Infectious Diseases

To the Editor:

Herpes vegetans (HV) is an uncommon infection caused by human herpesvirus (HHV) in patients who are immunocompromised, such as those who are HIV positive.¹ Unlike typical HHV infection, HV can present with exophytic exudative ulcers and papillomatous vegetations. The presentation of ulcerated genital nodules, especially in an immunocompromised patient, yields an array of disorders in the differential diagnosis, including condyloma latum, condyloma acuminatum, pyogenic granuloma (PG), and verrucous carcinoma.^2,3 Histopathology of HV reveals pseudoepitheliomatous hyperplasia, plasma cell infiltration, and positivity for HHV type 1 (HHV-1) and/or HHV type 2 (HHV-2). Herpes vegetans lesions typically require a multimodal treatment approach because many cases are resistant to acyclovir. Treatment options include the nucleoside analogues foscarnet and cidofovir; immunomodulators such as topical imiquimod; and the topical antiviral trifluridine.^1,4-6 We describe a case of HV in a patient with a history of well-controlled HIV infection who presented with a painful fungating penile lesion.

A 55-year-old man presented to the hospital with a painful expanding mass on the distal aspect of the penis of 3 months’ duration. He had a history of HIV infection that was well-controlled by antiretroviral therapy, prior hepatitis B virus infection and acyclovir-resistant genital HHV-2 infection. Physical examination revealed a large, firm, circumferential, exophytic, verrucous plaque with various areas of ulceration and purulent drainage on the distal shaft and glans of the penis (Figure 1). The patient’s most recent absolute CD4 count was 425 cells/mm³ (reference range, 500–1500 cells/mm³). His HIV viral load was undetectable at less than 30 copies/mL. Histopathology with hematoxylin and eosin staining of biopsy material from the penile lesion demonstrated pseudoepitheliomatous epidermal hyperplasia with focal ulceration and a mixed inflammatory infiltrate (Figure 2A). At higher magnification, clear viral cytopathic changes of HHV were noted, including multinucleation, nuclear molding, and homogenous gray nuclei (Figure 2B). Additional staining for fungi, mycobacteria, and spirochetes was negative. In-situ hybridization was negative for human papillomavirus subtypes. A bacterial culture of swabs of the purulent drainage was positive for Staphylococcus aureus and Proteus mirabilis.

Given the patient’s known history of acyclovir-resistant HHV-2 infection, he received a 28-day course of intravenous foscarnet 40 mg/kg every 12 hours. He also was given a 14-day course of intravenous ampicillin-sulbactam 3 g every 6 hours. The patient gradually improved during a 35-day hospital stay. He was discharged with cidofovir cream 1% and oral valacyclovir; the latter was subsequently discontinued by dermatology because of his known history of acyclovir resistance. Four months after discharge, the patient underwent a circumcision performed by urology to decrease the risk for recurrence and achieve the best cosmetic outcome. At the 6-month follow-up visit, dramatic clinical improvement was evident, with complete resolution of the plaque and only isolated areas of scarring (Figure 3). The patient reported that penile function was preserved.

Herpes vegetans represents a rare infection with HHV-1 or HHV-2, typically in patients who are considerably immunosuppressed, such as those with cancer, those undergoing transplantation, and those with uncontrolled HIV infection.¹ Few cases of HV have been described in an immunocompetent patient.² Our case is unique because the patient’s HIV infection was well controlled at the time HV was diagnosed, demonstrated by his modestly low CD4 count and undetectable HIV viral load.

Patients with HV can present diagnostic and therapeutic challenges. Typically, a diagnosis of cutaneous HHV infection does not require a biopsy; most cases appear as clustered vesicular lesions, making the disease easy to diagnose clinically. However, biopsies and cultures are necessary to identify the underlying cause of atypical verrucous exophytic lesions. Other conditions with clinical features similar to HV include squamous cell carcinoma, condyloma acuminatum, and deep fungal and mycobacterial infections.^2,3 A tissue biopsy, histologic staining, and tissue culture should be performed to identify the causative pathogen and potential targets for treatment. Definitive diagnosis is vital to deliver proper treatment modalities, which often involve a multimodal multidisciplinary approach. 

Several pathogenic mechanisms of HV have been proposed. One theory suggests that in an immunocompetent patient, HHV typically triggers a lymphocytic response, which leads to activation of interferon alpha. However, in an immunocompromised patient, such as an individual with AIDS, this interferon response is diminished, which explains why these patients typically have a chronic and resistant HHV infection. HIV has an affinity for infecting dermal dendritic cells, which signals activation of tumor necrosis factor and interleukin.⁶ Both cytokines contribute to an antiapoptotic environment that promotes continued proliferation of these viral cells in the epidermis. Over time, propagation of disinhibited cells can lead to the verrucous and hyperkeratotic-appearing skin that is common in patients with HV.⁷

Another theorized mechanism underlying hypertrophic herpetic lesions was described in the context of HHV-1 infection and subsequent PG. El Hayderi et al⁸ reported that histologic and immunohistochemical examination of a patient’s lesion revealed sparse epithelial cell aggregates within PG as well as HHV-1 antigens in the nuclei and cytoplasm of normal-appearing and cytopathic epithelial cells. Immunohistochemical examination also revealed vascular endothelial growth factor within HHV-1–infected epithelial cells and PG endothelial cells, suggesting that PG formation may be indirectly driven by vascular endothelial growth factor and its proangiogenic properties. The pathogenesis of PG in the setting of HHV-1 infection displays many similarities to hyperkeratotic lesions observed in atypical cutaneous manifestations of HHV-2.⁸

The management of patients with HV continues to be complex, often requiring a multimodal regimen. Although acyclovir has been shown to be highly effective for treating and preventing most HHV infections, acyclovir resistance frequently has been reported in immunocompromised populations.⁵ Acyclovir resistance can be correlated with the severity of immunodeficiency as well as the duration of acyclovir exposure. Resistance to acyclovir often results from deficient intracellular phosphorylation, which is required for activation of the drug. If patients show resistance to acyclovir and its derivatives, alternate drug classes that do not depend on thymidine kinase phosphorylation should be considered.

Our patient received a combination of intravenous foscarnet and a course of ampicillin-sulbactam while an inpatient due to his documented history of acyclovir-resistant HHV-2 infection, and he was discharged on cidofovir cream 1%. Cidofovir is US Food and Drug Administration approved for treating cytomegalovirus retinitis in patients with AIDS. Although data are limited, topical and intralesional cidofovir have been used to treat acyclovir-resistant cases of HV with documented success.^1,9 In refractory HV or when the disease is slow to resolve, intralesional cidofovir has been documented to be an additional treatment option. Intralesional and topical cidofovir carry a much lower risk for adverse effects such as kidney dysfunction compared to intravenous cidofovir¹ and can be considered in patients with minimal clinical improvement and those at increased risk for side effects.

Our case demonstrated how a patient with HV may require a complex and prolonged hospital course for appropriate treatment. Our patient required an array of both medical and surgical modalities to reach the desired outcome. Here, a multitude of specialties including infectious disease, dermatology, and urology worked together to reach a positive clinical and cosmetic outcome for this patient. 

To the Editor:

Herpes vegetans (HV) is an uncommon infection caused by human herpesvirus (HHV) in patients who are immunocompromised, such as those who are HIV positive.¹ Unlike typical HHV infection, HV can present with exophytic exudative ulcers and papillomatous vegetations. The presentation of ulcerated genital nodules, especially in an immunocompromised patient, yields an array of disorders in the differential diagnosis, including condyloma latum, condyloma acuminatum, pyogenic granuloma (PG), and verrucous carcinoma.^2,3 Histopathology of HV reveals pseudoepitheliomatous hyperplasia, plasma cell infiltration, and positivity for HHV type 1 (HHV-1) and/or HHV type 2 (HHV-2). Herpes vegetans lesions typically require a multimodal treatment approach because many cases are resistant to acyclovir. Treatment options include the nucleoside analogues foscarnet and cidofovir; immunomodulators such as topical imiquimod; and the topical antiviral trifluridine.^1,4-6 We describe a case of HV in a patient with a history of well-controlled HIV infection who presented with a painful fungating penile lesion.

A 55-year-old man presented to the hospital with a painful expanding mass on the distal aspect of the penis of 3 months’ duration. He had a history of HIV infection that was well-controlled by antiretroviral therapy, prior hepatitis B virus infection and acyclovir-resistant genital HHV-2 infection. Physical examination revealed a large, firm, circumferential, exophytic, verrucous plaque with various areas of ulceration and purulent drainage on the distal shaft and glans of the penis (Figure 1). The patient’s most recent absolute CD4 count was 425 cells/mm³ (reference range, 500–1500 cells/mm³). His HIV viral load was undetectable at less than 30 copies/mL. Histopathology with hematoxylin and eosin staining of biopsy material from the penile lesion demonstrated pseudoepitheliomatous epidermal hyperplasia with focal ulceration and a mixed inflammatory infiltrate (Figure 2A). At higher magnification, clear viral cytopathic changes of HHV were noted, including multinucleation, nuclear molding, and homogenous gray nuclei (Figure 2B). Additional staining for fungi, mycobacteria, and spirochetes was negative. In-situ hybridization was negative for human papillomavirus subtypes. A bacterial culture of swabs of the purulent drainage was positive for Staphylococcus aureus and Proteus mirabilis.

Given the patient’s known history of acyclovir-resistant HHV-2 infection, he received a 28-day course of intravenous foscarnet 40 mg/kg every 12 hours. He also was given a 14-day course of intravenous ampicillin-sulbactam 3 g every 6 hours. The patient gradually improved during a 35-day hospital stay. He was discharged with cidofovir cream 1% and oral valacyclovir; the latter was subsequently discontinued by dermatology because of his known history of acyclovir resistance. Four months after discharge, the patient underwent a circumcision performed by urology to decrease the risk for recurrence and achieve the best cosmetic outcome. At the 6-month follow-up visit, dramatic clinical improvement was evident, with complete resolution of the plaque and only isolated areas of scarring (Figure 3). The patient reported that penile function was preserved.

Herpes vegetans represents a rare infection with HHV-1 or HHV-2, typically in patients who are considerably immunosuppressed, such as those with cancer, those undergoing transplantation, and those with uncontrolled HIV infection.¹ Few cases of HV have been described in an immunocompetent patient.² Our case is unique because the patient’s HIV infection was well controlled at the time HV was diagnosed, demonstrated by his modestly low CD4 count and undetectable HIV viral load.

Patients with HV can present diagnostic and therapeutic challenges. Typically, a diagnosis of cutaneous HHV infection does not require a biopsy; most cases appear as clustered vesicular lesions, making the disease easy to diagnose clinically. However, biopsies and cultures are necessary to identify the underlying cause of atypical verrucous exophytic lesions. Other conditions with clinical features similar to HV include squamous cell carcinoma, condyloma acuminatum, and deep fungal and mycobacterial infections.^2,3 A tissue biopsy, histologic staining, and tissue culture should be performed to identify the causative pathogen and potential targets for treatment. Definitive diagnosis is vital to deliver proper treatment modalities, which often involve a multimodal multidisciplinary approach. 

Several pathogenic mechanisms of HV have been proposed. One theory suggests that in an immunocompetent patient, HHV typically triggers a lymphocytic response, which leads to activation of interferon alpha. However, in an immunocompromised patient, such as an individual with AIDS, this interferon response is diminished, which explains why these patients typically have a chronic and resistant HHV infection. HIV has an affinity for infecting dermal dendritic cells, which signals activation of tumor necrosis factor and interleukin.⁶ Both cytokines contribute to an antiapoptotic environment that promotes continued proliferation of these viral cells in the epidermis. Over time, propagation of disinhibited cells can lead to the verrucous and hyperkeratotic-appearing skin that is common in patients with HV.⁷

Another theorized mechanism underlying hypertrophic herpetic lesions was described in the context of HHV-1 infection and subsequent PG. El Hayderi et al⁸ reported that histologic and immunohistochemical examination of a patient’s lesion revealed sparse epithelial cell aggregates within PG as well as HHV-1 antigens in the nuclei and cytoplasm of normal-appearing and cytopathic epithelial cells. Immunohistochemical examination also revealed vascular endothelial growth factor within HHV-1–infected epithelial cells and PG endothelial cells, suggesting that PG formation may be indirectly driven by vascular endothelial growth factor and its proangiogenic properties. The pathogenesis of PG in the setting of HHV-1 infection displays many similarities to hyperkeratotic lesions observed in atypical cutaneous manifestations of HHV-2.⁸

The management of patients with HV continues to be complex, often requiring a multimodal regimen. Although acyclovir has been shown to be highly effective for treating and preventing most HHV infections, acyclovir resistance frequently has been reported in immunocompromised populations.⁵ Acyclovir resistance can be correlated with the severity of immunodeficiency as well as the duration of acyclovir exposure. Resistance to acyclovir often results from deficient intracellular phosphorylation, which is required for activation of the drug. If patients show resistance to acyclovir and its derivatives, alternate drug classes that do not depend on thymidine kinase phosphorylation should be considered.

Our patient received a combination of intravenous foscarnet and a course of ampicillin-sulbactam while an inpatient due to his documented history of acyclovir-resistant HHV-2 infection, and he was discharged on cidofovir cream 1%. Cidofovir is US Food and Drug Administration approved for treating cytomegalovirus retinitis in patients with AIDS. Although data are limited, topical and intralesional cidofovir have been used to treat acyclovir-resistant cases of HV with documented success.^1,9 In refractory HV or when the disease is slow to resolve, intralesional cidofovir has been documented to be an additional treatment option. Intralesional and topical cidofovir carry a much lower risk for adverse effects such as kidney dysfunction compared to intravenous cidofovir¹ and can be considered in patients with minimal clinical improvement and those at increased risk for side effects.

Our case demonstrated how a patient with HV may require a complex and prolonged hospital course for appropriate treatment. Our patient required an array of both medical and surgical modalities to reach the desired outcome. Here, a multitude of specialties including infectious disease, dermatology, and urology worked together to reach a positive clinical and cosmetic outcome for this patient. 

To the Editor:

Herpes vegetans (HV) is an uncommon infection caused by human herpesvirus (HHV) in patients who are immunocompromised, such as those who are HIV positive.¹ Unlike typical HHV infection, HV can present with exophytic exudative ulcers and papillomatous vegetations. The presentation of ulcerated genital nodules, especially in an immunocompromised patient, yields an array of disorders in the differential diagnosis, including condyloma latum, condyloma acuminatum, pyogenic granuloma (PG), and verrucous carcinoma.^2,3 Histopathology of HV reveals pseudoepitheliomatous hyperplasia, plasma cell infiltration, and positivity for HHV type 1 (HHV-1) and/or HHV type 2 (HHV-2). Herpes vegetans lesions typically require a multimodal treatment approach because many cases are resistant to acyclovir. Treatment options include the nucleoside analogues foscarnet and cidofovir; immunomodulators such as topical imiquimod; and the topical antiviral trifluridine.^1,4-6 We describe a case of HV in a patient with a history of well-controlled HIV infection who presented with a painful fungating penile lesion.

A 55-year-old man presented to the hospital with a painful expanding mass on the distal aspect of the penis of 3 months’ duration. He had a history of HIV infection that was well-controlled by antiretroviral therapy, prior hepatitis B virus infection and acyclovir-resistant genital HHV-2 infection. Physical examination revealed a large, firm, circumferential, exophytic, verrucous plaque with various areas of ulceration and purulent drainage on the distal shaft and glans of the penis (Figure 1). The patient’s most recent absolute CD4 count was 425 cells/mm³ (reference range, 500–1500 cells/mm³). His HIV viral load was undetectable at less than 30 copies/mL. Histopathology with hematoxylin and eosin staining of biopsy material from the penile lesion demonstrated pseudoepitheliomatous epidermal hyperplasia with focal ulceration and a mixed inflammatory infiltrate (Figure 2A). At higher magnification, clear viral cytopathic changes of HHV were noted, including multinucleation, nuclear molding, and homogenous gray nuclei (Figure 2B). Additional staining for fungi, mycobacteria, and spirochetes was negative. In-situ hybridization was negative for human papillomavirus subtypes. A bacterial culture of swabs of the purulent drainage was positive for Staphylococcus aureus and Proteus mirabilis.

Given the patient’s known history of acyclovir-resistant HHV-2 infection, he received a 28-day course of intravenous foscarnet 40 mg/kg every 12 hours. He also was given a 14-day course of intravenous ampicillin-sulbactam 3 g every 6 hours. The patient gradually improved during a 35-day hospital stay. He was discharged with cidofovir cream 1% and oral valacyclovir; the latter was subsequently discontinued by dermatology because of his known history of acyclovir resistance. Four months after discharge, the patient underwent a circumcision performed by urology to decrease the risk for recurrence and achieve the best cosmetic outcome. At the 6-month follow-up visit, dramatic clinical improvement was evident, with complete resolution of the plaque and only isolated areas of scarring (Figure 3). The patient reported that penile function was preserved.

