, the researchers designed an intervention including the development of new local UTI guidelines; a live, case-based educational session; emailed knowledge assessments before and after the session; and a specific UTI order set in the EHR.

The researchers divided the study period into a preintervention period (January 1, 2014, to April 25, 2017) and a postintervention period (April 26, 2017, to September 30, 2018). They collected data on 2,142 incident outpatient UTIs; 1,636 from the preintervention period and 506 from the postintervention period. The patients were younger than 18 years and older than 60 days, and children with complicated urologic or neurologic conditions were excluded.

Overall, the proportion of UTIs treated with first-line antibiotics increased significantly from 43% preintervention to 62% postintervention (P less than .0001). In particular, the use of first-line, narrow spectrum cephalexin increased significantly from 29% during the preintervention period to 53% during the postintervention period (P less than .0001). In addition, use of broad spectrum cefixime decreased from 17% during the preintervention period to 3% during the postintervention period (P less than .0001). These changes in prescribing patterns continued through the end of the study period, the researchers said.

The study was limited by several factors, notably that “the interrupted time-series design prevents us from inferring that the intervention caused the observed change in practice,” the researchers wrote. However, other factors including the immediate change in prescribing patterns after the intervention, multiple time points, large sample size, and consistent UTI case mix support the impact of the intervention, they suggested. Although the results might not translate completely to other settings, “developing a UTI-specific EHR order set is relatively straightforward” and might be applied elsewhere, they noted.

“Despite the limitations inherent in a nonexperimental study design, the methods and interventions developed in the current study may be informative to other learning health systems and other content areas when conducting organization-wide quality improvement initiatives,” they concluded.

The study was supported by unrestricted internal resources from the Colorado Permanente Medical Group. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.

SOURCE: Daley MF et al. Pediatrics. 2020 Mar 3. doi: 10.1542/peds.2019-2503.

A multifaceted intervention significantly changed clinicians’ use of antibiotics to treat urinary tract infections (UTIs) in children, according to data from more than 2,000 cases observed between January 2014 and September 2018.

“Changing clinicians’ antibiotic prescribing practices can be challenging; barriers to change include lack of awareness of new evidence, competing clinical demands, and concern about treatment failure,” wrote Matthew F. Daley, MD, of Kaiser Permanente Colorado, Aurora, and colleagues in Pediatrics.

To promote judicious antibiotic use, the researchers designed an intervention including the development of new local UTI guidelines; a live, case-based educational session; emailed knowledge assessments before and after the session; and a specific UTI order set in the EHR.

The researchers divided the study period into a preintervention period (January 1, 2014, to April 25, 2017) and a postintervention period (April 26, 2017, to September 30, 2018). They collected data on 2,142 incident outpatient UTIs; 1,636 from the preintervention period and 506 from the postintervention period. The patients were younger than 18 years and older than 60 days, and children with complicated urologic or neurologic conditions were excluded.

Overall, the proportion of UTIs treated with first-line antibiotics increased significantly from 43% preintervention to 62% postintervention (P less than .0001). In particular, the use of first-line, narrow spectrum cephalexin increased significantly from 29% during the preintervention period to 53% during the postintervention period (P less than .0001). In addition, use of broad spectrum cefixime decreased from 17% during the preintervention period to 3% during the postintervention period (P less than .0001). These changes in prescribing patterns continued through the end of the study period, the researchers said.

The study was limited by several factors, notably that “the interrupted time-series design prevents us from inferring that the intervention caused the observed change in practice,” the researchers wrote. However, other factors including the immediate change in prescribing patterns after the intervention, multiple time points, large sample size, and consistent UTI case mix support the impact of the intervention, they suggested. Although the results might not translate completely to other settings, “developing a UTI-specific EHR order set is relatively straightforward” and might be applied elsewhere, they noted.

“Despite the limitations inherent in a nonexperimental study design, the methods and interventions developed in the current study may be informative to other learning health systems and other content areas when conducting organization-wide quality improvement initiatives,” they concluded.

The study was supported by unrestricted internal resources from the Colorado Permanente Medical Group. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.

SOURCE: Daley MF et al. Pediatrics. 2020 Mar 3. doi: 10.1542/peds.2019-2503.

A multifaceted intervention significantly changed clinicians’ use of antibiotics to treat urinary tract infections (UTIs) in children, according to data from more than 2,000 cases observed between January 2014 and September 2018.

“Changing clinicians’ antibiotic prescribing practices can be challenging; barriers to change include lack of awareness of new evidence, competing clinical demands, and concern about treatment failure,” wrote Matthew F. Daley, MD, of Kaiser Permanente Colorado, Aurora, and colleagues in Pediatrics.

To promote judicious antibiotic use, the researchers designed an intervention including the development of new local UTI guidelines; a live, case-based educational session; emailed knowledge assessments before and after the session; and a specific UTI order set in the EHR.

The researchers divided the study period into a preintervention period (January 1, 2014, to April 25, 2017) and a postintervention period (April 26, 2017, to September 30, 2018). They collected data on 2,142 incident outpatient UTIs; 1,636 from the preintervention period and 506 from the postintervention period. The patients were younger than 18 years and older than 60 days, and children with complicated urologic or neurologic conditions were excluded.

Overall, the proportion of UTIs treated with first-line antibiotics increased significantly from 43% preintervention to 62% postintervention (P less than .0001). In particular, the use of first-line, narrow spectrum cephalexin increased significantly from 29% during the preintervention period to 53% during the postintervention period (P less than .0001). In addition, use of broad spectrum cefixime decreased from 17% during the preintervention period to 3% during the postintervention period (P less than .0001). These changes in prescribing patterns continued through the end of the study period, the researchers said.

The study was limited by several factors, notably that “the interrupted time-series design prevents us from inferring that the intervention caused the observed change in practice,” the researchers wrote. However, other factors including the immediate change in prescribing patterns after the intervention, multiple time points, large sample size, and consistent UTI case mix support the impact of the intervention, they suggested. Although the results might not translate completely to other settings, “developing a UTI-specific EHR order set is relatively straightforward” and might be applied elsewhere, they noted.

“Despite the limitations inherent in a nonexperimental study design, the methods and interventions developed in the current study may be informative to other learning health systems and other content areas when conducting organization-wide quality improvement initiatives,” they concluded.

The study was supported by unrestricted internal resources from the Colorado Permanente Medical Group. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.

SOURCE: Daley MF et al. Pediatrics. 2020 Mar 3. doi: 10.1542/peds.2019-2503.

