Infectious Diseases

The Diagnosis: Kaposi Sarcoma 

On initial presentation, the differential diagnosis included secondary syphilis, Kaposi sarcoma (KS), lichen planus pigmentosus, sarcoidosis, and psoriasis. A laboratory workup was ordered, which included complete blood cell count, comprehensive metabolic panel, antinuclear antibodies, anti-Ro/Sjögren syndrome antigen A and anti-La/Sjögren syndrome antigen B autoantibodies, angiotensin-converting enzyme, rapid plasma reagin, and human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) antibodies. A 4-mm punch biopsy of the rash also was performed from the right upper back. Histology revealed a vascular proliferation that was diffusely positive for human herpesvirus 8 (HHV-8)(Figure 1). The patient was informed of the diagnosis, at which time he revealed he had a history of homosexual relationships, with his last sexual contact being more than 1 year prior to presentation. The laboratory workup confirmed a diagnosis of HIV, and the remainder of the tests were unremarkable. 

He was referred to our university's HIV clinic where he was started on highly active antiretroviral therapy (HAART). His facial swelling worsened, leading to hospital admission. Computed tomography (CT) of the chest, abdomen, and pelvis showed diffuse lymphadenopathy and lung nodules concerning for visceral involvement of KS. Hematology and oncology was consulted for further evaluation, and he was treated with 6 cycles of doxorubicin 20 mg/m², which led to resolution of the lung nodules on CT and improvement of the rash burden. He was then started on alitretinoin gel 0.1% twice daily, which led to continued slow improvement (Figure 2). 

Kaposi sarcoma is a vascular neoplasm that occurs from infection with HHV-8. It typically presents as painless, reddish to violaceous macules or patches involving the skin and mucosa that often progress to plaques or nodules with possible visceral involvement. Kaposi sarcoma is classified into 4 subtypes based on epidemiology and clinical presentation: classic, endemic, iatrogenic, and AIDS associated.^1,2  

Classic KS primarily affects elderly males of Mediterranean or Eastern European descent, with a mean age of 64.¹ years and a male to female ratio of 3 to 1. It has an indolent course and a strong predilection for the skin of the lower extremities. The endemic form occurs mainly in Africa and has a more aggressive course, especially the lymphadenopathic type that affects children younger than 10 years.³ Iatrogenic KS develops in immunosuppressed patients, such as transplant recipients, and may regress if the immunosuppressive agent is stopped.¹ Kaposi sarcoma is an AIDS-defining illness and is the most common malignancy in AIDS patients. It is strongly associated with a low CD4 count, which accounts for the notable decline in its incidence after the widespread introduction of HAART.¹ Among HIV patients, KS has the highest incidence in men who have sex with men. This population has a higher seroprevalence of HHV-8, which suggests possible sexual transmission of HHV-8. AIDS-associated KS most commonly involves the lower extremities, face, and oral mucosa. It may have visceral involvement, particularly of the gastrointestinal and respiratory systems, which carries a poor prognosis.^4,5 

Approximately 40% of patients presenting with KS have gastrointestinal tract involvement.⁶ Of these patients, up to 80% are asymptomatic, with diagnosis usually being made on endoscopy.⁷ In contrast, pulmonary KS is less common and typically is symptomatic. It can involve the lung parenchyma, airways, or pleura and is diagnosed by chest radiography or CT scans. Glucocorticoid therapy is a known trigger for pulmonary KS exacerbation.⁸  

All 4 subtypes share the same histopathologic findings consisting of spindled endothelial cell proliferation, inflammation, and angiogenesis. Immunohistochemistry reveals tumor cells that are CD34 and CD31 positive but are factor VIII negative. Staining for HHV-8 antigen is used to confirm the diagnosis. The inflammatory infiltrate predominantly is lymphocytic with scattered plasma cells.⁹  

The laboratory results and histopathologic findings clearly indicated a diagnosis of KS in our patient. Other entities in the clinical differential would have shown notably different histopathologic findings and laboratory results. Lichen planus pigmentosus displays a lichenoid infiltrate and pigment dropout on histology. Histologic findings of psoriasis include psoriasiform acanthosis, dilated vessels in the dermal papillae, thinning of suprapapillary plates, and neutrophilic microabscesses. Sarcoidosis would demonstrate naked granulomas on histopathology. Syphilis displays variable but often psoriasiform or lichenoid findings on histology, and a positive rapid plasma reagin also would be noted.  

First-line treatment of AIDS-related KS is HAART. For patients with severe and rapidly progressive KS or with visceral involvement, cytotoxic chemotherapy with doxorubicin or taxanes often is required. Additional therapies include radiotherapy, topical alitretinoin, and cryotherapy.^1,10 

The Diagnosis: Kaposi Sarcoma 

On initial presentation, the differential diagnosis included secondary syphilis, Kaposi sarcoma (KS), lichen planus pigmentosus, sarcoidosis, and psoriasis. A laboratory workup was ordered, which included complete blood cell count, comprehensive metabolic panel, antinuclear antibodies, anti-Ro/Sjögren syndrome antigen A and anti-La/Sjögren syndrome antigen B autoantibodies, angiotensin-converting enzyme, rapid plasma reagin, and human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) antibodies. A 4-mm punch biopsy of the rash also was performed from the right upper back. Histology revealed a vascular proliferation that was diffusely positive for human herpesvirus 8 (HHV-8)(Figure 1). The patient was informed of the diagnosis, at which time he revealed he had a history of homosexual relationships, with his last sexual contact being more than 1 year prior to presentation. The laboratory workup confirmed a diagnosis of HIV, and the remainder of the tests were unremarkable. 

He was referred to our university's HIV clinic where he was started on highly active antiretroviral therapy (HAART). His facial swelling worsened, leading to hospital admission. Computed tomography (CT) of the chest, abdomen, and pelvis showed diffuse lymphadenopathy and lung nodules concerning for visceral involvement of KS. Hematology and oncology was consulted for further evaluation, and he was treated with 6 cycles of doxorubicin 20 mg/m², which led to resolution of the lung nodules on CT and improvement of the rash burden. He was then started on alitretinoin gel 0.1% twice daily, which led to continued slow improvement (Figure 2). 

Kaposi sarcoma is a vascular neoplasm that occurs from infection with HHV-8. It typically presents as painless, reddish to violaceous macules or patches involving the skin and mucosa that often progress to plaques or nodules with possible visceral involvement. Kaposi sarcoma is classified into 4 subtypes based on epidemiology and clinical presentation: classic, endemic, iatrogenic, and AIDS associated.^1,2  

Classic KS primarily affects elderly males of Mediterranean or Eastern European descent, with a mean age of 64.¹ years and a male to female ratio of 3 to 1. It has an indolent course and a strong predilection for the skin of the lower extremities. The endemic form occurs mainly in Africa and has a more aggressive course, especially the lymphadenopathic type that affects children younger than 10 years.³ Iatrogenic KS develops in immunosuppressed patients, such as transplant recipients, and may regress if the immunosuppressive agent is stopped.¹ Kaposi sarcoma is an AIDS-defining illness and is the most common malignancy in AIDS patients. It is strongly associated with a low CD4 count, which accounts for the notable decline in its incidence after the widespread introduction of HAART.¹ Among HIV patients, KS has the highest incidence in men who have sex with men. This population has a higher seroprevalence of HHV-8, which suggests possible sexual transmission of HHV-8. AIDS-associated KS most commonly involves the lower extremities, face, and oral mucosa. It may have visceral involvement, particularly of the gastrointestinal and respiratory systems, which carries a poor prognosis.^4,5 

Approximately 40% of patients presenting with KS have gastrointestinal tract involvement.⁶ Of these patients, up to 80% are asymptomatic, with diagnosis usually being made on endoscopy.⁷ In contrast, pulmonary KS is less common and typically is symptomatic. It can involve the lung parenchyma, airways, or pleura and is diagnosed by chest radiography or CT scans. Glucocorticoid therapy is a known trigger for pulmonary KS exacerbation.⁸  

All 4 subtypes share the same histopathologic findings consisting of spindled endothelial cell proliferation, inflammation, and angiogenesis. Immunohistochemistry reveals tumor cells that are CD34 and CD31 positive but are factor VIII negative. Staining for HHV-8 antigen is used to confirm the diagnosis. The inflammatory infiltrate predominantly is lymphocytic with scattered plasma cells.⁹  

The laboratory results and histopathologic findings clearly indicated a diagnosis of KS in our patient. Other entities in the clinical differential would have shown notably different histopathologic findings and laboratory results. Lichen planus pigmentosus displays a lichenoid infiltrate and pigment dropout on histology. Histologic findings of psoriasis include psoriasiform acanthosis, dilated vessels in the dermal papillae, thinning of suprapapillary plates, and neutrophilic microabscesses. Sarcoidosis would demonstrate naked granulomas on histopathology. Syphilis displays variable but often psoriasiform or lichenoid findings on histology, and a positive rapid plasma reagin also would be noted.  

First-line treatment of AIDS-related KS is HAART. For patients with severe and rapidly progressive KS or with visceral involvement, cytotoxic chemotherapy with doxorubicin or taxanes often is required. Additional therapies include radiotherapy, topical alitretinoin, and cryotherapy.^1,10 

The Diagnosis: Kaposi Sarcoma 

On initial presentation, the differential diagnosis included secondary syphilis, Kaposi sarcoma (KS), lichen planus pigmentosus, sarcoidosis, and psoriasis. A laboratory workup was ordered, which included complete blood cell count, comprehensive metabolic panel, antinuclear antibodies, anti-Ro/Sjögren syndrome antigen A and anti-La/Sjögren syndrome antigen B autoantibodies, angiotensin-converting enzyme, rapid plasma reagin, and human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) antibodies. A 4-mm punch biopsy of the rash also was performed from the right upper back. Histology revealed a vascular proliferation that was diffusely positive for human herpesvirus 8 (HHV-8)(Figure 1). The patient was informed of the diagnosis, at which time he revealed he had a history of homosexual relationships, with his last sexual contact being more than 1 year prior to presentation. The laboratory workup confirmed a diagnosis of HIV, and the remainder of the tests were unremarkable. 

He was referred to our university's HIV clinic where he was started on highly active antiretroviral therapy (HAART). His facial swelling worsened, leading to hospital admission. Computed tomography (CT) of the chest, abdomen, and pelvis showed diffuse lymphadenopathy and lung nodules concerning for visceral involvement of KS. Hematology and oncology was consulted for further evaluation, and he was treated with 6 cycles of doxorubicin 20 mg/m², which led to resolution of the lung nodules on CT and improvement of the rash burden. He was then started on alitretinoin gel 0.1% twice daily, which led to continued slow improvement (Figure 2). 

Kaposi sarcoma is a vascular neoplasm that occurs from infection with HHV-8. It typically presents as painless, reddish to violaceous macules or patches involving the skin and mucosa that often progress to plaques or nodules with possible visceral involvement. Kaposi sarcoma is classified into 4 subtypes based on epidemiology and clinical presentation: classic, endemic, iatrogenic, and AIDS associated.^1,2  

Classic KS primarily affects elderly males of Mediterranean or Eastern European descent, with a mean age of 64.¹ years and a male to female ratio of 3 to 1. It has an indolent course and a strong predilection for the skin of the lower extremities. The endemic form occurs mainly in Africa and has a more aggressive course, especially the lymphadenopathic type that affects children younger than 10 years.³ Iatrogenic KS develops in immunosuppressed patients, such as transplant recipients, and may regress if the immunosuppressive agent is stopped.¹ Kaposi sarcoma is an AIDS-defining illness and is the most common malignancy in AIDS patients. It is strongly associated with a low CD4 count, which accounts for the notable decline in its incidence after the widespread introduction of HAART.¹ Among HIV patients, KS has the highest incidence in men who have sex with men. This population has a higher seroprevalence of HHV-8, which suggests possible sexual transmission of HHV-8. AIDS-associated KS most commonly involves the lower extremities, face, and oral mucosa. It may have visceral involvement, particularly of the gastrointestinal and respiratory systems, which carries a poor prognosis.^4,5 

Approximately 40% of patients presenting with KS have gastrointestinal tract involvement.⁶ Of these patients, up to 80% are asymptomatic, with diagnosis usually being made on endoscopy.⁷ In contrast, pulmonary KS is less common and typically is symptomatic. It can involve the lung parenchyma, airways, or pleura and is diagnosed by chest radiography or CT scans. Glucocorticoid therapy is a known trigger for pulmonary KS exacerbation.⁸  

All 4 subtypes share the same histopathologic findings consisting of spindled endothelial cell proliferation, inflammation, and angiogenesis. Immunohistochemistry reveals tumor cells that are CD34 and CD31 positive but are factor VIII negative. Staining for HHV-8 antigen is used to confirm the diagnosis. The inflammatory infiltrate predominantly is lymphocytic with scattered plasma cells.⁹  

The laboratory results and histopathologic findings clearly indicated a diagnosis of KS in our patient. Other entities in the clinical differential would have shown notably different histopathologic findings and laboratory results. Lichen planus pigmentosus displays a lichenoid infiltrate and pigment dropout on histology. Histologic findings of psoriasis include psoriasiform acanthosis, dilated vessels in the dermal papillae, thinning of suprapapillary plates, and neutrophilic microabscesses. Sarcoidosis would demonstrate naked granulomas on histopathology. Syphilis displays variable but often psoriasiform or lichenoid findings on histology, and a positive rapid plasma reagin also would be noted.  

First-line treatment of AIDS-related KS is HAART. For patients with severe and rapidly progressive KS or with visceral involvement, cytotoxic chemotherapy with doxorubicin or taxanes often is required. Additional therapies include radiotherapy, topical alitretinoin, and cryotherapy.^1,10 

As hospitals across the country develop their plans to vaccinate their health care employees against COVID-19, a key question has come to the fore: What if an employee – whether nurse, physician, or other health care worker – refuses to receive the vaccine? Can hospitals require their employees to be vaccinated against COVID-19? And what consequences could an employee face for refusing the vaccine?

My answer needs to be based, in part, on the law related to previous vaccines – influenza, for example – because at the time of this writing (early December 2020), no vaccine for COVID-19 has been approved, although approval of at least one vaccine is expected within a week. So there have been no offers of vaccine and refusals yet, nor are there any cases to date involving an employee who refused a COVID-19 vaccine. As of December 2020, there are no state or federal laws that either require an employee to be vaccinated against COVID-19 or that protect an employee who refuses vaccination against COVID-19. It will take a while after the vaccine is approved and distributed before refusals, reactions, policies, cases, and laws begin to emerge.

If we look at the law related to health care workers refusing to be vaccinated against the closest relative to COVID-19 – influenza – then the answer would be yes, employers can require employees to be vaccinated.

