Infectious Diseases

Antibiotics are commonly overused for several viral respiratory conditions where antibiotic treatment is not clinically indicated. For example, a 2016 study by Fleming-Dutra and colleagues showed that at least 30% of all antibiotics prescribed in an outpatient setting were inappropriate and for acute bronchitis, antibiotic prescriptions were inappropriate in 50% of cases.¹ Acute bronchitis is predominantly a viral illness where antibiotics should be rarely used.^2-8 The Healthcare Effectiveness Data and Information Set has measured the avoidance of antibiotic treatment in adults with acute bronchitis since 2006. The National Committee for Quality Assurance reported in 2018 that about 75% of adults received antibiotics for acute bronchitis.⁹ Inappropriate antibiotic use contributes to antimicrobial resistance, resulting in the increase of morbidity and mortality of treatable infections.¹⁰ Reducing inappropriate antibiotic use in outpatient settings is a high-priority public health issue and is a Healthy People 2030 objective.¹¹

Antimicrobial Stewardship

Antimicrobial stewardship programs measure and track how antibiotics are prescribed by health care providers (HCPs) and used by patients. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) created a framework for outpatient antimicrobial stewardship programs by outlining 4 core elements: (1) commitment from every person involved in patient care to act as an antibiotic steward; (2) policies and interventions to promote appropriate antibiotic prescribing practices; (3) antibiotic prescription tracking and reporting; and (4) appropriate antibiotic use education.¹²

Audit and feedback (A&F) is a form of antibiotic prescription tracking and reporting that involves measuring and comparing a HCP’s performance (ie, antibiotic prescribing) with a standard, and the results of this audit are shared with the HCP. This strategy is based on the belief that a HCP is motivated to modify practice habits when given feedback showing that his or her performance is inconsistent with targeted expectations. A&F is most effective when feedback is provided by a supervisor or respected peer, presented more than once, individualized, delivered in both verbal and written formats, and includes explicit targets and an action plan.^13,14

This study focuses on an antimicrobial stewardship program implemented in an outpatient Indian Health Service ambulatory care clinic in the Pacific Northwest. The clinic was staffed by 9 HCPs serving about 12,000 American Indian and Alaskan Native patients. The clinic includes a full-service pharmacy where nearly all prescriptions issued by in-house HCPs are filled. The clinic’s antibiotic prescribing rate for adult patients with acute bronchitis was similar to the national mean in 2018 (75%).⁹ The study objective was to reduce the rate of potentially inappropriate (not guideline-concordant) antibiotic prescribing in patients with acute bronchitis without underlying chronic lung disease or evidence of bacterial infection through A&F.

Methods

The antimicrobial stewardship program was implemented by 3 pharmacists, including a pharmacy resident. HCPs received education by pharmacy staff on evidence-based prescribing for adult acute bronchitis and quarterly feedback on antibiotic prescribing rates. All prescribing and dispensing records necessary for the program were available in the clinic electronic health record. The rate of potentially inappropriate antibiotic prescribing was calculated as the proportion of eligible bronchitis cases who received antibiotics.

In October 2018, a 60-minute educational session was provided by 2 pharmacists to HCPs. The material covered an overview of acute bronchitis presentation, diagnosis, treatment (Table 1), and a comparison of national and local prescribing data (baseline audit).^2-4 The educational session concluded with prescription strategies to reduce inappropriate antibiotic prescribing, including but not limited to: delayed prescriptions, patient and caregiver education, use of nonantibiotic medications to control symptoms, and use of A&F reports.^5-8 At the conclusion of the session, HCPs committed to engage in the antimicrobial stewardship program.

Audit

To determine the total number of eligible bronchitis cases (denominator), a visit report was generated by a pharmacist for a primary diagnosis of acute bronchitis using International Statistical Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision (ICD 10) codes (J20.3 - J20.9) for the review period. Only adults aged ≥ 18 years were included. Patients with a chronic lung disease (eg, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, asthma) and those who had a concomitant bacterial infection (eg, urinary tract infection, cellulitis) were excluded. A visit for acute bronchitis that included additional ICD 10 codes indicating the patient had a chronic lung disease or concomitant bacterial infection were used to determine exclusion. The remaining patients who received a potentially inappropriate antibiotic prescription (numerator) were those who were prescribed or dispensed antibiotics on the date of service.

Feedback

Baseline data were presented to HCPs during the educational session in October 2018. Prospective audits were performed quarterly thereafter (January, April, and July) by the pharmacy resident using the criteria described above. Audit data were compiled into personalized reports and provided to HCPs by the pharmacy resident with written and verbal individual feedback. Written feedback was sent by email to each HCP containing the HCP’s rate, the clinic rate in aggregate, rates from the prior year and quarter(s) for comparison, and clinical pearls from the guidelines (Figure). Verbal feedback included a review of the written feedback and answering any questions concerning the report.

Implementation

Study periods were chosen to coincide with the pharmacy residency training year, which starts in July and ends in June. The start date of October 2018 differed from the start of the residency year (July 2018) owing to delays in obtaining permissions. A&F and analysis of prescribing rates continued through the end of the residency year, for total duration of 9 months (October 1, 2018 to June 30, 2019). For ease of reporting, quarterly reports followed the federal government’s fiscal year (FY) which runs from October 1 of the prior calendar year through September 30 of the year being described. HCPs received 4 feedback reports: baseline (October 1, 2018 - June 30, 2018) in October 2018, quarter 1 (October 1, 2018 - December 31, 2018) in January 2019, quarter 2 (January 1, 2019 - March 31, 2019) in April 2019, and quarter 3 (April 1, 2019 - June 30, 2019) in July 2019.

Statistical Analysis

Prescribing rates were compared between identical 9 -month periods. A 2-sample binomial test for proportions was used to derive an approximate CI of prescribing rates at the patient level. However, to account for clustering of patients within HCP panels and dependence of observations over study periods stemming from examining the same HCPs within each of the periods, the Wilcoxon signed rank test for paired data was used to evaluate prescribing rates at the HCP level. Statistical analysis was performed using R statistical software version 4.0.3. Differences were considered significant at P < .05 set a priori.

This study was approved by the Portland Area Indian Health Service Institutional Review Board (Study ID: 1316730).

Results

All 9 HCPs who see adult patients at the clinic agreed to participate and were all fully present in each study period. Among HCPs, there were 5 physicians and 4 physician assistants or nurse practitioners. There was a total of 213 visits that met study criteria during the baseline period (October 1, 2017 to June 30, 2018) and 177 visits in the posteducation period (October 1, 2018 to June 30, 2019). The total number of acute bronchitis encounters varied by HCP (Ranges, 5-63 [baseline] and 2-57 [posteducation]); however, the relative number of encounters each HCP contributed was similar in each study period (Table 2). The pharmacy resident spent about 2 hours each quarter to generate 9 feedback reports, 1 for each HCP.

Antibiotic Prescribing

Antibiotic prescribing rates decreased from 75% at baseline to 60% at posteducation month 9 (absolute difference, -15% [95% CI, 5 - 24%]; P ≤ .01) (Table 3). The clinic rate was lower for each quarter in FY 2019 (posteducation) compared with the same quarter of FY 2018 (baseline), with the lowest rate observed in the final quarter of the study. Comparing pre- and post- A&F, the rates for HCPs prescribing antibiotics were lower for 7 HCPs, unchanged for 1 HCP, and slightly increased for 1 HCP(P = .02).

Discussion

Acute bronchitis remains a common diagnosis where antibiotics are prescribed despite being a predominately viral illness. Guidelines and evidence-based practices advise against antibiotics for this diagnosis. According to the American Academy of Family Physicians, antibiotics are reserved for cases where chronic lung disease is present as these patients are at a high risk of developing pneumonia.³ The decision to prescribe antibiotics is complex and driven by several interdependent factors, such as patient expectations, health system limitations, clinician training, and specialty.¹⁵ HCPs may more aggressively treat acute bronchitis among American Indian/Alaskan Native (AI/AN) people due to a high risk of developing serious complications from respiratory illnesses.¹⁶ A clinician’s background, usual patient cohort (ie, mostly pediatric or geriatric), and time spent in urgent care or in activities outside of patient care (administration) may account for the difference in patient encounters by HCP for acute bronchitis.

Following the CDC framework, this antimicrobial stewardship program helped empower people involved in patient care (eg, pharmacists, HCPs), educate staff on proper use of antibiotics for acute bronchitis, and track and report antibiotic prescribing through the A&F process. Educational interventions coupled with ongoing A&F are reproducible by other health care facilities and are not usually time consuming. This study showcases a successful example of implementing A&F in an antimicrobial stewardship quality improvement project that could be translated toward other conditions (eg, sinusitis, urinary tract infection, community-acquired pneumonia).

In a similar study, Meeker and colleagues used a variation of an A&F intervention using a monthly email showing peer comparisons to notify clinicians who were prescribing too many unnecessary antibiotics for common respiratory illnesses that did not require antibiotics, such as the common cold.¹⁷ The peer comparison intervention arm emailed a rank order that listed prescribers by the number of prescriptions for common respiratory illnesses. This intervention demonstrated a reduction of 5.2% in inappropriate antibiotic prescribing.

Limitations

This quality improvement study had several limitations. The study did not account for the duration of symptoms as a factor to judge appropriateness. Although this was identified early in the study, it was unavoidable since there was no report that could extract the duration of symptoms in the electronic health record. Future studies should consider a manual review of each encounter to overcome this limitation. Another limitation was that only three-quarters of the year and not the entire year were reviewed. Future studies should include longer time frames to measure the durability of changes to antibiotic prescriptions. Lastly, the study did not assess diagnosis shifting (the practice of changing the proportion of antibiotic-appropriate acute respiratory tract infection diagnosis over time), effects of patient demographics (patient age and sex were not recorded), or any sustained effect on prescribing rates after the study ended.

Conclusions

Clinician education coupled with A&F are components of the CDC’s framework for an effective antimicrobial stewardship program. The intervention seem to be an effective means toward reducing inappropriate antibiotic prescribing for acute bronchitis and has the potential for application to other antimicrobial stewardship initiatives. The present study adds to the growing body of evidence on the importance and impact an antimicrobial stewardship program has on a clinic or health system.

Acknowledgment

The results of this study have been reported at the 2019 IHS Southwest Regional Pharmacy Continuing Education Seminar, April 12-14, 2019.

Antibiotics are commonly overused for several viral respiratory conditions where antibiotic treatment is not clinically indicated. For example, a 2016 study by Fleming-Dutra and colleagues showed that at least 30% of all antibiotics prescribed in an outpatient setting were inappropriate and for acute bronchitis, antibiotic prescriptions were inappropriate in 50% of cases.¹ Acute bronchitis is predominantly a viral illness where antibiotics should be rarely used.^2-8 The Healthcare Effectiveness Data and Information Set has measured the avoidance of antibiotic treatment in adults with acute bronchitis since 2006. The National Committee for Quality Assurance reported in 2018 that about 75% of adults received antibiotics for acute bronchitis.⁹ Inappropriate antibiotic use contributes to antimicrobial resistance, resulting in the increase of morbidity and mortality of treatable infections.¹⁰ Reducing inappropriate antibiotic use in outpatient settings is a high-priority public health issue and is a Healthy People 2030 objective.¹¹

Antimicrobial Stewardship

Antimicrobial stewardship programs measure and track how antibiotics are prescribed by health care providers (HCPs) and used by patients. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) created a framework for outpatient antimicrobial stewardship programs by outlining 4 core elements: (1) commitment from every person involved in patient care to act as an antibiotic steward; (2) policies and interventions to promote appropriate antibiotic prescribing practices; (3) antibiotic prescription tracking and reporting; and (4) appropriate antibiotic use education.¹²

Audit and feedback (A&F) is a form of antibiotic prescription tracking and reporting that involves measuring and comparing a HCP’s performance (ie, antibiotic prescribing) with a standard, and the results of this audit are shared with the HCP. This strategy is based on the belief that a HCP is motivated to modify practice habits when given feedback showing that his or her performance is inconsistent with targeted expectations. A&F is most effective when feedback is provided by a supervisor or respected peer, presented more than once, individualized, delivered in both verbal and written formats, and includes explicit targets and an action plan.^13,14

This study focuses on an antimicrobial stewardship program implemented in an outpatient Indian Health Service ambulatory care clinic in the Pacific Northwest. The clinic was staffed by 9 HCPs serving about 12,000 American Indian and Alaskan Native patients. The clinic includes a full-service pharmacy where nearly all prescriptions issued by in-house HCPs are filled. The clinic’s antibiotic prescribing rate for adult patients with acute bronchitis was similar to the national mean in 2018 (75%).⁹ The study objective was to reduce the rate of potentially inappropriate (not guideline-concordant) antibiotic prescribing in patients with acute bronchitis without underlying chronic lung disease or evidence of bacterial infection through A&F.

Methods

The antimicrobial stewardship program was implemented by 3 pharmacists, including a pharmacy resident. HCPs received education by pharmacy staff on evidence-based prescribing for adult acute bronchitis and quarterly feedback on antibiotic prescribing rates. All prescribing and dispensing records necessary for the program were available in the clinic electronic health record. The rate of potentially inappropriate antibiotic prescribing was calculated as the proportion of eligible bronchitis cases who received antibiotics.

In October 2018, a 60-minute educational session was provided by 2 pharmacists to HCPs. The material covered an overview of acute bronchitis presentation, diagnosis, treatment (Table 1), and a comparison of national and local prescribing data (baseline audit).^2-4 The educational session concluded with prescription strategies to reduce inappropriate antibiotic prescribing, including but not limited to: delayed prescriptions, patient and caregiver education, use of nonantibiotic medications to control symptoms, and use of A&F reports.^5-8 At the conclusion of the session, HCPs committed to engage in the antimicrobial stewardship program.

Audit

To determine the total number of eligible bronchitis cases (denominator), a visit report was generated by a pharmacist for a primary diagnosis of acute bronchitis using International Statistical Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision (ICD 10) codes (J20.3 - J20.9) for the review period. Only adults aged ≥ 18 years were included. Patients with a chronic lung disease (eg, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, asthma) and those who had a concomitant bacterial infection (eg, urinary tract infection, cellulitis) were excluded. A visit for acute bronchitis that included additional ICD 10 codes indicating the patient had a chronic lung disease or concomitant bacterial infection were used to determine exclusion. The remaining patients who received a potentially inappropriate antibiotic prescription (numerator) were those who were prescribed or dispensed antibiotics on the date of service.

Feedback

Baseline data were presented to HCPs during the educational session in October 2018. Prospective audits were performed quarterly thereafter (January, April, and July) by the pharmacy resident using the criteria described above. Audit data were compiled into personalized reports and provided to HCPs by the pharmacy resident with written and verbal individual feedback. Written feedback was sent by email to each HCP containing the HCP’s rate, the clinic rate in aggregate, rates from the prior year and quarter(s) for comparison, and clinical pearls from the guidelines (Figure). Verbal feedback included a review of the written feedback and answering any questions concerning the report.

Implementation

Study periods were chosen to coincide with the pharmacy residency training year, which starts in July and ends in June. The start date of October 2018 differed from the start of the residency year (July 2018) owing to delays in obtaining permissions. A&F and analysis of prescribing rates continued through the end of the residency year, for total duration of 9 months (October 1, 2018 to June 30, 2019). For ease of reporting, quarterly reports followed the federal government’s fiscal year (FY) which runs from October 1 of the prior calendar year through September 30 of the year being described. HCPs received 4 feedback reports: baseline (October 1, 2018 - June 30, 2018) in October 2018, quarter 1 (October 1, 2018 - December 31, 2018) in January 2019, quarter 2 (January 1, 2019 - March 31, 2019) in April 2019, and quarter 3 (April 1, 2019 - June 30, 2019) in July 2019.

Statistical Analysis

Prescribing rates were compared between identical 9 -month periods. A 2-sample binomial test for proportions was used to derive an approximate CI of prescribing rates at the patient level. However, to account for clustering of patients within HCP panels and dependence of observations over study periods stemming from examining the same HCPs within each of the periods, the Wilcoxon signed rank test for paired data was used to evaluate prescribing rates at the HCP level. Statistical analysis was performed using R statistical software version 4.0.3. Differences were considered significant at P < .05 set a priori.

This study was approved by the Portland Area Indian Health Service Institutional Review Board (Study ID: 1316730).

