User login
Ceftolozane-tazobactam found effective in critically ill patients with Pseudomonas aeruginosa infections
, according to the results of a retrospective, observational study conducted in critically ill patients.
The multicenter, observational study assessed 95 patients who received C/T for P. aeruginosa serious infections, according to a report published online in the International Journal of Antimicrobial Agents.
C/T is a novel beta-lactam/ beta-lactamase inhibitor combination active against gram-negative bacteria including P. aeruginosa, “This paper presents the largest real-life experience published on C/T therapy for treating serious P. aeruginosa infections according to researchers Barbara Balandin, MD, of the Hospital Universitario Puerta de Hierro, Majadahonda, Spain, and colleagues.
The main infections treated were nosocomial pneumonia (56.2%), intra-abdominal infection (10.5%), tracheobronchitis (8.4%), and urinary tract infection (6.3%). Most infections were complicated with sepsis (49.5%) or septic shock (45.3%), and bacteremia (10.5%).
A total of 46 episodes were treated with high-dose C/T (3 g every 8 hours), and 38 episodes were treated with standard dosage (1.5 g every 8 hours). Almost half (44.2%) of the patients were treated with C/T monotherapy, and the remaining group received combination therapy with other antibiotics, according to the researchers.
The primary outcome of the study was to assess the efficacy and toxicity of C/T therapy. The secondary outcome was to evaluate the risk factors for all-cause 30-day mortality from the first day of therapy.
Favorable results
Most of the infections (93.7%) were severe and included the presence of sepsis (49.5%) or septic shock (45.3%). Bacteremia was observed in 15 (15.7%) patients. Bacteremia was secondary to nosocomial pneumonia in eight cases, catheter infection in five, urinary tract infection in one, and soft tissue infection in one. According to their susceptibility profiles, 46 (48.4%) of the strains were classified as extensively drug-resistant (XDR) P. aeruginosa and 35 (36.5%) were multidrug-resistant (MDR) P. aeruginosa.
Sixty-eight (71.6%) patients presented a favorable clinical response, which was defined as a resolution of presenting symptoms and signs of the infection by the end of therapy. An unfavorable clinical response was considered as persistence or worsening of the presenting symptoms and signs or death occurring during treatment with no other cause identified. Death associated with infection was defined as persistence of signs and symptoms of P. aeruginosa infection during C/T therapy with no other cause identified.
Microbiological eradication was documented in 42.1% (40/95) of the episodes. However, the global ICU mortality was still high, at 36.5%, with mortality mainly related to the severity of the infection.
Mortality was found to be significantly correlated with the Charlson Comorbidity Index (5.7 vs. 4.3; P = .04) and the need for life-supporting therapies such as vasopressors (66.6% vs. 46.9%; P = .03) and renal replacement therapy (46.6% vs. 18.1%; P = .002). In addition, mortality was significantly associated with a higher sequential organ failure assessment (SOFA) score during C/T therapy (SOFA1, SOFA 3, and SOFA 7; P < .001).
No significant differences in outcomes were correlated with demographic features, type and severity of infection, and dose of C/T. Also, there were no differences seen in outcomes between patients treated with C/T monotherapy and combined therapy (30.9% vs. 30.1%; P = .55).
“The lack of a positive effect from combined therapy suggests that C/T monotherapy may be sufficient for treating P. aeruginosa isolates that are susceptible to that agent,” the researchers suggested. “This study shows that C/T appears to be a suitable, effective, and safe drug for treating severe infections due to P. aeruginosa, highlighting nosocomial pneumonia caused by MDR/XDR P. aeruginosa in ICU patients with multiple comorbidities, such as immunosuppression, and needing life-sustaining therapies,” they concluded.
The authors reported that they had no outside funding source and had no conflicts of interest.
, according to the results of a retrospective, observational study conducted in critically ill patients.
The multicenter, observational study assessed 95 patients who received C/T for P. aeruginosa serious infections, according to a report published online in the International Journal of Antimicrobial Agents.
C/T is a novel beta-lactam/ beta-lactamase inhibitor combination active against gram-negative bacteria including P. aeruginosa, “This paper presents the largest real-life experience published on C/T therapy for treating serious P. aeruginosa infections according to researchers Barbara Balandin, MD, of the Hospital Universitario Puerta de Hierro, Majadahonda, Spain, and colleagues.
The main infections treated were nosocomial pneumonia (56.2%), intra-abdominal infection (10.5%), tracheobronchitis (8.4%), and urinary tract infection (6.3%). Most infections were complicated with sepsis (49.5%) or septic shock (45.3%), and bacteremia (10.5%).
A total of 46 episodes were treated with high-dose C/T (3 g every 8 hours), and 38 episodes were treated with standard dosage (1.5 g every 8 hours). Almost half (44.2%) of the patients were treated with C/T monotherapy, and the remaining group received combination therapy with other antibiotics, according to the researchers.
The primary outcome of the study was to assess the efficacy and toxicity of C/T therapy. The secondary outcome was to evaluate the risk factors for all-cause 30-day mortality from the first day of therapy.
Favorable results
Most of the infections (93.7%) were severe and included the presence of sepsis (49.5%) or septic shock (45.3%). Bacteremia was observed in 15 (15.7%) patients. Bacteremia was secondary to nosocomial pneumonia in eight cases, catheter infection in five, urinary tract infection in one, and soft tissue infection in one. According to their susceptibility profiles, 46 (48.4%) of the strains were classified as extensively drug-resistant (XDR) P. aeruginosa and 35 (36.5%) were multidrug-resistant (MDR) P. aeruginosa.
Sixty-eight (71.6%) patients presented a favorable clinical response, which was defined as a resolution of presenting symptoms and signs of the infection by the end of therapy. An unfavorable clinical response was considered as persistence or worsening of the presenting symptoms and signs or death occurring during treatment with no other cause identified. Death associated with infection was defined as persistence of signs and symptoms of P. aeruginosa infection during C/T therapy with no other cause identified.
Microbiological eradication was documented in 42.1% (40/95) of the episodes. However, the global ICU mortality was still high, at 36.5%, with mortality mainly related to the severity of the infection.
Mortality was found to be significantly correlated with the Charlson Comorbidity Index (5.7 vs. 4.3; P = .04) and the need for life-supporting therapies such as vasopressors (66.6% vs. 46.9%; P = .03) and renal replacement therapy (46.6% vs. 18.1%; P = .002). In addition, mortality was significantly associated with a higher sequential organ failure assessment (SOFA) score during C/T therapy (SOFA1, SOFA 3, and SOFA 7; P < .001).
No significant differences in outcomes were correlated with demographic features, type and severity of infection, and dose of C/T. Also, there were no differences seen in outcomes between patients treated with C/T monotherapy and combined therapy (30.9% vs. 30.1%; P = .55).
“The lack of a positive effect from combined therapy suggests that C/T monotherapy may be sufficient for treating P. aeruginosa isolates that are susceptible to that agent,” the researchers suggested. “This study shows that C/T appears to be a suitable, effective, and safe drug for treating severe infections due to P. aeruginosa, highlighting nosocomial pneumonia caused by MDR/XDR P. aeruginosa in ICU patients with multiple comorbidities, such as immunosuppression, and needing life-sustaining therapies,” they concluded.
The authors reported that they had no outside funding source and had no conflicts of interest.
, according to the results of a retrospective, observational study conducted in critically ill patients.
The multicenter, observational study assessed 95 patients who received C/T for P. aeruginosa serious infections, according to a report published online in the International Journal of Antimicrobial Agents.
C/T is a novel beta-lactam/ beta-lactamase inhibitor combination active against gram-negative bacteria including P. aeruginosa, “This paper presents the largest real-life experience published on C/T therapy for treating serious P. aeruginosa infections according to researchers Barbara Balandin, MD, of the Hospital Universitario Puerta de Hierro, Majadahonda, Spain, and colleagues.
The main infections treated were nosocomial pneumonia (56.2%), intra-abdominal infection (10.5%), tracheobronchitis (8.4%), and urinary tract infection (6.3%). Most infections were complicated with sepsis (49.5%) or septic shock (45.3%), and bacteremia (10.5%).
A total of 46 episodes were treated with high-dose C/T (3 g every 8 hours), and 38 episodes were treated with standard dosage (1.5 g every 8 hours). Almost half (44.2%) of the patients were treated with C/T monotherapy, and the remaining group received combination therapy with other antibiotics, according to the researchers.
The primary outcome of the study was to assess the efficacy and toxicity of C/T therapy. The secondary outcome was to evaluate the risk factors for all-cause 30-day mortality from the first day of therapy.
Favorable results
Most of the infections (93.7%) were severe and included the presence of sepsis (49.5%) or septic shock (45.3%). Bacteremia was observed in 15 (15.7%) patients. Bacteremia was secondary to nosocomial pneumonia in eight cases, catheter infection in five, urinary tract infection in one, and soft tissue infection in one. According to their susceptibility profiles, 46 (48.4%) of the strains were classified as extensively drug-resistant (XDR) P. aeruginosa and 35 (36.5%) were multidrug-resistant (MDR) P. aeruginosa.
Sixty-eight (71.6%) patients presented a favorable clinical response, which was defined as a resolution of presenting symptoms and signs of the infection by the end of therapy. An unfavorable clinical response was considered as persistence or worsening of the presenting symptoms and signs or death occurring during treatment with no other cause identified. Death associated with infection was defined as persistence of signs and symptoms of P. aeruginosa infection during C/T therapy with no other cause identified.
Microbiological eradication was documented in 42.1% (40/95) of the episodes. However, the global ICU mortality was still high, at 36.5%, with mortality mainly related to the severity of the infection.
Mortality was found to be significantly correlated with the Charlson Comorbidity Index (5.7 vs. 4.3; P = .04) and the need for life-supporting therapies such as vasopressors (66.6% vs. 46.9%; P = .03) and renal replacement therapy (46.6% vs. 18.1%; P = .002). In addition, mortality was significantly associated with a higher sequential organ failure assessment (SOFA) score during C/T therapy (SOFA1, SOFA 3, and SOFA 7; P < .001).
No significant differences in outcomes were correlated with demographic features, type and severity of infection, and dose of C/T. Also, there were no differences seen in outcomes between patients treated with C/T monotherapy and combined therapy (30.9% vs. 30.1%; P = .55).
“The lack of a positive effect from combined therapy suggests that C/T monotherapy may be sufficient for treating P. aeruginosa isolates that are susceptible to that agent,” the researchers suggested. “This study shows that C/T appears to be a suitable, effective, and safe drug for treating severe infections due to P. aeruginosa, highlighting nosocomial pneumonia caused by MDR/XDR P. aeruginosa in ICU patients with multiple comorbidities, such as immunosuppression, and needing life-sustaining therapies,” they concluded.
The authors reported that they had no outside funding source and had no conflicts of interest.
FROM THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ANTIMICROBIAL AGENTS
Potentially practice-changing bacterial therapy trials analyzed
A new formulation of an existing antibacterial agent and a potential therapeutic approach to a challenging clinical problem were the focus of a session on potentially practice-changing clinical trials in antimicrobial therapy presented during IDWeek 2020, an annual scientific meeting on infectious diseases.
“I know it has been a big year for viral disease of course, with COVID, but there has been some really good work that has gone on in the bacterial space, and of course as those of you who are on service know, you may have your fair share of COVID patients, but these are infections that we still deal with on a daily basis,” said Michael Satlin, MD, an infectious disease specialist at Weill Cornell Medicine in New York.
He combed through studies published during the previous 12 months in leading medical journals, including the New England Journal of Medicine, JAMA network publications, Lancet Infectious Diseases, Lancet Respiratory Medicine, Clinical Infectious Diseases, and Clinical Microbiology and Infection, looking for randomized trials of interventions to treat bacterial infections, and selecting those most likely to change practice of U.S. infectious diseases practitioners.
He excluded meta-analyses, post hoc analyses, evaluations of diagnostic tests, stewardship, or any studies presented previously at IDWeek.
Two of the trials he highlighted are described here.
