Judy Stone, MD

A study in The Lancet Global Health takes a pessimistic view of our ability to eradicate measles by 2100, although rubella forecasts look a bit more promising.

So far, measles has been eliminated in 81 countries and rubella in 93. But factors such as antivaccination sentiment and misinformation linking vaccination to autism have led to occasional outbreaks. In addition, because the COVID-19 pandemic fueled lower routine vaccination coverage and postponed public health campaigns, some countries have also lost previously gained ground.

The study, which is slated for publication in the Oct. 1 issue of the Lancet Global Health, explored the likelihood of eliminating measles and rubella, based on vaccination strategies in 93 countries with the highest measles and rubella burden, under two vaccination scenarios: 1) a “business as usual” approach, that is, continuing current vaccination coverage via routine childhood immunization schedules and intermittent vaccination campaigns that target age groups to vaccinate quickly (known as SIAs); and 2) an “intensified investment approach” that scales up SIA vaccination coverage into the future.

Both vaccination scenarios were evaluated within the context of two national models (Johns Hopkins University and Public Health England), and one subnational model (Nigeria) for rubella transmission.

Lead author Amy Winter, PhD, assistant professor of epidemiology and biostatistics, University of Georgia College of Public Health, Athens, told this news organization that “under the intensified investment scenario, rubella elimination is likely to be achieved in all 93 countries that were modeled [but] measles elimination is likely in some but not all countries.”

This is especially the case if the goal is cessation of vaccination campaigns, study authors noted when placing the research in context.

But Dr. Winter also emphasized that Nigeria offered specific lessons not seen in the national models.

For one, “when you’re conducting a vaccination campaign, it’s essential to be hitting kids who haven’t already had a routine vaccine.”

In addition, she stressed a need to improve vaccine equity by focusing on areas with really low coverage and then moving into areas with higher coverage.

“The Nigerian subnational analysis definitely illustrates the importance of achieving equitable vaccination and the need for potentially targeted strategies to improve vaccination,” she said. “The initial focus should be on getting areas with low coverage up to par.”

Still, “even with the intensified investment approach, we won’t be able to eradicate measles,” William Moss, MD, professor of epidemiology and executive director, International Vaccine Access Center, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, who was not directly involved in the study, told this news organization.
 

Pandemic interruptions, future strategies

In a related editorial (The Lancet Global Health. 2022 Oct 1. doi: 10.1016/S2214-109X[22]00388-6), the authors noted that COVID-19 has markedly disrupted vaccination campaigns globally.

In 2017, 118 (61%) countries achieved the Global Vaccine Action Plan 2020 target of 90% or more national MCV1 (first dose of measles vaccine) coverage. Since that time, measles coverage has declined from 84%-85% in 2017 to 81% in 2021, leaving 24.7 million completely unprotected (also known as zero-dose children) and 14.7 million children underimmunized (that is, recipients of only 1 dose).

Notably, this is the lowest immunization level since 2008, with more than 5 million more children missing their first measles dose.

Dr. Moss has previously written on the biological feasibility of measles eradication and said that it’s not tenable to rely on increased vaccination coverage alone.

We need “new tools and the new strategies. One of the ones that we’re most excited about [is] microarray patches,” he said, noting that they are thermostable and can be administered by anyone.

Dr. Moss also said that, while he is hoping for point-of-care rapid diagnostics, the focus of the efforts needs to change.

“Where’s [the] measles virus coming from? Where’s it being exported from and where is it being imported to?” he posited, adding that the focus should be on these areas “to try to shut down transmission … a radical kind of second phase of a measles eradication puts aside equity and focuses on sources and sinks.”

In the interim, rubella elimination looks promising.

“It’s not as contagious [as measles] and has a lower sort of herd immunity threshold because of it,” Dr. Winter said.

Dr. Winter and Dr. Moss report no relevant financial relationships. The study was funded by the World Health Organization, Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.

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

A study in The Lancet Global Health takes a pessimistic view of our ability to eradicate measles by 2100, although rubella forecasts look a bit more promising.

So far, measles has been eliminated in 81 countries and rubella in 93. But factors such as antivaccination sentiment and misinformation linking vaccination to autism have led to occasional outbreaks. In addition, because the COVID-19 pandemic fueled lower routine vaccination coverage and postponed public health campaigns, some countries have also lost previously gained ground.

The study, which is slated for publication in the Oct. 1 issue of the Lancet Global Health, explored the likelihood of eliminating measles and rubella, based on vaccination strategies in 93 countries with the highest measles and rubella burden, under two vaccination scenarios: 1) a “business as usual” approach, that is, continuing current vaccination coverage via routine childhood immunization schedules and intermittent vaccination campaigns that target age groups to vaccinate quickly (known as SIAs); and 2) an “intensified investment approach” that scales up SIA vaccination coverage into the future.

Both vaccination scenarios were evaluated within the context of two national models (Johns Hopkins University and Public Health England), and one subnational model (Nigeria) for rubella transmission.

Lead author Amy Winter, PhD, assistant professor of epidemiology and biostatistics, University of Georgia College of Public Health, Athens, told this news organization that “under the intensified investment scenario, rubella elimination is likely to be achieved in all 93 countries that were modeled [but] measles elimination is likely in some but not all countries.”

This is especially the case if the goal is cessation of vaccination campaigns, study authors noted when placing the research in context.

But Dr. Winter also emphasized that Nigeria offered specific lessons not seen in the national models.

For one, “when you’re conducting a vaccination campaign, it’s essential to be hitting kids who haven’t already had a routine vaccine.”

In addition, she stressed a need to improve vaccine equity by focusing on areas with really low coverage and then moving into areas with higher coverage.

“The Nigerian subnational analysis definitely illustrates the importance of achieving equitable vaccination and the need for potentially targeted strategies to improve vaccination,” she said. “The initial focus should be on getting areas with low coverage up to par.”

Still, “even with the intensified investment approach, we won’t be able to eradicate measles,” William Moss, MD, professor of epidemiology and executive director, International Vaccine Access Center, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, who was not directly involved in the study, told this news organization.
 

Pandemic interruptions, future strategies

In a related editorial (The Lancet Global Health. 2022 Oct 1. doi: 10.1016/S2214-109X[22]00388-6), the authors noted that COVID-19 has markedly disrupted vaccination campaigns globally.

In 2017, 118 (61%) countries achieved the Global Vaccine Action Plan 2020 target of 90% or more national MCV1 (first dose of measles vaccine) coverage. Since that time, measles coverage has declined from 84%-85% in 2017 to 81% in 2021, leaving 24.7 million completely unprotected (also known as zero-dose children) and 14.7 million children underimmunized (that is, recipients of only 1 dose).

Notably, this is the lowest immunization level since 2008, with more than 5 million more children missing their first measles dose.

Dr. Moss has previously written on the biological feasibility of measles eradication and said that it’s not tenable to rely on increased vaccination coverage alone.

We need “new tools and the new strategies. One of the ones that we’re most excited about [is] microarray patches,” he said, noting that they are thermostable and can be administered by anyone.

Dr. Moss also said that, while he is hoping for point-of-care rapid diagnostics, the focus of the efforts needs to change.

“Where’s [the] measles virus coming from? Where’s it being exported from and where is it being imported to?” he posited, adding that the focus should be on these areas “to try to shut down transmission … a radical kind of second phase of a measles eradication puts aside equity and focuses on sources and sinks.”

In the interim, rubella elimination looks promising.

“It’s not as contagious [as measles] and has a lower sort of herd immunity threshold because of it,” Dr. Winter said.

Dr. Winter and Dr. Moss report no relevant financial relationships. The study was funded by the World Health Organization, Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.

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

A study in The Lancet Global Health takes a pessimistic view of our ability to eradicate measles by 2100, although rubella forecasts look a bit more promising.

So far, measles has been eliminated in 81 countries and rubella in 93. But factors such as antivaccination sentiment and misinformation linking vaccination to autism have led to occasional outbreaks. In addition, because the COVID-19 pandemic fueled lower routine vaccination coverage and postponed public health campaigns, some countries have also lost previously gained ground.

The study, which is slated for publication in the Oct. 1 issue of the Lancet Global Health, explored the likelihood of eliminating measles and rubella, based on vaccination strategies in 93 countries with the highest measles and rubella burden, under two vaccination scenarios: 1) a “business as usual” approach, that is, continuing current vaccination coverage via routine childhood immunization schedules and intermittent vaccination campaigns that target age groups to vaccinate quickly (known as SIAs); and 2) an “intensified investment approach” that scales up SIA vaccination coverage into the future.

Both vaccination scenarios were evaluated within the context of two national models (Johns Hopkins University and Public Health England), and one subnational model (Nigeria) for rubella transmission.

Lead author Amy Winter, PhD, assistant professor of epidemiology and biostatistics, University of Georgia College of Public Health, Athens, told this news organization that “under the intensified investment scenario, rubella elimination is likely to be achieved in all 93 countries that were modeled [but] measles elimination is likely in some but not all countries.”

This is especially the case if the goal is cessation of vaccination campaigns, study authors noted when placing the research in context.

But Dr. Winter also emphasized that Nigeria offered specific lessons not seen in the national models.

For one, “when you’re conducting a vaccination campaign, it’s essential to be hitting kids who haven’t already had a routine vaccine.”

In addition, she stressed a need to improve vaccine equity by focusing on areas with really low coverage and then moving into areas with higher coverage.

“The Nigerian subnational analysis definitely illustrates the importance of achieving equitable vaccination and the need for potentially targeted strategies to improve vaccination,” she said. “The initial focus should be on getting areas with low coverage up to par.”

Still, “even with the intensified investment approach, we won’t be able to eradicate measles,” William Moss, MD, professor of epidemiology and executive director, International Vaccine Access Center, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, who was not directly involved in the study, told this news organization.
 

Pandemic interruptions, future strategies

In a related editorial (The Lancet Global Health. 2022 Oct 1. doi: 10.1016/S2214-109X[22]00388-6), the authors noted that COVID-19 has markedly disrupted vaccination campaigns globally.

In 2017, 118 (61%) countries achieved the Global Vaccine Action Plan 2020 target of 90% or more national MCV1 (first dose of measles vaccine) coverage. Since that time, measles coverage has declined from 84%-85% in 2017 to 81% in 2021, leaving 24.7 million completely unprotected (also known as zero-dose children) and 14.7 million children underimmunized (that is, recipients of only 1 dose).

Notably, this is the lowest immunization level since 2008, with more than 5 million more children missing their first measles dose.

Dr. Moss has previously written on the biological feasibility of measles eradication and said that it’s not tenable to rely on increased vaccination coverage alone.

We need “new tools and the new strategies. One of the ones that we’re most excited about [is] microarray patches,” he said, noting that they are thermostable and can be administered by anyone.

Dr. Moss also said that, while he is hoping for point-of-care rapid diagnostics, the focus of the efforts needs to change.

“Where’s [the] measles virus coming from? Where’s it being exported from and where is it being imported to?” he posited, adding that the focus should be on these areas “to try to shut down transmission … a radical kind of second phase of a measles eradication puts aside equity and focuses on sources and sinks.”

In the interim, rubella elimination looks promising.

“It’s not as contagious [as measles] and has a lower sort of herd immunity threshold because of it,” Dr. Winter said.

Dr. Winter and Dr. Moss report no relevant financial relationships. The study was funded by the World Health Organization, Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.

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

Monkeypox, COVID, and polio: These three very different diseases have been dominating news cycles recently, but they share at least one common characteristic: some people can become infected – and in turn infect others – while showing no symptoms.

In 1883, the famous bacteriologist Friedrich Loeffler (1852-1915) recognized that an individual’s asymptomatic carriage of bacteria could lead to diphtheria in others. Now, as then, asymptomatically infected people present a conundrum: How do you fight the spread of a disease when you can’t identify some of the people who are spreading it?

“Typhoid Mary” is perhaps the quintessential example of asymptomatic transmission of infections leading to illness and death. At the turn of the 20th century, young Mary Mallon emigrated from Ireland to New York, where she soon became a cook for wealthy Manhattan families.

George Soper, a sanitary engineer, was hired by a stricken family to investigate. After epidemiologic study, he suspected that Mary was a carrier of Salmonella typhi, the bacterial cause of typhoid fever. He persuaded the New York Department of Health to test her – against her will – for infection. After her stool was found to test positive for Salmonella, Mary was forcibly moved to North Brother Island, where she remained largely isolated from others for the next 2 years. In 1910, she was released by a new commissioner after promising not to work as a cook.

However, working under an assumed name, Mary resumed cooking at the Sloane Hospital for Women in Manhattan. Over the next 3 months, at least 25 staff members became ill. Having been found out, Mary was again exiled to the island, where she spent the rest of her life. She died in 1938 after having infected at least 122 people, five of whom died.
 

COVID

Asymptomatic infections are primary drivers of COVID. Earlier in the pandemic, a meta-analysis suggested a 40% rate of asymptomatic infections, although some early reports arrived at lower estimates. A 2021 JAMA Network Open modeling study indicated a 60% rate.

Those rates are changing with the Omicron variants, of which even more cases are asymptomatic. Is this from a mutation in the virus? Some suggest that it is most likely attributable to prior vaccination resulting in boosted immunity and infections being milder. Of concern is that, although people may be asymptomatic, they still have the same viral load in their nose and can readily transmit infection.

Vincent Racaniello, PhD, a professor of virology at Columbia University in New York, told this news organization that “SARS-CoV-2 COVID is so effective at transmitting because it does this asymptomatic transmission. And so you’re out and about; you have no idea that you’re infected. You’re effectively doing what we call community transmission.”

This distinguishes SARS-CoV-2 from SARS-CoV-1. SARS-CoV-1 – which caused the SARS epidemic in 2002–2004 – had very little asymptomatic shedding. With COVID, on the other hand, “A lot of people are infected but never transmit,” Dr. Racaniello added. “I think 80% of transmissions are done by 20% of infected people because those are the ones who are shedding the most virus.”
 

Polio

The August case of paralytic polio in Rockland County, N.Y., is “the first case of polio reported in the United States in nearly 10 years, and only the second instance of community transmission identified in the U.S. since 1979,” a spokesperson for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention said in an email. “Although no additional cases of polio have been reported at this time, recent wastewater findings elevate concerns that poliovirus is present in these communities, posing a risk to those who are unvaccinated.”

Poliovirus has now been found in the wastewater of New York City and three surrounding counties: Rockland, Orange, and Sullivan.

Unlike COVID, which is spread through air and respiratory secretions, polio has primarily fecal-oral transmission, meaning it is spread by people ingesting food or water contaminated with stool.

According to the World Health Organization, up to 90% of infections are unrecognized because the person has no to minimal symptoms. Symptoms are nonspecific in the remainder. Only a small proportion of those infected go on to develop paralysis.

Paul Offit, MD, a virologist and director of the Vaccine Education Center at the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, told this news organization that before widespread immunization, polio “caused 25,000 – 30,000 children every year to be paralyzed and 1,500 to die. Roughly 1 of every 200 children who was infected was paralyzed. We had the inactivated vaccine followed by the oral polio vaccine (OPV). The price that we paid for the OPV was that rarely it could revert to the so-called neurovirulent type, a paralytic type.”

Use of the OPV was discontinued in 2000 in the United States but is still widely used worldwide because it is inexpensive and easier to administer than injections. It appeared that we were close to completely eradicating polio, as we had smallpox, but then vaccine-derived polio virus (VDPV) started cropping up in Africa, the Middle East, and Asia. They are mainly from the type 2 virus, as is the New York case. There have been three other cases of VDPV in the United States since 2000.

Now, Dr. Offit estimates that only 1 in 2,000 of those infected become paralyzed. This is why the CDC and epidemiologists are so concerned about the Rockland patient – that one case of paralysis could represent a large pool of people who are infected with polio and are asymptomatic, continuing to shed infectious virus into the sewage.

The CDC confirmed that it began conducting wastewater testing for polio in August 2022. In their interviews for this article, Dr. Offit and Dr. Racaniello were both critical of this, stressing that it is essential to do wastewater testing nationally, since asymptomatic polio can be expected to crop up from international travelers who have received OPV.

Many countries conduct that kind of wastewater surveillance. Dr. Racaniello was particularly critical of the CDC. “We’ve been telling CDC for years, at least a decade, Why don’t you check the wastewater?,” Dr. Racaniello said, “It’s been known for many years that we should be looking to monitor the circulation of these viruses. So we are using paralysis as a sentinel to say that this virus is in the wastewater, which is just not acceptable!”

Apparently there was some concern that the public would not understand. Dr. Offit viewed it as one more piece of necessary education: “You shouldn’t be alarmed about this as long as you’re vaccinated. If you’re not vaccinated, realize that this is a risk you’re taking.”
 

Monkeypox

Monkeypox cases have been skyrocketing in the United States in recent weeks. More than 18,000 cases have been reported since the first case in Boston on May 19, 2022.

“Monkeypox was such a rare zoonotic disease, and the disease always historically was introduced through animal contact,” Stuart Isaacs, MD, a pox virologist at the University of Pennsylvania, said in an interview. “And then the infected person would have potential spread within the household as the most common human-to-human spread, The sexual transmission is driving a lot of this infection and potentially allowing this to efficiently spread from person to person.”

A recent study from Belgium, available only as a preprint, created concerns about potential asymptomatic transmission of monkeypox Three men had undergone testing for anogenital chlamydia and gonorrhea but showed no clinical signs of monkeypox. The same samples were later tested by polymerase chain reaction (PCR), and their viral load in anorectal swabs was similar to or slightly lower than that of symptomatic patients. While no cultures were done, the patients seroconverted by later antibody testing, confirming infection.

Via email, a CDC spokesperson noted, “At this time, CDC does not have enough data to support transmission from aerosolized virus for the ongoing monkeypox outbreak, or to assess the risks for transmission from asymptomatic people. The data supports the main source of transmission currently as close contact with someone who is infected with monkeypox.”

Dr. Isaacs agreed, saying studies of smallpox, a related orthopox virus, also suggested this.

In the United Kingdom, the Institute of Tropical Medicine is offering PCR testing for monkeypox to all patients who come for gonorrhea/chlamydia screening. Dr. Racaniello said, “I think that would be great to get a sense of who is infected. Then you could look at the results and say what fraction of people go on to develop lesions, and they give you a sense of the asymptomatic rate, which we don’t know at this point.”

Unfortunately, to be tested for monkeypox in the United States requires that the patient have a lesion. “This is part of the dropped ball of public health in the U.S.,” Dr. Racaniello said. “We’re not thinking about this. .... We need to be doing [infectivity] experiments. So then the question is, how much infectious virus do you need to transmit?”
 

Conclusion

We’ve seen that asymptomatic carriage of bacteria and viruses occurs readily with typhoid, COVID, diphtheria, and polio (among many other organisms, such as methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus or group A strep) and is far less likely with monkeypox.

Two common denominators emerged from these interviews. The first and biggest hurdle is identifying asymptomatic carriers, which is hampered by the politicization of the CDC and funding cuts to public health. “It used to be the CDC was all about public health, and now it’s administrators, unfortunately,” said Dr. Racaniello, citing science writer Laurie Garrett, author of the influential 1994 book, “The Coming Plague”.

We don’t conduct proper surveillance, he pointed out. Wastewater surveillance has been neglected for more than a decade. It has been used for SARS-CoV-2 but is only now being initiated for polio and monkeypox. Norovirus testing would also be especially helpful in reducing foodborne outbreaks, Dr. Racaniello suggested.

The second common denominator is the need to increase the availability and uptake of vaccines. As Dr. Racaniello said about COVID, “The virus is here to stay. It’s never going to go away. It’s in humans. It’s in a lot of animals. So we’re stuck with it. We’re going to have outbreaks every year. So what do you do? Get vaccinated.” And he added, “Vaccination is the most important strategy to go on with our lives.”

Dr. Isaacs was a bit more tempered, not wanting to oversell the vaccine. He said, “The vaccine is just part of the toolkit,” which includes education, testing, isolation, and reducing risk, all of which decrease the transmission cycles.

Speaking of how antivaccine advocates had specifically targeted the Hasidic community in New York State’s Rockland County, Dr. Offit noted, “I don’t think it’s a knowledge deficit as much as a trust deficit.” He said officials should identify people in communities such as these who are trusted and have them become the influencers.

The final major hurdle to controlling these outbreaks remains global disparities in care. Monkeypox has been endemic in Nigeria for decades. It was only when it spread to Europe and America that it received attention. Polio has been actively circulating in Africa and the Middle East but is only getting attention because of the New York case.

Africa was unable to afford COVID vaccines until recently. While many in the United States are on their fourth booster, as of December 2021, more than 80% of people in Africa had not yet received a single dose, according to an article by Munyaradzi Makoni in The Lancet Respiratory Medicine.

Echoing Dr. Peter Hotez’s long-standing plea for “vaccine diplomacy,” Dr. Racaniello concluded, “My philosophy has always been we should give [vaccines] to them. I mean, we spend trillions on guns. Can’t we spend a few hundred million on vaccines? We should give away everything in terms of medicine to countries that need it, and people would like us a lot better than they do now. I think it would be such a great way of getting countries to like us. … So what if it costs a billion dollars a year? It’s a drop in the bucket for us.”

Given globalization, an infectious outbreak anywhere is a risk to all.

Dr. Racaniello and Dr. Offit report no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Isaacs receives royalties from UpToDate.

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

Monkeypox, COVID, and polio: These three very different diseases have been dominating news cycles recently, but they share at least one common characteristic: some people can become infected – and in turn infect others – while showing no symptoms.

In 1883, the famous bacteriologist Friedrich Loeffler (1852-1915) recognized that an individual’s asymptomatic carriage of bacteria could lead to diphtheria in others. Now, as then, asymptomatically infected people present a conundrum: How do you fight the spread of a disease when you can’t identify some of the people who are spreading it?

“Typhoid Mary” is perhaps the quintessential example of asymptomatic transmission of infections leading to illness and death. At the turn of the 20th century, young Mary Mallon emigrated from Ireland to New York, where she soon became a cook for wealthy Manhattan families.

