Zoonoses

Years ago, when rheumatologist Leonard Sigal, MD, was undertaking research on Lyme disease and treating patients with the condition at the Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, New Brunswick, N.J., a regular stream of abuse and threats became the usual background noise of his work. He didn’t get used to it, but it never stopped.

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

“I was accused of incredibly heinous crimes,” Dr. Sigal said in an interview. “I was accused of lying, cheating, of doing things to make money that were against the public interest and against the interest of patients in general.”

It’s an experience many doctors who treat Lyme disease have endured, so much so that some infectious disease doctors aren’t comfortable treating patients with Lyme disease, according to Timothy Flanigan, MD, a professor of infectious disease at Brown University, Providence, R.I.

But it wasn’t until Dr. Sigal left academia in 2003 that he realized the toll all that background abuse had been taking on him.

“It was a breath of fresh air,” he said. “I didn’t have to go into clinic and argue with people. I didn’t have to read articles in the newspaper that made no sense whatsoever. I didn’t have to hear through second and third parties how such and such was saying horrible things about me. I didn’t have to fight anymore. When I was in industry and working on stuff that had nothing to do with Lyme disease, I realized what a relief it was not to have that burden.”

So the last thing Dr. Sigal expected after all these years was to find himself named in a lawsuit alleging that he was part of a conspiracy to deny patients of what they claimed was appropriate treatment for Lyme disease. Yet, that’s exactly what happened in November 2017, when a group of 24 patients with Lyme disease, led by Texas resident Lisa Torrey, filed a lawsuit against the Infectious Diseases Society of America, eight insurance companies, and 7 of the doctors involved in producing the IDSA guidelines on Lyme disease diagnosis and management. Dr. Sigal himself had not even participated in writing the guidelines. He simply reviewed them, made a few grammatical suggestions, and said they looked good. Over the next 4 years, however, he and his fellow defendants rode an emotional roller coaster of seemingly endless motions, amendments, and other legal developments, waiting to find out whether they would owe millions of dollars for simply summarizing – or just reviewing – the available medical literature on Lyme disease.

“There were times I was on the verge of real anger. I was frustrated. There were times I was frightened, and, occasionally, I would just think of it as being silly. But when I thought of it as being silly, I had to remember I was being sued in Texas, because who knows what’s going to happen,” Dr. Sigal said. “It’s not as though I was being sued in a jurisdiction where anybody knew about Lyme disease. There are examples of physicians who are convicted of doing things they didn’t do because they were sued in the wrong jurisdiction.”

Several individuals who spoke with this news organization on condition of anonymity said that the district court where the suit was filed is notorious for being especially friendly to plaintiffs. But in legal rulings issued on Sept. 1 and Sept. 20, 2021, a federal judge in Texas dismissed all the patient group’s claims. The plaintiffs filed an appeal on Oct. 19. It’s unclear whether that has any reasonable chance of success.

“One of the things this court case does is validate the fact that our [guidelines] process is a legitimate process and there isn’t outside influence from insurance companies or pharma firms,” Daniel McQuillen, MD, president of IDSA, said in an interview. “We don’t really want anything other than to be vindicated, which we were, 100%.”

But that vindication came with a cost, both emotional and financial. Although IDSA’s insurance covered many of its legal costs, “it’s not a trivial expense,” Dr. McQuillen said. “We’re left with a baseless lawsuit with no facts that went on for 4 years, and our [medical] society basically bore all that expense, which isn’t really particularly fair.”
 

‘Preposterous’ accusations

The lawsuit alleged that the IDSA, the seven named physicians, and the insurance companies had “engaged in a decades-long conspiracy to deny the existence and prevent treatment of chronic Lyme disease.” The patient group claimed that the doctors knew that many patients with Lyme disease do not respond to short-term antibiotic treatment and instead need “long-term antibiotic treatment until the symptoms are resolved,” an assertion not supported by the scientific evidence.

What many patients call “chronic Lyme disease” is termed posttreatment Lyme disease syndrome (PTDLS), a constellation of symptoms that include pain, fatigue, and cognitive difficulties that some people experience after a 2- to 4-week course of antibiotics for Lyme disease. It took years of patient advocacy before the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recognized PTLDS as a condition, but awareness of it has been increasing, said Dr. Flanigan, who was not involved in the lawsuit but treats patients with Lyme disease and PTLDS.

“Long haulers and sequelae of COVID have really opened the eyes of many practitioners that these long-term inflammatory conditions are real and very challenging to treat, and we need to work with patients to help them improve their health,” Dr. Flanigan said. “It’s a sad commentary on our society that the difficulty in treating patients with posttreatment Lyme disease syndrome, or what is commonly referred to by patients as chronic Lyme, ends up in a lawsuit in court.” He said he’s glad the lawsuit was dismissed but added that “there’s a crying need for additional high-quality, evidence-based research to help patients who are suffering from posttreatment Lyme disease syndrome.”

Patients fought for broader recognition of their condition, and some of them organized. They came up with their own ideas of what was causing their symptoms to persist. One that especially took hold was that infection from Borrelia burgdorferi, the bacteria that causes Lyme disease, persists after initial antibiotic treatment, causing so-called chronic Lyme disease. The cause of PTLDS is still under investigation, and the evidence does not support the idea of a persistent bacterial infection. Multiple studies from the National Institutes of Health have shown that long-term use of antibiotics does not benefit patients who continue to experience symptoms after initial treatment. Several studies have shown that severe adverse effects can result from extended intravenous antibiotic treatment, including death.

Nevertheless, the plaintiffs in the lawsuit argued that the insurance companies “enlisted the help of doctors who were researching Lyme disease – the IDSA panelists – and paid them large fees to develop arbitrary guidelines for testing Lyme disease,” thereby enabling the insurance companies to deny coverage for long-term antibiotic treatment to patients.

“The assertions were just preposterous,” Dr. McQuillen said.

In addition to the conspiracy charge, the plaintiffs brought additional accusations to the lawsuit over the years, including racketeering and claims that the guidelines contain false representations regarding Lyme disease testing and treatment. The plaintiffs claimed that the guidelines didn’t acknowledge that treatment can fail and included false information about how to test for Lyme disease. In reality, however, the guidelines do acknowledge that not all patients respond to the recommended 2- to 4-week course of antibiotics and that some diagnoses should be made clinically rather than on the basis of testing.

Regardless, guidelines are not stipulations. They’re a summation of the medical and scientific findings on Lyme disease based on careful review of hundreds of studies.

“They make really clear that adherence to the guidelines [is] voluntary. They aren’t a standard of care from which deviation of care is a problem,” Dr. McQuillen said. “You take those guidelines and apply it to the patient in front of you, and you see what fits best for that patient, because not every patient is going to fit into guidelines.”

Further, the authors said that IDSA vets their recommendations for any potential conflicts of interest in accordance with the organization’s guidelines practices.

“The point of the guidelines is to have people on the committee who don’t care what the guidelines are as long as we have good patient care,” Dr. McQuillen said.

Choosing to fight

Malpractice insurance does not cover this kind of lawsuit, because the doctors named in it did not personally treat any of the patients who filed it. Thus, the doctors were at risk of losing thousands, or millions, of dollars in legal fees, even if they ultimately prevail. Several of the physicians’ academic and health care institutions stepped in to cover some fees, and IDSA covered the rest in a joint defense.

“The IDSA provided me a lawyer at no cost to me, and I felt protected by them,” Dr. Sigal said. “They took care of me and made sure I was safe, and I am grateful to them for that.”

Dr. McQuillen said the expenses exceeded what the organization’s umbrella insurance covered. The physicians had invested their time and effort into the guidelines without any financial compensation.

“They’ve basically put a lot of sweat equity into producing guidelines” that follow the organization’s practices and ethics, Dr. McQuillen said. “To leave them out on an island by themselves is just not the right thing to do. We wouldn’t do that for any of our members who did something on behalf of our society.”

IDSA could have chosen to settle the lawsuit, as the insurance companies did.

“None of us on the board felt that was the right thing to do, because we believe in the process, and the science is right, and you shouldn’t be able to try to change that by having a lawsuit that’s baseless,” Dr. McQuillen said.

Several of the doctors named in the suit spoke with this news organization off the record about the exhaustion, frustration, and general suffering the suit has caused them over the past several years, including ongoing harassment that targeted their families and often became quite personal. But none expressed any wish that IDSA had chosen the faster, cheaper, easier route of settling.

“I love the organization for having done this rather than caving and paying,” Dr. Sigal said. “They showed real moral character, real integrity in fighting this suit, because they had done nothing wrong.”

Fighting the suit was about more than standing by the science, though. It’s essential to ensure physicians continue to conduct research and write clinical guidelines, even about ambiguous or controversial topics, said Raymond J. Dattwyler, MD, a professor of microbiology, immunology, and medicine at New York Medical College, Valhalla, who wrote the treatment part of the guidelines and was named in the suit.

“I was really surprised that someone would sue for scientific guidelines, because guidelines are common across medicine, and they’re just a roadmap to help practicing physicians understand how to handle evaluation or treatment of any number of particular problems,” Dr. Dattwyler said in an interview. But he wasn’t surprised that IDSA chose to fight the accusations, “because the principle involved is so compelling. It’s really standing up for all medical societies, and it’s very important to have guidelines. For the health and welfare of the American public, you need to have good information readily available to the practicing physicians.”

If the patient group had won in a settlement, it could potentially have led to less rigorous guidelines from other medical organizations, which would have had an adverse effect on public health, Dr. Dattwyler said. Such a chilling effect could reverberate far beyond the management of Lyme disease.

“One of the problems with our legal system is anybody can sue anybody, but it costs so much to defend yourself,” Dr. Dattwyler said. “This lawsuit costs millions, so that’s chilling. That’s going to inhibit guidelines, and it’s not only guidelines for infectious disease but it’s guidelines for cancer, guidelines for allergic diseases, guidelines for any number of things.”

To an extent, the threats and harassment that patient groups have directed toward different doctors have already had a chilling effect.

“For the people who gave of their time in good faith to generate these guidelines to get harassed everywhere, all the time, sometimes at home, sometimes at their place of work, it’s just unfair,” Dr. McQuillen said. “It also might discourage people from working in research to try to figure out better diagnostics or get a vaccine that actually works. Even if you really find it incredibly interesting, if laying over you is the threat that someone is going to sue you baselessly, and you’re going to have to put the time and effort into defending that, not to mention the money, I can’t see how that would be considered a positive that would encourage you to do it. In some ways, attacking people that are trying to help may drive them away from trying to help.

“At the same time, professional disagreements among practitioners – including a small minority who do treat patients with lengthy courses of antibiotics – can ultimately harm patient care, Dr. Flanigan said.

“There’s a lot of energy being expended fighting among different care providers, and often the individual needs of the patients seem to be not addressed,” Dr. Flanigan said. “The discord between different approaches often seems more important than spending time with the individual patient and trying to find a tailored approach to treatment which can benefit the patient best.”

At the same time, Dr. Sigal said he believes most of the clinicians who use non–evidence-based treatments for their patients do so because they genuinely believe it’s the right thing to do.

“I think they’re motivated by the same concerns that I have, and that is, I need to do what’s best for my patient,” Dr. Sigal said. Ultimately, the evidence should lead the way. “The only arbiter we possibly have in deciding these things is the medical scientific literature,” he added, “and if you can’t subscribe to that, then this way lies madness.”

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

Years ago, when rheumatologist Leonard Sigal, MD, was undertaking research on Lyme disease and treating patients with the condition at the Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, New Brunswick, N.J., a regular stream of abuse and threats became the usual background noise of his work. He didn’t get used to it, but it never stopped.

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

“I was accused of incredibly heinous crimes,” Dr. Sigal said in an interview. “I was accused of lying, cheating, of doing things to make money that were against the public interest and against the interest of patients in general.”

It’s an experience many doctors who treat Lyme disease have endured, so much so that some infectious disease doctors aren’t comfortable treating patients with Lyme disease, according to Timothy Flanigan, MD, a professor of infectious disease at Brown University, Providence, R.I.

But it wasn’t until Dr. Sigal left academia in 2003 that he realized the toll all that background abuse had been taking on him.

“It was a breath of fresh air,” he said. “I didn’t have to go into clinic and argue with people. I didn’t have to read articles in the newspaper that made no sense whatsoever. I didn’t have to hear through second and third parties how such and such was saying horrible things about me. I didn’t have to fight anymore. When I was in industry and working on stuff that had nothing to do with Lyme disease, I realized what a relief it was not to have that burden.”

So the last thing Dr. Sigal expected after all these years was to find himself named in a lawsuit alleging that he was part of a conspiracy to deny patients of what they claimed was appropriate treatment for Lyme disease. Yet, that’s exactly what happened in November 2017, when a group of 24 patients with Lyme disease, led by Texas resident Lisa Torrey, filed a lawsuit against the Infectious Diseases Society of America, eight insurance companies, and 7 of the doctors involved in producing the IDSA guidelines on Lyme disease diagnosis and management. Dr. Sigal himself had not even participated in writing the guidelines. He simply reviewed them, made a few grammatical suggestions, and said they looked good. Over the next 4 years, however, he and his fellow defendants rode an emotional roller coaster of seemingly endless motions, amendments, and other legal developments, waiting to find out whether they would owe millions of dollars for simply summarizing – or just reviewing – the available medical literature on Lyme disease.

“There were times I was on the verge of real anger. I was frustrated. There were times I was frightened, and, occasionally, I would just think of it as being silly. But when I thought of it as being silly, I had to remember I was being sued in Texas, because who knows what’s going to happen,” Dr. Sigal said. “It’s not as though I was being sued in a jurisdiction where anybody knew about Lyme disease. There are examples of physicians who are convicted of doing things they didn’t do because they were sued in the wrong jurisdiction.”

Several individuals who spoke with this news organization on condition of anonymity said that the district court where the suit was filed is notorious for being especially friendly to plaintiffs. But in legal rulings issued on Sept. 1 and Sept. 20, 2021, a federal judge in Texas dismissed all the patient group’s claims. The plaintiffs filed an appeal on Oct. 19. It’s unclear whether that has any reasonable chance of success.

“One of the things this court case does is validate the fact that our [guidelines] process is a legitimate process and there isn’t outside influence from insurance companies or pharma firms,” Daniel McQuillen, MD, president of IDSA, said in an interview. “We don’t really want anything other than to be vindicated, which we were, 100%.”

But that vindication came with a cost, both emotional and financial. Although IDSA’s insurance covered many of its legal costs, “it’s not a trivial expense,” Dr. McQuillen said. “We’re left with a baseless lawsuit with no facts that went on for 4 years, and our [medical] society basically bore all that expense, which isn’t really particularly fair.”
 

