MDedge Infectious Disease

As primary care physicians, we are often the first ones patients see when they become infected with influenza. According to Centers for Disease Control and Prevention statistics, approximately 5%-20% of the US population will be infected with influenza every year. Additionally, more than 200,000 of these patients will be hospitalized because of complications related to influenza.

Earlier in September, the World Health Organization (WHO) issued its latest clinical practice guidelines for influenza for the 2024-2025 season. This is a 213-page document aimed at healthcare providers who treat patients infected with influenza. It includes treatment for those with severe and nonsevere influenza infections, those in both the outpatient and hospitalized setting, as well as medication prophylaxis for those exposed to the virus. Additionally, it defines risk estimates for those who are at risk of being hospitalized or dying. In contrast, previous updates focused on management of severe influenza or those at risk of severe influenza.

These guidelines cover recommendations regarding all the antiviral medications for treating influenza used around the world. For the purpose of this article, we will focus on those most commonly used in the United States.

A newer medication discussed was baloxavir. It is recommended to be used for patients with nonsevere influenza who are at high risk for progression to severe disease. The advice is to not use it for those with little risk of progression to severe disease. Oseltamivir is recommended for those with severe infection.

The guidelines recommend against using antibiotics for those who have a low likelihood of having a bacterial coinfection. As primary care doctors, we often prescribe medications to help with symptoms. These guidelines recommend against the use of corticosteroids and antibiotics but did advise that NSAIDs could be used for symptom relief.

One of the important parts of these guidelines is prevention in patients who have been exposed but are asymptomatic. They recommend baloxavir or oseltamivir but only for those patients who are at high risk of being hospitalized if they were to become infected. Any of the antivirals can be used for patients who are exposed to the novel influenza A, which is associated with a higher mortality rate. Caution when prescribing antivirals is recommended in immunocompromised patients because there is more drug resistance seen in these patients.

These updates also discuss the use of different influenza tests. In the outpatient setting, primary doctors don’t have time for test results that may take 2 days to come back. Only rapid tests make the sense in the primary care setting. Additionally, in the age of COVID, it is important to make an accurate diagnosis so we should be testing patients. There is resistance seen with the antivirals we prescribe for influenza so prescribing them empirically without a confirmed diagnosis of influenza may be doing more harm than good.

One gap in these recommendations is vaccination. This topic was not covered at all. It would be helpful to have a strategy in place to prevent infection in populations rather than focusing just on exposed individuals. A discussion of when and who and to vaccinate would be helpful. Research into the effectiveness of vaccines is key and more accurate development of a season’s influenza vaccine would be beneficial. Currently, there is much vaccine misinformation being spread around. Education and information regarding influenza vaccines, especially coming from WHO, is crucial.

Another failure of these recommendations is that the guidelines apply only to those who present within a few days of becoming symptomatic. As family doctors, we know many of our patients self-treat or consult Google. They often don’t come for medical care until they’ve been sick for a week or longer. There are no guidelines for these patients.

In general, these guidelines are comprehensive and do a great job discussing the current medications available. However, more is needed to increase vaccination rates. Patients need to know that if they may be sick with influenza, they need to seek medical care as soon as possible. We, as family doctors, need to do a better job of risk-stratifying our patients and prescribing prophylactic medication when suitable. Every infection we prevent aids in the health of our community and the global population at large.

Dr. Girgis practices family medicine in South River, New Jersey, and is a clinical assistant professor of family medicine at Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, New Brunswick, New Jersey. She has no relevant conflicts of interest.

As primary care physicians, we are often the first ones patients see when they become infected with influenza. According to Centers for Disease Control and Prevention statistics, approximately 5%-20% of the US population will be infected with influenza every year. Additionally, more than 200,000 of these patients will be hospitalized because of complications related to influenza.

Earlier in September, the World Health Organization (WHO) issued its latest clinical practice guidelines for influenza for the 2024-2025 season. This is a 213-page document aimed at healthcare providers who treat patients infected with influenza. It includes treatment for those with severe and nonsevere influenza infections, those in both the outpatient and hospitalized setting, as well as medication prophylaxis for those exposed to the virus. Additionally, it defines risk estimates for those who are at risk of being hospitalized or dying. In contrast, previous updates focused on management of severe influenza or those at risk of severe influenza.

These guidelines cover recommendations regarding all the antiviral medications for treating influenza used around the world. For the purpose of this article, we will focus on those most commonly used in the United States.

A newer medication discussed was baloxavir. It is recommended to be used for patients with nonsevere influenza who are at high risk for progression to severe disease. The advice is to not use it for those with little risk of progression to severe disease. Oseltamivir is recommended for those with severe infection.

The guidelines recommend against using antibiotics for those who have a low likelihood of having a bacterial coinfection. As primary care doctors, we often prescribe medications to help with symptoms. These guidelines recommend against the use of corticosteroids and antibiotics but did advise that NSAIDs could be used for symptom relief.

One of the important parts of these guidelines is prevention in patients who have been exposed but are asymptomatic. They recommend baloxavir or oseltamivir but only for those patients who are at high risk of being hospitalized if they were to become infected. Any of the antivirals can be used for patients who are exposed to the novel influenza A, which is associated with a higher mortality rate. Caution when prescribing antivirals is recommended in immunocompromised patients because there is more drug resistance seen in these patients.

These updates also discuss the use of different influenza tests. In the outpatient setting, primary doctors don’t have time for test results that may take 2 days to come back. Only rapid tests make the sense in the primary care setting. Additionally, in the age of COVID, it is important to make an accurate diagnosis so we should be testing patients. There is resistance seen with the antivirals we prescribe for influenza so prescribing them empirically without a confirmed diagnosis of influenza may be doing more harm than good.

One gap in these recommendations is vaccination. This topic was not covered at all. It would be helpful to have a strategy in place to prevent infection in populations rather than focusing just on exposed individuals. A discussion of when and who and to vaccinate would be helpful. Research into the effectiveness of vaccines is key and more accurate development of a season’s influenza vaccine would be beneficial. Currently, there is much vaccine misinformation being spread around. Education and information regarding influenza vaccines, especially coming from WHO, is crucial.

Another failure of these recommendations is that the guidelines apply only to those who present within a few days of becoming symptomatic. As family doctors, we know many of our patients self-treat or consult Google. They often don’t come for medical care until they’ve been sick for a week or longer. There are no guidelines for these patients.

In general, these guidelines are comprehensive and do a great job discussing the current medications available. However, more is needed to increase vaccination rates. Patients need to know that if they may be sick with influenza, they need to seek medical care as soon as possible. We, as family doctors, need to do a better job of risk-stratifying our patients and prescribing prophylactic medication when suitable. Every infection we prevent aids in the health of our community and the global population at large.

Dr. Girgis practices family medicine in South River, New Jersey, and is a clinical assistant professor of family medicine at Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, New Brunswick, New Jersey. She has no relevant conflicts of interest.

As primary care physicians, we are often the first ones patients see when they become infected with influenza. According to Centers for Disease Control and Prevention statistics, approximately 5%-20% of the US population will be infected with influenza every year. Additionally, more than 200,000 of these patients will be hospitalized because of complications related to influenza.

Earlier in September, the World Health Organization (WHO) issued its latest clinical practice guidelines for influenza for the 2024-2025 season. This is a 213-page document aimed at healthcare providers who treat patients infected with influenza. It includes treatment for those with severe and nonsevere influenza infections, those in both the outpatient and hospitalized setting, as well as medication prophylaxis for those exposed to the virus. Additionally, it defines risk estimates for those who are at risk of being hospitalized or dying. In contrast, previous updates focused on management of severe influenza or those at risk of severe influenza.

These guidelines cover recommendations regarding all the antiviral medications for treating influenza used around the world. For the purpose of this article, we will focus on those most commonly used in the United States.

A newer medication discussed was baloxavir. It is recommended to be used for patients with nonsevere influenza who are at high risk for progression to severe disease. The advice is to not use it for those with little risk of progression to severe disease. Oseltamivir is recommended for those with severe infection.

The guidelines recommend against using antibiotics for those who have a low likelihood of having a bacterial coinfection. As primary care doctors, we often prescribe medications to help with symptoms. These guidelines recommend against the use of corticosteroids and antibiotics but did advise that NSAIDs could be used for symptom relief.

One of the important parts of these guidelines is prevention in patients who have been exposed but are asymptomatic. They recommend baloxavir or oseltamivir but only for those patients who are at high risk of being hospitalized if they were to become infected. Any of the antivirals can be used for patients who are exposed to the novel influenza A, which is associated with a higher mortality rate. Caution when prescribing antivirals is recommended in immunocompromised patients because there is more drug resistance seen in these patients.

These updates also discuss the use of different influenza tests. In the outpatient setting, primary doctors don’t have time for test results that may take 2 days to come back. Only rapid tests make the sense in the primary care setting. Additionally, in the age of COVID, it is important to make an accurate diagnosis so we should be testing patients. There is resistance seen with the antivirals we prescribe for influenza so prescribing them empirically without a confirmed diagnosis of influenza may be doing more harm than good.

One gap in these recommendations is vaccination. This topic was not covered at all. It would be helpful to have a strategy in place to prevent infection in populations rather than focusing just on exposed individuals. A discussion of when and who and to vaccinate would be helpful. Research into the effectiveness of vaccines is key and more accurate development of a season’s influenza vaccine would be beneficial. Currently, there is much vaccine misinformation being spread around. Education and information regarding influenza vaccines, especially coming from WHO, is crucial.

Another failure of these recommendations is that the guidelines apply only to those who present within a few days of becoming symptomatic. As family doctors, we know many of our patients self-treat or consult Google. They often don’t come for medical care until they’ve been sick for a week or longer. There are no guidelines for these patients.

In general, these guidelines are comprehensive and do a great job discussing the current medications available. However, more is needed to increase vaccination rates. Patients need to know that if they may be sick with influenza, they need to seek medical care as soon as possible. We, as family doctors, need to do a better job of risk-stratifying our patients and prescribing prophylactic medication when suitable. Every infection we prevent aids in the health of our community and the global population at large.

Dr. Girgis practices family medicine in South River, New Jersey, and is a clinical assistant professor of family medicine at Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, New Brunswick, New Jersey. She has no relevant conflicts of interest.

Residency programs across the country may have a few more slots for incoming residents due to a recent bump in Medicare funding.

Case in point: The University of Alabama at Birmingham (UAB). The state has one of the top stroke rates in the country, and yet UAB has the only hospital in the state training future doctors to help stroke patients recover. “Our hospital cares for Alabama’s sickest patients, many who need rehabilitation services,” said Craig Hoesley, MD, senior associate dean for medical education, who oversees graduate medical education (GME) or residency programs.

After decades of stagnant support, a recent bump in Medicare funding will allow UAB to add two more physical medicine and rehabilitation residents to the four residencies already receiving such funding.

Medicare also awarded UAB more funding last year to add an addiction medicine fellowship, one of two such training programs in the state for the specialty that helps treat patients fighting addiction.

UAB is among healthcare systems and hospitals nationwide benefiting from a recent hike in Medicare funding for residency programs after some 25 years at the same level of federal support. Medicare is the largest funder of training positions. Otherwise, hospitals finance training through means such as state support.

The latest round of funding, which went into effect in July, adds 200 positions to the doctor pipeline, creating more openings for residents seeking positions after medical school.

In the next few months, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) will notify teaching hospitals whether they’ll receive the next round of Medicare funding for more residency positions. At that time, CMS will have awarded nearly half of the 1200 residency training slots Congress approved in the past few years. In 2020 — for the first time since 1996 — Congress approved adding 1000 residency slots at teaching hospitals nationwide. CMS awards the money for 200 slots each year for 5 years.

More than half of the initial round of funding focused on training primary care specialists, with other slots designated for mental health specialists. Last year, Congress also approved a separate allocation of 200 more Medicare-funded residency positions, with at least half designated for psychiatry and related subspecialty residencies to help meet the growing need for more mental health specialists. On August 1, CMS announced it would distribute the funds next year, effective in 2026.

The additional Medicare funding attempts to address the shortage of healthcare providers and ensure future access to care, including in rural and underserved communities. The Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC) estimates the nation will face a shortage of up to 86,000 physicians by 2036, including primary care doctors and specialists.

In addition, more than 100 million Americans, nearly a third of the nation, don’t have access to primary care due to the physician shortages in their communities, according to the National Association of Community Health Centers.

Major medical organizations, medical schools, and hospital groups have been pushing for years for increased Medicare funding to train new doctors to keep up with the demand for healthcare services and offset the physician shortage. As a cost-saving measure, Medicare set its cap in 1996 for how much it will reimburse each hospital offering GME training. However, according to the medical groups that continue to advocate to Congress for more funding, the funding hasn’t kept pace with the growing healthcare needs or rising medical school enrollment.
 

Adding Residency Spots

In April, Dr. Hoesley of UAB spoke at a Congressional briefing among health systems and hospitals that benefited from the additional funding. He told Congressional leaders how the increased number of GME positions affects UAB Medicine and its ability to care for rural areas.

“We have entire counties in Alabama that don’t have physicians. One way to address the physician shortage is to grow the GME programs. The funding we received will help us grow these programs and care for residents in our state.”

Still, the Medicare funding is only a drop in the bucket, Dr. Hoesley said. “We rely on Medicare funding alongside other funding partners to train residents and expand our care across the state.” He said many UAB residency programs are over their Medicare funding cap and would like to grow, but they can’t without more funding.

Mount Sinai Health System in New York City also will be able to expand its residency program after receiving Medicare support in the latest round of funding. The health system will use the federal funds to train an additional vascular surgeon. Mount Sinai currently receives CMS funding to train three residents in the specialty.

Over a 5-year program, that means CMS funding will help train 20 residents in the specialty that treats blood vessel blockages and diseases of the veins and arteries generally associated with aging.

“The funding is amazing,” said Peter L. Faries, MD, a surgery professor and system chief of vascular surgery at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York City, who directs the residency program.

“We don’t have the capacity to provide an individual training program without the funding. It’s not economically feasible.”

The need for more vascular surgeons increases as the population continues to age, he said. Mount Sinai treats patients throughout New York, including underserved areas in Harlem, the Bronx, Washington Heights, Brooklyn, and Queens. “These individuals might not receive an appropriate level of vascular care if we don’t have clinicians to treat them.”

Of the recent funding, Dr. Faries said it’s taken the residency program 15 years of advocacy to increase by two slots. “It’s a long process to get funding.” Vascular training programs can remain very selective with Medicare funding, typically receiving two applicants for every position,” said Dr. Faries.
 

Pushing for More Funds

Nearly 98,000 students enrolled in medical school this year, according to the National Resident Matching Program. A total of 44,853 applicants vied for the 38,494 first-year residency positions and 3009 second-year slots, leaving 3350 medical school graduates without a match.

“There are not enough spots to meet the growing demand,” said Jesse M. Ehrenfeld, MD, MPH, immediate past president of the American Medical Association. “Graduate medical education funding has not kept up.”

