Infectious Diseases

The latest increase in new child COVID-19 cases seems to be picking up steam, rising by 50% in the last week, according to the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Children’s Hospital Association.

The new-case count was over 93,000 for the week of May 6-12, compared with 62,000 the previous week. That 50% week-to-week change follows increases of 17%, 44%, 12%, and 28% since the nationwide weekly total fell to its low point for the year (25,915) in the beginning of April, the AAP and CHA said in their weekly COVID report.

By comparison, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention put the total number of cases in children aged 0-17 at 12.7 million, although that figure is based on a cumulative number of 73.4 million cases among all ages, which is well short of the reported total of almost 82.4 million as of May 16. COVID cases in children have led to 1,536 deaths so far, the CDC said.

The recent upward trend in new cases also can be seen in the CDC’s data, which show the weekly rate rising from 35 per 100,000 population on March 26 to 102 per 100,000 on May 7 in children aged 0-14 years, with commensurate increases seen among older children over the same period. In turn, the rate of new admissions for children aged 0-17 has gone from a low of 0.13 per 100,000 as late as April 10 up to 0.23 on May 13, the CDC said on its COVID Data Tracker.

One thing not going up these days is vaccinations among the youngest eligible children. The number of 5- to 11-year-olds receiving their initial dose was down to 40,000 for the week of May 5-11, the fewest since the vaccine was approved for that age group. For a change of pace, the number increased among children aged 12-17, as 37,000 got initial vaccinations that week, compared with 29,000 a week earlier, the AAP said in its weekly vaccination report.

[email protected]

The latest increase in new child COVID-19 cases seems to be picking up steam, rising by 50% in the last week, according to the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Children’s Hospital Association.

The new-case count was over 93,000 for the week of May 6-12, compared with 62,000 the previous week. That 50% week-to-week change follows increases of 17%, 44%, 12%, and 28% since the nationwide weekly total fell to its low point for the year (25,915) in the beginning of April, the AAP and CHA said in their weekly COVID report.

By comparison, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention put the total number of cases in children aged 0-17 at 12.7 million, although that figure is based on a cumulative number of 73.4 million cases among all ages, which is well short of the reported total of almost 82.4 million as of May 16. COVID cases in children have led to 1,536 deaths so far, the CDC said.

The recent upward trend in new cases also can be seen in the CDC’s data, which show the weekly rate rising from 35 per 100,000 population on March 26 to 102 per 100,000 on May 7 in children aged 0-14 years, with commensurate increases seen among older children over the same period. In turn, the rate of new admissions for children aged 0-17 has gone from a low of 0.13 per 100,000 as late as April 10 up to 0.23 on May 13, the CDC said on its COVID Data Tracker.

One thing not going up these days is vaccinations among the youngest eligible children. The number of 5- to 11-year-olds receiving their initial dose was down to 40,000 for the week of May 5-11, the fewest since the vaccine was approved for that age group. For a change of pace, the number increased among children aged 12-17, as 37,000 got initial vaccinations that week, compared with 29,000 a week earlier, the AAP said in its weekly vaccination report.

[email protected]

The latest increase in new child COVID-19 cases seems to be picking up steam, rising by 50% in the last week, according to the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Children’s Hospital Association.

The new-case count was over 93,000 for the week of May 6-12, compared with 62,000 the previous week. That 50% week-to-week change follows increases of 17%, 44%, 12%, and 28% since the nationwide weekly total fell to its low point for the year (25,915) in the beginning of April, the AAP and CHA said in their weekly COVID report.

By comparison, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention put the total number of cases in children aged 0-17 at 12.7 million, although that figure is based on a cumulative number of 73.4 million cases among all ages, which is well short of the reported total of almost 82.4 million as of May 16. COVID cases in children have led to 1,536 deaths so far, the CDC said.

The recent upward trend in new cases also can be seen in the CDC’s data, which show the weekly rate rising from 35 per 100,000 population on March 26 to 102 per 100,000 on May 7 in children aged 0-14 years, with commensurate increases seen among older children over the same period. In turn, the rate of new admissions for children aged 0-17 has gone from a low of 0.13 per 100,000 as late as April 10 up to 0.23 on May 13, the CDC said on its COVID Data Tracker.

One thing not going up these days is vaccinations among the youngest eligible children. The number of 5- to 11-year-olds receiving their initial dose was down to 40,000 for the week of May 5-11, the fewest since the vaccine was approved for that age group. For a change of pace, the number increased among children aged 12-17, as 37,000 got initial vaccinations that week, compared with 29,000 a week earlier, the AAP said in its weekly vaccination report.

[email protected]

Almost forgotten today, tuberculosis is still one of the deadliest infectious diseases in the world. In an interview with Coliquio, Ronald D. Gerste, MD, PhD, an ophthalmologist and historian, looked back on this disease’s eventful history, which encompasses outstanding discoveries and catastrophic failures in diagnosis and treatment from the Middle Ages to the present day.

Under different names, TB has affected mankind for millennia. One of these names was the “aesthetic disease,” because it led to weight loss and pallor in the younger patients that it often affected. This was considered the ideal of beauty in the Victorian era. Many celebrities suffered from the disease, including poets and artists such as Friedrich Schiller, Lord Byron, and the Bronte family. As recently as the early 1990s, the disease almost changed world history, because Nelson Mandela became ill before the negotiations that led to the end of apartheid in South Africa.

Today, the global community is still not on track to meet its self-imposed targets for controlling the infectious disease, as reported by the World Health Organization on World TB Day in late March. Children and young people are the leading victims. In 2020 alone, 1.1 million children and adolescents under age 15 years were infected with TB, and 226,000 died of the disease, according to the WHO.
 

Q: Nelson Mandela was ill with tuberculosis during his imprisonment. How did the disease manifest itself in the future Nobel Peace Prize winner, and what is known about the treatment?

Ronald D. Gerste: Nelson Mandela contracted tuberculosis in 1988. At that time, he was 70 years old and had been in prison for 26 years. The disease presented in him with the almost classic symptom: He was coughing up blood and was also increasingly fatigued and losing weight. After doctors initially suspected a viral infection, but then TB was proven, he was treated with medication, and fluid was also drained from his lungs. [Mr.] Mandela was hospitalized for six weeks at Tygerberg Hospital in Cape Town, the second largest hospital in South Africa. The therapy worked well, but [Mr.] Mandela’s lungs remained damaged. He was subsequently prone to pneumonia and was repeatedly hospitalized for pneumonia in 2012 and 2013.
 

Q: Mandela was lucky that the treatment worked for him. A few years later, the first antibiotic-resistant pathogen strains developed. How did medical research respond to this development?

Gerste: The emergence of multidrug resistant (MDR) strains of the pathogen prompted the WHO to declare a “global health emergency” in 1993. Three years later, World TB Day was proclaimed to raise awareness of the threat posed by this disease, which has been known since ancient times. It always takes place on March 24, the day in 1882 when Robert Koch gave his famous lecture in Berlin in which he announced the discovery of the pathogen Mycobacterium tuberculosis.

Medical research has introduced new drugs into TB therapy, such as bedaquiline and delamanid. But MDR tuberculosis therapy remains a global challenge and has diminished hopes of eradicating tuberculosis, as we did with smallpox some 40 years ago. Today, only 56% of all MDR-TB patients worldwide are successfully treated.
 

Q: As already mentioned, the TB pathogen was discovered by Robert Koch. How did this come about?

Gerste: Along with cholera, TB was a great epidemic of the 19th century. For an ambitious researcher like Robert Koch, who had made a name for himself with the discovery of anthrax in 1876, there was no more rewarding goal than to find the cause of this infectious disease, which claimed the lives of many famous people such as Kafka, Dostoevsky, and Schiller, as well as many whose names are forgotten today.

[Dr.] Koch worked with his cultures for several years; the method of staining with methylene blue that was developed by the young Paul Ehrlich represented a breakthrough. To this method, [Dr.] Koch added a second, brownish dye. After countless experiments, this allowed slightly curved bacilli to be identified in tuberculous material under the microscope.

On the evening of March 24, 1882, [Dr.] Koch gave a lecture at the Institute of Physiology in Berlin with the title “Etiology of TB,” which sounded less than sensational on the invitations. One or two dozen participants had been expected, but more than one hundred came; numerous listeners had to make do with standing room behind the rows of chairs in the lecture hall. After a rather dry presentation ([Dr.] Koch was not a great orator nor a self-promoter), he presented his results to those present.

His assistants had set up a series of microscopes in the lecture hall through which everyone could get a glimpse of this enemy of humanity: the tubercle bacillus. When [Dr.] Koch had finished his remarks, there was silence in the hall. There was no burst of applause; the audience was too deeply aware that they had witnessed a historic moment. Paul Ehrlich later said that this evening had been the most significant scientific experience of his life. Over the next few weeks, the newspapers made a national hero out of Robert Koch, and the Emperor appointed him a Privy Councilor of the Government. The country doctor from Pomerania was now the figurehead of science in the young German Empire.
 

Q: Shortly after his discovery, [Dr.] Koch advertised a vaccination against TB with the active ingredient tuberculin. Was he able to convince with that too?

Gerste: No, this was the big flop, almost the disaster of a remarkable scientific career. The preparation of attenuated tubercle bacilli with water and glycerin not only did not prevent infection at all, it proved fatal for numerous users. However, tuberculin has survived in a modified form: as a tuberculin test, in which a characteristic skin rash indicates that a tested person has already had contact with the Mycobacterium.
 

Q: How have diagnostic options and treatment of the disease evolved since Robert Koch’s lifetime?

Gerste: A very decisive advance was made in diagnostics. With the rather accidental discovery of the rays soon named after him by Wilhelm Conrad Röntgen in the last days of 1895, it became possible to visualize the lung changes that tuberculosis caused in an unexpected way on living patients; the serial examinations for TB by X-rays were the logical consequence. Both scientists received Nobel Prizes, which were still new at the time, within a few years of each other: [Dr.] Röntgen in 1901 for physics, and [Dr]. Koch in 1905 for medicine and physiology.

Effective drugs were practically unavailable toward the end of the 19th century. For those who could afford it, however, a whole new world of (hoped-for or perceived) healing from “consumption” opened up: the sanatorium, located high in the mountains, surrounded by “fresh air.” The most famous of these climatic health resorts is probably Davos. It is no disrespect to the Swiss Confederation, which I hold in high esteem, to point out that Switzerland owes its high status as a tourist destination and thus its prosperity in part to TB.
 

Q: Things were quite different in earlier times. Until 250 years ago, the hopes of many patients rested on the medieval healing method of the “royal touch.” What’s that all about?

Gerste: In the Middle Ages, a “healing method” emerged from which not only lepers and other seriously ill people but also those suffering from consumption expected to be saved: the “royal touch,” which was first described by the Frankish king Clovis in 496. This ceremony was based on the idea that the king or queen, anointed by God, could improve or even cure the ailment of a sick person through a brief touch.

With the transition from the Middle Ages to the early modern period, this act, during which thousands often gathered in front of the ruler’s residence, was practiced on a large scale. The sufferers passed by the anointed ruler as if in a procession and were briefly touched by him or her. The extremely few “successes” were of course exploited by royal propaganda to proclaim the blessing that the reign of the king or queen meant for the country. But on those who nevertheless fell victim to TB or another ailment, the chroniclers remained silent.

Charles II of England, who ruled from 1660 to 1685 during the Restoration after the English Civil War, is said to have touched 92,102 sick people during this period, according to contemporary counts. The record for a single day’s performance is probably held by Louis XVI of France, who is said to have touched a total of 2,400 sufferers on June 14, 1775. Some of them may have stood and cheered in the Paris crowd 18 years later as the king climbed the steps to the guillotine.
 

Q: Another invention associated with TB diagnosis is the stethoscope. How did it come about?

Gerste: A young physician named René-Théophile-Hyacinthe Laënnec had already experienced the importance of diagnosing TB in his student years. His teacher in Paris was Xavier Bichat, considered the founder of histology, who died of TB in [Dr.] Laënnec’s second year at the age of only 30. [Dr.] Laënnec was a devotee of auscultation and made it work with a massively overweight patient by rolling up a sheet of paper, then placing this on the woman’s thorax to listen to her heart sounds. He developed the idea further and built a hollow wooden tube with a metal earpiece. In 1818, he presented the device at the meeting of the Academy of Sciences in Paris; he called it a stethoscope. He used his new instrument primarily to auscultate the lungs of patients with TB and distinguished the sounds of TB cavities from those of other lung diseases such as pneumonia and emphysema.
 

Q: Back to the present day: The WHO wants to eradicate TB once and for all. What are the hopes and fears in the fight against this disease?

Gerste: There is no doubt that we are currently taking a step backwards in these efforts, and this is not only due to multiresistant pathogens. Especially in poorer countries particularly affected by TB, treatment and screening programs have been disrupted by lockdown measures targeting COVID-19. The WHO suspects that in the first pandemic year, 2020, about half a million additional people may have died from TB because they never received a diagnosis.

Dr. Gerste, born in 1957, is a physician and historian. Dr. Gerste has lived for many years as a correspondent and book author in Washington, D.C., where he writes primarily for the New Journal of Zürich, the FAS, Back Then, the German Medical Journal, and other academic journals.

This article was translated from Coliquio.

Almost forgotten today, tuberculosis is still one of the deadliest infectious diseases in the world. In an interview with Coliquio, Ronald D. Gerste, MD, PhD, an ophthalmologist and historian, looked back on this disease’s eventful history, which encompasses outstanding discoveries and catastrophic failures in diagnosis and treatment from the Middle Ages to the present day.

Under different names, TB has affected mankind for millennia. One of these names was the “aesthetic disease,” because it led to weight loss and pallor in the younger patients that it often affected. This was considered the ideal of beauty in the Victorian era. Many celebrities suffered from the disease, including poets and artists such as Friedrich Schiller, Lord Byron, and the Bronte family. As recently as the early 1990s, the disease almost changed world history, because Nelson Mandela became ill before the negotiations that led to the end of apartheid in South Africa.

Today, the global community is still not on track to meet its self-imposed targets for controlling the infectious disease, as reported by the World Health Organization on World TB Day in late March. Children and young people are the leading victims. In 2020 alone, 1.1 million children and adolescents under age 15 years were infected with TB, and 226,000 died of the disease, according to the WHO.
 

Q: Nelson Mandela was ill with tuberculosis during his imprisonment. How did the disease manifest itself in the future Nobel Peace Prize winner, and what is known about the treatment?

Ronald D. Gerste: Nelson Mandela contracted tuberculosis in 1988. At that time, he was 70 years old and had been in prison for 26 years. The disease presented in him with the almost classic symptom: He was coughing up blood and was also increasingly fatigued and losing weight. After doctors initially suspected a viral infection, but then TB was proven, he was treated with medication, and fluid was also drained from his lungs. [Mr.] Mandela was hospitalized for six weeks at Tygerberg Hospital in Cape Town, the second largest hospital in South Africa. The therapy worked well, but [Mr.] Mandela’s lungs remained damaged. He was subsequently prone to pneumonia and was repeatedly hospitalized for pneumonia in 2012 and 2013.
 

Q: Mandela was lucky that the treatment worked for him. A few years later, the first antibiotic-resistant pathogen strains developed. How did medical research respond to this development?

Gerste: The emergence of multidrug resistant (MDR) strains of the pathogen prompted the WHO to declare a “global health emergency” in 1993. Three years later, World TB Day was proclaimed to raise awareness of the threat posed by this disease, which has been known since ancient times. It always takes place on March 24, the day in 1882 when Robert Koch gave his famous lecture in Berlin in which he announced the discovery of the pathogen Mycobacterium tuberculosis.

Medical research has introduced new drugs into TB therapy, such as bedaquiline and delamanid. But MDR tuberculosis therapy remains a global challenge and has diminished hopes of eradicating tuberculosis, as we did with smallpox some 40 years ago. Today, only 56% of all MDR-TB patients worldwide are successfully treated.
 

Q: As already mentioned, the TB pathogen was discovered by Robert Koch. How did this come about?

Gerste: Along with cholera, TB was a great epidemic of the 19th century. For an ambitious researcher like Robert Koch, who had made a name for himself with the discovery of anthrax in 1876, there was no more rewarding goal than to find the cause of this infectious disease, which claimed the lives of many famous people such as Kafka, Dostoevsky, and Schiller, as well as many whose names are forgotten today.

[Dr.] Koch worked with his cultures for several years; the method of staining with methylene blue that was developed by the young Paul Ehrlich represented a breakthrough. To this method, [Dr.] Koch added a second, brownish dye. After countless experiments, this allowed slightly curved bacilli to be identified in tuberculous material under the microscope.

On the evening of March 24, 1882, [Dr.] Koch gave a lecture at the Institute of Physiology in Berlin with the title “Etiology of TB,” which sounded less than sensational on the invitations. One or two dozen participants had been expected, but more than one hundred came; numerous listeners had to make do with standing room behind the rows of chairs in the lecture hall. After a rather dry presentation ([Dr.] Koch was not a great orator nor a self-promoter), he presented his results to those present.

His assistants had set up a series of microscopes in the lecture hall through which everyone could get a glimpse of this enemy of humanity: the tubercle bacillus. When [Dr.] Koch had finished his remarks, there was silence in the hall. There was no burst of applause; the audience was too deeply aware that they had witnessed a historic moment. Paul Ehrlich later said that this evening had been the most significant scientific experience of his life. Over the next few weeks, the newspapers made a national hero out of Robert Koch, and the Emperor appointed him a Privy Councilor of the Government. The country doctor from Pomerania was now the figurehead of science in the young German Empire.
 

Q: Shortly after his discovery, [Dr.] Koch advertised a vaccination against TB with the active ingredient tuberculin. Was he able to convince with that too?

Gerste: No, this was the big flop, almost the disaster of a remarkable scientific career. The preparation of attenuated tubercle bacilli with water and glycerin not only did not prevent infection at all, it proved fatal for numerous users. However, tuberculin has survived in a modified form: as a tuberculin test, in which a characteristic skin rash indicates that a tested person has already had contact with the Mycobacterium.
 

Q: How have diagnostic options and treatment of the disease evolved since Robert Koch’s lifetime?

Gerste: A very decisive advance was made in diagnostics. With the rather accidental discovery of the rays soon named after him by Wilhelm Conrad Röntgen in the last days of 1895, it became possible to visualize the lung changes that tuberculosis caused in an unexpected way on living patients; the serial examinations for TB by X-rays were the logical consequence. Both scientists received Nobel Prizes, which were still new at the time, within a few years of each other: [Dr.] Röntgen in 1901 for physics, and [Dr]. Koch in 1905 for medicine and physiology.

Effective drugs were practically unavailable toward the end of the 19th century. For those who could afford it, however, a whole new world of (hoped-for or perceived) healing from “consumption” opened up: the sanatorium, located high in the mountains, surrounded by “fresh air.” The most famous of these climatic health resorts is probably Davos. It is no disrespect to the Swiss Confederation, which I hold in high esteem, to point out that Switzerland owes its high status as a tourist destination and thus its prosperity in part to TB.
 

