Infectious Disease Practitioner

The World Health Organization and its partners recently released an ambitious plan, Defeating meningitis by 2030: A global road map. The goal is to reduce deaths and disabilities from bacterial meningitis, which kills about 250,000 people annually of the 1.2 million estimated to be infected.

This type of infection around the brain and spinal cord also causes long-term disabilities – deafness, learning problems, seizures, loss of limbs – in about one-quarter of survivors.

The leading causes of bacterial meningitis are Neisseria meningitidis (meningococcus), Streptococcus pneumoniae (pneumococcus), Haemophilus influenzae, and group B streptococcus. As with malaria, about half of the cases are in children under age 5 years. The most severely affected area for both infections is sub-Saharan Africa.

The main goal of the roadmap is to reduce vaccine-preventable cases of bacterial meningitis by 50% and deaths by 70% by 2030. WHO’s partners included the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, Médecins Sans Frontières (Doctors Without Borders), the Meningitis Research Foundation, PATH, UNICEF, and numerous global consultants.

For primary prevention and epidemic control, a major goal is to achieve higher vaccine coverage. Another goal is developing and deploying rapid diagnostic tests to guide treatment and prevention activities and measure the impact of vaccination. The lack of laboratory capacity to confirm the bacteria is a significant challenge. Also, patients often receive antibiotics before appropriate tests are conducted, and lumbar punctures are frequently not done.

The commitment to this project emerged in 2017. It was followed by a baseline analysis in 2018 and a draft roadmap the following year. Consultations with experts and with more than 600 patient groups in more than 90 countries followed.

Prevention through greater vaccine uptake was the top priority. Vaccination is considered the first line of defense against antibiotic resistance among the targeted bacteria.

Another goal is to quantify the decrease in antibiotic use for invasive infections or prophylaxis and the subsequent reduction in antimicrobial resistance in relation to increased vaccination.

Surveillance is weak in many regions, limiting the ability to detect epidemics and to respond appropriately. Similarly, there are limited data on the burden of sequelae, such as deafness, on meningitis survivors.

There is an inadequate supply of affordable vaccines to respond to epidemics.  Currently, routine vaccination against Neisseria meningitidis is occurring in 18 of 26 countries in the meningitis belt. Epidemics of meningococcus occur every few years in the driest time of the year and abate with the rains. Epidemics of pneumococcal meningitis are much rarer but follow a similar pattern; they have also been associated with crowding and alcohol use.

Care for those affected by meningitis is another focus, as is affirming the right to prevention and care. There’s a need for earlier recognition of the complications of meningitis and an increase in efforts to treat those complications.

WHO’s final goal in its roadmap is to boost awareness of meningitis and make it a priority for policymakers. Similarly, there is a need to educate communities about the disease, including how to access vaccines. If someone becomes ill, they need to be aware of the symptoms, the need for early treatment, and what aftercare is available.

Marie-Pierre Préziosi, MD, the core secretariat of WHO’s Technical Taskforce, told this news organization that while the roadmap looks aspirational, “it is feasible … you have strategic goals – each has milestones with time limits and who will do it.”

Regarding vaccinations, Dr. Préziosi said that “the strategy was a victim of its success. The mass campaign knocked down transmission completely.” Some countries are now waiting for multivalent vaccines. She said that vaccine hesitancy is not a significant problem in Africa “because the disease is so feared.”

Major obstacles to implementing the roadmap include the complacency of public health leaders and the COVID-19 lockdowns, which decreased vaccination coverage rates. “The second thing is also sufficient funding to do the research and innovation so that we get the affordable tools that we need globally,” Dr. Préziosi said.

Marilyn Felkner, DrPH, School of Human Ecology, University of Texas at Austin, said in an interview, “It’s very cliché, but we have often said that communicable diseases do not respect political boundaries. So to expect a country to be able to control that by themselves is a false hope.”

Regarding the roadmap, Dr. Felkner said, “I think that organizing ideas and having them in writing is always a good first step. And it can help people move forward if they’re feeling overwhelmed ... Having a written plan can certainly provide that fundamental basis. So, the important thing is not to say, ‘Oh, we have this great plan done; hope somebody picks up the plan.’ There’s got to be some momentum behind it, and hopefully some funding.”

Dr. Préziosi and Dr. Felkner have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

The World Health Organization and its partners recently released an ambitious plan, Defeating meningitis by 2030: A global road map. The goal is to reduce deaths and disabilities from bacterial meningitis, which kills about 250,000 people annually of the 1.2 million estimated to be infected.

This type of infection around the brain and spinal cord also causes long-term disabilities – deafness, learning problems, seizures, loss of limbs – in about one-quarter of survivors.

The leading causes of bacterial meningitis are Neisseria meningitidis (meningococcus), Streptococcus pneumoniae (pneumococcus), Haemophilus influenzae, and group B streptococcus. As with malaria, about half of the cases are in children under age 5 years. The most severely affected area for both infections is sub-Saharan Africa.

The main goal of the roadmap is to reduce vaccine-preventable cases of bacterial meningitis by 50% and deaths by 70% by 2030. WHO’s partners included the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, Médecins Sans Frontières (Doctors Without Borders), the Meningitis Research Foundation, PATH, UNICEF, and numerous global consultants.

For primary prevention and epidemic control, a major goal is to achieve higher vaccine coverage. Another goal is developing and deploying rapid diagnostic tests to guide treatment and prevention activities and measure the impact of vaccination. The lack of laboratory capacity to confirm the bacteria is a significant challenge. Also, patients often receive antibiotics before appropriate tests are conducted, and lumbar punctures are frequently not done.

The commitment to this project emerged in 2017. It was followed by a baseline analysis in 2018 and a draft roadmap the following year. Consultations with experts and with more than 600 patient groups in more than 90 countries followed.

Prevention through greater vaccine uptake was the top priority. Vaccination is considered the first line of defense against antibiotic resistance among the targeted bacteria.

Another goal is to quantify the decrease in antibiotic use for invasive infections or prophylaxis and the subsequent reduction in antimicrobial resistance in relation to increased vaccination.

Surveillance is weak in many regions, limiting the ability to detect epidemics and to respond appropriately. Similarly, there are limited data on the burden of sequelae, such as deafness, on meningitis survivors.

There is an inadequate supply of affordable vaccines to respond to epidemics.  Currently, routine vaccination against Neisseria meningitidis is occurring in 18 of 26 countries in the meningitis belt. Epidemics of meningococcus occur every few years in the driest time of the year and abate with the rains. Epidemics of pneumococcal meningitis are much rarer but follow a similar pattern; they have also been associated with crowding and alcohol use.

Care for those affected by meningitis is another focus, as is affirming the right to prevention and care. There’s a need for earlier recognition of the complications of meningitis and an increase in efforts to treat those complications.

WHO’s final goal in its roadmap is to boost awareness of meningitis and make it a priority for policymakers. Similarly, there is a need to educate communities about the disease, including how to access vaccines. If someone becomes ill, they need to be aware of the symptoms, the need for early treatment, and what aftercare is available.

Marie-Pierre Préziosi, MD, the core secretariat of WHO’s Technical Taskforce, told this news organization that while the roadmap looks aspirational, “it is feasible … you have strategic goals – each has milestones with time limits and who will do it.”

Regarding vaccinations, Dr. Préziosi said that “the strategy was a victim of its success. The mass campaign knocked down transmission completely.” Some countries are now waiting for multivalent vaccines. She said that vaccine hesitancy is not a significant problem in Africa “because the disease is so feared.”

Major obstacles to implementing the roadmap include the complacency of public health leaders and the COVID-19 lockdowns, which decreased vaccination coverage rates. “The second thing is also sufficient funding to do the research and innovation so that we get the affordable tools that we need globally,” Dr. Préziosi said.

Marilyn Felkner, DrPH, School of Human Ecology, University of Texas at Austin, said in an interview, “It’s very cliché, but we have often said that communicable diseases do not respect political boundaries. So to expect a country to be able to control that by themselves is a false hope.”

Regarding the roadmap, Dr. Felkner said, “I think that organizing ideas and having them in writing is always a good first step. And it can help people move forward if they’re feeling overwhelmed ... Having a written plan can certainly provide that fundamental basis. So, the important thing is not to say, ‘Oh, we have this great plan done; hope somebody picks up the plan.’ There’s got to be some momentum behind it, and hopefully some funding.”

Dr. Préziosi and Dr. Felkner have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

The World Health Organization and its partners recently released an ambitious plan, Defeating meningitis by 2030: A global road map. The goal is to reduce deaths and disabilities from bacterial meningitis, which kills about 250,000 people annually of the 1.2 million estimated to be infected.

This type of infection around the brain and spinal cord also causes long-term disabilities – deafness, learning problems, seizures, loss of limbs – in about one-quarter of survivors.

The leading causes of bacterial meningitis are Neisseria meningitidis (meningococcus), Streptococcus pneumoniae (pneumococcus), Haemophilus influenzae, and group B streptococcus. As with malaria, about half of the cases are in children under age 5 years. The most severely affected area for both infections is sub-Saharan Africa.

The main goal of the roadmap is to reduce vaccine-preventable cases of bacterial meningitis by 50% and deaths by 70% by 2030. WHO’s partners included the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, Médecins Sans Frontières (Doctors Without Borders), the Meningitis Research Foundation, PATH, UNICEF, and numerous global consultants.

For primary prevention and epidemic control, a major goal is to achieve higher vaccine coverage. Another goal is developing and deploying rapid diagnostic tests to guide treatment and prevention activities and measure the impact of vaccination. The lack of laboratory capacity to confirm the bacteria is a significant challenge. Also, patients often receive antibiotics before appropriate tests are conducted, and lumbar punctures are frequently not done.

The commitment to this project emerged in 2017. It was followed by a baseline analysis in 2018 and a draft roadmap the following year. Consultations with experts and with more than 600 patient groups in more than 90 countries followed.

Prevention through greater vaccine uptake was the top priority. Vaccination is considered the first line of defense against antibiotic resistance among the targeted bacteria.

Another goal is to quantify the decrease in antibiotic use for invasive infections or prophylaxis and the subsequent reduction in antimicrobial resistance in relation to increased vaccination.

Surveillance is weak in many regions, limiting the ability to detect epidemics and to respond appropriately. Similarly, there are limited data on the burden of sequelae, such as deafness, on meningitis survivors.

There is an inadequate supply of affordable vaccines to respond to epidemics.  Currently, routine vaccination against Neisseria meningitidis is occurring in 18 of 26 countries in the meningitis belt. Epidemics of meningococcus occur every few years in the driest time of the year and abate with the rains. Epidemics of pneumococcal meningitis are much rarer but follow a similar pattern; they have also been associated with crowding and alcohol use.

Care for those affected by meningitis is another focus, as is affirming the right to prevention and care. There’s a need for earlier recognition of the complications of meningitis and an increase in efforts to treat those complications.

WHO’s final goal in its roadmap is to boost awareness of meningitis and make it a priority for policymakers. Similarly, there is a need to educate communities about the disease, including how to access vaccines. If someone becomes ill, they need to be aware of the symptoms, the need for early treatment, and what aftercare is available.

Marie-Pierre Préziosi, MD, the core secretariat of WHO’s Technical Taskforce, told this news organization that while the roadmap looks aspirational, “it is feasible … you have strategic goals – each has milestones with time limits and who will do it.”

Regarding vaccinations, Dr. Préziosi said that “the strategy was a victim of its success. The mass campaign knocked down transmission completely.” Some countries are now waiting for multivalent vaccines. She said that vaccine hesitancy is not a significant problem in Africa “because the disease is so feared.”

Major obstacles to implementing the roadmap include the complacency of public health leaders and the COVID-19 lockdowns, which decreased vaccination coverage rates. “The second thing is also sufficient funding to do the research and innovation so that we get the affordable tools that we need globally,” Dr. Préziosi said.

Marilyn Felkner, DrPH, School of Human Ecology, University of Texas at Austin, said in an interview, “It’s very cliché, but we have often said that communicable diseases do not respect political boundaries. So to expect a country to be able to control that by themselves is a false hope.”

Regarding the roadmap, Dr. Felkner said, “I think that organizing ideas and having them in writing is always a good first step. And it can help people move forward if they’re feeling overwhelmed ... Having a written plan can certainly provide that fundamental basis. So, the important thing is not to say, ‘Oh, we have this great plan done; hope somebody picks up the plan.’ There’s got to be some momentum behind it, and hopefully some funding.”

Dr. Préziosi and Dr. Felkner have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

A simple wristband containing biometric monitoring sensors is able to pick up early infection from both influenza and the common cold before symptoms develop. Moreover, it can predict the severity of the illness once it becomes symptomatic, new research shows.

“Prior to the development of symptoms, people are still infectious and can potentially infect others,” senior author Jessilyn Dunn, PhD, Duke University, Durham, N.C., told this news organization.

“That’s why it’s so important to be able to detect infection even when a person doesn’t feel symptomatic, as this would help prevent the spread of pathogens that occur before somebody knows they are sick – and which is why it is important from a public health perspective,” she added.

The study was published online Sept. 29, 2021, in JAMA Network Open.
 

Two challenge studies

The study involved 31 participants who were inoculated with the H1N1 influenza virus and 18 others who were inoculated with rhinovirus. The rhinovirus challenge study was conducted in 2015, and the H1N1 challenge study was carried out in 2018. Both groups of patients were inoculated via intranasal drops of either the diluted H1N1 virus or the diluted rhinovirus strain type 16.

Participants in both challenge studies wore the E4 wristband (Empatica). Those in the influenza study wore the wristband 1 day before and 11 days after being inoculated, and those in the rhinovirus study wore the wristband for 4 days before and 5 days after inoculation. The E4 wristband measures heart rate, skin temperature, electrodermal activity, and movement.

Symptoms were typical of each infection and were classified as both observable events, such as runny nose, cough, and wheezy chest, or unobservable events, such as muscle soreness and fatigue. Infection status was classified as asymptomatic or noninfectious (AON), mild, or moderate.

The biosensors contained within the wristband were able to detect the presence or absence of H1N1 infection with an accuracy of 79% within 12 hours after participants had been inoculated and an accuracy of 92% within 24 hours of being inoculated, the authors report. Thus, “we could assess whether or not a participant was infected with H1N1 between 24 and 36 hours before symptom onset,” the investigators noted.

The median time for symptom onset following the rhinovirus challenge was 36 hours after inoculation. The biosensors predicted the presence or absence of rhinovirus infection with an accuracy of 88%, the authors wrote. And when both viral challenges were combined, models predicting infection had an accuracy of 76% at 24 hours after participants being inoculated.
 

Prediction of severity

Twelve hours after participants had been inoculated, the technology was also able to predict the development of either AON or moderate H1N1 infection with 83% accuracy. For rhinovirus, the predictive accuracy of distinguishing AON versus moderate infection was slightly higher at 92% whereas for both viruses combined, the technology predicted the future development of AON versus moderate infection with an 84% accuracy rate.

As the authors pointed out, the ability to identify individuals during the early critical stage of viral infection could have wide-ranging effects. “In the midst of the global SARS-CoV-2 pandemic, the need for novel approaches like this has never been more apparent,” they suggested.

And in point of fact, in a not-yet peer-reviewed study using a real-time smartwatch-based alerting system again designed to detect aberrant physiologic and activity signals associated with early infection, Stanford (Calif.) University investigators found that alerts were generated for presymptomatic and asymptomatic COVID-19 infections in 78% of cases in over 3200 participants tested at a median of 3 days prior to symptom onset.

The authors also noted that their system is scalable to millions of users, thus offering a personal health monitoring system that can operate in real time.

