ID Consult

New research was presented at the International Society for Otitis Media meeting in June 2019, which I attended. I would like to share a selection of new findings from the many presentations.

Courtesy Wikimedia Commons/Mar10029/Creative Commons License

Transtympanic antibiotic delivery

Topical therapy has been used to treat only otitis externa and acute otitis media (AOM) with ear discharge. Giving antibiotics through the tympanic membrane could mitigate many of the concerns about antibiotic use driving antibiotic resistance of bacteria among children. Up to now, using antibiotics in the ear canal to treat AOM has not been considered because the tympanic membrane is highly impermeable to the transtympanic diffusion of any drugs. However, in recent years, a number of different drug delivery systems have been developed, and in some cases, animal studies have shown that noninvasive transtympanic delivery is possible so that drugs can reach high concentrations in the middle ear without damage. Nanovesicles and nanoliposomes that contain antibiotics and are small enough to pass through the eardrum have been developed and tested in animal models; these show promise. Ototopical administration of a drug called vinpocetine that was repurposed has been tested in mice and shown to reduce inflammation and mucus production in the middle ear during otitis media.

Biofilms

Antibiotic treatment failure can occur in AOM for several reasons. The treatment of choice, amoxicillin, for example may fail to achieve an adequate concentration because of poor absorption in the gastrointestinal tract or poor penetration into the middle ear. Or, the antibiotic chosen may not be effective because of resistance of the strain causing the infection. Another explanation, especially in recurrent AOM and chronic AOM, could be the presence of biofilms. Biofilms are multicellular bacterial communities incorporated in a polymeric, plasticlike matrix in which pathogens are protected from antibiotic activity. The biofilm provides a physical barrier to antibiotic penetration, and bacteria can persist in the middle ear and periodically cause a new AOM. If AOM persists or becomes a more chronic otitis media with effusion, the “glue ear” causes an environment in the middle ear that is low in oxygen. A low-oxygen environment is favorable to biofilms. Also one might expect that middle ear pus would have a low pH, but actual measurements show the pH is highly alkaline. Species of Haemophilus influenzae have been identified as more virulent when in an alkaline pH or the alkaline pH makes the H. influenzae persist better in the middle ear, perhaps in a biofilm. To eliminate biofilms and improve antibiotic efficacy, a vaccine against a protein expressed by H. influenzae has been developed. Antibodies against this protein have been shown to disrupt and prevent the formation of biofilms in an animal model.

Probiotics

The normal bacteria that live in the nasopharynx of children with recurrent AOM is now known to differ from that of children who experience infrequent AOM or remain AOM-free throughout childhood. The use of oral pre- and probiotics for AOM prophylaxis remains debated because the results of studies are conflicting and frequently show no effect. So the idea of using prebiotics or probiotics to create a favorable “microbiome” of the nose is under investigation. Two species of bacteria that are gathering the most attention are Corynebacterium species (a few types in particular) and a bacteria called Dolosigranulum pigrum. Delivery of the commensal species would be as a nose spray.

Vaccines

The use of pneumococcal conjugate vaccines (PCVs) has reduced the frequency of AOM caused by Streptococcus pneumoniae. PCVs are not as effective against AOM as they are against invasive pneumococcal disease, but they still help a lot. However, because there are now at least 96 different serotypes of the pneumococcus based on different capsular types, we see a pattern of replacement of disease-causing strains by new strains within a few years of introduction of a new formulation. We started with 7 serotypes (Prevnar 7) in year 2000, and it was replaced by the current formulation with 13 serotypes (Prevnar 13) in 2010. Replacements have occurred again so vaccine companies are making new formulations for the future that include more serotypes, up to 20 serotypes. But, technically and feasibility-wise there is a limit to making such vaccines. A vaccine based on killed unencapsulated bacteria has been tested for safety and immunogenicity in young children. There is no test so far for prevention of AOM. Another type of vaccine based on proteins expressed by the pneumococcus that could be vaccine targets was tested in American Navajo children, and it failed to be as efficacious as hoped.

Biomarkers.

Due to recurrent AOM or persistent otitis media with effusion, about 15% of children in the United States receive tympanostomy tubes. Among those who receive tubes, about 20% go on to receive a second set of tubes, often with adenotonsillectomy. To find a biomarker that could identify children likely to require a second set of tubes, the fluid in the middle ear was tested when a first set of tubes were inserted. If bacteria were detected by polymerase chain reaction (PCR) testing or if a profile of specific inflammatory cytokines was measured, those results could be used to predict a high likelihood for a second set of tubes.

Overdiagnosis

Diagnosis of AOM is challenging in young children, in whom it most frequently occurs. The ear canal is typically about 3 mm wide, the child struggles during the examination, and diagnostic skills are not taught in training, resulting in a high overdiagnosis rate. I presented data that suggest too many children who are not truly otitis prone have been classified as otitis prone based on incorrect clinical diagnosis. My colleagues and I found that 30% of children reach the threshold of three episodes of AOM in 6 months or four within a year when diagnosed by community pediatricians, similar to many other studies. Validated otoscopists (trained by experts with diagnosis definitively proven as at least 85% accurate using tympanocentesis) classify 15% of children as otitis prone – half as many. If tympanocentesis is used to prove middle ear fluid has bacterial pathogens (about 95% yield a bacterial otopathogen using culture and PCR), then about 10% of children are classified as otitis prone – one-third as many. This suggests that children clinically diagnosed by community-based pediatricians are overdiagnosed with AOM, perhaps three times more often than true. And that leads to overuse of antibiotics and referrals for tympanostomy tube surgery more often than should occur. So we need to improve diagnostic methods beyond otoscopy. New types of imaging for the eardrum and middle ear using novel technologies are in early clinical trials.

Immunity

The notion that young children get AOM because of Eustachian tube dysfunction in their early years of life (horizontal anatomy) may be true, but there is more to the story. After 10 years of work, the scientists in my research group have shown that children in the first 3 years of life can have an immune system that is suppressed – it is poorly responsive to pathogens and routine pediatric vaccines. Many features resemble a neonatal immune system, beginning life with a suppressed immune system or being in cytokine storm from birth. We introduced the term “prolonged neonatal-like immune profile (PNIP)” to give a general description of the immune responses we have found in otitis-prone children. They outgrow this. So the immune maturation is delayed but not permanent. It is mostly resolved by age 3 years. We found problems in both innate and adaptive immunity. It may be that the main explanation for recurrent AOM in the first years of life is PNIP. Scientists from Australia also reported immunity problems in Aboriginal children and they are very otitis prone, often progressing to chronic suppurative otitis media. Animal model studies of AOM show inadequate innate and adaptive immunity importantly contribute to the infection as well.

Dr. Pichichero is a specialist in pediatric infectious diseases and director of the Research Institute at Rochester (N.Y.) General Hospital. He has no conflicts to declare. Email him at [email protected].

New research was presented at the International Society for Otitis Media meeting in June 2019, which I attended. I would like to share a selection of new findings from the many presentations.

Courtesy Wikimedia Commons/Mar10029/Creative Commons License

Transtympanic antibiotic delivery

Topical therapy has been used to treat only otitis externa and acute otitis media (AOM) with ear discharge. Giving antibiotics through the tympanic membrane could mitigate many of the concerns about antibiotic use driving antibiotic resistance of bacteria among children. Up to now, using antibiotics in the ear canal to treat AOM has not been considered because the tympanic membrane is highly impermeable to the transtympanic diffusion of any drugs. However, in recent years, a number of different drug delivery systems have been developed, and in some cases, animal studies have shown that noninvasive transtympanic delivery is possible so that drugs can reach high concentrations in the middle ear without damage. Nanovesicles and nanoliposomes that contain antibiotics and are small enough to pass through the eardrum have been developed and tested in animal models; these show promise. Ototopical administration of a drug called vinpocetine that was repurposed has been tested in mice and shown to reduce inflammation and mucus production in the middle ear during otitis media.

Biofilms

Antibiotic treatment failure can occur in AOM for several reasons. The treatment of choice, amoxicillin, for example may fail to achieve an adequate concentration because of poor absorption in the gastrointestinal tract or poor penetration into the middle ear. Or, the antibiotic chosen may not be effective because of resistance of the strain causing the infection. Another explanation, especially in recurrent AOM and chronic AOM, could be the presence of biofilms. Biofilms are multicellular bacterial communities incorporated in a polymeric, plasticlike matrix in which pathogens are protected from antibiotic activity. The biofilm provides a physical barrier to antibiotic penetration, and bacteria can persist in the middle ear and periodically cause a new AOM. If AOM persists or becomes a more chronic otitis media with effusion, the “glue ear” causes an environment in the middle ear that is low in oxygen. A low-oxygen environment is favorable to biofilms. Also one might expect that middle ear pus would have a low pH, but actual measurements show the pH is highly alkaline. Species of Haemophilus influenzae have been identified as more virulent when in an alkaline pH or the alkaline pH makes the H. influenzae persist better in the middle ear, perhaps in a biofilm. To eliminate biofilms and improve antibiotic efficacy, a vaccine against a protein expressed by H. influenzae has been developed. Antibodies against this protein have been shown to disrupt and prevent the formation of biofilms in an animal model.

Probiotics

The normal bacteria that live in the nasopharynx of children with recurrent AOM is now known to differ from that of children who experience infrequent AOM or remain AOM-free throughout childhood. The use of oral pre- and probiotics for AOM prophylaxis remains debated because the results of studies are conflicting and frequently show no effect. So the idea of using prebiotics or probiotics to create a favorable “microbiome” of the nose is under investigation. Two species of bacteria that are gathering the most attention are Corynebacterium species (a few types in particular) and a bacteria called Dolosigranulum pigrum. Delivery of the commensal species would be as a nose spray.

Vaccines

The use of pneumococcal conjugate vaccines (PCVs) has reduced the frequency of AOM caused by Streptococcus pneumoniae. PCVs are not as effective against AOM as they are against invasive pneumococcal disease, but they still help a lot. However, because there are now at least 96 different serotypes of the pneumococcus based on different capsular types, we see a pattern of replacement of disease-causing strains by new strains within a few years of introduction of a new formulation. We started with 7 serotypes (Prevnar 7) in year 2000, and it was replaced by the current formulation with 13 serotypes (Prevnar 13) in 2010. Replacements have occurred again so vaccine companies are making new formulations for the future that include more serotypes, up to 20 serotypes. But, technically and feasibility-wise there is a limit to making such vaccines. A vaccine based on killed unencapsulated bacteria has been tested for safety and immunogenicity in young children. There is no test so far for prevention of AOM. Another type of vaccine based on proteins expressed by the pneumococcus that could be vaccine targets was tested in American Navajo children, and it failed to be as efficacious as hoped.

Biomarkers.

Due to recurrent AOM or persistent otitis media with effusion, about 15% of children in the United States receive tympanostomy tubes. Among those who receive tubes, about 20% go on to receive a second set of tubes, often with adenotonsillectomy. To find a biomarker that could identify children likely to require a second set of tubes, the fluid in the middle ear was tested when a first set of tubes were inserted. If bacteria were detected by polymerase chain reaction (PCR) testing or if a profile of specific inflammatory cytokines was measured, those results could be used to predict a high likelihood for a second set of tubes.

Overdiagnosis

Diagnosis of AOM is challenging in young children, in whom it most frequently occurs. The ear canal is typically about 3 mm wide, the child struggles during the examination, and diagnostic skills are not taught in training, resulting in a high overdiagnosis rate. I presented data that suggest too many children who are not truly otitis prone have been classified as otitis prone based on incorrect clinical diagnosis. My colleagues and I found that 30% of children reach the threshold of three episodes of AOM in 6 months or four within a year when diagnosed by community pediatricians, similar to many other studies. Validated otoscopists (trained by experts with diagnosis definitively proven as at least 85% accurate using tympanocentesis) classify 15% of children as otitis prone – half as many. If tympanocentesis is used to prove middle ear fluid has bacterial pathogens (about 95% yield a bacterial otopathogen using culture and PCR), then about 10% of children are classified as otitis prone – one-third as many. This suggests that children clinically diagnosed by community-based pediatricians are overdiagnosed with AOM, perhaps three times more often than true. And that leads to overuse of antibiotics and referrals for tympanostomy tube surgery more often than should occur. So we need to improve diagnostic methods beyond otoscopy. New types of imaging for the eardrum and middle ear using novel technologies are in early clinical trials.

Immunity

The notion that young children get AOM because of Eustachian tube dysfunction in their early years of life (horizontal anatomy) may be true, but there is more to the story. After 10 years of work, the scientists in my research group have shown that children in the first 3 years of life can have an immune system that is suppressed – it is poorly responsive to pathogens and routine pediatric vaccines. Many features resemble a neonatal immune system, beginning life with a suppressed immune system or being in cytokine storm from birth. We introduced the term “prolonged neonatal-like immune profile (PNIP)” to give a general description of the immune responses we have found in otitis-prone children. They outgrow this. So the immune maturation is delayed but not permanent. It is mostly resolved by age 3 years. We found problems in both innate and adaptive immunity. It may be that the main explanation for recurrent AOM in the first years of life is PNIP. Scientists from Australia also reported immunity problems in Aboriginal children and they are very otitis prone, often progressing to chronic suppurative otitis media. Animal model studies of AOM show inadequate innate and adaptive immunity importantly contribute to the infection as well.

Dr. Pichichero is a specialist in pediatric infectious diseases and director of the Research Institute at Rochester (N.Y.) General Hospital. He has no conflicts to declare. Email him at [email protected].

New research was presented at the International Society for Otitis Media meeting in June 2019, which I attended. I would like to share a selection of new findings from the many presentations.

Courtesy Wikimedia Commons/Mar10029/Creative Commons License

Transtympanic antibiotic delivery

Topical therapy has been used to treat only otitis externa and acute otitis media (AOM) with ear discharge. Giving antibiotics through the tympanic membrane could mitigate many of the concerns about antibiotic use driving antibiotic resistance of bacteria among children. Up to now, using antibiotics in the ear canal to treat AOM has not been considered because the tympanic membrane is highly impermeable to the transtympanic diffusion of any drugs. However, in recent years, a number of different drug delivery systems have been developed, and in some cases, animal studies have shown that noninvasive transtympanic delivery is possible so that drugs can reach high concentrations in the middle ear without damage. Nanovesicles and nanoliposomes that contain antibiotics and are small enough to pass through the eardrum have been developed and tested in animal models; these show promise. Ototopical administration of a drug called vinpocetine that was repurposed has been tested in mice and shown to reduce inflammation and mucus production in the middle ear during otitis media.

Biofilms

Antibiotic treatment failure can occur in AOM for several reasons. The treatment of choice, amoxicillin, for example may fail to achieve an adequate concentration because of poor absorption in the gastrointestinal tract or poor penetration into the middle ear. Or, the antibiotic chosen may not be effective because of resistance of the strain causing the infection. Another explanation, especially in recurrent AOM and chronic AOM, could be the presence of biofilms. Biofilms are multicellular bacterial communities incorporated in a polymeric, plasticlike matrix in which pathogens are protected from antibiotic activity. The biofilm provides a physical barrier to antibiotic penetration, and bacteria can persist in the middle ear and periodically cause a new AOM. If AOM persists or becomes a more chronic otitis media with effusion, the “glue ear” causes an environment in the middle ear that is low in oxygen. A low-oxygen environment is favorable to biofilms. Also one might expect that middle ear pus would have a low pH, but actual measurements show the pH is highly alkaline. Species of Haemophilus influenzae have been identified as more virulent when in an alkaline pH or the alkaline pH makes the H. influenzae persist better in the middle ear, perhaps in a biofilm. To eliminate biofilms and improve antibiotic efficacy, a vaccine against a protein expressed by H. influenzae has been developed. Antibodies against this protein have been shown to disrupt and prevent the formation of biofilms in an animal model.

Probiotics

The normal bacteria that live in the nasopharynx of children with recurrent AOM is now known to differ from that of children who experience infrequent AOM or remain AOM-free throughout childhood. The use of oral pre- and probiotics for AOM prophylaxis remains debated because the results of studies are conflicting and frequently show no effect. So the idea of using prebiotics or probiotics to create a favorable “microbiome” of the nose is under investigation. Two species of bacteria that are gathering the most attention are Corynebacterium species (a few types in particular) and a bacteria called Dolosigranulum pigrum. Delivery of the commensal species would be as a nose spray.

Vaccines

The use of pneumococcal conjugate vaccines (PCVs) has reduced the frequency of AOM caused by Streptococcus pneumoniae. PCVs are not as effective against AOM as they are against invasive pneumococcal disease, but they still help a lot. However, because there are now at least 96 different serotypes of the pneumococcus based on different capsular types, we see a pattern of replacement of disease-causing strains by new strains within a few years of introduction of a new formulation. We started with 7 serotypes (Prevnar 7) in year 2000, and it was replaced by the current formulation with 13 serotypes (Prevnar 13) in 2010. Replacements have occurred again so vaccine companies are making new formulations for the future that include more serotypes, up to 20 serotypes. But, technically and feasibility-wise there is a limit to making such vaccines. A vaccine based on killed unencapsulated bacteria has been tested for safety and immunogenicity in young children. There is no test so far for prevention of AOM. Another type of vaccine based on proteins expressed by the pneumococcus that could be vaccine targets was tested in American Navajo children, and it failed to be as efficacious as hoped.

Biomarkers.

Due to recurrent AOM or persistent otitis media with effusion, about 15% of children in the United States receive tympanostomy tubes. Among those who receive tubes, about 20% go on to receive a second set of tubes, often with adenotonsillectomy. To find a biomarker that could identify children likely to require a second set of tubes, the fluid in the middle ear was tested when a first set of tubes were inserted. If bacteria were detected by polymerase chain reaction (PCR) testing or if a profile of specific inflammatory cytokines was measured, those results could be used to predict a high likelihood for a second set of tubes.

Overdiagnosis

Diagnosis of AOM is challenging in young children, in whom it most frequently occurs. The ear canal is typically about 3 mm wide, the child struggles during the examination, and diagnostic skills are not taught in training, resulting in a high overdiagnosis rate. I presented data that suggest too many children who are not truly otitis prone have been classified as otitis prone based on incorrect clinical diagnosis. My colleagues and I found that 30% of children reach the threshold of three episodes of AOM in 6 months or four within a year when diagnosed by community pediatricians, similar to many other studies. Validated otoscopists (trained by experts with diagnosis definitively proven as at least 85% accurate using tympanocentesis) classify 15% of children as otitis prone – half as many. If tympanocentesis is used to prove middle ear fluid has bacterial pathogens (about 95% yield a bacterial otopathogen using culture and PCR), then about 10% of children are classified as otitis prone – one-third as many. This suggests that children clinically diagnosed by community-based pediatricians are overdiagnosed with AOM, perhaps three times more often than true. And that leads to overuse of antibiotics and referrals for tympanostomy tube surgery more often than should occur. So we need to improve diagnostic methods beyond otoscopy. New types of imaging for the eardrum and middle ear using novel technologies are in early clinical trials.

