In the last 2 decades, the number of women receiving awards from the American College of Rheumatology, European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology, and the British Society for Rheumatology has steadily increased, but the absolute percentage of female prize winners remains lower than male winners across the 41 total awards given by the three organizations, according to Thorsten Halling and colleagues at Heinrich-Heine-University in Düsseldorf, Germany.

The overall number of awards given by the three groups rose by 10% over the past 2 years. In 2021, 40% of awards given by the ACR went to females, compared with 48% by EULAR, and 50% by the BSR. However, the most prestigious prizes awarded by these groups were given less often to women, according to the researchers, who published their results online July 27, 2022, in The Lancet Rheumatology. They noted that during 2017-2021, just one in five top prizes from ACR went to a woman; once (20%) for the Presidential Gold Medal, and 26 times (23%) for the ACR Master Designation. During the same time period, only one woman (11%) received the EULAR Meritorious Service Award. In 2022, the EULAR Health Professionals in Rheumatology Lifetime Achievement Award was inaugurated and given to Christina Opava. As for the most important prizes of the BSR, the corresponding numbers for female recipients are 25% for the Michael Mason Award and 33% for the Garrod Award.” This pattern did not seem to change in 2022 at the BSR and EULAR annual meetings; the 2022 ACR annual meeting is in November.

ptasha/Getty Images

The trend is also seen in others fields, noted the researchers, who cited only one woman winning mathematics’ Fields Medal since it began in 1936 and female scientists winning only 7% of the Nobel Prize awards in the categories physiology or medicine, physics, and chemistry. In one larger study of 141 international research prizes that were awarded 3,445 times during 2001-2020, only 262 recipients were women.

Changing the status quo begins with awareness, according to the authors, who propose three strategies for prize juries to follow to raise the number of female awardees. “First, it is important to stimulate diversity among both nominees and the members of prize committees. Efforts to diversify the pool of nominees have already been initiated by large science prize players, such as the Royal Academy of Sciences in Sweden and the Wolf Foundation in Israel. This diversity should not only take gender into account, but also geographical region, ethnicity, and age. In the prize statutes, we recommend that the biological age of the applicants should no longer play a role for young scientist awards, but only the academic age. Second, if prizes are to be named after a person or people, we suggest that they should increasingly honor rheumatologists who are women to further increase their visibility in the field of rheumatology. We can note that, so far, no single award is named after a rheumatologist who is a woman. Third, we are convinced that more transparency around the nomination procedure will promote gender equity among the future prize winners.”

The authors had no conflicts of interest to declare.

In the last 2 decades, the number of women receiving awards from the American College of Rheumatology, European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology, and the British Society for Rheumatology has steadily increased, but the absolute percentage of female prize winners remains lower than male winners across the 41 total awards given by the three organizations, according to Thorsten Halling and colleagues at Heinrich-Heine-University in Düsseldorf, Germany.

The overall number of awards given by the three groups rose by 10% over the past 2 years. In 2021, 40% of awards given by the ACR went to females, compared with 48% by EULAR, and 50% by the BSR. However, the most prestigious prizes awarded by these groups were given less often to women, according to the researchers, who published their results online July 27, 2022, in The Lancet Rheumatology. They noted that during 2017-2021, just one in five top prizes from ACR went to a woman; once (20%) for the Presidential Gold Medal, and 26 times (23%) for the ACR Master Designation. During the same time period, only one woman (11%) received the EULAR Meritorious Service Award. In 2022, the EULAR Health Professionals in Rheumatology Lifetime Achievement Award was inaugurated and given to Christina Opava. As for the most important prizes of the BSR, the corresponding numbers for female recipients are 25% for the Michael Mason Award and 33% for the Garrod Award.” This pattern did not seem to change in 2022 at the BSR and EULAR annual meetings; the 2022 ACR annual meeting is in November.

ptasha/Getty Images

The trend is also seen in others fields, noted the researchers, who cited only one woman winning mathematics’ Fields Medal since it began in 1936 and female scientists winning only 7% of the Nobel Prize awards in the categories physiology or medicine, physics, and chemistry. In one larger study of 141 international research prizes that were awarded 3,445 times during 2001-2020, only 262 recipients were women.

Changing the status quo begins with awareness, according to the authors, who propose three strategies for prize juries to follow to raise the number of female awardees. “First, it is important to stimulate diversity among both nominees and the members of prize committees. Efforts to diversify the pool of nominees have already been initiated by large science prize players, such as the Royal Academy of Sciences in Sweden and the Wolf Foundation in Israel. This diversity should not only take gender into account, but also geographical region, ethnicity, and age. In the prize statutes, we recommend that the biological age of the applicants should no longer play a role for young scientist awards, but only the academic age. Second, if prizes are to be named after a person or people, we suggest that they should increasingly honor rheumatologists who are women to further increase their visibility in the field of rheumatology. We can note that, so far, no single award is named after a rheumatologist who is a woman. Third, we are convinced that more transparency around the nomination procedure will promote gender equity among the future prize winners.”

The authors had no conflicts of interest to declare.

In the last 2 decades, the number of women receiving awards from the American College of Rheumatology, European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology, and the British Society for Rheumatology has steadily increased, but the absolute percentage of female prize winners remains lower than male winners across the 41 total awards given by the three organizations, according to Thorsten Halling and colleagues at Heinrich-Heine-University in Düsseldorf, Germany.

The overall number of awards given by the three groups rose by 10% over the past 2 years. In 2021, 40% of awards given by the ACR went to females, compared with 48% by EULAR, and 50% by the BSR. However, the most prestigious prizes awarded by these groups were given less often to women, according to the researchers, who published their results online July 27, 2022, in The Lancet Rheumatology. They noted that during 2017-2021, just one in five top prizes from ACR went to a woman; once (20%) for the Presidential Gold Medal, and 26 times (23%) for the ACR Master Designation. During the same time period, only one woman (11%) received the EULAR Meritorious Service Award. In 2022, the EULAR Health Professionals in Rheumatology Lifetime Achievement Award was inaugurated and given to Christina Opava. As for the most important prizes of the BSR, the corresponding numbers for female recipients are 25% for the Michael Mason Award and 33% for the Garrod Award.” This pattern did not seem to change in 2022 at the BSR and EULAR annual meetings; the 2022 ACR annual meeting is in November.

ptasha/Getty Images

The trend is also seen in others fields, noted the researchers, who cited only one woman winning mathematics’ Fields Medal since it began in 1936 and female scientists winning only 7% of the Nobel Prize awards in the categories physiology or medicine, physics, and chemistry. In one larger study of 141 international research prizes that were awarded 3,445 times during 2001-2020, only 262 recipients were women.

Changing the status quo begins with awareness, according to the authors, who propose three strategies for prize juries to follow to raise the number of female awardees. “First, it is important to stimulate diversity among both nominees and the members of prize committees. Efforts to diversify the pool of nominees have already been initiated by large science prize players, such as the Royal Academy of Sciences in Sweden and the Wolf Foundation in Israel. This diversity should not only take gender into account, but also geographical region, ethnicity, and age. In the prize statutes, we recommend that the biological age of the applicants should no longer play a role for young scientist awards, but only the academic age. Second, if prizes are to be named after a person or people, we suggest that they should increasingly honor rheumatologists who are women to further increase their visibility in the field of rheumatology. We can note that, so far, no single award is named after a rheumatologist who is a woman. Third, we are convinced that more transparency around the nomination procedure will promote gender equity among the future prize winners.”

The authors had no conflicts of interest to declare.

A procalcitonin-based algorithm could safely reduce unnecessary usage of antibiotics in patients with acute pancreatitis, based on results of a randomized controlled trial.

Physicians should consider incorporating the decision-making process into their daily practice, suggested lead author Ajith K. Siriwardena, MD, of Manchester (England) University and colleagues, who also recommended that the algorithm be added to future guidelines.

“Overuse of antibiotics and the resultant emergence of multidrug resistant microorganisms is a potent threat to the welfare of humanity in the 21st century,” the investigators wrote in The Lancet Gastroenterology & Hepatology.

Antibiotic overuse is common in cases of acute pancreatitis, they noted, because clinical features are typically insufficient to distinguish between inflammation and infection. While measuring procalcitonin can help can detect infection, “indiscriminate measurement” of the biomarker is not cost effective, according to the investigators, leading previous reviews and analyses to conclude that further research is needed before widespread usage can be recommended.

Dr. Siriwardena and colleagues aimed to meet this need by conducting a randomized controlled trial involving 260 patients hospitalized for acute pancreatitis at Manchester Royal Infirmary. Patients were randomized in a near 1:1 ratio. Both the intervention group (n = 132) and the control group (n = 128) received guideline-based care; however, in addition to standard of care, procalcitonin was measured in the intervention group at days 0, 4, and 7 then weekly. Among these patients, antibiotics were stopped or not started when procalcitonin was below 1.0 ng/mL, but antibiotics were started or continued when procalcitonin was 1.0 ng/mL or more.

The primary outcome was presence or absence of antibiotic use during hospital stay. A range of secondary outcomes were also reported, included all-cause mortality, days of antibiotic use, rates of infection, and endoscopic, radiological, or surgical intervention.

Significantly fewer patients in the procalcitonin group received antibiotics during their stay, compared with the usual-care group (45% vs. 63%), which translated to an adjusted risk difference of –15.6% (P = .0071). Patients in the procalcitonin group who did receive antibiotics received about 1 day less of antibiotic treatment.

Despite the reduced antibiotic usage, length of hospital stay was similar between groups, as were rates of clinical infection, hospital-acquired infection, death, and adverse events, which suggests that the algorithm safely reduced antibiotic usage without negatively impacting clinical outcomes, according to investigators.

“Procalcitonin-based algorithms to guide antibiotic use should be considered in the care of this group of patients and be incorporated into future guidelines on the management of acute pancreatitis,” the investigators concluded.

Aaron Sasson, MD, director of the pancreatic cancer center and codirector of the gastrointestinal oncology team at Stony Brook (N.Y.) Medicine, said the study is noteworthy because it addresses an important topic with a large prospective randomized trial; however, he pointed out some limitations.

“There are several issues with this trial,” Dr. Sasson said in a written comment. “First, it included a large percentage of patients with mild acute pancreatitis, a group of patients for whom the use of antibiotics is not controversial. Secondly, the rate of infected pancreatic necrosis was 5% in both arms of the study, indicating the lack of severity of the cohort of patients.”

Dr. Sasson said that the algorithm “could be useful” to differentiate between inflammation and infection in patients with acute pancreatitis, “but only as an adjunct with other clinical parameters.”

He suggested that the algorithm would offer more utility if it could distinguish between pancreatic necrosis and infected pancreatic necrosis. “Unfortunately, this trial did not answer this question,” he said, noting that a similar trial involving “only patients with severe pancreatitis” would be needed.

The investigators and Dr. Sasson disclosed no competing interests.

A procalcitonin-based algorithm could safely reduce unnecessary usage of antibiotics in patients with acute pancreatitis, based on results of a randomized controlled trial.

Physicians should consider incorporating the decision-making process into their daily practice, suggested lead author Ajith K. Siriwardena, MD, of Manchester (England) University and colleagues, who also recommended that the algorithm be added to future guidelines.

“Overuse of antibiotics and the resultant emergence of multidrug resistant microorganisms is a potent threat to the welfare of humanity in the 21st century,” the investigators wrote in The Lancet Gastroenterology & Hepatology.

Antibiotic overuse is common in cases of acute pancreatitis, they noted, because clinical features are typically insufficient to distinguish between inflammation and infection. While measuring procalcitonin can help can detect infection, “indiscriminate measurement” of the biomarker is not cost effective, according to the investigators, leading previous reviews and analyses to conclude that further research is needed before widespread usage can be recommended.

Dr. Siriwardena and colleagues aimed to meet this need by conducting a randomized controlled trial involving 260 patients hospitalized for acute pancreatitis at Manchester Royal Infirmary. Patients were randomized in a near 1:1 ratio. Both the intervention group (n = 132) and the control group (n = 128) received guideline-based care; however, in addition to standard of care, procalcitonin was measured in the intervention group at days 0, 4, and 7 then weekly. Among these patients, antibiotics were stopped or not started when procalcitonin was below 1.0 ng/mL, but antibiotics were started or continued when procalcitonin was 1.0 ng/mL or more.

