Infectious Diseases

Testing children with acute sinusitis symptoms for specific bacteria may dramatically decrease unnecessary antibiotic use, new research suggests.

The study, published in JAMA, found that children with positive nasopharyngeal tests for one or more of Haemophilus influenzae, Streptococcus pneumoniae, or Moraxella catarrhalis had better resolution of symptoms with antibiotics than those without these bacteria.

If antibiotic use was limited to children with H. influenzae or S. pneumoniae in their nasopharynx at the time of diagnosis, antibiotic use would decrease by 53%, according to the study authors.

Sinusitis is common in children, and symptoms are similar with uncomplicated viral upper respiratory infections.

“We have not had a good way to predict which children will benefit from antibiotics,” said Nader Shaikh, MD, MPH, professor of pediatrics and clinical and translational science at the University of Pittsburgh, and the lead study author. “When a child comes in with a sore throat, we test for strep. If the test is positive, we prescribe antibiotics.”

Dr. Shaikh and his colleagues found that the same approach – swabbing the nose and testing for various bacteria – worked for children with sinusitis.

“Children who tested negative for bacteria did not benefit from antibiotics,” Dr. Shaikh said.

In the double-blind clinical trial, Dr. Shaikh and his colleagues randomized 510 children between ages 2 and 11 with acute sinusitis at six academic primary care offices over a 6-year period. Almost two-thirds of participants were between ages 2 and 5, around half were male, and around half were White. All participants had an initial score of nine or higher on the validated Pediatric Rhinosinusitis Symptom Scale (PRSS).

For 10 days, 254 children received oral amoxicillin (90 mg/kg/day) and clavulanate (6.4mg/kg/day) and 256 received placebo.

In children receiving antibiotics, symptoms resolved over a median of 7 days, compared with 9 days for those given placebo (P = .003).

Children without detected nasopharyngeal pathogens did not benefit from antibiotics as much as those with the pathogens, the researchers found. Among those with pathogens, the mean symptom burden score was 1.95 points lower in the group that received antibiotics, compared with the group that received placebo. For those without pathogens, there was a 0.88-point difference between the antibiotic and placebo groups (P = .02).

The researchers also took nasal swabs at the first and final study visits and tested for S. pneumoniae, H. influenzae, and M. catarrhalis. During that time, parents or caregivers used the PRSS to assess their child’s symptoms, and they recorded the nasal discharge color. Nasal discharge color, Dr. Shaikh and colleagues found, was not linked with antibiotic effect.
 

Welcome findings

Pediatricians and primary care providers face a significant clinical dilemma when they consider using antibiotics with upper respiratory tract infections (URTIs), according to John H. Greinwald Jr., MD, professor in the department of pediatrics at Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center.

“These findings certainly make sense because most respiratory infections in children are viral,” Dr. Greinwald said. “The investigators follow the appropriate clinical guidelines for considering antibiotic use in patients with URTIs, which include URTI symptoms lasting longer than 10 days or symptoms initially getting better, then worsening again day 6 through 10.”

Not only is antibiotic resistance a major public health concern, but the drugs can have side effects such as diarrhea, and their long-term effects on the microbiome are unknown.

“Differentiating who has acute sinusitis from who has a viral infection is difficult for primary care providers,” said Eelam A. Adil, MD, MBA, assistant professor of otolaryngology at Harvard Medical School in Boston.

The findings may help clinicians be more selective with antibiotic prescriptions, according to Jacob G. Eide, MD, a head and neck surgeon at Henry Ford Health in Detroit.

“However, we do not want to deny antibiotics when they are beneficial,” Dr. Eide said. “And the difficulty and costs involved in developing the tests need to be considered.”

Dr. Shaikh and his team are studying ways to bring nasal testing into clinical practice, potentially utilizing commercially available molecular testing and rapid antigen tests that work like COVID-19 at-home tests. They are also exploring if other biomarkers in nasal discharge may indicate the presence of bacteria.

All study authors as well as outside experts reported no relevant financial relationships. The study was supported by the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases.

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

Testing children with acute sinusitis symptoms for specific bacteria may dramatically decrease unnecessary antibiotic use, new research suggests.

The study, published in JAMA, found that children with positive nasopharyngeal tests for one or more of Haemophilus influenzae, Streptococcus pneumoniae, or Moraxella catarrhalis had better resolution of symptoms with antibiotics than those without these bacteria.

If antibiotic use was limited to children with H. influenzae or S. pneumoniae in their nasopharynx at the time of diagnosis, antibiotic use would decrease by 53%, according to the study authors.

Sinusitis is common in children, and symptoms are similar with uncomplicated viral upper respiratory infections.

“We have not had a good way to predict which children will benefit from antibiotics,” said Nader Shaikh, MD, MPH, professor of pediatrics and clinical and translational science at the University of Pittsburgh, and the lead study author. “When a child comes in with a sore throat, we test for strep. If the test is positive, we prescribe antibiotics.”

Dr. Shaikh and his colleagues found that the same approach – swabbing the nose and testing for various bacteria – worked for children with sinusitis.

“Children who tested negative for bacteria did not benefit from antibiotics,” Dr. Shaikh said.

In the double-blind clinical trial, Dr. Shaikh and his colleagues randomized 510 children between ages 2 and 11 with acute sinusitis at six academic primary care offices over a 6-year period. Almost two-thirds of participants were between ages 2 and 5, around half were male, and around half were White. All participants had an initial score of nine or higher on the validated Pediatric Rhinosinusitis Symptom Scale (PRSS).

For 10 days, 254 children received oral amoxicillin (90 mg/kg/day) and clavulanate (6.4mg/kg/day) and 256 received placebo.

In children receiving antibiotics, symptoms resolved over a median of 7 days, compared with 9 days for those given placebo (P = .003).

Children without detected nasopharyngeal pathogens did not benefit from antibiotics as much as those with the pathogens, the researchers found. Among those with pathogens, the mean symptom burden score was 1.95 points lower in the group that received antibiotics, compared with the group that received placebo. For those without pathogens, there was a 0.88-point difference between the antibiotic and placebo groups (P = .02).

The researchers also took nasal swabs at the first and final study visits and tested for S. pneumoniae, H. influenzae, and M. catarrhalis. During that time, parents or caregivers used the PRSS to assess their child’s symptoms, and they recorded the nasal discharge color. Nasal discharge color, Dr. Shaikh and colleagues found, was not linked with antibiotic effect.
 

Welcome findings

Pediatricians and primary care providers face a significant clinical dilemma when they consider using antibiotics with upper respiratory tract infections (URTIs), according to John H. Greinwald Jr., MD, professor in the department of pediatrics at Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center.

“These findings certainly make sense because most respiratory infections in children are viral,” Dr. Greinwald said. “The investigators follow the appropriate clinical guidelines for considering antibiotic use in patients with URTIs, which include URTI symptoms lasting longer than 10 days or symptoms initially getting better, then worsening again day 6 through 10.”

Not only is antibiotic resistance a major public health concern, but the drugs can have side effects such as diarrhea, and their long-term effects on the microbiome are unknown.

“Differentiating who has acute sinusitis from who has a viral infection is difficult for primary care providers,” said Eelam A. Adil, MD, MBA, assistant professor of otolaryngology at Harvard Medical School in Boston.

The findings may help clinicians be more selective with antibiotic prescriptions, according to Jacob G. Eide, MD, a head and neck surgeon at Henry Ford Health in Detroit.

“However, we do not want to deny antibiotics when they are beneficial,” Dr. Eide said. “And the difficulty and costs involved in developing the tests need to be considered.”

Dr. Shaikh and his team are studying ways to bring nasal testing into clinical practice, potentially utilizing commercially available molecular testing and rapid antigen tests that work like COVID-19 at-home tests. They are also exploring if other biomarkers in nasal discharge may indicate the presence of bacteria.

All study authors as well as outside experts reported no relevant financial relationships. The study was supported by the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases.

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

Testing children with acute sinusitis symptoms for specific bacteria may dramatically decrease unnecessary antibiotic use, new research suggests.

The study, published in JAMA, found that children with positive nasopharyngeal tests for one or more of Haemophilus influenzae, Streptococcus pneumoniae, or Moraxella catarrhalis had better resolution of symptoms with antibiotics than those without these bacteria.

If antibiotic use was limited to children with H. influenzae or S. pneumoniae in their nasopharynx at the time of diagnosis, antibiotic use would decrease by 53%, according to the study authors.

Sinusitis is common in children, and symptoms are similar with uncomplicated viral upper respiratory infections.

“We have not had a good way to predict which children will benefit from antibiotics,” said Nader Shaikh, MD, MPH, professor of pediatrics and clinical and translational science at the University of Pittsburgh, and the lead study author. “When a child comes in with a sore throat, we test for strep. If the test is positive, we prescribe antibiotics.”

Dr. Shaikh and his colleagues found that the same approach – swabbing the nose and testing for various bacteria – worked for children with sinusitis.

“Children who tested negative for bacteria did not benefit from antibiotics,” Dr. Shaikh said.

In the double-blind clinical trial, Dr. Shaikh and his colleagues randomized 510 children between ages 2 and 11 with acute sinusitis at six academic primary care offices over a 6-year period. Almost two-thirds of participants were between ages 2 and 5, around half were male, and around half were White. All participants had an initial score of nine or higher on the validated Pediatric Rhinosinusitis Symptom Scale (PRSS).

For 10 days, 254 children received oral amoxicillin (90 mg/kg/day) and clavulanate (6.4mg/kg/day) and 256 received placebo.

In children receiving antibiotics, symptoms resolved over a median of 7 days, compared with 9 days for those given placebo (P = .003).

Children without detected nasopharyngeal pathogens did not benefit from antibiotics as much as those with the pathogens, the researchers found. Among those with pathogens, the mean symptom burden score was 1.95 points lower in the group that received antibiotics, compared with the group that received placebo. For those without pathogens, there was a 0.88-point difference between the antibiotic and placebo groups (P = .02).

The researchers also took nasal swabs at the first and final study visits and tested for S. pneumoniae, H. influenzae, and M. catarrhalis. During that time, parents or caregivers used the PRSS to assess their child’s symptoms, and they recorded the nasal discharge color. Nasal discharge color, Dr. Shaikh and colleagues found, was not linked with antibiotic effect.
 

Welcome findings

Pediatricians and primary care providers face a significant clinical dilemma when they consider using antibiotics with upper respiratory tract infections (URTIs), according to John H. Greinwald Jr., MD, professor in the department of pediatrics at Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center.

“These findings certainly make sense because most respiratory infections in children are viral,” Dr. Greinwald said. “The investigators follow the appropriate clinical guidelines for considering antibiotic use in patients with URTIs, which include URTI symptoms lasting longer than 10 days or symptoms initially getting better, then worsening again day 6 through 10.”

Not only is antibiotic resistance a major public health concern, but the drugs can have side effects such as diarrhea, and their long-term effects on the microbiome are unknown.

“Differentiating who has acute sinusitis from who has a viral infection is difficult for primary care providers,” said Eelam A. Adil, MD, MBA, assistant professor of otolaryngology at Harvard Medical School in Boston.

The findings may help clinicians be more selective with antibiotic prescriptions, according to Jacob G. Eide, MD, a head and neck surgeon at Henry Ford Health in Detroit.

“However, we do not want to deny antibiotics when they are beneficial,” Dr. Eide said. “And the difficulty and costs involved in developing the tests need to be considered.”

Dr. Shaikh and his team are studying ways to bring nasal testing into clinical practice, potentially utilizing commercially available molecular testing and rapid antigen tests that work like COVID-19 at-home tests. They are also exploring if other biomarkers in nasal discharge may indicate the presence of bacteria.

All study authors as well as outside experts reported no relevant financial relationships. The study was supported by the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases.

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

To the Editor:

Cryptococcus neoformans is an opportunistic fungus with a predilection for immunocompromised hosts, including solid organ transplant recipients (SOTRs). However, the rapid emergence of diffuse panniculitis only upon the start of therapy for extracutaneous disease is a rare phenomenon. We report the case of a liver transplant recipient who developed a paradoxical inflammatory reaction after initiating liposomal amphotericin B therapy for disseminated C neoformans, which manifested as progressive indurated plaques histologically consistent with cryptococcal panniculitis.

A 44-year-old man who received an orthotopic liver transplant 12 months prior and was on prednisone (20 mg daily) and tacrolimus (7 mg total daily) was admitted for multifocal pneumonia complicated by septic shock. Blood and respiratory cultures grew C neoformans, and lumbar puncture evaluation of cerebrospinal fluid revealed the presence of Cryptococcus antigen in 1:40 titers. Liposomal amphotericin B 5 mg/kg intravenous daily and fluconazole 400 mg intravenous daily were administered starting on the fourth day of admission; maintenance tacrolimus and steroids were stopped. Within 36 hours of treatment initiation, an erythematous papular rash was noted on the extremities, which initially was deemed an infusion reaction. Over the next 6 days, the rash became progressively confluent and hyperpigmented. A dermatologist was consulted on the fifteenth day of admission.

Physical examination by dermatology revealed diffuse, hyperpigmented to erythematous macules on the torso, back, arms, and legs that coalesced into dusky indurated plaques along the thighs, right side of the flank, and right upper arm (Figure 1). Laboratory analysis revealed thrombocytopenia but was otherwise unremarkable. Histoplasma antigen and Coccidioides IgG and IgM enzyme immunoassays were negative, as were cytomegalovirus, HIV, and rapid plasma reagin test results. Blood culture testing was repeated, and the findings were negative.

The emergence of the rash after amphotericin initiation prompted concern that the cause was due to a drug reaction rather than cutaneous involvement of cryptococcal infection. Punch biopsies were obtained from the thigh plaque. Hematoxylin and eosin and Grocott-Gomori methenamine-silver stains revealed cryptococcal organisms in the dermis and subcutaneous fat (Figure 2). Bacterial, acid-fast bacillus, and fungal cultures showed no growth.

The patient was diagnosed with cryptococcal panniculitis. Induction therapy with liposomal amphotericin B 5 mg/kg daily and flucytosine 25 mg/kg twice daily was pursued. During the treatment, cutaneous involvement evolved into superficial desquamation. The patient ultimately died from shock secondary to persistent cryptococcal fungemia.