References

1. Interim Infection Prevention and Control Recommendations for Patients with Confirmed Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) or Persons Under Investigation for COVID-19 in Healthcare Settings. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Web site. https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/infection-control/control-recommendations.html?CDC_AA_refVal=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.cdc.gov%2Fcoronavirus%2F2019-ncov%2Fhcp%2Finfection-control.html. Updated February 21, 2020. Accessed February 27, 2020.
2. Interim Clinical Guidance for Management of Patients with Confirmed Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19). Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Web site. https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/hcp/clinical-guidance-management-patients.html. Updated February 12, 2020. Accessed February 27, 2020.
3. Interim Guidance for Implementing Home Care of People Not Requiring Hospitalization for 2019 Novel Coronavirus (2019-nCoV). Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Web site. https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/hcp/guidance-home-care.html. Updated February 12, 2020. Accessed February 27, 2020.
4. Interim Guidance for Preventing the Spread of Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) in Homes and Residential Communities. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Web site. https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/hcp/guidance-prevent-spread.html. Updated February 14, 2020. Accessed February 27, 2020.
5. World Health Organization. Coronavirus disease (COVID-2019) situation reports. https://www.who.int/emergencies/diseases/novel-coronavirus-2019/situation-reports. Updated February 26, 2020. Accessed February 27, 2020.
6. Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) in the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Web site. https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/cases-in-us.html. Updated February 26, 2020. Accessed February 27, 2020.

ALSO, see last month’s audiocast: “Coronavirus outbreak: Putting it into perspective.”

References

1. Interim Infection Prevention and Control Recommendations for Patients with Confirmed Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) or Persons Under Investigation for COVID-19 in Healthcare Settings. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Web site. https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/infection-control/control-recommendations.html?CDC_AA_refVal=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.cdc.gov%2Fcoronavirus%2F2019-ncov%2Fhcp%2Finfection-control.html. Updated February 21, 2020. Accessed February 27, 2020.
2. Interim Clinical Guidance for Management of Patients with Confirmed Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19). Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Web site. https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/hcp/clinical-guidance-management-patients.html. Updated February 12, 2020. Accessed February 27, 2020.
3. Interim Guidance for Implementing Home Care of People Not Requiring Hospitalization for 2019 Novel Coronavirus (2019-nCoV). Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Web site. https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/hcp/guidance-home-care.html. Updated February 12, 2020. Accessed February 27, 2020.
4. Interim Guidance for Preventing the Spread of Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) in Homes and Residential Communities. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Web site. https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/hcp/guidance-prevent-spread.html. Updated February 14, 2020. Accessed February 27, 2020.
5. World Health Organization. Coronavirus disease (COVID-2019) situation reports. https://www.who.int/emergencies/diseases/novel-coronavirus-2019/situation-reports. Updated February 26, 2020. Accessed February 27, 2020.
6. Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) in the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Web site. https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/cases-in-us.html. Updated February 26, 2020. Accessed February 27, 2020.

ALSO, see last month’s audiocast: “Coronavirus outbreak: Putting it into perspective.”

References

1. Interim Infection Prevention and Control Recommendations for Patients with Confirmed Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) or Persons Under Investigation for COVID-19 in Healthcare Settings. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Web site. https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/infection-control/control-recommendations.html?CDC_AA_refVal=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.cdc.gov%2Fcoronavirus%2F2019-ncov%2Fhcp%2Finfection-control.html. Updated February 21, 2020. Accessed February 27, 2020.
2. Interim Clinical Guidance for Management of Patients with Confirmed Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19). Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Web site. https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/hcp/clinical-guidance-management-patients.html. Updated February 12, 2020. Accessed February 27, 2020.
3. Interim Guidance for Implementing Home Care of People Not Requiring Hospitalization for 2019 Novel Coronavirus (2019-nCoV). Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Web site. https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/hcp/guidance-home-care.html. Updated February 12, 2020. Accessed February 27, 2020.
4. Interim Guidance for Preventing the Spread of Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) in Homes and Residential Communities. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Web site. https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/hcp/guidance-prevent-spread.html. Updated February 14, 2020. Accessed February 27, 2020.
5. World Health Organization. Coronavirus disease (COVID-2019) situation reports. https://www.who.int/emergencies/diseases/novel-coronavirus-2019/situation-reports. Updated February 26, 2020. Accessed February 27, 2020.
6. Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) in the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Web site. https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/cases-in-us.html. Updated February 26, 2020. Accessed February 27, 2020.

ALSO, see last month’s audiocast: “Coronavirus outbreak: Putting it into perspective.”

As the first COVID-19 outbreak in the United States emerges in Washington State, the city of Seattle, King County, and Washington State health officials provided the beginnings of a roadmap for how the region will address the rapidly evolving health crisis.

Health officials announced that four new cases were reported over the weekend in King County, Wash. There have now been 10 hospitalizations and 6 COVID-19 deaths at Evergreen Health, Kirkland, Wash. Of the deaths, five were King County residents and one was a resident of Snohomish County. Three patients died on March 1; all were in their 70s or 80s with comorbidities. Two had been residents of the Life Care senior residential facility that is at the center of the Kirkland outbreak. The number of cases in Washington now totals 18, with four cases in Snohomish County and the balance in neighboring King County.

Approximately 29 cases are under investigation with test results pending; a Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) team is on-site.

Speaking at a news conference March 2, officials sought to strike a balance between giving the community a realistic appraisal of the likely scope of the COVID-19 outbreak and avoiding sparking a panic.

“This is a complex and unprecedented challenge nationally, globally, and locally. The vast majority of the infected have mild or moderate disease and do not need hospitalization,” said Jeffrey Duchin, MD, health officer and chief, Communicable Disease EPI/Immunization Section, Public Health, Seattle and King County, and a professor of infectious diseases at the University of Washington, Seattle. “On the other hand, it’s obvious that this infection can cause very serious disease in people who are older and have underlying health conditions. We expect cases to continue to increase. We are taking the situation extremely seriously; the risk for all of us becoming infected is increasing. ...There is the potential for many to become ill at the same time.”

Among the measures being taken immediately are the purchase by King County of a hotel to house individuals who require isolation and those who are convalescing from the virus. Officials are also placing a number of prefabricated stand-alone housing units on public grounds in Seattle, with the recognition that the area has a large transient and homeless community. The stand-alone units will house homeless individuals who need isolation, treatment, or recuperation but who aren’t ill enough to be hospitalized.

Dr. Duchin said that testing capacity is ramping up rapidly in Washington State: The state lab can now accommodate up to about 200 tests daily, and expects to be able to do up to 1,000 daily soon. The University of Washington’s testing capacity will come online March 2 or 3 as a testing facility with similar initial and future peak testing capacities.

The testing strategy will continue to include very ill individuals with pneumonia or other respiratory illness of unknown etiology, but will also expand to include less ill people. This shift is being made in accordance with a shift in CDC guidelines, because of increased testing capacity, and to provide a better picture of the severity, scope, geography, and timing of the current COVID-19 outbreak in the greater Seattle area.

No school closures or cancellation of gatherings are currently recommended by public health authorities. There are currently no COVID-19 cases in Washington schools. The expectation is that any recommendations regarding closures will be re-evaluated as the outbreak progresses.

Repeatedly, officials asked the general public to employ basic measures such as handwashing and avoidance of touching the face, and to spare masks for the ill and for those who care for them. “The vast majority of people will not have serious illness. In turn we need to do everything we can to help those health care workers. I’m asking the public to do things like save the masks for our health care workers. …We need assets for our front-line health care workers and also for those who may be needing them,” said King County Health Department director Patty Hayes, RN, MN.