The primary outcome was presence or absence of antibiotic use during hospital stay. A range of secondary outcomes were also reported, included all-cause mortality, days of antibiotic use, rates of infection, and endoscopic, radiological, or surgical intervention.

Significantly fewer patients in the procalcitonin group received antibiotics during their stay, compared with the usual-care group (45% vs. 63%), which translated to an adjusted risk difference of –15.6% (P = .0071). Patients in the procalcitonin group who did receive antibiotics received about 1 day less of antibiotic treatment.

Despite the reduced antibiotic usage, length of hospital stay was similar between groups, as were rates of clinical infection, hospital-acquired infection, death, and adverse events, which suggests that the algorithm safely reduced antibiotic usage without negatively impacting clinical outcomes, according to investigators.

“Procalcitonin-based algorithms to guide antibiotic use should be considered in the care of this group of patients and be incorporated into future guidelines on the management of acute pancreatitis,” the investigators concluded.

Aaron Sasson, MD, director of the pancreatic cancer center and codirector of the gastrointestinal oncology team at Stony Brook (N.Y.) Medicine, said the study is noteworthy because it addresses an important topic with a large prospective randomized trial; however, he pointed out some limitations.

“There are several issues with this trial,” Dr. Sasson said in a written comment. “First, it included a large percentage of patients with mild acute pancreatitis, a group of patients for whom the use of antibiotics is not controversial. Secondly, the rate of infected pancreatic necrosis was 5% in both arms of the study, indicating the lack of severity of the cohort of patients.”

Dr. Sasson said that the algorithm “could be useful” to differentiate between inflammation and infection in patients with acute pancreatitis, “but only as an adjunct with other clinical parameters.”

He suggested that the algorithm would offer more utility if it could distinguish between pancreatic necrosis and infected pancreatic necrosis. “Unfortunately, this trial did not answer this question,” he said, noting that a similar trial involving “only patients with severe pancreatitis” would be needed.

The investigators and Dr. Sasson disclosed no competing interests.

A procalcitonin-based algorithm could safely reduce unnecessary usage of antibiotics in patients with acute pancreatitis, based on results of a randomized controlled trial.

Physicians should consider incorporating the decision-making process into their daily practice, suggested lead author Ajith K. Siriwardena, MD, of Manchester (England) University and colleagues, who also recommended that the algorithm be added to future guidelines.

“Overuse of antibiotics and the resultant emergence of multidrug resistant microorganisms is a potent threat to the welfare of humanity in the 21st century,” the investigators wrote in The Lancet Gastroenterology & Hepatology.

Antibiotic overuse is common in cases of acute pancreatitis, they noted, because clinical features are typically insufficient to distinguish between inflammation and infection. While measuring procalcitonin can help can detect infection, “indiscriminate measurement” of the biomarker is not cost effective, according to the investigators, leading previous reviews and analyses to conclude that further research is needed before widespread usage can be recommended.

Dr. Siriwardena and colleagues aimed to meet this need by conducting a randomized controlled trial involving 260 patients hospitalized for acute pancreatitis at Manchester Royal Infirmary. Patients were randomized in a near 1:1 ratio. Both the intervention group (n = 132) and the control group (n = 128) received guideline-based care; however, in addition to standard of care, procalcitonin was measured in the intervention group at days 0, 4, and 7 then weekly. Among these patients, antibiotics were stopped or not started when procalcitonin was below 1.0 ng/mL, but antibiotics were started or continued when procalcitonin was 1.0 ng/mL or more.

The primary outcome was presence or absence of antibiotic use during hospital stay. A range of secondary outcomes were also reported, included all-cause mortality, days of antibiotic use, rates of infection, and endoscopic, radiological, or surgical intervention.

Significantly fewer patients in the procalcitonin group received antibiotics during their stay, compared with the usual-care group (45% vs. 63%), which translated to an adjusted risk difference of –15.6% (P = .0071). Patients in the procalcitonin group who did receive antibiotics received about 1 day less of antibiotic treatment.

Despite the reduced antibiotic usage, length of hospital stay was similar between groups, as were rates of clinical infection, hospital-acquired infection, death, and adverse events, which suggests that the algorithm safely reduced antibiotic usage without negatively impacting clinical outcomes, according to investigators.

“Procalcitonin-based algorithms to guide antibiotic use should be considered in the care of this group of patients and be incorporated into future guidelines on the management of acute pancreatitis,” the investigators concluded.

Aaron Sasson, MD, director of the pancreatic cancer center and codirector of the gastrointestinal oncology team at Stony Brook (N.Y.) Medicine, said the study is noteworthy because it addresses an important topic with a large prospective randomized trial; however, he pointed out some limitations.

“There are several issues with this trial,” Dr. Sasson said in a written comment. “First, it included a large percentage of patients with mild acute pancreatitis, a group of patients for whom the use of antibiotics is not controversial. Secondly, the rate of infected pancreatic necrosis was 5% in both arms of the study, indicating the lack of severity of the cohort of patients.”

Dr. Sasson said that the algorithm “could be useful” to differentiate between inflammation and infection in patients with acute pancreatitis, “but only as an adjunct with other clinical parameters.”

He suggested that the algorithm would offer more utility if it could distinguish between pancreatic necrosis and infected pancreatic necrosis. “Unfortunately, this trial did not answer this question,” he said, noting that a similar trial involving “only patients with severe pancreatitis” would be needed.

The investigators and Dr. Sasson disclosed no competing interests.

Patients with hepatitis B virus (HBV) infection and HCC tend to live longer if both their HBV and HCC are treated. Liu and colleagues performed a meta-analysis of trials that addressed the question whether the same is true for patients with hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection and HCC treated with either interferon or direct-acting antivirals (DAA). They included 23, mostly retrospective, cohort studies in the final meta-analysis. Recurrence data were available in 18 studies, with 2013 patients receiving DAA therapy, 1091 patients receiving interferon therapy, and 1571 patients receiving no intervention. There was no significant difference in recurrence between the DAA group and the interferon group. The meta-analysis demonstrated that patients with HCV-related HCC treated with DAA had a lower risk for HCC recurrence (adjusted hazard ratio [HR] 0.55, 95% CI 0.41-0.74, P < .001; I² 66.6%, P < .001) and a better overall survival (OS) (adjusted HR 0.36, 95% CI 0.16–0.83, P = .017; I² 90.7%, P < .001) than patients with no intervention. The authors concluded that DAA therapy can prevent recurrence and improve OS of patients with HCV-related HCC, especially if a sustained virologic response is achieved.

Atezolizumab with bevacizumab is the current first-line standard of care for patients with unresectable HCC, offering an improved OS compared to sorafenib, as demonstrated in the phase 3 IMbrave150 study. Alternate combinations, such as atezolizumab and cabozantinib, are also being investigated in this setting. The COSMIC-312 phase 3 randomized controlled trial evaluated 837 patients with unresectable HCC who had not received previous systemic therapy. They were randomly assigned in a 2:1:1 ratio to receive cabozantinib plus atezolizumab (n = 432), sorafenib (n = 217), or single-agent cabozantinib (n = 188). Although the patients receiving atezolizumab + cabozantinib had a significantly longer median progression-free survival (6.8 vs 4.2 months; HR, 0.63; P = .001) than patients who received sorafenib, both groups had a similar median OS (15.4 vs 15.5 months; HR, 0.90; P = .44). The authors concluded that this combination requires more study in this patient population.

For patients with unresectable HCC who are unable to tolerate combination therapy in the first-line setting, single-agent therapy might be an option. Verset and colleagues reported the results of a phase 2 study evaluating pembrolizumab in this setting. Cohort 2 of the KEYNOTE-224 study evaluated 51 systemic therapy–naive patients with unresectable HCC who received pembrolizumab for up to 2 years. After 27 months of median follow-up, the median progression-free survival was 4 months (95% CI 2-8 months) and the OS was 17 months (95% CI 8-23 months). The objective response rate was 16% (95% CI 7%-29%). Grade ≥ 3 treatment-related adverse events were observed in 16% of patients. In this prospective study, pembrolizumab provided durable antitumor activity, a promising OS, and a safety profile consistent with previous observations.

Patients with hepatitis B virus (HBV) infection and HCC tend to live longer if both their HBV and HCC are treated. Liu and colleagues performed a meta-analysis of trials that addressed the question whether the same is true for patients with hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection and HCC treated with either interferon or direct-acting antivirals (DAA). They included 23, mostly retrospective, cohort studies in the final meta-analysis. Recurrence data were available in 18 studies, with 2013 patients receiving DAA therapy, 1091 patients receiving interferon therapy, and 1571 patients receiving no intervention. There was no significant difference in recurrence between the DAA group and the interferon group. The meta-analysis demonstrated that patients with HCV-related HCC treated with DAA had a lower risk for HCC recurrence (adjusted hazard ratio [HR] 0.55, 95% CI 0.41-0.74, P < .001; I² 66.6%, P < .001) and a better overall survival (OS) (adjusted HR 0.36, 95% CI 0.16–0.83, P = .017; I² 90.7%, P < .001) than patients with no intervention. The authors concluded that DAA therapy can prevent recurrence and improve OS of patients with HCV-related HCC, especially if a sustained virologic response is achieved.

Atezolizumab with bevacizumab is the current first-line standard of care for patients with unresectable HCC, offering an improved OS compared to sorafenib, as demonstrated in the phase 3 IMbrave150 study. Alternate combinations, such as atezolizumab and cabozantinib, are also being investigated in this setting. The COSMIC-312 phase 3 randomized controlled trial evaluated 837 patients with unresectable HCC who had not received previous systemic therapy. They were randomly assigned in a 2:1:1 ratio to receive cabozantinib plus atezolizumab (n = 432), sorafenib (n = 217), or single-agent cabozantinib (n = 188). Although the patients receiving atezolizumab + cabozantinib had a significantly longer median progression-free survival (6.8 vs 4.2 months; HR, 0.63; P = .001) than patients who received sorafenib, both groups had a similar median OS (15.4 vs 15.5 months; HR, 0.90; P = .44). The authors concluded that this combination requires more study in this patient population.

For patients with unresectable HCC who are unable to tolerate combination therapy in the first-line setting, single-agent therapy might be an option. Verset and colleagues reported the results of a phase 2 study evaluating pembrolizumab in this setting. Cohort 2 of the KEYNOTE-224 study evaluated 51 systemic therapy–naive patients with unresectable HCC who received pembrolizumab for up to 2 years. After 27 months of median follow-up, the median progression-free survival was 4 months (95% CI 2-8 months) and the OS was 17 months (95% CI 8-23 months). The objective response rate was 16% (95% CI 7%-29%). Grade ≥ 3 treatment-related adverse events were observed in 16% of patients. In this prospective study, pembrolizumab provided durable antitumor activity, a promising OS, and a safety profile consistent with previous observations.

Patients with hepatitis B virus (HBV) infection and HCC tend to live longer if both their HBV and HCC are treated. Liu and colleagues performed a meta-analysis of trials that addressed the question whether the same is true for patients with hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection and HCC treated with either interferon or direct-acting antivirals (DAA). They included 23, mostly retrospective, cohort studies in the final meta-analysis. Recurrence data were available in 18 studies, with 2013 patients receiving DAA therapy, 1091 patients receiving interferon therapy, and 1571 patients receiving no intervention. There was no significant difference in recurrence between the DAA group and the interferon group. The meta-analysis demonstrated that patients with HCV-related HCC treated with DAA had a lower risk for HCC recurrence (adjusted hazard ratio [HR] 0.55, 95% CI 0.41-0.74, P < .001; I² 66.6%, P < .001) and a better overall survival (OS) (adjusted HR 0.36, 95% CI 0.16–0.83, P = .017; I² 90.7%, P < .001) than patients with no intervention. The authors concluded that DAA therapy can prevent recurrence and improve OS of patients with HCV-related HCC, especially if a sustained virologic response is achieved.