Herpes vegetans represents a rare infection with HHV-1 or HHV-2, typically in patients who are considerably immunosuppressed, such as those with cancer, those undergoing transplantation, and those with uncontrolled HIV infection.¹ Few cases of HV have been described in an immunocompetent patient.² Our case is unique because the patient’s HIV infection was well controlled at the time HV was diagnosed, demonstrated by his modestly low CD4 count and undetectable HIV viral load.

Patients with HV can present diagnostic and therapeutic challenges. Typically, a diagnosis of cutaneous HHV infection does not require a biopsy; most cases appear as clustered vesicular lesions, making the disease easy to diagnose clinically. However, biopsies and cultures are necessary to identify the underlying cause of atypical verrucous exophytic lesions. Other conditions with clinical features similar to HV include squamous cell carcinoma, condyloma acuminatum, and deep fungal and mycobacterial infections.^2,3 A tissue biopsy, histologic staining, and tissue culture should be performed to identify the causative pathogen and potential targets for treatment. Definitive diagnosis is vital to deliver proper treatment modalities, which often involve a multimodal multidisciplinary approach. 

Several pathogenic mechanisms of HV have been proposed. One theory suggests that in an immunocompetent patient, HHV typically triggers a lymphocytic response, which leads to activation of interferon alpha. However, in an immunocompromised patient, such as an individual with AIDS, this interferon response is diminished, which explains why these patients typically have a chronic and resistant HHV infection. HIV has an affinity for infecting dermal dendritic cells, which signals activation of tumor necrosis factor and interleukin.⁶ Both cytokines contribute to an antiapoptotic environment that promotes continued proliferation of these viral cells in the epidermis. Over time, propagation of disinhibited cells can lead to the verrucous and hyperkeratotic-appearing skin that is common in patients with HV.⁷

Another theorized mechanism underlying hypertrophic herpetic lesions was described in the context of HHV-1 infection and subsequent PG. El Hayderi et al⁸ reported that histologic and immunohistochemical examination of a patient’s lesion revealed sparse epithelial cell aggregates within PG as well as HHV-1 antigens in the nuclei and cytoplasm of normal-appearing and cytopathic epithelial cells. Immunohistochemical examination also revealed vascular endothelial growth factor within HHV-1–infected epithelial cells and PG endothelial cells, suggesting that PG formation may be indirectly driven by vascular endothelial growth factor and its proangiogenic properties. The pathogenesis of PG in the setting of HHV-1 infection displays many similarities to hyperkeratotic lesions observed in atypical cutaneous manifestations of HHV-2.⁸

The management of patients with HV continues to be complex, often requiring a multimodal regimen. Although acyclovir has been shown to be highly effective for treating and preventing most HHV infections, acyclovir resistance frequently has been reported in immunocompromised populations.⁵ Acyclovir resistance can be correlated with the severity of immunodeficiency as well as the duration of acyclovir exposure. Resistance to acyclovir often results from deficient intracellular phosphorylation, which is required for activation of the drug. If patients show resistance to acyclovir and its derivatives, alternate drug classes that do not depend on thymidine kinase phosphorylation should be considered.

Our patient received a combination of intravenous foscarnet and a course of ampicillin-sulbactam while an inpatient due to his documented history of acyclovir-resistant HHV-2 infection, and he was discharged on cidofovir cream 1%. Cidofovir is US Food and Drug Administration approved for treating cytomegalovirus retinitis in patients with AIDS. Although data are limited, topical and intralesional cidofovir have been used to treat acyclovir-resistant cases of HV with documented success.^1,9 In refractory HV or when the disease is slow to resolve, intralesional cidofovir has been documented to be an additional treatment option. Intralesional and topical cidofovir carry a much lower risk for adverse effects such as kidney dysfunction compared to intravenous cidofovir¹ and can be considered in patients with minimal clinical improvement and those at increased risk for side effects.

Our case demonstrated how a patient with HV may require a complex and prolonged hospital course for appropriate treatment. Our patient required an array of both medical and surgical modalities to reach the desired outcome. Here, a multitude of specialties including infectious disease, dermatology, and urology worked together to reach a positive clinical and cosmetic outcome for this patient. 

A U.S. Food and Drug Administration investigation of injection-site necrosis in some people who received the 23-valent pneumococcal vaccine has concluded that the benefits of the vaccine outweigh the risks.

No similar safety signal has been detected for the more recently approved 15-valent and 20-valent pneumococcal conjugate vaccines, explain the investigators, led by Brendan Day, MD, MPH, from the FDA’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, in their report published online in JAMA Internal Medicine.

Reports of injection-site necrosis emerged after the vaccine (Pneumovax 23, Merck) had been approved by the FDA and was administered to a large, diverse, real-world population.

Rare safety events can emerge after FDA approval, as clinical trials may not be able to detect them in a study-group population.

Therefore, “postmarketing safety surveillance is critical to further characterize the safety profile of licensed vaccines,” the investigators point out.

The FDA and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention monitor the postmarketing safety of licensed vaccines using the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS), which relies on people who get the vaccines to report adverse events.
 

Real-world finding

After reports indicated a safety signal in 2020, the researchers conducted a case-series review, calculated the reporting rate, and did a PubMed search for similar reports.

They found that the reporting rate for injection-site necrosis was less than 0.2 cases per 1 million vaccine doses administered. The PubMed search yielded two cases of injection-site necrosis after the vaccine.

The 23-valent vaccine helps protect people from pneumococcus bacterial infection. The manufacturer reports that it is for people at least 50 years of age and for children who are at least 2 years of age with medical conditions that put them at elevated risk for infection.

The U.S. package insert has been updated, in the Post-Marketing Experience section, to include injection-site necrosis.

Of the 104 VAERS reports identified by the researchers, 48 met the case definition. Of those cases, most were for skin necrosis (n = 43), five of which also included fat necrosis. The remaining five cases of necrosis affected fascia (n = 2); fat and fascia (n = 1); fat, fascia, and muscle (n = 1); and muscle (n = 1).

In 23 of the 48 cases (47.9%), the reactions were serious and included one death (unrelated to vaccination).

Seventeen patients (35.4%) were hospitalized and 26 (54.2%) required surgery, most commonly debridement. Eight patients (16.7%) underwent multiple surgical procedures and three (6.3%) required a skin graft.

For patients with skin necrosis (n = 43), the median age was 67 years, and most patients were female (n = 36). Twelve patients were immunocompromised.

Concomitant vaccinations were reported in 10 patients, five of whom got the shot in the same arm as the 23-valent pneumococcal vaccine. A concurrent diagnosis of cellulitis was reported in 16 patients and an abscess was reported in three patients. There were too few cases of fat, fascia, or muscle necrosis to draw conclusions, the researchers report.

Often, skin necrosis was seen after a progression of symptoms, such as redness, pain, or swelling.

“These reports are consistent with published descriptions of injection-site necrosis, which has been reported as a rare complication for many vaccines and injectable drugs,” the investigators report.

Although the researchers couldn’t conclude from the VAERS reports alone that the vaccine injection caused the necrosis, “the timing and the location of reactions at the injection site suggest a possible causal association with the vaccine,” they explain. However, they add, patient comorbidities and poor injection technique may also be contributors.

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

A U.S. Food and Drug Administration investigation of injection-site necrosis in some people who received the 23-valent pneumococcal vaccine has concluded that the benefits of the vaccine outweigh the risks.

No similar safety signal has been detected for the more recently approved 15-valent and 20-valent pneumococcal conjugate vaccines, explain the investigators, led by Brendan Day, MD, MPH, from the FDA’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, in their report published online in JAMA Internal Medicine.

Reports of injection-site necrosis emerged after the vaccine (Pneumovax 23, Merck) had been approved by the FDA and was administered to a large, diverse, real-world population.

Rare safety events can emerge after FDA approval, as clinical trials may not be able to detect them in a study-group population.

Therefore, “postmarketing safety surveillance is critical to further characterize the safety profile of licensed vaccines,” the investigators point out.

The FDA and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention monitor the postmarketing safety of licensed vaccines using the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS), which relies on people who get the vaccines to report adverse events.
 

Real-world finding

After reports indicated a safety signal in 2020, the researchers conducted a case-series review, calculated the reporting rate, and did a PubMed search for similar reports.

They found that the reporting rate for injection-site necrosis was less than 0.2 cases per 1 million vaccine doses administered. The PubMed search yielded two cases of injection-site necrosis after the vaccine.

The 23-valent vaccine helps protect people from pneumococcus bacterial infection. The manufacturer reports that it is for people at least 50 years of age and for children who are at least 2 years of age with medical conditions that put them at elevated risk for infection.

The U.S. package insert has been updated, in the Post-Marketing Experience section, to include injection-site necrosis.

Of the 104 VAERS reports identified by the researchers, 48 met the case definition. Of those cases, most were for skin necrosis (n = 43), five of which also included fat necrosis. The remaining five cases of necrosis affected fascia (n = 2); fat and fascia (n = 1); fat, fascia, and muscle (n = 1); and muscle (n = 1).

In 23 of the 48 cases (47.9%), the reactions were serious and included one death (unrelated to vaccination).

Seventeen patients (35.4%) were hospitalized and 26 (54.2%) required surgery, most commonly debridement. Eight patients (16.7%) underwent multiple surgical procedures and three (6.3%) required a skin graft.

For patients with skin necrosis (n = 43), the median age was 67 years, and most patients were female (n = 36). Twelve patients were immunocompromised.

Concomitant vaccinations were reported in 10 patients, five of whom got the shot in the same arm as the 23-valent pneumococcal vaccine. A concurrent diagnosis of cellulitis was reported in 16 patients and an abscess was reported in three patients. There were too few cases of fat, fascia, or muscle necrosis to draw conclusions, the researchers report.

Often, skin necrosis was seen after a progression of symptoms, such as redness, pain, or swelling.

“These reports are consistent with published descriptions of injection-site necrosis, which has been reported as a rare complication for many vaccines and injectable drugs,” the investigators report.

Although the researchers couldn’t conclude from the VAERS reports alone that the vaccine injection caused the necrosis, “the timing and the location of reactions at the injection site suggest a possible causal association with the vaccine,” they explain. However, they add, patient comorbidities and poor injection technique may also be contributors.

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

A U.S. Food and Drug Administration investigation of injection-site necrosis in some people who received the 23-valent pneumococcal vaccine has concluded that the benefits of the vaccine outweigh the risks.

No similar safety signal has been detected for the more recently approved 15-valent and 20-valent pneumococcal conjugate vaccines, explain the investigators, led by Brendan Day, MD, MPH, from the FDA’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, in their report published online in JAMA Internal Medicine.

Reports of injection-site necrosis emerged after the vaccine (Pneumovax 23, Merck) had been approved by the FDA and was administered to a large, diverse, real-world population.

Rare safety events can emerge after FDA approval, as clinical trials may not be able to detect them in a study-group population.

Therefore, “postmarketing safety surveillance is critical to further characterize the safety profile of licensed vaccines,” the investigators point out.

The FDA and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention monitor the postmarketing safety of licensed vaccines using the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS), which relies on people who get the vaccines to report adverse events.
 

Real-world finding

After reports indicated a safety signal in 2020, the researchers conducted a case-series review, calculated the reporting rate, and did a PubMed search for similar reports.

They found that the reporting rate for injection-site necrosis was less than 0.2 cases per 1 million vaccine doses administered. The PubMed search yielded two cases of injection-site necrosis after the vaccine.

The 23-valent vaccine helps protect people from pneumococcus bacterial infection. The manufacturer reports that it is for people at least 50 years of age and for children who are at least 2 years of age with medical conditions that put them at elevated risk for infection.

The U.S. package insert has been updated, in the Post-Marketing Experience section, to include injection-site necrosis.

Of the 104 VAERS reports identified by the researchers, 48 met the case definition. Of those cases, most were for skin necrosis (n = 43), five of which also included fat necrosis. The remaining five cases of necrosis affected fascia (n = 2); fat and fascia (n = 1); fat, fascia, and muscle (n = 1); and muscle (n = 1).

In 23 of the 48 cases (47.9%), the reactions were serious and included one death (unrelated to vaccination).

Seventeen patients (35.4%) were hospitalized and 26 (54.2%) required surgery, most commonly debridement. Eight patients (16.7%) underwent multiple surgical procedures and three (6.3%) required a skin graft.

For patients with skin necrosis (n = 43), the median age was 67 years, and most patients were female (n = 36). Twelve patients were immunocompromised.

Concomitant vaccinations were reported in 10 patients, five of whom got the shot in the same arm as the 23-valent pneumococcal vaccine. A concurrent diagnosis of cellulitis was reported in 16 patients and an abscess was reported in three patients. There were too few cases of fat, fascia, or muscle necrosis to draw conclusions, the researchers report.

Often, skin necrosis was seen after a progression of symptoms, such as redness, pain, or swelling.

“These reports are consistent with published descriptions of injection-site necrosis, which has been reported as a rare complication for many vaccines and injectable drugs,” the investigators report.

Although the researchers couldn’t conclude from the VAERS reports alone that the vaccine injection caused the necrosis, “the timing and the location of reactions at the injection site suggest a possible causal association with the vaccine,” they explain. However, they add, patient comorbidities and poor injection technique may also be contributors.

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

It’s “summertime and the livin’ is easy” according to the lyric from an old George Gershwin song. But sometimes, summer activities can lead to illnesses that can disrupt a child’s easy living.

Case: An otherwise healthy 11-year-old presents with four to five loose stools per day, mild nausea, excess flatulence, and cramps for 12 days with a 5-pound weight loss. His loose-to-mushy stools have no blood or mucous but smell worse than usual. He has had no fever, vomiting, rashes, or joint symptoms. A month ago, he went hiking/camping on the Appalachian Trail, drank boiled stream water. and slept in a common-use semi-enclosed shelter. He waded through streams and shared “Trail Magic” (soft drinks being cooled in a fresh mountain stream). Two other campers report similar symptoms.

Differential diagnosis: Broadly, we should consider bacteria, viruses, and parasites. But generally, bacteria are likely to produce more systemic symptoms and usually do not last 12 days. That said, this could be Clostridioides difficile, yet that seems unlikely because he is otherwise healthy and has no apparent risk factors. Salmonella spp., Campylobacter spp. and some Escherichia coli infections may drag on for more than a week but the lack of systemic symptoms or blood/mucous lowers the likelihood. Viral agents (rotavirus, norovirus, adenovirus, astrovirus, calicivirus, or sapovirus) seem unlikely because of the long symptom duration and the child’s preteen age.

The history and presentation seem more likely attributable to a parasite. Uncommonly detected protozoa include Microsporidium (mostly Enterocytozoon bieneusi) and amoeba. Microsporidium is very rare and seen mostly in immune compromised hosts, for example, those living with HIV. Amebiasis occurs mostly after travel to endemic areas, and stools usually contain blood or mucous. Some roundworm or tapeworm infestations cause abdominal pain and abnormal stools, but the usual exposures are absent. Giardia spp., Cryptosporidium spp., Cyclospora cayetanensis, and/or Cystoisospora belli best fit this presentation given his hiking/camping trip.
 

Workup. Laboratory testing of stool is warranted (because of weight loss and persistent diarrhea) despite a lack of systemic signs. Initially, bacterial culture, C. difficile testing, and viral testing seem unwarranted. The best initial approach, given our most likely suspects, is protozoan/parasite testing.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommends testing up to three stools collected on separate days.¹ Initially, stool testing for giardia and cryptosporidium antigens by EIA assays could be done as a point-of-care test. Such antigen tests are often the first step because of their ease of use, relatively low expense, reasonably high sensitivity and specificity, and rapid turnaround (as little as 1 hour). Alternatively, direct examination of three stools for ova and parasites (O&P) and acid-fast stain or direct fluorescent antibody testing can usually detect our main suspects (giardia, cryptosporidium, cyclospora, and cystoisospora) along with other less likely parasites.

Some laboratories, however, use syndromic stool testing approaches (multiplex nucleic acid panels) that detect over 20 different bacteria, viruses, and select parasites. Multiplex testing has yielded increased detection rates, compared with microscopic examination alone in some settings. Further, they also share ease-of-use and rapid turnaround times with parasite antigen assays while requiring less hands-on time by laboratory personnel, compared with direct microscopic examination. However, multiplex assays are expensive and more readily detect commensal organisms, so they are not necessarily the ideal test in all diarrheal illnesses.

Diagnosis. You decide to first order giardia and cryptosporidium antigen testing because you are highly suspicious that giardia is the cause, based on wild-water exposure, the presentation, and symptom duration. You also order full microscopic O&P examination because you know that parasites can “run in packs.” Results of testing the first stool are positive for giardia. Microscopic examination on each of three stools is negative except for giardia trophozoites (the noninfectious form) in stools two and three.

Giardia overview. Giardia is the most common protozoan causing diarrhea in the United States, is fecal-oral spread, and like Shigella spp., is a low-inoculum infection (ingestion of as few as 10-100 cysts). Acquisition in the United States has been estimated as being 75% from contaminated water (streams are a classic source.² Other sources are contaminated food (fresh produce is classic) and in some cases sexual encounters (mostly in men who have sex with men). Most detections are sporadic, but outbreaks can occur with case numbers usually below 20; 40% of outbreaks are attributable to contaminated water or food.³ Evaluating symptomatic household members can be important as transmission in families can occur.