In a comment, Steven Steinhubl, MD, a research scientist and formerly the director of digital medicine at Scripps Research’s Translational Institute, La Jolla, Calif., told this news organization that he personally has a lot of faith in this type of technology.

“Unfortunately, COVID-19 has changed our perspective about respiratory infections but if you think of the bad flu seasons we’ve had in the past, people do die from influenza, so I think there is a lot of value [in this technology], although the degree of value depends on the severity of the infection,” he said.

For example, if people actually ever go back into work together, early recognition that an employee might have influenza or another highly contagious infection could alert them to the necessity to stay home and self-isolate.

“We have a bit to go before we get there,” Dr. Steinhubl acknowledged, “but you could have a really big impact on the spread of any infectious disease that would be better for everybody.”

Dr. Dunn has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Steinhubl is chief medical officer at physIQ, a company involved in the development of personalized analytics.

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

A simple wristband containing biometric monitoring sensors is able to pick up early infection from both influenza and the common cold before symptoms develop. Moreover, it can predict the severity of the illness once it becomes symptomatic, new research shows.

“Prior to the development of symptoms, people are still infectious and can potentially infect others,” senior author Jessilyn Dunn, PhD, Duke University, Durham, N.C., told this news organization.

“That’s why it’s so important to be able to detect infection even when a person doesn’t feel symptomatic, as this would help prevent the spread of pathogens that occur before somebody knows they are sick – and which is why it is important from a public health perspective,” she added.

The study was published online Sept. 29, 2021, in JAMA Network Open.
 

Two challenge studies

The study involved 31 participants who were inoculated with the H1N1 influenza virus and 18 others who were inoculated with rhinovirus. The rhinovirus challenge study was conducted in 2015, and the H1N1 challenge study was carried out in 2018. Both groups of patients were inoculated via intranasal drops of either the diluted H1N1 virus or the diluted rhinovirus strain type 16.

Participants in both challenge studies wore the E4 wristband (Empatica). Those in the influenza study wore the wristband 1 day before and 11 days after being inoculated, and those in the rhinovirus study wore the wristband for 4 days before and 5 days after inoculation. The E4 wristband measures heart rate, skin temperature, electrodermal activity, and movement.

Symptoms were typical of each infection and were classified as both observable events, such as runny nose, cough, and wheezy chest, or unobservable events, such as muscle soreness and fatigue. Infection status was classified as asymptomatic or noninfectious (AON), mild, or moderate.

The biosensors contained within the wristband were able to detect the presence or absence of H1N1 infection with an accuracy of 79% within 12 hours after participants had been inoculated and an accuracy of 92% within 24 hours of being inoculated, the authors report. Thus, “we could assess whether or not a participant was infected with H1N1 between 24 and 36 hours before symptom onset,” the investigators noted.

The median time for symptom onset following the rhinovirus challenge was 36 hours after inoculation. The biosensors predicted the presence or absence of rhinovirus infection with an accuracy of 88%, the authors wrote. And when both viral challenges were combined, models predicting infection had an accuracy of 76% at 24 hours after participants being inoculated.
 

Prediction of severity

Twelve hours after participants had been inoculated, the technology was also able to predict the development of either AON or moderate H1N1 infection with 83% accuracy. For rhinovirus, the predictive accuracy of distinguishing AON versus moderate infection was slightly higher at 92% whereas for both viruses combined, the technology predicted the future development of AON versus moderate infection with an 84% accuracy rate.

As the authors pointed out, the ability to identify individuals during the early critical stage of viral infection could have wide-ranging effects. “In the midst of the global SARS-CoV-2 pandemic, the need for novel approaches like this has never been more apparent,” they suggested.

And in point of fact, in a not-yet peer-reviewed study using a real-time smartwatch-based alerting system again designed to detect aberrant physiologic and activity signals associated with early infection, Stanford (Calif.) University investigators found that alerts were generated for presymptomatic and asymptomatic COVID-19 infections in 78% of cases in over 3200 participants tested at a median of 3 days prior to symptom onset.

The authors also noted that their system is scalable to millions of users, thus offering a personal health monitoring system that can operate in real time.

In a comment, Steven Steinhubl, MD, a research scientist and formerly the director of digital medicine at Scripps Research’s Translational Institute, La Jolla, Calif., told this news organization that he personally has a lot of faith in this type of technology.

“Unfortunately, COVID-19 has changed our perspective about respiratory infections but if you think of the bad flu seasons we’ve had in the past, people do die from influenza, so I think there is a lot of value [in this technology], although the degree of value depends on the severity of the infection,” he said.

For example, if people actually ever go back into work together, early recognition that an employee might have influenza or another highly contagious infection could alert them to the necessity to stay home and self-isolate.

“We have a bit to go before we get there,” Dr. Steinhubl acknowledged, “but you could have a really big impact on the spread of any infectious disease that would be better for everybody.”

Dr. Dunn has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Steinhubl is chief medical officer at physIQ, a company involved in the development of personalized analytics.

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

A simple wristband containing biometric monitoring sensors is able to pick up early infection from both influenza and the common cold before symptoms develop. Moreover, it can predict the severity of the illness once it becomes symptomatic, new research shows.

“Prior to the development of symptoms, people are still infectious and can potentially infect others,” senior author Jessilyn Dunn, PhD, Duke University, Durham, N.C., told this news organization.

“That’s why it’s so important to be able to detect infection even when a person doesn’t feel symptomatic, as this would help prevent the spread of pathogens that occur before somebody knows they are sick – and which is why it is important from a public health perspective,” she added.

The study was published online Sept. 29, 2021, in JAMA Network Open.
 

Two challenge studies

The study involved 31 participants who were inoculated with the H1N1 influenza virus and 18 others who were inoculated with rhinovirus. The rhinovirus challenge study was conducted in 2015, and the H1N1 challenge study was carried out in 2018. Both groups of patients were inoculated via intranasal drops of either the diluted H1N1 virus or the diluted rhinovirus strain type 16.

Participants in both challenge studies wore the E4 wristband (Empatica). Those in the influenza study wore the wristband 1 day before and 11 days after being inoculated, and those in the rhinovirus study wore the wristband for 4 days before and 5 days after inoculation. The E4 wristband measures heart rate, skin temperature, electrodermal activity, and movement.

Symptoms were typical of each infection and were classified as both observable events, such as runny nose, cough, and wheezy chest, or unobservable events, such as muscle soreness and fatigue. Infection status was classified as asymptomatic or noninfectious (AON), mild, or moderate.

The biosensors contained within the wristband were able to detect the presence or absence of H1N1 infection with an accuracy of 79% within 12 hours after participants had been inoculated and an accuracy of 92% within 24 hours of being inoculated, the authors report. Thus, “we could assess whether or not a participant was infected with H1N1 between 24 and 36 hours before symptom onset,” the investigators noted.

The median time for symptom onset following the rhinovirus challenge was 36 hours after inoculation. The biosensors predicted the presence or absence of rhinovirus infection with an accuracy of 88%, the authors wrote. And when both viral challenges were combined, models predicting infection had an accuracy of 76% at 24 hours after participants being inoculated.
 

Prediction of severity

Twelve hours after participants had been inoculated, the technology was also able to predict the development of either AON or moderate H1N1 infection with 83% accuracy. For rhinovirus, the predictive accuracy of distinguishing AON versus moderate infection was slightly higher at 92% whereas for both viruses combined, the technology predicted the future development of AON versus moderate infection with an 84% accuracy rate.

As the authors pointed out, the ability to identify individuals during the early critical stage of viral infection could have wide-ranging effects. “In the midst of the global SARS-CoV-2 pandemic, the need for novel approaches like this has never been more apparent,” they suggested.

And in point of fact, in a not-yet peer-reviewed study using a real-time smartwatch-based alerting system again designed to detect aberrant physiologic and activity signals associated with early infection, Stanford (Calif.) University investigators found that alerts were generated for presymptomatic and asymptomatic COVID-19 infections in 78% of cases in over 3200 participants tested at a median of 3 days prior to symptom onset.

The authors also noted that their system is scalable to millions of users, thus offering a personal health monitoring system that can operate in real time.

In a comment, Steven Steinhubl, MD, a research scientist and formerly the director of digital medicine at Scripps Research’s Translational Institute, La Jolla, Calif., told this news organization that he personally has a lot of faith in this type of technology.

“Unfortunately, COVID-19 has changed our perspective about respiratory infections but if you think of the bad flu seasons we’ve had in the past, people do die from influenza, so I think there is a lot of value [in this technology], although the degree of value depends on the severity of the infection,” he said.

For example, if people actually ever go back into work together, early recognition that an employee might have influenza or another highly contagious infection could alert them to the necessity to stay home and self-isolate.

“We have a bit to go before we get there,” Dr. Steinhubl acknowledged, “but you could have a really big impact on the spread of any infectious disease that would be better for everybody.”

Dr. Dunn has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Steinhubl is chief medical officer at physIQ, a company involved in the development of personalized analytics.

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

When 23 frail elderly patients in Norway died in early 2021 shortly after they had received an mRNA-based vaccine against COVID-19, Norwegian health authorities cautioned physicians to conduct more thorough assessments of patients prior to immunization, and launched an investigation into the safety of the BNT162b2 vaccine (Comirnaty; Pfizer-BioNTech).

Now, the results of that investigation and of a subsequent larger study of nursing home residents in Norway have shown no increased risk for short-term mortality following COVID-19 vaccination in the overall population of elderly patients. The new research also showed clear evidence of a survival benefit compared with the unvaccinated population, Anette Hylen Ranhoff, MD, PhD, said at the annual meeting of the European Geriatric Medicine Society, held in a hybrid format in Athens, Greece, and online.

“We found no evidence of increased short-term mortality among vaccinated older individuals, and particularly not among the nursing home patients,” said Dr. Ranhoff, a senior researcher at the Norwegian Institute of Public Health and professor at University of Bergen, Norway. “But we think that this [lower] mortality risk was most likely a sort of ‘healthy-vaccinee’ effect, which means that people who were a bit more healthy were vaccinated, and not those who were the very, very most frail.”

“We have more or less the same data in France about events, with very high rates of vaccination,” said session moderator Athanase Benetos MD, PhD, professor and chairman of geriatric medicine at the University Hospital of Nancy in France, who was not involved in the study.

“In my department, a month after the end of the vaccination and at the same time while the pandemic in the city was going up, we had a 90% decrease in mortality from COVID in the nursing homes,” he told Dr. Ranhoff.
 

Potential risks

Frail elderly patients were not included in clinical trials of COVID-19 vaccines, and although previous studies have shown a low incidence of local or systemic reactions to vaccination among older people, “we think that quite mild adverse events following vaccination could trigger and destabilize a frail person,” Dr. Ranhoff said.

As reported Jan. 15, 2021, in BMJ, investigation by the Norwegian Medicines Agency (NOMA) into 13 of the 23 reported cases concluded that common adverse reactions associated with mRNA vaccines could have contributed to the deaths of some of the frail elderly patients

Steinar Madsen, MD, NOMA medical director, told BMJ “we are not alarmed or worried about this, because these are very rare occurrences and they occurred in very frail patients with very serious disease.”
 

Health authorities investigate

In response to the report and at the request of the Norwegian Public Health Institute and NOMA, Dr. Ranhoff and colleagues investigated the first 100 deaths among nursing-home residents who received the vaccine. The team consisted of three geriatricians and an infectious disease specialist who sees patients in nursing homes.

They looked at each patient’s clinical course before and after vaccination, their health trajectory and life expectancy at the time of vaccination, new symptoms following vaccination, and the time from vaccination to new symptoms and to death.

In addition, the investigators evaluated Clinical Frailty Scale (CFS) scores for each patient. CFS scores range from 1 (very fit) to 9 (terminally ill, with a life expectancy of less than 6 months who are otherwise evidently frail).

The initial investigation found that among 95 evaluable patients, the association between vaccination and death was “probable” in 10, “possible” in 26, and “unlikely” in 59.

The mean time from vaccination to symptoms was 1.4 days in the probable cases, 2.5 days in the possible cases, and 4.7 days in the unlikely cases.

The mean time from vaccination to death was 3.1, 8.3, and 8.2 days, respectively.

In all three categories, the patients had mean CFS scores ranging from 7.6 to 7.9, putting them in the “severely frail” category, defined as people who are completely dependent for personal care but seem stable and not at high risk for dying.

“We have quite many nursing home residents in Norway, 35,000; more than 80% have dementia, and the mean age is 85 years. We know that approximately 45 people die every day in these nursing homes, and their mean age of death is 87.5 years,” Dr. Ranhoff said.
 

Population-wide study

Dr. Ranhoff and colleagues also looked more broadly into the question of potential vaccine-related mortality in the total population of older people in Norway from the day of vaccination to follow-up at 3 weeks.

They conducted a matched cohort study to investigate the relationship between the mRNA SARS-CoV-2 vaccine and overall death among persons aged 65 and older in the general population, and across four groups: patients receiving home-based care, long-term nursing home patients, short-term nursing home patients, and those not receiving health services.

The researchers identified a total of 967,786 residents of Norway aged 65 and over at the start of the country’s vaccination campaign at the end of December, 2020, and they matched vaccinated individuals with unvaccinated persons based on demographic, geographic, and clinical risk group factors.

Dr. Ranhoff showed Kaplan-Meier survival curves for the total population and for each of the health-service states. In all cases there was a clear survival benefit for vaccinated vs. unvaccinated patients. She did not, however, provide specific numbers or hazard ratios for the differences between vaccinated and unvaccinated individuals in each of the comparisons.

The study was supported by the Norwegian Institute of Public Health. Dr. Ranhoff and Dr. Benetos reported no conflicts of interest.

When 23 frail elderly patients in Norway died in early 2021 shortly after they had received an mRNA-based vaccine against COVID-19, Norwegian health authorities cautioned physicians to conduct more thorough assessments of patients prior to immunization, and launched an investigation into the safety of the BNT162b2 vaccine (Comirnaty; Pfizer-BioNTech).

Now, the results of that investigation and of a subsequent larger study of nursing home residents in Norway have shown no increased risk for short-term mortality following COVID-19 vaccination in the overall population of elderly patients. The new research also showed clear evidence of a survival benefit compared with the unvaccinated population, Anette Hylen Ranhoff, MD, PhD, said at the annual meeting of the European Geriatric Medicine Society, held in a hybrid format in Athens, Greece, and online.

“We found no evidence of increased short-term mortality among vaccinated older individuals, and particularly not among the nursing home patients,” said Dr. Ranhoff, a senior researcher at the Norwegian Institute of Public Health and professor at University of Bergen, Norway. “But we think that this [lower] mortality risk was most likely a sort of ‘healthy-vaccinee’ effect, which means that people who were a bit more healthy were vaccinated, and not those who were the very, very most frail.”

“We have more or less the same data in France about events, with very high rates of vaccination,” said session moderator Athanase Benetos MD, PhD, professor and chairman of geriatric medicine at the University Hospital of Nancy in France, who was not involved in the study.

“In my department, a month after the end of the vaccination and at the same time while the pandemic in the city was going up, we had a 90% decrease in mortality from COVID in the nursing homes,” he told Dr. Ranhoff.
 

Potential risks

Frail elderly patients were not included in clinical trials of COVID-19 vaccines, and although previous studies have shown a low incidence of local or systemic reactions to vaccination among older people, “we think that quite mild adverse events following vaccination could trigger and destabilize a frail person,” Dr. Ranhoff said.