Atezolizumab with bevacizumab is the current first-line standard of care for patients with unresectable HCC, offering an improved OS compared to sorafenib, as demonstrated in the phase 3 IMbrave150 study. Alternate combinations, such as atezolizumab and cabozantinib, are also being investigated in this setting. The COSMIC-312 phase 3 randomized controlled trial evaluated 837 patients with unresectable HCC who had not received previous systemic therapy. They were randomly assigned in a 2:1:1 ratio to receive cabozantinib plus atezolizumab (n = 432), sorafenib (n = 217), or single-agent cabozantinib (n = 188). Although the patients receiving atezolizumab + cabozantinib had a significantly longer median progression-free survival (6.8 vs 4.2 months; HR, 0.63; P = .001) than patients who received sorafenib, both groups had a similar median OS (15.4 vs 15.5 months; HR, 0.90; P = .44). The authors concluded that this combination requires more study in this patient population.

For patients with unresectable HCC who are unable to tolerate combination therapy in the first-line setting, single-agent therapy might be an option. Verset and colleagues reported the results of a phase 2 study evaluating pembrolizumab in this setting. Cohort 2 of the KEYNOTE-224 study evaluated 51 systemic therapy–naive patients with unresectable HCC who received pembrolizumab for up to 2 years. After 27 months of median follow-up, the median progression-free survival was 4 months (95% CI 2-8 months) and the OS was 17 months (95% CI 8-23 months). The objective response rate was 16% (95% CI 7%-29%). Grade ≥ 3 treatment-related adverse events were observed in 16% of patients. In this prospective study, pembrolizumab provided durable antitumor activity, a promising OS, and a safety profile consistent with previous observations.

Patients with hepatitis B virus (HBV) infection and HCC tend to live longer if both their HBV and HCC are treated. Liu and colleagues performed a meta-analysis of trials that addressed the question whether the same is true for patients with hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection and HCC treated with either interferon or direct-acting antivirals (DAA). They included 23, mostly retrospective, cohort studies in the final meta-analysis. Recurrence data were available in 18 studies, with 2013 patients receiving DAA therapy, 1091 patients receiving interferon therapy, and 1571 patients receiving no intervention. There was no significant difference in recurrence between the DAA group and the interferon group. The meta-analysis demonstrated that patients with HCV-related HCC treated with DAA had a lower risk for HCC recurrence (adjusted hazard ratio [HR] 0.55, 95% CI 0.41-0.74, P < .001; I² 66.6%, P < .001) and a better overall survival (OS) (adjusted HR 0.36, 95% CI 0.16–0.83, P = .017; I² 90.7%, P < .001) than patients with no intervention. The authors concluded that DAA therapy can prevent recurrence and improve OS of patients with HCV-related HCC, especially if a sustained virologic response is achieved.

Atezolizumab with bevacizumab is the current first-line standard of care for patients with unresectable HCC, offering an improved OS compared to sorafenib, as demonstrated in the phase 3 IMbrave150 study. Alternate combinations, such as atezolizumab and cabozantinib, are also being investigated in this setting. The COSMIC-312 phase 3 randomized controlled trial evaluated 837 patients with unresectable HCC who had not received previous systemic therapy. They were randomly assigned in a 2:1:1 ratio to receive cabozantinib plus atezolizumab (n = 432), sorafenib (n = 217), or single-agent cabozantinib (n = 188). Although the patients receiving atezolizumab + cabozantinib had a significantly longer median progression-free survival (6.8 vs 4.2 months; HR, 0.63; P = .001) than patients who received sorafenib, both groups had a similar median OS (15.4 vs 15.5 months; HR, 0.90; P = .44). The authors concluded that this combination requires more study in this patient population.

For patients with unresectable HCC who are unable to tolerate combination therapy in the first-line setting, single-agent therapy might be an option. Verset and colleagues reported the results of a phase 2 study evaluating pembrolizumab in this setting. Cohort 2 of the KEYNOTE-224 study evaluated 51 systemic therapy–naive patients with unresectable HCC who received pembrolizumab for up to 2 years. After 27 months of median follow-up, the median progression-free survival was 4 months (95% CI 2-8 months) and the OS was 17 months (95% CI 8-23 months). The objective response rate was 16% (95% CI 7%-29%). Grade ≥ 3 treatment-related adverse events were observed in 16% of patients. In this prospective study, pembrolizumab provided durable antitumor activity, a promising OS, and a safety profile consistent with previous observations.

Patients with hepatitis B virus (HBV) infection and HCC tend to live longer if both their HBV and HCC are treated. Liu and colleagues performed a meta-analysis of trials that addressed the question whether the same is true for patients with hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection and HCC treated with either interferon or direct-acting antivirals (DAA). They included 23, mostly retrospective, cohort studies in the final meta-analysis. Recurrence data were available in 18 studies, with 2013 patients receiving DAA therapy, 1091 patients receiving interferon therapy, and 1571 patients receiving no intervention. There was no significant difference in recurrence between the DAA group and the interferon group. The meta-analysis demonstrated that patients with HCV-related HCC treated with DAA had a lower risk for HCC recurrence (adjusted hazard ratio [HR] 0.55, 95% CI 0.41-0.74, P < .001; I² 66.6%, P < .001) and a better overall survival (OS) (adjusted HR 0.36, 95% CI 0.16–0.83, P = .017; I² 90.7%, P < .001) than patients with no intervention. The authors concluded that DAA therapy can prevent recurrence and improve OS of patients with HCV-related HCC, especially if a sustained virologic response is achieved.

Atezolizumab with bevacizumab is the current first-line standard of care for patients with unresectable HCC, offering an improved OS compared to sorafenib, as demonstrated in the phase 3 IMbrave150 study. Alternate combinations, such as atezolizumab and cabozantinib, are also being investigated in this setting. The COSMIC-312 phase 3 randomized controlled trial evaluated 837 patients with unresectable HCC who had not received previous systemic therapy. They were randomly assigned in a 2:1:1 ratio to receive cabozantinib plus atezolizumab (n = 432), sorafenib (n = 217), or single-agent cabozantinib (n = 188). Although the patients receiving atezolizumab + cabozantinib had a significantly longer median progression-free survival (6.8 vs 4.2 months; HR, 0.63; P = .001) than patients who received sorafenib, both groups had a similar median OS (15.4 vs 15.5 months; HR, 0.90; P = .44). The authors concluded that this combination requires more study in this patient population.

For patients with unresectable HCC who are unable to tolerate combination therapy in the first-line setting, single-agent therapy might be an option. Verset and colleagues reported the results of a phase 2 study evaluating pembrolizumab in this setting. Cohort 2 of the KEYNOTE-224 study evaluated 51 systemic therapy–naive patients with unresectable HCC who received pembrolizumab for up to 2 years. After 27 months of median follow-up, the median progression-free survival was 4 months (95% CI 2-8 months) and the OS was 17 months (95% CI 8-23 months). The objective response rate was 16% (95% CI 7%-29%). Grade ≥ 3 treatment-related adverse events were observed in 16% of patients. In this prospective study, pembrolizumab provided durable antitumor activity, a promising OS, and a safety profile consistent with previous observations.

Patients with hepatitis B virus (HBV) infection and HCC tend to live longer if both their HBV and HCC are treated. Liu and colleagues performed a meta-analysis of trials that addressed the question whether the same is true for patients with hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection and HCC treated with either interferon or direct-acting antivirals (DAA). They included 23, mostly retrospective, cohort studies in the final meta-analysis. Recurrence data were available in 18 studies, with 2013 patients receiving DAA therapy, 1091 patients receiving interferon therapy, and 1571 patients receiving no intervention. There was no significant difference in recurrence between the DAA group and the interferon group. The meta-analysis demonstrated that patients with HCV-related HCC treated with DAA had a lower risk for HCC recurrence (adjusted hazard ratio [HR] 0.55, 95% CI 0.41-0.74, P < .001; I² 66.6%, P < .001) and a better overall survival (OS) (adjusted HR 0.36, 95% CI 0.16–0.83, P = .017; I² 90.7%, P < .001) than patients with no intervention. The authors concluded that DAA therapy can prevent recurrence and improve OS of patients with HCV-related HCC, especially if a sustained virologic response is achieved.

Atezolizumab with bevacizumab is the current first-line standard of care for patients with unresectable HCC, offering an improved OS compared to sorafenib, as demonstrated in the phase 3 IMbrave150 study. Alternate combinations, such as atezolizumab and cabozantinib, are also being investigated in this setting. The COSMIC-312 phase 3 randomized controlled trial evaluated 837 patients with unresectable HCC who had not received previous systemic therapy. They were randomly assigned in a 2:1:1 ratio to receive cabozantinib plus atezolizumab (n = 432), sorafenib (n = 217), or single-agent cabozantinib (n = 188). Although the patients receiving atezolizumab + cabozantinib had a significantly longer median progression-free survival (6.8 vs 4.2 months; HR, 0.63; P = .001) than patients who received sorafenib, both groups had a similar median OS (15.4 vs 15.5 months; HR, 0.90; P = .44). The authors concluded that this combination requires more study in this patient population.

For patients with unresectable HCC who are unable to tolerate combination therapy in the first-line setting, single-agent therapy might be an option. Verset and colleagues reported the results of a phase 2 study evaluating pembrolizumab in this setting. Cohort 2 of the KEYNOTE-224 study evaluated 51 systemic therapy–naive patients with unresectable HCC who received pembrolizumab for up to 2 years. After 27 months of median follow-up, the median progression-free survival was 4 months (95% CI 2-8 months) and the OS was 17 months (95% CI 8-23 months). The objective response rate was 16% (95% CI 7%-29%). Grade ≥ 3 treatment-related adverse events were observed in 16% of patients. In this prospective study, pembrolizumab provided durable antitumor activity, a promising OS, and a safety profile consistent with previous observations.

One of the cornerstones of member engagement within the American Gastroenterological Association is its committees, which provide a platform for AGA members to network, effect change at the institutional level, and obtain leadership positions. For many within the AGA, exposure to these committees occurs during training. Both of us were first introduced to the possibility of serving on an AGA committee by faculty members at our institution. Each year, applications for available committee positions open in the fall and are due on Nov. 1. While you can be nominated by other members, self-nomination is common and encouraged. Truthfully, neither of us was quite certain what committee membership would entail. However, we both applied to several committees because we knew that it would be an excellent opportunity to network with leading gastroenterologists across the country and to have the ability to become involved in key AGA programs.

We were selected to serve 2-year terms as trainee members on the Government Affairs and Publication Committees, respectively, which gave us a deeper understanding of how an organization with both a full-time professional staff and group of volunteer members functions. A unique feature of the AGA is its Trainee and Early Career (TEC) Committee, which mainly comprises trainee members who serve on other committees. By virtue of our roles with the other committees, we also became full-fledged members of the TEC committee, which is dedicated to enhancing the experience for trainees and those who are within 5 years of graduation.

One of the most innovative programs developed by the TEC committee is Career Development Workshops, which is a webinar series focused on important topics not covered in fellowship, such as different career paths, personal finance, and how to increase the number of underrepresented individuals in the field. The predecessor of the Career Development Workshops was the in-person Regional Practice Skills Workshop, and we both took on the responsibility of planning and organizing separate workshops. For one of us (Stephanie), that involved enlisting our fellowship program to host the event. For the other (Peter), it meant collaborating with our local gastroenterology society to cosponsor the workshop. It was extremely rewarding to organize the workshops, which allowed us to work closely with AGA staff and local gastroenterology faculty, as well as our peers, to bring the events to fruition. For both of us, the success of the Regional Practice Skills Workshop was one of the highlights of our tenure on the TEC committee.

Applying to become a committee chair follows the same process and timeline as for any other committee position, and you can be nominated or self-nominate. Although previous experience on that specific committee is not a prerequisite for most chair positions, having previously served on any AGA committee or task force is generally required. Successful applicants serve for 1 year as chair-elect, during which they work closely with the outgoing chair and staff to ensure a smooth transition when their 3-year term as chair officially begins in June.

