MDedge Infectious Disease

As governors and legislatures in states such as Texas, Florida, South Carolina, and Arkansas have banned schools and other entities from implementing mask mandates, disability rights advocates have pushed back. In federal civil rights lawsuits, they argue that bans on mask mandates violate antidiscrimination laws protecting people with disabilities.

OsakaWayne Studios/Moment

For unvaccinated and immunosuppressed individuals, masks can provide crucial protection from SARS-CoV-2.

People who are immunocompromised can harness the power of the Americans With Disabilities Act to fight against bans on mask mandates and protect themselves in their workplaces, argues Mical Raz, MD, PhD, a professor at the University of Rochester (N.Y.) and a physician at Strong Memorial Hospital, also in Rochester, New York, in an article published in JAMA with coauthor Doron Dorfman, LLB, JSD.

This news organization talked with Dr. Raz about approaching mask requirements as disability accommodation during the COVID-19 pandemic. The following interview was lightly edited for length and clarity.
 

How did you come to think about mask requirements as a form of disability accommodation?

I saw a tweet from a professor at a university who said they couldn’t ask students about their vaccination status or to wear a mask. All agency was removed from the professor to take care of and protect themselves. I thought, well, that can’t be right. And ostensibly, that would be particularly dangerous for somebody with immunosuppression for whom the vaccine is not adequately protective. So, I called my friend, Doron Dorfman, and asked him to help me think through the legal part of this. We fleshed it out and wrote the article that same night.
 

How novel is it to view accommodations for people who are immunosuppressed through the lens of disability accommodation?

I think there has not been enough focus during the pandemic on individuals with disabilities or on how disability law can be mobilized during this pandemic to help supplement the public health law. This framework should be used a lot more because it’s good for everybody, not just for individuals with disabilities.

For example, take what’s called the “curb effect.” If you expand sidewalks, yes, it helps individuals who use a wheelchair. But it also helps me as a mom with a stroller. It helps somebody with a shopping cart, or a kid with a bike. If we adopt policies that are inclusive to those who are disadvantaged, it’s good for everybody. We should always strive to be an inclusive society, not just because it’s the right thing to do but because it really makes our society better.
 

How can mask requirements be used as a form of disability accommodation, as you argue in the JAMA article?

The ADA requires employers to provide reasonable accommodations for disability. In this case, the disability is your immunosuppressive status. We have an abundance of evidence showing individuals who are immunocompromised and vaccinated are still inadequately protected from the SARS-CoV-2 virus. So, there is absolute data to show individuals with immunosuppression have a disability that requires accommodation.

The ADA has a mandate requiring employers to adjust or modify policies in order to accommodate a disability. There are certain situations in which you cannot or do not need to accommodate a disability, when it would fundamentally alter the kind of employment you offer or if it’s an undue burden or hardship. But given that we’ve been wearing masks and working remotely for a year now, arguing that somehow these accommodations are no longer possible seems disingenuous.

In that way, allowing a person who’s immunocompromised to require those around them to mask is a form of modified protective policies. And in this case, those policies line up with a public health good, masking in the face of the highly contagious Delta variant ravaging our country right now.
 

In your view, can this argument be used in the mask debates happening right now across the country?

This argument can and should be useful for a couple of different lawsuits that are now underway in different states. I hope our article will provide further support for those suits. And I hope in school board hearings, when parents and teachers are talking about their concerns, this could be one way to argue for why we should allow mask mandates in classes. I’ve received emails from parents who said they’re going to bring this article to their school board hearing.

I also hope this could shift the narrative around the pandemic. Instead of focusing on individual responsibility – I got my vaccine shot so I’m fine – let’s focus on how we create an inclusive environment where we protect everybody, including those who cannot be vaccinated because of age or disability, or those who are vaccinated but inadequately protected because of their underlying conditions.
 

In the JAMA article, you talk about how our pandemic response has focused on individual health and how that individual focus can be ableist. Can you explain that point?

I think this idea that we just make our choices – like whether to get vaccinated or wear a mask, or not – and live with it really perpetuates a highly individualistic and ableist mindset. It doesn’t consider the people I admit to the hospital who are vaccinated but have a heart transplant and didn’t mount the sufficient immune response. Or even the people who chose not to be vaccinated because they were exposed to hours and hours of misinformation on TV.

We like to individualize everything, focusing on personal responsibility and choices, but a pandemic is one of those moments where everybody’s choices affect everybody else. Laying responsibility at the doorstep of each person, rather than thinking about what steps we as a society could be taking, is cheap and politically expedient. There is no public health rationale behind the bans on mask requirements in states like Texas, Iowa, and Florida. These choices are about politics. And the price is always borne by the most disadvantaged among us.

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

As governors and legislatures in states such as Texas, Florida, South Carolina, and Arkansas have banned schools and other entities from implementing mask mandates, disability rights advocates have pushed back. In federal civil rights lawsuits, they argue that bans on mask mandates violate antidiscrimination laws protecting people with disabilities.

OsakaWayne Studios/Moment

For unvaccinated and immunosuppressed individuals, masks can provide crucial protection from SARS-CoV-2.

People who are immunocompromised can harness the power of the Americans With Disabilities Act to fight against bans on mask mandates and protect themselves in their workplaces, argues Mical Raz, MD, PhD, a professor at the University of Rochester (N.Y.) and a physician at Strong Memorial Hospital, also in Rochester, New York, in an article published in JAMA with coauthor Doron Dorfman, LLB, JSD.

This news organization talked with Dr. Raz about approaching mask requirements as disability accommodation during the COVID-19 pandemic. The following interview was lightly edited for length and clarity.
 

How did you come to think about mask requirements as a form of disability accommodation?

I saw a tweet from a professor at a university who said they couldn’t ask students about their vaccination status or to wear a mask. All agency was removed from the professor to take care of and protect themselves. I thought, well, that can’t be right. And ostensibly, that would be particularly dangerous for somebody with immunosuppression for whom the vaccine is not adequately protective. So, I called my friend, Doron Dorfman, and asked him to help me think through the legal part of this. We fleshed it out and wrote the article that same night.
 

How novel is it to view accommodations for people who are immunosuppressed through the lens of disability accommodation?

I think there has not been enough focus during the pandemic on individuals with disabilities or on how disability law can be mobilized during this pandemic to help supplement the public health law. This framework should be used a lot more because it’s good for everybody, not just for individuals with disabilities.

For example, take what’s called the “curb effect.” If you expand sidewalks, yes, it helps individuals who use a wheelchair. But it also helps me as a mom with a stroller. It helps somebody with a shopping cart, or a kid with a bike. If we adopt policies that are inclusive to those who are disadvantaged, it’s good for everybody. We should always strive to be an inclusive society, not just because it’s the right thing to do but because it really makes our society better.
 

How can mask requirements be used as a form of disability accommodation, as you argue in the JAMA article?

The ADA requires employers to provide reasonable accommodations for disability. In this case, the disability is your immunosuppressive status. We have an abundance of evidence showing individuals who are immunocompromised and vaccinated are still inadequately protected from the SARS-CoV-2 virus. So, there is absolute data to show individuals with immunosuppression have a disability that requires accommodation.

The ADA has a mandate requiring employers to adjust or modify policies in order to accommodate a disability. There are certain situations in which you cannot or do not need to accommodate a disability, when it would fundamentally alter the kind of employment you offer or if it’s an undue burden or hardship. But given that we’ve been wearing masks and working remotely for a year now, arguing that somehow these accommodations are no longer possible seems disingenuous.

In that way, allowing a person who’s immunocompromised to require those around them to mask is a form of modified protective policies. And in this case, those policies line up with a public health good, masking in the face of the highly contagious Delta variant ravaging our country right now.
 

In your view, can this argument be used in the mask debates happening right now across the country?

This argument can and should be useful for a couple of different lawsuits that are now underway in different states. I hope our article will provide further support for those suits. And I hope in school board hearings, when parents and teachers are talking about their concerns, this could be one way to argue for why we should allow mask mandates in classes. I’ve received emails from parents who said they’re going to bring this article to their school board hearing.

I also hope this could shift the narrative around the pandemic. Instead of focusing on individual responsibility – I got my vaccine shot so I’m fine – let’s focus on how we create an inclusive environment where we protect everybody, including those who cannot be vaccinated because of age or disability, or those who are vaccinated but inadequately protected because of their underlying conditions.
 

In the JAMA article, you talk about how our pandemic response has focused on individual health and how that individual focus can be ableist. Can you explain that point?

I think this idea that we just make our choices – like whether to get vaccinated or wear a mask, or not – and live with it really perpetuates a highly individualistic and ableist mindset. It doesn’t consider the people I admit to the hospital who are vaccinated but have a heart transplant and didn’t mount the sufficient immune response. Or even the people who chose not to be vaccinated because they were exposed to hours and hours of misinformation on TV.

We like to individualize everything, focusing on personal responsibility and choices, but a pandemic is one of those moments where everybody’s choices affect everybody else. Laying responsibility at the doorstep of each person, rather than thinking about what steps we as a society could be taking, is cheap and politically expedient. There is no public health rationale behind the bans on mask requirements in states like Texas, Iowa, and Florida. These choices are about politics. And the price is always borne by the most disadvantaged among us.

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

As governors and legislatures in states such as Texas, Florida, South Carolina, and Arkansas have banned schools and other entities from implementing mask mandates, disability rights advocates have pushed back. In federal civil rights lawsuits, they argue that bans on mask mandates violate antidiscrimination laws protecting people with disabilities.

OsakaWayne Studios/Moment

For unvaccinated and immunosuppressed individuals, masks can provide crucial protection from SARS-CoV-2.

People who are immunocompromised can harness the power of the Americans With Disabilities Act to fight against bans on mask mandates and protect themselves in their workplaces, argues Mical Raz, MD, PhD, a professor at the University of Rochester (N.Y.) and a physician at Strong Memorial Hospital, also in Rochester, New York, in an article published in JAMA with coauthor Doron Dorfman, LLB, JSD.

This news organization talked with Dr. Raz about approaching mask requirements as disability accommodation during the COVID-19 pandemic. The following interview was lightly edited for length and clarity.
 

How did you come to think about mask requirements as a form of disability accommodation?

I saw a tweet from a professor at a university who said they couldn’t ask students about their vaccination status or to wear a mask. All agency was removed from the professor to take care of and protect themselves. I thought, well, that can’t be right. And ostensibly, that would be particularly dangerous for somebody with immunosuppression for whom the vaccine is not adequately protective. So, I called my friend, Doron Dorfman, and asked him to help me think through the legal part of this. We fleshed it out and wrote the article that same night.
 

How novel is it to view accommodations for people who are immunosuppressed through the lens of disability accommodation?

I think there has not been enough focus during the pandemic on individuals with disabilities or on how disability law can be mobilized during this pandemic to help supplement the public health law. This framework should be used a lot more because it’s good for everybody, not just for individuals with disabilities.

For example, take what’s called the “curb effect.” If you expand sidewalks, yes, it helps individuals who use a wheelchair. But it also helps me as a mom with a stroller. It helps somebody with a shopping cart, or a kid with a bike. If we adopt policies that are inclusive to those who are disadvantaged, it’s good for everybody. We should always strive to be an inclusive society, not just because it’s the right thing to do but because it really makes our society better.
 

How can mask requirements be used as a form of disability accommodation, as you argue in the JAMA article?

The ADA requires employers to provide reasonable accommodations for disability. In this case, the disability is your immunosuppressive status. We have an abundance of evidence showing individuals who are immunocompromised and vaccinated are still inadequately protected from the SARS-CoV-2 virus. So, there is absolute data to show individuals with immunosuppression have a disability that requires accommodation.

The ADA has a mandate requiring employers to adjust or modify policies in order to accommodate a disability. There are certain situations in which you cannot or do not need to accommodate a disability, when it would fundamentally alter the kind of employment you offer or if it’s an undue burden or hardship. But given that we’ve been wearing masks and working remotely for a year now, arguing that somehow these accommodations are no longer possible seems disingenuous.

In that way, allowing a person who’s immunocompromised to require those around them to mask is a form of modified protective policies. And in this case, those policies line up with a public health good, masking in the face of the highly contagious Delta variant ravaging our country right now.
 

In your view, can this argument be used in the mask debates happening right now across the country?

This argument can and should be useful for a couple of different lawsuits that are now underway in different states. I hope our article will provide further support for those suits. And I hope in school board hearings, when parents and teachers are talking about their concerns, this could be one way to argue for why we should allow mask mandates in classes. I’ve received emails from parents who said they’re going to bring this article to their school board hearing.

I also hope this could shift the narrative around the pandemic. Instead of focusing on individual responsibility – I got my vaccine shot so I’m fine – let’s focus on how we create an inclusive environment where we protect everybody, including those who cannot be vaccinated because of age or disability, or those who are vaccinated but inadequately protected because of their underlying conditions.
 

In the JAMA article, you talk about how our pandemic response has focused on individual health and how that individual focus can be ableist. Can you explain that point?

I think this idea that we just make our choices – like whether to get vaccinated or wear a mask, or not – and live with it really perpetuates a highly individualistic and ableist mindset. It doesn’t consider the people I admit to the hospital who are vaccinated but have a heart transplant and didn’t mount the sufficient immune response. Or even the people who chose not to be vaccinated because they were exposed to hours and hours of misinformation on TV.

We like to individualize everything, focusing on personal responsibility and choices, but a pandemic is one of those moments where everybody’s choices affect everybody else. Laying responsibility at the doorstep of each person, rather than thinking about what steps we as a society could be taking, is cheap and politically expedient. There is no public health rationale behind the bans on mask requirements in states like Texas, Iowa, and Florida. These choices are about politics. And the price is always borne by the most disadvantaged among us.

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

In the wake of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s recommendation for a third COVID-19 mRNA vaccine dose for immunocompromised people and the Food and Drug Administration’s authorization of the third dose, the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases has begun a phase 2 trial to assess the antibody response to a booster dose of the Pfizer-BioNTech, Moderna, or Janssen vaccine in people with autoimmune disease who did not respond to their original COVID-19 vaccine regimen, according to an announcement.

The investigators of the trial, called COVID‐19 Booster Vaccine in Autoimmune Disease Non‐Responders, also want to determine if pausing immunosuppressive therapy for autoimmune disease improves the antibody response to an extra dose of a COVID-19 vaccine.

