New COVID variant on WHO’s radar causing itchy eyes in children

Article Type
Changed
Wed, 04/19/2023 - 06:54

A new COVID-19 variant that recently landed on the World Health Organization’s radar may cause previously unseen symptoms in children, according to a new report.

While the variant, called “Arcturus,” hasn’t yet made the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s watchlist, a prominent pediatrician in India is seeing children with “itchy” or “sticky” eyes, as if they have conjunctivitis or pinkeye, according to  The Times of India. 

The new itchy eye symptom is in addition to a high fever and cough, Vipin M. Vashishtha, MD, said on Twitter, noting that pediatric COVID cases have picked up there for the first time in 6 months.

The country has also seen a rise in adenovirus cases among children with similar symptoms. COVID and adenovirus cannot be distinguished without testing, and many parents don’t want to have their children tested because the swabs are uncomfortable, The Times of India reported. One doctor told the newspaper that among every 10 children with COVID-like symptoms, 2 or 3 of them had tested positive on a COVID test taken at home.

Health officials in India are doing mock drills to check how prepared the country’s hospitals are as India sees cases rise, the BBC reported. India struggled during a COVID-19 surge in 2021, at which time sickened people were seen lying on sidewalks outside overflowing hospitals, and reports surfaced of a black market for private citizens to buy oxygen. 

Arcturus (formally, Omicron subvariant XBB.1.16) made news recently as it landed on the WHO’s radar after surfacing in India. A WHO official called it “one to watch.” The Times of India reported that 234 new cases of XBB.1.16 were included in the country’s latest 5,676 new infections, meaning the subvariant accounts for 4% of new COVID cases.
 

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

Publications
Topics
Sections

A new COVID-19 variant that recently landed on the World Health Organization’s radar may cause previously unseen symptoms in children, according to a new report.

While the variant, called “Arcturus,” hasn’t yet made the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s watchlist, a prominent pediatrician in India is seeing children with “itchy” or “sticky” eyes, as if they have conjunctivitis or pinkeye, according to  The Times of India. 

The new itchy eye symptom is in addition to a high fever and cough, Vipin M. Vashishtha, MD, said on Twitter, noting that pediatric COVID cases have picked up there for the first time in 6 months.

The country has also seen a rise in adenovirus cases among children with similar symptoms. COVID and adenovirus cannot be distinguished without testing, and many parents don’t want to have their children tested because the swabs are uncomfortable, The Times of India reported. One doctor told the newspaper that among every 10 children with COVID-like symptoms, 2 or 3 of them had tested positive on a COVID test taken at home.

Health officials in India are doing mock drills to check how prepared the country’s hospitals are as India sees cases rise, the BBC reported. India struggled during a COVID-19 surge in 2021, at which time sickened people were seen lying on sidewalks outside overflowing hospitals, and reports surfaced of a black market for private citizens to buy oxygen. 

Arcturus (formally, Omicron subvariant XBB.1.16) made news recently as it landed on the WHO’s radar after surfacing in India. A WHO official called it “one to watch.” The Times of India reported that 234 new cases of XBB.1.16 were included in the country’s latest 5,676 new infections, meaning the subvariant accounts for 4% of new COVID cases.
 

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

A new COVID-19 variant that recently landed on the World Health Organization’s radar may cause previously unseen symptoms in children, according to a new report.

While the variant, called “Arcturus,” hasn’t yet made the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s watchlist, a prominent pediatrician in India is seeing children with “itchy” or “sticky” eyes, as if they have conjunctivitis or pinkeye, according to  The Times of India. 

The new itchy eye symptom is in addition to a high fever and cough, Vipin M. Vashishtha, MD, said on Twitter, noting that pediatric COVID cases have picked up there for the first time in 6 months.

The country has also seen a rise in adenovirus cases among children with similar symptoms. COVID and adenovirus cannot be distinguished without testing, and many parents don’t want to have their children tested because the swabs are uncomfortable, The Times of India reported. One doctor told the newspaper that among every 10 children with COVID-like symptoms, 2 or 3 of them had tested positive on a COVID test taken at home.

Health officials in India are doing mock drills to check how prepared the country’s hospitals are as India sees cases rise, the BBC reported. India struggled during a COVID-19 surge in 2021, at which time sickened people were seen lying on sidewalks outside overflowing hospitals, and reports surfaced of a black market for private citizens to buy oxygen. 

Arcturus (formally, Omicron subvariant XBB.1.16) made news recently as it landed on the WHO’s radar after surfacing in India. A WHO official called it “one to watch.” The Times of India reported that 234 new cases of XBB.1.16 were included in the country’s latest 5,676 new infections, meaning the subvariant accounts for 4% of new COVID cases.
 

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

Publications
Publications
Topics
Article Type
Sections
Disallow All Ads
Content Gating
No Gating (article Unlocked/Free)
Alternative CME
Disqus Comments
Default
Use ProPublica
Hide sidebar & use full width
render the right sidebar.
Conference Recap Checkbox
Not Conference Recap
Clinical Edge
Display the Slideshow in this Article
Medscape Article
Display survey writer
Reuters content
Disable Inline Native ads
WebMD Article

75-year-old man • recent history of hand-foot-mouth disease • discolored fingernails and toenails lifting from the proximal end • Dx?

Article Type
Changed
Wed, 04/12/2023 - 15:11
Display Headline
75-year-old man • recent history of hand-foot-mouth disease • discolored fingernails and toenails lifting from the proximal end • Dx?

THE CASE

A 75-year-old man sought care from his primary care physician because his “fingernails and toenails [were] all falling off.” He did not feel ill and had no other complaints. His vital signs were unremarkable. He had no history of malignancies, chronic skin conditions, or systemic diseases. His fingernails and toenails were discolored and lifting from the proximal end of his nail beds (FIGURE). One of his great toenails had already fallen off, 1 thumb nail was minimally attached with the cuticle, and the rest of his nails were loose and in the process of separating from their nail beds. There was no nail pitting, rash, or joint swelling and tenderness.

Nails became discolored and fell off after Dx of hand-foot-mouth disease

The patient reported that while on vacation in Hawaii 3 weeks earlier, he had sought care at an urgent care clinic for a painless rash on his hands and the soles of his feet. At that time, he did not feel ill or have mouth ulcers, penile discharge, or arthralgia. There had been no recent changes to his prescription medications, which included finasteride, terazosin, omeprazole, and an albuterol inhaler. He denied taking over-the-counter medications or supplements.

The physical exam at the urgent care had revealed multiple blotchy, dark, 0.5- to 1-cm nonpruritic lesions that were desquamating. No oral lesions were seen. He had been given a diagnosis of hand-foot-mouth disease (HFMD) and reassured that it would resolve on its own in about 10 days.

THE DIAGNOSIS

Several possible diagnoses for nail disorders came to mind with this patient, including onychomycosis, onychoschizia, onycholysis, and onychomadesis.

Onychomycosis is a chronic fungal infection of the nail that affects toenails more often than fingernails.1 The most common form is distal subungual onychomycosis, which begins distally and slowly migrates proximally through the nail matrix.1 Often onychomycosis affects only a few nails unless the patient is elderly or has comorbid conditions, and the nails rarely separate from the nail bed.

Onychoschizia involves lamellar splitting and peeling of the dorsal surface of the nail plate.2 Usually white discolorations appear on the distal edges of the nail.3 It is more common in women than in men and is often caused by nail dehydration from repeated excessive immersion in water with detergents or recurrent application of nail polish.2 However, the nails do not separate from the nail bed, and usually only the fingernails are involved.

Onycholysis is a nail attachment disorder in which the nail plate distally separates from the nail bed. Areas of separation will appear white or yellow. There are many etiologies for onycholysis, including trauma, psoriasis, fungal infection, and contact irritant reactions.3 It also can be caused by medications and thyroid disease.3,4

Continue to: Onychomadesis

 

 

Onychomadesis, sometimes considered a severe form of Beau’s line,5,6 is defined by the spontaneous separation of the nail plate from the nail matrix. Although the nail will initially remain attached, proximal shedding will eventually occur.7 When several nails are involved, a systemic source—such as an acute infection, autoimmune disease, medication, malignancy (eg, cutaneous T-cell lymphoma), Kawasaki disease, skin disorders (eg, pemphigus vulgaris or keratosis punctata et planters), or chemotherapy—may be the cause.6-8 If only a few nails are involved, it may be associated with trauma, and in rare cases, onychomadesis can be idiopathic.5,7

In this case, all signs pointed to onychomadesis. All of the patient’s nails were affected (discolored and lifting), his nail loss involved spontaneous proximal separation of the nail plate from the nail matrix, and he had a recent previous infection: HFMD.

DISCUSSION

Onychomadesis is a rare nail-shedding disorder thought to be caused by the temporary arrest of the nail matrix.8 It is a potential late complication of infection, such as HFMD,9 and was first reported in children in Chicago in 2000.10 Since then, onychomadesis has been noted in children in many countries.8 Reports of onychomadesis following HFMD in adults are rare, but it may be underreported because HFMD is more common in children and symptoms are usually minor in adults.11

Onychomadesis following hand-foot-mouth disease (HFMD) may be underreported in adults because HFMD is more common in children and symptoms in adults are minor.

