Infectious Diseases

A review of more than 1,000 hospitalizations revealed a 40% influenza vaccine effectiveness against laboratory-confirmed influenza-associated hospitalizations during pregnancy, Mark Thompson, MD, said at a meeting of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices in Atlanta.

Piotr Marcinski/Thinkstock

To date, no study has examined influenza vaccine effectiveness (IVE) against hospitalizations among pregnant women, said Dr. Thompson, of the CDC’s influenza division.

He presented results of a study based on data from the Pregnancy Influenza Vaccine Effectiveness Network (PREVENT), which included public health or health care systems with integrated laboratory, medical, and vaccination records in Australia, Canada (Alberta and Ontario), Israel, and three states (California, Oregon, and Washington). The study included women aged 18-50 years who were pregnant during local influenza seasons from 2010 to 2016. Most of the women were older than 35 years (79%), and in the third trimester (65%), and had no high risk medical conditions (66%). The study was published in Clinical Infectious Diseases (2018 Oct 11. doi: 10.1093/cid/ciy737).

The researchers identified 19,450 hospitalizations with an acute respiratory or febrile illness discharge diagnosis and clinician-ordered real-time reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (rRT-PCR) testing for flu viruses. Of these, 1,030 (6%) of the women underwent rRT-PCR testing, 54% were diagnosed with either influenza or pneumonia, and 58% had detectable influenza A or B virus infections.

Overall, the adjusted IVE was 40%; 13% of rRT-PCR-confirmed influenza-positive pregnant women and 22% of influenza-negative pregnant women were vaccinated; IVE was adjusted for site, season, season timing, and high-risk medical conditions.

“The takeaway is this is the average performance of the vaccine across multiple countries and different seasons,” and the vaccine effectiveness appeared stable across high-risk medical conditions and trimesters of pregnancy, Dr. Thompson said.

The generalizability of the study findings was limited by the lack of data from low- to middle-income countries, he said during the meeting discussion. However, the ICU admission rate is “what we would expect” and similar to results from previous studies. The consistent results showed the need to increase flu vaccination for pregnant women worldwide and to include study populations from lower-income countries in future research.

Dr. Thompson had no financial conflicts to disclose.

A review of more than 1,000 hospitalizations revealed a 40% influenza vaccine effectiveness against laboratory-confirmed influenza-associated hospitalizations during pregnancy, Mark Thompson, MD, said at a meeting of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices in Atlanta.

Piotr Marcinski/Thinkstock

To date, no study has examined influenza vaccine effectiveness (IVE) against hospitalizations among pregnant women, said Dr. Thompson, of the CDC’s influenza division.

He presented results of a study based on data from the Pregnancy Influenza Vaccine Effectiveness Network (PREVENT), which included public health or health care systems with integrated laboratory, medical, and vaccination records in Australia, Canada (Alberta and Ontario), Israel, and three states (California, Oregon, and Washington). The study included women aged 18-50 years who were pregnant during local influenza seasons from 2010 to 2016. Most of the women were older than 35 years (79%), and in the third trimester (65%), and had no high risk medical conditions (66%). The study was published in Clinical Infectious Diseases (2018 Oct 11. doi: 10.1093/cid/ciy737).

The researchers identified 19,450 hospitalizations with an acute respiratory or febrile illness discharge diagnosis and clinician-ordered real-time reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (rRT-PCR) testing for flu viruses. Of these, 1,030 (6%) of the women underwent rRT-PCR testing, 54% were diagnosed with either influenza or pneumonia, and 58% had detectable influenza A or B virus infections.

Overall, the adjusted IVE was 40%; 13% of rRT-PCR-confirmed influenza-positive pregnant women and 22% of influenza-negative pregnant women were vaccinated; IVE was adjusted for site, season, season timing, and high-risk medical conditions.

“The takeaway is this is the average performance of the vaccine across multiple countries and different seasons,” and the vaccine effectiveness appeared stable across high-risk medical conditions and trimesters of pregnancy, Dr. Thompson said.

The generalizability of the study findings was limited by the lack of data from low- to middle-income countries, he said during the meeting discussion. However, the ICU admission rate is “what we would expect” and similar to results from previous studies. The consistent results showed the need to increase flu vaccination for pregnant women worldwide and to include study populations from lower-income countries in future research.

Dr. Thompson had no financial conflicts to disclose.

A review of more than 1,000 hospitalizations revealed a 40% influenza vaccine effectiveness against laboratory-confirmed influenza-associated hospitalizations during pregnancy, Mark Thompson, MD, said at a meeting of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices in Atlanta.

Piotr Marcinski/Thinkstock

To date, no study has examined influenza vaccine effectiveness (IVE) against hospitalizations among pregnant women, said Dr. Thompson, of the CDC’s influenza division.

He presented results of a study based on data from the Pregnancy Influenza Vaccine Effectiveness Network (PREVENT), which included public health or health care systems with integrated laboratory, medical, and vaccination records in Australia, Canada (Alberta and Ontario), Israel, and three states (California, Oregon, and Washington). The study included women aged 18-50 years who were pregnant during local influenza seasons from 2010 to 2016. Most of the women were older than 35 years (79%), and in the third trimester (65%), and had no high risk medical conditions (66%). The study was published in Clinical Infectious Diseases (2018 Oct 11. doi: 10.1093/cid/ciy737).

The researchers identified 19,450 hospitalizations with an acute respiratory or febrile illness discharge diagnosis and clinician-ordered real-time reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (rRT-PCR) testing for flu viruses. Of these, 1,030 (6%) of the women underwent rRT-PCR testing, 54% were diagnosed with either influenza or pneumonia, and 58% had detectable influenza A or B virus infections.

Overall, the adjusted IVE was 40%; 13% of rRT-PCR-confirmed influenza-positive pregnant women and 22% of influenza-negative pregnant women were vaccinated; IVE was adjusted for site, season, season timing, and high-risk medical conditions.

“The takeaway is this is the average performance of the vaccine across multiple countries and different seasons,” and the vaccine effectiveness appeared stable across high-risk medical conditions and trimesters of pregnancy, Dr. Thompson said.

The generalizability of the study findings was limited by the lack of data from low- to middle-income countries, he said during the meeting discussion. However, the ICU admission rate is “what we would expect” and similar to results from previous studies. The consistent results showed the need to increase flu vaccination for pregnant women worldwide and to include study populations from lower-income countries in future research.

Dr. Thompson had no financial conflicts to disclose.

SAN FRANCISCO – A combination of ceftriaxone, a beta-lactamase inhibitor, and disodium ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid (EDTA) is superior to meropenem in the treatment of complicated urinary tract infections caused by extended-spectrum beta-lactamase (ESBL) gram-negative bacteria, according to a new study.

Jim Kling/MDedge News

The post-hoc analysis also found that the three-drug combination – known as CSE – is noninferior to meropenem in multidrug-resistant (MDR) and ceftriaxone-nonsusceptible (C-NS) pathogens.

CSE is aimed at the growing problem of antibiotic resistance, particularly the mechanisms used by bacteria to counter beta-lactamase inhibitors. EDTA chelates zinc and calcium, and many of the resistance mechanisms rely on one or the other of these ions to function. In in vitro models, the combination of sulbactam and EDTA restores activity of ceftriaxone against various beta-lactamases.

Mohd Amin Mir, MD, head of clinical research at the Venus Medicine Research Center, Panchkula, India, and presenter of the study, said that, in the case of efflux pumps, “when there is EDTA present, it chelates the calcium, and that means there is no energy for the efflux pump to throw out the drug.”

The penems, which include meropenem, are a class of synthetic antibiotics with an unsaturated beta-lactam ring. Like other antibiotics, they are under assault from antibiotic resistance, especially beta-lactamase enzymes. “Penems are very precious drugs. The objective of developing [EDTA combinations] is to save the penems,” Dr. Mir said at an annual scientific meeting on infectious diseases.

The PLEA trial randomized 143 patients with complicated urinary tract infections or acute pyelonephritis to CSE (1 g ceftriaxone/500 mg sulbactam/37 mg EDTA) every 12 hours or 1 g meropenem (MR) as a 30-minute intravenous infusion over 30 minutes. Patients received treatment for 5-14 days.

The original study demonstrated that CSE is noninferior to meropenem at a 10% noninferiority margin. The researchers conducted a post-hoc analysis of patients who presented with complicated UTIs or acute pyelonephritis cases that were C-NS, ESBL-positive, or multidrug-resistant (MDR) pathogens. The researchers defined MDR as resistance to three or more categories of antimicrobial agents.

Of patients who received CSE, 97.3% had pathogens that were nonsusceptible to ceftriaxone, as did 98.6% of those who received MR; 85.1% of CSE and 81.2% of MR patients had an ESBL-producing pathogen; and 74.3% of infections in the CSE group were MDR, as were 65.2% of the MR group.

In all three resistant phenotypes, CSE at least trended to more favorable outcomes. In the MDR group, 96.4% of CSE patients achieved a clinical cure, compared with 88.9% in the MR group, and 94.5% achieved microbial eradication, compared with 86.75% in the MR group.

In the ESBL subgroup, 100% of patients in the CSE group achieved a clinical cure, compared with 89.3%, while 98.4% had complete eradication in the CSE group, compared with 87.5%. In the C-NS subgroup, 95.8% in the CSE group achieved a clinical cure, compared with 91.2%, and 94.4% achieved eradication, compared with 89.7% in the MR group.

In the ESBL subgroup, the lower bound of the 95% confidence interval of the between-group difference was greater than 0, indicating superiority of CSE over MR for both clinical cure and eradication. In the MDR and C-NS subgroups, CSE achieved noninferiority at a –10% margin.

CSE is currently commercially available in India, and the manufacturer is now seeking approval in Europe and the United States.

SOURCE: Mir MA et al. IDWeek 2018, Abstract 1959.

SAN FRANCISCO – A combination of ceftriaxone, a beta-lactamase inhibitor, and disodium ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid (EDTA) is superior to meropenem in the treatment of complicated urinary tract infections caused by extended-spectrum beta-lactamase (ESBL) gram-negative bacteria, according to a new study.

Jim Kling/MDedge News

The post-hoc analysis also found that the three-drug combination – known as CSE – is noninferior to meropenem in multidrug-resistant (MDR) and ceftriaxone-nonsusceptible (C-NS) pathogens.

CSE is aimed at the growing problem of antibiotic resistance, particularly the mechanisms used by bacteria to counter beta-lactamase inhibitors. EDTA chelates zinc and calcium, and many of the resistance mechanisms rely on one or the other of these ions to function. In in vitro models, the combination of sulbactam and EDTA restores activity of ceftriaxone against various beta-lactamases.

Mohd Amin Mir, MD, head of clinical research at the Venus Medicine Research Center, Panchkula, India, and presenter of the study, said that, in the case of efflux pumps, “when there is EDTA present, it chelates the calcium, and that means there is no energy for the efflux pump to throw out the drug.”

The penems, which include meropenem, are a class of synthetic antibiotics with an unsaturated beta-lactam ring. Like other antibiotics, they are under assault from antibiotic resistance, especially beta-lactamase enzymes. “Penems are very precious drugs. The objective of developing [EDTA combinations] is to save the penems,” Dr. Mir said at an annual scientific meeting on infectious diseases.

The PLEA trial randomized 143 patients with complicated urinary tract infections or acute pyelonephritis to CSE (1 g ceftriaxone/500 mg sulbactam/37 mg EDTA) every 12 hours or 1 g meropenem (MR) as a 30-minute intravenous infusion over 30 minutes. Patients received treatment for 5-14 days.

