Infectious Diseases

Rates of human papillomavirus vaccination increased for both boys and girls in the United States over the past decade, but remain below target levels and vary widely across states based on data from a nested cohort study including more than 7 million children.

Dzurag/iStock/Getty Images

“Understanding regional and temporal variations in HPV vaccination coverage may help improve HPV vaccination uptake by informing public health policy,” Szu-Ta Chen, MD, of Harvard University, Boston, and colleagues wrote in Pediatrics.

To identify trends in one-dose and two-dose human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination coverage, the researchers reviewed data from the MarketScan health care database between January 2003 and December 2017 that included 7,837,480 children and 19,843,737 person-years. The children were followed starting at age 9, when HPV vaccination could begin, and ending at one of the following: the first or second vaccination, insurance disenrollment, December 2017, or the end of the year in which they turned 17.

Overall, the proportion of 15-year-old girls and boys with at least a one-dose HPV vaccination increased from 38% and 5%, respectively, in 2011 to 57% and 51%, respectively, in 2017. The comparable proportions of girls and boys with at least a two-dose vaccination increased from 30% and 2%, respectively, in 2011 to 46% and 39%, respectively, in 2017.

Coverage lacks consistency across states

However, the vaccination coverage varied widely across states; two-dose HPV vaccination coverage ranged from 80% of girls in the District of Columbia to 15% of boys in Mississippi. In general, states with more HPV vaccine interventions had higher levels of vaccination, the researchers noted.

Legislation to improve vaccination education showed the strongest association with coverage; an 8.8% increase in coverage for girls and an 8.7% increase for boys. Pediatrician availability also was a factor associated with a 1.1% increase in coverage estimated for every pediatrician per 10,000 children.

Cumulative HPV vaccinations seen among children continuously enrolled in the study were similar to the primary analysis, the Dr. Chen and associates said. “After the initial HPV vaccination, 87% of girls and 82% of boys received a second dose by age 17 in the most recent cohorts.”

However, the HPV vaccination coverage remains below the Healthy People 2020 goal of 80% of children vaccinated by age 15 years, the researchers said. Barriers to vaccination may include a lack of routine clinical encounters in adolescents aged 11-17 years. HPV vaccination coverage was higher in urban populations, compared with rural, which may be related to a lack of providers in rural areas.

“Thus, measures beyond recommending routine vaccination at annual check-ups might be necessary to attain sufficient HPV vaccine coverage, and the optimal strategy may differ by state characteristics,” they wrote.

The study findings were limited by several factors including the use of data from only commercially-insured children and lack of data on vaccines received outside of insurance, the researchers noted.

However, the results were strengthened by the large, population-based sample, and support the need for increased efforts in HPV vaccination. “Most states will not achieve the Healthy People 2020 goal of 80% coverage with at least two HPV vaccine doses by 2020,” Dr. Chen and associates concluded.

Vaccination goals are possible with effort in the right places

The fact of below-target vaccination for HPV in the United States may be old news, but the current study offers new insights on HPV uptake, Amanda F. Dempsey, MD, PhD, of the University of Colorado at Denver, in Aurora, wrote in an accompanying editorial.

“A unique feature of this study is the ability of its researchers to study individuals over time, particularly at a national scope,” which yielded two key messages, she said.

The longitudinal examination of vaccination levels among birth cohorts showed that similar vaccination levels were achieved more quickly each year.

“For example, among the birth cohort from the year 2000, representing 17-year-olds at the time data were abstracted for the study, 40% vaccination coverage was achieved when this group was 14 years old. In contrast, among the birth cohort from the year 2005, representing 12-year-olds at the time of data abstraction, 40% vaccination coverage was reached at the age of 12,” Dr. Dempsey explained.

In addition, the study design allowed the researchers to model future vaccine coverage based on current trends, said Dr. Dempsey. “The authors estimate that, by the year 2022, the 2012 birth cohort will have reached 80% coverage for the first dose in the HPV vaccine series.”

Dr. Dempsey said she was surprised that the models did not support the hypothesis that school mandates for vaccination would increase coverage; however, there were few states in this category.

Although the findings were limited by the lack of data on uninsured children and those insured by Medicaid, the state-by-state results show that the achievement of national vaccination goals is possible, Dr. Dempsey said. In addition, the findings “warrant close consideration by policy makers and the medical community at large regarding vaccination policies and workforce,” she emphasized.The study received no outside funding. Dr. Chen had no financial conflicts to disclose. Several coauthors reported research grants to their institutions from pharmaceutical companies or being consultants to such companies. Dr. Dempsey disclosed serving on the advisory boards for Merck, Pfizer, and Sanofi Pasteur.

SOURCE: Chen S-T et al. Pediatrics. 2020 Sep 14. doi: 10.1542/peds.2019-3557.

Rates of human papillomavirus vaccination increased for both boys and girls in the United States over the past decade, but remain below target levels and vary widely across states based on data from a nested cohort study including more than 7 million children.

Dzurag/iStock/Getty Images

“Understanding regional and temporal variations in HPV vaccination coverage may help improve HPV vaccination uptake by informing public health policy,” Szu-Ta Chen, MD, of Harvard University, Boston, and colleagues wrote in Pediatrics.

To identify trends in one-dose and two-dose human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination coverage, the researchers reviewed data from the MarketScan health care database between January 2003 and December 2017 that included 7,837,480 children and 19,843,737 person-years. The children were followed starting at age 9, when HPV vaccination could begin, and ending at one of the following: the first or second vaccination, insurance disenrollment, December 2017, or the end of the year in which they turned 17.

Overall, the proportion of 15-year-old girls and boys with at least a one-dose HPV vaccination increased from 38% and 5%, respectively, in 2011 to 57% and 51%, respectively, in 2017. The comparable proportions of girls and boys with at least a two-dose vaccination increased from 30% and 2%, respectively, in 2011 to 46% and 39%, respectively, in 2017.

Coverage lacks consistency across states

However, the vaccination coverage varied widely across states; two-dose HPV vaccination coverage ranged from 80% of girls in the District of Columbia to 15% of boys in Mississippi. In general, states with more HPV vaccine interventions had higher levels of vaccination, the researchers noted.

Legislation to improve vaccination education showed the strongest association with coverage; an 8.8% increase in coverage for girls and an 8.7% increase for boys. Pediatrician availability also was a factor associated with a 1.1% increase in coverage estimated for every pediatrician per 10,000 children.

Cumulative HPV vaccinations seen among children continuously enrolled in the study were similar to the primary analysis, the Dr. Chen and associates said. “After the initial HPV vaccination, 87% of girls and 82% of boys received a second dose by age 17 in the most recent cohorts.”

However, the HPV vaccination coverage remains below the Healthy People 2020 goal of 80% of children vaccinated by age 15 years, the researchers said. Barriers to vaccination may include a lack of routine clinical encounters in adolescents aged 11-17 years. HPV vaccination coverage was higher in urban populations, compared with rural, which may be related to a lack of providers in rural areas.

“Thus, measures beyond recommending routine vaccination at annual check-ups might be necessary to attain sufficient HPV vaccine coverage, and the optimal strategy may differ by state characteristics,” they wrote.

The study findings were limited by several factors including the use of data from only commercially-insured children and lack of data on vaccines received outside of insurance, the researchers noted.

However, the results were strengthened by the large, population-based sample, and support the need for increased efforts in HPV vaccination. “Most states will not achieve the Healthy People 2020 goal of 80% coverage with at least two HPV vaccine doses by 2020,” Dr. Chen and associates concluded.

Vaccination goals are possible with effort in the right places

The fact of below-target vaccination for HPV in the United States may be old news, but the current study offers new insights on HPV uptake, Amanda F. Dempsey, MD, PhD, of the University of Colorado at Denver, in Aurora, wrote in an accompanying editorial.

“A unique feature of this study is the ability of its researchers to study individuals over time, particularly at a national scope,” which yielded two key messages, she said.

The longitudinal examination of vaccination levels among birth cohorts showed that similar vaccination levels were achieved more quickly each year.

“For example, among the birth cohort from the year 2000, representing 17-year-olds at the time data were abstracted for the study, 40% vaccination coverage was achieved when this group was 14 years old. In contrast, among the birth cohort from the year 2005, representing 12-year-olds at the time of data abstraction, 40% vaccination coverage was reached at the age of 12,” Dr. Dempsey explained.

In addition, the study design allowed the researchers to model future vaccine coverage based on current trends, said Dr. Dempsey. “The authors estimate that, by the year 2022, the 2012 birth cohort will have reached 80% coverage for the first dose in the HPV vaccine series.”

Dr. Dempsey said she was surprised that the models did not support the hypothesis that school mandates for vaccination would increase coverage; however, there were few states in this category.

Although the findings were limited by the lack of data on uninsured children and those insured by Medicaid, the state-by-state results show that the achievement of national vaccination goals is possible, Dr. Dempsey said. In addition, the findings “warrant close consideration by policy makers and the medical community at large regarding vaccination policies and workforce,” she emphasized.The study received no outside funding. Dr. Chen had no financial conflicts to disclose. Several coauthors reported research grants to their institutions from pharmaceutical companies or being consultants to such companies. Dr. Dempsey disclosed serving on the advisory boards for Merck, Pfizer, and Sanofi Pasteur.

SOURCE: Chen S-T et al. Pediatrics. 2020 Sep 14. doi: 10.1542/peds.2019-3557.

Rates of human papillomavirus vaccination increased for both boys and girls in the United States over the past decade, but remain below target levels and vary widely across states based on data from a nested cohort study including more than 7 million children.

Dzurag/iStock/Getty Images

“Understanding regional and temporal variations in HPV vaccination coverage may help improve HPV vaccination uptake by informing public health policy,” Szu-Ta Chen, MD, of Harvard University, Boston, and colleagues wrote in Pediatrics.

To identify trends in one-dose and two-dose human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination coverage, the researchers reviewed data from the MarketScan health care database between January 2003 and December 2017 that included 7,837,480 children and 19,843,737 person-years. The children were followed starting at age 9, when HPV vaccination could begin, and ending at one of the following: the first or second vaccination, insurance disenrollment, December 2017, or the end of the year in which they turned 17.

Overall, the proportion of 15-year-old girls and boys with at least a one-dose HPV vaccination increased from 38% and 5%, respectively, in 2011 to 57% and 51%, respectively, in 2017. The comparable proportions of girls and boys with at least a two-dose vaccination increased from 30% and 2%, respectively, in 2011 to 46% and 39%, respectively, in 2017.

Coverage lacks consistency across states

However, the vaccination coverage varied widely across states; two-dose HPV vaccination coverage ranged from 80% of girls in the District of Columbia to 15% of boys in Mississippi. In general, states with more HPV vaccine interventions had higher levels of vaccination, the researchers noted.

Legislation to improve vaccination education showed the strongest association with coverage; an 8.8% increase in coverage for girls and an 8.7% increase for boys. Pediatrician availability also was a factor associated with a 1.1% increase in coverage estimated for every pediatrician per 10,000 children.

Cumulative HPV vaccinations seen among children continuously enrolled in the study were similar to the primary analysis, the Dr. Chen and associates said. “After the initial HPV vaccination, 87% of girls and 82% of boys received a second dose by age 17 in the most recent cohorts.”

However, the HPV vaccination coverage remains below the Healthy People 2020 goal of 80% of children vaccinated by age 15 years, the researchers said. Barriers to vaccination may include a lack of routine clinical encounters in adolescents aged 11-17 years. HPV vaccination coverage was higher in urban populations, compared with rural, which may be related to a lack of providers in rural areas.

“Thus, measures beyond recommending routine vaccination at annual check-ups might be necessary to attain sufficient HPV vaccine coverage, and the optimal strategy may differ by state characteristics,” they wrote.

The study findings were limited by several factors including the use of data from only commercially-insured children and lack of data on vaccines received outside of insurance, the researchers noted.

However, the results were strengthened by the large, population-based sample, and support the need for increased efforts in HPV vaccination. “Most states will not achieve the Healthy People 2020 goal of 80% coverage with at least two HPV vaccine doses by 2020,” Dr. Chen and associates concluded.

Vaccination goals are possible with effort in the right places

The fact of below-target vaccination for HPV in the United States may be old news, but the current study offers new insights on HPV uptake, Amanda F. Dempsey, MD, PhD, of the University of Colorado at Denver, in Aurora, wrote in an accompanying editorial.

“A unique feature of this study is the ability of its researchers to study individuals over time, particularly at a national scope,” which yielded two key messages, she said.

The longitudinal examination of vaccination levels among birth cohorts showed that similar vaccination levels were achieved more quickly each year.

“For example, among the birth cohort from the year 2000, representing 17-year-olds at the time data were abstracted for the study, 40% vaccination coverage was achieved when this group was 14 years old. In contrast, among the birth cohort from the year 2005, representing 12-year-olds at the time of data abstraction, 40% vaccination coverage was reached at the age of 12,” Dr. Dempsey explained.

In addition, the study design allowed the researchers to model future vaccine coverage based on current trends, said Dr. Dempsey. “The authors estimate that, by the year 2022, the 2012 birth cohort will have reached 80% coverage for the first dose in the HPV vaccine series.”

Dr. Dempsey said she was surprised that the models did not support the hypothesis that school mandates for vaccination would increase coverage; however, there were few states in this category.

Although the findings were limited by the lack of data on uninsured children and those insured by Medicaid, the state-by-state results show that the achievement of national vaccination goals is possible, Dr. Dempsey said. In addition, the findings “warrant close consideration by policy makers and the medical community at large regarding vaccination policies and workforce,” she emphasized.The study received no outside funding. Dr. Chen had no financial conflicts to disclose. Several coauthors reported research grants to their institutions from pharmaceutical companies or being consultants to such companies. Dr. Dempsey disclosed serving on the advisory boards for Merck, Pfizer, and Sanofi Pasteur.

SOURCE: Chen S-T et al. Pediatrics. 2020 Sep 14. doi: 10.1542/peds.2019-3557.

The 2020-2021 influenza season is shaping up to be challenging. Its likely concurrence with the ongoing severe acute respiratory syndrome-coronavirus 2 (­SARS-coV-2) pandemic (COVID-19) will pose diagnostic and therapeutic dilemmas and could overload the hospital system. But there could also be potential synergies in preventing morbidity and mortality from each disease.

A consistent pattern overthe past few influenza seasons

During the 2019-2020 flu season, there were an estimated 410,000 to 740,000 hospitalizations and 24,000 to 62,000 deaths attributed to influenza.¹ As seen in FIGURE 1, office visits for influenza-like illness (ILI) began to increase in late November and early December in each of the last 3 years (2017-2018, 2018-2019, ­2019-2020) and stayed elevated above baseline for about 4 months each season.¹

The effectiveness of influenza vaccine during the 2019-2020 season is being estimated using the US Flu Vaccine Effectiveness Network, which has close to 9000 enrollees. Overall, it appears the vaccine was 39% effective against medically attended influenza, with a higher effectiveness against influenza B (44%) than against A/H1N1 (31%). Effectiveness against influenza B was similar in all age groups, but effectiveness against A/H1N1 was highest for those ages 50 to 64 years (45%) and lowest for those ages 6 months through 8 years (22%), although 95% confidence intervals overlapped for all age groups (FIGURE 2). These preliminary effectiveness rates were presented at the summer meeting of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP).¹

Influenza vaccine safety data for ­2019-2020 were based on the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS), a passive surveillance system, and on the Vaccine Safety Datalink (VSD) system, an active surveillance system involving close to 6 million doses administered at VSD sites. No safety concerns were identified for any of the different vaccine types. Both the VAERS and VSD surveillance systems have been described in more detail in a previous Practice Alert.²

Recommendations for 2020-2021

The composition of the influenza vaccines for this year’s flu season will be different for 3 of the 4 antigens: A/H1N1, A/H2N2 and B/Victoria.³ The antigens included in the influenza vaccines each year are decided on in the spring, based on surveillance of circulating strains around the world. The effectiveness of the vaccine each year largely depends on how well the strains included in the vaccine match those circulating in the United States during the influenza season.

The main immunization recommendation for preventing morbidity and mortality from influenza has not changed: All individuals ages 6 months and older without a contraindication should receive an influenza vaccine.⁴ The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) recommends that patients receive the vaccine by the end of October.⁴ This includes the second dose for those children younger than 9 years who need 2 doses—ie, those who have received fewer than 2 doses of influenza vaccine prior to July 2020. Vaccination should continue through the end of the season for anyone who has not received a 2020-2021 influenza vaccine.

Two new influenza vaccine products are available for use in those ages 65 years and older: Fluzone high-dose quadrivalent and Fluad Quadrivalent (adjuvanted).⁴ Both of these products were available last year as trivalent options. Currently no specific vaccine product is listed as preferred by ACIP for those ages 65 and older.

Continue to: New vaccine contraindications

New vaccine contraindications. Four medical conditions have been added to the list of contraindications for quadrivalent live, attenuated influenza vaccine (LAIV4): cochlear implant, cerebrospinal fluid leak, asplenia (anatomic and functional), and sickle cell anemia.⁴ In addition, those who receive LAIV4 should not be prescribed an influenza antiviral until 2 weeks after receiving the vaccine. And the vaccine should not be administered for 48 hours after receipt of oseltamivir or zanamivir, 5 days after peramivir, and 17 days after baloxavir marboxil.⁴ This is to prevent possible antiviral inactivation of the live attenuated influenza viruses in the ­vaccine.

For those who have a history of severe allergic reaction to eggs, there are now 2 egg-free options: cell-culture-based inactivated vaccine (ccIIV4) and recombinant influenza vaccine (RIV4).^3,4 Urticaria alone is not considered a severe reaction. If neither of these egg-free options is available, a vaccine may still be administered in a medical setting supervised by a provider who is able to manage a severe allergic reaction (which rarely occurs).

All vaccine products available for the upcoming influenza season are listed and described on the CDC Web site, as is a summary of related recommendations.⁴ Particular attention should be paid to the dose of vaccine administered, as it differs by product for those ages 6 through 35 months of age and those ages 65 years and older.