Q: Things were quite different in earlier times. Until 250 years ago, the hopes of many patients rested on the medieval healing method of the “royal touch.” What’s that all about?

Gerste: In the Middle Ages, a “healing method” emerged from which not only lepers and other seriously ill people but also those suffering from consumption expected to be saved: the “royal touch,” which was first described by the Frankish king Clovis in 496. This ceremony was based on the idea that the king or queen, anointed by God, could improve or even cure the ailment of a sick person through a brief touch.

With the transition from the Middle Ages to the early modern period, this act, during which thousands often gathered in front of the ruler’s residence, was practiced on a large scale. The sufferers passed by the anointed ruler as if in a procession and were briefly touched by him or her. The extremely few “successes” were of course exploited by royal propaganda to proclaim the blessing that the reign of the king or queen meant for the country. But on those who nevertheless fell victim to TB or another ailment, the chroniclers remained silent.

Charles II of England, who ruled from 1660 to 1685 during the Restoration after the English Civil War, is said to have touched 92,102 sick people during this period, according to contemporary counts. The record for a single day’s performance is probably held by Louis XVI of France, who is said to have touched a total of 2,400 sufferers on June 14, 1775. Some of them may have stood and cheered in the Paris crowd 18 years later as the king climbed the steps to the guillotine.
 

Q: Another invention associated with TB diagnosis is the stethoscope. How did it come about?

Gerste: A young physician named René-Théophile-Hyacinthe Laënnec had already experienced the importance of diagnosing TB in his student years. His teacher in Paris was Xavier Bichat, considered the founder of histology, who died of TB in [Dr.] Laënnec’s second year at the age of only 30. [Dr.] Laënnec was a devotee of auscultation and made it work with a massively overweight patient by rolling up a sheet of paper, then placing this on the woman’s thorax to listen to her heart sounds. He developed the idea further and built a hollow wooden tube with a metal earpiece. In 1818, he presented the device at the meeting of the Academy of Sciences in Paris; he called it a stethoscope. He used his new instrument primarily to auscultate the lungs of patients with TB and distinguished the sounds of TB cavities from those of other lung diseases such as pneumonia and emphysema.
 

Q: Back to the present day: The WHO wants to eradicate TB once and for all. What are the hopes and fears in the fight against this disease?

Gerste: There is no doubt that we are currently taking a step backwards in these efforts, and this is not only due to multiresistant pathogens. Especially in poorer countries particularly affected by TB, treatment and screening programs have been disrupted by lockdown measures targeting COVID-19. The WHO suspects that in the first pandemic year, 2020, about half a million additional people may have died from TB because they never received a diagnosis.

Dr. Gerste, born in 1957, is a physician and historian. Dr. Gerste has lived for many years as a correspondent and book author in Washington, D.C., where he writes primarily for the New Journal of Zürich, the FAS, Back Then, the German Medical Journal, and other academic journals.

This article was translated from Coliquio.

Almost forgotten today, tuberculosis is still one of the deadliest infectious diseases in the world. In an interview with Coliquio, Ronald D. Gerste, MD, PhD, an ophthalmologist and historian, looked back on this disease’s eventful history, which encompasses outstanding discoveries and catastrophic failures in diagnosis and treatment from the Middle Ages to the present day.

Under different names, TB has affected mankind for millennia. One of these names was the “aesthetic disease,” because it led to weight loss and pallor in the younger patients that it often affected. This was considered the ideal of beauty in the Victorian era. Many celebrities suffered from the disease, including poets and artists such as Friedrich Schiller, Lord Byron, and the Bronte family. As recently as the early 1990s, the disease almost changed world history, because Nelson Mandela became ill before the negotiations that led to the end of apartheid in South Africa.

Today, the global community is still not on track to meet its self-imposed targets for controlling the infectious disease, as reported by the World Health Organization on World TB Day in late March. Children and young people are the leading victims. In 2020 alone, 1.1 million children and adolescents under age 15 years were infected with TB, and 226,000 died of the disease, according to the WHO.
 

Q: Nelson Mandela was ill with tuberculosis during his imprisonment. How did the disease manifest itself in the future Nobel Peace Prize winner, and what is known about the treatment?

Ronald D. Gerste: Nelson Mandela contracted tuberculosis in 1988. At that time, he was 70 years old and had been in prison for 26 years. The disease presented in him with the almost classic symptom: He was coughing up blood and was also increasingly fatigued and losing weight. After doctors initially suspected a viral infection, but then TB was proven, he was treated with medication, and fluid was also drained from his lungs. [Mr.] Mandela was hospitalized for six weeks at Tygerberg Hospital in Cape Town, the second largest hospital in South Africa. The therapy worked well, but [Mr.] Mandela’s lungs remained damaged. He was subsequently prone to pneumonia and was repeatedly hospitalized for pneumonia in 2012 and 2013.
 

Q: Mandela was lucky that the treatment worked for him. A few years later, the first antibiotic-resistant pathogen strains developed. How did medical research respond to this development?

Gerste: The emergence of multidrug resistant (MDR) strains of the pathogen prompted the WHO to declare a “global health emergency” in 1993. Three years later, World TB Day was proclaimed to raise awareness of the threat posed by this disease, which has been known since ancient times. It always takes place on March 24, the day in 1882 when Robert Koch gave his famous lecture in Berlin in which he announced the discovery of the pathogen Mycobacterium tuberculosis.

Medical research has introduced new drugs into TB therapy, such as bedaquiline and delamanid. But MDR tuberculosis therapy remains a global challenge and has diminished hopes of eradicating tuberculosis, as we did with smallpox some 40 years ago. Today, only 56% of all MDR-TB patients worldwide are successfully treated.
 

Q: As already mentioned, the TB pathogen was discovered by Robert Koch. How did this come about?

Gerste: Along with cholera, TB was a great epidemic of the 19th century. For an ambitious researcher like Robert Koch, who had made a name for himself with the discovery of anthrax in 1876, there was no more rewarding goal than to find the cause of this infectious disease, which claimed the lives of many famous people such as Kafka, Dostoevsky, and Schiller, as well as many whose names are forgotten today.

[Dr.] Koch worked with his cultures for several years; the method of staining with methylene blue that was developed by the young Paul Ehrlich represented a breakthrough. To this method, [Dr.] Koch added a second, brownish dye. After countless experiments, this allowed slightly curved bacilli to be identified in tuberculous material under the microscope.

On the evening of March 24, 1882, [Dr.] Koch gave a lecture at the Institute of Physiology in Berlin with the title “Etiology of TB,” which sounded less than sensational on the invitations. One or two dozen participants had been expected, but more than one hundred came; numerous listeners had to make do with standing room behind the rows of chairs in the lecture hall. After a rather dry presentation ([Dr.] Koch was not a great orator nor a self-promoter), he presented his results to those present.

His assistants had set up a series of microscopes in the lecture hall through which everyone could get a glimpse of this enemy of humanity: the tubercle bacillus. When [Dr.] Koch had finished his remarks, there was silence in the hall. There was no burst of applause; the audience was too deeply aware that they had witnessed a historic moment. Paul Ehrlich later said that this evening had been the most significant scientific experience of his life. Over the next few weeks, the newspapers made a national hero out of Robert Koch, and the Emperor appointed him a Privy Councilor of the Government. The country doctor from Pomerania was now the figurehead of science in the young German Empire.
 

Q: Shortly after his discovery, [Dr.] Koch advertised a vaccination against TB with the active ingredient tuberculin. Was he able to convince with that too?

Gerste: No, this was the big flop, almost the disaster of a remarkable scientific career. The preparation of attenuated tubercle bacilli with water and glycerin not only did not prevent infection at all, it proved fatal for numerous users. However, tuberculin has survived in a modified form: as a tuberculin test, in which a characteristic skin rash indicates that a tested person has already had contact with the Mycobacterium.
 

Q: How have diagnostic options and treatment of the disease evolved since Robert Koch’s lifetime?

Gerste: A very decisive advance was made in diagnostics. With the rather accidental discovery of the rays soon named after him by Wilhelm Conrad Röntgen in the last days of 1895, it became possible to visualize the lung changes that tuberculosis caused in an unexpected way on living patients; the serial examinations for TB by X-rays were the logical consequence. Both scientists received Nobel Prizes, which were still new at the time, within a few years of each other: [Dr.] Röntgen in 1901 for physics, and [Dr]. Koch in 1905 for medicine and physiology.

Effective drugs were practically unavailable toward the end of the 19th century. For those who could afford it, however, a whole new world of (hoped-for or perceived) healing from “consumption” opened up: the sanatorium, located high in the mountains, surrounded by “fresh air.” The most famous of these climatic health resorts is probably Davos. It is no disrespect to the Swiss Confederation, which I hold in high esteem, to point out that Switzerland owes its high status as a tourist destination and thus its prosperity in part to TB.
 

Q: Things were quite different in earlier times. Until 250 years ago, the hopes of many patients rested on the medieval healing method of the “royal touch.” What’s that all about?

Gerste: In the Middle Ages, a “healing method” emerged from which not only lepers and other seriously ill people but also those suffering from consumption expected to be saved: the “royal touch,” which was first described by the Frankish king Clovis in 496. This ceremony was based on the idea that the king or queen, anointed by God, could improve or even cure the ailment of a sick person through a brief touch.

With the transition from the Middle Ages to the early modern period, this act, during which thousands often gathered in front of the ruler’s residence, was practiced on a large scale. The sufferers passed by the anointed ruler as if in a procession and were briefly touched by him or her. The extremely few “successes” were of course exploited by royal propaganda to proclaim the blessing that the reign of the king or queen meant for the country. But on those who nevertheless fell victim to TB or another ailment, the chroniclers remained silent.

Charles II of England, who ruled from 1660 to 1685 during the Restoration after the English Civil War, is said to have touched 92,102 sick people during this period, according to contemporary counts. The record for a single day’s performance is probably held by Louis XVI of France, who is said to have touched a total of 2,400 sufferers on June 14, 1775. Some of them may have stood and cheered in the Paris crowd 18 years later as the king climbed the steps to the guillotine.
 

Q: Another invention associated with TB diagnosis is the stethoscope. How did it come about?

Gerste: A young physician named René-Théophile-Hyacinthe Laënnec had already experienced the importance of diagnosing TB in his student years. His teacher in Paris was Xavier Bichat, considered the founder of histology, who died of TB in [Dr.] Laënnec’s second year at the age of only 30. [Dr.] Laënnec was a devotee of auscultation and made it work with a massively overweight patient by rolling up a sheet of paper, then placing this on the woman’s thorax to listen to her heart sounds. He developed the idea further and built a hollow wooden tube with a metal earpiece. In 1818, he presented the device at the meeting of the Academy of Sciences in Paris; he called it a stethoscope. He used his new instrument primarily to auscultate the lungs of patients with TB and distinguished the sounds of TB cavities from those of other lung diseases such as pneumonia and emphysema.
 

Q: Back to the present day: The WHO wants to eradicate TB once and for all. What are the hopes and fears in the fight against this disease?

Gerste: There is no doubt that we are currently taking a step backwards in these efforts, and this is not only due to multiresistant pathogens. Especially in poorer countries particularly affected by TB, treatment and screening programs have been disrupted by lockdown measures targeting COVID-19. The WHO suspects that in the first pandemic year, 2020, about half a million additional people may have died from TB because they never received a diagnosis.

Dr. Gerste, born in 1957, is a physician and historian. Dr. Gerste has lived for many years as a correspondent and book author in Washington, D.C., where he writes primarily for the New Journal of Zürich, the FAS, Back Then, the German Medical Journal, and other academic journals.

This article was translated from Coliquio.

Twelve years after the human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination program was introduced in the United States, the overall prevalence of cancer-causing HPV strains covered by the vaccine dropped by 85% among females – 90% among vaccinated females and 74% among unvaccinated females – a strong sign of herd immunity, a new analysis of a nationally representative database is showing.

“HPV vaccination is working well,” Hannah Rosenblum, MD, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, told this news organization in an email.

“Twelve years after introduction of HPV vaccination in the United States, national data demonstrate increasing impact among females and strong herd effects among unvaccinated females,” she added. “[Although] vaccination coverage and completion of the recommended dose in the United States is lower than coverage with other adolescent vaccinations, HPV vaccination is the best way to prevent HPV infections that can lead to several cancers in both females and males.”

The study was published online in Annals of Internal Medicine.
 

NHANES survey

The authors used data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) to examine the four HPV types in the quadrivalent vaccine before 2003 and 2006 (the pre-vaccine era) and then again between 2007-2010, 2011-2014, and 2015-2018 (the vaccine era). For females, they analyzed demographic and HPV prevalence data across each 4-year era.

“Analyses were limited to sexually experienced participants, to ensure that all those included had an opportunity for HPV exposure, and to participants aged 14-24 years with adequate self-collected cervicovaginal specimens,” the authors explain.

This resulted in a sample size of 3,197 females. Demographic and HPV prevalence data were also collected from males but only during the 2013-2016 era, because those are the only years for which male HPV typing data are available in NHANES. Again, analyses were limited to sexually experienced males aged 14-24 years with adequate self-collected penile specimens, which resulted in a sample size of 661 males.

Over the 12 years of follow-up for females, there was a steady increase in females reporting having received at least one dose of the HPV vaccine – from slightly over 25% during 2007-12 to 59% during 2015-2018. The percentage of males who reported having at least one HPV dose also increased, from 29.5% in 2016 to 34.5% in 2018.

During the earliest vaccine era (2007-2010), the prevalence of the four HPV strains covered by the vaccine was 7.3% among vaccinated females, compared with 20.4% among unvaccinated females. “By 2015 to 2018, the prevalence was 2.8% (prevalence ratio, 0.16; 95% confidence interval, 0.07-0.39). The prevalence of the four vaccine-covered types was only 1.9% in vaccinated females, compared with 4.8% in unvaccinated females (PR, 0.40; 95% CI, 0.11-1.41).

In contrast, the prevalence of HPV types that were not covered by the vaccine showed little change – from 51.1% in the pre-vaccine era to 47.6% during 2015-2018 (PR, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.80-1.08). The authors considered this a good sign because it indicates that vaccine-type HPV infections are not being replaced with other oncogenic HPV infections. Between 2013 and 2016, the difference in the prevalence of the four HPV vaccine types was smaller at 1.8% among vaccinated males and 3.5% among unvaccinated males (PR, 0.49; 95% CI, 0.11-2.20).

Again, the prevalence of non-HPV vaccine types was not significantly different between vaccinated and unvaccinated males: 30.7% versus 34.3%.

During the vaccine era, effectiveness for females ranged from 60% to 84%. For males, vaccine effectiveness could only be evaluated for the single 4-year period from 2013 to 2016, and it was estimated at 51%. Dr. Rosenblum noted that vaccine efficacy estimates were lower on this national survey than the almost 100% efficacy rates observed in clinical trials in both males and females.

“This might be due in part to many participants receiving the vaccine at an older age than is recommended when they could have been infected [with HPV] at the time of vaccination,” Dr. Rosenblum said. She also noted that because males were incorporated into the HPV vaccination program years after females, they likely also experienced strong herd effects from the vaccine, making it challenging to estimate vaccine effectiveness.

Dr. Rosenblum also noted that there have already been documented declines in cervical precancers and high-grade vulvar and vaginal precancers, as well as genital warts and juvenile-onset recurrent respiratory papillomatosis. At the same time, the incidence of cervical precancers has recently declined among U.S. females in their late teens and early 20s – “likely reflecting the impact of vaccination,” she said.

“This study is good news for the United States HPV vaccination program, and all efforts are needed to ensure that children and adolescents receive routinely recommended vaccinations [including vaccination against HPV],” Dr. Rosenblum added.
 

Editorial comment

Commenting on the findings, Rebecca Perkins, MD, Boston University School of Medicine, and colleagues point out that the COVID-19 pandemic has led to disruptions in HPV vaccination programs and has reversed much of the progress made in recent years. “During the pandemic, providers and health systems have deprioritized adolescent vaccination and particularly HPV vaccination, which in turn has led to more severe drops for HPV vaccination than for other adolescent vaccinations, and for adolescent vaccination, compared with early childhood and adult vaccinations,” Dr. Perkins and colleagues write in an accompanying editorial.

Thus, the need to compensate for the cumulative deficit of missed vaccinations over the past 2 years has created a “serious and urgent threat” to cancer prevention efforts – “a shortfall from which it may take a decade to recover,” the editorialists predict. To try and reverse this trend, several practices have been shown to improve HPV vaccination rates.

The first is a strong provider recommendation such as, “Your child is due for an HPV vaccine today.” The second is to give standing orders to allow nurses and medical assistants to administer vaccinations without requiring intervention by a physician. Lastly, programs to remind patients when vaccines are due and to recall them for appointments also work well.

“Using evidence-based methods and redoubling our efforts to prioritize HPV vaccination will be crucial to ensuring that we do not lose a generation to preventable HPV-associated cancer,” write Dr. Perkins and colleagues.

The study authors and editorialists have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Twelve years after the human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination program was introduced in the United States, the overall prevalence of cancer-causing HPV strains covered by the vaccine dropped by 85% among females – 90% among vaccinated females and 74% among unvaccinated females – a strong sign of herd immunity, a new analysis of a nationally representative database is showing.

“HPV vaccination is working well,” Hannah Rosenblum, MD, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, told this news organization in an email.

“Twelve years after introduction of HPV vaccination in the United States, national data demonstrate increasing impact among females and strong herd effects among unvaccinated females,” she added. “[Although] vaccination coverage and completion of the recommended dose in the United States is lower than coverage with other adolescent vaccinations, HPV vaccination is the best way to prevent HPV infections that can lead to several cancers in both females and males.”

The study was published online in Annals of Internal Medicine.
 

NHANES survey

The authors used data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) to examine the four HPV types in the quadrivalent vaccine before 2003 and 2006 (the pre-vaccine era) and then again between 2007-2010, 2011-2014, and 2015-2018 (the vaccine era). For females, they analyzed demographic and HPV prevalence data across each 4-year era.

“Analyses were limited to sexually experienced participants, to ensure that all those included had an opportunity for HPV exposure, and to participants aged 14-24 years with adequate self-collected cervicovaginal specimens,” the authors explain.

This resulted in a sample size of 3,197 females. Demographic and HPV prevalence data were also collected from males but only during the 2013-2016 era, because those are the only years for which male HPV typing data are available in NHANES. Again, analyses were limited to sexually experienced males aged 14-24 years with adequate self-collected penile specimens, which resulted in a sample size of 661 males.

Over the 12 years of follow-up for females, there was a steady increase in females reporting having received at least one dose of the HPV vaccine – from slightly over 25% during 2007-12 to 59% during 2015-2018. The percentage of males who reported having at least one HPV dose also increased, from 29.5% in 2016 to 34.5% in 2018.

During the earliest vaccine era (2007-2010), the prevalence of the four HPV strains covered by the vaccine was 7.3% among vaccinated females, compared with 20.4% among unvaccinated females. “By 2015 to 2018, the prevalence was 2.8% (prevalence ratio, 0.16; 95% confidence interval, 0.07-0.39). The prevalence of the four vaccine-covered types was only 1.9% in vaccinated females, compared with 4.8% in unvaccinated females (PR, 0.40; 95% CI, 0.11-1.41).

