User login
Guideline-concordant treatment still unlikely in nonchildren’s hospitals for pediatric CAP
according to new research.
“This gap is concerning because approximately 70% of children hospitalized with pneumonia receive care in nonchildren’s hospitals,” wrote Alison C. Tribble, MD, of C. S. Mott Children’s Hospital, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, and her associates. The report is in JAMA Pediatrics.
Data were collected from the Pediatric Health Information System (children’s hospitals) and Premier Perspectives (all hospitals) databases and included a total of 120,238 children aged 1-17 years diagnosed with CAP between Jan. 1, 2009, and Sept. 30, 2015. Before the publication of the new guideline in October 2011, the probability of receiving what would become guideline-concordant antibiotics was 0.25 in children’s hospitals and 0.06 in nonchildren’s hospitals.
By the end of the study period, the probability of receiving guideline-concordant antibiotics for pediatric CAP was 0.61 in children’s hospitals and 0.27 in nonchildren’s hospitals. Without the interventions, the probabilities would have been 0.31 and 0.08, respectively. The rate of growth over the 4-year postintervention period was similar in both children’s and nonchildren’s hospitals.
“Studies in children’s hospitals have suggested that local implementation efforts may be important in facilitating guideline uptake. Nonchildren’s hospitals likely have fewer resources to lead pediatric-specific efforts, and care may be influenced by adult CAP guidelines,” the authors noted.
No conflicts of interest were reported.
SOURCE: Tribble AC et al. JAMA Pediatr. 2018 Dec 10. doi: 10.1001/jamapediatrics.2018.4270.
according to new research.
“This gap is concerning because approximately 70% of children hospitalized with pneumonia receive care in nonchildren’s hospitals,” wrote Alison C. Tribble, MD, of C. S. Mott Children’s Hospital, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, and her associates. The report is in JAMA Pediatrics.
Data were collected from the Pediatric Health Information System (children’s hospitals) and Premier Perspectives (all hospitals) databases and included a total of 120,238 children aged 1-17 years diagnosed with CAP between Jan. 1, 2009, and Sept. 30, 2015. Before the publication of the new guideline in October 2011, the probability of receiving what would become guideline-concordant antibiotics was 0.25 in children’s hospitals and 0.06 in nonchildren’s hospitals.
By the end of the study period, the probability of receiving guideline-concordant antibiotics for pediatric CAP was 0.61 in children’s hospitals and 0.27 in nonchildren’s hospitals. Without the interventions, the probabilities would have been 0.31 and 0.08, respectively. The rate of growth over the 4-year postintervention period was similar in both children’s and nonchildren’s hospitals.
“Studies in children’s hospitals have suggested that local implementation efforts may be important in facilitating guideline uptake. Nonchildren’s hospitals likely have fewer resources to lead pediatric-specific efforts, and care may be influenced by adult CAP guidelines,” the authors noted.
No conflicts of interest were reported.
SOURCE: Tribble AC et al. JAMA Pediatr. 2018 Dec 10. doi: 10.1001/jamapediatrics.2018.4270.
according to new research.
“This gap is concerning because approximately 70% of children hospitalized with pneumonia receive care in nonchildren’s hospitals,” wrote Alison C. Tribble, MD, of C. S. Mott Children’s Hospital, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, and her associates. The report is in JAMA Pediatrics.
Data were collected from the Pediatric Health Information System (children’s hospitals) and Premier Perspectives (all hospitals) databases and included a total of 120,238 children aged 1-17 years diagnosed with CAP between Jan. 1, 2009, and Sept. 30, 2015. Before the publication of the new guideline in October 2011, the probability of receiving what would become guideline-concordant antibiotics was 0.25 in children’s hospitals and 0.06 in nonchildren’s hospitals.
By the end of the study period, the probability of receiving guideline-concordant antibiotics for pediatric CAP was 0.61 in children’s hospitals and 0.27 in nonchildren’s hospitals. Without the interventions, the probabilities would have been 0.31 and 0.08, respectively. The rate of growth over the 4-year postintervention period was similar in both children’s and nonchildren’s hospitals.
“Studies in children’s hospitals have suggested that local implementation efforts may be important in facilitating guideline uptake. Nonchildren’s hospitals likely have fewer resources to lead pediatric-specific efforts, and care may be influenced by adult CAP guidelines,” the authors noted.
No conflicts of interest were reported.
SOURCE: Tribble AC et al. JAMA Pediatr. 2018 Dec 10. doi: 10.1001/jamapediatrics.2018.4270.
FROM JAMA PEDIATRICS
Pregnant women commonly refuse the influenza vaccine
Pregnant women commonly refuse vaccines, and refusal of influenza vaccine is more common than refusal of Tdap vaccine, according to a nationally representative survey of obstetrician/gynecologists.
“It appears vaccine refusal among pregnant women may be more common than parental refusal of childhood vaccines,” Sean T. O’Leary, MD, MPH, director of the Colorado Children’s Outcomes Network at the University of Colorado in Aurora, and his coauthors wrote in Obstetrics & Gynecology.
The survey was sent to 477 ob.gyns. via both email and mail between March and June 2016. The response rate was 69%, and almost all respondents reported recommending both influenza (97%) and Tdap (95%) vaccines to pregnant women.
However, respondents also reported that refusal of both vaccines was common, with more refusals of influenza vaccine than Tdap vaccine. Of ob.gyns. who responded, 62% reported that 10% or greater of their pregnant patients refused the influenza vaccine, compared with 32% reporting this for Tdap vaccine (P greater than .001; x2, less than 10% vs. 10% or greater). Of those refusing the vaccine, 48% believed influenza vaccine would make them sick; 38% felt they were unlikely to get a vaccine-preventable disease; and 32% had general worries about vaccines overall. In addition, the only strategy perceived as “very effective” in convincing a vaccine refuser to choose otherwise was “explaining that not getting the vaccine puts the fetus or newborn at risk.”
The authors shared potential limitations of their study, including the fact that they examined reported practices and perceptions, not observed practices, along with the potential that the attitudes and practices of respondents may differ from those of nonrespondents. However, they noted that this is unlikely given prior work and that next steps should consider responses to refusal while also sympathizing with the patients’ concerns. “Future work should focus on testing evidence-based strategies for addressing vaccine refusal in the obstetric setting and understanding how the unique concerns of pregnant women influence the effectiveness of such strategies,” they wrote.
The study was funded by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. No conflicts of interest were reported.
SOURCE: O’Leary ST et al. Obstet Gynecol. 2018 Dec. doi: 10.1097/AOG.0000000000003005.
Pregnant women make up 1% of the population but accounted for 5% of all influenza deaths during the 2009 H1N1 pandemic, which makes the common vaccine refusals reported by the nation’s ob.gyns. all the more serious, according to Sonja A. Rasmussen, MD, MS, of the University of Florida in Gainesville and Denise J. Jamieson, MD, MPH, of Emory University in Atlanta.
After the 2009 pandemic, vaccination coverage for pregnant woman during flu season leapt from less than 30% to 54%, according to data from a 2016-2017 Internet panel survey. This was in large part because of the committed work of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, who emphasized the importance of the influenza vaccine. But coverage rates have stagnated since then, and these two coauthors wrote that “the 2017-2018 severe influenza season was a stern reminder that influenza should not be underestimated.”
These last 2 years saw the highest-documented rate of hospitalizations for influenza since 2005-2006, but given that there’s been very little specific information available on hospitalizations of pregnant women, Dr. Rasmussen and Dr. Jamieson fear the onset of “complacency among health care providers, pregnant women, and the general public” when it comes to the effects of influenza.
They insisted that, as 2009 drifts even further into memory, “obstetric providers should not become complacent regarding influenza.” Strategies to improve coverage are necessary to break that 50% barrier, and “pregnant women and their infants deserve our best efforts to protect them from influenza.”
These comments are adapted from an accompanying editorial (Obstet Gynecol. 2018 Dec. doi: 10.1097/AOG.0000000000003040). No conflicts of interest were reported.
Pregnant women make up 1% of the population but accounted for 5% of all influenza deaths during the 2009 H1N1 pandemic, which makes the common vaccine refusals reported by the nation’s ob.gyns. all the more serious, according to Sonja A. Rasmussen, MD, MS, of the University of Florida in Gainesville and Denise J. Jamieson, MD, MPH, of Emory University in Atlanta.
After the 2009 pandemic, vaccination coverage for pregnant woman during flu season leapt from less than 30% to 54%, according to data from a 2016-2017 Internet panel survey. This was in large part because of the committed work of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, who emphasized the importance of the influenza vaccine. But coverage rates have stagnated since then, and these two coauthors wrote that “the 2017-2018 severe influenza season was a stern reminder that influenza should not be underestimated.”
These last 2 years saw the highest-documented rate of hospitalizations for influenza since 2005-2006, but given that there’s been very little specific information available on hospitalizations of pregnant women, Dr. Rasmussen and Dr. Jamieson fear the onset of “complacency among health care providers, pregnant women, and the general public” when it comes to the effects of influenza.
They insisted that, as 2009 drifts even further into memory, “obstetric providers should not become complacent regarding influenza.” Strategies to improve coverage are necessary to break that 50% barrier, and “pregnant women and their infants deserve our best efforts to protect them from influenza.”
These comments are adapted from an accompanying editorial (Obstet Gynecol. 2018 Dec. doi: 10.1097/AOG.0000000000003040). No conflicts of interest were reported.
Pregnant women make up 1% of the population but accounted for 5% of all influenza deaths during the 2009 H1N1 pandemic, which makes the common vaccine refusals reported by the nation’s ob.gyns. all the more serious, according to Sonja A. Rasmussen, MD, MS, of the University of Florida in Gainesville and Denise J. Jamieson, MD, MPH, of Emory University in Atlanta.
After the 2009 pandemic, vaccination coverage for pregnant woman during flu season leapt from less than 30% to 54%, according to data from a 2016-2017 Internet panel survey. This was in large part because of the committed work of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, who emphasized the importance of the influenza vaccine. But coverage rates have stagnated since then, and these two coauthors wrote that “the 2017-2018 severe influenza season was a stern reminder that influenza should not be underestimated.”