George Soper, a sanitary engineer, was hired by a stricken family to investigate. After epidemiologic study, he suspected that Mary was a carrier of Salmonella typhi, the bacterial cause of typhoid fever. He persuaded the New York Department of Health to test her – against her will – for infection. After her stool was found to test positive for Salmonella, Mary was forcibly moved to North Brother Island, where she remained largely isolated from others for the next 2 years. In 1910, she was released by a new commissioner after promising not to work as a cook.

However, working under an assumed name, Mary resumed cooking at the Sloane Hospital for Women in Manhattan. Over the next 3 months, at least 25 staff members became ill. Having been found out, Mary was again exiled to the island, where she spent the rest of her life. She died in 1938 after having infected at least 122 people, five of whom died.
 

COVID

Asymptomatic infections are primary drivers of COVID. Earlier in the pandemic, a meta-analysis suggested a 40% rate of asymptomatic infections, although some early reports arrived at lower estimates. A 2021 JAMA Network Open modeling study indicated a 60% rate.

Those rates are changing with the Omicron variants, of which even more cases are asymptomatic. Is this from a mutation in the virus? Some suggest that it is most likely attributable to prior vaccination resulting in boosted immunity and infections being milder. Of concern is that, although people may be asymptomatic, they still have the same viral load in their nose and can readily transmit infection.

Vincent Racaniello, PhD, a professor of virology at Columbia University in New York, told this news organization that “SARS-CoV-2 COVID is so effective at transmitting because it does this asymptomatic transmission. And so you’re out and about; you have no idea that you’re infected. You’re effectively doing what we call community transmission.”

This distinguishes SARS-CoV-2 from SARS-CoV-1. SARS-CoV-1 – which caused the SARS epidemic in 2002–2004 – had very little asymptomatic shedding. With COVID, on the other hand, “A lot of people are infected but never transmit,” Dr. Racaniello added. “I think 80% of transmissions are done by 20% of infected people because those are the ones who are shedding the most virus.”
 

Polio

The August case of paralytic polio in Rockland County, N.Y., is “the first case of polio reported in the United States in nearly 10 years, and only the second instance of community transmission identified in the U.S. since 1979,” a spokesperson for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention said in an email. “Although no additional cases of polio have been reported at this time, recent wastewater findings elevate concerns that poliovirus is present in these communities, posing a risk to those who are unvaccinated.”

Poliovirus has now been found in the wastewater of New York City and three surrounding counties: Rockland, Orange, and Sullivan.

Unlike COVID, which is spread through air and respiratory secretions, polio has primarily fecal-oral transmission, meaning it is spread by people ingesting food or water contaminated with stool.

According to the World Health Organization, up to 90% of infections are unrecognized because the person has no to minimal symptoms. Symptoms are nonspecific in the remainder. Only a small proportion of those infected go on to develop paralysis.

Paul Offit, MD, a virologist and director of the Vaccine Education Center at the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, told this news organization that before widespread immunization, polio “caused 25,000 – 30,000 children every year to be paralyzed and 1,500 to die. Roughly 1 of every 200 children who was infected was paralyzed. We had the inactivated vaccine followed by the oral polio vaccine (OPV). The price that we paid for the OPV was that rarely it could revert to the so-called neurovirulent type, a paralytic type.”

Use of the OPV was discontinued in 2000 in the United States but is still widely used worldwide because it is inexpensive and easier to administer than injections. It appeared that we were close to completely eradicating polio, as we had smallpox, but then vaccine-derived polio virus (VDPV) started cropping up in Africa, the Middle East, and Asia. They are mainly from the type 2 virus, as is the New York case. There have been three other cases of VDPV in the United States since 2000.

Now, Dr. Offit estimates that only 1 in 2,000 of those infected become paralyzed. This is why the CDC and epidemiologists are so concerned about the Rockland patient – that one case of paralysis could represent a large pool of people who are infected with polio and are asymptomatic, continuing to shed infectious virus into the sewage.

The CDC confirmed that it began conducting wastewater testing for polio in August 2022. In their interviews for this article, Dr. Offit and Dr. Racaniello were both critical of this, stressing that it is essential to do wastewater testing nationally, since asymptomatic polio can be expected to crop up from international travelers who have received OPV.

Many countries conduct that kind of wastewater surveillance. Dr. Racaniello was particularly critical of the CDC. “We’ve been telling CDC for years, at least a decade, Why don’t you check the wastewater?,” Dr. Racaniello said, “It’s been known for many years that we should be looking to monitor the circulation of these viruses. So we are using paralysis as a sentinel to say that this virus is in the wastewater, which is just not acceptable!”

Apparently there was some concern that the public would not understand. Dr. Offit viewed it as one more piece of necessary education: “You shouldn’t be alarmed about this as long as you’re vaccinated. If you’re not vaccinated, realize that this is a risk you’re taking.”
 

Monkeypox

Monkeypox cases have been skyrocketing in the United States in recent weeks. More than 18,000 cases have been reported since the first case in Boston on May 19, 2022.

“Monkeypox was such a rare zoonotic disease, and the disease always historically was introduced through animal contact,” Stuart Isaacs, MD, a pox virologist at the University of Pennsylvania, said in an interview. “And then the infected person would have potential spread within the household as the most common human-to-human spread, The sexual transmission is driving a lot of this infection and potentially allowing this to efficiently spread from person to person.”

A recent study from Belgium, available only as a preprint, created concerns about potential asymptomatic transmission of monkeypox Three men had undergone testing for anogenital chlamydia and gonorrhea but showed no clinical signs of monkeypox. The same samples were later tested by polymerase chain reaction (PCR), and their viral load in anorectal swabs was similar to or slightly lower than that of symptomatic patients. While no cultures were done, the patients seroconverted by later antibody testing, confirming infection.

Via email, a CDC spokesperson noted, “At this time, CDC does not have enough data to support transmission from aerosolized virus for the ongoing monkeypox outbreak, or to assess the risks for transmission from asymptomatic people. The data supports the main source of transmission currently as close contact with someone who is infected with monkeypox.”

Dr. Isaacs agreed, saying studies of smallpox, a related orthopox virus, also suggested this.

In the United Kingdom, the Institute of Tropical Medicine is offering PCR testing for monkeypox to all patients who come for gonorrhea/chlamydia screening. Dr. Racaniello said, “I think that would be great to get a sense of who is infected. Then you could look at the results and say what fraction of people go on to develop lesions, and they give you a sense of the asymptomatic rate, which we don’t know at this point.”

Unfortunately, to be tested for monkeypox in the United States requires that the patient have a lesion. “This is part of the dropped ball of public health in the U.S.,” Dr. Racaniello said. “We’re not thinking about this. .... We need to be doing [infectivity] experiments. So then the question is, how much infectious virus do you need to transmit?”
 

Conclusion

We’ve seen that asymptomatic carriage of bacteria and viruses occurs readily with typhoid, COVID, diphtheria, and polio (among many other organisms, such as methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus or group A strep) and is far less likely with monkeypox.

Two common denominators emerged from these interviews. The first and biggest hurdle is identifying asymptomatic carriers, which is hampered by the politicization of the CDC and funding cuts to public health. “It used to be the CDC was all about public health, and now it’s administrators, unfortunately,” said Dr. Racaniello, citing science writer Laurie Garrett, author of the influential 1994 book, “The Coming Plague”.

We don’t conduct proper surveillance, he pointed out. Wastewater surveillance has been neglected for more than a decade. It has been used for SARS-CoV-2 but is only now being initiated for polio and monkeypox. Norovirus testing would also be especially helpful in reducing foodborne outbreaks, Dr. Racaniello suggested.

The second common denominator is the need to increase the availability and uptake of vaccines. As Dr. Racaniello said about COVID, “The virus is here to stay. It’s never going to go away. It’s in humans. It’s in a lot of animals. So we’re stuck with it. We’re going to have outbreaks every year. So what do you do? Get vaccinated.” And he added, “Vaccination is the most important strategy to go on with our lives.”

Dr. Isaacs was a bit more tempered, not wanting to oversell the vaccine. He said, “The vaccine is just part of the toolkit,” which includes education, testing, isolation, and reducing risk, all of which decrease the transmission cycles.

Speaking of how antivaccine advocates had specifically targeted the Hasidic community in New York State’s Rockland County, Dr. Offit noted, “I don’t think it’s a knowledge deficit as much as a trust deficit.” He said officials should identify people in communities such as these who are trusted and have them become the influencers.

The final major hurdle to controlling these outbreaks remains global disparities in care. Monkeypox has been endemic in Nigeria for decades. It was only when it spread to Europe and America that it received attention. Polio has been actively circulating in Africa and the Middle East but is only getting attention because of the New York case.

Africa was unable to afford COVID vaccines until recently. While many in the United States are on their fourth booster, as of December 2021, more than 80% of people in Africa had not yet received a single dose, according to an article by Munyaradzi Makoni in The Lancet Respiratory Medicine.

Echoing Dr. Peter Hotez’s long-standing plea for “vaccine diplomacy,” Dr. Racaniello concluded, “My philosophy has always been we should give [vaccines] to them. I mean, we spend trillions on guns. Can’t we spend a few hundred million on vaccines? We should give away everything in terms of medicine to countries that need it, and people would like us a lot better than they do now. I think it would be such a great way of getting countries to like us. … So what if it costs a billion dollars a year? It’s a drop in the bucket for us.”

Given globalization, an infectious outbreak anywhere is a risk to all.

Dr. Racaniello and Dr. Offit report no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Isaacs receives royalties from UpToDate.

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

Monkeypox, COVID, and polio: These three very different diseases have been dominating news cycles recently, but they share at least one common characteristic: some people can become infected – and in turn infect others – while showing no symptoms.

In 1883, the famous bacteriologist Friedrich Loeffler (1852-1915) recognized that an individual’s asymptomatic carriage of bacteria could lead to diphtheria in others. Now, as then, asymptomatically infected people present a conundrum: How do you fight the spread of a disease when you can’t identify some of the people who are spreading it?

“Typhoid Mary” is perhaps the quintessential example of asymptomatic transmission of infections leading to illness and death. At the turn of the 20th century, young Mary Mallon emigrated from Ireland to New York, where she soon became a cook for wealthy Manhattan families.

George Soper, a sanitary engineer, was hired by a stricken family to investigate. After epidemiologic study, he suspected that Mary was a carrier of Salmonella typhi, the bacterial cause of typhoid fever. He persuaded the New York Department of Health to test her – against her will – for infection. After her stool was found to test positive for Salmonella, Mary was forcibly moved to North Brother Island, where she remained largely isolated from others for the next 2 years. In 1910, she was released by a new commissioner after promising not to work as a cook.

However, working under an assumed name, Mary resumed cooking at the Sloane Hospital for Women in Manhattan. Over the next 3 months, at least 25 staff members became ill. Having been found out, Mary was again exiled to the island, where she spent the rest of her life. She died in 1938 after having infected at least 122 people, five of whom died.
 

COVID

Asymptomatic infections are primary drivers of COVID. Earlier in the pandemic, a meta-analysis suggested a 40% rate of asymptomatic infections, although some early reports arrived at lower estimates. A 2021 JAMA Network Open modeling study indicated a 60% rate.

Those rates are changing with the Omicron variants, of which even more cases are asymptomatic. Is this from a mutation in the virus? Some suggest that it is most likely attributable to prior vaccination resulting in boosted immunity and infections being milder. Of concern is that, although people may be asymptomatic, they still have the same viral load in their nose and can readily transmit infection.

Vincent Racaniello, PhD, a professor of virology at Columbia University in New York, told this news organization that “SARS-CoV-2 COVID is so effective at transmitting because it does this asymptomatic transmission. And so you’re out and about; you have no idea that you’re infected. You’re effectively doing what we call community transmission.”

This distinguishes SARS-CoV-2 from SARS-CoV-1. SARS-CoV-1 – which caused the SARS epidemic in 2002–2004 – had very little asymptomatic shedding. With COVID, on the other hand, “A lot of people are infected but never transmit,” Dr. Racaniello added. “I think 80% of transmissions are done by 20% of infected people because those are the ones who are shedding the most virus.”
 

Polio

The August case of paralytic polio in Rockland County, N.Y., is “the first case of polio reported in the United States in nearly 10 years, and only the second instance of community transmission identified in the U.S. since 1979,” a spokesperson for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention said in an email. “Although no additional cases of polio have been reported at this time, recent wastewater findings elevate concerns that poliovirus is present in these communities, posing a risk to those who are unvaccinated.”

Poliovirus has now been found in the wastewater of New York City and three surrounding counties: Rockland, Orange, and Sullivan.

Unlike COVID, which is spread through air and respiratory secretions, polio has primarily fecal-oral transmission, meaning it is spread by people ingesting food or water contaminated with stool.

According to the World Health Organization, up to 90% of infections are unrecognized because the person has no to minimal symptoms. Symptoms are nonspecific in the remainder. Only a small proportion of those infected go on to develop paralysis.

Paul Offit, MD, a virologist and director of the Vaccine Education Center at the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, told this news organization that before widespread immunization, polio “caused 25,000 – 30,000 children every year to be paralyzed and 1,500 to die. Roughly 1 of every 200 children who was infected was paralyzed. We had the inactivated vaccine followed by the oral polio vaccine (OPV). The price that we paid for the OPV was that rarely it could revert to the so-called neurovirulent type, a paralytic type.”

Use of the OPV was discontinued in 2000 in the United States but is still widely used worldwide because it is inexpensive and easier to administer than injections. It appeared that we were close to completely eradicating polio, as we had smallpox, but then vaccine-derived polio virus (VDPV) started cropping up in Africa, the Middle East, and Asia. They are mainly from the type 2 virus, as is the New York case. There have been three other cases of VDPV in the United States since 2000.

Now, Dr. Offit estimates that only 1 in 2,000 of those infected become paralyzed. This is why the CDC and epidemiologists are so concerned about the Rockland patient – that one case of paralysis could represent a large pool of people who are infected with polio and are asymptomatic, continuing to shed infectious virus into the sewage.

The CDC confirmed that it began conducting wastewater testing for polio in August 2022. In their interviews for this article, Dr. Offit and Dr. Racaniello were both critical of this, stressing that it is essential to do wastewater testing nationally, since asymptomatic polio can be expected to crop up from international travelers who have received OPV.

Many countries conduct that kind of wastewater surveillance. Dr. Racaniello was particularly critical of the CDC. “We’ve been telling CDC for years, at least a decade, Why don’t you check the wastewater?,” Dr. Racaniello said, “It’s been known for many years that we should be looking to monitor the circulation of these viruses. So we are using paralysis as a sentinel to say that this virus is in the wastewater, which is just not acceptable!”

Apparently there was some concern that the public would not understand. Dr. Offit viewed it as one more piece of necessary education: “You shouldn’t be alarmed about this as long as you’re vaccinated. If you’re not vaccinated, realize that this is a risk you’re taking.”
 

Monkeypox

Monkeypox cases have been skyrocketing in the United States in recent weeks. More than 18,000 cases have been reported since the first case in Boston on May 19, 2022.

“Monkeypox was such a rare zoonotic disease, and the disease always historically was introduced through animal contact,” Stuart Isaacs, MD, a pox virologist at the University of Pennsylvania, said in an interview. “And then the infected person would have potential spread within the household as the most common human-to-human spread, The sexual transmission is driving a lot of this infection and potentially allowing this to efficiently spread from person to person.”

A recent study from Belgium, available only as a preprint, created concerns about potential asymptomatic transmission of monkeypox Three men had undergone testing for anogenital chlamydia and gonorrhea but showed no clinical signs of monkeypox. The same samples were later tested by polymerase chain reaction (PCR), and their viral load in anorectal swabs was similar to or slightly lower than that of symptomatic patients. While no cultures were done, the patients seroconverted by later antibody testing, confirming infection.

Via email, a CDC spokesperson noted, “At this time, CDC does not have enough data to support transmission from aerosolized virus for the ongoing monkeypox outbreak, or to assess the risks for transmission from asymptomatic people. The data supports the main source of transmission currently as close contact with someone who is infected with monkeypox.”

Dr. Isaacs agreed, saying studies of smallpox, a related orthopox virus, also suggested this.

In the United Kingdom, the Institute of Tropical Medicine is offering PCR testing for monkeypox to all patients who come for gonorrhea/chlamydia screening. Dr. Racaniello said, “I think that would be great to get a sense of who is infected. Then you could look at the results and say what fraction of people go on to develop lesions, and they give you a sense of the asymptomatic rate, which we don’t know at this point.”

Unfortunately, to be tested for monkeypox in the United States requires that the patient have a lesion. “This is part of the dropped ball of public health in the U.S.,” Dr. Racaniello said. “We’re not thinking about this. .... We need to be doing [infectivity] experiments. So then the question is, how much infectious virus do you need to transmit?”
 

Conclusion

We’ve seen that asymptomatic carriage of bacteria and viruses occurs readily with typhoid, COVID, diphtheria, and polio (among many other organisms, such as methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus or group A strep) and is far less likely with monkeypox.

Two common denominators emerged from these interviews. The first and biggest hurdle is identifying asymptomatic carriers, which is hampered by the politicization of the CDC and funding cuts to public health. “It used to be the CDC was all about public health, and now it’s administrators, unfortunately,” said Dr. Racaniello, citing science writer Laurie Garrett, author of the influential 1994 book, “The Coming Plague”.

We don’t conduct proper surveillance, he pointed out. Wastewater surveillance has been neglected for more than a decade. It has been used for SARS-CoV-2 but is only now being initiated for polio and monkeypox. Norovirus testing would also be especially helpful in reducing foodborne outbreaks, Dr. Racaniello suggested.

The second common denominator is the need to increase the availability and uptake of vaccines. As Dr. Racaniello said about COVID, “The virus is here to stay. It’s never going to go away. It’s in humans. It’s in a lot of animals. So we’re stuck with it. We’re going to have outbreaks every year. So what do you do? Get vaccinated.” And he added, “Vaccination is the most important strategy to go on with our lives.”

Dr. Isaacs was a bit more tempered, not wanting to oversell the vaccine. He said, “The vaccine is just part of the toolkit,” which includes education, testing, isolation, and reducing risk, all of which decrease the transmission cycles.

Speaking of how antivaccine advocates had specifically targeted the Hasidic community in New York State’s Rockland County, Dr. Offit noted, “I don’t think it’s a knowledge deficit as much as a trust deficit.” He said officials should identify people in communities such as these who are trusted and have them become the influencers.

The final major hurdle to controlling these outbreaks remains global disparities in care. Monkeypox has been endemic in Nigeria for decades. It was only when it spread to Europe and America that it received attention. Polio has been actively circulating in Africa and the Middle East but is only getting attention because of the New York case.

Africa was unable to afford COVID vaccines until recently. While many in the United States are on their fourth booster, as of December 2021, more than 80% of people in Africa had not yet received a single dose, according to an article by Munyaradzi Makoni in The Lancet Respiratory Medicine.

Echoing Dr. Peter Hotez’s long-standing plea for “vaccine diplomacy,” Dr. Racaniello concluded, “My philosophy has always been we should give [vaccines] to them. I mean, we spend trillions on guns. Can’t we spend a few hundred million on vaccines? We should give away everything in terms of medicine to countries that need it, and people would like us a lot better than they do now. I think it would be such a great way of getting countries to like us. … So what if it costs a billion dollars a year? It’s a drop in the bucket for us.”

Given globalization, an infectious outbreak anywhere is a risk to all.

Dr. Racaniello and Dr. Offit report no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Isaacs receives royalties from UpToDate.

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

An extensive new study shows that climate change can aggravate over half of known human pathogenic diseases. This comprehensive systematic review of the literature narrowed down 3,213 cases, linking 286 infectious diseases to specific climate change hazards. Of these, 58% were worsened, and only 9 conditions showed any benefit associated with environmental change.

The study was published online in Nature Climate Change. The complete list of cases, transmission pathways, and associated papers can be explored in detail – a remarkable, interactive data visualization.

To compile the data, investigators searched 10 keywords on the Global Infectious Disease and Epidemiology Network (GIDEON) and Center for Disease Control and Prevention databases. They then filled gaps by examining alternative names of the diseases, pathogens, and hazards.

Coauthor Tristan McKenzie, PhD, a postdoctoral researcher at the University of Gothenburg, Sweden, told this news organization: “If someone is interested in a certain pathway, it’s a beautiful starting point.” Or if someone wants to “do a modeling study and they want to focus on a specific area, the specific examples in the literature are already there” in the extensive database.

An early key finding is that warming and increased precipitation broadened the range of many pathogens through expansion of their habitat. This shift brings many pathogens closer to people. We have already seen vectors such as mosquitoes, ticks, fleas, birds, and several mammals spreading infections over a broader range. Examples are viruses (dengue, Chikungunya), bacteria (Lyme), protozoans (trypanosomes), and more. Warming has affected aquatic systems (for example, Vibrio) and higher altitudes and latitudes (malaria, dengue).

Pathogenic hazards are not just moving closer to people. People are also moving closer to the pathogenic hazards, with heat waves causing people to seek refuge with water activities, for example. This increases their exposure to pathogens, such as Vibrio, hepatitis, and water-borne gastroenteritis.

Some hazards, such as warming, can even make pathogens more virulent. Heat can upregulate Vibrio’s gene expression of proteins affecting transmission, adhesion, penetration, and host injury.

Heat and rainfall can increase stagnant water, enhancing mosquitoes’ breeding and growing grounds and enabling them to transmit many more infections.

People’s capacity to respond to climate hazards can also be impaired. For example, there is a reduced concentration of nutrients in crops under high CO2 levels, which can result in malnutrition. Lower crop yields can further fuel outbreaks of measles, cholera, or Cryptosporidium. Drought also likely forces people to drink contaminated water.

Among all this bad news, the authors found a small number of cases where climate hazards reduced the risk of infection. For example, droughts reduced the breeding grounds of mosquitoes, reducing the prevalence of malaria and chikungunya. But in other cases, the density of mosquitoes increased in some pools, causing an increased local risk of infection.

Naomi Hauser, MD, MPH, assistant clinical professor at UC Davis, Sacramento, told this news organization she was particularly impressed with the data visualization. “It really emphasizes the magnitude of what we’re dealing with. It makes you feel the weight of what they’re trying to represent,” she said.

