ID Consult

May has arrived, and for the majority of your patients it signals the end of the school year and the beginning of summer vacation. Zika virus is on the minds of most people since its arrival to the Western Hemisphere in March 2015. With the fluidity of this outbreak and almost daily news updates and recommendations, many parents have voiced or will be voicing concerns regarding summer travel destinations.

Many concerns about Zika virus have been previously addressed in this column (“Zika virus: More questions than answers?” by Dr. Kristina Bryant). However, if the decision is to avoid international travel because of the ongoing Zika outbreak, it doesn’t mean your patients get a free pass and will not have to be concerned about acquiring any infectious diseases. They still need to be vigilant about avoiding those pesky vectors that transmit arboviruses and other vector-borne diseases that occur in the United States.

Arboviruses are transmitted by mosquitoes, ticks, or fleas. Most infections are subclinical. If symptoms develop, they are manifested by a generalized febrile illness including fever, headache, myalgia, arthralgia, and rash. Hemorrhagic fever (dengue) or neuroinvasive disease can include aseptic meningitis, encephalitis, or acute flaccid paralysis. Neuroinvasive disease rarely occurs with dengue, Colorado tick fever, and chikungunya infections.

While more than 100 arboviruses can cause infection, some of the more common arboviruses associated with human disease include West Nile, first detected in the United States in 1999 and chikungunya, first reported in the Americas in 2013 with local transmission documented in Florida, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands in 2014. It is estimated that dengue causes over 100 million cases worldwide annually. Almost 40% of the world’s inhabitants live in endemic areas. The majority of cases on the U.S. mainland are imported. However, it is endemic in all U.S. territories including Guam, American Samoa, the U.S. Virgin Islands, and Puerto Rico. Between September 2015 and March 2016, Hawaii experienced a dengue outbreak involving 264 individuals including 46 children. As of April 16, 2016, there were no infectious individuals on the island.

Courtesy Wikimedia Commons/Muhammad Mahdi Karim/Creative Commons License

Other domestic arboviruses causing disease include St. Louis, Eastern, and Western Equine encephalitis, La Crosse encephalitis, Colorado tick fever, and Powassan virus. All are transmitted by mosquitoes with the exception of Powassan and Colorado tick fever, which are transmitted by ticks. The numbers of cases nationally are much lower for these diseases, compared with West Nile, dengue, and chikungunya. National and state-specific information is available for domestic arboviruses at diseasemaps.usgs.gov/mapviewer. Data is compiled by ArboNET, a national arboviral surveillance system that is managed by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) in conjunction with state health departments. Not only is human disease monitored, but it also maintains data on viremic blood donors, dead birds, mosquitoes, veterinary disease cases, and sentinel animals.

Spring and summer are the most active seasons for ticks. Bacterial and spirochetal diseases transmitted by them include rickettsial diseases such as Rocky Mountain Spotted Fever, ehrlichiosis, and anaplasmosis. Tularemia in addition to Lyme and tick-borne relapsing fever are also transmitted by ticks. Babesiosis, which is due to a parasite, and southern tick-associated rash illness (STARI), whose causative agent is yet to be determined, are two additional tick-related diagnoses.

Of note, dengue, chikungunya, and Zika are all transmitted by infected Aedes mosquitoes. There is no enzootic cycle. Just human-mosquito-human transmission. In contrast, West Nile virus is transmitted by Culex mosquitoes in an enzootic cycle between an avian reservoir and humans.

Treatment

There is no specific treatment for arboviral infections. The primary goal is relief of symptoms with fluids, bed rest, and analgesics. For bacterial vector-borne diseases, antibiotic therapy is indicated and is based on the specific pathogen. Doxycycline is the drug of choice for treatment of suspected and confirmed Rocky Mountain Spotted Fever, ehrlichiosis, and anaplasmosis even in children less than 8 years of age. Delay in initiation of antimicrobial therapy pending definitive diagnosis may lead to an adverse outcome. It is also the drug of choice for tick-borne relapsing fever.

Lyme disease is also responsive to antibiotic treatment. Therapy is based on the disease category. (Lyme disease in “Red Book: 2015 Report of the Committee on Infectious Diseases,” [Elk Grove Village, Ill.: American Academy of Pediatrics, 2015, pp. 516-25]).

STARI clinically presents with a lesion that resembles erythema migrans in southern and southeastern states. However, it has not been associated with any of the complications reported with disseminated Lyme disease. Treatment is not recommended.

Tularemia and babesiosis are both responsive to antimicrobial therapy and would best be managed in consultation with an infectious disease physician.

A handy, concise, up to date reference guide about all of the tick-borne diseases including photographs is available at the App Store. The Tickborne Diseases App was developed by the CDC and it is free!

Prevention

The cornerstone of disease prevention is avoidance of mosquito and tick bites, in addition to eliminating mosquito breeding sites. Ticks are generally found near the ground, in brushy or wooded areas. They usually wait for a potential host to brush against them. When this happens, they climb onto the host and find a site to attach.

Is there a role for antimicrobial prophylaxis once a tick has been discovered? There is no data to support antimicrobial prophylaxis to prevent Rocky Mountain spotted fever, ehrlichiosis, and anaplasmosis. Prophylaxis with doxycycline or ciprofloxacin is recommended for children and adults after exposure to an intentional release of tularemia and for laboratory workers after inadvertent exposure. For prevention of Lyme disease, a single dose of doxycycline (4 mg/kg, max dose 200 mg) may be offered under limited conditions: The patient is at least 8 years of age, resides in an area where Lyme is highly endemic, the tick removed was engorged, therapy can be initiated within 72 hours after tick removal, and the estimated time of attachment was at least 36 hours. There is inadequate data on the use of amoxicillin.

Remember, not all mosquitoes are alike. Those that transmit chikungunya, dengue, and Zika (Aedes mosquitoes) are primarily daytime mosquitoes, but also can bite at night. West Nile is transmitted by Culex mosquitoes, which feed from dusk to dawn.

Here are some tips to share with your patients that should decrease their chances of acquiring a mosquito or tick-borne disease:

• Apply mosquito repellent only to intact exposed skin when outdoors. Most repellents can be safely used on children at least 2 months of age and older. Avoid applying repellent directly on the child’s hand. Use at least a 20% DEET (N,N-diethyl-meta-toluamide) containing product. Other Environmental Protection Agency–registered repellents are an alternative (Additional information is available at http://www2.epa.gov/insect-repellents). Products containing oil of lemon eucalyptus (OLE) or p-Menthane-3,8-diol (PMD) should not be used on children under 3 years of age.

• Apply permethrin to clothing, hats, boots, and so on. It is designed to repel mosquitoes and ticks. It can last for several washings. It is ideal to spray over nets covering carriers in children younger than 2 months of age.

• Wear long-sleeved shirts and long pants tucked inside of socks when hiking.

• Check for ticks daily, especially under the arms, behind the ears, around the waist, behind the knees, and inside belly buttons after outdoor activities.

• Have your patients learn how to effectively remove a tick. With a fine tipped tweezer, grasp the tick as close to the skin as possible and pull straight up with even pressure. Do not twist or jerk the tick. Do not squash the tick. Place it in a bag and dispose of it. Clean the site after removal with alcohol, iodine, or soap and water.

• Encourage families to mosquito proof their home by using screens on windows and doors, and using air conditioning when available.

• Empty and scrub all items that contain water such as birdbaths, planters, or wading pools around the outside of the home at least weekly because mosquitoes lay eggs in or near free standing water.

• Dogs and cats should be treated for ticks as recommended by the veterinarian.

The impact of the ongoing Zika virus outbreak is uncertain. While it may have an impact on those planning international travel now and in the near future, several arboviral and vector-borne diseases currently exist in the United States. Encouraging our patients to practice interventions to prevent mosquito and tick bites now will also serve to protect them if Zika virus becomes established in the Aedes mosquitoes here in the future and/or if they have plans for international travel. For up to date information on Zika virus for yourself and your patients, visit www.cdc.gov/zika.

Bonnie M. Word, M.D., is a pediatric infectious disease specialist and director of the Houston Travel Medicine Clinic. She said she had no relevant financial disclosures. Email Dr. Word at [email protected].

May has arrived, and for the majority of your patients it signals the end of the school year and the beginning of summer vacation. Zika virus is on the minds of most people since its arrival to the Western Hemisphere in March 2015. With the fluidity of this outbreak and almost daily news updates and recommendations, many parents have voiced or will be voicing concerns regarding summer travel destinations.

Many concerns about Zika virus have been previously addressed in this column (“Zika virus: More questions than answers?” by Dr. Kristina Bryant). However, if the decision is to avoid international travel because of the ongoing Zika outbreak, it doesn’t mean your patients get a free pass and will not have to be concerned about acquiring any infectious diseases. They still need to be vigilant about avoiding those pesky vectors that transmit arboviruses and other vector-borne diseases that occur in the United States.

Arboviruses are transmitted by mosquitoes, ticks, or fleas. Most infections are subclinical. If symptoms develop, they are manifested by a generalized febrile illness including fever, headache, myalgia, arthralgia, and rash. Hemorrhagic fever (dengue) or neuroinvasive disease can include aseptic meningitis, encephalitis, or acute flaccid paralysis. Neuroinvasive disease rarely occurs with dengue, Colorado tick fever, and chikungunya infections.

While more than 100 arboviruses can cause infection, some of the more common arboviruses associated with human disease include West Nile, first detected in the United States in 1999 and chikungunya, first reported in the Americas in 2013 with local transmission documented in Florida, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands in 2014. It is estimated that dengue causes over 100 million cases worldwide annually. Almost 40% of the world’s inhabitants live in endemic areas. The majority of cases on the U.S. mainland are imported. However, it is endemic in all U.S. territories including Guam, American Samoa, the U.S. Virgin Islands, and Puerto Rico. Between September 2015 and March 2016, Hawaii experienced a dengue outbreak involving 264 individuals including 46 children. As of April 16, 2016, there were no infectious individuals on the island.

Courtesy Wikimedia Commons/Muhammad Mahdi Karim/Creative Commons License

Other domestic arboviruses causing disease include St. Louis, Eastern, and Western Equine encephalitis, La Crosse encephalitis, Colorado tick fever, and Powassan virus. All are transmitted by mosquitoes with the exception of Powassan and Colorado tick fever, which are transmitted by ticks. The numbers of cases nationally are much lower for these diseases, compared with West Nile, dengue, and chikungunya. National and state-specific information is available for domestic arboviruses at diseasemaps.usgs.gov/mapviewer. Data is compiled by ArboNET, a national arboviral surveillance system that is managed by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) in conjunction with state health departments. Not only is human disease monitored, but it also maintains data on viremic blood donors, dead birds, mosquitoes, veterinary disease cases, and sentinel animals.

Spring and summer are the most active seasons for ticks. Bacterial and spirochetal diseases transmitted by them include rickettsial diseases such as Rocky Mountain Spotted Fever, ehrlichiosis, and anaplasmosis. Tularemia in addition to Lyme and tick-borne relapsing fever are also transmitted by ticks. Babesiosis, which is due to a parasite, and southern tick-associated rash illness (STARI), whose causative agent is yet to be determined, are two additional tick-related diagnoses.

Of note, dengue, chikungunya, and Zika are all transmitted by infected Aedes mosquitoes. There is no enzootic cycle. Just human-mosquito-human transmission. In contrast, West Nile virus is transmitted by Culex mosquitoes in an enzootic cycle between an avian reservoir and humans.

Treatment

There is no specific treatment for arboviral infections. The primary goal is relief of symptoms with fluids, bed rest, and analgesics. For bacterial vector-borne diseases, antibiotic therapy is indicated and is based on the specific pathogen. Doxycycline is the drug of choice for treatment of suspected and confirmed Rocky Mountain Spotted Fever, ehrlichiosis, and anaplasmosis even in children less than 8 years of age. Delay in initiation of antimicrobial therapy pending definitive diagnosis may lead to an adverse outcome. It is also the drug of choice for tick-borne relapsing fever.

Lyme disease is also responsive to antibiotic treatment. Therapy is based on the disease category. (Lyme disease in “Red Book: 2015 Report of the Committee on Infectious Diseases,” [Elk Grove Village, Ill.: American Academy of Pediatrics, 2015, pp. 516-25]).

STARI clinically presents with a lesion that resembles erythema migrans in southern and southeastern states. However, it has not been associated with any of the complications reported with disseminated Lyme disease. Treatment is not recommended.

Tularemia and babesiosis are both responsive to antimicrobial therapy and would best be managed in consultation with an infectious disease physician.

A handy, concise, up to date reference guide about all of the tick-borne diseases including photographs is available at the App Store. The Tickborne Diseases App was developed by the CDC and it is free!

Prevention

The cornerstone of disease prevention is avoidance of mosquito and tick bites, in addition to eliminating mosquito breeding sites. Ticks are generally found near the ground, in brushy or wooded areas. They usually wait for a potential host to brush against them. When this happens, they climb onto the host and find a site to attach.

Is there a role for antimicrobial prophylaxis once a tick has been discovered? There is no data to support antimicrobial prophylaxis to prevent Rocky Mountain spotted fever, ehrlichiosis, and anaplasmosis. Prophylaxis with doxycycline or ciprofloxacin is recommended for children and adults after exposure to an intentional release of tularemia and for laboratory workers after inadvertent exposure. For prevention of Lyme disease, a single dose of doxycycline (4 mg/kg, max dose 200 mg) may be offered under limited conditions: The patient is at least 8 years of age, resides in an area where Lyme is highly endemic, the tick removed was engorged, therapy can be initiated within 72 hours after tick removal, and the estimated time of attachment was at least 36 hours. There is inadequate data on the use of amoxicillin.

Remember, not all mosquitoes are alike. Those that transmit chikungunya, dengue, and Zika (Aedes mosquitoes) are primarily daytime mosquitoes, but also can bite at night. West Nile is transmitted by Culex mosquitoes, which feed from dusk to dawn.

Here are some tips to share with your patients that should decrease their chances of acquiring a mosquito or tick-borne disease:

• Apply mosquito repellent only to intact exposed skin when outdoors. Most repellents can be safely used on children at least 2 months of age and older. Avoid applying repellent directly on the child’s hand. Use at least a 20% DEET (N,N-diethyl-meta-toluamide) containing product. Other Environmental Protection Agency–registered repellents are an alternative (Additional information is available at http://www2.epa.gov/insect-repellents). Products containing oil of lemon eucalyptus (OLE) or p-Menthane-3,8-diol (PMD) should not be used on children under 3 years of age.

• Apply permethrin to clothing, hats, boots, and so on. It is designed to repel mosquitoes and ticks. It can last for several washings. It is ideal to spray over nets covering carriers in children younger than 2 months of age.

• Wear long-sleeved shirts and long pants tucked inside of socks when hiking.

• Check for ticks daily, especially under the arms, behind the ears, around the waist, behind the knees, and inside belly buttons after outdoor activities.

• Have your patients learn how to effectively remove a tick. With a fine tipped tweezer, grasp the tick as close to the skin as possible and pull straight up with even pressure. Do not twist or jerk the tick. Do not squash the tick. Place it in a bag and dispose of it. Clean the site after removal with alcohol, iodine, or soap and water.

• Encourage families to mosquito proof their home by using screens on windows and doors, and using air conditioning when available.

• Empty and scrub all items that contain water such as birdbaths, planters, or wading pools around the outside of the home at least weekly because mosquitoes lay eggs in or near free standing water.

• Dogs and cats should be treated for ticks as recommended by the veterinarian.

The impact of the ongoing Zika virus outbreak is uncertain. While it may have an impact on those planning international travel now and in the near future, several arboviral and vector-borne diseases currently exist in the United States. Encouraging our patients to practice interventions to prevent mosquito and tick bites now will also serve to protect them if Zika virus becomes established in the Aedes mosquitoes here in the future and/or if they have plans for international travel. For up to date information on Zika virus for yourself and your patients, visit www.cdc.gov/zika.

Bonnie M. Word, M.D., is a pediatric infectious disease specialist and director of the Houston Travel Medicine Clinic. She said she had no relevant financial disclosures. Email Dr. Word at [email protected].

May has arrived, and for the majority of your patients it signals the end of the school year and the beginning of summer vacation. Zika virus is on the minds of most people since its arrival to the Western Hemisphere in March 2015. With the fluidity of this outbreak and almost daily news updates and recommendations, many parents have voiced or will be voicing concerns regarding summer travel destinations.

Many concerns about Zika virus have been previously addressed in this column (“Zika virus: More questions than answers?” by Dr. Kristina Bryant). However, if the decision is to avoid international travel because of the ongoing Zika outbreak, it doesn’t mean your patients get a free pass and will not have to be concerned about acquiring any infectious diseases. They still need to be vigilant about avoiding those pesky vectors that transmit arboviruses and other vector-borne diseases that occur in the United States.

Arboviruses are transmitted by mosquitoes, ticks, or fleas. Most infections are subclinical. If symptoms develop, they are manifested by a generalized febrile illness including fever, headache, myalgia, arthralgia, and rash. Hemorrhagic fever (dengue) or neuroinvasive disease can include aseptic meningitis, encephalitis, or acute flaccid paralysis. Neuroinvasive disease rarely occurs with dengue, Colorado tick fever, and chikungunya infections.

While more than 100 arboviruses can cause infection, some of the more common arboviruses associated with human disease include West Nile, first detected in the United States in 1999 and chikungunya, first reported in the Americas in 2013 with local transmission documented in Florida, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands in 2014. It is estimated that dengue causes over 100 million cases worldwide annually. Almost 40% of the world’s inhabitants live in endemic areas. The majority of cases on the U.S. mainland are imported. However, it is endemic in all U.S. territories including Guam, American Samoa, the U.S. Virgin Islands, and Puerto Rico. Between September 2015 and March 2016, Hawaii experienced a dengue outbreak involving 264 individuals including 46 children. As of April 16, 2016, there were no infectious individuals on the island.

Courtesy Wikimedia Commons/Muhammad Mahdi Karim/Creative Commons License

Other domestic arboviruses causing disease include St. Louis, Eastern, and Western Equine encephalitis, La Crosse encephalitis, Colorado tick fever, and Powassan virus. All are transmitted by mosquitoes with the exception of Powassan and Colorado tick fever, which are transmitted by ticks. The numbers of cases nationally are much lower for these diseases, compared with West Nile, dengue, and chikungunya. National and state-specific information is available for domestic arboviruses at diseasemaps.usgs.gov/mapviewer. Data is compiled by ArboNET, a national arboviral surveillance system that is managed by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) in conjunction with state health departments. Not only is human disease monitored, but it also maintains data on viremic blood donors, dead birds, mosquitoes, veterinary disease cases, and sentinel animals.

Spring and summer are the most active seasons for ticks. Bacterial and spirochetal diseases transmitted by them include rickettsial diseases such as Rocky Mountain Spotted Fever, ehrlichiosis, and anaplasmosis. Tularemia in addition to Lyme and tick-borne relapsing fever are also transmitted by ticks. Babesiosis, which is due to a parasite, and southern tick-associated rash illness (STARI), whose causative agent is yet to be determined, are two additional tick-related diagnoses.

Of note, dengue, chikungunya, and Zika are all transmitted by infected Aedes mosquitoes. There is no enzootic cycle. Just human-mosquito-human transmission. In contrast, West Nile virus is transmitted by Culex mosquitoes in an enzootic cycle between an avian reservoir and humans.

Treatment

There is no specific treatment for arboviral infections. The primary goal is relief of symptoms with fluids, bed rest, and analgesics. For bacterial vector-borne diseases, antibiotic therapy is indicated and is based on the specific pathogen. Doxycycline is the drug of choice for treatment of suspected and confirmed Rocky Mountain Spotted Fever, ehrlichiosis, and anaplasmosis even in children less than 8 years of age. Delay in initiation of antimicrobial therapy pending definitive diagnosis may lead to an adverse outcome. It is also the drug of choice for tick-borne relapsing fever.

Lyme disease is also responsive to antibiotic treatment. Therapy is based on the disease category. (Lyme disease in “Red Book: 2015 Report of the Committee on Infectious Diseases,” [Elk Grove Village, Ill.: American Academy of Pediatrics, 2015, pp. 516-25]).

STARI clinically presents with a lesion that resembles erythema migrans in southern and southeastern states. However, it has not been associated with any of the complications reported with disseminated Lyme disease. Treatment is not recommended.

Tularemia and babesiosis are both responsive to antimicrobial therapy and would best be managed in consultation with an infectious disease physician.

A handy, concise, up to date reference guide about all of the tick-borne diseases including photographs is available at the App Store. The Tickborne Diseases App was developed by the CDC and it is free!

Prevention

The cornerstone of disease prevention is avoidance of mosquito and tick bites, in addition to eliminating mosquito breeding sites. Ticks are generally found near the ground, in brushy or wooded areas. They usually wait for a potential host to brush against them. When this happens, they climb onto the host and find a site to attach.

Is there a role for antimicrobial prophylaxis once a tick has been discovered? There is no data to support antimicrobial prophylaxis to prevent Rocky Mountain spotted fever, ehrlichiosis, and anaplasmosis. Prophylaxis with doxycycline or ciprofloxacin is recommended for children and adults after exposure to an intentional release of tularemia and for laboratory workers after inadvertent exposure. For prevention of Lyme disease, a single dose of doxycycline (4 mg/kg, max dose 200 mg) may be offered under limited conditions: The patient is at least 8 years of age, resides in an area where Lyme is highly endemic, the tick removed was engorged, therapy can be initiated within 72 hours after tick removal, and the estimated time of attachment was at least 36 hours. There is inadequate data on the use of amoxicillin.

Remember, not all mosquitoes are alike. Those that transmit chikungunya, dengue, and Zika (Aedes mosquitoes) are primarily daytime mosquitoes, but also can bite at night. West Nile is transmitted by Culex mosquitoes, which feed from dusk to dawn.

Here are some tips to share with your patients that should decrease their chances of acquiring a mosquito or tick-borne disease:

• Apply mosquito repellent only to intact exposed skin when outdoors. Most repellents can be safely used on children at least 2 months of age and older. Avoid applying repellent directly on the child’s hand. Use at least a 20% DEET (N,N-diethyl-meta-toluamide) containing product. Other Environmental Protection Agency–registered repellents are an alternative (Additional information is available at http://www2.epa.gov/insect-repellents). Products containing oil of lemon eucalyptus (OLE) or p-Menthane-3,8-diol (PMD) should not be used on children under 3 years of age.

• Apply permethrin to clothing, hats, boots, and so on. It is designed to repel mosquitoes and ticks. It can last for several washings. It is ideal to spray over nets covering carriers in children younger than 2 months of age.

• Wear long-sleeved shirts and long pants tucked inside of socks when hiking.

• Check for ticks daily, especially under the arms, behind the ears, around the waist, behind the knees, and inside belly buttons after outdoor activities.

• Have your patients learn how to effectively remove a tick. With a fine tipped tweezer, grasp the tick as close to the skin as possible and pull straight up with even pressure. Do not twist or jerk the tick. Do not squash the tick. Place it in a bag and dispose of it. Clean the site after removal with alcohol, iodine, or soap and water.

