Infectious Diseases

I recently posted a case about a smoker who became angry when I hesitated to prescribe antibiotics for his self-diagnosed bronchitis. He even threatened to retaliate by posting negative online reviews of my practice. In the end, I decided to use the strategy of a delayed prescription for antibiotics, instructing him to fill the prescription only if his symptoms worsened. I asked whether readers agreed with this approach. Thank you for the thoughtful comments regarding a case that certainly seemed familiar to many of you. I very much appreciate the chance to interact and share perspectives in a challenging clinical dilemma.
 

One theme that emerged through several comments was the perceived futility of the delayed prescriptions for antibiotics. To summarize, the collective logic stated that there is no point in delaying a prescription, because the patient will be very likely to fill that prescription right away despite counseling from the health care provider (HCP).

However, studies of delayed antibiotic prescriptions show that patients generally honor the advice to only fill the prescription if they are not improving clinically. In a study comparing immediate, delayed, or no antibiotic prescriptions among a cohort of children with uncomplicated respiratory infections, the overall rates of use of antibiotics in the three respective groups were 96%, 25.3%, and 12.0%. In another randomized trial exploring different strategies for delayed prescriptions among adults with upper respiratory infections, the rate of antibiotic use was 37% with delayed prescription strategies vs. 97% of patients prescribed antibiotics immediately. Neither of these prospective studies found a significant difference in clinical symptoms or complications in comparing the delayed and immediate antibiotic prescription groups.

Another common theme in the comments on this case focused on the challenge of online reviews of HCPs by patients. Multiple popular websites are devoted to patients’ unedited comments on HCPs and their practices, but there are still certain patterns to the comments. Some reviews describe the professionalism or empathy of the HCP, but others might focus more attention on the overall practice or office. These latter comments might emphasize issues such as timeliness of appointments, interactions with staff, or even parking and traffic. These are issues over which the HCP usually has little control.

HCPs are quite human, and therefore we might feel great about positive comments and dispirited or even angry with negative comments. So what is the best practice for HCPs in managing these online comments? A review by Dr Rebekah Bernard, which was published in the Sept. 25, 2018, issue of Medical Economics, offered some pragmatic advice:

Do not perseverate on one or two negative reviews. In fact, they might help! Dr. Bernard describes the psychological theory of the “pratfall effect,” in which people are more likely to prefer someone who is generally very good but not perfect to someone with nothing but exceptional reviews. HCPs with perfect reviews every time may be seen as intimidating or unapproachable.

Satisfied patients will frequently rally to support an HCP with an unfavorable review. This group may not be very motivated to complete online reviews until they see a comment which does at all match their own experience with the HCP.

Most importantly, HCPs can take an active role in minimizing the impact of negative online reviews while also enhancing their business model. Increasing your presence on the Internet and social media can help dilute negative reviews and push them down the list when someone performs a search on your name or practice. Creating a website for your practice is an effective means to be first on search engine lists, and HCPs should seek search-engine optimization features that promote this outcome. Adding social media contacts for yourself and/or your practice, as many as you can tolerate and maintain, allows HCPs to further control the narrative regarding their practice and central messaging to patients and the community.

In conclusion, delayed antibiotic prescriptions can reduce the use of unnecessary antibiotics for upper respiratory infections among children and adults, and they are not associated with worse clinical outcomes vs. immediate antibiotic prescriptions. They can also improve patient satisfaction for these visits, which can minimize the challenging issue of negative reviews of HCPs. HCPs should therefore consider delayed prescriptions as a strong option among patients without an indication for an antibiotic prescription.

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

I recently posted a case about a smoker who became angry when I hesitated to prescribe antibiotics for his self-diagnosed bronchitis. He even threatened to retaliate by posting negative online reviews of my practice. In the end, I decided to use the strategy of a delayed prescription for antibiotics, instructing him to fill the prescription only if his symptoms worsened. I asked whether readers agreed with this approach. Thank you for the thoughtful comments regarding a case that certainly seemed familiar to many of you. I very much appreciate the chance to interact and share perspectives in a challenging clinical dilemma.
 

One theme that emerged through several comments was the perceived futility of the delayed prescriptions for antibiotics. To summarize, the collective logic stated that there is no point in delaying a prescription, because the patient will be very likely to fill that prescription right away despite counseling from the health care provider (HCP).

However, studies of delayed antibiotic prescriptions show that patients generally honor the advice to only fill the prescription if they are not improving clinically. In a study comparing immediate, delayed, or no antibiotic prescriptions among a cohort of children with uncomplicated respiratory infections, the overall rates of use of antibiotics in the three respective groups were 96%, 25.3%, and 12.0%. In another randomized trial exploring different strategies for delayed prescriptions among adults with upper respiratory infections, the rate of antibiotic use was 37% with delayed prescription strategies vs. 97% of patients prescribed antibiotics immediately. Neither of these prospective studies found a significant difference in clinical symptoms or complications in comparing the delayed and immediate antibiotic prescription groups.

Another common theme in the comments on this case focused on the challenge of online reviews of HCPs by patients. Multiple popular websites are devoted to patients’ unedited comments on HCPs and their practices, but there are still certain patterns to the comments. Some reviews describe the professionalism or empathy of the HCP, but others might focus more attention on the overall practice or office. These latter comments might emphasize issues such as timeliness of appointments, interactions with staff, or even parking and traffic. These are issues over which the HCP usually has little control.

HCPs are quite human, and therefore we might feel great about positive comments and dispirited or even angry with negative comments. So what is the best practice for HCPs in managing these online comments? A review by Dr Rebekah Bernard, which was published in the Sept. 25, 2018, issue of Medical Economics, offered some pragmatic advice:

Do not perseverate on one or two negative reviews. In fact, they might help! Dr. Bernard describes the psychological theory of the “pratfall effect,” in which people are more likely to prefer someone who is generally very good but not perfect to someone with nothing but exceptional reviews. HCPs with perfect reviews every time may be seen as intimidating or unapproachable.

Satisfied patients will frequently rally to support an HCP with an unfavorable review. This group may not be very motivated to complete online reviews until they see a comment which does at all match their own experience with the HCP.

Most importantly, HCPs can take an active role in minimizing the impact of negative online reviews while also enhancing their business model. Increasing your presence on the Internet and social media can help dilute negative reviews and push them down the list when someone performs a search on your name or practice. Creating a website for your practice is an effective means to be first on search engine lists, and HCPs should seek search-engine optimization features that promote this outcome. Adding social media contacts for yourself and/or your practice, as many as you can tolerate and maintain, allows HCPs to further control the narrative regarding their practice and central messaging to patients and the community.

In conclusion, delayed antibiotic prescriptions can reduce the use of unnecessary antibiotics for upper respiratory infections among children and adults, and they are not associated with worse clinical outcomes vs. immediate antibiotic prescriptions. They can also improve patient satisfaction for these visits, which can minimize the challenging issue of negative reviews of HCPs. HCPs should therefore consider delayed prescriptions as a strong option among patients without an indication for an antibiotic prescription.

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

I recently posted a case about a smoker who became angry when I hesitated to prescribe antibiotics for his self-diagnosed bronchitis. He even threatened to retaliate by posting negative online reviews of my practice. In the end, I decided to use the strategy of a delayed prescription for antibiotics, instructing him to fill the prescription only if his symptoms worsened. I asked whether readers agreed with this approach. Thank you for the thoughtful comments regarding a case that certainly seemed familiar to many of you. I very much appreciate the chance to interact and share perspectives in a challenging clinical dilemma.
 

One theme that emerged through several comments was the perceived futility of the delayed prescriptions for antibiotics. To summarize, the collective logic stated that there is no point in delaying a prescription, because the patient will be very likely to fill that prescription right away despite counseling from the health care provider (HCP).

However, studies of delayed antibiotic prescriptions show that patients generally honor the advice to only fill the prescription if they are not improving clinically. In a study comparing immediate, delayed, or no antibiotic prescriptions among a cohort of children with uncomplicated respiratory infections, the overall rates of use of antibiotics in the three respective groups were 96%, 25.3%, and 12.0%. In another randomized trial exploring different strategies for delayed prescriptions among adults with upper respiratory infections, the rate of antibiotic use was 37% with delayed prescription strategies vs. 97% of patients prescribed antibiotics immediately. Neither of these prospective studies found a significant difference in clinical symptoms or complications in comparing the delayed and immediate antibiotic prescription groups.

Another common theme in the comments on this case focused on the challenge of online reviews of HCPs by patients. Multiple popular websites are devoted to patients’ unedited comments on HCPs and their practices, but there are still certain patterns to the comments. Some reviews describe the professionalism or empathy of the HCP, but others might focus more attention on the overall practice or office. These latter comments might emphasize issues such as timeliness of appointments, interactions with staff, or even parking and traffic. These are issues over which the HCP usually has little control.

HCPs are quite human, and therefore we might feel great about positive comments and dispirited or even angry with negative comments. So what is the best practice for HCPs in managing these online comments? A review by Dr Rebekah Bernard, which was published in the Sept. 25, 2018, issue of Medical Economics, offered some pragmatic advice:

Do not perseverate on one or two negative reviews. In fact, they might help! Dr. Bernard describes the psychological theory of the “pratfall effect,” in which people are more likely to prefer someone who is generally very good but not perfect to someone with nothing but exceptional reviews. HCPs with perfect reviews every time may be seen as intimidating or unapproachable.

Satisfied patients will frequently rally to support an HCP with an unfavorable review. This group may not be very motivated to complete online reviews until they see a comment which does at all match their own experience with the HCP.

Most importantly, HCPs can take an active role in minimizing the impact of negative online reviews while also enhancing their business model. Increasing your presence on the Internet and social media can help dilute negative reviews and push them down the list when someone performs a search on your name or practice. Creating a website for your practice is an effective means to be first on search engine lists, and HCPs should seek search-engine optimization features that promote this outcome. Adding social media contacts for yourself and/or your practice, as many as you can tolerate and maintain, allows HCPs to further control the narrative regarding their practice and central messaging to patients and the community.

In conclusion, delayed antibiotic prescriptions can reduce the use of unnecessary antibiotics for upper respiratory infections among children and adults, and they are not associated with worse clinical outcomes vs. immediate antibiotic prescriptions. They can also improve patient satisfaction for these visits, which can minimize the challenging issue of negative reviews of HCPs. HCPs should therefore consider delayed prescriptions as a strong option among patients without an indication for an antibiotic prescription.

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

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has endorsed a plan to “allow” people over age 65 and those who are immunocompromised to get a second dose of the COVID-19 bivalent booster.

This backs the Food and Drug Administration’s authorization April 18 of the additional shot.

“Following FDA regulatory action, CDC has taken steps to simplify COVID-19 vaccine recommendations and allow more flexibility for people at higher risk who want the option of added protection from additional COVID-19 vaccine doses,” the CDC said in a statement.

The agency is following the recommendations made by its Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP). While there was no vote, the group reaffirmed its commitment to boosters overall, proposing that all Americans over age 6 who have not had a bivalent mRNA COVID-19 booster vaccine go ahead and get one.

But most others who’ve already had the bivalent shot – which targets the original COVID strain and the two Omicron variants BA.4 and BA.5 – should wait until the fall to get whatever updated vaccine is available.

The panel did carve out exceptions for people over age 65 and those who are immunocompromised because they are at higher risk for severe COVID-19 complications, Evelyn Twentyman, MD, MPH, the lead official in the CDC’s COVID-19 Vaccine Policy Unit, said during the meeting.

People over 65 can now choose to get a second bivalent mRNA booster shot as long as it has been at least 4 months since the last one, she said, and people who are immunocompromised also should have the flexibility to receive one or more additional bivalent boosters at least 2 months after an initial dose.

Regardless of whether someone is unvaccinated, and regardless of how many single-strain COVID vaccines an individual has previously received, they should get a mRNA bivalent shot, Dr. Twentyman said.

If an individual has already received a bivalent mRNA booster – made by either Pfizer/BioNTech or Moderna – “your vaccination is complete,” she said. “No doses indicated at this time, come back and see us in autumn of 2023.”

The CDC is trying to encourage more people to get the updated COVID shot, as just 17% of Americans of any age have received a bivalent booster and only 43% of those age 65 and over.

The CDC followed the FDA’s lead in its statement, phasing out the original single-strain COVID vaccine, saying it will no longer be recommended for use in the United States.
 

‘Unnecessary drama’ over children’s recs

The CDC panel mostly followed the FDA’s guidance on who should get a booster, but many ACIP members expressed consternation and confusion about what was being recommended for children.

For children aged 6 months to 4 years, the CDC will offer tables to help physicians determine how many bivalent doses to give, depending on the child’s vaccination history.