An employer can fire an employee who refuses influenza vaccination. If an employee who refused and was fired sues the employer for wrongful termination, the employee has more or less chance of success depending on the reason for refusal. Some courts and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission have held that a refusal on religious grounds is protected by the U.S. Constitution, as in this recent case. The Constitution protects freedom to practice one’s religion. Specific religions may have a range of tenets that support refusal to be vaccinated.

A refusal on medical grounds has been successful if the medical grounds fall under the protections of the Americans with Disabilities Act but may fail when the medical grounds for the claim are not covered by the ADA.

Refusal for secular, nonmedical reasons, such as a health care worker’s policy of treating their body as their temple, has not gone over well with employers or courts. However, in at least one case, a nurse who refused vaccination on secular, nonmedical grounds won her case against her employer, on appeal. The appeals court found that the hospital violated her First Amendment rights.

Employees who refuse vaccination for religious or medical reasons still will need to take measures to protect patients and other employees from infection. An employer such as a hospital can, rather than fire the employee, offer the employee an accommodation, such as requiring that the employee wear a mask or quarantine. There are no cases that have upheld an employee’s right to refuse to wear a mask or quarantine.

The situation with the COVID-19 vaccine is different from the situation surrounding influenza vaccines. There are plenty of data on effectiveness and side effects of influenza vaccines, but there is very little evidence of short- or long-term effects of the COVID-19 vaccines currently being tested and/or considered for approval. One could argue that the process of vaccine development is the same for all virus vaccines. However, public confidence in the vaccine vetting process is not what it once was. It has been widely publicized that the COVID-19 vaccine trials have been rushed. As of December 2020, only 60% of the general population say they would take the vaccine, although researchers say confidence is increasing.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has designated health care workers as first in line to get the vaccine, but some health care workers may not want to be the first to try it. A CDC survey found that 63% of health care workers polled in recent months said they would get a COVID-19 vaccine.

Unions have entered the conversation. A coalition of unions that represent health care workers said, “we need a transparent, evidence-based federal vaccine strategy based on principles of equity, safety, and priority, as well as robust efforts to address a high degree of skepticism about safety of an authorized vaccine.” The organization declined to promote a vaccine until more is known.

As of publication date, the EEOC guidance for employers responding to COVID-19 does not address vaccines.

The CDC’s Interim Guidance for Businesses and Employers Responding to Coronavirus Disease 2019, May 2020, updated Dec. 4, 2020, does not address vaccines. The CDC’s page on COVID-19 vaccination for health care workers does not address a health care worker’s refusal. The site does assure health care workers that the vaccine development process is sound: “The current vaccine safety system is strong and robust, with the capacity to effectively monitor COVID-19 vaccine safety. Existing data systems have validated analytic methods that can rapidly detect statistical signals for possible vaccine safety problems. These systems are being scaled up to fully meet the needs of the nation. Additional systems and data sources are also being developed to further enhance safety monitoring capabilities. CDC is committed to ensuring that COVID-19 vaccines are safe.”

In the coming months, government officials and vaccine manufacturers will be working to reassure the public of the safety of the vaccine and the rigor of the vaccine development process. In November 2020, National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases Director Anthony Fauci, MD, told Kaiser Health News: “The company looks at the data. I look at the data. Then the company puts the data to the FDA. The FDA will make the decision to do an emergency-use authorization or a license application approval. And they have career scientists who are really independent. They’re not beholden to anybody. Then there’s another independent group, the Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee. The FDA commissioner has vowed publicly that he will go according to the opinion of the career scientists and the advisory board.” President-elect Joe Biden said he would get a vaccine when Dr. Fauci thinks it is safe.

An employee who, after researching the vaccine and the process, still wants to refuse when offered the vaccine is not likely to be fired for that reason right away, as long as the employee takes other precautions, such as wearing a mask. If the employer does fire the employee and the employee sues the employer, it is impossible to predict how a court would decide the case.

Related legal questions may arise in the coming months. For example:

• Is an employer exempt from paying workers’ compensation to an employee who refuses to be vaccinated and then contracts the virus while on the job?
• Can a prospective employer require COVID-19 vaccination as a precondition of employment?
• Is it within a patient’s rights to receive an answer to the question: Has my health care worker been vaccinated against COVID-19?
• If a hospital allows employees to refuse vaccination and keep working, and an outbreak occurs, and it is suggested through contact tracing that unvaccinated workers infected patients, will a court hold the hospital liable for patients’ damages?

Answers to these questions are yet to be determined.

Carolyn Buppert (www.buppert.com) is an attorney and former nurse practitioner who focuses on the legal issues affecting nurse practitioners.

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

As hospitals across the country develop their plans to vaccinate their health care employees against COVID-19, a key question has come to the fore: What if an employee – whether nurse, physician, or other health care worker – refuses to receive the vaccine? Can hospitals require their employees to be vaccinated against COVID-19? And what consequences could an employee face for refusing the vaccine?

My answer needs to be based, in part, on the law related to previous vaccines – influenza, for example – because at the time of this writing (early December 2020), no vaccine for COVID-19 has been approved, although approval of at least one vaccine is expected within a week. So there have been no offers of vaccine and refusals yet, nor are there any cases to date involving an employee who refused a COVID-19 vaccine. As of December 2020, there are no state or federal laws that either require an employee to be vaccinated against COVID-19 or that protect an employee who refuses vaccination against COVID-19. It will take a while after the vaccine is approved and distributed before refusals, reactions, policies, cases, and laws begin to emerge.

If we look at the law related to health care workers refusing to be vaccinated against the closest relative to COVID-19 – influenza – then the answer would be yes, employers can require employees to be vaccinated.

An employer can fire an employee who refuses influenza vaccination. If an employee who refused and was fired sues the employer for wrongful termination, the employee has more or less chance of success depending on the reason for refusal. Some courts and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission have held that a refusal on religious grounds is protected by the U.S. Constitution, as in this recent case. The Constitution protects freedom to practice one’s religion. Specific religions may have a range of tenets that support refusal to be vaccinated.

A refusal on medical grounds has been successful if the medical grounds fall under the protections of the Americans with Disabilities Act but may fail when the medical grounds for the claim are not covered by the ADA.

Refusal for secular, nonmedical reasons, such as a health care worker’s policy of treating their body as their temple, has not gone over well with employers or courts. However, in at least one case, a nurse who refused vaccination on secular, nonmedical grounds won her case against her employer, on appeal. The appeals court found that the hospital violated her First Amendment rights.

Employees who refuse vaccination for religious or medical reasons still will need to take measures to protect patients and other employees from infection. An employer such as a hospital can, rather than fire the employee, offer the employee an accommodation, such as requiring that the employee wear a mask or quarantine. There are no cases that have upheld an employee’s right to refuse to wear a mask or quarantine.

The situation with the COVID-19 vaccine is different from the situation surrounding influenza vaccines. There are plenty of data on effectiveness and side effects of influenza vaccines, but there is very little evidence of short- or long-term effects of the COVID-19 vaccines currently being tested and/or considered for approval. One could argue that the process of vaccine development is the same for all virus vaccines. However, public confidence in the vaccine vetting process is not what it once was. It has been widely publicized that the COVID-19 vaccine trials have been rushed. As of December 2020, only 60% of the general population say they would take the vaccine, although researchers say confidence is increasing.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has designated health care workers as first in line to get the vaccine, but some health care workers may not want to be the first to try it. A CDC survey found that 63% of health care workers polled in recent months said they would get a COVID-19 vaccine.

Unions have entered the conversation. A coalition of unions that represent health care workers said, “we need a transparent, evidence-based federal vaccine strategy based on principles of equity, safety, and priority, as well as robust efforts to address a high degree of skepticism about safety of an authorized vaccine.” The organization declined to promote a vaccine until more is known.

As of publication date, the EEOC guidance for employers responding to COVID-19 does not address vaccines.

The CDC’s Interim Guidance for Businesses and Employers Responding to Coronavirus Disease 2019, May 2020, updated Dec. 4, 2020, does not address vaccines. The CDC’s page on COVID-19 vaccination for health care workers does not address a health care worker’s refusal. The site does assure health care workers that the vaccine development process is sound: “The current vaccine safety system is strong and robust, with the capacity to effectively monitor COVID-19 vaccine safety. Existing data systems have validated analytic methods that can rapidly detect statistical signals for possible vaccine safety problems. These systems are being scaled up to fully meet the needs of the nation. Additional systems and data sources are also being developed to further enhance safety monitoring capabilities. CDC is committed to ensuring that COVID-19 vaccines are safe.”

In the coming months, government officials and vaccine manufacturers will be working to reassure the public of the safety of the vaccine and the rigor of the vaccine development process. In November 2020, National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases Director Anthony Fauci, MD, told Kaiser Health News: “The company looks at the data. I look at the data. Then the company puts the data to the FDA. The FDA will make the decision to do an emergency-use authorization or a license application approval. And they have career scientists who are really independent. They’re not beholden to anybody. Then there’s another independent group, the Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee. The FDA commissioner has vowed publicly that he will go according to the opinion of the career scientists and the advisory board.” President-elect Joe Biden said he would get a vaccine when Dr. Fauci thinks it is safe.

An employee who, after researching the vaccine and the process, still wants to refuse when offered the vaccine is not likely to be fired for that reason right away, as long as the employee takes other precautions, such as wearing a mask. If the employer does fire the employee and the employee sues the employer, it is impossible to predict how a court would decide the case.

Related legal questions may arise in the coming months. For example:

• Is an employer exempt from paying workers’ compensation to an employee who refuses to be vaccinated and then contracts the virus while on the job?
• Can a prospective employer require COVID-19 vaccination as a precondition of employment?
• Is it within a patient’s rights to receive an answer to the question: Has my health care worker been vaccinated against COVID-19?
• If a hospital allows employees to refuse vaccination and keep working, and an outbreak occurs, and it is suggested through contact tracing that unvaccinated workers infected patients, will a court hold the hospital liable for patients’ damages?

Answers to these questions are yet to be determined.

Carolyn Buppert (www.buppert.com) is an attorney and former nurse practitioner who focuses on the legal issues affecting nurse practitioners.

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

As hospitals across the country develop their plans to vaccinate their health care employees against COVID-19, a key question has come to the fore: What if an employee – whether nurse, physician, or other health care worker – refuses to receive the vaccine? Can hospitals require their employees to be vaccinated against COVID-19? And what consequences could an employee face for refusing the vaccine?

My answer needs to be based, in part, on the law related to previous vaccines – influenza, for example – because at the time of this writing (early December 2020), no vaccine for COVID-19 has been approved, although approval of at least one vaccine is expected within a week. So there have been no offers of vaccine and refusals yet, nor are there any cases to date involving an employee who refused a COVID-19 vaccine. As of December 2020, there are no state or federal laws that either require an employee to be vaccinated against COVID-19 or that protect an employee who refuses vaccination against COVID-19. It will take a while after the vaccine is approved and distributed before refusals, reactions, policies, cases, and laws begin to emerge.

If we look at the law related to health care workers refusing to be vaccinated against the closest relative to COVID-19 – influenza – then the answer would be yes, employers can require employees to be vaccinated.

An employer can fire an employee who refuses influenza vaccination. If an employee who refused and was fired sues the employer for wrongful termination, the employee has more or less chance of success depending on the reason for refusal. Some courts and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission have held that a refusal on religious grounds is protected by the U.S. Constitution, as in this recent case. The Constitution protects freedom to practice one’s religion. Specific religions may have a range of tenets that support refusal to be vaccinated.

A refusal on medical grounds has been successful if the medical grounds fall under the protections of the Americans with Disabilities Act but may fail when the medical grounds for the claim are not covered by the ADA.

Refusal for secular, nonmedical reasons, such as a health care worker’s policy of treating their body as their temple, has not gone over well with employers or courts. However, in at least one case, a nurse who refused vaccination on secular, nonmedical grounds won her case against her employer, on appeal. The appeals court found that the hospital violated her First Amendment rights.

Employees who refuse vaccination for religious or medical reasons still will need to take measures to protect patients and other employees from infection. An employer such as a hospital can, rather than fire the employee, offer the employee an accommodation, such as requiring that the employee wear a mask or quarantine. There are no cases that have upheld an employee’s right to refuse to wear a mask or quarantine.

The situation with the COVID-19 vaccine is different from the situation surrounding influenza vaccines. There are plenty of data on effectiveness and side effects of influenza vaccines, but there is very little evidence of short- or long-term effects of the COVID-19 vaccines currently being tested and/or considered for approval. One could argue that the process of vaccine development is the same for all virus vaccines. However, public confidence in the vaccine vetting process is not what it once was. It has been widely publicized that the COVID-19 vaccine trials have been rushed. As of December 2020, only 60% of the general population say they would take the vaccine, although researchers say confidence is increasing.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has designated health care workers as first in line to get the vaccine, but some health care workers may not want to be the first to try it. A CDC survey found that 63% of health care workers polled in recent months said they would get a COVID-19 vaccine.

Unions have entered the conversation. A coalition of unions that represent health care workers said, “we need a transparent, evidence-based federal vaccine strategy based on principles of equity, safety, and priority, as well as robust efforts to address a high degree of skepticism about safety of an authorized vaccine.” The organization declined to promote a vaccine until more is known.

As of publication date, the EEOC guidance for employers responding to COVID-19 does not address vaccines.

The CDC’s Interim Guidance for Businesses and Employers Responding to Coronavirus Disease 2019, May 2020, updated Dec. 4, 2020, does not address vaccines. The CDC’s page on COVID-19 vaccination for health care workers does not address a health care worker’s refusal. The site does assure health care workers that the vaccine development process is sound: “The current vaccine safety system is strong and robust, with the capacity to effectively monitor COVID-19 vaccine safety. Existing data systems have validated analytic methods that can rapidly detect statistical signals for possible vaccine safety problems. These systems are being scaled up to fully meet the needs of the nation. Additional systems and data sources are also being developed to further enhance safety monitoring capabilities. CDC is committed to ensuring that COVID-19 vaccines are safe.”

In the coming months, government officials and vaccine manufacturers will be working to reassure the public of the safety of the vaccine and the rigor of the vaccine development process. In November 2020, National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases Director Anthony Fauci, MD, told Kaiser Health News: “The company looks at the data. I look at the data. Then the company puts the data to the FDA. The FDA will make the decision to do an emergency-use authorization or a license application approval. And they have career scientists who are really independent. They’re not beholden to anybody. Then there’s another independent group, the Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee. The FDA commissioner has vowed publicly that he will go according to the opinion of the career scientists and the advisory board.” President-elect Joe Biden said he would get a vaccine when Dr. Fauci thinks it is safe.

An employee who, after researching the vaccine and the process, still wants to refuse when offered the vaccine is not likely to be fired for that reason right away, as long as the employee takes other precautions, such as wearing a mask. If the employer does fire the employee and the employee sues the employer, it is impossible to predict how a court would decide the case.

