Infectious Disease Practitioner

People with metabolic dysfunction–associated fatty liver disease (MAFLD) – a newly defined condition – may be more likely to die from COVID-19, researchers say.

A cohort of people hospitalized for COVID-19 in Central Military Hospital, Mexico City, who met the criteria for MAFLD died at a higher rate than a control group without fatty liver disease, said Martín Uriel Vázquez-Medina, MSc, a researcher in the National Polytechnic Institute in Mexico City.

Patients who met only the criteria for the traditional classification, nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD), also died of COVID-19 at a higher rate than the control group, but the difference was not statistically significant.

“It is important to screen for MAFLD,” Mr. Vázquez-Medina told this news organization. “It’s a new definition, but it has really helped us to identify which patients are going to get worse by COVID-19.”

The study was published in Hepatology Communications.
 

More evidence for clinical relevance of MAFLD

The finding lends support to an initiative to use MAFLD instead of NAFLD to identify patients whose liver steatosis poses a threat to their health, Mr. Vázquez-Medina said.

NAFLD affects as much as a quarter of the world’s population. No drugs have been approved to treat it. Some researchers have reasoned that the imprecision of the definition of NAFLD could be one reason for the lack of progress in treatment.

“NAFLD is something that doesn’t have positive criteria to be diagnosed,” said Mr. Vázquez-Medina. “You only say NAFLD when you don’t find hepatitis or another disease.”

In an article published in Gastroenterology, an international consensus panel proposed MAFLD as an alternative, arguing that a focus on metabolic dysfunction could more accurately reflect the pathogenesis of the disease and help stratify patients.

Previous research has suggested that patients with MAFLD have a higher risk of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease and that the prevalence of colorectal adenomas is a higher in these patients, compared with patients with NAFLD.

The high prevalence of MAFLD in Mexico – about 30% – could help explain the country’s high rate of mortality from COVID-19, Mr. Vázquez-Medina said. Almost 6% of people diagnosed with COVID in Mexico have died from it, according to the Johns Hopkins University and Medical Center Coronavirus Resource Center.
 

Sorting COVID outcomes by liver steatosis

To understand the interaction of MAFLD, NAFLD, liver fibrosis, and COVID-19, Mr. Vázquez-Medina and his colleagues analyzed the records of all patients admitted to the Central Military Hospital with COVID-19 from April 4, 2020, to June 24, 2020.

They excluded patients for whom complete data were lacking or for whom a liver function test was not conducted in the first 24 hours of hospitalization. Also excluded were patients with significant consumption of alcohol (> 30 g/day for men and > 20 g/day for women) and those with a history of autoimmune liver disease, liver cancer, decompensated cirrhosis, platelet disorders, or myopathies.

The remaining patients were divided into three groups – 220 who met the criteria for MAFLD, 79 who met the criteria for NAFLD but not MAFLD, and 60 other patients as a control group.

The researchers defined MAFLD as the presence of liver steatosis detected with a noninvasive method and one of the following: overweight (body mass index, 25-29.9 kg/m2), type 2 diabetes, or the presence of two metabolic abnormalities (blood pressure > 140/90 mm Hg, plasma triglycerides > 150 mg/dL, plasma high-density lipoprotein cholesterol < 40 mg/dL in men and < 50 mg/dL in women, and prediabetes).

They defined NAFLD as the presence of liver steatosis without the other criteria for MAFLD.

The patients with MAFLD were the most likely to be intubated and were the most likely to die (intubation, 44.09%; mortality, 55%), followed by those with NAFLD (intubation, 40.51%; mortality, 51.9%) and those in the control group (intubation, 20%; mortality, 38.33%).

The difference in mortality between the MAFLD group and the control group was statistically significant (P = .02). The mortality difference between the NAFLD and the control group fell just short of statistical significance (P = .07).

For intubation, the difference between the MAFLD and the control group was highly statistically significant (P = .001), and the difference between the NAFLD and the control group was also statistically significant (P = .01)

Patients with advanced fibrosis and either MAFLD or NAFLD were also more likely to die than patients in the control group with advanced fibrosis.

That’s why screening for MAFLD is important, Mr. Vázquez-Medina said.
 

Next steps and new questions

Future research should examine whether patients with MAFLD have elevated levels of biomarkers for inflammation, such as interleukin 6, Mr. Vázquez-Medina said. A “chronic low proinflammatory state” may be the key to understanding the vulnerability of patients to MAFLD to COVID-19, he speculated.

The metabolic traits associated with MAFLD could explain the higher mortality and intubation rates with COVID, said Rohit Loomba, MD, MHSc, a professor of medicine in the division of gastroenterology at the University of California, San Diego, who was not involved in the study.

“Hypertension, diabetes, and obesity increase the risk of complications from COVID in all patients, whether they have been diagnosed with NAFLD or not,” he told this news organization in an email.

Mr. Vasquez-Medina pointed out that the patients with MAFLD had a higher risk of mortality even after adjusting for age, sex, type 2 diabetes, hypertension, overweight, and obesity (BMI ≥ 30 kg/m2). MAFLD also was more strongly associated with a poor outcome than either hypertension alone or obesity alone. Only age emerged as a significant independent covariate in the study.

Dr. Loomba also questioned whether the regression model used in this study for liver steatosis was “fully reflective of NAFLD.”

The researchers identified liver steatosis with a diagnostic formula that used noninvasive clinical BMI and laboratory tests (alanine aminotransferase), citing a study that found the regression formula was better at diagnosing NAFLD than FibroScan.

Mr. Vázquez-Medina reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Loomba serves as a consultant to Aardvark Therapeutics, Altimmune, Anylam/Regeneron, Amgen, Arrowhead Pharmaceuticals, AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, CohBar, Eli Lilly, Galmed, Gilead, Glympse Bio, Hightide, Inipharma, Intercept, Inventiva, Ionis, Janssen, Madrigal, Metacrine, NGM Biopharmaceuticals, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Merck, Pfizer, Sagimet, Theratechnologies, 89bio, Terns Pharmaceuticals, and Viking Therapeutics. He is co-founder of LipoNexus.

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

People with metabolic dysfunction–associated fatty liver disease (MAFLD) – a newly defined condition – may be more likely to die from COVID-19, researchers say.

A cohort of people hospitalized for COVID-19 in Central Military Hospital, Mexico City, who met the criteria for MAFLD died at a higher rate than a control group without fatty liver disease, said Martín Uriel Vázquez-Medina, MSc, a researcher in the National Polytechnic Institute in Mexico City.

Patients who met only the criteria for the traditional classification, nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD), also died of COVID-19 at a higher rate than the control group, but the difference was not statistically significant.

“It is important to screen for MAFLD,” Mr. Vázquez-Medina told this news organization. “It’s a new definition, but it has really helped us to identify which patients are going to get worse by COVID-19.”

The study was published in Hepatology Communications.
 

More evidence for clinical relevance of MAFLD

The finding lends support to an initiative to use MAFLD instead of NAFLD to identify patients whose liver steatosis poses a threat to their health, Mr. Vázquez-Medina said.

NAFLD affects as much as a quarter of the world’s population. No drugs have been approved to treat it. Some researchers have reasoned that the imprecision of the definition of NAFLD could be one reason for the lack of progress in treatment.

“NAFLD is something that doesn’t have positive criteria to be diagnosed,” said Mr. Vázquez-Medina. “You only say NAFLD when you don’t find hepatitis or another disease.”

In an article published in Gastroenterology, an international consensus panel proposed MAFLD as an alternative, arguing that a focus on metabolic dysfunction could more accurately reflect the pathogenesis of the disease and help stratify patients.

Previous research has suggested that patients with MAFLD have a higher risk of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease and that the prevalence of colorectal adenomas is a higher in these patients, compared with patients with NAFLD.

The high prevalence of MAFLD in Mexico – about 30% – could help explain the country’s high rate of mortality from COVID-19, Mr. Vázquez-Medina said. Almost 6% of people diagnosed with COVID in Mexico have died from it, according to the Johns Hopkins University and Medical Center Coronavirus Resource Center.
 

Sorting COVID outcomes by liver steatosis

To understand the interaction of MAFLD, NAFLD, liver fibrosis, and COVID-19, Mr. Vázquez-Medina and his colleagues analyzed the records of all patients admitted to the Central Military Hospital with COVID-19 from April 4, 2020, to June 24, 2020.

They excluded patients for whom complete data were lacking or for whom a liver function test was not conducted in the first 24 hours of hospitalization. Also excluded were patients with significant consumption of alcohol (> 30 g/day for men and > 20 g/day for women) and those with a history of autoimmune liver disease, liver cancer, decompensated cirrhosis, platelet disorders, or myopathies.

The remaining patients were divided into three groups – 220 who met the criteria for MAFLD, 79 who met the criteria for NAFLD but not MAFLD, and 60 other patients as a control group.

The researchers defined MAFLD as the presence of liver steatosis detected with a noninvasive method and one of the following: overweight (body mass index, 25-29.9 kg/m2), type 2 diabetes, or the presence of two metabolic abnormalities (blood pressure > 140/90 mm Hg, plasma triglycerides > 150 mg/dL, plasma high-density lipoprotein cholesterol < 40 mg/dL in men and < 50 mg/dL in women, and prediabetes).

They defined NAFLD as the presence of liver steatosis without the other criteria for MAFLD.

The patients with MAFLD were the most likely to be intubated and were the most likely to die (intubation, 44.09%; mortality, 55%), followed by those with NAFLD (intubation, 40.51%; mortality, 51.9%) and those in the control group (intubation, 20%; mortality, 38.33%).

The difference in mortality between the MAFLD group and the control group was statistically significant (P = .02). The mortality difference between the NAFLD and the control group fell just short of statistical significance (P = .07).

For intubation, the difference between the MAFLD and the control group was highly statistically significant (P = .001), and the difference between the NAFLD and the control group was also statistically significant (P = .01)

Patients with advanced fibrosis and either MAFLD or NAFLD were also more likely to die than patients in the control group with advanced fibrosis.

That’s why screening for MAFLD is important, Mr. Vázquez-Medina said.
 

Next steps and new questions

Future research should examine whether patients with MAFLD have elevated levels of biomarkers for inflammation, such as interleukin 6, Mr. Vázquez-Medina said. A “chronic low proinflammatory state” may be the key to understanding the vulnerability of patients to MAFLD to COVID-19, he speculated.

The metabolic traits associated with MAFLD could explain the higher mortality and intubation rates with COVID, said Rohit Loomba, MD, MHSc, a professor of medicine in the division of gastroenterology at the University of California, San Diego, who was not involved in the study.

“Hypertension, diabetes, and obesity increase the risk of complications from COVID in all patients, whether they have been diagnosed with NAFLD or not,” he told this news organization in an email.

Mr. Vasquez-Medina pointed out that the patients with MAFLD had a higher risk of mortality even after adjusting for age, sex, type 2 diabetes, hypertension, overweight, and obesity (BMI ≥ 30 kg/m2). MAFLD also was more strongly associated with a poor outcome than either hypertension alone or obesity alone. Only age emerged as a significant independent covariate in the study.

Dr. Loomba also questioned whether the regression model used in this study for liver steatosis was “fully reflective of NAFLD.”

The researchers identified liver steatosis with a diagnostic formula that used noninvasive clinical BMI and laboratory tests (alanine aminotransferase), citing a study that found the regression formula was better at diagnosing NAFLD than FibroScan.

Mr. Vázquez-Medina reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Loomba serves as a consultant to Aardvark Therapeutics, Altimmune, Anylam/Regeneron, Amgen, Arrowhead Pharmaceuticals, AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, CohBar, Eli Lilly, Galmed, Gilead, Glympse Bio, Hightide, Inipharma, Intercept, Inventiva, Ionis, Janssen, Madrigal, Metacrine, NGM Biopharmaceuticals, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Merck, Pfizer, Sagimet, Theratechnologies, 89bio, Terns Pharmaceuticals, and Viking Therapeutics. He is co-founder of LipoNexus.

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

People with metabolic dysfunction–associated fatty liver disease (MAFLD) – a newly defined condition – may be more likely to die from COVID-19, researchers say.

A cohort of people hospitalized for COVID-19 in Central Military Hospital, Mexico City, who met the criteria for MAFLD died at a higher rate than a control group without fatty liver disease, said Martín Uriel Vázquez-Medina, MSc, a researcher in the National Polytechnic Institute in Mexico City.

Patients who met only the criteria for the traditional classification, nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD), also died of COVID-19 at a higher rate than the control group, but the difference was not statistically significant.

“It is important to screen for MAFLD,” Mr. Vázquez-Medina told this news organization. “It’s a new definition, but it has really helped us to identify which patients are going to get worse by COVID-19.”

The study was published in Hepatology Communications.
 

More evidence for clinical relevance of MAFLD

The finding lends support to an initiative to use MAFLD instead of NAFLD to identify patients whose liver steatosis poses a threat to their health, Mr. Vázquez-Medina said.

NAFLD affects as much as a quarter of the world’s population. No drugs have been approved to treat it. Some researchers have reasoned that the imprecision of the definition of NAFLD could be one reason for the lack of progress in treatment.

“NAFLD is something that doesn’t have positive criteria to be diagnosed,” said Mr. Vázquez-Medina. “You only say NAFLD when you don’t find hepatitis or another disease.”

In an article published in Gastroenterology, an international consensus panel proposed MAFLD as an alternative, arguing that a focus on metabolic dysfunction could more accurately reflect the pathogenesis of the disease and help stratify patients.

Previous research has suggested that patients with MAFLD have a higher risk of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease and that the prevalence of colorectal adenomas is a higher in these patients, compared with patients with NAFLD.

The high prevalence of MAFLD in Mexico – about 30% – could help explain the country’s high rate of mortality from COVID-19, Mr. Vázquez-Medina said. Almost 6% of people diagnosed with COVID in Mexico have died from it, according to the Johns Hopkins University and Medical Center Coronavirus Resource Center.
 

Sorting COVID outcomes by liver steatosis

To understand the interaction of MAFLD, NAFLD, liver fibrosis, and COVID-19, Mr. Vázquez-Medina and his colleagues analyzed the records of all patients admitted to the Central Military Hospital with COVID-19 from April 4, 2020, to June 24, 2020.

They excluded patients for whom complete data were lacking or for whom a liver function test was not conducted in the first 24 hours of hospitalization. Also excluded were patients with significant consumption of alcohol (> 30 g/day for men and > 20 g/day for women) and those with a history of autoimmune liver disease, liver cancer, decompensated cirrhosis, platelet disorders, or myopathies.

The remaining patients were divided into three groups – 220 who met the criteria for MAFLD, 79 who met the criteria for NAFLD but not MAFLD, and 60 other patients as a control group.