Despite the increase in medical school graduates over the past two decades, Medicare-supported training opportunities remained frozen at the 1996 level. A limited number of training positions meant residency programs couldn’t expand the physician pipeline to offset an aging workforce, contributing to the shortage. “The way to solve this is to expand GME,” Dr. Ehrenfeld said. “We continue to advocate to remove the cap.”

Dr. Ehrenfeld also told this news organization that he doesn’t mind that Congress recently designated GME funding to certain specialties, such as psychiatry, because he believes the need is great for residency spots across the board. “The good news is people recognize it’s challenging to get much through Congress.” He’s optimistic, though, about recent legislative efforts to increase funding.

AAMC, representing about a third of the nation’s 1100 teaching hospitals and health systems, feels the same. Congress “acknowledges and continues to recognize that the shortage is not getting better, and one way to address it is to increase Medicare-supported GME positions,” said Leonard Marquez, senior director of government relations and legislative advocacy.

Still, he said that the Medicare funding bump is only making a small dent in the need. AAMC estimates the average cost to train residents is $23 billion annually, and Medicare only funds 20% of that, or $5 billion. “Our members are at the point where they say: We already can’t add new training positions,” Mr. Marquez said. He added that without increasing residency slots, patient care will suffer. “We have to do anything possible we can to increase access to care.”

Mr. Marquez also believes Medicare funding should increase residency positions across the specialty spectrum, not just for psychiatry and primary care. He said that the targeted funding may prevent some teaching hospitals from applying for residency positions if they need other types of specialists based on their community’s needs.

Among the current proposals before Congress, the Resident Physician Shortage Reduction Act of 2023 would add 14,000 Medicare-supported residency slots over 7 years. Mr. Marquez said it may be more realistic to expect fewer new slots. A decision on potential legislation is expected at the end of the year. He said that if the medical groups aren’t pleased with the decision, they’ll advocate again in 2025.
 

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

Residency programs across the country may have a few more slots for incoming residents due to a recent bump in Medicare funding.

Case in point: The University of Alabama at Birmingham (UAB). The state has one of the top stroke rates in the country, and yet UAB has the only hospital in the state training future doctors to help stroke patients recover. “Our hospital cares for Alabama’s sickest patients, many who need rehabilitation services,” said Craig Hoesley, MD, senior associate dean for medical education, who oversees graduate medical education (GME) or residency programs.

After decades of stagnant support, a recent bump in Medicare funding will allow UAB to add two more physical medicine and rehabilitation residents to the four residencies already receiving such funding.

Medicare also awarded UAB more funding last year to add an addiction medicine fellowship, one of two such training programs in the state for the specialty that helps treat patients fighting addiction.

UAB is among healthcare systems and hospitals nationwide benefiting from a recent hike in Medicare funding for residency programs after some 25 years at the same level of federal support. Medicare is the largest funder of training positions. Otherwise, hospitals finance training through means such as state support.

The latest round of funding, which went into effect in July, adds 200 positions to the doctor pipeline, creating more openings for residents seeking positions after medical school.

In the next few months, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) will notify teaching hospitals whether they’ll receive the next round of Medicare funding for more residency positions. At that time, CMS will have awarded nearly half of the 1200 residency training slots Congress approved in the past few years. In 2020 — for the first time since 1996 — Congress approved adding 1000 residency slots at teaching hospitals nationwide. CMS awards the money for 200 slots each year for 5 years.

More than half of the initial round of funding focused on training primary care specialists, with other slots designated for mental health specialists. Last year, Congress also approved a separate allocation of 200 more Medicare-funded residency positions, with at least half designated for psychiatry and related subspecialty residencies to help meet the growing need for more mental health specialists. On August 1, CMS announced it would distribute the funds next year, effective in 2026.

The additional Medicare funding attempts to address the shortage of healthcare providers and ensure future access to care, including in rural and underserved communities. The Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC) estimates the nation will face a shortage of up to 86,000 physicians by 2036, including primary care doctors and specialists.

In addition, more than 100 million Americans, nearly a third of the nation, don’t have access to primary care due to the physician shortages in their communities, according to the National Association of Community Health Centers.

Major medical organizations, medical schools, and hospital groups have been pushing for years for increased Medicare funding to train new doctors to keep up with the demand for healthcare services and offset the physician shortage. As a cost-saving measure, Medicare set its cap in 1996 for how much it will reimburse each hospital offering GME training. However, according to the medical groups that continue to advocate to Congress for more funding, the funding hasn’t kept pace with the growing healthcare needs or rising medical school enrollment.
 

Adding Residency Spots

In April, Dr. Hoesley of UAB spoke at a Congressional briefing among health systems and hospitals that benefited from the additional funding. He told Congressional leaders how the increased number of GME positions affects UAB Medicine and its ability to care for rural areas.

“We have entire counties in Alabama that don’t have physicians. One way to address the physician shortage is to grow the GME programs. The funding we received will help us grow these programs and care for residents in our state.”

Still, the Medicare funding is only a drop in the bucket, Dr. Hoesley said. “We rely on Medicare funding alongside other funding partners to train residents and expand our care across the state.” He said many UAB residency programs are over their Medicare funding cap and would like to grow, but they can’t without more funding.

Mount Sinai Health System in New York City also will be able to expand its residency program after receiving Medicare support in the latest round of funding. The health system will use the federal funds to train an additional vascular surgeon. Mount Sinai currently receives CMS funding to train three residents in the specialty.

Over a 5-year program, that means CMS funding will help train 20 residents in the specialty that treats blood vessel blockages and diseases of the veins and arteries generally associated with aging.

“The funding is amazing,” said Peter L. Faries, MD, a surgery professor and system chief of vascular surgery at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York City, who directs the residency program.

“We don’t have the capacity to provide an individual training program without the funding. It’s not economically feasible.”

The need for more vascular surgeons increases as the population continues to age, he said. Mount Sinai treats patients throughout New York, including underserved areas in Harlem, the Bronx, Washington Heights, Brooklyn, and Queens. “These individuals might not receive an appropriate level of vascular care if we don’t have clinicians to treat them.”

Of the recent funding, Dr. Faries said it’s taken the residency program 15 years of advocacy to increase by two slots. “It’s a long process to get funding.” Vascular training programs can remain very selective with Medicare funding, typically receiving two applicants for every position,” said Dr. Faries.
 

Pushing for More Funds

Nearly 98,000 students enrolled in medical school this year, according to the National Resident Matching Program. A total of 44,853 applicants vied for the 38,494 first-year residency positions and 3009 second-year slots, leaving 3350 medical school graduates without a match.

“There are not enough spots to meet the growing demand,” said Jesse M. Ehrenfeld, MD, MPH, immediate past president of the American Medical Association. “Graduate medical education funding has not kept up.”

Despite the increase in medical school graduates over the past two decades, Medicare-supported training opportunities remained frozen at the 1996 level. A limited number of training positions meant residency programs couldn’t expand the physician pipeline to offset an aging workforce, contributing to the shortage. “The way to solve this is to expand GME,” Dr. Ehrenfeld said. “We continue to advocate to remove the cap.”

Dr. Ehrenfeld also told this news organization that he doesn’t mind that Congress recently designated GME funding to certain specialties, such as psychiatry, because he believes the need is great for residency spots across the board. “The good news is people recognize it’s challenging to get much through Congress.” He’s optimistic, though, about recent legislative efforts to increase funding.

AAMC, representing about a third of the nation’s 1100 teaching hospitals and health systems, feels the same. Congress “acknowledges and continues to recognize that the shortage is not getting better, and one way to address it is to increase Medicare-supported GME positions,” said Leonard Marquez, senior director of government relations and legislative advocacy.

Still, he said that the Medicare funding bump is only making a small dent in the need. AAMC estimates the average cost to train residents is $23 billion annually, and Medicare only funds 20% of that, or $5 billion. “Our members are at the point where they say: We already can’t add new training positions,” Mr. Marquez said. He added that without increasing residency slots, patient care will suffer. “We have to do anything possible we can to increase access to care.”

Mr. Marquez also believes Medicare funding should increase residency positions across the specialty spectrum, not just for psychiatry and primary care. He said that the targeted funding may prevent some teaching hospitals from applying for residency positions if they need other types of specialists based on their community’s needs.

Among the current proposals before Congress, the Resident Physician Shortage Reduction Act of 2023 would add 14,000 Medicare-supported residency slots over 7 years. Mr. Marquez said it may be more realistic to expect fewer new slots. A decision on potential legislation is expected at the end of the year. He said that if the medical groups aren’t pleased with the decision, they’ll advocate again in 2025.
 

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

Residency programs across the country may have a few more slots for incoming residents due to a recent bump in Medicare funding.

Case in point: The University of Alabama at Birmingham (UAB). The state has one of the top stroke rates in the country, and yet UAB has the only hospital in the state training future doctors to help stroke patients recover. “Our hospital cares for Alabama’s sickest patients, many who need rehabilitation services,” said Craig Hoesley, MD, senior associate dean for medical education, who oversees graduate medical education (GME) or residency programs.

After decades of stagnant support, a recent bump in Medicare funding will allow UAB to add two more physical medicine and rehabilitation residents to the four residencies already receiving such funding.

Medicare also awarded UAB more funding last year to add an addiction medicine fellowship, one of two such training programs in the state for the specialty that helps treat patients fighting addiction.

UAB is among healthcare systems and hospitals nationwide benefiting from a recent hike in Medicare funding for residency programs after some 25 years at the same level of federal support. Medicare is the largest funder of training positions. Otherwise, hospitals finance training through means such as state support.

The latest round of funding, which went into effect in July, adds 200 positions to the doctor pipeline, creating more openings for residents seeking positions after medical school.

In the next few months, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) will notify teaching hospitals whether they’ll receive the next round of Medicare funding for more residency positions. At that time, CMS will have awarded nearly half of the 1200 residency training slots Congress approved in the past few years. In 2020 — for the first time since 1996 — Congress approved adding 1000 residency slots at teaching hospitals nationwide. CMS awards the money for 200 slots each year for 5 years.

More than half of the initial round of funding focused on training primary care specialists, with other slots designated for mental health specialists. Last year, Congress also approved a separate allocation of 200 more Medicare-funded residency positions, with at least half designated for psychiatry and related subspecialty residencies to help meet the growing need for more mental health specialists. On August 1, CMS announced it would distribute the funds next year, effective in 2026.

The additional Medicare funding attempts to address the shortage of healthcare providers and ensure future access to care, including in rural and underserved communities. The Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC) estimates the nation will face a shortage of up to 86,000 physicians by 2036, including primary care doctors and specialists.

In addition, more than 100 million Americans, nearly a third of the nation, don’t have access to primary care due to the physician shortages in their communities, according to the National Association of Community Health Centers.

Major medical organizations, medical schools, and hospital groups have been pushing for years for increased Medicare funding to train new doctors to keep up with the demand for healthcare services and offset the physician shortage. As a cost-saving measure, Medicare set its cap in 1996 for how much it will reimburse each hospital offering GME training. However, according to the medical groups that continue to advocate to Congress for more funding, the funding hasn’t kept pace with the growing healthcare needs or rising medical school enrollment.
 

Adding Residency Spots

In April, Dr. Hoesley of UAB spoke at a Congressional briefing among health systems and hospitals that benefited from the additional funding. He told Congressional leaders how the increased number of GME positions affects UAB Medicine and its ability to care for rural areas.

“We have entire counties in Alabama that don’t have physicians. One way to address the physician shortage is to grow the GME programs. The funding we received will help us grow these programs and care for residents in our state.”

Still, the Medicare funding is only a drop in the bucket, Dr. Hoesley said. “We rely on Medicare funding alongside other funding partners to train residents and expand our care across the state.” He said many UAB residency programs are over their Medicare funding cap and would like to grow, but they can’t without more funding.

Mount Sinai Health System in New York City also will be able to expand its residency program after receiving Medicare support in the latest round of funding. The health system will use the federal funds to train an additional vascular surgeon. Mount Sinai currently receives CMS funding to train three residents in the specialty.

Over a 5-year program, that means CMS funding will help train 20 residents in the specialty that treats blood vessel blockages and diseases of the veins and arteries generally associated with aging.

“The funding is amazing,” said Peter L. Faries, MD, a surgery professor and system chief of vascular surgery at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York City, who directs the residency program.

“We don’t have the capacity to provide an individual training program without the funding. It’s not economically feasible.”

The need for more vascular surgeons increases as the population continues to age, he said. Mount Sinai treats patients throughout New York, including underserved areas in Harlem, the Bronx, Washington Heights, Brooklyn, and Queens. “These individuals might not receive an appropriate level of vascular care if we don’t have clinicians to treat them.”

Of the recent funding, Dr. Faries said it’s taken the residency program 15 years of advocacy to increase by two slots. “It’s a long process to get funding.” Vascular training programs can remain very selective with Medicare funding, typically receiving two applicants for every position,” said Dr. Faries.
 

Pushing for More Funds

Nearly 98,000 students enrolled in medical school this year, according to the National Resident Matching Program. A total of 44,853 applicants vied for the 38,494 first-year residency positions and 3009 second-year slots, leaving 3350 medical school graduates without a match.

“There are not enough spots to meet the growing demand,” said Jesse M. Ehrenfeld, MD, MPH, immediate past president of the American Medical Association. “Graduate medical education funding has not kept up.”

Despite the increase in medical school graduates over the past two decades, Medicare-supported training opportunities remained frozen at the 1996 level. A limited number of training positions meant residency programs couldn’t expand the physician pipeline to offset an aging workforce, contributing to the shortage. “The way to solve this is to expand GME,” Dr. Ehrenfeld said. “We continue to advocate to remove the cap.”

Dr. Ehrenfeld also told this news organization that he doesn’t mind that Congress recently designated GME funding to certain specialties, such as psychiatry, because he believes the need is great for residency spots across the board. “The good news is people recognize it’s challenging to get much through Congress.” He’s optimistic, though, about recent legislative efforts to increase funding.

AAMC, representing about a third of the nation’s 1100 teaching hospitals and health systems, feels the same. Congress “acknowledges and continues to recognize that the shortage is not getting better, and one way to address it is to increase Medicare-supported GME positions,” said Leonard Marquez, senior director of government relations and legislative advocacy.

Still, he said that the Medicare funding bump is only making a small dent in the need. AAMC estimates the average cost to train residents is $23 billion annually, and Medicare only funds 20% of that, or $5 billion. “Our members are at the point where they say: We already can’t add new training positions,” Mr. Marquez said. He added that without increasing residency slots, patient care will suffer. “We have to do anything possible we can to increase access to care.”

Mr. Marquez also believes Medicare funding should increase residency positions across the specialty spectrum, not just for psychiatry and primary care. He said that the targeted funding may prevent some teaching hospitals from applying for residency positions if they need other types of specialists based on their community’s needs.

