Infectious Diseases

Following the attacks of September 11, 2001, heightened concerns over bioterrorism and the potential use of smallpox as a biological weapon made smallpox vaccination a critical component of military readiness. Therefore, the US Military resumed its smallpox vaccination program in 2002 using the first-generation smallpox vaccine (Dryvax, Wyeth Pharmaceuticals), a live vaccinia virus vaccine created in the late 19th century. This vaccine was developed by pooling vaccinia strains from the skin of infected cows¹ and had previously been used during the worldwide vaccination campaign in the 1970s. Dryvax was associated with various cardiac and cutaneous complications, from benign hypersensitivity reactions to life-threatening eczema vaccinatum and progressive vaccinia.

Due to concerns that the remaining supply of Dryvax was insufficient to vaccinate the US population in the case of a bioterrorism attack, investigators developed the second-generation smallpox vaccine (ACAM2000, Sanofi Pasteur Biologics Co) using advances in vaccine technology.² ACAM2000 is a plaque-purified isolate of vaccinia virus propagated in cell culture, thereby reducing contaminants and lot-to-lot variation.¹ Clinical trials demonstrated comparable immunogenicity and frequency of adverse events compared with Dryvax,² and ACAM2000 replaced Dryvax in 2008. However, these trials focused on serious adverse events, such as cardiac complications and postvaccinal encephalitis, with less specific characterization and description of cutaneous eruptions.³

Since 2008, there have been few reports of cutaneous adverse reactions following vaccination with ACAM2000. Beachkofsky et al⁴ described 7 cases of papulovesicular eruptions and 1 case of generalized vaccinia. Freeman and Lenz⁵ described 4 cases of papulovesicular eruptions, and there has been 1 case of progressive vaccinia reported in a soldier with newly diagnosed acute myelogenous leukemia.⁶ Kramer⁷ described a patient with multiple vesiculopustular lesions secondary to autoinoculation. The distinct pruritic acral papulovesicular eruptions following ACAM2000 vaccination have occurred in healthy military service members at different locations since the introduction of ACAM2000. We describe an additional case of this unique cutaneous eruption, followed by a review of previously described cutaneous adverse events associated with smallpox vaccination.

Case Report

A 21-year-old female soldier who was otherwise healthy presented to the dermatology clinic with a pruritic papular eruption involving the upper and lower extremities of 1 week’s duration. The lesions first appeared 8 days after she received the ACAM2000 vaccine. She received no other concurrent vaccines, had no history of atopic dermatitis, and had no systemic symptoms. Physical examination revealed numerous erythematous indurated papules involving the dorsolateral hands and fingers, as well as the extensor surfaces of the elbows, knees, and thighs (Figures 1 and 2). Based on the clinical presentation, the differential diagnosis included lichen planus, verruca plana, dyshidrotic eczema, and smallpox vaccine reaction. Erythema multiforme was considered; however, the absence of palmoplantar involvement and typical targetoid lesions made this diagnosis less likely.

Biopsies of lesions on the arm and thigh were performed. Histologic findings revealed interface and spongiotic dermatitis with scattered necrotic keratinocytes and extravasated erythrocytes (Figure 3). There was no evidence of viral cytopathic effects. Similar clinical and histologic findings have been reported in the literature as acral papulovesicular eruptions following smallpox vaccination or papular spongiotic dermatitis of smallpox vaccination.⁸ The presence of eosinophils was not conspicuous in the current case and was only a notable finding in 1 of 2 cases previously described by Gaertner et al.⁸ This may simply be due to an idiosyncratic drug reaction. Furthermore, in the cases described by Beachkofsky et al,⁴ there were essentially 2 histologic groups. The first group demonstrated a dermal hypersensitivity-type reaction, and the second group demonstrated a lymphocytic capillaritis.

Based on these findings, the patient was diagnosed with an acral papulovesicular eruption following smallpox vaccination. Of note, the patient’s presentation was not consistent with other described smallpox vaccine reactions, which included eczema vaccinatum, autoinoculation, generalized vaccinia, and progressive vaccinia. The patient was treated supportively with triamcinolone acetonide cream 0.1%, cool compresses, and oral diphenhydramine as needed for pruritus. The lesions notably improved within the first week of treatment.

Comment

Reported cases of acral papulovesicular eruption^4-6 demonstrated an onset of cutaneous symptoms an average of 14 days following vaccination (range, 8–18 days postvaccination). Lesions were benign and self-limited in all cases, with resolution within an average of 25 days (range, 7–71 days). All patients were active-duty military adults with a mean age of 24 years. Supportive treatment varied from topical steroids and oral antihistamines to tapering oral prednisone doses. Of note, all previously reported cases of this reaction occurred in patients who also had received other concurrent or near-concurrent vaccines, including anthrax, hepatitis B, influenza, and typhoid. Our patient represents a unique case of a papulovesicular eruption following smallpox vaccination with no history of concurrent vaccines.

Since the 1970s, smallpox vaccination has been associated with numerous cutaneous reactions, most of which have been reported with the first-generation Dryvax. Minor local reactions occurred in approximately 2% to 6% of vaccinees in clinical trials.⁹ These reactions included local edema involving the upper arm, satellite lesions within 2.5 cm of the vaccination site, local lymphadenopathy, intense inflammation or viral cellulitis surrounding the inoculation site, and viral lymphangitis tracking to axillary lymph nodes. In clinical trials, these reactions were self-limited and required only symptomatic treatment.⁹

Autoinoculation is another cutaneous reaction that can occur because Dryvax and ACAM2000 both contain live-attenuated replicating vaccinia virus. Accidental implantation may occur when the high titers of virus present at the vaccine site are subsequently transferred to other sites, especially abnormal mucosa or skin, resulting in an additional primary inoculation site.¹⁰

Eczema vaccinatum is a potentially life-threatening reaction that may occur in patients with disruptive skin disorders, such as atopic dermatitis. These patients are at risk for massive confluent vaccinia infection of the skin.¹⁰ In patients with atopic dermatitis, the virus rapidly disseminates due to both skin barrier dysfunction and impaired immunomodulation, resulting in large confluent skin lesions and the potential for viremia, septic shock, and death.^10,11 Mortality from eczema vaccinatum may be reduced by administration of vaccinia immune globulin.¹⁰

The vaccinia virus also may spread hematogenously in healthy individuals,¹⁰ resulting in a benign reaction called generalized vaccinia. These patients develop pustules on areas of the skin other than the vaccination site. Although typically benign and self-limited, Beachkofsky et al⁴ described a case of generalized vaccinia in a healthy 34-year-old man resulting in a rapidly progressive vesiculopustular eruption with associated fever and pancytopenia. The patient made a complete recovery over the course of the following month.⁴

Alternatively, progressive vaccinia is a severe complication of smallpox vaccination seen in patients with impaired cell-mediated immunity. It also is known as vaccinia gangrenosum or vaccinia necrosum. These patients develop expanding ulcers due to exaggerated viral replication and cell-to-cell spread of the vaccinia virus.^10,11 Hematogenous spread may result in viral implantation at distant sites of the body. This disease slowly progresses over weeks to months, and it often is resistant to treatment and fatal in patients with severe T-cell deficiency.¹⁰

Acral papulovesicular eruption is a distinct cutaneous adverse event following smallpox vaccination. Although further research is needed to discern the pathogenesis of this reaction, it is benign and self-limited, and patients have fully recovered with supportive care. In addition, a modified vaccinia Ankara vaccine (Bavarian Nordic) was approved by the US Food and Drug Administration in 2019.^12,13 It is a nonreplicating attenuated viral vaccine that had fewer adverse events compared to ACAM2000 in clinical trials.¹³ To date, papulovesicular eruptions have not been reported following vaccination with the modified vaccinia Ankara vaccine; however, continued monitoring will help to further characterize any cutaneous reactions to this newer vaccine.

Following the attacks of September 11, 2001, heightened concerns over bioterrorism and the potential use of smallpox as a biological weapon made smallpox vaccination a critical component of military readiness. Therefore, the US Military resumed its smallpox vaccination program in 2002 using the first-generation smallpox vaccine (Dryvax, Wyeth Pharmaceuticals), a live vaccinia virus vaccine created in the late 19th century. This vaccine was developed by pooling vaccinia strains from the skin of infected cows¹ and had previously been used during the worldwide vaccination campaign in the 1970s. Dryvax was associated with various cardiac and cutaneous complications, from benign hypersensitivity reactions to life-threatening eczema vaccinatum and progressive vaccinia.

Due to concerns that the remaining supply of Dryvax was insufficient to vaccinate the US population in the case of a bioterrorism attack, investigators developed the second-generation smallpox vaccine (ACAM2000, Sanofi Pasteur Biologics Co) using advances in vaccine technology.² ACAM2000 is a plaque-purified isolate of vaccinia virus propagated in cell culture, thereby reducing contaminants and lot-to-lot variation.¹ Clinical trials demonstrated comparable immunogenicity and frequency of adverse events compared with Dryvax,² and ACAM2000 replaced Dryvax in 2008. However, these trials focused on serious adverse events, such as cardiac complications and postvaccinal encephalitis, with less specific characterization and description of cutaneous eruptions.³

Since 2008, there have been few reports of cutaneous adverse reactions following vaccination with ACAM2000. Beachkofsky et al⁴ described 7 cases of papulovesicular eruptions and 1 case of generalized vaccinia. Freeman and Lenz⁵ described 4 cases of papulovesicular eruptions, and there has been 1 case of progressive vaccinia reported in a soldier with newly diagnosed acute myelogenous leukemia.⁶ Kramer⁷ described a patient with multiple vesiculopustular lesions secondary to autoinoculation. The distinct pruritic acral papulovesicular eruptions following ACAM2000 vaccination have occurred in healthy military service members at different locations since the introduction of ACAM2000. We describe an additional case of this unique cutaneous eruption, followed by a review of previously described cutaneous adverse events associated with smallpox vaccination.

Case Report

A 21-year-old female soldier who was otherwise healthy presented to the dermatology clinic with a pruritic papular eruption involving the upper and lower extremities of 1 week’s duration. The lesions first appeared 8 days after she received the ACAM2000 vaccine. She received no other concurrent vaccines, had no history of atopic dermatitis, and had no systemic symptoms. Physical examination revealed numerous erythematous indurated papules involving the dorsolateral hands and fingers, as well as the extensor surfaces of the elbows, knees, and thighs (Figures 1 and 2). Based on the clinical presentation, the differential diagnosis included lichen planus, verruca plana, dyshidrotic eczema, and smallpox vaccine reaction. Erythema multiforme was considered; however, the absence of palmoplantar involvement and typical targetoid lesions made this diagnosis less likely.

Biopsies of lesions on the arm and thigh were performed. Histologic findings revealed interface and spongiotic dermatitis with scattered necrotic keratinocytes and extravasated erythrocytes (Figure 3). There was no evidence of viral cytopathic effects. Similar clinical and histologic findings have been reported in the literature as acral papulovesicular eruptions following smallpox vaccination or papular spongiotic dermatitis of smallpox vaccination.⁸ The presence of eosinophils was not conspicuous in the current case and was only a notable finding in 1 of 2 cases previously described by Gaertner et al.⁸ This may simply be due to an idiosyncratic drug reaction. Furthermore, in the cases described by Beachkofsky et al,⁴ there were essentially 2 histologic groups. The first group demonstrated a dermal hypersensitivity-type reaction, and the second group demonstrated a lymphocytic capillaritis.

Based on these findings, the patient was diagnosed with an acral papulovesicular eruption following smallpox vaccination. Of note, the patient’s presentation was not consistent with other described smallpox vaccine reactions, which included eczema vaccinatum, autoinoculation, generalized vaccinia, and progressive vaccinia. The patient was treated supportively with triamcinolone acetonide cream 0.1%, cool compresses, and oral diphenhydramine as needed for pruritus. The lesions notably improved within the first week of treatment.

Comment

Reported cases of acral papulovesicular eruption^4-6 demonstrated an onset of cutaneous symptoms an average of 14 days following vaccination (range, 8–18 days postvaccination). Lesions were benign and self-limited in all cases, with resolution within an average of 25 days (range, 7–71 days). All patients were active-duty military adults with a mean age of 24 years. Supportive treatment varied from topical steroids and oral antihistamines to tapering oral prednisone doses. Of note, all previously reported cases of this reaction occurred in patients who also had received other concurrent or near-concurrent vaccines, including anthrax, hepatitis B, influenza, and typhoid. Our patient represents a unique case of a papulovesicular eruption following smallpox vaccination with no history of concurrent vaccines.

Since the 1970s, smallpox vaccination has been associated with numerous cutaneous reactions, most of which have been reported with the first-generation Dryvax. Minor local reactions occurred in approximately 2% to 6% of vaccinees in clinical trials.⁹ These reactions included local edema involving the upper arm, satellite lesions within 2.5 cm of the vaccination site, local lymphadenopathy, intense inflammation or viral cellulitis surrounding the inoculation site, and viral lymphangitis tracking to axillary lymph nodes. In clinical trials, these reactions were self-limited and required only symptomatic treatment.⁹

Autoinoculation is another cutaneous reaction that can occur because Dryvax and ACAM2000 both contain live-attenuated replicating vaccinia virus. Accidental implantation may occur when the high titers of virus present at the vaccine site are subsequently transferred to other sites, especially abnormal mucosa or skin, resulting in an additional primary inoculation site.¹⁰

Eczema vaccinatum is a potentially life-threatening reaction that may occur in patients with disruptive skin disorders, such as atopic dermatitis. These patients are at risk for massive confluent vaccinia infection of the skin.¹⁰ In patients with atopic dermatitis, the virus rapidly disseminates due to both skin barrier dysfunction and impaired immunomodulation, resulting in large confluent skin lesions and the potential for viremia, septic shock, and death.^10,11 Mortality from eczema vaccinatum may be reduced by administration of vaccinia immune globulin.¹⁰

The vaccinia virus also may spread hematogenously in healthy individuals,¹⁰ resulting in a benign reaction called generalized vaccinia. These patients develop pustules on areas of the skin other than the vaccination site. Although typically benign and self-limited, Beachkofsky et al⁴ described a case of generalized vaccinia in a healthy 34-year-old man resulting in a rapidly progressive vesiculopustular eruption with associated fever and pancytopenia. The patient made a complete recovery over the course of the following month.⁴

Alternatively, progressive vaccinia is a severe complication of smallpox vaccination seen in patients with impaired cell-mediated immunity. It also is known as vaccinia gangrenosum or vaccinia necrosum. These patients develop expanding ulcers due to exaggerated viral replication and cell-to-cell spread of the vaccinia virus.^10,11 Hematogenous spread may result in viral implantation at distant sites of the body. This disease slowly progresses over weeks to months, and it often is resistant to treatment and fatal in patients with severe T-cell deficiency.¹⁰

Acral papulovesicular eruption is a distinct cutaneous adverse event following smallpox vaccination. Although further research is needed to discern the pathogenesis of this reaction, it is benign and self-limited, and patients have fully recovered with supportive care. In addition, a modified vaccinia Ankara vaccine (Bavarian Nordic) was approved by the US Food and Drug Administration in 2019.^12,13 It is a nonreplicating attenuated viral vaccine that had fewer adverse events compared to ACAM2000 in clinical trials.¹³ To date, papulovesicular eruptions have not been reported following vaccination with the modified vaccinia Ankara vaccine; however, continued monitoring will help to further characterize any cutaneous reactions to this newer vaccine.

Following the attacks of September 11, 2001, heightened concerns over bioterrorism and the potential use of smallpox as a biological weapon made smallpox vaccination a critical component of military readiness. Therefore, the US Military resumed its smallpox vaccination program in 2002 using the first-generation smallpox vaccine (Dryvax, Wyeth Pharmaceuticals), a live vaccinia virus vaccine created in the late 19th century. This vaccine was developed by pooling vaccinia strains from the skin of infected cows¹ and had previously been used during the worldwide vaccination campaign in the 1970s. Dryvax was associated with various cardiac and cutaneous complications, from benign hypersensitivity reactions to life-threatening eczema vaccinatum and progressive vaccinia.

Due to concerns that the remaining supply of Dryvax was insufficient to vaccinate the US population in the case of a bioterrorism attack, investigators developed the second-generation smallpox vaccine (ACAM2000, Sanofi Pasteur Biologics Co) using advances in vaccine technology.² ACAM2000 is a plaque-purified isolate of vaccinia virus propagated in cell culture, thereby reducing contaminants and lot-to-lot variation.¹ Clinical trials demonstrated comparable immunogenicity and frequency of adverse events compared with Dryvax,² and ACAM2000 replaced Dryvax in 2008. However, these trials focused on serious adverse events, such as cardiac complications and postvaccinal encephalitis, with less specific characterization and description of cutaneous eruptions.³

Since 2008, there have been few reports of cutaneous adverse reactions following vaccination with ACAM2000. Beachkofsky et al⁴ described 7 cases of papulovesicular eruptions and 1 case of generalized vaccinia. Freeman and Lenz⁵ described 4 cases of papulovesicular eruptions, and there has been 1 case of progressive vaccinia reported in a soldier with newly diagnosed acute myelogenous leukemia.⁶ Kramer⁷ described a patient with multiple vesiculopustular lesions secondary to autoinoculation. The distinct pruritic acral papulovesicular eruptions following ACAM2000 vaccination have occurred in healthy military service members at different locations since the introduction of ACAM2000. We describe an additional case of this unique cutaneous eruption, followed by a review of previously described cutaneous adverse events associated with smallpox vaccination.

Case Report

A 21-year-old female soldier who was otherwise healthy presented to the dermatology clinic with a pruritic papular eruption involving the upper and lower extremities of 1 week’s duration. The lesions first appeared 8 days after she received the ACAM2000 vaccine. She received no other concurrent vaccines, had no history of atopic dermatitis, and had no systemic symptoms. Physical examination revealed numerous erythematous indurated papules involving the dorsolateral hands and fingers, as well as the extensor surfaces of the elbows, knees, and thighs (Figures 1 and 2). Based on the clinical presentation, the differential diagnosis included lichen planus, verruca plana, dyshidrotic eczema, and smallpox vaccine reaction. Erythema multiforme was considered; however, the absence of palmoplantar involvement and typical targetoid lesions made this diagnosis less likely.

Biopsies of lesions on the arm and thigh were performed. Histologic findings revealed interface and spongiotic dermatitis with scattered necrotic keratinocytes and extravasated erythrocytes (Figure 3). There was no evidence of viral cytopathic effects. Similar clinical and histologic findings have been reported in the literature as acral papulovesicular eruptions following smallpox vaccination or papular spongiotic dermatitis of smallpox vaccination.⁸ The presence of eosinophils was not conspicuous in the current case and was only a notable finding in 1 of 2 cases previously described by Gaertner et al.⁸ This may simply be due to an idiosyncratic drug reaction. Furthermore, in the cases described by Beachkofsky et al,⁴ there were essentially 2 histologic groups. The first group demonstrated a dermal hypersensitivity-type reaction, and the second group demonstrated a lymphocytic capillaritis.

Based on these findings, the patient was diagnosed with an acral papulovesicular eruption following smallpox vaccination. Of note, the patient’s presentation was not consistent with other described smallpox vaccine reactions, which included eczema vaccinatum, autoinoculation, generalized vaccinia, and progressive vaccinia. The patient was treated supportively with triamcinolone acetonide cream 0.1%, cool compresses, and oral diphenhydramine as needed for pruritus. The lesions notably improved within the first week of treatment.