The original study demonstrated that CSE is noninferior to meropenem at a 10% noninferiority margin. The researchers conducted a post-hoc analysis of patients who presented with complicated UTIs or acute pyelonephritis cases that were C-NS, ESBL-positive, or multidrug-resistant (MDR) pathogens. The researchers defined MDR as resistance to three or more categories of antimicrobial agents.

Of patients who received CSE, 97.3% had pathogens that were nonsusceptible to ceftriaxone, as did 98.6% of those who received MR; 85.1% of CSE and 81.2% of MR patients had an ESBL-producing pathogen; and 74.3% of infections in the CSE group were MDR, as were 65.2% of the MR group.

In all three resistant phenotypes, CSE at least trended to more favorable outcomes. In the MDR group, 96.4% of CSE patients achieved a clinical cure, compared with 88.9% in the MR group, and 94.5% achieved microbial eradication, compared with 86.75% in the MR group.

In the ESBL subgroup, 100% of patients in the CSE group achieved a clinical cure, compared with 89.3%, while 98.4% had complete eradication in the CSE group, compared with 87.5%. In the C-NS subgroup, 95.8% in the CSE group achieved a clinical cure, compared with 91.2%, and 94.4% achieved eradication, compared with 89.7% in the MR group.

In the ESBL subgroup, the lower bound of the 95% confidence interval of the between-group difference was greater than 0, indicating superiority of CSE over MR for both clinical cure and eradication. In the MDR and C-NS subgroups, CSE achieved noninferiority at a –10% margin.

CSE is currently commercially available in India, and the manufacturer is now seeking approval in Europe and the United States.

SOURCE: Mir MA et al. IDWeek 2018, Abstract 1959.

SAN FRANCISCO – A combination of ceftriaxone, a beta-lactamase inhibitor, and disodium ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid (EDTA) is superior to meropenem in the treatment of complicated urinary tract infections caused by extended-spectrum beta-lactamase (ESBL) gram-negative bacteria, according to a new study.

Jim Kling/MDedge News

The post-hoc analysis also found that the three-drug combination – known as CSE – is noninferior to meropenem in multidrug-resistant (MDR) and ceftriaxone-nonsusceptible (C-NS) pathogens.

CSE is aimed at the growing problem of antibiotic resistance, particularly the mechanisms used by bacteria to counter beta-lactamase inhibitors. EDTA chelates zinc and calcium, and many of the resistance mechanisms rely on one or the other of these ions to function. In in vitro models, the combination of sulbactam and EDTA restores activity of ceftriaxone against various beta-lactamases.

Mohd Amin Mir, MD, head of clinical research at the Venus Medicine Research Center, Panchkula, India, and presenter of the study, said that, in the case of efflux pumps, “when there is EDTA present, it chelates the calcium, and that means there is no energy for the efflux pump to throw out the drug.”

The penems, which include meropenem, are a class of synthetic antibiotics with an unsaturated beta-lactam ring. Like other antibiotics, they are under assault from antibiotic resistance, especially beta-lactamase enzymes. “Penems are very precious drugs. The objective of developing [EDTA combinations] is to save the penems,” Dr. Mir said at an annual scientific meeting on infectious diseases.

The PLEA trial randomized 143 patients with complicated urinary tract infections or acute pyelonephritis to CSE (1 g ceftriaxone/500 mg sulbactam/37 mg EDTA) every 12 hours or 1 g meropenem (MR) as a 30-minute intravenous infusion over 30 minutes. Patients received treatment for 5-14 days.

The original study demonstrated that CSE is noninferior to meropenem at a 10% noninferiority margin. The researchers conducted a post-hoc analysis of patients who presented with complicated UTIs or acute pyelonephritis cases that were C-NS, ESBL-positive, or multidrug-resistant (MDR) pathogens. The researchers defined MDR as resistance to three or more categories of antimicrobial agents.

Of patients who received CSE, 97.3% had pathogens that were nonsusceptible to ceftriaxone, as did 98.6% of those who received MR; 85.1% of CSE and 81.2% of MR patients had an ESBL-producing pathogen; and 74.3% of infections in the CSE group were MDR, as were 65.2% of the MR group.

In all three resistant phenotypes, CSE at least trended to more favorable outcomes. In the MDR group, 96.4% of CSE patients achieved a clinical cure, compared with 88.9% in the MR group, and 94.5% achieved microbial eradication, compared with 86.75% in the MR group.

In the ESBL subgroup, 100% of patients in the CSE group achieved a clinical cure, compared with 89.3%, while 98.4% had complete eradication in the CSE group, compared with 87.5%. In the C-NS subgroup, 95.8% in the CSE group achieved a clinical cure, compared with 91.2%, and 94.4% achieved eradication, compared with 89.7% in the MR group.

In the ESBL subgroup, the lower bound of the 95% confidence interval of the between-group difference was greater than 0, indicating superiority of CSE over MR for both clinical cure and eradication. In the MDR and C-NS subgroups, CSE achieved noninferiority at a –10% margin.

CSE is currently commercially available in India, and the manufacturer is now seeking approval in Europe and the United States.

SOURCE: Mir MA et al. IDWeek 2018, Abstract 1959.

The recent rise in pertussis rates may have peaked, but the experts are responding by reinstating a working group.

The new working group for pertussis was announced at a meeting of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices. The ACIP’s new group, led by Fiona Havers, MD, of the CDC, heard data on the currently available pertussis vaccines and solicited ideas from ACIP members about what other data they would like before the February meeting.

One question on the agenda is whether the current recommendation that nonpregnant adults receive a single lifetime dose of Tdap and then tetanus-diphtheria (Td) boosters every 10 years be expanded to allow either Tdap or Td as the booster. Reasons for considering the change include possible changes in the circulating pertussis strain, improved diagnosis and reporting, and the waning of protection under the current guidelines, as well as the potential economic impact, Dr. Havers said.

This change could make booster administration easier for many physicians who do not routinely stock Td, some committee members noted. In addition, the Food and Drug Administration has approved a label change for one Tdap manufacturer to remove “single use” language.

In a study presented by David P. Greenberg, MD, associate vice president of Sanofi Pasteur, seroprotection rates to tetanus and diphtheria were similar in a comparison between groups of adults aged 18 years and older, receiving either Tdap (Adacel) or Td as a booster. “Seroprotection was greater than 99% in both groups,” he said.

Pain was the most common injection site reaction in both groups, rates of serious adverse events were similarly low (0.8% and 0.3%, respectively), and no deaths occurred in patients given either vaccine.

The postvaccination antipertussis geometric mean concentrations were noninferior in the Tdap group, compared with the Td group, Dr. Greenberg said.

A phase III open label study presented by Leonard Silverstein, MD, of GlaxoSmithKline also showed similar seroprotection rates for adults revaccinated with Tdap after an initial vaccination with either of two different Tdap vaccines.

Also at the February meeting, the committee will address whether any vaccine that contained Td should be allowed for use as tetanus prophylaxis in the setting of wound management, said Dr. Havers.

The committee members expressed interest in more information on several topics including pregnancy and pertussis, whether manufacturers could discuss vaccines in the pipeline, data on responses to multiple doses and if there is a point of diminishing returns, and whether some states are covering Tdap for adults.

The committee members had no financial conflicts to disclose.

The recent rise in pertussis rates may have peaked, but the experts are responding by reinstating a working group.

The new working group for pertussis was announced at a meeting of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices. The ACIP’s new group, led by Fiona Havers, MD, of the CDC, heard data on the currently available pertussis vaccines and solicited ideas from ACIP members about what other data they would like before the February meeting.

One question on the agenda is whether the current recommendation that nonpregnant adults receive a single lifetime dose of Tdap and then tetanus-diphtheria (Td) boosters every 10 years be expanded to allow either Tdap or Td as the booster. Reasons for considering the change include possible changes in the circulating pertussis strain, improved diagnosis and reporting, and the waning of protection under the current guidelines, as well as the potential economic impact, Dr. Havers said.

This change could make booster administration easier for many physicians who do not routinely stock Td, some committee members noted. In addition, the Food and Drug Administration has approved a label change for one Tdap manufacturer to remove “single use” language.

In a study presented by David P. Greenberg, MD, associate vice president of Sanofi Pasteur, seroprotection rates to tetanus and diphtheria were similar in a comparison between groups of adults aged 18 years and older, receiving either Tdap (Adacel) or Td as a booster. “Seroprotection was greater than 99% in both groups,” he said.

Pain was the most common injection site reaction in both groups, rates of serious adverse events were similarly low (0.8% and 0.3%, respectively), and no deaths occurred in patients given either vaccine.

The postvaccination antipertussis geometric mean concentrations were noninferior in the Tdap group, compared with the Td group, Dr. Greenberg said.

A phase III open label study presented by Leonard Silverstein, MD, of GlaxoSmithKline also showed similar seroprotection rates for adults revaccinated with Tdap after an initial vaccination with either of two different Tdap vaccines.

Also at the February meeting, the committee will address whether any vaccine that contained Td should be allowed for use as tetanus prophylaxis in the setting of wound management, said Dr. Havers.

The committee members expressed interest in more information on several topics including pregnancy and pertussis, whether manufacturers could discuss vaccines in the pipeline, data on responses to multiple doses and if there is a point of diminishing returns, and whether some states are covering Tdap for adults.

The committee members had no financial conflicts to disclose.

The recent rise in pertussis rates may have peaked, but the experts are responding by reinstating a working group.

The new working group for pertussis was announced at a meeting of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices. The ACIP’s new group, led by Fiona Havers, MD, of the CDC, heard data on the currently available pertussis vaccines and solicited ideas from ACIP members about what other data they would like before the February meeting.

One question on the agenda is whether the current recommendation that nonpregnant adults receive a single lifetime dose of Tdap and then tetanus-diphtheria (Td) boosters every 10 years be expanded to allow either Tdap or Td as the booster. Reasons for considering the change include possible changes in the circulating pertussis strain, improved diagnosis and reporting, and the waning of protection under the current guidelines, as well as the potential economic impact, Dr. Havers said.

This change could make booster administration easier for many physicians who do not routinely stock Td, some committee members noted. In addition, the Food and Drug Administration has approved a label change for one Tdap manufacturer to remove “single use” language.

In a study presented by David P. Greenberg, MD, associate vice president of Sanofi Pasteur, seroprotection rates to tetanus and diphtheria were similar in a comparison between groups of adults aged 18 years and older, receiving either Tdap (Adacel) or Td as a booster. “Seroprotection was greater than 99% in both groups,” he said.

Pain was the most common injection site reaction in both groups, rates of serious adverse events were similarly low (0.8% and 0.3%, respectively), and no deaths occurred in patients given either vaccine.

The postvaccination antipertussis geometric mean concentrations were noninferior in the Tdap group, compared with the Td group, Dr. Greenberg said.

A phase III open label study presented by Leonard Silverstein, MD, of GlaxoSmithKline also showed similar seroprotection rates for adults revaccinated with Tdap after an initial vaccination with either of two different Tdap vaccines.

Also at the February meeting, the committee will address whether any vaccine that contained Td should be allowed for use as tetanus prophylaxis in the setting of wound management, said Dr. Havers.

The committee members expressed interest in more information on several topics including pregnancy and pertussis, whether manufacturers could discuss vaccines in the pipeline, data on responses to multiple doses and if there is a point of diminishing returns, and whether some states are covering Tdap for adults.

The committee members had no financial conflicts to disclose.

BOSTON–Vitamin C, angiotensin-II, and methylene blue are emerging options on the cutting edge of refractory septic shock treatment that require more investigation, but nevertheless appear promising, Rishi Rattan, MD, said at the annual clinical congress of the American College of Surgeons.