These last 2 years saw the highest-documented rate of hospitalizations for influenza since 2005-2006, but given that there’s been very little specific information available on hospitalizations of pregnant women, Dr. Rasmussen and Dr. Jamieson fear the onset of “complacency among health care providers, pregnant women, and the general public” when it comes to the effects of influenza.
They insisted that, as 2009 drifts even further into memory, “obstetric providers should not become complacent regarding influenza.” Strategies to improve coverage are necessary to break that 50% barrier, and “pregnant women and their infants deserve our best efforts to protect them from influenza.”
These comments are adapted from an accompanying editorial (Obstet Gynecol. 2018 Dec. doi: 10.1097/AOG.0000000000003040). No conflicts of interest were reported.
Pregnant women commonly refuse vaccines, and refusal of influenza vaccine is more common than refusal of Tdap vaccine, according to a nationally representative survey of obstetrician/gynecologists.
“It appears vaccine refusal among pregnant women may be more common than parental refusal of childhood vaccines,” Sean T. O’Leary, MD, MPH, director of the Colorado Children’s Outcomes Network at the University of Colorado in Aurora, and his coauthors wrote in Obstetrics & Gynecology.
The survey was sent to 477 ob.gyns. via both email and mail between March and June 2016. The response rate was 69%, and almost all respondents reported recommending both influenza (97%) and Tdap (95%) vaccines to pregnant women.
However, respondents also reported that refusal of both vaccines was common, with more refusals of influenza vaccine than Tdap vaccine. Of ob.gyns. who responded, 62% reported that 10% or greater of their pregnant patients refused the influenza vaccine, compared with 32% reporting this for Tdap vaccine (P greater than .001; x2, less than 10% vs. 10% or greater). Of those refusing the vaccine, 48% believed influenza vaccine would make them sick; 38% felt they were unlikely to get a vaccine-preventable disease; and 32% had general worries about vaccines overall. In addition, the only strategy perceived as “very effective” in convincing a vaccine refuser to choose otherwise was “explaining that not getting the vaccine puts the fetus or newborn at risk.”
The authors shared potential limitations of their study, including the fact that they examined reported practices and perceptions, not observed practices, along with the potential that the attitudes and practices of respondents may differ from those of nonrespondents. However, they noted that this is unlikely given prior work and that next steps should consider responses to refusal while also sympathizing with the patients’ concerns. “Future work should focus on testing evidence-based strategies for addressing vaccine refusal in the obstetric setting and understanding how the unique concerns of pregnant women influence the effectiveness of such strategies,” they wrote.
The study was funded by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. No conflicts of interest were reported.
SOURCE: O’Leary ST et al. Obstet Gynecol. 2018 Dec. doi: 10.1097/AOG.0000000000003005.
Pregnant women commonly refuse vaccines, and refusal of influenza vaccine is more common than refusal of Tdap vaccine, according to a nationally representative survey of obstetrician/gynecologists.
“It appears vaccine refusal among pregnant women may be more common than parental refusal of childhood vaccines,” Sean T. O’Leary, MD, MPH, director of the Colorado Children’s Outcomes Network at the University of Colorado in Aurora, and his coauthors wrote in Obstetrics & Gynecology.
The survey was sent to 477 ob.gyns. via both email and mail between March and June 2016. The response rate was 69%, and almost all respondents reported recommending both influenza (97%) and Tdap (95%) vaccines to pregnant women.
However, respondents also reported that refusal of both vaccines was common, with more refusals of influenza vaccine than Tdap vaccine. Of ob.gyns. who responded, 62% reported that 10% or greater of their pregnant patients refused the influenza vaccine, compared with 32% reporting this for Tdap vaccine (P greater than .001; x2, less than 10% vs. 10% or greater). Of those refusing the vaccine, 48% believed influenza vaccine would make them sick; 38% felt they were unlikely to get a vaccine-preventable disease; and 32% had general worries about vaccines overall. In addition, the only strategy perceived as “very effective” in convincing a vaccine refuser to choose otherwise was “explaining that not getting the vaccine puts the fetus or newborn at risk.”
The authors shared potential limitations of their study, including the fact that they examined reported practices and perceptions, not observed practices, along with the potential that the attitudes and practices of respondents may differ from those of nonrespondents. However, they noted that this is unlikely given prior work and that next steps should consider responses to refusal while also sympathizing with the patients’ concerns. “Future work should focus on testing evidence-based strategies for addressing vaccine refusal in the obstetric setting and understanding how the unique concerns of pregnant women influence the effectiveness of such strategies,” they wrote.
The study was funded by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. No conflicts of interest were reported.
SOURCE: O’Leary ST et al. Obstet Gynecol. 2018 Dec. doi: 10.1097/AOG.0000000000003005.
FROM OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY
Key clinical point: Although almost all ob.gyns. recommend the influenza and Tdap vaccines for pregnant women, both commonly are refused.
Major finding: A total of 62% of ob.gyns. reported that 10% or greater of their pregnant patients refused the influenza vaccine; 32% reported this for Tdap vaccine.
Study details: An email and mail survey sent to a national network of ob.gyns. between March and June 2016.
Disclosures: The study was funded by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. No conflicts of interest were reported.
Source: O’Leary ST et al. Obstet Gynecol. 2018 Dec. doi: 10.1097/AOG.0000000000003005.
Risk-based testing missed 35% of HCV-positive prison inmates
Routine testing for hepatitis C virus at inmate entry should be considered by U.S. state prisons, according to Sabrina A. Assoumou, MD, of the Boston Medical Center and her colleagues.
The researchers performed a retrospective analysis of individuals entering the Washington state prison system, which routinely offers hepatitis C virus (HCV) testing, in order to compare routine opt-out testing with current risk-based and one-time testing for individuals born between 1945 and 1965. Additionally, liver fibrosis stage was characterized in blood samples from HCV-positive individuals, the investigators wrote in the American Journal of Preventative Medicine.
Between 2012 and 2016, 24,567 (83%) individuals were tested for HCV antibody, and of these, 4,921 (20%) tested positive. A total of 2,403 (49%) of those testing positive had subsequent hepatitis HCV RNA testing, with 1,727 (72%) of these showing chronic infection.
As expected, Dr. Assoumou and her colleagues found that reactive antibodies was more prevalent in individuals born between 1945 and 1965, compared with other years (44% vs. 17%). However, in actual case numbers, most (72%) were outside of this age bracket. Overall, they calculated that up to 35% of positive HCV tests would be missed using testing targeted by birth cohort and risk behavior alone. Among the chronically infected individuals, 23% had showed at least moderate liver fibrosis.
“Routine opt-out testing identified a substantial number of HCV cases that would have been missed by targeted testing. Almost one-quarter of individuals with chronic HCV had significant liver fibrosis and thus a more urgent need for treatment to prevent complications,” Dr Assoumou and her colleagues concluded.
The researchers reported that they had no conflicts of interest.
SOURCE: Assoumou SA et al, Am J Prev Med. 2019;56:8-16.
Routine testing for hepatitis C virus at inmate entry should be considered by U.S. state prisons, according to Sabrina A. Assoumou, MD, of the Boston Medical Center and her colleagues.
The researchers performed a retrospective analysis of individuals entering the Washington state prison system, which routinely offers hepatitis C virus (HCV) testing, in order to compare routine opt-out testing with current risk-based and one-time testing for individuals born between 1945 and 1965. Additionally, liver fibrosis stage was characterized in blood samples from HCV-positive individuals, the investigators wrote in the American Journal of Preventative Medicine.
Between 2012 and 2016, 24,567 (83%) individuals were tested for HCV antibody, and of these, 4,921 (20%) tested positive. A total of 2,403 (49%) of those testing positive had subsequent hepatitis HCV RNA testing, with 1,727 (72%) of these showing chronic infection.
As expected, Dr. Assoumou and her colleagues found that reactive antibodies was more prevalent in individuals born between 1945 and 1965, compared with other years (44% vs. 17%). However, in actual case numbers, most (72%) were outside of this age bracket. Overall, they calculated that up to 35% of positive HCV tests would be missed using testing targeted by birth cohort and risk behavior alone. Among the chronically infected individuals, 23% had showed at least moderate liver fibrosis.
“Routine opt-out testing identified a substantial number of HCV cases that would have been missed by targeted testing. Almost one-quarter of individuals with chronic HCV had significant liver fibrosis and thus a more urgent need for treatment to prevent complications,” Dr Assoumou and her colleagues concluded.
The researchers reported that they had no conflicts of interest.
SOURCE: Assoumou SA et al, Am J Prev Med. 2019;56:8-16.
Routine testing for hepatitis C virus at inmate entry should be considered by U.S. state prisons, according to Sabrina A. Assoumou, MD, of the Boston Medical Center and her colleagues.
The researchers performed a retrospective analysis of individuals entering the Washington state prison system, which routinely offers hepatitis C virus (HCV) testing, in order to compare routine opt-out testing with current risk-based and one-time testing for individuals born between 1945 and 1965. Additionally, liver fibrosis stage was characterized in blood samples from HCV-positive individuals, the investigators wrote in the American Journal of Preventative Medicine.
Between 2012 and 2016, 24,567 (83%) individuals were tested for HCV antibody, and of these, 4,921 (20%) tested positive. A total of 2,403 (49%) of those testing positive had subsequent hepatitis HCV RNA testing, with 1,727 (72%) of these showing chronic infection.
As expected, Dr. Assoumou and her colleagues found that reactive antibodies was more prevalent in individuals born between 1945 and 1965, compared with other years (44% vs. 17%). However, in actual case numbers, most (72%) were outside of this age bracket. Overall, they calculated that up to 35% of positive HCV tests would be missed using testing targeted by birth cohort and risk behavior alone. Among the chronically infected individuals, 23% had showed at least moderate liver fibrosis.
“Routine opt-out testing identified a substantial number of HCV cases that would have been missed by targeted testing. Almost one-quarter of individuals with chronic HCV had significant liver fibrosis and thus a more urgent need for treatment to prevent complications,” Dr Assoumou and her colleagues concluded.
The researchers reported that they had no conflicts of interest.
SOURCE: Assoumou SA et al, Am J Prev Med. 2019;56:8-16.