The researchers defined MAFLD as the presence of liver steatosis detected with a noninvasive method and one of the following: overweight (body mass index, 25-29.9 kg/m2), type 2 diabetes, or the presence of two metabolic abnormalities (blood pressure > 140/90 mm Hg, plasma triglycerides > 150 mg/dL, plasma high-density lipoprotein cholesterol < 40 mg/dL in men and < 50 mg/dL in women, and prediabetes).

They defined NAFLD as the presence of liver steatosis without the other criteria for MAFLD.

The patients with MAFLD were the most likely to be intubated and were the most likely to die (intubation, 44.09%; mortality, 55%), followed by those with NAFLD (intubation, 40.51%; mortality, 51.9%) and those in the control group (intubation, 20%; mortality, 38.33%).

The difference in mortality between the MAFLD group and the control group was statistically significant (P = .02). The mortality difference between the NAFLD and the control group fell just short of statistical significance (P = .07).

For intubation, the difference between the MAFLD and the control group was highly statistically significant (P = .001), and the difference between the NAFLD and the control group was also statistically significant (P = .01)

Patients with advanced fibrosis and either MAFLD or NAFLD were also more likely to die than patients in the control group with advanced fibrosis.

That’s why screening for MAFLD is important, Mr. Vázquez-Medina said.
 

Next steps and new questions

Future research should examine whether patients with MAFLD have elevated levels of biomarkers for inflammation, such as interleukin 6, Mr. Vázquez-Medina said. A “chronic low proinflammatory state” may be the key to understanding the vulnerability of patients to MAFLD to COVID-19, he speculated.

The metabolic traits associated with MAFLD could explain the higher mortality and intubation rates with COVID, said Rohit Loomba, MD, MHSc, a professor of medicine in the division of gastroenterology at the University of California, San Diego, who was not involved in the study.

“Hypertension, diabetes, and obesity increase the risk of complications from COVID in all patients, whether they have been diagnosed with NAFLD or not,” he told this news organization in an email.

Mr. Vasquez-Medina pointed out that the patients with MAFLD had a higher risk of mortality even after adjusting for age, sex, type 2 diabetes, hypertension, overweight, and obesity (BMI ≥ 30 kg/m2). MAFLD also was more strongly associated with a poor outcome than either hypertension alone or obesity alone. Only age emerged as a significant independent covariate in the study.

Dr. Loomba also questioned whether the regression model used in this study for liver steatosis was “fully reflective of NAFLD.”

The researchers identified liver steatosis with a diagnostic formula that used noninvasive clinical BMI and laboratory tests (alanine aminotransferase), citing a study that found the regression formula was better at diagnosing NAFLD than FibroScan.

Mr. Vázquez-Medina reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Loomba serves as a consultant to Aardvark Therapeutics, Altimmune, Anylam/Regeneron, Amgen, Arrowhead Pharmaceuticals, AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, CohBar, Eli Lilly, Galmed, Gilead, Glympse Bio, Hightide, Inipharma, Intercept, Inventiva, Ionis, Janssen, Madrigal, Metacrine, NGM Biopharmaceuticals, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Merck, Pfizer, Sagimet, Theratechnologies, 89bio, Terns Pharmaceuticals, and Viking Therapeutics. He is co-founder of LipoNexus.

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

Is fear of missing an infection – call it “FOMI” – leading you to overprescribe antibiotics to your patients?   

Inappropriate use of antibiotics can result in adverse events and toxicity, superinfections such as Clostridioides difficile and Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus, excess mortality and costs, and resistance to the drugs.   

All that has been well-known for years, and antibiotic resistance has become a leading public health concern. So why are physicians continuing to overprescribe the drugs?

Speaking at the 2022 annual Internal Medicine Meeting of the American College of Physicians, James “Brad” Cutrell, MD, medical director of antimicrobial stewardship, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, said clinicians in the United States and elsewhere appear to be falling into a three-part fallacy when it comes to using the drugs: fear of “missing an infection,” coupled with patient expectations that they will leave the office with a prescription and combined with an overemphasis on the potential benefit to the individual at the expense of the risk to society of antibiotic resistance.

Antibiotics are the only drugs that lose their efficacy for all patients over time the more they are used. “For example, if I give a beta blocker to a patient, it’s not going to affect other patients down the road,” Dr. Cutrell said. “It’s not going to lose its efficacy.”

“What we need in medicine is a new culture around antibiotic use,” Dr. Cutrell added. “We need more respect for the dangers of antibiotic misuse and to have confidence in [their] benefits and when they can be used wisely.”
 

Rampant misuse

Outpatient prescriptions account for at least 60% of antibiotic use in the United States. The rate is even higher in other countries, Dr. Cutrell said during a presentation at the 2022 annual Internal Medicine Meeting of the American College of Physicians.

“About 10% of adult visits and 20% of pediatric visits will result in an antibiotic prescription,” said Dr. Cutrell, noting that prescribing patterns vary widely across the country, with as much as a three-fold difference in some locations. But at least 30% of outpatient antibiotic prescriptions are inappropriately ordered, he said.

“When we look at acute respiratory infections, upwards of 50% are not indicated at all,” he said. Imagine, he added, if the same error rate applied to other medical practices: “What if surgeons were only right 50% of the time, or if the oncologist was only giving the right treatment 50% of the time?”

The most recent Antibiotic Threats Report from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimated that antibiotic-resistant bacteria and fungi cause more than 2.8 million infections and about 36,000 deaths annually in the United States alone.
 

How to be a better steward

The core elements for antimicrobial stewardship in the outpatient setting, according to Dr. Cutrell, include making a commitment to optimize prescribing, implementing at least one policy or practice to improve prescribing, monitoring prescribing practices and offering feedback to clinicians, and educating both patients and clinicians.

All that is similar to in-patient stewardship, he said, but outpatient clinicians face a few unique challenges. “Patients are lower acuity, and there is less diagnostic data, and program resources and time are more limited,” he said. Patient satisfaction is also a major driver, and it is also more difficult to measure and track ambulatory antibiotic use.

Interventions have been identified, however, that can help improve stewardship. One is auditing and feedback with peers. “Another [is] commitment posters, which can be placed around the clinic, and that helps set the culture,” he said. “Clinical education and practice guidelines are also important.”

Clinicians should also:

• Observe antibiotic best practices
• Optimize antibiotic selection and dosing
• Practice effective diagnostic stewardship
• Use the shortest duration of therapy necessary
• Avoid antibiotics for inappropriate indications
• Educate patients on when antibiotics are needed
• Follow and become good antibiotic stewardship mentors

“Multiple antibiotic stewardship interventions are effective, particularly those focused on behavioral interventions,” Dr. Cutrell said. “Every provider should follow antibiotic ‘best practices’ and other simple steps to prescribe antibiotics more wisely and to improve patient care.”

Dr. Cutrell reported financial relationships with Gilead Sciences and Regeneron Pharmaceuticals.

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

Is fear of missing an infection – call it “FOMI” – leading you to overprescribe antibiotics to your patients?   

Inappropriate use of antibiotics can result in adverse events and toxicity, superinfections such as Clostridioides difficile and Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus, excess mortality and costs, and resistance to the drugs.   

All that has been well-known for years, and antibiotic resistance has become a leading public health concern. So why are physicians continuing to overprescribe the drugs?

Speaking at the 2022 annual Internal Medicine Meeting of the American College of Physicians, James “Brad” Cutrell, MD, medical director of antimicrobial stewardship, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, said clinicians in the United States and elsewhere appear to be falling into a three-part fallacy when it comes to using the drugs: fear of “missing an infection,” coupled with patient expectations that they will leave the office with a prescription and combined with an overemphasis on the potential benefit to the individual at the expense of the risk to society of antibiotic resistance.

Antibiotics are the only drugs that lose their efficacy for all patients over time the more they are used. “For example, if I give a beta blocker to a patient, it’s not going to affect other patients down the road,” Dr. Cutrell said. “It’s not going to lose its efficacy.”

“What we need in medicine is a new culture around antibiotic use,” Dr. Cutrell added. “We need more respect for the dangers of antibiotic misuse and to have confidence in [their] benefits and when they can be used wisely.”
 

Rampant misuse

Outpatient prescriptions account for at least 60% of antibiotic use in the United States. The rate is even higher in other countries, Dr. Cutrell said during a presentation at the 2022 annual Internal Medicine Meeting of the American College of Physicians.

“About 10% of adult visits and 20% of pediatric visits will result in an antibiotic prescription,” said Dr. Cutrell, noting that prescribing patterns vary widely across the country, with as much as a three-fold difference in some locations. But at least 30% of outpatient antibiotic prescriptions are inappropriately ordered, he said.

“When we look at acute respiratory infections, upwards of 50% are not indicated at all,” he said. Imagine, he added, if the same error rate applied to other medical practices: “What if surgeons were only right 50% of the time, or if the oncologist was only giving the right treatment 50% of the time?”

The most recent Antibiotic Threats Report from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimated that antibiotic-resistant bacteria and fungi cause more than 2.8 million infections and about 36,000 deaths annually in the United States alone.
 

How to be a better steward

The core elements for antimicrobial stewardship in the outpatient setting, according to Dr. Cutrell, include making a commitment to optimize prescribing, implementing at least one policy or practice to improve prescribing, monitoring prescribing practices and offering feedback to clinicians, and educating both patients and clinicians.

All that is similar to in-patient stewardship, he said, but outpatient clinicians face a few unique challenges. “Patients are lower acuity, and there is less diagnostic data, and program resources and time are more limited,” he said. Patient satisfaction is also a major driver, and it is also more difficult to measure and track ambulatory antibiotic use.

Interventions have been identified, however, that can help improve stewardship. One is auditing and feedback with peers. “Another [is] commitment posters, which can be placed around the clinic, and that helps set the culture,” he said. “Clinical education and practice guidelines are also important.”

Clinicians should also:

• Observe antibiotic best practices
• Optimize antibiotic selection and dosing
• Practice effective diagnostic stewardship
• Use the shortest duration of therapy necessary
• Avoid antibiotics for inappropriate indications
• Educate patients on when antibiotics are needed
• Follow and become good antibiotic stewardship mentors

“Multiple antibiotic stewardship interventions are effective, particularly those focused on behavioral interventions,” Dr. Cutrell said. “Every provider should follow antibiotic ‘best practices’ and other simple steps to prescribe antibiotics more wisely and to improve patient care.”

Dr. Cutrell reported financial relationships with Gilead Sciences and Regeneron Pharmaceuticals.

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

Is fear of missing an infection – call it “FOMI” – leading you to overprescribe antibiotics to your patients?   

Inappropriate use of antibiotics can result in adverse events and toxicity, superinfections such as Clostridioides difficile and Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus, excess mortality and costs, and resistance to the drugs.   

All that has been well-known for years, and antibiotic resistance has become a leading public health concern. So why are physicians continuing to overprescribe the drugs?

Speaking at the 2022 annual Internal Medicine Meeting of the American College of Physicians, James “Brad” Cutrell, MD, medical director of antimicrobial stewardship, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, said clinicians in the United States and elsewhere appear to be falling into a three-part fallacy when it comes to using the drugs: fear of “missing an infection,” coupled with patient expectations that they will leave the office with a prescription and combined with an overemphasis on the potential benefit to the individual at the expense of the risk to society of antibiotic resistance.

Antibiotics are the only drugs that lose their efficacy for all patients over time the more they are used. “For example, if I give a beta blocker to a patient, it’s not going to affect other patients down the road,” Dr. Cutrell said. “It’s not going to lose its efficacy.”

“What we need in medicine is a new culture around antibiotic use,” Dr. Cutrell added. “We need more respect for the dangers of antibiotic misuse and to have confidence in [their] benefits and when they can be used wisely.”
 

Rampant misuse

Outpatient prescriptions account for at least 60% of antibiotic use in the United States. The rate is even higher in other countries, Dr. Cutrell said during a presentation at the 2022 annual Internal Medicine Meeting of the American College of Physicians.

“About 10% of adult visits and 20% of pediatric visits will result in an antibiotic prescription,” said Dr. Cutrell, noting that prescribing patterns vary widely across the country, with as much as a three-fold difference in some locations. But at least 30% of outpatient antibiotic prescriptions are inappropriately ordered, he said.

“When we look at acute respiratory infections, upwards of 50% are not indicated at all,” he said. Imagine, he added, if the same error rate applied to other medical practices: “What if surgeons were only right 50% of the time, or if the oncologist was only giving the right treatment 50% of the time?”

The most recent Antibiotic Threats Report from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimated that antibiotic-resistant bacteria and fungi cause more than 2.8 million infections and about 36,000 deaths annually in the United States alone.
 

How to be a better steward

The core elements for antimicrobial stewardship in the outpatient setting, according to Dr. Cutrell, include making a commitment to optimize prescribing, implementing at least one policy or practice to improve prescribing, monitoring prescribing practices and offering feedback to clinicians, and educating both patients and clinicians.

All that is similar to in-patient stewardship, he said, but outpatient clinicians face a few unique challenges. “Patients are lower acuity, and there is less diagnostic data, and program resources and time are more limited,” he said. Patient satisfaction is also a major driver, and it is also more difficult to measure and track ambulatory antibiotic use.

Interventions have been identified, however, that can help improve stewardship. One is auditing and feedback with peers. “Another [is] commitment posters, which can be placed around the clinic, and that helps set the culture,” he said. “Clinical education and practice guidelines are also important.”

Clinicians should also:

• Observe antibiotic best practices
• Optimize antibiotic selection and dosing
• Practice effective diagnostic stewardship
• Use the shortest duration of therapy necessary
• Avoid antibiotics for inappropriate indications
• Educate patients on when antibiotics are needed
• Follow and become good antibiotic stewardship mentors

“Multiple antibiotic stewardship interventions are effective, particularly those focused on behavioral interventions,” Dr. Cutrell said. “Every provider should follow antibiotic ‘best practices’ and other simple steps to prescribe antibiotics more wisely and to improve patient care.”

Dr. Cutrell reported financial relationships with Gilead Sciences and Regeneron Pharmaceuticals.

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

Cognitive impairment from severe COVID-19 is equivalent to 20 years of aging, report scientists behind a new study, adding that the impairment is “equivalent to losing 10 IQ points.”

In their study, published in eClinicalMedicine, a team of scientists from the University of Cambridge and Imperial College London said there is growing evidence that COVID-19 can cause lasting cognitive and mental health problems. Patients report fatigue, “brain fog,” problems recalling words, sleep disturbances, anxiety, and even posttraumatic stress disorder months after infection.

The researchers analyzed data from 46 individuals who received critical care for COVID-19 at Addenbrooke’s Hospital between March and July 2020 (27 females, 19 males, mean age 51 years, 16 of whom had mechanical ventilation) and were recruited to the NIHR COVID-19 BioResource project.