Andrew Bowser/MDedge News

Trials evaluating vitamin C in this setting have demonstrated a large mortality impact with an absence of side effects, according to Dr. Rattan, a trauma and critical care surgeon with the Ryder Trauma Center at the University of Miami.

“It’s something that I have decided to start early adopting, and many of my colleagues at University of Miami do as well,” Dr. Rattan said in a panel session on updates in septic shock. “We’re anecdotally so far at least seeing good results and are going to be excited to see what these ongoing trials show.”

As an antioxidant, vitamin C has anti-inflammatory properties that may possibly attenuate the overly exuberant inflammatory response seen in septic shock, Dr. Rattan said in his presentation.

The limited clinical data for vitamin C in refractory shock include three studies, of which two are randomized controlled trials, comprising a total of 146 patients, he added.

“I will admit an N of 146 is hardly practice-changing for most people,” Dr. Rattan said. “There’s still a significant and sustained large mortality effect for the use of vitamin C, with nearly no adverse effects.”

Pooled analysis of all three studies revealed a marked reduction in mortality with the use of vitamin C (odds ratio, 0.17, 95% confidence interval 0.07–0.40; P less than .001), according to a meta-analysis recently just published in Critical Care that Dr. Rattan referenced in his presentation (Critical Care 2018;22:258, DOI:10.1186/s13054-018-2191-x).

When taken in recommended dosages, vitamin C given with corticosteroids and thiamine is without known side effects, researcher Paul E. Marik wrote earlier this year in an editorial in Pharmacology & Therapeutics (2018;189[9]:63-70, DOI:10.1016/j.pharmthera.2018.04.007) noted Dr. Rattan, who said he uses the intravenous vitamin C, thiamine, and hydrocortisone protocol previously reported by Dr. Marik and colleagues.

There are 13 ongoing trials, including some prospective blinded, randomized trials, looking at the role of vitamin C in refractory shock, he added.

Angiotensin-II is another intervention that may be promising in refractory septic shock, Dr. Rattan told attendees, pointing to the 2017 publication of the ATHOS-3 trial in the New England Journal of Medicine (2017; 377:419-430,DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa1704154) showing that treatment increased blood pressure in patients with vasodilatory shock not responding to conventional vasopressors at high doses.

Likewise, methylene blue has shown promise in septic shock, at least in some limited clinical investigations and anecdotally in patients not improving despite standard interventions. “I’ve been able to have a couple patients walk out of the hospital with the use of methylene blue,” Dr. Rattan said. “Again, the plural of ‘anecdote’ is not ‘data,’ but it’s something to consider for the early adopters.”

Dr. Rattan had no disclosures related to his presentation.

BOSTON–Vitamin C, angiotensin-II, and methylene blue are emerging options on the cutting edge of refractory septic shock treatment that require more investigation, but nevertheless appear promising, Rishi Rattan, MD, said at the annual clinical congress of the American College of Surgeons.

Andrew Bowser/MDedge News

Trials evaluating vitamin C in this setting have demonstrated a large mortality impact with an absence of side effects, according to Dr. Rattan, a trauma and critical care surgeon with the Ryder Trauma Center at the University of Miami.

“It’s something that I have decided to start early adopting, and many of my colleagues at University of Miami do as well,” Dr. Rattan said in a panel session on updates in septic shock. “We’re anecdotally so far at least seeing good results and are going to be excited to see what these ongoing trials show.”

As an antioxidant, vitamin C has anti-inflammatory properties that may possibly attenuate the overly exuberant inflammatory response seen in septic shock, Dr. Rattan said in his presentation.

The limited clinical data for vitamin C in refractory shock include three studies, of which two are randomized controlled trials, comprising a total of 146 patients, he added.

“I will admit an N of 146 is hardly practice-changing for most people,” Dr. Rattan said. “There’s still a significant and sustained large mortality effect for the use of vitamin C, with nearly no adverse effects.”

Pooled analysis of all three studies revealed a marked reduction in mortality with the use of vitamin C (odds ratio, 0.17, 95% confidence interval 0.07–0.40; P less than .001), according to a meta-analysis recently just published in Critical Care that Dr. Rattan referenced in his presentation (Critical Care 2018;22:258, DOI:10.1186/s13054-018-2191-x).

When taken in recommended dosages, vitamin C given with corticosteroids and thiamine is without known side effects, researcher Paul E. Marik wrote earlier this year in an editorial in Pharmacology & Therapeutics (2018;189[9]:63-70, DOI:10.1016/j.pharmthera.2018.04.007) noted Dr. Rattan, who said he uses the intravenous vitamin C, thiamine, and hydrocortisone protocol previously reported by Dr. Marik and colleagues.

There are 13 ongoing trials, including some prospective blinded, randomized trials, looking at the role of vitamin C in refractory shock, he added.

Angiotensin-II is another intervention that may be promising in refractory septic shock, Dr. Rattan told attendees, pointing to the 2017 publication of the ATHOS-3 trial in the New England Journal of Medicine (2017; 377:419-430,DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa1704154) showing that treatment increased blood pressure in patients with vasodilatory shock not responding to conventional vasopressors at high doses.

Likewise, methylene blue has shown promise in septic shock, at least in some limited clinical investigations and anecdotally in patients not improving despite standard interventions. “I’ve been able to have a couple patients walk out of the hospital with the use of methylene blue,” Dr. Rattan said. “Again, the plural of ‘anecdote’ is not ‘data,’ but it’s something to consider for the early adopters.”

Dr. Rattan had no disclosures related to his presentation.

BOSTON–Vitamin C, angiotensin-II, and methylene blue are emerging options on the cutting edge of refractory septic shock treatment that require more investigation, but nevertheless appear promising, Rishi Rattan, MD, said at the annual clinical congress of the American College of Surgeons.

Andrew Bowser/MDedge News

Trials evaluating vitamin C in this setting have demonstrated a large mortality impact with an absence of side effects, according to Dr. Rattan, a trauma and critical care surgeon with the Ryder Trauma Center at the University of Miami.

“It’s something that I have decided to start early adopting, and many of my colleagues at University of Miami do as well,” Dr. Rattan said in a panel session on updates in septic shock. “We’re anecdotally so far at least seeing good results and are going to be excited to see what these ongoing trials show.”

As an antioxidant, vitamin C has anti-inflammatory properties that may possibly attenuate the overly exuberant inflammatory response seen in septic shock, Dr. Rattan said in his presentation.

The limited clinical data for vitamin C in refractory shock include three studies, of which two are randomized controlled trials, comprising a total of 146 patients, he added.

“I will admit an N of 146 is hardly practice-changing for most people,” Dr. Rattan said. “There’s still a significant and sustained large mortality effect for the use of vitamin C, with nearly no adverse effects.”

Pooled analysis of all three studies revealed a marked reduction in mortality with the use of vitamin C (odds ratio, 0.17, 95% confidence interval 0.07–0.40; P less than .001), according to a meta-analysis recently just published in Critical Care that Dr. Rattan referenced in his presentation (Critical Care 2018;22:258, DOI:10.1186/s13054-018-2191-x).

When taken in recommended dosages, vitamin C given with corticosteroids and thiamine is without known side effects, researcher Paul E. Marik wrote earlier this year in an editorial in Pharmacology & Therapeutics (2018;189[9]:63-70, DOI:10.1016/j.pharmthera.2018.04.007) noted Dr. Rattan, who said he uses the intravenous vitamin C, thiamine, and hydrocortisone protocol previously reported by Dr. Marik and colleagues.

There are 13 ongoing trials, including some prospective blinded, randomized trials, looking at the role of vitamin C in refractory shock, he added.

Angiotensin-II is another intervention that may be promising in refractory septic shock, Dr. Rattan told attendees, pointing to the 2017 publication of the ATHOS-3 trial in the New England Journal of Medicine (2017; 377:419-430,DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa1704154) showing that treatment increased blood pressure in patients with vasodilatory shock not responding to conventional vasopressors at high doses.

Likewise, methylene blue has shown promise in septic shock, at least in some limited clinical investigations and anecdotally in patients not improving despite standard interventions. “I’ve been able to have a couple patients walk out of the hospital with the use of methylene blue,” Dr. Rattan said. “Again, the plural of ‘anecdote’ is not ‘data,’ but it’s something to consider for the early adopters.”

Dr. Rattan had no disclosures related to his presentation.

ATLANTA – The risk of infection from flexible endoscopes is far greater than generally believed, despite the excessive use of prophylactic antimicrobials in patients undergoing endoscopy, recent studies show.

romaset/Getty Images

Many gastroenterologists and guidelines from professional organizations use a reference point of “less than one per million” regarding the risk of infection from scopes, but a Johns Hopkins University study of more than 2.3 million patients in 6 states showed that the infection risk with colonoscopy is about 1 per 1,000, the risk for upper gastrointestinal endoscopy is about 3 per 1,000, and the risk with cystoscopy is about 4 per 1,000, Cori Ofstead said at the International Conference on Emerging Infectious Diseases.

“For bronchoscopy [the infection risk] was 15.6 in 1,000, which is 1.6% – not anywhere in the 1 in a million range,” said Ms. Ofstead, president and chief executive officer of Ofstead & Associates, a St. Paul, Minn. health care research firm.

It also turns out that prophylactic antibiotics are frequently given to patients undergoing routine endoscopy procedures, she said, noting that four major associations – two gastroenterology associations and two urology associations in the United States and Europe – recommend that prophylactic antimicrobials be given with routine endoscopies for certain patients undergoing certain types of procedures.

One U.S. organization is recommending prophylactic antimicrobials for every patient undergoing ureteroscopy, she added.

A Cleveland Clinic study looking at the impact of those American Urological Association guidelines for prophylactic antimicrobials showed that in a subset of patients with negative urine cultures before ureteroscopy, 100% received the prophylaxis, and 68% were also given other antimicrobials to take home.

“So the question, of course, is how well does this work...,” Ms. Ofstead said. “They found 3%-4% infection, with the rates exactly the same – no statistically significant differences – between patients who got prophylaxis just in the hospital or who went home with prophylactic meds, and they concluded that there was no benefit to the extra take-home antimicrobials.”

Others studies in multiple countries show either no impact or only minor impact of this prophylaxis on infection rates, and yet all show infection rates after endoscopy that are not one in a million, but in “the percentage point range,” she said.

“As we move toward more of these minimally invasive procedures, we need to be aware that we’re using extremely complex instruments that are very difficult to clean and disinfect or sterilize,” she said, adding that “in the field we’re seeing that improper reprocessing is actually business as usual.”

Infections have been seen with all kinds of scopes, Ms. Ofstead noted.

“The potential for this becoming a bit of a monster is enhanced by the widespread use of prophylactic antimicrobials during endoscopy, and I’m also troubled by the quick reaction of giving people antimicrobials when they have a positive culture from a scope rather than making sure the scope is clean,” she said, explaining that while most scopes have microbes and patients could be getting infections, they also may be reacting to soil and endotoxins in the scope rather than microbes.

“In any case, to reduce risks there are a number of things people can do,” she said. When using reusable scopes, proper cleaning is essential. “I think we should be moving toward scopes that can be disassembled so we can see inside and get those channels clean,” adding that efforts should also be made to move toward single-use scopes.

“Particularly in these outbreak situations where we’re using bronchoscopy on multiple patients, there’s just no excuse for reusing bronchoscopes and not sterilizing them between uses and making darn sure that they’re not full of whatever our outbreak pathogen is,” Ms. Ofstead said. “And lastly, I’m hoping that some folks here can talk some sense into people at the professional associations who are recommending prophylactic antimicrobial use, because if we don’t get some stewardship going, we’re going to be in big trouble.”