Results

All 9 HCPs who see adult patients at the clinic agreed to participate and were all fully present in each study period. Among HCPs, there were 5 physicians and 4 physician assistants or nurse practitioners. There was a total of 213 visits that met study criteria during the baseline period (October 1, 2017 to June 30, 2018) and 177 visits in the posteducation period (October 1, 2018 to June 30, 2019). The total number of acute bronchitis encounters varied by HCP (Ranges, 5-63 [baseline] and 2-57 [posteducation]); however, the relative number of encounters each HCP contributed was similar in each study period (Table 2). The pharmacy resident spent about 2 hours each quarter to generate 9 feedback reports, 1 for each HCP.

Antibiotic Prescribing

Antibiotic prescribing rates decreased from 75% at baseline to 60% at posteducation month 9 (absolute difference, -15% [95% CI, 5 - 24%]; P ≤ .01) (Table 3). The clinic rate was lower for each quarter in FY 2019 (posteducation) compared with the same quarter of FY 2018 (baseline), with the lowest rate observed in the final quarter of the study. Comparing pre- and post- A&F, the rates for HCPs prescribing antibiotics were lower for 7 HCPs, unchanged for 1 HCP, and slightly increased for 1 HCP(P = .02).

Discussion

Acute bronchitis remains a common diagnosis where antibiotics are prescribed despite being a predominately viral illness. Guidelines and evidence-based practices advise against antibiotics for this diagnosis. According to the American Academy of Family Physicians, antibiotics are reserved for cases where chronic lung disease is present as these patients are at a high risk of developing pneumonia.³ The decision to prescribe antibiotics is complex and driven by several interdependent factors, such as patient expectations, health system limitations, clinician training, and specialty.¹⁵ HCPs may more aggressively treat acute bronchitis among American Indian/Alaskan Native (AI/AN) people due to a high risk of developing serious complications from respiratory illnesses.¹⁶ A clinician’s background, usual patient cohort (ie, mostly pediatric or geriatric), and time spent in urgent care or in activities outside of patient care (administration) may account for the difference in patient encounters by HCP for acute bronchitis.

Following the CDC framework, this antimicrobial stewardship program helped empower people involved in patient care (eg, pharmacists, HCPs), educate staff on proper use of antibiotics for acute bronchitis, and track and report antibiotic prescribing through the A&F process. Educational interventions coupled with ongoing A&F are reproducible by other health care facilities and are not usually time consuming. This study showcases a successful example of implementing A&F in an antimicrobial stewardship quality improvement project that could be translated toward other conditions (eg, sinusitis, urinary tract infection, community-acquired pneumonia).

In a similar study, Meeker and colleagues used a variation of an A&F intervention using a monthly email showing peer comparisons to notify clinicians who were prescribing too many unnecessary antibiotics for common respiratory illnesses that did not require antibiotics, such as the common cold.¹⁷ The peer comparison intervention arm emailed a rank order that listed prescribers by the number of prescriptions for common respiratory illnesses. This intervention demonstrated a reduction of 5.2% in inappropriate antibiotic prescribing.

Limitations

This quality improvement study had several limitations. The study did not account for the duration of symptoms as a factor to judge appropriateness. Although this was identified early in the study, it was unavoidable since there was no report that could extract the duration of symptoms in the electronic health record. Future studies should consider a manual review of each encounter to overcome this limitation. Another limitation was that only three-quarters of the year and not the entire year were reviewed. Future studies should include longer time frames to measure the durability of changes to antibiotic prescriptions. Lastly, the study did not assess diagnosis shifting (the practice of changing the proportion of antibiotic-appropriate acute respiratory tract infection diagnosis over time), effects of patient demographics (patient age and sex were not recorded), or any sustained effect on prescribing rates after the study ended.

Conclusions

Clinician education coupled with A&F are components of the CDC’s framework for an effective antimicrobial stewardship program. The intervention seem to be an effective means toward reducing inappropriate antibiotic prescribing for acute bronchitis and has the potential for application to other antimicrobial stewardship initiatives. The present study adds to the growing body of evidence on the importance and impact an antimicrobial stewardship program has on a clinic or health system.

Acknowledgment

The results of this study have been reported at the 2019 IHS Southwest Regional Pharmacy Continuing Education Seminar, April 12-14, 2019.

Antibiotics are commonly overused for several viral respiratory conditions where antibiotic treatment is not clinically indicated. For example, a 2016 study by Fleming-Dutra and colleagues showed that at least 30% of all antibiotics prescribed in an outpatient setting were inappropriate and for acute bronchitis, antibiotic prescriptions were inappropriate in 50% of cases.¹ Acute bronchitis is predominantly a viral illness where antibiotics should be rarely used.^2-8 The Healthcare Effectiveness Data and Information Set has measured the avoidance of antibiotic treatment in adults with acute bronchitis since 2006. The National Committee for Quality Assurance reported in 2018 that about 75% of adults received antibiotics for acute bronchitis.⁹ Inappropriate antibiotic use contributes to antimicrobial resistance, resulting in the increase of morbidity and mortality of treatable infections.¹⁰ Reducing inappropriate antibiotic use in outpatient settings is a high-priority public health issue and is a Healthy People 2030 objective.¹¹

Antimicrobial Stewardship

Antimicrobial stewardship programs measure and track how antibiotics are prescribed by health care providers (HCPs) and used by patients. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) created a framework for outpatient antimicrobial stewardship programs by outlining 4 core elements: (1) commitment from every person involved in patient care to act as an antibiotic steward; (2) policies and interventions to promote appropriate antibiotic prescribing practices; (3) antibiotic prescription tracking and reporting; and (4) appropriate antibiotic use education.¹²

Audit and feedback (A&F) is a form of antibiotic prescription tracking and reporting that involves measuring and comparing a HCP’s performance (ie, antibiotic prescribing) with a standard, and the results of this audit are shared with the HCP. This strategy is based on the belief that a HCP is motivated to modify practice habits when given feedback showing that his or her performance is inconsistent with targeted expectations. A&F is most effective when feedback is provided by a supervisor or respected peer, presented more than once, individualized, delivered in both verbal and written formats, and includes explicit targets and an action plan.^13,14

This study focuses on an antimicrobial stewardship program implemented in an outpatient Indian Health Service ambulatory care clinic in the Pacific Northwest. The clinic was staffed by 9 HCPs serving about 12,000 American Indian and Alaskan Native patients. The clinic includes a full-service pharmacy where nearly all prescriptions issued by in-house HCPs are filled. The clinic’s antibiotic prescribing rate for adult patients with acute bronchitis was similar to the national mean in 2018 (75%).⁹ The study objective was to reduce the rate of potentially inappropriate (not guideline-concordant) antibiotic prescribing in patients with acute bronchitis without underlying chronic lung disease or evidence of bacterial infection through A&F.

Methods

The antimicrobial stewardship program was implemented by 3 pharmacists, including a pharmacy resident. HCPs received education by pharmacy staff on evidence-based prescribing for adult acute bronchitis and quarterly feedback on antibiotic prescribing rates. All prescribing and dispensing records necessary for the program were available in the clinic electronic health record. The rate of potentially inappropriate antibiotic prescribing was calculated as the proportion of eligible bronchitis cases who received antibiotics.

In October 2018, a 60-minute educational session was provided by 2 pharmacists to HCPs. The material covered an overview of acute bronchitis presentation, diagnosis, treatment (Table 1), and a comparison of national and local prescribing data (baseline audit).^2-4 The educational session concluded with prescription strategies to reduce inappropriate antibiotic prescribing, including but not limited to: delayed prescriptions, patient and caregiver education, use of nonantibiotic medications to control symptoms, and use of A&F reports.^5-8 At the conclusion of the session, HCPs committed to engage in the antimicrobial stewardship program.

Audit

To determine the total number of eligible bronchitis cases (denominator), a visit report was generated by a pharmacist for a primary diagnosis of acute bronchitis using International Statistical Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision (ICD 10) codes (J20.3 - J20.9) for the review period. Only adults aged ≥ 18 years were included. Patients with a chronic lung disease (eg, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, asthma) and those who had a concomitant bacterial infection (eg, urinary tract infection, cellulitis) were excluded. A visit for acute bronchitis that included additional ICD 10 codes indicating the patient had a chronic lung disease or concomitant bacterial infection were used to determine exclusion. The remaining patients who received a potentially inappropriate antibiotic prescription (numerator) were those who were prescribed or dispensed antibiotics on the date of service.

Feedback

Baseline data were presented to HCPs during the educational session in October 2018. Prospective audits were performed quarterly thereafter (January, April, and July) by the pharmacy resident using the criteria described above. Audit data were compiled into personalized reports and provided to HCPs by the pharmacy resident with written and verbal individual feedback. Written feedback was sent by email to each HCP containing the HCP’s rate, the clinic rate in aggregate, rates from the prior year and quarter(s) for comparison, and clinical pearls from the guidelines (Figure). Verbal feedback included a review of the written feedback and answering any questions concerning the report.

Implementation

Study periods were chosen to coincide with the pharmacy residency training year, which starts in July and ends in June. The start date of October 2018 differed from the start of the residency year (July 2018) owing to delays in obtaining permissions. A&F and analysis of prescribing rates continued through the end of the residency year, for total duration of 9 months (October 1, 2018 to June 30, 2019). For ease of reporting, quarterly reports followed the federal government’s fiscal year (FY) which runs from October 1 of the prior calendar year through September 30 of the year being described. HCPs received 4 feedback reports: baseline (October 1, 2018 - June 30, 2018) in October 2018, quarter 1 (October 1, 2018 - December 31, 2018) in January 2019, quarter 2 (January 1, 2019 - March 31, 2019) in April 2019, and quarter 3 (April 1, 2019 - June 30, 2019) in July 2019.

Statistical Analysis

Prescribing rates were compared between identical 9 -month periods. A 2-sample binomial test for proportions was used to derive an approximate CI of prescribing rates at the patient level. However, to account for clustering of patients within HCP panels and dependence of observations over study periods stemming from examining the same HCPs within each of the periods, the Wilcoxon signed rank test for paired data was used to evaluate prescribing rates at the HCP level. Statistical analysis was performed using R statistical software version 4.0.3. Differences were considered significant at P < .05 set a priori.

This study was approved by the Portland Area Indian Health Service Institutional Review Board (Study ID: 1316730).

Results

All 9 HCPs who see adult patients at the clinic agreed to participate and were all fully present in each study period. Among HCPs, there were 5 physicians and 4 physician assistants or nurse practitioners. There was a total of 213 visits that met study criteria during the baseline period (October 1, 2017 to June 30, 2018) and 177 visits in the posteducation period (October 1, 2018 to June 30, 2019). The total number of acute bronchitis encounters varied by HCP (Ranges, 5-63 [baseline] and 2-57 [posteducation]); however, the relative number of encounters each HCP contributed was similar in each study period (Table 2). The pharmacy resident spent about 2 hours each quarter to generate 9 feedback reports, 1 for each HCP.

Antibiotic Prescribing

Antibiotic prescribing rates decreased from 75% at baseline to 60% at posteducation month 9 (absolute difference, -15% [95% CI, 5 - 24%]; P ≤ .01) (Table 3). The clinic rate was lower for each quarter in FY 2019 (posteducation) compared with the same quarter of FY 2018 (baseline), with the lowest rate observed in the final quarter of the study. Comparing pre- and post- A&F, the rates for HCPs prescribing antibiotics were lower for 7 HCPs, unchanged for 1 HCP, and slightly increased for 1 HCP(P = .02).

Discussion

Acute bronchitis remains a common diagnosis where antibiotics are prescribed despite being a predominately viral illness. Guidelines and evidence-based practices advise against antibiotics for this diagnosis. According to the American Academy of Family Physicians, antibiotics are reserved for cases where chronic lung disease is present as these patients are at a high risk of developing pneumonia.³ The decision to prescribe antibiotics is complex and driven by several interdependent factors, such as patient expectations, health system limitations, clinician training, and specialty.¹⁵ HCPs may more aggressively treat acute bronchitis among American Indian/Alaskan Native (AI/AN) people due to a high risk of developing serious complications from respiratory illnesses.¹⁶ A clinician’s background, usual patient cohort (ie, mostly pediatric or geriatric), and time spent in urgent care or in activities outside of patient care (administration) may account for the difference in patient encounters by HCP for acute bronchitis.

Following the CDC framework, this antimicrobial stewardship program helped empower people involved in patient care (eg, pharmacists, HCPs), educate staff on proper use of antibiotics for acute bronchitis, and track and report antibiotic prescribing through the A&F process. Educational interventions coupled with ongoing A&F are reproducible by other health care facilities and are not usually time consuming. This study showcases a successful example of implementing A&F in an antimicrobial stewardship quality improvement project that could be translated toward other conditions (eg, sinusitis, urinary tract infection, community-acquired pneumonia).

In a similar study, Meeker and colleagues used a variation of an A&F intervention using a monthly email showing peer comparisons to notify clinicians who were prescribing too many unnecessary antibiotics for common respiratory illnesses that did not require antibiotics, such as the common cold.¹⁷ The peer comparison intervention arm emailed a rank order that listed prescribers by the number of prescriptions for common respiratory illnesses. This intervention demonstrated a reduction of 5.2% in inappropriate antibiotic prescribing.

Limitations

This quality improvement study had several limitations. The study did not account for the duration of symptoms as a factor to judge appropriateness. Although this was identified early in the study, it was unavoidable since there was no report that could extract the duration of symptoms in the electronic health record. Future studies should consider a manual review of each encounter to overcome this limitation. Another limitation was that only three-quarters of the year and not the entire year were reviewed. Future studies should include longer time frames to measure the durability of changes to antibiotic prescriptions. Lastly, the study did not assess diagnosis shifting (the practice of changing the proportion of antibiotic-appropriate acute respiratory tract infection diagnosis over time), effects of patient demographics (patient age and sex were not recorded), or any sustained effect on prescribing rates after the study ended.

Conclusions

Clinician education coupled with A&F are components of the CDC’s framework for an effective antimicrobial stewardship program. The intervention seem to be an effective means toward reducing inappropriate antibiotic prescribing for acute bronchitis and has the potential for application to other antimicrobial stewardship initiatives. The present study adds to the growing body of evidence on the importance and impact an antimicrobial stewardship program has on a clinic or health system.

Acknowledgment

The results of this study have been reported at the 2019 IHS Southwest Regional Pharmacy Continuing Education Seminar, April 12-14, 2019.

Over 6.3 million doses of COVID-19 vaccine have been administered to children aged 12-17 years as of June 7, according to data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

The latest results from the CDC’s COVID Data Tracker show that 22.5% of all U.S. children aged 12-15 years have received at least one dose of a vaccine, compared with 38.1% of those aged 16-17, with the corresponding figures for vaccine completion coming in at 4.1% and 26.4%. Compared with a week earlier, those numbers are up by 15.4% (one dose) and 486% (completion) for the younger group and by 4.7% and 8.6%, respectively, for the older children.

Children aged 12-15 represented 17.9% of all persons who initiated vaccination in the last 14 days up to June 7, while children aged 16-17 made up 4.8% of vaccine initiation over that period. The 25- to 39-year-olds, at 23.7% of all vaccine initiators, were the only group ahead of those aged 12-15, and the 50- to 64-year-olds were just behind at 17.7%, the CDC data show.

Both groups of children were on the low side, however, when it came to vaccine completion in the last 14 days, with those aged 12-15 at 6.7% of the total and those aged 16-17 years at 4.3%. The only age groups lower than that were ≥75 at 3.5% and <12 at 0.2%, and the highest share of vaccine completion was 26.0% for those aged 25-39, which also happens to be the group with the largest share of the U.S. population (20.5%), the CDC said.

People considered fully vaccinated are those who have received the second dose of a two-dose series or one dose of a single-shot vaccine, but children under age 18 years are eligible only for the Pfizer-BioNTech version, the CDC noted.

Meanwhile, back on the incidence side of the COVID-19 pandemic, the number of new cases in U.S. children for the week ending June 3 was at its lowest point (16,281) since mid-June of 2020, according to a report from the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Children’s Hospital Association.

Cases among children now total 3.99 million, which represents 14.1% of cases among all ages, a proportion that hasn’t increased since mid-May, which hasn’t happened since the two groups started keeping track in mid-April of 2020 in the 49 states (excluding New York), the District of Columbia, New York City, Puerto Rico, and Guam that report such data by age.

Less encouraging was the CDC’s report that “COVID-19-associated hospitalization rates among adolescents ages 12-17 years increased during March and April, following declines in January and February 2021.”