Each committee has a guiding mission statement and a staff liaison who provides institutional knowledge and logistical support. However, the committee members, and especially the chair, have considerable latitude to develop and implement new initiatives or retire old ones. The entire committee meets twice per year, once in September in Washington, D.C., and once at DDW. Between the meetings, working groups are formed to move the various programs forward. In addition to the Career Development Workshops, the TEC committee organizes the Young Delegates program (which allows any AGA member to volunteer on small, time-limited projects), a symposium at DDW focused on trainee and early career issues, and a networking event at DDW. Moreover, we collaborate with other committees and provide input from the perspective of younger members on larger initiatives such as the AGA Equity Project and Career Compass.

As chair, we lead the twice-yearly meetings as well as the working groups. We strongly encourage all committee members to participate on at least one working group, which develops leadership skills and provides the opportunity to moderate sessions for the Career Development Workshops and DDW symposium. Moreover, we solicit feedback on ways to improve current programming, start new initiatives, and work with other committees that the TEC committee members are part of. Trainees and early career members are seen as a key constituency group within the AGA, and we take the responsibility of increasing the value of membership for this group seriously.

As early-career physicians ourselves, we also view the chance to serve as a committee chair as a great career development opportunity. It allows us to expand our professional networks, help shape an organization that is a leading voice and advocate for digestive health, and meet the needs of young members who are the future of the AGA.

There is no doubt that all of you have achieved amazing things on the way to becoming a trainee or early career professional in the competitive fields of gastroenterology and hepatology. The AGA is constantly looking for bright, motivated individuals to serve as volunteers and future leaders. Our experience shows that with a bit of persistence to get in the door – through Young Delegates or a committee – along with lots of hard work along the way, you will be in a great position to rise through the ranks and help lead an organization at the vanguard of our field.

Dr. Liang is assistant professor of medicine and population health, New York University Langone Health, and a staff physician at VA New York Harbor Health Care System. Dr. Pointer is a founder and managing partner of Digestive and Liver Health Specialists. She is on staff as a clinical gastroenterologist at Tristar Hendersonville (Tenn.) Medical Center. They have no conflicts of interest.

One of the cornerstones of member engagement within the American Gastroenterological Association is its committees, which provide a platform for AGA members to network, effect change at the institutional level, and obtain leadership positions. For many within the AGA, exposure to these committees occurs during training. Both of us were first introduced to the possibility of serving on an AGA committee by faculty members at our institution. Each year, applications for available committee positions open in the fall and are due on Nov. 1. While you can be nominated by other members, self-nomination is common and encouraged. Truthfully, neither of us was quite certain what committee membership would entail. However, we both applied to several committees because we knew that it would be an excellent opportunity to network with leading gastroenterologists across the country and to have the ability to become involved in key AGA programs.

We were selected to serve 2-year terms as trainee members on the Government Affairs and Publication Committees, respectively, which gave us a deeper understanding of how an organization with both a full-time professional staff and group of volunteer members functions. A unique feature of the AGA is its Trainee and Early Career (TEC) Committee, which mainly comprises trainee members who serve on other committees. By virtue of our roles with the other committees, we also became full-fledged members of the TEC committee, which is dedicated to enhancing the experience for trainees and those who are within 5 years of graduation.

One of the most innovative programs developed by the TEC committee is Career Development Workshops, which is a webinar series focused on important topics not covered in fellowship, such as different career paths, personal finance, and how to increase the number of underrepresented individuals in the field. The predecessor of the Career Development Workshops was the in-person Regional Practice Skills Workshop, and we both took on the responsibility of planning and organizing separate workshops. For one of us (Stephanie), that involved enlisting our fellowship program to host the event. For the other (Peter), it meant collaborating with our local gastroenterology society to cosponsor the workshop. It was extremely rewarding to organize the workshops, which allowed us to work closely with AGA staff and local gastroenterology faculty, as well as our peers, to bring the events to fruition. For both of us, the success of the Regional Practice Skills Workshop was one of the highlights of our tenure on the TEC committee.

Applying to become a committee chair follows the same process and timeline as for any other committee position, and you can be nominated or self-nominate. Although previous experience on that specific committee is not a prerequisite for most chair positions, having previously served on any AGA committee or task force is generally required. Successful applicants serve for 1 year as chair-elect, during which they work closely with the outgoing chair and staff to ensure a smooth transition when their 3-year term as chair officially begins in June.

Each committee has a guiding mission statement and a staff liaison who provides institutional knowledge and logistical support. However, the committee members, and especially the chair, have considerable latitude to develop and implement new initiatives or retire old ones. The entire committee meets twice per year, once in September in Washington, D.C., and once at DDW. Between the meetings, working groups are formed to move the various programs forward. In addition to the Career Development Workshops, the TEC committee organizes the Young Delegates program (which allows any AGA member to volunteer on small, time-limited projects), a symposium at DDW focused on trainee and early career issues, and a networking event at DDW. Moreover, we collaborate with other committees and provide input from the perspective of younger members on larger initiatives such as the AGA Equity Project and Career Compass.

As chair, we lead the twice-yearly meetings as well as the working groups. We strongly encourage all committee members to participate on at least one working group, which develops leadership skills and provides the opportunity to moderate sessions for the Career Development Workshops and DDW symposium. Moreover, we solicit feedback on ways to improve current programming, start new initiatives, and work with other committees that the TEC committee members are part of. Trainees and early career members are seen as a key constituency group within the AGA, and we take the responsibility of increasing the value of membership for this group seriously.

As early-career physicians ourselves, we also view the chance to serve as a committee chair as a great career development opportunity. It allows us to expand our professional networks, help shape an organization that is a leading voice and advocate for digestive health, and meet the needs of young members who are the future of the AGA.

There is no doubt that all of you have achieved amazing things on the way to becoming a trainee or early career professional in the competitive fields of gastroenterology and hepatology. The AGA is constantly looking for bright, motivated individuals to serve as volunteers and future leaders. Our experience shows that with a bit of persistence to get in the door – through Young Delegates or a committee – along with lots of hard work along the way, you will be in a great position to rise through the ranks and help lead an organization at the vanguard of our field.

Dr. Liang is assistant professor of medicine and population health, New York University Langone Health, and a staff physician at VA New York Harbor Health Care System. Dr. Pointer is a founder and managing partner of Digestive and Liver Health Specialists. She is on staff as a clinical gastroenterologist at Tristar Hendersonville (Tenn.) Medical Center. They have no conflicts of interest.

One of the cornerstones of member engagement within the American Gastroenterological Association is its committees, which provide a platform for AGA members to network, effect change at the institutional level, and obtain leadership positions. For many within the AGA, exposure to these committees occurs during training. Both of us were first introduced to the possibility of serving on an AGA committee by faculty members at our institution. Each year, applications for available committee positions open in the fall and are due on Nov. 1. While you can be nominated by other members, self-nomination is common and encouraged. Truthfully, neither of us was quite certain what committee membership would entail. However, we both applied to several committees because we knew that it would be an excellent opportunity to network with leading gastroenterologists across the country and to have the ability to become involved in key AGA programs.

We were selected to serve 2-year terms as trainee members on the Government Affairs and Publication Committees, respectively, which gave us a deeper understanding of how an organization with both a full-time professional staff and group of volunteer members functions. A unique feature of the AGA is its Trainee and Early Career (TEC) Committee, which mainly comprises trainee members who serve on other committees. By virtue of our roles with the other committees, we also became full-fledged members of the TEC committee, which is dedicated to enhancing the experience for trainees and those who are within 5 years of graduation.

One of the most innovative programs developed by the TEC committee is Career Development Workshops, which is a webinar series focused on important topics not covered in fellowship, such as different career paths, personal finance, and how to increase the number of underrepresented individuals in the field. The predecessor of the Career Development Workshops was the in-person Regional Practice Skills Workshop, and we both took on the responsibility of planning and organizing separate workshops. For one of us (Stephanie), that involved enlisting our fellowship program to host the event. For the other (Peter), it meant collaborating with our local gastroenterology society to cosponsor the workshop. It was extremely rewarding to organize the workshops, which allowed us to work closely with AGA staff and local gastroenterology faculty, as well as our peers, to bring the events to fruition. For both of us, the success of the Regional Practice Skills Workshop was one of the highlights of our tenure on the TEC committee.

Applying to become a committee chair follows the same process and timeline as for any other committee position, and you can be nominated or self-nominate. Although previous experience on that specific committee is not a prerequisite for most chair positions, having previously served on any AGA committee or task force is generally required. Successful applicants serve for 1 year as chair-elect, during which they work closely with the outgoing chair and staff to ensure a smooth transition when their 3-year term as chair officially begins in June.

Each committee has a guiding mission statement and a staff liaison who provides institutional knowledge and logistical support. However, the committee members, and especially the chair, have considerable latitude to develop and implement new initiatives or retire old ones. The entire committee meets twice per year, once in September in Washington, D.C., and once at DDW. Between the meetings, working groups are formed to move the various programs forward. In addition to the Career Development Workshops, the TEC committee organizes the Young Delegates program (which allows any AGA member to volunteer on small, time-limited projects), a symposium at DDW focused on trainee and early career issues, and a networking event at DDW. Moreover, we collaborate with other committees and provide input from the perspective of younger members on larger initiatives such as the AGA Equity Project and Career Compass.

As chair, we lead the twice-yearly meetings as well as the working groups. We strongly encourage all committee members to participate on at least one working group, which develops leadership skills and provides the opportunity to moderate sessions for the Career Development Workshops and DDW symposium. Moreover, we solicit feedback on ways to improve current programming, start new initiatives, and work with other committees that the TEC committee members are part of. Trainees and early career members are seen as a key constituency group within the AGA, and we take the responsibility of increasing the value of membership for this group seriously.

As early-career physicians ourselves, we also view the chance to serve as a committee chair as a great career development opportunity. It allows us to expand our professional networks, help shape an organization that is a leading voice and advocate for digestive health, and meet the needs of young members who are the future of the AGA.

There is no doubt that all of you have achieved amazing things on the way to becoming a trainee or early career professional in the competitive fields of gastroenterology and hepatology. The AGA is constantly looking for bright, motivated individuals to serve as volunteers and future leaders. Our experience shows that with a bit of persistence to get in the door – through Young Delegates or a committee – along with lots of hard work along the way, you will be in a great position to rise through the ranks and help lead an organization at the vanguard of our field.

Dr. Liang is assistant professor of medicine and population health, New York University Langone Health, and a staff physician at VA New York Harbor Health Care System. Dr. Pointer is a founder and managing partner of Digestive and Liver Health Specialists. She is on staff as a clinical gastroenterologist at Tristar Hendersonville (Tenn.) Medical Center. They have no conflicts of interest.

Psittacosis, a rare disease, has been underdiagnosed or misdiagnosed during the COVID-19 pandemic, likely because the symptoms of the disease are similar to COVID-19 symptoms, researchers suggest on the basis of data from 32 individuals.

Diagnosis of and screening for COVID-19 continues to increase; however, cases of atypical pneumonia caused by uncommon pathogens, which presents with similar symptoms, may be missed, wrote Qiaoqiao Yin, MS, of Zhejiang Provincial People’s Hospital, China, and colleagues.

“The clinical manifestations of human psittacosis can present as rapidly progressing severe pneumonia, acute respiratory distress syndrome, sepsis, and multiple organ failure,” but human cases have not been well studied, they say.

In a study  published in the International Journal of Infectious Diseases, the researchers reviewed data from 32 adults diagnosed with Chlamydia psittaci pneumonia during the COVID-19 pandemic between April 2020 and June 2021 in China. The median age of the patients was 63 years, 20 were men, and 20 had underlying diseases.

A total of 17 patients presented with fever, cough, and expectoration of yellow-white sputum. At the time of hospital admission, three patients had myalgia, two had headache, and two had hypertension. The patients were originally suspected of having COVID-19.

“All patients showed atypical pneumonia, including inflammatory infiltration, pleural effusion, multiple inflammatory exudative lesions with interstitial edema, lung abscesses, and white lung,” all of which could be observed in COVID-19 patients as well, the researchers wrote.

Reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) and enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) testing were used to rule out COVID-19. The researchers then used metagenomic next-generation sequencing (mNGS) to identify the disease-causing pathogens. They collected 18 bronchoalveolar lavage fluid (BALF) samples, 9 peripheral blood samples, and 5 sputum samples. The mNGS identified C. psittaci as the suspected pathogen within 48 hours. Suspected C. psittaci infections were confirmed by endpoint PCR for the BALF and sputum samples and six of nine blood samples, “indicating a lower sensitivity of PCR compared to mNGS for blood samples,” the researchers say. No other potential pathogens were identified.

