Pulmonary Infections

Respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) is the leading cause of U.S. infant hospitalizations overall and across population subgroups, new data published in the Journal of Infectious Diseases confirm.

Acute bronchiolitis caused by RSV accounted for 9.6% (95% confidence interval, 9.4%-9.9%) and 9.3% (95% CI, 9.0%-9.6%) of total infant hospitalizations from January 2009 to September 2015 and October 2015 to December 2019, respectively.
 

Journal issue includes 14 RSV studies

The latest issue of the journal includes a special section with results from 14 studies related to the widespread, easy-to-catch virus, highlighting the urgency of finding a solution for all infants.

In one study, authors led by Mina Suh, MPH, with EpidStrategies, a division of ToxStrategies in Rockville, Md., reported that, in children under the age of 5 years in the United States, RSV caused 58,000 annual hospitalizations and from 100 to 500 annual deaths from 2009 to 2019 (the latest year data were available).

Globally, in 2015, among infants younger than 6 months, an estimated 1.4 million hospital admissions and 27,300 in-hospital deaths were attributed to RSV lower respiratory tract infection (LRTI).

The researchers used the largest publicly available, all-payer database in the United States – the National (Nationwide) Inpatient Sample – to describe the leading causes of infant hospitalizations.

The authors noted that, because clinicians don’t routinely perform lab tests for RSV, the true health care burden is likely higher and its public health impact greater than these numbers show.

Immunization candidates advance

There are no preventative options currently available to substantially cut RSV infections in all infants, though immunization candidates are advancing, showing safety and efficacy in clinical trials.

Palivizumab is currently the only available option in the United States to prevent RSV and is recommended only for a small group of infants with particular forms of heart or lung disease and those born prematurely at 29 weeks’ gestational age. Further, palivizumab has to be given monthly throughout the RSV season.

Another of the studies in the journal supplement concluded that a universal immunization strategy with one of the candidates, nirsevimab (Sanofi, AstraZeneca), an investigational long-acting monoclonal antibody, could substantially reduce the health burden and economic burden for U.S. infants in their first RSV season.

The researchers, led by Alexia Kieffer, MSc, MPH, with Sanofi, used static decision-analytic modeling for the estimates. Modeled RSV-related outcomes included primary care and ED visits, hospitalizations, including ICU admission and mechanical ventilations, and RSV-related deaths.

“The results of this model suggested that the use of nirsevimab in all infants could reduce health events by 55% and the overall costs to the payer by 49%,” the authors of the study wrote.

According to the study, universal immunization of all infants with nirsevimab is expected to reduce 290,174 RSV-related medically attended LRTI (MALRTI), 24,986 hospitalizations, and cut $612 million in costs to the health care system.

The authors wrote: “While this reduction would be driven by term infants, who account for most of the RSV-MALRTI burden; all infants, including palivizumab-eligible and preterm infants who suffer from significantly higher rates of disease, would benefit from this immunization strategy.”
 

Excitement for another option

Jörn-Hendrik Weitkamp, MD, professor of pediatrics and director for patient-oriented research at Monroe Carell Jr. Children’s Hospital at Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tenn., said in an interview there is much excitement in the field for nirsevimab as it has significant advantages over palivizumab.

RSV “is a huge burden to the children, the families, the hospitals, and the medical system,” he said.

Ideally there would be a vaccine to offer the best protection, he noted.

“People have spent their lives, their careers trying to develop a vaccine for RSV,” he said, but that has been elusive for more than 60 years. Therefore, passive immunization is the best of the current options, he says, and nirsevimab “seems to be very effective.”

What’s not clear, Dr. Weitkamp said, is how much nirsevimab will cost as it is not yet approved by the Food and Drug Administration. However, it has the great advantage of being given only once before the season starts instead of monthly (as required for palivizumab) through the season, “which is painful, inconvenient, and traumatizing. We limit that one to the children at highest risk.”

Rolling out an infant nirsevimab program would likely vary by geographic region, Ms. Kieffer and colleagues said, to help ensure infants are protected during the peak of their region’s RSV season.

The journal’s RSV supplement was supported by Sanofi and AstraZeneca. The studies by Ms. Suh and colleagues and Ms. Kieffer and colleagues were supported by AstraZeneca and Sanofi. Ms. Suh and several coauthors are employees of EpidStrategies. One coauthor is an employee of Sanofi and may hold shares and/or stock options in the company. Ms. Kieffer and several coauthors are employees of Sanofi and may hold shares and/or stock options in the company. Dr. Weitkamp reported no relevant financial relationships.

Respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) is the leading cause of U.S. infant hospitalizations overall and across population subgroups, new data published in the Journal of Infectious Diseases confirm.

Acute bronchiolitis caused by RSV accounted for 9.6% (95% confidence interval, 9.4%-9.9%) and 9.3% (95% CI, 9.0%-9.6%) of total infant hospitalizations from January 2009 to September 2015 and October 2015 to December 2019, respectively.
 

Journal issue includes 14 RSV studies

The latest issue of the journal includes a special section with results from 14 studies related to the widespread, easy-to-catch virus, highlighting the urgency of finding a solution for all infants.

In one study, authors led by Mina Suh, MPH, with EpidStrategies, a division of ToxStrategies in Rockville, Md., reported that, in children under the age of 5 years in the United States, RSV caused 58,000 annual hospitalizations and from 100 to 500 annual deaths from 2009 to 2019 (the latest year data were available).

Globally, in 2015, among infants younger than 6 months, an estimated 1.4 million hospital admissions and 27,300 in-hospital deaths were attributed to RSV lower respiratory tract infection (LRTI).

The researchers used the largest publicly available, all-payer database in the United States – the National (Nationwide) Inpatient Sample – to describe the leading causes of infant hospitalizations.

The authors noted that, because clinicians don’t routinely perform lab tests for RSV, the true health care burden is likely higher and its public health impact greater than these numbers show.

Immunization candidates advance

There are no preventative options currently available to substantially cut RSV infections in all infants, though immunization candidates are advancing, showing safety and efficacy in clinical trials.

Palivizumab is currently the only available option in the United States to prevent RSV and is recommended only for a small group of infants with particular forms of heart or lung disease and those born prematurely at 29 weeks’ gestational age. Further, palivizumab has to be given monthly throughout the RSV season.

Another of the studies in the journal supplement concluded that a universal immunization strategy with one of the candidates, nirsevimab (Sanofi, AstraZeneca), an investigational long-acting monoclonal antibody, could substantially reduce the health burden and economic burden for U.S. infants in their first RSV season.

The researchers, led by Alexia Kieffer, MSc, MPH, with Sanofi, used static decision-analytic modeling for the estimates. Modeled RSV-related outcomes included primary care and ED visits, hospitalizations, including ICU admission and mechanical ventilations, and RSV-related deaths.

“The results of this model suggested that the use of nirsevimab in all infants could reduce health events by 55% and the overall costs to the payer by 49%,” the authors of the study wrote.

According to the study, universal immunization of all infants with nirsevimab is expected to reduce 290,174 RSV-related medically attended LRTI (MALRTI), 24,986 hospitalizations, and cut $612 million in costs to the health care system.

The authors wrote: “While this reduction would be driven by term infants, who account for most of the RSV-MALRTI burden; all infants, including palivizumab-eligible and preterm infants who suffer from significantly higher rates of disease, would benefit from this immunization strategy.”
 

Excitement for another option

Jörn-Hendrik Weitkamp, MD, professor of pediatrics and director for patient-oriented research at Monroe Carell Jr. Children’s Hospital at Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tenn., said in an interview there is much excitement in the field for nirsevimab as it has significant advantages over palivizumab.

RSV “is a huge burden to the children, the families, the hospitals, and the medical system,” he said.

Ideally there would be a vaccine to offer the best protection, he noted.

“People have spent their lives, their careers trying to develop a vaccine for RSV,” he said, but that has been elusive for more than 60 years. Therefore, passive immunization is the best of the current options, he says, and nirsevimab “seems to be very effective.”

What’s not clear, Dr. Weitkamp said, is how much nirsevimab will cost as it is not yet approved by the Food and Drug Administration. However, it has the great advantage of being given only once before the season starts instead of monthly (as required for palivizumab) through the season, “which is painful, inconvenient, and traumatizing. We limit that one to the children at highest risk.”

Rolling out an infant nirsevimab program would likely vary by geographic region, Ms. Kieffer and colleagues said, to help ensure infants are protected during the peak of their region’s RSV season.

The journal’s RSV supplement was supported by Sanofi and AstraZeneca. The studies by Ms. Suh and colleagues and Ms. Kieffer and colleagues were supported by AstraZeneca and Sanofi. Ms. Suh and several coauthors are employees of EpidStrategies. One coauthor is an employee of Sanofi and may hold shares and/or stock options in the company. Ms. Kieffer and several coauthors are employees of Sanofi and may hold shares and/or stock options in the company. Dr. Weitkamp reported no relevant financial relationships.

Respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) is the leading cause of U.S. infant hospitalizations overall and across population subgroups, new data published in the Journal of Infectious Diseases confirm.

Acute bronchiolitis caused by RSV accounted for 9.6% (95% confidence interval, 9.4%-9.9%) and 9.3% (95% CI, 9.0%-9.6%) of total infant hospitalizations from January 2009 to September 2015 and October 2015 to December 2019, respectively.
 

Journal issue includes 14 RSV studies

The latest issue of the journal includes a special section with results from 14 studies related to the widespread, easy-to-catch virus, highlighting the urgency of finding a solution for all infants.

In one study, authors led by Mina Suh, MPH, with EpidStrategies, a division of ToxStrategies in Rockville, Md., reported that, in children under the age of 5 years in the United States, RSV caused 58,000 annual hospitalizations and from 100 to 500 annual deaths from 2009 to 2019 (the latest year data were available).

Globally, in 2015, among infants younger than 6 months, an estimated 1.4 million hospital admissions and 27,300 in-hospital deaths were attributed to RSV lower respiratory tract infection (LRTI).

The researchers used the largest publicly available, all-payer database in the United States – the National (Nationwide) Inpatient Sample – to describe the leading causes of infant hospitalizations.

The authors noted that, because clinicians don’t routinely perform lab tests for RSV, the true health care burden is likely higher and its public health impact greater than these numbers show.

Immunization candidates advance

There are no preventative options currently available to substantially cut RSV infections in all infants, though immunization candidates are advancing, showing safety and efficacy in clinical trials.

Palivizumab is currently the only available option in the United States to prevent RSV and is recommended only for a small group of infants with particular forms of heart or lung disease and those born prematurely at 29 weeks’ gestational age. Further, palivizumab has to be given monthly throughout the RSV season.

Another of the studies in the journal supplement concluded that a universal immunization strategy with one of the candidates, nirsevimab (Sanofi, AstraZeneca), an investigational long-acting monoclonal antibody, could substantially reduce the health burden and economic burden for U.S. infants in their first RSV season.

The researchers, led by Alexia Kieffer, MSc, MPH, with Sanofi, used static decision-analytic modeling for the estimates. Modeled RSV-related outcomes included primary care and ED visits, hospitalizations, including ICU admission and mechanical ventilations, and RSV-related deaths.

“The results of this model suggested that the use of nirsevimab in all infants could reduce health events by 55% and the overall costs to the payer by 49%,” the authors of the study wrote.

According to the study, universal immunization of all infants with nirsevimab is expected to reduce 290,174 RSV-related medically attended LRTI (MALRTI), 24,986 hospitalizations, and cut $612 million in costs to the health care system.

The authors wrote: “While this reduction would be driven by term infants, who account for most of the RSV-MALRTI burden; all infants, including palivizumab-eligible and preterm infants who suffer from significantly higher rates of disease, would benefit from this immunization strategy.”
 

Excitement for another option

Jörn-Hendrik Weitkamp, MD, professor of pediatrics and director for patient-oriented research at Monroe Carell Jr. Children’s Hospital at Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tenn., said in an interview there is much excitement in the field for nirsevimab as it has significant advantages over palivizumab.

RSV “is a huge burden to the children, the families, the hospitals, and the medical system,” he said.

Ideally there would be a vaccine to offer the best protection, he noted.

“People have spent their lives, their careers trying to develop a vaccine for RSV,” he said, but that has been elusive for more than 60 years. Therefore, passive immunization is the best of the current options, he says, and nirsevimab “seems to be very effective.”

What’s not clear, Dr. Weitkamp said, is how much nirsevimab will cost as it is not yet approved by the Food and Drug Administration. However, it has the great advantage of being given only once before the season starts instead of monthly (as required for palivizumab) through the season, “which is painful, inconvenient, and traumatizing. We limit that one to the children at highest risk.”

Rolling out an infant nirsevimab program would likely vary by geographic region, Ms. Kieffer and colleagues said, to help ensure infants are protected during the peak of their region’s RSV season.

The journal’s RSV supplement was supported by Sanofi and AstraZeneca. The studies by Ms. Suh and colleagues and Ms. Kieffer and colleagues were supported by AstraZeneca and Sanofi. Ms. Suh and several coauthors are employees of EpidStrategies. One coauthor is an employee of Sanofi and may hold shares and/or stock options in the company. Ms. Kieffer and several coauthors are employees of Sanofi and may hold shares and/or stock options in the company. Dr. Weitkamp reported no relevant financial relationships.

Adults who quit smoking significantly reduced their risk for mortality from pneumonia; the risk decreased even more with added years of not smoking, according to data from nearly 95,000 individuals.

Smoking is associated with an increased risk for pneumonia, but the extent to which smoking cessation reduces this risk long-term has not been explored, wrote Tomomi Kihara, MD, PhD, of the University of Tsukuba, Japan, and colleagues on behalf of the Japan Collaborative Cohort.

In the Japan Collaborative Cohort Study for Evaluation of Cancer Risk, known as the JACC Study, a community-based cohort of 110,585 individuals aged 40-79 years participated in health screening exams and self-administered questionnaires that included information about smoking. Other findings from the study have been previously published.

In the current study published in Preventive Medicine, the researchers reviewed data from 94,972 JACC participants who provided data about smoking status, including 59,514 never-smokers, 10,554 former smokers, and 24,904 current smokers. The mean age of the participants was 57 years; 57% were women.