FROM THE AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PREVENTIVE MEDICINE
Young opioid users in NYC savvy about HCV
Assessing patient knowledge about hepatitis C virus (HCV) transmission knowledge is difficult given the lack of psychometrically tested measures available, according to researchers who developed and validated an HCV injection–risk knowledge scale.
The 5-item, validated HCV Injection-Risk Knowledge Scale may provide educators, care providers, and researchers with critical information for reducing HCV among people who inject drugs (PWID), according to their report.
The researchers analyzed data from 539 New York City opioid users aged 18-29 years who were recruited via respondent-driven sampling in 2014-2016, according to the study published in Drug and Alcohol Dependence.
Principal components analysis (PCA) of nine knowledge items answered true, false, or don’t know identified useful scale items. These were then evaluated for internal consistency and assessed by comparing knowledge levels with those from a previously validated general HCV knowledge scale and by comparing key subgroup knowledge levels.
PCA identified one component with five items that explained 45% of the total variance and had high internal consistency (alpha, 0.91). All of the component items referred to transmission through drug-injection equipment and practices: sharing materials such as cookers, cottons, diluting water, water containers, and cleaning syringes with water.
The mean percent correct was 75%, and was moderately correlated with general HCV knowledge. Knowledge levels were highest for those previously tested for HCV, those with HCV antibody–positive status, PWID, and those who had received harm reduction information in various settings.
“The low percentage correct among those who had never injected [52% vs. 83% correct among injectors] is concerning given the possibility of their experimenting with drug injection as route of administration,” they added.
“These results suggest that primary care providers, drug treatment programs, and syringe exchange programs are important sources of HCV risk knowledge among at-risk populations, similar to other studies’ findings,” the researchers concluded.
The study was funded by the National Institutes of Health and the authors reported no conflicts of interest.
SOURCE: Quinn K et al. Drug Alcohol Depend. 2019;194:453-9.
Assessing patient knowledge about hepatitis C virus (HCV) transmission knowledge is difficult given the lack of psychometrically tested measures available, according to researchers who developed and validated an HCV injection–risk knowledge scale.
The 5-item, validated HCV Injection-Risk Knowledge Scale may provide educators, care providers, and researchers with critical information for reducing HCV among people who inject drugs (PWID), according to their report.
The researchers analyzed data from 539 New York City opioid users aged 18-29 years who were recruited via respondent-driven sampling in 2014-2016, according to the study published in Drug and Alcohol Dependence.
Principal components analysis (PCA) of nine knowledge items answered true, false, or don’t know identified useful scale items. These were then evaluated for internal consistency and assessed by comparing knowledge levels with those from a previously validated general HCV knowledge scale and by comparing key subgroup knowledge levels.
PCA identified one component with five items that explained 45% of the total variance and had high internal consistency (alpha, 0.91). All of the component items referred to transmission through drug-injection equipment and practices: sharing materials such as cookers, cottons, diluting water, water containers, and cleaning syringes with water.
The mean percent correct was 75%, and was moderately correlated with general HCV knowledge. Knowledge levels were highest for those previously tested for HCV, those with HCV antibody–positive status, PWID, and those who had received harm reduction information in various settings.
“The low percentage correct among those who had never injected [52% vs. 83% correct among injectors] is concerning given the possibility of their experimenting with drug injection as route of administration,” they added.
“These results suggest that primary care providers, drug treatment programs, and syringe exchange programs are important sources of HCV risk knowledge among at-risk populations, similar to other studies’ findings,” the researchers concluded.
The study was funded by the National Institutes of Health and the authors reported no conflicts of interest.
SOURCE: Quinn K et al. Drug Alcohol Depend. 2019;194:453-9.
Assessing patient knowledge about hepatitis C virus (HCV) transmission knowledge is difficult given the lack of psychometrically tested measures available, according to researchers who developed and validated an HCV injection–risk knowledge scale.
The 5-item, validated HCV Injection-Risk Knowledge Scale may provide educators, care providers, and researchers with critical information for reducing HCV among people who inject drugs (PWID), according to their report.
The researchers analyzed data from 539 New York City opioid users aged 18-29 years who were recruited via respondent-driven sampling in 2014-2016, according to the study published in Drug and Alcohol Dependence.
Principal components analysis (PCA) of nine knowledge items answered true, false, or don’t know identified useful scale items. These were then evaluated for internal consistency and assessed by comparing knowledge levels with those from a previously validated general HCV knowledge scale and by comparing key subgroup knowledge levels.
PCA identified one component with five items that explained 45% of the total variance and had high internal consistency (alpha, 0.91). All of the component items referred to transmission through drug-injection equipment and practices: sharing materials such as cookers, cottons, diluting water, water containers, and cleaning syringes with water.
The mean percent correct was 75%, and was moderately correlated with general HCV knowledge. Knowledge levels were highest for those previously tested for HCV, those with HCV antibody–positive status, PWID, and those who had received harm reduction information in various settings.
“The low percentage correct among those who had never injected [52% vs. 83% correct among injectors] is concerning given the possibility of their experimenting with drug injection as route of administration,” they added.
“These results suggest that primary care providers, drug treatment programs, and syringe exchange programs are important sources of HCV risk knowledge among at-risk populations, similar to other studies’ findings,” the researchers concluded.
The study was funded by the National Institutes of Health and the authors reported no conflicts of interest.
SOURCE: Quinn K et al. Drug Alcohol Depend. 2019;194:453-9.
FROM DRUG AND ALCOHOL DEPENDENCE
Avoiding the Pitfalls of “Half-visits”
A 3-and-a-half-year-old girl presented to a pediatrician’s office with complaints of vomiting and high fever (103.3°). She was seen by a nurse practitioner, who diagnosed gastroenteritis, prescribed fluid replacement and acetaminophen, and sent the child home.
The NP did not chart the child’s blood pressure, pulse, or respiratory rate. She did note swollen lymph nodes and absence of diarrhea. The NP performed a flu screen but did not order a rapid strep test or urinalysis.
Several hours later, the child was taken to the emergency department with shortness of breath, cough, congestion, tachycardia, hypoxia, dehydration, and lethargy. She was admitted to the pediatric ICU with diagnoses of pneumonia, acute respiratory distress, hypoxemia, neutropenia, and sepsis. She was given IV antibiotics.
Several hours later, the decision was made to transfer the patient to a regional medical center. During transfer, she suffered cardiopulmonary arrest while being placed on a ventilator for transport. Upon arrival at the hospital, she arrested again and required resuscitation for several hours until spontaneous circulation could not be restored.
An autopsy concluded the child died of sepsis and shock from Group A beta-hemolytic streptococcal infection.
It was argued that the NP failed to diagnose and treat streptococcal toxic shock syndrome at the time of the child’s presentation. In support of this contention, it was argued that the NP had failed to perform basic follow-up when the child’s flu test came back negative and that the child’s swollen lymph nodes and lack of diarrhea both mitigated against the NP’s diagnosis of gastroenteritis.
VERDICT
The parties in this case reached a $950,000 settlement.
Continue to: DISCUSSION
DISCUSSION
Every headache and fever could be an early meningitis, every vague abdominal pain an early appendicitis. So how do we handle innocuous-appearing cases with early, nonspecific symptoms of a very serious illness about to unfold?
We must start by following the Miyagi rule. In The Karate Kid, Mr. Miyagi advised that walking on the left or the right side of the road was safe, but walking in the middle would result, sooner or later, in “squish, just like grape.” Although he related this premise to karate, we can also apply it to medicine: See a patient or do not see a patient; but if you see a patient “so-so,” you will be squished—by the patient, by a plaintiff’s attorney, and/or by your state’s medical board.
A case such as this one strikes fear in the heart of anyone who has seen patients in an ambulatory setting. The initial presentation was modest: a toddler with vomiting and fever. We do not know what the other vital signs were, and we do not know whether the child appeared toxic. The lack of vital signs or recorded vital signs represent half-measures. The patient’s vitals could have been normal, and the NP’s actions could have been fully defensible. The problem is, we don’t know—and the clinician is on the hook.
All patients require vital signs. They must be done; they must be complete, and they must be recorded. At a minimum, temperature, blood pressure, respiratory rate, and (generally) O2 saturation are required. Some specialties may have other requirements (eg, fingerstick glucose for patients with diabetes, visual acuity testing for those with eye complaints). A full list of data you should be obtaining is practice specific and beyond the scope of this article; the point is, decide on the relevant set of vitals and intake data and be sure it is recorded at every visit.
Failure to obtain and record vital signs—as seen in this case—is sloppy practice, difficult to defend, and sets up an inference of negligence. Even when the care is perfect (and without bad outcome), if the medical board reviews the record for any reason, you will be sanctioned for “failure to keep adequate and accurate medical records” and your license burdened. Here, we are told the defendant NP “did not chart the child’s blood pressure, pulse, or respiratory rate.” I am willing to bet the NP was not responsible for charting the values in the normal course of practice, but see how responsibility is parked with the clinician? If intake staff do not record vital signs, politely (yet firmly) insist they do so.
Continue to: Furthermore, the disposition of many child visits...
Furthermore, the disposition of many child visits turns on whether the patient “appeared toxic.” Any child’s condition could worsen after evaluation—and in litigation, parents, friends, and family will testify the patient was extremely ill, they “knew something was wrong,” and the clinician ignored their loved one. Thus, the jury will be invited to reconstruct how the child appeared.
When assessing children and the question of “toxic appearance” arises, don’t state a conclusion—paint a picture. Don’t merely state “child appeared nontoxic.” Use your powers of observation to record why they appear nontoxic: “Child sitting up, watching Moana on parent’s phone, smiling and laughing appropriately.” Get interactive; some pediatric providers carry a small vial of bubbles with them and record the child’s response to bubble-making (“Child appropriately reaching for bubbles, smiling, holding one on finger”). The cost is less than $1 for the bubbles, plus the documentation time. The benefit is that it paints a clear picture for the jury of a child responding appropriately. And if your observations suggest a child who is at least unwell—if the movie is poorly received or the bubbles prompt the child to scream or bury her face in her mom’s shoulder—you can consider oral antipyretics/analgesics, fluid, and re-observation.