In contrast, the prevalence of HPV types that were not covered by the vaccine showed little change – from 51.1% in the pre-vaccine era to 47.6% during 2015-2018 (PR, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.80-1.08). The authors considered this a good sign because it indicates that vaccine-type HPV infections are not being replaced with other oncogenic HPV infections. Between 2013 and 2016, the difference in the prevalence of the four HPV vaccine types was smaller at 1.8% among vaccinated males and 3.5% among unvaccinated males (PR, 0.49; 95% CI, 0.11-2.20).

Again, the prevalence of non-HPV vaccine types was not significantly different between vaccinated and unvaccinated males: 30.7% versus 34.3%.

During the vaccine era, effectiveness for females ranged from 60% to 84%. For males, vaccine effectiveness could only be evaluated for the single 4-year period from 2013 to 2016, and it was estimated at 51%. Dr. Rosenblum noted that vaccine efficacy estimates were lower on this national survey than the almost 100% efficacy rates observed in clinical trials in both males and females.

“This might be due in part to many participants receiving the vaccine at an older age than is recommended when they could have been infected [with HPV] at the time of vaccination,” Dr. Rosenblum said. She also noted that because males were incorporated into the HPV vaccination program years after females, they likely also experienced strong herd effects from the vaccine, making it challenging to estimate vaccine effectiveness.

Dr. Rosenblum also noted that there have already been documented declines in cervical precancers and high-grade vulvar and vaginal precancers, as well as genital warts and juvenile-onset recurrent respiratory papillomatosis. At the same time, the incidence of cervical precancers has recently declined among U.S. females in their late teens and early 20s – “likely reflecting the impact of vaccination,” she said.

“This study is good news for the United States HPV vaccination program, and all efforts are needed to ensure that children and adolescents receive routinely recommended vaccinations [including vaccination against HPV],” Dr. Rosenblum added.
 

Editorial comment

Commenting on the findings, Rebecca Perkins, MD, Boston University School of Medicine, and colleagues point out that the COVID-19 pandemic has led to disruptions in HPV vaccination programs and has reversed much of the progress made in recent years. “During the pandemic, providers and health systems have deprioritized adolescent vaccination and particularly HPV vaccination, which in turn has led to more severe drops for HPV vaccination than for other adolescent vaccinations, and for adolescent vaccination, compared with early childhood and adult vaccinations,” Dr. Perkins and colleagues write in an accompanying editorial.

Thus, the need to compensate for the cumulative deficit of missed vaccinations over the past 2 years has created a “serious and urgent threat” to cancer prevention efforts – “a shortfall from which it may take a decade to recover,” the editorialists predict. To try and reverse this trend, several practices have been shown to improve HPV vaccination rates.

The first is a strong provider recommendation such as, “Your child is due for an HPV vaccine today.” The second is to give standing orders to allow nurses and medical assistants to administer vaccinations without requiring intervention by a physician. Lastly, programs to remind patients when vaccines are due and to recall them for appointments also work well.

“Using evidence-based methods and redoubling our efforts to prioritize HPV vaccination will be crucial to ensuring that we do not lose a generation to preventable HPV-associated cancer,” write Dr. Perkins and colleagues.

The study authors and editorialists have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Twelve years after the human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination program was introduced in the United States, the overall prevalence of cancer-causing HPV strains covered by the vaccine dropped by 85% among females – 90% among vaccinated females and 74% among unvaccinated females – a strong sign of herd immunity, a new analysis of a nationally representative database is showing.

“HPV vaccination is working well,” Hannah Rosenblum, MD, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, told this news organization in an email.

“Twelve years after introduction of HPV vaccination in the United States, national data demonstrate increasing impact among females and strong herd effects among unvaccinated females,” she added. “[Although] vaccination coverage and completion of the recommended dose in the United States is lower than coverage with other adolescent vaccinations, HPV vaccination is the best way to prevent HPV infections that can lead to several cancers in both females and males.”

The study was published online in Annals of Internal Medicine.
 

NHANES survey

The authors used data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) to examine the four HPV types in the quadrivalent vaccine before 2003 and 2006 (the pre-vaccine era) and then again between 2007-2010, 2011-2014, and 2015-2018 (the vaccine era). For females, they analyzed demographic and HPV prevalence data across each 4-year era.

“Analyses were limited to sexually experienced participants, to ensure that all those included had an opportunity for HPV exposure, and to participants aged 14-24 years with adequate self-collected cervicovaginal specimens,” the authors explain.

This resulted in a sample size of 3,197 females. Demographic and HPV prevalence data were also collected from males but only during the 2013-2016 era, because those are the only years for which male HPV typing data are available in NHANES. Again, analyses were limited to sexually experienced males aged 14-24 years with adequate self-collected penile specimens, which resulted in a sample size of 661 males.

Over the 12 years of follow-up for females, there was a steady increase in females reporting having received at least one dose of the HPV vaccine – from slightly over 25% during 2007-12 to 59% during 2015-2018. The percentage of males who reported having at least one HPV dose also increased, from 29.5% in 2016 to 34.5% in 2018.

During the earliest vaccine era (2007-2010), the prevalence of the four HPV strains covered by the vaccine was 7.3% among vaccinated females, compared with 20.4% among unvaccinated females. “By 2015 to 2018, the prevalence was 2.8% (prevalence ratio, 0.16; 95% confidence interval, 0.07-0.39). The prevalence of the four vaccine-covered types was only 1.9% in vaccinated females, compared with 4.8% in unvaccinated females (PR, 0.40; 95% CI, 0.11-1.41).

In contrast, the prevalence of HPV types that were not covered by the vaccine showed little change – from 51.1% in the pre-vaccine era to 47.6% during 2015-2018 (PR, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.80-1.08). The authors considered this a good sign because it indicates that vaccine-type HPV infections are not being replaced with other oncogenic HPV infections. Between 2013 and 2016, the difference in the prevalence of the four HPV vaccine types was smaller at 1.8% among vaccinated males and 3.5% among unvaccinated males (PR, 0.49; 95% CI, 0.11-2.20).

Again, the prevalence of non-HPV vaccine types was not significantly different between vaccinated and unvaccinated males: 30.7% versus 34.3%.

During the vaccine era, effectiveness for females ranged from 60% to 84%. For males, vaccine effectiveness could only be evaluated for the single 4-year period from 2013 to 2016, and it was estimated at 51%. Dr. Rosenblum noted that vaccine efficacy estimates were lower on this national survey than the almost 100% efficacy rates observed in clinical trials in both males and females.

“This might be due in part to many participants receiving the vaccine at an older age than is recommended when they could have been infected [with HPV] at the time of vaccination,” Dr. Rosenblum said. She also noted that because males were incorporated into the HPV vaccination program years after females, they likely also experienced strong herd effects from the vaccine, making it challenging to estimate vaccine effectiveness.

Dr. Rosenblum also noted that there have already been documented declines in cervical precancers and high-grade vulvar and vaginal precancers, as well as genital warts and juvenile-onset recurrent respiratory papillomatosis. At the same time, the incidence of cervical precancers has recently declined among U.S. females in their late teens and early 20s – “likely reflecting the impact of vaccination,” she said.

“This study is good news for the United States HPV vaccination program, and all efforts are needed to ensure that children and adolescents receive routinely recommended vaccinations [including vaccination against HPV],” Dr. Rosenblum added.
 

Editorial comment

Commenting on the findings, Rebecca Perkins, MD, Boston University School of Medicine, and colleagues point out that the COVID-19 pandemic has led to disruptions in HPV vaccination programs and has reversed much of the progress made in recent years. “During the pandemic, providers and health systems have deprioritized adolescent vaccination and particularly HPV vaccination, which in turn has led to more severe drops for HPV vaccination than for other adolescent vaccinations, and for adolescent vaccination, compared with early childhood and adult vaccinations,” Dr. Perkins and colleagues write in an accompanying editorial.

Thus, the need to compensate for the cumulative deficit of missed vaccinations over the past 2 years has created a “serious and urgent threat” to cancer prevention efforts – “a shortfall from which it may take a decade to recover,” the editorialists predict. To try and reverse this trend, several practices have been shown to improve HPV vaccination rates.

The first is a strong provider recommendation such as, “Your child is due for an HPV vaccine today.” The second is to give standing orders to allow nurses and medical assistants to administer vaccinations without requiring intervention by a physician. Lastly, programs to remind patients when vaccines are due and to recall them for appointments also work well.

“Using evidence-based methods and redoubling our efforts to prioritize HPV vaccination will be crucial to ensuring that we do not lose a generation to preventable HPV-associated cancer,” write Dr. Perkins and colleagues.

The study authors and editorialists have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Pre-procedure urinalysis can be skipped before certain office-based urology procedures, such as prostate biopsy and cystoscopy, according to the results of a randomized trial.

Some centers perform the pre-procedure test to avoid urinary tract infections (UTIs), a feared iatrogenic complication, but the new findings indicate the step is unnecessary.

These results “will alter screening urinalysis practice at our hospital,” said Alexa Rose, a clinical research coordinator in the department of urology, University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health, Madison. Ms. Rose’s group presented the findings at the annual meeting of the American Urological Association.

Although rates of post procedure UTI are generally low after office-based cytology, it is the most common complication, Ms. Rose said. To minimize risk, preprocedural urinalysis had become standard practice at her institution.

For the study, Ms. Rose and colleagues sought to determine if the testing was indeed helping reduce the risk of UTI. They randomly divided 641 patients into two groups. Both received urinalysis, but test results of participants in the experimental group were not forwarded to clinicians.

Patients were undergoing one of three types of office urology procedures: cystoscopy (66.6%), intravesical therapy for bladder cancer (24.5%), and prostate biopsy (8.9%). Median age was 70 years and most participants (83%) were men.

The primary endpoint was a symptomatic UTI confirmed by culture 30 days after the procedure.

In the 323 patients managed without access to the results of urinalysis, the rate of UTI was 1.2%. In the 318 patients who received usual care guided by urinalysis, the rate of UTI was 1.6% – and the difference was a single case.

The nonsignificant difference fell easily within the study definition of noninferiority, according to Ms. Rose. Others offering preprocedural urinalysis should take heed.

“Due to the large cohort of patients we enrolled, we expect that it will be applicable to other institutions,” she said in an interview.
 

SUB: Expert pushes back

In a 2020 Best Practice Statement from the AUA on antibiotic prophylaxis, the risk of procedural-related UTI was considered to be much lower in out-patient versus in-patient settings.

The statement identified a long list of variables to guide screening for UTI and initiation of prophylactic antibiotics prior to urology procedures for hospitalized patients, but office-based procedures in low-risk, largely healthy patients were treated differently.

As a result, the operating hypothesis of the Wisconsin study is “flawed,” said Anthony J. Schaeffer, MD, professor of urology, Feinberg School of Medicine at Northwestern University, Chicago.

“An asymptomatic patient undergoing office cystoscopy for [such indications as] hematuria or bladder tumor doesn’t need pre-procedural urinalysis or prophylactic antibiotics unless they have risk factors, such as immunosuppression,” Dr. Schaeffer told this news organization. “There is no relationship between preprocedural urinalysis and a post-procedure UTI caused by instrumentation.”

According to the AUA, neither antibiotic prophylaxis nor screening such as urodynamic studies is recommended prior to simple outpatient cystoscopy if patients are otherwise healthy and have no signs or symptoms of a UTI.

While antibiotic prophylaxis is standard of care for some outpatient urological procedures, such as transrectal ultrasound (TRUS)-guided prostate biopsies, the practice is appropriate whether or not patients undergo urinalysis, according to Dr. Schaeffer.

As a result, one problem with the new study was the lack of discussion about antibiotic prophylaxis.

“Presumably the patients undergoing TRUS prostate biopsies received antibiotic prophylaxis, which is a critical cofounder that they do not even mention,” Dr. Schaeffer said.

In patients with UTI symptoms, some screening is appropriate whether with a simple dipstick, laboratory-performed microscopy, or culture, according to the AUA.

In the absence of symptoms for a patient undergoing a class I (clean) procedure, the AUA statement recommends – and Dr. Schaeffer said he agreed – that antibiotic prophylaxis, let alone urinalysis, is not a standard, particularly for simple outpatient cystoscopy.

Ms. Rose and Dr. Schaeffer have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Pre-procedure urinalysis can be skipped before certain office-based urology procedures, such as prostate biopsy and cystoscopy, according to the results of a randomized trial.

Some centers perform the pre-procedure test to avoid urinary tract infections (UTIs), a feared iatrogenic complication, but the new findings indicate the step is unnecessary.

These results “will alter screening urinalysis practice at our hospital,” said Alexa Rose, a clinical research coordinator in the department of urology, University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health, Madison. Ms. Rose’s group presented the findings at the annual meeting of the American Urological Association.

Although rates of post procedure UTI are generally low after office-based cytology, it is the most common complication, Ms. Rose said. To minimize risk, preprocedural urinalysis had become standard practice at her institution.

For the study, Ms. Rose and colleagues sought to determine if the testing was indeed helping reduce the risk of UTI. They randomly divided 641 patients into two groups. Both received urinalysis, but test results of participants in the experimental group were not forwarded to clinicians.

Patients were undergoing one of three types of office urology procedures: cystoscopy (66.6%), intravesical therapy for bladder cancer (24.5%), and prostate biopsy (8.9%). Median age was 70 years and most participants (83%) were men.

The primary endpoint was a symptomatic UTI confirmed by culture 30 days after the procedure.

In the 323 patients managed without access to the results of urinalysis, the rate of UTI was 1.2%. In the 318 patients who received usual care guided by urinalysis, the rate of UTI was 1.6% – and the difference was a single case.

The nonsignificant difference fell easily within the study definition of noninferiority, according to Ms. Rose. Others offering preprocedural urinalysis should take heed.

“Due to the large cohort of patients we enrolled, we expect that it will be applicable to other institutions,” she said in an interview.
 

SUB: Expert pushes back

In a 2020 Best Practice Statement from the AUA on antibiotic prophylaxis, the risk of procedural-related UTI was considered to be much lower in out-patient versus in-patient settings.

The statement identified a long list of variables to guide screening for UTI and initiation of prophylactic antibiotics prior to urology procedures for hospitalized patients, but office-based procedures in low-risk, largely healthy patients were treated differently.

As a result, the operating hypothesis of the Wisconsin study is “flawed,” said Anthony J. Schaeffer, MD, professor of urology, Feinberg School of Medicine at Northwestern University, Chicago.

“An asymptomatic patient undergoing office cystoscopy for [such indications as] hematuria or bladder tumor doesn’t need pre-procedural urinalysis or prophylactic antibiotics unless they have risk factors, such as immunosuppression,” Dr. Schaeffer told this news organization. “There is no relationship between preprocedural urinalysis and a post-procedure UTI caused by instrumentation.”

According to the AUA, neither antibiotic prophylaxis nor screening such as urodynamic studies is recommended prior to simple outpatient cystoscopy if patients are otherwise healthy and have no signs or symptoms of a UTI.

While antibiotic prophylaxis is standard of care for some outpatient urological procedures, such as transrectal ultrasound (TRUS)-guided prostate biopsies, the practice is appropriate whether or not patients undergo urinalysis, according to Dr. Schaeffer.

As a result, one problem with the new study was the lack of discussion about antibiotic prophylaxis.

“Presumably the patients undergoing TRUS prostate biopsies received antibiotic prophylaxis, which is a critical cofounder that they do not even mention,” Dr. Schaeffer said.

In patients with UTI symptoms, some screening is appropriate whether with a simple dipstick, laboratory-performed microscopy, or culture, according to the AUA.

In the absence of symptoms for a patient undergoing a class I (clean) procedure, the AUA statement recommends – and Dr. Schaeffer said he agreed – that antibiotic prophylaxis, let alone urinalysis, is not a standard, particularly for simple outpatient cystoscopy.

Ms. Rose and Dr. Schaeffer have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Pre-procedure urinalysis can be skipped before certain office-based urology procedures, such as prostate biopsy and cystoscopy, according to the results of a randomized trial.

Some centers perform the pre-procedure test to avoid urinary tract infections (UTIs), a feared iatrogenic complication, but the new findings indicate the step is unnecessary.

These results “will alter screening urinalysis practice at our hospital,” said Alexa Rose, a clinical research coordinator in the department of urology, University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health, Madison. Ms. Rose’s group presented the findings at the annual meeting of the American Urological Association.

Although rates of post procedure UTI are generally low after office-based cytology, it is the most common complication, Ms. Rose said. To minimize risk, preprocedural urinalysis had become standard practice at her institution.

For the study, Ms. Rose and colleagues sought to determine if the testing was indeed helping reduce the risk of UTI. They randomly divided 641 patients into two groups. Both received urinalysis, but test results of participants in the experimental group were not forwarded to clinicians.

Patients were undergoing one of three types of office urology procedures: cystoscopy (66.6%), intravesical therapy for bladder cancer (24.5%), and prostate biopsy (8.9%). Median age was 70 years and most participants (83%) were men.

The primary endpoint was a symptomatic UTI confirmed by culture 30 days after the procedure.

In the 323 patients managed without access to the results of urinalysis, the rate of UTI was 1.2%. In the 318 patients who received usual care guided by urinalysis, the rate of UTI was 1.6% – and the difference was a single case.

The nonsignificant difference fell easily within the study definition of noninferiority, according to Ms. Rose. Others offering preprocedural urinalysis should take heed.

“Due to the large cohort of patients we enrolled, we expect that it will be applicable to other institutions,” she said in an interview.
 

SUB: Expert pushes back

In a 2020 Best Practice Statement from the AUA on antibiotic prophylaxis, the risk of procedural-related UTI was considered to be much lower in out-patient versus in-patient settings.

The statement identified a long list of variables to guide screening for UTI and initiation of prophylactic antibiotics prior to urology procedures for hospitalized patients, but office-based procedures in low-risk, largely healthy patients were treated differently.

As a result, the operating hypothesis of the Wisconsin study is “flawed,” said Anthony J. Schaeffer, MD, professor of urology, Feinberg School of Medicine at Northwestern University, Chicago.

“An asymptomatic patient undergoing office cystoscopy for [such indications as] hematuria or bladder tumor doesn’t need pre-procedural urinalysis or prophylactic antibiotics unless they have risk factors, such as immunosuppression,” Dr. Schaeffer told this news organization. “There is no relationship between preprocedural urinalysis and a post-procedure UTI caused by instrumentation.”

According to the AUA, neither antibiotic prophylaxis nor screening such as urodynamic studies is recommended prior to simple outpatient cystoscopy if patients are otherwise healthy and have no signs or symptoms of a UTI.

While antibiotic prophylaxis is standard of care for some outpatient urological procedures, such as transrectal ultrasound (TRUS)-guided prostate biopsies, the practice is appropriate whether or not patients undergo urinalysis, according to Dr. Schaeffer.