The respondents were divided into groups based on years of smoking cessation: 0-1 year, 2-4 years, 5-9 years, 10-14 years, and 15 or more years. The primary endpoint was an underlying cause of death from pneumonia.

Over a median follow-up period of 19 years, 1,806 participants (1,115 men and 691 women) died of pneumonia.

In a multivariate analysis, the hazard ratio for those who quit smoking, compared with current smokers, was 1.02 for 0-1 year of smoking cessation, 0.92 for 2-4 years, 0.95 for 5-9 years, 0.71 for 10-14 years, and 0.63 (0.48-0.83) for 15 or more years. The HR for never smokers was 0.50. The analysis adjusted for competing risk for death without pneumonia in the study population.

Most of the benefits of smoking cessation occurred after 10-14 years, the researchers wrote in their discussion of the findings, and smoking cessation of 10 years or more resulted in risk for death from pneumonia similar to that of never-smokers.

“To our knowledge, no previous studies have examined the association between years of smoking cessation and pneumonia in a general population,” they added.

The study findings were limited by several factors, including the use of data on smoking and smoking cessation at baseline as well as a lack of data on the use of tobacco products other than cigarettes, although alternative tobacco products are rarely used in Japan, the researchers noted. Other limitations include the use of pneumonia mortality as an endpoint, which could have ignored the impact of smoking cessation on less severe pneumonia, and the inability to clarify the association between smoking cessation and pneumonia mortality by sex because of the small number of female former smokers. However, the results were strengthened by the large sample size and long observation period, they said.

“The present study provides empirical evidence that smoking cessation may lead to a decline in the risk of mortality from pneumonia,” and supports smoking cessation as a preventive measure, the researchers concluded.

The study was supported by the Japanese Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology; Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare, Health and Labor Sciences; and an Intramural Research Fund for Cardiovascular Diseases of National Cerebral and Cardiovascular Center. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.

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

Adults who quit smoking significantly reduced their risk for mortality from pneumonia; the risk decreased even more with added years of not smoking, according to data from nearly 95,000 individuals.

Smoking is associated with an increased risk for pneumonia, but the extent to which smoking cessation reduces this risk long-term has not been explored, wrote Tomomi Kihara, MD, PhD, of the University of Tsukuba, Japan, and colleagues on behalf of the Japan Collaborative Cohort.

In the Japan Collaborative Cohort Study for Evaluation of Cancer Risk, known as the JACC Study, a community-based cohort of 110,585 individuals aged 40-79 years participated in health screening exams and self-administered questionnaires that included information about smoking. Other findings from the study have been previously published.

In the current study published in Preventive Medicine, the researchers reviewed data from 94,972 JACC participants who provided data about smoking status, including 59,514 never-smokers, 10,554 former smokers, and 24,904 current smokers. The mean age of the participants was 57 years; 57% were women.

The respondents were divided into groups based on years of smoking cessation: 0-1 year, 2-4 years, 5-9 years, 10-14 years, and 15 or more years. The primary endpoint was an underlying cause of death from pneumonia.

Over a median follow-up period of 19 years, 1,806 participants (1,115 men and 691 women) died of pneumonia.

In a multivariate analysis, the hazard ratio for those who quit smoking, compared with current smokers, was 1.02 for 0-1 year of smoking cessation, 0.92 for 2-4 years, 0.95 for 5-9 years, 0.71 for 10-14 years, and 0.63 (0.48-0.83) for 15 or more years. The HR for never smokers was 0.50. The analysis adjusted for competing risk for death without pneumonia in the study population.

Most of the benefits of smoking cessation occurred after 10-14 years, the researchers wrote in their discussion of the findings, and smoking cessation of 10 years or more resulted in risk for death from pneumonia similar to that of never-smokers.

“To our knowledge, no previous studies have examined the association between years of smoking cessation and pneumonia in a general population,” they added.

The study findings were limited by several factors, including the use of data on smoking and smoking cessation at baseline as well as a lack of data on the use of tobacco products other than cigarettes, although alternative tobacco products are rarely used in Japan, the researchers noted. Other limitations include the use of pneumonia mortality as an endpoint, which could have ignored the impact of smoking cessation on less severe pneumonia, and the inability to clarify the association between smoking cessation and pneumonia mortality by sex because of the small number of female former smokers. However, the results were strengthened by the large sample size and long observation period, they said.

“The present study provides empirical evidence that smoking cessation may lead to a decline in the risk of mortality from pneumonia,” and supports smoking cessation as a preventive measure, the researchers concluded.

The study was supported by the Japanese Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology; Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare, Health and Labor Sciences; and an Intramural Research Fund for Cardiovascular Diseases of National Cerebral and Cardiovascular Center. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.

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

Adults who quit smoking significantly reduced their risk for mortality from pneumonia; the risk decreased even more with added years of not smoking, according to data from nearly 95,000 individuals.

Smoking is associated with an increased risk for pneumonia, but the extent to which smoking cessation reduces this risk long-term has not been explored, wrote Tomomi Kihara, MD, PhD, of the University of Tsukuba, Japan, and colleagues on behalf of the Japan Collaborative Cohort.

In the Japan Collaborative Cohort Study for Evaluation of Cancer Risk, known as the JACC Study, a community-based cohort of 110,585 individuals aged 40-79 years participated in health screening exams and self-administered questionnaires that included information about smoking. Other findings from the study have been previously published.

In the current study published in Preventive Medicine, the researchers reviewed data from 94,972 JACC participants who provided data about smoking status, including 59,514 never-smokers, 10,554 former smokers, and 24,904 current smokers. The mean age of the participants was 57 years; 57% were women.

The respondents were divided into groups based on years of smoking cessation: 0-1 year, 2-4 years, 5-9 years, 10-14 years, and 15 or more years. The primary endpoint was an underlying cause of death from pneumonia.

Over a median follow-up period of 19 years, 1,806 participants (1,115 men and 691 women) died of pneumonia.

In a multivariate analysis, the hazard ratio for those who quit smoking, compared with current smokers, was 1.02 for 0-1 year of smoking cessation, 0.92 for 2-4 years, 0.95 for 5-9 years, 0.71 for 10-14 years, and 0.63 (0.48-0.83) for 15 or more years. The HR for never smokers was 0.50. The analysis adjusted for competing risk for death without pneumonia in the study population.

Most of the benefits of smoking cessation occurred after 10-14 years, the researchers wrote in their discussion of the findings, and smoking cessation of 10 years or more resulted in risk for death from pneumonia similar to that of never-smokers.

“To our knowledge, no previous studies have examined the association between years of smoking cessation and pneumonia in a general population,” they added.

The study findings were limited by several factors, including the use of data on smoking and smoking cessation at baseline as well as a lack of data on the use of tobacco products other than cigarettes, although alternative tobacco products are rarely used in Japan, the researchers noted. Other limitations include the use of pneumonia mortality as an endpoint, which could have ignored the impact of smoking cessation on less severe pneumonia, and the inability to clarify the association between smoking cessation and pneumonia mortality by sex because of the small number of female former smokers. However, the results were strengthened by the large sample size and long observation period, they said.

“The present study provides empirical evidence that smoking cessation may lead to a decline in the risk of mortality from pneumonia,” and supports smoking cessation as a preventive measure, the researchers concluded.

The study was supported by the Japanese Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology; Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare, Health and Labor Sciences; and an Intramural Research Fund for Cardiovascular Diseases of National Cerebral and Cardiovascular Center. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.

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

Nebulized tobramycin significantly reduced the density of Pseudomonas aeruginosa in sputum and improved quality of life for adults with bronchiectasis in a study with more than 300 individuals.

Chronic P. aeruginosa infection remains a challenge for bronchiectasis patients, and treatment options are limited, wrote Wei-jie Guan, MD, of the First Affiliated Hospital of Guangzhou Medical University, Guangdong, China, and colleagues. Tobramycin has demonstrated antipseudomonal effects, but previous studies have been small, results have been inconclusive, and there are safety concerns with the currently approved method of intravenous injection.

In a study published in the journal Chest, the researchers randomly assigned 167 patients to receive nebulized tobramycin inhalation solution (TIS) and 172 patients to receive placebo. Patients in the active-treatment group received 300 mg/5 mL of TIS twice daily in two cycles of 28 days on- and off-treatment alternating periods. The primary endpoints were changes in P. aeruginosa density from baseline and scores on the Quality of Life–Bronchiectasis questionnaire at day 29. Follow-up data were collected every 4 weeks for 16 weeks. Secondary endpoints included rate of negative P. aeruginosa culture at day 29; change in P. aeruginosa density from baseline; quality of life at day 85; and 24-hour sputum volume and purulence at day 29, 57, and 85.

The study population included adults aged 18-75 years with symptomatic bronchiectasis. The participants’ conditions had been clinically stable for 4 weeks. Sputum cultures tested positive for P. aeruginosa at two consecutive screening visits prior to randomization. The study was conducted at 33 sites within mainland China.

Overall, among the patients in the TIS group, there was a significantly greater reduction in P. aeruginosa density, compared with placebo patients, with an adjusted mean difference of 1.74 Log10 colony-forming units/g (P < .001). TIS patients also showed significantly greater improvement in Quality of Life–Bronchiectasis respiratory symptom scores, with an adjusted mean difference of 7.91 (P < .001) at day 29.

In addition, more TIS patients became culture negative for P. aeruginosa by day 29, compared with placebo patients (29.3% vs. 10.6%), and 24-hour sputum volume and sputum purulence scores were significantly lower for TIS patients at day 29, day 57, and day 85, compared with placebo patients.

Adverse events were similar and occurred in 81.5% of TIS patients and 81.6% of placebo patients. The most common were hemoptysis, chest discomfort, and acute upper respiratory tract infections. A total of 10 patients in the TIS group experienced transient wheezing that resolved within 30 minutes. A total of 11 TIS patients and 5 placebo patients experienced an adverse event that caused them to discontinue participation in the study. These events included blurred vision and dizziness, which occurred in two TIS patients and was deemed related to the study drug. One TIS patient died as a result of acute myocardial infarction, but this was deemed to be unrelated to the study drug.

The findings were limited by several factors, including the short duration of treatment and relatively young population, which might affect generalizability, the researchers noted. Other limitations include a lack of data on the effects of TIS on microorganisms other than P. aeruginosa, as well as limited outpatient visits, owing to COVID-19 restrictions.

However, the results confirm the ability of TIS nebulization to reduce P. aeruginosa and improve quality of life for adult patients with bronchiectasis, the authors concluded.

The study was funded by grants to multiple researchers from the National Science and Technology Major Project of the Ministry of Science and Technology of China and other government sources. The researchers disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Nebulized tobramycin significantly reduced the density of Pseudomonas aeruginosa in sputum and improved quality of life for adults with bronchiectasis in a study with more than 300 individuals.

Chronic P. aeruginosa infection remains a challenge for bronchiectasis patients, and treatment options are limited, wrote Wei-jie Guan, MD, of the First Affiliated Hospital of Guangzhou Medical University, Guangdong, China, and colleagues. Tobramycin has demonstrated antipseudomonal effects, but previous studies have been small, results have been inconclusive, and there are safety concerns with the currently approved method of intravenous injection.

In a study published in the journal Chest, the researchers randomly assigned 167 patients to receive nebulized tobramycin inhalation solution (TIS) and 172 patients to receive placebo. Patients in the active-treatment group received 300 mg/5 mL of TIS twice daily in two cycles of 28 days on- and off-treatment alternating periods. The primary endpoints were changes in P. aeruginosa density from baseline and scores on the Quality of Life–Bronchiectasis questionnaire at day 29. Follow-up data were collected every 4 weeks for 16 weeks. Secondary endpoints included rate of negative P. aeruginosa culture at day 29; change in P. aeruginosa density from baseline; quality of life at day 85; and 24-hour sputum volume and purulence at day 29, 57, and 85.

The study population included adults aged 18-75 years with symptomatic bronchiectasis. The participants’ conditions had been clinically stable for 4 weeks. Sputum cultures tested positive for P. aeruginosa at two consecutive screening visits prior to randomization. The study was conducted at 33 sites within mainland China.

Overall, among the patients in the TIS group, there was a significantly greater reduction in P. aeruginosa density, compared with placebo patients, with an adjusted mean difference of 1.74 Log10 colony-forming units/g (P < .001). TIS patients also showed significantly greater improvement in Quality of Life–Bronchiectasis respiratory symptom scores, with an adjusted mean difference of 7.91 (P < .001) at day 29.

In addition, more TIS patients became culture negative for P. aeruginosa by day 29, compared with placebo patients (29.3% vs. 10.6%), and 24-hour sputum volume and sputum purulence scores were significantly lower for TIS patients at day 29, day 57, and day 85, compared with placebo patients.

Adverse events were similar and occurred in 81.5% of TIS patients and 81.6% of placebo patients. The most common were hemoptysis, chest discomfort, and acute upper respiratory tract infections. A total of 10 patients in the TIS group experienced transient wheezing that resolved within 30 minutes. A total of 11 TIS patients and 5 placebo patients experienced an adverse event that caused them to discontinue participation in the study. These events included blurred vision and dizziness, which occurred in two TIS patients and was deemed related to the study drug. One TIS patient died as a result of acute myocardial infarction, but this was deemed to be unrelated to the study drug.

The findings were limited by several factors, including the short duration of treatment and relatively young population, which might affect generalizability, the researchers noted. Other limitations include a lack of data on the effects of TIS on microorganisms other than P. aeruginosa, as well as limited outpatient visits, owing to COVID-19 restrictions.

However, the results confirm the ability of TIS nebulization to reduce P. aeruginosa and improve quality of life for adult patients with bronchiectasis, the authors concluded.

The study was funded by grants to multiple researchers from the National Science and Technology Major Project of the Ministry of Science and Technology of China and other government sources. The researchers disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Nebulized tobramycin significantly reduced the density of Pseudomonas aeruginosa in sputum and improved quality of life for adults with bronchiectasis in a study with more than 300 individuals.

