Antimicrobial-resistant infections

Fastest peptide north, south, east, aaaaand west of the Pecos

Bacterial infections are supposed to be simple. You get infected, you get an antibiotic to treat it. Easy. Some bacteria, though, don’t play by the rules. Those antibiotics may kill 99.9% of germs, but what about the 0.1% that gets left behind? With their fallen comrades out of the way, the accidentally drug resistant species are free to inherit the Earth.

Antibiotic resistance is thus a major concern for the medical community. Naturally, anything that prevents doctors from successfully curing sick people is a priority. Unless you’re a major pharmaceutical company that has been loath to develop new drugs that can beat antibiotic-resistant bacteria. Blah blah, time and money, blah blah, long time between development and market application, blah blah, no profit. We all know the story with pharmaceutical companies.

Ilana Camargo

Research from other sources has continued, however, and Brazilian scientists recently published research involving a peptide known as plantaricin 149. This peptide, derived from the bacterium Lactobacillus plantarum, has been known for nearly 30 years to have antibacterial properties. Pln149 in its natural state, though, is not particularly efficient at bacteria-killing. Fortunately, we have science and technology on our side.

The researchers synthesized 20 analogs of Pln149, of which Pln149-PEP20 had the best results. The elegantly named compound is less than half the size of the original peptide, less toxic, and far better at killing any and all drug-resistant bacteria the researchers threw at it. How much better? Pln149-PEP20 started killing bacteria less than an hour after being introduced in lab trials.

The research is just in its early days – just because something is less toxic doesn’t necessarily mean you want to go and help yourself to it – but we can only hope that those lovely pharmaceutical companies deign to look down upon us and actually develop a drug utilizing Pln149-PEP20 to, you know, actually help sick people, instead of trying to build monopolies or avoiding paying billions in taxes. Yeah, we couldn’t keep a straight face through that last sentence either.
 

Speed healing: The wavy wound gets the swirl

Did you know that wavy wounds heal faster than straight wounds? Well, we didn’t, but apparently quite a few people did, because somebody has been trying to figure out why wavy wounds heal faster than straight ones. Do the surgeons know about this? How about you dermatologists? Wavy over straight? We’re the media. We’re supposed to report this kind of stuff. Maybe hit us with a tweet next time you do something important, or push a TikTok our way, okay?

You could be more like the investigators at Nanyang Technological University in Singapore, who figured out the why and then released a statement about it.

NTU Singapore

They created synthetic wounds – some straight, some wavy – in micropatterned hydrogel substrates that mimicked human skin. Then they used an advanced optical technique known as particle image velocimetry to measure fluid flow and learn how cells moved to close the wound gaps.

The wavy wounds “induced more complex collective cell movements, such as a swirly, vortex-like motion,” according to the written statement from NTU Singapore. In the straight wounds, cell movements paralleled the wound front, “moving in straight lines like a marching band,” they pointed out, unlike some researchers who never call us unless they need money.

Complex epithelial cell movements are better, it turns out. Over an observation period of 64 hours the NTU team found that the healing efficiency of wavy gaps – measured by the area covered by the cells over time – is nearly five times faster than straight gaps.

The complex motion “enabled cells to quickly connect with similar cells on the opposite site of the wound edge, forming a bridge and closing the wavy wound gaps faster than straight gaps,” explained lead author Xu Hongmei, a doctoral student at NTU’s School of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering, who seems to have time to toss out a tumblr or two to keep the press informed.

As for the rest of you, would it kill you to pick up a phone once in a while? Maybe let a journalist know that you’re still alive? We have feelings too, you know, and we worry.
 

A little Jekyll, a little Hyde, and a little shop of horrors

More “Little Shop of Horrors” references are coming, so be prepared.

We begin with Triphyophyllum peltatum. This woody vine is of great interest to medical and pharmaceutical researchers because its constituents have shown promise against pancreatic cancer and leukemia cells, among others, along with the pathogens that cause malaria and other diseases. There is another side, however. T. peltatum also has a tendency to turn into a realistic Audrey II when deprived.

No, of course they’re not craving human flesh, but it does become … carnivorous in its appetite.

T. peltatum, native to the West African tropics and not found in a New York florist shop, has the unique ability to change its diet and development based on the environmental circumstances. For some unknown reason, the leaves would develop adhesive traps in the form of sticky drops that capture insect prey. The plant is notoriously hard to grow, however, so no one could study the transformation under lab conditions. Until now.

Traud Winkelmann/University of Hannover

A group of German scientists “exposed the plant to different stress factors, including deficiencies of various nutrients, and studied how it responded to each,” said Dr. Traud Winkelmann of Leibniz University Hannover. “Only in one case were we able to observe the formation of traps: in the case of a lack of phosphorus.”

Well, there you have it: phosphorus. We need it for healthy bones and teeth, which this plant doesn’t have to worry about, unlike its Tony Award–nominated counterpart. The investigators hope that their findings could lead to “future molecular analyses that will help understand the origins of carnivory,” but we’re guessing that a certain singing alien species will be left out of that research.

Fastest peptide north, south, east, aaaaand west of the Pecos

Bacterial infections are supposed to be simple. You get infected, you get an antibiotic to treat it. Easy. Some bacteria, though, don’t play by the rules. Those antibiotics may kill 99.9% of germs, but what about the 0.1% that gets left behind? With their fallen comrades out of the way, the accidentally drug resistant species are free to inherit the Earth.

Antibiotic resistance is thus a major concern for the medical community. Naturally, anything that prevents doctors from successfully curing sick people is a priority. Unless you’re a major pharmaceutical company that has been loath to develop new drugs that can beat antibiotic-resistant bacteria. Blah blah, time and money, blah blah, long time between development and market application, blah blah, no profit. We all know the story with pharmaceutical companies.

Ilana Camargo

Research from other sources has continued, however, and Brazilian scientists recently published research involving a peptide known as plantaricin 149. This peptide, derived from the bacterium Lactobacillus plantarum, has been known for nearly 30 years to have antibacterial properties. Pln149 in its natural state, though, is not particularly efficient at bacteria-killing. Fortunately, we have science and technology on our side.

The researchers synthesized 20 analogs of Pln149, of which Pln149-PEP20 had the best results. The elegantly named compound is less than half the size of the original peptide, less toxic, and far better at killing any and all drug-resistant bacteria the researchers threw at it. How much better? Pln149-PEP20 started killing bacteria less than an hour after being introduced in lab trials.

The research is just in its early days – just because something is less toxic doesn’t necessarily mean you want to go and help yourself to it – but we can only hope that those lovely pharmaceutical companies deign to look down upon us and actually develop a drug utilizing Pln149-PEP20 to, you know, actually help sick people, instead of trying to build monopolies or avoiding paying billions in taxes. Yeah, we couldn’t keep a straight face through that last sentence either.
 

Speed healing: The wavy wound gets the swirl

Did you know that wavy wounds heal faster than straight wounds? Well, we didn’t, but apparently quite a few people did, because somebody has been trying to figure out why wavy wounds heal faster than straight ones. Do the surgeons know about this? How about you dermatologists? Wavy over straight? We’re the media. We’re supposed to report this kind of stuff. Maybe hit us with a tweet next time you do something important, or push a TikTok our way, okay?

You could be more like the investigators at Nanyang Technological University in Singapore, who figured out the why and then released a statement about it.

NTU Singapore

They created synthetic wounds – some straight, some wavy – in micropatterned hydrogel substrates that mimicked human skin. Then they used an advanced optical technique known as particle image velocimetry to measure fluid flow and learn how cells moved to close the wound gaps.

The wavy wounds “induced more complex collective cell movements, such as a swirly, vortex-like motion,” according to the written statement from NTU Singapore. In the straight wounds, cell movements paralleled the wound front, “moving in straight lines like a marching band,” they pointed out, unlike some researchers who never call us unless they need money.

Complex epithelial cell movements are better, it turns out. Over an observation period of 64 hours the NTU team found that the healing efficiency of wavy gaps – measured by the area covered by the cells over time – is nearly five times faster than straight gaps.

The complex motion “enabled cells to quickly connect with similar cells on the opposite site of the wound edge, forming a bridge and closing the wavy wound gaps faster than straight gaps,” explained lead author Xu Hongmei, a doctoral student at NTU’s School of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering, who seems to have time to toss out a tumblr or two to keep the press informed.

As for the rest of you, would it kill you to pick up a phone once in a while? Maybe let a journalist know that you’re still alive? We have feelings too, you know, and we worry.
 

A little Jekyll, a little Hyde, and a little shop of horrors

More “Little Shop of Horrors” references are coming, so be prepared.

We begin with Triphyophyllum peltatum. This woody vine is of great interest to medical and pharmaceutical researchers because its constituents have shown promise against pancreatic cancer and leukemia cells, among others, along with the pathogens that cause malaria and other diseases. There is another side, however. T. peltatum also has a tendency to turn into a realistic Audrey II when deprived.

No, of course they’re not craving human flesh, but it does become … carnivorous in its appetite.

T. peltatum, native to the West African tropics and not found in a New York florist shop, has the unique ability to change its diet and development based on the environmental circumstances. For some unknown reason, the leaves would develop adhesive traps in the form of sticky drops that capture insect prey. The plant is notoriously hard to grow, however, so no one could study the transformation under lab conditions. Until now.

Traud Winkelmann/University of Hannover

A group of German scientists “exposed the plant to different stress factors, including deficiencies of various nutrients, and studied how it responded to each,” said Dr. Traud Winkelmann of Leibniz University Hannover. “Only in one case were we able to observe the formation of traps: in the case of a lack of phosphorus.”

Well, there you have it: phosphorus. We need it for healthy bones and teeth, which this plant doesn’t have to worry about, unlike its Tony Award–nominated counterpart. The investigators hope that their findings could lead to “future molecular analyses that will help understand the origins of carnivory,” but we’re guessing that a certain singing alien species will be left out of that research.

Fastest peptide north, south, east, aaaaand west of the Pecos

Bacterial infections are supposed to be simple. You get infected, you get an antibiotic to treat it. Easy. Some bacteria, though, don’t play by the rules. Those antibiotics may kill 99.9% of germs, but what about the 0.1% that gets left behind? With their fallen comrades out of the way, the accidentally drug resistant species are free to inherit the Earth.

Antibiotic resistance is thus a major concern for the medical community. Naturally, anything that prevents doctors from successfully curing sick people is a priority. Unless you’re a major pharmaceutical company that has been loath to develop new drugs that can beat antibiotic-resistant bacteria. Blah blah, time and money, blah blah, long time between development and market application, blah blah, no profit. We all know the story with pharmaceutical companies.

Ilana Camargo

Research from other sources has continued, however, and Brazilian scientists recently published research involving a peptide known as plantaricin 149. This peptide, derived from the bacterium Lactobacillus plantarum, has been known for nearly 30 years to have antibacterial properties. Pln149 in its natural state, though, is not particularly efficient at bacteria-killing. Fortunately, we have science and technology on our side.

The researchers synthesized 20 analogs of Pln149, of which Pln149-PEP20 had the best results. The elegantly named compound is less than half the size of the original peptide, less toxic, and far better at killing any and all drug-resistant bacteria the researchers threw at it. How much better? Pln149-PEP20 started killing bacteria less than an hour after being introduced in lab trials.

The research is just in its early days – just because something is less toxic doesn’t necessarily mean you want to go and help yourself to it – but we can only hope that those lovely pharmaceutical companies deign to look down upon us and actually develop a drug utilizing Pln149-PEP20 to, you know, actually help sick people, instead of trying to build monopolies or avoiding paying billions in taxes. Yeah, we couldn’t keep a straight face through that last sentence either.
 

Speed healing: The wavy wound gets the swirl

Did you know that wavy wounds heal faster than straight wounds? Well, we didn’t, but apparently quite a few people did, because somebody has been trying to figure out why wavy wounds heal faster than straight ones. Do the surgeons know about this? How about you dermatologists? Wavy over straight? We’re the media. We’re supposed to report this kind of stuff. Maybe hit us with a tweet next time you do something important, or push a TikTok our way, okay?

You could be more like the investigators at Nanyang Technological University in Singapore, who figured out the why and then released a statement about it.

NTU Singapore

They created synthetic wounds – some straight, some wavy – in micropatterned hydrogel substrates that mimicked human skin. Then they used an advanced optical technique known as particle image velocimetry to measure fluid flow and learn how cells moved to close the wound gaps.

The wavy wounds “induced more complex collective cell movements, such as a swirly, vortex-like motion,” according to the written statement from NTU Singapore. In the straight wounds, cell movements paralleled the wound front, “moving in straight lines like a marching band,” they pointed out, unlike some researchers who never call us unless they need money.

Complex epithelial cell movements are better, it turns out. Over an observation period of 64 hours the NTU team found that the healing efficiency of wavy gaps – measured by the area covered by the cells over time – is nearly five times faster than straight gaps.

The complex motion “enabled cells to quickly connect with similar cells on the opposite site of the wound edge, forming a bridge and closing the wavy wound gaps faster than straight gaps,” explained lead author Xu Hongmei, a doctoral student at NTU’s School of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering, who seems to have time to toss out a tumblr or two to keep the press informed.

As for the rest of you, would it kill you to pick up a phone once in a while? Maybe let a journalist know that you’re still alive? We have feelings too, you know, and we worry.
 

A little Jekyll, a little Hyde, and a little shop of horrors

More “Little Shop of Horrors” references are coming, so be prepared.

We begin with Triphyophyllum peltatum. This woody vine is of great interest to medical and pharmaceutical researchers because its constituents have shown promise against pancreatic cancer and leukemia cells, among others, along with the pathogens that cause malaria and other diseases. There is another side, however. T. peltatum also has a tendency to turn into a realistic Audrey II when deprived.

No, of course they’re not craving human flesh, but it does become … carnivorous in its appetite.

T. peltatum, native to the West African tropics and not found in a New York florist shop, has the unique ability to change its diet and development based on the environmental circumstances. For some unknown reason, the leaves would develop adhesive traps in the form of sticky drops that capture insect prey. The plant is notoriously hard to grow, however, so no one could study the transformation under lab conditions. Until now.

Traud Winkelmann/University of Hannover

A group of German scientists “exposed the plant to different stress factors, including deficiencies of various nutrients, and studied how it responded to each,” said Dr. Traud Winkelmann of Leibniz University Hannover. “Only in one case were we able to observe the formation of traps: in the case of a lack of phosphorus.”

Well, there you have it: phosphorus. We need it for healthy bones and teeth, which this plant doesn’t have to worry about, unlike its Tony Award–nominated counterpart. The investigators hope that their findings could lead to “future molecular analyses that will help understand the origins of carnivory,” but we’re guessing that a certain singing alien species will be left out of that research.

The recent approval of the first oral fecal-derived microbiota therapy to prevent the recurrence of Clostridioides difficile (C. diff) infection in patients was welcome news for physicians who’ve struggled under the weight of having too few treatment options for the prevention of C. diff recurrence.

The product, developed by Massachusetts-based Seres Therepeutics and marketed as Vowst, was approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration on April 26. It is approved for use in adults who have already been treated with antibiotics for a recurrent infection with C. diff bacteria.

This is the first oral treatment for the prevention of C. diff recurrence and is designed to be delivered in four capsules taken daily for 3 days.