After ingestion, the cysts uncoat and form trophozoites, which reside mostly in the small bowel (Figure), causing inflammation and altering gut membrane permeability, thereby reducing nutrient absorption and circulating amino acids. Along with decreased food intake, altered absorption can lead to weight loss and potentially reduce growth in young children. Some trophozoites replicate while others encyst, eventually passing into stool. The cysts can survive for months in water or the environment (lakes, swimming pools, and clear mountain streams). Giardia has been linked to beavers’ feces contaminating wild-water sources, hence the moniker “Beaver fever” and warnings about stream water related to wilderness hiking.⁴

CDC / Science Direct

Dr. Harrison is professor of pediatrics and pediatric infectious diseases at Children’s Mercy Hospital–Kansas City, Mo. Children’s Mercy Hospital receives grant funding to study two candidate RSV vaccines. The hospital also receives CDC funding under the New Vaccine Surveillance Network for multicenter surveillance of acute respiratory infections, including influenza, RSV, and parainfluenza virus. Email Dr. Harrison at [email protected].

References

1. Diagnosis and Treatment Information for Medical Professionals, Giardia, Parasites. CDC.

2. Krumrie S et al. Curr Res Parasitol Vector Borne Dis. 2022;2:100084. doi: 10.1016/j.crpvbd.2022.100084.

3. Baldursson S and Karanis P. Water Res. 2011 Dec 15. doi: 10.1016/j.watres.2011.10.013.

4. “Water on the Appalachian Trail” AppalachianTrail.com.

5. Giardiasis: Treatment and prevention. UpToDate.

6. Kimberlin D et al. Red Book: 2021-2024 Report of the Committee on Infectious Diseases (Itasca, Ill.: American Academy of Pediatrics, 2021. 32nd ed.) Giardia duodenalis infections. pp. 335-8; and p. 961 (Table 4.11).

It’s “summertime and the livin’ is easy” according to the lyric from an old George Gershwin song. But sometimes, summer activities can lead to illnesses that can disrupt a child’s easy living.

Case: An otherwise healthy 11-year-old presents with four to five loose stools per day, mild nausea, excess flatulence, and cramps for 12 days with a 5-pound weight loss. His loose-to-mushy stools have no blood or mucous but smell worse than usual. He has had no fever, vomiting, rashes, or joint symptoms. A month ago, he went hiking/camping on the Appalachian Trail, drank boiled stream water. and slept in a common-use semi-enclosed shelter. He waded through streams and shared “Trail Magic” (soft drinks being cooled in a fresh mountain stream). Two other campers report similar symptoms.

Differential diagnosis: Broadly, we should consider bacteria, viruses, and parasites. But generally, bacteria are likely to produce more systemic symptoms and usually do not last 12 days. That said, this could be Clostridioides difficile, yet that seems unlikely because he is otherwise healthy and has no apparent risk factors. Salmonella spp., Campylobacter spp. and some Escherichia coli infections may drag on for more than a week but the lack of systemic symptoms or blood/mucous lowers the likelihood. Viral agents (rotavirus, norovirus, adenovirus, astrovirus, calicivirus, or sapovirus) seem unlikely because of the long symptom duration and the child’s preteen age.

The history and presentation seem more likely attributable to a parasite. Uncommonly detected protozoa include Microsporidium (mostly Enterocytozoon bieneusi) and amoeba. Microsporidium is very rare and seen mostly in immune compromised hosts, for example, those living with HIV. Amebiasis occurs mostly after travel to endemic areas, and stools usually contain blood or mucous. Some roundworm or tapeworm infestations cause abdominal pain and abnormal stools, but the usual exposures are absent. Giardia spp., Cryptosporidium spp., Cyclospora cayetanensis, and/or Cystoisospora belli best fit this presentation given his hiking/camping trip.
 

Workup. Laboratory testing of stool is warranted (because of weight loss and persistent diarrhea) despite a lack of systemic signs. Initially, bacterial culture, C. difficile testing, and viral testing seem unwarranted. The best initial approach, given our most likely suspects, is protozoan/parasite testing.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommends testing up to three stools collected on separate days.¹ Initially, stool testing for giardia and cryptosporidium antigens by EIA assays could be done as a point-of-care test. Such antigen tests are often the first step because of their ease of use, relatively low expense, reasonably high sensitivity and specificity, and rapid turnaround (as little as 1 hour). Alternatively, direct examination of three stools for ova and parasites (O&P) and acid-fast stain or direct fluorescent antibody testing can usually detect our main suspects (giardia, cryptosporidium, cyclospora, and cystoisospora) along with other less likely parasites.

Some laboratories, however, use syndromic stool testing approaches (multiplex nucleic acid panels) that detect over 20 different bacteria, viruses, and select parasites. Multiplex testing has yielded increased detection rates, compared with microscopic examination alone in some settings. Further, they also share ease-of-use and rapid turnaround times with parasite antigen assays while requiring less hands-on time by laboratory personnel, compared with direct microscopic examination. However, multiplex assays are expensive and more readily detect commensal organisms, so they are not necessarily the ideal test in all diarrheal illnesses.

Diagnosis. You decide to first order giardia and cryptosporidium antigen testing because you are highly suspicious that giardia is the cause, based on wild-water exposure, the presentation, and symptom duration. You also order full microscopic O&P examination because you know that parasites can “run in packs.” Results of testing the first stool are positive for giardia. Microscopic examination on each of three stools is negative except for giardia trophozoites (the noninfectious form) in stools two and three.

Giardia overview. Giardia is the most common protozoan causing diarrhea in the United States, is fecal-oral spread, and like Shigella spp., is a low-inoculum infection (ingestion of as few as 10-100 cysts). Acquisition in the United States has been estimated as being 75% from contaminated water (streams are a classic source.² Other sources are contaminated food (fresh produce is classic) and in some cases sexual encounters (mostly in men who have sex with men). Most detections are sporadic, but outbreaks can occur with case numbers usually below 20; 40% of outbreaks are attributable to contaminated water or food.³ Evaluating symptomatic household members can be important as transmission in families can occur.

After ingestion, the cysts uncoat and form trophozoites, which reside mostly in the small bowel (Figure), causing inflammation and altering gut membrane permeability, thereby reducing nutrient absorption and circulating amino acids. Along with decreased food intake, altered absorption can lead to weight loss and potentially reduce growth in young children. Some trophozoites replicate while others encyst, eventually passing into stool. The cysts can survive for months in water or the environment (lakes, swimming pools, and clear mountain streams). Giardia has been linked to beavers’ feces contaminating wild-water sources, hence the moniker “Beaver fever” and warnings about stream water related to wilderness hiking.⁴

CDC / Science Direct

Dr. Harrison is professor of pediatrics and pediatric infectious diseases at Children’s Mercy Hospital–Kansas City, Mo. Children’s Mercy Hospital receives grant funding to study two candidate RSV vaccines. The hospital also receives CDC funding under the New Vaccine Surveillance Network for multicenter surveillance of acute respiratory infections, including influenza, RSV, and parainfluenza virus. Email Dr. Harrison at [email protected].

References

1. Diagnosis and Treatment Information for Medical Professionals, Giardia, Parasites. CDC.

2. Krumrie S et al. Curr Res Parasitol Vector Borne Dis. 2022;2:100084. doi: 10.1016/j.crpvbd.2022.100084.

3. Baldursson S and Karanis P. Water Res. 2011 Dec 15. doi: 10.1016/j.watres.2011.10.013.

4. “Water on the Appalachian Trail” AppalachianTrail.com.

5. Giardiasis: Treatment and prevention. UpToDate.

6. Kimberlin D et al. Red Book: 2021-2024 Report of the Committee on Infectious Diseases (Itasca, Ill.: American Academy of Pediatrics, 2021. 32nd ed.) Giardia duodenalis infections. pp. 335-8; and p. 961 (Table 4.11).

It’s “summertime and the livin’ is easy” according to the lyric from an old George Gershwin song. But sometimes, summer activities can lead to illnesses that can disrupt a child’s easy living.

Case: An otherwise healthy 11-year-old presents with four to five loose stools per day, mild nausea, excess flatulence, and cramps for 12 days with a 5-pound weight loss. His loose-to-mushy stools have no blood or mucous but smell worse than usual. He has had no fever, vomiting, rashes, or joint symptoms. A month ago, he went hiking/camping on the Appalachian Trail, drank boiled stream water. and slept in a common-use semi-enclosed shelter. He waded through streams and shared “Trail Magic” (soft drinks being cooled in a fresh mountain stream). Two other campers report similar symptoms.

Differential diagnosis: Broadly, we should consider bacteria, viruses, and parasites. But generally, bacteria are likely to produce more systemic symptoms and usually do not last 12 days. That said, this could be Clostridioides difficile, yet that seems unlikely because he is otherwise healthy and has no apparent risk factors. Salmonella spp., Campylobacter spp. and some Escherichia coli infections may drag on for more than a week but the lack of systemic symptoms or blood/mucous lowers the likelihood. Viral agents (rotavirus, norovirus, adenovirus, astrovirus, calicivirus, or sapovirus) seem unlikely because of the long symptom duration and the child’s preteen age.

The history and presentation seem more likely attributable to a parasite. Uncommonly detected protozoa include Microsporidium (mostly Enterocytozoon bieneusi) and amoeba. Microsporidium is very rare and seen mostly in immune compromised hosts, for example, those living with HIV. Amebiasis occurs mostly after travel to endemic areas, and stools usually contain blood or mucous. Some roundworm or tapeworm infestations cause abdominal pain and abnormal stools, but the usual exposures are absent. Giardia spp., Cryptosporidium spp., Cyclospora cayetanensis, and/or Cystoisospora belli best fit this presentation given his hiking/camping trip.
 

Workup. Laboratory testing of stool is warranted (because of weight loss and persistent diarrhea) despite a lack of systemic signs. Initially, bacterial culture, C. difficile testing, and viral testing seem unwarranted. The best initial approach, given our most likely suspects, is protozoan/parasite testing.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommends testing up to three stools collected on separate days.¹ Initially, stool testing for giardia and cryptosporidium antigens by EIA assays could be done as a point-of-care test. Such antigen tests are often the first step because of their ease of use, relatively low expense, reasonably high sensitivity and specificity, and rapid turnaround (as little as 1 hour). Alternatively, direct examination of three stools for ova and parasites (O&P) and acid-fast stain or direct fluorescent antibody testing can usually detect our main suspects (giardia, cryptosporidium, cyclospora, and cystoisospora) along with other less likely parasites.

Some laboratories, however, use syndromic stool testing approaches (multiplex nucleic acid panels) that detect over 20 different bacteria, viruses, and select parasites. Multiplex testing has yielded increased detection rates, compared with microscopic examination alone in some settings. Further, they also share ease-of-use and rapid turnaround times with parasite antigen assays while requiring less hands-on time by laboratory personnel, compared with direct microscopic examination. However, multiplex assays are expensive and more readily detect commensal organisms, so they are not necessarily the ideal test in all diarrheal illnesses.

Diagnosis. You decide to first order giardia and cryptosporidium antigen testing because you are highly suspicious that giardia is the cause, based on wild-water exposure, the presentation, and symptom duration. You also order full microscopic O&P examination because you know that parasites can “run in packs.” Results of testing the first stool are positive for giardia. Microscopic examination on each of three stools is negative except for giardia trophozoites (the noninfectious form) in stools two and three.

Giardia overview. Giardia is the most common protozoan causing diarrhea in the United States, is fecal-oral spread, and like Shigella spp., is a low-inoculum infection (ingestion of as few as 10-100 cysts). Acquisition in the United States has been estimated as being 75% from contaminated water (streams are a classic source.² Other sources are contaminated food (fresh produce is classic) and in some cases sexual encounters (mostly in men who have sex with men). Most detections are sporadic, but outbreaks can occur with case numbers usually below 20; 40% of outbreaks are attributable to contaminated water or food.³ Evaluating symptomatic household members can be important as transmission in families can occur.

After ingestion, the cysts uncoat and form trophozoites, which reside mostly in the small bowel (Figure), causing inflammation and altering gut membrane permeability, thereby reducing nutrient absorption and circulating amino acids. Along with decreased food intake, altered absorption can lead to weight loss and potentially reduce growth in young children. Some trophozoites replicate while others encyst, eventually passing into stool. The cysts can survive for months in water or the environment (lakes, swimming pools, and clear mountain streams). Giardia has been linked to beavers’ feces contaminating wild-water sources, hence the moniker “Beaver fever” and warnings about stream water related to wilderness hiking.⁴

CDC / Science Direct

Dr. Harrison is professor of pediatrics and pediatric infectious diseases at Children’s Mercy Hospital–Kansas City, Mo. Children’s Mercy Hospital receives grant funding to study two candidate RSV vaccines. The hospital also receives CDC funding under the New Vaccine Surveillance Network for multicenter surveillance of acute respiratory infections, including influenza, RSV, and parainfluenza virus. Email Dr. Harrison at [email protected].

References

1. Diagnosis and Treatment Information for Medical Professionals, Giardia, Parasites. CDC.

2. Krumrie S et al. Curr Res Parasitol Vector Borne Dis. 2022;2:100084. doi: 10.1016/j.crpvbd.2022.100084.

3. Baldursson S and Karanis P. Water Res. 2011 Dec 15. doi: 10.1016/j.watres.2011.10.013.

4. “Water on the Appalachian Trail” AppalachianTrail.com.

5. Giardiasis: Treatment and prevention. UpToDate.

6. Kimberlin D et al. Red Book: 2021-2024 Report of the Committee on Infectious Diseases (Itasca, Ill.: American Academy of Pediatrics, 2021. 32nd ed.) Giardia duodenalis infections. pp. 335-8; and p. 961 (Table 4.11).

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has approved an injectable monoclonal antibody to protect newborns and infants against respiratory syncytial virus (RSV).

The monoclonal antibody Beyfortus (nirsevimab-alip), which already is approved for use in Europe and Canada, is indicated for newborns and infants born during or entering their first RSV season, and for children up to 24 months of age who are vulnerable to severe RSV through their second RSV season.

As many as 80,000 children under age 5 years are hospitalized with an RSV infection annually in the United States. Most cases are mild, but infants under 6 months, those born prematurely, and children with weakened immune systems or neuromuscular disorders are at an increased risk for severe illness, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

The highly contagious virus is also a concern for immunocompromised adults and older people with underlying health conditions, who are at increased risk for severe disease.

Sanofi and AstraZeneca, which jointly developed the injectable agent, said in a press release that the companies plan to make it available by the fall of 2023. The long-acting antibody is given as a single intramuscular injection.

Beyfortus was approved in part based on data from the phase 3 MELODY trial, which found the shot reduced the incidence of medically attended lower respiratory tract infections associated with RSV by 74.9% versus placebo (95% confidence interval, 50.6-87.3; P < .001).

The phase 2/3 MEDLEY trial, conducted between July 2019 and May 2021, compared Beyfortus with palivizumab, another RSV antibody injection with more limited indications. The trial included more than 900 preterm infants less than 35 weeks’ gestational age and infants with congenital heart disease. Results were similar to the phase 3 MELODY trial, according to the manufacturers.

“Today’s approval marks an unprecedented moment for protecting infant health in the United States, following an RSV season that took a record toll on infants, their families, and the U.S. health care system,” said Thomas Triomphe, executive vice president for vaccines at Sanofi, in a press release about the FDA decision. “Beyfortus is the only monoclonal antibody approved for passive immunization to provide safe and effective protection for all infants during their first RSV season.”

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

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has approved an injectable monoclonal antibody to protect newborns and infants against respiratory syncytial virus (RSV).

The monoclonal antibody Beyfortus (nirsevimab-alip), which already is approved for use in Europe and Canada, is indicated for newborns and infants born during or entering their first RSV season, and for children up to 24 months of age who are vulnerable to severe RSV through their second RSV season.

As many as 80,000 children under age 5 years are hospitalized with an RSV infection annually in the United States. Most cases are mild, but infants under 6 months, those born prematurely, and children with weakened immune systems or neuromuscular disorders are at an increased risk for severe illness, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

The highly contagious virus is also a concern for immunocompromised adults and older people with underlying health conditions, who are at increased risk for severe disease.

Sanofi and AstraZeneca, which jointly developed the injectable agent, said in a press release that the companies plan to make it available by the fall of 2023. The long-acting antibody is given as a single intramuscular injection.

Beyfortus was approved in part based on data from the phase 3 MELODY trial, which found the shot reduced the incidence of medically attended lower respiratory tract infections associated with RSV by 74.9% versus placebo (95% confidence interval, 50.6-87.3; P < .001).

The phase 2/3 MEDLEY trial, conducted between July 2019 and May 2021, compared Beyfortus with palivizumab, another RSV antibody injection with more limited indications. The trial included more than 900 preterm infants less than 35 weeks’ gestational age and infants with congenital heart disease. Results were similar to the phase 3 MELODY trial, according to the manufacturers.

“Today’s approval marks an unprecedented moment for protecting infant health in the United States, following an RSV season that took a record toll on infants, their families, and the U.S. health care system,” said Thomas Triomphe, executive vice president for vaccines at Sanofi, in a press release about the FDA decision. “Beyfortus is the only monoclonal antibody approved for passive immunization to provide safe and effective protection for all infants during their first RSV season.”

