MDedge Infectious Disease

New COVID-19 cases in children continue to drop each week, but the total number of cases has now surpassed 3 million since the start of the pandemic, according to a report from the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Children’s Hospital Association.

There were just over 99,000 new cases reported during the week of Feb. 5-11, the lowest number since early November and the fourth consecutive week with a decline. It was still enough, though, to bring the total to 3.03 million children infected with SARS-CoV-19 in the United States, the AAP and the CHA said in their weekly report.

The nation also hit a couple of other ignominious milestones. The cumulative rate of COVID-19 infection now stands at 4,030 per 100,000, so 4% of all children have been infected. Also, children represented 16.9% of all new cases for the week, which equals the highest proportion seen throughout the pandemic, based on data from health departments in 49 states (excluding New York), the District of Columbia, New York City, Puerto Rico, and Guam.

There have been 241 COVID-19–related deaths in children so far, with 14 reported during the week of Feb. 5-11. Kansas just recorded its first pediatric death, which leaves 10 states that have had no fatalities. Texas, with 39 deaths, has had more than any other state, among the 43 that are reporting mortality by age, the AAP/CHA report showed.

rfranki@mdedge.com

New COVID-19 cases in children continue to drop each week, but the total number of cases has now surpassed 3 million since the start of the pandemic, according to a report from the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Children’s Hospital Association.

There were just over 99,000 new cases reported during the week of Feb. 5-11, the lowest number since early November and the fourth consecutive week with a decline. It was still enough, though, to bring the total to 3.03 million children infected with SARS-CoV-19 in the United States, the AAP and the CHA said in their weekly report.

The nation also hit a couple of other ignominious milestones. The cumulative rate of COVID-19 infection now stands at 4,030 per 100,000, so 4% of all children have been infected. Also, children represented 16.9% of all new cases for the week, which equals the highest proportion seen throughout the pandemic, based on data from health departments in 49 states (excluding New York), the District of Columbia, New York City, Puerto Rico, and Guam.

There have been 241 COVID-19–related deaths in children so far, with 14 reported during the week of Feb. 5-11. Kansas just recorded its first pediatric death, which leaves 10 states that have had no fatalities. Texas, with 39 deaths, has had more than any other state, among the 43 that are reporting mortality by age, the AAP/CHA report showed.

rfranki@mdedge.com

New COVID-19 cases in children continue to drop each week, but the total number of cases has now surpassed 3 million since the start of the pandemic, according to a report from the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Children’s Hospital Association.

There were just over 99,000 new cases reported during the week of Feb. 5-11, the lowest number since early November and the fourth consecutive week with a decline. It was still enough, though, to bring the total to 3.03 million children infected with SARS-CoV-19 in the United States, the AAP and the CHA said in their weekly report.

The nation also hit a couple of other ignominious milestones. The cumulative rate of COVID-19 infection now stands at 4,030 per 100,000, so 4% of all children have been infected. Also, children represented 16.9% of all new cases for the week, which equals the highest proportion seen throughout the pandemic, based on data from health departments in 49 states (excluding New York), the District of Columbia, New York City, Puerto Rico, and Guam.

There have been 241 COVID-19–related deaths in children so far, with 14 reported during the week of Feb. 5-11. Kansas just recorded its first pediatric death, which leaves 10 states that have had no fatalities. Texas, with 39 deaths, has had more than any other state, among the 43 that are reporting mortality by age, the AAP/CHA report showed.

rfranki@mdedge.com

Doctors are learning about new rules coming this April that encourage open and transparent communication among patients, families, and clinicians. The rules, putting into effect the bipartisan 21st Century Cures Act, mandate offering patients access to notes (“open notes”) written by clinicians in electronic medical records.

A recent article from this news organization noted that for many doctors this represents both a sudden and troubling change in practice. For others, the rules codify what they have been doing as a matter of routine for a decade. Spurred by the OpenNotes movement, at least 55 million Americans are already offered access to their clinical notes, including, since 2013, more than 9 million veterans with access to the Blue Button function in Veterans Affairs practices and hospitals.

The practice is spreading beyond the United States to other countries, including Canada, Sweden, Norway, Estonia, and the United Kingdom.

In this commentary, we review what patients, clinicians, and policymakers have been learning about open notes.
 

The patient experience

What do patients experience? In a survey of more than 22,000 patients who read notes in three diverse health systems, more than 90% reported having a good grasp of what their doctors and other clinicians had written, and very few (3%) reported being very confused by what they read. About two-thirds described reading their notes as very important for taking care of their health, remembering details of their visits and their care plans, and understanding why a medication was prescribed.

Indeed, in a clinically exciting finding, 14% of survey respondents reported that reading their notes made them more likely to take their medications as their doctors wished. With about half of Americans with chronic illness failing to take their medicines as prescribed, which sometimes leads to compromised outcomes and associated unnecessary costs (estimated at $300 billion annually), these reports of increased adherence should be taken very seriously.

Some doctors anticipate that open notes will erode patient communication. A growing body of research reveals just the opposite. In multiple surveys, patients describe open notes as “extending the visit,” strengthening collaboration and teamwork with their doctor. Quite possibly, the invitation to read notes may in itself increase trust. Such benefits appear especially pronounced among patients who are older, less educated, are persons of color or Hispanic, or who do not speak English at home.

And in several studies, more than a third of patients also report sharing their notes with others, with older and chronically ill patients in particular sharing access with family and friends who are their care partners.

On the other hand, a small minority of patients (5%) do report being more worried by what they read. It’s unknown whether this is because they are better informed about their care or because baseline anxiety levels increase. Doctors expect also that some patients, particularly those with cancer or serious mental illness, will be upset by their notes. So far, evidence does not support that specific concern.

Conversely, withholding, delaying, or blocking notes may be a source of anxiety or even stigmatization. When clinicians find themselves worried about sharing notes, we suggest that they discuss with their patients the benefits and risks. Recall also that transparency facilitates freedom of choice; patients make their own decision, and quite a few choose to leave notes unread.

Finding mistakes early and preventing harm are important goals for health care, and open notes can make care safer. Inevitably, medical records contain errors, omissions, and inaccuracies. In a large patient survey, 21% reported finding an error in their notes, and 42% perceived the error to be serious.

Moreover, 25% of doctors with more than a year’s experience with open notes reported patients finding errors that they (the doctors) considered “serious.” In 2015, the National Academy of Medicine cited open notes as a mechanism for improving diagnostic accuracy. In regard to possible legal action from patients, most attorneys, patients, and doctors agree that more transparent communication will build trust overall and, if anything, diminish litigation. We know of no instances so far of lawsuits deriving from open notes.
 

The physician experience

Doctors may worry that open notes will impede workflow, that they will be compelled to “dumb down” their documentation to avoid causing offense or anxiety, and that patients will demand changes to what is written. Here, extensive survey research should allay such fears and expectations. In a survey of more than 1,600 clinicians with at least 1 year of experience with open notes, reports of disruption to workflow were uncommon.

Most doctors (84%) reported that patients contacted them with questions about their notes “less than monthly or never.” Approximately two-thirds (62%) reported spending the same amount of time writing visit notes.

After implementing open notes, many doctors do report being more mindful about their documentation. For example, 41% reported changing how they used language such as “patient denies” or “noncompliant,” and 18% reported changing their use of medical jargon or abbreviations. Might these changes undermine the utility of medical notes? A majority of doctors surveyed (78%) said no, reporting that, after implementing open notes, the value of their documentation was the same or better.

Innovations spotlight difficult and often longstanding challenges. Open notes highlight the complex role of medical records in preserving privacy, especially in the spectrum of abuse, whether domestic or involving elders, children or sexual transgressions. For families with adolescents, issues concerning confidentiality can become a two-way street, and federal and state rules at times provide conflicting and idiosyncratic guidance. It is important to emphasize that the new rules permit information blocking if there is clear evidence that doing so “will substantially reduce the risk of harm” to patients or to other third parties.

Perhaps think of open notes as a new medicine designed to help the vast majority of those who use it but with side effects and even contraindications for a few. Doctors can step in to minimize risks to vulnerable individuals, and imaginative and creative solutions to complex issues may emerge. In a growing number of practices serving adolescents, clinicians can now create two notes, with some elements of care visible on a patient portal and others held privately or visible only to the adolescent.
 

The shared experience

Overall, when it comes to documenting sensitive social information, open notes may act as a useful catalyst prompting deeper discussion about personal details clinically important to record, as opposed to those perhaps best left unwritten.

The implementation of open notes nationwide calls for exciting explorations. How can transparent systems maximize benefits for targeted populations in diverse settings? For patients with mental illness, can notes become part of the therapy? Given that care partners often report more benefit from reading notes than do patients themselves, how can they be mobilized to maximize their contributions to those acutely ill on hospital floors, or to family members with Alzheimer’s or in long-term care facilities?

How can we harness emerging technologies to translate notes and medical records into other languages or support lower literacy levels, while preserving the clinical detail in the notes? Should patients contribute to their own notes, cogenerating them with their clinicians? Experiments for “OurNotes” interventions are underway, and early reports from both patients and doctors hold considerable promise.

Ownership of medical records is evolving. Once firmly held by clinicians, electronic technologies have rapidly led to what may best be viewed currently as joint ownership by clinicians and patients. As apps evolve further and issues with interoperability of records diminish, it is likely that patients will eventually take control. Then it will be up to patients what to carry in their records. Clinicians will advise, but patients will decide.

The new rules herald clear changes in the fabric of care, and after a decade of study we anticipate that the benefits well outweigh the harms. But in the short run, it’s wrong to predict an avalanche. Two decades ago, when patient portals first revealed laboratory test findings to patients, doctors expected cataclysmic change in their practices. It did not occur. The vast majority of patients who registered on portals benefited and few disturbed their doctors.

Similarly, after notes were first unblinded by the OpenNotes research teams, the question we were asked most commonly by the primary care doctors who volunteered was whether the computers were actually displaying their notes. Even though many patients read them carefully, the doctors heard little from them. Clinicians have now reported the same experience in several subsequent studies.

Patients are resourceful, turning quickly to friends or the Internet for answers to their questions. They know how busy doctors are and don’t want to bother them if at all possible. When notes do trigger questions, the time taken to respond is probably offset by silence from other patients finding answers to their own questions in notes they read.

We believe that clinicians should embrace the spirit of the rules and also view them as HIPAA catching up with a computerized universe. As the new practice takes hold, ambiguities will diminish as further experience and research evolve. Warner V. Slack, MD, the first doctor to ask patients to talk to computers, opined that patients are the “largest and least utilized resource in health care.” Open and transparent communication through electronic medical records may mobilize patients (and their families) far more effectively. Patients will almost certainly benefit. Remembering Dr. Slack’s prophecy, we believe that clinicians will too.

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

Doctors are learning about new rules coming this April that encourage open and transparent communication among patients, families, and clinicians. The rules, putting into effect the bipartisan 21st Century Cures Act, mandate offering patients access to notes (“open notes”) written by clinicians in electronic medical records.

A recent article from this news organization noted that for many doctors this represents both a sudden and troubling change in practice. For others, the rules codify what they have been doing as a matter of routine for a decade. Spurred by the OpenNotes movement, at least 55 million Americans are already offered access to their clinical notes, including, since 2013, more than 9 million veterans with access to the Blue Button function in Veterans Affairs practices and hospitals.

The practice is spreading beyond the United States to other countries, including Canada, Sweden, Norway, Estonia, and the United Kingdom.

In this commentary, we review what patients, clinicians, and policymakers have been learning about open notes.
 

The patient experience

What do patients experience? In a survey of more than 22,000 patients who read notes in three diverse health systems, more than 90% reported having a good grasp of what their doctors and other clinicians had written, and very few (3%) reported being very confused by what they read. About two-thirds described reading their notes as very important for taking care of their health, remembering details of their visits and their care plans, and understanding why a medication was prescribed.

Indeed, in a clinically exciting finding, 14% of survey respondents reported that reading their notes made them more likely to take their medications as their doctors wished. With about half of Americans with chronic illness failing to take their medicines as prescribed, which sometimes leads to compromised outcomes and associated unnecessary costs (estimated at $300 billion annually), these reports of increased adherence should be taken very seriously.

Some doctors anticipate that open notes will erode patient communication. A growing body of research reveals just the opposite. In multiple surveys, patients describe open notes as “extending the visit,” strengthening collaboration and teamwork with their doctor. Quite possibly, the invitation to read notes may in itself increase trust. Such benefits appear especially pronounced among patients who are older, less educated, are persons of color or Hispanic, or who do not speak English at home.

And in several studies, more than a third of patients also report sharing their notes with others, with older and chronically ill patients in particular sharing access with family and friends who are their care partners.

On the other hand, a small minority of patients (5%) do report being more worried by what they read. It’s unknown whether this is because they are better informed about their care or because baseline anxiety levels increase. Doctors expect also that some patients, particularly those with cancer or serious mental illness, will be upset by their notes. So far, evidence does not support that specific concern.

Conversely, withholding, delaying, or blocking notes may be a source of anxiety or even stigmatization. When clinicians find themselves worried about sharing notes, we suggest that they discuss with their patients the benefits and risks. Recall also that transparency facilitates freedom of choice; patients make their own decision, and quite a few choose to leave notes unread.

Finding mistakes early and preventing harm are important goals for health care, and open notes can make care safer. Inevitably, medical records contain errors, omissions, and inaccuracies. In a large patient survey, 21% reported finding an error in their notes, and 42% perceived the error to be serious.

Moreover, 25% of doctors with more than a year’s experience with open notes reported patients finding errors that they (the doctors) considered “serious.” In 2015, the National Academy of Medicine cited open notes as a mechanism for improving diagnostic accuracy. In regard to possible legal action from patients, most attorneys, patients, and doctors agree that more transparent communication will build trust overall and, if anything, diminish litigation. We know of no instances so far of lawsuits deriving from open notes.
 

The physician experience

Doctors may worry that open notes will impede workflow, that they will be compelled to “dumb down” their documentation to avoid causing offense or anxiety, and that patients will demand changes to what is written. Here, extensive survey research should allay such fears and expectations. In a survey of more than 1,600 clinicians with at least 1 year of experience with open notes, reports of disruption to workflow were uncommon.

Most doctors (84%) reported that patients contacted them with questions about their notes “less than monthly or never.” Approximately two-thirds (62%) reported spending the same amount of time writing visit notes.

After implementing open notes, many doctors do report being more mindful about their documentation. For example, 41% reported changing how they used language such as “patient denies” or “noncompliant,” and 18% reported changing their use of medical jargon or abbreviations. Might these changes undermine the utility of medical notes? A majority of doctors surveyed (78%) said no, reporting that, after implementing open notes, the value of their documentation was the same or better.

Innovations spotlight difficult and often longstanding challenges. Open notes highlight the complex role of medical records in preserving privacy, especially in the spectrum of abuse, whether domestic or involving elders, children or sexual transgressions. For families with adolescents, issues concerning confidentiality can become a two-way street, and federal and state rules at times provide conflicting and idiosyncratic guidance. It is important to emphasize that the new rules permit information blocking if there is clear evidence that doing so “will substantially reduce the risk of harm” to patients or to other third parties.

Perhaps think of open notes as a new medicine designed to help the vast majority of those who use it but with side effects and even contraindications for a few. Doctors can step in to minimize risks to vulnerable individuals, and imaginative and creative solutions to complex issues may emerge. In a growing number of practices serving adolescents, clinicians can now create two notes, with some elements of care visible on a patient portal and others held privately or visible only to the adolescent.
 

The shared experience

Overall, when it comes to documenting sensitive social information, open notes may act as a useful catalyst prompting deeper discussion about personal details clinically important to record, as opposed to those perhaps best left unwritten.

The implementation of open notes nationwide calls for exciting explorations. How can transparent systems maximize benefits for targeted populations in diverse settings? For patients with mental illness, can notes become part of the therapy? Given that care partners often report more benefit from reading notes than do patients themselves, how can they be mobilized to maximize their contributions to those acutely ill on hospital floors, or to family members with Alzheimer’s or in long-term care facilities?

How can we harness emerging technologies to translate notes and medical records into other languages or support lower literacy levels, while preserving the clinical detail in the notes? Should patients contribute to their own notes, cogenerating them with their clinicians? Experiments for “OurNotes” interventions are underway, and early reports from both patients and doctors hold considerable promise.

Ownership of medical records is evolving. Once firmly held by clinicians, electronic technologies have rapidly led to what may best be viewed currently as joint ownership by clinicians and patients. As apps evolve further and issues with interoperability of records diminish, it is likely that patients will eventually take control. Then it will be up to patients what to carry in their records. Clinicians will advise, but patients will decide.

The new rules herald clear changes in the fabric of care, and after a decade of study we anticipate that the benefits well outweigh the harms. But in the short run, it’s wrong to predict an avalanche. Two decades ago, when patient portals first revealed laboratory test findings to patients, doctors expected cataclysmic change in their practices. It did not occur. The vast majority of patients who registered on portals benefited and few disturbed their doctors.

Similarly, after notes were first unblinded by the OpenNotes research teams, the question we were asked most commonly by the primary care doctors who volunteered was whether the computers were actually displaying their notes. Even though many patients read them carefully, the doctors heard little from them. Clinicians have now reported the same experience in several subsequent studies.

Patients are resourceful, turning quickly to friends or the Internet for answers to their questions. They know how busy doctors are and don’t want to bother them if at all possible. When notes do trigger questions, the time taken to respond is probably offset by silence from other patients finding answers to their own questions in notes they read.

We believe that clinicians should embrace the spirit of the rules and also view them as HIPAA catching up with a computerized universe. As the new practice takes hold, ambiguities will diminish as further experience and research evolve. Warner V. Slack, MD, the first doctor to ask patients to talk to computers, opined that patients are the “largest and least utilized resource in health care.” Open and transparent communication through electronic medical records may mobilize patients (and their families) far more effectively. Patients will almost certainly benefit. Remembering Dr. Slack’s prophecy, we believe that clinicians will too.

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

Doctors are learning about new rules coming this April that encourage open and transparent communication among patients, families, and clinicians. The rules, putting into effect the bipartisan 21st Century Cures Act, mandate offering patients access to notes (“open notes”) written by clinicians in electronic medical records.

A recent article from this news organization noted that for many doctors this represents both a sudden and troubling change in practice. For others, the rules codify what they have been doing as a matter of routine for a decade. Spurred by the OpenNotes movement, at least 55 million Americans are already offered access to their clinical notes, including, since 2013, more than 9 million veterans with access to the Blue Button function in Veterans Affairs practices and hospitals.

The practice is spreading beyond the United States to other countries, including Canada, Sweden, Norway, Estonia, and the United Kingdom.