Chronic P. aeruginosa infection remains a challenge for bronchiectasis patients, and treatment options are limited, wrote Wei-jie Guan, MD, of the First Affiliated Hospital of Guangzhou Medical University, Guangdong, China, and colleagues. Tobramycin has demonstrated antipseudomonal effects, but previous studies have been small, results have been inconclusive, and there are safety concerns with the currently approved method of intravenous injection.

In a study published in the journal Chest, the researchers randomly assigned 167 patients to receive nebulized tobramycin inhalation solution (TIS) and 172 patients to receive placebo. Patients in the active-treatment group received 300 mg/5 mL of TIS twice daily in two cycles of 28 days on- and off-treatment alternating periods. The primary endpoints were changes in P. aeruginosa density from baseline and scores on the Quality of Life–Bronchiectasis questionnaire at day 29. Follow-up data were collected every 4 weeks for 16 weeks. Secondary endpoints included rate of negative P. aeruginosa culture at day 29; change in P. aeruginosa density from baseline; quality of life at day 85; and 24-hour sputum volume and purulence at day 29, 57, and 85.

The study population included adults aged 18-75 years with symptomatic bronchiectasis. The participants’ conditions had been clinically stable for 4 weeks. Sputum cultures tested positive for P. aeruginosa at two consecutive screening visits prior to randomization. The study was conducted at 33 sites within mainland China.

Overall, among the patients in the TIS group, there was a significantly greater reduction in P. aeruginosa density, compared with placebo patients, with an adjusted mean difference of 1.74 Log10 colony-forming units/g (P < .001). TIS patients also showed significantly greater improvement in Quality of Life–Bronchiectasis respiratory symptom scores, with an adjusted mean difference of 7.91 (P < .001) at day 29.

In addition, more TIS patients became culture negative for P. aeruginosa by day 29, compared with placebo patients (29.3% vs. 10.6%), and 24-hour sputum volume and sputum purulence scores were significantly lower for TIS patients at day 29, day 57, and day 85, compared with placebo patients.

Adverse events were similar and occurred in 81.5% of TIS patients and 81.6% of placebo patients. The most common were hemoptysis, chest discomfort, and acute upper respiratory tract infections. A total of 10 patients in the TIS group experienced transient wheezing that resolved within 30 minutes. A total of 11 TIS patients and 5 placebo patients experienced an adverse event that caused them to discontinue participation in the study. These events included blurred vision and dizziness, which occurred in two TIS patients and was deemed related to the study drug. One TIS patient died as a result of acute myocardial infarction, but this was deemed to be unrelated to the study drug.

The findings were limited by several factors, including the short duration of treatment and relatively young population, which might affect generalizability, the researchers noted. Other limitations include a lack of data on the effects of TIS on microorganisms other than P. aeruginosa, as well as limited outpatient visits, owing to COVID-19 restrictions.

However, the results confirm the ability of TIS nebulization to reduce P. aeruginosa and improve quality of life for adult patients with bronchiectasis, the authors concluded.

The study was funded by grants to multiple researchers from the National Science and Technology Major Project of the Ministry of Science and Technology of China and other government sources. The researchers disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

In 2021, in U.S. states far removed from one another, numerous cases of melioidosis (Whitmore’s disease) sprang up, some with a fatal outcome. What is the common factor linking all of those affected? So begins the search for evidence.

No relations or common journeys

Between March and July 2021, cases of the bacterial infectious disease sprang up in Georgia, Kansas, Minnesota, and Texas, with the disease being fatal for two of those affected. Usually, cases of melioidosis occur in the United States after traveling to regions where the pathogen is prevalent. However, none of the patients had undertaken any previous international travel.

When the genomes of the bacterial strains (Burkholderia pseudomallei) were sequenced, they showed a high level of concordance, suggesting a common source of infection. The bacterial strain is similar to those that are found in Southeast Asia above all. An imported product from there was taken into consideration as the trigger.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention examined blood samples from the patients, as well as samples from the soil, water, food, and household items around their homes.
 

Aroma spray as a trigger

In October, the cause of the melioidosis was finally identified in the house of the patient from Georgia: an aromatherapy spray. The genetic fingerprint of the bacterial strain matched with that from the other patients. The common trigger was thus discovered.

The contaminated spray, with a lavender-chamomile scent for room fragrancing, was sold between February and October in some branches of Walmart, as well as in their online store. The product was therefore recalled and it was checked whether the ingredients were also being used in other products.

The CDC requested physicians to also take melioidosis into account if they were presented with acute bacterial infections that did not respond to normal antibiotics and to inquire whether the affected room spray had been used.
 

More information about melioidosis

Melioidosis is an infectious disease affecting humans and animals. The trigger is the bacteria B pseudomallei. The disease appears predominantly in tropical regions, especially in Southeast Asia and northern Australia.

Transmission

The bacteria can be found in contaminated water and soil. It is disseminated between humans and animals through direct contact with the infectious source, such as through inhaling dust particles or water droplets, or through consuming contaminated water or food. Human-to-human transmission is extremely rare. Recently however, tropical saltwater fish were identified as potential carriers.

Symptoms

Melioidosis has a wide range of symptoms, which can lead to its being confused with other diseases such as tuberculosis or other forms of pneumonia. There are different forms of the disease, each with different symptoms.

• Localized infection: localized pain and swelling, fever, ulceration, and abscess.
• Pulmonary infection: cough, chest pain, high fever, headaches, and loss of appetite
• Bacteremia: fever, headaches, breathing problems, stomach discomfort, joint pain, and disorientation.
• Disseminated infection: fever, weight loss, stomach or chest pain, muscle or joint pain, headaches, central nervous system infections, and epileptic seizures.

The incubation time is not clearly defined and can be from 1 day to several years; however, the symptoms mostly emerge 2-4 weeks after exposure. The risk factors include diabetes, high alcohol consumption, chronic pulmonary or kidney disease, and immunodeficiencies.

Diagnosis based on the symptoms is often difficult since the clinical picture is similar to other, more common conditions.
 

Therapy

If the melioidosis is identified as such, it can be treated with only mildly effective antibiotics, since it has a natural resistance to many commonly used antibiotics. The type of infection and the course of treatment also affects the long-term outcome. Without treatment, 90% of the infections have a fatal outcome. With appropriate treatment, the mortality rate still lies at 40%.

Therapy generally begins with intravenous antibiotic therapy for at least 2-8 weeks (ceftazidime or meropenem). Oral antibiotic therapy then follows for 3-6 months (trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole or amoxicillin/clavulanic acid). If the patient is allergic to penicillin, alternative antibiotics can be used.
 

Use as a bioweapon

The CDC classifies B. pseudomallei as a potential pathogen for biological attack (class-B candidate). The agency lists the potential reasons for use as a bioweapon as:

• The pathogen can be found naturally in certain regions.
• The triggered disease can take a serious course and ultimately be fatal without appropriate therapy.
• In the past, the United States has used similar pathogens in wars as bioweapons.

In a potential attack, the pathogen could be spread through air, water, or food, and by doing so, many people would be exposed. Any contact with the bacteria can result in melioidosis. As the bacteria cannot be seen, smelled, or tasted, the biological attack would not be recognized for some time. A certain amount of time can also pass until the pathogen is identified, once fever and respiratory diseases have developed.

In such an emergency, the CDC would collaborate with other federal and local authorities to supply specialized testing laboratories and provide the public with information.

This content was translated from Coliquio. A version appeared on Medscape.com.

In 2021, in U.S. states far removed from one another, numerous cases of melioidosis (Whitmore’s disease) sprang up, some with a fatal outcome. What is the common factor linking all of those affected? So begins the search for evidence.

No relations or common journeys

Between March and July 2021, cases of the bacterial infectious disease sprang up in Georgia, Kansas, Minnesota, and Texas, with the disease being fatal for two of those affected. Usually, cases of melioidosis occur in the United States after traveling to regions where the pathogen is prevalent. However, none of the patients had undertaken any previous international travel.

When the genomes of the bacterial strains (Burkholderia pseudomallei) were sequenced, they showed a high level of concordance, suggesting a common source of infection. The bacterial strain is similar to those that are found in Southeast Asia above all. An imported product from there was taken into consideration as the trigger.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention examined blood samples from the patients, as well as samples from the soil, water, food, and household items around their homes.
 

Aroma spray as a trigger

In October, the cause of the melioidosis was finally identified in the house of the patient from Georgia: an aromatherapy spray. The genetic fingerprint of the bacterial strain matched with that from the other patients. The common trigger was thus discovered.

The contaminated spray, with a lavender-chamomile scent for room fragrancing, was sold between February and October in some branches of Walmart, as well as in their online store. The product was therefore recalled and it was checked whether the ingredients were also being used in other products.

The CDC requested physicians to also take melioidosis into account if they were presented with acute bacterial infections that did not respond to normal antibiotics and to inquire whether the affected room spray had been used.
 

More information about melioidosis

Melioidosis is an infectious disease affecting humans and animals. The trigger is the bacteria B pseudomallei. The disease appears predominantly in tropical regions, especially in Southeast Asia and northern Australia.

Transmission

The bacteria can be found in contaminated water and soil. It is disseminated between humans and animals through direct contact with the infectious source, such as through inhaling dust particles or water droplets, or through consuming contaminated water or food. Human-to-human transmission is extremely rare. Recently however, tropical saltwater fish were identified as potential carriers.

Symptoms

Melioidosis has a wide range of symptoms, which can lead to its being confused with other diseases such as tuberculosis or other forms of pneumonia. There are different forms of the disease, each with different symptoms.

• Localized infection: localized pain and swelling, fever, ulceration, and abscess.
• Pulmonary infection: cough, chest pain, high fever, headaches, and loss of appetite
• Bacteremia: fever, headaches, breathing problems, stomach discomfort, joint pain, and disorientation.
• Disseminated infection: fever, weight loss, stomach or chest pain, muscle or joint pain, headaches, central nervous system infections, and epileptic seizures.

The incubation time is not clearly defined and can be from 1 day to several years; however, the symptoms mostly emerge 2-4 weeks after exposure. The risk factors include diabetes, high alcohol consumption, chronic pulmonary or kidney disease, and immunodeficiencies.

Diagnosis based on the symptoms is often difficult since the clinical picture is similar to other, more common conditions.
 

Therapy

If the melioidosis is identified as such, it can be treated with only mildly effective antibiotics, since it has a natural resistance to many commonly used antibiotics. The type of infection and the course of treatment also affects the long-term outcome. Without treatment, 90% of the infections have a fatal outcome. With appropriate treatment, the mortality rate still lies at 40%.

Therapy generally begins with intravenous antibiotic therapy for at least 2-8 weeks (ceftazidime or meropenem). Oral antibiotic therapy then follows for 3-6 months (trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole or amoxicillin/clavulanic acid). If the patient is allergic to penicillin, alternative antibiotics can be used.
 

Use as a bioweapon

The CDC classifies B. pseudomallei as a potential pathogen for biological attack (class-B candidate). The agency lists the potential reasons for use as a bioweapon as:

• The pathogen can be found naturally in certain regions.
• The triggered disease can take a serious course and ultimately be fatal without appropriate therapy.
• In the past, the United States has used similar pathogens in wars as bioweapons.

In a potential attack, the pathogen could be spread through air, water, or food, and by doing so, many people would be exposed. Any contact with the bacteria can result in melioidosis. As the bacteria cannot be seen, smelled, or tasted, the biological attack would not be recognized for some time. A certain amount of time can also pass until the pathogen is identified, once fever and respiratory diseases have developed.

In such an emergency, the CDC would collaborate with other federal and local authorities to supply specialized testing laboratories and provide the public with information.

This content was translated from Coliquio. A version appeared on Medscape.com.

In 2021, in U.S. states far removed from one another, numerous cases of melioidosis (Whitmore’s disease) sprang up, some with a fatal outcome. What is the common factor linking all of those affected? So begins the search for evidence.

No relations or common journeys

Between March and July 2021, cases of the bacterial infectious disease sprang up in Georgia, Kansas, Minnesota, and Texas, with the disease being fatal for two of those affected. Usually, cases of melioidosis occur in the United States after traveling to regions where the pathogen is prevalent. However, none of the patients had undertaken any previous international travel.

When the genomes of the bacterial strains (Burkholderia pseudomallei) were sequenced, they showed a high level of concordance, suggesting a common source of infection. The bacterial strain is similar to those that are found in Southeast Asia above all. An imported product from there was taken into consideration as the trigger.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention examined blood samples from the patients, as well as samples from the soil, water, food, and household items around their homes.
 

Aroma spray as a trigger

In October, the cause of the melioidosis was finally identified in the house of the patient from Georgia: an aromatherapy spray. The genetic fingerprint of the bacterial strain matched with that from the other patients. The common trigger was thus discovered.

The contaminated spray, with a lavender-chamomile scent for room fragrancing, was sold between February and October in some branches of Walmart, as well as in their online store. The product was therefore recalled and it was checked whether the ingredients were also being used in other products.

The CDC requested physicians to also take melioidosis into account if they were presented with acute bacterial infections that did not respond to normal antibiotics and to inquire whether the affected room spray had been used.
 

More information about melioidosis

Melioidosis is an infectious disease affecting humans and animals. The trigger is the bacteria B pseudomallei. The disease appears predominantly in tropical regions, especially in Southeast Asia and northern Australia.

Transmission

The bacteria can be found in contaminated water and soil. It is disseminated between humans and animals through direct contact with the infectious source, such as through inhaling dust particles or water droplets, or through consuming contaminated water or food. Human-to-human transmission is extremely rare. Recently however, tropical saltwater fish were identified as potential carriers.

Symptoms

Melioidosis has a wide range of symptoms, which can lead to its being confused with other diseases such as tuberculosis or other forms of pneumonia. There are different forms of the disease, each with different symptoms.

• Localized infection: localized pain and swelling, fever, ulceration, and abscess.
• Pulmonary infection: cough, chest pain, high fever, headaches, and loss of appetite
• Bacteremia: fever, headaches, breathing problems, stomach discomfort, joint pain, and disorientation.
• Disseminated infection: fever, weight loss, stomach or chest pain, muscle or joint pain, headaches, central nervous system infections, and epileptic seizures.