Comment

Reported cases of acral papulovesicular eruption^4-6 demonstrated an onset of cutaneous symptoms an average of 14 days following vaccination (range, 8–18 days postvaccination). Lesions were benign and self-limited in all cases, with resolution within an average of 25 days (range, 7–71 days). All patients were active-duty military adults with a mean age of 24 years. Supportive treatment varied from topical steroids and oral antihistamines to tapering oral prednisone doses. Of note, all previously reported cases of this reaction occurred in patients who also had received other concurrent or near-concurrent vaccines, including anthrax, hepatitis B, influenza, and typhoid. Our patient represents a unique case of a papulovesicular eruption following smallpox vaccination with no history of concurrent vaccines.

Since the 1970s, smallpox vaccination has been associated with numerous cutaneous reactions, most of which have been reported with the first-generation Dryvax. Minor local reactions occurred in approximately 2% to 6% of vaccinees in clinical trials.⁹ These reactions included local edema involving the upper arm, satellite lesions within 2.5 cm of the vaccination site, local lymphadenopathy, intense inflammation or viral cellulitis surrounding the inoculation site, and viral lymphangitis tracking to axillary lymph nodes. In clinical trials, these reactions were self-limited and required only symptomatic treatment.⁹

Autoinoculation is another cutaneous reaction that can occur because Dryvax and ACAM2000 both contain live-attenuated replicating vaccinia virus. Accidental implantation may occur when the high titers of virus present at the vaccine site are subsequently transferred to other sites, especially abnormal mucosa or skin, resulting in an additional primary inoculation site.¹⁰

Eczema vaccinatum is a potentially life-threatening reaction that may occur in patients with disruptive skin disorders, such as atopic dermatitis. These patients are at risk for massive confluent vaccinia infection of the skin.¹⁰ In patients with atopic dermatitis, the virus rapidly disseminates due to both skin barrier dysfunction and impaired immunomodulation, resulting in large confluent skin lesions and the potential for viremia, septic shock, and death.^10,11 Mortality from eczema vaccinatum may be reduced by administration of vaccinia immune globulin.¹⁰

The vaccinia virus also may spread hematogenously in healthy individuals,¹⁰ resulting in a benign reaction called generalized vaccinia. These patients develop pustules on areas of the skin other than the vaccination site. Although typically benign and self-limited, Beachkofsky et al⁴ described a case of generalized vaccinia in a healthy 34-year-old man resulting in a rapidly progressive vesiculopustular eruption with associated fever and pancytopenia. The patient made a complete recovery over the course of the following month.⁴

Alternatively, progressive vaccinia is a severe complication of smallpox vaccination seen in patients with impaired cell-mediated immunity. It also is known as vaccinia gangrenosum or vaccinia necrosum. These patients develop expanding ulcers due to exaggerated viral replication and cell-to-cell spread of the vaccinia virus.^10,11 Hematogenous spread may result in viral implantation at distant sites of the body. This disease slowly progresses over weeks to months, and it often is resistant to treatment and fatal in patients with severe T-cell deficiency.¹⁰

Acral papulovesicular eruption is a distinct cutaneous adverse event following smallpox vaccination. Although further research is needed to discern the pathogenesis of this reaction, it is benign and self-limited, and patients have fully recovered with supportive care. In addition, a modified vaccinia Ankara vaccine (Bavarian Nordic) was approved by the US Food and Drug Administration in 2019.^12,13 It is a nonreplicating attenuated viral vaccine that had fewer adverse events compared to ACAM2000 in clinical trials.¹³ To date, papulovesicular eruptions have not been reported following vaccination with the modified vaccinia Ankara vaccine; however, continued monitoring will help to further characterize any cutaneous reactions to this newer vaccine.

Case Report

A 58-year-old woman presented to the dermatology office with a widespread pruritic eruption of 3 days’ duration that started in the groin and spread to the rest of the body. No treatments had been attempted. She had no notable medical history, and she denied any recent illness, change in personal care products, or new medications or supplements. She reported a camping trip 2 weeks prior to presentation on the east end of Long Island, New York. She later learned that others on the same trip developed a similar, albeit less widespread, eruption.

Physical examination revealed clear vesicles on the arms, legs, trunk, and pubic area (Figure 1). Dermoscopy revealed a small lone star tick larva in the center of one of the vesicles (Figure 2). The type of tick larva was identified using resources from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (Figure 3).¹ Careful inspection revealed dark marks on various vesicles, mostly in the perineum, yielding nearly 20 larvae, which were removed with forceps. The patient was counseled to cover herself in petrolatum for 2 to 3 hours with the hope of smothering any remaining tick larvae. She was given triamcinolone cream and was encouraged to take a nonsedating antihistamine for itch. The patient was seen back in clinic 2 weeks later and the eruption had resolved.

Comment

Spread of Tick-Borne Disease—Ticks and tick-borne disease are increasing major health concerns for humans, domesticated animals, and livestock. Reported cases of bacterial and protozoan tick-borne disease doubled in the United States between 2004 and 2016. Ninety percent of the nearly 60,000 cases of nationally notifiable vector-borne diseases reported in 2017 were linked to ticks.² Geographic ranges of multiple tick species continue to expand, which is thought to be secondary to rising global temperatures, ecologic changes, reforestation, and increases in commerce and travel (Figure 4).³ Not only have warming temperatures contributed to geographic range expansion, they also may extend ticks’ active season. The lone star tick (Amblyomma americanum) is widely distributed throughout much of the eastern United States.⁴ The range of A americanum has expanded north in recent years from its prior core range in the southeastern United States.² One study found that from 2006 to 2016, the vector tick species most commonly collected from humans and submitted to a tick surveillance system in New Jersey shifted from Ixodes scapularis to A americanum.⁵

Bites by Amblyomma Ticks—As with most hard ticks, the life cycle of A americanum lasts 2 years and includes the egg, the 6-legged larva or “seed tick,” the 8-legged immature nymph, and the 8-legged reproductively mature adult (Figure 3). Amblyomma americanum can lay several thousand eggs.² Because our patient had numerous bites, it is plausible that she came into contact with a nest of newly hatched tick larvae. Morphogenesis from larva to nymph, then nymph to adult, requires a blood meal.^6,7 The larvae emerge from eggs deposited on the ground and then crawl up low vegetation where they can easily attach to passing hosts. The tick clings to hair or clothing and waits until the host is at rest before moving to a favorable location and then bites.⁸ When attaching, ticks inject an anesthetic akin to lidocaine, making the bite painless. A tick may spend up to 24 hours on the host prior to biting and then feed for 2 hours to 7 days before releasing.⁹ For the majority of tick-borne illnesses, the tick must remain attached for 24 to 48 hours before disease is transmitted.¹⁰

All stages of Amblyomma, excluding the egg, are capable of transmitting disease.^8,11Amblyomma americanum is called the lone star tick because of the prominent white dot on the back of the adult female. It will feed on small or large mammals during any stage of its life cycle. It is known to transmit Ehrlichia chaffeensis and Ehrlichia ewingii, which cause human ehrlichiosis, and Francisella tularensis, which causes tularemia, Heartland virus, Bourbon virus, and Southern tick-associated rash illness. Delayed anaphylaxis to ingestion of red meat has been attributed to the bite of A americanum. Amblyomma americanum ticks are not known to transmit Lyme disease. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention does not recommend prophylactic treatment to prevent ehrlichiosis.¹² Tularemia prophylaxis is only recommended in cases of laboratory exposure to infectious materials. Doxycycline prophylaxis is only recommended if the tick is identified as an adult or nymphal I scapularis.¹²

Even when the ticks do not transmit disease, tick bites can cause impressive local reactions. Uncomplicated bites can be painful and leave a puncture wound that can take 1 to 2 weeks to heal.¹³ Rarely, bites can cause a delayed hypersensitivity reaction including fever, pruritus, and urticaria. Granulomas can develop if a tick is improperly removed.⁹ Other reports describe prurigo lesions, skin hemorrhage, papular urticaria, diffuse papules, vesicles and bullae, necrotic ulcers, and patchy alopecia.^14,15 A 2015 systematic controlled study of human bite reactions from A americanum demonstrated the development of itchy erythematous papules and vesicles within 48 hours of larval tick attachment to research participants. The study found tissue damage from A americanum mouthparts, and degranulating mast cells may be evident in as little as 15 minutes.¹⁶ The severity of individual skin reaction is hypothesized to depend on several variables, such as the duration of feeding, size of mouthparts, type of tick secretions, changes in secretions during feeding, and prior exposures of the host.¹⁴

Tick Removal—If patients present to clinic with ticks attached, removal can be challenging. Removal recommendations call for use of blunt forceps or tweezers. Ticks should be grasped near the skin with consistent pressure, and the tick should be pulled straight out, perpendicular to the skin. Twisting motions can cause the head to separate from the body and remain in the bite wound. Immediately following removal, the area should be cleansed with a disinfectant.^10,17 After the tick is removed, some studies recommend storing the tick at −20 °C; should the patient develop disease, the tick could be sent for evaluation.^6,17 If there is no clinical or serologic evidence of infection, testing for the presence of antibodies against tick-borne bacteria at presentation and at 3 and 6 weeks is not recommended due to low sensitivity, low positive predictive value, and cost. Clinicians must only observe and treat if disease occurs.¹⁷

Prevention of Tick Bites—Tick bites are best prevented by avoiding tick-infested areas; when these areas are unavoidable, tick bites may be prevented by wearing long pants with the pant legs tucked into boots. In addition, applying topical DEET (N,N-diethyl-m-toluamide) repellent to exposed skin and treating clothing with permethrin can be helpful.¹⁷ When used alone, DEET provides greater than 90% protection for up to 2.7 hours against A americanum.¹⁸ Permethrin-treated clothing alone is 79% to 100% effective at killing A americanum ticks or disabling them for several hours.¹⁹

Conclusion

Tick-borne illness is an increasingly important cause of human infectious disease. In addition to their role as a disease vector, ticks can produce primary skin disorders. This case posed a diagnostic challenge because of the unusually large number and wide distribution of bites as well as the subsequent vesicular reaction that ensued. It is important to keep tick larvae or adult tick bites in the differential when evaluating a patient to expedite tick removal and begin clinical monitoring. Recognition of A americanum larvae as a potential cause of pruritic papules may be helpful in similar cases. In addition, it is important for dermatologists to be aware of the tick species in their area.

Case Report

A 58-year-old woman presented to the dermatology office with a widespread pruritic eruption of 3 days’ duration that started in the groin and spread to the rest of the body. No treatments had been attempted. She had no notable medical history, and she denied any recent illness, change in personal care products, or new medications or supplements. She reported a camping trip 2 weeks prior to presentation on the east end of Long Island, New York. She later learned that others on the same trip developed a similar, albeit less widespread, eruption.

Physical examination revealed clear vesicles on the arms, legs, trunk, and pubic area (Figure 1). Dermoscopy revealed a small lone star tick larva in the center of one of the vesicles (Figure 2). The type of tick larva was identified using resources from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (Figure 3).¹ Careful inspection revealed dark marks on various vesicles, mostly in the perineum, yielding nearly 20 larvae, which were removed with forceps. The patient was counseled to cover herself in petrolatum for 2 to 3 hours with the hope of smothering any remaining tick larvae. She was given triamcinolone cream and was encouraged to take a nonsedating antihistamine for itch. The patient was seen back in clinic 2 weeks later and the eruption had resolved.

Comment

Spread of Tick-Borne Disease—Ticks and tick-borne disease are increasing major health concerns for humans, domesticated animals, and livestock. Reported cases of bacterial and protozoan tick-borne disease doubled in the United States between 2004 and 2016. Ninety percent of the nearly 60,000 cases of nationally notifiable vector-borne diseases reported in 2017 were linked to ticks.² Geographic ranges of multiple tick species continue to expand, which is thought to be secondary to rising global temperatures, ecologic changes, reforestation, and increases in commerce and travel (Figure 4).³ Not only have warming temperatures contributed to geographic range expansion, they also may extend ticks’ active season. The lone star tick (Amblyomma americanum) is widely distributed throughout much of the eastern United States.⁴ The range of A americanum has expanded north in recent years from its prior core range in the southeastern United States.² One study found that from 2006 to 2016, the vector tick species most commonly collected from humans and submitted to a tick surveillance system in New Jersey shifted from Ixodes scapularis to A americanum.⁵

Bites by Amblyomma Ticks—As with most hard ticks, the life cycle of A americanum lasts 2 years and includes the egg, the 6-legged larva or “seed tick,” the 8-legged immature nymph, and the 8-legged reproductively mature adult (Figure 3). Amblyomma americanum can lay several thousand eggs.² Because our patient had numerous bites, it is plausible that she came into contact with a nest of newly hatched tick larvae. Morphogenesis from larva to nymph, then nymph to adult, requires a blood meal.^6,7 The larvae emerge from eggs deposited on the ground and then crawl up low vegetation where they can easily attach to passing hosts. The tick clings to hair or clothing and waits until the host is at rest before moving to a favorable location and then bites.⁸ When attaching, ticks inject an anesthetic akin to lidocaine, making the bite painless. A tick may spend up to 24 hours on the host prior to biting and then feed for 2 hours to 7 days before releasing.⁹ For the majority of tick-borne illnesses, the tick must remain attached for 24 to 48 hours before disease is transmitted.¹⁰

All stages of Amblyomma, excluding the egg, are capable of transmitting disease.^8,11Amblyomma americanum is called the lone star tick because of the prominent white dot on the back of the adult female. It will feed on small or large mammals during any stage of its life cycle. It is known to transmit Ehrlichia chaffeensis and Ehrlichia ewingii, which cause human ehrlichiosis, and Francisella tularensis, which causes tularemia, Heartland virus, Bourbon virus, and Southern tick-associated rash illness. Delayed anaphylaxis to ingestion of red meat has been attributed to the bite of A americanum. Amblyomma americanum ticks are not known to transmit Lyme disease. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention does not recommend prophylactic treatment to prevent ehrlichiosis.¹² Tularemia prophylaxis is only recommended in cases of laboratory exposure to infectious materials. Doxycycline prophylaxis is only recommended if the tick is identified as an adult or nymphal I scapularis.¹²

Even when the ticks do not transmit disease, tick bites can cause impressive local reactions. Uncomplicated bites can be painful and leave a puncture wound that can take 1 to 2 weeks to heal.¹³ Rarely, bites can cause a delayed hypersensitivity reaction including fever, pruritus, and urticaria. Granulomas can develop if a tick is improperly removed.⁹ Other reports describe prurigo lesions, skin hemorrhage, papular urticaria, diffuse papules, vesicles and bullae, necrotic ulcers, and patchy alopecia.^14,15 A 2015 systematic controlled study of human bite reactions from A americanum demonstrated the development of itchy erythematous papules and vesicles within 48 hours of larval tick attachment to research participants. The study found tissue damage from A americanum mouthparts, and degranulating mast cells may be evident in as little as 15 minutes.¹⁶ The severity of individual skin reaction is hypothesized to depend on several variables, such as the duration of feeding, size of mouthparts, type of tick secretions, changes in secretions during feeding, and prior exposures of the host.¹⁴

Tick Removal—If patients present to clinic with ticks attached, removal can be challenging. Removal recommendations call for use of blunt forceps or tweezers. Ticks should be grasped near the skin with consistent pressure, and the tick should be pulled straight out, perpendicular to the skin. Twisting motions can cause the head to separate from the body and remain in the bite wound. Immediately following removal, the area should be cleansed with a disinfectant.^10,17 After the tick is removed, some studies recommend storing the tick at −20 °C; should the patient develop disease, the tick could be sent for evaluation.^6,17 If there is no clinical or serologic evidence of infection, testing for the presence of antibodies against tick-borne bacteria at presentation and at 3 and 6 weeks is not recommended due to low sensitivity, low positive predictive value, and cost. Clinicians must only observe and treat if disease occurs.¹⁷

Prevention of Tick Bites—Tick bites are best prevented by avoiding tick-infested areas; when these areas are unavoidable, tick bites may be prevented by wearing long pants with the pant legs tucked into boots. In addition, applying topical DEET (N,N-diethyl-m-toluamide) repellent to exposed skin and treating clothing with permethrin can be helpful.¹⁷ When used alone, DEET provides greater than 90% protection for up to 2.7 hours against A americanum.¹⁸ Permethrin-treated clothing alone is 79% to 100% effective at killing A americanum ticks or disabling them for several hours.¹⁹

Conclusion

Tick-borne illness is an increasingly important cause of human infectious disease. In addition to their role as a disease vector, ticks can produce primary skin disorders. This case posed a diagnostic challenge because of the unusually large number and wide distribution of bites as well as the subsequent vesicular reaction that ensued. It is important to keep tick larvae or adult tick bites in the differential when evaluating a patient to expedite tick removal and begin clinical monitoring. Recognition of A americanum larvae as a potential cause of pruritic papules may be helpful in similar cases. In addition, it is important for dermatologists to be aware of the tick species in their area.

Case Report

A 58-year-old woman presented to the dermatology office with a widespread pruritic eruption of 3 days’ duration that started in the groin and spread to the rest of the body. No treatments had been attempted. She had no notable medical history, and she denied any recent illness, change in personal care products, or new medications or supplements. She reported a camping trip 2 weeks prior to presentation on the east end of Long Island, New York. She later learned that others on the same trip developed a similar, albeit less widespread, eruption.

Physical examination revealed clear vesicles on the arms, legs, trunk, and pubic area (Figure 1). Dermoscopy revealed a small lone star tick larva in the center of one of the vesicles (Figure 2). The type of tick larva was identified using resources from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (Figure 3).¹ Careful inspection revealed dark marks on various vesicles, mostly in the perineum, yielding nearly 20 larvae, which were removed with forceps. The patient was counseled to cover herself in petrolatum for 2 to 3 hours with the hope of smothering any remaining tick larvae. She was given triamcinolone cream and was encouraged to take a nonsedating antihistamine for itch. The patient was seen back in clinic 2 weeks later and the eruption had resolved.