Immunity

The notion that young children get AOM because of Eustachian tube dysfunction in their early years of life (horizontal anatomy) may be true, but there is more to the story. After 10 years of work, the scientists in my research group have shown that children in the first 3 years of life can have an immune system that is suppressed – it is poorly responsive to pathogens and routine pediatric vaccines. Many features resemble a neonatal immune system, beginning life with a suppressed immune system or being in cytokine storm from birth. We introduced the term “prolonged neonatal-like immune profile (PNIP)” to give a general description of the immune responses we have found in otitis-prone children. They outgrow this. So the immune maturation is delayed but not permanent. It is mostly resolved by age 3 years. We found problems in both innate and adaptive immunity. It may be that the main explanation for recurrent AOM in the first years of life is PNIP. Scientists from Australia also reported immunity problems in Aboriginal children and they are very otitis prone, often progressing to chronic suppurative otitis media. Animal model studies of AOM show inadequate innate and adaptive immunity importantly contribute to the infection as well.

Dr. Pichichero is a specialist in pediatric infectious diseases and director of the Research Institute at Rochester (N.Y.) General Hospital. He has no conflicts to declare. Email him at [email protected].

Summer officially began June 21, 2019, but many of your patients already may have departed or will soon be headed to international destinations. Reasons for travel are as variable as their destinations and include but are not limited to family vacations, mission trips, study abroad, parental job relocation, and visiting friends and relatives. The majority of the trips are planned at least 3 months in advance; however, for many travelers and their parents, they suddenly get an aha moment and realize there is/are specific vaccines required to obtain a visa or entry to their final destination. Unfortunately, too much emphasis is focused on required vaccines. The well-informed traveler knows that they may be exposed to multiple diseases and many are vaccine preventable. Let me help you get your patients prepared no matter the destination so that they return home with only fond memories of their international adventure.

FatCamera/E+

The accompanying table lists vaccines traditionally considered to be travel vaccines. Several require multiple doses administered over 21-28 days to provide protection. Others such as cholera and yellow fever must be completed at least 10 days prior to departure to be effective. Typhoid has two formulations: The oral and injectable typhoid vaccines should be completed 1 and 2 weeks, respectively, prior to travel. Several vaccines have age limitations. Routine immunization of all infants against hepatitis A was recommended in 2006. Depending on your region, there may be adolescents who have not been immunized. Fortunately, hepatitis A vaccine works immediately.

One of the challenges you face is identifying someone in your area that provides travel medicine advice and immunizations to children and adolescents. Most children and teens travel with their parents, but today many adolescents travel independently with organized groups. Most of the vaccines listed are not routinely administered at your office, yet you most likely will be the first call a parent makes seeking travel advice.

Let me tell you about a few vaccines in particular.

Japanese encephalitis

This is most common cause of encephalitis in Asia and parts of the western Pacific. Risk generally is limited to rural agricultural areas where the causative virus is transmitted by a mosquito. Fatality rates are 20%-30%. Among survivors, 30%-50% have significant neurologic, cognitive, and psychiatric sequelae. Candidates for this vaccine are long-term travelers and short-term travelers with extensive outdoor rural activities.

Meningococcal conjugate vaccines (MCV4)

All travelers to the Hajj Pilgrimage (Aug. 9-14, 2019) and/or Umrah must show proof of immunization. Vaccine must be received at least 10 days prior to and no greater than 5 years prior to arrival to Saudi Arabia. Conjugate vaccine must clearly be documented for validity of 5 years. For all health entry requirements, go to www.moh.gov.sa/en/hajj/pages/healthregulations.aspx.

Measles

The Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices recommends all infants 6-11 months old receive one dose of MMR prior to international travel regardless of the destination. This should be followed by two additional countable doses. All persons at least 12 months of age and born after 1956 should receive two doses of MMR at least 28 days apart prior to international travel.
 

Rabies

Rabies is a viral disease endemic in more than 150 countries with approximately 60,000 fatal cases worldwide each year. Asia and Africa are the areas with the highest risk of exposure, and dogs are the principal hosts. Human rabies is almost always fatal once symptoms develop. Preexposure vaccine is recommended for persons with prolonged and/or remote travel to countries where rabies immunoglobulin is unavailable and the occurrence of animal rabies is high. Post exposure vaccination on days 0 and 3 still would be required.*

Typhoid

A bacterial infection caused by Salmonella enterica serotype Typhi and Paratyphi manifests with fever, headache, abdominal pain, diarrhea, or constipation. When bacteremia occurs, it usually is referred to as enteric fever. It is acquired by consumption of food/water contaminated with human feces. Highest risk areas include Africa, Southern Asia, and Southeast Asia

Yellow fever

Risk is limited to sub-Saharan Africa and the tropical areas of South America. It is transmitted by the bite of an infected mosquito. The vaccine is required for entry into at least 16 countries. In a country where yellow fever is present, persons transiting through for more than 12 hours to reach their final destination may actually cause a change in the entry requirements for the destination country. For example, travel from the United States to Tanzania requires no yellow fever vaccine while travel from the United States to Nairobi (more than 12 hours) to Tanzania requires yellow fever vaccine for entry into Tanzania. Travel sequence and duration is extremely important. Check the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention yellow fever site and/or the consulate for the most up-to-date yellow fever vaccine requirements.

YF-Vax (yellow fever vaccine) produced by Sanofi Pasteur in the United States currently is unavailable. The company is building a new facility, and vaccine will not be available for the remainder of 2019. To assure vaccine for U.S. travelers, Stamaril, a yellow fever vaccine produced by Sanofi Pasteur in France has been made available at more than 250 sites nationwide. Because Stamaril is offered at a limited number of locations, persons in need of vaccine should not delay seeking it. Because of increased demand related to summer travel, travelers in some areas have reported delays of several weeks in scheduling an appointment. To locate a Stamaril site in your area, go to wwwnc.cdc.gov/travel/page/search-for-stamaril-clinics.

There are several other diseases transmitted by mosquitoes and ticks including malaria, dengue, Zika and rickettsial diseases. Vigilant use of mosquito repellents is a must. Prophylactic medication is available for only malaria and should be initiated prior to exposure. Frequency and duration depends on the medication selected.

So how do you assist your patients?

Once you’ve identified a travel medicine facility in your area, encourage them to seek pretravel advice 4-6 weeks prior to international travel and make sure their routine immunizations are up to date. Generally, this is not an issue. One challenge is the early administration of MMR. While most practitioners know that early administration for international travel has been recommended for years, many office staff are accustomed to administration at only the 12 month and 4 year visit. When parents call requesting immunization, they often are informed that is it unnecessary and the appointment denied. This is a challenge, especially when coordination of administration of another live vaccine, such as yellow fever, is planned. Familiarizing all members of the health care team with current vaccine recommendations is critical.

For country-specific information, up-to-date travel alerts, and to locate a travel medicine clinic, visit www.cdc.gov/travel.

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

*This article was updated 6/18/2019.

Summer officially began June 21, 2019, but many of your patients already may have departed or will soon be headed to international destinations. Reasons for travel are as variable as their destinations and include but are not limited to family vacations, mission trips, study abroad, parental job relocation, and visiting friends and relatives. The majority of the trips are planned at least 3 months in advance; however, for many travelers and their parents, they suddenly get an aha moment and realize there is/are specific vaccines required to obtain a visa or entry to their final destination. Unfortunately, too much emphasis is focused on required vaccines. The well-informed traveler knows that they may be exposed to multiple diseases and many are vaccine preventable. Let me help you get your patients prepared no matter the destination so that they return home with only fond memories of their international adventure.

FatCamera/E+

The accompanying table lists vaccines traditionally considered to be travel vaccines. Several require multiple doses administered over 21-28 days to provide protection. Others such as cholera and yellow fever must be completed at least 10 days prior to departure to be effective. Typhoid has two formulations: The oral and injectable typhoid vaccines should be completed 1 and 2 weeks, respectively, prior to travel. Several vaccines have age limitations. Routine immunization of all infants against hepatitis A was recommended in 2006. Depending on your region, there may be adolescents who have not been immunized. Fortunately, hepatitis A vaccine works immediately.

One of the challenges you face is identifying someone in your area that provides travel medicine advice and immunizations to children and adolescents. Most children and teens travel with their parents, but today many adolescents travel independently with organized groups. Most of the vaccines listed are not routinely administered at your office, yet you most likely will be the first call a parent makes seeking travel advice.

Let me tell you about a few vaccines in particular.

Japanese encephalitis

This is most common cause of encephalitis in Asia and parts of the western Pacific. Risk generally is limited to rural agricultural areas where the causative virus is transmitted by a mosquito. Fatality rates are 20%-30%. Among survivors, 30%-50% have significant neurologic, cognitive, and psychiatric sequelae. Candidates for this vaccine are long-term travelers and short-term travelers with extensive outdoor rural activities.

Meningococcal conjugate vaccines (MCV4)

All travelers to the Hajj Pilgrimage (Aug. 9-14, 2019) and/or Umrah must show proof of immunization. Vaccine must be received at least 10 days prior to and no greater than 5 years prior to arrival to Saudi Arabia. Conjugate vaccine must clearly be documented for validity of 5 years. For all health entry requirements, go to www.moh.gov.sa/en/hajj/pages/healthregulations.aspx.

Measles

The Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices recommends all infants 6-11 months old receive one dose of MMR prior to international travel regardless of the destination. This should be followed by two additional countable doses. All persons at least 12 months of age and born after 1956 should receive two doses of MMR at least 28 days apart prior to international travel.
 

Rabies

Rabies is a viral disease endemic in more than 150 countries with approximately 60,000 fatal cases worldwide each year. Asia and Africa are the areas with the highest risk of exposure, and dogs are the principal hosts. Human rabies is almost always fatal once symptoms develop. Preexposure vaccine is recommended for persons with prolonged and/or remote travel to countries where rabies immunoglobulin is unavailable and the occurrence of animal rabies is high. Post exposure vaccination on days 0 and 3 still would be required.*

Typhoid

A bacterial infection caused by Salmonella enterica serotype Typhi and Paratyphi manifests with fever, headache, abdominal pain, diarrhea, or constipation. When bacteremia occurs, it usually is referred to as enteric fever. It is acquired by consumption of food/water contaminated with human feces. Highest risk areas include Africa, Southern Asia, and Southeast Asia

Yellow fever

Risk is limited to sub-Saharan Africa and the tropical areas of South America. It is transmitted by the bite of an infected mosquito. The vaccine is required for entry into at least 16 countries. In a country where yellow fever is present, persons transiting through for more than 12 hours to reach their final destination may actually cause a change in the entry requirements for the destination country. For example, travel from the United States to Tanzania requires no yellow fever vaccine while travel from the United States to Nairobi (more than 12 hours) to Tanzania requires yellow fever vaccine for entry into Tanzania. Travel sequence and duration is extremely important. Check the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention yellow fever site and/or the consulate for the most up-to-date yellow fever vaccine requirements.

YF-Vax (yellow fever vaccine) produced by Sanofi Pasteur in the United States currently is unavailable. The company is building a new facility, and vaccine will not be available for the remainder of 2019. To assure vaccine for U.S. travelers, Stamaril, a yellow fever vaccine produced by Sanofi Pasteur in France has been made available at more than 250 sites nationwide. Because Stamaril is offered at a limited number of locations, persons in need of vaccine should not delay seeking it. Because of increased demand related to summer travel, travelers in some areas have reported delays of several weeks in scheduling an appointment. To locate a Stamaril site in your area, go to wwwnc.cdc.gov/travel/page/search-for-stamaril-clinics.

There are several other diseases transmitted by mosquitoes and ticks including malaria, dengue, Zika and rickettsial diseases. Vigilant use of mosquito repellents is a must. Prophylactic medication is available for only malaria and should be initiated prior to exposure. Frequency and duration depends on the medication selected.

So how do you assist your patients?

Once you’ve identified a travel medicine facility in your area, encourage them to seek pretravel advice 4-6 weeks prior to international travel and make sure their routine immunizations are up to date. Generally, this is not an issue. One challenge is the early administration of MMR. While most practitioners know that early administration for international travel has been recommended for years, many office staff are accustomed to administration at only the 12 month and 4 year visit. When parents call requesting immunization, they often are informed that is it unnecessary and the appointment denied. This is a challenge, especially when coordination of administration of another live vaccine, such as yellow fever, is planned. Familiarizing all members of the health care team with current vaccine recommendations is critical.

For country-specific information, up-to-date travel alerts, and to locate a travel medicine clinic, visit www.cdc.gov/travel.

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

*This article was updated 6/18/2019.

Summer officially began June 21, 2019, but many of your patients already may have departed or will soon be headed to international destinations. Reasons for travel are as variable as their destinations and include but are not limited to family vacations, mission trips, study abroad, parental job relocation, and visiting friends and relatives. The majority of the trips are planned at least 3 months in advance; however, for many travelers and their parents, they suddenly get an aha moment and realize there is/are specific vaccines required to obtain a visa or entry to their final destination. Unfortunately, too much emphasis is focused on required vaccines. The well-informed traveler knows that they may be exposed to multiple diseases and many are vaccine preventable. Let me help you get your patients prepared no matter the destination so that they return home with only fond memories of their international adventure.

FatCamera/E+

The accompanying table lists vaccines traditionally considered to be travel vaccines. Several require multiple doses administered over 21-28 days to provide protection. Others such as cholera and yellow fever must be completed at least 10 days prior to departure to be effective. Typhoid has two formulations: The oral and injectable typhoid vaccines should be completed 1 and 2 weeks, respectively, prior to travel. Several vaccines have age limitations. Routine immunization of all infants against hepatitis A was recommended in 2006. Depending on your region, there may be adolescents who have not been immunized. Fortunately, hepatitis A vaccine works immediately.

One of the challenges you face is identifying someone in your area that provides travel medicine advice and immunizations to children and adolescents. Most children and teens travel with their parents, but today many adolescents travel independently with organized groups. Most of the vaccines listed are not routinely administered at your office, yet you most likely will be the first call a parent makes seeking travel advice.

Let me tell you about a few vaccines in particular.

Japanese encephalitis

This is most common cause of encephalitis in Asia and parts of the western Pacific. Risk generally is limited to rural agricultural areas where the causative virus is transmitted by a mosquito. Fatality rates are 20%-30%. Among survivors, 30%-50% have significant neurologic, cognitive, and psychiatric sequelae. Candidates for this vaccine are long-term travelers and short-term travelers with extensive outdoor rural activities.

Meningococcal conjugate vaccines (MCV4)

All travelers to the Hajj Pilgrimage (Aug. 9-14, 2019) and/or Umrah must show proof of immunization. Vaccine must be received at least 10 days prior to and no greater than 5 years prior to arrival to Saudi Arabia. Conjugate vaccine must clearly be documented for validity of 5 years. For all health entry requirements, go to www.moh.gov.sa/en/hajj/pages/healthregulations.aspx.

Measles

The Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices recommends all infants 6-11 months old receive one dose of MMR prior to international travel regardless of the destination. This should be followed by two additional countable doses. All persons at least 12 months of age and born after 1956 should receive two doses of MMR at least 28 days apart prior to international travel.
 

Rabies

Rabies is a viral disease endemic in more than 150 countries with approximately 60,000 fatal cases worldwide each year. Asia and Africa are the areas with the highest risk of exposure, and dogs are the principal hosts. Human rabies is almost always fatal once symptoms develop. Preexposure vaccine is recommended for persons with prolonged and/or remote travel to countries where rabies immunoglobulin is unavailable and the occurrence of animal rabies is high. Post exposure vaccination on days 0 and 3 still would be required.*

Typhoid

A bacterial infection caused by Salmonella enterica serotype Typhi and Paratyphi manifests with fever, headache, abdominal pain, diarrhea, or constipation. When bacteremia occurs, it usually is referred to as enteric fever. It is acquired by consumption of food/water contaminated with human feces. Highest risk areas include Africa, Southern Asia, and Southeast Asia

Yellow fever

Risk is limited to sub-Saharan Africa and the tropical areas of South America. It is transmitted by the bite of an infected mosquito. The vaccine is required for entry into at least 16 countries. In a country where yellow fever is present, persons transiting through for more than 12 hours to reach their final destination may actually cause a change in the entry requirements for the destination country. For example, travel from the United States to Tanzania requires no yellow fever vaccine while travel from the United States to Nairobi (more than 12 hours) to Tanzania requires yellow fever vaccine for entry into Tanzania. Travel sequence and duration is extremely important. Check the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention yellow fever site and/or the consulate for the most up-to-date yellow fever vaccine requirements.

YF-Vax (yellow fever vaccine) produced by Sanofi Pasteur in the United States currently is unavailable. The company is building a new facility, and vaccine will not be available for the remainder of 2019. To assure vaccine for U.S. travelers, Stamaril, a yellow fever vaccine produced by Sanofi Pasteur in France has been made available at more than 250 sites nationwide. Because Stamaril is offered at a limited number of locations, persons in need of vaccine should not delay seeking it. Because of increased demand related to summer travel, travelers in some areas have reported delays of several weeks in scheduling an appointment. To locate a Stamaril site in your area, go to wwwnc.cdc.gov/travel/page/search-for-stamaril-clinics.

There are several other diseases transmitted by mosquitoes and ticks including malaria, dengue, Zika and rickettsial diseases. Vigilant use of mosquito repellents is a must. Prophylactic medication is available for only malaria and should be initiated prior to exposure. Frequency and duration depends on the medication selected.

So how do you assist your patients?

Once you’ve identified a travel medicine facility in your area, encourage them to seek pretravel advice 4-6 weeks prior to international travel and make sure their routine immunizations are up to date. Generally, this is not an issue. One challenge is the early administration of MMR. While most practitioners know that early administration for international travel has been recommended for years, many office staff are accustomed to administration at only the 12 month and 4 year visit. When parents call requesting immunization, they often are informed that is it unnecessary and the appointment denied. This is a challenge, especially when coordination of administration of another live vaccine, such as yellow fever, is planned. Familiarizing all members of the health care team with current vaccine recommendations is critical.

For country-specific information, up-to-date travel alerts, and to locate a travel medicine clinic, visit www.cdc.gov/travel.

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

*This article was updated 6/18/2019.

Influenza gets a lot of attention each winter, but respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) and other respiratory viruses have as much or more impact on pediatric populations, particularly certain high-risk groups. But currently there are no vaccines for noninfluenza respiratory viruses. That said, several are under development, for RSV and parainfluenza.

Which groups are likely to get the most benefit from these newer vaccines?

We all are aware of the extra vulnerability to respiratory viruses (RSV being the most frequent) in premature infants, those with chronic lung disease, or those with congenital heart syndromes; such vulnerable patients are not infrequently seen in routine practice. But patients from another less frequent category – those with neuromuscular disease – may be even more vulnerable and may benefit more from new vaccines. A recent report shined a brighter light on such a group.