All children those ages should get at least two vaccine doses, one of which is bivalent, Dr. Twentyman said. For children in that age group who have already received a monovalent series and a bivalent dose, “their vaccination is complete,” she said.

For 5-year-olds, the recommendations will be similar if they received a Pfizer monovalent series, but the shot regimen will have to be customized if they had previously received a Moderna shot, because of differences in the dosages.

ACIP member Sarah S. Long, MD, professor of pediatrics, Drexel University, Philadelphia, said that it was unclear why a set age couldn’t be established for COVID-19 vaccination as it had been for other immunizations.

“We picked 60 months for most immunizations in children,” Dr. Long said. “Immunologically there is not a difference between a 4-, a 5- and a 6-year-old.

“There isn’t a reason to have all this unnecessary drama around those ages,” she said, adding that having the different ages would make it harder for pediatricians to appropriately stock vaccines.

Dr. Twentyman said that the CDC would be providing more detailed guidance on its COVID-19 website soon and would be holding a call with health care professionals to discuss the updated recommendations on May 11.
 

New vaccine by fall

CDC and ACIP members both said they hoped to have an even simpler vaccine schedule by the fall, when it is anticipated that the FDA may have authorized a new, updated bivalent vaccine that targets other COVID variants.

“We all recognize this is a work in progress,” said ACIP Chair Grace M. Lee, MD, MPH, acknowledging that there is continued confusion over COVID-19 vaccination.

“The goal really is to try to simplify things over time to be able to help communicate with our provider community, and our patients and families what vaccine is right for them, when do they need it, and how often should they get it,” said Dr. Lee, professor of pediatrics, Stanford (Calif.) University.
 

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

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has endorsed a plan to “allow” people over age 65 and those who are immunocompromised to get a second dose of the COVID-19 bivalent booster.

This backs the Food and Drug Administration’s authorization April 18 of the additional shot.

“Following FDA regulatory action, CDC has taken steps to simplify COVID-19 vaccine recommendations and allow more flexibility for people at higher risk who want the option of added protection from additional COVID-19 vaccine doses,” the CDC said in a statement.

The agency is following the recommendations made by its Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP). While there was no vote, the group reaffirmed its commitment to boosters overall, proposing that all Americans over age 6 who have not had a bivalent mRNA COVID-19 booster vaccine go ahead and get one.

But most others who’ve already had the bivalent shot – which targets the original COVID strain and the two Omicron variants BA.4 and BA.5 – should wait until the fall to get whatever updated vaccine is available.

The panel did carve out exceptions for people over age 65 and those who are immunocompromised because they are at higher risk for severe COVID-19 complications, Evelyn Twentyman, MD, MPH, the lead official in the CDC’s COVID-19 Vaccine Policy Unit, said during the meeting.

People over 65 can now choose to get a second bivalent mRNA booster shot as long as it has been at least 4 months since the last one, she said, and people who are immunocompromised also should have the flexibility to receive one or more additional bivalent boosters at least 2 months after an initial dose.

Regardless of whether someone is unvaccinated, and regardless of how many single-strain COVID vaccines an individual has previously received, they should get a mRNA bivalent shot, Dr. Twentyman said.

If an individual has already received a bivalent mRNA booster – made by either Pfizer/BioNTech or Moderna – “your vaccination is complete,” she said. “No doses indicated at this time, come back and see us in autumn of 2023.”

The CDC is trying to encourage more people to get the updated COVID shot, as just 17% of Americans of any age have received a bivalent booster and only 43% of those age 65 and over.

The CDC followed the FDA’s lead in its statement, phasing out the original single-strain COVID vaccine, saying it will no longer be recommended for use in the United States.
 

‘Unnecessary drama’ over children’s recs

The CDC panel mostly followed the FDA’s guidance on who should get a booster, but many ACIP members expressed consternation and confusion about what was being recommended for children.

For children aged 6 months to 4 years, the CDC will offer tables to help physicians determine how many bivalent doses to give, depending on the child’s vaccination history.

All children those ages should get at least two vaccine doses, one of which is bivalent, Dr. Twentyman said. For children in that age group who have already received a monovalent series and a bivalent dose, “their vaccination is complete,” she said.

For 5-year-olds, the recommendations will be similar if they received a Pfizer monovalent series, but the shot regimen will have to be customized if they had previously received a Moderna shot, because of differences in the dosages.

ACIP member Sarah S. Long, MD, professor of pediatrics, Drexel University, Philadelphia, said that it was unclear why a set age couldn’t be established for COVID-19 vaccination as it had been for other immunizations.

“We picked 60 months for most immunizations in children,” Dr. Long said. “Immunologically there is not a difference between a 4-, a 5- and a 6-year-old.

“There isn’t a reason to have all this unnecessary drama around those ages,” she said, adding that having the different ages would make it harder for pediatricians to appropriately stock vaccines.

Dr. Twentyman said that the CDC would be providing more detailed guidance on its COVID-19 website soon and would be holding a call with health care professionals to discuss the updated recommendations on May 11.
 

New vaccine by fall

CDC and ACIP members both said they hoped to have an even simpler vaccine schedule by the fall, when it is anticipated that the FDA may have authorized a new, updated bivalent vaccine that targets other COVID variants.

“We all recognize this is a work in progress,” said ACIP Chair Grace M. Lee, MD, MPH, acknowledging that there is continued confusion over COVID-19 vaccination.

“The goal really is to try to simplify things over time to be able to help communicate with our provider community, and our patients and families what vaccine is right for them, when do they need it, and how often should they get it,” said Dr. Lee, professor of pediatrics, Stanford (Calif.) University.
 

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

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has endorsed a plan to “allow” people over age 65 and those who are immunocompromised to get a second dose of the COVID-19 bivalent booster.

This backs the Food and Drug Administration’s authorization April 18 of the additional shot.

“Following FDA regulatory action, CDC has taken steps to simplify COVID-19 vaccine recommendations and allow more flexibility for people at higher risk who want the option of added protection from additional COVID-19 vaccine doses,” the CDC said in a statement.

The agency is following the recommendations made by its Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP). While there was no vote, the group reaffirmed its commitment to boosters overall, proposing that all Americans over age 6 who have not had a bivalent mRNA COVID-19 booster vaccine go ahead and get one.

But most others who’ve already had the bivalent shot – which targets the original COVID strain and the two Omicron variants BA.4 and BA.5 – should wait until the fall to get whatever updated vaccine is available.

The panel did carve out exceptions for people over age 65 and those who are immunocompromised because they are at higher risk for severe COVID-19 complications, Evelyn Twentyman, MD, MPH, the lead official in the CDC’s COVID-19 Vaccine Policy Unit, said during the meeting.

People over 65 can now choose to get a second bivalent mRNA booster shot as long as it has been at least 4 months since the last one, she said, and people who are immunocompromised also should have the flexibility to receive one or more additional bivalent boosters at least 2 months after an initial dose.

Regardless of whether someone is unvaccinated, and regardless of how many single-strain COVID vaccines an individual has previously received, they should get a mRNA bivalent shot, Dr. Twentyman said.

If an individual has already received a bivalent mRNA booster – made by either Pfizer/BioNTech or Moderna – “your vaccination is complete,” she said. “No doses indicated at this time, come back and see us in autumn of 2023.”

The CDC is trying to encourage more people to get the updated COVID shot, as just 17% of Americans of any age have received a bivalent booster and only 43% of those age 65 and over.

The CDC followed the FDA’s lead in its statement, phasing out the original single-strain COVID vaccine, saying it will no longer be recommended for use in the United States.
 

‘Unnecessary drama’ over children’s recs

The CDC panel mostly followed the FDA’s guidance on who should get a booster, but many ACIP members expressed consternation and confusion about what was being recommended for children.

For children aged 6 months to 4 years, the CDC will offer tables to help physicians determine how many bivalent doses to give, depending on the child’s vaccination history.

All children those ages should get at least two vaccine doses, one of which is bivalent, Dr. Twentyman said. For children in that age group who have already received a monovalent series and a bivalent dose, “their vaccination is complete,” she said.

For 5-year-olds, the recommendations will be similar if they received a Pfizer monovalent series, but the shot regimen will have to be customized if they had previously received a Moderna shot, because of differences in the dosages.

ACIP member Sarah S. Long, MD, professor of pediatrics, Drexel University, Philadelphia, said that it was unclear why a set age couldn’t be established for COVID-19 vaccination as it had been for other immunizations.

“We picked 60 months for most immunizations in children,” Dr. Long said. “Immunologically there is not a difference between a 4-, a 5- and a 6-year-old.

“There isn’t a reason to have all this unnecessary drama around those ages,” she said, adding that having the different ages would make it harder for pediatricians to appropriately stock vaccines.

Dr. Twentyman said that the CDC would be providing more detailed guidance on its COVID-19 website soon and would be holding a call with health care professionals to discuss the updated recommendations on May 11.
 

New vaccine by fall

CDC and ACIP members both said they hoped to have an even simpler vaccine schedule by the fall, when it is anticipated that the FDA may have authorized a new, updated bivalent vaccine that targets other COVID variants.

“We all recognize this is a work in progress,” said ACIP Chair Grace M. Lee, MD, MPH, acknowledging that there is continued confusion over COVID-19 vaccination.

“The goal really is to try to simplify things over time to be able to help communicate with our provider community, and our patients and families what vaccine is right for them, when do they need it, and how often should they get it,” said Dr. Lee, professor of pediatrics, Stanford (Calif.) University.
 

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

When most families hear the word rabies, they envision a dog foaming at the mouth and think about receiving multiple painful, often intra-abdominal injections. However, the epidemiology of rabies has changed in the United States. Postexposure prophylaxis (PEP) may not always be indicated and for certain persons preexposure prophylaxis (PrEP) is available and recommended.

Rabies is a Lyssavirus that is transmitted through saliva most often from the bite or scratch of an infected animal. Sometimes it’s via direct contact with mucous membranes. Although rare, cases have been described in which an undiagnosed donor passed the virus via transplant to recipients and four cases of aerosolized transmission were documented in two spelunkers and two laboratory technicians working with the virus. Worldwide it’s estimated that rabies causes 59,000 deaths annually.

CDC

Most cases (98%) are secondary to canine rabies. Prior to 1960, dogs were the major reservoir in the United States; however, after introduction of leash laws and animal vaccination in 1947, there was a drastic decline in cases caused by the canine rabies virus variant (CRVV). By 2004, CRVV was eliminated in the United States.

However, the proportion of strains associated with wildlife including raccoons, skunks, foxes, bats, coyotes, and mongoose now account for most of the cases in humans. Wildlife rabies is found in all states except Hawaii. Between 1960 and 2018, 89 cases were acquired in the United States and 62 (70%) were from bat exposure. Dog bites acquired during international travel were the cause of 36 cases.

Once signs and symptoms of disease develop there is no treatment. Regardless of the species variant, rabies virus infection is fatal in over 99% of cases. However, disease can be prevented with prompt initiation of PEP, which includes administration of rabies immune globulin (RIG) and rabies vaccine. Let’s look at a few different scenarios.

1. A delivery person is bitten by your neighbor’s dog while making a delivery. He was told to get rabies vaccine. What should we advise?

Canine rabies has been eliminated in the United States. However, unvaccinated canines can acquire rabies from wildlife. In this situation, you can determine the immunization status of the dog. Contact your local/state health department to assist with enforcement and management. Bites by cats and ferrets should be managed similarly.

Healthy dog:

1. Observe for 10 days.

2. PEP is not indicated unless the animal develops signs/symptoms of rabies. Then euthanize and begin PEP.

Dog appears rabid or suspected to be rabid:

1. Begin PEP.

2. Animal should be euthanized. If immunofluorescent test is negative discontinue PEP.

Dog unavailable:

Contact local/state health department. They are more familiar with rabies surveillance data.

2. Patient relocating to Malaysia for 3-4 years. Rabies PrEP was recommended but the family wants your opinion before receiving the vaccine. What would you advise?

Canine rabies is felt to be the primary cause of rabies outside of the United States. Canines are not routinely vaccinated in many foreign destinations, and the availability of RIG and rabies vaccine is not guaranteed in developing countries. As noted above, dog bites during international travel accounted for 28% of U.S. cases between 1960 and 2018.