Psittacosis is common in birds but is rare in humans. C. psittaci is responsible for 1%-8% of cases involving community-acquired pneumonia in China, the researchers note. Although poultry is a source of infection, 25 of the patients in the study did not report a history of exposure to poultry or pigeons at the time of their initial hospital admission. Many patients may be unaware of exposures to poultry, which further complicates the C. psittaci diagnosis, they note.

All patients were treated with doxycycline-based regimens and showed improvement.

The findings were limited by several factors, including the lack of a definitive diagnostic tool for C. psittaci and the lack of convalescent serum samples to confirm cases, the researchers note. In addition, molecular detections for PCR are unavailable in most hospitals in China, they say. The results represent the largest known collection of suspected C. psittaci pneumonia cases and highlight the need for clinician vigilance and awareness of this rare condition, especially in light of the potential for misdiagnosis during the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, they conclude.

The study received no outside funding. The researchers have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Psittacosis, a rare disease, has been underdiagnosed or misdiagnosed during the COVID-19 pandemic, likely because the symptoms of the disease are similar to COVID-19 symptoms, researchers suggest on the basis of data from 32 individuals.

Diagnosis of and screening for COVID-19 continues to increase; however, cases of atypical pneumonia caused by uncommon pathogens, which presents with similar symptoms, may be missed, wrote Qiaoqiao Yin, MS, of Zhejiang Provincial People’s Hospital, China, and colleagues.

“The clinical manifestations of human psittacosis can present as rapidly progressing severe pneumonia, acute respiratory distress syndrome, sepsis, and multiple organ failure,” but human cases have not been well studied, they say.

In a study  published in the International Journal of Infectious Diseases, the researchers reviewed data from 32 adults diagnosed with Chlamydia psittaci pneumonia during the COVID-19 pandemic between April 2020 and June 2021 in China. The median age of the patients was 63 years, 20 were men, and 20 had underlying diseases.

A total of 17 patients presented with fever, cough, and expectoration of yellow-white sputum. At the time of hospital admission, three patients had myalgia, two had headache, and two had hypertension. The patients were originally suspected of having COVID-19.

“All patients showed atypical pneumonia, including inflammatory infiltration, pleural effusion, multiple inflammatory exudative lesions with interstitial edema, lung abscesses, and white lung,” all of which could be observed in COVID-19 patients as well, the researchers wrote.

Reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) and enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) testing were used to rule out COVID-19. The researchers then used metagenomic next-generation sequencing (mNGS) to identify the disease-causing pathogens. They collected 18 bronchoalveolar lavage fluid (BALF) samples, 9 peripheral blood samples, and 5 sputum samples. The mNGS identified C. psittaci as the suspected pathogen within 48 hours. Suspected C. psittaci infections were confirmed by endpoint PCR for the BALF and sputum samples and six of nine blood samples, “indicating a lower sensitivity of PCR compared to mNGS for blood samples,” the researchers say. No other potential pathogens were identified.

Psittacosis is common in birds but is rare in humans. C. psittaci is responsible for 1%-8% of cases involving community-acquired pneumonia in China, the researchers note. Although poultry is a source of infection, 25 of the patients in the study did not report a history of exposure to poultry or pigeons at the time of their initial hospital admission. Many patients may be unaware of exposures to poultry, which further complicates the C. psittaci diagnosis, they note.

All patients were treated with doxycycline-based regimens and showed improvement.

The findings were limited by several factors, including the lack of a definitive diagnostic tool for C. psittaci and the lack of convalescent serum samples to confirm cases, the researchers note. In addition, molecular detections for PCR are unavailable in most hospitals in China, they say. The results represent the largest known collection of suspected C. psittaci pneumonia cases and highlight the need for clinician vigilance and awareness of this rare condition, especially in light of the potential for misdiagnosis during the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, they conclude.

The study received no outside funding. The researchers have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Psittacosis, a rare disease, has been underdiagnosed or misdiagnosed during the COVID-19 pandemic, likely because the symptoms of the disease are similar to COVID-19 symptoms, researchers suggest on the basis of data from 32 individuals.

Diagnosis of and screening for COVID-19 continues to increase; however, cases of atypical pneumonia caused by uncommon pathogens, which presents with similar symptoms, may be missed, wrote Qiaoqiao Yin, MS, of Zhejiang Provincial People’s Hospital, China, and colleagues.

“The clinical manifestations of human psittacosis can present as rapidly progressing severe pneumonia, acute respiratory distress syndrome, sepsis, and multiple organ failure,” but human cases have not been well studied, they say.

In a study  published in the International Journal of Infectious Diseases, the researchers reviewed data from 32 adults diagnosed with Chlamydia psittaci pneumonia during the COVID-19 pandemic between April 2020 and June 2021 in China. The median age of the patients was 63 years, 20 were men, and 20 had underlying diseases.

A total of 17 patients presented with fever, cough, and expectoration of yellow-white sputum. At the time of hospital admission, three patients had myalgia, two had headache, and two had hypertension. The patients were originally suspected of having COVID-19.

“All patients showed atypical pneumonia, including inflammatory infiltration, pleural effusion, multiple inflammatory exudative lesions with interstitial edema, lung abscesses, and white lung,” all of which could be observed in COVID-19 patients as well, the researchers wrote.

Reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) and enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) testing were used to rule out COVID-19. The researchers then used metagenomic next-generation sequencing (mNGS) to identify the disease-causing pathogens. They collected 18 bronchoalveolar lavage fluid (BALF) samples, 9 peripheral blood samples, and 5 sputum samples. The mNGS identified C. psittaci as the suspected pathogen within 48 hours. Suspected C. psittaci infections were confirmed by endpoint PCR for the BALF and sputum samples and six of nine blood samples, “indicating a lower sensitivity of PCR compared to mNGS for blood samples,” the researchers say. No other potential pathogens were identified.

Psittacosis is common in birds but is rare in humans. C. psittaci is responsible for 1%-8% of cases involving community-acquired pneumonia in China, the researchers note. Although poultry is a source of infection, 25 of the patients in the study did not report a history of exposure to poultry or pigeons at the time of their initial hospital admission. Many patients may be unaware of exposures to poultry, which further complicates the C. psittaci diagnosis, they note.

All patients were treated with doxycycline-based regimens and showed improvement.

The findings were limited by several factors, including the lack of a definitive diagnostic tool for C. psittaci and the lack of convalescent serum samples to confirm cases, the researchers note. In addition, molecular detections for PCR are unavailable in most hospitals in China, they say. The results represent the largest known collection of suspected C. psittaci pneumonia cases and highlight the need for clinician vigilance and awareness of this rare condition, especially in light of the potential for misdiagnosis during the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, they conclude.

The study received no outside funding. The researchers have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

The Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care recommends against the routine screening of all pregnant and postpartum women for depression using a standard questionnaire, according to its new guideline.

The basis for its position is the lack of evidence that such screening “adds value beyond discussions about overall wellbeing, depression, anxiety, and mood that are currently a part of established perinatal clinical care.

“We should not be using a one-size-fits all approach,” lead author Eddy Lang, MD, professor and head of emergency medicine at the Cumming School of Medicine, University of Calgary (Alta.), told this news organization.

Instead, the task force emphasizes regular clinical care, including asking patients about their wellbeing and support systems. The task force categorizes the recommendation as conditional and as having very low-certainty evidence.

The recommendation was published in CMAJ.
 

One randomized study

The task force is an independent panel of clinicians and scientists that makes recommendations on primary and secondary prevention in primary care. A working group of five members of the task force developed this recommendation with scientific support from Public Health Agency of Canada staff.

In its research, the task force found only one study that showed a benefit of routine depression screening in this population. This study was a randomized controlled trial conducted in Hong Kong. Researchers evaluated 462 postpartum women who were randomly assigned to receive screening with the Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale (EPDS) or no screening 2 months post partum.

“We found the effect of screening in this study to be very uncertain for the important outcomes of interest,” said Dr. Lang.

“These included parent-child stress, marital stress, and the number of infant hospital admissions. The effects of screening on all of these outcomes were very uncertain, mainly because it was such a small trial,” he said.

The task force also assessed how pregnant and postpartum women feel about being screened. What these women most wanted was a good relationship with a trusted primary care provider who would initiate discussions about their mental health in a caring atmosphere.

“Although they told us they liked the idea of universal screening, they admitted to their family doctors that they actually preferred to be asked about their wellbeing, [to be asked] how things were going at home, and [to have] a discussion about their mental health and wellbeing, rather than a formal screening process. They felt a discussion about depression with a primary health care provider during the pregnancy and postpartum period is critical,” said Dr. Lang.

Thus, the task force recommends “against instrument-based depression screening using a questionnaire with cutoff score to distinguish ‘screen positive’ and ‘screen negative’ administered to all individuals during pregnancy and the postpartum period (up to 1 year after childbirth).”
 

Screening remains common

“There’s a lot of uncertainty in the scientific community about whether it’s a good idea to administer a screening test to all pregnant and postpartum women to determine in a systematic way if they might be suffering from depression,” said Dr. Lang.

The task force recommended against screening for depression among perinatal or postpartum women in 2013, but screening is still performed in many provinces, said Dr. Lang.

Dr. Lang emphasized that the recommendation does not apply to usual care, in which the provider asks questions about and discusses a patient’s mental health and proceeds on the basis of their clinical judgment; nor does it apply to diagnostic pathways in which the clinician suspects that the individual may have depression and tests her accordingly.

“What we are saying in our recommendation is that all clinicians should ask about a patient’s wellbeing, about their mood, their anxiety, and these questions are an important part of the clinical assessment of pregnant and postpartum women. But we’re also saying the usefulness of doing so with a questionnaire and using a cutoff score on the questionnaire to decide who needs further assessment or possibly treatment is unproven by the research,” Dr. Lang said.
 

A growing problem

For Diane Francoeur, MD, CEO of the Society of Obstetricians and Gynecologists of Canada, this is all well and good, but the reality is that such screening is better than nothing.

Quebec is the only Canadian province that conducts universal screening for all pregnant and postpartum women, Dr. Francoeur said in an interview. She was not part of the task force.

“I agree that it should be more than one approach, but the problem is that there is such a shortage of resources. There are many issues that can arise when you follow a woman during her pregnancy,” she said.

Dr. Francoeur said that COVID-19 has been particularly tough on women, including pregnant and postpartum women, who are the most vulnerable.

“Especially during the COVID era, it was astonishing how women were not doing well. Their stress level was so high. We need to have a specific approach dedicated to prenatal mental health, because it’s a problem that is bigger than it used to be,” she said.

Violence against women has increased considerably since the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic, said Dr. Francoeur. “Many more women have been killed by their partners. We have never seen anything like this before, and I hope we will never see this again,” she said.

“Help was more available a few years ago, but now, it’s really hard if and when you need to have a quick consultation with a specialist and the woman is really depressed. It can take forever. So, it’s okay to screen, but then, what’s next? Who is going to be there to take these women and help them? And we don’t have the answer,” Dr. Francoeur said.

Pregnant and postpartum women who suffer from depression need more than pills, she added. “We reassure them and treat their depression pharmacologically, but it’s also a time to give appropriate support and help them through the pregnancy and get well prepared to receive their newborn, because, as we now know, that first year of life is really important for the child, and the mom needs to be supported.”

Funding for the Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care is provided by the Public Health Agency of Canada. Dr. Lang and Dr. Francoeur reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

The Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care recommends against the routine screening of all pregnant and postpartum women for depression using a standard questionnaire, according to its new guideline.

The basis for its position is the lack of evidence that such screening “adds value beyond discussions about overall wellbeing, depression, anxiety, and mood that are currently a part of established perinatal clinical care.

“We should not be using a one-size-fits all approach,” lead author Eddy Lang, MD, professor and head of emergency medicine at the Cumming School of Medicine, University of Calgary (Alta.), told this news organization.

Instead, the task force emphasizes regular clinical care, including asking patients about their wellbeing and support systems. The task force categorizes the recommendation as conditional and as having very low-certainty evidence.