Molecular studies have associated onychomadesis with coxsackievirus (CV)A6 and CVA10.4 Other serotypes associated with onychomadesis include CVB1, CVB2, CVA5, CVA16, and enteroviruses 71 and 9.4 Most known outbreaks seem to be caused by CVA6.4

No treatment is needed for onychomadesis; physicians can reassure patients that normal nail growth will begin within 1 to 4 months. Because onychomadesis is rare, it does not have its own billing code, so one can use code L60.8 for “Other nail disorders.”12

Our patient was seen in the primary care clinic 3 months after his initial visit. At that time, his nails were no longer discolored and no other abnormalities were present. All of the nails on his fingers and toes were firmly attached and growing normally.

THE TAKEAWAY

The sudden asymptomatic loss of multiple fingernails and toenails—especially with proximal nail shedding—is a rare disorder known as onychomadesis. It can be caused by various etiologies and can be a late complication of HFMD or other viral infections. Onychomadesis should be considered when evaluating older patients, particularly when all of their nails are involved after a viral infection.

CORRESPONDENCE
Jon F. Peters, MD, MS, FAAFP, 14486 SE Lyon Court, Happy Valley, OR 97086; [email protected]

References

1. Rodgers P, Bassler M. Treating onychomycosis. Am Fam Physician. 2001;63:663-672, 677-678.

2. Sparavigna A, Tenconi B, La Penna L. Efficacy and tolerability of a biomineral formulation for treatment of onychoschizia: a randomized trial. Clin Cosmet Investig Dermatol. 2019:12:355-362. doi: 10.2147/CCID.S187305

3. Singal A, Arora R. Nail as a window of systemic diseases. Indian Dermatol Online J. 2015;6:67-74. doi: 10.4103/2229-5178.153002

4. Cleveland Clinic. Onycholysis. Accessed March 1, 2023. https://my.clevelandclinic.org/health/diseases/22903-onycholysis

5. Chiu H-H, Liu M-T, Chung W-H, et al. The mechanism of onychomadesis (nail shedding) and Beau’s lines following hand-foot-mouth disease. Viruses. 2019;11:522. doi: 10.3390/v11060522

6. Suchonwanit P, Nitayavardhana S. Idiopathic sporadic onychomadesis of toenails. Case Rep Dermatol Med. 2016;2016:6451327. doi: 10.1155/2016/6451327

7. Hardin J, Haber RM. Onychomadesis: literature review. Br J Dermatol. 2015;172:592-596. doi: 10.1111/bjd.13339

8. Li D, Yang W, Xing X, et al. Onychomadesis and potential association with HFMD outbreak in a kindergarten in Hubei providence, China, 2017. BMC Infect Dis. 2019:19:995. doi: 10.1186/s12879-019-4560-8

9. Chiu HH, Wu CS, Lan CE. Onychomadesis: a late complication of hand, foot, and mouth disease. J Emerg Med. 2017;52:243-245. doi: 10.1016/j.jemermed.2016.01.034

10. Clementz GC, Mancini AJ. Nail matrix arrest following hand-foot-mouth disease: a report of five children. Pediatr Dermatol. 2000;17:7-11. doi: 10.1046/j.1525-1470.2000.01702.x

11. Scarfi F, Arunachalam M, Galeone M, et al. An uncommon onychomadesis in adults. Int J Derm. 2014;53:1392-1394. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-4632.2012.05774.x

12. ICD10Data.com. 2023 ICD-10-CM codes. Accessed February 15, 2023. www.icd10data.com/ICD10CM/codes

Article PDF
Author and Disclosure Information

Department of Family Medicine, Oregon Health and Science University, Portland
[email protected]

The author reported no potential conflict of interest relevant to this article.

Issue
The Journal of Family Practice - 72(3)
Publications
Topics
Page Number
138-139
Sections
Author and Disclosure Information

Department of Family Medicine, Oregon Health and Science University, Portland
[email protected]

The author reported no potential conflict of interest relevant to this article.

Author and Disclosure Information

Department of Family Medicine, Oregon Health and Science University, Portland
[email protected]

The author reported no potential conflict of interest relevant to this article.

Article PDF
Article PDF

THE CASE

A 75-year-old man sought care from his primary care physician because his “fingernails and toenails [were] all falling off.” He did not feel ill and had no other complaints. His vital signs were unremarkable. He had no history of malignancies, chronic skin conditions, or systemic diseases. His fingernails and toenails were discolored and lifting from the proximal end of his nail beds (FIGURE). One of his great toenails had already fallen off, 1 thumb nail was minimally attached with the cuticle, and the rest of his nails were loose and in the process of separating from their nail beds. There was no nail pitting, rash, or joint swelling and tenderness.

Nails became discolored and fell off after Dx of hand-foot-mouth disease

The patient reported that while on vacation in Hawaii 3 weeks earlier, he had sought care at an urgent care clinic for a painless rash on his hands and the soles of his feet. At that time, he did not feel ill or have mouth ulcers, penile discharge, or arthralgia. There had been no recent changes to his prescription medications, which included finasteride, terazosin, omeprazole, and an albuterol inhaler. He denied taking over-the-counter medications or supplements.

The physical exam at the urgent care had revealed multiple blotchy, dark, 0.5- to 1-cm nonpruritic lesions that were desquamating. No oral lesions were seen. He had been given a diagnosis of hand-foot-mouth disease (HFMD) and reassured that it would resolve on its own in about 10 days.

THE DIAGNOSIS

Several possible diagnoses for nail disorders came to mind with this patient, including onychomycosis, onychoschizia, onycholysis, and onychomadesis.

Onychomycosis is a chronic fungal infection of the nail that affects toenails more often than fingernails.1 The most common form is distal subungual onychomycosis, which begins distally and slowly migrates proximally through the nail matrix.1 Often onychomycosis affects only a few nails unless the patient is elderly or has comorbid conditions, and the nails rarely separate from the nail bed.

Onychoschizia involves lamellar splitting and peeling of the dorsal surface of the nail plate.2 Usually white discolorations appear on the distal edges of the nail.3 It is more common in women than in men and is often caused by nail dehydration from repeated excessive immersion in water with detergents or recurrent application of nail polish.2 However, the nails do not separate from the nail bed, and usually only the fingernails are involved.

Onycholysis is a nail attachment disorder in which the nail plate distally separates from the nail bed. Areas of separation will appear white or yellow. There are many etiologies for onycholysis, including trauma, psoriasis, fungal infection, and contact irritant reactions.3 It also can be caused by medications and thyroid disease.3,4

Continue to: Onychomadesis

 

 

Onychomadesis, sometimes considered a severe form of Beau’s line,5,6 is defined by the spontaneous separation of the nail plate from the nail matrix. Although the nail will initially remain attached, proximal shedding will eventually occur.7 When several nails are involved, a systemic source—such as an acute infection, autoimmune disease, medication, malignancy (eg, cutaneous T-cell lymphoma), Kawasaki disease, skin disorders (eg, pemphigus vulgaris or keratosis punctata et planters), or chemotherapy—may be the cause.6-8 If only a few nails are involved, it may be associated with trauma, and in rare cases, onychomadesis can be idiopathic.5,7

In this case, all signs pointed to onychomadesis. All of the patient’s nails were affected (discolored and lifting), his nail loss involved spontaneous proximal separation of the nail plate from the nail matrix, and he had a recent previous infection: HFMD.

DISCUSSION

Onychomadesis is a rare nail-shedding disorder thought to be caused by the temporary arrest of the nail matrix.8 It is a potential late complication of infection, such as HFMD,9 and was first reported in children in Chicago in 2000.10 Since then, onychomadesis has been noted in children in many countries.8 Reports of onychomadesis following HFMD in adults are rare, but it may be underreported because HFMD is more common in children and symptoms are usually minor in adults.11

Onychomadesis following hand-foot-mouth disease (HFMD) may be underreported in adults because HFMD is more common in children and symptoms in adults are minor.

Molecular studies have associated onychomadesis with coxsackievirus (CV)A6 and CVA10.4 Other serotypes associated with onychomadesis include CVB1, CVB2, CVA5, CVA16, and enteroviruses 71 and 9.4 Most known outbreaks seem to be caused by CVA6.4

No treatment is needed for onychomadesis; physicians can reassure patients that normal nail growth will begin within 1 to 4 months. Because onychomadesis is rare, it does not have its own billing code, so one can use code L60.8 for “Other nail disorders.”12

Our patient was seen in the primary care clinic 3 months after his initial visit. At that time, his nails were no longer discolored and no other abnormalities were present. All of the nails on his fingers and toes were firmly attached and growing normally.

THE TAKEAWAY

The sudden asymptomatic loss of multiple fingernails and toenails—especially with proximal nail shedding—is a rare disorder known as onychomadesis. It can be caused by various etiologies and can be a late complication of HFMD or other viral infections. Onychomadesis should be considered when evaluating older patients, particularly when all of their nails are involved after a viral infection.