In May 2022 recommendations for a modified two-dose PrEP schedule was published that identifies five risk groups and includes specific timing for checking rabies titers. The third rabies dose can now be administered up until year 3 (Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2022 May 6;71[18]:619-27). For individuals relocating to countries where CRVV is present, I prefer the traditional three-dose PrEP schedule administered between 21 and 28 days. However, we now have options. If exposure occurs any time after completion of a three-dose PrEP series or within 3 years after completion of a two-dose PrEP series, RIG would not be required. All patients would receive two doses of rabies vaccine (days 0, 3). If exposure occurs after 3 years in a person who received two doses of PrEP who did not have documentation of a protective rabies titer (> 5 IU/mL), treatment will include RIG plus four doses of vaccine (days 0, 3, 7, 14).

For this relocating patient, supporting PrEP would be strongly recommended.

3. A mother tells you she sees bats flying around her home at night and a few have even gotten into the home. This morning she saw one in her child’s room. He was still sleeping. Is there anything she needs to do?

Bats have become the predominant source of rabies in the United States. In addition to the cases noted above, three fatal cases occurred between Sept. 28 and Nov. 10, 2021, after bat exposures in August 2021 (MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2022 Jan 7;71:31-2). All had recognized contact with a bat 3-7 weeks prior to onset of symptoms and died 2-3 weeks after symptom onset. One declined PEP and the other two did not realize the risk for rabies from their exposure or did not notice a scratch or bite. Bites from bats may be small and unnoticed. Exposure to a bat in a closed room while sleeping is considered an exposure. Hawaii is the only state not reporting rabid bats.

PEP is recommended for her child. She should identify potential areas bats may enter the home and seal them in addition to removal of any bat roosts.

4. A parent realizes a house guest has been feeding raccoons in the backyard. What’s your response?

While bat rabies is the predominant variant associated with disease in the United States, as illustrated in Figure 1, other species of wildlife including raccoons are a major source of rabies. The geographic spread of the raccoon variant of rabies has been limited by oral vaccination via bait. In the situation noted here, the raccoons have returned because food was being offered thus increasing the families chance of a potential rabies exposure. Wildlife including skunks, raccoons, coyotes, foxes, and mongooses are always considered rabid until proven negative by laboratory testing.

CDC

You recommend to stop feeding wildlife and never to approach them. Have them contact the local rabies control unit and/or state wildlife services to assist with removal of the raccoons. Depending on the locale, pest control may be required at the owners expense. Inform the family to seek PEP if anyone is bitten or scratched by the raccoons.

As per the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, about 55,000 residents receive PEP annually with health-associated expenditures including diagnostics, prevention, and control estimated between $245 and $510 million annually. Rabies is one of the most fatal diseases that can be prevented by avoiding contact with wild animals, maintenance of high immunization rates in pets, and keeping people informed of potential sources including bats. One can’t determine if an animal has rabies by looking at it. Rabies remains an urgent disease that we have to remember to address with our patients and their families. For additional information go to www.CDC.gov/rabies.

Dr. Word is a pediatric infectious disease specialist and director of the Houston Travel Medicine Clinic. She has no relevant financial disclosures.

When most families hear the word rabies, they envision a dog foaming at the mouth and think about receiving multiple painful, often intra-abdominal injections. However, the epidemiology of rabies has changed in the United States. Postexposure prophylaxis (PEP) may not always be indicated and for certain persons preexposure prophylaxis (PrEP) is available and recommended.

Rabies is a Lyssavirus that is transmitted through saliva most often from the bite or scratch of an infected animal. Sometimes it’s via direct contact with mucous membranes. Although rare, cases have been described in which an undiagnosed donor passed the virus via transplant to recipients and four cases of aerosolized transmission were documented in two spelunkers and two laboratory technicians working with the virus. Worldwide it’s estimated that rabies causes 59,000 deaths annually.

CDC

Most cases (98%) are secondary to canine rabies. Prior to 1960, dogs were the major reservoir in the United States; however, after introduction of leash laws and animal vaccination in 1947, there was a drastic decline in cases caused by the canine rabies virus variant (CRVV). By 2004, CRVV was eliminated in the United States.

However, the proportion of strains associated with wildlife including raccoons, skunks, foxes, bats, coyotes, and mongoose now account for most of the cases in humans. Wildlife rabies is found in all states except Hawaii. Between 1960 and 2018, 89 cases were acquired in the United States and 62 (70%) were from bat exposure. Dog bites acquired during international travel were the cause of 36 cases.

Once signs and symptoms of disease develop there is no treatment. Regardless of the species variant, rabies virus infection is fatal in over 99% of cases. However, disease can be prevented with prompt initiation of PEP, which includes administration of rabies immune globulin (RIG) and rabies vaccine. Let’s look at a few different scenarios.

1. A delivery person is bitten by your neighbor’s dog while making a delivery. He was told to get rabies vaccine. What should we advise?

Canine rabies has been eliminated in the United States. However, unvaccinated canines can acquire rabies from wildlife. In this situation, you can determine the immunization status of the dog. Contact your local/state health department to assist with enforcement and management. Bites by cats and ferrets should be managed similarly.

Healthy dog:

1. Observe for 10 days.

2. PEP is not indicated unless the animal develops signs/symptoms of rabies. Then euthanize and begin PEP.

Dog appears rabid or suspected to be rabid:

1. Begin PEP.

2. Animal should be euthanized. If immunofluorescent test is negative discontinue PEP.

Dog unavailable:

Contact local/state health department. They are more familiar with rabies surveillance data.

2. Patient relocating to Malaysia for 3-4 years. Rabies PrEP was recommended but the family wants your opinion before receiving the vaccine. What would you advise?

Canine rabies is felt to be the primary cause of rabies outside of the United States. Canines are not routinely vaccinated in many foreign destinations, and the availability of RIG and rabies vaccine is not guaranteed in developing countries. As noted above, dog bites during international travel accounted for 28% of U.S. cases between 1960 and 2018.

In May 2022 recommendations for a modified two-dose PrEP schedule was published that identifies five risk groups and includes specific timing for checking rabies titers. The third rabies dose can now be administered up until year 3 (Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2022 May 6;71[18]:619-27). For individuals relocating to countries where CRVV is present, I prefer the traditional three-dose PrEP schedule administered between 21 and 28 days. However, we now have options. If exposure occurs any time after completion of a three-dose PrEP series or within 3 years after completion of a two-dose PrEP series, RIG would not be required. All patients would receive two doses of rabies vaccine (days 0, 3). If exposure occurs after 3 years in a person who received two doses of PrEP who did not have documentation of a protective rabies titer (> 5 IU/mL), treatment will include RIG plus four doses of vaccine (days 0, 3, 7, 14).

For this relocating patient, supporting PrEP would be strongly recommended.

3. A mother tells you she sees bats flying around her home at night and a few have even gotten into the home. This morning she saw one in her child’s room. He was still sleeping. Is there anything she needs to do?

Bats have become the predominant source of rabies in the United States. In addition to the cases noted above, three fatal cases occurred between Sept. 28 and Nov. 10, 2021, after bat exposures in August 2021 (MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2022 Jan 7;71:31-2). All had recognized contact with a bat 3-7 weeks prior to onset of symptoms and died 2-3 weeks after symptom onset. One declined PEP and the other two did not realize the risk for rabies from their exposure or did not notice a scratch or bite. Bites from bats may be small and unnoticed. Exposure to a bat in a closed room while sleeping is considered an exposure. Hawaii is the only state not reporting rabid bats.

PEP is recommended for her child. She should identify potential areas bats may enter the home and seal them in addition to removal of any bat roosts.

4. A parent realizes a house guest has been feeding raccoons in the backyard. What’s your response?

While bat rabies is the predominant variant associated with disease in the United States, as illustrated in Figure 1, other species of wildlife including raccoons are a major source of rabies. The geographic spread of the raccoon variant of rabies has been limited by oral vaccination via bait. In the situation noted here, the raccoons have returned because food was being offered thus increasing the families chance of a potential rabies exposure. Wildlife including skunks, raccoons, coyotes, foxes, and mongooses are always considered rabid until proven negative by laboratory testing.

CDC

You recommend to stop feeding wildlife and never to approach them. Have them contact the local rabies control unit and/or state wildlife services to assist with removal of the raccoons. Depending on the locale, pest control may be required at the owners expense. Inform the family to seek PEP if anyone is bitten or scratched by the raccoons.

As per the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, about 55,000 residents receive PEP annually with health-associated expenditures including diagnostics, prevention, and control estimated between $245 and $510 million annually. Rabies is one of the most fatal diseases that can be prevented by avoiding contact with wild animals, maintenance of high immunization rates in pets, and keeping people informed of potential sources including bats. One can’t determine if an animal has rabies by looking at it. Rabies remains an urgent disease that we have to remember to address with our patients and their families. For additional information go to www.CDC.gov/rabies.

Dr. Word is a pediatric infectious disease specialist and director of the Houston Travel Medicine Clinic. She has no relevant financial disclosures.

When most families hear the word rabies, they envision a dog foaming at the mouth and think about receiving multiple painful, often intra-abdominal injections. However, the epidemiology of rabies has changed in the United States. Postexposure prophylaxis (PEP) may not always be indicated and for certain persons preexposure prophylaxis (PrEP) is available and recommended.

Rabies is a Lyssavirus that is transmitted through saliva most often from the bite or scratch of an infected animal. Sometimes it’s via direct contact with mucous membranes. Although rare, cases have been described in which an undiagnosed donor passed the virus via transplant to recipients and four cases of aerosolized transmission were documented in two spelunkers and two laboratory technicians working with the virus. Worldwide it’s estimated that rabies causes 59,000 deaths annually.

CDC

Most cases (98%) are secondary to canine rabies. Prior to 1960, dogs were the major reservoir in the United States; however, after introduction of leash laws and animal vaccination in 1947, there was a drastic decline in cases caused by the canine rabies virus variant (CRVV). By 2004, CRVV was eliminated in the United States.

However, the proportion of strains associated with wildlife including raccoons, skunks, foxes, bats, coyotes, and mongoose now account for most of the cases in humans. Wildlife rabies is found in all states except Hawaii. Between 1960 and 2018, 89 cases were acquired in the United States and 62 (70%) were from bat exposure. Dog bites acquired during international travel were the cause of 36 cases.

Once signs and symptoms of disease develop there is no treatment. Regardless of the species variant, rabies virus infection is fatal in over 99% of cases. However, disease can be prevented with prompt initiation of PEP, which includes administration of rabies immune globulin (RIG) and rabies vaccine. Let’s look at a few different scenarios.

1. A delivery person is bitten by your neighbor’s dog while making a delivery. He was told to get rabies vaccine. What should we advise?

Canine rabies has been eliminated in the United States. However, unvaccinated canines can acquire rabies from wildlife. In this situation, you can determine the immunization status of the dog. Contact your local/state health department to assist with enforcement and management. Bites by cats and ferrets should be managed similarly.

Healthy dog:

1. Observe for 10 days.

2. PEP is not indicated unless the animal develops signs/symptoms of rabies. Then euthanize and begin PEP.

Dog appears rabid or suspected to be rabid:

1. Begin PEP.

2. Animal should be euthanized. If immunofluorescent test is negative discontinue PEP.

Dog unavailable:

Contact local/state health department. They are more familiar with rabies surveillance data.

2. Patient relocating to Malaysia for 3-4 years. Rabies PrEP was recommended but the family wants your opinion before receiving the vaccine. What would you advise?

Canine rabies is felt to be the primary cause of rabies outside of the United States. Canines are not routinely vaccinated in many foreign destinations, and the availability of RIG and rabies vaccine is not guaranteed in developing countries. As noted above, dog bites during international travel accounted for 28% of U.S. cases between 1960 and 2018.

In May 2022 recommendations for a modified two-dose PrEP schedule was published that identifies five risk groups and includes specific timing for checking rabies titers. The third rabies dose can now be administered up until year 3 (Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2022 May 6;71[18]:619-27). For individuals relocating to countries where CRVV is present, I prefer the traditional three-dose PrEP schedule administered between 21 and 28 days. However, we now have options. If exposure occurs any time after completion of a three-dose PrEP series or within 3 years after completion of a two-dose PrEP series, RIG would not be required. All patients would receive two doses of rabies vaccine (days 0, 3). If exposure occurs after 3 years in a person who received two doses of PrEP who did not have documentation of a protective rabies titer (> 5 IU/mL), treatment will include RIG plus four doses of vaccine (days 0, 3, 7, 14).

For this relocating patient, supporting PrEP would be strongly recommended.

3. A mother tells you she sees bats flying around her home at night and a few have even gotten into the home. This morning she saw one in her child’s room. He was still sleeping. Is there anything she needs to do?