Among the current proposals before Congress, the Resident Physician Shortage Reduction Act of 2023 would add 14,000 Medicare-supported residency slots over 7 years. Mr. Marquez said it may be more realistic to expect fewer new slots. A decision on potential legislation is expected at the end of the year. He said that if the medical groups aren’t pleased with the decision, they’ll advocate again in 2025.
 

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

The origin of the COVID-19 pandemic has sparked much debate, and various hypotheses have been put forward.

“My colleagues and I have examined the issue with an open mind, taking into account all possible hypotheses. The laboratory origin hypothesis was legitimate and deserved to be investigated,” Florence Débarre, PhD, a research director at the French National Center for Scientific Research at the Institute of Ecology and Environmental Sciences in Paris, France, told this news organization. Nevertheless, research carried out as part of a large international collaboration points more toward an animal origin at the Wuhan market in China.

“We studied data from environmental samples taken at the Huanan market in Wuhan shortly after its closure in early 2020,” said Dr. Débarre. The data were shared by the Chinese Center for Disease Control and Prevention on open and public databases. They include the raw genetic sequences of more than 800 samples collected at the Huanan market, on cages and carts, on the floors and walls of the stalls, and in the pipes and sewers.

These data allowed researchers to highlight the co-presence at this location of genetic material from the SARS-CoV-2 virus and certain wild animals. Masked palm civets, which are wild canids similar to foxes, with a dark facial mask similar to that of raccoons, and civets, small carnivorous mammals close to mongooses, were at the site.

“These species were already involved in the emergence of the SARS epidemic in the early 2000s and considered to facilitate the transmission of the virus from animals to humans,” said Dr. Débarre.

These animals were identified based on their DNA and located in the southwest part of the market, which is also a hotspot where many samples tested positive for SARS-CoV-2.

“There is a particular stall where the virus and the animals were found,” she said.

Since the data used are based on environmental samples, it is not possible to formally demonstrate that the animals were infected, but the discovery of virus samples located in the same place as the genetic material of these animals suggests that they were.

“There were samples taken from some animals at the market, but not from others, as they had already been evacuated when the sampling services arrived,” said Dr. Débarre. These results add to a large body of evidence that all points in the same direction: an animal origin at the Wuhan market.

The team also found other zoonotic viruses, such as avian flu. “This study confirms that live animal markets pose a high health risk, especially when they are at the heart of urban centers,” said Dr. Débarre. “It can provide avenues for prevention, particularly by limiting interactions between humans and wild fauna.”

This story was translated from the Medscape French edition using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The origin of the COVID-19 pandemic has sparked much debate, and various hypotheses have been put forward.

“My colleagues and I have examined the issue with an open mind, taking into account all possible hypotheses. The laboratory origin hypothesis was legitimate and deserved to be investigated,” Florence Débarre, PhD, a research director at the French National Center for Scientific Research at the Institute of Ecology and Environmental Sciences in Paris, France, told this news organization. Nevertheless, research carried out as part of a large international collaboration points more toward an animal origin at the Wuhan market in China.

“We studied data from environmental samples taken at the Huanan market in Wuhan shortly after its closure in early 2020,” said Dr. Débarre. The data were shared by the Chinese Center for Disease Control and Prevention on open and public databases. They include the raw genetic sequences of more than 800 samples collected at the Huanan market, on cages and carts, on the floors and walls of the stalls, and in the pipes and sewers.

These data allowed researchers to highlight the co-presence at this location of genetic material from the SARS-CoV-2 virus and certain wild animals. Masked palm civets, which are wild canids similar to foxes, with a dark facial mask similar to that of raccoons, and civets, small carnivorous mammals close to mongooses, were at the site.

“These species were already involved in the emergence of the SARS epidemic in the early 2000s and considered to facilitate the transmission of the virus from animals to humans,” said Dr. Débarre.

These animals were identified based on their DNA and located in the southwest part of the market, which is also a hotspot where many samples tested positive for SARS-CoV-2.

“There is a particular stall where the virus and the animals were found,” she said.

Since the data used are based on environmental samples, it is not possible to formally demonstrate that the animals were infected, but the discovery of virus samples located in the same place as the genetic material of these animals suggests that they were.

“There were samples taken from some animals at the market, but not from others, as they had already been evacuated when the sampling services arrived,” said Dr. Débarre. These results add to a large body of evidence that all points in the same direction: an animal origin at the Wuhan market.

The team also found other zoonotic viruses, such as avian flu. “This study confirms that live animal markets pose a high health risk, especially when they are at the heart of urban centers,” said Dr. Débarre. “It can provide avenues for prevention, particularly by limiting interactions between humans and wild fauna.”

This story was translated from the Medscape French edition using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The origin of the COVID-19 pandemic has sparked much debate, and various hypotheses have been put forward.

“My colleagues and I have examined the issue with an open mind, taking into account all possible hypotheses. The laboratory origin hypothesis was legitimate and deserved to be investigated,” Florence Débarre, PhD, a research director at the French National Center for Scientific Research at the Institute of Ecology and Environmental Sciences in Paris, France, told this news organization. Nevertheless, research carried out as part of a large international collaboration points more toward an animal origin at the Wuhan market in China.

“We studied data from environmental samples taken at the Huanan market in Wuhan shortly after its closure in early 2020,” said Dr. Débarre. The data were shared by the Chinese Center for Disease Control and Prevention on open and public databases. They include the raw genetic sequences of more than 800 samples collected at the Huanan market, on cages and carts, on the floors and walls of the stalls, and in the pipes and sewers.

These data allowed researchers to highlight the co-presence at this location of genetic material from the SARS-CoV-2 virus and certain wild animals. Masked palm civets, which are wild canids similar to foxes, with a dark facial mask similar to that of raccoons, and civets, small carnivorous mammals close to mongooses, were at the site.

“These species were already involved in the emergence of the SARS epidemic in the early 2000s and considered to facilitate the transmission of the virus from animals to humans,” said Dr. Débarre.

These animals were identified based on their DNA and located in the southwest part of the market, which is also a hotspot where many samples tested positive for SARS-CoV-2.

“There is a particular stall where the virus and the animals were found,” she said.

Since the data used are based on environmental samples, it is not possible to formally demonstrate that the animals were infected, but the discovery of virus samples located in the same place as the genetic material of these animals suggests that they were.

“There were samples taken from some animals at the market, but not from others, as they had already been evacuated when the sampling services arrived,” said Dr. Débarre. These results add to a large body of evidence that all points in the same direction: an animal origin at the Wuhan market.

The team also found other zoonotic viruses, such as avian flu. “This study confirms that live animal markets pose a high health risk, especially when they are at the heart of urban centers,” said Dr. Débarre. “It can provide avenues for prevention, particularly by limiting interactions between humans and wild fauna.”

This story was translated from the Medscape French edition using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Nasal Staphylococcus aureus (SA) carriage is associated with SA surgical site and bloodstream infections following a surgical procedure, according to findings from a new prospective, multicenter clinical study published in the August issue of Open Forum Infectious Diseases.

“This was a pan-European study with many hospitals, many different clinical settings, and as far as I’m aware, it hasn’t been done before. [The new study] covers a lot of European countries and a lot of surgical specialties,” said lead author Jan Kluytmans, MD. The study also captures the current state of preventive strategies in surgery, such as changes in air flow, dress, and skin preparation, he added.

The study included 5004 patients from 33 hospitals in ten European countries, of whom 67.3% were found to be SA carriers. The median age was 65 years, and 49.8% of patients were male. Open cardiac, and knee and hip prosthesis surgeries made up the largest fraction, but there were 12 types of surgery included in the study.

There were 100 SA surgical site or blood infections. The researchers found an association between surgical site or blood infection and SA carriage at any site (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 4.6; 95% CI, 2.1-10.0) and nasal SA carriage (aHR, 4.2; 95% CI, 2.0-8.6). Extranasal SA carriage was not associated with an increased infection risk.

Each 1-unit increase in nasal bacteria was associated with an increase in infection risk (aHR, 1.23; 95% CI, 1.05-1.43).

A strength of the study is that it is the largest prospective study yet conducted on SA carriage in surgical patients, but the researchers were unable to do a subgroup of methicillin-resistant SA (MRSA) due to small numbers of infections.

The study confirms the value of the decolonization strategy, which the World Health Organization has endorsed with the highest level of scientific evidence that is available in preventive strategies in surgery. WHO strongly recommends decolonization for cardiothoracic and orthopedic surgery using intranasal applications of mupirocin 2% ointment with or without a combination of chlorhexidine gluconate body wash. It has a conditional recommendation for a similar procedure before other types of surgery.

However, “It is not widely practiced, and although that was not a surprise to me, I think it’s really disappointing to see that proven effective strategies are not being practiced,” said Dr. Kluytmans, professor of medical microbiology at University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, the Netherlands. “If I would come into surgery being a carrier, and not be decolonized, I would really be quite angry because it puts you at risk, which is preventable. I think that’s something we owe to our patients,” he said.

He said that some may have concerns about the potential for decolonization to contribute to antibiotic resistance, but the short-term prophylaxis — typically a few days — should not foster resistance, according to Dr. Kluytmans. “If you use it short term, just before surgery, it has been shown in many studies that resistance isn’t a big problem and it can be monitored.”

The link specifically to SA nasal carriage is a mystery, according to Dr. Kluytmans. “It puzzles me still how it gets from the nares to the wound during surgery. So that’s my million-dollar question that I would like to resolve. We would like to study it, but we haven’t quite a bright idea how to do that,” he said.

The results are compelling, according to Heather Evans, MD, who was asked for comment. “On the face of it, this looks like a no-brainer. We should be decolonizing all patients that go to the operating room, and it’s not a terribly unpleasant thing for a patient to undergo to have decolonization done. Particularly for patients who are at higher risk for having a severe complication, like someone that has an operation that’s involving an implant, for example, I think it really makes a lot of sense to do this low-cost intervention for those patients,” said Dr. Evans, professor of medicine at The Medical University of South Carolina as well as the president of the Surgical Infection Society.

She noted that many facilities test for methicillin-resistant SA, but usual not SA more broadly. “This is a very interesting and compelling study that makes us rethink that, and maybe it isn’t even worth testing to see if you have staph aureus, maybe we should just be putting Betadine in everyone’s nostrils when they come to the operating room. It just seems like it would be a pretty low-cost intervention and something that could potentially have a big impact,” said Dr. Evans.

Although she was impressed by the study, Dr. Evans noted that the researchers tested for carriage at sites unrelated to the surgical site. “It really made me wonder if it would have added even more credibility to the study if there had been a sample taken after surgical prep was done to demonstrate that there is actually no staph aureus present on the skin at the time that the wound was made,” she said.

The question ties into the recent “Trojan horse” hypothesis, which suggests that endemic carriage of bacteria is responsible for most surgical site infections, rather than the long-held belief that operating room contamination is to blame. “That would sort of fly with this study, that the patient is walking around with Staph aureus and not necessarily on their skin or at their surgical site, but it’s endemic in their body,” said Dr. Evans.

Dr. Kluytmans and Dr. Evans have no relevant financial disclosures.

Nasal Staphylococcus aureus (SA) carriage is associated with SA surgical site and bloodstream infections following a surgical procedure, according to findings from a new prospective, multicenter clinical study published in the August issue of Open Forum Infectious Diseases.

“This was a pan-European study with many hospitals, many different clinical settings, and as far as I’m aware, it hasn’t been done before. [The new study] covers a lot of European countries and a lot of surgical specialties,” said lead author Jan Kluytmans, MD. The study also captures the current state of preventive strategies in surgery, such as changes in air flow, dress, and skin preparation, he added.

The study included 5004 patients from 33 hospitals in ten European countries, of whom 67.3% were found to be SA carriers. The median age was 65 years, and 49.8% of patients were male. Open cardiac, and knee and hip prosthesis surgeries made up the largest fraction, but there were 12 types of surgery included in the study.

There were 100 SA surgical site or blood infections. The researchers found an association between surgical site or blood infection and SA carriage at any site (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 4.6; 95% CI, 2.1-10.0) and nasal SA carriage (aHR, 4.2; 95% CI, 2.0-8.6). Extranasal SA carriage was not associated with an increased infection risk.

Each 1-unit increase in nasal bacteria was associated with an increase in infection risk (aHR, 1.23; 95% CI, 1.05-1.43).

A strength of the study is that it is the largest prospective study yet conducted on SA carriage in surgical patients, but the researchers were unable to do a subgroup of methicillin-resistant SA (MRSA) due to small numbers of infections.

The study confirms the value of the decolonization strategy, which the World Health Organization has endorsed with the highest level of scientific evidence that is available in preventive strategies in surgery. WHO strongly recommends decolonization for cardiothoracic and orthopedic surgery using intranasal applications of mupirocin 2% ointment with or without a combination of chlorhexidine gluconate body wash. It has a conditional recommendation for a similar procedure before other types of surgery.

However, “It is not widely practiced, and although that was not a surprise to me, I think it’s really disappointing to see that proven effective strategies are not being practiced,” said Dr. Kluytmans, professor of medical microbiology at University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, the Netherlands. “If I would come into surgery being a carrier, and not be decolonized, I would really be quite angry because it puts you at risk, which is preventable. I think that’s something we owe to our patients,” he said.

He said that some may have concerns about the potential for decolonization to contribute to antibiotic resistance, but the short-term prophylaxis — typically a few days — should not foster resistance, according to Dr. Kluytmans. “If you use it short term, just before surgery, it has been shown in many studies that resistance isn’t a big problem and it can be monitored.”

The link specifically to SA nasal carriage is a mystery, according to Dr. Kluytmans. “It puzzles me still how it gets from the nares to the wound during surgery. So that’s my million-dollar question that I would like to resolve. We would like to study it, but we haven’t quite a bright idea how to do that,” he said.

The results are compelling, according to Heather Evans, MD, who was asked for comment. “On the face of it, this looks like a no-brainer. We should be decolonizing all patients that go to the operating room, and it’s not a terribly unpleasant thing for a patient to undergo to have decolonization done. Particularly for patients who are at higher risk for having a severe complication, like someone that has an operation that’s involving an implant, for example, I think it really makes a lot of sense to do this low-cost intervention for those patients,” said Dr. Evans, professor of medicine at The Medical University of South Carolina as well as the president of the Surgical Infection Society.

She noted that many facilities test for methicillin-resistant SA, but usual not SA more broadly. “This is a very interesting and compelling study that makes us rethink that, and maybe it isn’t even worth testing to see if you have staph aureus, maybe we should just be putting Betadine in everyone’s nostrils when they come to the operating room. It just seems like it would be a pretty low-cost intervention and something that could potentially have a big impact,” said Dr. Evans.

Although she was impressed by the study, Dr. Evans noted that the researchers tested for carriage at sites unrelated to the surgical site. “It really made me wonder if it would have added even more credibility to the study if there had been a sample taken after surgical prep was done to demonstrate that there is actually no staph aureus present on the skin at the time that the wound was made,” she said.