Real-world data from a nationwide Canadian surveillance system (CARESS) was used to analyze relative risks of categories of young children who are thought to be vulnerable to respiratory viruses, with a particular focus on those with neuromuscular disease. The CARESS investigators analyzed 12 years’ data on respiratory hospitalizations from among palivizumab-prophylaxed patients (including specific data on RSV when patients were tested for RSV per standard of care).¹ Unfortunately, RSV testing was not universal despite hospitalization, so the true incidence of RSV-specific hospitalizations was likely underestimated.

Nevertheless, more than 25,000 children from 2005 through 2017 were grouped into three categories of palivizumab-prophylaxed high-risk children: standard indications (SI), n = 20,335; chronic medical conditions (CMD), n = 4,063; and neuromuscular disease (NMD), n = 605. This study is notable for having a relatively large number of neuromuscular disease subjects. Two-thirds of each group were fully palivizumab adherent.

The SI group included the standard American Academy of Pediatrics–recommended groups, such as premature infants, congenital heart disease, etc.

The CMD group included conditions that lead clinicians to use palivizumab off label, such as cystic fibrosis, congenital airway anomalies, immunodeficiency, and pulmonary disorders.

The NMD participants were subdivided into two groups. Group 1 comprised general hypotonic neuromuscular diseases such as hypoxic-ischemic encephalopathy, Prader-Willi syndrome, chromosomal disorders, and migration/demyelinating diseases. Group 2 included more severe infantile neuromuscular disorders, such as spinal muscular atrophy, myotonic dystrophy, centronuclear and nemaline myopathy, mitochondrial and glycogen storage myopathies, or arthrogryposis.

Dr. Harrison is professor of pediatrics and pediatric infectious diseases at Children’s Mercy Hospital–Kansas City, Mo. Children’s Mercy Hospital receives grant funding to study two candidate RSV vaccines. The hospital also receives CDC funding under the New Vaccine Surveillance Network for multicenter surveillance of acute respiratory infections, including influenza, RSV, and parainfluenza virus. Email Dr. Harrison at [email protected].

References

1. Pediatr Infect Dis J. 2019 Apr 10. doi: 10.1097/INF.0000000000002297.

2. “Advances in RSV Vaccine Research and Development – A Global Agenda.”

3. J Pediatric Infect Dis Soc. 2015 Dec;4(4): e143-6.

4. J Virol. 2015 Oct;89(20):10319-32.

5. Vaccine. 2017 Dec 18;35(51):7139-46.

Influenza gets a lot of attention each winter, but respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) and other respiratory viruses have as much or more impact on pediatric populations, particularly certain high-risk groups. But currently there are no vaccines for noninfluenza respiratory viruses. That said, several are under development, for RSV and parainfluenza.

Which groups are likely to get the most benefit from these newer vaccines?

We all are aware of the extra vulnerability to respiratory viruses (RSV being the most frequent) in premature infants, those with chronic lung disease, or those with congenital heart syndromes; such vulnerable patients are not infrequently seen in routine practice. But patients from another less frequent category – those with neuromuscular disease – may be even more vulnerable and may benefit more from new vaccines. A recent report shined a brighter light on such a group.

Real-world data from a nationwide Canadian surveillance system (CARESS) was used to analyze relative risks of categories of young children who are thought to be vulnerable to respiratory viruses, with a particular focus on those with neuromuscular disease. The CARESS investigators analyzed 12 years’ data on respiratory hospitalizations from among palivizumab-prophylaxed patients (including specific data on RSV when patients were tested for RSV per standard of care).¹ Unfortunately, RSV testing was not universal despite hospitalization, so the true incidence of RSV-specific hospitalizations was likely underestimated.

Nevertheless, more than 25,000 children from 2005 through 2017 were grouped into three categories of palivizumab-prophylaxed high-risk children: standard indications (SI), n = 20,335; chronic medical conditions (CMD), n = 4,063; and neuromuscular disease (NMD), n = 605. This study is notable for having a relatively large number of neuromuscular disease subjects. Two-thirds of each group were fully palivizumab adherent.

The SI group included the standard American Academy of Pediatrics–recommended groups, such as premature infants, congenital heart disease, etc.

The CMD group included conditions that lead clinicians to use palivizumab off label, such as cystic fibrosis, congenital airway anomalies, immunodeficiency, and pulmonary disorders.

The NMD participants were subdivided into two groups. Group 1 comprised general hypotonic neuromuscular diseases such as hypoxic-ischemic encephalopathy, Prader-Willi syndrome, chromosomal disorders, and migration/demyelinating diseases. Group 2 included more severe infantile neuromuscular disorders, such as spinal muscular atrophy, myotonic dystrophy, centronuclear and nemaline myopathy, mitochondrial and glycogen storage myopathies, or arthrogryposis.

Dr. Harrison is professor of pediatrics and pediatric infectious diseases at Children’s Mercy Hospital–Kansas City, Mo. Children’s Mercy Hospital receives grant funding to study two candidate RSV vaccines. The hospital also receives CDC funding under the New Vaccine Surveillance Network for multicenter surveillance of acute respiratory infections, including influenza, RSV, and parainfluenza virus. Email Dr. Harrison at [email protected].

References

1. Pediatr Infect Dis J. 2019 Apr 10. doi: 10.1097/INF.0000000000002297.

2. “Advances in RSV Vaccine Research and Development – A Global Agenda.”

3. J Pediatric Infect Dis Soc. 2015 Dec;4(4): e143-6.

4. J Virol. 2015 Oct;89(20):10319-32.

5. Vaccine. 2017 Dec 18;35(51):7139-46.

Influenza gets a lot of attention each winter, but respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) and other respiratory viruses have as much or more impact on pediatric populations, particularly certain high-risk groups. But currently there are no vaccines for noninfluenza respiratory viruses. That said, several are under development, for RSV and parainfluenza.

Which groups are likely to get the most benefit from these newer vaccines?

We all are aware of the extra vulnerability to respiratory viruses (RSV being the most frequent) in premature infants, those with chronic lung disease, or those with congenital heart syndromes; such vulnerable patients are not infrequently seen in routine practice. But patients from another less frequent category – those with neuromuscular disease – may be even more vulnerable and may benefit more from new vaccines. A recent report shined a brighter light on such a group.

Real-world data from a nationwide Canadian surveillance system (CARESS) was used to analyze relative risks of categories of young children who are thought to be vulnerable to respiratory viruses, with a particular focus on those with neuromuscular disease. The CARESS investigators analyzed 12 years’ data on respiratory hospitalizations from among palivizumab-prophylaxed patients (including specific data on RSV when patients were tested for RSV per standard of care).¹ Unfortunately, RSV testing was not universal despite hospitalization, so the true incidence of RSV-specific hospitalizations was likely underestimated.

Nevertheless, more than 25,000 children from 2005 through 2017 were grouped into three categories of palivizumab-prophylaxed high-risk children: standard indications (SI), n = 20,335; chronic medical conditions (CMD), n = 4,063; and neuromuscular disease (NMD), n = 605. This study is notable for having a relatively large number of neuromuscular disease subjects. Two-thirds of each group were fully palivizumab adherent.

The SI group included the standard American Academy of Pediatrics–recommended groups, such as premature infants, congenital heart disease, etc.

The CMD group included conditions that lead clinicians to use palivizumab off label, such as cystic fibrosis, congenital airway anomalies, immunodeficiency, and pulmonary disorders.

The NMD participants were subdivided into two groups. Group 1 comprised general hypotonic neuromuscular diseases such as hypoxic-ischemic encephalopathy, Prader-Willi syndrome, chromosomal disorders, and migration/demyelinating diseases. Group 2 included more severe infantile neuromuscular disorders, such as spinal muscular atrophy, myotonic dystrophy, centronuclear and nemaline myopathy, mitochondrial and glycogen storage myopathies, or arthrogryposis.

Dr. Harrison is professor of pediatrics and pediatric infectious diseases at Children’s Mercy Hospital–Kansas City, Mo. Children’s Mercy Hospital receives grant funding to study two candidate RSV vaccines. The hospital also receives CDC funding under the New Vaccine Surveillance Network for multicenter surveillance of acute respiratory infections, including influenza, RSV, and parainfluenza virus. Email Dr. Harrison at [email protected].

References

1. Pediatr Infect Dis J. 2019 Apr 10. doi: 10.1097/INF.0000000000002297.

2. “Advances in RSV Vaccine Research and Development – A Global Agenda.”

3. J Pediatric Infect Dis Soc. 2015 Dec;4(4): e143-6.

4. J Virol. 2015 Oct;89(20):10319-32.

5. Vaccine. 2017 Dec 18;35(51):7139-46.

Cytomegalovirus (CMV) infection is the most common congenital viral infection in U.S. children, with a frequency between 0.5% and 1% of newborn infants resulting in approximately 30,000 infected children annually. A small minority (approximately 10%) can be identified in the neonatal period as symptomatic with jaundice (from direct hyperbilirubinemia), petechiae (from thrombocytopenia), hepatosplenomegaly, microcephaly, or other manifestations. The vast majority are asymptomatic at birth, yet 15% will have or develop sensorineural hearing loss (SNHL) during the first few years of life; others (1%-2%) will develop vision loss associated with retinal scars. Congenital CMV accounts for 20% of those with SNHL detected at birth and 25% of children with SNHL at 4 years of age.

CDC/ Dr. Craig Lyerla

Screening for congenital CMV has been an ongoing subject of debate. The challenges of implementing screening programs are related both to the diagnostics (collecting urine samples on newborns) as well as with the question of whether we have treatment and interventions to offer babies diagnosed with congenital CMV across the complete spectrum of clinical presentations.

Current screening programs implemented in some hospitals, called “targeted screening,” in which babies who fail newborn screening programs are tested for CMV, are not sufficient to achieve the goal of identifying babies who will need follow-up for early detection of SNHL or vision abnormalities, or possibly early antiviral therapy (Valcyte; valganciclovir), because only a small portion of those who eventually develop SNHL are currently identified by the targeted screening programs.¹

A newly licensed assay for detection of CMV DNA in saliva has potentially provided a means to identify asymptomatic congenital CMV infection. However, its availability only has added to the debate as to whether the time has arrived for universal screening.

Vertical transmission of CMV occurs in utero (during any of the trimesters), at birth by passage through the birth canal, or postnatally by ingestion of breast milk. Neonatal infection (in utero and postnatal) occurs in both mothers with primary CMV infection during gestation and in those with recurrent infection (from a different viral strain) or reactivation of infection. Severe clinically symptomatic disease and sequelae is associated with primary maternal infection and early transmission to the fetus. However, it is estimated that nonprimary maternal infection accounts for 75% of neonatal infections. Transmission by breast milk to full-term, healthy infants does not appear to be associated with clinical illness or sequelae; however, preterm infants or those with birth weights less than 1,500 g have a small risk of developing clinical disease.

The polymerase chain reaction–based saliva CMV test (Alethia CMV Assay Test System) was licensed by the Food and Drug Administration in November 2018 after studies demonstrated high sensitivity and specificity, compared with viral culture (the gold standard). In one study, 17,327 infants were screened with the liquid-saliva PCR assay, and 0.5% tested positive for CMV on both the saliva test and culture. Sensitivity and specificity of the liquid-saliva PCR assay were 100% and 99.9%, respectively.² The availability of an approved saliva-based assay that is both highly sensitive and specific overcomes the challenge of collecting urine, which has been a limiting factor in development of pragmatic universal screening programs. To date, most of the focus in identification of congenital CMV infection has been linking newborn hearing testing programs with CMV testing. For some, these have been labeled “targeted screening programs for CMV.” To us, these appear to be best practice for medical evaluations of an infant with identified SNHL. The availability of saliva-based CMV testing should enable virtually all children who fail newborn screening to be tested for CMV. In multiple studies,^3,4 6% of infants with confirmed hearing screen failure tested positive for CMV. A recent study⁵ identified only 1 infant among the 171 infants who failed newborn screening, however only approximately 15% of the infants were eventually confirmed as hearing impaired at audiology follow-up, suggesting that programmatically testing for CMV might be limited to those with confirmed hearing loss if such can be accomplished within a narrow window of time.

The Valgan Toddler study – sponsored by NIH and the University of Alabama as part of the Collaborative Antiviral Study Group – will enroll children who are aged 1 month through 3 years and who had a recent diagnosis of hearing loss (within the prior 12 weeks) and evidence of congenital CMV infection. The purpose of this study is to compare the effect on hearing and neurologic outcomes in infants aged 1 month through 4 years with recent onset SNHL who receive 6 weeks of valganciclovir versus children who do not receive this drug. The results of such studies will be critical for the development of best practices.

In summary, the licensure of a rapid PCR-based tool for diagnosis of CMV infection from saliva adds to our ability to develop screening programs to detect asymptomatic infants with congenital CMV infection. The ability to link newborns who fail hearing screening programs with CMV testing will lead to more detection of CMV-infected neonates, both with isolated hearing loss, and subsequently with no signs or symptoms of infection. There is an urgent need for evidence from randomized clinical trials to enable the development of best practices for such infants.
 

Dr. Pelton is professor of pediatrics and epidemiology at Boston University and senior attending physician at Boston Medical Center. Dr. Lapidot is a senior fellow in pediatric infectious diseases, Boston Medical Center. Neither Dr. Pelton nor Dr. Lapidot have any relevant financial disclosures. Email them at [email protected].
 

References

1. J Pediatric Infect Dis Soc. 2019 Mar 28;8(1):55-9.

2. N Engl J Med 2011 Jun 2; 364:2111-8.

3. Pediatrics. 2008 May;121(5):970-5

4. J Clin Virol. 2018 May;102:110-5.

5. J Pediatric Infect Dis Soc. 2019 Mar;8(1):55-9.

6. J Pediatr. 2003 Jul;143(1):16-25.

7. J Pediatr. 2018 Aug;199:166-70.

Cytomegalovirus (CMV) infection is the most common congenital viral infection in U.S. children, with a frequency between 0.5% and 1% of newborn infants resulting in approximately 30,000 infected children annually. A small minority (approximately 10%) can be identified in the neonatal period as symptomatic with jaundice (from direct hyperbilirubinemia), petechiae (from thrombocytopenia), hepatosplenomegaly, microcephaly, or other manifestations. The vast majority are asymptomatic at birth, yet 15% will have or develop sensorineural hearing loss (SNHL) during the first few years of life; others (1%-2%) will develop vision loss associated with retinal scars. Congenital CMV accounts for 20% of those with SNHL detected at birth and 25% of children with SNHL at 4 years of age.

CDC/ Dr. Craig Lyerla

Screening for congenital CMV has been an ongoing subject of debate. The challenges of implementing screening programs are related both to the diagnostics (collecting urine samples on newborns) as well as with the question of whether we have treatment and interventions to offer babies diagnosed with congenital CMV across the complete spectrum of clinical presentations.

Current screening programs implemented in some hospitals, called “targeted screening,” in which babies who fail newborn screening programs are tested for CMV, are not sufficient to achieve the goal of identifying babies who will need follow-up for early detection of SNHL or vision abnormalities, or possibly early antiviral therapy (Valcyte; valganciclovir), because only a small portion of those who eventually develop SNHL are currently identified by the targeted screening programs.¹

A newly licensed assay for detection of CMV DNA in saliva has potentially provided a means to identify asymptomatic congenital CMV infection. However, its availability only has added to the debate as to whether the time has arrived for universal screening.

Vertical transmission of CMV occurs in utero (during any of the trimesters), at birth by passage through the birth canal, or postnatally by ingestion of breast milk. Neonatal infection (in utero and postnatal) occurs in both mothers with primary CMV infection during gestation and in those with recurrent infection (from a different viral strain) or reactivation of infection. Severe clinically symptomatic disease and sequelae is associated with primary maternal infection and early transmission to the fetus. However, it is estimated that nonprimary maternal infection accounts for 75% of neonatal infections. Transmission by breast milk to full-term, healthy infants does not appear to be associated with clinical illness or sequelae; however, preterm infants or those with birth weights less than 1,500 g have a small risk of developing clinical disease.

The polymerase chain reaction–based saliva CMV test (Alethia CMV Assay Test System) was licensed by the Food and Drug Administration in November 2018 after studies demonstrated high sensitivity and specificity, compared with viral culture (the gold standard). In one study, 17,327 infants were screened with the liquid-saliva PCR assay, and 0.5% tested positive for CMV on both the saliva test and culture. Sensitivity and specificity of the liquid-saliva PCR assay were 100% and 99.9%, respectively.² The availability of an approved saliva-based assay that is both highly sensitive and specific overcomes the challenge of collecting urine, which has been a limiting factor in development of pragmatic universal screening programs. To date, most of the focus in identification of congenital CMV infection has been linking newborn hearing testing programs with CMV testing. For some, these have been labeled “targeted screening programs for CMV.” To us, these appear to be best practice for medical evaluations of an infant with identified SNHL. The availability of saliva-based CMV testing should enable virtually all children who fail newborn screening to be tested for CMV. In multiple studies,^3,4 6% of infants with confirmed hearing screen failure tested positive for CMV. A recent study⁵ identified only 1 infant among the 171 infants who failed newborn screening, however only approximately 15% of the infants were eventually confirmed as hearing impaired at audiology follow-up, suggesting that programmatically testing for CMV might be limited to those with confirmed hearing loss if such can be accomplished within a narrow window of time.

The Valgan Toddler study – sponsored by NIH and the University of Alabama as part of the Collaborative Antiviral Study Group – will enroll children who are aged 1 month through 3 years and who had a recent diagnosis of hearing loss (within the prior 12 weeks) and evidence of congenital CMV infection. The purpose of this study is to compare the effect on hearing and neurologic outcomes in infants aged 1 month through 4 years with recent onset SNHL who receive 6 weeks of valganciclovir versus children who do not receive this drug. The results of such studies will be critical for the development of best practices.

In summary, the licensure of a rapid PCR-based tool for diagnosis of CMV infection from saliva adds to our ability to develop screening programs to detect asymptomatic infants with congenital CMV infection. The ability to link newborns who fail hearing screening programs with CMV testing will lead to more detection of CMV-infected neonates, both with isolated hearing loss, and subsequently with no signs or symptoms of infection. There is an urgent need for evidence from randomized clinical trials to enable the development of best practices for such infants.
 

Dr. Pelton is professor of pediatrics and epidemiology at Boston University and senior attending physician at Boston Medical Center. Dr. Lapidot is a senior fellow in pediatric infectious diseases, Boston Medical Center. Neither Dr. Pelton nor Dr. Lapidot have any relevant financial disclosures. Email them at [email protected].
 

References

1. J Pediatric Infect Dis Soc. 2019 Mar 28;8(1):55-9.

2. N Engl J Med 2011 Jun 2; 364:2111-8.

3. Pediatrics. 2008 May;121(5):970-5

4. J Clin Virol. 2018 May;102:110-5.

5. J Pediatric Infect Dis Soc. 2019 Mar;8(1):55-9.

6. J Pediatr. 2003 Jul;143(1):16-25.

7. J Pediatr. 2018 Aug;199:166-70.

Cytomegalovirus (CMV) infection is the most common congenital viral infection in U.S. children, with a frequency between 0.5% and 1% of newborn infants resulting in approximately 30,000 infected children annually. A small minority (approximately 10%) can be identified in the neonatal period as symptomatic with jaundice (from direct hyperbilirubinemia), petechiae (from thrombocytopenia), hepatosplenomegaly, microcephaly, or other manifestations. The vast majority are asymptomatic at birth, yet 15% will have or develop sensorineural hearing loss (SNHL) during the first few years of life; others (1%-2%) will develop vision loss associated with retinal scars. Congenital CMV accounts for 20% of those with SNHL detected at birth and 25% of children with SNHL at 4 years of age.