Related legal questions may arise in the coming months. For example:

• Is an employer exempt from paying workers’ compensation to an employee who refuses to be vaccinated and then contracts the virus while on the job?
• Can a prospective employer require COVID-19 vaccination as a precondition of employment?
• Is it within a patient’s rights to receive an answer to the question: Has my health care worker been vaccinated against COVID-19?
• If a hospital allows employees to refuse vaccination and keep working, and an outbreak occurs, and it is suggested through contact tracing that unvaccinated workers infected patients, will a court hold the hospital liable for patients’ damages?

Answers to these questions are yet to be determined.

Carolyn Buppert (www.buppert.com) is an attorney and former nurse practitioner who focuses on the legal issues affecting nurse practitioners.

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

Kaposi’s sarcoma (KS) was originally described by Moritz Kaposi, MD, in 1872. He noted the lesions affecting elderly men of Ashkenazi Jewish and/or Mediterranean descent and named the condition multiple benign pigmented hemorrhagic sarcoma. The disease emerged again at the onset of the AIDS epidemic among homosexual men. There are five variants: HIV/AIDS–related KS, classic KS, African cutaneous KS, African lymphadenopathic KS, and immunosuppression-associated KS (from immunosuppressive therapy or malignancies such as lymphoma).

Courtesy Dr. Donna Bilu Martin

KS is caused by human herpes virus type 8 (HHV-8). Patients with KS have an increased risk of developing other malignancies such as lymphomas, leukemia, and myeloma. This patient exhibited classic KS.

The various forms of KS may appear different clinically. The lesions may appear as erythematous macules, small violaceous papules, large plaques, or ulcerated nodules. In classic KS, violaceous to bluish-black macules evolve to papules or plaques. Lesions are generally asymptomatic. The most common locations are the toes and soles, although other areas may be affected. Any mucocutaneous surface can be involved. The most common areas of internal involvement are the gastrointestinal system and lymphatics.

Histology reveals angular vessels lined by atypical cells. An associated inflammatory infiltrate containing plasma cells may be present in the upper dermis and perivascular areas. Nodules and plaques reveal a spindle cell neoplasm pattern. Lesions will stain positive for HHV-8.

In patients with HIV/AIDS–related KS, highly active antiretroviral therapy is the most important and beneficial treatment. Since the introduction of HAART, the incidence of KS has greatly decreased. However, there are a proportion of HIV/AIDS–associated Kaposi’s sarcoma patients with well-controlled HIV and undetectable viral loads who require further treatment.

Lesions may spontaneously resolve on their own. Other treatment methods include: cryotherapy, topical alitretinoin (9-cis-retinoic acid), intralesional interferon-alpha or vinblastine, superficial radiotherapy, liposomal doxorubicin, daunorubicin or paclitaxel. Small lesions that are asymptomatic may be monitored.

This patient had no internal involvement and responded well to cryotherapy.

This case and photo were provided by Dr. Bilu Martin.

Dr. Bilu Martin is a board-certified dermatologist in private practice at Premier Dermatology, MD, in Aventura, Fla. More diagnostic cases are available at mdedge.com/dermatology. To submit a case for possible publication, send an email to dermnews@mdedge.com.

Kaposi’s sarcoma (KS) was originally described by Moritz Kaposi, MD, in 1872. He noted the lesions affecting elderly men of Ashkenazi Jewish and/or Mediterranean descent and named the condition multiple benign pigmented hemorrhagic sarcoma. The disease emerged again at the onset of the AIDS epidemic among homosexual men. There are five variants: HIV/AIDS–related KS, classic KS, African cutaneous KS, African lymphadenopathic KS, and immunosuppression-associated KS (from immunosuppressive therapy or malignancies such as lymphoma).

Courtesy Dr. Donna Bilu Martin

KS is caused by human herpes virus type 8 (HHV-8). Patients with KS have an increased risk of developing other malignancies such as lymphomas, leukemia, and myeloma. This patient exhibited classic KS.

The various forms of KS may appear different clinically. The lesions may appear as erythematous macules, small violaceous papules, large plaques, or ulcerated nodules. In classic KS, violaceous to bluish-black macules evolve to papules or plaques. Lesions are generally asymptomatic. The most common locations are the toes and soles, although other areas may be affected. Any mucocutaneous surface can be involved. The most common areas of internal involvement are the gastrointestinal system and lymphatics.

Histology reveals angular vessels lined by atypical cells. An associated inflammatory infiltrate containing plasma cells may be present in the upper dermis and perivascular areas. Nodules and plaques reveal a spindle cell neoplasm pattern. Lesions will stain positive for HHV-8.

In patients with HIV/AIDS–related KS, highly active antiretroviral therapy is the most important and beneficial treatment. Since the introduction of HAART, the incidence of KS has greatly decreased. However, there are a proportion of HIV/AIDS–associated Kaposi’s sarcoma patients with well-controlled HIV and undetectable viral loads who require further treatment.

Lesions may spontaneously resolve on their own. Other treatment methods include: cryotherapy, topical alitretinoin (9-cis-retinoic acid), intralesional interferon-alpha or vinblastine, superficial radiotherapy, liposomal doxorubicin, daunorubicin or paclitaxel. Small lesions that are asymptomatic may be monitored.

This patient had no internal involvement and responded well to cryotherapy.

This case and photo were provided by Dr. Bilu Martin.

Dr. Bilu Martin is a board-certified dermatologist in private practice at Premier Dermatology, MD, in Aventura, Fla. More diagnostic cases are available at mdedge.com/dermatology. To submit a case for possible publication, send an email to dermnews@mdedge.com.

Kaposi’s sarcoma (KS) was originally described by Moritz Kaposi, MD, in 1872. He noted the lesions affecting elderly men of Ashkenazi Jewish and/or Mediterranean descent and named the condition multiple benign pigmented hemorrhagic sarcoma. The disease emerged again at the onset of the AIDS epidemic among homosexual men. There are five variants: HIV/AIDS–related KS, classic KS, African cutaneous KS, African lymphadenopathic KS, and immunosuppression-associated KS (from immunosuppressive therapy or malignancies such as lymphoma).

Courtesy Dr. Donna Bilu Martin

KS is caused by human herpes virus type 8 (HHV-8). Patients with KS have an increased risk of developing other malignancies such as lymphomas, leukemia, and myeloma. This patient exhibited classic KS.

The various forms of KS may appear different clinically. The lesions may appear as erythematous macules, small violaceous papules, large plaques, or ulcerated nodules. In classic KS, violaceous to bluish-black macules evolve to papules or plaques. Lesions are generally asymptomatic. The most common locations are the toes and soles, although other areas may be affected. Any mucocutaneous surface can be involved. The most common areas of internal involvement are the gastrointestinal system and lymphatics.

Histology reveals angular vessels lined by atypical cells. An associated inflammatory infiltrate containing plasma cells may be present in the upper dermis and perivascular areas. Nodules and plaques reveal a spindle cell neoplasm pattern. Lesions will stain positive for HHV-8.

In patients with HIV/AIDS–related KS, highly active antiretroviral therapy is the most important and beneficial treatment. Since the introduction of HAART, the incidence of KS has greatly decreased. However, there are a proportion of HIV/AIDS–associated Kaposi’s sarcoma patients with well-controlled HIV and undetectable viral loads who require further treatment.

Lesions may spontaneously resolve on their own. Other treatment methods include: cryotherapy, topical alitretinoin (9-cis-retinoic acid), intralesional interferon-alpha or vinblastine, superficial radiotherapy, liposomal doxorubicin, daunorubicin or paclitaxel. Small lesions that are asymptomatic may be monitored.

This patient had no internal involvement and responded well to cryotherapy.

This case and photo were provided by Dr. Bilu Martin.

Dr. Bilu Martin is a board-certified dermatologist in private practice at Premier Dermatology, MD, in Aventura, Fla. More diagnostic cases are available at mdedge.com/dermatology. To submit a case for possible publication, send an email to dermnews@mdedge.com.

The World Health Organization estimates that 14.9 million of 57 million annual deaths worldwide (25%) are related directly to diseases caused by bacterial and/or viral infections.

The first crucial step in order to build a successful surveillance system is to accurately identify and diagnose disease, Ivana Pennisi reminded the audience at the annual meeting of the European Society for Paediatric Infectious Diseases, held virtually this year. A problem, particularly in primary care, is differentiating between patients with bacterial infections who might benefit from antibiotics and those with viral infections where supportive treatment is generally required. One solution might a rapid point-of-care tool.

Ms. Pennisi described early experiences of using microchip technology to detect RNA biomarkers in the blood rather than look for the pathogen itself. Early results suggest high diagnostic accuracy at low cost.

It is known that when a bacteria or virus enters the body, it stimulates the immune system in a unique way leading to the expression of different genes in the host blood. As part of the Personalized Management of Febrile Illnesses study, researchers have demonstrated a number of high correlated transcripts. Of current interest are two genes which are upregulated in childhood febrile illnesses.

Ms. Pennisi, a PhD student working as part of a multidisciplinary at the department of infectious disease and Centre for Bioinspired Technology at Imperial College, London, developed loop-mediated isothermal amplification (LAMP) assays to detect for the first time host RNA signatures on a nucleic acid–based point-of-care handheld system to discriminate bacterial from viral infection. The amplification reaction is then combined with microchip technology in the well of a portable point-of-care device named Lacewing. It translates the nucleic acid amplification signal into a quantitative electrochemical signal without the need for a thermal cycler.

The combination of genomic expertise in the section of paediatrics lead by Michael Levin, PhD, and microchip-based technologies in the department of electrical and electronic engineering under the guidance of Pantelis Georgiou, PhD, enabled the team overcome many clinical challenges.

Ms. Pennisi presented her team’s early experiences with clinical samples from 455 febrile children. First, transcription isothermal amplification techniques were employed to confirm bacterial and viral infections. Results were then validated using standard fluorescent-based quantitative polymerase chain reaction (PCR) instruments. In order to define a decision boundary between bacterial and viral patients, cutoff levels were determined using multivariate logistic regression analysis. Results then were evaluated using microarrays, reverse transcriptase PCR (RT-PCR), and the eLAMP to confirm comparability with preferred techniques.

In conclusion, Ms. Pennisi reported that the two-gene signature combined with the use of eLAMP technology in a point-of-care tool offered the potential of low cost and accurate discrimination between bacterial and viral infection in febrile children. She outlined her vision for the future: “The patient sample and reagent are loaded into a disposable cartridge. This is then placed into a device to monitor in real time the reaction and share all the data via a Bluetooth to a dedicated app on a smart phone. All data and location of the outbreak are then stored in [the] cloud, making it easier for epidemiological studies and tracking of new outbreaks. We hope that by enhancing the capability of our platform, we contribute to better patient care.”

“Distinguishing between bacterial and viral infections remains one of the key questions in the daily pediatric acute care,” commented Lauri Ivaska, MD, from the department of pediatrics and adolescent medicine at Turku (Finland) University Hospital. “One of the most promising laboratory methods to do this is by measuring quantities of two specific host RNA transcripts from a blood sample. It would be of great importance if this could be done reliably by using a fast and cheap method as presented here by Ivana Pennisi.”

Ms. Pennisi had no relevant financial disclosures.

The World Health Organization estimates that 14.9 million of 57 million annual deaths worldwide (25%) are related directly to diseases caused by bacterial and/or viral infections.

The first crucial step in order to build a successful surveillance system is to accurately identify and diagnose disease, Ivana Pennisi reminded the audience at the annual meeting of the European Society for Paediatric Infectious Diseases, held virtually this year. A problem, particularly in primary care, is differentiating between patients with bacterial infections who might benefit from antibiotics and those with viral infections where supportive treatment is generally required. One solution might a rapid point-of-care tool.

Ms. Pennisi described early experiences of using microchip technology to detect RNA biomarkers in the blood rather than look for the pathogen itself. Early results suggest high diagnostic accuracy at low cost.

It is known that when a bacteria or virus enters the body, it stimulates the immune system in a unique way leading to the expression of different genes in the host blood. As part of the Personalized Management of Febrile Illnesses study, researchers have demonstrated a number of high correlated transcripts. Of current interest are two genes which are upregulated in childhood febrile illnesses.

Ms. Pennisi, a PhD student working as part of a multidisciplinary at the department of infectious disease and Centre for Bioinspired Technology at Imperial College, London, developed loop-mediated isothermal amplification (LAMP) assays to detect for the first time host RNA signatures on a nucleic acid–based point-of-care handheld system to discriminate bacterial from viral infection. The amplification reaction is then combined with microchip technology in the well of a portable point-of-care device named Lacewing. It translates the nucleic acid amplification signal into a quantitative electrochemical signal without the need for a thermal cycler.

The combination of genomic expertise in the section of paediatrics lead by Michael Levin, PhD, and microchip-based technologies in the department of electrical and electronic engineering under the guidance of Pantelis Georgiou, PhD, enabled the team overcome many clinical challenges.

Ms. Pennisi presented her team’s early experiences with clinical samples from 455 febrile children. First, transcription isothermal amplification techniques were employed to confirm bacterial and viral infections. Results were then validated using standard fluorescent-based quantitative polymerase chain reaction (PCR) instruments. In order to define a decision boundary between bacterial and viral patients, cutoff levels were determined using multivariate logistic regression analysis. Results then were evaluated using microarrays, reverse transcriptase PCR (RT-PCR), and the eLAMP to confirm comparability with preferred techniques.

In conclusion, Ms. Pennisi reported that the two-gene signature combined with the use of eLAMP technology in a point-of-care tool offered the potential of low cost and accurate discrimination between bacterial and viral infection in febrile children. She outlined her vision for the future: “The patient sample and reagent are loaded into a disposable cartridge. This is then placed into a device to monitor in real time the reaction and share all the data via a Bluetooth to a dedicated app on a smart phone. All data and location of the outbreak are then stored in [the] cloud, making it easier for epidemiological studies and tracking of new outbreaks. We hope that by enhancing the capability of our platform, we contribute to better patient care.”

“Distinguishing between bacterial and viral infections remains one of the key questions in the daily pediatric acute care,” commented Lauri Ivaska, MD, from the department of pediatrics and adolescent medicine at Turku (Finland) University Hospital. “One of the most promising laboratory methods to do this is by measuring quantities of two specific host RNA transcripts from a blood sample. It would be of great importance if this could be done reliably by using a fast and cheap method as presented here by Ivana Pennisi.”

Ms. Pennisi had no relevant financial disclosures.

The World Health Organization estimates that 14.9 million of 57 million annual deaths worldwide (25%) are related directly to diseases caused by bacterial and/or viral infections.

The first crucial step in order to build a successful surveillance system is to accurately identify and diagnose disease, Ivana Pennisi reminded the audience at the annual meeting of the European Society for Paediatric Infectious Diseases, held virtually this year. A problem, particularly in primary care, is differentiating between patients with bacterial infections who might benefit from antibiotics and those with viral infections where supportive treatment is generally required. One solution might a rapid point-of-care tool.