Fosfomycin for injection
In the United States, fosfomycin, the only antibiotic in its class, is currently available only in an oral sachet formulation (Monurol), “and typically we’ve only given this for patients with cystitis because we know that we don’t achieve significant levels [of drug] in the kidney or in the bloodstream for other types of infections,” Dr. Satlin said.
In Europe, however fosfomycin for injection (ZTI-01) has been available for several years.
“There’s been a lot of interest in fosfomycin because it has a different mechanism of action from other agents. It’s an epoxide antibiotic that inhibits early peptidoglycan synthesis by binding to MurA,” he explained.
The phase 2/3 randomized ZEUS trial compared ZTI-01 with piperacillin/tazobactam (pip/taz) for treatment of complicated urinary tract infection (UTI) including acute pyelonephritis.
A total of 465 hospitalized adults with suspected or microbiologically confirmed complicated UTI or acute pyelonephritis were randomized to 6 g of ZTI-01 every 8 hours or 4.5 g of intravenous pip/taz every 8 hours for a fixed 7-day course with no oral switch; patients with concomitant bacteremia (about 9% of the study population) could receive the assigned therapy for up to 14 days.
The primary endpoint of noninferiority of ZTI-01 was met and clinical cure rates were high and similar between the treatments, at approximately 91% each. Treatment-emergent adverse events, including hypokalemia and elevated serum aminotransferases, were mostly mild and transient.
The hypokalemia seen in the trial may be attributable to the high salt load of fosfomycin relative to pip/taz, Dr. Satlin said.
“How might this change your practice? Well, if IV fosfomycin is ever FDA [Food and Drug Administration] approved – and my understanding is that the delays have been more related to manufacturing than scientific quality of data – it could potentially be an alternative to beta-lactams and fluoroquinolones” and has activity against most extend spectrum beta-lactamase (ESBL)–producing Enterobacteriaceae, he said.
Fosfomycin susceptibility testing is challenging, however, with no Clinical & Laboratory Standards Institute (CLSI) or FDA breakpoints for Enterobacterales other than Escherichia coli, and there are questions about the step-down therapy.
“Do you just give a 3-gram sachet chaser when they walk out the door? Do you switch to another agent? I think that needs to be worked out,” he said.
Inhaled amikacin
“We know that some IV antibiotics, particularly for resistant organisms, may not achieve sufficient concentrations in the lung to treat pneumonia. We know that inhaled antibiotics can give a lot of concentration of that drug right at the at the site of infection, but we don’t really have [randomized controlled trial] data to see whether it really helps,” Dr. Satlin said.
The INHALE trial was a double-blind, placebo-controlled superiority trial to see whether adding inhaled amikacin to IV standard-of-care antibiotics could improve outcomes for mechanically ventilated patients with gram-negative pneumonia.
The investigators enrolled 725 adults who were receiving mechanical ventilation for pneumonia, 45% of who had ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP). Of the total cohort, 508 patients analyzed for efficacy had gram-negative pathogens, including 32% with Pseudomonas aeurginosa, 29% with Acinetobacter baumannii, 30% with E. coli, and the remainder with Klebsiella pneumoniae.
Patients were randomized to standard-of-care intravenous antibiotics plus either inhaled amikacin 400 mg twice daily for 10 days or inhaled saline placebo.
“Of note, the median standard-of-care antibiotics in this study was 18 days, which is certainly longer than what our guidelines recommend.”
There was no significant difference between study arms in the primary endpoint of survival at days 28-32 for all patients who had received at least one dose of study drug, were infected with a gram-negative pathogen, and an Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation (APACHE) II score of at 10 or higher at diagnosis. The respective survival rates for the inhaled amikacin and placebo groups were 75% and 77%. The incidence of treatment-emergent adverse events or serious treatment-emergent adverse events were similar between the two treatment arms.
“No matter how you sliced and diced it – days of mechanical ventilation, duration of ICU stay – essentially they looked the same. Even for [extensively drug resistant] pathogens where you might expect that you’d see the benefit of inhaled amikacin, they didn’t really see a mortality benefit in this study,” Dr. Satlin said.
The study is practice changing, he said “because I think inhaled aminoglycosides should not be routinely added to the standard of care IV antibiotics for pneumonia in ventilated patients,” he said.
It’s still unclear whether inhaled aminoglycosides might play a role in the treatment of select patients infected with organisms resistant to all beta-lactams and fluoroquinolones, he added.
Tempting strategy
“Adding inhaled antibiotics is a tempting strategy for treatment of ventilated pneumonia, which often has poor outcomes,” commented Thomas Holland, MD, a hospitalist and infectious disease specialist at Duke University Hospital in Durham, N.C. “This is valuable and practical information as clinicians choose antibiotics regimens for this difficult-to-treat syndrome,” he said in an interview.
Dr. Holland comoderated the session in which Dr. Satlin presented the study findings and opinions.
No funding source for the presentation was reported. Dr. Satlin reported consulting for Shionogi and Achaogen and research grants from Allergan, Merck, and BioFire Diagnostics. Dr. Holland disclosed consulting fees and other material support from Basilea Pharmaceutica, Genetech, Karius and Theravance.
A new formulation of an existing antibacterial agent and a potential therapeutic approach to a challenging clinical problem were the focus of a session on potentially practice-changing clinical trials in antimicrobial therapy presented during IDWeek 2020, an annual scientific meeting on infectious diseases.
“I know it has been a big year for viral disease of course, with COVID, but there has been some really good work that has gone on in the bacterial space, and of course as those of you who are on service know, you may have your fair share of COVID patients, but these are infections that we still deal with on a daily basis,” said Michael Satlin, MD, an infectious disease specialist at Weill Cornell Medicine in New York.
He combed through studies published during the previous 12 months in leading medical journals, including the New England Journal of Medicine, JAMA network publications, Lancet Infectious Diseases, Lancet Respiratory Medicine, Clinical Infectious Diseases, and Clinical Microbiology and Infection, looking for randomized trials of interventions to treat bacterial infections, and selecting those most likely to change practice of U.S. infectious diseases practitioners.
He excluded meta-analyses, post hoc analyses, evaluations of diagnostic tests, stewardship, or any studies presented previously at IDWeek.
Two of the trials he highlighted are described here.
Fosfomycin for injection
In the United States, fosfomycin, the only antibiotic in its class, is currently available only in an oral sachet formulation (Monurol), “and typically we’ve only given this for patients with cystitis because we know that we don’t achieve significant levels [of drug] in the kidney or in the bloodstream for other types of infections,” Dr. Satlin said.
In Europe, however fosfomycin for injection (ZTI-01) has been available for several years.
“There’s been a lot of interest in fosfomycin because it has a different mechanism of action from other agents. It’s an epoxide antibiotic that inhibits early peptidoglycan synthesis by binding to MurA,” he explained.
The phase 2/3 randomized ZEUS trial compared ZTI-01 with piperacillin/tazobactam (pip/taz) for treatment of complicated urinary tract infection (UTI) including acute pyelonephritis.
A total of 465 hospitalized adults with suspected or microbiologically confirmed complicated UTI or acute pyelonephritis were randomized to 6 g of ZTI-01 every 8 hours or 4.5 g of intravenous pip/taz every 8 hours for a fixed 7-day course with no oral switch; patients with concomitant bacteremia (about 9% of the study population) could receive the assigned therapy for up to 14 days.
The primary endpoint of noninferiority of ZTI-01 was met and clinical cure rates were high and similar between the treatments, at approximately 91% each. Treatment-emergent adverse events, including hypokalemia and elevated serum aminotransferases, were mostly mild and transient.
The hypokalemia seen in the trial may be attributable to the high salt load of fosfomycin relative to pip/taz, Dr. Satlin said.
“How might this change your practice? Well, if IV fosfomycin is ever FDA [Food and Drug Administration] approved – and my understanding is that the delays have been more related to manufacturing than scientific quality of data – it could potentially be an alternative to beta-lactams and fluoroquinolones” and has activity against most extend spectrum beta-lactamase (ESBL)–producing Enterobacteriaceae, he said.
Fosfomycin susceptibility testing is challenging, however, with no Clinical & Laboratory Standards Institute (CLSI) or FDA breakpoints for Enterobacterales other than Escherichia coli, and there are questions about the step-down therapy.
“Do you just give a 3-gram sachet chaser when they walk out the door? Do you switch to another agent? I think that needs to be worked out,” he said.
Inhaled amikacin
“We know that some IV antibiotics, particularly for resistant organisms, may not achieve sufficient concentrations in the lung to treat pneumonia. We know that inhaled antibiotics can give a lot of concentration of that drug right at the at the site of infection, but we don’t really have [randomized controlled trial] data to see whether it really helps,” Dr. Satlin said.
The INHALE trial was a double-blind, placebo-controlled superiority trial to see whether adding inhaled amikacin to IV standard-of-care antibiotics could improve outcomes for mechanically ventilated patients with gram-negative pneumonia.
The investigators enrolled 725 adults who were receiving mechanical ventilation for pneumonia, 45% of who had ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP). Of the total cohort, 508 patients analyzed for efficacy had gram-negative pathogens, including 32% with Pseudomonas aeurginosa, 29% with Acinetobacter baumannii, 30% with E. coli, and the remainder with Klebsiella pneumoniae.
Patients were randomized to standard-of-care intravenous antibiotics plus either inhaled amikacin 400 mg twice daily for 10 days or inhaled saline placebo.
“Of note, the median standard-of-care antibiotics in this study was 18 days, which is certainly longer than what our guidelines recommend.”
There was no significant difference between study arms in the primary endpoint of survival at days 28-32 for all patients who had received at least one dose of study drug, were infected with a gram-negative pathogen, and an Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation (APACHE) II score of at 10 or higher at diagnosis. The respective survival rates for the inhaled amikacin and placebo groups were 75% and 77%. The incidence of treatment-emergent adverse events or serious treatment-emergent adverse events were similar between the two treatment arms.
“No matter how you sliced and diced it – days of mechanical ventilation, duration of ICU stay – essentially they looked the same. Even for [extensively drug resistant] pathogens where you might expect that you’d see the benefit of inhaled amikacin, they didn’t really see a mortality benefit in this study,” Dr. Satlin said.
The study is practice changing, he said “because I think inhaled aminoglycosides should not be routinely added to the standard of care IV antibiotics for pneumonia in ventilated patients,” he said.
It’s still unclear whether inhaled aminoglycosides might play a role in the treatment of select patients infected with organisms resistant to all beta-lactams and fluoroquinolones, he added.
Tempting strategy
“Adding inhaled antibiotics is a tempting strategy for treatment of ventilated pneumonia, which often has poor outcomes,” commented Thomas Holland, MD, a hospitalist and infectious disease specialist at Duke University Hospital in Durham, N.C. “This is valuable and practical information as clinicians choose antibiotics regimens for this difficult-to-treat syndrome,” he said in an interview.
Dr. Holland comoderated the session in which Dr. Satlin presented the study findings and opinions.
No funding source for the presentation was reported. Dr. Satlin reported consulting for Shionogi and Achaogen and research grants from Allergan, Merck, and BioFire Diagnostics. Dr. Holland disclosed consulting fees and other material support from Basilea Pharmaceutica, Genetech, Karius and Theravance.
A new formulation of an existing antibacterial agent and a potential therapeutic approach to a challenging clinical problem were the focus of a session on potentially practice-changing clinical trials in antimicrobial therapy presented during IDWeek 2020, an annual scientific meeting on infectious diseases.
“I know it has been a big year for viral disease of course, with COVID, but there has been some really good work that has gone on in the bacterial space, and of course as those of you who are on service know, you may have your fair share of COVID patients, but these are infections that we still deal with on a daily basis,” said Michael Satlin, MD, an infectious disease specialist at Weill Cornell Medicine in New York.
He combed through studies published during the previous 12 months in leading medical journals, including the New England Journal of Medicine, JAMA network publications, Lancet Infectious Diseases, Lancet Respiratory Medicine, Clinical Infectious Diseases, and Clinical Microbiology and Infection, looking for randomized trials of interventions to treat bacterial infections, and selecting those most likely to change practice of U.S. infectious diseases practitioners.