On the other hand, Dr. Hauser said she would have liked “more emphasis on how the climate hazards interact with each other. It sort of made it sound like each of these climate hazards is in a vacuum – like when there’s floods, and that’s the problem. But there are a lot of other things ... like when we have warming and surface water temperature changes, it can also change the pH of the water and the salinity of the water, and those can also impact what we see with pathogens in the water.”

Dr. McKenzie explained one limitation: The study looked only at 10 keywords. So an example of a dust storm in Africa causing an increase in Vibrio in the United States could not be identified by this approach. “This also goes back to the scale of the problem, because we have something going on in the Sahara that’s impacting the East Coast of the United States,” he said. “And finding that link is not necessarily obvious – or at least not as obvious as [if] there [were] a hurricane and a bunch of people got sick from waterborne disease. So I think that really highlights the scale of this problem.”

Instead of looking at only one individual or group of pathogens, the study provided a much broader review of infections caused by an array of climate hazards. As Dr. McKenzie said, “no one’s actually done the work previously to really just try and get a comprehensive picture of what we might be dealing with. And so that was the goal for us.” The 58% estimate of diseases worsened by climate change is conservative, and, he says, “arguably, this is an even bigger problem than what we present.”

Dr. McKenzie concluded: “If we’re looking at the spread of some more serious or rare diseases in areas, to me then the answer is ... we need to be aggressively mitigating greenhouse gas emissions. Let’s start with the source.”

Dr. McKenzie and Dr. Hauser report no relevant financial relationships.

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

An extensive new study shows that climate change can aggravate over half of known human pathogenic diseases. This comprehensive systematic review of the literature narrowed down 3,213 cases, linking 286 infectious diseases to specific climate change hazards. Of these, 58% were worsened, and only 9 conditions showed any benefit associated with environmental change.

The study was published online in Nature Climate Change. The complete list of cases, transmission pathways, and associated papers can be explored in detail – a remarkable, interactive data visualization.

To compile the data, investigators searched 10 keywords on the Global Infectious Disease and Epidemiology Network (GIDEON) and Center for Disease Control and Prevention databases. They then filled gaps by examining alternative names of the diseases, pathogens, and hazards.

Coauthor Tristan McKenzie, PhD, a postdoctoral researcher at the University of Gothenburg, Sweden, told this news organization: “If someone is interested in a certain pathway, it’s a beautiful starting point.” Or if someone wants to “do a modeling study and they want to focus on a specific area, the specific examples in the literature are already there” in the extensive database.

An early key finding is that warming and increased precipitation broadened the range of many pathogens through expansion of their habitat. This shift brings many pathogens closer to people. We have already seen vectors such as mosquitoes, ticks, fleas, birds, and several mammals spreading infections over a broader range. Examples are viruses (dengue, Chikungunya), bacteria (Lyme), protozoans (trypanosomes), and more. Warming has affected aquatic systems (for example, Vibrio) and higher altitudes and latitudes (malaria, dengue).

Pathogenic hazards are not just moving closer to people. People are also moving closer to the pathogenic hazards, with heat waves causing people to seek refuge with water activities, for example. This increases their exposure to pathogens, such as Vibrio, hepatitis, and water-borne gastroenteritis.

Some hazards, such as warming, can even make pathogens more virulent. Heat can upregulate Vibrio’s gene expression of proteins affecting transmission, adhesion, penetration, and host injury.

Heat and rainfall can increase stagnant water, enhancing mosquitoes’ breeding and growing grounds and enabling them to transmit many more infections.

People’s capacity to respond to climate hazards can also be impaired. For example, there is a reduced concentration of nutrients in crops under high CO2 levels, which can result in malnutrition. Lower crop yields can further fuel outbreaks of measles, cholera, or Cryptosporidium. Drought also likely forces people to drink contaminated water.

Among all this bad news, the authors found a small number of cases where climate hazards reduced the risk of infection. For example, droughts reduced the breeding grounds of mosquitoes, reducing the prevalence of malaria and chikungunya. But in other cases, the density of mosquitoes increased in some pools, causing an increased local risk of infection.

Naomi Hauser, MD, MPH, assistant clinical professor at UC Davis, Sacramento, told this news organization she was particularly impressed with the data visualization. “It really emphasizes the magnitude of what we’re dealing with. It makes you feel the weight of what they’re trying to represent,” she said.

On the other hand, Dr. Hauser said she would have liked “more emphasis on how the climate hazards interact with each other. It sort of made it sound like each of these climate hazards is in a vacuum – like when there’s floods, and that’s the problem. But there are a lot of other things ... like when we have warming and surface water temperature changes, it can also change the pH of the water and the salinity of the water, and those can also impact what we see with pathogens in the water.”

Dr. McKenzie explained one limitation: The study looked only at 10 keywords. So an example of a dust storm in Africa causing an increase in Vibrio in the United States could not be identified by this approach. “This also goes back to the scale of the problem, because we have something going on in the Sahara that’s impacting the East Coast of the United States,” he said. “And finding that link is not necessarily obvious – or at least not as obvious as [if] there [were] a hurricane and a bunch of people got sick from waterborne disease. So I think that really highlights the scale of this problem.”

Instead of looking at only one individual or group of pathogens, the study provided a much broader review of infections caused by an array of climate hazards. As Dr. McKenzie said, “no one’s actually done the work previously to really just try and get a comprehensive picture of what we might be dealing with. And so that was the goal for us.” The 58% estimate of diseases worsened by climate change is conservative, and, he says, “arguably, this is an even bigger problem than what we present.”

Dr. McKenzie concluded: “If we’re looking at the spread of some more serious or rare diseases in areas, to me then the answer is ... we need to be aggressively mitigating greenhouse gas emissions. Let’s start with the source.”

Dr. McKenzie and Dr. Hauser report no relevant financial relationships.

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

An extensive new study shows that climate change can aggravate over half of known human pathogenic diseases. This comprehensive systematic review of the literature narrowed down 3,213 cases, linking 286 infectious diseases to specific climate change hazards. Of these, 58% were worsened, and only 9 conditions showed any benefit associated with environmental change.

The study was published online in Nature Climate Change. The complete list of cases, transmission pathways, and associated papers can be explored in detail – a remarkable, interactive data visualization.

To compile the data, investigators searched 10 keywords on the Global Infectious Disease and Epidemiology Network (GIDEON) and Center for Disease Control and Prevention databases. They then filled gaps by examining alternative names of the diseases, pathogens, and hazards.

Coauthor Tristan McKenzie, PhD, a postdoctoral researcher at the University of Gothenburg, Sweden, told this news organization: “If someone is interested in a certain pathway, it’s a beautiful starting point.” Or if someone wants to “do a modeling study and they want to focus on a specific area, the specific examples in the literature are already there” in the extensive database.

An early key finding is that warming and increased precipitation broadened the range of many pathogens through expansion of their habitat. This shift brings many pathogens closer to people. We have already seen vectors such as mosquitoes, ticks, fleas, birds, and several mammals spreading infections over a broader range. Examples are viruses (dengue, Chikungunya), bacteria (Lyme), protozoans (trypanosomes), and more. Warming has affected aquatic systems (for example, Vibrio) and higher altitudes and latitudes (malaria, dengue).

Pathogenic hazards are not just moving closer to people. People are also moving closer to the pathogenic hazards, with heat waves causing people to seek refuge with water activities, for example. This increases their exposure to pathogens, such as Vibrio, hepatitis, and water-borne gastroenteritis.

Some hazards, such as warming, can even make pathogens more virulent. Heat can upregulate Vibrio’s gene expression of proteins affecting transmission, adhesion, penetration, and host injury.

Heat and rainfall can increase stagnant water, enhancing mosquitoes’ breeding and growing grounds and enabling them to transmit many more infections.

People’s capacity to respond to climate hazards can also be impaired. For example, there is a reduced concentration of nutrients in crops under high CO2 levels, which can result in malnutrition. Lower crop yields can further fuel outbreaks of measles, cholera, or Cryptosporidium. Drought also likely forces people to drink contaminated water.

Among all this bad news, the authors found a small number of cases where climate hazards reduced the risk of infection. For example, droughts reduced the breeding grounds of mosquitoes, reducing the prevalence of malaria and chikungunya. But in other cases, the density of mosquitoes increased in some pools, causing an increased local risk of infection.

Naomi Hauser, MD, MPH, assistant clinical professor at UC Davis, Sacramento, told this news organization she was particularly impressed with the data visualization. “It really emphasizes the magnitude of what we’re dealing with. It makes you feel the weight of what they’re trying to represent,” she said.

On the other hand, Dr. Hauser said she would have liked “more emphasis on how the climate hazards interact with each other. It sort of made it sound like each of these climate hazards is in a vacuum – like when there’s floods, and that’s the problem. But there are a lot of other things ... like when we have warming and surface water temperature changes, it can also change the pH of the water and the salinity of the water, and those can also impact what we see with pathogens in the water.”

Dr. McKenzie explained one limitation: The study looked only at 10 keywords. So an example of a dust storm in Africa causing an increase in Vibrio in the United States could not be identified by this approach. “This also goes back to the scale of the problem, because we have something going on in the Sahara that’s impacting the East Coast of the United States,” he said. “And finding that link is not necessarily obvious – or at least not as obvious as [if] there [were] a hurricane and a bunch of people got sick from waterborne disease. So I think that really highlights the scale of this problem.”

Instead of looking at only one individual or group of pathogens, the study provided a much broader review of infections caused by an array of climate hazards. As Dr. McKenzie said, “no one’s actually done the work previously to really just try and get a comprehensive picture of what we might be dealing with. And so that was the goal for us.” The 58% estimate of diseases worsened by climate change is conservative, and, he says, “arguably, this is an even bigger problem than what we present.”

Dr. McKenzie concluded: “If we’re looking at the spread of some more serious or rare diseases in areas, to me then the answer is ... we need to be aggressively mitigating greenhouse gas emissions. Let’s start with the source.”

Dr. McKenzie and Dr. Hauser report no relevant financial relationships.

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

A new study from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention found that a surprising proportion of cases of carbapenem-resistant Enterobacterales (CRE) are found in isolates from patients in the community (CA-CRE). They had previously been thought to be health care–associated infections (HCA-CRE).

Traditionally, CRE has been thought of as a nosocomial infection, acquired in a hospital or other health care facility (nursing home, long-term acute care hospital, dialysis center, etc.). This is the first population-level study to show otherwise, with fully 10% of the CRE isolates found to be community acquired.

CREs are a group of multidrug-resistant bacteria considered an urgent health threat by the CDC because they can rapidly spread between patients, especially those who are most seriously ill and vulnerable, and because they are so difficult to treat. These patients often require treatment with toxic antibiotics, such as colistin, and carry a high mortality rate – up to 50% in some studies.

Overall, 30% of CREs carry a carbapenemase – an enzyme that can make them resistant to carbapenem antibiotics. The genes for this are readily transferable between bacteria and help account for their spread in hospitals.

But in this study, published in the American Journal of Infection Control, of the 12 isolates that underwent whole-genome sequencing, 42% of the CA-CRE isolates carried the carbapenemase gene. Lead author Sandra Bulens, MPH, a health scientist in the CDC’s division of health care quality promotion, said in an interview, “The findings highlight the potential for CP-CRE to move from health care settings into the community. The fact that 5 of the 12 isolates harbored a carbapenemase gene introduces new challenges for controlling spread of CP-CRE.”

CDC researchers analyzed data from eight U.S. metropolitan areas between 2012 and 2015 as part of the CDC’s Emerging Infections Program (EIP) health care–associated infections – community interface activity, which conducts surveillance for CRE and other drug-resistant gram-negative bacteria. Cases of CA-CRE were compared with HCA-CRE, with 1499 cases in 1,194 case-patients being analyzed. Though Klebsiella pneumoniae was the most common isolate, there were some differences between metropolitan areas.

The incidence of CRE cases per 100,000 population was 2.96 (95% confidence interval, 2.81-3.11) overall and 0.29 (95% CI, 0.25-0.25) for CA-CRE. Most CA-CRE cases were in White persons (73%) and women (84%). Urine cultures were the source of 98% of all CA-CRE cases, compared with 86% of HCA-CRE cases (P < .001). Though small numbers, the numbers of patients with CA-CRE without apparent underlying medical condition (n = 51; 37%) was greater when compared with patients with HCA-CRE (n = 36; 3%; P < .001).

Asked for independent comment, Lance Price, PhD, of George Washington University and the founding director of GW’s Antibiotic Resistance Action Center, Washington, said, “what’s striking about these data is that: ‘Who is the front line, at least in the United States for CRE?’ It’s women, older women. ... At some point, we have to frame drug resistance as a women’s health issue.”

Dr. Price noted that the 10% of patients with CA-CRE acquired it in the community. “I would argue that probably none of them had any idea, because there’s this silent community epidemic,” he said. “It’s asymptomatic carriage and transmission in the community. Somebody can be this walking reservoir of these really dangerous bacteria and have no idea.”

This is an increasingly serious problem for women, Dr. Price said, because, “with a community-acquired bladder infection, you’re going to call your doctor or go to an urgent care, and they’re not going to test you. They’re going to guess what you have, and they’re going to prescribe an antibiotic, and that antibiotic is going to fail. So then your bladder infection continues, and then you wait a few more days, and you start to get flank pain and kidney infection. ... If you start getting a fever, they might admit you. They are going to start treating you immediately, and they might miss it because you’ve got this organism that’s resistant to all the best antibiotics. ... The gateway to the blood is the UTI.”

Because of such empiric treatment and increasing resistance, the risk for treatment failure is quite high, especially for older women. Ms. Bulens, however, said that, “[although] 10% of CRE were in persons without health care risk factors, the proportion of all UTIs in this population that are CRE is going to be very, very small.”

This study involved cultures from 2012 to 2015. Before the pandemic, from 2012 to 2017, U.S. deaths from antibiotic resistance fell by 18% overall and by 30% in hospitals.

But in the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic, there was a 15% increase in infections and deaths from antibiotic-resistant (AMR), hospital-acquired bacteria. In 2020, 29,400 patients died from AMR infections. There was a 78% increase in carbapenem-resistant Acinetobacter baumannii health care–associated infections, a 35% increase in carbapenem-resistant Enterobacterales, and 32% increases in both multidrug-resistant Pseudomonas aeruginosa and extended-spectrum beta-lactamase–producing Enterobacterales. Aside from gram-negative bacteria, methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus rose 13%, and Candida auris rose 60%. But owing to limited surveillance, recent sound figures are lacking.

Ms. Bulens and Dr. Price reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

A new study from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention found that a surprising proportion of cases of carbapenem-resistant Enterobacterales (CRE) are found in isolates from patients in the community (CA-CRE). They had previously been thought to be health care–associated infections (HCA-CRE).

Traditionally, CRE has been thought of as a nosocomial infection, acquired in a hospital or other health care facility (nursing home, long-term acute care hospital, dialysis center, etc.). This is the first population-level study to show otherwise, with fully 10% of the CRE isolates found to be community acquired.

CREs are a group of multidrug-resistant bacteria considered an urgent health threat by the CDC because they can rapidly spread between patients, especially those who are most seriously ill and vulnerable, and because they are so difficult to treat. These patients often require treatment with toxic antibiotics, such as colistin, and carry a high mortality rate – up to 50% in some studies.

Overall, 30% of CREs carry a carbapenemase – an enzyme that can make them resistant to carbapenem antibiotics. The genes for this are readily transferable between bacteria and help account for their spread in hospitals.

But in this study, published in the American Journal of Infection Control, of the 12 isolates that underwent whole-genome sequencing, 42% of the CA-CRE isolates carried the carbapenemase gene. Lead author Sandra Bulens, MPH, a health scientist in the CDC’s division of health care quality promotion, said in an interview, “The findings highlight the potential for CP-CRE to move from health care settings into the community. The fact that 5 of the 12 isolates harbored a carbapenemase gene introduces new challenges for controlling spread of CP-CRE.”

CDC researchers analyzed data from eight U.S. metropolitan areas between 2012 and 2015 as part of the CDC’s Emerging Infections Program (EIP) health care–associated infections – community interface activity, which conducts surveillance for CRE and other drug-resistant gram-negative bacteria. Cases of CA-CRE were compared with HCA-CRE, with 1499 cases in 1,194 case-patients being analyzed. Though Klebsiella pneumoniae was the most common isolate, there were some differences between metropolitan areas.

The incidence of CRE cases per 100,000 population was 2.96 (95% confidence interval, 2.81-3.11) overall and 0.29 (95% CI, 0.25-0.25) for CA-CRE. Most CA-CRE cases were in White persons (73%) and women (84%). Urine cultures were the source of 98% of all CA-CRE cases, compared with 86% of HCA-CRE cases (P < .001). Though small numbers, the numbers of patients with CA-CRE without apparent underlying medical condition (n = 51; 37%) was greater when compared with patients with HCA-CRE (n = 36; 3%; P < .001).

Asked for independent comment, Lance Price, PhD, of George Washington University and the founding director of GW’s Antibiotic Resistance Action Center, Washington, said, “what’s striking about these data is that: ‘Who is the front line, at least in the United States for CRE?’ It’s women, older women. ... At some point, we have to frame drug resistance as a women’s health issue.”

Dr. Price noted that the 10% of patients with CA-CRE acquired it in the community. “I would argue that probably none of them had any idea, because there’s this silent community epidemic,” he said. “It’s asymptomatic carriage and transmission in the community. Somebody can be this walking reservoir of these really dangerous bacteria and have no idea.”

This is an increasingly serious problem for women, Dr. Price said, because, “with a community-acquired bladder infection, you’re going to call your doctor or go to an urgent care, and they’re not going to test you. They’re going to guess what you have, and they’re going to prescribe an antibiotic, and that antibiotic is going to fail. So then your bladder infection continues, and then you wait a few more days, and you start to get flank pain and kidney infection. ... If you start getting a fever, they might admit you. They are going to start treating you immediately, and they might miss it because you’ve got this organism that’s resistant to all the best antibiotics. ... The gateway to the blood is the UTI.”

Because of such empiric treatment and increasing resistance, the risk for treatment failure is quite high, especially for older women. Ms. Bulens, however, said that, “[although] 10% of CRE were in persons without health care risk factors, the proportion of all UTIs in this population that are CRE is going to be very, very small.”

This study involved cultures from 2012 to 2015. Before the pandemic, from 2012 to 2017, U.S. deaths from antibiotic resistance fell by 18% overall and by 30% in hospitals.

But in the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic, there was a 15% increase in infections and deaths from antibiotic-resistant (AMR), hospital-acquired bacteria. In 2020, 29,400 patients died from AMR infections. There was a 78% increase in carbapenem-resistant Acinetobacter baumannii health care–associated infections, a 35% increase in carbapenem-resistant Enterobacterales, and 32% increases in both multidrug-resistant Pseudomonas aeruginosa and extended-spectrum beta-lactamase–producing Enterobacterales. Aside from gram-negative bacteria, methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus rose 13%, and Candida auris rose 60%. But owing to limited surveillance, recent sound figures are lacking.

Ms. Bulens and Dr. Price reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

A new study from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention found that a surprising proportion of cases of carbapenem-resistant Enterobacterales (CRE) are found in isolates from patients in the community (CA-CRE). They had previously been thought to be health care–associated infections (HCA-CRE).

Traditionally, CRE has been thought of as a nosocomial infection, acquired in a hospital or other health care facility (nursing home, long-term acute care hospital, dialysis center, etc.). This is the first population-level study to show otherwise, with fully 10% of the CRE isolates found to be community acquired.

CREs are a group of multidrug-resistant bacteria considered an urgent health threat by the CDC because they can rapidly spread between patients, especially those who are most seriously ill and vulnerable, and because they are so difficult to treat. These patients often require treatment with toxic antibiotics, such as colistin, and carry a high mortality rate – up to 50% in some studies.

Overall, 30% of CREs carry a carbapenemase – an enzyme that can make them resistant to carbapenem antibiotics. The genes for this are readily transferable between bacteria and help account for their spread in hospitals.

But in this study, published in the American Journal of Infection Control, of the 12 isolates that underwent whole-genome sequencing, 42% of the CA-CRE isolates carried the carbapenemase gene. Lead author Sandra Bulens, MPH, a health scientist in the CDC’s division of health care quality promotion, said in an interview, “The findings highlight the potential for CP-CRE to move from health care settings into the community. The fact that 5 of the 12 isolates harbored a carbapenemase gene introduces new challenges for controlling spread of CP-CRE.”

CDC researchers analyzed data from eight U.S. metropolitan areas between 2012 and 2015 as part of the CDC’s Emerging Infections Program (EIP) health care–associated infections – community interface activity, which conducts surveillance for CRE and other drug-resistant gram-negative bacteria. Cases of CA-CRE were compared with HCA-CRE, with 1499 cases in 1,194 case-patients being analyzed. Though Klebsiella pneumoniae was the most common isolate, there were some differences between metropolitan areas.

The incidence of CRE cases per 100,000 population was 2.96 (95% confidence interval, 2.81-3.11) overall and 0.29 (95% CI, 0.25-0.25) for CA-CRE. Most CA-CRE cases were in White persons (73%) and women (84%). Urine cultures were the source of 98% of all CA-CRE cases, compared with 86% of HCA-CRE cases (P < .001). Though small numbers, the numbers of patients with CA-CRE without apparent underlying medical condition (n = 51; 37%) was greater when compared with patients with HCA-CRE (n = 36; 3%; P < .001).

Asked for independent comment, Lance Price, PhD, of George Washington University and the founding director of GW’s Antibiotic Resistance Action Center, Washington, said, “what’s striking about these data is that: ‘Who is the front line, at least in the United States for CRE?’ It’s women, older women. ... At some point, we have to frame drug resistance as a women’s health issue.”

Dr. Price noted that the 10% of patients with CA-CRE acquired it in the community. “I would argue that probably none of them had any idea, because there’s this silent community epidemic,” he said. “It’s asymptomatic carriage and transmission in the community. Somebody can be this walking reservoir of these really dangerous bacteria and have no idea.”