Children have been experiencing much lower rates of severe disease than those of adults throughout the pandemic, the CDC pointed out, but “recent increases in COVID-19-associated hospitalization rates and the potential for severe disease in adolescents reinforce the importance of continued prevention strategies, including vaccination and the correct and consistent use of masks in those who are not yet fully vaccinated.”

rfranki@mdedge.com

Over 6.3 million doses of COVID-19 vaccine have been administered to children aged 12-17 years as of June 7, according to data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

The latest results from the CDC’s COVID Data Tracker show that 22.5% of all U.S. children aged 12-15 years have received at least one dose of a vaccine, compared with 38.1% of those aged 16-17, with the corresponding figures for vaccine completion coming in at 4.1% and 26.4%. Compared with a week earlier, those numbers are up by 15.4% (one dose) and 486% (completion) for the younger group and by 4.7% and 8.6%, respectively, for the older children.

Children aged 12-15 represented 17.9% of all persons who initiated vaccination in the last 14 days up to June 7, while children aged 16-17 made up 4.8% of vaccine initiation over that period. The 25- to 39-year-olds, at 23.7% of all vaccine initiators, were the only group ahead of those aged 12-15, and the 50- to 64-year-olds were just behind at 17.7%, the CDC data show.

Both groups of children were on the low side, however, when it came to vaccine completion in the last 14 days, with those aged 12-15 at 6.7% of the total and those aged 16-17 years at 4.3%. The only age groups lower than that were ≥75 at 3.5% and <12 at 0.2%, and the highest share of vaccine completion was 26.0% for those aged 25-39, which also happens to be the group with the largest share of the U.S. population (20.5%), the CDC said.

People considered fully vaccinated are those who have received the second dose of a two-dose series or one dose of a single-shot vaccine, but children under age 18 years are eligible only for the Pfizer-BioNTech version, the CDC noted.

Meanwhile, back on the incidence side of the COVID-19 pandemic, the number of new cases in U.S. children for the week ending June 3 was at its lowest point (16,281) since mid-June of 2020, according to a report from the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Children’s Hospital Association.

Cases among children now total 3.99 million, which represents 14.1% of cases among all ages, a proportion that hasn’t increased since mid-May, which hasn’t happened since the two groups started keeping track in mid-April of 2020 in the 49 states (excluding New York), the District of Columbia, New York City, Puerto Rico, and Guam that report such data by age.

Less encouraging was the CDC’s report that “COVID-19-associated hospitalization rates among adolescents ages 12-17 years increased during March and April, following declines in January and February 2021.”

Children have been experiencing much lower rates of severe disease than those of adults throughout the pandemic, the CDC pointed out, but “recent increases in COVID-19-associated hospitalization rates and the potential for severe disease in adolescents reinforce the importance of continued prevention strategies, including vaccination and the correct and consistent use of masks in those who are not yet fully vaccinated.”

rfranki@mdedge.com

Over 6.3 million doses of COVID-19 vaccine have been administered to children aged 12-17 years as of June 7, according to data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

The latest results from the CDC’s COVID Data Tracker show that 22.5% of all U.S. children aged 12-15 years have received at least one dose of a vaccine, compared with 38.1% of those aged 16-17, with the corresponding figures for vaccine completion coming in at 4.1% and 26.4%. Compared with a week earlier, those numbers are up by 15.4% (one dose) and 486% (completion) for the younger group and by 4.7% and 8.6%, respectively, for the older children.

Children aged 12-15 represented 17.9% of all persons who initiated vaccination in the last 14 days up to June 7, while children aged 16-17 made up 4.8% of vaccine initiation over that period. The 25- to 39-year-olds, at 23.7% of all vaccine initiators, were the only group ahead of those aged 12-15, and the 50- to 64-year-olds were just behind at 17.7%, the CDC data show.

Both groups of children were on the low side, however, when it came to vaccine completion in the last 14 days, with those aged 12-15 at 6.7% of the total and those aged 16-17 years at 4.3%. The only age groups lower than that were ≥75 at 3.5% and <12 at 0.2%, and the highest share of vaccine completion was 26.0% for those aged 25-39, which also happens to be the group with the largest share of the U.S. population (20.5%), the CDC said.

People considered fully vaccinated are those who have received the second dose of a two-dose series or one dose of a single-shot vaccine, but children under age 18 years are eligible only for the Pfizer-BioNTech version, the CDC noted.

Meanwhile, back on the incidence side of the COVID-19 pandemic, the number of new cases in U.S. children for the week ending June 3 was at its lowest point (16,281) since mid-June of 2020, according to a report from the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Children’s Hospital Association.

Cases among children now total 3.99 million, which represents 14.1% of cases among all ages, a proportion that hasn’t increased since mid-May, which hasn’t happened since the two groups started keeping track in mid-April of 2020 in the 49 states (excluding New York), the District of Columbia, New York City, Puerto Rico, and Guam that report such data by age.

Less encouraging was the CDC’s report that “COVID-19-associated hospitalization rates among adolescents ages 12-17 years increased during March and April, following declines in January and February 2021.”

Children have been experiencing much lower rates of severe disease than those of adults throughout the pandemic, the CDC pointed out, but “recent increases in COVID-19-associated hospitalization rates and the potential for severe disease in adolescents reinforce the importance of continued prevention strategies, including vaccination and the correct and consistent use of masks in those who are not yet fully vaccinated.”

rfranki@mdedge.com

Last month, U.S. government researchers began a test of an experimental influenza vaccine that they hope will provide long-lasting immunity against multiple strains of the virus. Their project adds to the many approaches that have been tried in the decades-long quest for a universal flu shot.

For the first time, the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) is testing an investigational flu vaccine, known as FluMos-v1, on people. Researchers in recent years have targeted the stalk or stem of an influenza surface protein called hemagglutinin (HA) in trying to develop better flu vaccines. NIAID said FluMos-v1 is designed to spark production of antibodies against the HA protein from different virus strains, which could make it superior to vaccines now available, NIAID said.

“It could be longer lasting than the traditional flu vaccine and give us what we call super seasonal protection that might go beyond just one flu season to next year’s or the year after, or offer additional protection in a pandemic setting,” Alicia T. Widge, MD, of NIAID’s Vaccine Research Center, who is the principal investigator of the trial, said in an interview.

The phase 1 study (NCT04896086) aims to enroll 35 participants, 15 of whom will receive a single intramuscular injection of a comparator treatment, Flucelvax, which has already been approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. The FluMos-v1 group will start with five participants who will receive one 20-μg dose. If no safety problems emerge at that dosage, another 15 volunteers will receive one 60-μg dose of the investigational vaccine.

The incorporation of a comparator group in the phase 1 study may help investigators get an early idea of how well FluMos-v1 compares to a marketed product, Dr. Widge said. The test will be carried out through the National Institutes of Health Clinical Center.
 

‘Renaissance’ of flu-vaccine research?

Currently, flu vaccines are reformulated each year in an attempt to match the dominant strain for the upcoming season, an effort that often falls notably short. The estimated vaccine effectiveness rate in the United States has ranged from a low of 19% to a high of 60% in recent years, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Scientists have been working for decades on a universal flu vaccine that would offer better results but haven’t yet identified the right strategy to outwit mutations in the virus. Recent setbacks include BiondVax Pharmaceuticals’ October 2020 announcement of a failed phase 3 trial of its experimental M-001 universal flu vaccine candidate.

But advances in understanding the immune system may set the stage for a “renaissance” in efforts to develop a universal flu vaccine, Michael Osterholm, PhD, MPH, director of the Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy at the University of Minnesota, said in an interview.

The COVID-19 pandemic has spurred greater interest in the need to develop a universal flu vaccine, he said. Dr. Osterholm said he is “more optimistic now than ever” about the chances for developing vaccines that can fend off multiple strains over longer periods, although the goal of a shot that can ward off influenza in all cases may remain elusive.

“How good can we make them? Will they ever be really universal? Will they have long periods of protection? I don’t think any of us know that yet,” Dr. Osterholm said. “But this is not the influenza vaccine world of 5 or 7 years ago.”

The mRNA technology used to develop the world’s first approved COVID-19 vaccines, for example, may be applied against influenza, Dr. Osterholm said.

In January 2021, Moderna announced plans to test three development candidates for a seasonal influenza vaccine and aims to start a phase 1 study this year. In an April interview on CNBC’s Squawk Box program, Moderna’s chief executive, Stephané Bancel, spoke about the company’s plans to eventually create a combination vaccine for SARS-Cov-2 and flu viruses.

SARS-CoV-2 “is not going away.” Like flu, this virus will persist and change forms, Ms. Bancel said. Creating a flu shot that outperforms the existing ones would boost confidence in influenza vaccines, which many people now skip, Ms. Bancel said. People might someday be able to get a combination of this more effective flu shot with a COVID-19 vaccine booster in their local pharmacies.

“You can take one dose and then have a nice winter,” Ms. Bancel said of Moderna’s goal for a combination vaccine.

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

Last month, U.S. government researchers began a test of an experimental influenza vaccine that they hope will provide long-lasting immunity against multiple strains of the virus. Their project adds to the many approaches that have been tried in the decades-long quest for a universal flu shot.

For the first time, the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) is testing an investigational flu vaccine, known as FluMos-v1, on people. Researchers in recent years have targeted the stalk or stem of an influenza surface protein called hemagglutinin (HA) in trying to develop better flu vaccines. NIAID said FluMos-v1 is designed to spark production of antibodies against the HA protein from different virus strains, which could make it superior to vaccines now available, NIAID said.

“It could be longer lasting than the traditional flu vaccine and give us what we call super seasonal protection that might go beyond just one flu season to next year’s or the year after, or offer additional protection in a pandemic setting,” Alicia T. Widge, MD, of NIAID’s Vaccine Research Center, who is the principal investigator of the trial, said in an interview.

The phase 1 study (NCT04896086) aims to enroll 35 participants, 15 of whom will receive a single intramuscular injection of a comparator treatment, Flucelvax, which has already been approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. The FluMos-v1 group will start with five participants who will receive one 20-μg dose. If no safety problems emerge at that dosage, another 15 volunteers will receive one 60-μg dose of the investigational vaccine.

The incorporation of a comparator group in the phase 1 study may help investigators get an early idea of how well FluMos-v1 compares to a marketed product, Dr. Widge said. The test will be carried out through the National Institutes of Health Clinical Center.
 

‘Renaissance’ of flu-vaccine research?

Currently, flu vaccines are reformulated each year in an attempt to match the dominant strain for the upcoming season, an effort that often falls notably short. The estimated vaccine effectiveness rate in the United States has ranged from a low of 19% to a high of 60% in recent years, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Scientists have been working for decades on a universal flu vaccine that would offer better results but haven’t yet identified the right strategy to outwit mutations in the virus. Recent setbacks include BiondVax Pharmaceuticals’ October 2020 announcement of a failed phase 3 trial of its experimental M-001 universal flu vaccine candidate.

But advances in understanding the immune system may set the stage for a “renaissance” in efforts to develop a universal flu vaccine, Michael Osterholm, PhD, MPH, director of the Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy at the University of Minnesota, said in an interview.

The COVID-19 pandemic has spurred greater interest in the need to develop a universal flu vaccine, he said. Dr. Osterholm said he is “more optimistic now than ever” about the chances for developing vaccines that can fend off multiple strains over longer periods, although the goal of a shot that can ward off influenza in all cases may remain elusive.

“How good can we make them? Will they ever be really universal? Will they have long periods of protection? I don’t think any of us know that yet,” Dr. Osterholm said. “But this is not the influenza vaccine world of 5 or 7 years ago.”

The mRNA technology used to develop the world’s first approved COVID-19 vaccines, for example, may be applied against influenza, Dr. Osterholm said.

In January 2021, Moderna announced plans to test three development candidates for a seasonal influenza vaccine and aims to start a phase 1 study this year. In an April interview on CNBC’s Squawk Box program, Moderna’s chief executive, Stephané Bancel, spoke about the company’s plans to eventually create a combination vaccine for SARS-Cov-2 and flu viruses.

SARS-CoV-2 “is not going away.” Like flu, this virus will persist and change forms, Ms. Bancel said. Creating a flu shot that outperforms the existing ones would boost confidence in influenza vaccines, which many people now skip, Ms. Bancel said. People might someday be able to get a combination of this more effective flu shot with a COVID-19 vaccine booster in their local pharmacies.

“You can take one dose and then have a nice winter,” Ms. Bancel said of Moderna’s goal for a combination vaccine.

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

Last month, U.S. government researchers began a test of an experimental influenza vaccine that they hope will provide long-lasting immunity against multiple strains of the virus. Their project adds to the many approaches that have been tried in the decades-long quest for a universal flu shot.

For the first time, the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) is testing an investigational flu vaccine, known as FluMos-v1, on people. Researchers in recent years have targeted the stalk or stem of an influenza surface protein called hemagglutinin (HA) in trying to develop better flu vaccines. NIAID said FluMos-v1 is designed to spark production of antibodies against the HA protein from different virus strains, which could make it superior to vaccines now available, NIAID said.

“It could be longer lasting than the traditional flu vaccine and give us what we call super seasonal protection that might go beyond just one flu season to next year’s or the year after, or offer additional protection in a pandemic setting,” Alicia T. Widge, MD, of NIAID’s Vaccine Research Center, who is the principal investigator of the trial, said in an interview.

The phase 1 study (NCT04896086) aims to enroll 35 participants, 15 of whom will receive a single intramuscular injection of a comparator treatment, Flucelvax, which has already been approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. The FluMos-v1 group will start with five participants who will receive one 20-μg dose. If no safety problems emerge at that dosage, another 15 volunteers will receive one 60-μg dose of the investigational vaccine.

The incorporation of a comparator group in the phase 1 study may help investigators get an early idea of how well FluMos-v1 compares to a marketed product, Dr. Widge said. The test will be carried out through the National Institutes of Health Clinical Center.
 

‘Renaissance’ of flu-vaccine research?

Currently, flu vaccines are reformulated each year in an attempt to match the dominant strain for the upcoming season, an effort that often falls notably short. The estimated vaccine effectiveness rate in the United States has ranged from a low of 19% to a high of 60% in recent years, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Scientists have been working for decades on a universal flu vaccine that would offer better results but haven’t yet identified the right strategy to outwit mutations in the virus. Recent setbacks include BiondVax Pharmaceuticals’ October 2020 announcement of a failed phase 3 trial of its experimental M-001 universal flu vaccine candidate.

But advances in understanding the immune system may set the stage for a “renaissance” in efforts to develop a universal flu vaccine, Michael Osterholm, PhD, MPH, director of the Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy at the University of Minnesota, said in an interview.

The COVID-19 pandemic has spurred greater interest in the need to develop a universal flu vaccine, he said. Dr. Osterholm said he is “more optimistic now than ever” about the chances for developing vaccines that can fend off multiple strains over longer periods, although the goal of a shot that can ward off influenza in all cases may remain elusive.

“How good can we make them? Will they ever be really universal? Will they have long periods of protection? I don’t think any of us know that yet,” Dr. Osterholm said. “But this is not the influenza vaccine world of 5 or 7 years ago.”

The mRNA technology used to develop the world’s first approved COVID-19 vaccines, for example, may be applied against influenza, Dr. Osterholm said.

In January 2021, Moderna announced plans to test three development candidates for a seasonal influenza vaccine and aims to start a phase 1 study this year. In an April interview on CNBC’s Squawk Box program, Moderna’s chief executive, Stephané Bancel, spoke about the company’s plans to eventually create a combination vaccine for SARS-Cov-2 and flu viruses.

SARS-CoV-2 “is not going away.” Like flu, this virus will persist and change forms, Ms. Bancel said. Creating a flu shot that outperforms the existing ones would boost confidence in influenza vaccines, which many people now skip, Ms. Bancel said. People might someday be able to get a combination of this more effective flu shot with a COVID-19 vaccine booster in their local pharmacies.

“You can take one dose and then have a nice winter,” Ms. Bancel said of Moderna’s goal for a combination vaccine.

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

As we marked the 1-year anniversary of the COVID-19 pandemic, nearly 100 million Americans had received their first dose of the COVID-19 vaccine, heralding some sense of relief and enabling us to envision a return to something resembling life before lockdown.¹ Amid these breakthroughs and vaccination campaigns forging ahead worldwide, we saw new questions and problems arise. Vaccine hesitancy was already an issue in many segments of society where misinformation and mistrust of the medical establishment have served as barriers to the progress of public health. Once reports of adverse reactions following COVID-19 vaccination—such as those linked to use of facial fillers—made news headlines, many in the dermatology community began facing inquiries from patients questioning if they should wait to receive the vaccine or skip it entirely. As dermatologists, we must be informed and prepared to address these situations, to manage adverse reactions when they arise, and to encourage and promote vaccination during this critical time for public health in our society.