• Encourage families to mosquito proof their home by using screens on windows and doors, and using air conditioning when available.

• Empty and scrub all items that contain water such as birdbaths, planters, or wading pools around the outside of the home at least weekly because mosquitoes lay eggs in or near free standing water.

• Dogs and cats should be treated for ticks as recommended by the veterinarian.

The impact of the ongoing Zika virus outbreak is uncertain. While it may have an impact on those planning international travel now and in the near future, several arboviral and vector-borne diseases currently exist in the United States. Encouraging our patients to practice interventions to prevent mosquito and tick bites now will also serve to protect them if Zika virus becomes established in the Aedes mosquitoes here in the future and/or if they have plans for international travel. For up to date information on Zika virus for yourself and your patients, visit www.cdc.gov/zika.

Bonnie M. Word, M.D., is a pediatric infectious disease specialist and director of the Houston Travel Medicine Clinic. She said she had no relevant financial disclosures. Email Dr. Word at [email protected].

With spring break in full swing and summer vacations right around the corner, pediatricians are increasingly fielding questions from families about Zika virus.

“There are a lot of resources available online, but they’re constantly being updated, and it’s difficult to stay current,” a friend and fellow pediatrician confided. “It seems like there’s new information every day, but still as many questions as answers.”

A quick PubMed search validated her concern: More than 200 articles have been published about Zika virus since the beginning of the year. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the World Health Organization post new information to their Zika websites regularly, if not daily, and the WHO has released a Zika app for clinicians. Understanding that the busy pediatrician may not always have time to peruse these authoritative references during the course of a day in the office, I’ve compiled some common questions and answers.

“Is Zika really as serious as the media portrays it?” asked the mother of two children as she contemplated Caribbean vacation plans. In truth, most healthy people infected with Zika virus never develop symptoms. Illness, when it occurs, is most often mild and includes low-grade fever, headache, arthralgia, myalgia, nonpurulent conjunctivitis, and a maculopapular rash. Unlike dengue, another Flavivirus carried by Aedes mosquitoes, Zika does not cause hemorrhagic fever, and death appears to be rare.

An understanding of Zika infection and neurologic complications is a work in progress. A 20-fold increase in the incidence of Guillain-Barré (GBS) cases was noted in French Polynesia during a 2013-2014 outbreak of Zika virus.

In a case-control study involving 42 patients hospitalized with GBS, 98% had anti–Zika virus IgM or IgG, and all had neutralizing antibodies against Zika virus, compared with 56% of 98 control patients (P less than .0001 ) (Lancet. 2016 Feb 29. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(16)00562-6).

To date, 10 countries or territories have reported GBS cases with confirmed Zika virus infection. According to the World Health Organization, “Zika virus is highly likely to be a cause of the elevated incidence of GBS in countries and territories in the Western Pacific and Americas,” but further research is needed. Zika has recently been associated with other neurologic disorders, including myelitis, and the full spectrum of disease is likely not yet known.

Most Zika virus infections are transmitted from the bite of an Aedes mosquito. What we know about Zika transmission among humans continues to evolve. Viremia can persist for 14 or more days after the onset of symptoms, during which time blood is a potential source of infection. Two possible cases of transfusion-related viral transmission are under investigation in Brazil, and during the French Polynesia outbreak, 3% of samples from asymptomatic blood donors contained detectable Zika RNA. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has recommended that individuals who have lived in or traveled to an area with active Zika virus transmission defer blood donation for 4 weeks after departure from the area .

CDC/James Gathany

Zika virus also has been detected in the urine and saliva of infected individuals, but these fluids have not been linked to transmission. Sexual transmission from infected men to their partners is well documented, but the period of risk remains undefined. The virus can persist in the semen long after viremia clears, and in one individual, Zika virus was detected in the semen 62 days after symptom onset.

Maternal-fetal transmission can occur as early as the first trimester and as late as at the time of delivery. Zika virus has been recovered from both amniotic fluid and placentas. The consequences of maternal-fetal transmission are less certain. Coincident with an epidemic of Zika in Brazil, that country has observed a marked increase in the incidence of microcephaly. Between Oct. 22, 2015, and March 12, 2016, 6,480 cases of microcephaly and/or central nervous system malformation were reported in Brazil, contrasting sharply with the average of 163 cases reported annually from 2001 to 2014. Zika virus has been linked to 863 cases of microcephaly investigated thus far. Proving causality takes time, but the World Health Organization says the link between microcephaly and Zika infection is “strongly suspected.”

Because of the association between Zika virus and birth defects, including abnormal brain development, eye abnormalities, and hearing deficits, the CDC currently recommends that pregnant women not travel to areas with Zika transmission, while men who have lived in or traveled to an area with Zika and who have a pregnant partner should either use condoms or not have sex for the duration of the pregnancy.

The good news for nonpregnant women who contract Zika infection is that the infection is not thought to pose any risk to future pregnancies. Currently, there is no evidence that a fetus conceived after maternal viremia has resolved would be at risk for infection. Still, many unanswered questions remain about Zika infection during pregnancy. For example, it’s currently unknown how often infection is transmitted from an infected mother to her fetus, or if infection is more severe at a particular point in gestation.

Although Zika virus has been isolated from breast milk, no infections have been linked to breastfeeding, and mothers are encouraged to continue to nurse, even in areas with widespread transmission. Infection with Zika at the time of birth or later in childhood has not been linked to microcephaly. Beyond that, the long-term health outcomes of infants and children with Zika virus infection are unknown.

“How far north do you think the virus will spread?” one mom asked me. “Do I need to be worried?”

CDC/ Cynthia Goldsmith

For public health officials, that’s the sixty-four thousand dollar question. To date, there have been no cases acquired as a result of a mosquito bite in the United States, but the edge of the outbreak continues to creep north. Local transmission of the virus was reported in Cuba on March 14.

As of March 16, 2016, 258 travel-associated Zika virus cases have been diagnosed in the United States, including 18 in pregnant women. Six of these were sexually transmitted. Theoretically, “onward transmission” from one of these cases could occur if the right kind of mosquito bites an infected person during the period of active viremia and then bites someone else, transferring a tiny amount of the virus-contaminated blood.

According to CDC experts, “Texas, Florida, and Hawaii are likely to be the U.S. states with the highest risk of experiencing local transmission of Zika virus by mosquitoes.” Although this estimate is based on prior experience with similar viruses, the principal vector of Zika, Aedes aegypti, has been identified as far west as California and in a number of states across the South, including my home state of Kentucky. Aedes albopictus mosquitoes also have been proven competent vectors for Zika virus transmission and are more widely distributed throughout the continental United States.

In a thoughtful review published in JAMA Pediatrics, “What Pediatricians and Other Clinicians Should Know About Zika Virus,” Dr. Mark W. Kline and Dr. Gordon E. Schutze noted that up to two-thirds of the U.S. population live in an area where Aedes mosquitoes are present at least part of the year (JAMA Pediatr. 2016 Feb 18. doi: 10.1001/jamapediatrics.2016.0429). Fortunately, transmission of dengue and chikungunya, two other viruses carried by the same insect, is still very uncommon. Public health experts are urging individuals with Zika virus infection to avoid mosquito bites during the first week of illness, to protect others.

We should start now counseling our patients and families to avoid mosquito bites at home and abroad. Besides Zika virus, mosquitoes transmit several pathogens in the United States each year, including West Nile virus, LaCrosse encephalitis virus, St. Louis encephalitis virus, and dengue.

Any collections of standing water should be eliminated, as these can be mosquito breeding grounds. These include flower pots, buckets, barrels, and discarded tires. The water in bird baths and pet dishes should be changed at least weekly, and children’s wading pools should be drained and stored on their side after use.

To the extent practical, exposed skin should be covered with long-sleeved shirts, long pants, and socks when individuals are in areas with mosquito activity. To enhance protection, clothing can be treated with permethrin, or pretreated clothing can be worn. An FDA-registered insect repellent should be applied to exposed skin, especially during hours of highest mosquito activity. Zika-carrying mosquitoes bite during the day, or dawn to dusk. Effective repellents include DEET, picaridin, IR3535, and oil of lemon eucalyptus, although families should read labels carefully as instructions for use vary, as does the recommended time period of reapplication. Combination sunscreen/insect repellent products are not recommended as repellent usually does not need to be reapplied as often as sunscreen. Parents also should be reminded not to use oil of lemon eucalyptus–containing products on children under 3 years of age.

“We’re going to get a lot more questions as the weather turns warmer,” said a colleague of mine. “I’m just waiting for the first call about a child who develops fever and a rash after a mosquito bite. Parents will wonder if it could be Zika.”

It is going to be an interesting summer. Stay tuned.

Dr. Bryant is a pediatrician specializing in infectious diseases at the University of Louisville (Ky.) and Kosair Children’s Hospital, also in Louisville. She had no relevant financial disclosures.

With spring break in full swing and summer vacations right around the corner, pediatricians are increasingly fielding questions from families about Zika virus.

“There are a lot of resources available online, but they’re constantly being updated, and it’s difficult to stay current,” a friend and fellow pediatrician confided. “It seems like there’s new information every day, but still as many questions as answers.”

A quick PubMed search validated her concern: More than 200 articles have been published about Zika virus since the beginning of the year. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the World Health Organization post new information to their Zika websites regularly, if not daily, and the WHO has released a Zika app for clinicians. Understanding that the busy pediatrician may not always have time to peruse these authoritative references during the course of a day in the office, I’ve compiled some common questions and answers.

“Is Zika really as serious as the media portrays it?” asked the mother of two children as she contemplated Caribbean vacation plans. In truth, most healthy people infected with Zika virus never develop symptoms. Illness, when it occurs, is most often mild and includes low-grade fever, headache, arthralgia, myalgia, nonpurulent conjunctivitis, and a maculopapular rash. Unlike dengue, another Flavivirus carried by Aedes mosquitoes, Zika does not cause hemorrhagic fever, and death appears to be rare.

An understanding of Zika infection and neurologic complications is a work in progress. A 20-fold increase in the incidence of Guillain-Barré (GBS) cases was noted in French Polynesia during a 2013-2014 outbreak of Zika virus.

In a case-control study involving 42 patients hospitalized with GBS, 98% had anti–Zika virus IgM or IgG, and all had neutralizing antibodies against Zika virus, compared with 56% of 98 control patients (P less than .0001 ) (Lancet. 2016 Feb 29. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(16)00562-6).

To date, 10 countries or territories have reported GBS cases with confirmed Zika virus infection. According to the World Health Organization, “Zika virus is highly likely to be a cause of the elevated incidence of GBS in countries and territories in the Western Pacific and Americas,” but further research is needed. Zika has recently been associated with other neurologic disorders, including myelitis, and the full spectrum of disease is likely not yet known.

Most Zika virus infections are transmitted from the bite of an Aedes mosquito. What we know about Zika transmission among humans continues to evolve. Viremia can persist for 14 or more days after the onset of symptoms, during which time blood is a potential source of infection. Two possible cases of transfusion-related viral transmission are under investigation in Brazil, and during the French Polynesia outbreak, 3% of samples from asymptomatic blood donors contained detectable Zika RNA. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has recommended that individuals who have lived in or traveled to an area with active Zika virus transmission defer blood donation for 4 weeks after departure from the area .

CDC/James Gathany

Zika virus also has been detected in the urine and saliva of infected individuals, but these fluids have not been linked to transmission. Sexual transmission from infected men to their partners is well documented, but the period of risk remains undefined. The virus can persist in the semen long after viremia clears, and in one individual, Zika virus was detected in the semen 62 days after symptom onset.

Maternal-fetal transmission can occur as early as the first trimester and as late as at the time of delivery. Zika virus has been recovered from both amniotic fluid and placentas. The consequences of maternal-fetal transmission are less certain. Coincident with an epidemic of Zika in Brazil, that country has observed a marked increase in the incidence of microcephaly. Between Oct. 22, 2015, and March 12, 2016, 6,480 cases of microcephaly and/or central nervous system malformation were reported in Brazil, contrasting sharply with the average of 163 cases reported annually from 2001 to 2014. Zika virus has been linked to 863 cases of microcephaly investigated thus far. Proving causality takes time, but the World Health Organization says the link between microcephaly and Zika infection is “strongly suspected.”

Because of the association between Zika virus and birth defects, including abnormal brain development, eye abnormalities, and hearing deficits, the CDC currently recommends that pregnant women not travel to areas with Zika transmission, while men who have lived in or traveled to an area with Zika and who have a pregnant partner should either use condoms or not have sex for the duration of the pregnancy.

The good news for nonpregnant women who contract Zika infection is that the infection is not thought to pose any risk to future pregnancies. Currently, there is no evidence that a fetus conceived after maternal viremia has resolved would be at risk for infection. Still, many unanswered questions remain about Zika infection during pregnancy. For example, it’s currently unknown how often infection is transmitted from an infected mother to her fetus, or if infection is more severe at a particular point in gestation.

Although Zika virus has been isolated from breast milk, no infections have been linked to breastfeeding, and mothers are encouraged to continue to nurse, even in areas with widespread transmission. Infection with Zika at the time of birth or later in childhood has not been linked to microcephaly. Beyond that, the long-term health outcomes of infants and children with Zika virus infection are unknown.

“How far north do you think the virus will spread?” one mom asked me. “Do I need to be worried?”

CDC/ Cynthia Goldsmith

For public health officials, that’s the sixty-four thousand dollar question. To date, there have been no cases acquired as a result of a mosquito bite in the United States, but the edge of the outbreak continues to creep north. Local transmission of the virus was reported in Cuba on March 14.

As of March 16, 2016, 258 travel-associated Zika virus cases have been diagnosed in the United States, including 18 in pregnant women. Six of these were sexually transmitted. Theoretically, “onward transmission” from one of these cases could occur if the right kind of mosquito bites an infected person during the period of active viremia and then bites someone else, transferring a tiny amount of the virus-contaminated blood.

According to CDC experts, “Texas, Florida, and Hawaii are likely to be the U.S. states with the highest risk of experiencing local transmission of Zika virus by mosquitoes.” Although this estimate is based on prior experience with similar viruses, the principal vector of Zika, Aedes aegypti, has been identified as far west as California and in a number of states across the South, including my home state of Kentucky. Aedes albopictus mosquitoes also have been proven competent vectors for Zika virus transmission and are more widely distributed throughout the continental United States.

In a thoughtful review published in JAMA Pediatrics, “What Pediatricians and Other Clinicians Should Know About Zika Virus,” Dr. Mark W. Kline and Dr. Gordon E. Schutze noted that up to two-thirds of the U.S. population live in an area where Aedes mosquitoes are present at least part of the year (JAMA Pediatr. 2016 Feb 18. doi: 10.1001/jamapediatrics.2016.0429). Fortunately, transmission of dengue and chikungunya, two other viruses carried by the same insect, is still very uncommon. Public health experts are urging individuals with Zika virus infection to avoid mosquito bites during the first week of illness, to protect others.

We should start now counseling our patients and families to avoid mosquito bites at home and abroad. Besides Zika virus, mosquitoes transmit several pathogens in the United States each year, including West Nile virus, LaCrosse encephalitis virus, St. Louis encephalitis virus, and dengue.

Any collections of standing water should be eliminated, as these can be mosquito breeding grounds. These include flower pots, buckets, barrels, and discarded tires. The water in bird baths and pet dishes should be changed at least weekly, and children’s wading pools should be drained and stored on their side after use.

To the extent practical, exposed skin should be covered with long-sleeved shirts, long pants, and socks when individuals are in areas with mosquito activity. To enhance protection, clothing can be treated with permethrin, or pretreated clothing can be worn. An FDA-registered insect repellent should be applied to exposed skin, especially during hours of highest mosquito activity. Zika-carrying mosquitoes bite during the day, or dawn to dusk. Effective repellents include DEET, picaridin, IR3535, and oil of lemon eucalyptus, although families should read labels carefully as instructions for use vary, as does the recommended time period of reapplication. Combination sunscreen/insect repellent products are not recommended as repellent usually does not need to be reapplied as often as sunscreen. Parents also should be reminded not to use oil of lemon eucalyptus–containing products on children under 3 years of age.

“We’re going to get a lot more questions as the weather turns warmer,” said a colleague of mine. “I’m just waiting for the first call about a child who develops fever and a rash after a mosquito bite. Parents will wonder if it could be Zika.”

It is going to be an interesting summer. Stay tuned.

Dr. Bryant is a pediatrician specializing in infectious diseases at the University of Louisville (Ky.) and Kosair Children’s Hospital, also in Louisville. She had no relevant financial disclosures.

With spring break in full swing and summer vacations right around the corner, pediatricians are increasingly fielding questions from families about Zika virus.

“There are a lot of resources available online, but they’re constantly being updated, and it’s difficult to stay current,” a friend and fellow pediatrician confided. “It seems like there’s new information every day, but still as many questions as answers.”

A quick PubMed search validated her concern: More than 200 articles have been published about Zika virus since the beginning of the year. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the World Health Organization post new information to their Zika websites regularly, if not daily, and the WHO has released a Zika app for clinicians. Understanding that the busy pediatrician may not always have time to peruse these authoritative references during the course of a day in the office, I’ve compiled some common questions and answers.

“Is Zika really as serious as the media portrays it?” asked the mother of two children as she contemplated Caribbean vacation plans. In truth, most healthy people infected with Zika virus never develop symptoms. Illness, when it occurs, is most often mild and includes low-grade fever, headache, arthralgia, myalgia, nonpurulent conjunctivitis, and a maculopapular rash. Unlike dengue, another Flavivirus carried by Aedes mosquitoes, Zika does not cause hemorrhagic fever, and death appears to be rare.

An understanding of Zika infection and neurologic complications is a work in progress. A 20-fold increase in the incidence of Guillain-Barré (GBS) cases was noted in French Polynesia during a 2013-2014 outbreak of Zika virus.

In a case-control study involving 42 patients hospitalized with GBS, 98% had anti–Zika virus IgM or IgG, and all had neutralizing antibodies against Zika virus, compared with 56% of 98 control patients (P less than .0001 ) (Lancet. 2016 Feb 29. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(16)00562-6).

To date, 10 countries or territories have reported GBS cases with confirmed Zika virus infection. According to the World Health Organization, “Zika virus is highly likely to be a cause of the elevated incidence of GBS in countries and territories in the Western Pacific and Americas,” but further research is needed. Zika has recently been associated with other neurologic disorders, including myelitis, and the full spectrum of disease is likely not yet known.

Most Zika virus infections are transmitted from the bite of an Aedes mosquito. What we know about Zika transmission among humans continues to evolve. Viremia can persist for 14 or more days after the onset of symptoms, during which time blood is a potential source of infection. Two possible cases of transfusion-related viral transmission are under investigation in Brazil, and during the French Polynesia outbreak, 3% of samples from asymptomatic blood donors contained detectable Zika RNA. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has recommended that individuals who have lived in or traveled to an area with active Zika virus transmission defer blood donation for 4 weeks after departure from the area .

CDC/James Gathany

Zika virus also has been detected in the urine and saliva of infected individuals, but these fluids have not been linked to transmission. Sexual transmission from infected men to their partners is well documented, but the period of risk remains undefined. The virus can persist in the semen long after viremia clears, and in one individual, Zika virus was detected in the semen 62 days after symptom onset.

Maternal-fetal transmission can occur as early as the first trimester and as late as at the time of delivery. Zika virus has been recovered from both amniotic fluid and placentas. The consequences of maternal-fetal transmission are less certain. Coincident with an epidemic of Zika in Brazil, that country has observed a marked increase in the incidence of microcephaly. Between Oct. 22, 2015, and March 12, 2016, 6,480 cases of microcephaly and/or central nervous system malformation were reported in Brazil, contrasting sharply with the average of 163 cases reported annually from 2001 to 2014. Zika virus has been linked to 863 cases of microcephaly investigated thus far. Proving causality takes time, but the World Health Organization says the link between microcephaly and Zika infection is “strongly suspected.”

Because of the association between Zika virus and birth defects, including abnormal brain development, eye abnormalities, and hearing deficits, the CDC currently recommends that pregnant women not travel to areas with Zika transmission, while men who have lived in or traveled to an area with Zika and who have a pregnant partner should either use condoms or not have sex for the duration of the pregnancy.

The good news for nonpregnant women who contract Zika infection is that the infection is not thought to pose any risk to future pregnancies. Currently, there is no evidence that a fetus conceived after maternal viremia has resolved would be at risk for infection. Still, many unanswered questions remain about Zika infection during pregnancy. For example, it’s currently unknown how often infection is transmitted from an infected mother to her fetus, or if infection is more severe at a particular point in gestation.

Although Zika virus has been isolated from breast milk, no infections have been linked to breastfeeding, and mothers are encouraged to continue to nurse, even in areas with widespread transmission. Infection with Zika at the time of birth or later in childhood has not been linked to microcephaly. Beyond that, the long-term health outcomes of infants and children with Zika virus infection are unknown.

“How far north do you think the virus will spread?” one mom asked me. “Do I need to be worried?”

CDC/ Cynthia Goldsmith

For public health officials, that’s the sixty-four thousand dollar question. To date, there have been no cases acquired as a result of a mosquito bite in the United States, but the edge of the outbreak continues to creep north. Local transmission of the virus was reported in Cuba on March 14.

As of March 16, 2016, 258 travel-associated Zika virus cases have been diagnosed in the United States, including 18 in pregnant women. Six of these were sexually transmitted. Theoretically, “onward transmission” from one of these cases could occur if the right kind of mosquito bites an infected person during the period of active viremia and then bites someone else, transferring a tiny amount of the virus-contaminated blood.

According to CDC experts, “Texas, Florida, and Hawaii are likely to be the U.S. states with the highest risk of experiencing local transmission of Zika virus by mosquitoes.” Although this estimate is based on prior experience with similar viruses, the principal vector of Zika, Aedes aegypti, has been identified as far west as California and in a number of states across the South, including my home state of Kentucky. Aedes albopictus mosquitoes also have been proven competent vectors for Zika virus transmission and are more widely distributed throughout the continental United States.

In a thoughtful review published in JAMA Pediatrics, “What Pediatricians and Other Clinicians Should Know About Zika Virus,” Dr. Mark W. Kline and Dr. Gordon E. Schutze noted that up to two-thirds of the U.S. population live in an area where Aedes mosquitoes are present at least part of the year (JAMA Pediatr. 2016 Feb 18. doi: 10.1001/jamapediatrics.2016.0429). Fortunately, transmission of dengue and chikungunya, two other viruses carried by the same insect, is still very uncommon. Public health experts are urging individuals with Zika virus infection to avoid mosquito bites during the first week of illness, to protect others.

We should start now counseling our patients and families to avoid mosquito bites at home and abroad. Besides Zika virus, mosquitoes transmit several pathogens in the United States each year, including West Nile virus, LaCrosse encephalitis virus, St. Louis encephalitis virus, and dengue.

Any collections of standing water should be eliminated, as these can be mosquito breeding grounds. These include flower pots, buckets, barrels, and discarded tires. The water in bird baths and pet dishes should be changed at least weekly, and children’s wading pools should be drained and stored on their side after use.