In this commentary, we review what patients, clinicians, and policymakers have been learning about open notes.
 

The patient experience

What do patients experience? In a survey of more than 22,000 patients who read notes in three diverse health systems, more than 90% reported having a good grasp of what their doctors and other clinicians had written, and very few (3%) reported being very confused by what they read. About two-thirds described reading their notes as very important for taking care of their health, remembering details of their visits and their care plans, and understanding why a medication was prescribed.

Indeed, in a clinically exciting finding, 14% of survey respondents reported that reading their notes made them more likely to take their medications as their doctors wished. With about half of Americans with chronic illness failing to take their medicines as prescribed, which sometimes leads to compromised outcomes and associated unnecessary costs (estimated at $300 billion annually), these reports of increased adherence should be taken very seriously.

Some doctors anticipate that open notes will erode patient communication. A growing body of research reveals just the opposite. In multiple surveys, patients describe open notes as “extending the visit,” strengthening collaboration and teamwork with their doctor. Quite possibly, the invitation to read notes may in itself increase trust. Such benefits appear especially pronounced among patients who are older, less educated, are persons of color or Hispanic, or who do not speak English at home.

And in several studies, more than a third of patients also report sharing their notes with others, with older and chronically ill patients in particular sharing access with family and friends who are their care partners.

On the other hand, a small minority of patients (5%) do report being more worried by what they read. It’s unknown whether this is because they are better informed about their care or because baseline anxiety levels increase. Doctors expect also that some patients, particularly those with cancer or serious mental illness, will be upset by their notes. So far, evidence does not support that specific concern.

Conversely, withholding, delaying, or blocking notes may be a source of anxiety or even stigmatization. When clinicians find themselves worried about sharing notes, we suggest that they discuss with their patients the benefits and risks. Recall also that transparency facilitates freedom of choice; patients make their own decision, and quite a few choose to leave notes unread.

Finding mistakes early and preventing harm are important goals for health care, and open notes can make care safer. Inevitably, medical records contain errors, omissions, and inaccuracies. In a large patient survey, 21% reported finding an error in their notes, and 42% perceived the error to be serious.

Moreover, 25% of doctors with more than a year’s experience with open notes reported patients finding errors that they (the doctors) considered “serious.” In 2015, the National Academy of Medicine cited open notes as a mechanism for improving diagnostic accuracy. In regard to possible legal action from patients, most attorneys, patients, and doctors agree that more transparent communication will build trust overall and, if anything, diminish litigation. We know of no instances so far of lawsuits deriving from open notes.
 

The physician experience

Doctors may worry that open notes will impede workflow, that they will be compelled to “dumb down” their documentation to avoid causing offense or anxiety, and that patients will demand changes to what is written. Here, extensive survey research should allay such fears and expectations. In a survey of more than 1,600 clinicians with at least 1 year of experience with open notes, reports of disruption to workflow were uncommon.

Most doctors (84%) reported that patients contacted them with questions about their notes “less than monthly or never.” Approximately two-thirds (62%) reported spending the same amount of time writing visit notes.

After implementing open notes, many doctors do report being more mindful about their documentation. For example, 41% reported changing how they used language such as “patient denies” or “noncompliant,” and 18% reported changing their use of medical jargon or abbreviations. Might these changes undermine the utility of medical notes? A majority of doctors surveyed (78%) said no, reporting that, after implementing open notes, the value of their documentation was the same or better.

Innovations spotlight difficult and often longstanding challenges. Open notes highlight the complex role of medical records in preserving privacy, especially in the spectrum of abuse, whether domestic or involving elders, children or sexual transgressions. For families with adolescents, issues concerning confidentiality can become a two-way street, and federal and state rules at times provide conflicting and idiosyncratic guidance. It is important to emphasize that the new rules permit information blocking if there is clear evidence that doing so “will substantially reduce the risk of harm” to patients or to other third parties.

Perhaps think of open notes as a new medicine designed to help the vast majority of those who use it but with side effects and even contraindications for a few. Doctors can step in to minimize risks to vulnerable individuals, and imaginative and creative solutions to complex issues may emerge. In a growing number of practices serving adolescents, clinicians can now create two notes, with some elements of care visible on a patient portal and others held privately or visible only to the adolescent.
 

The shared experience

Overall, when it comes to documenting sensitive social information, open notes may act as a useful catalyst prompting deeper discussion about personal details clinically important to record, as opposed to those perhaps best left unwritten.

The implementation of open notes nationwide calls for exciting explorations. How can transparent systems maximize benefits for targeted populations in diverse settings? For patients with mental illness, can notes become part of the therapy? Given that care partners often report more benefit from reading notes than do patients themselves, how can they be mobilized to maximize their contributions to those acutely ill on hospital floors, or to family members with Alzheimer’s or in long-term care facilities?

How can we harness emerging technologies to translate notes and medical records into other languages or support lower literacy levels, while preserving the clinical detail in the notes? Should patients contribute to their own notes, cogenerating them with their clinicians? Experiments for “OurNotes” interventions are underway, and early reports from both patients and doctors hold considerable promise.

Ownership of medical records is evolving. Once firmly held by clinicians, electronic technologies have rapidly led to what may best be viewed currently as joint ownership by clinicians and patients. As apps evolve further and issues with interoperability of records diminish, it is likely that patients will eventually take control. Then it will be up to patients what to carry in their records. Clinicians will advise, but patients will decide.

The new rules herald clear changes in the fabric of care, and after a decade of study we anticipate that the benefits well outweigh the harms. But in the short run, it’s wrong to predict an avalanche. Two decades ago, when patient portals first revealed laboratory test findings to patients, doctors expected cataclysmic change in their practices. It did not occur. The vast majority of patients who registered on portals benefited and few disturbed their doctors.

Similarly, after notes were first unblinded by the OpenNotes research teams, the question we were asked most commonly by the primary care doctors who volunteered was whether the computers were actually displaying their notes. Even though many patients read them carefully, the doctors heard little from them. Clinicians have now reported the same experience in several subsequent studies.

Patients are resourceful, turning quickly to friends or the Internet for answers to their questions. They know how busy doctors are and don’t want to bother them if at all possible. When notes do trigger questions, the time taken to respond is probably offset by silence from other patients finding answers to their own questions in notes they read.

We believe that clinicians should embrace the spirit of the rules and also view them as HIPAA catching up with a computerized universe. As the new practice takes hold, ambiguities will diminish as further experience and research evolve. Warner V. Slack, MD, the first doctor to ask patients to talk to computers, opined that patients are the “largest and least utilized resource in health care.” Open and transparent communication through electronic medical records may mobilize patients (and their families) far more effectively. Patients will almost certainly benefit. Remembering Dr. Slack’s prophecy, we believe that clinicians will too.

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

An increasingly common question I’m receiving is: What should private practices do if a patient or employee tests positive for COVID-19, or has been exposed to someone who has?

As always, it depends, but here is some general advice: The specifics will vary depending on state/local laws, or your particular situation.

First, you need to determine the level of exposure, and whether it requires action. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, actionable exposure occurs 2 days prior to the onset of illness, and lasts 10 days after onset.

If action is required, you’ll need to determine who needs to quarantine and who needs to be tested. Vaccinated employees who have been exposed to suspected or confirmed COVID-19 are not required to quarantine or be tested if they are fully vaccinated and have remained asymptomatic since the exposure. Those employees should, however, follow all the usual precautions (masks, social distancing, handwashing, etc.) with increased diligence. Remind them that no vaccine is 100% effective, and suggest they self-monitor for symptoms (fever, cough, shortness of breath, etc.)

All other exposed employees should be tested. A negative test means an individual was not infected at the time the sample was collected, but that does not mean an individual will not get sick later. Some providers are retesting on days 5 and 7 post exposure.

Some experts advise that you monitor exposed employees (vaccinated or not) yourself, with daily temperature readings and inquiries regarding symptoms, and perhaps a daily pulse oximetry check, for 14 days following exposure. Document these screenings in writing. Anyone testing positive or developing a fever or other symptoms should, of course, be sent home and seek medical treatment as necessary.

Employees who develop symptoms or test positive for COVID-19 should remain out of work until all CDC “return-to-work” criteria are met. At this writing, the basic criteria include:

• At least 10 days pass after symptoms first appeared
• At least 24 hours pass after last fever without the use of fever-reducing medications
• Cough, shortness of breath, and any other symptoms improve

Anyone who is significantly immunocompromised may need more time at home, and probably consultation with an infectious disease specialist.

Your facility should be thoroughly cleaned after the exposure. Close off all areas used by the sick individual, and clean and disinfect all areas such as offices, doorknobs, bathrooms, common areas, and shared electronic equipment. Of course, the cleaners should wear gowns, gloves, masks, and goggles. Some practices are hiring cleaning crews to professionally disinfect their offices. Once the area has been disinfected, it can be reopened for use. Workers without close contact with the person who is sick can return to work immediately after disinfection.

If the potential infected area is widespread and cannot be isolated to a room or rooms where doors can be shut, it may be prudent to temporarily close your office, send staff home, and divert patients to other locations if they cannot be rescheduled. Once your facility is cleaned and disinfected and staff have been cleared, your office may reopen.

Use enhanced precautions for any staff or patients who are immunocompromised, or otherwise fall into the high-risk category, to keep them out of the path of potential exposure areas and allow them to self-quarantine if they desire.

You should continue following existing leave policies (paid time off, vacation, sick, short-term disability, leave of absence, Family and Medical Leave Act, and Americans with Disabilities Act). If the employee was exposed at work, contact your workers’ compensation carrier regarding lost wages. Unless your state laws specify otherwise, you are under no obligation to pay beyond your policies, but you may do so if you choose.

Of course, you can take proactive steps to prevent unnecessary exposure and avoid closures in the first place; for example:

• Call patients prior to their visit, or question them upon arrival, regarding fever, shortness of breath, and other COVID-19 symptoms.
• Check employees’ temperatures every morning.
• Check patients’ temperatures as they enter the office.
• Require everyone, patients and employees alike, to wear face coverings.
• Ask patients to leave friends and family members at home.

Dr. Eastern practices dermatology and dermatologic surgery in Belleville, N.J. He is the author of numerous articles and textbook chapters, and is a long-time monthly columnist for Dermatology News. Write to him at dermnews@mdedge.com.

An increasingly common question I’m receiving is: What should private practices do if a patient or employee tests positive for COVID-19, or has been exposed to someone who has?

As always, it depends, but here is some general advice: The specifics will vary depending on state/local laws, or your particular situation.

First, you need to determine the level of exposure, and whether it requires action. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, actionable exposure occurs 2 days prior to the onset of illness, and lasts 10 days after onset.

If action is required, you’ll need to determine who needs to quarantine and who needs to be tested. Vaccinated employees who have been exposed to suspected or confirmed COVID-19 are not required to quarantine or be tested if they are fully vaccinated and have remained asymptomatic since the exposure. Those employees should, however, follow all the usual precautions (masks, social distancing, handwashing, etc.) with increased diligence. Remind them that no vaccine is 100% effective, and suggest they self-monitor for symptoms (fever, cough, shortness of breath, etc.)

All other exposed employees should be tested. A negative test means an individual was not infected at the time the sample was collected, but that does not mean an individual will not get sick later. Some providers are retesting on days 5 and 7 post exposure.

Some experts advise that you monitor exposed employees (vaccinated or not) yourself, with daily temperature readings and inquiries regarding symptoms, and perhaps a daily pulse oximetry check, for 14 days following exposure. Document these screenings in writing. Anyone testing positive or developing a fever or other symptoms should, of course, be sent home and seek medical treatment as necessary.

Employees who develop symptoms or test positive for COVID-19 should remain out of work until all CDC “return-to-work” criteria are met. At this writing, the basic criteria include:

• At least 10 days pass after symptoms first appeared
• At least 24 hours pass after last fever without the use of fever-reducing medications
• Cough, shortness of breath, and any other symptoms improve

Anyone who is significantly immunocompromised may need more time at home, and probably consultation with an infectious disease specialist.

Your facility should be thoroughly cleaned after the exposure. Close off all areas used by the sick individual, and clean and disinfect all areas such as offices, doorknobs, bathrooms, common areas, and shared electronic equipment. Of course, the cleaners should wear gowns, gloves, masks, and goggles. Some practices are hiring cleaning crews to professionally disinfect their offices. Once the area has been disinfected, it can be reopened for use. Workers without close contact with the person who is sick can return to work immediately after disinfection.

If the potential infected area is widespread and cannot be isolated to a room or rooms where doors can be shut, it may be prudent to temporarily close your office, send staff home, and divert patients to other locations if they cannot be rescheduled. Once your facility is cleaned and disinfected and staff have been cleared, your office may reopen.

Use enhanced precautions for any staff or patients who are immunocompromised, or otherwise fall into the high-risk category, to keep them out of the path of potential exposure areas and allow them to self-quarantine if they desire.

You should continue following existing leave policies (paid time off, vacation, sick, short-term disability, leave of absence, Family and Medical Leave Act, and Americans with Disabilities Act). If the employee was exposed at work, contact your workers’ compensation carrier regarding lost wages. Unless your state laws specify otherwise, you are under no obligation to pay beyond your policies, but you may do so if you choose.

Of course, you can take proactive steps to prevent unnecessary exposure and avoid closures in the first place; for example:

• Call patients prior to their visit, or question them upon arrival, regarding fever, shortness of breath, and other COVID-19 symptoms.
• Check employees’ temperatures every morning.
• Check patients’ temperatures as they enter the office.
• Require everyone, patients and employees alike, to wear face coverings.
• Ask patients to leave friends and family members at home.

Dr. Eastern practices dermatology and dermatologic surgery in Belleville, N.J. He is the author of numerous articles and textbook chapters, and is a long-time monthly columnist for Dermatology News. Write to him at dermnews@mdedge.com.

An increasingly common question I’m receiving is: What should private practices do if a patient or employee tests positive for COVID-19, or has been exposed to someone who has?

As always, it depends, but here is some general advice: The specifics will vary depending on state/local laws, or your particular situation.

First, you need to determine the level of exposure, and whether it requires action. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, actionable exposure occurs 2 days prior to the onset of illness, and lasts 10 days after onset.

If action is required, you’ll need to determine who needs to quarantine and who needs to be tested. Vaccinated employees who have been exposed to suspected or confirmed COVID-19 are not required to quarantine or be tested if they are fully vaccinated and have remained asymptomatic since the exposure. Those employees should, however, follow all the usual precautions (masks, social distancing, handwashing, etc.) with increased diligence. Remind them that no vaccine is 100% effective, and suggest they self-monitor for symptoms (fever, cough, shortness of breath, etc.)

All other exposed employees should be tested. A negative test means an individual was not infected at the time the sample was collected, but that does not mean an individual will not get sick later. Some providers are retesting on days 5 and 7 post exposure.

Some experts advise that you monitor exposed employees (vaccinated or not) yourself, with daily temperature readings and inquiries regarding symptoms, and perhaps a daily pulse oximetry check, for 14 days following exposure. Document these screenings in writing. Anyone testing positive or developing a fever or other symptoms should, of course, be sent home and seek medical treatment as necessary.

Employees who develop symptoms or test positive for COVID-19 should remain out of work until all CDC “return-to-work” criteria are met. At this writing, the basic criteria include:

• At least 10 days pass after symptoms first appeared
• At least 24 hours pass after last fever without the use of fever-reducing medications
• Cough, shortness of breath, and any other symptoms improve

Anyone who is significantly immunocompromised may need more time at home, and probably consultation with an infectious disease specialist.

Your facility should be thoroughly cleaned after the exposure. Close off all areas used by the sick individual, and clean and disinfect all areas such as offices, doorknobs, bathrooms, common areas, and shared electronic equipment. Of course, the cleaners should wear gowns, gloves, masks, and goggles. Some practices are hiring cleaning crews to professionally disinfect their offices. Once the area has been disinfected, it can be reopened for use. Workers without close contact with the person who is sick can return to work immediately after disinfection.

If the potential infected area is widespread and cannot be isolated to a room or rooms where doors can be shut, it may be prudent to temporarily close your office, send staff home, and divert patients to other locations if they cannot be rescheduled. Once your facility is cleaned and disinfected and staff have been cleared, your office may reopen.

Use enhanced precautions for any staff or patients who are immunocompromised, or otherwise fall into the high-risk category, to keep them out of the path of potential exposure areas and allow them to self-quarantine if they desire.

You should continue following existing leave policies (paid time off, vacation, sick, short-term disability, leave of absence, Family and Medical Leave Act, and Americans with Disabilities Act). If the employee was exposed at work, contact your workers’ compensation carrier regarding lost wages. Unless your state laws specify otherwise, you are under no obligation to pay beyond your policies, but you may do so if you choose.

Of course, you can take proactive steps to prevent unnecessary exposure and avoid closures in the first place; for example:

• Call patients prior to their visit, or question them upon arrival, regarding fever, shortness of breath, and other COVID-19 symptoms.
• Check employees’ temperatures every morning.
• Check patients’ temperatures as they enter the office.
• Require everyone, patients and employees alike, to wear face coverings.
• Ask patients to leave friends and family members at home.

Dr. Eastern practices dermatology and dermatologic surgery in Belleville, N.J. He is the author of numerous articles and textbook chapters, and is a long-time monthly columnist for Dermatology News. Write to him at dermnews@mdedge.com.

Nearly 60% of those working in a large health care system expressed their intent to roll up their sleeves to receive the COVID-19 vaccine, but about one-third were unsure of doing so.

Moreover, 54% of direct care providers indicated that they would take the vaccine if offered, compared with 60% of noncare providers.

The findings come from what is believed to be the largest survey of health care provider attitudes toward COVID-19 vaccination, published online Jan. 25 in Clinical Infectious Diseases.

“We have shown that self-reported willingness to receive vaccination against COVID-19 differs by age, gender, race and hospital role, with physicians and research scientists showing the highest acceptance,” Jana Shaw, MD, MPH, State University of New York, Syracuse, N.Y, the study’s corresponding author, told this news organization. “Building trust in authorities and confidence in vaccines is a complex and time-consuming process that requires commitment and resources. We have to make those investments as hesitancy can severely undermine vaccination coverage. Because health care providers are members of our communities, it is possible that their views are shared by the public at large. Our findings can assist public health professionals as a starting point of discussion and engagement with communities to ensure that we vaccinate at least 80% of the public to end the pandemic.”

For the study, Dr. Shaw and her colleagues emailed an anonymous survey to 9,565 employees of State University of New York Upstate Medical University, Syracuse, an academic medical center that cares for an estimated 1.8 million people. The survey, which contained questions intended to evaluate attitudes, belief, and willingness to get vaccinated, took place between Nov. 23 and Dec. 5, about a week before the U.S. Food and Drug Administration granted the first emergency use authorization for the Pfizer-BioNTech BNT162b2 mRNA vaccine.

