Infectious Diseases

TAMPA – Screening and recommending preexposure prophylaxis (PrEP) to people at risk for HIV exposure could be more successful if education and access to the preventive protocol is offered during testing for sexually transmitted infections (STIs).

It comes down to numbers, said Gabriela Brito, MSN, RN, ACRN, a researcher at nonprofit CAN Community Health, headquartered in Sarasota, Fla. More people seek screening for STIs compared with those who actively seek PrEP for HIV prevention.

“One out of five individuals got tested and were diagnosed with an STI in 2021, so we can capture a huge amount of people just from STI testing and direct them to PrEP programs,” Ms. Brito said in an interview during a poster presentation here at the annual meeting of the Association of Nurses in AIDS Care (ANAC). “So our initiative is pretty much about capturing people” at the point of care.

Ms. Brito reported that as of September 30, 2022, 2,174 patients were receiving PrEP services through one of 40 CAN Community Health clinics. Nearly one-third, 32%, were initially seen for free STI screening.
 

Striving for better adherence

In some cases, the issue is not starting people on PrEP, it’s keeping them on the regimen over time. The study revealed that 61% of the people were still taking the medication at 6 months.

This figure might have been even lower without CAN Community Health PrEP navigators. Of the 2,174 patients, 63% work with a “PrEP navigator.” These navigators help people access the medication and check in with them on a regular basis to address any questions or reasons behind a lack of adherence.

“If we’re seeing someone’s missing their appointments, our PrEP navigator will start reaching out to them to see what’s going on,” study coauthor Cheryl Netherly, BSW, LPN, ACLPN, said in an interview.

“It could be they moved to a different area or entered a mutually monogamous relationship. They don’t realize they can continue through telehealth if they need to, because sometimes it is hard to get off of work to go [see] the doctor,” Ms. Netherly added. “So we find ways to break those barriers.”
 

More education needed

Greater awareness around PrEP is another issue. “I think educating people and educating professionals, it’s really crucial. It can also help diminish the stigma around PrEP,” Ms. Brito said.

An analogy is when birth control pills first came out, and some providers would not prescribe them because they were concerned women would be promiscuous, Ms. Netherly said.

“When PrEP first came out, there was a lot of that same mindset,” Ms. Netherly added. “But PrEP does not change your behavior. It’s just adding a layer of protection to the behavior, so you can understand how to keep yourself healthy.”
 

A primary care tenet

The strategy of identifying potential PrEP candidates during STI screening is “extremely important,” Myra L. Rutland, CPN, DNP, FNP-BC, a family nurse practitioner and director for infectious disease and community outreach at Spectrum Community Health Center in Philadelphia, said when asked to comment. Ms. Rutland was not involved in the CAN Community Health study.

“This is primary care at its most generic level. Primary care means that you intervene before there’s a problem,” Ms. Rutland said.

“We have great medications. Now if patients are adherent to the medication, they are not just a little bit effective – they are between 95% and 99% effective at preventing HIV,” she added.

The goal is to increase awareness that “if you contract any type of sexual transmitted infection ... that means that perhaps you may have come in contact with HIV,” Ms. Rutland said. “So why not offer PrEP? I do that with all of my patients.”

The study was independently supported. Ms. Brito and Ms. Rutland report no relevant financial relationships.

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

TAMPA – Screening and recommending preexposure prophylaxis (PrEP) to people at risk for HIV exposure could be more successful if education and access to the preventive protocol is offered during testing for sexually transmitted infections (STIs).

It comes down to numbers, said Gabriela Brito, MSN, RN, ACRN, a researcher at nonprofit CAN Community Health, headquartered in Sarasota, Fla. More people seek screening for STIs compared with those who actively seek PrEP for HIV prevention.

“One out of five individuals got tested and were diagnosed with an STI in 2021, so we can capture a huge amount of people just from STI testing and direct them to PrEP programs,” Ms. Brito said in an interview during a poster presentation here at the annual meeting of the Association of Nurses in AIDS Care (ANAC). “So our initiative is pretty much about capturing people” at the point of care.

Ms. Brito reported that as of September 30, 2022, 2,174 patients were receiving PrEP services through one of 40 CAN Community Health clinics. Nearly one-third, 32%, were initially seen for free STI screening.
 

Striving for better adherence

In some cases, the issue is not starting people on PrEP, it’s keeping them on the regimen over time. The study revealed that 61% of the people were still taking the medication at 6 months.

This figure might have been even lower without CAN Community Health PrEP navigators. Of the 2,174 patients, 63% work with a “PrEP navigator.” These navigators help people access the medication and check in with them on a regular basis to address any questions or reasons behind a lack of adherence.

“If we’re seeing someone’s missing their appointments, our PrEP navigator will start reaching out to them to see what’s going on,” study coauthor Cheryl Netherly, BSW, LPN, ACLPN, said in an interview.

“It could be they moved to a different area or entered a mutually monogamous relationship. They don’t realize they can continue through telehealth if they need to, because sometimes it is hard to get off of work to go [see] the doctor,” Ms. Netherly added. “So we find ways to break those barriers.”
 

More education needed

Greater awareness around PrEP is another issue. “I think educating people and educating professionals, it’s really crucial. It can also help diminish the stigma around PrEP,” Ms. Brito said.

An analogy is when birth control pills first came out, and some providers would not prescribe them because they were concerned women would be promiscuous, Ms. Netherly said.

“When PrEP first came out, there was a lot of that same mindset,” Ms. Netherly added. “But PrEP does not change your behavior. It’s just adding a layer of protection to the behavior, so you can understand how to keep yourself healthy.”
 

A primary care tenet

The strategy of identifying potential PrEP candidates during STI screening is “extremely important,” Myra L. Rutland, CPN, DNP, FNP-BC, a family nurse practitioner and director for infectious disease and community outreach at Spectrum Community Health Center in Philadelphia, said when asked to comment. Ms. Rutland was not involved in the CAN Community Health study.

“This is primary care at its most generic level. Primary care means that you intervene before there’s a problem,” Ms. Rutland said.

“We have great medications. Now if patients are adherent to the medication, they are not just a little bit effective – they are between 95% and 99% effective at preventing HIV,” she added.

The goal is to increase awareness that “if you contract any type of sexual transmitted infection ... that means that perhaps you may have come in contact with HIV,” Ms. Rutland said. “So why not offer PrEP? I do that with all of my patients.”

The study was independently supported. Ms. Brito and Ms. Rutland report no relevant financial relationships.

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

TAMPA – Screening and recommending preexposure prophylaxis (PrEP) to people at risk for HIV exposure could be more successful if education and access to the preventive protocol is offered during testing for sexually transmitted infections (STIs).

It comes down to numbers, said Gabriela Brito, MSN, RN, ACRN, a researcher at nonprofit CAN Community Health, headquartered in Sarasota, Fla. More people seek screening for STIs compared with those who actively seek PrEP for HIV prevention.

“One out of five individuals got tested and were diagnosed with an STI in 2021, so we can capture a huge amount of people just from STI testing and direct them to PrEP programs,” Ms. Brito said in an interview during a poster presentation here at the annual meeting of the Association of Nurses in AIDS Care (ANAC). “So our initiative is pretty much about capturing people” at the point of care.

Ms. Brito reported that as of September 30, 2022, 2,174 patients were receiving PrEP services through one of 40 CAN Community Health clinics. Nearly one-third, 32%, were initially seen for free STI screening.
 

Striving for better adherence

In some cases, the issue is not starting people on PrEP, it’s keeping them on the regimen over time. The study revealed that 61% of the people were still taking the medication at 6 months.

This figure might have been even lower without CAN Community Health PrEP navigators. Of the 2,174 patients, 63% work with a “PrEP navigator.” These navigators help people access the medication and check in with them on a regular basis to address any questions or reasons behind a lack of adherence.

“If we’re seeing someone’s missing their appointments, our PrEP navigator will start reaching out to them to see what’s going on,” study coauthor Cheryl Netherly, BSW, LPN, ACLPN, said in an interview.

“It could be they moved to a different area or entered a mutually monogamous relationship. They don’t realize they can continue through telehealth if they need to, because sometimes it is hard to get off of work to go [see] the doctor,” Ms. Netherly added. “So we find ways to break those barriers.”
 

More education needed

Greater awareness around PrEP is another issue. “I think educating people and educating professionals, it’s really crucial. It can also help diminish the stigma around PrEP,” Ms. Brito said.

An analogy is when birth control pills first came out, and some providers would not prescribe them because they were concerned women would be promiscuous, Ms. Netherly said.

“When PrEP first came out, there was a lot of that same mindset,” Ms. Netherly added. “But PrEP does not change your behavior. It’s just adding a layer of protection to the behavior, so you can understand how to keep yourself healthy.”
 

A primary care tenet

The strategy of identifying potential PrEP candidates during STI screening is “extremely important,” Myra L. Rutland, CPN, DNP, FNP-BC, a family nurse practitioner and director for infectious disease and community outreach at Spectrum Community Health Center in Philadelphia, said when asked to comment. Ms. Rutland was not involved in the CAN Community Health study.

“This is primary care at its most generic level. Primary care means that you intervene before there’s a problem,” Ms. Rutland said.

“We have great medications. Now if patients are adherent to the medication, they are not just a little bit effective – they are between 95% and 99% effective at preventing HIV,” she added.

The goal is to increase awareness that “if you contract any type of sexual transmitted infection ... that means that perhaps you may have come in contact with HIV,” Ms. Rutland said. “So why not offer PrEP? I do that with all of my patients.”

The study was independently supported. Ms. Brito and Ms. Rutland report no relevant financial relationships.

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

For the first time, the majority of people dying from COVID-19 in America have been vaccinated.

“We can no longer say this is a pandemic of the unvaccinated,” Kaiser Family Foundation Vice President Cynthia Cox, who conducted the analysis, told The Washington Post.

People who had been vaccinated or boosted made up 58% of COVID-19 deaths in August, the analysis showed. The rate has been on the rise: 23% of coronavirus deaths were among vaccinated people in September 2021, and the vaccinated made up 42% of deaths in January and February 2022, the Post reported.

Research continues to show that people who are vaccinated or boosted have a lower risk of death. The rise in deaths among the vaccinated is the result of three factors, Ms. Cox said.

• A large majority of people in the United States have been vaccinated (267 million people, the  said).
• People who are at the greatest risk of dying from COVID-19 are more likely to be vaccinated and boosted, such as the elderly.
• Vaccines lose their effectiveness over time; the virus changes to avoid vaccines; and people need to choose to get boosters to continue to be protected.

The case for the effectiveness of vaccines and boosters versus skipping the shots remains strong. People age 6 months and older who are unvaccinated are six times more likely to die of COVID-19, compared to those who got the primary series of shots, the Post reported. Survival rates were even better with additional booster shots, particularly among older people.

“I feel very confident that if people continue to get vaccinated at good numbers, if people get boosted, we can absolutely have a very safe and healthy holiday season,” Ashish Jha, White House coronavirus czar, said on Nov. 22.

The number of Americans who have gotten the most recent booster has been increasing ahead of the holidays. CDC data show that 12% of the U.S. population age 5 and older has received a booster.

A new study by a team of researchers from Harvard University and Yale University estimates that 94% of the U.S. population has been infected with COVID-19 at least once, leaving just 1 in 20 people who have never had the virus.

“Despite these high exposure numbers, there is still substantial population susceptibility to infection with an Omicron variant,” the authors wrote.

They said that if all states achieved the vaccination levels of Vermont, where 55% of people had at least one booster and 22% got a second one, there would be “an appreciable improvement in population immunity, with greater relative impact for protection against infection versus severe disease. This additional protection results from both the recovery of immunity lost due to waning and the increased effectiveness of the bivalent booster against Omicron infections.”

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

For the first time, the majority of people dying from COVID-19 in America have been vaccinated.

“We can no longer say this is a pandemic of the unvaccinated,” Kaiser Family Foundation Vice President Cynthia Cox, who conducted the analysis, told The Washington Post.

People who had been vaccinated or boosted made up 58% of COVID-19 deaths in August, the analysis showed. The rate has been on the rise: 23% of coronavirus deaths were among vaccinated people in September 2021, and the vaccinated made up 42% of deaths in January and February 2022, the Post reported.

Research continues to show that people who are vaccinated or boosted have a lower risk of death. The rise in deaths among the vaccinated is the result of three factors, Ms. Cox said.

• A large majority of people in the United States have been vaccinated (267 million people, the  said).
• People who are at the greatest risk of dying from COVID-19 are more likely to be vaccinated and boosted, such as the elderly.
• Vaccines lose their effectiveness over time; the virus changes to avoid vaccines; and people need to choose to get boosters to continue to be protected.

The case for the effectiveness of vaccines and boosters versus skipping the shots remains strong. People age 6 months and older who are unvaccinated are six times more likely to die of COVID-19, compared to those who got the primary series of shots, the Post reported. Survival rates were even better with additional booster shots, particularly among older people.

“I feel very confident that if people continue to get vaccinated at good numbers, if people get boosted, we can absolutely have a very safe and healthy holiday season,” Ashish Jha, White House coronavirus czar, said on Nov. 22.

The number of Americans who have gotten the most recent booster has been increasing ahead of the holidays. CDC data show that 12% of the U.S. population age 5 and older has received a booster.

A new study by a team of researchers from Harvard University and Yale University estimates that 94% of the U.S. population has been infected with COVID-19 at least once, leaving just 1 in 20 people who have never had the virus.

“Despite these high exposure numbers, there is still substantial population susceptibility to infection with an Omicron variant,” the authors wrote.

They said that if all states achieved the vaccination levels of Vermont, where 55% of people had at least one booster and 22% got a second one, there would be “an appreciable improvement in population immunity, with greater relative impact for protection against infection versus severe disease. This additional protection results from both the recovery of immunity lost due to waning and the increased effectiveness of the bivalent booster against Omicron infections.”

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

For the first time, the majority of people dying from COVID-19 in America have been vaccinated.

“We can no longer say this is a pandemic of the unvaccinated,” Kaiser Family Foundation Vice President Cynthia Cox, who conducted the analysis, told The Washington Post.