He excluded meta-analyses, post hoc analyses, evaluations of diagnostic tests, stewardship, or any studies presented previously at IDWeek.
Two of the trials he highlighted are described here.
Fosfomycin for injection
In the United States, fosfomycin, the only antibiotic in its class, is currently available only in an oral sachet formulation (Monurol), “and typically we’ve only given this for patients with cystitis because we know that we don’t achieve significant levels [of drug] in the kidney or in the bloodstream for other types of infections,” Dr. Satlin said.
In Europe, however fosfomycin for injection (ZTI-01) has been available for several years.
“There’s been a lot of interest in fosfomycin because it has a different mechanism of action from other agents. It’s an epoxide antibiotic that inhibits early peptidoglycan synthesis by binding to MurA,” he explained.
The phase 2/3 randomized ZEUS trial compared ZTI-01 with piperacillin/tazobactam (pip/taz) for treatment of complicated urinary tract infection (UTI) including acute pyelonephritis.
A total of 465 hospitalized adults with suspected or microbiologically confirmed complicated UTI or acute pyelonephritis were randomized to 6 g of ZTI-01 every 8 hours or 4.5 g of intravenous pip/taz every 8 hours for a fixed 7-day course with no oral switch; patients with concomitant bacteremia (about 9% of the study population) could receive the assigned therapy for up to 14 days.
The primary endpoint of noninferiority of ZTI-01 was met and clinical cure rates were high and similar between the treatments, at approximately 91% each. Treatment-emergent adverse events, including hypokalemia and elevated serum aminotransferases, were mostly mild and transient.
The hypokalemia seen in the trial may be attributable to the high salt load of fosfomycin relative to pip/taz, Dr. Satlin said.
“How might this change your practice? Well, if IV fosfomycin is ever FDA [Food and Drug Administration] approved – and my understanding is that the delays have been more related to manufacturing than scientific quality of data – it could potentially be an alternative to beta-lactams and fluoroquinolones” and has activity against most extend spectrum beta-lactamase (ESBL)–producing Enterobacteriaceae, he said.
Fosfomycin susceptibility testing is challenging, however, with no Clinical & Laboratory Standards Institute (CLSI) or FDA breakpoints for Enterobacterales other than Escherichia coli, and there are questions about the step-down therapy.
“Do you just give a 3-gram sachet chaser when they walk out the door? Do you switch to another agent? I think that needs to be worked out,” he said.
Inhaled amikacin
“We know that some IV antibiotics, particularly for resistant organisms, may not achieve sufficient concentrations in the lung to treat pneumonia. We know that inhaled antibiotics can give a lot of concentration of that drug right at the at the site of infection, but we don’t really have [randomized controlled trial] data to see whether it really helps,” Dr. Satlin said.
The INHALE trial was a double-blind, placebo-controlled superiority trial to see whether adding inhaled amikacin to IV standard-of-care antibiotics could improve outcomes for mechanically ventilated patients with gram-negative pneumonia.
The investigators enrolled 725 adults who were receiving mechanical ventilation for pneumonia, 45% of who had ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP). Of the total cohort, 508 patients analyzed for efficacy had gram-negative pathogens, including 32% with Pseudomonas aeurginosa, 29% with Acinetobacter baumannii, 30% with E. coli, and the remainder with Klebsiella pneumoniae.
Patients were randomized to standard-of-care intravenous antibiotics plus either inhaled amikacin 400 mg twice daily for 10 days or inhaled saline placebo.
“Of note, the median standard-of-care antibiotics in this study was 18 days, which is certainly longer than what our guidelines recommend.”
There was no significant difference between study arms in the primary endpoint of survival at days 28-32 for all patients who had received at least one dose of study drug, were infected with a gram-negative pathogen, and an Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation (APACHE) II score of at 10 or higher at diagnosis. The respective survival rates for the inhaled amikacin and placebo groups were 75% and 77%. The incidence of treatment-emergent adverse events or serious treatment-emergent adverse events were similar between the two treatment arms.
“No matter how you sliced and diced it – days of mechanical ventilation, duration of ICU stay – essentially they looked the same. Even for [extensively drug resistant] pathogens where you might expect that you’d see the benefit of inhaled amikacin, they didn’t really see a mortality benefit in this study,” Dr. Satlin said.
The study is practice changing, he said “because I think inhaled aminoglycosides should not be routinely added to the standard of care IV antibiotics for pneumonia in ventilated patients,” he said.
It’s still unclear whether inhaled aminoglycosides might play a role in the treatment of select patients infected with organisms resistant to all beta-lactams and fluoroquinolones, he added.
Tempting strategy
“Adding inhaled antibiotics is a tempting strategy for treatment of ventilated pneumonia, which often has poor outcomes,” commented Thomas Holland, MD, a hospitalist and infectious disease specialist at Duke University Hospital in Durham, N.C. “This is valuable and practical information as clinicians choose antibiotics regimens for this difficult-to-treat syndrome,” he said in an interview.
Dr. Holland comoderated the session in which Dr. Satlin presented the study findings and opinions.
No funding source for the presentation was reported. Dr. Satlin reported consulting for Shionogi and Achaogen and research grants from Allergan, Merck, and BioFire Diagnostics. Dr. Holland disclosed consulting fees and other material support from Basilea Pharmaceutica, Genetech, Karius and Theravance.
FROM IDWEEK 2020
Flu and pneumonia vaccination tied to lower dementia risk
In a cohort study of more than 9,000 older adults, receiving a single influenza vaccination was associated with a 17% lower prevalence of Alzheimer’s disease compared with not receiving the vaccine. In addition, for those who were vaccinated more than once over the years, there was an additional 13% reduction in Alzheimer’s disease incidence.
In another study, which included more than 5,000 older participants, being vaccinated against pneumonia between the ages of 65 and 75 reduced the risk of developing Alzheimer’s disease by 30%.
The subject of vaccines “is obviously very topical with the COVID-19 pandemic,” said Rebecca M. Edelmayer, PhD, director of scientific engagement for the Alzheimer’s Association. “While these are very preliminary data, these studies do suggest that with vaccination against both respiratory illnesses, there is the potential to lower risk for developing cognitive decline and dementia,” said Dr. Edelmayer, who was not involved in the research.
The findings of both studies were presented at the virtual annual meeting of the Alzheimer’s Association International Conference.
Lower Alzheimer’s disease prevalence
The influenza vaccine study was presented by Albert Amran, a fourth-year medical student at McGovern Medical School at the University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston. The researchers used electronic health record data to create a propensity-matched cohort of 9,066 vaccinated and unvaccinated adults ages 60 and older.
Influenza vaccination, increased frequency of administration, and younger age at time of vaccination were all associated with reduced incidence of Alzheimer’s disease, Mr. Amran reported.
Being vaccinated for influenza was significantly linked to a lower prevalence of Alzheimer’s disease (odds ratio [OR], 0.83; P < .0001) in comparison with not being vaccinated. Receiving more than one vaccination over the years was associated with an additional reduction in AD incidence (OR, 0.87; P = .0342). The protection appeared to be strongest for those who received their first vaccination at a younger age, for example, at age 60 versus 70.
Mr. Amran and research colleagues have two theories as to why influenza vaccination may protect the brain.
One is that vaccination may aid the immune system as people age. “As people get older, their immune systems become less able to control infection. We’ve seen this with the ongoing pandemic, with older people at much higher risk for dying. Giving people the vaccine once a year may help keep the immune system in shape,” Mr. Amran said.
Another theory is that the prevention of influenza itself may be relevant. “Flu infections can be extremely deadly in older patients. Maybe the results of our study will give another reason for people to get vaccinated,” Mr. Amran said.
Pneumonia vaccine
The other study was presented by Svetlana Ukraintseva, PhD, of Duke University, Durham, N.C.
Dr. Ukraintseva and colleagues investigated associations between pneumococcal vaccine, with and without an accompanying influenza vaccine, and the risk for Alzheimer’s disease among 5,146 participants in the Cardiovascular Health Study. Covariates included sex, race, birth cohort, education, smoking, and a known genetic risk factor for Alzheimer’s disease: the rs2075650 G allele in the TOMM40 gene.
In a logistic model with all covariates, vaccination against pneumonia between ages 65 and 75 was significantly associated with reduced risk of developing AD (OR, 0.70; P < .04). The largest reduction in Alzheimer’s disease risk (OR, 0.62; P < .04) was among those vaccinated against pneumonia who were noncarriers of the rs2075650 G allele.
Total number of vaccinations against pneumonia and influenza between ages 65 and 75 was also associated with a lower risk for Alzheimer’s disease (OR, 0.88; P < .01). However, the effect was not evident for the influenza vaccination alone.
“The fact that very different pathogens – viral, bacterial, fungal – have been linked to Alzheimer’s disease indicates a possibility that compromised host immunity may play a role in Alzheimer’s disease through increasing overall brain’s vulnerability to various microbes,” said Dr. Ukraintseva.
The current findings support further investigation of pneumococcal vaccine as a “reasonable candidate for repurposing in personalized AD prevention,” she noted. “These results also support the important role of boosting overall immune robustness/resilience in preventing Alzheimer’s disease,” Dr. Ukraintseva added.
Her group is currently working on confirming the findings in another population.
Brain protective?
“Neither study can prove that the benefit is directly related to the vaccine itself, but what they can indicate is that potentially, vaccines are a way to protect your health and brain,” Dr. Edelmayer said.
In a statement, Maria Carrillo, PhD, chief science officer for the Alzheimer’s Association, noted that more research is needed.
The new data call “for further studies in large, diverse clinical trials to inform whether vaccinations as a public health strategy decrease our risk for developing dementia as we age,” Dr. Carillo said.
Funding for the influenza vaccine study was provided by the Christopher Sarofim Family Professorship in Biomedical Informatics and Bioengineering, a UT STARs Award, the Cancer Prevention and Research Institute of Texas, and the National Institutes of Health. Funding for the pneumonia study was provided by the National Institute on Aging. Dr. Amran, Dr. Ukraintseva, Dr. Edelmayer, and Dr. Carrillo have reported no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
In a cohort study of more than 9,000 older adults, receiving a single influenza vaccination was associated with a 17% lower prevalence of Alzheimer’s disease compared with not receiving the vaccine. In addition, for those who were vaccinated more than once over the years, there was an additional 13% reduction in Alzheimer’s disease incidence.
In another study, which included more than 5,000 older participants, being vaccinated against pneumonia between the ages of 65 and 75 reduced the risk of developing Alzheimer’s disease by 30%.
The subject of vaccines “is obviously very topical with the COVID-19 pandemic,” said Rebecca M. Edelmayer, PhD, director of scientific engagement for the Alzheimer’s Association. “While these are very preliminary data, these studies do suggest that with vaccination against both respiratory illnesses, there is the potential to lower risk for developing cognitive decline and dementia,” said Dr. Edelmayer, who was not involved in the research.
The findings of both studies were presented at the virtual annual meeting of the Alzheimer’s Association International Conference.
Lower Alzheimer’s disease prevalence
The influenza vaccine study was presented by Albert Amran, a fourth-year medical student at McGovern Medical School at the University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston. The researchers used electronic health record data to create a propensity-matched cohort of 9,066 vaccinated and unvaccinated adults ages 60 and older.
Influenza vaccination, increased frequency of administration, and younger age at time of vaccination were all associated with reduced incidence of Alzheimer’s disease, Mr. Amran reported.
Being vaccinated for influenza was significantly linked to a lower prevalence of Alzheimer’s disease (odds ratio [OR], 0.83; P < .0001) in comparison with not being vaccinated. Receiving more than one vaccination over the years was associated with an additional reduction in AD incidence (OR, 0.87; P = .0342). The protection appeared to be strongest for those who received their first vaccination at a younger age, for example, at age 60 versus 70.
Mr. Amran and research colleagues have two theories as to why influenza vaccination may protect the brain.