Comment

Spread of Tick-Borne Disease—Ticks and tick-borne disease are increasing major health concerns for humans, domesticated animals, and livestock. Reported cases of bacterial and protozoan tick-borne disease doubled in the United States between 2004 and 2016. Ninety percent of the nearly 60,000 cases of nationally notifiable vector-borne diseases reported in 2017 were linked to ticks.² Geographic ranges of multiple tick species continue to expand, which is thought to be secondary to rising global temperatures, ecologic changes, reforestation, and increases in commerce and travel (Figure 4).³ Not only have warming temperatures contributed to geographic range expansion, they also may extend ticks’ active season. The lone star tick (Amblyomma americanum) is widely distributed throughout much of the eastern United States.⁴ The range of A americanum has expanded north in recent years from its prior core range in the southeastern United States.² One study found that from 2006 to 2016, the vector tick species most commonly collected from humans and submitted to a tick surveillance system in New Jersey shifted from Ixodes scapularis to A americanum.⁵

Bites by Amblyomma Ticks—As with most hard ticks, the life cycle of A americanum lasts 2 years and includes the egg, the 6-legged larva or “seed tick,” the 8-legged immature nymph, and the 8-legged reproductively mature adult (Figure 3). Amblyomma americanum can lay several thousand eggs.² Because our patient had numerous bites, it is plausible that she came into contact with a nest of newly hatched tick larvae. Morphogenesis from larva to nymph, then nymph to adult, requires a blood meal.^6,7 The larvae emerge from eggs deposited on the ground and then crawl up low vegetation where they can easily attach to passing hosts. The tick clings to hair or clothing and waits until the host is at rest before moving to a favorable location and then bites.⁸ When attaching, ticks inject an anesthetic akin to lidocaine, making the bite painless. A tick may spend up to 24 hours on the host prior to biting and then feed for 2 hours to 7 days before releasing.⁹ For the majority of tick-borne illnesses, the tick must remain attached for 24 to 48 hours before disease is transmitted.¹⁰

All stages of Amblyomma, excluding the egg, are capable of transmitting disease.^8,11Amblyomma americanum is called the lone star tick because of the prominent white dot on the back of the adult female. It will feed on small or large mammals during any stage of its life cycle. It is known to transmit Ehrlichia chaffeensis and Ehrlichia ewingii, which cause human ehrlichiosis, and Francisella tularensis, which causes tularemia, Heartland virus, Bourbon virus, and Southern tick-associated rash illness. Delayed anaphylaxis to ingestion of red meat has been attributed to the bite of A americanum. Amblyomma americanum ticks are not known to transmit Lyme disease. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention does not recommend prophylactic treatment to prevent ehrlichiosis.¹² Tularemia prophylaxis is only recommended in cases of laboratory exposure to infectious materials. Doxycycline prophylaxis is only recommended if the tick is identified as an adult or nymphal I scapularis.¹²

Even when the ticks do not transmit disease, tick bites can cause impressive local reactions. Uncomplicated bites can be painful and leave a puncture wound that can take 1 to 2 weeks to heal.¹³ Rarely, bites can cause a delayed hypersensitivity reaction including fever, pruritus, and urticaria. Granulomas can develop if a tick is improperly removed.⁹ Other reports describe prurigo lesions, skin hemorrhage, papular urticaria, diffuse papules, vesicles and bullae, necrotic ulcers, and patchy alopecia.^14,15 A 2015 systematic controlled study of human bite reactions from A americanum demonstrated the development of itchy erythematous papules and vesicles within 48 hours of larval tick attachment to research participants. The study found tissue damage from A americanum mouthparts, and degranulating mast cells may be evident in as little as 15 minutes.¹⁶ The severity of individual skin reaction is hypothesized to depend on several variables, such as the duration of feeding, size of mouthparts, type of tick secretions, changes in secretions during feeding, and prior exposures of the host.¹⁴

Tick Removal—If patients present to clinic with ticks attached, removal can be challenging. Removal recommendations call for use of blunt forceps or tweezers. Ticks should be grasped near the skin with consistent pressure, and the tick should be pulled straight out, perpendicular to the skin. Twisting motions can cause the head to separate from the body and remain in the bite wound. Immediately following removal, the area should be cleansed with a disinfectant.^10,17 After the tick is removed, some studies recommend storing the tick at −20 °C; should the patient develop disease, the tick could be sent for evaluation.^6,17 If there is no clinical or serologic evidence of infection, testing for the presence of antibodies against tick-borne bacteria at presentation and at 3 and 6 weeks is not recommended due to low sensitivity, low positive predictive value, and cost. Clinicians must only observe and treat if disease occurs.¹⁷

Prevention of Tick Bites—Tick bites are best prevented by avoiding tick-infested areas; when these areas are unavoidable, tick bites may be prevented by wearing long pants with the pant legs tucked into boots. In addition, applying topical DEET (N,N-diethyl-m-toluamide) repellent to exposed skin and treating clothing with permethrin can be helpful.¹⁷ When used alone, DEET provides greater than 90% protection for up to 2.7 hours against A americanum.¹⁸ Permethrin-treated clothing alone is 79% to 100% effective at killing A americanum ticks or disabling them for several hours.¹⁹

Conclusion

Tick-borne illness is an increasingly important cause of human infectious disease. In addition to their role as a disease vector, ticks can produce primary skin disorders. This case posed a diagnostic challenge because of the unusually large number and wide distribution of bites as well as the subsequent vesicular reaction that ensued. It is important to keep tick larvae or adult tick bites in the differential when evaluating a patient to expedite tick removal and begin clinical monitoring. Recognition of A americanum larvae as a potential cause of pruritic papules may be helpful in similar cases. In addition, it is important for dermatologists to be aware of the tick species in their area.

Oral tebipenem pivoxil hydrobromide (TBP-PI-HBr) offers a safe and effective strategy for treating patients with complicated urinary tract infections, according to a new study.

“No new oral antibiotic alternative has emerged to treat these conditions in more than 25 years,” corresponding author Angela K. Talley, MD, said in an interview. The new research was published in the New England Journal of Medicine.

Courtesy Spero Therapeutics

Patients with complicated urinary tract infection (cUTI), including acute pyelonephritis (AP), are often hospitalized and treated with intravenous therapy because of the lack of oral options, especially in cases of antibiotic-resistant pathogens, explained Dr. Talley, of Spero Therapeutics.

In their new phase 3, double-blind randomized trial, the researchers evaluated the safety and effectiveness of oral TBP-PI-HBr, compared with intravenous ertapenem in hospitalized patients with cUTIs or AP. Oral tebipenem is an investigational carbapenem with demonstrated activity against uropathogenic Enterobacterales, and it has shown effectiveness in animal models, the researchers noted in their paper.
 

Methods and results

The researchers randomized 1,372 adult patients. The microbiologic intent-to-treat population included 449 patients who received TBP-PI-HBr (600 mg every 8 hours) and 419 who received ertapenem (1 g every 24 hours) for 7-10 days or up to 14 days for patients with bacteremia.

The primary endpoint was a composite of clinical cure and favorable microbiologic response, assessed at a test-of-cure visit on day 19. Clinical cure was defined as “complete resolution or clinically significant alleviation of baseline signs and symptoms of complicated urinary tract infection or acute pyelonephritis and no new symptoms, such that no further antimicrobial therapy was warranted,” the researchers wrote. Microbiologic response was defined as a reduction to less than 103 CFU per milliliter in uropathogen levels from baseline at day 19.

Overall, the clinical response occurred in 58.8% of patients who received TBP-PI-HBr and 61.6% of those who received ertapenem at the test-of-cure visit.

Clinical cure rates were similar in the TBP-PI-HBr and ertapenem groups (93.1% vs. 93.6%) at the test-of-cure visit.

Both treatment groups showed similar responses to Enterobacterales pathogens at the test-of-cure visit (62.7% for TBP-PI-HBr and 65.2% for ertapenem).

Among patients with bacteremia at baseline, overall response rates were 72.3% and 66.0% for TBP-PI-HBr and ertapenem, respectively, at the test-of-cure visit, and 93.6% and 96.2%, respectively, at the end-of-treatment visit on or around day 25.

The overall incidence of adverse events was approximately 26% in both treatment groups. Most adverse events were mild or moderate in severity and did not limit treatment, the researchers wrote.

The mean age of the patients was 58.1 years; 46.1% were aged 65 and older, and 11.5% had bacteremia at baseline.

The study findings were limited by several factors, including the mandated 7- to 10-day course of antibiotics, which may not reflect the standard of care in other settings in the United States. The study’s trial sites were located in the United States, South Africa, and Europe. The study population was primarily White and from Central and Eastern Europe. Other limitations included the randomization of patients before confirming the baseline pathogen, although this was done to limit potential confounding from previous antibiotics, the researchers noted.
 

Safety and efficacy support application for approval

“To our knowledge, this is the first head-to-head evaluation of an IV vs. an oral drug for the treatment of cUTI and acute pyelonephritis,” Dr. Talley said in an interview.  

“The findings demonstrate that almost all patients in the study achieved complete resolution of the signs and symptoms of their infection,” she said.

TBP-PI-HBr has not been approved by the Food and Drug Administration, but a new drug application that included data from the current study was submitted to the FDA and is currently under review, Dr. Talley noted.

As for additional research, the current study was conducted in hospitalized patients, and the use of TBP-PI-HBr in the outpatient setting has not yet been evaluated, she said.
 

Approval and use of oral carbapenem will change practice

The current study is very important because it provides a viable and effective alternative form of antibiotic delivery for the patients with complicated UTI, Noel N. Deep, MD, emphasized in an interview.

“Currently these patients have to be treated with IV carbapenem antibiotics either in a hospital or through a home health nurse,” Dr. Deep, a general internist in group practice in Antigo, Wisc., explained.

Current IV strategies also carry the inherent risk associated with the insertion of an IV catheter that is left in place for several days or replaced periodically. “The oral antibiotic eliminates these risks and higher health care costs and provides a safer and equally efficacious option,” Dr. Deep said.

In the current study, “I was definitely surprised at the effectiveness of the oral carbapenem,” Dr. Deep said. “I am absolutely delighted with this new treatment option that physicians can now add to their armamentarium [assuming FDA approval] as we provide care to our patients,” he said.

If approved, TBP-PI-HBr will definitely change the treatment spectrum for the multidrug-resistant bacterial UTIs, said Dr. Deep. “Carbapenems have continued to be effective and low antibiotic resistance to carbapenems has been recorded.”

As for additional research, “I would like to see studies done in other ethnicities and different countries to ascertain the effectiveness of this antibiotic in those populations and against other bacterial strains with potentially different resistance mechanisms,” Dr. Deep said.

The study was supported by Spero Therapeutics and the Department of Health and Human Services. Lead author Paul B. Eckburg, MD, of Stanford (Calif.) University, and Dr. Talley are employees of Spero Therapeutics. Dr. Deep had no financial conflicts to disclose, but serves on the editorial advisory board of Internal Medicine News.

Oral tebipenem pivoxil hydrobromide (TBP-PI-HBr) offers a safe and effective strategy for treating patients with complicated urinary tract infections, according to a new study.

“No new oral antibiotic alternative has emerged to treat these conditions in more than 25 years,” corresponding author Angela K. Talley, MD, said in an interview. The new research was published in the New England Journal of Medicine.

Courtesy Spero Therapeutics

Patients with complicated urinary tract infection (cUTI), including acute pyelonephritis (AP), are often hospitalized and treated with intravenous therapy because of the lack of oral options, especially in cases of antibiotic-resistant pathogens, explained Dr. Talley, of Spero Therapeutics.

In their new phase 3, double-blind randomized trial, the researchers evaluated the safety and effectiveness of oral TBP-PI-HBr, compared with intravenous ertapenem in hospitalized patients with cUTIs or AP. Oral tebipenem is an investigational carbapenem with demonstrated activity against uropathogenic Enterobacterales, and it has shown effectiveness in animal models, the researchers noted in their paper.
 

Methods and results

The researchers randomized 1,372 adult patients. The microbiologic intent-to-treat population included 449 patients who received TBP-PI-HBr (600 mg every 8 hours) and 419 who received ertapenem (1 g every 24 hours) for 7-10 days or up to 14 days for patients with bacteremia.

The primary endpoint was a composite of clinical cure and favorable microbiologic response, assessed at a test-of-cure visit on day 19. Clinical cure was defined as “complete resolution or clinically significant alleviation of baseline signs and symptoms of complicated urinary tract infection or acute pyelonephritis and no new symptoms, such that no further antimicrobial therapy was warranted,” the researchers wrote. Microbiologic response was defined as a reduction to less than 103 CFU per milliliter in uropathogen levels from baseline at day 19.

Overall, the clinical response occurred in 58.8% of patients who received TBP-PI-HBr and 61.6% of those who received ertapenem at the test-of-cure visit.

Clinical cure rates were similar in the TBP-PI-HBr and ertapenem groups (93.1% vs. 93.6%) at the test-of-cure visit.

Both treatment groups showed similar responses to Enterobacterales pathogens at the test-of-cure visit (62.7% for TBP-PI-HBr and 65.2% for ertapenem).

Among patients with bacteremia at baseline, overall response rates were 72.3% and 66.0% for TBP-PI-HBr and ertapenem, respectively, at the test-of-cure visit, and 93.6% and 96.2%, respectively, at the end-of-treatment visit on or around day 25.

The overall incidence of adverse events was approximately 26% in both treatment groups. Most adverse events were mild or moderate in severity and did not limit treatment, the researchers wrote.

The mean age of the patients was 58.1 years; 46.1% were aged 65 and older, and 11.5% had bacteremia at baseline.

The study findings were limited by several factors, including the mandated 7- to 10-day course of antibiotics, which may not reflect the standard of care in other settings in the United States. The study’s trial sites were located in the United States, South Africa, and Europe. The study population was primarily White and from Central and Eastern Europe. Other limitations included the randomization of patients before confirming the baseline pathogen, although this was done to limit potential confounding from previous antibiotics, the researchers noted.
 

Safety and efficacy support application for approval

“To our knowledge, this is the first head-to-head evaluation of an IV vs. an oral drug for the treatment of cUTI and acute pyelonephritis,” Dr. Talley said in an interview.  

“The findings demonstrate that almost all patients in the study achieved complete resolution of the signs and symptoms of their infection,” she said.

TBP-PI-HBr has not been approved by the Food and Drug Administration, but a new drug application that included data from the current study was submitted to the FDA and is currently under review, Dr. Talley noted.

As for additional research, the current study was conducted in hospitalized patients, and the use of TBP-PI-HBr in the outpatient setting has not yet been evaluated, she said.
 

Approval and use of oral carbapenem will change practice

The current study is very important because it provides a viable and effective alternative form of antibiotic delivery for the patients with complicated UTI, Noel N. Deep, MD, emphasized in an interview.

“Currently these patients have to be treated with IV carbapenem antibiotics either in a hospital or through a home health nurse,” Dr. Deep, a general internist in group practice in Antigo, Wisc., explained.

Current IV strategies also carry the inherent risk associated with the insertion of an IV catheter that is left in place for several days or replaced periodically. “The oral antibiotic eliminates these risks and higher health care costs and provides a safer and equally efficacious option,” Dr. Deep said.

In the current study, “I was definitely surprised at the effectiveness of the oral carbapenem,” Dr. Deep said. “I am absolutely delighted with this new treatment option that physicians can now add to their armamentarium [assuming FDA approval] as we provide care to our patients,” he said.

If approved, TBP-PI-HBr will definitely change the treatment spectrum for the multidrug-resistant bacterial UTIs, said Dr. Deep. “Carbapenems have continued to be effective and low antibiotic resistance to carbapenems has been recorded.”

As for additional research, “I would like to see studies done in other ethnicities and different countries to ascertain the effectiveness of this antibiotic in those populations and against other bacterial strains with potentially different resistance mechanisms,” Dr. Deep said.

The study was supported by Spero Therapeutics and the Department of Health and Human Services. Lead author Paul B. Eckburg, MD, of Stanford (Calif.) University, and Dr. Talley are employees of Spero Therapeutics. Dr. Deep had no financial conflicts to disclose, but serves on the editorial advisory board of Internal Medicine News.

Oral tebipenem pivoxil hydrobromide (TBP-PI-HBr) offers a safe and effective strategy for treating patients with complicated urinary tract infections, according to a new study.

“No new oral antibiotic alternative has emerged to treat these conditions in more than 25 years,” corresponding author Angela K. Talley, MD, said in an interview. The new research was published in the New England Journal of Medicine.

Courtesy Spero Therapeutics

Patients with complicated urinary tract infection (cUTI), including acute pyelonephritis (AP), are often hospitalized and treated with intravenous therapy because of the lack of oral options, especially in cases of antibiotic-resistant pathogens, explained Dr. Talley, of Spero Therapeutics.

In their new phase 3, double-blind randomized trial, the researchers evaluated the safety and effectiveness of oral TBP-PI-HBr, compared with intravenous ertapenem in hospitalized patients with cUTIs or AP. Oral tebipenem is an investigational carbapenem with demonstrated activity against uropathogenic Enterobacterales, and it has shown effectiveness in animal models, the researchers noted in their paper.
 

Methods and results

The researchers randomized 1,372 adult patients. The microbiologic intent-to-treat population included 449 patients who received TBP-PI-HBr (600 mg every 8 hours) and 419 who received ertapenem (1 g every 24 hours) for 7-10 days or up to 14 days for patients with bacteremia.

The primary endpoint was a composite of clinical cure and favorable microbiologic response, assessed at a test-of-cure visit on day 19. Clinical cure was defined as “complete resolution or clinically significant alleviation of baseline signs and symptoms of complicated urinary tract infection or acute pyelonephritis and no new symptoms, such that no further antimicrobial therapy was warranted,” the researchers wrote. Microbiologic response was defined as a reduction to less than 103 CFU per milliliter in uropathogen levels from baseline at day 19.

Overall, the clinical response occurred in 58.8% of patients who received TBP-PI-HBr and 61.6% of those who received ertapenem at the test-of-cure visit.

Clinical cure rates were similar in the TBP-PI-HBr and ertapenem groups (93.1% vs. 93.6%) at the test-of-cure visit.

Both treatment groups showed similar responses to Enterobacterales pathogens at the test-of-cure visit (62.7% for TBP-PI-HBr and 65.2% for ertapenem).

Among patients with bacteremia at baseline, overall response rates were 72.3% and 66.0% for TBP-PI-HBr and ertapenem, respectively, at the test-of-cure visit, and 93.6% and 96.2%, respectively, at the end-of-treatment visit on or around day 25.

The overall incidence of adverse events was approximately 26% in both treatment groups. Most adverse events were mild or moderate in severity and did not limit treatment, the researchers wrote.

The mean age of the patients was 58.1 years; 46.1% were aged 65 and older, and 11.5% had bacteremia at baseline.

The study findings were limited by several factors, including the mandated 7- to 10-day course of antibiotics, which may not reflect the standard of care in other settings in the United States. The study’s trial sites were located in the United States, South Africa, and Europe. The study population was primarily White and from Central and Eastern Europe. Other limitations included the randomization of patients before confirming the baseline pathogen, although this was done to limit potential confounding from previous antibiotics, the researchers noted.
 

Safety and efficacy support application for approval

“To our knowledge, this is the first head-to-head evaluation of an IV vs. an oral drug for the treatment of cUTI and acute pyelonephritis,” Dr. Talley said in an interview.  

“The findings demonstrate that almost all patients in the study achieved complete resolution of the signs and symptoms of their infection,” she said.

TBP-PI-HBr has not been approved by the Food and Drug Administration, but a new drug application that included data from the current study was submitted to the FDA and is currently under review, Dr. Talley noted.

As for additional research, the current study was conducted in hospitalized patients, and the use of TBP-PI-HBr in the outpatient setting has not yet been evaluated, she said.
 

Approval and use of oral carbapenem will change practice

The current study is very important because it provides a viable and effective alternative form of antibiotic delivery for the patients with complicated UTI, Noel N. Deep, MD, emphasized in an interview.

“Currently these patients have to be treated with IV carbapenem antibiotics either in a hospital or through a home health nurse,” Dr. Deep, a general internist in group practice in Antigo, Wisc., explained.

Current IV strategies also carry the inherent risk associated with the insertion of an IV catheter that is left in place for several days or replaced periodically. “The oral antibiotic eliminates these risks and higher health care costs and provides a safer and equally efficacious option,” Dr. Deep said.