The guidelines create a conundrum for doctors who are torn between that stewardship and a failure to follow the recommendations.

“Their professional organization is telling them to give prophylactic antimicrobials. If they don’t do it and a patients gets an infection, that’s a malpractice issue. So we’ve got to go through those associations and get them to stop recommending prophylactic antimicrobials when there is no evidence of their effectiveness,” she said.

Ms. Ofstead has been a consultant for 3M Company, Ambu, Auris, Boston Scientific, Cogentix, Convergascent, Healthmark, Invendo Medical, Nanosonics, and Advanced Sterilization Products, and has received grant/research support from 3M Company, Advanced Sterilization Products, Ambu, Boston Scientific, Cogentix, Healthmark, Invendo Medical, Medivators, and Steris.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Ofstead C., ICEID 2018 Presentation.

ATLANTA – The risk of infection from flexible endoscopes is far greater than generally believed, despite the excessive use of prophylactic antimicrobials in patients undergoing endoscopy, recent studies show.

romaset/Getty Images

Many gastroenterologists and guidelines from professional organizations use a reference point of “less than one per million” regarding the risk of infection from scopes, but a Johns Hopkins University study of more than 2.3 million patients in 6 states showed that the infection risk with colonoscopy is about 1 per 1,000, the risk for upper gastrointestinal endoscopy is about 3 per 1,000, and the risk with cystoscopy is about 4 per 1,000, Cori Ofstead said at the International Conference on Emerging Infectious Diseases.

“For bronchoscopy [the infection risk] was 15.6 in 1,000, which is 1.6% – not anywhere in the 1 in a million range,” said Ms. Ofstead, president and chief executive officer of Ofstead & Associates, a St. Paul, Minn. health care research firm.

It also turns out that prophylactic antibiotics are frequently given to patients undergoing routine endoscopy procedures, she said, noting that four major associations – two gastroenterology associations and two urology associations in the United States and Europe – recommend that prophylactic antimicrobials be given with routine endoscopies for certain patients undergoing certain types of procedures.

One U.S. organization is recommending prophylactic antimicrobials for every patient undergoing ureteroscopy, she added.

A Cleveland Clinic study looking at the impact of those American Urological Association guidelines for prophylactic antimicrobials showed that in a subset of patients with negative urine cultures before ureteroscopy, 100% received the prophylaxis, and 68% were also given other antimicrobials to take home.

“So the question, of course, is how well does this work...,” Ms. Ofstead said. “They found 3%-4% infection, with the rates exactly the same – no statistically significant differences – between patients who got prophylaxis just in the hospital or who went home with prophylactic meds, and they concluded that there was no benefit to the extra take-home antimicrobials.”

Others studies in multiple countries show either no impact or only minor impact of this prophylaxis on infection rates, and yet all show infection rates after endoscopy that are not one in a million, but in “the percentage point range,” she said.

“As we move toward more of these minimally invasive procedures, we need to be aware that we’re using extremely complex instruments that are very difficult to clean and disinfect or sterilize,” she said, adding that “in the field we’re seeing that improper reprocessing is actually business as usual.”

Infections have been seen with all kinds of scopes, Ms. Ofstead noted.

“The potential for this becoming a bit of a monster is enhanced by the widespread use of prophylactic antimicrobials during endoscopy, and I’m also troubled by the quick reaction of giving people antimicrobials when they have a positive culture from a scope rather than making sure the scope is clean,” she said, explaining that while most scopes have microbes and patients could be getting infections, they also may be reacting to soil and endotoxins in the scope rather than microbes.

“In any case, to reduce risks there are a number of things people can do,” she said. When using reusable scopes, proper cleaning is essential. “I think we should be moving toward scopes that can be disassembled so we can see inside and get those channels clean,” adding that efforts should also be made to move toward single-use scopes.

“Particularly in these outbreak situations where we’re using bronchoscopy on multiple patients, there’s just no excuse for reusing bronchoscopes and not sterilizing them between uses and making darn sure that they’re not full of whatever our outbreak pathogen is,” Ms. Ofstead said. “And lastly, I’m hoping that some folks here can talk some sense into people at the professional associations who are recommending prophylactic antimicrobial use, because if we don’t get some stewardship going, we’re going to be in big trouble.”

The guidelines create a conundrum for doctors who are torn between that stewardship and a failure to follow the recommendations.

“Their professional organization is telling them to give prophylactic antimicrobials. If they don’t do it and a patients gets an infection, that’s a malpractice issue. So we’ve got to go through those associations and get them to stop recommending prophylactic antimicrobials when there is no evidence of their effectiveness,” she said.

Ms. Ofstead has been a consultant for 3M Company, Ambu, Auris, Boston Scientific, Cogentix, Convergascent, Healthmark, Invendo Medical, Nanosonics, and Advanced Sterilization Products, and has received grant/research support from 3M Company, Advanced Sterilization Products, Ambu, Boston Scientific, Cogentix, Healthmark, Invendo Medical, Medivators, and Steris.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Ofstead C., ICEID 2018 Presentation.

ATLANTA – The risk of infection from flexible endoscopes is far greater than generally believed, despite the excessive use of prophylactic antimicrobials in patients undergoing endoscopy, recent studies show.

romaset/Getty Images

Many gastroenterologists and guidelines from professional organizations use a reference point of “less than one per million” regarding the risk of infection from scopes, but a Johns Hopkins University study of more than 2.3 million patients in 6 states showed that the infection risk with colonoscopy is about 1 per 1,000, the risk for upper gastrointestinal endoscopy is about 3 per 1,000, and the risk with cystoscopy is about 4 per 1,000, Cori Ofstead said at the International Conference on Emerging Infectious Diseases.

“For bronchoscopy [the infection risk] was 15.6 in 1,000, which is 1.6% – not anywhere in the 1 in a million range,” said Ms. Ofstead, president and chief executive officer of Ofstead & Associates, a St. Paul, Minn. health care research firm.

It also turns out that prophylactic antibiotics are frequently given to patients undergoing routine endoscopy procedures, she said, noting that four major associations – two gastroenterology associations and two urology associations in the United States and Europe – recommend that prophylactic antimicrobials be given with routine endoscopies for certain patients undergoing certain types of procedures.

One U.S. organization is recommending prophylactic antimicrobials for every patient undergoing ureteroscopy, she added.

A Cleveland Clinic study looking at the impact of those American Urological Association guidelines for prophylactic antimicrobials showed that in a subset of patients with negative urine cultures before ureteroscopy, 100% received the prophylaxis, and 68% were also given other antimicrobials to take home.

“So the question, of course, is how well does this work...,” Ms. Ofstead said. “They found 3%-4% infection, with the rates exactly the same – no statistically significant differences – between patients who got prophylaxis just in the hospital or who went home with prophylactic meds, and they concluded that there was no benefit to the extra take-home antimicrobials.”

Others studies in multiple countries show either no impact or only minor impact of this prophylaxis on infection rates, and yet all show infection rates after endoscopy that are not one in a million, but in “the percentage point range,” she said.

“As we move toward more of these minimally invasive procedures, we need to be aware that we’re using extremely complex instruments that are very difficult to clean and disinfect or sterilize,” she said, adding that “in the field we’re seeing that improper reprocessing is actually business as usual.”

Infections have been seen with all kinds of scopes, Ms. Ofstead noted.

“The potential for this becoming a bit of a monster is enhanced by the widespread use of prophylactic antimicrobials during endoscopy, and I’m also troubled by the quick reaction of giving people antimicrobials when they have a positive culture from a scope rather than making sure the scope is clean,” she said, explaining that while most scopes have microbes and patients could be getting infections, they also may be reacting to soil and endotoxins in the scope rather than microbes.

“In any case, to reduce risks there are a number of things people can do,” she said. When using reusable scopes, proper cleaning is essential. “I think we should be moving toward scopes that can be disassembled so we can see inside and get those channels clean,” adding that efforts should also be made to move toward single-use scopes.

“Particularly in these outbreak situations where we’re using bronchoscopy on multiple patients, there’s just no excuse for reusing bronchoscopes and not sterilizing them between uses and making darn sure that they’re not full of whatever our outbreak pathogen is,” Ms. Ofstead said. “And lastly, I’m hoping that some folks here can talk some sense into people at the professional associations who are recommending prophylactic antimicrobial use, because if we don’t get some stewardship going, we’re going to be in big trouble.”

The guidelines create a conundrum for doctors who are torn between that stewardship and a failure to follow the recommendations.

“Their professional organization is telling them to give prophylactic antimicrobials. If they don’t do it and a patients gets an infection, that’s a malpractice issue. So we’ve got to go through those associations and get them to stop recommending prophylactic antimicrobials when there is no evidence of their effectiveness,” she said.

Ms. Ofstead has been a consultant for 3M Company, Ambu, Auris, Boston Scientific, Cogentix, Convergascent, Healthmark, Invendo Medical, Nanosonics, and Advanced Sterilization Products, and has received grant/research support from 3M Company, Advanced Sterilization Products, Ambu, Boston Scientific, Cogentix, Healthmark, Invendo Medical, Medivators, and Steris.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Ofstead C., ICEID 2018 Presentation.

The Diagnosis: Pediculosis Pubis

Dermoscopy of the pubic hair demonstrated a louse clutching multiple shafts of hairs (Figure) as well as scattered nits, confirming the presence of Phthirus pubis and diagnosis of pediculosis pubis. The key clinical diagnostic feature in this case was severe itching of the pubic area, with visible nits present on pubic hairs. Itching and infestation also can involve other hair-bearing areas such as the chest, legs, and axillae. The patient was treated with permethrin cream 5% applied to the pubic area and chest. Symptoms and infestation were resolved at 1-week follow-up.

Pediculosis pubis is an infestation of pubic hairs by the pubic (crab) louse P pubis, which feeds on host blood. Other body areas covered with dense hair also may be involved; 60% of patients are infested in at least 2 different sites.¹ Pediculosis pubis is most commonly sexually transmitted through direct contact.² Worldwide prevalence has been estimated at approximately 2% of the adult population, and a survey of 817 US college students in 2009 indicated a lifetime prevalence of 1.3%.³ The prevalence is slightly higher in men, highest in men who have sex with men, and rare in individuals with shaved pubic hair.¹ The most common symptom is pruritus of the genital area. Infested patients also may develop asymptomatic bluish gray macules (maculae ceruleae) secondary to hemosiderin deposition from louse bites.⁴

The diagnosis of pediculosis pubis is made by identification of P pubis, either by examination with the naked eye or confirmation with dermoscopy or microscopy. Although the 0.8- to 1.2-mm lice are visible to the naked eye, they can be difficult to see if not filled with blood, and nits on the hairs can be mistaken for white piedra (fungal infection of the hair shafts) or trichomycosis pubis (bacterial infection of the hair shafts).⁴ Scabies and tinea cruris do not present with attachments to the hairs. Scabies may present with papules and burrows and tinea cruris with scaly erythematous plaques. Small numbers of lice and nits may be missed by the naked eye or a traditional magnifying glass.⁵ The use of dermoscopy allows for fast and accurate identification of the characteristic lice and nits, even in these more challenging cases.⁵ Accurate diagnosis is important, as approximately 31% of infested patients have other concurrent sexually transmitted infections that warrant screening.⁶

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommends first-line treatment with permethrin cream (1% or 5%) or pyrethrin with piperonyl butoxide applied to all affected areas and washed off after 10 minutes.⁷ Patients should be reevaluated after 1 week if symptoms persist and re-treated if lice are found on examination.^7,8 Malathion lotion 0.5% (applied and washed off after 8-12 hours) or oral ivermectin (250 µg/kg, repeated after 2 weeks) may be used for alternative therapies or cases of permethrin or pyrethrin resistance.⁷ Ivermectin also is effective for involvement of eyelashes where topical insecticides should not be used.⁹ Sexual partners should be treated to prevent repeat transmission.^7,8 Bedding and clothing can be decontaminated by machine wash on hot cycle or isolating from body contact for 72 hours.⁷ Patients also should be screened for other sexually transmitted infections, including human immunodeficiency virus.⁶

The Diagnosis: Pediculosis Pubis

Dermoscopy of the pubic hair demonstrated a louse clutching multiple shafts of hairs (Figure) as well as scattered nits, confirming the presence of Phthirus pubis and diagnosis of pediculosis pubis. The key clinical diagnostic feature in this case was severe itching of the pubic area, with visible nits present on pubic hairs. Itching and infestation also can involve other hair-bearing areas such as the chest, legs, and axillae. The patient was treated with permethrin cream 5% applied to the pubic area and chest. Symptoms and infestation were resolved at 1-week follow-up.