Use of antiviral medications

Four antiviral medications are now available for treating influenza (3 neuraminidase inhibitors and 1 endonuclease inhibitor), and there are 2 agents for preventing influenza, both neuraminidase inhibitors (TABLE 1).⁵ The CDC recommends treating with antivirals as soon as possible if individuals with confirmed or suspected influenza require hospitalization; have severe, complicated, or progressive illness; or are at high risk for complications. Use antivirals based on clinical judgment if previously healthy individuals do not have severe complications and are not at increased risk for complications, and only if the medication can be started within 48 hours of symptom onset.

The CDC discourages widespread use of antivirals to prevent influenza, either pre- or postexposure, although it specifies certain situations in which usage would be acceptable (TABLE 2).⁵ There is some concern that widespread use could lead to the emergence of drug-resistant strains and that using postexposure dosing could lead to suboptimal treatment if influenza infection occurred before the start of prophylaxis. If postexposure antivirals are prescribed, they should be started within 48 hours of exposure and continued for 7 days after the last exposure.

Continue to: A potential perfect storm

While we have vaccines and antivirals to prevent influenza, and have effective antivirals for treatment, no prevention or treatment options exist for COVID-19, except, possibly, dexamethasone to reduce mortality among those seriously ill.⁶ The concurrence of influenza and COVID-19 will present unique challenges for the health care system.

Action steps. Keep abreast of the incidences of circulating SARS-coV-19 and influenza viruses in your community. The similar signs and symptoms of these 2 infectious agents will complicate diagnosis. Rapid, or point-of-care, tests for influenza are widely available, but their accuracy varies and not all tests detect both influenza A and B. The CDC lists approved point-of-care tests at www.cdc.gov/flu/professionals/diagnosis/table-ridt.html and advises on how to interpret these test results when influenza is and is not circulating in the community, at www.cdc.gov/flu/­professionals/diagnosis/clinician_­guidance_ridt.htm.

Clinical practice advice for both conditions should be implemented when any patient presents with ILI:⁷

• Most patients who are not seriously ill and have no conditions that place them at high risk for adverse outcomes can be treated symptomatically at home.
• Those with ILI should be tested for both influenza virus and SARS-CoV-2 if testing is available. It is possible to be co-infected.
• Sick patients should self-isolate at home for the duration of their symptoms.
• If others live in the house, the sick person should stay in a separate room and wear a mask. Everyone in the house should cover coughs and sneezes (if not wearing a mask), dispose of used tissues in a trash can (rather than leaving them on night stands and countertops), and wash hands frequently.
• All household members should be vaccinated against influenza. Those who are unvaccinated, and those at high risk who have been recently vaccinated, can consider influenza antiviral prophylaxis. If the sick family member is confirmed to have COVID-19, with no co-existing influenza, anti-influenza antiviral prophylaxis may be discontinued.
• Clinical infection control practices should be the same for anyone presenting with ILI.⁷ Enhanced clinic-based infection control practices to prevent spread of SARS-CoV-2 are listed in TABLE 3.⁸

Since there currently are no preventive medications proven to work for COVID-19, the main clinical decision physicians will have to make when a patient presents with ILI is whether to use antivirals to treat those who are at risk for complications based on the result of rapid, on-site influenza testing, or clinical presentation, or both. In this situation, knowledge of which viruses are circulating at high rates in the community could be valuable.

Milder season or perfect storm? The society-wide interventions that have been encouraged (although not mandated everywhere) to prevent community spread of ­SARS-CoV-2 should help prevent the community spread of influenza as well, and, if adhered to, may lead to a milder influenza season than would otherwise have occurred. However, given the uncertainties, the combination of influenza and coronavirus could present a perfect storm for the health care system and result in higher-than-normal morbidity and mortality from ILI and pneumonia overall.

Continue to: The possibility that one or more vaccines...

The possibility that one or more vaccines to prevent COVID-19 may be available in late 2020 or early 2021 offers hope. However, in current testing, the vaccine is not being given simultaneously with the influenza vaccine. If the potential for adverse interaction exists between the vaccines, it is important that influenza vaccine be given by mid- to late-October to avoid such an interaction if and when the new SARS-CoV-2 vaccine becomes available. Individuals who have symptoms of COVID-19 should not be vaccinated with influenza vaccine until they are considered noninfectious.

Encourage influenza vaccination. The COVID-19 pandemic may make it difficult to achieve desired community influenza vaccine levels because of decreased visits to medical facilities for preventive care, possible lower insurance coverage due to loss of employment, and a decrease in worksite mass vaccination programs. This makes it important for family physicians to encourage and offer influenza vaccines at their clinical sites.

Several evidence-based practices have been shown to improve vaccine uptake. Examples of such practices include patient reminder and recall systems that provide feedback to clinicians about rates of vaccination among patients, and establishing standing orders for vaccine administration that allow other health care providers to assess a patient’s immunization status and administer vaccinations according to a protocol.⁹ Finally, the CDC provides a video on how to recommend influenza vaccine to those who may be resistant (www.cdc.gov/vaccines/howirecommend/adult-vacc-videos.html).

The 2020-2021 influenza season is shaping up to be challenging. Its likely concurrence with the ongoing severe acute respiratory syndrome-coronavirus 2 (­SARS-coV-2) pandemic (COVID-19) will pose diagnostic and therapeutic dilemmas and could overload the hospital system. But there could also be potential synergies in preventing morbidity and mortality from each disease.

A consistent pattern overthe past few influenza seasons

During the 2019-2020 flu season, there were an estimated 410,000 to 740,000 hospitalizations and 24,000 to 62,000 deaths attributed to influenza.¹ As seen in FIGURE 1, office visits for influenza-like illness (ILI) began to increase in late November and early December in each of the last 3 years (2017-2018, 2018-2019, ­2019-2020) and stayed elevated above baseline for about 4 months each season.¹

The effectiveness of influenza vaccine during the 2019-2020 season is being estimated using the US Flu Vaccine Effectiveness Network, which has close to 9000 enrollees. Overall, it appears the vaccine was 39% effective against medically attended influenza, with a higher effectiveness against influenza B (44%) than against A/H1N1 (31%). Effectiveness against influenza B was similar in all age groups, but effectiveness against A/H1N1 was highest for those ages 50 to 64 years (45%) and lowest for those ages 6 months through 8 years (22%), although 95% confidence intervals overlapped for all age groups (FIGURE 2). These preliminary effectiveness rates were presented at the summer meeting of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP).¹

Influenza vaccine safety data for ­2019-2020 were based on the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS), a passive surveillance system, and on the Vaccine Safety Datalink (VSD) system, an active surveillance system involving close to 6 million doses administered at VSD sites. No safety concerns were identified for any of the different vaccine types. Both the VAERS and VSD surveillance systems have been described in more detail in a previous Practice Alert.²

Recommendations for 2020-2021

The composition of the influenza vaccines for this year’s flu season will be different for 3 of the 4 antigens: A/H1N1, A/H2N2 and B/Victoria.³ The antigens included in the influenza vaccines each year are decided on in the spring, based on surveillance of circulating strains around the world. The effectiveness of the vaccine each year largely depends on how well the strains included in the vaccine match those circulating in the United States during the influenza season.

The main immunization recommendation for preventing morbidity and mortality from influenza has not changed: All individuals ages 6 months and older without a contraindication should receive an influenza vaccine.⁴ The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) recommends that patients receive the vaccine by the end of October.⁴ This includes the second dose for those children younger than 9 years who need 2 doses—ie, those who have received fewer than 2 doses of influenza vaccine prior to July 2020. Vaccination should continue through the end of the season for anyone who has not received a 2020-2021 influenza vaccine.

Two new influenza vaccine products are available for use in those ages 65 years and older: Fluzone high-dose quadrivalent and Fluad Quadrivalent (adjuvanted).⁴ Both of these products were available last year as trivalent options. Currently no specific vaccine product is listed as preferred by ACIP for those ages 65 and older.

Continue to: New vaccine contraindications

New vaccine contraindications. Four medical conditions have been added to the list of contraindications for quadrivalent live, attenuated influenza vaccine (LAIV4): cochlear implant, cerebrospinal fluid leak, asplenia (anatomic and functional), and sickle cell anemia.⁴ In addition, those who receive LAIV4 should not be prescribed an influenza antiviral until 2 weeks after receiving the vaccine. And the vaccine should not be administered for 48 hours after receipt of oseltamivir or zanamivir, 5 days after peramivir, and 17 days after baloxavir marboxil.⁴ This is to prevent possible antiviral inactivation of the live attenuated influenza viruses in the ­vaccine.

For those who have a history of severe allergic reaction to eggs, there are now 2 egg-free options: cell-culture-based inactivated vaccine (ccIIV4) and recombinant influenza vaccine (RIV4).^3,4 Urticaria alone is not considered a severe reaction. If neither of these egg-free options is available, a vaccine may still be administered in a medical setting supervised by a provider who is able to manage a severe allergic reaction (which rarely occurs).

All vaccine products available for the upcoming influenza season are listed and described on the CDC Web site, as is a summary of related recommendations.⁴ Particular attention should be paid to the dose of vaccine administered, as it differs by product for those ages 6 through 35 months of age and those ages 65 years and older.

Use of antiviral medications

Four antiviral medications are now available for treating influenza (3 neuraminidase inhibitors and 1 endonuclease inhibitor), and there are 2 agents for preventing influenza, both neuraminidase inhibitors (TABLE 1).⁵ The CDC recommends treating with antivirals as soon as possible if individuals with confirmed or suspected influenza require hospitalization; have severe, complicated, or progressive illness; or are at high risk for complications. Use antivirals based on clinical judgment if previously healthy individuals do not have severe complications and are not at increased risk for complications, and only if the medication can be started within 48 hours of symptom onset.

The CDC discourages widespread use of antivirals to prevent influenza, either pre- or postexposure, although it specifies certain situations in which usage would be acceptable (TABLE 2).⁵ There is some concern that widespread use could lead to the emergence of drug-resistant strains and that using postexposure dosing could lead to suboptimal treatment if influenza infection occurred before the start of prophylaxis. If postexposure antivirals are prescribed, they should be started within 48 hours of exposure and continued for 7 days after the last exposure.

Continue to: A potential perfect storm

While we have vaccines and antivirals to prevent influenza, and have effective antivirals for treatment, no prevention or treatment options exist for COVID-19, except, possibly, dexamethasone to reduce mortality among those seriously ill.⁶ The concurrence of influenza and COVID-19 will present unique challenges for the health care system.

Action steps. Keep abreast of the incidences of circulating SARS-coV-19 and influenza viruses in your community. The similar signs and symptoms of these 2 infectious agents will complicate diagnosis. Rapid, or point-of-care, tests for influenza are widely available, but their accuracy varies and not all tests detect both influenza A and B. The CDC lists approved point-of-care tests at www.cdc.gov/flu/professionals/diagnosis/table-ridt.html and advises on how to interpret these test results when influenza is and is not circulating in the community, at www.cdc.gov/flu/­professionals/diagnosis/clinician_­guidance_ridt.htm.

Clinical practice advice for both conditions should be implemented when any patient presents with ILI:⁷

• Most patients who are not seriously ill and have no conditions that place them at high risk for adverse outcomes can be treated symptomatically at home.
• Those with ILI should be tested for both influenza virus and SARS-CoV-2 if testing is available. It is possible to be co-infected.
• Sick patients should self-isolate at home for the duration of their symptoms.
• If others live in the house, the sick person should stay in a separate room and wear a mask. Everyone in the house should cover coughs and sneezes (if not wearing a mask), dispose of used tissues in a trash can (rather than leaving them on night stands and countertops), and wash hands frequently.
• All household members should be vaccinated against influenza. Those who are unvaccinated, and those at high risk who have been recently vaccinated, can consider influenza antiviral prophylaxis. If the sick family member is confirmed to have COVID-19, with no co-existing influenza, anti-influenza antiviral prophylaxis may be discontinued.
• Clinical infection control practices should be the same for anyone presenting with ILI.⁷ Enhanced clinic-based infection control practices to prevent spread of SARS-CoV-2 are listed in TABLE 3.⁸

Since there currently are no preventive medications proven to work for COVID-19, the main clinical decision physicians will have to make when a patient presents with ILI is whether to use antivirals to treat those who are at risk for complications based on the result of rapid, on-site influenza testing, or clinical presentation, or both. In this situation, knowledge of which viruses are circulating at high rates in the community could be valuable.

Milder season or perfect storm? The society-wide interventions that have been encouraged (although not mandated everywhere) to prevent community spread of ­SARS-CoV-2 should help prevent the community spread of influenza as well, and, if adhered to, may lead to a milder influenza season than would otherwise have occurred. However, given the uncertainties, the combination of influenza and coronavirus could present a perfect storm for the health care system and result in higher-than-normal morbidity and mortality from ILI and pneumonia overall.

Continue to: The possibility that one or more vaccines...

The possibility that one or more vaccines to prevent COVID-19 may be available in late 2020 or early 2021 offers hope. However, in current testing, the vaccine is not being given simultaneously with the influenza vaccine. If the potential for adverse interaction exists between the vaccines, it is important that influenza vaccine be given by mid- to late-October to avoid such an interaction if and when the new SARS-CoV-2 vaccine becomes available. Individuals who have symptoms of COVID-19 should not be vaccinated with influenza vaccine until they are considered noninfectious.

Encourage influenza vaccination. The COVID-19 pandemic may make it difficult to achieve desired community influenza vaccine levels because of decreased visits to medical facilities for preventive care, possible lower insurance coverage due to loss of employment, and a decrease in worksite mass vaccination programs. This makes it important for family physicians to encourage and offer influenza vaccines at their clinical sites.

Several evidence-based practices have been shown to improve vaccine uptake. Examples of such practices include patient reminder and recall systems that provide feedback to clinicians about rates of vaccination among patients, and establishing standing orders for vaccine administration that allow other health care providers to assess a patient’s immunization status and administer vaccinations according to a protocol.⁹ Finally, the CDC provides a video on how to recommend influenza vaccine to those who may be resistant (www.cdc.gov/vaccines/howirecommend/adult-vacc-videos.html).

The 2020-2021 influenza season is shaping up to be challenging. Its likely concurrence with the ongoing severe acute respiratory syndrome-coronavirus 2 (­SARS-coV-2) pandemic (COVID-19) will pose diagnostic and therapeutic dilemmas and could overload the hospital system. But there could also be potential synergies in preventing morbidity and mortality from each disease.

A consistent pattern overthe past few influenza seasons

During the 2019-2020 flu season, there were an estimated 410,000 to 740,000 hospitalizations and 24,000 to 62,000 deaths attributed to influenza.¹ As seen in FIGURE 1, office visits for influenza-like illness (ILI) began to increase in late November and early December in each of the last 3 years (2017-2018, 2018-2019, ­2019-2020) and stayed elevated above baseline for about 4 months each season.¹

The effectiveness of influenza vaccine during the 2019-2020 season is being estimated using the US Flu Vaccine Effectiveness Network, which has close to 9000 enrollees. Overall, it appears the vaccine was 39% effective against medically attended influenza, with a higher effectiveness against influenza B (44%) than against A/H1N1 (31%). Effectiveness against influenza B was similar in all age groups, but effectiveness against A/H1N1 was highest for those ages 50 to 64 years (45%) and lowest for those ages 6 months through 8 years (22%), although 95% confidence intervals overlapped for all age groups (FIGURE 2). These preliminary effectiveness rates were presented at the summer meeting of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP).¹

Influenza vaccine safety data for ­2019-2020 were based on the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS), a passive surveillance system, and on the Vaccine Safety Datalink (VSD) system, an active surveillance system involving close to 6 million doses administered at VSD sites. No safety concerns were identified for any of the different vaccine types. Both the VAERS and VSD surveillance systems have been described in more detail in a previous Practice Alert.²

Recommendations for 2020-2021

The composition of the influenza vaccines for this year’s flu season will be different for 3 of the 4 antigens: A/H1N1, A/H2N2 and B/Victoria.³ The antigens included in the influenza vaccines each year are decided on in the spring, based on surveillance of circulating strains around the world. The effectiveness of the vaccine each year largely depends on how well the strains included in the vaccine match those circulating in the United States during the influenza season.

The main immunization recommendation for preventing morbidity and mortality from influenza has not changed: All individuals ages 6 months and older without a contraindication should receive an influenza vaccine.⁴ The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) recommends that patients receive the vaccine by the end of October.⁴ This includes the second dose for those children younger than 9 years who need 2 doses—ie, those who have received fewer than 2 doses of influenza vaccine prior to July 2020. Vaccination should continue through the end of the season for anyone who has not received a 2020-2021 influenza vaccine.

Two new influenza vaccine products are available for use in those ages 65 years and older: Fluzone high-dose quadrivalent and Fluad Quadrivalent (adjuvanted).⁴ Both of these products were available last year as trivalent options. Currently no specific vaccine product is listed as preferred by ACIP for those ages 65 and older.

Continue to: New vaccine contraindications

New vaccine contraindications. Four medical conditions have been added to the list of contraindications for quadrivalent live, attenuated influenza vaccine (LAIV4): cochlear implant, cerebrospinal fluid leak, asplenia (anatomic and functional), and sickle cell anemia.⁴ In addition, those who receive LAIV4 should not be prescribed an influenza antiviral until 2 weeks after receiving the vaccine. And the vaccine should not be administered for 48 hours after receipt of oseltamivir or zanamivir, 5 days after peramivir, and 17 days after baloxavir marboxil.⁴ This is to prevent possible antiviral inactivation of the live attenuated influenza viruses in the ­vaccine.

For those who have a history of severe allergic reaction to eggs, there are now 2 egg-free options: cell-culture-based inactivated vaccine (ccIIV4) and recombinant influenza vaccine (RIV4).^3,4 Urticaria alone is not considered a severe reaction. If neither of these egg-free options is available, a vaccine may still be administered in a medical setting supervised by a provider who is able to manage a severe allergic reaction (which rarely occurs).