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

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has approved an injectable monoclonal antibody to protect newborns and infants against respiratory syncytial virus (RSV).

The monoclonal antibody Beyfortus (nirsevimab-alip), which already is approved for use in Europe and Canada, is indicated for newborns and infants born during or entering their first RSV season, and for children up to 24 months of age who are vulnerable to severe RSV through their second RSV season.

As many as 80,000 children under age 5 years are hospitalized with an RSV infection annually in the United States. Most cases are mild, but infants under 6 months, those born prematurely, and children with weakened immune systems or neuromuscular disorders are at an increased risk for severe illness, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

The highly contagious virus is also a concern for immunocompromised adults and older people with underlying health conditions, who are at increased risk for severe disease.

Sanofi and AstraZeneca, which jointly developed the injectable agent, said in a press release that the companies plan to make it available by the fall of 2023. The long-acting antibody is given as a single intramuscular injection.

Beyfortus was approved in part based on data from the phase 3 MELODY trial, which found the shot reduced the incidence of medically attended lower respiratory tract infections associated with RSV by 74.9% versus placebo (95% confidence interval, 50.6-87.3; P < .001).

The phase 2/3 MEDLEY trial, conducted between July 2019 and May 2021, compared Beyfortus with palivizumab, another RSV antibody injection with more limited indications. The trial included more than 900 preterm infants less than 35 weeks’ gestational age and infants with congenital heart disease. Results were similar to the phase 3 MELODY trial, according to the manufacturers.

“Today’s approval marks an unprecedented moment for protecting infant health in the United States, following an RSV season that took a record toll on infants, their families, and the U.S. health care system,” said Thomas Triomphe, executive vice president for vaccines at Sanofi, in a press release about the FDA decision. “Beyfortus is the only monoclonal antibody approved for passive immunization to provide safe and effective protection for all infants during their first RSV season.”

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

The COVID-19 vaccines have been a game changer for millions of people worldwide in preventing death or disability from the virus. Research suggests that they offer significant protection against long COVID.

Studies have consistently found that these vaccines prevent the new onset of long COVID as well as flare-ups for people who already have the condition.

False and unfounded claims made by some antivaccine groups that the vaccines themselves may cause long COVID persist and serve as barriers to vaccination.

To help separate the facts from falsehoods, here’s a checklist for doctors on what scientific studies have determined about vaccination and long COVID.
 

What the research shows

Doctors who work in long COVID clinics have for years suspected that vaccination may help protect against the development of long COVID, noted Lawrence Purpura, MD, MPH, an infectious disease specialist at New York–Presbyterian/Columbia University Irving Medical Center, who treats patients with long COVID in his clinic.

Over the past year, several large, well-conducted studies have borne out that theory, including the following studies:

• In the RECOVER study, published in May in the journal Nature Communications, researchers examined the electronic health records of more than 5 million people who had been diagnosed with COVID and found that vaccination reduced the risk that they would develop long COVID. Although the researchers didn’t compare the effects of having boosters to being fully vaccinated without them, experts have suggested that having a full round of recommended shots may offer the most protection. “My thoughts are that more shots are better, and other work has shown compelling evidence that the protective effect of vaccination on COVID-19 wanes over time,” said study coauthor Daniel Brannock, MS, a research scientist at RTI International in Research Triangle Park, N.C. “It stands to reason that the same is true for long COVID.”
• A review published in February in BMJ Medicine concluded that 10 studies showed a significant reduction in the incidence of long COVID among vaccinated patients. Even one dose of a vaccine was protective.
• A meta-analysis of six studies published last December in Antimicrobial Stewardship and Healthcare Epidemiology found that one or more doses of a COVID-19 vaccine were 29% effective in preventing symptoms of long COVID.
• In a June meta-analysis published in JAMA Internal Medicine, researchers analyzed more than 40 studies that included 860,000 patients and found that two doses of a COVID-19 vaccine reduced the risk of long COVID by almost half.

The message? COVID vaccination is very effective in reducing the risk of long COVID.

“It’s important to emphasize that many of the risk factors [for long COVID] cannot be changed, or at least cannot be changed easily, but vaccination is a decision that can be taken by everyone,” said Vassilios Vassiliou, MBBS, PhD, clinical professor of cardiac medicine at Norwich Medical School in England, who coauthored the article in JAMA Internal Medicine.
 

Why vaccines may be protective

The COVID-19 vaccines work well to prevent serious illness from the virus, noted Aaron Friedberg, MD, clinical coleader of the Post COVID Recovery Program at the Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center. That may be a clue to why the vaccines help prevent long COVID symptoms.

“When you get COVID and you’ve been vaccinated, the virus may still attach in your nose and respiratory tract, but it’s less likely to spread throughout your body,” he explained. “It’s like a forest fire – if the ground is wet or it starts to rain, it’s less likely to create a great blaze. As a result, your body is less likely to experience inflammation and damage that makes it more likely that you’ll develop long COVID.”

Dr. Friedberg stressed that even for patients who have had COVID, it’s important to get vaccinated – a message he consistently delivers to his own patients.

“There is some protection that comes from having COVID before, but for some people, that’s not enough,” he said. “It’s true that after infection, your body creates antibodies that help protect you against the virus. But I explain to patients that these may be like old Velcro: They barely grab on enough to stay on for the moment, but they don’t last long term. You’re much more likely to get a reliable immune response from the vaccine.”

In addition, a second or third bout of COVID could be the one that gives patients long COVID, Dr. Friedberg adds.

“I have a number of patients in my clinic who were fine after their first bout of COVID but experienced debilitating long COVID symptoms after they developed COVID again,” he said. “Why leave it to chance?”
 

Vaccines and ‘long vax’

The COVID vaccines are considered very safe but have been linked to very rare side effects, such as blood clots and heart inflammation. There have also been anecdotal reports of symptoms that resemble long COVID – a syndrome that has come to be known as “long Vax” – an extremely rare condition that may or may not be tied to vaccination.

“I have seen people in my clinic who developed symptoms suggestive of long COVID that linger for months – brain fog, fatigue, heart palpitations – soon after they got the COVID-19 vaccine,” said Dr. Purpura. But no published studies have suggested a link, he cautions.

A study called LISTEN is being organized at Yale in an effort to better understand postvaccine adverse events and a potential link to long COVID.
 

Talking to patients

Discussions of vaccination with patients, including those with COVID or long COVID, are often fraught and challenging, said Dr. Purpura.

“There’s a lot of fear that they will have a worsening of their symptoms,” he explained. The conversation he has with his patients mirrors the conversation all physicians should have with their patients about COVID-19 vaccination, even if they don’t have long COVID. He stresses the importance of highlighting the following components:

• Show compassion and empathy. “A lot of people have strongly held opinions – it’s worth it to try to find out why they feel the way that they do,” said Dr. Friedberg.
• Walk them through side effects. “Many people are afraid of the side effects of the vaccine, especially if they already have long COVID,” explained Dr. Purpura. Such patients can be asked how they felt after their last vaccination, such a shingles or flu shot. Then explain that the COVID-19 vaccine is not much different and that they may experience temporary side effects such as fatigue, headache, or a mild fever for 24-48 hours.
• Explain the benefits. Eighty-five percent of people say their health care provider is a trusted source of information on COVID-19 vaccines, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation. That trust is conducive to talks about the vaccine’s benefits, including its ability to protect against long COVID.

Other ways to reduce risk of long COVID

Vaccines can lower the chances of a patient’s developing long COVID. So can the antiviral medication nirmatrelvir (Paxlovid). A March 2023 study published in JAMA Internal Medicine included more than 280,000 people with COVID. The researchers found that vaccination reduced the risk for developing the condition by about 25%.

“I mention that study to all of my long COVID patients who become reinfected with the virus,” said Dr. Purpura. “It not only appears protective against long COVID, but since it lowers levels of virus circulating in their body, it seems to help prevent a flare-up of symptoms.”

Another treatment that may help is the diabetes drug metformin, he added.

A June 2023 study published in The Lancet Infectious Diseases found that when metformin was given within 3 days of symptom onset, the incidence of long COVID was reduced by about 41%.

“We’re still trying to wrap our brains around this one, but the thought is it may help to lower inflammation, which plays a role in long COVID,” Dr. Purpura explained. More studies need to be conducted, though, before recommending its use.

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

The COVID-19 vaccines have been a game changer for millions of people worldwide in preventing death or disability from the virus. Research suggests that they offer significant protection against long COVID.

Studies have consistently found that these vaccines prevent the new onset of long COVID as well as flare-ups for people who already have the condition.

False and unfounded claims made by some antivaccine groups that the vaccines themselves may cause long COVID persist and serve as barriers to vaccination.

To help separate the facts from falsehoods, here’s a checklist for doctors on what scientific studies have determined about vaccination and long COVID.
 

What the research shows

Doctors who work in long COVID clinics have for years suspected that vaccination may help protect against the development of long COVID, noted Lawrence Purpura, MD, MPH, an infectious disease specialist at New York–Presbyterian/Columbia University Irving Medical Center, who treats patients with long COVID in his clinic.

Over the past year, several large, well-conducted studies have borne out that theory, including the following studies:

• In the RECOVER study, published in May in the journal Nature Communications, researchers examined the electronic health records of more than 5 million people who had been diagnosed with COVID and found that vaccination reduced the risk that they would develop long COVID. Although the researchers didn’t compare the effects of having boosters to being fully vaccinated without them, experts have suggested that having a full round of recommended shots may offer the most protection. “My thoughts are that more shots are better, and other work has shown compelling evidence that the protective effect of vaccination on COVID-19 wanes over time,” said study coauthor Daniel Brannock, MS, a research scientist at RTI International in Research Triangle Park, N.C. “It stands to reason that the same is true for long COVID.”
• A review published in February in BMJ Medicine concluded that 10 studies showed a significant reduction in the incidence of long COVID among vaccinated patients. Even one dose of a vaccine was protective.
• A meta-analysis of six studies published last December in Antimicrobial Stewardship and Healthcare Epidemiology found that one or more doses of a COVID-19 vaccine were 29% effective in preventing symptoms of long COVID.
• In a June meta-analysis published in JAMA Internal Medicine, researchers analyzed more than 40 studies that included 860,000 patients and found that two doses of a COVID-19 vaccine reduced the risk of long COVID by almost half.

The message? COVID vaccination is very effective in reducing the risk of long COVID.

“It’s important to emphasize that many of the risk factors [for long COVID] cannot be changed, or at least cannot be changed easily, but vaccination is a decision that can be taken by everyone,” said Vassilios Vassiliou, MBBS, PhD, clinical professor of cardiac medicine at Norwich Medical School in England, who coauthored the article in JAMA Internal Medicine.
 

Why vaccines may be protective

The COVID-19 vaccines work well to prevent serious illness from the virus, noted Aaron Friedberg, MD, clinical coleader of the Post COVID Recovery Program at the Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center. That may be a clue to why the vaccines help prevent long COVID symptoms.

“When you get COVID and you’ve been vaccinated, the virus may still attach in your nose and respiratory tract, but it’s less likely to spread throughout your body,” he explained. “It’s like a forest fire – if the ground is wet or it starts to rain, it’s less likely to create a great blaze. As a result, your body is less likely to experience inflammation and damage that makes it more likely that you’ll develop long COVID.”

Dr. Friedberg stressed that even for patients who have had COVID, it’s important to get vaccinated – a message he consistently delivers to his own patients.

“There is some protection that comes from having COVID before, but for some people, that’s not enough,” he said. “It’s true that after infection, your body creates antibodies that help protect you against the virus. But I explain to patients that these may be like old Velcro: They barely grab on enough to stay on for the moment, but they don’t last long term. You’re much more likely to get a reliable immune response from the vaccine.”

In addition, a second or third bout of COVID could be the one that gives patients long COVID, Dr. Friedberg adds.

“I have a number of patients in my clinic who were fine after their first bout of COVID but experienced debilitating long COVID symptoms after they developed COVID again,” he said. “Why leave it to chance?”
 

Vaccines and ‘long vax’

The COVID vaccines are considered very safe but have been linked to very rare side effects, such as blood clots and heart inflammation. There have also been anecdotal reports of symptoms that resemble long COVID – a syndrome that has come to be known as “long Vax” – an extremely rare condition that may or may not be tied to vaccination.

“I have seen people in my clinic who developed symptoms suggestive of long COVID that linger for months – brain fog, fatigue, heart palpitations – soon after they got the COVID-19 vaccine,” said Dr. Purpura. But no published studies have suggested a link, he cautions.

A study called LISTEN is being organized at Yale in an effort to better understand postvaccine adverse events and a potential link to long COVID.
 

Talking to patients

Discussions of vaccination with patients, including those with COVID or long COVID, are often fraught and challenging, said Dr. Purpura.

“There’s a lot of fear that they will have a worsening of their symptoms,” he explained. The conversation he has with his patients mirrors the conversation all physicians should have with their patients about COVID-19 vaccination, even if they don’t have long COVID. He stresses the importance of highlighting the following components:

• Show compassion and empathy. “A lot of people have strongly held opinions – it’s worth it to try to find out why they feel the way that they do,” said Dr. Friedberg.
• Walk them through side effects. “Many people are afraid of the side effects of the vaccine, especially if they already have long COVID,” explained Dr. Purpura. Such patients can be asked how they felt after their last vaccination, such a shingles or flu shot. Then explain that the COVID-19 vaccine is not much different and that they may experience temporary side effects such as fatigue, headache, or a mild fever for 24-48 hours.
• Explain the benefits. Eighty-five percent of people say their health care provider is a trusted source of information on COVID-19 vaccines, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation. That trust is conducive to talks about the vaccine’s benefits, including its ability to protect against long COVID.

Other ways to reduce risk of long COVID

Vaccines can lower the chances of a patient’s developing long COVID. So can the antiviral medication nirmatrelvir (Paxlovid). A March 2023 study published in JAMA Internal Medicine included more than 280,000 people with COVID. The researchers found that vaccination reduced the risk for developing the condition by about 25%.

“I mention that study to all of my long COVID patients who become reinfected with the virus,” said Dr. Purpura. “It not only appears protective against long COVID, but since it lowers levels of virus circulating in their body, it seems to help prevent a flare-up of symptoms.”

Another treatment that may help is the diabetes drug metformin, he added.

A June 2023 study published in The Lancet Infectious Diseases found that when metformin was given within 3 days of symptom onset, the incidence of long COVID was reduced by about 41%.

“We’re still trying to wrap our brains around this one, but the thought is it may help to lower inflammation, which plays a role in long COVID,” Dr. Purpura explained. More studies need to be conducted, though, before recommending its use.

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

The COVID-19 vaccines have been a game changer for millions of people worldwide in preventing death or disability from the virus. Research suggests that they offer significant protection against long COVID.

Studies have consistently found that these vaccines prevent the new onset of long COVID as well as flare-ups for people who already have the condition.

False and unfounded claims made by some antivaccine groups that the vaccines themselves may cause long COVID persist and serve as barriers to vaccination.

To help separate the facts from falsehoods, here’s a checklist for doctors on what scientific studies have determined about vaccination and long COVID.
 

What the research shows

Doctors who work in long COVID clinics have for years suspected that vaccination may help protect against the development of long COVID, noted Lawrence Purpura, MD, MPH, an infectious disease specialist at New York–Presbyterian/Columbia University Irving Medical Center, who treats patients with long COVID in his clinic.

Over the past year, several large, well-conducted studies have borne out that theory, including the following studies:

• In the RECOVER study, published in May in the journal Nature Communications, researchers examined the electronic health records of more than 5 million people who had been diagnosed with COVID and found that vaccination reduced the risk that they would develop long COVID. Although the researchers didn’t compare the effects of having boosters to being fully vaccinated without them, experts have suggested that having a full round of recommended shots may offer the most protection. “My thoughts are that more shots are better, and other work has shown compelling evidence that the protective effect of vaccination on COVID-19 wanes over time,” said study coauthor Daniel Brannock, MS, a research scientist at RTI International in Research Triangle Park, N.C. “It stands to reason that the same is true for long COVID.”
• A review published in February in BMJ Medicine concluded that 10 studies showed a significant reduction in the incidence of long COVID among vaccinated patients. Even one dose of a vaccine was protective.
• A meta-analysis of six studies published last December in Antimicrobial Stewardship and Healthcare Epidemiology found that one or more doses of a COVID-19 vaccine were 29% effective in preventing symptoms of long COVID.
• In a June meta-analysis published in JAMA Internal Medicine, researchers analyzed more than 40 studies that included 860,000 patients and found that two doses of a COVID-19 vaccine reduced the risk of long COVID by almost half.

The message? COVID vaccination is very effective in reducing the risk of long COVID.

“It’s important to emphasize that many of the risk factors [for long COVID] cannot be changed, or at least cannot be changed easily, but vaccination is a decision that can be taken by everyone,” said Vassilios Vassiliou, MBBS, PhD, clinical professor of cardiac medicine at Norwich Medical School in England, who coauthored the article in JAMA Internal Medicine.
 