This is an increasingly serious problem for women, Dr. Price said, because, “with a community-acquired bladder infection, you’re going to call your doctor or go to an urgent care, and they’re not going to test you. They’re going to guess what you have, and they’re going to prescribe an antibiotic, and that antibiotic is going to fail. So then your bladder infection continues, and then you wait a few more days, and you start to get flank pain and kidney infection. ... If you start getting a fever, they might admit you. They are going to start treating you immediately, and they might miss it because you’ve got this organism that’s resistant to all the best antibiotics. ... The gateway to the blood is the UTI.”

Because of such empiric treatment and increasing resistance, the risk for treatment failure is quite high, especially for older women. Ms. Bulens, however, said that, “[although] 10% of CRE were in persons without health care risk factors, the proportion of all UTIs in this population that are CRE is going to be very, very small.”

This study involved cultures from 2012 to 2015. Before the pandemic, from 2012 to 2017, U.S. deaths from antibiotic resistance fell by 18% overall and by 30% in hospitals.

But in the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic, there was a 15% increase in infections and deaths from antibiotic-resistant (AMR), hospital-acquired bacteria. In 2020, 29,400 patients died from AMR infections. There was a 78% increase in carbapenem-resistant Acinetobacter baumannii health care–associated infections, a 35% increase in carbapenem-resistant Enterobacterales, and 32% increases in both multidrug-resistant Pseudomonas aeruginosa and extended-spectrum beta-lactamase–producing Enterobacterales. Aside from gram-negative bacteria, methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus rose 13%, and Candida auris rose 60%. But owing to limited surveillance, recent sound figures are lacking.

Ms. Bulens and Dr. Price reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

An online survey captured mixed information about people’s willingness to undergo surgery during a viral pandemic in relation to the vaccine status of the patient and staff. The findings showcase opportunities for public education and “skillful messaging,” researchers report.

In survey scenarios that asked people to imagine their vaccination status, people were more willing to undergo surgery if it was lifesaving, rather than elective, especially if vaccinated. The prospect of no hospital stay tipped the scales further toward surgery. The vaccination status of hospital staff played only a minor role in decision making, according to the study, which was published in Vaccine.

But as a post hoc analysis revealed, it was participants who were not vaccinated against COVID-19 in real life who were more willing to undergo surgery, compared with those who had one or two shots.

In either case, too many people were unwilling to undergo lifesaving surgery, even though the risk of hospital-acquired COVID-19 is low. “Making this choice for an actual health problem would result in an unacceptably high rate of potential morbidity attributable to pandemic-related fears, the authors wrote.

In an unusual approach, the researchers used Amazon’s Mechanical Turk to electronically recruit 2,006 adults. The participants answered a 26-item survey about a hypothetical surgery in an unnamed pandemic with different combinations of vaccine status for patient and staff.

Coauthor and anesthesiologist Keith J. Ruskin, MD, of the University of Chicago, told this news organization that they “wanted to make this timeless” and independent of COVID “so that when the next thing came about, the paper would still be relevant.”

The researchers were surprised by the findings at the extreme ends of attitudes toward surgery. Some were still willing to have elective surgery with (hypothetically) unvaccinated patients and staff.

“And people at the other end, even though they are vaccinated, the hospital staff is vaccinated, and the surgery is lifesaving, they absolutely won’t have surgery,” Dr. Ruskin said.

He viewed these two groups as opportunities for education. “You can present information in the most positive light to get them to do the right thing with what’s best for themselves,” he said.

As an example, Dr. Ruskin pointed to an ad in Illinois. “It’s not only people saying I’m getting vaccinated for myself and my family, but there are people who said I got vaccinated and I still got COVID, but it could have been much worse. Please, if you’re on the fence, just get vaccinated,” he said.

Coauthor Anna Clebone Ruskin, MD, an anesthesiologist at the University of Chicago, said, “Humans are programmed to see things in extremes. With surgery, people tend to think of surgery as a monolith – surgery is all good, or surgery is all bad, where there is a huge in between. So we saw those extremes. ... Seeing that dichotomy with people on either end was pretty surprising.

“Getting surgery is not always good. Getting surgery is not always bad. It’s a risk-versus-benefit analysis and educating the public to consider the risks and benefits of medical decisions, in general, would be enormously beneficial,” she said.

A post hoc analysis found that “participants who were not actually vaccinated against COVID-19 were generally more willing to undergo surgery compared to those who had one vaccination or two vaccinations,” the authors wrote.

In a second post hoc finding, participants who reported high wariness of vaccines were generally more likely to be willing to undergo surgery. Notably, 15% of participants “were unwilling to undergo lifesaving surgery during a pandemic even when they and the health care staff were vaccinated,” the authors wrote.

Dr. Keith J. Ruskin hypothesized about this result, saying, “What we think is that potentially actually getting vaccinated against COVID-19 may indicate that you have a lower risk tolerance. So you may be less likely to do anything you perceive to be risky if you’re vaccinated against COVID-19.”

The authors stated that “the risk of hospital-acquired COVID-19 even prior to vaccination is vanishingly small.” The risk of nosocomial COVID varies among different studies. An EPIC-based study between April 2020 and October 2021 found the risk to be 1.8%; EPIC describes the fears of a patient catching COVID at a hospital as “likely unfounded.”

In the United Kingdom, the risk was as high as 24% earlier in the pandemic and then declined to approximately 5% a year ago. Omicron also brought more infections. Rates varied significantly among hospitals – and, notably, the risk of death from a nosocomial COVID infection was 21% in April-September 2020.

Emily Landon, MD, an epidemiologist and executive medical director for infection prevention and control at the University of Chicago Medicine, told this news organization that the study’s data were collected during Delta, a “time when we thought that this was a pandemic of the unvaccinated. But there was serious politicization of the vaccine.”

Dr. Landon said one of the study’s strengths was the large number of participants. A limitation was, “You’re going to have less participants who are generally poor and indigent, and fewer old participants, probably because they’re less likely to respond to an online survey.

“But the most interesting results are that people who were wary of vaccines or who hadn’t been vaccinated, were much more willing to undergo surgical procedures in the time of a pandemic, regardless of status, which reflects the fact that not being vaccinated correlates with not worrying much about COVID. Vaccinated individuals had a lot more wariness about undergoing surgical procedures during a pandemic.”

It appeared “individuals who were vaccinated in real life [were] worried about staff vaccination,” Dr. Landon noted. She concluded, “I think it supports the need for mandatory vaccinations in health care workers.”

The study has implications for hospital vaccination policies and practices. In Cumberland, Md., when COVID was high and vaccines first became available, the Maryland Hospital Association said that all health care staff should be vaccinated. The local hospital, UPMC–Western Maryland Hospital, refused.

Two months later, the local news reporter, Teresa McMinn, wrote, “While Maryland’s largest hospital systems have ‘led by example by mandating vaccines for all of their hospital staff,’ other facilities – including UPMC Western Maryland and Garrett Regional Medical Center – have taken no such action even though it’s been 8 months since vaccines were made available to health care workers.”

The hospital would not tell patients whether staff were vaccinated, either. An ongoing concern for members of the community is the lack of communication with UPMC, which erodes trust in the health system – the only hospital available in this rural community.

This vaccine study supports that the vaccination status of the staff may influence some patients’ decision on whether to have surgery.

The Ruskins and Dr. Landon have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

An online survey captured mixed information about people’s willingness to undergo surgery during a viral pandemic in relation to the vaccine status of the patient and staff. The findings showcase opportunities for public education and “skillful messaging,” researchers report.

In survey scenarios that asked people to imagine their vaccination status, people were more willing to undergo surgery if it was lifesaving, rather than elective, especially if vaccinated. The prospect of no hospital stay tipped the scales further toward surgery. The vaccination status of hospital staff played only a minor role in decision making, according to the study, which was published in Vaccine.

But as a post hoc analysis revealed, it was participants who were not vaccinated against COVID-19 in real life who were more willing to undergo surgery, compared with those who had one or two shots.

In either case, too many people were unwilling to undergo lifesaving surgery, even though the risk of hospital-acquired COVID-19 is low. “Making this choice for an actual health problem would result in an unacceptably high rate of potential morbidity attributable to pandemic-related fears, the authors wrote.

In an unusual approach, the researchers used Amazon’s Mechanical Turk to electronically recruit 2,006 adults. The participants answered a 26-item survey about a hypothetical surgery in an unnamed pandemic with different combinations of vaccine status for patient and staff.

Coauthor and anesthesiologist Keith J. Ruskin, MD, of the University of Chicago, told this news organization that they “wanted to make this timeless” and independent of COVID “so that when the next thing came about, the paper would still be relevant.”

The researchers were surprised by the findings at the extreme ends of attitudes toward surgery. Some were still willing to have elective surgery with (hypothetically) unvaccinated patients and staff.

“And people at the other end, even though they are vaccinated, the hospital staff is vaccinated, and the surgery is lifesaving, they absolutely won’t have surgery,” Dr. Ruskin said.

He viewed these two groups as opportunities for education. “You can present information in the most positive light to get them to do the right thing with what’s best for themselves,” he said.

As an example, Dr. Ruskin pointed to an ad in Illinois. “It’s not only people saying I’m getting vaccinated for myself and my family, but there are people who said I got vaccinated and I still got COVID, but it could have been much worse. Please, if you’re on the fence, just get vaccinated,” he said.

Coauthor Anna Clebone Ruskin, MD, an anesthesiologist at the University of Chicago, said, “Humans are programmed to see things in extremes. With surgery, people tend to think of surgery as a monolith – surgery is all good, or surgery is all bad, where there is a huge in between. So we saw those extremes. ... Seeing that dichotomy with people on either end was pretty surprising.

“Getting surgery is not always good. Getting surgery is not always bad. It’s a risk-versus-benefit analysis and educating the public to consider the risks and benefits of medical decisions, in general, would be enormously beneficial,” she said.

A post hoc analysis found that “participants who were not actually vaccinated against COVID-19 were generally more willing to undergo surgery compared to those who had one vaccination or two vaccinations,” the authors wrote.

In a second post hoc finding, participants who reported high wariness of vaccines were generally more likely to be willing to undergo surgery. Notably, 15% of participants “were unwilling to undergo lifesaving surgery during a pandemic even when they and the health care staff were vaccinated,” the authors wrote.

Dr. Keith J. Ruskin hypothesized about this result, saying, “What we think is that potentially actually getting vaccinated against COVID-19 may indicate that you have a lower risk tolerance. So you may be less likely to do anything you perceive to be risky if you’re vaccinated against COVID-19.”

The authors stated that “the risk of hospital-acquired COVID-19 even prior to vaccination is vanishingly small.” The risk of nosocomial COVID varies among different studies. An EPIC-based study between April 2020 and October 2021 found the risk to be 1.8%; EPIC describes the fears of a patient catching COVID at a hospital as “likely unfounded.”

In the United Kingdom, the risk was as high as 24% earlier in the pandemic and then declined to approximately 5% a year ago. Omicron also brought more infections. Rates varied significantly among hospitals – and, notably, the risk of death from a nosocomial COVID infection was 21% in April-September 2020.

Emily Landon, MD, an epidemiologist and executive medical director for infection prevention and control at the University of Chicago Medicine, told this news organization that the study’s data were collected during Delta, a “time when we thought that this was a pandemic of the unvaccinated. But there was serious politicization of the vaccine.”

Dr. Landon said one of the study’s strengths was the large number of participants. A limitation was, “You’re going to have less participants who are generally poor and indigent, and fewer old participants, probably because they’re less likely to respond to an online survey.

“But the most interesting results are that people who were wary of vaccines or who hadn’t been vaccinated, were much more willing to undergo surgical procedures in the time of a pandemic, regardless of status, which reflects the fact that not being vaccinated correlates with not worrying much about COVID. Vaccinated individuals had a lot more wariness about undergoing surgical procedures during a pandemic.”

It appeared “individuals who were vaccinated in real life [were] worried about staff vaccination,” Dr. Landon noted. She concluded, “I think it supports the need for mandatory vaccinations in health care workers.”

The study has implications for hospital vaccination policies and practices. In Cumberland, Md., when COVID was high and vaccines first became available, the Maryland Hospital Association said that all health care staff should be vaccinated. The local hospital, UPMC–Western Maryland Hospital, refused.

Two months later, the local news reporter, Teresa McMinn, wrote, “While Maryland’s largest hospital systems have ‘led by example by mandating vaccines for all of their hospital staff,’ other facilities – including UPMC Western Maryland and Garrett Regional Medical Center – have taken no such action even though it’s been 8 months since vaccines were made available to health care workers.”

The hospital would not tell patients whether staff were vaccinated, either. An ongoing concern for members of the community is the lack of communication with UPMC, which erodes trust in the health system – the only hospital available in this rural community.

This vaccine study supports that the vaccination status of the staff may influence some patients’ decision on whether to have surgery.

The Ruskins and Dr. Landon have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

An online survey captured mixed information about people’s willingness to undergo surgery during a viral pandemic in relation to the vaccine status of the patient and staff. The findings showcase opportunities for public education and “skillful messaging,” researchers report.

In survey scenarios that asked people to imagine their vaccination status, people were more willing to undergo surgery if it was lifesaving, rather than elective, especially if vaccinated. The prospect of no hospital stay tipped the scales further toward surgery. The vaccination status of hospital staff played only a minor role in decision making, according to the study, which was published in Vaccine.

But as a post hoc analysis revealed, it was participants who were not vaccinated against COVID-19 in real life who were more willing to undergo surgery, compared with those who had one or two shots.

In either case, too many people were unwilling to undergo lifesaving surgery, even though the risk of hospital-acquired COVID-19 is low. “Making this choice for an actual health problem would result in an unacceptably high rate of potential morbidity attributable to pandemic-related fears, the authors wrote.

In an unusual approach, the researchers used Amazon’s Mechanical Turk to electronically recruit 2,006 adults. The participants answered a 26-item survey about a hypothetical surgery in an unnamed pandemic with different combinations of vaccine status for patient and staff.

Coauthor and anesthesiologist Keith J. Ruskin, MD, of the University of Chicago, told this news organization that they “wanted to make this timeless” and independent of COVID “so that when the next thing came about, the paper would still be relevant.”

The researchers were surprised by the findings at the extreme ends of attitudes toward surgery. Some were still willing to have elective surgery with (hypothetically) unvaccinated patients and staff.

“And people at the other end, even though they are vaccinated, the hospital staff is vaccinated, and the surgery is lifesaving, they absolutely won’t have surgery,” Dr. Ruskin said.

He viewed these two groups as opportunities for education. “You can present information in the most positive light to get them to do the right thing with what’s best for themselves,” he said.

As an example, Dr. Ruskin pointed to an ad in Illinois. “It’s not only people saying I’m getting vaccinated for myself and my family, but there are people who said I got vaccinated and I still got COVID, but it could have been much worse. Please, if you’re on the fence, just get vaccinated,” he said.

Coauthor Anna Clebone Ruskin, MD, an anesthesiologist at the University of Chicago, said, “Humans are programmed to see things in extremes. With surgery, people tend to think of surgery as a monolith – surgery is all good, or surgery is all bad, where there is a huge in between. So we saw those extremes. ... Seeing that dichotomy with people on either end was pretty surprising.

“Getting surgery is not always good. Getting surgery is not always bad. It’s a risk-versus-benefit analysis and educating the public to consider the risks and benefits of medical decisions, in general, would be enormously beneficial,” she said.

A post hoc analysis found that “participants who were not actually vaccinated against COVID-19 were generally more willing to undergo surgery compared to those who had one vaccination or two vaccinations,” the authors wrote.

In a second post hoc finding, participants who reported high wariness of vaccines were generally more likely to be willing to undergo surgery. Notably, 15% of participants “were unwilling to undergo lifesaving surgery during a pandemic even when they and the health care staff were vaccinated,” the authors wrote.

Dr. Keith J. Ruskin hypothesized about this result, saying, “What we think is that potentially actually getting vaccinated against COVID-19 may indicate that you have a lower risk tolerance. So you may be less likely to do anything you perceive to be risky if you’re vaccinated against COVID-19.”

The authors stated that “the risk of hospital-acquired COVID-19 even prior to vaccination is vanishingly small.” The risk of nosocomial COVID varies among different studies. An EPIC-based study between April 2020 and October 2021 found the risk to be 1.8%; EPIC describes the fears of a patient catching COVID at a hospital as “likely unfounded.”

In the United Kingdom, the risk was as high as 24% earlier in the pandemic and then declined to approximately 5% a year ago. Omicron also brought more infections. Rates varied significantly among hospitals – and, notably, the risk of death from a nosocomial COVID infection was 21% in April-September 2020.

Emily Landon, MD, an epidemiologist and executive medical director for infection prevention and control at the University of Chicago Medicine, told this news organization that the study’s data were collected during Delta, a “time when we thought that this was a pandemic of the unvaccinated. But there was serious politicization of the vaccine.”

Dr. Landon said one of the study’s strengths was the large number of participants. A limitation was, “You’re going to have less participants who are generally poor and indigent, and fewer old participants, probably because they’re less likely to respond to an online survey.

“But the most interesting results are that people who were wary of vaccines or who hadn’t been vaccinated, were much more willing to undergo surgical procedures in the time of a pandemic, regardless of status, which reflects the fact that not being vaccinated correlates with not worrying much about COVID. Vaccinated individuals had a lot more wariness about undergoing surgical procedures during a pandemic.”

It appeared “individuals who were vaccinated in real life [were] worried about staff vaccination,” Dr. Landon noted. She concluded, “I think it supports the need for mandatory vaccinations in health care workers.”

The study has implications for hospital vaccination policies and practices. In Cumberland, Md., when COVID was high and vaccines first became available, the Maryland Hospital Association said that all health care staff should be vaccinated. The local hospital, UPMC–Western Maryland Hospital, refused.

Two months later, the local news reporter, Teresa McMinn, wrote, “While Maryland’s largest hospital systems have ‘led by example by mandating vaccines for all of their hospital staff,’ other facilities – including UPMC Western Maryland and Garrett Regional Medical Center – have taken no such action even though it’s been 8 months since vaccines were made available to health care workers.”

The hospital would not tell patients whether staff were vaccinated, either. An ongoing concern for members of the community is the lack of communication with UPMC, which erodes trust in the health system – the only hospital available in this rural community.

This vaccine study supports that the vaccination status of the staff may influence some patients’ decision on whether to have surgery.

The Ruskins and Dr. Landon have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Since the first case of monkeypox on May 6, reports of outbreaks have come from multiple countries, with the United Kingdom, Spain, and Portugal in the lead, followed by Canada, Israel, and Australia, among others. The United States has reported cases in Boston and New York, and presumed cases have occurred in Utah and Florida. As of May 25, close to 350 cases, either suspected (83) or confirmed (265), have been reported globally.

Monkeypox outbreaks have previously been confined to Central and West Africa, except for an impressively large outbreak in the United States in 2003, during which 47 people were infected across six states. The epidemic was traced to a Gambian rat, rope squirrels, and dormice that had been imported from Ghana as pets and that had infected prairie dogs at a large wholesale pet store.

“It’s amazing how many of these viruses – COVID, now monkeypox and others – [exist]. They’re out there in the wild in the animal reservoir,” said Dennis Hruby, PhD, executive VP/chief scientific officer and scientific founder of SIGA Technologies.

“When it comes to the human population, they sometimes behave in ways we’re not expecting. That and a few mutations change those strains and pathogenicity and can be pandemic,” he told this news organization.

Now that the virus is pandemic, there is an urgent interest in medicines and vaccines that might halt its spread.
 

Smallpox drug tecovirimat

SIGA’s drug is tecovirimat, initially known as ST-246 and now branded as TPOXX. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved an oral formulation to treat smallpox in 2018. While smallpox was eradicated by 1980, there have been ongoing concerns about its potential use in a bioterrorism attack.

Tecovirimat is also approved for smallpox in Canada. In Europe, the approval includes treatment of monkeypox, cowpox, and complications from immunization with vaccinia. On May 19, the FDA approved an IV formulation of tecovirimat for those unable to tolerate oral medications.

In a press release, SIGA notes that tecovirimat was “developed through funding and collaboration with the Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority (BARDA) at the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services, as well as early-stage development supported by the National Institutes of Health, US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and the Department of Defense. Tecovirimat is stockpiled by the U.S. Government to mitigate the impact of a potential outbreak or bioterror attack.”

SIGA adds that, under Project Bioshield, “the United States maintains a stockpile of 1.7 million courses in the Strategic National Stockpile.” The drug is only available through the government’s stockpile.

Tecovirimat works by preventing the viruses from reproducing by interfering with a protein, VP37. The virus cannot escape the cell and so cannot infect other cells, Dr. Hruby explained.

Tecovirimat was developed under the FDA’s so-called Animal Rule, which allows approval on the basis of animal studies when human efficacy studies are unethical or impractical.

In a placebo-controlled human pharmacokinetic and safety study, only 2% of the 359 who received TPOXX had to have treatment stopped because of adverse reactions, a rate similar to placebo. The most common reactions (≥2%) were headache, nausea, and abdominal pain. Significant drug interactions were found with the coadministration of repaglinide and midazolam.

Of note is that tecovirimat’s efficacy may be reduced in immunocompromised patients. The smallpox vaccine is contraindicated for those who are immunocompromised. Those people should be offered vaccinia immune globulin.

With monkeypox, “the earlier the disease is recognized and you start treating, [the] more effective,” said Dr. Hruby. “In a monkey model which, much like humans, if we treat early on as the first lesions emerged or even several days after the lesions emerged, we see close to 100% protection.”

The other alternative drug for smallpox and (likely) monkeypox is Chimerix’s brincidofovir (BCV, Tembexa), a lipid conjugate of cidofovir, a drug for cytomegalovirus. Brincidofovir has a better safety profile than cidofovir and was also approved under the Animal Rule.

UpToDate suggests that tecovirimat is the drug of choice for monkeypox. They note that for severely infected patients, it can be combined with brincidofovir after consultation with the CDC or state health department officials.
 