Cutaneous Vaccine Reactions and Facial Fillers

As public COVID-19 vaccinations move forward, dermatologic side effects, which were first noted during clinical trials, have received amplified attention, despite the fact that these cutaneous reactions—including localized injection-site redness and swelling, generalized urticarial and morbilliform eruptions, and even facial filler reactions—have been reported as relatively minor and self-limited.² The excipient polyethylene glycol has been suspected as a possible etiology of vaccine-related allergic and hypersensitivity reactions, suggesting care be taken in those who are patch-test positive or have a history of allergy to polyethylene glycol–containing products (eg, penicillin, laxatives, makeup, certain dermal fillers).^2,3 Although rare, facial and lip swelling reactions in those with a prior history of facial fillers in COVID-19 vaccine trials have drawn particular public concern and potential vaccine hesitancy given that more than 2.7 million Americans seek treatment with dermal fillers annually. There has been continued demand for these treatments during the pandemic, particularly due to aesthetic sensitivity surrounding video conferencing.⁴

Release of trial data from the Moderna COVID-19 vaccine prompted a discourse around safety and recommended protocols for filler procedures in the community of aesthetic medicine, as 3 participants in the experimental arm—all of whom had a history of treatment with facial filler injections—were reported to have facial or lip swelling shortly following vaccination. Two of these cases were considered to be serious adverse events due to extensive facial swelling, with the participants having received filler injections 6 months and 2 weeks prior to vaccination, respectively.⁵ A third participant experienced lip swelling only, which according to the US Food and Drug Administration briefing document was considered “medically significant” but not a serious adverse event, with unknown timing of the most recent filler injection. In all cases, symptom onset began 1 or 2 days following vaccination, and all resolved with either no or minimal intervention.⁶ The US Food and Drug Administration briefing document does not detail which type of fillers each participant had received, but subsequent reports indicated hyaluronic acid (HA) fillers. Of note, one patient in the placebo arm of the trial also developed progressive periorbital and facial edema in the setting of known filler injections performed 5 weeks prior, requiring treatment with corticosteroids and barring her from receiving a second injection in the trial.⁷

After public vaccination started, additional reports have emerged of facial edema occurring following administration of both the Pfizer and Moderna COVID-19 vaccines.^2,8,9 In one series, 4 cases of facial swelling were reported in patients who had HA filler placed more than 1 year prior to vaccination.⁹ The first patient, who had a history of HA fillers in the temples and cheeks, developed moderate periorbital swelling 2 days following her second dose of the Pfizer vaccine. Another patient who had received a series of filler injections over the last 3 years experienced facial swelling 24 hours after her second dose of the Moderna vaccine and also reported a similar reaction in the past following an upper respiratory tract infection. The third patient developed perioral and infraorbital edema 18 hours after her first dose of the Moderna vaccine. The fourth patient developed inflammation in filler-treated areas 10 days after the first dose of the Pfizer vaccine and notably had a history of filler reaction to an unknown trigger in 2019 that was treated with hyaluronidase, intralesional steroids, and 5-fluorouracil. All cases of facial edema reportedly resolved.⁹

The observed adverse events have been proposed as delayed-type hypersensitivity reactions (DTRs) to facial fillers and are suspected to be triggered by the COVID-19 spike protein and subsequent immunogenic response. This reaction is not unique to the COVID-19 vaccines; in fact, many inflammatory stimuli such as sinus infections, flulike illnesses, facial injury, dental procedures, and exposure to certain medications and chemotherapeutics have triggered DTRs in filler patients, especially in those with genetic or immunologic risk factors including certain human leukocyte antigen subtypes or autoimmune disorders.³

Counseling Patients and Reducing Risks

As reports of DTRs to facial fillers after COVID-19 vaccination continue to emerge, it is not surprising that patients may become confused by potential side effects and postpone vaccination as a result. This evolving situation has called upon aesthetic physicians to adapt our practice and prepare our patients. Most importantly, we must continue to follow the data and integrate evidence-based COVID-19 vaccine–related counseling into our office visits. It is paramount to encourage vaccination and inform patients that these rare adverse events are both temporary and treatable. Given the currently available data, patients with a history of treatment with dermal fillers should not be discouraged from receiving the vaccine; however, we may provide suggestions to lessen the likelihood of adverse reactions and ease patient concerns. For example, it may be helpful to consider a time frame between vaccination and filler procedures that is longer than 2 weeks, just as would be advised for those having dental procedures or with recent infections, and potentially longer windows for those with risk factors such as prior sensitivity to dermal fillers, autoimmune disorders, or those on immunomodulatory medications. Dilution of fillers with saline or lidocaine or use of non-HA fillers also may be suggested around the time of vaccination to mitigate the risk of DTRs.³

Managing Vaccine Reactions

If facial swelling does occur despite these precautions and lasts longer than 48 hours, treatment with antihistamines, steroids, and/or hyaluronidase has been successful in vaccine trial and posttrial patients, both alone or in combination, and are likely to resolve edema promptly without altering the effectiveness of the vaccine.^3,5,9 Angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors such as lisinopril more recently have been recommended for treatment of facial edema following COVID-19 vaccination,⁹ but questions remain regarding the true efficacy in this scenario given that the majority of swelling reactions resolve without this treatment. Additionally, there were no controls to indicate treatment with the angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor demonstrated an actual impact. Dermatologists generally are wary of adding medications of questionable utility that are associated with potential side effects and drug reactions, given that we often are tasked with managing the consequences of such mistakes. Thus, to avoid additional harm in the setting of insufficient evidence, as was seen following widespread use of hydroxychloroquine at the outset of the COVID-19 pandemic, well-structured studies are required before such interventions can be recommended.

If symptoms arise following the first vaccine injection, they can be managed if needed while patients are reassured and advised to obtain their second dose, with pretreatment considerations including antihistamines and instruction to present to the emergency department if a more severe reaction is suspected.² In a larger sense, we also can contribute to the collective knowledge, growth, and preparedness of the medical community by reporting cases of adverse events to vaccine reporting systems and registries, such as the US Department of Health and Human Services’ Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s V-Safe After Vaccination Health Checker, and the American Academy of Dermatology’s COVID-19 Dermatology Registry.

Final Thoughts

As dermatologists, we now find ourselves in the familiar role of balancing the aesthetic goals of our patients with our primary mission of public health and safety at a time when their health and well-being is particularly vulnerable. Adverse reactions will continue to occur as larger segments of the world’s population become vaccinated. Meanwhile, we must continue to manage symptoms, dispel myths, emphasize that any dermatologic risk posed by the COVID-19 vaccines is far outweighed by the benefits of immunization, and promote health and education, looking ahead to life beyond the pandemic.

As we marked the 1-year anniversary of the COVID-19 pandemic, nearly 100 million Americans had received their first dose of the COVID-19 vaccine, heralding some sense of relief and enabling us to envision a return to something resembling life before lockdown.¹ Amid these breakthroughs and vaccination campaigns forging ahead worldwide, we saw new questions and problems arise. Vaccine hesitancy was already an issue in many segments of society where misinformation and mistrust of the medical establishment have served as barriers to the progress of public health. Once reports of adverse reactions following COVID-19 vaccination—such as those linked to use of facial fillers—made news headlines, many in the dermatology community began facing inquiries from patients questioning if they should wait to receive the vaccine or skip it entirely. As dermatologists, we must be informed and prepared to address these situations, to manage adverse reactions when they arise, and to encourage and promote vaccination during this critical time for public health in our society.

Cutaneous Vaccine Reactions and Facial Fillers

As public COVID-19 vaccinations move forward, dermatologic side effects, which were first noted during clinical trials, have received amplified attention, despite the fact that these cutaneous reactions—including localized injection-site redness and swelling, generalized urticarial and morbilliform eruptions, and even facial filler reactions—have been reported as relatively minor and self-limited.² The excipient polyethylene glycol has been suspected as a possible etiology of vaccine-related allergic and hypersensitivity reactions, suggesting care be taken in those who are patch-test positive or have a history of allergy to polyethylene glycol–containing products (eg, penicillin, laxatives, makeup, certain dermal fillers).^2,3 Although rare, facial and lip swelling reactions in those with a prior history of facial fillers in COVID-19 vaccine trials have drawn particular public concern and potential vaccine hesitancy given that more than 2.7 million Americans seek treatment with dermal fillers annually. There has been continued demand for these treatments during the pandemic, particularly due to aesthetic sensitivity surrounding video conferencing.⁴

Release of trial data from the Moderna COVID-19 vaccine prompted a discourse around safety and recommended protocols for filler procedures in the community of aesthetic medicine, as 3 participants in the experimental arm—all of whom had a history of treatment with facial filler injections—were reported to have facial or lip swelling shortly following vaccination. Two of these cases were considered to be serious adverse events due to extensive facial swelling, with the participants having received filler injections 6 months and 2 weeks prior to vaccination, respectively.⁵ A third participant experienced lip swelling only, which according to the US Food and Drug Administration briefing document was considered “medically significant” but not a serious adverse event, with unknown timing of the most recent filler injection. In all cases, symptom onset began 1 or 2 days following vaccination, and all resolved with either no or minimal intervention.⁶ The US Food and Drug Administration briefing document does not detail which type of fillers each participant had received, but subsequent reports indicated hyaluronic acid (HA) fillers. Of note, one patient in the placebo arm of the trial also developed progressive periorbital and facial edema in the setting of known filler injections performed 5 weeks prior, requiring treatment with corticosteroids and barring her from receiving a second injection in the trial.⁷

After public vaccination started, additional reports have emerged of facial edema occurring following administration of both the Pfizer and Moderna COVID-19 vaccines.^2,8,9 In one series, 4 cases of facial swelling were reported in patients who had HA filler placed more than 1 year prior to vaccination.⁹ The first patient, who had a history of HA fillers in the temples and cheeks, developed moderate periorbital swelling 2 days following her second dose of the Pfizer vaccine. Another patient who had received a series of filler injections over the last 3 years experienced facial swelling 24 hours after her second dose of the Moderna vaccine and also reported a similar reaction in the past following an upper respiratory tract infection. The third patient developed perioral and infraorbital edema 18 hours after her first dose of the Moderna vaccine. The fourth patient developed inflammation in filler-treated areas 10 days after the first dose of the Pfizer vaccine and notably had a history of filler reaction to an unknown trigger in 2019 that was treated with hyaluronidase, intralesional steroids, and 5-fluorouracil. All cases of facial edema reportedly resolved.⁹

The observed adverse events have been proposed as delayed-type hypersensitivity reactions (DTRs) to facial fillers and are suspected to be triggered by the COVID-19 spike protein and subsequent immunogenic response. This reaction is not unique to the COVID-19 vaccines; in fact, many inflammatory stimuli such as sinus infections, flulike illnesses, facial injury, dental procedures, and exposure to certain medications and chemotherapeutics have triggered DTRs in filler patients, especially in those with genetic or immunologic risk factors including certain human leukocyte antigen subtypes or autoimmune disorders.³

Counseling Patients and Reducing Risks

As reports of DTRs to facial fillers after COVID-19 vaccination continue to emerge, it is not surprising that patients may become confused by potential side effects and postpone vaccination as a result. This evolving situation has called upon aesthetic physicians to adapt our practice and prepare our patients. Most importantly, we must continue to follow the data and integrate evidence-based COVID-19 vaccine–related counseling into our office visits. It is paramount to encourage vaccination and inform patients that these rare adverse events are both temporary and treatable. Given the currently available data, patients with a history of treatment with dermal fillers should not be discouraged from receiving the vaccine; however, we may provide suggestions to lessen the likelihood of adverse reactions and ease patient concerns. For example, it may be helpful to consider a time frame between vaccination and filler procedures that is longer than 2 weeks, just as would be advised for those having dental procedures or with recent infections, and potentially longer windows for those with risk factors such as prior sensitivity to dermal fillers, autoimmune disorders, or those on immunomodulatory medications. Dilution of fillers with saline or lidocaine or use of non-HA fillers also may be suggested around the time of vaccination to mitigate the risk of DTRs.³

Managing Vaccine Reactions

If facial swelling does occur despite these precautions and lasts longer than 48 hours, treatment with antihistamines, steroids, and/or hyaluronidase has been successful in vaccine trial and posttrial patients, both alone or in combination, and are likely to resolve edema promptly without altering the effectiveness of the vaccine.^3,5,9 Angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors such as lisinopril more recently have been recommended for treatment of facial edema following COVID-19 vaccination,⁹ but questions remain regarding the true efficacy in this scenario given that the majority of swelling reactions resolve without this treatment. Additionally, there were no controls to indicate treatment with the angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor demonstrated an actual impact. Dermatologists generally are wary of adding medications of questionable utility that are associated with potential side effects and drug reactions, given that we often are tasked with managing the consequences of such mistakes. Thus, to avoid additional harm in the setting of insufficient evidence, as was seen following widespread use of hydroxychloroquine at the outset of the COVID-19 pandemic, well-structured studies are required before such interventions can be recommended.

If symptoms arise following the first vaccine injection, they can be managed if needed while patients are reassured and advised to obtain their second dose, with pretreatment considerations including antihistamines and instruction to present to the emergency department if a more severe reaction is suspected.² In a larger sense, we also can contribute to the collective knowledge, growth, and preparedness of the medical community by reporting cases of adverse events to vaccine reporting systems and registries, such as the US Department of Health and Human Services’ Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s V-Safe After Vaccination Health Checker, and the American Academy of Dermatology’s COVID-19 Dermatology Registry.

Final Thoughts

As dermatologists, we now find ourselves in the familiar role of balancing the aesthetic goals of our patients with our primary mission of public health and safety at a time when their health and well-being is particularly vulnerable. Adverse reactions will continue to occur as larger segments of the world’s population become vaccinated. Meanwhile, we must continue to manage symptoms, dispel myths, emphasize that any dermatologic risk posed by the COVID-19 vaccines is far outweighed by the benefits of immunization, and promote health and education, looking ahead to life beyond the pandemic.

As we marked the 1-year anniversary of the COVID-19 pandemic, nearly 100 million Americans had received their first dose of the COVID-19 vaccine, heralding some sense of relief and enabling us to envision a return to something resembling life before lockdown.¹ Amid these breakthroughs and vaccination campaigns forging ahead worldwide, we saw new questions and problems arise. Vaccine hesitancy was already an issue in many segments of society where misinformation and mistrust of the medical establishment have served as barriers to the progress of public health. Once reports of adverse reactions following COVID-19 vaccination—such as those linked to use of facial fillers—made news headlines, many in the dermatology community began facing inquiries from patients questioning if they should wait to receive the vaccine or skip it entirely. As dermatologists, we must be informed and prepared to address these situations, to manage adverse reactions when they arise, and to encourage and promote vaccination during this critical time for public health in our society.

