Mark S. Lesney

The Food and Drug Administration announced that it has approved cefiderocol (Fetroja), an IV antibacterial drug to treat complicated urinary tract infections (cUTIs), including kidney infections, caused by multidrug-resistant gram-negative microorganisms in patients 18 years of age or older.

The safety and effectiveness of cefiderocol was demonstrated in a pivotal study of 448 patients with cUTIs. Published results indicated that 73% of patients had resolution of symptoms and eradication of the bacteria approximately 7 days after completing treatment, compared with 55% in patients who received an alternative antibiotic.

The approval is for patients who have limited or no alternative treatment options and includes a label warning regarding cefiderocol’s higher all-cause mortality observed in comparison to patients treated with other antibiotics in a trial of critically ill patients having multidrug-resistant gram-negative bacterial infections (clinical trials. gov NCT02714595).

The cause of the increase in mortality has not been determined, according to the FDA. Some of the deaths in the study were attributable to worsening or complications of infection, or underlying comorbidities, in patients treated for hospital-acquired/ventilator-associated pneumonia (i.e., nosocomial pneumonia), bloodstream infections, or sepsis. Thus, safety and efficacy of cefiderocol has not been established for the treating these types of infections, according to the announcement.

Adverse reactions observed in patients treated with cefiderocol included diarrhea, constipation, nausea, vomiting, elevations in liver tests, rash, infusion-site reactions, and candidiasis. The FDA added that cefiderocol should not be used in persons known to have a severe hypersensitivity to beta-lactam antibacterial drugs.

“A key global challenge the FDA faces as a public health agency is addressing the threat of antimicrobial-resistant infections, like cUTIs. This approval represents another step forward in the FDA’s overall efforts to ensure safe and effective antimicrobial drugs are available to patients for treating infections,” John Farley, MD, acting director of the Office of Infectious Diseases in the FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research said in the FDA press statement.

Fetroja is a product of Shionogi.

mlesney@mdedge.com

The Food and Drug Administration announced that it has approved cefiderocol (Fetroja), an IV antibacterial drug to treat complicated urinary tract infections (cUTIs), including kidney infections, caused by multidrug-resistant gram-negative microorganisms in patients 18 years of age or older.

The safety and effectiveness of cefiderocol was demonstrated in a pivotal study of 448 patients with cUTIs. Published results indicated that 73% of patients had resolution of symptoms and eradication of the bacteria approximately 7 days after completing treatment, compared with 55% in patients who received an alternative antibiotic.

The approval is for patients who have limited or no alternative treatment options and includes a label warning regarding cefiderocol’s higher all-cause mortality observed in comparison to patients treated with other antibiotics in a trial of critically ill patients having multidrug-resistant gram-negative bacterial infections (clinical trials. gov NCT02714595).

The cause of the increase in mortality has not been determined, according to the FDA. Some of the deaths in the study were attributable to worsening or complications of infection, or underlying comorbidities, in patients treated for hospital-acquired/ventilator-associated pneumonia (i.e., nosocomial pneumonia), bloodstream infections, or sepsis. Thus, safety and efficacy of cefiderocol has not been established for the treating these types of infections, according to the announcement.

Adverse reactions observed in patients treated with cefiderocol included diarrhea, constipation, nausea, vomiting, elevations in liver tests, rash, infusion-site reactions, and candidiasis. The FDA added that cefiderocol should not be used in persons known to have a severe hypersensitivity to beta-lactam antibacterial drugs.

“A key global challenge the FDA faces as a public health agency is addressing the threat of antimicrobial-resistant infections, like cUTIs. This approval represents another step forward in the FDA’s overall efforts to ensure safe and effective antimicrobial drugs are available to patients for treating infections,” John Farley, MD, acting director of the Office of Infectious Diseases in the FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research said in the FDA press statement.

Fetroja is a product of Shionogi.

mlesney@mdedge.com

The Food and Drug Administration announced that it has approved cefiderocol (Fetroja), an IV antibacterial drug to treat complicated urinary tract infections (cUTIs), including kidney infections, caused by multidrug-resistant gram-negative microorganisms in patients 18 years of age or older.

The safety and effectiveness of cefiderocol was demonstrated in a pivotal study of 448 patients with cUTIs. Published results indicated that 73% of patients had resolution of symptoms and eradication of the bacteria approximately 7 days after completing treatment, compared with 55% in patients who received an alternative antibiotic.

The approval is for patients who have limited or no alternative treatment options and includes a label warning regarding cefiderocol’s higher all-cause mortality observed in comparison to patients treated with other antibiotics in a trial of critically ill patients having multidrug-resistant gram-negative bacterial infections (clinical trials. gov NCT02714595).

The cause of the increase in mortality has not been determined, according to the FDA. Some of the deaths in the study were attributable to worsening or complications of infection, or underlying comorbidities, in patients treated for hospital-acquired/ventilator-associated pneumonia (i.e., nosocomial pneumonia), bloodstream infections, or sepsis. Thus, safety and efficacy of cefiderocol has not been established for the treating these types of infections, according to the announcement.

Adverse reactions observed in patients treated with cefiderocol included diarrhea, constipation, nausea, vomiting, elevations in liver tests, rash, infusion-site reactions, and candidiasis. The FDA added that cefiderocol should not be used in persons known to have a severe hypersensitivity to beta-lactam antibacterial drugs.

“A key global challenge the FDA faces as a public health agency is addressing the threat of antimicrobial-resistant infections, like cUTIs. This approval represents another step forward in the FDA’s overall efforts to ensure safe and effective antimicrobial drugs are available to patients for treating infections,” John Farley, MD, acting director of the Office of Infectious Diseases in the FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research said in the FDA press statement.

Fetroja is a product of Shionogi.

mlesney@mdedge.com

Developments in carotid artery disease diagnosis and treatment have always been an important component of the VEITHsymposium programs and there will be sessions focusing on this critical area of patient management throughout the entire meeting.

This year, sessions will include a Tuesday focus on unresolved controversies in the management of carotid artery disease. The session will be moderated by Bruce A. Perler, MD, and L. Nelson Hopkins, MD, and include presentations on the value of using biomarkers of brain injury associated with carotid interventions, and how to assess and treat such adverse events as cerebral hyperfusion syndrome and intracranial artery dissection, as well as best medical treatments for carotid patients.

Of particular interest, there will be a debate Tuesday on the need for completion imaging with duplex or angiography with Hans-Henning Eckstein, MD, PhD, and R. Clement Darling III, MD.

Presentations will also address some of the latest treatment techniques for carotid artery disease. For example, on Wednesday morning, Norman H. Kumins, MD, of the Cleveland Medical Center, will present a study on the duration of blood flow reversal during transcarotid artery revascularization (TCAR), an “increasingly popular alternative to carotid endarterctomy and transfemoral artery carotid stenting,” which is designed to provide increased neuroprotection during the placement and angioplasty of the carotid stent. They analyzed the relationship between the length of TCAR flow reversal time (FRT) and major adverse events in 307 patients who underwent TCAR at four high-volume institutions. They separated patients into short (3-7minutes); medium(8-12 minutes); and long group (greater than 12 minutes) FRT. They designated a subset of the long group patients of those with greater than or equal to 20 or more minutes FRT, which they defined as the very long group. The stroke, myocardial infarction, and death rates at 30 days were assessed for all patients and were compared them between groups.

Dr. Kumins will detail how the overall stroke rate was 1.3%, with all strokes considered minor, and all patients showing full recovery. The four strokes occurred in patients with FRT of 6, 7, 11, and 12 minutes, showing no difference in the composite stroke/death or stroke/death/MI rates among the groups, the researchers indicated.

Dr. Kumins will discuss how flow reversal time does not affect stroke rates in patients undergoing TCAR, and suggest that operators should focus on the technical aspects of the procedure during flow reversal rather than being concerned about the amount of FRT.

Developments in carotid artery disease diagnosis and treatment have always been an important component of the VEITHsymposium programs and there will be sessions focusing on this critical area of patient management throughout the entire meeting.

This year, sessions will include a Tuesday focus on unresolved controversies in the management of carotid artery disease. The session will be moderated by Bruce A. Perler, MD, and L. Nelson Hopkins, MD, and include presentations on the value of using biomarkers of brain injury associated with carotid interventions, and how to assess and treat such adverse events as cerebral hyperfusion syndrome and intracranial artery dissection, as well as best medical treatments for carotid patients.

Of particular interest, there will be a debate Tuesday on the need for completion imaging with duplex or angiography with Hans-Henning Eckstein, MD, PhD, and R. Clement Darling III, MD.

Presentations will also address some of the latest treatment techniques for carotid artery disease. For example, on Wednesday morning, Norman H. Kumins, MD, of the Cleveland Medical Center, will present a study on the duration of blood flow reversal during transcarotid artery revascularization (TCAR), an “increasingly popular alternative to carotid endarterctomy and transfemoral artery carotid stenting,” which is designed to provide increased neuroprotection during the placement and angioplasty of the carotid stent. They analyzed the relationship between the length of TCAR flow reversal time (FRT) and major adverse events in 307 patients who underwent TCAR at four high-volume institutions. They separated patients into short (3-7minutes); medium(8-12 minutes); and long group (greater than 12 minutes) FRT. They designated a subset of the long group patients of those with greater than or equal to 20 or more minutes FRT, which they defined as the very long group. The stroke, myocardial infarction, and death rates at 30 days were assessed for all patients and were compared them between groups.

Dr. Kumins will detail how the overall stroke rate was 1.3%, with all strokes considered minor, and all patients showing full recovery. The four strokes occurred in patients with FRT of 6, 7, 11, and 12 minutes, showing no difference in the composite stroke/death or stroke/death/MI rates among the groups, the researchers indicated.

Dr. Kumins will discuss how flow reversal time does not affect stroke rates in patients undergoing TCAR, and suggest that operators should focus on the technical aspects of the procedure during flow reversal rather than being concerned about the amount of FRT.

Developments in carotid artery disease diagnosis and treatment have always been an important component of the VEITHsymposium programs and there will be sessions focusing on this critical area of patient management throughout the entire meeting.

This year, sessions will include a Tuesday focus on unresolved controversies in the management of carotid artery disease. The session will be moderated by Bruce A. Perler, MD, and L. Nelson Hopkins, MD, and include presentations on the value of using biomarkers of brain injury associated with carotid interventions, and how to assess and treat such adverse events as cerebral hyperfusion syndrome and intracranial artery dissection, as well as best medical treatments for carotid patients.

Of particular interest, there will be a debate Tuesday on the need for completion imaging with duplex or angiography with Hans-Henning Eckstein, MD, PhD, and R. Clement Darling III, MD.

Presentations will also address some of the latest treatment techniques for carotid artery disease. For example, on Wednesday morning, Norman H. Kumins, MD, of the Cleveland Medical Center, will present a study on the duration of blood flow reversal during transcarotid artery revascularization (TCAR), an “increasingly popular alternative to carotid endarterctomy and transfemoral artery carotid stenting,” which is designed to provide increased neuroprotection during the placement and angioplasty of the carotid stent. They analyzed the relationship between the length of TCAR flow reversal time (FRT) and major adverse events in 307 patients who underwent TCAR at four high-volume institutions. They separated patients into short (3-7minutes); medium(8-12 minutes); and long group (greater than 12 minutes) FRT. They designated a subset of the long group patients of those with greater than or equal to 20 or more minutes FRT, which they defined as the very long group. The stroke, myocardial infarction, and death rates at 30 days were assessed for all patients and were compared them between groups.