All vaccine products available for the upcoming influenza season are listed and described on the CDC Web site, as is a summary of related recommendations.⁴ Particular attention should be paid to the dose of vaccine administered, as it differs by product for those ages 6 through 35 months of age and those ages 65 years and older.

Use of antiviral medications

Four antiviral medications are now available for treating influenza (3 neuraminidase inhibitors and 1 endonuclease inhibitor), and there are 2 agents for preventing influenza, both neuraminidase inhibitors (TABLE 1).⁵ The CDC recommends treating with antivirals as soon as possible if individuals with confirmed or suspected influenza require hospitalization; have severe, complicated, or progressive illness; or are at high risk for complications. Use antivirals based on clinical judgment if previously healthy individuals do not have severe complications and are not at increased risk for complications, and only if the medication can be started within 48 hours of symptom onset.

The CDC discourages widespread use of antivirals to prevent influenza, either pre- or postexposure, although it specifies certain situations in which usage would be acceptable (TABLE 2).⁵ There is some concern that widespread use could lead to the emergence of drug-resistant strains and that using postexposure dosing could lead to suboptimal treatment if influenza infection occurred before the start of prophylaxis. If postexposure antivirals are prescribed, they should be started within 48 hours of exposure and continued for 7 days after the last exposure.

Continue to: A potential perfect storm

While we have vaccines and antivirals to prevent influenza, and have effective antivirals for treatment, no prevention or treatment options exist for COVID-19, except, possibly, dexamethasone to reduce mortality among those seriously ill.⁶ The concurrence of influenza and COVID-19 will present unique challenges for the health care system.

Action steps. Keep abreast of the incidences of circulating SARS-coV-19 and influenza viruses in your community. The similar signs and symptoms of these 2 infectious agents will complicate diagnosis. Rapid, or point-of-care, tests for influenza are widely available, but their accuracy varies and not all tests detect both influenza A and B. The CDC lists approved point-of-care tests at www.cdc.gov/flu/professionals/diagnosis/table-ridt.html and advises on how to interpret these test results when influenza is and is not circulating in the community, at www.cdc.gov/flu/­professionals/diagnosis/clinician_­guidance_ridt.htm.

Clinical practice advice for both conditions should be implemented when any patient presents with ILI:⁷

• Most patients who are not seriously ill and have no conditions that place them at high risk for adverse outcomes can be treated symptomatically at home.
• Those with ILI should be tested for both influenza virus and SARS-CoV-2 if testing is available. It is possible to be co-infected.
• Sick patients should self-isolate at home for the duration of their symptoms.
• If others live in the house, the sick person should stay in a separate room and wear a mask. Everyone in the house should cover coughs and sneezes (if not wearing a mask), dispose of used tissues in a trash can (rather than leaving them on night stands and countertops), and wash hands frequently.
• All household members should be vaccinated against influenza. Those who are unvaccinated, and those at high risk who have been recently vaccinated, can consider influenza antiviral prophylaxis. If the sick family member is confirmed to have COVID-19, with no co-existing influenza, anti-influenza antiviral prophylaxis may be discontinued.
• Clinical infection control practices should be the same for anyone presenting with ILI.⁷ Enhanced clinic-based infection control practices to prevent spread of SARS-CoV-2 are listed in TABLE 3.⁸

Since there currently are no preventive medications proven to work for COVID-19, the main clinical decision physicians will have to make when a patient presents with ILI is whether to use antivirals to treat those who are at risk for complications based on the result of rapid, on-site influenza testing, or clinical presentation, or both. In this situation, knowledge of which viruses are circulating at high rates in the community could be valuable.

Milder season or perfect storm? The society-wide interventions that have been encouraged (although not mandated everywhere) to prevent community spread of ­SARS-CoV-2 should help prevent the community spread of influenza as well, and, if adhered to, may lead to a milder influenza season than would otherwise have occurred. However, given the uncertainties, the combination of influenza and coronavirus could present a perfect storm for the health care system and result in higher-than-normal morbidity and mortality from ILI and pneumonia overall.

Continue to: The possibility that one or more vaccines...

The possibility that one or more vaccines to prevent COVID-19 may be available in late 2020 or early 2021 offers hope. However, in current testing, the vaccine is not being given simultaneously with the influenza vaccine. If the potential for adverse interaction exists between the vaccines, it is important that influenza vaccine be given by mid- to late-October to avoid such an interaction if and when the new SARS-CoV-2 vaccine becomes available. Individuals who have symptoms of COVID-19 should not be vaccinated with influenza vaccine until they are considered noninfectious.

Encourage influenza vaccination. The COVID-19 pandemic may make it difficult to achieve desired community influenza vaccine levels because of decreased visits to medical facilities for preventive care, possible lower insurance coverage due to loss of employment, and a decrease in worksite mass vaccination programs. This makes it important for family physicians to encourage and offer influenza vaccines at their clinical sites.

Several evidence-based practices have been shown to improve vaccine uptake. Examples of such practices include patient reminder and recall systems that provide feedback to clinicians about rates of vaccination among patients, and establishing standing orders for vaccine administration that allow other health care providers to assess a patient’s immunization status and administer vaccinations according to a protocol.⁹ Finally, the CDC provides a video on how to recommend influenza vaccine to those who may be resistant (www.cdc.gov/vaccines/howirecommend/adult-vacc-videos.html).

When medical care is based on consistent, good-quality evidence, most physicians adopt it. However, not all care is well supported by the literature and may, in fact, be overused without offering benefit to patients. Choosing Wisely, at www.choosingwisely.org, is a health care initiative that highlights screening and testing recommendations from specialty societies in an effort to encourage patients and clinicians to talk about how to make high-value, effective health care decisions and avoid overuse. (See “Test and Tx overutilization: A bigger problem than you might think"^1-3).

Enabling physician and patient dialogue. The initiative began in 2010 when the American Board of Internal Medicine convened a panel of experts to identify low-value tests and therapies. Their list took the form of a “Top Five Things” that may not be high value in patient care, and it used language tailored to patients and physicians so that they could converse meaningfully. Physicians could use the evidence to make a clinical decision, and patients could feel empowered to ask informed questions about recommendations they received. The initiative has now expanded to include ways that health care systems can reduce low-value interventions.

Scope of participation. Since the first Choosing Wisely recommendations were published in 2013, more than 80 professional associations have contributed lists of their own. Professional societies participate voluntarily. The American Academy of Family Physicians (AAFP), Society of General Internal Medicine, and American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) have contributed lists relevant to primary care. All Choosing Wisely recommendations can be searched or sorted by specialty organization. Recommendations are reviewed and revised regularly. If the evidence becomes conflicted or contradictory, recommendations are withdrawn.

Making meaningful improvements by Choosing Wisely

Several studies have shown that health care systems can implement Choosing Wisely recommendations to reduce overuse of unnecessary tests. A 2015 study examined the effect of applying a Choosing Wisely recommendation to reduce the use of continuous pulse oximetry in pediatric inpatients with asthma, wheezing, or bronchiolitis. The recommendation, from the Society of Hospital Medicine–Pediatric Hospital Medicine, advises against continuous pulse oximetry in children with acute respiratory illnesses unless the child is using supplemental oxygen.⁴ This study, done at the Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center, found that within 3 months of initiating a protocol on all general pediatrics floors, the average time on pulse oximetry after meeting clinical goals decreased from 10.7 hours to 3.1 hours. In addition, the percentage of patients who had their continuous pulse oximetry stopped within 2 hours of clinical stability (a goal time) increased from 25% to 46%.⁵

Patients are important drivers of health care utilization. A 2003 study showed that physicians are more likely to order referrals, tests, and prescriptions when patients ask for them, and that nearly 1 in 4 patients did so.⁶ A 2002 study found that physicians granted all but 3% of patient’s requests for orders or tests, and that fulfilling requests correlated with patient satisfaction in the specialty office studied (cardiology) but not in the primary care (internal medicine) office.⁷

Choosing Wisely recommendations are not guidelines or mandates. They are intended to be evidencebased advice from a specialty society to its members and to patients about care that is often unnecessary.

From its inception, Choosing Wisely has considered patients as full partners in conversations about health care utilization. Choosing Wisely partners with Consumer Reports to create and disseminate plain-language summaries of recommendations. Community groups and physician organizations have also participated in implementation efforts. In 2018, Choosing Wisely secured a grant to expand outreach to diverse or underserved communities.

Choosing Wisely recommendations are not guidelines or mandates. They are intended to be evidence-based advice from a specialty society to its members and to patients about care that is often unnecessary. The goal is to create a conversation and not to eliminate these services from ever being offered or used.

Continue to: Improve your practice with these 10 primary care recommendations

Improve your practice with these 10 primary care recommendations

 1 Avoid imaging studies in early acute low back pain without red flags.

Both the AAFP and the American Society of Anesthesiologists recommend against routine X-rays, magnetic resonance imaging, and computed tomography (CT) scans in the first 6 weeks of acute low back pain (LBP).^8,9 The American College of Emergency Physicians (ACEP) recommends against routine lumbar spine imaging for emergency department (ED) patients.¹⁰ In all cases, imaging is indicated if the patient has any signs or symptoms of neurologic deficits or other indications, such as signs of spinal infection or fracture. However, as ACEP notes, diagnostic imaging does not typically help identify the cause of acute LBP, and when it does, it does not reduce the time to symptom improvement.¹⁰

2 Prescribe oral contraceptives on the basis of a medical history and a blood pressure measurement. No routine pelvic exam or other physical exam is necessary.

This AAFP recommendation¹¹ is based on clinical practice guidelines from the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) and other research.¹² The ACOG practice guideline supports provision of hormonal contraception without a pelvic exam, cervical cancer (Pap) testing, urine pregnancy testing, or testing for sexually transmitted infections. ACOG guidelines also support over-the-counter provision of hormonal contraceptives, including combined oral contraceptives.¹²

3 Stop recommending daily self-glucose monitoring for patients with diabetes who are not using insulin.

Both the AAFP and the Society for General Internal Medicine recommend against daily blood sugar checks for people who do not use insulin.^13,14 A Cochrane review of 9 trials (3300 patients) found that after 6 months, hemoglobin A1C was reduced by 0.3% in people who checked their sugar daily compared with those who did not, but this difference was not significant after a year.¹⁵ Hypoglycemic episodes were more common in the “checking” group, and there were no differences in quality of life. A qualitative study found that blood sugar results had little impact on patients’ motivation to change behavior.¹⁶

4 Don’t screen for herpes simplex virus (HSV) infection in asymptomatic adults, even those who are pregnant.

This AAFP recommendation¹⁷ comes from a US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) Grade D recommendation.18 Most people with positive HSV-2 serology have had an outbreak; even those who do not think they have had one will realize that they had the symptoms once they hear them described.18 With available tests, 1 in 2 positive results for HSV-2 among asymptomatic people will be a false-positive.¹⁸

A 2006 analysis of inpatient lab studies found that doctors ordered an average of 2.96 studies per patient per day, but only 29% of these tests contributed to management.

There is no known cure, intervention, or reduction in transmission for infected patients who do not have symptoms.¹⁸ Also, serologically detected HSV-2 does not reliably predict genital herpes; and HSV-1 has been found to cause an increasing percentage of genital infection cases.¹⁸

Continue to: 5 Don't screen for testicular cancer in asymptomatic individuals

5 Don’t screen for testicular cancer in asymptomatic individuals.

This AAFP recommendation¹⁹ also comes from a USPSTF Grade D recommendation.²⁰ A 2010 systematic review found no evidence to support screening of asymptomatic people with a physical exam or ultrasound. All available studies involved symptomatic patients.²⁰

 6 Stop recommending cough and cold medicines for children younger than 4 years.

The AAP recommends that clinicians discourage the use of any cough or cold medicine for children in this age-group.²¹ A 2008 study found that more than 7000 children annually presented to EDs for adverse events from cough and cold medicines.²² Previous studies found no benefit in reducing symptoms.²³ In children older than 12 months, a Cochrane review found that honey has a modest benefit for cough in single-night trials.²⁴

7 Avoid performing serum allergy panels.

The American Academy of Allergy, Asthma, and Immunology discourages the use of serum panel testing when patients present with allergy symptoms.²⁵ A patient can have a strong positive immunoglobulin E (IgE) serum result to an allergen and have no clinical allergic symptoms or can have a weak positive serum result and a strong clinical reaction. Targeted skin or serum IgE testing—for example, testing for cashew allergy in a patient known to have had a reaction after eating one—is reasonable.²⁶

8 Avoid routine electroencephalography (EEG), head CT, and carotid ultrasound as initial work-up for simple syncope in adults.

These recommendations, from the American Epilepsy Society,²⁷ ACEP,²⁸ American College of Physicians,²⁹ and American Academy of Neurology (AAN),³⁰ emphasize the low yield of routine work-ups for patients with simple syncope. The AAN notes that 40% of people will experience syncope during adulthood and most will not have carotid disease, which generally manifests with stroke-like symptoms rather than syncope. One study found that approximately 1 in 8 patients referred to an epilepsy clinic had neurocardiogenic syncope rather than epilepsy.³¹

EEGs have high false-negative and false-positive rates, and history-taking is a better tool with which to make a diagnosis. CT scans performed in the ED were found to contribute to the diagnosis of simple syncope in fewer than 2% of cases of syncope, compared with orthostatic blood pressure (25% of cases).³²

Continue to: 9 Wait to refer children with umbilical hernias to pediatric surgery until they are 4 to 5 years of age

The AAP Section on Surgery offers evidence that the risk-benefit analysis strongly favors waiting on intervention.³³ About 1 in 4 children will have an umbilical hernia, and about 85% of cases will resolve by age 5. The strangulation rate with umbilical hernias is very low, and although the risk of infection with surgery is likewise low, the risk of recurrence following surgery before the age of 4 is as high as 2.4%.³⁴ The AAP Section on Surgery recommends against strapping or restraining the hernia, as well.

10 Avoid using appetite stimulants, such as megesterol, and high-calorie nutritional supplements to treat anorexia and cachexia in older adults.

Instead, the American Geriatrics Society recommends that physicians encourage caregivers to serve appealing food, provide support with eating, and remove barriers to appetite and nutrition.³⁵ A Cochrane review showed that high-calorie supplements, such as Boost or Ensure, are associated with very modest weight gain—about 2% of weight—but are not associated with an increased life expectancy or improved quality of life.³⁶

Both the AAFP and the American Society of Anesthesiologists recommend against routine x-rays, MRIs, and CT scans during the first 6 weeks of acute low back pain.

Prescription appetite stimulants are associated with adverse effects and yield inconsistent benefits in older adults. Megesterol, for example, was associated with headache, gastrointestinal adverse effects, insomnia, weakness, and fatigue. Mirtazapine is associated with sedation and fatigue.³⁷

CORRESPONDENCE
Kathleen Rowland, MD, MS, Rush Copley Family Medicine Residency, Rush Medical College, 600 South Paulina, Kidston House Room 605, Chicago IL 60612; kathleen_rowland@rush.edu.

When medical care is based on consistent, good-quality evidence, most physicians adopt it. However, not all care is well supported by the literature and may, in fact, be overused without offering benefit to patients. Choosing Wisely, at www.choosingwisely.org, is a health care initiative that highlights screening and testing recommendations from specialty societies in an effort to encourage patients and clinicians to talk about how to make high-value, effective health care decisions and avoid overuse. (See “Test and Tx overutilization: A bigger problem than you might think"^1-3).

Enabling physician and patient dialogue. The initiative began in 2010 when the American Board of Internal Medicine convened a panel of experts to identify low-value tests and therapies. Their list took the form of a “Top Five Things” that may not be high value in patient care, and it used language tailored to patients and physicians so that they could converse meaningfully. Physicians could use the evidence to make a clinical decision, and patients could feel empowered to ask informed questions about recommendations they received. The initiative has now expanded to include ways that health care systems can reduce low-value interventions.

Scope of participation. Since the first Choosing Wisely recommendations were published in 2013, more than 80 professional associations have contributed lists of their own. Professional societies participate voluntarily. The American Academy of Family Physicians (AAFP), Society of General Internal Medicine, and American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) have contributed lists relevant to primary care. All Choosing Wisely recommendations can be searched or sorted by specialty organization. Recommendations are reviewed and revised regularly. If the evidence becomes conflicted or contradictory, recommendations are withdrawn.

Making meaningful improvements by Choosing Wisely

Several studies have shown that health care systems can implement Choosing Wisely recommendations to reduce overuse of unnecessary tests. A 2015 study examined the effect of applying a Choosing Wisely recommendation to reduce the use of continuous pulse oximetry in pediatric inpatients with asthma, wheezing, or bronchiolitis. The recommendation, from the Society of Hospital Medicine–Pediatric Hospital Medicine, advises against continuous pulse oximetry in children with acute respiratory illnesses unless the child is using supplemental oxygen.⁴ This study, done at the Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center, found that within 3 months of initiating a protocol on all general pediatrics floors, the average time on pulse oximetry after meeting clinical goals decreased from 10.7 hours to 3.1 hours. In addition, the percentage of patients who had their continuous pulse oximetry stopped within 2 hours of clinical stability (a goal time) increased from 25% to 46%.⁵

Patients are important drivers of health care utilization. A 2003 study showed that physicians are more likely to order referrals, tests, and prescriptions when patients ask for them, and that nearly 1 in 4 patients did so.⁶ A 2002 study found that physicians granted all but 3% of patient’s requests for orders or tests, and that fulfilling requests correlated with patient satisfaction in the specialty office studied (cardiology) but not in the primary care (internal medicine) office.⁷

Choosing Wisely recommendations are not guidelines or mandates. They are intended to be evidencebased advice from a specialty society to its members and to patients about care that is often unnecessary.