As a result, one problem with the new study was the lack of discussion about antibiotic prophylaxis.

“Presumably the patients undergoing TRUS prostate biopsies received antibiotic prophylaxis, which is a critical cofounder that they do not even mention,” Dr. Schaeffer said.

In patients with UTI symptoms, some screening is appropriate whether with a simple dipstick, laboratory-performed microscopy, or culture, according to the AUA.

In the absence of symptoms for a patient undergoing a class I (clean) procedure, the AUA statement recommends – and Dr. Schaeffer said he agreed – that antibiotic prophylaxis, let alone urinalysis, is not a standard, particularly for simple outpatient cystoscopy.

Ms. Rose and Dr. Schaeffer have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Use of oral ondansetron for acute gastroenteritis in children in an emergency setting increased significantly between 2006 and 2018, but use of intravenous fluids remained consistent, based on data from a cross-sectional analysis.

Recommendations for managing acute gastroenteritis in children include oral rehydration therapy for mild to moderate cases and intravenous rehydration for severe cases, Brett Burstein, MDCM, of McGill University, Montreal, and colleagues wrote.

Oral ondansetron has been shown to reduce vomiting and the need for intravenous rehydration, as well as reduce the need for hospitalization in children with evidence of dehydration, but has no significant benefits for children who are not dehydrated, the researchers noted.

“Given the high prevalence and costs associated with acute gastroenteritis treatment for children, understanding national trends in management in a broad, generalizable sample is important,” they wrote.

In a study published in JAMA Network Open, the researchers identified data from the National Hospital Ambulatory Medical Care Survey from Jan. 1, 2006, to Dec. 31, 2018. They analyzed ED visits by individuals younger than 18 years with either a primary discharge diagnosis of acute gastroenteritis or a primary diagnosis of nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, or dehydration with a secondary diagnosis of acute gastroenteritis. The study population included 4,122 patients with a mean age of 4.8 years. Approximately 85% of the visits were to nonacademic EDs, and 80% were to nonpediatric EDs.

Overall, ED visits for acute gastroenteritis increased over time, from 1.23 million in 2006 to 1.87 million in 2018 (P = .03 for trend). ED visits for acute gastroenteritis also increased significantly as a proportion of all ED pediatric visits, from 4.7% in 2006 to 5.6% in 2018 (P = .02 for trend).

Notably, the use of ondansetron increased from 10.6% in 2006 to 59.2% in 2018; however, intravenous rehydration and hospitalizations remained consistent over the study period, the researchers wrote. Approximately half of children who received intravenous fluids (53.9%) and those hospitalized (49.1%) also received ondansetron.

“Approximately half of children administered intravenous fluids or hospitalized did not receive ondansetron, suggesting that many children without dehydration receive ondansetron with limited benefit, whereas those most likely to benefit receive intravenous fluids without an adequate trial of ondansetron and oral rehydration therapy,” the researchers wrote in their discussion of the findings.

The study findings were limited by several factors including the lack of data on detailed patient-level information such as severity of dehydration, the researchers noted. Other limitations include lack of data on return visits and lack of data on the route of medication administration, which means that the perceived lack of benefit from ondansetron may be the result of children treated with both intravenous ondansetron and fluids, they said.

“Ondansetron-supported oral rehydration therapy for appropriately selected children can achieve intravenous rehydration rates of 9%, more than threefold lower than 2018 national estimates,” and more initiatives are needed to optimize ondansetron and reduce the excessive use of intravenous fluids, the researchers concluded.
 

Emergency care setting may promote IV fluid use

“Acute gastroenteritis has remained a major cause of pediatric morbidity and mortality worldwide with significant costs for the health care system,” Tim Joos, MD, a Seattle-based clinician with a combination internal medicine/pediatrics practice who was not involved in the current study, said in an interview. “The authors highlight that although ondansetron use for acute gastroenteritis in the ED has increased substantially, there are still a number of children who receive intravenous fluids in the ED without a trial of ondansetron and [oral rehydration therapy] first. For the individual patient, it is not surprising that the fast-paced culture of the ED doesn’t cater to a watchful waiting approach. This highlights the need for a more protocol-based algorithm for care of these patients upon check-in.

“Often the practice in the ED is a single dose of ondansetron, followed by attempts at oral rehydration 30 minutes later,” said Dr. Joos. “It would be interesting to know the extent that outpatient clinics are practicing this model prior to sending the patient on to the ED. Despite it becoming a common practice, there is still ongoing research into the efficacy and safety of multidose oral ondansetron at home in reducing ED visits/hospitalizations.”

The study received no outside funding. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Joos had no financial conflicts to disclose. Lead author Dr. Burstein received a career award from the Quebec Health Research Fund.

Use of oral ondansetron for acute gastroenteritis in children in an emergency setting increased significantly between 2006 and 2018, but use of intravenous fluids remained consistent, based on data from a cross-sectional analysis.

Recommendations for managing acute gastroenteritis in children include oral rehydration therapy for mild to moderate cases and intravenous rehydration for severe cases, Brett Burstein, MDCM, of McGill University, Montreal, and colleagues wrote.

Oral ondansetron has been shown to reduce vomiting and the need for intravenous rehydration, as well as reduce the need for hospitalization in children with evidence of dehydration, but has no significant benefits for children who are not dehydrated, the researchers noted.

“Given the high prevalence and costs associated with acute gastroenteritis treatment for children, understanding national trends in management in a broad, generalizable sample is important,” they wrote.

In a study published in JAMA Network Open, the researchers identified data from the National Hospital Ambulatory Medical Care Survey from Jan. 1, 2006, to Dec. 31, 2018. They analyzed ED visits by individuals younger than 18 years with either a primary discharge diagnosis of acute gastroenteritis or a primary diagnosis of nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, or dehydration with a secondary diagnosis of acute gastroenteritis. The study population included 4,122 patients with a mean age of 4.8 years. Approximately 85% of the visits were to nonacademic EDs, and 80% were to nonpediatric EDs.

Overall, ED visits for acute gastroenteritis increased over time, from 1.23 million in 2006 to 1.87 million in 2018 (P = .03 for trend). ED visits for acute gastroenteritis also increased significantly as a proportion of all ED pediatric visits, from 4.7% in 2006 to 5.6% in 2018 (P = .02 for trend).

Notably, the use of ondansetron increased from 10.6% in 2006 to 59.2% in 2018; however, intravenous rehydration and hospitalizations remained consistent over the study period, the researchers wrote. Approximately half of children who received intravenous fluids (53.9%) and those hospitalized (49.1%) also received ondansetron.

“Approximately half of children administered intravenous fluids or hospitalized did not receive ondansetron, suggesting that many children without dehydration receive ondansetron with limited benefit, whereas those most likely to benefit receive intravenous fluids without an adequate trial of ondansetron and oral rehydration therapy,” the researchers wrote in their discussion of the findings.

The study findings were limited by several factors including the lack of data on detailed patient-level information such as severity of dehydration, the researchers noted. Other limitations include lack of data on return visits and lack of data on the route of medication administration, which means that the perceived lack of benefit from ondansetron may be the result of children treated with both intravenous ondansetron and fluids, they said.

“Ondansetron-supported oral rehydration therapy for appropriately selected children can achieve intravenous rehydration rates of 9%, more than threefold lower than 2018 national estimates,” and more initiatives are needed to optimize ondansetron and reduce the excessive use of intravenous fluids, the researchers concluded.
 

Emergency care setting may promote IV fluid use

“Acute gastroenteritis has remained a major cause of pediatric morbidity and mortality worldwide with significant costs for the health care system,” Tim Joos, MD, a Seattle-based clinician with a combination internal medicine/pediatrics practice who was not involved in the current study, said in an interview. “The authors highlight that although ondansetron use for acute gastroenteritis in the ED has increased substantially, there are still a number of children who receive intravenous fluids in the ED without a trial of ondansetron and [oral rehydration therapy] first. For the individual patient, it is not surprising that the fast-paced culture of the ED doesn’t cater to a watchful waiting approach. This highlights the need for a more protocol-based algorithm for care of these patients upon check-in.

“Often the practice in the ED is a single dose of ondansetron, followed by attempts at oral rehydration 30 minutes later,” said Dr. Joos. “It would be interesting to know the extent that outpatient clinics are practicing this model prior to sending the patient on to the ED. Despite it becoming a common practice, there is still ongoing research into the efficacy and safety of multidose oral ondansetron at home in reducing ED visits/hospitalizations.”

The study received no outside funding. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Joos had no financial conflicts to disclose. Lead author Dr. Burstein received a career award from the Quebec Health Research Fund.

Use of oral ondansetron for acute gastroenteritis in children in an emergency setting increased significantly between 2006 and 2018, but use of intravenous fluids remained consistent, based on data from a cross-sectional analysis.

Recommendations for managing acute gastroenteritis in children include oral rehydration therapy for mild to moderate cases and intravenous rehydration for severe cases, Brett Burstein, MDCM, of McGill University, Montreal, and colleagues wrote.

Oral ondansetron has been shown to reduce vomiting and the need for intravenous rehydration, as well as reduce the need for hospitalization in children with evidence of dehydration, but has no significant benefits for children who are not dehydrated, the researchers noted.

“Given the high prevalence and costs associated with acute gastroenteritis treatment for children, understanding national trends in management in a broad, generalizable sample is important,” they wrote.

In a study published in JAMA Network Open, the researchers identified data from the National Hospital Ambulatory Medical Care Survey from Jan. 1, 2006, to Dec. 31, 2018. They analyzed ED visits by individuals younger than 18 years with either a primary discharge diagnosis of acute gastroenteritis or a primary diagnosis of nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, or dehydration with a secondary diagnosis of acute gastroenteritis. The study population included 4,122 patients with a mean age of 4.8 years. Approximately 85% of the visits were to nonacademic EDs, and 80% were to nonpediatric EDs.

Overall, ED visits for acute gastroenteritis increased over time, from 1.23 million in 2006 to 1.87 million in 2018 (P = .03 for trend). ED visits for acute gastroenteritis also increased significantly as a proportion of all ED pediatric visits, from 4.7% in 2006 to 5.6% in 2018 (P = .02 for trend).

Notably, the use of ondansetron increased from 10.6% in 2006 to 59.2% in 2018; however, intravenous rehydration and hospitalizations remained consistent over the study period, the researchers wrote. Approximately half of children who received intravenous fluids (53.9%) and those hospitalized (49.1%) also received ondansetron.

“Approximately half of children administered intravenous fluids or hospitalized did not receive ondansetron, suggesting that many children without dehydration receive ondansetron with limited benefit, whereas those most likely to benefit receive intravenous fluids without an adequate trial of ondansetron and oral rehydration therapy,” the researchers wrote in their discussion of the findings.

The study findings were limited by several factors including the lack of data on detailed patient-level information such as severity of dehydration, the researchers noted. Other limitations include lack of data on return visits and lack of data on the route of medication administration, which means that the perceived lack of benefit from ondansetron may be the result of children treated with both intravenous ondansetron and fluids, they said.

“Ondansetron-supported oral rehydration therapy for appropriately selected children can achieve intravenous rehydration rates of 9%, more than threefold lower than 2018 national estimates,” and more initiatives are needed to optimize ondansetron and reduce the excessive use of intravenous fluids, the researchers concluded.
 

Emergency care setting may promote IV fluid use

“Acute gastroenteritis has remained a major cause of pediatric morbidity and mortality worldwide with significant costs for the health care system,” Tim Joos, MD, a Seattle-based clinician with a combination internal medicine/pediatrics practice who was not involved in the current study, said in an interview. “The authors highlight that although ondansetron use for acute gastroenteritis in the ED has increased substantially, there are still a number of children who receive intravenous fluids in the ED without a trial of ondansetron and [oral rehydration therapy] first. For the individual patient, it is not surprising that the fast-paced culture of the ED doesn’t cater to a watchful waiting approach. This highlights the need for a more protocol-based algorithm for care of these patients upon check-in.

“Often the practice in the ED is a single dose of ondansetron, followed by attempts at oral rehydration 30 minutes later,” said Dr. Joos. “It would be interesting to know the extent that outpatient clinics are practicing this model prior to sending the patient on to the ED. Despite it becoming a common practice, there is still ongoing research into the efficacy and safety of multidose oral ondansetron at home in reducing ED visits/hospitalizations.”

The study received no outside funding. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Joos had no financial conflicts to disclose. Lead author Dr. Burstein received a career award from the Quebec Health Research Fund.

The U.S. immunization program is one of the best public health success stories. Physicians who provide care for children are familiar with the routine childhood immunization schedule and administer a measles-containing vaccine at age-appropriate times. Thanks to its rigorous implementation and acceptance, endemic measles (absence of continuous virus transmission for > 1 year) was eliminated in the U.S. in 2000. Loss of this status was in jeopardy in 2019 when 22 measles outbreaks occurred in 17 states (7 were multistate outbreaks). That year, 1,163 cases were reported.¹ Most cases occurred in unvaccinated persons (89%) and 81 cases were imported of which 54 were in U.S. citizens returning from international travel. All outbreaks were linked to travel. Fortunately, the outbreaks were controlled prior to the elimination deadline, or the United States would have lost its measles elimination status. Restrictions on travel because of COVID-19 have relaxed significantly since the introduction of COVID-19 vaccines, resulting in increased regional and international travel. Multiple countries, including the United States noted a decline in routine immunizations rates during the last 2 years. Recent U.S. data for the 2020-2021 school year indicates that MMR immunizations rates (two doses) for kindergarteners declined to 93.9% (range 78.9% to > 98.9%), while the overall percentage of those students with an exemption remained low at 2.2%. Vaccine coverage greater than 95% was reported in only 16 states. Coverage of less than 90% was reported in seven states and the District of Columbia (Georgia, Idaho, Kentucky, Maryland, Minnesota, Ohio, and Wisconsin).² Vaccine coverage should be 95% or higher to maintain herd immunity and control outbreaks.

Why is measles prevention so important? Many physicians practicing in the United States today have never seen a case or know its potential complications. I saw my first case as a resident in an immigrant child. It took our training director to point out the subtle signs and symptoms. It was the first time I saw Kolpik spots. Measles is transmitted person to person via large respiratory droplets and less often by airborne spread. It is highly contagious for susceptible individuals with an attack rate of 90%. In this case, a medical student on the team developed symptoms about 10 days later. Six years would pass before I diagnosed my next case of measles. An HIV patient acquired it after close contact with someone who was in the prodromal stage. He presented with the 3 C’s: Cough, coryza, and conjunctivitis, in addition to fever and an erythematous rash. He did not recover from complications of the disease.

Prior to the routine administration of a measles vaccine, 3-4 million cases with almost 500 deaths occurred annually in the United States. Worldwide, 35 million cases and more than 6 million deaths occurred each year. Here, most patients recover completely; however, complications including otitis media, pneumonia, croup, and encephalitis can develop. Complications commonly occur in immunocompromised individuals and young children. Groups with the highest fatality rates include children aged less than 5 years, immunocompromised persons, and pregnant women. Worldwide, fatality rates are dependent on the patients underlying nutritional and health status in addition to the quality of health care available.³

Measles vaccine was licensed in 1963 and cases began to decline (Figure 1). There was a resurgence in 1989 but it was not limited to the United States. The cause of the U.S. resurgence was multifactorial: Widespread viral transmission among unvaccinated preschool-age children residing in inner cities, outbreaks in vaccinated school-age children, outbreaks in students and personnel on college campuses, and primary vaccine failure (2%-5% of recipients failed to have an adequate response). In 1989, to help prevent future outbreaks, the United States recommended a two-dose schedule for measles and in 1993, the Vaccines for Children Program, a federally funded program, was established to improve access to vaccines for all children.
 

What is going on internationally?

Figure 2 lists the top 10 countries with current measles outbreaks.

Most countries on the list may not be typical travel destinations for tourists; however, they are common destinations for individuals visiting friends and relatives after immigrating to the United States. In contrast to the United States, most countries with limited resources and infrastructure have mass-vaccination campaigns to ensure vaccine administration to large segments of the population. They too have been affected by the COVID-19 pandemic. By report, at least 41 countries delayed implementation of their measles campaign in 2020 and 2021, thus, leading to the potential for even larger outbreaks.⁴

Progress toward the global elimination of measles is evidenced by the following: All 194 countries now include one dose of measles in their routine schedules; between 2000 and 2019 coverage of one dose of measles increased from 72% to 85% and countries with more than 90% coverage increased from 45% to 63%. Finally, the number of countries offering two doses of measles increased from 50% to 91% and vaccine coverage increased from 18% to 71% over the same time period.³

What can you do for your patients and their parents before they travel abroad?

• Inform all staff that the MMR vaccine can be administered to children as young as 6 months and at times other than those listed on the routine immunization schedule. This will help avoid parents seeking vaccine being denied an appointment.
• Children 6-11 months need 1 dose of MMR. Two additional doses will still need to be administered at the routine time.
• Children 12 months or older need 2 doses of MMR at least 4 weeks apart.
• If yellow fever vaccine is needed, coordinate administration with a travel medicine clinic since both are live vaccines and must be given on the same day.
• Any person born after 1956 should have 2 doses of MMR at least 4 weeks apart if they have no evidence of immunity.
• Encourage parents to always inform you and your staff of any international travel plans.

Moving forward, remember this increased global activity and the presence of inadequately vaccinated individuals/communities keeps the United States at continued risk for measles outbreaks. The source of the next outbreak may only be one plane ride away.

Dr. Word is a pediatric infectious disease specialist and director of the Houston Travel Medicine Clinic. She said she had no relevant financial disclosures.

This article was updated 6/29/22.

References

1. Patel M et al. MMWR. 2019 Oct 11; 68(40):893-6.

2. Seither R et al. MMWR. 2022 Apr 22;71(16):561-8.

3. Gastañaduy PA et al. J Infect Dis. 2021 Sep 30;224(12 Suppl 2):S420-8. doi: 10.1093/infdis/jiaa793.

4. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Measles (Rubeola). http://www.CDC.gov/Measles.

The U.S. immunization program is one of the best public health success stories. Physicians who provide care for children are familiar with the routine childhood immunization schedule and administer a measles-containing vaccine at age-appropriate times. Thanks to its rigorous implementation and acceptance, endemic measles (absence of continuous virus transmission for > 1 year) was eliminated in the U.S. in 2000. Loss of this status was in jeopardy in 2019 when 22 measles outbreaks occurred in 17 states (7 were multistate outbreaks). That year, 1,163 cases were reported.¹ Most cases occurred in unvaccinated persons (89%) and 81 cases were imported of which 54 were in U.S. citizens returning from international travel. All outbreaks were linked to travel. Fortunately, the outbreaks were controlled prior to the elimination deadline, or the United States would have lost its measles elimination status. Restrictions on travel because of COVID-19 have relaxed significantly since the introduction of COVID-19 vaccines, resulting in increased regional and international travel. Multiple countries, including the United States noted a decline in routine immunizations rates during the last 2 years. Recent U.S. data for the 2020-2021 school year indicates that MMR immunizations rates (two doses) for kindergarteners declined to 93.9% (range 78.9% to > 98.9%), while the overall percentage of those students with an exemption remained low at 2.2%. Vaccine coverage greater than 95% was reported in only 16 states. Coverage of less than 90% was reported in seven states and the District of Columbia (Georgia, Idaho, Kentucky, Maryland, Minnesota, Ohio, and Wisconsin).² Vaccine coverage should be 95% or higher to maintain herd immunity and control outbreaks.