Ms. Pennisi described early experiences of using microchip technology to detect RNA biomarkers in the blood rather than look for the pathogen itself. Early results suggest high diagnostic accuracy at low cost.

It is known that when a bacteria or virus enters the body, it stimulates the immune system in a unique way leading to the expression of different genes in the host blood. As part of the Personalized Management of Febrile Illnesses study, researchers have demonstrated a number of high correlated transcripts. Of current interest are two genes which are upregulated in childhood febrile illnesses.

Ms. Pennisi, a PhD student working as part of a multidisciplinary at the department of infectious disease and Centre for Bioinspired Technology at Imperial College, London, developed loop-mediated isothermal amplification (LAMP) assays to detect for the first time host RNA signatures on a nucleic acid–based point-of-care handheld system to discriminate bacterial from viral infection. The amplification reaction is then combined with microchip technology in the well of a portable point-of-care device named Lacewing. It translates the nucleic acid amplification signal into a quantitative electrochemical signal without the need for a thermal cycler.

The combination of genomic expertise in the section of paediatrics lead by Michael Levin, PhD, and microchip-based technologies in the department of electrical and electronic engineering under the guidance of Pantelis Georgiou, PhD, enabled the team overcome many clinical challenges.

Ms. Pennisi presented her team’s early experiences with clinical samples from 455 febrile children. First, transcription isothermal amplification techniques were employed to confirm bacterial and viral infections. Results were then validated using standard fluorescent-based quantitative polymerase chain reaction (PCR) instruments. In order to define a decision boundary between bacterial and viral patients, cutoff levels were determined using multivariate logistic regression analysis. Results then were evaluated using microarrays, reverse transcriptase PCR (RT-PCR), and the eLAMP to confirm comparability with preferred techniques.

In conclusion, Ms. Pennisi reported that the two-gene signature combined with the use of eLAMP technology in a point-of-care tool offered the potential of low cost and accurate discrimination between bacterial and viral infection in febrile children. She outlined her vision for the future: “The patient sample and reagent are loaded into a disposable cartridge. This is then placed into a device to monitor in real time the reaction and share all the data via a Bluetooth to a dedicated app on a smart phone. All data and location of the outbreak are then stored in [the] cloud, making it easier for epidemiological studies and tracking of new outbreaks. We hope that by enhancing the capability of our platform, we contribute to better patient care.”

“Distinguishing between bacterial and viral infections remains one of the key questions in the daily pediatric acute care,” commented Lauri Ivaska, MD, from the department of pediatrics and adolescent medicine at Turku (Finland) University Hospital. “One of the most promising laboratory methods to do this is by measuring quantities of two specific host RNA transcripts from a blood sample. It would be of great importance if this could be done reliably by using a fast and cheap method as presented here by Ivana Pennisi.”

Ms. Pennisi had no relevant financial disclosures.

Three genes that could predict susceptibility to congenital Zika virus (ZIKV) infection have been identified, Dr. Irene Rivero-Calle, MD, shared at the annual meeting of the European Society for Paediatric Infectious Diseases, held virtually this year.

ZIKV, an emerging flavivirus, is responsible for one the most critical pandemic emergencies of the last decade and has been associated with severe neonatal brain disabilities, declared Dr. Rivero-Calle, of the Hospital Clínico Universitario de Santiago de Compostela in Santiago de Compostela, Spain. “We think that understanding the genomic background could explain some of the most relevant symptoms of congenital Zika syndrome (CZS) and could be essential to better comprehend this disease.”

To achieve this understanding, Dr. Rivero-Calle and her colleagues conducted a study aiming to analyze any genetic factors that could explain the variation in phenotypes in newborns from mothers who had a Zika infection during their pregnancy. Additionally, they strove to “elucidate if the possible genetic association is specific to mothers or their newborns, and to check if this genomic background or any genomic ancestry pattern could be related with the phenotype,” she explained.

In their study, Dr. Rivero-Calle and her team analyzed 80 samples, comprising 40 samples from mothers who had been infected by ZIKV during their pregnancy and 40 from their newborns. Of those descendants, 20 were asymptomatic and 20 were symptomatic (13 had CZS, 3 had microcephaly, 2 had a pathologic MRI, 1 had hearing loss, and 1 was born preterm).

Population stratification, which Dr. Rivero-Calle explained “lets us know if the population is African, European, or Native American looking at the genes,” did not show any relation with the phenotype. We had a mixture of population genomics among all samples.”

Dr. Rivero-Calle and her team then performed three analyses: genotype analysis, an allelic test, and gene analysis. The allelic test and gene-collapsing method highlighted three genes (PANO1, PIDD1, and SLC25A22) as potential determinants of the varying phenotypes in the newborns from ZIKV-infected mothers. Overrepresentation analysis of gene ontology terms shows that PIDD1 and PANO1 are related to apoptosis and cell death, which is closely related to early infantile epilepsy. This could explain the most severe complications of CZS: seizures, brain damage, microcephaly, and detrimental neurodevelopmental growth. Regarding reactome and KEGG analysis, gene PIID1 is related with p53 pathway, which correlates with cell’s death and apoptosis, and with microcephaly, a typical phenotypic feature of CZS.

“So, in conclusion, we found three genes which could predict susceptibility to congenital Zika infection; we saw that the functionality of these genes seems to be deeply related with mechanisms which could explain the different phenotypes; and we saw that these three genes only appear in the children’s cohort, so there is no candidate gene in the mother’s genomic background which can help predict the phenotype of the newborn,” Dr. Rivero-Calle declared. “Finally, there is no ancestry pattern associated with disabilities caused by Zika infection.”

Dr. Rivero-Calle reported that this project (ZikAction) has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation program, under grant agreement 734857.

Three genes that could predict susceptibility to congenital Zika virus (ZIKV) infection have been identified, Dr. Irene Rivero-Calle, MD, shared at the annual meeting of the European Society for Paediatric Infectious Diseases, held virtually this year.

ZIKV, an emerging flavivirus, is responsible for one the most critical pandemic emergencies of the last decade and has been associated with severe neonatal brain disabilities, declared Dr. Rivero-Calle, of the Hospital Clínico Universitario de Santiago de Compostela in Santiago de Compostela, Spain. “We think that understanding the genomic background could explain some of the most relevant symptoms of congenital Zika syndrome (CZS) and could be essential to better comprehend this disease.”

To achieve this understanding, Dr. Rivero-Calle and her colleagues conducted a study aiming to analyze any genetic factors that could explain the variation in phenotypes in newborns from mothers who had a Zika infection during their pregnancy. Additionally, they strove to “elucidate if the possible genetic association is specific to mothers or their newborns, and to check if this genomic background or any genomic ancestry pattern could be related with the phenotype,” she explained.

In their study, Dr. Rivero-Calle and her team analyzed 80 samples, comprising 40 samples from mothers who had been infected by ZIKV during their pregnancy and 40 from their newborns. Of those descendants, 20 were asymptomatic and 20 were symptomatic (13 had CZS, 3 had microcephaly, 2 had a pathologic MRI, 1 had hearing loss, and 1 was born preterm).

Population stratification, which Dr. Rivero-Calle explained “lets us know if the population is African, European, or Native American looking at the genes,” did not show any relation with the phenotype. We had a mixture of population genomics among all samples.”

Dr. Rivero-Calle and her team then performed three analyses: genotype analysis, an allelic test, and gene analysis. The allelic test and gene-collapsing method highlighted three genes (PANO1, PIDD1, and SLC25A22) as potential determinants of the varying phenotypes in the newborns from ZIKV-infected mothers. Overrepresentation analysis of gene ontology terms shows that PIDD1 and PANO1 are related to apoptosis and cell death, which is closely related to early infantile epilepsy. This could explain the most severe complications of CZS: seizures, brain damage, microcephaly, and detrimental neurodevelopmental growth. Regarding reactome and KEGG analysis, gene PIID1 is related with p53 pathway, which correlates with cell’s death and apoptosis, and with microcephaly, a typical phenotypic feature of CZS.

“So, in conclusion, we found three genes which could predict susceptibility to congenital Zika infection; we saw that the functionality of these genes seems to be deeply related with mechanisms which could explain the different phenotypes; and we saw that these three genes only appear in the children’s cohort, so there is no candidate gene in the mother’s genomic background which can help predict the phenotype of the newborn,” Dr. Rivero-Calle declared. “Finally, there is no ancestry pattern associated with disabilities caused by Zika infection.”

Dr. Rivero-Calle reported that this project (ZikAction) has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation program, under grant agreement 734857.

Three genes that could predict susceptibility to congenital Zika virus (ZIKV) infection have been identified, Dr. Irene Rivero-Calle, MD, shared at the annual meeting of the European Society for Paediatric Infectious Diseases, held virtually this year.

ZIKV, an emerging flavivirus, is responsible for one the most critical pandemic emergencies of the last decade and has been associated with severe neonatal brain disabilities, declared Dr. Rivero-Calle, of the Hospital Clínico Universitario de Santiago de Compostela in Santiago de Compostela, Spain. “We think that understanding the genomic background could explain some of the most relevant symptoms of congenital Zika syndrome (CZS) and could be essential to better comprehend this disease.”

To achieve this understanding, Dr. Rivero-Calle and her colleagues conducted a study aiming to analyze any genetic factors that could explain the variation in phenotypes in newborns from mothers who had a Zika infection during their pregnancy. Additionally, they strove to “elucidate if the possible genetic association is specific to mothers or their newborns, and to check if this genomic background or any genomic ancestry pattern could be related with the phenotype,” she explained.

In their study, Dr. Rivero-Calle and her team analyzed 80 samples, comprising 40 samples from mothers who had been infected by ZIKV during their pregnancy and 40 from their newborns. Of those descendants, 20 were asymptomatic and 20 were symptomatic (13 had CZS, 3 had microcephaly, 2 had a pathologic MRI, 1 had hearing loss, and 1 was born preterm).

Population stratification, which Dr. Rivero-Calle explained “lets us know if the population is African, European, or Native American looking at the genes,” did not show any relation with the phenotype. We had a mixture of population genomics among all samples.”

Dr. Rivero-Calle and her team then performed three analyses: genotype analysis, an allelic test, and gene analysis. The allelic test and gene-collapsing method highlighted three genes (PANO1, PIDD1, and SLC25A22) as potential determinants of the varying phenotypes in the newborns from ZIKV-infected mothers. Overrepresentation analysis of gene ontology terms shows that PIDD1 and PANO1 are related to apoptosis and cell death, which is closely related to early infantile epilepsy. This could explain the most severe complications of CZS: seizures, brain damage, microcephaly, and detrimental neurodevelopmental growth. Regarding reactome and KEGG analysis, gene PIID1 is related with p53 pathway, which correlates with cell’s death and apoptosis, and with microcephaly, a typical phenotypic feature of CZS.

“So, in conclusion, we found three genes which could predict susceptibility to congenital Zika infection; we saw that the functionality of these genes seems to be deeply related with mechanisms which could explain the different phenotypes; and we saw that these three genes only appear in the children’s cohort, so there is no candidate gene in the mother’s genomic background which can help predict the phenotype of the newborn,” Dr. Rivero-Calle declared. “Finally, there is no ancestry pattern associated with disabilities caused by Zika infection.”

Dr. Rivero-Calle reported that this project (ZikAction) has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation program, under grant agreement 734857.

Clostridioides difficile (C. diff) infection (CDI) is a pathogen of both humans and animals, and to control it will require an integrated approach that encompasses human health care, veterinary health care, environmental regulation, and public policy. That is the conclusion of a group led by Su-Chen Lim, MD, and Tom Riley, MD, of Edith Cowan University in Australia, who published a review in Clinical Microbiology and Infection.

CDI was generally considered a nuisance infection until the early 21st century, when a hypervirulent fluoroquinolone-resistant strain emerged in North America. The strain is now documented In the United States, Canada, and most countries in Europe.

Another new feature of CDI is increased evidence of community transmission, which was previously rare. This is defined as cases where the patient experienced symptom onset outside the hospital, and had no history of hospitalization in the previous 12 weeks or symptom onset within 48 hours of hospital admission. Community-associated CDI now accounts for 41% of U.S. cases, nearly 30% of Australian cases, and about 14% in Europe, according to recent studies.

Several features of CDI suggest a need for an integrated management plan. The preferred habitat of C. diff is the gastrointestinal track of mammals, and likely colonizes all mammalian neonates. Over time, colonization by other microbes likely crowd it out and prevent overgrowth. But widespread use of antimicrobials in animal production can lead to the creation of an environment resembling that of the neonate, allowing C. diff to expand. That has led to food animals becoming a major C. diff reservoir, and whole-genome studies showed that strains found in humans, food, animals, and the environment are closely related and sometimes genetically indistinguishable, suggesting transmission between humans and animals that may be attributable to contaminated food and environments.

The authors suggest that C. diff infection control should be guided by the One Health initiative, which seeks cooperation between physicians, osteopathic physicians, veterinarians, dentists, nurses, and other scientific and environmental disciplines. The goal is to enhance surveillance and interdisciplinary communication, as well as integrated policies. The authors note that C. diff is often thought of by physicians as primarily a hospital problem, who may be unaware of the increased prevalence of community-acquired disease. It is also a significant problem in agriculture, since as many as 50% of piglets succumb to the disease. Other studies have recently shown that asymptomatic carriers of toxigenic strains are likely to transmit the bacteria to C. diff-negative patients. Asymptomatic carriers cluster with symptomatic patients. In one Cleveland hospital, more than 25% of hospital-associated CDI cases were found to have been colonized prior to admission, suggesting that these were not true hospital-associated cases.

C. diff has been isolated from a wide range of sources, including food animals, meat, seafood, vegetables, household environments, and natural environments like rivers, lakes, and soil. About 20% of calves and 70% of piglets are colonized with C. diff. It has a high prevalence in meat products in the United States, but lower in the Europe, possibly because of different slaughtering practices.

The authors suggest that zoonotic C. diff spread is unlikely to be confined to any geographic region or population, and that widespread C. diff contamination is occurring through food or the environment. This could be occurring because spores can withstand cooking temperatures and disseminate through the air, and even through manure from food animals made into compost or fertilizer.

Veterinary efforts mimicking hospital measures have reduced animal CDI, but there are no rapid diagnostic tests for CDI in animals, making it challenging to control its spread in this context.

The authors call for enhanced antimicrobial stewardship in both human and animal settings, including banning of antimicrobial agents as growth promoters. This has been done in the United States and Europe, but not in Brazil, China, Canada, India, and Australia. They also call for research on inactivation of C. diff spores during waste treatment.

Even better, the authors suggest that vaccines should be developed and employed in both animals and humans. No such vaccine exists in animals, but Pfizer has one for humans in a phase 3 clinical trial, but it does not prevent colonization. Others are in development.