As reported Jan. 15, 2021, in BMJ, investigation by the Norwegian Medicines Agency (NOMA) into 13 of the 23 reported cases concluded that common adverse reactions associated with mRNA vaccines could have contributed to the deaths of some of the frail elderly patients

Steinar Madsen, MD, NOMA medical director, told BMJ “we are not alarmed or worried about this, because these are very rare occurrences and they occurred in very frail patients with very serious disease.”
 

Health authorities investigate

In response to the report and at the request of the Norwegian Public Health Institute and NOMA, Dr. Ranhoff and colleagues investigated the first 100 deaths among nursing-home residents who received the vaccine. The team consisted of three geriatricians and an infectious disease specialist who sees patients in nursing homes.

They looked at each patient’s clinical course before and after vaccination, their health trajectory and life expectancy at the time of vaccination, new symptoms following vaccination, and the time from vaccination to new symptoms and to death.

In addition, the investigators evaluated Clinical Frailty Scale (CFS) scores for each patient. CFS scores range from 1 (very fit) to 9 (terminally ill, with a life expectancy of less than 6 months who are otherwise evidently frail).

The initial investigation found that among 95 evaluable patients, the association between vaccination and death was “probable” in 10, “possible” in 26, and “unlikely” in 59.

The mean time from vaccination to symptoms was 1.4 days in the probable cases, 2.5 days in the possible cases, and 4.7 days in the unlikely cases.

The mean time from vaccination to death was 3.1, 8.3, and 8.2 days, respectively.

In all three categories, the patients had mean CFS scores ranging from 7.6 to 7.9, putting them in the “severely frail” category, defined as people who are completely dependent for personal care but seem stable and not at high risk for dying.

“We have quite many nursing home residents in Norway, 35,000; more than 80% have dementia, and the mean age is 85 years. We know that approximately 45 people die every day in these nursing homes, and their mean age of death is 87.5 years,” Dr. Ranhoff said.
 

Population-wide study

Dr. Ranhoff and colleagues also looked more broadly into the question of potential vaccine-related mortality in the total population of older people in Norway from the day of vaccination to follow-up at 3 weeks.

They conducted a matched cohort study to investigate the relationship between the mRNA SARS-CoV-2 vaccine and overall death among persons aged 65 and older in the general population, and across four groups: patients receiving home-based care, long-term nursing home patients, short-term nursing home patients, and those not receiving health services.

The researchers identified a total of 967,786 residents of Norway aged 65 and over at the start of the country’s vaccination campaign at the end of December, 2020, and they matched vaccinated individuals with unvaccinated persons based on demographic, geographic, and clinical risk group factors.

Dr. Ranhoff showed Kaplan-Meier survival curves for the total population and for each of the health-service states. In all cases there was a clear survival benefit for vaccinated vs. unvaccinated patients. She did not, however, provide specific numbers or hazard ratios for the differences between vaccinated and unvaccinated individuals in each of the comparisons.

The study was supported by the Norwegian Institute of Public Health. Dr. Ranhoff and Dr. Benetos reported no conflicts of interest.

When 23 frail elderly patients in Norway died in early 2021 shortly after they had received an mRNA-based vaccine against COVID-19, Norwegian health authorities cautioned physicians to conduct more thorough assessments of patients prior to immunization, and launched an investigation into the safety of the BNT162b2 vaccine (Comirnaty; Pfizer-BioNTech).

Now, the results of that investigation and of a subsequent larger study of nursing home residents in Norway have shown no increased risk for short-term mortality following COVID-19 vaccination in the overall population of elderly patients. The new research also showed clear evidence of a survival benefit compared with the unvaccinated population, Anette Hylen Ranhoff, MD, PhD, said at the annual meeting of the European Geriatric Medicine Society, held in a hybrid format in Athens, Greece, and online.

“We found no evidence of increased short-term mortality among vaccinated older individuals, and particularly not among the nursing home patients,” said Dr. Ranhoff, a senior researcher at the Norwegian Institute of Public Health and professor at University of Bergen, Norway. “But we think that this [lower] mortality risk was most likely a sort of ‘healthy-vaccinee’ effect, which means that people who were a bit more healthy were vaccinated, and not those who were the very, very most frail.”

“We have more or less the same data in France about events, with very high rates of vaccination,” said session moderator Athanase Benetos MD, PhD, professor and chairman of geriatric medicine at the University Hospital of Nancy in France, who was not involved in the study.

“In my department, a month after the end of the vaccination and at the same time while the pandemic in the city was going up, we had a 90% decrease in mortality from COVID in the nursing homes,” he told Dr. Ranhoff.
 

Potential risks

Frail elderly patients were not included in clinical trials of COVID-19 vaccines, and although previous studies have shown a low incidence of local or systemic reactions to vaccination among older people, “we think that quite mild adverse events following vaccination could trigger and destabilize a frail person,” Dr. Ranhoff said.

As reported Jan. 15, 2021, in BMJ, investigation by the Norwegian Medicines Agency (NOMA) into 13 of the 23 reported cases concluded that common adverse reactions associated with mRNA vaccines could have contributed to the deaths of some of the frail elderly patients

Steinar Madsen, MD, NOMA medical director, told BMJ “we are not alarmed or worried about this, because these are very rare occurrences and they occurred in very frail patients with very serious disease.”
 

Health authorities investigate

In response to the report and at the request of the Norwegian Public Health Institute and NOMA, Dr. Ranhoff and colleagues investigated the first 100 deaths among nursing-home residents who received the vaccine. The team consisted of three geriatricians and an infectious disease specialist who sees patients in nursing homes.

They looked at each patient’s clinical course before and after vaccination, their health trajectory and life expectancy at the time of vaccination, new symptoms following vaccination, and the time from vaccination to new symptoms and to death.

In addition, the investigators evaluated Clinical Frailty Scale (CFS) scores for each patient. CFS scores range from 1 (very fit) to 9 (terminally ill, with a life expectancy of less than 6 months who are otherwise evidently frail).

The initial investigation found that among 95 evaluable patients, the association between vaccination and death was “probable” in 10, “possible” in 26, and “unlikely” in 59.

The mean time from vaccination to symptoms was 1.4 days in the probable cases, 2.5 days in the possible cases, and 4.7 days in the unlikely cases.

The mean time from vaccination to death was 3.1, 8.3, and 8.2 days, respectively.

In all three categories, the patients had mean CFS scores ranging from 7.6 to 7.9, putting them in the “severely frail” category, defined as people who are completely dependent for personal care but seem stable and not at high risk for dying.

“We have quite many nursing home residents in Norway, 35,000; more than 80% have dementia, and the mean age is 85 years. We know that approximately 45 people die every day in these nursing homes, and their mean age of death is 87.5 years,” Dr. Ranhoff said.
 

Population-wide study

Dr. Ranhoff and colleagues also looked more broadly into the question of potential vaccine-related mortality in the total population of older people in Norway from the day of vaccination to follow-up at 3 weeks.

They conducted a matched cohort study to investigate the relationship between the mRNA SARS-CoV-2 vaccine and overall death among persons aged 65 and older in the general population, and across four groups: patients receiving home-based care, long-term nursing home patients, short-term nursing home patients, and those not receiving health services.

The researchers identified a total of 967,786 residents of Norway aged 65 and over at the start of the country’s vaccination campaign at the end of December, 2020, and they matched vaccinated individuals with unvaccinated persons based on demographic, geographic, and clinical risk group factors.

Dr. Ranhoff showed Kaplan-Meier survival curves for the total population and for each of the health-service states. In all cases there was a clear survival benefit for vaccinated vs. unvaccinated patients. She did not, however, provide specific numbers or hazard ratios for the differences between vaccinated and unvaccinated individuals in each of the comparisons.

The study was supported by the Norwegian Institute of Public Health. Dr. Ranhoff and Dr. Benetos reported no conflicts of interest.

Unless pneumonia is suspected, clinicians should not prescribe antibiotics for most children with chest infections, according to findings of the ARTIC-PC randomized controlled trial, published in The Lancet.

“Prescribing for children with uncomplicated chest infections is still common in most countries,” said lead author Paul Little, MD, professor of primary care research at the University of Southampton, England, in an interview.

But there are barriers to stopping this practice, he said. “If you prescribe an antibiotic and the child gets better, even if the antibiotic was not doing that much, the parents then think that it was the antibiotic that was responsible for the recovery and so expect antibiotics the next time. So, physician prescribing of antibiotics in effect medicalizes illness and keeps the cycle of expectations, reconsultations, and prescriptions going.”

The study included 432 children aged 6 months to 12 years (median age, 3.2 years) who presented at 56 general practices in England with acute, uncomplicated lower respiratory tract infection (LRTI) of less than 21 days’ duration and in whom pneumonia was not suspected clinically. The children were randomly assigned to undergo 7 days of treatment with either amoxicillin 50 mg/kg or placebo. The primary outcome was duration of symptoms rated moderately bad or worse.

For up to 4 weeks, parents scored symptoms – including cough, phlegm, shortness of breath, wheeze, blocked or runny nose, disturbed sleep, feeling generally unwell, fever, and interference with normal activities – in a daily diary. The secondary outcome was symptom severity. Prespecified analyses were made for key clinical subgroups of patients for whom clinicians commonly prescribe (those with chest signs, fever, physician rating of unwell, sputum or chest rattle, and shortness of breath).

There was no significant difference in outcome between children treated with antibiotics and those treated with placebo. The median duration of moderately bad or worse symptoms was similar between the antibiotics group and the placebo group (5 vs. 6 days; hazard ratio, 1.13), as was the median time until symptoms were rated absent or as causing very little problem (7 vs. 8 days; HR, 1.09). There was a small significant difference between the groups in symptom severity score on days 2-4 after seeing the doctor (1.8 in the antibiotics group vs. 2.1 in the placebo group), “which was equivalent to less than one child in three rating symptoms a slight problem rather than very little problem,” the study authors report. “The treatment effects for all outcomes were similar for most subgroups ... but the effect of antibiotics was slightly, but not significantly, greater among those with fever or those who were unwell,” they add.

The investigators conclude that “similar to adults, antibiotics are unlikely to make a clinically important difference to the symptom burden for uncomplicated lower respiratory tract infections in children – both overall, and for the key clinical subgroups where antibiotic prescribing is most common.” They recommend that clinicians provide “safety-netting advice” to parents, such as explaining what illness course to expect and when a return visit would be necessary.

The findings provide “more evidence to do less,” wrote Rianne Oostenbrink, MD, PhD, from Erasmus MC-Sophia, in Rotterdam, the Netherlands, and Lina Jankauskaite, MD, PhD, from Lithuanian University of Health Sciences, Kaunas, in an accompanying comment.

“Overtesting and overtreatment of children are especially prominent in infectious diseases, when fever or other symptoms such as cough can be unspecific and can be of viral or bacterial origin,” they write.

The commenters note that despite antibiotics, most children did have moderately bad or worse symptoms on day 3, and symptoms had improved in about 75% of children in both groups at day 14. “A notable finding of this study is that only a few children had moderately bad or worse symptoms by day 14, and antibiotics did not alleviate the symptoms compared with placebo. Additionally, this trial aligns with other studies that have shown that reducing antibiotic treatment for LRTI is not associated with prolonged morbidity or higher incidence of complications.”

The study was funded by the UK National Institute for Health Research. Dr. Little, Dr. Jankauskaite, and Dr. Oostenbrink have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Unless pneumonia is suspected, clinicians should not prescribe antibiotics for most children with chest infections, according to findings of the ARTIC-PC randomized controlled trial, published in The Lancet.

“Prescribing for children with uncomplicated chest infections is still common in most countries,” said lead author Paul Little, MD, professor of primary care research at the University of Southampton, England, in an interview.

But there are barriers to stopping this practice, he said. “If you prescribe an antibiotic and the child gets better, even if the antibiotic was not doing that much, the parents then think that it was the antibiotic that was responsible for the recovery and so expect antibiotics the next time. So, physician prescribing of antibiotics in effect medicalizes illness and keeps the cycle of expectations, reconsultations, and prescriptions going.”

The study included 432 children aged 6 months to 12 years (median age, 3.2 years) who presented at 56 general practices in England with acute, uncomplicated lower respiratory tract infection (LRTI) of less than 21 days’ duration and in whom pneumonia was not suspected clinically. The children were randomly assigned to undergo 7 days of treatment with either amoxicillin 50 mg/kg or placebo. The primary outcome was duration of symptoms rated moderately bad or worse.

For up to 4 weeks, parents scored symptoms – including cough, phlegm, shortness of breath, wheeze, blocked or runny nose, disturbed sleep, feeling generally unwell, fever, and interference with normal activities – in a daily diary. The secondary outcome was symptom severity. Prespecified analyses were made for key clinical subgroups of patients for whom clinicians commonly prescribe (those with chest signs, fever, physician rating of unwell, sputum or chest rattle, and shortness of breath).

There was no significant difference in outcome between children treated with antibiotics and those treated with placebo. The median duration of moderately bad or worse symptoms was similar between the antibiotics group and the placebo group (5 vs. 6 days; hazard ratio, 1.13), as was the median time until symptoms were rated absent or as causing very little problem (7 vs. 8 days; HR, 1.09). There was a small significant difference between the groups in symptom severity score on days 2-4 after seeing the doctor (1.8 in the antibiotics group vs. 2.1 in the placebo group), “which was equivalent to less than one child in three rating symptoms a slight problem rather than very little problem,” the study authors report. “The treatment effects for all outcomes were similar for most subgroups ... but the effect of antibiotics was slightly, but not significantly, greater among those with fever or those who were unwell,” they add.

The investigators conclude that “similar to adults, antibiotics are unlikely to make a clinically important difference to the symptom burden for uncomplicated lower respiratory tract infections in children – both overall, and for the key clinical subgroups where antibiotic prescribing is most common.” They recommend that clinicians provide “safety-netting advice” to parents, such as explaining what illness course to expect and when a return visit would be necessary.

The findings provide “more evidence to do less,” wrote Rianne Oostenbrink, MD, PhD, from Erasmus MC-Sophia, in Rotterdam, the Netherlands, and Lina Jankauskaite, MD, PhD, from Lithuanian University of Health Sciences, Kaunas, in an accompanying comment.

“Overtesting and overtreatment of children are especially prominent in infectious diseases, when fever or other symptoms such as cough can be unspecific and can be of viral or bacterial origin,” they write.

The commenters note that despite antibiotics, most children did have moderately bad or worse symptoms on day 3, and symptoms had improved in about 75% of children in both groups at day 14. “A notable finding of this study is that only a few children had moderately bad or worse symptoms by day 14, and antibiotics did not alleviate the symptoms compared with placebo. Additionally, this trial aligns with other studies that have shown that reducing antibiotic treatment for LRTI is not associated with prolonged morbidity or higher incidence of complications.”

The study was funded by the UK National Institute for Health Research. Dr. Little, Dr. Jankauskaite, and Dr. Oostenbrink have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Unless pneumonia is suspected, clinicians should not prescribe antibiotics for most children with chest infections, according to findings of the ARTIC-PC randomized controlled trial, published in The Lancet.

“Prescribing for children with uncomplicated chest infections is still common in most countries,” said lead author Paul Little, MD, professor of primary care research at the University of Southampton, England, in an interview.

But there are barriers to stopping this practice, he said. “If you prescribe an antibiotic and the child gets better, even if the antibiotic was not doing that much, the parents then think that it was the antibiotic that was responsible for the recovery and so expect antibiotics the next time. So, physician prescribing of antibiotics in effect medicalizes illness and keeps the cycle of expectations, reconsultations, and prescriptions going.”