‘Preposterous’ accusations

The lawsuit alleged that the IDSA, the seven named physicians, and the insurance companies had “engaged in a decades-long conspiracy to deny the existence and prevent treatment of chronic Lyme disease.” The patient group claimed that the doctors knew that many patients with Lyme disease do not respond to short-term antibiotic treatment and instead need “long-term antibiotic treatment until the symptoms are resolved,” an assertion not supported by the scientific evidence.

What many patients call “chronic Lyme disease” is termed posttreatment Lyme disease syndrome (PTDLS), a constellation of symptoms that include pain, fatigue, and cognitive difficulties that some people experience after a 2- to 4-week course of antibiotics for Lyme disease. It took years of patient advocacy before the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recognized PTLDS as a condition, but awareness of it has been increasing, said Dr. Flanigan, who was not involved in the lawsuit but treats patients with Lyme disease and PTLDS.

“Long haulers and sequelae of COVID have really opened the eyes of many practitioners that these long-term inflammatory conditions are real and very challenging to treat, and we need to work with patients to help them improve their health,” Dr. Flanigan said. “It’s a sad commentary on our society that the difficulty in treating patients with posttreatment Lyme disease syndrome, or what is commonly referred to by patients as chronic Lyme, ends up in a lawsuit in court.” He said he’s glad the lawsuit was dismissed but added that “there’s a crying need for additional high-quality, evidence-based research to help patients who are suffering from posttreatment Lyme disease syndrome.”

Patients fought for broader recognition of their condition, and some of them organized. They came up with their own ideas of what was causing their symptoms to persist. One that especially took hold was that infection from Borrelia burgdorferi, the bacteria that causes Lyme disease, persists after initial antibiotic treatment, causing so-called chronic Lyme disease. The cause of PTLDS is still under investigation, and the evidence does not support the idea of a persistent bacterial infection. Multiple studies from the National Institutes of Health have shown that long-term use of antibiotics does not benefit patients who continue to experience symptoms after initial treatment. Several studies have shown that severe adverse effects can result from extended intravenous antibiotic treatment, including death.

Nevertheless, the plaintiffs in the lawsuit argued that the insurance companies “enlisted the help of doctors who were researching Lyme disease – the IDSA panelists – and paid them large fees to develop arbitrary guidelines for testing Lyme disease,” thereby enabling the insurance companies to deny coverage for long-term antibiotic treatment to patients.

“The assertions were just preposterous,” Dr. McQuillen said.

In addition to the conspiracy charge, the plaintiffs brought additional accusations to the lawsuit over the years, including racketeering and claims that the guidelines contain false representations regarding Lyme disease testing and treatment. The plaintiffs claimed that the guidelines didn’t acknowledge that treatment can fail and included false information about how to test for Lyme disease. In reality, however, the guidelines do acknowledge that not all patients respond to the recommended 2- to 4-week course of antibiotics and that some diagnoses should be made clinically rather than on the basis of testing.

Regardless, guidelines are not stipulations. They’re a summation of the medical and scientific findings on Lyme disease based on careful review of hundreds of studies.

“They make really clear that adherence to the guidelines [is] voluntary. They aren’t a standard of care from which deviation of care is a problem,” Dr. McQuillen said. “You take those guidelines and apply it to the patient in front of you, and you see what fits best for that patient, because not every patient is going to fit into guidelines.”

Further, the authors said that IDSA vets their recommendations for any potential conflicts of interest in accordance with the organization’s guidelines practices.

“The point of the guidelines is to have people on the committee who don’t care what the guidelines are as long as we have good patient care,” Dr. McQuillen said.

Choosing to fight

Malpractice insurance does not cover this kind of lawsuit, because the doctors named in it did not personally treat any of the patients who filed it. Thus, the doctors were at risk of losing thousands, or millions, of dollars in legal fees, even if they ultimately prevail. Several of the physicians’ academic and health care institutions stepped in to cover some fees, and IDSA covered the rest in a joint defense.

“The IDSA provided me a lawyer at no cost to me, and I felt protected by them,” Dr. Sigal said. “They took care of me and made sure I was safe, and I am grateful to them for that.”

Dr. McQuillen said the expenses exceeded what the organization’s umbrella insurance covered. The physicians had invested their time and effort into the guidelines without any financial compensation.

“They’ve basically put a lot of sweat equity into producing guidelines” that follow the organization’s practices and ethics, Dr. McQuillen said. “To leave them out on an island by themselves is just not the right thing to do. We wouldn’t do that for any of our members who did something on behalf of our society.”

IDSA could have chosen to settle the lawsuit, as the insurance companies did.

“None of us on the board felt that was the right thing to do, because we believe in the process, and the science is right, and you shouldn’t be able to try to change that by having a lawsuit that’s baseless,” Dr. McQuillen said.

Several of the doctors named in the suit spoke with this news organization off the record about the exhaustion, frustration, and general suffering the suit has caused them over the past several years, including ongoing harassment that targeted their families and often became quite personal. But none expressed any wish that IDSA had chosen the faster, cheaper, easier route of settling.

“I love the organization for having done this rather than caving and paying,” Dr. Sigal said. “They showed real moral character, real integrity in fighting this suit, because they had done nothing wrong.”

Fighting the suit was about more than standing by the science, though. It’s essential to ensure physicians continue to conduct research and write clinical guidelines, even about ambiguous or controversial topics, said Raymond J. Dattwyler, MD, a professor of microbiology, immunology, and medicine at New York Medical College, Valhalla, who wrote the treatment part of the guidelines and was named in the suit.

“I was really surprised that someone would sue for scientific guidelines, because guidelines are common across medicine, and they’re just a roadmap to help practicing physicians understand how to handle evaluation or treatment of any number of particular problems,” Dr. Dattwyler said in an interview. But he wasn’t surprised that IDSA chose to fight the accusations, “because the principle involved is so compelling. It’s really standing up for all medical societies, and it’s very important to have guidelines. For the health and welfare of the American public, you need to have good information readily available to the practicing physicians.”

If the patient group had won in a settlement, it could potentially have led to less rigorous guidelines from other medical organizations, which would have had an adverse effect on public health, Dr. Dattwyler said. Such a chilling effect could reverberate far beyond the management of Lyme disease.

“One of the problems with our legal system is anybody can sue anybody, but it costs so much to defend yourself,” Dr. Dattwyler said. “This lawsuit costs millions, so that’s chilling. That’s going to inhibit guidelines, and it’s not only guidelines for infectious disease but it’s guidelines for cancer, guidelines for allergic diseases, guidelines for any number of things.”

To an extent, the threats and harassment that patient groups have directed toward different doctors have already had a chilling effect.

“For the people who gave of their time in good faith to generate these guidelines to get harassed everywhere, all the time, sometimes at home, sometimes at their place of work, it’s just unfair,” Dr. McQuillen said. “It also might discourage people from working in research to try to figure out better diagnostics or get a vaccine that actually works. Even if you really find it incredibly interesting, if laying over you is the threat that someone is going to sue you baselessly, and you’re going to have to put the time and effort into defending that, not to mention the money, I can’t see how that would be considered a positive that would encourage you to do it. In some ways, attacking people that are trying to help may drive them away from trying to help.

“At the same time, professional disagreements among practitioners – including a small minority who do treat patients with lengthy courses of antibiotics – can ultimately harm patient care, Dr. Flanigan said.

“There’s a lot of energy being expended fighting among different care providers, and often the individual needs of the patients seem to be not addressed,” Dr. Flanigan said. “The discord between different approaches often seems more important than spending time with the individual patient and trying to find a tailored approach to treatment which can benefit the patient best.”

At the same time, Dr. Sigal said he believes most of the clinicians who use non–evidence-based treatments for their patients do so because they genuinely believe it’s the right thing to do.

“I think they’re motivated by the same concerns that I have, and that is, I need to do what’s best for my patient,” Dr. Sigal said. Ultimately, the evidence should lead the way. “The only arbiter we possibly have in deciding these things is the medical scientific literature,” he added, “and if you can’t subscribe to that, then this way lies madness.”

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

Years ago, when rheumatologist Leonard Sigal, MD, was undertaking research on Lyme disease and treating patients with the condition at the Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, New Brunswick, N.J., a regular stream of abuse and threats became the usual background noise of his work. He didn’t get used to it, but it never stopped.

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

“I was accused of incredibly heinous crimes,” Dr. Sigal said in an interview. “I was accused of lying, cheating, of doing things to make money that were against the public interest and against the interest of patients in general.”

It’s an experience many doctors who treat Lyme disease have endured, so much so that some infectious disease doctors aren’t comfortable treating patients with Lyme disease, according to Timothy Flanigan, MD, a professor of infectious disease at Brown University, Providence, R.I.

But it wasn’t until Dr. Sigal left academia in 2003 that he realized the toll all that background abuse had been taking on him.

“It was a breath of fresh air,” he said. “I didn’t have to go into clinic and argue with people. I didn’t have to read articles in the newspaper that made no sense whatsoever. I didn’t have to hear through second and third parties how such and such was saying horrible things about me. I didn’t have to fight anymore. When I was in industry and working on stuff that had nothing to do with Lyme disease, I realized what a relief it was not to have that burden.”

So the last thing Dr. Sigal expected after all these years was to find himself named in a lawsuit alleging that he was part of a conspiracy to deny patients of what they claimed was appropriate treatment for Lyme disease. Yet, that’s exactly what happened in November 2017, when a group of 24 patients with Lyme disease, led by Texas resident Lisa Torrey, filed a lawsuit against the Infectious Diseases Society of America, eight insurance companies, and 7 of the doctors involved in producing the IDSA guidelines on Lyme disease diagnosis and management. Dr. Sigal himself had not even participated in writing the guidelines. He simply reviewed them, made a few grammatical suggestions, and said they looked good. Over the next 4 years, however, he and his fellow defendants rode an emotional roller coaster of seemingly endless motions, amendments, and other legal developments, waiting to find out whether they would owe millions of dollars for simply summarizing – or just reviewing – the available medical literature on Lyme disease.

“There were times I was on the verge of real anger. I was frustrated. There were times I was frightened, and, occasionally, I would just think of it as being silly. But when I thought of it as being silly, I had to remember I was being sued in Texas, because who knows what’s going to happen,” Dr. Sigal said. “It’s not as though I was being sued in a jurisdiction where anybody knew about Lyme disease. There are examples of physicians who are convicted of doing things they didn’t do because they were sued in the wrong jurisdiction.”

Several individuals who spoke with this news organization on condition of anonymity said that the district court where the suit was filed is notorious for being especially friendly to plaintiffs. But in legal rulings issued on Sept. 1 and Sept. 20, 2021, a federal judge in Texas dismissed all the patient group’s claims. The plaintiffs filed an appeal on Oct. 19. It’s unclear whether that has any reasonable chance of success.

“One of the things this court case does is validate the fact that our [guidelines] process is a legitimate process and there isn’t outside influence from insurance companies or pharma firms,” Daniel McQuillen, MD, president of IDSA, said in an interview. “We don’t really want anything other than to be vindicated, which we were, 100%.”

But that vindication came with a cost, both emotional and financial. Although IDSA’s insurance covered many of its legal costs, “it’s not a trivial expense,” Dr. McQuillen said. “We’re left with a baseless lawsuit with no facts that went on for 4 years, and our [medical] society basically bore all that expense, which isn’t really particularly fair.”
 

‘Preposterous’ accusations

The lawsuit alleged that the IDSA, the seven named physicians, and the insurance companies had “engaged in a decades-long conspiracy to deny the existence and prevent treatment of chronic Lyme disease.” The patient group claimed that the doctors knew that many patients with Lyme disease do not respond to short-term antibiotic treatment and instead need “long-term antibiotic treatment until the symptoms are resolved,” an assertion not supported by the scientific evidence.

What many patients call “chronic Lyme disease” is termed posttreatment Lyme disease syndrome (PTDLS), a constellation of symptoms that include pain, fatigue, and cognitive difficulties that some people experience after a 2- to 4-week course of antibiotics for Lyme disease. It took years of patient advocacy before the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recognized PTLDS as a condition, but awareness of it has been increasing, said Dr. Flanigan, who was not involved in the lawsuit but treats patients with Lyme disease and PTLDS.

“Long haulers and sequelae of COVID have really opened the eyes of many practitioners that these long-term inflammatory conditions are real and very challenging to treat, and we need to work with patients to help them improve their health,” Dr. Flanigan said. “It’s a sad commentary on our society that the difficulty in treating patients with posttreatment Lyme disease syndrome, or what is commonly referred to by patients as chronic Lyme, ends up in a lawsuit in court.” He said he’s glad the lawsuit was dismissed but added that “there’s a crying need for additional high-quality, evidence-based research to help patients who are suffering from posttreatment Lyme disease syndrome.”

Patients fought for broader recognition of their condition, and some of them organized. They came up with their own ideas of what was causing their symptoms to persist. One that especially took hold was that infection from Borrelia burgdorferi, the bacteria that causes Lyme disease, persists after initial antibiotic treatment, causing so-called chronic Lyme disease. The cause of PTLDS is still under investigation, and the evidence does not support the idea of a persistent bacterial infection. Multiple studies from the National Institutes of Health have shown that long-term use of antibiotics does not benefit patients who continue to experience symptoms after initial treatment. Several studies have shown that severe adverse effects can result from extended intravenous antibiotic treatment, including death.

Nevertheless, the plaintiffs in the lawsuit argued that the insurance companies “enlisted the help of doctors who were researching Lyme disease – the IDSA panelists – and paid them large fees to develop arbitrary guidelines for testing Lyme disease,” thereby enabling the insurance companies to deny coverage for long-term antibiotic treatment to patients.

“The assertions were just preposterous,” Dr. McQuillen said.

In addition to the conspiracy charge, the plaintiffs brought additional accusations to the lawsuit over the years, including racketeering and claims that the guidelines contain false representations regarding Lyme disease testing and treatment. The plaintiffs claimed that the guidelines didn’t acknowledge that treatment can fail and included false information about how to test for Lyme disease. In reality, however, the guidelines do acknowledge that not all patients respond to the recommended 2- to 4-week course of antibiotics and that some diagnoses should be made clinically rather than on the basis of testing.

Regardless, guidelines are not stipulations. They’re a summation of the medical and scientific findings on Lyme disease based on careful review of hundreds of studies.

“They make really clear that adherence to the guidelines [is] voluntary. They aren’t a standard of care from which deviation of care is a problem,” Dr. McQuillen said. “You take those guidelines and apply it to the patient in front of you, and you see what fits best for that patient, because not every patient is going to fit into guidelines.”

Further, the authors said that IDSA vets their recommendations for any potential conflicts of interest in accordance with the organization’s guidelines practices.

“The point of the guidelines is to have people on the committee who don’t care what the guidelines are as long as we have good patient care,” Dr. McQuillen said.

Choosing to fight

Malpractice insurance does not cover this kind of lawsuit, because the doctors named in it did not personally treat any of the patients who filed it. Thus, the doctors were at risk of losing thousands, or millions, of dollars in legal fees, even if they ultimately prevail. Several of the physicians’ academic and health care institutions stepped in to cover some fees, and IDSA covered the rest in a joint defense.