Why vaccines may be protective

The COVID-19 vaccines work well to prevent serious illness from the virus, noted Aaron Friedberg, MD, clinical coleader of the Post COVID Recovery Program at the Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center. That may be a clue to why the vaccines help prevent long COVID symptoms.

“When you get COVID and you’ve been vaccinated, the virus may still attach in your nose and respiratory tract, but it’s less likely to spread throughout your body,” he explained. “It’s like a forest fire – if the ground is wet or it starts to rain, it’s less likely to create a great blaze. As a result, your body is less likely to experience inflammation and damage that makes it more likely that you’ll develop long COVID.”

Dr. Friedberg stressed that even for patients who have had COVID, it’s important to get vaccinated – a message he consistently delivers to his own patients.

“There is some protection that comes from having COVID before, but for some people, that’s not enough,” he said. “It’s true that after infection, your body creates antibodies that help protect you against the virus. But I explain to patients that these may be like old Velcro: They barely grab on enough to stay on for the moment, but they don’t last long term. You’re much more likely to get a reliable immune response from the vaccine.”

In addition, a second or third bout of COVID could be the one that gives patients long COVID, Dr. Friedberg adds.

“I have a number of patients in my clinic who were fine after their first bout of COVID but experienced debilitating long COVID symptoms after they developed COVID again,” he said. “Why leave it to chance?”
 

Vaccines and ‘long vax’

The COVID vaccines are considered very safe but have been linked to very rare side effects, such as blood clots and heart inflammation. There have also been anecdotal reports of symptoms that resemble long COVID – a syndrome that has come to be known as “long Vax” – an extremely rare condition that may or may not be tied to vaccination.

“I have seen people in my clinic who developed symptoms suggestive of long COVID that linger for months – brain fog, fatigue, heart palpitations – soon after they got the COVID-19 vaccine,” said Dr. Purpura. But no published studies have suggested a link, he cautions.

A study called LISTEN is being organized at Yale in an effort to better understand postvaccine adverse events and a potential link to long COVID.
 

Talking to patients

Discussions of vaccination with patients, including those with COVID or long COVID, are often fraught and challenging, said Dr. Purpura.

“There’s a lot of fear that they will have a worsening of their symptoms,” he explained. The conversation he has with his patients mirrors the conversation all physicians should have with their patients about COVID-19 vaccination, even if they don’t have long COVID. He stresses the importance of highlighting the following components:

• Show compassion and empathy. “A lot of people have strongly held opinions – it’s worth it to try to find out why they feel the way that they do,” said Dr. Friedberg.
• Walk them through side effects. “Many people are afraid of the side effects of the vaccine, especially if they already have long COVID,” explained Dr. Purpura. Such patients can be asked how they felt after their last vaccination, such a shingles or flu shot. Then explain that the COVID-19 vaccine is not much different and that they may experience temporary side effects such as fatigue, headache, or a mild fever for 24-48 hours.
• Explain the benefits. Eighty-five percent of people say their health care provider is a trusted source of information on COVID-19 vaccines, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation. That trust is conducive to talks about the vaccine’s benefits, including its ability to protect against long COVID.

Other ways to reduce risk of long COVID

Vaccines can lower the chances of a patient’s developing long COVID. So can the antiviral medication nirmatrelvir (Paxlovid). A March 2023 study published in JAMA Internal Medicine included more than 280,000 people with COVID. The researchers found that vaccination reduced the risk for developing the condition by about 25%.

“I mention that study to all of my long COVID patients who become reinfected with the virus,” said Dr. Purpura. “It not only appears protective against long COVID, but since it lowers levels of virus circulating in their body, it seems to help prevent a flare-up of symptoms.”

Another treatment that may help is the diabetes drug metformin, he added.

A June 2023 study published in The Lancet Infectious Diseases found that when metformin was given within 3 days of symptom onset, the incidence of long COVID was reduced by about 41%.

“We’re still trying to wrap our brains around this one, but the thought is it may help to lower inflammation, which plays a role in long COVID,” Dr. Purpura explained. More studies need to be conducted, though, before recommending its use.

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

Use of inhalers with long-acting muscarinic antagonists and long-acting beta-agonists reduced COPD exacerbations and pneumonia hospitalizations compared with inhalers with corticosteroids and long-acting beta-agonists, based on data from more than 30,000 individuals.

Current clinical guidelines for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) patients recommend inhalers with long-acting muscarinic antagonists (LAMAs) and long-acting beta-agonists (LABAs) over those with inhaled corticosteroids (ICSs) and LABAs, but data comparing the two formulations have been inconsistent, and concerns about generalizability persist, wrote William B. Feldman, MD, of Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, and colleagues.

In a study published in JAMA Internal Medicine, the researchers reviewed data from a commercial insurance claims database of individuals diagnosed with COPD who filled a new prescription for a LAMA-LABA inhaler or ICS-LABA inhaler between Jan. 1, 2014, and Dec. 31, 2019. Patients with asthma and those younger than 40 years were excluded. The study population included 137,833 individuals with a mean age of 70.2 years; 50.4% were female. Of the 107,004 ICS-LABA users and 30,829 LAMA-LABA users, 30,216 matched pairs were included in a 1:1 propensity score matched study. The primary outcomes were effectiveness, based on the rate of first moderate or severe COPD exacerbation, and safety, based on the rate of first pneumonia hospitalization.

Use of LAMA-LABA inhalers was associated with an 8% reduction in the rate of first moderate or severe COPD exacerbation and a 20% reduction in the rate of first pneumonia hospitalization compared with use of ICS-LABA (hazard ratios 0.92 and 0.80, respectively). The absolute rate reductions with LAMA-LABA inhalers for first moderate or severe COPD exacerbations and for first pneumonia hospitalizations were was 43.0 events per 1,000 person-years and 91.8 events per person-years, respectively.

The overall rates of total moderate to severe COPD and pneumonia hospitalizations were 5% and 17% lower, respectively, among patients who used LAMA-LABA than those treated with ICS-LABA. The results were consistently robust in subgroup and sensitivity analyses, the researchers wrote in their discussion. However, the results must be interpreted cautiously in comparison to other large studies because of the significant differences in the cohorts of patients studied, notably that most patients in the current study had no received previous inhaler therapy.

The study findings were limited by several factors including the relatively short follow-up time and reliance on prescription fills as an indicator of medication use, the researchers noted. Other limitations included notable differences between the LAMA-LABA patients and ICS-LABA patients, such as more severe COPD and less access to respiratory care, they wrote.

Although the current study is not the definitive answer to conflicting results from previous trials, it is the largest know to date to compare LAMA-LABA with ICS-LABA, and the results support LAMA-LABA as the preferred therapy for COPD patients, the researchers concluded.
 

Findings clarify clinical practice guidelines

“This study was required to provide clarity regarding the optimal choice of treatment for COPD given conflicting data from other recent trials,” Suman Pal, MBBS, of the University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, said in an interview.

“The study findings reinforce the benefits of combined LAMA-LABA in improving clinical outcomes in COPD in a real-world setting,” and the data provide further support for choosing LAMA-LABA over ICS-LABA in COPD patients, said Dr. Pal, who was not involved in the study.

However, availability and affordability of LAMA-LABA inhalers may be barriers to expanding their use in clinical practice, he noted.

“Additional research is needed to accurately define which patient populations would benefit most from the therapy and whether patients who have previously been stabilized on ICS-LABA would derive additional benefit from a change in therapy,” Dr. Pal said.

The study was supported by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute and funding from the Commonwealth Fund and Arnold Ventures.

Dr. Feldman disclosed receiving personal fees from Alosa Health and Aetion, serving as an expert witness in litigation against inhaler manufacturers, and receiving an honorarium for a presentation to Blue Cross Blue Shield of Massachusetts unrelated to the current study. Dr. Pal had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Use of inhalers with long-acting muscarinic antagonists and long-acting beta-agonists reduced COPD exacerbations and pneumonia hospitalizations compared with inhalers with corticosteroids and long-acting beta-agonists, based on data from more than 30,000 individuals.

Current clinical guidelines for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) patients recommend inhalers with long-acting muscarinic antagonists (LAMAs) and long-acting beta-agonists (LABAs) over those with inhaled corticosteroids (ICSs) and LABAs, but data comparing the two formulations have been inconsistent, and concerns about generalizability persist, wrote William B. Feldman, MD, of Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, and colleagues.

In a study published in JAMA Internal Medicine, the researchers reviewed data from a commercial insurance claims database of individuals diagnosed with COPD who filled a new prescription for a LAMA-LABA inhaler or ICS-LABA inhaler between Jan. 1, 2014, and Dec. 31, 2019. Patients with asthma and those younger than 40 years were excluded. The study population included 137,833 individuals with a mean age of 70.2 years; 50.4% were female. Of the 107,004 ICS-LABA users and 30,829 LAMA-LABA users, 30,216 matched pairs were included in a 1:1 propensity score matched study. The primary outcomes were effectiveness, based on the rate of first moderate or severe COPD exacerbation, and safety, based on the rate of first pneumonia hospitalization.

Use of LAMA-LABA inhalers was associated with an 8% reduction in the rate of first moderate or severe COPD exacerbation and a 20% reduction in the rate of first pneumonia hospitalization compared with use of ICS-LABA (hazard ratios 0.92 and 0.80, respectively). The absolute rate reductions with LAMA-LABA inhalers for first moderate or severe COPD exacerbations and for first pneumonia hospitalizations were was 43.0 events per 1,000 person-years and 91.8 events per person-years, respectively.

The overall rates of total moderate to severe COPD and pneumonia hospitalizations were 5% and 17% lower, respectively, among patients who used LAMA-LABA than those treated with ICS-LABA. The results were consistently robust in subgroup and sensitivity analyses, the researchers wrote in their discussion. However, the results must be interpreted cautiously in comparison to other large studies because of the significant differences in the cohorts of patients studied, notably that most patients in the current study had no received previous inhaler therapy.

The study findings were limited by several factors including the relatively short follow-up time and reliance on prescription fills as an indicator of medication use, the researchers noted. Other limitations included notable differences between the LAMA-LABA patients and ICS-LABA patients, such as more severe COPD and less access to respiratory care, they wrote.

Although the current study is not the definitive answer to conflicting results from previous trials, it is the largest know to date to compare LAMA-LABA with ICS-LABA, and the results support LAMA-LABA as the preferred therapy for COPD patients, the researchers concluded.
 

Findings clarify clinical practice guidelines

“This study was required to provide clarity regarding the optimal choice of treatment for COPD given conflicting data from other recent trials,” Suman Pal, MBBS, of the University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, said in an interview.

“The study findings reinforce the benefits of combined LAMA-LABA in improving clinical outcomes in COPD in a real-world setting,” and the data provide further support for choosing LAMA-LABA over ICS-LABA in COPD patients, said Dr. Pal, who was not involved in the study.

However, availability and affordability of LAMA-LABA inhalers may be barriers to expanding their use in clinical practice, he noted.

“Additional research is needed to accurately define which patient populations would benefit most from the therapy and whether patients who have previously been stabilized on ICS-LABA would derive additional benefit from a change in therapy,” Dr. Pal said.

The study was supported by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute and funding from the Commonwealth Fund and Arnold Ventures.

Dr. Feldman disclosed receiving personal fees from Alosa Health and Aetion, serving as an expert witness in litigation against inhaler manufacturers, and receiving an honorarium for a presentation to Blue Cross Blue Shield of Massachusetts unrelated to the current study. Dr. Pal had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Use of inhalers with long-acting muscarinic antagonists and long-acting beta-agonists reduced COPD exacerbations and pneumonia hospitalizations compared with inhalers with corticosteroids and long-acting beta-agonists, based on data from more than 30,000 individuals.

Current clinical guidelines for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) patients recommend inhalers with long-acting muscarinic antagonists (LAMAs) and long-acting beta-agonists (LABAs) over those with inhaled corticosteroids (ICSs) and LABAs, but data comparing the two formulations have been inconsistent, and concerns about generalizability persist, wrote William B. Feldman, MD, of Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, and colleagues.

In a study published in JAMA Internal Medicine, the researchers reviewed data from a commercial insurance claims database of individuals diagnosed with COPD who filled a new prescription for a LAMA-LABA inhaler or ICS-LABA inhaler between Jan. 1, 2014, and Dec. 31, 2019. Patients with asthma and those younger than 40 years were excluded. The study population included 137,833 individuals with a mean age of 70.2 years; 50.4% were female. Of the 107,004 ICS-LABA users and 30,829 LAMA-LABA users, 30,216 matched pairs were included in a 1:1 propensity score matched study. The primary outcomes were effectiveness, based on the rate of first moderate or severe COPD exacerbation, and safety, based on the rate of first pneumonia hospitalization.

Use of LAMA-LABA inhalers was associated with an 8% reduction in the rate of first moderate or severe COPD exacerbation and a 20% reduction in the rate of first pneumonia hospitalization compared with use of ICS-LABA (hazard ratios 0.92 and 0.80, respectively). The absolute rate reductions with LAMA-LABA inhalers for first moderate or severe COPD exacerbations and for first pneumonia hospitalizations were was 43.0 events per 1,000 person-years and 91.8 events per person-years, respectively.

The overall rates of total moderate to severe COPD and pneumonia hospitalizations were 5% and 17% lower, respectively, among patients who used LAMA-LABA than those treated with ICS-LABA. The results were consistently robust in subgroup and sensitivity analyses, the researchers wrote in their discussion. However, the results must be interpreted cautiously in comparison to other large studies because of the significant differences in the cohorts of patients studied, notably that most patients in the current study had no received previous inhaler therapy.

The study findings were limited by several factors including the relatively short follow-up time and reliance on prescription fills as an indicator of medication use, the researchers noted. Other limitations included notable differences between the LAMA-LABA patients and ICS-LABA patients, such as more severe COPD and less access to respiratory care, they wrote.

Although the current study is not the definitive answer to conflicting results from previous trials, it is the largest know to date to compare LAMA-LABA with ICS-LABA, and the results support LAMA-LABA as the preferred therapy for COPD patients, the researchers concluded.
 

Findings clarify clinical practice guidelines

“This study was required to provide clarity regarding the optimal choice of treatment for COPD given conflicting data from other recent trials,” Suman Pal, MBBS, of the University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, said in an interview.

“The study findings reinforce the benefits of combined LAMA-LABA in improving clinical outcomes in COPD in a real-world setting,” and the data provide further support for choosing LAMA-LABA over ICS-LABA in COPD patients, said Dr. Pal, who was not involved in the study.

However, availability and affordability of LAMA-LABA inhalers may be barriers to expanding their use in clinical practice, he noted.

“Additional research is needed to accurately define which patient populations would benefit most from the therapy and whether patients who have previously been stabilized on ICS-LABA would derive additional benefit from a change in therapy,” Dr. Pal said.

The study was supported by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute and funding from the Commonwealth Fund and Arnold Ventures.

Dr. Feldman disclosed receiving personal fees from Alosa Health and Aetion, serving as an expert witness in litigation against inhaler manufacturers, and receiving an honorarium for a presentation to Blue Cross Blue Shield of Massachusetts unrelated to the current study. Dr. Pal had no financial conflicts to disclose.

In the decade since safe, curative oral treatments were approved for treating hepatitis C virus (HCV) infections, only one in three U.S. patients diagnosed with the disease have been cleared of it, according to new data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

The findings indicate that current progress falls far short of the goal of the Viral Hepatitis National Strategic Plan for the United States, which calls for eliminating HCV for at least 80% of patients with the virus by 2030.

Lead author Carolyn Wester, MD, with the CDC’s Division of Viral Hepatitis, called the low numbers “stunning” and said that the researchers found that patients face barriers to being cured at every step of the way, from being diagnosed to accessing breakthrough direct-acting antiviral (DAA) agents.

The article was published online in the CDC’s Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report.
 

Outcomes vary by age and insurance

Using longitudinal data from Quest Diagnostics laboratories, the researchers identified 1.7 million people who had a history of HCV infection from Jan. 1, 2013, to Dec. 31, 2022.

Of those patients, 1.5 million (88%) were categorized as having undergone viral testing.

Among those who underwent such testing, 1 million (69%) were categorized as having an initial infection. Just 356,807 patients with initial infection (34%) were cured or cleared of HCV. Of those found to be cured or cleared, 23,518 (7%) were found to have persistent infection or reinfection.

Viral clearance varied greatly by insurance. While 45% of the people covered under Medicare experienced viral clearance, only 23% of the uninsured and 31% of those on Medicaid did so.

Age also played a role in viral clearance. It was highest (42%) among those aged 60 and older. Clearance was lowest (24%) among patients in the 20-39 age group, the group most likely to be newly infected in light of the surge in HCV cases because of the opioid epidemic, Dr. Wester said. Persistent infection or reinfection was also highest in the 20-39 age group.

With respect to age and insurance type combined, the highest HCV clearance rate (49%) was for patients aged 60 and older who had commercial insurance; the lowest (16%) was for uninsured patients in the 20-39 age group.

The investigators evaluated people who had been diagnosed with HCV, Dr. Wester said. “It’s estimated about 40% of people in the U.S. are unaware of their infection.” Because of this, the numbers reported in the study may vastly underestimate the true picture, she told this news organization.
 