Cryptococcus neoformans is an opportunistic fungal infection that represents a notable hazard to SOTR, inflicting 1.5% to 2.8% of this population and carrying a 19% to 42% mortality rate.^1,2 This infection occurs at a median of 1.6 to 2.3 years after transplantation,^1,3 though liver transplant recipients and those with immune reconstitution inflammatory syndrome (IRIS)–like complications may present sooner (8.8 and 10.5 months, respectively).⁴ Cutaneous involvement comprises 17% to 21% of cases and is associated with extensive dissemination, including the central nervous system, lung, and bloodstream (61.5%, 23.1%, and 38.5%, respectively).^1-3 When Cryptococcus infects the skin, it classically manifests as multiple nodules, umbilicated papules, ulcers, or cellulitis.³ Involvement of subcutaneous adipose tissue is uncommon and primarily is observed at initial presentation alongside disseminated disease.^5-8 Our case is unique because cutaneous involvement was absent until treatment initiation.

Similar patterns of worsened or unmasked disease following treatment initiation have been observed in SOTRs with extracutaneous cryptococcus and were attributed to IRIS-like phenomena that generate a hyperactive inflammatory response to infection.^4,9 Common immunosuppressive regimens, particularly tacrolimus, depress helper T cell (T_H1) cytokine release and promote a T_H2-dominant, anti-inflammatory state.¹⁰ In cryptococcosis, the fungus itself may stimulate a comparable cytokine milieu to promote immunologic evasion and dissemination. Cryptococcal IRIS-like responses in SOTRs are precipitated by rapid reduction or withdrawal of calcineurin inhibitors and corticosteroids, in combination with the inherent mitogenicity of the C neoformans polysaccharide capsule and antifungal agents.¹⁰ In our patient, cryptococcal yeasts may have invaded subcutaneous tissues when he became fungemic but remained subclinical due to minimal inflammatory recruitment. As treatment began and immunosuppressants diminished, fungal recognition and massive cytokine release resulted in frank panniculitis via precipitous immune dysregulation.

First-line therapy of cryptococcosis entails the use of liposomal amphotericin B and flucytosine for induction, followed by fluconazole for consolidation and maintenance. Use of corticosteroids is atypical to the antifungal regimen; however, a role for them has been suggested in severe IRIS involving individuals who are HIV positive, such as those with lesions demonstrating mass effect.¹¹ Rare case reports have described their utility as adjunctive therapies against cryptococcus in SOTRs when treatment with antifungal agents alone failed.¹² Given the paucity of prospective trials to support corticosteroid use in SOTRs as well as the worse global outcomes in cases of cryptococcal meningitis,¹³ therapeutic corticosteroids were not administered in our patient.

Although our case represents a rare event, cutaneous cryptococcosis and IRIS-like phenomena are clinically relevant complications in immunocompromised patients. In particular, they should be promptly considered in SOTRs receiving maintenance immunosuppressants who demonstrate symptom aggravation despite negative microbial culture results and uninterrupted antifungal therapy.

To the Editor:

Cryptococcus neoformans is an opportunistic fungus with a predilection for immunocompromised hosts, including solid organ transplant recipients (SOTRs). However, the rapid emergence of diffuse panniculitis only upon the start of therapy for extracutaneous disease is a rare phenomenon. We report the case of a liver transplant recipient who developed a paradoxical inflammatory reaction after initiating liposomal amphotericin B therapy for disseminated C neoformans, which manifested as progressive indurated plaques histologically consistent with cryptococcal panniculitis.

A 44-year-old man who received an orthotopic liver transplant 12 months prior and was on prednisone (20 mg daily) and tacrolimus (7 mg total daily) was admitted for multifocal pneumonia complicated by septic shock. Blood and respiratory cultures grew C neoformans, and lumbar puncture evaluation of cerebrospinal fluid revealed the presence of Cryptococcus antigen in 1:40 titers. Liposomal amphotericin B 5 mg/kg intravenous daily and fluconazole 400 mg intravenous daily were administered starting on the fourth day of admission; maintenance tacrolimus and steroids were stopped. Within 36 hours of treatment initiation, an erythematous papular rash was noted on the extremities, which initially was deemed an infusion reaction. Over the next 6 days, the rash became progressively confluent and hyperpigmented. A dermatologist was consulted on the fifteenth day of admission.

Physical examination by dermatology revealed diffuse, hyperpigmented to erythematous macules on the torso, back, arms, and legs that coalesced into dusky indurated plaques along the thighs, right side of the flank, and right upper arm (Figure 1). Laboratory analysis revealed thrombocytopenia but was otherwise unremarkable. Histoplasma antigen and Coccidioides IgG and IgM enzyme immunoassays were negative, as were cytomegalovirus, HIV, and rapid plasma reagin test results. Blood culture testing was repeated, and the findings were negative.

The emergence of the rash after amphotericin initiation prompted concern that the cause was due to a drug reaction rather than cutaneous involvement of cryptococcal infection. Punch biopsies were obtained from the thigh plaque. Hematoxylin and eosin and Grocott-Gomori methenamine-silver stains revealed cryptococcal organisms in the dermis and subcutaneous fat (Figure 2). Bacterial, acid-fast bacillus, and fungal cultures showed no growth.

The patient was diagnosed with cryptococcal panniculitis. Induction therapy with liposomal amphotericin B 5 mg/kg daily and flucytosine 25 mg/kg twice daily was pursued. During the treatment, cutaneous involvement evolved into superficial desquamation. The patient ultimately died from shock secondary to persistent cryptococcal fungemia.

Cryptococcus neoformans is an opportunistic fungal infection that represents a notable hazard to SOTR, inflicting 1.5% to 2.8% of this population and carrying a 19% to 42% mortality rate.^1,2 This infection occurs at a median of 1.6 to 2.3 years after transplantation,^1,3 though liver transplant recipients and those with immune reconstitution inflammatory syndrome (IRIS)–like complications may present sooner (8.8 and 10.5 months, respectively).⁴ Cutaneous involvement comprises 17% to 21% of cases and is associated with extensive dissemination, including the central nervous system, lung, and bloodstream (61.5%, 23.1%, and 38.5%, respectively).^1-3 When Cryptococcus infects the skin, it classically manifests as multiple nodules, umbilicated papules, ulcers, or cellulitis.³ Involvement of subcutaneous adipose tissue is uncommon and primarily is observed at initial presentation alongside disseminated disease.^5-8 Our case is unique because cutaneous involvement was absent until treatment initiation.

Similar patterns of worsened or unmasked disease following treatment initiation have been observed in SOTRs with extracutaneous cryptococcus and were attributed to IRIS-like phenomena that generate a hyperactive inflammatory response to infection.^4,9 Common immunosuppressive regimens, particularly tacrolimus, depress helper T cell (T_H1) cytokine release and promote a T_H2-dominant, anti-inflammatory state.¹⁰ In cryptococcosis, the fungus itself may stimulate a comparable cytokine milieu to promote immunologic evasion and dissemination. Cryptococcal IRIS-like responses in SOTRs are precipitated by rapid reduction or withdrawal of calcineurin inhibitors and corticosteroids, in combination with the inherent mitogenicity of the C neoformans polysaccharide capsule and antifungal agents.¹⁰ In our patient, cryptococcal yeasts may have invaded subcutaneous tissues when he became fungemic but remained subclinical due to minimal inflammatory recruitment. As treatment began and immunosuppressants diminished, fungal recognition and massive cytokine release resulted in frank panniculitis via precipitous immune dysregulation.

First-line therapy of cryptococcosis entails the use of liposomal amphotericin B and flucytosine for induction, followed by fluconazole for consolidation and maintenance. Use of corticosteroids is atypical to the antifungal regimen; however, a role for them has been suggested in severe IRIS involving individuals who are HIV positive, such as those with lesions demonstrating mass effect.¹¹ Rare case reports have described their utility as adjunctive therapies against cryptococcus in SOTRs when treatment with antifungal agents alone failed.¹² Given the paucity of prospective trials to support corticosteroid use in SOTRs as well as the worse global outcomes in cases of cryptococcal meningitis,¹³ therapeutic corticosteroids were not administered in our patient.

Although our case represents a rare event, cutaneous cryptococcosis and IRIS-like phenomena are clinically relevant complications in immunocompromised patients. In particular, they should be promptly considered in SOTRs receiving maintenance immunosuppressants who demonstrate symptom aggravation despite negative microbial culture results and uninterrupted antifungal therapy.

To the Editor:

Cryptococcus neoformans is an opportunistic fungus with a predilection for immunocompromised hosts, including solid organ transplant recipients (SOTRs). However, the rapid emergence of diffuse panniculitis only upon the start of therapy for extracutaneous disease is a rare phenomenon. We report the case of a liver transplant recipient who developed a paradoxical inflammatory reaction after initiating liposomal amphotericin B therapy for disseminated C neoformans, which manifested as progressive indurated plaques histologically consistent with cryptococcal panniculitis.

A 44-year-old man who received an orthotopic liver transplant 12 months prior and was on prednisone (20 mg daily) and tacrolimus (7 mg total daily) was admitted for multifocal pneumonia complicated by septic shock. Blood and respiratory cultures grew C neoformans, and lumbar puncture evaluation of cerebrospinal fluid revealed the presence of Cryptococcus antigen in 1:40 titers. Liposomal amphotericin B 5 mg/kg intravenous daily and fluconazole 400 mg intravenous daily were administered starting on the fourth day of admission; maintenance tacrolimus and steroids were stopped. Within 36 hours of treatment initiation, an erythematous papular rash was noted on the extremities, which initially was deemed an infusion reaction. Over the next 6 days, the rash became progressively confluent and hyperpigmented. A dermatologist was consulted on the fifteenth day of admission.

Physical examination by dermatology revealed diffuse, hyperpigmented to erythematous macules on the torso, back, arms, and legs that coalesced into dusky indurated plaques along the thighs, right side of the flank, and right upper arm (Figure 1). Laboratory analysis revealed thrombocytopenia but was otherwise unremarkable. Histoplasma antigen and Coccidioides IgG and IgM enzyme immunoassays were negative, as were cytomegalovirus, HIV, and rapid plasma reagin test results. Blood culture testing was repeated, and the findings were negative.

The emergence of the rash after amphotericin initiation prompted concern that the cause was due to a drug reaction rather than cutaneous involvement of cryptococcal infection. Punch biopsies were obtained from the thigh plaque. Hematoxylin and eosin and Grocott-Gomori methenamine-silver stains revealed cryptococcal organisms in the dermis and subcutaneous fat (Figure 2). Bacterial, acid-fast bacillus, and fungal cultures showed no growth.

The patient was diagnosed with cryptococcal panniculitis. Induction therapy with liposomal amphotericin B 5 mg/kg daily and flucytosine 25 mg/kg twice daily was pursued. During the treatment, cutaneous involvement evolved into superficial desquamation. The patient ultimately died from shock secondary to persistent cryptococcal fungemia.

Cryptococcus neoformans is an opportunistic fungal infection that represents a notable hazard to SOTR, inflicting 1.5% to 2.8% of this population and carrying a 19% to 42% mortality rate.^1,2 This infection occurs at a median of 1.6 to 2.3 years after transplantation,^1,3 though liver transplant recipients and those with immune reconstitution inflammatory syndrome (IRIS)–like complications may present sooner (8.8 and 10.5 months, respectively).⁴ Cutaneous involvement comprises 17% to 21% of cases and is associated with extensive dissemination, including the central nervous system, lung, and bloodstream (61.5%, 23.1%, and 38.5%, respectively).^1-3 When Cryptococcus infects the skin, it classically manifests as multiple nodules, umbilicated papules, ulcers, or cellulitis.³ Involvement of subcutaneous adipose tissue is uncommon and primarily is observed at initial presentation alongside disseminated disease.^5-8 Our case is unique because cutaneous involvement was absent until treatment initiation.

Similar patterns of worsened or unmasked disease following treatment initiation have been observed in SOTRs with extracutaneous cryptococcus and were attributed to IRIS-like phenomena that generate a hyperactive inflammatory response to infection.^4,9 Common immunosuppressive regimens, particularly tacrolimus, depress helper T cell (T_H1) cytokine release and promote a T_H2-dominant, anti-inflammatory state.¹⁰ In cryptococcosis, the fungus itself may stimulate a comparable cytokine milieu to promote immunologic evasion and dissemination. Cryptococcal IRIS-like responses in SOTRs are precipitated by rapid reduction or withdrawal of calcineurin inhibitors and corticosteroids, in combination with the inherent mitogenicity of the C neoformans polysaccharide capsule and antifungal agents.¹⁰ In our patient, cryptococcal yeasts may have invaded subcutaneous tissues when he became fungemic but remained subclinical due to minimal inflammatory recruitment. As treatment began and immunosuppressants diminished, fungal recognition and massive cytokine release resulted in frank panniculitis via precipitous immune dysregulation.

First-line therapy of cryptococcosis entails the use of liposomal amphotericin B and flucytosine for induction, followed by fluconazole for consolidation and maintenance. Use of corticosteroids is atypical to the antifungal regimen; however, a role for them has been suggested in severe IRIS involving individuals who are HIV positive, such as those with lesions demonstrating mass effect.¹¹ Rare case reports have described their utility as adjunctive therapies against cryptococcus in SOTRs when treatment with antifungal agents alone failed.¹² Given the paucity of prospective trials to support corticosteroid use in SOTRs as well as the worse global outcomes in cases of cryptococcal meningitis,¹³ therapeutic corticosteroids were not administered in our patient.

Although our case represents a rare event, cutaneous cryptococcosis and IRIS-like phenomena are clinically relevant complications in immunocompromised patients. In particular, they should be promptly considered in SOTRs receiving maintenance immunosuppressants who demonstrate symptom aggravation despite negative microbial culture results and uninterrupted antifungal therapy.

TOPLINE

A new American Academy of Pediatrics study reveals that 17.2% of toddlers started but did not finish at least one recommended early childhood vaccine series.

METHODOLOGY

• Examined data collected in 2019 from the National Immunization Survey – Child.
• 16,365 children ages 19-35 months were included.
• Vaccines for diphtheria, tetanus, acellular pertussis, pneumococcal infections, Haemophilus influenzae type b, hepatitis B, polio, measles, mumps, rubella, and varicella were included.