The incubation time is not clearly defined and can be from 1 day to several years; however, the symptoms mostly emerge 2-4 weeks after exposure. The risk factors include diabetes, high alcohol consumption, chronic pulmonary or kidney disease, and immunodeficiencies.

Diagnosis based on the symptoms is often difficult since the clinical picture is similar to other, more common conditions.
 

Therapy

If the melioidosis is identified as such, it can be treated with only mildly effective antibiotics, since it has a natural resistance to many commonly used antibiotics. The type of infection and the course of treatment also affects the long-term outcome. Without treatment, 90% of the infections have a fatal outcome. With appropriate treatment, the mortality rate still lies at 40%.

Therapy generally begins with intravenous antibiotic therapy for at least 2-8 weeks (ceftazidime or meropenem). Oral antibiotic therapy then follows for 3-6 months (trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole or amoxicillin/clavulanic acid). If the patient is allergic to penicillin, alternative antibiotics can be used.
 

Use as a bioweapon

The CDC classifies B. pseudomallei as a potential pathogen for biological attack (class-B candidate). The agency lists the potential reasons for use as a bioweapon as:

• The pathogen can be found naturally in certain regions.
• The triggered disease can take a serious course and ultimately be fatal without appropriate therapy.
• In the past, the United States has used similar pathogens in wars as bioweapons.

In a potential attack, the pathogen could be spread through air, water, or food, and by doing so, many people would be exposed. Any contact with the bacteria can result in melioidosis. As the bacteria cannot be seen, smelled, or tasted, the biological attack would not be recognized for some time. A certain amount of time can also pass until the pathogen is identified, once fever and respiratory diseases have developed.

In such an emergency, the CDC would collaborate with other federal and local authorities to supply specialized testing laboratories and provide the public with information.

This content was translated from Coliquio. A version appeared on Medscape.com.

Richard Martinello, MD, a professor of medicine and pediatric infectious diseases at Yale University, New haven, Conn., doesn’t expect to see a child hospitalized with respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) in the middle of summer. The illness, which can strike infants and older adults especially hard, is known as a “winter virus.”

But not this year. Over the last several weeks, he says, admissions for children with RSV have increased at the Yale New Haven Children’s Hospital. While the numbers aren’t large, they are out of the ordinary, he says, “because usually, at this time of year, we see zero. For lack of a better term, it’s weird.”

Likewise, William Schaffner, MD, a professor of infectious diseases at Vanderbilt University in Nashville, says RSV is on the rise there. Tennessee is one of 10 states taking part in a Centers for Disease Control and Prevention surveillance system that tracks influenza, RSV, and COVID-19.

He says RSV cases have risen by at least a third during the past week, including all age ranges. At this time of year, he says, “We aren’t supposed to have any RSV.”

RSV isn’t the only virus thriving out of season or otherwise acting strangely. Since the pandemic began, flu seasons have been out of whack – sometimes nearly nonexistent and other times extending well beyond “normal” seasons. Some experts say one influenza “B” strain may now be extinct, while others say it will be back.

Severe colds – what some call “super colds” – also seem to be on the rise in recent warm-weather months, although that evidence is mostly based on personal experience, not science.

Trying to explain these out-of-season variations has sparked much discussion among epidemiologists and virologists, Dr. Schaffner says, with debates ongoing about whether human behavior and habits or the seasons play a bigger role in the transmission of viral illness.

On top of that, scientists are also looking at the interactions between the SARS-CoV-2 virus that causes COVID-19 and other viruses. When people get hit with COVID-19 and other viruses at the same time, does that make COVID-19 more severe, or less?

Research is conflicting.
 

Summer of 2022: A repeat of 2021?

RSV. Most children contract the virus by age 2, and while it’s generally mild, about 58,000 children under age 5 years are hospitalized each year. During the pandemic, RSV cases decreased from January to April 2020, the CDC reported, and then remained at “historically low levels”: less than 1% positive RSV results a week, for the next year.

But cases began rising in April 2021.

“Last year, we did have an unusual summer,” Dr. Schaffner says. After lockdown ended, to everyone’s surprise, RSV infections rose.

That increase triggered a CDC health advisory in June 2021, telling doctors and caregivers about the increase in “interseasonal” RSV cases across parts of the Southern United States, recommending broader testing for RSV in patients who had a respiratory illness but tested negative for COVID.

Because of the reduced circulation of RSV during the winter of 2020 to 2021, the CDC warned, older infants and toddlers might have a higher risk of RSV since they weren’t exposed to typical levels of RSV for the previous 15 months.

What about 2022? “At the moment,” Dr. Schaffner says, “it looks like we are having a repeat [of 2021].”

On Twitter, other pediatricians, including those from Maine and Texas, have reported an increase in RSV cases this summer.

Influenza. From October 2020 until May 2021, flu activity was lower than during any previous flu season since at least 1997, according to the CDC.

In late 2021, researchers suggested that one line of influenza known as B/Yamagata may have become extinct.

The 2021-2022 flu season has been mild, the CDC says, but it has come in two waves, with the second wave lingering longer than previous ones. While flu activity is decreasing, last week the CDC said doctors should be alert to flu infections throughout the summer.

Colds. In reports on colds that aren’t based on science, several doctors say they are seeing more colds than usual in the summer, and they’re more severe than usual. According to the CDC, common coronaviruses and respiratory adenoviruses have been increasing since early 2021, and rhinoviruses since June 2020.

Behavior vs. seasons

In explaining the spread of viral respiratory diseases, infectious disease doctors consider two things. “One is that temperature and humidity in the winter favors longer survival of some viruses, leading to longer periods of possible transmission,” says Dean Blumberg, MD, a professor of pediatrics and chief of pediatric infectious disease at University of California Davis Health.

“The other is differences in human behavior, with people spending more time outside in the summer, which results in more distancing and [less] virus concentration due to very large air volume,” he says, and vice versa in winter.

What about the “super colds?” COVID-19 lockdowns and social distancing greatly reduced people’s exposure to common viruses like those that cause colds, says Neil A. Mabbott, PhD, a professor of immunopathology at the University of Edinburgh (Scotland).

“Immunity to these common cold viruses gained through natural infection is considered to last around 8 or 9 months or so,” he says. “Each winter, when we are exposed to the new circulating variants of these viruses, our immunity receives a natural boost.”

That explains why most people get a cold that’s relatively mild. But with all the pandemic lockdowns and the use of hand sanitizers, most people had limited exposure to other viruses, including the common cold. When people emerged from lockdown, the common cold viruses were beginning to circulate again.

“Our immune systems were less able to clear the infection than previously,” Dr. Mabbott says. “As a consequence, some may have experienced increased symptoms, giving the impression of being infected with a ‘super cold.’ ”

“The colds themselves are probably not different to those we got prepandemic,” says Ian Mackay, PhD, a virologist at the University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia. “But there might be more of them. So I doubt they are ‘super colds’ as much as they are ‘super-perfect circumstances.’ ”

The colds themselves are probably not different to those we got prepandemic. But there might be more of them.

Those super-perfect circumstances, he says, include people gathering after lockdown; a lack of immunity in new babies; viruses that have remained, even if at low levels, but continue to mutate; and our waning immunity to the range of viruses we’d normally encounter.

While lack of exposure may partly explain why some viruses become rampant out of season, it’s likely not the only reason. For example, the reduced circulation of RSV in the population as a whole also may have reduced the transfer of immunity from mothers to infants, some researchers say, making those infants more vulnerable than usual.
 

Interactions of viruses

Another thing that may be driving the different behavior of viruses is that the SARS-CoV-2 virus could somehow be interacting with other respiratory viruses, Dr. Schaffner says. “And if so, what sort of interactions?”

Many researchers are looking into that, and how coinfections with other respiratory diseases, including the common cold and flu, may affect the course of COVID-19. Some studies have found that the T cells – a source of deeper, cellular immunity in people – generated after a common cold “may also provide cross-protection in some people against COVID-19.”

But another study found immunity against common cold–causing coronaviruses might make COVID-19 more severe.

When researchers in the United Kingdom studied nearly 7,000 patients infected with COVID-19, including 583 also infected with RSV, flu, or adenoviruses (causing flulike or coldlike illness), those with flu or adenovirus, compared with the others, were at higher risk of death.
 

To be continued …

Exactly how COVID-19 will be changing what we know of other viruses is yet to be determined, too.

Even before the pandemic, Dr. Martinello says, there were already some shifts in RSV. Florida, for instance, has an RSV season longer than the rest of the country, mimicking the pattern in the tropics.

Will the atypical patterns continue? “My guess is that this will settle out,” he says, with some sort of pattern developing. At this point, there are many unknowns. “We still can’t answer whether there will be some seasonality to COVID.”

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

Richard Martinello, MD, a professor of medicine and pediatric infectious diseases at Yale University, New haven, Conn., doesn’t expect to see a child hospitalized with respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) in the middle of summer. The illness, which can strike infants and older adults especially hard, is known as a “winter virus.”

But not this year. Over the last several weeks, he says, admissions for children with RSV have increased at the Yale New Haven Children’s Hospital. While the numbers aren’t large, they are out of the ordinary, he says, “because usually, at this time of year, we see zero. For lack of a better term, it’s weird.”

Likewise, William Schaffner, MD, a professor of infectious diseases at Vanderbilt University in Nashville, says RSV is on the rise there. Tennessee is one of 10 states taking part in a Centers for Disease Control and Prevention surveillance system that tracks influenza, RSV, and COVID-19.

He says RSV cases have risen by at least a third during the past week, including all age ranges. At this time of year, he says, “We aren’t supposed to have any RSV.”

RSV isn’t the only virus thriving out of season or otherwise acting strangely. Since the pandemic began, flu seasons have been out of whack – sometimes nearly nonexistent and other times extending well beyond “normal” seasons. Some experts say one influenza “B” strain may now be extinct, while others say it will be back.

Severe colds – what some call “super colds” – also seem to be on the rise in recent warm-weather months, although that evidence is mostly based on personal experience, not science.

Trying to explain these out-of-season variations has sparked much discussion among epidemiologists and virologists, Dr. Schaffner says, with debates ongoing about whether human behavior and habits or the seasons play a bigger role in the transmission of viral illness.

On top of that, scientists are also looking at the interactions between the SARS-CoV-2 virus that causes COVID-19 and other viruses. When people get hit with COVID-19 and other viruses at the same time, does that make COVID-19 more severe, or less?

Research is conflicting.
 

Summer of 2022: A repeat of 2021?

RSV. Most children contract the virus by age 2, and while it’s generally mild, about 58,000 children under age 5 years are hospitalized each year. During the pandemic, RSV cases decreased from January to April 2020, the CDC reported, and then remained at “historically low levels”: less than 1% positive RSV results a week, for the next year.

But cases began rising in April 2021.

“Last year, we did have an unusual summer,” Dr. Schaffner says. After lockdown ended, to everyone’s surprise, RSV infections rose.

That increase triggered a CDC health advisory in June 2021, telling doctors and caregivers about the increase in “interseasonal” RSV cases across parts of the Southern United States, recommending broader testing for RSV in patients who had a respiratory illness but tested negative for COVID.

Because of the reduced circulation of RSV during the winter of 2020 to 2021, the CDC warned, older infants and toddlers might have a higher risk of RSV since they weren’t exposed to typical levels of RSV for the previous 15 months.

What about 2022? “At the moment,” Dr. Schaffner says, “it looks like we are having a repeat [of 2021].”

On Twitter, other pediatricians, including those from Maine and Texas, have reported an increase in RSV cases this summer.

Influenza. From October 2020 until May 2021, flu activity was lower than during any previous flu season since at least 1997, according to the CDC.

In late 2021, researchers suggested that one line of influenza known as B/Yamagata may have become extinct.

The 2021-2022 flu season has been mild, the CDC says, but it has come in two waves, with the second wave lingering longer than previous ones. While flu activity is decreasing, last week the CDC said doctors should be alert to flu infections throughout the summer.

Colds. In reports on colds that aren’t based on science, several doctors say they are seeing more colds than usual in the summer, and they’re more severe than usual. According to the CDC, common coronaviruses and respiratory adenoviruses have been increasing since early 2021, and rhinoviruses since June 2020.

Behavior vs. seasons

In explaining the spread of viral respiratory diseases, infectious disease doctors consider two things. “One is that temperature and humidity in the winter favors longer survival of some viruses, leading to longer periods of possible transmission,” says Dean Blumberg, MD, a professor of pediatrics and chief of pediatric infectious disease at University of California Davis Health.

“The other is differences in human behavior, with people spending more time outside in the summer, which results in more distancing and [less] virus concentration due to very large air volume,” he says, and vice versa in winter.

What about the “super colds?” COVID-19 lockdowns and social distancing greatly reduced people’s exposure to common viruses like those that cause colds, says Neil A. Mabbott, PhD, a professor of immunopathology at the University of Edinburgh (Scotland).

“Immunity to these common cold viruses gained through natural infection is considered to last around 8 or 9 months or so,” he says. “Each winter, when we are exposed to the new circulating variants of these viruses, our immunity receives a natural boost.”

That explains why most people get a cold that’s relatively mild. But with all the pandemic lockdowns and the use of hand sanitizers, most people had limited exposure to other viruses, including the common cold. When people emerged from lockdown, the common cold viruses were beginning to circulate again.

“Our immune systems were less able to clear the infection than previously,” Dr. Mabbott says. “As a consequence, some may have experienced increased symptoms, giving the impression of being infected with a ‘super cold.’ ”

“The colds themselves are probably not different to those we got prepandemic,” says Ian Mackay, PhD, a virologist at the University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia. “But there might be more of them. So I doubt they are ‘super colds’ as much as they are ‘super-perfect circumstances.’ ”

The colds themselves are probably not different to those we got prepandemic. But there might be more of them.

Those super-perfect circumstances, he says, include people gathering after lockdown; a lack of immunity in new babies; viruses that have remained, even if at low levels, but continue to mutate; and our waning immunity to the range of viruses we’d normally encounter.