Barriers to treatment ‘insurmountable’ without major transformation

Increased access to diagnosis, treatment, and prevention services for persons with or at risk for acquiring hepatitis C needs to be addressed to prevent progression of disease and ongoing transmission and to achieve national hepatitis C elimination goals, the authors wrote.

The biggest barriers to improving HCV clearance are the high cost of treatment, widely varying insurance coverage, insurer restrictions, and challenges in diagnosing the disease, Dr. Wester added.

Overcoming these barriers requires implementation of universal HCV screening recommendations, including HCV RNA testing for all persons with reactive HCV antibody results, provision of treatment for all persons regardless of payer, and prevention services for persons at risk for acquiring new HCV infection, the authors concluded.

“The current barriers are insurmountable without a major transformation in our nation’s response,” Dr. Wester noted.

She expressed her support of the National Hepatitis C Elimination Program, offered as part of the Biden Administration’s 2024 budget proposal. She said that the initiative “is what we need to prevent the needless suffering from hepatitis C and to potentially save not only tens of thousands of lives but tens of billions of health care dollars.”

The three-part proposal includes a national subscription model to purchase DAA agents for those most underserved: Medicaid beneficiaries, incarcerated people, the uninsured, and American Indian and Alaska Native individuals treated through the Indian Health Service.

Under this model, the federal government would negotiate with manufacturers to buy as much treatment as needed for all individuals in the underserved groups.
 

What can physicians do?

Physicians can help improve HCV treatment and outcomes by being aware of the current testing guidelines, Dr. Wester said.

Guidelines now call for hepatitis C screening at least once in a lifetime for all adults, except in settings where the prevalence of HCV infection is less than 0.1%. They also call for screening during each pregnancy, with the same regional-prevalence exception.

Recommendations include curative treatment “for nearly everybody who is living with hepatitis C,” Dr. Wester added.

These CDC guidelines came out in April 2020, a time when the medical focus shifted to COVID-19, and that may have hurt awareness, she noted.

Physicians can also help by fighting back against non–evidence-based reasons insurance companies give for restricting coverage, Dr. Wester said.

Those restrictions include requiring specialists to prescribe DAA agents instead of allowing primary care physicians to do so, as well as requiring patients to have advanced liver disease or requiring patients to demonstrate sobriety or prove they are receiving counseling prior to their being eligible for treatment, Dr. Wester said.
 

Prior authorization a problem

Stacey B. Trooskin MD, PhD, MPH, assistant professor of medicine at the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia, told this news organization that prior authorization has been a major barrier for obtaining medications. Prior authorization requirements differ by state.

The paperwork must be submitted by already-stretched physician offices, and appeals are common. In that time, the window for keeping patients with HCV in the health care system may be lost, said Dr. Trooskin, chief medical adviser to the National Viral Hepatitis Roundtable.

“We know that about half of all Medicaid programs have removed prior authorization for most patients entirely,” she said, “but there are still half that require prior authorization.”

Action at the federal level is also needed, Dr. Trooskin said.

The countries that are successfully eliminating HCV and have successfully deployed the lifesaving medications provide governmental support for meeting patients where they are, she added.

Support can include inpatient and outpatient substance use disorder treatment programs or support in mental health settings, she noted.

“It’s not enough to want patients to come into their primary care provider and for that primary care provider to screen them,” Dr. Trooskin said. “This is about creating health care infrastructure so that we are finding patients at greatest risk for hepatitis C and integrating hepatitis C treatment into the services they are already accessing.”

Coauthor Harvey W. Kaufman, MD, is an employee of and owns stock in Quest Diagnostics. Coauthor William A. Meyer III, PhD, is a consultant to Quest Diagnostics. No other potential conflicts of interest were disclosed. Dr. Trooskin oversees C-Change, a hepatitis C elimination program, which receives funding from Gilead Sciences.

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

In the decade since safe, curative oral treatments were approved for treating hepatitis C virus (HCV) infections, only one in three U.S. patients diagnosed with the disease have been cleared of it, according to new data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

The findings indicate that current progress falls far short of the goal of the Viral Hepatitis National Strategic Plan for the United States, which calls for eliminating HCV for at least 80% of patients with the virus by 2030.

Lead author Carolyn Wester, MD, with the CDC’s Division of Viral Hepatitis, called the low numbers “stunning” and said that the researchers found that patients face barriers to being cured at every step of the way, from being diagnosed to accessing breakthrough direct-acting antiviral (DAA) agents.

The article was published online in the CDC’s Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report.
 

Outcomes vary by age and insurance

Using longitudinal data from Quest Diagnostics laboratories, the researchers identified 1.7 million people who had a history of HCV infection from Jan. 1, 2013, to Dec. 31, 2022.

Of those patients, 1.5 million (88%) were categorized as having undergone viral testing.

Among those who underwent such testing, 1 million (69%) were categorized as having an initial infection. Just 356,807 patients with initial infection (34%) were cured or cleared of HCV. Of those found to be cured or cleared, 23,518 (7%) were found to have persistent infection or reinfection.

Viral clearance varied greatly by insurance. While 45% of the people covered under Medicare experienced viral clearance, only 23% of the uninsured and 31% of those on Medicaid did so.

Age also played a role in viral clearance. It was highest (42%) among those aged 60 and older. Clearance was lowest (24%) among patients in the 20-39 age group, the group most likely to be newly infected in light of the surge in HCV cases because of the opioid epidemic, Dr. Wester said. Persistent infection or reinfection was also highest in the 20-39 age group.

With respect to age and insurance type combined, the highest HCV clearance rate (49%) was for patients aged 60 and older who had commercial insurance; the lowest (16%) was for uninsured patients in the 20-39 age group.

The investigators evaluated people who had been diagnosed with HCV, Dr. Wester said. “It’s estimated about 40% of people in the U.S. are unaware of their infection.” Because of this, the numbers reported in the study may vastly underestimate the true picture, she told this news organization.
 

Barriers to treatment ‘insurmountable’ without major transformation

Increased access to diagnosis, treatment, and prevention services for persons with or at risk for acquiring hepatitis C needs to be addressed to prevent progression of disease and ongoing transmission and to achieve national hepatitis C elimination goals, the authors wrote.

The biggest barriers to improving HCV clearance are the high cost of treatment, widely varying insurance coverage, insurer restrictions, and challenges in diagnosing the disease, Dr. Wester added.

Overcoming these barriers requires implementation of universal HCV screening recommendations, including HCV RNA testing for all persons with reactive HCV antibody results, provision of treatment for all persons regardless of payer, and prevention services for persons at risk for acquiring new HCV infection, the authors concluded.

“The current barriers are insurmountable without a major transformation in our nation’s response,” Dr. Wester noted.

She expressed her support of the National Hepatitis C Elimination Program, offered as part of the Biden Administration’s 2024 budget proposal. She said that the initiative “is what we need to prevent the needless suffering from hepatitis C and to potentially save not only tens of thousands of lives but tens of billions of health care dollars.”

The three-part proposal includes a national subscription model to purchase DAA agents for those most underserved: Medicaid beneficiaries, incarcerated people, the uninsured, and American Indian and Alaska Native individuals treated through the Indian Health Service.

Under this model, the federal government would negotiate with manufacturers to buy as much treatment as needed for all individuals in the underserved groups.
 

What can physicians do?

Physicians can help improve HCV treatment and outcomes by being aware of the current testing guidelines, Dr. Wester said.

Guidelines now call for hepatitis C screening at least once in a lifetime for all adults, except in settings where the prevalence of HCV infection is less than 0.1%. They also call for screening during each pregnancy, with the same regional-prevalence exception.

Recommendations include curative treatment “for nearly everybody who is living with hepatitis C,” Dr. Wester added.

These CDC guidelines came out in April 2020, a time when the medical focus shifted to COVID-19, and that may have hurt awareness, she noted.

Physicians can also help by fighting back against non–evidence-based reasons insurance companies give for restricting coverage, Dr. Wester said.

Those restrictions include requiring specialists to prescribe DAA agents instead of allowing primary care physicians to do so, as well as requiring patients to have advanced liver disease or requiring patients to demonstrate sobriety or prove they are receiving counseling prior to their being eligible for treatment, Dr. Wester said.
 

Prior authorization a problem

Stacey B. Trooskin MD, PhD, MPH, assistant professor of medicine at the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia, told this news organization that prior authorization has been a major barrier for obtaining medications. Prior authorization requirements differ by state.

The paperwork must be submitted by already-stretched physician offices, and appeals are common. In that time, the window for keeping patients with HCV in the health care system may be lost, said Dr. Trooskin, chief medical adviser to the National Viral Hepatitis Roundtable.

“We know that about half of all Medicaid programs have removed prior authorization for most patients entirely,” she said, “but there are still half that require prior authorization.”

Action at the federal level is also needed, Dr. Trooskin said.

The countries that are successfully eliminating HCV and have successfully deployed the lifesaving medications provide governmental support for meeting patients where they are, she added.

Support can include inpatient and outpatient substance use disorder treatment programs or support in mental health settings, she noted.

“It’s not enough to want patients to come into their primary care provider and for that primary care provider to screen them,” Dr. Trooskin said. “This is about creating health care infrastructure so that we are finding patients at greatest risk for hepatitis C and integrating hepatitis C treatment into the services they are already accessing.”

Coauthor Harvey W. Kaufman, MD, is an employee of and owns stock in Quest Diagnostics. Coauthor William A. Meyer III, PhD, is a consultant to Quest Diagnostics. No other potential conflicts of interest were disclosed. Dr. Trooskin oversees C-Change, a hepatitis C elimination program, which receives funding from Gilead Sciences.

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

In the decade since safe, curative oral treatments were approved for treating hepatitis C virus (HCV) infections, only one in three U.S. patients diagnosed with the disease have been cleared of it, according to new data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

The findings indicate that current progress falls far short of the goal of the Viral Hepatitis National Strategic Plan for the United States, which calls for eliminating HCV for at least 80% of patients with the virus by 2030.

Lead author Carolyn Wester, MD, with the CDC’s Division of Viral Hepatitis, called the low numbers “stunning” and said that the researchers found that patients face barriers to being cured at every step of the way, from being diagnosed to accessing breakthrough direct-acting antiviral (DAA) agents.

The article was published online in the CDC’s Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report.
 

Outcomes vary by age and insurance

Using longitudinal data from Quest Diagnostics laboratories, the researchers identified 1.7 million people who had a history of HCV infection from Jan. 1, 2013, to Dec. 31, 2022.

Of those patients, 1.5 million (88%) were categorized as having undergone viral testing.

Among those who underwent such testing, 1 million (69%) were categorized as having an initial infection. Just 356,807 patients with initial infection (34%) were cured or cleared of HCV. Of those found to be cured or cleared, 23,518 (7%) were found to have persistent infection or reinfection.

Viral clearance varied greatly by insurance. While 45% of the people covered under Medicare experienced viral clearance, only 23% of the uninsured and 31% of those on Medicaid did so.

Age also played a role in viral clearance. It was highest (42%) among those aged 60 and older. Clearance was lowest (24%) among patients in the 20-39 age group, the group most likely to be newly infected in light of the surge in HCV cases because of the opioid epidemic, Dr. Wester said. Persistent infection or reinfection was also highest in the 20-39 age group.

With respect to age and insurance type combined, the highest HCV clearance rate (49%) was for patients aged 60 and older who had commercial insurance; the lowest (16%) was for uninsured patients in the 20-39 age group.

The investigators evaluated people who had been diagnosed with HCV, Dr. Wester said. “It’s estimated about 40% of people in the U.S. are unaware of their infection.” Because of this, the numbers reported in the study may vastly underestimate the true picture, she told this news organization.
 

Barriers to treatment ‘insurmountable’ without major transformation

Increased access to diagnosis, treatment, and prevention services for persons with or at risk for acquiring hepatitis C needs to be addressed to prevent progression of disease and ongoing transmission and to achieve national hepatitis C elimination goals, the authors wrote.

The biggest barriers to improving HCV clearance are the high cost of treatment, widely varying insurance coverage, insurer restrictions, and challenges in diagnosing the disease, Dr. Wester added.

Overcoming these barriers requires implementation of universal HCV screening recommendations, including HCV RNA testing for all persons with reactive HCV antibody results, provision of treatment for all persons regardless of payer, and prevention services for persons at risk for acquiring new HCV infection, the authors concluded.

“The current barriers are insurmountable without a major transformation in our nation’s response,” Dr. Wester noted.

She expressed her support of the National Hepatitis C Elimination Program, offered as part of the Biden Administration’s 2024 budget proposal. She said that the initiative “is what we need to prevent the needless suffering from hepatitis C and to potentially save not only tens of thousands of lives but tens of billions of health care dollars.”

The three-part proposal includes a national subscription model to purchase DAA agents for those most underserved: Medicaid beneficiaries, incarcerated people, the uninsured, and American Indian and Alaska Native individuals treated through the Indian Health Service.

Under this model, the federal government would negotiate with manufacturers to buy as much treatment as needed for all individuals in the underserved groups.
 

What can physicians do?

Physicians can help improve HCV treatment and outcomes by being aware of the current testing guidelines, Dr. Wester said.

Guidelines now call for hepatitis C screening at least once in a lifetime for all adults, except in settings where the prevalence of HCV infection is less than 0.1%. They also call for screening during each pregnancy, with the same regional-prevalence exception.

Recommendations include curative treatment “for nearly everybody who is living with hepatitis C,” Dr. Wester added.

These CDC guidelines came out in April 2020, a time when the medical focus shifted to COVID-19, and that may have hurt awareness, she noted.

Physicians can also help by fighting back against non–evidence-based reasons insurance companies give for restricting coverage, Dr. Wester said.

Those restrictions include requiring specialists to prescribe DAA agents instead of allowing primary care physicians to do so, as well as requiring patients to have advanced liver disease or requiring patients to demonstrate sobriety or prove they are receiving counseling prior to their being eligible for treatment, Dr. Wester said.
 

Prior authorization a problem

Stacey B. Trooskin MD, PhD, MPH, assistant professor of medicine at the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia, told this news organization that prior authorization has been a major barrier for obtaining medications. Prior authorization requirements differ by state.

The paperwork must be submitted by already-stretched physician offices, and appeals are common. In that time, the window for keeping patients with HCV in the health care system may be lost, said Dr. Trooskin, chief medical adviser to the National Viral Hepatitis Roundtable.

“We know that about half of all Medicaid programs have removed prior authorization for most patients entirely,” she said, “but there are still half that require prior authorization.”

Action at the federal level is also needed, Dr. Trooskin said.

The countries that are successfully eliminating HCV and have successfully deployed the lifesaving medications provide governmental support for meeting patients where they are, she added.

Support can include inpatient and outpatient substance use disorder treatment programs or support in mental health settings, she noted.

“It’s not enough to want patients to come into their primary care provider and for that primary care provider to screen them,” Dr. Trooskin said. “This is about creating health care infrastructure so that we are finding patients at greatest risk for hepatitis C and integrating hepatitis C treatment into the services they are already accessing.”

Coauthor Harvey W. Kaufman, MD, is an employee of and owns stock in Quest Diagnostics. Coauthor William A. Meyer III, PhD, is a consultant to Quest Diagnostics. No other potential conflicts of interest were disclosed. Dr. Trooskin oversees C-Change, a hepatitis C elimination program, which receives funding from Gilead Sciences.

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

The Diagnosis: Mpox (Monkeypox)

Tests for active herpes simplex virus (HHV), gonorrhea, chlamydia, HIV, and syphilis were negative. Swabs from the penile lesion demonstrated positivity for the West African clade of mpox (monkeypox) virus (MPXV) by polymerase chain reaction. The patient was treated supportively without the addition of antiviral therapy, and he experienced a complete recovery.

Mpox virus was first isolated in 1958 in a research facility and was named after the laboratory animals that were housed there. The first human documentation of the disease occurred in 1970, and it was first documented in the United States in 2003 in an infection that was traced to a shipment of small mammals from Ghana to Texas.¹ The disease has always been endemic to Africa; however, the incidence has been increasing.² A new MPXV outbreak was reported in many countries in early 2022, including the United States.¹

The MPXV is a double-stranded DNA virus of the genus Orthopoxvirus, and 2 genetic clades have been identified: clade I (formerly the Central African clade) and clade II (formerly the West African clade). The virus has the capability to infect many mammals; however, its host remains unidentified.¹ The exact mechanism of transmission from infected animals to humans largely is unknown; however, direct or indirect contact with infected animals likely is responsible. Human-to-human transmission can occur by many mechanisms including contact with large respiratory droplets, bodily fluids, and contaminated surfaces. The incubation period is 5 to 21 days, and the symptoms last 2 to 5 weeks.¹

The clinical manifestations of MPXV during the most recent outbreak differ from prior outbreaks. Patients are more likely to experience minimal to no systemic symptoms, and cutaneous lesions can be few and localized to a focal area, especially on the face and in the anogenital region,³ similar to the presentation in our patient (Figure 1). Cutaneous lesions of the most recent MPXV outbreak also include painless ulcerations similar to syphilitic chancres and lesions that are in various stages of healing.³ Lesions often begin as pseudopustules, which are firm white papules with or without a necrotic center that resemble pustules; unlike true pustules, there is no identifiable purulent material within it. Bacterial superinfection of the lesions is not uncommon.⁴ Over time, a secondary pustular eruption resembling folliculitis also may occur,4 as noted in our patient (Figure 2).