TAKEAWAY

• 72.9% of toddlers completed the seven-vaccine series.
• 17.2% initiated but did not complete one or more of a multidose vaccine series.
• The strongest association with not completing the vaccine series was moving across state lines and not having insurance.
• Children with more siblings at home were less likely to complete a vaccine series.

IN PRACTICE

The study suggests that the “children experienced structural barriers to vaccination,” and the authors urge an “increased focus on strategies to encourage multidose series completion ... to optimize protection from preventable diseases and achieve vaccination coverage goals.”

SOURCE

The study was funded by the National Institutes of Health and published online July 25 in Pediatrics. Sarah Y. Michels, an epidemiology specialist from the University of Montana in Missoula, was the lead author.

LIMITATIONS

Though the researchers studied the risk factors for series noncompletion, they did not have information on the specific reasons why children were missing vaccine doses. Children whose parents chose to participate in the National Immunization Survey – Child may have had higher vaccination coverage than children whose parents declined participation.

DISCLOSURES

The authors have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

TOPLINE

A new American Academy of Pediatrics study reveals that 17.2% of toddlers started but did not finish at least one recommended early childhood vaccine series.

METHODOLOGY

• Examined data collected in 2019 from the National Immunization Survey – Child.
• 16,365 children ages 19-35 months were included.
• Vaccines for diphtheria, tetanus, acellular pertussis, pneumococcal infections, Haemophilus influenzae type b, hepatitis B, polio, measles, mumps, rubella, and varicella were included.

TAKEAWAY

• 72.9% of toddlers completed the seven-vaccine series.
• 17.2% initiated but did not complete one or more of a multidose vaccine series.
• The strongest association with not completing the vaccine series was moving across state lines and not having insurance.
• Children with more siblings at home were less likely to complete a vaccine series.

IN PRACTICE

The study suggests that the “children experienced structural barriers to vaccination,” and the authors urge an “increased focus on strategies to encourage multidose series completion ... to optimize protection from preventable diseases and achieve vaccination coverage goals.”

SOURCE

The study was funded by the National Institutes of Health and published online July 25 in Pediatrics. Sarah Y. Michels, an epidemiology specialist from the University of Montana in Missoula, was the lead author.

LIMITATIONS

Though the researchers studied the risk factors for series noncompletion, they did not have information on the specific reasons why children were missing vaccine doses. Children whose parents chose to participate in the National Immunization Survey – Child may have had higher vaccination coverage than children whose parents declined participation.

DISCLOSURES

The authors have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

TOPLINE

A new American Academy of Pediatrics study reveals that 17.2% of toddlers started but did not finish at least one recommended early childhood vaccine series.

METHODOLOGY

• Examined data collected in 2019 from the National Immunization Survey – Child.
• 16,365 children ages 19-35 months were included.
• Vaccines for diphtheria, tetanus, acellular pertussis, pneumococcal infections, Haemophilus influenzae type b, hepatitis B, polio, measles, mumps, rubella, and varicella were included.

TAKEAWAY

• 72.9% of toddlers completed the seven-vaccine series.
• 17.2% initiated but did not complete one or more of a multidose vaccine series.
• The strongest association with not completing the vaccine series was moving across state lines and not having insurance.
• Children with more siblings at home were less likely to complete a vaccine series.

IN PRACTICE

The study suggests that the “children experienced structural barriers to vaccination,” and the authors urge an “increased focus on strategies to encourage multidose series completion ... to optimize protection from preventable diseases and achieve vaccination coverage goals.”

SOURCE

The study was funded by the National Institutes of Health and published online July 25 in Pediatrics. Sarah Y. Michels, an epidemiology specialist from the University of Montana in Missoula, was the lead author.

LIMITATIONS

Though the researchers studied the risk factors for series noncompletion, they did not have information on the specific reasons why children were missing vaccine doses. Children whose parents chose to participate in the National Immunization Survey – Child may have had higher vaccination coverage than children whose parents declined participation.

DISCLOSURES

The authors have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

BRISBANE, AUSTRALIA – People with undetectable or very low HIV levels have zero or “almost zero” risk of transmitting the virus sexually if they are taking suppression medication, according to new guidelines from the World Health Organization.

The announcement was made concurrently with the publication of definitive new research in The Lancet. The findings were presented virtually at the International AIDS Society conference on HIV Science.

The WHO estimates that 76% of the 39 million people worldwide living with HIV take antiretroviral therapy (ART).

“Antiretroviral therapy continues to transform the lives of people living with HIV,” a WHO news release stated. “People living with HIV who are diagnosed and treated early, and take their medication as prescribed, can expect to have the same health and life expectancy as their HIV-negative counterparts.”

The Lancet study showed that people who have a viral load of less than 1,000 copies per milliliter of blood have a tiny chance of transmitting the virus to sexual partners. Of 320 cases of transmission reviewed during the study, only 2 transmissions involved a partner with a load below that threshold. Those cases may have been affected by viral loads rising between the time of testing and transmission. The previous guideline for zero risk of transmission was 200 copies per milliliter.

People living with HIV who do not take ART can have viral loads ranging from 30,000 to more than 500,000 copies per milliliter, according a summary of the study distributed by The Lancet to the media.

The new findings do not apply to the transmission of HIV from mother to child, including during pregnancy, childbirth, and breastfeeding.

“The ultimate goal of antiretroviral therapy for people living with HIV is to maintain undetectable viral loads, which will improve their own health and prevent transmission to their sexual partners and children,” said researcher Lara Vojnov, PhD, diagnostics advisor to the WHO Department of Global HIV, Hepatitis and STI Programmes, in a statement. “But these new findings are also significant as they indicate that the risk of sexual transmission of HIV at low viral loads is almost zero. This provides a powerful opportunity to help destigmatize HIV, promote the benefits of adhering to antiretroviral therapy, and support people living with HIV.”

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

BRISBANE, AUSTRALIA – People with undetectable or very low HIV levels have zero or “almost zero” risk of transmitting the virus sexually if they are taking suppression medication, according to new guidelines from the World Health Organization.

The announcement was made concurrently with the publication of definitive new research in The Lancet. The findings were presented virtually at the International AIDS Society conference on HIV Science.

The WHO estimates that 76% of the 39 million people worldwide living with HIV take antiretroviral therapy (ART).

“Antiretroviral therapy continues to transform the lives of people living with HIV,” a WHO news release stated. “People living with HIV who are diagnosed and treated early, and take their medication as prescribed, can expect to have the same health and life expectancy as their HIV-negative counterparts.”

The Lancet study showed that people who have a viral load of less than 1,000 copies per milliliter of blood have a tiny chance of transmitting the virus to sexual partners. Of 320 cases of transmission reviewed during the study, only 2 transmissions involved a partner with a load below that threshold. Those cases may have been affected by viral loads rising between the time of testing and transmission. The previous guideline for zero risk of transmission was 200 copies per milliliter.

People living with HIV who do not take ART can have viral loads ranging from 30,000 to more than 500,000 copies per milliliter, according a summary of the study distributed by The Lancet to the media.

The new findings do not apply to the transmission of HIV from mother to child, including during pregnancy, childbirth, and breastfeeding.

“The ultimate goal of antiretroviral therapy for people living with HIV is to maintain undetectable viral loads, which will improve their own health and prevent transmission to their sexual partners and children,” said researcher Lara Vojnov, PhD, diagnostics advisor to the WHO Department of Global HIV, Hepatitis and STI Programmes, in a statement. “But these new findings are also significant as they indicate that the risk of sexual transmission of HIV at low viral loads is almost zero. This provides a powerful opportunity to help destigmatize HIV, promote the benefits of adhering to antiretroviral therapy, and support people living with HIV.”

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

BRISBANE, AUSTRALIA – People with undetectable or very low HIV levels have zero or “almost zero” risk of transmitting the virus sexually if they are taking suppression medication, according to new guidelines from the World Health Organization.

The announcement was made concurrently with the publication of definitive new research in The Lancet. The findings were presented virtually at the International AIDS Society conference on HIV Science.

The WHO estimates that 76% of the 39 million people worldwide living with HIV take antiretroviral therapy (ART).

“Antiretroviral therapy continues to transform the lives of people living with HIV,” a WHO news release stated. “People living with HIV who are diagnosed and treated early, and take their medication as prescribed, can expect to have the same health and life expectancy as their HIV-negative counterparts.”

The Lancet study showed that people who have a viral load of less than 1,000 copies per milliliter of blood have a tiny chance of transmitting the virus to sexual partners. Of 320 cases of transmission reviewed during the study, only 2 transmissions involved a partner with a load below that threshold. Those cases may have been affected by viral loads rising between the time of testing and transmission. The previous guideline for zero risk of transmission was 200 copies per milliliter.

People living with HIV who do not take ART can have viral loads ranging from 30,000 to more than 500,000 copies per milliliter, according a summary of the study distributed by The Lancet to the media.

The new findings do not apply to the transmission of HIV from mother to child, including during pregnancy, childbirth, and breastfeeding.

“The ultimate goal of antiretroviral therapy for people living with HIV is to maintain undetectable viral loads, which will improve their own health and prevent transmission to their sexual partners and children,” said researcher Lara Vojnov, PhD, diagnostics advisor to the WHO Department of Global HIV, Hepatitis and STI Programmes, in a statement. “But these new findings are also significant as they indicate that the risk of sexual transmission of HIV at low viral loads is almost zero. This provides a powerful opportunity to help destigmatize HIV, promote the benefits of adhering to antiretroviral therapy, and support people living with HIV.”

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

Two newly approved respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) vaccines for adults aged 60 years and older may be able to prevent illness in those at risk for severe RSV disease.

Most adult RSV illness occurs among the older age group and results in an estimated 60,000-160,000 hospitalizations and 6,000-10,000 deaths per year among people aged at least 65 years.

Older adults deciding whether to get the vaccines should weigh risks and their own preferences and make the decision in consultation with their clinicians, said authors of a Centers for Disease Control and Prevention report.

Michael Melgar, MD, with the Coronavirus and Other Respiratory Viruses Division at the CDC, was lead author on the report, published in the Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report.
 

Two new vaccines

In May, the Food and Drug Administration approved the first of two vaccines for preventing RSV lower respiratory tract disease for adults aged at least 60 years.

On June 21, the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) recommended that people in that age group receive a single dose of RSV vaccine using shared decision-making.

The recommendation for shared decision-making makes the ACIP decision different from routine and risk-based vaccine recommendations. Rather than targeting all in a particular age group or risk group, the decision calls for consideration of a patients’ risk for disease and their characteristics, preferences, and values; the health care professional’s clinical discretion; and performance of the vaccine.

Dr. Melgar and colleagues reported that vaccination with one dose of the GSK or Pfizer RSV vaccines has proved moderately to highly effective in preventing symptomatic RSV-associated lower respiratory tract disease over two consecutive RSV seasons among people aged 60 and older.

The trials that led to approval weren’t powered to gauge efficacy against RSV-associated hospitalization and death. However, the authors wrote, the prevention of lower respiratory tract disease, including medically attended illness, suggests that the shots might prevent considerable morbidity from RSV disease among those aged 60 and older.

Both vaccines were generally well tolerated with a good safety profile. However, six cases of inflammatory neurologic events (including Guillain-Barré Syndrome, acute disseminated encephalomyelitis, and others) were reported in clinical trials after RSV vaccination.

“Whether these events occurred due to chance, or whether RSV vaccination increases the risk for inflammatory neurologic events, is currently unknown,” the authors wrote.

Postmarketing surveillance may help clarify the existence of any potential risk, but until those results are clearer, the CDC researchers said, RSV vaccinations should be targeted to older adults at highest risk for severe RSV and those most likely to benefit from the shots.
 

At higher risk

Some adults with certain medical conditions have a higher risk for RSV-associated hospitalization, according to the report.

Those conditions include chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, asthma, heart failure, coronary artery disease, cerebrovascular disease, diabetes mellitus, and chronic kidney disease.

People who are frail and of advanced age also are at higher risk for RSV hospitalization. That risk increases with age and the highest risk is for people aged at least 75 years.

The researchers added that RSV can cause severe disease in those with compromised immunity, including people who have received hematopoietic stem cell transplants and patients taking immunosuppressive drugs such as those used with solid organ transplants, cancer treatment, or other conditions.

As for when physicians should offer the vaccinations, shots are optimally given before the start of the RSV season.

However, the COVID-19 pandemic interrupted the seasonality and the timing has not yet returned to prepandemic patterns.

For the 2023-24 season, this report states, clinicians should offer RSV vaccination to adults aged at least 60 years using shared clinical decision-making as early as vaccine supply is available and should continue to offer vaccination to eligible adults who remain unvaccinated.

RSV vaccines can be administered with other adult vaccines during the same visit, the authors confirmed.
 

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

Two newly approved respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) vaccines for adults aged 60 years and older may be able to prevent illness in those at risk for severe RSV disease.

Most adult RSV illness occurs among the older age group and results in an estimated 60,000-160,000 hospitalizations and 6,000-10,000 deaths per year among people aged at least 65 years.

Older adults deciding whether to get the vaccines should weigh risks and their own preferences and make the decision in consultation with their clinicians, said authors of a Centers for Disease Control and Prevention report.

Michael Melgar, MD, with the Coronavirus and Other Respiratory Viruses Division at the CDC, was lead author on the report, published in the Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report.
 

Two new vaccines

In May, the Food and Drug Administration approved the first of two vaccines for preventing RSV lower respiratory tract disease for adults aged at least 60 years.

On June 21, the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) recommended that people in that age group receive a single dose of RSV vaccine using shared decision-making.

The recommendation for shared decision-making makes the ACIP decision different from routine and risk-based vaccine recommendations. Rather than targeting all in a particular age group or risk group, the decision calls for consideration of a patients’ risk for disease and their characteristics, preferences, and values; the health care professional’s clinical discretion; and performance of the vaccine.

Dr. Melgar and colleagues reported that vaccination with one dose of the GSK or Pfizer RSV vaccines has proved moderately to highly effective in preventing symptomatic RSV-associated lower respiratory tract disease over two consecutive RSV seasons among people aged 60 and older.

The trials that led to approval weren’t powered to gauge efficacy against RSV-associated hospitalization and death. However, the authors wrote, the prevention of lower respiratory tract disease, including medically attended illness, suggests that the shots might prevent considerable morbidity from RSV disease among those aged 60 and older.