Pediculosis pubis is an infestation of pubic hairs by the pubic (crab) louse P pubis, which feeds on host blood. Other body areas covered with dense hair also may be involved; 60% of patients are infested in at least 2 different sites.¹ Pediculosis pubis is most commonly sexually transmitted through direct contact.² Worldwide prevalence has been estimated at approximately 2% of the adult population, and a survey of 817 US college students in 2009 indicated a lifetime prevalence of 1.3%.³ The prevalence is slightly higher in men, highest in men who have sex with men, and rare in individuals with shaved pubic hair.¹ The most common symptom is pruritus of the genital area. Infested patients also may develop asymptomatic bluish gray macules (maculae ceruleae) secondary to hemosiderin deposition from louse bites.⁴

The diagnosis of pediculosis pubis is made by identification of P pubis, either by examination with the naked eye or confirmation with dermoscopy or microscopy. Although the 0.8- to 1.2-mm lice are visible to the naked eye, they can be difficult to see if not filled with blood, and nits on the hairs can be mistaken for white piedra (fungal infection of the hair shafts) or trichomycosis pubis (bacterial infection of the hair shafts).⁴ Scabies and tinea cruris do not present with attachments to the hairs. Scabies may present with papules and burrows and tinea cruris with scaly erythematous plaques. Small numbers of lice and nits may be missed by the naked eye or a traditional magnifying glass.⁵ The use of dermoscopy allows for fast and accurate identification of the characteristic lice and nits, even in these more challenging cases.⁵ Accurate diagnosis is important, as approximately 31% of infested patients have other concurrent sexually transmitted infections that warrant screening.⁶

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommends first-line treatment with permethrin cream (1% or 5%) or pyrethrin with piperonyl butoxide applied to all affected areas and washed off after 10 minutes.⁷ Patients should be reevaluated after 1 week if symptoms persist and re-treated if lice are found on examination.^7,8 Malathion lotion 0.5% (applied and washed off after 8-12 hours) or oral ivermectin (250 µg/kg, repeated after 2 weeks) may be used for alternative therapies or cases of permethrin or pyrethrin resistance.⁷ Ivermectin also is effective for involvement of eyelashes where topical insecticides should not be used.⁹ Sexual partners should be treated to prevent repeat transmission.^7,8 Bedding and clothing can be decontaminated by machine wash on hot cycle or isolating from body contact for 72 hours.⁷ Patients also should be screened for other sexually transmitted infections, including human immunodeficiency virus.⁶

The Diagnosis: Pediculosis Pubis

Dermoscopy of the pubic hair demonstrated a louse clutching multiple shafts of hairs (Figure) as well as scattered nits, confirming the presence of Phthirus pubis and diagnosis of pediculosis pubis. The key clinical diagnostic feature in this case was severe itching of the pubic area, with visible nits present on pubic hairs. Itching and infestation also can involve other hair-bearing areas such as the chest, legs, and axillae. The patient was treated with permethrin cream 5% applied to the pubic area and chest. Symptoms and infestation were resolved at 1-week follow-up.

Pediculosis pubis is an infestation of pubic hairs by the pubic (crab) louse P pubis, which feeds on host blood. Other body areas covered with dense hair also may be involved; 60% of patients are infested in at least 2 different sites.¹ Pediculosis pubis is most commonly sexually transmitted through direct contact.² Worldwide prevalence has been estimated at approximately 2% of the adult population, and a survey of 817 US college students in 2009 indicated a lifetime prevalence of 1.3%.³ The prevalence is slightly higher in men, highest in men who have sex with men, and rare in individuals with shaved pubic hair.¹ The most common symptom is pruritus of the genital area. Infested patients also may develop asymptomatic bluish gray macules (maculae ceruleae) secondary to hemosiderin deposition from louse bites.⁴

The diagnosis of pediculosis pubis is made by identification of P pubis, either by examination with the naked eye or confirmation with dermoscopy or microscopy. Although the 0.8- to 1.2-mm lice are visible to the naked eye, they can be difficult to see if not filled with blood, and nits on the hairs can be mistaken for white piedra (fungal infection of the hair shafts) or trichomycosis pubis (bacterial infection of the hair shafts).⁴ Scabies and tinea cruris do not present with attachments to the hairs. Scabies may present with papules and burrows and tinea cruris with scaly erythematous plaques. Small numbers of lice and nits may be missed by the naked eye or a traditional magnifying glass.⁵ The use of dermoscopy allows for fast and accurate identification of the characteristic lice and nits, even in these more challenging cases.⁵ Accurate diagnosis is important, as approximately 31% of infested patients have other concurrent sexually transmitted infections that warrant screening.⁶

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommends first-line treatment with permethrin cream (1% or 5%) or pyrethrin with piperonyl butoxide applied to all affected areas and washed off after 10 minutes.⁷ Patients should be reevaluated after 1 week if symptoms persist and re-treated if lice are found on examination.^7,8 Malathion lotion 0.5% (applied and washed off after 8-12 hours) or oral ivermectin (250 µg/kg, repeated after 2 weeks) may be used for alternative therapies or cases of permethrin or pyrethrin resistance.⁷ Ivermectin also is effective for involvement of eyelashes where topical insecticides should not be used.⁹ Sexual partners should be treated to prevent repeat transmission.^7,8 Bedding and clothing can be decontaminated by machine wash on hot cycle or isolating from body contact for 72 hours.⁷ Patients also should be screened for other sexually transmitted infections, including human immunodeficiency virus.⁶

SAN FRANCISCO – Daptomycin plus fosfomycin is more effective than daptomycin alone for methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus bacteremia, according to a multicenter, randomized trial from Spain.

M. Alexander Otto/MDedge News

“I think this is really an important study; I think it will change clinical practice for this infection” once it’s published, said lead investigator Miquel Pujol, MD, PhD, clinical head of infectious diseases at Bellvitge University Hospital in Barcelona.

The current standard for MRSA bacteremia is daptomycin (Cubicin) or vancomycin (Vancocin) monotherapy on both sides of the Atlantic, but mortality rates are way too high, more than 30% in some reviews. Dr. Pujol and his colleagues wanted to find something better.

Their lab work showed that daptomycin and fosfomycin (Monurol) were synergistic and rapidly bactericidal against MRSA, and anecdotal experience in Spain suggested the drugs improved bacteremia outcomes, so they decided to put the combination to the test.

They randomized 74 MRSA bacteremia patients to the combination, daptomycin 10mg/kg IV daily plus fosfomycin 2g IV q 6h. They randomized 81 other subjects to standard of care with daptomycin monotherapy, also at 10mg/kg IV daily. Treatment was 10-14 days for uncomplicated and 28-42 days for complicated bacteremia.

The open-label trial was conducted at 18 medical centers in Spain, where fosfomycin was discovered in dirt samples in the late 1960s and remains a matter of pride.

At day 7, 69 of the 74 combination patients (93.2%) were alive with clinical improvement, clearance of bacteremia, and no subsequent relapse, versus 62 of 81 patients (76.5%) on monotherapy (absolute difference 16.7%; 95% confidence interval, 5.4%-27.7%). Three people in the combination arm (4.1%) had died by day 7, versus six on monotherapy (7.4%).

Six weeks after the end of treatment at the test-of-cure visit, 40 of 74 combination patients (54.1%) were alive with resolution of all clinical signs and symptoms, negative blood cultures, and no previous or subsequent relapses; just 34 of 81 patients (42%) in the monotherapy arm hit that mark. The 12.1% difference was not statistically significant, nor was the difference in 12-week survival.

However, patients in the combination arm were 70% less likely to have complicated bacteremia at the test-of-cure visit (9.5% vs. 28.4%; relative risk 0.3; 95% CI, 0.2-0.7). There were no cases of persistent or recurrent infection in the combination arm, but nine persistent (11.1%) and five recurrent (6.2%) cases with daptomycin monotherapy. The differences were statistically significant.

The subjects all had at least one positive MRSA blood culture within 72 hours of randomization. Exclusion criteria included MRSA pneumonia, prosthetic valve endocarditis, end-stage liver disease, and moderate to severe heart failure.

There were no significant baseline differences between the groups. About half the subjects were men, and the mean age was about 73 years. The mean Charlson Comorbidity Index score was a bit under 4, and the mean Pitt bacteremia score a bit over 1. The leading source of infection was vascular catheter; acquisition was thought to be nosocomial in more than 40% of patients.

There were no discontinuations from drug side effects in the daptomycin arm, but there were five in the combination arm, including two for heart failure, two for respiratory insufficiency, and one for GI bleeding. Even so, the benefit outweighed the risk, Dr. Pujol said.

Intravenous fosfomycin is available in Europe, but the drug is approved in the United States only as an oral formulation. That could change soon; Nabriva Therapeutics plans to file its IV formulation (Contepo) for Food and Drug Administration approval in late 2018.

Though it is not standard of practice yet, the combination is increasingly being used in Spain for MRSA bacteremia, according to Dr. Pujol. “Patients probably need the combination [at least] initially, especially if they have complicated bacteremia” or fail monotherapy, he said at ID week, an annual scientific meeting on infectious diseases.

The work was funded by the Spanish government. Dr. Pujol said he had no relevant disclosures.
 

[email protected]

SOURCE: Pujol M et al. 2018 ID Week abstract LB3

SAN FRANCISCO – Daptomycin plus fosfomycin is more effective than daptomycin alone for methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus bacteremia, according to a multicenter, randomized trial from Spain.

M. Alexander Otto/MDedge News

“I think this is really an important study; I think it will change clinical practice for this infection” once it’s published, said lead investigator Miquel Pujol, MD, PhD, clinical head of infectious diseases at Bellvitge University Hospital in Barcelona.

The current standard for MRSA bacteremia is daptomycin (Cubicin) or vancomycin (Vancocin) monotherapy on both sides of the Atlantic, but mortality rates are way too high, more than 30% in some reviews. Dr. Pujol and his colleagues wanted to find something better.

Their lab work showed that daptomycin and fosfomycin (Monurol) were synergistic and rapidly bactericidal against MRSA, and anecdotal experience in Spain suggested the drugs improved bacteremia outcomes, so they decided to put the combination to the test.

They randomized 74 MRSA bacteremia patients to the combination, daptomycin 10mg/kg IV daily plus fosfomycin 2g IV q 6h. They randomized 81 other subjects to standard of care with daptomycin monotherapy, also at 10mg/kg IV daily. Treatment was 10-14 days for uncomplicated and 28-42 days for complicated bacteremia.

The open-label trial was conducted at 18 medical centers in Spain, where fosfomycin was discovered in dirt samples in the late 1960s and remains a matter of pride.