Dr. Kumins will detail how the overall stroke rate was 1.3%, with all strokes considered minor, and all patients showing full recovery. The four strokes occurred in patients with FRT of 6, 7, 11, and 12 minutes, showing no difference in the composite stroke/death or stroke/death/MI rates among the groups, the researchers indicated.

Dr. Kumins will discuss how flow reversal time does not affect stroke rates in patients undergoing TCAR, and suggest that operators should focus on the technical aspects of the procedure during flow reversal rather than being concerned about the amount of FRT.

This year at the VEITHsymposium, lower extremity arterial disease diagnosis and treatment takes pride of place in multiple sessions on each day.

For example, Tuesday will feature a special afternoon program on Hot New Topics In Lower Extremity Occlusive Disease Treatment, and on Wednesday morning, an associate faculty session will be held on Progress In Lower Extremity Occlusive Disease And Its Treatments.

In one particular presentation on Wednesday morning, Arsalan Wafi, MBBS, a clinical researcher at St. George’s Vascular Institute, London, will present a 10-year prospective study demonstrating that the poor mobility, lack of statin use, and socioeconomic deprivation are all associated with worse survival after a major lower limb amputation. Dr. Wafi will discuss how he and his colleagues assessed consecutive 805 major lower limb amputation patients seen in the Roehampton Rehabilitation Center between January 2007 and January 2018, using prospective records, which included demographics, etiologies of limb loss, operative details, medications, and mortality data over a 10-year follow-up period.

A total of 611 (76%) occurred in men, and 194 (24%) in women. Etiologies included diabetes mellitus, peripheral vascular disease, and other causes such as trauma, malignancy, sepsis, and complex regional pain syndrome.

Dr. Wafi will present data showing that living in a deprived area and being further away from the rehabilitation center were both significantly associated with poorer survival. Diabetes mellitus or peripheral vascular disease were associated with significantly shorter survival, compared with other etiologies, and not being on a statin was associated with significantly worse survival among the vascular patients. In addition, poorer overall mobility at discharge from rehabilitation was associated with poorer survival, according to the researchers. However there was no significant difference in survival between below-knee and above-knee amputees, or between unilateral and bilateral amputees.

Thursday will be highlighted by a session on New Devices For Treating Lower Extremity Lesions By Endovascular Or Open Techniques, and Friday will see a session New Developments In The Treatment Of Popliteal Diseases And Aneurysms.

This is only one of many such studies focused on lower extremity arterial disease at this year’s VEITHsymposium.

This year at the VEITHsymposium, lower extremity arterial disease diagnosis and treatment takes pride of place in multiple sessions on each day.

For example, Tuesday will feature a special afternoon program on Hot New Topics In Lower Extremity Occlusive Disease Treatment, and on Wednesday morning, an associate faculty session will be held on Progress In Lower Extremity Occlusive Disease And Its Treatments.

In one particular presentation on Wednesday morning, Arsalan Wafi, MBBS, a clinical researcher at St. George’s Vascular Institute, London, will present a 10-year prospective study demonstrating that the poor mobility, lack of statin use, and socioeconomic deprivation are all associated with worse survival after a major lower limb amputation. Dr. Wafi will discuss how he and his colleagues assessed consecutive 805 major lower limb amputation patients seen in the Roehampton Rehabilitation Center between January 2007 and January 2018, using prospective records, which included demographics, etiologies of limb loss, operative details, medications, and mortality data over a 10-year follow-up period.

A total of 611 (76%) occurred in men, and 194 (24%) in women. Etiologies included diabetes mellitus, peripheral vascular disease, and other causes such as trauma, malignancy, sepsis, and complex regional pain syndrome.

Dr. Wafi will present data showing that living in a deprived area and being further away from the rehabilitation center were both significantly associated with poorer survival. Diabetes mellitus or peripheral vascular disease were associated with significantly shorter survival, compared with other etiologies, and not being on a statin was associated with significantly worse survival among the vascular patients. In addition, poorer overall mobility at discharge from rehabilitation was associated with poorer survival, according to the researchers. However there was no significant difference in survival between below-knee and above-knee amputees, or between unilateral and bilateral amputees.

Thursday will be highlighted by a session on New Devices For Treating Lower Extremity Lesions By Endovascular Or Open Techniques, and Friday will see a session New Developments In The Treatment Of Popliteal Diseases And Aneurysms.

This is only one of many such studies focused on lower extremity arterial disease at this year’s VEITHsymposium.

This year at the VEITHsymposium, lower extremity arterial disease diagnosis and treatment takes pride of place in multiple sessions on each day.

For example, Tuesday will feature a special afternoon program on Hot New Topics In Lower Extremity Occlusive Disease Treatment, and on Wednesday morning, an associate faculty session will be held on Progress In Lower Extremity Occlusive Disease And Its Treatments.

In one particular presentation on Wednesday morning, Arsalan Wafi, MBBS, a clinical researcher at St. George’s Vascular Institute, London, will present a 10-year prospective study demonstrating that the poor mobility, lack of statin use, and socioeconomic deprivation are all associated with worse survival after a major lower limb amputation. Dr. Wafi will discuss how he and his colleagues assessed consecutive 805 major lower limb amputation patients seen in the Roehampton Rehabilitation Center between January 2007 and January 2018, using prospective records, which included demographics, etiologies of limb loss, operative details, medications, and mortality data over a 10-year follow-up period.

A total of 611 (76%) occurred in men, and 194 (24%) in women. Etiologies included diabetes mellitus, peripheral vascular disease, and other causes such as trauma, malignancy, sepsis, and complex regional pain syndrome.

Dr. Wafi will present data showing that living in a deprived area and being further away from the rehabilitation center were both significantly associated with poorer survival. Diabetes mellitus or peripheral vascular disease were associated with significantly shorter survival, compared with other etiologies, and not being on a statin was associated with significantly worse survival among the vascular patients. In addition, poorer overall mobility at discharge from rehabilitation was associated with poorer survival, according to the researchers. However there was no significant difference in survival between below-knee and above-knee amputees, or between unilateral and bilateral amputees.

Thursday will be highlighted by a session on New Devices For Treating Lower Extremity Lesions By Endovascular Or Open Techniques, and Friday will see a session New Developments In The Treatment Of Popliteal Diseases And Aneurysms.

This is only one of many such studies focused on lower extremity arterial disease at this year’s VEITHsymposium.

“You and I are living in a time when some miracle drugs no longer perform miracles and families are being ripped apart by a microscopic enemy. The time for action is now and we can be part of the solution,” said Robert R. Redfield, MD, director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in his foreword to the new CDC report on antibiotic resistance.

In this update of the previous 2013 report, the CDC details how antibiotic-resistant bacteria and fungi cause more than 2.8 million infections and 35,000 deaths in the United States each year. The current report uses EHRs and other data sources obtained by the CDC for relevant infections extrapolated to develop national disease incidence. The report focuses on “the top 18 pathogens that require attention now,” advises specific steps be taken to address these pathogens, and puts into perspective the future of antibiotic development, their use and abuse, and the continuing threat of antibiotic resistance.

The CDC categorizes these 18 pathogens as either an urgent, serious, or concerning threat.

Urgent Threats

• Carbapenem-resistant Acinetobacter, which cause pneumonia and wound, bloodstream, and urinary tract infections; they tend to affect patients in ICUs. Of particular concern, some Acinetobacter are resistant to nearly all antibiotics, with few new drugs in development (8,500 hospital infections in 2017; 700 deaths).
• Candida auris, a drug-resistant fungus that was first identified in 2009 in Asia and has quickly become a cause of severe infections around the world; it is extremely difficult to eradicate from health care settings. It began spreading in the United States in 2015, with 323 cases reported in 2018 (90% resistant to at least one antifungal, and 30% resistant to at least two antifungals).
• Clostridioides difficile, which can cause life-threatening diarrhea, most often in people who have taken antibiotics for other conditions. It is the most common health care–associated infection, and although decreasing in the health care system, it has not decreased in community settings (223,900 hospital infections in 2017, and 12,800 estimated deaths).
• Carbapenem-resistant Enterobacteriaceae, which most frequently infect patients who require devices such as catheters and those taking long courses of some antibiotics. Of particular concern is the fact that these bacteria contain a transmissible plasmid that can transfer their drug resistance to other pathogens (13,100 hospital infections in 2017, and 1,100 estimated deaths).
• Drug-resistant Neisseria gonorrhoeae, which is a sexually transmitted disease that can result in life-threatening ectopic pregnancy, lead to infertility, and can increase the risk of getting and giving HIV; it can also cause cardiovascular and neurological problems. It is resistant to all but one class of antibiotics, and half of all infections are resistant to at least one antibiotic (550,000 drug-resistant infections yearly).

Serious Threats

• Drug-resistant Campylobacter.
• Drug-resistant Candida.
• Extended spectrum beta-lactamase–producing Enterobacteriaceae.
• Vancomycin-resistant Enterococci.
• Multidrug-resistant Pseudomonas aeruginosa.
• Drug-resistant nontyphoidal Salmonella.
• Drug-resistant Salmonella serotype Typhi.
• Drug-resistant Shigella.
• Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA).
• Drug-resistant Streptococcus pneumoniae.
• Drug-resistant Tuberculosis.

Concerning Threats

These comprise erythromycin-resistant group A Streptococcus and clindamycin-resistant group B Streptococcus.

In addition, the CDC has established a Watch List of three pathogens to be wary of: azole-resistant Aspergillus fumigatus, drug-resistant Mycoplasma genitalium, and drug-resistant Bordetella pertussis.

Because antibiotic resistance is a global phenomenon caused by and affecting everyone, the CDC provided solutions to the problem of antibiotic resistance at every level of society. This “comprehensive and coordinated response implements the U.S. National Action Plan for Combating Antibiotic-Resistant Bacteria” and includes cooperation with the Department of Health and Human Services, Department of Veterans Affairs, Department of Defense, Department of State, and Department of Agriculture, according to the report.

The key components of this response include using data and new technologies to detect and track antibiotic resistance; infection prevention and containment, especially in terms of outbreak response; improving antibiotic use across populations (one successful example being a 16% decrease of outpatient antibiotic prescribing to children during 2011-2017); improvements in the identification and intervention in the environment including water and soil and in sanitation; and a significant investment in vaccines, diagnostics, and novel therapeutics (the CDC provided nearly $110 million to 96 institutions for work in these areas).

The report also details some hope in the development of new antibiotics. As of June 2019, there were 42 new antibiotics in development, including 4 with new drug applications submitted, 17 with the potential to treat serious gram negative bacteria, and 11 that could address the urgent threats of gonorrhea or C. difficile. Overall, a quarter of these new antibiotics represent a novel drug class or use a novel mechanism of action.