The trial will specifically look at the effects of mycophenolate mofetil (MMF) or mycophenolic acid (MPA), and methotrexate (MTX), or receipt of B cell–depletion therapy such as rituximab within the past 12 months on immune response to a booster dose in people with systemic lupus erythematosus, rheumatoid arthritis, multiple sclerosis, systemic sclerosis, or pemphigus. They have to have either no serologic response to their initial COVID-19 vaccine regimen or a suboptimal response, defined as a Roche Elecsys Anti-SARS-CoV-2 S (RBD) result greater than or equal to 50 U/mL.

The results of studies conducted in solid-organ transplant recipients who take immunosuppressants showed that an extra dose of vaccine could improve the immune response to the vaccine in many of the individuals, which suggests that the same approach might work in people with autoimmune disease who need treatment with immunosuppressive drugs. Improving the immune response of people with autoimmune disease to COVID-19 vaccines is important because higher rates of severe COVID-19 and death have been reported in this group of patients than in the general population, and it is unclear whether this is attributable to the autoimmune disease, the immunosuppressive medications taken to treat it, or both.

The open-label trial, conducted by the NIAID-funded Autoimmunity Centers of Excellence, aims to enroll 600 people aged 18 years and older with those conditions at 15-20 sites in the United States.

Because medications commonly taken by people with these conditions have been associated with poorer immune responses to vaccines, the trial will randomize the following two cohorts to stop or continue taking their immunosuppressive medication(s) or stop them before and after the booster according to protocol:

• Cohort 1 includes people who are taking MMF or MPA, without additional B cell–depleting medications or MTX.
• Cohort 2 includes people who are taking MTX without additional B cell–depleting medications or MMF/MPA.

A third, nonrandomized cohort consists of people who have received B cell–depletion therapy within the past 12 months regardless of whether they are also taking MMF/MPA or MTX.

Besides the cohort-specific exclusions, other rheumatic disease medications, including biologics, are allowed in the groups.

The primary outcome of the trial is the proportion of participants who have a protective antibody response at week 4. Secondary outcomes will examine various antibody responses at intervals, changes in disease activity across autoimmune diseases, adverse events, and SARS-CoV-2 infections out to 48 weeks.

Study participants will be followed for a total of 13 months. Preliminary results are expected in November 2021, according to the National Institutes of Health.

The trial is being led by Judith James, MD, PhD; Meggan Mackay, MD, MS; Dinesh Khanna, MBBS, MSc; and Amit Bar-Or, MD.

jevans@mdedge.com

In the wake of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s recommendation for a third COVID-19 mRNA vaccine dose for immunocompromised people and the Food and Drug Administration’s authorization of the third dose, the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases has begun a phase 2 trial to assess the antibody response to a booster dose of the Pfizer-BioNTech, Moderna, or Janssen vaccine in people with autoimmune disease who did not respond to their original COVID-19 vaccine regimen, according to an announcement.

The investigators of the trial, called COVID‐19 Booster Vaccine in Autoimmune Disease Non‐Responders, also want to determine if pausing immunosuppressive therapy for autoimmune disease improves the antibody response to an extra dose of a COVID-19 vaccine.

The trial will specifically look at the effects of mycophenolate mofetil (MMF) or mycophenolic acid (MPA), and methotrexate (MTX), or receipt of B cell–depletion therapy such as rituximab within the past 12 months on immune response to a booster dose in people with systemic lupus erythematosus, rheumatoid arthritis, multiple sclerosis, systemic sclerosis, or pemphigus. They have to have either no serologic response to their initial COVID-19 vaccine regimen or a suboptimal response, defined as a Roche Elecsys Anti-SARS-CoV-2 S (RBD) result greater than or equal to 50 U/mL.

The results of studies conducted in solid-organ transplant recipients who take immunosuppressants showed that an extra dose of vaccine could improve the immune response to the vaccine in many of the individuals, which suggests that the same approach might work in people with autoimmune disease who need treatment with immunosuppressive drugs. Improving the immune response of people with autoimmune disease to COVID-19 vaccines is important because higher rates of severe COVID-19 and death have been reported in this group of patients than in the general population, and it is unclear whether this is attributable to the autoimmune disease, the immunosuppressive medications taken to treat it, or both.

The open-label trial, conducted by the NIAID-funded Autoimmunity Centers of Excellence, aims to enroll 600 people aged 18 years and older with those conditions at 15-20 sites in the United States.

Because medications commonly taken by people with these conditions have been associated with poorer immune responses to vaccines, the trial will randomize the following two cohorts to stop or continue taking their immunosuppressive medication(s) or stop them before and after the booster according to protocol:

• Cohort 1 includes people who are taking MMF or MPA, without additional B cell–depleting medications or MTX.
• Cohort 2 includes people who are taking MTX without additional B cell–depleting medications or MMF/MPA.

A third, nonrandomized cohort consists of people who have received B cell–depletion therapy within the past 12 months regardless of whether they are also taking MMF/MPA or MTX.

Besides the cohort-specific exclusions, other rheumatic disease medications, including biologics, are allowed in the groups.

The primary outcome of the trial is the proportion of participants who have a protective antibody response at week 4. Secondary outcomes will examine various antibody responses at intervals, changes in disease activity across autoimmune diseases, adverse events, and SARS-CoV-2 infections out to 48 weeks.

Study participants will be followed for a total of 13 months. Preliminary results are expected in November 2021, according to the National Institutes of Health.

The trial is being led by Judith James, MD, PhD; Meggan Mackay, MD, MS; Dinesh Khanna, MBBS, MSc; and Amit Bar-Or, MD.

jevans@mdedge.com

In the wake of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s recommendation for a third COVID-19 mRNA vaccine dose for immunocompromised people and the Food and Drug Administration’s authorization of the third dose, the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases has begun a phase 2 trial to assess the antibody response to a booster dose of the Pfizer-BioNTech, Moderna, or Janssen vaccine in people with autoimmune disease who did not respond to their original COVID-19 vaccine regimen, according to an announcement.

The investigators of the trial, called COVID‐19 Booster Vaccine in Autoimmune Disease Non‐Responders, also want to determine if pausing immunosuppressive therapy for autoimmune disease improves the antibody response to an extra dose of a COVID-19 vaccine.

The trial will specifically look at the effects of mycophenolate mofetil (MMF) or mycophenolic acid (MPA), and methotrexate (MTX), or receipt of B cell–depletion therapy such as rituximab within the past 12 months on immune response to a booster dose in people with systemic lupus erythematosus, rheumatoid arthritis, multiple sclerosis, systemic sclerosis, or pemphigus. They have to have either no serologic response to their initial COVID-19 vaccine regimen or a suboptimal response, defined as a Roche Elecsys Anti-SARS-CoV-2 S (RBD) result greater than or equal to 50 U/mL.

The results of studies conducted in solid-organ transplant recipients who take immunosuppressants showed that an extra dose of vaccine could improve the immune response to the vaccine in many of the individuals, which suggests that the same approach might work in people with autoimmune disease who need treatment with immunosuppressive drugs. Improving the immune response of people with autoimmune disease to COVID-19 vaccines is important because higher rates of severe COVID-19 and death have been reported in this group of patients than in the general population, and it is unclear whether this is attributable to the autoimmune disease, the immunosuppressive medications taken to treat it, or both.

The open-label trial, conducted by the NIAID-funded Autoimmunity Centers of Excellence, aims to enroll 600 people aged 18 years and older with those conditions at 15-20 sites in the United States.

Because medications commonly taken by people with these conditions have been associated with poorer immune responses to vaccines, the trial will randomize the following two cohorts to stop or continue taking their immunosuppressive medication(s) or stop them before and after the booster according to protocol:

• Cohort 1 includes people who are taking MMF or MPA, without additional B cell–depleting medications or MTX.
• Cohort 2 includes people who are taking MTX without additional B cell–depleting medications or MMF/MPA.

A third, nonrandomized cohort consists of people who have received B cell–depletion therapy within the past 12 months regardless of whether they are also taking MMF/MPA or MTX.

Besides the cohort-specific exclusions, other rheumatic disease medications, including biologics, are allowed in the groups.

The primary outcome of the trial is the proportion of participants who have a protective antibody response at week 4. Secondary outcomes will examine various antibody responses at intervals, changes in disease activity across autoimmune diseases, adverse events, and SARS-CoV-2 infections out to 48 weeks.

Study participants will be followed for a total of 13 months. Preliminary results are expected in November 2021, according to the National Institutes of Health.

The trial is being led by Judith James, MD, PhD; Meggan Mackay, MD, MS; Dinesh Khanna, MBBS, MSc; and Amit Bar-Or, MD.

jevans@mdedge.com

Most over-the-counter (OTC) products for molluscum contagiosum (MC) do not include sufficient information about their plant-based ingredients or appropriate dosing, according to an analysis of eight such products available to U.S. consumers

“It’s important for clinicians who see children with molluscum to be aware of the many products marketed to patients and to be able to provide objective information about them,” senior author Elaine Siegfried, MD, said in an interview following the annual meeting of the Society for Pediatric Dermatology, where the abstract was presented during a poster session.

In the text of their abstract, Dr. Siegfried, professor of pediatrics and dermatology at Saint Louis University, and coauthors Isaac Hoft, of Open Mind Holistics in Ft. Collins, Colo., and Samantha K. Ong, BA, a student at SLU, noted that MC primarily infects children, with an annual incidence of 8%. “Although the disease is self-limited, associated symptoms, contagion and an average 1-year duration prompt concern and frequent medical visits,” they wrote.

The optimal treatment for MC has not been defined and there is currently no approved medication approved for the condition, although three products are in development: VP-102 (cantharidin) by Verrica Pharmaceuticals; SB206, a topical antiviral by Novan; and 10%-15% KOH formulation by the Gurina Foundation.

But many OTC products have been marketed to treat the condition. To identify the OTC products and to assess accompanying information related to safety, efficacy, and cost, the researchers performed an internet search using the terms “molluscum” plus “treatment,” “treatment at home,” “relief,” and “medication.” Eight products were identified for analysis: Conzerol (Elroselabs), Molleave (Innovative Med), Mollenol (Jeva Laboratories), MolluscumBLAST (Revitalize Life Organics), Molluscum Away Patches (Molluscum Away), Naturasil (Nature’s Innovation), Terrasil (Advanced Skincare % Topical Solutions), and Zymaderm (Naturopathix). Package sizes ranged from 0.78 to 1.5 ounces, and prices ranged from about $19 to almost $55.

Dr. Siegfried and colleagues found that all products provided instructions on application and use but most package labels did not include sufficient information about their plant-based ingredients or appropriate dosing. Six of the eight products contained Thuja occidentalis (Arbor vitae), a coniferous cedar whose essential oil has been used in homeopathic products for its anti-inflammatory and antiviral properties. Lemon extract, tea tree oil, and other botanicals were present in no more than three products each. Only two of the products provided information about the number of lesions that could be treated per package.

“The lack of national oversight as well as robust methods for high-level data analysis make safety and efficacy unclear for a Thuja extract marketed to treat MC,” the researchers wrote. “Numerous adverse drug events and positive intradermal skin tests related to Thuja have been reported.”

Dr. Siegfried added that many OTC products offer a money-back guarantee, “so when seeing a patient who failed to respond to one of these products, encourage them, at least, to request a refund, but to also submit a comment about lack of efficacy, in order to provide more balanced Internet information.”

Dr. Siegfried disclosed that she has served as an investigator and consultant for Verrica Pharmaceuticals, and as a consultant and Data Safety Monitoring board member for Novan, two of the companies currently developing drugs to treat molluscum. Her coauthors had no conflicts of interest to disclose.

dbrunk@mdedge.com

Most over-the-counter (OTC) products for molluscum contagiosum (MC) do not include sufficient information about their plant-based ingredients or appropriate dosing, according to an analysis of eight such products available to U.S. consumers

“It’s important for clinicians who see children with molluscum to be aware of the many products marketed to patients and to be able to provide objective information about them,” senior author Elaine Siegfried, MD, said in an interview following the annual meeting of the Society for Pediatric Dermatology, where the abstract was presented during a poster session.

In the text of their abstract, Dr. Siegfried, professor of pediatrics and dermatology at Saint Louis University, and coauthors Isaac Hoft, of Open Mind Holistics in Ft. Collins, Colo., and Samantha K. Ong, BA, a student at SLU, noted that MC primarily infects children, with an annual incidence of 8%. “Although the disease is self-limited, associated symptoms, contagion and an average 1-year duration prompt concern and frequent medical visits,” they wrote.

The optimal treatment for MC has not been defined and there is currently no approved medication approved for the condition, although three products are in development: VP-102 (cantharidin) by Verrica Pharmaceuticals; SB206, a topical antiviral by Novan; and 10%-15% KOH formulation by the Gurina Foundation.

But many OTC products have been marketed to treat the condition. To identify the OTC products and to assess accompanying information related to safety, efficacy, and cost, the researchers performed an internet search using the terms “molluscum” plus “treatment,” “treatment at home,” “relief,” and “medication.” Eight products were identified for analysis: Conzerol (Elroselabs), Molleave (Innovative Med), Mollenol (Jeva Laboratories), MolluscumBLAST (Revitalize Life Organics), Molluscum Away Patches (Molluscum Away), Naturasil (Nature’s Innovation), Terrasil (Advanced Skincare % Topical Solutions), and Zymaderm (Naturopathix). Package sizes ranged from 0.78 to 1.5 ounces, and prices ranged from about $19 to almost $55.

Dr. Siegfried and colleagues found that all products provided instructions on application and use but most package labels did not include sufficient information about their plant-based ingredients or appropriate dosing. Six of the eight products contained Thuja occidentalis (Arbor vitae), a coniferous cedar whose essential oil has been used in homeopathic products for its anti-inflammatory and antiviral properties. Lemon extract, tea tree oil, and other botanicals were present in no more than three products each. Only two of the products provided information about the number of lesions that could be treated per package.

“The lack of national oversight as well as robust methods for high-level data analysis make safety and efficacy unclear for a Thuja extract marketed to treat MC,” the researchers wrote. “Numerous adverse drug events and positive intradermal skin tests related to Thuja have been reported.”

Dr. Siegfried added that many OTC products offer a money-back guarantee, “so when seeing a patient who failed to respond to one of these products, encourage them, at least, to request a refund, but to also submit a comment about lack of efficacy, in order to provide more balanced Internet information.”