In the current study, “I was definitely surprised at the effectiveness of the oral carbapenem,” Dr. Deep said. “I am absolutely delighted with this new treatment option that physicians can now add to their armamentarium [assuming FDA approval] as we provide care to our patients,” he said.

If approved, TBP-PI-HBr will definitely change the treatment spectrum for the multidrug-resistant bacterial UTIs, said Dr. Deep. “Carbapenems have continued to be effective and low antibiotic resistance to carbapenems has been recorded.”

As for additional research, “I would like to see studies done in other ethnicities and different countries to ascertain the effectiveness of this antibiotic in those populations and against other bacterial strains with potentially different resistance mechanisms,” Dr. Deep said.

The study was supported by Spero Therapeutics and the Department of Health and Human Services. Lead author Paul B. Eckburg, MD, of Stanford (Calif.) University, and Dr. Talley are employees of Spero Therapeutics. Dr. Deep had no financial conflicts to disclose, but serves on the editorial advisory board of Internal Medicine News.

Even as a number of states see increases in new COVID-19 cases among all ages, the trend remains downward for children, albeit at a slower pace than in recent weeks, based on data from the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Children’s Hospital Association.

New pediatric cases in the United States totaled 27,521 for the most recent week, March 25-31, down by 5.2% from the previous week. Earlier weekly declines, going backward through March and into late February, were 9.3%, 23%, 39.5%, and 46%, according to data collected by the AAP and CHA from state and territorial health agencies. The lowest weekly total recorded since the initial wave in 2020 was just under 8,500 during the week of June 18-24, 2021.

Reported COVID-19 cases in children now total over 12.8 million since the beginning of the pandemic in March 2020, and those infections represent 19.0% of all cases. That share of new cases has not increased in the last 7 weeks, the AAP and CHA noted in their weekly COVID report, suggesting that children have not been bearing a disproportionate share of the declining Omicron burden.

As for Omicron, the BA.2 subvariant now makes up about 55% of COVID-19 infections, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention said in its COVID Data Tracker Weekly Review, and New York, Massachusetts, and New Jersey are among the states reporting BA.2-driven increases in new cases of as much as 30%, the New York Times said.

Rates of new cases for the latest week available (March 27 to April 2) and at their Omicron peaks in January were 11.3 per 100,000 and 1,011 per 100,000 (ages 0-4 years), 12.5 and 1,505 per 100,000 (5-11 years), 12.7 and 1,779 per 100,000 (12-15 years), and 13.1 and 1,982 per 100,000 (16-17 years), the CDC said on its COVID Data Tracker.

Hospitalization rates, however, were a bit of a mixed bag. The last 2 weeks (March 13-19 and March 20-26) of data available from the CDC’s COVID-NET show that hospitalizations were up slightly in children aged 0-4 years (1.3 per 100,000 to 1.4 per 100,000), down for 5- to 11-year-olds (0.6 to 0.2), and steady for those aged 12-17 (0.4 to 0.4). COVID-NET collects data from nearly 100 counties in 10 states and from a separate four-state network.

Vaccinations got a small boost in the last week, the first one since early February. Initial doses and completions climbed slightly in the 12- to 17-year-olds, while just first doses were up a bit among the 5- to 11-year-olds during the week of March 24-30, compared with the previous week, although both groups are still well below the highest counts recorded so far in 2022, which are, in turn, far short of 2021’s peaks, according to CDC data analyzed by the AAP.

Even as a number of states see increases in new COVID-19 cases among all ages, the trend remains downward for children, albeit at a slower pace than in recent weeks, based on data from the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Children’s Hospital Association.

New pediatric cases in the United States totaled 27,521 for the most recent week, March 25-31, down by 5.2% from the previous week. Earlier weekly declines, going backward through March and into late February, were 9.3%, 23%, 39.5%, and 46%, according to data collected by the AAP and CHA from state and territorial health agencies. The lowest weekly total recorded since the initial wave in 2020 was just under 8,500 during the week of June 18-24, 2021.

Reported COVID-19 cases in children now total over 12.8 million since the beginning of the pandemic in March 2020, and those infections represent 19.0% of all cases. That share of new cases has not increased in the last 7 weeks, the AAP and CHA noted in their weekly COVID report, suggesting that children have not been bearing a disproportionate share of the declining Omicron burden.

As for Omicron, the BA.2 subvariant now makes up about 55% of COVID-19 infections, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention said in its COVID Data Tracker Weekly Review, and New York, Massachusetts, and New Jersey are among the states reporting BA.2-driven increases in new cases of as much as 30%, the New York Times said.

Rates of new cases for the latest week available (March 27 to April 2) and at their Omicron peaks in January were 11.3 per 100,000 and 1,011 per 100,000 (ages 0-4 years), 12.5 and 1,505 per 100,000 (5-11 years), 12.7 and 1,779 per 100,000 (12-15 years), and 13.1 and 1,982 per 100,000 (16-17 years), the CDC said on its COVID Data Tracker.

Hospitalization rates, however, were a bit of a mixed bag. The last 2 weeks (March 13-19 and March 20-26) of data available from the CDC’s COVID-NET show that hospitalizations were up slightly in children aged 0-4 years (1.3 per 100,000 to 1.4 per 100,000), down for 5- to 11-year-olds (0.6 to 0.2), and steady for those aged 12-17 (0.4 to 0.4). COVID-NET collects data from nearly 100 counties in 10 states and from a separate four-state network.

Vaccinations got a small boost in the last week, the first one since early February. Initial doses and completions climbed slightly in the 12- to 17-year-olds, while just first doses were up a bit among the 5- to 11-year-olds during the week of March 24-30, compared with the previous week, although both groups are still well below the highest counts recorded so far in 2022, which are, in turn, far short of 2021’s peaks, according to CDC data analyzed by the AAP.

Even as a number of states see increases in new COVID-19 cases among all ages, the trend remains downward for children, albeit at a slower pace than in recent weeks, based on data from the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Children’s Hospital Association.

New pediatric cases in the United States totaled 27,521 for the most recent week, March 25-31, down by 5.2% from the previous week. Earlier weekly declines, going backward through March and into late February, were 9.3%, 23%, 39.5%, and 46%, according to data collected by the AAP and CHA from state and territorial health agencies. The lowest weekly total recorded since the initial wave in 2020 was just under 8,500 during the week of June 18-24, 2021.

Reported COVID-19 cases in children now total over 12.8 million since the beginning of the pandemic in March 2020, and those infections represent 19.0% of all cases. That share of new cases has not increased in the last 7 weeks, the AAP and CHA noted in their weekly COVID report, suggesting that children have not been bearing a disproportionate share of the declining Omicron burden.

As for Omicron, the BA.2 subvariant now makes up about 55% of COVID-19 infections, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention said in its COVID Data Tracker Weekly Review, and New York, Massachusetts, and New Jersey are among the states reporting BA.2-driven increases in new cases of as much as 30%, the New York Times said.

Rates of new cases for the latest week available (March 27 to April 2) and at their Omicron peaks in January were 11.3 per 100,000 and 1,011 per 100,000 (ages 0-4 years), 12.5 and 1,505 per 100,000 (5-11 years), 12.7 and 1,779 per 100,000 (12-15 years), and 13.1 and 1,982 per 100,000 (16-17 years), the CDC said on its COVID Data Tracker.

Hospitalization rates, however, were a bit of a mixed bag. The last 2 weeks (March 13-19 and March 20-26) of data available from the CDC’s COVID-NET show that hospitalizations were up slightly in children aged 0-4 years (1.3 per 100,000 to 1.4 per 100,000), down for 5- to 11-year-olds (0.6 to 0.2), and steady for those aged 12-17 (0.4 to 0.4). COVID-NET collects data from nearly 100 counties in 10 states and from a separate four-state network.

Vaccinations got a small boost in the last week, the first one since early February. Initial doses and completions climbed slightly in the 12- to 17-year-olds, while just first doses were up a bit among the 5- to 11-year-olds during the week of March 24-30, compared with the previous week, although both groups are still well below the highest counts recorded so far in 2022, which are, in turn, far short of 2021’s peaks, according to CDC data analyzed by the AAP.

WASHINGTON – Patients with heart failure who received an annual influenza vaccine for 3 years running had significantly fewer all-cause hospitalizations and significantly fewer cases of pneumonia during that time, compared with placebo-treated patients with heart failure, in a prospective, randomized, global trial with 5,129 participants.

Although the results failed to show a significant reduction in all-cause deaths linked to influenza vaccination, compared with controls during the entire 3 years of the study, the results did show a significant 21% relative mortality-risk reduction by vaccination during periods of peak influenza circulation, and a significant 23% reduction in cardiovascular deaths, compared with controls during peak seasons.

courtesy Dr. Mark Loeb

“This is the first randomized, controlled trial of influenza vaccine in patients with heart failure, and we showed that vaccination reduces deaths” during peak influenza seasons, Mark Loeb, MD, said during a press briefing at the annual scientific sessions of the American College of Cardiology. The results send “an important global message that patients with heart failure should receive the influenza vaccine,” said Dr. Loeb, a professor at McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont., who specializes in clinical epidemiology and infectious diseases.

Dr. Loeb admitted that he and his associates erred when they picked the time window to assess the two primary endpoints for the trial: the combined rate of cardiovascular death, nonfatal MI, and nonfatal stroke, and this combined endpoint plus hospitalizations for heart failure.

The time window they selected was the entirety of all 3 years following three annual immunizations. That was a mistake.
 

No flu vaccine benefit outside flu season

“We know that the influenza vaccine will not have any effect outside of when influenza is circulating. In retrospect, we should have done that,” Dr. Loeb bemoaned during his talk. He chalked up the bad choice to concern over collecting enough endpoints to see a significant between-group difference when the researchers designed the study.

For the entire 3 years of follow-up, influenza vaccination was tied to a nonsignificant 7% relative risk reduction for the first primary endpoint, and a nonsignificant 9% relative risk reduction for the second primary endpoint, he reported.

But Dr. Loeb lobbied for the relevance of several significant secondary endpoints that collectively showed a compelling pattern of benefit during his talk. These included, for the full 3-years of follow-up, important, significant reductions relative to placebo of 16% for first all-cause hospitalizations (P = .01), and a 42% relative risk reduction in first cases of pneumonia (P = .0006).

Then there were the benefits that appeared during influenza season. In that analysis, first events for the first primary endpoint fell after vaccination by a significant 18% relative to placebo. The in-season analysis also showed the significant cuts in both all-cause and cardiovascular deaths.

Despite the neutral primary endpoints, “if you look at these data as a whole I think they speak to the importance of vaccinating patients with heart failure against influenza,” Dr. Loeb maintained.



‘Totality of evidence supports vaccination’

“I agree that the totality of evidence supports influenza vaccination,” commented Mark H. Drazner, MD, professor and clinical chief of cardiology at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, who was designated discussant for the report.

“The message should be to offer influenza vaccine to patients with heart failure,” Dr. Drazner said in an interview. “Previous data on influenza vaccine in patients with heart failure were largely observational. This was a randomized, prospective, placebo-controlled trial. That’s a step forward. Proving efficacy in a randomized trial is important.”

Dr Drazner added that his institution already promotes a “strong mandate” to vaccinate patients with heart failure against influenza.

“The influenza vaccine is a very effective and cost-efficient public health measure. Preventing hospitalizations of patients with heart failure has so many benefits,” commented Craig Beavers, PharmD, vice president of professional services at Baptist Health in Paducah, Ky., and a discussant during the press briefing.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

The Influenza Vaccine To Prevent Adverse Vascular Events (IVVE) trial enrolled people with heart failure in New York Heart Association functional class II, III, or IV from any of 10 low- and middle-income countries including China, India, the Philippines, and multiple countries from Africa and the Middle East. They averaged 57 years of age, and slightly more than half were women.

IVVE was sponsored by McMaster University; the only commercial support that IVVE received was a free supply of influenza vaccine from Sanofi Pasteur. Dr. Loeb, Dr. Drazner, and Dr. Beavers had no disclosures.

WASHINGTON – Patients with heart failure who received an annual influenza vaccine for 3 years running had significantly fewer all-cause hospitalizations and significantly fewer cases of pneumonia during that time, compared with placebo-treated patients with heart failure, in a prospective, randomized, global trial with 5,129 participants.

Although the results failed to show a significant reduction in all-cause deaths linked to influenza vaccination, compared with controls during the entire 3 years of the study, the results did show a significant 21% relative mortality-risk reduction by vaccination during periods of peak influenza circulation, and a significant 23% reduction in cardiovascular deaths, compared with controls during peak seasons.

courtesy Dr. Mark Loeb

“This is the first randomized, controlled trial of influenza vaccine in patients with heart failure, and we showed that vaccination reduces deaths” during peak influenza seasons, Mark Loeb, MD, said during a press briefing at the annual scientific sessions of the American College of Cardiology. The results send “an important global message that patients with heart failure should receive the influenza vaccine,” said Dr. Loeb, a professor at McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont., who specializes in clinical epidemiology and infectious diseases.

Dr. Loeb admitted that he and his associates erred when they picked the time window to assess the two primary endpoints for the trial: the combined rate of cardiovascular death, nonfatal MI, and nonfatal stroke, and this combined endpoint plus hospitalizations for heart failure.

The time window they selected was the entirety of all 3 years following three annual immunizations. That was a mistake.
 

No flu vaccine benefit outside flu season

“We know that the influenza vaccine will not have any effect outside of when influenza is circulating. In retrospect, we should have done that,” Dr. Loeb bemoaned during his talk. He chalked up the bad choice to concern over collecting enough endpoints to see a significant between-group difference when the researchers designed the study.

For the entire 3 years of follow-up, influenza vaccination was tied to a nonsignificant 7% relative risk reduction for the first primary endpoint, and a nonsignificant 9% relative risk reduction for the second primary endpoint, he reported.

But Dr. Loeb lobbied for the relevance of several significant secondary endpoints that collectively showed a compelling pattern of benefit during his talk. These included, for the full 3-years of follow-up, important, significant reductions relative to placebo of 16% for first all-cause hospitalizations (P = .01), and a 42% relative risk reduction in first cases of pneumonia (P = .0006).

Then there were the benefits that appeared during influenza season. In that analysis, first events for the first primary endpoint fell after vaccination by a significant 18% relative to placebo. The in-season analysis also showed the significant cuts in both all-cause and cardiovascular deaths.

Despite the neutral primary endpoints, “if you look at these data as a whole I think they speak to the importance of vaccinating patients with heart failure against influenza,” Dr. Loeb maintained.



‘Totality of evidence supports vaccination’

“I agree that the totality of evidence supports influenza vaccination,” commented Mark H. Drazner, MD, professor and clinical chief of cardiology at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, who was designated discussant for the report.

“The message should be to offer influenza vaccine to patients with heart failure,” Dr. Drazner said in an interview. “Previous data on influenza vaccine in patients with heart failure were largely observational. This was a randomized, prospective, placebo-controlled trial. That’s a step forward. Proving efficacy in a randomized trial is important.”

Dr Drazner added that his institution already promotes a “strong mandate” to vaccinate patients with heart failure against influenza.

“The influenza vaccine is a very effective and cost-efficient public health measure. Preventing hospitalizations of patients with heart failure has so many benefits,” commented Craig Beavers, PharmD, vice president of professional services at Baptist Health in Paducah, Ky., and a discussant during the press briefing.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

The Influenza Vaccine To Prevent Adverse Vascular Events (IVVE) trial enrolled people with heart failure in New York Heart Association functional class II, III, or IV from any of 10 low- and middle-income countries including China, India, the Philippines, and multiple countries from Africa and the Middle East. They averaged 57 years of age, and slightly more than half were women.

IVVE was sponsored by McMaster University; the only commercial support that IVVE received was a free supply of influenza vaccine from Sanofi Pasteur. Dr. Loeb, Dr. Drazner, and Dr. Beavers had no disclosures.

WASHINGTON – Patients with heart failure who received an annual influenza vaccine for 3 years running had significantly fewer all-cause hospitalizations and significantly fewer cases of pneumonia during that time, compared with placebo-treated patients with heart failure, in a prospective, randomized, global trial with 5,129 participants.

Although the results failed to show a significant reduction in all-cause deaths linked to influenza vaccination, compared with controls during the entire 3 years of the study, the results did show a significant 21% relative mortality-risk reduction by vaccination during periods of peak influenza circulation, and a significant 23% reduction in cardiovascular deaths, compared with controls during peak seasons.

courtesy Dr. Mark Loeb

“This is the first randomized, controlled trial of influenza vaccine in patients with heart failure, and we showed that vaccination reduces deaths” during peak influenza seasons, Mark Loeb, MD, said during a press briefing at the annual scientific sessions of the American College of Cardiology. The results send “an important global message that patients with heart failure should receive the influenza vaccine,” said Dr. Loeb, a professor at McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont., who specializes in clinical epidemiology and infectious diseases.

Dr. Loeb admitted that he and his associates erred when they picked the time window to assess the two primary endpoints for the trial: the combined rate of cardiovascular death, nonfatal MI, and nonfatal stroke, and this combined endpoint plus hospitalizations for heart failure.

The time window they selected was the entirety of all 3 years following three annual immunizations. That was a mistake.
 

No flu vaccine benefit outside flu season

“We know that the influenza vaccine will not have any effect outside of when influenza is circulating. In retrospect, we should have done that,” Dr. Loeb bemoaned during his talk. He chalked up the bad choice to concern over collecting enough endpoints to see a significant between-group difference when the researchers designed the study.

For the entire 3 years of follow-up, influenza vaccination was tied to a nonsignificant 7% relative risk reduction for the first primary endpoint, and a nonsignificant 9% relative risk reduction for the second primary endpoint, he reported.

But Dr. Loeb lobbied for the relevance of several significant secondary endpoints that collectively showed a compelling pattern of benefit during his talk. These included, for the full 3-years of follow-up, important, significant reductions relative to placebo of 16% for first all-cause hospitalizations (P = .01), and a 42% relative risk reduction in first cases of pneumonia (P = .0006).

Then there were the benefits that appeared during influenza season. In that analysis, first events for the first primary endpoint fell after vaccination by a significant 18% relative to placebo. The in-season analysis also showed the significant cuts in both all-cause and cardiovascular deaths.

Despite the neutral primary endpoints, “if you look at these data as a whole I think they speak to the importance of vaccinating patients with heart failure against influenza,” Dr. Loeb maintained.



‘Totality of evidence supports vaccination’

“I agree that the totality of evidence supports influenza vaccination,” commented Mark H. Drazner, MD, professor and clinical chief of cardiology at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, who was designated discussant for the report.

“The message should be to offer influenza vaccine to patients with heart failure,” Dr. Drazner said in an interview. “Previous data on influenza vaccine in patients with heart failure were largely observational. This was a randomized, prospective, placebo-controlled trial. That’s a step forward. Proving efficacy in a randomized trial is important.”

Dr Drazner added that his institution already promotes a “strong mandate” to vaccinate patients with heart failure against influenza.