Gastroenterologist Phillip I. Tarr, MD, division chief of gastroenterology at Washington University, St. Louis, and chair of the American Gastroenterological Association Center for Gut Microbiome Research and Education, said that prevention of recurrent C. diff infection “remains challenging,” and that Vowst “provides the first FDA-approved, orally administered microbiome therapeutic with which to achieve this goal. This advance also makes us optimistic we might soon be able to prevent other disorders by managing gut microbial communities.”

Vowst is the second therapy derived from human stool to be approved for the indication in less than 6 months. In December, the FDA approved Rebyota (Ferring), a rectally delivered treatment that also uses microbes from donor feces. Both products were given priority review, orphan drug, and breakthrough therapy designations by the agency.

C. diff infection can be aggravated by an alteration of normal gut flora associated with antibiotics treatment, leading to cycles of repeated infections. Infection can produce diarrhea, abdominal pain, fever, and severe morbidity. In the United States, an estimated 15,000 to 30,000 deaths per year are linked to C. diff. Risk factors for recurrent infection include being 65 or older, hospitalization, being in a nursing home, a weakened immune system, and previous infection with C. diff.

Therapies transplanting fecal microbiota from donors have been used since the 1950s as treatments for recurrent C. diff infection, and in the past decade, as stool banks recruiting screened donors have made fecal microbiota transplants, or FMT, standard of care. However, only in recent years have fecal-derived therapies become subject to standardized safety and efficacy testing.

Both the current FDA-approved products, Rebyota and Vowst, were shown in randomized controlled trials to reduce recurrence of C. diff infection, compared with placebo. In a phase 3 clinical trial of Rebyota (n = 262) in antibiotic-treated patients, one rectally administered dose reduced recurrence of C. diff infection by 70.6% at 8 weeks, compared with 57.5% for placebo. A phase 3 study of Vowst (n = 281) showed recurrence in treated subjects to be 12.4% at 8 weeks, compared with nearly 40% of those receiving placebo (relative risk, 0.32; 95% confidence interval, 0.18-0.58; P less than .001).

Despite screening protocols that have become increasingly homogenized and rigorous, FMT is associated with the risk of introducing pathogens. Vowst is manufactured with purified bacterial spores derived from donor feces, not whole stool. Nonetheless, FDA noted in its statement that Vowst could still potentially introduce infectious agents or allergens.
 

Antibiotics are still first-line treatment

In an interview, Jessica Allegretti, MD, MPH, AGAF, medical director of the Crohn’s and Colitis Center at Brigham & Women’s Hospital, Boston, said that having two FDA-approved therapies with different means of administration “is great for the field and great for patients. These are both meant to be used after a course of antibiotics, so antibiotics are still the mainstay of treatment for C. diff and recurrent C. diff, but we now have more options to prevent recurrence.”

The convenience of an oral therapy that can be taken at home is “very attractive,” Dr. Allegretti added, noting that there will also be patients “who either don’t want to or can’t take capsules, for whom a rectal administration [in a health care setting] may be preferred.”

Dr. Allegretti, who has used FMT to treat recurrent C. difficile for more than a decade, said that she expected traditional FMT using screened donor stool to remain available even as the new products are adopted by clinicians. FMT centers like OpenBiome “will continue to provide access for patients who either don’t have the ability to get the FDA-approved products because of insurance coverage, or for financial reasons, or maybe neither of the new products is appropriate for them,” she said. “I do think there will always be a need for the traditional option. The more options that we have available the better.”

TD Cowen analyst Joseph Thome told Reuters that the drug could be priced close to $20,000 per course, expecting peak sales of $750 million in the U.S. in 2033.

Dr. Allegretti disclosed consulting work for Seres Therapeutics, Ferring, and other manufacturers. She is a member of OpenBiome’s clinical advisory board.

The recent approval of the first oral fecal-derived microbiota therapy to prevent the recurrence of Clostridioides difficile (C. diff) infection in patients was welcome news for physicians who’ve struggled under the weight of having too few treatment options for the prevention of C. diff recurrence.

The product, developed by Massachusetts-based Seres Therepeutics and marketed as Vowst, was approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration on April 26. It is approved for use in adults who have already been treated with antibiotics for a recurrent infection with C. diff bacteria.

This is the first oral treatment for the prevention of C. diff recurrence and is designed to be delivered in four capsules taken daily for 3 days.

Gastroenterologist Phillip I. Tarr, MD, division chief of gastroenterology at Washington University, St. Louis, and chair of the American Gastroenterological Association Center for Gut Microbiome Research and Education, said that prevention of recurrent C. diff infection “remains challenging,” and that Vowst “provides the first FDA-approved, orally administered microbiome therapeutic with which to achieve this goal. This advance also makes us optimistic we might soon be able to prevent other disorders by managing gut microbial communities.”

Vowst is the second therapy derived from human stool to be approved for the indication in less than 6 months. In December, the FDA approved Rebyota (Ferring), a rectally delivered treatment that also uses microbes from donor feces. Both products were given priority review, orphan drug, and breakthrough therapy designations by the agency.

C. diff infection can be aggravated by an alteration of normal gut flora associated with antibiotics treatment, leading to cycles of repeated infections. Infection can produce diarrhea, abdominal pain, fever, and severe morbidity. In the United States, an estimated 15,000 to 30,000 deaths per year are linked to C. diff. Risk factors for recurrent infection include being 65 or older, hospitalization, being in a nursing home, a weakened immune system, and previous infection with C. diff.

Therapies transplanting fecal microbiota from donors have been used since the 1950s as treatments for recurrent C. diff infection, and in the past decade, as stool banks recruiting screened donors have made fecal microbiota transplants, or FMT, standard of care. However, only in recent years have fecal-derived therapies become subject to standardized safety and efficacy testing.

Both the current FDA-approved products, Rebyota and Vowst, were shown in randomized controlled trials to reduce recurrence of C. diff infection, compared with placebo. In a phase 3 clinical trial of Rebyota (n = 262) in antibiotic-treated patients, one rectally administered dose reduced recurrence of C. diff infection by 70.6% at 8 weeks, compared with 57.5% for placebo. A phase 3 study of Vowst (n = 281) showed recurrence in treated subjects to be 12.4% at 8 weeks, compared with nearly 40% of those receiving placebo (relative risk, 0.32; 95% confidence interval, 0.18-0.58; P less than .001).

Despite screening protocols that have become increasingly homogenized and rigorous, FMT is associated with the risk of introducing pathogens. Vowst is manufactured with purified bacterial spores derived from donor feces, not whole stool. Nonetheless, FDA noted in its statement that Vowst could still potentially introduce infectious agents or allergens.
 

Antibiotics are still first-line treatment

In an interview, Jessica Allegretti, MD, MPH, AGAF, medical director of the Crohn’s and Colitis Center at Brigham & Women’s Hospital, Boston, said that having two FDA-approved therapies with different means of administration “is great for the field and great for patients. These are both meant to be used after a course of antibiotics, so antibiotics are still the mainstay of treatment for C. diff and recurrent C. diff, but we now have more options to prevent recurrence.”

The convenience of an oral therapy that can be taken at home is “very attractive,” Dr. Allegretti added, noting that there will also be patients “who either don’t want to or can’t take capsules, for whom a rectal administration [in a health care setting] may be preferred.”

Dr. Allegretti, who has used FMT to treat recurrent C. difficile for more than a decade, said that she expected traditional FMT using screened donor stool to remain available even as the new products are adopted by clinicians. FMT centers like OpenBiome “will continue to provide access for patients who either don’t have the ability to get the FDA-approved products because of insurance coverage, or for financial reasons, or maybe neither of the new products is appropriate for them,” she said. “I do think there will always be a need for the traditional option. The more options that we have available the better.”

TD Cowen analyst Joseph Thome told Reuters that the drug could be priced close to $20,000 per course, expecting peak sales of $750 million in the U.S. in 2033.

Dr. Allegretti disclosed consulting work for Seres Therapeutics, Ferring, and other manufacturers. She is a member of OpenBiome’s clinical advisory board.

The recent approval of the first oral fecal-derived microbiota therapy to prevent the recurrence of Clostridioides difficile (C. diff) infection in patients was welcome news for physicians who’ve struggled under the weight of having too few treatment options for the prevention of C. diff recurrence.

The product, developed by Massachusetts-based Seres Therepeutics and marketed as Vowst, was approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration on April 26. It is approved for use in adults who have already been treated with antibiotics for a recurrent infection with C. diff bacteria.

This is the first oral treatment for the prevention of C. diff recurrence and is designed to be delivered in four capsules taken daily for 3 days.

Gastroenterologist Phillip I. Tarr, MD, division chief of gastroenterology at Washington University, St. Louis, and chair of the American Gastroenterological Association Center for Gut Microbiome Research and Education, said that prevention of recurrent C. diff infection “remains challenging,” and that Vowst “provides the first FDA-approved, orally administered microbiome therapeutic with which to achieve this goal. This advance also makes us optimistic we might soon be able to prevent other disorders by managing gut microbial communities.”

Vowst is the second therapy derived from human stool to be approved for the indication in less than 6 months. In December, the FDA approved Rebyota (Ferring), a rectally delivered treatment that also uses microbes from donor feces. Both products were given priority review, orphan drug, and breakthrough therapy designations by the agency.

C. diff infection can be aggravated by an alteration of normal gut flora associated with antibiotics treatment, leading to cycles of repeated infections. Infection can produce diarrhea, abdominal pain, fever, and severe morbidity. In the United States, an estimated 15,000 to 30,000 deaths per year are linked to C. diff. Risk factors for recurrent infection include being 65 or older, hospitalization, being in a nursing home, a weakened immune system, and previous infection with C. diff.

Therapies transplanting fecal microbiota from donors have been used since the 1950s as treatments for recurrent C. diff infection, and in the past decade, as stool banks recruiting screened donors have made fecal microbiota transplants, or FMT, standard of care. However, only in recent years have fecal-derived therapies become subject to standardized safety and efficacy testing.

Both the current FDA-approved products, Rebyota and Vowst, were shown in randomized controlled trials to reduce recurrence of C. diff infection, compared with placebo. In a phase 3 clinical trial of Rebyota (n = 262) in antibiotic-treated patients, one rectally administered dose reduced recurrence of C. diff infection by 70.6% at 8 weeks, compared with 57.5% for placebo. A phase 3 study of Vowst (n = 281) showed recurrence in treated subjects to be 12.4% at 8 weeks, compared with nearly 40% of those receiving placebo (relative risk, 0.32; 95% confidence interval, 0.18-0.58; P less than .001).

Despite screening protocols that have become increasingly homogenized and rigorous, FMT is associated with the risk of introducing pathogens. Vowst is manufactured with purified bacterial spores derived from donor feces, not whole stool. Nonetheless, FDA noted in its statement that Vowst could still potentially introduce infectious agents or allergens.
 

Antibiotics are still first-line treatment

In an interview, Jessica Allegretti, MD, MPH, AGAF, medical director of the Crohn’s and Colitis Center at Brigham & Women’s Hospital, Boston, said that having two FDA-approved therapies with different means of administration “is great for the field and great for patients. These are both meant to be used after a course of antibiotics, so antibiotics are still the mainstay of treatment for C. diff and recurrent C. diff, but we now have more options to prevent recurrence.”

The convenience of an oral therapy that can be taken at home is “very attractive,” Dr. Allegretti added, noting that there will also be patients “who either don’t want to or can’t take capsules, for whom a rectal administration [in a health care setting] may be preferred.”

Dr. Allegretti, who has used FMT to treat recurrent C. difficile for more than a decade, said that she expected traditional FMT using screened donor stool to remain available even as the new products are adopted by clinicians. FMT centers like OpenBiome “will continue to provide access for patients who either don’t have the ability to get the FDA-approved products because of insurance coverage, or for financial reasons, or maybe neither of the new products is appropriate for them,” she said. “I do think there will always be a need for the traditional option. The more options that we have available the better.”

TD Cowen analyst Joseph Thome told Reuters that the drug could be priced close to $20,000 per course, expecting peak sales of $750 million in the U.S. in 2033.

Dr. Allegretti disclosed consulting work for Seres Therapeutics, Ferring, and other manufacturers. She is a member of OpenBiome’s clinical advisory board.

I recently posted a case about a smoker who became angry when I hesitated to prescribe antibiotics for his self-diagnosed bronchitis. He even threatened to retaliate by posting negative online reviews of my practice. In the end, I decided to use the strategy of a delayed prescription for antibiotics, instructing him to fill the prescription only if his symptoms worsened. I asked whether readers agreed with this approach. Thank you for the thoughtful comments regarding a case that certainly seemed familiar to many of you. I very much appreciate the chance to interact and share perspectives in a challenging clinical dilemma.
 

One theme that emerged through several comments was the perceived futility of the delayed prescriptions for antibiotics. To summarize, the collective logic stated that there is no point in delaying a prescription, because the patient will be very likely to fill that prescription right away despite counseling from the health care provider (HCP).

However, studies of delayed antibiotic prescriptions show that patients generally honor the advice to only fill the prescription if they are not improving clinically. In a study comparing immediate, delayed, or no antibiotic prescriptions among a cohort of children with uncomplicated respiratory infections, the overall rates of use of antibiotics in the three respective groups were 96%, 25.3%, and 12.0%. In another randomized trial exploring different strategies for delayed prescriptions among adults with upper respiratory infections, the rate of antibiotic use was 37% with delayed prescription strategies vs. 97% of patients prescribed antibiotics immediately. Neither of these prospective studies found a significant difference in clinical symptoms or complications in comparing the delayed and immediate antibiotic prescription groups.

Another common theme in the comments on this case focused on the challenge of online reviews of HCPs by patients. Multiple popular websites are devoted to patients’ unedited comments on HCPs and their practices, but there are still certain patterns to the comments. Some reviews describe the professionalism or empathy of the HCP, but others might focus more attention on the overall practice or office. These latter comments might emphasize issues such as timeliness of appointments, interactions with staff, or even parking and traffic. These are issues over which the HCP usually has little control.

HCPs are quite human, and therefore we might feel great about positive comments and dispirited or even angry with negative comments. So what is the best practice for HCPs in managing these online comments? A review by Dr Rebekah Bernard, which was published in the Sept. 25, 2018, issue of Medical Economics, offered some pragmatic advice:

Do not perseverate on one or two negative reviews. In fact, they might help! Dr. Bernard describes the psychological theory of the “pratfall effect,” in which people are more likely to prefer someone who is generally very good but not perfect to someone with nothing but exceptional reviews. HCPs with perfect reviews every time may be seen as intimidating or unapproachable.

Satisfied patients will frequently rally to support an HCP with an unfavorable review. This group may not be very motivated to complete online reviews until they see a comment which does at all match their own experience with the HCP.

Most importantly, HCPs can take an active role in minimizing the impact of negative online reviews while also enhancing their business model. Increasing your presence on the Internet and social media can help dilute negative reviews and push them down the list when someone performs a search on your name or practice. Creating a website for your practice is an effective means to be first on search engine lists, and HCPs should seek search-engine optimization features that promote this outcome. Adding social media contacts for yourself and/or your practice, as many as you can tolerate and maintain, allows HCPs to further control the narrative regarding their practice and central messaging to patients and the community.

In conclusion, delayed antibiotic prescriptions can reduce the use of unnecessary antibiotics for upper respiratory infections among children and adults, and they are not associated with worse clinical outcomes vs. immediate antibiotic prescriptions. They can also improve patient satisfaction for these visits, which can minimize the challenging issue of negative reviews of HCPs. HCPs should therefore consider delayed prescriptions as a strong option among patients without an indication for an antibiotic prescription.