Dr. Siegfried disclosed that she has served as an investigator and consultant for Verrica Pharmaceuticals, and as a consultant and Data Safety Monitoring board member for Novan, two of the companies currently developing drugs to treat molluscum. Her coauthors had no conflicts of interest to disclose.

dbrunk@mdedge.com

Most over-the-counter (OTC) products for molluscum contagiosum (MC) do not include sufficient information about their plant-based ingredients or appropriate dosing, according to an analysis of eight such products available to U.S. consumers

“It’s important for clinicians who see children with molluscum to be aware of the many products marketed to patients and to be able to provide objective information about them,” senior author Elaine Siegfried, MD, said in an interview following the annual meeting of the Society for Pediatric Dermatology, where the abstract was presented during a poster session.

In the text of their abstract, Dr. Siegfried, professor of pediatrics and dermatology at Saint Louis University, and coauthors Isaac Hoft, of Open Mind Holistics in Ft. Collins, Colo., and Samantha K. Ong, BA, a student at SLU, noted that MC primarily infects children, with an annual incidence of 8%. “Although the disease is self-limited, associated symptoms, contagion and an average 1-year duration prompt concern and frequent medical visits,” they wrote.

The optimal treatment for MC has not been defined and there is currently no approved medication approved for the condition, although three products are in development: VP-102 (cantharidin) by Verrica Pharmaceuticals; SB206, a topical antiviral by Novan; and 10%-15% KOH formulation by the Gurina Foundation.

But many OTC products have been marketed to treat the condition. To identify the OTC products and to assess accompanying information related to safety, efficacy, and cost, the researchers performed an internet search using the terms “molluscum” plus “treatment,” “treatment at home,” “relief,” and “medication.” Eight products were identified for analysis: Conzerol (Elroselabs), Molleave (Innovative Med), Mollenol (Jeva Laboratories), MolluscumBLAST (Revitalize Life Organics), Molluscum Away Patches (Molluscum Away), Naturasil (Nature’s Innovation), Terrasil (Advanced Skincare % Topical Solutions), and Zymaderm (Naturopathix). Package sizes ranged from 0.78 to 1.5 ounces, and prices ranged from about $19 to almost $55.

Dr. Siegfried and colleagues found that all products provided instructions on application and use but most package labels did not include sufficient information about their plant-based ingredients or appropriate dosing. Six of the eight products contained Thuja occidentalis (Arbor vitae), a coniferous cedar whose essential oil has been used in homeopathic products for its anti-inflammatory and antiviral properties. Lemon extract, tea tree oil, and other botanicals were present in no more than three products each. Only two of the products provided information about the number of lesions that could be treated per package.

“The lack of national oversight as well as robust methods for high-level data analysis make safety and efficacy unclear for a Thuja extract marketed to treat MC,” the researchers wrote. “Numerous adverse drug events and positive intradermal skin tests related to Thuja have been reported.”

Dr. Siegfried added that many OTC products offer a money-back guarantee, “so when seeing a patient who failed to respond to one of these products, encourage them, at least, to request a refund, but to also submit a comment about lack of efficacy, in order to provide more balanced Internet information.”

Dr. Siegfried disclosed that she has served as an investigator and consultant for Verrica Pharmaceuticals, and as a consultant and Data Safety Monitoring board member for Novan, two of the companies currently developing drugs to treat molluscum. Her coauthors had no conflicts of interest to disclose.

dbrunk@mdedge.com

Urgent recommendations from a European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology (EAACI) task force are aimed at reducing antibiotic overuse with allergic disease.

Top recommendations include limiting antibiotic therapy in pregnancy and early childhood to help reduce the allergy epidemic in children, and restricting antibiotic therapy in exacerbations and chronic treatment of allergic diseases, especially asthma and atopic dermatitis.

The review, by lead author Gerdien Tramper-Stranders, MD, PhD, department of pediatrics, Franciscus Gasthuis & Vlietland Hospital, Rotterdam, the Netherlands, and colleagues, was published online Aug. 13 in the journal Allergy.

Several studies have shown that use of antibiotics in childhood and during pregnancy is associated with disturbing the intestinal and respiratory microbiome, which in turn leads to dysbiosis and an increased risk of acquiring allergic diseases, the authors noted.

In addition, patients with allergic diseases such as asthma have a higher risk of being prescribed antibiotics for infections compared with the general population, despite lack of clear clinical benefit.

“In fact, there are no clear data supporting antibiotic prescriptions for acute exacerbations; and clinical and/or laboratory criteria are lacking,” the authors wrote.

Despite that lack of data, antibiotics are often prescribed for exacerbations along with oral corticosteroids, Dr. Tramper-Stranders said in an interview. Some patients may benefit from antibiotics in a flare-up, she said, but more research is needed to determine which ones.

Dr. Tramper-Stranders said Franciscus has begun a large study that includes patients with asthma exacerbations to find biomarkers that might predict the type or origin of exacerbation to personalize treatment.
 

Recommendations have global relevance

She said although the recommendations are coming from the EAACI group, they apply worldwide.

“Especially in countries outside Northern Europe, antibiotic use is tremendous, leading to high rates of antibiotic resistance; but also increasing the risk for developing allergic diseases when prescribed in infancy,” she said.

She pointed out that in the United States, as many as one in six children receive unnecessary antibiotics for an asthma exacerbation. Overtreatment in adults with flare-ups is also prevalent, at rates from 40%-50%.

Millie Kwan, MD, PhD, an allergy specialist at University of North Carolina in Chapel Hill, said in an interview that in the U.S. there’s been a culture change in the direction of antibiotic restraint – but there are still problems.

“It’s a lot easier for us to whip out our prescription pads and prescribe antibiotics for an asthma patient who’s having a flare-up or a patient who has atopic dermatitis before addressing the underlying mechanism directly,” Dr. Kwan said. She agreed that antibiotic overuse is prevalent in pregnancies in the U.S., and she said that starts with the high prevalence of cesarean births. Nearly one-third of all births in the U.S. are by C-section, twice the rate recommended by the World Health Organization.

“Just bypassing the birth canal actually changes what kind of microflora the infant is being exposed to,” Dr. Kwan said. “That’s the first huge problem.”

The second problem, she said, is the potential for overuse of antibiotics with the surgical procedure.

The researchers wrote that pre-, pro- or postbiotics might alter the course of allergic disease, but clear evidence is lacking.

Until now, Dr. Tramper-Stranders said, pre- or probiotic treatment in infancy, irrespective of previous antibiotic use, has not proved effective in preventing allergies.

Data describing the effect of pre- or probiotics after an antibiotic course are scarce, are limited to older children and adults, and are focused on short-term effects, such as diarrhea prevention, she explained.

Dr. Kwan says she agrees that current data are not strong enough to recommend one over another.

“We don’t even know what the normal amount of bacteria should be to constitute an environment where the immune system develops ‘normally,’ “ she said.

Antibiotics should be prescribed cautiously and by following current recommendations to use the narrowest spectrum available, the authors wrote. Future research in antibiotic stewardship should incorporate biomarker-guided therapy to determine which patients might benefit most from antibiotic therapy.

“Practicing antibiotic stewardship needs recurrent attention and we hope that with this initiative, we specifically reach allergy doctors who will rethink their next [antibiotic] prescription. Within our EAACI task force, we will next work on a guideline for rational antibiotic use in asthma,” Dr. Tramper-Stranders said.

The review’s authors and Dr. Kwan have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Urgent recommendations from a European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology (EAACI) task force are aimed at reducing antibiotic overuse with allergic disease.

Top recommendations include limiting antibiotic therapy in pregnancy and early childhood to help reduce the allergy epidemic in children, and restricting antibiotic therapy in exacerbations and chronic treatment of allergic diseases, especially asthma and atopic dermatitis.

The review, by lead author Gerdien Tramper-Stranders, MD, PhD, department of pediatrics, Franciscus Gasthuis & Vlietland Hospital, Rotterdam, the Netherlands, and colleagues, was published online Aug. 13 in the journal Allergy.

Several studies have shown that use of antibiotics in childhood and during pregnancy is associated with disturbing the intestinal and respiratory microbiome, which in turn leads to dysbiosis and an increased risk of acquiring allergic diseases, the authors noted.

In addition, patients with allergic diseases such as asthma have a higher risk of being prescribed antibiotics for infections compared with the general population, despite lack of clear clinical benefit.

“In fact, there are no clear data supporting antibiotic prescriptions for acute exacerbations; and clinical and/or laboratory criteria are lacking,” the authors wrote.

Despite that lack of data, antibiotics are often prescribed for exacerbations along with oral corticosteroids, Dr. Tramper-Stranders said in an interview. Some patients may benefit from antibiotics in a flare-up, she said, but more research is needed to determine which ones.

Dr. Tramper-Stranders said Franciscus has begun a large study that includes patients with asthma exacerbations to find biomarkers that might predict the type or origin of exacerbation to personalize treatment.
 

Recommendations have global relevance

She said although the recommendations are coming from the EAACI group, they apply worldwide.

“Especially in countries outside Northern Europe, antibiotic use is tremendous, leading to high rates of antibiotic resistance; but also increasing the risk for developing allergic diseases when prescribed in infancy,” she said.

She pointed out that in the United States, as many as one in six children receive unnecessary antibiotics for an asthma exacerbation. Overtreatment in adults with flare-ups is also prevalent, at rates from 40%-50%.

Millie Kwan, MD, PhD, an allergy specialist at University of North Carolina in Chapel Hill, said in an interview that in the U.S. there’s been a culture change in the direction of antibiotic restraint – but there are still problems.

“It’s a lot easier for us to whip out our prescription pads and prescribe antibiotics for an asthma patient who’s having a flare-up or a patient who has atopic dermatitis before addressing the underlying mechanism directly,” Dr. Kwan said. She agreed that antibiotic overuse is prevalent in pregnancies in the U.S., and she said that starts with the high prevalence of cesarean births. Nearly one-third of all births in the U.S. are by C-section, twice the rate recommended by the World Health Organization.

“Just bypassing the birth canal actually changes what kind of microflora the infant is being exposed to,” Dr. Kwan said. “That’s the first huge problem.”

The second problem, she said, is the potential for overuse of antibiotics with the surgical procedure.

The researchers wrote that pre-, pro- or postbiotics might alter the course of allergic disease, but clear evidence is lacking.

Until now, Dr. Tramper-Stranders said, pre- or probiotic treatment in infancy, irrespective of previous antibiotic use, has not proved effective in preventing allergies.

Data describing the effect of pre- or probiotics after an antibiotic course are scarce, are limited to older children and adults, and are focused on short-term effects, such as diarrhea prevention, she explained.

Dr. Kwan says she agrees that current data are not strong enough to recommend one over another.

“We don’t even know what the normal amount of bacteria should be to constitute an environment where the immune system develops ‘normally,’ “ she said.

Antibiotics should be prescribed cautiously and by following current recommendations to use the narrowest spectrum available, the authors wrote. Future research in antibiotic stewardship should incorporate biomarker-guided therapy to determine which patients might benefit most from antibiotic therapy.

“Practicing antibiotic stewardship needs recurrent attention and we hope that with this initiative, we specifically reach allergy doctors who will rethink their next [antibiotic] prescription. Within our EAACI task force, we will next work on a guideline for rational antibiotic use in asthma,” Dr. Tramper-Stranders said.

The review’s authors and Dr. Kwan have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Urgent recommendations from a European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology (EAACI) task force are aimed at reducing antibiotic overuse with allergic disease.

Top recommendations include limiting antibiotic therapy in pregnancy and early childhood to help reduce the allergy epidemic in children, and restricting antibiotic therapy in exacerbations and chronic treatment of allergic diseases, especially asthma and atopic dermatitis.

The review, by lead author Gerdien Tramper-Stranders, MD, PhD, department of pediatrics, Franciscus Gasthuis & Vlietland Hospital, Rotterdam, the Netherlands, and colleagues, was published online Aug. 13 in the journal Allergy.

Several studies have shown that use of antibiotics in childhood and during pregnancy is associated with disturbing the intestinal and respiratory microbiome, which in turn leads to dysbiosis and an increased risk of acquiring allergic diseases, the authors noted.

In addition, patients with allergic diseases such as asthma have a higher risk of being prescribed antibiotics for infections compared with the general population, despite lack of clear clinical benefit.

“In fact, there are no clear data supporting antibiotic prescriptions for acute exacerbations; and clinical and/or laboratory criteria are lacking,” the authors wrote.

Despite that lack of data, antibiotics are often prescribed for exacerbations along with oral corticosteroids, Dr. Tramper-Stranders said in an interview. Some patients may benefit from antibiotics in a flare-up, she said, but more research is needed to determine which ones.

Dr. Tramper-Stranders said Franciscus has begun a large study that includes patients with asthma exacerbations to find biomarkers that might predict the type or origin of exacerbation to personalize treatment.
 

Recommendations have global relevance

She said although the recommendations are coming from the EAACI group, they apply worldwide.

“Especially in countries outside Northern Europe, antibiotic use is tremendous, leading to high rates of antibiotic resistance; but also increasing the risk for developing allergic diseases when prescribed in infancy,” she said.

She pointed out that in the United States, as many as one in six children receive unnecessary antibiotics for an asthma exacerbation. Overtreatment in adults with flare-ups is also prevalent, at rates from 40%-50%.

Millie Kwan, MD, PhD, an allergy specialist at University of North Carolina in Chapel Hill, said in an interview that in the U.S. there’s been a culture change in the direction of antibiotic restraint – but there are still problems.

“It’s a lot easier for us to whip out our prescription pads and prescribe antibiotics for an asthma patient who’s having a flare-up or a patient who has atopic dermatitis before addressing the underlying mechanism directly,” Dr. Kwan said. She agreed that antibiotic overuse is prevalent in pregnancies in the U.S., and she said that starts with the high prevalence of cesarean births. Nearly one-third of all births in the U.S. are by C-section, twice the rate recommended by the World Health Organization.

“Just bypassing the birth canal actually changes what kind of microflora the infant is being exposed to,” Dr. Kwan said. “That’s the first huge problem.”

The second problem, she said, is the potential for overuse of antibiotics with the surgical procedure.

The researchers wrote that pre-, pro- or postbiotics might alter the course of allergic disease, but clear evidence is lacking.

Until now, Dr. Tramper-Stranders said, pre- or probiotic treatment in infancy, irrespective of previous antibiotic use, has not proved effective in preventing allergies.