Furthermore, 84% of U.S. hospitals report a stewardship program meeting all seven of CDC’s Core Elements of Hospital Antibiotic Stewardship. Proper stewardship is at the core of preventing the development of new antibiotic resistant pathogen strains.

In addition, the CDC noted a 5% overall decline in antibiotic prescribing in outpatient settings during 2011-2016.

“The problem will get worse if we do not act now, but we can make a difference,” according to Dr. Redfield. “Simply, here’s what works. Preventing infections protects everyone. Improving antibiotic use in people and animals slows the threat and helps preserve today’s drugs and those yet to come. Detecting threats and implementing interventions to keep germs from becoming widespread saves lives.”

In response to the release of the report, the AMA issued a supporting statement and cited its collection of educational resources for physicians focused on antibiotic use, resistance, and stewardship.

Similarly, the Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America (SHEA) stated that hospitals were “a bright spot” in the CDC report and offered tools and resources available to educate and inform health care professionals about best practices in infection prevention and control, as well as antibiotic stewardship.

mlesney@mdedge.com

SOURCE: CDC. Antibiotic Resistance Threats in the United States 2019.

“You and I are living in a time when some miracle drugs no longer perform miracles and families are being ripped apart by a microscopic enemy. The time for action is now and we can be part of the solution,” said Robert R. Redfield, MD, director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in his foreword to the new CDC report on antibiotic resistance.

In this update of the previous 2013 report, the CDC details how antibiotic-resistant bacteria and fungi cause more than 2.8 million infections and 35,000 deaths in the United States each year. The current report uses EHRs and other data sources obtained by the CDC for relevant infections extrapolated to develop national disease incidence. The report focuses on “the top 18 pathogens that require attention now,” advises specific steps be taken to address these pathogens, and puts into perspective the future of antibiotic development, their use and abuse, and the continuing threat of antibiotic resistance.

The CDC categorizes these 18 pathogens as either an urgent, serious, or concerning threat.

Urgent Threats

• Carbapenem-resistant Acinetobacter, which cause pneumonia and wound, bloodstream, and urinary tract infections; they tend to affect patients in ICUs. Of particular concern, some Acinetobacter are resistant to nearly all antibiotics, with few new drugs in development (8,500 hospital infections in 2017; 700 deaths).
• Candida auris, a drug-resistant fungus that was first identified in 2009 in Asia and has quickly become a cause of severe infections around the world; it is extremely difficult to eradicate from health care settings. It began spreading in the United States in 2015, with 323 cases reported in 2018 (90% resistant to at least one antifungal, and 30% resistant to at least two antifungals).
• Clostridioides difficile, which can cause life-threatening diarrhea, most often in people who have taken antibiotics for other conditions. It is the most common health care–associated infection, and although decreasing in the health care system, it has not decreased in community settings (223,900 hospital infections in 2017, and 12,800 estimated deaths).
• Carbapenem-resistant Enterobacteriaceae, which most frequently infect patients who require devices such as catheters and those taking long courses of some antibiotics. Of particular concern is the fact that these bacteria contain a transmissible plasmid that can transfer their drug resistance to other pathogens (13,100 hospital infections in 2017, and 1,100 estimated deaths).
• Drug-resistant Neisseria gonorrhoeae, which is a sexually transmitted disease that can result in life-threatening ectopic pregnancy, lead to infertility, and can increase the risk of getting and giving HIV; it can also cause cardiovascular and neurological problems. It is resistant to all but one class of antibiotics, and half of all infections are resistant to at least one antibiotic (550,000 drug-resistant infections yearly).

Serious Threats

• Drug-resistant Campylobacter.
• Drug-resistant Candida.
• Extended spectrum beta-lactamase–producing Enterobacteriaceae.
• Vancomycin-resistant Enterococci.
• Multidrug-resistant Pseudomonas aeruginosa.
• Drug-resistant nontyphoidal Salmonella.
• Drug-resistant Salmonella serotype Typhi.
• Drug-resistant Shigella.
• Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA).
• Drug-resistant Streptococcus pneumoniae.
• Drug-resistant Tuberculosis.

Concerning Threats

These comprise erythromycin-resistant group A Streptococcus and clindamycin-resistant group B Streptococcus.

In addition, the CDC has established a Watch List of three pathogens to be wary of: azole-resistant Aspergillus fumigatus, drug-resistant Mycoplasma genitalium, and drug-resistant Bordetella pertussis.

Because antibiotic resistance is a global phenomenon caused by and affecting everyone, the CDC provided solutions to the problem of antibiotic resistance at every level of society. This “comprehensive and coordinated response implements the U.S. National Action Plan for Combating Antibiotic-Resistant Bacteria” and includes cooperation with the Department of Health and Human Services, Department of Veterans Affairs, Department of Defense, Department of State, and Department of Agriculture, according to the report.

The key components of this response include using data and new technologies to detect and track antibiotic resistance; infection prevention and containment, especially in terms of outbreak response; improving antibiotic use across populations (one successful example being a 16% decrease of outpatient antibiotic prescribing to children during 2011-2017); improvements in the identification and intervention in the environment including water and soil and in sanitation; and a significant investment in vaccines, diagnostics, and novel therapeutics (the CDC provided nearly $110 million to 96 institutions for work in these areas).

The report also details some hope in the development of new antibiotics. As of June 2019, there were 42 new antibiotics in development, including 4 with new drug applications submitted, 17 with the potential to treat serious gram negative bacteria, and 11 that could address the urgent threats of gonorrhea or C. difficile. Overall, a quarter of these new antibiotics represent a novel drug class or use a novel mechanism of action.

Furthermore, 84% of U.S. hospitals report a stewardship program meeting all seven of CDC’s Core Elements of Hospital Antibiotic Stewardship. Proper stewardship is at the core of preventing the development of new antibiotic resistant pathogen strains.

In addition, the CDC noted a 5% overall decline in antibiotic prescribing in outpatient settings during 2011-2016.

“The problem will get worse if we do not act now, but we can make a difference,” according to Dr. Redfield. “Simply, here’s what works. Preventing infections protects everyone. Improving antibiotic use in people and animals slows the threat and helps preserve today’s drugs and those yet to come. Detecting threats and implementing interventions to keep germs from becoming widespread saves lives.”

In response to the release of the report, the AMA issued a supporting statement and cited its collection of educational resources for physicians focused on antibiotic use, resistance, and stewardship.

Similarly, the Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America (SHEA) stated that hospitals were “a bright spot” in the CDC report and offered tools and resources available to educate and inform health care professionals about best practices in infection prevention and control, as well as antibiotic stewardship.

mlesney@mdedge.com

SOURCE: CDC. Antibiotic Resistance Threats in the United States 2019.

“You and I are living in a time when some miracle drugs no longer perform miracles and families are being ripped apart by a microscopic enemy. The time for action is now and we can be part of the solution,” said Robert R. Redfield, MD, director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in his foreword to the new CDC report on antibiotic resistance.

In this update of the previous 2013 report, the CDC details how antibiotic-resistant bacteria and fungi cause more than 2.8 million infections and 35,000 deaths in the United States each year. The current report uses EHRs and other data sources obtained by the CDC for relevant infections extrapolated to develop national disease incidence. The report focuses on “the top 18 pathogens that require attention now,” advises specific steps be taken to address these pathogens, and puts into perspective the future of antibiotic development, their use and abuse, and the continuing threat of antibiotic resistance.

The CDC categorizes these 18 pathogens as either an urgent, serious, or concerning threat.

Urgent Threats

• Carbapenem-resistant Acinetobacter, which cause pneumonia and wound, bloodstream, and urinary tract infections; they tend to affect patients in ICUs. Of particular concern, some Acinetobacter are resistant to nearly all antibiotics, with few new drugs in development (8,500 hospital infections in 2017; 700 deaths).
• Candida auris, a drug-resistant fungus that was first identified in 2009 in Asia and has quickly become a cause of severe infections around the world; it is extremely difficult to eradicate from health care settings. It began spreading in the United States in 2015, with 323 cases reported in 2018 (90% resistant to at least one antifungal, and 30% resistant to at least two antifungals).
• Clostridioides difficile, which can cause life-threatening diarrhea, most often in people who have taken antibiotics for other conditions. It is the most common health care–associated infection, and although decreasing in the health care system, it has not decreased in community settings (223,900 hospital infections in 2017, and 12,800 estimated deaths).
• Carbapenem-resistant Enterobacteriaceae, which most frequently infect patients who require devices such as catheters and those taking long courses of some antibiotics. Of particular concern is the fact that these bacteria contain a transmissible plasmid that can transfer their drug resistance to other pathogens (13,100 hospital infections in 2017, and 1,100 estimated deaths).
• Drug-resistant Neisseria gonorrhoeae, which is a sexually transmitted disease that can result in life-threatening ectopic pregnancy, lead to infertility, and can increase the risk of getting and giving HIV; it can also cause cardiovascular and neurological problems. It is resistant to all but one class of antibiotics, and half of all infections are resistant to at least one antibiotic (550,000 drug-resistant infections yearly).

Serious Threats

• Drug-resistant Campylobacter.
• Drug-resistant Candida.
• Extended spectrum beta-lactamase–producing Enterobacteriaceae.
• Vancomycin-resistant Enterococci.
• Multidrug-resistant Pseudomonas aeruginosa.
• Drug-resistant nontyphoidal Salmonella.
• Drug-resistant Salmonella serotype Typhi.
• Drug-resistant Shigella.
• Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA).
• Drug-resistant Streptococcus pneumoniae.
• Drug-resistant Tuberculosis.

Concerning Threats

These comprise erythromycin-resistant group A Streptococcus and clindamycin-resistant group B Streptococcus.

In addition, the CDC has established a Watch List of three pathogens to be wary of: azole-resistant Aspergillus fumigatus, drug-resistant Mycoplasma genitalium, and drug-resistant Bordetella pertussis.

Because antibiotic resistance is a global phenomenon caused by and affecting everyone, the CDC provided solutions to the problem of antibiotic resistance at every level of society. This “comprehensive and coordinated response implements the U.S. National Action Plan for Combating Antibiotic-Resistant Bacteria” and includes cooperation with the Department of Health and Human Services, Department of Veterans Affairs, Department of Defense, Department of State, and Department of Agriculture, according to the report.

The key components of this response include using data and new technologies to detect and track antibiotic resistance; infection prevention and containment, especially in terms of outbreak response; improving antibiotic use across populations (one successful example being a 16% decrease of outpatient antibiotic prescribing to children during 2011-2017); improvements in the identification and intervention in the environment including water and soil and in sanitation; and a significant investment in vaccines, diagnostics, and novel therapeutics (the CDC provided nearly $110 million to 96 institutions for work in these areas).

The report also details some hope in the development of new antibiotics. As of June 2019, there were 42 new antibiotics in development, including 4 with new drug applications submitted, 17 with the potential to treat serious gram negative bacteria, and 11 that could address the urgent threats of gonorrhea or C. difficile. Overall, a quarter of these new antibiotics represent a novel drug class or use a novel mechanism of action.