Both vaccines were generally well tolerated with a good safety profile. However, six cases of inflammatory neurologic events (including Guillain-Barré Syndrome, acute disseminated encephalomyelitis, and others) were reported in clinical trials after RSV vaccination.

“Whether these events occurred due to chance, or whether RSV vaccination increases the risk for inflammatory neurologic events, is currently unknown,” the authors wrote.

Postmarketing surveillance may help clarify the existence of any potential risk, but until those results are clearer, the CDC researchers said, RSV vaccinations should be targeted to older adults at highest risk for severe RSV and those most likely to benefit from the shots.
 

At higher risk

Some adults with certain medical conditions have a higher risk for RSV-associated hospitalization, according to the report.

Those conditions include chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, asthma, heart failure, coronary artery disease, cerebrovascular disease, diabetes mellitus, and chronic kidney disease.

People who are frail and of advanced age also are at higher risk for RSV hospitalization. That risk increases with age and the highest risk is for people aged at least 75 years.

The researchers added that RSV can cause severe disease in those with compromised immunity, including people who have received hematopoietic stem cell transplants and patients taking immunosuppressive drugs such as those used with solid organ transplants, cancer treatment, or other conditions.

As for when physicians should offer the vaccinations, shots are optimally given before the start of the RSV season.

However, the COVID-19 pandemic interrupted the seasonality and the timing has not yet returned to prepandemic patterns.

For the 2023-24 season, this report states, clinicians should offer RSV vaccination to adults aged at least 60 years using shared clinical decision-making as early as vaccine supply is available and should continue to offer vaccination to eligible adults who remain unvaccinated.

RSV vaccines can be administered with other adult vaccines during the same visit, the authors confirmed.
 

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

Two newly approved respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) vaccines for adults aged 60 years and older may be able to prevent illness in those at risk for severe RSV disease.

Most adult RSV illness occurs among the older age group and results in an estimated 60,000-160,000 hospitalizations and 6,000-10,000 deaths per year among people aged at least 65 years.

Older adults deciding whether to get the vaccines should weigh risks and their own preferences and make the decision in consultation with their clinicians, said authors of a Centers for Disease Control and Prevention report.

Michael Melgar, MD, with the Coronavirus and Other Respiratory Viruses Division at the CDC, was lead author on the report, published in the Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report.
 

Two new vaccines

In May, the Food and Drug Administration approved the first of two vaccines for preventing RSV lower respiratory tract disease for adults aged at least 60 years.

On June 21, the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) recommended that people in that age group receive a single dose of RSV vaccine using shared decision-making.

The recommendation for shared decision-making makes the ACIP decision different from routine and risk-based vaccine recommendations. Rather than targeting all in a particular age group or risk group, the decision calls for consideration of a patients’ risk for disease and their characteristics, preferences, and values; the health care professional’s clinical discretion; and performance of the vaccine.

Dr. Melgar and colleagues reported that vaccination with one dose of the GSK or Pfizer RSV vaccines has proved moderately to highly effective in preventing symptomatic RSV-associated lower respiratory tract disease over two consecutive RSV seasons among people aged 60 and older.

The trials that led to approval weren’t powered to gauge efficacy against RSV-associated hospitalization and death. However, the authors wrote, the prevention of lower respiratory tract disease, including medically attended illness, suggests that the shots might prevent considerable morbidity from RSV disease among those aged 60 and older.

Both vaccines were generally well tolerated with a good safety profile. However, six cases of inflammatory neurologic events (including Guillain-Barré Syndrome, acute disseminated encephalomyelitis, and others) were reported in clinical trials after RSV vaccination.

“Whether these events occurred due to chance, or whether RSV vaccination increases the risk for inflammatory neurologic events, is currently unknown,” the authors wrote.

Postmarketing surveillance may help clarify the existence of any potential risk, but until those results are clearer, the CDC researchers said, RSV vaccinations should be targeted to older adults at highest risk for severe RSV and those most likely to benefit from the shots.
 

At higher risk

Some adults with certain medical conditions have a higher risk for RSV-associated hospitalization, according to the report.

Those conditions include chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, asthma, heart failure, coronary artery disease, cerebrovascular disease, diabetes mellitus, and chronic kidney disease.

People who are frail and of advanced age also are at higher risk for RSV hospitalization. That risk increases with age and the highest risk is for people aged at least 75 years.

The researchers added that RSV can cause severe disease in those with compromised immunity, including people who have received hematopoietic stem cell transplants and patients taking immunosuppressive drugs such as those used with solid organ transplants, cancer treatment, or other conditions.

As for when physicians should offer the vaccinations, shots are optimally given before the start of the RSV season.

However, the COVID-19 pandemic interrupted the seasonality and the timing has not yet returned to prepandemic patterns.

For the 2023-24 season, this report states, clinicians should offer RSV vaccination to adults aged at least 60 years using shared clinical decision-making as early as vaccine supply is available and should continue to offer vaccination to eligible adults who remain unvaccinated.

RSV vaccines can be administered with other adult vaccines during the same visit, the authors confirmed.
 

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

On July 21, 2023, topical cantharidin became the first Food and Drug Administration–approved treatment of molluscum contagiosum (molluscum), for adults and pediatric patients 2 years of age and older.

The product is a drug-device combination that contains a formulation of cantharidin solution (0.7%), delivered topically via a single-use applicator, which allows for precise dosing and targeted administration. According to a press release from Verrica Pharmaceuticals, cantharidin is expected to be available by September 2023 and should be administered only by a trained health care professional; it is not for use in the home.

The approval of the product, also known as VP-102, is based on results from two identical multicenter phase 3 randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials that evaluated the drug’s safety and efficacy in patients 2 years of age and older diagnosed with molluscum: Cantharidin Application in Molluscum Patients-1 (CAMP-1) and CAMP-2. Patients in both trials met the primary endpoint of complete clearance of all treatable molluscum lesions. Specifically, 46% of CAMP-1 participants treated with VP-102 achieved complete clearance of molluscum lesions compared with 18% of participants in the vehicle group (P < .0001), while 54% of CAMP-2 participants treated with VP-102 achieved complete clearance of molluscum lesions compared with 13% of participants in the vehicle group (P < .0001).

A post hoc analysis of both trials found that complete clearance of all lesions was significantly higher in the VP-102 group than vehicle across all body regions. It also found that there were no serious adverse reactions reported in the trials. Adverse reactions were mostly mild to moderate and included application site vesicles, erythema, pain, dryness, scab, discoloration, pruritus, and edema.

The product will be marketed as Ycanth.

In March of 2023, the FDA accepted a new drug application for another treatment for molluscum contagiosum, berdazimer gel 10.3%. That product is being developed by Novan.

On July 21, 2023, topical cantharidin became the first Food and Drug Administration–approved treatment of molluscum contagiosum (molluscum), for adults and pediatric patients 2 years of age and older.

The product is a drug-device combination that contains a formulation of cantharidin solution (0.7%), delivered topically via a single-use applicator, which allows for precise dosing and targeted administration. According to a press release from Verrica Pharmaceuticals, cantharidin is expected to be available by September 2023 and should be administered only by a trained health care professional; it is not for use in the home.

The approval of the product, also known as VP-102, is based on results from two identical multicenter phase 3 randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials that evaluated the drug’s safety and efficacy in patients 2 years of age and older diagnosed with molluscum: Cantharidin Application in Molluscum Patients-1 (CAMP-1) and CAMP-2. Patients in both trials met the primary endpoint of complete clearance of all treatable molluscum lesions. Specifically, 46% of CAMP-1 participants treated with VP-102 achieved complete clearance of molluscum lesions compared with 18% of participants in the vehicle group (P < .0001), while 54% of CAMP-2 participants treated with VP-102 achieved complete clearance of molluscum lesions compared with 13% of participants in the vehicle group (P < .0001).

A post hoc analysis of both trials found that complete clearance of all lesions was significantly higher in the VP-102 group than vehicle across all body regions. It also found that there were no serious adverse reactions reported in the trials. Adverse reactions were mostly mild to moderate and included application site vesicles, erythema, pain, dryness, scab, discoloration, pruritus, and edema.

The product will be marketed as Ycanth.

In March of 2023, the FDA accepted a new drug application for another treatment for molluscum contagiosum, berdazimer gel 10.3%. That product is being developed by Novan.

On July 21, 2023, topical cantharidin became the first Food and Drug Administration–approved treatment of molluscum contagiosum (molluscum), for adults and pediatric patients 2 years of age and older.

The product is a drug-device combination that contains a formulation of cantharidin solution (0.7%), delivered topically via a single-use applicator, which allows for precise dosing and targeted administration. According to a press release from Verrica Pharmaceuticals, cantharidin is expected to be available by September 2023 and should be administered only by a trained health care professional; it is not for use in the home.

The approval of the product, also known as VP-102, is based on results from two identical multicenter phase 3 randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials that evaluated the drug’s safety and efficacy in patients 2 years of age and older diagnosed with molluscum: Cantharidin Application in Molluscum Patients-1 (CAMP-1) and CAMP-2. Patients in both trials met the primary endpoint of complete clearance of all treatable molluscum lesions. Specifically, 46% of CAMP-1 participants treated with VP-102 achieved complete clearance of molluscum lesions compared with 18% of participants in the vehicle group (P < .0001), while 54% of CAMP-2 participants treated with VP-102 achieved complete clearance of molluscum lesions compared with 13% of participants in the vehicle group (P < .0001).

A post hoc analysis of both trials found that complete clearance of all lesions was significantly higher in the VP-102 group than vehicle across all body regions. It also found that there were no serious adverse reactions reported in the trials. Adverse reactions were mostly mild to moderate and included application site vesicles, erythema, pain, dryness, scab, discoloration, pruritus, and edema.

The product will be marketed as Ycanth.

In March of 2023, the FDA accepted a new drug application for another treatment for molluscum contagiosum, berdazimer gel 10.3%. That product is being developed by Novan.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) recently published new recommendations on screening for hepatitis B infection.¹ They recommend screening all adults (ages 18 years and older) at least once.

These recommendations differ in a few ways from those of the US Preventive Services­ Task Force (USPSTF).² This Practice Alert will highlight these differences but also point out areas of agreement between the 2 sets of ­recommendations—and discuss why 2 separate agencies in the US Department of Health and Human Services reached different conclusions on some issues.

First, some background on hepatitis B

An estimated 580,000 to 2.4 million people in the United States have chronic hepatitis B (CHB) infection—and as many as two-thirds are unaware of it.³ In 2020, the Department of Health and Human Services published the Viral Hepatitis National Strategic Plan for the United States with a stated goal of increasing awareness of infection status among those with hepatitis B virus (HBV) from 32% to 90% by 2030.⁴ People living in the United States but born outside the country are at highest risk for CHB; they account for 69% of those with the infection.⁵

The incidence of acute HBV infection has declined markedly since the HBV vaccine was recommended for high-risk adults in 1982 and universally for infants in 1991.^6,7 Overall rates of HBV infection declined fairly steadily starting around 1987—but in 2014, rates began to increase, especially in those ages 40 to 59 years.^8,9 In 2019, 3192 cases were reported; but when one factors in underreporting, the CDC estimates that the number is likely closer to 20,700.¹⁰ This uptick is one reason the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices changed its HBV vaccination recommendation for adults from a risk-based to a universal recommendation for all unvaccinated adults through age 60 years.¹⁰

Chronic hepatitis B infection has serious consequences

The proportion of those infected with HBV who develop CHB differs by age at infection: 80% to 90% if infected during infancy, 30% if infected before age 6 years, and 1% to 12% if infected as an older child or adult.⁸

CHB infection can lead to chronic liver disease, including cirrhosis of the liver, liver cancer, and liver failure. About 25% of those who develop CHB infection during childhood and 15% of those who develop chronic infection after childhood will die prematurely from cirrhosis or liver cancer.⁸

The American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases (AASLD) classifies CHB into 4 phases that reflect the rate of viral replication and the patient’s immune response.¹¹ These phases are:

• immune-tolerant (minimal inflammation and fibrosis)
• hepatitis B e-antigen (HBeAg)-positive immune-active (moderate-to-severe inflammation or fibrosis)
• inactive CHB (minimal necroinflammation but variable fibrosis), and
• HBeAg-negative immune reactivation (moderate-to-severe inflammation or fibrosis).¹¹

Continue to: The progression from one phase...

The progression from one phase to the next varies by patient, and not all patients will progress through each phase. The AASLD recommends periodically monitoring the HBV DNA and alanine aminotransferase (ALT) levels in those with CHB to track the progression from one phase to the next and to guide treatment decisions.

Treatment can be beneficial for those who meet criteria

The evidence report prepared for USPSTF found that antiviral treatment of those with CHB infection resulted in improved intermediate outcomes (histologic improvement, loss of hepatitis B surface antigen [HBsAg], loss of HBeAg, HBeAg seroconversion, virologic suppression, and normalization of ALT levels). The magnitude of benefit varied by location and study design.¹²

In addition, the evidence review found that antiviral therapy was associated with a decreased risk for overall mortality (relative risk [RR] = 0.15; 95% CI, 0.03-0.69), cirrhosis (RR = 0.72; 95% CI, 0.29-1.77), and hepatocellular carcinoma (RR = 0.60; 95% CI, 0.16-2.33). However, these results came from studies that were “limited due to small numbers of trials, few events, and insufficient duration of follow-up.”¹²

The USPSTF and the CDC both judged that the intermediate outcome results, as well as findings that improved intermediate outcomes lead to decreases in chronic liver disease, are strong enough evidence for their recommendations.

However, not all patients with CHB infection require treatment; estimates of patients with HBV infection meeting AASLD criteria for treatment range from 24% to 48%.¹ The AASLD guideline on the treatment of CHB infection is an excellent resource that makes recommendations on the initial evaluation, ongoing monitoring, and treatment decisions for those with CHB.¹¹

Continue to: How CDC and USPSTF guidance on HBV screeinng differs

 

 

How CDC and USPSTF guidance on HBV screening differs

The CDC and USPSTF recommendations for HBV screening differ in 3 aspects: whom to screen, whom to classify as at high risk for HBV infection, and what tests to use for screening.

Who should be screened?