“The IDSA provided me a lawyer at no cost to me, and I felt protected by them,” Dr. Sigal said. “They took care of me and made sure I was safe, and I am grateful to them for that.”

Dr. McQuillen said the expenses exceeded what the organization’s umbrella insurance covered. The physicians had invested their time and effort into the guidelines without any financial compensation.

“They’ve basically put a lot of sweat equity into producing guidelines” that follow the organization’s practices and ethics, Dr. McQuillen said. “To leave them out on an island by themselves is just not the right thing to do. We wouldn’t do that for any of our members who did something on behalf of our society.”

IDSA could have chosen to settle the lawsuit, as the insurance companies did.

“None of us on the board felt that was the right thing to do, because we believe in the process, and the science is right, and you shouldn’t be able to try to change that by having a lawsuit that’s baseless,” Dr. McQuillen said.

Several of the doctors named in the suit spoke with this news organization off the record about the exhaustion, frustration, and general suffering the suit has caused them over the past several years, including ongoing harassment that targeted their families and often became quite personal. But none expressed any wish that IDSA had chosen the faster, cheaper, easier route of settling.

“I love the organization for having done this rather than caving and paying,” Dr. Sigal said. “They showed real moral character, real integrity in fighting this suit, because they had done nothing wrong.”

Fighting the suit was about more than standing by the science, though. It’s essential to ensure physicians continue to conduct research and write clinical guidelines, even about ambiguous or controversial topics, said Raymond J. Dattwyler, MD, a professor of microbiology, immunology, and medicine at New York Medical College, Valhalla, who wrote the treatment part of the guidelines and was named in the suit.

“I was really surprised that someone would sue for scientific guidelines, because guidelines are common across medicine, and they’re just a roadmap to help practicing physicians understand how to handle evaluation or treatment of any number of particular problems,” Dr. Dattwyler said in an interview. But he wasn’t surprised that IDSA chose to fight the accusations, “because the principle involved is so compelling. It’s really standing up for all medical societies, and it’s very important to have guidelines. For the health and welfare of the American public, you need to have good information readily available to the practicing physicians.”

If the patient group had won in a settlement, it could potentially have led to less rigorous guidelines from other medical organizations, which would have had an adverse effect on public health, Dr. Dattwyler said. Such a chilling effect could reverberate far beyond the management of Lyme disease.

“One of the problems with our legal system is anybody can sue anybody, but it costs so much to defend yourself,” Dr. Dattwyler said. “This lawsuit costs millions, so that’s chilling. That’s going to inhibit guidelines, and it’s not only guidelines for infectious disease but it’s guidelines for cancer, guidelines for allergic diseases, guidelines for any number of things.”

To an extent, the threats and harassment that patient groups have directed toward different doctors have already had a chilling effect.

“For the people who gave of their time in good faith to generate these guidelines to get harassed everywhere, all the time, sometimes at home, sometimes at their place of work, it’s just unfair,” Dr. McQuillen said. “It also might discourage people from working in research to try to figure out better diagnostics or get a vaccine that actually works. Even if you really find it incredibly interesting, if laying over you is the threat that someone is going to sue you baselessly, and you’re going to have to put the time and effort into defending that, not to mention the money, I can’t see how that would be considered a positive that would encourage you to do it. In some ways, attacking people that are trying to help may drive them away from trying to help.

“At the same time, professional disagreements among practitioners – including a small minority who do treat patients with lengthy courses of antibiotics – can ultimately harm patient care, Dr. Flanigan said.

“There’s a lot of energy being expended fighting among different care providers, and often the individual needs of the patients seem to be not addressed,” Dr. Flanigan said. “The discord between different approaches often seems more important than spending time with the individual patient and trying to find a tailored approach to treatment which can benefit the patient best.”

At the same time, Dr. Sigal said he believes most of the clinicians who use non–evidence-based treatments for their patients do so because they genuinely believe it’s the right thing to do.

“I think they’re motivated by the same concerns that I have, and that is, I need to do what’s best for my patient,” Dr. Sigal said. Ultimately, the evidence should lead the way. “The only arbiter we possibly have in deciding these things is the medical scientific literature,” he added, “and if you can’t subscribe to that, then this way lies madness.”

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

A new study from Africa shows a remarkable 70% reduction in malaria if two treatments — a vaccine and an antimalarial medication — are combined instead of giving them individually.

Malaria is endemic in the tropics. The World Health Organization (WHO) reports that in 2019, there were 229 million cases and 409,000 deaths from this parasitic infection. Most of the burden (94%) occurs in Africa, and children younger than age 5 account for 67% of the deaths.

In the Sahel region of Africa, a broad, sub-Saharan band that stretches across the continent, high malaria transmission is seasonal. Children in some countries there are treated with monthly courses of sulfadoxine-pyrimethamine and amodiaquine chemoprophylaxis during the four higher-risk months. Such seasonal malaria chemoprophylaxis (SMC) has been shown to reduce infections by up to 88% and costs an average of $3.43 per child per year.

This double-blind, randomized controlled trial enrolled young children (5-17 months old) in Burkina Faso and Mali, where SMC is the current treatment regimen. Nearly 6,000 children received either chemoprophylaxis, the RTS,S/AS01E malaria vaccine (RTS,S), or both treatments. The study, led by investigators at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine (LSHTM), was reported in the New England Journal of Medicine.

Co-lead investigator Daniel Chandramohan, MBBS, PhD, MSc, professor of public health at LSHTM, said in an interview that SMC administration is quite labor-intensive and that “we thought we can replace these four cycles of seasonal cure prevention with one seasonal vaccination like the flu vaccine ... and that there might be some additive benefit.”

Instead, the study found the combination reduces the incidence of malaria by 62% against clinical malaria infection, 70% against severe malaria, and 73% against death from malaria compared with SMC alone. “Not in our wildest dreams would I have hypothesized that this is a possibility,” Dr. Chandramohan said. He continued that this was unlikely a “freak result” because the findings are “consistent between both countries. Two, it is consistent across the years. Three, all the malaria outcomes ... are consistently showing the protective effect at the same level.”

To maintain the blinded study design, children received injections of rabies vaccine and hepatitis A vaccine instead of a placebo for RTS,S. Both were chosen to provide additional benefits by protecting children against those infections.

With so many children followed over years, accuracy in providing the correct treatment for each study arm can be difficult. Each child was given a QR code and picture identification to facilitate drug distribution each year in this study.

Miriam K. Laufer, MD, professor and associate director for malaria research at the University of Maryland, Baltimore, who was not involved in the study, said in an interview, “This is a spectacular result, you know, decreasing disease by 60%-70% using interventions that we already have.”

RTS,S is not a new vaccine; it was developed in 2001 by GlaxoSmithKline with Path’s Malaria Vaccine Initiative, then manufactured by GSK. The Gates Foundation has supported production. Dr. Chandramohan said GSK has transferred the technology to Bharat, in India, and that it will take 2-3 years to ramp up production. Until then, enough vaccine is available to supply Kenya, Malawi, and Ghana, where the pilot studies are being done.

Dr. Laufer stressed that the “group that got RTS,S did as well as the group that received SMC.” She noted that the use of SMC is limited to specific areas of the Sahel sub-region of Africa, with a brief transmission period. In other areas of Africa where malaria has a longer transmission period, SMC isn’t as effective. “RTS,S vaccine could really have an impact” there, she added.

Asked if RTS,S might be substituted for SMC to reduce the likelihood of resistance emerging, Dr. Laufer said, “Giving RTS,S vaccine is as good as using repeated treatment of malaria drugs during the malaria season. And that’s important for two reasons. One is that the advantage of a vaccine is that you’re not producing pressure of drugs that would enable drug resistance to emerge and spread. So maybe your vaccine efficacy could last longer than drug efficacy. We don’t know the answer to that.”

Hypothesizing about the unexpectedly good trial results, Dr. Laufer explained, “We know that RTS,S decreases the number of parasites that make it into the blood when a child is bitten by an infected mosquito. When drugs like sulfadoxine-pyrimethamine and amodiaquine that have moderate efficacy only have to kill off a small number of parasites, they can work better. Maybe that explains why the combination of RTS,S and SMC created such a positive outcome.”

Dr. Laufer echoed Chandramohan, saying, “Results were much more dramatic than anybody – certainly than I anticipated.” Both physicians anticipate that WHO will give full approval for this combination this fall.

Dr. Chandramohan and Dr. Laufer have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

A new study from Africa shows a remarkable 70% reduction in malaria if two treatments — a vaccine and an antimalarial medication — are combined instead of giving them individually.

Malaria is endemic in the tropics. The World Health Organization (WHO) reports that in 2019, there were 229 million cases and 409,000 deaths from this parasitic infection. Most of the burden (94%) occurs in Africa, and children younger than age 5 account for 67% of the deaths.

In the Sahel region of Africa, a broad, sub-Saharan band that stretches across the continent, high malaria transmission is seasonal. Children in some countries there are treated with monthly courses of sulfadoxine-pyrimethamine and amodiaquine chemoprophylaxis during the four higher-risk months. Such seasonal malaria chemoprophylaxis (SMC) has been shown to reduce infections by up to 88% and costs an average of $3.43 per child per year.

This double-blind, randomized controlled trial enrolled young children (5-17 months old) in Burkina Faso and Mali, where SMC is the current treatment regimen. Nearly 6,000 children received either chemoprophylaxis, the RTS,S/AS01E malaria vaccine (RTS,S), or both treatments. The study, led by investigators at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine (LSHTM), was reported in the New England Journal of Medicine.

Co-lead investigator Daniel Chandramohan, MBBS, PhD, MSc, professor of public health at LSHTM, said in an interview that SMC administration is quite labor-intensive and that “we thought we can replace these four cycles of seasonal cure prevention with one seasonal vaccination like the flu vaccine ... and that there might be some additive benefit.”

Instead, the study found the combination reduces the incidence of malaria by 62% against clinical malaria infection, 70% against severe malaria, and 73% against death from malaria compared with SMC alone. “Not in our wildest dreams would I have hypothesized that this is a possibility,” Dr. Chandramohan said. He continued that this was unlikely a “freak result” because the findings are “consistent between both countries. Two, it is consistent across the years. Three, all the malaria outcomes ... are consistently showing the protective effect at the same level.”

To maintain the blinded study design, children received injections of rabies vaccine and hepatitis A vaccine instead of a placebo for RTS,S. Both were chosen to provide additional benefits by protecting children against those infections.

With so many children followed over years, accuracy in providing the correct treatment for each study arm can be difficult. Each child was given a QR code and picture identification to facilitate drug distribution each year in this study.

Miriam K. Laufer, MD, professor and associate director for malaria research at the University of Maryland, Baltimore, who was not involved in the study, said in an interview, “This is a spectacular result, you know, decreasing disease by 60%-70% using interventions that we already have.”

RTS,S is not a new vaccine; it was developed in 2001 by GlaxoSmithKline with Path’s Malaria Vaccine Initiative, then manufactured by GSK. The Gates Foundation has supported production. Dr. Chandramohan said GSK has transferred the technology to Bharat, in India, and that it will take 2-3 years to ramp up production. Until then, enough vaccine is available to supply Kenya, Malawi, and Ghana, where the pilot studies are being done.

Dr. Laufer stressed that the “group that got RTS,S did as well as the group that received SMC.” She noted that the use of SMC is limited to specific areas of the Sahel sub-region of Africa, with a brief transmission period. In other areas of Africa where malaria has a longer transmission period, SMC isn’t as effective. “RTS,S vaccine could really have an impact” there, she added.

Asked if RTS,S might be substituted for SMC to reduce the likelihood of resistance emerging, Dr. Laufer said, “Giving RTS,S vaccine is as good as using repeated treatment of malaria drugs during the malaria season. And that’s important for two reasons. One is that the advantage of a vaccine is that you’re not producing pressure of drugs that would enable drug resistance to emerge and spread. So maybe your vaccine efficacy could last longer than drug efficacy. We don’t know the answer to that.”

Hypothesizing about the unexpectedly good trial results, Dr. Laufer explained, “We know that RTS,S decreases the number of parasites that make it into the blood when a child is bitten by an infected mosquito. When drugs like sulfadoxine-pyrimethamine and amodiaquine that have moderate efficacy only have to kill off a small number of parasites, they can work better. Maybe that explains why the combination of RTS,S and SMC created such a positive outcome.”

Dr. Laufer echoed Chandramohan, saying, “Results were much more dramatic than anybody – certainly than I anticipated.” Both physicians anticipate that WHO will give full approval for this combination this fall.

Dr. Chandramohan and Dr. Laufer have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

A new study from Africa shows a remarkable 70% reduction in malaria if two treatments — a vaccine and an antimalarial medication — are combined instead of giving them individually.

Malaria is endemic in the tropics. The World Health Organization (WHO) reports that in 2019, there were 229 million cases and 409,000 deaths from this parasitic infection. Most of the burden (94%) occurs in Africa, and children younger than age 5 account for 67% of the deaths.

In the Sahel region of Africa, a broad, sub-Saharan band that stretches across the continent, high malaria transmission is seasonal. Children in some countries there are treated with monthly courses of sulfadoxine-pyrimethamine and amodiaquine chemoprophylaxis during the four higher-risk months. Such seasonal malaria chemoprophylaxis (SMC) has been shown to reduce infections by up to 88% and costs an average of $3.43 per child per year.

This double-blind, randomized controlled trial enrolled young children (5-17 months old) in Burkina Faso and Mali, where SMC is the current treatment regimen. Nearly 6,000 children received either chemoprophylaxis, the RTS,S/AS01E malaria vaccine (RTS,S), or both treatments. The study, led by investigators at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine (LSHTM), was reported in the New England Journal of Medicine.

Co-lead investigator Daniel Chandramohan, MBBS, PhD, MSc, professor of public health at LSHTM, said in an interview that SMC administration is quite labor-intensive and that “we thought we can replace these four cycles of seasonal cure prevention with one seasonal vaccination like the flu vaccine ... and that there might be some additive benefit.”

Instead, the study found the combination reduces the incidence of malaria by 62% against clinical malaria infection, 70% against severe malaria, and 73% against death from malaria compared with SMC alone. “Not in our wildest dreams would I have hypothesized that this is a possibility,” Dr. Chandramohan said. He continued that this was unlikely a “freak result” because the findings are “consistent between both countries. Two, it is consistent across the years. Three, all the malaria outcomes ... are consistently showing the protective effect at the same level.”

To maintain the blinded study design, children received injections of rabies vaccine and hepatitis A vaccine instead of a placebo for RTS,S. Both were chosen to provide additional benefits by protecting children against those infections.

With so many children followed over years, accuracy in providing the correct treatment for each study arm can be difficult. Each child was given a QR code and picture identification to facilitate drug distribution each year in this study.

