Infectious Diseases

Veronica Brady and her team at the University of Texas Health Science Center, Houston, sat down with 37 people diagnosed with HIV or AIDS to ask them what that felt like.

“The results were really eye-opening and sad,” says Brady, PhD, RN, from the Cizik School of Nursing with UTHealth, Houston.

Many of the people Dr. Brady and her team spoke with were diagnosed through routine or random testing. They ranged in age from 21 years to 65 and said they did not know how they had been infected and felt shocked, freaked out, scared, and in a state of disbelief.

Their conversations about being diagnosed with HIV, presented at the annual meeting of the Association of Nurses in AIDS Care in New Orleans, also described how symptoms of the disease or side effects from treatment can have a huge impact on the daily lives of those affected.

Jesse Milan Jr., president of AIDS United, an HIV advocacy organization based in Washington, D.C., says he recognizes all of these feelings from his own experience with HIV after being diagnosed more than 40 years ago.

“All of those have come up over the years,” he says. “They are all relevant and important at different times.”

For Mr. Milan, less was known about the virus at the time of his diagnosis, and he watched loved ones die. He lived to see the introduction of antiretroviral therapies and receive treatment when his partner and many of his friends did not.
 

Effective treatments

There is a marked difference between the reaction of people diagnosed with HIV years ago and those diagnosed more recently, Dr. Brady explains. Those diagnosed before much was known about the virus and before there were effective treatments were more frightened, she says, whereas people hearing the news recently are much less worried and understand that if they take their medication, they will be fine.

Still, Mr. Milan says when he talks to people diagnosed now, they seem to experience more shame and embarrassment than before. Because it is long known how to prevent HIV infection, they often worry what people will think if they disclose their status. “It makes things harder for people diagnosed today,” says Mr. Milan. “There is a different level of embarrassment tinged with, ‘Why was I so stupid?’ ”

Diagnosis can also be hard on health care professionals, says Dr. Brady. “You never want to tell anyone they’re sick with a chronic disease, especially younger people,” she adds. “You know you’re adding a burden to someone’s life.”

Symptoms and side effects of treatment also had an important impact on the people in this report, with most aspects of their lives affected, including work, relationships, mood, and daily activities.

Clinicians should be supportive and spend some time sitting with patients as they come to terms with the diagnosis and its implications. They should help them understand what to expect and talk about how – or whether – to talk about their status with family and friends. “You need to show you care about the person and that they are not alone,” Dr. Brady says.

And most of all, clinicians need to explain that patients can live a long and healthy life and go on to become whoever they want to be. “Twenty years ago, we wouldn’t have as hopeful a message as we do now,” she says.

Hope is the most important thing for doctors and nurses to communicate to their patients. “There are medications available, and it will be okay. You don’t have to die,” Mr. Milan says. “That’s the core message that everyone needs to hear, whether they were diagnosed 30 years ago or 30 minutes ago.”

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Veronica Brady and her team at the University of Texas Health Science Center, Houston, sat down with 37 people diagnosed with HIV or AIDS to ask them what that felt like.

“The results were really eye-opening and sad,” says Brady, PhD, RN, from the Cizik School of Nursing with UTHealth, Houston.

Many of the people Dr. Brady and her team spoke with were diagnosed through routine or random testing. They ranged in age from 21 years to 65 and said they did not know how they had been infected and felt shocked, freaked out, scared, and in a state of disbelief.

Their conversations about being diagnosed with HIV, presented at the annual meeting of the Association of Nurses in AIDS Care in New Orleans, also described how symptoms of the disease or side effects from treatment can have a huge impact on the daily lives of those affected.

Jesse Milan Jr., president of AIDS United, an HIV advocacy organization based in Washington, D.C., says he recognizes all of these feelings from his own experience with HIV after being diagnosed more than 40 years ago.

“All of those have come up over the years,” he says. “They are all relevant and important at different times.”

For Mr. Milan, less was known about the virus at the time of his diagnosis, and he watched loved ones die. He lived to see the introduction of antiretroviral therapies and receive treatment when his partner and many of his friends did not.
 

Effective treatments

There is a marked difference between the reaction of people diagnosed with HIV years ago and those diagnosed more recently, Dr. Brady explains. Those diagnosed before much was known about the virus and before there were effective treatments were more frightened, she says, whereas people hearing the news recently are much less worried and understand that if they take their medication, they will be fine.

Still, Mr. Milan says when he talks to people diagnosed now, they seem to experience more shame and embarrassment than before. Because it is long known how to prevent HIV infection, they often worry what people will think if they disclose their status. “It makes things harder for people diagnosed today,” says Mr. Milan. “There is a different level of embarrassment tinged with, ‘Why was I so stupid?’ ”

Diagnosis can also be hard on health care professionals, says Dr. Brady. “You never want to tell anyone they’re sick with a chronic disease, especially younger people,” she adds. “You know you’re adding a burden to someone’s life.”

Symptoms and side effects of treatment also had an important impact on the people in this report, with most aspects of their lives affected, including work, relationships, mood, and daily activities.

Clinicians should be supportive and spend some time sitting with patients as they come to terms with the diagnosis and its implications. They should help them understand what to expect and talk about how – or whether – to talk about their status with family and friends. “You need to show you care about the person and that they are not alone,” Dr. Brady says.

And most of all, clinicians need to explain that patients can live a long and healthy life and go on to become whoever they want to be. “Twenty years ago, we wouldn’t have as hopeful a message as we do now,” she says.

Hope is the most important thing for doctors and nurses to communicate to their patients. “There are medications available, and it will be okay. You don’t have to die,” Mr. Milan says. “That’s the core message that everyone needs to hear, whether they were diagnosed 30 years ago or 30 minutes ago.”

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Veronica Brady and her team at the University of Texas Health Science Center, Houston, sat down with 37 people diagnosed with HIV or AIDS to ask them what that felt like.

“The results were really eye-opening and sad,” says Brady, PhD, RN, from the Cizik School of Nursing with UTHealth, Houston.

Many of the people Dr. Brady and her team spoke with were diagnosed through routine or random testing. They ranged in age from 21 years to 65 and said they did not know how they had been infected and felt shocked, freaked out, scared, and in a state of disbelief.

Their conversations about being diagnosed with HIV, presented at the annual meeting of the Association of Nurses in AIDS Care in New Orleans, also described how symptoms of the disease or side effects from treatment can have a huge impact on the daily lives of those affected.

Jesse Milan Jr., president of AIDS United, an HIV advocacy organization based in Washington, D.C., says he recognizes all of these feelings from his own experience with HIV after being diagnosed more than 40 years ago.

“All of those have come up over the years,” he says. “They are all relevant and important at different times.”

For Mr. Milan, less was known about the virus at the time of his diagnosis, and he watched loved ones die. He lived to see the introduction of antiretroviral therapies and receive treatment when his partner and many of his friends did not.
 

Effective treatments

There is a marked difference between the reaction of people diagnosed with HIV years ago and those diagnosed more recently, Dr. Brady explains. Those diagnosed before much was known about the virus and before there were effective treatments were more frightened, she says, whereas people hearing the news recently are much less worried and understand that if they take their medication, they will be fine.

Still, Mr. Milan says when he talks to people diagnosed now, they seem to experience more shame and embarrassment than before. Because it is long known how to prevent HIV infection, they often worry what people will think if they disclose their status. “It makes things harder for people diagnosed today,” says Mr. Milan. “There is a different level of embarrassment tinged with, ‘Why was I so stupid?’ ”

Diagnosis can also be hard on health care professionals, says Dr. Brady. “You never want to tell anyone they’re sick with a chronic disease, especially younger people,” she adds. “You know you’re adding a burden to someone’s life.”

Symptoms and side effects of treatment also had an important impact on the people in this report, with most aspects of their lives affected, including work, relationships, mood, and daily activities.

Clinicians should be supportive and spend some time sitting with patients as they come to terms with the diagnosis and its implications. They should help them understand what to expect and talk about how – or whether – to talk about their status with family and friends. “You need to show you care about the person and that they are not alone,” Dr. Brady says.

And most of all, clinicians need to explain that patients can live a long and healthy life and go on to become whoever they want to be. “Twenty years ago, we wouldn’t have as hopeful a message as we do now,” she says.

Hope is the most important thing for doctors and nurses to communicate to their patients. “There are medications available, and it will be okay. You don’t have to die,” Mr. Milan says. “That’s the core message that everyone needs to hear, whether they were diagnosed 30 years ago or 30 minutes ago.”

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) recently issued updated recommendations on the use of vaccines to protect against COVID-19.¹ In addition, 3 new COVID-19 vaccine products have been approved for use in the United States since September. Before we discuss both of these items, it’s important to understand why we’re still talking about COVID-19 vaccines.

The impact of vaccination can’t be understated. Vaccines to protect against COVID-19 have been hugely successful in preventing mortality and morbidity from illness caused by SARS-CoV-2. It is estimated that in the first year alone, after vaccines became widely available, they saved more than 14 million lives globally.² By the end of 2022, they had prevented 18.5 million hospitalizations and 3.2 million deaths in the United States.³ However, waning levels of vaccine-induced immunity and the continuous mutation of the virus have prompted the need for booster doses of vaccine and development of new vaccines.

Enter this year’s vaccines. The new products include updated (2023-2024 formula) COVID-19 mRNA vaccines from Moderna and Pfizer-BioNTech, for use in those ages 6 months and older, and Novavax COVID-19 vaccine for use in those ages 12 years and older. All 3 provide protection against the currently circulating XBB variants, which by September 2023 accounted for > 99% of circulating SARS-CoV-2 strains in the United States.¹

Novavax is an option for those who are hesitant to use an mRNA-based vaccine, although the exact recommendations for its use are still pending. Of note, the previously approved bivalent vaccines and the previous Novavax monovalent vaccine are no longer approved for use in the United States.