To the extent practical, exposed skin should be covered with long-sleeved shirts, long pants, and socks when individuals are in areas with mosquito activity. To enhance protection, clothing can be treated with permethrin, or pretreated clothing can be worn. An FDA-registered insect repellent should be applied to exposed skin, especially during hours of highest mosquito activity. Zika-carrying mosquitoes bite during the day, or dawn to dusk. Effective repellents include DEET, picaridin, IR3535, and oil of lemon eucalyptus, although families should read labels carefully as instructions for use vary, as does the recommended time period of reapplication. Combination sunscreen/insect repellent products are not recommended as repellent usually does not need to be reapplied as often as sunscreen. Parents also should be reminded not to use oil of lemon eucalyptus–containing products on children under 3 years of age.

“We’re going to get a lot more questions as the weather turns warmer,” said a colleague of mine. “I’m just waiting for the first call about a child who develops fever and a rash after a mosquito bite. Parents will wonder if it could be Zika.”

It is going to be an interesting summer. Stay tuned.

Dr. Bryant is a pediatrician specializing in infectious diseases at the University of Louisville (Ky.) and Kosair Children’s Hospital, also in Louisville. She had no relevant financial disclosures.

There has been a justified re-examination of acellular pertussis vaccine (aP)^1,2 in light of the multiple large outbreaks of pertussis since 2000, particularly the two large California outbreaks in 2010 and 2014.

Lessons learned: aP protection is less durable than originally thought, and much pertussis is not in infants, but in the school-age and adolescent populations.

aP appears to produce reasonable protection (approximately 84% overall) for infants and preschool children, plus a much improved adverse effect profile, compared with whole cell pertussis vaccine (WCP), which provided approximately 94% protection.¹ This 10% difference in aP versus WCP, however, means that herd immunity is more difficult to attain. The accepted pertussis immunization rate needed to provide herd immunity is 92%-94%. Because our current tools (DTaP and Tdap) provide only 84% protection at least in infants and preschoolers, even 100% uptake may leave us 6% to 8% short of the threshold for complete herd immunity.

The California outbreak data from school-age and teenage populations show protection rates drop each year post aP booster. That means that by the fourth year after the last dose, protection is less than 10%. So despite a Tdap dose at 11- to 12-years-of-age, protection gaps occur in 8-to 10-year-olds and 14- to 18-year-olds. These vulnerable periods in older children add to aP’s 84% vs. WCP’s 94% protection for those greater than 3 years of age, explaining more frequent pertussis outbreaks as the pool of WCP-immunized children among older populations decreased.

But before we place all blame on switching to aP, consider that we can now confirm more pertussis infections with molecular assays than was possible with culture and fluorescent assay testing in the WCP era. So improved testing sensitivity means more reports of minimally symptomatic cases that may have been missed before. So WCP, if still used today, might not show 94% protection either.

Additionally, aPs rely heavily on pertactin as a target antigen,³ likely less than WCP, given that WCP contained all pertussis antigens rather than just the 3-5 purified antigens in aPs. So the emergence of pertactin-altered pertussis strains could disproportionately affect protection from aP, compared with WCP.

There seem to be no quick fixes to preventing outbreaks using aPs as our vaccine. One suggestion by the authors of the California outbreak report is to use aP mostly to terminate outbreaks rather than routinely in late childhood. My concern is that if we do not continue routine use in 4-to 6-year-olds, 10-to 11-year-olds, and in early adulthood, the vulnerable proportion of the population during outbreaks would be larger, making outbreaks more difficult to terminate. So continuing to produce some protection, albeit short-lived, with current schedules of aP vaccines seems important.

Also remember that T cells, particularly TH 17 pertussis-specific cells, may be as important as pertussis antibody. Therefore, crafting pertussis vaccines that yield improved antibody plus T cell responses is the current goal. Disease and WCP seem to elicit more T-17 response than aP. One method to craft a better vaccine is to use antigen blends that differ from those in the current vaccines, such as antigens derived from circulating pertussis strains instead of the standard laboratory strain. Another option is to use current antigens but with more potent adjuvants. Such vaccines are likely 5 years away.

But we need to have reasonable expectations for pertussis vaccines. Pertussis infection begins in respiratory epithelium. Many of the most obvious signs and symptoms are due to destruction of ciliated respiratory epithelium plus increased tenacity/volume of secretions. Can a parenterally administered vaccine that induces mostly serum antibody protect against infection of epithelium where antibody concentrations are likely 10% or less than in serum? The short answer is – likely not. We should expect neither aP nor WCP to consistently protect against pertussis infection, but it does seem reasonable to expect aP to reduce disease severity. Preventing infections awaits a vaccine that induces surface IgA. Mucosally administered vaccines produce surface IgA – for example, rotavirus vaccine – but no mucosal pertussis vaccine appears imminent.

A key question is whether our most vulnerable populations, young children, have increased morbidity and mortality. Data from the California suggest an increase but mostly in infants under 6 months of age, the group not old enough to benefit from even the most effective of infant vaccines. Protecting young infants depends on vaccine administered prenatally to mothers. The over-representation of the Hispanic infants among fatalities shows a population on which to focus with maternal immunization. Hopefully, the recent universal TdaP recommendation in pregnancy will help when maternal immunization is higher than current approximately 50% rates.⁴

Despite the problems, it seems clear that we must continue to use current aP vaccines according to the current schedules, attempting to get as close to 100% uptake as possible. While the current, nearly 10% unimmunized rates add to the likelihood that we are losing complete herd immunity, partial herd immunity is better than no herd immunity.

Expectations: There will be ongoing outbreaks. Continue to be alert for signs of pertussis. They are often less obvious in older patients, and may be as subtle as more than 2 weeks of persistent cough. During outbreaks, we may be called upon to give aP doses at intervals shorter than the usual schedule.

Our responsibility: Do not become discouraged or lose enthusiasm for aP, but explain to parents that because aP is less reactogenic, it produces less protection and is less durable, particularly in school-age children. But please emphasize that modest protection is best in the youngest and modest protection of older children is better than none. Emphasize that the adverse effect profile of current aPs puts the harm/benefit balance heavily in favor of aP.

Bottom line: We can hopefully do better than the current 88% to 92% rate of aP vaccine uptake. We need to get as close to 100% uptake as possible until new vaccines or new strategies become available.

1. Clin Infect Dis. 2016 Feb 7; doi: 10.1093/cid/ciw051.

2. Pediatrics. 2016 Feb 5; doi: 10.1542/peds.2015-3326.

3. Expert Rev Vaccines. 2007 Feb;6(1):47-56.

4. Vaccine. 2016 Feb 10;34(7):968-73.

Dr. Harrison is professor of pediatrics and pediatric infectious diseases at Children’s Mercy Hospitals and Clinics, Kansas City, Mo. He disclosed that his institution received grant support for a study on hexavalent infant vaccine containing pertussis from GlaxoSmithKline, and he was the local primary investigator.*

*Correction, 2/17/2016: An earlier version of this article incompletely stated Dr. Harrison's disclosure information.

There has been a justified re-examination of acellular pertussis vaccine (aP)^1,2 in light of the multiple large outbreaks of pertussis since 2000, particularly the two large California outbreaks in 2010 and 2014.

Lessons learned: aP protection is less durable than originally thought, and much pertussis is not in infants, but in the school-age and adolescent populations.

aP appears to produce reasonable protection (approximately 84% overall) for infants and preschool children, plus a much improved adverse effect profile, compared with whole cell pertussis vaccine (WCP), which provided approximately 94% protection.¹ This 10% difference in aP versus WCP, however, means that herd immunity is more difficult to attain. The accepted pertussis immunization rate needed to provide herd immunity is 92%-94%. Because our current tools (DTaP and Tdap) provide only 84% protection at least in infants and preschoolers, even 100% uptake may leave us 6% to 8% short of the threshold for complete herd immunity.

The California outbreak data from school-age and teenage populations show protection rates drop each year post aP booster. That means that by the fourth year after the last dose, protection is less than 10%. So despite a Tdap dose at 11- to 12-years-of-age, protection gaps occur in 8-to 10-year-olds and 14- to 18-year-olds. These vulnerable periods in older children add to aP’s 84% vs. WCP’s 94% protection for those greater than 3 years of age, explaining more frequent pertussis outbreaks as the pool of WCP-immunized children among older populations decreased.

But before we place all blame on switching to aP, consider that we can now confirm more pertussis infections with molecular assays than was possible with culture and fluorescent assay testing in the WCP era. So improved testing sensitivity means more reports of minimally symptomatic cases that may have been missed before. So WCP, if still used today, might not show 94% protection either.

Additionally, aPs rely heavily on pertactin as a target antigen,³ likely less than WCP, given that WCP contained all pertussis antigens rather than just the 3-5 purified antigens in aPs. So the emergence of pertactin-altered pertussis strains could disproportionately affect protection from aP, compared with WCP.

There seem to be no quick fixes to preventing outbreaks using aPs as our vaccine. One suggestion by the authors of the California outbreak report is to use aP mostly to terminate outbreaks rather than routinely in late childhood. My concern is that if we do not continue routine use in 4-to 6-year-olds, 10-to 11-year-olds, and in early adulthood, the vulnerable proportion of the population during outbreaks would be larger, making outbreaks more difficult to terminate. So continuing to produce some protection, albeit short-lived, with current schedules of aP vaccines seems important.

Also remember that T cells, particularly TH 17 pertussis-specific cells, may be as important as pertussis antibody. Therefore, crafting pertussis vaccines that yield improved antibody plus T cell responses is the current goal. Disease and WCP seem to elicit more T-17 response than aP. One method to craft a better vaccine is to use antigen blends that differ from those in the current vaccines, such as antigens derived from circulating pertussis strains instead of the standard laboratory strain. Another option is to use current antigens but with more potent adjuvants. Such vaccines are likely 5 years away.

But we need to have reasonable expectations for pertussis vaccines. Pertussis infection begins in respiratory epithelium. Many of the most obvious signs and symptoms are due to destruction of ciliated respiratory epithelium plus increased tenacity/volume of secretions. Can a parenterally administered vaccine that induces mostly serum antibody protect against infection of epithelium where antibody concentrations are likely 10% or less than in serum? The short answer is – likely not. We should expect neither aP nor WCP to consistently protect against pertussis infection, but it does seem reasonable to expect aP to reduce disease severity. Preventing infections awaits a vaccine that induces surface IgA. Mucosally administered vaccines produce surface IgA – for example, rotavirus vaccine – but no mucosal pertussis vaccine appears imminent.

A key question is whether our most vulnerable populations, young children, have increased morbidity and mortality. Data from the California suggest an increase but mostly in infants under 6 months of age, the group not old enough to benefit from even the most effective of infant vaccines. Protecting young infants depends on vaccine administered prenatally to mothers. The over-representation of the Hispanic infants among fatalities shows a population on which to focus with maternal immunization. Hopefully, the recent universal TdaP recommendation in pregnancy will help when maternal immunization is higher than current approximately 50% rates.⁴

Despite the problems, it seems clear that we must continue to use current aP vaccines according to the current schedules, attempting to get as close to 100% uptake as possible. While the current, nearly 10% unimmunized rates add to the likelihood that we are losing complete herd immunity, partial herd immunity is better than no herd immunity.

Expectations: There will be ongoing outbreaks. Continue to be alert for signs of pertussis. They are often less obvious in older patients, and may be as subtle as more than 2 weeks of persistent cough. During outbreaks, we may be called upon to give aP doses at intervals shorter than the usual schedule.

Our responsibility: Do not become discouraged or lose enthusiasm for aP, but explain to parents that because aP is less reactogenic, it produces less protection and is less durable, particularly in school-age children. But please emphasize that modest protection is best in the youngest and modest protection of older children is better than none. Emphasize that the adverse effect profile of current aPs puts the harm/benefit balance heavily in favor of aP.

Bottom line: We can hopefully do better than the current 88% to 92% rate of aP vaccine uptake. We need to get as close to 100% uptake as possible until new vaccines or new strategies become available.

1. Clin Infect Dis. 2016 Feb 7; doi: 10.1093/cid/ciw051.

2. Pediatrics. 2016 Feb 5; doi: 10.1542/peds.2015-3326.

3. Expert Rev Vaccines. 2007 Feb;6(1):47-56.

4. Vaccine. 2016 Feb 10;34(7):968-73.

Dr. Harrison is professor of pediatrics and pediatric infectious diseases at Children’s Mercy Hospitals and Clinics, Kansas City, Mo. He disclosed that his institution received grant support for a study on hexavalent infant vaccine containing pertussis from GlaxoSmithKline, and he was the local primary investigator.*

*Correction, 2/17/2016: An earlier version of this article incompletely stated Dr. Harrison's disclosure information.

There has been a justified re-examination of acellular pertussis vaccine (aP)^1,2 in light of the multiple large outbreaks of pertussis since 2000, particularly the two large California outbreaks in 2010 and 2014.

Lessons learned: aP protection is less durable than originally thought, and much pertussis is not in infants, but in the school-age and adolescent populations.

aP appears to produce reasonable protection (approximately 84% overall) for infants and preschool children, plus a much improved adverse effect profile, compared with whole cell pertussis vaccine (WCP), which provided approximately 94% protection.¹ This 10% difference in aP versus WCP, however, means that herd immunity is more difficult to attain. The accepted pertussis immunization rate needed to provide herd immunity is 92%-94%. Because our current tools (DTaP and Tdap) provide only 84% protection at least in infants and preschoolers, even 100% uptake may leave us 6% to 8% short of the threshold for complete herd immunity.

The California outbreak data from school-age and teenage populations show protection rates drop each year post aP booster. That means that by the fourth year after the last dose, protection is less than 10%. So despite a Tdap dose at 11- to 12-years-of-age, protection gaps occur in 8-to 10-year-olds and 14- to 18-year-olds. These vulnerable periods in older children add to aP’s 84% vs. WCP’s 94% protection for those greater than 3 years of age, explaining more frequent pertussis outbreaks as the pool of WCP-immunized children among older populations decreased.

But before we place all blame on switching to aP, consider that we can now confirm more pertussis infections with molecular assays than was possible with culture and fluorescent assay testing in the WCP era. So improved testing sensitivity means more reports of minimally symptomatic cases that may have been missed before. So WCP, if still used today, might not show 94% protection either.

Additionally, aPs rely heavily on pertactin as a target antigen,³ likely less than WCP, given that WCP contained all pertussis antigens rather than just the 3-5 purified antigens in aPs. So the emergence of pertactin-altered pertussis strains could disproportionately affect protection from aP, compared with WCP.

There seem to be no quick fixes to preventing outbreaks using aPs as our vaccine. One suggestion by the authors of the California outbreak report is to use aP mostly to terminate outbreaks rather than routinely in late childhood. My concern is that if we do not continue routine use in 4-to 6-year-olds, 10-to 11-year-olds, and in early adulthood, the vulnerable proportion of the population during outbreaks would be larger, making outbreaks more difficult to terminate. So continuing to produce some protection, albeit short-lived, with current schedules of aP vaccines seems important.

Also remember that T cells, particularly TH 17 pertussis-specific cells, may be as important as pertussis antibody. Therefore, crafting pertussis vaccines that yield improved antibody plus T cell responses is the current goal. Disease and WCP seem to elicit more T-17 response than aP. One method to craft a better vaccine is to use antigen blends that differ from those in the current vaccines, such as antigens derived from circulating pertussis strains instead of the standard laboratory strain. Another option is to use current antigens but with more potent adjuvants. Such vaccines are likely 5 years away.

But we need to have reasonable expectations for pertussis vaccines. Pertussis infection begins in respiratory epithelium. Many of the most obvious signs and symptoms are due to destruction of ciliated respiratory epithelium plus increased tenacity/volume of secretions. Can a parenterally administered vaccine that induces mostly serum antibody protect against infection of epithelium where antibody concentrations are likely 10% or less than in serum? The short answer is – likely not. We should expect neither aP nor WCP to consistently protect against pertussis infection, but it does seem reasonable to expect aP to reduce disease severity. Preventing infections awaits a vaccine that induces surface IgA. Mucosally administered vaccines produce surface IgA – for example, rotavirus vaccine – but no mucosal pertussis vaccine appears imminent.

A key question is whether our most vulnerable populations, young children, have increased morbidity and mortality. Data from the California suggest an increase but mostly in infants under 6 months of age, the group not old enough to benefit from even the most effective of infant vaccines. Protecting young infants depends on vaccine administered prenatally to mothers. The over-representation of the Hispanic infants among fatalities shows a population on which to focus with maternal immunization. Hopefully, the recent universal TdaP recommendation in pregnancy will help when maternal immunization is higher than current approximately 50% rates.⁴

Despite the problems, it seems clear that we must continue to use current aP vaccines according to the current schedules, attempting to get as close to 100% uptake as possible. While the current, nearly 10% unimmunized rates add to the likelihood that we are losing complete herd immunity, partial herd immunity is better than no herd immunity.

Expectations: There will be ongoing outbreaks. Continue to be alert for signs of pertussis. They are often less obvious in older patients, and may be as subtle as more than 2 weeks of persistent cough. During outbreaks, we may be called upon to give aP doses at intervals shorter than the usual schedule.

Our responsibility: Do not become discouraged or lose enthusiasm for aP, but explain to parents that because aP is less reactogenic, it produces less protection and is less durable, particularly in school-age children. But please emphasize that modest protection is best in the youngest and modest protection of older children is better than none. Emphasize that the adverse effect profile of current aPs puts the harm/benefit balance heavily in favor of aP.

Bottom line: We can hopefully do better than the current 88% to 92% rate of aP vaccine uptake. We need to get as close to 100% uptake as possible until new vaccines or new strategies become available.

1. Clin Infect Dis. 2016 Feb 7; doi: 10.1093/cid/ciw051.

2. Pediatrics. 2016 Feb 5; doi: 10.1542/peds.2015-3326.

3. Expert Rev Vaccines. 2007 Feb;6(1):47-56.

4. Vaccine. 2016 Feb 10;34(7):968-73.

Dr. Harrison is professor of pediatrics and pediatric infectious diseases at Children’s Mercy Hospitals and Clinics, Kansas City, Mo. He disclosed that his institution received grant support for a study on hexavalent infant vaccine containing pertussis from GlaxoSmithKline, and he was the local primary investigator.*

*Correction, 2/17/2016: An earlier version of this article incompletely stated Dr. Harrison's disclosure information.

Appendicitis is the most common surgical emergency in children. It is seen at all ages; however, it is less common in infants and toddlers younger than 4 years of age and peaks at an incidence of 25/100,000 in children 12- to 18-years-old. Fortunately, appendicitis is rarely fatal but can be associated with significant morbidity, especially in young children in whom the diagnosis is often delayed and perforation is more common. Reducing morbidity requires early diagnosis and optimizing management such that perforation and associated peritonitis are prevented.

The classical signs and symptoms of appendicitis are periumbilical pain migrating to the right lower quadrant, nausea, and low-grade fever. Presentation may vary if the location of the appendix is atypical, but primarily is age associated. In young children, abdominal distension, hip pain with or without limp, and fever are commonplace. In older children, right lower quadrant abdominal pain that intensifies with coughing or movement is frequent. Localized tenderness also appears to be age related; right lower quadrant tenderness and rebound are more often found in older children and adolescents, whereas younger children have more diffuse signs.

When I started my career, abdominal x-rays would be performed in search of a fecalith. However, such studies were of low sensitivity, and clinical acumen had a primary role in the decision to take the child to the operating room. In the current era, ultrasound and CT scan provide reasonable sensitivity and specificity. Ultrasound criteria include a diameter greater than 6 mm, concentric rings (target sign), an appendicolith, high echogenicity, obstruction of the lumen, and fluid surrounding the appendix.

As the pathogenesis of appendicitis represents occlusion of the appendiceal lumen, followed by overgrowth or translocation of bowel flora resulting in inflammation of the wall of the appendix, anaerobes and gram-negative gut flora represent the most important pathogens. In advanced cases, necrosis and gangrene of the appendix result with progression to rupture and peritonitis.

The traditional management was early surgical intervention to reduce the risk of perforation and peritonitis with acceptance of high rates of negative abdominal explorations as an acceptable consequence. Today, the approach to management of appendicitis is undergoing reevaluation. Early antimicrobial treatment has become routine in the management of nonperforated, perforated, or abscessed appendicitis. However, the question being asked is, “Do all children with uncomplicated appendicitis need appendectomy, or is antibiotic management sufficient?”

P. Salminen et al. reported on the results of a randomized clinical trial in 530 patients aged 18-60 years, comparing antimicrobial treatment alone with early appendectomy. Among 273 patients in the surgical group, all but 1 underwent successful appendectomy, resulting in a success rate of 99.6% (95% CI, 98.0%-100.0%). In the antibiotic group, 186 of 256 patients (70%) treated with antibiotics did not require surgery; 70 (27%) underwent appendectomy within 1 year of initial presentation for appendicitis (JAMA. 2015 Jun 16;313[23]:2340-8). There were no intraabdominal abscesses or other major complications associated with delayed appendectomy in patients randomized to antibiotic treatment. The authors concluded that among patients with CT-proven, uncomplicated appendicitis, antibiotic treatment did not meet the prespecified criterion for noninferiority, compared with appendectomy. However, most patients randomized to antibiotics for uncomplicated appendicitis did not require appendectomy during the 1-year follow-up period.

J.A. Horst et al. reviewed published reports of medical management of appendicitis in children (Ann Emerg Med. 2015 Aug;66[2]:119-22). They concluded that medical management of uncomplicated appendicitis in a select low-risk pediatric population is safe and does not result in significant morbidity. The arguments against a nonoperative approach include the risk of recurrent appendicitis, including the anxiety associated with any recurrences of abdominal pain, the risk of antibiotic-related complications, the potential for increased duration of hospitalization, and the relatively low morbidity of appendectomy in children. Factors associated with failed antibiotic management included fecaliths, fluid collections, or an appendiceal diameter greater than 1.1 cm on CT scan. The investigators concluded such children are poor candidates for nonsurgical management.

The bottom line is that antimicrobial therapy, in the absence of surgery, can be effective. Certainly in remote settings where surgery is not readily available, antimicrobial therapy with fluid and electrolyte management and close observation can be used in children with uncomplicated appendicitis with few failures and relatively few children requiring subsequent appendectomy. In more complicated cases with evidence of fecalith, or appendiceal abscess or phlegm, initial antimicrobial therapy reduces the acute inflammation and urgent need for surgery, but persistent inflammation of the appendix is often observed and appendectomy, either acutely or after improvement following antimicrobial therapy, appears indicated. Many different antimicrobial regimens have proven effective; ceftriaxone and metronidazole are associated with low rates of complications, offer an opportunity for once-daily therapy, and are cost effective, compared with other once-daily regimens.

Dr. Pelton is chief of pediatric infectious disease and coordinator of the maternal-child HIV program at Boston Medical Center.

Appendicitis is the most common surgical emergency in children. It is seen at all ages; however, it is less common in infants and toddlers younger than 4 years of age and peaks at an incidence of 25/100,000 in children 12- to 18-years-old. Fortunately, appendicitis is rarely fatal but can be associated with significant morbidity, especially in young children in whom the diagnosis is often delayed and perforation is more common. Reducing morbidity requires early diagnosis and optimizing management such that perforation and associated peritonitis are prevented.