Bats have become the predominant source of rabies in the United States. In addition to the cases noted above, three fatal cases occurred between Sept. 28 and Nov. 10, 2021, after bat exposures in August 2021 (MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2022 Jan 7;71:31-2). All had recognized contact with a bat 3-7 weeks prior to onset of symptoms and died 2-3 weeks after symptom onset. One declined PEP and the other two did not realize the risk for rabies from their exposure or did not notice a scratch or bite. Bites from bats may be small and unnoticed. Exposure to a bat in a closed room while sleeping is considered an exposure. Hawaii is the only state not reporting rabid bats.

PEP is recommended for her child. She should identify potential areas bats may enter the home and seal them in addition to removal of any bat roosts.

4. A parent realizes a house guest has been feeding raccoons in the backyard. What’s your response?

While bat rabies is the predominant variant associated with disease in the United States, as illustrated in Figure 1, other species of wildlife including raccoons are a major source of rabies. The geographic spread of the raccoon variant of rabies has been limited by oral vaccination via bait. In the situation noted here, the raccoons have returned because food was being offered thus increasing the families chance of a potential rabies exposure. Wildlife including skunks, raccoons, coyotes, foxes, and mongooses are always considered rabid until proven negative by laboratory testing.

CDC

You recommend to stop feeding wildlife and never to approach them. Have them contact the local rabies control unit and/or state wildlife services to assist with removal of the raccoons. Depending on the locale, pest control may be required at the owners expense. Inform the family to seek PEP if anyone is bitten or scratched by the raccoons.

As per the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, about 55,000 residents receive PEP annually with health-associated expenditures including diagnostics, prevention, and control estimated between $245 and $510 million annually. Rabies is one of the most fatal diseases that can be prevented by avoiding contact with wild animals, maintenance of high immunization rates in pets, and keeping people informed of potential sources including bats. One can’t determine if an animal has rabies by looking at it. Rabies remains an urgent disease that we have to remember to address with our patients and their families. For additional information go to www.CDC.gov/rabies.

Dr. Word is a pediatric infectious disease specialist and director of the Houston Travel Medicine Clinic. She has no relevant financial disclosures.

Rates of perinatal HIV have dropped so much that the disease is effectively eliminated in the United States, with less than 1 baby for every 100,000 live births having the virus, a new study released by researchers at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention finds.

The report marks significant progress on the U.S. government’s goal to eradicate perinatal HIV, an immune-weakening and potentially deadly virus that is passed from mother to baby during pregnancy. Just 32 children in the country were diagnosed in 2019, compared with twice as many in 2010, according to the CDC.

Mothers who are HIV positive can prevent transmission of the infection by receiving antiretroviral therapy, according to Monica Gandhi, MD, MPH, a professor of medicine at University of California, San Francisco’s division of HIV, infectious disease and global medicine.

Dr. Gandhi said she could recall only one case of perinatal HIV in the San Francisco area over the last decade.

“This country has been really aggressive about counseling women who are pregnant and getting mothers in care,” Dr. Gandhi said.

The treatment method was discovered more than 30 years ago. Prior to the therapy and ensuing awareness campaigns to prevent transmission, mothers with HIV would typically pass the virus to their child in utero, during delivery, or while breastfeeding.

“There should be zero children born with HIV, given that we’ve had these drugs for so long,” Dr. Ghandi said. 
 

Disparities persist

But challenges remain in some communities, where babies born to Black mothers are disproportionately affected by the disease, the new study found. “Racial and ethnic differences in perinatal HIV diagnoses persisted through the 10-year period,” the report’s authors concluded. “The highest rates of perinatal HIV diagnoses were seen among infants born to Black women.”

Although rates of perinatal HIV declined for babies born to Black mothers over the decade-long study, the diagnosis rate was above the goal of elimination at 3.1 for every 100,000 live births, according to the data.

Meanwhile, transmission rates hovered around 1%-2% for Latinx and Hispanic women and mothers who identified as “other races,” including Native American.

Despite the availability of medication, expectant mothers may face several hurdles to getting the daily treatment they need to prevent transmission to their fetus, according to Jennifer Jao, MD, MPH, a physician of infectious diseases at Lurie Children’s Hospital of Chicago.

They might have trouble securing health insurance or finding transportation to doctor’s appointments, or face other problems like lacking secure housing or food – all factors that prevent them from prioritizing the care.

“All of those things play into the mix,” Dr. Jao said. “We see over and over again that closing the gap means you’ve got to reach the women who are pregnant and who don’t have resources.”
 

Progress in ‘danger’

Experts said they’re not sure what the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic, accompanied by a recent uptick in sexually transmitted diseases, will be on rates of perinatal HIV. Some women were unable to access prenatal health care during the pandemic because they couldn’t access public transportation or childcare, the U.S. Government Accountability Office said in 2022.

Globally, a decline in rates of HIV and AIDS rates has slowed, prompting the World Health Organization to warn last year that progress on the disease is in danger. Researchers only included HIV rates in the United States through 2019, so the data are outdated, Dr. Gandhi noted.

“All of this put together means we don’t know where we are with perinatal transmission over the last 3 years,” she said.

In an accompanying editorial, coauthors Nahida Chakhtoura, MD, MsGH, and Bill Kapogiannis, MD, both with the National Institutes of Health, urge health care professionals to take an active role in eliminating these racial and ethnic disparities in an effort to – as the title of their editorial proclaims – achieve a “road to zero perinatal HIV transmission” in the United States.

“The more proactive we are in identifying and promptly addressing systematic deficiencies that exacerbate health inequities in cutting-edge research innovations and optimal clinical service provision,” they write, “the less reactive we will need to be when new transmissible infections appear at our doorstep.”

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

Rates of perinatal HIV have dropped so much that the disease is effectively eliminated in the United States, with less than 1 baby for every 100,000 live births having the virus, a new study released by researchers at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention finds.

The report marks significant progress on the U.S. government’s goal to eradicate perinatal HIV, an immune-weakening and potentially deadly virus that is passed from mother to baby during pregnancy. Just 32 children in the country were diagnosed in 2019, compared with twice as many in 2010, according to the CDC.

Mothers who are HIV positive can prevent transmission of the infection by receiving antiretroviral therapy, according to Monica Gandhi, MD, MPH, a professor of medicine at University of California, San Francisco’s division of HIV, infectious disease and global medicine.

Dr. Gandhi said she could recall only one case of perinatal HIV in the San Francisco area over the last decade.

“This country has been really aggressive about counseling women who are pregnant and getting mothers in care,” Dr. Gandhi said.

The treatment method was discovered more than 30 years ago. Prior to the therapy and ensuing awareness campaigns to prevent transmission, mothers with HIV would typically pass the virus to their child in utero, during delivery, or while breastfeeding.

“There should be zero children born with HIV, given that we’ve had these drugs for so long,” Dr. Ghandi said. 
 

Disparities persist

But challenges remain in some communities, where babies born to Black mothers are disproportionately affected by the disease, the new study found. “Racial and ethnic differences in perinatal HIV diagnoses persisted through the 10-year period,” the report’s authors concluded. “The highest rates of perinatal HIV diagnoses were seen among infants born to Black women.”

Although rates of perinatal HIV declined for babies born to Black mothers over the decade-long study, the diagnosis rate was above the goal of elimination at 3.1 for every 100,000 live births, according to the data.

Meanwhile, transmission rates hovered around 1%-2% for Latinx and Hispanic women and mothers who identified as “other races,” including Native American.

Despite the availability of medication, expectant mothers may face several hurdles to getting the daily treatment they need to prevent transmission to their fetus, according to Jennifer Jao, MD, MPH, a physician of infectious diseases at Lurie Children’s Hospital of Chicago.

They might have trouble securing health insurance or finding transportation to doctor’s appointments, or face other problems like lacking secure housing or food – all factors that prevent them from prioritizing the care.

“All of those things play into the mix,” Dr. Jao said. “We see over and over again that closing the gap means you’ve got to reach the women who are pregnant and who don’t have resources.”
 

Progress in ‘danger’

Experts said they’re not sure what the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic, accompanied by a recent uptick in sexually transmitted diseases, will be on rates of perinatal HIV. Some women were unable to access prenatal health care during the pandemic because they couldn’t access public transportation or childcare, the U.S. Government Accountability Office said in 2022.

Globally, a decline in rates of HIV and AIDS rates has slowed, prompting the World Health Organization to warn last year that progress on the disease is in danger. Researchers only included HIV rates in the United States through 2019, so the data are outdated, Dr. Gandhi noted.

“All of this put together means we don’t know where we are with perinatal transmission over the last 3 years,” she said.

In an accompanying editorial, coauthors Nahida Chakhtoura, MD, MsGH, and Bill Kapogiannis, MD, both with the National Institutes of Health, urge health care professionals to take an active role in eliminating these racial and ethnic disparities in an effort to – as the title of their editorial proclaims – achieve a “road to zero perinatal HIV transmission” in the United States.

“The more proactive we are in identifying and promptly addressing systematic deficiencies that exacerbate health inequities in cutting-edge research innovations and optimal clinical service provision,” they write, “the less reactive we will need to be when new transmissible infections appear at our doorstep.”

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

Rates of perinatal HIV have dropped so much that the disease is effectively eliminated in the United States, with less than 1 baby for every 100,000 live births having the virus, a new study released by researchers at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention finds.

The report marks significant progress on the U.S. government’s goal to eradicate perinatal HIV, an immune-weakening and potentially deadly virus that is passed from mother to baby during pregnancy. Just 32 children in the country were diagnosed in 2019, compared with twice as many in 2010, according to the CDC.

Mothers who are HIV positive can prevent transmission of the infection by receiving antiretroviral therapy, according to Monica Gandhi, MD, MPH, a professor of medicine at University of California, San Francisco’s division of HIV, infectious disease and global medicine.

Dr. Gandhi said she could recall only one case of perinatal HIV in the San Francisco area over the last decade.

“This country has been really aggressive about counseling women who are pregnant and getting mothers in care,” Dr. Gandhi said.

The treatment method was discovered more than 30 years ago. Prior to the therapy and ensuing awareness campaigns to prevent transmission, mothers with HIV would typically pass the virus to their child in utero, during delivery, or while breastfeeding.

“There should be zero children born with HIV, given that we’ve had these drugs for so long,” Dr. Ghandi said. 
 

Disparities persist

But challenges remain in some communities, where babies born to Black mothers are disproportionately affected by the disease, the new study found. “Racial and ethnic differences in perinatal HIV diagnoses persisted through the 10-year period,” the report’s authors concluded. “The highest rates of perinatal HIV diagnoses were seen among infants born to Black women.”

Although rates of perinatal HIV declined for babies born to Black mothers over the decade-long study, the diagnosis rate was above the goal of elimination at 3.1 for every 100,000 live births, according to the data.

Meanwhile, transmission rates hovered around 1%-2% for Latinx and Hispanic women and mothers who identified as “other races,” including Native American.

Despite the availability of medication, expectant mothers may face several hurdles to getting the daily treatment they need to prevent transmission to their fetus, according to Jennifer Jao, MD, MPH, a physician of infectious diseases at Lurie Children’s Hospital of Chicago.

They might have trouble securing health insurance or finding transportation to doctor’s appointments, or face other problems like lacking secure housing or food – all factors that prevent them from prioritizing the care.

“All of those things play into the mix,” Dr. Jao said. “We see over and over again that closing the gap means you’ve got to reach the women who are pregnant and who don’t have resources.”
 

Progress in ‘danger’

Experts said they’re not sure what the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic, accompanied by a recent uptick in sexually transmitted diseases, will be on rates of perinatal HIV. Some women were unable to access prenatal health care during the pandemic because they couldn’t access public transportation or childcare, the U.S. Government Accountability Office said in 2022.

Globally, a decline in rates of HIV and AIDS rates has slowed, prompting the World Health Organization to warn last year that progress on the disease is in danger. Researchers only included HIV rates in the United States through 2019, so the data are outdated, Dr. Gandhi noted.

“All of this put together means we don’t know where we are with perinatal transmission over the last 3 years,” she said.

In an accompanying editorial, coauthors Nahida Chakhtoura, MD, MsGH, and Bill Kapogiannis, MD, both with the National Institutes of Health, urge health care professionals to take an active role in eliminating these racial and ethnic disparities in an effort to – as the title of their editorial proclaims – achieve a “road to zero perinatal HIV transmission” in the United States.

“The more proactive we are in identifying and promptly addressing systematic deficiencies that exacerbate health inequities in cutting-edge research innovations and optimal clinical service provision,” they write, “the less reactive we will need to be when new transmissible infections appear at our doorstep.”

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

The new COVID-19 strain known as “Arcturus” has increased in the United States so much that it has been added to the Centers for Disease and Control’s watch list.