Survey recipients included physicians, nurse practitioners, physician assistants, nurses, pharmacists, medical and nursing students, allied health professionals, and nonclinical ancillary staff.

Of the 9,565 surveys sent, 5,287 responses were collected and used in the final analysis, for a response rate of 55%. The mean age of respondents was 43, 73% were female, 85% were White, 6% were Asian, 5% were Black/African American, and the rest were Native American, Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander, or from other races. More than half of respondents (59%) reported that they provided direct patient care, and 32% said they provided care for patients with COVID-19.

Of all survey respondents, 58% expressed their intent to receive a COVID-19 vaccine, but this varied by their role in the health care system. For example, in response to the statement, “If a vaccine were offered free of charge, I would take it,” 80% of scientists and physicians agreed that they would, while colleagues in other roles were unsure whether they would take the vaccine, including 34% of registered nurses, 32% of allied health professionals, and 32% of master’s-level clinicians. These differences across roles were significant (P less than .001).

The researchers also found that direct patient care or care for COVID-19 patients was associated with lower vaccination intent. For example, 54% of direct care providers and 62% of non-care providers indicated they would take the vaccine if offered, compared with 52% of those who had provided care for COVID-19 patients vs. 61% of those who had not (P less than .001).

“This was a really surprising finding,” said Dr. Shaw, who is a pediatric infectious diseases physician at SUNY Upstate. “In general, one would expect that perceived severity of disease would lead to a greater desire to get vaccinated. Because our question did not address severity of disease, it is possible that we oversampled respondents who took care of patients with mild disease (i.e., in an outpatient setting). This could have led to an underestimation of disease severity and resulted in lower vaccination intent.”
 

A focus on rebuilding trust

Survey respondents who agreed or strongly agreed that they would accept a vaccine were older (a mean age of 44 years), compared with those who were not sure or who disagreed (a mean age of 42 vs. 38 years, respectively; P less than .001). In addition, fewer females agreed or strongly agreed that they would accept a vaccine (54% vs. 73% of males), whereas those who self-identified as Black/African American were least likely to want to get vaccinated, compared with those from other ethnic groups (31%, compared with 74% of Asians, 58% of Whites, and 39% of American Indians or Alaska Natives).

“We are deeply aware of the poor decisions scientists made in the past, which led to a prevailing skepticism and ‘feeling like guinea pigs’ among people of color, especially Black adults,” Dr. Shaw said. “Black adults are less likely, compared [with] White adults, to have confidence that scientists act in the public interest. Rebuilding trust will take time and has to start with addressing health care disparities. In addition, we need to acknowledge contributions of Black researchers to science. For example, until recently very few knew that the Moderna vaccine was developed [with the help of] Dr. Kizzmekia Corbett, who is Black.”

The top five main areas of unease that all respondents expressed about a COVID-19 vaccine were concern about adverse events/side effects (47%), efficacy (15%), rushed release (11%), safety (11%), and the research and authorization process (3%).

“I think it is important that fellow clinicians recognize that, in order to boost vaccine confidence we will need careful, individually tailored communication strategies,” Dr. Shaw said. “A consideration should be given to those [strategies] that utilize interpersonal channels that deliver leadership by example and leverage influencers in the institution to encourage wider adoption of vaccination.”

Aaron M. Milstone, MD, MHS, asked to comment on the research, recommended that health care workers advocate for the vaccine and encourage their patients, friends, and loved ones to get vaccinated. “Soon, COVID-19 will have taken more than half a million lives in the U.S.,” said Dr. Milstone, a pediatric epidemiologist at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore. “Although vaccines can have side effects like fever and muscle aches, and very, very rare more serious side effects, the risks of dying from COVID are much greater than the risk of a serious vaccine reaction. The study’s authors shed light on the ongoing need for leaders of all communities to support the COVID vaccines, not just the scientific community, but religious leaders, political leaders, and community leaders.”
 

Addressing vaccine hesitancy

Informed by their own survey, Dr. Shaw and her colleagues have developed a plan to address vaccine hesitancy to ensure high vaccine uptake at SUNY Upstate. Those strategies include, but aren’t limited to, institution-wide forums for all employees on COVID-19 vaccine safety, risks, and benefits followed by Q&A sessions, grand rounds for providers summarizing clinical trial data on mRNA vaccines, development of an Ask COVID email line for staff to ask vaccine-related questions, and a detailed vaccine-specific FAQ document.

In addition, SUNY Upstate experts have engaged in numerous media interviews to provide education and updates on the benefits of vaccination to public and staff, stationary vaccine locations, and mobile COVID-19 vaccine carts. “To date, the COVID-19 vaccination process has been well received, and we anticipate strong vaccine uptake,” she said.

Dr. Shaw acknowledged certain limitations of the survey, including its cross-sectional design and the fact that it was conducted in a single health care system in the northeastern United States. “Thus, generalizability to other regions of the U.S. and other countries may be limited,” Dr. Shaw said. “The study was also conducted before EUA [emergency use authorization] was granted to either the Moderna or Pfizer-BioNTech vaccines. It is therefore likely that vaccine acceptance will change over time as more people get vaccinated.”

The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Milstone disclosed that he has received a research grant from Merck, but it is not related to vaccines.

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

Nearly 60% of those working in a large health care system expressed their intent to roll up their sleeves to receive the COVID-19 vaccine, but about one-third were unsure of doing so.

Moreover, 54% of direct care providers indicated that they would take the vaccine if offered, compared with 60% of noncare providers.

The findings come from what is believed to be the largest survey of health care provider attitudes toward COVID-19 vaccination, published online Jan. 25 in Clinical Infectious Diseases.

“We have shown that self-reported willingness to receive vaccination against COVID-19 differs by age, gender, race and hospital role, with physicians and research scientists showing the highest acceptance,” Jana Shaw, MD, MPH, State University of New York, Syracuse, N.Y, the study’s corresponding author, told this news organization. “Building trust in authorities and confidence in vaccines is a complex and time-consuming process that requires commitment and resources. We have to make those investments as hesitancy can severely undermine vaccination coverage. Because health care providers are members of our communities, it is possible that their views are shared by the public at large. Our findings can assist public health professionals as a starting point of discussion and engagement with communities to ensure that we vaccinate at least 80% of the public to end the pandemic.”

For the study, Dr. Shaw and her colleagues emailed an anonymous survey to 9,565 employees of State University of New York Upstate Medical University, Syracuse, an academic medical center that cares for an estimated 1.8 million people. The survey, which contained questions intended to evaluate attitudes, belief, and willingness to get vaccinated, took place between Nov. 23 and Dec. 5, about a week before the U.S. Food and Drug Administration granted the first emergency use authorization for the Pfizer-BioNTech BNT162b2 mRNA vaccine.

Survey recipients included physicians, nurse practitioners, physician assistants, nurses, pharmacists, medical and nursing students, allied health professionals, and nonclinical ancillary staff.

Of the 9,565 surveys sent, 5,287 responses were collected and used in the final analysis, for a response rate of 55%. The mean age of respondents was 43, 73% were female, 85% were White, 6% were Asian, 5% were Black/African American, and the rest were Native American, Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander, or from other races. More than half of respondents (59%) reported that they provided direct patient care, and 32% said they provided care for patients with COVID-19.

Of all survey respondents, 58% expressed their intent to receive a COVID-19 vaccine, but this varied by their role in the health care system. For example, in response to the statement, “If a vaccine were offered free of charge, I would take it,” 80% of scientists and physicians agreed that they would, while colleagues in other roles were unsure whether they would take the vaccine, including 34% of registered nurses, 32% of allied health professionals, and 32% of master’s-level clinicians. These differences across roles were significant (P less than .001).

The researchers also found that direct patient care or care for COVID-19 patients was associated with lower vaccination intent. For example, 54% of direct care providers and 62% of non-care providers indicated they would take the vaccine if offered, compared with 52% of those who had provided care for COVID-19 patients vs. 61% of those who had not (P less than .001).

“This was a really surprising finding,” said Dr. Shaw, who is a pediatric infectious diseases physician at SUNY Upstate. “In general, one would expect that perceived severity of disease would lead to a greater desire to get vaccinated. Because our question did not address severity of disease, it is possible that we oversampled respondents who took care of patients with mild disease (i.e., in an outpatient setting). This could have led to an underestimation of disease severity and resulted in lower vaccination intent.”
 

A focus on rebuilding trust

Survey respondents who agreed or strongly agreed that they would accept a vaccine were older (a mean age of 44 years), compared with those who were not sure or who disagreed (a mean age of 42 vs. 38 years, respectively; P less than .001). In addition, fewer females agreed or strongly agreed that they would accept a vaccine (54% vs. 73% of males), whereas those who self-identified as Black/African American were least likely to want to get vaccinated, compared with those from other ethnic groups (31%, compared with 74% of Asians, 58% of Whites, and 39% of American Indians or Alaska Natives).

“We are deeply aware of the poor decisions scientists made in the past, which led to a prevailing skepticism and ‘feeling like guinea pigs’ among people of color, especially Black adults,” Dr. Shaw said. “Black adults are less likely, compared [with] White adults, to have confidence that scientists act in the public interest. Rebuilding trust will take time and has to start with addressing health care disparities. In addition, we need to acknowledge contributions of Black researchers to science. For example, until recently very few knew that the Moderna vaccine was developed [with the help of] Dr. Kizzmekia Corbett, who is Black.”

The top five main areas of unease that all respondents expressed about a COVID-19 vaccine were concern about adverse events/side effects (47%), efficacy (15%), rushed release (11%), safety (11%), and the research and authorization process (3%).

“I think it is important that fellow clinicians recognize that, in order to boost vaccine confidence we will need careful, individually tailored communication strategies,” Dr. Shaw said. “A consideration should be given to those [strategies] that utilize interpersonal channels that deliver leadership by example and leverage influencers in the institution to encourage wider adoption of vaccination.”

Aaron M. Milstone, MD, MHS, asked to comment on the research, recommended that health care workers advocate for the vaccine and encourage their patients, friends, and loved ones to get vaccinated. “Soon, COVID-19 will have taken more than half a million lives in the U.S.,” said Dr. Milstone, a pediatric epidemiologist at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore. “Although vaccines can have side effects like fever and muscle aches, and very, very rare more serious side effects, the risks of dying from COVID are much greater than the risk of a serious vaccine reaction. The study’s authors shed light on the ongoing need for leaders of all communities to support the COVID vaccines, not just the scientific community, but religious leaders, political leaders, and community leaders.”
 

Addressing vaccine hesitancy

Informed by their own survey, Dr. Shaw and her colleagues have developed a plan to address vaccine hesitancy to ensure high vaccine uptake at SUNY Upstate. Those strategies include, but aren’t limited to, institution-wide forums for all employees on COVID-19 vaccine safety, risks, and benefits followed by Q&A sessions, grand rounds for providers summarizing clinical trial data on mRNA vaccines, development of an Ask COVID email line for staff to ask vaccine-related questions, and a detailed vaccine-specific FAQ document.

In addition, SUNY Upstate experts have engaged in numerous media interviews to provide education and updates on the benefits of vaccination to public and staff, stationary vaccine locations, and mobile COVID-19 vaccine carts. “To date, the COVID-19 vaccination process has been well received, and we anticipate strong vaccine uptake,” she said.

Dr. Shaw acknowledged certain limitations of the survey, including its cross-sectional design and the fact that it was conducted in a single health care system in the northeastern United States. “Thus, generalizability to other regions of the U.S. and other countries may be limited,” Dr. Shaw said. “The study was also conducted before EUA [emergency use authorization] was granted to either the Moderna or Pfizer-BioNTech vaccines. It is therefore likely that vaccine acceptance will change over time as more people get vaccinated.”

The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Milstone disclosed that he has received a research grant from Merck, but it is not related to vaccines.

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

Nearly 60% of those working in a large health care system expressed their intent to roll up their sleeves to receive the COVID-19 vaccine, but about one-third were unsure of doing so.

Moreover, 54% of direct care providers indicated that they would take the vaccine if offered, compared with 60% of noncare providers.

The findings come from what is believed to be the largest survey of health care provider attitudes toward COVID-19 vaccination, published online Jan. 25 in Clinical Infectious Diseases.

“We have shown that self-reported willingness to receive vaccination against COVID-19 differs by age, gender, race and hospital role, with physicians and research scientists showing the highest acceptance,” Jana Shaw, MD, MPH, State University of New York, Syracuse, N.Y, the study’s corresponding author, told this news organization. “Building trust in authorities and confidence in vaccines is a complex and time-consuming process that requires commitment and resources. We have to make those investments as hesitancy can severely undermine vaccination coverage. Because health care providers are members of our communities, it is possible that their views are shared by the public at large. Our findings can assist public health professionals as a starting point of discussion and engagement with communities to ensure that we vaccinate at least 80% of the public to end the pandemic.”

For the study, Dr. Shaw and her colleagues emailed an anonymous survey to 9,565 employees of State University of New York Upstate Medical University, Syracuse, an academic medical center that cares for an estimated 1.8 million people. The survey, which contained questions intended to evaluate attitudes, belief, and willingness to get vaccinated, took place between Nov. 23 and Dec. 5, about a week before the U.S. Food and Drug Administration granted the first emergency use authorization for the Pfizer-BioNTech BNT162b2 mRNA vaccine.

Survey recipients included physicians, nurse practitioners, physician assistants, nurses, pharmacists, medical and nursing students, allied health professionals, and nonclinical ancillary staff.

Of the 9,565 surveys sent, 5,287 responses were collected and used in the final analysis, for a response rate of 55%. The mean age of respondents was 43, 73% were female, 85% were White, 6% were Asian, 5% were Black/African American, and the rest were Native American, Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander, or from other races. More than half of respondents (59%) reported that they provided direct patient care, and 32% said they provided care for patients with COVID-19.

Of all survey respondents, 58% expressed their intent to receive a COVID-19 vaccine, but this varied by their role in the health care system. For example, in response to the statement, “If a vaccine were offered free of charge, I would take it,” 80% of scientists and physicians agreed that they would, while colleagues in other roles were unsure whether they would take the vaccine, including 34% of registered nurses, 32% of allied health professionals, and 32% of master’s-level clinicians. These differences across roles were significant (P less than .001).

The researchers also found that direct patient care or care for COVID-19 patients was associated with lower vaccination intent. For example, 54% of direct care providers and 62% of non-care providers indicated they would take the vaccine if offered, compared with 52% of those who had provided care for COVID-19 patients vs. 61% of those who had not (P less than .001).

“This was a really surprising finding,” said Dr. Shaw, who is a pediatric infectious diseases physician at SUNY Upstate. “In general, one would expect that perceived severity of disease would lead to a greater desire to get vaccinated. Because our question did not address severity of disease, it is possible that we oversampled respondents who took care of patients with mild disease (i.e., in an outpatient setting). This could have led to an underestimation of disease severity and resulted in lower vaccination intent.”
 

A focus on rebuilding trust

Survey respondents who agreed or strongly agreed that they would accept a vaccine were older (a mean age of 44 years), compared with those who were not sure or who disagreed (a mean age of 42 vs. 38 years, respectively; P less than .001). In addition, fewer females agreed or strongly agreed that they would accept a vaccine (54% vs. 73% of males), whereas those who self-identified as Black/African American were least likely to want to get vaccinated, compared with those from other ethnic groups (31%, compared with 74% of Asians, 58% of Whites, and 39% of American Indians or Alaska Natives).

“We are deeply aware of the poor decisions scientists made in the past, which led to a prevailing skepticism and ‘feeling like guinea pigs’ among people of color, especially Black adults,” Dr. Shaw said. “Black adults are less likely, compared [with] White adults, to have confidence that scientists act in the public interest. Rebuilding trust will take time and has to start with addressing health care disparities. In addition, we need to acknowledge contributions of Black researchers to science. For example, until recently very few knew that the Moderna vaccine was developed [with the help of] Dr. Kizzmekia Corbett, who is Black.”

The top five main areas of unease that all respondents expressed about a COVID-19 vaccine were concern about adverse events/side effects (47%), efficacy (15%), rushed release (11%), safety (11%), and the research and authorization process (3%).

“I think it is important that fellow clinicians recognize that, in order to boost vaccine confidence we will need careful, individually tailored communication strategies,” Dr. Shaw said. “A consideration should be given to those [strategies] that utilize interpersonal channels that deliver leadership by example and leverage influencers in the institution to encourage wider adoption of vaccination.”

Aaron M. Milstone, MD, MHS, asked to comment on the research, recommended that health care workers advocate for the vaccine and encourage their patients, friends, and loved ones to get vaccinated. “Soon, COVID-19 will have taken more than half a million lives in the U.S.,” said Dr. Milstone, a pediatric epidemiologist at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore. “Although vaccines can have side effects like fever and muscle aches, and very, very rare more serious side effects, the risks of dying from COVID are much greater than the risk of a serious vaccine reaction. The study’s authors shed light on the ongoing need for leaders of all communities to support the COVID vaccines, not just the scientific community, but religious leaders, political leaders, and community leaders.”
 

Addressing vaccine hesitancy

Informed by their own survey, Dr. Shaw and her colleagues have developed a plan to address vaccine hesitancy to ensure high vaccine uptake at SUNY Upstate. Those strategies include, but aren’t limited to, institution-wide forums for all employees on COVID-19 vaccine safety, risks, and benefits followed by Q&A sessions, grand rounds for providers summarizing clinical trial data on mRNA vaccines, development of an Ask COVID email line for staff to ask vaccine-related questions, and a detailed vaccine-specific FAQ document.

In addition, SUNY Upstate experts have engaged in numerous media interviews to provide education and updates on the benefits of vaccination to public and staff, stationary vaccine locations, and mobile COVID-19 vaccine carts. “To date, the COVID-19 vaccination process has been well received, and we anticipate strong vaccine uptake,” she said.

Dr. Shaw acknowledged certain limitations of the survey, including its cross-sectional design and the fact that it was conducted in a single health care system in the northeastern United States. “Thus, generalizability to other regions of the U.S. and other countries may be limited,” Dr. Shaw said. “The study was also conducted before EUA [emergency use authorization] was granted to either the Moderna or Pfizer-BioNTech vaccines. It is therefore likely that vaccine acceptance will change over time as more people get vaccinated.”

The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Milstone disclosed that he has received a research grant from Merck, but it is not related to vaccines.

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

For pediatric patients with respiratory tract infections (RTIs), immediately prescribing antibiotics may do more harm than good, based on prospective data from 436 children treated by primary care pediatricians in Spain.