Courtesy King County Public Health Department

Now is also the time for households to initiate basic emergency preparedness measures, such as having adequate food and medication, and to make arrangements for childcare in the event of school closures, said several officials.

“We can decrease the impact on our health care system by reducing our individual risk. We are making individual- and community-level recommendations to limit the spread of disease. These are very similar to what we recommend for influenza,” said Dr. Duchin.

Ettore Palazzo, MD, chief medical and quality officer at EvergreenHealth, gave a sense of how the hospital is coping with being Ground Zero for COVID-19 in the United States. “We have made adjustments for airborne precautions,” he said, including transforming the entire critical care unit to a negative pressure unit. “We have these capabilities in other parts of the hospital as well.” Staff are working hard, but thus far staffing has kept pace with demand, he said, but all are feeling the strain already.

Dr. Duchin made the point that Washington is relatively well equipped to handle the increasingly likely scenario of a large spike in coronavirus cases, since it’s part of the Northwest Healthcare Response Network. The network is planning for sharing resources such as staff, respirators, and intensive care unit beds as circumstances warrant.

“What you just heard illustrates the challenge of this disease,” said Dr. Duchin, summing up. “The public health service and clinical health care delivery systems don’t have the capacity to track down every case in the community. I’m guessing we will see more cases of coronavirus than we see of influenza. At some point we will be shifting from counting every case” to focusing on outbreaks and the critically ill in hospitals, he said.

“We are still trying to contain the outbreak, but we are at the same time pivoting to a more community-based approach,” similar to the approach with influenza, said Dr. Duchin.

• A man in his 50s, who was hospitalized and died at EvergreenHealth.

[email protected]

As the first COVID-19 outbreak in the United States emerges in Washington State, the city of Seattle, King County, and Washington State health officials provided the beginnings of a roadmap for how the region will address the rapidly evolving health crisis.

Health officials announced that four new cases were reported over the weekend in King County, Wash. There have now been 10 hospitalizations and 6 COVID-19 deaths at Evergreen Health, Kirkland, Wash. Of the deaths, five were King County residents and one was a resident of Snohomish County. Three patients died on March 1; all were in their 70s or 80s with comorbidities. Two had been residents of the Life Care senior residential facility that is at the center of the Kirkland outbreak. The number of cases in Washington now totals 18, with four cases in Snohomish County and the balance in neighboring King County.

Approximately 29 cases are under investigation with test results pending; a Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) team is on-site.

Speaking at a news conference March 2, officials sought to strike a balance between giving the community a realistic appraisal of the likely scope of the COVID-19 outbreak and avoiding sparking a panic.

“This is a complex and unprecedented challenge nationally, globally, and locally. The vast majority of the infected have mild or moderate disease and do not need hospitalization,” said Jeffrey Duchin, MD, health officer and chief, Communicable Disease EPI/Immunization Section, Public Health, Seattle and King County, and a professor of infectious diseases at the University of Washington, Seattle. “On the other hand, it’s obvious that this infection can cause very serious disease in people who are older and have underlying health conditions. We expect cases to continue to increase. We are taking the situation extremely seriously; the risk for all of us becoming infected is increasing. ...There is the potential for many to become ill at the same time.”

Among the measures being taken immediately are the purchase by King County of a hotel to house individuals who require isolation and those who are convalescing from the virus. Officials are also placing a number of prefabricated stand-alone housing units on public grounds in Seattle, with the recognition that the area has a large transient and homeless community. The stand-alone units will house homeless individuals who need isolation, treatment, or recuperation but who aren’t ill enough to be hospitalized.

Dr. Duchin said that testing capacity is ramping up rapidly in Washington State: The state lab can now accommodate up to about 200 tests daily, and expects to be able to do up to 1,000 daily soon. The University of Washington’s testing capacity will come online March 2 or 3 as a testing facility with similar initial and future peak testing capacities.

The testing strategy will continue to include very ill individuals with pneumonia or other respiratory illness of unknown etiology, but will also expand to include less ill people. This shift is being made in accordance with a shift in CDC guidelines, because of increased testing capacity, and to provide a better picture of the severity, scope, geography, and timing of the current COVID-19 outbreak in the greater Seattle area.

No school closures or cancellation of gatherings are currently recommended by public health authorities. There are currently no COVID-19 cases in Washington schools. The expectation is that any recommendations regarding closures will be re-evaluated as the outbreak progresses.

Repeatedly, officials asked the general public to employ basic measures such as handwashing and avoidance of touching the face, and to spare masks for the ill and for those who care for them. “The vast majority of people will not have serious illness. In turn we need to do everything we can to help those health care workers. I’m asking the public to do things like save the masks for our health care workers. …We need assets for our front-line health care workers and also for those who may be needing them,” said King County Health Department director Patty Hayes, RN, MN.

Courtesy King County Public Health Department

Now is also the time for households to initiate basic emergency preparedness measures, such as having adequate food and medication, and to make arrangements for childcare in the event of school closures, said several officials.

“We can decrease the impact on our health care system by reducing our individual risk. We are making individual- and community-level recommendations to limit the spread of disease. These are very similar to what we recommend for influenza,” said Dr. Duchin.

Ettore Palazzo, MD, chief medical and quality officer at EvergreenHealth, gave a sense of how the hospital is coping with being Ground Zero for COVID-19 in the United States. “We have made adjustments for airborne precautions,” he said, including transforming the entire critical care unit to a negative pressure unit. “We have these capabilities in other parts of the hospital as well.” Staff are working hard, but thus far staffing has kept pace with demand, he said, but all are feeling the strain already.

Dr. Duchin made the point that Washington is relatively well equipped to handle the increasingly likely scenario of a large spike in coronavirus cases, since it’s part of the Northwest Healthcare Response Network. The network is planning for sharing resources such as staff, respirators, and intensive care unit beds as circumstances warrant.

“What you just heard illustrates the challenge of this disease,” said Dr. Duchin, summing up. “The public health service and clinical health care delivery systems don’t have the capacity to track down every case in the community. I’m guessing we will see more cases of coronavirus than we see of influenza. At some point we will be shifting from counting every case” to focusing on outbreaks and the critically ill in hospitals, he said.

“We are still trying to contain the outbreak, but we are at the same time pivoting to a more community-based approach,” similar to the approach with influenza, said Dr. Duchin.

• A man in his 50s, who was hospitalized and died at EvergreenHealth.

[email protected]

As the first COVID-19 outbreak in the United States emerges in Washington State, the city of Seattle, King County, and Washington State health officials provided the beginnings of a roadmap for how the region will address the rapidly evolving health crisis.

Health officials announced that four new cases were reported over the weekend in King County, Wash. There have now been 10 hospitalizations and 6 COVID-19 deaths at Evergreen Health, Kirkland, Wash. Of the deaths, five were King County residents and one was a resident of Snohomish County. Three patients died on March 1; all were in their 70s or 80s with comorbidities. Two had been residents of the Life Care senior residential facility that is at the center of the Kirkland outbreak. The number of cases in Washington now totals 18, with four cases in Snohomish County and the balance in neighboring King County.