Although we did not have a biopsy to support the diagnosis of associated erythema multiforme (EM) in our patient, features supportive of this diagnosis included the classic clinical appearance of typical, well-defined, targetoid plaques with 3 distinct zones (Figure 3); the association with a known infection; the distribution on the arms with truncal sparing; and self-limited lesions. More than 90% of EM cases are associated with infection, with HHV representing the most common culprit⁵; therefore, the relationship with a different virus is not an unreasonable suggestion. Additionally, there have been rare reports of EM in association with MPXV.⁴

Histopathology of MPXV may have distinctive features. Lesions often demonstrate keratinocytic necrosis and basal layer vacuolization with an associated superficial and deep perivascular lymphohistiocytic infiltrate. When the morphology of the lesion is vesicular, histopathology reveals spongiosis and ballooning degeneration with epidermal necrosis. Viral inclusion bodies within keratinocytes may be identified.¹ Death rates from MPXV has been reported from 1% to 11%, with increased mortality among high-risk populations including children and immunocompromised individuals. Treatment of the disease largely consists of supportive care and management of any associated complications including bacterial infection, pneumonia, and encephalitis.¹

The differential diagnosis of MPXV includes other ulcerative lesions that can occur on the genital skin. Fixed drug eruptions often present on the penis,⁶ but there was no identifiable inciting drug in our patient. Herpes simplex virus infection was very high on the differential given our patient’s history of recurrent infections and association with a targetoid rash, but HHV type 1 and HHV type 2 testing of the lesion was negative. A syphilitic chancre also may present with the nontender genital ulceration⁷ that was seen in our patient, but serology did not support this diagnosis. Cutaneous Crohn disease also may manifest with genital ulceration even before a diagnosis of Crohn disease is made, but these lesions often present as linear knife-cut ulcerations of the anogenital region.⁸

Our case further supports a clinical presentation that diverges from the more traditional cases of MPXV. Additionally, associated EM may be a clue to infection, especially in cases of negative HHV and other sexually transmitted infection testing.

The Diagnosis: Mpox (Monkeypox)

Tests for active herpes simplex virus (HHV), gonorrhea, chlamydia, HIV, and syphilis were negative. Swabs from the penile lesion demonstrated positivity for the West African clade of mpox (monkeypox) virus (MPXV) by polymerase chain reaction. The patient was treated supportively without the addition of antiviral therapy, and he experienced a complete recovery.

Mpox virus was first isolated in 1958 in a research facility and was named after the laboratory animals that were housed there. The first human documentation of the disease occurred in 1970, and it was first documented in the United States in 2003 in an infection that was traced to a shipment of small mammals from Ghana to Texas.¹ The disease has always been endemic to Africa; however, the incidence has been increasing.² A new MPXV outbreak was reported in many countries in early 2022, including the United States.¹

The MPXV is a double-stranded DNA virus of the genus Orthopoxvirus, and 2 genetic clades have been identified: clade I (formerly the Central African clade) and clade II (formerly the West African clade). The virus has the capability to infect many mammals; however, its host remains unidentified.¹ The exact mechanism of transmission from infected animals to humans largely is unknown; however, direct or indirect contact with infected animals likely is responsible. Human-to-human transmission can occur by many mechanisms including contact with large respiratory droplets, bodily fluids, and contaminated surfaces. The incubation period is 5 to 21 days, and the symptoms last 2 to 5 weeks.¹

The clinical manifestations of MPXV during the most recent outbreak differ from prior outbreaks. Patients are more likely to experience minimal to no systemic symptoms, and cutaneous lesions can be few and localized to a focal area, especially on the face and in the anogenital region,³ similar to the presentation in our patient (Figure 1). Cutaneous lesions of the most recent MPXV outbreak also include painless ulcerations similar to syphilitic chancres and lesions that are in various stages of healing.³ Lesions often begin as pseudopustules, which are firm white papules with or without a necrotic center that resemble pustules; unlike true pustules, there is no identifiable purulent material within it. Bacterial superinfection of the lesions is not uncommon.⁴ Over time, a secondary pustular eruption resembling folliculitis also may occur,4 as noted in our patient (Figure 2).

Although we did not have a biopsy to support the diagnosis of associated erythema multiforme (EM) in our patient, features supportive of this diagnosis included the classic clinical appearance of typical, well-defined, targetoid plaques with 3 distinct zones (Figure 3); the association with a known infection; the distribution on the arms with truncal sparing; and self-limited lesions. More than 90% of EM cases are associated with infection, with HHV representing the most common culprit⁵; therefore, the relationship with a different virus is not an unreasonable suggestion. Additionally, there have been rare reports of EM in association with MPXV.⁴

Histopathology of MPXV may have distinctive features. Lesions often demonstrate keratinocytic necrosis and basal layer vacuolization with an associated superficial and deep perivascular lymphohistiocytic infiltrate. When the morphology of the lesion is vesicular, histopathology reveals spongiosis and ballooning degeneration with epidermal necrosis. Viral inclusion bodies within keratinocytes may be identified.¹ Death rates from MPXV has been reported from 1% to 11%, with increased mortality among high-risk populations including children and immunocompromised individuals. Treatment of the disease largely consists of supportive care and management of any associated complications including bacterial infection, pneumonia, and encephalitis.¹

The differential diagnosis of MPXV includes other ulcerative lesions that can occur on the genital skin. Fixed drug eruptions often present on the penis,⁶ but there was no identifiable inciting drug in our patient. Herpes simplex virus infection was very high on the differential given our patient’s history of recurrent infections and association with a targetoid rash, but HHV type 1 and HHV type 2 testing of the lesion was negative. A syphilitic chancre also may present with the nontender genital ulceration⁷ that was seen in our patient, but serology did not support this diagnosis. Cutaneous Crohn disease also may manifest with genital ulceration even before a diagnosis of Crohn disease is made, but these lesions often present as linear knife-cut ulcerations of the anogenital region.⁸

Our case further supports a clinical presentation that diverges from the more traditional cases of MPXV. Additionally, associated EM may be a clue to infection, especially in cases of negative HHV and other sexually transmitted infection testing.

The Diagnosis: Mpox (Monkeypox)

Tests for active herpes simplex virus (HHV), gonorrhea, chlamydia, HIV, and syphilis were negative. Swabs from the penile lesion demonstrated positivity for the West African clade of mpox (monkeypox) virus (MPXV) by polymerase chain reaction. The patient was treated supportively without the addition of antiviral therapy, and he experienced a complete recovery.

Mpox virus was first isolated in 1958 in a research facility and was named after the laboratory animals that were housed there. The first human documentation of the disease occurred in 1970, and it was first documented in the United States in 2003 in an infection that was traced to a shipment of small mammals from Ghana to Texas.¹ The disease has always been endemic to Africa; however, the incidence has been increasing.² A new MPXV outbreak was reported in many countries in early 2022, including the United States.¹

The MPXV is a double-stranded DNA virus of the genus Orthopoxvirus, and 2 genetic clades have been identified: clade I (formerly the Central African clade) and clade II (formerly the West African clade). The virus has the capability to infect many mammals; however, its host remains unidentified.¹ The exact mechanism of transmission from infected animals to humans largely is unknown; however, direct or indirect contact with infected animals likely is responsible. Human-to-human transmission can occur by many mechanisms including contact with large respiratory droplets, bodily fluids, and contaminated surfaces. The incubation period is 5 to 21 days, and the symptoms last 2 to 5 weeks.¹

The clinical manifestations of MPXV during the most recent outbreak differ from prior outbreaks. Patients are more likely to experience minimal to no systemic symptoms, and cutaneous lesions can be few and localized to a focal area, especially on the face and in the anogenital region,³ similar to the presentation in our patient (Figure 1). Cutaneous lesions of the most recent MPXV outbreak also include painless ulcerations similar to syphilitic chancres and lesions that are in various stages of healing.³ Lesions often begin as pseudopustules, which are firm white papules with or without a necrotic center that resemble pustules; unlike true pustules, there is no identifiable purulent material within it. Bacterial superinfection of the lesions is not uncommon.⁴ Over time, a secondary pustular eruption resembling folliculitis also may occur,4 as noted in our patient (Figure 2).

Although we did not have a biopsy to support the diagnosis of associated erythema multiforme (EM) in our patient, features supportive of this diagnosis included the classic clinical appearance of typical, well-defined, targetoid plaques with 3 distinct zones (Figure 3); the association with a known infection; the distribution on the arms with truncal sparing; and self-limited lesions. More than 90% of EM cases are associated with infection, with HHV representing the most common culprit⁵; therefore, the relationship with a different virus is not an unreasonable suggestion. Additionally, there have been rare reports of EM in association with MPXV.⁴

Histopathology of MPXV may have distinctive features. Lesions often demonstrate keratinocytic necrosis and basal layer vacuolization with an associated superficial and deep perivascular lymphohistiocytic infiltrate. When the morphology of the lesion is vesicular, histopathology reveals spongiosis and ballooning degeneration with epidermal necrosis. Viral inclusion bodies within keratinocytes may be identified.¹ Death rates from MPXV has been reported from 1% to 11%, with increased mortality among high-risk populations including children and immunocompromised individuals. Treatment of the disease largely consists of supportive care and management of any associated complications including bacterial infection, pneumonia, and encephalitis.¹

The differential diagnosis of MPXV includes other ulcerative lesions that can occur on the genital skin. Fixed drug eruptions often present on the penis,⁶ but there was no identifiable inciting drug in our patient. Herpes simplex virus infection was very high on the differential given our patient’s history of recurrent infections and association with a targetoid rash, but HHV type 1 and HHV type 2 testing of the lesion was negative. A syphilitic chancre also may present with the nontender genital ulceration⁷ that was seen in our patient, but serology did not support this diagnosis. Cutaneous Crohn disease also may manifest with genital ulceration even before a diagnosis of Crohn disease is made, but these lesions often present as linear knife-cut ulcerations of the anogenital region.⁸

Our case further supports a clinical presentation that diverges from the more traditional cases of MPXV. Additionally, associated EM may be a clue to infection, especially in cases of negative HHV and other sexually transmitted infection testing.

Nearly one in five people in the United States had never been infected with COVID-19 as of the end of 2022, according to a new estimate.

The findings came from an analysis of blood donations. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention analyzed donor blood from 143,000 people every 3 months during 2022, looking for the presence of COVID antibodies that meant a person had previously been infected with the virus. The prevalence of antibodies from previous infections steadily rose throughout the year. Antibodies from prior infection were found in 49% of donors as of Feb. 15, 2022, 59% of donors as of May 15, 2022, 70% of donors as of Aug. 15, 2022, and 78% of donors as of Nov. 15, 2022.

Donor blood also was analyzed for the presence of antibodies known to come from COVID vaccination. When the vaccine-induced and infection-induced antibody data were combined, the CDC estimated that 97% of people had antibodies as of the end of the 2022.

In the report, CDC authors explained that while the presence of antibodies is related to protection from infection and to less severe disease, the level of antibodies that a person has can vary. The authors said that no standards have yet been set that show a minimum level of antibodies needed to provide protection.

As of July 3, more than 1.1 million people had died in the United States from COVID-19, according to CDC data. Deaths for the first half of 2023 are down dramatically, compared with the first 3 years of the pandemic, with just 41,538 death certificates this year listing the virus as an underlying or contributing cause. About two in three COVID deaths this year occurred in a hospital or nursing home, and 89% of people who died from the virus this year have been age 65 or older.

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

Nearly one in five people in the United States had never been infected with COVID-19 as of the end of 2022, according to a new estimate.

The findings came from an analysis of blood donations. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention analyzed donor blood from 143,000 people every 3 months during 2022, looking for the presence of COVID antibodies that meant a person had previously been infected with the virus. The prevalence of antibodies from previous infections steadily rose throughout the year. Antibodies from prior infection were found in 49% of donors as of Feb. 15, 2022, 59% of donors as of May 15, 2022, 70% of donors as of Aug. 15, 2022, and 78% of donors as of Nov. 15, 2022.

Donor blood also was analyzed for the presence of antibodies known to come from COVID vaccination. When the vaccine-induced and infection-induced antibody data were combined, the CDC estimated that 97% of people had antibodies as of the end of the 2022.

In the report, CDC authors explained that while the presence of antibodies is related to protection from infection and to less severe disease, the level of antibodies that a person has can vary. The authors said that no standards have yet been set that show a minimum level of antibodies needed to provide protection.

As of July 3, more than 1.1 million people had died in the United States from COVID-19, according to CDC data. Deaths for the first half of 2023 are down dramatically, compared with the first 3 years of the pandemic, with just 41,538 death certificates this year listing the virus as an underlying or contributing cause. About two in three COVID deaths this year occurred in a hospital or nursing home, and 89% of people who died from the virus this year have been age 65 or older.

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

Nearly one in five people in the United States had never been infected with COVID-19 as of the end of 2022, according to a new estimate.

The findings came from an analysis of blood donations. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention analyzed donor blood from 143,000 people every 3 months during 2022, looking for the presence of COVID antibodies that meant a person had previously been infected with the virus. The prevalence of antibodies from previous infections steadily rose throughout the year. Antibodies from prior infection were found in 49% of donors as of Feb. 15, 2022, 59% of donors as of May 15, 2022, 70% of donors as of Aug. 15, 2022, and 78% of donors as of Nov. 15, 2022.

Donor blood also was analyzed for the presence of antibodies known to come from COVID vaccination. When the vaccine-induced and infection-induced antibody data were combined, the CDC estimated that 97% of people had antibodies as of the end of the 2022.

In the report, CDC authors explained that while the presence of antibodies is related to protection from infection and to less severe disease, the level of antibodies that a person has can vary. The authors said that no standards have yet been set that show a minimum level of antibodies needed to provide protection.

As of July 3, more than 1.1 million people had died in the United States from COVID-19, according to CDC data. Deaths for the first half of 2023 are down dramatically, compared with the first 3 years of the pandemic, with just 41,538 death certificates this year listing the virus as an underlying or contributing cause. About two in three COVID deaths this year occurred in a hospital or nursing home, and 89% of people who died from the virus this year have been age 65 or older.

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

A new review offers evidence-based strategies for improving sepsis outcomes with appropriate doses of intravenous fluid therapy at each stage of treatment.

The document offers guidance on the four forms of fluid use; assessing whether intravenous fluid administration is indicated; and fluid therapy goals, timing, type, and other clinical parameters. The recommendations are based on a literature search that included 28 randomized clinical trials, 7 secondary analyses of RCTs, 20 observational studies, 5 systematic reviews or meta-analyses, 1 scoping review, 1 practice guideline, and 14 references from a reference review.

“Our review highlights that crystalloids should remain the standard of care for most critically ill patients, especially during early resuscitation,” Fernando G. Zampieri, MD, PhD, assistant adjunct professor of critical care medicine at the University of Alberta and Alberta Health Services, both in Edmonton, said in an interview. “In particular, starches should not be used in critically ill patients. Balanced solutions might be better for most patients, except for patients with traumatic brain injury, where 0.9% saline is recommended.”

The review was published online in JAMA.
 

Four therapeutic phases

Approximately 20%-30% of patients admitted to an intensive care unit have sepsis, and fluid therapy is a key component of their treatment. Although intravenous fluid can increase cardiac output and blood pressure, maintain or increase intravascular fluid volume, and deliver medications, too much fluid or the wrong type of fluid may cause harm.

“Deciding which type of fluid is the best for a patient [with sepsis] can be challenging,” said Dr. Zampieri.

Fluid therapy can be conceptualized as encompassing four overlapping phases from early illness through resolution of sepsis, according to the review. These phases include resuscitation (rapidly administering fluid to restore perfusion), optimization (assessing risks and benefits of additional fluids to treat shock and ensure organ perfusion), stabilization (using fluid therapy only when there is a signal of fluid responsiveness), and evacuation (eliminating excess fluid accumulated during treatment).

The review described the studies that underpin its key recommendations for management in these phases. Three RCTs included 3,723 patients with sepsis who received 1-2 L of fluid. They found that goal-directed therapy with administration of fluid boluses to attain a central venous pressure of 8-12 mm Hg, vasopressors to attain a mean arterial blood pressure of 65-90 mm Hg, and red blood cell transfusions or inotropes to attain a central venous oxygen saturation of at least 70% did not decrease mortality, compared with unstructured clinical care (24.9% vs. 25.4%, P = .68).

One RCT with 1,563 patients with sepsis and hypotension who received 1 L of fluid found that favoring vasopressor treatment did not improve mortality, compared with further fluid administration (14.0% vs. 14.9%, P = .61).

In another RCT, among 1,554 patients with septic shock who were treated in the ICU with at least 1 L of fluid, restricting fluid administration in the absence of severe hypoperfusion did not reduce mortality, compared with more liberal fluid administration (42.3% vs. 42.1%, P = .96).