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

I recently posted a case about a smoker who became angry when I hesitated to prescribe antibiotics for his self-diagnosed bronchitis. He even threatened to retaliate by posting negative online reviews of my practice. In the end, I decided to use the strategy of a delayed prescription for antibiotics, instructing him to fill the prescription only if his symptoms worsened. I asked whether readers agreed with this approach. Thank you for the thoughtful comments regarding a case that certainly seemed familiar to many of you. I very much appreciate the chance to interact and share perspectives in a challenging clinical dilemma.
 

One theme that emerged through several comments was the perceived futility of the delayed prescriptions for antibiotics. To summarize, the collective logic stated that there is no point in delaying a prescription, because the patient will be very likely to fill that prescription right away despite counseling from the health care provider (HCP).

However, studies of delayed antibiotic prescriptions show that patients generally honor the advice to only fill the prescription if they are not improving clinically. In a study comparing immediate, delayed, or no antibiotic prescriptions among a cohort of children with uncomplicated respiratory infections, the overall rates of use of antibiotics in the three respective groups were 96%, 25.3%, and 12.0%. In another randomized trial exploring different strategies for delayed prescriptions among adults with upper respiratory infections, the rate of antibiotic use was 37% with delayed prescription strategies vs. 97% of patients prescribed antibiotics immediately. Neither of these prospective studies found a significant difference in clinical symptoms or complications in comparing the delayed and immediate antibiotic prescription groups.

Another common theme in the comments on this case focused on the challenge of online reviews of HCPs by patients. Multiple popular websites are devoted to patients’ unedited comments on HCPs and their practices, but there are still certain patterns to the comments. Some reviews describe the professionalism or empathy of the HCP, but others might focus more attention on the overall practice or office. These latter comments might emphasize issues such as timeliness of appointments, interactions with staff, or even parking and traffic. These are issues over which the HCP usually has little control.

HCPs are quite human, and therefore we might feel great about positive comments and dispirited or even angry with negative comments. So what is the best practice for HCPs in managing these online comments? A review by Dr Rebekah Bernard, which was published in the Sept. 25, 2018, issue of Medical Economics, offered some pragmatic advice:

Do not perseverate on one or two negative reviews. In fact, they might help! Dr. Bernard describes the psychological theory of the “pratfall effect,” in which people are more likely to prefer someone who is generally very good but not perfect to someone with nothing but exceptional reviews. HCPs with perfect reviews every time may be seen as intimidating or unapproachable.

Satisfied patients will frequently rally to support an HCP with an unfavorable review. This group may not be very motivated to complete online reviews until they see a comment which does at all match their own experience with the HCP.

Most importantly, HCPs can take an active role in minimizing the impact of negative online reviews while also enhancing their business model. Increasing your presence on the Internet and social media can help dilute negative reviews and push them down the list when someone performs a search on your name or practice. Creating a website for your practice is an effective means to be first on search engine lists, and HCPs should seek search-engine optimization features that promote this outcome. Adding social media contacts for yourself and/or your practice, as many as you can tolerate and maintain, allows HCPs to further control the narrative regarding their practice and central messaging to patients and the community.

In conclusion, delayed antibiotic prescriptions can reduce the use of unnecessary antibiotics for upper respiratory infections among children and adults, and they are not associated with worse clinical outcomes vs. immediate antibiotic prescriptions. They can also improve patient satisfaction for these visits, which can minimize the challenging issue of negative reviews of HCPs. HCPs should therefore consider delayed prescriptions as a strong option among patients without an indication for an antibiotic prescription.

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

I recently posted a case about a smoker who became angry when I hesitated to prescribe antibiotics for his self-diagnosed bronchitis. He even threatened to retaliate by posting negative online reviews of my practice. In the end, I decided to use the strategy of a delayed prescription for antibiotics, instructing him to fill the prescription only if his symptoms worsened. I asked whether readers agreed with this approach. Thank you for the thoughtful comments regarding a case that certainly seemed familiar to many of you. I very much appreciate the chance to interact and share perspectives in a challenging clinical dilemma.
 

One theme that emerged through several comments was the perceived futility of the delayed prescriptions for antibiotics. To summarize, the collective logic stated that there is no point in delaying a prescription, because the patient will be very likely to fill that prescription right away despite counseling from the health care provider (HCP).

However, studies of delayed antibiotic prescriptions show that patients generally honor the advice to only fill the prescription if they are not improving clinically. In a study comparing immediate, delayed, or no antibiotic prescriptions among a cohort of children with uncomplicated respiratory infections, the overall rates of use of antibiotics in the three respective groups were 96%, 25.3%, and 12.0%. In another randomized trial exploring different strategies for delayed prescriptions among adults with upper respiratory infections, the rate of antibiotic use was 37% with delayed prescription strategies vs. 97% of patients prescribed antibiotics immediately. Neither of these prospective studies found a significant difference in clinical symptoms or complications in comparing the delayed and immediate antibiotic prescription groups.

Another common theme in the comments on this case focused on the challenge of online reviews of HCPs by patients. Multiple popular websites are devoted to patients’ unedited comments on HCPs and their practices, but there are still certain patterns to the comments. Some reviews describe the professionalism or empathy of the HCP, but others might focus more attention on the overall practice or office. These latter comments might emphasize issues such as timeliness of appointments, interactions with staff, or even parking and traffic. These are issues over which the HCP usually has little control.

HCPs are quite human, and therefore we might feel great about positive comments and dispirited or even angry with negative comments. So what is the best practice for HCPs in managing these online comments? A review by Dr Rebekah Bernard, which was published in the Sept. 25, 2018, issue of Medical Economics, offered some pragmatic advice:

Do not perseverate on one or two negative reviews. In fact, they might help! Dr. Bernard describes the psychological theory of the “pratfall effect,” in which people are more likely to prefer someone who is generally very good but not perfect to someone with nothing but exceptional reviews. HCPs with perfect reviews every time may be seen as intimidating or unapproachable.

Satisfied patients will frequently rally to support an HCP with an unfavorable review. This group may not be very motivated to complete online reviews until they see a comment which does at all match their own experience with the HCP.

Most importantly, HCPs can take an active role in minimizing the impact of negative online reviews while also enhancing their business model. Increasing your presence on the Internet and social media can help dilute negative reviews and push them down the list when someone performs a search on your name or practice. Creating a website for your practice is an effective means to be first on search engine lists, and HCPs should seek search-engine optimization features that promote this outcome. Adding social media contacts for yourself and/or your practice, as many as you can tolerate and maintain, allows HCPs to further control the narrative regarding their practice and central messaging to patients and the community.

In conclusion, delayed antibiotic prescriptions can reduce the use of unnecessary antibiotics for upper respiratory infections among children and adults, and they are not associated with worse clinical outcomes vs. immediate antibiotic prescriptions. They can also improve patient satisfaction for these visits, which can minimize the challenging issue of negative reviews of HCPs. HCPs should therefore consider delayed prescriptions as a strong option among patients without an indication for an antibiotic prescription.

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

BUENOS AIRES – Antimicrobial resistance (AMR) has become a global concern. And while one issue to be addressed is the deficit in research and development for new antibiotics, efforts to tackle this public health threat also should be directed toward promoting more rational prescription practices and strengthening the ability to identify the microorganisms responsible for infections, according to the World Health Organization. This was the conclusion reached at the fourth meeting of the WHO AMR Surveillance and Quality Assessment Collaborating Centres Network, which was held in Buenos Aires.

“We have to provide assistance to countries to ensure that the drugs are being used responsibly. We can come up with new antibiotics, but the issue at hand is not simply one of innovation: If nothing is done to correct inappropriate prescription practices and to overcome the lack of diagnostic laboratories at the country level, we’re going to miss out on those drugs as soon as they become available,” Kitty van Weezenbeek, MD, PhD, MPH, director of the AMR Surveillance, Prevention, and Control (AMR/SPC) Department at the WHO’s headquarters in Geneva, told this news organization.

Dr. van Weezenbeek pointed out that although there are currently no shortages of antimicrobials, the development and launch of new drugs that fight multidrug-resistant infections – infections for which there are few therapeutic options – has proceeded slowly. “It takes 10 to 15 years to develop a new antibiotic,” she said, adding that “the majority of pharmaceutical companies that had been engaged in the development of antimicrobials have filed for bankruptcy.”

In 2019, more people died – 1.2 million – from AMR than from malaria, tuberculosis, and HIV combined. Why are there so few market incentives when there is such a great need for those drugs? “One reason is that the pharmaceutical industry makes more money with long-term treatments, such as those for cancer and respiratory diseases. The other problem is that people everywhere are told not to use antibiotics,” said Dr. van Weezenbeek.

“A course of antibiotics lasts a few days, especially because we’re promoting rational use. Therefore, the trend is for the total amount of antimicrobials being used to be lower. So, it’s not as profitable,” added Carmem Lucia Pessoa-Silva, MD, PhD, head of the Surveillance, Evidence, and Laboratory Strengthening Unit of the WHO’s AMR/SPC Department.

On that note, Dr. van Weezenbeek mentioned that member countries are working with pharmaceutical companies and universities to address this problem. The WHO, for its part, has responded by implementing a global mechanism with a public health approach to create a “healthy” and equitable market for these medicines.

AMR is one of the top 10 global threats to human health. But it also has an impact on animal production, agricultural production, and the environment. Strategies to tackle AMR based on the One Health approach should involve all actors, social sectors, and citizens, according to Eva Jané Llopis, PhD, the representative of the Pan American Health Organization/WHO in Argentina.

At the root of the AMR problem is the widespread use of these drugs as growth promoters in animal production – for which several countries have enacted regulations – as well as “misunderstandings” between patients and physicians when there is not sufficient, timely access to laboratory diagnostics, especially in low- and middle-income countries.

“People think that if they’re given broad-spectrum antibiotics, they’re being prescribed the best antibiotics; and doctors, because there are no laboratory services, prescribe broad-spectrum antibiotics because they want to help patients. But that ends up causing more resistance to drugs, and thus, those antibiotics aren’t good for the patients,” said Dr. van Weezenbeek.

The WHO Global AMR and Use Surveillance System (GLASS) was launched in 2015. Its 2022 report, which marked the end of the system’s early implementation period, noted that the reported AMR rates are often lower in countries, territories, and areas with better testing coverage for most pathogen-drug-infection site combinations. However, as Dr. Pessoa-Silva acknowledged, monitoring “has not yet generated representative data,” because in many cases, countries either do not have surveillance systems or have only recently started implementing them.

Even so, the indicators that are available paint an increasingly worrisome picture. “For example, in many countries, resistance rates to first-line antibiotics were around 10%-20% with respect to Escherichia coli urinary tract infections and bloodstream bacteriologically confirmed infections. So, the risk of treatment failure is very high,” explained Dr. Pessoa-Silva.

The latest estimates indicate that every 2 or 3 minutes, somewhere in the world, a child dies from AMR. And the situation is particularly “dramatic” in neonatal intensive care units, where outbreaks of multidrug-resistant infections have a mortality rate of 50%, said Pilar Ramón-Pardo, MD, PhD, lead of the Special Program on AMR at the Pan American Health Organization, the WHO Regional Office for the Americas.

AMR rates also got worse during the pandemic because of the inappropriate prescription of massive amounts of antibiotics to hospitalized patients – something that was not in compliance with guidelines or protocols. Silvia Bertagnolio, MD, is an infectious disease specialist and the head of the Control and Response Strategies Unit in the WHO’s AMR Division. She spoke about the global clinical platform data pertaining to more than 1,500,000 patients who were hospitalized for COVID-19. Since 2020, 85% received antimicrobial treatment, despite the fact that only 5% had a concomitant infection at admission. “It’s easier to give antibiotics than to make a proper diagnosis,” said Dr. Bertagnolio.

This article was translated from Medscape’s Spanish edition and a version appeared on Medscape.com.

BUENOS AIRES – Antimicrobial resistance (AMR) has become a global concern. And while one issue to be addressed is the deficit in research and development for new antibiotics, efforts to tackle this public health threat also should be directed toward promoting more rational prescription practices and strengthening the ability to identify the microorganisms responsible for infections, according to the World Health Organization. This was the conclusion reached at the fourth meeting of the WHO AMR Surveillance and Quality Assessment Collaborating Centres Network, which was held in Buenos Aires.

“We have to provide assistance to countries to ensure that the drugs are being used responsibly. We can come up with new antibiotics, but the issue at hand is not simply one of innovation: If nothing is done to correct inappropriate prescription practices and to overcome the lack of diagnostic laboratories at the country level, we’re going to miss out on those drugs as soon as they become available,” Kitty van Weezenbeek, MD, PhD, MPH, director of the AMR Surveillance, Prevention, and Control (AMR/SPC) Department at the WHO’s headquarters in Geneva, told this news organization.

Dr. van Weezenbeek pointed out that although there are currently no shortages of antimicrobials, the development and launch of new drugs that fight multidrug-resistant infections – infections for which there are few therapeutic options – has proceeded slowly. “It takes 10 to 15 years to develop a new antibiotic,” she said, adding that “the majority of pharmaceutical companies that had been engaged in the development of antimicrobials have filed for bankruptcy.”

In 2019, more people died – 1.2 million – from AMR than from malaria, tuberculosis, and HIV combined. Why are there so few market incentives when there is such a great need for those drugs? “One reason is that the pharmaceutical industry makes more money with long-term treatments, such as those for cancer and respiratory diseases. The other problem is that people everywhere are told not to use antibiotics,” said Dr. van Weezenbeek.

“A course of antibiotics lasts a few days, especially because we’re promoting rational use. Therefore, the trend is for the total amount of antimicrobials being used to be lower. So, it’s not as profitable,” added Carmem Lucia Pessoa-Silva, MD, PhD, head of the Surveillance, Evidence, and Laboratory Strengthening Unit of the WHO’s AMR/SPC Department.

On that note, Dr. van Weezenbeek mentioned that member countries are working with pharmaceutical companies and universities to address this problem. The WHO, for its part, has responded by implementing a global mechanism with a public health approach to create a “healthy” and equitable market for these medicines.

AMR is one of the top 10 global threats to human health. But it also has an impact on animal production, agricultural production, and the environment. Strategies to tackle AMR based on the One Health approach should involve all actors, social sectors, and citizens, according to Eva Jané Llopis, PhD, the representative of the Pan American Health Organization/WHO in Argentina.

At the root of the AMR problem is the widespread use of these drugs as growth promoters in animal production – for which several countries have enacted regulations – as well as “misunderstandings” between patients and physicians when there is not sufficient, timely access to laboratory diagnostics, especially in low- and middle-income countries.

“People think that if they’re given broad-spectrum antibiotics, they’re being prescribed the best antibiotics; and doctors, because there are no laboratory services, prescribe broad-spectrum antibiotics because they want to help patients. But that ends up causing more resistance to drugs, and thus, those antibiotics aren’t good for the patients,” said Dr. van Weezenbeek.

The WHO Global AMR and Use Surveillance System (GLASS) was launched in 2015. Its 2022 report, which marked the end of the system’s early implementation period, noted that the reported AMR rates are often lower in countries, territories, and areas with better testing coverage for most pathogen-drug-infection site combinations. However, as Dr. Pessoa-Silva acknowledged, monitoring “has not yet generated representative data,” because in many cases, countries either do not have surveillance systems or have only recently started implementing them.

Even so, the indicators that are available paint an increasingly worrisome picture. “For example, in many countries, resistance rates to first-line antibiotics were around 10%-20% with respect to Escherichia coli urinary tract infections and bloodstream bacteriologically confirmed infections. So, the risk of treatment failure is very high,” explained Dr. Pessoa-Silva.