The question ties into the recent “Trojan horse” hypothesis, which suggests that endemic carriage of bacteria is responsible for most surgical site infections, rather than the long-held belief that operating room contamination is to blame. “That would sort of fly with this study, that the patient is walking around with Staph aureus and not necessarily on their skin or at their surgical site, but it’s endemic in their body,” said Dr. Evans.

Dr. Kluytmans and Dr. Evans have no relevant financial disclosures.

Nasal Staphylococcus aureus (SA) carriage is associated with SA surgical site and bloodstream infections following a surgical procedure, according to findings from a new prospective, multicenter clinical study published in the August issue of Open Forum Infectious Diseases.

“This was a pan-European study with many hospitals, many different clinical settings, and as far as I’m aware, it hasn’t been done before. [The new study] covers a lot of European countries and a lot of surgical specialties,” said lead author Jan Kluytmans, MD. The study also captures the current state of preventive strategies in surgery, such as changes in air flow, dress, and skin preparation, he added.

The study included 5004 patients from 33 hospitals in ten European countries, of whom 67.3% were found to be SA carriers. The median age was 65 years, and 49.8% of patients were male. Open cardiac, and knee and hip prosthesis surgeries made up the largest fraction, but there were 12 types of surgery included in the study.

There were 100 SA surgical site or blood infections. The researchers found an association between surgical site or blood infection and SA carriage at any site (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 4.6; 95% CI, 2.1-10.0) and nasal SA carriage (aHR, 4.2; 95% CI, 2.0-8.6). Extranasal SA carriage was not associated with an increased infection risk.

Each 1-unit increase in nasal bacteria was associated with an increase in infection risk (aHR, 1.23; 95% CI, 1.05-1.43).

A strength of the study is that it is the largest prospective study yet conducted on SA carriage in surgical patients, but the researchers were unable to do a subgroup of methicillin-resistant SA (MRSA) due to small numbers of infections.

The study confirms the value of the decolonization strategy, which the World Health Organization has endorsed with the highest level of scientific evidence that is available in preventive strategies in surgery. WHO strongly recommends decolonization for cardiothoracic and orthopedic surgery using intranasal applications of mupirocin 2% ointment with or without a combination of chlorhexidine gluconate body wash. It has a conditional recommendation for a similar procedure before other types of surgery.

However, “It is not widely practiced, and although that was not a surprise to me, I think it’s really disappointing to see that proven effective strategies are not being practiced,” said Dr. Kluytmans, professor of medical microbiology at University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, the Netherlands. “If I would come into surgery being a carrier, and not be decolonized, I would really be quite angry because it puts you at risk, which is preventable. I think that’s something we owe to our patients,” he said.

He said that some may have concerns about the potential for decolonization to contribute to antibiotic resistance, but the short-term prophylaxis — typically a few days — should not foster resistance, according to Dr. Kluytmans. “If you use it short term, just before surgery, it has been shown in many studies that resistance isn’t a big problem and it can be monitored.”

The link specifically to SA nasal carriage is a mystery, according to Dr. Kluytmans. “It puzzles me still how it gets from the nares to the wound during surgery. So that’s my million-dollar question that I would like to resolve. We would like to study it, but we haven’t quite a bright idea how to do that,” he said.

The results are compelling, according to Heather Evans, MD, who was asked for comment. “On the face of it, this looks like a no-brainer. We should be decolonizing all patients that go to the operating room, and it’s not a terribly unpleasant thing for a patient to undergo to have decolonization done. Particularly for patients who are at higher risk for having a severe complication, like someone that has an operation that’s involving an implant, for example, I think it really makes a lot of sense to do this low-cost intervention for those patients,” said Dr. Evans, professor of medicine at The Medical University of South Carolina as well as the president of the Surgical Infection Society.

She noted that many facilities test for methicillin-resistant SA, but usual not SA more broadly. “This is a very interesting and compelling study that makes us rethink that, and maybe it isn’t even worth testing to see if you have staph aureus, maybe we should just be putting Betadine in everyone’s nostrils when they come to the operating room. It just seems like it would be a pretty low-cost intervention and something that could potentially have a big impact,” said Dr. Evans.

Although she was impressed by the study, Dr. Evans noted that the researchers tested for carriage at sites unrelated to the surgical site. “It really made me wonder if it would have added even more credibility to the study if there had been a sample taken after surgical prep was done to demonstrate that there is actually no staph aureus present on the skin at the time that the wound was made,” she said.

The question ties into the recent “Trojan horse” hypothesis, which suggests that endemic carriage of bacteria is responsible for most surgical site infections, rather than the long-held belief that operating room contamination is to blame. “That would sort of fly with this study, that the patient is walking around with Staph aureus and not necessarily on their skin or at their surgical site, but it’s endemic in their body,” said Dr. Evans.

Dr. Kluytmans and Dr. Evans have no relevant financial disclosures.

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) plans to scrutinize the safety and efficacy of lab-developed tests — those designed, manufactured, and used in a single laboratory — far more thoroughly in the future.

Under a rule finalized in April, the FDA will treat facilities that develop and use lab tests as manufacturers and regulate tests as medical devices. That means that most lab tests will need an FDA review before going on sale.

The FDA will also impose new quality standards, requiring test manufacturers to report adverse events and create a registry of lab tests under the new rule, which will be phased in over 4 years.

FDA officials have been concerned for years about the reliability of commercial lab tests, which have ballooned into a multibillion-dollar industry.

Consumer groups have long urged the FDA to regulate lab tests more strictly, arguing that the lack of scrutiny allows doctors and patients to be exploited by bad actors such as Theranos, which falsely claimed that its tests could diagnose multiple diseases with a single drop of blood.

“When it comes to some of these tests that doctors are recommending for patients, many doctors are just crossing their fingers and relying on the representation of the company because nobody is checking” to verify a manufacturer’s claims, said Joshua Sharfstein, MD, vice dean for public health practice and community engagement at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, Maryland.
 

Nearly 12,000 Labs Making Medical Tests

Although the FDA estimates there are nearly 12,000 labs manufacturing medical tests, agency officials said they don’t know how many tests are being marketed. The FDA already requires that home test kits marketed directly to consumers, such as those used to detect COVID-19, get clearance from the agency before being sold.

“There’s plenty of time for industry to get its act together to develop the data that it might need to make a premarket application,” said Peter Lurie, MD, PhD, a former associate commissioner at the FDA. In 2015, Dr. Lurie led a report outlining some of the dangers of unregulated lab tests.

For the average physician who orders lab tests, nothing is going to immediately change because of the final rule, said Dr. Lurie, now president of the Center for Science in the Public Interest, a nonprofit consumer watchdog.

“Tomorrow, this will look just the same as it does today,” Dr. Lurie said. “For the next 3 years, the companies will be scurrying behind the scenes to comply with the early stages of implementation. But most of that will be invisible to the average practitioner.”

Dr. Lurie predicted the FDA will focus its scrutiny on tests that pose the greatest potential risk to patients, such as ones used to diagnose serious diseases or guide treatment for life-threatening conditions. “The least significant tests will likely get very limited, if any, scrutiny,” said Dr. Lurie, adding that the FDA will likely issue guidance about how it plans to define low- and high-risk tests. “My suspicion is that it will be probably a small minority of products that are subject to full premarket approval.”
 

Lab Industry Groups Push Back

But imposing new rules with the potential to affect an industry’s bottom line is no easy task.

The American Clinical Laboratory Association, which represents the lab industry, said in a statement that the FDA rule will “limit access to scores of critical tests, increase healthcare costs, and undermine innovation in new diagnostics.” Another industry group, the Association for Molecular Pathology, has warned of “significant and harmful disruption to laboratory medicine.”

The two associations have filed separate lawsuits, charging that the FDA overstepped the authority granted by Congress. In their lawsuits, groups claim that lab tests are professional services, not manufactured products. The groups noted that the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) already inspects lab facilities. CMS does not assess the tests’ quality or reliability.

A recent Supreme Court decision could make those lawsuits more likely to succeed, said David Simon, JD, LLM, PhD, an assistant professor of law at the Northeastern University School of Law, Boston, Massachusetts.

In the case of Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, decided in June, justices overturned a long-standing precedent known as Chevron deference, which required courts to defer to federal agencies when interpreting ambiguous laws. That means that courts no longer have to accept the FDA’s definition of a device, Dr. Simon said.

“Because judges may have more active roles in defining agency authority, federal agencies may have correspondingly less robust roles in policymaking,” Dr. Simon wrote in an editorial coauthored with Michael J. Young, MD, MPhil, of Harvard Medical School, Boston.

The Supreme Court ruling could pressure Congress to more clearly define FDA’s ruling in regulating lab tests, Dr. Simon and Dr. Young wrote.

Members of Congress first introduced a bill to clarify the FDA’s role in regulating lab tests, called the VALID Act, in 2020. The bill stalled and, despite efforts to revive it, still hasn’t passed.

FDA officials have said they remain “open to working with Congress,” noting that any future legislation about lab-developed tests would supersede their current policy.

In an interview, Dr. Simon noted the FDA significantly narrowed the scope of the final rule in response to comments from critics who objected to an earlier version of the policy proposed in 2023. The final rule carves out several categories of tests that won’t need to apply for “premarket review.”

Notably, a “grandfather clause” will allow some lab tests already on the market to continue being sold without undergoing FDA’s premarket review process. In explaining the exemption, FDA officials said they did not want doctors and patients to lose access to tests on which they rely. But Dr. Lurie noted that because the FDA views all these tests as under its jurisdiction, the agency could opt to take a closer look “at a very old device that is causing a problem today.”

The FDA also will exempt tests approved by New York State’s Clinical Laboratory Evaluation Program, which conducts its own stringent reviews. And the FDA will continue to allow hospitals to develop tests for patients within their healthcare system without going through the FDA approval process, if no FDA-approved tests are available.

Hospital-based tests play a critical role in treating infectious diseases, said Amesh Adalja, MD, an infectious diseases specialist and senior scholar at the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security. For example, a large research hospital treating a patient with cytomegalovirus may need to develop its own test to determine whether the infection is resistant to antiviral drugs, Dr. Adalja said.

“With novel infectious disease outbreaks, researchers are able to move quickly to make diagnostic tests months and months before commercial laboratories are able to get through regulatory processes,” Dr. Adalja said.

To help scientists respond quickly to emergencies, the FDA published special guidance for labs that develop unauthorized lab tests for disease outbreaks.

Medical groups such as the American Hospital Association and Infectious Diseases Society of America remain concerned about the burden of complying with new regulations.

“Many vital tests developed in hospitals and health systems may be subjected to unnecessary and costly paperwork,” said Stacey Hughes, executive vice president of the American Hospital Association, in a statement.

Other groups, such as the American Society of Clinical Oncology, praised the new FDA policy. In comments submitted to the FDA in 2023, the cancer group said it “emphatically supports” requiring lab tests to undergo FDA review.

“We appreciate FDA action to modernize oversight of these tests and are hopeful this rule will increase focus on the need to balance rapid diagnostic innovation with patient safety and access” Everett Vokes, MD, the group’s board chair, said in a statement released after the FDA’s final rule was published.

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

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) plans to scrutinize the safety and efficacy of lab-developed tests — those designed, manufactured, and used in a single laboratory — far more thoroughly in the future.

Under a rule finalized in April, the FDA will treat facilities that develop and use lab tests as manufacturers and regulate tests as medical devices. That means that most lab tests will need an FDA review before going on sale.

The FDA will also impose new quality standards, requiring test manufacturers to report adverse events and create a registry of lab tests under the new rule, which will be phased in over 4 years.

FDA officials have been concerned for years about the reliability of commercial lab tests, which have ballooned into a multibillion-dollar industry.

Consumer groups have long urged the FDA to regulate lab tests more strictly, arguing that the lack of scrutiny allows doctors and patients to be exploited by bad actors such as Theranos, which falsely claimed that its tests could diagnose multiple diseases with a single drop of blood.

“When it comes to some of these tests that doctors are recommending for patients, many doctors are just crossing their fingers and relying on the representation of the company because nobody is checking” to verify a manufacturer’s claims, said Joshua Sharfstein, MD, vice dean for public health practice and community engagement at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, Maryland.
 

Nearly 12,000 Labs Making Medical Tests

Although the FDA estimates there are nearly 12,000 labs manufacturing medical tests, agency officials said they don’t know how many tests are being marketed. The FDA already requires that home test kits marketed directly to consumers, such as those used to detect COVID-19, get clearance from the agency before being sold.

“There’s plenty of time for industry to get its act together to develop the data that it might need to make a premarket application,” said Peter Lurie, MD, PhD, a former associate commissioner at the FDA. In 2015, Dr. Lurie led a report outlining some of the dangers of unregulated lab tests.

For the average physician who orders lab tests, nothing is going to immediately change because of the final rule, said Dr. Lurie, now president of the Center for Science in the Public Interest, a nonprofit consumer watchdog.

“Tomorrow, this will look just the same as it does today,” Dr. Lurie said. “For the next 3 years, the companies will be scurrying behind the scenes to comply with the early stages of implementation. But most of that will be invisible to the average practitioner.”

Dr. Lurie predicted the FDA will focus its scrutiny on tests that pose the greatest potential risk to patients, such as ones used to diagnose serious diseases or guide treatment for life-threatening conditions. “The least significant tests will likely get very limited, if any, scrutiny,” said Dr. Lurie, adding that the FDA will likely issue guidance about how it plans to define low- and high-risk tests. “My suspicion is that it will be probably a small minority of products that are subject to full premarket approval.”
 

Lab Industry Groups Push Back

But imposing new rules with the potential to affect an industry’s bottom line is no easy task.

The American Clinical Laboratory Association, which represents the lab industry, said in a statement that the FDA rule will “limit access to scores of critical tests, increase healthcare costs, and undermine innovation in new diagnostics.” Another industry group, the Association for Molecular Pathology, has warned of “significant and harmful disruption to laboratory medicine.”

The two associations have filed separate lawsuits, charging that the FDA overstepped the authority granted by Congress. In their lawsuits, groups claim that lab tests are professional services, not manufactured products. The groups noted that the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) already inspects lab facilities. CMS does not assess the tests’ quality or reliability.

A recent Supreme Court decision could make those lawsuits more likely to succeed, said David Simon, JD, LLM, PhD, an assistant professor of law at the Northeastern University School of Law, Boston, Massachusetts.

In the case of Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, decided in June, justices overturned a long-standing precedent known as Chevron deference, which required courts to defer to federal agencies when interpreting ambiguous laws. That means that courts no longer have to accept the FDA’s definition of a device, Dr. Simon said.

“Because judges may have more active roles in defining agency authority, federal agencies may have correspondingly less robust roles in policymaking,” Dr. Simon wrote in an editorial coauthored with Michael J. Young, MD, MPhil, of Harvard Medical School, Boston.

The Supreme Court ruling could pressure Congress to more clearly define FDA’s ruling in regulating lab tests, Dr. Simon and Dr. Young wrote.