An RCT of 1,000 patients with acute respiratory distress during the evacuation phase found that limiting fluid administration and giving diuretics improved the number of days alive without mechanical ventilation, compared with fluid treatment to attain higher intracardiac pressure (14.6 vs. 12.1 days, P < .001).

This study also found that hydroxyethyl starch significantly increased the incidence of kidney replacement therapy, compared with saline (7.0% vs. 5.8%, P = .04), Ringer lactate, or Ringer acetate.
 

Ultrasonography lacks validation

The authors summarized the key concerns about fluid therapy. Fluid therapy should be initiated for patients with evidence of sepsis-induced hypoperfusion who are likely to have increased cardiac output with fluid administration. Fluid administration should be discontinued when evidence of hypoperfusion resolves, the patient no longer responds to fluid, or the patient shows evidence of fluid overload.

Balanced solutions should be selected over 0.9% saline for fluid therapy, according to the review. Hydroxyethyl starches should not be used.

Fluid removal should be considered after the resuscitation and optimization phases and when a patient has stabilized, the authors wrote. Diuretics are first-line therapy to facilitate fluid elimination.

Kidney replacement therapy may be considered for patients with severe acute kidney injury who have complications from fluid overload and are unresponsive to diuretic therapy.

“The use of ultrasonography as a bedside tool to guide fluid resuscitation is promising but lacks validation in robust randomized controlled trials,” said Dr. Zampieri. “Point-of-care ultrasound may be useful to assess causes of shock and [helping to exclude] a life-threatening diagnosis at presentation, such as cardiac tamponade.”

Pending the emergence of further evidence, the authors suggest that clinicians prescribe fluids judiciously, preferably at aliquots followed by frequent reassessment. “Defining a resuscitation target (such as capillary refill time or lactate, among others) and performing fluid challenges to correct them while no overt signs of fluid overload (such as pulmonary edema) occur is a common practice that is also sustained by clinical research,” said Dr. Zampieri.

He added that the review’s recommendations are based on research conducted mainly in high-income settings, and that generalizability will depend on factors such as local standards of care and resource availability.

“Our review provides an overall guidance, but caution is warranted before extrapolating the suggestion to every possible clinical scenario,” he concluded.
 

Fluids as drugs

Commenting on the review, Hernando Gomez, MD, MPH, an associate professor of critical care medicine at the University of Pittsburgh, said: “I agree with the conclusions and commend the authors for this very practical revision of the literature.” Dr. Gomez was not involved in the review.

“I would like to stress the point, however, that although fluids can be harmful, particularly when not indicated and when used in excess, fluid resuscitation in patients with sepsis who have evidence of hypoperfusion is paramount,” he said.

“The association between fluid accumulation and poor outcomes is truly a Goldilocks problem, often described in the literature as a ‘U’ shape, where too little fluid (i.e., a very restrictive strategy) or too much fluid (i.e., use in excess and in discordance with the patient’s needs) can be harmful,” said Dr. Gomez.

Furthermore, every strategy to assess fluid responsiveness has limitations. “It is key that clinicians resist the temptation to dismiss these limitations, because decisions made on flawed data are as dangerous as not assessing fluid responsiveness in the first place,” he said.

Based on the evidence, clinicians should “think of fluids as a drug and carefully assess risks and benefits before deciding to administer fluids to their patients,” Dr. Gomez added. It is also important to separate the question “Does my patient need fluids?” from the question “Is my patient fluid responsive?”

“These are two different questions that often get conflated,” Dr. Gomez said. “If a bolus of fluid given to a patient who needs fluids and is fluid-responsive does not improve tissue perfusion, then fluids should not be given.”

No funding was reported for the review. Dr. Zampieri reported receiving fluids and logistics from Baxter Hospitalar during the conduct of the BaSICS trial, personal fees from Bactiguard for statistical consulting and from Baxter for participating in an advisory board, grants from Ionis Pharmaceuticals outside the submitted work, and serving as lead investigator of the BaSICS trial. Dr. Gomez reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

A new review offers evidence-based strategies for improving sepsis outcomes with appropriate doses of intravenous fluid therapy at each stage of treatment.

The document offers guidance on the four forms of fluid use; assessing whether intravenous fluid administration is indicated; and fluid therapy goals, timing, type, and other clinical parameters. The recommendations are based on a literature search that included 28 randomized clinical trials, 7 secondary analyses of RCTs, 20 observational studies, 5 systematic reviews or meta-analyses, 1 scoping review, 1 practice guideline, and 14 references from a reference review.

“Our review highlights that crystalloids should remain the standard of care for most critically ill patients, especially during early resuscitation,” Fernando G. Zampieri, MD, PhD, assistant adjunct professor of critical care medicine at the University of Alberta and Alberta Health Services, both in Edmonton, said in an interview. “In particular, starches should not be used in critically ill patients. Balanced solutions might be better for most patients, except for patients with traumatic brain injury, where 0.9% saline is recommended.”

The review was published online in JAMA.
 

Four therapeutic phases

Approximately 20%-30% of patients admitted to an intensive care unit have sepsis, and fluid therapy is a key component of their treatment. Although intravenous fluid can increase cardiac output and blood pressure, maintain or increase intravascular fluid volume, and deliver medications, too much fluid or the wrong type of fluid may cause harm.

“Deciding which type of fluid is the best for a patient [with sepsis] can be challenging,” said Dr. Zampieri.

Fluid therapy can be conceptualized as encompassing four overlapping phases from early illness through resolution of sepsis, according to the review. These phases include resuscitation (rapidly administering fluid to restore perfusion), optimization (assessing risks and benefits of additional fluids to treat shock and ensure organ perfusion), stabilization (using fluid therapy only when there is a signal of fluid responsiveness), and evacuation (eliminating excess fluid accumulated during treatment).

The review described the studies that underpin its key recommendations for management in these phases. Three RCTs included 3,723 patients with sepsis who received 1-2 L of fluid. They found that goal-directed therapy with administration of fluid boluses to attain a central venous pressure of 8-12 mm Hg, vasopressors to attain a mean arterial blood pressure of 65-90 mm Hg, and red blood cell transfusions or inotropes to attain a central venous oxygen saturation of at least 70% did not decrease mortality, compared with unstructured clinical care (24.9% vs. 25.4%, P = .68).

One RCT with 1,563 patients with sepsis and hypotension who received 1 L of fluid found that favoring vasopressor treatment did not improve mortality, compared with further fluid administration (14.0% vs. 14.9%, P = .61).

In another RCT, among 1,554 patients with septic shock who were treated in the ICU with at least 1 L of fluid, restricting fluid administration in the absence of severe hypoperfusion did not reduce mortality, compared with more liberal fluid administration (42.3% vs. 42.1%, P = .96).

An RCT of 1,000 patients with acute respiratory distress during the evacuation phase found that limiting fluid administration and giving diuretics improved the number of days alive without mechanical ventilation, compared with fluid treatment to attain higher intracardiac pressure (14.6 vs. 12.1 days, P < .001).

This study also found that hydroxyethyl starch significantly increased the incidence of kidney replacement therapy, compared with saline (7.0% vs. 5.8%, P = .04), Ringer lactate, or Ringer acetate.
 

Ultrasonography lacks validation

The authors summarized the key concerns about fluid therapy. Fluid therapy should be initiated for patients with evidence of sepsis-induced hypoperfusion who are likely to have increased cardiac output with fluid administration. Fluid administration should be discontinued when evidence of hypoperfusion resolves, the patient no longer responds to fluid, or the patient shows evidence of fluid overload.

Balanced solutions should be selected over 0.9% saline for fluid therapy, according to the review. Hydroxyethyl starches should not be used.

Fluid removal should be considered after the resuscitation and optimization phases and when a patient has stabilized, the authors wrote. Diuretics are first-line therapy to facilitate fluid elimination.

Kidney replacement therapy may be considered for patients with severe acute kidney injury who have complications from fluid overload and are unresponsive to diuretic therapy.

“The use of ultrasonography as a bedside tool to guide fluid resuscitation is promising but lacks validation in robust randomized controlled trials,” said Dr. Zampieri. “Point-of-care ultrasound may be useful to assess causes of shock and [helping to exclude] a life-threatening diagnosis at presentation, such as cardiac tamponade.”

Pending the emergence of further evidence, the authors suggest that clinicians prescribe fluids judiciously, preferably at aliquots followed by frequent reassessment. “Defining a resuscitation target (such as capillary refill time or lactate, among others) and performing fluid challenges to correct them while no overt signs of fluid overload (such as pulmonary edema) occur is a common practice that is also sustained by clinical research,” said Dr. Zampieri.

He added that the review’s recommendations are based on research conducted mainly in high-income settings, and that generalizability will depend on factors such as local standards of care and resource availability.

“Our review provides an overall guidance, but caution is warranted before extrapolating the suggestion to every possible clinical scenario,” he concluded.
 

Fluids as drugs

Commenting on the review, Hernando Gomez, MD, MPH, an associate professor of critical care medicine at the University of Pittsburgh, said: “I agree with the conclusions and commend the authors for this very practical revision of the literature.” Dr. Gomez was not involved in the review.

“I would like to stress the point, however, that although fluids can be harmful, particularly when not indicated and when used in excess, fluid resuscitation in patients with sepsis who have evidence of hypoperfusion is paramount,” he said.

“The association between fluid accumulation and poor outcomes is truly a Goldilocks problem, often described in the literature as a ‘U’ shape, where too little fluid (i.e., a very restrictive strategy) or too much fluid (i.e., use in excess and in discordance with the patient’s needs) can be harmful,” said Dr. Gomez.

Furthermore, every strategy to assess fluid responsiveness has limitations. “It is key that clinicians resist the temptation to dismiss these limitations, because decisions made on flawed data are as dangerous as not assessing fluid responsiveness in the first place,” he said.

Based on the evidence, clinicians should “think of fluids as a drug and carefully assess risks and benefits before deciding to administer fluids to their patients,” Dr. Gomez added. It is also important to separate the question “Does my patient need fluids?” from the question “Is my patient fluid responsive?”

“These are two different questions that often get conflated,” Dr. Gomez said. “If a bolus of fluid given to a patient who needs fluids and is fluid-responsive does not improve tissue perfusion, then fluids should not be given.”

No funding was reported for the review. Dr. Zampieri reported receiving fluids and logistics from Baxter Hospitalar during the conduct of the BaSICS trial, personal fees from Bactiguard for statistical consulting and from Baxter for participating in an advisory board, grants from Ionis Pharmaceuticals outside the submitted work, and serving as lead investigator of the BaSICS trial. Dr. Gomez reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

A new review offers evidence-based strategies for improving sepsis outcomes with appropriate doses of intravenous fluid therapy at each stage of treatment.

The document offers guidance on the four forms of fluid use; assessing whether intravenous fluid administration is indicated; and fluid therapy goals, timing, type, and other clinical parameters. The recommendations are based on a literature search that included 28 randomized clinical trials, 7 secondary analyses of RCTs, 20 observational studies, 5 systematic reviews or meta-analyses, 1 scoping review, 1 practice guideline, and 14 references from a reference review.

“Our review highlights that crystalloids should remain the standard of care for most critically ill patients, especially during early resuscitation,” Fernando G. Zampieri, MD, PhD, assistant adjunct professor of critical care medicine at the University of Alberta and Alberta Health Services, both in Edmonton, said in an interview. “In particular, starches should not be used in critically ill patients. Balanced solutions might be better for most patients, except for patients with traumatic brain injury, where 0.9% saline is recommended.”

The review was published online in JAMA.
 

Four therapeutic phases

Approximately 20%-30% of patients admitted to an intensive care unit have sepsis, and fluid therapy is a key component of their treatment. Although intravenous fluid can increase cardiac output and blood pressure, maintain or increase intravascular fluid volume, and deliver medications, too much fluid or the wrong type of fluid may cause harm.

“Deciding which type of fluid is the best for a patient [with sepsis] can be challenging,” said Dr. Zampieri.

Fluid therapy can be conceptualized as encompassing four overlapping phases from early illness through resolution of sepsis, according to the review. These phases include resuscitation (rapidly administering fluid to restore perfusion), optimization (assessing risks and benefits of additional fluids to treat shock and ensure organ perfusion), stabilization (using fluid therapy only when there is a signal of fluid responsiveness), and evacuation (eliminating excess fluid accumulated during treatment).

The review described the studies that underpin its key recommendations for management in these phases. Three RCTs included 3,723 patients with sepsis who received 1-2 L of fluid. They found that goal-directed therapy with administration of fluid boluses to attain a central venous pressure of 8-12 mm Hg, vasopressors to attain a mean arterial blood pressure of 65-90 mm Hg, and red blood cell transfusions or inotropes to attain a central venous oxygen saturation of at least 70% did not decrease mortality, compared with unstructured clinical care (24.9% vs. 25.4%, P = .68).

One RCT with 1,563 patients with sepsis and hypotension who received 1 L of fluid found that favoring vasopressor treatment did not improve mortality, compared with further fluid administration (14.0% vs. 14.9%, P = .61).

In another RCT, among 1,554 patients with septic shock who were treated in the ICU with at least 1 L of fluid, restricting fluid administration in the absence of severe hypoperfusion did not reduce mortality, compared with more liberal fluid administration (42.3% vs. 42.1%, P = .96).

An RCT of 1,000 patients with acute respiratory distress during the evacuation phase found that limiting fluid administration and giving diuretics improved the number of days alive without mechanical ventilation, compared with fluid treatment to attain higher intracardiac pressure (14.6 vs. 12.1 days, P < .001).

This study also found that hydroxyethyl starch significantly increased the incidence of kidney replacement therapy, compared with saline (7.0% vs. 5.8%, P = .04), Ringer lactate, or Ringer acetate.
 

Ultrasonography lacks validation

The authors summarized the key concerns about fluid therapy. Fluid therapy should be initiated for patients with evidence of sepsis-induced hypoperfusion who are likely to have increased cardiac output with fluid administration. Fluid administration should be discontinued when evidence of hypoperfusion resolves, the patient no longer responds to fluid, or the patient shows evidence of fluid overload.

Balanced solutions should be selected over 0.9% saline for fluid therapy, according to the review. Hydroxyethyl starches should not be used.

Fluid removal should be considered after the resuscitation and optimization phases and when a patient has stabilized, the authors wrote. Diuretics are first-line therapy to facilitate fluid elimination.

Kidney replacement therapy may be considered for patients with severe acute kidney injury who have complications from fluid overload and are unresponsive to diuretic therapy.

“The use of ultrasonography as a bedside tool to guide fluid resuscitation is promising but lacks validation in robust randomized controlled trials,” said Dr. Zampieri. “Point-of-care ultrasound may be useful to assess causes of shock and [helping to exclude] a life-threatening diagnosis at presentation, such as cardiac tamponade.”

Pending the emergence of further evidence, the authors suggest that clinicians prescribe fluids judiciously, preferably at aliquots followed by frequent reassessment. “Defining a resuscitation target (such as capillary refill time or lactate, among others) and performing fluid challenges to correct them while no overt signs of fluid overload (such as pulmonary edema) occur is a common practice that is also sustained by clinical research,” said Dr. Zampieri.

He added that the review’s recommendations are based on research conducted mainly in high-income settings, and that generalizability will depend on factors such as local standards of care and resource availability.

“Our review provides an overall guidance, but caution is warranted before extrapolating the suggestion to every possible clinical scenario,” he concluded.
 

Fluids as drugs

Commenting on the review, Hernando Gomez, MD, MPH, an associate professor of critical care medicine at the University of Pittsburgh, said: “I agree with the conclusions and commend the authors for this very practical revision of the literature.” Dr. Gomez was not involved in the review.

“I would like to stress the point, however, that although fluids can be harmful, particularly when not indicated and when used in excess, fluid resuscitation in patients with sepsis who have evidence of hypoperfusion is paramount,” he said.

“The association between fluid accumulation and poor outcomes is truly a Goldilocks problem, often described in the literature as a ‘U’ shape, where too little fluid (i.e., a very restrictive strategy) or too much fluid (i.e., use in excess and in discordance with the patient’s needs) can be harmful,” said Dr. Gomez.

Furthermore, every strategy to assess fluid responsiveness has limitations. “It is key that clinicians resist the temptation to dismiss these limitations, because decisions made on flawed data are as dangerous as not assessing fluid responsiveness in the first place,” he said.

Based on the evidence, clinicians should “think of fluids as a drug and carefully assess risks and benefits before deciding to administer fluids to their patients,” Dr. Gomez added. It is also important to separate the question “Does my patient need fluids?” from the question “Is my patient fluid responsive?”

“These are two different questions that often get conflated,” Dr. Gomez said. “If a bolus of fluid given to a patient who needs fluids and is fluid-responsive does not improve tissue perfusion, then fluids should not be given.”

No funding was reported for the review. Dr. Zampieri reported receiving fluids and logistics from Baxter Hospitalar during the conduct of the BaSICS trial, personal fees from Bactiguard for statistical consulting and from Baxter for participating in an advisory board, grants from Ionis Pharmaceuticals outside the submitted work, and serving as lead investigator of the BaSICS trial. Dr. Gomez reported no relevant financial relationships.

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