The latest estimates indicate that every 2 or 3 minutes, somewhere in the world, a child dies from AMR. And the situation is particularly “dramatic” in neonatal intensive care units, where outbreaks of multidrug-resistant infections have a mortality rate of 50%, said Pilar Ramón-Pardo, MD, PhD, lead of the Special Program on AMR at the Pan American Health Organization, the WHO Regional Office for the Americas.

AMR rates also got worse during the pandemic because of the inappropriate prescription of massive amounts of antibiotics to hospitalized patients – something that was not in compliance with guidelines or protocols. Silvia Bertagnolio, MD, is an infectious disease specialist and the head of the Control and Response Strategies Unit in the WHO’s AMR Division. She spoke about the global clinical platform data pertaining to more than 1,500,000 patients who were hospitalized for COVID-19. Since 2020, 85% received antimicrobial treatment, despite the fact that only 5% had a concomitant infection at admission. “It’s easier to give antibiotics than to make a proper diagnosis,” said Dr. Bertagnolio.

This article was translated from Medscape’s Spanish edition and a version appeared on Medscape.com.

BUENOS AIRES – Antimicrobial resistance (AMR) has become a global concern. And while one issue to be addressed is the deficit in research and development for new antibiotics, efforts to tackle this public health threat also should be directed toward promoting more rational prescription practices and strengthening the ability to identify the microorganisms responsible for infections, according to the World Health Organization. This was the conclusion reached at the fourth meeting of the WHO AMR Surveillance and Quality Assessment Collaborating Centres Network, which was held in Buenos Aires.

“We have to provide assistance to countries to ensure that the drugs are being used responsibly. We can come up with new antibiotics, but the issue at hand is not simply one of innovation: If nothing is done to correct inappropriate prescription practices and to overcome the lack of diagnostic laboratories at the country level, we’re going to miss out on those drugs as soon as they become available,” Kitty van Weezenbeek, MD, PhD, MPH, director of the AMR Surveillance, Prevention, and Control (AMR/SPC) Department at the WHO’s headquarters in Geneva, told this news organization.

Dr. van Weezenbeek pointed out that although there are currently no shortages of antimicrobials, the development and launch of new drugs that fight multidrug-resistant infections – infections for which there are few therapeutic options – has proceeded slowly. “It takes 10 to 15 years to develop a new antibiotic,” she said, adding that “the majority of pharmaceutical companies that had been engaged in the development of antimicrobials have filed for bankruptcy.”

In 2019, more people died – 1.2 million – from AMR than from malaria, tuberculosis, and HIV combined. Why are there so few market incentives when there is such a great need for those drugs? “One reason is that the pharmaceutical industry makes more money with long-term treatments, such as those for cancer and respiratory diseases. The other problem is that people everywhere are told not to use antibiotics,” said Dr. van Weezenbeek.

“A course of antibiotics lasts a few days, especially because we’re promoting rational use. Therefore, the trend is for the total amount of antimicrobials being used to be lower. So, it’s not as profitable,” added Carmem Lucia Pessoa-Silva, MD, PhD, head of the Surveillance, Evidence, and Laboratory Strengthening Unit of the WHO’s AMR/SPC Department.

On that note, Dr. van Weezenbeek mentioned that member countries are working with pharmaceutical companies and universities to address this problem. The WHO, for its part, has responded by implementing a global mechanism with a public health approach to create a “healthy” and equitable market for these medicines.

AMR is one of the top 10 global threats to human health. But it also has an impact on animal production, agricultural production, and the environment. Strategies to tackle AMR based on the One Health approach should involve all actors, social sectors, and citizens, according to Eva Jané Llopis, PhD, the representative of the Pan American Health Organization/WHO in Argentina.

At the root of the AMR problem is the widespread use of these drugs as growth promoters in animal production – for which several countries have enacted regulations – as well as “misunderstandings” between patients and physicians when there is not sufficient, timely access to laboratory diagnostics, especially in low- and middle-income countries.

“People think that if they’re given broad-spectrum antibiotics, they’re being prescribed the best antibiotics; and doctors, because there are no laboratory services, prescribe broad-spectrum antibiotics because they want to help patients. But that ends up causing more resistance to drugs, and thus, those antibiotics aren’t good for the patients,” said Dr. van Weezenbeek.

The WHO Global AMR and Use Surveillance System (GLASS) was launched in 2015. Its 2022 report, which marked the end of the system’s early implementation period, noted that the reported AMR rates are often lower in countries, territories, and areas with better testing coverage for most pathogen-drug-infection site combinations. However, as Dr. Pessoa-Silva acknowledged, monitoring “has not yet generated representative data,” because in many cases, countries either do not have surveillance systems or have only recently started implementing them.

Even so, the indicators that are available paint an increasingly worrisome picture. “For example, in many countries, resistance rates to first-line antibiotics were around 10%-20% with respect to Escherichia coli urinary tract infections and bloodstream bacteriologically confirmed infections. So, the risk of treatment failure is very high,” explained Dr. Pessoa-Silva.

The latest estimates indicate that every 2 or 3 minutes, somewhere in the world, a child dies from AMR. And the situation is particularly “dramatic” in neonatal intensive care units, where outbreaks of multidrug-resistant infections have a mortality rate of 50%, said Pilar Ramón-Pardo, MD, PhD, lead of the Special Program on AMR at the Pan American Health Organization, the WHO Regional Office for the Americas.

AMR rates also got worse during the pandemic because of the inappropriate prescription of massive amounts of antibiotics to hospitalized patients – something that was not in compliance with guidelines or protocols. Silvia Bertagnolio, MD, is an infectious disease specialist and the head of the Control and Response Strategies Unit in the WHO’s AMR Division. She spoke about the global clinical platform data pertaining to more than 1,500,000 patients who were hospitalized for COVID-19. Since 2020, 85% received antimicrobial treatment, despite the fact that only 5% had a concomitant infection at admission. “It’s easier to give antibiotics than to make a proper diagnosis,” said Dr. Bertagnolio.

This article was translated from Medscape’s Spanish edition and a version appeared on Medscape.com.

Cases of a potentially deadly and increasingly treatment-resistant fungus called Candida auris have skyrocketed 200% since 2019, prompting the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to issue a warning to health care facilities about the rising threat.

C. auris is a yeast that spreads easily from touching it on a surface like a countertop. It can also spread from person to person. It isn’t a threat to healthy people, but people in hospitals and nursing homes are at a heightened risk because they might have weakened immune systems or be using invasive medical devices that can introduce the fungus inside their bodies. When C. auris progresses to causing an infection that reaches the brain, blood, or lungs, more than one in three people die.

The worrying increase was detailed in the journal Annals of Internal Medicine. In 2021, cases reached a count of 3,270 with an active infection, and 7,413 cases showed the fungus was present but hadn’t caused an infection. Infection counts were up 95% over the previous year, and the fungus showed up on screenings three times as often. The number of cases resistant to medication also tripled.

The CDC called the figures “alarming,” noting that the fungus was only detected in the United States in 2016. 

“The timing of this increase and findings from public health investigations suggest C. auris spread may have worsened due to strain on health care and public health systems during the COVID-19 pandemic,” the CDC explained in a news release.

Another potential reason for the jump could be that screening for C. auris has simply increased and it’s being found more often because it’s being looked for more often. But researchers believe that, even with the increase in testing, the reported counts are underestimated. That’s because even though screening has increased, health care providers still aren’t looking for the presence of the fungus as often as the CDC would like.

“The rapid rise and geographic spread of cases is concerning and emphasizes the need for continued surveillance, expanded lab capacity, quicker diagnostic tests, and adherence to proven infection prevention and control,” said study author Meghan Lyman, MD, a CDC epidemiologist in Atlanta, in a statement.

Cases of C. auris continued to rise in 2022, the CDC said. A map on the agency’s website of reported cases from 2022 shows it was found in more than half of U.S. states, with the highest counts occurring in California, Florida, Illinois, Nevada, New York, and Texas. The fungus is a problem worldwide and is listed among the most threatening treatment-resistant fungi by the World Health Organization.

The study authors concluded that screening capacity for the fungus needs to be expanded nationwide so that when C. auris is detected, measures can be taken to prevent its spread.

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

Cases of a potentially deadly and increasingly treatment-resistant fungus called Candida auris have skyrocketed 200% since 2019, prompting the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to issue a warning to health care facilities about the rising threat.

C. auris is a yeast that spreads easily from touching it on a surface like a countertop. It can also spread from person to person. It isn’t a threat to healthy people, but people in hospitals and nursing homes are at a heightened risk because they might have weakened immune systems or be using invasive medical devices that can introduce the fungus inside their bodies. When C. auris progresses to causing an infection that reaches the brain, blood, or lungs, more than one in three people die.

The worrying increase was detailed in the journal Annals of Internal Medicine. In 2021, cases reached a count of 3,270 with an active infection, and 7,413 cases showed the fungus was present but hadn’t caused an infection. Infection counts were up 95% over the previous year, and the fungus showed up on screenings three times as often. The number of cases resistant to medication also tripled.

The CDC called the figures “alarming,” noting that the fungus was only detected in the United States in 2016. 

“The timing of this increase and findings from public health investigations suggest C. auris spread may have worsened due to strain on health care and public health systems during the COVID-19 pandemic,” the CDC explained in a news release.

Another potential reason for the jump could be that screening for C. auris has simply increased and it’s being found more often because it’s being looked for more often. But researchers believe that, even with the increase in testing, the reported counts are underestimated. That’s because even though screening has increased, health care providers still aren’t looking for the presence of the fungus as often as the CDC would like.

“The rapid rise and geographic spread of cases is concerning and emphasizes the need for continued surveillance, expanded lab capacity, quicker diagnostic tests, and adherence to proven infection prevention and control,” said study author Meghan Lyman, MD, a CDC epidemiologist in Atlanta, in a statement.

Cases of C. auris continued to rise in 2022, the CDC said. A map on the agency’s website of reported cases from 2022 shows it was found in more than half of U.S. states, with the highest counts occurring in California, Florida, Illinois, Nevada, New York, and Texas. The fungus is a problem worldwide and is listed among the most threatening treatment-resistant fungi by the World Health Organization.

The study authors concluded that screening capacity for the fungus needs to be expanded nationwide so that when C. auris is detected, measures can be taken to prevent its spread.

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

Cases of a potentially deadly and increasingly treatment-resistant fungus called Candida auris have skyrocketed 200% since 2019, prompting the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to issue a warning to health care facilities about the rising threat.

C. auris is a yeast that spreads easily from touching it on a surface like a countertop. It can also spread from person to person. It isn’t a threat to healthy people, but people in hospitals and nursing homes are at a heightened risk because they might have weakened immune systems or be using invasive medical devices that can introduce the fungus inside their bodies. When C. auris progresses to causing an infection that reaches the brain, blood, or lungs, more than one in three people die.

The worrying increase was detailed in the journal Annals of Internal Medicine. In 2021, cases reached a count of 3,270 with an active infection, and 7,413 cases showed the fungus was present but hadn’t caused an infection. Infection counts were up 95% over the previous year, and the fungus showed up on screenings three times as often. The number of cases resistant to medication also tripled.

The CDC called the figures “alarming,” noting that the fungus was only detected in the United States in 2016. 

“The timing of this increase and findings from public health investigations suggest C. auris spread may have worsened due to strain on health care and public health systems during the COVID-19 pandemic,” the CDC explained in a news release.

Another potential reason for the jump could be that screening for C. auris has simply increased and it’s being found more often because it’s being looked for more often. But researchers believe that, even with the increase in testing, the reported counts are underestimated. That’s because even though screening has increased, health care providers still aren’t looking for the presence of the fungus as often as the CDC would like.

“The rapid rise and geographic spread of cases is concerning and emphasizes the need for continued surveillance, expanded lab capacity, quicker diagnostic tests, and adherence to proven infection prevention and control,” said study author Meghan Lyman, MD, a CDC epidemiologist in Atlanta, in a statement.

Cases of C. auris continued to rise in 2022, the CDC said. A map on the agency’s website of reported cases from 2022 shows it was found in more than half of U.S. states, with the highest counts occurring in California, Florida, Illinois, Nevada, New York, and Texas. The fungus is a problem worldwide and is listed among the most threatening treatment-resistant fungi by the World Health Organization.

The study authors concluded that screening capacity for the fungus needs to be expanded nationwide so that when C. auris is detected, measures can be taken to prevent its spread.

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

Health officials are warning that an increase in the drug-resistant form of the bacteria Shigella is a “serious public health threat.”

The CDC issued the warning Feb. 24 about the rise in the problematic infections. Most of them have been seen in men who have sex with men, but a small number have also occurred in women and in young children.

The bacteria can be spread in a variety of ways, including changing the diaper of an infected baby, touching your mouth when the bacteria are on your hands, eating or drinking contaminated food or water, or through sexual contact. It’s easily transmitted because just a tiny amount of the bacteria is enough to make someone sick.

Shigella infection causes diarrhea that can be bloody. Other symptoms are a fever, belly cramping, and the feeling that you have to poop but your bowels are already empty. Most people recover on their own with rest and fluids, and severe cases can need antibiotic treatment. But strains of the bacteria that are resistant to treatment are on the rise.

Between 2015 and 2022, cases of antibiotic-resistant Shigella infection rose from 0% to 5% of all Shigella cases in the United States. One analysis showed that 82% of cases were in men, 13% in women, and 5% in children. A small sample of affected people provided information about their sexual activity, and 88% of them reported male-to-male sexual contact.

People at increased risk of infections are young children, people who are homeless, international travelers, people who have weakened immune systems, people living with HIV, and men who have sex with men.

The CDC asked health care workers to be on the lookout for these infections and report them.

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

Health officials are warning that an increase in the drug-resistant form of the bacteria Shigella is a “serious public health threat.”

The CDC issued the warning Feb. 24 about the rise in the problematic infections. Most of them have been seen in men who have sex with men, but a small number have also occurred in women and in young children.

The bacteria can be spread in a variety of ways, including changing the diaper of an infected baby, touching your mouth when the bacteria are on your hands, eating or drinking contaminated food or water, or through sexual contact. It’s easily transmitted because just a tiny amount of the bacteria is enough to make someone sick.

Shigella infection causes diarrhea that can be bloody. Other symptoms are a fever, belly cramping, and the feeling that you have to poop but your bowels are already empty. Most people recover on their own with rest and fluids, and severe cases can need antibiotic treatment. But strains of the bacteria that are resistant to treatment are on the rise.

Between 2015 and 2022, cases of antibiotic-resistant Shigella infection rose from 0% to 5% of all Shigella cases in the United States. One analysis showed that 82% of cases were in men, 13% in women, and 5% in children. A small sample of affected people provided information about their sexual activity, and 88% of them reported male-to-male sexual contact.

People at increased risk of infections are young children, people who are homeless, international travelers, people who have weakened immune systems, people living with HIV, and men who have sex with men.

The CDC asked health care workers to be on the lookout for these infections and report them.

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

Health officials are warning that an increase in the drug-resistant form of the bacteria Shigella is a “serious public health threat.”

The CDC issued the warning Feb. 24 about the rise in the problematic infections. Most of them have been seen in men who have sex with men, but a small number have also occurred in women and in young children.

The bacteria can be spread in a variety of ways, including changing the diaper of an infected baby, touching your mouth when the bacteria are on your hands, eating or drinking contaminated food or water, or through sexual contact. It’s easily transmitted because just a tiny amount of the bacteria is enough to make someone sick.