Data describing the effect of pre- or probiotics after an antibiotic course are scarce, are limited to older children and adults, and are focused on short-term effects, such as diarrhea prevention, she explained.

Dr. Kwan says she agrees that current data are not strong enough to recommend one over another.

“We don’t even know what the normal amount of bacteria should be to constitute an environment where the immune system develops ‘normally,’ “ she said.

Antibiotics should be prescribed cautiously and by following current recommendations to use the narrowest spectrum available, the authors wrote. Future research in antibiotic stewardship should incorporate biomarker-guided therapy to determine which patients might benefit most from antibiotic therapy.

“Practicing antibiotic stewardship needs recurrent attention and we hope that with this initiative, we specifically reach allergy doctors who will rethink their next [antibiotic] prescription. Within our EAACI task force, we will next work on a guideline for rational antibiotic use in asthma,” Dr. Tramper-Stranders said.

The review’s authors and Dr. Kwan have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

A 3-month, 12-dose regimen of rifapentine and isoniazid (INH) was less toxic, had better compliance, and showed similar efficacy as 6 months of INH alone in preventing tuberculosis (TB) in people with HIV, according to the results of a clinical trial reported in Annals of Internal Medicine.

The study, a randomized pragmatic trial in South Africa, Ethiopia, and Mozambique, was called WHIP3TB (Weekly High Dose Isoniazid and Rifapentine [P] Periodic Prophylaxis for TB).

Investigators randomized patients to three groups, comparing a 3-month course of weekly rifapentine-INH, given either once or repeated in a year, with daily isoniazid for 6 months. At 1 year, 90% of the rifapentine-INH group (3HP) were still on therapy, compared with only 50.5% in the INH group.

In the study, patients were initially assessed for TB using the World Health Organization four-symptom screen, but the sensitivity in HIV patients on antiretrovirals (ARVs) was only 53%. In addition to symptoms, screening at 12 months included a chest x-ray and sputum culture.

Of the 30 patients at month 12 with confirmed TB, 26 were asymptomatic, suggesting physicians should do further evaluation prior to initiating preventive TB treatment (which was not part of the WHO recommendation when the study was initiated).

Another unexpected finding was that 10.2% of the TB cases detected in the combined 3HP groups in South Africa, along with 18% of the cases in Mozambique, had rifampin resistance.

Investigator Gavin Churchyard, MBBCh, PhD, CEO of the Aurum Institute in Johannesburg, South Africa, said in an interview: “It appeared that taking this potent short course regimen – they’re just taking a single course – provided the same level of protection as taking repeat courses of the antibiotics. So that’s good news.” He noted, too, that TB transmission rates have been declining in sub-Saharan Africa because of ARV, and “so it may just be that a single course is now adequate because the risk of exposure and reinfection” is decreasing.

But Madhu Pai, MD, PhD, associate director, McGill International TB Centre, Montreal, who was not involved in the study, shared a more cautious interpretation. He said in an interview that the 2020 WHO Consolidated Guidelines on Tuberculosis state: “In settings with high TB transmission, adults and adolescents living with HIV ... should receive at least 36 months of daily isoniazid preventive therapy (IPT) ... whether or not the person is on ART.” The problem is that almost no one can tolerate prolonged therapy with INH because of side effects, as has been shown in numerous studies.

For successful TB treatment, Dr. Pai said, “Even 3HP is not going to cut it; they’re going to get reinfected again. So that shortening of that 36 months is what this trial is really all about, in terms of new information ... and they were not successful.” But because this is still the most practical course, Dr. Pai suggests that follow-up monitoring for reinfection will be the most likely path forward.

Dr. Churchyard concluded: “If we wanted to end the global TB epidemic, we need to continue to find ways to further reduce the risk of TB overall at a population level, and then amongst high-risk groups such as people with HIV, including those on ARVs, and who have had a course of preventive therapy. ... We need to look for other strategies to further reduce that risk. Part of those strategies may be doing a more intensive screen. But also, it may be adding another intervention, particularly TB vaccines. ... No single intervention by itself will adequately address the risk of TB in people with HIV in these high TB transmission settings.”

Dr. Pai reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Churchyard has reported participation in a Sanofi advisory committee on the prevention of TB. Judy Stone, MD, is an infectious disease specialist and author of “Resilience: One Family’s Story of Hope and Triumph Over Evil” and of “Conducting Clinical Research.”

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

A 3-month, 12-dose regimen of rifapentine and isoniazid (INH) was less toxic, had better compliance, and showed similar efficacy as 6 months of INH alone in preventing tuberculosis (TB) in people with HIV, according to the results of a clinical trial reported in Annals of Internal Medicine.

The study, a randomized pragmatic trial in South Africa, Ethiopia, and Mozambique, was called WHIP3TB (Weekly High Dose Isoniazid and Rifapentine [P] Periodic Prophylaxis for TB).

Investigators randomized patients to three groups, comparing a 3-month course of weekly rifapentine-INH, given either once or repeated in a year, with daily isoniazid for 6 months. At 1 year, 90% of the rifapentine-INH group (3HP) were still on therapy, compared with only 50.5% in the INH group.

In the study, patients were initially assessed for TB using the World Health Organization four-symptom screen, but the sensitivity in HIV patients on antiretrovirals (ARVs) was only 53%. In addition to symptoms, screening at 12 months included a chest x-ray and sputum culture.

Of the 30 patients at month 12 with confirmed TB, 26 were asymptomatic, suggesting physicians should do further evaluation prior to initiating preventive TB treatment (which was not part of the WHO recommendation when the study was initiated).

Another unexpected finding was that 10.2% of the TB cases detected in the combined 3HP groups in South Africa, along with 18% of the cases in Mozambique, had rifampin resistance.

Investigator Gavin Churchyard, MBBCh, PhD, CEO of the Aurum Institute in Johannesburg, South Africa, said in an interview: “It appeared that taking this potent short course regimen – they’re just taking a single course – provided the same level of protection as taking repeat courses of the antibiotics. So that’s good news.” He noted, too, that TB transmission rates have been declining in sub-Saharan Africa because of ARV, and “so it may just be that a single course is now adequate because the risk of exposure and reinfection” is decreasing.

But Madhu Pai, MD, PhD, associate director, McGill International TB Centre, Montreal, who was not involved in the study, shared a more cautious interpretation. He said in an interview that the 2020 WHO Consolidated Guidelines on Tuberculosis state: “In settings with high TB transmission, adults and adolescents living with HIV ... should receive at least 36 months of daily isoniazid preventive therapy (IPT) ... whether or not the person is on ART.” The problem is that almost no one can tolerate prolonged therapy with INH because of side effects, as has been shown in numerous studies.

For successful TB treatment, Dr. Pai said, “Even 3HP is not going to cut it; they’re going to get reinfected again. So that shortening of that 36 months is what this trial is really all about, in terms of new information ... and they were not successful.” But because this is still the most practical course, Dr. Pai suggests that follow-up monitoring for reinfection will be the most likely path forward.

Dr. Churchyard concluded: “If we wanted to end the global TB epidemic, we need to continue to find ways to further reduce the risk of TB overall at a population level, and then amongst high-risk groups such as people with HIV, including those on ARVs, and who have had a course of preventive therapy. ... We need to look for other strategies to further reduce that risk. Part of those strategies may be doing a more intensive screen. But also, it may be adding another intervention, particularly TB vaccines. ... No single intervention by itself will adequately address the risk of TB in people with HIV in these high TB transmission settings.”

Dr. Pai reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Churchyard has reported participation in a Sanofi advisory committee on the prevention of TB. Judy Stone, MD, is an infectious disease specialist and author of “Resilience: One Family’s Story of Hope and Triumph Over Evil” and of “Conducting Clinical Research.”

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

A 3-month, 12-dose regimen of rifapentine and isoniazid (INH) was less toxic, had better compliance, and showed similar efficacy as 6 months of INH alone in preventing tuberculosis (TB) in people with HIV, according to the results of a clinical trial reported in Annals of Internal Medicine.

The study, a randomized pragmatic trial in South Africa, Ethiopia, and Mozambique, was called WHIP3TB (Weekly High Dose Isoniazid and Rifapentine [P] Periodic Prophylaxis for TB).

Investigators randomized patients to three groups, comparing a 3-month course of weekly rifapentine-INH, given either once or repeated in a year, with daily isoniazid for 6 months. At 1 year, 90% of the rifapentine-INH group (3HP) were still on therapy, compared with only 50.5% in the INH group.

In the study, patients were initially assessed for TB using the World Health Organization four-symptom screen, but the sensitivity in HIV patients on antiretrovirals (ARVs) was only 53%. In addition to symptoms, screening at 12 months included a chest x-ray and sputum culture.

Of the 30 patients at month 12 with confirmed TB, 26 were asymptomatic, suggesting physicians should do further evaluation prior to initiating preventive TB treatment (which was not part of the WHO recommendation when the study was initiated).

Another unexpected finding was that 10.2% of the TB cases detected in the combined 3HP groups in South Africa, along with 18% of the cases in Mozambique, had rifampin resistance.

Investigator Gavin Churchyard, MBBCh, PhD, CEO of the Aurum Institute in Johannesburg, South Africa, said in an interview: “It appeared that taking this potent short course regimen – they’re just taking a single course – provided the same level of protection as taking repeat courses of the antibiotics. So that’s good news.” He noted, too, that TB transmission rates have been declining in sub-Saharan Africa because of ARV, and “so it may just be that a single course is now adequate because the risk of exposure and reinfection” is decreasing.

But Madhu Pai, MD, PhD, associate director, McGill International TB Centre, Montreal, who was not involved in the study, shared a more cautious interpretation. He said in an interview that the 2020 WHO Consolidated Guidelines on Tuberculosis state: “In settings with high TB transmission, adults and adolescents living with HIV ... should receive at least 36 months of daily isoniazid preventive therapy (IPT) ... whether or not the person is on ART.” The problem is that almost no one can tolerate prolonged therapy with INH because of side effects, as has been shown in numerous studies.

For successful TB treatment, Dr. Pai said, “Even 3HP is not going to cut it; they’re going to get reinfected again. So that shortening of that 36 months is what this trial is really all about, in terms of new information ... and they were not successful.” But because this is still the most practical course, Dr. Pai suggests that follow-up monitoring for reinfection will be the most likely path forward.

Dr. Churchyard concluded: “If we wanted to end the global TB epidemic, we need to continue to find ways to further reduce the risk of TB overall at a population level, and then amongst high-risk groups such as people with HIV, including those on ARVs, and who have had a course of preventive therapy. ... We need to look for other strategies to further reduce that risk. Part of those strategies may be doing a more intensive screen. But also, it may be adding another intervention, particularly TB vaccines. ... No single intervention by itself will adequately address the risk of TB in people with HIV in these high TB transmission settings.”

Dr. Pai reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Churchyard has reported participation in a Sanofi advisory committee on the prevention of TB. Judy Stone, MD, is an infectious disease specialist and author of “Resilience: One Family’s Story of Hope and Triumph Over Evil” and of “Conducting Clinical Research.”

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

As politicians battle over masks and mandates, heated rhetoric has been used to describe the fourth heartbreaking surge in COVID as a “pandemic of the unvaccinated.”

While it may serve to further divide red and blue states, I disagree with the assertion that the current surge in cases is driven simply by the unvaccinated. Why? First, the premise would assume complete efficacy with our vaccinated population, which is statistically incorrect (at least 15 million of the U.S. population never completed a second round of injections), which means they were not considered “fully vaccinated.”

Alternately, we need to examine what has occurred in nations with significantly higher vaccination rates than ours (the United Kingdom and Israel) to realize that variants have overrun the dramatic success achieved in those countries as well. Israel, once considered to be the most vaccinated country in the world, is facing a brutal fourth wave of COVID that has sent the country spiraling into another heartbreaking lockdown.

The unvaccinated could hardly be blamed for what is happening in either of these highly vaccinated countries.
 

The concept of blame

So why use blame? It defeats the purpose of encouraging those who are hesitant or possibly misinformed or disenfranchised to move forward. It lacks compassion. It does not encompass the art and science of nursing (for example, the University of Southern Indiana), such as those that hospitals have used to frame optimal nursing care. I abhor the idea of labeling because it denies the prospect of future comprehension.

Labeling reminds me of one of the saddest cases in my career.
 

An unfortunate case

I was the nurse caring for a man from a motor vehicular accident where an entire family was brutally killed. My patient was alleged to be the cause, with a blood alcohol level of 0.40%+ post hydration, intubated and ventilated, with a flailed chest and multiple orthopedic injuries as well as blunt head trauma. He was secured to the bed with handcuffs, although that was unnecessary. Multiple times I was asked how I could possibly care for such an individual, by the police and even a few colleagues. But it was not my place to judge the man.

He was in pain, and he was dying. I comforted him for the 2 weeks it took his battered body to pass into the next realm. No one visited him except the police, eagerly waiting for the man to wake up to explain the tragic events that occurred. It was my job to ease what pain I could and protect him from labels. Did he deserve the labels? Who knew? I did not care. I cared about his writhing and his physical anguish.
 

The comparison

Blame did not help the situation then, nor does it help us move forward now. As nurses, we seek to work within a framework of understanding. As we tire of caring for thousands of COVID patients, we do not stop to ask if they “deserve” care or if they have taken precautions and lived reasonably prior to seeking assistance for disease. We would not be nurses if we did this.

Think about Gov. Greg Abbott, who has asked that Texans not be allowed to mandate masks for children returning to school. He has recently been diagnosed with COVID, despite assuring the public he is fully vaccinated. Politically, his diagnosis could be visualized as a fiasco for a purple state where he has been adamant in denying the efficacy of masks for children.

Yet, his diagnosis should not be fodder for the press. The first concern should be his health and well-being, similar for any man of his age and potential comorbidity.
 

Conclusion

We should be people first, human beings that remain interconnected by our need for care and survival, not conservatives, independents, or liberals, not “vaccinated or unvaccinated,” not seen as “breakthrough” infections, or the immunosuppressed possibly unable to mount a robust response to COVID.

Labels do not define the ability to effectively defeat coronavirus or variants, as highly vaccinated countries have demonstrated in recent months. We are in the midst of a global pandemic, and the battle is raging onward.

In fact, the longer this pandemic continues, the more likely it is we will need to live with this as an endemic disease, so we should stop blaming those who become ill and need support.

It could be any of us.