In the largest trial of its kind to date, children who were immediately prescribed antibiotics showed no significant difference in symptom severity or duration from those who received a delayed prescription for antibiotics, or no prescription at all; yet those in the immediate-prescription group had a higher rate of gastrointestinal adverse events, reported lead author Gemma Mas-Dalmau, MD, of the Sant Pau Institute for Biomedical Research, Barcelona, and colleagues.

“Most RTIs are self-limiting, and antibiotics hardly alter the course of the condition, yet antibiotics are frequently prescribed for these conditions,” the investigators wrote in Pediatrics. “Antibiotic prescription for RTIs in children is especially considered to be inappropriately high.”

This clinical behavior is driven by several factors, according to Dr. Mas-Dalmau and colleagues, including limited diagnostics in primary care, pressure to meet parental expectations, and concern for possible complications if antibiotics are withheld or delayed.

In an accompanying editorial, Jeffrey S. Gerber, MD, PhD and Bonnie F. Offit, MD, of Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, noted that “children in the United States receive more than one antibiotic prescription per year, driven largely by acute RTIs.”

Dr. Gerber and Dr. Offit noted that some RTIs are indeed caused by bacteria, and therefore benefit from antibiotics, but it’s “not always easy” to identify these cases.

“Primary care, urgent care, and emergency medicine clinicians have a hard job,” they wrote.

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, delayed prescription of antibiotics, in which a prescription is filled upon persistence or worsening of symptoms, can balance clinical caution and antibiotic stewardship.

“An example of this approach is acute otitis media, in which delayed prescribing has been shown to safely reduce antibiotic exposure,” wrote Dr. Gerber and Dr. Offit.

In a 2017 Cochrane systematic review of both adults and children with RTIs, antibiotic prescriptions, whether immediate, delayed, or not given at all, had no significant effect on most symptoms or complications. Although several randomized trials have evaluated delayed antibiotic prescriptions in children, Dr. Mas-Dalmau and colleagues described the current body of evidence as “scant.”

The present study built upon this knowledge base by prospectively following 436 children treated at 39 primary care centers in Spain from 2012 to 2016. Patients were between 2 and 14 years of age and presented for rhinosinusitis, pharyngitis, acute otitis media, or acute bronchitis. Inclusion in the study required the pediatrician to have “reasonable doubts about the need to prescribe an antibiotic.” Clinics with access to rapid streptococcal testing did not enroll patients with pharyngitis.

Patients were randomized in approximately equal groups to receive either immediate prescription of antibiotics, delayed prescription, or no prescription. In the delayed group, caregivers were advised to fill prescriptions if any of following three events occurred:

• No symptom improvement after a certain amount of days, depending on presenting complaint (acute otitis media, 4 days; pharyngitis, 7 days; acute rhinosinusitis, 15 days; acute bronchitis, 20 days).
• Temperature of at least 39° C after 24 hours, or at least 38° C but less than 39° C after 48 hours.
• Patient feeling “much worse.”

Primary outcomes were severity and duration of symptoms over 30 days, while secondary outcomes included antibiotic use over 30 days, additional unscheduled visits to primary care over 30 days, and parental satisfaction and beliefs regarding antibiotic efficacy.

In the final dataset, 148 patients received immediate antibiotic prescriptions, while 146 received delayed prescriptions, and 142 received no prescription. Rate of antibiotic use was highest in the immediate prescription group, at 96%, versus 25.3% in the delayed group and 12% among those who received no prescription upon first presentation (P < .001).

Although the mean duration of severe symptoms was longest in the delayed-prescription group, at 12.4 days, versus 10.9 days in the no-prescription group and 10.1 days in the immediate-prescription group, these differences were not statistically significant (P = .539). Median score for greatest severity of any symptom was also similar across groups. Secondary outcomes echoed this pattern, in which reconsultation rates and caregiver satisfaction were statistically similar regardless of treatment type.

In contrast, patients who received immediate antibiotic prescriptions had a significantly higher rate of gastrointestinal adverse events (8.8%) than those who received a delayed prescription (3.4%) or no prescription (2.8%; P = .037).

“Delayed antibiotic prescription is an efficacious and safe strategy for reducing inappropriate antibiotic treatment of uncomplicated RTIs in children when the doctor has reasonable doubts regarding the indication,” the investigators concluded. “[It] is therefore a useful tool for addressing the public health issue of bacterial resistance. However, no antibiotic prescription remains the recommended strategy when it is clear that antibiotics are not indicated, like in most cases of acute bronchitis.”

“These data are reassuring,” wrote Dr. Gerber and Dr. Offit; however, they went on to suggest that the data “might not substantially move the needle.”

“With rare exceptions, children with acute pharyngitis should first receive a group A streptococcal test,” they wrote. “If results are positive, all patients should get antibiotics; if results are negative, no one gets them. Acute bronchitis (whatever that is in children) is viral. Acute sinusitis with persistent symptoms (the most commonly diagnosed variety) already has a delayed option, and the current study ... was not powered for this outcome. We are left with acute otitis media, which dominated enrollment but already has an evidence-based guideline.”

Still, Dr. Gerber and Dr. Offit suggested that the findings should further encourage pediatricians to prescribe antibiotics judiciously, and when elected, to choose the shortest duration and narrowest spectrum possible.

In a joint comment, Rana El Feghaly, MD, MSCI, director of outpatient antibiotic stewardship at Children’s Mercy, Kansas City, and her colleague, Mary Anne Jackson, MD, noted that the findings are “in accordance” with the 2017 Cochrane review.

Dr. Feghaly and Dr. Jackson said that these new data provide greater support for conservative use of antibiotics, which is badly needed, considering approximately 50% of outpatient prescriptions are unnecessary or inappropriate .

Delayed antibiotic prescription is part of a multifaceted approach to the issue, they said, joining “communication skills training, antibiotic justification documentation, audit and feedback reporting with peer comparison, diagnostic stewardship, [and] the use of clinician education on practice-based guidelines.”

“Leveraging delayed antibiotic prescription may be an excellent way to combat antibiotic overuse in the outpatient setting, while avoiding provider and parental fear of the ‘no antibiotic’ approach,” Dr. Feghaly and Dr. Jackson said.

Karlyn Kinsella, MD, of Pediatric Associates of Cheshire, Conn., suggested that clinicians discuss these findings with parents who request antibiotics for “otitis, pharyngitis, bronchitis, or sinusitis.”

“We can cite this study that antibiotics have no effect on symptom duration or severity for these illnesses,” Dr. Kinsella said. “Of course, our clinical opinion in each case takes precedent.”

According to Dr. Kinsella, conversations with parents also need to cover reasonable expectations, as the study did, with clear time frames for each condition in which children should start to get better.

“I think this is really key in our anticipatory guidance so that patients know what to expect,” she said.

The study was funded by Instituto de Salud Carlos III, the European Union, and the Spanish Ministry of Health, Social Services, and Equality. The investigators and interviewees reported no conflicts of interest.

For pediatric patients with respiratory tract infections (RTIs), immediately prescribing antibiotics may do more harm than good, based on prospective data from 436 children treated by primary care pediatricians in Spain.

In the largest trial of its kind to date, children who were immediately prescribed antibiotics showed no significant difference in symptom severity or duration from those who received a delayed prescription for antibiotics, or no prescription at all; yet those in the immediate-prescription group had a higher rate of gastrointestinal adverse events, reported lead author Gemma Mas-Dalmau, MD, of the Sant Pau Institute for Biomedical Research, Barcelona, and colleagues.

“Most RTIs are self-limiting, and antibiotics hardly alter the course of the condition, yet antibiotics are frequently prescribed for these conditions,” the investigators wrote in Pediatrics. “Antibiotic prescription for RTIs in children is especially considered to be inappropriately high.”

This clinical behavior is driven by several factors, according to Dr. Mas-Dalmau and colleagues, including limited diagnostics in primary care, pressure to meet parental expectations, and concern for possible complications if antibiotics are withheld or delayed.

In an accompanying editorial, Jeffrey S. Gerber, MD, PhD and Bonnie F. Offit, MD, of Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, noted that “children in the United States receive more than one antibiotic prescription per year, driven largely by acute RTIs.”

Dr. Gerber and Dr. Offit noted that some RTIs are indeed caused by bacteria, and therefore benefit from antibiotics, but it’s “not always easy” to identify these cases.

“Primary care, urgent care, and emergency medicine clinicians have a hard job,” they wrote.

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, delayed prescription of antibiotics, in which a prescription is filled upon persistence or worsening of symptoms, can balance clinical caution and antibiotic stewardship.

“An example of this approach is acute otitis media, in which delayed prescribing has been shown to safely reduce antibiotic exposure,” wrote Dr. Gerber and Dr. Offit.

In a 2017 Cochrane systematic review of both adults and children with RTIs, antibiotic prescriptions, whether immediate, delayed, or not given at all, had no significant effect on most symptoms or complications. Although several randomized trials have evaluated delayed antibiotic prescriptions in children, Dr. Mas-Dalmau and colleagues described the current body of evidence as “scant.”

The present study built upon this knowledge base by prospectively following 436 children treated at 39 primary care centers in Spain from 2012 to 2016. Patients were between 2 and 14 years of age and presented for rhinosinusitis, pharyngitis, acute otitis media, or acute bronchitis. Inclusion in the study required the pediatrician to have “reasonable doubts about the need to prescribe an antibiotic.” Clinics with access to rapid streptococcal testing did not enroll patients with pharyngitis.

Patients were randomized in approximately equal groups to receive either immediate prescription of antibiotics, delayed prescription, or no prescription. In the delayed group, caregivers were advised to fill prescriptions if any of following three events occurred:

• No symptom improvement after a certain amount of days, depending on presenting complaint (acute otitis media, 4 days; pharyngitis, 7 days; acute rhinosinusitis, 15 days; acute bronchitis, 20 days).
• Temperature of at least 39° C after 24 hours, or at least 38° C but less than 39° C after 48 hours.
• Patient feeling “much worse.”

Primary outcomes were severity and duration of symptoms over 30 days, while secondary outcomes included antibiotic use over 30 days, additional unscheduled visits to primary care over 30 days, and parental satisfaction and beliefs regarding antibiotic efficacy.

In the final dataset, 148 patients received immediate antibiotic prescriptions, while 146 received delayed prescriptions, and 142 received no prescription. Rate of antibiotic use was highest in the immediate prescription group, at 96%, versus 25.3% in the delayed group and 12% among those who received no prescription upon first presentation (P < .001).

Although the mean duration of severe symptoms was longest in the delayed-prescription group, at 12.4 days, versus 10.9 days in the no-prescription group and 10.1 days in the immediate-prescription group, these differences were not statistically significant (P = .539). Median score for greatest severity of any symptom was also similar across groups. Secondary outcomes echoed this pattern, in which reconsultation rates and caregiver satisfaction were statistically similar regardless of treatment type.

In contrast, patients who received immediate antibiotic prescriptions had a significantly higher rate of gastrointestinal adverse events (8.8%) than those who received a delayed prescription (3.4%) or no prescription (2.8%; P = .037).

“Delayed antibiotic prescription is an efficacious and safe strategy for reducing inappropriate antibiotic treatment of uncomplicated RTIs in children when the doctor has reasonable doubts regarding the indication,” the investigators concluded. “[It] is therefore a useful tool for addressing the public health issue of bacterial resistance. However, no antibiotic prescription remains the recommended strategy when it is clear that antibiotics are not indicated, like in most cases of acute bronchitis.”

“These data are reassuring,” wrote Dr. Gerber and Dr. Offit; however, they went on to suggest that the data “might not substantially move the needle.”

“With rare exceptions, children with acute pharyngitis should first receive a group A streptococcal test,” they wrote. “If results are positive, all patients should get antibiotics; if results are negative, no one gets them. Acute bronchitis (whatever that is in children) is viral. Acute sinusitis with persistent symptoms (the most commonly diagnosed variety) already has a delayed option, and the current study ... was not powered for this outcome. We are left with acute otitis media, which dominated enrollment but already has an evidence-based guideline.”

Still, Dr. Gerber and Dr. Offit suggested that the findings should further encourage pediatricians to prescribe antibiotics judiciously, and when elected, to choose the shortest duration and narrowest spectrum possible.

In a joint comment, Rana El Feghaly, MD, MSCI, director of outpatient antibiotic stewardship at Children’s Mercy, Kansas City, and her colleague, Mary Anne Jackson, MD, noted that the findings are “in accordance” with the 2017 Cochrane review.

Dr. Feghaly and Dr. Jackson said that these new data provide greater support for conservative use of antibiotics, which is badly needed, considering approximately 50% of outpatient prescriptions are unnecessary or inappropriate .

Delayed antibiotic prescription is part of a multifaceted approach to the issue, they said, joining “communication skills training, antibiotic justification documentation, audit and feedback reporting with peer comparison, diagnostic stewardship, [and] the use of clinician education on practice-based guidelines.”

“Leveraging delayed antibiotic prescription may be an excellent way to combat antibiotic overuse in the outpatient setting, while avoiding provider and parental fear of the ‘no antibiotic’ approach,” Dr. Feghaly and Dr. Jackson said.

Karlyn Kinsella, MD, of Pediatric Associates of Cheshire, Conn., suggested that clinicians discuss these findings with parents who request antibiotics for “otitis, pharyngitis, bronchitis, or sinusitis.”

“We can cite this study that antibiotics have no effect on symptom duration or severity for these illnesses,” Dr. Kinsella said. “Of course, our clinical opinion in each case takes precedent.”

According to Dr. Kinsella, conversations with parents also need to cover reasonable expectations, as the study did, with clear time frames for each condition in which children should start to get better.

“I think this is really key in our anticipatory guidance so that patients know what to expect,” she said.

The study was funded by Instituto de Salud Carlos III, the European Union, and the Spanish Ministry of Health, Social Services, and Equality. The investigators and interviewees reported no conflicts of interest.

For pediatric patients with respiratory tract infections (RTIs), immediately prescribing antibiotics may do more harm than good, based on prospective data from 436 children treated by primary care pediatricians in Spain.

In the largest trial of its kind to date, children who were immediately prescribed antibiotics showed no significant difference in symptom severity or duration from those who received a delayed prescription for antibiotics, or no prescription at all; yet those in the immediate-prescription group had a higher rate of gastrointestinal adverse events, reported lead author Gemma Mas-Dalmau, MD, of the Sant Pau Institute for Biomedical Research, Barcelona, and colleagues.

“Most RTIs are self-limiting, and antibiotics hardly alter the course of the condition, yet antibiotics are frequently prescribed for these conditions,” the investigators wrote in Pediatrics. “Antibiotic prescription for RTIs in children is especially considered to be inappropriately high.”

This clinical behavior is driven by several factors, according to Dr. Mas-Dalmau and colleagues, including limited diagnostics in primary care, pressure to meet parental expectations, and concern for possible complications if antibiotics are withheld or delayed.

In an accompanying editorial, Jeffrey S. Gerber, MD, PhD and Bonnie F. Offit, MD, of Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, noted that “children in the United States receive more than one antibiotic prescription per year, driven largely by acute RTIs.”

Dr. Gerber and Dr. Offit noted that some RTIs are indeed caused by bacteria, and therefore benefit from antibiotics, but it’s “not always easy” to identify these cases.

“Primary care, urgent care, and emergency medicine clinicians have a hard job,” they wrote.

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, delayed prescription of antibiotics, in which a prescription is filled upon persistence or worsening of symptoms, can balance clinical caution and antibiotic stewardship.

“An example of this approach is acute otitis media, in which delayed prescribing has been shown to safely reduce antibiotic exposure,” wrote Dr. Gerber and Dr. Offit.

In a 2017 Cochrane systematic review of both adults and children with RTIs, antibiotic prescriptions, whether immediate, delayed, or not given at all, had no significant effect on most symptoms or complications. Although several randomized trials have evaluated delayed antibiotic prescriptions in children, Dr. Mas-Dalmau and colleagues described the current body of evidence as “scant.”

The present study built upon this knowledge base by prospectively following 436 children treated at 39 primary care centers in Spain from 2012 to 2016. Patients were between 2 and 14 years of age and presented for rhinosinusitis, pharyngitis, acute otitis media, or acute bronchitis. Inclusion in the study required the pediatrician to have “reasonable doubts about the need to prescribe an antibiotic.” Clinics with access to rapid streptococcal testing did not enroll patients with pharyngitis.

Patients were randomized in approximately equal groups to receive either immediate prescription of antibiotics, delayed prescription, or no prescription. In the delayed group, caregivers were advised to fill prescriptions if any of following three events occurred:

• No symptom improvement after a certain amount of days, depending on presenting complaint (acute otitis media, 4 days; pharyngitis, 7 days; acute rhinosinusitis, 15 days; acute bronchitis, 20 days).
• Temperature of at least 39° C after 24 hours, or at least 38° C but less than 39° C after 48 hours.
• Patient feeling “much worse.”

Primary outcomes were severity and duration of symptoms over 30 days, while secondary outcomes included antibiotic use over 30 days, additional unscheduled visits to primary care over 30 days, and parental satisfaction and beliefs regarding antibiotic efficacy.

In the final dataset, 148 patients received immediate antibiotic prescriptions, while 146 received delayed prescriptions, and 142 received no prescription. Rate of antibiotic use was highest in the immediate prescription group, at 96%, versus 25.3% in the delayed group and 12% among those who received no prescription upon first presentation (P < .001).

Although the mean duration of severe symptoms was longest in the delayed-prescription group, at 12.4 days, versus 10.9 days in the no-prescription group and 10.1 days in the immediate-prescription group, these differences were not statistically significant (P = .539). Median score for greatest severity of any symptom was also similar across groups. Secondary outcomes echoed this pattern, in which reconsultation rates and caregiver satisfaction were statistically similar regardless of treatment type.

In contrast, patients who received immediate antibiotic prescriptions had a significantly higher rate of gastrointestinal adverse events (8.8%) than those who received a delayed prescription (3.4%) or no prescription (2.8%; P = .037).

“Delayed antibiotic prescription is an efficacious and safe strategy for reducing inappropriate antibiotic treatment of uncomplicated RTIs in children when the doctor has reasonable doubts regarding the indication,” the investigators concluded. “[It] is therefore a useful tool for addressing the public health issue of bacterial resistance. However, no antibiotic prescription remains the recommended strategy when it is clear that antibiotics are not indicated, like in most cases of acute bronchitis.”

“These data are reassuring,” wrote Dr. Gerber and Dr. Offit; however, they went on to suggest that the data “might not substantially move the needle.”