While lack of exposure may partly explain why some viruses become rampant out of season, it’s likely not the only reason. For example, the reduced circulation of RSV in the population as a whole also may have reduced the transfer of immunity from mothers to infants, some researchers say, making those infants more vulnerable than usual.
 

Interactions of viruses

Another thing that may be driving the different behavior of viruses is that the SARS-CoV-2 virus could somehow be interacting with other respiratory viruses, Dr. Schaffner says. “And if so, what sort of interactions?”

Many researchers are looking into that, and how coinfections with other respiratory diseases, including the common cold and flu, may affect the course of COVID-19. Some studies have found that the T cells – a source of deeper, cellular immunity in people – generated after a common cold “may also provide cross-protection in some people against COVID-19.”

But another study found immunity against common cold–causing coronaviruses might make COVID-19 more severe.

When researchers in the United Kingdom studied nearly 7,000 patients infected with COVID-19, including 583 also infected with RSV, flu, or adenoviruses (causing flulike or coldlike illness), those with flu or adenovirus, compared with the others, were at higher risk of death.
 

To be continued …

Exactly how COVID-19 will be changing what we know of other viruses is yet to be determined, too.

Even before the pandemic, Dr. Martinello says, there were already some shifts in RSV. Florida, for instance, has an RSV season longer than the rest of the country, mimicking the pattern in the tropics.

Will the atypical patterns continue? “My guess is that this will settle out,” he says, with some sort of pattern developing. At this point, there are many unknowns. “We still can’t answer whether there will be some seasonality to COVID.”

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

Richard Martinello, MD, a professor of medicine and pediatric infectious diseases at Yale University, New haven, Conn., doesn’t expect to see a child hospitalized with respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) in the middle of summer. The illness, which can strike infants and older adults especially hard, is known as a “winter virus.”

But not this year. Over the last several weeks, he says, admissions for children with RSV have increased at the Yale New Haven Children’s Hospital. While the numbers aren’t large, they are out of the ordinary, he says, “because usually, at this time of year, we see zero. For lack of a better term, it’s weird.”

Likewise, William Schaffner, MD, a professor of infectious diseases at Vanderbilt University in Nashville, says RSV is on the rise there. Tennessee is one of 10 states taking part in a Centers for Disease Control and Prevention surveillance system that tracks influenza, RSV, and COVID-19.

He says RSV cases have risen by at least a third during the past week, including all age ranges. At this time of year, he says, “We aren’t supposed to have any RSV.”

RSV isn’t the only virus thriving out of season or otherwise acting strangely. Since the pandemic began, flu seasons have been out of whack – sometimes nearly nonexistent and other times extending well beyond “normal” seasons. Some experts say one influenza “B” strain may now be extinct, while others say it will be back.

Severe colds – what some call “super colds” – also seem to be on the rise in recent warm-weather months, although that evidence is mostly based on personal experience, not science.

Trying to explain these out-of-season variations has sparked much discussion among epidemiologists and virologists, Dr. Schaffner says, with debates ongoing about whether human behavior and habits or the seasons play a bigger role in the transmission of viral illness.

On top of that, scientists are also looking at the interactions between the SARS-CoV-2 virus that causes COVID-19 and other viruses. When people get hit with COVID-19 and other viruses at the same time, does that make COVID-19 more severe, or less?

Research is conflicting.
 

Summer of 2022: A repeat of 2021?

RSV. Most children contract the virus by age 2, and while it’s generally mild, about 58,000 children under age 5 years are hospitalized each year. During the pandemic, RSV cases decreased from January to April 2020, the CDC reported, and then remained at “historically low levels”: less than 1% positive RSV results a week, for the next year.

But cases began rising in April 2021.

“Last year, we did have an unusual summer,” Dr. Schaffner says. After lockdown ended, to everyone’s surprise, RSV infections rose.

That increase triggered a CDC health advisory in June 2021, telling doctors and caregivers about the increase in “interseasonal” RSV cases across parts of the Southern United States, recommending broader testing for RSV in patients who had a respiratory illness but tested negative for COVID.

Because of the reduced circulation of RSV during the winter of 2020 to 2021, the CDC warned, older infants and toddlers might have a higher risk of RSV since they weren’t exposed to typical levels of RSV for the previous 15 months.

What about 2022? “At the moment,” Dr. Schaffner says, “it looks like we are having a repeat [of 2021].”

On Twitter, other pediatricians, including those from Maine and Texas, have reported an increase in RSV cases this summer.

Influenza. From October 2020 until May 2021, flu activity was lower than during any previous flu season since at least 1997, according to the CDC.

In late 2021, researchers suggested that one line of influenza known as B/Yamagata may have become extinct.

The 2021-2022 flu season has been mild, the CDC says, but it has come in two waves, with the second wave lingering longer than previous ones. While flu activity is decreasing, last week the CDC said doctors should be alert to flu infections throughout the summer.

Colds. In reports on colds that aren’t based on science, several doctors say they are seeing more colds than usual in the summer, and they’re more severe than usual. According to the CDC, common coronaviruses and respiratory adenoviruses have been increasing since early 2021, and rhinoviruses since June 2020.

Behavior vs. seasons

In explaining the spread of viral respiratory diseases, infectious disease doctors consider two things. “One is that temperature and humidity in the winter favors longer survival of some viruses, leading to longer periods of possible transmission,” says Dean Blumberg, MD, a professor of pediatrics and chief of pediatric infectious disease at University of California Davis Health.

“The other is differences in human behavior, with people spending more time outside in the summer, which results in more distancing and [less] virus concentration due to very large air volume,” he says, and vice versa in winter.

What about the “super colds?” COVID-19 lockdowns and social distancing greatly reduced people’s exposure to common viruses like those that cause colds, says Neil A. Mabbott, PhD, a professor of immunopathology at the University of Edinburgh (Scotland).

“Immunity to these common cold viruses gained through natural infection is considered to last around 8 or 9 months or so,” he says. “Each winter, when we are exposed to the new circulating variants of these viruses, our immunity receives a natural boost.”

That explains why most people get a cold that’s relatively mild. But with all the pandemic lockdowns and the use of hand sanitizers, most people had limited exposure to other viruses, including the common cold. When people emerged from lockdown, the common cold viruses were beginning to circulate again.

“Our immune systems were less able to clear the infection than previously,” Dr. Mabbott says. “As a consequence, some may have experienced increased symptoms, giving the impression of being infected with a ‘super cold.’ ”

“The colds themselves are probably not different to those we got prepandemic,” says Ian Mackay, PhD, a virologist at the University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia. “But there might be more of them. So I doubt they are ‘super colds’ as much as they are ‘super-perfect circumstances.’ ”

The colds themselves are probably not different to those we got prepandemic. But there might be more of them.

Those super-perfect circumstances, he says, include people gathering after lockdown; a lack of immunity in new babies; viruses that have remained, even if at low levels, but continue to mutate; and our waning immunity to the range of viruses we’d normally encounter.

While lack of exposure may partly explain why some viruses become rampant out of season, it’s likely not the only reason. For example, the reduced circulation of RSV in the population as a whole also may have reduced the transfer of immunity from mothers to infants, some researchers say, making those infants more vulnerable than usual.
 

Interactions of viruses

Another thing that may be driving the different behavior of viruses is that the SARS-CoV-2 virus could somehow be interacting with other respiratory viruses, Dr. Schaffner says. “And if so, what sort of interactions?”

Many researchers are looking into that, and how coinfections with other respiratory diseases, including the common cold and flu, may affect the course of COVID-19. Some studies have found that the T cells – a source of deeper, cellular immunity in people – generated after a common cold “may also provide cross-protection in some people against COVID-19.”

But another study found immunity against common cold–causing coronaviruses might make COVID-19 more severe.

When researchers in the United Kingdom studied nearly 7,000 patients infected with COVID-19, including 583 also infected with RSV, flu, or adenoviruses (causing flulike or coldlike illness), those with flu or adenovirus, compared with the others, were at higher risk of death.
 

To be continued …

Exactly how COVID-19 will be changing what we know of other viruses is yet to be determined, too.

Even before the pandemic, Dr. Martinello says, there were already some shifts in RSV. Florida, for instance, has an RSV season longer than the rest of the country, mimicking the pattern in the tropics.

Will the atypical patterns continue? “My guess is that this will settle out,” he says, with some sort of pattern developing. At this point, there are many unknowns. “We still can’t answer whether there will be some seasonality to COVID.”

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

A potentially deadly bacteria has been found in U.S. soil and water samples for the first time, according to a new alert from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

The bacteria, Burkholderia pseudomallei, was found along the Gulf Coast region in southern Mississippi. Typically, the bacteria are in tropical and subtropical climates, especially in parts of Southeast Asia, northern Australia, Central America, South America, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands.

The bacteria can cause melioidosis, a rare and serious infectious disease that spreads to animals and humans through contact with contaminated soil and water via cuts, wounds, mucous membranes, breathing the bacteria in, or eating or drinking it. Worldwide, the disease is fatal in 10%-50% of those who become infected.

CDC and state officials are investigating the samples to find out how widespread the bacteria are within the United States. So far, modeling suggests that the environmental conditions on the Gulf Coast support the growth of B. pseudomallei.

“It is unclear how long the bacteria has been in the environment and where else it might be found in the U.S.,” according to the CDC statement. “CDC is alerting clinicians throughout the country of this discovery through a national health advisory, reminding them to be aware of the signs and symptoms of melioidosis and to consider melioidosis in patients that present with symptoms of the disease.”

Two unrelated people who live near the Gulf Coast region of Mississippi became sick with melioidosis recently – one in July 2020 and one in May 2022. Neither had traveled outside of the United States. The cases led the CDC and the Mississippi State Department of Health to collect environmental samples and test household products at the patients’ homes in June 2022. Three of the samples taken from soil and puddle water in the 2020 case tested positive for the bacteria.

Genomic sequencing revealed that both patients were infected with the same strain of the bacteria from the Western Hemisphere. They were hospitalized with sepsis due to pneumonia and had known risk factors for melioidosis. Both patients recovered after they were treated with antibiotics.

An average of 12 melioidosis cases are diagnosed in the United States each year, with most in people with recent travel to a country where the bacteria is endemic, or regularly found. Cases have also been linked to contaminated products imported from endemic countries. In late 2021, four cases in four states – Georgia, Kansas, Minnesota, and Texas – were linked to a contaminated aromatherapy spray that was imported, and Walmart issued a recall in November of that year, according to a CDC announcement. Two of the four people died.

Given the small number of cases found in the United States, the CDC believes the risk of melioidosis for the general population continues to be “very low,” and the risk of person-to-person spread is considered “extremely low.” But people who live on the Gulf Coast of Mississippi and who have health conditions that may put them at a higher risk, such as diabetes, chronic kidney disease, chronic lung disease, excessive alcohol use, and immunosuppressive conditions, should protect themselves.

The CDC recommends avoiding contact with soil or muddy water, particularly after heavy rains, and protecting open wounds with waterproof bandages. People should also wear waterproof boots when gardening, working in the yard, or doing agricultural work, which can prevent infection through the feet and lower legs, especially after flooding or storms. People should also wear gloves to protect their hands when working directly with soil.

Melioidosis has a wide range of symptoms, including fever, joint pain, headaches, coughing, chest pain, and belly pain. It can also cause conditions such as pneumonia, abscesses, and blood infections. The disease can infect any organ, including the brain. In most cases, symptoms appear within 1-21 days after exposure, with an average of 7 days after exposure.

The CDC’s health advisory for health professionals and public health officials shows that melioidosis is now considered to be locally endemic in areas of the Gulf Coast region in Mississippi.

“Once well-established in the soil, B. pseudomallei cannot feasibly be removed from the soil,” according to the advisory. “Public health efforts should focus primarily on improving identification of cases so that appropriate treatment can be administered.”

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

A potentially deadly bacteria has been found in U.S. soil and water samples for the first time, according to a new alert from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

The bacteria, Burkholderia pseudomallei, was found along the Gulf Coast region in southern Mississippi. Typically, the bacteria are in tropical and subtropical climates, especially in parts of Southeast Asia, northern Australia, Central America, South America, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands.

The bacteria can cause melioidosis, a rare and serious infectious disease that spreads to animals and humans through contact with contaminated soil and water via cuts, wounds, mucous membranes, breathing the bacteria in, or eating or drinking it. Worldwide, the disease is fatal in 10%-50% of those who become infected.

CDC and state officials are investigating the samples to find out how widespread the bacteria are within the United States. So far, modeling suggests that the environmental conditions on the Gulf Coast support the growth of B. pseudomallei.

“It is unclear how long the bacteria has been in the environment and where else it might be found in the U.S.,” according to the CDC statement. “CDC is alerting clinicians throughout the country of this discovery through a national health advisory, reminding them to be aware of the signs and symptoms of melioidosis and to consider melioidosis in patients that present with symptoms of the disease.”

Two unrelated people who live near the Gulf Coast region of Mississippi became sick with melioidosis recently – one in July 2020 and one in May 2022. Neither had traveled outside of the United States. The cases led the CDC and the Mississippi State Department of Health to collect environmental samples and test household products at the patients’ homes in June 2022. Three of the samples taken from soil and puddle water in the 2020 case tested positive for the bacteria.

Genomic sequencing revealed that both patients were infected with the same strain of the bacteria from the Western Hemisphere. They were hospitalized with sepsis due to pneumonia and had known risk factors for melioidosis. Both patients recovered after they were treated with antibiotics.

An average of 12 melioidosis cases are diagnosed in the United States each year, with most in people with recent travel to a country where the bacteria is endemic, or regularly found. Cases have also been linked to contaminated products imported from endemic countries. In late 2021, four cases in four states – Georgia, Kansas, Minnesota, and Texas – were linked to a contaminated aromatherapy spray that was imported, and Walmart issued a recall in November of that year, according to a CDC announcement. Two of the four people died.