Why is measles prevention so important? Many physicians practicing in the United States today have never seen a case or know its potential complications. I saw my first case as a resident in an immigrant child. It took our training director to point out the subtle signs and symptoms. It was the first time I saw Kolpik spots. Measles is transmitted person to person via large respiratory droplets and less often by airborne spread. It is highly contagious for susceptible individuals with an attack rate of 90%. In this case, a medical student on the team developed symptoms about 10 days later. Six years would pass before I diagnosed my next case of measles. An HIV patient acquired it after close contact with someone who was in the prodromal stage. He presented with the 3 C’s: Cough, coryza, and conjunctivitis, in addition to fever and an erythematous rash. He did not recover from complications of the disease.

Prior to the routine administration of a measles vaccine, 3-4 million cases with almost 500 deaths occurred annually in the United States. Worldwide, 35 million cases and more than 6 million deaths occurred each year. Here, most patients recover completely; however, complications including otitis media, pneumonia, croup, and encephalitis can develop. Complications commonly occur in immunocompromised individuals and young children. Groups with the highest fatality rates include children aged less than 5 years, immunocompromised persons, and pregnant women. Worldwide, fatality rates are dependent on the patients underlying nutritional and health status in addition to the quality of health care available.³

Measles vaccine was licensed in 1963 and cases began to decline (Figure 1). There was a resurgence in 1989 but it was not limited to the United States. The cause of the U.S. resurgence was multifactorial: Widespread viral transmission among unvaccinated preschool-age children residing in inner cities, outbreaks in vaccinated school-age children, outbreaks in students and personnel on college campuses, and primary vaccine failure (2%-5% of recipients failed to have an adequate response). In 1989, to help prevent future outbreaks, the United States recommended a two-dose schedule for measles and in 1993, the Vaccines for Children Program, a federally funded program, was established to improve access to vaccines for all children.
 

What is going on internationally?

Figure 2 lists the top 10 countries with current measles outbreaks.

Most countries on the list may not be typical travel destinations for tourists; however, they are common destinations for individuals visiting friends and relatives after immigrating to the United States. In contrast to the United States, most countries with limited resources and infrastructure have mass-vaccination campaigns to ensure vaccine administration to large segments of the population. They too have been affected by the COVID-19 pandemic. By report, at least 41 countries delayed implementation of their measles campaign in 2020 and 2021, thus, leading to the potential for even larger outbreaks.⁴

Progress toward the global elimination of measles is evidenced by the following: All 194 countries now include one dose of measles in their routine schedules; between 2000 and 2019 coverage of one dose of measles increased from 72% to 85% and countries with more than 90% coverage increased from 45% to 63%. Finally, the number of countries offering two doses of measles increased from 50% to 91% and vaccine coverage increased from 18% to 71% over the same time period.³

What can you do for your patients and their parents before they travel abroad?

• Inform all staff that the MMR vaccine can be administered to children as young as 6 months and at times other than those listed on the routine immunization schedule. This will help avoid parents seeking vaccine being denied an appointment.
• Children 6-11 months need 1 dose of MMR. Two additional doses will still need to be administered at the routine time.
• Children 12 months or older need 2 doses of MMR at least 4 weeks apart.
• If yellow fever vaccine is needed, coordinate administration with a travel medicine clinic since both are live vaccines and must be given on the same day.
• Any person born after 1956 should have 2 doses of MMR at least 4 weeks apart if they have no evidence of immunity.
• Encourage parents to always inform you and your staff of any international travel plans.

Moving forward, remember this increased global activity and the presence of inadequately vaccinated individuals/communities keeps the United States at continued risk for measles outbreaks. The source of the next outbreak may only be one plane ride away.

Dr. Word is a pediatric infectious disease specialist and director of the Houston Travel Medicine Clinic. She said she had no relevant financial disclosures.

This article was updated 6/29/22.

References

1. Patel M et al. MMWR. 2019 Oct 11; 68(40):893-6.

2. Seither R et al. MMWR. 2022 Apr 22;71(16):561-8.

3. Gastañaduy PA et al. J Infect Dis. 2021 Sep 30;224(12 Suppl 2):S420-8. doi: 10.1093/infdis/jiaa793.

4. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Measles (Rubeola). http://www.CDC.gov/Measles.

The U.S. immunization program is one of the best public health success stories. Physicians who provide care for children are familiar with the routine childhood immunization schedule and administer a measles-containing vaccine at age-appropriate times. Thanks to its rigorous implementation and acceptance, endemic measles (absence of continuous virus transmission for > 1 year) was eliminated in the U.S. in 2000. Loss of this status was in jeopardy in 2019 when 22 measles outbreaks occurred in 17 states (7 were multistate outbreaks). That year, 1,163 cases were reported.¹ Most cases occurred in unvaccinated persons (89%) and 81 cases were imported of which 54 were in U.S. citizens returning from international travel. All outbreaks were linked to travel. Fortunately, the outbreaks were controlled prior to the elimination deadline, or the United States would have lost its measles elimination status. Restrictions on travel because of COVID-19 have relaxed significantly since the introduction of COVID-19 vaccines, resulting in increased regional and international travel. Multiple countries, including the United States noted a decline in routine immunizations rates during the last 2 years. Recent U.S. data for the 2020-2021 school year indicates that MMR immunizations rates (two doses) for kindergarteners declined to 93.9% (range 78.9% to > 98.9%), while the overall percentage of those students with an exemption remained low at 2.2%. Vaccine coverage greater than 95% was reported in only 16 states. Coverage of less than 90% was reported in seven states and the District of Columbia (Georgia, Idaho, Kentucky, Maryland, Minnesota, Ohio, and Wisconsin).² Vaccine coverage should be 95% or higher to maintain herd immunity and control outbreaks.

Why is measles prevention so important? Many physicians practicing in the United States today have never seen a case or know its potential complications. I saw my first case as a resident in an immigrant child. It took our training director to point out the subtle signs and symptoms. It was the first time I saw Kolpik spots. Measles is transmitted person to person via large respiratory droplets and less often by airborne spread. It is highly contagious for susceptible individuals with an attack rate of 90%. In this case, a medical student on the team developed symptoms about 10 days later. Six years would pass before I diagnosed my next case of measles. An HIV patient acquired it after close contact with someone who was in the prodromal stage. He presented with the 3 C’s: Cough, coryza, and conjunctivitis, in addition to fever and an erythematous rash. He did not recover from complications of the disease.

Prior to the routine administration of a measles vaccine, 3-4 million cases with almost 500 deaths occurred annually in the United States. Worldwide, 35 million cases and more than 6 million deaths occurred each year. Here, most patients recover completely; however, complications including otitis media, pneumonia, croup, and encephalitis can develop. Complications commonly occur in immunocompromised individuals and young children. Groups with the highest fatality rates include children aged less than 5 years, immunocompromised persons, and pregnant women. Worldwide, fatality rates are dependent on the patients underlying nutritional and health status in addition to the quality of health care available.³

Measles vaccine was licensed in 1963 and cases began to decline (Figure 1). There was a resurgence in 1989 but it was not limited to the United States. The cause of the U.S. resurgence was multifactorial: Widespread viral transmission among unvaccinated preschool-age children residing in inner cities, outbreaks in vaccinated school-age children, outbreaks in students and personnel on college campuses, and primary vaccine failure (2%-5% of recipients failed to have an adequate response). In 1989, to help prevent future outbreaks, the United States recommended a two-dose schedule for measles and in 1993, the Vaccines for Children Program, a federally funded program, was established to improve access to vaccines for all children.
 

What is going on internationally?

Figure 2 lists the top 10 countries with current measles outbreaks.

Most countries on the list may not be typical travel destinations for tourists; however, they are common destinations for individuals visiting friends and relatives after immigrating to the United States. In contrast to the United States, most countries with limited resources and infrastructure have mass-vaccination campaigns to ensure vaccine administration to large segments of the population. They too have been affected by the COVID-19 pandemic. By report, at least 41 countries delayed implementation of their measles campaign in 2020 and 2021, thus, leading to the potential for even larger outbreaks.⁴

Progress toward the global elimination of measles is evidenced by the following: All 194 countries now include one dose of measles in their routine schedules; between 2000 and 2019 coverage of one dose of measles increased from 72% to 85% and countries with more than 90% coverage increased from 45% to 63%. Finally, the number of countries offering two doses of measles increased from 50% to 91% and vaccine coverage increased from 18% to 71% over the same time period.³

What can you do for your patients and their parents before they travel abroad?

• Inform all staff that the MMR vaccine can be administered to children as young as 6 months and at times other than those listed on the routine immunization schedule. This will help avoid parents seeking vaccine being denied an appointment.
• Children 6-11 months need 1 dose of MMR. Two additional doses will still need to be administered at the routine time.
• Children 12 months or older need 2 doses of MMR at least 4 weeks apart.
• If yellow fever vaccine is needed, coordinate administration with a travel medicine clinic since both are live vaccines and must be given on the same day.
• Any person born after 1956 should have 2 doses of MMR at least 4 weeks apart if they have no evidence of immunity.
• Encourage parents to always inform you and your staff of any international travel plans.

Moving forward, remember this increased global activity and the presence of inadequately vaccinated individuals/communities keeps the United States at continued risk for measles outbreaks. The source of the next outbreak may only be one plane ride away.

Dr. Word is a pediatric infectious disease specialist and director of the Houston Travel Medicine Clinic. She said she had no relevant financial disclosures.

This article was updated 6/29/22.

References

1. Patel M et al. MMWR. 2019 Oct 11; 68(40):893-6.

2. Seither R et al. MMWR. 2022 Apr 22;71(16):561-8.

3. Gastañaduy PA et al. J Infect Dis. 2021 Sep 30;224(12 Suppl 2):S420-8. doi: 10.1093/infdis/jiaa793.

4. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Measles (Rubeola). http://www.CDC.gov/Measles.

Patients with psoriasis have a significantly increased risk of severe and rare infections, compared with the general population, according to a population-based cohort study of nearly 95,000 patients.

Although previous studies have shown a higher risk for comorbid conditions in people with psoriasis, compared with those without psoriasis, data on the occurrence of severe and rare infections in patients with psoriasis are limited, wrote Nikolai Loft, MD, of the department of dermatology and allergy, Copenhagen University Hospital, Gentofte, and colleagues.

Psoriasis patients are often treated with immunosuppressive therapies that may promote or aggravate infections; therefore, a better understanding of psoriasis and risk of infections is needed, they said. In a study published in the British Journal of Dermatology, Dr. Loft and his coinvestigators reviewed data on adults aged 18 years and older from the Danish National Patient Register between Jan. 1, 1997 and Dec. 31, 2018. The study population included 94,450 adults with psoriasis and 566,700 matched controls. Patients with any type of psoriasis and any degree of severity were included.

The primary outcome was the occurrence of severe infections, defined as those requiring assessment at a hospital, and rare infections, defined as HIV, TB, HBV, and HCV. The median age of the participants was 52.3 years, and slightly more than half were women.

Overall, the incidence rate of severe and rare infections among patients with any type of psoriasis was 3,104.9 per 100,000 person-years, compared with 2,381.1 for controls, with a hazard ratio, adjusted for gender, age, ethnicity, socioeconomic status, alcohol-related conditions, and Charlson comorbidity index (aHR) of 1.29.

For any infections resulting in hospitalization, the incidence rate was 2,005.1 vs. 1,531.8 per 100,000 person-years for patients with any type of psoriasis and controls, respectively.

The results were similar when severe infections and rare infections were analyzed separately. The incidence rate of severe infections was 3,080.6 and 2,364.4 per 100,000 person-years for patients with any psoriasis, compared with controls; the incidence rate for rare infections was 42.9 and 31.8 for all psoriasis patients and controls, respectively.

When the data were examined by psoriasis severity, the incidence rate of severe and rare infections among patients with severe psoriasis was 3,847.7 per 100,000 person-years, compared with 2,351.9 per 100,000 person years among controls (aHR, 1.58) and also higher than in patients with mild psoriasis. The incidence rate of severe and rare infections in patients with mild psoriasis (2,979.1 per 100,000 person-years) also was higher than in controls (aHR, 1.26).

Factors that might explain the increased infection risk with severe psoriasis include the altered immune environment in these patients, the researchers wrote in their discussion of the findings. Also, “patients with severe psoriasis are defined by their eligibility for systemics, either conventional or biologic,” and their increased infection risk may stem from these treatments, rather than disease severity itself, they noted.

The study findings were limited by several factors including the lack of data on such confounders as weight, body mass index, and smoking status, they added. Other limitations included potential surveillance bias because of greater TB screening, and the use of prescriptions, rather than the Psoriasis Area Severity Index, to define severity. However, the results were strengthened by the large sample size, and suggest that patients with any type of psoriasis have higher rates of any infection, severe or rare, than the general population, the researchers concluded.

Data show need for clinician vigilance

Based on the 2020 Census data, an estimated 7.55 million adults in the United States have psoriasis, David Robles, MD, said in an interview. “Patients with psoriasis have a high risk for multiple comorbid conditions including metabolic syndrome, which is characterized by obesity, hypertension, and dyslipidemia,” said Dr. Robles, a dermatologist in private practice in Pomona, Calif., who was not involved in the study. “Although these complications were previously attributed to diet and obesity, it has become clear that the proinflammatory cytokines associated with psoriasis may be playing an important role underlying the pathologic basis of these other comorbidities.”

There is an emerging body of literature “indicating that psoriasis is associated with an increased risk of infections,” he added. Research in this area is particularly important because of the increased risk of infections associated with many biologic and immune-modulating treatments for psoriasis, Dr. Robles noted.

The study findings “indicate that, as the severity of psoriasis increases, so does the risk of severe and rare infections,” he said. “This makes it imperative for clinicians to be alert to the possibility of severe or rare infections in patients with psoriasis, especially those with severe psoriasis, so that early intervention can be initiated.”

As for additional research, “as an immunologist and dermatologist, I cannot help but think about the possible role the genetic and cytokine pathways involved in psoriasis may be playing in modulating the immune system and/or microbiome, and whether this contributes to a higher risk of infections,” Dr. Robles said. “Just as it was discovered that patients with atopic dermatitis have decreased levels of antimicrobial peptides in their skin, making them susceptible to recurrent bacterial skin infections, we may find that the genetic and immunological changes associated with psoriasis may independently contribute to infection susceptibility,” he noted. “More basic immunology and virology research may one day shed light on this observation.”

The study was supported by Novartis. Lead author Dr. Loft disclosed serving as a speaker for Eli Lilly and Janssen Cilag, other authors disclosed relationships with multiple companies including Novartis, and two authors are Novartis employees. Dr. Robles had no relevant financial disclosures.

Patients with psoriasis have a significantly increased risk of severe and rare infections, compared with the general population, according to a population-based cohort study of nearly 95,000 patients.

Although previous studies have shown a higher risk for comorbid conditions in people with psoriasis, compared with those without psoriasis, data on the occurrence of severe and rare infections in patients with psoriasis are limited, wrote Nikolai Loft, MD, of the department of dermatology and allergy, Copenhagen University Hospital, Gentofte, and colleagues.

Psoriasis patients are often treated with immunosuppressive therapies that may promote or aggravate infections; therefore, a better understanding of psoriasis and risk of infections is needed, they said. In a study published in the British Journal of Dermatology, Dr. Loft and his coinvestigators reviewed data on adults aged 18 years and older from the Danish National Patient Register between Jan. 1, 1997 and Dec. 31, 2018. The study population included 94,450 adults with psoriasis and 566,700 matched controls. Patients with any type of psoriasis and any degree of severity were included.

The primary outcome was the occurrence of severe infections, defined as those requiring assessment at a hospital, and rare infections, defined as HIV, TB, HBV, and HCV. The median age of the participants was 52.3 years, and slightly more than half were women.

Overall, the incidence rate of severe and rare infections among patients with any type of psoriasis was 3,104.9 per 100,000 person-years, compared with 2,381.1 for controls, with a hazard ratio, adjusted for gender, age, ethnicity, socioeconomic status, alcohol-related conditions, and Charlson comorbidity index (aHR) of 1.29.

For any infections resulting in hospitalization, the incidence rate was 2,005.1 vs. 1,531.8 per 100,000 person-years for patients with any type of psoriasis and controls, respectively.

The results were similar when severe infections and rare infections were analyzed separately. The incidence rate of severe infections was 3,080.6 and 2,364.4 per 100,000 person-years for patients with any psoriasis, compared with controls; the incidence rate for rare infections was 42.9 and 31.8 for all psoriasis patients and controls, respectively.

When the data were examined by psoriasis severity, the incidence rate of severe and rare infections among patients with severe psoriasis was 3,847.7 per 100,000 person-years, compared with 2,351.9 per 100,000 person years among controls (aHR, 1.58) and also higher than in patients with mild psoriasis. The incidence rate of severe and rare infections in patients with mild psoriasis (2,979.1 per 100,000 person-years) also was higher than in controls (aHR, 1.26).

Factors that might explain the increased infection risk with severe psoriasis include the altered immune environment in these patients, the researchers wrote in their discussion of the findings. Also, “patients with severe psoriasis are defined by their eligibility for systemics, either conventional or biologic,” and their increased infection risk may stem from these treatments, rather than disease severity itself, they noted.

The study findings were limited by several factors including the lack of data on such confounders as weight, body mass index, and smoking status, they added. Other limitations included potential surveillance bias because of greater TB screening, and the use of prescriptions, rather than the Psoriasis Area Severity Index, to define severity. However, the results were strengthened by the large sample size, and suggest that patients with any type of psoriasis have higher rates of any infection, severe or rare, than the general population, the researchers concluded.

Data show need for clinician vigilance

Based on the 2020 Census data, an estimated 7.55 million adults in the United States have psoriasis, David Robles, MD, said in an interview. “Patients with psoriasis have a high risk for multiple comorbid conditions including metabolic syndrome, which is characterized by obesity, hypertension, and dyslipidemia,” said Dr. Robles, a dermatologist in private practice in Pomona, Calif., who was not involved in the study. “Although these complications were previously attributed to diet and obesity, it has become clear that the proinflammatory cytokines associated with psoriasis may be playing an important role underlying the pathologic basis of these other comorbidities.”

There is an emerging body of literature “indicating that psoriasis is associated with an increased risk of infections,” he added. Research in this area is particularly important because of the increased risk of infections associated with many biologic and immune-modulating treatments for psoriasis, Dr. Robles noted.

The study findings “indicate that, as the severity of psoriasis increases, so does the risk of severe and rare infections,” he said. “This makes it imperative for clinicians to be alert to the possibility of severe or rare infections in patients with psoriasis, especially those with severe psoriasis, so that early intervention can be initiated.”