From its inception, Choosing Wisely has considered patients as full partners in conversations about health care utilization. Choosing Wisely partners with Consumer Reports to create and disseminate plain-language summaries of recommendations. Community groups and physician organizations have also participated in implementation efforts. In 2018, Choosing Wisely secured a grant to expand outreach to diverse or underserved communities.

Choosing Wisely recommendations are not guidelines or mandates. They are intended to be evidence-based advice from a specialty society to its members and to patients about care that is often unnecessary. The goal is to create a conversation and not to eliminate these services from ever being offered or used.

Continue to: Improve your practice with these 10 primary care recommendations

Improve your practice with these 10 primary care recommendations

 1 Avoid imaging studies in early acute low back pain without red flags.

Both the AAFP and the American Society of Anesthesiologists recommend against routine X-rays, magnetic resonance imaging, and computed tomography (CT) scans in the first 6 weeks of acute low back pain (LBP).^8,9 The American College of Emergency Physicians (ACEP) recommends against routine lumbar spine imaging for emergency department (ED) patients.¹⁰ In all cases, imaging is indicated if the patient has any signs or symptoms of neurologic deficits or other indications, such as signs of spinal infection or fracture. However, as ACEP notes, diagnostic imaging does not typically help identify the cause of acute LBP, and when it does, it does not reduce the time to symptom improvement.¹⁰

2 Prescribe oral contraceptives on the basis of a medical history and a blood pressure measurement. No routine pelvic exam or other physical exam is necessary.

This AAFP recommendation¹¹ is based on clinical practice guidelines from the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) and other research.¹² The ACOG practice guideline supports provision of hormonal contraception without a pelvic exam, cervical cancer (Pap) testing, urine pregnancy testing, or testing for sexually transmitted infections. ACOG guidelines also support over-the-counter provision of hormonal contraceptives, including combined oral contraceptives.¹²

3 Stop recommending daily self-glucose monitoring for patients with diabetes who are not using insulin.

Both the AAFP and the Society for General Internal Medicine recommend against daily blood sugar checks for people who do not use insulin.^13,14 A Cochrane review of 9 trials (3300 patients) found that after 6 months, hemoglobin A1C was reduced by 0.3% in people who checked their sugar daily compared with those who did not, but this difference was not significant after a year.¹⁵ Hypoglycemic episodes were more common in the “checking” group, and there were no differences in quality of life. A qualitative study found that blood sugar results had little impact on patients’ motivation to change behavior.¹⁶

4 Don’t screen for herpes simplex virus (HSV) infection in asymptomatic adults, even those who are pregnant.

This AAFP recommendation¹⁷ comes from a US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) Grade D recommendation.18 Most people with positive HSV-2 serology have had an outbreak; even those who do not think they have had one will realize that they had the symptoms once they hear them described.18 With available tests, 1 in 2 positive results for HSV-2 among asymptomatic people will be a false-positive.¹⁸

A 2006 analysis of inpatient lab studies found that doctors ordered an average of 2.96 studies per patient per day, but only 29% of these tests contributed to management.

There is no known cure, intervention, or reduction in transmission for infected patients who do not have symptoms.¹⁸ Also, serologically detected HSV-2 does not reliably predict genital herpes; and HSV-1 has been found to cause an increasing percentage of genital infection cases.¹⁸

Continue to: 5 Don't screen for testicular cancer in asymptomatic individuals

5 Don’t screen for testicular cancer in asymptomatic individuals.

This AAFP recommendation¹⁹ also comes from a USPSTF Grade D recommendation.²⁰ A 2010 systematic review found no evidence to support screening of asymptomatic people with a physical exam or ultrasound. All available studies involved symptomatic patients.²⁰

 6 Stop recommending cough and cold medicines for children younger than 4 years.

The AAP recommends that clinicians discourage the use of any cough or cold medicine for children in this age-group.²¹ A 2008 study found that more than 7000 children annually presented to EDs for adverse events from cough and cold medicines.²² Previous studies found no benefit in reducing symptoms.²³ In children older than 12 months, a Cochrane review found that honey has a modest benefit for cough in single-night trials.²⁴

7 Avoid performing serum allergy panels.

The American Academy of Allergy, Asthma, and Immunology discourages the use of serum panel testing when patients present with allergy symptoms.²⁵ A patient can have a strong positive immunoglobulin E (IgE) serum result to an allergen and have no clinical allergic symptoms or can have a weak positive serum result and a strong clinical reaction. Targeted skin or serum IgE testing—for example, testing for cashew allergy in a patient known to have had a reaction after eating one—is reasonable.²⁶

8 Avoid routine electroencephalography (EEG), head CT, and carotid ultrasound as initial work-up for simple syncope in adults.

These recommendations, from the American Epilepsy Society,²⁷ ACEP,²⁸ American College of Physicians,²⁹ and American Academy of Neurology (AAN),³⁰ emphasize the low yield of routine work-ups for patients with simple syncope. The AAN notes that 40% of people will experience syncope during adulthood and most will not have carotid disease, which generally manifests with stroke-like symptoms rather than syncope. One study found that approximately 1 in 8 patients referred to an epilepsy clinic had neurocardiogenic syncope rather than epilepsy.³¹

EEGs have high false-negative and false-positive rates, and history-taking is a better tool with which to make a diagnosis. CT scans performed in the ED were found to contribute to the diagnosis of simple syncope in fewer than 2% of cases of syncope, compared with orthostatic blood pressure (25% of cases).³²

Continue to: 9 Wait to refer children with umbilical hernias to pediatric surgery until they are 4 to 5 years of age

The AAP Section on Surgery offers evidence that the risk-benefit analysis strongly favors waiting on intervention.³³ About 1 in 4 children will have an umbilical hernia, and about 85% of cases will resolve by age 5. The strangulation rate with umbilical hernias is very low, and although the risk of infection with surgery is likewise low, the risk of recurrence following surgery before the age of 4 is as high as 2.4%.³⁴ The AAP Section on Surgery recommends against strapping or restraining the hernia, as well.

10 Avoid using appetite stimulants, such as megesterol, and high-calorie nutritional supplements to treat anorexia and cachexia in older adults.

Instead, the American Geriatrics Society recommends that physicians encourage caregivers to serve appealing food, provide support with eating, and remove barriers to appetite and nutrition.³⁵ A Cochrane review showed that high-calorie supplements, such as Boost or Ensure, are associated with very modest weight gain—about 2% of weight—but are not associated with an increased life expectancy or improved quality of life.³⁶

Both the AAFP and the American Society of Anesthesiologists recommend against routine x-rays, MRIs, and CT scans during the first 6 weeks of acute low back pain.

Prescription appetite stimulants are associated with adverse effects and yield inconsistent benefits in older adults. Megesterol, for example, was associated with headache, gastrointestinal adverse effects, insomnia, weakness, and fatigue. Mirtazapine is associated with sedation and fatigue.³⁷

CORRESPONDENCE
Kathleen Rowland, MD, MS, Rush Copley Family Medicine Residency, Rush Medical College, 600 South Paulina, Kidston House Room 605, Chicago IL 60612; kathleen_rowland@rush.edu.

When medical care is based on consistent, good-quality evidence, most physicians adopt it. However, not all care is well supported by the literature and may, in fact, be overused without offering benefit to patients. Choosing Wisely, at www.choosingwisely.org, is a health care initiative that highlights screening and testing recommendations from specialty societies in an effort to encourage patients and clinicians to talk about how to make high-value, effective health care decisions and avoid overuse. (See “Test and Tx overutilization: A bigger problem than you might think"^1-3).

Enabling physician and patient dialogue. The initiative began in 2010 when the American Board of Internal Medicine convened a panel of experts to identify low-value tests and therapies. Their list took the form of a “Top Five Things” that may not be high value in patient care, and it used language tailored to patients and physicians so that they could converse meaningfully. Physicians could use the evidence to make a clinical decision, and patients could feel empowered to ask informed questions about recommendations they received. The initiative has now expanded to include ways that health care systems can reduce low-value interventions.

Scope of participation. Since the first Choosing Wisely recommendations were published in 2013, more than 80 professional associations have contributed lists of their own. Professional societies participate voluntarily. The American Academy of Family Physicians (AAFP), Society of General Internal Medicine, and American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) have contributed lists relevant to primary care. All Choosing Wisely recommendations can be searched or sorted by specialty organization. Recommendations are reviewed and revised regularly. If the evidence becomes conflicted or contradictory, recommendations are withdrawn.

Making meaningful improvements by Choosing Wisely

Several studies have shown that health care systems can implement Choosing Wisely recommendations to reduce overuse of unnecessary tests. A 2015 study examined the effect of applying a Choosing Wisely recommendation to reduce the use of continuous pulse oximetry in pediatric inpatients with asthma, wheezing, or bronchiolitis. The recommendation, from the Society of Hospital Medicine–Pediatric Hospital Medicine, advises against continuous pulse oximetry in children with acute respiratory illnesses unless the child is using supplemental oxygen.⁴ This study, done at the Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center, found that within 3 months of initiating a protocol on all general pediatrics floors, the average time on pulse oximetry after meeting clinical goals decreased from 10.7 hours to 3.1 hours. In addition, the percentage of patients who had their continuous pulse oximetry stopped within 2 hours of clinical stability (a goal time) increased from 25% to 46%.⁵

Patients are important drivers of health care utilization. A 2003 study showed that physicians are more likely to order referrals, tests, and prescriptions when patients ask for them, and that nearly 1 in 4 patients did so.⁶ A 2002 study found that physicians granted all but 3% of patient’s requests for orders or tests, and that fulfilling requests correlated with patient satisfaction in the specialty office studied (cardiology) but not in the primary care (internal medicine) office.⁷

Choosing Wisely recommendations are not guidelines or mandates. They are intended to be evidencebased advice from a specialty society to its members and to patients about care that is often unnecessary.

From its inception, Choosing Wisely has considered patients as full partners in conversations about health care utilization. Choosing Wisely partners with Consumer Reports to create and disseminate plain-language summaries of recommendations. Community groups and physician organizations have also participated in implementation efforts. In 2018, Choosing Wisely secured a grant to expand outreach to diverse or underserved communities.

Choosing Wisely recommendations are not guidelines or mandates. They are intended to be evidence-based advice from a specialty society to its members and to patients about care that is often unnecessary. The goal is to create a conversation and not to eliminate these services from ever being offered or used.

Continue to: Improve your practice with these 10 primary care recommendations

Improve your practice with these 10 primary care recommendations

 1 Avoid imaging studies in early acute low back pain without red flags.

Both the AAFP and the American Society of Anesthesiologists recommend against routine X-rays, magnetic resonance imaging, and computed tomography (CT) scans in the first 6 weeks of acute low back pain (LBP).^8,9 The American College of Emergency Physicians (ACEP) recommends against routine lumbar spine imaging for emergency department (ED) patients.¹⁰ In all cases, imaging is indicated if the patient has any signs or symptoms of neurologic deficits or other indications, such as signs of spinal infection or fracture. However, as ACEP notes, diagnostic imaging does not typically help identify the cause of acute LBP, and when it does, it does not reduce the time to symptom improvement.¹⁰

2 Prescribe oral contraceptives on the basis of a medical history and a blood pressure measurement. No routine pelvic exam or other physical exam is necessary.

This AAFP recommendation¹¹ is based on clinical practice guidelines from the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) and other research.¹² The ACOG practice guideline supports provision of hormonal contraception without a pelvic exam, cervical cancer (Pap) testing, urine pregnancy testing, or testing for sexually transmitted infections. ACOG guidelines also support over-the-counter provision of hormonal contraceptives, including combined oral contraceptives.¹²

3 Stop recommending daily self-glucose monitoring for patients with diabetes who are not using insulin.

Both the AAFP and the Society for General Internal Medicine recommend against daily blood sugar checks for people who do not use insulin.^13,14 A Cochrane review of 9 trials (3300 patients) found that after 6 months, hemoglobin A1C was reduced by 0.3% in people who checked their sugar daily compared with those who did not, but this difference was not significant after a year.¹⁵ Hypoglycemic episodes were more common in the “checking” group, and there were no differences in quality of life. A qualitative study found that blood sugar results had little impact on patients’ motivation to change behavior.¹⁶

4 Don’t screen for herpes simplex virus (HSV) infection in asymptomatic adults, even those who are pregnant.

This AAFP recommendation¹⁷ comes from a US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) Grade D recommendation.18 Most people with positive HSV-2 serology have had an outbreak; even those who do not think they have had one will realize that they had the symptoms once they hear them described.18 With available tests, 1 in 2 positive results for HSV-2 among asymptomatic people will be a false-positive.¹⁸

A 2006 analysis of inpatient lab studies found that doctors ordered an average of 2.96 studies per patient per day, but only 29% of these tests contributed to management.

There is no known cure, intervention, or reduction in transmission for infected patients who do not have symptoms.¹⁸ Also, serologically detected HSV-2 does not reliably predict genital herpes; and HSV-1 has been found to cause an increasing percentage of genital infection cases.¹⁸

Continue to: 5 Don't screen for testicular cancer in asymptomatic individuals

5 Don’t screen for testicular cancer in asymptomatic individuals.

This AAFP recommendation¹⁹ also comes from a USPSTF Grade D recommendation.²⁰ A 2010 systematic review found no evidence to support screening of asymptomatic people with a physical exam or ultrasound. All available studies involved symptomatic patients.²⁰

 6 Stop recommending cough and cold medicines for children younger than 4 years.

The AAP recommends that clinicians discourage the use of any cough or cold medicine for children in this age-group.²¹ A 2008 study found that more than 7000 children annually presented to EDs for adverse events from cough and cold medicines.²² Previous studies found no benefit in reducing symptoms.²³ In children older than 12 months, a Cochrane review found that honey has a modest benefit for cough in single-night trials.²⁴

7 Avoid performing serum allergy panels.

The American Academy of Allergy, Asthma, and Immunology discourages the use of serum panel testing when patients present with allergy symptoms.²⁵ A patient can have a strong positive immunoglobulin E (IgE) serum result to an allergen and have no clinical allergic symptoms or can have a weak positive serum result and a strong clinical reaction. Targeted skin or serum IgE testing—for example, testing for cashew allergy in a patient known to have had a reaction after eating one—is reasonable.²⁶

8 Avoid routine electroencephalography (EEG), head CT, and carotid ultrasound as initial work-up for simple syncope in adults.

These recommendations, from the American Epilepsy Society,²⁷ ACEP,²⁸ American College of Physicians,²⁹ and American Academy of Neurology (AAN),³⁰ emphasize the low yield of routine work-ups for patients with simple syncope. The AAN notes that 40% of people will experience syncope during adulthood and most will not have carotid disease, which generally manifests with stroke-like symptoms rather than syncope. One study found that approximately 1 in 8 patients referred to an epilepsy clinic had neurocardiogenic syncope rather than epilepsy.³¹

EEGs have high false-negative and false-positive rates, and history-taking is a better tool with which to make a diagnosis. CT scans performed in the ED were found to contribute to the diagnosis of simple syncope in fewer than 2% of cases of syncope, compared with orthostatic blood pressure (25% of cases).³²

Continue to: 9 Wait to refer children with umbilical hernias to pediatric surgery until they are 4 to 5 years of age

The AAP Section on Surgery offers evidence that the risk-benefit analysis strongly favors waiting on intervention.³³ About 1 in 4 children will have an umbilical hernia, and about 85% of cases will resolve by age 5. The strangulation rate with umbilical hernias is very low, and although the risk of infection with surgery is likewise low, the risk of recurrence following surgery before the age of 4 is as high as 2.4%.³⁴ The AAP Section on Surgery recommends against strapping or restraining the hernia, as well.

10 Avoid using appetite stimulants, such as megesterol, and high-calorie nutritional supplements to treat anorexia and cachexia in older adults.

Instead, the American Geriatrics Society recommends that physicians encourage caregivers to serve appealing food, provide support with eating, and remove barriers to appetite and nutrition.³⁵ A Cochrane review showed that high-calorie supplements, such as Boost or Ensure, are associated with very modest weight gain—about 2% of weight—but are not associated with an increased life expectancy or improved quality of life.³⁶

Both the AAFP and the American Society of Anesthesiologists recommend against routine x-rays, MRIs, and CT scans during the first 6 weeks of acute low back pain.

Prescription appetite stimulants are associated with adverse effects and yield inconsistent benefits in older adults. Megesterol, for example, was associated with headache, gastrointestinal adverse effects, insomnia, weakness, and fatigue. Mirtazapine is associated with sedation and fatigue.³⁷

CORRESPONDENCE
Kathleen Rowland, MD, MS, Rush Copley Family Medicine Residency, Rush Medical College, 600 South Paulina, Kidston House Room 605, Chicago IL 60612; kathleen_rowland@rush.edu.

As we continue to stumble around trying to find our way out of the COVID-19 pandemic, it has become clear that the journey has been a never-ending continuum of exercises in risk/benefit assessment. The population always has sorted itself into a bell-shaped curve from those who are risk averse to those who revel in risk taking. And, of course, with a paucity of facts on which we can base our assessment of risk, the discussion often shifts to our gut feelings about the benefits.

Greg Pollock - Fotolia.com

When faced with the question of when it is time for children to return to in-person schooling, there seems to be reasonably good agreement about the benefits of face-to-face learning. The level of risk is still to be determined.

When it comes to the issue of when to return to competitive school sports, the risks are equally indeterminate but there is less agreement on the benefits. This lack of uniformity reflects a long-standing dichotomy between those parents and students with a passion for competitive sports and those who see them as nonessential. This existential tug-of-war has gone on in almost every school system I am aware of when the school budget comes up for a vote.

The debate about a return to competitive sports on a collegiate and professional level unfortunately is colored by enormous revenues from media contracts, which means that high school and middle schools can’t look to what are essentially businesses for guidance. Here in Maine, the organizations responsible for making decisions about school sports struggled for months in making their decision. The delay created confusion, fluctuating angst and disappointment, but the end product made some sense. Volleyball (indoor) and football were indefinitely delayed. Heavy breathing between competitors separated by a couple of feet and protected only by a flimsy net or helmet cage seems like a risk not worth taking – at least until we have more information.