CDC/ Dr. Craig Lyerla

Screening for congenital CMV has been an ongoing subject of debate. The challenges of implementing screening programs are related both to the diagnostics (collecting urine samples on newborns) as well as with the question of whether we have treatment and interventions to offer babies diagnosed with congenital CMV across the complete spectrum of clinical presentations.

Current screening programs implemented in some hospitals, called “targeted screening,” in which babies who fail newborn screening programs are tested for CMV, are not sufficient to achieve the goal of identifying babies who will need follow-up for early detection of SNHL or vision abnormalities, or possibly early antiviral therapy (Valcyte; valganciclovir), because only a small portion of those who eventually develop SNHL are currently identified by the targeted screening programs.¹

A newly licensed assay for detection of CMV DNA in saliva has potentially provided a means to identify asymptomatic congenital CMV infection. However, its availability only has added to the debate as to whether the time has arrived for universal screening.

Vertical transmission of CMV occurs in utero (during any of the trimesters), at birth by passage through the birth canal, or postnatally by ingestion of breast milk. Neonatal infection (in utero and postnatal) occurs in both mothers with primary CMV infection during gestation and in those with recurrent infection (from a different viral strain) or reactivation of infection. Severe clinically symptomatic disease and sequelae is associated with primary maternal infection and early transmission to the fetus. However, it is estimated that nonprimary maternal infection accounts for 75% of neonatal infections. Transmission by breast milk to full-term, healthy infants does not appear to be associated with clinical illness or sequelae; however, preterm infants or those with birth weights less than 1,500 g have a small risk of developing clinical disease.

The polymerase chain reaction–based saliva CMV test (Alethia CMV Assay Test System) was licensed by the Food and Drug Administration in November 2018 after studies demonstrated high sensitivity and specificity, compared with viral culture (the gold standard). In one study, 17,327 infants were screened with the liquid-saliva PCR assay, and 0.5% tested positive for CMV on both the saliva test and culture. Sensitivity and specificity of the liquid-saliva PCR assay were 100% and 99.9%, respectively.² The availability of an approved saliva-based assay that is both highly sensitive and specific overcomes the challenge of collecting urine, which has been a limiting factor in development of pragmatic universal screening programs. To date, most of the focus in identification of congenital CMV infection has been linking newborn hearing testing programs with CMV testing. For some, these have been labeled “targeted screening programs for CMV.” To us, these appear to be best practice for medical evaluations of an infant with identified SNHL. The availability of saliva-based CMV testing should enable virtually all children who fail newborn screening to be tested for CMV. In multiple studies,^3,4 6% of infants with confirmed hearing screen failure tested positive for CMV. A recent study⁵ identified only 1 infant among the 171 infants who failed newborn screening, however only approximately 15% of the infants were eventually confirmed as hearing impaired at audiology follow-up, suggesting that programmatically testing for CMV might be limited to those with confirmed hearing loss if such can be accomplished within a narrow window of time.

The Valgan Toddler study – sponsored by NIH and the University of Alabama as part of the Collaborative Antiviral Study Group – will enroll children who are aged 1 month through 3 years and who had a recent diagnosis of hearing loss (within the prior 12 weeks) and evidence of congenital CMV infection. The purpose of this study is to compare the effect on hearing and neurologic outcomes in infants aged 1 month through 4 years with recent onset SNHL who receive 6 weeks of valganciclovir versus children who do not receive this drug. The results of such studies will be critical for the development of best practices.

In summary, the licensure of a rapid PCR-based tool for diagnosis of CMV infection from saliva adds to our ability to develop screening programs to detect asymptomatic infants with congenital CMV infection. The ability to link newborns who fail hearing screening programs with CMV testing will lead to more detection of CMV-infected neonates, both with isolated hearing loss, and subsequently with no signs or symptoms of infection. There is an urgent need for evidence from randomized clinical trials to enable the development of best practices for such infants.
 

Dr. Pelton is professor of pediatrics and epidemiology at Boston University and senior attending physician at Boston Medical Center. Dr. Lapidot is a senior fellow in pediatric infectious diseases, Boston Medical Center. Neither Dr. Pelton nor Dr. Lapidot have any relevant financial disclosures. Email them at [email protected].
 

References

1. J Pediatric Infect Dis Soc. 2019 Mar 28;8(1):55-9.

2. N Engl J Med 2011 Jun 2; 364:2111-8.

3. Pediatrics. 2008 May;121(5):970-5

4. J Clin Virol. 2018 May;102:110-5.

5. J Pediatric Infect Dis Soc. 2019 Mar;8(1):55-9.

6. J Pediatr. 2003 Jul;143(1):16-25.

7. J Pediatr. 2018 Aug;199:166-70.

The mother of three looked tired and little worried. She wasn’t one to bring her kids to the pediatrician’s office with every minor illness, but her youngest had 3 days of fever, runny nose, cough, and little of her normal energy.

DavidWhalen/Thinkstock

The pediatrician entered the room and smiled sympathetically.

“We ran tests for flu and RSV [respiratory syncytial virus] and it’s neither of those so. ...”

“So it’s just a virus that we don’t routinely test for and it’s going to need to run its course,” the mother finished his sentence. She knew the drill.

Before the doctor could leave the room though, the mother had one more question. “You don’t think it could be adenovirus do you?”

Most years, influenza and RSV command center stage, and adenovirus is relegated to the wings. It is not so much lack of disease or morbidity, but rather lack of recognition. Yes, we all learned in medical school that it is a cause of epidemic keratoconjunctivitis, but many adenoviral infections are clinically indistinguishable from infections caused by other viruses. Common symptoms – fever, cough, sore throat, and malaise – overlap with those caused by influenza. Like rhinovirus, adenovirus can cause common cold symptoms. Like RSV, it can cause bronchiolitis. Just like parainfluenza, it can cause croup. It can cause a pertussislike syndrome with prolonged cough, and enteric adenoviruses, especially types 40 and 41, cause gastroenteritis that mimics norovirus or rotavirus infection.

Testing for adenovirus is not readily available or routine in most pediatricians’ offices, and while many hospitals and reference labs offer adenovirus polymerase chain reaction testing as part of a comprehensive respiratory virus panel, the test can be expensive and unlikely to change management in most ambulatory patients. This makes it difficult to count the number of adenoviruses annually.

This winter though, adenovirus was in the news ... repeatedly. In November 2018, CBS News reported that a University of Maryland freshman had died of an adenovirus-related illness. The family of Olivia Paregol told reporters that she was being treated for Crohn’s disease. Immune suppression is one recognized risk factor for more severe adenoviral disease; underlying heart and lung disease are others. Testing at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention revealed that the student and several others on campus were infected with adenovirus type 7, a strain that has been associated with outbreaks of acute, severe respiratory illness in military recruits. As of Jan. 24, 2019, university officials reported 42 confirmed cases of adenovirus in University of Maryland students, 13 of which were confirmed as adenovirus 7.

Adenovirus type 7 also caused an outbreak at a pediatric long-term care facility in New Jersey late last year. Between Sept. 26 and Nov. 11, 2018, 36 residents and 1 staff member became ill. Eleven individuals died. In an unrelated outbreak at a second pediatric long-term care facility, 17 residents were affected between Oct. 20 and Dec. 10, 2018. Adenovirus 3 was identified and all children recovered.

Depending on your perspective, measures to prevent the spread of adenovirus are elegantly simple, evidence-based, public health intervention or maddeningly little more than common sense. Wash your hands often with soap and water. Avoid touching your eyes, mouth, and nose with unwashed hands. Avoid close contact with people who are sick. The latter is easier if those who are sick stay home. Prior to the start of the most recent academic semester at the University of Maryland, university officials urged students who were sick not to return to campus but to stay at home to rest and recover. Those who fell ill on campus were urged to return home via nonpublic transportation if possible. Those who stayed on campus were advised to stay in their living spaces and clean high-touch surfaces with bleach. Like other nonenveloped viruses, adenovirus is not easily destroyed by many commonly used disinfectants. Under ideal conditions, it can survive on surfaces – remaining infectious – for up to 3 months.

Back at the pediatrician’s office, “We need an adenovirus vaccine,” the mother said as she picked up her child and headed for the door.

There is, in fact, a live oral vaccine that protects against adenovirus types 4 and 7. It is only approved for use in United States military personnel aged 17-50 years and it is given to all recruits as soon as they enter basic training. It works too. Before vaccine was available, up to 80% of recruits became infected during their initial training, half of those developing significant illness and a quarter being hospitalized. When the current vaccine was introduced in 2011, there was a 100-fold decrease in adenovirus-related disease burden (from 5.8 to 0.02 cases per 1,000 person-weeks, P less than .0001). That translates to 1 death, 1,100-2,700 hospitalizations and 13,000 febrile illnesses prevented each year (Clin Infect Dis. 2014 Oct 1. doi: 10.1093/cid/ciu507).

Some experts have suggested that adenovirus vaccine could be useful in civilian populations, too, but I question what the public reception would be. We have safe influenza vaccines that reduce the need for hospitalization and reduce mortality from influenza, but we still can’t convince some people to immunize themselves and their children. In the last 4 years, flu vaccination rates among children have remained just shy of 60% and adult rates are even lower. Collectively, we don’t seem to be ready to relinquish – or at least diminish – the annual suffering that goes with flu. I have to wonder if the same would be true for adenovirus.
 

Dr. Bryant is a pediatrician specializing in infectious diseases at the University of Louisville (Ky.) and Norton Children’s Hospital, also in Louisville. She said she had no relevant financial disclosures. Email her at [email protected].

The mother of three looked tired and little worried. She wasn’t one to bring her kids to the pediatrician’s office with every minor illness, but her youngest had 3 days of fever, runny nose, cough, and little of her normal energy.

DavidWhalen/Thinkstock

The pediatrician entered the room and smiled sympathetically.

“We ran tests for flu and RSV [respiratory syncytial virus] and it’s neither of those so. ...”

“So it’s just a virus that we don’t routinely test for and it’s going to need to run its course,” the mother finished his sentence. She knew the drill.

Before the doctor could leave the room though, the mother had one more question. “You don’t think it could be adenovirus do you?”

Most years, influenza and RSV command center stage, and adenovirus is relegated to the wings. It is not so much lack of disease or morbidity, but rather lack of recognition. Yes, we all learned in medical school that it is a cause of epidemic keratoconjunctivitis, but many adenoviral infections are clinically indistinguishable from infections caused by other viruses. Common symptoms – fever, cough, sore throat, and malaise – overlap with those caused by influenza. Like rhinovirus, adenovirus can cause common cold symptoms. Like RSV, it can cause bronchiolitis. Just like parainfluenza, it can cause croup. It can cause a pertussislike syndrome with prolonged cough, and enteric adenoviruses, especially types 40 and 41, cause gastroenteritis that mimics norovirus or rotavirus infection.

Testing for adenovirus is not readily available or routine in most pediatricians’ offices, and while many hospitals and reference labs offer adenovirus polymerase chain reaction testing as part of a comprehensive respiratory virus panel, the test can be expensive and unlikely to change management in most ambulatory patients. This makes it difficult to count the number of adenoviruses annually.

This winter though, adenovirus was in the news ... repeatedly. In November 2018, CBS News reported that a University of Maryland freshman had died of an adenovirus-related illness. The family of Olivia Paregol told reporters that she was being treated for Crohn’s disease. Immune suppression is one recognized risk factor for more severe adenoviral disease; underlying heart and lung disease are others. Testing at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention revealed that the student and several others on campus were infected with adenovirus type 7, a strain that has been associated with outbreaks of acute, severe respiratory illness in military recruits. As of Jan. 24, 2019, university officials reported 42 confirmed cases of adenovirus in University of Maryland students, 13 of which were confirmed as adenovirus 7.

Adenovirus type 7 also caused an outbreak at a pediatric long-term care facility in New Jersey late last year. Between Sept. 26 and Nov. 11, 2018, 36 residents and 1 staff member became ill. Eleven individuals died. In an unrelated outbreak at a second pediatric long-term care facility, 17 residents were affected between Oct. 20 and Dec. 10, 2018. Adenovirus 3 was identified and all children recovered.

Depending on your perspective, measures to prevent the spread of adenovirus are elegantly simple, evidence-based, public health intervention or maddeningly little more than common sense. Wash your hands often with soap and water. Avoid touching your eyes, mouth, and nose with unwashed hands. Avoid close contact with people who are sick. The latter is easier if those who are sick stay home. Prior to the start of the most recent academic semester at the University of Maryland, university officials urged students who were sick not to return to campus but to stay at home to rest and recover. Those who fell ill on campus were urged to return home via nonpublic transportation if possible. Those who stayed on campus were advised to stay in their living spaces and clean high-touch surfaces with bleach. Like other nonenveloped viruses, adenovirus is not easily destroyed by many commonly used disinfectants. Under ideal conditions, it can survive on surfaces – remaining infectious – for up to 3 months.

Back at the pediatrician’s office, “We need an adenovirus vaccine,” the mother said as she picked up her child and headed for the door.

There is, in fact, a live oral vaccine that protects against adenovirus types 4 and 7. It is only approved for use in United States military personnel aged 17-50 years and it is given to all recruits as soon as they enter basic training. It works too. Before vaccine was available, up to 80% of recruits became infected during their initial training, half of those developing significant illness and a quarter being hospitalized. When the current vaccine was introduced in 2011, there was a 100-fold decrease in adenovirus-related disease burden (from 5.8 to 0.02 cases per 1,000 person-weeks, P less than .0001). That translates to 1 death, 1,100-2,700 hospitalizations and 13,000 febrile illnesses prevented each year (Clin Infect Dis. 2014 Oct 1. doi: 10.1093/cid/ciu507).

Some experts have suggested that adenovirus vaccine could be useful in civilian populations, too, but I question what the public reception would be. We have safe influenza vaccines that reduce the need for hospitalization and reduce mortality from influenza, but we still can’t convince some people to immunize themselves and their children. In the last 4 years, flu vaccination rates among children have remained just shy of 60% and adult rates are even lower. Collectively, we don’t seem to be ready to relinquish – or at least diminish – the annual suffering that goes with flu. I have to wonder if the same would be true for adenovirus.
 

Dr. Bryant is a pediatrician specializing in infectious diseases at the University of Louisville (Ky.) and Norton Children’s Hospital, also in Louisville. She said she had no relevant financial disclosures. Email her at [email protected].

The mother of three looked tired and little worried. She wasn’t one to bring her kids to the pediatrician’s office with every minor illness, but her youngest had 3 days of fever, runny nose, cough, and little of her normal energy.

DavidWhalen/Thinkstock

The pediatrician entered the room and smiled sympathetically.

“We ran tests for flu and RSV [respiratory syncytial virus] and it’s neither of those so. ...”

“So it’s just a virus that we don’t routinely test for and it’s going to need to run its course,” the mother finished his sentence. She knew the drill.

Before the doctor could leave the room though, the mother had one more question. “You don’t think it could be adenovirus do you?”

Most years, influenza and RSV command center stage, and adenovirus is relegated to the wings. It is not so much lack of disease or morbidity, but rather lack of recognition. Yes, we all learned in medical school that it is a cause of epidemic keratoconjunctivitis, but many adenoviral infections are clinically indistinguishable from infections caused by other viruses. Common symptoms – fever, cough, sore throat, and malaise – overlap with those caused by influenza. Like rhinovirus, adenovirus can cause common cold symptoms. Like RSV, it can cause bronchiolitis. Just like parainfluenza, it can cause croup. It can cause a pertussislike syndrome with prolonged cough, and enteric adenoviruses, especially types 40 and 41, cause gastroenteritis that mimics norovirus or rotavirus infection.

Testing for adenovirus is not readily available or routine in most pediatricians’ offices, and while many hospitals and reference labs offer adenovirus polymerase chain reaction testing as part of a comprehensive respiratory virus panel, the test can be expensive and unlikely to change management in most ambulatory patients. This makes it difficult to count the number of adenoviruses annually.

This winter though, adenovirus was in the news ... repeatedly. In November 2018, CBS News reported that a University of Maryland freshman had died of an adenovirus-related illness. The family of Olivia Paregol told reporters that she was being treated for Crohn’s disease. Immune suppression is one recognized risk factor for more severe adenoviral disease; underlying heart and lung disease are others. Testing at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention revealed that the student and several others on campus were infected with adenovirus type 7, a strain that has been associated with outbreaks of acute, severe respiratory illness in military recruits. As of Jan. 24, 2019, university officials reported 42 confirmed cases of adenovirus in University of Maryland students, 13 of which were confirmed as adenovirus 7.

Adenovirus type 7 also caused an outbreak at a pediatric long-term care facility in New Jersey late last year. Between Sept. 26 and Nov. 11, 2018, 36 residents and 1 staff member became ill. Eleven individuals died. In an unrelated outbreak at a second pediatric long-term care facility, 17 residents were affected between Oct. 20 and Dec. 10, 2018. Adenovirus 3 was identified and all children recovered.

Depending on your perspective, measures to prevent the spread of adenovirus are elegantly simple, evidence-based, public health intervention or maddeningly little more than common sense. Wash your hands often with soap and water. Avoid touching your eyes, mouth, and nose with unwashed hands. Avoid close contact with people who are sick. The latter is easier if those who are sick stay home. Prior to the start of the most recent academic semester at the University of Maryland, university officials urged students who were sick not to return to campus but to stay at home to rest and recover. Those who fell ill on campus were urged to return home via nonpublic transportation if possible. Those who stayed on campus were advised to stay in their living spaces and clean high-touch surfaces with bleach. Like other nonenveloped viruses, adenovirus is not easily destroyed by many commonly used disinfectants. Under ideal conditions, it can survive on surfaces – remaining infectious – for up to 3 months.

Back at the pediatrician’s office, “We need an adenovirus vaccine,” the mother said as she picked up her child and headed for the door.

There is, in fact, a live oral vaccine that protects against adenovirus types 4 and 7. It is only approved for use in United States military personnel aged 17-50 years and it is given to all recruits as soon as they enter basic training. It works too. Before vaccine was available, up to 80% of recruits became infected during their initial training, half of those developing significant illness and a quarter being hospitalized. When the current vaccine was introduced in 2011, there was a 100-fold decrease in adenovirus-related disease burden (from 5.8 to 0.02 cases per 1,000 person-weeks, P less than .0001). That translates to 1 death, 1,100-2,700 hospitalizations and 13,000 febrile illnesses prevented each year (Clin Infect Dis. 2014 Oct 1. doi: 10.1093/cid/ciu507).