Current recommendations. For those ages 5 years and older, the recommendation is for a single dose of the 2023-2024 COVID-19 vaccine regardless of previous vaccination history—except for those who were previously unvaccinated and choose Novavax. (Those individuals should receive 2 doses, 3 to 8 weeks apart.) For those ages 6 months through 4 years, the recommended number of doses varies by vaccine and previous vaccination history¹; a table can be found at www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/72/wr/mm7242e1.htm.

Those who are moderately to severely immunocompromised should receive a 3-dose series with one of the 2023-2024 COVID-19 vaccines and may receive 1 or more additional updated doses.¹ These recommendations are more nuanced, and a full description of them can be found at www.cdc.gov/vaccines/covid-19/clinical-considerations/covid-19-vaccines-us.html.

Major changes in this year’s recommendations,⁴ compared to those previously made on the use of the bivalent vaccines, include:

• Eliminating complex recommendations for 5-year-olds, who are now included in the standard recommendation
• Reducing the number of COVID-19 vaccine products in use by standardizing the dose (25 mcg) for those ages 6 months to 11 years
• Choosing to monitor epidemiology and vaccine effectiveness data to determine whether an additional dose of this year’s vaccine will be needed for those ages 65 years and older, rather than making a recommendation now.

Who’s paying? Another change is how COVID-19 vaccines are paid for. The United States is moving from a system of federal procurement and distribution to the commercial marketplace. This may lead to some disruption and confusion.

All commercial health plans, as well as Medicare and Medicaid, must cover vaccines recommend by the ACIP with no out-of-pocket cost. The Vaccines for Children program provides free vaccine for uninsured and underinsured children up to age 19 years.

However, that leaves no payer for uninsured adults. In response, the CDC has announced the establishment of the Bridge Access Program, which is a private/government partnership to provide the vaccine to this age group. Details about where an adult can obtain a free COVID-19 vaccine through this program can be found by visiting www.cdc.gov/vaccines/programs/bridge/index.html or by calling 800-CDC-INFO.

A dynamic situation. COVID-19 vaccines and associated recommendations are likely to change with time, as we learn how best to formulate them to adjust to virus mutations and determine the optimal intervals to adjust and administer these vaccines. The result may (or may not) eventually resemble the approach recommended for influenza vaccines, which is annual assessment and adjustment of the targeted antigens, when needed, and annual universal vaccination.

The Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) recently issued updated recommendations on the use of vaccines to protect against COVID-19.¹ In addition, 3 new COVID-19 vaccine products have been approved for use in the United States since September. Before we discuss both of these items, it’s important to understand why we’re still talking about COVID-19 vaccines.

The impact of vaccination can’t be understated. Vaccines to protect against COVID-19 have been hugely successful in preventing mortality and morbidity from illness caused by SARS-CoV-2. It is estimated that in the first year alone, after vaccines became widely available, they saved more than 14 million lives globally.² By the end of 2022, they had prevented 18.5 million hospitalizations and 3.2 million deaths in the United States.³ However, waning levels of vaccine-induced immunity and the continuous mutation of the virus have prompted the need for booster doses of vaccine and development of new vaccines.

Enter this year’s vaccines. The new products include updated (2023-2024 formula) COVID-19 mRNA vaccines from Moderna and Pfizer-BioNTech, for use in those ages 6 months and older, and Novavax COVID-19 vaccine for use in those ages 12 years and older. All 3 provide protection against the currently circulating XBB variants, which by September 2023 accounted for > 99% of circulating SARS-CoV-2 strains in the United States.¹

Novavax is an option for those who are hesitant to use an mRNA-based vaccine, although the exact recommendations for its use are still pending. Of note, the previously approved bivalent vaccines and the previous Novavax monovalent vaccine are no longer approved for use in the United States.

Current recommendations. For those ages 5 years and older, the recommendation is for a single dose of the 2023-2024 COVID-19 vaccine regardless of previous vaccination history—except for those who were previously unvaccinated and choose Novavax. (Those individuals should receive 2 doses, 3 to 8 weeks apart.) For those ages 6 months through 4 years, the recommended number of doses varies by vaccine and previous vaccination history¹; a table can be found at www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/72/wr/mm7242e1.htm.

Those who are moderately to severely immunocompromised should receive a 3-dose series with one of the 2023-2024 COVID-19 vaccines and may receive 1 or more additional updated doses.¹ These recommendations are more nuanced, and a full description of them can be found at www.cdc.gov/vaccines/covid-19/clinical-considerations/covid-19-vaccines-us.html.

Major changes in this year’s recommendations,⁴ compared to those previously made on the use of the bivalent vaccines, include:

• Eliminating complex recommendations for 5-year-olds, who are now included in the standard recommendation
• Reducing the number of COVID-19 vaccine products in use by standardizing the dose (25 mcg) for those ages 6 months to 11 years
• Choosing to monitor epidemiology and vaccine effectiveness data to determine whether an additional dose of this year’s vaccine will be needed for those ages 65 years and older, rather than making a recommendation now.

Who’s paying? Another change is how COVID-19 vaccines are paid for. The United States is moving from a system of federal procurement and distribution to the commercial marketplace. This may lead to some disruption and confusion.

All commercial health plans, as well as Medicare and Medicaid, must cover vaccines recommend by the ACIP with no out-of-pocket cost. The Vaccines for Children program provides free vaccine for uninsured and underinsured children up to age 19 years.

However, that leaves no payer for uninsured adults. In response, the CDC has announced the establishment of the Bridge Access Program, which is a private/government partnership to provide the vaccine to this age group. Details about where an adult can obtain a free COVID-19 vaccine through this program can be found by visiting www.cdc.gov/vaccines/programs/bridge/index.html or by calling 800-CDC-INFO.

A dynamic situation. COVID-19 vaccines and associated recommendations are likely to change with time, as we learn how best to formulate them to adjust to virus mutations and determine the optimal intervals to adjust and administer these vaccines. The result may (or may not) eventually resemble the approach recommended for influenza vaccines, which is annual assessment and adjustment of the targeted antigens, when needed, and annual universal vaccination.

The Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) recently issued updated recommendations on the use of vaccines to protect against COVID-19.¹ In addition, 3 new COVID-19 vaccine products have been approved for use in the United States since September. Before we discuss both of these items, it’s important to understand why we’re still talking about COVID-19 vaccines.

The impact of vaccination can’t be understated. Vaccines to protect against COVID-19 have been hugely successful in preventing mortality and morbidity from illness caused by SARS-CoV-2. It is estimated that in the first year alone, after vaccines became widely available, they saved more than 14 million lives globally.² By the end of 2022, they had prevented 18.5 million hospitalizations and 3.2 million deaths in the United States.³ However, waning levels of vaccine-induced immunity and the continuous mutation of the virus have prompted the need for booster doses of vaccine and development of new vaccines.

Enter this year’s vaccines. The new products include updated (2023-2024 formula) COVID-19 mRNA vaccines from Moderna and Pfizer-BioNTech, for use in those ages 6 months and older, and Novavax COVID-19 vaccine for use in those ages 12 years and older. All 3 provide protection against the currently circulating XBB variants, which by September 2023 accounted for > 99% of circulating SARS-CoV-2 strains in the United States.¹

Novavax is an option for those who are hesitant to use an mRNA-based vaccine, although the exact recommendations for its use are still pending. Of note, the previously approved bivalent vaccines and the previous Novavax monovalent vaccine are no longer approved for use in the United States.

Current recommendations. For those ages 5 years and older, the recommendation is for a single dose of the 2023-2024 COVID-19 vaccine regardless of previous vaccination history—except for those who were previously unvaccinated and choose Novavax. (Those individuals should receive 2 doses, 3 to 8 weeks apart.) For those ages 6 months through 4 years, the recommended number of doses varies by vaccine and previous vaccination history¹; a table can be found at www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/72/wr/mm7242e1.htm.

Those who are moderately to severely immunocompromised should receive a 3-dose series with one of the 2023-2024 COVID-19 vaccines and may receive 1 or more additional updated doses.¹ These recommendations are more nuanced, and a full description of them can be found at www.cdc.gov/vaccines/covid-19/clinical-considerations/covid-19-vaccines-us.html.

Major changes in this year’s recommendations,⁴ compared to those previously made on the use of the bivalent vaccines, include:

• Eliminating complex recommendations for 5-year-olds, who are now included in the standard recommendation
• Reducing the number of COVID-19 vaccine products in use by standardizing the dose (25 mcg) for those ages 6 months to 11 years
• Choosing to monitor epidemiology and vaccine effectiveness data to determine whether an additional dose of this year’s vaccine will be needed for those ages 65 years and older, rather than making a recommendation now.

Who’s paying? Another change is how COVID-19 vaccines are paid for. The United States is moving from a system of federal procurement and distribution to the commercial marketplace. This may lead to some disruption and confusion.

All commercial health plans, as well as Medicare and Medicaid, must cover vaccines recommend by the ACIP with no out-of-pocket cost. The Vaccines for Children program provides free vaccine for uninsured and underinsured children up to age 19 years.

However, that leaves no payer for uninsured adults. In response, the CDC has announced the establishment of the Bridge Access Program, which is a private/government partnership to provide the vaccine to this age group. Details about where an adult can obtain a free COVID-19 vaccine through this program can be found by visiting www.cdc.gov/vaccines/programs/bridge/index.html or by calling 800-CDC-INFO.

A dynamic situation. COVID-19 vaccines and associated recommendations are likely to change with time, as we learn how best to formulate them to adjust to virus mutations and determine the optimal intervals to adjust and administer these vaccines. The result may (or may not) eventually resemble the approach recommended for influenza vaccines, which is annual assessment and adjustment of the targeted antigens, when needed, and annual universal vaccination.

I read a few articles recently that raised my concern about a laissez faire attitude regarding treatment and prevention of infectious disease and lack of a broader understanding of why we treat our patients.
 

Strep throat

Let’s start with group A streptococcal pharyngitis – strep throat. There are at least five reasons to treat strep throat with antibiotics.