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

As politicians battle over masks and mandates, heated rhetoric has been used to describe the fourth heartbreaking surge in COVID as a “pandemic of the unvaccinated.”

While it may serve to further divide red and blue states, I disagree with the assertion that the current surge in cases is driven simply by the unvaccinated. Why? First, the premise would assume complete efficacy with our vaccinated population, which is statistically incorrect (at least 15 million of the U.S. population never completed a second round of injections), which means they were not considered “fully vaccinated.”

Alternately, we need to examine what has occurred in nations with significantly higher vaccination rates than ours (the United Kingdom and Israel) to realize that variants have overrun the dramatic success achieved in those countries as well. Israel, once considered to be the most vaccinated country in the world, is facing a brutal fourth wave of COVID that has sent the country spiraling into another heartbreaking lockdown.

The unvaccinated could hardly be blamed for what is happening in either of these highly vaccinated countries.
 

The concept of blame

So why use blame? It defeats the purpose of encouraging those who are hesitant or possibly misinformed or disenfranchised to move forward. It lacks compassion. It does not encompass the art and science of nursing (for example, the University of Southern Indiana), such as those that hospitals have used to frame optimal nursing care. I abhor the idea of labeling because it denies the prospect of future comprehension.

Labeling reminds me of one of the saddest cases in my career.
 

An unfortunate case

I was the nurse caring for a man from a motor vehicular accident where an entire family was brutally killed. My patient was alleged to be the cause, with a blood alcohol level of 0.40%+ post hydration, intubated and ventilated, with a flailed chest and multiple orthopedic injuries as well as blunt head trauma. He was secured to the bed with handcuffs, although that was unnecessary. Multiple times I was asked how I could possibly care for such an individual, by the police and even a few colleagues. But it was not my place to judge the man.

He was in pain, and he was dying. I comforted him for the 2 weeks it took his battered body to pass into the next realm. No one visited him except the police, eagerly waiting for the man to wake up to explain the tragic events that occurred. It was my job to ease what pain I could and protect him from labels. Did he deserve the labels? Who knew? I did not care. I cared about his writhing and his physical anguish.
 

The comparison

Blame did not help the situation then, nor does it help us move forward now. As nurses, we seek to work within a framework of understanding. As we tire of caring for thousands of COVID patients, we do not stop to ask if they “deserve” care or if they have taken precautions and lived reasonably prior to seeking assistance for disease. We would not be nurses if we did this.

Think about Gov. Greg Abbott, who has asked that Texans not be allowed to mandate masks for children returning to school. He has recently been diagnosed with COVID, despite assuring the public he is fully vaccinated. Politically, his diagnosis could be visualized as a fiasco for a purple state where he has been adamant in denying the efficacy of masks for children.

Yet, his diagnosis should not be fodder for the press. The first concern should be his health and well-being, similar for any man of his age and potential comorbidity.
 

Conclusion

We should be people first, human beings that remain interconnected by our need for care and survival, not conservatives, independents, or liberals, not “vaccinated or unvaccinated,” not seen as “breakthrough” infections, or the immunosuppressed possibly unable to mount a robust response to COVID.

Labels do not define the ability to effectively defeat coronavirus or variants, as highly vaccinated countries have demonstrated in recent months. We are in the midst of a global pandemic, and the battle is raging onward.

In fact, the longer this pandemic continues, the more likely it is we will need to live with this as an endemic disease, so we should stop blaming those who become ill and need support.

It could be any of us.

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

As politicians battle over masks and mandates, heated rhetoric has been used to describe the fourth heartbreaking surge in COVID as a “pandemic of the unvaccinated.”

While it may serve to further divide red and blue states, I disagree with the assertion that the current surge in cases is driven simply by the unvaccinated. Why? First, the premise would assume complete efficacy with our vaccinated population, which is statistically incorrect (at least 15 million of the U.S. population never completed a second round of injections), which means they were not considered “fully vaccinated.”

Alternately, we need to examine what has occurred in nations with significantly higher vaccination rates than ours (the United Kingdom and Israel) to realize that variants have overrun the dramatic success achieved in those countries as well. Israel, once considered to be the most vaccinated country in the world, is facing a brutal fourth wave of COVID that has sent the country spiraling into another heartbreaking lockdown.

The unvaccinated could hardly be blamed for what is happening in either of these highly vaccinated countries.
 

The concept of blame

So why use blame? It defeats the purpose of encouraging those who are hesitant or possibly misinformed or disenfranchised to move forward. It lacks compassion. It does not encompass the art and science of nursing (for example, the University of Southern Indiana), such as those that hospitals have used to frame optimal nursing care. I abhor the idea of labeling because it denies the prospect of future comprehension.

Labeling reminds me of one of the saddest cases in my career.
 

An unfortunate case

I was the nurse caring for a man from a motor vehicular accident where an entire family was brutally killed. My patient was alleged to be the cause, with a blood alcohol level of 0.40%+ post hydration, intubated and ventilated, with a flailed chest and multiple orthopedic injuries as well as blunt head trauma. He was secured to the bed with handcuffs, although that was unnecessary. Multiple times I was asked how I could possibly care for such an individual, by the police and even a few colleagues. But it was not my place to judge the man.

He was in pain, and he was dying. I comforted him for the 2 weeks it took his battered body to pass into the next realm. No one visited him except the police, eagerly waiting for the man to wake up to explain the tragic events that occurred. It was my job to ease what pain I could and protect him from labels. Did he deserve the labels? Who knew? I did not care. I cared about his writhing and his physical anguish.
 

The comparison

Blame did not help the situation then, nor does it help us move forward now. As nurses, we seek to work within a framework of understanding. As we tire of caring for thousands of COVID patients, we do not stop to ask if they “deserve” care or if they have taken precautions and lived reasonably prior to seeking assistance for disease. We would not be nurses if we did this.

Think about Gov. Greg Abbott, who has asked that Texans not be allowed to mandate masks for children returning to school. He has recently been diagnosed with COVID, despite assuring the public he is fully vaccinated. Politically, his diagnosis could be visualized as a fiasco for a purple state where he has been adamant in denying the efficacy of masks for children.

Yet, his diagnosis should not be fodder for the press. The first concern should be his health and well-being, similar for any man of his age and potential comorbidity.
 

Conclusion

We should be people first, human beings that remain interconnected by our need for care and survival, not conservatives, independents, or liberals, not “vaccinated or unvaccinated,” not seen as “breakthrough” infections, or the immunosuppressed possibly unable to mount a robust response to COVID.

Labels do not define the ability to effectively defeat coronavirus or variants, as highly vaccinated countries have demonstrated in recent months. We are in the midst of a global pandemic, and the battle is raging onward.

In fact, the longer this pandemic continues, the more likely it is we will need to live with this as an endemic disease, so we should stop blaming those who become ill and need support.

It could be any of us.

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

Doctor sentenced for unlawful prescriptions leading to five patient deaths

Darrel R. Rinehart, MD, was sentenced to 3 years in prison in June 2021 for unlawfully distributing controlled substances, primarily opioids, out of his clinic in Columbia, Tenn. Five of his patients who received prescriptions died of fatal overdoses within a year, according to the Indianapolis Star. Dr. Rinehart agreed to leave Tennessee to avoid punishment in that state before setting up his Indiana clinic.

Dr. Rinehart, 66, admitted to distributing Schedule II controlled substances to four different patients without legitimate medical purpose on 18 occasions between December 2014 and December 2015. He also admitted to knowingly distributing hydrocodone, also a Schedule II controlled substance, in January 2016 to a patient who did not have any health issues justifying the prescription. His medical license has been revoked. 
 

Judge approves $15 million settlement in patient’s sexual assault

An incapacitated woman at Hacienda Healthcare, a long-term care center in Phoenix, Ariz., gave birth in late 2018 after being raped by one of the nursing staff, according to Insurance Journal. In June 2021, a judge approved a $15 million settlement in a lawsuit by the woman’s parents against Phillip E. Gear Jr., MD, the woman’s caregiver for 26 years at the center. The woman had been in a vegetative state at Hacienda Healthcare since childhood, and the judge ruled that she had been the victim of numerous sexual assaults prior to the birth. 

The pregnancy was discovered when an employee was changing the garments of the then 29-year-old victim and saw that she was delivering a child. Employees told police they had no idea the woman was pregnant. Police have said that DNA from Nathan Sutherland, a licensed practical nurse who worked at Hacienda and has since given up his nursing license, matched a genetic sample taken from the woman’s son.

The woman’s parents, who care for her son, also sued the state of Arizona and another doctor, Thanh Nguyen, MD, who cared for their daughter. Arizona, which contracts with companies like Hacienda to provide services to people with developmental disabilities, settled last year for $7.5 million. Both Hacienda and Dr. Nguyen, who cared for the woman in the months before the birth, settled for undisclosed amounts.

The insurer for Dr. Gear, who died in late 2020, said it has no obligation to pay the amount, arguing that the doctor’s policy didn’t cover claims arising from a sexual act. The insurer also argued that Dr. Gear wasn’t the woman’s primary care physician when she gave birth and couldn’t be held responsible for sexual assault. 

The judge declared the $15 million settlement reasonable, concluding that Dr. Gear’s treatment of the woman had fallen below the standard of care, which included failing to examine her regularly and to diagnose her pregnancy. Requests by the woman’s mother to have exclusively female employees tend to her were not followed, as shown by medical records.
 

Doctor fired for contributing to suffering and death of prisoners

Washington’s prison system will pay $3.25 million and has fired the medical director of one of its facilities, stemming from the death of an inmate. 

John Kleutsch, a 57-year-old prisoner, died in late 2018 of septic shock, acute pancreatitis, and a perforated intestine caused by an improperly treated abdominal wound, according to the Seattle Times. A lawsuit filed by his wife, Julia Kleutsch, said that the staff offered him only Tylenol for his pain and that Julia Barnett, MD, the former prison medical director, refused to take him to a hospital.

Dr. Barnett, whose medical license has been indefinitely suspended, was fired in 2019 after an internal investigation found that her medical care and supervision contributed to the suffering and deaths of several men in the prison, including Mr. Kleutsch. 

Mr. Kleutsch, imprisoned for child molestation, was recovering from outpatient cancer surgery and sent back to the prison infirmary to recover. The lawsuit says that Mr. Kleutsch asked staff for help when his abdominal wound became excruciatingly painful, puffy, and oozing, and that at least one nurse asked Dr. Barnett to transfer him to a hospital, but she refused. Dr. Kleutsch’s causes of death were conditions never diagnosed at the prison.

Plaintiff attorney Marta O’Brien called the case “one of the worst medical malpractice cases I have encountered” and said it showed “a systemic failure” by the Department of Corrections.
 

SNF pays $11 million to resolve Medicare fraud allegations

SavaSeniorCare (Sava) and related entities agreed to pay $11.2 million in May 2021 to resolve allegations that they violated the False Claims Act by making their skilled nursing facilities (SNFs) bill Medicare for rehabilitation therapy services that were not reasonable, necessary, or skilled. The payment was also to resolve allegations that Sava billed the Medicare and Medicaid programs for substandard skilled nursing services, according to the U.S. Department of Justice. Sava is based in Georgia but owns and operates SNFs across the country.

The government filed a complaint against Sava in 2015, alleging that between October 2008 and September 2012, Sava intentionally submitted false claims for rehabilitation therapy services as a result of a systematic effort to increase its Medicare and Medicaid billings. The claim alleged that Sava exerted significant pressure on its SNFs to meet unrealistic financial goals, resulting in the provision of medically unreasonable, unnecessary, or unskilled services to Medicare patients. Sava also allegedly sought to increase its Medicare payments by delaying the discharge of patients from its facilities, even though the patients were medically ready to be discharged. 

Additionally, the government alleged that some of Sava’s nursing services failed to meet federal standards of care, including failing to have sufficient staffing at certain facilities, failing to follow appropriate pressure ulcer and falls protocols, and failing to appropriately administer medications. 

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

Doctor sentenced for unlawful prescriptions leading to five patient deaths

Darrel R. Rinehart, MD, was sentenced to 3 years in prison in June 2021 for unlawfully distributing controlled substances, primarily opioids, out of his clinic in Columbia, Tenn. Five of his patients who received prescriptions died of fatal overdoses within a year, according to the Indianapolis Star. Dr. Rinehart agreed to leave Tennessee to avoid punishment in that state before setting up his Indiana clinic.

Dr. Rinehart, 66, admitted to distributing Schedule II controlled substances to four different patients without legitimate medical purpose on 18 occasions between December 2014 and December 2015. He also admitted to knowingly distributing hydrocodone, also a Schedule II controlled substance, in January 2016 to a patient who did not have any health issues justifying the prescription. His medical license has been revoked. 
 

Judge approves $15 million settlement in patient’s sexual assault

An incapacitated woman at Hacienda Healthcare, a long-term care center in Phoenix, Ariz., gave birth in late 2018 after being raped by one of the nursing staff, according to Insurance Journal. In June 2021, a judge approved a $15 million settlement in a lawsuit by the woman’s parents against Phillip E. Gear Jr., MD, the woman’s caregiver for 26 years at the center. The woman had been in a vegetative state at Hacienda Healthcare since childhood, and the judge ruled that she had been the victim of numerous sexual assaults prior to the birth. 

The pregnancy was discovered when an employee was changing the garments of the then 29-year-old victim and saw that she was delivering a child. Employees told police they had no idea the woman was pregnant. Police have said that DNA from Nathan Sutherland, a licensed practical nurse who worked at Hacienda and has since given up his nursing license, matched a genetic sample taken from the woman’s son.

The woman’s parents, who care for her son, also sued the state of Arizona and another doctor, Thanh Nguyen, MD, who cared for their daughter. Arizona, which contracts with companies like Hacienda to provide services to people with developmental disabilities, settled last year for $7.5 million. Both Hacienda and Dr. Nguyen, who cared for the woman in the months before the birth, settled for undisclosed amounts.

The insurer for Dr. Gear, who died in late 2020, said it has no obligation to pay the amount, arguing that the doctor’s policy didn’t cover claims arising from a sexual act. The insurer also argued that Dr. Gear wasn’t the woman’s primary care physician when she gave birth and couldn’t be held responsible for sexual assault. 

The judge declared the $15 million settlement reasonable, concluding that Dr. Gear’s treatment of the woman had fallen below the standard of care, which included failing to examine her regularly and to diagnose her pregnancy. Requests by the woman’s mother to have exclusively female employees tend to her were not followed, as shown by medical records.
 