Some experts have suggested that adenovirus vaccine could be useful in civilian populations, too, but I question what the public reception would be. We have safe influenza vaccines that reduce the need for hospitalization and reduce mortality from influenza, but we still can’t convince some people to immunize themselves and their children. In the last 4 years, flu vaccination rates among children have remained just shy of 60% and adult rates are even lower. Collectively, we don’t seem to be ready to relinquish – or at least diminish – the annual suffering that goes with flu. I have to wonder if the same would be true for adenovirus.
 

Dr. Bryant is a pediatrician specializing in infectious diseases at the University of Louisville (Ky.) and Norton Children’s Hospital, also in Louisville. She said she had no relevant financial disclosures. Email her at [email protected].

We are in the middle of flu season, and many of our patients are coughing. Is it the flu or might the child have a secondary bacterial pneumonia? Let’s start with the history for a tip off. The course of flu and respiratory viral infections in general involves a typical pattern of timing for fever and cough.

DavidWhalen/Thinkstock

A late-developing fever or fever that subsides then recurs should raise concern. A prolonged cough or cough that subsides then recurs also should raise concern. The respiratory rate and chest retractions are key physical findings that can aid in distinguishing children with bacterial pneumonia. Rales and decreased breath sounds in lung segments are best heard with deep breaths.

What diagnostic laboratory and imaging tests should be used

Fortunately, rapid tests to detect influenza are available, and many providers have added those to their laboratory evaluation. A complete blood count and differential may be helpful. If a pulse oximeter is available, checking oxygen saturation might be helpful. The American Academy of Pediatrics community pneumonia guideline states that routine chest radiographs are not necessary for the confirmation of suspected community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) in patients well enough to be treated in the outpatient setting (Clin Inf Dis. 2011 Oct;53[7]:e25–e76). Blood cultures should not be performed routinely in nontoxic, fully immunized children with CAP managed in the outpatient setting.

What antibiotic should be used

Antimicrobial therapy is not routinely required for preschool-aged children with cough, even cough caused by CAP, because viral pathogens are responsible for the great majority of clinical disease. If the diagnosis of CAP is made, the AAP endorses amoxicillin as first-line therapy for previously healthy, appropriately immunized infants and preschool children with mild to moderate CAP suspected to be of bacterial origin. For previously healthy, appropriately immunized school-aged children and adolescents with mild to moderate CAP, amoxicillin is recommended for treatment of Streptococcus pneumoniae, the most prominent invasive bacterial pathogen.

However, the treatment paradigm is complicated because Mycoplasma pneumoniae also should be considered in management decisions. Children with signs and symptoms suspicious for M. pneumoniae should be tested to help guide antibiotic selection. This may be a simple bedside cold agglutinin test. The highest incidence of Mycoplasma pneumonia is in 5- to 20-year-olds (51% in 5- to 9-year-olds, 74% in 9- to 15-year-olds, and 3%-18% in adults with pneumonia), but 9% of CAP occurs in patients younger than 5 years old. The clinical features of Mycoplasma pneumonia resemble influenza: The patient has gradual onset of headache, malaise, fever, sore throat, and cough. Mycoplasma pneumonia has a similar incidence of productive cough, rales, and diarrhea as pneumococcal CAP, but with more frequent upper respiratory symptoms and a normal leukocyte count. Mycoplasma bronchopneumonia occurs 30 times more frequently than Mycoplasma lobar pneumonia. The radiologic features of Mycoplasma is typical of a bronchopneumonia, usually involving a single lobe, subsegmental atelectasis, peribronchial thickening, and streaky interstitial densities. While Mycoplasma pneumonia is usually self-limited, the duration of illness is shortened by oral treatment with doxycycline, erythromycin, clarithromycin, or azithromycin.
 

What is the appropriate duration of antimicrobial therapy

Recommendations by the AAP for CAP note that treatment courses of 10 days have been best studied, although shorter courses may be just as effective, particularly for mild disease managed on an outpatient basis.

When should children be hospitalized

Dr. Pichichero is a specialist in pediatric infectious diseases and director of the Research Institute at Rochester (N.Y.) General Hospital. He had no conflicts to declare. Email him at [email protected].

We are in the middle of flu season, and many of our patients are coughing. Is it the flu or might the child have a secondary bacterial pneumonia? Let’s start with the history for a tip off. The course of flu and respiratory viral infections in general involves a typical pattern of timing for fever and cough.

DavidWhalen/Thinkstock

A late-developing fever or fever that subsides then recurs should raise concern. A prolonged cough or cough that subsides then recurs also should raise concern. The respiratory rate and chest retractions are key physical findings that can aid in distinguishing children with bacterial pneumonia. Rales and decreased breath sounds in lung segments are best heard with deep breaths.

What diagnostic laboratory and imaging tests should be used

Fortunately, rapid tests to detect influenza are available, and many providers have added those to their laboratory evaluation. A complete blood count and differential may be helpful. If a pulse oximeter is available, checking oxygen saturation might be helpful. The American Academy of Pediatrics community pneumonia guideline states that routine chest radiographs are not necessary for the confirmation of suspected community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) in patients well enough to be treated in the outpatient setting (Clin Inf Dis. 2011 Oct;53[7]:e25–e76). Blood cultures should not be performed routinely in nontoxic, fully immunized children with CAP managed in the outpatient setting.

What antibiotic should be used

Antimicrobial therapy is not routinely required for preschool-aged children with cough, even cough caused by CAP, because viral pathogens are responsible for the great majority of clinical disease. If the diagnosis of CAP is made, the AAP endorses amoxicillin as first-line therapy for previously healthy, appropriately immunized infants and preschool children with mild to moderate CAP suspected to be of bacterial origin. For previously healthy, appropriately immunized school-aged children and adolescents with mild to moderate CAP, amoxicillin is recommended for treatment of Streptococcus pneumoniae, the most prominent invasive bacterial pathogen.

However, the treatment paradigm is complicated because Mycoplasma pneumoniae also should be considered in management decisions. Children with signs and symptoms suspicious for M. pneumoniae should be tested to help guide antibiotic selection. This may be a simple bedside cold agglutinin test. The highest incidence of Mycoplasma pneumonia is in 5- to 20-year-olds (51% in 5- to 9-year-olds, 74% in 9- to 15-year-olds, and 3%-18% in adults with pneumonia), but 9% of CAP occurs in patients younger than 5 years old. The clinical features of Mycoplasma pneumonia resemble influenza: The patient has gradual onset of headache, malaise, fever, sore throat, and cough. Mycoplasma pneumonia has a similar incidence of productive cough, rales, and diarrhea as pneumococcal CAP, but with more frequent upper respiratory symptoms and a normal leukocyte count. Mycoplasma bronchopneumonia occurs 30 times more frequently than Mycoplasma lobar pneumonia. The radiologic features of Mycoplasma is typical of a bronchopneumonia, usually involving a single lobe, subsegmental atelectasis, peribronchial thickening, and streaky interstitial densities. While Mycoplasma pneumonia is usually self-limited, the duration of illness is shortened by oral treatment with doxycycline, erythromycin, clarithromycin, or azithromycin.
 

What is the appropriate duration of antimicrobial therapy

Recommendations by the AAP for CAP note that treatment courses of 10 days have been best studied, although shorter courses may be just as effective, particularly for mild disease managed on an outpatient basis.

When should children be hospitalized

Dr. Pichichero is a specialist in pediatric infectious diseases and director of the Research Institute at Rochester (N.Y.) General Hospital. He had no conflicts to declare. Email him at [email protected].

We are in the middle of flu season, and many of our patients are coughing. Is it the flu or might the child have a secondary bacterial pneumonia? Let’s start with the history for a tip off. The course of flu and respiratory viral infections in general involves a typical pattern of timing for fever and cough.

DavidWhalen/Thinkstock

A late-developing fever or fever that subsides then recurs should raise concern. A prolonged cough or cough that subsides then recurs also should raise concern. The respiratory rate and chest retractions are key physical findings that can aid in distinguishing children with bacterial pneumonia. Rales and decreased breath sounds in lung segments are best heard with deep breaths.

What diagnostic laboratory and imaging tests should be used

Fortunately, rapid tests to detect influenza are available, and many providers have added those to their laboratory evaluation. A complete blood count and differential may be helpful. If a pulse oximeter is available, checking oxygen saturation might be helpful. The American Academy of Pediatrics community pneumonia guideline states that routine chest radiographs are not necessary for the confirmation of suspected community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) in patients well enough to be treated in the outpatient setting (Clin Inf Dis. 2011 Oct;53[7]:e25–e76). Blood cultures should not be performed routinely in nontoxic, fully immunized children with CAP managed in the outpatient setting.

What antibiotic should be used

Antimicrobial therapy is not routinely required for preschool-aged children with cough, even cough caused by CAP, because viral pathogens are responsible for the great majority of clinical disease. If the diagnosis of CAP is made, the AAP endorses amoxicillin as first-line therapy for previously healthy, appropriately immunized infants and preschool children with mild to moderate CAP suspected to be of bacterial origin. For previously healthy, appropriately immunized school-aged children and adolescents with mild to moderate CAP, amoxicillin is recommended for treatment of Streptococcus pneumoniae, the most prominent invasive bacterial pathogen.

However, the treatment paradigm is complicated because Mycoplasma pneumoniae also should be considered in management decisions. Children with signs and symptoms suspicious for M. pneumoniae should be tested to help guide antibiotic selection. This may be a simple bedside cold agglutinin test. The highest incidence of Mycoplasma pneumonia is in 5- to 20-year-olds (51% in 5- to 9-year-olds, 74% in 9- to 15-year-olds, and 3%-18% in adults with pneumonia), but 9% of CAP occurs in patients younger than 5 years old. The clinical features of Mycoplasma pneumonia resemble influenza: The patient has gradual onset of headache, malaise, fever, sore throat, and cough. Mycoplasma pneumonia has a similar incidence of productive cough, rales, and diarrhea as pneumococcal CAP, but with more frequent upper respiratory symptoms and a normal leukocyte count. Mycoplasma bronchopneumonia occurs 30 times more frequently than Mycoplasma lobar pneumonia. The radiologic features of Mycoplasma is typical of a bronchopneumonia, usually involving a single lobe, subsegmental atelectasis, peribronchial thickening, and streaky interstitial densities. While Mycoplasma pneumonia is usually self-limited, the duration of illness is shortened by oral treatment with doxycycline, erythromycin, clarithromycin, or azithromycin.
 

What is the appropriate duration of antimicrobial therapy

Recommendations by the AAP for CAP note that treatment courses of 10 days have been best studied, although shorter courses may be just as effective, particularly for mild disease managed on an outpatient basis.

When should children be hospitalized

Dr. Pichichero is a specialist in pediatric infectious diseases and director of the Research Institute at Rochester (N.Y.) General Hospital. He had no conflicts to declare. Email him at [email protected].

While many pediatric clinicians have not frequently managed newborns of mothers with reactive syphilis serology, increased adult syphilis may change that.¹

Diagnosing/managing congenital syphilis is not always clear cut. A positive rapid plasma reagin (RPR) titer in a newborn may not indicate congenital infection but merely may reflect transplacental, passively acquired maternal IgG from the mother’s current or previous infection rather than antibodies produced by the newborn. Because currently no IgM assay for syphilis is recommended by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention for newborn testing, we must deal with IgG test results.

Often initial management decisions are needed while the infant’s status is evolving. The questions to answer to make final decisions include the following²:

• Was the mother actively infected with Treponema pallidum during pregnancy?
• If so, was the mother appropriately treated and when?
• Does the infant have any clinical, laboratory, or radiographic evidence of syphilis?
• How do the mother’s and infant’s nontreponemal serologic titers (NTT) compare at delivery using the same test?

Note: All infants assessed for congenital syphilis need a full evaluation for HIV.
 

Managing the infant of a mother with positive tests^3,4

All such neonates need an examination for evidence of congenital syphilis. The clinical signs of congenital syphilis in neonates include nonimmune hydrops, jaundice, hepatosplenomegaly, rhinitis, skin rash, and pseudoparalysis of extremity. Also, consider dark-field examination or polymerase chain reaction (PCR) of lesions (such as bullae) or secretions (nasal). If available, have the placenta examined histologically (silver stain) or by PCR (Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments–validated test). Skeletal radiographic surveys are more useful for stillborn than live born infants. (The complete algorithm can be found in Figure 3.10 of reference 4.)

Order a quantitative NTT, using the Venereal Disease Research Laboratory (VDRL) test or RPR test on neonatal serum. Umbilical cord blood is not appropriate because of potential maternal blood contamination, which could give a false-positive result, or Wharton’s jelly, which could give a false-negative result. Use of treponemal-specific tests that are used for maternal diagnosis – such as T. pallidum particle agglutination (TP-PA), T. pallidum enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (TP-EIA), fluorescent treponemal antibody absorption (FTA-ABS) test, or T. pallidum chemiluminescence immunoassay (TP-CIA) – on neonatal serum is not recommended because of difficulties in interpretation.

Diagnostic results allow designation of an infant into one of four CDC categories: proven/highly probable syphilis; possible syphilis; syphilis less likely; and syphilis unlikely. Treatment recommendations are based on these categories.

Proven or highly probable syphilis

There are two alternative recommended 10-day treatment regimens.

A. Aqueous crystalline penicillin G 100,000-150,000 U/kg per day by IV at 50,000 U/kg per dose, given every 12 hours through 7 days of age or every 8 hours if greater than 7 days old.

B. Procaine penicillin G at 50,000 U/kg per dose intramuscularly in one dose each day.

More than 1 day of missed therapy requires restarting a new 10-day course. Use of other antimicrobial agents (such as ampicillin) is not validated, so any empiric ampicillin initially given for possible sepsis does not count toward the 10-day penicillin regimen. If nonpenicillin drugs must be used, close serologic follow-up must occur to ensure adequacy of response to therapy.
 

Possible syphilis

There are three alternative regimens, the same two as in proven/highly probable syphilis (above) plus a single-dose option

A. Aqueous crystalline penicillin G, as described above.

B. Procaine penicillin G, as described above.

C. Benzathine penicillin G at 50,000 U/kg per dose intramuscularly in a single dose.

Note: To be eligible for regimen C, an infant must have a complete evaluation that is normal (cerebrospinal fluid [CSF] examination, long-bone radiographs, and complete blood count with platelet count) and follow-up must be assured. Exception: Neonates born to mothers with untreated early syphilis at the time of delivery are at increased risk for congenital syphilis, and the 10-day course of penicillin G may be considered even if the complete evaluation is normal and follow-up is certain.
 

Less likely syphilis

One antibiotic regimen is available, but no treatment also may be an option.

A. Benzathine penicillin G as described above.

B. If mother’s NTT has decreased at least fourfold after appropriate early syphilis therapy or remained stably low, which indicates latent syphilis (VDRL less than 1:2; RPR less than 1:4), no treatment is an option but requires repeat serology every 2-3 months until infant is 6 months old.

Unlikely syphilis

No treatment is recommended unless follow-up is uncertain, in which case it is appropriate to give the infant benzathine penicillin G as described above.

Infant with positive NTT at birth

All neonates with reactive NTT need careful follow-up examinations and repeat NTT every 2-3 months until nonreactive. NTT in infants who are not treated because of less likely or unlikely syphilis status should drop by 3 months and be nonreactive by 6 months; this indicates NTT was passively transferred maternal IgG. If NTT remains reactive at 6 months, the infant is likely infected and needs treatment. Persistent NTT at 6-12 months in treated neonates should trigger repeat CSF examination and infectious diseases consultation about a possible repeat of the 10-day penicillin G regimen. If the mother was seroreactive, but the newborn’s NTT was negative at birth, testing of the infant’s NTT needs repeating at 3 months to exclude the possibility that the congenital syphilis was incubating when prior testing occurred at birth. Note: Treponemal-specific tests are not useful in assessing treatment because detectable maternal IgG treponemal antibody can persist at least 15 months.

Neonates with abnormal CSF at birth

Repeat cerebrospinal fluid evaluation every 6 months until results normalize. Persistently reactive CSF VDRL or abnormal CSF indexes not caused by another known cause requires retreatment for possible neurosyphilis, as well as consultation with an expert.

Summary

Decisions on managing infants of mothers with positive syphilis testing can be difficult. NTT are the essential test for newborns and some degree of laboratory or imaging work up often are needed. Consider consulting an expert in infectious diseases and/or perinatology if the gray areas do not readily become clear. Treatment of the correct patients with the right drug for the right duration remains the goal, as usual.

Dr. Harrison is a professor of pediatrics at University of Missouri-Kansas City and Director of Research Affairs in the pediatric infectious diseases division at Children’s Mercy Hospital – Kansas City. He said he had no relevant financial disclosures. Email him at [email protected].

References

1. MMWR. 2015 Nov 13;64(44);1241-5.

2. “Congenital Syphilis,” 2015 Sexually Transmitted Diseases Treatment Guidelines.

3. “Syphilis During Pregnancy,” 2015 Sexually Transmitted Diseases Treatment Guidelines.

4. Syphilis – Section 3: Summaries of Infectious Diseases. Red Book Online. 2018.
 

While many pediatric clinicians have not frequently managed newborns of mothers with reactive syphilis serology, increased adult syphilis may change that.¹

Diagnosing/managing congenital syphilis is not always clear cut. A positive rapid plasma reagin (RPR) titer in a newborn may not indicate congenital infection but merely may reflect transplacental, passively acquired maternal IgG from the mother’s current or previous infection rather than antibodies produced by the newborn. Because currently no IgM assay for syphilis is recommended by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention for newborn testing, we must deal with IgG test results.

Often initial management decisions are needed while the infant’s status is evolving. The questions to answer to make final decisions include the following²:

• Was the mother actively infected with Treponema pallidum during pregnancy?
• If so, was the mother appropriately treated and when?
• Does the infant have any clinical, laboratory, or radiographic evidence of syphilis?
• How do the mother’s and infant’s nontreponemal serologic titers (NTT) compare at delivery using the same test?

Note: All infants assessed for congenital syphilis need a full evaluation for HIV.
 

Managing the infant of a mother with positive tests^3,4

All such neonates need an examination for evidence of congenital syphilis. The clinical signs of congenital syphilis in neonates include nonimmune hydrops, jaundice, hepatosplenomegaly, rhinitis, skin rash, and pseudoparalysis of extremity. Also, consider dark-field examination or polymerase chain reaction (PCR) of lesions (such as bullae) or secretions (nasal). If available, have the placenta examined histologically (silver stain) or by PCR (Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments–validated test). Skeletal radiographic surveys are more useful for stillborn than live born infants. (The complete algorithm can be found in Figure 3.10 of reference 4.)

Order a quantitative NTT, using the Venereal Disease Research Laboratory (VDRL) test or RPR test on neonatal serum. Umbilical cord blood is not appropriate because of potential maternal blood contamination, which could give a false-positive result, or Wharton’s jelly, which could give a false-negative result. Use of treponemal-specific tests that are used for maternal diagnosis – such as T. pallidum particle agglutination (TP-PA), T. pallidum enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (TP-EIA), fluorescent treponemal antibody absorption (FTA-ABS) test, or T. pallidum chemiluminescence immunoassay (TP-CIA) – on neonatal serum is not recommended because of difficulties in interpretation.