Two vaccines available

Two vaccines are currently available. The oldest is ACAM2000, a replication-competent vaccine that replaced Dryvax, whose use was stopped in 1977, the last year in which naturally occurring cases of smallpox occurred. ACAM2000 is used to immunize military recruits. It was produced by Sanofi and is now produced by Emergent Biosolutions. Being a live vaccinia vaccine, it is contraindicated for people who are immunocompromised or pregnant, as well as for children and those with eczema, because serious and occasionally fatal reactions have occurred. Because of unexpected cardiac complications in first responders who received Dryvax, having a history of cardiac disease or significant risk factors is considered a contraindication to replication-competent (live) vaccination except in the setting of a bioterrorism event.

ACAM2000 is not FDA approved for monkeypox, but it is readily available. The United States stockpile has more than 100 million doses, according to the CDC.

“ACAM is not very different from Dryvax in terms of safety profile,” Melvin Sanicas, MD, a vaccinologist and health educator, told this news organization.

The newest option is a replication-deficient modified vaccinia Ankara vaccine called Jynneos in the United States (Imvanex in Europe; Imvamune in Canada). The vaccine is made by Denmark-based Bavarian Nordic. The FDA approved Jynneos in 2019. It, too, is available through BARDA’s stockpiles; 1,000 doses are available now and more are on order.

In the current monkeypox outbreak, Jynneos has been offered to higher-risk contacts in the United Kingdom. The CDC is planning to provide it to high-risk contacts of infected persons in the United States. This strategy is called “ring vaccination,” through which only close contacts are immunized initially. The rings are then enlarged to include more people as needed. Ring vaccination works well for easily identified diseases such as monkeypox and in situations in which there are few cases. It has been used very effectively for smallpox and Ebola.

Jynneos is not associated with the same risks as the live vaccine. In solicited reactions, injection-site reactions were common. Other reported systemic symptoms were muscle pain (42.8%), headache (34.8%), fatigue (30.4%), nausea (17.3%), and chills (10.4%).

Other vaccines are expected to be developed. Moderna has just thrown its hat into the ring, announcing it is beginning preclinical trials for monkeypox.
 

Prolonged close contact

Monkeypox is spread by large droplets or contact with infected lesions or body fluids. It’s thought to require prolonged close contact. In an email interview, Dr. Sanicas told this news organization that the “contact can be with (1) skin lesions of an infected person, (2) respiratory droplets in prolonged face-to-face contact, (3) fomites. The cases in the United Kingdom are in men having sex with men, but it does not mean the disease is now sexually transmitted. People do not need to have sex to be infected, but of course, sexual contact means there is prolonged contact.” The household transmission rate is less than 10%.

Dr. Sanicas confirmed that, as with smallpox, monkeypox could be transmitted by contact with clothing or bedding that has been contaminated through contact with the infected lesions, as smallpox was transmitted to Native Americans by colonizers. Airborne transmission is a theoretical possibility but is not considered likely. Being a DNA virus, monkeypox is less likely to mutate than COVID. “If it were as infectious as flu or coronavirus, there would be more infections and outbreaks in countries where MPX [monkeypox] is endemic in Western Africa or Congo Basin,” said Dr. Sanicas.

Fortunately, this clade of monkeypox, which appears to have originated in West Africa, is estimated to have a mortality rate of about 1%. In contrast, the Congo Basin clade has a death rate of up to 10%.

Dr. Sanicas concluded, “Be cautious, but there’s no need for further fear and panic on top of what we have for COVID-19. Monkeypox is not COVID and will not cause the same devastation/death/lockdowns as COVID-19.”

Dr. Hruby is an employee and stockholder of SIGA. Dr. Sanicas reports no relevant financial relationships.

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

Since the first case of monkeypox on May 6, reports of outbreaks have come from multiple countries, with the United Kingdom, Spain, and Portugal in the lead, followed by Canada, Israel, and Australia, among others. The United States has reported cases in Boston and New York, and presumed cases have occurred in Utah and Florida. As of May 25, close to 350 cases, either suspected (83) or confirmed (265), have been reported globally.

Monkeypox outbreaks have previously been confined to Central and West Africa, except for an impressively large outbreak in the United States in 2003, during which 47 people were infected across six states. The epidemic was traced to a Gambian rat, rope squirrels, and dormice that had been imported from Ghana as pets and that had infected prairie dogs at a large wholesale pet store.

“It’s amazing how many of these viruses – COVID, now monkeypox and others – [exist]. They’re out there in the wild in the animal reservoir,” said Dennis Hruby, PhD, executive VP/chief scientific officer and scientific founder of SIGA Technologies.

“When it comes to the human population, they sometimes behave in ways we’re not expecting. That and a few mutations change those strains and pathogenicity and can be pandemic,” he told this news organization.

Now that the virus is pandemic, there is an urgent interest in medicines and vaccines that might halt its spread.
 

Smallpox drug tecovirimat

SIGA’s drug is tecovirimat, initially known as ST-246 and now branded as TPOXX. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved an oral formulation to treat smallpox in 2018. While smallpox was eradicated by 1980, there have been ongoing concerns about its potential use in a bioterrorism attack.

Tecovirimat is also approved for smallpox in Canada. In Europe, the approval includes treatment of monkeypox, cowpox, and complications from immunization with vaccinia. On May 19, the FDA approved an IV formulation of tecovirimat for those unable to tolerate oral medications.

In a press release, SIGA notes that tecovirimat was “developed through funding and collaboration with the Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority (BARDA) at the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services, as well as early-stage development supported by the National Institutes of Health, US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and the Department of Defense. Tecovirimat is stockpiled by the U.S. Government to mitigate the impact of a potential outbreak or bioterror attack.”

SIGA adds that, under Project Bioshield, “the United States maintains a stockpile of 1.7 million courses in the Strategic National Stockpile.” The drug is only available through the government’s stockpile.

Tecovirimat works by preventing the viruses from reproducing by interfering with a protein, VP37. The virus cannot escape the cell and so cannot infect other cells, Dr. Hruby explained.

Tecovirimat was developed under the FDA’s so-called Animal Rule, which allows approval on the basis of animal studies when human efficacy studies are unethical or impractical.

In a placebo-controlled human pharmacokinetic and safety study, only 2% of the 359 who received TPOXX had to have treatment stopped because of adverse reactions, a rate similar to placebo. The most common reactions (≥2%) were headache, nausea, and abdominal pain. Significant drug interactions were found with the coadministration of repaglinide and midazolam.

Of note is that tecovirimat’s efficacy may be reduced in immunocompromised patients. The smallpox vaccine is contraindicated for those who are immunocompromised. Those people should be offered vaccinia immune globulin.

With monkeypox, “the earlier the disease is recognized and you start treating, [the] more effective,” said Dr. Hruby. “In a monkey model which, much like humans, if we treat early on as the first lesions emerged or even several days after the lesions emerged, we see close to 100% protection.”

The other alternative drug for smallpox and (likely) monkeypox is Chimerix’s brincidofovir (BCV, Tembexa), a lipid conjugate of cidofovir, a drug for cytomegalovirus. Brincidofovir has a better safety profile than cidofovir and was also approved under the Animal Rule.

UpToDate suggests that tecovirimat is the drug of choice for monkeypox. They note that for severely infected patients, it can be combined with brincidofovir after consultation with the CDC or state health department officials.
 

Two vaccines available

Two vaccines are currently available. The oldest is ACAM2000, a replication-competent vaccine that replaced Dryvax, whose use was stopped in 1977, the last year in which naturally occurring cases of smallpox occurred. ACAM2000 is used to immunize military recruits. It was produced by Sanofi and is now produced by Emergent Biosolutions. Being a live vaccinia vaccine, it is contraindicated for people who are immunocompromised or pregnant, as well as for children and those with eczema, because serious and occasionally fatal reactions have occurred. Because of unexpected cardiac complications in first responders who received Dryvax, having a history of cardiac disease or significant risk factors is considered a contraindication to replication-competent (live) vaccination except in the setting of a bioterrorism event.

ACAM2000 is not FDA approved for monkeypox, but it is readily available. The United States stockpile has more than 100 million doses, according to the CDC.

“ACAM is not very different from Dryvax in terms of safety profile,” Melvin Sanicas, MD, a vaccinologist and health educator, told this news organization.

The newest option is a replication-deficient modified vaccinia Ankara vaccine called Jynneos in the United States (Imvanex in Europe; Imvamune in Canada). The vaccine is made by Denmark-based Bavarian Nordic. The FDA approved Jynneos in 2019. It, too, is available through BARDA’s stockpiles; 1,000 doses are available now and more are on order.

In the current monkeypox outbreak, Jynneos has been offered to higher-risk contacts in the United Kingdom. The CDC is planning to provide it to high-risk contacts of infected persons in the United States. This strategy is called “ring vaccination,” through which only close contacts are immunized initially. The rings are then enlarged to include more people as needed. Ring vaccination works well for easily identified diseases such as monkeypox and in situations in which there are few cases. It has been used very effectively for smallpox and Ebola.

Jynneos is not associated with the same risks as the live vaccine. In solicited reactions, injection-site reactions were common. Other reported systemic symptoms were muscle pain (42.8%), headache (34.8%), fatigue (30.4%), nausea (17.3%), and chills (10.4%).

Other vaccines are expected to be developed. Moderna has just thrown its hat into the ring, announcing it is beginning preclinical trials for monkeypox.
 

Prolonged close contact

Monkeypox is spread by large droplets or contact with infected lesions or body fluids. It’s thought to require prolonged close contact. In an email interview, Dr. Sanicas told this news organization that the “contact can be with (1) skin lesions of an infected person, (2) respiratory droplets in prolonged face-to-face contact, (3) fomites. The cases in the United Kingdom are in men having sex with men, but it does not mean the disease is now sexually transmitted. People do not need to have sex to be infected, but of course, sexual contact means there is prolonged contact.” The household transmission rate is less than 10%.

Dr. Sanicas confirmed that, as with smallpox, monkeypox could be transmitted by contact with clothing or bedding that has been contaminated through contact with the infected lesions, as smallpox was transmitted to Native Americans by colonizers. Airborne transmission is a theoretical possibility but is not considered likely. Being a DNA virus, monkeypox is less likely to mutate than COVID. “If it were as infectious as flu or coronavirus, there would be more infections and outbreaks in countries where MPX [monkeypox] is endemic in Western Africa or Congo Basin,” said Dr. Sanicas.

Fortunately, this clade of monkeypox, which appears to have originated in West Africa, is estimated to have a mortality rate of about 1%. In contrast, the Congo Basin clade has a death rate of up to 10%.

Dr. Sanicas concluded, “Be cautious, but there’s no need for further fear and panic on top of what we have for COVID-19. Monkeypox is not COVID and will not cause the same devastation/death/lockdowns as COVID-19.”

Dr. Hruby is an employee and stockholder of SIGA. Dr. Sanicas reports no relevant financial relationships.

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

Since the first case of monkeypox on May 6, reports of outbreaks have come from multiple countries, with the United Kingdom, Spain, and Portugal in the lead, followed by Canada, Israel, and Australia, among others. The United States has reported cases in Boston and New York, and presumed cases have occurred in Utah and Florida. As of May 25, close to 350 cases, either suspected (83) or confirmed (265), have been reported globally.

Monkeypox outbreaks have previously been confined to Central and West Africa, except for an impressively large outbreak in the United States in 2003, during which 47 people were infected across six states. The epidemic was traced to a Gambian rat, rope squirrels, and dormice that had been imported from Ghana as pets and that had infected prairie dogs at a large wholesale pet store.

“It’s amazing how many of these viruses – COVID, now monkeypox and others – [exist]. They’re out there in the wild in the animal reservoir,” said Dennis Hruby, PhD, executive VP/chief scientific officer and scientific founder of SIGA Technologies.

“When it comes to the human population, they sometimes behave in ways we’re not expecting. That and a few mutations change those strains and pathogenicity and can be pandemic,” he told this news organization.

Now that the virus is pandemic, there is an urgent interest in medicines and vaccines that might halt its spread.
 

Smallpox drug tecovirimat

SIGA’s drug is tecovirimat, initially known as ST-246 and now branded as TPOXX. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved an oral formulation to treat smallpox in 2018. While smallpox was eradicated by 1980, there have been ongoing concerns about its potential use in a bioterrorism attack.

Tecovirimat is also approved for smallpox in Canada. In Europe, the approval includes treatment of monkeypox, cowpox, and complications from immunization with vaccinia. On May 19, the FDA approved an IV formulation of tecovirimat for those unable to tolerate oral medications.

In a press release, SIGA notes that tecovirimat was “developed through funding and collaboration with the Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority (BARDA) at the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services, as well as early-stage development supported by the National Institutes of Health, US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and the Department of Defense. Tecovirimat is stockpiled by the U.S. Government to mitigate the impact of a potential outbreak or bioterror attack.”

SIGA adds that, under Project Bioshield, “the United States maintains a stockpile of 1.7 million courses in the Strategic National Stockpile.” The drug is only available through the government’s stockpile.

Tecovirimat works by preventing the viruses from reproducing by interfering with a protein, VP37. The virus cannot escape the cell and so cannot infect other cells, Dr. Hruby explained.

Tecovirimat was developed under the FDA’s so-called Animal Rule, which allows approval on the basis of animal studies when human efficacy studies are unethical or impractical.

In a placebo-controlled human pharmacokinetic and safety study, only 2% of the 359 who received TPOXX had to have treatment stopped because of adverse reactions, a rate similar to placebo. The most common reactions (≥2%) were headache, nausea, and abdominal pain. Significant drug interactions were found with the coadministration of repaglinide and midazolam.

Of note is that tecovirimat’s efficacy may be reduced in immunocompromised patients. The smallpox vaccine is contraindicated for those who are immunocompromised. Those people should be offered vaccinia immune globulin.

With monkeypox, “the earlier the disease is recognized and you start treating, [the] more effective,” said Dr. Hruby. “In a monkey model which, much like humans, if we treat early on as the first lesions emerged or even several days after the lesions emerged, we see close to 100% protection.”

The other alternative drug for smallpox and (likely) monkeypox is Chimerix’s brincidofovir (BCV, Tembexa), a lipid conjugate of cidofovir, a drug for cytomegalovirus. Brincidofovir has a better safety profile than cidofovir and was also approved under the Animal Rule.

UpToDate suggests that tecovirimat is the drug of choice for monkeypox. They note that for severely infected patients, it can be combined with brincidofovir after consultation with the CDC or state health department officials.
 

Two vaccines available

Two vaccines are currently available. The oldest is ACAM2000, a replication-competent vaccine that replaced Dryvax, whose use was stopped in 1977, the last year in which naturally occurring cases of smallpox occurred. ACAM2000 is used to immunize military recruits. It was produced by Sanofi and is now produced by Emergent Biosolutions. Being a live vaccinia vaccine, it is contraindicated for people who are immunocompromised or pregnant, as well as for children and those with eczema, because serious and occasionally fatal reactions have occurred. Because of unexpected cardiac complications in first responders who received Dryvax, having a history of cardiac disease or significant risk factors is considered a contraindication to replication-competent (live) vaccination except in the setting of a bioterrorism event.

ACAM2000 is not FDA approved for monkeypox, but it is readily available. The United States stockpile has more than 100 million doses, according to the CDC.

“ACAM is not very different from Dryvax in terms of safety profile,” Melvin Sanicas, MD, a vaccinologist and health educator, told this news organization.

The newest option is a replication-deficient modified vaccinia Ankara vaccine called Jynneos in the United States (Imvanex in Europe; Imvamune in Canada). The vaccine is made by Denmark-based Bavarian Nordic. The FDA approved Jynneos in 2019. It, too, is available through BARDA’s stockpiles; 1,000 doses are available now and more are on order.

In the current monkeypox outbreak, Jynneos has been offered to higher-risk contacts in the United Kingdom. The CDC is planning to provide it to high-risk contacts of infected persons in the United States. This strategy is called “ring vaccination,” through which only close contacts are immunized initially. The rings are then enlarged to include more people as needed. Ring vaccination works well for easily identified diseases such as monkeypox and in situations in which there are few cases. It has been used very effectively for smallpox and Ebola.

Jynneos is not associated with the same risks as the live vaccine. In solicited reactions, injection-site reactions were common. Other reported systemic symptoms were muscle pain (42.8%), headache (34.8%), fatigue (30.4%), nausea (17.3%), and chills (10.4%).

Other vaccines are expected to be developed. Moderna has just thrown its hat into the ring, announcing it is beginning preclinical trials for monkeypox.
 

Prolonged close contact

Monkeypox is spread by large droplets or contact with infected lesions or body fluids. It’s thought to require prolonged close contact. In an email interview, Dr. Sanicas told this news organization that the “contact can be with (1) skin lesions of an infected person, (2) respiratory droplets in prolonged face-to-face contact, (3) fomites. The cases in the United Kingdom are in men having sex with men, but it does not mean the disease is now sexually transmitted. People do not need to have sex to be infected, but of course, sexual contact means there is prolonged contact.” The household transmission rate is less than 10%.

Dr. Sanicas confirmed that, as with smallpox, monkeypox could be transmitted by contact with clothing or bedding that has been contaminated through contact with the infected lesions, as smallpox was transmitted to Native Americans by colonizers. Airborne transmission is a theoretical possibility but is not considered likely. Being a DNA virus, monkeypox is less likely to mutate than COVID. “If it were as infectious as flu or coronavirus, there would be more infections and outbreaks in countries where MPX [monkeypox] is endemic in Western Africa or Congo Basin,” said Dr. Sanicas.

Fortunately, this clade of monkeypox, which appears to have originated in West Africa, is estimated to have a mortality rate of about 1%. In contrast, the Congo Basin clade has a death rate of up to 10%.

Dr. Sanicas concluded, “Be cautious, but there’s no need for further fear and panic on top of what we have for COVID-19. Monkeypox is not COVID and will not cause the same devastation/death/lockdowns as COVID-19.”

Dr. Hruby is an employee and stockholder of SIGA. Dr. Sanicas reports no relevant financial relationships.

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

Each year, there are about 59,000 deaths from rabies globally. Most of these occur outside the United States and are the result of dog bites. Since infection with rabies is almost always fatal, there has been considerable attention given to vaccinating people at high risk before likely exposure and responding immediately to those bitten by a rabid animal.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recently revised its preexposure prophylaxis (PrEP) recommendations for rabies. Under the previous 2008 guidelines, PrEP injections were given on days 0, 7, and 21 and cost more than $1,100. In trying to simplify recommendations and make immunization less expensive, the agency designated five risk levels with different advice based on the level of risk.

The first two groups are those with very high risk of occupational exposures – either working with rabies virus in the laboratory or working with or having contact with bats or performing animal necropsies. They are now advised to get two doses of rabies vaccine on days 0 and 7. The lab workers should have titers checked every 6 months to ensure that they remain adequately protected. And a booster should be given if the titer drops to < 0.5 IU/mL. The second group, with bat exposures, should have titers checked every 2 years.

Risk category 3 is those with long-term (> 3 years) exposure to mammals other than bats that might be rabid. This group would include veterinarians, wildlife biologists, animal control officers, and spelunkers (cavers). Category 3 also includes travelers who may encounter rabid dogs, which is not a risk in the United States. They would get the same initial two doses. The new recommendations for a third dose are based either on a titer drawn 1-3 years later being < 0.5 IU/mL or choosing to give a booster between 3 weeks and 3 years after the second dose.

The same groups are covered in risk group 4, but these are expected to have less than 3 years of potential exposure after PrEP. They would receive two doses on days 0 and 7.

Finally, group 5, at the lowest risk, includes most of the U.S. population. They do not require any PrEP.

Agam Rao, MD, CAPT, U.S. Public Health Service, CDC, told this news organization that the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) has been working on updating the 2008 rabies PrEP recommendations for several years. The committee wanted the new guideline to be “as easily followable as possible but also based on the evidence itself.”

There were two significant problems the committee tried to address. “One was that travelers who book their travel on kind of short notice don’t have enough time to get that third dose, which at the earliest can be given on day 21,” Dr. Rao said.

The second problem is that “a three-dose series [is] just really expensive. And what we found from data that had been published since the last ACIP recommendations is that fewer people than we recommend get vaccinated were getting vaccinated. So hopefully, the two-dose series helps with that.”

The ACIP used an adapted Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach to determine the certainty of the evidence for immunogenicity. The ACIP also used an evidence to recommendations (EtR) framework. “This incorporates a lot of other factors like the acceptability, usability, equity, all of these other variables that are important to the evidence being translated into recommendations,” Dr. Rao said. A table details their analysis.

Rabies expert Thiravat Hemachudha, MD, professor of neurology at WHO Collaborating Centre for Research and Training on Viral Zoonoses, Chulalongkorn University Hospital, Bangkok, told this news organization via email that “the ACIP relies mostly on serology, whereas the rest of the world cannot afford the test or testing may not be available.”

He added: “The issue of ‘long-term immunogenicity’ after receiving [PrEP is] an anamnestic response. All standard tissue culture rabies vaccines with appropriate dosage and route of delivery, either IM or ID, are considered safe and effective. There are many studies in Asian countries confirming that with only one primary series of PrEP, ID or IM with reduced doses, can produce immunity for as long as 20 years. Therefore, serology check is not necessary in general populations in rabies endemic countries where most of the rabies deaths occur. Investigation of all death cases was performed in Thailand and did not reveal any failure. Cases with PrEP in the past who died did not receive a booster after exposure.”

Dr. Rao offered one additional suggestion to clinicians faced with an urgent need to get a rabies titer: “They really should reach out to the lab (with all the information) before they send the specimen for the titer check ... so that the testing can be facilitated. All of these laboratories have the capacity to do stat and ASAP testing ... Clinicians do not know that they can call laboratories directly and expedite this sort of testing.” 

Dr. Rao emphasized that PrEP does not eliminate the need for postexposure prophylaxis (PEP). Still, it eliminates the need for rabies immunoglobulin and decreases the number of vaccine doses required for PEP. “I hope more people will take advantage of the titer checks and potentially save the patient some money,” she concluded.

Dr. Rao and Dr. Hemachudha have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Each year, there are about 59,000 deaths from rabies globally. Most of these occur outside the United States and are the result of dog bites. Since infection with rabies is almost always fatal, there has been considerable attention given to vaccinating people at high risk before likely exposure and responding immediately to those bitten by a rabid animal.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recently revised its preexposure prophylaxis (PrEP) recommendations for rabies. Under the previous 2008 guidelines, PrEP injections were given on days 0, 7, and 21 and cost more than $1,100. In trying to simplify recommendations and make immunization less expensive, the agency designated five risk levels with different advice based on the level of risk.