Cutaneous Vaccine Reactions and Facial Fillers

As public COVID-19 vaccinations move forward, dermatologic side effects, which were first noted during clinical trials, have received amplified attention, despite the fact that these cutaneous reactions—including localized injection-site redness and swelling, generalized urticarial and morbilliform eruptions, and even facial filler reactions—have been reported as relatively minor and self-limited.² The excipient polyethylene glycol has been suspected as a possible etiology of vaccine-related allergic and hypersensitivity reactions, suggesting care be taken in those who are patch-test positive or have a history of allergy to polyethylene glycol–containing products (eg, penicillin, laxatives, makeup, certain dermal fillers).^2,3 Although rare, facial and lip swelling reactions in those with a prior history of facial fillers in COVID-19 vaccine trials have drawn particular public concern and potential vaccine hesitancy given that more than 2.7 million Americans seek treatment with dermal fillers annually. There has been continued demand for these treatments during the pandemic, particularly due to aesthetic sensitivity surrounding video conferencing.⁴

Release of trial data from the Moderna COVID-19 vaccine prompted a discourse around safety and recommended protocols for filler procedures in the community of aesthetic medicine, as 3 participants in the experimental arm—all of whom had a history of treatment with facial filler injections—were reported to have facial or lip swelling shortly following vaccination. Two of these cases were considered to be serious adverse events due to extensive facial swelling, with the participants having received filler injections 6 months and 2 weeks prior to vaccination, respectively.⁵ A third participant experienced lip swelling only, which according to the US Food and Drug Administration briefing document was considered “medically significant” but not a serious adverse event, with unknown timing of the most recent filler injection. In all cases, symptom onset began 1 or 2 days following vaccination, and all resolved with either no or minimal intervention.⁶ The US Food and Drug Administration briefing document does not detail which type of fillers each participant had received, but subsequent reports indicated hyaluronic acid (HA) fillers. Of note, one patient in the placebo arm of the trial also developed progressive periorbital and facial edema in the setting of known filler injections performed 5 weeks prior, requiring treatment with corticosteroids and barring her from receiving a second injection in the trial.⁷

After public vaccination started, additional reports have emerged of facial edema occurring following administration of both the Pfizer and Moderna COVID-19 vaccines.^2,8,9 In one series, 4 cases of facial swelling were reported in patients who had HA filler placed more than 1 year prior to vaccination.⁹ The first patient, who had a history of HA fillers in the temples and cheeks, developed moderate periorbital swelling 2 days following her second dose of the Pfizer vaccine. Another patient who had received a series of filler injections over the last 3 years experienced facial swelling 24 hours after her second dose of the Moderna vaccine and also reported a similar reaction in the past following an upper respiratory tract infection. The third patient developed perioral and infraorbital edema 18 hours after her first dose of the Moderna vaccine. The fourth patient developed inflammation in filler-treated areas 10 days after the first dose of the Pfizer vaccine and notably had a history of filler reaction to an unknown trigger in 2019 that was treated with hyaluronidase, intralesional steroids, and 5-fluorouracil. All cases of facial edema reportedly resolved.⁹

The observed adverse events have been proposed as delayed-type hypersensitivity reactions (DTRs) to facial fillers and are suspected to be triggered by the COVID-19 spike protein and subsequent immunogenic response. This reaction is not unique to the COVID-19 vaccines; in fact, many inflammatory stimuli such as sinus infections, flulike illnesses, facial injury, dental procedures, and exposure to certain medications and chemotherapeutics have triggered DTRs in filler patients, especially in those with genetic or immunologic risk factors including certain human leukocyte antigen subtypes or autoimmune disorders.³

Counseling Patients and Reducing Risks

As reports of DTRs to facial fillers after COVID-19 vaccination continue to emerge, it is not surprising that patients may become confused by potential side effects and postpone vaccination as a result. This evolving situation has called upon aesthetic physicians to adapt our practice and prepare our patients. Most importantly, we must continue to follow the data and integrate evidence-based COVID-19 vaccine–related counseling into our office visits. It is paramount to encourage vaccination and inform patients that these rare adverse events are both temporary and treatable. Given the currently available data, patients with a history of treatment with dermal fillers should not be discouraged from receiving the vaccine; however, we may provide suggestions to lessen the likelihood of adverse reactions and ease patient concerns. For example, it may be helpful to consider a time frame between vaccination and filler procedures that is longer than 2 weeks, just as would be advised for those having dental procedures or with recent infections, and potentially longer windows for those with risk factors such as prior sensitivity to dermal fillers, autoimmune disorders, or those on immunomodulatory medications. Dilution of fillers with saline or lidocaine or use of non-HA fillers also may be suggested around the time of vaccination to mitigate the risk of DTRs.³

Managing Vaccine Reactions

If facial swelling does occur despite these precautions and lasts longer than 48 hours, treatment with antihistamines, steroids, and/or hyaluronidase has been successful in vaccine trial and posttrial patients, both alone or in combination, and are likely to resolve edema promptly without altering the effectiveness of the vaccine.^3,5,9 Angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors such as lisinopril more recently have been recommended for treatment of facial edema following COVID-19 vaccination,⁹ but questions remain regarding the true efficacy in this scenario given that the majority of swelling reactions resolve without this treatment. Additionally, there were no controls to indicate treatment with the angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor demonstrated an actual impact. Dermatologists generally are wary of adding medications of questionable utility that are associated with potential side effects and drug reactions, given that we often are tasked with managing the consequences of such mistakes. Thus, to avoid additional harm in the setting of insufficient evidence, as was seen following widespread use of hydroxychloroquine at the outset of the COVID-19 pandemic, well-structured studies are required before such interventions can be recommended.

If symptoms arise following the first vaccine injection, they can be managed if needed while patients are reassured and advised to obtain their second dose, with pretreatment considerations including antihistamines and instruction to present to the emergency department if a more severe reaction is suspected.² In a larger sense, we also can contribute to the collective knowledge, growth, and preparedness of the medical community by reporting cases of adverse events to vaccine reporting systems and registries, such as the US Department of Health and Human Services’ Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s V-Safe After Vaccination Health Checker, and the American Academy of Dermatology’s COVID-19 Dermatology Registry.

Final Thoughts

As dermatologists, we now find ourselves in the familiar role of balancing the aesthetic goals of our patients with our primary mission of public health and safety at a time when their health and well-being is particularly vulnerable. Adverse reactions will continue to occur as larger segments of the world’s population become vaccinated. Meanwhile, we must continue to manage symptoms, dispel myths, emphasize that any dermatologic risk posed by the COVID-19 vaccines is far outweighed by the benefits of immunization, and promote health and education, looking ahead to life beyond the pandemic.

Case Report

A 67-year-old woman presented with a painful expanding ulcer on the left leg and a new nearby ulcer of 2 months’ duration. She initially was seen 2 months prior for a wound on the left knee due to a fall as well as cellulitis, which was treated with intravenous vancomycin and ceftriaxone. Wound cultures were negative for bacteria, and she was discharged without antibiotics. She presented to the emergency department 1 month later for malodorous discharge of the first ulcer with zero systemic inflammatory response syndrome criteria; no fever; and no abnormal heart rate, respiratory rate, or leukocyte count. She was discharged with wound care. After 3 weeks, she returned with a second ulcer and worsening drainage but zero systemic inflammatory response syndrome criteria. She had a medical history of Crohn disease with 9-year remission, atrial fibrillation, pacemaker, mitral valve replacement, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and a 51 pack-year smoking history.

Physical examination of the left leg revealed a 3×3-cm deep lesion (ulcer A) on the distal left thigh located superomedial to the knee (Figure 1) as well as a 2×1-cm deep lesion (ulcer B) on the anteromedial knee with undermining and tunneling (Figure 2). A large amount of malodorous tan bloody discharge was present on both ulcers. There were no signs of induration or crepitus.Due to concerns of skin and soft tissue infection (SSTI) or osteomyelitis, a bone scan and wound and blood cultures were ordered. The patient was started on vancomycin and piperacillin-tazobactam in the emergency department, which later was augmented with cefepime. Trauma surgery scheduled debridement for the following morning with suspicion of necrotizing fasciitis. Additional consultations were requested, including infectious disease, wound care, and dermatology. Dermatology evaluated the wound, performed a punch biopsy, and canceled debridement due to unclear diagnosis. The clinical differential at that time included pyoderma gangrenosum (PG), atypical vasculitis, or infection. Additional workup revealed positive antineutrophil cytoplasmic antibodies but negative proteinase 3 and myeloperoxidase, disfavoring vasculitis. Wound cultures grew Staphylococcus aureus and Pseudomonas aeruginosa.

Comment

Pyoderma gangrenosum is a rare inflammatory skin condition that classically presents as tender papules or pustules evolving into painful ulcers, most commonly on the lower extremities. Pyoderma gangrenosum has a propensity to exhibit pathergy, the hyperreactivity of the skin in response to minor trauma. This phenomenon in PG manifests as the rapid evolution from pustule to ulceration with violaceous undermining borders.

Diagnosis of PG
Pyoderma gangrenosum has been described as a diagnosis of exclusion, as its findings frequently mimic SSTIs. Important findings to obtain are histology, history, ulcer morphology, and response to treatment.

In 2018, Maverakis et al¹ proposed diagnostic criteria for classic ulcerative PG (Table 1). A diagnosis of PG can be made if the patient meets 1 major criterion and 4 minor criteria. Our case met 0 major criteria and 5 minor criteria: history of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD); history of pustule ulcerating within 4 days of appearing; peripheral erythema, undermining border, and tenderness at ulceration site; multiple ulcerations, with at least 1 on an anterior lower leg; and decreased ulcer size within 1 month of initiating immunosuppressive medication(s). Although our patient’s biopsy demonstrated a mixed infiltrate, PG was not excluded due to spontaneous resolution at the time of biopsy, emphasizing the need to biopsy subsequent new lesions if neutrophils are not initially seen.¹ Pyoderma gangrenosum frequently is associated with IBD, most often Crohn disease, as seen in our patient.^2-4 Although IBD classically is associated with smoking, studies have yet to conclude if smoking is a predictive factor of PG.⁵ Our patient presented with an initial ulcer that evolved into 2 ulcers, similar to a case of bilateral ulcers.⁶

Management of PG
A gold standard of treatment of PG does not exist, but the goal is to promote wound healing. Patients with limited disease typically can be managed with wound care and topical steroids or calcineurin inhibitors, though data on efficacy are limited. However, our patient had more extensive disease and needed to be treated with systemic therapy. First-line therapy for extensive disease includes oral prednisone or cyclosporine for patients who cannot tolerate systemic corticosteroids.¹² Second-line and adjunctive therapy options include dapsone, minocycline, methotrexate, and infliximab. Our patient was prescribed a 7-month course of dapsone with outpatient dermatology and demonstrated resolution of both ulcers. Dapsone was tapered from a daily dose of 100 mg to 50 mg to 25 mg to none over the course of 2 to 3 months. Close monitoring with wound care is recommended, and petroleum jelly can be used for dry skin around the lesion for comfort.

Conclusion

The diagnosis of PG is challenging because it relies heavily on clinical signs and often mimics SSTI. Gathering a detailed medical history is critical to make the diagnosis of PG. In a patient with associated features of PG, dermatologic consultation and biopsy of skin lesions should be considered. Physicians should evaluate for suspected PG prior to proceeding with surgical intervention to avoid unnecessary amputation. The diagnostic criteria for classic ulcerative PG are gaining wider acceptance and are a useful tool for clinicians.

Case Report

A 67-year-old woman presented with a painful expanding ulcer on the left leg and a new nearby ulcer of 2 months’ duration. She initially was seen 2 months prior for a wound on the left knee due to a fall as well as cellulitis, which was treated with intravenous vancomycin and ceftriaxone. Wound cultures were negative for bacteria, and she was discharged without antibiotics. She presented to the emergency department 1 month later for malodorous discharge of the first ulcer with zero systemic inflammatory response syndrome criteria; no fever; and no abnormal heart rate, respiratory rate, or leukocyte count. She was discharged with wound care. After 3 weeks, she returned with a second ulcer and worsening drainage but zero systemic inflammatory response syndrome criteria. She had a medical history of Crohn disease with 9-year remission, atrial fibrillation, pacemaker, mitral valve replacement, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and a 51 pack-year smoking history.

Physical examination of the left leg revealed a 3×3-cm deep lesion (ulcer A) on the distal left thigh located superomedial to the knee (Figure 1) as well as a 2×1-cm deep lesion (ulcer B) on the anteromedial knee with undermining and tunneling (Figure 2). A large amount of malodorous tan bloody discharge was present on both ulcers. There were no signs of induration or crepitus.Due to concerns of skin and soft tissue infection (SSTI) or osteomyelitis, a bone scan and wound and blood cultures were ordered. The patient was started on vancomycin and piperacillin-tazobactam in the emergency department, which later was augmented with cefepime. Trauma surgery scheduled debridement for the following morning with suspicion of necrotizing fasciitis. Additional consultations were requested, including infectious disease, wound care, and dermatology. Dermatology evaluated the wound, performed a punch biopsy, and canceled debridement due to unclear diagnosis. The clinical differential at that time included pyoderma gangrenosum (PG), atypical vasculitis, or infection. Additional workup revealed positive antineutrophil cytoplasmic antibodies but negative proteinase 3 and myeloperoxidase, disfavoring vasculitis. Wound cultures grew Staphylococcus aureus and Pseudomonas aeruginosa.

Comment

Pyoderma gangrenosum is a rare inflammatory skin condition that classically presents as tender papules or pustules evolving into painful ulcers, most commonly on the lower extremities. Pyoderma gangrenosum has a propensity to exhibit pathergy, the hyperreactivity of the skin in response to minor trauma. This phenomenon in PG manifests as the rapid evolution from pustule to ulceration with violaceous undermining borders.

Diagnosis of PG
Pyoderma gangrenosum has been described as a diagnosis of exclusion, as its findings frequently mimic SSTIs. Important findings to obtain are histology, history, ulcer morphology, and response to treatment.

In 2018, Maverakis et al¹ proposed diagnostic criteria for classic ulcerative PG (Table 1). A diagnosis of PG can be made if the patient meets 1 major criterion and 4 minor criteria. Our case met 0 major criteria and 5 minor criteria: history of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD); history of pustule ulcerating within 4 days of appearing; peripheral erythema, undermining border, and tenderness at ulceration site; multiple ulcerations, with at least 1 on an anterior lower leg; and decreased ulcer size within 1 month of initiating immunosuppressive medication(s). Although our patient’s biopsy demonstrated a mixed infiltrate, PG was not excluded due to spontaneous resolution at the time of biopsy, emphasizing the need to biopsy subsequent new lesions if neutrophils are not initially seen.¹ Pyoderma gangrenosum frequently is associated with IBD, most often Crohn disease, as seen in our patient.^2-4 Although IBD classically is associated with smoking, studies have yet to conclude if smoking is a predictive factor of PG.⁵ Our patient presented with an initial ulcer that evolved into 2 ulcers, similar to a case of bilateral ulcers.⁶

Management of PG
A gold standard of treatment of PG does not exist, but the goal is to promote wound healing. Patients with limited disease typically can be managed with wound care and topical steroids or calcineurin inhibitors, though data on efficacy are limited. However, our patient had more extensive disease and needed to be treated with systemic therapy. First-line therapy for extensive disease includes oral prednisone or cyclosporine for patients who cannot tolerate systemic corticosteroids.¹² Second-line and adjunctive therapy options include dapsone, minocycline, methotrexate, and infliximab. Our patient was prescribed a 7-month course of dapsone with outpatient dermatology and demonstrated resolution of both ulcers. Dapsone was tapered from a daily dose of 100 mg to 50 mg to 25 mg to none over the course of 2 to 3 months. Close monitoring with wound care is recommended, and petroleum jelly can be used for dry skin around the lesion for comfort.

Conclusion

The diagnosis of PG is challenging because it relies heavily on clinical signs and often mimics SSTI. Gathering a detailed medical history is critical to make the diagnosis of PG. In a patient with associated features of PG, dermatologic consultation and biopsy of skin lesions should be considered. Physicians should evaluate for suspected PG prior to proceeding with surgical intervention to avoid unnecessary amputation. The diagnostic criteria for classic ulcerative PG are gaining wider acceptance and are a useful tool for clinicians.

Case Report

A 67-year-old woman presented with a painful expanding ulcer on the left leg and a new nearby ulcer of 2 months’ duration. She initially was seen 2 months prior for a wound on the left knee due to a fall as well as cellulitis, which was treated with intravenous vancomycin and ceftriaxone. Wound cultures were negative for bacteria, and she was discharged without antibiotics. She presented to the emergency department 1 month later for malodorous discharge of the first ulcer with zero systemic inflammatory response syndrome criteria; no fever; and no abnormal heart rate, respiratory rate, or leukocyte count. She was discharged with wound care. After 3 weeks, she returned with a second ulcer and worsening drainage but zero systemic inflammatory response syndrome criteria. She had a medical history of Crohn disease with 9-year remission, atrial fibrillation, pacemaker, mitral valve replacement, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and a 51 pack-year smoking history.

Physical examination of the left leg revealed a 3×3-cm deep lesion (ulcer A) on the distal left thigh located superomedial to the knee (Figure 1) as well as a 2×1-cm deep lesion (ulcer B) on the anteromedial knee with undermining and tunneling (Figure 2). A large amount of malodorous tan bloody discharge was present on both ulcers. There were no signs of induration or crepitus.Due to concerns of skin and soft tissue infection (SSTI) or osteomyelitis, a bone scan and wound and blood cultures were ordered. The patient was started on vancomycin and piperacillin-tazobactam in the emergency department, which later was augmented with cefepime. Trauma surgery scheduled debridement for the following morning with suspicion of necrotizing fasciitis. Additional consultations were requested, including infectious disease, wound care, and dermatology. Dermatology evaluated the wound, performed a punch biopsy, and canceled debridement due to unclear diagnosis. The clinical differential at that time included pyoderma gangrenosum (PG), atypical vasculitis, or infection. Additional workup revealed positive antineutrophil cytoplasmic antibodies but negative proteinase 3 and myeloperoxidase, disfavoring vasculitis. Wound cultures grew Staphylococcus aureus and Pseudomonas aeruginosa.