At an average of 6 months after acute COVID-19 illness, the study participants underwent detailed computerized cognitive tests via the Cognitron platform,  comprising eight tasks deployed on an iPad measuring mental function such as memory, attention, and reasoning. Also assessed were anxiety, depression, and posttraumatic stress disorder via standard mood, anxiety, and posttraumatic stress scales – specifically the Generalized Anxiety Disorder 7 (GAD-7), the Patient Health Questionnaire 9 (PHQ-9), and the PTSD Checklist for Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders 5 (PCL-5). Their data were compared against 460 controls – matched for age, sex, education, and first language – and the pattern of deficits across tasks was qualitatively compared with normal age-related decline and early-stage dementia.
 

Less accurate and slower response times

The authors highlighted how this was the first time a “rigorous assessment and comparison” had been carried out in relation to the after-effects of severe COVID-19.

“Cognitive impairment is common to a wide range of neurological disorders, including dementia, and even routine aging, but the patterns we saw – the cognitive ‘fingerprint’ of COVID-19 – was distinct from all of these,” said David Menon, MD, division of anesthesia at the University of Cambridge, England, and the study’s senior author.

The scientists found that COVID-19 survivors were less accurate and had slower response times than the control population, and added that survivors scored particularly poorly on verbal analogical reasoning and showed slower processing speeds.

Critically, the scale of the cognitive deficits correlated with acute illness severity, but not fatigue or mental health status at the time of cognitive assessment, said the authors.
 

Recovery ‘at best gradual’

The effects were strongest for those with more severe acute illness, and who required mechanical ventilation, said the authors, who found that acute illness severity was “better at predicting the cognitive deficits.”

The authors pointed out how these deficits were still detectable when patients were followed up 6 months later, and that, although patients’ scores and reaction times began to improve over time, any recovery was “at best gradual” and likely to be influenced by factors such as illness severity and its neurological or psychological impacts.

“We followed some patients up as late as 10 months after their acute infection, so were able to see a very slow improvement,” Dr. Menon said. He explained how, while this improvement was not statistically significant, it was “at least heading in the right direction.”

However, he warned it is very possible that some of these individuals “will never fully recover.”

The cognitive deficits observed may be due to several factors in combination, said the authors, including inadequate oxygen or blood supply to the brain, blockage of large or small blood vessels due to clotting, and microscopic bleeds. They highlighted how the most important mechanism, however, may be “damage caused by the body’s own inflammatory response and immune system.”

Adam Hampshire, PhD, of the department of brain sciences at Imperial College London, one of the study’s authors, described how around 40,000 people have been through intensive care with COVID-19 in England alone, with many more despite having been very sick not admitted to hospital. This means there is a “large number of people out there still experiencing problems with cognition many months later,” he said. “We urgently need to look at what can be done to help these people.”

A version of this article first appeared on Univadis.

Cognitive impairment from severe COVID-19 is equivalent to 20 years of aging, report scientists behind a new study, adding that the impairment is “equivalent to losing 10 IQ points.”

In their study, published in eClinicalMedicine, a team of scientists from the University of Cambridge and Imperial College London said there is growing evidence that COVID-19 can cause lasting cognitive and mental health problems. Patients report fatigue, “brain fog,” problems recalling words, sleep disturbances, anxiety, and even posttraumatic stress disorder months after infection.

The researchers analyzed data from 46 individuals who received critical care for COVID-19 at Addenbrooke’s Hospital between March and July 2020 (27 females, 19 males, mean age 51 years, 16 of whom had mechanical ventilation) and were recruited to the NIHR COVID-19 BioResource project.

At an average of 6 months after acute COVID-19 illness, the study participants underwent detailed computerized cognitive tests via the Cognitron platform,  comprising eight tasks deployed on an iPad measuring mental function such as memory, attention, and reasoning. Also assessed were anxiety, depression, and posttraumatic stress disorder via standard mood, anxiety, and posttraumatic stress scales – specifically the Generalized Anxiety Disorder 7 (GAD-7), the Patient Health Questionnaire 9 (PHQ-9), and the PTSD Checklist for Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders 5 (PCL-5). Their data were compared against 460 controls – matched for age, sex, education, and first language – and the pattern of deficits across tasks was qualitatively compared with normal age-related decline and early-stage dementia.
 

Less accurate and slower response times

The authors highlighted how this was the first time a “rigorous assessment and comparison” had been carried out in relation to the after-effects of severe COVID-19.

“Cognitive impairment is common to a wide range of neurological disorders, including dementia, and even routine aging, but the patterns we saw – the cognitive ‘fingerprint’ of COVID-19 – was distinct from all of these,” said David Menon, MD, division of anesthesia at the University of Cambridge, England, and the study’s senior author.

The scientists found that COVID-19 survivors were less accurate and had slower response times than the control population, and added that survivors scored particularly poorly on verbal analogical reasoning and showed slower processing speeds.

Critically, the scale of the cognitive deficits correlated with acute illness severity, but not fatigue or mental health status at the time of cognitive assessment, said the authors.
 

Recovery ‘at best gradual’

The effects were strongest for those with more severe acute illness, and who required mechanical ventilation, said the authors, who found that acute illness severity was “better at predicting the cognitive deficits.”

The authors pointed out how these deficits were still detectable when patients were followed up 6 months later, and that, although patients’ scores and reaction times began to improve over time, any recovery was “at best gradual” and likely to be influenced by factors such as illness severity and its neurological or psychological impacts.

“We followed some patients up as late as 10 months after their acute infection, so were able to see a very slow improvement,” Dr. Menon said. He explained how, while this improvement was not statistically significant, it was “at least heading in the right direction.”

However, he warned it is very possible that some of these individuals “will never fully recover.”

The cognitive deficits observed may be due to several factors in combination, said the authors, including inadequate oxygen or blood supply to the brain, blockage of large or small blood vessels due to clotting, and microscopic bleeds. They highlighted how the most important mechanism, however, may be “damage caused by the body’s own inflammatory response and immune system.”

Adam Hampshire, PhD, of the department of brain sciences at Imperial College London, one of the study’s authors, described how around 40,000 people have been through intensive care with COVID-19 in England alone, with many more despite having been very sick not admitted to hospital. This means there is a “large number of people out there still experiencing problems with cognition many months later,” he said. “We urgently need to look at what can be done to help these people.”

A version of this article first appeared on Univadis.

Cognitive impairment from severe COVID-19 is equivalent to 20 years of aging, report scientists behind a new study, adding that the impairment is “equivalent to losing 10 IQ points.”

In their study, published in eClinicalMedicine, a team of scientists from the University of Cambridge and Imperial College London said there is growing evidence that COVID-19 can cause lasting cognitive and mental health problems. Patients report fatigue, “brain fog,” problems recalling words, sleep disturbances, anxiety, and even posttraumatic stress disorder months after infection.

The researchers analyzed data from 46 individuals who received critical care for COVID-19 at Addenbrooke’s Hospital between March and July 2020 (27 females, 19 males, mean age 51 years, 16 of whom had mechanical ventilation) and were recruited to the NIHR COVID-19 BioResource project.

At an average of 6 months after acute COVID-19 illness, the study participants underwent detailed computerized cognitive tests via the Cognitron platform,  comprising eight tasks deployed on an iPad measuring mental function such as memory, attention, and reasoning. Also assessed were anxiety, depression, and posttraumatic stress disorder via standard mood, anxiety, and posttraumatic stress scales – specifically the Generalized Anxiety Disorder 7 (GAD-7), the Patient Health Questionnaire 9 (PHQ-9), and the PTSD Checklist for Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders 5 (PCL-5). Their data were compared against 460 controls – matched for age, sex, education, and first language – and the pattern of deficits across tasks was qualitatively compared with normal age-related decline and early-stage dementia.
 

Less accurate and slower response times

The authors highlighted how this was the first time a “rigorous assessment and comparison” had been carried out in relation to the after-effects of severe COVID-19.

“Cognitive impairment is common to a wide range of neurological disorders, including dementia, and even routine aging, but the patterns we saw – the cognitive ‘fingerprint’ of COVID-19 – was distinct from all of these,” said David Menon, MD, division of anesthesia at the University of Cambridge, England, and the study’s senior author.

The scientists found that COVID-19 survivors were less accurate and had slower response times than the control population, and added that survivors scored particularly poorly on verbal analogical reasoning and showed slower processing speeds.

Critically, the scale of the cognitive deficits correlated with acute illness severity, but not fatigue or mental health status at the time of cognitive assessment, said the authors.
 

Recovery ‘at best gradual’

The effects were strongest for those with more severe acute illness, and who required mechanical ventilation, said the authors, who found that acute illness severity was “better at predicting the cognitive deficits.”

The authors pointed out how these deficits were still detectable when patients were followed up 6 months later, and that, although patients’ scores and reaction times began to improve over time, any recovery was “at best gradual” and likely to be influenced by factors such as illness severity and its neurological or psychological impacts.

“We followed some patients up as late as 10 months after their acute infection, so were able to see a very slow improvement,” Dr. Menon said. He explained how, while this improvement was not statistically significant, it was “at least heading in the right direction.”

However, he warned it is very possible that some of these individuals “will never fully recover.”

The cognitive deficits observed may be due to several factors in combination, said the authors, including inadequate oxygen or blood supply to the brain, blockage of large or small blood vessels due to clotting, and microscopic bleeds. They highlighted how the most important mechanism, however, may be “damage caused by the body’s own inflammatory response and immune system.”

Adam Hampshire, PhD, of the department of brain sciences at Imperial College London, one of the study’s authors, described how around 40,000 people have been through intensive care with COVID-19 in England alone, with many more despite having been very sick not admitted to hospital. This means there is a “large number of people out there still experiencing problems with cognition many months later,” he said. “We urgently need to look at what can be done to help these people.”

A version of this article first appeared on Univadis.

Symptom timelines surrounding COVID infection tend to center on either the immediate 5-day quarantine protocols for acute infection or the long-COVID symptoms that can last a month or potentially far longer.

But some patients report a “middle-range” COVID that will resolve before it becomes long COVID, yet still lasts longer than is typical for viral infections. People may return to work or daily routines, but something is off: What had been simple exercise regimens become onerous. Everyday tasks take more effort.

Does this ill-defined subset point to a “medium COVID?”

Farha Ikramuddin, MD, MHA, a physiatrist and rehabilitation specialist at the University of Minnesota and M Health Fairview in Minneapolis, points out there is no definition or diagnostic code or shared official understanding of a middle category for COVID.

“But am I seeing that? Absolutely,” she said in an interview.

“I have seen patients who are younger, healthier, [and] with not so many comorbidities have either persistence of symptoms or reappearance after the initial infection is done,” she said.

Some patients report they had very low infection or were nonsymptomatic and returned to their normal health fairly quickly after infection. Then a week later they began experiencing fatigue, lost appetite, loss of smell, and feeling full after a few bites, Dr. Ikramuddin said.

Part of the trouble in categorizing the space between returning to normal after a week and having symptoms for months is that organizations can’t agree on a timeline for when symptoms warrant a “long-COVID” label.

For instance, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention defines it as 4 or more weeks after infection. The World Health Organization defines it as starting 3 months after COVID-19 symptom onset.

“I’m seeing ‘medium COVID’ – as one would call it – in younger and healthier patients. I’m also noticing that these symptoms are not severe enough to warrant stopping their job or changing their job schedules,” Dr. Ikramuddin said.

They go back to work, she said, but start noticing something is off.

“I am seeing that.”

“I discharge at least two patients a week from my clinic because they have moved on and no longer have symptoms,” Dr. Ikramuddin said.

In a story from Kaiser Health News published last month, WHYY health reporter Nina Feldman writes: “What I’ve come to think of as my ‘medium COVID’ affected my life. I couldn’t socialize much, drink, or stay up past 9:30 p.m. It took me 10 weeks to go for my first run – I’d been too afraid to try.”

She described a dinner with a friend after ending initial isolation protocols: “One glass of wine left me feeling like I’d had a whole bottle. I was bone-achingly exhausted but couldn’t sleep.”
 

Medical mystery

Dr. Ikramuddin notes the mechanism behind prolonged COVID-19 symptoms is still a medical mystery.

“In one scenario,” she said, “the question is being asked about whether the virus is staying dormant, similar to herpes zoster or HIV.”

“Right now, instead of getting more answers, we’re getting more questions,” Dr. Ikramuddin  said.

Mouhib Naddour, MD, a pulmonary specialist with Sharp HealthCare in San Diego, said he’s seeing that it’s taking some patients who have had COVID longer to recover than it would for other viral infections.

Some patients fall between those recovering within 2-3 weeks and patients having long COVID. Those patients in the gap could be lumped into a middle-range COVID, he told this news organization.

“We try to put things into tables and boxes but it is hard with this disease,” Dr. Naddour said.

He agrees there’s no medical definition for “medium” COVID, but he said the idea should bring hope for patients to know that, if their symptoms are persisting they don’t necessarily have long COVID – and their symptoms may still disappear.

“This is an illness that may take longer to completely recover from,” he said. “The majority of patients we’re seeing in this group could be healthy young patients who get COVID, then 2-3 weeks after they test negative, still have lingering symptoms.”
 

Common symptoms

Some commonly reported symptoms of those with enduring illness, which often overlap with other stages of COVID, are difficulty breathing, chest tightness, dry cough, chest pain, muscle and joint pain, fatigue, difficulty sleeping, and mood swings, Dr. Naddour said. 

“We need to do an extensive assessment to make sure there’s no other problem causing these symptoms,” he said.

Still, there is no set timeline for the medium-COVID range, he noted, so checking in with a primary care physician is important for people experiencing symptoms.
 

It’s a continuum, not a category

Fernando Carnavali, MD, coordinator for Mount Sinai’s Center for Post-COVID Care in New York, said he is not ready to recognize a separate category for a “medium” COVID.

He noted that science can’t even agree on a name for lasting post-COVID symptoms, whether it’s “long COVID” or “long-haul COVID,” “post-COVID syndrome” or “post-acute sequelae of COVID-19 (PASC ).” There’s no agreed-upon pathophysiology or biomarker.

“That creates these gaps of understanding on where we are,” Dr. Carnavali said in an interview.

He said he understands people’s need to categorize symptoms, but rather than a middle ground he sees a continuum.

It doesn’t mean what others may call COVID’s middle ground doesn’t exist, Dr. Carnavali said: “We are in the infancy of defining this. Trying to classify them may create more anxiety.”

The clinicians interviewed for this story report no relevant financial relationships.

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

Symptom timelines surrounding COVID infection tend to center on either the immediate 5-day quarantine protocols for acute infection or the long-COVID symptoms that can last a month or potentially far longer.

But some patients report a “middle-range” COVID that will resolve before it becomes long COVID, yet still lasts longer than is typical for viral infections. People may return to work or daily routines, but something is off: What had been simple exercise regimens become onerous. Everyday tasks take more effort.