The first two groups are those with very high risk of occupational exposures – either working with rabies virus in the laboratory or working with or having contact with bats or performing animal necropsies. They are now advised to get two doses of rabies vaccine on days 0 and 7. The lab workers should have titers checked every 6 months to ensure that they remain adequately protected. And a booster should be given if the titer drops to < 0.5 IU/mL. The second group, with bat exposures, should have titers checked every 2 years.

Risk category 3 is those with long-term (> 3 years) exposure to mammals other than bats that might be rabid. This group would include veterinarians, wildlife biologists, animal control officers, and spelunkers (cavers). Category 3 also includes travelers who may encounter rabid dogs, which is not a risk in the United States. They would get the same initial two doses. The new recommendations for a third dose are based either on a titer drawn 1-3 years later being < 0.5 IU/mL or choosing to give a booster between 3 weeks and 3 years after the second dose.

The same groups are covered in risk group 4, but these are expected to have less than 3 years of potential exposure after PrEP. They would receive two doses on days 0 and 7.

Finally, group 5, at the lowest risk, includes most of the U.S. population. They do not require any PrEP.

Agam Rao, MD, CAPT, U.S. Public Health Service, CDC, told this news organization that the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) has been working on updating the 2008 rabies PrEP recommendations for several years. The committee wanted the new guideline to be “as easily followable as possible but also based on the evidence itself.”

There were two significant problems the committee tried to address. “One was that travelers who book their travel on kind of short notice don’t have enough time to get that third dose, which at the earliest can be given on day 21,” Dr. Rao said.

The second problem is that “a three-dose series [is] just really expensive. And what we found from data that had been published since the last ACIP recommendations is that fewer people than we recommend get vaccinated were getting vaccinated. So hopefully, the two-dose series helps with that.”

The ACIP used an adapted Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach to determine the certainty of the evidence for immunogenicity. The ACIP also used an evidence to recommendations (EtR) framework. “This incorporates a lot of other factors like the acceptability, usability, equity, all of these other variables that are important to the evidence being translated into recommendations,” Dr. Rao said. A table details their analysis.

Rabies expert Thiravat Hemachudha, MD, professor of neurology at WHO Collaborating Centre for Research and Training on Viral Zoonoses, Chulalongkorn University Hospital, Bangkok, told this news organization via email that “the ACIP relies mostly on serology, whereas the rest of the world cannot afford the test or testing may not be available.”

He added: “The issue of ‘long-term immunogenicity’ after receiving [PrEP is] an anamnestic response. All standard tissue culture rabies vaccines with appropriate dosage and route of delivery, either IM or ID, are considered safe and effective. There are many studies in Asian countries confirming that with only one primary series of PrEP, ID or IM with reduced doses, can produce immunity for as long as 20 years. Therefore, serology check is not necessary in general populations in rabies endemic countries where most of the rabies deaths occur. Investigation of all death cases was performed in Thailand and did not reveal any failure. Cases with PrEP in the past who died did not receive a booster after exposure.”

Dr. Rao offered one additional suggestion to clinicians faced with an urgent need to get a rabies titer: “They really should reach out to the lab (with all the information) before they send the specimen for the titer check ... so that the testing can be facilitated. All of these laboratories have the capacity to do stat and ASAP testing ... Clinicians do not know that they can call laboratories directly and expedite this sort of testing.” 

Dr. Rao emphasized that PrEP does not eliminate the need for postexposure prophylaxis (PEP). Still, it eliminates the need for rabies immunoglobulin and decreases the number of vaccine doses required for PEP. “I hope more people will take advantage of the titer checks and potentially save the patient some money,” she concluded.

Dr. Rao and Dr. Hemachudha have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Each year, there are about 59,000 deaths from rabies globally. Most of these occur outside the United States and are the result of dog bites. Since infection with rabies is almost always fatal, there has been considerable attention given to vaccinating people at high risk before likely exposure and responding immediately to those bitten by a rabid animal.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recently revised its preexposure prophylaxis (PrEP) recommendations for rabies. Under the previous 2008 guidelines, PrEP injections were given on days 0, 7, and 21 and cost more than $1,100. In trying to simplify recommendations and make immunization less expensive, the agency designated five risk levels with different advice based on the level of risk.

The first two groups are those with very high risk of occupational exposures – either working with rabies virus in the laboratory or working with or having contact with bats or performing animal necropsies. They are now advised to get two doses of rabies vaccine on days 0 and 7. The lab workers should have titers checked every 6 months to ensure that they remain adequately protected. And a booster should be given if the titer drops to < 0.5 IU/mL. The second group, with bat exposures, should have titers checked every 2 years.

Risk category 3 is those with long-term (> 3 years) exposure to mammals other than bats that might be rabid. This group would include veterinarians, wildlife biologists, animal control officers, and spelunkers (cavers). Category 3 also includes travelers who may encounter rabid dogs, which is not a risk in the United States. They would get the same initial two doses. The new recommendations for a third dose are based either on a titer drawn 1-3 years later being < 0.5 IU/mL or choosing to give a booster between 3 weeks and 3 years after the second dose.

The same groups are covered in risk group 4, but these are expected to have less than 3 years of potential exposure after PrEP. They would receive two doses on days 0 and 7.

Finally, group 5, at the lowest risk, includes most of the U.S. population. They do not require any PrEP.

Agam Rao, MD, CAPT, U.S. Public Health Service, CDC, told this news organization that the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) has been working on updating the 2008 rabies PrEP recommendations for several years. The committee wanted the new guideline to be “as easily followable as possible but also based on the evidence itself.”

There were two significant problems the committee tried to address. “One was that travelers who book their travel on kind of short notice don’t have enough time to get that third dose, which at the earliest can be given on day 21,” Dr. Rao said.

The second problem is that “a three-dose series [is] just really expensive. And what we found from data that had been published since the last ACIP recommendations is that fewer people than we recommend get vaccinated were getting vaccinated. So hopefully, the two-dose series helps with that.”

The ACIP used an adapted Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach to determine the certainty of the evidence for immunogenicity. The ACIP also used an evidence to recommendations (EtR) framework. “This incorporates a lot of other factors like the acceptability, usability, equity, all of these other variables that are important to the evidence being translated into recommendations,” Dr. Rao said. A table details their analysis.

Rabies expert Thiravat Hemachudha, MD, professor of neurology at WHO Collaborating Centre for Research and Training on Viral Zoonoses, Chulalongkorn University Hospital, Bangkok, told this news organization via email that “the ACIP relies mostly on serology, whereas the rest of the world cannot afford the test or testing may not be available.”

He added: “The issue of ‘long-term immunogenicity’ after receiving [PrEP is] an anamnestic response. All standard tissue culture rabies vaccines with appropriate dosage and route of delivery, either IM or ID, are considered safe and effective. There are many studies in Asian countries confirming that with only one primary series of PrEP, ID or IM with reduced doses, can produce immunity for as long as 20 years. Therefore, serology check is not necessary in general populations in rabies endemic countries where most of the rabies deaths occur. Investigation of all death cases was performed in Thailand and did not reveal any failure. Cases with PrEP in the past who died did not receive a booster after exposure.”

Dr. Rao offered one additional suggestion to clinicians faced with an urgent need to get a rabies titer: “They really should reach out to the lab (with all the information) before they send the specimen for the titer check ... so that the testing can be facilitated. All of these laboratories have the capacity to do stat and ASAP testing ... Clinicians do not know that they can call laboratories directly and expedite this sort of testing.” 

Dr. Rao emphasized that PrEP does not eliminate the need for postexposure prophylaxis (PEP). Still, it eliminates the need for rabies immunoglobulin and decreases the number of vaccine doses required for PEP. “I hope more people will take advantage of the titer checks and potentially save the patient some money,” she concluded.

Dr. Rao and Dr. Hemachudha have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has long been the premier reference lab for the United States and, for some diseases, internationally. But the agency stopped testing for parasites more than 6 months ago, and public health experts say that’s putting vulnerable populations even more at risk.

In September 2021, the CDC stated on its website that it would stop testing for parasites, herpesvirus encephalitis, human herpesvirus 6 and 7, Epstein-Barr virus, and other viruses, saying, “We are working diligently to implement laboratory system improvements.”

At the time, the CDC said testing would be halted only for a few months.

In response to a query from this news organization, a CDC spokesperson replied, “While at present we are unable to share a detailed timeline, our highest priority is to resume high-quality testing operations in a phased, prioritized approach as soon as possible and to offer the same tests that were available before the pause.”

Several global health clinicians told this news organization that they were not aware of the halt and that they are now uncertain about the specific diagnosis and best treatment for some patients. Other patients have been lost to follow-up.

In response, a group of tropical disease specialists who focus on neglected tropical diseases (NTDs) wrote an editorial, “Neglected Testing for Neglected Tropical Diseases at the CDC,” which recently appeared in the American Journal of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene (AJTMH).

NTDs are caused by viruses, bacteria, and parasites. They include leprosy and worms; many such diseases are disfiguring, such as filariasis (which causes the hugely swollen extremities of elephantiasis) and onchocerciasis (river blindness). They also include some viral and bacterial diseases. Their common denominator is that they are diseases of poverty, primarily in Africa, Asia, and Latin America, so they garner little attention from “first world” countries.

The loss of testing for two devastating parasites – Chagas and Leishmania – was particularly significant. Few other labs in the United States test for these, and the tests can be expensive and of variable quality, experts said.

Norman Beatty, MD, a global health physician at the University of Florida, told this news organization, “Chagas confirmatory testing is only available at the CDC and is the most reliable testing we have access to in the United States. Leishmania species identification is also only available at the CDC and is important in determining which antiparasitic medications we will use.”

Chagas disease is caused by the parasite Trypanosoma cruzi and is transmitted by triatomine bugs, also known as kissing bugs. Chagas is a major cause of an enlarged heart and congestive heart failure, as well as a dramatically enlarged esophagus or colon.

Prior to the cuts and before COVID-19, the CDC reported that they ran 10,000 to 15,000 tests for parasitic diseases annually. Testing requests declined during COVID. In 2021, they ran 1,003 tests for Chagas.

Dr. Beatty said that he first became aware of the CDC’s testing cuts last fall when he sought care for a patient. He was first told the delay would be 2-3 weeks, then another 2-3 weeks. It’s now been 7 months, and only three tests have been resumed.

Dr. Beatty added that for Chagas disease in particular, there is urgency in testing because cardiac complications can be life-threatening. He said that “a lot of these diseases can be considered rare, but they also have a tremendous ability to cause morbidity and mortality.”

Leishmania infections are also serious. Following the bite of an infected sandfly, they can cause disfiguring skin infections, but, more importantly, they can affect the liver, spleen, and bone marrow. Dr. Beatty said that since testing was dropped at the CDC, some colleagues had to send specimens outside of the country.

Dr. Beatty emphasized that the cuts in testing at the CDC highlight disparities in our society. “There are other commercial reference laboratories who may have some of these tests available, but the vast majority of people who suffer from diseases are underserved and vulnerable. [My patients] most definitely will not have access to advanced testing commercial laboratories,” Dr. Beatty said. Those laboratories include Associated Regional University Pathologists laboratories, Quest Diagnostics, and LabCorp Diagnostics. But for some parasitic infections, there will simply be no testing, and patients will not receive appropriate therapy.

The CDC’s website says, “USAID and CDC work together on a shared agenda to advance global progress towards the control and elimination of NTDs that can be addressed with preventive chemotherapy. ... CDC has strong working relationships with WHO, regional reference laboratories/bodies, [and] national NTD programs ... working with these partners through the provision of unique laboratory, diagnostic, and epidemiological technical assistance.”

The WHO Roadmap for 2030 aims to prevent and control many NTDs, in part by “providing new interventions and effective, standardized, and affordable diagnostics.” Last year, the CDC said that they “will continue working with WHO and other global partners to meet the established goals.”

But testing for a number of NTDs is not currently available at the CDC. In response to questions from this news organization, a CDC spokesperson said the agency “supports the development of country capacity for NTD testing required ... but does not perform testing related to the WHO Roadmap.”

A group of CDC officials wrote an editorial response that was published in AJTMH, saying the agency has “three main priorities: reducing parasitic disease-related death, illness, and disability in the United States; reducing the global burden of malaria; and eliminating targeted neglected tropical diseases.”

In response to this news organization’s interview request, a CDC spokesperson wrote, “CDC is unwavering in our commitment to provide the highest quality laboratory diagnostic services for parasitic diseases. We understand the concerns expressed in the editorial and the challenges the pause in testing for parasitic diseases presents for health care providers, particularly those treating people at elevated risk for parasitic diseases.”

Michael Reich, PhD, Dr. Beatty’s co-author, is an international health policy expert at Harvard. He and the physicians had approached CDC about the elimination of services. He said in an interview, “We’re still unable to get clear responses except for something along the lines of, ‘We are working on it. It is complicated. It takes time. We’re doing our best.’”

Dr. Reich added, “For me, this raises troubling issues both of transparency and accountability – transparency about what is going on and what the problems are, and accountability in terms of who’s being held responsible for the closures and the impacts on both public health and patient treatment.”

Dr. Beatty concluded, “I think the goal of our group was to bring more awareness to the importance of having a national laboratory that can service all people, even the most underserved and vulnerable populations.” He added, “Chagas disease is a disease of inequity in Latin Americans. Without having access to an appropriate laboratory such as the CDC, we would be taking a backwards approach to tackle neglected tropical diseases in our country and worldwide.”

Dr. Beatty and Dr. Reich report no relevant financial relationships.

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

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has long been the premier reference lab for the United States and, for some diseases, internationally. But the agency stopped testing for parasites more than 6 months ago, and public health experts say that’s putting vulnerable populations even more at risk.

In September 2021, the CDC stated on its website that it would stop testing for parasites, herpesvirus encephalitis, human herpesvirus 6 and 7, Epstein-Barr virus, and other viruses, saying, “We are working diligently to implement laboratory system improvements.”

At the time, the CDC said testing would be halted only for a few months.

In response to a query from this news organization, a CDC spokesperson replied, “While at present we are unable to share a detailed timeline, our highest priority is to resume high-quality testing operations in a phased, prioritized approach as soon as possible and to offer the same tests that were available before the pause.”

Several global health clinicians told this news organization that they were not aware of the halt and that they are now uncertain about the specific diagnosis and best treatment for some patients. Other patients have been lost to follow-up.

In response, a group of tropical disease specialists who focus on neglected tropical diseases (NTDs) wrote an editorial, “Neglected Testing for Neglected Tropical Diseases at the CDC,” which recently appeared in the American Journal of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene (AJTMH).

NTDs are caused by viruses, bacteria, and parasites. They include leprosy and worms; many such diseases are disfiguring, such as filariasis (which causes the hugely swollen extremities of elephantiasis) and onchocerciasis (river blindness). They also include some viral and bacterial diseases. Their common denominator is that they are diseases of poverty, primarily in Africa, Asia, and Latin America, so they garner little attention from “first world” countries.

The loss of testing for two devastating parasites – Chagas and Leishmania – was particularly significant. Few other labs in the United States test for these, and the tests can be expensive and of variable quality, experts said.

Norman Beatty, MD, a global health physician at the University of Florida, told this news organization, “Chagas confirmatory testing is only available at the CDC and is the most reliable testing we have access to in the United States. Leishmania species identification is also only available at the CDC and is important in determining which antiparasitic medications we will use.”

Chagas disease is caused by the parasite Trypanosoma cruzi and is transmitted by triatomine bugs, also known as kissing bugs. Chagas is a major cause of an enlarged heart and congestive heart failure, as well as a dramatically enlarged esophagus or colon.

Prior to the cuts and before COVID-19, the CDC reported that they ran 10,000 to 15,000 tests for parasitic diseases annually. Testing requests declined during COVID. In 2021, they ran 1,003 tests for Chagas.

Dr. Beatty said that he first became aware of the CDC’s testing cuts last fall when he sought care for a patient. He was first told the delay would be 2-3 weeks, then another 2-3 weeks. It’s now been 7 months, and only three tests have been resumed.

Dr. Beatty added that for Chagas disease in particular, there is urgency in testing because cardiac complications can be life-threatening. He said that “a lot of these diseases can be considered rare, but they also have a tremendous ability to cause morbidity and mortality.”

Leishmania infections are also serious. Following the bite of an infected sandfly, they can cause disfiguring skin infections, but, more importantly, they can affect the liver, spleen, and bone marrow. Dr. Beatty said that since testing was dropped at the CDC, some colleagues had to send specimens outside of the country.

Dr. Beatty emphasized that the cuts in testing at the CDC highlight disparities in our society. “There are other commercial reference laboratories who may have some of these tests available, but the vast majority of people who suffer from diseases are underserved and vulnerable. [My patients] most definitely will not have access to advanced testing commercial laboratories,” Dr. Beatty said. Those laboratories include Associated Regional University Pathologists laboratories, Quest Diagnostics, and LabCorp Diagnostics. But for some parasitic infections, there will simply be no testing, and patients will not receive appropriate therapy.

The CDC’s website says, “USAID and CDC work together on a shared agenda to advance global progress towards the control and elimination of NTDs that can be addressed with preventive chemotherapy. ... CDC has strong working relationships with WHO, regional reference laboratories/bodies, [and] national NTD programs ... working with these partners through the provision of unique laboratory, diagnostic, and epidemiological technical assistance.”

The WHO Roadmap for 2030 aims to prevent and control many NTDs, in part by “providing new interventions and effective, standardized, and affordable diagnostics.” Last year, the CDC said that they “will continue working with WHO and other global partners to meet the established goals.”

But testing for a number of NTDs is not currently available at the CDC. In response to questions from this news organization, a CDC spokesperson said the agency “supports the development of country capacity for NTD testing required ... but does not perform testing related to the WHO Roadmap.”

A group of CDC officials wrote an editorial response that was published in AJTMH, saying the agency has “three main priorities: reducing parasitic disease-related death, illness, and disability in the United States; reducing the global burden of malaria; and eliminating targeted neglected tropical diseases.”

In response to this news organization’s interview request, a CDC spokesperson wrote, “CDC is unwavering in our commitment to provide the highest quality laboratory diagnostic services for parasitic diseases. We understand the concerns expressed in the editorial and the challenges the pause in testing for parasitic diseases presents for health care providers, particularly those treating people at elevated risk for parasitic diseases.”

Michael Reich, PhD, Dr. Beatty’s co-author, is an international health policy expert at Harvard. He and the physicians had approached CDC about the elimination of services. He said in an interview, “We’re still unable to get clear responses except for something along the lines of, ‘We are working on it. It is complicated. It takes time. We’re doing our best.’”

Dr. Reich added, “For me, this raises troubling issues both of transparency and accountability – transparency about what is going on and what the problems are, and accountability in terms of who’s being held responsible for the closures and the impacts on both public health and patient treatment.”

Dr. Beatty concluded, “I think the goal of our group was to bring more awareness to the importance of having a national laboratory that can service all people, even the most underserved and vulnerable populations.” He added, “Chagas disease is a disease of inequity in Latin Americans. Without having access to an appropriate laboratory such as the CDC, we would be taking a backwards approach to tackle neglected tropical diseases in our country and worldwide.”

Dr. Beatty and Dr. Reich report no relevant financial relationships.

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

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has long been the premier reference lab for the United States and, for some diseases, internationally. But the agency stopped testing for parasites more than 6 months ago, and public health experts say that’s putting vulnerable populations even more at risk.

In September 2021, the CDC stated on its website that it would stop testing for parasites, herpesvirus encephalitis, human herpesvirus 6 and 7, Epstein-Barr virus, and other viruses, saying, “We are working diligently to implement laboratory system improvements.”

At the time, the CDC said testing would be halted only for a few months.

In response to a query from this news organization, a CDC spokesperson replied, “While at present we are unable to share a detailed timeline, our highest priority is to resume high-quality testing operations in a phased, prioritized approach as soon as possible and to offer the same tests that were available before the pause.”

Several global health clinicians told this news organization that they were not aware of the halt and that they are now uncertain about the specific diagnosis and best treatment for some patients. Other patients have been lost to follow-up.

In response, a group of tropical disease specialists who focus on neglected tropical diseases (NTDs) wrote an editorial, “Neglected Testing for Neglected Tropical Diseases at the CDC,” which recently appeared in the American Journal of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene (AJTMH).

NTDs are caused by viruses, bacteria, and parasites. They include leprosy and worms; many such diseases are disfiguring, such as filariasis (which causes the hugely swollen extremities of elephantiasis) and onchocerciasis (river blindness). They also include some viral and bacterial diseases. Their common denominator is that they are diseases of poverty, primarily in Africa, Asia, and Latin America, so they garner little attention from “first world” countries.

The loss of testing for two devastating parasites – Chagas and Leishmania – was particularly significant. Few other labs in the United States test for these, and the tests can be expensive and of variable quality, experts said.

Norman Beatty, MD, a global health physician at the University of Florida, told this news organization, “Chagas confirmatory testing is only available at the CDC and is the most reliable testing we have access to in the United States. Leishmania species identification is also only available at the CDC and is important in determining which antiparasitic medications we will use.”

Chagas disease is caused by the parasite Trypanosoma cruzi and is transmitted by triatomine bugs, also known as kissing bugs. Chagas is a major cause of an enlarged heart and congestive heart failure, as well as a dramatically enlarged esophagus or colon.

Prior to the cuts and before COVID-19, the CDC reported that they ran 10,000 to 15,000 tests for parasitic diseases annually. Testing requests declined during COVID. In 2021, they ran 1,003 tests for Chagas.

Dr. Beatty said that he first became aware of the CDC’s testing cuts last fall when he sought care for a patient. He was first told the delay would be 2-3 weeks, then another 2-3 weeks. It’s now been 7 months, and only three tests have been resumed.

Dr. Beatty added that for Chagas disease in particular, there is urgency in testing because cardiac complications can be life-threatening. He said that “a lot of these diseases can be considered rare, but they also have a tremendous ability to cause morbidity and mortality.”