Approximately 29 cases are under investigation with test results pending; a Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) team is on-site.

Speaking at a news conference March 2, officials sought to strike a balance between giving the community a realistic appraisal of the likely scope of the COVID-19 outbreak and avoiding sparking a panic.

“This is a complex and unprecedented challenge nationally, globally, and locally. The vast majority of the infected have mild or moderate disease and do not need hospitalization,” said Jeffrey Duchin, MD, health officer and chief, Communicable Disease EPI/Immunization Section, Public Health, Seattle and King County, and a professor of infectious diseases at the University of Washington, Seattle. “On the other hand, it’s obvious that this infection can cause very serious disease in people who are older and have underlying health conditions. We expect cases to continue to increase. We are taking the situation extremely seriously; the risk for all of us becoming infected is increasing. ...There is the potential for many to become ill at the same time.”

Among the measures being taken immediately are the purchase by King County of a hotel to house individuals who require isolation and those who are convalescing from the virus. Officials are also placing a number of prefabricated stand-alone housing units on public grounds in Seattle, with the recognition that the area has a large transient and homeless community. The stand-alone units will house homeless individuals who need isolation, treatment, or recuperation but who aren’t ill enough to be hospitalized.

Dr. Duchin said that testing capacity is ramping up rapidly in Washington State: The state lab can now accommodate up to about 200 tests daily, and expects to be able to do up to 1,000 daily soon. The University of Washington’s testing capacity will come online March 2 or 3 as a testing facility with similar initial and future peak testing capacities.

The testing strategy will continue to include very ill individuals with pneumonia or other respiratory illness of unknown etiology, but will also expand to include less ill people. This shift is being made in accordance with a shift in CDC guidelines, because of increased testing capacity, and to provide a better picture of the severity, scope, geography, and timing of the current COVID-19 outbreak in the greater Seattle area.

No school closures or cancellation of gatherings are currently recommended by public health authorities. There are currently no COVID-19 cases in Washington schools. The expectation is that any recommendations regarding closures will be re-evaluated as the outbreak progresses.

Repeatedly, officials asked the general public to employ basic measures such as handwashing and avoidance of touching the face, and to spare masks for the ill and for those who care for them. “The vast majority of people will not have serious illness. In turn we need to do everything we can to help those health care workers. I’m asking the public to do things like save the masks for our health care workers. …We need assets for our front-line health care workers and also for those who may be needing them,” said King County Health Department director Patty Hayes, RN, MN.

Courtesy King County Public Health Department

Now is also the time for households to initiate basic emergency preparedness measures, such as having adequate food and medication, and to make arrangements for childcare in the event of school closures, said several officials.

“We can decrease the impact on our health care system by reducing our individual risk. We are making individual- and community-level recommendations to limit the spread of disease. These are very similar to what we recommend for influenza,” said Dr. Duchin.

Ettore Palazzo, MD, chief medical and quality officer at EvergreenHealth, gave a sense of how the hospital is coping with being Ground Zero for COVID-19 in the United States. “We have made adjustments for airborne precautions,” he said, including transforming the entire critical care unit to a negative pressure unit. “We have these capabilities in other parts of the hospital as well.” Staff are working hard, but thus far staffing has kept pace with demand, he said, but all are feeling the strain already.

Dr. Duchin made the point that Washington is relatively well equipped to handle the increasingly likely scenario of a large spike in coronavirus cases, since it’s part of the Northwest Healthcare Response Network. The network is planning for sharing resources such as staff, respirators, and intensive care unit beds as circumstances warrant.

“What you just heard illustrates the challenge of this disease,” said Dr. Duchin, summing up. “The public health service and clinical health care delivery systems don’t have the capacity to track down every case in the community. I’m guessing we will see more cases of coronavirus than we see of influenza. At some point we will be shifting from counting every case” to focusing on outbreaks and the critically ill in hospitals, he said.

“We are still trying to contain the outbreak, but we are at the same time pivoting to a more community-based approach,” similar to the approach with influenza, said Dr. Duchin.

• A man in his 50s, who was hospitalized and died at EvergreenHealth.

[email protected]

MAUI, HAWAII – The use of interleukin inhibitors for treatment of rheumatologic diseases doubles a patient’s risk of serious infections, according to a comprehensive systematic review and meta-analysis of 74 randomized, placebo-controlled trials presented by Jawad Bilal, MBBS, at the 2020 Rheumatology Winter Clinical Symposium.

Bruce Jancin/MDedge News

The meta-analysis, which incorporated 29,214 patients with a variety of rheumatic diseases, demonstrated that patients receiving interleukin (IL) inhibitors had a 1.97-fold increased risk of serious infections, a finding accompanied by a high degree of statistical certainty. The number-needed-to-harm was 67 patients treated for a median of 24 weeks in order to generate one additional serious infection.

“That number-needed-to-harm is a significant finding because having a serious infection means by definition you’re getting admitted to the hospital and receiving IV antibiotics,” Dr. Bilal observed in an interview.

The meta-analysis also found that IL inhibition was associated with a 2.35-fold increased risk of opportunistic infections and a 1.52-fold higher risk of developing cancer, both findings with statistical significance (P =.03) but only moderate certainty because fewer of those events were captured in the trials compared to the numbers of serious infections, explained Dr. Bilal of the University of Arizona, Tucson.

For opportunistic infections, the number-needed-to-harm was 250 patients treated with an IL inhibitor for a median of 54 weeks in order to result in one additional opportunistic infection. For cancer, the number-needed-to-harm was 250 for a median of 24 weeks.

Dr. Bilal noted that while the IL inhibitors are drugs of established efficacy in rheumatologic diseases, their safety has not previously undergone anything approaching the comprehensive scrutiny carried out in this meta-analysis. The meta-analysis, which included all published placebo-controlled randomized trials and their extension studies, employed rigorous methodology in accord with the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis) statement and the GRADE approach to data analysis. Studies of IL inhibitors in patients with dermatologic and GI diseases were excluded from the meta-analysis.

He offered a caveat regarding the cancer risk findings: “Our analysis showed that the cancer risk is increased, but the results are not conclusive because we only had a few years of data. With cancer, you really need at least 8-10 years of data. So the real-world experience with the interleukin inhibitors in the large registries is what’s going to tell if the cancer risk is really increased or not. In the meantime, we all have to be cautious.”

The number of serious infections collected in the meta-analysis afforded sufficient statistical power for the investigators to break down differential risks based on individual drugs and indications. Among the drugs associated with significantly increased risk of serious infections were anakinra, with an odds ratio of 2.67, compared with placebo; secukinumab with an OR of 2.43; and tocilizumab with an OR or 1.76. Ustekinumab and ixekizumab were associated with 2.57- and 3.89-fold increased risks, respectively, but the number of rheumatology patients treated with those two biologics wasn’t large enough for those findings to achieve statistical significance.