People who had been vaccinated or boosted made up 58% of COVID-19 deaths in August, the analysis showed. The rate has been on the rise: 23% of coronavirus deaths were among vaccinated people in September 2021, and the vaccinated made up 42% of deaths in January and February 2022, the Post reported.

Research continues to show that people who are vaccinated or boosted have a lower risk of death. The rise in deaths among the vaccinated is the result of three factors, Ms. Cox said.

• A large majority of people in the United States have been vaccinated (267 million people, the  said).
• People who are at the greatest risk of dying from COVID-19 are more likely to be vaccinated and boosted, such as the elderly.
• Vaccines lose their effectiveness over time; the virus changes to avoid vaccines; and people need to choose to get boosters to continue to be protected.

The case for the effectiveness of vaccines and boosters versus skipping the shots remains strong. People age 6 months and older who are unvaccinated are six times more likely to die of COVID-19, compared to those who got the primary series of shots, the Post reported. Survival rates were even better with additional booster shots, particularly among older people.

“I feel very confident that if people continue to get vaccinated at good numbers, if people get boosted, we can absolutely have a very safe and healthy holiday season,” Ashish Jha, White House coronavirus czar, said on Nov. 22.

The number of Americans who have gotten the most recent booster has been increasing ahead of the holidays. CDC data show that 12% of the U.S. population age 5 and older has received a booster.

A new study by a team of researchers from Harvard University and Yale University estimates that 94% of the U.S. population has been infected with COVID-19 at least once, leaving just 1 in 20 people who have never had the virus.

“Despite these high exposure numbers, there is still substantial population susceptibility to infection with an Omicron variant,” the authors wrote.

They said that if all states achieved the vaccination levels of Vermont, where 55% of people had at least one booster and 22% got a second one, there would be “an appreciable improvement in population immunity, with greater relative impact for protection against infection versus severe disease. This additional protection results from both the recovery of immunity lost due to waning and the increased effectiveness of the bivalent booster against Omicron infections.”

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

NASHVILLE, TENN. – Supported by several cases series, a large cohort analysis has associated exposure to probiotics in the intensive care unit with a measurable increase in bacteremia and bacteremia-related mortality due to organisms in these preparations, according to new findings presented at the annual meeting of the American College of Chest Physicians (CHEST).

According to data presented by Scott Mayer, MD, chief resident at HealthONE Denver, which is part of the HCA Healthcare chain of hospitals, the risk is increased by any probiotic exposure. However, the risk is particularly acute for powdered formulations, presumably because powder more easily disseminates to contaminate central venous catheters.

“We think that probiotics should be eliminated entirely from the ICU. If not, we encourage eliminating the powder formulations,” said Dr. Mayer, who led the study.

The data linking probiotics to ICU bacteremia were drawn from 23,533 ICU admissions over a 5-year period in the HCA hospital database. Bacteremia proven to be probiotic-related was uncommon (0.37%), but the consequences were serious.

For those with probiotic-related bacteremia, the mortality rate was 25.6% or essentially twofold greater than the 13.5% mortality rate among those without probiotic bacteremia. An odds ratio drawn from a regression analysis confirmed a significant difference (OR, 2.23; 95% confidence interval, 1.30-3.71; P < .01).

“The absolute risk of mortality is modest but not insignificant,” said Dr. Mayer. This suggests one probiotic-related mortality for about every 200 patients taking a probiotic in the ICU.

These deaths occur without any clear compensatory benefit from taking probiotics, according to Dr. Mayer. There is a long list of potential benefits from probiotics that might be relevant to patients in the ICU, particularly prophylaxis for Clostridioides difficile infection, but also including a variety of gastrointestinal disorders, such as irritable bowel syndrome; however, none of these are firmly established in general, and particularly for patients in the ICU.

“The American College of Gastroenterology currently recommends against probiotics for the prevention of C. diff.,” Dr. Mayer said. Although the American Gastroenterological Association has issued a “conditional recommendation” for prevention of C. diff. infection with probiotics, Dr. Mayer pointed out this is qualified by a “low quality of evidence” and it is not specific to the ICU setting.

“The evidence for benefit is weak or nonexistent, but the risks are real,” Dr. Mayer said.

To confirm that probiotic-associated ICU bacteremias in the HCA hospital database were, in fact, related to probiotics being taken by patients at time of admission, Dr. Mayer evaluated the record of each of the 86 patients with probiotic bacteremia–associated mortality.

“I identified the organism that grew from the blood cultures to confirm that it was contained in the probiotic the patient was taking,” explained Dr. Mayer, who said this information was available in the electronic medical records.

The risk of probiotic-associated bacteremia in ICU patients was consistent with a series of case series that prompted the study. Dr. Mayer explained that he became interested when he encountered patients on his ICU rounds who were taking probiotics. He knew very little about these agents and explored the medical literature to see what evidence was available.

“I found several case reports of ICU patients with probiotic-associated infections, several of which were suspected of being associated with contamination of the central lines,” Dr. Mayer said. In one case, the patient was not taking a probiotic, but a patient in an adjacent bed was receiving a powdered probiotic that was implicated. This prompted suspicion that the cause was central-line contamination.

This was evaluated in the HCA ICU database and also found to be a significant risk. Among the 67 patients in whom a capsule or tablet was used, the rate of probiotic-associated bacteremia was 0.33%. For those in which the probiotic was a powdered formulation, the rate was 0.76%, a significant difference (P < .01).

Dr. Mayer acknowledged that these data do not rule out all potential benefits from probiotics in the ICU. He believes an obstacle to proving benefit has been the heterogeneity of available products, which are likely to be relevant to any therapeutic role, including prevention of C. diff. infection.

“There are now a large number of products available, and they contain a large variety of strains of organisms, so this has been a difficult area to study,” he said. However, he maintains it is prudent at this point to avoid probiotics in the ICU because the risks are not confined to the patient making this choice.

“My concern is not just the lack of evidence of benefit relative to the risk for the patient but the potential for probiotics in the ICU to place other patients at risk,” Dr. Mayer said.

Others have also noted the potential benefits of probiotics in the ICU, but the promise remains elusive. In a 2018 review article published in the Journal of Emergency and Critical Care Medicine, the authors evaluated a series of potential applications of probiotics in critically ill patients. These included treatment of ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP), catheter-associated urinary tract infections (CAUTI), and surgical-site infections (SSI). For each, the data were negative or inconclusive.

Over the 4 years that have passed since the review was published, several trials have further explored the potential benefits of probiotics in the ICU but none have changed this basic conclusion. For example, a 2021 multinational trial, published in The Lancet, randomized more than 2,600 patients to probiotics or placebo and showed no effect on VAP incidence (21.9% vs. 21.3%).

The lead author of the 2018 review, Heather A. Vitko, PhD, an associate professor in the department of acute and tertiary care, University of Pittsburgh School of Nursing, also emphasized that the potential for benefit cannot be considered without the potential for risk. She, like Dr. Mayer, cited the case studies implicating probiotics in systemic infections.

For administration, probiotic capsules or sachets “often need to be opened for administration through a feeding tube,” she noted. The risk of contamination comes from both the air and contaminated hands, the latter of which “can cause a translocation to a central line catheter where the microbes have direct entry into the systemic circulation.”

She did not call for a ban of probiotics in the ICU, but she did recommend “a precautionary approach,” encouraging clinicians to “distinguish between reality [of what has been proven] and what is presented in the marketing of antibiotics.”

Dr. Mayer and Dr. Vitko have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

NASHVILLE, TENN. – Supported by several cases series, a large cohort analysis has associated exposure to probiotics in the intensive care unit with a measurable increase in bacteremia and bacteremia-related mortality due to organisms in these preparations, according to new findings presented at the annual meeting of the American College of Chest Physicians (CHEST).

According to data presented by Scott Mayer, MD, chief resident at HealthONE Denver, which is part of the HCA Healthcare chain of hospitals, the risk is increased by any probiotic exposure. However, the risk is particularly acute for powdered formulations, presumably because powder more easily disseminates to contaminate central venous catheters.

“We think that probiotics should be eliminated entirely from the ICU. If not, we encourage eliminating the powder formulations,” said Dr. Mayer, who led the study.

The data linking probiotics to ICU bacteremia were drawn from 23,533 ICU admissions over a 5-year period in the HCA hospital database. Bacteremia proven to be probiotic-related was uncommon (0.37%), but the consequences were serious.

For those with probiotic-related bacteremia, the mortality rate was 25.6% or essentially twofold greater than the 13.5% mortality rate among those without probiotic bacteremia. An odds ratio drawn from a regression analysis confirmed a significant difference (OR, 2.23; 95% confidence interval, 1.30-3.71; P < .01).

“The absolute risk of mortality is modest but not insignificant,” said Dr. Mayer. This suggests one probiotic-related mortality for about every 200 patients taking a probiotic in the ICU.

These deaths occur without any clear compensatory benefit from taking probiotics, according to Dr. Mayer. There is a long list of potential benefits from probiotics that might be relevant to patients in the ICU, particularly prophylaxis for Clostridioides difficile infection, but also including a variety of gastrointestinal disorders, such as irritable bowel syndrome; however, none of these are firmly established in general, and particularly for patients in the ICU.

“The American College of Gastroenterology currently recommends against probiotics for the prevention of C. diff.,” Dr. Mayer said. Although the American Gastroenterological Association has issued a “conditional recommendation” for prevention of C. diff. infection with probiotics, Dr. Mayer pointed out this is qualified by a “low quality of evidence” and it is not specific to the ICU setting.

“The evidence for benefit is weak or nonexistent, but the risks are real,” Dr. Mayer said.

To confirm that probiotic-associated ICU bacteremias in the HCA hospital database were, in fact, related to probiotics being taken by patients at time of admission, Dr. Mayer evaluated the record of each of the 86 patients with probiotic bacteremia–associated mortality.

“I identified the organism that grew from the blood cultures to confirm that it was contained in the probiotic the patient was taking,” explained Dr. Mayer, who said this information was available in the electronic medical records.

The risk of probiotic-associated bacteremia in ICU patients was consistent with a series of case series that prompted the study. Dr. Mayer explained that he became interested when he encountered patients on his ICU rounds who were taking probiotics. He knew very little about these agents and explored the medical literature to see what evidence was available.

“I found several case reports of ICU patients with probiotic-associated infections, several of which were suspected of being associated with contamination of the central lines,” Dr. Mayer said. In one case, the patient was not taking a probiotic, but a patient in an adjacent bed was receiving a powdered probiotic that was implicated. This prompted suspicion that the cause was central-line contamination.

This was evaluated in the HCA ICU database and also found to be a significant risk. Among the 67 patients in whom a capsule or tablet was used, the rate of probiotic-associated bacteremia was 0.33%. For those in which the probiotic was a powdered formulation, the rate was 0.76%, a significant difference (P < .01).

Dr. Mayer acknowledged that these data do not rule out all potential benefits from probiotics in the ICU. He believes an obstacle to proving benefit has been the heterogeneity of available products, which are likely to be relevant to any therapeutic role, including prevention of C. diff. infection.

“There are now a large number of products available, and they contain a large variety of strains of organisms, so this has been a difficult area to study,” he said. However, he maintains it is prudent at this point to avoid probiotics in the ICU because the risks are not confined to the patient making this choice.

“My concern is not just the lack of evidence of benefit relative to the risk for the patient but the potential for probiotics in the ICU to place other patients at risk,” Dr. Mayer said.

Others have also noted the potential benefits of probiotics in the ICU, but the promise remains elusive. In a 2018 review article published in the Journal of Emergency and Critical Care Medicine, the authors evaluated a series of potential applications of probiotics in critically ill patients. These included treatment of ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP), catheter-associated urinary tract infections (CAUTI), and surgical-site infections (SSI). For each, the data were negative or inconclusive.

Over the 4 years that have passed since the review was published, several trials have further explored the potential benefits of probiotics in the ICU but none have changed this basic conclusion. For example, a 2021 multinational trial, published in The Lancet, randomized more than 2,600 patients to probiotics or placebo and showed no effect on VAP incidence (21.9% vs. 21.3%).

The lead author of the 2018 review, Heather A. Vitko, PhD, an associate professor in the department of acute and tertiary care, University of Pittsburgh School of Nursing, also emphasized that the potential for benefit cannot be considered without the potential for risk. She, like Dr. Mayer, cited the case studies implicating probiotics in systemic infections.

For administration, probiotic capsules or sachets “often need to be opened for administration through a feeding tube,” she noted. The risk of contamination comes from both the air and contaminated hands, the latter of which “can cause a translocation to a central line catheter where the microbes have direct entry into the systemic circulation.”

She did not call for a ban of probiotics in the ICU, but she did recommend “a precautionary approach,” encouraging clinicians to “distinguish between reality [of what has been proven] and what is presented in the marketing of antibiotics.”

Dr. Mayer and Dr. Vitko have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

NASHVILLE, TENN. – Supported by several cases series, a large cohort analysis has associated exposure to probiotics in the intensive care unit with a measurable increase in bacteremia and bacteremia-related mortality due to organisms in these preparations, according to new findings presented at the annual meeting of the American College of Chest Physicians (CHEST).

According to data presented by Scott Mayer, MD, chief resident at HealthONE Denver, which is part of the HCA Healthcare chain of hospitals, the risk is increased by any probiotic exposure. However, the risk is particularly acute for powdered formulations, presumably because powder more easily disseminates to contaminate central venous catheters.

“We think that probiotics should be eliminated entirely from the ICU. If not, we encourage eliminating the powder formulations,” said Dr. Mayer, who led the study.

The data linking probiotics to ICU bacteremia were drawn from 23,533 ICU admissions over a 5-year period in the HCA hospital database. Bacteremia proven to be probiotic-related was uncommon (0.37%), but the consequences were serious.

For those with probiotic-related bacteremia, the mortality rate was 25.6% or essentially twofold greater than the 13.5% mortality rate among those without probiotic bacteremia. An odds ratio drawn from a regression analysis confirmed a significant difference (OR, 2.23; 95% confidence interval, 1.30-3.71; P < .01).