CORRESPONDENCE
Jon F. Peters, MD, MS, FAAFP, 14486 SE Lyon Court, Happy Valley, OR 97086; [email protected]

THE CASE

A 75-year-old man sought care from his primary care physician because his “fingernails and toenails [were] all falling off.” He did not feel ill and had no other complaints. His vital signs were unremarkable. He had no history of malignancies, chronic skin conditions, or systemic diseases. His fingernails and toenails were discolored and lifting from the proximal end of his nail beds (FIGURE). One of his great toenails had already fallen off, 1 thumb nail was minimally attached with the cuticle, and the rest of his nails were loose and in the process of separating from their nail beds. There was no nail pitting, rash, or joint swelling and tenderness.

Nails became discolored and fell off after Dx of hand-foot-mouth disease

The patient reported that while on vacation in Hawaii 3 weeks earlier, he had sought care at an urgent care clinic for a painless rash on his hands and the soles of his feet. At that time, he did not feel ill or have mouth ulcers, penile discharge, or arthralgia. There had been no recent changes to his prescription medications, which included finasteride, terazosin, omeprazole, and an albuterol inhaler. He denied taking over-the-counter medications or supplements.

The physical exam at the urgent care had revealed multiple blotchy, dark, 0.5- to 1-cm nonpruritic lesions that were desquamating. No oral lesions were seen. He had been given a diagnosis of hand-foot-mouth disease (HFMD) and reassured that it would resolve on its own in about 10 days.

THE DIAGNOSIS

Several possible diagnoses for nail disorders came to mind with this patient, including onychomycosis, onychoschizia, onycholysis, and onychomadesis.

Onychomycosis is a chronic fungal infection of the nail that affects toenails more often than fingernails.1 The most common form is distal subungual onychomycosis, which begins distally and slowly migrates proximally through the nail matrix.1 Often onychomycosis affects only a few nails unless the patient is elderly or has comorbid conditions, and the nails rarely separate from the nail bed.

Onychoschizia involves lamellar splitting and peeling of the dorsal surface of the nail plate.2 Usually white discolorations appear on the distal edges of the nail.3 It is more common in women than in men and is often caused by nail dehydration from repeated excessive immersion in water with detergents or recurrent application of nail polish.2 However, the nails do not separate from the nail bed, and usually only the fingernails are involved.

Onycholysis is a nail attachment disorder in which the nail plate distally separates from the nail bed. Areas of separation will appear white or yellow. There are many etiologies for onycholysis, including trauma, psoriasis, fungal infection, and contact irritant reactions.3 It also can be caused by medications and thyroid disease.3,4

Continue to: Onychomadesis

 

 

Onychomadesis, sometimes considered a severe form of Beau’s line,5,6 is defined by the spontaneous separation of the nail plate from the nail matrix. Although the nail will initially remain attached, proximal shedding will eventually occur.7 When several nails are involved, a systemic source—such as an acute infection, autoimmune disease, medication, malignancy (eg, cutaneous T-cell lymphoma), Kawasaki disease, skin disorders (eg, pemphigus vulgaris or keratosis punctata et planters), or chemotherapy—may be the cause.6-8 If only a few nails are involved, it may be associated with trauma, and in rare cases, onychomadesis can be idiopathic.5,7

In this case, all signs pointed to onychomadesis. All of the patient’s nails were affected (discolored and lifting), his nail loss involved spontaneous proximal separation of the nail plate from the nail matrix, and he had a recent previous infection: HFMD.

DISCUSSION

Onychomadesis is a rare nail-shedding disorder thought to be caused by the temporary arrest of the nail matrix.8 It is a potential late complication of infection, such as HFMD,9 and was first reported in children in Chicago in 2000.10 Since then, onychomadesis has been noted in children in many countries.8 Reports of onychomadesis following HFMD in adults are rare, but it may be underreported because HFMD is more common in children and symptoms are usually minor in adults.11

Onychomadesis following hand-foot-mouth disease (HFMD) may be underreported in adults because HFMD is more common in children and symptoms in adults are minor.

Molecular studies have associated onychomadesis with coxsackievirus (CV)A6 and CVA10.4 Other serotypes associated with onychomadesis include CVB1, CVB2, CVA5, CVA16, and enteroviruses 71 and 9.4 Most known outbreaks seem to be caused by CVA6.4

No treatment is needed for onychomadesis; physicians can reassure patients that normal nail growth will begin within 1 to 4 months. Because onychomadesis is rare, it does not have its own billing code, so one can use code L60.8 for “Other nail disorders.”12

Our patient was seen in the primary care clinic 3 months after his initial visit. At that time, his nails were no longer discolored and no other abnormalities were present. All of the nails on his fingers and toes were firmly attached and growing normally.

THE TAKEAWAY

The sudden asymptomatic loss of multiple fingernails and toenails—especially with proximal nail shedding—is a rare disorder known as onychomadesis. It can be caused by various etiologies and can be a late complication of HFMD or other viral infections. Onychomadesis should be considered when evaluating older patients, particularly when all of their nails are involved after a viral infection.

CORRESPONDENCE
Jon F. Peters, MD, MS, FAAFP, 14486 SE Lyon Court, Happy Valley, OR 97086; [email protected]

References

1. Rodgers P, Bassler M. Treating onychomycosis. Am Fam Physician. 2001;63:663-672, 677-678.

2. Sparavigna A, Tenconi B, La Penna L. Efficacy and tolerability of a biomineral formulation for treatment of onychoschizia: a randomized trial. Clin Cosmet Investig Dermatol. 2019:12:355-362. doi: 10.2147/CCID.S187305

3. Singal A, Arora R. Nail as a window of systemic diseases. Indian Dermatol Online J. 2015;6:67-74. doi: 10.4103/2229-5178.153002

4. Cleveland Clinic. Onycholysis. Accessed March 1, 2023. https://my.clevelandclinic.org/health/diseases/22903-onycholysis

5. Chiu H-H, Liu M-T, Chung W-H, et al. The mechanism of onychomadesis (nail shedding) and Beau’s lines following hand-foot-mouth disease. Viruses. 2019;11:522. doi: 10.3390/v11060522

6. Suchonwanit P, Nitayavardhana S. Idiopathic sporadic onychomadesis of toenails. Case Rep Dermatol Med. 2016;2016:6451327. doi: 10.1155/2016/6451327

7. Hardin J, Haber RM. Onychomadesis: literature review. Br J Dermatol. 2015;172:592-596. doi: 10.1111/bjd.13339

8. Li D, Yang W, Xing X, et al. Onychomadesis and potential association with HFMD outbreak in a kindergarten in Hubei providence, China, 2017. BMC Infect Dis. 2019:19:995. doi: 10.1186/s12879-019-4560-8

9. Chiu HH, Wu CS, Lan CE. Onychomadesis: a late complication of hand, foot, and mouth disease. J Emerg Med. 2017;52:243-245. doi: 10.1016/j.jemermed.2016.01.034

10. Clementz GC, Mancini AJ. Nail matrix arrest following hand-foot-mouth disease: a report of five children. Pediatr Dermatol. 2000;17:7-11. doi: 10.1046/j.1525-1470.2000.01702.x

11. Scarfi F, Arunachalam M, Galeone M, et al. An uncommon onychomadesis in adults. Int J Derm. 2014;53:1392-1394. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-4632.2012.05774.x

12. ICD10Data.com. 2023 ICD-10-CM codes. Accessed February 15, 2023. www.icd10data.com/ICD10CM/codes

References

1. Rodgers P, Bassler M. Treating onychomycosis. Am Fam Physician. 2001;63:663-672, 677-678.

2. Sparavigna A, Tenconi B, La Penna L. Efficacy and tolerability of a biomineral formulation for treatment of onychoschizia: a randomized trial. Clin Cosmet Investig Dermatol. 2019:12:355-362. doi: 10.2147/CCID.S187305

3. Singal A, Arora R. Nail as a window of systemic diseases. Indian Dermatol Online J. 2015;6:67-74. doi: 10.4103/2229-5178.153002

4. Cleveland Clinic. Onycholysis. Accessed March 1, 2023. https://my.clevelandclinic.org/health/diseases/22903-onycholysis

5. Chiu H-H, Liu M-T, Chung W-H, et al. The mechanism of onychomadesis (nail shedding) and Beau’s lines following hand-foot-mouth disease. Viruses. 2019;11:522. doi: 10.3390/v11060522

6. Suchonwanit P, Nitayavardhana S. Idiopathic sporadic onychomadesis of toenails. Case Rep Dermatol Med. 2016;2016:6451327. doi: 10.1155/2016/6451327

7. Hardin J, Haber RM. Onychomadesis: literature review. Br J Dermatol. 2015;172:592-596. doi: 10.1111/bjd.13339

8. Li D, Yang W, Xing X, et al. Onychomadesis and potential association with HFMD outbreak in a kindergarten in Hubei providence, China, 2017. BMC Infect Dis. 2019:19:995. doi: 10.1186/s12879-019-4560-8