Another way to create a strong and defensible record is to use patient quotations. These can be extremely helpful to your defense in a malpractice action; as an attorney, I have searched 8,000 pages of records in a medical malpractice case, hoping to find a clear description from a human (not a template) of how a patient looked. Make it clear by adding patient remarks to the chart—just remember that “the only thing that belongs in quotes is what comes out of the patient’s mouth.” Words from an 8-year-old boy— such as “My brother found a legendary scar [a reference to Fortnite] and almost won”—may seem silly, but this documentation itself could win your case.
With teenagers, you may have to ask more questions to glean something suitable; you could ask a 13-year-old her favorite sport and when her one-word answer is “Lacrosse,” ask why. Even if the response is “Because, I don’t know, it’s exciting. There are a lot of goals,” write that down exactly (along with any other observations, such as Teen texting on her phone). These notations tell the plaintiff’s attorney, the judge, and the jury that the patient was behaving normally and interacting with the environment. Should this teen later deteriorate with meningitis, the plaintiff will claim she was toxic in the office. The medical record, however, will show that the patient’s condition changed, and it was a departure from how she looked in your office.
Also, it never hurts to get backup. In any close call, ask the nurse to reevaluate the patient as to whether he or she is “toxic appearing” or is interacting normally with the environment. Have the nurse or medical assistant record facts, such as “patient trying to make a plane out of two tongue depressors, pretending to land it on sister’s leg.” This will create a strong and defensible record: two clinicians relaying two sets of detailed observations.
Continue to: Likewise, encourage intake staff to document...
Likewise, encourage intake staff to document what they see rather than what they conclude from it. Buzzwords (eg, listless, lethargic) should be avoided. If such characterizations find their way into the record, you must take active steps to address them. Either agree with the characterization and perform appropriate work-up, or establish why you do not agree using the methods described (detailed description, verification by another clinician).
Taking these steps will help to protect you in the event of a changing clinical course. But also be wary of those predictable circumstances that lead you into Mr. Miyagi’s middle of the road (what I call “half-visits”): a quick look at a sibling in the room during a patient’s appointment; a “curbside consult” on the medical assistant’s child; the neighborhood acquaintance who asks you to “just take a look.” Why are these dangerous? Because they remove the clinician from his or her usual routine: proper examination on a properly undressed patient, formal assessment of vital signs, and review of relevant history in the chart, among other things. (In this way, phone and email communications with patients require similar caution.) Skipping the routine leads to shortcuts, and shortcuts lead to bad medicine. And if that doesn’t worry you, remember: All these scenarios create a full legal duty and clinician/patient relationship—making them potential pathways to misdiagnosis and eventual loss of license.
IN SUMMARY
Don’t be party to a “half-visit”; insist on full vital signs and a complete visit following your usual routine. Use observational powers and patient quotations to paint a picture of how a patient looked, get backup from another clinician with similar observations. If you can’t document a reassuring record, protect the patient and make the required intervention.
A 3-and-a-half-year-old girl presented to a pediatrician’s office with complaints of vomiting and high fever (103.3°). She was seen by a nurse practitioner, who diagnosed gastroenteritis, prescribed fluid replacement and acetaminophen, and sent the child home.
The NP did not chart the child’s blood pressure, pulse, or respiratory rate. She did note swollen lymph nodes and absence of diarrhea. The NP performed a flu screen but did not order a rapid strep test or urinalysis.
Several hours later, the child was taken to the emergency department with shortness of breath, cough, congestion, tachycardia, hypoxia, dehydration, and lethargy. She was admitted to the pediatric ICU with diagnoses of pneumonia, acute respiratory distress, hypoxemia, neutropenia, and sepsis. She was given IV antibiotics.
Several hours later, the decision was made to transfer the patient to a regional medical center. During transfer, she suffered cardiopulmonary arrest while being placed on a ventilator for transport. Upon arrival at the hospital, she arrested again and required resuscitation for several hours until spontaneous circulation could not be restored.
An autopsy concluded the child died of sepsis and shock from Group A beta-hemolytic streptococcal infection.
It was argued that the NP failed to diagnose and treat streptococcal toxic shock syndrome at the time of the child’s presentation. In support of this contention, it was argued that the NP had failed to perform basic follow-up when the child’s flu test came back negative and that the child’s swollen lymph nodes and lack of diarrhea both mitigated against the NP’s diagnosis of gastroenteritis.
VERDICT
The parties in this case reached a $950,000 settlement.
Continue to: DISCUSSION
DISCUSSION
Every headache and fever could be an early meningitis, every vague abdominal pain an early appendicitis. So how do we handle innocuous-appearing cases with early, nonspecific symptoms of a very serious illness about to unfold?
We must start by following the Miyagi rule. In The Karate Kid, Mr. Miyagi advised that walking on the left or the right side of the road was safe, but walking in the middle would result, sooner or later, in “squish, just like grape.” Although he related this premise to karate, we can also apply it to medicine: See a patient or do not see a patient; but if you see a patient “so-so,” you will be squished—by the patient, by a plaintiff’s attorney, and/or by your state’s medical board.
A case such as this one strikes fear in the heart of anyone who has seen patients in an ambulatory setting. The initial presentation was modest: a toddler with vomiting and fever. We do not know what the other vital signs were, and we do not know whether the child appeared toxic. The lack of vital signs or recorded vital signs represent half-measures. The patient’s vitals could have been normal, and the NP’s actions could have been fully defensible. The problem is, we don’t know—and the clinician is on the hook.
All patients require vital signs. They must be done; they must be complete, and they must be recorded. At a minimum, temperature, blood pressure, respiratory rate, and (generally) O2 saturation are required. Some specialties may have other requirements (eg, fingerstick glucose for patients with diabetes, visual acuity testing for those with eye complaints). A full list of data you should be obtaining is practice specific and beyond the scope of this article; the point is, decide on the relevant set of vitals and intake data and be sure it is recorded at every visit.
Failure to obtain and record vital signs—as seen in this case—is sloppy practice, difficult to defend, and sets up an inference of negligence. Even when the care is perfect (and without bad outcome), if the medical board reviews the record for any reason, you will be sanctioned for “failure to keep adequate and accurate medical records” and your license burdened. Here, we are told the defendant NP “did not chart the child’s blood pressure, pulse, or respiratory rate.” I am willing to bet the NP was not responsible for charting the values in the normal course of practice, but see how responsibility is parked with the clinician? If intake staff do not record vital signs, politely (yet firmly) insist they do so.
Continue to: Furthermore, the disposition of many child visits...
Furthermore, the disposition of many child visits turns on whether the patient “appeared toxic.” Any child’s condition could worsen after evaluation—and in litigation, parents, friends, and family will testify the patient was extremely ill, they “knew something was wrong,” and the clinician ignored their loved one. Thus, the jury will be invited to reconstruct how the child appeared.
When assessing children and the question of “toxic appearance” arises, don’t state a conclusion—paint a picture. Don’t merely state “child appeared nontoxic.” Use your powers of observation to record why they appear nontoxic: “Child sitting up, watching Moana on parent’s phone, smiling and laughing appropriately.” Get interactive; some pediatric providers carry a small vial of bubbles with them and record the child’s response to bubble-making (“Child appropriately reaching for bubbles, smiling, holding one on finger”). The cost is less than $1 for the bubbles, plus the documentation time. The benefit is that it paints a clear picture for the jury of a child responding appropriately. And if your observations suggest a child who is at least unwell—if the movie is poorly received or the bubbles prompt the child to scream or bury her face in her mom’s shoulder—you can consider oral antipyretics/analgesics, fluid, and re-observation.
Another way to create a strong and defensible record is to use patient quotations. These can be extremely helpful to your defense in a malpractice action; as an attorney, I have searched 8,000 pages of records in a medical malpractice case, hoping to find a clear description from a human (not a template) of how a patient looked. Make it clear by adding patient remarks to the chart—just remember that “the only thing that belongs in quotes is what comes out of the patient’s mouth.” Words from an 8-year-old boy— such as “My brother found a legendary scar [a reference to Fortnite] and almost won”—may seem silly, but this documentation itself could win your case.
With teenagers, you may have to ask more questions to glean something suitable; you could ask a 13-year-old her favorite sport and when her one-word answer is “Lacrosse,” ask why. Even if the response is “Because, I don’t know, it’s exciting. There are a lot of goals,” write that down exactly (along with any other observations, such as Teen texting on her phone). These notations tell the plaintiff’s attorney, the judge, and the jury that the patient was behaving normally and interacting with the environment. Should this teen later deteriorate with meningitis, the plaintiff will claim she was toxic in the office. The medical record, however, will show that the patient’s condition changed, and it was a departure from how she looked in your office.
Also, it never hurts to get backup. In any close call, ask the nurse to reevaluate the patient as to whether he or she is “toxic appearing” or is interacting normally with the environment. Have the nurse or medical assistant record facts, such as “patient trying to make a plane out of two tongue depressors, pretending to land it on sister’s leg.” This will create a strong and defensible record: two clinicians relaying two sets of detailed observations.
Continue to: Likewise, encourage intake staff to document...
Likewise, encourage intake staff to document what they see rather than what they conclude from it. Buzzwords (eg, listless, lethargic) should be avoided. If such characterizations find their way into the record, you must take active steps to address them. Either agree with the characterization and perform appropriate work-up, or establish why you do not agree using the methods described (detailed description, verification by another clinician).
Taking these steps will help to protect you in the event of a changing clinical course. But also be wary of those predictable circumstances that lead you into Mr. Miyagi’s middle of the road (what I call “half-visits”): a quick look at a sibling in the room during a patient’s appointment; a “curbside consult” on the medical assistant’s child; the neighborhood acquaintance who asks you to “just take a look.” Why are these dangerous? Because they remove the clinician from his or her usual routine: proper examination on a properly undressed patient, formal assessment of vital signs, and review of relevant history in the chart, among other things. (In this way, phone and email communications with patients require similar caution.) Skipping the routine leads to shortcuts, and shortcuts lead to bad medicine. And if that doesn’t worry you, remember: All these scenarios create a full legal duty and clinician/patient relationship—making them potential pathways to misdiagnosis and eventual loss of license.
IN SUMMARY
Don’t be party to a “half-visit”; insist on full vital signs and a complete visit following your usual routine. Use observational powers and patient quotations to paint a picture of how a patient looked, get backup from another clinician with similar observations. If you can’t document a reassuring record, protect the patient and make the required intervention.