The classical signs and symptoms of appendicitis are periumbilical pain migrating to the right lower quadrant, nausea, and low-grade fever. Presentation may vary if the location of the appendix is atypical, but primarily is age associated. In young children, abdominal distension, hip pain with or without limp, and fever are commonplace. In older children, right lower quadrant abdominal pain that intensifies with coughing or movement is frequent. Localized tenderness also appears to be age related; right lower quadrant tenderness and rebound are more often found in older children and adolescents, whereas younger children have more diffuse signs.

When I started my career, abdominal x-rays would be performed in search of a fecalith. However, such studies were of low sensitivity, and clinical acumen had a primary role in the decision to take the child to the operating room. In the current era, ultrasound and CT scan provide reasonable sensitivity and specificity. Ultrasound criteria include a diameter greater than 6 mm, concentric rings (target sign), an appendicolith, high echogenicity, obstruction of the lumen, and fluid surrounding the appendix.

As the pathogenesis of appendicitis represents occlusion of the appendiceal lumen, followed by overgrowth or translocation of bowel flora resulting in inflammation of the wall of the appendix, anaerobes and gram-negative gut flora represent the most important pathogens. In advanced cases, necrosis and gangrene of the appendix result with progression to rupture and peritonitis.

The traditional management was early surgical intervention to reduce the risk of perforation and peritonitis with acceptance of high rates of negative abdominal explorations as an acceptable consequence. Today, the approach to management of appendicitis is undergoing reevaluation. Early antimicrobial treatment has become routine in the management of nonperforated, perforated, or abscessed appendicitis. However, the question being asked is, “Do all children with uncomplicated appendicitis need appendectomy, or is antibiotic management sufficient?”

P. Salminen et al. reported on the results of a randomized clinical trial in 530 patients aged 18-60 years, comparing antimicrobial treatment alone with early appendectomy. Among 273 patients in the surgical group, all but 1 underwent successful appendectomy, resulting in a success rate of 99.6% (95% CI, 98.0%-100.0%). In the antibiotic group, 186 of 256 patients (70%) treated with antibiotics did not require surgery; 70 (27%) underwent appendectomy within 1 year of initial presentation for appendicitis (JAMA. 2015 Jun 16;313[23]:2340-8). There were no intraabdominal abscesses or other major complications associated with delayed appendectomy in patients randomized to antibiotic treatment. The authors concluded that among patients with CT-proven, uncomplicated appendicitis, antibiotic treatment did not meet the prespecified criterion for noninferiority, compared with appendectomy. However, most patients randomized to antibiotics for uncomplicated appendicitis did not require appendectomy during the 1-year follow-up period.

J.A. Horst et al. reviewed published reports of medical management of appendicitis in children (Ann Emerg Med. 2015 Aug;66[2]:119-22). They concluded that medical management of uncomplicated appendicitis in a select low-risk pediatric population is safe and does not result in significant morbidity. The arguments against a nonoperative approach include the risk of recurrent appendicitis, including the anxiety associated with any recurrences of abdominal pain, the risk of antibiotic-related complications, the potential for increased duration of hospitalization, and the relatively low morbidity of appendectomy in children. Factors associated with failed antibiotic management included fecaliths, fluid collections, or an appendiceal diameter greater than 1.1 cm on CT scan. The investigators concluded such children are poor candidates for nonsurgical management.

The bottom line is that antimicrobial therapy, in the absence of surgery, can be effective. Certainly in remote settings where surgery is not readily available, antimicrobial therapy with fluid and electrolyte management and close observation can be used in children with uncomplicated appendicitis with few failures and relatively few children requiring subsequent appendectomy. In more complicated cases with evidence of fecalith, or appendiceal abscess or phlegm, initial antimicrobial therapy reduces the acute inflammation and urgent need for surgery, but persistent inflammation of the appendix is often observed and appendectomy, either acutely or after improvement following antimicrobial therapy, appears indicated. Many different antimicrobial regimens have proven effective; ceftriaxone and metronidazole are associated with low rates of complications, offer an opportunity for once-daily therapy, and are cost effective, compared with other once-daily regimens.

Dr. Pelton is chief of pediatric infectious disease and coordinator of the maternal-child HIV program at Boston Medical Center.

Appendicitis is the most common surgical emergency in children. It is seen at all ages; however, it is less common in infants and toddlers younger than 4 years of age and peaks at an incidence of 25/100,000 in children 12- to 18-years-old. Fortunately, appendicitis is rarely fatal but can be associated with significant morbidity, especially in young children in whom the diagnosis is often delayed and perforation is more common. Reducing morbidity requires early diagnosis and optimizing management such that perforation and associated peritonitis are prevented.

The classical signs and symptoms of appendicitis are periumbilical pain migrating to the right lower quadrant, nausea, and low-grade fever. Presentation may vary if the location of the appendix is atypical, but primarily is age associated. In young children, abdominal distension, hip pain with or without limp, and fever are commonplace. In older children, right lower quadrant abdominal pain that intensifies with coughing or movement is frequent. Localized tenderness also appears to be age related; right lower quadrant tenderness and rebound are more often found in older children and adolescents, whereas younger children have more diffuse signs.

When I started my career, abdominal x-rays would be performed in search of a fecalith. However, such studies were of low sensitivity, and clinical acumen had a primary role in the decision to take the child to the operating room. In the current era, ultrasound and CT scan provide reasonable sensitivity and specificity. Ultrasound criteria include a diameter greater than 6 mm, concentric rings (target sign), an appendicolith, high echogenicity, obstruction of the lumen, and fluid surrounding the appendix.

As the pathogenesis of appendicitis represents occlusion of the appendiceal lumen, followed by overgrowth or translocation of bowel flora resulting in inflammation of the wall of the appendix, anaerobes and gram-negative gut flora represent the most important pathogens. In advanced cases, necrosis and gangrene of the appendix result with progression to rupture and peritonitis.

The traditional management was early surgical intervention to reduce the risk of perforation and peritonitis with acceptance of high rates of negative abdominal explorations as an acceptable consequence. Today, the approach to management of appendicitis is undergoing reevaluation. Early antimicrobial treatment has become routine in the management of nonperforated, perforated, or abscessed appendicitis. However, the question being asked is, “Do all children with uncomplicated appendicitis need appendectomy, or is antibiotic management sufficient?”

P. Salminen et al. reported on the results of a randomized clinical trial in 530 patients aged 18-60 years, comparing antimicrobial treatment alone with early appendectomy. Among 273 patients in the surgical group, all but 1 underwent successful appendectomy, resulting in a success rate of 99.6% (95% CI, 98.0%-100.0%). In the antibiotic group, 186 of 256 patients (70%) treated with antibiotics did not require surgery; 70 (27%) underwent appendectomy within 1 year of initial presentation for appendicitis (JAMA. 2015 Jun 16;313[23]:2340-8). There were no intraabdominal abscesses or other major complications associated with delayed appendectomy in patients randomized to antibiotic treatment. The authors concluded that among patients with CT-proven, uncomplicated appendicitis, antibiotic treatment did not meet the prespecified criterion for noninferiority, compared with appendectomy. However, most patients randomized to antibiotics for uncomplicated appendicitis did not require appendectomy during the 1-year follow-up period.

J.A. Horst et al. reviewed published reports of medical management of appendicitis in children (Ann Emerg Med. 2015 Aug;66[2]:119-22). They concluded that medical management of uncomplicated appendicitis in a select low-risk pediatric population is safe and does not result in significant morbidity. The arguments against a nonoperative approach include the risk of recurrent appendicitis, including the anxiety associated with any recurrences of abdominal pain, the risk of antibiotic-related complications, the potential for increased duration of hospitalization, and the relatively low morbidity of appendectomy in children. Factors associated with failed antibiotic management included fecaliths, fluid collections, or an appendiceal diameter greater than 1.1 cm on CT scan. The investigators concluded such children are poor candidates for nonsurgical management.

The bottom line is that antimicrobial therapy, in the absence of surgery, can be effective. Certainly in remote settings where surgery is not readily available, antimicrobial therapy with fluid and electrolyte management and close observation can be used in children with uncomplicated appendicitis with few failures and relatively few children requiring subsequent appendectomy. In more complicated cases with evidence of fecalith, or appendiceal abscess or phlegm, initial antimicrobial therapy reduces the acute inflammation and urgent need for surgery, but persistent inflammation of the appendix is often observed and appendectomy, either acutely or after improvement following antimicrobial therapy, appears indicated. Many different antimicrobial regimens have proven effective; ceftriaxone and metronidazole are associated with low rates of complications, offer an opportunity for once-daily therapy, and are cost effective, compared with other once-daily regimens.

Dr. Pelton is chief of pediatric infectious disease and coordinator of the maternal-child HIV program at Boston Medical Center.

In the United States, we treat almost all infections for 10 days. Why? In France, most infections are treated for 8 days. In the U.K., most infections are treated for 5 days. In many other countries, infections are treated until symptomatic improvement occurs. Can everyone outside the United States be wrong? What is the evidence base for the various recommended durations? Moreover, what is the harm in treating for longer than necessary?

The U.S. tradition of 10 days’ treatment for infections arose from the 1940 trials of injectable penicillin for prevention of acute rheumatic fever in military recruits who had group A streptococcal pharyngitis. Injections of penicillin G mixed in peanut oil produced therapeutic levels of penicillin for about 3 days. Soldiers who received three sequential injections had the lowest occurrence of rheumatic fever; two injections were not as good and four injections did not add to the prevention rate. So three injections meant 9 days’ treatment; 9 days was rounded up to 10 days, and there you have it.

We have come a long way since the 1940s. For strep throat, we now have three approved antibiotics for 5 days’ treatment: cefdinir, cefpodoxime proxetil, and azithromycin, all evidence based and U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved. One large study was done in the 1980s with cefadroxil for 5 days, and that duration was as effective in strep eradication as was 10 days, but the company never pursued the 5-day indication.

The optimal duration of antibiotic treatment is generally considered to be 10 days in the United States, however, there is scant evidence base for that recommendation. The recent American Academy of Pediatrics/American Academy of Family Physicians guidelines endorse 10 days of treatment duration as the standard for most acute otitis media (AOM) (Pediatrics 2013;131[3]:e964-99), but acknowledge that shorter treatment regimens may be as effective. Specifically, the guideline states: “A 7-day course of oral antibiotic appears to be equally effective in children 2- to 5 years of age with mild to moderate AOM. For children 6 years and older with mild to moderate AOM symptoms, a 5- to 7-day course is adequate treatment.” A systematic analysis and a meta-analysis have concluded that 5 days’ duration of antibiotics is as effective as 10 days’ treatment for all children over age 2 years and only marginally inferior to 10 days for children under the age of 2 years old (Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2010;[9]:CD001095).

Thirty years ago, our group and others began to do studies involving “double tympanocentesis,” where an ear tap was done at time of diagnosis and again 3-5 days later to prove bacterial cure for various antibiotics that were in trials. We learned that if the organism was sensitive to the antibiotic chosen, then it was dead by days 3-5. Most of the failures were due to resistant bacteria. So treating longer was not going to help. It was time to change the antibiotic if clinical improvement had not occurred. Our group published a study 15 years ago of 2,172 children comparing 5-, 7-, and 10-days’ treatment of AOM, and concluded that 5 days’ treatment was equivalent to 7- and 10-days of treatment for all ages unless the child had a perforated tympanic membrane or the child had been treated for AOM within the preceding month since recently treated AOM was associated with more frequent causation of AOM by resistant bacteria and with a continued inflamed middle ear mucosa (Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2001 Apr;124[4]:381-7). Since then we have treated all children with ear infections for 5 days, including amoxicillin and amoxicillin/clavulanate as well as various cephalosporins unless the eardrum had perforated or the child had a recurrent AOM within the prior 30 days. That is a lot of patients in 15 years, and the results have been just as good as when we used 10 days as standard.

Acute sinusitis is another interesting story. The AAP guideline states: “The optimal duration of antimicrobial therapy for patients with acute bacterial sinusitis has not received systematic study. Recommendations based on  clinical observation varied widely, from 1- to 28 days (Pediatrics. 2013 Jul;132[1]:e262-80). The prior AAP guideline endorsed “antibiotic therapy be continued for 7 days after the patient becomes free of symptoms and signs (Pediatrics. 2001 Sep;108[3]:798-808). Our group reasoned that the etiology and pathogenesis of sinusitis and AOM are identical, involving ascension of a bacterial inoculum from the nasopharynx via the osteomeatal complex to the sinuses just like ascension of infection via the eustachian tube to the middle ear. Therefore, beginning 25 years ago, we began to treat all children with sinus infections for 5 days, including amoxicillin and amoxicillin/clavulanate, as well as various cephalosporins. Again, that is a lot of patients, and the results have been just as good as when we used 10 days as standard.

What about community-acquired pneumonia? The Infectious Disease Society of America (IDSA) guideline states: “Treatment courses of 10 days [of antibiotics] have been best studied, although shorter courses may be just as effective, particularly for mild disease managed on an outpatient basis” (Clin Infect Dis. 2011 Oct;53[7]:617-30). Our group reasoned that antibiotics reach higher levels in the lungs than they do in the closed space of the middle ear or sinuses. Therefore, beginning 25 years ago, we began to treat all children with bronchopneumonia and lobar pneumonia for 5 days, including amoxicillin and amoxicillin/clavulanate as well as various cephalosporins and azithromycin. That is a lot of patients, and the results have been just as good as when we used 10 days as standard.

What about skin and soft tissue infections? The IDSA guideline states that the duration of treatment for impetigo is 7 days, for cellulitis is 5 days, and for furuncles and carbuncles no duration is stated, but they allow no antibiotics be used at all if the patient is not febrile and white blood cell count is not elevated after incision and drainage (Clin Infect Dis. 2014 Jul 15;59[2]:e10-52).

So what is the harm to longer courses of antibiotics? As I have written in this column recently, we have learned a lot about the importance of our gut microbiome. The resident flora of our gut modulates our immune system favorably. Disturbing our gut flora with antibiotics is potentially harmful because the antibiotics often kill many species of healthy gut flora and cause disequilibrium of the flora, resulting in diminished innate immunity responses. Shorter treatment courses with antibiotics cause less disturbance of the healthy gut flora.

The rest of the world cannot all be wrong and the United States all right regarding the duration of antibiotic treatment for common infections. Moreover, in an era of evidence-based medicine, it is necessary to make changes from tradition. The evidence is there to recommend that 5 days’ treatment become the standard for treatment with selected cephalosporins as approved by the FDA – for AOM, for sinusitis, for community-acquired pneumonia, and for skin and soft tissue infections.

Dr. Pichichero, a specialist in pediatric infectious diseases, is director of the Research Institute, Rochester (N.Y.) General Hospital. He is also a pediatrician at Legacy Pediatrics in Rochester. Dr. Pichichero said that he had no relevant financial disclosures. Email him at [email protected].

In the United States, we treat almost all infections for 10 days. Why? In France, most infections are treated for 8 days. In the U.K., most infections are treated for 5 days. In many other countries, infections are treated until symptomatic improvement occurs. Can everyone outside the United States be wrong? What is the evidence base for the various recommended durations? Moreover, what is the harm in treating for longer than necessary?

The U.S. tradition of 10 days’ treatment for infections arose from the 1940 trials of injectable penicillin for prevention of acute rheumatic fever in military recruits who had group A streptococcal pharyngitis. Injections of penicillin G mixed in peanut oil produced therapeutic levels of penicillin for about 3 days. Soldiers who received three sequential injections had the lowest occurrence of rheumatic fever; two injections were not as good and four injections did not add to the prevention rate. So three injections meant 9 days’ treatment; 9 days was rounded up to 10 days, and there you have it.

We have come a long way since the 1940s. For strep throat, we now have three approved antibiotics for 5 days’ treatment: cefdinir, cefpodoxime proxetil, and azithromycin, all evidence based and U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved. One large study was done in the 1980s with cefadroxil for 5 days, and that duration was as effective in strep eradication as was 10 days, but the company never pursued the 5-day indication.

The optimal duration of antibiotic treatment is generally considered to be 10 days in the United States, however, there is scant evidence base for that recommendation. The recent American Academy of Pediatrics/American Academy of Family Physicians guidelines endorse 10 days of treatment duration as the standard for most acute otitis media (AOM) (Pediatrics 2013;131[3]:e964-99), but acknowledge that shorter treatment regimens may be as effective. Specifically, the guideline states: “A 7-day course of oral antibiotic appears to be equally effective in children 2- to 5 years of age with mild to moderate AOM. For children 6 years and older with mild to moderate AOM symptoms, a 5- to 7-day course is adequate treatment.” A systematic analysis and a meta-analysis have concluded that 5 days’ duration of antibiotics is as effective as 10 days’ treatment for all children over age 2 years and only marginally inferior to 10 days for children under the age of 2 years old (Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2010;[9]:CD001095).

Thirty years ago, our group and others began to do studies involving “double tympanocentesis,” where an ear tap was done at time of diagnosis and again 3-5 days later to prove bacterial cure for various antibiotics that were in trials. We learned that if the organism was sensitive to the antibiotic chosen, then it was dead by days 3-5. Most of the failures were due to resistant bacteria. So treating longer was not going to help. It was time to change the antibiotic if clinical improvement had not occurred. Our group published a study 15 years ago of 2,172 children comparing 5-, 7-, and 10-days’ treatment of AOM, and concluded that 5 days’ treatment was equivalent to 7- and 10-days of treatment for all ages unless the child had a perforated tympanic membrane or the child had been treated for AOM within the preceding month since recently treated AOM was associated with more frequent causation of AOM by resistant bacteria and with a continued inflamed middle ear mucosa (Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2001 Apr;124[4]:381-7). Since then we have treated all children with ear infections for 5 days, including amoxicillin and amoxicillin/clavulanate as well as various cephalosporins unless the eardrum had perforated or the child had a recurrent AOM within the prior 30 days. That is a lot of patients in 15 years, and the results have been just as good as when we used 10 days as standard.

Acute sinusitis is another interesting story. The AAP guideline states: “The optimal duration of antimicrobial therapy for patients with acute bacterial sinusitis has not received systematic study. Recommendations based on  clinical observation varied widely, from 1- to 28 days (Pediatrics. 2013 Jul;132[1]:e262-80). The prior AAP guideline endorsed “antibiotic therapy be continued for 7 days after the patient becomes free of symptoms and signs (Pediatrics. 2001 Sep;108[3]:798-808). Our group reasoned that the etiology and pathogenesis of sinusitis and AOM are identical, involving ascension of a bacterial inoculum from the nasopharynx via the osteomeatal complex to the sinuses just like ascension of infection via the eustachian tube to the middle ear. Therefore, beginning 25 years ago, we began to treat all children with sinus infections for 5 days, including amoxicillin and amoxicillin/clavulanate, as well as various cephalosporins. Again, that is a lot of patients, and the results have been just as good as when we used 10 days as standard.

What about community-acquired pneumonia? The Infectious Disease Society of America (IDSA) guideline states: “Treatment courses of 10 days [of antibiotics] have been best studied, although shorter courses may be just as effective, particularly for mild disease managed on an outpatient basis” (Clin Infect Dis. 2011 Oct;53[7]:617-30). Our group reasoned that antibiotics reach higher levels in the lungs than they do in the closed space of the middle ear or sinuses. Therefore, beginning 25 years ago, we began to treat all children with bronchopneumonia and lobar pneumonia for 5 days, including amoxicillin and amoxicillin/clavulanate as well as various cephalosporins and azithromycin. That is a lot of patients, and the results have been just as good as when we used 10 days as standard.

What about skin and soft tissue infections? The IDSA guideline states that the duration of treatment for impetigo is 7 days, for cellulitis is 5 days, and for furuncles and carbuncles no duration is stated, but they allow no antibiotics be used at all if the patient is not febrile and white blood cell count is not elevated after incision and drainage (Clin Infect Dis. 2014 Jul 15;59[2]:e10-52).

So what is the harm to longer courses of antibiotics? As I have written in this column recently, we have learned a lot about the importance of our gut microbiome. The resident flora of our gut modulates our immune system favorably. Disturbing our gut flora with antibiotics is potentially harmful because the antibiotics often kill many species of healthy gut flora and cause disequilibrium of the flora, resulting in diminished innate immunity responses. Shorter treatment courses with antibiotics cause less disturbance of the healthy gut flora.

The rest of the world cannot all be wrong and the United States all right regarding the duration of antibiotic treatment for common infections. Moreover, in an era of evidence-based medicine, it is necessary to make changes from tradition. The evidence is there to recommend that 5 days’ treatment become the standard for treatment with selected cephalosporins as approved by the FDA – for AOM, for sinusitis, for community-acquired pneumonia, and for skin and soft tissue infections.

Dr. Pichichero, a specialist in pediatric infectious diseases, is director of the Research Institute, Rochester (N.Y.) General Hospital. He is also a pediatrician at Legacy Pediatrics in Rochester. Dr. Pichichero said that he had no relevant financial disclosures. Email him at [email protected].

In the United States, we treat almost all infections for 10 days. Why? In France, most infections are treated for 8 days. In the U.K., most infections are treated for 5 days. In many other countries, infections are treated until symptomatic improvement occurs. Can everyone outside the United States be wrong? What is the evidence base for the various recommended durations? Moreover, what is the harm in treating for longer than necessary?

The U.S. tradition of 10 days’ treatment for infections arose from the 1940 trials of injectable penicillin for prevention of acute rheumatic fever in military recruits who had group A streptococcal pharyngitis. Injections of penicillin G mixed in peanut oil produced therapeutic levels of penicillin for about 3 days. Soldiers who received three sequential injections had the lowest occurrence of rheumatic fever; two injections were not as good and four injections did not add to the prevention rate. So three injections meant 9 days’ treatment; 9 days was rounded up to 10 days, and there you have it.

We have come a long way since the 1940s. For strep throat, we now have three approved antibiotics for 5 days’ treatment: cefdinir, cefpodoxime proxetil, and azithromycin, all evidence based and U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved. One large study was done in the 1980s with cefadroxil for 5 days, and that duration was as effective in strep eradication as was 10 days, but the company never pursued the 5-day indication.

The optimal duration of antibiotic treatment is generally considered to be 10 days in the United States, however, there is scant evidence base for that recommendation. The recent American Academy of Pediatrics/American Academy of Family Physicians guidelines endorse 10 days of treatment duration as the standard for most acute otitis media (AOM) (Pediatrics 2013;131[3]:e964-99), but acknowledge that shorter treatment regimens may be as effective. Specifically, the guideline states: “A 7-day course of oral antibiotic appears to be equally effective in children 2- to 5 years of age with mild to moderate AOM. For children 6 years and older with mild to moderate AOM symptoms, a 5- to 7-day course is adequate treatment.” A systematic analysis and a meta-analysis have concluded that 5 days’ duration of antibiotics is as effective as 10 days’ treatment for all children over age 2 years and only marginally inferior to 10 days for children under the age of 2 years old (Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2010;[9]:CD001095).