Other sports were allowed to start with restrictions based on existing social distancing mandates which include no locker rooms and no fans. Some rules such as no throw-ins for soccer didn’t make sense given what we are learning about the virus. But, for the most part, the compromises should result in a chance to reap the benefits of competition for the students whose families are willing to expose them to the yet to be fully determined risks.

There has been some grumbling from parents who see the no-fans mandate as a step too far. Until we know more about the risk of group gatherings outdoors, having no fans, including parents and grandparents, makes sense. In fact, to me it is a step long overdue and a rare sliver of silver lining to the pandemic. Competitive youth sports are for the kids. They are not meant to be entertainment events. Too often children are exposed to parental pressure (voiced and unvoiced) about their “performance” on the field. Neither my younger sister nor I can remember our parents going to any of my away football games in high school or any of my lacrosse games in college. I never felt the loss.

Will I miss watching my grandchildren compete? Of course I will miss it badly. However, giving kids some space to learn and enjoy the competition for itself in an atmosphere free of parental over-involvement will be a breath of fresh air. Something we need badly during this pandemic.
 

Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics, including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.” Email him at pdnews@mdedge.com.

As we continue to stumble around trying to find our way out of the COVID-19 pandemic, it has become clear that the journey has been a never-ending continuum of exercises in risk/benefit assessment. The population always has sorted itself into a bell-shaped curve from those who are risk averse to those who revel in risk taking. And, of course, with a paucity of facts on which we can base our assessment of risk, the discussion often shifts to our gut feelings about the benefits.

Greg Pollock - Fotolia.com

When faced with the question of when it is time for children to return to in-person schooling, there seems to be reasonably good agreement about the benefits of face-to-face learning. The level of risk is still to be determined.

When it comes to the issue of when to return to competitive school sports, the risks are equally indeterminate but there is less agreement on the benefits. This lack of uniformity reflects a long-standing dichotomy between those parents and students with a passion for competitive sports and those who see them as nonessential. This existential tug-of-war has gone on in almost every school system I am aware of when the school budget comes up for a vote.

The debate about a return to competitive sports on a collegiate and professional level unfortunately is colored by enormous revenues from media contracts, which means that high school and middle schools can’t look to what are essentially businesses for guidance. Here in Maine, the organizations responsible for making decisions about school sports struggled for months in making their decision. The delay created confusion, fluctuating angst and disappointment, but the end product made some sense. Volleyball (indoor) and football were indefinitely delayed. Heavy breathing between competitors separated by a couple of feet and protected only by a flimsy net or helmet cage seems like a risk not worth taking – at least until we have more information.

Other sports were allowed to start with restrictions based on existing social distancing mandates which include no locker rooms and no fans. Some rules such as no throw-ins for soccer didn’t make sense given what we are learning about the virus. But, for the most part, the compromises should result in a chance to reap the benefits of competition for the students whose families are willing to expose them to the yet to be fully determined risks.

There has been some grumbling from parents who see the no-fans mandate as a step too far. Until we know more about the risk of group gatherings outdoors, having no fans, including parents and grandparents, makes sense. In fact, to me it is a step long overdue and a rare sliver of silver lining to the pandemic. Competitive youth sports are for the kids. They are not meant to be entertainment events. Too often children are exposed to parental pressure (voiced and unvoiced) about their “performance” on the field. Neither my younger sister nor I can remember our parents going to any of my away football games in high school or any of my lacrosse games in college. I never felt the loss.

Will I miss watching my grandchildren compete? Of course I will miss it badly. However, giving kids some space to learn and enjoy the competition for itself in an atmosphere free of parental over-involvement will be a breath of fresh air. Something we need badly during this pandemic.
 

Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics, including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.” Email him at pdnews@mdedge.com.

As we continue to stumble around trying to find our way out of the COVID-19 pandemic, it has become clear that the journey has been a never-ending continuum of exercises in risk/benefit assessment. The population always has sorted itself into a bell-shaped curve from those who are risk averse to those who revel in risk taking. And, of course, with a paucity of facts on which we can base our assessment of risk, the discussion often shifts to our gut feelings about the benefits.

Greg Pollock - Fotolia.com

When faced with the question of when it is time for children to return to in-person schooling, there seems to be reasonably good agreement about the benefits of face-to-face learning. The level of risk is still to be determined.

When it comes to the issue of when to return to competitive school sports, the risks are equally indeterminate but there is less agreement on the benefits. This lack of uniformity reflects a long-standing dichotomy between those parents and students with a passion for competitive sports and those who see them as nonessential. This existential tug-of-war has gone on in almost every school system I am aware of when the school budget comes up for a vote.

The debate about a return to competitive sports on a collegiate and professional level unfortunately is colored by enormous revenues from media contracts, which means that high school and middle schools can’t look to what are essentially businesses for guidance. Here in Maine, the organizations responsible for making decisions about school sports struggled for months in making their decision. The delay created confusion, fluctuating angst and disappointment, but the end product made some sense. Volleyball (indoor) and football were indefinitely delayed. Heavy breathing between competitors separated by a couple of feet and protected only by a flimsy net or helmet cage seems like a risk not worth taking – at least until we have more information.

Other sports were allowed to start with restrictions based on existing social distancing mandates which include no locker rooms and no fans. Some rules such as no throw-ins for soccer didn’t make sense given what we are learning about the virus. But, for the most part, the compromises should result in a chance to reap the benefits of competition for the students whose families are willing to expose them to the yet to be fully determined risks.

There has been some grumbling from parents who see the no-fans mandate as a step too far. Until we know more about the risk of group gatherings outdoors, having no fans, including parents and grandparents, makes sense. In fact, to me it is a step long overdue and a rare sliver of silver lining to the pandemic. Competitive youth sports are for the kids. They are not meant to be entertainment events. Too often children are exposed to parental pressure (voiced and unvoiced) about their “performance” on the field. Neither my younger sister nor I can remember our parents going to any of my away football games in high school or any of my lacrosse games in college. I never felt the loss.

Will I miss watching my grandchildren compete? Of course I will miss it badly. However, giving kids some space to learn and enjoy the competition for itself in an atmosphere free of parental over-involvement will be a breath of fresh air. Something we need badly during this pandemic.
 

Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics, including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.” Email him at pdnews@mdedge.com.

A final report from the multinational placebo-controlled ACTT-1 trial confirms that remdesivir is effective and well tolerated for shortening the time to recovery from COVID-19 infection.

In May 2020, remdesivir received Food and Drug Administration approval for emergency treatment of severe COVID-19 on the basis of a preliminary report on this trial. In August 2020, the FDA expanded the indication to include all hospitalized adult and pediatric patients with suspected or laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 infection irrespective of severity.

“Our findings were consistent with the findings of the preliminary report: a 10-day course of remdesivir was superior to placebo in the treatment of hospitalized patients with COVID-19,” reported a team of investigators led by John H. Beigel, MD, of the Division of Microbiology and Infectious Diseases at the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, in the New England Journal of Medicine.

The drug’s broadened indication was not based on the ACTT-1 trial, according to Dr. Beigel. “Other data have demonstrated that remdesivir shortens recovery in patients with lower acuity. In our study, evidence of pneumonia was an enrollment requirement,” he explained in an interview.

In the newly published final ACTT-1 data, the median time to recovery was 10 days for those on active therapy versus 15 days for those randomized to placebo. With a rate ratio of 1.29 (P less than .001), this translated to a recovery that was about one third faster.

In this final report, remdesivir’s significant advantage over placebo regarding the trial’s primary endpoint was reinforced by efficacy on multiple secondary endpoints.

This benefits on multiple secondary endpoints included a 50% greater odds ratio (OR, 1.5; 95% CI, 1.2-1.9) of significant clinical improvement by day 15 after adjustment for baseline severity, a shorter initial length of hospital stay (12 vs. 17 days) and fewer days on oxygen supplementation (13 vs. 21 days) for the subgroup of patients on oxygen at enrollment.

Although the numerically lower mortality in the remdesivir arm (6.75 vs. 11.9%) did not reach statistical significance, Dr. Beigel said, “mortality was moving in the same direction as the other key endpoints.”

According to the study investigators, the types of rates of adverse events on remdesivir, which inhibits viral replication, “were generally similar in the remdesivir and placebo groups.”

In ACTT-1, 1,062 patients were randomized to remdesivir (200 mg loading dose followed by 100 mg daily for up to 9 days) or placebo. Patients were enrolled at study sites in North America, Europe, and Asia.

The data of ACTT-1 confirm a benefit from remdesivir in hospitalized COVID-19 patients with severe disease, but Dr. Beigel said he agrees with the current FDA indication that supports treatment in any hospitalized COVID-19 patient.

“We saw bigger benefits in patients with more severe infections. The benefits are not as large in patients with mild disease, but I think remdesivir should be considered in any hospitalized patient,” Dr. Beigel said.

This point of view is shared.

“I would give this drug to anyone in the hospital infected with COVID-19 assuming there was an ample supply and no need for rationing,” said Donna E. Sweet, MD, professor of internal medicine, University of Kansas, Wichita. She noted that this study has implications for hospital and hospital staff, as well as for patients.

“This type of reduction in recovery time means a reduction in potential exposures to hospital staff, a reduced need for PPE [personal protective equipment], and it will free up beds in the ICU [intensive care unit],” said Dr. Sweet, who also serves as an editorial advisory board member for Internal Medicine News.

An infectious disease specialist at the University of Minnesota also considers remdesivir to have an important role for conserving resources that deserves emphasis.

The reduction in time to recovery “is of benefit to the health system by maintaining hospital bed capacity,” said David R. Boulware, MD, professor of medicine at the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis.

According to his reading of the available data, including those from ACTT-1, the benefit appears to be greatest in those with a moderate degree of illness, which he defined as “sick enough to be hospitalized and require oxygen, yet not severely sick [and] requiring a ventilator or [extracorporeal membrane oxygenation].”

This does not preclude a benefit in those with more severe or milder disease, but patients with mild disease “are likely to recover regardless – or despite – whatever therapy they receive,” he said.

Dr. Beigel, the principal investigator of this trial, reports no potential conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Beigel JH et al. N Engl J Med. 2020 Oct 8. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa2007764.

A final report from the multinational placebo-controlled ACTT-1 trial confirms that remdesivir is effective and well tolerated for shortening the time to recovery from COVID-19 infection.

In May 2020, remdesivir received Food and Drug Administration approval for emergency treatment of severe COVID-19 on the basis of a preliminary report on this trial. In August 2020, the FDA expanded the indication to include all hospitalized adult and pediatric patients with suspected or laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 infection irrespective of severity.

“Our findings were consistent with the findings of the preliminary report: a 10-day course of remdesivir was superior to placebo in the treatment of hospitalized patients with COVID-19,” reported a team of investigators led by John H. Beigel, MD, of the Division of Microbiology and Infectious Diseases at the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, in the New England Journal of Medicine.

The drug’s broadened indication was not based on the ACTT-1 trial, according to Dr. Beigel. “Other data have demonstrated that remdesivir shortens recovery in patients with lower acuity. In our study, evidence of pneumonia was an enrollment requirement,” he explained in an interview.

In the newly published final ACTT-1 data, the median time to recovery was 10 days for those on active therapy versus 15 days for those randomized to placebo. With a rate ratio of 1.29 (P less than .001), this translated to a recovery that was about one third faster.

In this final report, remdesivir’s significant advantage over placebo regarding the trial’s primary endpoint was reinforced by efficacy on multiple secondary endpoints.

This benefits on multiple secondary endpoints included a 50% greater odds ratio (OR, 1.5; 95% CI, 1.2-1.9) of significant clinical improvement by day 15 after adjustment for baseline severity, a shorter initial length of hospital stay (12 vs. 17 days) and fewer days on oxygen supplementation (13 vs. 21 days) for the subgroup of patients on oxygen at enrollment.

Although the numerically lower mortality in the remdesivir arm (6.75 vs. 11.9%) did not reach statistical significance, Dr. Beigel said, “mortality was moving in the same direction as the other key endpoints.”

According to the study investigators, the types of rates of adverse events on remdesivir, which inhibits viral replication, “were generally similar in the remdesivir and placebo groups.”

In ACTT-1, 1,062 patients were randomized to remdesivir (200 mg loading dose followed by 100 mg daily for up to 9 days) or placebo. Patients were enrolled at study sites in North America, Europe, and Asia.

The data of ACTT-1 confirm a benefit from remdesivir in hospitalized COVID-19 patients with severe disease, but Dr. Beigel said he agrees with the current FDA indication that supports treatment in any hospitalized COVID-19 patient.

“We saw bigger benefits in patients with more severe infections. The benefits are not as large in patients with mild disease, but I think remdesivir should be considered in any hospitalized patient,” Dr. Beigel said.

This point of view is shared.

“I would give this drug to anyone in the hospital infected with COVID-19 assuming there was an ample supply and no need for rationing,” said Donna E. Sweet, MD, professor of internal medicine, University of Kansas, Wichita. She noted that this study has implications for hospital and hospital staff, as well as for patients.

“This type of reduction in recovery time means a reduction in potential exposures to hospital staff, a reduced need for PPE [personal protective equipment], and it will free up beds in the ICU [intensive care unit],” said Dr. Sweet, who also serves as an editorial advisory board member for Internal Medicine News.

An infectious disease specialist at the University of Minnesota also considers remdesivir to have an important role for conserving resources that deserves emphasis.

The reduction in time to recovery “is of benefit to the health system by maintaining hospital bed capacity,” said David R. Boulware, MD, professor of medicine at the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis.

According to his reading of the available data, including those from ACTT-1, the benefit appears to be greatest in those with a moderate degree of illness, which he defined as “sick enough to be hospitalized and require oxygen, yet not severely sick [and] requiring a ventilator or [extracorporeal membrane oxygenation].”

This does not preclude a benefit in those with more severe or milder disease, but patients with mild disease “are likely to recover regardless – or despite – whatever therapy they receive,” he said.

Dr. Beigel, the principal investigator of this trial, reports no potential conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Beigel JH et al. N Engl J Med. 2020 Oct 8. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa2007764.

A final report from the multinational placebo-controlled ACTT-1 trial confirms that remdesivir is effective and well tolerated for shortening the time to recovery from COVID-19 infection.

In May 2020, remdesivir received Food and Drug Administration approval for emergency treatment of severe COVID-19 on the basis of a preliminary report on this trial. In August 2020, the FDA expanded the indication to include all hospitalized adult and pediatric patients with suspected or laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 infection irrespective of severity.

“Our findings were consistent with the findings of the preliminary report: a 10-day course of remdesivir was superior to placebo in the treatment of hospitalized patients with COVID-19,” reported a team of investigators led by John H. Beigel, MD, of the Division of Microbiology and Infectious Diseases at the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, in the New England Journal of Medicine.

The drug’s broadened indication was not based on the ACTT-1 trial, according to Dr. Beigel. “Other data have demonstrated that remdesivir shortens recovery in patients with lower acuity. In our study, evidence of pneumonia was an enrollment requirement,” he explained in an interview.

In the newly published final ACTT-1 data, the median time to recovery was 10 days for those on active therapy versus 15 days for those randomized to placebo. With a rate ratio of 1.29 (P less than .001), this translated to a recovery that was about one third faster.

In this final report, remdesivir’s significant advantage over placebo regarding the trial’s primary endpoint was reinforced by efficacy on multiple secondary endpoints.

This benefits on multiple secondary endpoints included a 50% greater odds ratio (OR, 1.5; 95% CI, 1.2-1.9) of significant clinical improvement by day 15 after adjustment for baseline severity, a shorter initial length of hospital stay (12 vs. 17 days) and fewer days on oxygen supplementation (13 vs. 21 days) for the subgroup of patients on oxygen at enrollment.

Although the numerically lower mortality in the remdesivir arm (6.75 vs. 11.9%) did not reach statistical significance, Dr. Beigel said, “mortality was moving in the same direction as the other key endpoints.”

According to the study investigators, the types of rates of adverse events on remdesivir, which inhibits viral replication, “were generally similar in the remdesivir and placebo groups.”

In ACTT-1, 1,062 patients were randomized to remdesivir (200 mg loading dose followed by 100 mg daily for up to 9 days) or placebo. Patients were enrolled at study sites in North America, Europe, and Asia.

The data of ACTT-1 confirm a benefit from remdesivir in hospitalized COVID-19 patients with severe disease, but Dr. Beigel said he agrees with the current FDA indication that supports treatment in any hospitalized COVID-19 patient.

“We saw bigger benefits in patients with more severe infections. The benefits are not as large in patients with mild disease, but I think remdesivir should be considered in any hospitalized patient,” Dr. Beigel said.

This point of view is shared.

“I would give this drug to anyone in the hospital infected with COVID-19 assuming there was an ample supply and no need for rationing,” said Donna E. Sweet, MD, professor of internal medicine, University of Kansas, Wichita. She noted that this study has implications for hospital and hospital staff, as well as for patients.

“This type of reduction in recovery time means a reduction in potential exposures to hospital staff, a reduced need for PPE [personal protective equipment], and it will free up beds in the ICU [intensive care unit],” said Dr. Sweet, who also serves as an editorial advisory board member for Internal Medicine News.

An infectious disease specialist at the University of Minnesota also considers remdesivir to have an important role for conserving resources that deserves emphasis.

The reduction in time to recovery “is of benefit to the health system by maintaining hospital bed capacity,” said David R. Boulware, MD, professor of medicine at the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis.

According to his reading of the available data, including those from ACTT-1, the benefit appears to be greatest in those with a moderate degree of illness, which he defined as “sick enough to be hospitalized and require oxygen, yet not severely sick [and] requiring a ventilator or [extracorporeal membrane oxygenation].”

This does not preclude a benefit in those with more severe or milder disease, but patients with mild disease “are likely to recover regardless – or despite – whatever therapy they receive,” he said.

Dr. Beigel, the principal investigator of this trial, reports no potential conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Beigel JH et al. N Engl J Med. 2020 Oct 8. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa2007764.