“The influenza vaccine is a very effective and cost-efficient public health measure. Preventing hospitalizations of patients with heart failure has so many benefits,” commented Craig Beavers, PharmD, vice president of professional services at Baptist Health in Paducah, Ky., and a discussant during the press briefing.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

The Influenza Vaccine To Prevent Adverse Vascular Events (IVVE) trial enrolled people with heart failure in New York Heart Association functional class II, III, or IV from any of 10 low- and middle-income countries including China, India, the Philippines, and multiple countries from Africa and the Middle East. They averaged 57 years of age, and slightly more than half were women.

IVVE was sponsored by McMaster University; the only commercial support that IVVE received was a free supply of influenza vaccine from Sanofi Pasteur. Dr. Loeb, Dr. Drazner, and Dr. Beavers had no disclosures.

Every day we see stark images of the war in Ukraine – bombed-out buildings, explosions, and bodies lying in the streets. But there’s another, less visible war against the bacteria and viruses that are gathering their forces together. They, too, will infect parts of the population and may spread throughout Europe. Here’s what Ukrainians, and their neighbors, are facing on the infectious disease front.

Andrey Zinchuk, MD, MHS, a pulmonary/critical care physician at Yale and a native of Ukraine who immigrated to the U.S. at the age of 14 with his family, set the background for understanding this crisis. He said that TB and HIV rates in Ukraine have long been especially high, even before the current conflict: “Part of the challenge of the health care system in Ukraine is that it’s difficult to maintain a steady policy because of political instability,” he said. “We’ve had three revolutions in the last 20 years,” not counting the current Russian invasion.

The first was the breakup of the Soviet Union, which led to “an epidemic of people with HIV, hepatitis, and opioid use.” Next was the Orange Revolution in 2004 over fraud during a presidential election. In 2014 came the Maiden Revolution, after the government chose closer ties to Russia rather than Europe. Then-president Viktor Yanukovych fled to Russia.

“That’s when Russia annexed Crimea. There was essentially infiltration in Russian propaganda in the east of the country,” Dr. Zinchuk said. “This helped the Russians manufacture uprisings there to create a separatist state (the Luhansk and Donetsk People’s Republics) which were mostly Russian-speaking parts of the country,” an area known as the Donbas. This resulted in a war in eastern Ukraine that began 2014, with more than 10,000 deaths.

After the 2014 revolution, Dr. Zinchuk said, “There was a tremendous change in the way ... medical care was provided, and tremendous growth and stability in the medical supply for those chronic medical conditions.”

Nevertheless, health care expenditures in Ukraine have been quite low. Even before the current conflict, Dr. Zinchuk noted, annual health care expenditures in Ukraine were about $600 per capita. In comparison, it’s about $4,500 per person in Germany and $12,530 in the United States.

Despite those low per-capita expenditures in Ukraine, access to medicines – such as insulin for diabetes and antibiotics for tuberculosis – was stable before the war. But now, Dr. Zinchuk said, his aunt and uncle have had to flee Kyiv for the countryside and, while safe, they have “no plumbing and have to heat the house by burning firewood.” More significantly, their supply of medicine is unstable.

Asked what infections are of most immediate concern, Sten Vermund, MD, PhD, Dean of the Yale School of Public Health, told this news organization that it was “diarrheal diseases, especially in kids ... The water supply [of Mariupol] is no longer potable, but people are drinking it anyway. And sewage systems are destroyed, and raw sewage is just released into the rivers and streams. So the whole family of diarrheal diseases and war are bedfellows. So are respiratory diseases, whenever we have mass migrations and mixing of ... homeless people and transients.” 

There is one notable piece of good news that may reduce the spread of infectious diseases. Unlike the aftermath of World War II or the ongoing conflicts in the Middle East, Africa, and South Asia, refugees from the war in Ukraine are being taken into individual households throughout Poland, Germany, and other countries and are not being held in large displaced-persons camps. Dr. Vermund added, “The Syrian refugee camps in Lebanon are just tent camps with a million, 2 million people in them ... In theory, what the Poles are doing is a good thing from the point of view of preventing the spread of infection.”

One way of examining infections in war zones is by considering them based on how they are spread.
 

Respiratory infections

Although not as high on the list of concerns as TB or HIV, COVID-19 remains a big problem for infectious disease experts. Last fall, Ukraine ranked just behind the U.S. and Russia in deaths from COVID and in the top 10 in infections. Despite these dismal numbers, only 35% of people had completed the initial vaccination series.

The same conditions that fuel TB and COVID – crowding, especially in poorly ventilated settings – could lead to another measles outbreak. One occurred in Ukraine from 2017-2020, resulting in more than 115,000 cases. Even though the immunization rate for measles has now reached about 80%, the CDC considers Ukraine at high risk for another large outbreak since measles is so highly contagious.

According to the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC), Ukraine reported the second-highest number of TB cases in Europe (28,539). It is also one of the top 10 countries globally with the highest burden of multidrug-resistant tuberculosis (MDR-TB) – 27%. Equally disturbing is its ranking as having the second-highest rate of HIV/TB co-infection (26%) even before the war. Experts say war is a perfect breeding ground for TB, since starvation and overcrowding in poorly ventilated spaces encourages its spread.

Before the war, COVID had already caused severe disruptions in TB diagnosis and treatment access in Ukraine, and the World Health Organization suggested that the pandemic has set back efforts to end TB by more than a decade. 

Drug-resistant TB has been one of the biggest worries. In their report on TB in Ukraine, British tuberculosis experts Tom Wingfield, MBChB, PhD, from the Liverpool School of Tropical Medicine, and Jessica Potter MBBCh, PhD, from Queen Mary University of London, pointed out that “drug resistance thrives on fractured health systems and sporadic medicine supply.”

Frederick Altice, MD, a Yale epidemiologist and addiction specialist, noted, “[if] medication for tuberculosis is discontinued, that not only causes potential recurrence of disease but multidrug-resistant TB disease,” and patients could become infectious again.

Dr. Wingfield expressed concern that people will not seek care because they see it as unaffordable, although he told this news organization that he’s impressed at the Polish government’s efforts to ensure care. Especially with the triad of HIV, TB, and opioid use, Dr. Wingfield and Dr. Potter emphasized that these problems reflect the social determinants of health – “the experiences and conditions in which people live.” These medical conditions are all quite treatable with support, and once treated they pose no risk to others.
 

HIV and opioid use

Before the war, an estimated 260,000 people were living with HIV in Ukraine. Their rate of new HIV diagnoses in 2017 was second highest in the world – 37 out of every 100,000, exceeded only by Russia, with 71 out of 100,000.

Dr. Vermund told this news organization that “when Crimea was seized by the Russians in 2014, there was an immediate crisis among injection drug users who were in drug treatment programs, because it’s illegal in Russia to use buprenorphine or methadone ... So immediately, those programs were shut down, and all the drug users who were holding jobs, supporting their families, were withdrawing from their addictions and searching for a replacement, which was illegal heroin.”

Dr. Altice added that of 800 patients in the region who had to go cold turkey, “ten percent were dead within 6 months. Dependent on unreliable street drugs, some overdosed or committed suicide because they could not get treatment. They went through terrible withdrawal and stress.”

And as they relapsed, the HIV rate soared. “Fifty percent of the methadone patients have got HIV,” Dr. Altice said, “and if they stop taking the methadone, they’re going to stop taking their HIV medications as well. Their lives will become chaotic and very destabilized.”

This experience may soon repeat itself. There were two methadone factories in Ukraine – in Odessa and Kharkiv – that are now shut down by the war. Although there are efforts to import methadone and many other drugs, supply chain issues are “devastating,” Dr. Altice said. “If their medication for tuberculosis is discontinued, that not only causes potential recurrence of disease but multidrug-resistant TB disease,” and they could become infectious again. “[With a] lack of medication, lack of sterile syringes, people will be sharing syringes; they’ll be desperate. So as the desperation level goes up, the risk environment goes up, so that people have decreased opportunities to protect themselves,” and there will be an explosion in HIV.

Dr. Altice observed that with the immigration to Poland and the west, many Ukrainian refugees “are relying on the kindness of strangers.” They are likely to be “fearful to disclose either their HIV or their TB treatment status,” being afraid of being regarded as modern-day lepers, even though they are likely not infectious. Both Dr. Altice and Dr. Potter emphasized the need for the governments of Poland and other receiving countries to provide the refugees with “reassurance that their health information will not be shared with others.” Dr. Altice emphasized that “this is one of the things that I would say that these other countries have to get right.”

Dr. Potter echoed that, noting that extraordinary care needs to be taken so that shared information is not used for deportation.

When refugees are housed with rural hosts, transportation problems sometimes arise, creating major barriers to accessing care and treatment. In particular, refugees with TB, HIV, and addiction who are placed in small, remote locations may have difficulty securing transportation to sites where treatments for their complex illnesses are available, including specialists and medications.

Ukrainian-born microbiologist Olena Rzhepishevska, PhD, of Umeå University in Sweden, said in an interview that a network of European TB researchers have developed a database on TBNet where patients with TB can be specifically placed with understanding and helpful hosts outside of Ukraine. They can receive housing and medication through this network.

So far, 4 million Ukrainians have fled the country and millions more have been displaced internally. Dr. Altice noted that there is an “increased vulnerability beyond the vulnerability that they already [have] just by being a refugee” that we generally don’t recognize. Additionally, Poland and Hungary are not very progressive about methadone therapy nor are those nations well-equipped to provide it.

Dr. Altice explained that even within Ukraine, those who want to move to better their chance of getting their methadone are then at risk of being conscripted. He spoke of the grave calculations men must make, choosing to become internally displaced and risk conscription or losing life-saving methadone or medicines for HIV or TB.

One other unfortunate consequence of war might be a spike in rape, sexual abuse, prostitution, unwanted pregnancies, HIV, and sexually transmitted infections.

There were an estimated 80,100 female sex workers in Ukraine in 2016, with 5.2% HIV positive. In times of war, with no home or income, some women turn to prostitution to survive. Others are victims of sex trafficking, both within Ukraine and as refugees. The Russian invasion increased the risks of a surge in HIV infections, unwanted pregnancies, and abortions. Women who find themselves pregnant due to rape (a common tool of war) or sex trafficking may also struggle to access safe abortions. Poland, for example, has severe restrictions on abortion, and Ukrainian women may turn to unsafe, back-alley abortions, with their resulting high risk of infection.
 

Waterborne infections

Another concern involves waterborne infections. In addition to the common diarrheal diseases such as E coli, which can be expected from poor sanitation, polio is a significant concern. In the fall of 2021, Ukraine had an outbreak of vaccine-derived polio, with two cases of paralysis and 20 additional cases. As polio only paralyzes 1 person in 200 of those infected, many other cases were likely undetected. A vaccination campaign was just beginning when the war began.

Wound infections and antimicrobial resistance

The ECDC also reports high rates of antimicrobial resistance (AMR) in Ukraine, particularly involving common gram-negative bacteria, including Escherichia coli (53% resistance to third-generation cephalosporins), Klebsiella pneumoniae (54% resistance to carbapenems), and Acinetobacter spp. (77% resistance to carbapenems). Because of this, they recommend refugees requiring hospital admission be isolated on admission and screened for AMR. These AMR often complicate traumatic injuries of war.

Prevention

Many of these potential problems stemming from the war in Ukraine and the displacement of millions of its citizens can be avoided.

Attempts are being made to immunize refugees. WHO has made working with countries receiving refugees a priority, particularly by vaccinating children against measles, rubella, and COVID. The European Union has also purchased vaccines for polio and tuberculosis.

But Russia has waged an active anti-vaccine campaign against COVID in Ukraine, while at the same time advocating for vaccines in Russia. According to UNICEF, other countries with relatively low vaccination rates and high vaccine skepticism – Moldova, Romania, and Bulgaria – are at higher risk of polio and measles than those with high vaccination levels.

The continuing war in Ukraine has exacerbated the medical challenges the citizens of Ukraine face at home and as refugees fleeing to neighboring countries. Improving communication among agencies and governments and building trust with the refugees could go a long way toward limiting the spread of preventable infectious diseases as a result of the war.

Continuing to try to keep supply chains open within Ukraine and ensuring adequate supplies of medications and vaccines to refugees will also be essential. But, of course, the better solution is to end the war.

Dr. Altice, Dr. Potter, Dr. Wingfield, Dr. Vermund, and Dr. Zinchuk all report no relevant financial relationships.

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

Every day we see stark images of the war in Ukraine – bombed-out buildings, explosions, and bodies lying in the streets. But there’s another, less visible war against the bacteria and viruses that are gathering their forces together. They, too, will infect parts of the population and may spread throughout Europe. Here’s what Ukrainians, and their neighbors, are facing on the infectious disease front.

Andrey Zinchuk, MD, MHS, a pulmonary/critical care physician at Yale and a native of Ukraine who immigrated to the U.S. at the age of 14 with his family, set the background for understanding this crisis. He said that TB and HIV rates in Ukraine have long been especially high, even before the current conflict: “Part of the challenge of the health care system in Ukraine is that it’s difficult to maintain a steady policy because of political instability,” he said. “We’ve had three revolutions in the last 20 years,” not counting the current Russian invasion.

The first was the breakup of the Soviet Union, which led to “an epidemic of people with HIV, hepatitis, and opioid use.” Next was the Orange Revolution in 2004 over fraud during a presidential election. In 2014 came the Maiden Revolution, after the government chose closer ties to Russia rather than Europe. Then-president Viktor Yanukovych fled to Russia.

“That’s when Russia annexed Crimea. There was essentially infiltration in Russian propaganda in the east of the country,” Dr. Zinchuk said. “This helped the Russians manufacture uprisings there to create a separatist state (the Luhansk and Donetsk People’s Republics) which were mostly Russian-speaking parts of the country,” an area known as the Donbas. This resulted in a war in eastern Ukraine that began 2014, with more than 10,000 deaths.

After the 2014 revolution, Dr. Zinchuk said, “There was a tremendous change in the way ... medical care was provided, and tremendous growth and stability in the medical supply for those chronic medical conditions.”

Nevertheless, health care expenditures in Ukraine have been quite low. Even before the current conflict, Dr. Zinchuk noted, annual health care expenditures in Ukraine were about $600 per capita. In comparison, it’s about $4,500 per person in Germany and $12,530 in the United States.

Despite those low per-capita expenditures in Ukraine, access to medicines – such as insulin for diabetes and antibiotics for tuberculosis – was stable before the war. But now, Dr. Zinchuk said, his aunt and uncle have had to flee Kyiv for the countryside and, while safe, they have “no plumbing and have to heat the house by burning firewood.” More significantly, their supply of medicine is unstable.

Asked what infections are of most immediate concern, Sten Vermund, MD, PhD, Dean of the Yale School of Public Health, told this news organization that it was “diarrheal diseases, especially in kids ... The water supply [of Mariupol] is no longer potable, but people are drinking it anyway. And sewage systems are destroyed, and raw sewage is just released into the rivers and streams. So the whole family of diarrheal diseases and war are bedfellows. So are respiratory diseases, whenever we have mass migrations and mixing of ... homeless people and transients.” 

There is one notable piece of good news that may reduce the spread of infectious diseases. Unlike the aftermath of World War II or the ongoing conflicts in the Middle East, Africa, and South Asia, refugees from the war in Ukraine are being taken into individual households throughout Poland, Germany, and other countries and are not being held in large displaced-persons camps. Dr. Vermund added, “The Syrian refugee camps in Lebanon are just tent camps with a million, 2 million people in them ... In theory, what the Poles are doing is a good thing from the point of view of preventing the spread of infection.”

One way of examining infections in war zones is by considering them based on how they are spread.
 

Respiratory infections

Although not as high on the list of concerns as TB or HIV, COVID-19 remains a big problem for infectious disease experts. Last fall, Ukraine ranked just behind the U.S. and Russia in deaths from COVID and in the top 10 in infections. Despite these dismal numbers, only 35% of people had completed the initial vaccination series.

The same conditions that fuel TB and COVID – crowding, especially in poorly ventilated settings – could lead to another measles outbreak. One occurred in Ukraine from 2017-2020, resulting in more than 115,000 cases. Even though the immunization rate for measles has now reached about 80%, the CDC considers Ukraine at high risk for another large outbreak since measles is so highly contagious.

According to the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC), Ukraine reported the second-highest number of TB cases in Europe (28,539). It is also one of the top 10 countries globally with the highest burden of multidrug-resistant tuberculosis (MDR-TB) – 27%. Equally disturbing is its ranking as having the second-highest rate of HIV/TB co-infection (26%) even before the war. Experts say war is a perfect breeding ground for TB, since starvation and overcrowding in poorly ventilated spaces encourages its spread.

Before the war, COVID had already caused severe disruptions in TB diagnosis and treatment access in Ukraine, and the World Health Organization suggested that the pandemic has set back efforts to end TB by more than a decade. 

Drug-resistant TB has been one of the biggest worries. In their report on TB in Ukraine, British tuberculosis experts Tom Wingfield, MBChB, PhD, from the Liverpool School of Tropical Medicine, and Jessica Potter MBBCh, PhD, from Queen Mary University of London, pointed out that “drug resistance thrives on fractured health systems and sporadic medicine supply.”

Frederick Altice, MD, a Yale epidemiologist and addiction specialist, noted, “[if] medication for tuberculosis is discontinued, that not only causes potential recurrence of disease but multidrug-resistant TB disease,” and patients could become infectious again.

Dr. Wingfield expressed concern that people will not seek care because they see it as unaffordable, although he told this news organization that he’s impressed at the Polish government’s efforts to ensure care. Especially with the triad of HIV, TB, and opioid use, Dr. Wingfield and Dr. Potter emphasized that these problems reflect the social determinants of health – “the experiences and conditions in which people live.” These medical conditions are all quite treatable with support, and once treated they pose no risk to others.
 

HIV and opioid use

Before the war, an estimated 260,000 people were living with HIV in Ukraine. Their rate of new HIV diagnoses in 2017 was second highest in the world – 37 out of every 100,000, exceeded only by Russia, with 71 out of 100,000.

Dr. Vermund told this news organization that “when Crimea was seized by the Russians in 2014, there was an immediate crisis among injection drug users who were in drug treatment programs, because it’s illegal in Russia to use buprenorphine or methadone ... So immediately, those programs were shut down, and all the drug users who were holding jobs, supporting their families, were withdrawing from their addictions and searching for a replacement, which was illegal heroin.”

Dr. Altice added that of 800 patients in the region who had to go cold turkey, “ten percent were dead within 6 months. Dependent on unreliable street drugs, some overdosed or committed suicide because they could not get treatment. They went through terrible withdrawal and stress.”

And as they relapsed, the HIV rate soared. “Fifty percent of the methadone patients have got HIV,” Dr. Altice said, “and if they stop taking the methadone, they’re going to stop taking their HIV medications as well. Their lives will become chaotic and very destabilized.”

This experience may soon repeat itself. There were two methadone factories in Ukraine – in Odessa and Kharkiv – that are now shut down by the war. Although there are efforts to import methadone and many other drugs, supply chain issues are “devastating,” Dr. Altice said. “If their medication for tuberculosis is discontinued, that not only causes potential recurrence of disease but multidrug-resistant TB disease,” and they could become infectious again. “[With a] lack of medication, lack of sterile syringes, people will be sharing syringes; they’ll be desperate. So as the desperation level goes up, the risk environment goes up, so that people have decreased opportunities to protect themselves,” and there will be an explosion in HIV.