Shigella infection causes diarrhea that can be bloody. Other symptoms are a fever, belly cramping, and the feeling that you have to poop but your bowels are already empty. Most people recover on their own with rest and fluids, and severe cases can need antibiotic treatment. But strains of the bacteria that are resistant to treatment are on the rise.

Between 2015 and 2022, cases of antibiotic-resistant Shigella infection rose from 0% to 5% of all Shigella cases in the United States. One analysis showed that 82% of cases were in men, 13% in women, and 5% in children. A small sample of affected people provided information about their sexual activity, and 88% of them reported male-to-male sexual contact.

People at increased risk of infections are young children, people who are homeless, international travelers, people who have weakened immune systems, people living with HIV, and men who have sex with men.

The CDC asked health care workers to be on the lookout for these infections and report them.

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

The benefits of doxycycline postexposure prophylaxis (Doxy PEP) in preventing the transmission of sexually transmitted infections (STIs) in men and transgender women do not appear to extend to cisgender women, who have disproportionately high rates of infection in many regions.

“This was the first trial to evaluate doxycycline PEP for cisgender women,” said first author Jenell Stewart, DO, of the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, in discussing the findings at a press conference at the Conference on Retroviruses & Opportunistic Infections.

“Unfortunately, our primary outcome was not statistically significant – we did not see a reduction in STIs among cisgender women, which is in stark contrast to [reported effects] among cisgender men and transgender women,” she said.

The findings are from a study of 449 nonpregnant cisgender women (mean age, 24 years) in Kenya who had been taking daily oral HIV preexposure prophylaxis (PrEP) for a median of about 7 months.

The women were randomly assigned to receive either Doxy PEP 200 mg, to be taken within 72 hours of sex (n = 224), or standard care, which included quarterly screening and treatment of STIs (n = 225).

Of the women, 36.7% reported transactional sex at enrollment; their baseline prevalence of STIs was 17.9%, including 14.1% with chlamydia, 3.8% gonorrhea, and 0.4% syphilis. There were no differences between the study groups.

In surveys, 78% of the women reported adherence to the use of Doxy PEP; they took the prophylaxis at least as many days as they had sex.

Nevertheless, there was no significant difference in the incidence of STIs, reported over 1 year, at quarterly visits that included genital STI testing, between groups, with 50 patients in the Doxy PEP group and 59 in the standard screening group developing STIs (relative risk, 0.88; P = .51).

Of the infections, 85 were chlamydia, including 35 in the Doxy PEP group and 50 with standard of care, while 31 were gonorrhea, including 19 in the Doxy PEP group and 12 with standard of care; 8 had both infections, and there was 1 syphilis infection.

The results were consistent across subanalyses of patients grouped according to STI, who became pregnant (n = 80), or sorted by other factors including age, contraceptive use, transactional sex, and STI at baseline.

None of the women developed HIV, and there were no serious events associated with the Doxy PEP treatment.
 

Cisgender women bear ‘highest burden’ of STIs

The findings are disappointing in light of the higher rates of STIs among cisgender women, with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reporting that women also disproportionately bear the long-term consequences of STIs.

“For example, each year, untreated sexually transmitted diseases cause infertility in at least 20,000 women in the United States, and a pregnant woman is highly likely to pass syphilis unto her unborn baby if left untested or untreated,” the CDC reports.

The STI rates are particularly high for women taking HIV PrEP in regions like East Africa, where rates of STIs among cisgender women in many cases are higher than rates for men taking PrEP in high income countries, Dr. Stewart said.

Previous studies of Doxy PEP in men and transgender women taking HIV PrEP, including new research presented at CROI, have shown highly encouraging reductions in STIs, at rates of up to approximately 80% for chlamydia and syphilis.
 

Adherence, anatomy, resistance

The key theories for the lack of a prevention of infections in cisgender women surround the issues of resistances, as well as anatomy and adherence, said Dr. Stewart.

In terms of bacterial resistances, while initial testing in a limited number of samples the study found no evidence of markers of resistance for chlamydia, all of the gonorrhea samples did show tetracycline-resistant N gonorrhea at baseline and follow-up in both groups.

Regarding anatomic differences, doxycycline may not prevent STIs in endocervical tissue among cisgender women, Dr. Stewart noted. Women are known to be at higher risk of infection because the lining of the vagina is thinner than the skin of the penis, allowing for easier penetration of bacteria and viruses.

The study was designed to optimize adherence to Doxy PEP. Measures included monitoring with weekly text message surveys, in which the women reported a high rate of adherence.

The overall retention rate in the study was high; as many as 97% of the quarterly follow-up visits were completed, including 95% in the Doxy PEP group and 98% of the standard care group. The response rate for the weekly surveys was 81%.

Of note, women reported the use of the treatment to be “imperfect,” suggesting social problems, such as biases toward the use of the prophylaxis.

The results underscore the need for ongoing efforts to make sure no groups of patients are left behind as interventions advance, Dr. Stewart said.

“The burden of STIs on cisgender women is large and growing,” she concluded. “STI prevention interventions are needed.”

Commenting on the study, Renee A. Heffron, PhD, MPH, said the findings “are somewhat surprising because results from trials in other populations have been positive.

“But cisgender women are exposed through the cervix, and this tissue is different from rectal or urethral tissue,” Dr. Heffron, a professor at the department of medicine and director of the Center for AIDS Research at the University of Alabama, Birmingham, told this news organization.

Further findings from the research should help shed light on key issues of adherence and drug concentration levels in cervical tissue, she added.

“For cisgender women, these data are the first and the beginning of understanding whether this is a viable strategy,” Dr. Heffron said.

“We have more to learn to better understand the results from the trial main outcomes, and if there are tweaks to this strategy that would improve efficacy.”

The authors and Dr. Heffron have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

The benefits of doxycycline postexposure prophylaxis (Doxy PEP) in preventing the transmission of sexually transmitted infections (STIs) in men and transgender women do not appear to extend to cisgender women, who have disproportionately high rates of infection in many regions.

“This was the first trial to evaluate doxycycline PEP for cisgender women,” said first author Jenell Stewart, DO, of the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, in discussing the findings at a press conference at the Conference on Retroviruses & Opportunistic Infections.

“Unfortunately, our primary outcome was not statistically significant – we did not see a reduction in STIs among cisgender women, which is in stark contrast to [reported effects] among cisgender men and transgender women,” she said.

The findings are from a study of 449 nonpregnant cisgender women (mean age, 24 years) in Kenya who had been taking daily oral HIV preexposure prophylaxis (PrEP) for a median of about 7 months.

The women were randomly assigned to receive either Doxy PEP 200 mg, to be taken within 72 hours of sex (n = 224), or standard care, which included quarterly screening and treatment of STIs (n = 225).

Of the women, 36.7% reported transactional sex at enrollment; their baseline prevalence of STIs was 17.9%, including 14.1% with chlamydia, 3.8% gonorrhea, and 0.4% syphilis. There were no differences between the study groups.

In surveys, 78% of the women reported adherence to the use of Doxy PEP; they took the prophylaxis at least as many days as they had sex.

Nevertheless, there was no significant difference in the incidence of STIs, reported over 1 year, at quarterly visits that included genital STI testing, between groups, with 50 patients in the Doxy PEP group and 59 in the standard screening group developing STIs (relative risk, 0.88; P = .51).

Of the infections, 85 were chlamydia, including 35 in the Doxy PEP group and 50 with standard of care, while 31 were gonorrhea, including 19 in the Doxy PEP group and 12 with standard of care; 8 had both infections, and there was 1 syphilis infection.

The results were consistent across subanalyses of patients grouped according to STI, who became pregnant (n = 80), or sorted by other factors including age, contraceptive use, transactional sex, and STI at baseline.

None of the women developed HIV, and there were no serious events associated with the Doxy PEP treatment.
 

Cisgender women bear ‘highest burden’ of STIs

The findings are disappointing in light of the higher rates of STIs among cisgender women, with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reporting that women also disproportionately bear the long-term consequences of STIs.

“For example, each year, untreated sexually transmitted diseases cause infertility in at least 20,000 women in the United States, and a pregnant woman is highly likely to pass syphilis unto her unborn baby if left untested or untreated,” the CDC reports.

The STI rates are particularly high for women taking HIV PrEP in regions like East Africa, where rates of STIs among cisgender women in many cases are higher than rates for men taking PrEP in high income countries, Dr. Stewart said.

Previous studies of Doxy PEP in men and transgender women taking HIV PrEP, including new research presented at CROI, have shown highly encouraging reductions in STIs, at rates of up to approximately 80% for chlamydia and syphilis.
 

Adherence, anatomy, resistance

The key theories for the lack of a prevention of infections in cisgender women surround the issues of resistances, as well as anatomy and adherence, said Dr. Stewart.

In terms of bacterial resistances, while initial testing in a limited number of samples the study found no evidence of markers of resistance for chlamydia, all of the gonorrhea samples did show tetracycline-resistant N gonorrhea at baseline and follow-up in both groups.

Regarding anatomic differences, doxycycline may not prevent STIs in endocervical tissue among cisgender women, Dr. Stewart noted. Women are known to be at higher risk of infection because the lining of the vagina is thinner than the skin of the penis, allowing for easier penetration of bacteria and viruses.

The study was designed to optimize adherence to Doxy PEP. Measures included monitoring with weekly text message surveys, in which the women reported a high rate of adherence.

The overall retention rate in the study was high; as many as 97% of the quarterly follow-up visits were completed, including 95% in the Doxy PEP group and 98% of the standard care group. The response rate for the weekly surveys was 81%.

Of note, women reported the use of the treatment to be “imperfect,” suggesting social problems, such as biases toward the use of the prophylaxis.

The results underscore the need for ongoing efforts to make sure no groups of patients are left behind as interventions advance, Dr. Stewart said.

“The burden of STIs on cisgender women is large and growing,” she concluded. “STI prevention interventions are needed.”

Commenting on the study, Renee A. Heffron, PhD, MPH, said the findings “are somewhat surprising because results from trials in other populations have been positive.

“But cisgender women are exposed through the cervix, and this tissue is different from rectal or urethral tissue,” Dr. Heffron, a professor at the department of medicine and director of the Center for AIDS Research at the University of Alabama, Birmingham, told this news organization.

Further findings from the research should help shed light on key issues of adherence and drug concentration levels in cervical tissue, she added.

“For cisgender women, these data are the first and the beginning of understanding whether this is a viable strategy,” Dr. Heffron said.

“We have more to learn to better understand the results from the trial main outcomes, and if there are tweaks to this strategy that would improve efficacy.”

The authors and Dr. Heffron have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

The benefits of doxycycline postexposure prophylaxis (Doxy PEP) in preventing the transmission of sexually transmitted infections (STIs) in men and transgender women do not appear to extend to cisgender women, who have disproportionately high rates of infection in many regions.

“This was the first trial to evaluate doxycycline PEP for cisgender women,” said first author Jenell Stewart, DO, of the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, in discussing the findings at a press conference at the Conference on Retroviruses & Opportunistic Infections.

“Unfortunately, our primary outcome was not statistically significant – we did not see a reduction in STIs among cisgender women, which is in stark contrast to [reported effects] among cisgender men and transgender women,” she said.

The findings are from a study of 449 nonpregnant cisgender women (mean age, 24 years) in Kenya who had been taking daily oral HIV preexposure prophylaxis (PrEP) for a median of about 7 months.

The women were randomly assigned to receive either Doxy PEP 200 mg, to be taken within 72 hours of sex (n = 224), or standard care, which included quarterly screening and treatment of STIs (n = 225).

Of the women, 36.7% reported transactional sex at enrollment; their baseline prevalence of STIs was 17.9%, including 14.1% with chlamydia, 3.8% gonorrhea, and 0.4% syphilis. There were no differences between the study groups.

In surveys, 78% of the women reported adherence to the use of Doxy PEP; they took the prophylaxis at least as many days as they had sex.

Nevertheless, there was no significant difference in the incidence of STIs, reported over 1 year, at quarterly visits that included genital STI testing, between groups, with 50 patients in the Doxy PEP group and 59 in the standard screening group developing STIs (relative risk, 0.88; P = .51).

Of the infections, 85 were chlamydia, including 35 in the Doxy PEP group and 50 with standard of care, while 31 were gonorrhea, including 19 in the Doxy PEP group and 12 with standard of care; 8 had both infections, and there was 1 syphilis infection.

The results were consistent across subanalyses of patients grouped according to STI, who became pregnant (n = 80), or sorted by other factors including age, contraceptive use, transactional sex, and STI at baseline.

None of the women developed HIV, and there were no serious events associated with the Doxy PEP treatment.
 

Cisgender women bear ‘highest burden’ of STIs

The findings are disappointing in light of the higher rates of STIs among cisgender women, with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reporting that women also disproportionately bear the long-term consequences of STIs.

“For example, each year, untreated sexually transmitted diseases cause infertility in at least 20,000 women in the United States, and a pregnant woman is highly likely to pass syphilis unto her unborn baby if left untested or untreated,” the CDC reports.

The STI rates are particularly high for women taking HIV PrEP in regions like East Africa, where rates of STIs among cisgender women in many cases are higher than rates for men taking PrEP in high income countries, Dr. Stewart said.

Previous studies of Doxy PEP in men and transgender women taking HIV PrEP, including new research presented at CROI, have shown highly encouraging reductions in STIs, at rates of up to approximately 80% for chlamydia and syphilis.
 

Adherence, anatomy, resistance

The key theories for the lack of a prevention of infections in cisgender women surround the issues of resistances, as well as anatomy and adherence, said Dr. Stewart.

In terms of bacterial resistances, while initial testing in a limited number of samples the study found no evidence of markers of resistance for chlamydia, all of the gonorrhea samples did show tetracycline-resistant N gonorrhea at baseline and follow-up in both groups.

Regarding anatomic differences, doxycycline may not prevent STIs in endocervical tissue among cisgender women, Dr. Stewart noted. Women are known to be at higher risk of infection because the lining of the vagina is thinner than the skin of the penis, allowing for easier penetration of bacteria and viruses.

The study was designed to optimize adherence to Doxy PEP. Measures included monitoring with weekly text message surveys, in which the women reported a high rate of adherence.

The overall retention rate in the study was high; as many as 97% of the quarterly follow-up visits were completed, including 95% in the Doxy PEP group and 98% of the standard care group. The response rate for the weekly surveys was 81%.

Of note, women reported the use of the treatment to be “imperfect,” suggesting social problems, such as biases toward the use of the prophylaxis.

The results underscore the need for ongoing efforts to make sure no groups of patients are left behind as interventions advance, Dr. Stewart said.

“The burden of STIs on cisgender women is large and growing,” she concluded. “STI prevention interventions are needed.”

Commenting on the study, Renee A. Heffron, PhD, MPH, said the findings “are somewhat surprising because results from trials in other populations have been positive.

“But cisgender women are exposed through the cervix, and this tissue is different from rectal or urethral tissue,” Dr. Heffron, a professor at the department of medicine and director of the Center for AIDS Research at the University of Alabama, Birmingham, told this news organization.

Further findings from the research should help shed light on key issues of adherence and drug concentration levels in cervical tissue, she added.

“For cisgender women, these data are the first and the beginning of understanding whether this is a viable strategy,” Dr. Heffron said.

“We have more to learn to better understand the results from the trial main outcomes, and if there are tweaks to this strategy that would improve efficacy.”