Officially labeled XBB.1.16, Arcturus is a subvariant of Omicron that was first seen in India and has been on the World Health Organization’s watchlist since the end of March. The CDC’s most recent update now lists Arcturus as causing 7% of U.S. coronavirus cases, landing it in second place behind its long-predominant Omicron cousin XBB.1.5, which causes 78% of cases.

Arcturus is more transmissible but not more dangerous than recent chart-topping strains, experts say.

“It is causing increasing case counts in certain parts of the world, including India. We’re not seeing high rates of XBB.1.16 yet in the United States, but it may become more prominent in coming weeks,” Mayo Clinic viral disease expert Matthew Binnicker, PhD, told The Seattle Times.

Arcturus has been causing a new symptom in children, Indian medical providers have reported.

“One new feature of cases caused by this variant is that it seems to be causing conjunctivitis, or red and itchy eyes, in young patients,” Dr. Binnicker said. “This is not something that we’ve seen with prior strains of the virus.”

More than 11,000 people in the United States remained hospitalized with COVID at the end of last week, and 1,327 people died of the virus last week, CDC data show. To date, 6.9 million people worldwide have died from COVID, the WHO says. Of those deaths, more than 1.1 million occurred in the U.S.

A version of this article originally appeared on WebMD.com.

The new COVID-19 strain known as “Arcturus” has increased in the United States so much that it has been added to the Centers for Disease and Control’s watch list.

Officially labeled XBB.1.16, Arcturus is a subvariant of Omicron that was first seen in India and has been on the World Health Organization’s watchlist since the end of March. The CDC’s most recent update now lists Arcturus as causing 7% of U.S. coronavirus cases, landing it in second place behind its long-predominant Omicron cousin XBB.1.5, which causes 78% of cases.

Arcturus is more transmissible but not more dangerous than recent chart-topping strains, experts say.

“It is causing increasing case counts in certain parts of the world, including India. We’re not seeing high rates of XBB.1.16 yet in the United States, but it may become more prominent in coming weeks,” Mayo Clinic viral disease expert Matthew Binnicker, PhD, told The Seattle Times.

Arcturus has been causing a new symptom in children, Indian medical providers have reported.

“One new feature of cases caused by this variant is that it seems to be causing conjunctivitis, or red and itchy eyes, in young patients,” Dr. Binnicker said. “This is not something that we’ve seen with prior strains of the virus.”

More than 11,000 people in the United States remained hospitalized with COVID at the end of last week, and 1,327 people died of the virus last week, CDC data show. To date, 6.9 million people worldwide have died from COVID, the WHO says. Of those deaths, more than 1.1 million occurred in the U.S.

A version of this article originally appeared on WebMD.com.

The new COVID-19 strain known as “Arcturus” has increased in the United States so much that it has been added to the Centers for Disease and Control’s watch list.

Officially labeled XBB.1.16, Arcturus is a subvariant of Omicron that was first seen in India and has been on the World Health Organization’s watchlist since the end of March. The CDC’s most recent update now lists Arcturus as causing 7% of U.S. coronavirus cases, landing it in second place behind its long-predominant Omicron cousin XBB.1.5, which causes 78% of cases.

Arcturus is more transmissible but not more dangerous than recent chart-topping strains, experts say.

“It is causing increasing case counts in certain parts of the world, including India. We’re not seeing high rates of XBB.1.16 yet in the United States, but it may become more prominent in coming weeks,” Mayo Clinic viral disease expert Matthew Binnicker, PhD, told The Seattle Times.

Arcturus has been causing a new symptom in children, Indian medical providers have reported.

“One new feature of cases caused by this variant is that it seems to be causing conjunctivitis, or red and itchy eyes, in young patients,” Dr. Binnicker said. “This is not something that we’ve seen with prior strains of the virus.”

More than 11,000 people in the United States remained hospitalized with COVID at the end of last week, and 1,327 people died of the virus last week, CDC data show. To date, 6.9 million people worldwide have died from COVID, the WHO says. Of those deaths, more than 1.1 million occurred in the U.S.

A version of this article originally appeared on WebMD.com.

Cases of the sexually transmitted disease syphilis soared in 2021 to the highest total in more than 70 years, a new report says.

Earlier in 2023, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention issued preliminary projections that syphilis rates had made a startling jump from 2020 to 2021. But now that health officials have finalized all of the 2021 data, the increase is worse than what was announced back in March.

In just a 1-year period, from 2020 to 2021, cases increased by 32%, to 176,713, according to newly finalized data from the CDC. That is the highest total number of syphilis cases the U.S. has seen since 1950.

The total number of STD cases in the U.S. in 2021 was 2.5 million, including 1.6 million cases of chlamydia, which was up 4% over the year prior. 

A CDC official labeled the situation an epidemic.

“The reasons for the ongoing increases are multifaceted – and so are the solutions,” said Leandro Mena, MD, MPH, director of the CDC’s STD prevention division, in a statement. “It will take many of us working together to effectively use new and existing tools to increase access to quality sexual health care services for more people and to encourage ongoing innovation and prioritization of STI prevention and treatment in this country.”

Syphilis causes sores and rashes and, left untreated over a long period of time, can cause severe problems in organs, the brain, and the nervous system. Untreated congenital syphilis can lead to stillbirth. The treatment for syphilis is antibiotics.

The CDC called a 32% increase from 2020 to 2021 of congenital syphilis cases “alarming,” reporting that it resulted in 220 stillbirths and infant deaths in 2021.

The rise in STDs during the pandemic has been attributed to decreased attention and resources devoted to sexual health. Opioid use is also considered a contributing factor.

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

Cases of the sexually transmitted disease syphilis soared in 2021 to the highest total in more than 70 years, a new report says.

Earlier in 2023, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention issued preliminary projections that syphilis rates had made a startling jump from 2020 to 2021. But now that health officials have finalized all of the 2021 data, the increase is worse than what was announced back in March.

In just a 1-year period, from 2020 to 2021, cases increased by 32%, to 176,713, according to newly finalized data from the CDC. That is the highest total number of syphilis cases the U.S. has seen since 1950.

The total number of STD cases in the U.S. in 2021 was 2.5 million, including 1.6 million cases of chlamydia, which was up 4% over the year prior. 

A CDC official labeled the situation an epidemic.

“The reasons for the ongoing increases are multifaceted – and so are the solutions,” said Leandro Mena, MD, MPH, director of the CDC’s STD prevention division, in a statement. “It will take many of us working together to effectively use new and existing tools to increase access to quality sexual health care services for more people and to encourage ongoing innovation and prioritization of STI prevention and treatment in this country.”

Syphilis causes sores and rashes and, left untreated over a long period of time, can cause severe problems in organs, the brain, and the nervous system. Untreated congenital syphilis can lead to stillbirth. The treatment for syphilis is antibiotics.

The CDC called a 32% increase from 2020 to 2021 of congenital syphilis cases “alarming,” reporting that it resulted in 220 stillbirths and infant deaths in 2021.

The rise in STDs during the pandemic has been attributed to decreased attention and resources devoted to sexual health. Opioid use is also considered a contributing factor.

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

Cases of the sexually transmitted disease syphilis soared in 2021 to the highest total in more than 70 years, a new report says.

Earlier in 2023, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention issued preliminary projections that syphilis rates had made a startling jump from 2020 to 2021. But now that health officials have finalized all of the 2021 data, the increase is worse than what was announced back in March.

In just a 1-year period, from 2020 to 2021, cases increased by 32%, to 176,713, according to newly finalized data from the CDC. That is the highest total number of syphilis cases the U.S. has seen since 1950.

The total number of STD cases in the U.S. in 2021 was 2.5 million, including 1.6 million cases of chlamydia, which was up 4% over the year prior. 

A CDC official labeled the situation an epidemic.

“The reasons for the ongoing increases are multifaceted – and so are the solutions,” said Leandro Mena, MD, MPH, director of the CDC’s STD prevention division, in a statement. “It will take many of us working together to effectively use new and existing tools to increase access to quality sexual health care services for more people and to encourage ongoing innovation and prioritization of STI prevention and treatment in this country.”

Syphilis causes sores and rashes and, left untreated over a long period of time, can cause severe problems in organs, the brain, and the nervous system. Untreated congenital syphilis can lead to stillbirth. The treatment for syphilis is antibiotics.

The CDC called a 32% increase from 2020 to 2021 of congenital syphilis cases “alarming,” reporting that it resulted in 220 stillbirths and infant deaths in 2021.

The rise in STDs during the pandemic has been attributed to decreased attention and resources devoted to sexual health. Opioid use is also considered a contributing factor.

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

Vaccines for the world’s most deadly diseases, like cancer and heart disease, will likely be ready by 2030 and could save millions of lives, according to the top doctor at one of the world’s leading drug companies.

The announcement is yet another sign of what many are calling “the golden age” of vaccine development, which is largely credited to the pandemic’s use of mRNA technology to create COVID-19 vaccines.

“I think what we have learned in recent months is that if you ever thought that mRNA was just for infectious diseases, or just for COVID, the evidence now is that that’s absolutely not the case,” Moderna Chief Medical Officer Paul Burton, MD, PhD, told The Guardian. “It can be applied to all sorts of disease areas; we are in cancer, infectious disease, cardiovascular disease, autoimmune diseases, rare disease. We have studies in all of those areas, and they have all shown tremendous promise.”

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration recently designated two new Moderna vaccines as breakthrough therapies: a shot that prevents respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) in older people and a shot that helps prevent the recurrence of melanoma. The FDA’s breakthrough designation is given when a new treatment’s early trial results are substantially better than an existing therapy.

The mRNA vaccine technology that made headlines for its role in COVID-19 vaccines works by teaching the body how to make a specific protein to help the immune system prevent or target a certain disease.

Dr. Burton anticipates that mRNA technology will result in breakthroughs such as a cancer vaccine that can be personalized based on the features of a specific tumor.

“I think we will have mRNA-based therapies for rare diseases that were previously undruggable, and I think that 10 years from now, we will be approaching a world where you truly can identify the genetic cause of a disease and, with relative simplicity, go and edit that out and repair it using mRNA-based technology,” he said. 

The Moderna executive made the statements before its annual update on its vaccine pipeline projects, which the company calls “Vaccines Day.” The Massachusetts-based drugmaker said it has given someone the first dose of a “next-generation” COVID-19 vaccine in a phase III trial, has made progress on a Lyme disease shot, and is developing a vaccine for the highly contagious norovirus.

In all, Moderna expects “six major vaccine product launches in the next few years,” the company said in a statement, adding that it expects the COVID-19 booster market alone to be valued at $15 billion.

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

Vaccines for the world’s most deadly diseases, like cancer and heart disease, will likely be ready by 2030 and could save millions of lives, according to the top doctor at one of the world’s leading drug companies.

The announcement is yet another sign of what many are calling “the golden age” of vaccine development, which is largely credited to the pandemic’s use of mRNA technology to create COVID-19 vaccines.

“I think what we have learned in recent months is that if you ever thought that mRNA was just for infectious diseases, or just for COVID, the evidence now is that that’s absolutely not the case,” Moderna Chief Medical Officer Paul Burton, MD, PhD, told The Guardian. “It can be applied to all sorts of disease areas; we are in cancer, infectious disease, cardiovascular disease, autoimmune diseases, rare disease. We have studies in all of those areas, and they have all shown tremendous promise.”

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration recently designated two new Moderna vaccines as breakthrough therapies: a shot that prevents respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) in older people and a shot that helps prevent the recurrence of melanoma. The FDA’s breakthrough designation is given when a new treatment’s early trial results are substantially better than an existing therapy.

The mRNA vaccine technology that made headlines for its role in COVID-19 vaccines works by teaching the body how to make a specific protein to help the immune system prevent or target a certain disease.

Dr. Burton anticipates that mRNA technology will result in breakthroughs such as a cancer vaccine that can be personalized based on the features of a specific tumor.

“I think we will have mRNA-based therapies for rare diseases that were previously undruggable, and I think that 10 years from now, we will be approaching a world where you truly can identify the genetic cause of a disease and, with relative simplicity, go and edit that out and repair it using mRNA-based technology,” he said. 

The Moderna executive made the statements before its annual update on its vaccine pipeline projects, which the company calls “Vaccines Day.” The Massachusetts-based drugmaker said it has given someone the first dose of a “next-generation” COVID-19 vaccine in a phase III trial, has made progress on a Lyme disease shot, and is developing a vaccine for the highly contagious norovirus.

In all, Moderna expects “six major vaccine product launches in the next few years,” the company said in a statement, adding that it expects the COVID-19 booster market alone to be valued at $15 billion.