Comment

Pyoderma gangrenosum is a rare inflammatory skin condition that classically presents as tender papules or pustules evolving into painful ulcers, most commonly on the lower extremities. Pyoderma gangrenosum has a propensity to exhibit pathergy, the hyperreactivity of the skin in response to minor trauma. This phenomenon in PG manifests as the rapid evolution from pustule to ulceration with violaceous undermining borders.

Diagnosis of PG
Pyoderma gangrenosum has been described as a diagnosis of exclusion, as its findings frequently mimic SSTIs. Important findings to obtain are histology, history, ulcer morphology, and response to treatment.

In 2018, Maverakis et al¹ proposed diagnostic criteria for classic ulcerative PG (Table 1). A diagnosis of PG can be made if the patient meets 1 major criterion and 4 minor criteria. Our case met 0 major criteria and 5 minor criteria: history of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD); history of pustule ulcerating within 4 days of appearing; peripheral erythema, undermining border, and tenderness at ulceration site; multiple ulcerations, with at least 1 on an anterior lower leg; and decreased ulcer size within 1 month of initiating immunosuppressive medication(s). Although our patient’s biopsy demonstrated a mixed infiltrate, PG was not excluded due to spontaneous resolution at the time of biopsy, emphasizing the need to biopsy subsequent new lesions if neutrophils are not initially seen.¹ Pyoderma gangrenosum frequently is associated with IBD, most often Crohn disease, as seen in our patient.^2-4 Although IBD classically is associated with smoking, studies have yet to conclude if smoking is a predictive factor of PG.⁵ Our patient presented with an initial ulcer that evolved into 2 ulcers, similar to a case of bilateral ulcers.⁶

Management of PG
A gold standard of treatment of PG does not exist, but the goal is to promote wound healing. Patients with limited disease typically can be managed with wound care and topical steroids or calcineurin inhibitors, though data on efficacy are limited. However, our patient had more extensive disease and needed to be treated with systemic therapy. First-line therapy for extensive disease includes oral prednisone or cyclosporine for patients who cannot tolerate systemic corticosteroids.¹² Second-line and adjunctive therapy options include dapsone, minocycline, methotrexate, and infliximab. Our patient was prescribed a 7-month course of dapsone with outpatient dermatology and demonstrated resolution of both ulcers. Dapsone was tapered from a daily dose of 100 mg to 50 mg to 25 mg to none over the course of 2 to 3 months. Close monitoring with wound care is recommended, and petroleum jelly can be used for dry skin around the lesion for comfort.

Conclusion

The diagnosis of PG is challenging because it relies heavily on clinical signs and often mimics SSTI. Gathering a detailed medical history is critical to make the diagnosis of PG. In a patient with associated features of PG, dermatologic consultation and biopsy of skin lesions should be considered. Physicians should evaluate for suspected PG prior to proceeding with surgical intervention to avoid unnecessary amputation. The diagnostic criteria for classic ulcerative PG are gaining wider acceptance and are a useful tool for clinicians.

REFERENCES

1. CDC. COVID Data Tracker. Accessed June 3, 2021. https://covid.cdc.gov/covid-data-tracker/#datatracker-home
2. WHO Coronavirus (COVID-19) Dashboard. Accessed June 3, 2021. https://covid19.who.int/
3. CDC. Demographic trends of people receiving COVID-19 vaccinations in the United States. Accessed June 3, 2021. https://covid.cdc.gov/covid-data-tracker/#vaccination-demographics-trends
4. Shimabukuro T. Update: thrombosis with thrombocytopenia syndrome (TTS) following COVID-19 vaccination. Presentation to the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, May 12, 2021. Accessed June 3, 2021. https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/acip/meetings/downloads/slides-2021-05-12/07-COVID-Shimabukuro-508.pdf
5. Fleming-Dutra K. CDC COVID-19 vaccine effectiveness studies. Presentation to the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, May 12, 2021. Accessed June 3, 2021. www.cdc.gov/vaccines/acip/meetings/downloads/slides-2021-05-12/09-COVID-Fleming-Dutra-508.pdf
6. Scobie H. Update on emerging SARS-CoV-2 variants and vaccine considerations. Presentation to the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, May 12, 2021. Accessed June 3, 2021. www.cdc.gov/vaccines/acip/meetings/downloads/slides-2021-05-12/10-COVID-Scobie-508.pdf

REFERENCES

1. CDC. COVID Data Tracker. Accessed June 3, 2021. https://covid.cdc.gov/covid-data-tracker/#datatracker-home
2. WHO Coronavirus (COVID-19) Dashboard. Accessed June 3, 2021. https://covid19.who.int/
3. CDC. Demographic trends of people receiving COVID-19 vaccinations in the United States. Accessed June 3, 2021. https://covid.cdc.gov/covid-data-tracker/#vaccination-demographics-trends
4. Shimabukuro T. Update: thrombosis with thrombocytopenia syndrome (TTS) following COVID-19 vaccination. Presentation to the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, May 12, 2021. Accessed June 3, 2021. https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/acip/meetings/downloads/slides-2021-05-12/07-COVID-Shimabukuro-508.pdf
5. Fleming-Dutra K. CDC COVID-19 vaccine effectiveness studies. Presentation to the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, May 12, 2021. Accessed June 3, 2021. www.cdc.gov/vaccines/acip/meetings/downloads/slides-2021-05-12/09-COVID-Fleming-Dutra-508.pdf
6. Scobie H. Update on emerging SARS-CoV-2 variants and vaccine considerations. Presentation to the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, May 12, 2021. Accessed June 3, 2021. www.cdc.gov/vaccines/acip/meetings/downloads/slides-2021-05-12/10-COVID-Scobie-508.pdf

REFERENCES

1. CDC. COVID Data Tracker. Accessed June 3, 2021. https://covid.cdc.gov/covid-data-tracker/#datatracker-home
2. WHO Coronavirus (COVID-19) Dashboard. Accessed June 3, 2021. https://covid19.who.int/
3. CDC. Demographic trends of people receiving COVID-19 vaccinations in the United States. Accessed June 3, 2021. https://covid.cdc.gov/covid-data-tracker/#vaccination-demographics-trends
4. Shimabukuro T. Update: thrombosis with thrombocytopenia syndrome (TTS) following COVID-19 vaccination. Presentation to the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, May 12, 2021. Accessed June 3, 2021. https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/acip/meetings/downloads/slides-2021-05-12/07-COVID-Shimabukuro-508.pdf
5. Fleming-Dutra K. CDC COVID-19 vaccine effectiveness studies. Presentation to the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, May 12, 2021. Accessed June 3, 2021. www.cdc.gov/vaccines/acip/meetings/downloads/slides-2021-05-12/09-COVID-Fleming-Dutra-508.pdf
6. Scobie H. Update on emerging SARS-CoV-2 variants and vaccine considerations. Presentation to the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, May 12, 2021. Accessed June 3, 2021. www.cdc.gov/vaccines/acip/meetings/downloads/slides-2021-05-12/10-COVID-Scobie-508.pdf

Among infants younger than 1 year of age, bacterial meningitis is associated with worse long-term mortality, even after recovery from the initial infection. Heightened mortality risk stretched out to 10 years, and was highest in the wake of infection from Streptococcus agalactiae, according to a retrospective analysis of children in the Netherlands.

“The adjusted hazard rates were high for the whole group of bacterial meningitis, especially within the first year after onset. (Staphylococcus agalactiae) meningitis has the highest mortality risk within one year of disease onset,” Linde Snoek said during her presentation of the study (abstract 913) at the annual meeting of the European Society for Paediatric Infectious Diseases, held virtually this year. Ms. Snoek is a PhD student at Amsterdam University Medical Center.

Over longer time periods, the mortality associations were different. “The adjusted hazard rates were highest for pneumococcal meningitis compared to the other pathogens. And this was the case for 1 year, 5 years, and 10 years after disease onset,” said Ms. Snoek.

The study appears to be the first to look at extended mortality following bacterial meningitis in this age group, according to Marie Rohr, MD, who comoderated the session where the research was presented.

“In a quick review of the literature I did not find any [equivalent] study concerning short- and long-term mortality after bacterial meningitis in under 1 year of age,” said Dr. Rohr, a fellow in pediatric infectious diseases at University Hospitals of Geneva. But the message to physicians is clear. “Children with history of bacterial meningitis have a higher long-term mortality than children without a history of bacterial meningitis,” said Dr. Rohr.

The study did have a key limitation: For matched controls, it relied on anonymous data from the Municipal Personal Records Database in Statistics Netherlands. “Important information like cause of death is lacking,” said Dr. Rohr.

Bacterial meningitis is associated with significant mortality and morbidity. Pathogens behind the infections vary with age group and geographic location, as well as immunization status.

To examine long-term mortality after bacterial meningitis, the researchers collected 1,646 records from an exposed cohort, with a date range of 1995 to 2018, from the Netherlands Reference Laboratory for Bacterial Meningitis. Included patients had a positive culture diagnosis of bacterial meningitis during the first year of life. Each exposed subject was compared to 10 controls matched by birth month, birth year, and sex, who had no exposure to bacterial meningitis.

Staphylococcus pneumoniae accounted for the most cases, at 32.0% (median age of onset, 180 days), followed by Neisseria meningitidis at 29.0% (median age of onset, 203 days). Other pathogens included S. agalactiae (19.7%, 10 days), Escherichia coli (8.8%, 13 days), and Haemophilus influenzae (5.4%, 231 days).

The mortality risk within 1 year of disease onset was higher for all pathogens (6.2% vs. 0.2% unexposed). The highest mortality risk was seen for S. agalactiae (8.7%), followed by E. coli (6.4%), N. meningitidis (4.9%), and H. influenzae (3.4%).

Hazard ratios (HR) for mortality were also higher, particularly in the first year after disease onset. For all pathogens, mortality rates were higher within 1 year (HR, 39.2), 5 years (HR, 28.7), and 10 years (HR, 24.1). The consistently highest mortality rates were associated with S. pneumoniae over 1-year, 5-year, and 10-year follow-up (HR, 42.8; HR, 45.6; HR, 40.6, respectively). Within 1 year, the highest mortality rate was associated with N. meningitidis (HR, 58.4).

Ms. Snoek and Dr. Rohr have no relevant financial disclosures.

Among infants younger than 1 year of age, bacterial meningitis is associated with worse long-term mortality, even after recovery from the initial infection. Heightened mortality risk stretched out to 10 years, and was highest in the wake of infection from Streptococcus agalactiae, according to a retrospective analysis of children in the Netherlands.

“The adjusted hazard rates were high for the whole group of bacterial meningitis, especially within the first year after onset. (Staphylococcus agalactiae) meningitis has the highest mortality risk within one year of disease onset,” Linde Snoek said during her presentation of the study (abstract 913) at the annual meeting of the European Society for Paediatric Infectious Diseases, held virtually this year. Ms. Snoek is a PhD student at Amsterdam University Medical Center.

Over longer time periods, the mortality associations were different. “The adjusted hazard rates were highest for pneumococcal meningitis compared to the other pathogens. And this was the case for 1 year, 5 years, and 10 years after disease onset,” said Ms. Snoek.

The study appears to be the first to look at extended mortality following bacterial meningitis in this age group, according to Marie Rohr, MD, who comoderated the session where the research was presented.

“In a quick review of the literature I did not find any [equivalent] study concerning short- and long-term mortality after bacterial meningitis in under 1 year of age,” said Dr. Rohr, a fellow in pediatric infectious diseases at University Hospitals of Geneva. But the message to physicians is clear. “Children with history of bacterial meningitis have a higher long-term mortality than children without a history of bacterial meningitis,” said Dr. Rohr.

The study did have a key limitation: For matched controls, it relied on anonymous data from the Municipal Personal Records Database in Statistics Netherlands. “Important information like cause of death is lacking,” said Dr. Rohr.

Bacterial meningitis is associated with significant mortality and morbidity. Pathogens behind the infections vary with age group and geographic location, as well as immunization status.

To examine long-term mortality after bacterial meningitis, the researchers collected 1,646 records from an exposed cohort, with a date range of 1995 to 2018, from the Netherlands Reference Laboratory for Bacterial Meningitis. Included patients had a positive culture diagnosis of bacterial meningitis during the first year of life. Each exposed subject was compared to 10 controls matched by birth month, birth year, and sex, who had no exposure to bacterial meningitis.

Staphylococcus pneumoniae accounted for the most cases, at 32.0% (median age of onset, 180 days), followed by Neisseria meningitidis at 29.0% (median age of onset, 203 days). Other pathogens included S. agalactiae (19.7%, 10 days), Escherichia coli (8.8%, 13 days), and Haemophilus influenzae (5.4%, 231 days).

The mortality risk within 1 year of disease onset was higher for all pathogens (6.2% vs. 0.2% unexposed). The highest mortality risk was seen for S. agalactiae (8.7%), followed by E. coli (6.4%), N. meningitidis (4.9%), and H. influenzae (3.4%).

Hazard ratios (HR) for mortality were also higher, particularly in the first year after disease onset. For all pathogens, mortality rates were higher within 1 year (HR, 39.2), 5 years (HR, 28.7), and 10 years (HR, 24.1). The consistently highest mortality rates were associated with S. pneumoniae over 1-year, 5-year, and 10-year follow-up (HR, 42.8; HR, 45.6; HR, 40.6, respectively). Within 1 year, the highest mortality rate was associated with N. meningitidis (HR, 58.4).

Ms. Snoek and Dr. Rohr have no relevant financial disclosures.

Among infants younger than 1 year of age, bacterial meningitis is associated with worse long-term mortality, even after recovery from the initial infection. Heightened mortality risk stretched out to 10 years, and was highest in the wake of infection from Streptococcus agalactiae, according to a retrospective analysis of children in the Netherlands.

“The adjusted hazard rates were high for the whole group of bacterial meningitis, especially within the first year after onset. (Staphylococcus agalactiae) meningitis has the highest mortality risk within one year of disease onset,” Linde Snoek said during her presentation of the study (abstract 913) at the annual meeting of the European Society for Paediatric Infectious Diseases, held virtually this year. Ms. Snoek is a PhD student at Amsterdam University Medical Center.

Over longer time periods, the mortality associations were different. “The adjusted hazard rates were highest for pneumococcal meningitis compared to the other pathogens. And this was the case for 1 year, 5 years, and 10 years after disease onset,” said Ms. Snoek.

The study appears to be the first to look at extended mortality following bacterial meningitis in this age group, according to Marie Rohr, MD, who comoderated the session where the research was presented.

“In a quick review of the literature I did not find any [equivalent] study concerning short- and long-term mortality after bacterial meningitis in under 1 year of age,” said Dr. Rohr, a fellow in pediatric infectious diseases at University Hospitals of Geneva. But the message to physicians is clear. “Children with history of bacterial meningitis have a higher long-term mortality than children without a history of bacterial meningitis,” said Dr. Rohr.

The study did have a key limitation: For matched controls, it relied on anonymous data from the Municipal Personal Records Database in Statistics Netherlands. “Important information like cause of death is lacking,” said Dr. Rohr.

Bacterial meningitis is associated with significant mortality and morbidity. Pathogens behind the infections vary with age group and geographic location, as well as immunization status.

To examine long-term mortality after bacterial meningitis, the researchers collected 1,646 records from an exposed cohort, with a date range of 1995 to 2018, from the Netherlands Reference Laboratory for Bacterial Meningitis. Included patients had a positive culture diagnosis of bacterial meningitis during the first year of life. Each exposed subject was compared to 10 controls matched by birth month, birth year, and sex, who had no exposure to bacterial meningitis.

Staphylococcus pneumoniae accounted for the most cases, at 32.0% (median age of onset, 180 days), followed by Neisseria meningitidis at 29.0% (median age of onset, 203 days). Other pathogens included S. agalactiae (19.7%, 10 days), Escherichia coli (8.8%, 13 days), and Haemophilus influenzae (5.4%, 231 days).