The epidemiology of CDI is an ongoing challenge, with emerging new strains and changing social and environmental conditions. “However, it is with the collaborative efforts of industry partners, policymakers, veterinarians, clinicians, and researchers that CDI needs to be approached, a perfect example of One Health. Opening an interdisciplinary dialogue to address CDI and One Health issues has to be the focus of future studies,” the authors concluded.

SOURCE: SC Lim et al. Clinical Microbiology and Infection. 2020;26:85-863.

Clostridioides difficile (C. diff) infection (CDI) is a pathogen of both humans and animals, and to control it will require an integrated approach that encompasses human health care, veterinary health care, environmental regulation, and public policy. That is the conclusion of a group led by Su-Chen Lim, MD, and Tom Riley, MD, of Edith Cowan University in Australia, who published a review in Clinical Microbiology and Infection.

CDI was generally considered a nuisance infection until the early 21st century, when a hypervirulent fluoroquinolone-resistant strain emerged in North America. The strain is now documented In the United States, Canada, and most countries in Europe.

Another new feature of CDI is increased evidence of community transmission, which was previously rare. This is defined as cases where the patient experienced symptom onset outside the hospital, and had no history of hospitalization in the previous 12 weeks or symptom onset within 48 hours of hospital admission. Community-associated CDI now accounts for 41% of U.S. cases, nearly 30% of Australian cases, and about 14% in Europe, according to recent studies.

Several features of CDI suggest a need for an integrated management plan. The preferred habitat of C. diff is the gastrointestinal track of mammals, and likely colonizes all mammalian neonates. Over time, colonization by other microbes likely crowd it out and prevent overgrowth. But widespread use of antimicrobials in animal production can lead to the creation of an environment resembling that of the neonate, allowing C. diff to expand. That has led to food animals becoming a major C. diff reservoir, and whole-genome studies showed that strains found in humans, food, animals, and the environment are closely related and sometimes genetically indistinguishable, suggesting transmission between humans and animals that may be attributable to contaminated food and environments.

The authors suggest that C. diff infection control should be guided by the One Health initiative, which seeks cooperation between physicians, osteopathic physicians, veterinarians, dentists, nurses, and other scientific and environmental disciplines. The goal is to enhance surveillance and interdisciplinary communication, as well as integrated policies. The authors note that C. diff is often thought of by physicians as primarily a hospital problem, who may be unaware of the increased prevalence of community-acquired disease. It is also a significant problem in agriculture, since as many as 50% of piglets succumb to the disease. Other studies have recently shown that asymptomatic carriers of toxigenic strains are likely to transmit the bacteria to C. diff-negative patients. Asymptomatic carriers cluster with symptomatic patients. In one Cleveland hospital, more than 25% of hospital-associated CDI cases were found to have been colonized prior to admission, suggesting that these were not true hospital-associated cases.

C. diff has been isolated from a wide range of sources, including food animals, meat, seafood, vegetables, household environments, and natural environments like rivers, lakes, and soil. About 20% of calves and 70% of piglets are colonized with C. diff. It has a high prevalence in meat products in the United States, but lower in the Europe, possibly because of different slaughtering practices.

The authors suggest that zoonotic C. diff spread is unlikely to be confined to any geographic region or population, and that widespread C. diff contamination is occurring through food or the environment. This could be occurring because spores can withstand cooking temperatures and disseminate through the air, and even through manure from food animals made into compost or fertilizer.

Veterinary efforts mimicking hospital measures have reduced animal CDI, but there are no rapid diagnostic tests for CDI in animals, making it challenging to control its spread in this context.

The authors call for enhanced antimicrobial stewardship in both human and animal settings, including banning of antimicrobial agents as growth promoters. This has been done in the United States and Europe, but not in Brazil, China, Canada, India, and Australia. They also call for research on inactivation of C. diff spores during waste treatment.

Even better, the authors suggest that vaccines should be developed and employed in both animals and humans. No such vaccine exists in animals, but Pfizer has one for humans in a phase 3 clinical trial, but it does not prevent colonization. Others are in development.

The epidemiology of CDI is an ongoing challenge, with emerging new strains and changing social and environmental conditions. “However, it is with the collaborative efforts of industry partners, policymakers, veterinarians, clinicians, and researchers that CDI needs to be approached, a perfect example of One Health. Opening an interdisciplinary dialogue to address CDI and One Health issues has to be the focus of future studies,” the authors concluded.

SOURCE: SC Lim et al. Clinical Microbiology and Infection. 2020;26:85-863.

Clostridioides difficile (C. diff) infection (CDI) is a pathogen of both humans and animals, and to control it will require an integrated approach that encompasses human health care, veterinary health care, environmental regulation, and public policy. That is the conclusion of a group led by Su-Chen Lim, MD, and Tom Riley, MD, of Edith Cowan University in Australia, who published a review in Clinical Microbiology and Infection.

CDI was generally considered a nuisance infection until the early 21st century, when a hypervirulent fluoroquinolone-resistant strain emerged in North America. The strain is now documented In the United States, Canada, and most countries in Europe.

Another new feature of CDI is increased evidence of community transmission, which was previously rare. This is defined as cases where the patient experienced symptom onset outside the hospital, and had no history of hospitalization in the previous 12 weeks or symptom onset within 48 hours of hospital admission. Community-associated CDI now accounts for 41% of U.S. cases, nearly 30% of Australian cases, and about 14% in Europe, according to recent studies.

Several features of CDI suggest a need for an integrated management plan. The preferred habitat of C. diff is the gastrointestinal track of mammals, and likely colonizes all mammalian neonates. Over time, colonization by other microbes likely crowd it out and prevent overgrowth. But widespread use of antimicrobials in animal production can lead to the creation of an environment resembling that of the neonate, allowing C. diff to expand. That has led to food animals becoming a major C. diff reservoir, and whole-genome studies showed that strains found in humans, food, animals, and the environment are closely related and sometimes genetically indistinguishable, suggesting transmission between humans and animals that may be attributable to contaminated food and environments.

The authors suggest that C. diff infection control should be guided by the One Health initiative, which seeks cooperation between physicians, osteopathic physicians, veterinarians, dentists, nurses, and other scientific and environmental disciplines. The goal is to enhance surveillance and interdisciplinary communication, as well as integrated policies. The authors note that C. diff is often thought of by physicians as primarily a hospital problem, who may be unaware of the increased prevalence of community-acquired disease. It is also a significant problem in agriculture, since as many as 50% of piglets succumb to the disease. Other studies have recently shown that asymptomatic carriers of toxigenic strains are likely to transmit the bacteria to C. diff-negative patients. Asymptomatic carriers cluster with symptomatic patients. In one Cleveland hospital, more than 25% of hospital-associated CDI cases were found to have been colonized prior to admission, suggesting that these were not true hospital-associated cases.

C. diff has been isolated from a wide range of sources, including food animals, meat, seafood, vegetables, household environments, and natural environments like rivers, lakes, and soil. About 20% of calves and 70% of piglets are colonized with C. diff. It has a high prevalence in meat products in the United States, but lower in the Europe, possibly because of different slaughtering practices.

The authors suggest that zoonotic C. diff spread is unlikely to be confined to any geographic region or population, and that widespread C. diff contamination is occurring through food or the environment. This could be occurring because spores can withstand cooking temperatures and disseminate through the air, and even through manure from food animals made into compost or fertilizer.

Veterinary efforts mimicking hospital measures have reduced animal CDI, but there are no rapid diagnostic tests for CDI in animals, making it challenging to control its spread in this context.

The authors call for enhanced antimicrobial stewardship in both human and animal settings, including banning of antimicrobial agents as growth promoters. This has been done in the United States and Europe, but not in Brazil, China, Canada, India, and Australia. They also call for research on inactivation of C. diff spores during waste treatment.

Even better, the authors suggest that vaccines should be developed and employed in both animals and humans. No such vaccine exists in animals, but Pfizer has one for humans in a phase 3 clinical trial, but it does not prevent colonization. Others are in development.

The epidemiology of CDI is an ongoing challenge, with emerging new strains and changing social and environmental conditions. “However, it is with the collaborative efforts of industry partners, policymakers, veterinarians, clinicians, and researchers that CDI needs to be approached, a perfect example of One Health. Opening an interdisciplinary dialogue to address CDI and One Health issues has to be the focus of future studies,” the authors concluded.

SOURCE: SC Lim et al. Clinical Microbiology and Infection. 2020;26:85-863.

There was a low prevalence of meningococcal colonization in health care professionals working in pediatrics and adolescent medicine at a university – lower than expected for all age groups, Lisa-Maria Steurer, MD, said regarding study findings reported at the annual meeting of the European Society for Paediatric Infectious Diseases, held virtually this year.

CDC/Sarah Bailey Cutchin/Illustrator Dan Higgins

“This implicates that the risk of horizontal meningococcal transmission via this health care professional cohort seems to be low,” said Dr. Steurer, of the Medical University of Vienna.

Her data were based on a survey conducted between April and October 2018 at the department of paediatrics and adolescent medicine at the tertiary university pediatric hospital. The study aimed to determine colonization rates of Neisseria meningitidis and the serogroup distribution of carried meningococcal isolates in asymptomatic health care professionals employed there, reported Dr. Steurer. Her research team also sought to identify what factors increased risk of N. meningitidis carriage.

“We who work in pediatrics and adolescent medicine are exposed to those patient cohorts with the highest risk for meningococcal carriage, but also to those patients who have the highest risk for serious, invasive meningococcal disease, which peaks at the extremities of age,” declared Dr. Steurer. “But currently, there is no surveillance of asymptomatic carriers in this health care professional cohort.”

A total of 437 oropharyngeal swabs were collected from enrolled nurses, pediatricians, and medical students working in the department and immediately plated onto selective agar plates. Conventional culture was used to identify bacteria, and meningococcal isolates were characterized further through whole-genome sequencing. Sociodemographic data and information on participants’ vaccination status were collected via questionnaire.

The main finding was an overall meningococcal prevalence of 1.14%. Among the participants, the median age was 33 years, and the highest rate of carriage, 4.4%, was observed in those aged 18-25 years. None of the carriers were older than 35 years. There was a negative association found between carriage and participants’ age and time employed in the field, Dr. Steurer said.

“Risk-factor analysis found an inverse correlation with meningococcal carriage for age and timespan working in pediatrics. On the contrary, no correlations with carriage could be found for all other factors evaluated,” she said. These factors included recent contact with an immunodeficient patient, respiratory tract infection, smoking, vaccination against any meningococcal serogroup, different professions, main work settings, month of swab collection, and living with children or adolescents in the same household.

Of the study population, 29% reported that they had been vaccinated against at least one meningococcal serogroup. “Interestingly, while more than 50% of doctors and medical students had a vaccination against at least one meningococcal serogroup, only 17% of nurses were vaccinated,” Dr. Steurer remarked.

The study was financially supported by Pfizer. Dr. Steurer had no other relevant financial disclosures.

There was a low prevalence of meningococcal colonization in health care professionals working in pediatrics and adolescent medicine at a university – lower than expected for all age groups, Lisa-Maria Steurer, MD, said regarding study findings reported at the annual meeting of the European Society for Paediatric Infectious Diseases, held virtually this year.

CDC/Sarah Bailey Cutchin/Illustrator Dan Higgins

“This implicates that the risk of horizontal meningococcal transmission via this health care professional cohort seems to be low,” said Dr. Steurer, of the Medical University of Vienna.

Her data were based on a survey conducted between April and October 2018 at the department of paediatrics and adolescent medicine at the tertiary university pediatric hospital. The study aimed to determine colonization rates of Neisseria meningitidis and the serogroup distribution of carried meningococcal isolates in asymptomatic health care professionals employed there, reported Dr. Steurer. Her research team also sought to identify what factors increased risk of N. meningitidis carriage.

“We who work in pediatrics and adolescent medicine are exposed to those patient cohorts with the highest risk for meningococcal carriage, but also to those patients who have the highest risk for serious, invasive meningococcal disease, which peaks at the extremities of age,” declared Dr. Steurer. “But currently, there is no surveillance of asymptomatic carriers in this health care professional cohort.”

A total of 437 oropharyngeal swabs were collected from enrolled nurses, pediatricians, and medical students working in the department and immediately plated onto selective agar plates. Conventional culture was used to identify bacteria, and meningococcal isolates were characterized further through whole-genome sequencing. Sociodemographic data and information on participants’ vaccination status were collected via questionnaire.

The main finding was an overall meningococcal prevalence of 1.14%. Among the participants, the median age was 33 years, and the highest rate of carriage, 4.4%, was observed in those aged 18-25 years. None of the carriers were older than 35 years. There was a negative association found between carriage and participants’ age and time employed in the field, Dr. Steurer said.

“Risk-factor analysis found an inverse correlation with meningococcal carriage for age and timespan working in pediatrics. On the contrary, no correlations with carriage could be found for all other factors evaluated,” she said. These factors included recent contact with an immunodeficient patient, respiratory tract infection, smoking, vaccination against any meningococcal serogroup, different professions, main work settings, month of swab collection, and living with children or adolescents in the same household.

Of the study population, 29% reported that they had been vaccinated against at least one meningococcal serogroup. “Interestingly, while more than 50% of doctors and medical students had a vaccination against at least one meningococcal serogroup, only 17% of nurses were vaccinated,” Dr. Steurer remarked.

The study was financially supported by Pfizer. Dr. Steurer had no other relevant financial disclosures.

There was a low prevalence of meningococcal colonization in health care professionals working in pediatrics and adolescent medicine at a university – lower than expected for all age groups, Lisa-Maria Steurer, MD, said regarding study findings reported at the annual meeting of the European Society for Paediatric Infectious Diseases, held virtually this year.

CDC/Sarah Bailey Cutchin/Illustrator Dan Higgins

“This implicates that the risk of horizontal meningococcal transmission via this health care professional cohort seems to be low,” said Dr. Steurer, of the Medical University of Vienna.

Her data were based on a survey conducted between April and October 2018 at the department of paediatrics and adolescent medicine at the tertiary university pediatric hospital. The study aimed to determine colonization rates of Neisseria meningitidis and the serogroup distribution of carried meningococcal isolates in asymptomatic health care professionals employed there, reported Dr. Steurer. Her research team also sought to identify what factors increased risk of N. meningitidis carriage.

“We who work in pediatrics and adolescent medicine are exposed to those patient cohorts with the highest risk for meningococcal carriage, but also to those patients who have the highest risk for serious, invasive meningococcal disease, which peaks at the extremities of age,” declared Dr. Steurer. “But currently, there is no surveillance of asymptomatic carriers in this health care professional cohort.”

A total of 437 oropharyngeal swabs were collected from enrolled nurses, pediatricians, and medical students working in the department and immediately plated onto selective agar plates. Conventional culture was used to identify bacteria, and meningococcal isolates were characterized further through whole-genome sequencing. Sociodemographic data and information on participants’ vaccination status were collected via questionnaire.