Furthermore, 84% of U.S. hospitals report a stewardship program meeting all seven of CDC’s Core Elements of Hospital Antibiotic Stewardship. Proper stewardship is at the core of preventing the development of new antibiotic resistant pathogen strains.

In addition, the CDC noted a 5% overall decline in antibiotic prescribing in outpatient settings during 2011-2016.

“The problem will get worse if we do not act now, but we can make a difference,” according to Dr. Redfield. “Simply, here’s what works. Preventing infections protects everyone. Improving antibiotic use in people and animals slows the threat and helps preserve today’s drugs and those yet to come. Detecting threats and implementing interventions to keep germs from becoming widespread saves lives.”

In response to the release of the report, the AMA issued a supporting statement and cited its collection of educational resources for physicians focused on antibiotic use, resistance, and stewardship.

Similarly, the Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America (SHEA) stated that hospitals were “a bright spot” in the CDC report and offered tools and resources available to educate and inform health care professionals about best practices in infection prevention and control, as well as antibiotic stewardship.

mlesney@mdedge.com

SOURCE: CDC. Antibiotic Resistance Threats in the United States 2019.

Hepatitis C virus testing should be combined with HIV integrated care services among people who inject drugs (PWID), according to researchers reporting on a multisite randomized trial of nearly 12,000 HIV-infected individuals in India.

Courtesy NIH

HCV antibody prevalence at these sites ranged from 7.2%-76.6%. Across six integrated care centers (ICCs), 5,263 clients underwent HCV testing, of whom 2,278 were newly diagnosed. At evaluation, PWID in ICC clusters were nearly four times more likely to report being tested for HCV than those in usual care clusters (adjusted prevalence ratio [aPR]: 3.69), according to the report by Sunil Suhas Solomon, MD, of Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, and colleagues.

PWID in ICC clusters were also seven times more likely to be aware of their HCV status (aPR: 7.11; 95% confidence interval: 1.14, 44.3) and significantly more likely to initiate treatment, (aPR: 9.86; 95% CI: 1.52, 63.8), than individuals in usual care, the authors stated in their report published online ahead of press in the Journal of Hepatology.

“These data provide among the first empirical support of the benefits of integrating HCV testing with HIV prevention and treatment services for PWID. Over a short duration, we observed significant impact on community-level HCV testing and awareness of HCV status among PWID. While additional strategies might be required to improve population awareness levels, integration of HCV testing with HIV programs for PWID particularly given the high burden of HIV/HCV coinfection represents a critical first step,” the researchers concluded.

The study was funded by the National Institutes of Health and the Elton John AIDS Foundation. The authors reported that they had no relevant disclosures.

mlesney@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Solomon, SS et al. J Hepatol. 2019. doi.org/10.1016/j.jhep.2019.09.022.

Hepatitis C virus testing should be combined with HIV integrated care services among people who inject drugs (PWID), according to researchers reporting on a multisite randomized trial of nearly 12,000 HIV-infected individuals in India.

Courtesy NIH

HCV antibody prevalence at these sites ranged from 7.2%-76.6%. Across six integrated care centers (ICCs), 5,263 clients underwent HCV testing, of whom 2,278 were newly diagnosed. At evaluation, PWID in ICC clusters were nearly four times more likely to report being tested for HCV than those in usual care clusters (adjusted prevalence ratio [aPR]: 3.69), according to the report by Sunil Suhas Solomon, MD, of Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, and colleagues.

PWID in ICC clusters were also seven times more likely to be aware of their HCV status (aPR: 7.11; 95% confidence interval: 1.14, 44.3) and significantly more likely to initiate treatment, (aPR: 9.86; 95% CI: 1.52, 63.8), than individuals in usual care, the authors stated in their report published online ahead of press in the Journal of Hepatology.

“These data provide among the first empirical support of the benefits of integrating HCV testing with HIV prevention and treatment services for PWID. Over a short duration, we observed significant impact on community-level HCV testing and awareness of HCV status among PWID. While additional strategies might be required to improve population awareness levels, integration of HCV testing with HIV programs for PWID particularly given the high burden of HIV/HCV coinfection represents a critical first step,” the researchers concluded.

The study was funded by the National Institutes of Health and the Elton John AIDS Foundation. The authors reported that they had no relevant disclosures.

mlesney@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Solomon, SS et al. J Hepatol. 2019. doi.org/10.1016/j.jhep.2019.09.022.

Hepatitis C virus testing should be combined with HIV integrated care services among people who inject drugs (PWID), according to researchers reporting on a multisite randomized trial of nearly 12,000 HIV-infected individuals in India.

Courtesy NIH

HCV antibody prevalence at these sites ranged from 7.2%-76.6%. Across six integrated care centers (ICCs), 5,263 clients underwent HCV testing, of whom 2,278 were newly diagnosed. At evaluation, PWID in ICC clusters were nearly four times more likely to report being tested for HCV than those in usual care clusters (adjusted prevalence ratio [aPR]: 3.69), according to the report by Sunil Suhas Solomon, MD, of Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, and colleagues.

PWID in ICC clusters were also seven times more likely to be aware of their HCV status (aPR: 7.11; 95% confidence interval: 1.14, 44.3) and significantly more likely to initiate treatment, (aPR: 9.86; 95% CI: 1.52, 63.8), than individuals in usual care, the authors stated in their report published online ahead of press in the Journal of Hepatology.

“These data provide among the first empirical support of the benefits of integrating HCV testing with HIV prevention and treatment services for PWID. Over a short duration, we observed significant impact on community-level HCV testing and awareness of HCV status among PWID. While additional strategies might be required to improve population awareness levels, integration of HCV testing with HIV programs for PWID particularly given the high burden of HIV/HCV coinfection represents a critical first step,” the researchers concluded.

The study was funded by the National Institutes of Health and the Elton John AIDS Foundation. The authors reported that they had no relevant disclosures.

mlesney@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Solomon, SS et al. J Hepatol. 2019. doi.org/10.1016/j.jhep.2019.09.022.

A low percentage of mixed genotypes of hepatitis C virus (HCV) was found in a small study of recently infected HIV+ and HIV– men who have sex with men (MSM) according to a report by Thuy Nguyen, PhD, of the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, and colleagues published in the International Journal of Antimicrobial Agents.

SilverV/Thinkstock

The researchers assessed 58 HCV-infected individuals with a median age of 38.5 years, 50 of whom were HIV positive and 18 of whom were HIV negative. Most of the patients were MSM (85.3%), with the rest of unknown sexual orientation. HCV genotyping by Sanger found types GT1a, GT4d, GT3a, and GT2k infection in 47.1%, 41.2%, 8.8%, and 2.9% of the individuals.

After eliminating suspected contaminations, three patients (4.4%) were found with mixed GT infections All three patients were infected with HCV for the first time; two-thirds were coinfected with HIV. The mixed GTs comprised only GT4d and GT1a at different ratios. Mixed infections are potentially problematic when using direct-acting antiviral therapy without broad-spectrum activity, according to the researchers. In this case, however, all HCV patients achieved treatment success.

“From a public health perspective, the MSM population engaging in high-risk behaviors still requires special attention in terms of mixed infections compared with the general HCV-infected population with a regular monitoring of anti-HCV treatment response, particularly when pangenotypic treatment is not used,” the researchers concluded.

The study was funded by the French government; the authors reported having no conflicts.

mlesney@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Nguyen T et al. Int J Antimicrobial Agents. 2019. 54[4]:523-7.

A low percentage of mixed genotypes of hepatitis C virus (HCV) was found in a small study of recently infected HIV+ and HIV– men who have sex with men (MSM) according to a report by Thuy Nguyen, PhD, of the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, and colleagues published in the International Journal of Antimicrobial Agents.

SilverV/Thinkstock

The researchers assessed 58 HCV-infected individuals with a median age of 38.5 years, 50 of whom were HIV positive and 18 of whom were HIV negative. Most of the patients were MSM (85.3%), with the rest of unknown sexual orientation. HCV genotyping by Sanger found types GT1a, GT4d, GT3a, and GT2k infection in 47.1%, 41.2%, 8.8%, and 2.9% of the individuals.

After eliminating suspected contaminations, three patients (4.4%) were found with mixed GT infections All three patients were infected with HCV for the first time; two-thirds were coinfected with HIV. The mixed GTs comprised only GT4d and GT1a at different ratios. Mixed infections are potentially problematic when using direct-acting antiviral therapy without broad-spectrum activity, according to the researchers. In this case, however, all HCV patients achieved treatment success.

“From a public health perspective, the MSM population engaging in high-risk behaviors still requires special attention in terms of mixed infections compared with the general HCV-infected population with a regular monitoring of anti-HCV treatment response, particularly when pangenotypic treatment is not used,” the researchers concluded.

The study was funded by the French government; the authors reported having no conflicts.

mlesney@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Nguyen T et al. Int J Antimicrobial Agents. 2019. 54[4]:523-7.

A low percentage of mixed genotypes of hepatitis C virus (HCV) was found in a small study of recently infected HIV+ and HIV– men who have sex with men (MSM) according to a report by Thuy Nguyen, PhD, of the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, and colleagues published in the International Journal of Antimicrobial Agents.

SilverV/Thinkstock

The researchers assessed 58 HCV-infected individuals with a median age of 38.5 years, 50 of whom were HIV positive and 18 of whom were HIV negative. Most of the patients were MSM (85.3%), with the rest of unknown sexual orientation. HCV genotyping by Sanger found types GT1a, GT4d, GT3a, and GT2k infection in 47.1%, 41.2%, 8.8%, and 2.9% of the individuals.

After eliminating suspected contaminations, three patients (4.4%) were found with mixed GT infections All three patients were infected with HCV for the first time; two-thirds were coinfected with HIV. The mixed GTs comprised only GT4d and GT1a at different ratios. Mixed infections are potentially problematic when using direct-acting antiviral therapy without broad-spectrum activity, according to the researchers. In this case, however, all HCV patients achieved treatment success.

“From a public health perspective, the MSM population engaging in high-risk behaviors still requires special attention in terms of mixed infections compared with the general HCV-infected population with a regular monitoring of anti-HCV treatment response, particularly when pangenotypic treatment is not used,” the researchers concluded.

The study was funded by the French government; the authors reported having no conflicts.

mlesney@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Nguyen T et al. Int J Antimicrobial Agents. 2019. 54[4]:523-7.

Federal health officials once again are warning individuals to refrain from using all e-cigarette and vaping products, especially those containing tetrahydrocannabinol (THC).

The restated warning, issued by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, is based on a study of 83 patients with e-cigarette, or vaping, product use–associated lung injury (EVALI) in Utah, where researchers found several common characteristics, most strikingly the use of THC-containing products.

Fifty-three patients were interviewed by researchers. Of them, 49 (92%) reported use of THC-containing e-cigarette or vaping products during the 3 months preceding illness; 35 (66%) reported using nicotine-containing products; and 32 (60%) reported using both THC- and nicotine-containing products.

In addition, 17 (32%) patients reported exclusive use of THC-containing products, whereas only 3 (6%) reported exclusive use of nicotine-containing products. Non-medical THC use is illegal in Utah.