“With rare exceptions, children with acute pharyngitis should first receive a group A streptococcal test,” they wrote. “If results are positive, all patients should get antibiotics; if results are negative, no one gets them. Acute bronchitis (whatever that is in children) is viral. Acute sinusitis with persistent symptoms (the most commonly diagnosed variety) already has a delayed option, and the current study ... was not powered for this outcome. We are left with acute otitis media, which dominated enrollment but already has an evidence-based guideline.”

Still, Dr. Gerber and Dr. Offit suggested that the findings should further encourage pediatricians to prescribe antibiotics judiciously, and when elected, to choose the shortest duration and narrowest spectrum possible.

In a joint comment, Rana El Feghaly, MD, MSCI, director of outpatient antibiotic stewardship at Children’s Mercy, Kansas City, and her colleague, Mary Anne Jackson, MD, noted that the findings are “in accordance” with the 2017 Cochrane review.

Dr. Feghaly and Dr. Jackson said that these new data provide greater support for conservative use of antibiotics, which is badly needed, considering approximately 50% of outpatient prescriptions are unnecessary or inappropriate .

Delayed antibiotic prescription is part of a multifaceted approach to the issue, they said, joining “communication skills training, antibiotic justification documentation, audit and feedback reporting with peer comparison, diagnostic stewardship, [and] the use of clinician education on practice-based guidelines.”

“Leveraging delayed antibiotic prescription may be an excellent way to combat antibiotic overuse in the outpatient setting, while avoiding provider and parental fear of the ‘no antibiotic’ approach,” Dr. Feghaly and Dr. Jackson said.

Karlyn Kinsella, MD, of Pediatric Associates of Cheshire, Conn., suggested that clinicians discuss these findings with parents who request antibiotics for “otitis, pharyngitis, bronchitis, or sinusitis.”

“We can cite this study that antibiotics have no effect on symptom duration or severity for these illnesses,” Dr. Kinsella said. “Of course, our clinical opinion in each case takes precedent.”

According to Dr. Kinsella, conversations with parents also need to cover reasonable expectations, as the study did, with clear time frames for each condition in which children should start to get better.

“I think this is really key in our anticipatory guidance so that patients know what to expect,” she said.

The study was funded by Instituto de Salud Carlos III, the European Union, and the Spanish Ministry of Health, Social Services, and Equality. The investigators and interviewees reported no conflicts of interest.

A Zika virus vaccine candidate prompted antibody responses in 80% of individuals who received two doses in a phase 1 study.

©Aunt_Spray/Thinkstock

Although Zika cases have declined in recent years, “geographic expansion of the Aedes aegypti mosquito to areas where population-level immunity is low poses a substantial risk for future epidemics,” wrote Nadine C. Salisch, PhD, of Janssen Vaccines and Prevention, Leiden, the Netherlands, and colleagues in a paper published in Annals of Internal Medicine.

No vaccine against Zika is yet available, although more than 10 candidates have been studied in preclinical trials to date, they said.

The researchers randomized 100 healthy adult volunteers to an experimental Zika vaccine candidate known as Ad26.ZIKV.001 in either one-dose or two-dose regimens of 5x10¹⁰ viral particles (low dose) or 1x10¹¹ viral particles (high dose) or placebo. Approximately half (55%) of the participants were women, and 72% were White.

Approximately 80% of patients in both two-dose groups showed antibody responses for a year after vaccination. Geometric mean titers (GMTs) reached peak of 823.4 in the low-dose/low-dose group and 961.5 in the high-dose/high-dose group. At day 365, the GMTs for these groups were 68.7 and 87.0, respectively.

A single high-dose vaccine achieved a similar level of neutralizing antibody titers, but lower peak neutralizing responses than the two-dose strategies, the researchers noted.

Most of the reported adverse events were mild to moderate, and short lived; the most common were injection site pain or tenderness, headache, and fatigue, the researchers said. After the first vaccination, 75% of participants in the low-dose groups, 88% of participants in high-dose groups, and 45% of participants receiving placebo reported local adverse events. In addition, 73%, 83%, and 40% of the participants in the low-dose, high-dose, and placebo groups, respectively, reported systemic adverse events. Reports were similar after the second vaccination. Two serious adverse events not related to vaccination were reported; one case of right lower lobe pneumonia and one case of incomplete spontaneous abortion.

The researchers also explored protective efficacy through a nonlethal mouse challenge model. “Transfer of 6 mg of IgG from Ad26.ZIKV.001 vaccines conferred complete protection from viremia in most recipient animals, with statistically significantly decreased breakthrough rates and cumulative viral loads per group compared with placebo,” they said.

The study findings were limited by the inability to assess safety and immunogenicity in an endemic area, the researchers noted. However, “Ad26.ZIKV.001 induces potent ZIKV-specific neutralizing responses with durability of at least 1 year, which supports further clinical development if an unmet medical need reemerges,” they said. “In addition, these data underscore the performance of the Ad26 vaccine platform, which Janssen is using for different infectious diseases, including COVID-19,” they noted.
 

Ad26 vector platform shows consistency

“Development of the investigational Janssen Zika vaccine candidate was initiated in 2015, and while the incidence of Zika virus has declined since the 2015-2016 outbreak, spread of the ‘carrier’ Aedes aegypti mosquito to areas where population-level immunity is low poses a substantial risk for future epidemics,” lead author Dr. Salisch said in an interview. For this reason, researchers say the vaccine warrants further development should the need reemerge, she said.

“Our research has found that while a single higher-dose regimen had lower peak neutralizing responses than a two-dose regimen, it achieved a similar level of neutralizing antibody responses at 1 year, an encouraging finding that shows our vaccine may be a useful tool to curb Zika epidemics,” Dr. Salisch noted. “Previous experience with the Ad26 vector platform across our investigational vaccine programs have yielded similarly promising results, most recently with our investigational Janssen COVID-19 vaccine program, for which phase 3 data show a single-dose vaccine met all primary and key secondary endpoints,” she said.

“The biggest barrier [to further development of the candidate vaccine] is one that we actually consider ourselves fortunate to have: The very low incidence of reported Zika cases currently reported worldwide,” Dr. Salisch said. “However, the current Zika case rate can change at any time, and in the event the situation demands it, we are open to alternative regulatory pathways to help us glean the necessary insights on vaccine safety and efficacy to further advance the development of this candidate,” she emphasized.

As for additional research, “there are still questions surrounding Zika transmission and the pathomechanism of congenital Zika syndrome,” said Dr. Salisch. “Our hope is that a correlate of protection against Zika disease, and in particular against congenital Zika syndrome, can be identified,” she said.  

Consider pregnant women in next phase of research

“A major hurdle in ZIKV vaccine development is the inability to conduct large efficacy studies in the absence of a current outbreak,” Ann Chahroudi, MD, of Emory University, Atlanta, and Sallie Permar, MD, of Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, wrote in an accompanying editorial.

The current study provided some efficacy data using a mouse model, but “these data are obviously not conclusive for human protection,” they said.

“A further challenge for ZIKV vaccine efficacy trials will be to demonstrate fetal protection from [congenital Zika syndrome] after adult immunization. There should be a clear plan to readily deploy phase 3 trials for the most promising vaccines to emerge from phase 1 and 2 in the event of an outbreak, as was implemented for Ebola, including infant follow-up,” they emphasized.

The editorialists noted that the study did not include pregnant women, who represent a major target for immunization, but they said that vaccination of pregnant women against other neonatal pathogens such as influenza and tetanus has been effective. “Candidate ZIKV vaccines proven safe in phase 1 trials should immediately be assessed for safety and efficacy in pregnant women,” they said. Although Zika infections are not at epidemic levels currently, resurgence remains a possibility and the coronavirus pandemic “has taught us that preparedness for emerging infections is crucial,” they said.
 

Zika vaccine research is a challenge worth pursuing

“It is important to continue Zika vaccine research because of the unpredictable nature of that infection,” Kevin Ault, MD, of the University of Kansas, Kansas City, said in an interview. “Several times Zika has gained a foothold in unexposed and vulnerable populations,” Dr. Ault said.  “Additionally, there are some data about using this vector during pregnancy, and eventually this vaccine may prevent the birth defects associated with Zika infections during pregnancy, he noted.

Dr. Ault said he was not surprised by the study findings. “This is a promising early phase vaccine candidate, and this adenovirus vector has been used in other similar trials,” he said. Potential barriers to vaccine development include the challenge of conducting late phase clinical trials in pregnant women, he noted. “The relevant endpoint is going to be clinical disease, and one of the most critical populations is pregnant women,” he said. In addition, “later phase 3 trials would be conducted in a population where there is an ongoing Zika outbreak,” Dr. Ault emphasized.   

The study was supported by Janssen Vaccines and Infectious Diseases.

Dr. Chahroudi had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Permar disclosed grants from Merck and Moderna unrelated to the current study. Dr. Ault had no relevant financial conflicts to disclose; he has served as an adviser to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the World Medical Association, the National Vaccine Program Office, and the National Institute for Allergy and Infectious Diseases. He is a fellow of the Infectious Disease Society of American and a fellow of ACOG. 

A Zika virus vaccine candidate prompted antibody responses in 80% of individuals who received two doses in a phase 1 study.

©Aunt_Spray/Thinkstock

Although Zika cases have declined in recent years, “geographic expansion of the Aedes aegypti mosquito to areas where population-level immunity is low poses a substantial risk for future epidemics,” wrote Nadine C. Salisch, PhD, of Janssen Vaccines and Prevention, Leiden, the Netherlands, and colleagues in a paper published in Annals of Internal Medicine.

No vaccine against Zika is yet available, although more than 10 candidates have been studied in preclinical trials to date, they said.

The researchers randomized 100 healthy adult volunteers to an experimental Zika vaccine candidate known as Ad26.ZIKV.001 in either one-dose or two-dose regimens of 5x10¹⁰ viral particles (low dose) or 1x10¹¹ viral particles (high dose) or placebo. Approximately half (55%) of the participants were women, and 72% were White.

Approximately 80% of patients in both two-dose groups showed antibody responses for a year after vaccination. Geometric mean titers (GMTs) reached peak of 823.4 in the low-dose/low-dose group and 961.5 in the high-dose/high-dose group. At day 365, the GMTs for these groups were 68.7 and 87.0, respectively.

A single high-dose vaccine achieved a similar level of neutralizing antibody titers, but lower peak neutralizing responses than the two-dose strategies, the researchers noted.

Most of the reported adverse events were mild to moderate, and short lived; the most common were injection site pain or tenderness, headache, and fatigue, the researchers said. After the first vaccination, 75% of participants in the low-dose groups, 88% of participants in high-dose groups, and 45% of participants receiving placebo reported local adverse events. In addition, 73%, 83%, and 40% of the participants in the low-dose, high-dose, and placebo groups, respectively, reported systemic adverse events. Reports were similar after the second vaccination. Two serious adverse events not related to vaccination were reported; one case of right lower lobe pneumonia and one case of incomplete spontaneous abortion.

The researchers also explored protective efficacy through a nonlethal mouse challenge model. “Transfer of 6 mg of IgG from Ad26.ZIKV.001 vaccines conferred complete protection from viremia in most recipient animals, with statistically significantly decreased breakthrough rates and cumulative viral loads per group compared with placebo,” they said.

The study findings were limited by the inability to assess safety and immunogenicity in an endemic area, the researchers noted. However, “Ad26.ZIKV.001 induces potent ZIKV-specific neutralizing responses with durability of at least 1 year, which supports further clinical development if an unmet medical need reemerges,” they said. “In addition, these data underscore the performance of the Ad26 vaccine platform, which Janssen is using for different infectious diseases, including COVID-19,” they noted.
 

Ad26 vector platform shows consistency

“Development of the investigational Janssen Zika vaccine candidate was initiated in 2015, and while the incidence of Zika virus has declined since the 2015-2016 outbreak, spread of the ‘carrier’ Aedes aegypti mosquito to areas where population-level immunity is low poses a substantial risk for future epidemics,” lead author Dr. Salisch said in an interview. For this reason, researchers say the vaccine warrants further development should the need reemerge, she said.

“Our research has found that while a single higher-dose regimen had lower peak neutralizing responses than a two-dose regimen, it achieved a similar level of neutralizing antibody responses at 1 year, an encouraging finding that shows our vaccine may be a useful tool to curb Zika epidemics,” Dr. Salisch noted. “Previous experience with the Ad26 vector platform across our investigational vaccine programs have yielded similarly promising results, most recently with our investigational Janssen COVID-19 vaccine program, for which phase 3 data show a single-dose vaccine met all primary and key secondary endpoints,” she said.

“The biggest barrier [to further development of the candidate vaccine] is one that we actually consider ourselves fortunate to have: The very low incidence of reported Zika cases currently reported worldwide,” Dr. Salisch said. “However, the current Zika case rate can change at any time, and in the event the situation demands it, we are open to alternative regulatory pathways to help us glean the necessary insights on vaccine safety and efficacy to further advance the development of this candidate,” she emphasized.

As for additional research, “there are still questions surrounding Zika transmission and the pathomechanism of congenital Zika syndrome,” said Dr. Salisch. “Our hope is that a correlate of protection against Zika disease, and in particular against congenital Zika syndrome, can be identified,” she said.  

Consider pregnant women in next phase of research

“A major hurdle in ZIKV vaccine development is the inability to conduct large efficacy studies in the absence of a current outbreak,” Ann Chahroudi, MD, of Emory University, Atlanta, and Sallie Permar, MD, of Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, wrote in an accompanying editorial.

The current study provided some efficacy data using a mouse model, but “these data are obviously not conclusive for human protection,” they said.

“A further challenge for ZIKV vaccine efficacy trials will be to demonstrate fetal protection from [congenital Zika syndrome] after adult immunization. There should be a clear plan to readily deploy phase 3 trials for the most promising vaccines to emerge from phase 1 and 2 in the event of an outbreak, as was implemented for Ebola, including infant follow-up,” they emphasized.

The editorialists noted that the study did not include pregnant women, who represent a major target for immunization, but they said that vaccination of pregnant women against other neonatal pathogens such as influenza and tetanus has been effective. “Candidate ZIKV vaccines proven safe in phase 1 trials should immediately be assessed for safety and efficacy in pregnant women,” they said. Although Zika infections are not at epidemic levels currently, resurgence remains a possibility and the coronavirus pandemic “has taught us that preparedness for emerging infections is crucial,” they said.
 

Zika vaccine research is a challenge worth pursuing

“It is important to continue Zika vaccine research because of the unpredictable nature of that infection,” Kevin Ault, MD, of the University of Kansas, Kansas City, said in an interview. “Several times Zika has gained a foothold in unexposed and vulnerable populations,” Dr. Ault said.  “Additionally, there are some data about using this vector during pregnancy, and eventually this vaccine may prevent the birth defects associated with Zika infections during pregnancy, he noted.

Dr. Ault said he was not surprised by the study findings. “This is a promising early phase vaccine candidate, and this adenovirus vector has been used in other similar trials,” he said. Potential barriers to vaccine development include the challenge of conducting late phase clinical trials in pregnant women, he noted. “The relevant endpoint is going to be clinical disease, and one of the most critical populations is pregnant women,” he said. In addition, “later phase 3 trials would be conducted in a population where there is an ongoing Zika outbreak,” Dr. Ault emphasized.   

The study was supported by Janssen Vaccines and Infectious Diseases.

Dr. Chahroudi had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Permar disclosed grants from Merck and Moderna unrelated to the current study. Dr. Ault had no relevant financial conflicts to disclose; he has served as an adviser to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the World Medical Association, the National Vaccine Program Office, and the National Institute for Allergy and Infectious Diseases. He is a fellow of the Infectious Disease Society of American and a fellow of ACOG. 

A Zika virus vaccine candidate prompted antibody responses in 80% of individuals who received two doses in a phase 1 study.

©Aunt_Spray/Thinkstock

Although Zika cases have declined in recent years, “geographic expansion of the Aedes aegypti mosquito to areas where population-level immunity is low poses a substantial risk for future epidemics,” wrote Nadine C. Salisch, PhD, of Janssen Vaccines and Prevention, Leiden, the Netherlands, and colleagues in a paper published in Annals of Internal Medicine.

No vaccine against Zika is yet available, although more than 10 candidates have been studied in preclinical trials to date, they said.

The researchers randomized 100 healthy adult volunteers to an experimental Zika vaccine candidate known as Ad26.ZIKV.001 in either one-dose or two-dose regimens of 5x10¹⁰ viral particles (low dose) or 1x10¹¹ viral particles (high dose) or placebo. Approximately half (55%) of the participants were women, and 72% were White.

Approximately 80% of patients in both two-dose groups showed antibody responses for a year after vaccination. Geometric mean titers (GMTs) reached peak of 823.4 in the low-dose/low-dose group and 961.5 in the high-dose/high-dose group. At day 365, the GMTs for these groups were 68.7 and 87.0, respectively.

A single high-dose vaccine achieved a similar level of neutralizing antibody titers, but lower peak neutralizing responses than the two-dose strategies, the researchers noted.

Most of the reported adverse events were mild to moderate, and short lived; the most common were injection site pain or tenderness, headache, and fatigue, the researchers said. After the first vaccination, 75% of participants in the low-dose groups, 88% of participants in high-dose groups, and 45% of participants receiving placebo reported local adverse events. In addition, 73%, 83%, and 40% of the participants in the low-dose, high-dose, and placebo groups, respectively, reported systemic adverse events. Reports were similar after the second vaccination. Two serious adverse events not related to vaccination were reported; one case of right lower lobe pneumonia and one case of incomplete spontaneous abortion.

The researchers also explored protective efficacy through a nonlethal mouse challenge model. “Transfer of 6 mg of IgG from Ad26.ZIKV.001 vaccines conferred complete protection from viremia in most recipient animals, with statistically significantly decreased breakthrough rates and cumulative viral loads per group compared with placebo,” they said.

The study findings were limited by the inability to assess safety and immunogenicity in an endemic area, the researchers noted. However, “Ad26.ZIKV.001 induces potent ZIKV-specific neutralizing responses with durability of at least 1 year, which supports further clinical development if an unmet medical need reemerges,” they said. “In addition, these data underscore the performance of the Ad26 vaccine platform, which Janssen is using for different infectious diseases, including COVID-19,” they noted.
 

Ad26 vector platform shows consistency

“Development of the investigational Janssen Zika vaccine candidate was initiated in 2015, and while the incidence of Zika virus has declined since the 2015-2016 outbreak, spread of the ‘carrier’ Aedes aegypti mosquito to areas where population-level immunity is low poses a substantial risk for future epidemics,” lead author Dr. Salisch said in an interview. For this reason, researchers say the vaccine warrants further development should the need reemerge, she said.