“The absolute risk of mortality is modest but not insignificant,” said Dr. Mayer. This suggests one probiotic-related mortality for about every 200 patients taking a probiotic in the ICU.

These deaths occur without any clear compensatory benefit from taking probiotics, according to Dr. Mayer. There is a long list of potential benefits from probiotics that might be relevant to patients in the ICU, particularly prophylaxis for Clostridioides difficile infection, but also including a variety of gastrointestinal disorders, such as irritable bowel syndrome; however, none of these are firmly established in general, and particularly for patients in the ICU.

“The American College of Gastroenterology currently recommends against probiotics for the prevention of C. diff.,” Dr. Mayer said. Although the American Gastroenterological Association has issued a “conditional recommendation” for prevention of C. diff. infection with probiotics, Dr. Mayer pointed out this is qualified by a “low quality of evidence” and it is not specific to the ICU setting.

“The evidence for benefit is weak or nonexistent, but the risks are real,” Dr. Mayer said.

To confirm that probiotic-associated ICU bacteremias in the HCA hospital database were, in fact, related to probiotics being taken by patients at time of admission, Dr. Mayer evaluated the record of each of the 86 patients with probiotic bacteremia–associated mortality.

“I identified the organism that grew from the blood cultures to confirm that it was contained in the probiotic the patient was taking,” explained Dr. Mayer, who said this information was available in the electronic medical records.

The risk of probiotic-associated bacteremia in ICU patients was consistent with a series of case series that prompted the study. Dr. Mayer explained that he became interested when he encountered patients on his ICU rounds who were taking probiotics. He knew very little about these agents and explored the medical literature to see what evidence was available.

“I found several case reports of ICU patients with probiotic-associated infections, several of which were suspected of being associated with contamination of the central lines,” Dr. Mayer said. In one case, the patient was not taking a probiotic, but a patient in an adjacent bed was receiving a powdered probiotic that was implicated. This prompted suspicion that the cause was central-line contamination.

This was evaluated in the HCA ICU database and also found to be a significant risk. Among the 67 patients in whom a capsule or tablet was used, the rate of probiotic-associated bacteremia was 0.33%. For those in which the probiotic was a powdered formulation, the rate was 0.76%, a significant difference (P < .01).

Dr. Mayer acknowledged that these data do not rule out all potential benefits from probiotics in the ICU. He believes an obstacle to proving benefit has been the heterogeneity of available products, which are likely to be relevant to any therapeutic role, including prevention of C. diff. infection.

“There are now a large number of products available, and they contain a large variety of strains of organisms, so this has been a difficult area to study,” he said. However, he maintains it is prudent at this point to avoid probiotics in the ICU because the risks are not confined to the patient making this choice.

“My concern is not just the lack of evidence of benefit relative to the risk for the patient but the potential for probiotics in the ICU to place other patients at risk,” Dr. Mayer said.

Others have also noted the potential benefits of probiotics in the ICU, but the promise remains elusive. In a 2018 review article published in the Journal of Emergency and Critical Care Medicine, the authors evaluated a series of potential applications of probiotics in critically ill patients. These included treatment of ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP), catheter-associated urinary tract infections (CAUTI), and surgical-site infections (SSI). For each, the data were negative or inconclusive.

Over the 4 years that have passed since the review was published, several trials have further explored the potential benefits of probiotics in the ICU but none have changed this basic conclusion. For example, a 2021 multinational trial, published in The Lancet, randomized more than 2,600 patients to probiotics or placebo and showed no effect on VAP incidence (21.9% vs. 21.3%).

The lead author of the 2018 review, Heather A. Vitko, PhD, an associate professor in the department of acute and tertiary care, University of Pittsburgh School of Nursing, also emphasized that the potential for benefit cannot be considered without the potential for risk. She, like Dr. Mayer, cited the case studies implicating probiotics in systemic infections.

For administration, probiotic capsules or sachets “often need to be opened for administration through a feeding tube,” she noted. The risk of contamination comes from both the air and contaminated hands, the latter of which “can cause a translocation to a central line catheter where the microbes have direct entry into the systemic circulation.”

She did not call for a ban of probiotics in the ICU, but she did recommend “a precautionary approach,” encouraging clinicians to “distinguish between reality [of what has been proven] and what is presented in the marketing of antibiotics.”

Dr. Mayer and Dr. Vitko have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Results of a new study indicate that opt-out HIV testing, in particular “notional consent testing” where a patient is not asked or counseled before conducting the test, is an effective tool for identifying undiagnosed HIV cases in populations with an HIV positivity rate greater than 0.2%.

On implementation of opt-out testing of patients aged 18-59 years admitted to the ED at St. George’s University Hospital in London, the proportion of tests performed increased from 57.9% to 69%. Upon increasing the age range to those 16 and older and implementing notional consent, overall testing coverage improved to 74.2%.

“An opt-out HIV testing program in the emergency department provides an excellent opportunity to diagnose patients who do not perceive themselves to be at risk or who have never tested before,” lead author Rebecca Marchant, MBBS, of St. George’s Hospital, said in an interview.

The study was published online in HIV Medicine.

She continued, “I think this take-away message would be applicable to other countries with prevalence of HIV greater than 2 per 1,000 people, as routine HIV testing in areas of high prevalence removes the need to target testing of specific populations, potentially preventing stigmatization.”

Despite excellent uptake of HIV testing in antenatal and sexual health services, 6% of people living in the United Kingdom are unaware of their status, and up to 42% of people living with HIV are diagnosed at a late stage of infection. Because blood is routinely drawn in EDs, it’s an excellent opportunity for increased testing. Late-stage diagnosis carries an increased risk of developing an AIDS-related illness, a sevenfold increase in risk for death in the first year after diagnosis, and increased rates of HIV transmission and health care costs.

The study was conducted in a region of London that has an HIV prevalence of 5.4 cases per 1,000 residents aged 15-59 years. Opt-out HIV testing was implemented in February 2019 for people aged 18-59, and in March 2021, this was changed to include those aged 16-plus years along with a move to notional consent.

Out of 78,333 HIV tests, there were 1054 reactive results. Of these, 728 (69%) were known people living with HIV, 8 (0.8%) were not contactable, 2 (0.2%) retested elsewhere and 3 (0.3%) declined a retest. A total of 259 false positives were determined by follow-up testing.

Of those who received a confirmed HIV diagnosis, 50 (4.8%) were newly diagnosed. HIV was suspected in only 22% of these people, and 48% had never previously tested for the virus. New diagnoses were 80% male with a median age of 42 years. CD4 counts varied widely (3 cells/mcL to 1,344 cells/mcL), with 60% diagnosed at a late stage (CD4 < 350 cells/mcL) and 40% with advanced immunosuppression (CD4 < 200 cells/mcL).

“It did not surprise me that heterosexuals made up 62% of all new diagnoses,” Dr. Marchant noted. “This is because routine opt-out testing in the ED offers the opportunity to test people who don’t perceive themselves to be at risk or who have never tested before, and I believe heterosexual people are more likely to fit into those categories. In London, new HIV diagnoses amongst men who have sex with men have fallen year on year likely due to pre-exposure prophylaxis being more readily available and a generally good awareness of HIV and testing amongst MSM.”

Michael D. Levine, MD, associate professor of emergency medicine at the University of California, Los Angeles, agreed with its main findings.

“Doing widespread screening of patients in the emergency department is a feasible option,” Dr. Levine, who was not involved with this study, said in an interview. “But it only makes sense to do this in a population with some prevalence of HIV. With some forms of testing, like rapid HIV tests, you only get a presumptive positive and you then have a confirmatory test. The presumptive positives do have false positives associated with them. So if you’re in a population with very few cases of HIV, and you have a significant number of false positives, that’s going to be problematic. It’s going to add a tremendous amount of stress to the patient.”

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

Results of a new study indicate that opt-out HIV testing, in particular “notional consent testing” where a patient is not asked or counseled before conducting the test, is an effective tool for identifying undiagnosed HIV cases in populations with an HIV positivity rate greater than 0.2%.

On implementation of opt-out testing of patients aged 18-59 years admitted to the ED at St. George’s University Hospital in London, the proportion of tests performed increased from 57.9% to 69%. Upon increasing the age range to those 16 and older and implementing notional consent, overall testing coverage improved to 74.2%.

“An opt-out HIV testing program in the emergency department provides an excellent opportunity to diagnose patients who do not perceive themselves to be at risk or who have never tested before,” lead author Rebecca Marchant, MBBS, of St. George’s Hospital, said in an interview.

The study was published online in HIV Medicine.

She continued, “I think this take-away message would be applicable to other countries with prevalence of HIV greater than 2 per 1,000 people, as routine HIV testing in areas of high prevalence removes the need to target testing of specific populations, potentially preventing stigmatization.”

Despite excellent uptake of HIV testing in antenatal and sexual health services, 6% of people living in the United Kingdom are unaware of their status, and up to 42% of people living with HIV are diagnosed at a late stage of infection. Because blood is routinely drawn in EDs, it’s an excellent opportunity for increased testing. Late-stage diagnosis carries an increased risk of developing an AIDS-related illness, a sevenfold increase in risk for death in the first year after diagnosis, and increased rates of HIV transmission and health care costs.

The study was conducted in a region of London that has an HIV prevalence of 5.4 cases per 1,000 residents aged 15-59 years. Opt-out HIV testing was implemented in February 2019 for people aged 18-59, and in March 2021, this was changed to include those aged 16-plus years along with a move to notional consent.

Out of 78,333 HIV tests, there were 1054 reactive results. Of these, 728 (69%) were known people living with HIV, 8 (0.8%) were not contactable, 2 (0.2%) retested elsewhere and 3 (0.3%) declined a retest. A total of 259 false positives were determined by follow-up testing.

Of those who received a confirmed HIV diagnosis, 50 (4.8%) were newly diagnosed. HIV was suspected in only 22% of these people, and 48% had never previously tested for the virus. New diagnoses were 80% male with a median age of 42 years. CD4 counts varied widely (3 cells/mcL to 1,344 cells/mcL), with 60% diagnosed at a late stage (CD4 < 350 cells/mcL) and 40% with advanced immunosuppression (CD4 < 200 cells/mcL).

“It did not surprise me that heterosexuals made up 62% of all new diagnoses,” Dr. Marchant noted. “This is because routine opt-out testing in the ED offers the opportunity to test people who don’t perceive themselves to be at risk or who have never tested before, and I believe heterosexual people are more likely to fit into those categories. In London, new HIV diagnoses amongst men who have sex with men have fallen year on year likely due to pre-exposure prophylaxis being more readily available and a generally good awareness of HIV and testing amongst MSM.”

Michael D. Levine, MD, associate professor of emergency medicine at the University of California, Los Angeles, agreed with its main findings.

“Doing widespread screening of patients in the emergency department is a feasible option,” Dr. Levine, who was not involved with this study, said in an interview. “But it only makes sense to do this in a population with some prevalence of HIV. With some forms of testing, like rapid HIV tests, you only get a presumptive positive and you then have a confirmatory test. The presumptive positives do have false positives associated with them. So if you’re in a population with very few cases of HIV, and you have a significant number of false positives, that’s going to be problematic. It’s going to add a tremendous amount of stress to the patient.”

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

Results of a new study indicate that opt-out HIV testing, in particular “notional consent testing” where a patient is not asked or counseled before conducting the test, is an effective tool for identifying undiagnosed HIV cases in populations with an HIV positivity rate greater than 0.2%.

On implementation of opt-out testing of patients aged 18-59 years admitted to the ED at St. George’s University Hospital in London, the proportion of tests performed increased from 57.9% to 69%. Upon increasing the age range to those 16 and older and implementing notional consent, overall testing coverage improved to 74.2%.

“An opt-out HIV testing program in the emergency department provides an excellent opportunity to diagnose patients who do not perceive themselves to be at risk or who have never tested before,” lead author Rebecca Marchant, MBBS, of St. George’s Hospital, said in an interview.

The study was published online in HIV Medicine.

She continued, “I think this take-away message would be applicable to other countries with prevalence of HIV greater than 2 per 1,000 people, as routine HIV testing in areas of high prevalence removes the need to target testing of specific populations, potentially preventing stigmatization.”

Despite excellent uptake of HIV testing in antenatal and sexual health services, 6% of people living in the United Kingdom are unaware of their status, and up to 42% of people living with HIV are diagnosed at a late stage of infection. Because blood is routinely drawn in EDs, it’s an excellent opportunity for increased testing. Late-stage diagnosis carries an increased risk of developing an AIDS-related illness, a sevenfold increase in risk for death in the first year after diagnosis, and increased rates of HIV transmission and health care costs.

The study was conducted in a region of London that has an HIV prevalence of 5.4 cases per 1,000 residents aged 15-59 years. Opt-out HIV testing was implemented in February 2019 for people aged 18-59, and in March 2021, this was changed to include those aged 16-plus years along with a move to notional consent.

Out of 78,333 HIV tests, there were 1054 reactive results. Of these, 728 (69%) were known people living with HIV, 8 (0.8%) were not contactable, 2 (0.2%) retested elsewhere and 3 (0.3%) declined a retest. A total of 259 false positives were determined by follow-up testing.

Of those who received a confirmed HIV diagnosis, 50 (4.8%) were newly diagnosed. HIV was suspected in only 22% of these people, and 48% had never previously tested for the virus. New diagnoses were 80% male with a median age of 42 years. CD4 counts varied widely (3 cells/mcL to 1,344 cells/mcL), with 60% diagnosed at a late stage (CD4 < 350 cells/mcL) and 40% with advanced immunosuppression (CD4 < 200 cells/mcL).

“It did not surprise me that heterosexuals made up 62% of all new diagnoses,” Dr. Marchant noted. “This is because routine opt-out testing in the ED offers the opportunity to test people who don’t perceive themselves to be at risk or who have never tested before, and I believe heterosexual people are more likely to fit into those categories. In London, new HIV diagnoses amongst men who have sex with men have fallen year on year likely due to pre-exposure prophylaxis being more readily available and a generally good awareness of HIV and testing amongst MSM.”