Does this ill-defined subset point to a “medium COVID?”

Farha Ikramuddin, MD, MHA, a physiatrist and rehabilitation specialist at the University of Minnesota and M Health Fairview in Minneapolis, points out there is no definition or diagnostic code or shared official understanding of a middle category for COVID.

“But am I seeing that? Absolutely,” she said in an interview.

“I have seen patients who are younger, healthier, [and] with not so many comorbidities have either persistence of symptoms or reappearance after the initial infection is done,” she said.

Some patients report they had very low infection or were nonsymptomatic and returned to their normal health fairly quickly after infection. Then a week later they began experiencing fatigue, lost appetite, loss of smell, and feeling full after a few bites, Dr. Ikramuddin said.

Part of the trouble in categorizing the space between returning to normal after a week and having symptoms for months is that organizations can’t agree on a timeline for when symptoms warrant a “long-COVID” label.

For instance, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention defines it as 4 or more weeks after infection. The World Health Organization defines it as starting 3 months after COVID-19 symptom onset.

“I’m seeing ‘medium COVID’ – as one would call it – in younger and healthier patients. I’m also noticing that these symptoms are not severe enough to warrant stopping their job or changing their job schedules,” Dr. Ikramuddin said.

They go back to work, she said, but start noticing something is off.

“I am seeing that.”

“I discharge at least two patients a week from my clinic because they have moved on and no longer have symptoms,” Dr. Ikramuddin said.

In a story from Kaiser Health News published last month, WHYY health reporter Nina Feldman writes: “What I’ve come to think of as my ‘medium COVID’ affected my life. I couldn’t socialize much, drink, or stay up past 9:30 p.m. It took me 10 weeks to go for my first run – I’d been too afraid to try.”

She described a dinner with a friend after ending initial isolation protocols: “One glass of wine left me feeling like I’d had a whole bottle. I was bone-achingly exhausted but couldn’t sleep.”
 

Medical mystery

Dr. Ikramuddin notes the mechanism behind prolonged COVID-19 symptoms is still a medical mystery.

“In one scenario,” she said, “the question is being asked about whether the virus is staying dormant, similar to herpes zoster or HIV.”

“Right now, instead of getting more answers, we’re getting more questions,” Dr. Ikramuddin  said.

Mouhib Naddour, MD, a pulmonary specialist with Sharp HealthCare in San Diego, said he’s seeing that it’s taking some patients who have had COVID longer to recover than it would for other viral infections.

Some patients fall between those recovering within 2-3 weeks and patients having long COVID. Those patients in the gap could be lumped into a middle-range COVID, he told this news organization.

“We try to put things into tables and boxes but it is hard with this disease,” Dr. Naddour said.

He agrees there’s no medical definition for “medium” COVID, but he said the idea should bring hope for patients to know that, if their symptoms are persisting they don’t necessarily have long COVID – and their symptoms may still disappear.

“This is an illness that may take longer to completely recover from,” he said. “The majority of patients we’re seeing in this group could be healthy young patients who get COVID, then 2-3 weeks after they test negative, still have lingering symptoms.”
 

Common symptoms

Some commonly reported symptoms of those with enduring illness, which often overlap with other stages of COVID, are difficulty breathing, chest tightness, dry cough, chest pain, muscle and joint pain, fatigue, difficulty sleeping, and mood swings, Dr. Naddour said. 

“We need to do an extensive assessment to make sure there’s no other problem causing these symptoms,” he said.

Still, there is no set timeline for the medium-COVID range, he noted, so checking in with a primary care physician is important for people experiencing symptoms.
 

It’s a continuum, not a category

Fernando Carnavali, MD, coordinator for Mount Sinai’s Center for Post-COVID Care in New York, said he is not ready to recognize a separate category for a “medium” COVID.

He noted that science can’t even agree on a name for lasting post-COVID symptoms, whether it’s “long COVID” or “long-haul COVID,” “post-COVID syndrome” or “post-acute sequelae of COVID-19 (PASC ).” There’s no agreed-upon pathophysiology or biomarker.

“That creates these gaps of understanding on where we are,” Dr. Carnavali said in an interview.

He said he understands people’s need to categorize symptoms, but rather than a middle ground he sees a continuum.

It doesn’t mean what others may call COVID’s middle ground doesn’t exist, Dr. Carnavali said: “We are in the infancy of defining this. Trying to classify them may create more anxiety.”

The clinicians interviewed for this story report no relevant financial relationships.

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

Symptom timelines surrounding COVID infection tend to center on either the immediate 5-day quarantine protocols for acute infection or the long-COVID symptoms that can last a month or potentially far longer.

But some patients report a “middle-range” COVID that will resolve before it becomes long COVID, yet still lasts longer than is typical for viral infections. People may return to work or daily routines, but something is off: What had been simple exercise regimens become onerous. Everyday tasks take more effort.

Does this ill-defined subset point to a “medium COVID?”

Farha Ikramuddin, MD, MHA, a physiatrist and rehabilitation specialist at the University of Minnesota and M Health Fairview in Minneapolis, points out there is no definition or diagnostic code or shared official understanding of a middle category for COVID.

“But am I seeing that? Absolutely,” she said in an interview.

“I have seen patients who are younger, healthier, [and] with not so many comorbidities have either persistence of symptoms or reappearance after the initial infection is done,” she said.

Some patients report they had very low infection or were nonsymptomatic and returned to their normal health fairly quickly after infection. Then a week later they began experiencing fatigue, lost appetite, loss of smell, and feeling full after a few bites, Dr. Ikramuddin said.

Part of the trouble in categorizing the space between returning to normal after a week and having symptoms for months is that organizations can’t agree on a timeline for when symptoms warrant a “long-COVID” label.

For instance, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention defines it as 4 or more weeks after infection. The World Health Organization defines it as starting 3 months after COVID-19 symptom onset.

“I’m seeing ‘medium COVID’ – as one would call it – in younger and healthier patients. I’m also noticing that these symptoms are not severe enough to warrant stopping their job or changing their job schedules,” Dr. Ikramuddin said.

They go back to work, she said, but start noticing something is off.

“I am seeing that.”

“I discharge at least two patients a week from my clinic because they have moved on and no longer have symptoms,” Dr. Ikramuddin said.

In a story from Kaiser Health News published last month, WHYY health reporter Nina Feldman writes: “What I’ve come to think of as my ‘medium COVID’ affected my life. I couldn’t socialize much, drink, or stay up past 9:30 p.m. It took me 10 weeks to go for my first run – I’d been too afraid to try.”

She described a dinner with a friend after ending initial isolation protocols: “One glass of wine left me feeling like I’d had a whole bottle. I was bone-achingly exhausted but couldn’t sleep.”
 

Medical mystery

Dr. Ikramuddin notes the mechanism behind prolonged COVID-19 symptoms is still a medical mystery.

“In one scenario,” she said, “the question is being asked about whether the virus is staying dormant, similar to herpes zoster or HIV.”

“Right now, instead of getting more answers, we’re getting more questions,” Dr. Ikramuddin  said.

Mouhib Naddour, MD, a pulmonary specialist with Sharp HealthCare in San Diego, said he’s seeing that it’s taking some patients who have had COVID longer to recover than it would for other viral infections.

Some patients fall between those recovering within 2-3 weeks and patients having long COVID. Those patients in the gap could be lumped into a middle-range COVID, he told this news organization.

“We try to put things into tables and boxes but it is hard with this disease,” Dr. Naddour said.

He agrees there’s no medical definition for “medium” COVID, but he said the idea should bring hope for patients to know that, if their symptoms are persisting they don’t necessarily have long COVID – and their symptoms may still disappear.

“This is an illness that may take longer to completely recover from,” he said. “The majority of patients we’re seeing in this group could be healthy young patients who get COVID, then 2-3 weeks after they test negative, still have lingering symptoms.”
 

Common symptoms

Some commonly reported symptoms of those with enduring illness, which often overlap with other stages of COVID, are difficulty breathing, chest tightness, dry cough, chest pain, muscle and joint pain, fatigue, difficulty sleeping, and mood swings, Dr. Naddour said. 

“We need to do an extensive assessment to make sure there’s no other problem causing these symptoms,” he said.

Still, there is no set timeline for the medium-COVID range, he noted, so checking in with a primary care physician is important for people experiencing symptoms.
 

It’s a continuum, not a category

Fernando Carnavali, MD, coordinator for Mount Sinai’s Center for Post-COVID Care in New York, said he is not ready to recognize a separate category for a “medium” COVID.

He noted that science can’t even agree on a name for lasting post-COVID symptoms, whether it’s “long COVID” or “long-haul COVID,” “post-COVID syndrome” or “post-acute sequelae of COVID-19 (PASC ).” There’s no agreed-upon pathophysiology or biomarker.

“That creates these gaps of understanding on where we are,” Dr. Carnavali said in an interview.

He said he understands people’s need to categorize symptoms, but rather than a middle ground he sees a continuum.

It doesn’t mean what others may call COVID’s middle ground doesn’t exist, Dr. Carnavali said: “We are in the infancy of defining this. Trying to classify them may create more anxiety.”

The clinicians interviewed for this story report no relevant financial relationships.

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

New surveillance data from the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) confirm a small but statistically significant increased risk for Guillain-Barré syndrome (GBS) in the 3 weeks after receipt of the Janssen/Johnson & Johnson COVID-19 vaccine.

The Janssen vaccine (Ad26.COV2.S) is a replication-incompetent adenoviral vector vaccine.

The data show no increased risk of GBS with the Pfizer (BNT162b2) or Moderna (mRNA-1273) shots – both mRNA vaccines.

“Our findings support the current guidance from U.S. health officials that preferentially recommend use of mRNA COVID-19 vaccines for primary and booster doses,” Nicola Klein, MD, PhD, with Kaiser Permanente Vaccine Study Center, Oakland, Calif., told this news organization.

“Individuals who choose to receive Janssen/J&J COVID-19 vaccine should be informed of the potential safety risks, including GBS,” Dr. Klein said.

The study was published online in JAMA Network Open.
 

Eleven cases

Between mid-December 2020 and mid-November 2021, roughly 15.1 million doses of COVID-19 vaccine were administered to nearly 7.9 million adults in the United States.

This includes roughly 483,000 doses of the Janssen vaccine, 8.8 million doses of the Pfizer vaccine, and 5.8 million doses of the Moderna vaccine.

The researchers confirmed 11 cases of GBS after the Janssen vaccine.

The unadjusted incidence of GBS (per 100,000 person-years) was 32.4 in the first 21 days after the Janssen vaccine – substantially higher than the expected background rate of 1 to 2 cases per 100,000 person-years.

There were 36 confirmed cases of GBS after mRNA vaccines. The unadjusted incidence in the first 21 days after mRNA vaccination was 1.3 per 100,000 person-years, similar to the overall expected background rate.

In an adjusted head-to-head comparison, GBS incidence during the 21 days after receipt of the Janssen vaccine was 20.6 times higher than the GBS incidence during the 21 days after the Pfizer or Moderna mRNA vaccines, amounting to 15.5 excess cases per million Janssen vaccine recipients.

Most cases of GBS after the Janssen vaccine occurred during the 1- to 21-day risk interval, with the period of greatest risk in the 1-14 days after vaccination.

The findings of this analysis of surveillance data of COVID-19 vaccines are “consistent with an elevated risk of GBS after primary Ad26.COV2.S vaccination,” the authors wrote.
 

Novel presentation?

The researchers note that nearly all individuals who developed GBS after the Janssen vaccine had facial weakness or paralysis, in addition to weakness and decreased reflexes in the limbs, suggesting that the presentation of GBS after COVID-19 adenoviral vector vaccine may be novel.

“More research is needed to determine if the presentation of GBS after adenoviral vector vaccine differs from GBS after other exposures such as Campylobacter jejuni, and to investigate the mechanism for how adenoviral vector vaccines may cause GBS,” Dr. Klein and colleagues said.

“The Vaccine Safety Datalink continues to conduct safety surveillance for all COVID-19 vaccines, including monitoring for GBS and other serious health outcomes after vaccination,” Dr. Klein said in an interview.

This study was supported by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Dr. Klein reported receiving grants from Pfizer research support for a COVID vaccine clinical trial as well as other unrelated studies, grants from Merck, grants from GlaxoSmithKline, grants from Sanofi Pasteur, and grants from Protein Science (now Sanofi Pasteur) outside the submitted work.

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

New surveillance data from the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) confirm a small but statistically significant increased risk for Guillain-Barré syndrome (GBS) in the 3 weeks after receipt of the Janssen/Johnson & Johnson COVID-19 vaccine.

The Janssen vaccine (Ad26.COV2.S) is a replication-incompetent adenoviral vector vaccine.

The data show no increased risk of GBS with the Pfizer (BNT162b2) or Moderna (mRNA-1273) shots – both mRNA vaccines.

“Our findings support the current guidance from U.S. health officials that preferentially recommend use of mRNA COVID-19 vaccines for primary and booster doses,” Nicola Klein, MD, PhD, with Kaiser Permanente Vaccine Study Center, Oakland, Calif., told this news organization.

“Individuals who choose to receive Janssen/J&J COVID-19 vaccine should be informed of the potential safety risks, including GBS,” Dr. Klein said.

The study was published online in JAMA Network Open.
 

Eleven cases

Between mid-December 2020 and mid-November 2021, roughly 15.1 million doses of COVID-19 vaccine were administered to nearly 7.9 million adults in the United States.

This includes roughly 483,000 doses of the Janssen vaccine, 8.8 million doses of the Pfizer vaccine, and 5.8 million doses of the Moderna vaccine.

The researchers confirmed 11 cases of GBS after the Janssen vaccine.

The unadjusted incidence of GBS (per 100,000 person-years) was 32.4 in the first 21 days after the Janssen vaccine – substantially higher than the expected background rate of 1 to 2 cases per 100,000 person-years.

There were 36 confirmed cases of GBS after mRNA vaccines. The unadjusted incidence in the first 21 days after mRNA vaccination was 1.3 per 100,000 person-years, similar to the overall expected background rate.

In an adjusted head-to-head comparison, GBS incidence during the 21 days after receipt of the Janssen vaccine was 20.6 times higher than the GBS incidence during the 21 days after the Pfizer or Moderna mRNA vaccines, amounting to 15.5 excess cases per million Janssen vaccine recipients.

Most cases of GBS after the Janssen vaccine occurred during the 1- to 21-day risk interval, with the period of greatest risk in the 1-14 days after vaccination.

The findings of this analysis of surveillance data of COVID-19 vaccines are “consistent with an elevated risk of GBS after primary Ad26.COV2.S vaccination,” the authors wrote.
 

Novel presentation?