The main finding was an overall meningococcal prevalence of 1.14%. Among the participants, the median age was 33 years, and the highest rate of carriage, 4.4%, was observed in those aged 18-25 years. None of the carriers were older than 35 years. There was a negative association found between carriage and participants’ age and time employed in the field, Dr. Steurer said.

“Risk-factor analysis found an inverse correlation with meningococcal carriage for age and timespan working in pediatrics. On the contrary, no correlations with carriage could be found for all other factors evaluated,” she said. These factors included recent contact with an immunodeficient patient, respiratory tract infection, smoking, vaccination against any meningococcal serogroup, different professions, main work settings, month of swab collection, and living with children or adolescents in the same household.

Of the study population, 29% reported that they had been vaccinated against at least one meningococcal serogroup. “Interestingly, while more than 50% of doctors and medical students had a vaccination against at least one meningococcal serogroup, only 17% of nurses were vaccinated,” Dr. Steurer remarked.

The study was financially supported by Pfizer. Dr. Steurer had no other relevant financial disclosures.

Countries across the world are in the process of closing and reopening schools to contain the spread of COVID-19. Should there be universal testing and quarantining of sick school children and their classmates?

miodrag ignjatovic/E+

In a lively debate at the annual meeting of the European Society for Paediatric Infectious Diseases, held virtually this year, Andreea M. Panciu, MD, from the National Institute of Infectious Diseases in Bucharest, argued for routine testing and quarantining of all school children. Her opposite number, Danilo Buonsenso, MD, from the Centre for Global Health Research and Studies, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario Agostino Gemelli Istituto di Ricovero e Cura a Carattere Scientifico, Rome, made the case for a more selective approach.
 

Should children be sent to school?

“Risk-reduction strategies and detection of cases must be in place to allow children to return safely to school,” stated Dr. Panciu as she started the debate by explaining the challenges faced by schools in adhering to key mitigation strategies. The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommends that students keep 1.8 m (6 feet) distance from one another. “In many school settings this is not feasible without drastically limiting the number of students,” she explained. “This is a massive challenge for many schools that are already overcrowded.”

The use of facemasks also is a challenge in classrooms. Children have a lower tolerance or may not be able to use the mask properly. There also are concerns regarding impaired learning, speech development, social development, and facial recognition. “We need to look at the evidence; preventive measures work,” responded Dr. Buonsenso. If distance can be implemented, the more distance the lower the transmission of infection, with 1.5-2 meters having the best effects. “Distance can be difficult when school buildings do not allow it, however, governments have had time to plan, and this should not be a limitation to education for kids.”

A recent review clearly showed that children and adolescents aged under 20 years have a much lower risk of susceptibility to COVID-19 infection, compared with adults. This is especially the case for children younger than 14 years. “There is no excuse, let’s bring the children back to school,” argued Dr. Buonsenso.

Dr. Panciu responded with several studies that have tried to quantify the amount of SARS-CoV-2 virus that is carried by infected children. Viral load in the nasopharynx in children under 5 years with mild to moderate COVID-19 symptoms was higher than that of both children over 5 as well as adults. The viral load in young children did not seem to differ by age or symptom severity. “There doesn’t appear to be a significant difference in viral load between symptomatic children and symptomatic adults,” she stated.

“But the question is: ‘How infectious are children?’ ” reacted Dr. Buonsenso. Data from South Korea showed that, for children, particularly those under 10 years, the number of secondary cases of contacts was very low, suggesting that children are rarely spreading the virus.

Dr. Buonsenso and colleagues assessed 30 households containing children aged under 18 years where an adult had been infected with COVID-19 in Rome during the peak of the pandemic. In no cases was it found that a child was the index case. This was supported by data from China, also obtained during the peak of the pandemic, which showed that the number of children infected was very low, but more importantly the number of secondary attacks from contact with children was also very low.
 

What about children who are sick at school?

The debate moved to discussing what should be done when a child is sick at school. Dr. Panciu clarified recommendations by the CDC regarding what steps to take if a student displays signs of infection consistent with COVID-19: Should they test positive, they are to stay at home for 10 days from the time signs and symptoms first appeared. Further, any teachers or students identified as close contacts are advised to stay at home for 14 days. (Since the ESPID meeting, the CDC has made changes in quarantine times for COVID-19. People can now quarantine for 10 days without a COVID-19 test if they have no symptoms. Alternatively, a quarantine can end after 7 days for someone with a negative test and no symptoms. The agency recommends a polymerase chain reaction test or an antigen assay within 48 hours before the end of a quarantine.)

A significant problem is the overlap between COVID-19 symptoms and those associated with other common illnesses because of a range of viruses. This is particularly true in younger children who often suffer from viral infections. “It is common for children to have up to eight respiratory illnesses a year,” explained Dr. Panciu, “and some may have symptoms so mild that they don’t notice them.”

“We need to be a little bit more children focused, otherwise we are going to be isolating children all the time,” said Dr. Buonsenso. The Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health state that a child with a simple runny nose or sporadic cough without a fever, who would have attended school in other times, should not be tested for COVID-19. He moved on to then cite several studies that show little or no evidence of COVID-19 transmission between school children. This included a prospective cohort study in Australia showing that child-to-child transmission occurred in 0.3%. “To date, the advantages from routine quarantine and over testing seem too low to balance the social consequences on children and families,” he concluded.

As the debate drew to a close, Dr. Panciu reported several studies that did demonstrate transmission between school-age children. Data from an overnight camp in Georgia where the median age was 12 years showed the attack rate was 44% for ages 11-17 years and 51% for ages 6-10 years. Similar conclusions were reached in an Israeli study looking at a large COVID-19 outbreak in a school. This occurred 10 days after reopening, in spite of preventive measures being in place. “Opening safely isn’t just about the adjustments a school makes,” she said, “it’s also about how much of the virus is circulating in the community, which affects the likelihood that students and staff will bring COVID-19 into their classrooms.”

Damian Roland, consultant and honorary associate professor in pediatric emergency medicine at the University of Leicester (England), commented: “Maximizing educational potential while reducing the spread of COVID19 is a challenge laden with scientific equipoise while simultaneously infused with emotion. The evidence of transmission between, and infectivity from, children is not complete, as this debate has demonstrated. It is important scientists, clinicians, educators, and policy makers make collaborative decisions, aware there is not one perfect answer, and willing to understand and incorporate others views and objectives rather than holding onto single beliefs or approaches.”

No financial conflicts of interest were declared.

Countries across the world are in the process of closing and reopening schools to contain the spread of COVID-19. Should there be universal testing and quarantining of sick school children and their classmates?

miodrag ignjatovic/E+

In a lively debate at the annual meeting of the European Society for Paediatric Infectious Diseases, held virtually this year, Andreea M. Panciu, MD, from the National Institute of Infectious Diseases in Bucharest, argued for routine testing and quarantining of all school children. Her opposite number, Danilo Buonsenso, MD, from the Centre for Global Health Research and Studies, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario Agostino Gemelli Istituto di Ricovero e Cura a Carattere Scientifico, Rome, made the case for a more selective approach.
 

Should children be sent to school?

“Risk-reduction strategies and detection of cases must be in place to allow children to return safely to school,” stated Dr. Panciu as she started the debate by explaining the challenges faced by schools in adhering to key mitigation strategies. The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommends that students keep 1.8 m (6 feet) distance from one another. “In many school settings this is not feasible without drastically limiting the number of students,” she explained. “This is a massive challenge for many schools that are already overcrowded.”

The use of facemasks also is a challenge in classrooms. Children have a lower tolerance or may not be able to use the mask properly. There also are concerns regarding impaired learning, speech development, social development, and facial recognition. “We need to look at the evidence; preventive measures work,” responded Dr. Buonsenso. If distance can be implemented, the more distance the lower the transmission of infection, with 1.5-2 meters having the best effects. “Distance can be difficult when school buildings do not allow it, however, governments have had time to plan, and this should not be a limitation to education for kids.”

A recent review clearly showed that children and adolescents aged under 20 years have a much lower risk of susceptibility to COVID-19 infection, compared with adults. This is especially the case for children younger than 14 years. “There is no excuse, let’s bring the children back to school,” argued Dr. Buonsenso.

Dr. Panciu responded with several studies that have tried to quantify the amount of SARS-CoV-2 virus that is carried by infected children. Viral load in the nasopharynx in children under 5 years with mild to moderate COVID-19 symptoms was higher than that of both children over 5 as well as adults. The viral load in young children did not seem to differ by age or symptom severity. “There doesn’t appear to be a significant difference in viral load between symptomatic children and symptomatic adults,” she stated.

“But the question is: ‘How infectious are children?’ ” reacted Dr. Buonsenso. Data from South Korea showed that, for children, particularly those under 10 years, the number of secondary cases of contacts was very low, suggesting that children are rarely spreading the virus.

Dr. Buonsenso and colleagues assessed 30 households containing children aged under 18 years where an adult had been infected with COVID-19 in Rome during the peak of the pandemic. In no cases was it found that a child was the index case. This was supported by data from China, also obtained during the peak of the pandemic, which showed that the number of children infected was very low, but more importantly the number of secondary attacks from contact with children was also very low.
 

What about children who are sick at school?

The debate moved to discussing what should be done when a child is sick at school. Dr. Panciu clarified recommendations by the CDC regarding what steps to take if a student displays signs of infection consistent with COVID-19: Should they test positive, they are to stay at home for 10 days from the time signs and symptoms first appeared. Further, any teachers or students identified as close contacts are advised to stay at home for 14 days. (Since the ESPID meeting, the CDC has made changes in quarantine times for COVID-19. People can now quarantine for 10 days without a COVID-19 test if they have no symptoms. Alternatively, a quarantine can end after 7 days for someone with a negative test and no symptoms. The agency recommends a polymerase chain reaction test or an antigen assay within 48 hours before the end of a quarantine.)

A significant problem is the overlap between COVID-19 symptoms and those associated with other common illnesses because of a range of viruses. This is particularly true in younger children who often suffer from viral infections. “It is common for children to have up to eight respiratory illnesses a year,” explained Dr. Panciu, “and some may have symptoms so mild that they don’t notice them.”

“We need to be a little bit more children focused, otherwise we are going to be isolating children all the time,” said Dr. Buonsenso. The Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health state that a child with a simple runny nose or sporadic cough without a fever, who would have attended school in other times, should not be tested for COVID-19. He moved on to then cite several studies that show little or no evidence of COVID-19 transmission between school children. This included a prospective cohort study in Australia showing that child-to-child transmission occurred in 0.3%. “To date, the advantages from routine quarantine and over testing seem too low to balance the social consequences on children and families,” he concluded.

As the debate drew to a close, Dr. Panciu reported several studies that did demonstrate transmission between school-age children. Data from an overnight camp in Georgia where the median age was 12 years showed the attack rate was 44% for ages 11-17 years and 51% for ages 6-10 years. Similar conclusions were reached in an Israeli study looking at a large COVID-19 outbreak in a school. This occurred 10 days after reopening, in spite of preventive measures being in place. “Opening safely isn’t just about the adjustments a school makes,” she said, “it’s also about how much of the virus is circulating in the community, which affects the likelihood that students and staff will bring COVID-19 into their classrooms.”

Damian Roland, consultant and honorary associate professor in pediatric emergency medicine at the University of Leicester (England), commented: “Maximizing educational potential while reducing the spread of COVID19 is a challenge laden with scientific equipoise while simultaneously infused with emotion. The evidence of transmission between, and infectivity from, children is not complete, as this debate has demonstrated. It is important scientists, clinicians, educators, and policy makers make collaborative decisions, aware there is not one perfect answer, and willing to understand and incorporate others views and objectives rather than holding onto single beliefs or approaches.”

No financial conflicts of interest were declared.

Countries across the world are in the process of closing and reopening schools to contain the spread of COVID-19. Should there be universal testing and quarantining of sick school children and their classmates?

miodrag ignjatovic/E+

In a lively debate at the annual meeting of the European Society for Paediatric Infectious Diseases, held virtually this year, Andreea M. Panciu, MD, from the National Institute of Infectious Diseases in Bucharest, argued for routine testing and quarantining of all school children. Her opposite number, Danilo Buonsenso, MD, from the Centre for Global Health Research and Studies, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario Agostino Gemelli Istituto di Ricovero e Cura a Carattere Scientifico, Rome, made the case for a more selective approach.
 

Should children be sent to school?

“Risk-reduction strategies and detection of cases must be in place to allow children to return safely to school,” stated Dr. Panciu as she started the debate by explaining the challenges faced by schools in adhering to key mitigation strategies. The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommends that students keep 1.8 m (6 feet) distance from one another. “In many school settings this is not feasible without drastically limiting the number of students,” she explained. “This is a massive challenge for many schools that are already overcrowded.”

The use of facemasks also is a challenge in classrooms. Children have a lower tolerance or may not be able to use the mask properly. There also are concerns regarding impaired learning, speech development, social development, and facial recognition. “We need to look at the evidence; preventive measures work,” responded Dr. Buonsenso. If distance can be implemented, the more distance the lower the transmission of infection, with 1.5-2 meters having the best effects. “Distance can be difficult when school buildings do not allow it, however, governments have had time to plan, and this should not be a limitation to education for kids.”

A recent review clearly showed that children and adolescents aged under 20 years have a much lower risk of susceptibility to COVID-19 infection, compared with adults. This is especially the case for children younger than 14 years. “There is no excuse, let’s bring the children back to school,” argued Dr. Buonsenso.

Dr. Panciu responded with several studies that have tried to quantify the amount of SARS-CoV-2 virus that is carried by infected children. Viral load in the nasopharynx in children under 5 years with mild to moderate COVID-19 symptoms was higher than that of both children over 5 as well as adults. The viral load in young children did not seem to differ by age or symptom severity. “There doesn’t appear to be a significant difference in viral load between symptomatic children and symptomatic adults,” she stated.

“But the question is: ‘How infectious are children?’ ” reacted Dr. Buonsenso. Data from South Korea showed that, for children, particularly those under 10 years, the number of secondary cases of contacts was very low, suggesting that children are rarely spreading the virus.

Dr. Buonsenso and colleagues assessed 30 households containing children aged under 18 years where an adult had been infected with COVID-19 in Rome during the peak of the pandemic. In no cases was it found that a child was the index case. This was supported by data from China, also obtained during the peak of the pandemic, which showed that the number of children infected was very low, but more importantly the number of secondary attacks from contact with children was also very low.
 

What about children who are sick at school?

The debate moved to discussing what should be done when a child is sick at school. Dr. Panciu clarified recommendations by the CDC regarding what steps to take if a student displays signs of infection consistent with COVID-19: Should they test positive, they are to stay at home for 10 days from the time signs and symptoms first appeared. Further, any teachers or students identified as close contacts are advised to stay at home for 14 days. (Since the ESPID meeting, the CDC has made changes in quarantine times for COVID-19. People can now quarantine for 10 days without a COVID-19 test if they have no symptoms. Alternatively, a quarantine can end after 7 days for someone with a negative test and no symptoms. The agency recommends a polymerase chain reaction test or an antigen assay within 48 hours before the end of a quarantine.)