The study included 432 children aged 6 months to 12 years (median age, 3.2 years) who presented at 56 general practices in England with acute, uncomplicated lower respiratory tract infection (LRTI) of less than 21 days’ duration and in whom pneumonia was not suspected clinically. The children were randomly assigned to undergo 7 days of treatment with either amoxicillin 50 mg/kg or placebo. The primary outcome was duration of symptoms rated moderately bad or worse.

For up to 4 weeks, parents scored symptoms – including cough, phlegm, shortness of breath, wheeze, blocked or runny nose, disturbed sleep, feeling generally unwell, fever, and interference with normal activities – in a daily diary. The secondary outcome was symptom severity. Prespecified analyses were made for key clinical subgroups of patients for whom clinicians commonly prescribe (those with chest signs, fever, physician rating of unwell, sputum or chest rattle, and shortness of breath).

There was no significant difference in outcome between children treated with antibiotics and those treated with placebo. The median duration of moderately bad or worse symptoms was similar between the antibiotics group and the placebo group (5 vs. 6 days; hazard ratio, 1.13), as was the median time until symptoms were rated absent or as causing very little problem (7 vs. 8 days; HR, 1.09). There was a small significant difference between the groups in symptom severity score on days 2-4 after seeing the doctor (1.8 in the antibiotics group vs. 2.1 in the placebo group), “which was equivalent to less than one child in three rating symptoms a slight problem rather than very little problem,” the study authors report. “The treatment effects for all outcomes were similar for most subgroups ... but the effect of antibiotics was slightly, but not significantly, greater among those with fever or those who were unwell,” they add.

The investigators conclude that “similar to adults, antibiotics are unlikely to make a clinically important difference to the symptom burden for uncomplicated lower respiratory tract infections in children – both overall, and for the key clinical subgroups where antibiotic prescribing is most common.” They recommend that clinicians provide “safety-netting advice” to parents, such as explaining what illness course to expect and when a return visit would be necessary.

The findings provide “more evidence to do less,” wrote Rianne Oostenbrink, MD, PhD, from Erasmus MC-Sophia, in Rotterdam, the Netherlands, and Lina Jankauskaite, MD, PhD, from Lithuanian University of Health Sciences, Kaunas, in an accompanying comment.

“Overtesting and overtreatment of children are especially prominent in infectious diseases, when fever or other symptoms such as cough can be unspecific and can be of viral or bacterial origin,” they write.

The commenters note that despite antibiotics, most children did have moderately bad or worse symptoms on day 3, and symptoms had improved in about 75% of children in both groups at day 14. “A notable finding of this study is that only a few children had moderately bad or worse symptoms by day 14, and antibiotics did not alleviate the symptoms compared with placebo. Additionally, this trial aligns with other studies that have shown that reducing antibiotic treatment for LRTI is not associated with prolonged morbidity or higher incidence of complications.”

The study was funded by the UK National Institute for Health Research. Dr. Little, Dr. Jankauskaite, and Dr. Oostenbrink have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

In frail elderly adults with COVID-19 infections, treatment with omega-3 fatty acids may improve lipid responses and decrease levels of proinflammatory lipid mediators, results of a small randomized controlled trial suggest.

Results of the study, which included 22 patients with multiple comorbidities, were presented at the European Geriatric Medicine Society annual congress, a hybrid live and online meeting.

The patients, who had a median age of 81 years, were randomized to receive an intravenous infusion of an omega-3 polyunsaturated fatty acid (PUFA) emulsion containing 10 g of fish oil per 100 mL or a saline placebo.

Those who received the intravenous infusion had significant decreases from baseline to end of treatment in the neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (NLR), indicating marked reductions in systemic inflammation.

In contrast, patients randomized to a saline placebo had no significant improvements in NLR, Magnus Bäck, MD, PhD, from the Karolinska Institute in Stockholm reported at the meeting.

“Our lipidomic analysis also showed that omega-3 treatment skewed the lipid response, with reduced levels of proinflammatory lipid mediators, and increased levels of proresolving mediators,” according to a late-breaking abstract, which Dr. Bäck presented during the session.

Omega-3 treatment was not significantly associated with reduction in either C-reactive protein (CRP) or the proinflammatory cytokine interleukin-6, however.
 

‘Eicosanoid storm’

In a review article published in January 2021 in the open-access journal Frontiers in Physiology, Dr. Bäck and colleagues outlined the rationale for their randomized trial.

“Excessive inflammation has been reported in severe cases with respiratory failure and cardiovascular complications,” they wrote. “In addition to the release of cytokines, referred to as cytokine release syndrome or ‘cytokine storm,’ increased proinflammatory lipid mediators derived from the omega-6 polyunsaturated fatty acid (PUFA) arachidonic acid may cause an ‘eicosanoid storm,’ which contributes to the uncontrolled systemic inflammation.”

Omega-3 PUFA contains proresolving mediators that can limit inflammatory reactions, suggesting the possibility of an inflammation-resolving benefit in patients with COVID-19 without concerns about immunosuppression, the authors hypothesized.
 

Trial details

In the trial, COVID-Omega-F, they enrolled patients with a COVID-19 diagnosis requiring hospitalization. Patients with an allergy to fish oil or who had contraindications to intravenous PUFA administration (for example, risk for bleeding, shock, or emboli) were excluded.

Ten patients were randomly assigned to receive infusions of the omega-3 PUFA and 12 were assigned to receive infusions of the placebo, once daily for 5 days. The primary outcome measure was change in inflammatory biomarkers, including white blood cell counts, CRP, cytokines, and lipid mediators.

Baseline demographic and clinical characteristics were similar between the two study arms, with a median of about 7 days since the onset of symptoms, and 3.5 days since a diagnosis of COVID-19.

All patients had low lymphocyte responses reflected by a high NLR, a prognostic measure for worse outcomes in patients with COVID-19 infections, Dr. Bäck said.

Inflammation was moderate, with a CRP of 65 mg/L in the placebo group and 62 mg/L in the omega-3 group.

Seven patients in each study arm received concomitant corticoid treatment. Two patients in each arm died in hospital, but there were no serious treatment-related adverse events.
 

Inflammatory markers improve

As noted before, there was a significant decline in NLR from baseline among patients randomized to omega-3 (P = .02) but no corresponding decrease in patients assigned to placebo infusions.

“The significant decrease was largely driven by an increase in the lymphocyte count in the omega-3 treated group (P = .004), whereas lymphocytes did not significantly change,” Dr. Bäck said.

As expected, patients in the omega-3 group had pronounced increases in omega-3 fatty acids, including eicosapentaenoic acid and docosahexaenoic acid.

The metabolism of fatty acids also differed markedly between the groups, with a significant decrease in the omega-3 group but not the placebo group in proinflammatory mediators, and an increase in precursors to proresolving mediators, Dr. Bäck noted.
 

AFib concerns

In a question-and-answer part of the session, a physician who identified herself as “Senya from Russia” questioned the safety of omega-3 treatment in this population, “because recently there was a meta-analysis which showed that omega-3 fatty acids will increase the risk of atrial fibrillation in older adults especially.”

The systematic review and meta-analysis she referred to, published in Circulation and reported on by this news organization, showed that, among 81,210 patients with a mean age of 65 enrolled in seven randomized controlled trials, omega-3 fatty acid supplementation was associated with a 25% increase in risk for atrial fibrillation. This risk appeared to be higher in trials testing doses greater than 1 g/day, according to the paper.

“This was not monitored in this study,” Dr. Bäck replied. “It is true that the meta-analysis showed an increased incidence of atrial fibrillation, so it would be something to monitor in case this trial would be expanded to a larger population.”

The study was supported by the Karolinska Institute. Dr. Bäck disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

In frail elderly adults with COVID-19 infections, treatment with omega-3 fatty acids may improve lipid responses and decrease levels of proinflammatory lipid mediators, results of a small randomized controlled trial suggest.

Results of the study, which included 22 patients with multiple comorbidities, were presented at the European Geriatric Medicine Society annual congress, a hybrid live and online meeting.

The patients, who had a median age of 81 years, were randomized to receive an intravenous infusion of an omega-3 polyunsaturated fatty acid (PUFA) emulsion containing 10 g of fish oil per 100 mL or a saline placebo.

Those who received the intravenous infusion had significant decreases from baseline to end of treatment in the neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (NLR), indicating marked reductions in systemic inflammation.

In contrast, patients randomized to a saline placebo had no significant improvements in NLR, Magnus Bäck, MD, PhD, from the Karolinska Institute in Stockholm reported at the meeting.

“Our lipidomic analysis also showed that omega-3 treatment skewed the lipid response, with reduced levels of proinflammatory lipid mediators, and increased levels of proresolving mediators,” according to a late-breaking abstract, which Dr. Bäck presented during the session.

Omega-3 treatment was not significantly associated with reduction in either C-reactive protein (CRP) or the proinflammatory cytokine interleukin-6, however.
 

‘Eicosanoid storm’

In a review article published in January 2021 in the open-access journal Frontiers in Physiology, Dr. Bäck and colleagues outlined the rationale for their randomized trial.

“Excessive inflammation has been reported in severe cases with respiratory failure and cardiovascular complications,” they wrote. “In addition to the release of cytokines, referred to as cytokine release syndrome or ‘cytokine storm,’ increased proinflammatory lipid mediators derived from the omega-6 polyunsaturated fatty acid (PUFA) arachidonic acid may cause an ‘eicosanoid storm,’ which contributes to the uncontrolled systemic inflammation.”

Omega-3 PUFA contains proresolving mediators that can limit inflammatory reactions, suggesting the possibility of an inflammation-resolving benefit in patients with COVID-19 without concerns about immunosuppression, the authors hypothesized.
 

Trial details

In the trial, COVID-Omega-F, they enrolled patients with a COVID-19 diagnosis requiring hospitalization. Patients with an allergy to fish oil or who had contraindications to intravenous PUFA administration (for example, risk for bleeding, shock, or emboli) were excluded.

Ten patients were randomly assigned to receive infusions of the omega-3 PUFA and 12 were assigned to receive infusions of the placebo, once daily for 5 days. The primary outcome measure was change in inflammatory biomarkers, including white blood cell counts, CRP, cytokines, and lipid mediators.

Baseline demographic and clinical characteristics were similar between the two study arms, with a median of about 7 days since the onset of symptoms, and 3.5 days since a diagnosis of COVID-19.

All patients had low lymphocyte responses reflected by a high NLR, a prognostic measure for worse outcomes in patients with COVID-19 infections, Dr. Bäck said.

Inflammation was moderate, with a CRP of 65 mg/L in the placebo group and 62 mg/L in the omega-3 group.

Seven patients in each study arm received concomitant corticoid treatment. Two patients in each arm died in hospital, but there were no serious treatment-related adverse events.
 

Inflammatory markers improve

As noted before, there was a significant decline in NLR from baseline among patients randomized to omega-3 (P = .02) but no corresponding decrease in patients assigned to placebo infusions.

“The significant decrease was largely driven by an increase in the lymphocyte count in the omega-3 treated group (P = .004), whereas lymphocytes did not significantly change,” Dr. Bäck said.

As expected, patients in the omega-3 group had pronounced increases in omega-3 fatty acids, including eicosapentaenoic acid and docosahexaenoic acid.

The metabolism of fatty acids also differed markedly between the groups, with a significant decrease in the omega-3 group but not the placebo group in proinflammatory mediators, and an increase in precursors to proresolving mediators, Dr. Bäck noted.
 

AFib concerns

In a question-and-answer part of the session, a physician who identified herself as “Senya from Russia” questioned the safety of omega-3 treatment in this population, “because recently there was a meta-analysis which showed that omega-3 fatty acids will increase the risk of atrial fibrillation in older adults especially.”

The systematic review and meta-analysis she referred to, published in Circulation and reported on by this news organization, showed that, among 81,210 patients with a mean age of 65 enrolled in seven randomized controlled trials, omega-3 fatty acid supplementation was associated with a 25% increase in risk for atrial fibrillation. This risk appeared to be higher in trials testing doses greater than 1 g/day, according to the paper.

“This was not monitored in this study,” Dr. Bäck replied. “It is true that the meta-analysis showed an increased incidence of atrial fibrillation, so it would be something to monitor in case this trial would be expanded to a larger population.”

The study was supported by the Karolinska Institute. Dr. Bäck disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

In frail elderly adults with COVID-19 infections, treatment with omega-3 fatty acids may improve lipid responses and decrease levels of proinflammatory lipid mediators, results of a small randomized controlled trial suggest.

Results of the study, which included 22 patients with multiple comorbidities, were presented at the European Geriatric Medicine Society annual congress, a hybrid live and online meeting.

The patients, who had a median age of 81 years, were randomized to receive an intravenous infusion of an omega-3 polyunsaturated fatty acid (PUFA) emulsion containing 10 g of fish oil per 100 mL or a saline placebo.

Those who received the intravenous infusion had significant decreases from baseline to end of treatment in the neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (NLR), indicating marked reductions in systemic inflammation.

In contrast, patients randomized to a saline placebo had no significant improvements in NLR, Magnus Bäck, MD, PhD, from the Karolinska Institute in Stockholm reported at the meeting.

“Our lipidomic analysis also showed that omega-3 treatment skewed the lipid response, with reduced levels of proinflammatory lipid mediators, and increased levels of proresolving mediators,” according to a late-breaking abstract, which Dr. Bäck presented during the session.

Omega-3 treatment was not significantly associated with reduction in either C-reactive protein (CRP) or the proinflammatory cytokine interleukin-6, however.
 

‘Eicosanoid storm’

In a review article published in January 2021 in the open-access journal Frontiers in Physiology, Dr. Bäck and colleagues outlined the rationale for their randomized trial.

“Excessive inflammation has been reported in severe cases with respiratory failure and cardiovascular complications,” they wrote. “In addition to the release of cytokines, referred to as cytokine release syndrome or ‘cytokine storm,’ increased proinflammatory lipid mediators derived from the omega-6 polyunsaturated fatty acid (PUFA) arachidonic acid may cause an ‘eicosanoid storm,’ which contributes to the uncontrolled systemic inflammation.”

Omega-3 PUFA contains proresolving mediators that can limit inflammatory reactions, suggesting the possibility of an inflammation-resolving benefit in patients with COVID-19 without concerns about immunosuppression, the authors hypothesized.
 

Trial details

In the trial, COVID-Omega-F, they enrolled patients with a COVID-19 diagnosis requiring hospitalization. Patients with an allergy to fish oil or who had contraindications to intravenous PUFA administration (for example, risk for bleeding, shock, or emboli) were excluded.

Ten patients were randomly assigned to receive infusions of the omega-3 PUFA and 12 were assigned to receive infusions of the placebo, once daily for 5 days. The primary outcome measure was change in inflammatory biomarkers, including white blood cell counts, CRP, cytokines, and lipid mediators.

Baseline demographic and clinical characteristics were similar between the two study arms, with a median of about 7 days since the onset of symptoms, and 3.5 days since a diagnosis of COVID-19.

All patients had low lymphocyte responses reflected by a high NLR, a prognostic measure for worse outcomes in patients with COVID-19 infections, Dr. Bäck said.

Inflammation was moderate, with a CRP of 65 mg/L in the placebo group and 62 mg/L in the omega-3 group.

Seven patients in each study arm received concomitant corticoid treatment. Two patients in each arm died in hospital, but there were no serious treatment-related adverse events.
 

Inflammatory markers improve

As noted before, there was a significant decline in NLR from baseline among patients randomized to omega-3 (P = .02) but no corresponding decrease in patients assigned to placebo infusions.

“The significant decrease was largely driven by an increase in the lymphocyte count in the omega-3 treated group (P = .004), whereas lymphocytes did not significantly change,” Dr. Bäck said.