The USPSTF recommends screening adults and adolescents who are at high risk for HBV. The CDC recommends screening all adults at least once. Both entities agree that those who are at increased risk should be screened periodically, although the optimal frequency has not been established. The USPSTF does not recommend against screening for the general population, so universal screening (as advocated by the CDC) is not in direct conflict with the USPSTF’s recommendations.

Who is at increased risk for HBV infection?

The CDC and the USPSTF differ slightly on the factors they consider to constitute increased risk for HBV infection. These are listed in ­TABLE 1.^1,2

The CDC lists 6 categories that the ­USPSTF does not mention. However, 4 of these categories are mentioned indirectly in the USPSTF evidence report that accompanies the recommendations, via statements that certain settings have high proportions of people at risk for HBV infection: sexually transmitted infection clinics; HIV testing and treatment centers; health care settings that target services toward people who inject drugs and men who have sex with men; correctional facilities; hemodialysis facilities; and institutions and nonresidential daycare centers for developmentally disabled persons. People who are served at most of these facilities are also at risk for hepatitis C virus infection.

Three categories are listed by the CDC and not by the USPSTF, in either the recommendation or evidence report. These include a history of multiple sex partners; elevated ALT or aspartate aminotransferase levels of unknown origin; and patient request for testing (because they may not want to reveal risk factors).

Continue to: What test(s) should be ordered?

What test(s) should be ordered? 

The USPSTF recommends screening using HBsAg. The CDC recommends using triple-panel screening: HBsAg, anti-hepatitis B surface antigen (anti-HBs), and total antibody to hepatitis B core antigen (anti-HBc).

HBsAg indicates HBV infection, either acute or chronic, or a recent dose of HBV vaccine. Anti-HBs indicate recovery from HBV infection, response to HBV vaccine, or recent receipt of hepatitis B immune globulin. Total anti-HBc develops in all HBV infections, resolved or current, and usually persists for life. Vaccine-induced immunity does not cause anti-HBc to develop.

The USPSTF’s rationale is that testing for HBsAg is more than 98% sensitive and specific for detecting HBV infections.² The CDC recommends triple testing because it can detect those with asymptomatic active HBV infections (this would be a rare occurrence); those who have resolved infection and might be susceptible to reactivation (eg, those who are immunosuppressed); and those who are susceptible and need vaccination.

Interpretation of HBV test results and suggested actions are described in TABLE 2.^1,8,13

Why do the CDC and USPSTF differ?

While it would be optimal if the CDC and the USPSTF coordinated and harmonized recommendations, this is difficult to achieve given their different missions. The USPSTF is charged to make evidence-based recommendations about preventive services such as screenings, behavioral counseling, and preventive medications, which are provided by clinicians to individual patients. The Task Force uses a very strict evidence-based process and will not make recommendations unless there is adequate evidence of efficacy and safety. Members of the Task Force are primary care professionals, and their collaborating professional organizations are primary care focused.

Based on practice-specific characteristics, family physicians should decide if they want to screen all adults or only those at increased risk, and whether to use singleor triple-test screening.

The CDC takes a community-wide, public health perspective. The professionals that work there are not always clinicians. They strive to prevent as much illness as possible, using public health measures and making recommendations to clinicians. They collaborate with professional organizations; on topics such as hepatitis and other infectious diseases, they collaborate with specialty-oriented societies. Given the imperative to act with the best evidence available, their evidence assessment process is not as strict.

The result, at times, is slight differences in recommendations. However, the HBV screening recommendations from the CDC and the USPSTF agree more than they do not. Based on practice-specific characteristics, family physicians should decide if they want to screen all adults or only those at increased risk, and whether to use single- or triple-test screening.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) recently published new recommendations on screening for hepatitis B infection.¹ They recommend screening all adults (ages 18 years and older) at least once.

These recommendations differ in a few ways from those of the US Preventive Services­ Task Force (USPSTF).² This Practice Alert will highlight these differences but also point out areas of agreement between the 2 sets of ­recommendations—and discuss why 2 separate agencies in the US Department of Health and Human Services reached different conclusions on some issues.

First, some background on hepatitis B

An estimated 580,000 to 2.4 million people in the United States have chronic hepatitis B (CHB) infection—and as many as two-thirds are unaware of it.³ In 2020, the Department of Health and Human Services published the Viral Hepatitis National Strategic Plan for the United States with a stated goal of increasing awareness of infection status among those with hepatitis B virus (HBV) from 32% to 90% by 2030.⁴ People living in the United States but born outside the country are at highest risk for CHB; they account for 69% of those with the infection.⁵

The incidence of acute HBV infection has declined markedly since the HBV vaccine was recommended for high-risk adults in 1982 and universally for infants in 1991.^6,7 Overall rates of HBV infection declined fairly steadily starting around 1987—but in 2014, rates began to increase, especially in those ages 40 to 59 years.^8,9 In 2019, 3192 cases were reported; but when one factors in underreporting, the CDC estimates that the number is likely closer to 20,700.¹⁰ This uptick is one reason the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices changed its HBV vaccination recommendation for adults from a risk-based to a universal recommendation for all unvaccinated adults through age 60 years.¹⁰

Chronic hepatitis B infection has serious consequences

The proportion of those infected with HBV who develop CHB differs by age at infection: 80% to 90% if infected during infancy, 30% if infected before age 6 years, and 1% to 12% if infected as an older child or adult.⁸

CHB infection can lead to chronic liver disease, including cirrhosis of the liver, liver cancer, and liver failure. About 25% of those who develop CHB infection during childhood and 15% of those who develop chronic infection after childhood will die prematurely from cirrhosis or liver cancer.⁸

The American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases (AASLD) classifies CHB into 4 phases that reflect the rate of viral replication and the patient’s immune response.¹¹ These phases are:

• immune-tolerant (minimal inflammation and fibrosis)
• hepatitis B e-antigen (HBeAg)-positive immune-active (moderate-to-severe inflammation or fibrosis)
• inactive CHB (minimal necroinflammation but variable fibrosis), and
• HBeAg-negative immune reactivation (moderate-to-severe inflammation or fibrosis).¹¹

Continue to: The progression from one phase...

The progression from one phase to the next varies by patient, and not all patients will progress through each phase. The AASLD recommends periodically monitoring the HBV DNA and alanine aminotransferase (ALT) levels in those with CHB to track the progression from one phase to the next and to guide treatment decisions.

Treatment can be beneficial for those who meet criteria

The evidence report prepared for USPSTF found that antiviral treatment of those with CHB infection resulted in improved intermediate outcomes (histologic improvement, loss of hepatitis B surface antigen [HBsAg], loss of HBeAg, HBeAg seroconversion, virologic suppression, and normalization of ALT levels). The magnitude of benefit varied by location and study design.¹²

In addition, the evidence review found that antiviral therapy was associated with a decreased risk for overall mortality (relative risk [RR] = 0.15; 95% CI, 0.03-0.69), cirrhosis (RR = 0.72; 95% CI, 0.29-1.77), and hepatocellular carcinoma (RR = 0.60; 95% CI, 0.16-2.33). However, these results came from studies that were “limited due to small numbers of trials, few events, and insufficient duration of follow-up.”¹²

The USPSTF and the CDC both judged that the intermediate outcome results, as well as findings that improved intermediate outcomes lead to decreases in chronic liver disease, are strong enough evidence for their recommendations.

However, not all patients with CHB infection require treatment; estimates of patients with HBV infection meeting AASLD criteria for treatment range from 24% to 48%.¹ The AASLD guideline on the treatment of CHB infection is an excellent resource that makes recommendations on the initial evaluation, ongoing monitoring, and treatment decisions for those with CHB.¹¹

Continue to: How CDC and USPSTF guidance on HBV screeinng differs

 

 

How CDC and USPSTF guidance on HBV screening differs

The CDC and USPSTF recommendations for HBV screening differ in 3 aspects: whom to screen, whom to classify as at high risk for HBV infection, and what tests to use for screening.

Who should be screened?

The USPSTF recommends screening adults and adolescents who are at high risk for HBV. The CDC recommends screening all adults at least once. Both entities agree that those who are at increased risk should be screened periodically, although the optimal frequency has not been established. The USPSTF does not recommend against screening for the general population, so universal screening (as advocated by the CDC) is not in direct conflict with the USPSTF’s recommendations.

Who is at increased risk for HBV infection?

The CDC and the USPSTF differ slightly on the factors they consider to constitute increased risk for HBV infection. These are listed in ­TABLE 1.^1,2

The CDC lists 6 categories that the ­USPSTF does not mention. However, 4 of these categories are mentioned indirectly in the USPSTF evidence report that accompanies the recommendations, via statements that certain settings have high proportions of people at risk for HBV infection: sexually transmitted infection clinics; HIV testing and treatment centers; health care settings that target services toward people who inject drugs and men who have sex with men; correctional facilities; hemodialysis facilities; and institutions and nonresidential daycare centers for developmentally disabled persons. People who are served at most of these facilities are also at risk for hepatitis C virus infection.

Three categories are listed by the CDC and not by the USPSTF, in either the recommendation or evidence report. These include a history of multiple sex partners; elevated ALT or aspartate aminotransferase levels of unknown origin; and patient request for testing (because they may not want to reveal risk factors).

Continue to: What test(s) should be ordered?

What test(s) should be ordered? 

The USPSTF recommends screening using HBsAg. The CDC recommends using triple-panel screening: HBsAg, anti-hepatitis B surface antigen (anti-HBs), and total antibody to hepatitis B core antigen (anti-HBc).

HBsAg indicates HBV infection, either acute or chronic, or a recent dose of HBV vaccine. Anti-HBs indicate recovery from HBV infection, response to HBV vaccine, or recent receipt of hepatitis B immune globulin. Total anti-HBc develops in all HBV infections, resolved or current, and usually persists for life. Vaccine-induced immunity does not cause anti-HBc to develop.

The USPSTF’s rationale is that testing for HBsAg is more than 98% sensitive and specific for detecting HBV infections.² The CDC recommends triple testing because it can detect those with asymptomatic active HBV infections (this would be a rare occurrence); those who have resolved infection and might be susceptible to reactivation (eg, those who are immunosuppressed); and those who are susceptible and need vaccination.

Interpretation of HBV test results and suggested actions are described in TABLE 2.^1,8,13

Why do the CDC and USPSTF differ?

While it would be optimal if the CDC and the USPSTF coordinated and harmonized recommendations, this is difficult to achieve given their different missions. The USPSTF is charged to make evidence-based recommendations about preventive services such as screenings, behavioral counseling, and preventive medications, which are provided by clinicians to individual patients. The Task Force uses a very strict evidence-based process and will not make recommendations unless there is adequate evidence of efficacy and safety. Members of the Task Force are primary care professionals, and their collaborating professional organizations are primary care focused.

Based on practice-specific characteristics, family physicians should decide if they want to screen all adults or only those at increased risk, and whether to use singleor triple-test screening.

The CDC takes a community-wide, public health perspective. The professionals that work there are not always clinicians. They strive to prevent as much illness as possible, using public health measures and making recommendations to clinicians. They collaborate with professional organizations; on topics such as hepatitis and other infectious diseases, they collaborate with specialty-oriented societies. Given the imperative to act with the best evidence available, their evidence assessment process is not as strict.

The result, at times, is slight differences in recommendations. However, the HBV screening recommendations from the CDC and the USPSTF agree more than they do not. Based on practice-specific characteristics, family physicians should decide if they want to screen all adults or only those at increased risk, and whether to use single- or triple-test screening.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) recently published new recommendations on screening for hepatitis B infection.¹ They recommend screening all adults (ages 18 years and older) at least once.

These recommendations differ in a few ways from those of the US Preventive Services­ Task Force (USPSTF).² This Practice Alert will highlight these differences but also point out areas of agreement between the 2 sets of ­recommendations—and discuss why 2 separate agencies in the US Department of Health and Human Services reached different conclusions on some issues.

First, some background on hepatitis B

An estimated 580,000 to 2.4 million people in the United States have chronic hepatitis B (CHB) infection—and as many as two-thirds are unaware of it.³ In 2020, the Department of Health and Human Services published the Viral Hepatitis National Strategic Plan for the United States with a stated goal of increasing awareness of infection status among those with hepatitis B virus (HBV) from 32% to 90% by 2030.⁴ People living in the United States but born outside the country are at highest risk for CHB; they account for 69% of those with the infection.⁵

The incidence of acute HBV infection has declined markedly since the HBV vaccine was recommended for high-risk adults in 1982 and universally for infants in 1991.^6,7 Overall rates of HBV infection declined fairly steadily starting around 1987—but in 2014, rates began to increase, especially in those ages 40 to 59 years.^8,9 In 2019, 3192 cases were reported; but when one factors in underreporting, the CDC estimates that the number is likely closer to 20,700.¹⁰ This uptick is one reason the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices changed its HBV vaccination recommendation for adults from a risk-based to a universal recommendation for all unvaccinated adults through age 60 years.¹⁰

Chronic hepatitis B infection has serious consequences

The proportion of those infected with HBV who develop CHB differs by age at infection: 80% to 90% if infected during infancy, 30% if infected before age 6 years, and 1% to 12% if infected as an older child or adult.⁸

CHB infection can lead to chronic liver disease, including cirrhosis of the liver, liver cancer, and liver failure. About 25% of those who develop CHB infection during childhood and 15% of those who develop chronic infection after childhood will die prematurely from cirrhosis or liver cancer.⁸

The American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases (AASLD) classifies CHB into 4 phases that reflect the rate of viral replication and the patient’s immune response.¹¹ These phases are:

• immune-tolerant (minimal inflammation and fibrosis)
• hepatitis B e-antigen (HBeAg)-positive immune-active (moderate-to-severe inflammation or fibrosis)
• inactive CHB (minimal necroinflammation but variable fibrosis), and
• HBeAg-negative immune reactivation (moderate-to-severe inflammation or fibrosis).¹¹

Continue to: The progression from one phase...

The progression from one phase to the next varies by patient, and not all patients will progress through each phase. The AASLD recommends periodically monitoring the HBV DNA and alanine aminotransferase (ALT) levels in those with CHB to track the progression from one phase to the next and to guide treatment decisions.