9. Chiu HH, Wu CS, Lan CE. Onychomadesis: a late complication of hand, foot, and mouth disease. J Emerg Med. 2017;52:243-245. doi: 10.1016/j.jemermed.2016.01.034

10. Clementz GC, Mancini AJ. Nail matrix arrest following hand-foot-mouth disease: a report of five children. Pediatr Dermatol. 2000;17:7-11. doi: 10.1046/j.1525-1470.2000.01702.x

11. Scarfi F, Arunachalam M, Galeone M, et al. An uncommon onychomadesis in adults. Int J Derm. 2014;53:1392-1394. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-4632.2012.05774.x

12. ICD10Data.com. 2023 ICD-10-CM codes. Accessed February 15, 2023. www.icd10data.com/ICD10CM/codes

Issue
The Journal of Family Practice - 72(3)
Issue
The Journal of Family Practice - 72(3)
Page Number
138-139
Page Number
138-139
Publications
Publications
Topics
Article Type
Display Headline
75-year-old man • recent history of hand-foot-mouth disease • discolored fingernails and toenails lifting from the proximal end • Dx?
Display Headline
75-year-old man • recent history of hand-foot-mouth disease • discolored fingernails and toenails lifting from the proximal end • Dx?
Sections
Inside the Article

► Recent history of hand-foot-mouth disease
► Discolored fingernails and toenails lifting from the proximal end

Disallow All Ads
Content Gating
No Gating (article Unlocked/Free)
Alternative CME
Disqus Comments
Default
Use ProPublica
Hide sidebar & use full width
render the right sidebar.
Conference Recap Checkbox
Not Conference Recap
Clinical Edge
Display the Slideshow in this Article
Medscape Article
Display survey writer
Reuters content
Disable Inline Native ads
WebMD Article
Article PDF Media

Racial disparities not found in chronic hepatitis B treatment initiation

Article Type
Changed
Wed, 04/26/2023 - 09:08

Researchers studying differences in treatment initiation for chronic hepatitis B (CHB) among a large, multiracial cohort in North America did not find evidence of disparities by race or socioeconomic status.

Instead, they observed a similar gap across races between the number of people eligible for treatment and those receiving it.

That gap suggests that treatment guidelines need to be simplified and that efforts to increase hepatitis B virus (HBV) awareness and train more clinicians are needed to achieve the World Health Organization’s goal of eliminating HBV by 2030, the researchers write.

The Hepatitis B Research Network study was published online in JAMA Network Open.

The prevalence of CHB in the United States is estimated at 2.4 million. It disproportionately affects persons of Asian or African descent, the investigators note. Their study examined whether treatment initiation and outcomes differ between African American and Black, Asian, and White participants, as well as between African American and Black participants born in North America and East or West Africa.

The research involved 1,550 adult patients: 1,157 Asian American, 193 African American or Black (39 born in the United States, 90 in East Africa, 53 in West Africa, and 11 elsewhere), 157 White, and 43 who identified as being of “other races.” All had CHB but were not receiving antiviral treatment at enrollment.

Participants came from 20 centers in the United States and one in Canada. They underwent clinical and laboratory assessments and could receive anti-HBV treatment after they enrolled. Enrollment was from Jan. 14, 2011, to Jan. 28, 2018. Participants were followed at 12 and 24 weeks and every 24 weeks thereafter in the longitudinal cohort study by Mandana Khalili, MD, division of gastroenterology and hepatology, University of California, San Francisco, and colleagues.

Information on patients’ country of birth, duration of U.S. or Canadian residency, educational level, employment, insurance, prior antiviral treatment, family history of HBV or hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), and mode of transmission were collected by research coordinators.
 

Treatment initiation

During the study period, slightly fewer than one-third (32.5%) of the participants initiated treatment. The incidences were 4.8 per 100 person-years in African American or Black participants, 9.9 per 100 person-years in Asian participants, 6.6 per 100 person-years in White participants, and 7.9 per 100 person-years in those of other races (P < .001).

A lower percentage of African American and Black participants (14%) met the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases treatment criteria, compared with Asian (22%) and White (27%) participants (P = .01).

When the researchers compared cumulative probability of initiating treatment by race for those who met criteria for treatment, they found no significant differences by race.

At 72 weeks, initiation probability was 0.45 for African American and Black patients and 0.51 for Asian and White patients (P = .68). Similarly, among African American and Black participants who met treatment criteria, there were no significant differences in cumulative probability of treatment by region of birth.

The cumulative percentage of treatment initiation for those who met guideline-based criteria was 62%.

“Among participants with a treatment indication, treatment rates did not differ significantly by race, despite marked differences in educational level, income, and type of health care insurance across the racial groups,” the researchers write. “Moreover, race was not an independent estimator of treatment initiation when adjusting for known factors associated with a higher risk of adverse clinical outcomes, namely, HBV DNA, disease severity, sex, and age.”

Adverse liver outcomes (hepatic decompensation, HCC, liver transplant, and death) were rare and did not vary significantly by race, the researchers write.

One study limitation is that participants were linked to specialty liver clinics, so the findings may not be generalizable to patients who receive care in other settings, the authors note.

The results are “reassuring,” said senior author Anna S. Lok, MD, division of gastroenterology and hepatology at University of Michigan in Ann Arbor. However, she noted, study participants had already overcome barriers to receiving care at major academic centers.

“Once you get into the big academic liver centers, then maybe everything is equal, but in the real world, a lot of people don’t ever get to the big liver centers,” she said. The question becomes: “Are we serving only a portion of the patient population?”

Many factors drive the decision to undergo treatment, including the doctor’s opinion as to need and the patient’s desire to receive treatment, she said.

The study participants who were more likely to get treated were those with higher-level disease who had a stronger indication for treatment, Dr. Lok said.
 

 

 

Finding the disparities

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention statistics show that Black people are 3.9 times more likely to have CHB and 2.5 times more likely to die from it than White people, notes H. Nina Kim, MD, with the department of medicine, University of Washington, Seattle, in an accompanying invited commentary.

“The fact that we have not observed racial disparities in treatment initiation does not mean none exist; it means we have to look harder to find them,” she writes.

“We need to examine whether our guidelines for HBV treatment are so complex that it becomes the purview of specialists, thereby restricting access and deepening inequities,” Dr. Kim adds. “We should look closely at retention in care, the step that precedes treatment, and stratify this outcome by race and ethnicity.”

Primary care physicians in some regions might find it difficult to manage patients who have hepatitis B because they see so few of them, Dr. Lok noted.

Dr. Khalili has received grants and consulting fees from Gilead Sciences Inc and grants from Intercept Pharmaceuticals outside the submitted work. Dr. Lok has received grants from Target and consultant fees from Abbott, Ambys, Arbutus, Chroma, Clear B, Enanta, Enochian, GNI, GlaxoSmithKline, Eli Lilly, and Virion outside the submitted work. Coauthors have received grants, consulting fees, or personal fees from Bayer, Boston Scientific, Exact Sciences, Fujifilm Medical Sciences, Gilead Sciences, Glycotest, Redhill Biopharma, Target RWE, MedEd Design, Pontifax, Global Life, the Lynx Group, AstraZeneca, Eisai, Novartis Venture Fund, Grail, QED Therapeutics, Genentech, Hepion Pharmaceuticals, Roche, Abbott, AbbVie, and Pfizer. Dr. Kim has received grants from Gilead Sciences (paid to her institution) outside the submitted work.

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

Publications
Topics
Sections

Researchers studying differences in treatment initiation for chronic hepatitis B (CHB) among a large, multiracial cohort in North America did not find evidence of disparities by race or socioeconomic status.

Instead, they observed a similar gap across races between the number of people eligible for treatment and those receiving it.

That gap suggests that treatment guidelines need to be simplified and that efforts to increase hepatitis B virus (HBV) awareness and train more clinicians are needed to achieve the World Health Organization’s goal of eliminating HBV by 2030, the researchers write.

The Hepatitis B Research Network study was published online in JAMA Network Open.

The prevalence of CHB in the United States is estimated at 2.4 million. It disproportionately affects persons of Asian or African descent, the investigators note. Their study examined whether treatment initiation and outcomes differ between African American and Black, Asian, and White participants, as well as between African American and Black participants born in North America and East or West Africa.

The research involved 1,550 adult patients: 1,157 Asian American, 193 African American or Black (39 born in the United States, 90 in East Africa, 53 in West Africa, and 11 elsewhere), 157 White, and 43 who identified as being of “other races.” All had CHB but were not receiving antiviral treatment at enrollment.

Participants came from 20 centers in the United States and one in Canada. They underwent clinical and laboratory assessments and could receive anti-HBV treatment after they enrolled. Enrollment was from Jan. 14, 2011, to Jan. 28, 2018. Participants were followed at 12 and 24 weeks and every 24 weeks thereafter in the longitudinal cohort study by Mandana Khalili, MD, division of gastroenterology and hepatology, University of California, San Francisco, and colleagues.