The authors and Dr. Heffron have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Do not purchase or use Delsam Pharma’s Artificial Eye Ointment, the Food and Drug Administration warns.

The announcement released Wednesday adds to a previous warning issued earlier this month for EzriCare Artificial Tears or Delsam Pharma’s Artificial Tears because of potential bacterial contamination. All three products are manufactured by the same company, Global Pharma Healthcare, based in Tamilnadu, India.

Wikimedia Commons/FitzColinGerald/Creative Commons License

The FDA has faulted the company for multiple violations, including “lack of appropriate microbial testing” and “lack of proper controls concerning tamper-evident packaging,” and has banned imports to the United States.

The updated warning from the FDA did not give additional information about the over-the-counter eye ointment beyond potential bacterial contamination. 

On Feb. 1, the CDC issued an alert about an outbreak of a drug-resistant strain of bacteria, Pseudomonas aeruginosa, linked to artificial tear products. To date, 58 patients across 13 states have been identified, and the most commonly reported artificial tear brand was EzriCare Artificial Tears. Five patients had permanent vision loss, and one patient died.

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

Do not purchase or use Delsam Pharma’s Artificial Eye Ointment, the Food and Drug Administration warns.

The announcement released Wednesday adds to a previous warning issued earlier this month for EzriCare Artificial Tears or Delsam Pharma’s Artificial Tears because of potential bacterial contamination. All three products are manufactured by the same company, Global Pharma Healthcare, based in Tamilnadu, India.

Wikimedia Commons/FitzColinGerald/Creative Commons License

The FDA has faulted the company for multiple violations, including “lack of appropriate microbial testing” and “lack of proper controls concerning tamper-evident packaging,” and has banned imports to the United States.

The updated warning from the FDA did not give additional information about the over-the-counter eye ointment beyond potential bacterial contamination. 

On Feb. 1, the CDC issued an alert about an outbreak of a drug-resistant strain of bacteria, Pseudomonas aeruginosa, linked to artificial tear products. To date, 58 patients across 13 states have been identified, and the most commonly reported artificial tear brand was EzriCare Artificial Tears. Five patients had permanent vision loss, and one patient died.

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

Do not purchase or use Delsam Pharma’s Artificial Eye Ointment, the Food and Drug Administration warns.

The announcement released Wednesday adds to a previous warning issued earlier this month for EzriCare Artificial Tears or Delsam Pharma’s Artificial Tears because of potential bacterial contamination. All three products are manufactured by the same company, Global Pharma Healthcare, based in Tamilnadu, India.

Wikimedia Commons/FitzColinGerald/Creative Commons License

The FDA has faulted the company for multiple violations, including “lack of appropriate microbial testing” and “lack of proper controls concerning tamper-evident packaging,” and has banned imports to the United States.

The updated warning from the FDA did not give additional information about the over-the-counter eye ointment beyond potential bacterial contamination. 

On Feb. 1, the CDC issued an alert about an outbreak of a drug-resistant strain of bacteria, Pseudomonas aeruginosa, linked to artificial tear products. To date, 58 patients across 13 states have been identified, and the most commonly reported artificial tear brand was EzriCare Artificial Tears. Five patients had permanent vision loss, and one patient died.

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

When 2022 began, we started seeing some light at the end of the COVID-19 tunnel. Vaccines were widely available, and even with new variants of the virus still occasionally emerging, the rates of severe morbidity and mortality appeared to be decreasing.

Expectedly, journals appeared to start moving more toward mainstream topics and publications rather than what seemed like a major focus on COVID-19 publications. The resulting literature was fantastic. This past year brought some outstanding publications related to emergency medicine that are practice changers.

Several of those topics were discussed in a prior Emergency Medicine Viewpoint from this news organization, and many more of the research advances of 2022 will be discussed in the near future. However, in this Viewpoint, I would like to present my annual review of my three “must-read” articles of the past year.

As in past years, I am choosing reviews of the literature rather than original research articles (which, all too often, become outdated or debunked within a few years). I choose these articles in the hopes that readers will not simply settle for my brief reviews of the key points but instead will feel compelled to download and read the entire articles. These publications address common conditions and quandaries we face in the daily practice of emergency medicine and are practice-changing.
 

Myocardial dysfunction after cardiac arrest: Tips and pitfalls

The management of post–cardiac arrest patients remains a hot topic in the resuscitation literature as we continue to understand that the immediate post-arrest period is critical to patient outcome.

Ortuno and colleagues reviewed the current literature on post-arrest care and wrote an outstanding summary of how to optimally care for these patients. More specifically, they focused on post-arrest patients who demonstrate continued shock, or “post–cardiac arrest myocardial dysfunction” (PCAMD).

They propose three mechanisms for the pathogenesis of PCAMD: ischemia reperfusion phenomenon, systemic inflammatory response, and increased catecholamine release

I will skip through the details of the pathophysiology that they describe in the article, but I certainly do recommend that everyone review their descriptions.

Management of these patients begins with a good hemodynamic assessment, which includes clinical markers of perfusion (blood pressure, capillary refill), ECG, and point-of-care ultrasound (POCUS). If the initial assessment reveals an obvious cause of the cardiac arrest (e.g., massive pulmonary embolism, myocardial infarction, pericardial tamponade), then the underlying cause should be treated expeditiously.

In the absence of an obvious treatable cause of the shock, the fluid status and cardiac function should be addressed with POCUS. If the patient is hypovolemic, intravenous fluids should be administered. If the fluid status is adequate, POCUS should be used to estimate the patient’s ventricular function. If the ventricle appears to be hyperdynamic with good contractility, shock should be treated with norepinephrine. On the other hand, if the ventricle is hypodynamic, dobutamine should be substituted for norepinephrine or, more often, added to norepinephrine.

The above represents a simplified summary of the critical points, but the authors do delve into further detail and also discuss some other options for therapies, including steroids, coronary revascularization, extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, and so on. The review is very thoughtful, thorough, and definitely worth a full read.
 

Top myths of diagnosis and management of infectious diseases in hospital medicine

Most, if not all of us in medicine, have heard the saying that 50% of what we learn in medical school (or residency) will turn out to be wrong. I certainly believe in this concept and consequently, like many of you, I enjoy reading about myths and misconceptions that we have been taught. With that in mind, I have to say that I love this article because it seems to have been written specifically to address what I was taught!

This author group, consisting mostly of clinical PharmDs who are experts in antibiotic use, provide us with an evidence-based discussion of myths and pitfalls in how antibiotics are often used in current clinical practice. The authors review their top 10 myths involving the use of antibiotics in treating infections in the hospital setting. A few of these relate more to the inpatient setting, but here are my favorite emergency department (ED)–related myths that they address:

• “Antibiotics do no harm.” The authors address the risk-benefit of antibiotics based on assumed vs. confirmed infections, including a brief discussion of adverse drug effects.
• “Antibiotic durations of 7, 14, or 21 days are typically necessary.” The authors address appropriate duration of antibiotic use and the fact that unnecessarily long durations of use can lead to resistance. They also provide reassurance that some infections can be treated with quite short durations of antibiotics.
• “If one drug is good, two (or more!) is better.” The use of multiple antibiotics, often with overlapping bacterial coverage, is rampant in medicine and further increases the risk for adverse drug effects and resistance.
• “Oral antibiotics are not as good as intravenous antibiotics for hospitalized patients.” This is definitely a myth that I learned. I recall being taught by many senior physicians that anyone sick enough for admission should be treated with intravenous antibiotics. As it turns out, absorption and effectiveness of most oral antibiotics is just as good as intravenous antibiotics, and the oral formulations are often safer.
• “A history of a penicillin allergy means the patient can never receive a beta-lactam antibiotic.” This is a myth that was debunked quite a few years ago, but it seems that many clinicians still need a reminder.

The authors included five more myths that are worth the read. This is an article that needs to be disseminated among all hospital clinicians.
 

Guidelines for low-risk, recurrent abdominal pain in the emergency department

The Society for Academic Emergency Medicine (SAEM) recently initiated a program focused on creating evidence-based approaches to challenging chief complaints and presentations in the emergency department (ED). In 2021, they published an approach to managing patients with recurrent, low-risk chest pain in the ED. This past year, they published their second guideline, focused on the management of patients with low-risk, recurrent abdominal pain in the ED.

Recurrent low-risk abdominal pain is a common and vexing presentation to EDs around the world, and there is little prior published guidance. Do all of these patients need repeat imaging? How do we manage their pain? Are there nonabdominal conditions that should be considered?

Broder and colleagues did a fantastic review of the current literature and, on behalf of SAEM, have provided a rational approach to optimal management of these patients. The four major questions they addressed, with brief summaries of their recommendations, are:

• Should adult ED patients with low-risk, recurrent and previously undifferentiated abdominal pain receive a repeat CT abdomen-pelvis (CTAP) after a negative CTAP within the past 12 months? This is a typical question that we all ponder when managing these patients. Unfortunately, the writing group found insufficient evidence to definitively identify populations in whom CTAP was recommended vs could be safely withheld. It is a bit disappointing that there is no definite answer to the question. On the other hand, it is reassuring to know that the world’s best evidence essentially says that it is perfectly appropriate to use your own good clinical judgment.
• Should adult ED patients with low-risk, recurrent, and previously undifferentiated abdominal pain with a negative CTAP receive additional imaging with abdominal ultrasound? In this case, the writing group found enough evidence, though low-level, to suggest against routine ultrasound in the absence of concern specifically for pelvic or hepatobiliary pathology. Like most tests, ultrasound is best used when there are specific concerns rather than being used in an undifferentiated fashion.
• Should adult ED patients with low-risk, recurrent, and previously undifferentiated abdominal pain receive screening for depression/anxiety? The writing group found enough evidence, though low-level again, to suggest that screening for depression and/or anxiety be performed during the ED evaluation. This could lead to successful therapy for the abdominal pain.
• Should adult ED patients with low-risk, recurrent, and previously undifferentiated abdominal pain receive nonopioid and/or nonpharmacologic analgesics? The writing group found little evidence to suggest for or against these analgesics, but they made a consensus recommendation suggesting an opioid-minimizing strategy for pain control.

Although the final recommendations of the writing group were not definitive or based on the strongest level of evidence, I find it helpful to have this guidance, nevertheless, on behalf of a major national organization. I also find it helpful to know that even with the best evidence available, optimal patient care will often boil down to physician experience and gestalt. I should also add that the overall article is chock-full of pearls and helpful information that will further inform the readers’ decisions, and so the full version is definitely worth the read.
 

In summary

There you have it – my three favorite practice-changing articles of 2022. Although I have tried to provide key points here, the full discussions of those key points in the published articles will provide a great deal more education than I can offer in this brief write-up, and so I strongly encourage everyone to read the full versions. Please be sure to include in the comments section your own pick for favorite or must-read articles from the past year.

Amal Mattu, MD, is a professor, vice chair of education, and codirector of the emergency cardiology fellowship in the department of emergency medicine at the University of Maryland, Baltimore. She reported no relevant conflicts of interest.

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

When 2022 began, we started seeing some light at the end of the COVID-19 tunnel. Vaccines were widely available, and even with new variants of the virus still occasionally emerging, the rates of severe morbidity and mortality appeared to be decreasing.

Expectedly, journals appeared to start moving more toward mainstream topics and publications rather than what seemed like a major focus on COVID-19 publications. The resulting literature was fantastic. This past year brought some outstanding publications related to emergency medicine that are practice changers.

Several of those topics were discussed in a prior Emergency Medicine Viewpoint from this news organization, and many more of the research advances of 2022 will be discussed in the near future. However, in this Viewpoint, I would like to present my annual review of my three “must-read” articles of the past year.

As in past years, I am choosing reviews of the literature rather than original research articles (which, all too often, become outdated or debunked within a few years). I choose these articles in the hopes that readers will not simply settle for my brief reviews of the key points but instead will feel compelled to download and read the entire articles. These publications address common conditions and quandaries we face in the daily practice of emergency medicine and are practice-changing.
 

Myocardial dysfunction after cardiac arrest: Tips and pitfalls

The management of post–cardiac arrest patients remains a hot topic in the resuscitation literature as we continue to understand that the immediate post-arrest period is critical to patient outcome.

Ortuno and colleagues reviewed the current literature on post-arrest care and wrote an outstanding summary of how to optimally care for these patients. More specifically, they focused on post-arrest patients who demonstrate continued shock, or “post–cardiac arrest myocardial dysfunction” (PCAMD).

They propose three mechanisms for the pathogenesis of PCAMD: ischemia reperfusion phenomenon, systemic inflammatory response, and increased catecholamine release

I will skip through the details of the pathophysiology that they describe in the article, but I certainly do recommend that everyone review their descriptions.

Management of these patients begins with a good hemodynamic assessment, which includes clinical markers of perfusion (blood pressure, capillary refill), ECG, and point-of-care ultrasound (POCUS). If the initial assessment reveals an obvious cause of the cardiac arrest (e.g., massive pulmonary embolism, myocardial infarction, pericardial tamponade), then the underlying cause should be treated expeditiously.

In the absence of an obvious treatable cause of the shock, the fluid status and cardiac function should be addressed with POCUS. If the patient is hypovolemic, intravenous fluids should be administered. If the fluid status is adequate, POCUS should be used to estimate the patient’s ventricular function. If the ventricle appears to be hyperdynamic with good contractility, shock should be treated with norepinephrine. On the other hand, if the ventricle is hypodynamic, dobutamine should be substituted for norepinephrine or, more often, added to norepinephrine.

The above represents a simplified summary of the critical points, but the authors do delve into further detail and also discuss some other options for therapies, including steroids, coronary revascularization, extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, and so on. The review is very thoughtful, thorough, and definitely worth a full read.
 

Top myths of diagnosis and management of infectious diseases in hospital medicine

Most, if not all of us in medicine, have heard the saying that 50% of what we learn in medical school (or residency) will turn out to be wrong. I certainly believe in this concept and consequently, like many of you, I enjoy reading about myths and misconceptions that we have been taught. With that in mind, I have to say that I love this article because it seems to have been written specifically to address what I was taught!

This author group, consisting mostly of clinical PharmDs who are experts in antibiotic use, provide us with an evidence-based discussion of myths and pitfalls in how antibiotics are often used in current clinical practice. The authors review their top 10 myths involving the use of antibiotics in treating infections in the hospital setting. A few of these relate more to the inpatient setting, but here are my favorite emergency department (ED)–related myths that they address:

• “Antibiotics do no harm.” The authors address the risk-benefit of antibiotics based on assumed vs. confirmed infections, including a brief discussion of adverse drug effects.
• “Antibiotic durations of 7, 14, or 21 days are typically necessary.” The authors address appropriate duration of antibiotic use and the fact that unnecessarily long durations of use can lead to resistance. They also provide reassurance that some infections can be treated with quite short durations of antibiotics.
• “If one drug is good, two (or more!) is better.” The use of multiple antibiotics, often with overlapping bacterial coverage, is rampant in medicine and further increases the risk for adverse drug effects and resistance.
• “Oral antibiotics are not as good as intravenous antibiotics for hospitalized patients.” This is definitely a myth that I learned. I recall being taught by many senior physicians that anyone sick enough for admission should be treated with intravenous antibiotics. As it turns out, absorption and effectiveness of most oral antibiotics is just as good as intravenous antibiotics, and the oral formulations are often safer.
• “A history of a penicillin allergy means the patient can never receive a beta-lactam antibiotic.” This is a myth that was debunked quite a few years ago, but it seems that many clinicians still need a reminder.