Miriam K. Laufer, MD, professor and associate director for malaria research at the University of Maryland, Baltimore, who was not involved in the study, said in an interview, “This is a spectacular result, you know, decreasing disease by 60%-70% using interventions that we already have.”

RTS,S is not a new vaccine; it was developed in 2001 by GlaxoSmithKline with Path’s Malaria Vaccine Initiative, then manufactured by GSK. The Gates Foundation has supported production. Dr. Chandramohan said GSK has transferred the technology to Bharat, in India, and that it will take 2-3 years to ramp up production. Until then, enough vaccine is available to supply Kenya, Malawi, and Ghana, where the pilot studies are being done.

Dr. Laufer stressed that the “group that got RTS,S did as well as the group that received SMC.” She noted that the use of SMC is limited to specific areas of the Sahel sub-region of Africa, with a brief transmission period. In other areas of Africa where malaria has a longer transmission period, SMC isn’t as effective. “RTS,S vaccine could really have an impact” there, she added.

Asked if RTS,S might be substituted for SMC to reduce the likelihood of resistance emerging, Dr. Laufer said, “Giving RTS,S vaccine is as good as using repeated treatment of malaria drugs during the malaria season. And that’s important for two reasons. One is that the advantage of a vaccine is that you’re not producing pressure of drugs that would enable drug resistance to emerge and spread. So maybe your vaccine efficacy could last longer than drug efficacy. We don’t know the answer to that.”

Hypothesizing about the unexpectedly good trial results, Dr. Laufer explained, “We know that RTS,S decreases the number of parasites that make it into the blood when a child is bitten by an infected mosquito. When drugs like sulfadoxine-pyrimethamine and amodiaquine that have moderate efficacy only have to kill off a small number of parasites, they can work better. Maybe that explains why the combination of RTS,S and SMC created such a positive outcome.”

Dr. Laufer echoed Chandramohan, saying, “Results were much more dramatic than anybody – certainly than I anticipated.” Both physicians anticipate that WHO will give full approval for this combination this fall.

Dr. Chandramohan and Dr. Laufer have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

In its final report on the E-2020 initiative, the World Health Organization touted its progress on its goal of eliminating malaria throughout the world. But critics are charging that progress has stalled.

The E-2020 initiative supported the efforts of 21 countries in eliminating malaria. In a remarkable achievement, especially during the COVID-19 pandemic, eight E-2020 member countries reported zero cases of malaria in 2020. The WHO’s next target is the elimination of malaria in 20 of those countries by 2025.

While applauding these successes, in an interview with this news organization, Sir Nicholas J. White, FRS, professor of tropical medicine, Mahidol University, Salaya, Thailand, and Oxford (England) University, also put those successes in perspective. For one thing, the original 2020 goal was the elimination of malaria in 10 countries. Prof. White acknowledged that there had been very “substantial reductions in global morbidity and mortality” from 2000 to 2015, but he pointed out that those advances have not been sustained.

Prof. White added, “There has never been a really good, detailed inquiry as to why progress has stalled” in the high-burden countries.

Prof. White also provided important historical context, explaining that “100 years ago, malaria was pretty much a global disease. There were few places in the world which did not have malaria. You had malaria up to the Arctic Circle. You had malaria in the United States, particularly in the Tennessee Valley in the southeastern part of the United States. The Centers for Disease Control was formed specifically to counter malaria and malaria interfering with the building of the Erie and Ottawa canals.”

Kim Lindblade, PhD, malaria elimination team lead of the WHO’s Global Malaria Program, addressed those concerns with this news organization. “It’s not completely clear why [progress] has stalled,” she said. “There are lots of potential reasons for it, including stagnating funding.”

Dr. Lindblade added that high-burden countries are “facing big challenges. [Since 2015] there’s this stagnation. We’re fighting against population growth, and countries need to get back on track to continue to decrease their malaria burden. So that’s the big focus right now, to reorganize efforts to help countries achieve the goals of the World Health Assembly.”

Asked how these countries might approach the problem differently, Dr. Lindblade said that in the recent past, there was “almost a one-size-fits-all strategy. Now we’re looking much more carefully at conditions at the district level or provincial level and saying, What is it that this particular district or province needs? … It’s becoming much more tailored to the environment and to the specific epidemiological situation. … and I think that’s gotten a lot of people very excited.”

Because of travel restrictions and lockdowns because of COVID-19, the number of imported cases of malaria has declined. That’s the good news. But the pandemic has made elimination more difficult in other ways. For example, the delivery of insecticide-treated bed nets has been delayed in some areas, as has targeted indoor spraying. People in many areas have put off seeking medical care. Diagnostic capabilities have been reduced because of health care personnel having been diverted to address the COVID-19 crisis.

Still, some of the successes in eliminating malaria have been striking. Iran, for example, reduced its cases from about 98,000 in 1991 to 12,000 just 10 years later. Since then, Iran has established rapid response teams equipped with insecticide-impregnated nets, rapid diagnostic tests, and antimalarials. A network of more than 3,700 community health volunteers has been trained and deployed throughout the country.

A key element of Iran’s success – and that of some of the other countries – is the political will to tackle malaria. This translates to funding. Notably, the most successful countries provide free primary health care to everyone, regardless of their legal or residency status. Volunteer migrant workers are trained to diagnose malaria and to educate fellow migrants about the disease and prevention strategies.

Malaysia and China are examples of two countries at risk of importing malaria through their many people who work abroad in malaria-endemic regions. They have had to increase their surveillance.

Although Malaysia has eliminated most malaria species – those transmitted through people – they still have problems with the malaria parasite hosted by monkeys.

The WHO report stresses the lessons learned through their E-2020 program. Two key criteria are political commitment and associated funding. Next are surveillance and efforts to reach everyone, even in geographically remote or marginalized communities. Close surveillance also enables strategies to be modified to local needs.

Countries need to cooperate, especially along border areas and in regard to communications. The WHO stressed the need for countries to have an integrated response in their approach to malaria, including accurate surveillance, diagnostic testing, treatment, and robust education in preventive measures.

Although these successes were not as evident in some high-burden countries, Prof. White applauded their perseverance, noting, “It’s quite difficult to sustain the political momentum. … That endgame to keep the motivation, keep the support, to getting rid of something is hard.”

Prof. White and Dr. Lindberg have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

In its final report on the E-2020 initiative, the World Health Organization touted its progress on its goal of eliminating malaria throughout the world. But critics are charging that progress has stalled.

The E-2020 initiative supported the efforts of 21 countries in eliminating malaria. In a remarkable achievement, especially during the COVID-19 pandemic, eight E-2020 member countries reported zero cases of malaria in 2020. The WHO’s next target is the elimination of malaria in 20 of those countries by 2025.

While applauding these successes, in an interview with this news organization, Sir Nicholas J. White, FRS, professor of tropical medicine, Mahidol University, Salaya, Thailand, and Oxford (England) University, also put those successes in perspective. For one thing, the original 2020 goal was the elimination of malaria in 10 countries. Prof. White acknowledged that there had been very “substantial reductions in global morbidity and mortality” from 2000 to 2015, but he pointed out that those advances have not been sustained.

Prof. White added, “There has never been a really good, detailed inquiry as to why progress has stalled” in the high-burden countries.

Prof. White also provided important historical context, explaining that “100 years ago, malaria was pretty much a global disease. There were few places in the world which did not have malaria. You had malaria up to the Arctic Circle. You had malaria in the United States, particularly in the Tennessee Valley in the southeastern part of the United States. The Centers for Disease Control was formed specifically to counter malaria and malaria interfering with the building of the Erie and Ottawa canals.”

Kim Lindblade, PhD, malaria elimination team lead of the WHO’s Global Malaria Program, addressed those concerns with this news organization. “It’s not completely clear why [progress] has stalled,” she said. “There are lots of potential reasons for it, including stagnating funding.”

Dr. Lindblade added that high-burden countries are “facing big challenges. [Since 2015] there’s this stagnation. We’re fighting against population growth, and countries need to get back on track to continue to decrease their malaria burden. So that’s the big focus right now, to reorganize efforts to help countries achieve the goals of the World Health Assembly.”

Asked how these countries might approach the problem differently, Dr. Lindblade said that in the recent past, there was “almost a one-size-fits-all strategy. Now we’re looking much more carefully at conditions at the district level or provincial level and saying, What is it that this particular district or province needs? … It’s becoming much more tailored to the environment and to the specific epidemiological situation. … and I think that’s gotten a lot of people very excited.”

Because of travel restrictions and lockdowns because of COVID-19, the number of imported cases of malaria has declined. That’s the good news. But the pandemic has made elimination more difficult in other ways. For example, the delivery of insecticide-treated bed nets has been delayed in some areas, as has targeted indoor spraying. People in many areas have put off seeking medical care. Diagnostic capabilities have been reduced because of health care personnel having been diverted to address the COVID-19 crisis.

Still, some of the successes in eliminating malaria have been striking. Iran, for example, reduced its cases from about 98,000 in 1991 to 12,000 just 10 years later. Since then, Iran has established rapid response teams equipped with insecticide-impregnated nets, rapid diagnostic tests, and antimalarials. A network of more than 3,700 community health volunteers has been trained and deployed throughout the country.

A key element of Iran’s success – and that of some of the other countries – is the political will to tackle malaria. This translates to funding. Notably, the most successful countries provide free primary health care to everyone, regardless of their legal or residency status. Volunteer migrant workers are trained to diagnose malaria and to educate fellow migrants about the disease and prevention strategies.

Malaysia and China are examples of two countries at risk of importing malaria through their many people who work abroad in malaria-endemic regions. They have had to increase their surveillance.

Although Malaysia has eliminated most malaria species – those transmitted through people – they still have problems with the malaria parasite hosted by monkeys.

The WHO report stresses the lessons learned through their E-2020 program. Two key criteria are political commitment and associated funding. Next are surveillance and efforts to reach everyone, even in geographically remote or marginalized communities. Close surveillance also enables strategies to be modified to local needs.

Countries need to cooperate, especially along border areas and in regard to communications. The WHO stressed the need for countries to have an integrated response in their approach to malaria, including accurate surveillance, diagnostic testing, treatment, and robust education in preventive measures.

Although these successes were not as evident in some high-burden countries, Prof. White applauded their perseverance, noting, “It’s quite difficult to sustain the political momentum. … That endgame to keep the motivation, keep the support, to getting rid of something is hard.”

Prof. White and Dr. Lindberg have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

In its final report on the E-2020 initiative, the World Health Organization touted its progress on its goal of eliminating malaria throughout the world. But critics are charging that progress has stalled.

The E-2020 initiative supported the efforts of 21 countries in eliminating malaria. In a remarkable achievement, especially during the COVID-19 pandemic, eight E-2020 member countries reported zero cases of malaria in 2020. The WHO’s next target is the elimination of malaria in 20 of those countries by 2025.

While applauding these successes, in an interview with this news organization, Sir Nicholas J. White, FRS, professor of tropical medicine, Mahidol University, Salaya, Thailand, and Oxford (England) University, also put those successes in perspective. For one thing, the original 2020 goal was the elimination of malaria in 10 countries. Prof. White acknowledged that there had been very “substantial reductions in global morbidity and mortality” from 2000 to 2015, but he pointed out that those advances have not been sustained.

Prof. White added, “There has never been a really good, detailed inquiry as to why progress has stalled” in the high-burden countries.

Prof. White also provided important historical context, explaining that “100 years ago, malaria was pretty much a global disease. There were few places in the world which did not have malaria. You had malaria up to the Arctic Circle. You had malaria in the United States, particularly in the Tennessee Valley in the southeastern part of the United States. The Centers for Disease Control was formed specifically to counter malaria and malaria interfering with the building of the Erie and Ottawa canals.”

Kim Lindblade, PhD, malaria elimination team lead of the WHO’s Global Malaria Program, addressed those concerns with this news organization. “It’s not completely clear why [progress] has stalled,” she said. “There are lots of potential reasons for it, including stagnating funding.”

Dr. Lindblade added that high-burden countries are “facing big challenges. [Since 2015] there’s this stagnation. We’re fighting against population growth, and countries need to get back on track to continue to decrease their malaria burden. So that’s the big focus right now, to reorganize efforts to help countries achieve the goals of the World Health Assembly.”

Asked how these countries might approach the problem differently, Dr. Lindblade said that in the recent past, there was “almost a one-size-fits-all strategy. Now we’re looking much more carefully at conditions at the district level or provincial level and saying, What is it that this particular district or province needs? … It’s becoming much more tailored to the environment and to the specific epidemiological situation. … and I think that’s gotten a lot of people very excited.”

Because of travel restrictions and lockdowns because of COVID-19, the number of imported cases of malaria has declined. That’s the good news. But the pandemic has made elimination more difficult in other ways. For example, the delivery of insecticide-treated bed nets has been delayed in some areas, as has targeted indoor spraying. People in many areas have put off seeking medical care. Diagnostic capabilities have been reduced because of health care personnel having been diverted to address the COVID-19 crisis.

Still, some of the successes in eliminating malaria have been striking. Iran, for example, reduced its cases from about 98,000 in 1991 to 12,000 just 10 years later. Since then, Iran has established rapid response teams equipped with insecticide-impregnated nets, rapid diagnostic tests, and antimalarials. A network of more than 3,700 community health volunteers has been trained and deployed throughout the country.

A key element of Iran’s success – and that of some of the other countries – is the political will to tackle malaria. This translates to funding. Notably, the most successful countries provide free primary health care to everyone, regardless of their legal or residency status. Volunteer migrant workers are trained to diagnose malaria and to educate fellow migrants about the disease and prevention strategies.

Malaysia and China are examples of two countries at risk of importing malaria through their many people who work abroad in malaria-endemic regions. They have had to increase their surveillance.

Although Malaysia has eliminated most malaria species – those transmitted through people – they still have problems with the malaria parasite hosted by monkeys.

The WHO report stresses the lessons learned through their E-2020 program. Two key criteria are political commitment and associated funding. Next are surveillance and efforts to reach everyone, even in geographically remote or marginalized communities. Close surveillance also enables strategies to be modified to local needs.

Countries need to cooperate, especially along border areas and in regard to communications. The WHO stressed the need for countries to have an integrated response in their approach to malaria, including accurate surveillance, diagnostic testing, treatment, and robust education in preventive measures.

Although these successes were not as evident in some high-burden countries, Prof. White applauded their perseverance, noting, “It’s quite difficult to sustain the political momentum. … That endgame to keep the motivation, keep the support, to getting rid of something is hard.”

Prof. White and Dr. Lindberg have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

An investigational polymerase chain reaction (PCR) test that detects the presence of a viral gene in Lyme disease–causing bacteria can distinguish between early and late infection, according to the results of a study that the authors described as “systematic and comprehensive.”