Information on patients’ country of birth, duration of U.S. or Canadian residency, educational level, employment, insurance, prior antiviral treatment, family history of HBV or hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), and mode of transmission were collected by research coordinators.
 

Treatment initiation

During the study period, slightly fewer than one-third (32.5%) of the participants initiated treatment. The incidences were 4.8 per 100 person-years in African American or Black participants, 9.9 per 100 person-years in Asian participants, 6.6 per 100 person-years in White participants, and 7.9 per 100 person-years in those of other races (P < .001).

A lower percentage of African American and Black participants (14%) met the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases treatment criteria, compared with Asian (22%) and White (27%) participants (P = .01).

When the researchers compared cumulative probability of initiating treatment by race for those who met criteria for treatment, they found no significant differences by race.

At 72 weeks, initiation probability was 0.45 for African American and Black patients and 0.51 for Asian and White patients (P = .68). Similarly, among African American and Black participants who met treatment criteria, there were no significant differences in cumulative probability of treatment by region of birth.

The cumulative percentage of treatment initiation for those who met guideline-based criteria was 62%.

“Among participants with a treatment indication, treatment rates did not differ significantly by race, despite marked differences in educational level, income, and type of health care insurance across the racial groups,” the researchers write. “Moreover, race was not an independent estimator of treatment initiation when adjusting for known factors associated with a higher risk of adverse clinical outcomes, namely, HBV DNA, disease severity, sex, and age.”

Adverse liver outcomes (hepatic decompensation, HCC, liver transplant, and death) were rare and did not vary significantly by race, the researchers write.

One study limitation is that participants were linked to specialty liver clinics, so the findings may not be generalizable to patients who receive care in other settings, the authors note.

The results are “reassuring,” said senior author Anna S. Lok, MD, division of gastroenterology and hepatology at University of Michigan in Ann Arbor. However, she noted, study participants had already overcome barriers to receiving care at major academic centers.

“Once you get into the big academic liver centers, then maybe everything is equal, but in the real world, a lot of people don’t ever get to the big liver centers,” she said. The question becomes: “Are we serving only a portion of the patient population?”

Many factors drive the decision to undergo treatment, including the doctor’s opinion as to need and the patient’s desire to receive treatment, she said.

The study participants who were more likely to get treated were those with higher-level disease who had a stronger indication for treatment, Dr. Lok said.
 

 

 

Finding the disparities

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention statistics show that Black people are 3.9 times more likely to have CHB and 2.5 times more likely to die from it than White people, notes H. Nina Kim, MD, with the department of medicine, University of Washington, Seattle, in an accompanying invited commentary.

“The fact that we have not observed racial disparities in treatment initiation does not mean none exist; it means we have to look harder to find them,” she writes.

“We need to examine whether our guidelines for HBV treatment are so complex that it becomes the purview of specialists, thereby restricting access and deepening inequities,” Dr. Kim adds. “We should look closely at retention in care, the step that precedes treatment, and stratify this outcome by race and ethnicity.”

Primary care physicians in some regions might find it difficult to manage patients who have hepatitis B because they see so few of them, Dr. Lok noted.

Dr. Khalili has received grants and consulting fees from Gilead Sciences Inc and grants from Intercept Pharmaceuticals outside the submitted work. Dr. Lok has received grants from Target and consultant fees from Abbott, Ambys, Arbutus, Chroma, Clear B, Enanta, Enochian, GNI, GlaxoSmithKline, Eli Lilly, and Virion outside the submitted work. Coauthors have received grants, consulting fees, or personal fees from Bayer, Boston Scientific, Exact Sciences, Fujifilm Medical Sciences, Gilead Sciences, Glycotest, Redhill Biopharma, Target RWE, MedEd Design, Pontifax, Global Life, the Lynx Group, AstraZeneca, Eisai, Novartis Venture Fund, Grail, QED Therapeutics, Genentech, Hepion Pharmaceuticals, Roche, Abbott, AbbVie, and Pfizer. Dr. Kim has received grants from Gilead Sciences (paid to her institution) outside the submitted work.

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

Researchers studying differences in treatment initiation for chronic hepatitis B (CHB) among a large, multiracial cohort in North America did not find evidence of disparities by race or socioeconomic status.

Instead, they observed a similar gap across races between the number of people eligible for treatment and those receiving it.

That gap suggests that treatment guidelines need to be simplified and that efforts to increase hepatitis B virus (HBV) awareness and train more clinicians are needed to achieve the World Health Organization’s goal of eliminating HBV by 2030, the researchers write.

The Hepatitis B Research Network study was published online in JAMA Network Open.

The prevalence of CHB in the United States is estimated at 2.4 million. It disproportionately affects persons of Asian or African descent, the investigators note. Their study examined whether treatment initiation and outcomes differ between African American and Black, Asian, and White participants, as well as between African American and Black participants born in North America and East or West Africa.

The research involved 1,550 adult patients: 1,157 Asian American, 193 African American or Black (39 born in the United States, 90 in East Africa, 53 in West Africa, and 11 elsewhere), 157 White, and 43 who identified as being of “other races.” All had CHB but were not receiving antiviral treatment at enrollment.

Participants came from 20 centers in the United States and one in Canada. They underwent clinical and laboratory assessments and could receive anti-HBV treatment after they enrolled. Enrollment was from Jan. 14, 2011, to Jan. 28, 2018. Participants were followed at 12 and 24 weeks and every 24 weeks thereafter in the longitudinal cohort study by Mandana Khalili, MD, division of gastroenterology and hepatology, University of California, San Francisco, and colleagues.

Information on patients’ country of birth, duration of U.S. or Canadian residency, educational level, employment, insurance, prior antiviral treatment, family history of HBV or hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), and mode of transmission were collected by research coordinators.
 

Treatment initiation

During the study period, slightly fewer than one-third (32.5%) of the participants initiated treatment. The incidences were 4.8 per 100 person-years in African American or Black participants, 9.9 per 100 person-years in Asian participants, 6.6 per 100 person-years in White participants, and 7.9 per 100 person-years in those of other races (P < .001).

A lower percentage of African American and Black participants (14%) met the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases treatment criteria, compared with Asian (22%) and White (27%) participants (P = .01).

When the researchers compared cumulative probability of initiating treatment by race for those who met criteria for treatment, they found no significant differences by race.

At 72 weeks, initiation probability was 0.45 for African American and Black patients and 0.51 for Asian and White patients (P = .68). Similarly, among African American and Black participants who met treatment criteria, there were no significant differences in cumulative probability of treatment by region of birth.

The cumulative percentage of treatment initiation for those who met guideline-based criteria was 62%.

“Among participants with a treatment indication, treatment rates did not differ significantly by race, despite marked differences in educational level, income, and type of health care insurance across the racial groups,” the researchers write. “Moreover, race was not an independent estimator of treatment initiation when adjusting for known factors associated with a higher risk of adverse clinical outcomes, namely, HBV DNA, disease severity, sex, and age.”

Adverse liver outcomes (hepatic decompensation, HCC, liver transplant, and death) were rare and did not vary significantly by race, the researchers write.

One study limitation is that participants were linked to specialty liver clinics, so the findings may not be generalizable to patients who receive care in other settings, the authors note.

The results are “reassuring,” said senior author Anna S. Lok, MD, division of gastroenterology and hepatology at University of Michigan in Ann Arbor. However, she noted, study participants had already overcome barriers to receiving care at major academic centers.

“Once you get into the big academic liver centers, then maybe everything is equal, but in the real world, a lot of people don’t ever get to the big liver centers,” she said. The question becomes: “Are we serving only a portion of the patient population?”

Many factors drive the decision to undergo treatment, including the doctor’s opinion as to need and the patient’s desire to receive treatment, she said.

The study participants who were more likely to get treated were those with higher-level disease who had a stronger indication for treatment, Dr. Lok said.
 

 

 

Finding the disparities

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention statistics show that Black people are 3.9 times more likely to have CHB and 2.5 times more likely to die from it than White people, notes H. Nina Kim, MD, with the department of medicine, University of Washington, Seattle, in an accompanying invited commentary.

“The fact that we have not observed racial disparities in treatment initiation does not mean none exist; it means we have to look harder to find them,” she writes.

“We need to examine whether our guidelines for HBV treatment are so complex that it becomes the purview of specialists, thereby restricting access and deepening inequities,” Dr. Kim adds. “We should look closely at retention in care, the step that precedes treatment, and stratify this outcome by race and ethnicity.”

Primary care physicians in some regions might find it difficult to manage patients who have hepatitis B because they see so few of them, Dr. Lok noted.

Dr. Khalili has received grants and consulting fees from Gilead Sciences Inc and grants from Intercept Pharmaceuticals outside the submitted work. Dr. Lok has received grants from Target and consultant fees from Abbott, Ambys, Arbutus, Chroma, Clear B, Enanta, Enochian, GNI, GlaxoSmithKline, Eli Lilly, and Virion outside the submitted work. Coauthors have received grants, consulting fees, or personal fees from Bayer, Boston Scientific, Exact Sciences, Fujifilm Medical Sciences, Gilead Sciences, Glycotest, Redhill Biopharma, Target RWE, MedEd Design, Pontifax, Global Life, the Lynx Group, AstraZeneca, Eisai, Novartis Venture Fund, Grail, QED Therapeutics, Genentech, Hepion Pharmaceuticals, Roche, Abbott, AbbVie, and Pfizer. Dr. Kim has received grants from Gilead Sciences (paid to her institution) outside the submitted work.