The median age of patients was 26 years, 3 years older than the national median; more than one-third were aged 30 years or older, according to the researchers.

Utah is seeing a higher-than-average rate of EVALI cases, with 26/million cases, compared with 4/million nationally.

Vitamin E acetate has been considered to have a suspect role in EVALI and was identified in the majority of THC cartridge samples tested in this study; however, those samples represented only six patients, according to the researchers. They added that testing of different THC cartridge samples by the Food and Drug Administration and other laboratories has shown vitamin E acetate concentrations of 31%-88% and lower-than-expected THC concentrations (14%-76% versus the typically advertised 75%-95%).

“The potential role of vitamin E acetate in lung injury remains unknown; however, the identification of vitamin E acetate among products collected from patients in Utah and elsewhere indicates that the outbreak might be associated with cutting agents or adulterants. Ascertaining the potential contribution of diluents to the current outbreak will require data from multiple states and analysis at the national level,” the researchers concluded.

The authors reported that they had no conflicts.
 

mlesney@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Lewis N et al. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. Early Release. Oct. 22, 2019. 68:1-5.

Federal health officials once again are warning individuals to refrain from using all e-cigarette and vaping products, especially those containing tetrahydrocannabinol (THC).

The restated warning, issued by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, is based on a study of 83 patients with e-cigarette, or vaping, product use–associated lung injury (EVALI) in Utah, where researchers found several common characteristics, most strikingly the use of THC-containing products.

Fifty-three patients were interviewed by researchers. Of them, 49 (92%) reported use of THC-containing e-cigarette or vaping products during the 3 months preceding illness; 35 (66%) reported using nicotine-containing products; and 32 (60%) reported using both THC- and nicotine-containing products.

In addition, 17 (32%) patients reported exclusive use of THC-containing products, whereas only 3 (6%) reported exclusive use of nicotine-containing products. Non-medical THC use is illegal in Utah.

The median age of patients was 26 years, 3 years older than the national median; more than one-third were aged 30 years or older, according to the researchers.

Utah is seeing a higher-than-average rate of EVALI cases, with 26/million cases, compared with 4/million nationally.

Vitamin E acetate has been considered to have a suspect role in EVALI and was identified in the majority of THC cartridge samples tested in this study; however, those samples represented only six patients, according to the researchers. They added that testing of different THC cartridge samples by the Food and Drug Administration and other laboratories has shown vitamin E acetate concentrations of 31%-88% and lower-than-expected THC concentrations (14%-76% versus the typically advertised 75%-95%).

“The potential role of vitamin E acetate in lung injury remains unknown; however, the identification of vitamin E acetate among products collected from patients in Utah and elsewhere indicates that the outbreak might be associated with cutting agents or adulterants. Ascertaining the potential contribution of diluents to the current outbreak will require data from multiple states and analysis at the national level,” the researchers concluded.

The authors reported that they had no conflicts.
 

mlesney@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Lewis N et al. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. Early Release. Oct. 22, 2019. 68:1-5.

Federal health officials once again are warning individuals to refrain from using all e-cigarette and vaping products, especially those containing tetrahydrocannabinol (THC).

The restated warning, issued by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, is based on a study of 83 patients with e-cigarette, or vaping, product use–associated lung injury (EVALI) in Utah, where researchers found several common characteristics, most strikingly the use of THC-containing products.

Fifty-three patients were interviewed by researchers. Of them, 49 (92%) reported use of THC-containing e-cigarette or vaping products during the 3 months preceding illness; 35 (66%) reported using nicotine-containing products; and 32 (60%) reported using both THC- and nicotine-containing products.

In addition, 17 (32%) patients reported exclusive use of THC-containing products, whereas only 3 (6%) reported exclusive use of nicotine-containing products. Non-medical THC use is illegal in Utah.

The median age of patients was 26 years, 3 years older than the national median; more than one-third were aged 30 years or older, according to the researchers.

Utah is seeing a higher-than-average rate of EVALI cases, with 26/million cases, compared with 4/million nationally.

Vitamin E acetate has been considered to have a suspect role in EVALI and was identified in the majority of THC cartridge samples tested in this study; however, those samples represented only six patients, according to the researchers. They added that testing of different THC cartridge samples by the Food and Drug Administration and other laboratories has shown vitamin E acetate concentrations of 31%-88% and lower-than-expected THC concentrations (14%-76% versus the typically advertised 75%-95%).

“The potential role of vitamin E acetate in lung injury remains unknown; however, the identification of vitamin E acetate among products collected from patients in Utah and elsewhere indicates that the outbreak might be associated with cutting agents or adulterants. Ascertaining the potential contribution of diluents to the current outbreak will require data from multiple states and analysis at the national level,” the researchers concluded.

The authors reported that they had no conflicts.
 

mlesney@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Lewis N et al. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. Early Release. Oct. 22, 2019. 68:1-5.

An update to the 2007 guidelines on the treatment of community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) was published by two medical societies, based upon the work of a multidisciplinary panel that “conducted pragmatic systematic reviews of the relevant research and applied Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation methodology for clinical recommendations.”

copyright stockdevil/Thinkstock

The panel addressed 16 questions in the areas including diagnostic testing, determination of site of care, selection of initial empiric antibiotic therapy, and subsequent management decisions. Some of their recommendations remained unchanged from the 2007 guideline, but others were updated based upon more-recent clinical trials and epidemiological studies, according to Joshua P. Metlay, MD, of Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, and colleagues on behalf of the Infectious Diseases Society of America and the American Thoracic Society.

Among the key recommendations differing from the previous guidelines, the 2019 guidelines include the following:

• Sputum and blood culture samples are recommended in patients with severe disease, as well as in all inpatients empirically treated for methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) or Pseudomonas aeruginosa.
• Macrolide monotherapy is only conditionally recommended for outpatients based on resistance levels.
• Procalcitonin assessment, not covered in the 2007 guidelines, is not recommended in order to determine initial antibiotic therapy.
• Corticosteroid use, not covered in the 2007 guidelines, is not recommended, though it may be considered in patients with refractory septic shock.
• The use of health care–associated pneumonia (HCAP) as a category should be dropped, with a switch to an emphasis on local epidemiology and validated risk factors to determine the need for MRSA or P. aeruginosa treatment.
• Standard empiric therapy for severe CAP should be beta-lactam/macrolide and beta-lactam/fluoroquinolone combinations, but with stronger evidence in favor of the beta-lactam/macrolide combination.

The updated guidelines also include a number of other recommendations, such as those dealing with the management of patients with comorbidities, and were published in the American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine.

“A difference between this guideline and previous ones is that we have significantly increased the proportion of patients in whom we recommend routinely obtaining respiratory tract samples for microbiologic studies. This decision is largely based on a desire to correct the overuse of anti-MRSA and antipseudomonal therapy that has occurred since the introduction of the HCAP classification (which we recommend abandoning) rather than high-quality evidence,” the authors stated in their conclusions. They added that they “expect our move against endorsing monotherapy with macrolides, which is based on population resistance data rather than high-quality clinical studies, will generate future outcomes studies comparing different treatment strategies.”

Many of the authors reported relationships with a variety of pharmaceutical companies; full disclosures are detailed at the end of the guideline publication.

mlesney@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Metlay JP et al. Am J Respir Crit Med. 2019;200(7):e45-67.

An update to the 2007 guidelines on the treatment of community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) was published by two medical societies, based upon the work of a multidisciplinary panel that “conducted pragmatic systematic reviews of the relevant research and applied Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation methodology for clinical recommendations.”

copyright stockdevil/Thinkstock

The panel addressed 16 questions in the areas including diagnostic testing, determination of site of care, selection of initial empiric antibiotic therapy, and subsequent management decisions. Some of their recommendations remained unchanged from the 2007 guideline, but others were updated based upon more-recent clinical trials and epidemiological studies, according to Joshua P. Metlay, MD, of Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, and colleagues on behalf of the Infectious Diseases Society of America and the American Thoracic Society.

Among the key recommendations differing from the previous guidelines, the 2019 guidelines include the following:

• Sputum and blood culture samples are recommended in patients with severe disease, as well as in all inpatients empirically treated for methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) or Pseudomonas aeruginosa.
• Macrolide monotherapy is only conditionally recommended for outpatients based on resistance levels.
• Procalcitonin assessment, not covered in the 2007 guidelines, is not recommended in order to determine initial antibiotic therapy.
• Corticosteroid use, not covered in the 2007 guidelines, is not recommended, though it may be considered in patients with refractory septic shock.
• The use of health care–associated pneumonia (HCAP) as a category should be dropped, with a switch to an emphasis on local epidemiology and validated risk factors to determine the need for MRSA or P. aeruginosa treatment.
• Standard empiric therapy for severe CAP should be beta-lactam/macrolide and beta-lactam/fluoroquinolone combinations, but with stronger evidence in favor of the beta-lactam/macrolide combination.

The updated guidelines also include a number of other recommendations, such as those dealing with the management of patients with comorbidities, and were published in the American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine.

“A difference between this guideline and previous ones is that we have significantly increased the proportion of patients in whom we recommend routinely obtaining respiratory tract samples for microbiologic studies. This decision is largely based on a desire to correct the overuse of anti-MRSA and antipseudomonal therapy that has occurred since the introduction of the HCAP classification (which we recommend abandoning) rather than high-quality evidence,” the authors stated in their conclusions. They added that they “expect our move against endorsing monotherapy with macrolides, which is based on population resistance data rather than high-quality clinical studies, will generate future outcomes studies comparing different treatment strategies.”

Many of the authors reported relationships with a variety of pharmaceutical companies; full disclosures are detailed at the end of the guideline publication.

mlesney@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Metlay JP et al. Am J Respir Crit Med. 2019;200(7):e45-67.

An update to the 2007 guidelines on the treatment of community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) was published by two medical societies, based upon the work of a multidisciplinary panel that “conducted pragmatic systematic reviews of the relevant research and applied Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation methodology for clinical recommendations.”

copyright stockdevil/Thinkstock

The panel addressed 16 questions in the areas including diagnostic testing, determination of site of care, selection of initial empiric antibiotic therapy, and subsequent management decisions. Some of their recommendations remained unchanged from the 2007 guideline, but others were updated based upon more-recent clinical trials and epidemiological studies, according to Joshua P. Metlay, MD, of Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, and colleagues on behalf of the Infectious Diseases Society of America and the American Thoracic Society.

Among the key recommendations differing from the previous guidelines, the 2019 guidelines include the following:

• Sputum and blood culture samples are recommended in patients with severe disease, as well as in all inpatients empirically treated for methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) or Pseudomonas aeruginosa.
• Macrolide monotherapy is only conditionally recommended for outpatients based on resistance levels.
• Procalcitonin assessment, not covered in the 2007 guidelines, is not recommended in order to determine initial antibiotic therapy.
• Corticosteroid use, not covered in the 2007 guidelines, is not recommended, though it may be considered in patients with refractory septic shock.
• The use of health care–associated pneumonia (HCAP) as a category should be dropped, with a switch to an emphasis on local epidemiology and validated risk factors to determine the need for MRSA or P. aeruginosa treatment.
• Standard empiric therapy for severe CAP should be beta-lactam/macrolide and beta-lactam/fluoroquinolone combinations, but with stronger evidence in favor of the beta-lactam/macrolide combination.