The recommendation was published in CMAJ.
 

One randomized study

The task force is an independent panel of clinicians and scientists that makes recommendations on primary and secondary prevention in primary care. A working group of five members of the task force developed this recommendation with scientific support from Public Health Agency of Canada staff.

In its research, the task force found only one study that showed a benefit of routine depression screening in this population. This study was a randomized controlled trial conducted in Hong Kong. Researchers evaluated 462 postpartum women who were randomly assigned to receive screening with the Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale (EPDS) or no screening 2 months post partum.

“We found the effect of screening in this study to be very uncertain for the important outcomes of interest,” said Dr. Lang.

“These included parent-child stress, marital stress, and the number of infant hospital admissions. The effects of screening on all of these outcomes were very uncertain, mainly because it was such a small trial,” he said.

The task force also assessed how pregnant and postpartum women feel about being screened. What these women most wanted was a good relationship with a trusted primary care provider who would initiate discussions about their mental health in a caring atmosphere.

“Although they told us they liked the idea of universal screening, they admitted to their family doctors that they actually preferred to be asked about their wellbeing, [to be asked] how things were going at home, and [to have] a discussion about their mental health and wellbeing, rather than a formal screening process. They felt a discussion about depression with a primary health care provider during the pregnancy and postpartum period is critical,” said Dr. Lang.

Thus, the task force recommends “against instrument-based depression screening using a questionnaire with cutoff score to distinguish ‘screen positive’ and ‘screen negative’ administered to all individuals during pregnancy and the postpartum period (up to 1 year after childbirth).”
 

Screening remains common

“There’s a lot of uncertainty in the scientific community about whether it’s a good idea to administer a screening test to all pregnant and postpartum women to determine in a systematic way if they might be suffering from depression,” said Dr. Lang.

The task force recommended against screening for depression among perinatal or postpartum women in 2013, but screening is still performed in many provinces, said Dr. Lang.

Dr. Lang emphasized that the recommendation does not apply to usual care, in which the provider asks questions about and discusses a patient’s mental health and proceeds on the basis of their clinical judgment; nor does it apply to diagnostic pathways in which the clinician suspects that the individual may have depression and tests her accordingly.

“What we are saying in our recommendation is that all clinicians should ask about a patient’s wellbeing, about their mood, their anxiety, and these questions are an important part of the clinical assessment of pregnant and postpartum women. But we’re also saying the usefulness of doing so with a questionnaire and using a cutoff score on the questionnaire to decide who needs further assessment or possibly treatment is unproven by the research,” Dr. Lang said.
 

A growing problem

For Diane Francoeur, MD, CEO of the Society of Obstetricians and Gynecologists of Canada, this is all well and good, but the reality is that such screening is better than nothing.

Quebec is the only Canadian province that conducts universal screening for all pregnant and postpartum women, Dr. Francoeur said in an interview. She was not part of the task force.

“I agree that it should be more than one approach, but the problem is that there is such a shortage of resources. There are many issues that can arise when you follow a woman during her pregnancy,” she said.

Dr. Francoeur said that COVID-19 has been particularly tough on women, including pregnant and postpartum women, who are the most vulnerable.

“Especially during the COVID era, it was astonishing how women were not doing well. Their stress level was so high. We need to have a specific approach dedicated to prenatal mental health, because it’s a problem that is bigger than it used to be,” she said.

Violence against women has increased considerably since the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic, said Dr. Francoeur. “Many more women have been killed by their partners. We have never seen anything like this before, and I hope we will never see this again,” she said.

“Help was more available a few years ago, but now, it’s really hard if and when you need to have a quick consultation with a specialist and the woman is really depressed. It can take forever. So, it’s okay to screen, but then, what’s next? Who is going to be there to take these women and help them? And we don’t have the answer,” Dr. Francoeur said.

Pregnant and postpartum women who suffer from depression need more than pills, she added. “We reassure them and treat their depression pharmacologically, but it’s also a time to give appropriate support and help them through the pregnancy and get well prepared to receive their newborn, because, as we now know, that first year of life is really important for the child, and the mom needs to be supported.”

Funding for the Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care is provided by the Public Health Agency of Canada. Dr. Lang and Dr. Francoeur reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

The Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care recommends against the routine screening of all pregnant and postpartum women for depression using a standard questionnaire, according to its new guideline.

The basis for its position is the lack of evidence that such screening “adds value beyond discussions about overall wellbeing, depression, anxiety, and mood that are currently a part of established perinatal clinical care.

“We should not be using a one-size-fits all approach,” lead author Eddy Lang, MD, professor and head of emergency medicine at the Cumming School of Medicine, University of Calgary (Alta.), told this news organization.

Instead, the task force emphasizes regular clinical care, including asking patients about their wellbeing and support systems. The task force categorizes the recommendation as conditional and as having very low-certainty evidence.

The recommendation was published in CMAJ.
 

One randomized study

The task force is an independent panel of clinicians and scientists that makes recommendations on primary and secondary prevention in primary care. A working group of five members of the task force developed this recommendation with scientific support from Public Health Agency of Canada staff.

In its research, the task force found only one study that showed a benefit of routine depression screening in this population. This study was a randomized controlled trial conducted in Hong Kong. Researchers evaluated 462 postpartum women who were randomly assigned to receive screening with the Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale (EPDS) or no screening 2 months post partum.

“We found the effect of screening in this study to be very uncertain for the important outcomes of interest,” said Dr. Lang.

“These included parent-child stress, marital stress, and the number of infant hospital admissions. The effects of screening on all of these outcomes were very uncertain, mainly because it was such a small trial,” he said.

The task force also assessed how pregnant and postpartum women feel about being screened. What these women most wanted was a good relationship with a trusted primary care provider who would initiate discussions about their mental health in a caring atmosphere.

“Although they told us they liked the idea of universal screening, they admitted to their family doctors that they actually preferred to be asked about their wellbeing, [to be asked] how things were going at home, and [to have] a discussion about their mental health and wellbeing, rather than a formal screening process. They felt a discussion about depression with a primary health care provider during the pregnancy and postpartum period is critical,” said Dr. Lang.

Thus, the task force recommends “against instrument-based depression screening using a questionnaire with cutoff score to distinguish ‘screen positive’ and ‘screen negative’ administered to all individuals during pregnancy and the postpartum period (up to 1 year after childbirth).”
 

Screening remains common

“There’s a lot of uncertainty in the scientific community about whether it’s a good idea to administer a screening test to all pregnant and postpartum women to determine in a systematic way if they might be suffering from depression,” said Dr. Lang.

The task force recommended against screening for depression among perinatal or postpartum women in 2013, but screening is still performed in many provinces, said Dr. Lang.

Dr. Lang emphasized that the recommendation does not apply to usual care, in which the provider asks questions about and discusses a patient’s mental health and proceeds on the basis of their clinical judgment; nor does it apply to diagnostic pathways in which the clinician suspects that the individual may have depression and tests her accordingly.

“What we are saying in our recommendation is that all clinicians should ask about a patient’s wellbeing, about their mood, their anxiety, and these questions are an important part of the clinical assessment of pregnant and postpartum women. But we’re also saying the usefulness of doing so with a questionnaire and using a cutoff score on the questionnaire to decide who needs further assessment or possibly treatment is unproven by the research,” Dr. Lang said.
 

A growing problem

For Diane Francoeur, MD, CEO of the Society of Obstetricians and Gynecologists of Canada, this is all well and good, but the reality is that such screening is better than nothing.

Quebec is the only Canadian province that conducts universal screening for all pregnant and postpartum women, Dr. Francoeur said in an interview. She was not part of the task force.

“I agree that it should be more than one approach, but the problem is that there is such a shortage of resources. There are many issues that can arise when you follow a woman during her pregnancy,” she said.

Dr. Francoeur said that COVID-19 has been particularly tough on women, including pregnant and postpartum women, who are the most vulnerable.

“Especially during the COVID era, it was astonishing how women were not doing well. Their stress level was so high. We need to have a specific approach dedicated to prenatal mental health, because it’s a problem that is bigger than it used to be,” she said.

Violence against women has increased considerably since the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic, said Dr. Francoeur. “Many more women have been killed by their partners. We have never seen anything like this before, and I hope we will never see this again,” she said.

“Help was more available a few years ago, but now, it’s really hard if and when you need to have a quick consultation with a specialist and the woman is really depressed. It can take forever. So, it’s okay to screen, but then, what’s next? Who is going to be there to take these women and help them? And we don’t have the answer,” Dr. Francoeur said.

Pregnant and postpartum women who suffer from depression need more than pills, she added. “We reassure them and treat their depression pharmacologically, but it’s also a time to give appropriate support and help them through the pregnancy and get well prepared to receive their newborn, because, as we now know, that first year of life is really important for the child, and the mom needs to be supported.”

Funding for the Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care is provided by the Public Health Agency of Canada. Dr. Lang and Dr. Francoeur reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Approximately 80% of patients in intensive care showed clinical improvement in gram-positive bacterial infections after treatment with linezolid, based on data from more than 300 individuals.

Bacterial infections remain a challenge in the management of critically ill patients, as many gram-positive pathogens have become resistant to multiple drug options, Aijia Ma, MD, of West China Hospital of Sichuan University, and colleagues wrote.

Linezolid has demonstrated effectiveness against MRSA and skin and soft-tissue infections (SSTIs), but its use in critically ill patients with gram-positive infections in the ICU has not been characterized, they said.

In a multicenter, real-world study published in the Journal of Intensive Medicine, the researchers reviewed data from 52 hospitals between June 2018 and December 2019. The study population included 366 patients admitted to the ICU with a clinical or laboratory diagnosis of a gram-positive bacterial infection. Patients were treated with linezolid injections (200 mg/100 mL) and followed up once a day until 48 hours after discontinuing therapy, transferring out of the ICU, or death. Most of the patients (243) were older than 65 years; 90 were aged 18-65 years, and 30 were younger than 18 years. Approximately two-thirds (67%) were men. The primary outcome of clinical efficacy was success (cured or improved).

Linezolid was used as second-line and first-line treatment in 232 (63.4%) and 134 (36.6%) patients, respectively. The most common isolated strain was Staphylococcus aureus (31% MRSA; 12.6% methicillin-susceptible S. aureus [MSSA]) followed by Enterococci (6.7% vancomycin resistant, 9.2% vancomycin susceptible) and Streptococcus pneumoniae (3.4% multidrug resistant, 1.7% non–multidrug resistant).

Overall, 82.2% of patients met the criteria for clinical success; 34 (9.3%) were cured and 267 (73%) improved. Clinical success rates for first-line and second-line linezolid therapy were 79.9% and 83.6%, respectively. Failure rates for linezolid were higher for second-line versus first-line treatment (9.5% vs. 5.2%).

The clinical success rate was highest against MSSA (93.3%), followed by MRSA (83.8%). The average daily linezolid dose was 1,109 mg, and the mean treatment time was 5.1 days.

A total of eight patients (2.2%) reported linezolid-related adverse events, and four patients discontinued the medication because of them; none reported treatment-related serious adverse events. The low incidence of thrombocytopenia in the current study (two patients), compared with previous studies may have been related to avoidance of linezolid for at-risk patients as determined by clinicians, and the relatively short duration of linezolid use, the researchers wrote.

The study findings were limited by several factors, including the observational design and inability to compare the efficacy of different drugs; the small sample size; and the lack of data on drugs used prior to ICU admission, the researchers noted. Other limitations included the low detection rate of gram-positive bacteria and potential underreporting of adverse events.

However, the results suggest that linezolid is a safe and effective treatment for gram-positive bacterial infections, although clinicians will need to pay close attention to possible side effects and evaluate patient conditions on an individual basis before using linezolid in the clinic, they concluded.

The study was supported by grants from West China Hospital of Sichuan University. The researchers reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Approximately 80% of patients in intensive care showed clinical improvement in gram-positive bacterial infections after treatment with linezolid, based on data from more than 300 individuals.

Bacterial infections remain a challenge in the management of critically ill patients, as many gram-positive pathogens have become resistant to multiple drug options, Aijia Ma, MD, of West China Hospital of Sichuan University, and colleagues wrote.