“The current way of diagnosing Lyme disease is struggling to reflect the ‘true’ incidence of Lyme disease,” study investigator Jinyu Shan, PhD, said in an interview. Although there are tests for Lyme disease approved by the Food and Drug Administration, they are based on the development of antibodies in the blood, and the problem is that antibodies might not develop until several weeks after an infection.

Diagnosis therefore still relies heavily on the clinician’s experience. There are often telltale signs – such as a “bullseye” skin rash or having been to an area known to be infested with ticks that carry Lyme disease – but this might not always be the case.

For the new test, “we’re not targeting bacteria. We’re targeting bacteriophages,” said Dr. Shan, a research fellow in the department of genetics and genome biology at the University of Leicester (England).

Fortunately, there’s high correlation between the presence of the terL gene and the presence of Borrelia burgdorferi, the spirochete that causes Lyme disease. “If you find the bacteriophages, the bacteria are there,” said Dr. Shan.

“Importantly, there are 10 times more bacteriophages, compared with the bacteria, so you have a lot more targets,” he added.

In an evaluation of a total of 312 samples (156 whole blood and 156 serum samples), significantly fewer copies of the terL gene were found in samples from people with early Lyme disease than in those with late Lyme disease, whereas the fewest copies of terL were seen in healthy volunteers.

Most pathogenic bacteria carry viral DNA either as multiple complete or partial prophages, Dr. Shan explained. Knowing the prophage sequences means that quantitative PCR primers and probes can be designed and used to detect the presence of the associated bacteria.

Although the novel test still needs evaluation in a clinical trial, it could represent a “step-change” in the detection of Lyme disease, Dr. Shan and associates suggested in their report published in Frontiers in Microbiology.

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

Early treatment is key to the prevention of longer-term consequences of Lyme disease. Clinicians familiar with the treatment of Lyme disease might choose to initiate antibiotic treatment without a positive lab test. However, the lack of a test that can pick out people with Lyme disease in the first few weeks of infection means that many people are not diagnosed or treated early enough.

The new phage-based PCR test Dr. Shan and associates have developed could change all that. With only 0.3 mL of blood being needed, it can potentially be developed as a simple point-of-care test, but that’s a long way off.

At this stage, the research is very much a “proof of concept,” Dr. Shan said. One of the things he plans to try to work out next is whether the test can distinguish between active and dormant disease, which is a “big question” in the diagnosis of Lyme disease.

“Bacteriophages can only be sustained by actively growing bacteria,” explained Dr. Shan, so there is a chance that if they are present in a substantive amount the disease is active, and if they are not – or are in very low numbers – then the disease is dormant. The cutoff value, however, “is not trivial to establish, but we are working toward it,” added Dr. Shan.

Over the past 2 years, Dr. Shan and associates have been working with the Belgian-based diagnostics company, R.E.D Laboratories, to see how the test will fare in a real-world environment. This relationship is providing useful information to add to their bid to perform a clinical trial for which they are now seeking additional sponsorship.

“The lack of an early and effective diagnosis of Lyme disease remains a major cause of misdiagnosis and long-term patient suffering,” commented Rosie Milsom, charity manager for Caudwell LymeCo Charity in the United Kingdom.

It could be a game changer if the test passes the necessary clinical trial testing and validation stages, noted Ms. Milsom, who was not involved in the research.

“Not only would the test help to establish the level or length of infection,” she said, “but it could also act as a way to test after treatment to see if the infection levels are decreasing.” If levels are still high, “you would know more treatment is needed.

The research is being funded by the charity Phelix Research and Development with support from the University of Leicester and the Dutch-based Lyme Fund, Lymefonds. Dr. Shan is named as coinventor of the phage-targeting PCR test, alongside Martha R.J. Clokie, professor of microbiology at the University of Leicester and the senior author of the study. Dr. Shan is chief scientific officer for Phelix Research and Development. Ms. Clokie and other coauthors hold key positions within the medical research charity.

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

An investigational polymerase chain reaction (PCR) test that detects the presence of a viral gene in Lyme disease–causing bacteria can distinguish between early and late infection, according to the results of a study that the authors described as “systematic and comprehensive.”

“The current way of diagnosing Lyme disease is struggling to reflect the ‘true’ incidence of Lyme disease,” study investigator Jinyu Shan, PhD, said in an interview. Although there are tests for Lyme disease approved by the Food and Drug Administration, they are based on the development of antibodies in the blood, and the problem is that antibodies might not develop until several weeks after an infection.

Diagnosis therefore still relies heavily on the clinician’s experience. There are often telltale signs – such as a “bullseye” skin rash or having been to an area known to be infested with ticks that carry Lyme disease – but this might not always be the case.

For the new test, “we’re not targeting bacteria. We’re targeting bacteriophages,” said Dr. Shan, a research fellow in the department of genetics and genome biology at the University of Leicester (England).

Fortunately, there’s high correlation between the presence of the terL gene and the presence of Borrelia burgdorferi, the spirochete that causes Lyme disease. “If you find the bacteriophages, the bacteria are there,” said Dr. Shan.

“Importantly, there are 10 times more bacteriophages, compared with the bacteria, so you have a lot more targets,” he added.

In an evaluation of a total of 312 samples (156 whole blood and 156 serum samples), significantly fewer copies of the terL gene were found in samples from people with early Lyme disease than in those with late Lyme disease, whereas the fewest copies of terL were seen in healthy volunteers.

Most pathogenic bacteria carry viral DNA either as multiple complete or partial prophages, Dr. Shan explained. Knowing the prophage sequences means that quantitative PCR primers and probes can be designed and used to detect the presence of the associated bacteria.

Although the novel test still needs evaluation in a clinical trial, it could represent a “step-change” in the detection of Lyme disease, Dr. Shan and associates suggested in their report published in Frontiers in Microbiology.

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

Early treatment is key to the prevention of longer-term consequences of Lyme disease. Clinicians familiar with the treatment of Lyme disease might choose to initiate antibiotic treatment without a positive lab test. However, the lack of a test that can pick out people with Lyme disease in the first few weeks of infection means that many people are not diagnosed or treated early enough.

The new phage-based PCR test Dr. Shan and associates have developed could change all that. With only 0.3 mL of blood being needed, it can potentially be developed as a simple point-of-care test, but that’s a long way off.

At this stage, the research is very much a “proof of concept,” Dr. Shan said. One of the things he plans to try to work out next is whether the test can distinguish between active and dormant disease, which is a “big question” in the diagnosis of Lyme disease.

“Bacteriophages can only be sustained by actively growing bacteria,” explained Dr. Shan, so there is a chance that if they are present in a substantive amount the disease is active, and if they are not – or are in very low numbers – then the disease is dormant. The cutoff value, however, “is not trivial to establish, but we are working toward it,” added Dr. Shan.

Over the past 2 years, Dr. Shan and associates have been working with the Belgian-based diagnostics company, R.E.D Laboratories, to see how the test will fare in a real-world environment. This relationship is providing useful information to add to their bid to perform a clinical trial for which they are now seeking additional sponsorship.

“The lack of an early and effective diagnosis of Lyme disease remains a major cause of misdiagnosis and long-term patient suffering,” commented Rosie Milsom, charity manager for Caudwell LymeCo Charity in the United Kingdom.

It could be a game changer if the test passes the necessary clinical trial testing and validation stages, noted Ms. Milsom, who was not involved in the research.

“Not only would the test help to establish the level or length of infection,” she said, “but it could also act as a way to test after treatment to see if the infection levels are decreasing.” If levels are still high, “you would know more treatment is needed.

The research is being funded by the charity Phelix Research and Development with support from the University of Leicester and the Dutch-based Lyme Fund, Lymefonds. Dr. Shan is named as coinventor of the phage-targeting PCR test, alongside Martha R.J. Clokie, professor of microbiology at the University of Leicester and the senior author of the study. Dr. Shan is chief scientific officer for Phelix Research and Development. Ms. Clokie and other coauthors hold key positions within the medical research charity.

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

An investigational polymerase chain reaction (PCR) test that detects the presence of a viral gene in Lyme disease–causing bacteria can distinguish between early and late infection, according to the results of a study that the authors described as “systematic and comprehensive.”

“The current way of diagnosing Lyme disease is struggling to reflect the ‘true’ incidence of Lyme disease,” study investigator Jinyu Shan, PhD, said in an interview. Although there are tests for Lyme disease approved by the Food and Drug Administration, they are based on the development of antibodies in the blood, and the problem is that antibodies might not develop until several weeks after an infection.

Diagnosis therefore still relies heavily on the clinician’s experience. There are often telltale signs – such as a “bullseye” skin rash or having been to an area known to be infested with ticks that carry Lyme disease – but this might not always be the case.

For the new test, “we’re not targeting bacteria. We’re targeting bacteriophages,” said Dr. Shan, a research fellow in the department of genetics and genome biology at the University of Leicester (England).

Fortunately, there’s high correlation between the presence of the terL gene and the presence of Borrelia burgdorferi, the spirochete that causes Lyme disease. “If you find the bacteriophages, the bacteria are there,” said Dr. Shan.

“Importantly, there are 10 times more bacteriophages, compared with the bacteria, so you have a lot more targets,” he added.

In an evaluation of a total of 312 samples (156 whole blood and 156 serum samples), significantly fewer copies of the terL gene were found in samples from people with early Lyme disease than in those with late Lyme disease, whereas the fewest copies of terL were seen in healthy volunteers.

Most pathogenic bacteria carry viral DNA either as multiple complete or partial prophages, Dr. Shan explained. Knowing the prophage sequences means that quantitative PCR primers and probes can be designed and used to detect the presence of the associated bacteria.

Although the novel test still needs evaluation in a clinical trial, it could represent a “step-change” in the detection of Lyme disease, Dr. Shan and associates suggested in their report published in Frontiers in Microbiology.

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

Early treatment is key to the prevention of longer-term consequences of Lyme disease. Clinicians familiar with the treatment of Lyme disease might choose to initiate antibiotic treatment without a positive lab test. However, the lack of a test that can pick out people with Lyme disease in the first few weeks of infection means that many people are not diagnosed or treated early enough.

The new phage-based PCR test Dr. Shan and associates have developed could change all that. With only 0.3 mL of blood being needed, it can potentially be developed as a simple point-of-care test, but that’s a long way off.

At this stage, the research is very much a “proof of concept,” Dr. Shan said. One of the things he plans to try to work out next is whether the test can distinguish between active and dormant disease, which is a “big question” in the diagnosis of Lyme disease.

“Bacteriophages can only be sustained by actively growing bacteria,” explained Dr. Shan, so there is a chance that if they are present in a substantive amount the disease is active, and if they are not – or are in very low numbers – then the disease is dormant. The cutoff value, however, “is not trivial to establish, but we are working toward it,” added Dr. Shan.

Over the past 2 years, Dr. Shan and associates have been working with the Belgian-based diagnostics company, R.E.D Laboratories, to see how the test will fare in a real-world environment. This relationship is providing useful information to add to their bid to perform a clinical trial for which they are now seeking additional sponsorship.

“The lack of an early and effective diagnosis of Lyme disease remains a major cause of misdiagnosis and long-term patient suffering,” commented Rosie Milsom, charity manager for Caudwell LymeCo Charity in the United Kingdom.

It could be a game changer if the test passes the necessary clinical trial testing and validation stages, noted Ms. Milsom, who was not involved in the research.

“Not only would the test help to establish the level or length of infection,” she said, “but it could also act as a way to test after treatment to see if the infection levels are decreasing.” If levels are still high, “you would know more treatment is needed.

The research is being funded by the charity Phelix Research and Development with support from the University of Leicester and the Dutch-based Lyme Fund, Lymefonds. Dr. Shan is named as coinventor of the phage-targeting PCR test, alongside Martha R.J. Clokie, professor of microbiology at the University of Leicester and the senior author of the study. Dr. Shan is chief scientific officer for Phelix Research and Development. Ms. Clokie and other coauthors hold key positions within the medical research charity.

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

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

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

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

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

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

When to use and not to use PCR

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Timelines for antibiotics

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Advice on antibodies testing ‘particularly cogent’

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

When to use and not to use PCR

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Timelines for antibiotics

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Advice on antibodies testing ‘particularly cogent’

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

When to use and not to use PCR

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Timelines for antibiotics

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Advice on antibodies testing ‘particularly cogent’

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

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

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

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

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

Emerging viruses that spread to humans from an animal host are commonplace and represent some of the deadliest diseases known. Given the details of the Wuhan coronavirus (2019-nCoV) outbreak, including the genetic profile of the disease agent, the hypothesis of a snake origin was the first raised in the peer-reviewed literature.

SISTEMA 12/Wikimedia Commons/CC BY-SA 4.0

It is a highly controversial origin story, however, given that mammals have been the sources of all other such zoonotic coronaviruses, as well as a host of other zoonotic diseases.

An animal source for emerging infections such as the 2019-nCoV is the default hypothesis, because “around 60% of all infectious diseases in humans are zoonotic, as are 75% of all emerging infectious diseases,” according to a United Nations report. The report goes on to say that, “on average, one new infectious disease emerges in humans every 4 months.”

To appreciate the emergence and nature of 2019-nCoV, it is important to examine the history of zoonotic outbreaks of other such diseases, especially with regard to the “mixing-vessel” phenomenon, which has been noted in closely related coronaviruses, including SARS and MERS, as well as the widely disparate HIV, Ebola, and influenza viruses.
 

Mutants in the mixing vessel

The mixing-vessel phenomenon is conceptually easy but molecularly complex. A single animal is coinfected with two related viruses; the virus genomes recombine together (virus “sex”) in that animal to form a new variant of virus. Such new mutant viruses can be more or less infective, more or less deadly, and more or less able to jump the species or even genus barrier. An emerging viral zoonosis can occur when a human being is exposed to one of these new viruses (either from the origin species or another species intermediate) that is capable of also infecting a human cell. Such exposure can occur from close proximity to animal waste or body fluids, as in the farm environment, or from wildlife pets or the capturing and slaughtering of wildlife for food, as is proposed in the case of the Wuhan seafood market scenario. In fact, the scientists who postulated a snake intermediary as the potential mixing vessel also stated that 2019‐nCoV appears to be a recombinant virus between a bat coronavirus and an origin‐unknown coronavirus.

Coronaviruses in particular have a history of moving from animal to human hosts (and even back again), and their detailed genetic pattern and taxonomy can reveal the animal origin of these diseases.
 

Going batty

Bats, in particular, have been shown to be a reservoir species for both alphacoronaviruses and betacoronaviruses. Given their ecology and behavior, they have been found to play a key role in transmitting coronaviruses between species. A highly pertinent example of this is the SARS coronavirus, which was shown to have likely originated in Chinese horseshoe bats. The SARS virus, which is genetically closely related to the new Wuhan coronavirus, first infected humans in the Guangdong province of southern China in 2002.