The updated guidelines also include a number of other recommendations, such as those dealing with the management of patients with comorbidities, and were published in the American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine.

“A difference between this guideline and previous ones is that we have significantly increased the proportion of patients in whom we recommend routinely obtaining respiratory tract samples for microbiologic studies. This decision is largely based on a desire to correct the overuse of anti-MRSA and antipseudomonal therapy that has occurred since the introduction of the HCAP classification (which we recommend abandoning) rather than high-quality evidence,” the authors stated in their conclusions. They added that they “expect our move against endorsing monotherapy with macrolides, which is based on population resistance data rather than high-quality clinical studies, will generate future outcomes studies comparing different treatment strategies.”

Many of the authors reported relationships with a variety of pharmaceutical companies; full disclosures are detailed at the end of the guideline publication.

mlesney@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Metlay JP et al. Am J Respir Crit Med. 2019;200(7):e45-67.

The majority of physicians surveyed who treat sexually transmitted infections (STIs) in their offices reported that they did not have on-site availability of the two primary injectable drugs for syphilis and gonorrhea, according to researchers from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Severin Schweiger/ThinkStock

This lack of drug availability for immediate treatment is significant because STIs are on the rise in the United States. The numbers of reported cases of Neisseria gonorrhoeae and Treponema pallidum infections dramatically increased between 2013 and 2017, at 75% higher for gonorrhea and 153% higher for syphilis (primary and secondary), according to a research letter in the November issue of Emerging Infectious Diseases.

Optimal, same-day treatment of bacterial STIs with a highly effective regimen is critical for national STI control efforts and can help mitigate the development of drug resistance, the researchers stated. The recommended first-line treatment for uncomplicated gonorrhea is intramuscular ceftriaxone (250 mg), and for primary and secondary syphilis, it’s intramuscular penicillin G benzathine (2.5 million units), instead of using oral antimicrobial drug alternatives, which have been known to facilitate the development of drug resistance.

William S. Pearson, PhD, of the CDC and colleagues examined the on-site availability of the two injectable therapeutic agents among physicians who treated STIs in their office. They used the 2016 Physician Induction File of the National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey to assess the number of physicians who treat patients with STIs and had injectable antimicrobial drugs available on site. A total of 1,030 physicians (46.2% unweighted response rate), which represents an estimated 330,581 physicians in the United States, completed the Physician Induction File in 2016.

In this survey, physicians who reported evaluating or treating patients for STIs were asked which antimicrobial drugs they had available on site for same-day management of gonorrhea and syphilis, including intramuscular ceftriaxone and penicillin G benzathine at the recommended doses.

The researchers used this information to determine national estimates of reported on-site, same-day availability for these antimicrobial drugs and stratified results by patient-centered medical homes (PCMH) designation and U.S. region. They used multiple logistic regression models to determine if PCMH designation and region were predictive of on-site availability of the two medications.

An estimated 45.2% (149,483) of office-based physicians indicated that they evaluate patients for STIs in their offices. Of these, 77.9% reported not having penicillin G benzathine available on site, and 56.1% reported not having ceftriaxone.

Geographic differences in drug availability were not statistically significant. In addition, physicians in offices not designated PCMHs were more likely than those in offices designated as PCMHs to report lacking on-site availability of ceftriaxone (odds ratio, 2.03) and penicillin G benzathine (OR, 3.20).

“The costs of obtaining and carrying these medications, as well as issues of storage and shelf-life, should be explored to determine if these factors are barriers. In addition, the implications of prescribing alternative treatments or delaying care in situations when medications are not readily available on site should be further explored. Mitigating the lack of medication availability to treat these infections will help public health officials stop the rise in STI disease,” the researchers concluded.

The authors are all employees of the CDC and did not provide other disclosures.

mlesney@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Pearson WS et al. Emerg Infect Dis. 2019. doi: 10.3201/eid2511.190764.

The majority of physicians surveyed who treat sexually transmitted infections (STIs) in their offices reported that they did not have on-site availability of the two primary injectable drugs for syphilis and gonorrhea, according to researchers from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Severin Schweiger/ThinkStock

This lack of drug availability for immediate treatment is significant because STIs are on the rise in the United States. The numbers of reported cases of Neisseria gonorrhoeae and Treponema pallidum infections dramatically increased between 2013 and 2017, at 75% higher for gonorrhea and 153% higher for syphilis (primary and secondary), according to a research letter in the November issue of Emerging Infectious Diseases.

Optimal, same-day treatment of bacterial STIs with a highly effective regimen is critical for national STI control efforts and can help mitigate the development of drug resistance, the researchers stated. The recommended first-line treatment for uncomplicated gonorrhea is intramuscular ceftriaxone (250 mg), and for primary and secondary syphilis, it’s intramuscular penicillin G benzathine (2.5 million units), instead of using oral antimicrobial drug alternatives, which have been known to facilitate the development of drug resistance.

William S. Pearson, PhD, of the CDC and colleagues examined the on-site availability of the two injectable therapeutic agents among physicians who treated STIs in their office. They used the 2016 Physician Induction File of the National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey to assess the number of physicians who treat patients with STIs and had injectable antimicrobial drugs available on site. A total of 1,030 physicians (46.2% unweighted response rate), which represents an estimated 330,581 physicians in the United States, completed the Physician Induction File in 2016.

In this survey, physicians who reported evaluating or treating patients for STIs were asked which antimicrobial drugs they had available on site for same-day management of gonorrhea and syphilis, including intramuscular ceftriaxone and penicillin G benzathine at the recommended doses.

The researchers used this information to determine national estimates of reported on-site, same-day availability for these antimicrobial drugs and stratified results by patient-centered medical homes (PCMH) designation and U.S. region. They used multiple logistic regression models to determine if PCMH designation and region were predictive of on-site availability of the two medications.

An estimated 45.2% (149,483) of office-based physicians indicated that they evaluate patients for STIs in their offices. Of these, 77.9% reported not having penicillin G benzathine available on site, and 56.1% reported not having ceftriaxone.

Geographic differences in drug availability were not statistically significant. In addition, physicians in offices not designated PCMHs were more likely than those in offices designated as PCMHs to report lacking on-site availability of ceftriaxone (odds ratio, 2.03) and penicillin G benzathine (OR, 3.20).

“The costs of obtaining and carrying these medications, as well as issues of storage and shelf-life, should be explored to determine if these factors are barriers. In addition, the implications of prescribing alternative treatments or delaying care in situations when medications are not readily available on site should be further explored. Mitigating the lack of medication availability to treat these infections will help public health officials stop the rise in STI disease,” the researchers concluded.

The authors are all employees of the CDC and did not provide other disclosures.

mlesney@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Pearson WS et al. Emerg Infect Dis. 2019. doi: 10.3201/eid2511.190764.

The majority of physicians surveyed who treat sexually transmitted infections (STIs) in their offices reported that they did not have on-site availability of the two primary injectable drugs for syphilis and gonorrhea, according to researchers from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Severin Schweiger/ThinkStock

This lack of drug availability for immediate treatment is significant because STIs are on the rise in the United States. The numbers of reported cases of Neisseria gonorrhoeae and Treponema pallidum infections dramatically increased between 2013 and 2017, at 75% higher for gonorrhea and 153% higher for syphilis (primary and secondary), according to a research letter in the November issue of Emerging Infectious Diseases.

Optimal, same-day treatment of bacterial STIs with a highly effective regimen is critical for national STI control efforts and can help mitigate the development of drug resistance, the researchers stated. The recommended first-line treatment for uncomplicated gonorrhea is intramuscular ceftriaxone (250 mg), and for primary and secondary syphilis, it’s intramuscular penicillin G benzathine (2.5 million units), instead of using oral antimicrobial drug alternatives, which have been known to facilitate the development of drug resistance.

William S. Pearson, PhD, of the CDC and colleagues examined the on-site availability of the two injectable therapeutic agents among physicians who treated STIs in their office. They used the 2016 Physician Induction File of the National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey to assess the number of physicians who treat patients with STIs and had injectable antimicrobial drugs available on site. A total of 1,030 physicians (46.2% unweighted response rate), which represents an estimated 330,581 physicians in the United States, completed the Physician Induction File in 2016.

In this survey, physicians who reported evaluating or treating patients for STIs were asked which antimicrobial drugs they had available on site for same-day management of gonorrhea and syphilis, including intramuscular ceftriaxone and penicillin G benzathine at the recommended doses.

The researchers used this information to determine national estimates of reported on-site, same-day availability for these antimicrobial drugs and stratified results by patient-centered medical homes (PCMH) designation and U.S. region. They used multiple logistic regression models to determine if PCMH designation and region were predictive of on-site availability of the two medications.

An estimated 45.2% (149,483) of office-based physicians indicated that they evaluate patients for STIs in their offices. Of these, 77.9% reported not having penicillin G benzathine available on site, and 56.1% reported not having ceftriaxone.

Geographic differences in drug availability were not statistically significant. In addition, physicians in offices not designated PCMHs were more likely than those in offices designated as PCMHs to report lacking on-site availability of ceftriaxone (odds ratio, 2.03) and penicillin G benzathine (OR, 3.20).

“The costs of obtaining and carrying these medications, as well as issues of storage and shelf-life, should be explored to determine if these factors are barriers. In addition, the implications of prescribing alternative treatments or delaying care in situations when medications are not readily available on site should be further explored. Mitigating the lack of medication availability to treat these infections will help public health officials stop the rise in STI disease,” the researchers concluded.

The authors are all employees of the CDC and did not provide other disclosures.

mlesney@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Pearson WS et al. Emerg Infect Dis. 2019. doi: 10.3201/eid2511.190764.

It is rare in this modern era for medicine to confront an infectious disease for which there is no cure. Today, there are comparatively few infectious diseases (in the developed world and in places where money is no object) for which medicine cannot offer at least a glimmer of hope to infected patients. Even at its most futile, modern medicine has achieved vast improvements in the efficacy of palliative care. But it wasn’t that long ago that HIV infection was a nearly inevitable death sentence from the complications of AIDS, with no available treatments. And however monstrous that suffering and death, which still continues in many areas of the developing world, it was decades rather than centuries before modern medicine came up with effective treatments. Recently, there is even significant hope on the Ebola virus front that curative treatments may soon become available.

Wellcome Library, London. Wellcome Images/Wikimedia Commons/CCA-4.0 International

Medicine has always been in the business of hope, even when true cures were not available. Today that hope is less often misplaced. But in previous centuries, the need to offer hope to – and perhaps to make money from – desperate patients was a hallmark of the doctor’s trade.

It was this need to give patients hope and for doctors to feel that they were being effective that led to some highly dubious and desperate efforts to cure syphilis throughout history. These efforts meant centuries of fruitless torture for countless patients until the rise of modern antibiotics.