Members of Congress first introduced a bill to clarify the FDA’s role in regulating lab tests, called the VALID Act, in 2020. The bill stalled and, despite efforts to revive it, still hasn’t passed.

FDA officials have said they remain “open to working with Congress,” noting that any future legislation about lab-developed tests would supersede their current policy.

In an interview, Dr. Simon noted the FDA significantly narrowed the scope of the final rule in response to comments from critics who objected to an earlier version of the policy proposed in 2023. The final rule carves out several categories of tests that won’t need to apply for “premarket review.”

Notably, a “grandfather clause” will allow some lab tests already on the market to continue being sold without undergoing FDA’s premarket review process. In explaining the exemption, FDA officials said they did not want doctors and patients to lose access to tests on which they rely. But Dr. Lurie noted that because the FDA views all these tests as under its jurisdiction, the agency could opt to take a closer look “at a very old device that is causing a problem today.”

The FDA also will exempt tests approved by New York State’s Clinical Laboratory Evaluation Program, which conducts its own stringent reviews. And the FDA will continue to allow hospitals to develop tests for patients within their healthcare system without going through the FDA approval process, if no FDA-approved tests are available.

Hospital-based tests play a critical role in treating infectious diseases, said Amesh Adalja, MD, an infectious diseases specialist and senior scholar at the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security. For example, a large research hospital treating a patient with cytomegalovirus may need to develop its own test to determine whether the infection is resistant to antiviral drugs, Dr. Adalja said.

“With novel infectious disease outbreaks, researchers are able to move quickly to make diagnostic tests months and months before commercial laboratories are able to get through regulatory processes,” Dr. Adalja said.

To help scientists respond quickly to emergencies, the FDA published special guidance for labs that develop unauthorized lab tests for disease outbreaks.

Medical groups such as the American Hospital Association and Infectious Diseases Society of America remain concerned about the burden of complying with new regulations.

“Many vital tests developed in hospitals and health systems may be subjected to unnecessary and costly paperwork,” said Stacey Hughes, executive vice president of the American Hospital Association, in a statement.

Other groups, such as the American Society of Clinical Oncology, praised the new FDA policy. In comments submitted to the FDA in 2023, the cancer group said it “emphatically supports” requiring lab tests to undergo FDA review.

“We appreciate FDA action to modernize oversight of these tests and are hopeful this rule will increase focus on the need to balance rapid diagnostic innovation with patient safety and access” Everett Vokes, MD, the group’s board chair, said in a statement released after the FDA’s final rule was published.

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

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) plans to scrutinize the safety and efficacy of lab-developed tests — those designed, manufactured, and used in a single laboratory — far more thoroughly in the future.

Under a rule finalized in April, the FDA will treat facilities that develop and use lab tests as manufacturers and regulate tests as medical devices. That means that most lab tests will need an FDA review before going on sale.

The FDA will also impose new quality standards, requiring test manufacturers to report adverse events and create a registry of lab tests under the new rule, which will be phased in over 4 years.

FDA officials have been concerned for years about the reliability of commercial lab tests, which have ballooned into a multibillion-dollar industry.

Consumer groups have long urged the FDA to regulate lab tests more strictly, arguing that the lack of scrutiny allows doctors and patients to be exploited by bad actors such as Theranos, which falsely claimed that its tests could diagnose multiple diseases with a single drop of blood.

“When it comes to some of these tests that doctors are recommending for patients, many doctors are just crossing their fingers and relying on the representation of the company because nobody is checking” to verify a manufacturer’s claims, said Joshua Sharfstein, MD, vice dean for public health practice and community engagement at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, Maryland.
 

Nearly 12,000 Labs Making Medical Tests

Although the FDA estimates there are nearly 12,000 labs manufacturing medical tests, agency officials said they don’t know how many tests are being marketed. The FDA already requires that home test kits marketed directly to consumers, such as those used to detect COVID-19, get clearance from the agency before being sold.

“There’s plenty of time for industry to get its act together to develop the data that it might need to make a premarket application,” said Peter Lurie, MD, PhD, a former associate commissioner at the FDA. In 2015, Dr. Lurie led a report outlining some of the dangers of unregulated lab tests.

For the average physician who orders lab tests, nothing is going to immediately change because of the final rule, said Dr. Lurie, now president of the Center for Science in the Public Interest, a nonprofit consumer watchdog.

“Tomorrow, this will look just the same as it does today,” Dr. Lurie said. “For the next 3 years, the companies will be scurrying behind the scenes to comply with the early stages of implementation. But most of that will be invisible to the average practitioner.”

Dr. Lurie predicted the FDA will focus its scrutiny on tests that pose the greatest potential risk to patients, such as ones used to diagnose serious diseases or guide treatment for life-threatening conditions. “The least significant tests will likely get very limited, if any, scrutiny,” said Dr. Lurie, adding that the FDA will likely issue guidance about how it plans to define low- and high-risk tests. “My suspicion is that it will be probably a small minority of products that are subject to full premarket approval.”
 

Lab Industry Groups Push Back

But imposing new rules with the potential to affect an industry’s bottom line is no easy task.

The American Clinical Laboratory Association, which represents the lab industry, said in a statement that the FDA rule will “limit access to scores of critical tests, increase healthcare costs, and undermine innovation in new diagnostics.” Another industry group, the Association for Molecular Pathology, has warned of “significant and harmful disruption to laboratory medicine.”

The two associations have filed separate lawsuits, charging that the FDA overstepped the authority granted by Congress. In their lawsuits, groups claim that lab tests are professional services, not manufactured products. The groups noted that the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) already inspects lab facilities. CMS does not assess the tests’ quality or reliability.

A recent Supreme Court decision could make those lawsuits more likely to succeed, said David Simon, JD, LLM, PhD, an assistant professor of law at the Northeastern University School of Law, Boston, Massachusetts.

In the case of Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, decided in June, justices overturned a long-standing precedent known as Chevron deference, which required courts to defer to federal agencies when interpreting ambiguous laws. That means that courts no longer have to accept the FDA’s definition of a device, Dr. Simon said.

“Because judges may have more active roles in defining agency authority, federal agencies may have correspondingly less robust roles in policymaking,” Dr. Simon wrote in an editorial coauthored with Michael J. Young, MD, MPhil, of Harvard Medical School, Boston.

The Supreme Court ruling could pressure Congress to more clearly define FDA’s ruling in regulating lab tests, Dr. Simon and Dr. Young wrote.

Members of Congress first introduced a bill to clarify the FDA’s role in regulating lab tests, called the VALID Act, in 2020. The bill stalled and, despite efforts to revive it, still hasn’t passed.

FDA officials have said they remain “open to working with Congress,” noting that any future legislation about lab-developed tests would supersede their current policy.

In an interview, Dr. Simon noted the FDA significantly narrowed the scope of the final rule in response to comments from critics who objected to an earlier version of the policy proposed in 2023. The final rule carves out several categories of tests that won’t need to apply for “premarket review.”

Notably, a “grandfather clause” will allow some lab tests already on the market to continue being sold without undergoing FDA’s premarket review process. In explaining the exemption, FDA officials said they did not want doctors and patients to lose access to tests on which they rely. But Dr. Lurie noted that because the FDA views all these tests as under its jurisdiction, the agency could opt to take a closer look “at a very old device that is causing a problem today.”

The FDA also will exempt tests approved by New York State’s Clinical Laboratory Evaluation Program, which conducts its own stringent reviews. And the FDA will continue to allow hospitals to develop tests for patients within their healthcare system without going through the FDA approval process, if no FDA-approved tests are available.

Hospital-based tests play a critical role in treating infectious diseases, said Amesh Adalja, MD, an infectious diseases specialist and senior scholar at the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security. For example, a large research hospital treating a patient with cytomegalovirus may need to develop its own test to determine whether the infection is resistant to antiviral drugs, Dr. Adalja said.

“With novel infectious disease outbreaks, researchers are able to move quickly to make diagnostic tests months and months before commercial laboratories are able to get through regulatory processes,” Dr. Adalja said.

To help scientists respond quickly to emergencies, the FDA published special guidance for labs that develop unauthorized lab tests for disease outbreaks.

Medical groups such as the American Hospital Association and Infectious Diseases Society of America remain concerned about the burden of complying with new regulations.

“Many vital tests developed in hospitals and health systems may be subjected to unnecessary and costly paperwork,” said Stacey Hughes, executive vice president of the American Hospital Association, in a statement.

Other groups, such as the American Society of Clinical Oncology, praised the new FDA policy. In comments submitted to the FDA in 2023, the cancer group said it “emphatically supports” requiring lab tests to undergo FDA review.

“We appreciate FDA action to modernize oversight of these tests and are hopeful this rule will increase focus on the need to balance rapid diagnostic innovation with patient safety and access” Everett Vokes, MD, the group’s board chair, said in a statement released after the FDA’s final rule was published.

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

Pertussis cases in the United States have increased fourfold compared with the same time period last year, according to data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Reports from several states illustrate this trend, thought to be due to reduced immunity across the country.

The Alaska Department of Health issued a statement on its website about the significant increase in pertussis cases in the state during the summer, with 90 cases in July and 61 in August, compared with 24 in June and a total of 26 cases in 2023.

Similarly, the Florida Department of Health reported a pertussis increase in July 2024 that was higher than the June 2024 case count and also above the previous 5-year average.

Experts in these and other states suggest that several factors are driving the nationwide increase, including the fact that fewer people are consistently wearing masks. The mass masking during the COVID-19 pandemic caused a significant drop in pertussis, but the latest data suggest a return to prepandemic levels, and waning immunity likely plays a role as well.

Pertussis, also known as whooping cough, typically begins with symptoms similar to those of the common cold, including runny nose, sneezing, mild fever, and cough, according to the CDC. However, babies with whooping cough may experience trouble breathing rather than a cough. The coughing fits often associated with pertussis may not start until 2 weeks after the onset of other symptoms, according to the CDC.

Those who have been vaccinated against pertussis can still become infected, but the risk is lower, and the illness, if it occurs, is likely to be milder. Complications such as apnea, pneumonia, and convulsions can occur in babies younger than 1 year, especially if they have not been vaccinated, according to the CDC.
 

Beyond Easing Pandemic Precautions

Many respiratory-based infections dipped during the COVID-19 pandemic, almost certainly from the multifactorial interventions of masking, distancing, and the general lack of comingling, said David J. Cennimo, MD, associate professor of medicine & pediatrics in the Division of Infectious Diseases at Rutgers New Jersey Medical School, Newark, New Jersey, in an interview.

The number of cases of many of these diseases returned to previous levels after COVID-19 restrictions were lifted, he said.

“However, we know pertussis immunity wanes over time. Children get DTaP at 2, 4, 6, and 15 months, and a Tdap booster at 11-12 years old gets them to adulthood,” Dr. Cennimo said. Adults should be getting a Tdap every 10 years, he added.

The latest available CDC data indicate that Tdap vaccine coverage in adults is approximately 40%, which means that there may be a large number of susceptible people who can become infected and propagate to others, said Dr. Cennimo.
 

Not Just the Young Ones

A recent pertussis outbreak among college students in Virginia highlighted the fact that the infection can affect all ages, and that the effectiveness of childhood vaccines may decrease over time. The majority of the recently diagnosed cases occurred in individuals who had been previously vaccinated, according to a press release from the Virginia Department of Health.

Clinical Clues

The initial stage of pertussis infection looks like a common cold with symptoms of upper respiratory infection, Dr. Cennimo told this news organization. “Unless there is reason to suspect pertussis exposure, it would almost certainly be missed,” he noted.

The characteristic barking/seal-like cough is mostly seen in children, said Dr. Cennimo. Adults and children can experience coughing fits that can lead to shortness of breath and/or vomiting, which would raise suspicion for pertussis, but is not universally present, he said. The convalescent stage of pertussis can be prolonged and is characterized by chronic coughing. “In the past, pertussis had been called the 100-day cough,” and at that point, treatment is ineffective, Dr. Cennimo said.

In clinical practice, “I advise everyone to get the Tdap vaccine every 10 years,” and remember that the “Td” is the every 10-year tetanus shot as well, Dr. Cennimo told this news organization. Reassure patients that the Tdap can be given with other vaccines, he said, and remind patients that, as with any of the respiratory illnesses, they should stay home if sick, cover a cough, consider wearing a mask in public, and wash hands frequently, he said. 

Dr. Cennimo had no financial conflicts to disclose.

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

Pertussis cases in the United States have increased fourfold compared with the same time period last year, according to data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Reports from several states illustrate this trend, thought to be due to reduced immunity across the country.

The Alaska Department of Health issued a statement on its website about the significant increase in pertussis cases in the state during the summer, with 90 cases in July and 61 in August, compared with 24 in June and a total of 26 cases in 2023.

Similarly, the Florida Department of Health reported a pertussis increase in July 2024 that was higher than the June 2024 case count and also above the previous 5-year average.

Experts in these and other states suggest that several factors are driving the nationwide increase, including the fact that fewer people are consistently wearing masks. The mass masking during the COVID-19 pandemic caused a significant drop in pertussis, but the latest data suggest a return to prepandemic levels, and waning immunity likely plays a role as well.

Pertussis, also known as whooping cough, typically begins with symptoms similar to those of the common cold, including runny nose, sneezing, mild fever, and cough, according to the CDC. However, babies with whooping cough may experience trouble breathing rather than a cough. The coughing fits often associated with pertussis may not start until 2 weeks after the onset of other symptoms, according to the CDC.

Those who have been vaccinated against pertussis can still become infected, but the risk is lower, and the illness, if it occurs, is likely to be milder. Complications such as apnea, pneumonia, and convulsions can occur in babies younger than 1 year, especially if they have not been vaccinated, according to the CDC.
 

Beyond Easing Pandemic Precautions

Many respiratory-based infections dipped during the COVID-19 pandemic, almost certainly from the multifactorial interventions of masking, distancing, and the general lack of comingling, said David J. Cennimo, MD, associate professor of medicine & pediatrics in the Division of Infectious Diseases at Rutgers New Jersey Medical School, Newark, New Jersey, in an interview.

The number of cases of many of these diseases returned to previous levels after COVID-19 restrictions were lifted, he said.

“However, we know pertussis immunity wanes over time. Children get DTaP at 2, 4, 6, and 15 months, and a Tdap booster at 11-12 years old gets them to adulthood,” Dr. Cennimo said. Adults should be getting a Tdap every 10 years, he added.

The latest available CDC data indicate that Tdap vaccine coverage in adults is approximately 40%, which means that there may be a large number of susceptible people who can become infected and propagate to others, said Dr. Cennimo.
 

Not Just the Young Ones

A recent pertussis outbreak among college students in Virginia highlighted the fact that the infection can affect all ages, and that the effectiveness of childhood vaccines may decrease over time. The majority of the recently diagnosed cases occurred in individuals who had been previously vaccinated, according to a press release from the Virginia Department of Health.