Lest we forget, there is the prevention of acute rheumatic fever! Of course, acute rheumatic fever is rare in high-income countries like the United States, but we have had outbreaks in the past and we will have outbreaks in the future. All it takes is circulation of rheumatogenic strains and susceptible hosts.

Also, antibiotic treatment may prevent acute post-streptococcal glomerulonephritis, although that benefit is somewhat controversial.

Antibiotic treatment may prevent development of another controversial, nonsuppurative streptococcal complication, namely, pediatric autoimmune neuropsychiatric disorders associated with streptococcal infections (PANDAS).

Second, group A strep causes suppurative complications such as acute otitis media, peritonsillar abscess, mastoiditis, and sepsis, among others, and antibiotic treatment reduces those risks. Group A strep can cause impetigo, cellulitis, necrotizing fasciitis (flesh-eating disease), and toxic shock syndrome; antibiotics reduce those risks.

Third, while strep throat is a self-limited infection in terms of symptoms, it has been clearly shown that antibiotics cause symptoms to resolve more quickly. I must confess that it galls me when pundits suggest that reducing symptoms of any infectious disease by a day or 2 doesn’t matter for children, when adults with even mild symptoms rush to a clinician with hopes of treatment to shorten illness by a day.

Fourth, antibiotics shorten contagion. In fact, treatment in the morning of an office visit can allow a child to return to school the next day.¹

Lastly on this topic, if a clinician had a positive strep culture or rapid test on a patient and did not treat with antibiotics, which is not the standard of care, and that patient went on to a nonsuppurative or suppurative complication, then what?

I am not advocating wholesale antibiotic treatment of all sore throats because antibiotics carry risks from use. Most sore throats are not strep throats. The first step is the examination to decide if a strep test is warranted. There are clinical scoring systems available. But the essence of the clinical criteria relies on age of child (strep is mostly seen in 5- to 15-year-olds), season (not summer), known exposure to strep, absence of rhinorrhea, absence of cough, presence of rapid onset of symptoms, usually with fever, and moderate to severe redness, often with exudates. Gratefully, in the United States, we have rapid strep tests that are covered by insurance. This is not the case even in many other high-income countries and certainly, generally, not available at all in moderate to low income countries. With a rapid test, a point-of-care microbiologic diagnosis can be made with reasonable accuracy. Antibiotic treatment should be reserved for patients with positive laboratory confirmation of Group A streptococci, either by rapid test or culture.
 

Ear infections

Next, let’s address treatment of acute otitis media – ear infections. There are at least six reasons to treat ear infections with antibiotics. Worldwide, the No. 1 cause of acquired deafness in children today is ear infections. This is rarely seen in the United States because we rarely have patients with chronic suppurative otitis media since antibiotics are typically prescribed.

Second, ear infections have suppurative complications such as mastoiditis, labyrinthitis, malignant otitis, brain abscess, sepsis, and meningitis. The World Health Organization attributes 20,000 deaths per year to complications from ear infections.

Third, ear infections can lead to eardrum rupture and subsequent chronic middle ear drainage.

Fourth, untreated otitis more often progresses to a nonsuppurative complication – a cholesteatoma.

Fifth, while earache is a self-limited illness, antibiotics shorten the acute symptoms by a day or 2 and lessen the duration of middle ear effusion after infection that can cause temporary hearing loss. Once again, as a child advocate, I would point out that pain from an ear infection is often severe and the lingering effects of a middle ear effusion are annoying to say the least.

Lastly on this topic, if a clinician makes the diagnosis of an ear infection in a patient and does not treat with antibiotics, the decision should be within the guidelines of the standard of care as described by the American Academy of Pediatrics² with decision-making based on patient age and severity of symptoms.

I am not advocating wholesale antibiotic treatment of all ear pain or presumed ear pain. With this clinical condition we currently do not have a diagnostic test, and therein lies the conundrum. Most acute otitis media occurs among children age 6-24 months old, and this leads most clinicians to overdiagnose the infection. A child in that age group is nonverbal and in the context of a viral upper respiratory illness the symptoms of acute otitis media overlap completely with those of a viral URI. Therefore, an adequate examination is necessary. Confronted with an irritable child who is uncooperative with a challenging otoscopic examination, an ear canal with wax blocking an adequate view of the tympanic membrane, and a parent in a hurry to get back to work or home, the inclination is to observe a “little bit of redness” and prescribe unnecessary antibiotics. Even though redness is not a good diagnostic indicator, whereas a full or bulging eardrum is for the diagnosis of acute otitis media, I shudder at how often I see in a medical record a description of redness of the eardrum and no comment on the fullness that occurs when an authentic infection is most likely.

I could extend this column discussing acute sinusitis and cough illnesses as they are two other conditions associated with infection where antibiotics have their important place and where antibiotics are also overused. Instead, I will end by summarizing my viewpoint that judicious antibiotic use is of high importance for prevention of antibiotic resistance at the individual patient level and the community level. However, we should not become complacent about the risks to untreated children experiencing common respiratory infections because there are many justifiable reasons to treat children as discussed here.

Dr. Pichichero is a specialist in pediatric infectious diseases, Center for Infectious Diseases and Immunology, and director of the Research Institute at Rochester (N.Y.) General Hospital. He has no conflicts of interest to disclose.

References

1. Schwartz RH et al. A reappraisal of the minimum duration of antibiotic treatment before approval of return to school for children with streptococcal pharyngitis. Pediatr Infect Dis J. 2015 Dec. doi: 10.1097/INF.0000000000000883.

2. Lieberthal AS et al. The diagnosis and management of acute otitis media. Pediatrics. 2013 Mar. doi: 10.1542/peds.2012-3488.

I read a few articles recently that raised my concern about a laissez faire attitude regarding treatment and prevention of infectious disease and lack of a broader understanding of why we treat our patients.
 

Strep throat

Let’s start with group A streptococcal pharyngitis – strep throat. There are at least five reasons to treat strep throat with antibiotics.

Lest we forget, there is the prevention of acute rheumatic fever! Of course, acute rheumatic fever is rare in high-income countries like the United States, but we have had outbreaks in the past and we will have outbreaks in the future. All it takes is circulation of rheumatogenic strains and susceptible hosts.

Also, antibiotic treatment may prevent acute post-streptococcal glomerulonephritis, although that benefit is somewhat controversial.

Antibiotic treatment may prevent development of another controversial, nonsuppurative streptococcal complication, namely, pediatric autoimmune neuropsychiatric disorders associated with streptococcal infections (PANDAS).

Second, group A strep causes suppurative complications such as acute otitis media, peritonsillar abscess, mastoiditis, and sepsis, among others, and antibiotic treatment reduces those risks. Group A strep can cause impetigo, cellulitis, necrotizing fasciitis (flesh-eating disease), and toxic shock syndrome; antibiotics reduce those risks.

Third, while strep throat is a self-limited infection in terms of symptoms, it has been clearly shown that antibiotics cause symptoms to resolve more quickly. I must confess that it galls me when pundits suggest that reducing symptoms of any infectious disease by a day or 2 doesn’t matter for children, when adults with even mild symptoms rush to a clinician with hopes of treatment to shorten illness by a day.

Fourth, antibiotics shorten contagion. In fact, treatment in the morning of an office visit can allow a child to return to school the next day.¹

Lastly on this topic, if a clinician had a positive strep culture or rapid test on a patient and did not treat with antibiotics, which is not the standard of care, and that patient went on to a nonsuppurative or suppurative complication, then what?

I am not advocating wholesale antibiotic treatment of all sore throats because antibiotics carry risks from use. Most sore throats are not strep throats. The first step is the examination to decide if a strep test is warranted. There are clinical scoring systems available. But the essence of the clinical criteria relies on age of child (strep is mostly seen in 5- to 15-year-olds), season (not summer), known exposure to strep, absence of rhinorrhea, absence of cough, presence of rapid onset of symptoms, usually with fever, and moderate to severe redness, often with exudates. Gratefully, in the United States, we have rapid strep tests that are covered by insurance. This is not the case even in many other high-income countries and certainly, generally, not available at all in moderate to low income countries. With a rapid test, a point-of-care microbiologic diagnosis can be made with reasonable accuracy. Antibiotic treatment should be reserved for patients with positive laboratory confirmation of Group A streptococci, either by rapid test or culture.
 

Ear infections

Next, let’s address treatment of acute otitis media – ear infections. There are at least six reasons to treat ear infections with antibiotics. Worldwide, the No. 1 cause of acquired deafness in children today is ear infections. This is rarely seen in the United States because we rarely have patients with chronic suppurative otitis media since antibiotics are typically prescribed.

Second, ear infections have suppurative complications such as mastoiditis, labyrinthitis, malignant otitis, brain abscess, sepsis, and meningitis. The World Health Organization attributes 20,000 deaths per year to complications from ear infections.

Third, ear infections can lead to eardrum rupture and subsequent chronic middle ear drainage.

Fourth, untreated otitis more often progresses to a nonsuppurative complication – a cholesteatoma.

Fifth, while earache is a self-limited illness, antibiotics shorten the acute symptoms by a day or 2 and lessen the duration of middle ear effusion after infection that can cause temporary hearing loss. Once again, as a child advocate, I would point out that pain from an ear infection is often severe and the lingering effects of a middle ear effusion are annoying to say the least.

Lastly on this topic, if a clinician makes the diagnosis of an ear infection in a patient and does not treat with antibiotics, the decision should be within the guidelines of the standard of care as described by the American Academy of Pediatrics² with decision-making based on patient age and severity of symptoms.