“I worry that vaccines are going to be sold like magic powder that we sprinkle across the land and make the virus go away,” Paul Offit, MD, said at the virtual American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) 2020 National Conference. “That’s not true.”

Even after effective vaccines for SARS-CoV-2 are in widespread use, wearing masks will still be advisable to prevent COVID-19, according to Dr. Offit, director of the Vaccine Education Center and an attending physician in the Division of Infectious Diseases at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia.

“I think we can get a vaccine that’s 75%-80% effective at preventing mild to moderate disease, but that means one of every four people can still get moderate to severe disease,” Dr. Offit continued.

And that’s if there is high uptake of the vaccine, which may not be the case. Recent polls have suggested there is considerable concern about the pending vaccines.

“It’s somewhat understandable,” Dr. Offitt acknowledged, especially given the “frightening” language used to describe vaccine development. Terms such as “warp speed” may suggest that haste might trump safety considerations. Before COVID-19, the fastest vaccine ever developed was for mumps, he said, with the virus isolated in 1963 and a commercial product available in 1967.
 

Addressing hesitancy in clinics

In a wide-ranging livestream plenary presentation, Dr. Offit, coinventor of a rotavirus vaccine, shed light on SARS-CoV-2 vaccine development and his impressions of vaccine hesitancy among patients and families. He also offered advice for how to reassure those skeptical of the safety and efficacy of any SARS-COV-2 vaccine, given the accelerated development process.

With more than 180 different vaccines in various stages of investigation, Dr. Offit called the effort to develop COVID-19 vaccines “unprecedented.” Part of that is a result of governments relieving pharmaceutical companies of much of the typical financial risk – which often climbs to hundreds of millions of dollars – by underwriting the costs of vaccine development to battle the pandemic-inducing virus, he said.

But this very swiftness is also stoking antivaccine sentiment. Dr. Offit, part of vaccine advisory groups for the National Institutes of Health and U.S. Food and Drug Administration, cited recent research reporting nearly half of American adults definitely or probably would not get a COVID-19 vaccine if it were available today.

“One way you convince skeptics is with data presented in a clear, compassionate, and compelling way,” he said.

“The other group is vaccine cynics, who are basically conspiracy theorists who believe pharmaceutical companies control the world, the government, the medical establishment. I think there’s no talking them down from this.”

Numerous strategies are being used in COVID-19 vaccine development, he noted, including messenger RNA, DNA, viral vectors, purified protein, and whole killed virus. Dr. Offit believes any candidates approved for distribution will likely be in the range of 75% effective at preventing mild to moderate symptoms.

But clinicians should be ready to face immediate questions of safety. “Even if this vaccination is given to 20,000 [trial participants] safely, that’s not 20 million,” Dr. Offit said. “Anyone could reasonably ask questions about if it causes rare, serious side effects.

“The good news is, there are systems in place,” such as adverse event reporting systems, to identify rare events, even those that occur in one in a million vaccine recipients. Reminding patients of that continued surveillance can be reassuring.

Another reassuring point is that COVID-19 vaccine trial participants have included people from many diverse populations, he said. But children, notably absent so far, should be added to trials immediately, Dr. Offit contends.

“This is going to be important when you consider strategies to get children universally back into school,” he said, which is a “critical issue” from both learning and wellness standpoints. “It breaks my heart that we’ve been unable to do this when other countries have.”
 

Transparency will be paramount

While presenting data transparently to patients is key in helping them accept COVID-19 vaccination, Dr. Offit said, he also believes “telling stories” can be just as effective, if not more so. When the varicella vaccine was approved in 1995, he said, the “uptake the first few years was pretty miserable” until public service messaging emphasized that some children die from chickenpox.

“Fear works,” he said. “You always worry about pushback of something being oversold, but hopefully we’re scared enough about this virus” to convince people that vaccination is wise. “I do think personal stories carry weight on both sides,” Dr. Offit said.

Mark Sawyer, MD, of University of California San Diego School of Medicine and Rady Children’s Hospital in San Diego, California, said Offit’s presentation offered important takeaways for clinicians about how to broach the topic of COVID-19 vaccination with patients and families.

“We need to communicate clearly and transparently to patients about what we do and don’t know” about the vaccines, Dr. Sawyer said in an interview. “We will know if they have common side effects, but we will not know about very rare side effects until we have used the vaccines for a while.

“We will know how well the vaccine works over the short-term, but we won’t know over the long term,” added Dr. Sawyer, a member of the AAP Committee on Infectious Diseases.

“We can reassure the community that SARS-CoV-2 vaccines are being evaluated in trials in the same way and with the same thoroughness as other vaccines have been,” he said. “That should give people confidence that shortcuts are not being taken with regard to safety and effectiveness evaluations.”

Dr. Offit and Dr. Sawyer have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
 

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

“I worry that vaccines are going to be sold like magic powder that we sprinkle across the land and make the virus go away,” Paul Offit, MD, said at the virtual American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) 2020 National Conference. “That’s not true.”

Even after effective vaccines for SARS-CoV-2 are in widespread use, wearing masks will still be advisable to prevent COVID-19, according to Dr. Offit, director of the Vaccine Education Center and an attending physician in the Division of Infectious Diseases at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia.

“I think we can get a vaccine that’s 75%-80% effective at preventing mild to moderate disease, but that means one of every four people can still get moderate to severe disease,” Dr. Offit continued.

And that’s if there is high uptake of the vaccine, which may not be the case. Recent polls have suggested there is considerable concern about the pending vaccines.

“It’s somewhat understandable,” Dr. Offitt acknowledged, especially given the “frightening” language used to describe vaccine development. Terms such as “warp speed” may suggest that haste might trump safety considerations. Before COVID-19, the fastest vaccine ever developed was for mumps, he said, with the virus isolated in 1963 and a commercial product available in 1967.
 

Addressing hesitancy in clinics

In a wide-ranging livestream plenary presentation, Dr. Offit, coinventor of a rotavirus vaccine, shed light on SARS-CoV-2 vaccine development and his impressions of vaccine hesitancy among patients and families. He also offered advice for how to reassure those skeptical of the safety and efficacy of any SARS-COV-2 vaccine, given the accelerated development process.

With more than 180 different vaccines in various stages of investigation, Dr. Offit called the effort to develop COVID-19 vaccines “unprecedented.” Part of that is a result of governments relieving pharmaceutical companies of much of the typical financial risk – which often climbs to hundreds of millions of dollars – by underwriting the costs of vaccine development to battle the pandemic-inducing virus, he said.

But this very swiftness is also stoking antivaccine sentiment. Dr. Offit, part of vaccine advisory groups for the National Institutes of Health and U.S. Food and Drug Administration, cited recent research reporting nearly half of American adults definitely or probably would not get a COVID-19 vaccine if it were available today.

“One way you convince skeptics is with data presented in a clear, compassionate, and compelling way,” he said.

“The other group is vaccine cynics, who are basically conspiracy theorists who believe pharmaceutical companies control the world, the government, the medical establishment. I think there’s no talking them down from this.”

Numerous strategies are being used in COVID-19 vaccine development, he noted, including messenger RNA, DNA, viral vectors, purified protein, and whole killed virus. Dr. Offit believes any candidates approved for distribution will likely be in the range of 75% effective at preventing mild to moderate symptoms.

But clinicians should be ready to face immediate questions of safety. “Even if this vaccination is given to 20,000 [trial participants] safely, that’s not 20 million,” Dr. Offit said. “Anyone could reasonably ask questions about if it causes rare, serious side effects.

“The good news is, there are systems in place,” such as adverse event reporting systems, to identify rare events, even those that occur in one in a million vaccine recipients. Reminding patients of that continued surveillance can be reassuring.

Another reassuring point is that COVID-19 vaccine trial participants have included people from many diverse populations, he said. But children, notably absent so far, should be added to trials immediately, Dr. Offit contends.

“This is going to be important when you consider strategies to get children universally back into school,” he said, which is a “critical issue” from both learning and wellness standpoints. “It breaks my heart that we’ve been unable to do this when other countries have.”
 

Transparency will be paramount

While presenting data transparently to patients is key in helping them accept COVID-19 vaccination, Dr. Offit said, he also believes “telling stories” can be just as effective, if not more so. When the varicella vaccine was approved in 1995, he said, the “uptake the first few years was pretty miserable” until public service messaging emphasized that some children die from chickenpox.

“Fear works,” he said. “You always worry about pushback of something being oversold, but hopefully we’re scared enough about this virus” to convince people that vaccination is wise. “I do think personal stories carry weight on both sides,” Dr. Offit said.

Mark Sawyer, MD, of University of California San Diego School of Medicine and Rady Children’s Hospital in San Diego, California, said Offit’s presentation offered important takeaways for clinicians about how to broach the topic of COVID-19 vaccination with patients and families.

“We need to communicate clearly and transparently to patients about what we do and don’t know” about the vaccines, Dr. Sawyer said in an interview. “We will know if they have common side effects, but we will not know about very rare side effects until we have used the vaccines for a while.

“We will know how well the vaccine works over the short-term, but we won’t know over the long term,” added Dr. Sawyer, a member of the AAP Committee on Infectious Diseases.

“We can reassure the community that SARS-CoV-2 vaccines are being evaluated in trials in the same way and with the same thoroughness as other vaccines have been,” he said. “That should give people confidence that shortcuts are not being taken with regard to safety and effectiveness evaluations.”

Dr. Offit and Dr. Sawyer have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
 

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

“I worry that vaccines are going to be sold like magic powder that we sprinkle across the land and make the virus go away,” Paul Offit, MD, said at the virtual American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) 2020 National Conference. “That’s not true.”

Even after effective vaccines for SARS-CoV-2 are in widespread use, wearing masks will still be advisable to prevent COVID-19, according to Dr. Offit, director of the Vaccine Education Center and an attending physician in the Division of Infectious Diseases at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia.

“I think we can get a vaccine that’s 75%-80% effective at preventing mild to moderate disease, but that means one of every four people can still get moderate to severe disease,” Dr. Offit continued.

And that’s if there is high uptake of the vaccine, which may not be the case. Recent polls have suggested there is considerable concern about the pending vaccines.

“It’s somewhat understandable,” Dr. Offitt acknowledged, especially given the “frightening” language used to describe vaccine development. Terms such as “warp speed” may suggest that haste might trump safety considerations. Before COVID-19, the fastest vaccine ever developed was for mumps, he said, with the virus isolated in 1963 and a commercial product available in 1967.
 

Addressing hesitancy in clinics

In a wide-ranging livestream plenary presentation, Dr. Offit, coinventor of a rotavirus vaccine, shed light on SARS-CoV-2 vaccine development and his impressions of vaccine hesitancy among patients and families. He also offered advice for how to reassure those skeptical of the safety and efficacy of any SARS-COV-2 vaccine, given the accelerated development process.

With more than 180 different vaccines in various stages of investigation, Dr. Offit called the effort to develop COVID-19 vaccines “unprecedented.” Part of that is a result of governments relieving pharmaceutical companies of much of the typical financial risk – which often climbs to hundreds of millions of dollars – by underwriting the costs of vaccine development to battle the pandemic-inducing virus, he said.

But this very swiftness is also stoking antivaccine sentiment. Dr. Offit, part of vaccine advisory groups for the National Institutes of Health and U.S. Food and Drug Administration, cited recent research reporting nearly half of American adults definitely or probably would not get a COVID-19 vaccine if it were available today.

“One way you convince skeptics is with data presented in a clear, compassionate, and compelling way,” he said.

“The other group is vaccine cynics, who are basically conspiracy theorists who believe pharmaceutical companies control the world, the government, the medical establishment. I think there’s no talking them down from this.”

Numerous strategies are being used in COVID-19 vaccine development, he noted, including messenger RNA, DNA, viral vectors, purified protein, and whole killed virus. Dr. Offit believes any candidates approved for distribution will likely be in the range of 75% effective at preventing mild to moderate symptoms.

But clinicians should be ready to face immediate questions of safety. “Even if this vaccination is given to 20,000 [trial participants] safely, that’s not 20 million,” Dr. Offit said. “Anyone could reasonably ask questions about if it causes rare, serious side effects.

“The good news is, there are systems in place,” such as adverse event reporting systems, to identify rare events, even those that occur in one in a million vaccine recipients. Reminding patients of that continued surveillance can be reassuring.

Another reassuring point is that COVID-19 vaccine trial participants have included people from many diverse populations, he said. But children, notably absent so far, should be added to trials immediately, Dr. Offit contends.

“This is going to be important when you consider strategies to get children universally back into school,” he said, which is a “critical issue” from both learning and wellness standpoints. “It breaks my heart that we’ve been unable to do this when other countries have.”
 

Transparency will be paramount

While presenting data transparently to patients is key in helping them accept COVID-19 vaccination, Dr. Offit said, he also believes “telling stories” can be just as effective, if not more so. When the varicella vaccine was approved in 1995, he said, the “uptake the first few years was pretty miserable” until public service messaging emphasized that some children die from chickenpox.

“Fear works,” he said. “You always worry about pushback of something being oversold, but hopefully we’re scared enough about this virus” to convince people that vaccination is wise. “I do think personal stories carry weight on both sides,” Dr. Offit said.

Mark Sawyer, MD, of University of California San Diego School of Medicine and Rady Children’s Hospital in San Diego, California, said Offit’s presentation offered important takeaways for clinicians about how to broach the topic of COVID-19 vaccination with patients and families.

“We need to communicate clearly and transparently to patients about what we do and don’t know” about the vaccines, Dr. Sawyer said in an interview. “We will know if they have common side effects, but we will not know about very rare side effects until we have used the vaccines for a while.

“We will know how well the vaccine works over the short-term, but we won’t know over the long term,” added Dr. Sawyer, a member of the AAP Committee on Infectious Diseases.

“We can reassure the community that SARS-CoV-2 vaccines are being evaluated in trials in the same way and with the same thoroughness as other vaccines have been,” he said. “That should give people confidence that shortcuts are not being taken with regard to safety and effectiveness evaluations.”

Dr. Offit and Dr. Sawyer have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
 

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

Investigators who studied mostly young, pregnant women with Stevens-Johnson syndrome (SJS) and toxic epidermal necrolysis (TEN) reported lower than expected mortality rates, but higher rates of C-sections.

The systematic review found that early diagnosis and withdrawal of the causative medications, such as antiretrovirals, were beneficial.

While SJS and TEN have been reported in pregnant women, “the outcomes and treatment of these cases are poorly characterized in the literature,” noted Ajay N. Sharma, a medical student at the University of California, Irvine, and coauthors, who published their findings in the International Journal of Women’s Dermatology.

“Immune changes that occur during pregnancy create a relative state of immunosuppression, likely increasing the risk of these skin reactions,” Mr. Sharma said in an interview. Allopurinol, antiepileptic drugs, antibacterial sulfonamides, nevirapine, and oxicam NSAIDs are agents most often associated with SJS/TEN.

He and his coauthors conducted a systematic literature review to analyze the risk factors, outcomes, and treatment of SJS and TEN in pregnant patients and their newborns using PubMed and Cochrane data from September 2019. The review included 26 articles covering 177 pregnant patients with SJS or TEN. Affected women were fairly young, averaging 29.9 years of age and more than 24 weeks along in their pregnancy when they experienced a reaction.

The majority of cases (81.9%) involved SJS diagnoses. Investigators identified antiretroviral therapy (90% of all cases), antibiotics (3%), and gestational drugs (2%) as the most common causative agents. “Multiple large cohort studies included in our review specifically assessed outcomes in only pregnant patients with HIV, resulting in an overall distribution of offending medications biased toward antiretroviral therapy,” noted Mr. Sharma. Nevirapine, a staple antiretroviral in developing countries (the site of most studies in the review), emerged as the biggest causal agent linked to 75 cases; 1 case was linked to the antiretroviral drug efavirenz.

Approximately 85% of pregnant women in this review had HIV. However, the young patient population studied had few comorbidities and low transmission rates to the fetus. In the 94 cases where outcomes data were available, 98% of the mothers and 96% of the newborns survived. Two pregnant patients in this cohort died, one from septic shock secondary to a TEN superinfection, and the other from intracranial hemorrhage secondary to metastatic melanoma. Of the 94 fetuses, 4 died: 2 of sepsis after birth, 1 in utero with its mother, and there was 1 stillbirth.

“Withdrawal of the offending drug was enacted in every recorded case of SJS or TEN during pregnancy. This single intervention was adequate in 159 patients; no additional therapy was needed in these cases aside from standard wound care, fluid and electrolyte repletion, and pain control,” wrote the investigators. Clinicians administered antibiotics, fluid resuscitation, steroids, and intravenous immunoglobulin in patients needing further assistance.

The investigators also reported high rates of C-section – almost 50% – in this group of pregnant women.

Inconsistent reporting between studies limited results, Mr. Sharma and colleagues noted. “Not every report specified body surface area involvement, treatment regimen, maternal or fetal outcome, or delivery method. Although additional studies in the form of large-scale, randomized, clinical trials are needed to better delineate treatment, this systematic review provides a framework for managing this population.”

The study authors reported no conflicts of interest and no funding for the study.

SOURCE: Sharma AN et al. Int J Womens Dermatol. 2020 Apr 13;6(4):239-47.

Investigators who studied mostly young, pregnant women with Stevens-Johnson syndrome (SJS) and toxic epidermal necrolysis (TEN) reported lower than expected mortality rates, but higher rates of C-sections.

The systematic review found that early diagnosis and withdrawal of the causative medications, such as antiretrovirals, were beneficial.

While SJS and TEN have been reported in pregnant women, “the outcomes and treatment of these cases are poorly characterized in the literature,” noted Ajay N. Sharma, a medical student at the University of California, Irvine, and coauthors, who published their findings in the International Journal of Women’s Dermatology.