Scientists speculate that the virus was then either transmitted directly to humans from bats, or passed through an intermediate host species, with SARS-like viruses isolated from Himalayan palm civets found in a live-animal market in Guangdong. The virus infection was also detected in other animals (including a raccoon dog, Nyctereutes procyonoides) and in humans working at the market.

The MERS coronavirus is a betacoronavirus that was first reported in Saudi Arabia in 2012. It turned out to be far more deadly than either SARS or the Wuhan virus (at least as far as current estimates of the new coronavirus’s behavior). The MERS genotype was found to be closely related to MERS-like viruses in bats in Saudi Arabia, Africa, Europe, and Asia. Studies done on the cell receptor for MERS showed an apparently conserved viral receptor in both bats and humans. And an identical strain of MERS was found in bats in a nearby cave and near the workplace of the first known human patient.

Wikimedia Commons/Mickey Samuni-Blank

However, in many of the other locations of the outbreak in the Middle East, there appeared to be limited contact between bats and humans, so scientists looked for another vector species, perhaps one that was acting as an intermediate. A high seroprevalence of MERS-CoV or a closely related virus was found in camels across the Arabian Peninsula and parts of eastern and northern Africa, while tests for MERS antibodies were negative in the most-likely other species of livestock or pet animals, including chickens, cows, goats, horses, and sheep.

In addition, the MERS-related CoV carried by camels was genetically highly similar to that detected in humans, as demonstrated in one particular outbreak on a farm in Qatar where the genetic sequences of MERS-CoV in the nasal swabs from 3 of 14 seropositive camels were similar to those of 2 human cases on the same farm. Similar genomic results were found in MERS-CoV from nasal swabs from camels in Saudi Arabia.
 

Other mixing-vessel zoonoses

HIV, the viral cause of AIDS, provides an almost-textbook origin story of the rise of a zoonotic supervillain. The virus was genetically traced to have a chimpanzee-to-human origin, but it was found to be more complicated than that. The virus first emerged in the 1920s in Africa in what is now the Democratic Republic of the Congo, well before its rise to a global pandemic in the 1980s.

Researchers believe the chimpanzee virus is a hybrid of the simian immunodeficiency viruses (SIVs) naturally infecting two different monkey species: the red-capped mangabey (Cercocebus torquatus) and the greater spot-nosed monkey (Cercopithecus nictitans). Chimpanzees kill and eat monkeys, which is likely how they acquired the monkey viruses. The viruses hybridized in a chimpanzee; the hybrid virus then spread through the chimpanzee population and was later transmitted to humans who captured and slaughtered chimps for meat (becoming exposed to their blood). This was the most likely origin of HIV-1.

HIV-1 also shows one of the major risks of zoonotic infections. They can continue to mutate in its human host, increasing the risk of greater virulence, but also interfering with the production of a universally effective vaccine. Since its transmission to humans, for example, many subtypes of the HIV-1 strain have developed, with genetic differences even in the same subtypes found to be up to 20%.

CDC/Frederick A. Murphy

Ebolavirus, first detected in 1976, is another case of bats being the potential culprit. Genetic analysis has shown that African fruit bats are likely involved in the spread of the virus and may be its reservoir host. Further evidence of this was found in the most recent human-infecting Bombali variant of the virus, which was identified in samples from bats collected from Sierra Leone.

It was also found that pigs can also become infected with Zaire ebolavirus, leading to the fear that pigs could serve as a mixing vessel for it and other filoviruses. Pigs have their own forms of Ebola-like disease viruses, which are not currently transmissible to humans, but could provide a potential mixing-vessel reservoir.
 

Emergent influenzas

The Western world has been most affected by these highly mutable, multispecies zoonotic viruses. The 1957 and 1968 flu pandemics contained a mixture of gene segments from human and avian influenza viruses. “What is clear from genetic analysis of the viruses that caused these past pandemics is that reassortment (gene swapping) occurred to produce novel influenza viruses that caused the pandemics. In both of these cases, the new viruses that emerged showed major differences from the parent viruses,” according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Influenza is, however, a good example that all zoonoses are not the result of a mixing-vessel phenomenon, with evidence showing that the origin of the catastrophic 1918 virus pandemic likely resulted from a bird influenza virus directly infecting humans and pigs at about the same time without reassortment, according to the CDC.
 

Building a protective infrastructure

The first 2 decades of the 21st century saw a huge increase in efforts to develop an infrastructure to monitor and potentially prevent the spread of new zoonoses. As part of a global effort led by the United Nations, the U.S. Agency for International AID developed the PREDICT program in 2009 “to strengthen global capacity for detection and discovery of zoonotic viruses with pandemic potential. Those include coronaviruses, the family to which SARS and MERS belong; paramyxoviruses, like Nipah virus; influenza viruses; and filoviruses, like the ebolavirus.”

PREDICT funding to the EcoHealth Alliance led to discovery of the likely bat origins of the Zaire ebolavirus during the 2013-2016 outbreak. And throughout the existence of PREDICT, more than 145,000 animals and people were surveyed in areas of likely zoonotic outbreaks, leading to the detection of more than “1,100 unique viruses, including zoonotic diseases of public health concern such as Bombali ebolavirus, Zaire ebolavirus, Marburg virus, and MERS- and SARS-like coronaviruses,” according to PREDICT partner, the University of California, Davis.

PREDICT-2 was launched in 2014 with the continuing goals of “identifying and better characterizing pathogens of known epidemic and unknown pandemic potential; recognizing animal reservoirs and amplification hosts of human-infectious viruses; and efficiently targeting intervention action at human behaviors which amplify disease transmission at critical animal-animal and animal-human interfaces in hotspots of viral evolution, spillover, amplification, and spread.”

However, in October 2019, the Trump administration cut all funding to the PREDICT program, leading to its shutdown. In a New York Times interview, Peter Daszak, president of the EcoHealth Alliance, stated: “PREDICT was an approach to heading off pandemics, instead of sitting there waiting for them to emerge and then mobilizing.”

Ultimately, in addition to its human cost, the current Wuhan coronavirus outbreak can be looked at an object lesson – a test of the pandemic surveillance and control systems currently in place, and a practice run for the next and potentially deadlier zoonotic outbreaks to come. Perhaps it is also a reminder that cutting resources to detect zoonoses at their source in their animal hosts – before they enter the human chain– is perhaps not the most prudent of ideas.

mlesney@mdedge.com

Mark Lesney is the managing editor of MDedge.com/IDPractioner. He has a PhD in plant virology and a PhD in the history of science, with a focus on the history of biotechnology and medicine. He has served as an adjunct assistant professor of the department of biochemistry and molecular & celluar biology at Georgetown University, Washington.

Emerging viruses that spread to humans from an animal host are commonplace and represent some of the deadliest diseases known. Given the details of the Wuhan coronavirus (2019-nCoV) outbreak, including the genetic profile of the disease agent, the hypothesis of a snake origin was the first raised in the peer-reviewed literature.

SISTEMA 12/Wikimedia Commons/CC BY-SA 4.0

It is a highly controversial origin story, however, given that mammals have been the sources of all other such zoonotic coronaviruses, as well as a host of other zoonotic diseases.

An animal source for emerging infections such as the 2019-nCoV is the default hypothesis, because “around 60% of all infectious diseases in humans are zoonotic, as are 75% of all emerging infectious diseases,” according to a United Nations report. The report goes on to say that, “on average, one new infectious disease emerges in humans every 4 months.”

To appreciate the emergence and nature of 2019-nCoV, it is important to examine the history of zoonotic outbreaks of other such diseases, especially with regard to the “mixing-vessel” phenomenon, which has been noted in closely related coronaviruses, including SARS and MERS, as well as the widely disparate HIV, Ebola, and influenza viruses.
 

Mutants in the mixing vessel

The mixing-vessel phenomenon is conceptually easy but molecularly complex. A single animal is coinfected with two related viruses; the virus genomes recombine together (virus “sex”) in that animal to form a new variant of virus. Such new mutant viruses can be more or less infective, more or less deadly, and more or less able to jump the species or even genus barrier. An emerging viral zoonosis can occur when a human being is exposed to one of these new viruses (either from the origin species or another species intermediate) that is capable of also infecting a human cell. Such exposure can occur from close proximity to animal waste or body fluids, as in the farm environment, or from wildlife pets or the capturing and slaughtering of wildlife for food, as is proposed in the case of the Wuhan seafood market scenario. In fact, the scientists who postulated a snake intermediary as the potential mixing vessel also stated that 2019‐nCoV appears to be a recombinant virus between a bat coronavirus and an origin‐unknown coronavirus.

Coronaviruses in particular have a history of moving from animal to human hosts (and even back again), and their detailed genetic pattern and taxonomy can reveal the animal origin of these diseases.
 

Going batty

Bats, in particular, have been shown to be a reservoir species for both alphacoronaviruses and betacoronaviruses. Given their ecology and behavior, they have been found to play a key role in transmitting coronaviruses between species. A highly pertinent example of this is the SARS coronavirus, which was shown to have likely originated in Chinese horseshoe bats. The SARS virus, which is genetically closely related to the new Wuhan coronavirus, first infected humans in the Guangdong province of southern China in 2002.

Scientists speculate that the virus was then either transmitted directly to humans from bats, or passed through an intermediate host species, with SARS-like viruses isolated from Himalayan palm civets found in a live-animal market in Guangdong. The virus infection was also detected in other animals (including a raccoon dog, Nyctereutes procyonoides) and in humans working at the market.

The MERS coronavirus is a betacoronavirus that was first reported in Saudi Arabia in 2012. It turned out to be far more deadly than either SARS or the Wuhan virus (at least as far as current estimates of the new coronavirus’s behavior). The MERS genotype was found to be closely related to MERS-like viruses in bats in Saudi Arabia, Africa, Europe, and Asia. Studies done on the cell receptor for MERS showed an apparently conserved viral receptor in both bats and humans. And an identical strain of MERS was found in bats in a nearby cave and near the workplace of the first known human patient.

Wikimedia Commons/Mickey Samuni-Blank

However, in many of the other locations of the outbreak in the Middle East, there appeared to be limited contact between bats and humans, so scientists looked for another vector species, perhaps one that was acting as an intermediate. A high seroprevalence of MERS-CoV or a closely related virus was found in camels across the Arabian Peninsula and parts of eastern and northern Africa, while tests for MERS antibodies were negative in the most-likely other species of livestock or pet animals, including chickens, cows, goats, horses, and sheep.

In addition, the MERS-related CoV carried by camels was genetically highly similar to that detected in humans, as demonstrated in one particular outbreak on a farm in Qatar where the genetic sequences of MERS-CoV in the nasal swabs from 3 of 14 seropositive camels were similar to those of 2 human cases on the same farm. Similar genomic results were found in MERS-CoV from nasal swabs from camels in Saudi Arabia.
 

Other mixing-vessel zoonoses

HIV, the viral cause of AIDS, provides an almost-textbook origin story of the rise of a zoonotic supervillain. The virus was genetically traced to have a chimpanzee-to-human origin, but it was found to be more complicated than that. The virus first emerged in the 1920s in Africa in what is now the Democratic Republic of the Congo, well before its rise to a global pandemic in the 1980s.

Researchers believe the chimpanzee virus is a hybrid of the simian immunodeficiency viruses (SIVs) naturally infecting two different monkey species: the red-capped mangabey (Cercocebus torquatus) and the greater spot-nosed monkey (Cercopithecus nictitans). Chimpanzees kill and eat monkeys, which is likely how they acquired the monkey viruses. The viruses hybridized in a chimpanzee; the hybrid virus then spread through the chimpanzee population and was later transmitted to humans who captured and slaughtered chimps for meat (becoming exposed to their blood). This was the most likely origin of HIV-1.

HIV-1 also shows one of the major risks of zoonotic infections. They can continue to mutate in its human host, increasing the risk of greater virulence, but also interfering with the production of a universally effective vaccine. Since its transmission to humans, for example, many subtypes of the HIV-1 strain have developed, with genetic differences even in the same subtypes found to be up to 20%.

CDC/Frederick A. Murphy

Ebolavirus, first detected in 1976, is another case of bats being the potential culprit. Genetic analysis has shown that African fruit bats are likely involved in the spread of the virus and may be its reservoir host. Further evidence of this was found in the most recent human-infecting Bombali variant of the virus, which was identified in samples from bats collected from Sierra Leone.

It was also found that pigs can also become infected with Zaire ebolavirus, leading to the fear that pigs could serve as a mixing vessel for it and other filoviruses. Pigs have their own forms of Ebola-like disease viruses, which are not currently transmissible to humans, but could provide a potential mixing-vessel reservoir.
 

Emergent influenzas

The Western world has been most affected by these highly mutable, multispecies zoonotic viruses. The 1957 and 1968 flu pandemics contained a mixture of gene segments from human and avian influenza viruses. “What is clear from genetic analysis of the viruses that caused these past pandemics is that reassortment (gene swapping) occurred to produce novel influenza viruses that caused the pandemics. In both of these cases, the new viruses that emerged showed major differences from the parent viruses,” according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Influenza is, however, a good example that all zoonoses are not the result of a mixing-vessel phenomenon, with evidence showing that the origin of the catastrophic 1918 virus pandemic likely resulted from a bird influenza virus directly infecting humans and pigs at about the same time without reassortment, according to the CDC.
 

Building a protective infrastructure

The first 2 decades of the 21st century saw a huge increase in efforts to develop an infrastructure to monitor and potentially prevent the spread of new zoonoses. As part of a global effort led by the United Nations, the U.S. Agency for International AID developed the PREDICT program in 2009 “to strengthen global capacity for detection and discovery of zoonotic viruses with pandemic potential. Those include coronaviruses, the family to which SARS and MERS belong; paramyxoviruses, like Nipah virus; influenza viruses; and filoviruses, like the ebolavirus.”

PREDICT funding to the EcoHealth Alliance led to discovery of the likely bat origins of the Zaire ebolavirus during the 2013-2016 outbreak. And throughout the existence of PREDICT, more than 145,000 animals and people were surveyed in areas of likely zoonotic outbreaks, leading to the detection of more than “1,100 unique viruses, including zoonotic diseases of public health concern such as Bombali ebolavirus, Zaire ebolavirus, Marburg virus, and MERS- and SARS-like coronaviruses,” according to PREDICT partner, the University of California, Davis.

PREDICT-2 was launched in 2014 with the continuing goals of “identifying and better characterizing pathogens of known epidemic and unknown pandemic potential; recognizing animal reservoirs and amplification hosts of human-infectious viruses; and efficiently targeting intervention action at human behaviors which amplify disease transmission at critical animal-animal and animal-human interfaces in hotspots of viral evolution, spillover, amplification, and spread.”

However, in October 2019, the Trump administration cut all funding to the PREDICT program, leading to its shutdown. In a New York Times interview, Peter Daszak, president of the EcoHealth Alliance, stated: “PREDICT was an approach to heading off pandemics, instead of sitting there waiting for them to emerge and then mobilizing.”