“Our research has found that while a single higher-dose regimen had lower peak neutralizing responses than a two-dose regimen, it achieved a similar level of neutralizing antibody responses at 1 year, an encouraging finding that shows our vaccine may be a useful tool to curb Zika epidemics,” Dr. Salisch noted. “Previous experience with the Ad26 vector platform across our investigational vaccine programs have yielded similarly promising results, most recently with our investigational Janssen COVID-19 vaccine program, for which phase 3 data show a single-dose vaccine met all primary and key secondary endpoints,” she said.

“The biggest barrier [to further development of the candidate vaccine] is one that we actually consider ourselves fortunate to have: The very low incidence of reported Zika cases currently reported worldwide,” Dr. Salisch said. “However, the current Zika case rate can change at any time, and in the event the situation demands it, we are open to alternative regulatory pathways to help us glean the necessary insights on vaccine safety and efficacy to further advance the development of this candidate,” she emphasized.

As for additional research, “there are still questions surrounding Zika transmission and the pathomechanism of congenital Zika syndrome,” said Dr. Salisch. “Our hope is that a correlate of protection against Zika disease, and in particular against congenital Zika syndrome, can be identified,” she said.  

Consider pregnant women in next phase of research

“A major hurdle in ZIKV vaccine development is the inability to conduct large efficacy studies in the absence of a current outbreak,” Ann Chahroudi, MD, of Emory University, Atlanta, and Sallie Permar, MD, of Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, wrote in an accompanying editorial.

The current study provided some efficacy data using a mouse model, but “these data are obviously not conclusive for human protection,” they said.

“A further challenge for ZIKV vaccine efficacy trials will be to demonstrate fetal protection from [congenital Zika syndrome] after adult immunization. There should be a clear plan to readily deploy phase 3 trials for the most promising vaccines to emerge from phase 1 and 2 in the event of an outbreak, as was implemented for Ebola, including infant follow-up,” they emphasized.

The editorialists noted that the study did not include pregnant women, who represent a major target for immunization, but they said that vaccination of pregnant women against other neonatal pathogens such as influenza and tetanus has been effective. “Candidate ZIKV vaccines proven safe in phase 1 trials should immediately be assessed for safety and efficacy in pregnant women,” they said. Although Zika infections are not at epidemic levels currently, resurgence remains a possibility and the coronavirus pandemic “has taught us that preparedness for emerging infections is crucial,” they said.
 

Zika vaccine research is a challenge worth pursuing

“It is important to continue Zika vaccine research because of the unpredictable nature of that infection,” Kevin Ault, MD, of the University of Kansas, Kansas City, said in an interview. “Several times Zika has gained a foothold in unexposed and vulnerable populations,” Dr. Ault said.  “Additionally, there are some data about using this vector during pregnancy, and eventually this vaccine may prevent the birth defects associated with Zika infections during pregnancy, he noted.

Dr. Ault said he was not surprised by the study findings. “This is a promising early phase vaccine candidate, and this adenovirus vector has been used in other similar trials,” he said. Potential barriers to vaccine development include the challenge of conducting late phase clinical trials in pregnant women, he noted. “The relevant endpoint is going to be clinical disease, and one of the most critical populations is pregnant women,” he said. In addition, “later phase 3 trials would be conducted in a population where there is an ongoing Zika outbreak,” Dr. Ault emphasized.   

The study was supported by Janssen Vaccines and Infectious Diseases.

Dr. Chahroudi had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Permar disclosed grants from Merck and Moderna unrelated to the current study. Dr. Ault had no relevant financial conflicts to disclose; he has served as an adviser to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the World Medical Association, the National Vaccine Program Office, and the National Institute for Allergy and Infectious Diseases. He is a fellow of the Infectious Disease Society of American and a fellow of ACOG. 

In this column in September 2020, you read how common respiratory viruses’ seasons are usually so predictable, each virus arising, peaking, and then dying out in a predictable virus parade (Figure 1).¹ Well, the predictable virus seasonal pattern was lost in 2020. Since March of 2020, it is striking how little activity was detected for the usual seasonal viruses in Kansas City after mid-March 2020 (Figure 2).² So, my concern in September 2020 for possible rampant coinfections of common viruses with or in tandem with SARS-CoV-2 did not pan out. That said, the seasons for non–SARS-CoV-2 viruses did change; I just didn’t expect they would nearly disappear.

Dr. Christoper Harrison

The 2020 winter-spring. In the first quarter (the last part of the overall 2019-2020 respiratory viral season), viral detections were chugging along as usual up to mid-March (Figure 2); influenza, respiratory syncytial virus (RSV), and rhinovirus were the big players.

Influenza. In most years, influenza type B leads off and is quickly replaced by type A only to see B reemerge to end influenza season in March-April. In early 2020, both influenza type A and influenza type B cocirculated nearly equally, but both dropped like a rock in mid-March (Figure 2).² Neither type has been seen since with the exception of sporadic detections – perhaps being false positives.

RSV. In the usual year in temperate mid-latitudes of the northern hemisphere, RSV season usually starts in early December, peaks in January-March, and declines gradually until the end of RSV season in April (Figure 1). In southern latitudes, RSV is less seasonal, being present most of the year, but peaking in “winter” months.³ But in 2020, RSV also disappeared in mid-March and has yet to reappear.

Other viruses. Small bumps in detection of parainfluenza of varying types usually frame influenza season, one B bump in early autumn and another in April-May. In most years, human metapneumovirus is detected on and off, with worse years at 2- to 3-year intervals. Adenovirus occurs year-round with bumps as children get back to school in autumn. Yet in 2020, almost no parainfluenza, adenovirus, common coronaviruses, or human metapneumovirus were detected in either spring or autumn. This was supposed to be a banner summer-autumn for EV-D68 – but almost none was detected. Interestingly, the cockroach of viruses, rhinovirus, has its usual year (Figure 2).

Dr. Christopher Harrison

What happened? Intense social mitigation interventions, including social distancing and closing daycares and schools, were likely major factors.⁴ For influenza, vaccine may have helped but uptake was not remarkably better than most prior years. There may have been “viral competition,”where a new or highly transmissible virus outcompetes less-transmissible viruses with lower affinity for respiratory receptors.^5,6 Note that SARS-CoV-2 has very high affinity for the ACE2 receptor and has been highly prevalent. So, SARS-CoV-2 could fit the theoretical mold for a virus that outcompetes others.

Does it matter for the future? Blunted 2019-2020 and nearly absent 2020-2021 respiratory virus season may have set the stage for intense 2021-2022 rebounds for the non–SARS-CoV-2 viruses. We now have two whole and one partial birth cohort with no experience with seasonal respiratory viruses, including EV-D68 (and nonrespiratory viruses too – like norovirus, parechovirus, and other enteroviruses). Most viruses have particularly bad seasons every 2-3 years, thought to be caused by increasing accumulation of susceptible individuals in consecutive birth cohorts until a critical mass of susceptible individuals is achieved. The excess in susceptible individuals means that each contagious case is likely to expose one or more susceptible individuals, enhancing transmission and infection numbers in an ever-extending ripple effect. We have never had this many children aged under 3 years with no immunity to influenza, RSV, etc. So unless mother nature is kind (when has that happened lately?), expect rebound years for seasonal viruses as children return to daycare/schools and as social mitigation becomes less necessary in the waning pandemic.

Options? If you ramped up telehealth visits for the pandemic, that may be a saving grace, i.e., more efficiency so more “visits” can be completed per day, and less potential contact in reception rooms between well and ill children. And if there was ever a time to really intensify efforts to immunize all our pediatric patients, the next two seasons are just that. Adding a bit of a warning to families with young children also seems warranted. If they understand that, while 2021-2022 will be better for SARS-CoV-2, it is likely going to be worse for the other viruses.

Dr. Harrison is professor of pediatrics and pediatric infectious diseases at Children’s Mercy Hospitals and Clinics, Kansas City, Mo. He said he had no relevant financial disclosures. Email him at pdnews@mdedge.com.

References

1. Harrison CJ. 2020-2021 respiratory viral season: Onset, presentations, and testing likely to differ in pandemic, Pediatric News: September 17, 2020.

2. Olsen SJ et al. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2020;69:1305-9.

3. Respiratory Syncytial Virus Surveillance. http://www.floridahealth.gov/diseases-and-conditions/respiratory-syncytial-virus/_documents/2021-w4-rsv-summary.pdf

4. Baker RE et al. PNAS. Dec 2020 117;(48):30547-53.

5. Sema Nickbakhsh et al. PNAS. Dec 2019 116;(52):27142-50.

6. Kirsten M et al. PNAS. Mar 2020 117;(13):6987.

In this column in September 2020, you read how common respiratory viruses’ seasons are usually so predictable, each virus arising, peaking, and then dying out in a predictable virus parade (Figure 1).¹ Well, the predictable virus seasonal pattern was lost in 2020. Since March of 2020, it is striking how little activity was detected for the usual seasonal viruses in Kansas City after mid-March 2020 (Figure 2).² So, my concern in September 2020 for possible rampant coinfections of common viruses with or in tandem with SARS-CoV-2 did not pan out. That said, the seasons for non–SARS-CoV-2 viruses did change; I just didn’t expect they would nearly disappear.

Dr. Christoper Harrison

The 2020 winter-spring. In the first quarter (the last part of the overall 2019-2020 respiratory viral season), viral detections were chugging along as usual up to mid-March (Figure 2); influenza, respiratory syncytial virus (RSV), and rhinovirus were the big players.

Influenza. In most years, influenza type B leads off and is quickly replaced by type A only to see B reemerge to end influenza season in March-April. In early 2020, both influenza type A and influenza type B cocirculated nearly equally, but both dropped like a rock in mid-March (Figure 2).² Neither type has been seen since with the exception of sporadic detections – perhaps being false positives.

RSV. In the usual year in temperate mid-latitudes of the northern hemisphere, RSV season usually starts in early December, peaks in January-March, and declines gradually until the end of RSV season in April (Figure 1). In southern latitudes, RSV is less seasonal, being present most of the year, but peaking in “winter” months.³ But in 2020, RSV also disappeared in mid-March and has yet to reappear.

Other viruses. Small bumps in detection of parainfluenza of varying types usually frame influenza season, one B bump in early autumn and another in April-May. In most years, human metapneumovirus is detected on and off, with worse years at 2- to 3-year intervals. Adenovirus occurs year-round with bumps as children get back to school in autumn. Yet in 2020, almost no parainfluenza, adenovirus, common coronaviruses, or human metapneumovirus were detected in either spring or autumn. This was supposed to be a banner summer-autumn for EV-D68 – but almost none was detected. Interestingly, the cockroach of viruses, rhinovirus, has its usual year (Figure 2).

Dr. Christopher Harrison

What happened? Intense social mitigation interventions, including social distancing and closing daycares and schools, were likely major factors.⁴ For influenza, vaccine may have helped but uptake was not remarkably better than most prior years. There may have been “viral competition,”where a new or highly transmissible virus outcompetes less-transmissible viruses with lower affinity for respiratory receptors.^5,6 Note that SARS-CoV-2 has very high affinity for the ACE2 receptor and has been highly prevalent. So, SARS-CoV-2 could fit the theoretical mold for a virus that outcompetes others.

Does it matter for the future? Blunted 2019-2020 and nearly absent 2020-2021 respiratory virus season may have set the stage for intense 2021-2022 rebounds for the non–SARS-CoV-2 viruses. We now have two whole and one partial birth cohort with no experience with seasonal respiratory viruses, including EV-D68 (and nonrespiratory viruses too – like norovirus, parechovirus, and other enteroviruses). Most viruses have particularly bad seasons every 2-3 years, thought to be caused by increasing accumulation of susceptible individuals in consecutive birth cohorts until a critical mass of susceptible individuals is achieved. The excess in susceptible individuals means that each contagious case is likely to expose one or more susceptible individuals, enhancing transmission and infection numbers in an ever-extending ripple effect. We have never had this many children aged under 3 years with no immunity to influenza, RSV, etc. So unless mother nature is kind (when has that happened lately?), expect rebound years for seasonal viruses as children return to daycare/schools and as social mitigation becomes less necessary in the waning pandemic.

Options? If you ramped up telehealth visits for the pandemic, that may be a saving grace, i.e., more efficiency so more “visits” can be completed per day, and less potential contact in reception rooms between well and ill children. And if there was ever a time to really intensify efforts to immunize all our pediatric patients, the next two seasons are just that. Adding a bit of a warning to families with young children also seems warranted. If they understand that, while 2021-2022 will be better for SARS-CoV-2, it is likely going to be worse for the other viruses.

Dr. Harrison is professor of pediatrics and pediatric infectious diseases at Children’s Mercy Hospitals and Clinics, Kansas City, Mo. He said he had no relevant financial disclosures. Email him at pdnews@mdedge.com.

References

1. Harrison CJ. 2020-2021 respiratory viral season: Onset, presentations, and testing likely to differ in pandemic, Pediatric News: September 17, 2020.

2. Olsen SJ et al. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2020;69:1305-9.

3. Respiratory Syncytial Virus Surveillance. http://www.floridahealth.gov/diseases-and-conditions/respiratory-syncytial-virus/_documents/2021-w4-rsv-summary.pdf

4. Baker RE et al. PNAS. Dec 2020 117;(48):30547-53.

5. Sema Nickbakhsh et al. PNAS. Dec 2019 116;(52):27142-50.

6. Kirsten M et al. PNAS. Mar 2020 117;(13):6987.

In this column in September 2020, you read how common respiratory viruses’ seasons are usually so predictable, each virus arising, peaking, and then dying out in a predictable virus parade (Figure 1).¹ Well, the predictable virus seasonal pattern was lost in 2020. Since March of 2020, it is striking how little activity was detected for the usual seasonal viruses in Kansas City after mid-March 2020 (Figure 2).² So, my concern in September 2020 for possible rampant coinfections of common viruses with or in tandem with SARS-CoV-2 did not pan out. That said, the seasons for non–SARS-CoV-2 viruses did change; I just didn’t expect they would nearly disappear.

Dr. Christoper Harrison

The 2020 winter-spring. In the first quarter (the last part of the overall 2019-2020 respiratory viral season), viral detections were chugging along as usual up to mid-March (Figure 2); influenza, respiratory syncytial virus (RSV), and rhinovirus were the big players.

Influenza. In most years, influenza type B leads off and is quickly replaced by type A only to see B reemerge to end influenza season in March-April. In early 2020, both influenza type A and influenza type B cocirculated nearly equally, but both dropped like a rock in mid-March (Figure 2).² Neither type has been seen since with the exception of sporadic detections – perhaps being false positives.

RSV. In the usual year in temperate mid-latitudes of the northern hemisphere, RSV season usually starts in early December, peaks in January-March, and declines gradually until the end of RSV season in April (Figure 1). In southern latitudes, RSV is less seasonal, being present most of the year, but peaking in “winter” months.³ But in 2020, RSV also disappeared in mid-March and has yet to reappear.

Other viruses. Small bumps in detection of parainfluenza of varying types usually frame influenza season, one B bump in early autumn and another in April-May. In most years, human metapneumovirus is detected on and off, with worse years at 2- to 3-year intervals. Adenovirus occurs year-round with bumps as children get back to school in autumn. Yet in 2020, almost no parainfluenza, adenovirus, common coronaviruses, or human metapneumovirus were detected in either spring or autumn. This was supposed to be a banner summer-autumn for EV-D68 – but almost none was detected. Interestingly, the cockroach of viruses, rhinovirus, has its usual year (Figure 2).

Dr. Christopher Harrison

What happened? Intense social mitigation interventions, including social distancing and closing daycares and schools, were likely major factors.⁴ For influenza, vaccine may have helped but uptake was not remarkably better than most prior years. There may have been “viral competition,”where a new or highly transmissible virus outcompetes less-transmissible viruses with lower affinity for respiratory receptors.^5,6 Note that SARS-CoV-2 has very high affinity for the ACE2 receptor and has been highly prevalent. So, SARS-CoV-2 could fit the theoretical mold for a virus that outcompetes others.

Does it matter for the future? Blunted 2019-2020 and nearly absent 2020-2021 respiratory virus season may have set the stage for intense 2021-2022 rebounds for the non–SARS-CoV-2 viruses. We now have two whole and one partial birth cohort with no experience with seasonal respiratory viruses, including EV-D68 (and nonrespiratory viruses too – like norovirus, parechovirus, and other enteroviruses). Most viruses have particularly bad seasons every 2-3 years, thought to be caused by increasing accumulation of susceptible individuals in consecutive birth cohorts until a critical mass of susceptible individuals is achieved. The excess in susceptible individuals means that each contagious case is likely to expose one or more susceptible individuals, enhancing transmission and infection numbers in an ever-extending ripple effect. We have never had this many children aged under 3 years with no immunity to influenza, RSV, etc. So unless mother nature is kind (when has that happened lately?), expect rebound years for seasonal viruses as children return to daycare/schools and as social mitigation becomes less necessary in the waning pandemic.

Options? If you ramped up telehealth visits for the pandemic, that may be a saving grace, i.e., more efficiency so more “visits” can be completed per day, and less potential contact in reception rooms between well and ill children. And if there was ever a time to really intensify efforts to immunize all our pediatric patients, the next two seasons are just that. Adding a bit of a warning to families with young children also seems warranted. If they understand that, while 2021-2022 will be better for SARS-CoV-2, it is likely going to be worse for the other viruses.

Dr. Harrison is professor of pediatrics and pediatric infectious diseases at Children’s Mercy Hospitals and Clinics, Kansas City, Mo. He said he had no relevant financial disclosures. Email him at pdnews@mdedge.com.

References

1. Harrison CJ. 2020-2021 respiratory viral season: Onset, presentations, and testing likely to differ in pandemic, Pediatric News: September 17, 2020.

2. Olsen SJ et al. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2020;69:1305-9.

3. Respiratory Syncytial Virus Surveillance. http://www.floridahealth.gov/diseases-and-conditions/respiratory-syncytial-virus/_documents/2021-w4-rsv-summary.pdf

4. Baker RE et al. PNAS. Dec 2020 117;(48):30547-53.

5. Sema Nickbakhsh et al. PNAS. Dec 2019 116;(52):27142-50.

6. Kirsten M et al. PNAS. Mar 2020 117;(13):6987.

John G. Bartlett, MD, professor emeritus at Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, and a prominent leader and instructor in infectious disease medicine, died Jan. 19 at age 83. The cause of death was not immediately disclosed.

Dr. Bartlett is remembered by colleagues for his wide range of infectious disease expertise, an ability to repeatedly predict emerging issues in the field, and for inspiring students and trainees to choose the same specialty. 