As expected, patients in the omega-3 group had pronounced increases in omega-3 fatty acids, including eicosapentaenoic acid and docosahexaenoic acid.

The metabolism of fatty acids also differed markedly between the groups, with a significant decrease in the omega-3 group but not the placebo group in proinflammatory mediators, and an increase in precursors to proresolving mediators, Dr. Bäck noted.
 

AFib concerns

In a question-and-answer part of the session, a physician who identified herself as “Senya from Russia” questioned the safety of omega-3 treatment in this population, “because recently there was a meta-analysis which showed that omega-3 fatty acids will increase the risk of atrial fibrillation in older adults especially.”

The systematic review and meta-analysis she referred to, published in Circulation and reported on by this news organization, showed that, among 81,210 patients with a mean age of 65 enrolled in seven randomized controlled trials, omega-3 fatty acid supplementation was associated with a 25% increase in risk for atrial fibrillation. This risk appeared to be higher in trials testing doses greater than 1 g/day, according to the paper.

“This was not monitored in this study,” Dr. Bäck replied. “It is true that the meta-analysis showed an increased incidence of atrial fibrillation, so it would be something to monitor in case this trial would be expanded to a larger population.”

The study was supported by the Karolinska Institute. Dr. Bäck disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

There is a significantly increased risk for acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS)–related death from COVID-19 among people with systemic lupus erythematous (SLE), compared with the general population, according to data collected in Brazil in 2020.

“Special care is therefore necessary for these patients, as well as reinforcement of the importance of preventive measures during a pandemic for this population,” said Eloisa Bonfá, MD, PhD, at the 14th International Congress on Systemic Lupus Erythematosus, which was held together with the 6th International Congress on Controversies in Rheumatology and Autoimmunity.

“We know that lupus patients have an increased susceptibility to infections due to autoimmune dysregulation and use of immunosuppressive therapy,” explained Dr. Bonfá, who is clinical director of the largest tertiary referral center for autoimmune rheumatic diseases in Latin America, the University of São Paulo Faculty of Medicine Hospital Clinics.

“Our study demonstrates for the first time that lupus patients have an increased ARDS severity,” she added.

Prior to the meeting, the study was published in ACR Open Rheumatology.
 

Collating the evidence

Since the COVID-19 pandemic began, there have been more than 20 million confirmed cases of SARS-CoV-2 infection in Brazil and more than half a million deaths.

Dr. Bonfá presented the results of a cross-sectional study that was part of the country’s national Influenza Epidemiological Reporting Surveillance System. Data from 2020 were used, which included just over 252,000 individuals who had polymerase chain reaction–confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection. Of these individuals, there were 319 consecutively recruited patients with SLE.

The aim was to look at the effect of being hospitalized for COVID-19–related ARDS on outcomes in people with SLE versus the general population.

ARDS was defined as a positive polymerase chain reaction test and accompanying flu-like symptoms with dyspnea, respiratory discomfort, persistent pressure in the chest, or desaturation less than 95% in room air or having a bluish tinge to the lips or face.

Other telling signs of a serious respiratory infection that were evaluated, but not mandatory for study eligibility, were loss of smell, impaired taste, typical CT findings, or having had contact with a confirmed COVID-19 case in the preceding 2 weeks.
 

Key findings

The risk for death from COVID-19–related ARDS was “more than double” in patients with SLE, compared with the general population, Dr. Bonfá reported. The relative risk in the fully adjusted, propensity-scored analysis was approximately 2.25.

That analysis did not account for other comorbidities but was fully adjusted for individuals’ age, sex, and region of Brazil where they lived. The latter was important, Dr. Bonfá said, because “we have a high disparity regarding health access and treatment among regions.”

Comorbidities considered as part of the analyses included arterial hypertension, diabetes, malignancies, neurologic disease, and diseases affecting the heart, lung, liver, and kidneys. Researchers also adjusted for smoking, alcohol intake, body weight, pregnancy, and transplantation.

SLE had a greater impact on individuals’ outcomes than all other comorbidities considered.

“We evaluated lupus as one comorbidity compared to all other comorbidities,” Dr. Bonfá explained.

SLE “more than doubled the chances” of dying from ARDS, she said. “This is [a] very impressive finding.”

They found that SLE was associated with an RR for death of 1.73, compared with non-SLE patients, when propensity-score matching without adjustment for comorbidities was used. The RR for death dropped to 1.40 but was still significant when researchers included comorbidities.

Dr. Bonfá and her team also looked at a combined endpoint of death, ICU admission, and need for mechanical ventilation. They found an increased risk in patients with SLE versus the general population in all their analyses, ranging from 1.70 if comorbidities were included in the model to 1.27 if they weren’t to 1.39 if propensity-score matching alone was used.  
 

Got lupus? ‘Get vaccinated’

“The data we have are in nonvaccinated patients,” Dr. Bonfá said. “We didn’t have vaccines in 2020.”

Whether being vaccinated might make a different to the risks found in this study is an “interesting question,” and one that may be examined in the future.

Certainly, other work Dr. Bonfá has been involved in seems to point to a likely benefit of vaccination in patients with autoimmune diseases in terms of reducing mortality from COVID-19, even when rates of infection may be on the rise.  

“There’s considerable vaccine hesitancy in SLE patients,” Chi-Chiu Mok, MD, of Tuen Mun Hospital in Hong Kong, observed in a separate presentation at the congress.

This may be for several reasons, such as worry that their disease may flare or the vaccine might compromise their drug treatment or result in uncommon complications.

However, “we should encourage our SLE patients to receive COVID-19 vaccination at a time of clinical remission or low disease activity state,” Dr. Mok advised.

“Physical distancing, protective masks, and personal hygiene [measures]” should also continue.

The bottom line for those with SLE is to get vaccinated, stressed Sandra Navarra, MD, of the University of Santo Tomas Hospital in Manila, the Philippines, during the discussion.

“There’s still so much out there that we do not know about,” she said. “Just get yourself vaccinated.”

The study had no outside funding. Dr. Bonfá, Dr. Mok, and Dr. Navarra reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

There is a significantly increased risk for acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS)–related death from COVID-19 among people with systemic lupus erythematous (SLE), compared with the general population, according to data collected in Brazil in 2020.

“Special care is therefore necessary for these patients, as well as reinforcement of the importance of preventive measures during a pandemic for this population,” said Eloisa Bonfá, MD, PhD, at the 14th International Congress on Systemic Lupus Erythematosus, which was held together with the 6th International Congress on Controversies in Rheumatology and Autoimmunity.

“We know that lupus patients have an increased susceptibility to infections due to autoimmune dysregulation and use of immunosuppressive therapy,” explained Dr. Bonfá, who is clinical director of the largest tertiary referral center for autoimmune rheumatic diseases in Latin America, the University of São Paulo Faculty of Medicine Hospital Clinics.

“Our study demonstrates for the first time that lupus patients have an increased ARDS severity,” she added.

Prior to the meeting, the study was published in ACR Open Rheumatology.
 

Collating the evidence

Since the COVID-19 pandemic began, there have been more than 20 million confirmed cases of SARS-CoV-2 infection in Brazil and more than half a million deaths.

Dr. Bonfá presented the results of a cross-sectional study that was part of the country’s national Influenza Epidemiological Reporting Surveillance System. Data from 2020 were used, which included just over 252,000 individuals who had polymerase chain reaction–confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection. Of these individuals, there were 319 consecutively recruited patients with SLE.

The aim was to look at the effect of being hospitalized for COVID-19–related ARDS on outcomes in people with SLE versus the general population.

ARDS was defined as a positive polymerase chain reaction test and accompanying flu-like symptoms with dyspnea, respiratory discomfort, persistent pressure in the chest, or desaturation less than 95% in room air or having a bluish tinge to the lips or face.

Other telling signs of a serious respiratory infection that were evaluated, but not mandatory for study eligibility, were loss of smell, impaired taste, typical CT findings, or having had contact with a confirmed COVID-19 case in the preceding 2 weeks.
 

Key findings

The risk for death from COVID-19–related ARDS was “more than double” in patients with SLE, compared with the general population, Dr. Bonfá reported. The relative risk in the fully adjusted, propensity-scored analysis was approximately 2.25.

That analysis did not account for other comorbidities but was fully adjusted for individuals’ age, sex, and region of Brazil where they lived. The latter was important, Dr. Bonfá said, because “we have a high disparity regarding health access and treatment among regions.”

Comorbidities considered as part of the analyses included arterial hypertension, diabetes, malignancies, neurologic disease, and diseases affecting the heart, lung, liver, and kidneys. Researchers also adjusted for smoking, alcohol intake, body weight, pregnancy, and transplantation.

SLE had a greater impact on individuals’ outcomes than all other comorbidities considered.

“We evaluated lupus as one comorbidity compared to all other comorbidities,” Dr. Bonfá explained.

SLE “more than doubled the chances” of dying from ARDS, she said. “This is [a] very impressive finding.”

They found that SLE was associated with an RR for death of 1.73, compared with non-SLE patients, when propensity-score matching without adjustment for comorbidities was used. The RR for death dropped to 1.40 but was still significant when researchers included comorbidities.

Dr. Bonfá and her team also looked at a combined endpoint of death, ICU admission, and need for mechanical ventilation. They found an increased risk in patients with SLE versus the general population in all their analyses, ranging from 1.70 if comorbidities were included in the model to 1.27 if they weren’t to 1.39 if propensity-score matching alone was used.  
 

Got lupus? ‘Get vaccinated’

“The data we have are in nonvaccinated patients,” Dr. Bonfá said. “We didn’t have vaccines in 2020.”

Whether being vaccinated might make a different to the risks found in this study is an “interesting question,” and one that may be examined in the future.

Certainly, other work Dr. Bonfá has been involved in seems to point to a likely benefit of vaccination in patients with autoimmune diseases in terms of reducing mortality from COVID-19, even when rates of infection may be on the rise.  

“There’s considerable vaccine hesitancy in SLE patients,” Chi-Chiu Mok, MD, of Tuen Mun Hospital in Hong Kong, observed in a separate presentation at the congress.

This may be for several reasons, such as worry that their disease may flare or the vaccine might compromise their drug treatment or result in uncommon complications.

However, “we should encourage our SLE patients to receive COVID-19 vaccination at a time of clinical remission or low disease activity state,” Dr. Mok advised.

“Physical distancing, protective masks, and personal hygiene [measures]” should also continue.

The bottom line for those with SLE is to get vaccinated, stressed Sandra Navarra, MD, of the University of Santo Tomas Hospital in Manila, the Philippines, during the discussion.

“There’s still so much out there that we do not know about,” she said. “Just get yourself vaccinated.”

The study had no outside funding. Dr. Bonfá, Dr. Mok, and Dr. Navarra reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

There is a significantly increased risk for acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS)–related death from COVID-19 among people with systemic lupus erythematous (SLE), compared with the general population, according to data collected in Brazil in 2020.

“Special care is therefore necessary for these patients, as well as reinforcement of the importance of preventive measures during a pandemic for this population,” said Eloisa Bonfá, MD, PhD, at the 14th International Congress on Systemic Lupus Erythematosus, which was held together with the 6th International Congress on Controversies in Rheumatology and Autoimmunity.

“We know that lupus patients have an increased susceptibility to infections due to autoimmune dysregulation and use of immunosuppressive therapy,” explained Dr. Bonfá, who is clinical director of the largest tertiary referral center for autoimmune rheumatic diseases in Latin America, the University of São Paulo Faculty of Medicine Hospital Clinics.

“Our study demonstrates for the first time that lupus patients have an increased ARDS severity,” she added.

Prior to the meeting, the study was published in ACR Open Rheumatology.
 

Collating the evidence

Since the COVID-19 pandemic began, there have been more than 20 million confirmed cases of SARS-CoV-2 infection in Brazil and more than half a million deaths.

Dr. Bonfá presented the results of a cross-sectional study that was part of the country’s national Influenza Epidemiological Reporting Surveillance System. Data from 2020 were used, which included just over 252,000 individuals who had polymerase chain reaction–confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection. Of these individuals, there were 319 consecutively recruited patients with SLE.

The aim was to look at the effect of being hospitalized for COVID-19–related ARDS on outcomes in people with SLE versus the general population.

ARDS was defined as a positive polymerase chain reaction test and accompanying flu-like symptoms with dyspnea, respiratory discomfort, persistent pressure in the chest, or desaturation less than 95% in room air or having a bluish tinge to the lips or face.

Other telling signs of a serious respiratory infection that were evaluated, but not mandatory for study eligibility, were loss of smell, impaired taste, typical CT findings, or having had contact with a confirmed COVID-19 case in the preceding 2 weeks.
 

Key findings

The risk for death from COVID-19–related ARDS was “more than double” in patients with SLE, compared with the general population, Dr. Bonfá reported. The relative risk in the fully adjusted, propensity-scored analysis was approximately 2.25.

That analysis did not account for other comorbidities but was fully adjusted for individuals’ age, sex, and region of Brazil where they lived. The latter was important, Dr. Bonfá said, because “we have a high disparity regarding health access and treatment among regions.”

Comorbidities considered as part of the analyses included arterial hypertension, diabetes, malignancies, neurologic disease, and diseases affecting the heart, lung, liver, and kidneys. Researchers also adjusted for smoking, alcohol intake, body weight, pregnancy, and transplantation.

SLE had a greater impact on individuals’ outcomes than all other comorbidities considered.

“We evaluated lupus as one comorbidity compared to all other comorbidities,” Dr. Bonfá explained.

SLE “more than doubled the chances” of dying from ARDS, she said. “This is [a] very impressive finding.”

They found that SLE was associated with an RR for death of 1.73, compared with non-SLE patients, when propensity-score matching without adjustment for comorbidities was used. The RR for death dropped to 1.40 but was still significant when researchers included comorbidities.

Dr. Bonfá and her team also looked at a combined endpoint of death, ICU admission, and need for mechanical ventilation. They found an increased risk in patients with SLE versus the general population in all their analyses, ranging from 1.70 if comorbidities were included in the model to 1.27 if they weren’t to 1.39 if propensity-score matching alone was used.  
 

Got lupus? ‘Get vaccinated’

“The data we have are in nonvaccinated patients,” Dr. Bonfá said. “We didn’t have vaccines in 2020.”

Whether being vaccinated might make a different to the risks found in this study is an “interesting question,” and one that may be examined in the future.

Certainly, other work Dr. Bonfá has been involved in seems to point to a likely benefit of vaccination in patients with autoimmune diseases in terms of reducing mortality from COVID-19, even when rates of infection may be on the rise.  

“There’s considerable vaccine hesitancy in SLE patients,” Chi-Chiu Mok, MD, of Tuen Mun Hospital in Hong Kong, observed in a separate presentation at the congress.

This may be for several reasons, such as worry that their disease may flare or the vaccine might compromise their drug treatment or result in uncommon complications.

However, “we should encourage our SLE patients to receive COVID-19 vaccination at a time of clinical remission or low disease activity state,” Dr. Mok advised.

“Physical distancing, protective masks, and personal hygiene [measures]” should also continue.

The bottom line for those with SLE is to get vaccinated, stressed Sandra Navarra, MD, of the University of Santo Tomas Hospital in Manila, the Philippines, during the discussion.

“There’s still so much out there that we do not know about,” she said. “Just get yourself vaccinated.”

The study had no outside funding. Dr. Bonfá, Dr. Mok, and Dr. Navarra reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

The United States just passed the 6-million mark in COVID-19 cases among children, with the last million cases taking less time to record than any of the first five, according to new data from the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Children’s Hospital Association.