At day 7, 69 of the 74 combination patients (93.2%) were alive with clinical improvement, clearance of bacteremia, and no subsequent relapse, versus 62 of 81 patients (76.5%) on monotherapy (absolute difference 16.7%; 95% confidence interval, 5.4%-27.7%). Three people in the combination arm (4.1%) had died by day 7, versus six on monotherapy (7.4%).

Six weeks after the end of treatment at the test-of-cure visit, 40 of 74 combination patients (54.1%) were alive with resolution of all clinical signs and symptoms, negative blood cultures, and no previous or subsequent relapses; just 34 of 81 patients (42%) in the monotherapy arm hit that mark. The 12.1% difference was not statistically significant, nor was the difference in 12-week survival.

However, patients in the combination arm were 70% less likely to have complicated bacteremia at the test-of-cure visit (9.5% vs. 28.4%; relative risk 0.3; 95% CI, 0.2-0.7). There were no cases of persistent or recurrent infection in the combination arm, but nine persistent (11.1%) and five recurrent (6.2%) cases with daptomycin monotherapy. The differences were statistically significant.

The subjects all had at least one positive MRSA blood culture within 72 hours of randomization. Exclusion criteria included MRSA pneumonia, prosthetic valve endocarditis, end-stage liver disease, and moderate to severe heart failure.

There were no significant baseline differences between the groups. About half the subjects were men, and the mean age was about 73 years. The mean Charlson Comorbidity Index score was a bit under 4, and the mean Pitt bacteremia score a bit over 1. The leading source of infection was vascular catheter; acquisition was thought to be nosocomial in more than 40% of patients.

There were no discontinuations from drug side effects in the daptomycin arm, but there were five in the combination arm, including two for heart failure, two for respiratory insufficiency, and one for GI bleeding. Even so, the benefit outweighed the risk, Dr. Pujol said.

Intravenous fosfomycin is available in Europe, but the drug is approved in the United States only as an oral formulation. That could change soon; Nabriva Therapeutics plans to file its IV formulation (Contepo) for Food and Drug Administration approval in late 2018.

Though it is not standard of practice yet, the combination is increasingly being used in Spain for MRSA bacteremia, according to Dr. Pujol. “Patients probably need the combination [at least] initially, especially if they have complicated bacteremia” or fail monotherapy, he said at ID week, an annual scientific meeting on infectious diseases.

The work was funded by the Spanish government. Dr. Pujol said he had no relevant disclosures.
 

[email protected]

SOURCE: Pujol M et al. 2018 ID Week abstract LB3

SAN FRANCISCO – Daptomycin plus fosfomycin is more effective than daptomycin alone for methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus bacteremia, according to a multicenter, randomized trial from Spain.

M. Alexander Otto/MDedge News

“I think this is really an important study; I think it will change clinical practice for this infection” once it’s published, said lead investigator Miquel Pujol, MD, PhD, clinical head of infectious diseases at Bellvitge University Hospital in Barcelona.

The current standard for MRSA bacteremia is daptomycin (Cubicin) or vancomycin (Vancocin) monotherapy on both sides of the Atlantic, but mortality rates are way too high, more than 30% in some reviews. Dr. Pujol and his colleagues wanted to find something better.

Their lab work showed that daptomycin and fosfomycin (Monurol) were synergistic and rapidly bactericidal against MRSA, and anecdotal experience in Spain suggested the drugs improved bacteremia outcomes, so they decided to put the combination to the test.

They randomized 74 MRSA bacteremia patients to the combination, daptomycin 10mg/kg IV daily plus fosfomycin 2g IV q 6h. They randomized 81 other subjects to standard of care with daptomycin monotherapy, also at 10mg/kg IV daily. Treatment was 10-14 days for uncomplicated and 28-42 days for complicated bacteremia.

The open-label trial was conducted at 18 medical centers in Spain, where fosfomycin was discovered in dirt samples in the late 1960s and remains a matter of pride.

At day 7, 69 of the 74 combination patients (93.2%) were alive with clinical improvement, clearance of bacteremia, and no subsequent relapse, versus 62 of 81 patients (76.5%) on monotherapy (absolute difference 16.7%; 95% confidence interval, 5.4%-27.7%). Three people in the combination arm (4.1%) had died by day 7, versus six on monotherapy (7.4%).

Six weeks after the end of treatment at the test-of-cure visit, 40 of 74 combination patients (54.1%) were alive with resolution of all clinical signs and symptoms, negative blood cultures, and no previous or subsequent relapses; just 34 of 81 patients (42%) in the monotherapy arm hit that mark. The 12.1% difference was not statistically significant, nor was the difference in 12-week survival.

However, patients in the combination arm were 70% less likely to have complicated bacteremia at the test-of-cure visit (9.5% vs. 28.4%; relative risk 0.3; 95% CI, 0.2-0.7). There were no cases of persistent or recurrent infection in the combination arm, but nine persistent (11.1%) and five recurrent (6.2%) cases with daptomycin monotherapy. The differences were statistically significant.

The subjects all had at least one positive MRSA blood culture within 72 hours of randomization. Exclusion criteria included MRSA pneumonia, prosthetic valve endocarditis, end-stage liver disease, and moderate to severe heart failure.

There were no significant baseline differences between the groups. About half the subjects were men, and the mean age was about 73 years. The mean Charlson Comorbidity Index score was a bit under 4, and the mean Pitt bacteremia score a bit over 1. The leading source of infection was vascular catheter; acquisition was thought to be nosocomial in more than 40% of patients.

There were no discontinuations from drug side effects in the daptomycin arm, but there were five in the combination arm, including two for heart failure, two for respiratory insufficiency, and one for GI bleeding. Even so, the benefit outweighed the risk, Dr. Pujol said.

Intravenous fosfomycin is available in Europe, but the drug is approved in the United States only as an oral formulation. That could change soon; Nabriva Therapeutics plans to file its IV formulation (Contepo) for Food and Drug Administration approval in late 2018.

Though it is not standard of practice yet, the combination is increasingly being used in Spain for MRSA bacteremia, according to Dr. Pujol. “Patients probably need the combination [at least] initially, especially if they have complicated bacteremia” or fail monotherapy, he said at ID week, an annual scientific meeting on infectious diseases.

The work was funded by the Spanish government. Dr. Pujol said he had no relevant disclosures.
 

[email protected]

SOURCE: Pujol M et al. 2018 ID Week abstract LB3

I think the question was intended as polite, dinner party chit chat ... maybe an attempt by a gracious hostess to make sure everyone was engaged in conversation.

“So what pediatric infectious disease should parents be most worried about?” she asked me.

I’ll admit that a couple of perfectly respectable and noncontroversial possibilities crossed my mind before I answered.

Acute flaccid myelitis? Measles?

When I replied, “gonorrhea,” conversation at the table pretty much stopped.

Let me explain. Acute flaccid myelitis is a polio-like neurologic condition that has been grabbing headlines. Yes, it is concerning that most cases have occurred in children and some affected children are left with long-term deficits. Technically though, AFM is a neurologic rather than an infectious disease. When cases occur, we suspect a viral infection but according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, no pathogen has been consistently identified from the spinal fluid of infected patients. From August 2014 to September 2018, the CDC received information on 368 confirmed cases, so AFM fortunately is still rare.

News reports describe measles outbreaks raging in Europe – more than 41,000 cases so far this year, and 40 deaths – and warn that the United States could be next. But let’s be honest: We have a safe and effective vaccine for measles and outbreaks like this don’t happen when individuals are appropriately immunized. Parents, immunize your children. If you are lucky enough to be traveling to Europe with your baby, remember that MMR vaccine is indicated for 6- to 11-month olds, but it doesn’t count in the 2-dose series.

But gonorrhea?

In 2017, the World Health Organization included Neisseria gonorrhoeae on its list of bacteria that pose the greatest threat to human health and for which new antibiotics are urgently needed. The popular media are calling N. gonorrhoeae one of the new “superbugs.” Globally, patients are being diagnosed with strains of gonorrhea that are resistant to all commonly used antibiotics. As reported during IDWeek 2018 this October, patients also are being diagnosed in the United States.

CDC

Sancta St. Cyr, MD, of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and her colleagues reported data from the Gonococcal Isolate Surveillance Project (GISP) and trends in multidrug resistant (MDR) and extensively-drug resistant (XDR) gonorrhea in the United States. A gonococcal isolate with resistance or elevated minimum inhibitory concentrations (MIC) to greater than or equal to two classes of antimicrobials is classified as MDR and an isolate with elevated MICs to greater than or equal to three classes of antimicrobials is classified as XDR. The MIC is the lowest antimicrobial concentration that inhibits growth of bacteria in the laboratory and rising MICs – evidence that higher levels of an antibiotic are needed to stop bacterial growth – can be an early indicator that resistance is emerging.

More than 150,000 gonococcal isolates were tested between 1987 and 2016. The first isolates with elevated MICs to cephalosporins and macrolides were identified in 1998, and since 2011, MDR resistance rates have hovered around 1%. In 2016, the rate was 1.1%, down from 1.3% in 2011. A single XDR isolate with resistance to fluoroquinolones with elevated MICs to both cephalosporins and macrolides was identified in 2011.

One could look at these data and ask if this is a “glass half full or half empty” situation, but I propose that clinicians and public health officials should not look at these data and be reassured that rates of MDR-gonorrhea remained stable between 2010 and 2016. According to a recent surveillance report released by the CDC, the absolute number of cases of gonorrhea has continued to rise. In 2017, there were 555,608 cases reported in the United States, a 67% increase since 2013. If we assume that rates of resistance in 2017 were similar to those in 2016, that’s more than 5,000 cases of MDR-gonorrhea in a single year.

“That’s bad,” one of my dining companions agreed. “But is gonorrhea really a pediatric issue?”

To answer that question, we just have to look at the numbers. According to the 2017 Youth Risk Behavior Survey, the percentage of high school students who had ever had sex was approximately 40% and about 10% of students had four or more lifetime partners. More than 45% of sexually active students denied the use of a condom during the last sexual intercourse. Certainly, that puts many teenagers at risk for sexually transmitted infections (STIs). Perhaps it shouldn’t be surprising that public health authorities report that half of all new STIs occur in individuals aged 15-24 years. Moreover, 25% of sexually active adolescent girls contract at least one STI.

Gonorrhea is the second most commonly reported notifiable disease in the United States, and according to the CDC, rates of disease in 2017 were highest among adolescents and young adults. In females specifically, the highest rates of gonorrhea were observed among those aged 20-24 years (684.8 cases per 100,000 females) and 15-19 years (557.4 cases per 100,000 females).

It makes sense that pediatricians and parents advocate for making the reduction of gonorrhea transmission rates a public health priority. We also need to recognize that prompt diagnosis and appropriate treatment are critical. Since 2015, dual therapy with ceftriaxone and azithromycin is the only CDC-recommended treatment for gonorrhea.

At that dinner party, my closest friend, who also happens to be a pediatrician, rolled her eyes and shot me look that I’m sure meant, “Nobody really wants to talk about gonorrhea over dessert.” Still, because she is a good friend she said, “So basically you’re saying that millions of teenagers are getting infected with a form of gonorrhea that takes at least two antibiotics to treat, and if this keeps up, we may see kids with untreatable infection. Now that is scary.”

I kept quiet after that but I wanted to mention that in 2017, less than 85% of patients diagnosed with gonorrhea at selected surveillance sites received the recommended treatment with two antibiotics. Patients with inadequately treated gonorrhea are at risk for a host of sequelae. Women can develop pelvic inflammatory disease, abscesses, chronic pelvic pain, and damage of the fallopian tubes that can lead to infertility. Men can develop epididymitis, which occasionally results in infertility. Rarely, N. gonorrhoeae can spread to the blood and cause life-threatening infection. Of course, patients who aren’t treated appropriately may continue to spread the bacteria. Scary? You bet.