As for additional research, “as an immunologist and dermatologist, I cannot help but think about the possible role the genetic and cytokine pathways involved in psoriasis may be playing in modulating the immune system and/or microbiome, and whether this contributes to a higher risk of infections,” Dr. Robles said. “Just as it was discovered that patients with atopic dermatitis have decreased levels of antimicrobial peptides in their skin, making them susceptible to recurrent bacterial skin infections, we may find that the genetic and immunological changes associated with psoriasis may independently contribute to infection susceptibility,” he noted. “More basic immunology and virology research may one day shed light on this observation.”

The study was supported by Novartis. Lead author Dr. Loft disclosed serving as a speaker for Eli Lilly and Janssen Cilag, other authors disclosed relationships with multiple companies including Novartis, and two authors are Novartis employees. Dr. Robles had no relevant financial disclosures.

Patients with psoriasis have a significantly increased risk of severe and rare infections, compared with the general population, according to a population-based cohort study of nearly 95,000 patients.

Although previous studies have shown a higher risk for comorbid conditions in people with psoriasis, compared with those without psoriasis, data on the occurrence of severe and rare infections in patients with psoriasis are limited, wrote Nikolai Loft, MD, of the department of dermatology and allergy, Copenhagen University Hospital, Gentofte, and colleagues.

Psoriasis patients are often treated with immunosuppressive therapies that may promote or aggravate infections; therefore, a better understanding of psoriasis and risk of infections is needed, they said. In a study published in the British Journal of Dermatology, Dr. Loft and his coinvestigators reviewed data on adults aged 18 years and older from the Danish National Patient Register between Jan. 1, 1997 and Dec. 31, 2018. The study population included 94,450 adults with psoriasis and 566,700 matched controls. Patients with any type of psoriasis and any degree of severity were included.

The primary outcome was the occurrence of severe infections, defined as those requiring assessment at a hospital, and rare infections, defined as HIV, TB, HBV, and HCV. The median age of the participants was 52.3 years, and slightly more than half were women.

Overall, the incidence rate of severe and rare infections among patients with any type of psoriasis was 3,104.9 per 100,000 person-years, compared with 2,381.1 for controls, with a hazard ratio, adjusted for gender, age, ethnicity, socioeconomic status, alcohol-related conditions, and Charlson comorbidity index (aHR) of 1.29.

For any infections resulting in hospitalization, the incidence rate was 2,005.1 vs. 1,531.8 per 100,000 person-years for patients with any type of psoriasis and controls, respectively.

The results were similar when severe infections and rare infections were analyzed separately. The incidence rate of severe infections was 3,080.6 and 2,364.4 per 100,000 person-years for patients with any psoriasis, compared with controls; the incidence rate for rare infections was 42.9 and 31.8 for all psoriasis patients and controls, respectively.

When the data were examined by psoriasis severity, the incidence rate of severe and rare infections among patients with severe psoriasis was 3,847.7 per 100,000 person-years, compared with 2,351.9 per 100,000 person years among controls (aHR, 1.58) and also higher than in patients with mild psoriasis. The incidence rate of severe and rare infections in patients with mild psoriasis (2,979.1 per 100,000 person-years) also was higher than in controls (aHR, 1.26).

Factors that might explain the increased infection risk with severe psoriasis include the altered immune environment in these patients, the researchers wrote in their discussion of the findings. Also, “patients with severe psoriasis are defined by their eligibility for systemics, either conventional or biologic,” and their increased infection risk may stem from these treatments, rather than disease severity itself, they noted.

The study findings were limited by several factors including the lack of data on such confounders as weight, body mass index, and smoking status, they added. Other limitations included potential surveillance bias because of greater TB screening, and the use of prescriptions, rather than the Psoriasis Area Severity Index, to define severity. However, the results were strengthened by the large sample size, and suggest that patients with any type of psoriasis have higher rates of any infection, severe or rare, than the general population, the researchers concluded.

Data show need for clinician vigilance

Based on the 2020 Census data, an estimated 7.55 million adults in the United States have psoriasis, David Robles, MD, said in an interview. “Patients with psoriasis have a high risk for multiple comorbid conditions including metabolic syndrome, which is characterized by obesity, hypertension, and dyslipidemia,” said Dr. Robles, a dermatologist in private practice in Pomona, Calif., who was not involved in the study. “Although these complications were previously attributed to diet and obesity, it has become clear that the proinflammatory cytokines associated with psoriasis may be playing an important role underlying the pathologic basis of these other comorbidities.”

There is an emerging body of literature “indicating that psoriasis is associated with an increased risk of infections,” he added. Research in this area is particularly important because of the increased risk of infections associated with many biologic and immune-modulating treatments for psoriasis, Dr. Robles noted.

The study findings “indicate that, as the severity of psoriasis increases, so does the risk of severe and rare infections,” he said. “This makes it imperative for clinicians to be alert to the possibility of severe or rare infections in patients with psoriasis, especially those with severe psoriasis, so that early intervention can be initiated.”

As for additional research, “as an immunologist and dermatologist, I cannot help but think about the possible role the genetic and cytokine pathways involved in psoriasis may be playing in modulating the immune system and/or microbiome, and whether this contributes to a higher risk of infections,” Dr. Robles said. “Just as it was discovered that patients with atopic dermatitis have decreased levels of antimicrobial peptides in their skin, making them susceptible to recurrent bacterial skin infections, we may find that the genetic and immunological changes associated with psoriasis may independently contribute to infection susceptibility,” he noted. “More basic immunology and virology research may one day shed light on this observation.”

The study was supported by Novartis. Lead author Dr. Loft disclosed serving as a speaker for Eli Lilly and Janssen Cilag, other authors disclosed relationships with multiple companies including Novartis, and two authors are Novartis employees. Dr. Robles had no relevant financial disclosures.

The Food and Drug Administration has authorized ultrathin panties that can be worn to reduce the risk of sexually transmitted diseases during oral sex.

The underwear, sold as Lorals for Protection, are single-use, vanilla-scented, natural latex panties that cover the genitals and anus and block the transfer of bodily fluids during oral sex, according to the company website. They sell in packages of four for $25.

The FDA didn’t run human clinical trials but granted authorization after the company gave it data about the product, The New York Times reported.

“The FDA’s authorization of this product gives people another option to protect against STIs during oral sex,” said Courtney Lias, PhD, director of the FDA office that led the review of the underwear.

Previously, the FDA authorized oral dams to prevent the spread of STIs during oral sex. Oral dams, sometimes called oral sex condoms, are thin latex barriers that go between one partner’s mouth and the other person’s genitals. The dams haven’t been widely used, partly because a person has to hold the dam in place during sex, unlike the panties.

“They’re extremely unpopular,” Jeanne Marrazzo, MD, director of the division of infectious diseases at the University of Alabama at Birmingham, told the Times. “I mean, honestly, could there be anything less sexy than a dental dam?”Melanie Cristol said she came up with the idea for the panties after discovering on her 2014 honeymoon that she had an infection that could be sexually transmitted.

“I wanted to feel sexy and confident and use something that was made with my body and actual sex in mind,” she told the Times.

The panties are made of material about as thin as a condom and form a seal on the thigh to keep fluids inside, she said.

Dr. Marrazzo said the panties are an advancement because there are few options for safe oral sex. She noted that some teenagers have their first sexual experience with oral sex and that the panties could reduce anxiety for people of all ages.

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

The Food and Drug Administration has authorized ultrathin panties that can be worn to reduce the risk of sexually transmitted diseases during oral sex.

The underwear, sold as Lorals for Protection, are single-use, vanilla-scented, natural latex panties that cover the genitals and anus and block the transfer of bodily fluids during oral sex, according to the company website. They sell in packages of four for $25.

The FDA didn’t run human clinical trials but granted authorization after the company gave it data about the product, The New York Times reported.

“The FDA’s authorization of this product gives people another option to protect against STIs during oral sex,” said Courtney Lias, PhD, director of the FDA office that led the review of the underwear.

Previously, the FDA authorized oral dams to prevent the spread of STIs during oral sex. Oral dams, sometimes called oral sex condoms, are thin latex barriers that go between one partner’s mouth and the other person’s genitals. The dams haven’t been widely used, partly because a person has to hold the dam in place during sex, unlike the panties.

“They’re extremely unpopular,” Jeanne Marrazzo, MD, director of the division of infectious diseases at the University of Alabama at Birmingham, told the Times. “I mean, honestly, could there be anything less sexy than a dental dam?”Melanie Cristol said she came up with the idea for the panties after discovering on her 2014 honeymoon that she had an infection that could be sexually transmitted.

“I wanted to feel sexy and confident and use something that was made with my body and actual sex in mind,” she told the Times.

The panties are made of material about as thin as a condom and form a seal on the thigh to keep fluids inside, she said.

Dr. Marrazzo said the panties are an advancement because there are few options for safe oral sex. She noted that some teenagers have their first sexual experience with oral sex and that the panties could reduce anxiety for people of all ages.

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

The Food and Drug Administration has authorized ultrathin panties that can be worn to reduce the risk of sexually transmitted diseases during oral sex.

The underwear, sold as Lorals for Protection, are single-use, vanilla-scented, natural latex panties that cover the genitals and anus and block the transfer of bodily fluids during oral sex, according to the company website. They sell in packages of four for $25.

The FDA didn’t run human clinical trials but granted authorization after the company gave it data about the product, The New York Times reported.

“The FDA’s authorization of this product gives people another option to protect against STIs during oral sex,” said Courtney Lias, PhD, director of the FDA office that led the review of the underwear.

Previously, the FDA authorized oral dams to prevent the spread of STIs during oral sex. Oral dams, sometimes called oral sex condoms, are thin latex barriers that go between one partner’s mouth and the other person’s genitals. The dams haven’t been widely used, partly because a person has to hold the dam in place during sex, unlike the panties.

“They’re extremely unpopular,” Jeanne Marrazzo, MD, director of the division of infectious diseases at the University of Alabama at Birmingham, told the Times. “I mean, honestly, could there be anything less sexy than a dental dam?”Melanie Cristol said she came up with the idea for the panties after discovering on her 2014 honeymoon that she had an infection that could be sexually transmitted.

“I wanted to feel sexy and confident and use something that was made with my body and actual sex in mind,” she told the Times.

The panties are made of material about as thin as a condom and form a seal on the thigh to keep fluids inside, she said.

Dr. Marrazzo said the panties are an advancement because there are few options for safe oral sex. She noted that some teenagers have their first sexual experience with oral sex and that the panties could reduce anxiety for people of all ages.

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

Early in the COVID-19 pandemic, Trisha Pasricha, MD, a gastroenterologist and research fellow at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston, was talking to a patient who had been hospitalized for a peptic ulcer.

Like other physicians in her institution, Dr. Pasricha was wearing scrubs instead of a white coat, out of concern that the white coat might be more prone to accumulating or transmitting COVID-19 pathogens. Her badge identified her as a physician, and she introduced herself clearly as “Dr. Pasricha.”

The patient “required an emergent procedure, which I discussed with him,” Dr. Pasricha told this news organization. “I went over what the procedure entailed, the risks and benefits, and the need for informed consent. The patient nodded and seemed to understand, but at the end of the discussion he said: ‘That all sounds fine, but I need to speak to the doctor first.’ ”

Dr. Pasricha was taken aback. She wondered: “Who did he think I was the whole time that I was reviewing medical concerns, explaining medical concepts, and describing a procedure in a way that a physician would describe it?”

She realized the reason he didn’t correctly identify her was that, clad only in scrubs, she was less easily recognizable as a physician. And while this type of misidentification happened to physicians of both genders wearing scrubs and no white coat, it was more common for female than for male physicians to be misidentified as technicians, nurses, physician assistants, or other health care professionals, according to Dr. Pasricha.

Dr. Pasricha said she has been the recipient of this “implicit bias” not only from patients but also from members of the health care team, and added that other female colleagues have told her that they’ve had similar experiences, especially when they’re not wearing a white coat.
 

Changing times, changing trends

When COVID-19 began to spread, “there was an initial concern that COVID-19 was passed through surfaces, and concerns about whether white coats could carry viral particles,” according to Jordan Steinberg, MD, PhD, surgical director of the craniofacial program at Nicklaus Children’s Pediatric Specialists/Nicklaus Children’s Health System, Miami. “Hospitals didn’t want to launder the white coats as frequently as scrubs, due to cost concerns. There was also a concern raised that a necktie might dangle in patients’ faces, coming in closer contact with pathogens, so more physicians were wearing scrubs.”

Yet even before the pandemic, physician attire in hospital and outpatient settings had started to change. Dr. Steinberg, who is also a clinical associate professor at Florida International University, Miami, told this news organization that, in his previous appointment at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, he and his colleagues “had noticed in our institution, as well as other facilities, an increasing trend that moved from white coats worn over professional attire toward more casual dress among medical staff – increased wearing of casual fleece or softshell jackets with the institutional logo.”

This was especially true with trainees and the “younger generation,” who were preferring “what I would almost call ‘warm-up clothes,’ gym clothes, and less shirt-tie-white-coat attire for men or white-coats-and-business attire for women.” Dr. Steinberg thinks that some physicians prefer the fleece with the institutional logo “because it’s like wearing your favorite sports team jersey. It gives a sense of belonging.”

Todd Shaffer, MD, MBA, a family physician at University Physicians Associates, Truman Medical Centers and the Lakewood Medical Pavilion, Kansas City, Mo., has been at his institution for 30 years and has seen a similar trend. “At one point, things were very formal,” he told this news organization. But attire was already becoming less formal before the pandemic, and new changes took place during the pandemic, as physicians began wearing scrubs instead of white coats because of fears of viral contamination.

Now, there is less concern about potential viral contamination with the white coat. Yet many physicians continue to wear scrubs – especially those who interact with patients with COVID – and it has become more acceptable to do so, or to wear personal protective equipment (PPE) over ordinary clothing, but it is less common in routine clinical practice, said Dr. Shaffer, a member of the board of directors of the American Academy of Family Physicians.

“The world has changed since COVID. People feel more comfortable dressing more casually during professional Zoom calls, when they have the convenience of working from home,” said Dr. Shaffer, who is also a professor of family medicine at University of Missouri–Kansas City.

Dr. Shaffer himself hasn’t worn a white coat for years. “I’m more likely to wear medium casual pants. I’ve bought some nicer shirts, so I still look professional and upbeat. I don’t always tuck in my shirt, and I don’t dress as formally.” He wears PPE and a mask and/or face shield when treating patients with COVID-19. And he wears a white coat “when someone wants a photograph taken with the doctors – with the stethoscope draped around my neck.”
 

Traditional symbol of medicine

Because of the changing mores, Dr. Steinberg and colleagues at Johns Hopkins wondered if there might still be a role for professional attire and white coats and what patients prefer. To investigate the question, they surveyed 487 U.S. adults in the spring of 2020.

Respondents were asked where and how frequently they see health care professionals wearing white coats, scrubs, and fleece or softshell jackets. They were also shown photographs depicting models wearing various types of attire commonly seen in health care settings and were asked to rank the “health care provider’s” level of experience, professionalism, and friendliness.

The majority of participants said they had seen health care practitioners in white coats “most of the time,” in scrubs “sometimes,” and in fleece or softshell jackets “rarely.” Models in white coats were regarded by respondents as more experienced and professional, although those in softshell jackets were perceived as friendlier.

There were age as well as regional differences in the responses, Dr. Steinberg said. Older respondents were significantly more likely than their younger counterparts to perceive a model wearing a white coat over business attire as being more experienced, and – in all regions of the United States except the West coast – respondents gave lower professionalism scores to providers wearing fleece jackets with scrubs underneath.

Respondents tended to prefer surgeons wearing a white coat with scrubs underneath, while a white coat over business attire was the preferred dress code for family physicians and dermatologists.

“People tended to respond as if there was a more professional element in the white coat. The age-old symbol of the white coat still marked something important,” Dr. Steinberg said. “Our data suggest that the white coat isn’t ready to die just yet. People still see an air of authority and a traditional symbol of medicine. Nevertheless, I do think it will become less common than it used to be, especially in certain regions of the country.”
 

Organic, subtle changes

Christopher Petrilli, MD, assistant professor at New York University, conducted research in 2018 regarding physician attire by surveying over 4,000 patients in 10 U.S. academic hospitals. His team found that most patients continued to prefer physicians to wear formal attire under a white coat, especially older respondents.

Dr. Petrilli and colleagues have been studying the issue of physician attire since 2015. “The big issue when we did our initial study – which might not be accurate anymore – is that few hospitals actually had a uniform dress code,” said Dr. Petrilli, the medical director of clinical documentation improvement and the clinical lead of value-based medicine at NYU Langone Hospitals. “When we looked at ‘honor roll hospitals’ during our study, we cold-called these hospitals and also looked online for their dress code policies. Except for the Mayo Clinic, hospitals that had dress code policies were more generic.”

For example, the American Medical Association guidance merely states that attire should be “clean, unsoiled, and appropriate to the setting of care” and recommends weighing research findings regarding textile transmission of health care–associated infections when individual institutions determine their dress code policies. The AMA’s last policy discussion took place in 2015 and its guidance has not changed since the pandemic.

Regardless of what institutions and patients prefer, some research suggests that many physicians would prefer to stay with wearing scrubs rather than reverting to the white coat. One study of 151 hospitalists, conducted in Ireland, found that three-quarters wanted scrubs to remain standard attire, despite the fact that close to half had experienced changes in patients› perception in the absence of their white coat and “professional attire.”

Jennifer Workman, MD, assistant professor of pediatrics, division of pediatric critical care, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, said in an interview that, as the pandemic has “waxed and waned, some trends have reverted to what they were prepandemic, but other physicians have stayed with wearing scrubs.”

Much depends on practice setting, said Dr. Workman, who is also the medical director of pediatric sepsis at Intermountain Care. In pediatrics, for example, many physicians prefer not to wear white coats when they are interacting with young children or adolescents.

Like Dr. Shaffer, Dr. Workman has seen changes in physicians’ attire during video meetings, where they often dress more casually, perhaps wearing sweatshirts. And in the hospital, more are continuing to wear scrubs. “But I don’t see it as people trying to consciously experiment or push boundaries,” she said. “I see it as a more organic, subtle shift.”

Dr. Petrilli thinks that, at this juncture, it’s “pretty heterogeneous as to who is going to return to formal attire and a white coat and who won’t.” Further research needs to be done into currently evolving trends. “We need a more thorough survey looking at changes. We need to ask [physician respondents]: ‘What is your current attire, and how has it changed?’ ”
 

Navigating the gender divide

In their study, Dr. Steinberg and colleagues found that respondents perceived a male model wearing business attire underneath any type of outerwear (white coat or fleece) to be significantly more professional than a female model wearing the same attire. Respondents also perceived males wearing scrubs to be more professional than females wearing scrubs.

Male models in white coats over business attire were also more likely to be identified as physicians, compared with female models in the same attire. Females were also more likely to be misidentified as nonphysician health care professionals.