The researchers note that nearly all individuals who developed GBS after the Janssen vaccine had facial weakness or paralysis, in addition to weakness and decreased reflexes in the limbs, suggesting that the presentation of GBS after COVID-19 adenoviral vector vaccine may be novel.

“More research is needed to determine if the presentation of GBS after adenoviral vector vaccine differs from GBS after other exposures such as Campylobacter jejuni, and to investigate the mechanism for how adenoviral vector vaccines may cause GBS,” Dr. Klein and colleagues said.

“The Vaccine Safety Datalink continues to conduct safety surveillance for all COVID-19 vaccines, including monitoring for GBS and other serious health outcomes after vaccination,” Dr. Klein said in an interview.

This study was supported by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Dr. Klein reported receiving grants from Pfizer research support for a COVID vaccine clinical trial as well as other unrelated studies, grants from Merck, grants from GlaxoSmithKline, grants from Sanofi Pasteur, and grants from Protein Science (now Sanofi Pasteur) outside the submitted work.

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

New surveillance data from the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) confirm a small but statistically significant increased risk for Guillain-Barré syndrome (GBS) in the 3 weeks after receipt of the Janssen/Johnson & Johnson COVID-19 vaccine.

The Janssen vaccine (Ad26.COV2.S) is a replication-incompetent adenoviral vector vaccine.

The data show no increased risk of GBS with the Pfizer (BNT162b2) or Moderna (mRNA-1273) shots – both mRNA vaccines.

“Our findings support the current guidance from U.S. health officials that preferentially recommend use of mRNA COVID-19 vaccines for primary and booster doses,” Nicola Klein, MD, PhD, with Kaiser Permanente Vaccine Study Center, Oakland, Calif., told this news organization.

“Individuals who choose to receive Janssen/J&J COVID-19 vaccine should be informed of the potential safety risks, including GBS,” Dr. Klein said.

The study was published online in JAMA Network Open.
 

Eleven cases

Between mid-December 2020 and mid-November 2021, roughly 15.1 million doses of COVID-19 vaccine were administered to nearly 7.9 million adults in the United States.

This includes roughly 483,000 doses of the Janssen vaccine, 8.8 million doses of the Pfizer vaccine, and 5.8 million doses of the Moderna vaccine.

The researchers confirmed 11 cases of GBS after the Janssen vaccine.

The unadjusted incidence of GBS (per 100,000 person-years) was 32.4 in the first 21 days after the Janssen vaccine – substantially higher than the expected background rate of 1 to 2 cases per 100,000 person-years.

There were 36 confirmed cases of GBS after mRNA vaccines. The unadjusted incidence in the first 21 days after mRNA vaccination was 1.3 per 100,000 person-years, similar to the overall expected background rate.

In an adjusted head-to-head comparison, GBS incidence during the 21 days after receipt of the Janssen vaccine was 20.6 times higher than the GBS incidence during the 21 days after the Pfizer or Moderna mRNA vaccines, amounting to 15.5 excess cases per million Janssen vaccine recipients.

Most cases of GBS after the Janssen vaccine occurred during the 1- to 21-day risk interval, with the period of greatest risk in the 1-14 days after vaccination.

The findings of this analysis of surveillance data of COVID-19 vaccines are “consistent with an elevated risk of GBS after primary Ad26.COV2.S vaccination,” the authors wrote.
 

Novel presentation?

The researchers note that nearly all individuals who developed GBS after the Janssen vaccine had facial weakness or paralysis, in addition to weakness and decreased reflexes in the limbs, suggesting that the presentation of GBS after COVID-19 adenoviral vector vaccine may be novel.

“More research is needed to determine if the presentation of GBS after adenoviral vector vaccine differs from GBS after other exposures such as Campylobacter jejuni, and to investigate the mechanism for how adenoviral vector vaccines may cause GBS,” Dr. Klein and colleagues said.

“The Vaccine Safety Datalink continues to conduct safety surveillance for all COVID-19 vaccines, including monitoring for GBS and other serious health outcomes after vaccination,” Dr. Klein said in an interview.

This study was supported by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Dr. Klein reported receiving grants from Pfizer research support for a COVID vaccine clinical trial as well as other unrelated studies, grants from Merck, grants from GlaxoSmithKline, grants from Sanofi Pasteur, and grants from Protein Science (now Sanofi Pasteur) outside the submitted work.

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

LISBON – A shift toward broader-spectrum antibiotics and increasing antibiotic resistance has led to high levels of mortality and neurodevelopmental impacts in surviving babies, according to a large international study conducted on four continents.

Results of the 3-year study were presented at this week’s European Congress of Clinical Microbiology & Infectious Diseases (ECCMID).

The observational study, NeoOBS, conducted by the Global Antibiotic Research and Development Partnership (GARDP) and key partners from 2018 to 2020, explored the outcomes of more than 3,200 newborns, finding an overall mortality of 11% in those with suspected neonatal sepsis. The mortality rate increased to 18% in newborns in whom a pathogen was detected in blood culture.

More than half of infection-related deaths (59%) were due to hospital-acquired infections. Klebsiella pneumoniae was the most common pathogen isolated and is usually associated with hospital-acquired infections, which are increasingly resistant to existing antibiotic treatments, said a report produced by GARDP to accompany the results.

The study also identified a worrying trend: Hospitals are frequently using last-line agents such as carbapenems because of the high degree of antibiotic resistance in their facilities. Of note, 15% of babies with neonatal sepsis were given last-line antibiotics.

Pediatrician Julia Bielicki, MD, PhD, senior lecturer, Paediatric Infectious Diseases Research Group, St. George’s University of London, and clinician at the University of Basel Children’s Hospital, Switzerland, was a coinvestigator on the NeoOBS study.

In an interview, she explained that, as well as reducing mortality, the research is about managing infections better to prevent long-term events and improve the quality of life for survivors of neonatal sepsis. “It can have life-changing impacts for so many babies,” Dr. Bielicki said. “Improving care is much more than just making sure the baby survives the episode of sepsis – it’s about ensuring these babies can become children and adults and go on to lead productive lives.”

Also, only a minority of patients (13%) received the World Health Organization guidelines for standard of care use of ampicillin and gentamicin, and there was increasing use of last-line agents such as carbapenems and even polymyxins in some settings in low- and middle-income countries. “This is alarming and foretells the impending crisis of a lack of antibiotics to treat sepsis caused by multidrug-resistant organisms,” according to the GARDP report.

There was wide variability in antibiotic combinations used across sites in Bangladesh, Brazil, China, Greece, India, Italy, Kenya, South Africa, Thailand, Uganda, and Vietnam, and often such use was not supported by underlying data.

Dr. Bielicki remarked that there was a shift toward broad-spectrum antibiotic use. “In a high-income country, you have more restrictive patterns of antibiotic use, but it isn’t necessarily less antibiotic exposure of neonates to antibiotics, but on the whole, usually narrow-spectrum agents are used.”

In Africa and Asia, on the other hand, clinicians often have to use a broader-spectrum antibiotic empirically and may need to switch to another antibiotic very quickly. “Sometimes alternatives are not available,” she pointed out.

“Local physicians are very perceptive of this problem of antibiotic resistance in their daily practice, especially in centers with high mortality,” said Dr. Bielicki, emphasizing that it is not their fault, but is “due to the limitations in terms of the weapons available to treat these babies, which strongly demonstrates the growing problem of antimicrobial resistance affecting these babies on a global scale.”

Tim Jinks, PhD, Head of Drug Resistant Infections Priority Program at Wellcome Trust, commented on the study in a series of text messages to this news organization. “This research provides further demonstration of the urgent need for improved treatment of newborns suffering with sepsis and particularly the requirement for new antibiotics that overcome the burden of drug-resistant infections caused by [antimicrobial resistance].”

“The study is a hugely important contribution to our understanding of the burden of neonatal sepsis in low- and middle- income countries,” he added, “and points toward ways that patient treatment can be improved to save more lives.”
 

High-, middle-, and low-income countries

The NeoOBS study gathered data from 19 hospitals in 11 high-, middle-, and low-income countries and assessed which antibiotics are currently being used to treat neonatal sepsis, as well as the degree of drug resistance associated with them. Sites included some in Italy and Greece, where most of the neonatal sepsis data currently originate, and this helped to anchor the data, Dr. Bielicki said.

The study identified babies with clinical sepsis over a 4-week period and observed how these patients were managed, particularly with respect to antibiotics, as well as outcomes including whether they recovered, remained in hospital, or died. Investigators obtained bacterial cultures from the patients and grew them to identify which organisms were causing the sepsis.

Of note, mortality varied widely between hospitals, ranging from 1% to 27%. Dr. Bielicki explained that the investigators were currently exploring the reasons behind this wide range of mortality. “There are lots of possible reasons for this, including structural factors such as how care is delivered, which is complex to measure,” she said. “It isn’t trivial to measure why, in a certain setting, mortality is low and why in another setting of comparable income range, mortality is much higher.”

Aside from the mortality results, Dr. Bielicki also emphasized that the survivors of neonatal sepsis frequently experience neurodevelopmental impacts. “A hospital may have low mortality, but many of these babies may have neurodevelopment problems, and this has a long-term impact.”

“Even though mortality might be low in a certain hospital, it might not be low in terms of morbidity,” she added.

The researchers also collected isolates from the cohort of neonates to determine which antibiotic combinations work against the pathogens. “This will help us define what sort of antibiotic regimen warrants further investigation,” Dr. Bielicki said.

Principal Investigator, Mike Sharland, MD, also from St. George’s, University of London, who is also the Antimicrobial Resistance Program Lead at Penta Child Health Research, said, in a press release, that the study had shown that antibiotic resistance is now one of the major threats to neonatal health globally. “There are virtually no studies underway on developing novel antibiotic treatments for babies with sepsis caused by multidrug-resistant infections.”

“This is a major problem for babies in all countries, both rich and poor,” he stressed.
 

NeoSep-1 trial to compare multiple different treatments

The results have paved the way for a major new global trial of multiple established and new antibiotics with the goal of reducing mortality from neonatal sepsis – the NeoSep1 trial.

“This is a randomized trial with a specific design that allows us to rank different treatments against each other in terms of effectiveness, safety, and costs,” Dr. Bielicki explained.

Among the antibiotics in the study are amikacin, flomoxef and amikacin, or fosfomycin and flomoxef in babies with sepsis 28 days old or younger. Similar to the NeoOBS study, patients will be recruited from all over the world, and in particular from low- and middle-income countries such as Kenya, South Africa, and other countries in Africa and Southeast Asia.

Ultimately, the researchers want to identify modifiable risk factors and enact change in practice. But Dr. Bielicki was quick to point out that it was difficult to disentangle those factors that can easily be changed. “Some can be changed in theory, but in practice it is actually difficult to change them. One modifiable risk factor that can be changed is probably infection control, so when resistant bacteria appear in a unit, we need to ensure that there is no or minimal transmission between babies.”

Luregn Schlapbach, MD, PhD, Head, department of intensive care and neonatology, University Children’s Hospital Zurich, Switzerland, welcomed the study, saying recent recognition of pediatric and neonatal sepsis was an urgent problem worldwide.

She referred to the 2017 WHO resolution recognizing that sepsis represents a leading cause of mortality and morbidity worldwide, affecting patients of all ages, across all continents and health care systems but that many were pediatric. “At that time, our understanding of the true burden of sepsis was limited, as was our knowledge of current epidemiology,” she said in an email interview. “The Global Burden of Disease study in 2020 revealed that about half of the approximatively 50 million global sepsis cases affect pediatric age groups, many of those during neonatal age.”

The formal acknowledgment of this extensive need emphasizes the “urgency to design preventive and therapeutic interventions to reduce this devastating burden,” Dr. Schlapbach said. “In this context, the work led by GARDP is of great importance – it is designed to improve our understanding of current practice, risk factors, and burden of neonatal sepsis across low- to middle-income settings and is essential to design adequately powered trials testing interventions such as antimicrobials to improve patient outcomes and reduce the further emergence of antimicrobial resistance.”

Dr. Bielicki and Dr. Schlapbach have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

LISBON – A shift toward broader-spectrum antibiotics and increasing antibiotic resistance has led to high levels of mortality and neurodevelopmental impacts in surviving babies, according to a large international study conducted on four continents.

Results of the 3-year study were presented at this week’s European Congress of Clinical Microbiology & Infectious Diseases (ECCMID).

The observational study, NeoOBS, conducted by the Global Antibiotic Research and Development Partnership (GARDP) and key partners from 2018 to 2020, explored the outcomes of more than 3,200 newborns, finding an overall mortality of 11% in those with suspected neonatal sepsis. The mortality rate increased to 18% in newborns in whom a pathogen was detected in blood culture.

More than half of infection-related deaths (59%) were due to hospital-acquired infections. Klebsiella pneumoniae was the most common pathogen isolated and is usually associated with hospital-acquired infections, which are increasingly resistant to existing antibiotic treatments, said a report produced by GARDP to accompany the results.

The study also identified a worrying trend: Hospitals are frequently using last-line agents such as carbapenems because of the high degree of antibiotic resistance in their facilities. Of note, 15% of babies with neonatal sepsis were given last-line antibiotics.

Pediatrician Julia Bielicki, MD, PhD, senior lecturer, Paediatric Infectious Diseases Research Group, St. George’s University of London, and clinician at the University of Basel Children’s Hospital, Switzerland, was a coinvestigator on the NeoOBS study.

In an interview, she explained that, as well as reducing mortality, the research is about managing infections better to prevent long-term events and improve the quality of life for survivors of neonatal sepsis. “It can have life-changing impacts for so many babies,” Dr. Bielicki said. “Improving care is much more than just making sure the baby survives the episode of sepsis – it’s about ensuring these babies can become children and adults and go on to lead productive lives.”

Also, only a minority of patients (13%) received the World Health Organization guidelines for standard of care use of ampicillin and gentamicin, and there was increasing use of last-line agents such as carbapenems and even polymyxins in some settings in low- and middle-income countries. “This is alarming and foretells the impending crisis of a lack of antibiotics to treat sepsis caused by multidrug-resistant organisms,” according to the GARDP report.

There was wide variability in antibiotic combinations used across sites in Bangladesh, Brazil, China, Greece, India, Italy, Kenya, South Africa, Thailand, Uganda, and Vietnam, and often such use was not supported by underlying data.

Dr. Bielicki remarked that there was a shift toward broad-spectrum antibiotic use. “In a high-income country, you have more restrictive patterns of antibiotic use, but it isn’t necessarily less antibiotic exposure of neonates to antibiotics, but on the whole, usually narrow-spectrum agents are used.”

In Africa and Asia, on the other hand, clinicians often have to use a broader-spectrum antibiotic empirically and may need to switch to another antibiotic very quickly. “Sometimes alternatives are not available,” she pointed out.