The mortality risk within 1 year of disease onset was higher for all pathogens (6.2% vs. 0.2% unexposed). The highest mortality risk was seen for S. agalactiae (8.7%), followed by E. coli (6.4%), N. meningitidis (4.9%), and H. influenzae (3.4%).

Hazard ratios (HR) for mortality were also higher, particularly in the first year after disease onset. For all pathogens, mortality rates were higher within 1 year (HR, 39.2), 5 years (HR, 28.7), and 10 years (HR, 24.1). The consistently highest mortality rates were associated with S. pneumoniae over 1-year, 5-year, and 10-year follow-up (HR, 42.8; HR, 45.6; HR, 40.6, respectively). Within 1 year, the highest mortality rate was associated with N. meningitidis (HR, 58.4).

Ms. Snoek and Dr. Rohr have no relevant financial disclosures.

The Food and Drug Administration has approved ibrexafungerp tablets (Brexafemme) as a 1-day oral therapy for vaginal yeast infections.

Ibrexafungerp is the first drug approved in a new antifungal class for vulvovaginal candidiasis (VVC) in more than 20 years, the drug’s manufacturer Scynexis said in a press release. It becomes the first and only nonazole treatment for vaginal yeast infections.

The biotechnology company said approval came after positive results from two phase 3 studies in which oral ibrexafungerp demonstrated efficacy and tolerability. The most common reactions observed in clinical trials were diarrhea, nausea, abdominal pain, dizziness, and vomiting.

There are few other treatments for vaginal yeast infections, which is the second most common cause of vaginitis. Those previously approved agents include several topical azole antifungals and oral fluconazole (Diflucan), which, Scynexis said, is the only other orally administered antifungal approved for the treatment of VVC in the United States and has  accounted for over more than 90% of prescriptions written for the condition each year.

However, the company noted, oral fluconazole reports a 55% therapeutic cure rate on its label, which now also includes warnings of potential fetal harm, demonstrating the need for new oral options.

The new drug may not fill that need for pregnant women, however, as the company noted that ibrexafungerp should not be used during pregnancy, and administration during pregnancy “may cause fetal harm based on animal studies.”

Because of possible teratogenic effects, the company advised clinicians to verify pregnancy status in females of reproductive potential before prescribing ibrexafungerp and advises effective contraception during treatment.

VVC can come with substantial morbidity, including genital pain, itching and burning, reduced sexual pleasure, and psychological distress.

David Angulo, MD, chief medical officer for Scynexis, said in a statement the tablets brings new benefits.

Dr. Angulo said the drug “has a differentiated fungicidal mechanism of action that kills a broad range of Candida species, including azole-resistant strains. We are working on completing our CANDLE study investigating ibrexafungerp for the prevention of recurrent VVC and expect we will be submitting a supplemental NDA [new drug application] in the first half of 2022.”

Scynexis said it partnered with Amplity Health, a Pennsylvania-based pharmaceutical company, to support U.S. marketing of the drug. The commercial launch will follow the approval.

Ibrexafungerp was granted approval through both the FDA’s Qualified Infectious Disease Product and Fast Track designations. It is expected to be marketed exclusively in the United States for 10 years.
 

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

The Food and Drug Administration has approved ibrexafungerp tablets (Brexafemme) as a 1-day oral therapy for vaginal yeast infections.

Ibrexafungerp is the first drug approved in a new antifungal class for vulvovaginal candidiasis (VVC) in more than 20 years, the drug’s manufacturer Scynexis said in a press release. It becomes the first and only nonazole treatment for vaginal yeast infections.

The biotechnology company said approval came after positive results from two phase 3 studies in which oral ibrexafungerp demonstrated efficacy and tolerability. The most common reactions observed in clinical trials were diarrhea, nausea, abdominal pain, dizziness, and vomiting.

There are few other treatments for vaginal yeast infections, which is the second most common cause of vaginitis. Those previously approved agents include several topical azole antifungals and oral fluconazole (Diflucan), which, Scynexis said, is the only other orally administered antifungal approved for the treatment of VVC in the United States and has  accounted for over more than 90% of prescriptions written for the condition each year.

However, the company noted, oral fluconazole reports a 55% therapeutic cure rate on its label, which now also includes warnings of potential fetal harm, demonstrating the need for new oral options.

The new drug may not fill that need for pregnant women, however, as the company noted that ibrexafungerp should not be used during pregnancy, and administration during pregnancy “may cause fetal harm based on animal studies.”

Because of possible teratogenic effects, the company advised clinicians to verify pregnancy status in females of reproductive potential before prescribing ibrexafungerp and advises effective contraception during treatment.

VVC can come with substantial morbidity, including genital pain, itching and burning, reduced sexual pleasure, and psychological distress.

David Angulo, MD, chief medical officer for Scynexis, said in a statement the tablets brings new benefits.

Dr. Angulo said the drug “has a differentiated fungicidal mechanism of action that kills a broad range of Candida species, including azole-resistant strains. We are working on completing our CANDLE study investigating ibrexafungerp for the prevention of recurrent VVC and expect we will be submitting a supplemental NDA [new drug application] in the first half of 2022.”

Scynexis said it partnered with Amplity Health, a Pennsylvania-based pharmaceutical company, to support U.S. marketing of the drug. The commercial launch will follow the approval.

Ibrexafungerp was granted approval through both the FDA’s Qualified Infectious Disease Product and Fast Track designations. It is expected to be marketed exclusively in the United States for 10 years.
 

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

The Food and Drug Administration has approved ibrexafungerp tablets (Brexafemme) as a 1-day oral therapy for vaginal yeast infections.

Ibrexafungerp is the first drug approved in a new antifungal class for vulvovaginal candidiasis (VVC) in more than 20 years, the drug’s manufacturer Scynexis said in a press release. It becomes the first and only nonazole treatment for vaginal yeast infections.

The biotechnology company said approval came after positive results from two phase 3 studies in which oral ibrexafungerp demonstrated efficacy and tolerability. The most common reactions observed in clinical trials were diarrhea, nausea, abdominal pain, dizziness, and vomiting.

There are few other treatments for vaginal yeast infections, which is the second most common cause of vaginitis. Those previously approved agents include several topical azole antifungals and oral fluconazole (Diflucan), which, Scynexis said, is the only other orally administered antifungal approved for the treatment of VVC in the United States and has  accounted for over more than 90% of prescriptions written for the condition each year.

However, the company noted, oral fluconazole reports a 55% therapeutic cure rate on its label, which now also includes warnings of potential fetal harm, demonstrating the need for new oral options.

The new drug may not fill that need for pregnant women, however, as the company noted that ibrexafungerp should not be used during pregnancy, and administration during pregnancy “may cause fetal harm based on animal studies.”

Because of possible teratogenic effects, the company advised clinicians to verify pregnancy status in females of reproductive potential before prescribing ibrexafungerp and advises effective contraception during treatment.

VVC can come with substantial morbidity, including genital pain, itching and burning, reduced sexual pleasure, and psychological distress.

David Angulo, MD, chief medical officer for Scynexis, said in a statement the tablets brings new benefits.

Dr. Angulo said the drug “has a differentiated fungicidal mechanism of action that kills a broad range of Candida species, including azole-resistant strains. We are working on completing our CANDLE study investigating ibrexafungerp for the prevention of recurrent VVC and expect we will be submitting a supplemental NDA [new drug application] in the first half of 2022.”

Scynexis said it partnered with Amplity Health, a Pennsylvania-based pharmaceutical company, to support U.S. marketing of the drug. The commercial launch will follow the approval.

Ibrexafungerp was granted approval through both the FDA’s Qualified Infectious Disease Product and Fast Track designations. It is expected to be marketed exclusively in the United States for 10 years.
 

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

Botulinum toxin is said to be the most lethal substance known. Inhaling just 1-3 nanograms of toxin per kilogram of body mass constitutes a lethal dose. 

Now the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has published the first comprehensive guide to the diagnosis and treatment of botulism. The CDC has been working on these guidelines since 2015, initially establishing a technical development group and steering committee to prioritize topics for review and make recommendations. Since then, the agency published 15 systematic reviews in  Clinical Infectious Diseases early in 2018. The reviews addressed the recognition of botulism clinically, treatment with botulinum antitoxin, and complications from that treatment. They also looked at the epidemiology of botulism outbreaks and botulism in the special populations of vulnerable pediatric and pregnant patients.

In 2016, the CDC held two extended forums and convened a workshop with 72 experts. In addition to the more standard topics of diagnosis and treatment, attention was given to crisis standards of care, caring for multiple patients at once, and ethical considerations in management.

Amesh Adalja, MD, senior scholar, Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security, Baltimore, said in an interview that the new guidance “was really specific [and] was meant to address the gap in guidance for mass casualty settings.”

While clinicians are used to focusing on an individual patient, in times of crises, with multiple patients from a food-borne outbreak or a bioterrorism attack, the focus must shift to the population rather than the individual. The workshop explored issues of triaging, adding beds, and caring for patients when a hospital is overwhelmed with an acute influx of severely ill patients.

Such a mass casualty event is similar to the stress encountered this past year with COVID-19 patients swamping the hospitals, which had too little oxygen, too few ventilators, and too few staff members to care for the sudden influx of critically ill patients.
 

Diagnosis

Leslie Edwards, MHS, BSN, a CDC epidemiologist and botulism expert, said that “botulism is rare and [so] could be difficult to diagnose.” The CDC “wanted to highlight some of those key clinical factors” to speed recognition.

Hospitals and health officials are being urged to develop crisis protocols as part of emergency preparedness plans. And clinicians should be able to recognize four major syndromes: botulism from food, wounds, and inhalation, as well as iatrogenic botulism (from exposure via injection of the neurotoxin).

Botulism has a characteristic and unusual pattern of symptoms, which begin with cranial nerve palsies. Then there is typically a descending, symmetric flaccid paralysis. Symptoms might progress to respiratory failure and death. Other critical clues that implicate botulism include a lack of sensory deficits and the absence of pain.

Symptoms are most likely to be mistaken for myasthenia gravis or Guillain-Barré syndrome, but the latter has an ascending paralysis. Cranial nerve involvement can present as blurred vision, ptosis (drooping lid), diplopia (double vision), ophthalmoplegia (weak eye muscles), or difficulty with speech and swallowing. Shortness of breath and abdominal discomfort can also occur. Respiratory failure may occur from weakness or paralysis of cranial nerves. Cranial nerve signs and symptoms in the absence of fever, along with a descending paralysis, should strongly suggest the diagnosis.

With food-borne botulism, vomiting occurs in half the patients. Improperly sterilized home-canned food is the major risk factor. While the toxin is rapidly destroyed by heat, the bacterial spores are not. Wound botulism is most commonly associated with the injection of drugs, particularly black tar heroin.

Dr. Edwards stressed that “time is of the essence when it comes to botulism diagnostics and treating. Timely administration of the botulism antitoxin early in the course of illness can arrest the progression of paralysis and possibly avert the need for intubation or ventilation.”

It’s essential to note that botulism is an urgent diagnosis that has to be made on clinical grounds. Lab assays for botulinum neurotoxins take too long and are only conducted in public health laboratories. The decision to use antitoxin must not be delayed to wait for confirmation.

Clinicians should immediately contact the local or state health department’s emergency on-call team if botulism is suspected. They will arrange for expert consultation.
 

Treatment

Botulinum antitoxin is the only specific therapy for this infection. If given early – preferably within 24-48 hours of symptom onset – it can stop the progression of paralysis. But antitoxin will not reverse existing paralysis. If paralysis is still progressing outside of that 24- to 48-hour window, the antitoxin should still provide benefit. The antitoxin is available only through state health departments and a request to the CDC.

Botulism antitoxin is made from horse serum and therefore may cause a variety of allergic reactions. The risk for anaphylaxis is less than 2%, far lower than the mortality from untreated botulism.

While these guidelines have an important focus on triaging and treating mass casualties from botulism, it’s important to note that food-borne outbreaks and prevention issues are covered elsewhere on the CDC site.

Dr. Edwards has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Adalja is a consultant for Emergent BioSolutions, which makes the heptavalent botulism antitoxin.

Dr. Stone is an infectious disease specialist and author of “Resilience: One Family’s Story of Hope and Triumph Over Evil” and of “Conducting Clinical Research,” the essential guide to the topic. You can find her at drjudystone.com or on Twitter @drjudystone.

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

Botulinum toxin is said to be the most lethal substance known. Inhaling just 1-3 nanograms of toxin per kilogram of body mass constitutes a lethal dose. 

Now the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has published the first comprehensive guide to the diagnosis and treatment of botulism. The CDC has been working on these guidelines since 2015, initially establishing a technical development group and steering committee to prioritize topics for review and make recommendations. Since then, the agency published 15 systematic reviews in  Clinical Infectious Diseases early in 2018. The reviews addressed the recognition of botulism clinically, treatment with botulinum antitoxin, and complications from that treatment. They also looked at the epidemiology of botulism outbreaks and botulism in the special populations of vulnerable pediatric and pregnant patients.

In 2016, the CDC held two extended forums and convened a workshop with 72 experts. In addition to the more standard topics of diagnosis and treatment, attention was given to crisis standards of care, caring for multiple patients at once, and ethical considerations in management.

Amesh Adalja, MD, senior scholar, Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security, Baltimore, said in an interview that the new guidance “was really specific [and] was meant to address the gap in guidance for mass casualty settings.”

While clinicians are used to focusing on an individual patient, in times of crises, with multiple patients from a food-borne outbreak or a bioterrorism attack, the focus must shift to the population rather than the individual. The workshop explored issues of triaging, adding beds, and caring for patients when a hospital is overwhelmed with an acute influx of severely ill patients.

Such a mass casualty event is similar to the stress encountered this past year with COVID-19 patients swamping the hospitals, which had too little oxygen, too few ventilators, and too few staff members to care for the sudden influx of critically ill patients.
 

Diagnosis

Leslie Edwards, MHS, BSN, a CDC epidemiologist and botulism expert, said that “botulism is rare and [so] could be difficult to diagnose.” The CDC “wanted to highlight some of those key clinical factors” to speed recognition.

Hospitals and health officials are being urged to develop crisis protocols as part of emergency preparedness plans. And clinicians should be able to recognize four major syndromes: botulism from food, wounds, and inhalation, as well as iatrogenic botulism (from exposure via injection of the neurotoxin).

Botulism has a characteristic and unusual pattern of symptoms, which begin with cranial nerve palsies. Then there is typically a descending, symmetric flaccid paralysis. Symptoms might progress to respiratory failure and death. Other critical clues that implicate botulism include a lack of sensory deficits and the absence of pain.

Symptoms are most likely to be mistaken for myasthenia gravis or Guillain-Barré syndrome, but the latter has an ascending paralysis. Cranial nerve involvement can present as blurred vision, ptosis (drooping lid), diplopia (double vision), ophthalmoplegia (weak eye muscles), or difficulty with speech and swallowing. Shortness of breath and abdominal discomfort can also occur. Respiratory failure may occur from weakness or paralysis of cranial nerves. Cranial nerve signs and symptoms in the absence of fever, along with a descending paralysis, should strongly suggest the diagnosis.

With food-borne botulism, vomiting occurs in half the patients. Improperly sterilized home-canned food is the major risk factor. While the toxin is rapidly destroyed by heat, the bacterial spores are not. Wound botulism is most commonly associated with the injection of drugs, particularly black tar heroin.

Dr. Edwards stressed that “time is of the essence when it comes to botulism diagnostics and treating. Timely administration of the botulism antitoxin early in the course of illness can arrest the progression of paralysis and possibly avert the need for intubation or ventilation.”

It’s essential to note that botulism is an urgent diagnosis that has to be made on clinical grounds. Lab assays for botulinum neurotoxins take too long and are only conducted in public health laboratories. The decision to use antitoxin must not be delayed to wait for confirmation.

Clinicians should immediately contact the local or state health department’s emergency on-call team if botulism is suspected. They will arrange for expert consultation.
 

Treatment

Botulinum antitoxin is the only specific therapy for this infection. If given early – preferably within 24-48 hours of symptom onset – it can stop the progression of paralysis. But antitoxin will not reverse existing paralysis. If paralysis is still progressing outside of that 24- to 48-hour window, the antitoxin should still provide benefit. The antitoxin is available only through state health departments and a request to the CDC.

Botulism antitoxin is made from horse serum and therefore may cause a variety of allergic reactions. The risk for anaphylaxis is less than 2%, far lower than the mortality from untreated botulism.