Leishmania infections are also serious. Following the bite of an infected sandfly, they can cause disfiguring skin infections, but, more importantly, they can affect the liver, spleen, and bone marrow. Dr. Beatty said that since testing was dropped at the CDC, some colleagues had to send specimens outside of the country.

Dr. Beatty emphasized that the cuts in testing at the CDC highlight disparities in our society. “There are other commercial reference laboratories who may have some of these tests available, but the vast majority of people who suffer from diseases are underserved and vulnerable. [My patients] most definitely will not have access to advanced testing commercial laboratories,” Dr. Beatty said. Those laboratories include Associated Regional University Pathologists laboratories, Quest Diagnostics, and LabCorp Diagnostics. But for some parasitic infections, there will simply be no testing, and patients will not receive appropriate therapy.

The CDC’s website says, “USAID and CDC work together on a shared agenda to advance global progress towards the control and elimination of NTDs that can be addressed with preventive chemotherapy. ... CDC has strong working relationships with WHO, regional reference laboratories/bodies, [and] national NTD programs ... working with these partners through the provision of unique laboratory, diagnostic, and epidemiological technical assistance.”

The WHO Roadmap for 2030 aims to prevent and control many NTDs, in part by “providing new interventions and effective, standardized, and affordable diagnostics.” Last year, the CDC said that they “will continue working with WHO and other global partners to meet the established goals.”

But testing for a number of NTDs is not currently available at the CDC. In response to questions from this news organization, a CDC spokesperson said the agency “supports the development of country capacity for NTD testing required ... but does not perform testing related to the WHO Roadmap.”

A group of CDC officials wrote an editorial response that was published in AJTMH, saying the agency has “three main priorities: reducing parasitic disease-related death, illness, and disability in the United States; reducing the global burden of malaria; and eliminating targeted neglected tropical diseases.”

In response to this news organization’s interview request, a CDC spokesperson wrote, “CDC is unwavering in our commitment to provide the highest quality laboratory diagnostic services for parasitic diseases. We understand the concerns expressed in the editorial and the challenges the pause in testing for parasitic diseases presents for health care providers, particularly those treating people at elevated risk for parasitic diseases.”

Michael Reich, PhD, Dr. Beatty’s co-author, is an international health policy expert at Harvard. He and the physicians had approached CDC about the elimination of services. He said in an interview, “We’re still unable to get clear responses except for something along the lines of, ‘We are working on it. It is complicated. It takes time. We’re doing our best.’”

Dr. Reich added, “For me, this raises troubling issues both of transparency and accountability – transparency about what is going on and what the problems are, and accountability in terms of who’s being held responsible for the closures and the impacts on both public health and patient treatment.”

Dr. Beatty concluded, “I think the goal of our group was to bring more awareness to the importance of having a national laboratory that can service all people, even the most underserved and vulnerable populations.” He added, “Chagas disease is a disease of inequity in Latin Americans. Without having access to an appropriate laboratory such as the CDC, we would be taking a backwards approach to tackle neglected tropical diseases in our country and worldwide.”

Dr. Beatty and Dr. Reich report no relevant financial relationships.

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

Living in coastal areas of Florida and California has great appeal for many, with the warm, sunny climate and nearby fresh water and salt water.

But, unknown to many, those balmy coasts also carry the risk of infection from nontuberculous (atypical) mycobacteria (NTM). Unlike its relative, tuberculosis, NTM is not transmitted from person to person, with one exception: patients with cystic fibrosis.

It is estimated that there were 181,000 people with NTM lung disease in the U.S. in 2015, and according to one study, the incidence is increasing by 8.2% annually among those aged 65 years and older. But NTM doesn’t only affect the elderly; it’s estimated that 31% of all NTM patients are younger than 65 years.

With the warm, moist soil and water, NTM is most commonly found in Florida, California, Hawaii, and the Gulf Coast states. The incidence is somewhat lower in states along the Great Lakes. Other states are not without risk – but NTM is perhaps even more likely to be overlooked in these states by physicians because of a lack of awareness of the disease.

Rebecca Prevots, PhD, MPH, chief of the epidemiology and population studies unit of the Division of Intramural Research at the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, told this news organization that “why NTM is increasing is one of the most common questions” she gets, followed by whether it is due to climate change. “The short answer is, we don’t know.”

She suggests that the increase in diagnoses is due to a combination of increased awareness, host susceptibility, and perhaps environmental changes. One problem is that NTM is not a reportable disease. Also, public health resources have been decimated, both through funding cuts and loss of personnel. Dr. Prevots said, “It’s not just NTM surveillance that is important, but you can’t just make a certain condition reportable and expect to have good data without putting resources to it. ... Diseases are made reportable at the state level. There’s no mandated reporting up to CDC. So CDC is piloting reporting events through their emerging infectious program.”

Anthony Cannella, MD, assistant professor of infectious diseases at the University of South Florida (USF), is in the midst of NTM. He told this news organization that “there’s a huge circle with big old dots right over the center of the state.” He is adamant that “a soil-water survey has to occur. We need to know what the devil is happening.”

Florida legislators agreed to allocate $519,000 for NTM testing and surveillance in 2019. But Florida Governor Ron DeSantis vetoed that line item in the budget. WUSF (a National Public Radio affiliate on the USF campus) was unable to get a response to their query about this from the governor’s office.
 

Who gets NTM?

Mycobacterium avium complex primarily causes lung disease, which presents as two clinical syndromes.

“These infections don’t affect everyone,” Kenneth Olivier, MD, MPH, chief of pulmonary clinical medicine, Cardiovascular Pulmonary Branch of the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, said in an interview. They affect “patients that have underlying genetic conditions that cause abnormalities in the airway clearance mechanisms, particularly cystic fibrosis and primary ciliary dyskinesia [and], to some extent, patients with COPD.”

The second group is “comprised mainly of postmenopausal women, many of whom have had no predisposing medical problems prior to onset of generally frequent throat clearing or chronic cough, which is what brings them to medical attention.” Dr. Olivier added that “many of these patients have a fairly unique appearance. They tend to have a high prevalence of curvature of the spine, scoliosis, indentation of the chest wall (pectus excavatum), and physical characteristics that overlap heritable connective tissue disorders like Marfan syndrome or Ehlers-Danlos syndrome.”

Dr. Olivier pointed out a major problem in NTM diagnosis and treatment: “The guidelines-based approach to chronic cough generally calls for treating postnasal drip, airway reactivity, asthma type symptoms first empirically, before doing different diagnostic studies. That generally causes a delay in obtaining things like CT scan, where you can see the characteristic changes.”

Dr. Cannella added, “People are starting to become more aware of it. It’s kind of like pneumocystis back in the 80s. ... We’ve had patients who have had long periods of febrile neutropenia, and NTM wasn’t on the radar. Now we’ve picked up at least seven or eight.”

In addition to pulmonary infections, nosocomial outbreaks have occurred, owing to contaminated heater-cooler units, catheter infections, nail salons, or to medical tourism. These more commonly involve rapidly growing species, such as M abscessus, M chelonae, and M fortuitum. Clinicians should also be aware of skin infections from M marinum, which come from wounds from aquariums, fish, or shellfish. Incubation can occur over months, highlighting the importance of a detailed history and special cultures.
 

Diagnostics

The diagnosis of NTM is delayed for several reasons. One is the lack of awareness among clinicians about NTM and its risk factors, including hobbies such as gardening or working in places where dirt is aerosolized, such as on road crews, or even from hot tubs. A thorough history is critical.

Another is not recognizing the need for an acid-fast bacilli (AFB) culture, which requires specialized media. Fortunately, NTM can be picked up on fungal cultures, Dr. Cannella noted. Clinicians are sometimes discouraged from culturing AFB because doing so may not be cost-effective. And many hospital laboratories are increasingly sending cultures to outside labs, and it can take days – sometimes even more than a week – to receive a report of results.

Charles Daley, MD, chief of the Division of Mycobacterial and Respiratory Infections at National Jewish Health, expressed his frustration about labs in an interview, saying diagnostics is “an important hole in the U.S., as our laboratories do not provide clinicians with the results that they need to make good decisions. Most laboratories in the U.S. just don’t speciate the organisms or subspeciate in the setting of abscesses. They don’t tell the clinician enough about the susceptibility, particularly whether there’s inducible resistance. As a clinician, you just don’t have the information to make the right decisions. ... We need to improve diagnostics in NTM. Everything is there and available. They just don’t want to do it because it increases the costs.”

Men tend to have fibrocavitary disease, which shows on ordinary chest x-rays, but CT scans are essential for women because women tend to have either nodular disease or bronchiectasis, which does not show on a plain film.
 

Treatment

A standard treatment for NTM lung disease includes three or four medications – clarithromycin or azithromycin, rifampin or rifabutin, ethambutol, and streptomycin or amikacin. In vitro resistance is important in predicting the clinical response to a macrolide or amikacin.

For bronchiectatic disease, National Jewish Hospital recommends treatment three times per week rather than daily therapy, as it is better tolerated. Azithromycin is preferred over clarithromycin. Amikacin should be added if there is cavitary or severe disease, and the macrolide is then given daily.

Dr. Olivier suggested that physicians stagger the initiation of those drugs to improve the tolerability of the difficult regimen. Generally, treatment is for 18 months – a year after sputum cultures become negative.

If therapy fails – that is, sputum is persistently positive at 6 months – amikacin liposomal inhalation solution (Arikayce) is likely to be added. Patients should be monitored with monthly safety labs, sputum cultures, and an audiogram (if receiving amikacin). Every 3 months, vestibular tests, eye exams, and spirometry should be conducted, and every 6 months, physicians should order a CT, an audiogram, and an electrocardiogram.

Despite completing such a rigorous regimen, about half of patients experience reinfection because of their underlying host susceptibility. Genomic sequencing shows that these are new infections, not relapses, Dr. Prevots said. She also noted that gastroesophageal reflux disease is a significant risk factor because of chronic aspiration.

Dr. Daley outlined the newer treatments being studied. They include Arikayce, omadocycline, and bedaquiline. He added, “There’s a neutrophil elastase inhibitor trial that’s ongoing, a huge trial. There’s another one looking at basically eosinophilic inflammation.”

Other trials are in the offing, he said, all focusing on the inflammatory response – a development he described as exciting, because for the longest time, there were few if any NTM trials.

Dr. Cannella is also buoyed by the potential synergy of dual beta-lactam therapy with ceftaroline and a carbapenem for M abscessus infections, which are notoriously difficult to treat.

There are unique problems facing drug development for NTM because, for approval, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration requires the drug to “improve how a patient feels, functions, or survives.” NTM is associated with low mortality, so that “is off the table,” Dr. Daley explained. It’s hard to quantify improvement in function. The top two symptoms to measure are coughing and fatigue, he said. But both are difficult to measure, and some of the medicines worsen cough. Some research groups are now trying to validate patient-reported outcome instruments to satisfy the FDA’s requirements.
 

Tips for patients and physicians

The experts this news organization spoke to had very consistent recommendations for patients:

• NTM is resistant to chlorine and bromine, so tap water is a major source of infection. Patients should consider to greater than 130° F and using metal showerheads or bathing rather than showering.
• Good bathroom ventilation helps.
• Patients should consider using a water filter that filters entities less than 5 mcm in size – but not carbon filters, which concentrate the organisms.
• Humidifiers and hot tubs should be avoided.
• A good face mask, such as an N95, should be worn when gardening or repotting plants.

Dr. Olivier stressed that clinicians should familiarize themselves with the guidelines for diagnosing and treating NTM. In particular, clinicians should be aware that using azithromycin for bronchitis might cause resistance in NTM. “Macrolide resistance turns what may be a slowly progressive or bothersome infection into a lethal infection with a 1-year mortality of 35%.”

He concluded, “I would just urge that if the patient’s on their second or third Z-Pak within a year, it’s probably time to look for other causes of what might be happening.”

Dr. Cannella, Dr. Prevots, and Dr. Olivier reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Cannella adds, “My views are not those of my employers, the U.S. Dept of VA, or the University of South Florida Morsani College of Medicine.” Dr. Daley reports research grants/contracts with AN2, Beyond Air, Bugworks, Insmed, and Paratek and service on advisory boards or as a consultant for AN2, AstraZeneca, Genentech, Insmed, Matinas, Paratek, Pfizer, and Spero.

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

Living in coastal areas of Florida and California has great appeal for many, with the warm, sunny climate and nearby fresh water and salt water.

But, unknown to many, those balmy coasts also carry the risk of infection from nontuberculous (atypical) mycobacteria (NTM). Unlike its relative, tuberculosis, NTM is not transmitted from person to person, with one exception: patients with cystic fibrosis.

It is estimated that there were 181,000 people with NTM lung disease in the U.S. in 2015, and according to one study, the incidence is increasing by 8.2% annually among those aged 65 years and older. But NTM doesn’t only affect the elderly; it’s estimated that 31% of all NTM patients are younger than 65 years.

With the warm, moist soil and water, NTM is most commonly found in Florida, California, Hawaii, and the Gulf Coast states. The incidence is somewhat lower in states along the Great Lakes. Other states are not without risk – but NTM is perhaps even more likely to be overlooked in these states by physicians because of a lack of awareness of the disease.

Rebecca Prevots, PhD, MPH, chief of the epidemiology and population studies unit of the Division of Intramural Research at the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, told this news organization that “why NTM is increasing is one of the most common questions” she gets, followed by whether it is due to climate change. “The short answer is, we don’t know.”

She suggests that the increase in diagnoses is due to a combination of increased awareness, host susceptibility, and perhaps environmental changes. One problem is that NTM is not a reportable disease. Also, public health resources have been decimated, both through funding cuts and loss of personnel. Dr. Prevots said, “It’s not just NTM surveillance that is important, but you can’t just make a certain condition reportable and expect to have good data without putting resources to it. ... Diseases are made reportable at the state level. There’s no mandated reporting up to CDC. So CDC is piloting reporting events through their emerging infectious program.”

Anthony Cannella, MD, assistant professor of infectious diseases at the University of South Florida (USF), is in the midst of NTM. He told this news organization that “there’s a huge circle with big old dots right over the center of the state.” He is adamant that “a soil-water survey has to occur. We need to know what the devil is happening.”

Florida legislators agreed to allocate $519,000 for NTM testing and surveillance in 2019. But Florida Governor Ron DeSantis vetoed that line item in the budget. WUSF (a National Public Radio affiliate on the USF campus) was unable to get a response to their query about this from the governor’s office.
 

Who gets NTM?

Mycobacterium avium complex primarily causes lung disease, which presents as two clinical syndromes.

“These infections don’t affect everyone,” Kenneth Olivier, MD, MPH, chief of pulmonary clinical medicine, Cardiovascular Pulmonary Branch of the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, said in an interview. They affect “patients that have underlying genetic conditions that cause abnormalities in the airway clearance mechanisms, particularly cystic fibrosis and primary ciliary dyskinesia [and], to some extent, patients with COPD.”

The second group is “comprised mainly of postmenopausal women, many of whom have had no predisposing medical problems prior to onset of generally frequent throat clearing or chronic cough, which is what brings them to medical attention.” Dr. Olivier added that “many of these patients have a fairly unique appearance. They tend to have a high prevalence of curvature of the spine, scoliosis, indentation of the chest wall (pectus excavatum), and physical characteristics that overlap heritable connective tissue disorders like Marfan syndrome or Ehlers-Danlos syndrome.”

Dr. Olivier pointed out a major problem in NTM diagnosis and treatment: “The guidelines-based approach to chronic cough generally calls for treating postnasal drip, airway reactivity, asthma type symptoms first empirically, before doing different diagnostic studies. That generally causes a delay in obtaining things like CT scan, where you can see the characteristic changes.”

Dr. Cannella added, “People are starting to become more aware of it. It’s kind of like pneumocystis back in the 80s. ... We’ve had patients who have had long periods of febrile neutropenia, and NTM wasn’t on the radar. Now we’ve picked up at least seven or eight.”

In addition to pulmonary infections, nosocomial outbreaks have occurred, owing to contaminated heater-cooler units, catheter infections, nail salons, or to medical tourism. These more commonly involve rapidly growing species, such as M abscessus, M chelonae, and M fortuitum. Clinicians should also be aware of skin infections from M marinum, which come from wounds from aquariums, fish, or shellfish. Incubation can occur over months, highlighting the importance of a detailed history and special cultures.
 

Diagnostics

The diagnosis of NTM is delayed for several reasons. One is the lack of awareness among clinicians about NTM and its risk factors, including hobbies such as gardening or working in places where dirt is aerosolized, such as on road crews, or even from hot tubs. A thorough history is critical.

Another is not recognizing the need for an acid-fast bacilli (AFB) culture, which requires specialized media. Fortunately, NTM can be picked up on fungal cultures, Dr. Cannella noted. Clinicians are sometimes discouraged from culturing AFB because doing so may not be cost-effective. And many hospital laboratories are increasingly sending cultures to outside labs, and it can take days – sometimes even more than a week – to receive a report of results.

Charles Daley, MD, chief of the Division of Mycobacterial and Respiratory Infections at National Jewish Health, expressed his frustration about labs in an interview, saying diagnostics is “an important hole in the U.S., as our laboratories do not provide clinicians with the results that they need to make good decisions. Most laboratories in the U.S. just don’t speciate the organisms or subspeciate in the setting of abscesses. They don’t tell the clinician enough about the susceptibility, particularly whether there’s inducible resistance. As a clinician, you just don’t have the information to make the right decisions. ... We need to improve diagnostics in NTM. Everything is there and available. They just don’t want to do it because it increases the costs.”

Men tend to have fibrocavitary disease, which shows on ordinary chest x-rays, but CT scans are essential for women because women tend to have either nodular disease or bronchiectasis, which does not show on a plain film.
 

Treatment

A standard treatment for NTM lung disease includes three or four medications – clarithromycin or azithromycin, rifampin or rifabutin, ethambutol, and streptomycin or amikacin. In vitro resistance is important in predicting the clinical response to a macrolide or amikacin.

For bronchiectatic disease, National Jewish Hospital recommends treatment three times per week rather than daily therapy, as it is better tolerated. Azithromycin is preferred over clarithromycin. Amikacin should be added if there is cavitary or severe disease, and the macrolide is then given daily.

Dr. Olivier suggested that physicians stagger the initiation of those drugs to improve the tolerability of the difficult regimen. Generally, treatment is for 18 months – a year after sputum cultures become negative.

If therapy fails – that is, sputum is persistently positive at 6 months – amikacin liposomal inhalation solution (Arikayce) is likely to be added. Patients should be monitored with monthly safety labs, sputum cultures, and an audiogram (if receiving amikacin). Every 3 months, vestibular tests, eye exams, and spirometry should be conducted, and every 6 months, physicians should order a CT, an audiogram, and an electrocardiogram.

Despite completing such a rigorous regimen, about half of patients experience reinfection because of their underlying host susceptibility. Genomic sequencing shows that these are new infections, not relapses, Dr. Prevots said. She also noted that gastroesophageal reflux disease is a significant risk factor because of chronic aspiration.

Dr. Daley outlined the newer treatments being studied. They include Arikayce, omadocycline, and bedaquiline. He added, “There’s a neutrophil elastase inhibitor trial that’s ongoing, a huge trial. There’s another one looking at basically eosinophilic inflammation.”

Other trials are in the offing, he said, all focusing on the inflammatory response – a development he described as exciting, because for the longest time, there were few if any NTM trials.

Dr. Cannella is also buoyed by the potential synergy of dual beta-lactam therapy with ceftaroline and a carbapenem for M abscessus infections, which are notoriously difficult to treat.

There are unique problems facing drug development for NTM because, for approval, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration requires the drug to “improve how a patient feels, functions, or survives.” NTM is associated with low mortality, so that “is off the table,” Dr. Daley explained. It’s hard to quantify improvement in function. The top two symptoms to measure are coughing and fatigue, he said. But both are difficult to measure, and some of the medicines worsen cough. Some research groups are now trying to validate patient-reported outcome instruments to satisfy the FDA’s requirements.
 

Tips for patients and physicians

The experts this news organization spoke to had very consistent recommendations for patients:

• NTM is resistant to chlorine and bromine, so tap water is a major source of infection. Patients should consider to greater than 130° F and using metal showerheads or bathing rather than showering.
• Good bathroom ventilation helps.
• Patients should consider using a water filter that filters entities less than 5 mcm in size – but not carbon filters, which concentrate the organisms.
• Humidifiers and hot tubs should be avoided.
• A good face mask, such as an N95, should be worn when gardening or repotting plants.

Dr. Olivier stressed that clinicians should familiarize themselves with the guidelines for diagnosing and treating NTM. In particular, clinicians should be aware that using azithromycin for bronchitis might cause resistance in NTM. “Macrolide resistance turns what may be a slowly progressive or bothersome infection into a lethal infection with a 1-year mortality of 35%.”

He concluded, “I would just urge that if the patient’s on their second or third Z-Pak within a year, it’s probably time to look for other causes of what might be happening.”

Dr. Cannella, Dr. Prevots, and Dr. Olivier reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Cannella adds, “My views are not those of my employers, the U.S. Dept of VA, or the University of South Florida Morsani College of Medicine.” Dr. Daley reports research grants/contracts with AN2, Beyond Air, Bugworks, Insmed, and Paratek and service on advisory boards or as a consultant for AN2, AstraZeneca, Genentech, Insmed, Matinas, Paratek, Pfizer, and Spero.

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

Living in coastal areas of Florida and California has great appeal for many, with the warm, sunny climate and nearby fresh water and salt water.

But, unknown to many, those balmy coasts also carry the risk of infection from nontuberculous (atypical) mycobacteria (NTM). Unlike its relative, tuberculosis, NTM is not transmitted from person to person, with one exception: patients with cystic fibrosis.

It is estimated that there were 181,000 people with NTM lung disease in the U.S. in 2015, and according to one study, the incidence is increasing by 8.2% annually among those aged 65 years and older. But NTM doesn’t only affect the elderly; it’s estimated that 31% of all NTM patients are younger than 65 years.