A 3-and-a-half-year-old girl presented to a pediatrician’s office with complaints of vomiting and high fever (103.3°). She was seen by a nurse practitioner, who diagnosed gastroenteritis, prescribed fluid replacement and acetaminophen, and sent the child home.
The NP did not chart the child’s blood pressure, pulse, or respiratory rate. She did note swollen lymph nodes and absence of diarrhea. The NP performed a flu screen but did not order a rapid strep test or urinalysis.
Several hours later, the child was taken to the emergency department with shortness of breath, cough, congestion, tachycardia, hypoxia, dehydration, and lethargy. She was admitted to the pediatric ICU with diagnoses of pneumonia, acute respiratory distress, hypoxemia, neutropenia, and sepsis. She was given IV antibiotics.
Several hours later, the decision was made to transfer the patient to a regional medical center. During transfer, she suffered cardiopulmonary arrest while being placed on a ventilator for transport. Upon arrival at the hospital, she arrested again and required resuscitation for several hours until spontaneous circulation could not be restored.
An autopsy concluded the child died of sepsis and shock from Group A beta-hemolytic streptococcal infection.
It was argued that the NP failed to diagnose and treat streptococcal toxic shock syndrome at the time of the child’s presentation. In support of this contention, it was argued that the NP had failed to perform basic follow-up when the child’s flu test came back negative and that the child’s swollen lymph nodes and lack of diarrhea both mitigated against the NP’s diagnosis of gastroenteritis.
VERDICT
The parties in this case reached a $950,000 settlement.
Continue to: DISCUSSION
DISCUSSION
Every headache and fever could be an early meningitis, every vague abdominal pain an early appendicitis. So how do we handle innocuous-appearing cases with early, nonspecific symptoms of a very serious illness about to unfold?
We must start by following the Miyagi rule. In The Karate Kid, Mr. Miyagi advised that walking on the left or the right side of the road was safe, but walking in the middle would result, sooner or later, in “squish, just like grape.” Although he related this premise to karate, we can also apply it to medicine: See a patient or do not see a patient; but if you see a patient “so-so,” you will be squished—by the patient, by a plaintiff’s attorney, and/or by your state’s medical board.
A case such as this one strikes fear in the heart of anyone who has seen patients in an ambulatory setting. The initial presentation was modest: a toddler with vomiting and fever. We do not know what the other vital signs were, and we do not know whether the child appeared toxic. The lack of vital signs or recorded vital signs represent half-measures. The patient’s vitals could have been normal, and the NP’s actions could have been fully defensible. The problem is, we don’t know—and the clinician is on the hook.
All patients require vital signs. They must be done; they must be complete, and they must be recorded. At a minimum, temperature, blood pressure, respiratory rate, and (generally) O2 saturation are required. Some specialties may have other requirements (eg, fingerstick glucose for patients with diabetes, visual acuity testing for those with eye complaints). A full list of data you should be obtaining is practice specific and beyond the scope of this article; the point is, decide on the relevant set of vitals and intake data and be sure it is recorded at every visit.
Failure to obtain and record vital signs—as seen in this case—is sloppy practice, difficult to defend, and sets up an inference of negligence. Even when the care is perfect (and without bad outcome), if the medical board reviews the record for any reason, you will be sanctioned for “failure to keep adequate and accurate medical records” and your license burdened. Here, we are told the defendant NP “did not chart the child’s blood pressure, pulse, or respiratory rate.” I am willing to bet the NP was not responsible for charting the values in the normal course of practice, but see how responsibility is parked with the clinician? If intake staff do not record vital signs, politely (yet firmly) insist they do so.
Continue to: Furthermore, the disposition of many child visits...
Furthermore, the disposition of many child visits turns on whether the patient “appeared toxic.” Any child’s condition could worsen after evaluation—and in litigation, parents, friends, and family will testify the patient was extremely ill, they “knew something was wrong,” and the clinician ignored their loved one. Thus, the jury will be invited to reconstruct how the child appeared.
When assessing children and the question of “toxic appearance” arises, don’t state a conclusion—paint a picture. Don’t merely state “child appeared nontoxic.” Use your powers of observation to record why they appear nontoxic: “Child sitting up, watching Moana on parent’s phone, smiling and laughing appropriately.” Get interactive; some pediatric providers carry a small vial of bubbles with them and record the child’s response to bubble-making (“Child appropriately reaching for bubbles, smiling, holding one on finger”). The cost is less than $1 for the bubbles, plus the documentation time. The benefit is that it paints a clear picture for the jury of a child responding appropriately. And if your observations suggest a child who is at least unwell—if the movie is poorly received or the bubbles prompt the child to scream or bury her face in her mom’s shoulder—you can consider oral antipyretics/analgesics, fluid, and re-observation.
Another way to create a strong and defensible record is to use patient quotations. These can be extremely helpful to your defense in a malpractice action; as an attorney, I have searched 8,000 pages of records in a medical malpractice case, hoping to find a clear description from a human (not a template) of how a patient looked. Make it clear by adding patient remarks to the chart—just remember that “the only thing that belongs in quotes is what comes out of the patient’s mouth.” Words from an 8-year-old boy— such as “My brother found a legendary scar [a reference to Fortnite] and almost won”—may seem silly, but this documentation itself could win your case.
With teenagers, you may have to ask more questions to glean something suitable; you could ask a 13-year-old her favorite sport and when her one-word answer is “Lacrosse,” ask why. Even if the response is “Because, I don’t know, it’s exciting. There are a lot of goals,” write that down exactly (along with any other observations, such as Teen texting on her phone). These notations tell the plaintiff’s attorney, the judge, and the jury that the patient was behaving normally and interacting with the environment. Should this teen later deteriorate with meningitis, the plaintiff will claim she was toxic in the office. The medical record, however, will show that the patient’s condition changed, and it was a departure from how she looked in your office.
Also, it never hurts to get backup. In any close call, ask the nurse to reevaluate the patient as to whether he or she is “toxic appearing” or is interacting normally with the environment. Have the nurse or medical assistant record facts, such as “patient trying to make a plane out of two tongue depressors, pretending to land it on sister’s leg.” This will create a strong and defensible record: two clinicians relaying two sets of detailed observations.
Continue to: Likewise, encourage intake staff to document...
Likewise, encourage intake staff to document what they see rather than what they conclude from it. Buzzwords (eg, listless, lethargic) should be avoided. If such characterizations find their way into the record, you must take active steps to address them. Either agree with the characterization and perform appropriate work-up, or establish why you do not agree using the methods described (detailed description, verification by another clinician).
Taking these steps will help to protect you in the event of a changing clinical course. But also be wary of those predictable circumstances that lead you into Mr. Miyagi’s middle of the road (what I call “half-visits”): a quick look at a sibling in the room during a patient’s appointment; a “curbside consult” on the medical assistant’s child; the neighborhood acquaintance who asks you to “just take a look.” Why are these dangerous? Because they remove the clinician from his or her usual routine: proper examination on a properly undressed patient, formal assessment of vital signs, and review of relevant history in the chart, among other things. (In this way, phone and email communications with patients require similar caution.) Skipping the routine leads to shortcuts, and shortcuts lead to bad medicine. And if that doesn’t worry you, remember: All these scenarios create a full legal duty and clinician/patient relationship—making them potential pathways to misdiagnosis and eventual loss of license.
IN SUMMARY
Don’t be party to a “half-visit”; insist on full vital signs and a complete visit following your usual routine. Use observational powers and patient quotations to paint a picture of how a patient looked, get backup from another clinician with similar observations. If you can’t document a reassuring record, protect the patient and make the required intervention.
Uptick in adult syphilis means congenital syphilis may be lurking
While many pediatric clinicians have not frequently managed newborns of mothers with reactive syphilis serology, increased adult syphilis may change that.1
Diagnosing/managing congenital syphilis is not always clear cut. A positive rapid plasma reagin (RPR) titer in a newborn may not indicate congenital infection but merely may reflect transplacental, passively acquired maternal IgG from the mother’s current or previous infection rather than antibodies produced by the newborn. Because currently no IgM assay for syphilis is recommended by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention for newborn testing, we must deal with IgG test results.
Often initial management decisions are needed while the infant’s status is evolving. The questions to answer to make final decisions include the following2:
- Was the mother actively infected with Treponema pallidum during pregnancy?
- If so, was the mother appropriately treated and when?
- Does the infant have any clinical, laboratory, or radiographic evidence of syphilis?
- How do the mother’s and infant’s nontreponemal serologic titers (NTT) compare at delivery using the same test?
Note: All infants assessed for congenital syphilis need a full evaluation for HIV.
Managing the infant of a mother with positive tests3,4
All such neonates need an examination for evidence of congenital syphilis. The clinical signs of congenital syphilis in neonates include nonimmune hydrops, jaundice, hepatosplenomegaly, rhinitis, skin rash, and pseudoparalysis of extremity. Also, consider dark-field examination or polymerase chain reaction (PCR) of lesions (such as bullae) or secretions (nasal). If available, have the placenta examined histologically (silver stain) or by PCR (Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments–validated test). Skeletal radiographic surveys are more useful for stillborn than live born infants. (The complete algorithm can be found in Figure 3.10 of reference 4.)
Order a quantitative NTT, using the Venereal Disease Research Laboratory (VDRL) test or RPR test on neonatal serum. Umbilical cord blood is not appropriate because of potential maternal blood contamination, which could give a false-positive result, or Wharton’s jelly, which could give a false-negative result. Use of treponemal-specific tests that are used for maternal diagnosis – such as T. pallidum particle agglutination (TP-PA), T. pallidum enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (TP-EIA), fluorescent treponemal antibody absorption (FTA-ABS) test, or T. pallidum chemiluminescence immunoassay (TP-CIA) – on neonatal serum is not recommended because of difficulties in interpretation.
Diagnostic results allow designation of an infant into one of four CDC categories: proven/highly probable syphilis; possible syphilis; syphilis less likely; and syphilis unlikely. Treatment recommendations are based on these categories.
Proven or highly probable syphilis
There are two alternative recommended 10-day treatment regimens.
A. Aqueous crystalline penicillin G 100,000-150,000 U/kg per day by IV at 50,000 U/kg per dose, given every 12 hours through 7 days of age or every 8 hours if greater than 7 days old.