The five-millionth case was reported during the week of Aug. 27 to Sept. 2, and case number 6 million came during the week of Oct. 1-7, just 5 weeks later, compared with the 6 weeks it took to go from 1 million to 2 million last November and December, the AAP and CHA said in their weekly COVID-19 report.

There were 148,222 new cases reported during the week ending Oct. 7, bringing the total case count to 6,047,371 since the pandemic started. New cases continued to drop, however, and that weekly count was down by 14.6% from the previous week and by 41.1% from the peak of almost 252,000 reached in early September, the two groups said while also noting limitations to the data, such as three states (Alabama, Nebraska, and Texas) that are no longer updating their COVID-19 dashboards.

Other metrics show similar drops in recent weeks. Among children aged 0-11 years, emergency department visits involving a COVID-19 diagnosis dropped from 4.1% of all ED visits in late August to 1.4% of ED visits on Oct. 6. ED visits with a COVID-19 diagnosis fell from a peak of 8.5% on Aug. 22 to 1.5% on Oct. 6 for 12- to 15-year-olds and from 8.5% to 1.5% in those aged 16-17 years, according to data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

The rate of new hospital admissions for children aged 0-17 years was down to 0.26 per 100,000 population on Oct. 9 after reaching 0.51 per 100,000 on Sept. 4. Hospitalizations in children totaled just over 64,000 from Aug. 1, 2020, to Oct. 9, 2021, which is just over 2% of all COVID-19–related admissions over that time period, the CDC said on its COVID Data Tracker.

That pattern, unfortunately, also applies to vaccinations. “The number of children receiving their first COVID-19 vaccine this week [Sept. 30 to Oct. 6], about 156,000, was the lowest number since vaccines were available,” the AAP said in a separate report on vaccination trends, adding that “the number of children receiving their first dose has steadily declined from 8 weeks ago when 586,000 children received their initial dose the week ending Aug. 11.”

[email protected]

The United States just passed the 6-million mark in COVID-19 cases among children, with the last million cases taking less time to record than any of the first five, according to new data from the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Children’s Hospital Association.

The five-millionth case was reported during the week of Aug. 27 to Sept. 2, and case number 6 million came during the week of Oct. 1-7, just 5 weeks later, compared with the 6 weeks it took to go from 1 million to 2 million last November and December, the AAP and CHA said in their weekly COVID-19 report.

There were 148,222 new cases reported during the week ending Oct. 7, bringing the total case count to 6,047,371 since the pandemic started. New cases continued to drop, however, and that weekly count was down by 14.6% from the previous week and by 41.1% from the peak of almost 252,000 reached in early September, the two groups said while also noting limitations to the data, such as three states (Alabama, Nebraska, and Texas) that are no longer updating their COVID-19 dashboards.

Other metrics show similar drops in recent weeks. Among children aged 0-11 years, emergency department visits involving a COVID-19 diagnosis dropped from 4.1% of all ED visits in late August to 1.4% of ED visits on Oct. 6. ED visits with a COVID-19 diagnosis fell from a peak of 8.5% on Aug. 22 to 1.5% on Oct. 6 for 12- to 15-year-olds and from 8.5% to 1.5% in those aged 16-17 years, according to data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

The rate of new hospital admissions for children aged 0-17 years was down to 0.26 per 100,000 population on Oct. 9 after reaching 0.51 per 100,000 on Sept. 4. Hospitalizations in children totaled just over 64,000 from Aug. 1, 2020, to Oct. 9, 2021, which is just over 2% of all COVID-19–related admissions over that time period, the CDC said on its COVID Data Tracker.

That pattern, unfortunately, also applies to vaccinations. “The number of children receiving their first COVID-19 vaccine this week [Sept. 30 to Oct. 6], about 156,000, was the lowest number since vaccines were available,” the AAP said in a separate report on vaccination trends, adding that “the number of children receiving their first dose has steadily declined from 8 weeks ago when 586,000 children received their initial dose the week ending Aug. 11.”

[email protected]

The United States just passed the 6-million mark in COVID-19 cases among children, with the last million cases taking less time to record than any of the first five, according to new data from the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Children’s Hospital Association.

The five-millionth case was reported during the week of Aug. 27 to Sept. 2, and case number 6 million came during the week of Oct. 1-7, just 5 weeks later, compared with the 6 weeks it took to go from 1 million to 2 million last November and December, the AAP and CHA said in their weekly COVID-19 report.

There were 148,222 new cases reported during the week ending Oct. 7, bringing the total case count to 6,047,371 since the pandemic started. New cases continued to drop, however, and that weekly count was down by 14.6% from the previous week and by 41.1% from the peak of almost 252,000 reached in early September, the two groups said while also noting limitations to the data, such as three states (Alabama, Nebraska, and Texas) that are no longer updating their COVID-19 dashboards.

Other metrics show similar drops in recent weeks. Among children aged 0-11 years, emergency department visits involving a COVID-19 diagnosis dropped from 4.1% of all ED visits in late August to 1.4% of ED visits on Oct. 6. ED visits with a COVID-19 diagnosis fell from a peak of 8.5% on Aug. 22 to 1.5% on Oct. 6 for 12- to 15-year-olds and from 8.5% to 1.5% in those aged 16-17 years, according to data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

The rate of new hospital admissions for children aged 0-17 years was down to 0.26 per 100,000 population on Oct. 9 after reaching 0.51 per 100,000 on Sept. 4. Hospitalizations in children totaled just over 64,000 from Aug. 1, 2020, to Oct. 9, 2021, which is just over 2% of all COVID-19–related admissions over that time period, the CDC said on its COVID Data Tracker.

That pattern, unfortunately, also applies to vaccinations. “The number of children receiving their first COVID-19 vaccine this week [Sept. 30 to Oct. 6], about 156,000, was the lowest number since vaccines were available,” the AAP said in a separate report on vaccination trends, adding that “the number of children receiving their first dose has steadily declined from 8 weeks ago when 586,000 children received their initial dose the week ending Aug. 11.”

[email protected]

Hundreds of thousands of U.S. service members are unvaccinated or only partially vaccinated against COVID-19 as the first vaccine mandate deadlines approach, according to data analyzed by The Washington Post.
 

Overall, the military’s vaccination rate has climbed since August, when the Pentagon announced that COVID-19 immunization would become mandatory for the nation’s 2.1 million troops, the newspaper reported. Acting on a directive from President Joe Biden, leaders said exemptions would be rare and unvaccinated service members would face consequences.

But compliance has varied across the services, the newspaper found. About 90% of the active-duty Navy is fully vaccinated, compared with 76% of the active-duty Marine Corps. Both have a November 28 deadline to show proof of full vaccination.

About 81% of the active-duty Air Force is fully vaccinated, leaving more than 60,000 personnel about 3 weeks to get a shot before a November 2 deadline.

Military officials said the variance in vaccination rates is related to the different deadlines, the newspaper reported. As the dates approach, most troops are expected to meet the order.

At the same time, some deadlines are spaced farther out, with the Army Reserve and National Guard required to be fully vaccinated by next summer. About 40% of the Army Reserve and 38% of the National Guard are fully vaccinated. Combined, they account for a quarter of the U.S. military and 40% of the COVID-19 deaths among service members.

“The Army’s policy is incentivizing inaction until the latest possible date,” Katherine Kuzminski, a military policy expert at the Center for a New American Security, told the Post.“The way we’ve seen the virus evolve tells us looking out to June 30 may need to be reconsidered,” she said.

COVID-19 deaths have surged in some of the services in recent months, the newspaper reported. More military personnel died from COVID-19 in September than in all of 2020. None of those who died were fully vaccinated.

Throughout the pandemic, more than 246,000 COVID-19 cases have been reported among service members, according to the latest data from the Defense Department. More than 2,200 have been hospitalized, and 62 personnel died, including 32 in August and September.

For the Army Reserve and National Guard, the June deadline allows “necessary time to update records and process exemption requests,” Lt. Col. Terence Kelley, an Army spokesman, told the Post.

Lt. Col. Kelley noted that the extended date reflects how large the groups are, compared to the other services and their military reserves, as well as the broad geographic distribution of its members. Still, vaccine mandates will apply.

“We expect all unvaccinated soldiers to receive the vaccine as soon as possible,” Lt. Col. Kelley said. “Individual soldiers are required to receive the vaccine when available.”

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

Hundreds of thousands of U.S. service members are unvaccinated or only partially vaccinated against COVID-19 as the first vaccine mandate deadlines approach, according to data analyzed by The Washington Post.
 

Overall, the military’s vaccination rate has climbed since August, when the Pentagon announced that COVID-19 immunization would become mandatory for the nation’s 2.1 million troops, the newspaper reported. Acting on a directive from President Joe Biden, leaders said exemptions would be rare and unvaccinated service members would face consequences.

But compliance has varied across the services, the newspaper found. About 90% of the active-duty Navy is fully vaccinated, compared with 76% of the active-duty Marine Corps. Both have a November 28 deadline to show proof of full vaccination.

About 81% of the active-duty Air Force is fully vaccinated, leaving more than 60,000 personnel about 3 weeks to get a shot before a November 2 deadline.

Military officials said the variance in vaccination rates is related to the different deadlines, the newspaper reported. As the dates approach, most troops are expected to meet the order.

At the same time, some deadlines are spaced farther out, with the Army Reserve and National Guard required to be fully vaccinated by next summer. About 40% of the Army Reserve and 38% of the National Guard are fully vaccinated. Combined, they account for a quarter of the U.S. military and 40% of the COVID-19 deaths among service members.

“The Army’s policy is incentivizing inaction until the latest possible date,” Katherine Kuzminski, a military policy expert at the Center for a New American Security, told the Post.“The way we’ve seen the virus evolve tells us looking out to June 30 may need to be reconsidered,” she said.

COVID-19 deaths have surged in some of the services in recent months, the newspaper reported. More military personnel died from COVID-19 in September than in all of 2020. None of those who died were fully vaccinated.

Throughout the pandemic, more than 246,000 COVID-19 cases have been reported among service members, according to the latest data from the Defense Department. More than 2,200 have been hospitalized, and 62 personnel died, including 32 in August and September.

For the Army Reserve and National Guard, the June deadline allows “necessary time to update records and process exemption requests,” Lt. Col. Terence Kelley, an Army spokesman, told the Post.

Lt. Col. Kelley noted that the extended date reflects how large the groups are, compared to the other services and their military reserves, as well as the broad geographic distribution of its members. Still, vaccine mandates will apply.

“We expect all unvaccinated soldiers to receive the vaccine as soon as possible,” Lt. Col. Kelley said. “Individual soldiers are required to receive the vaccine when available.”

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

Hundreds of thousands of U.S. service members are unvaccinated or only partially vaccinated against COVID-19 as the first vaccine mandate deadlines approach, according to data analyzed by The Washington Post.
 

Overall, the military’s vaccination rate has climbed since August, when the Pentagon announced that COVID-19 immunization would become mandatory for the nation’s 2.1 million troops, the newspaper reported. Acting on a directive from President Joe Biden, leaders said exemptions would be rare and unvaccinated service members would face consequences.

But compliance has varied across the services, the newspaper found. About 90% of the active-duty Navy is fully vaccinated, compared with 76% of the active-duty Marine Corps. Both have a November 28 deadline to show proof of full vaccination.

About 81% of the active-duty Air Force is fully vaccinated, leaving more than 60,000 personnel about 3 weeks to get a shot before a November 2 deadline.

Military officials said the variance in vaccination rates is related to the different deadlines, the newspaper reported. As the dates approach, most troops are expected to meet the order.

At the same time, some deadlines are spaced farther out, with the Army Reserve and National Guard required to be fully vaccinated by next summer. About 40% of the Army Reserve and 38% of the National Guard are fully vaccinated. Combined, they account for a quarter of the U.S. military and 40% of the COVID-19 deaths among service members.

“The Army’s policy is incentivizing inaction until the latest possible date,” Katherine Kuzminski, a military policy expert at the Center for a New American Security, told the Post.“The way we’ve seen the virus evolve tells us looking out to June 30 may need to be reconsidered,” she said.

COVID-19 deaths have surged in some of the services in recent months, the newspaper reported. More military personnel died from COVID-19 in September than in all of 2020. None of those who died were fully vaccinated.

Throughout the pandemic, more than 246,000 COVID-19 cases have been reported among service members, according to the latest data from the Defense Department. More than 2,200 have been hospitalized, and 62 personnel died, including 32 in August and September.

For the Army Reserve and National Guard, the June deadline allows “necessary time to update records and process exemption requests,” Lt. Col. Terence Kelley, an Army spokesman, told the Post.

Lt. Col. Kelley noted that the extended date reflects how large the groups are, compared to the other services and their military reserves, as well as the broad geographic distribution of its members. Still, vaccine mandates will apply.

“We expect all unvaccinated soldiers to receive the vaccine as soon as possible,” Lt. Col. Kelley said. “Individual soldiers are required to receive the vaccine when available.”

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

Fear of antibiotic overuse and frustration with physicians who prescribe them too freely are key sentiments expressed by women with recurrent urinary tract infections (rUTIs), according to findings from a study involving six focus groups.

“Here in our female pelvic medicine reconstructive urology clinic at Cedars-Sinai and at UCLA, we see many women who are referred for evaluation of rUTIs who are very frustrated with their care,” Victoria Scott, MD, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, said in an interview.

“So with these focus groups, we saw an opportunity to explore why women are so frustrated and to try and improve the care delivered,” she added.

Findings from the study were published online Sept. 1 in The Journal of Urology.

“There is a need for physicians to modify management strategies ... and to devote more research efforts to improving nonantibiotic options for the prevention and treatment of recurrent urinary tract infections, as well as management strategies that better empower patients,” the authors wrote.
 

Six focus groups

Four or five participants were included in each of the six focus groups – a total of 29 women. All participants reported a history of symptomatic, culture-proven UTI episodes. They had experienced two or more infections in 6 months or three or more infections within 1 year. Women were predominantly White. Most were employed part- or full-time and held a college degree.

From a qualitative analysis of all focus group transcripts, two main themes emerged:

• The negative impact of taking antibiotics for the prevention and treatment of rUTIs.
• Resentment of the medical profession for the way it managed rUTIs.

The researchers found that participants had a good understanding of the deleterious effects from inappropriate antibiotic use, largely gleaned from media sources and the Internet. “Numerous women stated that they had reached such a level of concern about antibiotics that they would resist taking them for prevention or treatment of infections,” Dr. Scott and colleagues pointed out.

These concerns centered around the risk of developing resistance to antibiotics and the ill effects that antibiotics can have on the gastrointestinal and genitourinary microbiomes. Several women reported that they had developed Clostridium difficile infections after taking antibiotics; one of the patients required hospitalization for the infection.

Women also reported concerns that they had been given an antibiotic needlessly for symptoms that might have been caused by a genitourinary condition other than a UTI. They also reported feeling resentful toward practitioners, particularly if they felt the practitioner was overprescribing antibiotics. Some had resorted to consultations with alternative practitioners, such as herbalists. “A second concern discussed by participants was the feeling of being ignored by physicians,” the authors observed.

In this regard, the women felt that their physicians underestimated the burden that rUTIs had on their lives and the detrimental effect that repeated infections had on their relationships, work, and overall quality of life. “These perceptions led to a prevalent mistrust of physicians,” the investigators wrote. This prompted many women to insist that the medical community devote more effort to the development of nonantibiotic options for the prevention and treatment of UTIs.
 