Thirty years ago, our group and others began to do studies involving “double tympanocentesis,” where an ear tap was done at time of diagnosis and again 3-5 days later to prove bacterial cure for various antibiotics that were in trials. We learned that if the organism was sensitive to the antibiotic chosen, then it was dead by days 3-5. Most of the failures were due to resistant bacteria. So treating longer was not going to help. It was time to change the antibiotic if clinical improvement had not occurred. Our group published a study 15 years ago of 2,172 children comparing 5-, 7-, and 10-days’ treatment of AOM, and concluded that 5 days’ treatment was equivalent to 7- and 10-days of treatment for all ages unless the child had a perforated tympanic membrane or the child had been treated for AOM within the preceding month since recently treated AOM was associated with more frequent causation of AOM by resistant bacteria and with a continued inflamed middle ear mucosa (Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2001 Apr;124[4]:381-7). Since then we have treated all children with ear infections for 5 days, including amoxicillin and amoxicillin/clavulanate as well as various cephalosporins unless the eardrum had perforated or the child had a recurrent AOM within the prior 30 days. That is a lot of patients in 15 years, and the results have been just as good as when we used 10 days as standard.

Acute sinusitis is another interesting story. The AAP guideline states: “The optimal duration of antimicrobial therapy for patients with acute bacterial sinusitis has not received systematic study. Recommendations based on  clinical observation varied widely, from 1- to 28 days (Pediatrics. 2013 Jul;132[1]:e262-80). The prior AAP guideline endorsed “antibiotic therapy be continued for 7 days after the patient becomes free of symptoms and signs (Pediatrics. 2001 Sep;108[3]:798-808). Our group reasoned that the etiology and pathogenesis of sinusitis and AOM are identical, involving ascension of a bacterial inoculum from the nasopharynx via the osteomeatal complex to the sinuses just like ascension of infection via the eustachian tube to the middle ear. Therefore, beginning 25 years ago, we began to treat all children with sinus infections for 5 days, including amoxicillin and amoxicillin/clavulanate, as well as various cephalosporins. Again, that is a lot of patients, and the results have been just as good as when we used 10 days as standard.

What about community-acquired pneumonia? The Infectious Disease Society of America (IDSA) guideline states: “Treatment courses of 10 days [of antibiotics] have been best studied, although shorter courses may be just as effective, particularly for mild disease managed on an outpatient basis” (Clin Infect Dis. 2011 Oct;53[7]:617-30). Our group reasoned that antibiotics reach higher levels in the lungs than they do in the closed space of the middle ear or sinuses. Therefore, beginning 25 years ago, we began to treat all children with bronchopneumonia and lobar pneumonia for 5 days, including amoxicillin and amoxicillin/clavulanate as well as various cephalosporins and azithromycin. That is a lot of patients, and the results have been just as good as when we used 10 days as standard.

What about skin and soft tissue infections? The IDSA guideline states that the duration of treatment for impetigo is 7 days, for cellulitis is 5 days, and for furuncles and carbuncles no duration is stated, but they allow no antibiotics be used at all if the patient is not febrile and white blood cell count is not elevated after incision and drainage (Clin Infect Dis. 2014 Jul 15;59[2]:e10-52).

So what is the harm to longer courses of antibiotics? As I have written in this column recently, we have learned a lot about the importance of our gut microbiome. The resident flora of our gut modulates our immune system favorably. Disturbing our gut flora with antibiotics is potentially harmful because the antibiotics often kill many species of healthy gut flora and cause disequilibrium of the flora, resulting in diminished innate immunity responses. Shorter treatment courses with antibiotics cause less disturbance of the healthy gut flora.

The rest of the world cannot all be wrong and the United States all right regarding the duration of antibiotic treatment for common infections. Moreover, in an era of evidence-based medicine, it is necessary to make changes from tradition. The evidence is there to recommend that 5 days’ treatment become the standard for treatment with selected cephalosporins as approved by the FDA – for AOM, for sinusitis, for community-acquired pneumonia, and for skin and soft tissue infections.

Dr. Pichichero, a specialist in pediatric infectious diseases, is director of the Research Institute, Rochester (N.Y.) General Hospital. He is also a pediatrician at Legacy Pediatrics in Rochester. Dr. Pichichero said that he had no relevant financial disclosures. Email him at [email protected].

I was recently asked to evaluate a young child with a urinary tract infection caused by an extended spectrum beta-lactamase (ESBL)–producing Escherichia coli.

I’d just broken the bad news to the mother: There was no oral medication available to treat the baby, so she’d have to stay in the hospital for a full intravenous course.

“Has your child been treated with antibiotics recently?” I asked the mother, wondering how the baby had come to have such a resistant infection.

“She had a couple days of runny nose and a low-grade fever a couple of weeks ago,” she told me. “Her doctor treated her for a sinus infection.”

In 2011, doctors in outpatient settings across the United States wrote 262.5 million prescriptions for antibiotics – 73.7 million for children – and according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, about 50% of these were completely unnecessary because they were prescribed for viral respiratory tract infections (Clin Infect Dis. 2015 May 1;60[9]:1308-16).

Prescribing practices varied by region, with the highest rates in the South. Don’t think I’m judging. I live in Kentucky, the state with the highest rate of antibiotic prescribing at 1,281 prescriptions per 1,000 persons. Is it any wonder that we’re seeing kids with very resistant infections?

The CDC estimates that at least two million people in the United States are infected annually with antibiotic-resistant bacteria and at least 23,000 of them die as a result of these infections. It is estimated that prevention strategies that include better antibiotic prescribing could prevent as many as 619,000 infections and 37,000 deaths over 5 years. Fortunately, my little patient recovered fully, but it has made me think about antimicrobial stewardship, especially its role in the outpatient setting.

According the American Academy of Pediatrics, the goal of antimicrobial stewardship is “to optimize antimicrobial use, with the aim of decreasing inappropriate use that leads to unwarranted toxicity and to selection and spread of resistant organisms.”

Antimicrobial stewardship programs (ASPs) are increasingly common in inpatient settings and have been shown to reduce antibiotic use. These programs can take many forms. The hospital where I work relies primarily on clinical guidelines emphasizing appropriate empiric therapy for a variety of common conditions. Other hospitals employ prospective audit and feedback, as well as a restricted formulary. Medicare and Medicaid Conditions of Participation will soon require hospitals that receive funds from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services have an ASP.

Comparatively little has been published about ASPs in the outpatient setting. The American Academy of Pediatrics suggests that effective strategies include patient education, provider education, provider audit and feedback, and clinical decision support. We have at least some data that these work, at least in a research setting.

From 2000 to 2003, a controlled, cluster-randomized trial in 16 Massachusetts communities demonstrated that a 3-year, multifaceted, community-level intervention was “modestly successful” in reducing antibiotic use (Pediatrics. 2008 Jan;121[1]:e15-23). As a part of this intervention, parents received education via direct mail and in primary care settings, pharmacies, and child care centers while physicians received small-group education, frequent updates and educational materials, and prescribing feedback. Antibiotic prescribing was measured via health insurance claims data from all children who were 6 years of age or younger and resided in study communities, and were insured by one of four participating health plans. Coincident with the intervention, there was 4.2% decrease in antibiotic prescribing among children aged 24 to <48 months and a 6.7% decrease among those aged 48-72 months. The effect was greatest among Medicaid-insured children.

More recently, 18 primary care practices in Pennsylvania and New Jersey were randomized to an intervention that consisted of a 1-hour, on-site education session followed by 1 year of personalized, quarterly audit and feedback of prescribing for bacterial and viral acute respiratory tract infections (ARTIs), or usual practice (JAMA. 2013 Jun 12;309[22]:2345-52). The prescribing practices of 162 clinicians were included in the analysis.

Broad spectrum–antibiotic prescribing decreased in intervention practices, compared with controls (26.8% to 14.3% among intervention practices vs. 28.4% to 22.6% in controls), as did “off-guideline” prescribing for pneumonia and acute sinusitis. Antibiotic prescribing for viral infections was relatively low at baseline and did not change. The authors concluded that “extending antimicrobial stewardship to the ambulatory setting, where such programs have generally not been implemented, may have important health benefits.” Unfortunately, the positive effect in these practices was not sustained after the audit and feedback stopped (JAMA. 2014 Dec 17;312[23]:2569-70).

Not all antimicrobial stewardship interventions need to be time- and resource-intensive. Investigators in California found that providers who publicly pledged to reducing inappropriate antibiotic use for ARTIs by signing and posting a commitment letter in exam rooms actually prescribed fewer inappropriate antibiotic courses for their adult patients (JAMA Intern Med. 2014 Mar;174[3]:425-31).

“When you have a cough, sore throat, or other illness, your doctor will help you select the best possible treatments. If an antibiotic would do more harm than good, your doctor will explain this to you, and may offer other treatments that are better for you,” the letter read in part. There was a 19.7 absolute percentage reduction in inappropriate antibiotic prescribing for ARTIs among clinicians randomized to the commitment letter invention relative to controls.

Can antimicrobial strategies work in the “real” world, in a busy pediatrician’s office? According to Dr. Patricia Purcell, a physician with East Louisville Pediatrics in Louisville, Ky., the answer is “yes.”

“We actually start with education in the newborn period,” Dr. Purcell said. “We let parents know that we are not going to call in antibiotics over the phone, and we’re not going to prescribe them for an upper respiratory tract infection.”

Dr. Purcell and her partners have committed to following evidence-based guidelines for antibiotic practices, such as the AAP’s guidelines for otitis media and sinusitis. She also noted that at least one major insurance company is starting to provide the group feedback about their antibiotic-prescribing practices. “They want to make sure we are not prescribing antibiotics for viruses,” she said.

Still, the message that antibiotics are not always the answer can be a bitter pill for some parents to swallow. A pediatrician friend in Alabama notes: “I have these conversations every day, and a lot of parents are mad at me for not prescribing antibiotics for their child’s ‘terrible cold.’” Another friend notes that watchful waiting can be a burden for parents who have high copays or difficulties with transportation.

Still, many parents would welcome a frank discussion about the risks and benefits of antibiotics. After I shared some of the CDC information for parents with a nursing colleague, she told me that her daughter recently had a febrile illness and was diagnosed with otitis media. “I don’t like giving my kids meds they don’t need,” she told me. “However, if the doc says they need antibiotics and they prescribe them, I give them. I never say, ‘Do we really need antibiotics for that?’”

Now she is rethinking that approach. “Was 10 days of amoxicillin necessary for a ‘red’ eardrum?! I’m just a mom. ... I don’t know the answer to that! Was her ear red because she had been crying or because of her fever? Did she get ‘treatment’ she did not need? Did the doctor give me antibiotics without education because she assumed that is why I brought her in?”

This year’s “Get Smart About Antibiotics Week” was Nov. 16-22. This annual 1-week observance is intended to raise awareness of the threat of antibiotic resistance and the importance of appropriate prescribing and use. Kudos if you celebrated this in your office. If you missed it, it’s not too late to check out some of the activities suggested by the CDC, and try one or two in your own practice. Email me with your ideas about stewardship in the outpatient setting, and I’ll try to feature at least some of them in a future column.

Dr. Bryant is a pediatrician specializing in infectious diseases at the University of Louisville (Ky.) and Kosair Children’s Hospital, also in Louisville. Dr. Bryant disclosed that she has been an investigator for clinical trials funded by Pfizer for the past 2 years. Email her at [email protected].

I was recently asked to evaluate a young child with a urinary tract infection caused by an extended spectrum beta-lactamase (ESBL)–producing Escherichia coli.

I’d just broken the bad news to the mother: There was no oral medication available to treat the baby, so she’d have to stay in the hospital for a full intravenous course.

“Has your child been treated with antibiotics recently?” I asked the mother, wondering how the baby had come to have such a resistant infection.

“She had a couple days of runny nose and a low-grade fever a couple of weeks ago,” she told me. “Her doctor treated her for a sinus infection.”

In 2011, doctors in outpatient settings across the United States wrote 262.5 million prescriptions for antibiotics – 73.7 million for children – and according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, about 50% of these were completely unnecessary because they were prescribed for viral respiratory tract infections (Clin Infect Dis. 2015 May 1;60[9]:1308-16).

Prescribing practices varied by region, with the highest rates in the South. Don’t think I’m judging. I live in Kentucky, the state with the highest rate of antibiotic prescribing at 1,281 prescriptions per 1,000 persons. Is it any wonder that we’re seeing kids with very resistant infections?

The CDC estimates that at least two million people in the United States are infected annually with antibiotic-resistant bacteria and at least 23,000 of them die as a result of these infections. It is estimated that prevention strategies that include better antibiotic prescribing could prevent as many as 619,000 infections and 37,000 deaths over 5 years. Fortunately, my little patient recovered fully, but it has made me think about antimicrobial stewardship, especially its role in the outpatient setting.

According the American Academy of Pediatrics, the goal of antimicrobial stewardship is “to optimize antimicrobial use, with the aim of decreasing inappropriate use that leads to unwarranted toxicity and to selection and spread of resistant organisms.”

Antimicrobial stewardship programs (ASPs) are increasingly common in inpatient settings and have been shown to reduce antibiotic use. These programs can take many forms. The hospital where I work relies primarily on clinical guidelines emphasizing appropriate empiric therapy for a variety of common conditions. Other hospitals employ prospective audit and feedback, as well as a restricted formulary. Medicare and Medicaid Conditions of Participation will soon require hospitals that receive funds from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services have an ASP.

Comparatively little has been published about ASPs in the outpatient setting. The American Academy of Pediatrics suggests that effective strategies include patient education, provider education, provider audit and feedback, and clinical decision support. We have at least some data that these work, at least in a research setting.

From 2000 to 2003, a controlled, cluster-randomized trial in 16 Massachusetts communities demonstrated that a 3-year, multifaceted, community-level intervention was “modestly successful” in reducing antibiotic use (Pediatrics. 2008 Jan;121[1]:e15-23). As a part of this intervention, parents received education via direct mail and in primary care settings, pharmacies, and child care centers while physicians received small-group education, frequent updates and educational materials, and prescribing feedback. Antibiotic prescribing was measured via health insurance claims data from all children who were 6 years of age or younger and resided in study communities, and were insured by one of four participating health plans. Coincident with the intervention, there was 4.2% decrease in antibiotic prescribing among children aged 24 to <48 months and a 6.7% decrease among those aged 48-72 months. The effect was greatest among Medicaid-insured children.

More recently, 18 primary care practices in Pennsylvania and New Jersey were randomized to an intervention that consisted of a 1-hour, on-site education session followed by 1 year of personalized, quarterly audit and feedback of prescribing for bacterial and viral acute respiratory tract infections (ARTIs), or usual practice (JAMA. 2013 Jun 12;309[22]:2345-52). The prescribing practices of 162 clinicians were included in the analysis.

Broad spectrum–antibiotic prescribing decreased in intervention practices, compared with controls (26.8% to 14.3% among intervention practices vs. 28.4% to 22.6% in controls), as did “off-guideline” prescribing for pneumonia and acute sinusitis. Antibiotic prescribing for viral infections was relatively low at baseline and did not change. The authors concluded that “extending antimicrobial stewardship to the ambulatory setting, where such programs have generally not been implemented, may have important health benefits.” Unfortunately, the positive effect in these practices was not sustained after the audit and feedback stopped (JAMA. 2014 Dec 17;312[23]:2569-70).

Not all antimicrobial stewardship interventions need to be time- and resource-intensive. Investigators in California found that providers who publicly pledged to reducing inappropriate antibiotic use for ARTIs by signing and posting a commitment letter in exam rooms actually prescribed fewer inappropriate antibiotic courses for their adult patients (JAMA Intern Med. 2014 Mar;174[3]:425-31).

“When you have a cough, sore throat, or other illness, your doctor will help you select the best possible treatments. If an antibiotic would do more harm than good, your doctor will explain this to you, and may offer other treatments that are better for you,” the letter read in part. There was a 19.7 absolute percentage reduction in inappropriate antibiotic prescribing for ARTIs among clinicians randomized to the commitment letter invention relative to controls.

Can antimicrobial strategies work in the “real” world, in a busy pediatrician’s office? According to Dr. Patricia Purcell, a physician with East Louisville Pediatrics in Louisville, Ky., the answer is “yes.”

“We actually start with education in the newborn period,” Dr. Purcell said. “We let parents know that we are not going to call in antibiotics over the phone, and we’re not going to prescribe them for an upper respiratory tract infection.”

Dr. Purcell and her partners have committed to following evidence-based guidelines for antibiotic practices, such as the AAP’s guidelines for otitis media and sinusitis. She also noted that at least one major insurance company is starting to provide the group feedback about their antibiotic-prescribing practices. “They want to make sure we are not prescribing antibiotics for viruses,” she said.

Still, the message that antibiotics are not always the answer can be a bitter pill for some parents to swallow. A pediatrician friend in Alabama notes: “I have these conversations every day, and a lot of parents are mad at me for not prescribing antibiotics for their child’s ‘terrible cold.’” Another friend notes that watchful waiting can be a burden for parents who have high copays or difficulties with transportation.

Still, many parents would welcome a frank discussion about the risks and benefits of antibiotics. After I shared some of the CDC information for parents with a nursing colleague, she told me that her daughter recently had a febrile illness and was diagnosed with otitis media. “I don’t like giving my kids meds they don’t need,” she told me. “However, if the doc says they need antibiotics and they prescribe them, I give them. I never say, ‘Do we really need antibiotics for that?’”

Now she is rethinking that approach. “Was 10 days of amoxicillin necessary for a ‘red’ eardrum?! I’m just a mom. ... I don’t know the answer to that! Was her ear red because she had been crying or because of her fever? Did she get ‘treatment’ she did not need? Did the doctor give me antibiotics without education because she assumed that is why I brought her in?”

This year’s “Get Smart About Antibiotics Week” was Nov. 16-22. This annual 1-week observance is intended to raise awareness of the threat of antibiotic resistance and the importance of appropriate prescribing and use. Kudos if you celebrated this in your office. If you missed it, it’s not too late to check out some of the activities suggested by the CDC, and try one or two in your own practice. Email me with your ideas about stewardship in the outpatient setting, and I’ll try to feature at least some of them in a future column.

Dr. Bryant is a pediatrician specializing in infectious diseases at the University of Louisville (Ky.) and Kosair Children’s Hospital, also in Louisville. Dr. Bryant disclosed that she has been an investigator for clinical trials funded by Pfizer for the past 2 years. Email her at [email protected].

I was recently asked to evaluate a young child with a urinary tract infection caused by an extended spectrum beta-lactamase (ESBL)–producing Escherichia coli.

I’d just broken the bad news to the mother: There was no oral medication available to treat the baby, so she’d have to stay in the hospital for a full intravenous course.

“Has your child been treated with antibiotics recently?” I asked the mother, wondering how the baby had come to have such a resistant infection.

“She had a couple days of runny nose and a low-grade fever a couple of weeks ago,” she told me. “Her doctor treated her for a sinus infection.”

In 2011, doctors in outpatient settings across the United States wrote 262.5 million prescriptions for antibiotics – 73.7 million for children – and according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, about 50% of these were completely unnecessary because they were prescribed for viral respiratory tract infections (Clin Infect Dis. 2015 May 1;60[9]:1308-16).

Prescribing practices varied by region, with the highest rates in the South. Don’t think I’m judging. I live in Kentucky, the state with the highest rate of antibiotic prescribing at 1,281 prescriptions per 1,000 persons. Is it any wonder that we’re seeing kids with very resistant infections?

The CDC estimates that at least two million people in the United States are infected annually with antibiotic-resistant bacteria and at least 23,000 of them die as a result of these infections. It is estimated that prevention strategies that include better antibiotic prescribing could prevent as many as 619,000 infections and 37,000 deaths over 5 years. Fortunately, my little patient recovered fully, but it has made me think about antimicrobial stewardship, especially its role in the outpatient setting.

According the American Academy of Pediatrics, the goal of antimicrobial stewardship is “to optimize antimicrobial use, with the aim of decreasing inappropriate use that leads to unwarranted toxicity and to selection and spread of resistant organisms.”

Antimicrobial stewardship programs (ASPs) are increasingly common in inpatient settings and have been shown to reduce antibiotic use. These programs can take many forms. The hospital where I work relies primarily on clinical guidelines emphasizing appropriate empiric therapy for a variety of common conditions. Other hospitals employ prospective audit and feedback, as well as a restricted formulary. Medicare and Medicaid Conditions of Participation will soon require hospitals that receive funds from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services have an ASP.

Comparatively little has been published about ASPs in the outpatient setting. The American Academy of Pediatrics suggests that effective strategies include patient education, provider education, provider audit and feedback, and clinical decision support. We have at least some data that these work, at least in a research setting.

From 2000 to 2003, a controlled, cluster-randomized trial in 16 Massachusetts communities demonstrated that a 3-year, multifaceted, community-level intervention was “modestly successful” in reducing antibiotic use (Pediatrics. 2008 Jan;121[1]:e15-23). As a part of this intervention, parents received education via direct mail and in primary care settings, pharmacies, and child care centers while physicians received small-group education, frequent updates and educational materials, and prescribing feedback. Antibiotic prescribing was measured via health insurance claims data from all children who were 6 years of age or younger and resided in study communities, and were insured by one of four participating health plans. Coincident with the intervention, there was 4.2% decrease in antibiotic prescribing among children aged 24 to <48 months and a 6.7% decrease among those aged 48-72 months. The effect was greatest among Medicaid-insured children.

More recently, 18 primary care practices in Pennsylvania and New Jersey were randomized to an intervention that consisted of a 1-hour, on-site education session followed by 1 year of personalized, quarterly audit and feedback of prescribing for bacterial and viral acute respiratory tract infections (ARTIs), or usual practice (JAMA. 2013 Jun 12;309[22]:2345-52). The prescribing practices of 162 clinicians were included in the analysis.

Broad spectrum–antibiotic prescribing decreased in intervention practices, compared with controls (26.8% to 14.3% among intervention practices vs. 28.4% to 22.6% in controls), as did “off-guideline” prescribing for pneumonia and acute sinusitis. Antibiotic prescribing for viral infections was relatively low at baseline and did not change. The authors concluded that “extending antimicrobial stewardship to the ambulatory setting, where such programs have generally not been implemented, may have important health benefits.” Unfortunately, the positive effect in these practices was not sustained after the audit and feedback stopped (JAMA. 2014 Dec 17;312[23]:2569-70).

Not all antimicrobial stewardship interventions need to be time- and resource-intensive. Investigators in California found that providers who publicly pledged to reducing inappropriate antibiotic use for ARTIs by signing and posting a commitment letter in exam rooms actually prescribed fewer inappropriate antibiotic courses for their adult patients (JAMA Intern Med. 2014 Mar;174[3]:425-31).

“When you have a cough, sore throat, or other illness, your doctor will help you select the best possible treatments. If an antibiotic would do more harm than good, your doctor will explain this to you, and may offer other treatments that are better for you,” the letter read in part. There was a 19.7 absolute percentage reduction in inappropriate antibiotic prescribing for ARTIs among clinicians randomized to the commitment letter invention relative to controls.

Can antimicrobial strategies work in the “real” world, in a busy pediatrician’s office? According to Dr. Patricia Purcell, a physician with East Louisville Pediatrics in Louisville, Ky., the answer is “yes.”