B. Procaine penicillin G at 50,000 U/kg per dose intramuscularly in one dose each day.
More than 1 day of missed therapy requires restarting a new 10-day course. Use of other antimicrobial agents (such as ampicillin) is not validated, so any empiric ampicillin initially given for possible sepsis does not count toward the 10-day penicillin regimen. If nonpenicillin drugs must be used, close serologic follow-up must occur to ensure adequacy of response to therapy.
Possible syphilis
There are three alternative regimens, the same two as in proven/highly probable syphilis (above) plus a single-dose option
A. Aqueous crystalline penicillin G, as described above.
B. Procaine penicillin G, as described above.
C. Benzathine penicillin G at 50,000 U/kg per dose intramuscularly in a single dose.
Note: To be eligible for regimen C, an infant must have a complete evaluation that is normal (cerebrospinal fluid [CSF] examination, long-bone radiographs, and complete blood count with platelet count) and follow-up must be assured. Exception: Neonates born to mothers with untreated early syphilis at the time of delivery are at increased risk for congenital syphilis, and the 10-day course of penicillin G may be considered even if the complete evaluation is normal and follow-up is certain.
Less likely syphilis
One antibiotic regimen is available, but no treatment also may be an option.
A. Benzathine penicillin G as described above.
B. If mother’s NTT has decreased at least fourfold after appropriate early syphilis therapy or remained stably low, which indicates latent syphilis (VDRL less than 1:2; RPR less than 1:4), no treatment is an option but requires repeat serology every 2-3 months until infant is 6 months old.
Unlikely syphilis
No treatment is recommended unless follow-up is uncertain, in which case it is appropriate to give the infant benzathine penicillin G as described above.
Infant with positive NTT at birth
All neonates with reactive NTT need careful follow-up examinations and repeat NTT every 2-3 months until nonreactive. NTT in infants who are not treated because of less likely or unlikely syphilis status should drop by 3 months and be nonreactive by 6 months; this indicates NTT was passively transferred maternal IgG. If NTT remains reactive at 6 months, the infant is likely infected and needs treatment. Persistent NTT at 6-12 months in treated neonates should trigger repeat CSF examination and infectious diseases consultation about a possible repeat of the 10-day penicillin G regimen. If the mother was seroreactive, but the newborn’s NTT was negative at birth, testing of the infant’s NTT needs repeating at 3 months to exclude the possibility that the congenital syphilis was incubating when prior testing occurred at birth. Note: Treponemal-specific tests are not useful in assessing treatment because detectable maternal IgG treponemal antibody can persist at least 15 months.
Neonates with abnormal CSF at birth
Repeat cerebrospinal fluid evaluation every 6 months until results normalize. Persistently reactive CSF VDRL or abnormal CSF indexes not caused by another known cause requires retreatment for possible neurosyphilis, as well as consultation with an expert.
Summary
NTT are the essential test for newborns and some degree of laboratory or imaging work up often are needed. Consider consulting an expert in infectious diseases and/or perinatology if the gray areas do not readily become clear. Treatment of the correct patients with the right drug for the right duration remains the goal, as usual.
Dr. Harrison is a professor of pediatrics at University of Missouri-Kansas City and Director of Research Affairs in the pediatric infectious diseases division at Children’s Mercy Hospital – Kansas City. He said he had no relevant financial disclosures. Email him at [email protected].
References
1. MMWR. 2015 Nov 13;64(44);1241-5.
2. “Congenital Syphilis,” 2015 Sexually Transmitted Diseases Treatment Guidelines.
3. “Syphilis During Pregnancy,” 2015 Sexually Transmitted Diseases Treatment Guidelines.
4. Syphilis – Section 3: Summaries of Infectious Diseases. Red Book Online. 2018.
While many pediatric clinicians have not frequently managed newborns of mothers with reactive syphilis serology, increased adult syphilis may change that.1
Diagnosing/managing congenital syphilis is not always clear cut. A positive rapid plasma reagin (RPR) titer in a newborn may not indicate congenital infection but merely may reflect transplacental, passively acquired maternal IgG from the mother’s current or previous infection rather than antibodies produced by the newborn. Because currently no IgM assay for syphilis is recommended by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention for newborn testing, we must deal with IgG test results.
Often initial management decisions are needed while the infant’s status is evolving. The questions to answer to make final decisions include the following2:
- Was the mother actively infected with Treponema pallidum during pregnancy?
- If so, was the mother appropriately treated and when?
- Does the infant have any clinical, laboratory, or radiographic evidence of syphilis?
- How do the mother’s and infant’s nontreponemal serologic titers (NTT) compare at delivery using the same test?
Note: All infants assessed for congenital syphilis need a full evaluation for HIV.
Managing the infant of a mother with positive tests3,4
All such neonates need an examination for evidence of congenital syphilis. The clinical signs of congenital syphilis in neonates include nonimmune hydrops, jaundice, hepatosplenomegaly, rhinitis, skin rash, and pseudoparalysis of extremity. Also, consider dark-field examination or polymerase chain reaction (PCR) of lesions (such as bullae) or secretions (nasal). If available, have the placenta examined histologically (silver stain) or by PCR (Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments–validated test). Skeletal radiographic surveys are more useful for stillborn than live born infants. (The complete algorithm can be found in Figure 3.10 of reference 4.)
Order a quantitative NTT, using the Venereal Disease Research Laboratory (VDRL) test or RPR test on neonatal serum. Umbilical cord blood is not appropriate because of potential maternal blood contamination, which could give a false-positive result, or Wharton’s jelly, which could give a false-negative result. Use of treponemal-specific tests that are used for maternal diagnosis – such as T. pallidum particle agglutination (TP-PA), T. pallidum enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (TP-EIA), fluorescent treponemal antibody absorption (FTA-ABS) test, or T. pallidum chemiluminescence immunoassay (TP-CIA) – on neonatal serum is not recommended because of difficulties in interpretation.
Diagnostic results allow designation of an infant into one of four CDC categories: proven/highly probable syphilis; possible syphilis; syphilis less likely; and syphilis unlikely. Treatment recommendations are based on these categories.
Proven or highly probable syphilis
There are two alternative recommended 10-day treatment regimens.
A. Aqueous crystalline penicillin G 100,000-150,000 U/kg per day by IV at 50,000 U/kg per dose, given every 12 hours through 7 days of age or every 8 hours if greater than 7 days old.
B. Procaine penicillin G at 50,000 U/kg per dose intramuscularly in one dose each day.
More than 1 day of missed therapy requires restarting a new 10-day course. Use of other antimicrobial agents (such as ampicillin) is not validated, so any empiric ampicillin initially given for possible sepsis does not count toward the 10-day penicillin regimen. If nonpenicillin drugs must be used, close serologic follow-up must occur to ensure adequacy of response to therapy.
Possible syphilis
There are three alternative regimens, the same two as in proven/highly probable syphilis (above) plus a single-dose option
A. Aqueous crystalline penicillin G, as described above.
B. Procaine penicillin G, as described above.
C. Benzathine penicillin G at 50,000 U/kg per dose intramuscularly in a single dose.
Note: To be eligible for regimen C, an infant must have a complete evaluation that is normal (cerebrospinal fluid [CSF] examination, long-bone radiographs, and complete blood count with platelet count) and follow-up must be assured. Exception: Neonates born to mothers with untreated early syphilis at the time of delivery are at increased risk for congenital syphilis, and the 10-day course of penicillin G may be considered even if the complete evaluation is normal and follow-up is certain.
Less likely syphilis
One antibiotic regimen is available, but no treatment also may be an option.
A. Benzathine penicillin G as described above.
B. If mother’s NTT has decreased at least fourfold after appropriate early syphilis therapy or remained stably low, which indicates latent syphilis (VDRL less than 1:2; RPR less than 1:4), no treatment is an option but requires repeat serology every 2-3 months until infant is 6 months old.
Unlikely syphilis
No treatment is recommended unless follow-up is uncertain, in which case it is appropriate to give the infant benzathine penicillin G as described above.
Infant with positive NTT at birth
All neonates with reactive NTT need careful follow-up examinations and repeat NTT every 2-3 months until nonreactive. NTT in infants who are not treated because of less likely or unlikely syphilis status should drop by 3 months and be nonreactive by 6 months; this indicates NTT was passively transferred maternal IgG. If NTT remains reactive at 6 months, the infant is likely infected and needs treatment. Persistent NTT at 6-12 months in treated neonates should trigger repeat CSF examination and infectious diseases consultation about a possible repeat of the 10-day penicillin G regimen. If the mother was seroreactive, but the newborn’s NTT was negative at birth, testing of the infant’s NTT needs repeating at 3 months to exclude the possibility that the congenital syphilis was incubating when prior testing occurred at birth. Note: Treponemal-specific tests are not useful in assessing treatment because detectable maternal IgG treponemal antibody can persist at least 15 months.
Neonates with abnormal CSF at birth
Repeat cerebrospinal fluid evaluation every 6 months until results normalize. Persistently reactive CSF VDRL or abnormal CSF indexes not caused by another known cause requires retreatment for possible neurosyphilis, as well as consultation with an expert.
Summary
NTT are the essential test for newborns and some degree of laboratory or imaging work up often are needed. Consider consulting an expert in infectious diseases and/or perinatology if the gray areas do not readily become clear. Treatment of the correct patients with the right drug for the right duration remains the goal, as usual.
Dr. Harrison is a professor of pediatrics at University of Missouri-Kansas City and Director of Research Affairs in the pediatric infectious diseases division at Children’s Mercy Hospital – Kansas City. He said he had no relevant financial disclosures. Email him at [email protected].
References
1. MMWR. 2015 Nov 13;64(44);1241-5.
2. “Congenital Syphilis,” 2015 Sexually Transmitted Diseases Treatment Guidelines.
3. “Syphilis During Pregnancy,” 2015 Sexually Transmitted Diseases Treatment Guidelines.