With the warm, moist soil and water, NTM is most commonly found in Florida, California, Hawaii, and the Gulf Coast states. The incidence is somewhat lower in states along the Great Lakes. Other states are not without risk – but NTM is perhaps even more likely to be overlooked in these states by physicians because of a lack of awareness of the disease.

Rebecca Prevots, PhD, MPH, chief of the epidemiology and population studies unit of the Division of Intramural Research at the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, told this news organization that “why NTM is increasing is one of the most common questions” she gets, followed by whether it is due to climate change. “The short answer is, we don’t know.”

She suggests that the increase in diagnoses is due to a combination of increased awareness, host susceptibility, and perhaps environmental changes. One problem is that NTM is not a reportable disease. Also, public health resources have been decimated, both through funding cuts and loss of personnel. Dr. Prevots said, “It’s not just NTM surveillance that is important, but you can’t just make a certain condition reportable and expect to have good data without putting resources to it. ... Diseases are made reportable at the state level. There’s no mandated reporting up to CDC. So CDC is piloting reporting events through their emerging infectious program.”

Anthony Cannella, MD, assistant professor of infectious diseases at the University of South Florida (USF), is in the midst of NTM. He told this news organization that “there’s a huge circle with big old dots right over the center of the state.” He is adamant that “a soil-water survey has to occur. We need to know what the devil is happening.”

Florida legislators agreed to allocate $519,000 for NTM testing and surveillance in 2019. But Florida Governor Ron DeSantis vetoed that line item in the budget. WUSF (a National Public Radio affiliate on the USF campus) was unable to get a response to their query about this from the governor’s office.
 

Who gets NTM?

Mycobacterium avium complex primarily causes lung disease, which presents as two clinical syndromes.

“These infections don’t affect everyone,” Kenneth Olivier, MD, MPH, chief of pulmonary clinical medicine, Cardiovascular Pulmonary Branch of the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, said in an interview. They affect “patients that have underlying genetic conditions that cause abnormalities in the airway clearance mechanisms, particularly cystic fibrosis and primary ciliary dyskinesia [and], to some extent, patients with COPD.”

The second group is “comprised mainly of postmenopausal women, many of whom have had no predisposing medical problems prior to onset of generally frequent throat clearing or chronic cough, which is what brings them to medical attention.” Dr. Olivier added that “many of these patients have a fairly unique appearance. They tend to have a high prevalence of curvature of the spine, scoliosis, indentation of the chest wall (pectus excavatum), and physical characteristics that overlap heritable connective tissue disorders like Marfan syndrome or Ehlers-Danlos syndrome.”

Dr. Olivier pointed out a major problem in NTM diagnosis and treatment: “The guidelines-based approach to chronic cough generally calls for treating postnasal drip, airway reactivity, asthma type symptoms first empirically, before doing different diagnostic studies. That generally causes a delay in obtaining things like CT scan, where you can see the characteristic changes.”

Dr. Cannella added, “People are starting to become more aware of it. It’s kind of like pneumocystis back in the 80s. ... We’ve had patients who have had long periods of febrile neutropenia, and NTM wasn’t on the radar. Now we’ve picked up at least seven or eight.”

In addition to pulmonary infections, nosocomial outbreaks have occurred, owing to contaminated heater-cooler units, catheter infections, nail salons, or to medical tourism. These more commonly involve rapidly growing species, such as M abscessus, M chelonae, and M fortuitum. Clinicians should also be aware of skin infections from M marinum, which come from wounds from aquariums, fish, or shellfish. Incubation can occur over months, highlighting the importance of a detailed history and special cultures.
 

Diagnostics

The diagnosis of NTM is delayed for several reasons. One is the lack of awareness among clinicians about NTM and its risk factors, including hobbies such as gardening or working in places where dirt is aerosolized, such as on road crews, or even from hot tubs. A thorough history is critical.

Another is not recognizing the need for an acid-fast bacilli (AFB) culture, which requires specialized media. Fortunately, NTM can be picked up on fungal cultures, Dr. Cannella noted. Clinicians are sometimes discouraged from culturing AFB because doing so may not be cost-effective. And many hospital laboratories are increasingly sending cultures to outside labs, and it can take days – sometimes even more than a week – to receive a report of results.

Charles Daley, MD, chief of the Division of Mycobacterial and Respiratory Infections at National Jewish Health, expressed his frustration about labs in an interview, saying diagnostics is “an important hole in the U.S., as our laboratories do not provide clinicians with the results that they need to make good decisions. Most laboratories in the U.S. just don’t speciate the organisms or subspeciate in the setting of abscesses. They don’t tell the clinician enough about the susceptibility, particularly whether there’s inducible resistance. As a clinician, you just don’t have the information to make the right decisions. ... We need to improve diagnostics in NTM. Everything is there and available. They just don’t want to do it because it increases the costs.”

Men tend to have fibrocavitary disease, which shows on ordinary chest x-rays, but CT scans are essential for women because women tend to have either nodular disease or bronchiectasis, which does not show on a plain film.
 

Treatment

A standard treatment for NTM lung disease includes three or four medications – clarithromycin or azithromycin, rifampin or rifabutin, ethambutol, and streptomycin or amikacin. In vitro resistance is important in predicting the clinical response to a macrolide or amikacin.

For bronchiectatic disease, National Jewish Hospital recommends treatment three times per week rather than daily therapy, as it is better tolerated. Azithromycin is preferred over clarithromycin. Amikacin should be added if there is cavitary or severe disease, and the macrolide is then given daily.

Dr. Olivier suggested that physicians stagger the initiation of those drugs to improve the tolerability of the difficult regimen. Generally, treatment is for 18 months – a year after sputum cultures become negative.

If therapy fails – that is, sputum is persistently positive at 6 months – amikacin liposomal inhalation solution (Arikayce) is likely to be added. Patients should be monitored with monthly safety labs, sputum cultures, and an audiogram (if receiving amikacin). Every 3 months, vestibular tests, eye exams, and spirometry should be conducted, and every 6 months, physicians should order a CT, an audiogram, and an electrocardiogram.

Despite completing such a rigorous regimen, about half of patients experience reinfection because of their underlying host susceptibility. Genomic sequencing shows that these are new infections, not relapses, Dr. Prevots said. She also noted that gastroesophageal reflux disease is a significant risk factor because of chronic aspiration.

Dr. Daley outlined the newer treatments being studied. They include Arikayce, omadocycline, and bedaquiline. He added, “There’s a neutrophil elastase inhibitor trial that’s ongoing, a huge trial. There’s another one looking at basically eosinophilic inflammation.”

Other trials are in the offing, he said, all focusing on the inflammatory response – a development he described as exciting, because for the longest time, there were few if any NTM trials.

Dr. Cannella is also buoyed by the potential synergy of dual beta-lactam therapy with ceftaroline and a carbapenem for M abscessus infections, which are notoriously difficult to treat.

There are unique problems facing drug development for NTM because, for approval, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration requires the drug to “improve how a patient feels, functions, or survives.” NTM is associated with low mortality, so that “is off the table,” Dr. Daley explained. It’s hard to quantify improvement in function. The top two symptoms to measure are coughing and fatigue, he said. But both are difficult to measure, and some of the medicines worsen cough. Some research groups are now trying to validate patient-reported outcome instruments to satisfy the FDA’s requirements.
 

Tips for patients and physicians

The experts this news organization spoke to had very consistent recommendations for patients:

• NTM is resistant to chlorine and bromine, so tap water is a major source of infection. Patients should consider to greater than 130° F and using metal showerheads or bathing rather than showering.
• Good bathroom ventilation helps.
• Patients should consider using a water filter that filters entities less than 5 mcm in size – but not carbon filters, which concentrate the organisms.
• Humidifiers and hot tubs should be avoided.
• A good face mask, such as an N95, should be worn when gardening or repotting plants.

Dr. Olivier stressed that clinicians should familiarize themselves with the guidelines for diagnosing and treating NTM. In particular, clinicians should be aware that using azithromycin for bronchitis might cause resistance in NTM. “Macrolide resistance turns what may be a slowly progressive or bothersome infection into a lethal infection with a 1-year mortality of 35%.”

He concluded, “I would just urge that if the patient’s on their second or third Z-Pak within a year, it’s probably time to look for other causes of what might be happening.”

Dr. Cannella, Dr. Prevots, and Dr. Olivier reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Cannella adds, “My views are not those of my employers, the U.S. Dept of VA, or the University of South Florida Morsani College of Medicine.” Dr. Daley reports research grants/contracts with AN2, Beyond Air, Bugworks, Insmed, and Paratek and service on advisory boards or as a consultant for AN2, AstraZeneca, Genentech, Insmed, Matinas, Paratek, Pfizer, and Spero.

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

It’s tough being on the receiving end of care. I’ve tried to avoid it as much as possible, being ever mindful of the law from Samuel Shem’s The House of God: “They can always hurt you more.”

I recently had several medical encounters at three different facilities, highlighting systemic problems in medical care. Fortunately, each procedure went more smoothly than the prior one.

The first was not so elective. I had some uncomfortable symptoms while exercising and, not wanting to totally be in denial, contacted my doctor to ensure that it was not cardiac in origin since symptoms are often atypical in women.

My physician promptly saw me, then scheduled a nuclear stress test. There was a series of needless glitches. Registration at the diagnostic center had me on their schedule but did not have an order. They would have canceled the procedure had I not been able to get hold of the doctor’s office. Why isn’t an order automatically entered when the physician schedules the test?

While I was given the euphemistic “Patient Rights” brochure, asking to have reports sent to a physician outside of the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center empire is apparently not included.

The staff canceled the stress test because I was not fasting. I had received no instructions from diagnostic cardiology. They suggested it was my internist’s responsibility.

I deliberately ate (2 hours earlier) because my trainer always wants me to eat a light meal so I don’t get hypoglycemic during our workouts, and an exercise stress test, is, of course, a workout. The nurse practitioner said that they were concerned I would vomit. I offered to sign a waiver. She parried, saying they would not be able to get adequate images, so I was out of luck.

When I expressed concern about getting hypoglycemic and having difficulty with the test if fasting, the tech said I should bring a soda and snack. Who tells a “borderline” diabetic to bring a soda?

The tech also said she had called our home to give instructions but encountered a busy signal and had not had time to call back. I had not left the house during the prior week (or most of the past 2 years), so this was a pretty lame excuse.

I suggested to the administration that the hospital offer to email the patient instructions well ahead of time (and perhaps ask for confirmation of receipt). If calling, they should try more than once. They should also have patient instruction sheets at the physician’s office and perhaps have them on their website.

It turns out that the hospital mailed me instructions, not on the date it was ordered, but with the postmark being the day of the procedure itself. With Trump donor Louis DeJoy in charge of the U.S. Postal Service, mail across town now has to travel to Baltimore, 3 hours away, be sorted, and returned.

I did finally have the stress test, which was reassuringly normal. I was not surprised, given that the fury I felt on the first attempt had not precipitated symptoms. The hospital sent a patient ombudsman to meet me there to discuss my previous complaints. I have no idea if they implemented any of the changes I had suggested. In 2021, when I urgently had to take my husband to the ED, I couldn’t see the sign pointing toward the ED and had to ask for directions at the main entrance. They said they would fix that promptly but still have not improved the signage. How I miss the friendly community hospital we had before!

Next was trigger-finger surgery. I had developed that in 1978 from using crutches after a fall. I figured that the relative lull in COVID and my activities made it as good a time as any to finally have it fixed. The surgicenter was great; the surgeon was someone I had worked with and respected for decades. The only glitch was not really knowing how long I was going to be out of commission.

The third encounter (at yet another institution) went really well, despite some early administrative glitches. My major complaint was with the lack of communication between preoperative anesthesia and the operating room and the lack of personalization of preoperative instructions. Despite EPIC, medicines were not correctly reconciled between the different encounters, even on the same day!

After about 15 years of diplopia, which has been gradually worsening, my eye doc had suggested that I consider strabismus surgery as a sort of last-ditch effort to improve my quality of life.

Anesthesiology has stock instructions, which they made no effort to individualize. For example, there is no reason to stop NSAIDs a week before such minor surgery. That’s a problem if you depend on NSAIDs for pain control. Similarly, nothing by mouth after midnight is passé and could be tailored for the patient. I felt particularly inconvenienced that I had to go out of town for the preoperative visit and then have a redundant preoperative clearance by my physician.

The nurses in the preoperative area made me feel quite comfortable and as relaxed as I could be under the circumstances. They had a good sense of humor, which helped too. And from the time I met him a few weeks earlier, I instantly liked my surgeon and felt very comfortable with him and had complete trust.

I was pleased that the chief anesthesiologist responded promptly and undefensively to my letter expressing concerns. I do believe that he will try to improve the systemic problems.

The best part: The surgery appears to have been successful and I should have a significantly improved quality of life.

Hospitals could do so much better by improving communications with patients and by viewing them as customers whose loyalty they must earn and will value. With monopolies growing, memories of such care are quickly fading, soon to be as extinct as the family doc who made house calls.

Dr. Stone is an infectious disease specialist and author of Resilience: One Family’s Story of Hope and Triumph over Evil and Conducting Clinical Research: A Practical Guide. She disclosed no relevant financial relationships. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

It’s tough being on the receiving end of care. I’ve tried to avoid it as much as possible, being ever mindful of the law from Samuel Shem’s The House of God: “They can always hurt you more.”

I recently had several medical encounters at three different facilities, highlighting systemic problems in medical care. Fortunately, each procedure went more smoothly than the prior one.

The first was not so elective. I had some uncomfortable symptoms while exercising and, not wanting to totally be in denial, contacted my doctor to ensure that it was not cardiac in origin since symptoms are often atypical in women.

My physician promptly saw me, then scheduled a nuclear stress test. There was a series of needless glitches. Registration at the diagnostic center had me on their schedule but did not have an order. They would have canceled the procedure had I not been able to get hold of the doctor’s office. Why isn’t an order automatically entered when the physician schedules the test?

While I was given the euphemistic “Patient Rights” brochure, asking to have reports sent to a physician outside of the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center empire is apparently not included.

The staff canceled the stress test because I was not fasting. I had received no instructions from diagnostic cardiology. They suggested it was my internist’s responsibility.

I deliberately ate (2 hours earlier) because my trainer always wants me to eat a light meal so I don’t get hypoglycemic during our workouts, and an exercise stress test, is, of course, a workout. The nurse practitioner said that they were concerned I would vomit. I offered to sign a waiver. She parried, saying they would not be able to get adequate images, so I was out of luck.

When I expressed concern about getting hypoglycemic and having difficulty with the test if fasting, the tech said I should bring a soda and snack. Who tells a “borderline” diabetic to bring a soda?

The tech also said she had called our home to give instructions but encountered a busy signal and had not had time to call back. I had not left the house during the prior week (or most of the past 2 years), so this was a pretty lame excuse.

I suggested to the administration that the hospital offer to email the patient instructions well ahead of time (and perhaps ask for confirmation of receipt). If calling, they should try more than once. They should also have patient instruction sheets at the physician’s office and perhaps have them on their website.

It turns out that the hospital mailed me instructions, not on the date it was ordered, but with the postmark being the day of the procedure itself. With Trump donor Louis DeJoy in charge of the U.S. Postal Service, mail across town now has to travel to Baltimore, 3 hours away, be sorted, and returned.

I did finally have the stress test, which was reassuringly normal. I was not surprised, given that the fury I felt on the first attempt had not precipitated symptoms. The hospital sent a patient ombudsman to meet me there to discuss my previous complaints. I have no idea if they implemented any of the changes I had suggested. In 2021, when I urgently had to take my husband to the ED, I couldn’t see the sign pointing toward the ED and had to ask for directions at the main entrance. They said they would fix that promptly but still have not improved the signage. How I miss the friendly community hospital we had before!

Next was trigger-finger surgery. I had developed that in 1978 from using crutches after a fall. I figured that the relative lull in COVID and my activities made it as good a time as any to finally have it fixed. The surgicenter was great; the surgeon was someone I had worked with and respected for decades. The only glitch was not really knowing how long I was going to be out of commission.

The third encounter (at yet another institution) went really well, despite some early administrative glitches. My major complaint was with the lack of communication between preoperative anesthesia and the operating room and the lack of personalization of preoperative instructions. Despite EPIC, medicines were not correctly reconciled between the different encounters, even on the same day!

After about 15 years of diplopia, which has been gradually worsening, my eye doc had suggested that I consider strabismus surgery as a sort of last-ditch effort to improve my quality of life.

Anesthesiology has stock instructions, which they made no effort to individualize. For example, there is no reason to stop NSAIDs a week before such minor surgery. That’s a problem if you depend on NSAIDs for pain control. Similarly, nothing by mouth after midnight is passé and could be tailored for the patient. I felt particularly inconvenienced that I had to go out of town for the preoperative visit and then have a redundant preoperative clearance by my physician.

The nurses in the preoperative area made me feel quite comfortable and as relaxed as I could be under the circumstances. They had a good sense of humor, which helped too. And from the time I met him a few weeks earlier, I instantly liked my surgeon and felt very comfortable with him and had complete trust.

I was pleased that the chief anesthesiologist responded promptly and undefensively to my letter expressing concerns. I do believe that he will try to improve the systemic problems.

The best part: The surgery appears to have been successful and I should have a significantly improved quality of life.

Hospitals could do so much better by improving communications with patients and by viewing them as customers whose loyalty they must earn and will value. With monopolies growing, memories of such care are quickly fading, soon to be as extinct as the family doc who made house calls.

Dr. Stone is an infectious disease specialist and author of Resilience: One Family’s Story of Hope and Triumph over Evil and Conducting Clinical Research: A Practical Guide. She disclosed no relevant financial relationships. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

It’s tough being on the receiving end of care. I’ve tried to avoid it as much as possible, being ever mindful of the law from Samuel Shem’s The House of God: “They can always hurt you more.”

I recently had several medical encounters at three different facilities, highlighting systemic problems in medical care. Fortunately, each procedure went more smoothly than the prior one.

The first was not so elective. I had some uncomfortable symptoms while exercising and, not wanting to totally be in denial, contacted my doctor to ensure that it was not cardiac in origin since symptoms are often atypical in women.

My physician promptly saw me, then scheduled a nuclear stress test. There was a series of needless glitches. Registration at the diagnostic center had me on their schedule but did not have an order. They would have canceled the procedure had I not been able to get hold of the doctor’s office. Why isn’t an order automatically entered when the physician schedules the test?

While I was given the euphemistic “Patient Rights” brochure, asking to have reports sent to a physician outside of the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center empire is apparently not included.

The staff canceled the stress test because I was not fasting. I had received no instructions from diagnostic cardiology. They suggested it was my internist’s responsibility.

I deliberately ate (2 hours earlier) because my trainer always wants me to eat a light meal so I don’t get hypoglycemic during our workouts, and an exercise stress test, is, of course, a workout. The nurse practitioner said that they were concerned I would vomit. I offered to sign a waiver. She parried, saying they would not be able to get adequate images, so I was out of luck.

When I expressed concern about getting hypoglycemic and having difficulty with the test if fasting, the tech said I should bring a soda and snack. Who tells a “borderline” diabetic to bring a soda?

The tech also said she had called our home to give instructions but encountered a busy signal and had not had time to call back. I had not left the house during the prior week (or most of the past 2 years), so this was a pretty lame excuse.

I suggested to the administration that the hospital offer to email the patient instructions well ahead of time (and perhaps ask for confirmation of receipt). If calling, they should try more than once. They should also have patient instruction sheets at the physician’s office and perhaps have them on their website.

It turns out that the hospital mailed me instructions, not on the date it was ordered, but with the postmark being the day of the procedure itself. With Trump donor Louis DeJoy in charge of the U.S. Postal Service, mail across town now has to travel to Baltimore, 3 hours away, be sorted, and returned.

I did finally have the stress test, which was reassuringly normal. I was not surprised, given that the fury I felt on the first attempt had not precipitated symptoms. The hospital sent a patient ombudsman to meet me there to discuss my previous complaints. I have no idea if they implemented any of the changes I had suggested. In 2021, when I urgently had to take my husband to the ED, I couldn’t see the sign pointing toward the ED and had to ask for directions at the main entrance. They said they would fix that promptly but still have not improved the signage. How I miss the friendly community hospital we had before!

Next was trigger-finger surgery. I had developed that in 1978 from using crutches after a fall. I figured that the relative lull in COVID and my activities made it as good a time as any to finally have it fixed. The surgicenter was great; the surgeon was someone I had worked with and respected for decades. The only glitch was not really knowing how long I was going to be out of commission.

The third encounter (at yet another institution) went really well, despite some early administrative glitches. My major complaint was with the lack of communication between preoperative anesthesia and the operating room and the lack of personalization of preoperative instructions. Despite EPIC, medicines were not correctly reconciled between the different encounters, even on the same day!

After about 15 years of diplopia, which has been gradually worsening, my eye doc had suggested that I consider strabismus surgery as a sort of last-ditch effort to improve my quality of life.

Anesthesiology has stock instructions, which they made no effort to individualize. For example, there is no reason to stop NSAIDs a week before such minor surgery. That’s a problem if you depend on NSAIDs for pain control. Similarly, nothing by mouth after midnight is passé and could be tailored for the patient. I felt particularly inconvenienced that I had to go out of town for the preoperative visit and then have a redundant preoperative clearance by my physician.

The nurses in the preoperative area made me feel quite comfortable and as relaxed as I could be under the circumstances. They had a good sense of humor, which helped too. And from the time I met him a few weeks earlier, I instantly liked my surgeon and felt very comfortable with him and had complete trust.

I was pleased that the chief anesthesiologist responded promptly and undefensively to my letter expressing concerns. I do believe that he will try to improve the systemic problems.

The best part: The surgery appears to have been successful and I should have a significantly improved quality of life.

Hospitals could do so much better by improving communications with patients and by viewing them as customers whose loyalty they must earn and will value. With monopolies growing, memories of such care are quickly fading, soon to be as extinct as the family doc who made house calls.

Dr. Stone is an infectious disease specialist and author of Resilience: One Family’s Story of Hope and Triumph over Evil and Conducting Clinical Research: A Practical Guide. She disclosed no relevant financial relationships. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.