Michael D. Levine, MD, associate professor of emergency medicine at the University of California, Los Angeles, agreed with its main findings.

“Doing widespread screening of patients in the emergency department is a feasible option,” Dr. Levine, who was not involved with this study, said in an interview. “But it only makes sense to do this in a population with some prevalence of HIV. With some forms of testing, like rapid HIV tests, you only get a presumptive positive and you then have a confirmatory test. The presumptive positives do have false positives associated with them. So if you’re in a population with very few cases of HIV, and you have a significant number of false positives, that’s going to be problematic. It’s going to add a tremendous amount of stress to the patient.”

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

Taking an antiretroviral tablet daily for preexposure prophylaxis (PrEP) has been shown to be a safe and effective method of HIV prevention. However, low and variable uptake of PrEP among men who have sex with men (MSM) remains concerning.

Clinician attitudes appear to be one of the barriers to PrEP use, according to a new study published in the Journal of Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome. Lead author Samuel R. Bunting, MD, and colleagues explored whether the attitudes of prescribing clinicians are impeding access to PrEP among MSM in the United States. They sought to understand whether clinician biases and expectations about race, HIV risk, adherence, and condom use might be affecting willingness to prescribe PrEP to a patient who specifically requests it.

They reached out to 16 U.S. medical schools (allopathic and osteopathic) with a combined total of 12,660 students. A total of 1,592 students indicated interest in participating in the study, and 600 completed it accurately.

Researchers simulated an electronic medical record for a fictional patient: a sexually active cisgender MSM presenting to a primary care physician and directly requesting access to PrEP for the first time. The simulated record included an uncomplicated medical history and lab results indicating that the patient was negative for HIV and other STIs.

Researchers systematically varied key aspects of the fictional patient, including his race (White or Black) and his intentions for future condom use if prescribed PrEP (continue using, unlikely to begin using, or will stop using). They asked the medical students a series of questions about their hypothetical patient interaction, including assessing patient HIV risk and provider willingness to prescribe PrEP.

The simulated medical records randomly included Black and White patients.

Dr. Bunting and coauthors found that the medical students were significantly less likely to indicate that they would prescribe PrEP to a patient described as “intending to discontinue” condom use were he to be prescribed PrEP, compared with patients “intending to continue” former practices of condom use or nonuse. On a scale from 1 (least likely to prescribe) to 7 (most likely to prescribe), willingness to prescribe was highest for the continued-nonuse group (mean score 6.35; 95% confidence interval, 6.18-6.52) and was lower for the planned-discontinuation group (mean score 5.91; 95% CI, 5.75-6.08; P = .001).

This finding reflects a prevailing fear of “risk compensation” – the concern that an individual on PrEP may start to take additional compensatory risks in his HIV exposures, including discontinuing condom use or increasing number of sexual partners.

In an interview with this news organization, Julia Marcus, PhD, MPH, an associate professor in the department of population medicine at Harvard Medical School and Harvard Pilgrim Health Care Institute, Boston, said: “These provider concerns [about risk compensation] are missing the mark. Just like oral contraception, the whole point of a prevention tool like PrEP is to allow people to engage in certain behaviors more safely. Rather than an unwanted consequence, behavior change may be the intended goal.” Dr. Marcus was not involved in the study.

Prior research has shown that uptake of PrEP among Black MSM is significantly lower than among White MSM in the United States. But this study showed no associations with patient race. However, Dr. Bunting and his coauthors found a troubling association with the personal attitudes of the medical students toward sexual activity: The more likely the medical students were to disapprove of nonmonogamy, the more likely they were to assume the possibility of future nonadherence to PrEP and to hesitate before prescribing PrEP.

Were the medical students making assumptions about patients’ ability to be faithful and consistent, whether to a partner or to a drug regimen? Either way, provider hesitancy to prescribe PrEP to a patient on the basis of their stated intention to discontinue condom use or because of the clinician’s own internalized biases about nonmonogamous relationships both represent troubling barriers to accessing clinical care, reinforcing the clinician’s role as gatekeeper to PrEP.

“It’s frustrating that these biases are still in play and potentially contributing to slow and inequitable PrEP uptake” Dr. Marcus commented. “Every sexually active primary care patient should be informed about PrEP, in accordance with CDC guidance, but providers often feel constrained by time ... We need tools that can normalize PrEP in primary care and help limit the potential effect of biases on PrEP prescribing decisions.”

In an interview, Dr. Bunting, resident physician in the department of psychiatry and behavioral neuroscience at University of Chicago Medicine, said in an interview, “Condom use has long been a stalwart prevention mechanism, but PrEP offers superior protection and patients who are seeking PrEP are exhibiting agency and informed risk mitigation ... When a patient is seeking additional protection, it is less about what is the right way to experience a sexual relationship, and more about what is the right way to be safe from HIV.”

Although this study has a number of limitations, including the fact that it is based on a controlled and hypothetical scenario and study participants are still medical students not yet licensed to prescribe, its results have important implications: It underscores the need to train clinicians to recognize and set aside their own social biases during clinical interactions.

Bunting suggested that provider training should support clinicians to evaluate patient requests in a nonjudgmental, pragmatic, and realistic manner appropriately reflecting patient informed agency and knowledge of their own risk factors.

And Dr. Marcus concurred, noting that standardizing the delivery of PrEP through a screening algorithm presents an alternative pathway for eliminating the role of stigmatizing clinician biases and working toward equitable access to PrEP.

This study was supported by unrestricted research funding from Gilead Sciences. The funder had no input into research design, implementation, analysis, interpretation, or publication decisions. Coauthor Brian A. Feinstein’s time was supported by a grant from the National Institute on Drug Abuse. No additional funding was received to support this research.

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

Taking an antiretroviral tablet daily for preexposure prophylaxis (PrEP) has been shown to be a safe and effective method of HIV prevention. However, low and variable uptake of PrEP among men who have sex with men (MSM) remains concerning.

Clinician attitudes appear to be one of the barriers to PrEP use, according to a new study published in the Journal of Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome. Lead author Samuel R. Bunting, MD, and colleagues explored whether the attitudes of prescribing clinicians are impeding access to PrEP among MSM in the United States. They sought to understand whether clinician biases and expectations about race, HIV risk, adherence, and condom use might be affecting willingness to prescribe PrEP to a patient who specifically requests it.

They reached out to 16 U.S. medical schools (allopathic and osteopathic) with a combined total of 12,660 students. A total of 1,592 students indicated interest in participating in the study, and 600 completed it accurately.

Researchers simulated an electronic medical record for a fictional patient: a sexually active cisgender MSM presenting to a primary care physician and directly requesting access to PrEP for the first time. The simulated record included an uncomplicated medical history and lab results indicating that the patient was negative for HIV and other STIs.

Researchers systematically varied key aspects of the fictional patient, including his race (White or Black) and his intentions for future condom use if prescribed PrEP (continue using, unlikely to begin using, or will stop using). They asked the medical students a series of questions about their hypothetical patient interaction, including assessing patient HIV risk and provider willingness to prescribe PrEP.

The simulated medical records randomly included Black and White patients.

Dr. Bunting and coauthors found that the medical students were significantly less likely to indicate that they would prescribe PrEP to a patient described as “intending to discontinue” condom use were he to be prescribed PrEP, compared with patients “intending to continue” former practices of condom use or nonuse. On a scale from 1 (least likely to prescribe) to 7 (most likely to prescribe), willingness to prescribe was highest for the continued-nonuse group (mean score 6.35; 95% confidence interval, 6.18-6.52) and was lower for the planned-discontinuation group (mean score 5.91; 95% CI, 5.75-6.08; P = .001).

This finding reflects a prevailing fear of “risk compensation” – the concern that an individual on PrEP may start to take additional compensatory risks in his HIV exposures, including discontinuing condom use or increasing number of sexual partners.

In an interview with this news organization, Julia Marcus, PhD, MPH, an associate professor in the department of population medicine at Harvard Medical School and Harvard Pilgrim Health Care Institute, Boston, said: “These provider concerns [about risk compensation] are missing the mark. Just like oral contraception, the whole point of a prevention tool like PrEP is to allow people to engage in certain behaviors more safely. Rather than an unwanted consequence, behavior change may be the intended goal.” Dr. Marcus was not involved in the study.

Prior research has shown that uptake of PrEP among Black MSM is significantly lower than among White MSM in the United States. But this study showed no associations with patient race. However, Dr. Bunting and his coauthors found a troubling association with the personal attitudes of the medical students toward sexual activity: The more likely the medical students were to disapprove of nonmonogamy, the more likely they were to assume the possibility of future nonadherence to PrEP and to hesitate before prescribing PrEP.

Were the medical students making assumptions about patients’ ability to be faithful and consistent, whether to a partner or to a drug regimen? Either way, provider hesitancy to prescribe PrEP to a patient on the basis of their stated intention to discontinue condom use or because of the clinician’s own internalized biases about nonmonogamous relationships both represent troubling barriers to accessing clinical care, reinforcing the clinician’s role as gatekeeper to PrEP.

“It’s frustrating that these biases are still in play and potentially contributing to slow and inequitable PrEP uptake” Dr. Marcus commented. “Every sexually active primary care patient should be informed about PrEP, in accordance with CDC guidance, but providers often feel constrained by time ... We need tools that can normalize PrEP in primary care and help limit the potential effect of biases on PrEP prescribing decisions.”

In an interview, Dr. Bunting, resident physician in the department of psychiatry and behavioral neuroscience at University of Chicago Medicine, said in an interview, “Condom use has long been a stalwart prevention mechanism, but PrEP offers superior protection and patients who are seeking PrEP are exhibiting agency and informed risk mitigation ... When a patient is seeking additional protection, it is less about what is the right way to experience a sexual relationship, and more about what is the right way to be safe from HIV.”

Although this study has a number of limitations, including the fact that it is based on a controlled and hypothetical scenario and study participants are still medical students not yet licensed to prescribe, its results have important implications: It underscores the need to train clinicians to recognize and set aside their own social biases during clinical interactions.

Bunting suggested that provider training should support clinicians to evaluate patient requests in a nonjudgmental, pragmatic, and realistic manner appropriately reflecting patient informed agency and knowledge of their own risk factors.

And Dr. Marcus concurred, noting that standardizing the delivery of PrEP through a screening algorithm presents an alternative pathway for eliminating the role of stigmatizing clinician biases and working toward equitable access to PrEP.

This study was supported by unrestricted research funding from Gilead Sciences. The funder had no input into research design, implementation, analysis, interpretation, or publication decisions. Coauthor Brian A. Feinstein’s time was supported by a grant from the National Institute on Drug Abuse. No additional funding was received to support this research.

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

Taking an antiretroviral tablet daily for preexposure prophylaxis (PrEP) has been shown to be a safe and effective method of HIV prevention. However, low and variable uptake of PrEP among men who have sex with men (MSM) remains concerning.

Clinician attitudes appear to be one of the barriers to PrEP use, according to a new study published in the Journal of Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome. Lead author Samuel R. Bunting, MD, and colleagues explored whether the attitudes of prescribing clinicians are impeding access to PrEP among MSM in the United States. They sought to understand whether clinician biases and expectations about race, HIV risk, adherence, and condom use might be affecting willingness to prescribe PrEP to a patient who specifically requests it.

They reached out to 16 U.S. medical schools (allopathic and osteopathic) with a combined total of 12,660 students. A total of 1,592 students indicated interest in participating in the study, and 600 completed it accurately.

Researchers simulated an electronic medical record for a fictional patient: a sexually active cisgender MSM presenting to a primary care physician and directly requesting access to PrEP for the first time. The simulated record included an uncomplicated medical history and lab results indicating that the patient was negative for HIV and other STIs.

Researchers systematically varied key aspects of the fictional patient, including his race (White or Black) and his intentions for future condom use if prescribed PrEP (continue using, unlikely to begin using, or will stop using). They asked the medical students a series of questions about their hypothetical patient interaction, including assessing patient HIV risk and provider willingness to prescribe PrEP.

The simulated medical records randomly included Black and White patients.

Dr. Bunting and coauthors found that the medical students were significantly less likely to indicate that they would prescribe PrEP to a patient described as “intending to discontinue” condom use were he to be prescribed PrEP, compared with patients “intending to continue” former practices of condom use or nonuse. On a scale from 1 (least likely to prescribe) to 7 (most likely to prescribe), willingness to prescribe was highest for the continued-nonuse group (mean score 6.35; 95% confidence interval, 6.18-6.52) and was lower for the planned-discontinuation group (mean score 5.91; 95% CI, 5.75-6.08; P = .001).

This finding reflects a prevailing fear of “risk compensation” – the concern that an individual on PrEP may start to take additional compensatory risks in his HIV exposures, including discontinuing condom use or increasing number of sexual partners.

In an interview with this news organization, Julia Marcus, PhD, MPH, an associate professor in the department of population medicine at Harvard Medical School and Harvard Pilgrim Health Care Institute, Boston, said: “These provider concerns [about risk compensation] are missing the mark. Just like oral contraception, the whole point of a prevention tool like PrEP is to allow people to engage in certain behaviors more safely. Rather than an unwanted consequence, behavior change may be the intended goal.” Dr. Marcus was not involved in the study.

Prior research has shown that uptake of PrEP among Black MSM is significantly lower than among White MSM in the United States. But this study showed no associations with patient race. However, Dr. Bunting and his coauthors found a troubling association with the personal attitudes of the medical students toward sexual activity: The more likely the medical students were to disapprove of nonmonogamy, the more likely they were to assume the possibility of future nonadherence to PrEP and to hesitate before prescribing PrEP.

Were the medical students making assumptions about patients’ ability to be faithful and consistent, whether to a partner or to a drug regimen? Either way, provider hesitancy to prescribe PrEP to a patient on the basis of their stated intention to discontinue condom use or because of the clinician’s own internalized biases about nonmonogamous relationships both represent troubling barriers to accessing clinical care, reinforcing the clinician’s role as gatekeeper to PrEP.