Treatment can be beneficial for those who meet criteria

The evidence report prepared for USPSTF found that antiviral treatment of those with CHB infection resulted in improved intermediate outcomes (histologic improvement, loss of hepatitis B surface antigen [HBsAg], loss of HBeAg, HBeAg seroconversion, virologic suppression, and normalization of ALT levels). The magnitude of benefit varied by location and study design.¹²

In addition, the evidence review found that antiviral therapy was associated with a decreased risk for overall mortality (relative risk [RR] = 0.15; 95% CI, 0.03-0.69), cirrhosis (RR = 0.72; 95% CI, 0.29-1.77), and hepatocellular carcinoma (RR = 0.60; 95% CI, 0.16-2.33). However, these results came from studies that were “limited due to small numbers of trials, few events, and insufficient duration of follow-up.”¹²

The USPSTF and the CDC both judged that the intermediate outcome results, as well as findings that improved intermediate outcomes lead to decreases in chronic liver disease, are strong enough evidence for their recommendations.

However, not all patients with CHB infection require treatment; estimates of patients with HBV infection meeting AASLD criteria for treatment range from 24% to 48%.¹ The AASLD guideline on the treatment of CHB infection is an excellent resource that makes recommendations on the initial evaluation, ongoing monitoring, and treatment decisions for those with CHB.¹¹

Continue to: How CDC and USPSTF guidance on HBV screeinng differs

 

 

How CDC and USPSTF guidance on HBV screening differs

The CDC and USPSTF recommendations for HBV screening differ in 3 aspects: whom to screen, whom to classify as at high risk for HBV infection, and what tests to use for screening.

Who should be screened?

The USPSTF recommends screening adults and adolescents who are at high risk for HBV. The CDC recommends screening all adults at least once. Both entities agree that those who are at increased risk should be screened periodically, although the optimal frequency has not been established. The USPSTF does not recommend against screening for the general population, so universal screening (as advocated by the CDC) is not in direct conflict with the USPSTF’s recommendations.

Who is at increased risk for HBV infection?

The CDC and the USPSTF differ slightly on the factors they consider to constitute increased risk for HBV infection. These are listed in ­TABLE 1.^1,2

The CDC lists 6 categories that the ­USPSTF does not mention. However, 4 of these categories are mentioned indirectly in the USPSTF evidence report that accompanies the recommendations, via statements that certain settings have high proportions of people at risk for HBV infection: sexually transmitted infection clinics; HIV testing and treatment centers; health care settings that target services toward people who inject drugs and men who have sex with men; correctional facilities; hemodialysis facilities; and institutions and nonresidential daycare centers for developmentally disabled persons. People who are served at most of these facilities are also at risk for hepatitis C virus infection.

Three categories are listed by the CDC and not by the USPSTF, in either the recommendation or evidence report. These include a history of multiple sex partners; elevated ALT or aspartate aminotransferase levels of unknown origin; and patient request for testing (because they may not want to reveal risk factors).

Continue to: What test(s) should be ordered?

What test(s) should be ordered? 

The USPSTF recommends screening using HBsAg. The CDC recommends using triple-panel screening: HBsAg, anti-hepatitis B surface antigen (anti-HBs), and total antibody to hepatitis B core antigen (anti-HBc).

HBsAg indicates HBV infection, either acute or chronic, or a recent dose of HBV vaccine. Anti-HBs indicate recovery from HBV infection, response to HBV vaccine, or recent receipt of hepatitis B immune globulin. Total anti-HBc develops in all HBV infections, resolved or current, and usually persists for life. Vaccine-induced immunity does not cause anti-HBc to develop.

The USPSTF’s rationale is that testing for HBsAg is more than 98% sensitive and specific for detecting HBV infections.² The CDC recommends triple testing because it can detect those with asymptomatic active HBV infections (this would be a rare occurrence); those who have resolved infection and might be susceptible to reactivation (eg, those who are immunosuppressed); and those who are susceptible and need vaccination.

Interpretation of HBV test results and suggested actions are described in TABLE 2.^1,8,13

Why do the CDC and USPSTF differ?

While it would be optimal if the CDC and the USPSTF coordinated and harmonized recommendations, this is difficult to achieve given their different missions. The USPSTF is charged to make evidence-based recommendations about preventive services such as screenings, behavioral counseling, and preventive medications, which are provided by clinicians to individual patients. The Task Force uses a very strict evidence-based process and will not make recommendations unless there is adequate evidence of efficacy and safety. Members of the Task Force are primary care professionals, and their collaborating professional organizations are primary care focused.

Based on practice-specific characteristics, family physicians should decide if they want to screen all adults or only those at increased risk, and whether to use singleor triple-test screening.

The CDC takes a community-wide, public health perspective. The professionals that work there are not always clinicians. They strive to prevent as much illness as possible, using public health measures and making recommendations to clinicians. They collaborate with professional organizations; on topics such as hepatitis and other infectious diseases, they collaborate with specialty-oriented societies. Given the imperative to act with the best evidence available, their evidence assessment process is not as strict.

The result, at times, is slight differences in recommendations. However, the HBV screening recommendations from the CDC and the USPSTF agree more than they do not. Based on practice-specific characteristics, family physicians should decide if they want to screen all adults or only those at increased risk, and whether to use single- or triple-test screening.

The presence of a positive fungal culture in patients with bronchiectasis does not appear to correlate with disease severity or any increased risk of an adverse outcome, according to data pulled from the Bronchiectasis and NTM Registry and presented at the 6th World Bronchiectasis & NTM Conference.

“The question we were asking is whether there is some signal that suggests we need to take care of these patients differently, and the answer is no,” reported Pamela J. McShane, MD, a pulmonologist on the faculty at the University of Texas Health Science Center at Tyler.

When compared for outcome over time, those with a positive fungal culture at initial evaluation did not have more exacerbations, more hospitalizations, or other signs of a more severe disease or more complex course than did those without a positive fungal culture.

When fungal infections are detected in an initial microbiologic evaluation of patients with bronchiectasis or other lung diseases, first-line clinicians generally assume that coverage is needed. Dr. McShane noted that many of the patients referred to her with bronchiectasis and a positive fungal culture were already on an antifungal.

These data are not supportive of treatment in the absence of fungal-related complications. Dr. McShane suggested they even raise questions about the value of culturing beyond bacterial pathogens in the absence of suspicion that fungal organisms are playing a role in symptoms. She cautioned, however, that more studies specifically studying this possibility are needed.
 

Study details

The data were drawn in December 2022 from the U.S.-based Bronchiectasis and NTM Registry, which at that time had 22 participating sites. Of the more than 5,000 patients enrolled, the study looked at 2,230 after several exclusions, such as a diagnosis of allergic bronchopulmonary aspergillosis (ABPA).

Of these 2,230 patients, 949 had a fungal infection at the time of diagnosis and 1,281 did not. Those with a fungal infection were further subdivided into those with an aspergillosis (331 patients) and those with a nonaspergillosis fungal infection (751 patients). The total of these two numbers is greater than the total number of fungal infections because these were not mutually exclusive.

At enrollment into the registry, there were no statistical differences between groups for age. Some statistical differences were observed among groups stratified by race, but Dr. McShane doubted that these were clinically significant with the exception of a potential disparity among Asians that might deserve further analysis.
 

Infection results

Of clinical features evaluated for their association with fungal infection, there was no correlation with either body mass index or history of asthma. Eosinophilia was associated significantly with positive fungal cultures.

Baseline FEV₁ was slightly lower among those with a positive fungal culture even if the difference was highly significant (P = .0006). Again, Dr. McShane questioned the clinical significance of values that varied by only a few percentage points, even though she was willing to acknowledge that higher is always preferable to a lower FEV₁.

In the context of other pathogens, “generally speaking, those with a positive bacterial culture were more likely to have a fungal infection,” Dr. McShane reported, although there was some variation when looking at pathogenicity of the bacteria and other variables.

“Whether this [higher rate of fungal infection] just involves the environment or our antibiotics are driving the opportunity to permit the fungi to exist, we do not have the answer,” she added.

Nontuberculosis mycobacteria (NTM) infection was similarly represented in those with or without a fungal infection, according to Dr. McShane. Noting the high use of antibiotics in an NTM population, Dr. McShane conceded that this challenges the theory that antibiotic use is driving the risk of fungal infection, but these are what the data say.  

Steroid use was associated with a statistically significant risk of fungal infection, but Dr. McShane said it is unclear whether steroid use drives the risk or is an epiphenomenon.

“We looked at this a lot of different ways: oral vs. inhaled and oral vs. inhaled and oral, and it did not make much difference. Generally speaking, the fungal cultures were more likely to be positive in patients on any kind of steroid,” she said.

Finally, with the exception of the slightly lower FEV₁ in patients with fungal infections, Dr. McShane said that there was no discernible relationship between the presence of a fungal infection and severity of bronchiectasis.

Because of this evidence, Dr. McShane concluded that the presence of fungus in the culture of patients with bronchiectasis does not appear to correlate with outcome or severity. Since completing the study, she said she is now using these data to reassure patients who have a positive fungal culture.

While these data do not affect the need to diagnosis fungal infections in patients who are not responding typically to therapy or otherwise have an abnormal course of bronchiectasis, raising suspicion that fungal infection is participating in the disease course, the data provide a basis for questioning whether routine cultures are needed, according to the discussion that followed Dr. McShane’s presentation.
 

Expert opinion

Several of the experts at the presentation provided an opinion. Some reported that they would continue to order fungal cultures on a routine basis, while others said that they now, on the basis of these data, plan to order cultures only at the first visit or when fungal infection is suspected of exacerbating the disease.

Of this latter group, which seemed to be dominant, Juzar Ali, MD, professor of medicine, Louisiana State University, New Orleans, said that he has not been ordering fungal cultures on every visit. Rather, he has been doing so selectively. Examples include those who are on steroids or those with an unusual pattern of exacerbations.

“The value of these data is that they have now provided some data to support this approach,” Dr. Ali said in an interview. Noting that this is the first large study to address this question in a systematic way, he considers this to be a valuable contribution for approaching a common clinical issue.

Dr. McShane reports no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Ali reports a financial relationship with Insmed.
 

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

The presence of a positive fungal culture in patients with bronchiectasis does not appear to correlate with disease severity or any increased risk of an adverse outcome, according to data pulled from the Bronchiectasis and NTM Registry and presented at the 6th World Bronchiectasis & NTM Conference.

“The question we were asking is whether there is some signal that suggests we need to take care of these patients differently, and the answer is no,” reported Pamela J. McShane, MD, a pulmonologist on the faculty at the University of Texas Health Science Center at Tyler.

When compared for outcome over time, those with a positive fungal culture at initial evaluation did not have more exacerbations, more hospitalizations, or other signs of a more severe disease or more complex course than did those without a positive fungal culture.

When fungal infections are detected in an initial microbiologic evaluation of patients with bronchiectasis or other lung diseases, first-line clinicians generally assume that coverage is needed. Dr. McShane noted that many of the patients referred to her with bronchiectasis and a positive fungal culture were already on an antifungal.

These data are not supportive of treatment in the absence of fungal-related complications. Dr. McShane suggested they even raise questions about the value of culturing beyond bacterial pathogens in the absence of suspicion that fungal organisms are playing a role in symptoms. She cautioned, however, that more studies specifically studying this possibility are needed.
 

Study details

The data were drawn in December 2022 from the U.S.-based Bronchiectasis and NTM Registry, which at that time had 22 participating sites. Of the more than 5,000 patients enrolled, the study looked at 2,230 after several exclusions, such as a diagnosis of allergic bronchopulmonary aspergillosis (ABPA).

Of these 2,230 patients, 949 had a fungal infection at the time of diagnosis and 1,281 did not. Those with a fungal infection were further subdivided into those with an aspergillosis (331 patients) and those with a nonaspergillosis fungal infection (751 patients). The total of these two numbers is greater than the total number of fungal infections because these were not mutually exclusive.

At enrollment into the registry, there were no statistical differences between groups for age. Some statistical differences were observed among groups stratified by race, but Dr. McShane doubted that these were clinically significant with the exception of a potential disparity among Asians that might deserve further analysis.
 

Infection results

Of clinical features evaluated for their association with fungal infection, there was no correlation with either body mass index or history of asthma. Eosinophilia was associated significantly with positive fungal cultures.

Baseline FEV₁ was slightly lower among those with a positive fungal culture even if the difference was highly significant (P = .0006). Again, Dr. McShane questioned the clinical significance of values that varied by only a few percentage points, even though she was willing to acknowledge that higher is always preferable to a lower FEV₁.

In the context of other pathogens, “generally speaking, those with a positive bacterial culture were more likely to have a fungal infection,” Dr. McShane reported, although there was some variation when looking at pathogenicity of the bacteria and other variables.

“Whether this [higher rate of fungal infection] just involves the environment or our antibiotics are driving the opportunity to permit the fungi to exist, we do not have the answer,” she added.

Nontuberculosis mycobacteria (NTM) infection was similarly represented in those with or without a fungal infection, according to Dr. McShane. Noting the high use of antibiotics in an NTM population, Dr. McShane conceded that this challenges the theory that antibiotic use is driving the risk of fungal infection, but these are what the data say.  

Steroid use was associated with a statistically significant risk of fungal infection, but Dr. McShane said it is unclear whether steroid use drives the risk or is an epiphenomenon.

“We looked at this a lot of different ways: oral vs. inhaled and oral vs. inhaled and oral, and it did not make much difference. Generally speaking, the fungal cultures were more likely to be positive in patients on any kind of steroid,” she said.

Finally, with the exception of the slightly lower FEV₁ in patients with fungal infections, Dr. McShane said that there was no discernible relationship between the presence of a fungal infection and severity of bronchiectasis.

Because of this evidence, Dr. McShane concluded that the presence of fungus in the culture of patients with bronchiectasis does not appear to correlate with outcome or severity. Since completing the study, she said she is now using these data to reassure patients who have a positive fungal culture.

While these data do not affect the need to diagnosis fungal infections in patients who are not responding typically to therapy or otherwise have an abnormal course of bronchiectasis, raising suspicion that fungal infection is participating in the disease course, the data provide a basis for questioning whether routine cultures are needed, according to the discussion that followed Dr. McShane’s presentation.
 

Expert opinion

Several of the experts at the presentation provided an opinion. Some reported that they would continue to order fungal cultures on a routine basis, while others said that they now, on the basis of these data, plan to order cultures only at the first visit or when fungal infection is suspected of exacerbating the disease.