Given the small number of cases found in the United States, the CDC believes the risk of melioidosis for the general population continues to be “very low,” and the risk of person-to-person spread is considered “extremely low.” But people who live on the Gulf Coast of Mississippi and who have health conditions that may put them at a higher risk, such as diabetes, chronic kidney disease, chronic lung disease, excessive alcohol use, and immunosuppressive conditions, should protect themselves.

The CDC recommends avoiding contact with soil or muddy water, particularly after heavy rains, and protecting open wounds with waterproof bandages. People should also wear waterproof boots when gardening, working in the yard, or doing agricultural work, which can prevent infection through the feet and lower legs, especially after flooding or storms. People should also wear gloves to protect their hands when working directly with soil.

Melioidosis has a wide range of symptoms, including fever, joint pain, headaches, coughing, chest pain, and belly pain. It can also cause conditions such as pneumonia, abscesses, and blood infections. The disease can infect any organ, including the brain. In most cases, symptoms appear within 1-21 days after exposure, with an average of 7 days after exposure.

The CDC’s health advisory for health professionals and public health officials shows that melioidosis is now considered to be locally endemic in areas of the Gulf Coast region in Mississippi.

“Once well-established in the soil, B. pseudomallei cannot feasibly be removed from the soil,” according to the advisory. “Public health efforts should focus primarily on improving identification of cases so that appropriate treatment can be administered.”

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

A potentially deadly bacteria has been found in U.S. soil and water samples for the first time, according to a new alert from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

The bacteria, Burkholderia pseudomallei, was found along the Gulf Coast region in southern Mississippi. Typically, the bacteria are in tropical and subtropical climates, especially in parts of Southeast Asia, northern Australia, Central America, South America, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands.

The bacteria can cause melioidosis, a rare and serious infectious disease that spreads to animals and humans through contact with contaminated soil and water via cuts, wounds, mucous membranes, breathing the bacteria in, or eating or drinking it. Worldwide, the disease is fatal in 10%-50% of those who become infected.

CDC and state officials are investigating the samples to find out how widespread the bacteria are within the United States. So far, modeling suggests that the environmental conditions on the Gulf Coast support the growth of B. pseudomallei.

“It is unclear how long the bacteria has been in the environment and where else it might be found in the U.S.,” according to the CDC statement. “CDC is alerting clinicians throughout the country of this discovery through a national health advisory, reminding them to be aware of the signs and symptoms of melioidosis and to consider melioidosis in patients that present with symptoms of the disease.”

Two unrelated people who live near the Gulf Coast region of Mississippi became sick with melioidosis recently – one in July 2020 and one in May 2022. Neither had traveled outside of the United States. The cases led the CDC and the Mississippi State Department of Health to collect environmental samples and test household products at the patients’ homes in June 2022. Three of the samples taken from soil and puddle water in the 2020 case tested positive for the bacteria.

Genomic sequencing revealed that both patients were infected with the same strain of the bacteria from the Western Hemisphere. They were hospitalized with sepsis due to pneumonia and had known risk factors for melioidosis. Both patients recovered after they were treated with antibiotics.

An average of 12 melioidosis cases are diagnosed in the United States each year, with most in people with recent travel to a country where the bacteria is endemic, or regularly found. Cases have also been linked to contaminated products imported from endemic countries. In late 2021, four cases in four states – Georgia, Kansas, Minnesota, and Texas – were linked to a contaminated aromatherapy spray that was imported, and Walmart issued a recall in November of that year, according to a CDC announcement. Two of the four people died.

Given the small number of cases found in the United States, the CDC believes the risk of melioidosis for the general population continues to be “very low,” and the risk of person-to-person spread is considered “extremely low.” But people who live on the Gulf Coast of Mississippi and who have health conditions that may put them at a higher risk, such as diabetes, chronic kidney disease, chronic lung disease, excessive alcohol use, and immunosuppressive conditions, should protect themselves.

The CDC recommends avoiding contact with soil or muddy water, particularly after heavy rains, and protecting open wounds with waterproof bandages. People should also wear waterproof boots when gardening, working in the yard, or doing agricultural work, which can prevent infection through the feet and lower legs, especially after flooding or storms. People should also wear gloves to protect their hands when working directly with soil.

Melioidosis has a wide range of symptoms, including fever, joint pain, headaches, coughing, chest pain, and belly pain. It can also cause conditions such as pneumonia, abscesses, and blood infections. The disease can infect any organ, including the brain. In most cases, symptoms appear within 1-21 days after exposure, with an average of 7 days after exposure.

The CDC’s health advisory for health professionals and public health officials shows that melioidosis is now considered to be locally endemic in areas of the Gulf Coast region in Mississippi.

“Once well-established in the soil, B. pseudomallei cannot feasibly be removed from the soil,” according to the advisory. “Public health efforts should focus primarily on improving identification of cases so that appropriate treatment can be administered.”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A 32-year-old woman had sex with a man she met while on vacation 6 weeks ago. She was intoxicated at the time and does not know much about the person. She recalls having engaged in vaginal intercourse without a condom. She does not have any symptoms.

She previously received baseline lab testing per Centers for Disease Control and Prevention guidelines 2 years ago with a negative HIV test and negative hepatitis C test. She asks for testing for STIs. What would you recommend?

A. HIV, hepatitis C, gonorrhea, chlamydia, and human papillomavirus

B. HIV, hepatitis C, gonorrhea, chlamydia, and herpes simplex virus

C. HIV, hepatitis C, gonorrhea, and chlamydia

D. HIV, gonorrhea, and chlamydia

E. Gonorrhea and chlamydia

HIV risk estimate

The most practical answer is E, check for gonorrhea and chlamydia. Many protocols in place for evaluating people for STIs will test for hepatitis C as well as HIV with single exposures. In this column, we will look at the lack of evidence of heterosexual sexual transmission of hepatitis C.

In regards to HIV risk, the estimated risk of transmission male to female from an HIV-infected individual is 0.08% per sexual encounter.¹ The prevalence in the United States – where HIV occurs in about 0.5% of the adult population – was used to estimate the risk of a person with unknown HIV status acquiring HIV. The calculated risk from one sexual encounter would be 0.0004 (1 in 250,000).
 

Studies of hepatitis C transmission

Tahan and colleagues did a prospective study of 600 heterosexual couples where one partner had hepatitis C and the other didn’t. Over a mean of 3 years of follow-up, none of the seronegative spouses developed hepatitis C.²

Terrault and colleagues completed a cross-sectional study of hepatitis C virus (HCV)–positive individuals and their monogamous heterosexual partners to evaluate risk of sexual transmission of HCV.³ Based on 8,377 person-years of follow-up, the estimated maximum transmission rate was 0.07%/year, which was about 1/190,000 sexual contacts. No specific sexual practices were associated with transmission. The authors of this study concurred with CDC recommendations that persons with HCV infection in long-term monogamous relationships need not change their sexual practices.⁴

Vandelli and colleagues followed 776 heterosexual partners of HCV-infected individuals over 10 years.⁵ None of the couples reported condom use. Over the follow up period, three HCV infections occurred, but based on discordance of the typing of viral isolates, sexual transmission was excluded.

Jin and colleagues completed a systematic review of studies looking at possible sexual transmission of HCV in gay and bisexual men.⁶ HIV-positive men had a HCV incidence of 6.4 per 1,000 person-years, compared with 0.4 per 1000 person-years in HIV-negative men. The authors discussed several possible causes for increased transmission risk in HIV-infected individuals including coexisting STIs and higher HCV viral load in semen of HIV-infected individuals, as well as lower immunity.
 

Summary

In hepatitis C–discordant heterosexual couples, hepatitis C does not appear to be sexually transmitted.

The risk of sexual transmission of hepatitis C to non–HIV-infected individuals appears to be exceedingly low.

Many thanks to Hunter Handsfield, MD, for suggesting this topic and sharing supporting articles.

Dr. Paauw is professor of medicine in the division of general internal medicine at the University of Washington, Seattle, and he serves as third-year medical student clerkship director at the University of Washington. He is a member of the editorial advisory board of Internal Medicine News. Dr. Paauw has no conflicts to disclose. Contact him at imnews@mdedge.com.

1. Boily MC et al. Lancet Infect Dis. 2009 Feb;9(2):118-29.

2. Tahan V et al. Am J Gastroenterol. 2005;100:821-4.

3. Terrault NA et al. Hepatology. 2013;57:881-9

4. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. MMWR Recomm Rep. 1998;47:1-38.

5. Vandelli C et al. Am J Gastroenterol. 2004;99:855-9.

6. Jin F et al. Sexual Health.2017;14:28-41.

A 32-year-old woman had sex with a man she met while on vacation 6 weeks ago. She was intoxicated at the time and does not know much about the person. She recalls having engaged in vaginal intercourse without a condom. She does not have any symptoms.

She previously received baseline lab testing per Centers for Disease Control and Prevention guidelines 2 years ago with a negative HIV test and negative hepatitis C test. She asks for testing for STIs. What would you recommend?

A. HIV, hepatitis C, gonorrhea, chlamydia, and human papillomavirus

B. HIV, hepatitis C, gonorrhea, chlamydia, and herpes simplex virus

C. HIV, hepatitis C, gonorrhea, and chlamydia

D. HIV, gonorrhea, and chlamydia

E. Gonorrhea and chlamydia

HIV risk estimate

The most practical answer is E, check for gonorrhea and chlamydia. Many protocols in place for evaluating people for STIs will test for hepatitis C as well as HIV with single exposures. In this column, we will look at the lack of evidence of heterosexual sexual transmission of hepatitis C.

In regards to HIV risk, the estimated risk of transmission male to female from an HIV-infected individual is 0.08% per sexual encounter.¹ The prevalence in the United States – where HIV occurs in about 0.5% of the adult population – was used to estimate the risk of a person with unknown HIV status acquiring HIV. The calculated risk from one sexual encounter would be 0.0004 (1 in 250,000).
 

Studies of hepatitis C transmission

Tahan and colleagues did a prospective study of 600 heterosexual couples where one partner had hepatitis C and the other didn’t. Over a mean of 3 years of follow-up, none of the seronegative spouses developed hepatitis C.²

Terrault and colleagues completed a cross-sectional study of hepatitis C virus (HCV)–positive individuals and their monogamous heterosexual partners to evaluate risk of sexual transmission of HCV.³ Based on 8,377 person-years of follow-up, the estimated maximum transmission rate was 0.07%/year, which was about 1/190,000 sexual contacts. No specific sexual practices were associated with transmission. The authors of this study concurred with CDC recommendations that persons with HCV infection in long-term monogamous relationships need not change their sexual practices.⁴

Vandelli and colleagues followed 776 heterosexual partners of HCV-infected individuals over 10 years.⁵ None of the couples reported condom use. Over the follow up period, three HCV infections occurred, but based on discordance of the typing of viral isolates, sexual transmission was excluded.

Jin and colleagues completed a systematic review of studies looking at possible sexual transmission of HCV in gay and bisexual men.⁶ HIV-positive men had a HCV incidence of 6.4 per 1,000 person-years, compared with 0.4 per 1000 person-years in HIV-negative men. The authors discussed several possible causes for increased transmission risk in HIV-infected individuals including coexisting STIs and higher HCV viral load in semen of HIV-infected individuals, as well as lower immunity.
 

Summary

In hepatitis C–discordant heterosexual couples, hepatitis C does not appear to be sexually transmitted.

The risk of sexual transmission of hepatitis C to non–HIV-infected individuals appears to be exceedingly low.

Many thanks to Hunter Handsfield, MD, for suggesting this topic and sharing supporting articles.

Dr. Paauw is professor of medicine in the division of general internal medicine at the University of Washington, Seattle, and he serves as third-year medical student clerkship director at the University of Washington. He is a member of the editorial advisory board of Internal Medicine News. Dr. Paauw has no conflicts to disclose. Contact him at imnews@mdedge.com.

1. Boily MC et al. Lancet Infect Dis. 2009 Feb;9(2):118-29.

2. Tahan V et al. Am J Gastroenterol. 2005;100:821-4.

3. Terrault NA et al. Hepatology. 2013;57:881-9

4. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. MMWR Recomm Rep. 1998;47:1-38.

5. Vandelli C et al. Am J Gastroenterol. 2004;99:855-9.

6. Jin F et al. Sexual Health.2017;14:28-41.

A 32-year-old woman had sex with a man she met while on vacation 6 weeks ago. She was intoxicated at the time and does not know much about the person. She recalls having engaged in vaginal intercourse without a condom. She does not have any symptoms.

She previously received baseline lab testing per Centers for Disease Control and Prevention guidelines 2 years ago with a negative HIV test and negative hepatitis C test. She asks for testing for STIs. What would you recommend?

A. HIV, hepatitis C, gonorrhea, chlamydia, and human papillomavirus

B. HIV, hepatitis C, gonorrhea, chlamydia, and herpes simplex virus

C. HIV, hepatitis C, gonorrhea, and chlamydia

D. HIV, gonorrhea, and chlamydia

E. Gonorrhea and chlamydia

HIV risk estimate

The most practical answer is E, check for gonorrhea and chlamydia. Many protocols in place for evaluating people for STIs will test for hepatitis C as well as HIV with single exposures. In this column, we will look at the lack of evidence of heterosexual sexual transmission of hepatitis C.

In regards to HIV risk, the estimated risk of transmission male to female from an HIV-infected individual is 0.08% per sexual encounter.¹ The prevalence in the United States – where HIV occurs in about 0.5% of the adult population – was used to estimate the risk of a person with unknown HIV status acquiring HIV. The calculated risk from one sexual encounter would be 0.0004 (1 in 250,000).
 

Studies of hepatitis C transmission

Tahan and colleagues did a prospective study of 600 heterosexual couples where one partner had hepatitis C and the other didn’t. Over a mean of 3 years of follow-up, none of the seronegative spouses developed hepatitis C.²

Terrault and colleagues completed a cross-sectional study of hepatitis C virus (HCV)–positive individuals and their monogamous heterosexual partners to evaluate risk of sexual transmission of HCV.³ Based on 8,377 person-years of follow-up, the estimated maximum transmission rate was 0.07%/year, which was about 1/190,000 sexual contacts. No specific sexual practices were associated with transmission. The authors of this study concurred with CDC recommendations that persons with HCV infection in long-term monogamous relationships need not change their sexual practices.⁴

Vandelli and colleagues followed 776 heterosexual partners of HCV-infected individuals over 10 years.⁵ None of the couples reported condom use. Over the follow up period, three HCV infections occurred, but based on discordance of the typing of viral isolates, sexual transmission was excluded.