One is that vaccination may aid the immune system as people age. “As people get older, their immune systems become less able to control infection. We’ve seen this with the ongoing pandemic, with older people at much higher risk for dying. Giving people the vaccine once a year may help keep the immune system in shape,” Mr. Amran said.
Another theory is that the prevention of influenza itself may be relevant. “Flu infections can be extremely deadly in older patients. Maybe the results of our study will give another reason for people to get vaccinated,” Mr. Amran said.
Pneumonia vaccine
The other study was presented by Svetlana Ukraintseva, PhD, of Duke University, Durham, N.C.
Dr. Ukraintseva and colleagues investigated associations between pneumococcal vaccine, with and without an accompanying influenza vaccine, and the risk for Alzheimer’s disease among 5,146 participants in the Cardiovascular Health Study. Covariates included sex, race, birth cohort, education, smoking, and a known genetic risk factor for Alzheimer’s disease: the rs2075650 G allele in the TOMM40 gene.
In a logistic model with all covariates, vaccination against pneumonia between ages 65 and 75 was significantly associated with reduced risk of developing AD (OR, 0.70; P < .04). The largest reduction in Alzheimer’s disease risk (OR, 0.62; P < .04) was among those vaccinated against pneumonia who were noncarriers of the rs2075650 G allele.
Total number of vaccinations against pneumonia and influenza between ages 65 and 75 was also associated with a lower risk for Alzheimer’s disease (OR, 0.88; P < .01). However, the effect was not evident for the influenza vaccination alone.
“The fact that very different pathogens – viral, bacterial, fungal – have been linked to Alzheimer’s disease indicates a possibility that compromised host immunity may play a role in Alzheimer’s disease through increasing overall brain’s vulnerability to various microbes,” said Dr. Ukraintseva.
The current findings support further investigation of pneumococcal vaccine as a “reasonable candidate for repurposing in personalized AD prevention,” she noted. “These results also support the important role of boosting overall immune robustness/resilience in preventing Alzheimer’s disease,” Dr. Ukraintseva added.
Her group is currently working on confirming the findings in another population.
Brain protective?
“Neither study can prove that the benefit is directly related to the vaccine itself, but what they can indicate is that potentially, vaccines are a way to protect your health and brain,” Dr. Edelmayer said.
In a statement, Maria Carrillo, PhD, chief science officer for the Alzheimer’s Association, noted that more research is needed.
The new data call “for further studies in large, diverse clinical trials to inform whether vaccinations as a public health strategy decrease our risk for developing dementia as we age,” Dr. Carillo said.
Funding for the influenza vaccine study was provided by the Christopher Sarofim Family Professorship in Biomedical Informatics and Bioengineering, a UT STARs Award, the Cancer Prevention and Research Institute of Texas, and the National Institutes of Health. Funding for the pneumonia study was provided by the National Institute on Aging. Dr. Amran, Dr. Ukraintseva, Dr. Edelmayer, and Dr. Carrillo have reported no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
In a cohort study of more than 9,000 older adults, receiving a single influenza vaccination was associated with a 17% lower prevalence of Alzheimer’s disease compared with not receiving the vaccine. In addition, for those who were vaccinated more than once over the years, there was an additional 13% reduction in Alzheimer’s disease incidence.
In another study, which included more than 5,000 older participants, being vaccinated against pneumonia between the ages of 65 and 75 reduced the risk of developing Alzheimer’s disease by 30%.
The subject of vaccines “is obviously very topical with the COVID-19 pandemic,” said Rebecca M. Edelmayer, PhD, director of scientific engagement for the Alzheimer’s Association. “While these are very preliminary data, these studies do suggest that with vaccination against both respiratory illnesses, there is the potential to lower risk for developing cognitive decline and dementia,” said Dr. Edelmayer, who was not involved in the research.
The findings of both studies were presented at the virtual annual meeting of the Alzheimer’s Association International Conference.
Lower Alzheimer’s disease prevalence
The influenza vaccine study was presented by Albert Amran, a fourth-year medical student at McGovern Medical School at the University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston. The researchers used electronic health record data to create a propensity-matched cohort of 9,066 vaccinated and unvaccinated adults ages 60 and older.
Influenza vaccination, increased frequency of administration, and younger age at time of vaccination were all associated with reduced incidence of Alzheimer’s disease, Mr. Amran reported.
Being vaccinated for influenza was significantly linked to a lower prevalence of Alzheimer’s disease (odds ratio [OR], 0.83; P < .0001) in comparison with not being vaccinated. Receiving more than one vaccination over the years was associated with an additional reduction in AD incidence (OR, 0.87; P = .0342). The protection appeared to be strongest for those who received their first vaccination at a younger age, for example, at age 60 versus 70.
Mr. Amran and research colleagues have two theories as to why influenza vaccination may protect the brain.
One is that vaccination may aid the immune system as people age. “As people get older, their immune systems become less able to control infection. We’ve seen this with the ongoing pandemic, with older people at much higher risk for dying. Giving people the vaccine once a year may help keep the immune system in shape,” Mr. Amran said.
Another theory is that the prevention of influenza itself may be relevant. “Flu infections can be extremely deadly in older patients. Maybe the results of our study will give another reason for people to get vaccinated,” Mr. Amran said.
Pneumonia vaccine
The other study was presented by Svetlana Ukraintseva, PhD, of Duke University, Durham, N.C.
Dr. Ukraintseva and colleagues investigated associations between pneumococcal vaccine, with and without an accompanying influenza vaccine, and the risk for Alzheimer’s disease among 5,146 participants in the Cardiovascular Health Study. Covariates included sex, race, birth cohort, education, smoking, and a known genetic risk factor for Alzheimer’s disease: the rs2075650 G allele in the TOMM40 gene.
In a logistic model with all covariates, vaccination against pneumonia between ages 65 and 75 was significantly associated with reduced risk of developing AD (OR, 0.70; P < .04). The largest reduction in Alzheimer’s disease risk (OR, 0.62; P < .04) was among those vaccinated against pneumonia who were noncarriers of the rs2075650 G allele.
Total number of vaccinations against pneumonia and influenza between ages 65 and 75 was also associated with a lower risk for Alzheimer’s disease (OR, 0.88; P < .01). However, the effect was not evident for the influenza vaccination alone.
“The fact that very different pathogens – viral, bacterial, fungal – have been linked to Alzheimer’s disease indicates a possibility that compromised host immunity may play a role in Alzheimer’s disease through increasing overall brain’s vulnerability to various microbes,” said Dr. Ukraintseva.
The current findings support further investigation of pneumococcal vaccine as a “reasonable candidate for repurposing in personalized AD prevention,” she noted. “These results also support the important role of boosting overall immune robustness/resilience in preventing Alzheimer’s disease,” Dr. Ukraintseva added.
Her group is currently working on confirming the findings in another population.
Brain protective?
“Neither study can prove that the benefit is directly related to the vaccine itself, but what they can indicate is that potentially, vaccines are a way to protect your health and brain,” Dr. Edelmayer said.
In a statement, Maria Carrillo, PhD, chief science officer for the Alzheimer’s Association, noted that more research is needed.
The new data call “for further studies in large, diverse clinical trials to inform whether vaccinations as a public health strategy decrease our risk for developing dementia as we age,” Dr. Carillo said.
Funding for the influenza vaccine study was provided by the Christopher Sarofim Family Professorship in Biomedical Informatics and Bioengineering, a UT STARs Award, the Cancer Prevention and Research Institute of Texas, and the National Institutes of Health. Funding for the pneumonia study was provided by the National Institute on Aging. Dr. Amran, Dr. Ukraintseva, Dr. Edelmayer, and Dr. Carrillo have reported no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM AAIC 2020
FDA approves new antibiotic for HABP/VABP treatment
in people aged 18 years and older.
Approval for Recarbrio was based on results of a randomized, controlled clinical trial of 535 hospitalized adults with hospital-acquired and ventilator-associated bacterial pneumonia who received either Recarbrio or piperacillin-tazobactam. After 28 days, 16% of patients who received Recarbrio and 21% of patients who received piperacillin-tazobactam had died.
The most common adverse events associated with Recarbrio are increased alanine aminotransferase/ aspartate aminotransferase, anemia, diarrhea, hypokalemia, and hyponatremia. Recarbrio was previously approved by the FDA to treat patients with complicated urinary tract infections and complicated intra-abdominal infections who have limited or no alternative treatment options, according to an FDA press release.
“As a public health agency, the FDA addresses the threat of antimicrobial-resistant infections by facilitating the development of safe and effective new treatments. These efforts provide more options to fight serious bacterial infections and get new, safe and effective therapies to patients as soon as possible,” said Sumathi Nambiar, MD, MPH, director of the division of anti-infectives within the office of infectious disease at the Center for Drug Evaluation and Research.
in people aged 18 years and older.
Approval for Recarbrio was based on results of a randomized, controlled clinical trial of 535 hospitalized adults with hospital-acquired and ventilator-associated bacterial pneumonia who received either Recarbrio or piperacillin-tazobactam. After 28 days, 16% of patients who received Recarbrio and 21% of patients who received piperacillin-tazobactam had died.
The most common adverse events associated with Recarbrio are increased alanine aminotransferase/ aspartate aminotransferase, anemia, diarrhea, hypokalemia, and hyponatremia. Recarbrio was previously approved by the FDA to treat patients with complicated urinary tract infections and complicated intra-abdominal infections who have limited or no alternative treatment options, according to an FDA press release.
“As a public health agency, the FDA addresses the threat of antimicrobial-resistant infections by facilitating the development of safe and effective new treatments. These efforts provide more options to fight serious bacterial infections and get new, safe and effective therapies to patients as soon as possible,” said Sumathi Nambiar, MD, MPH, director of the division of anti-infectives within the office of infectious disease at the Center for Drug Evaluation and Research.
in people aged 18 years and older.
Approval for Recarbrio was based on results of a randomized, controlled clinical trial of 535 hospitalized adults with hospital-acquired and ventilator-associated bacterial pneumonia who received either Recarbrio or piperacillin-tazobactam. After 28 days, 16% of patients who received Recarbrio and 21% of patients who received piperacillin-tazobactam had died.
The most common adverse events associated with Recarbrio are increased alanine aminotransferase/ aspartate aminotransferase, anemia, diarrhea, hypokalemia, and hyponatremia. Recarbrio was previously approved by the FDA to treat patients with complicated urinary tract infections and complicated intra-abdominal infections who have limited or no alternative treatment options, according to an FDA press release.
“As a public health agency, the FDA addresses the threat of antimicrobial-resistant infections by facilitating the development of safe and effective new treatments. These efforts provide more options to fight serious bacterial infections and get new, safe and effective therapies to patients as soon as possible,” said Sumathi Nambiar, MD, MPH, director of the division of anti-infectives within the office of infectious disease at the Center for Drug Evaluation and Research.
FLU/SAL inhalers for COPD carry greater pneumonia risk
For well over a decade the elevated risk of pneumonia from inhaled corticosteroids for moderate to very severe COPD has been well documented, although the pneumonia risks from different types of ICSs have not been well understood.
Researchers from Taiwan have taken a step in to investigate this question with a nationwide cohort study that reported inhalers with budesonide and beclomethasone may have a lower pneumonia risk than that of fluticasone propionate/salmeterol inhalers (CHEST. 2020;157:117-29).
The study is the first to include beclomethasone-containing inhalers in a comparison of ICS/long-acting beta2-agonist (LABA) fixed combinations to evaluate pneumonia risk, along with dose and drug properties, wrote Ting-Yu Chang, MS, of the Graduate Institute of Clinical Pharmacology at the College of Medicine, National Taiwan University in Taipei, and colleagues.
The study evaluated 42,393 people with COPD in the National Health Insurance Research Database who got at least two continuous prescriptions for three different types of inhalers:
- Budesonide/formoterol (BUD/FOR).
- Beclomethasone/formoterol (BEC/FOR).
- Fluticasone propionate/salmeterol (FLU/SAL).