“We actually start with education in the newborn period,” Dr. Purcell said. “We let parents know that we are not going to call in antibiotics over the phone, and we’re not going to prescribe them for an upper respiratory tract infection.”

Dr. Purcell and her partners have committed to following evidence-based guidelines for antibiotic practices, such as the AAP’s guidelines for otitis media and sinusitis. She also noted that at least one major insurance company is starting to provide the group feedback about their antibiotic-prescribing practices. “They want to make sure we are not prescribing antibiotics for viruses,” she said.

Still, the message that antibiotics are not always the answer can be a bitter pill for some parents to swallow. A pediatrician friend in Alabama notes: “I have these conversations every day, and a lot of parents are mad at me for not prescribing antibiotics for their child’s ‘terrible cold.’” Another friend notes that watchful waiting can be a burden for parents who have high copays or difficulties with transportation.

Still, many parents would welcome a frank discussion about the risks and benefits of antibiotics. After I shared some of the CDC information for parents with a nursing colleague, she told me that her daughter recently had a febrile illness and was diagnosed with otitis media. “I don’t like giving my kids meds they don’t need,” she told me. “However, if the doc says they need antibiotics and they prescribe them, I give them. I never say, ‘Do we really need antibiotics for that?’”

Now she is rethinking that approach. “Was 10 days of amoxicillin necessary for a ‘red’ eardrum?! I’m just a mom. ... I don’t know the answer to that! Was her ear red because she had been crying or because of her fever? Did she get ‘treatment’ she did not need? Did the doctor give me antibiotics without education because she assumed that is why I brought her in?”

This year’s “Get Smart About Antibiotics Week” was Nov. 16-22. This annual 1-week observance is intended to raise awareness of the threat of antibiotic resistance and the importance of appropriate prescribing and use. Kudos if you celebrated this in your office. If you missed it, it’s not too late to check out some of the activities suggested by the CDC, and try one or two in your own practice. Email me with your ideas about stewardship in the outpatient setting, and I’ll try to feature at least some of them in a future column.

Dr. Bryant is a pediatrician specializing in infectious diseases at the University of Louisville (Ky.) and Kosair Children’s Hospital, also in Louisville. Dr. Bryant disclosed that she has been an investigator for clinical trials funded by Pfizer for the past 2 years. Email her at [email protected].

Streptococcus pneumoniae is the most common bacterial cause of pneumonia, sinusitis, and acute otitis media (AOM). It also causes invasive pneumococcal disease (IPD), such as bacteremia and meningitis, and it is the leading cause of vaccine-preventable death in children younger than 5 years of age. Pneumococcal conjugate vaccines (PCVs) are effective in infants and young children against IPD, non-IPD, and the acquisition of vaccine serotype nasopharyngeal carriage (contagion). PCV7 was licensed and introduced in 2000 on a schedule that matched the schedule of other routine infant immunizations of three primary doses at 2, 4, and 6 months, and a booster at 12-15 months. Later in 2010, PCV13 was licensed on that same “3+1” schedule. Different pneumococcal vaccination schedules are recommended across Europe and other countries, after consideration of the epidemiology, disease burden, immunogenicity of the vaccine, its compatibility with other vaccines, and its cost. The World Health Organization recently updated its PCV policy to support the use of three doses on either 3+0 or 2+1 schedules. Most European countries have adopted the 2+1 schedule used for routine infant immunizations.

In light of the escalating costs of providing current vaccines, and the anticipated need for additional vaccines, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) has convened a working group to evaluate the transition from a 3+1 to a 2+1 schedule for PCV administration to infants and children. This is not a trivial decision. In the United States, cost must be considered in the context of an additional focus on non-IPD disease prevention, especially AOM, where serotypes and immune protection levels differ from IPD. A 2+1 schedule may be effective to prevent IPD, compared with a 3+1 schedule, but its impact on non-IPD may be compromised, especially for AOM, for some serotypes of pneumococci, and for control of nasopharyngeal carriage.

Immunogenicity studies show that antibody responses from a vaccine regimen consisting of two doses in the primary series are less immunogenic, compared with those for a three-dose regimen, yet both regimens are effective for the prevention of IPD. Immunogenicity data that support the use of reduced-dose schedules for most, but not all, vaccine serotypes, were based on IPD. The degree to which higher antibody concentrations are important for protecting against nonbacteremic pneumonia, sinusitis, and AOM, and for preventing nasopharyngeal carriage, is not established.

However, clinical outcomes since the introduction of PCVs indicate that the true threshold will vary by serotype and host and disease condition, with higher concentrations required for certain serotypes, in immunologically less mature hosts, and in mucosal infections like nonbacteremic pneumonia, sinusitis, and AOM, compared with IPD. Also, higher IgG levels clearly are important in protecting against nasopharyngeal colonization, thereby conferring herd immunity, prolonging individual protection, and possibly correlating at the individual level with disease protection. Studies that evaluated the correlation of antibody concentration and protection against nasopharyngeal colonization have shown that a greater than 10-fold higher antibody concentration is needed, compared with levels in blood, to protect against IPD. Similarly protection against AOM require higher levels of antibody than are needed to protect against IPD, as evidenced by the lower efficacy of PCVs against AOM, compared with IPD.

Epidemiology and risk factors differ among countries of the world. Therefore, even among developed countries, there is a need for caution in accepting that what works in one country will work as well in another. For example, attendance at day care is the highest risk factor for both IPD and non-IPD. In the United States, we have many types of day care, including relatively large day care centers, and many infants enter day care at 2 months of age. In other developed countries, the size of day care centers is much smaller, and children may not enter day care until 1 or even 2 years of age. Those differences may have implications for protective efficacy with a reduced-dose vaccine schedule.

Siblings under the age of 8 years are also at significant risk. Again, the family size may differ among developed countries. Breastfeeding is protective for pneumococcal infections. Breastfeeding duration may differ among countries. The theme of this concern is apparent: Even evidence of adequate protection with a reduced-dose schedule in Finland, France, Germany, the United Kingdom, or elsewhere should not be interpreted to be completely applicable to the United States.

Whether reduced-dose schedules can provide equivalent protection against vaccine type IPD equivalent to a 3+1 schedule for all serotypes and for non-IPD when introduced into a national immunization program is unclear. Do we have enough data to inform the decision process, and specifically do we have a clear understanding of the full impact of reduced-dose schedules on non-IPD relative to 3+1? How would you vote?

Dr. Pichichero, a specialist in pediatric infectious diseases, is director of the Research Institute, Rochester (N.Y.) General Hospital. He is also a pediatrician at Legacy Pediatrics in Rochester. Pfizer, which makes PCV vaccine, has funded an investigator-initiated grant and a postmarketing study to Dr. Pichichero’s institution, and he is the primary investigator of both grants.

Streptococcus pneumoniae is the most common bacterial cause of pneumonia, sinusitis, and acute otitis media (AOM). It also causes invasive pneumococcal disease (IPD), such as bacteremia and meningitis, and it is the leading cause of vaccine-preventable death in children younger than 5 years of age. Pneumococcal conjugate vaccines (PCVs) are effective in infants and young children against IPD, non-IPD, and the acquisition of vaccine serotype nasopharyngeal carriage (contagion). PCV7 was licensed and introduced in 2000 on a schedule that matched the schedule of other routine infant immunizations of three primary doses at 2, 4, and 6 months, and a booster at 12-15 months. Later in 2010, PCV13 was licensed on that same “3+1” schedule. Different pneumococcal vaccination schedules are recommended across Europe and other countries, after consideration of the epidemiology, disease burden, immunogenicity of the vaccine, its compatibility with other vaccines, and its cost. The World Health Organization recently updated its PCV policy to support the use of three doses on either 3+0 or 2+1 schedules. Most European countries have adopted the 2+1 schedule used for routine infant immunizations.

In light of the escalating costs of providing current vaccines, and the anticipated need for additional vaccines, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) has convened a working group to evaluate the transition from a 3+1 to a 2+1 schedule for PCV administration to infants and children. This is not a trivial decision. In the United States, cost must be considered in the context of an additional focus on non-IPD disease prevention, especially AOM, where serotypes and immune protection levels differ from IPD. A 2+1 schedule may be effective to prevent IPD, compared with a 3+1 schedule, but its impact on non-IPD may be compromised, especially for AOM, for some serotypes of pneumococci, and for control of nasopharyngeal carriage.

Immunogenicity studies show that antibody responses from a vaccine regimen consisting of two doses in the primary series are less immunogenic, compared with those for a three-dose regimen, yet both regimens are effective for the prevention of IPD. Immunogenicity data that support the use of reduced-dose schedules for most, but not all, vaccine serotypes, were based on IPD. The degree to which higher antibody concentrations are important for protecting against nonbacteremic pneumonia, sinusitis, and AOM, and for preventing nasopharyngeal carriage, is not established.

However, clinical outcomes since the introduction of PCVs indicate that the true threshold will vary by serotype and host and disease condition, with higher concentrations required for certain serotypes, in immunologically less mature hosts, and in mucosal infections like nonbacteremic pneumonia, sinusitis, and AOM, compared with IPD. Also, higher IgG levels clearly are important in protecting against nasopharyngeal colonization, thereby conferring herd immunity, prolonging individual protection, and possibly correlating at the individual level with disease protection. Studies that evaluated the correlation of antibody concentration and protection against nasopharyngeal colonization have shown that a greater than 10-fold higher antibody concentration is needed, compared with levels in blood, to protect against IPD. Similarly protection against AOM require higher levels of antibody than are needed to protect against IPD, as evidenced by the lower efficacy of PCVs against AOM, compared with IPD.

Epidemiology and risk factors differ among countries of the world. Therefore, even among developed countries, there is a need for caution in accepting that what works in one country will work as well in another. For example, attendance at day care is the highest risk factor for both IPD and non-IPD. In the United States, we have many types of day care, including relatively large day care centers, and many infants enter day care at 2 months of age. In other developed countries, the size of day care centers is much smaller, and children may not enter day care until 1 or even 2 years of age. Those differences may have implications for protective efficacy with a reduced-dose vaccine schedule.

Siblings under the age of 8 years are also at significant risk. Again, the family size may differ among developed countries. Breastfeeding is protective for pneumococcal infections. Breastfeeding duration may differ among countries. The theme of this concern is apparent: Even evidence of adequate protection with a reduced-dose schedule in Finland, France, Germany, the United Kingdom, or elsewhere should not be interpreted to be completely applicable to the United States.

Whether reduced-dose schedules can provide equivalent protection against vaccine type IPD equivalent to a 3+1 schedule for all serotypes and for non-IPD when introduced into a national immunization program is unclear. Do we have enough data to inform the decision process, and specifically do we have a clear understanding of the full impact of reduced-dose schedules on non-IPD relative to 3+1? How would you vote?

Dr. Pichichero, a specialist in pediatric infectious diseases, is director of the Research Institute, Rochester (N.Y.) General Hospital. He is also a pediatrician at Legacy Pediatrics in Rochester. Pfizer, which makes PCV vaccine, has funded an investigator-initiated grant and a postmarketing study to Dr. Pichichero’s institution, and he is the primary investigator of both grants.

Streptococcus pneumoniae is the most common bacterial cause of pneumonia, sinusitis, and acute otitis media (AOM). It also causes invasive pneumococcal disease (IPD), such as bacteremia and meningitis, and it is the leading cause of vaccine-preventable death in children younger than 5 years of age. Pneumococcal conjugate vaccines (PCVs) are effective in infants and young children against IPD, non-IPD, and the acquisition of vaccine serotype nasopharyngeal carriage (contagion). PCV7 was licensed and introduced in 2000 on a schedule that matched the schedule of other routine infant immunizations of three primary doses at 2, 4, and 6 months, and a booster at 12-15 months. Later in 2010, PCV13 was licensed on that same “3+1” schedule. Different pneumococcal vaccination schedules are recommended across Europe and other countries, after consideration of the epidemiology, disease burden, immunogenicity of the vaccine, its compatibility with other vaccines, and its cost. The World Health Organization recently updated its PCV policy to support the use of three doses on either 3+0 or 2+1 schedules. Most European countries have adopted the 2+1 schedule used for routine infant immunizations.

In light of the escalating costs of providing current vaccines, and the anticipated need for additional vaccines, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) has convened a working group to evaluate the transition from a 3+1 to a 2+1 schedule for PCV administration to infants and children. This is not a trivial decision. In the United States, cost must be considered in the context of an additional focus on non-IPD disease prevention, especially AOM, where serotypes and immune protection levels differ from IPD. A 2+1 schedule may be effective to prevent IPD, compared with a 3+1 schedule, but its impact on non-IPD may be compromised, especially for AOM, for some serotypes of pneumococci, and for control of nasopharyngeal carriage.

Immunogenicity studies show that antibody responses from a vaccine regimen consisting of two doses in the primary series are less immunogenic, compared with those for a three-dose regimen, yet both regimens are effective for the prevention of IPD. Immunogenicity data that support the use of reduced-dose schedules for most, but not all, vaccine serotypes, were based on IPD. The degree to which higher antibody concentrations are important for protecting against nonbacteremic pneumonia, sinusitis, and AOM, and for preventing nasopharyngeal carriage, is not established.

However, clinical outcomes since the introduction of PCVs indicate that the true threshold will vary by serotype and host and disease condition, with higher concentrations required for certain serotypes, in immunologically less mature hosts, and in mucosal infections like nonbacteremic pneumonia, sinusitis, and AOM, compared with IPD. Also, higher IgG levels clearly are important in protecting against nasopharyngeal colonization, thereby conferring herd immunity, prolonging individual protection, and possibly correlating at the individual level with disease protection. Studies that evaluated the correlation of antibody concentration and protection against nasopharyngeal colonization have shown that a greater than 10-fold higher antibody concentration is needed, compared with levels in blood, to protect against IPD. Similarly protection against AOM require higher levels of antibody than are needed to protect against IPD, as evidenced by the lower efficacy of PCVs against AOM, compared with IPD.

Epidemiology and risk factors differ among countries of the world. Therefore, even among developed countries, there is a need for caution in accepting that what works in one country will work as well in another. For example, attendance at day care is the highest risk factor for both IPD and non-IPD. In the United States, we have many types of day care, including relatively large day care centers, and many infants enter day care at 2 months of age. In other developed countries, the size of day care centers is much smaller, and children may not enter day care until 1 or even 2 years of age. Those differences may have implications for protective efficacy with a reduced-dose vaccine schedule.

Siblings under the age of 8 years are also at significant risk. Again, the family size may differ among developed countries. Breastfeeding is protective for pneumococcal infections. Breastfeeding duration may differ among countries. The theme of this concern is apparent: Even evidence of adequate protection with a reduced-dose schedule in Finland, France, Germany, the United Kingdom, or elsewhere should not be interpreted to be completely applicable to the United States.

Whether reduced-dose schedules can provide equivalent protection against vaccine type IPD equivalent to a 3+1 schedule for all serotypes and for non-IPD when introduced into a national immunization program is unclear. Do we have enough data to inform the decision process, and specifically do we have a clear understanding of the full impact of reduced-dose schedules on non-IPD relative to 3+1? How would you vote?

Dr. Pichichero, a specialist in pediatric infectious diseases, is director of the Research Institute, Rochester (N.Y.) General Hospital. He is also a pediatrician at Legacy Pediatrics in Rochester. Pfizer, which makes PCV vaccine, has funded an investigator-initiated grant and a postmarketing study to Dr. Pichichero’s institution, and he is the primary investigator of both grants.

Not a long ago, I received a call from a friend working in a local pediatric clinic. One of her partners had just seen a young child with an unusual rash. The diagnosis? Crusted scabies.

Sarcoptes scabiei var. hominis, the mite that causes typical scabies, also causes crusted or Norwegian scabies. These terms refer to severe infestations that occur in individuals who are immune compromised or debilitated. The rash is characterized by vesicles and thick crusts and may or may not be itchy. Because patients with crusted scabies can be infested with as many as 2 million mites, transmission from very brief skin-to-skin contact is possible, and outbreaks have occurred in health care facilities and other institutional settings.

That was the reason for my friend’s call. “What do we do for the doctors and nurses in the clinic who saw the patient?” she wanted to know.

“Everyone wore gloves, right?” I asked. There was silence on the other end of the phone.

After a quick consultation with our health department, every health care provider (HCP) who touched the patient without gloves was treated preemptively with topical permethrin. None went on to develop scabies. The experience prompted me to think about the challenges of infection prevention in ambulatory care.

Both the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP Committee on Infectious Diseases, “Infection prevention and control in pediatric ambulatory settings,” Pediatrics 2007;20[3]:650-65) and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (Guide to Infection Prevention for Outpatient Settings: Minimum Expectations for Safe Care) have published recommendations for infection prevention in outpatient settings. Both organizations emphasize the importance of standard precautions. According to the CDC, standard precautions “are the minimum infection prevention practices that apply to all patient care, regardless of suspected or confirmed infection status of the patient, in any setting where health care is delivered.” They are designed to protect HCPs, as well as prevent us from spreading infections among patients. Standard precautions include:

• Hand hygiene.

• Use of personal protective equipment (gloves, gowns, masks).

• Safe injection practices.

• Safe handling of potentially contaminated equipment or surfaces in the patient environment.

• Respiratory hygiene/cough etiquette.

Some of these elements are likely second nature to office-based pediatricians. Hands must be cleaned before and after every patient encounter or an encounter with the patient’s immediate environment. “Cover your cough” signs have become ubiquitous in ambulatory care waiting rooms, even as we acknowledge the difficulties associated with expecting toddlers to wear masks or use a tissue to contain their coughs and sneezes.

Other elements of standard precautions may receive increased attention because the consequences of noncompliance are perceived to be dangerous or severe. For example, we know that failure to reliably employ safe injection practices (see table) has resulted in transmission of blood-borne pathogens, including hepatitis B and C, in ambulatory settings.

In my experience, the use of personal protective equipment (PPE) in the ambulatory setting is the element of standard precautions that is the least understood and perhaps the most underutilized. It’s certainly easier in the inpatient setting, where we use transmission-based precautions, and colorful isolation signs instruct us to put on gown and gloves when we visit the patient with viral gastroenteritis, or gown, gloves, and mask for the child with acute viral respiratory tract infection. In the office, we expect the HCP to anticipate what kind of contact with blood or body fluids is likely and choose PPE accordingly.

Of course, anticipation can be tricky. Gowns, for example, are only required during procedures or activities when contact with blood and body fluids is likely. In routine office-based care, these sorts of procedures are uncommon. Incision and drainage of an abscess is one example of a procedure that might warrant protection of one’s clothing with a gown. Conversely, the need for a mask might arise several times a day, as these are worn to protect the mouth, nose, and eyes “during procedures that are likely to generate splashes or sprays of blood or other body fluids.” Examination of a coughing patient is a common “procedure” likely to results in sprays of saliva. Use of a mask can protect the examiner from potential exposures to Bordetella pertussis, Mycoplasma pneumoniae, and a host of respiratory viruses.

While the AAP has been careful to point out that gloves are not needed for the routine care of well children, they should be used when “there is the potential to contact blood, body fluids, mucous membranes, nonintact skin, or potentially infectious material.” In our world, potentially infectious material might include a cluster of vesicles thought to be herpes simplex, the honey-crusted lesions of impetigo, or the weeping, crusted rash of Norwegian scabies.

My own office had a powerful reminder about the importance of standard precautions last year when we were referred a young infant with recurrent fevers and a mostly dry, peeling rash. As we learned in medical school, the mucocutanous lesions of congenital syphilis can be highly contagious. In accordance with AAP recommendations, all HCPs who examined this child without the protection of gloves underwent serologic testing for syphilis. Fortunately, there were no transmissions!

Published data about infectious disease exposures and the transmission of infectious diseases in the outpatient setting, either from patients to health care workers or among patients, are largely limited to outbreak or case reports. A 1991 review identified 53 reports of infectious disease transmission in outpatient settings between 1961 and 1990 (JAMA 1991;265(18): 2377-81). Transmission occurred in medical and dental offices, clinics, emergency departments, ophthalmology offices, and alternative care settings that included chiropractic clinics and an acupuncture practice. A variety of pathogens were involved, including measles, adenovirus, hepatitis B, atypical mycobacteria, and Streptococcus pyogenes. The authors concluded that many of the outbreaks and episodes of transmission could have been prevented “if existing infection control guidelines,” including what we now consider standard precautions, had been utilized. Many reports published in the intervening 25 years have come to similar conclusions.

So why don’t HCPs yet follow standard precautions, including appropriate use of PPE? The reasons are complex and multifactorial. We’re all busy and lack of time is a common complaint. Gowns, gloves, masks, and alcohol hand gel aren’t always readily available. Some HCPs may not be knowledgeable about the elements of standard precautions while others may not understand the risks to themselves and their patients associated with nonadherence. Finally, some organizations have not established clear expectations related to infection prevention and compliance with AAP and CDC recommendations.

Several years ago, at the very beginning of the H1N1 influenza epidemic, a colleague of mine working in a pediatric practice saw a patient complaining of fever, lethargy, and myalgia. Not surprisingly, the patient’s rapid influenza test was positive. My colleague recalls that she was handed the result before she ever walked into the room – without any PPE – to see the patient.

“This was different than my usual routine at the hospital,” she told me. The expectation at the hospital was gown, gloves, and masks for any patient with influenza or influenzalike illness. At the office though, there was no such expectation, and providers did not routinely wear masks, even when seeing patients with respiratory symptoms. My colleague wasn’t reckless or rebellious. She was simply conforming to the culture in that office, and following the behavioral cues of more senior physicians in the practice. Subsequently, she developed severe influenza infection requiring a prolonged hospital stay.

It’s time to change the culture. As a first step, perform a quick audit in the office, using the AAP’s “Infection prevention and control in pediatric ambulatory settings” as a guide.

Dr. Bryant is a pediatrician specializing in infectious diseases at the University of Louisville (Ky.) and Kosair Children’s Hospital, also in Louisville. She had no relevant financial disclosures.

Not a long ago, I received a call from a friend working in a local pediatric clinic. One of her partners had just seen a young child with an unusual rash. The diagnosis? Crusted scabies.

Sarcoptes scabiei var. hominis, the mite that causes typical scabies, also causes crusted or Norwegian scabies. These terms refer to severe infestations that occur in individuals who are immune compromised or debilitated. The rash is characterized by vesicles and thick crusts and may or may not be itchy. Because patients with crusted scabies can be infested with as many as 2 million mites, transmission from very brief skin-to-skin contact is possible, and outbreaks have occurred in health care facilities and other institutional settings.

That was the reason for my friend’s call. “What do we do for the doctors and nurses in the clinic who saw the patient?” she wanted to know.

“Everyone wore gloves, right?” I asked. There was silence on the other end of the phone.

After a quick consultation with our health department, every health care provider (HCP) who touched the patient without gloves was treated preemptively with topical permethrin. None went on to develop scabies. The experience prompted me to think about the challenges of infection prevention in ambulatory care.