Improved management strategies

Asked how physicians might improve their management of rUTIs, Dr. Scott shared a number of suggestions. Cardinal rule No. 1: Have the patient undergo a urinalysis to make sure she does have a UTI. “There is a subset of patients among women with rUTIs who come in with a diagnosis of an rUTI but who really have not had documentation of more than one positive urine culture,” Dr. Scott noted. Such a history suggests that they do not have an rUTI.

It’s imperative that physicians rule out commonly misdiagnosed disorders, such as overactive bladder, as a cause of the patient’s symptoms. Symptoms of overactive bladder and rUTIs often overlap. While waiting for results from the urinalysis to confirm or rule out a UTI, young and healthy women may be prescribed a nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID), such as naproxen, which can help ameliorate symptoms.

Because UTIs are frequently self-limiting, Dr. Scott and others have found that for young, otherwise healthy women, NSAIDs alone can often resolve symptoms of the UTI without use of an antibiotic. For relatively severe symptoms, a urinary analgesic, such as phenazopyridine (Pyridium), may soothe the lining of the urinary tract and relieve pain. Cystex is an over-the-counter urinary analgesic that women can procure themselves, Dr. Scott added.

If an antibiotic is indicated, those most commonly prescribed for a single episode of acute cystitis are nitrofurantoin and sulfamethoxazole plus trimethoprim (Bactrim). For recurrent UTIs, “patients are a bit more complicated,” Dr. Scott admitted. “I think the best practice is to look back at a woman’s prior urine culture and select an antibiotic that showed good sensitivity in the last positive urine test,” she said.

Prevention starts with behavioral strategies, such as voiding after sexual intercourse and wiping from front to back following urination to avoid introducing fecal bacteria into the urethra. Evidence suggests that premenopausal women who drink at least 1.5 L of water a day have significantly fewer UTI episodes, Dr. Scott noted. There is also “pretty good” evidence that cranberry supplements (not juice) can prevent rUTIs. Use of cranberry supplements is supported by the American Urological Association (conditional recommendation; evidence level of grade C).

For peri- and postmenopausal women, vaginal estrogen may be effective. It’s use for UTI prevention is well supported by the literature. Although not as well supported by evidence, some women find that a supplement such as D-mannose may prevent or treat UTIs by causing bacteria to bind to it rather than to the bladder wall. Probiotics are another possibility, she noted. Empathy can’t hurt, she added.

“A common theme among satisfied women was the sentiment that their physicians understood their problems and had a system in place to allow rapid diagnosis and treatment for UTI episodes,” the authors emphasized.

“[Such attitudes] highlight the need to investigate each patient’s experience and perceptions to allow for shared decision making regarding the management of rUTIs,” they wrote.
 

Further commentary

Asked to comment on the findings, editorialist Michelle Van Kuiken, MD, assistant professor of urology, University of California, San Francisco, acknowledged that there is not a lot of good evidence to support many of the strategies recommended by the American Urological Association to prevent and treat rUTIs, but she often follows these recommendations anyway. “The one statement in the guidelines that is the most supported by evidence is the use of cranberry supplements, and I do routinely recommended daily use of some form of concentrated cranberry supplements for all of my patients with rUTIs,” she said in an interview.

Dr. Van Kuiken said that vaginal estrogen is a very good option for all postmenopausal women who suffer from rUTIs and that there is growing acceptance of its use for this and other indications. There is some evidence to support D-mannose as well, although it’s not that robust, she acknowledged.

She said the evidence supporting the use of probiotics for this indication is very thin. She does not routinely recommend them for rUTIs, although they are not inherently harmful. “I think for a lot of women who have rUTIs, it can be pretty debilitating and upsetting for them – it can impact travel plans, work, and social events,” Dr. Van Kuiken said.

“Until we develop better diagnostic and therapeutic strategies, validating women’s experiences and concerns with rUTI while limiting unnecessary antibiotics remains our best option,” she wrote.

Dr. Scott and Dr. Van Kuiken have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Fear of antibiotic overuse and frustration with physicians who prescribe them too freely are key sentiments expressed by women with recurrent urinary tract infections (rUTIs), according to findings from a study involving six focus groups.

“Here in our female pelvic medicine reconstructive urology clinic at Cedars-Sinai and at UCLA, we see many women who are referred for evaluation of rUTIs who are very frustrated with their care,” Victoria Scott, MD, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, said in an interview.

“So with these focus groups, we saw an opportunity to explore why women are so frustrated and to try and improve the care delivered,” she added.

Findings from the study were published online Sept. 1 in The Journal of Urology.

“There is a need for physicians to modify management strategies ... and to devote more research efforts to improving nonantibiotic options for the prevention and treatment of recurrent urinary tract infections, as well as management strategies that better empower patients,” the authors wrote.
 

Six focus groups

Four or five participants were included in each of the six focus groups – a total of 29 women. All participants reported a history of symptomatic, culture-proven UTI episodes. They had experienced two or more infections in 6 months or three or more infections within 1 year. Women were predominantly White. Most were employed part- or full-time and held a college degree.

From a qualitative analysis of all focus group transcripts, two main themes emerged:

• The negative impact of taking antibiotics for the prevention and treatment of rUTIs.
• Resentment of the medical profession for the way it managed rUTIs.

The researchers found that participants had a good understanding of the deleterious effects from inappropriate antibiotic use, largely gleaned from media sources and the Internet. “Numerous women stated that they had reached such a level of concern about antibiotics that they would resist taking them for prevention or treatment of infections,” Dr. Scott and colleagues pointed out.

These concerns centered around the risk of developing resistance to antibiotics and the ill effects that antibiotics can have on the gastrointestinal and genitourinary microbiomes. Several women reported that they had developed Clostridium difficile infections after taking antibiotics; one of the patients required hospitalization for the infection.

Women also reported concerns that they had been given an antibiotic needlessly for symptoms that might have been caused by a genitourinary condition other than a UTI. They also reported feeling resentful toward practitioners, particularly if they felt the practitioner was overprescribing antibiotics. Some had resorted to consultations with alternative practitioners, such as herbalists. “A second concern discussed by participants was the feeling of being ignored by physicians,” the authors observed.

In this regard, the women felt that their physicians underestimated the burden that rUTIs had on their lives and the detrimental effect that repeated infections had on their relationships, work, and overall quality of life. “These perceptions led to a prevalent mistrust of physicians,” the investigators wrote. This prompted many women to insist that the medical community devote more effort to the development of nonantibiotic options for the prevention and treatment of UTIs.
 

Improved management strategies

Asked how physicians might improve their management of rUTIs, Dr. Scott shared a number of suggestions. Cardinal rule No. 1: Have the patient undergo a urinalysis to make sure she does have a UTI. “There is a subset of patients among women with rUTIs who come in with a diagnosis of an rUTI but who really have not had documentation of more than one positive urine culture,” Dr. Scott noted. Such a history suggests that they do not have an rUTI.

It’s imperative that physicians rule out commonly misdiagnosed disorders, such as overactive bladder, as a cause of the patient’s symptoms. Symptoms of overactive bladder and rUTIs often overlap. While waiting for results from the urinalysis to confirm or rule out a UTI, young and healthy women may be prescribed a nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID), such as naproxen, which can help ameliorate symptoms.

Because UTIs are frequently self-limiting, Dr. Scott and others have found that for young, otherwise healthy women, NSAIDs alone can often resolve symptoms of the UTI without use of an antibiotic. For relatively severe symptoms, a urinary analgesic, such as phenazopyridine (Pyridium), may soothe the lining of the urinary tract and relieve pain. Cystex is an over-the-counter urinary analgesic that women can procure themselves, Dr. Scott added.

If an antibiotic is indicated, those most commonly prescribed for a single episode of acute cystitis are nitrofurantoin and sulfamethoxazole plus trimethoprim (Bactrim). For recurrent UTIs, “patients are a bit more complicated,” Dr. Scott admitted. “I think the best practice is to look back at a woman’s prior urine culture and select an antibiotic that showed good sensitivity in the last positive urine test,” she said.

Prevention starts with behavioral strategies, such as voiding after sexual intercourse and wiping from front to back following urination to avoid introducing fecal bacteria into the urethra. Evidence suggests that premenopausal women who drink at least 1.5 L of water a day have significantly fewer UTI episodes, Dr. Scott noted. There is also “pretty good” evidence that cranberry supplements (not juice) can prevent rUTIs. Use of cranberry supplements is supported by the American Urological Association (conditional recommendation; evidence level of grade C).

For peri- and postmenopausal women, vaginal estrogen may be effective. It’s use for UTI prevention is well supported by the literature. Although not as well supported by evidence, some women find that a supplement such as D-mannose may prevent or treat UTIs by causing bacteria to bind to it rather than to the bladder wall. Probiotics are another possibility, she noted. Empathy can’t hurt, she added.

“A common theme among satisfied women was the sentiment that their physicians understood their problems and had a system in place to allow rapid diagnosis and treatment for UTI episodes,” the authors emphasized.

“[Such attitudes] highlight the need to investigate each patient’s experience and perceptions to allow for shared decision making regarding the management of rUTIs,” they wrote.
 

Further commentary

Asked to comment on the findings, editorialist Michelle Van Kuiken, MD, assistant professor of urology, University of California, San Francisco, acknowledged that there is not a lot of good evidence to support many of the strategies recommended by the American Urological Association to prevent and treat rUTIs, but she often follows these recommendations anyway. “The one statement in the guidelines that is the most supported by evidence is the use of cranberry supplements, and I do routinely recommended daily use of some form of concentrated cranberry supplements for all of my patients with rUTIs,” she said in an interview.

Dr. Van Kuiken said that vaginal estrogen is a very good option for all postmenopausal women who suffer from rUTIs and that there is growing acceptance of its use for this and other indications. There is some evidence to support D-mannose as well, although it’s not that robust, she acknowledged.

She said the evidence supporting the use of probiotics for this indication is very thin. She does not routinely recommend them for rUTIs, although they are not inherently harmful. “I think for a lot of women who have rUTIs, it can be pretty debilitating and upsetting for them – it can impact travel plans, work, and social events,” Dr. Van Kuiken said.

“Until we develop better diagnostic and therapeutic strategies, validating women’s experiences and concerns with rUTI while limiting unnecessary antibiotics remains our best option,” she wrote.

Dr. Scott and Dr. Van Kuiken have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Fear of antibiotic overuse and frustration with physicians who prescribe them too freely are key sentiments expressed by women with recurrent urinary tract infections (rUTIs), according to findings from a study involving six focus groups.

“Here in our female pelvic medicine reconstructive urology clinic at Cedars-Sinai and at UCLA, we see many women who are referred for evaluation of rUTIs who are very frustrated with their care,” Victoria Scott, MD, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, said in an interview.

“So with these focus groups, we saw an opportunity to explore why women are so frustrated and to try and improve the care delivered,” she added.

Findings from the study were published online Sept. 1 in The Journal of Urology.

“There is a need for physicians to modify management strategies ... and to devote more research efforts to improving nonantibiotic options for the prevention and treatment of recurrent urinary tract infections, as well as management strategies that better empower patients,” the authors wrote.
 

Six focus groups

Four or five participants were included in each of the six focus groups – a total of 29 women. All participants reported a history of symptomatic, culture-proven UTI episodes. They had experienced two or more infections in 6 months or three or more infections within 1 year. Women were predominantly White. Most were employed part- or full-time and held a college degree.

From a qualitative analysis of all focus group transcripts, two main themes emerged:

• The negative impact of taking antibiotics for the prevention and treatment of rUTIs.
• Resentment of the medical profession for the way it managed rUTIs.

The researchers found that participants had a good understanding of the deleterious effects from inappropriate antibiotic use, largely gleaned from media sources and the Internet. “Numerous women stated that they had reached such a level of concern about antibiotics that they would resist taking them for prevention or treatment of infections,” Dr. Scott and colleagues pointed out.

These concerns centered around the risk of developing resistance to antibiotics and the ill effects that antibiotics can have on the gastrointestinal and genitourinary microbiomes. Several women reported that they had developed Clostridium difficile infections after taking antibiotics; one of the patients required hospitalization for the infection.

Women also reported concerns that they had been given an antibiotic needlessly for symptoms that might have been caused by a genitourinary condition other than a UTI. They also reported feeling resentful toward practitioners, particularly if they felt the practitioner was overprescribing antibiotics. Some had resorted to consultations with alternative practitioners, such as herbalists. “A second concern discussed by participants was the feeling of being ignored by physicians,” the authors observed.

In this regard, the women felt that their physicians underestimated the burden that rUTIs had on their lives and the detrimental effect that repeated infections had on their relationships, work, and overall quality of life. “These perceptions led to a prevalent mistrust of physicians,” the investigators wrote. This prompted many women to insist that the medical community devote more effort to the development of nonantibiotic options for the prevention and treatment of UTIs.
 

Improved management strategies

Asked how physicians might improve their management of rUTIs, Dr. Scott shared a number of suggestions. Cardinal rule No. 1: Have the patient undergo a urinalysis to make sure she does have a UTI. “There is a subset of patients among women with rUTIs who come in with a diagnosis of an rUTI but who really have not had documentation of more than one positive urine culture,” Dr. Scott noted. Such a history suggests that they do not have an rUTI.

It’s imperative that physicians rule out commonly misdiagnosed disorders, such as overactive bladder, as a cause of the patient’s symptoms. Symptoms of overactive bladder and rUTIs often overlap. While waiting for results from the urinalysis to confirm or rule out a UTI, young and healthy women may be prescribed a nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID), such as naproxen, which can help ameliorate symptoms.

Because UTIs are frequently self-limiting, Dr. Scott and others have found that for young, otherwise healthy women, NSAIDs alone can often resolve symptoms of the UTI without use of an antibiotic. For relatively severe symptoms, a urinary analgesic, such as phenazopyridine (Pyridium), may soothe the lining of the urinary tract and relieve pain. Cystex is an over-the-counter urinary analgesic that women can procure themselves, Dr. Scott added.

If an antibiotic is indicated, those most commonly prescribed for a single episode of acute cystitis are nitrofurantoin and sulfamethoxazole plus trimethoprim (Bactrim). For recurrent UTIs, “patients are a bit more complicated,” Dr. Scott admitted. “I think the best practice is to look back at a woman’s prior urine culture and select an antibiotic that showed good sensitivity in the last positive urine test,” she said.

Prevention starts with behavioral strategies, such as voiding after sexual intercourse and wiping from front to back following urination to avoid introducing fecal bacteria into the urethra. Evidence suggests that premenopausal women who drink at least 1.5 L of water a day have significantly fewer UTI episodes, Dr. Scott noted. There is also “pretty good” evidence that cranberry supplements (not juice) can prevent rUTIs. Use of cranberry supplements is supported by the American Urological Association (conditional recommendation; evidence level of grade C).

For peri- and postmenopausal women, vaginal estrogen may be effective. It’s use for UTI prevention is well supported by the literature. Although not as well supported by evidence, some women find that a supplement such as D-mannose may prevent or treat UTIs by causing bacteria to bind to it rather than to the bladder wall. Probiotics are another possibility, she noted. Empathy can’t hurt, she added.

“A common theme among satisfied women was the sentiment that their physicians understood their problems and had a system in place to allow rapid diagnosis and treatment for UTI episodes,” the authors emphasized.

“[Such attitudes] highlight the need to investigate each patient’s experience and perceptions to allow for shared decision making regarding the management of rUTIs,” they wrote.
 