“It’s frustrating that these biases are still in play and potentially contributing to slow and inequitable PrEP uptake” Dr. Marcus commented. “Every sexually active primary care patient should be informed about PrEP, in accordance with CDC guidance, but providers often feel constrained by time ... We need tools that can normalize PrEP in primary care and help limit the potential effect of biases on PrEP prescribing decisions.”

In an interview, Dr. Bunting, resident physician in the department of psychiatry and behavioral neuroscience at University of Chicago Medicine, said in an interview, “Condom use has long been a stalwart prevention mechanism, but PrEP offers superior protection and patients who are seeking PrEP are exhibiting agency and informed risk mitigation ... When a patient is seeking additional protection, it is less about what is the right way to experience a sexual relationship, and more about what is the right way to be safe from HIV.”

Although this study has a number of limitations, including the fact that it is based on a controlled and hypothetical scenario and study participants are still medical students not yet licensed to prescribe, its results have important implications: It underscores the need to train clinicians to recognize and set aside their own social biases during clinical interactions.

Bunting suggested that provider training should support clinicians to evaluate patient requests in a nonjudgmental, pragmatic, and realistic manner appropriately reflecting patient informed agency and knowledge of their own risk factors.

And Dr. Marcus concurred, noting that standardizing the delivery of PrEP through a screening algorithm presents an alternative pathway for eliminating the role of stigmatizing clinician biases and working toward equitable access to PrEP.

This study was supported by unrestricted research funding from Gilead Sciences. The funder had no input into research design, implementation, analysis, interpretation, or publication decisions. Coauthor Brian A. Feinstein’s time was supported by a grant from the National Institute on Drug Abuse. No additional funding was received to support this research.

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

While having proper indoor ventilation is recognized as a way to reduce the spread of COVID-19, a new study from MIT says maintaining the proper relative humidity in indoor spaces like your residence might help keep you healthy.

The “sweet spot” associated with reduced COVID-19 cases and deaths is 40%-60% indoor relative humidity, an MIT news release said. People who maintained indoor relative humidity outside those parameters had higher rates of catching COVID-19. 

Most people are comfortable with 30%-50% relative humidity, researchers said. An airplane cabin has about 20% relative humidity.

Relative humidity is the amount of moisture in the air, compared with the total moisture the air can hold at a given temperature before saturating and forming condensation.

The study was published in The Journal of the Royal Society Interface. Researchers examined COVID-19 data and meteorological measurements from 121 countries from January 2020 through August 2020, before vaccines became available to the public. 

“When outdoor temperatures were below the typical human comfort range, they assumed indoor spaces were heated to reach that comfort range. Based on the added heating, they calculated the associated drop in indoor relative humidity,” the MIT news release said.

The research teams found that when a region reported a rise in COVID-19 cases and deaths, the region’s estimated indoor relative humidity was either lower than 40% or higher than 60%, the release said. 

“There’s potentially a protective effect of this intermediate indoor relative humidity,” said Connor Verheyen, the lead author and a PhD student in medical engineering and medical physics in the Harvard-MIT Program in Health Sciences and Technology.

Widespread use of the 40%-60% indoor humidity range could reduce the need for lockdowns and other widespread restrictions, the study concluded.

“Unlike measures that depend on individual compliance (for example, masking or hand-washing), indoor RH optimization would achieve high compliance because all occupants of a common indoor space would be exposed to similar ambient conditions,” the study said. “Compared to the long timelines and high costs of vaccine production and distribution, humidity control systems could potentially be implemented more quickly and cheaply in certain indoor settings.”

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

While having proper indoor ventilation is recognized as a way to reduce the spread of COVID-19, a new study from MIT says maintaining the proper relative humidity in indoor spaces like your residence might help keep you healthy.

The “sweet spot” associated with reduced COVID-19 cases and deaths is 40%-60% indoor relative humidity, an MIT news release said. People who maintained indoor relative humidity outside those parameters had higher rates of catching COVID-19. 

Most people are comfortable with 30%-50% relative humidity, researchers said. An airplane cabin has about 20% relative humidity.

Relative humidity is the amount of moisture in the air, compared with the total moisture the air can hold at a given temperature before saturating and forming condensation.

The study was published in The Journal of the Royal Society Interface. Researchers examined COVID-19 data and meteorological measurements from 121 countries from January 2020 through August 2020, before vaccines became available to the public. 

“When outdoor temperatures were below the typical human comfort range, they assumed indoor spaces were heated to reach that comfort range. Based on the added heating, they calculated the associated drop in indoor relative humidity,” the MIT news release said.

The research teams found that when a region reported a rise in COVID-19 cases and deaths, the region’s estimated indoor relative humidity was either lower than 40% or higher than 60%, the release said. 

“There’s potentially a protective effect of this intermediate indoor relative humidity,” said Connor Verheyen, the lead author and a PhD student in medical engineering and medical physics in the Harvard-MIT Program in Health Sciences and Technology.

Widespread use of the 40%-60% indoor humidity range could reduce the need for lockdowns and other widespread restrictions, the study concluded.

“Unlike measures that depend on individual compliance (for example, masking or hand-washing), indoor RH optimization would achieve high compliance because all occupants of a common indoor space would be exposed to similar ambient conditions,” the study said. “Compared to the long timelines and high costs of vaccine production and distribution, humidity control systems could potentially be implemented more quickly and cheaply in certain indoor settings.”

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

While having proper indoor ventilation is recognized as a way to reduce the spread of COVID-19, a new study from MIT says maintaining the proper relative humidity in indoor spaces like your residence might help keep you healthy.

The “sweet spot” associated with reduced COVID-19 cases and deaths is 40%-60% indoor relative humidity, an MIT news release said. People who maintained indoor relative humidity outside those parameters had higher rates of catching COVID-19. 

Most people are comfortable with 30%-50% relative humidity, researchers said. An airplane cabin has about 20% relative humidity.

Relative humidity is the amount of moisture in the air, compared with the total moisture the air can hold at a given temperature before saturating and forming condensation.

The study was published in The Journal of the Royal Society Interface. Researchers examined COVID-19 data and meteorological measurements from 121 countries from January 2020 through August 2020, before vaccines became available to the public. 

“When outdoor temperatures were below the typical human comfort range, they assumed indoor spaces were heated to reach that comfort range. Based on the added heating, they calculated the associated drop in indoor relative humidity,” the MIT news release said.

The research teams found that when a region reported a rise in COVID-19 cases and deaths, the region’s estimated indoor relative humidity was either lower than 40% or higher than 60%, the release said. 

“There’s potentially a protective effect of this intermediate indoor relative humidity,” said Connor Verheyen, the lead author and a PhD student in medical engineering and medical physics in the Harvard-MIT Program in Health Sciences and Technology.

Widespread use of the 40%-60% indoor humidity range could reduce the need for lockdowns and other widespread restrictions, the study concluded.

“Unlike measures that depend on individual compliance (for example, masking or hand-washing), indoor RH optimization would achieve high compliance because all occupants of a common indoor space would be exposed to similar ambient conditions,” the study said. “Compared to the long timelines and high costs of vaccine production and distribution, humidity control systems could potentially be implemented more quickly and cheaply in certain indoor settings.”

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

A less-than-1% decrease in weekly COVID-19 cases in children demonstrated continued stability in the pandemic situation as the nation heads into the holiday season.

“Over the past 6 weeks, weekly reported child cases have plateaued at an average of about 27,000 cases,” the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Children’s Hospital Association said in the latest edition of their joint COVID report.

New cases for the week of Nov. 11-17 totaled 27,899, down by 0.9% from the previous week and just 4 weeks removed from the lowest total of the year: 22,719 for Oct. 14-20. There have been just under 15 million cases of COVID-19 in children since the pandemic began, and children represent 18.3% of cases in all ages, the AAP and CHA reported.

Conditions look favorable for that plateau to continue, despite the upcoming holidays, White House COVID-19 coordinator Ashish Jha said recently. “We are in a very different place and we will remain in a different place,” Dr. Jha said, according to STAT News. “We are now at a point where I believe if you’re up to date on your vaccines, you have access to treatments ... there really should be no restrictions on people’s activities.”

One possible spoiler, an apparent spike in COVID-related hospitalizations in children we reported last week, seems to have been a false alarm. The rate of new admissions for Nov. 11, which preliminary data suggested was 0.48 per 100,000 population, has now been revised with more solid data to 0.20 per 100,000, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

“We continue to monitor the recent increases in admissions among children. Some of these may be admissions with COVID-19, not because of COVID-19. Co-infections are being noted in our surveillance systems for hospitalizations among children; as much as 10% of admissions or higher have viruses codetected (RSV, influenza, enterovirus/rhinovirus, and other respiratory viruses),” a CDC spokesperson told this news organization.

For children aged 0-17 years, the current 7-day (Nov. 13-19) average number of new admissions with confirmed COVID is 129 per day, down from 147 for the previous 7-day average. Emergency department visits with diagnosed COVID, measured as a percentage of all ED visits, are largely holding steady. The latest 7-day averages available (Nov. 18) – 1.0% for children aged 0-11 years, 0.7% for 12- to 15-year-olds, and 0.8% in 16- to 17-year-olds – are the same or within a tenth of a percent of the rates recorded on Oct. 18, CDC data show.

New vaccinations for the week of Nov. 10-16 were down just slightly for children under age 5 years and for those aged 5-11 years, with a larger drop seen among 12- to 17-year-olds, the AAP said in its weekly vaccination report. So far, 7.9% of all children under age 5 have received at least one dose of COVID vaccine, as have 39.1% of 5 to 11-year-olds and 71.5% of those aged 12-17years, the CDC said on its COVID Data Tracker.
 

A less-than-1% decrease in weekly COVID-19 cases in children demonstrated continued stability in the pandemic situation as the nation heads into the holiday season.

“Over the past 6 weeks, weekly reported child cases have plateaued at an average of about 27,000 cases,” the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Children’s Hospital Association said in the latest edition of their joint COVID report.

New cases for the week of Nov. 11-17 totaled 27,899, down by 0.9% from the previous week and just 4 weeks removed from the lowest total of the year: 22,719 for Oct. 14-20. There have been just under 15 million cases of COVID-19 in children since the pandemic began, and children represent 18.3% of cases in all ages, the AAP and CHA reported.

Conditions look favorable for that plateau to continue, despite the upcoming holidays, White House COVID-19 coordinator Ashish Jha said recently. “We are in a very different place and we will remain in a different place,” Dr. Jha said, according to STAT News. “We are now at a point where I believe if you’re up to date on your vaccines, you have access to treatments ... there really should be no restrictions on people’s activities.”

One possible spoiler, an apparent spike in COVID-related hospitalizations in children we reported last week, seems to have been a false alarm. The rate of new admissions for Nov. 11, which preliminary data suggested was 0.48 per 100,000 population, has now been revised with more solid data to 0.20 per 100,000, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

“We continue to monitor the recent increases in admissions among children. Some of these may be admissions with COVID-19, not because of COVID-19. Co-infections are being noted in our surveillance systems for hospitalizations among children; as much as 10% of admissions or higher have viruses codetected (RSV, influenza, enterovirus/rhinovirus, and other respiratory viruses),” a CDC spokesperson told this news organization.

For children aged 0-17 years, the current 7-day (Nov. 13-19) average number of new admissions with confirmed COVID is 129 per day, down from 147 for the previous 7-day average. Emergency department visits with diagnosed COVID, measured as a percentage of all ED visits, are largely holding steady. The latest 7-day averages available (Nov. 18) – 1.0% for children aged 0-11 years, 0.7% for 12- to 15-year-olds, and 0.8% in 16- to 17-year-olds – are the same or within a tenth of a percent of the rates recorded on Oct. 18, CDC data show.

New vaccinations for the week of Nov. 10-16 were down just slightly for children under age 5 years and for those aged 5-11 years, with a larger drop seen among 12- to 17-year-olds, the AAP said in its weekly vaccination report. So far, 7.9% of all children under age 5 have received at least one dose of COVID vaccine, as have 39.1% of 5 to 11-year-olds and 71.5% of those aged 12-17years, the CDC said on its COVID Data Tracker.
 

A less-than-1% decrease in weekly COVID-19 cases in children demonstrated continued stability in the pandemic situation as the nation heads into the holiday season.

“Over the past 6 weeks, weekly reported child cases have plateaued at an average of about 27,000 cases,” the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Children’s Hospital Association said in the latest edition of their joint COVID report.

New cases for the week of Nov. 11-17 totaled 27,899, down by 0.9% from the previous week and just 4 weeks removed from the lowest total of the year: 22,719 for Oct. 14-20. There have been just under 15 million cases of COVID-19 in children since the pandemic began, and children represent 18.3% of cases in all ages, the AAP and CHA reported.

Conditions look favorable for that plateau to continue, despite the upcoming holidays, White House COVID-19 coordinator Ashish Jha said recently. “We are in a very different place and we will remain in a different place,” Dr. Jha said, according to STAT News. “We are now at a point where I believe if you’re up to date on your vaccines, you have access to treatments ... there really should be no restrictions on people’s activities.”

One possible spoiler, an apparent spike in COVID-related hospitalizations in children we reported last week, seems to have been a false alarm. The rate of new admissions for Nov. 11, which preliminary data suggested was 0.48 per 100,000 population, has now been revised with more solid data to 0.20 per 100,000, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

“We continue to monitor the recent increases in admissions among children. Some of these may be admissions with COVID-19, not because of COVID-19. Co-infections are being noted in our surveillance systems for hospitalizations among children; as much as 10% of admissions or higher have viruses codetected (RSV, influenza, enterovirus/rhinovirus, and other respiratory viruses),” a CDC spokesperson told this news organization.

For children aged 0-17 years, the current 7-day (Nov. 13-19) average number of new admissions with confirmed COVID is 129 per day, down from 147 for the previous 7-day average. Emergency department visits with diagnosed COVID, measured as a percentage of all ED visits, are largely holding steady. The latest 7-day averages available (Nov. 18) – 1.0% for children aged 0-11 years, 0.7% for 12- to 15-year-olds, and 0.8% in 16- to 17-year-olds – are the same or within a tenth of a percent of the rates recorded on Oct. 18, CDC data show.