4. Syphilis – Section 3: Summaries of Infectious Diseases. Red Book Online. 2018.
While many pediatric clinicians have not frequently managed newborns of mothers with reactive syphilis serology, increased adult syphilis may change that.1
Diagnosing/managing congenital syphilis is not always clear cut. A positive rapid plasma reagin (RPR) titer in a newborn may not indicate congenital infection but merely may reflect transplacental, passively acquired maternal IgG from the mother’s current or previous infection rather than antibodies produced by the newborn. Because currently no IgM assay for syphilis is recommended by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention for newborn testing, we must deal with IgG test results.
Often initial management decisions are needed while the infant’s status is evolving. The questions to answer to make final decisions include the following2:
- Was the mother actively infected with Treponema pallidum during pregnancy?
- If so, was the mother appropriately treated and when?
- Does the infant have any clinical, laboratory, or radiographic evidence of syphilis?
- How do the mother’s and infant’s nontreponemal serologic titers (NTT) compare at delivery using the same test?
Note: All infants assessed for congenital syphilis need a full evaluation for HIV.
Managing the infant of a mother with positive tests3,4
All such neonates need an examination for evidence of congenital syphilis. The clinical signs of congenital syphilis in neonates include nonimmune hydrops, jaundice, hepatosplenomegaly, rhinitis, skin rash, and pseudoparalysis of extremity. Also, consider dark-field examination or polymerase chain reaction (PCR) of lesions (such as bullae) or secretions (nasal). If available, have the placenta examined histologically (silver stain) or by PCR (Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments–validated test). Skeletal radiographic surveys are more useful for stillborn than live born infants. (The complete algorithm can be found in Figure 3.10 of reference 4.)
Order a quantitative NTT, using the Venereal Disease Research Laboratory (VDRL) test or RPR test on neonatal serum. Umbilical cord blood is not appropriate because of potential maternal blood contamination, which could give a false-positive result, or Wharton’s jelly, which could give a false-negative result. Use of treponemal-specific tests that are used for maternal diagnosis – such as T. pallidum particle agglutination (TP-PA), T. pallidum enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (TP-EIA), fluorescent treponemal antibody absorption (FTA-ABS) test, or T. pallidum chemiluminescence immunoassay (TP-CIA) – on neonatal serum is not recommended because of difficulties in interpretation.
Diagnostic results allow designation of an infant into one of four CDC categories: proven/highly probable syphilis; possible syphilis; syphilis less likely; and syphilis unlikely. Treatment recommendations are based on these categories.
Proven or highly probable syphilis
There are two alternative recommended 10-day treatment regimens.
A. Aqueous crystalline penicillin G 100,000-150,000 U/kg per day by IV at 50,000 U/kg per dose, given every 12 hours through 7 days of age or every 8 hours if greater than 7 days old.
B. Procaine penicillin G at 50,000 U/kg per dose intramuscularly in one dose each day.
More than 1 day of missed therapy requires restarting a new 10-day course. Use of other antimicrobial agents (such as ampicillin) is not validated, so any empiric ampicillin initially given for possible sepsis does not count toward the 10-day penicillin regimen. If nonpenicillin drugs must be used, close serologic follow-up must occur to ensure adequacy of response to therapy.
Possible syphilis
There are three alternative regimens, the same two as in proven/highly probable syphilis (above) plus a single-dose option
A. Aqueous crystalline penicillin G, as described above.
B. Procaine penicillin G, as described above.
C. Benzathine penicillin G at 50,000 U/kg per dose intramuscularly in a single dose.
Note: To be eligible for regimen C, an infant must have a complete evaluation that is normal (cerebrospinal fluid [CSF] examination, long-bone radiographs, and complete blood count with platelet count) and follow-up must be assured. Exception: Neonates born to mothers with untreated early syphilis at the time of delivery are at increased risk for congenital syphilis, and the 10-day course of penicillin G may be considered even if the complete evaluation is normal and follow-up is certain.
Less likely syphilis
One antibiotic regimen is available, but no treatment also may be an option.
A. Benzathine penicillin G as described above.
B. If mother’s NTT has decreased at least fourfold after appropriate early syphilis therapy or remained stably low, which indicates latent syphilis (VDRL less than 1:2; RPR less than 1:4), no treatment is an option but requires repeat serology every 2-3 months until infant is 6 months old.
Unlikely syphilis
No treatment is recommended unless follow-up is uncertain, in which case it is appropriate to give the infant benzathine penicillin G as described above.
Infant with positive NTT at birth
All neonates with reactive NTT need careful follow-up examinations and repeat NTT every 2-3 months until nonreactive. NTT in infants who are not treated because of less likely or unlikely syphilis status should drop by 3 months and be nonreactive by 6 months; this indicates NTT was passively transferred maternal IgG. If NTT remains reactive at 6 months, the infant is likely infected and needs treatment. Persistent NTT at 6-12 months in treated neonates should trigger repeat CSF examination and infectious diseases consultation about a possible repeat of the 10-day penicillin G regimen. If the mother was seroreactive, but the newborn’s NTT was negative at birth, testing of the infant’s NTT needs repeating at 3 months to exclude the possibility that the congenital syphilis was incubating when prior testing occurred at birth. Note: Treponemal-specific tests are not useful in assessing treatment because detectable maternal IgG treponemal antibody can persist at least 15 months.
Neonates with abnormal CSF at birth
Repeat cerebrospinal fluid evaluation every 6 months until results normalize. Persistently reactive CSF VDRL or abnormal CSF indexes not caused by another known cause requires retreatment for possible neurosyphilis, as well as consultation with an expert.
Summary
NTT are the essential test for newborns and some degree of laboratory or imaging work up often are needed. Consider consulting an expert in infectious diseases and/or perinatology if the gray areas do not readily become clear. Treatment of the correct patients with the right drug for the right duration remains the goal, as usual.
Dr. Harrison is a professor of pediatrics at University of Missouri-Kansas City and Director of Research Affairs in the pediatric infectious diseases division at Children’s Mercy Hospital – Kansas City. He said he had no relevant financial disclosures. Email him at [email protected].
References
1. MMWR. 2015 Nov 13;64(44);1241-5.
2. “Congenital Syphilis,” 2015 Sexually Transmitted Diseases Treatment Guidelines.
3. “Syphilis During Pregnancy,” 2015 Sexually Transmitted Diseases Treatment Guidelines.
4. Syphilis – Section 3: Summaries of Infectious Diseases. Red Book Online. 2018.
Launching an HIV testing reminder
Trying a new tool to reduce infection rates
The world’s largest gay dating app, Grindr, changed its software earlier this year to create reminders for users to get regular HIV tests.
According to Grindr, 3.3 million users around the world visit the site daily; it sends those who opt into the service a reminder every 3-6 months to get a test. The message also directs them to the nearest testing site. Grindr also plans to give clinics, gay community centers, and other testing sites free advertising.
Among health care providers, the decision has been widely applauded. “This will ‘demedicalize’ testing and destigmatize it,” Perry N. Halkitis, PhD, dean of the Rutgers School of Public Health, in Newark, N.J., told the New York Times. “The more you make it normal, the more people are going to access it.”
Studies have shown that reminders by text or phone can triple or quadruple the chance that the recipient will get tested.
Reference
McNeil Jr. DG. Grindr App to Offer H.I.V. Test Reminders. The New York Times. March 26, 2018. Accessed April 5, 2018.
Trying a new tool to reduce infection rates
Trying a new tool to reduce infection rates
The world’s largest gay dating app, Grindr, changed its software earlier this year to create reminders for users to get regular HIV tests.
According to Grindr, 3.3 million users around the world visit the site daily; it sends those who opt into the service a reminder every 3-6 months to get a test. The message also directs them to the nearest testing site. Grindr also plans to give clinics, gay community centers, and other testing sites free advertising.
Among health care providers, the decision has been widely applauded. “This will ‘demedicalize’ testing and destigmatize it,” Perry N. Halkitis, PhD, dean of the Rutgers School of Public Health, in Newark, N.J., told the New York Times. “The more you make it normal, the more people are going to access it.”
Studies have shown that reminders by text or phone can triple or quadruple the chance that the recipient will get tested.
Reference
McNeil Jr. DG. Grindr App to Offer H.I.V. Test Reminders. The New York Times. March 26, 2018. Accessed April 5, 2018.
The world’s largest gay dating app, Grindr, changed its software earlier this year to create reminders for users to get regular HIV tests.
According to Grindr, 3.3 million users around the world visit the site daily; it sends those who opt into the service a reminder every 3-6 months to get a test. The message also directs them to the nearest testing site. Grindr also plans to give clinics, gay community centers, and other testing sites free advertising.
Among health care providers, the decision has been widely applauded. “This will ‘demedicalize’ testing and destigmatize it,” Perry N. Halkitis, PhD, dean of the Rutgers School of Public Health, in Newark, N.J., told the New York Times. “The more you make it normal, the more people are going to access it.”
Studies have shown that reminders by text or phone can triple or quadruple the chance that the recipient will get tested.
Reference
McNeil Jr. DG. Grindr App to Offer H.I.V. Test Reminders. The New York Times. March 26, 2018. Accessed April 5, 2018.
Telemedicine not widely used
Also today, you ought to be judicious with empiric antibiotics for febrile neutropenia, home-based exercise is better than supervised treadmill exercise for peripheral arterial disease, and brain injury in sickle cell merits more attention.
Amazon Alexa
Apple Podcasts
Google Podcasts
Spotify
Also today, you ought to be judicious with empiric antibiotics for febrile neutropenia, home-based exercise is better than supervised treadmill exercise for peripheral arterial disease, and brain injury in sickle cell merits more attention.
Amazon Alexa
Apple Podcasts
Google Podcasts
Spotify
Also today, you ought to be judicious with empiric antibiotics for febrile neutropenia, home-based exercise is better than supervised treadmill exercise for peripheral arterial disease, and brain injury in sickle cell merits more attention.
Amazon Alexa
Apple Podcasts
Google Podcasts
Spotify
Check for neuromyelitis optica spectrum disorder in suspect HIV patients
HIV-associated neuromyelitis optica spectrum disorder (NMOSD) is a recently recognized entity and high index of suspicion is needed to diagnose these patients, according to Thomas Mathew, MD, and his colleagues at St. John’s Medical College Hospital, Bengaluru, India.
“NMOSD can be associated with a wide range of autoimmune diseases but clinicians rarely diagnose NMOSD in cases of HIV infection and HIV-associated NMOSD is rarely mentioned in the conventional classification of NMOSD,” they stated.