Doctor fired for contributing to suffering and death of prisoners

Washington’s prison system will pay $3.25 million and has fired the medical director of one of its facilities, stemming from the death of an inmate. 

John Kleutsch, a 57-year-old prisoner, died in late 2018 of septic shock, acute pancreatitis, and a perforated intestine caused by an improperly treated abdominal wound, according to the Seattle Times. A lawsuit filed by his wife, Julia Kleutsch, said that the staff offered him only Tylenol for his pain and that Julia Barnett, MD, the former prison medical director, refused to take him to a hospital.

Dr. Barnett, whose medical license has been indefinitely suspended, was fired in 2019 after an internal investigation found that her medical care and supervision contributed to the suffering and deaths of several men in the prison, including Mr. Kleutsch. 

Mr. Kleutsch, imprisoned for child molestation, was recovering from outpatient cancer surgery and sent back to the prison infirmary to recover. The lawsuit says that Mr. Kleutsch asked staff for help when his abdominal wound became excruciatingly painful, puffy, and oozing, and that at least one nurse asked Dr. Barnett to transfer him to a hospital, but she refused. Dr. Kleutsch’s causes of death were conditions never diagnosed at the prison.

Plaintiff attorney Marta O’Brien called the case “one of the worst medical malpractice cases I have encountered” and said it showed “a systemic failure” by the Department of Corrections.
 

SNF pays $11 million to resolve Medicare fraud allegations

SavaSeniorCare (Sava) and related entities agreed to pay $11.2 million in May 2021 to resolve allegations that they violated the False Claims Act by making their skilled nursing facilities (SNFs) bill Medicare for rehabilitation therapy services that were not reasonable, necessary, or skilled. The payment was also to resolve allegations that Sava billed the Medicare and Medicaid programs for substandard skilled nursing services, according to the U.S. Department of Justice. Sava is based in Georgia but owns and operates SNFs across the country.

The government filed a complaint against Sava in 2015, alleging that between October 2008 and September 2012, Sava intentionally submitted false claims for rehabilitation therapy services as a result of a systematic effort to increase its Medicare and Medicaid billings. The claim alleged that Sava exerted significant pressure on its SNFs to meet unrealistic financial goals, resulting in the provision of medically unreasonable, unnecessary, or unskilled services to Medicare patients. Sava also allegedly sought to increase its Medicare payments by delaying the discharge of patients from its facilities, even though the patients were medically ready to be discharged. 

Additionally, the government alleged that some of Sava’s nursing services failed to meet federal standards of care, including failing to have sufficient staffing at certain facilities, failing to follow appropriate pressure ulcer and falls protocols, and failing to appropriately administer medications. 

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

Doctor sentenced for unlawful prescriptions leading to five patient deaths

Darrel R. Rinehart, MD, was sentenced to 3 years in prison in June 2021 for unlawfully distributing controlled substances, primarily opioids, out of his clinic in Columbia, Tenn. Five of his patients who received prescriptions died of fatal overdoses within a year, according to the Indianapolis Star. Dr. Rinehart agreed to leave Tennessee to avoid punishment in that state before setting up his Indiana clinic.

Dr. Rinehart, 66, admitted to distributing Schedule II controlled substances to four different patients without legitimate medical purpose on 18 occasions between December 2014 and December 2015. He also admitted to knowingly distributing hydrocodone, also a Schedule II controlled substance, in January 2016 to a patient who did not have any health issues justifying the prescription. His medical license has been revoked. 
 

Judge approves $15 million settlement in patient’s sexual assault

An incapacitated woman at Hacienda Healthcare, a long-term care center in Phoenix, Ariz., gave birth in late 2018 after being raped by one of the nursing staff, according to Insurance Journal. In June 2021, a judge approved a $15 million settlement in a lawsuit by the woman’s parents against Phillip E. Gear Jr., MD, the woman’s caregiver for 26 years at the center. The woman had been in a vegetative state at Hacienda Healthcare since childhood, and the judge ruled that she had been the victim of numerous sexual assaults prior to the birth. 

The pregnancy was discovered when an employee was changing the garments of the then 29-year-old victim and saw that she was delivering a child. Employees told police they had no idea the woman was pregnant. Police have said that DNA from Nathan Sutherland, a licensed practical nurse who worked at Hacienda and has since given up his nursing license, matched a genetic sample taken from the woman’s son.

The woman’s parents, who care for her son, also sued the state of Arizona and another doctor, Thanh Nguyen, MD, who cared for their daughter. Arizona, which contracts with companies like Hacienda to provide services to people with developmental disabilities, settled last year for $7.5 million. Both Hacienda and Dr. Nguyen, who cared for the woman in the months before the birth, settled for undisclosed amounts.

The insurer for Dr. Gear, who died in late 2020, said it has no obligation to pay the amount, arguing that the doctor’s policy didn’t cover claims arising from a sexual act. The insurer also argued that Dr. Gear wasn’t the woman’s primary care physician when she gave birth and couldn’t be held responsible for sexual assault. 

The judge declared the $15 million settlement reasonable, concluding that Dr. Gear’s treatment of the woman had fallen below the standard of care, which included failing to examine her regularly and to diagnose her pregnancy. Requests by the woman’s mother to have exclusively female employees tend to her were not followed, as shown by medical records.
 

Doctor fired for contributing to suffering and death of prisoners

Washington’s prison system will pay $3.25 million and has fired the medical director of one of its facilities, stemming from the death of an inmate. 

John Kleutsch, a 57-year-old prisoner, died in late 2018 of septic shock, acute pancreatitis, and a perforated intestine caused by an improperly treated abdominal wound, according to the Seattle Times. A lawsuit filed by his wife, Julia Kleutsch, said that the staff offered him only Tylenol for his pain and that Julia Barnett, MD, the former prison medical director, refused to take him to a hospital.

Dr. Barnett, whose medical license has been indefinitely suspended, was fired in 2019 after an internal investigation found that her medical care and supervision contributed to the suffering and deaths of several men in the prison, including Mr. Kleutsch. 

Mr. Kleutsch, imprisoned for child molestation, was recovering from outpatient cancer surgery and sent back to the prison infirmary to recover. The lawsuit says that Mr. Kleutsch asked staff for help when his abdominal wound became excruciatingly painful, puffy, and oozing, and that at least one nurse asked Dr. Barnett to transfer him to a hospital, but she refused. Dr. Kleutsch’s causes of death were conditions never diagnosed at the prison.

Plaintiff attorney Marta O’Brien called the case “one of the worst medical malpractice cases I have encountered” and said it showed “a systemic failure” by the Department of Corrections.
 

SNF pays $11 million to resolve Medicare fraud allegations

SavaSeniorCare (Sava) and related entities agreed to pay $11.2 million in May 2021 to resolve allegations that they violated the False Claims Act by making their skilled nursing facilities (SNFs) bill Medicare for rehabilitation therapy services that were not reasonable, necessary, or skilled. The payment was also to resolve allegations that Sava billed the Medicare and Medicaid programs for substandard skilled nursing services, according to the U.S. Department of Justice. Sava is based in Georgia but owns and operates SNFs across the country.

The government filed a complaint against Sava in 2015, alleging that between October 2008 and September 2012, Sava intentionally submitted false claims for rehabilitation therapy services as a result of a systematic effort to increase its Medicare and Medicaid billings. The claim alleged that Sava exerted significant pressure on its SNFs to meet unrealistic financial goals, resulting in the provision of medically unreasonable, unnecessary, or unskilled services to Medicare patients. Sava also allegedly sought to increase its Medicare payments by delaying the discharge of patients from its facilities, even though the patients were medically ready to be discharged. 

Additionally, the government alleged that some of Sava’s nursing services failed to meet federal standards of care, including failing to have sufficient staffing at certain facilities, failing to follow appropriate pressure ulcer and falls protocols, and failing to appropriately administer medications. 

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

More than half of individuals who started HIV preexposure prophylaxis (PrEP) in a large Northern California care management organization discontinued PrEP in a 6.5-year study period, researchers report. African American and Latinx individuals, women, and participants with substance use disorder were more likely to experience gaps in the PrEP care continuum, from initial contact with a provider to adherence over time.

While PrEP is highly effective at preventing HIV when taken as prescribed, research suggests that access to and usage of the medication is lower in the communities that need it most. Even if someone in these groups gets access to PrEP, he or she is less likely to start taking the medication and more likely to discontinue treatment, Carlo Hojilla, PhD, RN, lead author of the study and research fellow with the Kaiser Permanente Northern California Division of Research in Oakland, Calif., said in an interview.

By identifying and tracking these at-risk individuals and subgroups, “we can better characterize at what points in the PrEP continuum people are falling off so we can then better develop interventions to address those gaps,” he said. The results of the analysis were published Aug. 26.

The investigators looked at the electronic health records (EHR) from 13,906 adults (18 years or older) linked to PrEP services at Kaiser Permanente Northern California (KPNC) from July 16, 2012 – when PrEP received regulatory approval in the United States – through March 31, 2019. The total follow-up in the study was 26,210 person-years.

Individuals were included if they had a PrEP referral or a PrEP-coded clinical encounter in the EHR and were KPNC health members for at least 6 months during the study period. The analysis also included age, sex, self-reported race and ethnicity, and socioeconomic status, approximated by participants’ zip codes. Individuals were followed from the initiation of PrEP services to the end of the study period or until HIV diagnosis, discontinuation of KPNC health plan membership, or death.

Nearly all of the study cohort (95.1%) were male, and the median age of participants was 33. Nearly half (48.7%) of the cohort was White, 21.6% were Latinx, 14.8% were Asian, and 7% were African American.

Of all individuals linked to PrEP care in the study, 88.1% received a PrEP prescription. Of those, 98.2% filled their prescription and were assumed to have initiated the medication. More than half (52.2%) of participants discontinued PrEP at least once during the study period, and 60.2% of those participants eventually restarted their regimen.

Participants were most likely to discontinue PrEP within the first 2 years of treatment, the authors found. “With earlier data that we’ve gotten from PrEP trials and studies, we’ve been under the impression that the first few months were the most critical to keeping people engaged in care and maintaining a high degree of adherence,” Dr. Hojilla said. “But I think our findings suggest that it may be more than just a few months.”

Compared with White participants, both African American and Latinx participants had lower rates of PrEP prescriptions, were less likely to initiate PrEP, and more frequently discontinued PrEP. Compared with men, women had lower rates of PrEP prescription and initiation, and were nearly twice as likely (hazard ratio, 1.99) to discontinue their regimen during the study period. Young adults (18-25 years of age), individuals with lower socioeconomic status, and people with substance use disorder also experienced disparities throughout the PrEP continuum of care.

Over the study period, 136 individuals were diagnosed with HIV, with one-third (33.1%) diagnosed during their initial PrEP assessment. Excluding this group, the overall HIV incidence was 0.35 new infections per 100 person-years, with the highest incidence among those who had discontinued and did not reinitiate PrEP (1.28 new infections per 100 person-years.) No individuals who consistently took PrEP were diagnosed with HIV during the study period.

Although the findings are not surprising, the study “corroborates what a lot of us have looked at on the clinic level, which is basically that a lot of people discontinue PrEP who probably need it,” said Amy Nunn, ScD, a professor of behavioral and social sciences at the Brown University School of Public Health in Providence, R.I. She was not involved with the study. As “one of the largest studies to date” to look at HIV PrEP adherence, the study also gives a better picture of what is going on at a population level, she said.

Because the authors retrospectively looked at EHR data, a limitation they acknowledged, it was not clear what was driving these patients to discontinue care or neglect adherence, Dr. Nunn noted.

Dr. Nunn’s previous research found that unexpected out-of-pocket costs can be one reason people discontinue PrEP, and there are many structural barriers such as medical mistrust and community stigma that can contribute to disrupted care, added Jessica Jaiswal, PhD, MPH, a public health scientist at the University of Alabama in Tuscaloosa. And since all the study’s participants had health insurance, the findings do not reflect additional struggles of accessing care while uninsured. “If this is what they found among folks who are insured, then it’s very likely that the barriers are more intense or formidable for folks without insurance,” said Dr. Jaiswal, who was not associated with the study.

Dr. Hojilla reported receiving grants from the National Institute on Drug Abuse and Kaiser Permanente Northern California during the conduct of the study and salary for clinical work from the San Francisco Department of Public Health outside the submitted work. Dr. Jaiswal and Dr. Nunn have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

More than half of individuals who started HIV preexposure prophylaxis (PrEP) in a large Northern California care management organization discontinued PrEP in a 6.5-year study period, researchers report. African American and Latinx individuals, women, and participants with substance use disorder were more likely to experience gaps in the PrEP care continuum, from initial contact with a provider to adherence over time.

While PrEP is highly effective at preventing HIV when taken as prescribed, research suggests that access to and usage of the medication is lower in the communities that need it most. Even if someone in these groups gets access to PrEP, he or she is less likely to start taking the medication and more likely to discontinue treatment, Carlo Hojilla, PhD, RN, lead author of the study and research fellow with the Kaiser Permanente Northern California Division of Research in Oakland, Calif., said in an interview.

By identifying and tracking these at-risk individuals and subgroups, “we can better characterize at what points in the PrEP continuum people are falling off so we can then better develop interventions to address those gaps,” he said. The results of the analysis were published Aug. 26.

The investigators looked at the electronic health records (EHR) from 13,906 adults (18 years or older) linked to PrEP services at Kaiser Permanente Northern California (KPNC) from July 16, 2012 – when PrEP received regulatory approval in the United States – through March 31, 2019. The total follow-up in the study was 26,210 person-years.

Individuals were included if they had a PrEP referral or a PrEP-coded clinical encounter in the EHR and were KPNC health members for at least 6 months during the study period. The analysis also included age, sex, self-reported race and ethnicity, and socioeconomic status, approximated by participants’ zip codes. Individuals were followed from the initiation of PrEP services to the end of the study period or until HIV diagnosis, discontinuation of KPNC health plan membership, or death.

Nearly all of the study cohort (95.1%) were male, and the median age of participants was 33. Nearly half (48.7%) of the cohort was White, 21.6% were Latinx, 14.8% were Asian, and 7% were African American.

Of all individuals linked to PrEP care in the study, 88.1% received a PrEP prescription. Of those, 98.2% filled their prescription and were assumed to have initiated the medication. More than half (52.2%) of participants discontinued PrEP at least once during the study period, and 60.2% of those participants eventually restarted their regimen.