“What I consistently found so extraordinary about John was his excitement for ID – the whole field. He had a wonderful sixth sense about what was going to be the next ‘big thing,’” Paul Edward Sax, MD, clinical director of the Infectious Disease Clinic at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston, told this news organization.

“He thoroughly absorbed the emerging research on the topic and then provided the most wonderful clinical summaries,” Dr. Sax said. “His range of expert content areas was unbelievably broad.” Dr. Bartlett was “a true ID polymath.”

Dr. Bartlett was “a giant in the field of infectious diseases,” David Lee Thomas, MD, MPH, said in an interview. He agreed that Dr. Bartlett was a visionary who could anticipate the most exciting developments in the specialty.

Dr. Bartlett also “led the efforts to combat the foes, from HIV to antimicrobial resistance,” said Dr. Thomas, director of the division of infectious diseases and professor of medicine at Johns Hopkins University.
 

A pioneer in HIV research and care

Dr. Bartlett’s early research focused on anaerobic pulmonary and other infections, Bacteroides fragilis pathogenesis, and colitis caused by Clostridioides difficile.

Shortly after joining Johns Hopkins in 1980, he focused on HIV/AIDS research and caring for people with HIV. Dr. Bartlett led clinical trials of new treatments and developed years of HIV clinical treatment guidelines.

“Back when most hospitals, university medical centers, and ID divisions were running away from the AIDS epidemic, John took it on, both as a scientific priority and a moral imperative,” Dr. Sax writes in a blog post for NEJM Journal Watch. “With the help of Frank Polk and the Hopkins president, he established an outpatient AIDS clinic and an inpatient AIDS ward – both of which were way ahead of their time.”

In the same post, Dr. Sax points out that Dr. Bartlett was an expert in multiple areas – any one of which could be a sole career focus. “How many ID doctors are true experts in all of the following distinct topics? HIV, Clostridium difficile, respiratory tract infections, antimicrobial resistance, and anaerobic pulmonary infections.” Dr. Sax writes.
 

Expertise that defined an era

In a piece reviewing the long history of infectious disease medicine at Johns Hopkins published in Clinical Infectious Diseases in 2014, Paul Auwaerter, MD, and colleagues describe his tenure at the institution from 1980 to 2006 as “The Bartlett Era,” notable for the many advances he spearheaded.

“It is nearly impossible to find someone trained in infectious diseases in the past 30 years who has not been impacted by John Bartlett,” Dr. Auwaerter and colleagues note. “His tireless devotion to scholarship, teaching, and patient care remains an inspiration to his faculty members at Johns Hopkins, his colleagues, and coworkers around the world.”

Dr. Bartlett was not only a faculty member in the division of infectious diseases, he also helped establish it. When he joined Johns Hopkins, the infectious disease department featured just three faculty members with a research budget of less than $285,000. By the time he left 26 years later, the division had 44 faculty members on tenure track and a research budget exceeding $40 million.
 

Sharing memories via social media

Reactions to Dr. Bartlett’s passing on Twitter were swift.

“We have lost one of the greatest physicians I have ever met or had the privilege to learn from. Saddened to hear of Dr. John G. Bartlett’s passing. He inspired so many, including me, to choose the field of infectious diseases,” David Fisk, MD, infectious disease specialist in Santa Barbara, Calif., wrote on Twitter.

“John Bartlett just died – a true visionary and the classic ‘Renaissance’ person in clinical ID. Such a nice guy, too! His IDSA/IDWeek literature summaries (among other things) were amazing. We’ll miss him!” Dr. Sax tweeted on Jan. 19.

A colleague at Johns Hopkins, transplant infectious disease specialist Shmuel Shoham, MD, shared an anecdote about Dr. Bartlett on Twitter: “Year ago. My office is across from his. I ask him what he is doing. He tells me he is reviewing a file from the Vatican to adjudicate whether a miracle happened. True story.”

Infectious disease specialist Graeme Forrest, MBBS, also shared a story about Dr. Bartlett via Twitter. “He described to me in 2001 how the U.S. model of health care would not cope with a pandemic or serious bioterror attack as it’s not connected to disseminate information. How prescient from 20 years ago.”

Dr. Bartlett shared his expertise at many national and international infectious disease conferences over the years. He also authored 470 articles, 282 book chapters, and 61 editions of 14 books.

Dr. Bartlett was also a regular contributor to this news organization. For example, he shared his expertise in perspective pieces that addressed priorities in antibiotic stewardship, upcoming infectious disease predictions, and critical infectious disease topics in a three-part series.

Dr. Bartlett’s education includes a bachelor’s degree from Dartmouth College in Hanover, N.H., in 1959 and an MD from Upstate Medical Center in Syracuse, N.Y., in 1963. He did his first 2 years of residency at Brigham and Women’s Hospital.

He also served as an Army captain from 1965 to 1967, treating patients in fever wards in Vietnam. He then returned to the United States to finish his internal medicine training at the University of Alabama in 1968.

Dr. Bartlett completed his fellowship in infectious diseases at the University of California, Los Angeles. In 1975, he joined the faculty at Tufts University, Boston.
 

Leaving a legacy

Dr. Bartlett’s influence will likely live on in many ways at Johns Hopkins.

“John is a larger-than-life legend whose impact will endure and after whom we are so proud to have named our clinical service, The Bartlett Specialty Practice,” Dr. Thomas said.

The specialty practice clinic named for him has 23 exam rooms and features multidisciplinary care for people with HIV, hepatitis, bone infections, general infectious diseases, and more. Furthermore, friends, family, and colleagues joined forces to create the “Dr. John G. Bartlett HIV/AIDS Fund.”

They note that it is “only appropriate that we honor him by creating an endowment that will provide support for young trainees and junior faculty in the division, helping them transition to their independent careers.”

In addition to all his professional accomplishments, “He was also a genuinely nice person, approachable and humble,” Dr. Sax said. “We really lost a great one!”

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

John G. Bartlett, MD, professor emeritus at Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, and a prominent leader and instructor in infectious disease medicine, died Jan. 19 at age 83. The cause of death was not immediately disclosed.

Dr. Bartlett is remembered by colleagues for his wide range of infectious disease expertise, an ability to repeatedly predict emerging issues in the field, and for inspiring students and trainees to choose the same specialty. 

“What I consistently found so extraordinary about John was his excitement for ID – the whole field. He had a wonderful sixth sense about what was going to be the next ‘big thing,’” Paul Edward Sax, MD, clinical director of the Infectious Disease Clinic at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston, told this news organization.

“He thoroughly absorbed the emerging research on the topic and then provided the most wonderful clinical summaries,” Dr. Sax said. “His range of expert content areas was unbelievably broad.” Dr. Bartlett was “a true ID polymath.”

Dr. Bartlett was “a giant in the field of infectious diseases,” David Lee Thomas, MD, MPH, said in an interview. He agreed that Dr. Bartlett was a visionary who could anticipate the most exciting developments in the specialty.

Dr. Bartlett also “led the efforts to combat the foes, from HIV to antimicrobial resistance,” said Dr. Thomas, director of the division of infectious diseases and professor of medicine at Johns Hopkins University.
 

A pioneer in HIV research and care

Dr. Bartlett’s early research focused on anaerobic pulmonary and other infections, Bacteroides fragilis pathogenesis, and colitis caused by Clostridioides difficile.

Shortly after joining Johns Hopkins in 1980, he focused on HIV/AIDS research and caring for people with HIV. Dr. Bartlett led clinical trials of new treatments and developed years of HIV clinical treatment guidelines.

“Back when most hospitals, university medical centers, and ID divisions were running away from the AIDS epidemic, John took it on, both as a scientific priority and a moral imperative,” Dr. Sax writes in a blog post for NEJM Journal Watch. “With the help of Frank Polk and the Hopkins president, he established an outpatient AIDS clinic and an inpatient AIDS ward – both of which were way ahead of their time.”

In the same post, Dr. Sax points out that Dr. Bartlett was an expert in multiple areas – any one of which could be a sole career focus. “How many ID doctors are true experts in all of the following distinct topics? HIV, Clostridium difficile, respiratory tract infections, antimicrobial resistance, and anaerobic pulmonary infections.” Dr. Sax writes.
 

Expertise that defined an era

In a piece reviewing the long history of infectious disease medicine at Johns Hopkins published in Clinical Infectious Diseases in 2014, Paul Auwaerter, MD, and colleagues describe his tenure at the institution from 1980 to 2006 as “The Bartlett Era,” notable for the many advances he spearheaded.

“It is nearly impossible to find someone trained in infectious diseases in the past 30 years who has not been impacted by John Bartlett,” Dr. Auwaerter and colleagues note. “His tireless devotion to scholarship, teaching, and patient care remains an inspiration to his faculty members at Johns Hopkins, his colleagues, and coworkers around the world.”

Dr. Bartlett was not only a faculty member in the division of infectious diseases, he also helped establish it. When he joined Johns Hopkins, the infectious disease department featured just three faculty members with a research budget of less than $285,000. By the time he left 26 years later, the division had 44 faculty members on tenure track and a research budget exceeding $40 million.
 

Sharing memories via social media

Reactions to Dr. Bartlett’s passing on Twitter were swift.

“We have lost one of the greatest physicians I have ever met or had the privilege to learn from. Saddened to hear of Dr. John G. Bartlett’s passing. He inspired so many, including me, to choose the field of infectious diseases,” David Fisk, MD, infectious disease specialist in Santa Barbara, Calif., wrote on Twitter.

“John Bartlett just died – a true visionary and the classic ‘Renaissance’ person in clinical ID. Such a nice guy, too! His IDSA/IDWeek literature summaries (among other things) were amazing. We’ll miss him!” Dr. Sax tweeted on Jan. 19.

A colleague at Johns Hopkins, transplant infectious disease specialist Shmuel Shoham, MD, shared an anecdote about Dr. Bartlett on Twitter: “Year ago. My office is across from his. I ask him what he is doing. He tells me he is reviewing a file from the Vatican to adjudicate whether a miracle happened. True story.”

Infectious disease specialist Graeme Forrest, MBBS, also shared a story about Dr. Bartlett via Twitter. “He described to me in 2001 how the U.S. model of health care would not cope with a pandemic or serious bioterror attack as it’s not connected to disseminate information. How prescient from 20 years ago.”

Dr. Bartlett shared his expertise at many national and international infectious disease conferences over the years. He also authored 470 articles, 282 book chapters, and 61 editions of 14 books.

Dr. Bartlett was also a regular contributor to this news organization. For example, he shared his expertise in perspective pieces that addressed priorities in antibiotic stewardship, upcoming infectious disease predictions, and critical infectious disease topics in a three-part series.

Dr. Bartlett’s education includes a bachelor’s degree from Dartmouth College in Hanover, N.H., in 1959 and an MD from Upstate Medical Center in Syracuse, N.Y., in 1963. He did his first 2 years of residency at Brigham and Women’s Hospital.

He also served as an Army captain from 1965 to 1967, treating patients in fever wards in Vietnam. He then returned to the United States to finish his internal medicine training at the University of Alabama in 1968.

Dr. Bartlett completed his fellowship in infectious diseases at the University of California, Los Angeles. In 1975, he joined the faculty at Tufts University, Boston.
 

Leaving a legacy

Dr. Bartlett’s influence will likely live on in many ways at Johns Hopkins.

“John is a larger-than-life legend whose impact will endure and after whom we are so proud to have named our clinical service, The Bartlett Specialty Practice,” Dr. Thomas said.

The specialty practice clinic named for him has 23 exam rooms and features multidisciplinary care for people with HIV, hepatitis, bone infections, general infectious diseases, and more. Furthermore, friends, family, and colleagues joined forces to create the “Dr. John G. Bartlett HIV/AIDS Fund.”

They note that it is “only appropriate that we honor him by creating an endowment that will provide support for young trainees and junior faculty in the division, helping them transition to their independent careers.”

In addition to all his professional accomplishments, “He was also a genuinely nice person, approachable and humble,” Dr. Sax said. “We really lost a great one!”

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

John G. Bartlett, MD, professor emeritus at Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, and a prominent leader and instructor in infectious disease medicine, died Jan. 19 at age 83. The cause of death was not immediately disclosed.

Dr. Bartlett is remembered by colleagues for his wide range of infectious disease expertise, an ability to repeatedly predict emerging issues in the field, and for inspiring students and trainees to choose the same specialty. 

“What I consistently found so extraordinary about John was his excitement for ID – the whole field. He had a wonderful sixth sense about what was going to be the next ‘big thing,’” Paul Edward Sax, MD, clinical director of the Infectious Disease Clinic at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston, told this news organization.

“He thoroughly absorbed the emerging research on the topic and then provided the most wonderful clinical summaries,” Dr. Sax said. “His range of expert content areas was unbelievably broad.” Dr. Bartlett was “a true ID polymath.”

Dr. Bartlett was “a giant in the field of infectious diseases,” David Lee Thomas, MD, MPH, said in an interview. He agreed that Dr. Bartlett was a visionary who could anticipate the most exciting developments in the specialty.

Dr. Bartlett also “led the efforts to combat the foes, from HIV to antimicrobial resistance,” said Dr. Thomas, director of the division of infectious diseases and professor of medicine at Johns Hopkins University.
 

A pioneer in HIV research and care

Dr. Bartlett’s early research focused on anaerobic pulmonary and other infections, Bacteroides fragilis pathogenesis, and colitis caused by Clostridioides difficile.

Shortly after joining Johns Hopkins in 1980, he focused on HIV/AIDS research and caring for people with HIV. Dr. Bartlett led clinical trials of new treatments and developed years of HIV clinical treatment guidelines.

“Back when most hospitals, university medical centers, and ID divisions were running away from the AIDS epidemic, John took it on, both as a scientific priority and a moral imperative,” Dr. Sax writes in a blog post for NEJM Journal Watch. “With the help of Frank Polk and the Hopkins president, he established an outpatient AIDS clinic and an inpatient AIDS ward – both of which were way ahead of their time.”

In the same post, Dr. Sax points out that Dr. Bartlett was an expert in multiple areas – any one of which could be a sole career focus. “How many ID doctors are true experts in all of the following distinct topics? HIV, Clostridium difficile, respiratory tract infections, antimicrobial resistance, and anaerobic pulmonary infections.” Dr. Sax writes.
 

Expertise that defined an era

In a piece reviewing the long history of infectious disease medicine at Johns Hopkins published in Clinical Infectious Diseases in 2014, Paul Auwaerter, MD, and colleagues describe his tenure at the institution from 1980 to 2006 as “The Bartlett Era,” notable for the many advances he spearheaded.

“It is nearly impossible to find someone trained in infectious diseases in the past 30 years who has not been impacted by John Bartlett,” Dr. Auwaerter and colleagues note. “His tireless devotion to scholarship, teaching, and patient care remains an inspiration to his faculty members at Johns Hopkins, his colleagues, and coworkers around the world.”

Dr. Bartlett was not only a faculty member in the division of infectious diseases, he also helped establish it. When he joined Johns Hopkins, the infectious disease department featured just three faculty members with a research budget of less than $285,000. By the time he left 26 years later, the division had 44 faculty members on tenure track and a research budget exceeding $40 million.
 

Sharing memories via social media

Reactions to Dr. Bartlett’s passing on Twitter were swift.

“We have lost one of the greatest physicians I have ever met or had the privilege to learn from. Saddened to hear of Dr. John G. Bartlett’s passing. He inspired so many, including me, to choose the field of infectious diseases,” David Fisk, MD, infectious disease specialist in Santa Barbara, Calif., wrote on Twitter.

“John Bartlett just died – a true visionary and the classic ‘Renaissance’ person in clinical ID. Such a nice guy, too! His IDSA/IDWeek literature summaries (among other things) were amazing. We’ll miss him!” Dr. Sax tweeted on Jan. 19.

A colleague at Johns Hopkins, transplant infectious disease specialist Shmuel Shoham, MD, shared an anecdote about Dr. Bartlett on Twitter: “Year ago. My office is across from his. I ask him what he is doing. He tells me he is reviewing a file from the Vatican to adjudicate whether a miracle happened. True story.”

Infectious disease specialist Graeme Forrest, MBBS, also shared a story about Dr. Bartlett via Twitter. “He described to me in 2001 how the U.S. model of health care would not cope with a pandemic or serious bioterror attack as it’s not connected to disseminate information. How prescient from 20 years ago.”

Dr. Bartlett shared his expertise at many national and international infectious disease conferences over the years. He also authored 470 articles, 282 book chapters, and 61 editions of 14 books.

Dr. Bartlett was also a regular contributor to this news organization. For example, he shared his expertise in perspective pieces that addressed priorities in antibiotic stewardship, upcoming infectious disease predictions, and critical infectious disease topics in a three-part series.

Dr. Bartlett’s education includes a bachelor’s degree from Dartmouth College in Hanover, N.H., in 1959 and an MD from Upstate Medical Center in Syracuse, N.Y., in 1963. He did his first 2 years of residency at Brigham and Women’s Hospital.

He also served as an Army captain from 1965 to 1967, treating patients in fever wards in Vietnam. He then returned to the United States to finish his internal medicine training at the University of Alabama in 1968.

Dr. Bartlett completed his fellowship in infectious diseases at the University of California, Los Angeles. In 1975, he joined the faculty at Tufts University, Boston.
 

Leaving a legacy

Dr. Bartlett’s influence will likely live on in many ways at Johns Hopkins.

“John is a larger-than-life legend whose impact will endure and after whom we are so proud to have named our clinical service, The Bartlett Specialty Practice,” Dr. Thomas said.

The specialty practice clinic named for him has 23 exam rooms and features multidisciplinary care for people with HIV, hepatitis, bone infections, general infectious diseases, and more. Furthermore, friends, family, and colleagues joined forces to create the “Dr. John G. Bartlett HIV/AIDS Fund.”

They note that it is “only appropriate that we honor him by creating an endowment that will provide support for young trainees and junior faculty in the division, helping them transition to their independent careers.”

In addition to all his professional accomplishments, “He was also a genuinely nice person, approachable and humble,” Dr. Sax said. “We really lost a great one!”

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

Combination antiretroviral therapy (cART) has shifted HIV infection from a fatal to a chronic condition. New evidence now suggests this has been accompanied by a shift in the profile of HIV-related brain abnormalities beyond the basal ganglia, frequently implicated in the pre-cART era, to limbic structures.

“This shift in subcortical signatures may be contributing to the increasing range of neuropsychiatric and cognitive outcomes,” write Neda Jahanshad, PhD, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, and colleagues.

The study was published online Jan. 15 in JAMA Network Open.
 