“Immune changes that occur during pregnancy create a relative state of immunosuppression, likely increasing the risk of these skin reactions,” Mr. Sharma said in an interview. Allopurinol, antiepileptic drugs, antibacterial sulfonamides, nevirapine, and oxicam NSAIDs are agents most often associated with SJS/TEN.

He and his coauthors conducted a systematic literature review to analyze the risk factors, outcomes, and treatment of SJS and TEN in pregnant patients and their newborns using PubMed and Cochrane data from September 2019. The review included 26 articles covering 177 pregnant patients with SJS or TEN. Affected women were fairly young, averaging 29.9 years of age and more than 24 weeks along in their pregnancy when they experienced a reaction.

The majority of cases (81.9%) involved SJS diagnoses. Investigators identified antiretroviral therapy (90% of all cases), antibiotics (3%), and gestational drugs (2%) as the most common causative agents. “Multiple large cohort studies included in our review specifically assessed outcomes in only pregnant patients with HIV, resulting in an overall distribution of offending medications biased toward antiretroviral therapy,” noted Mr. Sharma. Nevirapine, a staple antiretroviral in developing countries (the site of most studies in the review), emerged as the biggest causal agent linked to 75 cases; 1 case was linked to the antiretroviral drug efavirenz.

Approximately 85% of pregnant women in this review had HIV. However, the young patient population studied had few comorbidities and low transmission rates to the fetus. In the 94 cases where outcomes data were available, 98% of the mothers and 96% of the newborns survived. Two pregnant patients in this cohort died, one from septic shock secondary to a TEN superinfection, and the other from intracranial hemorrhage secondary to metastatic melanoma. Of the 94 fetuses, 4 died: 2 of sepsis after birth, 1 in utero with its mother, and there was 1 stillbirth.

“Withdrawal of the offending drug was enacted in every recorded case of SJS or TEN during pregnancy. This single intervention was adequate in 159 patients; no additional therapy was needed in these cases aside from standard wound care, fluid and electrolyte repletion, and pain control,” wrote the investigators. Clinicians administered antibiotics, fluid resuscitation, steroids, and intravenous immunoglobulin in patients needing further assistance.

The investigators also reported high rates of C-section – almost 50% – in this group of pregnant women.

Inconsistent reporting between studies limited results, Mr. Sharma and colleagues noted. “Not every report specified body surface area involvement, treatment regimen, maternal or fetal outcome, or delivery method. Although additional studies in the form of large-scale, randomized, clinical trials are needed to better delineate treatment, this systematic review provides a framework for managing this population.”

The study authors reported no conflicts of interest and no funding for the study.

SOURCE: Sharma AN et al. Int J Womens Dermatol. 2020 Apr 13;6(4):239-47.

Investigators who studied mostly young, pregnant women with Stevens-Johnson syndrome (SJS) and toxic epidermal necrolysis (TEN) reported lower than expected mortality rates, but higher rates of C-sections.

The systematic review found that early diagnosis and withdrawal of the causative medications, such as antiretrovirals, were beneficial.

While SJS and TEN have been reported in pregnant women, “the outcomes and treatment of these cases are poorly characterized in the literature,” noted Ajay N. Sharma, a medical student at the University of California, Irvine, and coauthors, who published their findings in the International Journal of Women’s Dermatology.

“Immune changes that occur during pregnancy create a relative state of immunosuppression, likely increasing the risk of these skin reactions,” Mr. Sharma said in an interview. Allopurinol, antiepileptic drugs, antibacterial sulfonamides, nevirapine, and oxicam NSAIDs are agents most often associated with SJS/TEN.

He and his coauthors conducted a systematic literature review to analyze the risk factors, outcomes, and treatment of SJS and TEN in pregnant patients and their newborns using PubMed and Cochrane data from September 2019. The review included 26 articles covering 177 pregnant patients with SJS or TEN. Affected women were fairly young, averaging 29.9 years of age and more than 24 weeks along in their pregnancy when they experienced a reaction.

The majority of cases (81.9%) involved SJS diagnoses. Investigators identified antiretroviral therapy (90% of all cases), antibiotics (3%), and gestational drugs (2%) as the most common causative agents. “Multiple large cohort studies included in our review specifically assessed outcomes in only pregnant patients with HIV, resulting in an overall distribution of offending medications biased toward antiretroviral therapy,” noted Mr. Sharma. Nevirapine, a staple antiretroviral in developing countries (the site of most studies in the review), emerged as the biggest causal agent linked to 75 cases; 1 case was linked to the antiretroviral drug efavirenz.

Approximately 85% of pregnant women in this review had HIV. However, the young patient population studied had few comorbidities and low transmission rates to the fetus. In the 94 cases where outcomes data were available, 98% of the mothers and 96% of the newborns survived. Two pregnant patients in this cohort died, one from septic shock secondary to a TEN superinfection, and the other from intracranial hemorrhage secondary to metastatic melanoma. Of the 94 fetuses, 4 died: 2 of sepsis after birth, 1 in utero with its mother, and there was 1 stillbirth.

“Withdrawal of the offending drug was enacted in every recorded case of SJS or TEN during pregnancy. This single intervention was adequate in 159 patients; no additional therapy was needed in these cases aside from standard wound care, fluid and electrolyte repletion, and pain control,” wrote the investigators. Clinicians administered antibiotics, fluid resuscitation, steroids, and intravenous immunoglobulin in patients needing further assistance.

The investigators also reported high rates of C-section – almost 50% – in this group of pregnant women.

Inconsistent reporting between studies limited results, Mr. Sharma and colleagues noted. “Not every report specified body surface area involvement, treatment regimen, maternal or fetal outcome, or delivery method. Although additional studies in the form of large-scale, randomized, clinical trials are needed to better delineate treatment, this systematic review provides a framework for managing this population.”

The study authors reported no conflicts of interest and no funding for the study.

SOURCE: Sharma AN et al. Int J Womens Dermatol. 2020 Apr 13;6(4):239-47.

After increasing for several weeks, the proportion of new COVID-19 cases occurring in children has dropped for the second week in a row, according to data in a new report from the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Children’s Hospital Association.

COVID-19 cases in children accounted for 12.3% of all new cases in the United States for the week ending Oct. 1, down from 15.2% the previous week. That measure had reached its highest point, 16.9%, just one week earlier (Sept. 17), the AAP and the CHA said in their weekly COVID-19 report.

The total number of COVID-19 cases in children now stands as 657,572, or 10.6% of the more than 6.2 million cases reported among Americans of all ages, based on data from the health departments of 49 states (New York does not provide ages on its website), as well as the District of Columbia, New York City, Puerto Rico, and Guam.

The child COVID-19 rate for the United States was 874 per 100,000 children as of Oct. 1, and that figure has doubled since the end of July. At the state level, the highest rates can be found in Tennessee (2,031.4 per 100,000), North Dakota (2,029.6), and South Carolina (2,002.6), with the lowest rates in Vermont (168.9), Maine (229.1), and New Hampshire (268.3), the AAP/CHA report shows.

The children of Wyoming make up the largest share, 22.4%, of any state’s COVID-19 cases, followed by North Dakota and Tennessee, both at 18.3%. New Jersey is lower than any other state at 3.9%, although New York City is a slightly lower 3.6%, the AAP and CHA said.

“The data are limited because the states differ in how they report the data, and it is unknown how many children have been infected but not tested. It is unclear how much of the increase in child cases is due to increased testing capacity,” the AAP said in an earlier statement.

rfranki@mdedge.com

After increasing for several weeks, the proportion of new COVID-19 cases occurring in children has dropped for the second week in a row, according to data in a new report from the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Children’s Hospital Association.

COVID-19 cases in children accounted for 12.3% of all new cases in the United States for the week ending Oct. 1, down from 15.2% the previous week. That measure had reached its highest point, 16.9%, just one week earlier (Sept. 17), the AAP and the CHA said in their weekly COVID-19 report.

The total number of COVID-19 cases in children now stands as 657,572, or 10.6% of the more than 6.2 million cases reported among Americans of all ages, based on data from the health departments of 49 states (New York does not provide ages on its website), as well as the District of Columbia, New York City, Puerto Rico, and Guam.

The child COVID-19 rate for the United States was 874 per 100,000 children as of Oct. 1, and that figure has doubled since the end of July. At the state level, the highest rates can be found in Tennessee (2,031.4 per 100,000), North Dakota (2,029.6), and South Carolina (2,002.6), with the lowest rates in Vermont (168.9), Maine (229.1), and New Hampshire (268.3), the AAP/CHA report shows.

The children of Wyoming make up the largest share, 22.4%, of any state’s COVID-19 cases, followed by North Dakota and Tennessee, both at 18.3%. New Jersey is lower than any other state at 3.9%, although New York City is a slightly lower 3.6%, the AAP and CHA said.

“The data are limited because the states differ in how they report the data, and it is unknown how many children have been infected but not tested. It is unclear how much of the increase in child cases is due to increased testing capacity,” the AAP said in an earlier statement.

rfranki@mdedge.com

After increasing for several weeks, the proportion of new COVID-19 cases occurring in children has dropped for the second week in a row, according to data in a new report from the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Children’s Hospital Association.

COVID-19 cases in children accounted for 12.3% of all new cases in the United States for the week ending Oct. 1, down from 15.2% the previous week. That measure had reached its highest point, 16.9%, just one week earlier (Sept. 17), the AAP and the CHA said in their weekly COVID-19 report.

The total number of COVID-19 cases in children now stands as 657,572, or 10.6% of the more than 6.2 million cases reported among Americans of all ages, based on data from the health departments of 49 states (New York does not provide ages on its website), as well as the District of Columbia, New York City, Puerto Rico, and Guam.

The child COVID-19 rate for the United States was 874 per 100,000 children as of Oct. 1, and that figure has doubled since the end of July. At the state level, the highest rates can be found in Tennessee (2,031.4 per 100,000), North Dakota (2,029.6), and South Carolina (2,002.6), with the lowest rates in Vermont (168.9), Maine (229.1), and New Hampshire (268.3), the AAP/CHA report shows.

The children of Wyoming make up the largest share, 22.4%, of any state’s COVID-19 cases, followed by North Dakota and Tennessee, both at 18.3%. New Jersey is lower than any other state at 3.9%, although New York City is a slightly lower 3.6%, the AAP and CHA said.

“The data are limited because the states differ in how they report the data, and it is unknown how many children have been infected but not tested. It is unclear how much of the increase in child cases is due to increased testing capacity,” the AAP said in an earlier statement.

rfranki@mdedge.com

The federal government is giving hospitals 14 weeks to comply with daily reporting requirements for COVID-19.

Hospitals that fail to meet the requirements will be barred from participating in Medicare and Medicaid, as announced in late August in a final rule.

The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services will send letters on October 7 to all 6,200 hospitals that receive reimbursement from the two federal health programs informing them of how well they are doing now, said CMS Administrator Seema Verma on a press call.

Verma would not give an estimate on how many hospitals are currently not compliant. But Deborah Birx, MD, a member of the White House Coronavirus Task Force, said on the call that 86% of hospitals are currently reporting daily.

Federal officials on the call also announced that hospitals would have the option to begin reporting certain data on influenza starting October 19, but that it would become mandatory a few weeks later.

The reporting is important “to really ensure that we’re triangulating all data to understand where this epidemic is, how it’s moving through different populations, and ensuring that we’re meeting the needs of specific hospitals and communities,” Birx said.

The federal government began a new hospital reporting system in April but did not require hospitals to participate until it quietly issued guidance in mid-July informing facilities that they should no longer report to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

The move perplexed many public health experts and epidemiologists, who expressed concern that asking hospitals to use a new data system during a pandemic could result in delays and lost information. The new HHS data collection site, HHS Protect, is being managed by a private contractor, not the CDC, which also raised alarms.

The final CMS rule issued in August went into effect immediately, without any chance for comment or revision. CMS said at the time that the pandemic was reason enough to skip over the normal bureaucratic process.

Hospitals were not pleased. But Verma claimed that since then CMS had been working with hospital organizations on enforcement.

“We’re going to do everything we can to facilitate reporting, including an enforcement timeline that will provide hospitals ample opportunity to come into compliance,” she said.

Hospitals that do not comply will get a notice every 3 weeks. Three weeks after the second notice, they’ll get weekly notices for a month, and a final termination notice at 14 weeks.

The Federation of American Hospitals (FAH), however, said their members were still not happy. “It is both inappropriate and frankly overkill for CMS to tie compliance with reporting to Medicare conditions of participation,” said FAH President and CEO Chip Kahn in a statement. He called the CMS proposal “sledgehammer enforcement,” and said that the continuing data request might weaken hospitals’ response to the pandemic because it would divert time and money away from patient care.

Rick Pollack, president and CEO of the American Hospital Association called the CMS rule an “overly heavy-handed approach that could jeopardize access to hospital care for all Americans.” He noted in a statement that barring hospitals from Medicare and Medicaid could harm beneficiaries and the effort to provide COVID care.

Pollack also noted that AHA has “observed errors in data processing and confusion about exactly what was being requested at the hospital, state, contractor, and federal level, and has worked diligently with the federal agencies to identify and correct those problems.”

The document that lays out U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Protect reporting requirements were updated again on October 6 to add influenza data. The hospitals must report on total patients with laboratory-confirmed flu; previous day’s flu admissions; total ICU patients with lab-confirmed flu; total inpatients with either flu or COVID-19; and the previous day’s deaths for flu and COVID.

CDC Director Robert Redfield, MD, said on the press call that the new data will give the agency crucial hospital-level information and perhaps better estimates of the flu burden. Flu trends have been tracked using the CDC’s Influenza Hospitalization Surveillance Network (FluSurv-NET), which will not be replaced, Redfield said. But that network only tracks hospitalizations in 14 states and does not provide information in “nearly real-time,” he said.

Having the new data “will give us a true situational awareness of severe respiratory illness, provide local hospitalization trends, and help direct resources such as antiretrovirals to address potential increased impact of flu and COVID cocirculation,” Redfield said.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The federal government is giving hospitals 14 weeks to comply with daily reporting requirements for COVID-19.

Hospitals that fail to meet the requirements will be barred from participating in Medicare and Medicaid, as announced in late August in a final rule.

The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services will send letters on October 7 to all 6,200 hospitals that receive reimbursement from the two federal health programs informing them of how well they are doing now, said CMS Administrator Seema Verma on a press call.

Verma would not give an estimate on how many hospitals are currently not compliant. But Deborah Birx, MD, a member of the White House Coronavirus Task Force, said on the call that 86% of hospitals are currently reporting daily.

Federal officials on the call also announced that hospitals would have the option to begin reporting certain data on influenza starting October 19, but that it would become mandatory a few weeks later.

The reporting is important “to really ensure that we’re triangulating all data to understand where this epidemic is, how it’s moving through different populations, and ensuring that we’re meeting the needs of specific hospitals and communities,” Birx said.

The federal government began a new hospital reporting system in April but did not require hospitals to participate until it quietly issued guidance in mid-July informing facilities that they should no longer report to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

The move perplexed many public health experts and epidemiologists, who expressed concern that asking hospitals to use a new data system during a pandemic could result in delays and lost information. The new HHS data collection site, HHS Protect, is being managed by a private contractor, not the CDC, which also raised alarms.

The final CMS rule issued in August went into effect immediately, without any chance for comment or revision. CMS said at the time that the pandemic was reason enough to skip over the normal bureaucratic process.

Hospitals were not pleased. But Verma claimed that since then CMS had been working with hospital organizations on enforcement.

“We’re going to do everything we can to facilitate reporting, including an enforcement timeline that will provide hospitals ample opportunity to come into compliance,” she said.

Hospitals that do not comply will get a notice every 3 weeks. Three weeks after the second notice, they’ll get weekly notices for a month, and a final termination notice at 14 weeks.

The Federation of American Hospitals (FAH), however, said their members were still not happy. “It is both inappropriate and frankly overkill for CMS to tie compliance with reporting to Medicare conditions of participation,” said FAH President and CEO Chip Kahn in a statement. He called the CMS proposal “sledgehammer enforcement,” and said that the continuing data request might weaken hospitals’ response to the pandemic because it would divert time and money away from patient care.

Rick Pollack, president and CEO of the American Hospital Association called the CMS rule an “overly heavy-handed approach that could jeopardize access to hospital care for all Americans.” He noted in a statement that barring hospitals from Medicare and Medicaid could harm beneficiaries and the effort to provide COVID care.

Pollack also noted that AHA has “observed errors in data processing and confusion about exactly what was being requested at the hospital, state, contractor, and federal level, and has worked diligently with the federal agencies to identify and correct those problems.”

The document that lays out U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Protect reporting requirements were updated again on October 6 to add influenza data. The hospitals must report on total patients with laboratory-confirmed flu; previous day’s flu admissions; total ICU patients with lab-confirmed flu; total inpatients with either flu or COVID-19; and the previous day’s deaths for flu and COVID.

CDC Director Robert Redfield, MD, said on the press call that the new data will give the agency crucial hospital-level information and perhaps better estimates of the flu burden. Flu trends have been tracked using the CDC’s Influenza Hospitalization Surveillance Network (FluSurv-NET), which will not be replaced, Redfield said. But that network only tracks hospitalizations in 14 states and does not provide information in “nearly real-time,” he said.

Having the new data “will give us a true situational awareness of severe respiratory illness, provide local hospitalization trends, and help direct resources such as antiretrovirals to address potential increased impact of flu and COVID cocirculation,” Redfield said.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The federal government is giving hospitals 14 weeks to comply with daily reporting requirements for COVID-19.

Hospitals that fail to meet the requirements will be barred from participating in Medicare and Medicaid, as announced in late August in a final rule.

The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services will send letters on October 7 to all 6,200 hospitals that receive reimbursement from the two federal health programs informing them of how well they are doing now, said CMS Administrator Seema Verma on a press call.

Verma would not give an estimate on how many hospitals are currently not compliant. But Deborah Birx, MD, a member of the White House Coronavirus Task Force, said on the call that 86% of hospitals are currently reporting daily.