Linezolid has demonstrated effectiveness against MRSA and skin and soft-tissue infections (SSTIs), but its use in critically ill patients with gram-positive infections in the ICU has not been characterized, they said.

In a multicenter, real-world study published in the Journal of Intensive Medicine, the researchers reviewed data from 52 hospitals between June 2018 and December 2019. The study population included 366 patients admitted to the ICU with a clinical or laboratory diagnosis of a gram-positive bacterial infection. Patients were treated with linezolid injections (200 mg/100 mL) and followed up once a day until 48 hours after discontinuing therapy, transferring out of the ICU, or death. Most of the patients (243) were older than 65 years; 90 were aged 18-65 years, and 30 were younger than 18 years. Approximately two-thirds (67%) were men. The primary outcome of clinical efficacy was success (cured or improved).

Linezolid was used as second-line and first-line treatment in 232 (63.4%) and 134 (36.6%) patients, respectively. The most common isolated strain was Staphylococcus aureus (31% MRSA; 12.6% methicillin-susceptible S. aureus [MSSA]) followed by Enterococci (6.7% vancomycin resistant, 9.2% vancomycin susceptible) and Streptococcus pneumoniae (3.4% multidrug resistant, 1.7% non–multidrug resistant).

Overall, 82.2% of patients met the criteria for clinical success; 34 (9.3%) were cured and 267 (73%) improved. Clinical success rates for first-line and second-line linezolid therapy were 79.9% and 83.6%, respectively. Failure rates for linezolid were higher for second-line versus first-line treatment (9.5% vs. 5.2%).

The clinical success rate was highest against MSSA (93.3%), followed by MRSA (83.8%). The average daily linezolid dose was 1,109 mg, and the mean treatment time was 5.1 days.

A total of eight patients (2.2%) reported linezolid-related adverse events, and four patients discontinued the medication because of them; none reported treatment-related serious adverse events. The low incidence of thrombocytopenia in the current study (two patients), compared with previous studies may have been related to avoidance of linezolid for at-risk patients as determined by clinicians, and the relatively short duration of linezolid use, the researchers wrote.

The study findings were limited by several factors, including the observational design and inability to compare the efficacy of different drugs; the small sample size; and the lack of data on drugs used prior to ICU admission, the researchers noted. Other limitations included the low detection rate of gram-positive bacteria and potential underreporting of adverse events.

However, the results suggest that linezolid is a safe and effective treatment for gram-positive bacterial infections, although clinicians will need to pay close attention to possible side effects and evaluate patient conditions on an individual basis before using linezolid in the clinic, they concluded.

The study was supported by grants from West China Hospital of Sichuan University. The researchers reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Approximately 80% of patients in intensive care showed clinical improvement in gram-positive bacterial infections after treatment with linezolid, based on data from more than 300 individuals.

Bacterial infections remain a challenge in the management of critically ill patients, as many gram-positive pathogens have become resistant to multiple drug options, Aijia Ma, MD, of West China Hospital of Sichuan University, and colleagues wrote.

Linezolid has demonstrated effectiveness against MRSA and skin and soft-tissue infections (SSTIs), but its use in critically ill patients with gram-positive infections in the ICU has not been characterized, they said.

In a multicenter, real-world study published in the Journal of Intensive Medicine, the researchers reviewed data from 52 hospitals between June 2018 and December 2019. The study population included 366 patients admitted to the ICU with a clinical or laboratory diagnosis of a gram-positive bacterial infection. Patients were treated with linezolid injections (200 mg/100 mL) and followed up once a day until 48 hours after discontinuing therapy, transferring out of the ICU, or death. Most of the patients (243) were older than 65 years; 90 were aged 18-65 years, and 30 were younger than 18 years. Approximately two-thirds (67%) were men. The primary outcome of clinical efficacy was success (cured or improved).

Linezolid was used as second-line and first-line treatment in 232 (63.4%) and 134 (36.6%) patients, respectively. The most common isolated strain was Staphylococcus aureus (31% MRSA; 12.6% methicillin-susceptible S. aureus [MSSA]) followed by Enterococci (6.7% vancomycin resistant, 9.2% vancomycin susceptible) and Streptococcus pneumoniae (3.4% multidrug resistant, 1.7% non–multidrug resistant).

Overall, 82.2% of patients met the criteria for clinical success; 34 (9.3%) were cured and 267 (73%) improved. Clinical success rates for first-line and second-line linezolid therapy were 79.9% and 83.6%, respectively. Failure rates for linezolid were higher for second-line versus first-line treatment (9.5% vs. 5.2%).

The clinical success rate was highest against MSSA (93.3%), followed by MRSA (83.8%). The average daily linezolid dose was 1,109 mg, and the mean treatment time was 5.1 days.

A total of eight patients (2.2%) reported linezolid-related adverse events, and four patients discontinued the medication because of them; none reported treatment-related serious adverse events. The low incidence of thrombocytopenia in the current study (two patients), compared with previous studies may have been related to avoidance of linezolid for at-risk patients as determined by clinicians, and the relatively short duration of linezolid use, the researchers wrote.

The study findings were limited by several factors, including the observational design and inability to compare the efficacy of different drugs; the small sample size; and the lack of data on drugs used prior to ICU admission, the researchers noted. Other limitations included the low detection rate of gram-positive bacteria and potential underreporting of adverse events.

However, the results suggest that linezolid is a safe and effective treatment for gram-positive bacterial infections, although clinicians will need to pay close attention to possible side effects and evaluate patient conditions on an individual basis before using linezolid in the clinic, they concluded.

The study was supported by grants from West China Hospital of Sichuan University. The researchers reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

In advanced renal cell carcinoma, four out of five immuno-oncology drug-based combination treatments are showing impressive results in trials, a new review finds. Based on initial data, all appear to show advantages over the standard first-line treatment with the older targeted-therapy drug sunitinib.

However, the review, published in the International Journal of Urology, cautions that uncertainty remains because of the “absence of long-term prognostic as well as safety data regarding these combination therapies.”

The review, led by Ken-ichi Harada MD, PhD, of Kobe (Japan) University, notes that the introduction of targeted therapies and immuno-oncology drugs over the last 2 decades has revolutionized the treatment of advanced renal cell carcinoma. Multiple combination therapies based on immuno-oncology drugs are now recommended by treatment guidelines.

However, the lack of head-to-head data means that “it is still challenging for physicians to make the best decision on first-line therapy,” the authors wrote.

In the review, the authors recapped the evidence regarding several combination therapies:

• Ipilimumab plus nivolumab, a combination of two monoclonal antibodies, has shown higher overall survival than sunitinib in multiple studies. Treatment-related adverse events are common, however, with one trial reporting that they led 69% of patients to discontinue treatment. Even so, “ipilimumab plus nivolumab therapy continues to demonstrate durable efficacy benefits over sunitinib in advanced renal cell carcinoma patients classified into intermediate or poor risk group after long-term follow-up.”
• Avelumab, a monoclonal antibody, plus the tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) axitinib has not shown better overall survival rates versus sunitinib in a single trial, although there are signs of better progression-free survival. “Accordingly, avelumab plus axitinib is either not or discreetly recommended as a standard first-line therapy for advanced renal cell carcinoma patients by major clinical guidelines.”
• Pembrolizumab, a monoclonal antibody, plus axitinib has shown better progression-free survival and overall survival than sunitinib in a single trial. “Accordingly, pembrolizumab plus axitinib could be expected to have a powerful impact on favorable long-term cancer control with less frequent occurrence of severe adverse events, considering almost equivalent landmark overall survival to ipilimumab plus nivolumab.”
• Nivolumab plus cabozantinib, a TKI, beat sunitinib in a single trial in terms of progression-free survival and overall survival. “Nivolumab plus cabozantinib could be regarded as an efficacious therapeutic option for untreated advanced renal cell carcinoma patients with manageable safety.”
• Pembrolizumab plus lenvatinib, a TKI, showed better overall survival versus sunitinib in a single trial.

“These findings suggest that pembrolizumab plus lenvatinib could provide marked benefits with regard to cancer control in treatment-naive advanced renal cell carcinoma patients, and that caution should be exercised regarding the safety profile, considering the initial introduction of lenvatinib in the field of urological malignancies,” the authors wrote.

When compared against each other, most of these treatments appear to perform similarly, the authors wrote. With the exception of avelumab plus axitinib, all “showed almost similar advantages for the improvement of overall survival compared with sunitinib, judging from hazard ratios, and all five immuno-oncology drug-based combination therapies, particularly pembrolizumab plus lenvatinib, significantly prolonged progression-free survival, compared with sunitinib.”

No study funding was reported. The authors report various disclosures including relationships to Novartis, Pfizer, Ono, Takeda, MSD, Merck, and Bristol-Myers Squibb.

In advanced renal cell carcinoma, four out of five immuno-oncology drug-based combination treatments are showing impressive results in trials, a new review finds. Based on initial data, all appear to show advantages over the standard first-line treatment with the older targeted-therapy drug sunitinib.

However, the review, published in the International Journal of Urology, cautions that uncertainty remains because of the “absence of long-term prognostic as well as safety data regarding these combination therapies.”

The review, led by Ken-ichi Harada MD, PhD, of Kobe (Japan) University, notes that the introduction of targeted therapies and immuno-oncology drugs over the last 2 decades has revolutionized the treatment of advanced renal cell carcinoma. Multiple combination therapies based on immuno-oncology drugs are now recommended by treatment guidelines.

However, the lack of head-to-head data means that “it is still challenging for physicians to make the best decision on first-line therapy,” the authors wrote.

In the review, the authors recapped the evidence regarding several combination therapies:

• Ipilimumab plus nivolumab, a combination of two monoclonal antibodies, has shown higher overall survival than sunitinib in multiple studies. Treatment-related adverse events are common, however, with one trial reporting that they led 69% of patients to discontinue treatment. Even so, “ipilimumab plus nivolumab therapy continues to demonstrate durable efficacy benefits over sunitinib in advanced renal cell carcinoma patients classified into intermediate or poor risk group after long-term follow-up.”
• Avelumab, a monoclonal antibody, plus the tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) axitinib has not shown better overall survival rates versus sunitinib in a single trial, although there are signs of better progression-free survival. “Accordingly, avelumab plus axitinib is either not or discreetly recommended as a standard first-line therapy for advanced renal cell carcinoma patients by major clinical guidelines.”
• Pembrolizumab, a monoclonal antibody, plus axitinib has shown better progression-free survival and overall survival than sunitinib in a single trial. “Accordingly, pembrolizumab plus axitinib could be expected to have a powerful impact on favorable long-term cancer control with less frequent occurrence of severe adverse events, considering almost equivalent landmark overall survival to ipilimumab plus nivolumab.”
• Nivolumab plus cabozantinib, a TKI, beat sunitinib in a single trial in terms of progression-free survival and overall survival. “Nivolumab plus cabozantinib could be regarded as an efficacious therapeutic option for untreated advanced renal cell carcinoma patients with manageable safety.”
• Pembrolizumab plus lenvatinib, a TKI, showed better overall survival versus sunitinib in a single trial.

“These findings suggest that pembrolizumab plus lenvatinib could provide marked benefits with regard to cancer control in treatment-naive advanced renal cell carcinoma patients, and that caution should be exercised regarding the safety profile, considering the initial introduction of lenvatinib in the field of urological malignancies,” the authors wrote.

When compared against each other, most of these treatments appear to perform similarly, the authors wrote. With the exception of avelumab plus axitinib, all “showed almost similar advantages for the improvement of overall survival compared with sunitinib, judging from hazard ratios, and all five immuno-oncology drug-based combination therapies, particularly pembrolizumab plus lenvatinib, significantly prolonged progression-free survival, compared with sunitinib.”

No study funding was reported. The authors report various disclosures including relationships to Novartis, Pfizer, Ono, Takeda, MSD, Merck, and Bristol-Myers Squibb.

In advanced renal cell carcinoma, four out of five immuno-oncology drug-based combination treatments are showing impressive results in trials, a new review finds. Based on initial data, all appear to show advantages over the standard first-line treatment with the older targeted-therapy drug sunitinib.

However, the review, published in the International Journal of Urology, cautions that uncertainty remains because of the “absence of long-term prognostic as well as safety data regarding these combination therapies.”