Diagnostic results allow designation of an infant into one of four CDC categories: proven/highly probable syphilis; possible syphilis; syphilis less likely; and syphilis unlikely. Treatment recommendations are based on these categories.

Proven or highly probable syphilis

There are two alternative recommended 10-day treatment regimens.

A. Aqueous crystalline penicillin G 100,000-150,000 U/kg per day by IV at 50,000 U/kg per dose, given every 12 hours through 7 days of age or every 8 hours if greater than 7 days old.

B. Procaine penicillin G at 50,000 U/kg per dose intramuscularly in one dose each day.

More than 1 day of missed therapy requires restarting a new 10-day course. Use of other antimicrobial agents (such as ampicillin) is not validated, so any empiric ampicillin initially given for possible sepsis does not count toward the 10-day penicillin regimen. If nonpenicillin drugs must be used, close serologic follow-up must occur to ensure adequacy of response to therapy.
 

Possible syphilis

There are three alternative regimens, the same two as in proven/highly probable syphilis (above) plus a single-dose option

A. Aqueous crystalline penicillin G, as described above.

B. Procaine penicillin G, as described above.

C. Benzathine penicillin G at 50,000 U/kg per dose intramuscularly in a single dose.

Note: To be eligible for regimen C, an infant must have a complete evaluation that is normal (cerebrospinal fluid [CSF] examination, long-bone radiographs, and complete blood count with platelet count) and follow-up must be assured. Exception: Neonates born to mothers with untreated early syphilis at the time of delivery are at increased risk for congenital syphilis, and the 10-day course of penicillin G may be considered even if the complete evaluation is normal and follow-up is certain.
 

Less likely syphilis

One antibiotic regimen is available, but no treatment also may be an option.

A. Benzathine penicillin G as described above.

B. If mother’s NTT has decreased at least fourfold after appropriate early syphilis therapy or remained stably low, which indicates latent syphilis (VDRL less than 1:2; RPR less than 1:4), no treatment is an option but requires repeat serology every 2-3 months until infant is 6 months old.

Unlikely syphilis

No treatment is recommended unless follow-up is uncertain, in which case it is appropriate to give the infant benzathine penicillin G as described above.

Infant with positive NTT at birth

All neonates with reactive NTT need careful follow-up examinations and repeat NTT every 2-3 months until nonreactive. NTT in infants who are not treated because of less likely or unlikely syphilis status should drop by 3 months and be nonreactive by 6 months; this indicates NTT was passively transferred maternal IgG. If NTT remains reactive at 6 months, the infant is likely infected and needs treatment. Persistent NTT at 6-12 months in treated neonates should trigger repeat CSF examination and infectious diseases consultation about a possible repeat of the 10-day penicillin G regimen. If the mother was seroreactive, but the newborn’s NTT was negative at birth, testing of the infant’s NTT needs repeating at 3 months to exclude the possibility that the congenital syphilis was incubating when prior testing occurred at birth. Note: Treponemal-specific tests are not useful in assessing treatment because detectable maternal IgG treponemal antibody can persist at least 15 months.

Neonates with abnormal CSF at birth

Repeat cerebrospinal fluid evaluation every 6 months until results normalize. Persistently reactive CSF VDRL or abnormal CSF indexes not caused by another known cause requires retreatment for possible neurosyphilis, as well as consultation with an expert.

Summary

Decisions on managing infants of mothers with positive syphilis testing can be difficult. NTT are the essential test for newborns and some degree of laboratory or imaging work up often are needed. Consider consulting an expert in infectious diseases and/or perinatology if the gray areas do not readily become clear. Treatment of the correct patients with the right drug for the right duration remains the goal, as usual.

Dr. Harrison is a professor of pediatrics at University of Missouri-Kansas City and Director of Research Affairs in the pediatric infectious diseases division at Children’s Mercy Hospital – Kansas City. He said he had no relevant financial disclosures. Email him at [email protected].

References

1. MMWR. 2015 Nov 13;64(44);1241-5.

2. “Congenital Syphilis,” 2015 Sexually Transmitted Diseases Treatment Guidelines.

3. “Syphilis During Pregnancy,” 2015 Sexually Transmitted Diseases Treatment Guidelines.

4. Syphilis – Section 3: Summaries of Infectious Diseases. Red Book Online. 2018.
 

While many pediatric clinicians have not frequently managed newborns of mothers with reactive syphilis serology, increased adult syphilis may change that.¹

Diagnosing/managing congenital syphilis is not always clear cut. A positive rapid plasma reagin (RPR) titer in a newborn may not indicate congenital infection but merely may reflect transplacental, passively acquired maternal IgG from the mother’s current or previous infection rather than antibodies produced by the newborn. Because currently no IgM assay for syphilis is recommended by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention for newborn testing, we must deal with IgG test results.

Often initial management decisions are needed while the infant’s status is evolving. The questions to answer to make final decisions include the following²:

• Was the mother actively infected with Treponema pallidum during pregnancy?
• If so, was the mother appropriately treated and when?
• Does the infant have any clinical, laboratory, or radiographic evidence of syphilis?
• How do the mother’s and infant’s nontreponemal serologic titers (NTT) compare at delivery using the same test?

Note: All infants assessed for congenital syphilis need a full evaluation for HIV.
 

Managing the infant of a mother with positive tests^3,4

All such neonates need an examination for evidence of congenital syphilis. The clinical signs of congenital syphilis in neonates include nonimmune hydrops, jaundice, hepatosplenomegaly, rhinitis, skin rash, and pseudoparalysis of extremity. Also, consider dark-field examination or polymerase chain reaction (PCR) of lesions (such as bullae) or secretions (nasal). If available, have the placenta examined histologically (silver stain) or by PCR (Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments–validated test). Skeletal radiographic surveys are more useful for stillborn than live born infants. (The complete algorithm can be found in Figure 3.10 of reference 4.)

Order a quantitative NTT, using the Venereal Disease Research Laboratory (VDRL) test or RPR test on neonatal serum. Umbilical cord blood is not appropriate because of potential maternal blood contamination, which could give a false-positive result, or Wharton’s jelly, which could give a false-negative result. Use of treponemal-specific tests that are used for maternal diagnosis – such as T. pallidum particle agglutination (TP-PA), T. pallidum enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (TP-EIA), fluorescent treponemal antibody absorption (FTA-ABS) test, or T. pallidum chemiluminescence immunoassay (TP-CIA) – on neonatal serum is not recommended because of difficulties in interpretation.

Diagnostic results allow designation of an infant into one of four CDC categories: proven/highly probable syphilis; possible syphilis; syphilis less likely; and syphilis unlikely. Treatment recommendations are based on these categories.

Proven or highly probable syphilis

There are two alternative recommended 10-day treatment regimens.

A. Aqueous crystalline penicillin G 100,000-150,000 U/kg per day by IV at 50,000 U/kg per dose, given every 12 hours through 7 days of age or every 8 hours if greater than 7 days old.

B. Procaine penicillin G at 50,000 U/kg per dose intramuscularly in one dose each day.

More than 1 day of missed therapy requires restarting a new 10-day course. Use of other antimicrobial agents (such as ampicillin) is not validated, so any empiric ampicillin initially given for possible sepsis does not count toward the 10-day penicillin regimen. If nonpenicillin drugs must be used, close serologic follow-up must occur to ensure adequacy of response to therapy.
 

Possible syphilis

There are three alternative regimens, the same two as in proven/highly probable syphilis (above) plus a single-dose option

A. Aqueous crystalline penicillin G, as described above.

B. Procaine penicillin G, as described above.

C. Benzathine penicillin G at 50,000 U/kg per dose intramuscularly in a single dose.

Note: To be eligible for regimen C, an infant must have a complete evaluation that is normal (cerebrospinal fluid [CSF] examination, long-bone radiographs, and complete blood count with platelet count) and follow-up must be assured. Exception: Neonates born to mothers with untreated early syphilis at the time of delivery are at increased risk for congenital syphilis, and the 10-day course of penicillin G may be considered even if the complete evaluation is normal and follow-up is certain.
 

Less likely syphilis

One antibiotic regimen is available, but no treatment also may be an option.

A. Benzathine penicillin G as described above.

B. If mother’s NTT has decreased at least fourfold after appropriate early syphilis therapy or remained stably low, which indicates latent syphilis (VDRL less than 1:2; RPR less than 1:4), no treatment is an option but requires repeat serology every 2-3 months until infant is 6 months old.

Unlikely syphilis

No treatment is recommended unless follow-up is uncertain, in which case it is appropriate to give the infant benzathine penicillin G as described above.

Infant with positive NTT at birth

All neonates with reactive NTT need careful follow-up examinations and repeat NTT every 2-3 months until nonreactive. NTT in infants who are not treated because of less likely or unlikely syphilis status should drop by 3 months and be nonreactive by 6 months; this indicates NTT was passively transferred maternal IgG. If NTT remains reactive at 6 months, the infant is likely infected and needs treatment. Persistent NTT at 6-12 months in treated neonates should trigger repeat CSF examination and infectious diseases consultation about a possible repeat of the 10-day penicillin G regimen. If the mother was seroreactive, but the newborn’s NTT was negative at birth, testing of the infant’s NTT needs repeating at 3 months to exclude the possibility that the congenital syphilis was incubating when prior testing occurred at birth. Note: Treponemal-specific tests are not useful in assessing treatment because detectable maternal IgG treponemal antibody can persist at least 15 months.

Neonates with abnormal CSF at birth

Repeat cerebrospinal fluid evaluation every 6 months until results normalize. Persistently reactive CSF VDRL or abnormal CSF indexes not caused by another known cause requires retreatment for possible neurosyphilis, as well as consultation with an expert.

Summary

Decisions on managing infants of mothers with positive syphilis testing can be difficult. NTT are the essential test for newborns and some degree of laboratory or imaging work up often are needed. Consider consulting an expert in infectious diseases and/or perinatology if the gray areas do not readily become clear. Treatment of the correct patients with the right drug for the right duration remains the goal, as usual.

Dr. Harrison is a professor of pediatrics at University of Missouri-Kansas City and Director of Research Affairs in the pediatric infectious diseases division at Children’s Mercy Hospital – Kansas City. He said he had no relevant financial disclosures. Email him at [email protected].

References

1. MMWR. 2015 Nov 13;64(44);1241-5.

2. “Congenital Syphilis,” 2015 Sexually Transmitted Diseases Treatment Guidelines.

3. “Syphilis During Pregnancy,” 2015 Sexually Transmitted Diseases Treatment Guidelines.

4. Syphilis – Section 3: Summaries of Infectious Diseases. Red Book Online. 2018.
 

Inflammation is a double-edged sword. Controlled and modest proinflammatory responses can enhance host immunity against viruses and decrease bacterial colonization and infection, whereas excessive uncontrolled proinflammatory responses may increase the susceptibility to bacterial colonization and secondary infection to facilitate disease pathogenesis. The immune system produces both proinflammatory and anti-inflammatory cytokines and chemokines. It is a balanced response that is key to maintaining good health.

Cynthia Goldsmith/CDC photo #10073

Viral upper respiratory tract infections (URIs) are caused by rhinoviruses, coronaviruses, enteroviruses, respiratory syncytial viruses, influenza A and B viruses, parainfluenza viruses, adenoviruses, and human metapneumoviruses. Viruses are powerful. In the nose, they induce hypersecretion of mucus, slow cilia beating, up-regulate nasal epithelial cell receptors to facilitate bacterial attachment, suppress neutrophil function, and cause increased release of proinflammatory cytokines and chemokines. All these actions by respiratory viruses promote bacterial overgrowth in the nasopharynx and thereby facilitate bacterial superinfections. In fact, progression in pathogenesis of the common bacterial respiratory infections – acute otitis media, acute sinusitis, acute conjunctivitis, and pneumonia – almost always is preceded by a viral URI. Viruses activate multiple target cells in the upper respiratory tract to produce an array of proinflammatory cytokines and chemokines. The symptoms of a viral URI resolve coinciding with an anti-inflammatory response and adaptive immunity.

In recent work, we found a higher frequency of viral URIs in children who experienced more frequent acute otitis media (AOM). We sought to understand why this might occur by comparing levels of inflammatory cytokines/chemokines in the nose during viral URI that did not precipitate AOM versus when a viral URI precipitated an AOM episode. When a child had a viral URI but did not go on to experience an AOM, the child had higher proinflammatory responses than when the viral URI precipitated an AOM. When differences of levels of proinflammatory cytokines/chemokines were compared in otitis-prone and non–otitis-prone children, lower nasal responses were associated with higher otitis-prone classification frequency (Clin Infect Dis. 2018. doi: 10.1093/cid/ciy750).

The powerful virus and the inflammatory response it can induce also play a major role in allergy and asthma. Viral URIs enhance allergic sensitization to respiratory viruses, such as influenza and respiratory syncytial virus, cause cytopathic damage to airway epithelium, promote excessive proinflammatory cytokine/chemokine production, and increase the exposure of allergens and irritants to antigen-presenting cells. Viral infections also may induce the release of epithelial mediators and cytokines that may propagate eosinophilia. Viral URIs, particularly with respiratory syncytial virus and rhinovirus, are the most common causes of wheezing in children, and they have important influences on the development of asthma. Studies have shown that viral infections trigger up to 85% of asthma exacerbations in school-aged children.

Because this column is being published during the winter, a brief discussion of influenza as a powerful virus is appropriate. Influenza occurs in winter outbreaks of varying extent every year. The severity of the influenza season reflects the changing nature of the antigenic properties of influenza viruses, and their spread depends on susceptibility of the population. Influenza outbreaks typically peak over a 2-3 week period and last for 2-3 months. Most outbreaks have attack rates of 10%-20% in children. There may be variations in disease severity caused by different influenza virus types. The symptoms are caused by excessive proinflammatory cytokine/chemokine production in the nose and lung.

Influenza and other viruses can precipitate the systemic inflammatory response syndrome (SIRS), a manifestation of extreme immune dysregulation resulting in organ dysfunction that clinically resembles bacterial sepsis. In this syndrome, tissues remote from the original insult display the cardinal signs of inflammation, including vasodilation, increased microvascular permeability, and leukocyte accumulation. SIRS is another example of the double-edged sword of inflammation.

The onset and progression of SIRS occurs because of dysregulation of the normal inflammatory response, usually with an increase in both proinflammatory and anti-inflammatory cytokines and chemokines, initiating a chain of events that leads to organ failure.

Dr. Pichichero is a specialist in pediatric infectious diseases and director of the Research Institute at Rochester (N.Y.) General Hospital. He reported having no conflicts of interest. Email him at [email protected].

Inflammation is a double-edged sword. Controlled and modest proinflammatory responses can enhance host immunity against viruses and decrease bacterial colonization and infection, whereas excessive uncontrolled proinflammatory responses may increase the susceptibility to bacterial colonization and secondary infection to facilitate disease pathogenesis. The immune system produces both proinflammatory and anti-inflammatory cytokines and chemokines. It is a balanced response that is key to maintaining good health.

Cynthia Goldsmith/CDC photo #10073

Viral upper respiratory tract infections (URIs) are caused by rhinoviruses, coronaviruses, enteroviruses, respiratory syncytial viruses, influenza A and B viruses, parainfluenza viruses, adenoviruses, and human metapneumoviruses. Viruses are powerful. In the nose, they induce hypersecretion of mucus, slow cilia beating, up-regulate nasal epithelial cell receptors to facilitate bacterial attachment, suppress neutrophil function, and cause increased release of proinflammatory cytokines and chemokines. All these actions by respiratory viruses promote bacterial overgrowth in the nasopharynx and thereby facilitate bacterial superinfections. In fact, progression in pathogenesis of the common bacterial respiratory infections – acute otitis media, acute sinusitis, acute conjunctivitis, and pneumonia – almost always is preceded by a viral URI. Viruses activate multiple target cells in the upper respiratory tract to produce an array of proinflammatory cytokines and chemokines. The symptoms of a viral URI resolve coinciding with an anti-inflammatory response and adaptive immunity.

In recent work, we found a higher frequency of viral URIs in children who experienced more frequent acute otitis media (AOM). We sought to understand why this might occur by comparing levels of inflammatory cytokines/chemokines in the nose during viral URI that did not precipitate AOM versus when a viral URI precipitated an AOM episode. When a child had a viral URI but did not go on to experience an AOM, the child had higher proinflammatory responses than when the viral URI precipitated an AOM. When differences of levels of proinflammatory cytokines/chemokines were compared in otitis-prone and non–otitis-prone children, lower nasal responses were associated with higher otitis-prone classification frequency (Clin Infect Dis. 2018. doi: 10.1093/cid/ciy750).

The powerful virus and the inflammatory response it can induce also play a major role in allergy and asthma. Viral URIs enhance allergic sensitization to respiratory viruses, such as influenza and respiratory syncytial virus, cause cytopathic damage to airway epithelium, promote excessive proinflammatory cytokine/chemokine production, and increase the exposure of allergens and irritants to antigen-presenting cells. Viral infections also may induce the release of epithelial mediators and cytokines that may propagate eosinophilia. Viral URIs, particularly with respiratory syncytial virus and rhinovirus, are the most common causes of wheezing in children, and they have important influences on the development of asthma. Studies have shown that viral infections trigger up to 85% of asthma exacerbations in school-aged children.

Because this column is being published during the winter, a brief discussion of influenza as a powerful virus is appropriate. Influenza occurs in winter outbreaks of varying extent every year. The severity of the influenza season reflects the changing nature of the antigenic properties of influenza viruses, and their spread depends on susceptibility of the population. Influenza outbreaks typically peak over a 2-3 week period and last for 2-3 months. Most outbreaks have attack rates of 10%-20% in children. There may be variations in disease severity caused by different influenza virus types. The symptoms are caused by excessive proinflammatory cytokine/chemokine production in the nose and lung.

Influenza and other viruses can precipitate the systemic inflammatory response syndrome (SIRS), a manifestation of extreme immune dysregulation resulting in organ dysfunction that clinically resembles bacterial sepsis. In this syndrome, tissues remote from the original insult display the cardinal signs of inflammation, including vasodilation, increased microvascular permeability, and leukocyte accumulation. SIRS is another example of the double-edged sword of inflammation.

The onset and progression of SIRS occurs because of dysregulation of the normal inflammatory response, usually with an increase in both proinflammatory and anti-inflammatory cytokines and chemokines, initiating a chain of events that leads to organ failure.

Dr. Pichichero is a specialist in pediatric infectious diseases and director of the Research Institute at Rochester (N.Y.) General Hospital. He reported having no conflicts of interest. Email him at [email protected].

Inflammation is a double-edged sword. Controlled and modest proinflammatory responses can enhance host immunity against viruses and decrease bacterial colonization and infection, whereas excessive uncontrolled proinflammatory responses may increase the susceptibility to bacterial colonization and secondary infection to facilitate disease pathogenesis. The immune system produces both proinflammatory and anti-inflammatory cytokines and chemokines. It is a balanced response that is key to maintaining good health.