Further commentary

Asked to comment on the findings, editorialist Michelle Van Kuiken, MD, assistant professor of urology, University of California, San Francisco, acknowledged that there is not a lot of good evidence to support many of the strategies recommended by the American Urological Association to prevent and treat rUTIs, but she often follows these recommendations anyway. “The one statement in the guidelines that is the most supported by evidence is the use of cranberry supplements, and I do routinely recommended daily use of some form of concentrated cranberry supplements for all of my patients with rUTIs,” she said in an interview.

Dr. Van Kuiken said that vaginal estrogen is a very good option for all postmenopausal women who suffer from rUTIs and that there is growing acceptance of its use for this and other indications. There is some evidence to support D-mannose as well, although it’s not that robust, she acknowledged.

She said the evidence supporting the use of probiotics for this indication is very thin. She does not routinely recommend them for rUTIs, although they are not inherently harmful. “I think for a lot of women who have rUTIs, it can be pretty debilitating and upsetting for them – it can impact travel plans, work, and social events,” Dr. Van Kuiken said.

“Until we develop better diagnostic and therapeutic strategies, validating women’s experiences and concerns with rUTI while limiting unnecessary antibiotics remains our best option,” she wrote.

Dr. Scott and Dr. Van Kuiken have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

A secondary consequence of public health measures to prevent the spread of SARS-CoV-2 included a concurrent reduction in risk for children to acquire and spread other respiratory viral infectious diseases. In the Rochester, N.Y., area, we had an ongoing prospective study in primary care pediatric practices that afforded an opportunity to assess the effect of the pandemic control measures on all infectious disease illness visits in young children. Specifically, in children aged 6-36 months old, our study was in place when the pandemic began with a primary objective to evaluate the changing epidemiology of acute otitis media (AOM) and nasopharyngeal colonization by potential bacterial respiratory pathogens in community-based primary care pediatric practices. As the public health measures mandated by New York State Department of Health were implemented, we prospectively quantified their effect on physician-diagnosed infectious disease illness visits. The incidence of infectious disease visits by a cohort of young children during the COVID-19 pandemic period March 15, 2020, through Dec. 31, 2020, was compared with the same time frame in the preceding year, 2019.¹

Recommendations of the New York State Department of Health for public health, changes in school and day care attendance, and clinical practice during the study time frame

On March 7, 2020, a state of emergency was declared in New York because of the COVID-19 pandemic. All schools were required to close. A mandated order for public use of masks in adults and children more than 2 years of age was enacted. In the Finger Lakes region of Upstate New York, where the two primary care pediatric practices reside, complete lockdown was partially lifted on May 15, 2020, and further lifted on June 26, 2020. Almost all regional school districts opened to at least hybrid learning models for all students starting Sept. 8, 2020. On March 6, 2020, video telehealth and telephone call visits were introduced as routine practice. Well-child visits were limited to those less than 2 years of age, then gradually expanded to all ages by late May 2020. During the “stay at home” phase of the New York State lockdown, day care services were considered an essential business. Day care child density was limited. All children less than 2 years old were required to wear a mask while in the facility. Upon arrival, children with any respiratory symptoms or fever were excluded. For the school year commencing September 2020, almost all regional school districts opened to virtual, hybrid, or in-person learning models. Exclusion occurred similar to that of the day care facilities.

Incidence of respiratory infectious disease illnesses

Clinical diagnoses and healthy visits of 144 children from March 15 to Dec. 31, 2020 (beginning of the pandemic) were compared to 215 children during the same months in 2019 (prepandemic). Pediatric SARS-CoV-2 positivity rates trended up alongside community spread. Pediatric practice positivity rates rose from 1.9% in October 2020 to 19% in December 2020.

The table shows the incidence of significantly different infectious disease illness visits in the two study cohorts.

Change in care practices

In the prepandemic period, virtual visits, leading to a diagnosis and treatment and referring children to an urgent care or hospital emergency department during regular office hours were rare. During the pandemic, this changed. Significantly increased use of telemedicine visits (P < .0001) and significantly decreased office and urgent care visits (P < .0001) occurred during the pandemic. Telehealth visits peaked the week of April 12, 2020, at 45% of all pediatric visits. In-person illness visits gradually returned to year-to-year volumes in August-September 2020 with school opening. Early in the pandemic, both pediatric offices limited patient encounters to well-child visits in the first 2 years of life to not miss opportunities for childhood vaccinations. However, some parents were reluctant to bring their children to those visits. There was no significant change in frequency of healthy child visits during the pandemic.

To our knowledge, this was the first study from primary care pediatric practices in the United States to analyze the effect on infectious diseases during the first 9 months of the pandemic, including the 6-month time period after the reopening from the first 3 months of lockdown. One prior study from a primary care network in Massachusetts reported significant decreases in respiratory infectious diseases for children aged 0-17 years during the first months of the pandemic during lockdown.² A study in Tennessee that included hospital emergency department, urgent care, primary care, and retail health clinics also reported respiratory infection diagnoses as well as antibiotic prescription were reduced in the early months of the pandemic.³

Our study shows an overall reduction in frequency of respiratory illness visits in children 6-36 months old during the first 9 months of the COVID-19 pandemic. We learned the value of using technology in the form of virtual visits to render care. Perhaps as the pandemic subsides, many of the hand-washing and sanitizing practices will remain in place and lead to less frequent illness in children in the future. However, there may be temporary negative consequences from the “immune debt” that has occurred from a prolonged time span when children were not becoming infected with respiratory pathogens.⁴ We will see what unfolds in the future.
 

Dr. Pichichero is a specialist in pediatric infectious diseases and director of the Research Institute at Rochester (N.Y.) General Hospital. Dr. Schulz is pediatric medical director at Rochester (N.Y.) Regional Health. Dr. Pichichero and Dr. Schulz have no conflicts of interest to disclose. This study was funded in part by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

References

1. Kaur R et al. Front Pediatr. 2021;(9)722483:1-8.

2. Hatoun J et al. Pediatrics. 2020;146(4):e2020006460.

3. Katz SE et al. J Pediatric Infect Dis Soc. 2021;10(1):62-4.

4. Cohen R et al. Infect. Dis Now. 2021; 51(5)418-23.

A secondary consequence of public health measures to prevent the spread of SARS-CoV-2 included a concurrent reduction in risk for children to acquire and spread other respiratory viral infectious diseases. In the Rochester, N.Y., area, we had an ongoing prospective study in primary care pediatric practices that afforded an opportunity to assess the effect of the pandemic control measures on all infectious disease illness visits in young children. Specifically, in children aged 6-36 months old, our study was in place when the pandemic began with a primary objective to evaluate the changing epidemiology of acute otitis media (AOM) and nasopharyngeal colonization by potential bacterial respiratory pathogens in community-based primary care pediatric practices. As the public health measures mandated by New York State Department of Health were implemented, we prospectively quantified their effect on physician-diagnosed infectious disease illness visits. The incidence of infectious disease visits by a cohort of young children during the COVID-19 pandemic period March 15, 2020, through Dec. 31, 2020, was compared with the same time frame in the preceding year, 2019.¹

Recommendations of the New York State Department of Health for public health, changes in school and day care attendance, and clinical practice during the study time frame

On March 7, 2020, a state of emergency was declared in New York because of the COVID-19 pandemic. All schools were required to close. A mandated order for public use of masks in adults and children more than 2 years of age was enacted. In the Finger Lakes region of Upstate New York, where the two primary care pediatric practices reside, complete lockdown was partially lifted on May 15, 2020, and further lifted on June 26, 2020. Almost all regional school districts opened to at least hybrid learning models for all students starting Sept. 8, 2020. On March 6, 2020, video telehealth and telephone call visits were introduced as routine practice. Well-child visits were limited to those less than 2 years of age, then gradually expanded to all ages by late May 2020. During the “stay at home” phase of the New York State lockdown, day care services were considered an essential business. Day care child density was limited. All children less than 2 years old were required to wear a mask while in the facility. Upon arrival, children with any respiratory symptoms or fever were excluded. For the school year commencing September 2020, almost all regional school districts opened to virtual, hybrid, or in-person learning models. Exclusion occurred similar to that of the day care facilities.

Incidence of respiratory infectious disease illnesses

Clinical diagnoses and healthy visits of 144 children from March 15 to Dec. 31, 2020 (beginning of the pandemic) were compared to 215 children during the same months in 2019 (prepandemic). Pediatric SARS-CoV-2 positivity rates trended up alongside community spread. Pediatric practice positivity rates rose from 1.9% in October 2020 to 19% in December 2020.

The table shows the incidence of significantly different infectious disease illness visits in the two study cohorts.

Change in care practices

In the prepandemic period, virtual visits, leading to a diagnosis and treatment and referring children to an urgent care or hospital emergency department during regular office hours were rare. During the pandemic, this changed. Significantly increased use of telemedicine visits (P < .0001) and significantly decreased office and urgent care visits (P < .0001) occurred during the pandemic. Telehealth visits peaked the week of April 12, 2020, at 45% of all pediatric visits. In-person illness visits gradually returned to year-to-year volumes in August-September 2020 with school opening. Early in the pandemic, both pediatric offices limited patient encounters to well-child visits in the first 2 years of life to not miss opportunities for childhood vaccinations. However, some parents were reluctant to bring their children to those visits. There was no significant change in frequency of healthy child visits during the pandemic.

To our knowledge, this was the first study from primary care pediatric practices in the United States to analyze the effect on infectious diseases during the first 9 months of the pandemic, including the 6-month time period after the reopening from the first 3 months of lockdown. One prior study from a primary care network in Massachusetts reported significant decreases in respiratory infectious diseases for children aged 0-17 years during the first months of the pandemic during lockdown.² A study in Tennessee that included hospital emergency department, urgent care, primary care, and retail health clinics also reported respiratory infection diagnoses as well as antibiotic prescription were reduced in the early months of the pandemic.³

Our study shows an overall reduction in frequency of respiratory illness visits in children 6-36 months old during the first 9 months of the COVID-19 pandemic. We learned the value of using technology in the form of virtual visits to render care. Perhaps as the pandemic subsides, many of the hand-washing and sanitizing practices will remain in place and lead to less frequent illness in children in the future. However, there may be temporary negative consequences from the “immune debt” that has occurred from a prolonged time span when children were not becoming infected with respiratory pathogens.⁴ We will see what unfolds in the future.
 

Dr. Pichichero is a specialist in pediatric infectious diseases and director of the Research Institute at Rochester (N.Y.) General Hospital. Dr. Schulz is pediatric medical director at Rochester (N.Y.) Regional Health. Dr. Pichichero and Dr. Schulz have no conflicts of interest to disclose. This study was funded in part by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

References

1. Kaur R et al. Front Pediatr. 2021;(9)722483:1-8.

2. Hatoun J et al. Pediatrics. 2020;146(4):e2020006460.

3. Katz SE et al. J Pediatric Infect Dis Soc. 2021;10(1):62-4.

4. Cohen R et al. Infect. Dis Now. 2021; 51(5)418-23.

A secondary consequence of public health measures to prevent the spread of SARS-CoV-2 included a concurrent reduction in risk for children to acquire and spread other respiratory viral infectious diseases. In the Rochester, N.Y., area, we had an ongoing prospective study in primary care pediatric practices that afforded an opportunity to assess the effect of the pandemic control measures on all infectious disease illness visits in young children. Specifically, in children aged 6-36 months old, our study was in place when the pandemic began with a primary objective to evaluate the changing epidemiology of acute otitis media (AOM) and nasopharyngeal colonization by potential bacterial respiratory pathogens in community-based primary care pediatric practices. As the public health measures mandated by New York State Department of Health were implemented, we prospectively quantified their effect on physician-diagnosed infectious disease illness visits. The incidence of infectious disease visits by a cohort of young children during the COVID-19 pandemic period March 15, 2020, through Dec. 31, 2020, was compared with the same time frame in the preceding year, 2019.¹

Recommendations of the New York State Department of Health for public health, changes in school and day care attendance, and clinical practice during the study time frame

On March 7, 2020, a state of emergency was declared in New York because of the COVID-19 pandemic. All schools were required to close. A mandated order for public use of masks in adults and children more than 2 years of age was enacted. In the Finger Lakes region of Upstate New York, where the two primary care pediatric practices reside, complete lockdown was partially lifted on May 15, 2020, and further lifted on June 26, 2020. Almost all regional school districts opened to at least hybrid learning models for all students starting Sept. 8, 2020. On March 6, 2020, video telehealth and telephone call visits were introduced as routine practice. Well-child visits were limited to those less than 2 years of age, then gradually expanded to all ages by late May 2020. During the “stay at home” phase of the New York State lockdown, day care services were considered an essential business. Day care child density was limited. All children less than 2 years old were required to wear a mask while in the facility. Upon arrival, children with any respiratory symptoms or fever were excluded. For the school year commencing September 2020, almost all regional school districts opened to virtual, hybrid, or in-person learning models. Exclusion occurred similar to that of the day care facilities.

Incidence of respiratory infectious disease illnesses

Clinical diagnoses and healthy visits of 144 children from March 15 to Dec. 31, 2020 (beginning of the pandemic) were compared to 215 children during the same months in 2019 (prepandemic). Pediatric SARS-CoV-2 positivity rates trended up alongside community spread. Pediatric practice positivity rates rose from 1.9% in October 2020 to 19% in December 2020.

The table shows the incidence of significantly different infectious disease illness visits in the two study cohorts.

Change in care practices

In the prepandemic period, virtual visits, leading to a diagnosis and treatment and referring children to an urgent care or hospital emergency department during regular office hours were rare. During the pandemic, this changed. Significantly increased use of telemedicine visits (P < .0001) and significantly decreased office and urgent care visits (P < .0001) occurred during the pandemic. Telehealth visits peaked the week of April 12, 2020, at 45% of all pediatric visits. In-person illness visits gradually returned to year-to-year volumes in August-September 2020 with school opening. Early in the pandemic, both pediatric offices limited patient encounters to well-child visits in the first 2 years of life to not miss opportunities for childhood vaccinations. However, some parents were reluctant to bring their children to those visits. There was no significant change in frequency of healthy child visits during the pandemic.

To our knowledge, this was the first study from primary care pediatric practices in the United States to analyze the effect on infectious diseases during the first 9 months of the pandemic, including the 6-month time period after the reopening from the first 3 months of lockdown. One prior study from a primary care network in Massachusetts reported significant decreases in respiratory infectious diseases for children aged 0-17 years during the first months of the pandemic during lockdown.² A study in Tennessee that included hospital emergency department, urgent care, primary care, and retail health clinics also reported respiratory infection diagnoses as well as antibiotic prescription were reduced in the early months of the pandemic.³

Our study shows an overall reduction in frequency of respiratory illness visits in children 6-36 months old during the first 9 months of the COVID-19 pandemic. We learned the value of using technology in the form of virtual visits to render care. Perhaps as the pandemic subsides, many of the hand-washing and sanitizing practices will remain in place and lead to less frequent illness in children in the future. However, there may be temporary negative consequences from the “immune debt” that has occurred from a prolonged time span when children were not becoming infected with respiratory pathogens.⁴ We will see what unfolds in the future.
 

Dr. Pichichero is a specialist in pediatric infectious diseases and director of the Research Institute at Rochester (N.Y.) General Hospital. Dr. Schulz is pediatric medical director at Rochester (N.Y.) Regional Health. Dr. Pichichero and Dr. Schulz have no conflicts of interest to disclose. This study was funded in part by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

References

1. Kaur R et al. Front Pediatr. 2021;(9)722483:1-8.

2. Hatoun J et al. Pediatrics. 2020;146(4):e2020006460.

3. Katz SE et al. J Pediatric Infect Dis Soc. 2021;10(1):62-4.

4. Cohen R et al. Infect. Dis Now. 2021; 51(5)418-23.