The study included patients aged 40 years and older who used a metered-dose inhaler (MDI) or dry-powder inhaler (DPI) between January 2011 and June 2015.
Patient experience with adverse events (AEs) was a factor in risk stratification, Mr. Chang and colleagues noted. “For the comparison between the BEC/FOR MDI and FLU/SAL MDI, the lower risk associated with the BEC/FOR MDI was more prominent in patients without severe AE in the past year,” they wrote.
The study found that BUD/FOR DPI users had a 17% lower risk of severe pneumonia and a 12% lower risk of severe AEs than that of FLU/SAL DPI users. The risk difference in pneumonia remained significant after adjustment for the ICS-equivalent daily dose, but the spread for AEs didn’t.
BEC/FOR MDI users were 31% less likely to get severe pneumonia and 18% less likely to have severe AEs than were FLU/SAL MDI users, but that difference declined and became nonsignificant after adjustment for the ICS-equivalent daily dose.
The study also found that a high average daily dose (> 500 mcg/d) of FLU/SAL MDI carried a 66% greater risk of severe pneumonia, compared with that of low-dose users. Also, medium-dose BEC/FOR MDI users (FLU equivalent 299-499 mcg/d) had a 38% greater risk of severe pneumonia than low-dose (< 200 mcg/d) users.
The variable pneumonia risks may be linked to each ICS’s pharmacokinetics, specifically their distinct lipophilic properties, Mr. Chang and colleagues wrote. Fluticasone propionate is known to be more lipophilic than budesonide, and while beclomethasone is more lipophilic than both, as a prodrug it rapidly converts to lower lipophilicity upon contact with bronchial secretions. “In general, a lipophilic ICS has a longer retention time within the airway or lung tissue to exert local immunosuppression and reduce inflammation,” Mr. Chang and colleagues stated.
The Taiwan Ministry of Science and Technology provided partial support for the study. Mr. Chang and colleagues have no relationships to disclose.
SOURCE: Chang TY et al. CHEST. 2020;157:117-29.
For well over a decade the elevated risk of pneumonia from inhaled corticosteroids for moderate to very severe COPD has been well documented, although the pneumonia risks from different types of ICSs have not been well understood.
Researchers from Taiwan have taken a step in to investigate this question with a nationwide cohort study that reported inhalers with budesonide and beclomethasone may have a lower pneumonia risk than that of fluticasone propionate/salmeterol inhalers (CHEST. 2020;157:117-29).
The study is the first to include beclomethasone-containing inhalers in a comparison of ICS/long-acting beta2-agonist (LABA) fixed combinations to evaluate pneumonia risk, along with dose and drug properties, wrote Ting-Yu Chang, MS, of the Graduate Institute of Clinical Pharmacology at the College of Medicine, National Taiwan University in Taipei, and colleagues.
The study evaluated 42,393 people with COPD in the National Health Insurance Research Database who got at least two continuous prescriptions for three different types of inhalers:
- Budesonide/formoterol (BUD/FOR).
- Beclomethasone/formoterol (BEC/FOR).
- Fluticasone propionate/salmeterol (FLU/SAL).
The study included patients aged 40 years and older who used a metered-dose inhaler (MDI) or dry-powder inhaler (DPI) between January 2011 and June 2015.
Patient experience with adverse events (AEs) was a factor in risk stratification, Mr. Chang and colleagues noted. “For the comparison between the BEC/FOR MDI and FLU/SAL MDI, the lower risk associated with the BEC/FOR MDI was more prominent in patients without severe AE in the past year,” they wrote.
The study found that BUD/FOR DPI users had a 17% lower risk of severe pneumonia and a 12% lower risk of severe AEs than that of FLU/SAL DPI users. The risk difference in pneumonia remained significant after adjustment for the ICS-equivalent daily dose, but the spread for AEs didn’t.
BEC/FOR MDI users were 31% less likely to get severe pneumonia and 18% less likely to have severe AEs than were FLU/SAL MDI users, but that difference declined and became nonsignificant after adjustment for the ICS-equivalent daily dose.
The study also found that a high average daily dose (> 500 mcg/d) of FLU/SAL MDI carried a 66% greater risk of severe pneumonia, compared with that of low-dose users. Also, medium-dose BEC/FOR MDI users (FLU equivalent 299-499 mcg/d) had a 38% greater risk of severe pneumonia than low-dose (< 200 mcg/d) users.
The variable pneumonia risks may be linked to each ICS’s pharmacokinetics, specifically their distinct lipophilic properties, Mr. Chang and colleagues wrote. Fluticasone propionate is known to be more lipophilic than budesonide, and while beclomethasone is more lipophilic than both, as a prodrug it rapidly converts to lower lipophilicity upon contact with bronchial secretions. “In general, a lipophilic ICS has a longer retention time within the airway or lung tissue to exert local immunosuppression and reduce inflammation,” Mr. Chang and colleagues stated.
The Taiwan Ministry of Science and Technology provided partial support for the study. Mr. Chang and colleagues have no relationships to disclose.
SOURCE: Chang TY et al. CHEST. 2020;157:117-29.
For well over a decade the elevated risk of pneumonia from inhaled corticosteroids for moderate to very severe COPD has been well documented, although the pneumonia risks from different types of ICSs have not been well understood.
Researchers from Taiwan have taken a step in to investigate this question with a nationwide cohort study that reported inhalers with budesonide and beclomethasone may have a lower pneumonia risk than that of fluticasone propionate/salmeterol inhalers (CHEST. 2020;157:117-29).
The study is the first to include beclomethasone-containing inhalers in a comparison of ICS/long-acting beta2-agonist (LABA) fixed combinations to evaluate pneumonia risk, along with dose and drug properties, wrote Ting-Yu Chang, MS, of the Graduate Institute of Clinical Pharmacology at the College of Medicine, National Taiwan University in Taipei, and colleagues.
The study evaluated 42,393 people with COPD in the National Health Insurance Research Database who got at least two continuous prescriptions for three different types of inhalers:
- Budesonide/formoterol (BUD/FOR).
- Beclomethasone/formoterol (BEC/FOR).
- Fluticasone propionate/salmeterol (FLU/SAL).
The study included patients aged 40 years and older who used a metered-dose inhaler (MDI) or dry-powder inhaler (DPI) between January 2011 and June 2015.
Patient experience with adverse events (AEs) was a factor in risk stratification, Mr. Chang and colleagues noted. “For the comparison between the BEC/FOR MDI and FLU/SAL MDI, the lower risk associated with the BEC/FOR MDI was more prominent in patients without severe AE in the past year,” they wrote.
The study found that BUD/FOR DPI users had a 17% lower risk of severe pneumonia and a 12% lower risk of severe AEs than that of FLU/SAL DPI users. The risk difference in pneumonia remained significant after adjustment for the ICS-equivalent daily dose, but the spread for AEs didn’t.
BEC/FOR MDI users were 31% less likely to get severe pneumonia and 18% less likely to have severe AEs than were FLU/SAL MDI users, but that difference declined and became nonsignificant after adjustment for the ICS-equivalent daily dose.
The study also found that a high average daily dose (> 500 mcg/d) of FLU/SAL MDI carried a 66% greater risk of severe pneumonia, compared with that of low-dose users. Also, medium-dose BEC/FOR MDI users (FLU equivalent 299-499 mcg/d) had a 38% greater risk of severe pneumonia than low-dose (< 200 mcg/d) users.
The variable pneumonia risks may be linked to each ICS’s pharmacokinetics, specifically their distinct lipophilic properties, Mr. Chang and colleagues wrote. Fluticasone propionate is known to be more lipophilic than budesonide, and while beclomethasone is more lipophilic than both, as a prodrug it rapidly converts to lower lipophilicity upon contact with bronchial secretions. “In general, a lipophilic ICS has a longer retention time within the airway or lung tissue to exert local immunosuppression and reduce inflammation,” Mr. Chang and colleagues stated.
The Taiwan Ministry of Science and Technology provided partial support for the study. Mr. Chang and colleagues have no relationships to disclose.
SOURCE: Chang TY et al. CHEST. 2020;157:117-29.
FROM CHEST
Vaccination regimen effective in preventing pneumonia in MM patients
Patients with hematological malignancies are at high risk of invasive Staphylococcus pneumoniae. Multiple myeloma (MM) patients, in particular, have been found to have one of the highest incidences of invasive pneumococcal disease. However, researchers found that a full three-dose vaccination regimen by 13-valent pneumococcal conjugate (PCV13) vaccine was protective in MM patients when provided between treatment courses, according to a study reported in Vaccine.
The researchers performed a prospective study of 18 adult patients who were vaccinated with PCV13, compared with 18 control-matched patients from 2017 to 2020. The three-dose vaccination regimen was provided between treatment courses with novel target agents (bortezomib, lenalidomide, ixazomib) with a minimum of a 1-month interval. They used the incidence of pneumonias during the one-year observation period as the primary outcome.
Totally there were 12 cases (33.3%) of clinically and radiologically confirmed pneumonias in the entire study group (n = 36), with a distribution between the vaccinated and nonvaccinated groups of 3 (16.7%) and 9 (50%). respectively (P = .037).
The absolute risk reduction seen with vaccination was 33.3%, and the number needed to treat with PCV13 vaccination in MM patients receiving novel agents was 3.0; (95% confidence interval 1.61-22.1). In addition, there were no adverse effects seen from vaccination, according to the authors.
“Despite the expected decrease in immunological response to vaccination during the chemotherapy, we have shown the clinical effectiveness of a PCV13 vaccination schedule based on 3 doses given with a minimum 1 month interval between the courses of novel agents,” the investigators concluded.
The authors reported that they had no relevant disclosures.
SOURCE: Stoma I et al. Vaccine. 2020 May 14; doi.org/10.1016/j.vaccine.2020.05.024.
Patients with hematological malignancies are at high risk of invasive Staphylococcus pneumoniae. Multiple myeloma (MM) patients, in particular, have been found to have one of the highest incidences of invasive pneumococcal disease. However, researchers found that a full three-dose vaccination regimen by 13-valent pneumococcal conjugate (PCV13) vaccine was protective in MM patients when provided between treatment courses, according to a study reported in Vaccine.
The researchers performed a prospective study of 18 adult patients who were vaccinated with PCV13, compared with 18 control-matched patients from 2017 to 2020. The three-dose vaccination regimen was provided between treatment courses with novel target agents (bortezomib, lenalidomide, ixazomib) with a minimum of a 1-month interval. They used the incidence of pneumonias during the one-year observation period as the primary outcome.
Totally there were 12 cases (33.3%) of clinically and radiologically confirmed pneumonias in the entire study group (n = 36), with a distribution between the vaccinated and nonvaccinated groups of 3 (16.7%) and 9 (50%). respectively (P = .037).
The absolute risk reduction seen with vaccination was 33.3%, and the number needed to treat with PCV13 vaccination in MM patients receiving novel agents was 3.0; (95% confidence interval 1.61-22.1). In addition, there were no adverse effects seen from vaccination, according to the authors.
“Despite the expected decrease in immunological response to vaccination during the chemotherapy, we have shown the clinical effectiveness of a PCV13 vaccination schedule based on 3 doses given with a minimum 1 month interval between the courses of novel agents,” the investigators concluded.
The authors reported that they had no relevant disclosures.
SOURCE: Stoma I et al. Vaccine. 2020 May 14; doi.org/10.1016/j.vaccine.2020.05.024.
Patients with hematological malignancies are at high risk of invasive Staphylococcus pneumoniae. Multiple myeloma (MM) patients, in particular, have been found to have one of the highest incidences of invasive pneumococcal disease. However, researchers found that a full three-dose vaccination regimen by 13-valent pneumococcal conjugate (PCV13) vaccine was protective in MM patients when provided between treatment courses, according to a study reported in Vaccine.
The researchers performed a prospective study of 18 adult patients who were vaccinated with PCV13, compared with 18 control-matched patients from 2017 to 2020. The three-dose vaccination regimen was provided between treatment courses with novel target agents (bortezomib, lenalidomide, ixazomib) with a minimum of a 1-month interval. They used the incidence of pneumonias during the one-year observation period as the primary outcome.