Rheumatoid arthritis patients who received an IL inhibitor rather than placebo had a 1.98-fold increased risk of serious infection, while those with psoriatic arthritis had a 2.21-fold increased risk. Patients treated for SLE had a 6.44-fold increased risk, and those with juvenile idiopathic arthritis had a 5.37-fold higher risk, but the margins for error were such that those results weren’t statistically significant.

“I think this study is going to help clinicians and patients when they’re trying to weigh the risks and benefits of IL inhibitors, especially if they already have risk factors, like a recent history of serious infection or a history of cancer or of opportunistic infection,” Dr. Bilal commented.

A study limitation was that he and his coinvestigators had to lump together the various IL inhibitors in order to gain statistical power, even though the drugs work differently, he noted.

Dr. Bilal reported having no financial conflicts regarding his study, the full details of which have been published (JAMA Netw Open. 2019 Oct 2. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2019.13102).

[email protected]

MAUI, HAWAII – The use of interleukin inhibitors for treatment of rheumatologic diseases doubles a patient’s risk of serious infections, according to a comprehensive systematic review and meta-analysis of 74 randomized, placebo-controlled trials presented by Jawad Bilal, MBBS, at the 2020 Rheumatology Winter Clinical Symposium.

Bruce Jancin/MDedge News

The meta-analysis, which incorporated 29,214 patients with a variety of rheumatic diseases, demonstrated that patients receiving interleukin (IL) inhibitors had a 1.97-fold increased risk of serious infections, a finding accompanied by a high degree of statistical certainty. The number-needed-to-harm was 67 patients treated for a median of 24 weeks in order to generate one additional serious infection.

“That number-needed-to-harm is a significant finding because having a serious infection means by definition you’re getting admitted to the hospital and receiving IV antibiotics,” Dr. Bilal observed in an interview.

The meta-analysis also found that IL inhibition was associated with a 2.35-fold increased risk of opportunistic infections and a 1.52-fold higher risk of developing cancer, both findings with statistical significance (P =.03) but only moderate certainty because fewer of those events were captured in the trials compared to the numbers of serious infections, explained Dr. Bilal of the University of Arizona, Tucson.

For opportunistic infections, the number-needed-to-harm was 250 patients treated with an IL inhibitor for a median of 54 weeks in order to result in one additional opportunistic infection. For cancer, the number-needed-to-harm was 250 for a median of 24 weeks.

Dr. Bilal noted that while the IL inhibitors are drugs of established efficacy in rheumatologic diseases, their safety has not previously undergone anything approaching the comprehensive scrutiny carried out in this meta-analysis. The meta-analysis, which included all published placebo-controlled randomized trials and their extension studies, employed rigorous methodology in accord with the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis) statement and the GRADE approach to data analysis. Studies of IL inhibitors in patients with dermatologic and GI diseases were excluded from the meta-analysis.

He offered a caveat regarding the cancer risk findings: “Our analysis showed that the cancer risk is increased, but the results are not conclusive because we only had a few years of data. With cancer, you really need at least 8-10 years of data. So the real-world experience with the interleukin inhibitors in the large registries is what’s going to tell if the cancer risk is really increased or not. In the meantime, we all have to be cautious.”

The number of serious infections collected in the meta-analysis afforded sufficient statistical power for the investigators to break down differential risks based on individual drugs and indications. Among the drugs associated with significantly increased risk of serious infections were anakinra, with an odds ratio of 2.67, compared with placebo; secukinumab with an OR of 2.43; and tocilizumab with an OR or 1.76. Ustekinumab and ixekizumab were associated with 2.57- and 3.89-fold increased risks, respectively, but the number of rheumatology patients treated with those two biologics wasn’t large enough for those findings to achieve statistical significance.

Rheumatoid arthritis patients who received an IL inhibitor rather than placebo had a 1.98-fold increased risk of serious infection, while those with psoriatic arthritis had a 2.21-fold increased risk. Patients treated for SLE had a 6.44-fold increased risk, and those with juvenile idiopathic arthritis had a 5.37-fold higher risk, but the margins for error were such that those results weren’t statistically significant.

“I think this study is going to help clinicians and patients when they’re trying to weigh the risks and benefits of IL inhibitors, especially if they already have risk factors, like a recent history of serious infection or a history of cancer or of opportunistic infection,” Dr. Bilal commented.

A study limitation was that he and his coinvestigators had to lump together the various IL inhibitors in order to gain statistical power, even though the drugs work differently, he noted.

Dr. Bilal reported having no financial conflicts regarding his study, the full details of which have been published (JAMA Netw Open. 2019 Oct 2. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2019.13102).

[email protected]

MAUI, HAWAII – The use of interleukin inhibitors for treatment of rheumatologic diseases doubles a patient’s risk of serious infections, according to a comprehensive systematic review and meta-analysis of 74 randomized, placebo-controlled trials presented by Jawad Bilal, MBBS, at the 2020 Rheumatology Winter Clinical Symposium.

Bruce Jancin/MDedge News

The meta-analysis, which incorporated 29,214 patients with a variety of rheumatic diseases, demonstrated that patients receiving interleukin (IL) inhibitors had a 1.97-fold increased risk of serious infections, a finding accompanied by a high degree of statistical certainty. The number-needed-to-harm was 67 patients treated for a median of 24 weeks in order to generate one additional serious infection.

“That number-needed-to-harm is a significant finding because having a serious infection means by definition you’re getting admitted to the hospital and receiving IV antibiotics,” Dr. Bilal observed in an interview.

The meta-analysis also found that IL inhibition was associated with a 2.35-fold increased risk of opportunistic infections and a 1.52-fold higher risk of developing cancer, both findings with statistical significance (P =.03) but only moderate certainty because fewer of those events were captured in the trials compared to the numbers of serious infections, explained Dr. Bilal of the University of Arizona, Tucson.

For opportunistic infections, the number-needed-to-harm was 250 patients treated with an IL inhibitor for a median of 54 weeks in order to result in one additional opportunistic infection. For cancer, the number-needed-to-harm was 250 for a median of 24 weeks.

Dr. Bilal noted that while the IL inhibitors are drugs of established efficacy in rheumatologic diseases, their safety has not previously undergone anything approaching the comprehensive scrutiny carried out in this meta-analysis. The meta-analysis, which included all published placebo-controlled randomized trials and their extension studies, employed rigorous methodology in accord with the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis) statement and the GRADE approach to data analysis. Studies of IL inhibitors in patients with dermatologic and GI diseases were excluded from the meta-analysis.

He offered a caveat regarding the cancer risk findings: “Our analysis showed that the cancer risk is increased, but the results are not conclusive because we only had a few years of data. With cancer, you really need at least 8-10 years of data. So the real-world experience with the interleukin inhibitors in the large registries is what’s going to tell if the cancer risk is really increased or not. In the meantime, we all have to be cautious.”