Jin and colleagues completed a systematic review of studies looking at possible sexual transmission of HCV in gay and bisexual men.⁶ HIV-positive men had a HCV incidence of 6.4 per 1,000 person-years, compared with 0.4 per 1000 person-years in HIV-negative men. The authors discussed several possible causes for increased transmission risk in HIV-infected individuals including coexisting STIs and higher HCV viral load in semen of HIV-infected individuals, as well as lower immunity.
 

Summary

In hepatitis C–discordant heterosexual couples, hepatitis C does not appear to be sexually transmitted.

The risk of sexual transmission of hepatitis C to non–HIV-infected individuals appears to be exceedingly low.

Many thanks to Hunter Handsfield, MD, for suggesting this topic and sharing supporting articles.

Dr. Paauw is professor of medicine in the division of general internal medicine at the University of Washington, Seattle, and he serves as third-year medical student clerkship director at the University of Washington. He is a member of the editorial advisory board of Internal Medicine News. Dr. Paauw has no conflicts to disclose. Contact him at imnews@mdedge.com.

1. Boily MC et al. Lancet Infect Dis. 2009 Feb;9(2):118-29.

2. Tahan V et al. Am J Gastroenterol. 2005;100:821-4.

3. Terrault NA et al. Hepatology. 2013;57:881-9

4. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. MMWR Recomm Rep. 1998;47:1-38.

5. Vandelli C et al. Am J Gastroenterol. 2004;99:855-9.

6. Jin F et al. Sexual Health.2017;14:28-41.

Almost forgotten today, tuberculosis is still one of the deadliest infectious diseases in the world. In an interview with Coliquio, Ronald D. Gerste, MD, PhD, an ophthalmologist and historian, looked back on this disease’s eventful history, which encompasses outstanding discoveries and catastrophic failures in diagnosis and treatment from the Middle Ages to the present day.

Under different names, TB has affected mankind for millennia. One of these names was the “aesthetic disease,” because it led to weight loss and pallor in the younger patients that it often affected. This was considered the ideal of beauty in the Victorian era. Many celebrities suffered from the disease, including poets and artists such as Friedrich Schiller, Lord Byron, and the Bronte family. As recently as the early 1990s, the disease almost changed world history, because Nelson Mandela became ill before the negotiations that led to the end of apartheid in South Africa.

Today, the global community is still not on track to meet its self-imposed targets for controlling the infectious disease, as reported by the World Health Organization on World TB Day in late March. Children and young people are the leading victims. In 2020 alone, 1.1 million children and adolescents under age 15 years were infected with TB, and 226,000 died of the disease, according to the WHO.
 

Q: Nelson Mandela was ill with tuberculosis during his imprisonment. How did the disease manifest itself in the future Nobel Peace Prize winner, and what is known about the treatment?

Ronald D. Gerste: Nelson Mandela contracted tuberculosis in 1988. At that time, he was 70 years old and had been in prison for 26 years. The disease presented in him with the almost classic symptom: He was coughing up blood and was also increasingly fatigued and losing weight. After doctors initially suspected a viral infection, but then TB was proven, he was treated with medication, and fluid was also drained from his lungs. [Mr.] Mandela was hospitalized for six weeks at Tygerberg Hospital in Cape Town, the second largest hospital in South Africa. The therapy worked well, but [Mr.] Mandela’s lungs remained damaged. He was subsequently prone to pneumonia and was repeatedly hospitalized for pneumonia in 2012 and 2013.
 

Q: Mandela was lucky that the treatment worked for him. A few years later, the first antibiotic-resistant pathogen strains developed. How did medical research respond to this development?

Gerste: The emergence of multidrug resistant (MDR) strains of the pathogen prompted the WHO to declare a “global health emergency” in 1993. Three years later, World TB Day was proclaimed to raise awareness of the threat posed by this disease, which has been known since ancient times. It always takes place on March 24, the day in 1882 when Robert Koch gave his famous lecture in Berlin in which he announced the discovery of the pathogen Mycobacterium tuberculosis.

Medical research has introduced new drugs into TB therapy, such as bedaquiline and delamanid. But MDR tuberculosis therapy remains a global challenge and has diminished hopes of eradicating tuberculosis, as we did with smallpox some 40 years ago. Today, only 56% of all MDR-TB patients worldwide are successfully treated.
 

Q: As already mentioned, the TB pathogen was discovered by Robert Koch. How did this come about?

Gerste: Along with cholera, TB was a great epidemic of the 19th century. For an ambitious researcher like Robert Koch, who had made a name for himself with the discovery of anthrax in 1876, there was no more rewarding goal than to find the cause of this infectious disease, which claimed the lives of many famous people such as Kafka, Dostoevsky, and Schiller, as well as many whose names are forgotten today.

[Dr.] Koch worked with his cultures for several years; the method of staining with methylene blue that was developed by the young Paul Ehrlich represented a breakthrough. To this method, [Dr.] Koch added a second, brownish dye. After countless experiments, this allowed slightly curved bacilli to be identified in tuberculous material under the microscope.

On the evening of March 24, 1882, [Dr.] Koch gave a lecture at the Institute of Physiology in Berlin with the title “Etiology of TB,” which sounded less than sensational on the invitations. One or two dozen participants had been expected, but more than one hundred came; numerous listeners had to make do with standing room behind the rows of chairs in the lecture hall. After a rather dry presentation ([Dr.] Koch was not a great orator nor a self-promoter), he presented his results to those present.

His assistants had set up a series of microscopes in the lecture hall through which everyone could get a glimpse of this enemy of humanity: the tubercle bacillus. When [Dr.] Koch had finished his remarks, there was silence in the hall. There was no burst of applause; the audience was too deeply aware that they had witnessed a historic moment. Paul Ehrlich later said that this evening had been the most significant scientific experience of his life. Over the next few weeks, the newspapers made a national hero out of Robert Koch, and the Emperor appointed him a Privy Councilor of the Government. The country doctor from Pomerania was now the figurehead of science in the young German Empire.
 

Q: Shortly after his discovery, [Dr.] Koch advertised a vaccination against TB with the active ingredient tuberculin. Was he able to convince with that too?

Gerste: No, this was the big flop, almost the disaster of a remarkable scientific career. The preparation of attenuated tubercle bacilli with water and glycerin not only did not prevent infection at all, it proved fatal for numerous users. However, tuberculin has survived in a modified form: as a tuberculin test, in which a characteristic skin rash indicates that a tested person has already had contact with the Mycobacterium.
 

Q: How have diagnostic options and treatment of the disease evolved since Robert Koch’s lifetime?

Gerste: A very decisive advance was made in diagnostics. With the rather accidental discovery of the rays soon named after him by Wilhelm Conrad Röntgen in the last days of 1895, it became possible to visualize the lung changes that tuberculosis caused in an unexpected way on living patients; the serial examinations for TB by X-rays were the logical consequence. Both scientists received Nobel Prizes, which were still new at the time, within a few years of each other: [Dr.] Röntgen in 1901 for physics, and [Dr]. Koch in 1905 for medicine and physiology.

Effective drugs were practically unavailable toward the end of the 19th century. For those who could afford it, however, a whole new world of (hoped-for or perceived) healing from “consumption” opened up: the sanatorium, located high in the mountains, surrounded by “fresh air.” The most famous of these climatic health resorts is probably Davos. It is no disrespect to the Swiss Confederation, which I hold in high esteem, to point out that Switzerland owes its high status as a tourist destination and thus its prosperity in part to TB.
 

Q: Things were quite different in earlier times. Until 250 years ago, the hopes of many patients rested on the medieval healing method of the “royal touch.” What’s that all about?

Gerste: In the Middle Ages, a “healing method” emerged from which not only lepers and other seriously ill people but also those suffering from consumption expected to be saved: the “royal touch,” which was first described by the Frankish king Clovis in 496. This ceremony was based on the idea that the king or queen, anointed by God, could improve or even cure the ailment of a sick person through a brief touch.

With the transition from the Middle Ages to the early modern period, this act, during which thousands often gathered in front of the ruler’s residence, was practiced on a large scale. The sufferers passed by the anointed ruler as if in a procession and were briefly touched by him or her. The extremely few “successes” were of course exploited by royal propaganda to proclaim the blessing that the reign of the king or queen meant for the country. But on those who nevertheless fell victim to TB or another ailment, the chroniclers remained silent.

Charles II of England, who ruled from 1660 to 1685 during the Restoration after the English Civil War, is said to have touched 92,102 sick people during this period, according to contemporary counts. The record for a single day’s performance is probably held by Louis XVI of France, who is said to have touched a total of 2,400 sufferers on June 14, 1775. Some of them may have stood and cheered in the Paris crowd 18 years later as the king climbed the steps to the guillotine.
 

Q: Another invention associated with TB diagnosis is the stethoscope. How did it come about?

Gerste: A young physician named René-Théophile-Hyacinthe Laënnec had already experienced the importance of diagnosing TB in his student years. His teacher in Paris was Xavier Bichat, considered the founder of histology, who died of TB in [Dr.] Laënnec’s second year at the age of only 30. [Dr.] Laënnec was a devotee of auscultation and made it work with a massively overweight patient by rolling up a sheet of paper, then placing this on the woman’s thorax to listen to her heart sounds. He developed the idea further and built a hollow wooden tube with a metal earpiece. In 1818, he presented the device at the meeting of the Academy of Sciences in Paris; he called it a stethoscope. He used his new instrument primarily to auscultate the lungs of patients with TB and distinguished the sounds of TB cavities from those of other lung diseases such as pneumonia and emphysema.
 

Q: Back to the present day: The WHO wants to eradicate TB once and for all. What are the hopes and fears in the fight against this disease?

Gerste: There is no doubt that we are currently taking a step backwards in these efforts, and this is not only due to multiresistant pathogens. Especially in poorer countries particularly affected by TB, treatment and screening programs have been disrupted by lockdown measures targeting COVID-19. The WHO suspects that in the first pandemic year, 2020, about half a million additional people may have died from TB because they never received a diagnosis.

Dr. Gerste, born in 1957, is a physician and historian. Dr. Gerste has lived for many years as a correspondent and book author in Washington, D.C., where he writes primarily for the New Journal of Zürich, the FAS, Back Then, the German Medical Journal, and other academic journals.

This article was translated from Coliquio.

Almost forgotten today, tuberculosis is still one of the deadliest infectious diseases in the world. In an interview with Coliquio, Ronald D. Gerste, MD, PhD, an ophthalmologist and historian, looked back on this disease’s eventful history, which encompasses outstanding discoveries and catastrophic failures in diagnosis and treatment from the Middle Ages to the present day.

Under different names, TB has affected mankind for millennia. One of these names was the “aesthetic disease,” because it led to weight loss and pallor in the younger patients that it often affected. This was considered the ideal of beauty in the Victorian era. Many celebrities suffered from the disease, including poets and artists such as Friedrich Schiller, Lord Byron, and the Bronte family. As recently as the early 1990s, the disease almost changed world history, because Nelson Mandela became ill before the negotiations that led to the end of apartheid in South Africa.

Today, the global community is still not on track to meet its self-imposed targets for controlling the infectious disease, as reported by the World Health Organization on World TB Day in late March. Children and young people are the leading victims. In 2020 alone, 1.1 million children and adolescents under age 15 years were infected with TB, and 226,000 died of the disease, according to the WHO.
 

Q: Nelson Mandela was ill with tuberculosis during his imprisonment. How did the disease manifest itself in the future Nobel Peace Prize winner, and what is known about the treatment?

Ronald D. Gerste: Nelson Mandela contracted tuberculosis in 1988. At that time, he was 70 years old and had been in prison for 26 years. The disease presented in him with the almost classic symptom: He was coughing up blood and was also increasingly fatigued and losing weight. After doctors initially suspected a viral infection, but then TB was proven, he was treated with medication, and fluid was also drained from his lungs. [Mr.] Mandela was hospitalized for six weeks at Tygerberg Hospital in Cape Town, the second largest hospital in South Africa. The therapy worked well, but [Mr.] Mandela’s lungs remained damaged. He was subsequently prone to pneumonia and was repeatedly hospitalized for pneumonia in 2012 and 2013.
 

Q: Mandela was lucky that the treatment worked for him. A few years later, the first antibiotic-resistant pathogen strains developed. How did medical research respond to this development?

Gerste: The emergence of multidrug resistant (MDR) strains of the pathogen prompted the WHO to declare a “global health emergency” in 1993. Three years later, World TB Day was proclaimed to raise awareness of the threat posed by this disease, which has been known since ancient times. It always takes place on March 24, the day in 1882 when Robert Koch gave his famous lecture in Berlin in which he announced the discovery of the pathogen Mycobacterium tuberculosis.

Medical research has introduced new drugs into TB therapy, such as bedaquiline and delamanid. But MDR tuberculosis therapy remains a global challenge and has diminished hopes of eradicating tuberculosis, as we did with smallpox some 40 years ago. Today, only 56% of all MDR-TB patients worldwide are successfully treated.
 

Q: As already mentioned, the TB pathogen was discovered by Robert Koch. How did this come about?

Gerste: Along with cholera, TB was a great epidemic of the 19th century. For an ambitious researcher like Robert Koch, who had made a name for himself with the discovery of anthrax in 1876, there was no more rewarding goal than to find the cause of this infectious disease, which claimed the lives of many famous people such as Kafka, Dostoevsky, and Schiller, as well as many whose names are forgotten today.

[Dr.] Koch worked with his cultures for several years; the method of staining with methylene blue that was developed by the young Paul Ehrlich represented a breakthrough. To this method, [Dr.] Koch added a second, brownish dye. After countless experiments, this allowed slightly curved bacilli to be identified in tuberculous material under the microscope.