Clinical Clues

The initial stage of pertussis infection looks like a common cold with symptoms of upper respiratory infection, Dr. Cennimo told this news organization. “Unless there is reason to suspect pertussis exposure, it would almost certainly be missed,” he noted.

The characteristic barking/seal-like cough is mostly seen in children, said Dr. Cennimo. Adults and children can experience coughing fits that can lead to shortness of breath and/or vomiting, which would raise suspicion for pertussis, but is not universally present, he said. The convalescent stage of pertussis can be prolonged and is characterized by chronic coughing. “In the past, pertussis had been called the 100-day cough,” and at that point, treatment is ineffective, Dr. Cennimo said.

In clinical practice, “I advise everyone to get the Tdap vaccine every 10 years,” and remember that the “Td” is the every 10-year tetanus shot as well, Dr. Cennimo told this news organization. Reassure patients that the Tdap can be given with other vaccines, he said, and remind patients that, as with any of the respiratory illnesses, they should stay home if sick, cover a cough, consider wearing a mask in public, and wash hands frequently, he said. 

Dr. Cennimo had no financial conflicts to disclose.

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

Pertussis cases in the United States have increased fourfold compared with the same time period last year, according to data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Reports from several states illustrate this trend, thought to be due to reduced immunity across the country.

The Alaska Department of Health issued a statement on its website about the significant increase in pertussis cases in the state during the summer, with 90 cases in July and 61 in August, compared with 24 in June and a total of 26 cases in 2023.

Similarly, the Florida Department of Health reported a pertussis increase in July 2024 that was higher than the June 2024 case count and also above the previous 5-year average.

Experts in these and other states suggest that several factors are driving the nationwide increase, including the fact that fewer people are consistently wearing masks. The mass masking during the COVID-19 pandemic caused a significant drop in pertussis, but the latest data suggest a return to prepandemic levels, and waning immunity likely plays a role as well.

Pertussis, also known as whooping cough, typically begins with symptoms similar to those of the common cold, including runny nose, sneezing, mild fever, and cough, according to the CDC. However, babies with whooping cough may experience trouble breathing rather than a cough. The coughing fits often associated with pertussis may not start until 2 weeks after the onset of other symptoms, according to the CDC.

Those who have been vaccinated against pertussis can still become infected, but the risk is lower, and the illness, if it occurs, is likely to be milder. Complications such as apnea, pneumonia, and convulsions can occur in babies younger than 1 year, especially if they have not been vaccinated, according to the CDC.
 

Beyond Easing Pandemic Precautions

Many respiratory-based infections dipped during the COVID-19 pandemic, almost certainly from the multifactorial interventions of masking, distancing, and the general lack of comingling, said David J. Cennimo, MD, associate professor of medicine & pediatrics in the Division of Infectious Diseases at Rutgers New Jersey Medical School, Newark, New Jersey, in an interview.

The number of cases of many of these diseases returned to previous levels after COVID-19 restrictions were lifted, he said.

“However, we know pertussis immunity wanes over time. Children get DTaP at 2, 4, 6, and 15 months, and a Tdap booster at 11-12 years old gets them to adulthood,” Dr. Cennimo said. Adults should be getting a Tdap every 10 years, he added.

The latest available CDC data indicate that Tdap vaccine coverage in adults is approximately 40%, which means that there may be a large number of susceptible people who can become infected and propagate to others, said Dr. Cennimo.
 

Not Just the Young Ones

A recent pertussis outbreak among college students in Virginia highlighted the fact that the infection can affect all ages, and that the effectiveness of childhood vaccines may decrease over time. The majority of the recently diagnosed cases occurred in individuals who had been previously vaccinated, according to a press release from the Virginia Department of Health.

Clinical Clues

The initial stage of pertussis infection looks like a common cold with symptoms of upper respiratory infection, Dr. Cennimo told this news organization. “Unless there is reason to suspect pertussis exposure, it would almost certainly be missed,” he noted.

The characteristic barking/seal-like cough is mostly seen in children, said Dr. Cennimo. Adults and children can experience coughing fits that can lead to shortness of breath and/or vomiting, which would raise suspicion for pertussis, but is not universally present, he said. The convalescent stage of pertussis can be prolonged and is characterized by chronic coughing. “In the past, pertussis had been called the 100-day cough,” and at that point, treatment is ineffective, Dr. Cennimo said.

In clinical practice, “I advise everyone to get the Tdap vaccine every 10 years,” and remember that the “Td” is the every 10-year tetanus shot as well, Dr. Cennimo told this news organization. Reassure patients that the Tdap can be given with other vaccines, he said, and remind patients that, as with any of the respiratory illnesses, they should stay home if sick, cover a cough, consider wearing a mask in public, and wash hands frequently, he said. 

Dr. Cennimo had no financial conflicts to disclose.

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

Whooping cough is surging in the United States, with four times as many cases reported so far this year, compared to all of 2023. 

The CDC said 14,569 cases had been reported as of Sept. 14, compared to 3475 in all of 2023. 

There were 291 new cases reported for the week ending Sept. 14, with New York having the most cases, 44, followed by Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Oklahoma with 38 each. That’s the most cases in a single week since 2015.

Whooping cough, also called pertussis, is a respiratory illness spread through coughing, sneezing, or breathing very close to another person. Babies are given the DTaP vaccine to protect against whooping cough, diphtheria, and tetanus. Because the vaccine effectiveness wanes faster for whooping cough than the two other illnesses, boosters are recommended every decade or so.
 

Why the Whooping Cough Vaccine Is Important

Whooping cough is a very contagious bacteria, so vaccination is an important step to avoid it.

But many children in their tweens aren’t getting boosters, and that age group is driving the whooping cough outbreak.

“With the increase in vaccine hesitancy that has been going on since the COVID-19 pandemic, we’re seeing outbreaks occurring in kids who are not vaccinated,” Tina Tan, MD, president-elect of the Infectious Diseases Society of America, told NBC News.

Also, people are not social distancing the way they did during the height of the COVID pandemic, when whooping cough numbers went down.

“Levels of pertussis dropped dramatically when we were all masking, and now this huge increase is getting us back to pre-pandemic levels, and probably a little above that,” Thomas Murray, MD, a Yale Medicine pediatric infectious diseases specialist, said in a news release from the school. “It’s a contagious respiratory virus that can spread fairly quickly through the population.”

FDA advisers were scheduled to meet Sept. 20 to discuss developing more effective boosters for whooping cough.
 

A version of this article appeared on WebMD.com.

Whooping cough is surging in the United States, with four times as many cases reported so far this year, compared to all of 2023. 

The CDC said 14,569 cases had been reported as of Sept. 14, compared to 3475 in all of 2023. 

There were 291 new cases reported for the week ending Sept. 14, with New York having the most cases, 44, followed by Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Oklahoma with 38 each. That’s the most cases in a single week since 2015.

Whooping cough, also called pertussis, is a respiratory illness spread through coughing, sneezing, or breathing very close to another person. Babies are given the DTaP vaccine to protect against whooping cough, diphtheria, and tetanus. Because the vaccine effectiveness wanes faster for whooping cough than the two other illnesses, boosters are recommended every decade or so.
 

Why the Whooping Cough Vaccine Is Important

Whooping cough is a very contagious bacteria, so vaccination is an important step to avoid it.

But many children in their tweens aren’t getting boosters, and that age group is driving the whooping cough outbreak.

“With the increase in vaccine hesitancy that has been going on since the COVID-19 pandemic, we’re seeing outbreaks occurring in kids who are not vaccinated,” Tina Tan, MD, president-elect of the Infectious Diseases Society of America, told NBC News.

Also, people are not social distancing the way they did during the height of the COVID pandemic, when whooping cough numbers went down.

“Levels of pertussis dropped dramatically when we were all masking, and now this huge increase is getting us back to pre-pandemic levels, and probably a little above that,” Thomas Murray, MD, a Yale Medicine pediatric infectious diseases specialist, said in a news release from the school. “It’s a contagious respiratory virus that can spread fairly quickly through the population.”

FDA advisers were scheduled to meet Sept. 20 to discuss developing more effective boosters for whooping cough.
 

A version of this article appeared on WebMD.com.

Whooping cough is surging in the United States, with four times as many cases reported so far this year, compared to all of 2023. 

The CDC said 14,569 cases had been reported as of Sept. 14, compared to 3475 in all of 2023. 

There were 291 new cases reported for the week ending Sept. 14, with New York having the most cases, 44, followed by Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Oklahoma with 38 each. That’s the most cases in a single week since 2015.

Whooping cough, also called pertussis, is a respiratory illness spread through coughing, sneezing, or breathing very close to another person. Babies are given the DTaP vaccine to protect against whooping cough, diphtheria, and tetanus. Because the vaccine effectiveness wanes faster for whooping cough than the two other illnesses, boosters are recommended every decade or so.
 

Why the Whooping Cough Vaccine Is Important

Whooping cough is a very contagious bacteria, so vaccination is an important step to avoid it.

But many children in their tweens aren’t getting boosters, and that age group is driving the whooping cough outbreak.

“With the increase in vaccine hesitancy that has been going on since the COVID-19 pandemic, we’re seeing outbreaks occurring in kids who are not vaccinated,” Tina Tan, MD, president-elect of the Infectious Diseases Society of America, told NBC News.

Also, people are not social distancing the way they did during the height of the COVID pandemic, when whooping cough numbers went down.

“Levels of pertussis dropped dramatically when we were all masking, and now this huge increase is getting us back to pre-pandemic levels, and probably a little above that,” Thomas Murray, MD, a Yale Medicine pediatric infectious diseases specialist, said in a news release from the school. “It’s a contagious respiratory virus that can spread fairly quickly through the population.”

FDA advisers were scheduled to meet Sept. 20 to discuss developing more effective boosters for whooping cough.
 

A version of this article appeared on WebMD.com.

This transcript has been edited for clarity. 

There’s a very interesting story in the medical press. A few years ago, a plastic surgeon named Edmond Cabbabe was preparing to do a follow-up cosmetic procedure on his wife at Mercy Hospital South, which is a big hospital in the St. Louis, Missouri, area.

He put her on the operating schedule, and he had done that when he had performed the original operation on her. On the day of the surgery, he got a call from the hospital saying the procedure was canceled. They said that the hospital’s policy, maybe a new one, would not allow doctors to operate on family members.

This physician was a past president of the Missouri State Medical Association. I think he was also on the board or president of the American Medical Association (AMA) Foundation. This was a physician not only in a skilled area where he felt confident he could take care of his wife, but also someone who was prominent in medical politics and medical policy.

The AMA forever has had a policy that says don’t treat relatives. This physician basically said, I think that policy is too restrictive, too cautious, and it doesn’t make much sense to continue to say that you can’t treat family and friends.

By implication, he was saying, I know exactly what I’m doing in my field and I know exactly what I’m doing with her procedure. I should have a right to perform it. I think I do a great job and I’d be best for her.

If you look at medical boards, every once in a while in some state, someone is brought up on a charge of doing different things with family members and saying that they’re going to get censured. They don’t usually lose their license, but they get a reprimand or get told that is just not ethical to do.

I think, in the long run, the policy about not treating your family and friends makes sense. The problem is, as is well known from the social sciences and psychology, people get biased when they deal with those they care about, love, and hold close to them.

It’s hard for the doctor to be objective when dealing with people that they really like or love. It’s also difficult for patients because they may not want to bring up something or they are uncomfortable talking with a doctor who’s a family member or close friend. They may not want to complain. They may be a little bit embarrassed about things. It just adds an emotional edge, I think, that’s difficult.

All that said, do I know doctors who regularly prescribe, say, an ointment for something that’s itchy or some kind of a pill when allergy season breaks out? I do. Do I think they’re acting in a horribly unethical manner? I don’t.

You need some judgment here. There are absolutely minor things where objectivity, fear, and anxiety are not in play. You’re going to be able to prescribe the routine thing for the routine itch without worrying too much about whether it’s a stranger, a friend, or your daughter.

What sorts of things am I really talking about when I say that minor variability ought to be allowed? It’s one thing when someone has poison ivy and they’re going to need some kind of standard medicine to treat it. A very different area that’s much more dangerous, and one I would avoid, is in the mental health field, and for that matter, the pain field.

It’s tempting to say: “Oh, my relative is just having a bad time. I’ll give her a little bit of antidepressant medicine,” or “They seem to be having pain after an operation or something, and I’m going to give them a little bit of pain meds just to get them through.”

Those areas are flying red flags. It’s easy to abuse and easy for someone to become a user and manipulate a friend or a doctor who’s a relative into getting things that another doctor wouldn’t be giving. I think that’s the space where you’ve got to exercise extreme caution.

Time and again, when those people get called up in front of the boards for treating relatives, it’s in those spaces of mental health, anxiety, and pain control. Again, when you know that there’s a likelihood of abuse, I think that’s the place where the line has to hold. Don’t treat the relative. Don’t treat the friend.

At the end of the day, I wouldn’t change the AMA policy. I think we should keep it in place and morally try to discourage doctors from caring for those they’re close to or they have emotional ties to.

At the same time, as with all ethical situations, there has to be a little bit of wiggle room for those super-minor cases where it just makes sense to say: “You don’t have to go find somebody else to do this. I can prescribe this ointment or this minor thing for you. No one’s objectivity is going to be soured, and you’re not going to feel in any way at risk because I’m going to prescribe this for you.”

Common sense ought to prevail. The default position is don’t do it; however, maybe with a tiny bit of space for what’s minor, what’s routine, and what really does just save people some inconvenience, there I might just give a little.

Dr. Caplan, Director, Division of Medical Ethics, New York University Langone Medical Center, New York City, has disclosed relationships with Johnson & Johnson’s Panel for Compassionate Drug Use and Medscape.

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

This transcript has been edited for clarity. 

There’s a very interesting story in the medical press. A few years ago, a plastic surgeon named Edmond Cabbabe was preparing to do a follow-up cosmetic procedure on his wife at Mercy Hospital South, which is a big hospital in the St. Louis, Missouri, area.

He put her on the operating schedule, and he had done that when he had performed the original operation on her. On the day of the surgery, he got a call from the hospital saying the procedure was canceled. They said that the hospital’s policy, maybe a new one, would not allow doctors to operate on family members.

This physician was a past president of the Missouri State Medical Association. I think he was also on the board or president of the American Medical Association (AMA) Foundation. This was a physician not only in a skilled area where he felt confident he could take care of his wife, but also someone who was prominent in medical politics and medical policy.

The AMA forever has had a policy that says don’t treat relatives. This physician basically said, I think that policy is too restrictive, too cautious, and it doesn’t make much sense to continue to say that you can’t treat family and friends.

By implication, he was saying, I know exactly what I’m doing in my field and I know exactly what I’m doing with her procedure. I should have a right to perform it. I think I do a great job and I’d be best for her.