I am not advocating wholesale antibiotic treatment of all ear pain or presumed ear pain. With this clinical condition we currently do not have a diagnostic test, and therein lies the conundrum. Most acute otitis media occurs among children age 6-24 months old, and this leads most clinicians to overdiagnose the infection. A child in that age group is nonverbal and in the context of a viral upper respiratory illness the symptoms of acute otitis media overlap completely with those of a viral URI. Therefore, an adequate examination is necessary. Confronted with an irritable child who is uncooperative with a challenging otoscopic examination, an ear canal with wax blocking an adequate view of the tympanic membrane, and a parent in a hurry to get back to work or home, the inclination is to observe a “little bit of redness” and prescribe unnecessary antibiotics. Even though redness is not a good diagnostic indicator, whereas a full or bulging eardrum is for the diagnosis of acute otitis media, I shudder at how often I see in a medical record a description of redness of the eardrum and no comment on the fullness that occurs when an authentic infection is most likely.

I could extend this column discussing acute sinusitis and cough illnesses as they are two other conditions associated with infection where antibiotics have their important place and where antibiotics are also overused. Instead, I will end by summarizing my viewpoint that judicious antibiotic use is of high importance for prevention of antibiotic resistance at the individual patient level and the community level. However, we should not become complacent about the risks to untreated children experiencing common respiratory infections because there are many justifiable reasons to treat children as discussed here.

Dr. Pichichero is a specialist in pediatric infectious diseases, Center for Infectious Diseases and Immunology, and director of the Research Institute at Rochester (N.Y.) General Hospital. He has no conflicts of interest to disclose.

References

1. Schwartz RH et al. A reappraisal of the minimum duration of antibiotic treatment before approval of return to school for children with streptococcal pharyngitis. Pediatr Infect Dis J. 2015 Dec. doi: 10.1097/INF.0000000000000883.

2. Lieberthal AS et al. The diagnosis and management of acute otitis media. Pediatrics. 2013 Mar. doi: 10.1542/peds.2012-3488.

I read a few articles recently that raised my concern about a laissez faire attitude regarding treatment and prevention of infectious disease and lack of a broader understanding of why we treat our patients.
 

Strep throat

Let’s start with group A streptococcal pharyngitis – strep throat. There are at least five reasons to treat strep throat with antibiotics.

Lest we forget, there is the prevention of acute rheumatic fever! Of course, acute rheumatic fever is rare in high-income countries like the United States, but we have had outbreaks in the past and we will have outbreaks in the future. All it takes is circulation of rheumatogenic strains and susceptible hosts.

Also, antibiotic treatment may prevent acute post-streptococcal glomerulonephritis, although that benefit is somewhat controversial.

Antibiotic treatment may prevent development of another controversial, nonsuppurative streptococcal complication, namely, pediatric autoimmune neuropsychiatric disorders associated with streptococcal infections (PANDAS).

Second, group A strep causes suppurative complications such as acute otitis media, peritonsillar abscess, mastoiditis, and sepsis, among others, and antibiotic treatment reduces those risks. Group A strep can cause impetigo, cellulitis, necrotizing fasciitis (flesh-eating disease), and toxic shock syndrome; antibiotics reduce those risks.

Third, while strep throat is a self-limited infection in terms of symptoms, it has been clearly shown that antibiotics cause symptoms to resolve more quickly. I must confess that it galls me when pundits suggest that reducing symptoms of any infectious disease by a day or 2 doesn’t matter for children, when adults with even mild symptoms rush to a clinician with hopes of treatment to shorten illness by a day.

Fourth, antibiotics shorten contagion. In fact, treatment in the morning of an office visit can allow a child to return to school the next day.¹

Lastly on this topic, if a clinician had a positive strep culture or rapid test on a patient and did not treat with antibiotics, which is not the standard of care, and that patient went on to a nonsuppurative or suppurative complication, then what?

I am not advocating wholesale antibiotic treatment of all sore throats because antibiotics carry risks from use. Most sore throats are not strep throats. The first step is the examination to decide if a strep test is warranted. There are clinical scoring systems available. But the essence of the clinical criteria relies on age of child (strep is mostly seen in 5- to 15-year-olds), season (not summer), known exposure to strep, absence of rhinorrhea, absence of cough, presence of rapid onset of symptoms, usually with fever, and moderate to severe redness, often with exudates. Gratefully, in the United States, we have rapid strep tests that are covered by insurance. This is not the case even in many other high-income countries and certainly, generally, not available at all in moderate to low income countries. With a rapid test, a point-of-care microbiologic diagnosis can be made with reasonable accuracy. Antibiotic treatment should be reserved for patients with positive laboratory confirmation of Group A streptococci, either by rapid test or culture.
 

Ear infections

Next, let’s address treatment of acute otitis media – ear infections. There are at least six reasons to treat ear infections with antibiotics. Worldwide, the No. 1 cause of acquired deafness in children today is ear infections. This is rarely seen in the United States because we rarely have patients with chronic suppurative otitis media since antibiotics are typically prescribed.

Second, ear infections have suppurative complications such as mastoiditis, labyrinthitis, malignant otitis, brain abscess, sepsis, and meningitis. The World Health Organization attributes 20,000 deaths per year to complications from ear infections.

Third, ear infections can lead to eardrum rupture and subsequent chronic middle ear drainage.

Fourth, untreated otitis more often progresses to a nonsuppurative complication – a cholesteatoma.

Fifth, while earache is a self-limited illness, antibiotics shorten the acute symptoms by a day or 2 and lessen the duration of middle ear effusion after infection that can cause temporary hearing loss. Once again, as a child advocate, I would point out that pain from an ear infection is often severe and the lingering effects of a middle ear effusion are annoying to say the least.

Lastly on this topic, if a clinician makes the diagnosis of an ear infection in a patient and does not treat with antibiotics, the decision should be within the guidelines of the standard of care as described by the American Academy of Pediatrics² with decision-making based on patient age and severity of symptoms.

I am not advocating wholesale antibiotic treatment of all ear pain or presumed ear pain. With this clinical condition we currently do not have a diagnostic test, and therein lies the conundrum. Most acute otitis media occurs among children age 6-24 months old, and this leads most clinicians to overdiagnose the infection. A child in that age group is nonverbal and in the context of a viral upper respiratory illness the symptoms of acute otitis media overlap completely with those of a viral URI. Therefore, an adequate examination is necessary. Confronted with an irritable child who is uncooperative with a challenging otoscopic examination, an ear canal with wax blocking an adequate view of the tympanic membrane, and a parent in a hurry to get back to work or home, the inclination is to observe a “little bit of redness” and prescribe unnecessary antibiotics. Even though redness is not a good diagnostic indicator, whereas a full or bulging eardrum is for the diagnosis of acute otitis media, I shudder at how often I see in a medical record a description of redness of the eardrum and no comment on the fullness that occurs when an authentic infection is most likely.

I could extend this column discussing acute sinusitis and cough illnesses as they are two other conditions associated with infection where antibiotics have their important place and where antibiotics are also overused. Instead, I will end by summarizing my viewpoint that judicious antibiotic use is of high importance for prevention of antibiotic resistance at the individual patient level and the community level. However, we should not become complacent about the risks to untreated children experiencing common respiratory infections because there are many justifiable reasons to treat children as discussed here.

Dr. Pichichero is a specialist in pediatric infectious diseases, Center for Infectious Diseases and Immunology, and director of the Research Institute at Rochester (N.Y.) General Hospital. He has no conflicts of interest to disclose.

References

1. Schwartz RH et al. A reappraisal of the minimum duration of antibiotic treatment before approval of return to school for children with streptococcal pharyngitis. Pediatr Infect Dis J. 2015 Dec. doi: 10.1097/INF.0000000000000883.

2. Lieberthal AS et al. The diagnosis and management of acute otitis media. Pediatrics. 2013 Mar. doi: 10.1542/peds.2012-3488.

All infants and children perinatally exposed to the hepatitis C virus (HCV) should be tested and, if necessary, treated, according to new guidance from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

In utero–exposed infants should be tested at 2-6 months of life, much earlier than the current strategy of testing at 18 months.

HCV infection, which can lead to liver fibrosis and cirrhosis, liver failure, hepatic cancer, and transplant, will develop in 6%-7% of all perinatally exposed infants and children. Curative therapy with direct-acting antivirals can be administered starting at age 3, the CDC noted in Morbidity and Mortality Week Report (MMWR).

About 70% of children 18 months and older are not being tested with the current strategy of anti-HCV testing.

This current MMWR report supplements the 2020 CDC recommendations for adult HCV screening, which includes universal screening among pregnant persons during each pregnancy.
 

The new recommendations

• Perinatally exposed infants should receive a nucleic acid amplification test for HCV RNA at 2-6 months of age to identify those who might develop chronic HCV infection if not treated.
• Those with detectable HCV RNA should be managed in consultation with an expert in pediatric HCV.
• Infants with undetectable HCV RNA do not require further follow-up unless clinically warranted.

“Testing perinatally exposed infants beginning at age 2 months with a NAT for HCV RNA is cost-effective and allows for earlier linkage to care, appropriate evaluation, and the opportunity to provide curative, life-saving therapy,” the MMWR report said.
 

A growing problem

The CDC noted that rates of HCV infections during pregnancy are on the rise, corresponding with the ongoing opioid crisis and intravenous drug use.

Yet most perinatally exposed children are not tested for HCV infection and are not referred for hepatitis C care. Reasons might include lack of awareness of perinatal exposure by pediatric providers, lack of regular pediatric care among exposed children, and switching of health care providers before the former recommended testing age of 18 months.

The CDC’s testing recommendation is welcome news to Dawnette A. Lewis, MD, a maternal fetal medicine specialist at Northwell Health in New Hyde Park, N.Y. “As opposed to data for hep B and HIV, we have traditionally had little information and experience regarding the transmission and impact of hep C in pregnant women and their babies. We’ve been having that conversation about the lack of information for some time, and now there’s an opportunity to get evolving data on hep C and how it affects the baby, ” she said.

Northwell Health

Northwestern Medicine

Northwestern Medicine

All infants and children perinatally exposed to the hepatitis C virus (HCV) should be tested and, if necessary, treated, according to new guidance from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

In utero–exposed infants should be tested at 2-6 months of life, much earlier than the current strategy of testing at 18 months.