Ultimately, in addition to its human cost, the current Wuhan coronavirus outbreak can be looked at an object lesson – a test of the pandemic surveillance and control systems currently in place, and a practice run for the next and potentially deadlier zoonotic outbreaks to come. Perhaps it is also a reminder that cutting resources to detect zoonoses at their source in their animal hosts – before they enter the human chain– is perhaps not the most prudent of ideas.

mlesney@mdedge.com

Mark Lesney is the managing editor of MDedge.com/IDPractioner. He has a PhD in plant virology and a PhD in the history of science, with a focus on the history of biotechnology and medicine. He has served as an adjunct assistant professor of the department of biochemistry and molecular & celluar biology at Georgetown University, Washington.

Emerging viruses that spread to humans from an animal host are commonplace and represent some of the deadliest diseases known. Given the details of the Wuhan coronavirus (2019-nCoV) outbreak, including the genetic profile of the disease agent, the hypothesis of a snake origin was the first raised in the peer-reviewed literature.

SISTEMA 12/Wikimedia Commons/CC BY-SA 4.0

It is a highly controversial origin story, however, given that mammals have been the sources of all other such zoonotic coronaviruses, as well as a host of other zoonotic diseases.

An animal source for emerging infections such as the 2019-nCoV is the default hypothesis, because “around 60% of all infectious diseases in humans are zoonotic, as are 75% of all emerging infectious diseases,” according to a United Nations report. The report goes on to say that, “on average, one new infectious disease emerges in humans every 4 months.”

To appreciate the emergence and nature of 2019-nCoV, it is important to examine the history of zoonotic outbreaks of other such diseases, especially with regard to the “mixing-vessel” phenomenon, which has been noted in closely related coronaviruses, including SARS and MERS, as well as the widely disparate HIV, Ebola, and influenza viruses.
 

Mutants in the mixing vessel

The mixing-vessel phenomenon is conceptually easy but molecularly complex. A single animal is coinfected with two related viruses; the virus genomes recombine together (virus “sex”) in that animal to form a new variant of virus. Such new mutant viruses can be more or less infective, more or less deadly, and more or less able to jump the species or even genus barrier. An emerging viral zoonosis can occur when a human being is exposed to one of these new viruses (either from the origin species or another species intermediate) that is capable of also infecting a human cell. Such exposure can occur from close proximity to animal waste or body fluids, as in the farm environment, or from wildlife pets or the capturing and slaughtering of wildlife for food, as is proposed in the case of the Wuhan seafood market scenario. In fact, the scientists who postulated a snake intermediary as the potential mixing vessel also stated that 2019‐nCoV appears to be a recombinant virus between a bat coronavirus and an origin‐unknown coronavirus.

Coronaviruses in particular have a history of moving from animal to human hosts (and even back again), and their detailed genetic pattern and taxonomy can reveal the animal origin of these diseases.
 

Going batty

Bats, in particular, have been shown to be a reservoir species for both alphacoronaviruses and betacoronaviruses. Given their ecology and behavior, they have been found to play a key role in transmitting coronaviruses between species. A highly pertinent example of this is the SARS coronavirus, which was shown to have likely originated in Chinese horseshoe bats. The SARS virus, which is genetically closely related to the new Wuhan coronavirus, first infected humans in the Guangdong province of southern China in 2002.

Scientists speculate that the virus was then either transmitted directly to humans from bats, or passed through an intermediate host species, with SARS-like viruses isolated from Himalayan palm civets found in a live-animal market in Guangdong. The virus infection was also detected in other animals (including a raccoon dog, Nyctereutes procyonoides) and in humans working at the market.

The MERS coronavirus is a betacoronavirus that was first reported in Saudi Arabia in 2012. It turned out to be far more deadly than either SARS or the Wuhan virus (at least as far as current estimates of the new coronavirus’s behavior). The MERS genotype was found to be closely related to MERS-like viruses in bats in Saudi Arabia, Africa, Europe, and Asia. Studies done on the cell receptor for MERS showed an apparently conserved viral receptor in both bats and humans. And an identical strain of MERS was found in bats in a nearby cave and near the workplace of the first known human patient.

Wikimedia Commons/Mickey Samuni-Blank

However, in many of the other locations of the outbreak in the Middle East, there appeared to be limited contact between bats and humans, so scientists looked for another vector species, perhaps one that was acting as an intermediate. A high seroprevalence of MERS-CoV or a closely related virus was found in camels across the Arabian Peninsula and parts of eastern and northern Africa, while tests for MERS antibodies were negative in the most-likely other species of livestock or pet animals, including chickens, cows, goats, horses, and sheep.

In addition, the MERS-related CoV carried by camels was genetically highly similar to that detected in humans, as demonstrated in one particular outbreak on a farm in Qatar where the genetic sequences of MERS-CoV in the nasal swabs from 3 of 14 seropositive camels were similar to those of 2 human cases on the same farm. Similar genomic results were found in MERS-CoV from nasal swabs from camels in Saudi Arabia.
 

Other mixing-vessel zoonoses

HIV, the viral cause of AIDS, provides an almost-textbook origin story of the rise of a zoonotic supervillain. The virus was genetically traced to have a chimpanzee-to-human origin, but it was found to be more complicated than that. The virus first emerged in the 1920s in Africa in what is now the Democratic Republic of the Congo, well before its rise to a global pandemic in the 1980s.

Researchers believe the chimpanzee virus is a hybrid of the simian immunodeficiency viruses (SIVs) naturally infecting two different monkey species: the red-capped mangabey (Cercocebus torquatus) and the greater spot-nosed monkey (Cercopithecus nictitans). Chimpanzees kill and eat monkeys, which is likely how they acquired the monkey viruses. The viruses hybridized in a chimpanzee; the hybrid virus then spread through the chimpanzee population and was later transmitted to humans who captured and slaughtered chimps for meat (becoming exposed to their blood). This was the most likely origin of HIV-1.

HIV-1 also shows one of the major risks of zoonotic infections. They can continue to mutate in its human host, increasing the risk of greater virulence, but also interfering with the production of a universally effective vaccine. Since its transmission to humans, for example, many subtypes of the HIV-1 strain have developed, with genetic differences even in the same subtypes found to be up to 20%.

CDC/Frederick A. Murphy

Ebolavirus, first detected in 1976, is another case of bats being the potential culprit. Genetic analysis has shown that African fruit bats are likely involved in the spread of the virus and may be its reservoir host. Further evidence of this was found in the most recent human-infecting Bombali variant of the virus, which was identified in samples from bats collected from Sierra Leone.

It was also found that pigs can also become infected with Zaire ebolavirus, leading to the fear that pigs could serve as a mixing vessel for it and other filoviruses. Pigs have their own forms of Ebola-like disease viruses, which are not currently transmissible to humans, but could provide a potential mixing-vessel reservoir.
 

Emergent influenzas

The Western world has been most affected by these highly mutable, multispecies zoonotic viruses. The 1957 and 1968 flu pandemics contained a mixture of gene segments from human and avian influenza viruses. “What is clear from genetic analysis of the viruses that caused these past pandemics is that reassortment (gene swapping) occurred to produce novel influenza viruses that caused the pandemics. In both of these cases, the new viruses that emerged showed major differences from the parent viruses,” according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Influenza is, however, a good example that all zoonoses are not the result of a mixing-vessel phenomenon, with evidence showing that the origin of the catastrophic 1918 virus pandemic likely resulted from a bird influenza virus directly infecting humans and pigs at about the same time without reassortment, according to the CDC.
 

Building a protective infrastructure

The first 2 decades of the 21st century saw a huge increase in efforts to develop an infrastructure to monitor and potentially prevent the spread of new zoonoses. As part of a global effort led by the United Nations, the U.S. Agency for International AID developed the PREDICT program in 2009 “to strengthen global capacity for detection and discovery of zoonotic viruses with pandemic potential. Those include coronaviruses, the family to which SARS and MERS belong; paramyxoviruses, like Nipah virus; influenza viruses; and filoviruses, like the ebolavirus.”

PREDICT funding to the EcoHealth Alliance led to discovery of the likely bat origins of the Zaire ebolavirus during the 2013-2016 outbreak. And throughout the existence of PREDICT, more than 145,000 animals and people were surveyed in areas of likely zoonotic outbreaks, leading to the detection of more than “1,100 unique viruses, including zoonotic diseases of public health concern such as Bombali ebolavirus, Zaire ebolavirus, Marburg virus, and MERS- and SARS-like coronaviruses,” according to PREDICT partner, the University of California, Davis.

PREDICT-2 was launched in 2014 with the continuing goals of “identifying and better characterizing pathogens of known epidemic and unknown pandemic potential; recognizing animal reservoirs and amplification hosts of human-infectious viruses; and efficiently targeting intervention action at human behaviors which amplify disease transmission at critical animal-animal and animal-human interfaces in hotspots of viral evolution, spillover, amplification, and spread.”

However, in October 2019, the Trump administration cut all funding to the PREDICT program, leading to its shutdown. In a New York Times interview, Peter Daszak, president of the EcoHealth Alliance, stated: “PREDICT was an approach to heading off pandemics, instead of sitting there waiting for them to emerge and then mobilizing.”

Ultimately, in addition to its human cost, the current Wuhan coronavirus outbreak can be looked at an object lesson – a test of the pandemic surveillance and control systems currently in place, and a practice run for the next and potentially deadlier zoonotic outbreaks to come. Perhaps it is also a reminder that cutting resources to detect zoonoses at their source in their animal hosts – before they enter the human chain– is perhaps not the most prudent of ideas.

mlesney@mdedge.com

Mark Lesney is the managing editor of MDedge.com/IDPractioner. He has a PhD in plant virology and a PhD in the history of science, with a focus on the history of biotechnology and medicine. He has served as an adjunct assistant professor of the department of biochemistry and molecular & celluar biology at Georgetown University, Washington.

Five cases of the new infectious coronavirus, 2019-nCoV, have been confirmed in the United States, Nancy Messonnier, MD, director of the National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, said during a Jan. 27 press briefing.

A total of 110 individuals are under investigation in 26 states, she said. While five cases have been confirmed positive for the virus, 32 cases were confirmed negative. There have been no new cases overnight.

Last week, CDC scientists developed a real-time polymerase chain reaction (PCR) test that can diagnose the virus in respiratory and serum samples from clinical specimens. On Jan. 24, the protocol for this test was publicly posted. “This is essentially a blueprint to make the test,” Dr. Messonnier explained. “Currently, we are refining the use of the test so that it can provide optimal guidance to states and labs on how to use it. We are working on a plan so that priority states get these test kits as soon as possible. In the coming weeks, we will share these tests with domestic and international partners so they can test for this virus themselves.”

The CDC uploaded the entire genome of the virus from the first two cases in the United States to GenBank. It was similar to the one that China had previously posted. “Right now, based on CDC’s analysis of the available data, it doesn’t look like the virus has mutated,” she said. “And we are growing the virus in cell culture, which is necessary for further studies, including the additional genetic characterization.”

As of today, 16 international locations, including the United States, have identified cases of the virus. CDC officials are continuing to screen passengers from Wuhan, China, at five designated airports. “This serves two purposes: first to detect the illness and rapidly respond to [affected] people entering the country,” Dr. Messonnier said. “The second purpose is to educate travelers about the symptoms of this new virus, and what to do if they develop symptoms. I expect that in the coming days, our travel recommendations will change. Risk depends on exposure. Right now, we have an handful of new patients with this new virus here in the U.S. However, at this time in the U.S., this virus is not spreading in the community. For that reason, we believe that the immediate health risk of the new virus to the general American public is low.”

The CDC is asking its clinical lab partners to send virus samples to the CDC to ensure that results are analyzed as accurately as possible.

dbrunk@mdedge.com

Five cases of the new infectious coronavirus, 2019-nCoV, have been confirmed in the United States, Nancy Messonnier, MD, director of the National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, said during a Jan. 27 press briefing.

A total of 110 individuals are under investigation in 26 states, she said. While five cases have been confirmed positive for the virus, 32 cases were confirmed negative. There have been no new cases overnight.

Last week, CDC scientists developed a real-time polymerase chain reaction (PCR) test that can diagnose the virus in respiratory and serum samples from clinical specimens. On Jan. 24, the protocol for this test was publicly posted. “This is essentially a blueprint to make the test,” Dr. Messonnier explained. “Currently, we are refining the use of the test so that it can provide optimal guidance to states and labs on how to use it. We are working on a plan so that priority states get these test kits as soon as possible. In the coming weeks, we will share these tests with domestic and international partners so they can test for this virus themselves.”

The CDC uploaded the entire genome of the virus from the first two cases in the United States to GenBank. It was similar to the one that China had previously posted. “Right now, based on CDC’s analysis of the available data, it doesn’t look like the virus has mutated,” she said. “And we are growing the virus in cell culture, which is necessary for further studies, including the additional genetic characterization.”

As of today, 16 international locations, including the United States, have identified cases of the virus. CDC officials are continuing to screen passengers from Wuhan, China, at five designated airports. “This serves two purposes: first to detect the illness and rapidly respond to [affected] people entering the country,” Dr. Messonnier said. “The second purpose is to educate travelers about the symptoms of this new virus, and what to do if they develop symptoms. I expect that in the coming days, our travel recommendations will change. Risk depends on exposure. Right now, we have an handful of new patients with this new virus here in the U.S. However, at this time in the U.S., this virus is not spreading in the community. For that reason, we believe that the immediate health risk of the new virus to the general American public is low.”

The CDC is asking its clinical lab partners to send virus samples to the CDC to ensure that results are analyzed as accurately as possible.

dbrunk@mdedge.com

Five cases of the new infectious coronavirus, 2019-nCoV, have been confirmed in the United States, Nancy Messonnier, MD, director of the National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, said during a Jan. 27 press briefing.

A total of 110 individuals are under investigation in 26 states, she said. While five cases have been confirmed positive for the virus, 32 cases were confirmed negative. There have been no new cases overnight.

Last week, CDC scientists developed a real-time polymerase chain reaction (PCR) test that can diagnose the virus in respiratory and serum samples from clinical specimens. On Jan. 24, the protocol for this test was publicly posted. “This is essentially a blueprint to make the test,” Dr. Messonnier explained. “Currently, we are refining the use of the test so that it can provide optimal guidance to states and labs on how to use it. We are working on a plan so that priority states get these test kits as soon as possible. In the coming weeks, we will share these tests with domestic and international partners so they can test for this virus themselves.”

The CDC uploaded the entire genome of the virus from the first two cases in the United States to GenBank. It was similar to the one that China had previously posted. “Right now, based on CDC’s analysis of the available data, it doesn’t look like the virus has mutated,” she said. “And we are growing the virus in cell culture, which is necessary for further studies, including the additional genetic characterization.”