Both the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP Committee on Infectious Diseases, “Infection prevention and control in pediatric ambulatory settings,” Pediatrics 2007;20[3]:650-65) and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (Guide to Infection Prevention for Outpatient Settings: Minimum Expectations for Safe Care) have published recommendations for infection prevention in outpatient settings. Both organizations emphasize the importance of standard precautions. According to the CDC, standard precautions “are the minimum infection prevention practices that apply to all patient care, regardless of suspected or confirmed infection status of the patient, in any setting where health care is delivered.” They are designed to protect HCPs, as well as prevent us from spreading infections among patients. Standard precautions include:

• Hand hygiene.

• Use of personal protective equipment (gloves, gowns, masks).

• Safe injection practices.

• Safe handling of potentially contaminated equipment or surfaces in the patient environment.

• Respiratory hygiene/cough etiquette.

Some of these elements are likely second nature to office-based pediatricians. Hands must be cleaned before and after every patient encounter or an encounter with the patient’s immediate environment. “Cover your cough” signs have become ubiquitous in ambulatory care waiting rooms, even as we acknowledge the difficulties associated with expecting toddlers to wear masks or use a tissue to contain their coughs and sneezes.

Other elements of standard precautions may receive increased attention because the consequences of noncompliance are perceived to be dangerous or severe. For example, we know that failure to reliably employ safe injection practices (see table) has resulted in transmission of blood-borne pathogens, including hepatitis B and C, in ambulatory settings.

In my experience, the use of personal protective equipment (PPE) in the ambulatory setting is the element of standard precautions that is the least understood and perhaps the most underutilized. It’s certainly easier in the inpatient setting, where we use transmission-based precautions, and colorful isolation signs instruct us to put on gown and gloves when we visit the patient with viral gastroenteritis, or gown, gloves, and mask for the child with acute viral respiratory tract infection. In the office, we expect the HCP to anticipate what kind of contact with blood or body fluids is likely and choose PPE accordingly.

Of course, anticipation can be tricky. Gowns, for example, are only required during procedures or activities when contact with blood and body fluids is likely. In routine office-based care, these sorts of procedures are uncommon. Incision and drainage of an abscess is one example of a procedure that might warrant protection of one’s clothing with a gown. Conversely, the need for a mask might arise several times a day, as these are worn to protect the mouth, nose, and eyes “during procedures that are likely to generate splashes or sprays of blood or other body fluids.” Examination of a coughing patient is a common “procedure” likely to results in sprays of saliva. Use of a mask can protect the examiner from potential exposures to Bordetella pertussis, Mycoplasma pneumoniae, and a host of respiratory viruses.

While the AAP has been careful to point out that gloves are not needed for the routine care of well children, they should be used when “there is the potential to contact blood, body fluids, mucous membranes, nonintact skin, or potentially infectious material.” In our world, potentially infectious material might include a cluster of vesicles thought to be herpes simplex, the honey-crusted lesions of impetigo, or the weeping, crusted rash of Norwegian scabies.

My own office had a powerful reminder about the importance of standard precautions last year when we were referred a young infant with recurrent fevers and a mostly dry, peeling rash. As we learned in medical school, the mucocutanous lesions of congenital syphilis can be highly contagious. In accordance with AAP recommendations, all HCPs who examined this child without the protection of gloves underwent serologic testing for syphilis. Fortunately, there were no transmissions!

Published data about infectious disease exposures and the transmission of infectious diseases in the outpatient setting, either from patients to health care workers or among patients, are largely limited to outbreak or case reports. A 1991 review identified 53 reports of infectious disease transmission in outpatient settings between 1961 and 1990 (JAMA 1991;265(18): 2377-81). Transmission occurred in medical and dental offices, clinics, emergency departments, ophthalmology offices, and alternative care settings that included chiropractic clinics and an acupuncture practice. A variety of pathogens were involved, including measles, adenovirus, hepatitis B, atypical mycobacteria, and Streptococcus pyogenes. The authors concluded that many of the outbreaks and episodes of transmission could have been prevented “if existing infection control guidelines,” including what we now consider standard precautions, had been utilized. Many reports published in the intervening 25 years have come to similar conclusions.

So why don’t HCPs yet follow standard precautions, including appropriate use of PPE? The reasons are complex and multifactorial. We’re all busy and lack of time is a common complaint. Gowns, gloves, masks, and alcohol hand gel aren’t always readily available. Some HCPs may not be knowledgeable about the elements of standard precautions while others may not understand the risks to themselves and their patients associated with nonadherence. Finally, some organizations have not established clear expectations related to infection prevention and compliance with AAP and CDC recommendations.

Several years ago, at the very beginning of the H1N1 influenza epidemic, a colleague of mine working in a pediatric practice saw a patient complaining of fever, lethargy, and myalgia. Not surprisingly, the patient’s rapid influenza test was positive. My colleague recalls that she was handed the result before she ever walked into the room – without any PPE – to see the patient.

“This was different than my usual routine at the hospital,” she told me. The expectation at the hospital was gown, gloves, and masks for any patient with influenza or influenzalike illness. At the office though, there was no such expectation, and providers did not routinely wear masks, even when seeing patients with respiratory symptoms. My colleague wasn’t reckless or rebellious. She was simply conforming to the culture in that office, and following the behavioral cues of more senior physicians in the practice. Subsequently, she developed severe influenza infection requiring a prolonged hospital stay.

It’s time to change the culture. As a first step, perform a quick audit in the office, using the AAP’s “Infection prevention and control in pediatric ambulatory settings” as a guide.

Dr. Bryant is a pediatrician specializing in infectious diseases at the University of Louisville (Ky.) and Kosair Children’s Hospital, also in Louisville. She had no relevant financial disclosures.

Not a long ago, I received a call from a friend working in a local pediatric clinic. One of her partners had just seen a young child with an unusual rash. The diagnosis? Crusted scabies.

Sarcoptes scabiei var. hominis, the mite that causes typical scabies, also causes crusted or Norwegian scabies. These terms refer to severe infestations that occur in individuals who are immune compromised or debilitated. The rash is characterized by vesicles and thick crusts and may or may not be itchy. Because patients with crusted scabies can be infested with as many as 2 million mites, transmission from very brief skin-to-skin contact is possible, and outbreaks have occurred in health care facilities and other institutional settings.

That was the reason for my friend’s call. “What do we do for the doctors and nurses in the clinic who saw the patient?” she wanted to know.

“Everyone wore gloves, right?” I asked. There was silence on the other end of the phone.

After a quick consultation with our health department, every health care provider (HCP) who touched the patient without gloves was treated preemptively with topical permethrin. None went on to develop scabies. The experience prompted me to think about the challenges of infection prevention in ambulatory care.

Both the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP Committee on Infectious Diseases, “Infection prevention and control in pediatric ambulatory settings,” Pediatrics 2007;20[3]:650-65) and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (Guide to Infection Prevention for Outpatient Settings: Minimum Expectations for Safe Care) have published recommendations for infection prevention in outpatient settings. Both organizations emphasize the importance of standard precautions. According to the CDC, standard precautions “are the minimum infection prevention practices that apply to all patient care, regardless of suspected or confirmed infection status of the patient, in any setting where health care is delivered.” They are designed to protect HCPs, as well as prevent us from spreading infections among patients. Standard precautions include:

• Hand hygiene.

• Use of personal protective equipment (gloves, gowns, masks).

• Safe injection practices.

• Safe handling of potentially contaminated equipment or surfaces in the patient environment.

• Respiratory hygiene/cough etiquette.

Some of these elements are likely second nature to office-based pediatricians. Hands must be cleaned before and after every patient encounter or an encounter with the patient’s immediate environment. “Cover your cough” signs have become ubiquitous in ambulatory care waiting rooms, even as we acknowledge the difficulties associated with expecting toddlers to wear masks or use a tissue to contain their coughs and sneezes.

Other elements of standard precautions may receive increased attention because the consequences of noncompliance are perceived to be dangerous or severe. For example, we know that failure to reliably employ safe injection practices (see table) has resulted in transmission of blood-borne pathogens, including hepatitis B and C, in ambulatory settings.

In my experience, the use of personal protective equipment (PPE) in the ambulatory setting is the element of standard precautions that is the least understood and perhaps the most underutilized. It’s certainly easier in the inpatient setting, where we use transmission-based precautions, and colorful isolation signs instruct us to put on gown and gloves when we visit the patient with viral gastroenteritis, or gown, gloves, and mask for the child with acute viral respiratory tract infection. In the office, we expect the HCP to anticipate what kind of contact with blood or body fluids is likely and choose PPE accordingly.

Of course, anticipation can be tricky. Gowns, for example, are only required during procedures or activities when contact with blood and body fluids is likely. In routine office-based care, these sorts of procedures are uncommon. Incision and drainage of an abscess is one example of a procedure that might warrant protection of one’s clothing with a gown. Conversely, the need for a mask might arise several times a day, as these are worn to protect the mouth, nose, and eyes “during procedures that are likely to generate splashes or sprays of blood or other body fluids.” Examination of a coughing patient is a common “procedure” likely to results in sprays of saliva. Use of a mask can protect the examiner from potential exposures to Bordetella pertussis, Mycoplasma pneumoniae, and a host of respiratory viruses.

While the AAP has been careful to point out that gloves are not needed for the routine care of well children, they should be used when “there is the potential to contact blood, body fluids, mucous membranes, nonintact skin, or potentially infectious material.” In our world, potentially infectious material might include a cluster of vesicles thought to be herpes simplex, the honey-crusted lesions of impetigo, or the weeping, crusted rash of Norwegian scabies.

My own office had a powerful reminder about the importance of standard precautions last year when we were referred a young infant with recurrent fevers and a mostly dry, peeling rash. As we learned in medical school, the mucocutanous lesions of congenital syphilis can be highly contagious. In accordance with AAP recommendations, all HCPs who examined this child without the protection of gloves underwent serologic testing for syphilis. Fortunately, there were no transmissions!

Published data about infectious disease exposures and the transmission of infectious diseases in the outpatient setting, either from patients to health care workers or among patients, are largely limited to outbreak or case reports. A 1991 review identified 53 reports of infectious disease transmission in outpatient settings between 1961 and 1990 (JAMA 1991;265(18): 2377-81). Transmission occurred in medical and dental offices, clinics, emergency departments, ophthalmology offices, and alternative care settings that included chiropractic clinics and an acupuncture practice. A variety of pathogens were involved, including measles, adenovirus, hepatitis B, atypical mycobacteria, and Streptococcus pyogenes. The authors concluded that many of the outbreaks and episodes of transmission could have been prevented “if existing infection control guidelines,” including what we now consider standard precautions, had been utilized. Many reports published in the intervening 25 years have come to similar conclusions.

So why don’t HCPs yet follow standard precautions, including appropriate use of PPE? The reasons are complex and multifactorial. We’re all busy and lack of time is a common complaint. Gowns, gloves, masks, and alcohol hand gel aren’t always readily available. Some HCPs may not be knowledgeable about the elements of standard precautions while others may not understand the risks to themselves and their patients associated with nonadherence. Finally, some organizations have not established clear expectations related to infection prevention and compliance with AAP and CDC recommendations.

Several years ago, at the very beginning of the H1N1 influenza epidemic, a colleague of mine working in a pediatric practice saw a patient complaining of fever, lethargy, and myalgia. Not surprisingly, the patient’s rapid influenza test was positive. My colleague recalls that she was handed the result before she ever walked into the room – without any PPE – to see the patient.

“This was different than my usual routine at the hospital,” she told me. The expectation at the hospital was gown, gloves, and masks for any patient with influenza or influenzalike illness. At the office though, there was no such expectation, and providers did not routinely wear masks, even when seeing patients with respiratory symptoms. My colleague wasn’t reckless or rebellious. She was simply conforming to the culture in that office, and following the behavioral cues of more senior physicians in the practice. Subsequently, she developed severe influenza infection requiring a prolonged hospital stay.

It’s time to change the culture. As a first step, perform a quick audit in the office, using the AAP’s “Infection prevention and control in pediatric ambulatory settings” as a guide.

Dr. Bryant is a pediatrician specializing in infectious diseases at the University of Louisville (Ky.) and Kosair Children’s Hospital, also in Louisville. She had no relevant financial disclosures.

Infectious disease morbidity and mortality continue to disproportionately impact pregnant women and young infants.

In California, the incidence of pertussis approximates 100 cases per 100,000 in infants less than 5 months of age; a rate threefold greater than any other age group. Seven of nine (77%) deaths in 2013/2014 occurred in infants less than 3 months of age (California Department of Public Health Pertussis Report, Aug. 3, 2015).

Influenza severity and mortality is increased in pregnant women, and there is a greater risk of fetal morbidity and wastage. In the 2009 H₁N₁ pandemic, there was a 20% case fatality rate in women sick enough to be admitted to the ICU. The incidence of low birth weight also was increased among pregnant women delivering while hospitalized for influenza-related illness. These examples highlight the burden of vaccine-preventable disease in two vulnerable populations, pregnant women and infants too young to be protected by vaccines mandated by the U.S.immunization program.

The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and many other national and state organizations endorse immunization of pregnant women to improve women’s and infants’ outcomes. Recent studies demonstrate that infants born to women vaccinated with influenza are 45%-48% less likely to be hospitalized for culture-proven influenza.

Benowitz et al. reported a 91.5% effectiveness for maternal influenza vaccination for prevention of hospitalization of infants caused by influenza in the first 6 months of life. The presumed mechanisms of protection are both the transplacental transfer of protective antibody as well as indirect protection from disease prevention in the mother (Clin Infect Dis. 2010 Dec 15;51(12):1355-61). The recommendation is that inactivated influenza vaccine can be given at any time during pregnancy; however, live attenuated influenza vaccine (LAIV; FluMist) is contraindicated, as are all live-virus vaccines. In contrast, Tdap is recommended for use either during pregnancy or post partum.

However, Healy et al. (Pediatr Infect Dis J. 2015;34(1):22-60) failed to demonstrate a benefit to postpartum immunization and cocooning for reducing pertussis illness in infants 6 months of age or younger. The likely explanation for this failure is revealed in a recent study in infant baboons where immunization with Tdap failed to decrease colonization or transmission of Bordetella pertussis, compared with natural disease or whole-cell pertussis. Thus, even though protective against disease, Tdap failure to prevent transmission within the community still occurs. The current Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices recommendation, immunization between 27 and 36 weeks, is designed to ensure high antibody concentrations in both mother and newborn at the time of birth and bridge the time period until infant immunization can elicit protective antibody.

The benefits achieved with maternal immunization must be weighed against potential for adverse events. There is no evidence of risk to either mother or infant from inactivated vaccines administered during pregnancy. Still, the recommendations for influenza and Tdap vaccine incorporate the high likelihood of exposure, the risk of morbidity or mortality from the infectious agent, and the likelihood of harm. During the H₁N₁ epidemic, a cohort study by Chambers et al. of H₁N₁ vaccine in exposed and unexposed pregnant women concluded that there was no increase in risk for major congenital defects, spontaneous abortion, or small for gestational age (Vaccine. 2013 Oct 17;31(44):5026-32). There was a signal for increase in prematurity, but the difference between H₁N₁-vaccinated and unvaccinated pregnancies was 3 days. In addition, a review of 11 studies, including one of 10,428 pregnant women, concluded there were no harmful maternal or fetal effects.

Additionally, no adverse risks have been identified in women who were inadvertently vaccinated during pregnancy with live-attenuated rubella, influenza, and yellow fever vaccines. Tetanus vaccination has been administered safely to several millions of pregnant women without documented serious adverse outcomes. Ongoing postmarketing surveillance continues as an important tool for identification of potential adverse effects.

One potential limitation is the blunting of infant immune responses to vaccination due to high serum antibody concentrations at the time of primary immunizations. Some studies have found lower antibody concentrations prior to booster vaccinations at 1 year of age. However, as morbidity and mortality is greater in the first months of life for many infectious diseases, this may be an acceptable trade off if high morbidity and mortality can be reduced in the first months of life.

Immunization during pregnancy represents only one aspect of prevention of vaccine preventable diseases. Preconception, prenatal, and postpartum visits with health care professionals represents an opportune time to discuss the benefits of immunization and their contribution to a healthy pregnancy outcome. Inactivated vaccines are safe for administration during pregnancy, live virus vaccines, despite being attenuated, are a theoretical risk if spread to the fetus occurs and therefore are contraindicated and should be administered during preconception counseling if indicated. The table below outlines vaccines that can be administered before, during, and after pregnancy.

Although once considered potentially contraindicated in pregnant women, evidence now supports specific vaccines as both safe for a pregnant woman and her fetus and effective for preventing serious disease in both. Universal immunization with influenza vaccine and Tdap, as recommended by multiple national professional medical organizations, will improve the outcome of pregnancy by prevention of morbidity and mortality from common community pathogens.

Dr. Pelton is chief of pediatric infectious disease and coordinator of the maternal-child HIV program at Boston Medical Center. E-mail him at [email protected].

Infectious disease morbidity and mortality continue to disproportionately impact pregnant women and young infants.

In California, the incidence of pertussis approximates 100 cases per 100,000 in infants less than 5 months of age; a rate threefold greater than any other age group. Seven of nine (77%) deaths in 2013/2014 occurred in infants less than 3 months of age (California Department of Public Health Pertussis Report, Aug. 3, 2015).

Influenza severity and mortality is increased in pregnant women, and there is a greater risk of fetal morbidity and wastage. In the 2009 H₁N₁ pandemic, there was a 20% case fatality rate in women sick enough to be admitted to the ICU. The incidence of low birth weight also was increased among pregnant women delivering while hospitalized for influenza-related illness. These examples highlight the burden of vaccine-preventable disease in two vulnerable populations, pregnant women and infants too young to be protected by vaccines mandated by the U.S.immunization program.

The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and many other national and state organizations endorse immunization of pregnant women to improve women’s and infants’ outcomes. Recent studies demonstrate that infants born to women vaccinated with influenza are 45%-48% less likely to be hospitalized for culture-proven influenza.

Benowitz et al. reported a 91.5% effectiveness for maternal influenza vaccination for prevention of hospitalization of infants caused by influenza in the first 6 months of life. The presumed mechanisms of protection are both the transplacental transfer of protective antibody as well as indirect protection from disease prevention in the mother (Clin Infect Dis. 2010 Dec 15;51(12):1355-61). The recommendation is that inactivated influenza vaccine can be given at any time during pregnancy; however, live attenuated influenza vaccine (LAIV; FluMist) is contraindicated, as are all live-virus vaccines. In contrast, Tdap is recommended for use either during pregnancy or post partum.

However, Healy et al. (Pediatr Infect Dis J. 2015;34(1):22-60) failed to demonstrate a benefit to postpartum immunization and cocooning for reducing pertussis illness in infants 6 months of age or younger. The likely explanation for this failure is revealed in a recent study in infant baboons where immunization with Tdap failed to decrease colonization or transmission of Bordetella pertussis, compared with natural disease or whole-cell pertussis. Thus, even though protective against disease, Tdap failure to prevent transmission within the community still occurs. The current Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices recommendation, immunization between 27 and 36 weeks, is designed to ensure high antibody concentrations in both mother and newborn at the time of birth and bridge the time period until infant immunization can elicit protective antibody.

The benefits achieved with maternal immunization must be weighed against potential for adverse events. There is no evidence of risk to either mother or infant from inactivated vaccines administered during pregnancy. Still, the recommendations for influenza and Tdap vaccine incorporate the high likelihood of exposure, the risk of morbidity or mortality from the infectious agent, and the likelihood of harm. During the H₁N₁ epidemic, a cohort study by Chambers et al. of H₁N₁ vaccine in exposed and unexposed pregnant women concluded that there was no increase in risk for major congenital defects, spontaneous abortion, or small for gestational age (Vaccine. 2013 Oct 17;31(44):5026-32). There was a signal for increase in prematurity, but the difference between H₁N₁-vaccinated and unvaccinated pregnancies was 3 days. In addition, a review of 11 studies, including one of 10,428 pregnant women, concluded there were no harmful maternal or fetal effects.

Additionally, no adverse risks have been identified in women who were inadvertently vaccinated during pregnancy with live-attenuated rubella, influenza, and yellow fever vaccines. Tetanus vaccination has been administered safely to several millions of pregnant women without documented serious adverse outcomes. Ongoing postmarketing surveillance continues as an important tool for identification of potential adverse effects.

One potential limitation is the blunting of infant immune responses to vaccination due to high serum antibody concentrations at the time of primary immunizations. Some studies have found lower antibody concentrations prior to booster vaccinations at 1 year of age. However, as morbidity and mortality is greater in the first months of life for many infectious diseases, this may be an acceptable trade off if high morbidity and mortality can be reduced in the first months of life.

Immunization during pregnancy represents only one aspect of prevention of vaccine preventable diseases. Preconception, prenatal, and postpartum visits with health care professionals represents an opportune time to discuss the benefits of immunization and their contribution to a healthy pregnancy outcome. Inactivated vaccines are safe for administration during pregnancy, live virus vaccines, despite being attenuated, are a theoretical risk if spread to the fetus occurs and therefore are contraindicated and should be administered during preconception counseling if indicated. The table below outlines vaccines that can be administered before, during, and after pregnancy.

Although once considered potentially contraindicated in pregnant women, evidence now supports specific vaccines as both safe for a pregnant woman and her fetus and effective for preventing serious disease in both. Universal immunization with influenza vaccine and Tdap, as recommended by multiple national professional medical organizations, will improve the outcome of pregnancy by prevention of morbidity and mortality from common community pathogens.

Dr. Pelton is chief of pediatric infectious disease and coordinator of the maternal-child HIV program at Boston Medical Center. E-mail him at [email protected].

Infectious disease morbidity and mortality continue to disproportionately impact pregnant women and young infants.

In California, the incidence of pertussis approximates 100 cases per 100,000 in infants less than 5 months of age; a rate threefold greater than any other age group. Seven of nine (77%) deaths in 2013/2014 occurred in infants less than 3 months of age (California Department of Public Health Pertussis Report, Aug. 3, 2015).

Influenza severity and mortality is increased in pregnant women, and there is a greater risk of fetal morbidity and wastage. In the 2009 H₁N₁ pandemic, there was a 20% case fatality rate in women sick enough to be admitted to the ICU. The incidence of low birth weight also was increased among pregnant women delivering while hospitalized for influenza-related illness. These examples highlight the burden of vaccine-preventable disease in two vulnerable populations, pregnant women and infants too young to be protected by vaccines mandated by the U.S.immunization program.

The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and many other national and state organizations endorse immunization of pregnant women to improve women’s and infants’ outcomes. Recent studies demonstrate that infants born to women vaccinated with influenza are 45%-48% less likely to be hospitalized for culture-proven influenza.

Benowitz et al. reported a 91.5% effectiveness for maternal influenza vaccination for prevention of hospitalization of infants caused by influenza in the first 6 months of life. The presumed mechanisms of protection are both the transplacental transfer of protective antibody as well as indirect protection from disease prevention in the mother (Clin Infect Dis. 2010 Dec 15;51(12):1355-61). The recommendation is that inactivated influenza vaccine can be given at any time during pregnancy; however, live attenuated influenza vaccine (LAIV; FluMist) is contraindicated, as are all live-virus vaccines. In contrast, Tdap is recommended for use either during pregnancy or post partum.