New vaccinations for the week of Nov. 10-16 were down just slightly for children under age 5 years and for those aged 5-11 years, with a larger drop seen among 12- to 17-year-olds, the AAP said in its weekly vaccination report. So far, 7.9% of all children under age 5 have received at least one dose of COVID vaccine, as have 39.1% of 5 to 11-year-olds and 71.5% of those aged 12-17years, the CDC said on its COVID Data Tracker.
 

The American Academy of Pediatrics is urging physicians and hospitals to take steps to mitigate the wave of pediatric respiratory illnesses following its unsuccessful bid to have the government declare a national emergency.

Updated guidance from the group outlines measures to optimize resources to manage a surge of patients filling hospital beds, emergency departments, and physicians’ practices.

A separate document from the AAP endorses giving extra doses of palivizumab, a monoclonal antibody used to prevent severe infection in infants at high risk of respiratory syncytial virus (RSV), as long as the illness is prevalent in the community.

Upticks in rates of RSV and influenza, along with a crisis in children’s mental health, prompted the AAP and the Children’s Hospital Association to petition the Biden administration on Nov. 14 to declare an emergency. Such a move would free up extra funding and waivers to allow physicians and hospitals to pool resources, the organizations said.

Despite those challenges, the AAP stressed in its new guidance that routine care, such as immunizations and chronic disease management, “cannot be neglected.”
 

Shifting resources

Officials at some children’s hospitals said that they have already implemented many of the AAP’s recommended measures for providing care during a surge, such as cross-training staff who usually treat adults, expanding telehealth and urgent care, and optimizing the use of ancillary care spaces.

“A lot of this is just reinforcing the things that I think children’s hospitals have been doing,” Lindsay Ragsdale, MD, chief medical officer for Kentucky Children’s Hospital, Lexington, said. “Can we shift adults around? Can we use an adult unit? Can we use an occupied space creatively? We’re really thinking outside the box.”

Andrew Pavia, MD, chief of the division of pediatric infectious diseases at University of Utah Health, Salt Lake City, said large children’s hospitals have been actively sharing practices for handling a surge through various channels, but the new guidance could be a useful “checklist” for small hospitals and physician practices that lack well-developed plans.

The AAP’s suggestions for pediatricians in outpatient settings include stocking up on personal protective equipment, using social media and office staff to increase communication with families, and keeping abreast of wait times at local emergency departments.
 

Addressing a subset of kids

In updated guidance for palivizumab, the AAP noted that earlier-than-usual circulation of RSV prompted pediatricians in some areas to begin administering the drug in the summer and early fall.

Palivizumab is typically given in five consecutive monthly intramuscular injections during RSV season, starting in November. Eligible infants and young children include those born prematurely or who have conditions such as chronic lung disease, hemodynamically significant congenital heart disease, or a suppressed immune system.

The AAP said it supports giving extra doses if RSV activity “persists at high levels in a given region through the fall and winter.” Published studies are sparse but contain “no evidence of increased frequency or severity of adverse events with later doses in a five-dose series nor with doses beyond five doses,” the group added.

The guidance may encourage payers to pick up the tab for extra doses, which are priced at more than $1,800 for cash customers, Dr. Pavia said. However, that recommendation addresses “a pretty small part of the problem overall because the injections are used for a very small subset of kids who are at the highest risk, and more than 80% of hospitalizations for RSV are among healthy kids,” he added.

Dr. Ragsdale and Dr. Pavia have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

The American Academy of Pediatrics is urging physicians and hospitals to take steps to mitigate the wave of pediatric respiratory illnesses following its unsuccessful bid to have the government declare a national emergency.

Updated guidance from the group outlines measures to optimize resources to manage a surge of patients filling hospital beds, emergency departments, and physicians’ practices.

A separate document from the AAP endorses giving extra doses of palivizumab, a monoclonal antibody used to prevent severe infection in infants at high risk of respiratory syncytial virus (RSV), as long as the illness is prevalent in the community.

Upticks in rates of RSV and influenza, along with a crisis in children’s mental health, prompted the AAP and the Children’s Hospital Association to petition the Biden administration on Nov. 14 to declare an emergency. Such a move would free up extra funding and waivers to allow physicians and hospitals to pool resources, the organizations said.

Despite those challenges, the AAP stressed in its new guidance that routine care, such as immunizations and chronic disease management, “cannot be neglected.”
 

Shifting resources

Officials at some children’s hospitals said that they have already implemented many of the AAP’s recommended measures for providing care during a surge, such as cross-training staff who usually treat adults, expanding telehealth and urgent care, and optimizing the use of ancillary care spaces.

“A lot of this is just reinforcing the things that I think children’s hospitals have been doing,” Lindsay Ragsdale, MD, chief medical officer for Kentucky Children’s Hospital, Lexington, said. “Can we shift adults around? Can we use an adult unit? Can we use an occupied space creatively? We’re really thinking outside the box.”

Andrew Pavia, MD, chief of the division of pediatric infectious diseases at University of Utah Health, Salt Lake City, said large children’s hospitals have been actively sharing practices for handling a surge through various channels, but the new guidance could be a useful “checklist” for small hospitals and physician practices that lack well-developed plans.

The AAP’s suggestions for pediatricians in outpatient settings include stocking up on personal protective equipment, using social media and office staff to increase communication with families, and keeping abreast of wait times at local emergency departments.
 

Addressing a subset of kids

In updated guidance for palivizumab, the AAP noted that earlier-than-usual circulation of RSV prompted pediatricians in some areas to begin administering the drug in the summer and early fall.

Palivizumab is typically given in five consecutive monthly intramuscular injections during RSV season, starting in November. Eligible infants and young children include those born prematurely or who have conditions such as chronic lung disease, hemodynamically significant congenital heart disease, or a suppressed immune system.

The AAP said it supports giving extra doses if RSV activity “persists at high levels in a given region through the fall and winter.” Published studies are sparse but contain “no evidence of increased frequency or severity of adverse events with later doses in a five-dose series nor with doses beyond five doses,” the group added.

The guidance may encourage payers to pick up the tab for extra doses, which are priced at more than $1,800 for cash customers, Dr. Pavia said. However, that recommendation addresses “a pretty small part of the problem overall because the injections are used for a very small subset of kids who are at the highest risk, and more than 80% of hospitalizations for RSV are among healthy kids,” he added.

Dr. Ragsdale and Dr. Pavia have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

The American Academy of Pediatrics is urging physicians and hospitals to take steps to mitigate the wave of pediatric respiratory illnesses following its unsuccessful bid to have the government declare a national emergency.

Updated guidance from the group outlines measures to optimize resources to manage a surge of patients filling hospital beds, emergency departments, and physicians’ practices.

A separate document from the AAP endorses giving extra doses of palivizumab, a monoclonal antibody used to prevent severe infection in infants at high risk of respiratory syncytial virus (RSV), as long as the illness is prevalent in the community.

Upticks in rates of RSV and influenza, along with a crisis in children’s mental health, prompted the AAP and the Children’s Hospital Association to petition the Biden administration on Nov. 14 to declare an emergency. Such a move would free up extra funding and waivers to allow physicians and hospitals to pool resources, the organizations said.

Despite those challenges, the AAP stressed in its new guidance that routine care, such as immunizations and chronic disease management, “cannot be neglected.”
 

Shifting resources

Officials at some children’s hospitals said that they have already implemented many of the AAP’s recommended measures for providing care during a surge, such as cross-training staff who usually treat adults, expanding telehealth and urgent care, and optimizing the use of ancillary care spaces.

“A lot of this is just reinforcing the things that I think children’s hospitals have been doing,” Lindsay Ragsdale, MD, chief medical officer for Kentucky Children’s Hospital, Lexington, said. “Can we shift adults around? Can we use an adult unit? Can we use an occupied space creatively? We’re really thinking outside the box.”

Andrew Pavia, MD, chief of the division of pediatric infectious diseases at University of Utah Health, Salt Lake City, said large children’s hospitals have been actively sharing practices for handling a surge through various channels, but the new guidance could be a useful “checklist” for small hospitals and physician practices that lack well-developed plans.

The AAP’s suggestions for pediatricians in outpatient settings include stocking up on personal protective equipment, using social media and office staff to increase communication with families, and keeping abreast of wait times at local emergency departments.
 

Addressing a subset of kids

In updated guidance for palivizumab, the AAP noted that earlier-than-usual circulation of RSV prompted pediatricians in some areas to begin administering the drug in the summer and early fall.

Palivizumab is typically given in five consecutive monthly intramuscular injections during RSV season, starting in November. Eligible infants and young children include those born prematurely or who have conditions such as chronic lung disease, hemodynamically significant congenital heart disease, or a suppressed immune system.

The AAP said it supports giving extra doses if RSV activity “persists at high levels in a given region through the fall and winter.” Published studies are sparse but contain “no evidence of increased frequency or severity of adverse events with later doses in a five-dose series nor with doses beyond five doses,” the group added.

The guidance may encourage payers to pick up the tab for extra doses, which are priced at more than $1,800 for cash customers, Dr. Pavia said. However, that recommendation addresses “a pretty small part of the problem overall because the injections are used for a very small subset of kids who are at the highest risk, and more than 80% of hospitalizations for RSV are among healthy kids,” he added.

Dr. Ragsdale and Dr. Pavia have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

TAMPA – People living with HIV experience many symptoms that can be grouped into “clusters” to help guide therapy and ideally treat more than one symptom at a time in an effort to improve quality of life, according to a study presented at the annual meeting of the Association of Nurses in AIDS Care.

Evidence suggests there are four main symptom clusters: pain, body psychological, gastrointestinal, and body image. Interestingly, these symptoms were more common among people living with HIV who are older than 45 years versus those who are younger, with one exception.

“In HIV, with exception of anxiety, we saw older people had more symptoms than younger ones,” said Natalie Wilson, PhD, assistant professor of community health systems at the University of California, San Francisco.

Dr. Wilson and colleagues performed a study that also suggests the older group experienced more distress from their symptoms than the younger cohort, again with the exception of anxiety.

Symptom clusters are two or more related symptoms that occur together with or without the same etiology. “Imagine you can’t sleep and the next day you’re tired and have no energy, you have trouble remembering someone’s name ... and then the next night you get so anxious about not getting sleep that it keeps you from sleeping.” That’s an example of a symptom cluster, Dr. Wilson said.
 

A high burden

“Why should we even evaluate symptom clusters?” Dr. Wilson asked. “The symptom burden is still high in people living with HIV. The medications got better but the symptoms remain.”

A high symptom burden also is linked to lower adherence to antiretrovirals. Also, considering groups of symptoms together could lead to targeted interventions that treat multiple symptoms, she said, “instead of treating one symptom at a time and increasing the pill burden for people living with HIV.”
 

Accelerated aging concerns

In addition, people living with HIV can experience accelerated aging, which is one reason Dr. Wilson and colleagues chose the 45-year-old cutoff in the study. Living with inflammation from HIV and the toxicity of earlier treatments likely contribute.

“Those over age 45 have higher rates of age-associated noncommunicable comorbidities developing at an earlier age than uninfected people with comparable lifestyles and demographics,” Dr. Wilson said.

In the full study, published in the Journal of Pain and Symptom Management, a total 2,000 people living with HIV completed the 20-item HIV Symptom Index. The participants reported their symptoms on their first visit to one of six national HIV Centers of Excellence. People were asked to report presence or absence of a particular symptom, and if they had it, how distressing it was on a scale of 1 “doesn’t bother me” to 4 “bothers me a lot.”

Younger people not only reported more anxiety but were also more distressed by it, Dr. Wilson said. The older group was more likely to be distressed by muscle aches and joint pain, trouble remembering things, and more.

The mean age in the younger group was 35 years, and it was 55 years in the older group. A total of 86% in the younger group and 87% in the older were men, and there were some differences by race, Dr. Wilson said.
 

More research needed

“These findings warrant further confirmation,” Dr. Wilson added. Future work could evaluate whether symptom clusters share etiology and how symptom clusters change over time. “We need to look at outcomes over time. Can we predict poorer outcomes, such as cardiac events, over time based on symptom clusters?”

Also, as part of HIV treatment success in recent years, “Our guidelines are moving people out further – if you’re undetectable sometimes you can come back at 6 months or 1 year.” The question, she said, is then: “Do we need to watch people with certain symptom clusters more closely?”

Limitations of the study include a lack of information on symptom causes and severity and its cross-sectional design.
 

‘Absolutely useful’

The study is “absolutely useful,” said session moderator Cheryl Netherly, an HIV nurse and clinical educator for CAN Community Health headquartered in Sarasota, Fla.

“One of the things that she mentioned was people with HIV, especially long-term HIV, they’re aging faster than the population without HIV. So, that is really important to look at.”

People living with HIV and dying from age-related comorbidities is something “we never thought would happen,” Ms. Netherly said. “Unfortunately, we’re now losing them to the different things like kidney issues, heart disease, and diabetes.”

The study was funded by the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases. Dr. Wilson and Ms. Netherly disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

TAMPA – People living with HIV experience many symptoms that can be grouped into “clusters” to help guide therapy and ideally treat more than one symptom at a time in an effort to improve quality of life, according to a study presented at the annual meeting of the Association of Nurses in AIDS Care.

Evidence suggests there are four main symptom clusters: pain, body psychological, gastrointestinal, and body image. Interestingly, these symptoms were more common among people living with HIV who are older than 45 years versus those who are younger, with one exception.

“In HIV, with exception of anxiety, we saw older people had more symptoms than younger ones,” said Natalie Wilson, PhD, assistant professor of community health systems at the University of California, San Francisco.

Dr. Wilson and colleagues performed a study that also suggests the older group experienced more distress from their symptoms than the younger cohort, again with the exception of anxiety.

Symptom clusters are two or more related symptoms that occur together with or without the same etiology. “Imagine you can’t sleep and the next day you’re tired and have no energy, you have trouble remembering someone’s name ... and then the next night you get so anxious about not getting sleep that it keeps you from sleeping.” That’s an example of a symptom cluster, Dr. Wilson said.
 