HCV infection, which can lead to liver fibrosis and cirrhosis, liver failure, hepatic cancer, and transplant, will develop in 6%-7% of all perinatally exposed infants and children. Curative therapy with direct-acting antivirals can be administered starting at age 3, the CDC noted in Morbidity and Mortality Week Report (MMWR).

About 70% of children 18 months and older are not being tested with the current strategy of anti-HCV testing.

This current MMWR report supplements the 2020 CDC recommendations for adult HCV screening, which includes universal screening among pregnant persons during each pregnancy.
 

The new recommendations

• Perinatally exposed infants should receive a nucleic acid amplification test for HCV RNA at 2-6 months of age to identify those who might develop chronic HCV infection if not treated.
• Those with detectable HCV RNA should be managed in consultation with an expert in pediatric HCV.
• Infants with undetectable HCV RNA do not require further follow-up unless clinically warranted.

“Testing perinatally exposed infants beginning at age 2 months with a NAT for HCV RNA is cost-effective and allows for earlier linkage to care, appropriate evaluation, and the opportunity to provide curative, life-saving therapy,” the MMWR report said.
 

A growing problem

The CDC noted that rates of HCV infections during pregnancy are on the rise, corresponding with the ongoing opioid crisis and intravenous drug use.

Yet most perinatally exposed children are not tested for HCV infection and are not referred for hepatitis C care. Reasons might include lack of awareness of perinatal exposure by pediatric providers, lack of regular pediatric care among exposed children, and switching of health care providers before the former recommended testing age of 18 months.

The CDC’s testing recommendation is welcome news to Dawnette A. Lewis, MD, a maternal fetal medicine specialist at Northwell Health in New Hyde Park, N.Y. “As opposed to data for hep B and HIV, we have traditionally had little information and experience regarding the transmission and impact of hep C in pregnant women and their babies. We’ve been having that conversation about the lack of information for some time, and now there’s an opportunity to get evolving data on hep C and how it affects the baby, ” she said.

Northwell Health

Northwestern Medicine

Northwestern Medicine

All infants and children perinatally exposed to the hepatitis C virus (HCV) should be tested and, if necessary, treated, according to new guidance from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

In utero–exposed infants should be tested at 2-6 months of life, much earlier than the current strategy of testing at 18 months.

HCV infection, which can lead to liver fibrosis and cirrhosis, liver failure, hepatic cancer, and transplant, will develop in 6%-7% of all perinatally exposed infants and children. Curative therapy with direct-acting antivirals can be administered starting at age 3, the CDC noted in Morbidity and Mortality Week Report (MMWR).

About 70% of children 18 months and older are not being tested with the current strategy of anti-HCV testing.

This current MMWR report supplements the 2020 CDC recommendations for adult HCV screening, which includes universal screening among pregnant persons during each pregnancy.
 

The new recommendations

• Perinatally exposed infants should receive a nucleic acid amplification test for HCV RNA at 2-6 months of age to identify those who might develop chronic HCV infection if not treated.
• Those with detectable HCV RNA should be managed in consultation with an expert in pediatric HCV.
• Infants with undetectable HCV RNA do not require further follow-up unless clinically warranted.

“Testing perinatally exposed infants beginning at age 2 months with a NAT for HCV RNA is cost-effective and allows for earlier linkage to care, appropriate evaluation, and the opportunity to provide curative, life-saving therapy,” the MMWR report said.
 

A growing problem

The CDC noted that rates of HCV infections during pregnancy are on the rise, corresponding with the ongoing opioid crisis and intravenous drug use.

Yet most perinatally exposed children are not tested for HCV infection and are not referred for hepatitis C care. Reasons might include lack of awareness of perinatal exposure by pediatric providers, lack of regular pediatric care among exposed children, and switching of health care providers before the former recommended testing age of 18 months.

The CDC’s testing recommendation is welcome news to Dawnette A. Lewis, MD, a maternal fetal medicine specialist at Northwell Health in New Hyde Park, N.Y. “As opposed to data for hep B and HIV, we have traditionally had little information and experience regarding the transmission and impact of hep C in pregnant women and their babies. We’ve been having that conversation about the lack of information for some time, and now there’s an opportunity to get evolving data on hep C and how it affects the baby, ” she said.

Northwell Health

Northwestern Medicine

Northwestern Medicine

A pair of new studies published about long COVID have shed more light on the sometimes-disabling condition that affects millions of people in the United States. 

Scientists worldwide have been working to understand the wide-ranging condition, from risk factors to causes to potential treatments. 

In the first study, 31 adults underwent lumbar puncture and blood draws to look for changes in their immune systems and also to look for changes in the nerve cells that could affect transmission of signals to the brain.

Among the participants, 25 people had neurocognitive symptoms of long COVID, such as memory loss or attention problems. Six participants had fully recovered from COVID, and 17 people had never had COVID. 

Those who had COVID were diagnosed between March 2020 and May 2021. Their fluid samples were drawn at least three months after their first symptoms.

The results were published in the Journal of Infectious Diseases. Study results showed that long COVID does not appear to be linked to the SARS-CoV-2 virus invading the brain or causing active brain damage.

According to a summary of the study from the University of Gothenburg (Sweden), where the researchers work, “there were no significant differences between the groups when analyzing blood and cerebrospinal fluid for immune activation or brain injury markers. The findings thus suggest that post-COVID condition is not the result of ongoing infection, immune activation, or brain damage.”

In the second study, Norwegian researchers compared the likelihood of having 17 different long COVID symptoms based on whether a person had been infected with COVID. The analysis included 53,846 people who were diagnosed with COVID between February 2020 and February 2021, as well as more than 485,000 people who were not infected. Most people had not been vaccinated against COVID-19 during the time of the study.

The results were published in the journal BMC Infectious Diseases. Study results showed that people who had COVID were more than twice as likely to experience shortness of breath or fatigue. They were also more likely to experience memory loss or headache compared to people who never had COVID. Researchers only looked at symptoms that occurred at least three months after a COVID diagnosis.

They also found that hospitalization increased the risk for experiencing long COVID symptoms of shortness of breath, fatigue, and memory loss.

The authors noted that a limitation of their study was that, often, not all symptoms reported during a visit with a general practice medical provider are recorded in Norway, which could have affected the results.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

A pair of new studies published about long COVID have shed more light on the sometimes-disabling condition that affects millions of people in the United States. 

Scientists worldwide have been working to understand the wide-ranging condition, from risk factors to causes to potential treatments. 

In the first study, 31 adults underwent lumbar puncture and blood draws to look for changes in their immune systems and also to look for changes in the nerve cells that could affect transmission of signals to the brain.

Among the participants, 25 people had neurocognitive symptoms of long COVID, such as memory loss or attention problems. Six participants had fully recovered from COVID, and 17 people had never had COVID. 

Those who had COVID were diagnosed between March 2020 and May 2021. Their fluid samples were drawn at least three months after their first symptoms.

The results were published in the Journal of Infectious Diseases. Study results showed that long COVID does not appear to be linked to the SARS-CoV-2 virus invading the brain or causing active brain damage.

According to a summary of the study from the University of Gothenburg (Sweden), where the researchers work, “there were no significant differences between the groups when analyzing blood and cerebrospinal fluid for immune activation or brain injury markers. The findings thus suggest that post-COVID condition is not the result of ongoing infection, immune activation, or brain damage.”

In the second study, Norwegian researchers compared the likelihood of having 17 different long COVID symptoms based on whether a person had been infected with COVID. The analysis included 53,846 people who were diagnosed with COVID between February 2020 and February 2021, as well as more than 485,000 people who were not infected. Most people had not been vaccinated against COVID-19 during the time of the study.

The results were published in the journal BMC Infectious Diseases. Study results showed that people who had COVID were more than twice as likely to experience shortness of breath or fatigue. They were also more likely to experience memory loss or headache compared to people who never had COVID. Researchers only looked at symptoms that occurred at least three months after a COVID diagnosis.

They also found that hospitalization increased the risk for experiencing long COVID symptoms of shortness of breath, fatigue, and memory loss.

The authors noted that a limitation of their study was that, often, not all symptoms reported during a visit with a general practice medical provider are recorded in Norway, which could have affected the results.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

A pair of new studies published about long COVID have shed more light on the sometimes-disabling condition that affects millions of people in the United States. 

Scientists worldwide have been working to understand the wide-ranging condition, from risk factors to causes to potential treatments. 

In the first study, 31 adults underwent lumbar puncture and blood draws to look for changes in their immune systems and also to look for changes in the nerve cells that could affect transmission of signals to the brain.

Among the participants, 25 people had neurocognitive symptoms of long COVID, such as memory loss or attention problems. Six participants had fully recovered from COVID, and 17 people had never had COVID. 

Those who had COVID were diagnosed between March 2020 and May 2021. Their fluid samples were drawn at least three months after their first symptoms.

The results were published in the Journal of Infectious Diseases. Study results showed that long COVID does not appear to be linked to the SARS-CoV-2 virus invading the brain or causing active brain damage.

According to a summary of the study from the University of Gothenburg (Sweden), where the researchers work, “there were no significant differences between the groups when analyzing blood and cerebrospinal fluid for immune activation or brain injury markers. The findings thus suggest that post-COVID condition is not the result of ongoing infection, immune activation, or brain damage.”

In the second study, Norwegian researchers compared the likelihood of having 17 different long COVID symptoms based on whether a person had been infected with COVID. The analysis included 53,846 people who were diagnosed with COVID between February 2020 and February 2021, as well as more than 485,000 people who were not infected. Most people had not been vaccinated against COVID-19 during the time of the study.

The results were published in the journal BMC Infectious Diseases. Study results showed that people who had COVID were more than twice as likely to experience shortness of breath or fatigue. They were also more likely to experience memory loss or headache compared to people who never had COVID. Researchers only looked at symptoms that occurred at least three months after a COVID diagnosis.