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

Vaccines for the world’s most deadly diseases, like cancer and heart disease, will likely be ready by 2030 and could save millions of lives, according to the top doctor at one of the world’s leading drug companies.

The announcement is yet another sign of what many are calling “the golden age” of vaccine development, which is largely credited to the pandemic’s use of mRNA technology to create COVID-19 vaccines.

“I think what we have learned in recent months is that if you ever thought that mRNA was just for infectious diseases, or just for COVID, the evidence now is that that’s absolutely not the case,” Moderna Chief Medical Officer Paul Burton, MD, PhD, told The Guardian. “It can be applied to all sorts of disease areas; we are in cancer, infectious disease, cardiovascular disease, autoimmune diseases, rare disease. We have studies in all of those areas, and they have all shown tremendous promise.”

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration recently designated two new Moderna vaccines as breakthrough therapies: a shot that prevents respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) in older people and a shot that helps prevent the recurrence of melanoma. The FDA’s breakthrough designation is given when a new treatment’s early trial results are substantially better than an existing therapy.

The mRNA vaccine technology that made headlines for its role in COVID-19 vaccines works by teaching the body how to make a specific protein to help the immune system prevent or target a certain disease.

Dr. Burton anticipates that mRNA technology will result in breakthroughs such as a cancer vaccine that can be personalized based on the features of a specific tumor.

“I think we will have mRNA-based therapies for rare diseases that were previously undruggable, and I think that 10 years from now, we will be approaching a world where you truly can identify the genetic cause of a disease and, with relative simplicity, go and edit that out and repair it using mRNA-based technology,” he said. 

The Moderna executive made the statements before its annual update on its vaccine pipeline projects, which the company calls “Vaccines Day.” The Massachusetts-based drugmaker said it has given someone the first dose of a “next-generation” COVID-19 vaccine in a phase III trial, has made progress on a Lyme disease shot, and is developing a vaccine for the highly contagious norovirus.

In all, Moderna expects “six major vaccine product launches in the next few years,” the company said in a statement, adding that it expects the COVID-19 booster market alone to be valued at $15 billion.

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

A new COVID-19 variant that recently landed on the World Health Organization’s radar may cause previously unseen symptoms in children, according to a new report.

While the variant, called “Arcturus,” hasn’t yet made the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s watchlist, a prominent pediatrician in India is seeing children with “itchy” or “sticky” eyes, as if they have conjunctivitis or pinkeye, according to  The Times of India. 

The new itchy eye symptom is in addition to a high fever and cough, Vipin M. Vashishtha, MD, said on Twitter, noting that pediatric COVID cases have picked up there for the first time in 6 months.

The country has also seen a rise in adenovirus cases among children with similar symptoms. COVID and adenovirus cannot be distinguished without testing, and many parents don’t want to have their children tested because the swabs are uncomfortable, The Times of India reported. One doctor told the newspaper that among every 10 children with COVID-like symptoms, 2 or 3 of them had tested positive on a COVID test taken at home.

Health officials in India are doing mock drills to check how prepared the country’s hospitals are as India sees cases rise, the BBC reported. India struggled during a COVID-19 surge in 2021, at which time sickened people were seen lying on sidewalks outside overflowing hospitals, and reports surfaced of a black market for private citizens to buy oxygen. 

Arcturus (formally, Omicron subvariant XBB.1.16) made news recently as it landed on the WHO’s radar after surfacing in India. A WHO official called it “one to watch.” The Times of India reported that 234 new cases of XBB.1.16 were included in the country’s latest 5,676 new infections, meaning the subvariant accounts for 4% of new COVID cases.
 

A version of this article originally appeared on WebMD.com.

A new COVID-19 variant that recently landed on the World Health Organization’s radar may cause previously unseen symptoms in children, according to a new report.

While the variant, called “Arcturus,” hasn’t yet made the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s watchlist, a prominent pediatrician in India is seeing children with “itchy” or “sticky” eyes, as if they have conjunctivitis or pinkeye, according to  The Times of India. 

The new itchy eye symptom is in addition to a high fever and cough, Vipin M. Vashishtha, MD, said on Twitter, noting that pediatric COVID cases have picked up there for the first time in 6 months.

The country has also seen a rise in adenovirus cases among children with similar symptoms. COVID and adenovirus cannot be distinguished without testing, and many parents don’t want to have their children tested because the swabs are uncomfortable, The Times of India reported. One doctor told the newspaper that among every 10 children with COVID-like symptoms, 2 or 3 of them had tested positive on a COVID test taken at home.

Health officials in India are doing mock drills to check how prepared the country’s hospitals are as India sees cases rise, the BBC reported. India struggled during a COVID-19 surge in 2021, at which time sickened people were seen lying on sidewalks outside overflowing hospitals, and reports surfaced of a black market for private citizens to buy oxygen. 

Arcturus (formally, Omicron subvariant XBB.1.16) made news recently as it landed on the WHO’s radar after surfacing in India. A WHO official called it “one to watch.” The Times of India reported that 234 new cases of XBB.1.16 were included in the country’s latest 5,676 new infections, meaning the subvariant accounts for 4% of new COVID cases.
 

A version of this article originally appeared on WebMD.com.

A new COVID-19 variant that recently landed on the World Health Organization’s radar may cause previously unseen symptoms in children, according to a new report.

While the variant, called “Arcturus,” hasn’t yet made the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s watchlist, a prominent pediatrician in India is seeing children with “itchy” or “sticky” eyes, as if they have conjunctivitis or pinkeye, according to  The Times of India. 

The new itchy eye symptom is in addition to a high fever and cough, Vipin M. Vashishtha, MD, said on Twitter, noting that pediatric COVID cases have picked up there for the first time in 6 months.

The country has also seen a rise in adenovirus cases among children with similar symptoms. COVID and adenovirus cannot be distinguished without testing, and many parents don’t want to have their children tested because the swabs are uncomfortable, The Times of India reported. One doctor told the newspaper that among every 10 children with COVID-like symptoms, 2 or 3 of them had tested positive on a COVID test taken at home.

Health officials in India are doing mock drills to check how prepared the country’s hospitals are as India sees cases rise, the BBC reported. India struggled during a COVID-19 surge in 2021, at which time sickened people were seen lying on sidewalks outside overflowing hospitals, and reports surfaced of a black market for private citizens to buy oxygen. 

Arcturus (formally, Omicron subvariant XBB.1.16) made news recently as it landed on the WHO’s radar after surfacing in India. A WHO official called it “one to watch.” The Times of India reported that 234 new cases of XBB.1.16 were included in the country’s latest 5,676 new infections, meaning the subvariant accounts for 4% of new COVID cases.
 

A version of this article originally appeared on WebMD.com.

THE CASE

A 75-year-old man sought care from his primary care physician because his “fingernails and toenails [were] all falling off.” He did not feel ill and had no other complaints. His vital signs were unremarkable. He had no history of malignancies, chronic skin conditions, or systemic diseases. His fingernails and toenails were discolored and lifting from the proximal end of his nail beds (FIGURE). One of his great toenails had already fallen off, 1 thumb nail was minimally attached with the cuticle, and the rest of his nails were loose and in the process of separating from their nail beds. There was no nail pitting, rash, or joint swelling and tenderness.

The patient reported that while on vacation in Hawaii 3 weeks earlier, he had sought care at an urgent care clinic for a painless rash on his hands and the soles of his feet. At that time, he did not feel ill or have mouth ulcers, penile discharge, or arthralgia. There had been no recent changes to his prescription medications, which included finasteride, terazosin, omeprazole, and an albuterol inhaler. He denied taking over-the-counter medications or supplements.

The physical exam at the urgent care had revealed multiple blotchy, dark, 0.5- to 1-cm nonpruritic lesions that were desquamating. No oral lesions were seen. He had been given a diagnosis of hand-foot-mouth disease (HFMD) and reassured that it would resolve on its own in about 10 days.

THE DIAGNOSIS

Several possible diagnoses for nail disorders came to mind with this patient, including onychomycosis, onychoschizia, onycholysis, and onychomadesis.

Onychomycosis is a chronic fungal infection of the nail that affects toenails more often than fingernails.¹ The most common form is distal subungual onychomycosis, which begins distally and slowly migrates proximally through the nail matrix.¹ Often onychomycosis affects only a few nails unless the patient is elderly or has comorbid conditions, and the nails rarely separate from the nail bed.

Onychoschizia involves lamellar splitting and peeling of the dorsal surface of the nail plate.² Usually white discolorations appear on the distal edges of the nail.³ It is more common in women than in men and is often caused by nail dehydration from repeated excessive immersion in water with detergents or recurrent application of nail polish.² However, the nails do not separate from the nail bed, and usually only the fingernails are involved.

Onycholysis is a nail attachment disorder in which the nail plate distally separates from the nail bed. Areas of separation will appear white or yellow. There are many etiologies for onycholysis, including trauma, psoriasis, fungal infection, and contact irritant reactions.³ It also can be caused by medications and thyroid disease.^3,4

Continue to: Onychomadesis

Onychomadesis, sometimes considered a severe form of Beau’s line,^5,6 is defined by the spontaneous separation of the nail plate from the nail matrix. Although the nail will initially remain attached, proximal shedding will eventually occur.⁷ When several nails are involved, a systemic source—such as an acute infection, autoimmune disease, medication, malignancy (eg, cutaneous T-cell lymphoma), Kawasaki disease, skin disorders (eg, pemphigus vulgaris or keratosis punctata et planters), or chemotherapy—may be the cause.^6-8 If only a few nails are involved, it may be associated with trauma, and in rare cases, onychomadesis can be idiopathic.^5,7

In this case, all signs pointed to onychomadesis. All of the patient’s nails were affected (discolored and lifting), his nail loss involved spontaneous proximal separation of the nail plate from the nail matrix, and he had a recent previous infection: HFMD.

DISCUSSION

Onychomadesis is a rare nail-shedding disorder thought to be caused by the temporary arrest of the nail matrix.⁸ It is a potential late complication of infection, such as HFMD,⁹ and was first reported in children in Chicago in 2000.¹⁰ Since then, onychomadesis has been noted in children in many countries.⁸ Reports of onychomadesis following HFMD in adults are rare, but it may be underreported because HFMD is more common in children and symptoms are usually minor in adults.¹¹

Onychomadesis following hand-foot-mouth disease (HFMD) may be underreported in adults because HFMD is more common in children and symptoms in adults are minor.

Molecular studies have associated onychomadesis with coxsackievirus (CV)A6 and CVA10.⁴ Other serotypes associated with onychomadesis include CVB1, CVB2, CVA5, CVA16, and enteroviruses 71 and 9.⁴ Most known outbreaks seem to be caused by CVA6.⁴

No treatment is needed for onychomadesis; physicians can reassure patients that normal nail growth will begin within 1 to 4 months. Because onychomadesis is rare, it does not have its own billing code, so one can use code L60.8 for “Other nail disorders.”¹²

Our patient was seen in the primary care clinic 3 months after his initial visit. At that time, his nails were no longer discolored and no other abnormalities were present. All of the nails on his fingers and toes were firmly attached and growing normally.

THE TAKEAWAY

The sudden asymptomatic loss of multiple fingernails and toenails—especially with proximal nail shedding—is a rare disorder known as onychomadesis. It can be caused by various etiologies and can be a late complication of HFMD or other viral infections. Onychomadesis should be considered when evaluating older patients, particularly when all of their nails are involved after a viral infection.

CORRESPONDENCE
Jon F. Peters, MD, MS, FAAFP, 14486 SE Lyon Court, Happy Valley, OR 97086; peters-nw@comcast.net

THE CASE

A 75-year-old man sought care from his primary care physician because his “fingernails and toenails [were] all falling off.” He did not feel ill and had no other complaints. His vital signs were unremarkable. He had no history of malignancies, chronic skin conditions, or systemic diseases. His fingernails and toenails were discolored and lifting from the proximal end of his nail beds (FIGURE). One of his great toenails had already fallen off, 1 thumb nail was minimally attached with the cuticle, and the rest of his nails were loose and in the process of separating from their nail beds. There was no nail pitting, rash, or joint swelling and tenderness.

The patient reported that while on vacation in Hawaii 3 weeks earlier, he had sought care at an urgent care clinic for a painless rash on his hands and the soles of his feet. At that time, he did not feel ill or have mouth ulcers, penile discharge, or arthralgia. There had been no recent changes to his prescription medications, which included finasteride, terazosin, omeprazole, and an albuterol inhaler. He denied taking over-the-counter medications or supplements.

The physical exam at the urgent care had revealed multiple blotchy, dark, 0.5- to 1-cm nonpruritic lesions that were desquamating. No oral lesions were seen. He had been given a diagnosis of hand-foot-mouth disease (HFMD) and reassured that it would resolve on its own in about 10 days.