A high burden

“Why should we even evaluate symptom clusters?” Dr. Wilson asked. “The symptom burden is still high in people living with HIV. The medications got better but the symptoms remain.”

A high symptom burden also is linked to lower adherence to antiretrovirals. Also, considering groups of symptoms together could lead to targeted interventions that treat multiple symptoms, she said, “instead of treating one symptom at a time and increasing the pill burden for people living with HIV.”
 

Accelerated aging concerns

In addition, people living with HIV can experience accelerated aging, which is one reason Dr. Wilson and colleagues chose the 45-year-old cutoff in the study. Living with inflammation from HIV and the toxicity of earlier treatments likely contribute.

“Those over age 45 have higher rates of age-associated noncommunicable comorbidities developing at an earlier age than uninfected people with comparable lifestyles and demographics,” Dr. Wilson said.

In the full study, published in the Journal of Pain and Symptom Management, a total 2,000 people living with HIV completed the 20-item HIV Symptom Index. The participants reported their symptoms on their first visit to one of six national HIV Centers of Excellence. People were asked to report presence or absence of a particular symptom, and if they had it, how distressing it was on a scale of 1 “doesn’t bother me” to 4 “bothers me a lot.”

Younger people not only reported more anxiety but were also more distressed by it, Dr. Wilson said. The older group was more likely to be distressed by muscle aches and joint pain, trouble remembering things, and more.

The mean age in the younger group was 35 years, and it was 55 years in the older group. A total of 86% in the younger group and 87% in the older were men, and there were some differences by race, Dr. Wilson said.
 

More research needed

“These findings warrant further confirmation,” Dr. Wilson added. Future work could evaluate whether symptom clusters share etiology and how symptom clusters change over time. “We need to look at outcomes over time. Can we predict poorer outcomes, such as cardiac events, over time based on symptom clusters?”

Also, as part of HIV treatment success in recent years, “Our guidelines are moving people out further – if you’re undetectable sometimes you can come back at 6 months or 1 year.” The question, she said, is then: “Do we need to watch people with certain symptom clusters more closely?”

Limitations of the study include a lack of information on symptom causes and severity and its cross-sectional design.
 

‘Absolutely useful’

The study is “absolutely useful,” said session moderator Cheryl Netherly, an HIV nurse and clinical educator for CAN Community Health headquartered in Sarasota, Fla.

“One of the things that she mentioned was people with HIV, especially long-term HIV, they’re aging faster than the population without HIV. So, that is really important to look at.”

People living with HIV and dying from age-related comorbidities is something “we never thought would happen,” Ms. Netherly said. “Unfortunately, we’re now losing them to the different things like kidney issues, heart disease, and diabetes.”

The study was funded by the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases. Dr. Wilson and Ms. Netherly disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

TAMPA – People living with HIV experience many symptoms that can be grouped into “clusters” to help guide therapy and ideally treat more than one symptom at a time in an effort to improve quality of life, according to a study presented at the annual meeting of the Association of Nurses in AIDS Care.

Evidence suggests there are four main symptom clusters: pain, body psychological, gastrointestinal, and body image. Interestingly, these symptoms were more common among people living with HIV who are older than 45 years versus those who are younger, with one exception.

“In HIV, with exception of anxiety, we saw older people had more symptoms than younger ones,” said Natalie Wilson, PhD, assistant professor of community health systems at the University of California, San Francisco.

Dr. Wilson and colleagues performed a study that also suggests the older group experienced more distress from their symptoms than the younger cohort, again with the exception of anxiety.

Symptom clusters are two or more related symptoms that occur together with or without the same etiology. “Imagine you can’t sleep and the next day you’re tired and have no energy, you have trouble remembering someone’s name ... and then the next night you get so anxious about not getting sleep that it keeps you from sleeping.” That’s an example of a symptom cluster, Dr. Wilson said.
 

A high burden

“Why should we even evaluate symptom clusters?” Dr. Wilson asked. “The symptom burden is still high in people living with HIV. The medications got better but the symptoms remain.”

A high symptom burden also is linked to lower adherence to antiretrovirals. Also, considering groups of symptoms together could lead to targeted interventions that treat multiple symptoms, she said, “instead of treating one symptom at a time and increasing the pill burden for people living with HIV.”
 

Accelerated aging concerns

In addition, people living with HIV can experience accelerated aging, which is one reason Dr. Wilson and colleagues chose the 45-year-old cutoff in the study. Living with inflammation from HIV and the toxicity of earlier treatments likely contribute.

“Those over age 45 have higher rates of age-associated noncommunicable comorbidities developing at an earlier age than uninfected people with comparable lifestyles and demographics,” Dr. Wilson said.

In the full study, published in the Journal of Pain and Symptom Management, a total 2,000 people living with HIV completed the 20-item HIV Symptom Index. The participants reported their symptoms on their first visit to one of six national HIV Centers of Excellence. People were asked to report presence or absence of a particular symptom, and if they had it, how distressing it was on a scale of 1 “doesn’t bother me” to 4 “bothers me a lot.”

Younger people not only reported more anxiety but were also more distressed by it, Dr. Wilson said. The older group was more likely to be distressed by muscle aches and joint pain, trouble remembering things, and more.

The mean age in the younger group was 35 years, and it was 55 years in the older group. A total of 86% in the younger group and 87% in the older were men, and there were some differences by race, Dr. Wilson said.
 

More research needed

“These findings warrant further confirmation,” Dr. Wilson added. Future work could evaluate whether symptom clusters share etiology and how symptom clusters change over time. “We need to look at outcomes over time. Can we predict poorer outcomes, such as cardiac events, over time based on symptom clusters?”

Also, as part of HIV treatment success in recent years, “Our guidelines are moving people out further – if you’re undetectable sometimes you can come back at 6 months or 1 year.” The question, she said, is then: “Do we need to watch people with certain symptom clusters more closely?”

Limitations of the study include a lack of information on symptom causes and severity and its cross-sectional design.
 

‘Absolutely useful’

The study is “absolutely useful,” said session moderator Cheryl Netherly, an HIV nurse and clinical educator for CAN Community Health headquartered in Sarasota, Fla.

“One of the things that she mentioned was people with HIV, especially long-term HIV, they’re aging faster than the population without HIV. So, that is really important to look at.”

People living with HIV and dying from age-related comorbidities is something “we never thought would happen,” Ms. Netherly said. “Unfortunately, we’re now losing them to the different things like kidney issues, heart disease, and diabetes.”

The study was funded by the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases. Dr. Wilson and Ms. Netherly disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Among the more remarkable legacies of the COVID-19 pandemic is how quickly federal regulators, the health care industry, and consumers moved to make at-home testing a reliable tool for managing a public health crisis.

But that fast-track focus is missing from another, less publicized epidemic: an explosion in sexually transmitted diseases that can cause chronic pain and infertility among infected adults and disable or kill infected newborns. The disparity has amplified calls from researchers, public health advocates, and health care companies urging the federal government to greenlight at-home testing kits that could vastly multiply the number of Americans testing for STDs.

Online shoppers can already choose from more than a dozen self-testing kits, typically ranging in price from $69 to $500, depending on the brand and the variety of infections they can detect.

But, except for HIV tests, the Food and Drug Administration hasn’t approved STD test kits for use outside a medical setting. That leaves consumers unsure about their reliability even as at-home use grows dramatically.

The STD epidemic is “out of control,” said Amesh Adalja, MD, a senior scholar at the Johns Hopkins University Center for Health Security. “We know we are missing diagnoses. We know that contact tracing is happening late or not at all. If we’re really serious about tackling the STD crisis, we have to get more people diagnosed.”

Preliminary data for 2021 showed nearly 2.5 million reported cases of chlamydia, gonorrhea, and syphilis in the United States, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Reported cases of syphilis and gonorrhea have been climbing for about a decade. In its most recent prevalence estimate, the agency said that on any given day, one in five Americans are infected with any of eight common STDs.

The push to make at-home testing for STDs as easy and commonplace as at-home COVID and pregnancy testing is coming from several sectors. Public health officials say their overextended staffers can’t handle the staggering need for testing and surveillance. Diagnostic and pharmaceutical companies see a business opportunity in the unmet demand.

The medical science underpinning STD testing is not particularly new or mysterious. Depending on the test, it may involve collecting a urine sample, pricking a finger for blood, or swabbing the mouth, genitals, or anus for discharge or cell samples. Medical centers and community health clinics have performed such testing for decades.

The issue for regulators is whether sampling kits can be reliably adapted for in-home use. Unlike rapid antigen tests for COVID, which produce results in 15-20 minutes, the home STD kits on the market require patients to collect their own samples, and then package and mail them to a lab for analysis.

In the past 3 years, as the pandemic prompted clinics that provide low-cost care to drastically curtail in-person services, a number of public health departments – among them state agencies in Alabama, Alaska, and Maryland – have started mailing free STD test kits to residents. Universities and nonprofits are also spearheading at-home testing efforts.

And dozens of commercial enterprises are jumping into or ramping up direct-to-consumer sales. Everly Health, a digital health company that sells a variety of lab tests online, reported sales for its suite of STD kits grew 120% in the first half of this year compared with the first half of 2021.

CVS Health began selling its own bundled STD kit in October, priced at $99.99. Unlike most home kits, CVS’ version is available in stores.

Hologic, Abbott, and Molecular Testing Labs are among the companies urgently developing tests. And Cue Health, which sells COVID tests, is poised to launch a clinical trial for a rapid home test for chlamydia and gonorrhea that would set a new bar, providing results in about 20 minutes.

Alberto Gutierrez, who formerly led the FDA office that oversees diagnostic tests, said agency officials have been concerned about the reliability of home tests for years. The FDA wants companies to prove that home collection kits are as accurate as those used in clinics, and that samples don’t degrade during shipping.

“The agency doesn’t believe these tests are legally marketed at this point,” said Mr. Gutierrez, a partner at NDA Partners, a consulting firm that advises companies seeking to bring health care products to market.

“CVS should not be selling that test,” he added.

In response to KHN questions, the FDA said it considers home collection kits, which can include swabs, lancets, transport tubes, and chemicals to stabilize the samples, to be devices that require agency review. The FDA “generally does not comment” on whether it plans to take action on any specific case, the statement said.

CVS spokesperson Mary Gattuso said the pharmacy chain is following the law. “We are committed to ensuring the products we offer are safe, work as intended, comply with regulations, and satisfy customers,” Ms. Gattuso said.

Everly Health and other companies described their kits as laboratory-developed tests, akin to the diagnostics some hospitals create for in-house use. And they contend their tests can be legally marketed because their labs have been certified by a different agency, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services.

“The instruments and assays used by the laboratories we use are comparable to – and often the same as – those used by the labs a doctor’s office uses,” said Liz Kwo, MD, chief medical officer at Everly Health. “Our at-home sample collection methods, like dried blood spots and saliva, have been widely used for decades.”

Home collection kits appeal to Uxmal Caldera, 27, of Miami Beach, who prefers to test in the privacy of his home. Mr. Caldera, who doesn’t have a car, said home testing saves him the time and expense of getting to a clinic.

Mr. Caldera has been testing himself for HIV and other STDs every 3 months for more than a year, part of routine monitoring for people taking PrEP, a regimen of daily pills to prevent HIV infection.

“Doing it by yourself is not hard at all,” said Mr. Caldera, who is uninsured but receives the tests free through a community foundation. “The instructions are really clear. I get the results in maybe 4 days. For sure, I would recommend it to other people.”

Leandro Mena, MD, director of the CDC’s division of STD prevention, said he would like to see at-home STD testing become as routine as home pregnancy tests. An estimated 16 million–20 million tests for gonorrhea and chlamydia are performed in the United States each year, Dr. Mena said. Widespread use of at-home STD testing could double or triple that number.

He noted that doctors have years of experience using home collection kits.

The Johns Hopkins Center for Point-of-Care Technologies Research for Sexually Transmitted Diseases has distributed roughly 23,000 at-home STD kits since 2004, said Charlotte Gaydos, DrPH, a principal investigator with the center. The FDA generally allows such use if it’s part of research overseen by medical professionals. The center’s tests are now used by the Alaska health department, as well as Native American tribes in Arizona and Oklahoma.

Dr. Gaydos has published dozens of studies establishing that home collection kits for diseases such as chlamydia and gonorrhea are accurate and easy to use.

“There’s a huge amount of data showing that home testing works,” said Dr. Gaydos.

But Dr. Gaydos noted that her studies have been limited to small sample sizes. She said she doesn’t have the millions of dollars in funding it would take to run the sort of comprehensive trial the FDA typically requires for approval.

Jenny Mahn, director of clinical and sexual health at the National Coalition of STD Directors, said many public health labs are reluctant to handle home kits. “The public health labs won’t touch it without FDA’s blessing.”

Public health clinics often provide STD testing at little to no cost, while health insurance typically covers in-person testing at a private practice. But most consumers pay out-of-pocket for direct-to-consumer kits. Commercial pricing puts them out of reach for many people, particularly teens and young adults, who account for nearly half of STDs.

Adalja said the FDA has a history of moving slowly on home testing. The agency spent 7 years evaluating the first home HIV test it approved, which hit the market in 2012.

“Home testing is the way of the future,” said Laura Lindberg, PhD, a professor of public health at Rutgers University, Piscataway, N.J. “The pandemic opened the door to testing and treatment at home without traveling to a health care provider, and we aren’t going to be able to put the genie back in the bottle.”

KHN (Kaiser Health News) is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues. Together with Policy Analysis and Polling, KHN is one of the three major operating programs at KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation). KFF is an endowed nonprofit organization providing information on health issues to the nation.

Among the more remarkable legacies of the COVID-19 pandemic is how quickly federal regulators, the health care industry, and consumers moved to make at-home testing a reliable tool for managing a public health crisis.