However, Healy et al. (Pediatr Infect Dis J. 2015;34(1):22-60) failed to demonstrate a benefit to postpartum immunization and cocooning for reducing pertussis illness in infants 6 months of age or younger. The likely explanation for this failure is revealed in a recent study in infant baboons where immunization with Tdap failed to decrease colonization or transmission of Bordetella pertussis, compared with natural disease or whole-cell pertussis. Thus, even though protective against disease, Tdap failure to prevent transmission within the community still occurs. The current Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices recommendation, immunization between 27 and 36 weeks, is designed to ensure high antibody concentrations in both mother and newborn at the time of birth and bridge the time period until infant immunization can elicit protective antibody.

The benefits achieved with maternal immunization must be weighed against potential for adverse events. There is no evidence of risk to either mother or infant from inactivated vaccines administered during pregnancy. Still, the recommendations for influenza and Tdap vaccine incorporate the high likelihood of exposure, the risk of morbidity or mortality from the infectious agent, and the likelihood of harm. During the H₁N₁ epidemic, a cohort study by Chambers et al. of H₁N₁ vaccine in exposed and unexposed pregnant women concluded that there was no increase in risk for major congenital defects, spontaneous abortion, or small for gestational age (Vaccine. 2013 Oct 17;31(44):5026-32). There was a signal for increase in prematurity, but the difference between H₁N₁-vaccinated and unvaccinated pregnancies was 3 days. In addition, a review of 11 studies, including one of 10,428 pregnant women, concluded there were no harmful maternal or fetal effects.

Additionally, no adverse risks have been identified in women who were inadvertently vaccinated during pregnancy with live-attenuated rubella, influenza, and yellow fever vaccines. Tetanus vaccination has been administered safely to several millions of pregnant women without documented serious adverse outcomes. Ongoing postmarketing surveillance continues as an important tool for identification of potential adverse effects.

One potential limitation is the blunting of infant immune responses to vaccination due to high serum antibody concentrations at the time of primary immunizations. Some studies have found lower antibody concentrations prior to booster vaccinations at 1 year of age. However, as morbidity and mortality is greater in the first months of life for many infectious diseases, this may be an acceptable trade off if high morbidity and mortality can be reduced in the first months of life.

Immunization during pregnancy represents only one aspect of prevention of vaccine preventable diseases. Preconception, prenatal, and postpartum visits with health care professionals represents an opportune time to discuss the benefits of immunization and their contribution to a healthy pregnancy outcome. Inactivated vaccines are safe for administration during pregnancy, live virus vaccines, despite being attenuated, are a theoretical risk if spread to the fetus occurs and therefore are contraindicated and should be administered during preconception counseling if indicated. The table below outlines vaccines that can be administered before, during, and after pregnancy.

Although once considered potentially contraindicated in pregnant women, evidence now supports specific vaccines as both safe for a pregnant woman and her fetus and effective for preventing serious disease in both. Universal immunization with influenza vaccine and Tdap, as recommended by multiple national professional medical organizations, will improve the outcome of pregnancy by prevention of morbidity and mortality from common community pathogens.

Dr. Pelton is chief of pediatric infectious disease and coordinator of the maternal-child HIV program at Boston Medical Center. E-mail him at [email protected].

Most of our patients have been or will be exposed to water in a recreational setting this summer. As health care providers, we might not routinely consider illnesses associated with recreational water exposure or discuss preventive strategies; however, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has been actively promoting awareness about recreational water illnesses for years. May 18-24, 2015, was the 11th annual observance of Healthy and Safe Swimming Week, formerly known as Recreational Illness and Injury Prevention Week. The focus for 2015 was promoting the role of swimmers, residential pool owners, public health officials, and beach staff in the prevention of drownings, chemical injuries, and outbreaks of illness. One goal was for the swimmer to take a more active role in protecting themselves and preventing the spread of infections to others. For our colleagues, that means educating both parents and children.

To begin our discussion, let’s define recreational water illnesses (RWI). RWIs are caused by a variety of infectious pathogens transmitted by ingestion, inhalation of aerosols or mists, or having contact with contaminated water from both treated (swimming pools, hot tubs, water parks, and fountains) and untreated (lakes, rivers, and oceans) sources of water in recreational venues. RWIs also can be caused by chemicals that have evaporated from water leading to poor indoor air quality. However, I am focusing on the infectious etiologies.

A broad spectrum of infections are associated with RWIs, including infections of the gastrointestinal tract, ear, skin, eye, central nervous system, and wounds. Diarrhea is the most common infection. Implicated pathogens include Giardia, Shigella, norovirus, and Escherichia coli O157:H7, but it is Cryptosporidium that has emerged as the pathogen implicated most often in swimming pool–related outbreaks. Recently published data from the CDC revealed that in 2011-2012, there were 90 recreational-associated outbreaks reported from 32 states and Puerto Rico resulting in 1,788 infections, with 69 outbreaks occurring in treated water venues. Of these, 36 (51%) were caused by Cryptosporidium. Among 21 outbreaks occurring in untreated recreational water, E. coli was responsible for 7 (33%) (MMWR Morb. Mortal. Wkly Rep. 2015;64:668-72)

It’s no surprise diarrhea is the most common illness. Infection can easily occur after swallowing contaminated water. Many erroneously think chlorine kills all pathogens. Cryptosporidium is chlorine tolerant and can persist in treated water with the current recommended levels of chlorine for more than 10 days (J. Water Health 2008;6:513-20). For chlorine-sensitive pathogens, maintenance of the disinfection process must remain intact. What role do swimmers play? Most people have about 0.4 g of feces on their bottoms that can contaminate water when rinsed off. How many people enter a pool with a diarrheal illness? How many may go swimming after having recently recovered from a diarrheal illness and may have asymptomatic shedding? We all have cringed when we see a diapered child in the water. All of these are potential ways for the swimmer to contaminate an adequately treated pool. Additionally, while Cryptosporidium infections are usually self-limited, some individuals, including the immunocompromised host and especially those with advanced HIV and those who are solid organ transplant recipients, may have a protracted course of profuse diarrhea if infected.

While diarrhea maybe the most common RWI, it is not the only one. Acute otitis externa (AOE), more commonly known as “swimmer’s ear,” is one of the most frequent reasons for summer health care encounters. It has been estimated that in the United States in 2007, 2.4 million health care visits resulted in the diagnosis of AOE (MMWR Morb. Mortal. Wkly. Rep. 2011;60:605-9). Visits were highest among children aged 5-9 years; however, adults accounted for 53% of the encounters. Inflammation and infection of the external auditory canal is usually caused by bacteria. Pseudomonas aeruginosa or Staphylococcus aureus are the two most common etiologies. Water is easily introduced into the external auditory canal with recreational water activities, leading to maceration and subsequent infection of the canal. Simply reminding parents to thoroughly dry their child’s ears after water exposure can help prevent AOE.

© kali9/iStockphoto.com

P. aeruginosa also is the agent causing the self-limiting conditions hot tub folliculitis and hot-foot syndrome. Hot tub folliculitis is characterized by the development of tender, pruritic papules and papulopustules on the hips, buttocks, and axillae, usually developing 8-48 hours after exposure to water that has been contaminated because of inadequate chlorination. Hot-foot syndrome is characterized by painful planter nodules (N. Engl. J. Med. 2001;345:335).

Serious diseases are encountered infrequently, but there are some that require more urgent interventions. Primary amebic meningoencephalitis (PAM) is an extremely rare, progressive, and almost always fatal infection of the brain caused by Naegleria fowleri. The pathogen is found in warm freshwater including lakes, rivers, streams, and hot springs. It enters the body through the nose and travels via the olfactory nerve to the brain. Infection usually occurs when individuals swim or dive in warm freshwater. Most cases have been reported in children from Southern states. In 2010, the first case in a northern state was reported from Minnesota, and three additional cases have since been reported in Kansas and Indiana (J. Ped. Infect. Dis. 2014 [doi: 10.1093/jpids/piu103]). Cases also have been reported in two individuals who were regular users of neti pots for sinus irrigation because the irrigating solution was prepared with contaminated tap water (Clin. Infect. Dis. 2012;55:e79-85). Clinical presentation is similar to bacterial meningitis. Helpful diagnostic clues may come from obtaining a history of swimming in freshwater within the 2 weeks prior to presentation, especially during the summer, or the use of nasal or sinus irrigation with untreated tap water. Consultation with an infectious disease specialist is recommended.

Acanthamoeba keratitis is a potentially blinding infection of the cornea that primarily occurs in individuals who wear contact lenses. Risk factors for the infection include swimming, showering, and use of hot tubs while wearing contact lenses. Improper storage and cleansing contacts with tap water are other risk factors. Anyone with corneal trauma and similar water exposures also would be at risk. Clinically, the history combined with a foreign-body sensation, pain, and decreased visual acuity should make one include this infection in the differential diagnosis. Referral to an ophthalmologist is required.

Finally, swimming with an open wound is a portal of entry for Vibrio vulnificus. It usually is associated with consumption of contaminated seafood, especially oysters. In immunocompromised individuals, especially those with chronic liver disease, this bacteria can cause a life-threatening illness leading to bacteremia, septic shock, and development of blistering skin lesions. Infections are fatal in approximately 50% of cases.

The goal of this brief review was not to discourage swimming, but to make your patients and their families healthy swimmers. Here are a few things the CDC is recommending to help them achieve that goal:

• Shower prior to going swimming.

• Do not swallow or drink pool water.

• Take bathroom breaks every hour and rinse off before going back into the water.

• Do not swim if you have diarrhea.

• Wait at least 2 weeks to go swimming if you have had diarrhea.

• Change swim diapers frequently and away from the water.

• Suggest patients download the free CDC app Healthy Swimming for more detailed information and suggest they visit cdc.gov/healthywater/swimming.

Dr. Word is a pediatric infectious disease specialist and director of the Houston Travel Medicine Clinic. She had no relevant financial disclosures. Write to Dr. Word at [email protected].

Most of our patients have been or will be exposed to water in a recreational setting this summer. As health care providers, we might not routinely consider illnesses associated with recreational water exposure or discuss preventive strategies; however, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has been actively promoting awareness about recreational water illnesses for years. May 18-24, 2015, was the 11th annual observance of Healthy and Safe Swimming Week, formerly known as Recreational Illness and Injury Prevention Week. The focus for 2015 was promoting the role of swimmers, residential pool owners, public health officials, and beach staff in the prevention of drownings, chemical injuries, and outbreaks of illness. One goal was for the swimmer to take a more active role in protecting themselves and preventing the spread of infections to others. For our colleagues, that means educating both parents and children.

To begin our discussion, let’s define recreational water illnesses (RWI). RWIs are caused by a variety of infectious pathogens transmitted by ingestion, inhalation of aerosols or mists, or having contact with contaminated water from both treated (swimming pools, hot tubs, water parks, and fountains) and untreated (lakes, rivers, and oceans) sources of water in recreational venues. RWIs also can be caused by chemicals that have evaporated from water leading to poor indoor air quality. However, I am focusing on the infectious etiologies.

A broad spectrum of infections are associated with RWIs, including infections of the gastrointestinal tract, ear, skin, eye, central nervous system, and wounds. Diarrhea is the most common infection. Implicated pathogens include Giardia, Shigella, norovirus, and Escherichia coli O157:H7, but it is Cryptosporidium that has emerged as the pathogen implicated most often in swimming pool–related outbreaks. Recently published data from the CDC revealed that in 2011-2012, there were 90 recreational-associated outbreaks reported from 32 states and Puerto Rico resulting in 1,788 infections, with 69 outbreaks occurring in treated water venues. Of these, 36 (51%) were caused by Cryptosporidium. Among 21 outbreaks occurring in untreated recreational water, E. coli was responsible for 7 (33%) (MMWR Morb. Mortal. Wkly Rep. 2015;64:668-72)

It’s no surprise diarrhea is the most common illness. Infection can easily occur after swallowing contaminated water. Many erroneously think chlorine kills all pathogens. Cryptosporidium is chlorine tolerant and can persist in treated water with the current recommended levels of chlorine for more than 10 days (J. Water Health 2008;6:513-20). For chlorine-sensitive pathogens, maintenance of the disinfection process must remain intact. What role do swimmers play? Most people have about 0.4 g of feces on their bottoms that can contaminate water when rinsed off. How many people enter a pool with a diarrheal illness? How many may go swimming after having recently recovered from a diarrheal illness and may have asymptomatic shedding? We all have cringed when we see a diapered child in the water. All of these are potential ways for the swimmer to contaminate an adequately treated pool. Additionally, while Cryptosporidium infections are usually self-limited, some individuals, including the immunocompromised host and especially those with advanced HIV and those who are solid organ transplant recipients, may have a protracted course of profuse diarrhea if infected.

While diarrhea maybe the most common RWI, it is not the only one. Acute otitis externa (AOE), more commonly known as “swimmer’s ear,” is one of the most frequent reasons for summer health care encounters. It has been estimated that in the United States in 2007, 2.4 million health care visits resulted in the diagnosis of AOE (MMWR Morb. Mortal. Wkly. Rep. 2011;60:605-9). Visits were highest among children aged 5-9 years; however, adults accounted for 53% of the encounters. Inflammation and infection of the external auditory canal is usually caused by bacteria. Pseudomonas aeruginosa or Staphylococcus aureus are the two most common etiologies. Water is easily introduced into the external auditory canal with recreational water activities, leading to maceration and subsequent infection of the canal. Simply reminding parents to thoroughly dry their child’s ears after water exposure can help prevent AOE.

© kali9/iStockphoto.com

P. aeruginosa also is the agent causing the self-limiting conditions hot tub folliculitis and hot-foot syndrome. Hot tub folliculitis is characterized by the development of tender, pruritic papules and papulopustules on the hips, buttocks, and axillae, usually developing 8-48 hours after exposure to water that has been contaminated because of inadequate chlorination. Hot-foot syndrome is characterized by painful planter nodules (N. Engl. J. Med. 2001;345:335).

Serious diseases are encountered infrequently, but there are some that require more urgent interventions. Primary amebic meningoencephalitis (PAM) is an extremely rare, progressive, and almost always fatal infection of the brain caused by Naegleria fowleri. The pathogen is found in warm freshwater including lakes, rivers, streams, and hot springs. It enters the body through the nose and travels via the olfactory nerve to the brain. Infection usually occurs when individuals swim or dive in warm freshwater. Most cases have been reported in children from Southern states. In 2010, the first case in a northern state was reported from Minnesota, and three additional cases have since been reported in Kansas and Indiana (J. Ped. Infect. Dis. 2014 [doi: 10.1093/jpids/piu103]). Cases also have been reported in two individuals who were regular users of neti pots for sinus irrigation because the irrigating solution was prepared with contaminated tap water (Clin. Infect. Dis. 2012;55:e79-85). Clinical presentation is similar to bacterial meningitis. Helpful diagnostic clues may come from obtaining a history of swimming in freshwater within the 2 weeks prior to presentation, especially during the summer, or the use of nasal or sinus irrigation with untreated tap water. Consultation with an infectious disease specialist is recommended.

Acanthamoeba keratitis is a potentially blinding infection of the cornea that primarily occurs in individuals who wear contact lenses. Risk factors for the infection include swimming, showering, and use of hot tubs while wearing contact lenses. Improper storage and cleansing contacts with tap water are other risk factors. Anyone with corneal trauma and similar water exposures also would be at risk. Clinically, the history combined with a foreign-body sensation, pain, and decreased visual acuity should make one include this infection in the differential diagnosis. Referral to an ophthalmologist is required.

Finally, swimming with an open wound is a portal of entry for Vibrio vulnificus. It usually is associated with consumption of contaminated seafood, especially oysters. In immunocompromised individuals, especially those with chronic liver disease, this bacteria can cause a life-threatening illness leading to bacteremia, septic shock, and development of blistering skin lesions. Infections are fatal in approximately 50% of cases.

The goal of this brief review was not to discourage swimming, but to make your patients and their families healthy swimmers. Here are a few things the CDC is recommending to help them achieve that goal:

• Shower prior to going swimming.

• Do not swallow or drink pool water.

• Take bathroom breaks every hour and rinse off before going back into the water.

• Do not swim if you have diarrhea.

• Wait at least 2 weeks to go swimming if you have had diarrhea.

• Change swim diapers frequently and away from the water.

• Suggest patients download the free CDC app Healthy Swimming for more detailed information and suggest they visit cdc.gov/healthywater/swimming.

Dr. Word is a pediatric infectious disease specialist and director of the Houston Travel Medicine Clinic. She had no relevant financial disclosures. Write to Dr. Word at [email protected].

Most of our patients have been or will be exposed to water in a recreational setting this summer. As health care providers, we might not routinely consider illnesses associated with recreational water exposure or discuss preventive strategies; however, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has been actively promoting awareness about recreational water illnesses for years. May 18-24, 2015, was the 11th annual observance of Healthy and Safe Swimming Week, formerly known as Recreational Illness and Injury Prevention Week. The focus for 2015 was promoting the role of swimmers, residential pool owners, public health officials, and beach staff in the prevention of drownings, chemical injuries, and outbreaks of illness. One goal was for the swimmer to take a more active role in protecting themselves and preventing the spread of infections to others. For our colleagues, that means educating both parents and children.

To begin our discussion, let’s define recreational water illnesses (RWI). RWIs are caused by a variety of infectious pathogens transmitted by ingestion, inhalation of aerosols or mists, or having contact with contaminated water from both treated (swimming pools, hot tubs, water parks, and fountains) and untreated (lakes, rivers, and oceans) sources of water in recreational venues. RWIs also can be caused by chemicals that have evaporated from water leading to poor indoor air quality. However, I am focusing on the infectious etiologies.

A broad spectrum of infections are associated with RWIs, including infections of the gastrointestinal tract, ear, skin, eye, central nervous system, and wounds. Diarrhea is the most common infection. Implicated pathogens include Giardia, Shigella, norovirus, and Escherichia coli O157:H7, but it is Cryptosporidium that has emerged as the pathogen implicated most often in swimming pool–related outbreaks. Recently published data from the CDC revealed that in 2011-2012, there were 90 recreational-associated outbreaks reported from 32 states and Puerto Rico resulting in 1,788 infections, with 69 outbreaks occurring in treated water venues. Of these, 36 (51%) were caused by Cryptosporidium. Among 21 outbreaks occurring in untreated recreational water, E. coli was responsible for 7 (33%) (MMWR Morb. Mortal. Wkly Rep. 2015;64:668-72)

It’s no surprise diarrhea is the most common illness. Infection can easily occur after swallowing contaminated water. Many erroneously think chlorine kills all pathogens. Cryptosporidium is chlorine tolerant and can persist in treated water with the current recommended levels of chlorine for more than 10 days (J. Water Health 2008;6:513-20). For chlorine-sensitive pathogens, maintenance of the disinfection process must remain intact. What role do swimmers play? Most people have about 0.4 g of feces on their bottoms that can contaminate water when rinsed off. How many people enter a pool with a diarrheal illness? How many may go swimming after having recently recovered from a diarrheal illness and may have asymptomatic shedding? We all have cringed when we see a diapered child in the water. All of these are potential ways for the swimmer to contaminate an adequately treated pool. Additionally, while Cryptosporidium infections are usually self-limited, some individuals, including the immunocompromised host and especially those with advanced HIV and those who are solid organ transplant recipients, may have a protracted course of profuse diarrhea if infected.

While diarrhea maybe the most common RWI, it is not the only one. Acute otitis externa (AOE), more commonly known as “swimmer’s ear,” is one of the most frequent reasons for summer health care encounters. It has been estimated that in the United States in 2007, 2.4 million health care visits resulted in the diagnosis of AOE (MMWR Morb. Mortal. Wkly. Rep. 2011;60:605-9). Visits were highest among children aged 5-9 years; however, adults accounted for 53% of the encounters. Inflammation and infection of the external auditory canal is usually caused by bacteria. Pseudomonas aeruginosa or Staphylococcus aureus are the two most common etiologies. Water is easily introduced into the external auditory canal with recreational water activities, leading to maceration and subsequent infection of the canal. Simply reminding parents to thoroughly dry their child’s ears after water exposure can help prevent AOE.

© kali9/iStockphoto.com

P. aeruginosa also is the agent causing the self-limiting conditions hot tub folliculitis and hot-foot syndrome. Hot tub folliculitis is characterized by the development of tender, pruritic papules and papulopustules on the hips, buttocks, and axillae, usually developing 8-48 hours after exposure to water that has been contaminated because of inadequate chlorination. Hot-foot syndrome is characterized by painful planter nodules (N. Engl. J. Med. 2001;345:335).

Serious diseases are encountered infrequently, but there are some that require more urgent interventions. Primary amebic meningoencephalitis (PAM) is an extremely rare, progressive, and almost always fatal infection of the brain caused by Naegleria fowleri. The pathogen is found in warm freshwater including lakes, rivers, streams, and hot springs. It enters the body through the nose and travels via the olfactory nerve to the brain. Infection usually occurs when individuals swim or dive in warm freshwater. Most cases have been reported in children from Southern states. In 2010, the first case in a northern state was reported from Minnesota, and three additional cases have since been reported in Kansas and Indiana (J. Ped. Infect. Dis. 2014 [doi: 10.1093/jpids/piu103]). Cases also have been reported in two individuals who were regular users of neti pots for sinus irrigation because the irrigating solution was prepared with contaminated tap water (Clin. Infect. Dis. 2012;55:e79-85). Clinical presentation is similar to bacterial meningitis. Helpful diagnostic clues may come from obtaining a history of swimming in freshwater within the 2 weeks prior to presentation, especially during the summer, or the use of nasal or sinus irrigation with untreated tap water. Consultation with an infectious disease specialist is recommended.

Acanthamoeba keratitis is a potentially blinding infection of the cornea that primarily occurs in individuals who wear contact lenses. Risk factors for the infection include swimming, showering, and use of hot tubs while wearing contact lenses. Improper storage and cleansing contacts with tap water are other risk factors. Anyone with corneal trauma and similar water exposures also would be at risk. Clinically, the history combined with a foreign-body sensation, pain, and decreased visual acuity should make one include this infection in the differential diagnosis. Referral to an ophthalmologist is required.

Finally, swimming with an open wound is a portal of entry for Vibrio vulnificus. It usually is associated with consumption of contaminated seafood, especially oysters. In immunocompromised individuals, especially those with chronic liver disease, this bacteria can cause a life-threatening illness leading to bacteremia, septic shock, and development of blistering skin lesions. Infections are fatal in approximately 50% of cases.

The goal of this brief review was not to discourage swimming, but to make your patients and their families healthy swimmers. Here are a few things the CDC is recommending to help them achieve that goal:

• Shower prior to going swimming.

• Do not swallow or drink pool water.

• Take bathroom breaks every hour and rinse off before going back into the water.

• Do not swim if you have diarrhea.

• Wait at least 2 weeks to go swimming if you have had diarrhea.

• Change swim diapers frequently and away from the water.

• Suggest patients download the free CDC app Healthy Swimming for more detailed information and suggest they visit cdc.gov/healthywater/swimming.

Dr. Word is a pediatric infectious disease specialist and director of the Houston Travel Medicine Clinic. She had no relevant financial disclosures. Write to Dr. Word at [email protected].