The authors included five more myths that are worth the read. This is an article that needs to be disseminated among all hospital clinicians.
 

Guidelines for low-risk, recurrent abdominal pain in the emergency department

The Society for Academic Emergency Medicine (SAEM) recently initiated a program focused on creating evidence-based approaches to challenging chief complaints and presentations in the emergency department (ED). In 2021, they published an approach to managing patients with recurrent, low-risk chest pain in the ED. This past year, they published their second guideline, focused on the management of patients with low-risk, recurrent abdominal pain in the ED.

Recurrent low-risk abdominal pain is a common and vexing presentation to EDs around the world, and there is little prior published guidance. Do all of these patients need repeat imaging? How do we manage their pain? Are there nonabdominal conditions that should be considered?

Broder and colleagues did a fantastic review of the current literature and, on behalf of SAEM, have provided a rational approach to optimal management of these patients. The four major questions they addressed, with brief summaries of their recommendations, are:

• Should adult ED patients with low-risk, recurrent and previously undifferentiated abdominal pain receive a repeat CT abdomen-pelvis (CTAP) after a negative CTAP within the past 12 months? This is a typical question that we all ponder when managing these patients. Unfortunately, the writing group found insufficient evidence to definitively identify populations in whom CTAP was recommended vs could be safely withheld. It is a bit disappointing that there is no definite answer to the question. On the other hand, it is reassuring to know that the world’s best evidence essentially says that it is perfectly appropriate to use your own good clinical judgment.
• Should adult ED patients with low-risk, recurrent, and previously undifferentiated abdominal pain with a negative CTAP receive additional imaging with abdominal ultrasound? In this case, the writing group found enough evidence, though low-level, to suggest against routine ultrasound in the absence of concern specifically for pelvic or hepatobiliary pathology. Like most tests, ultrasound is best used when there are specific concerns rather than being used in an undifferentiated fashion.
• Should adult ED patients with low-risk, recurrent, and previously undifferentiated abdominal pain receive screening for depression/anxiety? The writing group found enough evidence, though low-level again, to suggest that screening for depression and/or anxiety be performed during the ED evaluation. This could lead to successful therapy for the abdominal pain.
• Should adult ED patients with low-risk, recurrent, and previously undifferentiated abdominal pain receive nonopioid and/or nonpharmacologic analgesics? The writing group found little evidence to suggest for or against these analgesics, but they made a consensus recommendation suggesting an opioid-minimizing strategy for pain control.

Although the final recommendations of the writing group were not definitive or based on the strongest level of evidence, I find it helpful to have this guidance, nevertheless, on behalf of a major national organization. I also find it helpful to know that even with the best evidence available, optimal patient care will often boil down to physician experience and gestalt. I should also add that the overall article is chock-full of pearls and helpful information that will further inform the readers’ decisions, and so the full version is definitely worth the read.
 

In summary

There you have it – my three favorite practice-changing articles of 2022. Although I have tried to provide key points here, the full discussions of those key points in the published articles will provide a great deal more education than I can offer in this brief write-up, and so I strongly encourage everyone to read the full versions. Please be sure to include in the comments section your own pick for favorite or must-read articles from the past year.

Amal Mattu, MD, is a professor, vice chair of education, and codirector of the emergency cardiology fellowship in the department of emergency medicine at the University of Maryland, Baltimore. She reported no relevant conflicts of interest.

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

When 2022 began, we started seeing some light at the end of the COVID-19 tunnel. Vaccines were widely available, and even with new variants of the virus still occasionally emerging, the rates of severe morbidity and mortality appeared to be decreasing.

Expectedly, journals appeared to start moving more toward mainstream topics and publications rather than what seemed like a major focus on COVID-19 publications. The resulting literature was fantastic. This past year brought some outstanding publications related to emergency medicine that are practice changers.

Several of those topics were discussed in a prior Emergency Medicine Viewpoint from this news organization, and many more of the research advances of 2022 will be discussed in the near future. However, in this Viewpoint, I would like to present my annual review of my three “must-read” articles of the past year.

As in past years, I am choosing reviews of the literature rather than original research articles (which, all too often, become outdated or debunked within a few years). I choose these articles in the hopes that readers will not simply settle for my brief reviews of the key points but instead will feel compelled to download and read the entire articles. These publications address common conditions and quandaries we face in the daily practice of emergency medicine and are practice-changing.
 

Myocardial dysfunction after cardiac arrest: Tips and pitfalls

The management of post–cardiac arrest patients remains a hot topic in the resuscitation literature as we continue to understand that the immediate post-arrest period is critical to patient outcome.

Ortuno and colleagues reviewed the current literature on post-arrest care and wrote an outstanding summary of how to optimally care for these patients. More specifically, they focused on post-arrest patients who demonstrate continued shock, or “post–cardiac arrest myocardial dysfunction” (PCAMD).

They propose three mechanisms for the pathogenesis of PCAMD: ischemia reperfusion phenomenon, systemic inflammatory response, and increased catecholamine release

I will skip through the details of the pathophysiology that they describe in the article, but I certainly do recommend that everyone review their descriptions.

Management of these patients begins with a good hemodynamic assessment, which includes clinical markers of perfusion (blood pressure, capillary refill), ECG, and point-of-care ultrasound (POCUS). If the initial assessment reveals an obvious cause of the cardiac arrest (e.g., massive pulmonary embolism, myocardial infarction, pericardial tamponade), then the underlying cause should be treated expeditiously.

In the absence of an obvious treatable cause of the shock, the fluid status and cardiac function should be addressed with POCUS. If the patient is hypovolemic, intravenous fluids should be administered. If the fluid status is adequate, POCUS should be used to estimate the patient’s ventricular function. If the ventricle appears to be hyperdynamic with good contractility, shock should be treated with norepinephrine. On the other hand, if the ventricle is hypodynamic, dobutamine should be substituted for norepinephrine or, more often, added to norepinephrine.

The above represents a simplified summary of the critical points, but the authors do delve into further detail and also discuss some other options for therapies, including steroids, coronary revascularization, extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, and so on. The review is very thoughtful, thorough, and definitely worth a full read.
 

Top myths of diagnosis and management of infectious diseases in hospital medicine

Most, if not all of us in medicine, have heard the saying that 50% of what we learn in medical school (or residency) will turn out to be wrong. I certainly believe in this concept and consequently, like many of you, I enjoy reading about myths and misconceptions that we have been taught. With that in mind, I have to say that I love this article because it seems to have been written specifically to address what I was taught!

This author group, consisting mostly of clinical PharmDs who are experts in antibiotic use, provide us with an evidence-based discussion of myths and pitfalls in how antibiotics are often used in current clinical practice. The authors review their top 10 myths involving the use of antibiotics in treating infections in the hospital setting. A few of these relate more to the inpatient setting, but here are my favorite emergency department (ED)–related myths that they address:

• “Antibiotics do no harm.” The authors address the risk-benefit of antibiotics based on assumed vs. confirmed infections, including a brief discussion of adverse drug effects.
• “Antibiotic durations of 7, 14, or 21 days are typically necessary.” The authors address appropriate duration of antibiotic use and the fact that unnecessarily long durations of use can lead to resistance. They also provide reassurance that some infections can be treated with quite short durations of antibiotics.
• “If one drug is good, two (or more!) is better.” The use of multiple antibiotics, often with overlapping bacterial coverage, is rampant in medicine and further increases the risk for adverse drug effects and resistance.
• “Oral antibiotics are not as good as intravenous antibiotics for hospitalized patients.” This is definitely a myth that I learned. I recall being taught by many senior physicians that anyone sick enough for admission should be treated with intravenous antibiotics. As it turns out, absorption and effectiveness of most oral antibiotics is just as good as intravenous antibiotics, and the oral formulations are often safer.
• “A history of a penicillin allergy means the patient can never receive a beta-lactam antibiotic.” This is a myth that was debunked quite a few years ago, but it seems that many clinicians still need a reminder.

The authors included five more myths that are worth the read. This is an article that needs to be disseminated among all hospital clinicians.
 

Guidelines for low-risk, recurrent abdominal pain in the emergency department

The Society for Academic Emergency Medicine (SAEM) recently initiated a program focused on creating evidence-based approaches to challenging chief complaints and presentations in the emergency department (ED). In 2021, they published an approach to managing patients with recurrent, low-risk chest pain in the ED. This past year, they published their second guideline, focused on the management of patients with low-risk, recurrent abdominal pain in the ED.

Recurrent low-risk abdominal pain is a common and vexing presentation to EDs around the world, and there is little prior published guidance. Do all of these patients need repeat imaging? How do we manage their pain? Are there nonabdominal conditions that should be considered?

Broder and colleagues did a fantastic review of the current literature and, on behalf of SAEM, have provided a rational approach to optimal management of these patients. The four major questions they addressed, with brief summaries of their recommendations, are:

• Should adult ED patients with low-risk, recurrent and previously undifferentiated abdominal pain receive a repeat CT abdomen-pelvis (CTAP) after a negative CTAP within the past 12 months? This is a typical question that we all ponder when managing these patients. Unfortunately, the writing group found insufficient evidence to definitively identify populations in whom CTAP was recommended vs could be safely withheld. It is a bit disappointing that there is no definite answer to the question. On the other hand, it is reassuring to know that the world’s best evidence essentially says that it is perfectly appropriate to use your own good clinical judgment.
• Should adult ED patients with low-risk, recurrent, and previously undifferentiated abdominal pain with a negative CTAP receive additional imaging with abdominal ultrasound? In this case, the writing group found enough evidence, though low-level, to suggest against routine ultrasound in the absence of concern specifically for pelvic or hepatobiliary pathology. Like most tests, ultrasound is best used when there are specific concerns rather than being used in an undifferentiated fashion.
• Should adult ED patients with low-risk, recurrent, and previously undifferentiated abdominal pain receive screening for depression/anxiety? The writing group found enough evidence, though low-level again, to suggest that screening for depression and/or anxiety be performed during the ED evaluation. This could lead to successful therapy for the abdominal pain.
• Should adult ED patients with low-risk, recurrent, and previously undifferentiated abdominal pain receive nonopioid and/or nonpharmacologic analgesics? The writing group found little evidence to suggest for or against these analgesics, but they made a consensus recommendation suggesting an opioid-minimizing strategy for pain control.

Although the final recommendations of the writing group were not definitive or based on the strongest level of evidence, I find it helpful to have this guidance, nevertheless, on behalf of a major national organization. I also find it helpful to know that even with the best evidence available, optimal patient care will often boil down to physician experience and gestalt. I should also add that the overall article is chock-full of pearls and helpful information that will further inform the readers’ decisions, and so the full version is definitely worth the read.
 

In summary

There you have it – my three favorite practice-changing articles of 2022. Although I have tried to provide key points here, the full discussions of those key points in the published articles will provide a great deal more education than I can offer in this brief write-up, and so I strongly encourage everyone to read the full versions. Please be sure to include in the comments section your own pick for favorite or must-read articles from the past year.

Amal Mattu, MD, is a professor, vice chair of education, and codirector of the emergency cardiology fellowship in the department of emergency medicine at the University of Maryland, Baltimore. She reported no relevant conflicts of interest.

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

Multidrug-resistant gram-negative infections (MDRGNIs) are an emerging and deadly threat worldwide. Some of these infections are now resistant to nearly all antibiotics, and very few treatment options exist. Some of the remaining antibiotics for these MDRGNIs can cause acute kidney injury and have other toxic effects and can worsen antibiotic resistance. When deciding which drugs to use, clinicians need to juggle the possible lethality of the infection with the dangers of its treatment.

Samuel Windham, MD, and Marin H. Kollef, MD, authors of a recent article in Current Opinion in Infectious Diseases, express this urgency. They offer recommendations based on current guidelines and recently published research for treating MDRGNIs with some of the newer antibiotics.

Dr. Kollef, professor of pulmonary and critical care medicine at Washington University in St. Louis, said in an email, “Our recommendations differ in that they offer an approach that is based on disease severity, local resistance prevalence in MDRGNIs, and patient risk factors for infection with MDRGNIs. For patients with severe infection and risk factors for infection with MDRGNIs, we suggest empiric coverage for MDRGNIs until susceptibility data are available or based on rapid molecular testing. Selection of antibiotic therapy would be based on which MDRGNIs predominate locally.”

In their article, the authors discuss how to best utilize the newer antibiotics of ceftazidime-avibactam (CZA), cefiderocol, ceftolozane-tazobactam (C/T), meropenem-vaborbactam (MVB), imipenem-relebactam (I-R), aztreonam-avibactam (ATM-AVI), eravacycline, and plazomicin.
 

The scope of the problem

Bacterial infections are deadly and are becoming less treatable. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reported in 2022 that the COVID-19 pandemic has reversed years of decreases in health care–associated infections. Much of the increase has been caused by multidrug-resistant organisms.

In November 2022, authors of an article published in The Lancet estimated worldwide deaths from 33 bacterial genera across 11 infectious syndromes. They found that these infections were the second leading cause of death worldwide in 2019 (ischemic heart disease was the first). Furthermore, they discovered that 54.9% of these deaths were attributable to just five pathogens – Staphylococcus aureus, Escherichia coli, Streptococcus pneumoniae, Klebsiella pneumoniae, and Pseudomonas aeruginosa. Three of those five bacterial species – E. coli, K. pneumoniae, and P. aeruginosa – are gram-negative and are highly prone to drug resistance.

The CDC classified each of those three pathogens as an “urgent threat” in its 2019 Antibiotic Resistance Threats in the United States report. Of particular concern are gram-negative infections that have become resistant to carbapenems, a heavy-hitting class of antibiotics.

Regarding organisms that cause MDRGNIs, the major groups of concern are those that produce compounds that destroy antibiotics such as extended-spectrum beta-lactamases, AmpC beta-lactamases, and the carbapenemases known as serine-beta-lactamases (OXA, KPC, and CTX-M) and metallo-beta-lactamases (NDM, VIM, and IMP). Carbapenem-resistant Pseudomonas aeruginosa and carbapenem-resistant Acinetobacter baumanii also produce carbapenemases, rendering them invulnerable to carbapenem antibiotics.

Traditionally, a common alternative used for carbapenem-resistant infections has been colistin, an older and very toxic antibiotic. The authors cite recent research demonstrating that CZA yields significantly better outcomes with regard to patient mortality and acute kidney injury than colistin and that CZA plus aztreonam can even decrease mortality and length of hospital stay for patients who have bloodstream infections with metallo-beta-lactamase-producing Enterobacterales, which are some of the hardest infections to treat.

“CZA has been demonstrated to have excellent activity against MDR Pseudomonas aeruginosa and KPC Enterobacterales. It should be the preferred agent for use, compared with colistin, for the treatment of carbapenem-resistant gram-negative bacteria susceptible to CZA. Moreover, CZA combined with aztreonam has been shown to be an effective treatment for metallo-beta-lactamase MDRGNIs,” Dr. Kollef said.
 

Four key recommendations for treating MDRGNIs

The authors base their recommendations, in addition to the recent studies they cite concerning CZA, upon two major guidelines on the treatment of MDRGNIs: the European Society of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases’ Guidelines for the Treatment of Infections Caused by Multidrug-Resistant Gram-Negative Bacilli, and the Infectious Diseases Society of America’s (IDSA’s) Guidance on the Treatment of Antimicrobial Resistant Gram-Negative Infections (multiple documents, found here and here).