“Local physicians are very perceptive of this problem of antibiotic resistance in their daily practice, especially in centers with high mortality,” said Dr. Bielicki, emphasizing that it is not their fault, but is “due to the limitations in terms of the weapons available to treat these babies, which strongly demonstrates the growing problem of antimicrobial resistance affecting these babies on a global scale.”

Tim Jinks, PhD, Head of Drug Resistant Infections Priority Program at Wellcome Trust, commented on the study in a series of text messages to this news organization. “This research provides further demonstration of the urgent need for improved treatment of newborns suffering with sepsis and particularly the requirement for new antibiotics that overcome the burden of drug-resistant infections caused by [antimicrobial resistance].”

“The study is a hugely important contribution to our understanding of the burden of neonatal sepsis in low- and middle- income countries,” he added, “and points toward ways that patient treatment can be improved to save more lives.”
 

High-, middle-, and low-income countries

The NeoOBS study gathered data from 19 hospitals in 11 high-, middle-, and low-income countries and assessed which antibiotics are currently being used to treat neonatal sepsis, as well as the degree of drug resistance associated with them. Sites included some in Italy and Greece, where most of the neonatal sepsis data currently originate, and this helped to anchor the data, Dr. Bielicki said.

The study identified babies with clinical sepsis over a 4-week period and observed how these patients were managed, particularly with respect to antibiotics, as well as outcomes including whether they recovered, remained in hospital, or died. Investigators obtained bacterial cultures from the patients and grew them to identify which organisms were causing the sepsis.

Of note, mortality varied widely between hospitals, ranging from 1% to 27%. Dr. Bielicki explained that the investigators were currently exploring the reasons behind this wide range of mortality. “There are lots of possible reasons for this, including structural factors such as how care is delivered, which is complex to measure,” she said. “It isn’t trivial to measure why, in a certain setting, mortality is low and why in another setting of comparable income range, mortality is much higher.”

Aside from the mortality results, Dr. Bielicki also emphasized that the survivors of neonatal sepsis frequently experience neurodevelopmental impacts. “A hospital may have low mortality, but many of these babies may have neurodevelopment problems, and this has a long-term impact.”

“Even though mortality might be low in a certain hospital, it might not be low in terms of morbidity,” she added.

The researchers also collected isolates from the cohort of neonates to determine which antibiotic combinations work against the pathogens. “This will help us define what sort of antibiotic regimen warrants further investigation,” Dr. Bielicki said.

Principal Investigator, Mike Sharland, MD, also from St. George’s, University of London, who is also the Antimicrobial Resistance Program Lead at Penta Child Health Research, said, in a press release, that the study had shown that antibiotic resistance is now one of the major threats to neonatal health globally. “There are virtually no studies underway on developing novel antibiotic treatments for babies with sepsis caused by multidrug-resistant infections.”

“This is a major problem for babies in all countries, both rich and poor,” he stressed.
 

NeoSep-1 trial to compare multiple different treatments

The results have paved the way for a major new global trial of multiple established and new antibiotics with the goal of reducing mortality from neonatal sepsis – the NeoSep1 trial.

“This is a randomized trial with a specific design that allows us to rank different treatments against each other in terms of effectiveness, safety, and costs,” Dr. Bielicki explained.

Among the antibiotics in the study are amikacin, flomoxef and amikacin, or fosfomycin and flomoxef in babies with sepsis 28 days old or younger. Similar to the NeoOBS study, patients will be recruited from all over the world, and in particular from low- and middle-income countries such as Kenya, South Africa, and other countries in Africa and Southeast Asia.

Ultimately, the researchers want to identify modifiable risk factors and enact change in practice. But Dr. Bielicki was quick to point out that it was difficult to disentangle those factors that can easily be changed. “Some can be changed in theory, but in practice it is actually difficult to change them. One modifiable risk factor that can be changed is probably infection control, so when resistant bacteria appear in a unit, we need to ensure that there is no or minimal transmission between babies.”

Luregn Schlapbach, MD, PhD, Head, department of intensive care and neonatology, University Children’s Hospital Zurich, Switzerland, welcomed the study, saying recent recognition of pediatric and neonatal sepsis was an urgent problem worldwide.

She referred to the 2017 WHO resolution recognizing that sepsis represents a leading cause of mortality and morbidity worldwide, affecting patients of all ages, across all continents and health care systems but that many were pediatric. “At that time, our understanding of the true burden of sepsis was limited, as was our knowledge of current epidemiology,” she said in an email interview. “The Global Burden of Disease study in 2020 revealed that about half of the approximatively 50 million global sepsis cases affect pediatric age groups, many of those during neonatal age.”

The formal acknowledgment of this extensive need emphasizes the “urgency to design preventive and therapeutic interventions to reduce this devastating burden,” Dr. Schlapbach said. “In this context, the work led by GARDP is of great importance – it is designed to improve our understanding of current practice, risk factors, and burden of neonatal sepsis across low- to middle-income settings and is essential to design adequately powered trials testing interventions such as antimicrobials to improve patient outcomes and reduce the further emergence of antimicrobial resistance.”

Dr. Bielicki and Dr. Schlapbach have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

LISBON – A shift toward broader-spectrum antibiotics and increasing antibiotic resistance has led to high levels of mortality and neurodevelopmental impacts in surviving babies, according to a large international study conducted on four continents.

Results of the 3-year study were presented at this week’s European Congress of Clinical Microbiology & Infectious Diseases (ECCMID).

The observational study, NeoOBS, conducted by the Global Antibiotic Research and Development Partnership (GARDP) and key partners from 2018 to 2020, explored the outcomes of more than 3,200 newborns, finding an overall mortality of 11% in those with suspected neonatal sepsis. The mortality rate increased to 18% in newborns in whom a pathogen was detected in blood culture.

More than half of infection-related deaths (59%) were due to hospital-acquired infections. Klebsiella pneumoniae was the most common pathogen isolated and is usually associated with hospital-acquired infections, which are increasingly resistant to existing antibiotic treatments, said a report produced by GARDP to accompany the results.

The study also identified a worrying trend: Hospitals are frequently using last-line agents such as carbapenems because of the high degree of antibiotic resistance in their facilities. Of note, 15% of babies with neonatal sepsis were given last-line antibiotics.

Pediatrician Julia Bielicki, MD, PhD, senior lecturer, Paediatric Infectious Diseases Research Group, St. George’s University of London, and clinician at the University of Basel Children’s Hospital, Switzerland, was a coinvestigator on the NeoOBS study.

In an interview, she explained that, as well as reducing mortality, the research is about managing infections better to prevent long-term events and improve the quality of life for survivors of neonatal sepsis. “It can have life-changing impacts for so many babies,” Dr. Bielicki said. “Improving care is much more than just making sure the baby survives the episode of sepsis – it’s about ensuring these babies can become children and adults and go on to lead productive lives.”

Also, only a minority of patients (13%) received the World Health Organization guidelines for standard of care use of ampicillin and gentamicin, and there was increasing use of last-line agents such as carbapenems and even polymyxins in some settings in low- and middle-income countries. “This is alarming and foretells the impending crisis of a lack of antibiotics to treat sepsis caused by multidrug-resistant organisms,” according to the GARDP report.

There was wide variability in antibiotic combinations used across sites in Bangladesh, Brazil, China, Greece, India, Italy, Kenya, South Africa, Thailand, Uganda, and Vietnam, and often such use was not supported by underlying data.

Dr. Bielicki remarked that there was a shift toward broad-spectrum antibiotic use. “In a high-income country, you have more restrictive patterns of antibiotic use, but it isn’t necessarily less antibiotic exposure of neonates to antibiotics, but on the whole, usually narrow-spectrum agents are used.”

In Africa and Asia, on the other hand, clinicians often have to use a broader-spectrum antibiotic empirically and may need to switch to another antibiotic very quickly. “Sometimes alternatives are not available,” she pointed out.

“Local physicians are very perceptive of this problem of antibiotic resistance in their daily practice, especially in centers with high mortality,” said Dr. Bielicki, emphasizing that it is not their fault, but is “due to the limitations in terms of the weapons available to treat these babies, which strongly demonstrates the growing problem of antimicrobial resistance affecting these babies on a global scale.”

Tim Jinks, PhD, Head of Drug Resistant Infections Priority Program at Wellcome Trust, commented on the study in a series of text messages to this news organization. “This research provides further demonstration of the urgent need for improved treatment of newborns suffering with sepsis and particularly the requirement for new antibiotics that overcome the burden of drug-resistant infections caused by [antimicrobial resistance].”

“The study is a hugely important contribution to our understanding of the burden of neonatal sepsis in low- and middle- income countries,” he added, “and points toward ways that patient treatment can be improved to save more lives.”
 

High-, middle-, and low-income countries

The NeoOBS study gathered data from 19 hospitals in 11 high-, middle-, and low-income countries and assessed which antibiotics are currently being used to treat neonatal sepsis, as well as the degree of drug resistance associated with them. Sites included some in Italy and Greece, where most of the neonatal sepsis data currently originate, and this helped to anchor the data, Dr. Bielicki said.

The study identified babies with clinical sepsis over a 4-week period and observed how these patients were managed, particularly with respect to antibiotics, as well as outcomes including whether they recovered, remained in hospital, or died. Investigators obtained bacterial cultures from the patients and grew them to identify which organisms were causing the sepsis.

Of note, mortality varied widely between hospitals, ranging from 1% to 27%. Dr. Bielicki explained that the investigators were currently exploring the reasons behind this wide range of mortality. “There are lots of possible reasons for this, including structural factors such as how care is delivered, which is complex to measure,” she said. “It isn’t trivial to measure why, in a certain setting, mortality is low and why in another setting of comparable income range, mortality is much higher.”

Aside from the mortality results, Dr. Bielicki also emphasized that the survivors of neonatal sepsis frequently experience neurodevelopmental impacts. “A hospital may have low mortality, but many of these babies may have neurodevelopment problems, and this has a long-term impact.”

“Even though mortality might be low in a certain hospital, it might not be low in terms of morbidity,” she added.

The researchers also collected isolates from the cohort of neonates to determine which antibiotic combinations work against the pathogens. “This will help us define what sort of antibiotic regimen warrants further investigation,” Dr. Bielicki said.

Principal Investigator, Mike Sharland, MD, also from St. George’s, University of London, who is also the Antimicrobial Resistance Program Lead at Penta Child Health Research, said, in a press release, that the study had shown that antibiotic resistance is now one of the major threats to neonatal health globally. “There are virtually no studies underway on developing novel antibiotic treatments for babies with sepsis caused by multidrug-resistant infections.”

“This is a major problem for babies in all countries, both rich and poor,” he stressed.
 

NeoSep-1 trial to compare multiple different treatments

The results have paved the way for a major new global trial of multiple established and new antibiotics with the goal of reducing mortality from neonatal sepsis – the NeoSep1 trial.

“This is a randomized trial with a specific design that allows us to rank different treatments against each other in terms of effectiveness, safety, and costs,” Dr. Bielicki explained.

Among the antibiotics in the study are amikacin, flomoxef and amikacin, or fosfomycin and flomoxef in babies with sepsis 28 days old or younger. Similar to the NeoOBS study, patients will be recruited from all over the world, and in particular from low- and middle-income countries such as Kenya, South Africa, and other countries in Africa and Southeast Asia.

Ultimately, the researchers want to identify modifiable risk factors and enact change in practice. But Dr. Bielicki was quick to point out that it was difficult to disentangle those factors that can easily be changed. “Some can be changed in theory, but in practice it is actually difficult to change them. One modifiable risk factor that can be changed is probably infection control, so when resistant bacteria appear in a unit, we need to ensure that there is no or minimal transmission between babies.”

Luregn Schlapbach, MD, PhD, Head, department of intensive care and neonatology, University Children’s Hospital Zurich, Switzerland, welcomed the study, saying recent recognition of pediatric and neonatal sepsis was an urgent problem worldwide.

She referred to the 2017 WHO resolution recognizing that sepsis represents a leading cause of mortality and morbidity worldwide, affecting patients of all ages, across all continents and health care systems but that many were pediatric. “At that time, our understanding of the true burden of sepsis was limited, as was our knowledge of current epidemiology,” she said in an email interview. “The Global Burden of Disease study in 2020 revealed that about half of the approximatively 50 million global sepsis cases affect pediatric age groups, many of those during neonatal age.”

The formal acknowledgment of this extensive need emphasizes the “urgency to design preventive and therapeutic interventions to reduce this devastating burden,” Dr. Schlapbach said. “In this context, the work led by GARDP is of great importance – it is designed to improve our understanding of current practice, risk factors, and burden of neonatal sepsis across low- to middle-income settings and is essential to design adequately powered trials testing interventions such as antimicrobials to improve patient outcomes and reduce the further emergence of antimicrobial resistance.”

Dr. Bielicki and Dr. Schlapbach have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

The latest upward trend in new COVID-19 cases among children picked up steam, but there was also some movement in the vaccination effort in the past week.

Moderna submitted a request to the Food and Drug administration for emergency use authorization of its COVID-19 vaccine in children under the age of 6 years, according to this news organization, and Pfizer/BioNTech officially applied for authorization of a booster dose in children aged 5-11, the companies announced.

The FDA has tentatively scheduled meetings of its Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee in June to consider the applications, saying that it “understands the urgency to authorize a vaccine for age groups who are not currently eligible for vaccination and will work diligently to complete our evaluation of the data. Should any of the submissions be completed in a timely manner and the data support a clear path forward following our evaluation, the FDA will act quickly” to convene the necessary meetings.

The need for greater access to vaccines seems to be increasing, as new pediatric COVID cases rose for the third consecutive week. April 22-28 saw over 53,000 new cases reported in children, up 43.5% from the previous week and up 105% since cases started rising again after dipping under 26,000 during the week of April 1-7, based on data from the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Children’s Hospital Association.

Hospital admissions involving diagnosed COVID also ticked up over the latter half of April, although the most recent 7-day average (April 24-30) of 112 per day was lower than the 117 reported for the previous week (April 17-23), the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention said, also noting that figures for the latest week “should be interpreted with caution.”

Vaccinations also were up slightly in children aged 5-11 years, with 52,000 receiving their first dose during the week of April 21-27, compared with 48,000 the week before. There was a slight dip, however, among 12- to 17-year-olds, who received 34,000 first doses during April 21-27, versus 35,000 the previous week, the AAP said in a separate report.

Cumulatively, almost 69% of all children aged 12-17 years have received at least one dose of the COVID-19 vaccine and 59% are fully vaccinated. Those aged 5-11 are well short of those figures, with just over 35% having received at least one dose and 28.5% fully vaccinated, the CDC said on its COVID Data Tracker.

A look at recent activity shows that children are not gaining on adults, who are much more likely to be vaccinated – full vaccination in those aged 50-64, for example, is 80%. During the 2 weeks from April 17-30, the 5- to 11-year-olds represented 10.5% of those who had initiated a first dose and 12.4% of those who gained full-vaccination status, both of which were well below the oldest age groups, the CDC reported.