If you look at medical boards, every once in a while in some state, someone is brought up on a charge of doing different things with family members and saying that they’re going to get censured. They don’t usually lose their license, but they get a reprimand or get told that is just not ethical to do.

I think, in the long run, the policy about not treating your family and friends makes sense. The problem is, as is well known from the social sciences and psychology, people get biased when they deal with those they care about, love, and hold close to them.

It’s hard for the doctor to be objective when dealing with people that they really like or love. It’s also difficult for patients because they may not want to bring up something or they are uncomfortable talking with a doctor who’s a family member or close friend. They may not want to complain. They may be a little bit embarrassed about things. It just adds an emotional edge, I think, that’s difficult.

All that said, do I know doctors who regularly prescribe, say, an ointment for something that’s itchy or some kind of a pill when allergy season breaks out? I do. Do I think they’re acting in a horribly unethical manner? I don’t.

You need some judgment here. There are absolutely minor things where objectivity, fear, and anxiety are not in play. You’re going to be able to prescribe the routine thing for the routine itch without worrying too much about whether it’s a stranger, a friend, or your daughter.

What sorts of things am I really talking about when I say that minor variability ought to be allowed? It’s one thing when someone has poison ivy and they’re going to need some kind of standard medicine to treat it. A very different area that’s much more dangerous, and one I would avoid, is in the mental health field, and for that matter, the pain field.

It’s tempting to say: “Oh, my relative is just having a bad time. I’ll give her a little bit of antidepressant medicine,” or “They seem to be having pain after an operation or something, and I’m going to give them a little bit of pain meds just to get them through.”

Those areas are flying red flags. It’s easy to abuse and easy for someone to become a user and manipulate a friend or a doctor who’s a relative into getting things that another doctor wouldn’t be giving. I think that’s the space where you’ve got to exercise extreme caution.

Time and again, when those people get called up in front of the boards for treating relatives, it’s in those spaces of mental health, anxiety, and pain control. Again, when you know that there’s a likelihood of abuse, I think that’s the place where the line has to hold. Don’t treat the relative. Don’t treat the friend.

At the end of the day, I wouldn’t change the AMA policy. I think we should keep it in place and morally try to discourage doctors from caring for those they’re close to or they have emotional ties to.

At the same time, as with all ethical situations, there has to be a little bit of wiggle room for those super-minor cases where it just makes sense to say: “You don’t have to go find somebody else to do this. I can prescribe this ointment or this minor thing for you. No one’s objectivity is going to be soured, and you’re not going to feel in any way at risk because I’m going to prescribe this for you.”

Common sense ought to prevail. The default position is don’t do it; however, maybe with a tiny bit of space for what’s minor, what’s routine, and what really does just save people some inconvenience, there I might just give a little.

Dr. Caplan, Director, Division of Medical Ethics, New York University Langone Medical Center, New York City, has disclosed relationships with Johnson & Johnson’s Panel for Compassionate Drug Use and Medscape.

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

This transcript has been edited for clarity. 

There’s a very interesting story in the medical press. A few years ago, a plastic surgeon named Edmond Cabbabe was preparing to do a follow-up cosmetic procedure on his wife at Mercy Hospital South, which is a big hospital in the St. Louis, Missouri, area.

He put her on the operating schedule, and he had done that when he had performed the original operation on her. On the day of the surgery, he got a call from the hospital saying the procedure was canceled. They said that the hospital’s policy, maybe a new one, would not allow doctors to operate on family members.

This physician was a past president of the Missouri State Medical Association. I think he was also on the board or president of the American Medical Association (AMA) Foundation. This was a physician not only in a skilled area where he felt confident he could take care of his wife, but also someone who was prominent in medical politics and medical policy.

The AMA forever has had a policy that says don’t treat relatives. This physician basically said, I think that policy is too restrictive, too cautious, and it doesn’t make much sense to continue to say that you can’t treat family and friends.

By implication, he was saying, I know exactly what I’m doing in my field and I know exactly what I’m doing with her procedure. I should have a right to perform it. I think I do a great job and I’d be best for her.

If you look at medical boards, every once in a while in some state, someone is brought up on a charge of doing different things with family members and saying that they’re going to get censured. They don’t usually lose their license, but they get a reprimand or get told that is just not ethical to do.

I think, in the long run, the policy about not treating your family and friends makes sense. The problem is, as is well known from the social sciences and psychology, people get biased when they deal with those they care about, love, and hold close to them.

It’s hard for the doctor to be objective when dealing with people that they really like or love. It’s also difficult for patients because they may not want to bring up something or they are uncomfortable talking with a doctor who’s a family member or close friend. They may not want to complain. They may be a little bit embarrassed about things. It just adds an emotional edge, I think, that’s difficult.

All that said, do I know doctors who regularly prescribe, say, an ointment for something that’s itchy or some kind of a pill when allergy season breaks out? I do. Do I think they’re acting in a horribly unethical manner? I don’t.

You need some judgment here. There are absolutely minor things where objectivity, fear, and anxiety are not in play. You’re going to be able to prescribe the routine thing for the routine itch without worrying too much about whether it’s a stranger, a friend, or your daughter.

What sorts of things am I really talking about when I say that minor variability ought to be allowed? It’s one thing when someone has poison ivy and they’re going to need some kind of standard medicine to treat it. A very different area that’s much more dangerous, and one I would avoid, is in the mental health field, and for that matter, the pain field.

It’s tempting to say: “Oh, my relative is just having a bad time. I’ll give her a little bit of antidepressant medicine,” or “They seem to be having pain after an operation or something, and I’m going to give them a little bit of pain meds just to get them through.”

Those areas are flying red flags. It’s easy to abuse and easy for someone to become a user and manipulate a friend or a doctor who’s a relative into getting things that another doctor wouldn’t be giving. I think that’s the space where you’ve got to exercise extreme caution.

Time and again, when those people get called up in front of the boards for treating relatives, it’s in those spaces of mental health, anxiety, and pain control. Again, when you know that there’s a likelihood of abuse, I think that’s the place where the line has to hold. Don’t treat the relative. Don’t treat the friend.

At the end of the day, I wouldn’t change the AMA policy. I think we should keep it in place and morally try to discourage doctors from caring for those they’re close to or they have emotional ties to.

At the same time, as with all ethical situations, there has to be a little bit of wiggle room for those super-minor cases where it just makes sense to say: “You don’t have to go find somebody else to do this. I can prescribe this ointment or this minor thing for you. No one’s objectivity is going to be soured, and you’re not going to feel in any way at risk because I’m going to prescribe this for you.”

Common sense ought to prevail. The default position is don’t do it; however, maybe with a tiny bit of space for what’s minor, what’s routine, and what really does just save people some inconvenience, there I might just give a little.

Dr. Caplan, Director, Division of Medical Ethics, New York University Langone Medical Center, New York City, has disclosed relationships with Johnson & Johnson’s Panel for Compassionate Drug Use and Medscape.

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

Five years have passed since the member states of the World Health Organization (WHO) gathered at the 72nd World Health Assembly and decided that September 17 should be recognized as World Patient Safety Day, acknowledging it as a global health priority.

WHO data indicate the following findings related to medical safety:

• One in 10 patients is harmed while receiving healthcare, and 3 million die as a result.
• More than half of these incidents could be prevented.
• Indirect costs could amount to several billion US dollars annually.

Given the magnitude of preventable harm related to medication use, in 2017, the WHO launched the third Global Patient Safety Challenge: Medication Without Harm with the goal of reducing serious and preventable harm related to medication by 50%. In addition, considering the volume of medication packages prescribed in 2023 by physicians in Spain’s National Health System, it is necessary to understand the most common types of medication errors to provide an effective and efficient response.

According to Spain’s Institute for Safe Medication Practices (ISMP), the 10 types of medication errors detected in 2020 with the most serious consequences were the following:

• Errors due to omission or delay in medication.
• Administration of medication to the wrong patient.
• Errors related to allergies or known adverse effects of medications.
• Dosing errors in pediatric patients.
• Errors due to similarities in the labeling or packaging of marketed medications.
• Errors associated with the lack of use of smart infusion pumps.
• Errors due to accidental administration of neuromuscular blocking agents.
• Incorrect intravenous administration of oral liquid medications.
• Errors in medication reconciliation upon hospital admission and discharge.
• Errors due to patient misunderstandings regarding medication use.

I would like to focus on the fifth item, errors due to similarities in the labeling or packaging of marketed medications.

Medications with similar names or with similar labeling or packaging are known as “look alike–sound alike” medications. They are estimated to account for between 6.2% and 14.7% of all medication errors. Confusion can arise due to spelling and phonetic similarities.

As shown in bulletin no. 50 of the ISMP, difficulties in distinguishing different medications or different presentations of the same medication due to similar packaging and labeling have frequently been associated with reported incidents.

Most cases involve either medications marketed by the same laboratory with a design based on brand image or different medications marketed by different laboratories in screen-printed ampoules used in the same settings.

In 2020, the ISMP published 11 new cases of labeling or packaging that may promote errors on its website. It reported 49 incidents to the Spanish Agency for Medicines and Medical Devices.

Shortages caused by the COVID-19 pandemic have further contributed to these incidents, as healthcare facilities sometimes had to change the medications they usually acquired and purchase whatever was available, without being able to select products that would not be confused with existing medications in the facility.

The ISMP recommends the following general practices for healthcare institutions, professionals, and patients to prevent these errors:

• Develop short lists of easily confused medication names and distribute them among all healthcare professionals.
• Prioritize medication names by active ingredient instead of brand name.
• For similar names, highlight the differences in capital letters, eg, DOBUTamine, DOPamine.
• For similar active ingredients, use brand names.
• Avoid placing similar medications near each other.
• Prescribe all medications electronically to minimize the risk of selecting the wrong medication.
• Make manual prescriptions legible, with clearly written dosages and pharmaceutical forms.
• Encourage patients to actively participate in their treatment and consult a clinician if they have any questions about the medications they are receiving.
• Raise awareness among patients, family members, and caregivers about the issues caused by medication name confusion and inform them about how to avoid these errors.
• Instruct patients to focus on and always use the active ingredient name as an identifying element for the medications they are taking.
• Review treatments with patients to ensure they know the medications they are taking.
•  

Julia María Ruiz Redondo is the regional nursing advisor inspector of Spanish Society of General and Family Physicians of Castilla-La Mancha (SEMG-CLM), coordinator of the National Working Group on Public Health in the SEMG, and director of the international public health master’s degree at TECH Technological University. This article is the result of an editorial collaboration between the SEMG and Univadis, which you can access here. 

This story was translated from Univadis Spain, which is part of the Medscape professional network, using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Five years have passed since the member states of the World Health Organization (WHO) gathered at the 72nd World Health Assembly and decided that September 17 should be recognized as World Patient Safety Day, acknowledging it as a global health priority.

WHO data indicate the following findings related to medical safety:

• One in 10 patients is harmed while receiving healthcare, and 3 million die as a result.
• More than half of these incidents could be prevented.
• Indirect costs could amount to several billion US dollars annually.

Given the magnitude of preventable harm related to medication use, in 2017, the WHO launched the third Global Patient Safety Challenge: Medication Without Harm with the goal of reducing serious and preventable harm related to medication by 50%. In addition, considering the volume of medication packages prescribed in 2023 by physicians in Spain’s National Health System, it is necessary to understand the most common types of medication errors to provide an effective and efficient response.

According to Spain’s Institute for Safe Medication Practices (ISMP), the 10 types of medication errors detected in 2020 with the most serious consequences were the following:

• Errors due to omission or delay in medication.
• Administration of medication to the wrong patient.
• Errors related to allergies or known adverse effects of medications.
• Dosing errors in pediatric patients.
• Errors due to similarities in the labeling or packaging of marketed medications.
• Errors associated with the lack of use of smart infusion pumps.
• Errors due to accidental administration of neuromuscular blocking agents.
• Incorrect intravenous administration of oral liquid medications.
• Errors in medication reconciliation upon hospital admission and discharge.
• Errors due to patient misunderstandings regarding medication use.

I would like to focus on the fifth item, errors due to similarities in the labeling or packaging of marketed medications.

Medications with similar names or with similar labeling or packaging are known as “look alike–sound alike” medications. They are estimated to account for between 6.2% and 14.7% of all medication errors. Confusion can arise due to spelling and phonetic similarities.

As shown in bulletin no. 50 of the ISMP, difficulties in distinguishing different medications or different presentations of the same medication due to similar packaging and labeling have frequently been associated with reported incidents.

Most cases involve either medications marketed by the same laboratory with a design based on brand image or different medications marketed by different laboratories in screen-printed ampoules used in the same settings.

In 2020, the ISMP published 11 new cases of labeling or packaging that may promote errors on its website. It reported 49 incidents to the Spanish Agency for Medicines and Medical Devices.

Shortages caused by the COVID-19 pandemic have further contributed to these incidents, as healthcare facilities sometimes had to change the medications they usually acquired and purchase whatever was available, without being able to select products that would not be confused with existing medications in the facility.

The ISMP recommends the following general practices for healthcare institutions, professionals, and patients to prevent these errors:

• Develop short lists of easily confused medication names and distribute them among all healthcare professionals.
• Prioritize medication names by active ingredient instead of brand name.
• For similar names, highlight the differences in capital letters, eg, DOBUTamine, DOPamine.
• For similar active ingredients, use brand names.
• Avoid placing similar medications near each other.
• Prescribe all medications electronically to minimize the risk of selecting the wrong medication.
• Make manual prescriptions legible, with clearly written dosages and pharmaceutical forms.
• Encourage patients to actively participate in their treatment and consult a clinician if they have any questions about the medications they are receiving.
• Raise awareness among patients, family members, and caregivers about the issues caused by medication name confusion and inform them about how to avoid these errors.
• Instruct patients to focus on and always use the active ingredient name as an identifying element for the medications they are taking.
• Review treatments with patients to ensure they know the medications they are taking.
•  

Julia María Ruiz Redondo is the regional nursing advisor inspector of Spanish Society of General and Family Physicians of Castilla-La Mancha (SEMG-CLM), coordinator of the National Working Group on Public Health in the SEMG, and director of the international public health master’s degree at TECH Technological University. This article is the result of an editorial collaboration between the SEMG and Univadis, which you can access here. 

This story was translated from Univadis Spain, which is part of the Medscape professional network, using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Five years have passed since the member states of the World Health Organization (WHO) gathered at the 72nd World Health Assembly and decided that September 17 should be recognized as World Patient Safety Day, acknowledging it as a global health priority.

WHO data indicate the following findings related to medical safety:

• One in 10 patients is harmed while receiving healthcare, and 3 million die as a result.
• More than half of these incidents could be prevented.
• Indirect costs could amount to several billion US dollars annually.

Given the magnitude of preventable harm related to medication use, in 2017, the WHO launched the third Global Patient Safety Challenge: Medication Without Harm with the goal of reducing serious and preventable harm related to medication by 50%. In addition, considering the volume of medication packages prescribed in 2023 by physicians in Spain’s National Health System, it is necessary to understand the most common types of medication errors to provide an effective and efficient response.