Federal officials on the call also announced that hospitals would have the option to begin reporting certain data on influenza starting October 19, but that it would become mandatory a few weeks later.

The reporting is important “to really ensure that we’re triangulating all data to understand where this epidemic is, how it’s moving through different populations, and ensuring that we’re meeting the needs of specific hospitals and communities,” Birx said.

The federal government began a new hospital reporting system in April but did not require hospitals to participate until it quietly issued guidance in mid-July informing facilities that they should no longer report to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

The move perplexed many public health experts and epidemiologists, who expressed concern that asking hospitals to use a new data system during a pandemic could result in delays and lost information. The new HHS data collection site, HHS Protect, is being managed by a private contractor, not the CDC, which also raised alarms.

The final CMS rule issued in August went into effect immediately, without any chance for comment or revision. CMS said at the time that the pandemic was reason enough to skip over the normal bureaucratic process.

Hospitals were not pleased. But Verma claimed that since then CMS had been working with hospital organizations on enforcement.

“We’re going to do everything we can to facilitate reporting, including an enforcement timeline that will provide hospitals ample opportunity to come into compliance,” she said.

Hospitals that do not comply will get a notice every 3 weeks. Three weeks after the second notice, they’ll get weekly notices for a month, and a final termination notice at 14 weeks.

The Federation of American Hospitals (FAH), however, said their members were still not happy. “It is both inappropriate and frankly overkill for CMS to tie compliance with reporting to Medicare conditions of participation,” said FAH President and CEO Chip Kahn in a statement. He called the CMS proposal “sledgehammer enforcement,” and said that the continuing data request might weaken hospitals’ response to the pandemic because it would divert time and money away from patient care.

Rick Pollack, president and CEO of the American Hospital Association called the CMS rule an “overly heavy-handed approach that could jeopardize access to hospital care for all Americans.” He noted in a statement that barring hospitals from Medicare and Medicaid could harm beneficiaries and the effort to provide COVID care.

Pollack also noted that AHA has “observed errors in data processing and confusion about exactly what was being requested at the hospital, state, contractor, and federal level, and has worked diligently with the federal agencies to identify and correct those problems.”

The document that lays out U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Protect reporting requirements were updated again on October 6 to add influenza data. The hospitals must report on total patients with laboratory-confirmed flu; previous day’s flu admissions; total ICU patients with lab-confirmed flu; total inpatients with either flu or COVID-19; and the previous day’s deaths for flu and COVID.

CDC Director Robert Redfield, MD, said on the press call that the new data will give the agency crucial hospital-level information and perhaps better estimates of the flu burden. Flu trends have been tracked using the CDC’s Influenza Hospitalization Surveillance Network (FluSurv-NET), which will not be replaced, Redfield said. But that network only tracks hospitalizations in 14 states and does not provide information in “nearly real-time,” he said.

Having the new data “will give us a true situational awareness of severe respiratory illness, provide local hospitalization trends, and help direct resources such as antiretrovirals to address potential increased impact of flu and COVID cocirculation,” Redfield said.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Patients given antibiotics for appendicitis fared no worse in quality of life, at least in the short term, than did patients whose appendix was removed, according to a large, randomized, nonblinded, noninferiority study published online Oct. 5 in The New England Journal of Medicine.

One expert says the body of data, including this trial, indicates that the best appendicitis treatment now comes down to individual patients and choice.

David Flum, MD, director of the Surgical Outcomes Research Center at the University of Washington in Seattle, and colleagues conducted the Comparison of Outcomes of Antibiotic Drugs and Appendectomy (CODA) trial, which compared a 10-day course of antibiotics with appendectomy for patients with appendicitis at 25 US centers.

Although some may interpret the study as praising the potential role of antibiotics, the author of an accompanying editorial warns against rushing to antibiotics, even during a pandemic when hospital resources may be strained.

In the study of 1552 adults (414 with an appendicolith), 776 were randomly assigned to the antibiotics group and 776 to appendectomy (96% of whom underwent a laparoscopic procedure).

After 30 days, antibiotics were found to be noninferior to appendectomy, the standard of treatment for 120 years, as determined on the basis of 30-day scores for the European Quality of Life–5 Dimensions (EQ-5D) questionnaire (mean difference, 0.01 points; 95% CI, −0.001 to 0.03).

EQ-5D at 30 days was chosen as the primary endpoint because it has been validated as an overall measure of health after appendicitis treatment and the 30-day time frame mimics the typical recovery period for appendectomy, Flum and colleagues explain.
 

Some results favored appendectomy

However, editorialist Danny Jacobs, MD, MPH, president of Oregon Health and Science University in Portland, points out that about a third (29%) of the patients in the antibiotics group had undergone appendectomy by 90 days.

Appendicolith, a well-established potential complication, he acknowledges, was the main driver of the need for surgery (41% with that complication needed appendectomy), but it was not the sole reason.

Complications were more common in the antibiotics group than in the appendectomy group (8.1 vs 3.5 per 100 participants; rate ratio, 2.28; 95% CI, 1.30 – 3.98). The rate of serious adverse events was 4.0 per 100 participants in the antibiotics group and 3.0 per 100 participants in the appendectomy group (rate ratio, 1.29; 95% CI, 0.67 – 2.50). Additionally, the number of emergency department visits was nearly three times higher in the antibiotics group, and more time was spent in the hospital by that group, Jacobs points out.

He notes that the article mentions circumstances such as the COVID-19 pandemic may figure into consideration when weighing antibiotics against appendectomy. But he warns that there also may be a danger of treatment bias in vulnerable populations and that COVID-19 has highlighted disparities in care overall.

“It will be important to ensure that some people, in particular vulnerable populations, are not offered antibiotic therapy preferentially or without adequate education regarding the longer-term implications,” Jacobs writes.

Flum told Medscape Medical News he agrees with Jacobs that the potential for bias is important.

“We should all be worried that new healthcare options won’t be equally applied,” he said.

But he and his coauthors offer an alternative view of the results of the study.

“In the antibiotics group,” they write, “more than 7 in 10 participants avoided surgery, many were treated on an outpatient basis, and participants and caregivers missed less time at work than with appendectomy.”

Flum said, “[T]hat’s going to be attractive to some patients. Not all, but some.”

Douglas Smink, MD, MPH, chief of surgery at Brigham and Women’s Faulkner Hospital in Boston, told Medscape Medical News that he sees this study as an argument for surgery remaining the go-to option for appendicitis, unless there is a safety reason for not performing the surgery.

Patients come in and want their appendix out immediately, he said, and surgery offers a quick option with short length of stay and few complications.

Additionally, he said, if patients are told that, with antibiotics, “there’s a 1 in 3 chance you’re going to need [an appendectomy] in the next 3 months, I think most people would say, ‘Just take it out then,’ ” he said.
 

Can research decide which is best?

The controversy has been well studied. But with no clear answer in any of the studies about whether appendectomy or use of antibiotics is better, should the current study put the research to rest?

Flum told Medscape Medical News that this study, which is three times the size of the next-largest study, makes clear “there are choices.”

Previous trials in Europe “did not move the needle” on the issue, he said, “in part because they didn’t include the patients who typically get appendectomies.”

He said their team tried to build on those studies and include “typical patients in typical hospitals with typical appendicitis” and found that both surgery and antibiotics are safe and have advantages and disadvantages, depending on the patient.

Smink says one thing that has been definitively answered with this trial is that patients with appendicolith are “more likely to fail with antibiotics.”

Previous trials have excluded patients with appendicolith, and this one did not.

“That’s something we’ve not really known for sure but we’ve assumed,” he said.

But now, Smink says, he thinks the research on the topic has gone about as far as it can go.

He notes that none of the trials has shown antibiotics to be better than appendectomy. “I have a hard time believing we are going to find anything different if we did another study like this. This is a really well-done one,” he said.

“If the best you can do is show noninferiority, which is where we are with these studies on appendicitis, you’re always going to have both options, which is great for patients and doctors,” he said.

The study was funded by the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute. The original article lists the authors’ relevant financial relationships. Jacobs and Smink reported no such relationships.
 

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Patients given antibiotics for appendicitis fared no worse in quality of life, at least in the short term, than did patients whose appendix was removed, according to a large, randomized, nonblinded, noninferiority study published online Oct. 5 in The New England Journal of Medicine.

One expert says the body of data, including this trial, indicates that the best appendicitis treatment now comes down to individual patients and choice.

David Flum, MD, director of the Surgical Outcomes Research Center at the University of Washington in Seattle, and colleagues conducted the Comparison of Outcomes of Antibiotic Drugs and Appendectomy (CODA) trial, which compared a 10-day course of antibiotics with appendectomy for patients with appendicitis at 25 US centers.

Although some may interpret the study as praising the potential role of antibiotics, the author of an accompanying editorial warns against rushing to antibiotics, even during a pandemic when hospital resources may be strained.

In the study of 1552 adults (414 with an appendicolith), 776 were randomly assigned to the antibiotics group and 776 to appendectomy (96% of whom underwent a laparoscopic procedure).

After 30 days, antibiotics were found to be noninferior to appendectomy, the standard of treatment for 120 years, as determined on the basis of 30-day scores for the European Quality of Life–5 Dimensions (EQ-5D) questionnaire (mean difference, 0.01 points; 95% CI, −0.001 to 0.03).

EQ-5D at 30 days was chosen as the primary endpoint because it has been validated as an overall measure of health after appendicitis treatment and the 30-day time frame mimics the typical recovery period for appendectomy, Flum and colleagues explain.
 

Some results favored appendectomy

However, editorialist Danny Jacobs, MD, MPH, president of Oregon Health and Science University in Portland, points out that about a third (29%) of the patients in the antibiotics group had undergone appendectomy by 90 days.

Appendicolith, a well-established potential complication, he acknowledges, was the main driver of the need for surgery (41% with that complication needed appendectomy), but it was not the sole reason.

Complications were more common in the antibiotics group than in the appendectomy group (8.1 vs 3.5 per 100 participants; rate ratio, 2.28; 95% CI, 1.30 – 3.98). The rate of serious adverse events was 4.0 per 100 participants in the antibiotics group and 3.0 per 100 participants in the appendectomy group (rate ratio, 1.29; 95% CI, 0.67 – 2.50). Additionally, the number of emergency department visits was nearly three times higher in the antibiotics group, and more time was spent in the hospital by that group, Jacobs points out.

He notes that the article mentions circumstances such as the COVID-19 pandemic may figure into consideration when weighing antibiotics against appendectomy. But he warns that there also may be a danger of treatment bias in vulnerable populations and that COVID-19 has highlighted disparities in care overall.

“It will be important to ensure that some people, in particular vulnerable populations, are not offered antibiotic therapy preferentially or without adequate education regarding the longer-term implications,” Jacobs writes.

Flum told Medscape Medical News he agrees with Jacobs that the potential for bias is important.

“We should all be worried that new healthcare options won’t be equally applied,” he said.

But he and his coauthors offer an alternative view of the results of the study.

“In the antibiotics group,” they write, “more than 7 in 10 participants avoided surgery, many were treated on an outpatient basis, and participants and caregivers missed less time at work than with appendectomy.”

Flum said, “[T]hat’s going to be attractive to some patients. Not all, but some.”

Douglas Smink, MD, MPH, chief of surgery at Brigham and Women’s Faulkner Hospital in Boston, told Medscape Medical News that he sees this study as an argument for surgery remaining the go-to option for appendicitis, unless there is a safety reason for not performing the surgery.

Patients come in and want their appendix out immediately, he said, and surgery offers a quick option with short length of stay and few complications.

Additionally, he said, if patients are told that, with antibiotics, “there’s a 1 in 3 chance you’re going to need [an appendectomy] in the next 3 months, I think most people would say, ‘Just take it out then,’ ” he said.
 

Can research decide which is best?

The controversy has been well studied. But with no clear answer in any of the studies about whether appendectomy or use of antibiotics is better, should the current study put the research to rest?

Flum told Medscape Medical News that this study, which is three times the size of the next-largest study, makes clear “there are choices.”

Previous trials in Europe “did not move the needle” on the issue, he said, “in part because they didn’t include the patients who typically get appendectomies.”

He said their team tried to build on those studies and include “typical patients in typical hospitals with typical appendicitis” and found that both surgery and antibiotics are safe and have advantages and disadvantages, depending on the patient.

Smink says one thing that has been definitively answered with this trial is that patients with appendicolith are “more likely to fail with antibiotics.”

Previous trials have excluded patients with appendicolith, and this one did not.

“That’s something we’ve not really known for sure but we’ve assumed,” he said.

But now, Smink says, he thinks the research on the topic has gone about as far as it can go.

He notes that none of the trials has shown antibiotics to be better than appendectomy. “I have a hard time believing we are going to find anything different if we did another study like this. This is a really well-done one,” he said.

“If the best you can do is show noninferiority, which is where we are with these studies on appendicitis, you’re always going to have both options, which is great for patients and doctors,” he said.

The study was funded by the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute. The original article lists the authors’ relevant financial relationships. Jacobs and Smink reported no such relationships.
 

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Patients given antibiotics for appendicitis fared no worse in quality of life, at least in the short term, than did patients whose appendix was removed, according to a large, randomized, nonblinded, noninferiority study published online Oct. 5 in The New England Journal of Medicine.

One expert says the body of data, including this trial, indicates that the best appendicitis treatment now comes down to individual patients and choice.

David Flum, MD, director of the Surgical Outcomes Research Center at the University of Washington in Seattle, and colleagues conducted the Comparison of Outcomes of Antibiotic Drugs and Appendectomy (CODA) trial, which compared a 10-day course of antibiotics with appendectomy for patients with appendicitis at 25 US centers.

Although some may interpret the study as praising the potential role of antibiotics, the author of an accompanying editorial warns against rushing to antibiotics, even during a pandemic when hospital resources may be strained.

In the study of 1552 adults (414 with an appendicolith), 776 were randomly assigned to the antibiotics group and 776 to appendectomy (96% of whom underwent a laparoscopic procedure).

After 30 days, antibiotics were found to be noninferior to appendectomy, the standard of treatment for 120 years, as determined on the basis of 30-day scores for the European Quality of Life–5 Dimensions (EQ-5D) questionnaire (mean difference, 0.01 points; 95% CI, −0.001 to 0.03).

EQ-5D at 30 days was chosen as the primary endpoint because it has been validated as an overall measure of health after appendicitis treatment and the 30-day time frame mimics the typical recovery period for appendectomy, Flum and colleagues explain.
 

Some results favored appendectomy

However, editorialist Danny Jacobs, MD, MPH, president of Oregon Health and Science University in Portland, points out that about a third (29%) of the patients in the antibiotics group had undergone appendectomy by 90 days.

Appendicolith, a well-established potential complication, he acknowledges, was the main driver of the need for surgery (41% with that complication needed appendectomy), but it was not the sole reason.

Complications were more common in the antibiotics group than in the appendectomy group (8.1 vs 3.5 per 100 participants; rate ratio, 2.28; 95% CI, 1.30 – 3.98). The rate of serious adverse events was 4.0 per 100 participants in the antibiotics group and 3.0 per 100 participants in the appendectomy group (rate ratio, 1.29; 95% CI, 0.67 – 2.50). Additionally, the number of emergency department visits was nearly three times higher in the antibiotics group, and more time was spent in the hospital by that group, Jacobs points out.

He notes that the article mentions circumstances such as the COVID-19 pandemic may figure into consideration when weighing antibiotics against appendectomy. But he warns that there also may be a danger of treatment bias in vulnerable populations and that COVID-19 has highlighted disparities in care overall.

“It will be important to ensure that some people, in particular vulnerable populations, are not offered antibiotic therapy preferentially or without adequate education regarding the longer-term implications,” Jacobs writes.

Flum told Medscape Medical News he agrees with Jacobs that the potential for bias is important.

“We should all be worried that new healthcare options won’t be equally applied,” he said.

But he and his coauthors offer an alternative view of the results of the study.

“In the antibiotics group,” they write, “more than 7 in 10 participants avoided surgery, many were treated on an outpatient basis, and participants and caregivers missed less time at work than with appendectomy.”

Flum said, “[T]hat’s going to be attractive to some patients. Not all, but some.”

Douglas Smink, MD, MPH, chief of surgery at Brigham and Women’s Faulkner Hospital in Boston, told Medscape Medical News that he sees this study as an argument for surgery remaining the go-to option for appendicitis, unless there is a safety reason for not performing the surgery.

Patients come in and want their appendix out immediately, he said, and surgery offers a quick option with short length of stay and few complications.

Additionally, he said, if patients are told that, with antibiotics, “there’s a 1 in 3 chance you’re going to need [an appendectomy] in the next 3 months, I think most people would say, ‘Just take it out then,’ ” he said.
 

Can research decide which is best?

The controversy has been well studied. But with no clear answer in any of the studies about whether appendectomy or use of antibiotics is better, should the current study put the research to rest?

Flum told Medscape Medical News that this study, which is three times the size of the next-largest study, makes clear “there are choices.”

Previous trials in Europe “did not move the needle” on the issue, he said, “in part because they didn’t include the patients who typically get appendectomies.”

He said their team tried to build on those studies and include “typical patients in typical hospitals with typical appendicitis” and found that both surgery and antibiotics are safe and have advantages and disadvantages, depending on the patient.

Smink says one thing that has been definitively answered with this trial is that patients with appendicolith are “more likely to fail with antibiotics.”

Previous trials have excluded patients with appendicolith, and this one did not.

“That’s something we’ve not really known for sure but we’ve assumed,” he said.

But now, Smink says, he thinks the research on the topic has gone about as far as it can go.

He notes that none of the trials has shown antibiotics to be better than appendectomy. “I have a hard time believing we are going to find anything different if we did another study like this. This is a really well-done one,” he said.

“If the best you can do is show noninferiority, which is where we are with these studies on appendicitis, you’re always going to have both options, which is great for patients and doctors,” he said.

The study was funded by the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute. The original article lists the authors’ relevant financial relationships. Jacobs and Smink reported no such relationships.
 

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.