The review, led by Ken-ichi Harada MD, PhD, of Kobe (Japan) University, notes that the introduction of targeted therapies and immuno-oncology drugs over the last 2 decades has revolutionized the treatment of advanced renal cell carcinoma. Multiple combination therapies based on immuno-oncology drugs are now recommended by treatment guidelines.

However, the lack of head-to-head data means that “it is still challenging for physicians to make the best decision on first-line therapy,” the authors wrote.

In the review, the authors recapped the evidence regarding several combination therapies:

• Ipilimumab plus nivolumab, a combination of two monoclonal antibodies, has shown higher overall survival than sunitinib in multiple studies. Treatment-related adverse events are common, however, with one trial reporting that they led 69% of patients to discontinue treatment. Even so, “ipilimumab plus nivolumab therapy continues to demonstrate durable efficacy benefits over sunitinib in advanced renal cell carcinoma patients classified into intermediate or poor risk group after long-term follow-up.”
• Avelumab, a monoclonal antibody, plus the tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) axitinib has not shown better overall survival rates versus sunitinib in a single trial, although there are signs of better progression-free survival. “Accordingly, avelumab plus axitinib is either not or discreetly recommended as a standard first-line therapy for advanced renal cell carcinoma patients by major clinical guidelines.”
• Pembrolizumab, a monoclonal antibody, plus axitinib has shown better progression-free survival and overall survival than sunitinib in a single trial. “Accordingly, pembrolizumab plus axitinib could be expected to have a powerful impact on favorable long-term cancer control with less frequent occurrence of severe adverse events, considering almost equivalent landmark overall survival to ipilimumab plus nivolumab.”
• Nivolumab plus cabozantinib, a TKI, beat sunitinib in a single trial in terms of progression-free survival and overall survival. “Nivolumab plus cabozantinib could be regarded as an efficacious therapeutic option for untreated advanced renal cell carcinoma patients with manageable safety.”
• Pembrolizumab plus lenvatinib, a TKI, showed better overall survival versus sunitinib in a single trial.

“These findings suggest that pembrolizumab plus lenvatinib could provide marked benefits with regard to cancer control in treatment-naive advanced renal cell carcinoma patients, and that caution should be exercised regarding the safety profile, considering the initial introduction of lenvatinib in the field of urological malignancies,” the authors wrote.

When compared against each other, most of these treatments appear to perform similarly, the authors wrote. With the exception of avelumab plus axitinib, all “showed almost similar advantages for the improvement of overall survival compared with sunitinib, judging from hazard ratios, and all five immuno-oncology drug-based combination therapies, particularly pembrolizumab plus lenvatinib, significantly prolonged progression-free survival, compared with sunitinib.”

No study funding was reported. The authors report various disclosures including relationships to Novartis, Pfizer, Ono, Takeda, MSD, Merck, and Bristol-Myers Squibb.

On June 24, the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, a decision that was issued in 1973. From now on, each state will be able to choose the laws that it wants to put in place regarding abortion. Several states have already decided to ban abortion altogether. As a physician, but also as a woman, I am stunned to see this opposition to a right that, in my opinion, is also a matter of public health.

International data

In Belgium, voluntary termination of pregnancy (VTP) has been allowed since 1990. Except in the case of a serious medical problem, the abortion must take place before the end of the 12th week after conception. So, 14 weeks from the last menstrual period (LMP).

Beyond that time frame, a VTP can be performed only when the continuation of the pregnancy endangers the health of the woman or when it is certain that the unborn child will be affected by a condition of particular gravity and recognized as incurable at the time of diagnosis. This is referred to as termination for medical reasons (TFMR).
 

First observation

The annual number of VTPs did not climb following legalization. For the past 20 years in Belgium, that number has remained stable, hovering around 19,000. Abortion continues to be an action – neither trivialized nor minimized – that is difficult for any woman to take, no matter what her reason.

Second observation

Over 60% of women who had an abortion were using a form of contraception. So, while the burden of contraception still rests almost exclusively on the woman, it cannot be said that those who had a VTP did not use some method of birth control.

Even more important, legal abortions have very few complications, either physical or psychological. Studies show that pregnancy itself carries a higher risk for psychopathological manifestations than a VTP. These VTPs are safe, and women quickly recover from them. The most sensitive time seems to be the period before the abortion, and it’s at this stage that most of the psychological and psychopathological manifestations accumulate. The majority of women facing a VTP experience feelings of relief, and only a minority develop psychological problems, usually when there is already a history of mental disorder. The literature shows that the levels of anxiety and depression decrease in the month following the abortion. Being denied a VTP, on the other hand, significantly increases the woman’s risk of developing a mental disorder.

Should a VTP be denied, a woman, if she determines that she doesn’t have any other choice, may then end up turning to a back-alley abortion. The methods used for this are medieval, dangerous, and may not prove successful – things like using chemicals, piercing the amniotic sac with a needle or sharp object (the famous coat hanger), eating or drinking abortifacient herbs, taking large quantities of medication, punching the stomach, falling down stairs, and engaging in intense physical exercise.

From there, these risky methods inevitably lead to numerous complications: Incomplete abortions, infections, septicemia, breakthrough bleeding, subsequent sterility, laceration of the uterine wall, or death.

Around one-third of women who undergo risky abortions develop complications, while less than half receive care.

The World Health Organization estimates that back-alley abortions represent 49% of abortions worldwide. It puts the number of illegal abortions performed each year at 20 million.

Each year, around 60,000 women worldwide die as a result of an unsafe VTP. That’s one woman every 9 minutes. And odds are that these figures are underestimated.

Making the decision to resort to a VTP is always difficult. Ideally, you should be able to discuss it with your partner, when there is one, and with your close friends and family, to have someone go with you as support, to weigh the pros and cons, and to make a choice in line with your convictions and your conscience. But first and foremost, the law must guarantee the right to be able to ask oneself this question, because guaranteeing this right is also guaranteeing the health and safety of women, and that is why this remains a public health imperative.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com. This article was translated from MediQuality.

On June 24, the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, a decision that was issued in 1973. From now on, each state will be able to choose the laws that it wants to put in place regarding abortion. Several states have already decided to ban abortion altogether. As a physician, but also as a woman, I am stunned to see this opposition to a right that, in my opinion, is also a matter of public health.

International data

In Belgium, voluntary termination of pregnancy (VTP) has been allowed since 1990. Except in the case of a serious medical problem, the abortion must take place before the end of the 12th week after conception. So, 14 weeks from the last menstrual period (LMP).

Beyond that time frame, a VTP can be performed only when the continuation of the pregnancy endangers the health of the woman or when it is certain that the unborn child will be affected by a condition of particular gravity and recognized as incurable at the time of diagnosis. This is referred to as termination for medical reasons (TFMR).
 

First observation

The annual number of VTPs did not climb following legalization. For the past 20 years in Belgium, that number has remained stable, hovering around 19,000. Abortion continues to be an action – neither trivialized nor minimized – that is difficult for any woman to take, no matter what her reason.

Second observation

Over 60% of women who had an abortion were using a form of contraception. So, while the burden of contraception still rests almost exclusively on the woman, it cannot be said that those who had a VTP did not use some method of birth control.

Even more important, legal abortions have very few complications, either physical or psychological. Studies show that pregnancy itself carries a higher risk for psychopathological manifestations than a VTP. These VTPs are safe, and women quickly recover from them. The most sensitive time seems to be the period before the abortion, and it’s at this stage that most of the psychological and psychopathological manifestations accumulate. The majority of women facing a VTP experience feelings of relief, and only a minority develop psychological problems, usually when there is already a history of mental disorder. The literature shows that the levels of anxiety and depression decrease in the month following the abortion. Being denied a VTP, on the other hand, significantly increases the woman’s risk of developing a mental disorder.

Should a VTP be denied, a woman, if she determines that she doesn’t have any other choice, may then end up turning to a back-alley abortion. The methods used for this are medieval, dangerous, and may not prove successful – things like using chemicals, piercing the amniotic sac with a needle or sharp object (the famous coat hanger), eating or drinking abortifacient herbs, taking large quantities of medication, punching the stomach, falling down stairs, and engaging in intense physical exercise.

From there, these risky methods inevitably lead to numerous complications: Incomplete abortions, infections, septicemia, breakthrough bleeding, subsequent sterility, laceration of the uterine wall, or death.

Around one-third of women who undergo risky abortions develop complications, while less than half receive care.

The World Health Organization estimates that back-alley abortions represent 49% of abortions worldwide. It puts the number of illegal abortions performed each year at 20 million.

Each year, around 60,000 women worldwide die as a result of an unsafe VTP. That’s one woman every 9 minutes. And odds are that these figures are underestimated.

Making the decision to resort to a VTP is always difficult. Ideally, you should be able to discuss it with your partner, when there is one, and with your close friends and family, to have someone go with you as support, to weigh the pros and cons, and to make a choice in line with your convictions and your conscience. But first and foremost, the law must guarantee the right to be able to ask oneself this question, because guaranteeing this right is also guaranteeing the health and safety of women, and that is why this remains a public health imperative.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com. This article was translated from MediQuality.

On June 24, the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, a decision that was issued in 1973. From now on, each state will be able to choose the laws that it wants to put in place regarding abortion. Several states have already decided to ban abortion altogether. As a physician, but also as a woman, I am stunned to see this opposition to a right that, in my opinion, is also a matter of public health.

International data

In Belgium, voluntary termination of pregnancy (VTP) has been allowed since 1990. Except in the case of a serious medical problem, the abortion must take place before the end of the 12th week after conception. So, 14 weeks from the last menstrual period (LMP).

Beyond that time frame, a VTP can be performed only when the continuation of the pregnancy endangers the health of the woman or when it is certain that the unborn child will be affected by a condition of particular gravity and recognized as incurable at the time of diagnosis. This is referred to as termination for medical reasons (TFMR).
 

First observation

The annual number of VTPs did not climb following legalization. For the past 20 years in Belgium, that number has remained stable, hovering around 19,000. Abortion continues to be an action – neither trivialized nor minimized – that is difficult for any woman to take, no matter what her reason.

Second observation

Over 60% of women who had an abortion were using a form of contraception. So, while the burden of contraception still rests almost exclusively on the woman, it cannot be said that those who had a VTP did not use some method of birth control.

Even more important, legal abortions have very few complications, either physical or psychological. Studies show that pregnancy itself carries a higher risk for psychopathological manifestations than a VTP. These VTPs are safe, and women quickly recover from them. The most sensitive time seems to be the period before the abortion, and it’s at this stage that most of the psychological and psychopathological manifestations accumulate. The majority of women facing a VTP experience feelings of relief, and only a minority develop psychological problems, usually when there is already a history of mental disorder. The literature shows that the levels of anxiety and depression decrease in the month following the abortion. Being denied a VTP, on the other hand, significantly increases the woman’s risk of developing a mental disorder.

Should a VTP be denied, a woman, if she determines that she doesn’t have any other choice, may then end up turning to a back-alley abortion. The methods used for this are medieval, dangerous, and may not prove successful – things like using chemicals, piercing the amniotic sac with a needle or sharp object (the famous coat hanger), eating or drinking abortifacient herbs, taking large quantities of medication, punching the stomach, falling down stairs, and engaging in intense physical exercise.

From there, these risky methods inevitably lead to numerous complications: Incomplete abortions, infections, septicemia, breakthrough bleeding, subsequent sterility, laceration of the uterine wall, or death.

Around one-third of women who undergo risky abortions develop complications, while less than half receive care.

The World Health Organization estimates that back-alley abortions represent 49% of abortions worldwide. It puts the number of illegal abortions performed each year at 20 million.

Each year, around 60,000 women worldwide die as a result of an unsafe VTP. That’s one woman every 9 minutes. And odds are that these figures are underestimated.

Making the decision to resort to a VTP is always difficult. Ideally, you should be able to discuss it with your partner, when there is one, and with your close friends and family, to have someone go with you as support, to weigh the pros and cons, and to make a choice in line with your convictions and your conscience. But first and foremost, the law must guarantee the right to be able to ask oneself this question, because guaranteeing this right is also guaranteeing the health and safety of women, and that is why this remains a public health imperative.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com. This article was translated from MediQuality.