[email protected]

The latest upward trend in new COVID-19 cases among children picked up steam, but there was also some movement in the vaccination effort in the past week.

Moderna submitted a request to the Food and Drug administration for emergency use authorization of its COVID-19 vaccine in children under the age of 6 years, according to this news organization, and Pfizer/BioNTech officially applied for authorization of a booster dose in children aged 5-11, the companies announced.

The FDA has tentatively scheduled meetings of its Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee in June to consider the applications, saying that it “understands the urgency to authorize a vaccine for age groups who are not currently eligible for vaccination and will work diligently to complete our evaluation of the data. Should any of the submissions be completed in a timely manner and the data support a clear path forward following our evaluation, the FDA will act quickly” to convene the necessary meetings.

The need for greater access to vaccines seems to be increasing, as new pediatric COVID cases rose for the third consecutive week. April 22-28 saw over 53,000 new cases reported in children, up 43.5% from the previous week and up 105% since cases started rising again after dipping under 26,000 during the week of April 1-7, based on data from the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Children’s Hospital Association.

Hospital admissions involving diagnosed COVID also ticked up over the latter half of April, although the most recent 7-day average (April 24-30) of 112 per day was lower than the 117 reported for the previous week (April 17-23), the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention said, also noting that figures for the latest week “should be interpreted with caution.”

Vaccinations also were up slightly in children aged 5-11 years, with 52,000 receiving their first dose during the week of April 21-27, compared with 48,000 the week before. There was a slight dip, however, among 12- to 17-year-olds, who received 34,000 first doses during April 21-27, versus 35,000 the previous week, the AAP said in a separate report.

Cumulatively, almost 69% of all children aged 12-17 years have received at least one dose of the COVID-19 vaccine and 59% are fully vaccinated. Those aged 5-11 are well short of those figures, with just over 35% having received at least one dose and 28.5% fully vaccinated, the CDC said on its COVID Data Tracker.

A look at recent activity shows that children are not gaining on adults, who are much more likely to be vaccinated – full vaccination in those aged 50-64, for example, is 80%. During the 2 weeks from April 17-30, the 5- to 11-year-olds represented 10.5% of those who had initiated a first dose and 12.4% of those who gained full-vaccination status, both of which were well below the oldest age groups, the CDC reported.

[email protected]

The latest upward trend in new COVID-19 cases among children picked up steam, but there was also some movement in the vaccination effort in the past week.

Moderna submitted a request to the Food and Drug administration for emergency use authorization of its COVID-19 vaccine in children under the age of 6 years, according to this news organization, and Pfizer/BioNTech officially applied for authorization of a booster dose in children aged 5-11, the companies announced.

The FDA has tentatively scheduled meetings of its Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee in June to consider the applications, saying that it “understands the urgency to authorize a vaccine for age groups who are not currently eligible for vaccination and will work diligently to complete our evaluation of the data. Should any of the submissions be completed in a timely manner and the data support a clear path forward following our evaluation, the FDA will act quickly” to convene the necessary meetings.

The need for greater access to vaccines seems to be increasing, as new pediatric COVID cases rose for the third consecutive week. April 22-28 saw over 53,000 new cases reported in children, up 43.5% from the previous week and up 105% since cases started rising again after dipping under 26,000 during the week of April 1-7, based on data from the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Children’s Hospital Association.

Hospital admissions involving diagnosed COVID also ticked up over the latter half of April, although the most recent 7-day average (April 24-30) of 112 per day was lower than the 117 reported for the previous week (April 17-23), the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention said, also noting that figures for the latest week “should be interpreted with caution.”

Vaccinations also were up slightly in children aged 5-11 years, with 52,000 receiving their first dose during the week of April 21-27, compared with 48,000 the week before. There was a slight dip, however, among 12- to 17-year-olds, who received 34,000 first doses during April 21-27, versus 35,000 the previous week, the AAP said in a separate report.

Cumulatively, almost 69% of all children aged 12-17 years have received at least one dose of the COVID-19 vaccine and 59% are fully vaccinated. Those aged 5-11 are well short of those figures, with just over 35% having received at least one dose and 28.5% fully vaccinated, the CDC said on its COVID Data Tracker.

A look at recent activity shows that children are not gaining on adults, who are much more likely to be vaccinated – full vaccination in those aged 50-64, for example, is 80%. During the 2 weeks from April 17-30, the 5- to 11-year-olds represented 10.5% of those who had initiated a first dose and 12.4% of those who gained full-vaccination status, both of which were well below the oldest age groups, the CDC reported.

[email protected]

The World Health Organization and United Nations International Children’s Emergency Fund are warning about a heightened risk of measles spreading and triggering larger outbreaks in 2022.

Worldwide cases are up nearly 80% so far over 2021, the groups reported. More than 17,300 measles cases were reported worldwide in January and February, compared with 9,600 cases at the beginning of 2021.

In the last 12 months, there have been 21 “large and disruptive” measles outbreaks, particularly in Africa and the East Mediterranean region. The actual numbers are likely higher because of underreporting and disruptions to surveillance systems.

“Pandemic-related disruptions, increasing inequalities in access to vaccines, and the diversion of resources from routine immunization are leaving too many children without protection against measles and other vaccine-preventable diseases,” the organizations said.

As cities and countries relax COVID-19 restrictions, measles outbreaks are becoming more likely, they noted.

“It is encouraging that people in many communities are beginning to feel protected enough from COVID-19 to return to more social activities. But doing so in places where children are not receiving routine vaccination creates the perfect storm for the spread of a disease like measles,” Catherine Russell, executive director for UNICEF, said in the statement.

In the past year, the largest measles outbreaks have occurred in Somalia, Yemen, Nigeria, Afghanistan, and Ethiopia. The main reason for outbreaks is a lack measles vaccine coverage, the organizations said.

About 23 million children missed childhood vaccinations in 2020, the groups said. Childhood vaccination campaigns were hindered because of the COVID-19 pandemic and conflicts in Ukraine, Ethiopia, Somalia, and Afghanistan.

Overall, 57 campaigns targeting vaccine-preventable diseases across 43 countries that were scheduled to take place since the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic are still postponed, the groups said, which could affect 203 million people. Among those, 19 are measles campaigns, which could put 73 million children at risk of measles because of missed vaccinations.

Vaccine coverage of 95% or higher with two doses of the measles vaccine can provide protection, according to the organizations. But the five countries that had the highest measles cases in the last year had first-dose coverage between 46% and 68%.

In the United States, measles vaccinations in kindergarten students dropped from about 95% to 93.9% for the 2020-2021 school year, according to CNN.

Vaccination coverage also dropped from 95% to 93.6% for diphtheria, tetanus, acellular pertussis, and varicella. Even though the decreases appear small, it means tens of thousands of children across the United States started school without their common childhood vaccinations, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention said.

“We are concerned that missed routine vaccinations could leave children vulnerable to preventable diseases like measles and whooping cough, which are extremely contagious and can be very serious, especially for babies and young children,” Shannon Stokley, DrPH, deputy director of the CDC’s immunization services division, told CNN.

The numbers show a “concerning decline in childhood immunizations that began in March 2020,” she said.

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

The World Health Organization and United Nations International Children’s Emergency Fund are warning about a heightened risk of measles spreading and triggering larger outbreaks in 2022.

Worldwide cases are up nearly 80% so far over 2021, the groups reported. More than 17,300 measles cases were reported worldwide in January and February, compared with 9,600 cases at the beginning of 2021.

In the last 12 months, there have been 21 “large and disruptive” measles outbreaks, particularly in Africa and the East Mediterranean region. The actual numbers are likely higher because of underreporting and disruptions to surveillance systems.

“Pandemic-related disruptions, increasing inequalities in access to vaccines, and the diversion of resources from routine immunization are leaving too many children without protection against measles and other vaccine-preventable diseases,” the organizations said.

As cities and countries relax COVID-19 restrictions, measles outbreaks are becoming more likely, they noted.

“It is encouraging that people in many communities are beginning to feel protected enough from COVID-19 to return to more social activities. But doing so in places where children are not receiving routine vaccination creates the perfect storm for the spread of a disease like measles,” Catherine Russell, executive director for UNICEF, said in the statement.

In the past year, the largest measles outbreaks have occurred in Somalia, Yemen, Nigeria, Afghanistan, and Ethiopia. The main reason for outbreaks is a lack measles vaccine coverage, the organizations said.

About 23 million children missed childhood vaccinations in 2020, the groups said. Childhood vaccination campaigns were hindered because of the COVID-19 pandemic and conflicts in Ukraine, Ethiopia, Somalia, and Afghanistan.

Overall, 57 campaigns targeting vaccine-preventable diseases across 43 countries that were scheduled to take place since the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic are still postponed, the groups said, which could affect 203 million people. Among those, 19 are measles campaigns, which could put 73 million children at risk of measles because of missed vaccinations.

Vaccine coverage of 95% or higher with two doses of the measles vaccine can provide protection, according to the organizations. But the five countries that had the highest measles cases in the last year had first-dose coverage between 46% and 68%.

In the United States, measles vaccinations in kindergarten students dropped from about 95% to 93.9% for the 2020-2021 school year, according to CNN.

Vaccination coverage also dropped from 95% to 93.6% for diphtheria, tetanus, acellular pertussis, and varicella. Even though the decreases appear small, it means tens of thousands of children across the United States started school without their common childhood vaccinations, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention said.

“We are concerned that missed routine vaccinations could leave children vulnerable to preventable diseases like measles and whooping cough, which are extremely contagious and can be very serious, especially for babies and young children,” Shannon Stokley, DrPH, deputy director of the CDC’s immunization services division, told CNN.

The numbers show a “concerning decline in childhood immunizations that began in March 2020,” she said.

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

The World Health Organization and United Nations International Children’s Emergency Fund are warning about a heightened risk of measles spreading and triggering larger outbreaks in 2022.

Worldwide cases are up nearly 80% so far over 2021, the groups reported. More than 17,300 measles cases were reported worldwide in January and February, compared with 9,600 cases at the beginning of 2021.

In the last 12 months, there have been 21 “large and disruptive” measles outbreaks, particularly in Africa and the East Mediterranean region. The actual numbers are likely higher because of underreporting and disruptions to surveillance systems.

“Pandemic-related disruptions, increasing inequalities in access to vaccines, and the diversion of resources from routine immunization are leaving too many children without protection against measles and other vaccine-preventable diseases,” the organizations said.

As cities and countries relax COVID-19 restrictions, measles outbreaks are becoming more likely, they noted.

“It is encouraging that people in many communities are beginning to feel protected enough from COVID-19 to return to more social activities. But doing so in places where children are not receiving routine vaccination creates the perfect storm for the spread of a disease like measles,” Catherine Russell, executive director for UNICEF, said in the statement.

In the past year, the largest measles outbreaks have occurred in Somalia, Yemen, Nigeria, Afghanistan, and Ethiopia. The main reason for outbreaks is a lack measles vaccine coverage, the organizations said.

About 23 million children missed childhood vaccinations in 2020, the groups said. Childhood vaccination campaigns were hindered because of the COVID-19 pandemic and conflicts in Ukraine, Ethiopia, Somalia, and Afghanistan.

Overall, 57 campaigns targeting vaccine-preventable diseases across 43 countries that were scheduled to take place since the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic are still postponed, the groups said, which could affect 203 million people. Among those, 19 are measles campaigns, which could put 73 million children at risk of measles because of missed vaccinations.

Vaccine coverage of 95% or higher with two doses of the measles vaccine can provide protection, according to the organizations. But the five countries that had the highest measles cases in the last year had first-dose coverage between 46% and 68%.

In the United States, measles vaccinations in kindergarten students dropped from about 95% to 93.9% for the 2020-2021 school year, according to CNN.

Vaccination coverage also dropped from 95% to 93.6% for diphtheria, tetanus, acellular pertussis, and varicella. Even though the decreases appear small, it means tens of thousands of children across the United States started school without their common childhood vaccinations, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention said.

“We are concerned that missed routine vaccinations could leave children vulnerable to preventable diseases like measles and whooping cough, which are extremely contagious and can be very serious, especially for babies and young children,” Shannon Stokley, DrPH, deputy director of the CDC’s immunization services division, told CNN.

The numbers show a “concerning decline in childhood immunizations that began in March 2020,” she said.

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

Health officials are investigating at least 30 cases of severe hepatitis in children across 10 U.S. states. The Minnesota Department of Health received two reports of severe hepatitis, one in an infant and another in a 2-year-old, the Associated Press reported on April 30. One child was treated “several months ago” and required a liver transplant, according to the article. 

Worldwide cases surpass 200, including 34 cases in the United Kingdom, the U.K. Health Security Agency announced on April 29. Most cases have occurred in the United Kingdom, but there have been more than 55 probable and confirmed hepatitis cases in children in 12 countries in the European Union or the European Economic Area. Cases have also been identified in Asia, with both Japan and Singapore reporting one case each of acute hepatitis, Bloomberg reported. Additionally, three children in Indonesia died from acute hepatitis in April, but the total number of cases in that country was not available.

Although the total number of worldwide cases remains small, the severity of the cases – as well as their unexplained cause – have health officials on alert, said David Lee Thomas, MD, MPH, of the Viral Hepatitis Center at Johns Hopkins Medicine in Baltimore. “There are some kids who would have died if not for liver transplants.”

In the United States, the only confirmed cases are in Alabama, where nine patients were admitted for severe hepatitis between October 2021 and February 2022. Beyond the two suspected cases in Minnesota, health officials are investigating at least 19 other potential cases in eight states, according to NBC News: Delaware (1), Georgia, Illinois (3), Louisiana (1), New York, North Carolina (2), Tennessee (6), and Wisconsin (4). (New York and Georgia did not specify the number of cases being investigated.)

Reported cases have occurred in patients aged between 1 month and 16 years old. Globally, at least 17 patients have needed liver transplants, according to a World Health Organization alert on April 23. While WHO officials said there has been at least one death globally linked to hepatitis, that does not include the three deaths in Indonesia. One death has also been reported in Wisconsin, but the state’s Department of Health Services did not confirm whether this death was included in the WHO announcement.

The cause of these severe hepatitis cases has yet to be identified, but these cases have tested negative for more common viruses that can cause hepatitis in children. There is no link between these cases and COVID-19 vaccination, according to WHO, because most affected children have not been vaccinated.