THE DIAGNOSIS

Several possible diagnoses for nail disorders came to mind with this patient, including onychomycosis, onychoschizia, onycholysis, and onychomadesis.

Onychomycosis is a chronic fungal infection of the nail that affects toenails more often than fingernails.¹ The most common form is distal subungual onychomycosis, which begins distally and slowly migrates proximally through the nail matrix.¹ Often onychomycosis affects only a few nails unless the patient is elderly or has comorbid conditions, and the nails rarely separate from the nail bed.

Onychoschizia involves lamellar splitting and peeling of the dorsal surface of the nail plate.² Usually white discolorations appear on the distal edges of the nail.³ It is more common in women than in men and is often caused by nail dehydration from repeated excessive immersion in water with detergents or recurrent application of nail polish.² However, the nails do not separate from the nail bed, and usually only the fingernails are involved.

Onycholysis is a nail attachment disorder in which the nail plate distally separates from the nail bed. Areas of separation will appear white or yellow. There are many etiologies for onycholysis, including trauma, psoriasis, fungal infection, and contact irritant reactions.³ It also can be caused by medications and thyroid disease.^3,4

Continue to: Onychomadesis

Onychomadesis, sometimes considered a severe form of Beau’s line,^5,6 is defined by the spontaneous separation of the nail plate from the nail matrix. Although the nail will initially remain attached, proximal shedding will eventually occur.⁷ When several nails are involved, a systemic source—such as an acute infection, autoimmune disease, medication, malignancy (eg, cutaneous T-cell lymphoma), Kawasaki disease, skin disorders (eg, pemphigus vulgaris or keratosis punctata et planters), or chemotherapy—may be the cause.^6-8 If only a few nails are involved, it may be associated with trauma, and in rare cases, onychomadesis can be idiopathic.^5,7

In this case, all signs pointed to onychomadesis. All of the patient’s nails were affected (discolored and lifting), his nail loss involved spontaneous proximal separation of the nail plate from the nail matrix, and he had a recent previous infection: HFMD.

DISCUSSION

Onychomadesis is a rare nail-shedding disorder thought to be caused by the temporary arrest of the nail matrix.⁸ It is a potential late complication of infection, such as HFMD,⁹ and was first reported in children in Chicago in 2000.¹⁰ Since then, onychomadesis has been noted in children in many countries.⁸ Reports of onychomadesis following HFMD in adults are rare, but it may be underreported because HFMD is more common in children and symptoms are usually minor in adults.¹¹

Onychomadesis following hand-foot-mouth disease (HFMD) may be underreported in adults because HFMD is more common in children and symptoms in adults are minor.

Molecular studies have associated onychomadesis with coxsackievirus (CV)A6 and CVA10.⁴ Other serotypes associated with onychomadesis include CVB1, CVB2, CVA5, CVA16, and enteroviruses 71 and 9.⁴ Most known outbreaks seem to be caused by CVA6.⁴

No treatment is needed for onychomadesis; physicians can reassure patients that normal nail growth will begin within 1 to 4 months. Because onychomadesis is rare, it does not have its own billing code, so one can use code L60.8 for “Other nail disorders.”¹²

Our patient was seen in the primary care clinic 3 months after his initial visit. At that time, his nails were no longer discolored and no other abnormalities were present. All of the nails on his fingers and toes were firmly attached and growing normally.

THE TAKEAWAY

The sudden asymptomatic loss of multiple fingernails and toenails—especially with proximal nail shedding—is a rare disorder known as onychomadesis. It can be caused by various etiologies and can be a late complication of HFMD or other viral infections. Onychomadesis should be considered when evaluating older patients, particularly when all of their nails are involved after a viral infection.

CORRESPONDENCE
Jon F. Peters, MD, MS, FAAFP, 14486 SE Lyon Court, Happy Valley, OR 97086; peters-nw@comcast.net

THE CASE

A 75-year-old man sought care from his primary care physician because his “fingernails and toenails [were] all falling off.” He did not feel ill and had no other complaints. His vital signs were unremarkable. He had no history of malignancies, chronic skin conditions, or systemic diseases. His fingernails and toenails were discolored and lifting from the proximal end of his nail beds (FIGURE). One of his great toenails had already fallen off, 1 thumb nail was minimally attached with the cuticle, and the rest of his nails were loose and in the process of separating from their nail beds. There was no nail pitting, rash, or joint swelling and tenderness.

The patient reported that while on vacation in Hawaii 3 weeks earlier, he had sought care at an urgent care clinic for a painless rash on his hands and the soles of his feet. At that time, he did not feel ill or have mouth ulcers, penile discharge, or arthralgia. There had been no recent changes to his prescription medications, which included finasteride, terazosin, omeprazole, and an albuterol inhaler. He denied taking over-the-counter medications or supplements.

The physical exam at the urgent care had revealed multiple blotchy, dark, 0.5- to 1-cm nonpruritic lesions that were desquamating. No oral lesions were seen. He had been given a diagnosis of hand-foot-mouth disease (HFMD) and reassured that it would resolve on its own in about 10 days.

THE DIAGNOSIS

Several possible diagnoses for nail disorders came to mind with this patient, including onychomycosis, onychoschizia, onycholysis, and onychomadesis.

Onychomycosis is a chronic fungal infection of the nail that affects toenails more often than fingernails.¹ The most common form is distal subungual onychomycosis, which begins distally and slowly migrates proximally through the nail matrix.¹ Often onychomycosis affects only a few nails unless the patient is elderly or has comorbid conditions, and the nails rarely separate from the nail bed.

Onychoschizia involves lamellar splitting and peeling of the dorsal surface of the nail plate.² Usually white discolorations appear on the distal edges of the nail.³ It is more common in women than in men and is often caused by nail dehydration from repeated excessive immersion in water with detergents or recurrent application of nail polish.² However, the nails do not separate from the nail bed, and usually only the fingernails are involved.

Onycholysis is a nail attachment disorder in which the nail plate distally separates from the nail bed. Areas of separation will appear white or yellow. There are many etiologies for onycholysis, including trauma, psoriasis, fungal infection, and contact irritant reactions.³ It also can be caused by medications and thyroid disease.^3,4

Continue to: Onychomadesis

Onychomadesis, sometimes considered a severe form of Beau’s line,^5,6 is defined by the spontaneous separation of the nail plate from the nail matrix. Although the nail will initially remain attached, proximal shedding will eventually occur.⁷ When several nails are involved, a systemic source—such as an acute infection, autoimmune disease, medication, malignancy (eg, cutaneous T-cell lymphoma), Kawasaki disease, skin disorders (eg, pemphigus vulgaris or keratosis punctata et planters), or chemotherapy—may be the cause.^6-8 If only a few nails are involved, it may be associated with trauma, and in rare cases, onychomadesis can be idiopathic.^5,7

In this case, all signs pointed to onychomadesis. All of the patient’s nails were affected (discolored and lifting), his nail loss involved spontaneous proximal separation of the nail plate from the nail matrix, and he had a recent previous infection: HFMD.

DISCUSSION

Onychomadesis is a rare nail-shedding disorder thought to be caused by the temporary arrest of the nail matrix.⁸ It is a potential late complication of infection, such as HFMD,⁹ and was first reported in children in Chicago in 2000.¹⁰ Since then, onychomadesis has been noted in children in many countries.⁸ Reports of onychomadesis following HFMD in adults are rare, but it may be underreported because HFMD is more common in children and symptoms are usually minor in adults.¹¹

Onychomadesis following hand-foot-mouth disease (HFMD) may be underreported in adults because HFMD is more common in children and symptoms in adults are minor.

Molecular studies have associated onychomadesis with coxsackievirus (CV)A6 and CVA10.⁴ Other serotypes associated with onychomadesis include CVB1, CVB2, CVA5, CVA16, and enteroviruses 71 and 9.⁴ Most known outbreaks seem to be caused by CVA6.⁴

No treatment is needed for onychomadesis; physicians can reassure patients that normal nail growth will begin within 1 to 4 months. Because onychomadesis is rare, it does not have its own billing code, so one can use code L60.8 for “Other nail disorders.”¹²

Our patient was seen in the primary care clinic 3 months after his initial visit. At that time, his nails were no longer discolored and no other abnormalities were present. All of the nails on his fingers and toes were firmly attached and growing normally.

THE TAKEAWAY

The sudden asymptomatic loss of multiple fingernails and toenails—especially with proximal nail shedding—is a rare disorder known as onychomadesis. It can be caused by various etiologies and can be a late complication of HFMD or other viral infections. Onychomadesis should be considered when evaluating older patients, particularly when all of their nails are involved after a viral infection.

CORRESPONDENCE
Jon F. Peters, MD, MS, FAAFP, 14486 SE Lyon Court, Happy Valley, OR 97086; peters-nw@comcast.net

Researchers studying differences in treatment initiation for chronic hepatitis B (CHB) among a large, multiracial cohort in North America did not find evidence of disparities by race or socioeconomic status.

Instead, they observed a similar gap across races between the number of people eligible for treatment and those receiving it.

That gap suggests that treatment guidelines need to be simplified and that efforts to increase hepatitis B virus (HBV) awareness and train more clinicians are needed to achieve the World Health Organization’s goal of eliminating HBV by 2030, the researchers write.

The Hepatitis B Research Network study was published online in JAMA Network Open.

The prevalence of CHB in the United States is estimated at 2.4 million. It disproportionately affects persons of Asian or African descent, the investigators note. Their study examined whether treatment initiation and outcomes differ between African American and Black, Asian, and White participants, as well as between African American and Black participants born in North America and East or West Africa.

The research involved 1,550 adult patients: 1,157 Asian American, 193 African American or Black (39 born in the United States, 90 in East Africa, 53 in West Africa, and 11 elsewhere), 157 White, and 43 who identified as being of “other races.” All had CHB but were not receiving antiviral treatment at enrollment.

Participants came from 20 centers in the United States and one in Canada. They underwent clinical and laboratory assessments and could receive anti-HBV treatment after they enrolled. Enrollment was from Jan. 14, 2011, to Jan. 28, 2018. Participants were followed at 12 and 24 weeks and every 24 weeks thereafter in the longitudinal cohort study by Mandana Khalili, MD, division of gastroenterology and hepatology, University of California, San Francisco, and colleagues.

Information on patients’ country of birth, duration of U.S. or Canadian residency, educational level, employment, insurance, prior antiviral treatment, family history of HBV or hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), and mode of transmission were collected by research coordinators.
 

Treatment initiation

During the study period, slightly fewer than one-third (32.5%) of the participants initiated treatment. The incidences were 4.8 per 100 person-years in African American or Black participants, 9.9 per 100 person-years in Asian participants, 6.6 per 100 person-years in White participants, and 7.9 per 100 person-years in those of other races (P < .001).

A lower percentage of African American and Black participants (14%) met the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases treatment criteria, compared with Asian (22%) and White (27%) participants (P = .01).

When the researchers compared cumulative probability of initiating treatment by race for those who met criteria for treatment, they found no significant differences by race.

At 72 weeks, initiation probability was 0.45 for African American and Black patients and 0.51 for Asian and White patients (P = .68). Similarly, among African American and Black participants who met treatment criteria, there were no significant differences in cumulative probability of treatment by region of birth.

The cumulative percentage of treatment initiation for those who met guideline-based criteria was 62%.

“Among participants with a treatment indication, treatment rates did not differ significantly by race, despite marked differences in educational level, income, and type of health care insurance across the racial groups,” the researchers write. “Moreover, race was not an independent estimator of treatment initiation when adjusting for known factors associated with a higher risk of adverse clinical outcomes, namely, HBV DNA, disease severity, sex, and age.”

Adverse liver outcomes (hepatic decompensation, HCC, liver transplant, and death) were rare and did not vary significantly by race, the researchers write.

One study limitation is that participants were linked to specialty liver clinics, so the findings may not be generalizable to patients who receive care in other settings, the authors note.

The results are “reassuring,” said senior author Anna S. Lok, MD, division of gastroenterology and hepatology at University of Michigan in Ann Arbor. However, she noted, study participants had already overcome barriers to receiving care at major academic centers.

“Once you get into the big academic liver centers, then maybe everything is equal, but in the real world, a lot of people don’t ever get to the big liver centers,” she said. The question becomes: “Are we serving only a portion of the patient population?”

Many factors drive the decision to undergo treatment, including the doctor’s opinion as to need and the patient’s desire to receive treatment, she said.

The study participants who were more likely to get treated were those with higher-level disease who had a stronger indication for treatment, Dr. Lok said.
 