For pediatricians who need a refresher course in the treatment of STIs, there are free resources available. The CDC’s 2015 STD Treatment Guidelines are available in a free app; the app contains a nice refresher on taking a sexual history. There also is a print version, wall chart, and pocket guide. Providers also may want to check out the National STD Curriculum offered by the University of Washington STD Prevention Training Center and the University of Washington. Visit https://www.std.uw.edu/.
 

Dr. Bryant is a pediatrician specializing in infectious diseases at the University of Louisville (Ky.) and Norton Children’s Hospital, also in Louisville. She said she had no relevant financial disclosures. Email her at [email protected].

I think the question was intended as polite, dinner party chit chat ... maybe an attempt by a gracious hostess to make sure everyone was engaged in conversation.

“So what pediatric infectious disease should parents be most worried about?” she asked me.

I’ll admit that a couple of perfectly respectable and noncontroversial possibilities crossed my mind before I answered.

Acute flaccid myelitis? Measles?

When I replied, “gonorrhea,” conversation at the table pretty much stopped.

Let me explain. Acute flaccid myelitis is a polio-like neurologic condition that has been grabbing headlines. Yes, it is concerning that most cases have occurred in children and some affected children are left with long-term deficits. Technically though, AFM is a neurologic rather than an infectious disease. When cases occur, we suspect a viral infection but according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, no pathogen has been consistently identified from the spinal fluid of infected patients. From August 2014 to September 2018, the CDC received information on 368 confirmed cases, so AFM fortunately is still rare.

News reports describe measles outbreaks raging in Europe – more than 41,000 cases so far this year, and 40 deaths – and warn that the United States could be next. But let’s be honest: We have a safe and effective vaccine for measles and outbreaks like this don’t happen when individuals are appropriately immunized. Parents, immunize your children. If you are lucky enough to be traveling to Europe with your baby, remember that MMR vaccine is indicated for 6- to 11-month olds, but it doesn’t count in the 2-dose series.

But gonorrhea?

In 2017, the World Health Organization included Neisseria gonorrhoeae on its list of bacteria that pose the greatest threat to human health and for which new antibiotics are urgently needed. The popular media are calling N. gonorrhoeae one of the new “superbugs.” Globally, patients are being diagnosed with strains of gonorrhea that are resistant to all commonly used antibiotics. As reported during IDWeek 2018 this October, patients also are being diagnosed in the United States.

CDC

Sancta St. Cyr, MD, of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and her colleagues reported data from the Gonococcal Isolate Surveillance Project (GISP) and trends in multidrug resistant (MDR) and extensively-drug resistant (XDR) gonorrhea in the United States. A gonococcal isolate with resistance or elevated minimum inhibitory concentrations (MIC) to greater than or equal to two classes of antimicrobials is classified as MDR and an isolate with elevated MICs to greater than or equal to three classes of antimicrobials is classified as XDR. The MIC is the lowest antimicrobial concentration that inhibits growth of bacteria in the laboratory and rising MICs – evidence that higher levels of an antibiotic are needed to stop bacterial growth – can be an early indicator that resistance is emerging.

More than 150,000 gonococcal isolates were tested between 1987 and 2016. The first isolates with elevated MICs to cephalosporins and macrolides were identified in 1998, and since 2011, MDR resistance rates have hovered around 1%. In 2016, the rate was 1.1%, down from 1.3% in 2011. A single XDR isolate with resistance to fluoroquinolones with elevated MICs to both cephalosporins and macrolides was identified in 2011.

One could look at these data and ask if this is a “glass half full or half empty” situation, but I propose that clinicians and public health officials should not look at these data and be reassured that rates of MDR-gonorrhea remained stable between 2010 and 2016. According to a recent surveillance report released by the CDC, the absolute number of cases of gonorrhea has continued to rise. In 2017, there were 555,608 cases reported in the United States, a 67% increase since 2013. If we assume that rates of resistance in 2017 were similar to those in 2016, that’s more than 5,000 cases of MDR-gonorrhea in a single year.

“That’s bad,” one of my dining companions agreed. “But is gonorrhea really a pediatric issue?”

To answer that question, we just have to look at the numbers. According to the 2017 Youth Risk Behavior Survey, the percentage of high school students who had ever had sex was approximately 40% and about 10% of students had four or more lifetime partners. More than 45% of sexually active students denied the use of a condom during the last sexual intercourse. Certainly, that puts many teenagers at risk for sexually transmitted infections (STIs). Perhaps it shouldn’t be surprising that public health authorities report that half of all new STIs occur in individuals aged 15-24 years. Moreover, 25% of sexually active adolescent girls contract at least one STI.

Gonorrhea is the second most commonly reported notifiable disease in the United States, and according to the CDC, rates of disease in 2017 were highest among adolescents and young adults. In females specifically, the highest rates of gonorrhea were observed among those aged 20-24 years (684.8 cases per 100,000 females) and 15-19 years (557.4 cases per 100,000 females).

It makes sense that pediatricians and parents advocate for making the reduction of gonorrhea transmission rates a public health priority. We also need to recognize that prompt diagnosis and appropriate treatment are critical. Since 2015, dual therapy with ceftriaxone and azithromycin is the only CDC-recommended treatment for gonorrhea.

At that dinner party, my closest friend, who also happens to be a pediatrician, rolled her eyes and shot me look that I’m sure meant, “Nobody really wants to talk about gonorrhea over dessert.” Still, because she is a good friend she said, “So basically you’re saying that millions of teenagers are getting infected with a form of gonorrhea that takes at least two antibiotics to treat, and if this keeps up, we may see kids with untreatable infection. Now that is scary.”

I kept quiet after that but I wanted to mention that in 2017, less than 85% of patients diagnosed with gonorrhea at selected surveillance sites received the recommended treatment with two antibiotics. Patients with inadequately treated gonorrhea are at risk for a host of sequelae. Women can develop pelvic inflammatory disease, abscesses, chronic pelvic pain, and damage of the fallopian tubes that can lead to infertility. Men can develop epididymitis, which occasionally results in infertility. Rarely, N. gonorrhoeae can spread to the blood and cause life-threatening infection. Of course, patients who aren’t treated appropriately may continue to spread the bacteria. Scary? You bet.

For pediatricians who need a refresher course in the treatment of STIs, there are free resources available. The CDC’s 2015 STD Treatment Guidelines are available in a free app; the app contains a nice refresher on taking a sexual history. There also is a print version, wall chart, and pocket guide. Providers also may want to check out the National STD Curriculum offered by the University of Washington STD Prevention Training Center and the University of Washington. Visit https://www.std.uw.edu/.
 

Dr. Bryant is a pediatrician specializing in infectious diseases at the University of Louisville (Ky.) and Norton Children’s Hospital, also in Louisville. She said she had no relevant financial disclosures. Email her at [email protected].

I think the question was intended as polite, dinner party chit chat ... maybe an attempt by a gracious hostess to make sure everyone was engaged in conversation.

“So what pediatric infectious disease should parents be most worried about?” she asked me.

I’ll admit that a couple of perfectly respectable and noncontroversial possibilities crossed my mind before I answered.

Acute flaccid myelitis? Measles?

When I replied, “gonorrhea,” conversation at the table pretty much stopped.

Let me explain. Acute flaccid myelitis is a polio-like neurologic condition that has been grabbing headlines. Yes, it is concerning that most cases have occurred in children and some affected children are left with long-term deficits. Technically though, AFM is a neurologic rather than an infectious disease. When cases occur, we suspect a viral infection but according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, no pathogen has been consistently identified from the spinal fluid of infected patients. From August 2014 to September 2018, the CDC received information on 368 confirmed cases, so AFM fortunately is still rare.

News reports describe measles outbreaks raging in Europe – more than 41,000 cases so far this year, and 40 deaths – and warn that the United States could be next. But let’s be honest: We have a safe and effective vaccine for measles and outbreaks like this don’t happen when individuals are appropriately immunized. Parents, immunize your children. If you are lucky enough to be traveling to Europe with your baby, remember that MMR vaccine is indicated for 6- to 11-month olds, but it doesn’t count in the 2-dose series.

But gonorrhea?

In 2017, the World Health Organization included Neisseria gonorrhoeae on its list of bacteria that pose the greatest threat to human health and for which new antibiotics are urgently needed. The popular media are calling N. gonorrhoeae one of the new “superbugs.” Globally, patients are being diagnosed with strains of gonorrhea that are resistant to all commonly used antibiotics. As reported during IDWeek 2018 this October, patients also are being diagnosed in the United States.

CDC

Sancta St. Cyr, MD, of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and her colleagues reported data from the Gonococcal Isolate Surveillance Project (GISP) and trends in multidrug resistant (MDR) and extensively-drug resistant (XDR) gonorrhea in the United States. A gonococcal isolate with resistance or elevated minimum inhibitory concentrations (MIC) to greater than or equal to two classes of antimicrobials is classified as MDR and an isolate with elevated MICs to greater than or equal to three classes of antimicrobials is classified as XDR. The MIC is the lowest antimicrobial concentration that inhibits growth of bacteria in the laboratory and rising MICs – evidence that higher levels of an antibiotic are needed to stop bacterial growth – can be an early indicator that resistance is emerging.

More than 150,000 gonococcal isolates were tested between 1987 and 2016. The first isolates with elevated MICs to cephalosporins and macrolides were identified in 1998, and since 2011, MDR resistance rates have hovered around 1%. In 2016, the rate was 1.1%, down from 1.3% in 2011. A single XDR isolate with resistance to fluoroquinolones with elevated MICs to both cephalosporins and macrolides was identified in 2011.

One could look at these data and ask if this is a “glass half full or half empty” situation, but I propose that clinicians and public health officials should not look at these data and be reassured that rates of MDR-gonorrhea remained stable between 2010 and 2016. According to a recent surveillance report released by the CDC, the absolute number of cases of gonorrhea has continued to rise. In 2017, there were 555,608 cases reported in the United States, a 67% increase since 2013. If we assume that rates of resistance in 2017 were similar to those in 2016, that’s more than 5,000 cases of MDR-gonorrhea in a single year.

“That’s bad,” one of my dining companions agreed. “But is gonorrhea really a pediatric issue?”

To answer that question, we just have to look at the numbers. According to the 2017 Youth Risk Behavior Survey, the percentage of high school students who had ever had sex was approximately 40% and about 10% of students had four or more lifetime partners. More than 45% of sexually active students denied the use of a condom during the last sexual intercourse. Certainly, that puts many teenagers at risk for sexually transmitted infections (STIs). Perhaps it shouldn’t be surprising that public health authorities report that half of all new STIs occur in individuals aged 15-24 years. Moreover, 25% of sexually active adolescent girls contract at least one STI.

Gonorrhea is the second most commonly reported notifiable disease in the United States, and according to the CDC, rates of disease in 2017 were highest among adolescents and young adults. In females specifically, the highest rates of gonorrhea were observed among those aged 20-24 years (684.8 cases per 100,000 females) and 15-19 years (557.4 cases per 100,000 females).

It makes sense that pediatricians and parents advocate for making the reduction of gonorrhea transmission rates a public health priority. We also need to recognize that prompt diagnosis and appropriate treatment are critical. Since 2015, dual therapy with ceftriaxone and azithromycin is the only CDC-recommended treatment for gonorrhea.