Totally there were 12 cases (33.3%) of clinically and radiologically confirmed pneumonias in the entire study group (n = 36), with a distribution between the vaccinated and nonvaccinated groups of 3 (16.7%) and 9 (50%). respectively (P = .037).
The absolute risk reduction seen with vaccination was 33.3%, and the number needed to treat with PCV13 vaccination in MM patients receiving novel agents was 3.0; (95% confidence interval 1.61-22.1). In addition, there were no adverse effects seen from vaccination, according to the authors.
“Despite the expected decrease in immunological response to vaccination during the chemotherapy, we have shown the clinical effectiveness of a PCV13 vaccination schedule based on 3 doses given with a minimum 1 month interval between the courses of novel agents,” the investigators concluded.
The authors reported that they had no relevant disclosures.
SOURCE: Stoma I et al. Vaccine. 2020 May 14; doi.org/10.1016/j.vaccine.2020.05.024.
FROM VACCINE
An epidemic of fear and misinformation
As I write this, the 2019 novel coronavirus* continues to spread, exceeding 59,000 cases and 1,300 deaths worldwide. With it spreads fear. In the modern world of social media, misinformation spreads even faster than disease.
The news about a novel and deadly illness crowds out more substantial worries. Humans are not particularly good at assessing risk or responding rationally and consistently to it. Risk is hard to fully define. If you look up “risk” in Merriam Webster’s online dictionary, you get the simple definition of “possibility of loss or injury; peril.” If you look up risk in Wikipedia, you get 12 pages of explanation and 8 more pages of links and references.
People handle risk differently. Some people are more risk adverse than others. Some get a pleasurable thrill from risk, whether a slot machine or a parachute jump. Most people really don’t comprehend small probabilities, with tens of billions of dollars spent annually on U.S. lotteries.
Because 98% of people who get COVID-19 are recovering, this is not an extinction-level event or the zombie apocalypse. It is a major health hazard, and one where morbidity and mortality might be assuaged by an early and effective public health response, including the population’s adoption of good habits such as hand washing, cough etiquette, and staying home when ill.
Three key factors may help reduce the fear factor.
One key factor is accurate communication of health information to the public. This has been severely harmed in the last few years by the promotion of gossip on social media, such as Facebook, within newsfeeds without any vetting, along with a smaller component of deliberate misinformation from untraceable sources. Compare this situation with the decision in May 1988 when Surgeon General C. Everett Koop chose to snail mail a brochure on AIDS to every household in America. It was unprecedented. One element of this communication is the public’s belief that government and health care officials will responsibly and timely convey the information. There are accusations that the Chinese government initially impeded early warnings about COVID-19. Dr. Koop, to his great credit and lifesaving leadership, overcame queasiness within the Reagan administration about issues of morality and taste in discussing some of the HIV information. Alas, no similar leadership occurred in the decade of the 2010s when deaths from the opioid epidemic in the United States skyrocketed to claim more lives annually than car accidents or suicide.
A second factor is the credibility of the scientists. Antivaxxers, climate change deniers, and mercenary scientists have severely damaged that credibility of science, compared with the trust in scientists 50 years ago during the Apollo moon shot.
A third factor is perspective. Poor journalism and clickbait can focus excessively on the rare events as news. Airline crashes make the front page while fatal car accidents, claiming a hundred times more lives annually, don’t even merit a story in local media. Someone wins the lottery weekly but few pay attention to those suffering from gambling debts.
Influenza is killing many times more people than the 2019 novel coronavirus, but the news is focused on cruise ships. In the United States, influenza annually will strike tens of millions, with about 10 per 1,000 hospitalized and 0.5 per 1,000 dying. The novel coronavirus is more lethal. SARS (a coronavirus epidemic in 2003) had 8,000 cases with a mortality rate of 96 per 1,000 while the novel 2019 strain so far is killing about 20 per 1,000. That value may be an overestimate, because there may be a significant fraction of COVID-19 patients with symptoms mild enough that they do not seek medical care and do not get tested and counted.
For perspective, in 1952 the United States reported 50,000 cases of polio (meningitis or paralytic) annually with 3,000 deaths. As many as 95% of cases of poliovirus infection have no or mild symptoms and would not have been reported, so the case fatality rate estimate is skewed. In the 1950s, the United States averaged about 500,000 cases of measles per year, with about 500 deaths annually for a case fatality rate of about 1 per 1,000 in a population that was well nourished with good medical care. In malnourished children without access to modern health care, the case fatality rate can be as high as 100 per 1,000, which is why globally measles killed 142,000 people in 2018, a substantial improvement from 536,000 deaths globally in 2000, but still a leading killer of children worldwide. Vaccines had reduced the annual death toll of polio and measles in the U.S. to zero.
In comparison, in this country the annual incidences are about 70,000 overdose deaths, 50,000 suicides, and 40,000 traffic deaths.
Reassurance is the most common product sold by pediatricians. We look for low-probability, high-impact bad things. Usually we don’t find them and can reassure parents that the child will be okay. Sometimes we spot a higher-risk situation and intervene. My job is to worry professionally so that parents can worry less.
COVID-19 worries me, but irrational people worry me more. The real enemies are fear, disinformation, discrimination, and economic warfare.
Dr. Powell is a pediatric hospitalist and clinical ethics consultant living in St. Louis. Email him at pdnews@mdedge.com.
*This article was updated 2/21/2020.
As I write this, the 2019 novel coronavirus* continues to spread, exceeding 59,000 cases and 1,300 deaths worldwide. With it spreads fear. In the modern world of social media, misinformation spreads even faster than disease.
The news about a novel and deadly illness crowds out more substantial worries. Humans are not particularly good at assessing risk or responding rationally and consistently to it. Risk is hard to fully define. If you look up “risk” in Merriam Webster’s online dictionary, you get the simple definition of “possibility of loss or injury; peril.” If you look up risk in Wikipedia, you get 12 pages of explanation and 8 more pages of links and references.
People handle risk differently. Some people are more risk adverse than others. Some get a pleasurable thrill from risk, whether a slot machine or a parachute jump. Most people really don’t comprehend small probabilities, with tens of billions of dollars spent annually on U.S. lotteries.
Because 98% of people who get COVID-19 are recovering, this is not an extinction-level event or the zombie apocalypse. It is a major health hazard, and one where morbidity and mortality might be assuaged by an early and effective public health response, including the population’s adoption of good habits such as hand washing, cough etiquette, and staying home when ill.
Three key factors may help reduce the fear factor.
One key factor is accurate communication of health information to the public. This has been severely harmed in the last few years by the promotion of gossip on social media, such as Facebook, within newsfeeds without any vetting, along with a smaller component of deliberate misinformation from untraceable sources. Compare this situation with the decision in May 1988 when Surgeon General C. Everett Koop chose to snail mail a brochure on AIDS to every household in America. It was unprecedented. One element of this communication is the public’s belief that government and health care officials will responsibly and timely convey the information. There are accusations that the Chinese government initially impeded early warnings about COVID-19. Dr. Koop, to his great credit and lifesaving leadership, overcame queasiness within the Reagan administration about issues of morality and taste in discussing some of the HIV information. Alas, no similar leadership occurred in the decade of the 2010s when deaths from the opioid epidemic in the United States skyrocketed to claim more lives annually than car accidents or suicide.
A second factor is the credibility of the scientists. Antivaxxers, climate change deniers, and mercenary scientists have severely damaged that credibility of science, compared with the trust in scientists 50 years ago during the Apollo moon shot.
A third factor is perspective. Poor journalism and clickbait can focus excessively on the rare events as news. Airline crashes make the front page while fatal car accidents, claiming a hundred times more lives annually, don’t even merit a story in local media. Someone wins the lottery weekly but few pay attention to those suffering from gambling debts.
Influenza is killing many times more people than the 2019 novel coronavirus, but the news is focused on cruise ships. In the United States, influenza annually will strike tens of millions, with about 10 per 1,000 hospitalized and 0.5 per 1,000 dying. The novel coronavirus is more lethal. SARS (a coronavirus epidemic in 2003) had 8,000 cases with a mortality rate of 96 per 1,000 while the novel 2019 strain so far is killing about 20 per 1,000. That value may be an overestimate, because there may be a significant fraction of COVID-19 patients with symptoms mild enough that they do not seek medical care and do not get tested and counted.
For perspective, in 1952 the United States reported 50,000 cases of polio (meningitis or paralytic) annually with 3,000 deaths. As many as 95% of cases of poliovirus infection have no or mild symptoms and would not have been reported, so the case fatality rate estimate is skewed. In the 1950s, the United States averaged about 500,000 cases of measles per year, with about 500 deaths annually for a case fatality rate of about 1 per 1,000 in a population that was well nourished with good medical care. In malnourished children without access to modern health care, the case fatality rate can be as high as 100 per 1,000, which is why globally measles killed 142,000 people in 2018, a substantial improvement from 536,000 deaths globally in 2000, but still a leading killer of children worldwide. Vaccines had reduced the annual death toll of polio and measles in the U.S. to zero.
In comparison, in this country the annual incidences are about 70,000 overdose deaths, 50,000 suicides, and 40,000 traffic deaths.
Reassurance is the most common product sold by pediatricians. We look for low-probability, high-impact bad things. Usually we don’t find them and can reassure parents that the child will be okay. Sometimes we spot a higher-risk situation and intervene. My job is to worry professionally so that parents can worry less.
COVID-19 worries me, but irrational people worry me more. The real enemies are fear, disinformation, discrimination, and economic warfare.
Dr. Powell is a pediatric hospitalist and clinical ethics consultant living in St. Louis. Email him at pdnews@mdedge.com.
*This article was updated 2/21/2020.
As I write this, the 2019 novel coronavirus* continues to spread, exceeding 59,000 cases and 1,300 deaths worldwide. With it spreads fear. In the modern world of social media, misinformation spreads even faster than disease.
The news about a novel and deadly illness crowds out more substantial worries. Humans are not particularly good at assessing risk or responding rationally and consistently to it. Risk is hard to fully define. If you look up “risk” in Merriam Webster’s online dictionary, you get the simple definition of “possibility of loss or injury; peril.” If you look up risk in Wikipedia, you get 12 pages of explanation and 8 more pages of links and references.
People handle risk differently. Some people are more risk adverse than others. Some get a pleasurable thrill from risk, whether a slot machine or a parachute jump. Most people really don’t comprehend small probabilities, with tens of billions of dollars spent annually on U.S. lotteries.
Because 98% of people who get COVID-19 are recovering, this is not an extinction-level event or the zombie apocalypse. It is a major health hazard, and one where morbidity and mortality might be assuaged by an early and effective public health response, including the population’s adoption of good habits such as hand washing, cough etiquette, and staying home when ill.
Three key factors may help reduce the fear factor.
One key factor is accurate communication of health information to the public. This has been severely harmed in the last few years by the promotion of gossip on social media, such as Facebook, within newsfeeds without any vetting, along with a smaller component of deliberate misinformation from untraceable sources. Compare this situation with the decision in May 1988 when Surgeon General C. Everett Koop chose to snail mail a brochure on AIDS to every household in America. It was unprecedented. One element of this communication is the public’s belief that government and health care officials will responsibly and timely convey the information. There are accusations that the Chinese government initially impeded early warnings about COVID-19. Dr. Koop, to his great credit and lifesaving leadership, overcame queasiness within the Reagan administration about issues of morality and taste in discussing some of the HIV information. Alas, no similar leadership occurred in the decade of the 2010s when deaths from the opioid epidemic in the United States skyrocketed to claim more lives annually than car accidents or suicide.
A second factor is the credibility of the scientists. Antivaxxers, climate change deniers, and mercenary scientists have severely damaged that credibility of science, compared with the trust in scientists 50 years ago during the Apollo moon shot.