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

Publications
Publications
Topics
Article Type
Sections
Article Source

FROM JAMA NETWORK OPEN

Disallow All Ads
Content Gating
No Gating (article Unlocked/Free)
Alternative CME
Disqus Comments
Default
Use ProPublica
Hide sidebar & use full width
render the right sidebar.
Conference Recap Checkbox
Not Conference Recap
Clinical Edge
Display the Slideshow in this Article
Medscape Article
Display survey writer
Reuters content
Disable Inline Native ads
WebMD Article

High-Grade Staphylococcus lugdunensis Bacteremia in a Patient on Home Hemodialysis

Article Type
Changed
Wed, 04/12/2023 - 11:28

Staphylococcus lugdunensis (S lugdunensis) is a species of coagulase-negative Staphylococcus (CoNS) and a constituent of human skin flora. Unlike other strains of CoNS, however, S lugdunensis has gained notoriety for virulence that resembles Staphylococcus aureus (S aureus). S lugdunensis is now recognized as an important nosocomial pathogen and cause of prosthetic device infections, including vascular catheter infections. We present a case of persistent S lugdunensis bacteremia occurring in a patient on hemodialysis (HD) without any implanted prosthetic materials.

Case Presentation

A 60-year-old man with a history of uncontrolled type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) and end-stage renal disease on home HD via arteriovenous fistula (AVF) presented to the emergency department (ED) for evaluation of subacute progressive low back pain. His symptoms began abruptly 2 weeks prior to presentation without any identifiable trigger or trauma. His pain localized to the lower thoracic spine, radiating anteriorly into his abdomen. He reported tactile fever for several days before presentation but no chills, night sweats, paresthesia, weakness, or bowel/bladder incontinence. He had no recent surgeries, implanted hardware, or invasive procedures involving the spine. HD was performed 5 times a week at home with a family member cannulating his AVF via buttonhole technique. He initially sought evaluation in a community hospital several days prior, where he underwent magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) of the thoracic spine. He was discharged from the community ED with oral opioids prior to the MRI results. He presented to West Los Angeles Veterans Affairs Medical Center (WLAVAMC) ED when MRI results came back indicating abnormalities and he reported recalcitrant pain.

On arrival at WLAVAMC, the patient was afebrile with a heart rate of 107 bpm and blood pressure of 152/97 mm Hg. The remainder of his vital signs were normal. The physical examination revealed midline tenderness on palpation of the distal thoracic and proximal lumbar spine. Muscle strength was 4 of 5 in the bilateral hip flexors, though this was limited by pain. The remainder of his neurologic examination was nonfocal. The cardiac examination was unremarkable with no murmurs auscultated. His left upper extremity AVF had an audible bruit and palpable thrill. The skin examination was notable for acanthosis nigricans but no areas of skin erythema or induration and no obvious stigmata of infective endocarditis.

The initial laboratory workup was remarkable for a white blood cell (WBC) count of 10.0 × 103/µL with left shift, blood urea nitrogen level of 59 mg/dL, and creatinine level of 9.3 mg/dL. The patient’s erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR) was 45 mm/h (reference range, ≤ 20 mm/h) and C-reactive protein level was > 8.0 mg/L (reference range, ≤ 0.74 mg/L). Two months prior the hemoglobin A1c had been recorded at 9.9%.

Given his intractable low back pain and elevated inflammatory markers, the patient underwent an MRI of the thoracic and lumbar spine with contrast while in the ED. This MRI revealed abnormal marrow edema in the T11-T12 vertebrae with abnormal fluid signal in the T11-T12 disc space. Subjacent paravertebral edema also was noted. There was no well-defined fluid collection or abnormal signal in the spinal cord. Taken together, these findings were concerning for T11-T12 discitis with osteomyelitis.

 

 

Two sets of blood cultures were obtained, and empiric IV vancomycin and ceftriaxone were started. Interventional radiology was consulted for consideration of vertebral biopsy but deferred while awaiting blood culture data. Neurosurgery also was consulted and recommended nonoperative management given his nonfocal neurologic examination and imaging without evidence of abscess. Both sets of blood cultures collected on admission later grew methicillin-sensitive S lugdunensis, a species of CoNS. A transthoracic and later transesophageal echocardiogram did not show any valvular vegetations. The patient’s antibiotic regimen was narrowed to IV oxacillin based on susceptibility data. It was later discovered that both blood cultures obtained during his outside ED encounter were also growing S lugdunensis.

The patient’s S lugdunensis bacteremia persisted for the first 8 days of his admission despite appropriate dosing of oxacillin. During this time, the patient remained afebrile with stable vital signs and a normal WBC count. Positron emission tomography was obtained to evaluate for potential sources of his persistent bacteremia. Aside from tracer uptake in the T11-T12 vertebral bodies and intervertebral disc space, no other areas showed suspicious uptake. Neurosurgery reevaluated the patient and again recommended nonoperative management. Blood cultures cleared and based on recommendations from an infectious disease specialist, the patient was transitioned to IV cefazolin dosed 3 times weekly after HD, which was transitioned to an outpatient dialysis center. The patient continued taking cefazolin for 6 weeks with subsequent improvement in back pain and normalization of inflammatory markers at outpatient follow-up.

Discussion

CoNS are a major contributor to human skin flora, a common contaminant of blood cultures, and an important cause of nosocomial bloodstream infections.1,2 These species have a predilection for forming biofilms, making CoNS a major cause of prosthetic device infections.3S lugdunensis is a CoNS species that was first described in 1988.4 In addition to foreign body–related infections, S lugdunensis has been implicated in bone/joint infections, native valve endocarditis, toxic shock syndrome, and brain abscesses.5-8 Infections due to S lugdunensis are notorious for their aggressive and fulminant courses. With its increased virulence that is atypical of other CoNS, S lugdunensis has understandably been likened more to S aureus.

Prior cases have been reported of S lugdunensis bacteremia in patients using HD. However, the suspected source of bacteremia in these cases has generally been central venous catheters.9-12

table
Only 2 cases reported in the medical literature suspected the patient’s AVF to be the source of bacteremia (Table).10,11 Both our patient and the Conner and colleagues case report received HD at home.11 In a retrospective study of dialysis patients with AVFs, bacteremia may be attributable to the AVF even in the absence of localized erythema or induration if no alternative source for the bacteremia is found.13 Our patient lacked any central venous catheters, and after a thorough investigation, the only remaining source for bacteremia was his left upper extremity AVF.

Notably, our patient’s AVF was accessed using the buttonhole technique for his home HD sessions, which involves cannulating the same site along the fistula until an epithelialized track has formed from scar tissue. At later HD sessions, duller needles can then be used to cannulate this same track. In contrast, the rope-ladder technique involves cannulating a different site along the fistula until the entire length of the fistula has been used. Patients report higher levels of satisfaction with the buttonhole technique, citing decreased pain, decreased oozing, and the perception of easier cannulation by HD nurses.14 However, the buttonhole technique also appears to confer a higher risk of vascular access-related bloodstream infection when compared with the rope-ladder technique.13,15,16

 

 

The buttonhole technique is hypothesized to increase infection risk due to the repeated use of the same site for needle entry. Skin flora, including CoNS, may colonize the scab that forms after dialysis access. If proper sterilization techniques are not rigorously followed, the bacteria colonizing the scab and adjacent skin may be introduced into a patient’s bloodstream during needle puncture. Loss of skin integrity due to frequent cannulation of the same site may also contribute to this increased infection risk. It is relevant to recall that our patient received HD 5 times weekly using the buttonhole technique. The use of the buttonhole technique, frequency of his HD sessions, unclear sterilization methods, and immune dysfunction related to his uncontrolled T2DM and renal disease all likely contributed to our patient’s bacteremia.

Using topical mupirocin for prophylaxis at the intended buttonhole puncture site has shown promising results in decreasing rates of S aureus bacteremia.17 It is unclear whether this intervention also would be effective against S lugdunensis. Increasing rates of mupirocin resistance have been reported among S lugdunensis isolates in dialysis settings, but further research in this area is warranted.18

There are no established treatment guidelines for S lugdunensis infections. In vitro studies suggest that S lugdunensis is susceptible to a wide variety of antibiotics. The mecA gene is a major determinant of methicillin resistance that is commonly observed among CoNS but is uncommonly seen with S lugdunensis.5 In a study by Tan and colleagues of 106 S lugdunensis isolates, they found that only 5 (4.7%) were mecA positive.19

Vancomycin is generally reasonable for empiric antibiotic coverage of staphylococci while speciation is pending. However, if S lugdunensis is isolated, its favorable susceptibility pattern typically allows for de-escalation to an antistaphylococcal β-lactam, such as oxacillin or nafcillin. In cases of bloodstream infections caused by methicillin-sensitive S aureus, treatment with a β-lactam has demonstrated superiority over vancomycin due to the lower rates of treatment failure and mortality with β-lactams.20,21 It is unknown whether β-lactams is superior for treating bacteremia with methicillin-sensitive S lugdunensis.