A significant problem is the overlap between COVID-19 symptoms and those associated with other common illnesses because of a range of viruses. This is particularly true in younger children who often suffer from viral infections. “It is common for children to have up to eight respiratory illnesses a year,” explained Dr. Panciu, “and some may have symptoms so mild that they don’t notice them.”

“We need to be a little bit more children focused, otherwise we are going to be isolating children all the time,” said Dr. Buonsenso. The Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health state that a child with a simple runny nose or sporadic cough without a fever, who would have attended school in other times, should not be tested for COVID-19. He moved on to then cite several studies that show little or no evidence of COVID-19 transmission between school children. This included a prospective cohort study in Australia showing that child-to-child transmission occurred in 0.3%. “To date, the advantages from routine quarantine and over testing seem too low to balance the social consequences on children and families,” he concluded.

As the debate drew to a close, Dr. Panciu reported several studies that did demonstrate transmission between school-age children. Data from an overnight camp in Georgia where the median age was 12 years showed the attack rate was 44% for ages 11-17 years and 51% for ages 6-10 years. Similar conclusions were reached in an Israeli study looking at a large COVID-19 outbreak in a school. This occurred 10 days after reopening, in spite of preventive measures being in place. “Opening safely isn’t just about the adjustments a school makes,” she said, “it’s also about how much of the virus is circulating in the community, which affects the likelihood that students and staff will bring COVID-19 into their classrooms.”

Damian Roland, consultant and honorary associate professor in pediatric emergency medicine at the University of Leicester (England), commented: “Maximizing educational potential while reducing the spread of COVID19 is a challenge laden with scientific equipoise while simultaneously infused with emotion. The evidence of transmission between, and infectivity from, children is not complete, as this debate has demonstrated. It is important scientists, clinicians, educators, and policy makers make collaborative decisions, aware there is not one perfect answer, and willing to understand and incorporate others views and objectives rather than holding onto single beliefs or approaches.”

No financial conflicts of interest were declared.

A tiny bit of light may have broken though the COVID-19 storm clouds.

The number of new cases in children in the United States did not set a new weekly high for the first time in months and the cumulative proportion of COVID-19 cases occurring in children did not go up for the first time since the pandemic started, according to a report from the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Children’s Hospital Association.

The total number of reported COVID-19 cases in children is now up to 1.46 million, and the overall rate is 1,941 per 100,000 children. Comparable figures for states show that California has the most cumulative cases at over 139,000 and that North Dakota has the highest rate at over 6,800 per 100,000 children. Vermont, the state with the smallest child population, has the fewest cases (687) and the lowest rate (511 per 100,000), the report said.

The total number of COVID-19–related deaths in children has reached 154 in the 44 jurisdictions (43 states and New York City) reporting such data. That number represents 0.06% of all coronavirus deaths, a proportion that has changed little – ranging from 0.04% to 0.07% – over the course of the pandemic, the AAP and CHA said.

rfranki@mdedge.com

A tiny bit of light may have broken though the COVID-19 storm clouds.

The number of new cases in children in the United States did not set a new weekly high for the first time in months and the cumulative proportion of COVID-19 cases occurring in children did not go up for the first time since the pandemic started, according to a report from the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Children’s Hospital Association.

The total number of reported COVID-19 cases in children is now up to 1.46 million, and the overall rate is 1,941 per 100,000 children. Comparable figures for states show that California has the most cumulative cases at over 139,000 and that North Dakota has the highest rate at over 6,800 per 100,000 children. Vermont, the state with the smallest child population, has the fewest cases (687) and the lowest rate (511 per 100,000), the report said.

The total number of COVID-19–related deaths in children has reached 154 in the 44 jurisdictions (43 states and New York City) reporting such data. That number represents 0.06% of all coronavirus deaths, a proportion that has changed little – ranging from 0.04% to 0.07% – over the course of the pandemic, the AAP and CHA said.

rfranki@mdedge.com

A tiny bit of light may have broken though the COVID-19 storm clouds.

The number of new cases in children in the United States did not set a new weekly high for the first time in months and the cumulative proportion of COVID-19 cases occurring in children did not go up for the first time since the pandemic started, according to a report from the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Children’s Hospital Association.

The total number of reported COVID-19 cases in children is now up to 1.46 million, and the overall rate is 1,941 per 100,000 children. Comparable figures for states show that California has the most cumulative cases at over 139,000 and that North Dakota has the highest rate at over 6,800 per 100,000 children. Vermont, the state with the smallest child population, has the fewest cases (687) and the lowest rate (511 per 100,000), the report said.

The total number of COVID-19–related deaths in children has reached 154 in the 44 jurisdictions (43 states and New York City) reporting such data. That number represents 0.06% of all coronavirus deaths, a proportion that has changed little – ranging from 0.04% to 0.07% – over the course of the pandemic, the AAP and CHA said.

rfranki@mdedge.com

New clinical practice guidelines on Lyme disease place a strong emphasis on antibody testing to assess for rheumatologic and neurologic syndromes. “Diagnostically, we recommend testing via antibodies, and an index of antibodies in cerebrospinal fluid [CSF] versus serum. Importantly, we recommend against using polymerase chain reaction [PCR] in CSF,” Jeffrey A. Rumbaugh, MD, PhD, a coauthor of the guidelines and a member of the American Academy of Neurology, said in an interview.

CDC/ Dr. Amanda Loftis, Dr. William Nicholson, Dr. Will Reeves, Dr. Chris Paddock

The Infectious Diseases Society of America, AAN, and the American College of Rheumatology convened a multidisciplinary panel to develop the 43 recommendations, seeking input from 12 additional medical specialties, and patients. The panel conducted a systematic review of available evidence on preventing, diagnosing, and treating Lyme disease, using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation model to evaluate clinical evidence and strength of recommendations. The guidelines were simultaneous published in Clinical Infectious Diseases, Neurology, Arthritis & Rheumatology, and Arthritis Care & Research.

This is the first time these organizations have collaborated on joint Lyme disease guidelines, which focus mainly on neurologic, cardiac, and rheumatologic manifestations.

“We are very excited to provide these updated guidelines to assist clinicians working in numerous medical specialties around the country, and even the world, as they care for patients suffering from Lyme disease,” Dr. Rumbaugh said.
 

When to use and not to use PCR

Guideline authors called for specific testing regimens depending on presentation of symptoms. Generally, they advised that individuals with a skin rash suggestive of early disease seek a clinical diagnosis instead of laboratory testing.

Recommendations on Lyme arthritis support previous IDSA guidelines published in 2006, Linda K. Bockenstedt, MD, professor of medicine at Yale University, New Haven, Conn., and a coauthor of the guidelines, said in an interview.

To evaluate for potential Lyme arthritis, clinicians should choose serum antibody testing over PCR or culture of blood or synovial fluid/tissue. However, if a doctor is assessing a seropositive patient for Lyme arthritis diagnosis but needs more information for treatment decisions, the authors recommended PCR applied to synovial fluid or tissue over Borrelia culture.

“Synovial fluid can be analyzed by PCR, but sensitivity is generally lower than serology,” Dr. Bockenstedt explained. Additionally, culture of joint fluid or synovial tissue for Lyme spirochetes has 0% sensitivity in multiple studies. “For these reasons, we recommend serum antibody testing over PCR of joint fluid or other methods for an initial diagnosis.”

Serum antibody testing over PCR or culture is also recommended for identifying Lyme neuroborreliosis in the peripheral nervous system (PNS) or CNS.

Despite the recent popularity of Lyme PCR testing in hospitals and labs, “with Lyme at least, antibodies are better in the CSF,” Dr. Rumbaugh said. Studies have shown that “most patients with even early neurologic Lyme disease are seropositive by conventional antibody testing at time of initial clinical presentation, and that intrathecal antibody production, as demonstrated by an elevated CSF:serum index, is highly specific for CNS involvement.”

If done correctly, antibody testing is both sensitive and specific for neurologic Lyme disease. “On the other hand, sensitivity of Lyme PCR performed on CSF has been only in the 5%-17% range in studies. Incidentally, Lyme PCR on blood is also not sensitive and therefore not recommended,” Dr. Rumbaugh said.

Guideline authors recommended testing in patients with the following conditions: acute neurologic disorders such as meningitis, painful radiculoneuritis, mononeuropathy multiplex; evidence of spinal cord or brain inflammation; and acute myocarditis/pericarditis of unknown cause in an appropriate epidemiologic setting.

They did not recommend testing in patients with typical amyotrophic lateral sclerosis; relapsing remitting multiple sclerosis; Parkinson’s disease, dementia, or cognitive decline; new-onset seizures; other neurologic syndromes or those lacking clinical or epidemiologic history that would support a diagnosis of Lyme disease; and patients with chronic cardiomyopathy of unknown cause.

The authors also called for judicious use of electrocardiogram to screen for Lyme carditis, recommending it only in patients signs or symptoms of this condition. However, patients at risk for or showing signs of severe cardiac complications of Lyme disease should be hospitalized and monitored via ECG.

Timelines for antibiotics

Most patients with Lyme disease should receive oral antibiotics, although duration times vary depending on the disease state. “We recommend that prophylactic antibiotic therapy be given to adults and children only within 72 hours of removal of an identified high-risk tick bite, but not for bites that are equivocal risk or low risk,” according to the guideline authors.

Specific antibiotic treatment regimens by condition are as follows: 10-14 days for early-stage disease, 14 days for Lyme carditis, 14-21 days for neurologic Lyme disease, and 28 days for late Lyme arthritis.

“Despite arthritis occurring late in the course of infection, treatment with a 28-day course of oral antibiotic is effective, although the rates of complete resolution of joint swelling can vary,” Dr. Bockenstedt said. Clinicians may consider a second 28-day course of oral antibiotics or a 2- to 4-week course of ceftriaxone in patients with persistent swelling, after an initial course of oral antibiotics.

Citing knowledge gaps, the authors made no recommendation on secondary antibiotic treatment for unresolved Lyme arthritis. Rheumatologists can play an important role in the care of this small subset of patients, Dr. Bockenstedt noted. “Studies of patients with ‘postantibiotic Lyme arthritis’ show that they can be treated successfully with intra-articular steroids, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs, biologic response modifiers, and even synovectomy with successful outcomes.” Some of these therapies also work in cases where first courses of oral and intravenous antibiotics are unsuccessful.

“Antibiotic therapy for longer than 8 weeks is not expected to provide additional benefit to patients with persistent arthritis if that treatment has included one course of IV therapy,” the authors clarified.

For patients with Lyme disease–associated meningitis, cranial neuropathy, radiculoneuropathy, or other PNS manifestations, the authors recommended intravenous ceftriaxone, cefotaxime, penicillin G, or oral doxycycline over other antimicrobials.

“For most neurologic presentations, oral doxycycline is just as effective as appropriate IV antibiotics,” Dr. Rumbaugh said. “The exception is the relatively rare situation where the patient is felt to have parenchymal involvement of brain or spinal cord, in which case the guidelines recommend IV antibiotics over oral antibiotics.” In the studies, there was no statistically significant difference between oral or intravenous regimens in response rate or risk of adverse effects.

Patients with nonspecific symptoms such as fatigue, pain, or cognitive impairment following treatment should not receive additional antibiotic therapy if there’s no evidence of treatment failure or infection. These two markers “would include objective signs of disease activity, such as arthritis, meningitis, or neuropathy,” the guideline authors wrote in comments accompanying the recommendation.

Clinicians caring for patients with symptomatic bradycardia caused by Lyme carditis should consider temporary pacing measures instead of a permanent pacemaker. For patients hospitalized with Lyme carditis, “we suggest initially using IV ceftriaxone over oral antibiotics until there is evidence of clinical improvement, then switching to oral antibiotics to complete treatment,” they advised. Outpatients with this condition should receive oral antibiotics instead of intravenous antibiotics.

Advice on antibodies testing ‘particularly cogent’

For individuals without expertise in these areas, the recommendations are clear and useful, Daniel E. Furst, MD, professor of medicine (emeritus) at the University of California, Los Angeles, adjunct professor at the University of Washington, Seattle, and research professor at the University of Florence (Italy), said in an interview.

“As a rheumatologist, I would have appreciated literature references for some of the recommendations but, nevertheless, find these useful. I applaud the care with which the evidence was gathered and the general formatting, which tried to review multiple possible scenarios surrounding Lyme arthritis,” said Dr. Furst, offering a third-party perspective.

The advice on using antibodies tests to make a diagnosis of Lyme arthritis “is particularly cogent and more useful than trying to culture these fastidious organisms,” he added.

The IDSA, AAN, and ACR provided support for the guideline. Dr. Bockenstedt reported receiving research funding from the National Institutes of Health and the Gordon and the Llura Gund Foundation and remuneration from L2 Diagnostics for investigator-initiated NIH-sponsored research. Dr. Rumbaugh had no conflicts of interest to disclose. Dr. Furst reported no conflicts of interest in commenting on these guidelines.

SOURCE: Rumbaugh JA et al. Clin Infect Dis. 2020 Nov 30. doi: 10.1093/cid/ciaa1215.

New clinical practice guidelines on Lyme disease place a strong emphasis on antibody testing to assess for rheumatologic and neurologic syndromes. “Diagnostically, we recommend testing via antibodies, and an index of antibodies in cerebrospinal fluid [CSF] versus serum. Importantly, we recommend against using polymerase chain reaction [PCR] in CSF,” Jeffrey A. Rumbaugh, MD, PhD, a coauthor of the guidelines and a member of the American Academy of Neurology, said in an interview.

CDC/ Dr. Amanda Loftis, Dr. William Nicholson, Dr. Will Reeves, Dr. Chris Paddock

The Infectious Diseases Society of America, AAN, and the American College of Rheumatology convened a multidisciplinary panel to develop the 43 recommendations, seeking input from 12 additional medical specialties, and patients. The panel conducted a systematic review of available evidence on preventing, diagnosing, and treating Lyme disease, using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation model to evaluate clinical evidence and strength of recommendations. The guidelines were simultaneous published in Clinical Infectious Diseases, Neurology, Arthritis & Rheumatology, and Arthritis Care & Research.

This is the first time these organizations have collaborated on joint Lyme disease guidelines, which focus mainly on neurologic, cardiac, and rheumatologic manifestations.

“We are very excited to provide these updated guidelines to assist clinicians working in numerous medical specialties around the country, and even the world, as they care for patients suffering from Lyme disease,” Dr. Rumbaugh said.
 

When to use and not to use PCR

Guideline authors called for specific testing regimens depending on presentation of symptoms. Generally, they advised that individuals with a skin rash suggestive of early disease seek a clinical diagnosis instead of laboratory testing.