Brain signature of HIV

The researchers with the HIV Working Group within the Enhancing Neuro Imaging Genetics Through Meta Analysis (ENIGMA) consortium examined structural brain associations with CD4+ T cell counts and HIV viral load.

These clinical markers are the most consistently available in studies of HIV and generalize across demographically and clinically diverse HIV-infected individuals, they point out. However, the degree to which they capture central nervous system injury is not fully understood.

In this cross-sectional study of 1,203 HIV-infected adults from 13 HIV neuroimaging studies, a lower CD4+ T-cell count was associated with smaller hippocampal and thalamic volume independent of treatment status. However, in a subset of adults not on cART, a lower CD4+ T-cell count was associated with smaller putamen volume.

Across all participants, detectable viral load was associated with smaller hippocampal volume, but in the subset on cART, detectable viral load was also associated with smaller amygdala volume.

The findings indicate that plasma markers universally used to monitor immune function and response to treatment in patients with HIV infection are associated with subcortical brain volume.

“Our findings,” they add, “extend beyond the classically implicated regions of the basal ganglia and may represent a generalizable brain signature of HIV infection in the cART era.”

A limitation of the analysis is that most of the participants were men (n = 880, 73%). “A more extensive international effort assessing the neurologic effects of HIV infection in women is needed,” they conclude.

This analysis, they add, demonstrates the feasibility and utility of a global collaborative initiative to understand the neurologic signatures of HIV infection. They invite other HIV researchers to join the ENIGMA-HIV consortium.

“With a greater collaborative effort, we will be able to assess factors that may modulate neurologic outcomes, including cART treatment regimens, comorbidities, coinfections, substance use, socioeconomic factors, and demographic factors, as well as the functional implications of such structural brain differences, in well-powered analyses,” the researchers say.

“Understanding the neurobiological changes that may contribute to neuropsychiatric and cognitive outcomes in HIV-positive individuals is critical for identifying individuals at risk for neurologic symptoms, driving novel treatments that may protect the CNS, and monitoring treatment response,” they add.

Support for this research was provided by grants from the National Institutes of Health, the SA Medical Research Council, the National Health and Medical Research Council, and the European Research Council. Dr. Jahanshad received partial research support from Biogen for work unrelated to the topic of this article. A complete list of author disclosures is in the original article.

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

Combination antiretroviral therapy (cART) has shifted HIV infection from a fatal to a chronic condition. New evidence now suggests this has been accompanied by a shift in the profile of HIV-related brain abnormalities beyond the basal ganglia, frequently implicated in the pre-cART era, to limbic structures.

“This shift in subcortical signatures may be contributing to the increasing range of neuropsychiatric and cognitive outcomes,” write Neda Jahanshad, PhD, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, and colleagues.

The study was published online Jan. 15 in JAMA Network Open.
 

Brain signature of HIV

The researchers with the HIV Working Group within the Enhancing Neuro Imaging Genetics Through Meta Analysis (ENIGMA) consortium examined structural brain associations with CD4+ T cell counts and HIV viral load.

These clinical markers are the most consistently available in studies of HIV and generalize across demographically and clinically diverse HIV-infected individuals, they point out. However, the degree to which they capture central nervous system injury is not fully understood.

In this cross-sectional study of 1,203 HIV-infected adults from 13 HIV neuroimaging studies, a lower CD4+ T-cell count was associated with smaller hippocampal and thalamic volume independent of treatment status. However, in a subset of adults not on cART, a lower CD4+ T-cell count was associated with smaller putamen volume.

Across all participants, detectable viral load was associated with smaller hippocampal volume, but in the subset on cART, detectable viral load was also associated with smaller amygdala volume.

The findings indicate that plasma markers universally used to monitor immune function and response to treatment in patients with HIV infection are associated with subcortical brain volume.

“Our findings,” they add, “extend beyond the classically implicated regions of the basal ganglia and may represent a generalizable brain signature of HIV infection in the cART era.”

A limitation of the analysis is that most of the participants were men (n = 880, 73%). “A more extensive international effort assessing the neurologic effects of HIV infection in women is needed,” they conclude.

This analysis, they add, demonstrates the feasibility and utility of a global collaborative initiative to understand the neurologic signatures of HIV infection. They invite other HIV researchers to join the ENIGMA-HIV consortium.

“With a greater collaborative effort, we will be able to assess factors that may modulate neurologic outcomes, including cART treatment regimens, comorbidities, coinfections, substance use, socioeconomic factors, and demographic factors, as well as the functional implications of such structural brain differences, in well-powered analyses,” the researchers say.

“Understanding the neurobiological changes that may contribute to neuropsychiatric and cognitive outcomes in HIV-positive individuals is critical for identifying individuals at risk for neurologic symptoms, driving novel treatments that may protect the CNS, and monitoring treatment response,” they add.

Support for this research was provided by grants from the National Institutes of Health, the SA Medical Research Council, the National Health and Medical Research Council, and the European Research Council. Dr. Jahanshad received partial research support from Biogen for work unrelated to the topic of this article. A complete list of author disclosures is in the original article.

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

Combination antiretroviral therapy (cART) has shifted HIV infection from a fatal to a chronic condition. New evidence now suggests this has been accompanied by a shift in the profile of HIV-related brain abnormalities beyond the basal ganglia, frequently implicated in the pre-cART era, to limbic structures.

“This shift in subcortical signatures may be contributing to the increasing range of neuropsychiatric and cognitive outcomes,” write Neda Jahanshad, PhD, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, and colleagues.

The study was published online Jan. 15 in JAMA Network Open.
 

Brain signature of HIV

The researchers with the HIV Working Group within the Enhancing Neuro Imaging Genetics Through Meta Analysis (ENIGMA) consortium examined structural brain associations with CD4+ T cell counts and HIV viral load.

These clinical markers are the most consistently available in studies of HIV and generalize across demographically and clinically diverse HIV-infected individuals, they point out. However, the degree to which they capture central nervous system injury is not fully understood.

In this cross-sectional study of 1,203 HIV-infected adults from 13 HIV neuroimaging studies, a lower CD4+ T-cell count was associated with smaller hippocampal and thalamic volume independent of treatment status. However, in a subset of adults not on cART, a lower CD4+ T-cell count was associated with smaller putamen volume.

Across all participants, detectable viral load was associated with smaller hippocampal volume, but in the subset on cART, detectable viral load was also associated with smaller amygdala volume.

The findings indicate that plasma markers universally used to monitor immune function and response to treatment in patients with HIV infection are associated with subcortical brain volume.

“Our findings,” they add, “extend beyond the classically implicated regions of the basal ganglia and may represent a generalizable brain signature of HIV infection in the cART era.”

A limitation of the analysis is that most of the participants were men (n = 880, 73%). “A more extensive international effort assessing the neurologic effects of HIV infection in women is needed,” they conclude.

This analysis, they add, demonstrates the feasibility and utility of a global collaborative initiative to understand the neurologic signatures of HIV infection. They invite other HIV researchers to join the ENIGMA-HIV consortium.

“With a greater collaborative effort, we will be able to assess factors that may modulate neurologic outcomes, including cART treatment regimens, comorbidities, coinfections, substance use, socioeconomic factors, and demographic factors, as well as the functional implications of such structural brain differences, in well-powered analyses,” the researchers say.

“Understanding the neurobiological changes that may contribute to neuropsychiatric and cognitive outcomes in HIV-positive individuals is critical for identifying individuals at risk for neurologic symptoms, driving novel treatments that may protect the CNS, and monitoring treatment response,” they add.

Support for this research was provided by grants from the National Institutes of Health, the SA Medical Research Council, the National Health and Medical Research Council, and the European Research Council. Dr. Jahanshad received partial research support from Biogen for work unrelated to the topic of this article. A complete list of author disclosures is in the original article.

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

The combination of methylprednisolone and intravenous immunoglobulins works better than intravenous immunoglobulins alone for multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children (MIS-C), researchers say.

“I’m not sure it’s the best treatment because we have not studied every possible treatment,” François Angoulvant, MD, PhD, told this news organization, “but right now, it’s the standard of care.”

Dr. Angoulvant, a professor of pediatrics at University of Paris, and colleagues published a comparison of the two treatments in the Journal of the American Medical Association.

A small percentage of children infected with SARS-CoV-2 develop MIS-C about 2 to 4 weeks later. It is considered a separate disease entity from COVID-19 and is associated with persistent fever, digestive symptoms, rash, bilateral nonpurulent conjunctivitis, mucocutaneous inflammation signs, and frequent cardiovascular involvement. In more than 60% of cases, it leads to hemodynamic failure, with acute cardiac dysfunction.

Because MIS-C resembles Kawasaki disease, clinicians modeled their treatment on that condition and started with immunoglobulins alone, Dr. Angoulvant said.

Based on expert opinion, the National Health Service in the United Kingdom published a consensus statement in Sept. listing immunoglobulins alone as the first-line treatment.

But anecdotal reports have emerged that combining the immunoglobulins with a corticosteroid worked better. To investigate this possibility, Dr. Angoulvant and colleagues analyzed records of MIS-C cases in France, where physicians are required to report all suspected cases of MIS-C to the French National Public Health Agency.

Among the 181 cases they scrutinized, 111 fulfilled the World Health Organization criteria for MIS-C. Of these, the researchers were able to match 64 patients who had received immunoglobulins alone with 32 who had received the combined therapy and could be matched using propensity scores.

The researchers defined treatment failure as persistence of fever for 2 days after the start of therapy or recurrence of fever within a week. By this measure, the combination treatment failed in only 9% of cases while immunoglobulins alone failed in 38% of cases. The difference was statistically significant (P = .008). Most of those for whom these treatments failed received second-line treatments such as steroids or biological agents.

Patients treated with the combination therapy also had a lower risk of secondary acute left ventricular dysfunction (odds ratio, 0.20; 95% confidence interval, 0.06-0.66) and a lower risk of needing hemodynamic support (OR, 0.21; 95% CI, 0.06-0.76).

Those receiving the combination therapy spent a mean of 4 days in the pediatric intensive care unit compared with 6 days for those receiving immunoglobulins alone. (Difference in days, −2.4; 95% CI, −4.0 to −0.7; P = .005).

There are few drawbacks to the combination approach, Dr. Angoulvant said, as the side effects of corticosteroids are generally not severe and they can be anticipated because this class of medications has been used for many years.

The study raises the question of whether corticosteroids might work as well by themselves, but it could not be answered with this database as no one is using that approach in France, Dr. Angoulvant said. “I hope other teams around the world could bring us the answer.”

In the United States, most physicians appear to already be using the combination therapy, said David Teachey, MD, an associate professor of pediatrics at the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia and the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.

The reduction in time in pediatric intensive care and the reduced risk of cardiac dysfunction are important findings, he said.

This retrospective study falls short of the evidence provided by a randomized clinical trial, Dr. Teachey noted. But he acknowledged that few families would agree to participate in such a trial as they would have to take a chance that the sick children would receive a less effective therapy than what they would otherwise get. “It’s hard to [talk] about a therapy reduction,” he told this news organization.

Given that impediment, he agreed with Dr. Angoulvant that the current study and others like it may provide the best data available pointing to a treatment approach for MIS-C.

The study received an unrestricted grant from Pfizer. The French COVID-19 Paediatric Inflammation Consortium received an unrestricted grant from the Square Foundation (Grandir–Fonds de Solidarité pour L’Enfance). Dr. Angoulvant and Dr. Teachey have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

The combination of methylprednisolone and intravenous immunoglobulins works better than intravenous immunoglobulins alone for multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children (MIS-C), researchers say.

“I’m not sure it’s the best treatment because we have not studied every possible treatment,” François Angoulvant, MD, PhD, told this news organization, “but right now, it’s the standard of care.”

Dr. Angoulvant, a professor of pediatrics at University of Paris, and colleagues published a comparison of the two treatments in the Journal of the American Medical Association.

A small percentage of children infected with SARS-CoV-2 develop MIS-C about 2 to 4 weeks later. It is considered a separate disease entity from COVID-19 and is associated with persistent fever, digestive symptoms, rash, bilateral nonpurulent conjunctivitis, mucocutaneous inflammation signs, and frequent cardiovascular involvement. In more than 60% of cases, it leads to hemodynamic failure, with acute cardiac dysfunction.

Because MIS-C resembles Kawasaki disease, clinicians modeled their treatment on that condition and started with immunoglobulins alone, Dr. Angoulvant said.

Based on expert opinion, the National Health Service in the United Kingdom published a consensus statement in Sept. listing immunoglobulins alone as the first-line treatment.

But anecdotal reports have emerged that combining the immunoglobulins with a corticosteroid worked better. To investigate this possibility, Dr. Angoulvant and colleagues analyzed records of MIS-C cases in France, where physicians are required to report all suspected cases of MIS-C to the French National Public Health Agency.

Among the 181 cases they scrutinized, 111 fulfilled the World Health Organization criteria for MIS-C. Of these, the researchers were able to match 64 patients who had received immunoglobulins alone with 32 who had received the combined therapy and could be matched using propensity scores.

The researchers defined treatment failure as persistence of fever for 2 days after the start of therapy or recurrence of fever within a week. By this measure, the combination treatment failed in only 9% of cases while immunoglobulins alone failed in 38% of cases. The difference was statistically significant (P = .008). Most of those for whom these treatments failed received second-line treatments such as steroids or biological agents.

Patients treated with the combination therapy also had a lower risk of secondary acute left ventricular dysfunction (odds ratio, 0.20; 95% confidence interval, 0.06-0.66) and a lower risk of needing hemodynamic support (OR, 0.21; 95% CI, 0.06-0.76).

Those receiving the combination therapy spent a mean of 4 days in the pediatric intensive care unit compared with 6 days for those receiving immunoglobulins alone. (Difference in days, −2.4; 95% CI, −4.0 to −0.7; P = .005).

There are few drawbacks to the combination approach, Dr. Angoulvant said, as the side effects of corticosteroids are generally not severe and they can be anticipated because this class of medications has been used for many years.

The study raises the question of whether corticosteroids might work as well by themselves, but it could not be answered with this database as no one is using that approach in France, Dr. Angoulvant said. “I hope other teams around the world could bring us the answer.”

In the United States, most physicians appear to already be using the combination therapy, said David Teachey, MD, an associate professor of pediatrics at the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia and the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.

The reduction in time in pediatric intensive care and the reduced risk of cardiac dysfunction are important findings, he said.

This retrospective study falls short of the evidence provided by a randomized clinical trial, Dr. Teachey noted. But he acknowledged that few families would agree to participate in such a trial as they would have to take a chance that the sick children would receive a less effective therapy than what they would otherwise get. “It’s hard to [talk] about a therapy reduction,” he told this news organization.

Given that impediment, he agreed with Dr. Angoulvant that the current study and others like it may provide the best data available pointing to a treatment approach for MIS-C.

The study received an unrestricted grant from Pfizer. The French COVID-19 Paediatric Inflammation Consortium received an unrestricted grant from the Square Foundation (Grandir–Fonds de Solidarité pour L’Enfance). Dr. Angoulvant and Dr. Teachey have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

The combination of methylprednisolone and intravenous immunoglobulins works better than intravenous immunoglobulins alone for multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children (MIS-C), researchers say.

“I’m not sure it’s the best treatment because we have not studied every possible treatment,” François Angoulvant, MD, PhD, told this news organization, “but right now, it’s the standard of care.”

Dr. Angoulvant, a professor of pediatrics at University of Paris, and colleagues published a comparison of the two treatments in the Journal of the American Medical Association.

A small percentage of children infected with SARS-CoV-2 develop MIS-C about 2 to 4 weeks later. It is considered a separate disease entity from COVID-19 and is associated with persistent fever, digestive symptoms, rash, bilateral nonpurulent conjunctivitis, mucocutaneous inflammation signs, and frequent cardiovascular involvement. In more than 60% of cases, it leads to hemodynamic failure, with acute cardiac dysfunction.

Because MIS-C resembles Kawasaki disease, clinicians modeled their treatment on that condition and started with immunoglobulins alone, Dr. Angoulvant said.

Based on expert opinion, the National Health Service in the United Kingdom published a consensus statement in Sept. listing immunoglobulins alone as the first-line treatment.

But anecdotal reports have emerged that combining the immunoglobulins with a corticosteroid worked better. To investigate this possibility, Dr. Angoulvant and colleagues analyzed records of MIS-C cases in France, where physicians are required to report all suspected cases of MIS-C to the French National Public Health Agency.

Among the 181 cases they scrutinized, 111 fulfilled the World Health Organization criteria for MIS-C. Of these, the researchers were able to match 64 patients who had received immunoglobulins alone with 32 who had received the combined therapy and could be matched using propensity scores.

The researchers defined treatment failure as persistence of fever for 2 days after the start of therapy or recurrence of fever within a week. By this measure, the combination treatment failed in only 9% of cases while immunoglobulins alone failed in 38% of cases. The difference was statistically significant (P = .008). Most of those for whom these treatments failed received second-line treatments such as steroids or biological agents.

Patients treated with the combination therapy also had a lower risk of secondary acute left ventricular dysfunction (odds ratio, 0.20; 95% confidence interval, 0.06-0.66) and a lower risk of needing hemodynamic support (OR, 0.21; 95% CI, 0.06-0.76).

Those receiving the combination therapy spent a mean of 4 days in the pediatric intensive care unit compared with 6 days for those receiving immunoglobulins alone. (Difference in days, −2.4; 95% CI, −4.0 to −0.7; P = .005).

There are few drawbacks to the combination approach, Dr. Angoulvant said, as the side effects of corticosteroids are generally not severe and they can be anticipated because this class of medications has been used for many years.

The study raises the question of whether corticosteroids might work as well by themselves, but it could not be answered with this database as no one is using that approach in France, Dr. Angoulvant said. “I hope other teams around the world could bring us the answer.”

In the United States, most physicians appear to already be using the combination therapy, said David Teachey, MD, an associate professor of pediatrics at the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia and the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.

The reduction in time in pediatric intensive care and the reduced risk of cardiac dysfunction are important findings, he said.

This retrospective study falls short of the evidence provided by a randomized clinical trial, Dr. Teachey noted. But he acknowledged that few families would agree to participate in such a trial as they would have to take a chance that the sick children would receive a less effective therapy than what they would otherwise get. “It’s hard to [talk] about a therapy reduction,” he told this news organization.

Given that impediment, he agreed with Dr. Angoulvant that the current study and others like it may provide the best data available pointing to a treatment approach for MIS-C.

The study received an unrestricted grant from Pfizer. The French COVID-19 Paediatric Inflammation Consortium received an unrestricted grant from the Square Foundation (Grandir–Fonds de Solidarité pour L’Enfance). Dr. Angoulvant and Dr. Teachey have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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