Of this latter group, which seemed to be dominant, Juzar Ali, MD, professor of medicine, Louisiana State University, New Orleans, said that he has not been ordering fungal cultures on every visit. Rather, he has been doing so selectively. Examples include those who are on steroids or those with an unusual pattern of exacerbations.

“The value of these data is that they have now provided some data to support this approach,” Dr. Ali said in an interview. Noting that this is the first large study to address this question in a systematic way, he considers this to be a valuable contribution for approaching a common clinical issue.

Dr. McShane reports no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Ali reports a financial relationship with Insmed.
 

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

The presence of a positive fungal culture in patients with bronchiectasis does not appear to correlate with disease severity or any increased risk of an adverse outcome, according to data pulled from the Bronchiectasis and NTM Registry and presented at the 6th World Bronchiectasis & NTM Conference.

“The question we were asking is whether there is some signal that suggests we need to take care of these patients differently, and the answer is no,” reported Pamela J. McShane, MD, a pulmonologist on the faculty at the University of Texas Health Science Center at Tyler.

When compared for outcome over time, those with a positive fungal culture at initial evaluation did not have more exacerbations, more hospitalizations, or other signs of a more severe disease or more complex course than did those without a positive fungal culture.

When fungal infections are detected in an initial microbiologic evaluation of patients with bronchiectasis or other lung diseases, first-line clinicians generally assume that coverage is needed. Dr. McShane noted that many of the patients referred to her with bronchiectasis and a positive fungal culture were already on an antifungal.

These data are not supportive of treatment in the absence of fungal-related complications. Dr. McShane suggested they even raise questions about the value of culturing beyond bacterial pathogens in the absence of suspicion that fungal organisms are playing a role in symptoms. She cautioned, however, that more studies specifically studying this possibility are needed.
 

Study details

The data were drawn in December 2022 from the U.S.-based Bronchiectasis and NTM Registry, which at that time had 22 participating sites. Of the more than 5,000 patients enrolled, the study looked at 2,230 after several exclusions, such as a diagnosis of allergic bronchopulmonary aspergillosis (ABPA).

Of these 2,230 patients, 949 had a fungal infection at the time of diagnosis and 1,281 did not. Those with a fungal infection were further subdivided into those with an aspergillosis (331 patients) and those with a nonaspergillosis fungal infection (751 patients). The total of these two numbers is greater than the total number of fungal infections because these were not mutually exclusive.

At enrollment into the registry, there were no statistical differences between groups for age. Some statistical differences were observed among groups stratified by race, but Dr. McShane doubted that these were clinically significant with the exception of a potential disparity among Asians that might deserve further analysis.
 

Infection results

Of clinical features evaluated for their association with fungal infection, there was no correlation with either body mass index or history of asthma. Eosinophilia was associated significantly with positive fungal cultures.

Baseline FEV₁ was slightly lower among those with a positive fungal culture even if the difference was highly significant (P = .0006). Again, Dr. McShane questioned the clinical significance of values that varied by only a few percentage points, even though she was willing to acknowledge that higher is always preferable to a lower FEV₁.

In the context of other pathogens, “generally speaking, those with a positive bacterial culture were more likely to have a fungal infection,” Dr. McShane reported, although there was some variation when looking at pathogenicity of the bacteria and other variables.

“Whether this [higher rate of fungal infection] just involves the environment or our antibiotics are driving the opportunity to permit the fungi to exist, we do not have the answer,” she added.

Nontuberculosis mycobacteria (NTM) infection was similarly represented in those with or without a fungal infection, according to Dr. McShane. Noting the high use of antibiotics in an NTM population, Dr. McShane conceded that this challenges the theory that antibiotic use is driving the risk of fungal infection, but these are what the data say.  

Steroid use was associated with a statistically significant risk of fungal infection, but Dr. McShane said it is unclear whether steroid use drives the risk or is an epiphenomenon.

“We looked at this a lot of different ways: oral vs. inhaled and oral vs. inhaled and oral, and it did not make much difference. Generally speaking, the fungal cultures were more likely to be positive in patients on any kind of steroid,” she said.

Finally, with the exception of the slightly lower FEV₁ in patients with fungal infections, Dr. McShane said that there was no discernible relationship between the presence of a fungal infection and severity of bronchiectasis.

Because of this evidence, Dr. McShane concluded that the presence of fungus in the culture of patients with bronchiectasis does not appear to correlate with outcome or severity. Since completing the study, she said she is now using these data to reassure patients who have a positive fungal culture.

While these data do not affect the need to diagnosis fungal infections in patients who are not responding typically to therapy or otherwise have an abnormal course of bronchiectasis, raising suspicion that fungal infection is participating in the disease course, the data provide a basis for questioning whether routine cultures are needed, according to the discussion that followed Dr. McShane’s presentation.
 

Expert opinion

Several of the experts at the presentation provided an opinion. Some reported that they would continue to order fungal cultures on a routine basis, while others said that they now, on the basis of these data, plan to order cultures only at the first visit or when fungal infection is suspected of exacerbating the disease.

Of this latter group, which seemed to be dominant, Juzar Ali, MD, professor of medicine, Louisiana State University, New Orleans, said that he has not been ordering fungal cultures on every visit. Rather, he has been doing so selectively. Examples include those who are on steroids or those with an unusual pattern of exacerbations.

“The value of these data is that they have now provided some data to support this approach,” Dr. Ali said in an interview. Noting that this is the first large study to address this question in a systematic way, he considers this to be a valuable contribution for approaching a common clinical issue.

Dr. McShane reports no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Ali reports a financial relationship with Insmed.
 

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

TOPLINE:

Immunological and quantitative mRNA assays support a pathogenesis role for histamine-releasing factor (HRF), its interaction with HRF-reactive immunoglobulin E and rhinovirus (RV) in asthma severity and exacerbation.

METHODOLOGY:

• Clinical data for healthy controls (HCs) were compared with data from patients with asthma for three distinct cohorts recruited from programs located in Pittsburg, Boston, and Virginia.
• Cohorts differed primarily by total number of participants, median age, description of asthma severity, RV status, and longitudinal follow-up.
• Enzyme-linked immunoassay tests quantified for comparisons total IgE, IgGs, and IgG1 levels occurring in human sera samples and for HRF-reactive IgE, IgG1, and IgG2b in sera from mice inoculated with mouse .
• Anti-IgE stimulation experiments characterized bronchoalveolar lavage (BAL) cell supernatants for tryptase and PGD2 by ELISA and the mRNAs for tryptase and FCER1A
• Effect of inoculated RV infections and/or house dust mite allergen on stimulating HRF secretion from respiratory epithelial cells and in vitro–grown lung BEAS-2B cells was evaluated by Western blots.

TAKEAWAY:

• HRF-reactive IgE and total IgE levels in serum were significantly higher from patients with severe asthma than from HCs and showed a rising trend as severity increased.
• HRF-reactive IgGs and IgG1 levels in serum were lower in people with asthma than in HCs.
• People with asthma with high HRF-reactive IgE, compared with those with low levels, tended to release more tryptase prostaglandin D2 with anti-IgE stimulation of BAL cells.
• RV infection induced HFR secretions from both in vivo– and in vitro–grown respiratory epithelial cells and was associated with higher levels of HRF-IgE at the time of asthma exacerbations, compared with after resolution.

IN PRACTICE:

Inhibiting HRF and HRF-reactive IgE interactions “can be a preventative/therapeutic target” for severe and RV-induced exacerbated asthma conditions.

SOURCE:

The study led by Yu Kawakami, MD, of La Jolla Institute for Allergy & Immunology, California, and colleagues was published in the Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology

LIMITATIONS:

Small sample sizes, large median age differences between cohorts, and lack of data for other demographic traits and variant asthma phenotypes or endotypes in some cohorts are noted limitations that may affect result extrapolations and conclusions.

DISCLOSURES:

The authors report there are no conflicts of interest directly related to this study.

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

TOPLINE:

Immunological and quantitative mRNA assays support a pathogenesis role for histamine-releasing factor (HRF), its interaction with HRF-reactive immunoglobulin E and rhinovirus (RV) in asthma severity and exacerbation.

METHODOLOGY:

• Clinical data for healthy controls (HCs) were compared with data from patients with asthma for three distinct cohorts recruited from programs located in Pittsburg, Boston, and Virginia.
• Cohorts differed primarily by total number of participants, median age, description of asthma severity, RV status, and longitudinal follow-up.
• Enzyme-linked immunoassay tests quantified for comparisons total IgE, IgGs, and IgG1 levels occurring in human sera samples and for HRF-reactive IgE, IgG1, and IgG2b in sera from mice inoculated with mouse .
• Anti-IgE stimulation experiments characterized bronchoalveolar lavage (BAL) cell supernatants for tryptase and PGD2 by ELISA and the mRNAs for tryptase and FCER1A
• Effect of inoculated RV infections and/or house dust mite allergen on stimulating HRF secretion from respiratory epithelial cells and in vitro–grown lung BEAS-2B cells was evaluated by Western blots.

TAKEAWAY:

• HRF-reactive IgE and total IgE levels in serum were significantly higher from patients with severe asthma than from HCs and showed a rising trend as severity increased.
• HRF-reactive IgGs and IgG1 levels in serum were lower in people with asthma than in HCs.
• People with asthma with high HRF-reactive IgE, compared with those with low levels, tended to release more tryptase prostaglandin D2 with anti-IgE stimulation of BAL cells.
• RV infection induced HFR secretions from both in vivo– and in vitro–grown respiratory epithelial cells and was associated with higher levels of HRF-IgE at the time of asthma exacerbations, compared with after resolution.

IN PRACTICE:

Inhibiting HRF and HRF-reactive IgE interactions “can be a preventative/therapeutic target” for severe and RV-induced exacerbated asthma conditions.

SOURCE:

The study led by Yu Kawakami, MD, of La Jolla Institute for Allergy & Immunology, California, and colleagues was published in the Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology

LIMITATIONS:

Small sample sizes, large median age differences between cohorts, and lack of data for other demographic traits and variant asthma phenotypes or endotypes in some cohorts are noted limitations that may affect result extrapolations and conclusions.

DISCLOSURES:

The authors report there are no conflicts of interest directly related to this study.

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

TOPLINE:

Immunological and quantitative mRNA assays support a pathogenesis role for histamine-releasing factor (HRF), its interaction with HRF-reactive immunoglobulin E and rhinovirus (RV) in asthma severity and exacerbation.

METHODOLOGY:

• Clinical data for healthy controls (HCs) were compared with data from patients with asthma for three distinct cohorts recruited from programs located in Pittsburg, Boston, and Virginia.
• Cohorts differed primarily by total number of participants, median age, description of asthma severity, RV status, and longitudinal follow-up.
• Enzyme-linked immunoassay tests quantified for comparisons total IgE, IgGs, and IgG1 levels occurring in human sera samples and for HRF-reactive IgE, IgG1, and IgG2b in sera from mice inoculated with mouse .
• Anti-IgE stimulation experiments characterized bronchoalveolar lavage (BAL) cell supernatants for tryptase and PGD2 by ELISA and the mRNAs for tryptase and FCER1A
• Effect of inoculated RV infections and/or house dust mite allergen on stimulating HRF secretion from respiratory epithelial cells and in vitro–grown lung BEAS-2B cells was evaluated by Western blots.

TAKEAWAY:

• HRF-reactive IgE and total IgE levels in serum were significantly higher from patients with severe asthma than from HCs and showed a rising trend as severity increased.
• HRF-reactive IgGs and IgG1 levels in serum were lower in people with asthma than in HCs.
• People with asthma with high HRF-reactive IgE, compared with those with low levels, tended to release more tryptase prostaglandin D2 with anti-IgE stimulation of BAL cells.
• RV infection induced HFR secretions from both in vivo– and in vitro–grown respiratory epithelial cells and was associated with higher levels of HRF-IgE at the time of asthma exacerbations, compared with after resolution.

IN PRACTICE:

Inhibiting HRF and HRF-reactive IgE interactions “can be a preventative/therapeutic target” for severe and RV-induced exacerbated asthma conditions.

SOURCE:

The study led by Yu Kawakami, MD, of La Jolla Institute for Allergy & Immunology, California, and colleagues was published in the Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology

LIMITATIONS:

Small sample sizes, large median age differences between cohorts, and lack of data for other demographic traits and variant asthma phenotypes or endotypes in some cohorts are noted limitations that may affect result extrapolations and conclusions.

DISCLOSURES:

The authors report there are no conflicts of interest directly related to this study.

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

A rare and devastating pediatric skin condition – severe reactive infectious mucocutaneous eruption (RIME) – may now have an additional, previously undescribed trigger, according to a newly published case report.

Lead author Anna Yasmine Kirkorian, MD, chief of dermatology at Children’s National Hospital in Washington, said she wanted to get the word out in part because it seems like RIME is occurring more frequently. “I do feel like we’re seeing more cases and from a more diverse number of pathogens,” Dr. Kirkorian told this news organization.

There was a decrease in RIME during the early stages of the COVID-19 pandemic when people were isolating more, Dr. Kirkorian said. SARS-CoV-2 has been a trigger for some cases, but she did not find that remarkable, given that respiratory viruses are known RIME precursors. The question is why RIME is being triggered more frequently now that people have essentially gone back to their normal lives, she said.

Dr. Kirkorian and colleagues at Children’s National Hospital and George Washington University, Washington, wrote about a 5-year-old boy with norovirus-triggered RIME in a case report published in Pediatric Dermatology.

RIME – previously known as Mycoplasma pneumoniae–induced rash and mucositis (MIRM) – tends to arise after a viral infection, with upper respiratory viruses such as mycoplasma and Chlamydophila pneumoniae, influenza, and enterovirus among the common triggers. “We think this is actually your own immune system overreacting to a pathogen,” Dr. Kirkorian said in an interview, adding that the mechanism of RIME is still not understood.

While the norovirus discovery was a surprise, it shows that much is still unknown about this rare condition. “I don’t think we know what is usual and what is unusual,” Dr. Kirkorian said.

In this case, the boy swiftly declined, with progressive conjunctivitis, high fever, and rapidly developing mucositis. By the time the 5-year-old got to Children’s National Hospital, he had a spreading, painful rash, including tense vesicles and bullae involving more than 30% of his total body surface area, and areas of denuded skin on both cheeks and the back of his neck.