Recommendations on Lyme arthritis support previous IDSA guidelines published in 2006, Linda K. Bockenstedt, MD, professor of medicine at Yale University, New Haven, Conn., and a coauthor of the guidelines, said in an interview.

To evaluate for potential Lyme arthritis, clinicians should choose serum antibody testing over PCR or culture of blood or synovial fluid/tissue. However, if a doctor is assessing a seropositive patient for Lyme arthritis diagnosis but needs more information for treatment decisions, the authors recommended PCR applied to synovial fluid or tissue over Borrelia culture.

“Synovial fluid can be analyzed by PCR, but sensitivity is generally lower than serology,” Dr. Bockenstedt explained. Additionally, culture of joint fluid or synovial tissue for Lyme spirochetes has 0% sensitivity in multiple studies. “For these reasons, we recommend serum antibody testing over PCR of joint fluid or other methods for an initial diagnosis.”

Serum antibody testing over PCR or culture is also recommended for identifying Lyme neuroborreliosis in the peripheral nervous system (PNS) or CNS.

Despite the recent popularity of Lyme PCR testing in hospitals and labs, “with Lyme at least, antibodies are better in the CSF,” Dr. Rumbaugh said. Studies have shown that “most patients with even early neurologic Lyme disease are seropositive by conventional antibody testing at time of initial clinical presentation, and that intrathecal antibody production, as demonstrated by an elevated CSF:serum index, is highly specific for CNS involvement.”

If done correctly, antibody testing is both sensitive and specific for neurologic Lyme disease. “On the other hand, sensitivity of Lyme PCR performed on CSF has been only in the 5%-17% range in studies. Incidentally, Lyme PCR on blood is also not sensitive and therefore not recommended,” Dr. Rumbaugh said.

Guideline authors recommended testing in patients with the following conditions: acute neurologic disorders such as meningitis, painful radiculoneuritis, mononeuropathy multiplex; evidence of spinal cord or brain inflammation; and acute myocarditis/pericarditis of unknown cause in an appropriate epidemiologic setting.

They did not recommend testing in patients with typical amyotrophic lateral sclerosis; relapsing remitting multiple sclerosis; Parkinson’s disease, dementia, or cognitive decline; new-onset seizures; other neurologic syndromes or those lacking clinical or epidemiologic history that would support a diagnosis of Lyme disease; and patients with chronic cardiomyopathy of unknown cause.

The authors also called for judicious use of electrocardiogram to screen for Lyme carditis, recommending it only in patients signs or symptoms of this condition. However, patients at risk for or showing signs of severe cardiac complications of Lyme disease should be hospitalized and monitored via ECG.

Timelines for antibiotics

Most patients with Lyme disease should receive oral antibiotics, although duration times vary depending on the disease state. “We recommend that prophylactic antibiotic therapy be given to adults and children only within 72 hours of removal of an identified high-risk tick bite, but not for bites that are equivocal risk or low risk,” according to the guideline authors.

Specific antibiotic treatment regimens by condition are as follows: 10-14 days for early-stage disease, 14 days for Lyme carditis, 14-21 days for neurologic Lyme disease, and 28 days for late Lyme arthritis.

“Despite arthritis occurring late in the course of infection, treatment with a 28-day course of oral antibiotic is effective, although the rates of complete resolution of joint swelling can vary,” Dr. Bockenstedt said. Clinicians may consider a second 28-day course of oral antibiotics or a 2- to 4-week course of ceftriaxone in patients with persistent swelling, after an initial course of oral antibiotics.

Citing knowledge gaps, the authors made no recommendation on secondary antibiotic treatment for unresolved Lyme arthritis. Rheumatologists can play an important role in the care of this small subset of patients, Dr. Bockenstedt noted. “Studies of patients with ‘postantibiotic Lyme arthritis’ show that they can be treated successfully with intra-articular steroids, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs, biologic response modifiers, and even synovectomy with successful outcomes.” Some of these therapies also work in cases where first courses of oral and intravenous antibiotics are unsuccessful.

“Antibiotic therapy for longer than 8 weeks is not expected to provide additional benefit to patients with persistent arthritis if that treatment has included one course of IV therapy,” the authors clarified.

For patients with Lyme disease–associated meningitis, cranial neuropathy, radiculoneuropathy, or other PNS manifestations, the authors recommended intravenous ceftriaxone, cefotaxime, penicillin G, or oral doxycycline over other antimicrobials.

“For most neurologic presentations, oral doxycycline is just as effective as appropriate IV antibiotics,” Dr. Rumbaugh said. “The exception is the relatively rare situation where the patient is felt to have parenchymal involvement of brain or spinal cord, in which case the guidelines recommend IV antibiotics over oral antibiotics.” In the studies, there was no statistically significant difference between oral or intravenous regimens in response rate or risk of adverse effects.

Patients with nonspecific symptoms such as fatigue, pain, or cognitive impairment following treatment should not receive additional antibiotic therapy if there’s no evidence of treatment failure or infection. These two markers “would include objective signs of disease activity, such as arthritis, meningitis, or neuropathy,” the guideline authors wrote in comments accompanying the recommendation.

Clinicians caring for patients with symptomatic bradycardia caused by Lyme carditis should consider temporary pacing measures instead of a permanent pacemaker. For patients hospitalized with Lyme carditis, “we suggest initially using IV ceftriaxone over oral antibiotics until there is evidence of clinical improvement, then switching to oral antibiotics to complete treatment,” they advised. Outpatients with this condition should receive oral antibiotics instead of intravenous antibiotics.

Advice on antibodies testing ‘particularly cogent’

For individuals without expertise in these areas, the recommendations are clear and useful, Daniel E. Furst, MD, professor of medicine (emeritus) at the University of California, Los Angeles, adjunct professor at the University of Washington, Seattle, and research professor at the University of Florence (Italy), said in an interview.

“As a rheumatologist, I would have appreciated literature references for some of the recommendations but, nevertheless, find these useful. I applaud the care with which the evidence was gathered and the general formatting, which tried to review multiple possible scenarios surrounding Lyme arthritis,” said Dr. Furst, offering a third-party perspective.

The advice on using antibodies tests to make a diagnosis of Lyme arthritis “is particularly cogent and more useful than trying to culture these fastidious organisms,” he added.

The IDSA, AAN, and ACR provided support for the guideline. Dr. Bockenstedt reported receiving research funding from the National Institutes of Health and the Gordon and the Llura Gund Foundation and remuneration from L2 Diagnostics for investigator-initiated NIH-sponsored research. Dr. Rumbaugh had no conflicts of interest to disclose. Dr. Furst reported no conflicts of interest in commenting on these guidelines.

SOURCE: Rumbaugh JA et al. Clin Infect Dis. 2020 Nov 30. doi: 10.1093/cid/ciaa1215.

New clinical practice guidelines on Lyme disease place a strong emphasis on antibody testing to assess for rheumatologic and neurologic syndromes. “Diagnostically, we recommend testing via antibodies, and an index of antibodies in cerebrospinal fluid [CSF] versus serum. Importantly, we recommend against using polymerase chain reaction [PCR] in CSF,” Jeffrey A. Rumbaugh, MD, PhD, a coauthor of the guidelines and a member of the American Academy of Neurology, said in an interview.

CDC/ Dr. Amanda Loftis, Dr. William Nicholson, Dr. Will Reeves, Dr. Chris Paddock

The Infectious Diseases Society of America, AAN, and the American College of Rheumatology convened a multidisciplinary panel to develop the 43 recommendations, seeking input from 12 additional medical specialties, and patients. The panel conducted a systematic review of available evidence on preventing, diagnosing, and treating Lyme disease, using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation model to evaluate clinical evidence and strength of recommendations. The guidelines were simultaneous published in Clinical Infectious Diseases, Neurology, Arthritis & Rheumatology, and Arthritis Care & Research.

This is the first time these organizations have collaborated on joint Lyme disease guidelines, which focus mainly on neurologic, cardiac, and rheumatologic manifestations.

“We are very excited to provide these updated guidelines to assist clinicians working in numerous medical specialties around the country, and even the world, as they care for patients suffering from Lyme disease,” Dr. Rumbaugh said.
 

When to use and not to use PCR

Guideline authors called for specific testing regimens depending on presentation of symptoms. Generally, they advised that individuals with a skin rash suggestive of early disease seek a clinical diagnosis instead of laboratory testing.

Recommendations on Lyme arthritis support previous IDSA guidelines published in 2006, Linda K. Bockenstedt, MD, professor of medicine at Yale University, New Haven, Conn., and a coauthor of the guidelines, said in an interview.

To evaluate for potential Lyme arthritis, clinicians should choose serum antibody testing over PCR or culture of blood or synovial fluid/tissue. However, if a doctor is assessing a seropositive patient for Lyme arthritis diagnosis but needs more information for treatment decisions, the authors recommended PCR applied to synovial fluid or tissue over Borrelia culture.

“Synovial fluid can be analyzed by PCR, but sensitivity is generally lower than serology,” Dr. Bockenstedt explained. Additionally, culture of joint fluid or synovial tissue for Lyme spirochetes has 0% sensitivity in multiple studies. “For these reasons, we recommend serum antibody testing over PCR of joint fluid or other methods for an initial diagnosis.”

Serum antibody testing over PCR or culture is also recommended for identifying Lyme neuroborreliosis in the peripheral nervous system (PNS) or CNS.

Despite the recent popularity of Lyme PCR testing in hospitals and labs, “with Lyme at least, antibodies are better in the CSF,” Dr. Rumbaugh said. Studies have shown that “most patients with even early neurologic Lyme disease are seropositive by conventional antibody testing at time of initial clinical presentation, and that intrathecal antibody production, as demonstrated by an elevated CSF:serum index, is highly specific for CNS involvement.”

If done correctly, antibody testing is both sensitive and specific for neurologic Lyme disease. “On the other hand, sensitivity of Lyme PCR performed on CSF has been only in the 5%-17% range in studies. Incidentally, Lyme PCR on blood is also not sensitive and therefore not recommended,” Dr. Rumbaugh said.

Guideline authors recommended testing in patients with the following conditions: acute neurologic disorders such as meningitis, painful radiculoneuritis, mononeuropathy multiplex; evidence of spinal cord or brain inflammation; and acute myocarditis/pericarditis of unknown cause in an appropriate epidemiologic setting.

They did not recommend testing in patients with typical amyotrophic lateral sclerosis; relapsing remitting multiple sclerosis; Parkinson’s disease, dementia, or cognitive decline; new-onset seizures; other neurologic syndromes or those lacking clinical or epidemiologic history that would support a diagnosis of Lyme disease; and patients with chronic cardiomyopathy of unknown cause.

The authors also called for judicious use of electrocardiogram to screen for Lyme carditis, recommending it only in patients signs or symptoms of this condition. However, patients at risk for or showing signs of severe cardiac complications of Lyme disease should be hospitalized and monitored via ECG.

Timelines for antibiotics

Most patients with Lyme disease should receive oral antibiotics, although duration times vary depending on the disease state. “We recommend that prophylactic antibiotic therapy be given to adults and children only within 72 hours of removal of an identified high-risk tick bite, but not for bites that are equivocal risk or low risk,” according to the guideline authors.

Specific antibiotic treatment regimens by condition are as follows: 10-14 days for early-stage disease, 14 days for Lyme carditis, 14-21 days for neurologic Lyme disease, and 28 days for late Lyme arthritis.

“Despite arthritis occurring late in the course of infection, treatment with a 28-day course of oral antibiotic is effective, although the rates of complete resolution of joint swelling can vary,” Dr. Bockenstedt said. Clinicians may consider a second 28-day course of oral antibiotics or a 2- to 4-week course of ceftriaxone in patients with persistent swelling, after an initial course of oral antibiotics.

Citing knowledge gaps, the authors made no recommendation on secondary antibiotic treatment for unresolved Lyme arthritis. Rheumatologists can play an important role in the care of this small subset of patients, Dr. Bockenstedt noted. “Studies of patients with ‘postantibiotic Lyme arthritis’ show that they can be treated successfully with intra-articular steroids, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs, biologic response modifiers, and even synovectomy with successful outcomes.” Some of these therapies also work in cases where first courses of oral and intravenous antibiotics are unsuccessful.

“Antibiotic therapy for longer than 8 weeks is not expected to provide additional benefit to patients with persistent arthritis if that treatment has included one course of IV therapy,” the authors clarified.

For patients with Lyme disease–associated meningitis, cranial neuropathy, radiculoneuropathy, or other PNS manifestations, the authors recommended intravenous ceftriaxone, cefotaxime, penicillin G, or oral doxycycline over other antimicrobials.

“For most neurologic presentations, oral doxycycline is just as effective as appropriate IV antibiotics,” Dr. Rumbaugh said. “The exception is the relatively rare situation where the patient is felt to have parenchymal involvement of brain or spinal cord, in which case the guidelines recommend IV antibiotics over oral antibiotics.” In the studies, there was no statistically significant difference between oral or intravenous regimens in response rate or risk of adverse effects.

Patients with nonspecific symptoms such as fatigue, pain, or cognitive impairment following treatment should not receive additional antibiotic therapy if there’s no evidence of treatment failure or infection. These two markers “would include objective signs of disease activity, such as arthritis, meningitis, or neuropathy,” the guideline authors wrote in comments accompanying the recommendation.

Clinicians caring for patients with symptomatic bradycardia caused by Lyme carditis should consider temporary pacing measures instead of a permanent pacemaker. For patients hospitalized with Lyme carditis, “we suggest initially using IV ceftriaxone over oral antibiotics until there is evidence of clinical improvement, then switching to oral antibiotics to complete treatment,” they advised. Outpatients with this condition should receive oral antibiotics instead of intravenous antibiotics.

Advice on antibodies testing ‘particularly cogent’

For individuals without expertise in these areas, the recommendations are clear and useful, Daniel E. Furst, MD, professor of medicine (emeritus) at the University of California, Los Angeles, adjunct professor at the University of Washington, Seattle, and research professor at the University of Florence (Italy), said in an interview.

“As a rheumatologist, I would have appreciated literature references for some of the recommendations but, nevertheless, find these useful. I applaud the care with which the evidence was gathered and the general formatting, which tried to review multiple possible scenarios surrounding Lyme arthritis,” said Dr. Furst, offering a third-party perspective.

The advice on using antibodies tests to make a diagnosis of Lyme arthritis “is particularly cogent and more useful than trying to culture these fastidious organisms,” he added.

The IDSA, AAN, and ACR provided support for the guideline. Dr. Bockenstedt reported receiving research funding from the National Institutes of Health and the Gordon and the Llura Gund Foundation and remuneration from L2 Diagnostics for investigator-initiated NIH-sponsored research. Dr. Rumbaugh had no conflicts of interest to disclose. Dr. Furst reported no conflicts of interest in commenting on these guidelines.

SOURCE: Rumbaugh JA et al. Clin Infect Dis. 2020 Nov 30. doi: 10.1093/cid/ciaa1215.