While these guidelines have an important focus on triaging and treating mass casualties from botulism, it’s important to note that food-borne outbreaks and prevention issues are covered elsewhere on the CDC site.

Dr. Edwards has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Adalja is a consultant for Emergent BioSolutions, which makes the heptavalent botulism antitoxin.

Dr. Stone is an infectious disease specialist and author of “Resilience: One Family’s Story of Hope and Triumph Over Evil” and of “Conducting Clinical Research,” the essential guide to the topic. You can find her at drjudystone.com or on Twitter @drjudystone.

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

Botulinum toxin is said to be the most lethal substance known. Inhaling just 1-3 nanograms of toxin per kilogram of body mass constitutes a lethal dose. 

Now the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has published the first comprehensive guide to the diagnosis and treatment of botulism. The CDC has been working on these guidelines since 2015, initially establishing a technical development group and steering committee to prioritize topics for review and make recommendations. Since then, the agency published 15 systematic reviews in  Clinical Infectious Diseases early in 2018. The reviews addressed the recognition of botulism clinically, treatment with botulinum antitoxin, and complications from that treatment. They also looked at the epidemiology of botulism outbreaks and botulism in the special populations of vulnerable pediatric and pregnant patients.

In 2016, the CDC held two extended forums and convened a workshop with 72 experts. In addition to the more standard topics of diagnosis and treatment, attention was given to crisis standards of care, caring for multiple patients at once, and ethical considerations in management.

Amesh Adalja, MD, senior scholar, Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security, Baltimore, said in an interview that the new guidance “was really specific [and] was meant to address the gap in guidance for mass casualty settings.”

While clinicians are used to focusing on an individual patient, in times of crises, with multiple patients from a food-borne outbreak or a bioterrorism attack, the focus must shift to the population rather than the individual. The workshop explored issues of triaging, adding beds, and caring for patients when a hospital is overwhelmed with an acute influx of severely ill patients.

Such a mass casualty event is similar to the stress encountered this past year with COVID-19 patients swamping the hospitals, which had too little oxygen, too few ventilators, and too few staff members to care for the sudden influx of critically ill patients.
 

Diagnosis

Leslie Edwards, MHS, BSN, a CDC epidemiologist and botulism expert, said that “botulism is rare and [so] could be difficult to diagnose.” The CDC “wanted to highlight some of those key clinical factors” to speed recognition.

Hospitals and health officials are being urged to develop crisis protocols as part of emergency preparedness plans. And clinicians should be able to recognize four major syndromes: botulism from food, wounds, and inhalation, as well as iatrogenic botulism (from exposure via injection of the neurotoxin).

Botulism has a characteristic and unusual pattern of symptoms, which begin with cranial nerve palsies. Then there is typically a descending, symmetric flaccid paralysis. Symptoms might progress to respiratory failure and death. Other critical clues that implicate botulism include a lack of sensory deficits and the absence of pain.

Symptoms are most likely to be mistaken for myasthenia gravis or Guillain-Barré syndrome, but the latter has an ascending paralysis. Cranial nerve involvement can present as blurred vision, ptosis (drooping lid), diplopia (double vision), ophthalmoplegia (weak eye muscles), or difficulty with speech and swallowing. Shortness of breath and abdominal discomfort can also occur. Respiratory failure may occur from weakness or paralysis of cranial nerves. Cranial nerve signs and symptoms in the absence of fever, along with a descending paralysis, should strongly suggest the diagnosis.

With food-borne botulism, vomiting occurs in half the patients. Improperly sterilized home-canned food is the major risk factor. While the toxin is rapidly destroyed by heat, the bacterial spores are not. Wound botulism is most commonly associated with the injection of drugs, particularly black tar heroin.

Dr. Edwards stressed that “time is of the essence when it comes to botulism diagnostics and treating. Timely administration of the botulism antitoxin early in the course of illness can arrest the progression of paralysis and possibly avert the need for intubation or ventilation.”

It’s essential to note that botulism is an urgent diagnosis that has to be made on clinical grounds. Lab assays for botulinum neurotoxins take too long and are only conducted in public health laboratories. The decision to use antitoxin must not be delayed to wait for confirmation.

Clinicians should immediately contact the local or state health department’s emergency on-call team if botulism is suspected. They will arrange for expert consultation.
 

Treatment

Botulinum antitoxin is the only specific therapy for this infection. If given early – preferably within 24-48 hours of symptom onset – it can stop the progression of paralysis. But antitoxin will not reverse existing paralysis. If paralysis is still progressing outside of that 24- to 48-hour window, the antitoxin should still provide benefit. The antitoxin is available only through state health departments and a request to the CDC.

Botulism antitoxin is made from horse serum and therefore may cause a variety of allergic reactions. The risk for anaphylaxis is less than 2%, far lower than the mortality from untreated botulism.

While these guidelines have an important focus on triaging and treating mass casualties from botulism, it’s important to note that food-borne outbreaks and prevention issues are covered elsewhere on the CDC site.

Dr. Edwards has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Adalja is a consultant for Emergent BioSolutions, which makes the heptavalent botulism antitoxin.

Dr. Stone is an infectious disease specialist and author of “Resilience: One Family’s Story of Hope and Triumph Over Evil” and of “Conducting Clinical Research,” the essential guide to the topic. You can find her at drjudystone.com or on Twitter @drjudystone.

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

In the periurban slum of Lusaka, Zambia, asymptomatic pertussis infections were common among both mothers and infants, a surprising finding since asymptomatic infections are assumed to be rare in infants. The findings suggested that pertussis should be considered in cases of chronic cough, and that current standards of treating pertussis infections in low-resource settings may need to be reexamined.

The results come from testing of 1,320 infant-mother pairs who were first enrolled at a public health clinic, then followed over at least four visits. The researchers tracked pertussis infection using quantitative PCR (qPCR) on nasopharyngeal swabs. Over the course of the study, 8.9% tested positive, although only one infant developed clinical pertussis during the study.

The study was presented by Christian Gunning, a postdoctoral researcher at the University of Georgia, at the annual meeting of the European Society for Paediatric Infectious Diseases, held virtually this year. The group also included researchers at Boston University and the University of Zambia, where PCR tests were conducted.

“That was amazing,” said session moderator Vana Spoulou, MD, PhD, professor of pediatric infectious diseases at National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, who is associated with Aghia Sofia Children’s Hospital of Athens. She noted that the study found that many physicians misdiagnosed coughs, believing them to be caused by another agent. “It was very interesting that there was so much pertussis spreading around in that community, and that nobody knew that it was around,” said Dr. Spoulou.

It’s important that physicians provide appropriate treatment, since ampicillin, which is typically prescribed for childhood upper respiratory illnesses, is believed to be ineffective against pertussis, while macrolides are effective and can prevent transmission.

Dr. Spoulou also noted that Zambia uses a whole cell vaccine, which is contraindicated in pregnant women because of potential side effects. “The good thing, despite that there was [a lot of] infection, there were no deaths, which means that maybe because the mother was infected, maybe some antibodies of the mother had passed to the child and could help the child to develop milder symptoms. So these are the pros and cons of natural infection,” said Dr. Spoulou.

The study took place in 2015, and participants were seen at the Chawama Public Health Clinic from about age 1 week to 4 months (with a target of seven clinic visits). Researchers recorded respiratory symptoms and antibiotics use at each visit, and collected a nasopharyngeal swab that was tested retrospectively using qPCR for Bordetella pertussis.

Real-time PCR analysis of the samples yields the CT value, which represents the number of amplification cycles that the PCR test must complete before Bordetella pertussis is detectable. The fewer the cycles (and the lower the CT value), the more infectious particles must have been present in the sample. For pertussis testing, a value below 35 is considered a clinically positive result. Tests that come back with higher CT values are increasingly likely to be false positives.

The researchers plotted a value called evidence for infection (EFI), which combined a range of CT values with the number of positive tests over the seven clinic visits to group patients into none, weak, or strong EFI. Among infants with no symptoms, 77% were in the no EFI category, 16% were in the weak category, and 7% were in the strong EFI group. Of infants with minimal respiratory symptoms, 18% were in the strong group, and 20% with moderate to severe symptoms were in the strong EFI group. Among mothers, 13% with no symptoms were in the strong group. 19% in the minimal symptom group were categorized as strong EFI, as were 11% in the moderate to severe symptom group.

The study used a full range of CT, not just positive test results (for pertussis, CT ≤ 35). Beyond contributing to composite measures such as EFI, CT values can serve as leading indicators of infectious disease outbreaks in a population, according to Dr. Gunning. That’s because weaker qPCR signals (CT > 35) can provide additional information within a large sample population. Higher CT values are successively more prone to false positives, but that’s less important for disease surveillance where sensitivity is of the highest importance. The false positive “noise” tends to cancel out over time. “It may be the case that you don’t make that call (correctly) 100% of the time for 100% of the people, but if you get it right in 80 out of 100 people, that’s sufficient to say we see this pathogen circulating in the population,” said Dr. Gunning.

The study was funded by the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases. Dr. Gunning and Dr. Spoulou have no relevant financial disclosures.

In the periurban slum of Lusaka, Zambia, asymptomatic pertussis infections were common among both mothers and infants, a surprising finding since asymptomatic infections are assumed to be rare in infants. The findings suggested that pertussis should be considered in cases of chronic cough, and that current standards of treating pertussis infections in low-resource settings may need to be reexamined.

The results come from testing of 1,320 infant-mother pairs who were first enrolled at a public health clinic, then followed over at least four visits. The researchers tracked pertussis infection using quantitative PCR (qPCR) on nasopharyngeal swabs. Over the course of the study, 8.9% tested positive, although only one infant developed clinical pertussis during the study.

The study was presented by Christian Gunning, a postdoctoral researcher at the University of Georgia, at the annual meeting of the European Society for Paediatric Infectious Diseases, held virtually this year. The group also included researchers at Boston University and the University of Zambia, where PCR tests were conducted.

“That was amazing,” said session moderator Vana Spoulou, MD, PhD, professor of pediatric infectious diseases at National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, who is associated with Aghia Sofia Children’s Hospital of Athens. She noted that the study found that many physicians misdiagnosed coughs, believing them to be caused by another agent. “It was very interesting that there was so much pertussis spreading around in that community, and that nobody knew that it was around,” said Dr. Spoulou.

It’s important that physicians provide appropriate treatment, since ampicillin, which is typically prescribed for childhood upper respiratory illnesses, is believed to be ineffective against pertussis, while macrolides are effective and can prevent transmission.

Dr. Spoulou also noted that Zambia uses a whole cell vaccine, which is contraindicated in pregnant women because of potential side effects. “The good thing, despite that there was [a lot of] infection, there were no deaths, which means that maybe because the mother was infected, maybe some antibodies of the mother had passed to the child and could help the child to develop milder symptoms. So these are the pros and cons of natural infection,” said Dr. Spoulou.

The study took place in 2015, and participants were seen at the Chawama Public Health Clinic from about age 1 week to 4 months (with a target of seven clinic visits). Researchers recorded respiratory symptoms and antibiotics use at each visit, and collected a nasopharyngeal swab that was tested retrospectively using qPCR for Bordetella pertussis.

Real-time PCR analysis of the samples yields the CT value, which represents the number of amplification cycles that the PCR test must complete before Bordetella pertussis is detectable. The fewer the cycles (and the lower the CT value), the more infectious particles must have been present in the sample. For pertussis testing, a value below 35 is considered a clinically positive result. Tests that come back with higher CT values are increasingly likely to be false positives.

The researchers plotted a value called evidence for infection (EFI), which combined a range of CT values with the number of positive tests over the seven clinic visits to group patients into none, weak, or strong EFI. Among infants with no symptoms, 77% were in the no EFI category, 16% were in the weak category, and 7% were in the strong EFI group. Of infants with minimal respiratory symptoms, 18% were in the strong group, and 20% with moderate to severe symptoms were in the strong EFI group. Among mothers, 13% with no symptoms were in the strong group. 19% in the minimal symptom group were categorized as strong EFI, as were 11% in the moderate to severe symptom group.

The study used a full range of CT, not just positive test results (for pertussis, CT ≤ 35). Beyond contributing to composite measures such as EFI, CT values can serve as leading indicators of infectious disease outbreaks in a population, according to Dr. Gunning. That’s because weaker qPCR signals (CT > 35) can provide additional information within a large sample population. Higher CT values are successively more prone to false positives, but that’s less important for disease surveillance where sensitivity is of the highest importance. The false positive “noise” tends to cancel out over time. “It may be the case that you don’t make that call (correctly) 100% of the time for 100% of the people, but if you get it right in 80 out of 100 people, that’s sufficient to say we see this pathogen circulating in the population,” said Dr. Gunning.

The study was funded by the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases. Dr. Gunning and Dr. Spoulou have no relevant financial disclosures.

In the periurban slum of Lusaka, Zambia, asymptomatic pertussis infections were common among both mothers and infants, a surprising finding since asymptomatic infections are assumed to be rare in infants. The findings suggested that pertussis should be considered in cases of chronic cough, and that current standards of treating pertussis infections in low-resource settings may need to be reexamined.

The results come from testing of 1,320 infant-mother pairs who were first enrolled at a public health clinic, then followed over at least four visits. The researchers tracked pertussis infection using quantitative PCR (qPCR) on nasopharyngeal swabs. Over the course of the study, 8.9% tested positive, although only one infant developed clinical pertussis during the study.

The study was presented by Christian Gunning, a postdoctoral researcher at the University of Georgia, at the annual meeting of the European Society for Paediatric Infectious Diseases, held virtually this year. The group also included researchers at Boston University and the University of Zambia, where PCR tests were conducted.

“That was amazing,” said session moderator Vana Spoulou, MD, PhD, professor of pediatric infectious diseases at National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, who is associated with Aghia Sofia Children’s Hospital of Athens. She noted that the study found that many physicians misdiagnosed coughs, believing them to be caused by another agent. “It was very interesting that there was so much pertussis spreading around in that community, and that nobody knew that it was around,” said Dr. Spoulou.

It’s important that physicians provide appropriate treatment, since ampicillin, which is typically prescribed for childhood upper respiratory illnesses, is believed to be ineffective against pertussis, while macrolides are effective and can prevent transmission.

Dr. Spoulou also noted that Zambia uses a whole cell vaccine, which is contraindicated in pregnant women because of potential side effects. “The good thing, despite that there was [a lot of] infection, there were no deaths, which means that maybe because the mother was infected, maybe some antibodies of the mother had passed to the child and could help the child to develop milder symptoms. So these are the pros and cons of natural infection,” said Dr. Spoulou.

The study took place in 2015, and participants were seen at the Chawama Public Health Clinic from about age 1 week to 4 months (with a target of seven clinic visits). Researchers recorded respiratory symptoms and antibiotics use at each visit, and collected a nasopharyngeal swab that was tested retrospectively using qPCR for Bordetella pertussis.

Real-time PCR analysis of the samples yields the CT value, which represents the number of amplification cycles that the PCR test must complete before Bordetella pertussis is detectable. The fewer the cycles (and the lower the CT value), the more infectious particles must have been present in the sample. For pertussis testing, a value below 35 is considered a clinically positive result. Tests that come back with higher CT values are increasingly likely to be false positives.

The researchers plotted a value called evidence for infection (EFI), which combined a range of CT values with the number of positive tests over the seven clinic visits to group patients into none, weak, or strong EFI. Among infants with no symptoms, 77% were in the no EFI category, 16% were in the weak category, and 7% were in the strong EFI group. Of infants with minimal respiratory symptoms, 18% were in the strong group, and 20% with moderate to severe symptoms were in the strong EFI group. Among mothers, 13% with no symptoms were in the strong group. 19% in the minimal symptom group were categorized as strong EFI, as were 11% in the moderate to severe symptom group.

The study used a full range of CT, not just positive test results (for pertussis, CT ≤ 35). Beyond contributing to composite measures such as EFI, CT values can serve as leading indicators of infectious disease outbreaks in a population, according to Dr. Gunning. That’s because weaker qPCR signals (CT > 35) can provide additional information within a large sample population. Higher CT values are successively more prone to false positives, but that’s less important for disease surveillance where sensitivity is of the highest importance. The false positive “noise” tends to cancel out over time. “It may be the case that you don’t make that call (correctly) 100% of the time for 100% of the people, but if you get it right in 80 out of 100 people, that’s sufficient to say we see this pathogen circulating in the population,” said Dr. Gunning.

The study was funded by the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases. Dr. Gunning and Dr. Spoulou have no relevant financial disclosures.