On the evening of March 24, 1882, [Dr.] Koch gave a lecture at the Institute of Physiology in Berlin with the title “Etiology of TB,” which sounded less than sensational on the invitations. One or two dozen participants had been expected, but more than one hundred came; numerous listeners had to make do with standing room behind the rows of chairs in the lecture hall. After a rather dry presentation ([Dr.] Koch was not a great orator nor a self-promoter), he presented his results to those present.

His assistants had set up a series of microscopes in the lecture hall through which everyone could get a glimpse of this enemy of humanity: the tubercle bacillus. When [Dr.] Koch had finished his remarks, there was silence in the hall. There was no burst of applause; the audience was too deeply aware that they had witnessed a historic moment. Paul Ehrlich later said that this evening had been the most significant scientific experience of his life. Over the next few weeks, the newspapers made a national hero out of Robert Koch, and the Emperor appointed him a Privy Councilor of the Government. The country doctor from Pomerania was now the figurehead of science in the young German Empire.
 

Q: Shortly after his discovery, [Dr.] Koch advertised a vaccination against TB with the active ingredient tuberculin. Was he able to convince with that too?

Gerste: No, this was the big flop, almost the disaster of a remarkable scientific career. The preparation of attenuated tubercle bacilli with water and glycerin not only did not prevent infection at all, it proved fatal for numerous users. However, tuberculin has survived in a modified form: as a tuberculin test, in which a characteristic skin rash indicates that a tested person has already had contact with the Mycobacterium.
 

Q: How have diagnostic options and treatment of the disease evolved since Robert Koch’s lifetime?

Gerste: A very decisive advance was made in diagnostics. With the rather accidental discovery of the rays soon named after him by Wilhelm Conrad Röntgen in the last days of 1895, it became possible to visualize the lung changes that tuberculosis caused in an unexpected way on living patients; the serial examinations for TB by X-rays were the logical consequence. Both scientists received Nobel Prizes, which were still new at the time, within a few years of each other: [Dr.] Röntgen in 1901 for physics, and [Dr]. Koch in 1905 for medicine and physiology.

Effective drugs were practically unavailable toward the end of the 19th century. For those who could afford it, however, a whole new world of (hoped-for or perceived) healing from “consumption” opened up: the sanatorium, located high in the mountains, surrounded by “fresh air.” The most famous of these climatic health resorts is probably Davos. It is no disrespect to the Swiss Confederation, which I hold in high esteem, to point out that Switzerland owes its high status as a tourist destination and thus its prosperity in part to TB.
 

Q: Things were quite different in earlier times. Until 250 years ago, the hopes of many patients rested on the medieval healing method of the “royal touch.” What’s that all about?

Gerste: In the Middle Ages, a “healing method” emerged from which not only lepers and other seriously ill people but also those suffering from consumption expected to be saved: the “royal touch,” which was first described by the Frankish king Clovis in 496. This ceremony was based on the idea that the king or queen, anointed by God, could improve or even cure the ailment of a sick person through a brief touch.

With the transition from the Middle Ages to the early modern period, this act, during which thousands often gathered in front of the ruler’s residence, was practiced on a large scale. The sufferers passed by the anointed ruler as if in a procession and were briefly touched by him or her. The extremely few “successes” were of course exploited by royal propaganda to proclaim the blessing that the reign of the king or queen meant for the country. But on those who nevertheless fell victim to TB or another ailment, the chroniclers remained silent.

Charles II of England, who ruled from 1660 to 1685 during the Restoration after the English Civil War, is said to have touched 92,102 sick people during this period, according to contemporary counts. The record for a single day’s performance is probably held by Louis XVI of France, who is said to have touched a total of 2,400 sufferers on June 14, 1775. Some of them may have stood and cheered in the Paris crowd 18 years later as the king climbed the steps to the guillotine.
 

Q: Another invention associated with TB diagnosis is the stethoscope. How did it come about?

Gerste: A young physician named René-Théophile-Hyacinthe Laënnec had already experienced the importance of diagnosing TB in his student years. His teacher in Paris was Xavier Bichat, considered the founder of histology, who died of TB in [Dr.] Laënnec’s second year at the age of only 30. [Dr.] Laënnec was a devotee of auscultation and made it work with a massively overweight patient by rolling up a sheet of paper, then placing this on the woman’s thorax to listen to her heart sounds. He developed the idea further and built a hollow wooden tube with a metal earpiece. In 1818, he presented the device at the meeting of the Academy of Sciences in Paris; he called it a stethoscope. He used his new instrument primarily to auscultate the lungs of patients with TB and distinguished the sounds of TB cavities from those of other lung diseases such as pneumonia and emphysema.
 

Q: Back to the present day: The WHO wants to eradicate TB once and for all. What are the hopes and fears in the fight against this disease?

Gerste: There is no doubt that we are currently taking a step backwards in these efforts, and this is not only due to multiresistant pathogens. Especially in poorer countries particularly affected by TB, treatment and screening programs have been disrupted by lockdown measures targeting COVID-19. The WHO suspects that in the first pandemic year, 2020, about half a million additional people may have died from TB because they never received a diagnosis.

Dr. Gerste, born in 1957, is a physician and historian. Dr. Gerste has lived for many years as a correspondent and book author in Washington, D.C., where he writes primarily for the New Journal of Zürich, the FAS, Back Then, the German Medical Journal, and other academic journals.

This article was translated from Coliquio.

Almost forgotten today, tuberculosis is still one of the deadliest infectious diseases in the world. In an interview with Coliquio, Ronald D. Gerste, MD, PhD, an ophthalmologist and historian, looked back on this disease’s eventful history, which encompasses outstanding discoveries and catastrophic failures in diagnosis and treatment from the Middle Ages to the present day.

Under different names, TB has affected mankind for millennia. One of these names was the “aesthetic disease,” because it led to weight loss and pallor in the younger patients that it often affected. This was considered the ideal of beauty in the Victorian era. Many celebrities suffered from the disease, including poets and artists such as Friedrich Schiller, Lord Byron, and the Bronte family. As recently as the early 1990s, the disease almost changed world history, because Nelson Mandela became ill before the negotiations that led to the end of apartheid in South Africa.

Today, the global community is still not on track to meet its self-imposed targets for controlling the infectious disease, as reported by the World Health Organization on World TB Day in late March. Children and young people are the leading victims. In 2020 alone, 1.1 million children and adolescents under age 15 years were infected with TB, and 226,000 died of the disease, according to the WHO.
 

Q: Nelson Mandela was ill with tuberculosis during his imprisonment. How did the disease manifest itself in the future Nobel Peace Prize winner, and what is known about the treatment?

Ronald D. Gerste: Nelson Mandela contracted tuberculosis in 1988. At that time, he was 70 years old and had been in prison for 26 years. The disease presented in him with the almost classic symptom: He was coughing up blood and was also increasingly fatigued and losing weight. After doctors initially suspected a viral infection, but then TB was proven, he was treated with medication, and fluid was also drained from his lungs. [Mr.] Mandela was hospitalized for six weeks at Tygerberg Hospital in Cape Town, the second largest hospital in South Africa. The therapy worked well, but [Mr.] Mandela’s lungs remained damaged. He was subsequently prone to pneumonia and was repeatedly hospitalized for pneumonia in 2012 and 2013.
 

Q: Mandela was lucky that the treatment worked for him. A few years later, the first antibiotic-resistant pathogen strains developed. How did medical research respond to this development?

Gerste: The emergence of multidrug resistant (MDR) strains of the pathogen prompted the WHO to declare a “global health emergency” in 1993. Three years later, World TB Day was proclaimed to raise awareness of the threat posed by this disease, which has been known since ancient times. It always takes place on March 24, the day in 1882 when Robert Koch gave his famous lecture in Berlin in which he announced the discovery of the pathogen Mycobacterium tuberculosis.

Medical research has introduced new drugs into TB therapy, such as bedaquiline and delamanid. But MDR tuberculosis therapy remains a global challenge and has diminished hopes of eradicating tuberculosis, as we did with smallpox some 40 years ago. Today, only 56% of all MDR-TB patients worldwide are successfully treated.
 

Q: As already mentioned, the TB pathogen was discovered by Robert Koch. How did this come about?

Gerste: Along with cholera, TB was a great epidemic of the 19th century. For an ambitious researcher like Robert Koch, who had made a name for himself with the discovery of anthrax in 1876, there was no more rewarding goal than to find the cause of this infectious disease, which claimed the lives of many famous people such as Kafka, Dostoevsky, and Schiller, as well as many whose names are forgotten today.

[Dr.] Koch worked with his cultures for several years; the method of staining with methylene blue that was developed by the young Paul Ehrlich represented a breakthrough. To this method, [Dr.] Koch added a second, brownish dye. After countless experiments, this allowed slightly curved bacilli to be identified in tuberculous material under the microscope.

On the evening of March 24, 1882, [Dr.] Koch gave a lecture at the Institute of Physiology in Berlin with the title “Etiology of TB,” which sounded less than sensational on the invitations. One or two dozen participants had been expected, but more than one hundred came; numerous listeners had to make do with standing room behind the rows of chairs in the lecture hall. After a rather dry presentation ([Dr.] Koch was not a great orator nor a self-promoter), he presented his results to those present.

His assistants had set up a series of microscopes in the lecture hall through which everyone could get a glimpse of this enemy of humanity: the tubercle bacillus. When [Dr.] Koch had finished his remarks, there was silence in the hall. There was no burst of applause; the audience was too deeply aware that they had witnessed a historic moment. Paul Ehrlich later said that this evening had been the most significant scientific experience of his life. Over the next few weeks, the newspapers made a national hero out of Robert Koch, and the Emperor appointed him a Privy Councilor of the Government. The country doctor from Pomerania was now the figurehead of science in the young German Empire.
 

Q: Shortly after his discovery, [Dr.] Koch advertised a vaccination against TB with the active ingredient tuberculin. Was he able to convince with that too?

Gerste: No, this was the big flop, almost the disaster of a remarkable scientific career. The preparation of attenuated tubercle bacilli with water and glycerin not only did not prevent infection at all, it proved fatal for numerous users. However, tuberculin has survived in a modified form: as a tuberculin test, in which a characteristic skin rash indicates that a tested person has already had contact with the Mycobacterium.
 

Q: How have diagnostic options and treatment of the disease evolved since Robert Koch’s lifetime?

Gerste: A very decisive advance was made in diagnostics. With the rather accidental discovery of the rays soon named after him by Wilhelm Conrad Röntgen in the last days of 1895, it became possible to visualize the lung changes that tuberculosis caused in an unexpected way on living patients; the serial examinations for TB by X-rays were the logical consequence. Both scientists received Nobel Prizes, which were still new at the time, within a few years of each other: [Dr.] Röntgen in 1901 for physics, and [Dr]. Koch in 1905 for medicine and physiology.

Effective drugs were practically unavailable toward the end of the 19th century. For those who could afford it, however, a whole new world of (hoped-for or perceived) healing from “consumption” opened up: the sanatorium, located high in the mountains, surrounded by “fresh air.” The most famous of these climatic health resorts is probably Davos. It is no disrespect to the Swiss Confederation, which I hold in high esteem, to point out that Switzerland owes its high status as a tourist destination and thus its prosperity in part to TB.
 

Q: Things were quite different in earlier times. Until 250 years ago, the hopes of many patients rested on the medieval healing method of the “royal touch.” What’s that all about?

Gerste: In the Middle Ages, a “healing method” emerged from which not only lepers and other seriously ill people but also those suffering from consumption expected to be saved: the “royal touch,” which was first described by the Frankish king Clovis in 496. This ceremony was based on the idea that the king or queen, anointed by God, could improve or even cure the ailment of a sick person through a brief touch.

With the transition from the Middle Ages to the early modern period, this act, during which thousands often gathered in front of the ruler’s residence, was practiced on a large scale. The sufferers passed by the anointed ruler as if in a procession and were briefly touched by him or her. The extremely few “successes” were of course exploited by royal propaganda to proclaim the blessing that the reign of the king or queen meant for the country. But on those who nevertheless fell victim to TB or another ailment, the chroniclers remained silent.

Charles II of England, who ruled from 1660 to 1685 during the Restoration after the English Civil War, is said to have touched 92,102 sick people during this period, according to contemporary counts. The record for a single day’s performance is probably held by Louis XVI of France, who is said to have touched a total of 2,400 sufferers on June 14, 1775. Some of them may have stood and cheered in the Paris crowd 18 years later as the king climbed the steps to the guillotine.
 

Q: Another invention associated with TB diagnosis is the stethoscope. How did it come about?

Gerste: A young physician named René-Théophile-Hyacinthe Laënnec had already experienced the importance of diagnosing TB in his student years. His teacher in Paris was Xavier Bichat, considered the founder of histology, who died of TB in [Dr.] Laënnec’s second year at the age of only 30. [Dr.] Laënnec was a devotee of auscultation and made it work with a massively overweight patient by rolling up a sheet of paper, then placing this on the woman’s thorax to listen to her heart sounds. He developed the idea further and built a hollow wooden tube with a metal earpiece. In 1818, he presented the device at the meeting of the Academy of Sciences in Paris; he called it a stethoscope. He used his new instrument primarily to auscultate the lungs of patients with TB and distinguished the sounds of TB cavities from those of other lung diseases such as pneumonia and emphysema.
 

Q: Back to the present day: The WHO wants to eradicate TB once and for all. What are the hopes and fears in the fight against this disease?

Gerste: There is no doubt that we are currently taking a step backwards in these efforts, and this is not only due to multiresistant pathogens. Especially in poorer countries particularly affected by TB, treatment and screening programs have been disrupted by lockdown measures targeting COVID-19. The WHO suspects that in the first pandemic year, 2020, about half a million additional people may have died from TB because they never received a diagnosis.

Dr. Gerste, born in 1957, is a physician and historian. Dr. Gerste has lived for many years as a correspondent and book author in Washington, D.C., where he writes primarily for the New Journal of Zürich, the FAS, Back Then, the German Medical Journal, and other academic journals.

This article was translated from Coliquio.