Dr. Windham and Dr. Kollef present a table showing the spectrum of activity of the newer antibiotics, as well as an algorithm for decision-making. They summarize their treatment recommendations, which are based upon the bacterial infection cultures or on historical risk (previous infection or colonization history). They encourage empiric treatment if there is an increased risk of death or the presence of shock. By pathogen, they recommend the following:

• For carbapenem-resistant Enterobacterales, clinicians should treat patients with cefiderocol, ceftazidime-avibactam, imipenem-cilastatin-relabactam, or meropenem-vaborbactam. 
• For carbapenem-resistant Pseudomonas aeruginosa, clinicians should treat patients with cefiderocol, ceftazidime-avibactam, imipenem-cilastatin-relabactam, or ceftolozane-tazobactam. 
• For carbapenem-resistant Acinetobacter baumanii, clinicians should treat patients with a cefiderocol backbone with or without the addition of plazomicin, eravacycline, or other older antibacterials. 
• For metallo-beta-lactamase-producing organisms, clinicians should treat patients with cefiderocol, ceftazidime-avibactam, aztreonam, imipenem-cilastatin-relabactam, aztreonam, or aztreonam-avibactam. The authors acknowledge that evidence is limited on treating these infections.

“In general, ceftazidime-avibactam works pretty well in patients with MDRGNIs, and there is no evidence that any of the other new agents is conclusively better in treatment responses. CZA and ceftolozane-tazobactam were the first of the new antibiotics active against highly MDRGN to get approved, and they have been most widely used,” Cornelius “Neil” J. Clancy, MD, chief of the Infectious Diseases Section at the VA Pittsburgh Health Care System, explained. Dr. Clancy was not involved in the Windham-Kollef review article.

“As such, it is not surprising that resistance has emerged and that it has been reported more commonly than for some other agents. The issue of resistance will be considered again as IDSA puts together their update,” Dr. Clancy said.

“The IDSA guidelines are regularly updated. The next updated iteration will be online in early 2023,” said Dr. Clancy, who is also affiliated with IDSA. “Clinical and resistance data that have appeared since the last update in 2022 will be considered as the guidance is put together.”

In general, Dr. Kollef also recommends using a facility’s antibiogram. “They are useful in determining which MDRGN’s predominate locally,” he said.

Dr. Kollef is a consultant for Pfizer, Merck, and Shionogi. Dr. Clancy has received research funding from Merck and from the National Institutes of Health.

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

Multidrug-resistant gram-negative infections (MDRGNIs) are an emerging and deadly threat worldwide. Some of these infections are now resistant to nearly all antibiotics, and very few treatment options exist. Some of the remaining antibiotics for these MDRGNIs can cause acute kidney injury and have other toxic effects and can worsen antibiotic resistance. When deciding which drugs to use, clinicians need to juggle the possible lethality of the infection with the dangers of its treatment.

Samuel Windham, MD, and Marin H. Kollef, MD, authors of a recent article in Current Opinion in Infectious Diseases, express this urgency. They offer recommendations based on current guidelines and recently published research for treating MDRGNIs with some of the newer antibiotics.

Dr. Kollef, professor of pulmonary and critical care medicine at Washington University in St. Louis, said in an email, “Our recommendations differ in that they offer an approach that is based on disease severity, local resistance prevalence in MDRGNIs, and patient risk factors for infection with MDRGNIs. For patients with severe infection and risk factors for infection with MDRGNIs, we suggest empiric coverage for MDRGNIs until susceptibility data are available or based on rapid molecular testing. Selection of antibiotic therapy would be based on which MDRGNIs predominate locally.”

In their article, the authors discuss how to best utilize the newer antibiotics of ceftazidime-avibactam (CZA), cefiderocol, ceftolozane-tazobactam (C/T), meropenem-vaborbactam (MVB), imipenem-relebactam (I-R), aztreonam-avibactam (ATM-AVI), eravacycline, and plazomicin.
 

The scope of the problem

Bacterial infections are deadly and are becoming less treatable. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reported in 2022 that the COVID-19 pandemic has reversed years of decreases in health care–associated infections. Much of the increase has been caused by multidrug-resistant organisms.

In November 2022, authors of an article published in The Lancet estimated worldwide deaths from 33 bacterial genera across 11 infectious syndromes. They found that these infections were the second leading cause of death worldwide in 2019 (ischemic heart disease was the first). Furthermore, they discovered that 54.9% of these deaths were attributable to just five pathogens – Staphylococcus aureus, Escherichia coli, Streptococcus pneumoniae, Klebsiella pneumoniae, and Pseudomonas aeruginosa. Three of those five bacterial species – E. coli, K. pneumoniae, and P. aeruginosa – are gram-negative and are highly prone to drug resistance.

The CDC classified each of those three pathogens as an “urgent threat” in its 2019 Antibiotic Resistance Threats in the United States report. Of particular concern are gram-negative infections that have become resistant to carbapenems, a heavy-hitting class of antibiotics.

Regarding organisms that cause MDRGNIs, the major groups of concern are those that produce compounds that destroy antibiotics such as extended-spectrum beta-lactamases, AmpC beta-lactamases, and the carbapenemases known as serine-beta-lactamases (OXA, KPC, and CTX-M) and metallo-beta-lactamases (NDM, VIM, and IMP). Carbapenem-resistant Pseudomonas aeruginosa and carbapenem-resistant Acinetobacter baumanii also produce carbapenemases, rendering them invulnerable to carbapenem antibiotics.

Traditionally, a common alternative used for carbapenem-resistant infections has been colistin, an older and very toxic antibiotic. The authors cite recent research demonstrating that CZA yields significantly better outcomes with regard to patient mortality and acute kidney injury than colistin and that CZA plus aztreonam can even decrease mortality and length of hospital stay for patients who have bloodstream infections with metallo-beta-lactamase-producing Enterobacterales, which are some of the hardest infections to treat.

“CZA has been demonstrated to have excellent activity against MDR Pseudomonas aeruginosa and KPC Enterobacterales. It should be the preferred agent for use, compared with colistin, for the treatment of carbapenem-resistant gram-negative bacteria susceptible to CZA. Moreover, CZA combined with aztreonam has been shown to be an effective treatment for metallo-beta-lactamase MDRGNIs,” Dr. Kollef said.
 

Four key recommendations for treating MDRGNIs

The authors base their recommendations, in addition to the recent studies they cite concerning CZA, upon two major guidelines on the treatment of MDRGNIs: the European Society of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases’ Guidelines for the Treatment of Infections Caused by Multidrug-Resistant Gram-Negative Bacilli, and the Infectious Diseases Society of America’s (IDSA’s) Guidance on the Treatment of Antimicrobial Resistant Gram-Negative Infections (multiple documents, found here and here).

Dr. Windham and Dr. Kollef present a table showing the spectrum of activity of the newer antibiotics, as well as an algorithm for decision-making. They summarize their treatment recommendations, which are based upon the bacterial infection cultures or on historical risk (previous infection or colonization history). They encourage empiric treatment if there is an increased risk of death or the presence of shock. By pathogen, they recommend the following:

• For carbapenem-resistant Enterobacterales, clinicians should treat patients with cefiderocol, ceftazidime-avibactam, imipenem-cilastatin-relabactam, or meropenem-vaborbactam. 
• For carbapenem-resistant Pseudomonas aeruginosa, clinicians should treat patients with cefiderocol, ceftazidime-avibactam, imipenem-cilastatin-relabactam, or ceftolozane-tazobactam. 
• For carbapenem-resistant Acinetobacter baumanii, clinicians should treat patients with a cefiderocol backbone with or without the addition of plazomicin, eravacycline, or other older antibacterials. 
• For metallo-beta-lactamase-producing organisms, clinicians should treat patients with cefiderocol, ceftazidime-avibactam, aztreonam, imipenem-cilastatin-relabactam, aztreonam, or aztreonam-avibactam. The authors acknowledge that evidence is limited on treating these infections.

“In general, ceftazidime-avibactam works pretty well in patients with MDRGNIs, and there is no evidence that any of the other new agents is conclusively better in treatment responses. CZA and ceftolozane-tazobactam were the first of the new antibiotics active against highly MDRGN to get approved, and they have been most widely used,” Cornelius “Neil” J. Clancy, MD, chief of the Infectious Diseases Section at the VA Pittsburgh Health Care System, explained. Dr. Clancy was not involved in the Windham-Kollef review article.

“As such, it is not surprising that resistance has emerged and that it has been reported more commonly than for some other agents. The issue of resistance will be considered again as IDSA puts together their update,” Dr. Clancy said.

“The IDSA guidelines are regularly updated. The next updated iteration will be online in early 2023,” said Dr. Clancy, who is also affiliated with IDSA. “Clinical and resistance data that have appeared since the last update in 2022 will be considered as the guidance is put together.”

In general, Dr. Kollef also recommends using a facility’s antibiogram. “They are useful in determining which MDRGN’s predominate locally,” he said.

Dr. Kollef is a consultant for Pfizer, Merck, and Shionogi. Dr. Clancy has received research funding from Merck and from the National Institutes of Health.

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

Multidrug-resistant gram-negative infections (MDRGNIs) are an emerging and deadly threat worldwide. Some of these infections are now resistant to nearly all antibiotics, and very few treatment options exist. Some of the remaining antibiotics for these MDRGNIs can cause acute kidney injury and have other toxic effects and can worsen antibiotic resistance. When deciding which drugs to use, clinicians need to juggle the possible lethality of the infection with the dangers of its treatment.

Samuel Windham, MD, and Marin H. Kollef, MD, authors of a recent article in Current Opinion in Infectious Diseases, express this urgency. They offer recommendations based on current guidelines and recently published research for treating MDRGNIs with some of the newer antibiotics.

Dr. Kollef, professor of pulmonary and critical care medicine at Washington University in St. Louis, said in an email, “Our recommendations differ in that they offer an approach that is based on disease severity, local resistance prevalence in MDRGNIs, and patient risk factors for infection with MDRGNIs. For patients with severe infection and risk factors for infection with MDRGNIs, we suggest empiric coverage for MDRGNIs until susceptibility data are available or based on rapid molecular testing. Selection of antibiotic therapy would be based on which MDRGNIs predominate locally.”

In their article, the authors discuss how to best utilize the newer antibiotics of ceftazidime-avibactam (CZA), cefiderocol, ceftolozane-tazobactam (C/T), meropenem-vaborbactam (MVB), imipenem-relebactam (I-R), aztreonam-avibactam (ATM-AVI), eravacycline, and plazomicin.
 

The scope of the problem

Bacterial infections are deadly and are becoming less treatable. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reported in 2022 that the COVID-19 pandemic has reversed years of decreases in health care–associated infections. Much of the increase has been caused by multidrug-resistant organisms.

In November 2022, authors of an article published in The Lancet estimated worldwide deaths from 33 bacterial genera across 11 infectious syndromes. They found that these infections were the second leading cause of death worldwide in 2019 (ischemic heart disease was the first). Furthermore, they discovered that 54.9% of these deaths were attributable to just five pathogens – Staphylococcus aureus, Escherichia coli, Streptococcus pneumoniae, Klebsiella pneumoniae, and Pseudomonas aeruginosa. Three of those five bacterial species – E. coli, K. pneumoniae, and P. aeruginosa – are gram-negative and are highly prone to drug resistance.

The CDC classified each of those three pathogens as an “urgent threat” in its 2019 Antibiotic Resistance Threats in the United States report. Of particular concern are gram-negative infections that have become resistant to carbapenems, a heavy-hitting class of antibiotics.

Regarding organisms that cause MDRGNIs, the major groups of concern are those that produce compounds that destroy antibiotics such as extended-spectrum beta-lactamases, AmpC beta-lactamases, and the carbapenemases known as serine-beta-lactamases (OXA, KPC, and CTX-M) and metallo-beta-lactamases (NDM, VIM, and IMP). Carbapenem-resistant Pseudomonas aeruginosa and carbapenem-resistant Acinetobacter baumanii also produce carbapenemases, rendering them invulnerable to carbapenem antibiotics.

Traditionally, a common alternative used for carbapenem-resistant infections has been colistin, an older and very toxic antibiotic. The authors cite recent research demonstrating that CZA yields significantly better outcomes with regard to patient mortality and acute kidney injury than colistin and that CZA plus aztreonam can even decrease mortality and length of hospital stay for patients who have bloodstream infections with metallo-beta-lactamase-producing Enterobacterales, which are some of the hardest infections to treat.

“CZA has been demonstrated to have excellent activity against MDR Pseudomonas aeruginosa and KPC Enterobacterales. It should be the preferred agent for use, compared with colistin, for the treatment of carbapenem-resistant gram-negative bacteria susceptible to CZA. Moreover, CZA combined with aztreonam has been shown to be an effective treatment for metallo-beta-lactamase MDRGNIs,” Dr. Kollef said.
 

Four key recommendations for treating MDRGNIs

The authors base their recommendations, in addition to the recent studies they cite concerning CZA, upon two major guidelines on the treatment of MDRGNIs: the European Society of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases’ Guidelines for the Treatment of Infections Caused by Multidrug-Resistant Gram-Negative Bacilli, and the Infectious Diseases Society of America’s (IDSA’s) Guidance on the Treatment of Antimicrobial Resistant Gram-Negative Infections (multiple documents, found here and here).

Dr. Windham and Dr. Kollef present a table showing the spectrum of activity of the newer antibiotics, as well as an algorithm for decision-making. They summarize their treatment recommendations, which are based upon the bacterial infection cultures or on historical risk (previous infection or colonization history). They encourage empiric treatment if there is an increased risk of death or the presence of shock. By pathogen, they recommend the following:

• For carbapenem-resistant Enterobacterales, clinicians should treat patients with cefiderocol, ceftazidime-avibactam, imipenem-cilastatin-relabactam, or meropenem-vaborbactam. 
• For carbapenem-resistant Pseudomonas aeruginosa, clinicians should treat patients with cefiderocol, ceftazidime-avibactam, imipenem-cilastatin-relabactam, or ceftolozane-tazobactam. 
• For carbapenem-resistant Acinetobacter baumanii, clinicians should treat patients with a cefiderocol backbone with or without the addition of plazomicin, eravacycline, or other older antibacterials. 
• For metallo-beta-lactamase-producing organisms, clinicians should treat patients with cefiderocol, ceftazidime-avibactam, aztreonam, imipenem-cilastatin-relabactam, aztreonam, or aztreonam-avibactam. The authors acknowledge that evidence is limited on treating these infections.

“In general, ceftazidime-avibactam works pretty well in patients with MDRGNIs, and there is no evidence that any of the other new agents is conclusively better in treatment responses. CZA and ceftolozane-tazobactam were the first of the new antibiotics active against highly MDRGN to get approved, and they have been most widely used,” Cornelius “Neil” J. Clancy, MD, chief of the Infectious Diseases Section at the VA Pittsburgh Health Care System, explained. Dr. Clancy was not involved in the Windham-Kollef review article.

“As such, it is not surprising that resistance has emerged and that it has been reported more commonly than for some other agents. The issue of resistance will be considered again as IDSA puts together their update,” Dr. Clancy said.

“The IDSA guidelines are regularly updated. The next updated iteration will be online in early 2023,” said Dr. Clancy, who is also affiliated with IDSA. “Clinical and resistance data that have appeared since the last update in 2022 will be considered as the guidance is put together.”

In general, Dr. Kollef also recommends using a facility’s antibiogram. “They are useful in determining which MDRGN’s predominate locally,” he said.

Dr. Kollef is a consultant for Pfizer, Merck, and Shionogi. Dr. Clancy has received research funding from Merck and from the National Institutes of Health.

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