For the most part, what we now look upon as horrors and insanity in treatment were the result of misguided scientific theories, half-baked folk wisdom, and the generally well-intentioned efforts of medical practitioners at a cure. There were the charlatans as well, seeking a quick buck from the truly hopeless.

However, the social stigma of syphilis as a venereal disease played a role in the courses of treatment.

By the 15th century, syphilis was recognized as being spread by sexual intercourse, and in a situation analogous with the early AIDS epidemic, “16th- and 17th-century writers and physicians were divided on the moral aspects of syphilis. Some thought it was a divine punishment for sin – and as such only harsh treatments would cure it – or that people with syphilis shouldn’t be treated at all.”
 

Mercury rising

In its earliest manifestations, syphilis was considered untreatable. In 1496, Sebastian Brandt, wrote a poem entitled “De pestilentiali Scorra sive mala de Franzos” detailing the disease’s early spread across Europe and how doctors had no remedy for it.

Science Museum, London. Wellcome Images/Wikimedia Commons/CCA-4.0 International

However, it wasn’t long before desperate physicians turned their quest for a cure to a reliable old standby treatment of the period – mercury, which had a history of being used for skin diseases. Mercury salves had been in use in the Arab world for leprosy and eczema, among other skin afflictions, and had been brought to Europe with the return of the medieval crusaders. Another way elemental mercury was administered was through the use of heated cinnabar (HgS), which gave off mercury vapors that could be absorbed by breathing and through the skin. In the 16th century, doctors would place a syphilis-infected individual inside an ovenlike chamber over pans of cinnabar, which were then heated at the person’s feet.

Oral mercury treatments were promoted by Paracelsus (1493?-1541), an alchemist and physician who prescribed calomel (HgCl), or mercury chloride, pills. Mercury treatment, administered at almost inevitably toxic doses, led to ulcerations of the lips, tongue, palate, and jaw; tooth loss; and fetid breath and excessive salivation. This last symptom was, in fact, considered the endpoint in mercury therapy for syphilis, which was “originally judged to be a copious secretion of saliva – ‘some few liters per diem.’ ” Even as recent as the late 19th century and early 20th century, syphilitic patients such as Oscar Wilde (whose teeth were blackened by the treatment), were prescribed calomel.

Looking to the “holy wood”

By 1519, an alternative treatment to mercury was available. In that year, Ulrich von Hutton, a German scholar who suffered from the “great pox,” described its treatment with guaiacum sanctum, or holy wood, in “De Morbo Gallico.” Four years later, despite such treatment, he was dead from the disease himself. But the lack of efficacy did not stop the faith that doctors placed in this botanical cure.

Wellcome Library, London. Wellcome Images/Wikimedia Commons/CCA-4.0 International

Holy wood was an herbal treatment derived from the bark of trees from the Guaiacum family. It was brought back on trading ships from the Caribbean and South America, the origin of syphilis’s foothold in Europe and the rest of the world. The use of holy wood matched a then-current theory that the cure to a disease could be found in the area from which it came. Other botanicals from around the world were also tried, but never came into routine use.

Guaiacum was the first treatment given to sufferers of syphilis in the Blatterhaus (pox hospital) in Augsburg after 1522, according to information from the archives at the Edward Worth Library in Dublin. The botanical therapy was given as a hot drink and followed by a sweating cure. Guaiacum extract acted as a sudorific, a compound which induces sweating when ingested. Even though the use of Guaiacum was initially popular, it was replaced almost exclusively by the use of mercury.

“Give me fever”

In the late 1800s, Julius Wagner von Jauregg (1857-1940), a Viennese neurologist, observed that Austrian army officers with neurosyphilis did not become partially paralyzed if they had also contracted malaria or relapsing fever. He initiated clinical trials in which he induced fever in syphilitics with tuberculin (1-10 mg) and observed in many the remissions their neuropsychiatric symptoms and signs. He also injected neurosyphilitic patients with a mild form of malaria to induce fever, which could then be suppressed with quinine treatment.

“Other physicians soon began using malariotherapy in uncontrolled studies of neurosyphilitics and reported clinical success rates of 33%-51% and only a 5% mortality. Persons with tabes dorsalis (the “wasting” paralysis of neurosyphilis) were hospitalized for 3 weeks of alternate-day fever therapy involving 5-hour long hot baths and extended periods wrapped in heavy blankets,” according to C.T. Ambrose, MD, of the University of Kentucky, Lexington.

A 1931 medical text summarizes in 35 studies involving 2,356 cases of general paresis treated with malaria and reported a 27.5% “full remission,” he added. A bacterial treatment developed in this period used a course of 18-23 injections of killed typhoid cells administered every 2-3 days in order to produce a fever of 103°–104^°F. Animal studies of rabbits infected with syphilis showed that high temperatures could be curative.

Dr. Ambrose suggests that 16th-century syphilitics who had been subjected to mercury fumigation in ovenlike chambers endured severe sweating conditions and – for those who survived – the prolonged elevated body temperature (not the mercury) may have proved curative. Fever “was the common therapeutic denominator in the cinnabar-oven treatment, botanical sudorifics (guaiacum, China root), malarial infections (natural and iatrogenic), and bacterial (tuberculin) vaccine therapy.”

Prelude to modern antibiotics

German bacteriologist/immunologist Paul Ehrlich, MD, (1854-1915) investigated the use of atoxyl (sodium arsanilate) in syphilis, but the metallic drug had severe side effects, injuring the optic nerve and causing blindness. To overcome this problem, Ehrlich and his coworkers synthesized and tested related organic arsenicals. The antisyphilitic activity of arsphenamine (compound 606) was discovered by Sahachiro Hata, MD, (1879-1938) in 1909. This compound, known as Salvarsan, became “Dr. Ehrlich’s Magic Bullet,” for the treatment of syphilis in the 1910s, and it, and later, the less-toxic compound neoarsphenamine (compound 914) became mainstays of successful clinical treatment until the development and use of penicillin in the 1940s.

mlesney@mdedge.com
 

Selected sources

Ambrose, CT. Pre-antibiotic therapy of syphilis. NESSA J Infect Dis Immunology. 2016. 1(1);1-20.

Frith J. Syphilis: Its early history and treatment until penicillin and the debate on its origins. J Mil Veterans Health. 2012;20(4):49-58.

Tognotti B. The rise and fall of syphilis in Renaissance Italy. J Med Humanit. 2009 Jun;30(2):99-113.

Mark Lesney is the managing editor of MDedge.com/IDPractioner. He has a PhD in plant virology and a PhD in the history of science, with a focus on the history of biotechnology and medicine. He has served as an adjunct assistant professor in the department of biochemistry and molecular & cellular biology at Georgetown University, Washington.

It is rare in this modern era for medicine to confront an infectious disease for which there is no cure. Today, there are comparatively few infectious diseases (in the developed world and in places where money is no object) for which medicine cannot offer at least a glimmer of hope to infected patients. Even at its most futile, modern medicine has achieved vast improvements in the efficacy of palliative care. But it wasn’t that long ago that HIV infection was a nearly inevitable death sentence from the complications of AIDS, with no available treatments. And however monstrous that suffering and death, which still continues in many areas of the developing world, it was decades rather than centuries before modern medicine came up with effective treatments. Recently, there is even significant hope on the Ebola virus front that curative treatments may soon become available.

Wellcome Library, London. Wellcome Images/Wikimedia Commons/CCA-4.0 International

Medicine has always been in the business of hope, even when true cures were not available. Today that hope is less often misplaced. But in previous centuries, the need to offer hope to – and perhaps to make money from – desperate patients was a hallmark of the doctor’s trade.

It was this need to give patients hope and for doctors to feel that they were being effective that led to some highly dubious and desperate efforts to cure syphilis throughout history. These efforts meant centuries of fruitless torture for countless patients until the rise of modern antibiotics.

For the most part, what we now look upon as horrors and insanity in treatment were the result of misguided scientific theories, half-baked folk wisdom, and the generally well-intentioned efforts of medical practitioners at a cure. There were the charlatans as well, seeking a quick buck from the truly hopeless.

However, the social stigma of syphilis as a venereal disease played a role in the courses of treatment.

By the 15th century, syphilis was recognized as being spread by sexual intercourse, and in a situation analogous with the early AIDS epidemic, “16th- and 17th-century writers and physicians were divided on the moral aspects of syphilis. Some thought it was a divine punishment for sin – and as such only harsh treatments would cure it – or that people with syphilis shouldn’t be treated at all.”
 

Mercury rising

In its earliest manifestations, syphilis was considered untreatable. In 1496, Sebastian Brandt, wrote a poem entitled “De pestilentiali Scorra sive mala de Franzos” detailing the disease’s early spread across Europe and how doctors had no remedy for it.

Science Museum, London. Wellcome Images/Wikimedia Commons/CCA-4.0 International

However, it wasn’t long before desperate physicians turned their quest for a cure to a reliable old standby treatment of the period – mercury, which had a history of being used for skin diseases. Mercury salves had been in use in the Arab world for leprosy and eczema, among other skin afflictions, and had been brought to Europe with the return of the medieval crusaders. Another way elemental mercury was administered was through the use of heated cinnabar (HgS), which gave off mercury vapors that could be absorbed by breathing and through the skin. In the 16th century, doctors would place a syphilis-infected individual inside an ovenlike chamber over pans of cinnabar, which were then heated at the person’s feet.

Oral mercury treatments were promoted by Paracelsus (1493?-1541), an alchemist and physician who prescribed calomel (HgCl), or mercury chloride, pills. Mercury treatment, administered at almost inevitably toxic doses, led to ulcerations of the lips, tongue, palate, and jaw; tooth loss; and fetid breath and excessive salivation. This last symptom was, in fact, considered the endpoint in mercury therapy for syphilis, which was “originally judged to be a copious secretion of saliva – ‘some few liters per diem.’ ” Even as recent as the late 19th century and early 20th century, syphilitic patients such as Oscar Wilde (whose teeth were blackened by the treatment), were prescribed calomel.

Looking to the “holy wood”

By 1519, an alternative treatment to mercury was available. In that year, Ulrich von Hutton, a German scholar who suffered from the “great pox,” described its treatment with guaiacum sanctum, or holy wood, in “De Morbo Gallico.” Four years later, despite such treatment, he was dead from the disease himself. But the lack of efficacy did not stop the faith that doctors placed in this botanical cure.

Wellcome Library, London. Wellcome Images/Wikimedia Commons/CCA-4.0 International

Holy wood was an herbal treatment derived from the bark of trees from the Guaiacum family. It was brought back on trading ships from the Caribbean and South America, the origin of syphilis’s foothold in Europe and the rest of the world. The use of holy wood matched a then-current theory that the cure to a disease could be found in the area from which it came. Other botanicals from around the world were also tried, but never came into routine use.

Guaiacum was the first treatment given to sufferers of syphilis in the Blatterhaus (pox hospital) in Augsburg after 1522, according to information from the archives at the Edward Worth Library in Dublin. The botanical therapy was given as a hot drink and followed by a sweating cure. Guaiacum extract acted as a sudorific, a compound which induces sweating when ingested. Even though the use of Guaiacum was initially popular, it was replaced almost exclusively by the use of mercury.