Our patient’s isolate of S lugdunensis was pansensitive to all antibiotics tested, including penicillin. These susceptibility data were used to guide the de-escalation of his empiric vancomycin and ceftriaxone to oxacillin on hospital day 1.
figure
Interestingly, our patient’s bacteremia persisted for the first 8 days of his hospitalization despite appropriate dosing of oxacillin (Figure). This phenomenon of prolonged bacteremia has been well described with S aureus.22,23 To our knowledge, only 1 other case report has been published detailing such high-grade bacteremia with S lugdunensis. Duhon and colleagues described a case of persistent S lugdunensis bacteremia that lasted 7 days and was complicated by native aortic valve endocarditis.24 Their patient was initially started on empiric vancomycin and ceftriaxone but later switched to cefazolin on hospital day 4. The authors proposed that the persistent bacteremia may have been from an “inoculum effect,” which is seen when cefazolin loses efficacy against S aureus in vitro when there is a relatively high bacterial burden. However, our patient was not switched to cefazolin until the day of discharge, when his bacteremia had already cleared. We hypothesize instead that continued use of AVF for HD during hospitalization was likely a major contributing factor to our patient’s persistent bacteremia. As his AVF was the suspected source for bacteremia, there was concern that repeated cannulation of the fistula intermittently introduced additional bacteria into the bloodstream between antibiotic doses.
 

 

Due to their virulence, bloodstream infections caused by S aureus and S lugdunensis often require more than timely antimicrobial treatment to ensure eradication. Consultation with an infectious disease specialist to manage patients with S aureus bacteremia has been proven to reduce mortality.25 A similar mortality benefit is seen when infectious disease specialists are consulted for S lugdunensis bacteremia.26 This mortality benefit is likely explained by S lugdunensis’ propensity to cause aggressive, metastatic infections. In such cases, infectious disease consultants may recommend additional imaging (eg, transthoracic echocardiogram) to evaluate for occult sources of infection, advocate for appropriate source control, and guide the selection of an appropriate antibiotic course to ensure resolution of the bacteremia.

Conclusions

S lugdunensis is an increasingly recognized cause of nosocomial bloodstream infections. Given the commonalities in virulence that S lugdunensis shares with S aureus, treatment of bacteremia caused by either species should follow similar management principles: prompt initiation of IV antistaphylococcal therapy, a thorough evaluation for the source(s) of bacteremia as well as metastatic complications, and consultation with an infectious disease specialist. This case report also highlights the importance of considering a patient’s AVF as a potential source for infection even in the absence of localized signs of infection. The buttonhole method of AVF cannulation was thought to be a major contributor to the development and persistence of our patient’s bacteremia. This risk should be discussed with patients using a shared decision-making approach when developing a dialysis treatment plan.

References

1. Huebner J, Goldmann DA. Coagulase-negative staphylococci: role as pathogens. Annu Rev Med. 1999;50(1):223-236. doi:10.1146/annurev.med.50.1.223

2. Beekmann SE, Diekema DJ, Doern GV. Determining the clinical significance of coagulase-negative staphylococci isolated from blood cultures. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2005;26(6):559-566. doi:10.1086/502584

3. Arrecubieta C, Toba FA, von Bayern M, et al. SdrF, a Staphylococcus epidermidis surface protein, contributes to the initiation of ventricular assist device driveline–related infections. PLoS Pathog. 2009;5(5):e1000411. doi.10.1371/journal.ppat.1000411

4. Freney J, Brun Y, Bes M, et al. Staphylococcus lugdunensis sp. nov. and Staphylococcus schleiferi sp. nov., two species from human clinical specimens. Int J Syst Bacteriol. 1988;38(2):168-172. doi:10.1099/00207713-38-2-168

5. Frank KL, del Pozo JL, Patel R. From clinical microbiology to infection pathogenesis: how daring to be different works for Staphylococcus lugdunensis. Clin Microbiol Rev. 2008;21(1):111-133. doi:10.1128/CMR.00036-07

6. Anguera I, Del Río A, Miró JM; Hospital Clinic Endocarditis Study Group. Staphylococcus lugdunensis infective endocarditis: description of 10 cases and analysis of native valve, prosthetic valve, and pacemaker lead endocarditis clinical profiles. Heart. 2005;91(2):e10. doi:10.1136/hrt.2004.040659

7. Pareja J, Gupta K, Koziel H. The toxic shock syndrome and Staphylococcus lugdunensis bacteremia. Ann Intern Med. 1998;128(7):603-604. doi:10.7326/0003-4819-128-7-199804010-00029

8. Woznowski M, Quack I, Bölke E, et al. Fulminant Staphylococcus lugdunensis septicaemia following a pelvic varicella-zoster virus infection in an immune-deficient patient: a case report. Eur J Med Res. 201;15(9):410-414. doi:10.1186/2047-783x-15-9-410

9. Mallappallil M, Salifu M, Woredekal Y, et al. Staphylococcus lugdunensis bacteremia in hemodialysis patients. Int J Microbiol Res. 2012;4(2):178-181. doi:10.9735/0975-5276.4.2.178-181

10. Shuttleworth R, Colby W. Staphylococcus lugdunensis endocarditis. J Clin Microbiol. 1992;30(8):5. doi:10.1128/jcm.30.8.1948-1952.1992

11. Conner RC, Byrnes TJ, Clough LA, Myers JP. Staphylococcus lugdunensis tricuspid valve endocarditis associated with home hemodialysis therapy: report of a case and review of the literature. Infect Dis Clin Pract. 2012;20(3):182-183. doi:1097/IPC.0b013e318245d4f1

12. Kamaraju S, Nelson K, Williams D, Ayenew W, Modi K. Staphylococcus lugdunensis pulmonary valve endocarditis in a patient on chronic hemodialysis. Am J Nephrol. 1999;19(5):605-608. doi:1097/IPC.0b013e318245d4f1

13. Lok C, Sontrop J, Faratro R, Chan C, Zimmerman DL. Frequent hemodialysis fistula infectious complications. Nephron Extra. 2014;4(3):159-167. doi:10.1159/000366477

14. Hashmi A, Cheema MQ, Moss AH. Hemodialysis patients’ experience with and attitudes toward the buttonhole technique for arteriovenous fistula cannulation. Clin Nephrol. 2010;74(5):346-350. doi:10.5414/cnp74346

15. Lyman M, Nguyen DB, Shugart A, Gruhler H, Lines C, Patel PR. Risk of vascular access infection associated with buttonhole cannulation of fistulas: data from the National Healthcare Safety Network. Am J Kidney Dis. 2020;76(1):82-89. doi:10.1053/j.ajkd.2019.11.006

16. MacRae JM, Ahmed SB, Atkar R, Hemmelgarn BR. A randomized trial comparing buttonhole with rope ladder needling in conventional hemodialysis patients. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol. 2012;7(10):1632-1638. doi:10.2215/CJN.02730312

17. Nesrallah GE, Cuerden M, Wong JHS, Pierratos A. Staphylococcus aureus bacteremia and buttonhole cannulation: long-term safety and efficacy of mupirocin prophylaxis. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol. 2010;5(6):1047-1053. doi:10.2215/CJN.00280110

18. Ho PL, Liu MCJ, Chow KH, et al. Emergence of ileS2 -carrying, multidrug-resistant plasmids in Staphylococcus lugdunensis. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2016;60(10):6411-6414. doi:10.1128/AAC.00948-16

19. Tan TY, Ng SY, He J. Microbiological characteristics, presumptive identification, and antibiotic susceptibilities of Staphylococcus lugdunensis. J Clin Microbiol. 2008;46(7):2393-2395. doi:10.1128/JCM.00740-08

20. Chang FY, Peacock JE, Musher DM, et al. Staphylococcus aureus bacteremia: recurrence and the impact of antibiotic treatment in a prospective multicenter study. Medicine (Baltimore). 2003;82(5):333-339. doi:10.1097/01.md.0000091184.93122.09

21. Shurland S, Zhan M, Bradham DD, Roghmann MC. Comparison of mortality risk associated with bacteremia due to methicillin-resistant and methicillin-susceptible Staphylococcus aureus. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2007;28(3):273-279. doi:10.1086/512627

22. Levine DP, Fromm BS, Reddy BR. Slow response to vancomycin or vancomycin plus rifampin in methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus endocarditis. Ann Intern Med. 1991;115(9):674. doi:10.7326/0003-4819-115-9-674

23. Fowler VG, Karchmer AW, Tally FP, et al; S. aureus Endocarditis and Bacteremia Study Group. Daptomycin versus standard therapy for bacteremia and endocarditis caused by Staphylococcus aureus. N Engl J Med. 2006;355(7):653-665 . doi:10.1056/NEJMoa053783

24. Duhon B, Dallas S, Velasquez ST, Hand E. Staphylococcus lugdunensis bacteremia and endocarditis treated with cefazolin and rifampin. Am J Health Syst Pharm. 2015;72(13):1114-1118. doi:10.2146/ajhp140498

25. Lahey T, Shah R, Gittzus J, Schwartzman J, Kirkland K. Infectious diseases consultation lowers mortality from Staphylococcus aureus bacteremia. Medicine (Baltimore). 2009;88(5):263-267. doi:10.1097/MD.0b013e3181b8fccb

26. Forsblom E, Högnäs E, Syrjänen J, Järvinen A. Infectious diseases specialist consultation in Staphylococcus lugdunensis bacteremia. PLoS ONE. 2021;16(10):e0258511. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0258511

Article PDF
Author and Disclosure Information

Ashley K. Saito, MDa,b; Simon Wu, MDa,b

Correspondence: Ashley Saito ([email protected])

aWest Los Angeles Veterans Affairs Medical Center, California

bDavid Geffen School of Medicine at University of California, Los Angeles

Author disclosures

The authors report no actual or potential conflicts of interest or outside sources of funding with regard to this article.