Cynthia Goldsmith/CDC photo #10073

Viral upper respiratory tract infections (URIs) are caused by rhinoviruses, coronaviruses, enteroviruses, respiratory syncytial viruses, influenza A and B viruses, parainfluenza viruses, adenoviruses, and human metapneumoviruses. Viruses are powerful. In the nose, they induce hypersecretion of mucus, slow cilia beating, up-regulate nasal epithelial cell receptors to facilitate bacterial attachment, suppress neutrophil function, and cause increased release of proinflammatory cytokines and chemokines. All these actions by respiratory viruses promote bacterial overgrowth in the nasopharynx and thereby facilitate bacterial superinfections. In fact, progression in pathogenesis of the common bacterial respiratory infections – acute otitis media, acute sinusitis, acute conjunctivitis, and pneumonia – almost always is preceded by a viral URI. Viruses activate multiple target cells in the upper respiratory tract to produce an array of proinflammatory cytokines and chemokines. The symptoms of a viral URI resolve coinciding with an anti-inflammatory response and adaptive immunity.

In recent work, we found a higher frequency of viral URIs in children who experienced more frequent acute otitis media (AOM). We sought to understand why this might occur by comparing levels of inflammatory cytokines/chemokines in the nose during viral URI that did not precipitate AOM versus when a viral URI precipitated an AOM episode. When a child had a viral URI but did not go on to experience an AOM, the child had higher proinflammatory responses than when the viral URI precipitated an AOM. When differences of levels of proinflammatory cytokines/chemokines were compared in otitis-prone and non–otitis-prone children, lower nasal responses were associated with higher otitis-prone classification frequency (Clin Infect Dis. 2018. doi: 10.1093/cid/ciy750).

The powerful virus and the inflammatory response it can induce also play a major role in allergy and asthma. Viral URIs enhance allergic sensitization to respiratory viruses, such as influenza and respiratory syncytial virus, cause cytopathic damage to airway epithelium, promote excessive proinflammatory cytokine/chemokine production, and increase the exposure of allergens and irritants to antigen-presenting cells. Viral infections also may induce the release of epithelial mediators and cytokines that may propagate eosinophilia. Viral URIs, particularly with respiratory syncytial virus and rhinovirus, are the most common causes of wheezing in children, and they have important influences on the development of asthma. Studies have shown that viral infections trigger up to 85% of asthma exacerbations in school-aged children.

Because this column is being published during the winter, a brief discussion of influenza as a powerful virus is appropriate. Influenza occurs in winter outbreaks of varying extent every year. The severity of the influenza season reflects the changing nature of the antigenic properties of influenza viruses, and their spread depends on susceptibility of the population. Influenza outbreaks typically peak over a 2-3 week period and last for 2-3 months. Most outbreaks have attack rates of 10%-20% in children. There may be variations in disease severity caused by different influenza virus types. The symptoms are caused by excessive proinflammatory cytokine/chemokine production in the nose and lung.

Influenza and other viruses can precipitate the systemic inflammatory response syndrome (SIRS), a manifestation of extreme immune dysregulation resulting in organ dysfunction that clinically resembles bacterial sepsis. In this syndrome, tissues remote from the original insult display the cardinal signs of inflammation, including vasodilation, increased microvascular permeability, and leukocyte accumulation. SIRS is another example of the double-edged sword of inflammation.

The onset and progression of SIRS occurs because of dysregulation of the normal inflammatory response, usually with an increase in both proinflammatory and anti-inflammatory cytokines and chemokines, initiating a chain of events that leads to organ failure.

Dr. Pichichero is a specialist in pediatric infectious diseases and director of the Research Institute at Rochester (N.Y.) General Hospital. He reported having no conflicts of interest. Email him at [email protected].

I think the question was intended as polite, dinner party chit chat ... maybe an attempt by a gracious hostess to make sure everyone was engaged in conversation.

“So what pediatric infectious disease should parents be most worried about?” she asked me.

I’ll admit that a couple of perfectly respectable and noncontroversial possibilities crossed my mind before I answered.

Acute flaccid myelitis? Measles?

When I replied, “gonorrhea,” conversation at the table pretty much stopped.

Let me explain. Acute flaccid myelitis is a polio-like neurologic condition that has been grabbing headlines. Yes, it is concerning that most cases have occurred in children and some affected children are left with long-term deficits. Technically though, AFM is a neurologic rather than an infectious disease. When cases occur, we suspect a viral infection but according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, no pathogen has been consistently identified from the spinal fluid of infected patients. From August 2014 to September 2018, the CDC received information on 368 confirmed cases, so AFM fortunately is still rare.

News reports describe measles outbreaks raging in Europe – more than 41,000 cases so far this year, and 40 deaths – and warn that the United States could be next. But let’s be honest: We have a safe and effective vaccine for measles and outbreaks like this don’t happen when individuals are appropriately immunized. Parents, immunize your children. If you are lucky enough to be traveling to Europe with your baby, remember that MMR vaccine is indicated for 6- to 11-month olds, but it doesn’t count in the 2-dose series.

But gonorrhea?

In 2017, the World Health Organization included Neisseria gonorrhoeae on its list of bacteria that pose the greatest threat to human health and for which new antibiotics are urgently needed. The popular media are calling N. gonorrhoeae one of the new “superbugs.” Globally, patients are being diagnosed with strains of gonorrhea that are resistant to all commonly used antibiotics. As reported during IDWeek 2018 this October, patients also are being diagnosed in the United States.

CDC

Sancta St. Cyr, MD, of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and her colleagues reported data from the Gonococcal Isolate Surveillance Project (GISP) and trends in multidrug resistant (MDR) and extensively-drug resistant (XDR) gonorrhea in the United States. A gonococcal isolate with resistance or elevated minimum inhibitory concentrations (MIC) to greater than or equal to two classes of antimicrobials is classified as MDR and an isolate with elevated MICs to greater than or equal to three classes of antimicrobials is classified as XDR. The MIC is the lowest antimicrobial concentration that inhibits growth of bacteria in the laboratory and rising MICs – evidence that higher levels of an antibiotic are needed to stop bacterial growth – can be an early indicator that resistance is emerging.

More than 150,000 gonococcal isolates were tested between 1987 and 2016. The first isolates with elevated MICs to cephalosporins and macrolides were identified in 1998, and since 2011, MDR resistance rates have hovered around 1%. In 2016, the rate was 1.1%, down from 1.3% in 2011. A single XDR isolate with resistance to fluoroquinolones with elevated MICs to both cephalosporins and macrolides was identified in 2011.

One could look at these data and ask if this is a “glass half full or half empty” situation, but I propose that clinicians and public health officials should not look at these data and be reassured that rates of MDR-gonorrhea remained stable between 2010 and 2016. According to a recent surveillance report released by the CDC, the absolute number of cases of gonorrhea has continued to rise. In 2017, there were 555,608 cases reported in the United States, a 67% increase since 2013. If we assume that rates of resistance in 2017 were similar to those in 2016, that’s more than 5,000 cases of MDR-gonorrhea in a single year.

“That’s bad,” one of my dining companions agreed. “But is gonorrhea really a pediatric issue?”

To answer that question, we just have to look at the numbers. According to the 2017 Youth Risk Behavior Survey, the percentage of high school students who had ever had sex was approximately 40% and about 10% of students had four or more lifetime partners. More than 45% of sexually active students denied the use of a condom during the last sexual intercourse. Certainly, that puts many teenagers at risk for sexually transmitted infections (STIs). Perhaps it shouldn’t be surprising that public health authorities report that half of all new STIs occur in individuals aged 15-24 years. Moreover, 25% of sexually active adolescent girls contract at least one STI.

Gonorrhea is the second most commonly reported notifiable disease in the United States, and according to the CDC, rates of disease in 2017 were highest among adolescents and young adults. In females specifically, the highest rates of gonorrhea were observed among those aged 20-24 years (684.8 cases per 100,000 females) and 15-19 years (557.4 cases per 100,000 females).

It makes sense that pediatricians and parents advocate for making the reduction of gonorrhea transmission rates a public health priority. We also need to recognize that prompt diagnosis and appropriate treatment are critical. Since 2015, dual therapy with ceftriaxone and azithromycin is the only CDC-recommended treatment for gonorrhea.

At that dinner party, my closest friend, who also happens to be a pediatrician, rolled her eyes and shot me look that I’m sure meant, “Nobody really wants to talk about gonorrhea over dessert.” Still, because she is a good friend she said, “So basically you’re saying that millions of teenagers are getting infected with a form of gonorrhea that takes at least two antibiotics to treat, and if this keeps up, we may see kids with untreatable infection. Now that is scary.”

I kept quiet after that but I wanted to mention that in 2017, less than 85% of patients diagnosed with gonorrhea at selected surveillance sites received the recommended treatment with two antibiotics. Patients with inadequately treated gonorrhea are at risk for a host of sequelae. Women can develop pelvic inflammatory disease, abscesses, chronic pelvic pain, and damage of the fallopian tubes that can lead to infertility. Men can develop epididymitis, which occasionally results in infertility. Rarely, N. gonorrhoeae can spread to the blood and cause life-threatening infection. Of course, patients who aren’t treated appropriately may continue to spread the bacteria. Scary? You bet.

For pediatricians who need a refresher course in the treatment of STIs, there are free resources available. The CDC’s 2015 STD Treatment Guidelines are available in a free app; the app contains a nice refresher on taking a sexual history. There also is a print version, wall chart, and pocket guide. Providers also may want to check out the National STD Curriculum offered by the University of Washington STD Prevention Training Center and the University of Washington. Visit https://www.std.uw.edu/.
 

Dr. Bryant is a pediatrician specializing in infectious diseases at the University of Louisville (Ky.) and Norton Children’s Hospital, also in Louisville. She said she had no relevant financial disclosures. Email her at [email protected].

I think the question was intended as polite, dinner party chit chat ... maybe an attempt by a gracious hostess to make sure everyone was engaged in conversation.

“So what pediatric infectious disease should parents be most worried about?” she asked me.

I’ll admit that a couple of perfectly respectable and noncontroversial possibilities crossed my mind before I answered.

Acute flaccid myelitis? Measles?

When I replied, “gonorrhea,” conversation at the table pretty much stopped.

Let me explain. Acute flaccid myelitis is a polio-like neurologic condition that has been grabbing headlines. Yes, it is concerning that most cases have occurred in children and some affected children are left with long-term deficits. Technically though, AFM is a neurologic rather than an infectious disease. When cases occur, we suspect a viral infection but according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, no pathogen has been consistently identified from the spinal fluid of infected patients. From August 2014 to September 2018, the CDC received information on 368 confirmed cases, so AFM fortunately is still rare.

News reports describe measles outbreaks raging in Europe – more than 41,000 cases so far this year, and 40 deaths – and warn that the United States could be next. But let’s be honest: We have a safe and effective vaccine for measles and outbreaks like this don’t happen when individuals are appropriately immunized. Parents, immunize your children. If you are lucky enough to be traveling to Europe with your baby, remember that MMR vaccine is indicated for 6- to 11-month olds, but it doesn’t count in the 2-dose series.

But gonorrhea?

In 2017, the World Health Organization included Neisseria gonorrhoeae on its list of bacteria that pose the greatest threat to human health and for which new antibiotics are urgently needed. The popular media are calling N. gonorrhoeae one of the new “superbugs.” Globally, patients are being diagnosed with strains of gonorrhea that are resistant to all commonly used antibiotics. As reported during IDWeek 2018 this October, patients also are being diagnosed in the United States.

CDC

Sancta St. Cyr, MD, of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and her colleagues reported data from the Gonococcal Isolate Surveillance Project (GISP) and trends in multidrug resistant (MDR) and extensively-drug resistant (XDR) gonorrhea in the United States. A gonococcal isolate with resistance or elevated minimum inhibitory concentrations (MIC) to greater than or equal to two classes of antimicrobials is classified as MDR and an isolate with elevated MICs to greater than or equal to three classes of antimicrobials is classified as XDR. The MIC is the lowest antimicrobial concentration that inhibits growth of bacteria in the laboratory and rising MICs – evidence that higher levels of an antibiotic are needed to stop bacterial growth – can be an early indicator that resistance is emerging.

More than 150,000 gonococcal isolates were tested between 1987 and 2016. The first isolates with elevated MICs to cephalosporins and macrolides were identified in 1998, and since 2011, MDR resistance rates have hovered around 1%. In 2016, the rate was 1.1%, down from 1.3% in 2011. A single XDR isolate with resistance to fluoroquinolones with elevated MICs to both cephalosporins and macrolides was identified in 2011.

One could look at these data and ask if this is a “glass half full or half empty” situation, but I propose that clinicians and public health officials should not look at these data and be reassured that rates of MDR-gonorrhea remained stable between 2010 and 2016. According to a recent surveillance report released by the CDC, the absolute number of cases of gonorrhea has continued to rise. In 2017, there were 555,608 cases reported in the United States, a 67% increase since 2013. If we assume that rates of resistance in 2017 were similar to those in 2016, that’s more than 5,000 cases of MDR-gonorrhea in a single year.

“That’s bad,” one of my dining companions agreed. “But is gonorrhea really a pediatric issue?”

To answer that question, we just have to look at the numbers. According to the 2017 Youth Risk Behavior Survey, the percentage of high school students who had ever had sex was approximately 40% and about 10% of students had four or more lifetime partners. More than 45% of sexually active students denied the use of a condom during the last sexual intercourse. Certainly, that puts many teenagers at risk for sexually transmitted infections (STIs). Perhaps it shouldn’t be surprising that public health authorities report that half of all new STIs occur in individuals aged 15-24 years. Moreover, 25% of sexually active adolescent girls contract at least one STI.

Gonorrhea is the second most commonly reported notifiable disease in the United States, and according to the CDC, rates of disease in 2017 were highest among adolescents and young adults. In females specifically, the highest rates of gonorrhea were observed among those aged 20-24 years (684.8 cases per 100,000 females) and 15-19 years (557.4 cases per 100,000 females).

It makes sense that pediatricians and parents advocate for making the reduction of gonorrhea transmission rates a public health priority. We also need to recognize that prompt diagnosis and appropriate treatment are critical. Since 2015, dual therapy with ceftriaxone and azithromycin is the only CDC-recommended treatment for gonorrhea.

At that dinner party, my closest friend, who also happens to be a pediatrician, rolled her eyes and shot me look that I’m sure meant, “Nobody really wants to talk about gonorrhea over dessert.” Still, because she is a good friend she said, “So basically you’re saying that millions of teenagers are getting infected with a form of gonorrhea that takes at least two antibiotics to treat, and if this keeps up, we may see kids with untreatable infection. Now that is scary.”

I kept quiet after that but I wanted to mention that in 2017, less than 85% of patients diagnosed with gonorrhea at selected surveillance sites received the recommended treatment with two antibiotics. Patients with inadequately treated gonorrhea are at risk for a host of sequelae. Women can develop pelvic inflammatory disease, abscesses, chronic pelvic pain, and damage of the fallopian tubes that can lead to infertility. Men can develop epididymitis, which occasionally results in infertility. Rarely, N. gonorrhoeae can spread to the blood and cause life-threatening infection. Of course, patients who aren’t treated appropriately may continue to spread the bacteria. Scary? You bet.

For pediatricians who need a refresher course in the treatment of STIs, there are free resources available. The CDC’s 2015 STD Treatment Guidelines are available in a free app; the app contains a nice refresher on taking a sexual history. There also is a print version, wall chart, and pocket guide. Providers also may want to check out the National STD Curriculum offered by the University of Washington STD Prevention Training Center and the University of Washington. Visit https://www.std.uw.edu/.
 

Dr. Bryant is a pediatrician specializing in infectious diseases at the University of Louisville (Ky.) and Norton Children’s Hospital, also in Louisville. She said she had no relevant financial disclosures. Email her at [email protected].

I think the question was intended as polite, dinner party chit chat ... maybe an attempt by a gracious hostess to make sure everyone was engaged in conversation.

“So what pediatric infectious disease should parents be most worried about?” she asked me.

I’ll admit that a couple of perfectly respectable and noncontroversial possibilities crossed my mind before I answered.

Acute flaccid myelitis? Measles?

When I replied, “gonorrhea,” conversation at the table pretty much stopped.

Let me explain. Acute flaccid myelitis is a polio-like neurologic condition that has been grabbing headlines. Yes, it is concerning that most cases have occurred in children and some affected children are left with long-term deficits. Technically though, AFM is a neurologic rather than an infectious disease. When cases occur, we suspect a viral infection but according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, no pathogen has been consistently identified from the spinal fluid of infected patients. From August 2014 to September 2018, the CDC received information on 368 confirmed cases, so AFM fortunately is still rare.

News reports describe measles outbreaks raging in Europe – more than 41,000 cases so far this year, and 40 deaths – and warn that the United States could be next. But let’s be honest: We have a safe and effective vaccine for measles and outbreaks like this don’t happen when individuals are appropriately immunized. Parents, immunize your children. If you are lucky enough to be traveling to Europe with your baby, remember that MMR vaccine is indicated for 6- to 11-month olds, but it doesn’t count in the 2-dose series.

But gonorrhea?

In 2017, the World Health Organization included Neisseria gonorrhoeae on its list of bacteria that pose the greatest threat to human health and for which new antibiotics are urgently needed. The popular media are calling N. gonorrhoeae one of the new “superbugs.” Globally, patients are being diagnosed with strains of gonorrhea that are resistant to all commonly used antibiotics. As reported during IDWeek 2018 this October, patients also are being diagnosed in the United States.

CDC

Sancta St. Cyr, MD, of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and her colleagues reported data from the Gonococcal Isolate Surveillance Project (GISP) and trends in multidrug resistant (MDR) and extensively-drug resistant (XDR) gonorrhea in the United States. A gonococcal isolate with resistance or elevated minimum inhibitory concentrations (MIC) to greater than or equal to two classes of antimicrobials is classified as MDR and an isolate with elevated MICs to greater than or equal to three classes of antimicrobials is classified as XDR. The MIC is the lowest antimicrobial concentration that inhibits growth of bacteria in the laboratory and rising MICs – evidence that higher levels of an antibiotic are needed to stop bacterial growth – can be an early indicator that resistance is emerging.

More than 150,000 gonococcal isolates were tested between 1987 and 2016. The first isolates with elevated MICs to cephalosporins and macrolides were identified in 1998, and since 2011, MDR resistance rates have hovered around 1%. In 2016, the rate was 1.1%, down from 1.3% in 2011. A single XDR isolate with resistance to fluoroquinolones with elevated MICs to both cephalosporins and macrolides was identified in 2011.

One could look at these data and ask if this is a “glass half full or half empty” situation, but I propose that clinicians and public health officials should not look at these data and be reassured that rates of MDR-gonorrhea remained stable between 2010 and 2016. According to a recent surveillance report released by the CDC, the absolute number of cases of gonorrhea has continued to rise. In 2017, there were 555,608 cases reported in the United States, a 67% increase since 2013. If we assume that rates of resistance in 2017 were similar to those in 2016, that’s more than 5,000 cases of MDR-gonorrhea in a single year.