According to Spain’s Institute for Safe Medication Practices (ISMP), the 10 types of medication errors detected in 2020 with the most serious consequences were the following:

• Errors due to omission or delay in medication.
• Administration of medication to the wrong patient.
• Errors related to allergies or known adverse effects of medications.
• Dosing errors in pediatric patients.
• Errors due to similarities in the labeling or packaging of marketed medications.
• Errors associated with the lack of use of smart infusion pumps.
• Errors due to accidental administration of neuromuscular blocking agents.
• Incorrect intravenous administration of oral liquid medications.
• Errors in medication reconciliation upon hospital admission and discharge.
• Errors due to patient misunderstandings regarding medication use.

I would like to focus on the fifth item, errors due to similarities in the labeling or packaging of marketed medications.

Medications with similar names or with similar labeling or packaging are known as “look alike–sound alike” medications. They are estimated to account for between 6.2% and 14.7% of all medication errors. Confusion can arise due to spelling and phonetic similarities.

As shown in bulletin no. 50 of the ISMP, difficulties in distinguishing different medications or different presentations of the same medication due to similar packaging and labeling have frequently been associated with reported incidents.

Most cases involve either medications marketed by the same laboratory with a design based on brand image or different medications marketed by different laboratories in screen-printed ampoules used in the same settings.

In 2020, the ISMP published 11 new cases of labeling or packaging that may promote errors on its website. It reported 49 incidents to the Spanish Agency for Medicines and Medical Devices.

Shortages caused by the COVID-19 pandemic have further contributed to these incidents, as healthcare facilities sometimes had to change the medications they usually acquired and purchase whatever was available, without being able to select products that would not be confused with existing medications in the facility.

The ISMP recommends the following general practices for healthcare institutions, professionals, and patients to prevent these errors:

• Develop short lists of easily confused medication names and distribute them among all healthcare professionals.
• Prioritize medication names by active ingredient instead of brand name.
• For similar names, highlight the differences in capital letters, eg, DOBUTamine, DOPamine.
• For similar active ingredients, use brand names.
• Avoid placing similar medications near each other.
• Prescribe all medications electronically to minimize the risk of selecting the wrong medication.
• Make manual prescriptions legible, with clearly written dosages and pharmaceutical forms.
• Encourage patients to actively participate in their treatment and consult a clinician if they have any questions about the medications they are receiving.
• Raise awareness among patients, family members, and caregivers about the issues caused by medication name confusion and inform them about how to avoid these errors.
• Instruct patients to focus on and always use the active ingredient name as an identifying element for the medications they are taking.
• Review treatments with patients to ensure they know the medications they are taking.
•  

Julia María Ruiz Redondo is the regional nursing advisor inspector of Spanish Society of General and Family Physicians of Castilla-La Mancha (SEMG-CLM), coordinator of the National Working Group on Public Health in the SEMG, and director of the international public health master’s degree at TECH Technological University. This article is the result of an editorial collaboration between the SEMG and Univadis, which you can access here. 

This story was translated from Univadis Spain, which is part of the Medscape professional network, using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

A case of locally acquired dengue fever has been confirmed in a resident of Baldwin Park, California, according to a press release from the Los Angeles County Department of Public Health. This locally acquired case of dengue is the third to be reported in California and the first to be reported by the Los Angeles County Department of Public Health; cases were confirmed in Pasadena and Long Beach, California, in the fall of 2023.

“Dengue is the most common insect-borne viral infection in the world, with a wide geographic spread; we know that we have mosquitoes capable of carrying and transmitting the virus in the United States already, and Los Angeles county is a major epicenter for international travel and trade,” James Lawler, MD, associate director for International Programs and Innovation at the Global Center for Health Security and professor in the Infectious Diseases Division at the University of Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha, Nebraska, said in an interview.

Although the patient had no known history of travel to a dengue-endemic area, the potential risk for widespread transmission of the virus in the Los Angeles County area remains low, and no additional suspected cases of locally acquired dengue have been identified, according to the release. However, the recent cases highlight the need for vigilance on the part of the public to reduce transmission of mosquito-borne infections, the public health department noted.

Most cases of dengue occur in people who have traveled to areas where the disease is more common, mainly tropical and subtropical areas, according to the press release. However, the types of mosquitoes that spread dengue exist in parts of the United States, so locally acquired infections can occur.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) issued an official health advisory in June 2024 about an increased risk for dengue infections in the United States. According to the advisory, 745 cases of dengue were identified in US travelers to endemic areas between January 1, 2024, and June 24, 2024.

The CDC advises clinicians to maintain a high level of suspicion for dengue among individuals with fever and recent travel to areas with frequent dengue transmission, but also to consider locally acquired disease in areas of mosquito vectors.

In clinical practice, dengue may be difficult to differentiate from other febrile systemic infections, Dr. Lawler noted. “Joint pain, low back pain, and headache (often retro-orbital) are common and can be severe, and a rash often appears several days into illness,” he noted.

Do not delay treatment in suspected cases while waiting for test results, the CDC emphasized in the advisory. Food and Drug Administration–approved tests for dengue include RT-PCR and IgM antibody tests or NS1 and IgM antibody tests.

“Severe dengue can be life-threatening and progress to a hemorrhagic fever-like syndrome, and patients with severe dengue should be cared for on a high-acuity or intensive care setting, with close monitoring of labs and fluid status,” Dr. Lawler told this news organization.

The World Health Organization has published guidelines for the management of dengue, which Dr. Lawler strongly recommends to clinicians in the rare event that they are facing a severe case. The treatment for dengue is supportive care, according to the CDC; a vaccine that was deemed safe and effective is no longer being manufactured because of low demand.

Most symptoms last for 2-7 days, and most patients recover within a week, but approximately 1 in 20 may develop severe disease, according to the Los Angeles County Department of Public Health.

Approximately one quarter of dengue infections are symptomatic, and clinicians should know the signs of progression to severe disease, which include abdominal pain or tenderness, persistent vomiting, clinical fluid accumulation, mucosal bleeding, lethargy or restlessness, and liver enlargement, according to the CDC.
 

Local Dengue Not Unexpected

“Sadly, I am not surprised at another locally acquired case of dengue fever in the United States,” said Dr. Lawler. “We also have seen a trend of more historically tropical, insect-borne diseases popping up with locally acquired cases in the United States,” he noted.

Dr. Lawler suggested that “the erosion of state and local public health” is a major contributor to the increase in dengue cases. For more than 100 years, activities of state and local public health officials had significantly curtailed mosquito-borne diseases through aggressive control programs, “but we seem to be losing ground over the last several years,” he said.

“Locally acquired dengue cases are still rare in the United States,” he added. “However, people can protect themselves against dengue and more common arthropod-borne infections by taking precautions to cover up and wear insect repellent while outdoors.”

In addition, the Los Angeles County Department of Public Health emphasized in its press release that local residents reduce their risk for contact with mosquitoes by removing areas of standing water on their property and ensuring well-fitted screens on doors and windows.

Dr. Lawler had no financial conflicts to disclose.
 

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

A case of locally acquired dengue fever has been confirmed in a resident of Baldwin Park, California, according to a press release from the Los Angeles County Department of Public Health. This locally acquired case of dengue is the third to be reported in California and the first to be reported by the Los Angeles County Department of Public Health; cases were confirmed in Pasadena and Long Beach, California, in the fall of 2023.

“Dengue is the most common insect-borne viral infection in the world, with a wide geographic spread; we know that we have mosquitoes capable of carrying and transmitting the virus in the United States already, and Los Angeles county is a major epicenter for international travel and trade,” James Lawler, MD, associate director for International Programs and Innovation at the Global Center for Health Security and professor in the Infectious Diseases Division at the University of Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha, Nebraska, said in an interview.

Although the patient had no known history of travel to a dengue-endemic area, the potential risk for widespread transmission of the virus in the Los Angeles County area remains low, and no additional suspected cases of locally acquired dengue have been identified, according to the release. However, the recent cases highlight the need for vigilance on the part of the public to reduce transmission of mosquito-borne infections, the public health department noted.

Most cases of dengue occur in people who have traveled to areas where the disease is more common, mainly tropical and subtropical areas, according to the press release. However, the types of mosquitoes that spread dengue exist in parts of the United States, so locally acquired infections can occur.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) issued an official health advisory in June 2024 about an increased risk for dengue infections in the United States. According to the advisory, 745 cases of dengue were identified in US travelers to endemic areas between January 1, 2024, and June 24, 2024.

The CDC advises clinicians to maintain a high level of suspicion for dengue among individuals with fever and recent travel to areas with frequent dengue transmission, but also to consider locally acquired disease in areas of mosquito vectors.

In clinical practice, dengue may be difficult to differentiate from other febrile systemic infections, Dr. Lawler noted. “Joint pain, low back pain, and headache (often retro-orbital) are common and can be severe, and a rash often appears several days into illness,” he noted.

Do not delay treatment in suspected cases while waiting for test results, the CDC emphasized in the advisory. Food and Drug Administration–approved tests for dengue include RT-PCR and IgM antibody tests or NS1 and IgM antibody tests.

“Severe dengue can be life-threatening and progress to a hemorrhagic fever-like syndrome, and patients with severe dengue should be cared for on a high-acuity or intensive care setting, with close monitoring of labs and fluid status,” Dr. Lawler told this news organization.

The World Health Organization has published guidelines for the management of dengue, which Dr. Lawler strongly recommends to clinicians in the rare event that they are facing a severe case. The treatment for dengue is supportive care, according to the CDC; a vaccine that was deemed safe and effective is no longer being manufactured because of low demand.

Most symptoms last for 2-7 days, and most patients recover within a week, but approximately 1 in 20 may develop severe disease, according to the Los Angeles County Department of Public Health.

Approximately one quarter of dengue infections are symptomatic, and clinicians should know the signs of progression to severe disease, which include abdominal pain or tenderness, persistent vomiting, clinical fluid accumulation, mucosal bleeding, lethargy or restlessness, and liver enlargement, according to the CDC.
 

Local Dengue Not Unexpected

“Sadly, I am not surprised at another locally acquired case of dengue fever in the United States,” said Dr. Lawler. “We also have seen a trend of more historically tropical, insect-borne diseases popping up with locally acquired cases in the United States,” he noted.

Dr. Lawler suggested that “the erosion of state and local public health” is a major contributor to the increase in dengue cases. For more than 100 years, activities of state and local public health officials had significantly curtailed mosquito-borne diseases through aggressive control programs, “but we seem to be losing ground over the last several years,” he said.

“Locally acquired dengue cases are still rare in the United States,” he added. “However, people can protect themselves against dengue and more common arthropod-borne infections by taking precautions to cover up and wear insect repellent while outdoors.”

In addition, the Los Angeles County Department of Public Health emphasized in its press release that local residents reduce their risk for contact with mosquitoes by removing areas of standing water on their property and ensuring well-fitted screens on doors and windows.

Dr. Lawler had no financial conflicts to disclose.
 

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

A case of locally acquired dengue fever has been confirmed in a resident of Baldwin Park, California, according to a press release from the Los Angeles County Department of Public Health. This locally acquired case of dengue is the third to be reported in California and the first to be reported by the Los Angeles County Department of Public Health; cases were confirmed in Pasadena and Long Beach, California, in the fall of 2023.

“Dengue is the most common insect-borne viral infection in the world, with a wide geographic spread; we know that we have mosquitoes capable of carrying and transmitting the virus in the United States already, and Los Angeles county is a major epicenter for international travel and trade,” James Lawler, MD, associate director for International Programs and Innovation at the Global Center for Health Security and professor in the Infectious Diseases Division at the University of Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha, Nebraska, said in an interview.

Although the patient had no known history of travel to a dengue-endemic area, the potential risk for widespread transmission of the virus in the Los Angeles County area remains low, and no additional suspected cases of locally acquired dengue have been identified, according to the release. However, the recent cases highlight the need for vigilance on the part of the public to reduce transmission of mosquito-borne infections, the public health department noted.

Most cases of dengue occur in people who have traveled to areas where the disease is more common, mainly tropical and subtropical areas, according to the press release. However, the types of mosquitoes that spread dengue exist in parts of the United States, so locally acquired infections can occur.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) issued an official health advisory in June 2024 about an increased risk for dengue infections in the United States. According to the advisory, 745 cases of dengue were identified in US travelers to endemic areas between January 1, 2024, and June 24, 2024.

The CDC advises clinicians to maintain a high level of suspicion for dengue among individuals with fever and recent travel to areas with frequent dengue transmission, but also to consider locally acquired disease in areas of mosquito vectors.

In clinical practice, dengue may be difficult to differentiate from other febrile systemic infections, Dr. Lawler noted. “Joint pain, low back pain, and headache (often retro-orbital) are common and can be severe, and a rash often appears several days into illness,” he noted.

Do not delay treatment in suspected cases while waiting for test results, the CDC emphasized in the advisory. Food and Drug Administration–approved tests for dengue include RT-PCR and IgM antibody tests or NS1 and IgM antibody tests.

“Severe dengue can be life-threatening and progress to a hemorrhagic fever-like syndrome, and patients with severe dengue should be cared for on a high-acuity or intensive care setting, with close monitoring of labs and fluid status,” Dr. Lawler told this news organization.

The World Health Organization has published guidelines for the management of dengue, which Dr. Lawler strongly recommends to clinicians in the rare event that they are facing a severe case. The treatment for dengue is supportive care, according to the CDC; a vaccine that was deemed safe and effective is no longer being manufactured because of low demand.

Most symptoms last for 2-7 days, and most patients recover within a week, but approximately 1 in 20 may develop severe disease, according to the Los Angeles County Department of Public Health.

Approximately one quarter of dengue infections are symptomatic, and clinicians should know the signs of progression to severe disease, which include abdominal pain or tenderness, persistent vomiting, clinical fluid accumulation, mucosal bleeding, lethargy or restlessness, and liver enlargement, according to the CDC.
 

Local Dengue Not Unexpected

“Sadly, I am not surprised at another locally acquired case of dengue fever in the United States,” said Dr. Lawler. “We also have seen a trend of more historically tropical, insect-borne diseases popping up with locally acquired cases in the United States,” he noted.

Dr. Lawler suggested that “the erosion of state and local public health” is a major contributor to the increase in dengue cases. For more than 100 years, activities of state and local public health officials had significantly curtailed mosquito-borne diseases through aggressive control programs, “but we seem to be losing ground over the last several years,” he said.

“Locally acquired dengue cases are still rare in the United States,” he added. “However, people can protect themselves against dengue and more common arthropod-borne infections by taking precautions to cover up and wear insect repellent while outdoors.”

In addition, the Los Angeles County Department of Public Health emphasized in its press release that local residents reduce their risk for contact with mosquitoes by removing areas of standing water on their property and ensuring well-fitted screens on doors and windows.

Dr. Lawler had no financial conflicts to disclose.
 

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