They also found that hospitalization increased the risk for experiencing long COVID symptoms of shortness of breath, fatigue, and memory loss.

The authors noted that a limitation of their study was that, often, not all symptoms reported during a visit with a general practice medical provider are recorded in Norway, which could have affected the results.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Two antibiotics, both alike in efficacy, are commonly prescribed for empirical treatment of infection in hospitalized adults.

Yet each drug – cefepime and piperacillin-tazobactam (Zosyn) – has its own baggage in terms of suspected associated toxicities: Cefepime has been implicated in neurologic dysfunction, and piperacillin-tazobactam has been associated with acute kidney injury (AKI).

The true nature of toxicities associated with each agent in clinical practice has been unclear, however – until now. As results of the randomized ACORN (Antibiotic Choice on Renal Outcomes) trial showed, piperacillin-tazobactam was not associated with a higher incidence of AKI, compared with cefepime, but cefepime was indeed associated with a higher incidence of neurologic dysfunction as measured by freedom from delirium and coma.

The findings, by Edward T. Qian, MD MSc and colleagues at Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tenn.e, were published in JAMA.
 

Questioning a common practice

In an interview, Dr. Qian said that he and his colleagues conducted the pragmatic trial to seek answers to an important issue.

“We noticed a change in practice patterns as people were afraid of using Zosyn as empiric antibody therapy because they were afraid of the risks of AKI,” he said. “And as that practice shifted with a lower quality of evidence, just from observational studies, we started using more cefepime and we started seeing more patients with this rare phenomenon called ‘cefepime neurotoxicity.’ ”

To see whether the choice of one antibiotic over the other would affect the risk for either AKI or neurologic dysfunction, the investigators enrolled adults for whom a clinician ordered antipseudomonal antibiotics with 12 hours of when they were seen in the ED or medical ICU.

The patients were randomized on a 1:1 basis to receive either cefepime or piperacillin-tazobactam.

A total of 2,511 patients treated from Nov. 10, 2021, to Oct. 7, 2022, were included in the primary analysis. A large majority of the patients (94.7%) were enrolled in the ED, and 77.2% of patients were also receiving vancomycin at the time of enrollment.
 

No added AKI risk

The investigators found that there was no significant difference between the drugs for the primary outcome of the highest stage of AKI or death within 14 days of the start of treatment.

In the cefepime arm, 85 of 1,214 patients (7.0%) had stage 3 AKI, and 92 (7.6%) died.

In the piperacillin-tazobactam arm, 97 of 1,297 patients (7.5%) had stage 3 AKI, and 78 (6%) died. As noted, the difference was not statistically significant.

In addition, there was no significant difference between the groups in the secondary endpoint of the incidence of major adverse kidney events at day 14, with 10.2% in the cefepime arm and 8.8% in the piperacillin-tazobactam arm having an event.

As noted before, however, there was a significant difference in the secondary outcome of the number of days alive and free of delirium and coma within 14 days.

Patients on cefepime had a mean 11.9 days free of delirium and coma, compared with 12.2 days for patients on piperacillin-tazobactam. This difference translated into an odds ratio of 0.79 (95% confidence interval, 0.65-0.95).

Dr. Qian said that he and his colleagues stop short of calling the neurologic dysfunction that they observed “cefepime neurotoxicity,” but added that it warrants further study.
 

Risk factors examined

The investigators plan to evaluate those patients who developed neurologic dysfunction while on the drug to see whether there were predisposing factors that might be a contraindication for cefepime in some cases.

“I think the big takeaway is that you should feel comfortable starting or using pip-tazo for your patients who are coming into the hospital and receiving empiric antibiotics for acute infection,” Dr. Qian said.

The ACORN investigators are supported by grants from the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute; National Institutes of Health; National Center for Advancing Translational Science; US Defense Department; and Vanderbilt University. Dr. Qian had no conflicts of interest to disclose.

Two antibiotics, both alike in efficacy, are commonly prescribed for empirical treatment of infection in hospitalized adults.

Yet each drug – cefepime and piperacillin-tazobactam (Zosyn) – has its own baggage in terms of suspected associated toxicities: Cefepime has been implicated in neurologic dysfunction, and piperacillin-tazobactam has been associated with acute kidney injury (AKI).

The true nature of toxicities associated with each agent in clinical practice has been unclear, however – until now. As results of the randomized ACORN (Antibiotic Choice on Renal Outcomes) trial showed, piperacillin-tazobactam was not associated with a higher incidence of AKI, compared with cefepime, but cefepime was indeed associated with a higher incidence of neurologic dysfunction as measured by freedom from delirium and coma.

The findings, by Edward T. Qian, MD MSc and colleagues at Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tenn.e, were published in JAMA.
 

Questioning a common practice

In an interview, Dr. Qian said that he and his colleagues conducted the pragmatic trial to seek answers to an important issue.

“We noticed a change in practice patterns as people were afraid of using Zosyn as empiric antibody therapy because they were afraid of the risks of AKI,” he said. “And as that practice shifted with a lower quality of evidence, just from observational studies, we started using more cefepime and we started seeing more patients with this rare phenomenon called ‘cefepime neurotoxicity.’ ”

To see whether the choice of one antibiotic over the other would affect the risk for either AKI or neurologic dysfunction, the investigators enrolled adults for whom a clinician ordered antipseudomonal antibiotics with 12 hours of when they were seen in the ED or medical ICU.

The patients were randomized on a 1:1 basis to receive either cefepime or piperacillin-tazobactam.

A total of 2,511 patients treated from Nov. 10, 2021, to Oct. 7, 2022, were included in the primary analysis. A large majority of the patients (94.7%) were enrolled in the ED, and 77.2% of patients were also receiving vancomycin at the time of enrollment.
 

No added AKI risk

The investigators found that there was no significant difference between the drugs for the primary outcome of the highest stage of AKI or death within 14 days of the start of treatment.

In the cefepime arm, 85 of 1,214 patients (7.0%) had stage 3 AKI, and 92 (7.6%) died.

In the piperacillin-tazobactam arm, 97 of 1,297 patients (7.5%) had stage 3 AKI, and 78 (6%) died. As noted, the difference was not statistically significant.

In addition, there was no significant difference between the groups in the secondary endpoint of the incidence of major adverse kidney events at day 14, with 10.2% in the cefepime arm and 8.8% in the piperacillin-tazobactam arm having an event.

As noted before, however, there was a significant difference in the secondary outcome of the number of days alive and free of delirium and coma within 14 days.

Patients on cefepime had a mean 11.9 days free of delirium and coma, compared with 12.2 days for patients on piperacillin-tazobactam. This difference translated into an odds ratio of 0.79 (95% confidence interval, 0.65-0.95).

Dr. Qian said that he and his colleagues stop short of calling the neurologic dysfunction that they observed “cefepime neurotoxicity,” but added that it warrants further study.
 

Risk factors examined

The investigators plan to evaluate those patients who developed neurologic dysfunction while on the drug to see whether there were predisposing factors that might be a contraindication for cefepime in some cases.

“I think the big takeaway is that you should feel comfortable starting or using pip-tazo for your patients who are coming into the hospital and receiving empiric antibiotics for acute infection,” Dr. Qian said.

The ACORN investigators are supported by grants from the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute; National Institutes of Health; National Center for Advancing Translational Science; US Defense Department; and Vanderbilt University. Dr. Qian had no conflicts of interest to disclose.

Two antibiotics, both alike in efficacy, are commonly prescribed for empirical treatment of infection in hospitalized adults.

Yet each drug – cefepime and piperacillin-tazobactam (Zosyn) – has its own baggage in terms of suspected associated toxicities: Cefepime has been implicated in neurologic dysfunction, and piperacillin-tazobactam has been associated with acute kidney injury (AKI).

The true nature of toxicities associated with each agent in clinical practice has been unclear, however – until now. As results of the randomized ACORN (Antibiotic Choice on Renal Outcomes) trial showed, piperacillin-tazobactam was not associated with a higher incidence of AKI, compared with cefepime, but cefepime was indeed associated with a higher incidence of neurologic dysfunction as measured by freedom from delirium and coma.

The findings, by Edward T. Qian, MD MSc and colleagues at Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tenn.e, were published in JAMA.
 

Questioning a common practice

In an interview, Dr. Qian said that he and his colleagues conducted the pragmatic trial to seek answers to an important issue.

“We noticed a change in practice patterns as people were afraid of using Zosyn as empiric antibody therapy because they were afraid of the risks of AKI,” he said. “And as that practice shifted with a lower quality of evidence, just from observational studies, we started using more cefepime and we started seeing more patients with this rare phenomenon called ‘cefepime neurotoxicity.’ ”

To see whether the choice of one antibiotic over the other would affect the risk for either AKI or neurologic dysfunction, the investigators enrolled adults for whom a clinician ordered antipseudomonal antibiotics with 12 hours of when they were seen in the ED or medical ICU.

The patients were randomized on a 1:1 basis to receive either cefepime or piperacillin-tazobactam.

A total of 2,511 patients treated from Nov. 10, 2021, to Oct. 7, 2022, were included in the primary analysis. A large majority of the patients (94.7%) were enrolled in the ED, and 77.2% of patients were also receiving vancomycin at the time of enrollment.
 

No added AKI risk

The investigators found that there was no significant difference between the drugs for the primary outcome of the highest stage of AKI or death within 14 days of the start of treatment.

In the cefepime arm, 85 of 1,214 patients (7.0%) had stage 3 AKI, and 92 (7.6%) died.

In the piperacillin-tazobactam arm, 97 of 1,297 patients (7.5%) had stage 3 AKI, and 78 (6%) died. As noted, the difference was not statistically significant.

In addition, there was no significant difference between the groups in the secondary endpoint of the incidence of major adverse kidney events at day 14, with 10.2% in the cefepime arm and 8.8% in the piperacillin-tazobactam arm having an event.