Participants were most likely to discontinue PrEP within the first 2 years of treatment, the authors found. “With earlier data that we’ve gotten from PrEP trials and studies, we’ve been under the impression that the first few months were the most critical to keeping people engaged in care and maintaining a high degree of adherence,” Dr. Hojilla said. “But I think our findings suggest that it may be more than just a few months.”

Compared with White participants, both African American and Latinx participants had lower rates of PrEP prescriptions, were less likely to initiate PrEP, and more frequently discontinued PrEP. Compared with men, women had lower rates of PrEP prescription and initiation, and were nearly twice as likely (hazard ratio, 1.99) to discontinue their regimen during the study period. Young adults (18-25 years of age), individuals with lower socioeconomic status, and people with substance use disorder also experienced disparities throughout the PrEP continuum of care.

Over the study period, 136 individuals were diagnosed with HIV, with one-third (33.1%) diagnosed during their initial PrEP assessment. Excluding this group, the overall HIV incidence was 0.35 new infections per 100 person-years, with the highest incidence among those who had discontinued and did not reinitiate PrEP (1.28 new infections per 100 person-years.) No individuals who consistently took PrEP were diagnosed with HIV during the study period.

Although the findings are not surprising, the study “corroborates what a lot of us have looked at on the clinic level, which is basically that a lot of people discontinue PrEP who probably need it,” said Amy Nunn, ScD, a professor of behavioral and social sciences at the Brown University School of Public Health in Providence, R.I. She was not involved with the study. As “one of the largest studies to date” to look at HIV PrEP adherence, the study also gives a better picture of what is going on at a population level, she said.

Because the authors retrospectively looked at EHR data, a limitation they acknowledged, it was not clear what was driving these patients to discontinue care or neglect adherence, Dr. Nunn noted.

Dr. Nunn’s previous research found that unexpected out-of-pocket costs can be one reason people discontinue PrEP, and there are many structural barriers such as medical mistrust and community stigma that can contribute to disrupted care, added Jessica Jaiswal, PhD, MPH, a public health scientist at the University of Alabama in Tuscaloosa. And since all the study’s participants had health insurance, the findings do not reflect additional struggles of accessing care while uninsured. “If this is what they found among folks who are insured, then it’s very likely that the barriers are more intense or formidable for folks without insurance,” said Dr. Jaiswal, who was not associated with the study.

Dr. Hojilla reported receiving grants from the National Institute on Drug Abuse and Kaiser Permanente Northern California during the conduct of the study and salary for clinical work from the San Francisco Department of Public Health outside the submitted work. Dr. Jaiswal and Dr. Nunn have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

More than half of individuals who started HIV preexposure prophylaxis (PrEP) in a large Northern California care management organization discontinued PrEP in a 6.5-year study period, researchers report. African American and Latinx individuals, women, and participants with substance use disorder were more likely to experience gaps in the PrEP care continuum, from initial contact with a provider to adherence over time.

While PrEP is highly effective at preventing HIV when taken as prescribed, research suggests that access to and usage of the medication is lower in the communities that need it most. Even if someone in these groups gets access to PrEP, he or she is less likely to start taking the medication and more likely to discontinue treatment, Carlo Hojilla, PhD, RN, lead author of the study and research fellow with the Kaiser Permanente Northern California Division of Research in Oakland, Calif., said in an interview.

By identifying and tracking these at-risk individuals and subgroups, “we can better characterize at what points in the PrEP continuum people are falling off so we can then better develop interventions to address those gaps,” he said. The results of the analysis were published Aug. 26.

The investigators looked at the electronic health records (EHR) from 13,906 adults (18 years or older) linked to PrEP services at Kaiser Permanente Northern California (KPNC) from July 16, 2012 – when PrEP received regulatory approval in the United States – through March 31, 2019. The total follow-up in the study was 26,210 person-years.

Individuals were included if they had a PrEP referral or a PrEP-coded clinical encounter in the EHR and were KPNC health members for at least 6 months during the study period. The analysis also included age, sex, self-reported race and ethnicity, and socioeconomic status, approximated by participants’ zip codes. Individuals were followed from the initiation of PrEP services to the end of the study period or until HIV diagnosis, discontinuation of KPNC health plan membership, or death.

Nearly all of the study cohort (95.1%) were male, and the median age of participants was 33. Nearly half (48.7%) of the cohort was White, 21.6% were Latinx, 14.8% were Asian, and 7% were African American.

Of all individuals linked to PrEP care in the study, 88.1% received a PrEP prescription. Of those, 98.2% filled their prescription and were assumed to have initiated the medication. More than half (52.2%) of participants discontinued PrEP at least once during the study period, and 60.2% of those participants eventually restarted their regimen.

Participants were most likely to discontinue PrEP within the first 2 years of treatment, the authors found. “With earlier data that we’ve gotten from PrEP trials and studies, we’ve been under the impression that the first few months were the most critical to keeping people engaged in care and maintaining a high degree of adherence,” Dr. Hojilla said. “But I think our findings suggest that it may be more than just a few months.”

Compared with White participants, both African American and Latinx participants had lower rates of PrEP prescriptions, were less likely to initiate PrEP, and more frequently discontinued PrEP. Compared with men, women had lower rates of PrEP prescription and initiation, and were nearly twice as likely (hazard ratio, 1.99) to discontinue their regimen during the study period. Young adults (18-25 years of age), individuals with lower socioeconomic status, and people with substance use disorder also experienced disparities throughout the PrEP continuum of care.

Over the study period, 136 individuals were diagnosed with HIV, with one-third (33.1%) diagnosed during their initial PrEP assessment. Excluding this group, the overall HIV incidence was 0.35 new infections per 100 person-years, with the highest incidence among those who had discontinued and did not reinitiate PrEP (1.28 new infections per 100 person-years.) No individuals who consistently took PrEP were diagnosed with HIV during the study period.

Although the findings are not surprising, the study “corroborates what a lot of us have looked at on the clinic level, which is basically that a lot of people discontinue PrEP who probably need it,” said Amy Nunn, ScD, a professor of behavioral and social sciences at the Brown University School of Public Health in Providence, R.I. She was not involved with the study. As “one of the largest studies to date” to look at HIV PrEP adherence, the study also gives a better picture of what is going on at a population level, she said.

Because the authors retrospectively looked at EHR data, a limitation they acknowledged, it was not clear what was driving these patients to discontinue care or neglect adherence, Dr. Nunn noted.

Dr. Nunn’s previous research found that unexpected out-of-pocket costs can be one reason people discontinue PrEP, and there are many structural barriers such as medical mistrust and community stigma that can contribute to disrupted care, added Jessica Jaiswal, PhD, MPH, a public health scientist at the University of Alabama in Tuscaloosa. And since all the study’s participants had health insurance, the findings do not reflect additional struggles of accessing care while uninsured. “If this is what they found among folks who are insured, then it’s very likely that the barriers are more intense or formidable for folks without insurance,” said Dr. Jaiswal, who was not associated with the study.

Dr. Hojilla reported receiving grants from the National Institute on Drug Abuse and Kaiser Permanente Northern California during the conduct of the study and salary for clinical work from the San Francisco Department of Public Health outside the submitted work. Dr. Jaiswal and Dr. Nunn have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

A short time to positivity (TTP), the period from incubation to blood culture positivity, may help predict mortality rates for patients with Enterococcus faecalis and vancomycin-sensitive E faecium (VSEfm) bloodstream infections (BSIs), but it is not an independent predictor of risk for death from bloodstream infections caused by enterococci, new research indicates.

Katharina Michelson, of the Institute of Microbiology, Jena University Hospital, Germany, and colleagues conducted a single-site study at Jena University Hospital that included 244 patients with monomicrobial BSIs to assess the value of TTP as a prognostic or diagnostic tool.

Death in the hospital was the primary endpoint considered in the study, which was conducted from January 2014 through December 2016. The shortest TTP of blood cultures was compared among groups.

Findings were published online in April in Diagnostic Microbiology and Infectious Disease.

Among the 244 patients with monomicrobial BSIs, 22.1% of cases were caused by E faecalis, 55.3% were caused by VSEfm, and 22.5% were caused by vancomycin-resistant E faecium (VREfm).

Average TTP of Enterococcus BSI (E-BSI) was 11.6 hours. The researchers found no significant association between risk for death and time to positivity with bloodstream infections with E faecalis, VSEfm, or VREfm, or its cutoffs.

The mortality rate of patients with bloodstream infections with E faecalis was 16.7%; for VSEfm, 26.7%; and for vancomycin-resistant E faecium, 38.2%. Cutoffs showed a significantly higher death rate when TTP was longer but were not risk factors in survival analysis.

The authors explain that “in literature, TTP has not always been proven to be a reliable parameter.”

Sam Aitken, PharmD, MPH, who is a pharmacy specialist for infectious diseases at Michigan Medicine, Ann Arbor, said in an interview that the main message from the article is that the TTP of E faecalis is quite different from that of E faecium and that “that’s in line with what we know about generally with how these organisms come about in patients.”

“This paper reinforces the differences that are sometimes underappreciated between these organisms because they are both enterococci,” he said.

The authors say appropriate antimicrobial therapy can lead to misinterpretation of TTP, so only patients who received inappropriate antimicrobial therapy on the day of positive blood culture were included in the study.

However, Dr. Aitken said that methodology doesn’t account for “immortal time bias.”

“They didn’t account for the fact that patients who tend to get active antibiotics are the ones who live longer. So unless you account for it, you’re not necessarily going to find that patients who get active antibiotics have improved survival,” he said.

The authors point out that finding new methods for quickly identifying patients with E-BSI is a high priority.

The mortality rates of E-BSI vary between 20% for E faecalis and 50% for E faecium.

Resistance to vancomycin is common in E faecium infections and is associated with high mortality, longer hospital stays, and increased costs. Vancomycin-resistant E faecium is part of a group of bacteria that is associated with multidrug resistance and nosocomial infections.

Dr. Aitken said that rather than TTP, “the best risk predictors are going to be in the microbiome studies we’re seeing. If there is a future for figuring out who’s going to get significant E faecium infections, at least, it’s going to be in the microbiome.”

Limitations of the study include its small size; the possibility of missing data, owing to the fact that the study was retrospective; potential delays to incubation; and the possibility of contamination of blood cultures.

The authors and Dr. Aitken have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

A short time to positivity (TTP), the period from incubation to blood culture positivity, may help predict mortality rates for patients with Enterococcus faecalis and vancomycin-sensitive E faecium (VSEfm) bloodstream infections (BSIs), but it is not an independent predictor of risk for death from bloodstream infections caused by enterococci, new research indicates.

Katharina Michelson, of the Institute of Microbiology, Jena University Hospital, Germany, and colleagues conducted a single-site study at Jena University Hospital that included 244 patients with monomicrobial BSIs to assess the value of TTP as a prognostic or diagnostic tool.

Death in the hospital was the primary endpoint considered in the study, which was conducted from January 2014 through December 2016. The shortest TTP of blood cultures was compared among groups.

Findings were published online in April in Diagnostic Microbiology and Infectious Disease.

Among the 244 patients with monomicrobial BSIs, 22.1% of cases were caused by E faecalis, 55.3% were caused by VSEfm, and 22.5% were caused by vancomycin-resistant E faecium (VREfm).

Average TTP of Enterococcus BSI (E-BSI) was 11.6 hours. The researchers found no significant association between risk for death and time to positivity with bloodstream infections with E faecalis, VSEfm, or VREfm, or its cutoffs.

The mortality rate of patients with bloodstream infections with E faecalis was 16.7%; for VSEfm, 26.7%; and for vancomycin-resistant E faecium, 38.2%. Cutoffs showed a significantly higher death rate when TTP was longer but were not risk factors in survival analysis.

The authors explain that “in literature, TTP has not always been proven to be a reliable parameter.”

Sam Aitken, PharmD, MPH, who is a pharmacy specialist for infectious diseases at Michigan Medicine, Ann Arbor, said in an interview that the main message from the article is that the TTP of E faecalis is quite different from that of E faecium and that “that’s in line with what we know about generally with how these organisms come about in patients.”

“This paper reinforces the differences that are sometimes underappreciated between these organisms because they are both enterococci,” he said.

The authors say appropriate antimicrobial therapy can lead to misinterpretation of TTP, so only patients who received inappropriate antimicrobial therapy on the day of positive blood culture were included in the study.

However, Dr. Aitken said that methodology doesn’t account for “immortal time bias.”

“They didn’t account for the fact that patients who tend to get active antibiotics are the ones who live longer. So unless you account for it, you’re not necessarily going to find that patients who get active antibiotics have improved survival,” he said.

The authors point out that finding new methods for quickly identifying patients with E-BSI is a high priority.

The mortality rates of E-BSI vary between 20% for E faecalis and 50% for E faecium.

Resistance to vancomycin is common in E faecium infections and is associated with high mortality, longer hospital stays, and increased costs. Vancomycin-resistant E faecium is part of a group of bacteria that is associated with multidrug resistance and nosocomial infections.

Dr. Aitken said that rather than TTP, “the best risk predictors are going to be in the microbiome studies we’re seeing. If there is a future for figuring out who’s going to get significant E faecium infections, at least, it’s going to be in the microbiome.”

Limitations of the study include its small size; the possibility of missing data, owing to the fact that the study was retrospective; potential delays to incubation; and the possibility of contamination of blood cultures.

The authors and Dr. Aitken have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

A short time to positivity (TTP), the period from incubation to blood culture positivity, may help predict mortality rates for patients with Enterococcus faecalis and vancomycin-sensitive E faecium (VSEfm) bloodstream infections (BSIs), but it is not an independent predictor of risk for death from bloodstream infections caused by enterococci, new research indicates.

Katharina Michelson, of the Institute of Microbiology, Jena University Hospital, Germany, and colleagues conducted a single-site study at Jena University Hospital that included 244 patients with monomicrobial BSIs to assess the value of TTP as a prognostic or diagnostic tool.

Death in the hospital was the primary endpoint considered in the study, which was conducted from January 2014 through December 2016. The shortest TTP of blood cultures was compared among groups.

Findings were published online in April in Diagnostic Microbiology and Infectious Disease.

Among the 244 patients with monomicrobial BSIs, 22.1% of cases were caused by E faecalis, 55.3% were caused by VSEfm, and 22.5% were caused by vancomycin-resistant E faecium (VREfm).