Dr. Altice observed that with the immigration to Poland and the west, many Ukrainian refugees “are relying on the kindness of strangers.” They are likely to be “fearful to disclose either their HIV or their TB treatment status,” being afraid of being regarded as modern-day lepers, even though they are likely not infectious. Both Dr. Altice and Dr. Potter emphasized the need for the governments of Poland and other receiving countries to provide the refugees with “reassurance that their health information will not be shared with others.” Dr. Altice emphasized that “this is one of the things that I would say that these other countries have to get right.”

Dr. Potter echoed that, noting that extraordinary care needs to be taken so that shared information is not used for deportation.

When refugees are housed with rural hosts, transportation problems sometimes arise, creating major barriers to accessing care and treatment. In particular, refugees with TB, HIV, and addiction who are placed in small, remote locations may have difficulty securing transportation to sites where treatments for their complex illnesses are available, including specialists and medications.

Ukrainian-born microbiologist Olena Rzhepishevska, PhD, of Umeå University in Sweden, said in an interview that a network of European TB researchers have developed a database on TBNet where patients with TB can be specifically placed with understanding and helpful hosts outside of Ukraine. They can receive housing and medication through this network.

So far, 4 million Ukrainians have fled the country and millions more have been displaced internally. Dr. Altice noted that there is an “increased vulnerability beyond the vulnerability that they already [have] just by being a refugee” that we generally don’t recognize. Additionally, Poland and Hungary are not very progressive about methadone therapy nor are those nations well-equipped to provide it.

Dr. Altice explained that even within Ukraine, those who want to move to better their chance of getting their methadone are then at risk of being conscripted. He spoke of the grave calculations men must make, choosing to become internally displaced and risk conscription or losing life-saving methadone or medicines for HIV or TB.

One other unfortunate consequence of war might be a spike in rape, sexual abuse, prostitution, unwanted pregnancies, HIV, and sexually transmitted infections.

There were an estimated 80,100 female sex workers in Ukraine in 2016, with 5.2% HIV positive. In times of war, with no home or income, some women turn to prostitution to survive. Others are victims of sex trafficking, both within Ukraine and as refugees. The Russian invasion increased the risks of a surge in HIV infections, unwanted pregnancies, and abortions. Women who find themselves pregnant due to rape (a common tool of war) or sex trafficking may also struggle to access safe abortions. Poland, for example, has severe restrictions on abortion, and Ukrainian women may turn to unsafe, back-alley abortions, with their resulting high risk of infection.
 

Waterborne infections

Another concern involves waterborne infections. In addition to the common diarrheal diseases such as E coli, which can be expected from poor sanitation, polio is a significant concern. In the fall of 2021, Ukraine had an outbreak of vaccine-derived polio, with two cases of paralysis and 20 additional cases. As polio only paralyzes 1 person in 200 of those infected, many other cases were likely undetected. A vaccination campaign was just beginning when the war began.

Wound infections and antimicrobial resistance

The ECDC also reports high rates of antimicrobial resistance (AMR) in Ukraine, particularly involving common gram-negative bacteria, including Escherichia coli (53% resistance to third-generation cephalosporins), Klebsiella pneumoniae (54% resistance to carbapenems), and Acinetobacter spp. (77% resistance to carbapenems). Because of this, they recommend refugees requiring hospital admission be isolated on admission and screened for AMR. These AMR often complicate traumatic injuries of war.

Prevention

Many of these potential problems stemming from the war in Ukraine and the displacement of millions of its citizens can be avoided.

Attempts are being made to immunize refugees. WHO has made working with countries receiving refugees a priority, particularly by vaccinating children against measles, rubella, and COVID. The European Union has also purchased vaccines for polio and tuberculosis.

But Russia has waged an active anti-vaccine campaign against COVID in Ukraine, while at the same time advocating for vaccines in Russia. According to UNICEF, other countries with relatively low vaccination rates and high vaccine skepticism – Moldova, Romania, and Bulgaria – are at higher risk of polio and measles than those with high vaccination levels.

The continuing war in Ukraine has exacerbated the medical challenges the citizens of Ukraine face at home and as refugees fleeing to neighboring countries. Improving communication among agencies and governments and building trust with the refugees could go a long way toward limiting the spread of preventable infectious diseases as a result of the war.

Continuing to try to keep supply chains open within Ukraine and ensuring adequate supplies of medications and vaccines to refugees will also be essential. But, of course, the better solution is to end the war.

Dr. Altice, Dr. Potter, Dr. Wingfield, Dr. Vermund, and Dr. Zinchuk all report no relevant financial relationships.

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

Every day we see stark images of the war in Ukraine – bombed-out buildings, explosions, and bodies lying in the streets. But there’s another, less visible war against the bacteria and viruses that are gathering their forces together. They, too, will infect parts of the population and may spread throughout Europe. Here’s what Ukrainians, and their neighbors, are facing on the infectious disease front.

Andrey Zinchuk, MD, MHS, a pulmonary/critical care physician at Yale and a native of Ukraine who immigrated to the U.S. at the age of 14 with his family, set the background for understanding this crisis. He said that TB and HIV rates in Ukraine have long been especially high, even before the current conflict: “Part of the challenge of the health care system in Ukraine is that it’s difficult to maintain a steady policy because of political instability,” he said. “We’ve had three revolutions in the last 20 years,” not counting the current Russian invasion.

The first was the breakup of the Soviet Union, which led to “an epidemic of people with HIV, hepatitis, and opioid use.” Next was the Orange Revolution in 2004 over fraud during a presidential election. In 2014 came the Maiden Revolution, after the government chose closer ties to Russia rather than Europe. Then-president Viktor Yanukovych fled to Russia.

“That’s when Russia annexed Crimea. There was essentially infiltration in Russian propaganda in the east of the country,” Dr. Zinchuk said. “This helped the Russians manufacture uprisings there to create a separatist state (the Luhansk and Donetsk People’s Republics) which were mostly Russian-speaking parts of the country,” an area known as the Donbas. This resulted in a war in eastern Ukraine that began 2014, with more than 10,000 deaths.

After the 2014 revolution, Dr. Zinchuk said, “There was a tremendous change in the way ... medical care was provided, and tremendous growth and stability in the medical supply for those chronic medical conditions.”

Nevertheless, health care expenditures in Ukraine have been quite low. Even before the current conflict, Dr. Zinchuk noted, annual health care expenditures in Ukraine were about $600 per capita. In comparison, it’s about $4,500 per person in Germany and $12,530 in the United States.

Despite those low per-capita expenditures in Ukraine, access to medicines – such as insulin for diabetes and antibiotics for tuberculosis – was stable before the war. But now, Dr. Zinchuk said, his aunt and uncle have had to flee Kyiv for the countryside and, while safe, they have “no plumbing and have to heat the house by burning firewood.” More significantly, their supply of medicine is unstable.

Asked what infections are of most immediate concern, Sten Vermund, MD, PhD, Dean of the Yale School of Public Health, told this news organization that it was “diarrheal diseases, especially in kids ... The water supply [of Mariupol] is no longer potable, but people are drinking it anyway. And sewage systems are destroyed, and raw sewage is just released into the rivers and streams. So the whole family of diarrheal diseases and war are bedfellows. So are respiratory diseases, whenever we have mass migrations and mixing of ... homeless people and transients.” 

There is one notable piece of good news that may reduce the spread of infectious diseases. Unlike the aftermath of World War II or the ongoing conflicts in the Middle East, Africa, and South Asia, refugees from the war in Ukraine are being taken into individual households throughout Poland, Germany, and other countries and are not being held in large displaced-persons camps. Dr. Vermund added, “The Syrian refugee camps in Lebanon are just tent camps with a million, 2 million people in them ... In theory, what the Poles are doing is a good thing from the point of view of preventing the spread of infection.”

One way of examining infections in war zones is by considering them based on how they are spread.
 

Respiratory infections

Although not as high on the list of concerns as TB or HIV, COVID-19 remains a big problem for infectious disease experts. Last fall, Ukraine ranked just behind the U.S. and Russia in deaths from COVID and in the top 10 in infections. Despite these dismal numbers, only 35% of people had completed the initial vaccination series.

The same conditions that fuel TB and COVID – crowding, especially in poorly ventilated settings – could lead to another measles outbreak. One occurred in Ukraine from 2017-2020, resulting in more than 115,000 cases. Even though the immunization rate for measles has now reached about 80%, the CDC considers Ukraine at high risk for another large outbreak since measles is so highly contagious.

According to the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC), Ukraine reported the second-highest number of TB cases in Europe (28,539). It is also one of the top 10 countries globally with the highest burden of multidrug-resistant tuberculosis (MDR-TB) – 27%. Equally disturbing is its ranking as having the second-highest rate of HIV/TB co-infection (26%) even before the war. Experts say war is a perfect breeding ground for TB, since starvation and overcrowding in poorly ventilated spaces encourages its spread.

Before the war, COVID had already caused severe disruptions in TB diagnosis and treatment access in Ukraine, and the World Health Organization suggested that the pandemic has set back efforts to end TB by more than a decade. 

Drug-resistant TB has been one of the biggest worries. In their report on TB in Ukraine, British tuberculosis experts Tom Wingfield, MBChB, PhD, from the Liverpool School of Tropical Medicine, and Jessica Potter MBBCh, PhD, from Queen Mary University of London, pointed out that “drug resistance thrives on fractured health systems and sporadic medicine supply.”

Frederick Altice, MD, a Yale epidemiologist and addiction specialist, noted, “[if] medication for tuberculosis is discontinued, that not only causes potential recurrence of disease but multidrug-resistant TB disease,” and patients could become infectious again.

Dr. Wingfield expressed concern that people will not seek care because they see it as unaffordable, although he told this news organization that he’s impressed at the Polish government’s efforts to ensure care. Especially with the triad of HIV, TB, and opioid use, Dr. Wingfield and Dr. Potter emphasized that these problems reflect the social determinants of health – “the experiences and conditions in which people live.” These medical conditions are all quite treatable with support, and once treated they pose no risk to others.
 

HIV and opioid use

Before the war, an estimated 260,000 people were living with HIV in Ukraine. Their rate of new HIV diagnoses in 2017 was second highest in the world – 37 out of every 100,000, exceeded only by Russia, with 71 out of 100,000.

Dr. Vermund told this news organization that “when Crimea was seized by the Russians in 2014, there was an immediate crisis among injection drug users who were in drug treatment programs, because it’s illegal in Russia to use buprenorphine or methadone ... So immediately, those programs were shut down, and all the drug users who were holding jobs, supporting their families, were withdrawing from their addictions and searching for a replacement, which was illegal heroin.”

Dr. Altice added that of 800 patients in the region who had to go cold turkey, “ten percent were dead within 6 months. Dependent on unreliable street drugs, some overdosed or committed suicide because they could not get treatment. They went through terrible withdrawal and stress.”

And as they relapsed, the HIV rate soared. “Fifty percent of the methadone patients have got HIV,” Dr. Altice said, “and if they stop taking the methadone, they’re going to stop taking their HIV medications as well. Their lives will become chaotic and very destabilized.”

This experience may soon repeat itself. There were two methadone factories in Ukraine – in Odessa and Kharkiv – that are now shut down by the war. Although there are efforts to import methadone and many other drugs, supply chain issues are “devastating,” Dr. Altice said. “If their medication for tuberculosis is discontinued, that not only causes potential recurrence of disease but multidrug-resistant TB disease,” and they could become infectious again. “[With a] lack of medication, lack of sterile syringes, people will be sharing syringes; they’ll be desperate. So as the desperation level goes up, the risk environment goes up, so that people have decreased opportunities to protect themselves,” and there will be an explosion in HIV.

Dr. Altice observed that with the immigration to Poland and the west, many Ukrainian refugees “are relying on the kindness of strangers.” They are likely to be “fearful to disclose either their HIV or their TB treatment status,” being afraid of being regarded as modern-day lepers, even though they are likely not infectious. Both Dr. Altice and Dr. Potter emphasized the need for the governments of Poland and other receiving countries to provide the refugees with “reassurance that their health information will not be shared with others.” Dr. Altice emphasized that “this is one of the things that I would say that these other countries have to get right.”

Dr. Potter echoed that, noting that extraordinary care needs to be taken so that shared information is not used for deportation.

When refugees are housed with rural hosts, transportation problems sometimes arise, creating major barriers to accessing care and treatment. In particular, refugees with TB, HIV, and addiction who are placed in small, remote locations may have difficulty securing transportation to sites where treatments for their complex illnesses are available, including specialists and medications.

Ukrainian-born microbiologist Olena Rzhepishevska, PhD, of Umeå University in Sweden, said in an interview that a network of European TB researchers have developed a database on TBNet where patients with TB can be specifically placed with understanding and helpful hosts outside of Ukraine. They can receive housing and medication through this network.

So far, 4 million Ukrainians have fled the country and millions more have been displaced internally. Dr. Altice noted that there is an “increased vulnerability beyond the vulnerability that they already [have] just by being a refugee” that we generally don’t recognize. Additionally, Poland and Hungary are not very progressive about methadone therapy nor are those nations well-equipped to provide it.

Dr. Altice explained that even within Ukraine, those who want to move to better their chance of getting their methadone are then at risk of being conscripted. He spoke of the grave calculations men must make, choosing to become internally displaced and risk conscription or losing life-saving methadone or medicines for HIV or TB.

One other unfortunate consequence of war might be a spike in rape, sexual abuse, prostitution, unwanted pregnancies, HIV, and sexually transmitted infections.

There were an estimated 80,100 female sex workers in Ukraine in 2016, with 5.2% HIV positive. In times of war, with no home or income, some women turn to prostitution to survive. Others are victims of sex trafficking, both within Ukraine and as refugees. The Russian invasion increased the risks of a surge in HIV infections, unwanted pregnancies, and abortions. Women who find themselves pregnant due to rape (a common tool of war) or sex trafficking may also struggle to access safe abortions. Poland, for example, has severe restrictions on abortion, and Ukrainian women may turn to unsafe, back-alley abortions, with their resulting high risk of infection.
 

Waterborne infections

Another concern involves waterborne infections. In addition to the common diarrheal diseases such as E coli, which can be expected from poor sanitation, polio is a significant concern. In the fall of 2021, Ukraine had an outbreak of vaccine-derived polio, with two cases of paralysis and 20 additional cases. As polio only paralyzes 1 person in 200 of those infected, many other cases were likely undetected. A vaccination campaign was just beginning when the war began.

Wound infections and antimicrobial resistance

The ECDC also reports high rates of antimicrobial resistance (AMR) in Ukraine, particularly involving common gram-negative bacteria, including Escherichia coli (53% resistance to third-generation cephalosporins), Klebsiella pneumoniae (54% resistance to carbapenems), and Acinetobacter spp. (77% resistance to carbapenems). Because of this, they recommend refugees requiring hospital admission be isolated on admission and screened for AMR. These AMR often complicate traumatic injuries of war.

Prevention

Many of these potential problems stemming from the war in Ukraine and the displacement of millions of its citizens can be avoided.

Attempts are being made to immunize refugees. WHO has made working with countries receiving refugees a priority, particularly by vaccinating children against measles, rubella, and COVID. The European Union has also purchased vaccines for polio and tuberculosis.

But Russia has waged an active anti-vaccine campaign against COVID in Ukraine, while at the same time advocating for vaccines in Russia. According to UNICEF, other countries with relatively low vaccination rates and high vaccine skepticism – Moldova, Romania, and Bulgaria – are at higher risk of polio and measles than those with high vaccination levels.

The continuing war in Ukraine has exacerbated the medical challenges the citizens of Ukraine face at home and as refugees fleeing to neighboring countries. Improving communication among agencies and governments and building trust with the refugees could go a long way toward limiting the spread of preventable infectious diseases as a result of the war.

Continuing to try to keep supply chains open within Ukraine and ensuring adequate supplies of medications and vaccines to refugees will also be essential. But, of course, the better solution is to end the war.

Dr. Altice, Dr. Potter, Dr. Wingfield, Dr. Vermund, and Dr. Zinchuk all report no relevant financial relationships.

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

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has recommended that all adults aged 19-59 years receive a vaccination for hepatitis B.

It also added that adults aged 60 years or older without known risk factors for hepatitis B may get vaccinated.

The agency earlier recommended the vaccination for all infants and children under the age of 19 years and for adults aged 60 years or older with known risk factors.

The CDC said it wants to expand vaccinations because, after decades of progress, the number of new hepatitis B infections is increasing among adults. Acute hepatitis B infections among adults lead to chronic hepatitis B disease in an estimated 2%-6% of cases, and can result in cirrhosis, liver cancer, and death.

Among adults aged 40-49 years, the rate of cases increased from 1.9 per 100,000 people in 2011 to 2.7 per 100,000 in 2019. Among adults aged 50-59 years, the rate increased during this period from 1.1 to 1.6 per 100,000.

Most adults aren’t vaccinated. Among adults aged 19 years or older, only 30.0% reported that they’d received at least the three recommended doses of the vaccine. The rate was 40.3% for adults aged 19-49 years, and 19.1% for adults aged 50 years or older.

Hepatitis B infection rates are particularly elevated among African Americans.

Even among adults with chronic liver disease, the vaccination rate is only 33.0%. And, among travelers to countries where the virus has been endemic since 1995, only 38.9% were vaccinated.

In a 2018 survey of internal medicine and family physicians, 68% said their patients had not told them about risk factors, making it difficult to assess whether the patients needed the vaccine according to the recommendations at the time. These risk factors include injection drug use, incarceration, and multiple sex partners, experiences the patients may not have been willing to discuss.

CDC researchers calculated that universal adult hepatitis B vaccination would cost $153,000 for every quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained. For adults aged 19-59 years, a QALY would cost $117,000 because infections are more prevalent in that age group.

The CDC specified that it intends its new guidelines to prompt physicians to offer the vaccine to adults aged 60 years or older rather than wait for them to request it.

The Food and Drug Administration has approved both three-dose and two-dose hepatitis B vaccines, with evidence showing similar seroprotection and adverse events.

People who have already completed their vaccination or have a history of hepatitis B infection should only receive additional vaccinations in specific cases, as detailed in the CDC’s 2018 recommendations.

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

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has recommended that all adults aged 19-59 years receive a vaccination for hepatitis B.

It also added that adults aged 60 years or older without known risk factors for hepatitis B may get vaccinated.

The agency earlier recommended the vaccination for all infants and children under the age of 19 years and for adults aged 60 years or older with known risk factors.

The CDC said it wants to expand vaccinations because, after decades of progress, the number of new hepatitis B infections is increasing among adults. Acute hepatitis B infections among adults lead to chronic hepatitis B disease in an estimated 2%-6% of cases, and can result in cirrhosis, liver cancer, and death.

Among adults aged 40-49 years, the rate of cases increased from 1.9 per 100,000 people in 2011 to 2.7 per 100,000 in 2019. Among adults aged 50-59 years, the rate increased during this period from 1.1 to 1.6 per 100,000.

Most adults aren’t vaccinated. Among adults aged 19 years or older, only 30.0% reported that they’d received at least the three recommended doses of the vaccine. The rate was 40.3% for adults aged 19-49 years, and 19.1% for adults aged 50 years or older.

Hepatitis B infection rates are particularly elevated among African Americans.