Shikha Jain, MD, assistant professor of medicine at the University of Illinois Cancer Center in Chicago, said that Dr. Steinberg’s study confirmed experiences that she and other female physicians have had. Wearing a white coat makes it more likely that a patient will identify you as a physician, but women are less likely to be identified as physicians, regardless of what they wear.

“I think that individuals of color and especially people with intersectional identities – such as women of color – are even more frequently targeted and stereotyped. Numerous studies have shown that a person of color is less likely to be seen as an authority figure, and studies have shown that physicians of color are less likely to be identified as ‘physicians,’ compared to a Caucasian individual,” she said.

Does that mean that female physicians should revert back to prepandemic white coats rather than scrubs or more casual attire? Not necessarily, according to Dr. Jain.

“The typical dress code guidance is that physicians should dress ‘professionally,’ but what that means is a question that needs to be addressed,” Dr. Jain said. “Medicine has evolved from the days of house calls, in which one’s patient population is a very small, intimate group of people in the physician’s community. Yet now, we’ve given rebirth to the ‘house call’ when we do telemedicine with a patient in his or her home. And in the old days, doctors often had offices their homes and now, with telemedicine, patients often see the interior of their physician’s home.” As the delivery of medicine evolves, concepts of “professionalism” – what is defined as “casual” and what is defined as “formal” – is also evolving.

The more important issue, according to Dr. Jain, is to “continue the conversation” about the discrepancies between how men and women are treated in medicine. Attire is one arena in which this issue plays out, and it’s a “bigger picture” that goes beyond the white coat.

Dr. Jain has been “told by patients that a particular outfit doesn’t make me look like a doctor or that scrubs make me look younger. I don’t think my male colleagues have been subjected to these types of remarks, but my female colleagues have heard them as well.”

Even fellow health care providers have commented on Dr. Jain’s clothing. She was presenting at a major medical conference via video and was wearing a similar outfit to the one she wore for her headshot. “Thirty seconds before beginning my talk, one of the male physicians said: ‘Are you wearing the same outfit you wore for your headshot?’ I can’t imagine a man commenting that another man was wearing the same jacket or tie that he wore in the photograph. I found it odd that this was something that someone felt the need to comment on right before I was about to address a large group of people in a professional capacity.”

Addressing these systemic issues “needs to be done and amplified not only by women but also by men in medicine,” said Dr. Jain, founder and director of  Women in Medicine, an organization consisting of women physicians whose goal is to “find and implement solutions to gender inequity.”

Dr. Jain said the organization offers an Inclusive Leadership Development Lab – a course specifically for men in health care leadership positions to learn how to be more equitable, inclusive leaders.
 

A personal decision

Dr. Pasricha hopes she “handled the patient’s misidentification graciously.” She explained to him that she would be the physician conducting the procedure. The patient was initially “a little embarrassed” that he had misidentified her, but she put him at ease and “we moved forward quickly.”

At this point, although some of her colleagues have continued to wear scrubs or have returned to wearing fleeces with hospital logos, Dr. Pasricha prefers to wear a white coat in both inpatient and outpatient settings because it reduces the likelihood of misidentification.

And white coats can be more convenient – for example, Dr. Jain likes the fact that the white coat has pockets where she can put her stethoscope and other items, while some of her professional clothes don’t always have pockets.

Dr. Jain noted that there are some institutions where everyone seems to wear white coats, not only the physician – “from the chaplain to the phlebotomist to the social worker.” In those settings, the white coat no longer distinguishes physicians from nonphysicians, and so wearing a white coat may not confer additional credibility as a physician.

Nevertheless, “if you want to wear a white coat, if you feel it gives you that added level of authority, if you feel it tells people more clearly that you’re a physician, by all means go ahead and do so,” she said. “There’s no ‘one-size-fits-all’ strategy or solution. What’s more important than your clothing is your professionalism.”

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

Early in the COVID-19 pandemic, Trisha Pasricha, MD, a gastroenterologist and research fellow at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston, was talking to a patient who had been hospitalized for a peptic ulcer.

Like other physicians in her institution, Dr. Pasricha was wearing scrubs instead of a white coat, out of concern that the white coat might be more prone to accumulating or transmitting COVID-19 pathogens. Her badge identified her as a physician, and she introduced herself clearly as “Dr. Pasricha.”

The patient “required an emergent procedure, which I discussed with him,” Dr. Pasricha told this news organization. “I went over what the procedure entailed, the risks and benefits, and the need for informed consent. The patient nodded and seemed to understand, but at the end of the discussion he said: ‘That all sounds fine, but I need to speak to the doctor first.’ ”

Dr. Pasricha was taken aback. She wondered: “Who did he think I was the whole time that I was reviewing medical concerns, explaining medical concepts, and describing a procedure in a way that a physician would describe it?”

She realized the reason he didn’t correctly identify her was that, clad only in scrubs, she was less easily recognizable as a physician. And while this type of misidentification happened to physicians of both genders wearing scrubs and no white coat, it was more common for female than for male physicians to be misidentified as technicians, nurses, physician assistants, or other health care professionals, according to Dr. Pasricha.

Dr. Pasricha said she has been the recipient of this “implicit bias” not only from patients but also from members of the health care team, and added that other female colleagues have told her that they’ve had similar experiences, especially when they’re not wearing a white coat.
 

Changing times, changing trends

When COVID-19 began to spread, “there was an initial concern that COVID-19 was passed through surfaces, and concerns about whether white coats could carry viral particles,” according to Jordan Steinberg, MD, PhD, surgical director of the craniofacial program at Nicklaus Children’s Pediatric Specialists/Nicklaus Children’s Health System, Miami. “Hospitals didn’t want to launder the white coats as frequently as scrubs, due to cost concerns. There was also a concern raised that a necktie might dangle in patients’ faces, coming in closer contact with pathogens, so more physicians were wearing scrubs.”

Yet even before the pandemic, physician attire in hospital and outpatient settings had started to change. Dr. Steinberg, who is also a clinical associate professor at Florida International University, Miami, told this news organization that, in his previous appointment at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, he and his colleagues “had noticed in our institution, as well as other facilities, an increasing trend that moved from white coats worn over professional attire toward more casual dress among medical staff – increased wearing of casual fleece or softshell jackets with the institutional logo.”

This was especially true with trainees and the “younger generation,” who were preferring “what I would almost call ‘warm-up clothes,’ gym clothes, and less shirt-tie-white-coat attire for men or white-coats-and-business attire for women.” Dr. Steinberg thinks that some physicians prefer the fleece with the institutional logo “because it’s like wearing your favorite sports team jersey. It gives a sense of belonging.”

Todd Shaffer, MD, MBA, a family physician at University Physicians Associates, Truman Medical Centers and the Lakewood Medical Pavilion, Kansas City, Mo., has been at his institution for 30 years and has seen a similar trend. “At one point, things were very formal,” he told this news organization. But attire was already becoming less formal before the pandemic, and new changes took place during the pandemic, as physicians began wearing scrubs instead of white coats because of fears of viral contamination.

Now, there is less concern about potential viral contamination with the white coat. Yet many physicians continue to wear scrubs – especially those who interact with patients with COVID – and it has become more acceptable to do so, or to wear personal protective equipment (PPE) over ordinary clothing, but it is less common in routine clinical practice, said Dr. Shaffer, a member of the board of directors of the American Academy of Family Physicians.

“The world has changed since COVID. People feel more comfortable dressing more casually during professional Zoom calls, when they have the convenience of working from home,” said Dr. Shaffer, who is also a professor of family medicine at University of Missouri–Kansas City.

Dr. Shaffer himself hasn’t worn a white coat for years. “I’m more likely to wear medium casual pants. I’ve bought some nicer shirts, so I still look professional and upbeat. I don’t always tuck in my shirt, and I don’t dress as formally.” He wears PPE and a mask and/or face shield when treating patients with COVID-19. And he wears a white coat “when someone wants a photograph taken with the doctors – with the stethoscope draped around my neck.”
 

Traditional symbol of medicine

Because of the changing mores, Dr. Steinberg and colleagues at Johns Hopkins wondered if there might still be a role for professional attire and white coats and what patients prefer. To investigate the question, they surveyed 487 U.S. adults in the spring of 2020.

Respondents were asked where and how frequently they see health care professionals wearing white coats, scrubs, and fleece or softshell jackets. They were also shown photographs depicting models wearing various types of attire commonly seen in health care settings and were asked to rank the “health care provider’s” level of experience, professionalism, and friendliness.

The majority of participants said they had seen health care practitioners in white coats “most of the time,” in scrubs “sometimes,” and in fleece or softshell jackets “rarely.” Models in white coats were regarded by respondents as more experienced and professional, although those in softshell jackets were perceived as friendlier.

There were age as well as regional differences in the responses, Dr. Steinberg said. Older respondents were significantly more likely than their younger counterparts to perceive a model wearing a white coat over business attire as being more experienced, and – in all regions of the United States except the West coast – respondents gave lower professionalism scores to providers wearing fleece jackets with scrubs underneath.

Respondents tended to prefer surgeons wearing a white coat with scrubs underneath, while a white coat over business attire was the preferred dress code for family physicians and dermatologists.

“People tended to respond as if there was a more professional element in the white coat. The age-old symbol of the white coat still marked something important,” Dr. Steinberg said. “Our data suggest that the white coat isn’t ready to die just yet. People still see an air of authority and a traditional symbol of medicine. Nevertheless, I do think it will become less common than it used to be, especially in certain regions of the country.”
 

Organic, subtle changes

Christopher Petrilli, MD, assistant professor at New York University, conducted research in 2018 regarding physician attire by surveying over 4,000 patients in 10 U.S. academic hospitals. His team found that most patients continued to prefer physicians to wear formal attire under a white coat, especially older respondents.

Dr. Petrilli and colleagues have been studying the issue of physician attire since 2015. “The big issue when we did our initial study – which might not be accurate anymore – is that few hospitals actually had a uniform dress code,” said Dr. Petrilli, the medical director of clinical documentation improvement and the clinical lead of value-based medicine at NYU Langone Hospitals. “When we looked at ‘honor roll hospitals’ during our study, we cold-called these hospitals and also looked online for their dress code policies. Except for the Mayo Clinic, hospitals that had dress code policies were more generic.”

For example, the American Medical Association guidance merely states that attire should be “clean, unsoiled, and appropriate to the setting of care” and recommends weighing research findings regarding textile transmission of health care–associated infections when individual institutions determine their dress code policies. The AMA’s last policy discussion took place in 2015 and its guidance has not changed since the pandemic.

Regardless of what institutions and patients prefer, some research suggests that many physicians would prefer to stay with wearing scrubs rather than reverting to the white coat. One study of 151 hospitalists, conducted in Ireland, found that three-quarters wanted scrubs to remain standard attire, despite the fact that close to half had experienced changes in patients› perception in the absence of their white coat and “professional attire.”

Jennifer Workman, MD, assistant professor of pediatrics, division of pediatric critical care, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, said in an interview that, as the pandemic has “waxed and waned, some trends have reverted to what they were prepandemic, but other physicians have stayed with wearing scrubs.”

Much depends on practice setting, said Dr. Workman, who is also the medical director of pediatric sepsis at Intermountain Care. In pediatrics, for example, many physicians prefer not to wear white coats when they are interacting with young children or adolescents.

Like Dr. Shaffer, Dr. Workman has seen changes in physicians’ attire during video meetings, where they often dress more casually, perhaps wearing sweatshirts. And in the hospital, more are continuing to wear scrubs. “But I don’t see it as people trying to consciously experiment or push boundaries,” she said. “I see it as a more organic, subtle shift.”

Dr. Petrilli thinks that, at this juncture, it’s “pretty heterogeneous as to who is going to return to formal attire and a white coat and who won’t.” Further research needs to be done into currently evolving trends. “We need a more thorough survey looking at changes. We need to ask [physician respondents]: ‘What is your current attire, and how has it changed?’ ”
 

Navigating the gender divide

In their study, Dr. Steinberg and colleagues found that respondents perceived a male model wearing business attire underneath any type of outerwear (white coat or fleece) to be significantly more professional than a female model wearing the same attire. Respondents also perceived males wearing scrubs to be more professional than females wearing scrubs.

Male models in white coats over business attire were also more likely to be identified as physicians, compared with female models in the same attire. Females were also more likely to be misidentified as nonphysician health care professionals.

Shikha Jain, MD, assistant professor of medicine at the University of Illinois Cancer Center in Chicago, said that Dr. Steinberg’s study confirmed experiences that she and other female physicians have had. Wearing a white coat makes it more likely that a patient will identify you as a physician, but women are less likely to be identified as physicians, regardless of what they wear.

“I think that individuals of color and especially people with intersectional identities – such as women of color – are even more frequently targeted and stereotyped. Numerous studies have shown that a person of color is less likely to be seen as an authority figure, and studies have shown that physicians of color are less likely to be identified as ‘physicians,’ compared to a Caucasian individual,” she said.

Does that mean that female physicians should revert back to prepandemic white coats rather than scrubs or more casual attire? Not necessarily, according to Dr. Jain.

“The typical dress code guidance is that physicians should dress ‘professionally,’ but what that means is a question that needs to be addressed,” Dr. Jain said. “Medicine has evolved from the days of house calls, in which one’s patient population is a very small, intimate group of people in the physician’s community. Yet now, we’ve given rebirth to the ‘house call’ when we do telemedicine with a patient in his or her home. And in the old days, doctors often had offices their homes and now, with telemedicine, patients often see the interior of their physician’s home.” As the delivery of medicine evolves, concepts of “professionalism” – what is defined as “casual” and what is defined as “formal” – is also evolving.

The more important issue, according to Dr. Jain, is to “continue the conversation” about the discrepancies between how men and women are treated in medicine. Attire is one arena in which this issue plays out, and it’s a “bigger picture” that goes beyond the white coat.

Dr. Jain has been “told by patients that a particular outfit doesn’t make me look like a doctor or that scrubs make me look younger. I don’t think my male colleagues have been subjected to these types of remarks, but my female colleagues have heard them as well.”

Even fellow health care providers have commented on Dr. Jain’s clothing. She was presenting at a major medical conference via video and was wearing a similar outfit to the one she wore for her headshot. “Thirty seconds before beginning my talk, one of the male physicians said: ‘Are you wearing the same outfit you wore for your headshot?’ I can’t imagine a man commenting that another man was wearing the same jacket or tie that he wore in the photograph. I found it odd that this was something that someone felt the need to comment on right before I was about to address a large group of people in a professional capacity.”

Addressing these systemic issues “needs to be done and amplified not only by women but also by men in medicine,” said Dr. Jain, founder and director of  Women in Medicine, an organization consisting of women physicians whose goal is to “find and implement solutions to gender inequity.”

Dr. Jain said the organization offers an Inclusive Leadership Development Lab – a course specifically for men in health care leadership positions to learn how to be more equitable, inclusive leaders.
 

A personal decision

Dr. Pasricha hopes she “handled the patient’s misidentification graciously.” She explained to him that she would be the physician conducting the procedure. The patient was initially “a little embarrassed” that he had misidentified her, but she put him at ease and “we moved forward quickly.”

At this point, although some of her colleagues have continued to wear scrubs or have returned to wearing fleeces with hospital logos, Dr. Pasricha prefers to wear a white coat in both inpatient and outpatient settings because it reduces the likelihood of misidentification.

And white coats can be more convenient – for example, Dr. Jain likes the fact that the white coat has pockets where she can put her stethoscope and other items, while some of her professional clothes don’t always have pockets.

Dr. Jain noted that there are some institutions where everyone seems to wear white coats, not only the physician – “from the chaplain to the phlebotomist to the social worker.” In those settings, the white coat no longer distinguishes physicians from nonphysicians, and so wearing a white coat may not confer additional credibility as a physician.

Nevertheless, “if you want to wear a white coat, if you feel it gives you that added level of authority, if you feel it tells people more clearly that you’re a physician, by all means go ahead and do so,” she said. “There’s no ‘one-size-fits-all’ strategy or solution. What’s more important than your clothing is your professionalism.”

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

Early in the COVID-19 pandemic, Trisha Pasricha, MD, a gastroenterologist and research fellow at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston, was talking to a patient who had been hospitalized for a peptic ulcer.

Like other physicians in her institution, Dr. Pasricha was wearing scrubs instead of a white coat, out of concern that the white coat might be more prone to accumulating or transmitting COVID-19 pathogens. Her badge identified her as a physician, and she introduced herself clearly as “Dr. Pasricha.”

The patient “required an emergent procedure, which I discussed with him,” Dr. Pasricha told this news organization. “I went over what the procedure entailed, the risks and benefits, and the need for informed consent. The patient nodded and seemed to understand, but at the end of the discussion he said: ‘That all sounds fine, but I need to speak to the doctor first.’ ”

Dr. Pasricha was taken aback. She wondered: “Who did he think I was the whole time that I was reviewing medical concerns, explaining medical concepts, and describing a procedure in a way that a physician would describe it?”

She realized the reason he didn’t correctly identify her was that, clad only in scrubs, she was less easily recognizable as a physician. And while this type of misidentification happened to physicians of both genders wearing scrubs and no white coat, it was more common for female than for male physicians to be misidentified as technicians, nurses, physician assistants, or other health care professionals, according to Dr. Pasricha.

Dr. Pasricha said she has been the recipient of this “implicit bias” not only from patients but also from members of the health care team, and added that other female colleagues have told her that they’ve had similar experiences, especially when they’re not wearing a white coat.
 

Changing times, changing trends

When COVID-19 began to spread, “there was an initial concern that COVID-19 was passed through surfaces, and concerns about whether white coats could carry viral particles,” according to Jordan Steinberg, MD, PhD, surgical director of the craniofacial program at Nicklaus Children’s Pediatric Specialists/Nicklaus Children’s Health System, Miami. “Hospitals didn’t want to launder the white coats as frequently as scrubs, due to cost concerns. There was also a concern raised that a necktie might dangle in patients’ faces, coming in closer contact with pathogens, so more physicians were wearing scrubs.”

Yet even before the pandemic, physician attire in hospital and outpatient settings had started to change. Dr. Steinberg, who is also a clinical associate professor at Florida International University, Miami, told this news organization that, in his previous appointment at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, he and his colleagues “had noticed in our institution, as well as other facilities, an increasing trend that moved from white coats worn over professional attire toward more casual dress among medical staff – increased wearing of casual fleece or softshell jackets with the institutional logo.”

This was especially true with trainees and the “younger generation,” who were preferring “what I would almost call ‘warm-up clothes,’ gym clothes, and less shirt-tie-white-coat attire for men or white-coats-and-business attire for women.” Dr. Steinberg thinks that some physicians prefer the fleece with the institutional logo “because it’s like wearing your favorite sports team jersey. It gives a sense of belonging.”

Todd Shaffer, MD, MBA, a family physician at University Physicians Associates, Truman Medical Centers and the Lakewood Medical Pavilion, Kansas City, Mo., has been at his institution for 30 years and has seen a similar trend. “At one point, things were very formal,” he told this news organization. But attire was already becoming less formal before the pandemic, and new changes took place during the pandemic, as physicians began wearing scrubs instead of white coats because of fears of viral contamination.