A third factor is perspective. Poor journalism and clickbait can focus excessively on the rare events as news. Airline crashes make the front page while fatal car accidents, claiming a hundred times more lives annually, don’t even merit a story in local media. Someone wins the lottery weekly but few pay attention to those suffering from gambling debts.
Influenza is killing many times more people than the 2019 novel coronavirus, but the news is focused on cruise ships. In the United States, influenza annually will strike tens of millions, with about 10 per 1,000 hospitalized and 0.5 per 1,000 dying. The novel coronavirus is more lethal. SARS (a coronavirus epidemic in 2003) had 8,000 cases with a mortality rate of 96 per 1,000 while the novel 2019 strain so far is killing about 20 per 1,000. That value may be an overestimate, because there may be a significant fraction of COVID-19 patients with symptoms mild enough that they do not seek medical care and do not get tested and counted.
For perspective, in 1952 the United States reported 50,000 cases of polio (meningitis or paralytic) annually with 3,000 deaths. As many as 95% of cases of poliovirus infection have no or mild symptoms and would not have been reported, so the case fatality rate estimate is skewed. In the 1950s, the United States averaged about 500,000 cases of measles per year, with about 500 deaths annually for a case fatality rate of about 1 per 1,000 in a population that was well nourished with good medical care. In malnourished children without access to modern health care, the case fatality rate can be as high as 100 per 1,000, which is why globally measles killed 142,000 people in 2018, a substantial improvement from 536,000 deaths globally in 2000, but still a leading killer of children worldwide. Vaccines had reduced the annual death toll of polio and measles in the U.S. to zero.
In comparison, in this country the annual incidences are about 70,000 overdose deaths, 50,000 suicides, and 40,000 traffic deaths.
Reassurance is the most common product sold by pediatricians. We look for low-probability, high-impact bad things. Usually we don’t find them and can reassure parents that the child will be okay. Sometimes we spot a higher-risk situation and intervene. My job is to worry professionally so that parents can worry less.
COVID-19 worries me, but irrational people worry me more. The real enemies are fear, disinformation, discrimination, and economic warfare.
Dr. Powell is a pediatric hospitalist and clinical ethics consultant living in St. Louis. Email him at pdnews@mdedge.com.
*This article was updated 2/21/2020.
CDC: Five confirmed 2019-nCoV cases in the U.S.
Five cases of the new infectious coronavirus, 2019-nCoV, have been confirmed in the United States, Nancy Messonnier, MD, director of the National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, said during a Jan. 27 press briefing.
A total of 110 individuals are under investigation in 26 states, she said. While five cases have been confirmed positive for the virus, 32 cases were confirmed negative. There have been no new cases overnight.
Last week, CDC scientists developed a real-time polymerase chain reaction (PCR) test that can diagnose the virus in respiratory and serum samples from clinical specimens. On Jan. 24, the protocol for this test was publicly posted. “This is essentially a blueprint to make the test,” Dr. Messonnier explained. “Currently, we are refining the use of the test so that it can provide optimal guidance to states and labs on how to use it. We are working on a plan so that priority states get these test kits as soon as possible. In the coming weeks, we will share these tests with domestic and international partners so they can test for this virus themselves.”
The CDC uploaded the entire genome of the virus from the first two cases in the United States to GenBank. It was similar to the one that China had previously posted. “Right now, based on CDC’s analysis of the available data, it doesn’t look like the virus has mutated,” she said. “And we are growing the virus in cell culture, which is necessary for further studies, including the additional genetic characterization.”
As of today, 16 international locations, including the United States, have identified cases of the virus. CDC officials are continuing to screen passengers from Wuhan, China, at five designated airports. “This serves two purposes: first to detect the illness and rapidly respond to [affected] people entering the country,” Dr. Messonnier said. “The second purpose is to educate travelers about the symptoms of this new virus, and what to do if they develop symptoms. I expect that in the coming days, our travel recommendations will change. Risk depends on exposure. Right now, we have an handful of new patients with this new virus here in the U.S. However, at this time in the U.S., this virus is not spreading in the community. For that reason, we believe that the immediate health risk of the new virus to the general American public is low.”
The CDC is asking its clinical lab partners to send virus samples to the CDC to ensure that results are analyzed as accurately as possible.
Five cases of the new infectious coronavirus, 2019-nCoV, have been confirmed in the United States, Nancy Messonnier, MD, director of the National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, said during a Jan. 27 press briefing.
A total of 110 individuals are under investigation in 26 states, she said. While five cases have been confirmed positive for the virus, 32 cases were confirmed negative. There have been no new cases overnight.
Last week, CDC scientists developed a real-time polymerase chain reaction (PCR) test that can diagnose the virus in respiratory and serum samples from clinical specimens. On Jan. 24, the protocol for this test was publicly posted. “This is essentially a blueprint to make the test,” Dr. Messonnier explained. “Currently, we are refining the use of the test so that it can provide optimal guidance to states and labs on how to use it. We are working on a plan so that priority states get these test kits as soon as possible. In the coming weeks, we will share these tests with domestic and international partners so they can test for this virus themselves.”
The CDC uploaded the entire genome of the virus from the first two cases in the United States to GenBank. It was similar to the one that China had previously posted. “Right now, based on CDC’s analysis of the available data, it doesn’t look like the virus has mutated,” she said. “And we are growing the virus in cell culture, which is necessary for further studies, including the additional genetic characterization.”
As of today, 16 international locations, including the United States, have identified cases of the virus. CDC officials are continuing to screen passengers from Wuhan, China, at five designated airports. “This serves two purposes: first to detect the illness and rapidly respond to [affected] people entering the country,” Dr. Messonnier said. “The second purpose is to educate travelers about the symptoms of this new virus, and what to do if they develop symptoms. I expect that in the coming days, our travel recommendations will change. Risk depends on exposure. Right now, we have an handful of new patients with this new virus here in the U.S. However, at this time in the U.S., this virus is not spreading in the community. For that reason, we believe that the immediate health risk of the new virus to the general American public is low.”
The CDC is asking its clinical lab partners to send virus samples to the CDC to ensure that results are analyzed as accurately as possible.
Five cases of the new infectious coronavirus, 2019-nCoV, have been confirmed in the United States, Nancy Messonnier, MD, director of the National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, said during a Jan. 27 press briefing.
A total of 110 individuals are under investigation in 26 states, she said. While five cases have been confirmed positive for the virus, 32 cases were confirmed negative. There have been no new cases overnight.
Last week, CDC scientists developed a real-time polymerase chain reaction (PCR) test that can diagnose the virus in respiratory and serum samples from clinical specimens. On Jan. 24, the protocol for this test was publicly posted. “This is essentially a blueprint to make the test,” Dr. Messonnier explained. “Currently, we are refining the use of the test so that it can provide optimal guidance to states and labs on how to use it. We are working on a plan so that priority states get these test kits as soon as possible. In the coming weeks, we will share these tests with domestic and international partners so they can test for this virus themselves.”
The CDC uploaded the entire genome of the virus from the first two cases in the United States to GenBank. It was similar to the one that China had previously posted. “Right now, based on CDC’s analysis of the available data, it doesn’t look like the virus has mutated,” she said. “And we are growing the virus in cell culture, which is necessary for further studies, including the additional genetic characterization.”
As of today, 16 international locations, including the United States, have identified cases of the virus. CDC officials are continuing to screen passengers from Wuhan, China, at five designated airports. “This serves two purposes: first to detect the illness and rapidly respond to [affected] people entering the country,” Dr. Messonnier said. “The second purpose is to educate travelers about the symptoms of this new virus, and what to do if they develop symptoms. I expect that in the coming days, our travel recommendations will change. Risk depends on exposure. Right now, we have an handful of new patients with this new virus here in the U.S. However, at this time in the U.S., this virus is not spreading in the community. For that reason, we believe that the immediate health risk of the new virus to the general American public is low.”
The CDC is asking its clinical lab partners to send virus samples to the CDC to ensure that results are analyzed as accurately as possible.
Travelers to three U.S. airports to be screened for novel coronavirus
according to an announcement from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
Starting today, Jan. 17, 2020, people traveling from Wuhan to New York (JFK), San Francisco (SFO), and Los Angeles (LAX) airports will be screened for symptoms associated with 2019-nCoV, which include fever, cough, and difficulty breathing.
“Based on the information that CDC has today, we believe the current risk for this virus to the general public is low,” Nancy Messonnier, MD, director of the National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases, said during a CDC telebriefing.
To date, 45 cases of 2019-nCoV have been reported in Wuhan, according to the CDC. The Wuhan Municipal Health Commission said 15 patients have been cured and discharged, 5 severe cases are still being treated, and 2 patients have died. Both deaths occurred in older patients, one of whom was aged 69 years and one aged 61 years. One of the patients was known to have underlying health conditions.
Three cases of 2019-nCoV have been confirmed outside of Wuhan, one in Japan and two in Thailand. All three were travelers from Wuhan.
The virus is believed to have originated at Wuhan South China Seafood City, a market that sold seafood, chickens, bats, cats, marmots, and other wild animals. (The market has since been closed and disinfected.) The origin suggests animal-to-human transmission of 2019-nCoV, but it appears that human-to-human transmission can occur as well.
“While most of these infections seem to be happening from animals to people, there is some indication that limited person-to-person spread is happening,” Dr. Messonnier said.
Because of this potential risk, the CDC is working with the Department of Homeland Security’s Customs and Border Protection to screen travelers from Wuhan to the United States. The CDC is deploying about 100 additional staff to JFK, SFO, and LAX, where direct flights (JFK and SFO) or connecting flights (LAX) from Wuhan land.
The CDC could not confirm if exit screening is planned for people traveling abroad from Wuhan.
At the U.S. airports, travelers from Wuhan will be given a questionnaire asking about symptoms of 2019-nCoV (fever, cough, and difficulty breathing). People who exhibit symptoms will be assessed and questioned further. If they are believed to have 2019-nCoV, they will be sent to designated hospitals, where they will be examined, and samples will be collected.
Samples from patients with suspected 2019-nCoV will be sent to the CDC for analysis. Chinese health authorities made the full genome of 2019-nCoV publicly available, which will allow the CDC to confirm any cases that may arise in the United States. The CDC is currently working on a test to detect 2019-nCoV, which can be distributed to state health departments.
Earlier this month, the CDC issued a Level 1 Travel Health Notice for travelers to Wuhan and a Health Alert on 2019-nCoV. The latest information on 2019-nCoV can be found on the CDC’s Novel Coronavirus 2019 webpage.
according to an announcement from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
Starting today, Jan. 17, 2020, people traveling from Wuhan to New York (JFK), San Francisco (SFO), and Los Angeles (LAX) airports will be screened for symptoms associated with 2019-nCoV, which include fever, cough, and difficulty breathing.
“Based on the information that CDC has today, we believe the current risk for this virus to the general public is low,” Nancy Messonnier, MD, director of the National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases, said during a CDC telebriefing.
To date, 45 cases of 2019-nCoV have been reported in Wuhan, according to the CDC. The Wuhan Municipal Health Commission said 15 patients have been cured and discharged, 5 severe cases are still being treated, and 2 patients have died. Both deaths occurred in older patients, one of whom was aged 69 years and one aged 61 years. One of the patients was known to have underlying health conditions.
Three cases of 2019-nCoV have been confirmed outside of Wuhan, one in Japan and two in Thailand. All three were travelers from Wuhan.
The virus is believed to have originated at Wuhan South China Seafood City, a market that sold seafood, chickens, bats, cats, marmots, and other wild animals. (The market has since been closed and disinfected.) The origin suggests animal-to-human transmission of 2019-nCoV, but it appears that human-to-human transmission can occur as well.
“While most of these infections seem to be happening from animals to people, there is some indication that limited person-to-person spread is happening,” Dr. Messonnier said.
Because of this potential risk, the CDC is working with the Department of Homeland Security’s Customs and Border Protection to screen travelers from Wuhan to the United States. The CDC is deploying about 100 additional staff to JFK, SFO, and LAX, where direct flights (JFK and SFO) or connecting flights (LAX) from Wuhan land.