Dr. Mathew and his colleagues reported the results of a case study they made of six cases of HIV-NMOSD identified from the literature and 1 HIV-infected patient from a registry for NMOSD that they had established, which had a total of 25 patients with the condition.
There were four men and three women in the study, ranging from 8 years to 49 years of age. The duration of HIV infection in these patients ranged from newly detected to 15 years, according to the report, published in Multiple Sclerosis and Related Disorders (2019 Jan;27:289-93).
Optic neuritis followed by myelitis was the commonest presentation, occurring in five of the seven patients. Of these, six patients were assayed for anti–aquaporin 4 antibodies, which are considered a serological marker of neuromyelitis optica; three patients were positive and three were negative.
All patients received immunomodulatory treatment. Five of the seven patients had a poor recovery from acute attacks, but no patient had further relapses while on immunomodulatory treatment and antiretroviral therapy.
Dr. Mathew and his colleagues suggested that all patients with HIV infection presenting with optic neuritis or/and myelitis, should have their anti–aquaporin 4 antibody status checked and in all patients of NMOSD, HIV infection should be ruled out.
“Prognosis of these patients is variable; residual neurological deficits were common but treatment prevented further attacks. Increased awareness of this association will lead to earlier diagnosis, early treatment and prevention of disability,” the researchers concluded.
The authors reported that they had no conflicts.
SOURCE: Mathew T et al. Mult Scler Relat Disord. 2019 Jan;27:289-93.
HIV-associated neuromyelitis optica spectrum disorder (NMOSD) is a recently recognized entity and high index of suspicion is needed to diagnose these patients, according to Thomas Mathew, MD, and his colleagues at St. John’s Medical College Hospital, Bengaluru, India.
“NMOSD can be associated with a wide range of autoimmune diseases but clinicians rarely diagnose NMOSD in cases of HIV infection and HIV-associated NMOSD is rarely mentioned in the conventional classification of NMOSD,” they stated.
Dr. Mathew and his colleagues reported the results of a case study they made of six cases of HIV-NMOSD identified from the literature and 1 HIV-infected patient from a registry for NMOSD that they had established, which had a total of 25 patients with the condition.
There were four men and three women in the study, ranging from 8 years to 49 years of age. The duration of HIV infection in these patients ranged from newly detected to 15 years, according to the report, published in Multiple Sclerosis and Related Disorders (2019 Jan;27:289-93).
Optic neuritis followed by myelitis was the commonest presentation, occurring in five of the seven patients. Of these, six patients were assayed for anti–aquaporin 4 antibodies, which are considered a serological marker of neuromyelitis optica; three patients were positive and three were negative.
All patients received immunomodulatory treatment. Five of the seven patients had a poor recovery from acute attacks, but no patient had further relapses while on immunomodulatory treatment and antiretroviral therapy.
Dr. Mathew and his colleagues suggested that all patients with HIV infection presenting with optic neuritis or/and myelitis, should have their anti–aquaporin 4 antibody status checked and in all patients of NMOSD, HIV infection should be ruled out.
“Prognosis of these patients is variable; residual neurological deficits were common but treatment prevented further attacks. Increased awareness of this association will lead to earlier diagnosis, early treatment and prevention of disability,” the researchers concluded.
The authors reported that they had no conflicts.
SOURCE: Mathew T et al. Mult Scler Relat Disord. 2019 Jan;27:289-93.
HIV-associated neuromyelitis optica spectrum disorder (NMOSD) is a recently recognized entity and high index of suspicion is needed to diagnose these patients, according to Thomas Mathew, MD, and his colleagues at St. John’s Medical College Hospital, Bengaluru, India.
“NMOSD can be associated with a wide range of autoimmune diseases but clinicians rarely diagnose NMOSD in cases of HIV infection and HIV-associated NMOSD is rarely mentioned in the conventional classification of NMOSD,” they stated.
Dr. Mathew and his colleagues reported the results of a case study they made of six cases of HIV-NMOSD identified from the literature and 1 HIV-infected patient from a registry for NMOSD that they had established, which had a total of 25 patients with the condition.
There were four men and three women in the study, ranging from 8 years to 49 years of age. The duration of HIV infection in these patients ranged from newly detected to 15 years, according to the report, published in Multiple Sclerosis and Related Disorders (2019 Jan;27:289-93).
Optic neuritis followed by myelitis was the commonest presentation, occurring in five of the seven patients. Of these, six patients were assayed for anti–aquaporin 4 antibodies, which are considered a serological marker of neuromyelitis optica; three patients were positive and three were negative.
All patients received immunomodulatory treatment. Five of the seven patients had a poor recovery from acute attacks, but no patient had further relapses while on immunomodulatory treatment and antiretroviral therapy.
Dr. Mathew and his colleagues suggested that all patients with HIV infection presenting with optic neuritis or/and myelitis, should have their anti–aquaporin 4 antibody status checked and in all patients of NMOSD, HIV infection should be ruled out.
“Prognosis of these patients is variable; residual neurological deficits were common but treatment prevented further attacks. Increased awareness of this association will lead to earlier diagnosis, early treatment and prevention of disability,” the researchers concluded.
The authors reported that they had no conflicts.
SOURCE: Mathew T et al. Mult Scler Relat Disord. 2019 Jan;27:289-93.
FROM MULTIPLE SCLEROSIS AND RELATED DISORDERS
Duodenoscopes contain more bacteria than expected
Reprocessed duodenoscopes are more contaminated than expected, with up to 3% of samples testing positive for disease-causing bacteria including Escherichia coli and Staphylococcus aureus, according to an updated safety communication issued by the Food and Drug Administration on December 10.
“Because of the higher-than-expected contamination rates and to help protect patients from bacterial infections associated with the use of duodenoscopes, we have included in today’s safety communication updated recommendations regarding steps that health care providers can take to enhance duodenoscope reprocessing,” Jeff Shuren, MD, director of the Center for Devices and Radiological Health, wrote in the statement.
The FDA advised clinicians to follow additional cleaning measures including microbiological culturing, sterilization, use of a liquid chemical sterilant processing system, and repeated high-level disinfection beyond what is recommended by duodenoscope manufacturers.
The interim data cited in the safety communication come from postmarket surveillance studies conducted by duodenoscope manufacturers at the FDA’s request as part of the agency’s ongoing efforts to prevent patient infections caused by contaminated duodenoscopes. In addition to the positive tests for disease-causing bacteria, up to 3% of properly collected samples contained more than 100 colony-forming units of other organisms unlikely to cause infection. However, the presence of such organisms further highlights the failure of the current reprocessing protocol to adequately clean the devices, according to the FDA.
Dr. Shuren emphasized that the risk of infection from a duodenoscope for an individual patient remains low and that infection rates have declined in recent years in response to the FDA’s enhanced safety measures and stated that the agency remains “committed to enhancing the safety margin of procedures with reprocessed medical devices.”
Read the full safety communication here: https://www.fda.gov/MedicalDevices/Safety/AlertsandNotices/ucm628020.htm.
Reprocessed duodenoscopes are more contaminated than expected, with up to 3% of samples testing positive for disease-causing bacteria including Escherichia coli and Staphylococcus aureus, according to an updated safety communication issued by the Food and Drug Administration on December 10.
“Because of the higher-than-expected contamination rates and to help protect patients from bacterial infections associated with the use of duodenoscopes, we have included in today’s safety communication updated recommendations regarding steps that health care providers can take to enhance duodenoscope reprocessing,” Jeff Shuren, MD, director of the Center for Devices and Radiological Health, wrote in the statement.
The FDA advised clinicians to follow additional cleaning measures including microbiological culturing, sterilization, use of a liquid chemical sterilant processing system, and repeated high-level disinfection beyond what is recommended by duodenoscope manufacturers.
The interim data cited in the safety communication come from postmarket surveillance studies conducted by duodenoscope manufacturers at the FDA’s request as part of the agency’s ongoing efforts to prevent patient infections caused by contaminated duodenoscopes. In addition to the positive tests for disease-causing bacteria, up to 3% of properly collected samples contained more than 100 colony-forming units of other organisms unlikely to cause infection. However, the presence of such organisms further highlights the failure of the current reprocessing protocol to adequately clean the devices, according to the FDA.
Dr. Shuren emphasized that the risk of infection from a duodenoscope for an individual patient remains low and that infection rates have declined in recent years in response to the FDA’s enhanced safety measures and stated that the agency remains “committed to enhancing the safety margin of procedures with reprocessed medical devices.”
Read the full safety communication here: https://www.fda.gov/MedicalDevices/Safety/AlertsandNotices/ucm628020.htm.
Reprocessed duodenoscopes are more contaminated than expected, with up to 3% of samples testing positive for disease-causing bacteria including Escherichia coli and Staphylococcus aureus, according to an updated safety communication issued by the Food and Drug Administration on December 10.
“Because of the higher-than-expected contamination rates and to help protect patients from bacterial infections associated with the use of duodenoscopes, we have included in today’s safety communication updated recommendations regarding steps that health care providers can take to enhance duodenoscope reprocessing,” Jeff Shuren, MD, director of the Center for Devices and Radiological Health, wrote in the statement.
The FDA advised clinicians to follow additional cleaning measures including microbiological culturing, sterilization, use of a liquid chemical sterilant processing system, and repeated high-level disinfection beyond what is recommended by duodenoscope manufacturers.
The interim data cited in the safety communication come from postmarket surveillance studies conducted by duodenoscope manufacturers at the FDA’s request as part of the agency’s ongoing efforts to prevent patient infections caused by contaminated duodenoscopes. In addition to the positive tests for disease-causing bacteria, up to 3% of properly collected samples contained more than 100 colony-forming units of other organisms unlikely to cause infection. However, the presence of such organisms further highlights the failure of the current reprocessing protocol to adequately clean the devices, according to the FDA.
Dr. Shuren emphasized that the risk of infection from a duodenoscope for an individual patient remains low and that infection rates have declined in recent years in response to the FDA’s enhanced safety measures and stated that the agency remains “committed to enhancing the safety margin of procedures with reprocessed medical devices.”
Read the full safety communication here: https://www.fda.gov/MedicalDevices/Safety/AlertsandNotices/ucm628020.htm.