Average TTP of Enterococcus BSI (E-BSI) was 11.6 hours. The researchers found no significant association between risk for death and time to positivity with bloodstream infections with E faecalis, VSEfm, or VREfm, or its cutoffs.

The mortality rate of patients with bloodstream infections with E faecalis was 16.7%; for VSEfm, 26.7%; and for vancomycin-resistant E faecium, 38.2%. Cutoffs showed a significantly higher death rate when TTP was longer but were not risk factors in survival analysis.

The authors explain that “in literature, TTP has not always been proven to be a reliable parameter.”

Sam Aitken, PharmD, MPH, who is a pharmacy specialist for infectious diseases at Michigan Medicine, Ann Arbor, said in an interview that the main message from the article is that the TTP of E faecalis is quite different from that of E faecium and that “that’s in line with what we know about generally with how these organisms come about in patients.”

“This paper reinforces the differences that are sometimes underappreciated between these organisms because they are both enterococci,” he said.

The authors say appropriate antimicrobial therapy can lead to misinterpretation of TTP, so only patients who received inappropriate antimicrobial therapy on the day of positive blood culture were included in the study.

However, Dr. Aitken said that methodology doesn’t account for “immortal time bias.”

“They didn’t account for the fact that patients who tend to get active antibiotics are the ones who live longer. So unless you account for it, you’re not necessarily going to find that patients who get active antibiotics have improved survival,” he said.

The authors point out that finding new methods for quickly identifying patients with E-BSI is a high priority.

The mortality rates of E-BSI vary between 20% for E faecalis and 50% for E faecium.

Resistance to vancomycin is common in E faecium infections and is associated with high mortality, longer hospital stays, and increased costs. Vancomycin-resistant E faecium is part of a group of bacteria that is associated with multidrug resistance and nosocomial infections.

Dr. Aitken said that rather than TTP, “the best risk predictors are going to be in the microbiome studies we’re seeing. If there is a future for figuring out who’s going to get significant E faecium infections, at least, it’s going to be in the microbiome.”

Limitations of the study include its small size; the possibility of missing data, owing to the fact that the study was retrospective; potential delays to incubation; and the possibility of contamination of blood cultures.

The authors and Dr. Aitken have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

About one-third of the U.S. population had been infected with SARS-CoV-2 by the end of 2020, according to a modeling study published Aug. 26 online in Nature.

Jeffrey Shaman, PhD, professor in the department of environmental health sciences and director of the climate and health program at the Columbia University Mailman School of Public Health, New York City, and colleagues developed a model to simulate how SARS-CoV-2 was transmitted within and between all 3,142 counties in the United States.

In their model, the researchers considered migration data between counties, the observed case numbers, and estimates of infections based on the number of people who test positive for SARS-CoV-2 antibodies.

The United States had the highest number of confirmed COVID-19 cases and deaths in the world during 2020. More than 19.6 million cases were reported by the end of the year.

But the authors point out that “69% of the population remained susceptible to viral infection.”

The researchers also studied the ascertainment rate, or the ratio of detected cases to the number of confirmed cases. Nationally, that value increased from 11.3% in March 2020 to 24.5% in December 2020.

That’s one of the biggest pandemic lessons from the data, Dr. Shaman said: “It is vitally important when there is an outbreak and you’re counting cases that there are many more people infected in your community who are contagious than reported cases. Each individual is infectious for multiple days, and there are many more unreported cases.”

That applies now with the Delta variant, he said.

“Vaccinated people who get infected with the Delta variant are part of the transmission chain,” he said.
 

Fatality rates dropped

Some of the data were very positive, Dr. Shaman told this news organization. The infection fatality rate fell from 0.77% in April to 0.31% in December. The authors suggest that that may be because of improvements in diagnosis and treatment, patient care, and reduced disease severity.

However, the fatality rate was still nearly four times as high as the estimated fatality rate for seasonal influenza (0.08%) and the 2009 influenza pandemic (0.0076%), the authors point out.

Joe K. Gerald, MD, PhD, associate professor and program director of public health policy and management at the University of Arizona, Tucson, told this news organization that this article helps confirm that COVID is much deadlier than the flu and that the intensity of the response has been appropriate.

“We should be willing to invest a lot more in mitigating COVID-19 than seasonal influenza because it has much greater consequences,” he said.

The numbers emphasize that testing must improve.

“We didn’t have enough tests available, and they weren’t easily accessible. For much of the year we were flying in the dark,” Dr. Gerald said.

The number of tests has increased this year, he acknowledged, but testing still lags. “We just can’t miss this many infections or diagnoses and hope to gain control,” he said.

The study also points out the huge variation by state and by county in infections and deaths, and that variation continues. Gerald noted that the varied numbers make it difficult for some regions to accept broader mandates, because the threat from COVID-19 appears very different where they are.

“We have to think about regions, how many people are susceptible, and what the testing capacity is,” he said. “States and even counties should have some leeway to make some important public health decisions, because local conditions are going to differ at different points in time.”
 

‘We have not turned the corner’

Jill Foster, MD, a pediatric infectious disease physician at the University of Minnesota Medical School, Minneapolis, said in an interview that the study adds evidence: “We have not turned the corner on COVID-19 and are nowhere near herd immunity – if it exists for SARS-CoV-2.”

She said the numbers presented are particularly concerning in regard to how many people were susceptible and were actively able to infect others: “Much higher than most people imagined and very much higher than their comparison, influenza.

“There are still more people susceptible than we had believed,” Dr. Foster added. “If the pattern continues where the Delta variant infects a significant portion of those vaccinated, the number of people susceptible rises even higher than was predicted.”

She said that it is reassuring that the analysis shows a decrease in case fatality and said the finding supports the common opinion that medicine is better able to fight the disease.

“However,” she said, “the optimism is tempered by acknowledging that in order to benefit from these advances, we must not overwhelm the facilities where patients are cared for so that optimal care can be delivered.”

Dr. Foster said these numbers represent a warning that COVID should be treated as a continuing threat.

“We need to acknowledge that there is COVID-19 infection simmering and periodically erupting throughout the country,” she said. “It is not monolithic and varies by geography and seasons in ways that are difficult to predict other than at any given time there is likely more infection present than we are identifying and more people susceptible to infection than we have calculated.”

The authors and Dr. Gerald have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Foster has received clinical trials funding from Moderna.

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

About one-third of the U.S. population had been infected with SARS-CoV-2 by the end of 2020, according to a modeling study published Aug. 26 online in Nature.

Jeffrey Shaman, PhD, professor in the department of environmental health sciences and director of the climate and health program at the Columbia University Mailman School of Public Health, New York City, and colleagues developed a model to simulate how SARS-CoV-2 was transmitted within and between all 3,142 counties in the United States.

In their model, the researchers considered migration data between counties, the observed case numbers, and estimates of infections based on the number of people who test positive for SARS-CoV-2 antibodies.

The United States had the highest number of confirmed COVID-19 cases and deaths in the world during 2020. More than 19.6 million cases were reported by the end of the year.

But the authors point out that “69% of the population remained susceptible to viral infection.”

The researchers also studied the ascertainment rate, or the ratio of detected cases to the number of confirmed cases. Nationally, that value increased from 11.3% in March 2020 to 24.5% in December 2020.

That’s one of the biggest pandemic lessons from the data, Dr. Shaman said: “It is vitally important when there is an outbreak and you’re counting cases that there are many more people infected in your community who are contagious than reported cases. Each individual is infectious for multiple days, and there are many more unreported cases.”

That applies now with the Delta variant, he said.

“Vaccinated people who get infected with the Delta variant are part of the transmission chain,” he said.
 

Fatality rates dropped

Some of the data were very positive, Dr. Shaman told this news organization. The infection fatality rate fell from 0.77% in April to 0.31% in December. The authors suggest that that may be because of improvements in diagnosis and treatment, patient care, and reduced disease severity.

However, the fatality rate was still nearly four times as high as the estimated fatality rate for seasonal influenza (0.08%) and the 2009 influenza pandemic (0.0076%), the authors point out.

Joe K. Gerald, MD, PhD, associate professor and program director of public health policy and management at the University of Arizona, Tucson, told this news organization that this article helps confirm that COVID is much deadlier than the flu and that the intensity of the response has been appropriate.

“We should be willing to invest a lot more in mitigating COVID-19 than seasonal influenza because it has much greater consequences,” he said.

The numbers emphasize that testing must improve.

“We didn’t have enough tests available, and they weren’t easily accessible. For much of the year we were flying in the dark,” Dr. Gerald said.

The number of tests has increased this year, he acknowledged, but testing still lags. “We just can’t miss this many infections or diagnoses and hope to gain control,” he said.

The study also points out the huge variation by state and by county in infections and deaths, and that variation continues. Gerald noted that the varied numbers make it difficult for some regions to accept broader mandates, because the threat from COVID-19 appears very different where they are.

“We have to think about regions, how many people are susceptible, and what the testing capacity is,” he said. “States and even counties should have some leeway to make some important public health decisions, because local conditions are going to differ at different points in time.”
 

‘We have not turned the corner’

Jill Foster, MD, a pediatric infectious disease physician at the University of Minnesota Medical School, Minneapolis, said in an interview that the study adds evidence: “We have not turned the corner on COVID-19 and are nowhere near herd immunity – if it exists for SARS-CoV-2.”

She said the numbers presented are particularly concerning in regard to how many people were susceptible and were actively able to infect others: “Much higher than most people imagined and very much higher than their comparison, influenza.

“There are still more people susceptible than we had believed,” Dr. Foster added. “If the pattern continues where the Delta variant infects a significant portion of those vaccinated, the number of people susceptible rises even higher than was predicted.”

She said that it is reassuring that the analysis shows a decrease in case fatality and said the finding supports the common opinion that medicine is better able to fight the disease.

“However,” she said, “the optimism is tempered by acknowledging that in order to benefit from these advances, we must not overwhelm the facilities where patients are cared for so that optimal care can be delivered.”

Dr. Foster said these numbers represent a warning that COVID should be treated as a continuing threat.

“We need to acknowledge that there is COVID-19 infection simmering and periodically erupting throughout the country,” she said. “It is not monolithic and varies by geography and seasons in ways that are difficult to predict other than at any given time there is likely more infection present than we are identifying and more people susceptible to infection than we have calculated.”

The authors and Dr. Gerald have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Foster has received clinical trials funding from Moderna.

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

About one-third of the U.S. population had been infected with SARS-CoV-2 by the end of 2020, according to a modeling study published Aug. 26 online in Nature.

Jeffrey Shaman, PhD, professor in the department of environmental health sciences and director of the climate and health program at the Columbia University Mailman School of Public Health, New York City, and colleagues developed a model to simulate how SARS-CoV-2 was transmitted within and between all 3,142 counties in the United States.

In their model, the researchers considered migration data between counties, the observed case numbers, and estimates of infections based on the number of people who test positive for SARS-CoV-2 antibodies.

The United States had the highest number of confirmed COVID-19 cases and deaths in the world during 2020. More than 19.6 million cases were reported by the end of the year.

But the authors point out that “69% of the population remained susceptible to viral infection.”

The researchers also studied the ascertainment rate, or the ratio of detected cases to the number of confirmed cases. Nationally, that value increased from 11.3% in March 2020 to 24.5% in December 2020.

That’s one of the biggest pandemic lessons from the data, Dr. Shaman said: “It is vitally important when there is an outbreak and you’re counting cases that there are many more people infected in your community who are contagious than reported cases. Each individual is infectious for multiple days, and there are many more unreported cases.”

That applies now with the Delta variant, he said.

“Vaccinated people who get infected with the Delta variant are part of the transmission chain,” he said.
 

Fatality rates dropped

Some of the data were very positive, Dr. Shaman told this news organization. The infection fatality rate fell from 0.77% in April to 0.31% in December. The authors suggest that that may be because of improvements in diagnosis and treatment, patient care, and reduced disease severity.

However, the fatality rate was still nearly four times as high as the estimated fatality rate for seasonal influenza (0.08%) and the 2009 influenza pandemic (0.0076%), the authors point out.

Joe K. Gerald, MD, PhD, associate professor and program director of public health policy and management at the University of Arizona, Tucson, told this news organization that this article helps confirm that COVID is much deadlier than the flu and that the intensity of the response has been appropriate.

“We should be willing to invest a lot more in mitigating COVID-19 than seasonal influenza because it has much greater consequences,” he said.

The numbers emphasize that testing must improve.

“We didn’t have enough tests available, and they weren’t easily accessible. For much of the year we were flying in the dark,” Dr. Gerald said.

The number of tests has increased this year, he acknowledged, but testing still lags. “We just can’t miss this many infections or diagnoses and hope to gain control,” he said.

The study also points out the huge variation by state and by county in infections and deaths, and that variation continues. Gerald noted that the varied numbers make it difficult for some regions to accept broader mandates, because the threat from COVID-19 appears very different where they are.

“We have to think about regions, how many people are susceptible, and what the testing capacity is,” he said. “States and even counties should have some leeway to make some important public health decisions, because local conditions are going to differ at different points in time.”
 

‘We have not turned the corner’

Jill Foster, MD, a pediatric infectious disease physician at the University of Minnesota Medical School, Minneapolis, said in an interview that the study adds evidence: “We have not turned the corner on COVID-19 and are nowhere near herd immunity – if it exists for SARS-CoV-2.”

She said the numbers presented are particularly concerning in regard to how many people were susceptible and were actively able to infect others: “Much higher than most people imagined and very much higher than their comparison, influenza.

“There are still more people susceptible than we had believed,” Dr. Foster added. “If the pattern continues where the Delta variant infects a significant portion of those vaccinated, the number of people susceptible rises even higher than was predicted.”

She said that it is reassuring that the analysis shows a decrease in case fatality and said the finding supports the common opinion that medicine is better able to fight the disease.

“However,” she said, “the optimism is tempered by acknowledging that in order to benefit from these advances, we must not overwhelm the facilities where patients are cared for so that optimal care can be delivered.”

Dr. Foster said these numbers represent a warning that COVID should be treated as a continuing threat.

“We need to acknowledge that there is COVID-19 infection simmering and periodically erupting throughout the country,” she said. “It is not monolithic and varies by geography and seasons in ways that are difficult to predict other than at any given time there is likely more infection present than we are identifying and more people susceptible to infection than we have calculated.”

The authors and Dr. Gerald have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Foster has received clinical trials funding from Moderna.

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