“Give me fever”

In the late 1800s, Julius Wagner von Jauregg (1857-1940), a Viennese neurologist, observed that Austrian army officers with neurosyphilis did not become partially paralyzed if they had also contracted malaria or relapsing fever. He initiated clinical trials in which he induced fever in syphilitics with tuberculin (1-10 mg) and observed in many the remissions their neuropsychiatric symptoms and signs. He also injected neurosyphilitic patients with a mild form of malaria to induce fever, which could then be suppressed with quinine treatment.

“Other physicians soon began using malariotherapy in uncontrolled studies of neurosyphilitics and reported clinical success rates of 33%-51% and only a 5% mortality. Persons with tabes dorsalis (the “wasting” paralysis of neurosyphilis) were hospitalized for 3 weeks of alternate-day fever therapy involving 5-hour long hot baths and extended periods wrapped in heavy blankets,” according to C.T. Ambrose, MD, of the University of Kentucky, Lexington.

A 1931 medical text summarizes in 35 studies involving 2,356 cases of general paresis treated with malaria and reported a 27.5% “full remission,” he added. A bacterial treatment developed in this period used a course of 18-23 injections of killed typhoid cells administered every 2-3 days in order to produce a fever of 103°–104^°F. Animal studies of rabbits infected with syphilis showed that high temperatures could be curative.

Dr. Ambrose suggests that 16th-century syphilitics who had been subjected to mercury fumigation in ovenlike chambers endured severe sweating conditions and – for those who survived – the prolonged elevated body temperature (not the mercury) may have proved curative. Fever “was the common therapeutic denominator in the cinnabar-oven treatment, botanical sudorifics (guaiacum, China root), malarial infections (natural and iatrogenic), and bacterial (tuberculin) vaccine therapy.”

Prelude to modern antibiotics

German bacteriologist/immunologist Paul Ehrlich, MD, (1854-1915) investigated the use of atoxyl (sodium arsanilate) in syphilis, but the metallic drug had severe side effects, injuring the optic nerve and causing blindness. To overcome this problem, Ehrlich and his coworkers synthesized and tested related organic arsenicals. The antisyphilitic activity of arsphenamine (compound 606) was discovered by Sahachiro Hata, MD, (1879-1938) in 1909. This compound, known as Salvarsan, became “Dr. Ehrlich’s Magic Bullet,” for the treatment of syphilis in the 1910s, and it, and later, the less-toxic compound neoarsphenamine (compound 914) became mainstays of successful clinical treatment until the development and use of penicillin in the 1940s.

mlesney@mdedge.com
 

Selected sources

Ambrose, CT. Pre-antibiotic therapy of syphilis. NESSA J Infect Dis Immunology. 2016. 1(1);1-20.

Frith J. Syphilis: Its early history and treatment until penicillin and the debate on its origins. J Mil Veterans Health. 2012;20(4):49-58.

Tognotti B. The rise and fall of syphilis in Renaissance Italy. J Med Humanit. 2009 Jun;30(2):99-113.

Mark Lesney is the managing editor of MDedge.com/IDPractioner. He has a PhD in plant virology and a PhD in the history of science, with a focus on the history of biotechnology and medicine. He has served as an adjunct assistant professor in the department of biochemistry and molecular & cellular biology at Georgetown University, Washington.

It is rare in this modern era for medicine to confront an infectious disease for which there is no cure. Today, there are comparatively few infectious diseases (in the developed world and in places where money is no object) for which medicine cannot offer at least a glimmer of hope to infected patients. Even at its most futile, modern medicine has achieved vast improvements in the efficacy of palliative care. But it wasn’t that long ago that HIV infection was a nearly inevitable death sentence from the complications of AIDS, with no available treatments. And however monstrous that suffering and death, which still continues in many areas of the developing world, it was decades rather than centuries before modern medicine came up with effective treatments. Recently, there is even significant hope on the Ebola virus front that curative treatments may soon become available.

Wellcome Library, London. Wellcome Images/Wikimedia Commons/CCA-4.0 International

Medicine has always been in the business of hope, even when true cures were not available. Today that hope is less often misplaced. But in previous centuries, the need to offer hope to – and perhaps to make money from – desperate patients was a hallmark of the doctor’s trade.

It was this need to give patients hope and for doctors to feel that they were being effective that led to some highly dubious and desperate efforts to cure syphilis throughout history. These efforts meant centuries of fruitless torture for countless patients until the rise of modern antibiotics.

For the most part, what we now look upon as horrors and insanity in treatment were the result of misguided scientific theories, half-baked folk wisdom, and the generally well-intentioned efforts of medical practitioners at a cure. There were the charlatans as well, seeking a quick buck from the truly hopeless.

However, the social stigma of syphilis as a venereal disease played a role in the courses of treatment.

By the 15th century, syphilis was recognized as being spread by sexual intercourse, and in a situation analogous with the early AIDS epidemic, “16th- and 17th-century writers and physicians were divided on the moral aspects of syphilis. Some thought it was a divine punishment for sin – and as such only harsh treatments would cure it – or that people with syphilis shouldn’t be treated at all.”
 

Mercury rising

In its earliest manifestations, syphilis was considered untreatable. In 1496, Sebastian Brandt, wrote a poem entitled “De pestilentiali Scorra sive mala de Franzos” detailing the disease’s early spread across Europe and how doctors had no remedy for it.

Science Museum, London. Wellcome Images/Wikimedia Commons/CCA-4.0 International

However, it wasn’t long before desperate physicians turned their quest for a cure to a reliable old standby treatment of the period – mercury, which had a history of being used for skin diseases. Mercury salves had been in use in the Arab world for leprosy and eczema, among other skin afflictions, and had been brought to Europe with the return of the medieval crusaders. Another way elemental mercury was administered was through the use of heated cinnabar (HgS), which gave off mercury vapors that could be absorbed by breathing and through the skin. In the 16th century, doctors would place a syphilis-infected individual inside an ovenlike chamber over pans of cinnabar, which were then heated at the person’s feet.

Oral mercury treatments were promoted by Paracelsus (1493?-1541), an alchemist and physician who prescribed calomel (HgCl), or mercury chloride, pills. Mercury treatment, administered at almost inevitably toxic doses, led to ulcerations of the lips, tongue, palate, and jaw; tooth loss; and fetid breath and excessive salivation. This last symptom was, in fact, considered the endpoint in mercury therapy for syphilis, which was “originally judged to be a copious secretion of saliva – ‘some few liters per diem.’ ” Even as recent as the late 19th century and early 20th century, syphilitic patients such as Oscar Wilde (whose teeth were blackened by the treatment), were prescribed calomel.

Looking to the “holy wood”

By 1519, an alternative treatment to mercury was available. In that year, Ulrich von Hutton, a German scholar who suffered from the “great pox,” described its treatment with guaiacum sanctum, or holy wood, in “De Morbo Gallico.” Four years later, despite such treatment, he was dead from the disease himself. But the lack of efficacy did not stop the faith that doctors placed in this botanical cure.

Wellcome Library, London. Wellcome Images/Wikimedia Commons/CCA-4.0 International

Holy wood was an herbal treatment derived from the bark of trees from the Guaiacum family. It was brought back on trading ships from the Caribbean and South America, the origin of syphilis’s foothold in Europe and the rest of the world. The use of holy wood matched a then-current theory that the cure to a disease could be found in the area from which it came. Other botanicals from around the world were also tried, but never came into routine use.

Guaiacum was the first treatment given to sufferers of syphilis in the Blatterhaus (pox hospital) in Augsburg after 1522, according to information from the archives at the Edward Worth Library in Dublin. The botanical therapy was given as a hot drink and followed by a sweating cure. Guaiacum extract acted as a sudorific, a compound which induces sweating when ingested. Even though the use of Guaiacum was initially popular, it was replaced almost exclusively by the use of mercury.

“Give me fever”

In the late 1800s, Julius Wagner von Jauregg (1857-1940), a Viennese neurologist, observed that Austrian army officers with neurosyphilis did not become partially paralyzed if they had also contracted malaria or relapsing fever. He initiated clinical trials in which he induced fever in syphilitics with tuberculin (1-10 mg) and observed in many the remissions their neuropsychiatric symptoms and signs. He also injected neurosyphilitic patients with a mild form of malaria to induce fever, which could then be suppressed with quinine treatment.

“Other physicians soon began using malariotherapy in uncontrolled studies of neurosyphilitics and reported clinical success rates of 33%-51% and only a 5% mortality. Persons with tabes dorsalis (the “wasting” paralysis of neurosyphilis) were hospitalized for 3 weeks of alternate-day fever therapy involving 5-hour long hot baths and extended periods wrapped in heavy blankets,” according to C.T. Ambrose, MD, of the University of Kentucky, Lexington.

A 1931 medical text summarizes in 35 studies involving 2,356 cases of general paresis treated with malaria and reported a 27.5% “full remission,” he added. A bacterial treatment developed in this period used a course of 18-23 injections of killed typhoid cells administered every 2-3 days in order to produce a fever of 103°–104^°F. Animal studies of rabbits infected with syphilis showed that high temperatures could be curative.

Dr. Ambrose suggests that 16th-century syphilitics who had been subjected to mercury fumigation in ovenlike chambers endured severe sweating conditions and – for those who survived – the prolonged elevated body temperature (not the mercury) may have proved curative. Fever “was the common therapeutic denominator in the cinnabar-oven treatment, botanical sudorifics (guaiacum, China root), malarial infections (natural and iatrogenic), and bacterial (tuberculin) vaccine therapy.”

Prelude to modern antibiotics

German bacteriologist/immunologist Paul Ehrlich, MD, (1854-1915) investigated the use of atoxyl (sodium arsanilate) in syphilis, but the metallic drug had severe side effects, injuring the optic nerve and causing blindness. To overcome this problem, Ehrlich and his coworkers synthesized and tested related organic arsenicals. The antisyphilitic activity of arsphenamine (compound 606) was discovered by Sahachiro Hata, MD, (1879-1938) in 1909. This compound, known as Salvarsan, became “Dr. Ehrlich’s Magic Bullet,” for the treatment of syphilis in the 1910s, and it, and later, the less-toxic compound neoarsphenamine (compound 914) became mainstays of successful clinical treatment until the development and use of penicillin in the 1940s.

mlesney@mdedge.com
 

Selected sources

Ambrose, CT. Pre-antibiotic therapy of syphilis. NESSA J Infect Dis Immunology. 2016. 1(1);1-20.

Frith J. Syphilis: Its early history and treatment until penicillin and the debate on its origins. J Mil Veterans Health. 2012;20(4):49-58.

Tognotti B. The rise and fall of syphilis in Renaissance Italy. J Med Humanit. 2009 Jun;30(2):99-113.

Mark Lesney is the managing editor of MDedge.com/IDPractioner. He has a PhD in plant virology and a PhD in the history of science, with a focus on the history of biotechnology and medicine. He has served as an adjunct assistant professor in the department of biochemistry and molecular & cellular biology at Georgetown University, Washington.