As noted before, however, there was a significant difference in the secondary outcome of the number of days alive and free of delirium and coma within 14 days.

Patients on cefepime had a mean 11.9 days free of delirium and coma, compared with 12.2 days for patients on piperacillin-tazobactam. This difference translated into an odds ratio of 0.79 (95% confidence interval, 0.65-0.95).

Dr. Qian said that he and his colleagues stop short of calling the neurologic dysfunction that they observed “cefepime neurotoxicity,” but added that it warrants further study.
 

Risk factors examined

The investigators plan to evaluate those patients who developed neurologic dysfunction while on the drug to see whether there were predisposing factors that might be a contraindication for cefepime in some cases.

“I think the big takeaway is that you should feel comfortable starting or using pip-tazo for your patients who are coming into the hospital and receiving empiric antibiotics for acute infection,” Dr. Qian said.

The ACORN investigators are supported by grants from the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute; National Institutes of Health; National Center for Advancing Translational Science; US Defense Department; and Vanderbilt University. Dr. Qian had no conflicts of interest to disclose.

Chest Infections & Disaster Response Network

Disaster Response & Global Health Section

In recent years, the importance of inpatient vaccinations against respiratory viral illnesses has become increasingly clear. As the world grapples with the ever-present threat of contagious diseases like influenza, COVID-19, Respiratory Syncytial Virus (RSV) and other respiratory viruses, the significance of vaccinating individuals during hospital stays cannot be overstated. Notably, the rates of inpatient vaccinations have significantly increased in recent years.

Numerous studies have demonstrated the success of various strategies to boost vaccine delivery to hospitalized patients. These strategies include personalized catch-up plans, electronic medical record (EMR) prompts, visual reminders, staff education and training, and allowing nonphysicians to screen and order vaccines. The implementation of nonphysician protocols has proven effective in increasing inpatient influenza vaccinations in multiple studies (Mihalek AJ, et al. Hosp Pediatr. 2021 Dec 1. doi: 10.1542/hpeds.2021-005924; Skull S, et al. J Paediatr Child Health. 1999;35[5]:472).

Optimizing the delivery of vaccines to hospitalized patients carries substantial public health benefits. This is especially vital for patients who face challenges accessing primary care and during periods of health care systems disruptions, such as those experienced during the COVID-19 pandemic.

In conclusion, inpatient vaccinations against respiratory viral illnesses are supported by a growing body of evidence. These vaccinations not only prevent disease transmission within health care facilities but also protect vulnerable patients, alleviate the burden on health care systems and with the recent approval of the RSV vaccine, we have a new tool to combat respiratory viruses effectively. As we continue to navigate the challenges posed by respiratory viruses, prioritizing inpatient vaccinations is a wise and necessary step toward a healthier, safer future for all.

Stella Ogake, MD – Section Member-at-Large

Chest Infections & Disaster Response Network

Disaster Response & Global Health Section

In recent years, the importance of inpatient vaccinations against respiratory viral illnesses has become increasingly clear. As the world grapples with the ever-present threat of contagious diseases like influenza, COVID-19, Respiratory Syncytial Virus (RSV) and other respiratory viruses, the significance of vaccinating individuals during hospital stays cannot be overstated. Notably, the rates of inpatient vaccinations have significantly increased in recent years.

Numerous studies have demonstrated the success of various strategies to boost vaccine delivery to hospitalized patients. These strategies include personalized catch-up plans, electronic medical record (EMR) prompts, visual reminders, staff education and training, and allowing nonphysicians to screen and order vaccines. The implementation of nonphysician protocols has proven effective in increasing inpatient influenza vaccinations in multiple studies (Mihalek AJ, et al. Hosp Pediatr. 2021 Dec 1. doi: 10.1542/hpeds.2021-005924; Skull S, et al. J Paediatr Child Health. 1999;35[5]:472).

Optimizing the delivery of vaccines to hospitalized patients carries substantial public health benefits. This is especially vital for patients who face challenges accessing primary care and during periods of health care systems disruptions, such as those experienced during the COVID-19 pandemic.

In conclusion, inpatient vaccinations against respiratory viral illnesses are supported by a growing body of evidence. These vaccinations not only prevent disease transmission within health care facilities but also protect vulnerable patients, alleviate the burden on health care systems and with the recent approval of the RSV vaccine, we have a new tool to combat respiratory viruses effectively. As we continue to navigate the challenges posed by respiratory viruses, prioritizing inpatient vaccinations is a wise and necessary step toward a healthier, safer future for all.

Stella Ogake, MD – Section Member-at-Large

Chest Infections & Disaster Response Network

Disaster Response & Global Health Section

In recent years, the importance of inpatient vaccinations against respiratory viral illnesses has become increasingly clear. As the world grapples with the ever-present threat of contagious diseases like influenza, COVID-19, Respiratory Syncytial Virus (RSV) and other respiratory viruses, the significance of vaccinating individuals during hospital stays cannot be overstated. Notably, the rates of inpatient vaccinations have significantly increased in recent years.

Numerous studies have demonstrated the success of various strategies to boost vaccine delivery to hospitalized patients. These strategies include personalized catch-up plans, electronic medical record (EMR) prompts, visual reminders, staff education and training, and allowing nonphysicians to screen and order vaccines. The implementation of nonphysician protocols has proven effective in increasing inpatient influenza vaccinations in multiple studies (Mihalek AJ, et al. Hosp Pediatr. 2021 Dec 1. doi: 10.1542/hpeds.2021-005924; Skull S, et al. J Paediatr Child Health. 1999;35[5]:472).

Optimizing the delivery of vaccines to hospitalized patients carries substantial public health benefits. This is especially vital for patients who face challenges accessing primary care and during periods of health care systems disruptions, such as those experienced during the COVID-19 pandemic.

In conclusion, inpatient vaccinations against respiratory viral illnesses are supported by a growing body of evidence. These vaccinations not only prevent disease transmission within health care facilities but also protect vulnerable patients, alleviate the burden on health care systems and with the recent approval of the RSV vaccine, we have a new tool to combat respiratory viruses effectively. As we continue to navigate the challenges posed by respiratory viruses, prioritizing inpatient vaccinations is a wise and necessary step toward a healthier, safer future for all.

Stella Ogake, MD – Section Member-at-Large

Chest Infections & Disaster Response Network

Chest Infections Section

November 12 marks World Pneumonia Day, and while it has long been recognized that viruses play a significant role in causing pneumonia, awareness has surged due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Furthermore, with the advent of rapid molecular diagnostics, the contribution of respiratory viral pathogens in pneumonia has become clearer (Seema J, et al. N Engl J Med. 2015 Jul 30;373[5]:415-27). Despite COVID-19 remaining a substantial threat, infection rates with other respiratory viruses are on the rise and will continue to increase during colder months. Here, we will provide an update on influenza and RSV:
 

Currently, influenza activity in the United States is low (National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases. FluView. 2023 Oct 4. https://www.cdc.gov/flu/weekly/index.htm). Vaccination coverage for US adults during the previous influenza season stood at 47% (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. FluVaxView Vaccination Dashboard. 2023 Oct 4. https://www.cdc.gov/flu/fluvaxview/dashboard/vaccination-dashboard.html). Hospitalizations were estimated to range between 300,000 and 650,000, a significant increase from the 2021-2022 season, which saw about 100,000 hospitalizations (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Preliminary In-Season Estimates of Influenza Burden. 2023 Oct 4. https://www.cdc.gov/flu/about/burden/preliminary-in-season-estimates.htm). Data from the Southern Hemisphere’s recent influenza season indicates a 52% vaccine efficacy in preventing influenza-associated hospitalizations (Fowlkes AL, et al. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2023 Sep 15;72[37]:1010-5). Influenza hospitalization rates are likely returning to higher pre-COVID-19 levels.

Respiratory Syncytial Virus (RSV) is a seasonal pathogen causing substantial morbidity and mortality. This year, two new vaccines have become available to prevent RSV-associated lower respiratory tract diseases, boasting a vaccine effectiveness of over 80% for the first and over 70% for the second season post-administration (Melgar M, et al. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2023 Jul 21;72[29]:793-801). The CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices recommends a single dose for adults over 60, and one vaccine is FDA-approved for pregnant individuals (32-36 weeks gestation) to provide passive infant immunity.

In summary, both the current influenza vaccine and the new RSV vaccines demonstrate effectiveness and are strongly recommended, alongside an updated COVID-19 vaccine.

John Huston, MD

Jamie Felzer, MD, MPH – Section Fellow-in-Training

Charles Dela Cruz, MD – Section Member-at-Large

Sebastian Kurz, MD, FCCP – Network Member-at-Large

Chest Infections & Disaster Response Network

Chest Infections Section

November 12 marks World Pneumonia Day, and while it has long been recognized that viruses play a significant role in causing pneumonia, awareness has surged due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Furthermore, with the advent of rapid molecular diagnostics, the contribution of respiratory viral pathogens in pneumonia has become clearer (Seema J, et al. N Engl J Med. 2015 Jul 30;373[5]:415-27). Despite COVID-19 remaining a substantial threat, infection rates with other respiratory viruses are on the rise and will continue to increase during colder months. Here, we will provide an update on influenza and RSV:
 

Currently, influenza activity in the United States is low (National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases. FluView. 2023 Oct 4. https://www.cdc.gov/flu/weekly/index.htm). Vaccination coverage for US adults during the previous influenza season stood at 47% (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. FluVaxView Vaccination Dashboard. 2023 Oct 4. https://www.cdc.gov/flu/fluvaxview/dashboard/vaccination-dashboard.html). Hospitalizations were estimated to range between 300,000 and 650,000, a significant increase from the 2021-2022 season, which saw about 100,000 hospitalizations (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Preliminary In-Season Estimates of Influenza Burden. 2023 Oct 4. https://www.cdc.gov/flu/about/burden/preliminary-in-season-estimates.htm). Data from the Southern Hemisphere’s recent influenza season indicates a 52% vaccine efficacy in preventing influenza-associated hospitalizations (Fowlkes AL, et al. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2023 Sep 15;72[37]:1010-5). Influenza hospitalization rates are likely returning to higher pre-COVID-19 levels.