He had hemorrhagic mucositis of the lips, a large erosion at the urethral meatus, and hemorrhagic conjunctivitis of both eyes with thick yellow crusting on the eyelids.

The clinicians intubated the boy and admitted him to the intensive care unit. He was given a one-time injection of etanercept (25 mg) followed by 8 days of intravenous cyclosporine at a dose of 5 mg per kilogram, divided twice daily, which helped calm the mucositis and stopped the rash from progressing. There is not an accepted protocol or list of evidence-based therapeutics for RIME, Dr. Kirkorian noted.

The severe eye damage required amniotic membrane grafts. The patient was extubated after 9 days but remained in the hospital for a total of 26 days because he needed to receive nutritional support (the mucositis kept him from eating), and for pain control and weaning of sedation.

As the clinicians searched for a potential triggering virus, they came up empty. Results were negative for adenovirus, Epstein Barr virus, cytomegalovirus, herpes simplex, and varicella zoster. But they noted that the child’s household contacts had all been sick a week before with presumed viral gastroenteritis. They decided to run a stool screen and the polymerase chain reaction for norovirus was positive. The boy never had GI symptoms.

Dr. Kirkorian said in the interview that she has seen other RIME cases where a child did not have symptoms associated with the original virus but did have a sudden onset of mucositis.

Although the definition of RIME is evolving, it is defined in part by mucositis in at least two of three areas: the mouth, eyes, and genitals. “Once you have the inflammation of the mucous membranes you should be on alert to think about more serious conditions,” like RIME, said Dr. Kirkorian. “Why does it manifest with the mucositis? I don’t think we know that,” she added.

RIME recurrence has also been vexing for patients, families and clinicians. In May, at the annual Atlantic Dermatology Conference, held in Baltimore, Dr. Kirkorian also discussed an 11-year-old patient who had RIME after SARS-CoV-2 infection early in the pandemic, resulting in a 22-day hospitalization and placement of a peripherally inserted central catheter and a feeding tube. He improved with cyclosporine and was discharged on systemic tacrolimus.

He was fine for several years, until another COVID infection. He again responded to medication. But not long after, an undetermined viral infection triggered another episode of RIME.

Dr. Kirkorian said there is no way to predict recurrence – making a devastating condition all the more worrisome. “Knowing that it might come back and it’s totally haphazard as to what might make it come back – that is very stressful for families,” she said in the interview.

“Some of the most perplexing patients with RIME are those with recurrent disease,” wrote Warren R. Heymann, MD, professor of dermatology and pediatrics at Rowan University, Camden, N.J., wrote in an online column on RIME in the American Academy of Dermatology’s “Dermatology World Insights and Inquiries”.

“Recurrent RIME is of particular interest, given that we could potentially intervene and prevent additional disease,” wrote Camille Introcaso, MD, associate professor of medicine at Rowan University, in response to Dr. Heymann’s remarks. “Although multiple possible mechanisms for the clinical findings of RIME have been proposed, including molecular mimicry between infectious agent proteins and keratinocyte antigens, immune complex deposition, and combinations of medication and infection, the pathophysiology is unknown,” she added.

In the interview, Dr. Kirkorian said that she and colleagues in the Pediatric Dermatology Research Alliance (PeDRA) are trying to assemble more multicenter trials to assess the underlying pathology of RIME, effectiveness of various treatments, and to “find some predictive factors.” Given that RIME is an acute-onset emergency, it is not easy to conduct randomized controlled trials, she added.

Dr. Kirkorian, Dr. Heymann, and Dr. Introcaso report no relevant financial relationships.

A rare and devastating pediatric skin condition – severe reactive infectious mucocutaneous eruption (RIME) – may now have an additional, previously undescribed trigger, according to a newly published case report.

Lead author Anna Yasmine Kirkorian, MD, chief of dermatology at Children’s National Hospital in Washington, said she wanted to get the word out in part because it seems like RIME is occurring more frequently. “I do feel like we’re seeing more cases and from a more diverse number of pathogens,” Dr. Kirkorian told this news organization.

There was a decrease in RIME during the early stages of the COVID-19 pandemic when people were isolating more, Dr. Kirkorian said. SARS-CoV-2 has been a trigger for some cases, but she did not find that remarkable, given that respiratory viruses are known RIME precursors. The question is why RIME is being triggered more frequently now that people have essentially gone back to their normal lives, she said.

Dr. Kirkorian and colleagues at Children’s National Hospital and George Washington University, Washington, wrote about a 5-year-old boy with norovirus-triggered RIME in a case report published in Pediatric Dermatology.

RIME – previously known as Mycoplasma pneumoniae–induced rash and mucositis (MIRM) – tends to arise after a viral infection, with upper respiratory viruses such as mycoplasma and Chlamydophila pneumoniae, influenza, and enterovirus among the common triggers. “We think this is actually your own immune system overreacting to a pathogen,” Dr. Kirkorian said in an interview, adding that the mechanism of RIME is still not understood.

While the norovirus discovery was a surprise, it shows that much is still unknown about this rare condition. “I don’t think we know what is usual and what is unusual,” Dr. Kirkorian said.

In this case, the boy swiftly declined, with progressive conjunctivitis, high fever, and rapidly developing mucositis. By the time the 5-year-old got to Children’s National Hospital, he had a spreading, painful rash, including tense vesicles and bullae involving more than 30% of his total body surface area, and areas of denuded skin on both cheeks and the back of his neck.

He had hemorrhagic mucositis of the lips, a large erosion at the urethral meatus, and hemorrhagic conjunctivitis of both eyes with thick yellow crusting on the eyelids.

The clinicians intubated the boy and admitted him to the intensive care unit. He was given a one-time injection of etanercept (25 mg) followed by 8 days of intravenous cyclosporine at a dose of 5 mg per kilogram, divided twice daily, which helped calm the mucositis and stopped the rash from progressing. There is not an accepted protocol or list of evidence-based therapeutics for RIME, Dr. Kirkorian noted.

The severe eye damage required amniotic membrane grafts. The patient was extubated after 9 days but remained in the hospital for a total of 26 days because he needed to receive nutritional support (the mucositis kept him from eating), and for pain control and weaning of sedation.

As the clinicians searched for a potential triggering virus, they came up empty. Results were negative for adenovirus, Epstein Barr virus, cytomegalovirus, herpes simplex, and varicella zoster. But they noted that the child’s household contacts had all been sick a week before with presumed viral gastroenteritis. They decided to run a stool screen and the polymerase chain reaction for norovirus was positive. The boy never had GI symptoms.

Dr. Kirkorian said in the interview that she has seen other RIME cases where a child did not have symptoms associated with the original virus but did have a sudden onset of mucositis.

Although the definition of RIME is evolving, it is defined in part by mucositis in at least two of three areas: the mouth, eyes, and genitals. “Once you have the inflammation of the mucous membranes you should be on alert to think about more serious conditions,” like RIME, said Dr. Kirkorian. “Why does it manifest with the mucositis? I don’t think we know that,” she added.

RIME recurrence has also been vexing for patients, families and clinicians. In May, at the annual Atlantic Dermatology Conference, held in Baltimore, Dr. Kirkorian also discussed an 11-year-old patient who had RIME after SARS-CoV-2 infection early in the pandemic, resulting in a 22-day hospitalization and placement of a peripherally inserted central catheter and a feeding tube. He improved with cyclosporine and was discharged on systemic tacrolimus.

He was fine for several years, until another COVID infection. He again responded to medication. But not long after, an undetermined viral infection triggered another episode of RIME.

Dr. Kirkorian said there is no way to predict recurrence – making a devastating condition all the more worrisome. “Knowing that it might come back and it’s totally haphazard as to what might make it come back – that is very stressful for families,” she said in the interview.

“Some of the most perplexing patients with RIME are those with recurrent disease,” wrote Warren R. Heymann, MD, professor of dermatology and pediatrics at Rowan University, Camden, N.J., wrote in an online column on RIME in the American Academy of Dermatology’s “Dermatology World Insights and Inquiries”.

“Recurrent RIME is of particular interest, given that we could potentially intervene and prevent additional disease,” wrote Camille Introcaso, MD, associate professor of medicine at Rowan University, in response to Dr. Heymann’s remarks. “Although multiple possible mechanisms for the clinical findings of RIME have been proposed, including molecular mimicry between infectious agent proteins and keratinocyte antigens, immune complex deposition, and combinations of medication and infection, the pathophysiology is unknown,” she added.

In the interview, Dr. Kirkorian said that she and colleagues in the Pediatric Dermatology Research Alliance (PeDRA) are trying to assemble more multicenter trials to assess the underlying pathology of RIME, effectiveness of various treatments, and to “find some predictive factors.” Given that RIME is an acute-onset emergency, it is not easy to conduct randomized controlled trials, she added.

Dr. Kirkorian, Dr. Heymann, and Dr. Introcaso report no relevant financial relationships.

A rare and devastating pediatric skin condition – severe reactive infectious mucocutaneous eruption (RIME) – may now have an additional, previously undescribed trigger, according to a newly published case report.

Lead author Anna Yasmine Kirkorian, MD, chief of dermatology at Children’s National Hospital in Washington, said she wanted to get the word out in part because it seems like RIME is occurring more frequently. “I do feel like we’re seeing more cases and from a more diverse number of pathogens,” Dr. Kirkorian told this news organization.

There was a decrease in RIME during the early stages of the COVID-19 pandemic when people were isolating more, Dr. Kirkorian said. SARS-CoV-2 has been a trigger for some cases, but she did not find that remarkable, given that respiratory viruses are known RIME precursors. The question is why RIME is being triggered more frequently now that people have essentially gone back to their normal lives, she said.

Dr. Kirkorian and colleagues at Children’s National Hospital and George Washington University, Washington, wrote about a 5-year-old boy with norovirus-triggered RIME in a case report published in Pediatric Dermatology.

RIME – previously known as Mycoplasma pneumoniae–induced rash and mucositis (MIRM) – tends to arise after a viral infection, with upper respiratory viruses such as mycoplasma and Chlamydophila pneumoniae, influenza, and enterovirus among the common triggers. “We think this is actually your own immune system overreacting to a pathogen,” Dr. Kirkorian said in an interview, adding that the mechanism of RIME is still not understood.

While the norovirus discovery was a surprise, it shows that much is still unknown about this rare condition. “I don’t think we know what is usual and what is unusual,” Dr. Kirkorian said.

In this case, the boy swiftly declined, with progressive conjunctivitis, high fever, and rapidly developing mucositis. By the time the 5-year-old got to Children’s National Hospital, he had a spreading, painful rash, including tense vesicles and bullae involving more than 30% of his total body surface area, and areas of denuded skin on both cheeks and the back of his neck.

He had hemorrhagic mucositis of the lips, a large erosion at the urethral meatus, and hemorrhagic conjunctivitis of both eyes with thick yellow crusting on the eyelids.

The clinicians intubated the boy and admitted him to the intensive care unit. He was given a one-time injection of etanercept (25 mg) followed by 8 days of intravenous cyclosporine at a dose of 5 mg per kilogram, divided twice daily, which helped calm the mucositis and stopped the rash from progressing. There is not an accepted protocol or list of evidence-based therapeutics for RIME, Dr. Kirkorian noted.

The severe eye damage required amniotic membrane grafts. The patient was extubated after 9 days but remained in the hospital for a total of 26 days because he needed to receive nutritional support (the mucositis kept him from eating), and for pain control and weaning of sedation.

As the clinicians searched for a potential triggering virus, they came up empty. Results were negative for adenovirus, Epstein Barr virus, cytomegalovirus, herpes simplex, and varicella zoster. But they noted that the child’s household contacts had all been sick a week before with presumed viral gastroenteritis. They decided to run a stool screen and the polymerase chain reaction for norovirus was positive. The boy never had GI symptoms.

Dr. Kirkorian said in the interview that she has seen other RIME cases where a child did not have symptoms associated with the original virus but did have a sudden onset of mucositis.

Although the definition of RIME is evolving, it is defined in part by mucositis in at least two of three areas: the mouth, eyes, and genitals. “Once you have the inflammation of the mucous membranes you should be on alert to think about more serious conditions,” like RIME, said Dr. Kirkorian. “Why does it manifest with the mucositis? I don’t think we know that,” she added.

RIME recurrence has also been vexing for patients, families and clinicians. In May, at the annual Atlantic Dermatology Conference, held in Baltimore, Dr. Kirkorian also discussed an 11-year-old patient who had RIME after SARS-CoV-2 infection early in the pandemic, resulting in a 22-day hospitalization and placement of a peripherally inserted central catheter and a feeding tube. He improved with cyclosporine and was discharged on systemic tacrolimus.

He was fine for several years, until another COVID infection. He again responded to medication. But not long after, an undetermined viral infection triggered another episode of RIME.

Dr. Kirkorian said there is no way to predict recurrence – making a devastating condition all the more worrisome. “Knowing that it might come back and it’s totally haphazard as to what might make it come back – that is very stressful for families,” she said in the interview.

“Some of the most perplexing patients with RIME are those with recurrent disease,” wrote Warren R. Heymann, MD, professor of dermatology and pediatrics at Rowan University, Camden, N.J., wrote in an online column on RIME in the American Academy of Dermatology’s “Dermatology World Insights and Inquiries”.

“Recurrent RIME is of particular interest, given that we could potentially intervene and prevent additional disease,” wrote Camille Introcaso, MD, associate professor of medicine at Rowan University, in response to Dr. Heymann’s remarks. “Although multiple possible mechanisms for the clinical findings of RIME have been proposed, including molecular mimicry between infectious agent proteins and keratinocyte antigens, immune complex deposition, and combinations of medication and infection, the pathophysiology is unknown,” she added.

In the interview, Dr. Kirkorian said that she and colleagues in the Pediatric Dermatology Research Alliance (PeDRA) are trying to assemble more multicenter trials to assess the underlying pathology of RIME, effectiveness of various treatments, and to “find some predictive factors.” Given that RIME is an acute-onset emergency, it is not easy to conduct randomized controlled trials, she added.

Dr. Kirkorian, Dr. Heymann, and Dr. Introcaso report no relevant financial relationships.