Even among adults with chronic liver disease, the vaccination rate is only 33.0%. And, among travelers to countries where the virus has been endemic since 1995, only 38.9% were vaccinated.

In a 2018 survey of internal medicine and family physicians, 68% said their patients had not told them about risk factors, making it difficult to assess whether the patients needed the vaccine according to the recommendations at the time. These risk factors include injection drug use, incarceration, and multiple sex partners, experiences the patients may not have been willing to discuss.

CDC researchers calculated that universal adult hepatitis B vaccination would cost $153,000 for every quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained. For adults aged 19-59 years, a QALY would cost $117,000 because infections are more prevalent in that age group.

The CDC specified that it intends its new guidelines to prompt physicians to offer the vaccine to adults aged 60 years or older rather than wait for them to request it.

The Food and Drug Administration has approved both three-dose and two-dose hepatitis B vaccines, with evidence showing similar seroprotection and adverse events.

People who have already completed their vaccination or have a history of hepatitis B infection should only receive additional vaccinations in specific cases, as detailed in the CDC’s 2018 recommendations.

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

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has recommended that all adults aged 19-59 years receive a vaccination for hepatitis B.

It also added that adults aged 60 years or older without known risk factors for hepatitis B may get vaccinated.

The agency earlier recommended the vaccination for all infants and children under the age of 19 years and for adults aged 60 years or older with known risk factors.

The CDC said it wants to expand vaccinations because, after decades of progress, the number of new hepatitis B infections is increasing among adults. Acute hepatitis B infections among adults lead to chronic hepatitis B disease in an estimated 2%-6% of cases, and can result in cirrhosis, liver cancer, and death.

Among adults aged 40-49 years, the rate of cases increased from 1.9 per 100,000 people in 2011 to 2.7 per 100,000 in 2019. Among adults aged 50-59 years, the rate increased during this period from 1.1 to 1.6 per 100,000.

Most adults aren’t vaccinated. Among adults aged 19 years or older, only 30.0% reported that they’d received at least the three recommended doses of the vaccine. The rate was 40.3% for adults aged 19-49 years, and 19.1% for adults aged 50 years or older.

Hepatitis B infection rates are particularly elevated among African Americans.

Even among adults with chronic liver disease, the vaccination rate is only 33.0%. And, among travelers to countries where the virus has been endemic since 1995, only 38.9% were vaccinated.

In a 2018 survey of internal medicine and family physicians, 68% said their patients had not told them about risk factors, making it difficult to assess whether the patients needed the vaccine according to the recommendations at the time. These risk factors include injection drug use, incarceration, and multiple sex partners, experiences the patients may not have been willing to discuss.

CDC researchers calculated that universal adult hepatitis B vaccination would cost $153,000 for every quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained. For adults aged 19-59 years, a QALY would cost $117,000 because infections are more prevalent in that age group.

The CDC specified that it intends its new guidelines to prompt physicians to offer the vaccine to adults aged 60 years or older rather than wait for them to request it.

The Food and Drug Administration has approved both three-dose and two-dose hepatitis B vaccines, with evidence showing similar seroprotection and adverse events.

People who have already completed their vaccination or have a history of hepatitis B infection should only receive additional vaccinations in specific cases, as detailed in the CDC’s 2018 recommendations.

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

BOSTON – Requests for a medical waiver to avoid a second COVID-19 vaccine dose or a booster after cutaneous reactions to the first dose are not justified on the basis of risk, according to an analysis of several large sets of data presented at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology.

According to the data, “there are no serious adverse consequences from these cutaneous reactions,” said Esther Freeman, MD, PhD, director of Global Health Dermatology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston.

This is important because the risk of vaccine hesitancy goes up dramatically in patients who experience reactions to the first vaccine dose, according to follow-up of more than 50,000 employees vaccinated in the Mass General Brigham Healthcare System (MGBHS). According to Dr. Freeman, there was almost a fourfold increase in the rate of second-dose refusals for those with cutaneous reactions and a more than fourfold increase in those who developed angioedema.

Before the data were available, skin reactions were a source of concern among dermatologists and others involved in monitoring vaccine-related adverse events. Injection site reactions (ISRs) are associated with essentially every injectable vaccine, so these were expected, but a small proportion of patients developed large red plaques in the injection arm 7-8 days after the inoculation.

“These delayed reactions caused a lot of initial panic,” said Dr. Freeman, who counted herself among those alarmed about what the reactions might signify. “Was this cellulitis? Would the next dose cause anaphylaxis? We were concerned.”

This concern dissipated with the availability of more data. In a global registry that has so far captured more than 1,000 cutaneous reactions from 52 participating countries, it appears that about 2% of patients have a cutaneous reaction other than an ISR after the first dose. All resolve with minimal skin care or no treatment.

After the second dose, the proportion is lower. If there is a reaction, it typically occurs earlier and resolves more quickly.

“What we have learned is that fewer than half of patients who had a reaction to the first dose have a reaction to the second, and those who did have a reaction had a milder course,” said Dr. Freeman.

These data are “incredibly reassuring” on many levels, she explained. In addition, it allows clinicians to confidently explain to patients that there are no serious sequelae from the rashes, whether immediate or delayed, from the available COVID-19 vaccines.

“Every skin reaction I have seen is something we can treat through,” she added, noting that most reactions resolve with little or no supportive care. Following skin reactions, particularly the delayed lesions, it is not uncommon for patients to refuse a second shot. Some request a medical waiver to avoid further vaccine exposure. According to Dr. Freeman, this is unwarranted.

“I have granted exactly zero waivers,” she said. She explains to patients that these reactions have not been predictive of serious events, such as anaphylaxis. Although the trigger of the hypersensitivity reaction remains unknown, there is no evidence of serious consequences.

Delayed skin reactions are more commonly associated with the Moderna than the Pfizer vaccine. One notable difference between these vaccines is the greater content of mRNA in the Moderna formulation, but Freeman said that this is only one potential hypothesis for higher frequency of reactions to this version of the vaccine.

Patients with a history of allergic disease are more likely to develop a reaction but not significantly more likely to have a reaction that is more difficult to manage, according to Kimberly G. Blumenthal, MD, quality and safety officer for allergy, and codirector of the clinical epidemiology program in the division of rheumatology, allergy, and immunology at Mass General.

Massachusetts General Hospital

Anaphylaxis has been associated with COVD-19 vaccines just as it has with essentially every injectable vaccine, Dr. Blumenthal said during the same session. But the risk is very low, and it stays low even among those with a history of severe hypersensitivity reactions in the past.

Among the data collected from more than 52,000 vaccinated MGBHS employees, 0.9% had a history of severe allergic reaction to a prior vaccine. Of these, 11.6% had an allergic reaction to the COVID-19 vaccine. This was more than twice the 4.6% rate of allergic reactions among employees without a history of allergic reactions, but serious consequences were rare in both groups.

Of those with a reaction to the first dose, all but 2.4% took a subsequent dose. Again, serious reactions were exceedingly rare. These serious reactions did include anaphylaxis and hospitalization in 3% of patients, but there were no fatalities and all resolved.

The absence of serious sequelae from a reaction to a COVID-19 vaccine must be considered within the context of the benefit, which includes protection from death and hospitalization from the virus, according to Dr. Blumenthal. Citing the evidence that first-shot reactions are a source of vaccine hesitancy, she agreed that it is important to educate patients about relative risks.

“Even in our own cohort of MGBHS employees, we have people, including those who had been provaccine in the past, become hesitant,” commented Dr. Blumenthal, who said there are data from the Kaiser Permanente System showing similar vaccine reluctance following a first-shot reaction.

After more than 500 million doses of the Moderna and Pfizer vaccines had been administered worldwide, there was not a single reported death from anaphylaxis. Although Dr. Blumenthal said that an unconfirmed death of this type had been recently reported, she emphasized that this single death, if valid, is dwarfed by the lives saved with vaccination.

Asked about her strategy for counseling patients with vaccine hesitancy, Dr. Freeman said the body of safety data is large and compelling. There is overwhelming evidence of a favorable benefit-to-risk ratio overall and among those with a first-shot reaction.

“I can reassure them on the basis of the data,” Dr. Freeman said in an interview. “Less than half will have a reaction to the second shot and even if they do have a reaction, it is likely to be less severe.”

Although the main message is that vaccination is potentially lifesaving and far outweighs any risks, Freeman specifically gives this message to those hesitant to take a second shot after a first-shot reaction: “I can get you through it.”

Dr. Freeman encouraged health care professionals to report cases of COVID-19 vaccine–related dermatologic side effects to the American Academy of Dermatology / International League of Dermatologic Societies COVID-19 dermatology registry. Dermatologic manifestations of COVID-19 can also be reported to the registry.

Dr. Freeman disclosed receiving grants/research funding from the International League of Dermatologic Societies and from the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Blumenthal disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

BOSTON – Requests for a medical waiver to avoid a second COVID-19 vaccine dose or a booster after cutaneous reactions to the first dose are not justified on the basis of risk, according to an analysis of several large sets of data presented at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology.

According to the data, “there are no serious adverse consequences from these cutaneous reactions,” said Esther Freeman, MD, PhD, director of Global Health Dermatology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston.

This is important because the risk of vaccine hesitancy goes up dramatically in patients who experience reactions to the first vaccine dose, according to follow-up of more than 50,000 employees vaccinated in the Mass General Brigham Healthcare System (MGBHS). According to Dr. Freeman, there was almost a fourfold increase in the rate of second-dose refusals for those with cutaneous reactions and a more than fourfold increase in those who developed angioedema.

Before the data were available, skin reactions were a source of concern among dermatologists and others involved in monitoring vaccine-related adverse events. Injection site reactions (ISRs) are associated with essentially every injectable vaccine, so these were expected, but a small proportion of patients developed large red plaques in the injection arm 7-8 days after the inoculation.

“These delayed reactions caused a lot of initial panic,” said Dr. Freeman, who counted herself among those alarmed about what the reactions might signify. “Was this cellulitis? Would the next dose cause anaphylaxis? We were concerned.”

This concern dissipated with the availability of more data. In a global registry that has so far captured more than 1,000 cutaneous reactions from 52 participating countries, it appears that about 2% of patients have a cutaneous reaction other than an ISR after the first dose. All resolve with minimal skin care or no treatment.

After the second dose, the proportion is lower. If there is a reaction, it typically occurs earlier and resolves more quickly.

“What we have learned is that fewer than half of patients who had a reaction to the first dose have a reaction to the second, and those who did have a reaction had a milder course,” said Dr. Freeman.

These data are “incredibly reassuring” on many levels, she explained. In addition, it allows clinicians to confidently explain to patients that there are no serious sequelae from the rashes, whether immediate or delayed, from the available COVID-19 vaccines.

“Every skin reaction I have seen is something we can treat through,” she added, noting that most reactions resolve with little or no supportive care. Following skin reactions, particularly the delayed lesions, it is not uncommon for patients to refuse a second shot. Some request a medical waiver to avoid further vaccine exposure. According to Dr. Freeman, this is unwarranted.

“I have granted exactly zero waivers,” she said. She explains to patients that these reactions have not been predictive of serious events, such as anaphylaxis. Although the trigger of the hypersensitivity reaction remains unknown, there is no evidence of serious consequences.

Delayed skin reactions are more commonly associated with the Moderna than the Pfizer vaccine. One notable difference between these vaccines is the greater content of mRNA in the Moderna formulation, but Freeman said that this is only one potential hypothesis for higher frequency of reactions to this version of the vaccine.

Patients with a history of allergic disease are more likely to develop a reaction but not significantly more likely to have a reaction that is more difficult to manage, according to Kimberly G. Blumenthal, MD, quality and safety officer for allergy, and codirector of the clinical epidemiology program in the division of rheumatology, allergy, and immunology at Mass General.

Massachusetts General Hospital

Anaphylaxis has been associated with COVD-19 vaccines just as it has with essentially every injectable vaccine, Dr. Blumenthal said during the same session. But the risk is very low, and it stays low even among those with a history of severe hypersensitivity reactions in the past.

Among the data collected from more than 52,000 vaccinated MGBHS employees, 0.9% had a history of severe allergic reaction to a prior vaccine. Of these, 11.6% had an allergic reaction to the COVID-19 vaccine. This was more than twice the 4.6% rate of allergic reactions among employees without a history of allergic reactions, but serious consequences were rare in both groups.

Of those with a reaction to the first dose, all but 2.4% took a subsequent dose. Again, serious reactions were exceedingly rare. These serious reactions did include anaphylaxis and hospitalization in 3% of patients, but there were no fatalities and all resolved.

The absence of serious sequelae from a reaction to a COVID-19 vaccine must be considered within the context of the benefit, which includes protection from death and hospitalization from the virus, according to Dr. Blumenthal. Citing the evidence that first-shot reactions are a source of vaccine hesitancy, she agreed that it is important to educate patients about relative risks.

“Even in our own cohort of MGBHS employees, we have people, including those who had been provaccine in the past, become hesitant,” commented Dr. Blumenthal, who said there are data from the Kaiser Permanente System showing similar vaccine reluctance following a first-shot reaction.

After more than 500 million doses of the Moderna and Pfizer vaccines had been administered worldwide, there was not a single reported death from anaphylaxis. Although Dr. Blumenthal said that an unconfirmed death of this type had been recently reported, she emphasized that this single death, if valid, is dwarfed by the lives saved with vaccination.

Asked about her strategy for counseling patients with vaccine hesitancy, Dr. Freeman said the body of safety data is large and compelling. There is overwhelming evidence of a favorable benefit-to-risk ratio overall and among those with a first-shot reaction.

“I can reassure them on the basis of the data,” Dr. Freeman said in an interview. “Less than half will have a reaction to the second shot and even if they do have a reaction, it is likely to be less severe.”

Although the main message is that vaccination is potentially lifesaving and far outweighs any risks, Freeman specifically gives this message to those hesitant to take a second shot after a first-shot reaction: “I can get you through it.”

Dr. Freeman encouraged health care professionals to report cases of COVID-19 vaccine–related dermatologic side effects to the American Academy of Dermatology / International League of Dermatologic Societies COVID-19 dermatology registry. Dermatologic manifestations of COVID-19 can also be reported to the registry.

Dr. Freeman disclosed receiving grants/research funding from the International League of Dermatologic Societies and from the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Blumenthal disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

BOSTON – Requests for a medical waiver to avoid a second COVID-19 vaccine dose or a booster after cutaneous reactions to the first dose are not justified on the basis of risk, according to an analysis of several large sets of data presented at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology.

According to the data, “there are no serious adverse consequences from these cutaneous reactions,” said Esther Freeman, MD, PhD, director of Global Health Dermatology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston.

This is important because the risk of vaccine hesitancy goes up dramatically in patients who experience reactions to the first vaccine dose, according to follow-up of more than 50,000 employees vaccinated in the Mass General Brigham Healthcare System (MGBHS). According to Dr. Freeman, there was almost a fourfold increase in the rate of second-dose refusals for those with cutaneous reactions and a more than fourfold increase in those who developed angioedema.

Before the data were available, skin reactions were a source of concern among dermatologists and others involved in monitoring vaccine-related adverse events. Injection site reactions (ISRs) are associated with essentially every injectable vaccine, so these were expected, but a small proportion of patients developed large red plaques in the injection arm 7-8 days after the inoculation.

“These delayed reactions caused a lot of initial panic,” said Dr. Freeman, who counted herself among those alarmed about what the reactions might signify. “Was this cellulitis? Would the next dose cause anaphylaxis? We were concerned.”

This concern dissipated with the availability of more data. In a global registry that has so far captured more than 1,000 cutaneous reactions from 52 participating countries, it appears that about 2% of patients have a cutaneous reaction other than an ISR after the first dose. All resolve with minimal skin care or no treatment.

After the second dose, the proportion is lower. If there is a reaction, it typically occurs earlier and resolves more quickly.

“What we have learned is that fewer than half of patients who had a reaction to the first dose have a reaction to the second, and those who did have a reaction had a milder course,” said Dr. Freeman.

These data are “incredibly reassuring” on many levels, she explained. In addition, it allows clinicians to confidently explain to patients that there are no serious sequelae from the rashes, whether immediate or delayed, from the available COVID-19 vaccines.

“Every skin reaction I have seen is something we can treat through,” she added, noting that most reactions resolve with little or no supportive care. Following skin reactions, particularly the delayed lesions, it is not uncommon for patients to refuse a second shot. Some request a medical waiver to avoid further vaccine exposure. According to Dr. Freeman, this is unwarranted.

“I have granted exactly zero waivers,” she said. She explains to patients that these reactions have not been predictive of serious events, such as anaphylaxis. Although the trigger of the hypersensitivity reaction remains unknown, there is no evidence of serious consequences.

Delayed skin reactions are more commonly associated with the Moderna than the Pfizer vaccine. One notable difference between these vaccines is the greater content of mRNA in the Moderna formulation, but Freeman said that this is only one potential hypothesis for higher frequency of reactions to this version of the vaccine.

Patients with a history of allergic disease are more likely to develop a reaction but not significantly more likely to have a reaction that is more difficult to manage, according to Kimberly G. Blumenthal, MD, quality and safety officer for allergy, and codirector of the clinical epidemiology program in the division of rheumatology, allergy, and immunology at Mass General.

Massachusetts General Hospital

Anaphylaxis has been associated with COVD-19 vaccines just as it has with essentially every injectable vaccine, Dr. Blumenthal said during the same session. But the risk is very low, and it stays low even among those with a history of severe hypersensitivity reactions in the past.

Among the data collected from more than 52,000 vaccinated MGBHS employees, 0.9% had a history of severe allergic reaction to a prior vaccine. Of these, 11.6% had an allergic reaction to the COVID-19 vaccine. This was more than twice the 4.6% rate of allergic reactions among employees without a history of allergic reactions, but serious consequences were rare in both groups.

Of those with a reaction to the first dose, all but 2.4% took a subsequent dose. Again, serious reactions were exceedingly rare. These serious reactions did include anaphylaxis and hospitalization in 3% of patients, but there were no fatalities and all resolved.

The absence of serious sequelae from a reaction to a COVID-19 vaccine must be considered within the context of the benefit, which includes protection from death and hospitalization from the virus, according to Dr. Blumenthal. Citing the evidence that first-shot reactions are a source of vaccine hesitancy, she agreed that it is important to educate patients about relative risks.

“Even in our own cohort of MGBHS employees, we have people, including those who had been provaccine in the past, become hesitant,” commented Dr. Blumenthal, who said there are data from the Kaiser Permanente System showing similar vaccine reluctance following a first-shot reaction.

After more than 500 million doses of the Moderna and Pfizer vaccines had been administered worldwide, there was not a single reported death from anaphylaxis. Although Dr. Blumenthal said that an unconfirmed death of this type had been recently reported, she emphasized that this single death, if valid, is dwarfed by the lives saved with vaccination.

Asked about her strategy for counseling patients with vaccine hesitancy, Dr. Freeman said the body of safety data is large and compelling. There is overwhelming evidence of a favorable benefit-to-risk ratio overall and among those with a first-shot reaction.

“I can reassure them on the basis of the data,” Dr. Freeman said in an interview. “Less than half will have a reaction to the second shot and even if they do have a reaction, it is likely to be less severe.”