But that fast-track focus is missing from another, less publicized epidemic: an explosion in sexually transmitted diseases that can cause chronic pain and infertility among infected adults and disable or kill infected newborns. The disparity has amplified calls from researchers, public health advocates, and health care companies urging the federal government to greenlight at-home testing kits that could vastly multiply the number of Americans testing for STDs.

Online shoppers can already choose from more than a dozen self-testing kits, typically ranging in price from $69 to $500, depending on the brand and the variety of infections they can detect.

But, except for HIV tests, the Food and Drug Administration hasn’t approved STD test kits for use outside a medical setting. That leaves consumers unsure about their reliability even as at-home use grows dramatically.

The STD epidemic is “out of control,” said Amesh Adalja, MD, a senior scholar at the Johns Hopkins University Center for Health Security. “We know we are missing diagnoses. We know that contact tracing is happening late or not at all. If we’re really serious about tackling the STD crisis, we have to get more people diagnosed.”

Preliminary data for 2021 showed nearly 2.5 million reported cases of chlamydia, gonorrhea, and syphilis in the United States, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Reported cases of syphilis and gonorrhea have been climbing for about a decade. In its most recent prevalence estimate, the agency said that on any given day, one in five Americans are infected with any of eight common STDs.

The push to make at-home testing for STDs as easy and commonplace as at-home COVID and pregnancy testing is coming from several sectors. Public health officials say their overextended staffers can’t handle the staggering need for testing and surveillance. Diagnostic and pharmaceutical companies see a business opportunity in the unmet demand.

The medical science underpinning STD testing is not particularly new or mysterious. Depending on the test, it may involve collecting a urine sample, pricking a finger for blood, or swabbing the mouth, genitals, or anus for discharge or cell samples. Medical centers and community health clinics have performed such testing for decades.

The issue for regulators is whether sampling kits can be reliably adapted for in-home use. Unlike rapid antigen tests for COVID, which produce results in 15-20 minutes, the home STD kits on the market require patients to collect their own samples, and then package and mail them to a lab for analysis.

In the past 3 years, as the pandemic prompted clinics that provide low-cost care to drastically curtail in-person services, a number of public health departments – among them state agencies in Alabama, Alaska, and Maryland – have started mailing free STD test kits to residents. Universities and nonprofits are also spearheading at-home testing efforts.

And dozens of commercial enterprises are jumping into or ramping up direct-to-consumer sales. Everly Health, a digital health company that sells a variety of lab tests online, reported sales for its suite of STD kits grew 120% in the first half of this year compared with the first half of 2021.

CVS Health began selling its own bundled STD kit in October, priced at $99.99. Unlike most home kits, CVS’ version is available in stores.

Hologic, Abbott, and Molecular Testing Labs are among the companies urgently developing tests. And Cue Health, which sells COVID tests, is poised to launch a clinical trial for a rapid home test for chlamydia and gonorrhea that would set a new bar, providing results in about 20 minutes.

Alberto Gutierrez, who formerly led the FDA office that oversees diagnostic tests, said agency officials have been concerned about the reliability of home tests for years. The FDA wants companies to prove that home collection kits are as accurate as those used in clinics, and that samples don’t degrade during shipping.

“The agency doesn’t believe these tests are legally marketed at this point,” said Mr. Gutierrez, a partner at NDA Partners, a consulting firm that advises companies seeking to bring health care products to market.

“CVS should not be selling that test,” he added.

In response to KHN questions, the FDA said it considers home collection kits, which can include swabs, lancets, transport tubes, and chemicals to stabilize the samples, to be devices that require agency review. The FDA “generally does not comment” on whether it plans to take action on any specific case, the statement said.

CVS spokesperson Mary Gattuso said the pharmacy chain is following the law. “We are committed to ensuring the products we offer are safe, work as intended, comply with regulations, and satisfy customers,” Ms. Gattuso said.

Everly Health and other companies described their kits as laboratory-developed tests, akin to the diagnostics some hospitals create for in-house use. And they contend their tests can be legally marketed because their labs have been certified by a different agency, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services.

“The instruments and assays used by the laboratories we use are comparable to – and often the same as – those used by the labs a doctor’s office uses,” said Liz Kwo, MD, chief medical officer at Everly Health. “Our at-home sample collection methods, like dried blood spots and saliva, have been widely used for decades.”

Home collection kits appeal to Uxmal Caldera, 27, of Miami Beach, who prefers to test in the privacy of his home. Mr. Caldera, who doesn’t have a car, said home testing saves him the time and expense of getting to a clinic.

Mr. Caldera has been testing himself for HIV and other STDs every 3 months for more than a year, part of routine monitoring for people taking PrEP, a regimen of daily pills to prevent HIV infection.

“Doing it by yourself is not hard at all,” said Mr. Caldera, who is uninsured but receives the tests free through a community foundation. “The instructions are really clear. I get the results in maybe 4 days. For sure, I would recommend it to other people.”

Leandro Mena, MD, director of the CDC’s division of STD prevention, said he would like to see at-home STD testing become as routine as home pregnancy tests. An estimated 16 million–20 million tests for gonorrhea and chlamydia are performed in the United States each year, Dr. Mena said. Widespread use of at-home STD testing could double or triple that number.

He noted that doctors have years of experience using home collection kits.

The Johns Hopkins Center for Point-of-Care Technologies Research for Sexually Transmitted Diseases has distributed roughly 23,000 at-home STD kits since 2004, said Charlotte Gaydos, DrPH, a principal investigator with the center. The FDA generally allows such use if it’s part of research overseen by medical professionals. The center’s tests are now used by the Alaska health department, as well as Native American tribes in Arizona and Oklahoma.

Dr. Gaydos has published dozens of studies establishing that home collection kits for diseases such as chlamydia and gonorrhea are accurate and easy to use.

“There’s a huge amount of data showing that home testing works,” said Dr. Gaydos.

But Dr. Gaydos noted that her studies have been limited to small sample sizes. She said she doesn’t have the millions of dollars in funding it would take to run the sort of comprehensive trial the FDA typically requires for approval.

Jenny Mahn, director of clinical and sexual health at the National Coalition of STD Directors, said many public health labs are reluctant to handle home kits. “The public health labs won’t touch it without FDA’s blessing.”

Public health clinics often provide STD testing at little to no cost, while health insurance typically covers in-person testing at a private practice. But most consumers pay out-of-pocket for direct-to-consumer kits. Commercial pricing puts them out of reach for many people, particularly teens and young adults, who account for nearly half of STDs.

Adalja said the FDA has a history of moving slowly on home testing. The agency spent 7 years evaluating the first home HIV test it approved, which hit the market in 2012.

“Home testing is the way of the future,” said Laura Lindberg, PhD, a professor of public health at Rutgers University, Piscataway, N.J. “The pandemic opened the door to testing and treatment at home without traveling to a health care provider, and we aren’t going to be able to put the genie back in the bottle.”

KHN (Kaiser Health News) is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues. Together with Policy Analysis and Polling, KHN is one of the three major operating programs at KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation). KFF is an endowed nonprofit organization providing information on health issues to the nation.

Among the more remarkable legacies of the COVID-19 pandemic is how quickly federal regulators, the health care industry, and consumers moved to make at-home testing a reliable tool for managing a public health crisis.

But that fast-track focus is missing from another, less publicized epidemic: an explosion in sexually transmitted diseases that can cause chronic pain and infertility among infected adults and disable or kill infected newborns. The disparity has amplified calls from researchers, public health advocates, and health care companies urging the federal government to greenlight at-home testing kits that could vastly multiply the number of Americans testing for STDs.

Online shoppers can already choose from more than a dozen self-testing kits, typically ranging in price from $69 to $500, depending on the brand and the variety of infections they can detect.

But, except for HIV tests, the Food and Drug Administration hasn’t approved STD test kits for use outside a medical setting. That leaves consumers unsure about their reliability even as at-home use grows dramatically.

The STD epidemic is “out of control,” said Amesh Adalja, MD, a senior scholar at the Johns Hopkins University Center for Health Security. “We know we are missing diagnoses. We know that contact tracing is happening late or not at all. If we’re really serious about tackling the STD crisis, we have to get more people diagnosed.”

Preliminary data for 2021 showed nearly 2.5 million reported cases of chlamydia, gonorrhea, and syphilis in the United States, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Reported cases of syphilis and gonorrhea have been climbing for about a decade. In its most recent prevalence estimate, the agency said that on any given day, one in five Americans are infected with any of eight common STDs.

The push to make at-home testing for STDs as easy and commonplace as at-home COVID and pregnancy testing is coming from several sectors. Public health officials say their overextended staffers can’t handle the staggering need for testing and surveillance. Diagnostic and pharmaceutical companies see a business opportunity in the unmet demand.

The medical science underpinning STD testing is not particularly new or mysterious. Depending on the test, it may involve collecting a urine sample, pricking a finger for blood, or swabbing the mouth, genitals, or anus for discharge or cell samples. Medical centers and community health clinics have performed such testing for decades.

The issue for regulators is whether sampling kits can be reliably adapted for in-home use. Unlike rapid antigen tests for COVID, which produce results in 15-20 minutes, the home STD kits on the market require patients to collect their own samples, and then package and mail them to a lab for analysis.

In the past 3 years, as the pandemic prompted clinics that provide low-cost care to drastically curtail in-person services, a number of public health departments – among them state agencies in Alabama, Alaska, and Maryland – have started mailing free STD test kits to residents. Universities and nonprofits are also spearheading at-home testing efforts.

And dozens of commercial enterprises are jumping into or ramping up direct-to-consumer sales. Everly Health, a digital health company that sells a variety of lab tests online, reported sales for its suite of STD kits grew 120% in the first half of this year compared with the first half of 2021.

CVS Health began selling its own bundled STD kit in October, priced at $99.99. Unlike most home kits, CVS’ version is available in stores.

Hologic, Abbott, and Molecular Testing Labs are among the companies urgently developing tests. And Cue Health, which sells COVID tests, is poised to launch a clinical trial for a rapid home test for chlamydia and gonorrhea that would set a new bar, providing results in about 20 minutes.

Alberto Gutierrez, who formerly led the FDA office that oversees diagnostic tests, said agency officials have been concerned about the reliability of home tests for years. The FDA wants companies to prove that home collection kits are as accurate as those used in clinics, and that samples don’t degrade during shipping.

“The agency doesn’t believe these tests are legally marketed at this point,” said Mr. Gutierrez, a partner at NDA Partners, a consulting firm that advises companies seeking to bring health care products to market.

“CVS should not be selling that test,” he added.

In response to KHN questions, the FDA said it considers home collection kits, which can include swabs, lancets, transport tubes, and chemicals to stabilize the samples, to be devices that require agency review. The FDA “generally does not comment” on whether it plans to take action on any specific case, the statement said.

CVS spokesperson Mary Gattuso said the pharmacy chain is following the law. “We are committed to ensuring the products we offer are safe, work as intended, comply with regulations, and satisfy customers,” Ms. Gattuso said.

Everly Health and other companies described their kits as laboratory-developed tests, akin to the diagnostics some hospitals create for in-house use. And they contend their tests can be legally marketed because their labs have been certified by a different agency, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services.

“The instruments and assays used by the laboratories we use are comparable to – and often the same as – those used by the labs a doctor’s office uses,” said Liz Kwo, MD, chief medical officer at Everly Health. “Our at-home sample collection methods, like dried blood spots and saliva, have been widely used for decades.”

Home collection kits appeal to Uxmal Caldera, 27, of Miami Beach, who prefers to test in the privacy of his home. Mr. Caldera, who doesn’t have a car, said home testing saves him the time and expense of getting to a clinic.

Mr. Caldera has been testing himself for HIV and other STDs every 3 months for more than a year, part of routine monitoring for people taking PrEP, a regimen of daily pills to prevent HIV infection.

“Doing it by yourself is not hard at all,” said Mr. Caldera, who is uninsured but receives the tests free through a community foundation. “The instructions are really clear. I get the results in maybe 4 days. For sure, I would recommend it to other people.”

Leandro Mena, MD, director of the CDC’s division of STD prevention, said he would like to see at-home STD testing become as routine as home pregnancy tests. An estimated 16 million–20 million tests for gonorrhea and chlamydia are performed in the United States each year, Dr. Mena said. Widespread use of at-home STD testing could double or triple that number.

He noted that doctors have years of experience using home collection kits.

The Johns Hopkins Center for Point-of-Care Technologies Research for Sexually Transmitted Diseases has distributed roughly 23,000 at-home STD kits since 2004, said Charlotte Gaydos, DrPH, a principal investigator with the center. The FDA generally allows such use if it’s part of research overseen by medical professionals. The center’s tests are now used by the Alaska health department, as well as Native American tribes in Arizona and Oklahoma.

Dr. Gaydos has published dozens of studies establishing that home collection kits for diseases such as chlamydia and gonorrhea are accurate and easy to use.

“There’s a huge amount of data showing that home testing works,” said Dr. Gaydos.

But Dr. Gaydos noted that her studies have been limited to small sample sizes. She said she doesn’t have the millions of dollars in funding it would take to run the sort of comprehensive trial the FDA typically requires for approval.

Jenny Mahn, director of clinical and sexual health at the National Coalition of STD Directors, said many public health labs are reluctant to handle home kits. “The public health labs won’t touch it without FDA’s blessing.”

Public health clinics often provide STD testing at little to no cost, while health insurance typically covers in-person testing at a private practice. But most consumers pay out-of-pocket for direct-to-consumer kits. Commercial pricing puts them out of reach for many people, particularly teens and young adults, who account for nearly half of STDs.

Adalja said the FDA has a history of moving slowly on home testing. The agency spent 7 years evaluating the first home HIV test it approved, which hit the market in 2012.

“Home testing is the way of the future,” said Laura Lindberg, PhD, a professor of public health at Rutgers University, Piscataway, N.J. “The pandemic opened the door to testing and treatment at home without traveling to a health care provider, and we aren’t going to be able to put the genie back in the bottle.”

KHN (Kaiser Health News) is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues. Together with Policy Analysis and Polling, KHN is one of the three major operating programs at KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation). KFF is an endowed nonprofit organization providing information on health issues to the nation.