At that dinner party, my closest friend, who also happens to be a pediatrician, rolled her eyes and shot me look that I’m sure meant, “Nobody really wants to talk about gonorrhea over dessert.” Still, because she is a good friend she said, “So basically you’re saying that millions of teenagers are getting infected with a form of gonorrhea that takes at least two antibiotics to treat, and if this keeps up, we may see kids with untreatable infection. Now that is scary.”

I kept quiet after that but I wanted to mention that in 2017, less than 85% of patients diagnosed with gonorrhea at selected surveillance sites received the recommended treatment with two antibiotics. Patients with inadequately treated gonorrhea are at risk for a host of sequelae. Women can develop pelvic inflammatory disease, abscesses, chronic pelvic pain, and damage of the fallopian tubes that can lead to infertility. Men can develop epididymitis, which occasionally results in infertility. Rarely, N. gonorrhoeae can spread to the blood and cause life-threatening infection. Of course, patients who aren’t treated appropriately may continue to spread the bacteria. Scary? You bet.

For pediatricians who need a refresher course in the treatment of STIs, there are free resources available. The CDC’s 2015 STD Treatment Guidelines are available in a free app; the app contains a nice refresher on taking a sexual history. There also is a print version, wall chart, and pocket guide. Providers also may want to check out the National STD Curriculum offered by the University of Washington STD Prevention Training Center and the University of Washington. Visit https://www.std.uw.edu/.
 

Dr. Bryant is a pediatrician specializing in infectious diseases at the University of Louisville (Ky.) and Norton Children’s Hospital, also in Louisville. She said she had no relevant financial disclosures. Email her at [email protected].

The Food and Drug Administration has cleared Abbott Laboratories’ next-generation Influenza A & B 2 and Strep A 2 molecular assays for point-of-care testing.

Wikimedia Commons/FitzColinGerald/Creative Commons License

The Influenza A & B 2 assay can detect and differentiate influenza A and B in 13 minutes, with a call-out of positive results at 5 minutes. It can be stored at room temperature, simplifying storage and ordering. The Strep A 2 assay detects group A streptococcus bacterial nucleic acid in 6 minutes, with a call-out of positive results at 2 minutes. Both will be the fastest tests currently on the market in their respective fields, according to a corporate press release.

The assays will be available in a variety of inpatient and outpatient settings, particularly in locations where patients commonly access health care services, such as EDs, physician offices, walk-in clinics, and urgent care centers. This will allow health care providers to make a fast, informed diagnosis and provide appropriate treatment within the span of a single patient visit.

“The ability to obtain early call outs for positive test results with molecular accuracy in as little as 5 minutes for influenza and 2 minutes for strep A is a game-changing development that allows prompt treatment decisions at the point of care. Rapid testing may also help reduce improper antibiotic usage, which can occur when treatment is based exclusively on a patient’s symptoms, and contributes to antibiotic resistance,” Gregory J. Berry, PhD, director of molecular diagnostics at Northwell Health Laboratories in Lake Success, N.Y., said in the press release.

Find the full press release on the Abbott Laboratories website.

[email protected]

The Food and Drug Administration has cleared Abbott Laboratories’ next-generation Influenza A & B 2 and Strep A 2 molecular assays for point-of-care testing.

Wikimedia Commons/FitzColinGerald/Creative Commons License

The Influenza A & B 2 assay can detect and differentiate influenza A and B in 13 minutes, with a call-out of positive results at 5 minutes. It can be stored at room temperature, simplifying storage and ordering. The Strep A 2 assay detects group A streptococcus bacterial nucleic acid in 6 minutes, with a call-out of positive results at 2 minutes. Both will be the fastest tests currently on the market in their respective fields, according to a corporate press release.

The assays will be available in a variety of inpatient and outpatient settings, particularly in locations where patients commonly access health care services, such as EDs, physician offices, walk-in clinics, and urgent care centers. This will allow health care providers to make a fast, informed diagnosis and provide appropriate treatment within the span of a single patient visit.

“The ability to obtain early call outs for positive test results with molecular accuracy in as little as 5 minutes for influenza and 2 minutes for strep A is a game-changing development that allows prompt treatment decisions at the point of care. Rapid testing may also help reduce improper antibiotic usage, which can occur when treatment is based exclusively on a patient’s symptoms, and contributes to antibiotic resistance,” Gregory J. Berry, PhD, director of molecular diagnostics at Northwell Health Laboratories in Lake Success, N.Y., said in the press release.

Find the full press release on the Abbott Laboratories website.

[email protected]

The Food and Drug Administration has cleared Abbott Laboratories’ next-generation Influenza A & B 2 and Strep A 2 molecular assays for point-of-care testing.

Wikimedia Commons/FitzColinGerald/Creative Commons License

The Influenza A & B 2 assay can detect and differentiate influenza A and B in 13 minutes, with a call-out of positive results at 5 minutes. It can be stored at room temperature, simplifying storage and ordering. The Strep A 2 assay detects group A streptococcus bacterial nucleic acid in 6 minutes, with a call-out of positive results at 2 minutes. Both will be the fastest tests currently on the market in their respective fields, according to a corporate press release.

The assays will be available in a variety of inpatient and outpatient settings, particularly in locations where patients commonly access health care services, such as EDs, physician offices, walk-in clinics, and urgent care centers. This will allow health care providers to make a fast, informed diagnosis and provide appropriate treatment within the span of a single patient visit.

“The ability to obtain early call outs for positive test results with molecular accuracy in as little as 5 minutes for influenza and 2 minutes for strep A is a game-changing development that allows prompt treatment decisions at the point of care. Rapid testing may also help reduce improper antibiotic usage, which can occur when treatment is based exclusively on a patient’s symptoms, and contributes to antibiotic resistance,” Gregory J. Berry, PhD, director of molecular diagnostics at Northwell Health Laboratories in Lake Success, N.Y., said in the press release.

Find the full press release on the Abbott Laboratories website.

[email protected]

Clinicians consulting the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices vaccination schedules for children, adolescents, and adults in 2019 will find a simpler design and more useful product, according to David Kim, MD, of the Immunization Services Division of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta.

In a single vote to cover both adult and child/adolescent schedules, the committee voted unanimously in favor of a redesign of the schedules and several clinical updates.

In 2016, the working group for vaccination schedules conducted an ad hoc evaluation of the adult schedule to assess its usability, Dr. Kim said at a meeting of the CDC’s ACIP.

The design of the adult schedule was fully evaluated in 2018 via a three-step process – interviews with 48 health care providers, a redesign of the schedule, and a survey after the redesign. Design changes to the child/adolescent schedule were harmonized with the adult schedule, Dr. Kim explained.

The adult vaccination schedule itself includes several updates in ACIP recommendations in addition to the aesthetic design changes.

The 2019 Adult Immunization Schedule includes the option of the live attenuated influenza vaccine (LAIV) for influenza, the addition of homelessness as an indication for hepatitis A vaccination, and the use of CpG-adjuvanted hepatitis B vaccine, Dr. Kim said.

The additions to the 2019 Child and Adolescent Immunization Schedule are the optional use of the LAIV for influenza, the addition of homelessness as an indication for hepatitis A vaccination, the use of CpG-adjuvanted hepatitis B vaccine (a cytosine phosphoguanosine oligodeoxynucleotide adjuvant), and the addition of the Tdap vaccination of individuals who received Tdap at age 7-10 years.

Some of the key design changes include the use of bright purple on the child/adolescent schedule to more easily distinguish it from the adult version, said Dr. Kim.

Other changes to both schedules include shorter titles, lists of vaccines and trade names, and compartmentalized information for easier reference. Figures have been replaced by tables, and footnotes are simply “Notes” at the end of the schedule, compartmentalized for easier reading, he said. In addition, the schedules include resources for vaccination in outbreak situations and a section on how to report vaccine preventable disease outbreaks.

The ACIP committee members had no relevant financial conflicts to disclose.

Clinicians consulting the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices vaccination schedules for children, adolescents, and adults in 2019 will find a simpler design and more useful product, according to David Kim, MD, of the Immunization Services Division of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta.

In a single vote to cover both adult and child/adolescent schedules, the committee voted unanimously in favor of a redesign of the schedules and several clinical updates.

In 2016, the working group for vaccination schedules conducted an ad hoc evaluation of the adult schedule to assess its usability, Dr. Kim said at a meeting of the CDC’s ACIP.

The design of the adult schedule was fully evaluated in 2018 via a three-step process – interviews with 48 health care providers, a redesign of the schedule, and a survey after the redesign. Design changes to the child/adolescent schedule were harmonized with the adult schedule, Dr. Kim explained.

The adult vaccination schedule itself includes several updates in ACIP recommendations in addition to the aesthetic design changes.

The 2019 Adult Immunization Schedule includes the option of the live attenuated influenza vaccine (LAIV) for influenza, the addition of homelessness as an indication for hepatitis A vaccination, and the use of CpG-adjuvanted hepatitis B vaccine, Dr. Kim said.

The additions to the 2019 Child and Adolescent Immunization Schedule are the optional use of the LAIV for influenza, the addition of homelessness as an indication for hepatitis A vaccination, the use of CpG-adjuvanted hepatitis B vaccine (a cytosine phosphoguanosine oligodeoxynucleotide adjuvant), and the addition of the Tdap vaccination of individuals who received Tdap at age 7-10 years.

Some of the key design changes include the use of bright purple on the child/adolescent schedule to more easily distinguish it from the adult version, said Dr. Kim.

Other changes to both schedules include shorter titles, lists of vaccines and trade names, and compartmentalized information for easier reference. Figures have been replaced by tables, and footnotes are simply “Notes” at the end of the schedule, compartmentalized for easier reading, he said. In addition, the schedules include resources for vaccination in outbreak situations and a section on how to report vaccine preventable disease outbreaks.

The ACIP committee members had no relevant financial conflicts to disclose.

Clinicians consulting the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices vaccination schedules for children, adolescents, and adults in 2019 will find a simpler design and more useful product, according to David Kim, MD, of the Immunization Services Division of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta.

In a single vote to cover both adult and child/adolescent schedules, the committee voted unanimously in favor of a redesign of the schedules and several clinical updates.

In 2016, the working group for vaccination schedules conducted an ad hoc evaluation of the adult schedule to assess its usability, Dr. Kim said at a meeting of the CDC’s ACIP.

The design of the adult schedule was fully evaluated in 2018 via a three-step process – interviews with 48 health care providers, a redesign of the schedule, and a survey after the redesign. Design changes to the child/adolescent schedule were harmonized with the adult schedule, Dr. Kim explained.

The adult vaccination schedule itself includes several updates in ACIP recommendations in addition to the aesthetic design changes.

The 2019 Adult Immunization Schedule includes the option of the live attenuated influenza vaccine (LAIV) for influenza, the addition of homelessness as an indication for hepatitis A vaccination, and the use of CpG-adjuvanted hepatitis B vaccine, Dr. Kim said.

The additions to the 2019 Child and Adolescent Immunization Schedule are the optional use of the LAIV for influenza, the addition of homelessness as an indication for hepatitis A vaccination, the use of CpG-adjuvanted hepatitis B vaccine (a cytosine phosphoguanosine oligodeoxynucleotide adjuvant), and the addition of the Tdap vaccination of individuals who received Tdap at age 7-10 years.

Some of the key design changes include the use of bright purple on the child/adolescent schedule to more easily distinguish it from the adult version, said Dr. Kim.

Other changes to both schedules include shorter titles, lists of vaccines and trade names, and compartmentalized information for easier reference. Figures have been replaced by tables, and footnotes are simply “Notes” at the end of the schedule, compartmentalized for easier reading, he said. In addition, the schedules include resources for vaccination in outbreak situations and a section on how to report vaccine preventable disease outbreaks.

The ACIP committee members had no relevant financial conflicts to disclose.