Although the main message is that vaccination is potentially lifesaving and far outweighs any risks, Freeman specifically gives this message to those hesitant to take a second shot after a first-shot reaction: “I can get you through it.”

Dr. Freeman encouraged health care professionals to report cases of COVID-19 vaccine–related dermatologic side effects to the American Academy of Dermatology / International League of Dermatologic Societies COVID-19 dermatology registry. Dermatologic manifestations of COVID-19 can also be reported to the registry.

Dr. Freeman disclosed receiving grants/research funding from the International League of Dermatologic Societies and from the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Blumenthal disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Outcomes for patients with bacteremic Streptococcus pneumoniae were significantly worse than those for patients with Legionnaires disease (LD), based on data from 106 individuals.

Reported cases of LD in the United States have increased in recent decades, but they are likely under-reported, wrote Sima Salahie, MD, of Wayne State University School of Medicine, Detroit, and Central Michigan University College of Medicine, Grosse Pointe Woods, and colleagues.

Clinical presentations may be similar for both conditions, but different antimicrobial therapies are needed; therefore, identifying distinguishing factors can promote better management of hospitalized patients, they reported.

In a retrospective case companion study published in the American Journal of the Medical Sciences, the researchers reviewed data from 51 adults with LD and 55 with bacteremic S. pneumoniae pneumonia (SP) who were hospitalized at a single center between 2013 and 2018. Diagnoses were confirmed by laboratory and radiology results. In addition, data were collected on clinical features including body mass index, systolic and diastolic blood pressure, pulse, respiratory rate, and temperature.

Overall, patients with SP were significantly more likely than those with LD to require mechanical ventilation (P = .04), intensive care unit stay (P = .004), and to die (P = .002). Patients with SP also had higher rates of septic shock compared to LD patients, although this difference fell short of statistical significance (49.1% vs. 30.4%; P = .06).

In a multivariate analysis, male sex, diarrhea, higher body mass index, hyponatremia, and lower Charleston Weighted Index of Comorbidity (CWIC) score were significant independent predictors of LD, with odds ratios of 21.6, 4.5, 1.13, 5.6, and 0.61, respectively.

The incidence of LD peaked in summer, while the incidence of SP peaked in the winter, the researchers noted. “Seasonality is a variable that has not always been included in previous scoring systems but should be considered in future modeling,” they said.

“Noteworthy is that LD represented almost as many cases as documented bacteremic pneumococcal pneumonia,” the researchers wrote in their discussion. “This occurred at a time when there was no outbreak of L. pneumophila in our community, and as these were all community acquired, there was no evidence of a nosocomial outbreak in our institution,” they said.

The study findings were limited by several factors, including the possible underestimation of SP because of the requirement for positive blood cultures and the lack of other methods of diagnosing SP, the researchers noted.

“However, the data suggest variables to distinguish LD from SP,” they said. “Establishing reliable clinical and laboratory parameters embedded in a simple diagnostic score that can accurately identify patients with LD may be helpful in aiding physicians’ early diagnosis in distinguishing LD from SP but will need to be defined.”

The study received no outside funding. The researchers disclosed no financial conflicts.

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

Outcomes for patients with bacteremic Streptococcus pneumoniae were significantly worse than those for patients with Legionnaires disease (LD), based on data from 106 individuals.

Reported cases of LD in the United States have increased in recent decades, but they are likely under-reported, wrote Sima Salahie, MD, of Wayne State University School of Medicine, Detroit, and Central Michigan University College of Medicine, Grosse Pointe Woods, and colleagues.

Clinical presentations may be similar for both conditions, but different antimicrobial therapies are needed; therefore, identifying distinguishing factors can promote better management of hospitalized patients, they reported.

In a retrospective case companion study published in the American Journal of the Medical Sciences, the researchers reviewed data from 51 adults with LD and 55 with bacteremic S. pneumoniae pneumonia (SP) who were hospitalized at a single center between 2013 and 2018. Diagnoses were confirmed by laboratory and radiology results. In addition, data were collected on clinical features including body mass index, systolic and diastolic blood pressure, pulse, respiratory rate, and temperature.

Overall, patients with SP were significantly more likely than those with LD to require mechanical ventilation (P = .04), intensive care unit stay (P = .004), and to die (P = .002). Patients with SP also had higher rates of septic shock compared to LD patients, although this difference fell short of statistical significance (49.1% vs. 30.4%; P = .06).

In a multivariate analysis, male sex, diarrhea, higher body mass index, hyponatremia, and lower Charleston Weighted Index of Comorbidity (CWIC) score were significant independent predictors of LD, with odds ratios of 21.6, 4.5, 1.13, 5.6, and 0.61, respectively.

The incidence of LD peaked in summer, while the incidence of SP peaked in the winter, the researchers noted. “Seasonality is a variable that has not always been included in previous scoring systems but should be considered in future modeling,” they said.

“Noteworthy is that LD represented almost as many cases as documented bacteremic pneumococcal pneumonia,” the researchers wrote in their discussion. “This occurred at a time when there was no outbreak of L. pneumophila in our community, and as these were all community acquired, there was no evidence of a nosocomial outbreak in our institution,” they said.

The study findings were limited by several factors, including the possible underestimation of SP because of the requirement for positive blood cultures and the lack of other methods of diagnosing SP, the researchers noted.

“However, the data suggest variables to distinguish LD from SP,” they said. “Establishing reliable clinical and laboratory parameters embedded in a simple diagnostic score that can accurately identify patients with LD may be helpful in aiding physicians’ early diagnosis in distinguishing LD from SP but will need to be defined.”

The study received no outside funding. The researchers disclosed no financial conflicts.

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

Outcomes for patients with bacteremic Streptococcus pneumoniae were significantly worse than those for patients with Legionnaires disease (LD), based on data from 106 individuals.

Reported cases of LD in the United States have increased in recent decades, but they are likely under-reported, wrote Sima Salahie, MD, of Wayne State University School of Medicine, Detroit, and Central Michigan University College of Medicine, Grosse Pointe Woods, and colleagues.

Clinical presentations may be similar for both conditions, but different antimicrobial therapies are needed; therefore, identifying distinguishing factors can promote better management of hospitalized patients, they reported.

In a retrospective case companion study published in the American Journal of the Medical Sciences, the researchers reviewed data from 51 adults with LD and 55 with bacteremic S. pneumoniae pneumonia (SP) who were hospitalized at a single center between 2013 and 2018. Diagnoses were confirmed by laboratory and radiology results. In addition, data were collected on clinical features including body mass index, systolic and diastolic blood pressure, pulse, respiratory rate, and temperature.

Overall, patients with SP were significantly more likely than those with LD to require mechanical ventilation (P = .04), intensive care unit stay (P = .004), and to die (P = .002). Patients with SP also had higher rates of septic shock compared to LD patients, although this difference fell short of statistical significance (49.1% vs. 30.4%; P = .06).

In a multivariate analysis, male sex, diarrhea, higher body mass index, hyponatremia, and lower Charleston Weighted Index of Comorbidity (CWIC) score were significant independent predictors of LD, with odds ratios of 21.6, 4.5, 1.13, 5.6, and 0.61, respectively.

The incidence of LD peaked in summer, while the incidence of SP peaked in the winter, the researchers noted. “Seasonality is a variable that has not always been included in previous scoring systems but should be considered in future modeling,” they said.

“Noteworthy is that LD represented almost as many cases as documented bacteremic pneumococcal pneumonia,” the researchers wrote in their discussion. “This occurred at a time when there was no outbreak of L. pneumophila in our community, and as these were all community acquired, there was no evidence of a nosocomial outbreak in our institution,” they said.

The study findings were limited by several factors, including the possible underestimation of SP because of the requirement for positive blood cultures and the lack of other methods of diagnosing SP, the researchers noted.

“However, the data suggest variables to distinguish LD from SP,” they said. “Establishing reliable clinical and laboratory parameters embedded in a simple diagnostic score that can accurately identify patients with LD may be helpful in aiding physicians’ early diagnosis in distinguishing LD from SP but will need to be defined.”

The study received no outside funding. The researchers disclosed no financial conflicts.

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

When polio paralyzed a 3-year-old girl in Lilongwe, Malawi, in November 2021, public health experts in Malawi’s Ministry of Health responded quickly. The ministry partnered with the Global Polio Eradication Initiative, the World Health Organization, and the United Nations International Children’s Emergency Fund to mobilize a surge team of personnel and resources to vaccinate all 2.9 million Malawian children aged under 5 years, WHO reported in a news release.

The first of four sequential campaigns began on March 20 and expanded on March 24 to neighboring Mozambique, Tanzania, and Zambia. The multinational, multiagency effort aims to include Zimbabwean children as well and deliver over 80 million supplemental doses of bivalent oral polio vaccines to over 23 million children in these five countries by July.

Because it takes multiple polio vaccine doses to become fully immunized, the children are expected to receive four rounds of vaccine regardless of their vaccination history.

“It is important to conduct the campaigns now to boost the immunity of our children,” Annie Chauma-Mwale, MBBS, MPH, the chief medical officer of epidemiology and surveillance in Malawi’s Ministry of Health in Lilongwe, said in an interview. “Polio is not only a medical issue. Polio is also a socioeconomic issue with long-term impacts on the child, the country, and the globe.

“In Malawi, we are using our community health and health care facility structures to ensure we do not miss any eligible child,” explained Dr. Chauma-Mwale, who is also the deputy incident manager of the poliovirus outbreak response. “We aim to play our role in the global eradication of polio by protecting the vulnerable and curtailing any potential transmission as early as possible.”

Of the three variants of wild, naturally occurring poliovirus, types 2 and 3 have been eradicated, but wild poliovirus type 1 (WPV1) remains endemic in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

As reported recently by this news organization, the girl in Malawi was infected with a WPV1 strain that had been circulating for years in Pakistan’s Sindh Province.

Malawi’s most recent clinically confirmed WPV1 case was reported in 1992, and this is the first WPV1 case detected in Africa since 2016. The continent was declared free of indigenous wild polio in 2020 and is still considered free of wild poliovirus because the child’s illness was imported from elsewhere.

The 3-year-old girl developed acute flaccid paralysis in November 2021. In February 2022, virus from her stool was sequenced by the National Institute of Communicable Disease in South Africa and the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. On Feb. 16, Malawi was notified of the case, which was genetically linked to a sequence detected in Sindh Province around 2 years earlier.
 

‘Do not ignore polio’

Within 24 hours, the Government of Malawi declared a public health emergency and activated the national Emergency Operations Centre. Within 72 hours, the GPEI rapid response team arrived in the country. The Ministry of Health partnered with GPEI, WHO, and UNICEF to mobilize the campaign and begin vaccinating children on March 20.

‘’We rely on clinicians to support the surveillance of polio through case searches, both active and passive,” Mike Nenani Chisema, MBBS, MPH, the program manager of the expanded program on immunization and the polio response operations manager in Malawi’s Ministry of Health, said in an interview.

He noted that the young girl was diagnosed correctly and millions of children are now being protected against the disease, thanks to the acumen of one hospital clinician.

“Remember, we still have polio in some countries, and every country is at risk,” he cautioned. “Don’t forget to look for the obvious and do not ignore polio, regardless of economic status.’’

According to GPEI, all countries – especially those with weak immunization and other public health programs whose residents trade or travel to and from endemic countries – are at risk for imported polio.

Anita Gupta, DO, MPP, PharmD, an adjunct assistant professor of anesthesiology and critical care medicine and pain medicine at the Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, said that she welcomes this effort.

“Given the decades of published evidence and understanding on the vaccine’s safety and efficacy, this program in Malawi is the right step to take,” Gupta, who is not involved in the campaigns, said in an interview. “Polio is preventable, and acting now will prevent spread later.”

Dr. Chauma-Mwale and Dr. Chisema are employees of Malawi’s Ministry of Health. Dr. Gupta disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

When polio paralyzed a 3-year-old girl in Lilongwe, Malawi, in November 2021, public health experts in Malawi’s Ministry of Health responded quickly. The ministry partnered with the Global Polio Eradication Initiative, the World Health Organization, and the United Nations International Children’s Emergency Fund to mobilize a surge team of personnel and resources to vaccinate all 2.9 million Malawian children aged under 5 years, WHO reported in a news release.

The first of four sequential campaigns began on March 20 and expanded on March 24 to neighboring Mozambique, Tanzania, and Zambia. The multinational, multiagency effort aims to include Zimbabwean children as well and deliver over 80 million supplemental doses of bivalent oral polio vaccines to over 23 million children in these five countries by July.

Because it takes multiple polio vaccine doses to become fully immunized, the children are expected to receive four rounds of vaccine regardless of their vaccination history.

“It is important to conduct the campaigns now to boost the immunity of our children,” Annie Chauma-Mwale, MBBS, MPH, the chief medical officer of epidemiology and surveillance in Malawi’s Ministry of Health in Lilongwe, said in an interview. “Polio is not only a medical issue. Polio is also a socioeconomic issue with long-term impacts on the child, the country, and the globe.

“In Malawi, we are using our community health and health care facility structures to ensure we do not miss any eligible child,” explained Dr. Chauma-Mwale, who is also the deputy incident manager of the poliovirus outbreak response. “We aim to play our role in the global eradication of polio by protecting the vulnerable and curtailing any potential transmission as early as possible.”

Of the three variants of wild, naturally occurring poliovirus, types 2 and 3 have been eradicated, but wild poliovirus type 1 (WPV1) remains endemic in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

As reported recently by this news organization, the girl in Malawi was infected with a WPV1 strain that had been circulating for years in Pakistan’s Sindh Province.

Malawi’s most recent clinically confirmed WPV1 case was reported in 1992, and this is the first WPV1 case detected in Africa since 2016. The continent was declared free of indigenous wild polio in 2020 and is still considered free of wild poliovirus because the child’s illness was imported from elsewhere.

The 3-year-old girl developed acute flaccid paralysis in November 2021. In February 2022, virus from her stool was sequenced by the National Institute of Communicable Disease in South Africa and the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. On Feb. 16, Malawi was notified of the case, which was genetically linked to a sequence detected in Sindh Province around 2 years earlier.
 

‘Do not ignore polio’

Within 24 hours, the Government of Malawi declared a public health emergency and activated the national Emergency Operations Centre. Within 72 hours, the GPEI rapid response team arrived in the country. The Ministry of Health partnered with GPEI, WHO, and UNICEF to mobilize the campaign and begin vaccinating children on March 20.

‘’We rely on clinicians to support the surveillance of polio through case searches, both active and passive,” Mike Nenani Chisema, MBBS, MPH, the program manager of the expanded program on immunization and the polio response operations manager in Malawi’s Ministry of Health, said in an interview.

He noted that the young girl was diagnosed correctly and millions of children are now being protected against the disease, thanks to the acumen of one hospital clinician.

“Remember, we still have polio in some countries, and every country is at risk,” he cautioned. “Don’t forget to look for the obvious and do not ignore polio, regardless of economic status.’’

According to GPEI, all countries – especially those with weak immunization and other public health programs whose residents trade or travel to and from endemic countries – are at risk for imported polio.

Anita Gupta, DO, MPP, PharmD, an adjunct assistant professor of anesthesiology and critical care medicine and pain medicine at the Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, said that she welcomes this effort.

“Given the decades of published evidence and understanding on the vaccine’s safety and efficacy, this program in Malawi is the right step to take,” Gupta, who is not involved in the campaigns, said in an interview. “Polio is preventable, and acting now will prevent spread later.”

Dr. Chauma-Mwale and Dr. Chisema are employees of Malawi’s Ministry of Health. Dr. Gupta disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

When polio paralyzed a 3-year-old girl in Lilongwe, Malawi, in November 2021, public health experts in Malawi’s Ministry of Health responded quickly. The ministry partnered with the Global Polio Eradication Initiative, the World Health Organization, and the United Nations International Children’s Emergency Fund to mobilize a surge team of personnel and resources to vaccinate all 2.9 million Malawian children aged under 5 years, WHO reported in a news release.

The first of four sequential campaigns began on March 20 and expanded on March 24 to neighboring Mozambique, Tanzania, and Zambia. The multinational, multiagency effort aims to include Zimbabwean children as well and deliver over 80 million supplemental doses of bivalent oral polio vaccines to over 23 million children in these five countries by July.

Because it takes multiple polio vaccine doses to become fully immunized, the children are expected to receive four rounds of vaccine regardless of their vaccination history.

“It is important to conduct the campaigns now to boost the immunity of our children,” Annie Chauma-Mwale, MBBS, MPH, the chief medical officer of epidemiology and surveillance in Malawi’s Ministry of Health in Lilongwe, said in an interview. “Polio is not only a medical issue. Polio is also a socioeconomic issue with long-term impacts on the child, the country, and the globe.

“In Malawi, we are using our community health and health care facility structures to ensure we do not miss any eligible child,” explained Dr. Chauma-Mwale, who is also the deputy incident manager of the poliovirus outbreak response. “We aim to play our role in the global eradication of polio by protecting the vulnerable and curtailing any potential transmission as early as possible.”

Of the three variants of wild, naturally occurring poliovirus, types 2 and 3 have been eradicated, but wild poliovirus type 1 (WPV1) remains endemic in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

As reported recently by this news organization, the girl in Malawi was infected with a WPV1 strain that had been circulating for years in Pakistan’s Sindh Province.

Malawi’s most recent clinically confirmed WPV1 case was reported in 1992, and this is the first WPV1 case detected in Africa since 2016. The continent was declared free of indigenous wild polio in 2020 and is still considered free of wild poliovirus because the child’s illness was imported from elsewhere.

The 3-year-old girl developed acute flaccid paralysis in November 2021. In February 2022, virus from her stool was sequenced by the National Institute of Communicable Disease in South Africa and the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. On Feb. 16, Malawi was notified of the case, which was genetically linked to a sequence detected in Sindh Province around 2 years earlier.
 

‘Do not ignore polio’

Within 24 hours, the Government of Malawi declared a public health emergency and activated the national Emergency Operations Centre. Within 72 hours, the GPEI rapid response team arrived in the country. The Ministry of Health partnered with GPEI, WHO, and UNICEF to mobilize the campaign and begin vaccinating children on March 20.

‘’We rely on clinicians to support the surveillance of polio through case searches, both active and passive,” Mike Nenani Chisema, MBBS, MPH, the program manager of the expanded program on immunization and the polio response operations manager in Malawi’s Ministry of Health, said in an interview.

He noted that the young girl was diagnosed correctly and millions of children are now being protected against the disease, thanks to the acumen of one hospital clinician.

“Remember, we still have polio in some countries, and every country is at risk,” he cautioned. “Don’t forget to look for the obvious and do not ignore polio, regardless of economic status.’’

According to GPEI, all countries – especially those with weak immunization and other public health programs whose residents trade or travel to and from endemic countries – are at risk for imported polio.

Anita Gupta, DO, MPP, PharmD, an adjunct assistant professor of anesthesiology and critical care medicine and pain medicine at the Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, said that she welcomes this effort.

“Given the decades of published evidence and understanding on the vaccine’s safety and efficacy, this program in Malawi is the right step to take,” Gupta, who is not involved in the campaigns, said in an interview. “Polio is preventable, and acting now will prevent spread later.”

Dr. Chauma-Mwale and Dr. Chisema are employees of Malawi’s Ministry of Health. Dr. Gupta disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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