Adenovirus is a possible contributing factor in these cases, as many of the cases in Europe tested positive for the virus. In an analysis of the nine Alabama cases released by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, adenovirus was detected in the blood samples of all nine children. Five of the nine children tested positive for adenovirus type 41, which is a common cause of acute gastroenteritis in children. While the six liver biopsies performed showed varying degrees of hepatitis, there were “no viral inclusions observed, no immunohistochemical evidence of adenovirus, or no viral particles identified by electron microscopy,” according to the report. None of the children tested positive for COVID-19 or had a documented history of previous COVID-19 infection.

“At this time, we believe that adenovirus may be the cause for these reported cases, but other potential environmental and situational factors are still being investigated,” the CDC said in a media statement. The CDC added that the report was specific to the nine Alabama cases, and that the agency is working to investigate other potential cases with state and local public health officials.

While the “growing consensus” among experts is that adenovirus could be behind these severe cases, there are many unanswered questions, Dr. Thomas added, such as why this strain of adenovirus causes such severe hepatitis, and why the liver biopsies do not show classic signs of viral infection. That information will come as investigations continue.

“From a provider point of view, if you have a child with an unexplained liver problem, report it to the CDC,” he advised. “Right now, we have to learn more about [these cases],” and that requires more research like the investigations in Alabama, he noted.

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

Health officials are investigating at least 30 cases of severe hepatitis in children across 10 U.S. states. The Minnesota Department of Health received two reports of severe hepatitis, one in an infant and another in a 2-year-old, the Associated Press reported on April 30. One child was treated “several months ago” and required a liver transplant, according to the article. 

Worldwide cases surpass 200, including 34 cases in the United Kingdom, the U.K. Health Security Agency announced on April 29. Most cases have occurred in the United Kingdom, but there have been more than 55 probable and confirmed hepatitis cases in children in 12 countries in the European Union or the European Economic Area. Cases have also been identified in Asia, with both Japan and Singapore reporting one case each of acute hepatitis, Bloomberg reported. Additionally, three children in Indonesia died from acute hepatitis in April, but the total number of cases in that country was not available.

Although the total number of worldwide cases remains small, the severity of the cases – as well as their unexplained cause – have health officials on alert, said David Lee Thomas, MD, MPH, of the Viral Hepatitis Center at Johns Hopkins Medicine in Baltimore. “There are some kids who would have died if not for liver transplants.”

In the United States, the only confirmed cases are in Alabama, where nine patients were admitted for severe hepatitis between October 2021 and February 2022. Beyond the two suspected cases in Minnesota, health officials are investigating at least 19 other potential cases in eight states, according to NBC News: Delaware (1), Georgia, Illinois (3), Louisiana (1), New York, North Carolina (2), Tennessee (6), and Wisconsin (4). (New York and Georgia did not specify the number of cases being investigated.)

Reported cases have occurred in patients aged between 1 month and 16 years old. Globally, at least 17 patients have needed liver transplants, according to a World Health Organization alert on April 23. While WHO officials said there has been at least one death globally linked to hepatitis, that does not include the three deaths in Indonesia. One death has also been reported in Wisconsin, but the state’s Department of Health Services did not confirm whether this death was included in the WHO announcement.

The cause of these severe hepatitis cases has yet to be identified, but these cases have tested negative for more common viruses that can cause hepatitis in children. There is no link between these cases and COVID-19 vaccination, according to WHO, because most affected children have not been vaccinated.

Adenovirus is a possible contributing factor in these cases, as many of the cases in Europe tested positive for the virus. In an analysis of the nine Alabama cases released by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, adenovirus was detected in the blood samples of all nine children. Five of the nine children tested positive for adenovirus type 41, which is a common cause of acute gastroenteritis in children. While the six liver biopsies performed showed varying degrees of hepatitis, there were “no viral inclusions observed, no immunohistochemical evidence of adenovirus, or no viral particles identified by electron microscopy,” according to the report. None of the children tested positive for COVID-19 or had a documented history of previous COVID-19 infection.

“At this time, we believe that adenovirus may be the cause for these reported cases, but other potential environmental and situational factors are still being investigated,” the CDC said in a media statement. The CDC added that the report was specific to the nine Alabama cases, and that the agency is working to investigate other potential cases with state and local public health officials.

While the “growing consensus” among experts is that adenovirus could be behind these severe cases, there are many unanswered questions, Dr. Thomas added, such as why this strain of adenovirus causes such severe hepatitis, and why the liver biopsies do not show classic signs of viral infection. That information will come as investigations continue.

“From a provider point of view, if you have a child with an unexplained liver problem, report it to the CDC,” he advised. “Right now, we have to learn more about [these cases],” and that requires more research like the investigations in Alabama, he noted.

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

Health officials are investigating at least 30 cases of severe hepatitis in children across 10 U.S. states. The Minnesota Department of Health received two reports of severe hepatitis, one in an infant and another in a 2-year-old, the Associated Press reported on April 30. One child was treated “several months ago” and required a liver transplant, according to the article. 

Worldwide cases surpass 200, including 34 cases in the United Kingdom, the U.K. Health Security Agency announced on April 29. Most cases have occurred in the United Kingdom, but there have been more than 55 probable and confirmed hepatitis cases in children in 12 countries in the European Union or the European Economic Area. Cases have also been identified in Asia, with both Japan and Singapore reporting one case each of acute hepatitis, Bloomberg reported. Additionally, three children in Indonesia died from acute hepatitis in April, but the total number of cases in that country was not available.

Although the total number of worldwide cases remains small, the severity of the cases – as well as their unexplained cause – have health officials on alert, said David Lee Thomas, MD, MPH, of the Viral Hepatitis Center at Johns Hopkins Medicine in Baltimore. “There are some kids who would have died if not for liver transplants.”

In the United States, the only confirmed cases are in Alabama, where nine patients were admitted for severe hepatitis between October 2021 and February 2022. Beyond the two suspected cases in Minnesota, health officials are investigating at least 19 other potential cases in eight states, according to NBC News: Delaware (1), Georgia, Illinois (3), Louisiana (1), New York, North Carolina (2), Tennessee (6), and Wisconsin (4). (New York and Georgia did not specify the number of cases being investigated.)

Reported cases have occurred in patients aged between 1 month and 16 years old. Globally, at least 17 patients have needed liver transplants, according to a World Health Organization alert on April 23. While WHO officials said there has been at least one death globally linked to hepatitis, that does not include the three deaths in Indonesia. One death has also been reported in Wisconsin, but the state’s Department of Health Services did not confirm whether this death was included in the WHO announcement.

The cause of these severe hepatitis cases has yet to be identified, but these cases have tested negative for more common viruses that can cause hepatitis in children. There is no link between these cases and COVID-19 vaccination, according to WHO, because most affected children have not been vaccinated.

Adenovirus is a possible contributing factor in these cases, as many of the cases in Europe tested positive for the virus. In an analysis of the nine Alabama cases released by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, adenovirus was detected in the blood samples of all nine children. Five of the nine children tested positive for adenovirus type 41, which is a common cause of acute gastroenteritis in children. While the six liver biopsies performed showed varying degrees of hepatitis, there were “no viral inclusions observed, no immunohistochemical evidence of adenovirus, or no viral particles identified by electron microscopy,” according to the report. None of the children tested positive for COVID-19 or had a documented history of previous COVID-19 infection.

“At this time, we believe that adenovirus may be the cause for these reported cases, but other potential environmental and situational factors are still being investigated,” the CDC said in a media statement. The CDC added that the report was specific to the nine Alabama cases, and that the agency is working to investigate other potential cases with state and local public health officials.

While the “growing consensus” among experts is that adenovirus could be behind these severe cases, there are many unanswered questions, Dr. Thomas added, such as why this strain of adenovirus causes such severe hepatitis, and why the liver biopsies do not show classic signs of viral infection. That information will come as investigations continue.

“From a provider point of view, if you have a child with an unexplained liver problem, report it to the CDC,” he advised. “Right now, we have to learn more about [these cases],” and that requires more research like the investigations in Alabama, he noted.

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

Paxlovid works as a treatment for COVID-19 but not as a preventive measure, particularly if you’ve been exposed to the coronavirus through a household member who is infected, according to a new announcement from Pfizer.

In a clinical trial, the oral antiviral tablets were tested for postexposure prophylactic use, or tested for how well they prevented a coronavirus infection in people exposed to the virus. Paxlovid somewhat reduced the risk of infection, but the results weren’t statistically significant.

“We designed the clinical development program for Paxlovid to be comprehensive and ambitious with the aim of being able to help combat COVID-19 in a very broad population of patients,” Albert Bourla, PhD, Pfizer’s chairman and CEO, said in the announcement.

“While we are disappointed in the outcome of this particular study, these results do not impact the strong efficacy and safety data we’ve observed in our earlier trial for the treatment of COVID-19 patients at high risk of developing severe illness,” he said.

The trial included nearly 3,000 adults who were living with someone who recently tested positive for COVID-19 and had symptoms. The people in the trial, who tested negative and didn’t have symptoms, were given either Paxlovid twice daily for 5 or 10 days or a placebo. The study recruitment began in September 2021 and was completed during the peak of the Omicron wave.

Those who took the 5-day course of Paxlovid were found to be 32% less likely to become infected than the placebo group. Those who took the 10-day treatment had a 37% risk reduction. But the results weren’t statistically significant and may have been because of chance.

“Traditionally, it’s been difficult to use small-molecule antivirals for true prophylaxis because the biology of treating infection is different from the biology of preventing infection,” Daniel Barouch, MD, director of the Center for Virology and Vaccine Research at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, told STAT News.

He also noted that the Omicron variant could have played a role.

“That hyperinfectiousness probably makes it more difficult to prevent infections,” Dr. Barouch said.

The safety data was consistent with that of previous studies, Pfizer said, which found that the treatment was about 90% effective at preventing hospitalization or death in COVID-19 patients with a high risk of severe illness if the pills were taken for 5 days soon after symptoms started.

Paxlovid is approved or authorized for conditional or emergency use in more than 60 countries to treat high-risk COVID-19 patients, Pfizer said. In the United States, the drug is authorized for emergency use for the treatment of mild to moderate COVID-19 in those aged 12 and older who face high risks for severe disease, hospitalization, or death.

The full study data will be released in coming months and submitted to a peer-reviewed publication, the company said. More details are on the ClinicalTrials.gov website (NCT05047601).

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

Paxlovid works as a treatment for COVID-19 but not as a preventive measure, particularly if you’ve been exposed to the coronavirus through a household member who is infected, according to a new announcement from Pfizer.

In a clinical trial, the oral antiviral tablets were tested for postexposure prophylactic use, or tested for how well they prevented a coronavirus infection in people exposed to the virus. Paxlovid somewhat reduced the risk of infection, but the results weren’t statistically significant.

“We designed the clinical development program for Paxlovid to be comprehensive and ambitious with the aim of being able to help combat COVID-19 in a very broad population of patients,” Albert Bourla, PhD, Pfizer’s chairman and CEO, said in the announcement.

“While we are disappointed in the outcome of this particular study, these results do not impact the strong efficacy and safety data we’ve observed in our earlier trial for the treatment of COVID-19 patients at high risk of developing severe illness,” he said.

The trial included nearly 3,000 adults who were living with someone who recently tested positive for COVID-19 and had symptoms. The people in the trial, who tested negative and didn’t have symptoms, were given either Paxlovid twice daily for 5 or 10 days or a placebo. The study recruitment began in September 2021 and was completed during the peak of the Omicron wave.

Those who took the 5-day course of Paxlovid were found to be 32% less likely to become infected than the placebo group. Those who took the 10-day treatment had a 37% risk reduction. But the results weren’t statistically significant and may have been because of chance.

“Traditionally, it’s been difficult to use small-molecule antivirals for true prophylaxis because the biology of treating infection is different from the biology of preventing infection,” Daniel Barouch, MD, director of the Center for Virology and Vaccine Research at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, told STAT News.

He also noted that the Omicron variant could have played a role.

“That hyperinfectiousness probably makes it more difficult to prevent infections,” Dr. Barouch said.

The safety data was consistent with that of previous studies, Pfizer said, which found that the treatment was about 90% effective at preventing hospitalization or death in COVID-19 patients with a high risk of severe illness if the pills were taken for 5 days soon after symptoms started.

Paxlovid is approved or authorized for conditional or emergency use in more than 60 countries to treat high-risk COVID-19 patients, Pfizer said. In the United States, the drug is authorized for emergency use for the treatment of mild to moderate COVID-19 in those aged 12 and older who face high risks for severe disease, hospitalization, or death.

The full study data will be released in coming months and submitted to a peer-reviewed publication, the company said. More details are on the ClinicalTrials.gov website (NCT05047601).

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

Paxlovid works as a treatment for COVID-19 but not as a preventive measure, particularly if you’ve been exposed to the coronavirus through a household member who is infected, according to a new announcement from Pfizer.

In a clinical trial, the oral antiviral tablets were tested for postexposure prophylactic use, or tested for how well they prevented a coronavirus infection in people exposed to the virus. Paxlovid somewhat reduced the risk of infection, but the results weren’t statistically significant.

“We designed the clinical development program for Paxlovid to be comprehensive and ambitious with the aim of being able to help combat COVID-19 in a very broad population of patients,” Albert Bourla, PhD, Pfizer’s chairman and CEO, said in the announcement.

“While we are disappointed in the outcome of this particular study, these results do not impact the strong efficacy and safety data we’ve observed in our earlier trial for the treatment of COVID-19 patients at high risk of developing severe illness,” he said.

The trial included nearly 3,000 adults who were living with someone who recently tested positive for COVID-19 and had symptoms. The people in the trial, who tested negative and didn’t have symptoms, were given either Paxlovid twice daily for 5 or 10 days or a placebo. The study recruitment began in September 2021 and was completed during the peak of the Omicron wave.

Those who took the 5-day course of Paxlovid were found to be 32% less likely to become infected than the placebo group. Those who took the 10-day treatment had a 37% risk reduction. But the results weren’t statistically significant and may have been because of chance.

“Traditionally, it’s been difficult to use small-molecule antivirals for true prophylaxis because the biology of treating infection is different from the biology of preventing infection,” Daniel Barouch, MD, director of the Center for Virology and Vaccine Research at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, told STAT News.

He also noted that the Omicron variant could have played a role.

“That hyperinfectiousness probably makes it more difficult to prevent infections,” Dr. Barouch said.

The safety data was consistent with that of previous studies, Pfizer said, which found that the treatment was about 90% effective at preventing hospitalization or death in COVID-19 patients with a high risk of severe illness if the pills were taken for 5 days soon after symptoms started.

Paxlovid is approved or authorized for conditional or emergency use in more than 60 countries to treat high-risk COVID-19 patients, Pfizer said. In the United States, the drug is authorized for emergency use for the treatment of mild to moderate COVID-19 in those aged 12 and older who face high risks for severe disease, hospitalization, or death.

The full study data will be released in coming months and submitted to a peer-reviewed publication, the company said. More details are on the ClinicalTrials.gov website (NCT05047601).

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