“That’s bad,” one of my dining companions agreed. “But is gonorrhea really a pediatric issue?”

To answer that question, we just have to look at the numbers. According to the 2017 Youth Risk Behavior Survey, the percentage of high school students who had ever had sex was approximately 40% and about 10% of students had four or more lifetime partners. More than 45% of sexually active students denied the use of a condom during the last sexual intercourse. Certainly, that puts many teenagers at risk for sexually transmitted infections (STIs). Perhaps it shouldn’t be surprising that public health authorities report that half of all new STIs occur in individuals aged 15-24 years. Moreover, 25% of sexually active adolescent girls contract at least one STI.

Gonorrhea is the second most commonly reported notifiable disease in the United States, and according to the CDC, rates of disease in 2017 were highest among adolescents and young adults. In females specifically, the highest rates of gonorrhea were observed among those aged 20-24 years (684.8 cases per 100,000 females) and 15-19 years (557.4 cases per 100,000 females).

It makes sense that pediatricians and parents advocate for making the reduction of gonorrhea transmission rates a public health priority. We also need to recognize that prompt diagnosis and appropriate treatment are critical. Since 2015, dual therapy with ceftriaxone and azithromycin is the only CDC-recommended treatment for gonorrhea.

At that dinner party, my closest friend, who also happens to be a pediatrician, rolled her eyes and shot me look that I’m sure meant, “Nobody really wants to talk about gonorrhea over dessert.” Still, because she is a good friend she said, “So basically you’re saying that millions of teenagers are getting infected with a form of gonorrhea that takes at least two antibiotics to treat, and if this keeps up, we may see kids with untreatable infection. Now that is scary.”

I kept quiet after that but I wanted to mention that in 2017, less than 85% of patients diagnosed with gonorrhea at selected surveillance sites received the recommended treatment with two antibiotics. Patients with inadequately treated gonorrhea are at risk for a host of sequelae. Women can develop pelvic inflammatory disease, abscesses, chronic pelvic pain, and damage of the fallopian tubes that can lead to infertility. Men can develop epididymitis, which occasionally results in infertility. Rarely, N. gonorrhoeae can spread to the blood and cause life-threatening infection. Of course, patients who aren’t treated appropriately may continue to spread the bacteria. Scary? You bet.

For pediatricians who need a refresher course in the treatment of STIs, there are free resources available. The CDC’s 2015 STD Treatment Guidelines are available in a free app; the app contains a nice refresher on taking a sexual history. There also is a print version, wall chart, and pocket guide. Providers also may want to check out the National STD Curriculum offered by the University of Washington STD Prevention Training Center and the University of Washington. Visit https://www.std.uw.edu/.
 

Dr. Bryant is a pediatrician specializing in infectious diseases at the University of Louisville (Ky.) and Norton Children’s Hospital, also in Louisville. She said she had no relevant financial disclosures. Email her at [email protected].

A few weeks ago, a patient asked whether he could get my opinion on something unrelated to his yellow fever vaccine visit: He asked what I thought about the human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine. His daughter’s primary care physician (PCP) had recommended it, but he “heard that it wasn’t safe.” We had a brief discussion.

My pediatric training days have long since ended, but I was taught never to miss an opportunity to immunize. In this case, it was to help a parent decide to immunize. This type of encounter is not unusual because, as part of preparing persons for international travel, I review their routine immunizations. When documentation of a vaccine is absent, it is pointed out and often remedied after a brief discussion.

Unfortunately, with HPV, too often parents state “my primary care physician said” it was optional, it was not required, or it was never recommended. Some were told to wait until their child was older, and several have safety concerns as did the parent above. I sometimes hear, “it’s not necessary for my child”; this is usually a clue indicating that the issue is more likely about how HPV is transmitted than what HPV vaccine can prevent. Most have welcomed the opportunity to discuss the vaccine, hear about its benefits, and have their questions answered. All leave with HPV information and are directed to websites that provide accurate information. They are referred to their PCP – hopefully to be immunized.

Three vaccines – meningococcal conjugate vaccine (MCV), Tdap, and HPV vaccine – all are recommended for administration at 11-12 years of age. A booster of MCV is recommended at 16 years. However, let’s focus on HPV. In 2007, HPV administration was recommended by the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) for girls; by 2011, the recommendation was extended to boys. It was a three-dose schedule expected to be completed by age 13 years. In December 2016, a two-dose schedule administered at least 6 months apart was recommended for teens who initiated immunization at less than 15 years. Three doses were still recommended for those initiating HPV after 15 years. This was the only time the number of doses to complete a vaccine series had been decreased based on postlicensure data. So how well are we protecting our patients from HPV-related cancers?
 

Vaccine coverage

The National Immunization Survey–Teen (NIS-Teen) monitors vaccine coverage annually amongst adolescents aged 13-17 years. Data are obtained from individuals from every state, as well as the District of Columbia, the U.S. Virgin Islands, and six major urban areas.

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report (2018 Aug 24;67[33]:909-17), HPV vaccination continues to lag behind Tdap and MCV in 2018. Among all adolescents, coverage with one or more doses of HPV was 66%, with up-to-date HPV status in 49%. In contrast, 82% received a dose of MCV, and 89% received a dose of Tdap.

Coverage for receiving one or more doses of HPV among females was 69%, and up-to-date HPV status was 53%; among males, coverage with one or more doses was 63%, and up-to-date HPV status was 44%.

Up-to-date HPV coverage status differed geographically, ranging from 29% in Mississippi to 78% in DC. Overall, eight states and the District of Columbia reported increases in up-to-date status (District of Columbia, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Nebraska, North Carolina, South Carolina, Texas, Vermont, and Virginia). Kudos to Virginia for having the largest increase (20 percentage points).

Coverage also differed between urban and rural areas: one or more doses at 70% vs. 59% and up-to-date status at 52% vs. 42%.

HPV coverage differed by poverty level as well. It was higher for persons living below the poverty level, with one or more doses in 73% and up-to-date status in 54%, compared with persons living at or above poverty level at 63% and 47%, respectively.
 

HPV-related cancers

The most recent CDC data regarding types of HPV-associated cancers during 2011-2015 suggest that HPV types 16 and 18 account for the majority of cervical (78%) and oropharyngeal (86%) cancers.

Currently, there are more cases of oropharyngeal cancer than cervical, and we have no screening tool for the former.
 

Safety

Safety has been well documented. Since licensure, no serious safety concerns have been identified, contrary to what has been reported on various social and news media outlets. Yet it remains a concern for many parents who have delayed initiation of vaccine. Efficacy also has been documented in the United States and abroad.

Suggestions for improving HPV immunization coverage

Here are eight suggestions to help you recommend the vaccine and convince hesitant parents of its necessity:

1. Focus on your delivery of the HPV immunization recommendation. Clinician recommendation is the No. 1 reason parents vaccinate. The tone you use and how you make the recommendation can affect how the parent perceives the importance of this vaccine. The following are components of a high-quality recommendation (Academic Pediatrics. 2018;18:S23-S27):

• Routinely recommend vaccine at 11-12 years.
• Recommend vaccine for all preteens, not just those you feel are at risk for infection.
• Recommend the vaccine be given the same day it is discussed.
• Use language that expresses the importance of the HPV vaccine.

2. Use the “announcement or presumptive approach.” You expect the parent to agree with your recommendation. You don’t want to convey that it is an option.

3. Remind parents that immunizing on time means only two doses of HPV.

4. Revisit the topic again during another visit if a parent declines. Data suggest secondary acceptance can be as high as 66%.

5. Consider using a motivational interviewing approach for parents who are very hesitant to vaccinate. Most people want to comply with recommended health interventions.

6. Educate your staff about the importance of HPV vaccine and how it prevents cancer.

7. Determine how well your practice immunizes adolescents. This would be a perfect quality improvement project.

8. Explore “Answering Parents’ Questions” and other resources at www.cdc.gov/hpv to find quick answers to HPV vaccine–related questions .

Why is HPV coverage, a vaccine to prevent cancer, still lagging behind Tdap and MCV? I am as puzzled as others. What I do know is this: Our children will mature and one day become sexually active. They can be exposed to and get infected with HPV, and we can’t predict which ones will not clear the virus and end up developing an HPV-related cancer in the future. At the end of the day, HPV vaccination is cancer prevention.

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

A few weeks ago, a patient asked whether he could get my opinion on something unrelated to his yellow fever vaccine visit: He asked what I thought about the human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine. His daughter’s primary care physician (PCP) had recommended it, but he “heard that it wasn’t safe.” We had a brief discussion.

My pediatric training days have long since ended, but I was taught never to miss an opportunity to immunize. In this case, it was to help a parent decide to immunize. This type of encounter is not unusual because, as part of preparing persons for international travel, I review their routine immunizations. When documentation of a vaccine is absent, it is pointed out and often remedied after a brief discussion.

Unfortunately, with HPV, too often parents state “my primary care physician said” it was optional, it was not required, or it was never recommended. Some were told to wait until their child was older, and several have safety concerns as did the parent above. I sometimes hear, “it’s not necessary for my child”; this is usually a clue indicating that the issue is more likely about how HPV is transmitted than what HPV vaccine can prevent. Most have welcomed the opportunity to discuss the vaccine, hear about its benefits, and have their questions answered. All leave with HPV information and are directed to websites that provide accurate information. They are referred to their PCP – hopefully to be immunized.

Three vaccines – meningococcal conjugate vaccine (MCV), Tdap, and HPV vaccine – all are recommended for administration at 11-12 years of age. A booster of MCV is recommended at 16 years. However, let’s focus on HPV. In 2007, HPV administration was recommended by the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) for girls; by 2011, the recommendation was extended to boys. It was a three-dose schedule expected to be completed by age 13 years. In December 2016, a two-dose schedule administered at least 6 months apart was recommended for teens who initiated immunization at less than 15 years. Three doses were still recommended for those initiating HPV after 15 years. This was the only time the number of doses to complete a vaccine series had been decreased based on postlicensure data. So how well are we protecting our patients from HPV-related cancers?
 

Vaccine coverage

The National Immunization Survey–Teen (NIS-Teen) monitors vaccine coverage annually amongst adolescents aged 13-17 years. Data are obtained from individuals from every state, as well as the District of Columbia, the U.S. Virgin Islands, and six major urban areas.

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report (2018 Aug 24;67[33]:909-17), HPV vaccination continues to lag behind Tdap and MCV in 2018. Among all adolescents, coverage with one or more doses of HPV was 66%, with up-to-date HPV status in 49%. In contrast, 82% received a dose of MCV, and 89% received a dose of Tdap.

Coverage for receiving one or more doses of HPV among females was 69%, and up-to-date HPV status was 53%; among males, coverage with one or more doses was 63%, and up-to-date HPV status was 44%.

Up-to-date HPV coverage status differed geographically, ranging from 29% in Mississippi to 78% in DC. Overall, eight states and the District of Columbia reported increases in up-to-date status (District of Columbia, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Nebraska, North Carolina, South Carolina, Texas, Vermont, and Virginia). Kudos to Virginia for having the largest increase (20 percentage points).

Coverage also differed between urban and rural areas: one or more doses at 70% vs. 59% and up-to-date status at 52% vs. 42%.

HPV coverage differed by poverty level as well. It was higher for persons living below the poverty level, with one or more doses in 73% and up-to-date status in 54%, compared with persons living at or above poverty level at 63% and 47%, respectively.
 

HPV-related cancers

The most recent CDC data regarding types of HPV-associated cancers during 2011-2015 suggest that HPV types 16 and 18 account for the majority of cervical (78%) and oropharyngeal (86%) cancers.

Currently, there are more cases of oropharyngeal cancer than cervical, and we have no screening tool for the former.
 

Safety

Safety has been well documented. Since licensure, no serious safety concerns have been identified, contrary to what has been reported on various social and news media outlets. Yet it remains a concern for many parents who have delayed initiation of vaccine. Efficacy also has been documented in the United States and abroad.

Suggestions for improving HPV immunization coverage

Here are eight suggestions to help you recommend the vaccine and convince hesitant parents of its necessity:

1. Focus on your delivery of the HPV immunization recommendation. Clinician recommendation is the No. 1 reason parents vaccinate. The tone you use and how you make the recommendation can affect how the parent perceives the importance of this vaccine. The following are components of a high-quality recommendation (Academic Pediatrics. 2018;18:S23-S27):

• Routinely recommend vaccine at 11-12 years.
• Recommend vaccine for all preteens, not just those you feel are at risk for infection.
• Recommend the vaccine be given the same day it is discussed.
• Use language that expresses the importance of the HPV vaccine.

2. Use the “announcement or presumptive approach.” You expect the parent to agree with your recommendation. You don’t want to convey that it is an option.

3. Remind parents that immunizing on time means only two doses of HPV.

4. Revisit the topic again during another visit if a parent declines. Data suggest secondary acceptance can be as high as 66%.

5. Consider using a motivational interviewing approach for parents who are very hesitant to vaccinate. Most people want to comply with recommended health interventions.

6. Educate your staff about the importance of HPV vaccine and how it prevents cancer.

7. Determine how well your practice immunizes adolescents. This would be a perfect quality improvement project.

8. Explore “Answering Parents’ Questions” and other resources at www.cdc.gov/hpv to find quick answers to HPV vaccine–related questions .

Why is HPV coverage, a vaccine to prevent cancer, still lagging behind Tdap and MCV? I am as puzzled as others. What I do know is this: Our children will mature and one day become sexually active. They can be exposed to and get infected with HPV, and we can’t predict which ones will not clear the virus and end up developing an HPV-related cancer in the future. At the end of the day, HPV vaccination is cancer prevention.

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

A few weeks ago, a patient asked whether he could get my opinion on something unrelated to his yellow fever vaccine visit: He asked what I thought about the human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine. His daughter’s primary care physician (PCP) had recommended it, but he “heard that it wasn’t safe.” We had a brief discussion.

My pediatric training days have long since ended, but I was taught never to miss an opportunity to immunize. In this case, it was to help a parent decide to immunize. This type of encounter is not unusual because, as part of preparing persons for international travel, I review their routine immunizations. When documentation of a vaccine is absent, it is pointed out and often remedied after a brief discussion.

Unfortunately, with HPV, too often parents state “my primary care physician said” it was optional, it was not required, or it was never recommended. Some were told to wait until their child was older, and several have safety concerns as did the parent above. I sometimes hear, “it’s not necessary for my child”; this is usually a clue indicating that the issue is more likely about how HPV is transmitted than what HPV vaccine can prevent. Most have welcomed the opportunity to discuss the vaccine, hear about its benefits, and have their questions answered. All leave with HPV information and are directed to websites that provide accurate information. They are referred to their PCP – hopefully to be immunized.

Three vaccines – meningococcal conjugate vaccine (MCV), Tdap, and HPV vaccine – all are recommended for administration at 11-12 years of age. A booster of MCV is recommended at 16 years. However, let’s focus on HPV. In 2007, HPV administration was recommended by the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) for girls; by 2011, the recommendation was extended to boys. It was a three-dose schedule expected to be completed by age 13 years. In December 2016, a two-dose schedule administered at least 6 months apart was recommended for teens who initiated immunization at less than 15 years. Three doses were still recommended for those initiating HPV after 15 years. This was the only time the number of doses to complete a vaccine series had been decreased based on postlicensure data. So how well are we protecting our patients from HPV-related cancers?
 

Vaccine coverage

The National Immunization Survey–Teen (NIS-Teen) monitors vaccine coverage annually amongst adolescents aged 13-17 years. Data are obtained from individuals from every state, as well as the District of Columbia, the U.S. Virgin Islands, and six major urban areas.

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report (2018 Aug 24;67[33]:909-17), HPV vaccination continues to lag behind Tdap and MCV in 2018. Among all adolescents, coverage with one or more doses of HPV was 66%, with up-to-date HPV status in 49%. In contrast, 82% received a dose of MCV, and 89% received a dose of Tdap.

Coverage for receiving one or more doses of HPV among females was 69%, and up-to-date HPV status was 53%; among males, coverage with one or more doses was 63%, and up-to-date HPV status was 44%.

Up-to-date HPV coverage status differed geographically, ranging from 29% in Mississippi to 78% in DC. Overall, eight states and the District of Columbia reported increases in up-to-date status (District of Columbia, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Nebraska, North Carolina, South Carolina, Texas, Vermont, and Virginia). Kudos to Virginia for having the largest increase (20 percentage points).

Coverage also differed between urban and rural areas: one or more doses at 70% vs. 59% and up-to-date status at 52% vs. 42%.

HPV coverage differed by poverty level as well. It was higher for persons living below the poverty level, with one or more doses in 73% and up-to-date status in 54%, compared with persons living at or above poverty level at 63% and 47%, respectively.
 

HPV-related cancers

The most recent CDC data regarding types of HPV-associated cancers during 2011-2015 suggest that HPV types 16 and 18 account for the majority of cervical (78%) and oropharyngeal (86%) cancers.

Currently, there are more cases of oropharyngeal cancer than cervical, and we have no screening tool for the former.
 

Safety

Safety has been well documented. Since licensure, no serious safety concerns have been identified, contrary to what has been reported on various social and news media outlets. Yet it remains a concern for many parents who have delayed initiation of vaccine. Efficacy also has been documented in the United States and abroad.

Suggestions for improving HPV immunization coverage

Here are eight suggestions to help you recommend the vaccine and convince hesitant parents of its necessity:

1. Focus on your delivery of the HPV immunization recommendation. Clinician recommendation is the No. 1 reason parents vaccinate. The tone you use and how you make the recommendation can affect how the parent perceives the importance of this vaccine. The following are components of a high-quality recommendation (Academic Pediatrics. 2018;18:S23-S27):

• Routinely recommend vaccine at 11-12 years.
• Recommend vaccine for all preteens, not just those you feel are at risk for infection.
• Recommend the vaccine be given the same day it is discussed.
• Use language that expresses the importance of the HPV vaccine.

2. Use the “announcement or presumptive approach.” You expect the parent to agree with your recommendation. You don’t want to convey that it is an option.

3. Remind parents that immunizing on time means only two doses of HPV.

4. Revisit the topic again during another visit if a parent declines. Data suggest secondary acceptance can be as high as 66%.

5. Consider using a motivational interviewing approach for parents who are very hesitant to vaccinate. Most people want to comply with recommended health interventions.

6. Educate your staff about the importance of HPV vaccine and how it prevents cancer.

7. Determine how well your practice immunizes adolescents. This would be a perfect quality improvement project.

8. Explore “Answering Parents’ Questions” and other resources at www.cdc.gov/hpv to find quick answers to HPV vaccine–related questions .

Why is HPV coverage, a vaccine to prevent cancer, still lagging behind Tdap and MCV? I am as puzzled as others. What I do know is this: Our children will mature and one day become sexually active. They can be exposed to and get infected with HPV, and we can’t predict which ones will not clear the virus and end up developing an HPV-related cancer in the future. At the end of the day, HPV vaccination is cancer prevention.

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