The number of serious infections collected in the meta-analysis afforded sufficient statistical power for the investigators to break down differential risks based on individual drugs and indications. Among the drugs associated with significantly increased risk of serious infections were anakinra, with an odds ratio of 2.67, compared with placebo; secukinumab with an OR of 2.43; and tocilizumab with an OR or 1.76. Ustekinumab and ixekizumab were associated with 2.57- and 3.89-fold increased risks, respectively, but the number of rheumatology patients treated with those two biologics wasn’t large enough for those findings to achieve statistical significance.

Rheumatoid arthritis patients who received an IL inhibitor rather than placebo had a 1.98-fold increased risk of serious infection, while those with psoriatic arthritis had a 2.21-fold increased risk. Patients treated for SLE had a 6.44-fold increased risk, and those with juvenile idiopathic arthritis had a 5.37-fold higher risk, but the margins for error were such that those results weren’t statistically significant.

“I think this study is going to help clinicians and patients when they’re trying to weigh the risks and benefits of IL inhibitors, especially if they already have risk factors, like a recent history of serious infection or a history of cancer or of opportunistic infection,” Dr. Bilal commented.

A study limitation was that he and his coinvestigators had to lump together the various IL inhibitors in order to gain statistical power, even though the drugs work differently, he noted.

Dr. Bilal reported having no financial conflicts regarding his study, the full details of which have been published (JAMA Netw Open. 2019 Oct 2. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2019.13102).

[email protected]

Adults aged 18-79 years should be screened for hepatitis C virus infection, according to an updated grade B recommendation from the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force.

Cases of acute hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection have spiked in the last decade, in part because of increased use of injection drugs and in part because of better surveillance, Douglas K. Owens, MD, of Stanford (Calif.) University, and colleagues wrote in the recommendation statement published in JAMA.

The recommendation applies to all asymptomatic adults aged 18-79 years without known liver disease, and expands on the 2013 recommendation to screen adults born between 1945 and 1965. The grade B designation means that the task force concluded with moderate certainty that HCV screening for adults aged 18-79 years had “substantial net benefit.”

The recommendations are based on an evidence report including 8 randomized, controlled trials, 48 other treatment studies, and 33 cohort studies published through February 2019 for a total of 179,230 individuals.

The screening is a one-time procedure for most adults, according to the task force, but clinicians should periodically screen individuals at increased risk, such as those with a past or current history of injection drug use. In addition, clinicians should consider screening individuals at increased risk who are above or below the recommended age range.

Although the task force identified no direct evidence on the benefit of screening for HCV infection in asymptomatic adults, a notable finding was that the newer direct-acting antiviral (DAA) regimens are sufficiently effective to support the expanded screening recommendation, they said. However, clinicians should inform patients that screening is voluntary and conducted only with the patient’s knowledge. Clinicians should educate patients about hepatitis C and give them an opportunity to ask questions and to make a decision about screening, according to the task force.

In the evidence report, a total of 49 studies including 10,181 individuals showed DAA treatment associated with pooled sustained virologic response rates greater than 95% across all virus genotypes, and a short-term serious adverse event rate of 1.9%. In addition, sustained virologic response following an antiviral therapy was associated with a reduction in risk of all-cause mortality (pooled hazard ratio 0.40) and of hepatocellular carcinoma (pooled HR 0.29) compared with cases of no sustained virologic response.

The evidence report findings were limited by several factors, including the relatively small number of randomized trials involving current DAA treatments, limited data on baseline symptoms, limited data on adolescents, and limited evidence on potential long-term harms of DAA therapy, noted Richard Chou, MD, of Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, and colleagues. However, new pooled evidence “indicates that SVR rates with currently recommended all-oral DAA regimens are substantially higher (more than 95%) than with interferon-based therapies evaluated in the prior review (68%-78%),” they said.

Several editorials were published concurrently with the recommendation.

In an editorial published in JAMA, Camilla S. Graham, MD, of Harvard Medical School, Boston, and Stacey Trooskin, MD, of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, wrote that the new recommendation reflects changes in hepatitis C virus management.

“With the approvals of sofosbuvir and simeprevir in 2013, patients with hepatitis C, a chronic viral illness associated with the deaths of more U.S. patients than the next 60 reportable infectious diseases combined, including HIV and tuberculosis, could expect a greater than 90% rate of achieving sustained virologic response (SVR, defined as undetectable HCV levels 12 weeks or longer after treatment completion, which is consistent with virologic cure of HCV infection) following 12 weeks of treatment,” they said.

These medications are effective but expensive; however, the combination of the availability of generic medications and the ongoing opioid epidemic in the United States are important contributors to the expanded recommendations, which “are welcome,” and may help meeting WHO 2030 targets for reducing new HCV infections, they said.

Dr. Graham disclosed personal fees from UpToDate. Dr. Trooskin disclosed grants from Gilead Sciences and personal fees from Merck, AbbVie, and Gilead Sciences.

In an editorial published in JAMA Internal Medicine, Jennifer C. Price, MD, and Danielle Brandman, MD, both of the University of California, San Francisco, wrote that “the advancements in HCV diagnosis and treatment have been extraordinary,” but that the new recommendation does not go far enough. “Implementation of HCV screening and linkage to treatment requires large-scale coordinated efforts, innovation, and resources. For example, point-of-care HCV RNA testing would enable scale-up of HCV screening and confirmatory testing among individuals at greatest risk of HCV infection,” they said. “Additionally, barriers remain between diagnosis and treatment, such as access to a health care provider who can treat HCV and authorization to receive affordable DAAs,” they noted. “Although the USPSTF HCV screening recommendation is a step forward for controlling HCV infection in the U.S., it will take a coordinated and funded effort to ensure that the anticipated benefits are realized,” they concluded.

Dr. Price disclosed research funding from Gilead Sciences and Merck. Dr. Brandman disclosed research funding from Gilead Sciences, Pfizer, Conatus, Allergan, and Grifols, as well as personal fees from Alnylam.

In an editorial published in JAMA Network Open, Eli S. Rosenberg, PhD, of the University at Albany (N.Y.) School of Public Health, and Joshua A. Barocas, MD, of Boston University, emphasized the need to change the stigma surrounding HCV infection in the United States.

“Given the changing epidemiology of HCV infection, new public health priorities, advancements in treatment, and unmet diagnostic needs, it is wise to periodically reevaluate screening recommendations to ensure that they are maximally addressing these areas and patients’ individual needs,” they said. “The Affordable Care Act requires private insurers and Medicaid to cover preventive services recommended by the USPSTF with a grade of A or B with no cost sharing (i.e., no deductible or copayment),” they noted. Although the new recommendation for one-time screening will likely identify more cases, improve outcomes, and reduce deaths, the editorialists cautioned that “one-time screening should not be interpreted like catch-up vaccinations, whereby we immunize someone at any age for hepatitis B virus, for example, and they are then immunized for the remainder of their life,” and that reassessments are needed, especially for younger adults.