Respiratory Syncytial Virus (RSV) is a seasonal pathogen causing substantial morbidity and mortality. This year, two new vaccines have become available to prevent RSV-associated lower respiratory tract diseases, boasting a vaccine effectiveness of over 80% for the first and over 70% for the second season post-administration (Melgar M, et al. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2023 Jul 21;72[29]:793-801). The CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices recommends a single dose for adults over 60, and one vaccine is FDA-approved for pregnant individuals (32-36 weeks gestation) to provide passive infant immunity.

In summary, both the current influenza vaccine and the new RSV vaccines demonstrate effectiveness and are strongly recommended, alongside an updated COVID-19 vaccine.

John Huston, MD

Jamie Felzer, MD, MPH – Section Fellow-in-Training

Charles Dela Cruz, MD – Section Member-at-Large

Sebastian Kurz, MD, FCCP – Network Member-at-Large

Chest Infections & Disaster Response Network

Chest Infections Section

November 12 marks World Pneumonia Day, and while it has long been recognized that viruses play a significant role in causing pneumonia, awareness has surged due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Furthermore, with the advent of rapid molecular diagnostics, the contribution of respiratory viral pathogens in pneumonia has become clearer (Seema J, et al. N Engl J Med. 2015 Jul 30;373[5]:415-27). Despite COVID-19 remaining a substantial threat, infection rates with other respiratory viruses are on the rise and will continue to increase during colder months. Here, we will provide an update on influenza and RSV:
 

Currently, influenza activity in the United States is low (National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases. FluView. 2023 Oct 4. https://www.cdc.gov/flu/weekly/index.htm). Vaccination coverage for US adults during the previous influenza season stood at 47% (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. FluVaxView Vaccination Dashboard. 2023 Oct 4. https://www.cdc.gov/flu/fluvaxview/dashboard/vaccination-dashboard.html). Hospitalizations were estimated to range between 300,000 and 650,000, a significant increase from the 2021-2022 season, which saw about 100,000 hospitalizations (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Preliminary In-Season Estimates of Influenza Burden. 2023 Oct 4. https://www.cdc.gov/flu/about/burden/preliminary-in-season-estimates.htm). Data from the Southern Hemisphere’s recent influenza season indicates a 52% vaccine efficacy in preventing influenza-associated hospitalizations (Fowlkes AL, et al. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2023 Sep 15;72[37]:1010-5). Influenza hospitalization rates are likely returning to higher pre-COVID-19 levels.

Respiratory Syncytial Virus (RSV) is a seasonal pathogen causing substantial morbidity and mortality. This year, two new vaccines have become available to prevent RSV-associated lower respiratory tract diseases, boasting a vaccine effectiveness of over 80% for the first and over 70% for the second season post-administration (Melgar M, et al. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2023 Jul 21;72[29]:793-801). The CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices recommends a single dose for adults over 60, and one vaccine is FDA-approved for pregnant individuals (32-36 weeks gestation) to provide passive infant immunity.

In summary, both the current influenza vaccine and the new RSV vaccines demonstrate effectiveness and are strongly recommended, alongside an updated COVID-19 vaccine.

John Huston, MD

Jamie Felzer, MD, MPH – Section Fellow-in-Training

Charles Dela Cruz, MD – Section Member-at-Large

Sebastian Kurz, MD, FCCP – Network Member-at-Large

TOPLINE: 

A new study shows that piperacillin-tazobactam and cefepime are equally safe for acute kidney injury (AKI) in acute infection, with cefepime linked to more neurological issues.

METHODOLOGY:

The coadministration of piperacillin-tazobactam and vancomycin may raise the risk for AKI, according to a warning from the Food and Drug Administration.

The ACORN trial included 2,511 adults presenting to emergency department or intensive care unit with suspected infection.

Within 12 hours of presentation, these individuals were prescribed either cefepime (n = 1,214) or piperacillin-tazobactam (n = 1,297).

The primary outcome was the risk for the highest stage of AKI or death within 14 days of randomization.
 

TAKEAWAY:

The highest stage of AKI or death within 14 days did not differ significantly between the cefepime and piperacillin-tazobactam groups (odds ratio, 0.95; P = .56).

The incidence of major adverse kidney events by day 14 was not significantly different between the two groups (absolute risk difference, 1.4%; 95% confidence interval, −1.0% to 3.8%).

Patients in the cefepime versus piperacillin-tazobactam group had fewer days alive and free of delirium and coma within 14 days (OR, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.65-0.95).
 

IN PRACTICE:

In an accompanying editorial, Steven Y. C. Tong, department of infectious diseases, University of Melbourne, and colleagues wrote: “Because institutions must make decisions about which antibiotics to position on medical wards for rapid administration in patients meeting sepsis criteria, these data should offer solace that if the choice is made to use piperacillin-tazobactam, there is not an increased risk of AKI.”

SOURCE:

The study was led by Edward T. Qian, MD, of Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tenn. It was published online in JAMA with an accompanying editorial.

LIMITATIONS:

The study was conducted at a single academic center, which may limit the generalizability of findings.

Both patients and clinicians were not blinded to group assignment, which may have influenced clinical assessments like Richmond Agitation-Sedation Scale and CAM-ICU or the frequency of laboratory measurements like creatinine.
 

DISCLOSURES:

The project was supported by the Vanderbilt Institute for Clinical and Translational Research and several other sources, including grants from the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences. Some authors declared receiving travel grant, personal fees, honoraria, and unrelated research support from various sources.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE: 

A new study shows that piperacillin-tazobactam and cefepime are equally safe for acute kidney injury (AKI) in acute infection, with cefepime linked to more neurological issues.

METHODOLOGY:

The coadministration of piperacillin-tazobactam and vancomycin may raise the risk for AKI, according to a warning from the Food and Drug Administration.

The ACORN trial included 2,511 adults presenting to emergency department or intensive care unit with suspected infection.

Within 12 hours of presentation, these individuals were prescribed either cefepime (n = 1,214) or piperacillin-tazobactam (n = 1,297).

The primary outcome was the risk for the highest stage of AKI or death within 14 days of randomization.
 

TAKEAWAY:

The highest stage of AKI or death within 14 days did not differ significantly between the cefepime and piperacillin-tazobactam groups (odds ratio, 0.95; P = .56).

The incidence of major adverse kidney events by day 14 was not significantly different between the two groups (absolute risk difference, 1.4%; 95% confidence interval, −1.0% to 3.8%).

Patients in the cefepime versus piperacillin-tazobactam group had fewer days alive and free of delirium and coma within 14 days (OR, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.65-0.95).
 

IN PRACTICE:

In an accompanying editorial, Steven Y. C. Tong, department of infectious diseases, University of Melbourne, and colleagues wrote: “Because institutions must make decisions about which antibiotics to position on medical wards for rapid administration in patients meeting sepsis criteria, these data should offer solace that if the choice is made to use piperacillin-tazobactam, there is not an increased risk of AKI.”

SOURCE:

The study was led by Edward T. Qian, MD, of Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tenn. It was published online in JAMA with an accompanying editorial.

LIMITATIONS:

The study was conducted at a single academic center, which may limit the generalizability of findings.

Both patients and clinicians were not blinded to group assignment, which may have influenced clinical assessments like Richmond Agitation-Sedation Scale and CAM-ICU or the frequency of laboratory measurements like creatinine.
 

DISCLOSURES:

The project was supported by the Vanderbilt Institute for Clinical and Translational Research and several other sources, including grants from the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences. Some authors declared receiving travel grant, personal fees, honoraria, and unrelated research support from various sources.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE: 

A new study shows that piperacillin-tazobactam and cefepime are equally safe for acute kidney injury (AKI) in acute infection, with cefepime linked to more neurological issues.

METHODOLOGY:

The coadministration of piperacillin-tazobactam and vancomycin may raise the risk for AKI, according to a warning from the Food and Drug Administration.

The ACORN trial included 2,511 adults presenting to emergency department or intensive care unit with suspected infection.

Within 12 hours of presentation, these individuals were prescribed either cefepime (n = 1,214) or piperacillin-tazobactam (n = 1,297).

The primary outcome was the risk for the highest stage of AKI or death within 14 days of randomization.
 

TAKEAWAY:

The highest stage of AKI or death within 14 days did not differ significantly between the cefepime and piperacillin-tazobactam groups (odds ratio, 0.95; P = .56).

The incidence of major adverse kidney events by day 14 was not significantly different between the two groups (absolute risk difference, 1.4%; 95% confidence interval, −1.0% to 3.8%).

Patients in the cefepime versus piperacillin-tazobactam group had fewer days alive and free of delirium and coma within 14 days (OR, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.65-0.95).
 

IN PRACTICE:

In an accompanying editorial, Steven Y. C. Tong, department of infectious diseases, University of Melbourne, and colleagues wrote: “Because institutions must make decisions about which antibiotics to position on medical wards for rapid administration in patients meeting sepsis criteria, these data should offer solace that if the choice is made to use piperacillin-tazobactam, there is not an increased risk of AKI.”

SOURCE:

The study was led by Edward T. Qian, MD, of Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tenn. It was published online in JAMA with an accompanying editorial.

LIMITATIONS:

The study was conducted at a single academic center, which may limit the generalizability of findings.

Both patients and clinicians were not blinded to group assignment, which may have influenced clinical assessments like Richmond Agitation-Sedation Scale and CAM-ICU or the frequency of laboratory measurements like creatinine.
 

DISCLOSURES:

The project was supported by the Vanderbilt Institute for Clinical and Translational Research and several other sources, including grants from the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences. Some authors declared receiving travel grant, personal fees, honoraria, and unrelated research support from various sources.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.