As of today, 16 international locations, including the United States, have identified cases of the virus. CDC officials are continuing to screen passengers from Wuhan, China, at five designated airports. “This serves two purposes: first to detect the illness and rapidly respond to [affected] people entering the country,” Dr. Messonnier said. “The second purpose is to educate travelers about the symptoms of this new virus, and what to do if they develop symptoms. I expect that in the coming days, our travel recommendations will change. Risk depends on exposure. Right now, we have an handful of new patients with this new virus here in the U.S. However, at this time in the U.S., this virus is not spreading in the community. For that reason, we believe that the immediate health risk of the new virus to the general American public is low.”

The CDC is asking its clinical lab partners to send virus samples to the CDC to ensure that results are analyzed as accurately as possible.

dbrunk@mdedge.com

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has updated its recommendation for serologic detection of Lyme disease, according to CDC investigators.

At the 1994 Second National Conference on Serologic Diagnosis of Lyme Disease, several groups and organizations convened, recommending a two-test methodology for Lyme disease detection. First, an enzyme immunoassay (EIA) or immunofluorescence assay should be used, followed by a western immunoblot assay for specimens yielding positive or equivocal results. The guideline advised that all future tests should be evaluated against a challenge panel, and that new assays should only move forward if their specificity, sensitivity, and precision equaled or surpassed the performance of tests used in the recommended two-test procedure.

On July 29, 2019, the Food and Drug Administration approved several Lyme disease serologic assays with new indications for use based on a modified two-test methodology, with a second EIA replacing the western immunoblot assay.

“Clearance by FDA of the new Lyme disease assays indicates that test performance has been evaluated and is ‘substantially equivalent to or better than’ a legally marketed predicate test,” the CDC investigators noted (MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2019 Aug 15;68(32):703).

The recommendation advises that FDA-cleared “serologic assays that utilize EIA rather than western immunoblot assay in a two-test format are acceptable alternatives for the laboratory diagnosis of Lyme disease.”

lfranki@mdedge.com

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has updated its recommendation for serologic detection of Lyme disease, according to CDC investigators.

At the 1994 Second National Conference on Serologic Diagnosis of Lyme Disease, several groups and organizations convened, recommending a two-test methodology for Lyme disease detection. First, an enzyme immunoassay (EIA) or immunofluorescence assay should be used, followed by a western immunoblot assay for specimens yielding positive or equivocal results. The guideline advised that all future tests should be evaluated against a challenge panel, and that new assays should only move forward if their specificity, sensitivity, and precision equaled or surpassed the performance of tests used in the recommended two-test procedure.

On July 29, 2019, the Food and Drug Administration approved several Lyme disease serologic assays with new indications for use based on a modified two-test methodology, with a second EIA replacing the western immunoblot assay.

“Clearance by FDA of the new Lyme disease assays indicates that test performance has been evaluated and is ‘substantially equivalent to or better than’ a legally marketed predicate test,” the CDC investigators noted (MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2019 Aug 15;68(32):703).

The recommendation advises that FDA-cleared “serologic assays that utilize EIA rather than western immunoblot assay in a two-test format are acceptable alternatives for the laboratory diagnosis of Lyme disease.”

lfranki@mdedge.com

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has updated its recommendation for serologic detection of Lyme disease, according to CDC investigators.

At the 1994 Second National Conference on Serologic Diagnosis of Lyme Disease, several groups and organizations convened, recommending a two-test methodology for Lyme disease detection. First, an enzyme immunoassay (EIA) or immunofluorescence assay should be used, followed by a western immunoblot assay for specimens yielding positive or equivocal results. The guideline advised that all future tests should be evaluated against a challenge panel, and that new assays should only move forward if their specificity, sensitivity, and precision equaled or surpassed the performance of tests used in the recommended two-test procedure.

On July 29, 2019, the Food and Drug Administration approved several Lyme disease serologic assays with new indications for use based on a modified two-test methodology, with a second EIA replacing the western immunoblot assay.

“Clearance by FDA of the new Lyme disease assays indicates that test performance has been evaluated and is ‘substantially equivalent to or better than’ a legally marketed predicate test,” the CDC investigators noted (MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2019 Aug 15;68(32):703).

The recommendation advises that FDA-cleared “serologic assays that utilize EIA rather than western immunoblot assay in a two-test format are acceptable alternatives for the laboratory diagnosis of Lyme disease.”

lfranki@mdedge.com

Concurrent or sequential enzyme immunoassays can now be conducted to diagnose Lyme disease, according to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.

Four previously cleared tests are now approved by the agency for marketing with new indications as part of the revised diagnostic approach. Previously, the two-step diagnostic process consisted of an initial enzyme immunoassay followed by a Western blot test.

“With today’s action, clinicians have a new option to test for Lyme that is easier to interpret by a clinical laboratory due to the streamlined method of conducting the test. These tests may improve confidence in diagnosing a patient for a condition that requires the earliest possible treatment to ensure the best outcome for patients,” Tim Stenzel, MD, PhD, director of the Office of In Vitro Diagnostics and Radiological Health in the FDA’s Center for Devices and Radiologic Health, said in a press release announcing the newly approved approach.

The modified two-tier enzyme immunoassay approach was found to be as accurate for assessing exposure to Borrelia burgdorferi as the standard immunoassay followed by Western blot test in an FDA review of data from clinical studies using the following ZEUS Scientific ELISA Test Systems: Borrelia VlsE1/pepC10 IgG/IgM; Borrelia burgdorferi IgG/IgM; Borrelia burgdorferi IgM; and Borrelia burgdorferi IgG.

The recommendations of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention should be followed for the diagnosis of Lyme disease and for determining when laboratory tests are appropriate, the FDA statement said. In 2017, the last year for which the CDC published data, a total of 42,743 confirmed and probable cases of Lyme disease were reported, an increase of 17% from 2016.

The FDA granted clearance of the ZEUS ELISA enzyme immunoassay tests to ZEUS Scientific.

mdales@mdedge.com

Concurrent or sequential enzyme immunoassays can now be conducted to diagnose Lyme disease, according to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.

Four previously cleared tests are now approved by the agency for marketing with new indications as part of the revised diagnostic approach. Previously, the two-step diagnostic process consisted of an initial enzyme immunoassay followed by a Western blot test.

“With today’s action, clinicians have a new option to test for Lyme that is easier to interpret by a clinical laboratory due to the streamlined method of conducting the test. These tests may improve confidence in diagnosing a patient for a condition that requires the earliest possible treatment to ensure the best outcome for patients,” Tim Stenzel, MD, PhD, director of the Office of In Vitro Diagnostics and Radiological Health in the FDA’s Center for Devices and Radiologic Health, said in a press release announcing the newly approved approach.

The modified two-tier enzyme immunoassay approach was found to be as accurate for assessing exposure to Borrelia burgdorferi as the standard immunoassay followed by Western blot test in an FDA review of data from clinical studies using the following ZEUS Scientific ELISA Test Systems: Borrelia VlsE1/pepC10 IgG/IgM; Borrelia burgdorferi IgG/IgM; Borrelia burgdorferi IgM; and Borrelia burgdorferi IgG.

The recommendations of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention should be followed for the diagnosis of Lyme disease and for determining when laboratory tests are appropriate, the FDA statement said. In 2017, the last year for which the CDC published data, a total of 42,743 confirmed and probable cases of Lyme disease were reported, an increase of 17% from 2016.

The FDA granted clearance of the ZEUS ELISA enzyme immunoassay tests to ZEUS Scientific.

mdales@mdedge.com

Concurrent or sequential enzyme immunoassays can now be conducted to diagnose Lyme disease, according to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.

Four previously cleared tests are now approved by the agency for marketing with new indications as part of the revised diagnostic approach. Previously, the two-step diagnostic process consisted of an initial enzyme immunoassay followed by a Western blot test.

“With today’s action, clinicians have a new option to test for Lyme that is easier to interpret by a clinical laboratory due to the streamlined method of conducting the test. These tests may improve confidence in diagnosing a patient for a condition that requires the earliest possible treatment to ensure the best outcome for patients,” Tim Stenzel, MD, PhD, director of the Office of In Vitro Diagnostics and Radiological Health in the FDA’s Center for Devices and Radiologic Health, said in a press release announcing the newly approved approach.

The modified two-tier enzyme immunoassay approach was found to be as accurate for assessing exposure to Borrelia burgdorferi as the standard immunoassay followed by Western blot test in an FDA review of data from clinical studies using the following ZEUS Scientific ELISA Test Systems: Borrelia VlsE1/pepC10 IgG/IgM; Borrelia burgdorferi IgG/IgM; Borrelia burgdorferi IgM; and Borrelia burgdorferi IgG.

The recommendations of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention should be followed for the diagnosis of Lyme disease and for determining when laboratory tests are appropriate, the FDA statement said. In 2017, the last year for which the CDC published data, a total of 42,743 confirmed and probable cases of Lyme disease were reported, an increase of 17% from 2016.

The FDA granted clearance of the ZEUS ELISA enzyme immunoassay tests to ZEUS Scientific.

mdales@mdedge.com

Outbreaks of cryptosporidiosis increased in the United States by an average of 13% each year between 2009 and 2017, based on data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

In a study published in the CDC’s Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, researchers reviewed data from 444 reported outbreaks submitted to the CDC’s National Outbreak Reporting System totaling 7,465 cases, including 287 hospitalizations and one death.

The outbreaks during this period were most commonly associated with pools and water parks (35%), exposure to cattle (15%), and child care settings (13%). Another 3% of outbreaks were associated with drinking unpasteurized milk or apple cider. An outbreak was defined as two or more cases linked to a common source.

The profuse, watery diarrhea associated with infection from the cryptosporidium parasite can last for 3 weeks in healthy individuals and can cause life-threatening malnutrition in the immunocompromised, wrote Radhika Gharpure, DVM, of the CDC’s National Center for Emerging and Zoonotic Infectious Diseases, and colleagues.

The overall number of outbreaks peaked during July and August each year; the number associated with pools and water parks peaked between June and August, the number associated with cattle peaked between March and May, and the number associated with child care settings peaked between July and September.

The results were limited by several factors including likely underestimation of the number of outbreaks, the use of multipathogen testing panels that could have inflated the number of outbreaks, and the variation in the ability of jurisdictions to detect, investigate, and report outbreaks, the researchers noted. CryptoNet, a molecularly-based surveillance system, has shown potential to track disease transmission, they said.

However, primary prevention is important to prevent the spread of disease, and strategies include refraining from swimming when one has diarrhea and for 2 weeks after resolution of diarrhea, not sending children to child care when they have diarrhea, and washing hands thoroughly after contact with animals, the researchers said.

“If a cryptosporidiosis outbreak occurs, substantial decontamination measures are needed, including hyperchlorinating public treated recreational water venues (e.g., swimming pools at a hotel, apartment complex, or water park) and using hydrogen peroxide to disinfect surfaces in child care settings to inactivate Cryptosporidium oocysts,” they emphasized.

The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.

SOURCE: Gharpure R et al. MMWR. 2019 June 28. 68:568-72.

Outbreaks of cryptosporidiosis increased in the United States by an average of 13% each year between 2009 and 2017, based on data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

In a study published in the CDC’s Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, researchers reviewed data from 444 reported outbreaks submitted to the CDC’s National Outbreak Reporting System totaling 7,465 cases, including 287 hospitalizations and one death.

The outbreaks during this period were most commonly associated with pools and water parks (35%), exposure to cattle (15%), and child care settings (13%). Another 3% of outbreaks were associated with drinking unpasteurized milk or apple cider. An outbreak was defined as two or more cases linked to a common source.

The profuse, watery diarrhea associated with infection from the cryptosporidium parasite can last for 3 weeks in healthy individuals and can cause life-threatening malnutrition in the immunocompromised, wrote Radhika Gharpure, DVM, of the CDC’s National Center for Emerging and Zoonotic Infectious Diseases, and colleagues.

The overall number of outbreaks peaked during July and August each year; the number associated with pools and water parks peaked between June and August, the number associated with cattle peaked between March and May, and the number associated with child care settings peaked between July and September.

The results were limited by several factors including likely underestimation of the number of outbreaks, the use of multipathogen testing panels that could have inflated the number of outbreaks, and the variation in the ability of jurisdictions to detect, investigate, and report outbreaks, the researchers noted. CryptoNet, a molecularly-based surveillance system, has shown potential to track disease transmission, they said.

However, primary prevention is important to prevent the spread of disease, and strategies include refraining from swimming when one has diarrhea and for 2 weeks after resolution of diarrhea, not sending children to child care when they have diarrhea, and washing hands thoroughly after contact with animals, the researchers said.

“If a cryptosporidiosis outbreak occurs, substantial decontamination measures are needed, including hyperchlorinating public treated recreational water venues (e.g., swimming pools at a hotel, apartment complex, or water park) and using hydrogen peroxide to disinfect surfaces in child care settings to inactivate Cryptosporidium oocysts,” they emphasized.

The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.

SOURCE: Gharpure R et al. MMWR. 2019 June 28. 68:568-72.

Outbreaks of cryptosporidiosis increased in the United States by an average of 13% each year between 2009 and 2017, based on data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

In a study published in the CDC’s Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, researchers reviewed data from 444 reported outbreaks submitted to the CDC’s National Outbreak Reporting System totaling 7,465 cases, including 287 hospitalizations and one death.

The outbreaks during this period were most commonly associated with pools and water parks (35%), exposure to cattle (15%), and child care settings (13%). Another 3% of outbreaks were associated with drinking unpasteurized milk or apple cider. An outbreak was defined as two or more cases linked to a common source.

The profuse, watery diarrhea associated with infection from the cryptosporidium parasite can last for 3 weeks in healthy individuals and can cause life-threatening malnutrition in the immunocompromised, wrote Radhika Gharpure, DVM, of the CDC’s National Center for Emerging and Zoonotic Infectious Diseases, and colleagues.

The overall number of outbreaks peaked during July and August each year; the number associated with pools and water parks peaked between June and August, the number associated with cattle peaked between March and May, and the number associated with child care settings peaked between July and September.

The results were limited by several factors including likely underestimation of the number of outbreaks, the use of multipathogen testing panels that could have inflated the number of outbreaks, and the variation in the ability of jurisdictions to detect, investigate, and report outbreaks, the researchers noted. CryptoNet, a molecularly-based surveillance system, has shown potential to track disease transmission, they said.

However, primary prevention is important to prevent the spread of disease, and strategies include refraining from swimming when one has diarrhea and for 2 weeks after resolution of diarrhea, not sending children to child care when they have diarrhea, and washing hands thoroughly after contact with animals, the researchers said.

“If a cryptosporidiosis outbreak occurs, substantial decontamination measures are needed, including hyperchlorinating public treated recreational water venues (e.g., swimming pools at a hotel, apartment complex, or water park) and using hydrogen peroxide to disinfect surfaces in child care settings to inactivate Cryptosporidium oocysts,” they emphasized.

The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.

SOURCE: Gharpure R et al. MMWR. 2019 June 28. 68:568-72.