In addition, they emphasized the need to reduce the stigma surrounding HCV and allow for recommendations based on risk, rather than age. “We have forced the USPSTF to adopt age-based screening recommendations because we, as a society, have created a culture in which we have stigmatized these behaviors and we, as practitioners, have proven to be inadequate at eliciting HCV risk behaviors,” they said. “Our responsibility as a society and practice community is to address structural and individual factors that limit our ability to most precisely address the needs of our patients and truly move toward HCV elimination,” they concluded.

The USPSTF is supported by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. The task force researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.

SOURCES: Owens DK et al. JAMA. 2020 Mar 2. doi: 10.1001/jama.2020.1123; Chou R et al. JAMA. 2020 Mar 2. doi: 10.1001/jama.2019.20788; Graham CS, Trooskin S. JAMA. 2020 Mar 2. doi: 10.1001/jama.2019.22313; Price JC and Brandman D. JAMA Intern Med. 2020 Mar 2. doi: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2019.7334; Rosenberg ES, Barocas JA. JAMA Network Open. 2020 Mar 2. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2020.0538.

Adults aged 18-79 years should be screened for hepatitis C virus infection, according to an updated grade B recommendation from the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force.

Cases of acute hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection have spiked in the last decade, in part because of increased use of injection drugs and in part because of better surveillance, Douglas K. Owens, MD, of Stanford (Calif.) University, and colleagues wrote in the recommendation statement published in JAMA.

The recommendation applies to all asymptomatic adults aged 18-79 years without known liver disease, and expands on the 2013 recommendation to screen adults born between 1945 and 1965. The grade B designation means that the task force concluded with moderate certainty that HCV screening for adults aged 18-79 years had “substantial net benefit.”

The recommendations are based on an evidence report including 8 randomized, controlled trials, 48 other treatment studies, and 33 cohort studies published through February 2019 for a total of 179,230 individuals.

The screening is a one-time procedure for most adults, according to the task force, but clinicians should periodically screen individuals at increased risk, such as those with a past or current history of injection drug use. In addition, clinicians should consider screening individuals at increased risk who are above or below the recommended age range.

Although the task force identified no direct evidence on the benefit of screening for HCV infection in asymptomatic adults, a notable finding was that the newer direct-acting antiviral (DAA) regimens are sufficiently effective to support the expanded screening recommendation, they said. However, clinicians should inform patients that screening is voluntary and conducted only with the patient’s knowledge. Clinicians should educate patients about hepatitis C and give them an opportunity to ask questions and to make a decision about screening, according to the task force.

In the evidence report, a total of 49 studies including 10,181 individuals showed DAA treatment associated with pooled sustained virologic response rates greater than 95% across all virus genotypes, and a short-term serious adverse event rate of 1.9%. In addition, sustained virologic response following an antiviral therapy was associated with a reduction in risk of all-cause mortality (pooled hazard ratio 0.40) and of hepatocellular carcinoma (pooled HR 0.29) compared with cases of no sustained virologic response.

The evidence report findings were limited by several factors, including the relatively small number of randomized trials involving current DAA treatments, limited data on baseline symptoms, limited data on adolescents, and limited evidence on potential long-term harms of DAA therapy, noted Richard Chou, MD, of Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, and colleagues. However, new pooled evidence “indicates that SVR rates with currently recommended all-oral DAA regimens are substantially higher (more than 95%) than with interferon-based therapies evaluated in the prior review (68%-78%),” they said.

Several editorials were published concurrently with the recommendation.

In an editorial published in JAMA, Camilla S. Graham, MD, of Harvard Medical School, Boston, and Stacey Trooskin, MD, of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, wrote that the new recommendation reflects changes in hepatitis C virus management.

“With the approvals of sofosbuvir and simeprevir in 2013, patients with hepatitis C, a chronic viral illness associated with the deaths of more U.S. patients than the next 60 reportable infectious diseases combined, including HIV and tuberculosis, could expect a greater than 90% rate of achieving sustained virologic response (SVR, defined as undetectable HCV levels 12 weeks or longer after treatment completion, which is consistent with virologic cure of HCV infection) following 12 weeks of treatment,” they said.

These medications are effective but expensive; however, the combination of the availability of generic medications and the ongoing opioid epidemic in the United States are important contributors to the expanded recommendations, which “are welcome,” and may help meeting WHO 2030 targets for reducing new HCV infections, they said.

Dr. Graham disclosed personal fees from UpToDate. Dr. Trooskin disclosed grants from Gilead Sciences and personal fees from Merck, AbbVie, and Gilead Sciences.

In an editorial published in JAMA Internal Medicine, Jennifer C. Price, MD, and Danielle Brandman, MD, both of the University of California, San Francisco, wrote that “the advancements in HCV diagnosis and treatment have been extraordinary,” but that the new recommendation does not go far enough. “Implementation of HCV screening and linkage to treatment requires large-scale coordinated efforts, innovation, and resources. For example, point-of-care HCV RNA testing would enable scale-up of HCV screening and confirmatory testing among individuals at greatest risk of HCV infection,” they said. “Additionally, barriers remain between diagnosis and treatment, such as access to a health care provider who can treat HCV and authorization to receive affordable DAAs,” they noted. “Although the USPSTF HCV screening recommendation is a step forward for controlling HCV infection in the U.S., it will take a coordinated and funded effort to ensure that the anticipated benefits are realized,” they concluded.

Dr. Price disclosed research funding from Gilead Sciences and Merck. Dr. Brandman disclosed research funding from Gilead Sciences, Pfizer, Conatus, Allergan, and Grifols, as well as personal fees from Alnylam.

In an editorial published in JAMA Network Open, Eli S. Rosenberg, PhD, of the University at Albany (N.Y.) School of Public Health, and Joshua A. Barocas, MD, of Boston University, emphasized the need to change the stigma surrounding HCV infection in the United States.

“Given the changing epidemiology of HCV infection, new public health priorities, advancements in treatment, and unmet diagnostic needs, it is wise to periodically reevaluate screening recommendations to ensure that they are maximally addressing these areas and patients’ individual needs,” they said. “The Affordable Care Act requires private insurers and Medicaid to cover preventive services recommended by the USPSTF with a grade of A or B with no cost sharing (i.e., no deductible or copayment),” they noted. Although the new recommendation for one-time screening will likely identify more cases, improve outcomes, and reduce deaths, the editorialists cautioned that “one-time screening should not be interpreted like catch-up vaccinations, whereby we immunize someone at any age for hepatitis B virus, for example, and they are then immunized for the remainder of their life,” and that reassessments are needed, especially for younger adults.

In addition, they emphasized the need to reduce the stigma surrounding HCV and allow for recommendations based on risk, rather than age. “We have forced the USPSTF to adopt age-based screening recommendations because we, as a society, have created a culture in which we have stigmatized these behaviors and we, as practitioners, have proven to be inadequate at eliciting HCV risk behaviors,” they said. “Our responsibility as a society and practice community is to address structural and individual factors that limit our ability to most precisely address the needs of our patients and truly move toward HCV elimination,” they concluded.

The USPSTF is supported by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. The task force researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.