Finding the disparities

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention statistics show that Black people are 3.9 times more likely to have CHB and 2.5 times more likely to die from it than White people, notes H. Nina Kim, MD, with the department of medicine, University of Washington, Seattle, in an accompanying invited commentary.

“The fact that we have not observed racial disparities in treatment initiation does not mean none exist; it means we have to look harder to find them,” she writes.

“We need to examine whether our guidelines for HBV treatment are so complex that it becomes the purview of specialists, thereby restricting access and deepening inequities,” Dr. Kim adds. “We should look closely at retention in care, the step that precedes treatment, and stratify this outcome by race and ethnicity.”

Primary care physicians in some regions might find it difficult to manage patients who have hepatitis B because they see so few of them, Dr. Lok noted.

Dr. Khalili has received grants and consulting fees from Gilead Sciences Inc and grants from Intercept Pharmaceuticals outside the submitted work. Dr. Lok has received grants from Target and consultant fees from Abbott, Ambys, Arbutus, Chroma, Clear B, Enanta, Enochian, GNI, GlaxoSmithKline, Eli Lilly, and Virion outside the submitted work. Coauthors have received grants, consulting fees, or personal fees from Bayer, Boston Scientific, Exact Sciences, Fujifilm Medical Sciences, Gilead Sciences, Glycotest, Redhill Biopharma, Target RWE, MedEd Design, Pontifax, Global Life, the Lynx Group, AstraZeneca, Eisai, Novartis Venture Fund, Grail, QED Therapeutics, Genentech, Hepion Pharmaceuticals, Roche, Abbott, AbbVie, and Pfizer. Dr. Kim has received grants from Gilead Sciences (paid to her institution) outside the submitted work.

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

Researchers studying differences in treatment initiation for chronic hepatitis B (CHB) among a large, multiracial cohort in North America did not find evidence of disparities by race or socioeconomic status.

Instead, they observed a similar gap across races between the number of people eligible for treatment and those receiving it.

That gap suggests that treatment guidelines need to be simplified and that efforts to increase hepatitis B virus (HBV) awareness and train more clinicians are needed to achieve the World Health Organization’s goal of eliminating HBV by 2030, the researchers write.

The Hepatitis B Research Network study was published online in JAMA Network Open.

The prevalence of CHB in the United States is estimated at 2.4 million. It disproportionately affects persons of Asian or African descent, the investigators note. Their study examined whether treatment initiation and outcomes differ between African American and Black, Asian, and White participants, as well as between African American and Black participants born in North America and East or West Africa.

The research involved 1,550 adult patients: 1,157 Asian American, 193 African American or Black (39 born in the United States, 90 in East Africa, 53 in West Africa, and 11 elsewhere), 157 White, and 43 who identified as being of “other races.” All had CHB but were not receiving antiviral treatment at enrollment.

Participants came from 20 centers in the United States and one in Canada. They underwent clinical and laboratory assessments and could receive anti-HBV treatment after they enrolled. Enrollment was from Jan. 14, 2011, to Jan. 28, 2018. Participants were followed at 12 and 24 weeks and every 24 weeks thereafter in the longitudinal cohort study by Mandana Khalili, MD, division of gastroenterology and hepatology, University of California, San Francisco, and colleagues.

Information on patients’ country of birth, duration of U.S. or Canadian residency, educational level, employment, insurance, prior antiviral treatment, family history of HBV or hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), and mode of transmission were collected by research coordinators.
 

Treatment initiation

During the study period, slightly fewer than one-third (32.5%) of the participants initiated treatment. The incidences were 4.8 per 100 person-years in African American or Black participants, 9.9 per 100 person-years in Asian participants, 6.6 per 100 person-years in White participants, and 7.9 per 100 person-years in those of other races (P < .001).

A lower percentage of African American and Black participants (14%) met the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases treatment criteria, compared with Asian (22%) and White (27%) participants (P = .01).

When the researchers compared cumulative probability of initiating treatment by race for those who met criteria for treatment, they found no significant differences by race.

At 72 weeks, initiation probability was 0.45 for African American and Black patients and 0.51 for Asian and White patients (P = .68). Similarly, among African American and Black participants who met treatment criteria, there were no significant differences in cumulative probability of treatment by region of birth.

The cumulative percentage of treatment initiation for those who met guideline-based criteria was 62%.

“Among participants with a treatment indication, treatment rates did not differ significantly by race, despite marked differences in educational level, income, and type of health care insurance across the racial groups,” the researchers write. “Moreover, race was not an independent estimator of treatment initiation when adjusting for known factors associated with a higher risk of adverse clinical outcomes, namely, HBV DNA, disease severity, sex, and age.”

Adverse liver outcomes (hepatic decompensation, HCC, liver transplant, and death) were rare and did not vary significantly by race, the researchers write.

One study limitation is that participants were linked to specialty liver clinics, so the findings may not be generalizable to patients who receive care in other settings, the authors note.

The results are “reassuring,” said senior author Anna S. Lok, MD, division of gastroenterology and hepatology at University of Michigan in Ann Arbor. However, she noted, study participants had already overcome barriers to receiving care at major academic centers.

“Once you get into the big academic liver centers, then maybe everything is equal, but in the real world, a lot of people don’t ever get to the big liver centers,” she said. The question becomes: “Are we serving only a portion of the patient population?”

Many factors drive the decision to undergo treatment, including the doctor’s opinion as to need and the patient’s desire to receive treatment, she said.

The study participants who were more likely to get treated were those with higher-level disease who had a stronger indication for treatment, Dr. Lok said.
 

Finding the disparities

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention statistics show that Black people are 3.9 times more likely to have CHB and 2.5 times more likely to die from it than White people, notes H. Nina Kim, MD, with the department of medicine, University of Washington, Seattle, in an accompanying invited commentary.

“The fact that we have not observed racial disparities in treatment initiation does not mean none exist; it means we have to look harder to find them,” she writes.

“We need to examine whether our guidelines for HBV treatment are so complex that it becomes the purview of specialists, thereby restricting access and deepening inequities,” Dr. Kim adds. “We should look closely at retention in care, the step that precedes treatment, and stratify this outcome by race and ethnicity.”

Primary care physicians in some regions might find it difficult to manage patients who have hepatitis B because they see so few of them, Dr. Lok noted.

Dr. Khalili has received grants and consulting fees from Gilead Sciences Inc and grants from Intercept Pharmaceuticals outside the submitted work. Dr. Lok has received grants from Target and consultant fees from Abbott, Ambys, Arbutus, Chroma, Clear B, Enanta, Enochian, GNI, GlaxoSmithKline, Eli Lilly, and Virion outside the submitted work. Coauthors have received grants, consulting fees, or personal fees from Bayer, Boston Scientific, Exact Sciences, Fujifilm Medical Sciences, Gilead Sciences, Glycotest, Redhill Biopharma, Target RWE, MedEd Design, Pontifax, Global Life, the Lynx Group, AstraZeneca, Eisai, Novartis Venture Fund, Grail, QED Therapeutics, Genentech, Hepion Pharmaceuticals, Roche, Abbott, AbbVie, and Pfizer. Dr. Kim has received grants from Gilead Sciences (paid to her institution) outside the submitted work.

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

Researchers studying differences in treatment initiation for chronic hepatitis B (CHB) among a large, multiracial cohort in North America did not find evidence of disparities by race or socioeconomic status.

Instead, they observed a similar gap across races between the number of people eligible for treatment and those receiving it.

That gap suggests that treatment guidelines need to be simplified and that efforts to increase hepatitis B virus (HBV) awareness and train more clinicians are needed to achieve the World Health Organization’s goal of eliminating HBV by 2030, the researchers write.

The Hepatitis B Research Network study was published online in JAMA Network Open.

The prevalence of CHB in the United States is estimated at 2.4 million. It disproportionately affects persons of Asian or African descent, the investigators note. Their study examined whether treatment initiation and outcomes differ between African American and Black, Asian, and White participants, as well as between African American and Black participants born in North America and East or West Africa.

The research involved 1,550 adult patients: 1,157 Asian American, 193 African American or Black (39 born in the United States, 90 in East Africa, 53 in West Africa, and 11 elsewhere), 157 White, and 43 who identified as being of “other races.” All had CHB but were not receiving antiviral treatment at enrollment.

Participants came from 20 centers in the United States and one in Canada. They underwent clinical and laboratory assessments and could receive anti-HBV treatment after they enrolled. Enrollment was from Jan. 14, 2011, to Jan. 28, 2018. Participants were followed at 12 and 24 weeks and every 24 weeks thereafter in the longitudinal cohort study by Mandana Khalili, MD, division of gastroenterology and hepatology, University of California, San Francisco, and colleagues.

Information on patients’ country of birth, duration of U.S. or Canadian residency, educational level, employment, insurance, prior antiviral treatment, family history of HBV or hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), and mode of transmission were collected by research coordinators.
 

Treatment initiation

During the study period, slightly fewer than one-third (32.5%) of the participants initiated treatment. The incidences were 4.8 per 100 person-years in African American or Black participants, 9.9 per 100 person-years in Asian participants, 6.6 per 100 person-years in White participants, and 7.9 per 100 person-years in those of other races (P < .001).

A lower percentage of African American and Black participants (14%) met the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases treatment criteria, compared with Asian (22%) and White (27%) participants (P = .01).

When the researchers compared cumulative probability of initiating treatment by race for those who met criteria for treatment, they found no significant differences by race.

At 72 weeks, initiation probability was 0.45 for African American and Black patients and 0.51 for Asian and White patients (P = .68). Similarly, among African American and Black participants who met treatment criteria, there were no significant differences in cumulative probability of treatment by region of birth.

The cumulative percentage of treatment initiation for those who met guideline-based criteria was 62%.

“Among participants with a treatment indication, treatment rates did not differ significantly by race, despite marked differences in educational level, income, and type of health care insurance across the racial groups,” the researchers write. “Moreover, race was not an independent estimator of treatment initiation when adjusting for known factors associated with a higher risk of adverse clinical outcomes, namely, HBV DNA, disease severity, sex, and age.”

Adverse liver outcomes (hepatic decompensation, HCC, liver transplant, and death) were rare and did not vary significantly by race, the researchers write.

One study limitation is that participants were linked to specialty liver clinics, so the findings may not be generalizable to patients who receive care in other settings, the authors note.

The results are “reassuring,” said senior author Anna S. Lok, MD, division of gastroenterology and hepatology at University of Michigan in Ann Arbor. However, she noted, study participants had already overcome barriers to receiving care at major academic centers.

“Once you get into the big academic liver centers, then maybe everything is equal, but in the real world, a lot of people don’t ever get to the big liver centers,” she said. The question becomes: “Are we serving only a portion of the patient population?”

Many factors drive the decision to undergo treatment, including the doctor’s opinion as to need and the patient’s desire to receive treatment, she said.

The study participants who were more likely to get treated were those with higher-level disease who had a stronger indication for treatment, Dr. Lok said.
 

Finding the disparities

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention statistics show that Black people are 3.9 times more likely to have CHB and 2.5 times more likely to die from it than White people, notes H. Nina Kim, MD, with the department of medicine, University of Washington, Seattle, in an accompanying invited commentary.

“The fact that we have not observed racial disparities in treatment initiation does not mean none exist; it means we have to look harder to find them,” she writes.

“We need to examine whether our guidelines for HBV treatment are so complex that it becomes the purview of specialists, thereby restricting access and deepening inequities,” Dr. Kim adds. “We should look closely at retention in care, the step that precedes treatment, and stratify this outcome by race and ethnicity.”

Primary care physicians in some regions might find it difficult to manage patients who have hepatitis B because they see so few of them, Dr. Lok noted.

Dr. Khalili has received grants and consulting fees from Gilead Sciences Inc and grants from Intercept Pharmaceuticals outside the submitted work. Dr. Lok has received grants from Target and consultant fees from Abbott, Ambys, Arbutus, Chroma, Clear B, Enanta, Enochian, GNI, GlaxoSmithKline, Eli Lilly, and Virion outside the submitted work. Coauthors have received grants, consulting fees, or personal fees from Bayer, Boston Scientific, Exact Sciences, Fujifilm Medical Sciences, Gilead Sciences, Glycotest, Redhill Biopharma, Target RWE, MedEd Design, Pontifax, Global Life, the Lynx Group, AstraZeneca, Eisai, Novartis Venture Fund, Grail, QED Therapeutics, Genentech, Hepion Pharmaceuticals, Roche, Abbott, AbbVie, and Pfizer. Dr. Kim has received grants from Gilead Sciences (paid to her institution) outside the submitted work.

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