The CDC could not confirm if exit screening is planned for people traveling abroad from Wuhan.
At the U.S. airports, travelers from Wuhan will be given a questionnaire asking about symptoms of 2019-nCoV (fever, cough, and difficulty breathing). People who exhibit symptoms will be assessed and questioned further. If they are believed to have 2019-nCoV, they will be sent to designated hospitals, where they will be examined, and samples will be collected.
Samples from patients with suspected 2019-nCoV will be sent to the CDC for analysis. Chinese health authorities made the full genome of 2019-nCoV publicly available, which will allow the CDC to confirm any cases that may arise in the United States. The CDC is currently working on a test to detect 2019-nCoV, which can be distributed to state health departments.
Earlier this month, the CDC issued a Level 1 Travel Health Notice for travelers to Wuhan and a Health Alert on 2019-nCoV. The latest information on 2019-nCoV can be found on the CDC’s Novel Coronavirus 2019 webpage.
according to an announcement from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
Starting today, Jan. 17, 2020, people traveling from Wuhan to New York (JFK), San Francisco (SFO), and Los Angeles (LAX) airports will be screened for symptoms associated with 2019-nCoV, which include fever, cough, and difficulty breathing.
“Based on the information that CDC has today, we believe the current risk for this virus to the general public is low,” Nancy Messonnier, MD, director of the National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases, said during a CDC telebriefing.
To date, 45 cases of 2019-nCoV have been reported in Wuhan, according to the CDC. The Wuhan Municipal Health Commission said 15 patients have been cured and discharged, 5 severe cases are still being treated, and 2 patients have died. Both deaths occurred in older patients, one of whom was aged 69 years and one aged 61 years. One of the patients was known to have underlying health conditions.
Three cases of 2019-nCoV have been confirmed outside of Wuhan, one in Japan and two in Thailand. All three were travelers from Wuhan.
The virus is believed to have originated at Wuhan South China Seafood City, a market that sold seafood, chickens, bats, cats, marmots, and other wild animals. (The market has since been closed and disinfected.) The origin suggests animal-to-human transmission of 2019-nCoV, but it appears that human-to-human transmission can occur as well.
“While most of these infections seem to be happening from animals to people, there is some indication that limited person-to-person spread is happening,” Dr. Messonnier said.
Because of this potential risk, the CDC is working with the Department of Homeland Security’s Customs and Border Protection to screen travelers from Wuhan to the United States. The CDC is deploying about 100 additional staff to JFK, SFO, and LAX, where direct flights (JFK and SFO) or connecting flights (LAX) from Wuhan land.
The CDC could not confirm if exit screening is planned for people traveling abroad from Wuhan.
At the U.S. airports, travelers from Wuhan will be given a questionnaire asking about symptoms of 2019-nCoV (fever, cough, and difficulty breathing). People who exhibit symptoms will be assessed and questioned further. If they are believed to have 2019-nCoV, they will be sent to designated hospitals, where they will be examined, and samples will be collected.
Samples from patients with suspected 2019-nCoV will be sent to the CDC for analysis. Chinese health authorities made the full genome of 2019-nCoV publicly available, which will allow the CDC to confirm any cases that may arise in the United States. The CDC is currently working on a test to detect 2019-nCoV, which can be distributed to state health departments.
Earlier this month, the CDC issued a Level 1 Travel Health Notice for travelers to Wuhan and a Health Alert on 2019-nCoV. The latest information on 2019-nCoV can be found on the CDC’s Novel Coronavirus 2019 webpage.
Two new cases of coronavirus pneumonia in Thailand, Japan
Health authorities in Wuhan, Hubei Province, China, identified the novel coronavirus, 2019-nCoV, responsible for the outbreak of a mysterious pneumonia that resulted in hospitalization of more than 40 patients and one death, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in a statement on the CDC website.
On Jan. 13, the Thailand’s Ministry of Public Health reported the first imported case of lab-confirmed 2019-nCoV from Wuhan. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention stated: “The traveler with febrile illness was detected on the same day by thermal surveillance at Suvarnabhumi Airport, Thailand, and was hospitalized the same day. After temperature check and initial assessment, she was transferred to the hospital for further investigations and treatment.”
Samples from this patient tested positive for coronaviruses by reverse transcriptase-polymerase chain reaction. The genomic sequencing analysis was performed by Emerging Infectious Diseases Health Science Center, the Thai Red Cross Society, and the Thai National Institute of Health. The patient is reported to be in stable condition.
The New York Times has reported a case of 2019-nCoV in Japan in a traveler returning from Wuhan. That patient is reported to have recovered and been discharged.
Chinese health authorities transmitted the full genome of “2019 novel coronavirus,” or “2019-nCoV,” to GenBank, the genetic sequence database managed by the National Institutes of Health, and in the Global Initiative on Sharing All Influenza Data portal.
Coronaviruses are a large family of viruses. Most known human coronaviruses only cause mild respiratory disease, such as the common cold. But several coronaviruses have emerged to infect people and cause severe disease, such as has been seen with severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) and Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS). The cases in the Wuhan pneumonia outbreak have tested negative for both SARS and MERS.
The outbreak in Wuhan appears to be contained. The World Health Organization reported that the Wuhan health authorities identified and followed 763 close contacts, including health care workers. No additional cases of infection with the novel coronavirus have been identified. The cluster of cases is linked to the Wuhan South China Seafood City market where – in addition to seafood – chickens, bats, marmots, and other animals were sold. That market has been closed since Jan. 1, 2020, for cleaning and disinfection.
The WHO is monitoring the situation closely and is in close contact with Chinese health authorities.
The CDC has issued a Level 1 travel alert and recommended that travelers to Wuhan, a city of over 19 million people, avoid animal and meat markets, avoid contact with sick people, and wash hands often with soap and water. Travelers who have been in Wuhan recently and who experience respiratory symptoms should notify the local health department immediately.
In addition, the CDC recommends that, for symptomatic patients with a history of travel to Wuhan, caution should be exercised in the health care setting. “Ask such patients to don a surgical mask as soon as they are identified. Conduct their evaluation in a private room with the door closed. Personnel entering the room to evaluate the patient should use contact precautions and wear an N95 disposable facepiece respirator. For patients admitted for inpatient care, implement contact and airborne isolation precautions, in addition to standard precautions, until further information becomes available. For additional infection control guidance see: www.cdc.gov/infectioncontrol/guidelines/isolation/index.html.”
Health authorities in Wuhan, Hubei Province, China, identified the novel coronavirus, 2019-nCoV, responsible for the outbreak of a mysterious pneumonia that resulted in hospitalization of more than 40 patients and one death, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in a statement on the CDC website.
On Jan. 13, the Thailand’s Ministry of Public Health reported the first imported case of lab-confirmed 2019-nCoV from Wuhan. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention stated: “The traveler with febrile illness was detected on the same day by thermal surveillance at Suvarnabhumi Airport, Thailand, and was hospitalized the same day. After temperature check and initial assessment, she was transferred to the hospital for further investigations and treatment.”
Samples from this patient tested positive for coronaviruses by reverse transcriptase-polymerase chain reaction. The genomic sequencing analysis was performed by Emerging Infectious Diseases Health Science Center, the Thai Red Cross Society, and the Thai National Institute of Health. The patient is reported to be in stable condition.
The New York Times has reported a case of 2019-nCoV in Japan in a traveler returning from Wuhan. That patient is reported to have recovered and been discharged.
Chinese health authorities transmitted the full genome of “2019 novel coronavirus,” or “2019-nCoV,” to GenBank, the genetic sequence database managed by the National Institutes of Health, and in the Global Initiative on Sharing All Influenza Data portal.
Coronaviruses are a large family of viruses. Most known human coronaviruses only cause mild respiratory disease, such as the common cold. But several coronaviruses have emerged to infect people and cause severe disease, such as has been seen with severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) and Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS). The cases in the Wuhan pneumonia outbreak have tested negative for both SARS and MERS.
The outbreak in Wuhan appears to be contained. The World Health Organization reported that the Wuhan health authorities identified and followed 763 close contacts, including health care workers. No additional cases of infection with the novel coronavirus have been identified. The cluster of cases is linked to the Wuhan South China Seafood City market where – in addition to seafood – chickens, bats, marmots, and other animals were sold. That market has been closed since Jan. 1, 2020, for cleaning and disinfection.
The WHO is monitoring the situation closely and is in close contact with Chinese health authorities.
The CDC has issued a Level 1 travel alert and recommended that travelers to Wuhan, a city of over 19 million people, avoid animal and meat markets, avoid contact with sick people, and wash hands often with soap and water. Travelers who have been in Wuhan recently and who experience respiratory symptoms should notify the local health department immediately.
In addition, the CDC recommends that, for symptomatic patients with a history of travel to Wuhan, caution should be exercised in the health care setting. “Ask such patients to don a surgical mask as soon as they are identified. Conduct their evaluation in a private room with the door closed. Personnel entering the room to evaluate the patient should use contact precautions and wear an N95 disposable facepiece respirator. For patients admitted for inpatient care, implement contact and airborne isolation precautions, in addition to standard precautions, until further information becomes available. For additional infection control guidance see: www.cdc.gov/infectioncontrol/guidelines/isolation/index.html.”
Health authorities in Wuhan, Hubei Province, China, identified the novel coronavirus, 2019-nCoV, responsible for the outbreak of a mysterious pneumonia that resulted in hospitalization of more than 40 patients and one death, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in a statement on the CDC website.
On Jan. 13, the Thailand’s Ministry of Public Health reported the first imported case of lab-confirmed 2019-nCoV from Wuhan. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention stated: “The traveler with febrile illness was detected on the same day by thermal surveillance at Suvarnabhumi Airport, Thailand, and was hospitalized the same day. After temperature check and initial assessment, she was transferred to the hospital for further investigations and treatment.”
Samples from this patient tested positive for coronaviruses by reverse transcriptase-polymerase chain reaction. The genomic sequencing analysis was performed by Emerging Infectious Diseases Health Science Center, the Thai Red Cross Society, and the Thai National Institute of Health. The patient is reported to be in stable condition.
The New York Times has reported a case of 2019-nCoV in Japan in a traveler returning from Wuhan. That patient is reported to have recovered and been discharged.
Chinese health authorities transmitted the full genome of “2019 novel coronavirus,” or “2019-nCoV,” to GenBank, the genetic sequence database managed by the National Institutes of Health, and in the Global Initiative on Sharing All Influenza Data portal.
Coronaviruses are a large family of viruses. Most known human coronaviruses only cause mild respiratory disease, such as the common cold. But several coronaviruses have emerged to infect people and cause severe disease, such as has been seen with severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) and Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS). The cases in the Wuhan pneumonia outbreak have tested negative for both SARS and MERS.
The outbreak in Wuhan appears to be contained. The World Health Organization reported that the Wuhan health authorities identified and followed 763 close contacts, including health care workers. No additional cases of infection with the novel coronavirus have been identified. The cluster of cases is linked to the Wuhan South China Seafood City market where – in addition to seafood – chickens, bats, marmots, and other animals were sold. That market has been closed since Jan. 1, 2020, for cleaning and disinfection.
The WHO is monitoring the situation closely and is in close contact with Chinese health authorities.
The CDC has issued a Level 1 travel alert and recommended that travelers to Wuhan, a city of over 19 million people, avoid animal and meat markets, avoid contact with sick people, and wash hands often with soap and water. Travelers who have been in Wuhan recently and who experience respiratory symptoms should notify the local health department immediately.
In addition, the CDC recommends that, for symptomatic patients with a history of travel to Wuhan, caution should be exercised in the health care setting. “Ask such patients to don a surgical mask as soon as they are identified. Conduct their evaluation in a private room with the door closed. Personnel entering the room to evaluate the patient should use contact precautions and wear an N95 disposable facepiece respirator. For patients admitted for inpatient care, implement contact and airborne isolation precautions, in addition to standard precautions, until further information becomes available. For additional infection control guidance see: www.cdc.gov/infectioncontrol/guidelines/isolation/index.html.”