SOURCES: Owens DK et al. JAMA. 2020 Mar 2. doi: 10.1001/jama.2020.1123; Chou R et al. JAMA. 2020 Mar 2. doi: 10.1001/jama.2019.20788; Graham CS, Trooskin S. JAMA. 2020 Mar 2. doi: 10.1001/jama.2019.22313; Price JC and Brandman D. JAMA Intern Med. 2020 Mar 2. doi: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2019.7334; Rosenberg ES, Barocas JA. JAMA Network Open. 2020 Mar 2. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2020.0538.

Adults aged 18-79 years should be screened for hepatitis C virus infection, according to an updated grade B recommendation from the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force.

Cases of acute hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection have spiked in the last decade, in part because of increased use of injection drugs and in part because of better surveillance, Douglas K. Owens, MD, of Stanford (Calif.) University, and colleagues wrote in the recommendation statement published in JAMA.

The recommendation applies to all asymptomatic adults aged 18-79 years without known liver disease, and expands on the 2013 recommendation to screen adults born between 1945 and 1965. The grade B designation means that the task force concluded with moderate certainty that HCV screening for adults aged 18-79 years had “substantial net benefit.”

The recommendations are based on an evidence report including 8 randomized, controlled trials, 48 other treatment studies, and 33 cohort studies published through February 2019 for a total of 179,230 individuals.

The screening is a one-time procedure for most adults, according to the task force, but clinicians should periodically screen individuals at increased risk, such as those with a past or current history of injection drug use. In addition, clinicians should consider screening individuals at increased risk who are above or below the recommended age range.

Although the task force identified no direct evidence on the benefit of screening for HCV infection in asymptomatic adults, a notable finding was that the newer direct-acting antiviral (DAA) regimens are sufficiently effective to support the expanded screening recommendation, they said. However, clinicians should inform patients that screening is voluntary and conducted only with the patient’s knowledge. Clinicians should educate patients about hepatitis C and give them an opportunity to ask questions and to make a decision about screening, according to the task force.

In the evidence report, a total of 49 studies including 10,181 individuals showed DAA treatment associated with pooled sustained virologic response rates greater than 95% across all virus genotypes, and a short-term serious adverse event rate of 1.9%. In addition, sustained virologic response following an antiviral therapy was associated with a reduction in risk of all-cause mortality (pooled hazard ratio 0.40) and of hepatocellular carcinoma (pooled HR 0.29) compared with cases of no sustained virologic response.

The evidence report findings were limited by several factors, including the relatively small number of randomized trials involving current DAA treatments, limited data on baseline symptoms, limited data on adolescents, and limited evidence on potential long-term harms of DAA therapy, noted Richard Chou, MD, of Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, and colleagues. However, new pooled evidence “indicates that SVR rates with currently recommended all-oral DAA regimens are substantially higher (more than 95%) than with interferon-based therapies evaluated in the prior review (68%-78%),” they said.

Several editorials were published concurrently with the recommendation.

In an editorial published in JAMA, Camilla S. Graham, MD, of Harvard Medical School, Boston, and Stacey Trooskin, MD, of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, wrote that the new recommendation reflects changes in hepatitis C virus management.

“With the approvals of sofosbuvir and simeprevir in 2013, patients with hepatitis C, a chronic viral illness associated with the deaths of more U.S. patients than the next 60 reportable infectious diseases combined, including HIV and tuberculosis, could expect a greater than 90% rate of achieving sustained virologic response (SVR, defined as undetectable HCV levels 12 weeks or longer after treatment completion, which is consistent with virologic cure of HCV infection) following 12 weeks of treatment,” they said.

These medications are effective but expensive; however, the combination of the availability of generic medications and the ongoing opioid epidemic in the United States are important contributors to the expanded recommendations, which “are welcome,” and may help meeting WHO 2030 targets for reducing new HCV infections, they said.

Dr. Graham disclosed personal fees from UpToDate. Dr. Trooskin disclosed grants from Gilead Sciences and personal fees from Merck, AbbVie, and Gilead Sciences.

In an editorial published in JAMA Internal Medicine, Jennifer C. Price, MD, and Danielle Brandman, MD, both of the University of California, San Francisco, wrote that “the advancements in HCV diagnosis and treatment have been extraordinary,” but that the new recommendation does not go far enough. “Implementation of HCV screening and linkage to treatment requires large-scale coordinated efforts, innovation, and resources. For example, point-of-care HCV RNA testing would enable scale-up of HCV screening and confirmatory testing among individuals at greatest risk of HCV infection,” they said. “Additionally, barriers remain between diagnosis and treatment, such as access to a health care provider who can treat HCV and authorization to receive affordable DAAs,” they noted. “Although the USPSTF HCV screening recommendation is a step forward for controlling HCV infection in the U.S., it will take a coordinated and funded effort to ensure that the anticipated benefits are realized,” they concluded.

Dr. Price disclosed research funding from Gilead Sciences and Merck. Dr. Brandman disclosed research funding from Gilead Sciences, Pfizer, Conatus, Allergan, and Grifols, as well as personal fees from Alnylam.

In an editorial published in JAMA Network Open, Eli S. Rosenberg, PhD, of the University at Albany (N.Y.) School of Public Health, and Joshua A. Barocas, MD, of Boston University, emphasized the need to change the stigma surrounding HCV infection in the United States.

“Given the changing epidemiology of HCV infection, new public health priorities, advancements in treatment, and unmet diagnostic needs, it is wise to periodically reevaluate screening recommendations to ensure that they are maximally addressing these areas and patients’ individual needs,” they said. “The Affordable Care Act requires private insurers and Medicaid to cover preventive services recommended by the USPSTF with a grade of A or B with no cost sharing (i.e., no deductible or copayment),” they noted. Although the new recommendation for one-time screening will likely identify more cases, improve outcomes, and reduce deaths, the editorialists cautioned that “one-time screening should not be interpreted like catch-up vaccinations, whereby we immunize someone at any age for hepatitis B virus, for example, and they are then immunized for the remainder of their life,” and that reassessments are needed, especially for younger adults.

In addition, they emphasized the need to reduce the stigma surrounding HCV and allow for recommendations based on risk, rather than age. “We have forced the USPSTF to adopt age-based screening recommendations because we, as a society, have created a culture in which we have stigmatized these behaviors and we, as practitioners, have proven to be inadequate at eliciting HCV risk behaviors,” they said. “Our responsibility as a society and practice community is to address structural and individual factors that limit our ability to most precisely address the needs of our patients and truly move toward HCV elimination,” they concluded.

The USPSTF is supported by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. The task force researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.

SOURCES: Owens DK et al. JAMA. 2020 Mar 2. doi: 10.1001/jama.2020.1123; Chou R et al. JAMA. 2020 Mar 2. doi: 10.1001/jama.2019.20788; Graham CS, Trooskin S. JAMA. 2020 Mar 2. doi: 10.1001/jama.2019.22313; Price JC and Brandman D. JAMA Intern Med. 2020 Mar 2. doi: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2019.7334; Rosenberg ES, Barocas JA. JAMA Network Open. 2020 Mar 2. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2020.0538.