Now, there is less concern about potential viral contamination with the white coat. Yet many physicians continue to wear scrubs – especially those who interact with patients with COVID – and it has become more acceptable to do so, or to wear personal protective equipment (PPE) over ordinary clothing, but it is less common in routine clinical practice, said Dr. Shaffer, a member of the board of directors of the American Academy of Family Physicians.

“The world has changed since COVID. People feel more comfortable dressing more casually during professional Zoom calls, when they have the convenience of working from home,” said Dr. Shaffer, who is also a professor of family medicine at University of Missouri–Kansas City.

Dr. Shaffer himself hasn’t worn a white coat for years. “I’m more likely to wear medium casual pants. I’ve bought some nicer shirts, so I still look professional and upbeat. I don’t always tuck in my shirt, and I don’t dress as formally.” He wears PPE and a mask and/or face shield when treating patients with COVID-19. And he wears a white coat “when someone wants a photograph taken with the doctors – with the stethoscope draped around my neck.”
 

Traditional symbol of medicine

Because of the changing mores, Dr. Steinberg and colleagues at Johns Hopkins wondered if there might still be a role for professional attire and white coats and what patients prefer. To investigate the question, they surveyed 487 U.S. adults in the spring of 2020.

Respondents were asked where and how frequently they see health care professionals wearing white coats, scrubs, and fleece or softshell jackets. They were also shown photographs depicting models wearing various types of attire commonly seen in health care settings and were asked to rank the “health care provider’s” level of experience, professionalism, and friendliness.

The majority of participants said they had seen health care practitioners in white coats “most of the time,” in scrubs “sometimes,” and in fleece or softshell jackets “rarely.” Models in white coats were regarded by respondents as more experienced and professional, although those in softshell jackets were perceived as friendlier.

There were age as well as regional differences in the responses, Dr. Steinberg said. Older respondents were significantly more likely than their younger counterparts to perceive a model wearing a white coat over business attire as being more experienced, and – in all regions of the United States except the West coast – respondents gave lower professionalism scores to providers wearing fleece jackets with scrubs underneath.

Respondents tended to prefer surgeons wearing a white coat with scrubs underneath, while a white coat over business attire was the preferred dress code for family physicians and dermatologists.

“People tended to respond as if there was a more professional element in the white coat. The age-old symbol of the white coat still marked something important,” Dr. Steinberg said. “Our data suggest that the white coat isn’t ready to die just yet. People still see an air of authority and a traditional symbol of medicine. Nevertheless, I do think it will become less common than it used to be, especially in certain regions of the country.”
 

Organic, subtle changes

Christopher Petrilli, MD, assistant professor at New York University, conducted research in 2018 regarding physician attire by surveying over 4,000 patients in 10 U.S. academic hospitals. His team found that most patients continued to prefer physicians to wear formal attire under a white coat, especially older respondents.

Dr. Petrilli and colleagues have been studying the issue of physician attire since 2015. “The big issue when we did our initial study – which might not be accurate anymore – is that few hospitals actually had a uniform dress code,” said Dr. Petrilli, the medical director of clinical documentation improvement and the clinical lead of value-based medicine at NYU Langone Hospitals. “When we looked at ‘honor roll hospitals’ during our study, we cold-called these hospitals and also looked online for their dress code policies. Except for the Mayo Clinic, hospitals that had dress code policies were more generic.”

For example, the American Medical Association guidance merely states that attire should be “clean, unsoiled, and appropriate to the setting of care” and recommends weighing research findings regarding textile transmission of health care–associated infections when individual institutions determine their dress code policies. The AMA’s last policy discussion took place in 2015 and its guidance has not changed since the pandemic.

Regardless of what institutions and patients prefer, some research suggests that many physicians would prefer to stay with wearing scrubs rather than reverting to the white coat. One study of 151 hospitalists, conducted in Ireland, found that three-quarters wanted scrubs to remain standard attire, despite the fact that close to half had experienced changes in patients› perception in the absence of their white coat and “professional attire.”

Jennifer Workman, MD, assistant professor of pediatrics, division of pediatric critical care, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, said in an interview that, as the pandemic has “waxed and waned, some trends have reverted to what they were prepandemic, but other physicians have stayed with wearing scrubs.”

Much depends on practice setting, said Dr. Workman, who is also the medical director of pediatric sepsis at Intermountain Care. In pediatrics, for example, many physicians prefer not to wear white coats when they are interacting with young children or adolescents.

Like Dr. Shaffer, Dr. Workman has seen changes in physicians’ attire during video meetings, where they often dress more casually, perhaps wearing sweatshirts. And in the hospital, more are continuing to wear scrubs. “But I don’t see it as people trying to consciously experiment or push boundaries,” she said. “I see it as a more organic, subtle shift.”

Dr. Petrilli thinks that, at this juncture, it’s “pretty heterogeneous as to who is going to return to formal attire and a white coat and who won’t.” Further research needs to be done into currently evolving trends. “We need a more thorough survey looking at changes. We need to ask [physician respondents]: ‘What is your current attire, and how has it changed?’ ”
 

Navigating the gender divide

In their study, Dr. Steinberg and colleagues found that respondents perceived a male model wearing business attire underneath any type of outerwear (white coat or fleece) to be significantly more professional than a female model wearing the same attire. Respondents also perceived males wearing scrubs to be more professional than females wearing scrubs.

Male models in white coats over business attire were also more likely to be identified as physicians, compared with female models in the same attire. Females were also more likely to be misidentified as nonphysician health care professionals.

Shikha Jain, MD, assistant professor of medicine at the University of Illinois Cancer Center in Chicago, said that Dr. Steinberg’s study confirmed experiences that she and other female physicians have had. Wearing a white coat makes it more likely that a patient will identify you as a physician, but women are less likely to be identified as physicians, regardless of what they wear.

“I think that individuals of color and especially people with intersectional identities – such as women of color – are even more frequently targeted and stereotyped. Numerous studies have shown that a person of color is less likely to be seen as an authority figure, and studies have shown that physicians of color are less likely to be identified as ‘physicians,’ compared to a Caucasian individual,” she said.

Does that mean that female physicians should revert back to prepandemic white coats rather than scrubs or more casual attire? Not necessarily, according to Dr. Jain.

“The typical dress code guidance is that physicians should dress ‘professionally,’ but what that means is a question that needs to be addressed,” Dr. Jain said. “Medicine has evolved from the days of house calls, in which one’s patient population is a very small, intimate group of people in the physician’s community. Yet now, we’ve given rebirth to the ‘house call’ when we do telemedicine with a patient in his or her home. And in the old days, doctors often had offices their homes and now, with telemedicine, patients often see the interior of their physician’s home.” As the delivery of medicine evolves, concepts of “professionalism” – what is defined as “casual” and what is defined as “formal” – is also evolving.

The more important issue, according to Dr. Jain, is to “continue the conversation” about the discrepancies between how men and women are treated in medicine. Attire is one arena in which this issue plays out, and it’s a “bigger picture” that goes beyond the white coat.

Dr. Jain has been “told by patients that a particular outfit doesn’t make me look like a doctor or that scrubs make me look younger. I don’t think my male colleagues have been subjected to these types of remarks, but my female colleagues have heard them as well.”

Even fellow health care providers have commented on Dr. Jain’s clothing. She was presenting at a major medical conference via video and was wearing a similar outfit to the one she wore for her headshot. “Thirty seconds before beginning my talk, one of the male physicians said: ‘Are you wearing the same outfit you wore for your headshot?’ I can’t imagine a man commenting that another man was wearing the same jacket or tie that he wore in the photograph. I found it odd that this was something that someone felt the need to comment on right before I was about to address a large group of people in a professional capacity.”

Addressing these systemic issues “needs to be done and amplified not only by women but also by men in medicine,” said Dr. Jain, founder and director of  Women in Medicine, an organization consisting of women physicians whose goal is to “find and implement solutions to gender inequity.”

Dr. Jain said the organization offers an Inclusive Leadership Development Lab – a course specifically for men in health care leadership positions to learn how to be more equitable, inclusive leaders.
 

A personal decision

Dr. Pasricha hopes she “handled the patient’s misidentification graciously.” She explained to him that she would be the physician conducting the procedure. The patient was initially “a little embarrassed” that he had misidentified her, but she put him at ease and “we moved forward quickly.”

At this point, although some of her colleagues have continued to wear scrubs or have returned to wearing fleeces with hospital logos, Dr. Pasricha prefers to wear a white coat in both inpatient and outpatient settings because it reduces the likelihood of misidentification.

And white coats can be more convenient – for example, Dr. Jain likes the fact that the white coat has pockets where she can put her stethoscope and other items, while some of her professional clothes don’t always have pockets.

Dr. Jain noted that there are some institutions where everyone seems to wear white coats, not only the physician – “from the chaplain to the phlebotomist to the social worker.” In those settings, the white coat no longer distinguishes physicians from nonphysicians, and so wearing a white coat may not confer additional credibility as a physician.

Nevertheless, “if you want to wear a white coat, if you feel it gives you that added level of authority, if you feel it tells people more clearly that you’re a physician, by all means go ahead and do so,” she said. “There’s no ‘one-size-fits-all’ strategy or solution. What’s more important than your clothing is your professionalism.”

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

The annual cost of Lyme disease in the United States could be nearly $970 million, according to new research. But not all cases of Lyme disease are equally costly. Costs for patients with disseminated Lyme disease were more than twice as high as those for patients with localized disease.

CDC/ Dr. Amanda Loftis, Dr. William Nicholson, Dr. Will Reeves, Dr. Chris Paddock

“These findings emphasize the importance of early and accurate diagnosis to reduce both illness and its associated personal and societal costs,” the study’s authors write. The analysis was published  in Emerging Infectious Diseases. The authors are from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the Yale School of Public Health, and the Departments of Health of Minnesota, Maryland, and New York State.

Lyme disease is the most reported vector-borne disease in the United States; an estimated 476,000 Americans are diagnosed with the infection every year. Though the highest incidences are in the Northeast and in Minnesota and Wisconsin, the CDC has recorded cases in all 50 states. Over the past 20 years, estimates of the total cost of treating Lyme disease have varied from $203 million to nearly $1.3 billion. A major limitation to these studies, however, is that they may not accurately identify patients with Lyme disease or capture many of the nonmedical costs associated with treatment, the authors write, such as costs associated with time taken off work and travel to appointments.

To better capture the comprehensive cost of Lyme disease in the United States, researchers conducted a prospective study from September 2014 to January 2016 and followed reported cases in four states with high rates of Lyme disease: Connecticut, Maryland, Minnesota, and New York. The team conducted monthly patient surveys and queried billing codes from participants’ clinicians to estimate both the personal expenses and societal costs – such as total costs to the health care system – of Lyme disease.

Participants were variously assigned to one of three categories: those with confirmed local disease (such as patients with erythema migrans); those with confirmed disseminated disease, with symptoms including arthritis, lymphocytic meningitis, and encephalomyelitis; and those with probable cases with reported symptoms.

The researchers surveyed 901 participants with clinician-diagnosed Lyme disease: 402 with localized disease, 238 with disseminated disease, and 261 with probable cases. Nearly all participants (94%) were White, 57% were men, and 71% had an annual household income above $60,000. About 28% of participants were younger than 18 years, 16% were aged 18-45 years, 36% were aged 46-65, and 19% were older than 65 years. For most participants (68%), complete medical cost data were available. Those data were used to calculate societal costs.

Costs per patient varied dramatically, from $0.46 to $30,628. On average, patients spent $1,252 during the study period on expenses related to Lyme disease treatment, including expenses associated with travel and time taken off work. The median cost to patients was notably smaller, at $244. Patients with disseminated disease had the highest median ($358) and mean ($1,692) costs, followed by participants with probable disease (median, $315; mean, $1,277). Participants with localized disease had the lowest median ($170) and mean ($1,070) costs.

Societal costs ranged from $54 to $122,766 per patient; the median was $690, and the mean was $2,032. Multiplying these numbers by the estimated cases diagnosed nationally each year, researchers determined that the total cost of Lyme disease in the United States is between $345 million and $968 million.

The study “pointed out the tremendous variability in costs” associated with Lyme disease treatment, Brian Fallon, MD, MPH, director of the Lyme and Tick-Borne Diseases Research Center at the Columbia University Irving Medical Center, New York, told this news organization. He was not involved with the research. Some patients continued having health expenses after the end of the study, which means their costs would be even higher, he noted. Though most patients fully recovered after 1 year, about 4% still reported symptoms, and 3% were still incurring costs.

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

The annual cost of Lyme disease in the United States could be nearly $970 million, according to new research. But not all cases of Lyme disease are equally costly. Costs for patients with disseminated Lyme disease were more than twice as high as those for patients with localized disease.

CDC/ Dr. Amanda Loftis, Dr. William Nicholson, Dr. Will Reeves, Dr. Chris Paddock

“These findings emphasize the importance of early and accurate diagnosis to reduce both illness and its associated personal and societal costs,” the study’s authors write. The analysis was published  in Emerging Infectious Diseases. The authors are from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the Yale School of Public Health, and the Departments of Health of Minnesota, Maryland, and New York State.

Lyme disease is the most reported vector-borne disease in the United States; an estimated 476,000 Americans are diagnosed with the infection every year. Though the highest incidences are in the Northeast and in Minnesota and Wisconsin, the CDC has recorded cases in all 50 states. Over the past 20 years, estimates of the total cost of treating Lyme disease have varied from $203 million to nearly $1.3 billion. A major limitation to these studies, however, is that they may not accurately identify patients with Lyme disease or capture many of the nonmedical costs associated with treatment, the authors write, such as costs associated with time taken off work and travel to appointments.

To better capture the comprehensive cost of Lyme disease in the United States, researchers conducted a prospective study from September 2014 to January 2016 and followed reported cases in four states with high rates of Lyme disease: Connecticut, Maryland, Minnesota, and New York. The team conducted monthly patient surveys and queried billing codes from participants’ clinicians to estimate both the personal expenses and societal costs – such as total costs to the health care system – of Lyme disease.

Participants were variously assigned to one of three categories: those with confirmed local disease (such as patients with erythema migrans); those with confirmed disseminated disease, with symptoms including arthritis, lymphocytic meningitis, and encephalomyelitis; and those with probable cases with reported symptoms.

The researchers surveyed 901 participants with clinician-diagnosed Lyme disease: 402 with localized disease, 238 with disseminated disease, and 261 with probable cases. Nearly all participants (94%) were White, 57% were men, and 71% had an annual household income above $60,000. About 28% of participants were younger than 18 years, 16% were aged 18-45 years, 36% were aged 46-65, and 19% were older than 65 years. For most participants (68%), complete medical cost data were available. Those data were used to calculate societal costs.

Costs per patient varied dramatically, from $0.46 to $30,628. On average, patients spent $1,252 during the study period on expenses related to Lyme disease treatment, including expenses associated with travel and time taken off work. The median cost to patients was notably smaller, at $244. Patients with disseminated disease had the highest median ($358) and mean ($1,692) costs, followed by participants with probable disease (median, $315; mean, $1,277). Participants with localized disease had the lowest median ($170) and mean ($1,070) costs.

Societal costs ranged from $54 to $122,766 per patient; the median was $690, and the mean was $2,032. Multiplying these numbers by the estimated cases diagnosed nationally each year, researchers determined that the total cost of Lyme disease in the United States is between $345 million and $968 million.

The study “pointed out the tremendous variability in costs” associated with Lyme disease treatment, Brian Fallon, MD, MPH, director of the Lyme and Tick-Borne Diseases Research Center at the Columbia University Irving Medical Center, New York, told this news organization. He was not involved with the research. Some patients continued having health expenses after the end of the study, which means their costs would be even higher, he noted. Though most patients fully recovered after 1 year, about 4% still reported symptoms, and 3% were still incurring costs.

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

The annual cost of Lyme disease in the United States could be nearly $970 million, according to new research. But not all cases of Lyme disease are equally costly. Costs for patients with disseminated Lyme disease were more than twice as high as those for patients with localized disease.

CDC/ Dr. Amanda Loftis, Dr. William Nicholson, Dr. Will Reeves, Dr. Chris Paddock

“These findings emphasize the importance of early and accurate diagnosis to reduce both illness and its associated personal and societal costs,” the study’s authors write. The analysis was published  in Emerging Infectious Diseases. The authors are from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the Yale School of Public Health, and the Departments of Health of Minnesota, Maryland, and New York State.

Lyme disease is the most reported vector-borne disease in the United States; an estimated 476,000 Americans are diagnosed with the infection every year. Though the highest incidences are in the Northeast and in Minnesota and Wisconsin, the CDC has recorded cases in all 50 states. Over the past 20 years, estimates of the total cost of treating Lyme disease have varied from $203 million to nearly $1.3 billion. A major limitation to these studies, however, is that they may not accurately identify patients with Lyme disease or capture many of the nonmedical costs associated with treatment, the authors write, such as costs associated with time taken off work and travel to appointments.

To better capture the comprehensive cost of Lyme disease in the United States, researchers conducted a prospective study from September 2014 to January 2016 and followed reported cases in four states with high rates of Lyme disease: Connecticut, Maryland, Minnesota, and New York. The team conducted monthly patient surveys and queried billing codes from participants’ clinicians to estimate both the personal expenses and societal costs – such as total costs to the health care system – of Lyme disease.

Participants were variously assigned to one of three categories: those with confirmed local disease (such as patients with erythema migrans); those with confirmed disseminated disease, with symptoms including arthritis, lymphocytic meningitis, and encephalomyelitis; and those with probable cases with reported symptoms.

The researchers surveyed 901 participants with clinician-diagnosed Lyme disease: 402 with localized disease, 238 with disseminated disease, and 261 with probable cases. Nearly all participants (94%) were White, 57% were men, and 71% had an annual household income above $60,000. About 28% of participants were younger than 18 years, 16% were aged 18-45 years, 36% were aged 46-65, and 19% were older than 65 years. For most participants (68%), complete medical cost data were available. Those data were used to calculate societal costs.

Costs per patient varied dramatically, from $0.46 to $30,628. On average, patients spent $1,252 during the study period on expenses related to Lyme disease treatment, including expenses associated with travel and time taken off work. The median cost to patients was notably smaller, at $244. Patients with disseminated disease had the highest median ($358) and mean ($1,692) costs, followed by participants with probable disease (median, $315; mean, $1,277). Participants with localized disease had the lowest median ($170) and mean ($1,070) costs.

Societal costs ranged from $54 to $122,766 per patient; the median was $690, and the mean was $2,032. Multiplying these numbers by the estimated cases diagnosed nationally each year, researchers determined that the total cost of Lyme disease in the United States is between $345 million and $968 million.

The study “pointed out the tremendous variability in costs” associated with Lyme disease treatment, Brian Fallon, MD, MPH, director of the Lyme and Tick-Borne Diseases Research Center at the Columbia University Irving Medical Center, New York, told this news organization. He was not involved with the research. Some patients continued having health expenses after the end of the study, which means their costs would be even higher, he noted. Though most patients fully recovered after 1 year, about 4% still reported symptoms, and 3% were still incurring costs.

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