Disclaimer

The opinions expressed herein are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of Federal Practitioner, Frontline Medical Communications Inc., the US Government, or any of its agencies. This article may discuss unlabeled or investigational use of certain drugs. Please review the complete prescribing information for specific drugs or drug combinations—including indications, contraindications, warnings, and adverse effects—before administering pharmacologic therapy to patients.

Ethics and consent

Written informed consent was obtained from the patient.

Issue
Federal Practitioner - 40(4)a
Publications
Topics
Page Number
123-127
Sections
Author and Disclosure Information

Ashley K. Saito, MDa,b; Simon Wu, MDa,b

Correspondence: Ashley Saito ([email protected])

aWest Los Angeles Veterans Affairs Medical Center, California

bDavid Geffen School of Medicine at University of California, Los Angeles

Author disclosures

The authors report no actual or potential conflicts of interest or outside sources of funding with regard to this article.

Disclaimer

The opinions expressed herein are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of Federal Practitioner, Frontline Medical Communications Inc., the US Government, or any of its agencies. This article may discuss unlabeled or investigational use of certain drugs. Please review the complete prescribing information for specific drugs or drug combinations—including indications, contraindications, warnings, and adverse effects—before administering pharmacologic therapy to patients.

Ethics and consent

Written informed consent was obtained from the patient.

Author and Disclosure Information

Ashley K. Saito, MDa,b; Simon Wu, MDa,b

Correspondence: Ashley Saito ([email protected])

aWest Los Angeles Veterans Affairs Medical Center, California

bDavid Geffen School of Medicine at University of California, Los Angeles

Author disclosures

The authors report no actual or potential conflicts of interest or outside sources of funding with regard to this article.

Disclaimer

The opinions expressed herein are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of Federal Practitioner, Frontline Medical Communications Inc., the US Government, or any of its agencies. This article may discuss unlabeled or investigational use of certain drugs. Please review the complete prescribing information for specific drugs or drug combinations—including indications, contraindications, warnings, and adverse effects—before administering pharmacologic therapy to patients.

Ethics and consent

Written informed consent was obtained from the patient.

Article PDF
Article PDF

Staphylococcus lugdunensis (S lugdunensis) is a species of coagulase-negative Staphylococcus (CoNS) and a constituent of human skin flora. Unlike other strains of CoNS, however, S lugdunensis has gained notoriety for virulence that resembles Staphylococcus aureus (S aureus). S lugdunensis is now recognized as an important nosocomial pathogen and cause of prosthetic device infections, including vascular catheter infections. We present a case of persistent S lugdunensis bacteremia occurring in a patient on hemodialysis (HD) without any implanted prosthetic materials.

Case Presentation

A 60-year-old man with a history of uncontrolled type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) and end-stage renal disease on home HD via arteriovenous fistula (AVF) presented to the emergency department (ED) for evaluation of subacute progressive low back pain. His symptoms began abruptly 2 weeks prior to presentation without any identifiable trigger or trauma. His pain localized to the lower thoracic spine, radiating anteriorly into his abdomen. He reported tactile fever for several days before presentation but no chills, night sweats, paresthesia, weakness, or bowel/bladder incontinence. He had no recent surgeries, implanted hardware, or invasive procedures involving the spine. HD was performed 5 times a week at home with a family member cannulating his AVF via buttonhole technique. He initially sought evaluation in a community hospital several days prior, where he underwent magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) of the thoracic spine. He was discharged from the community ED with oral opioids prior to the MRI results. He presented to West Los Angeles Veterans Affairs Medical Center (WLAVAMC) ED when MRI results came back indicating abnormalities and he reported recalcitrant pain.

On arrival at WLAVAMC, the patient was afebrile with a heart rate of 107 bpm and blood pressure of 152/97 mm Hg. The remainder of his vital signs were normal. The physical examination revealed midline tenderness on palpation of the distal thoracic and proximal lumbar spine. Muscle strength was 4 of 5 in the bilateral hip flexors, though this was limited by pain. The remainder of his neurologic examination was nonfocal. The cardiac examination was unremarkable with no murmurs auscultated. His left upper extremity AVF had an audible bruit and palpable thrill. The skin examination was notable for acanthosis nigricans but no areas of skin erythema or induration and no obvious stigmata of infective endocarditis.

The initial laboratory workup was remarkable for a white blood cell (WBC) count of 10.0 × 103/µL with left shift, blood urea nitrogen level of 59 mg/dL, and creatinine level of 9.3 mg/dL. The patient’s erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR) was 45 mm/h (reference range, ≤ 20 mm/h) and C-reactive protein level was > 8.0 mg/L (reference range, ≤ 0.74 mg/L). Two months prior the hemoglobin A1c had been recorded at 9.9%.

Given his intractable low back pain and elevated inflammatory markers, the patient underwent an MRI of the thoracic and lumbar spine with contrast while in the ED. This MRI revealed abnormal marrow edema in the T11-T12 vertebrae with abnormal fluid signal in the T11-T12 disc space. Subjacent paravertebral edema also was noted. There was no well-defined fluid collection or abnormal signal in the spinal cord. Taken together, these findings were concerning for T11-T12 discitis with osteomyelitis.

 

 

Two sets of blood cultures were obtained, and empiric IV vancomycin and ceftriaxone were started. Interventional radiology was consulted for consideration of vertebral biopsy but deferred while awaiting blood culture data. Neurosurgery also was consulted and recommended nonoperative management given his nonfocal neurologic examination and imaging without evidence of abscess. Both sets of blood cultures collected on admission later grew methicillin-sensitive S lugdunensis, a species of CoNS. A transthoracic and later transesophageal echocardiogram did not show any valvular vegetations. The patient’s antibiotic regimen was narrowed to IV oxacillin based on susceptibility data. It was later discovered that both blood cultures obtained during his outside ED encounter were also growing S lugdunensis.

The patient’s S lugdunensis bacteremia persisted for the first 8 days of his admission despite appropriate dosing of oxacillin. During this time, the patient remained afebrile with stable vital signs and a normal WBC count. Positron emission tomography was obtained to evaluate for potential sources of his persistent bacteremia. Aside from tracer uptake in the T11-T12 vertebral bodies and intervertebral disc space, no other areas showed suspicious uptake. Neurosurgery reevaluated the patient and again recommended nonoperative management. Blood cultures cleared and based on recommendations from an infectious disease specialist, the patient was transitioned to IV cefazolin dosed 3 times weekly after HD, which was transitioned to an outpatient dialysis center. The patient continued taking cefazolin for 6 weeks with subsequent improvement in back pain and normalization of inflammatory markers at outpatient follow-up.

Discussion

CoNS are a major contributor to human skin flora, a common contaminant of blood cultures, and an important cause of nosocomial bloodstream infections.1,2 These species have a predilection for forming biofilms, making CoNS a major cause of prosthetic device infections.3S lugdunensis is a CoNS species that was first described in 1988.4 In addition to foreign body–related infections, S lugdunensis has been implicated in bone/joint infections, native valve endocarditis, toxic shock syndrome, and brain abscesses.5-8 Infections due to S lugdunensis are notorious for their aggressive and fulminant courses. With its increased virulence that is atypical of other CoNS, S lugdunensis has understandably been likened more to S aureus.

Prior cases have been reported of S lugdunensis bacteremia in patients using HD. However, the suspected source of bacteremia in these cases has generally been central venous catheters.9-12

table
Only 2 cases reported in the medical literature suspected the patient’s AVF to be the source of bacteremia (Table).10,11 Both our patient and the Conner and colleagues case report received HD at home.11 In a retrospective study of dialysis patients with AVFs, bacteremia may be attributable to the AVF even in the absence of localized erythema or induration if no alternative source for the bacteremia is found.13 Our patient lacked any central venous catheters, and after a thorough investigation, the only remaining source for bacteremia was his left upper extremity AVF.

Notably, our patient’s AVF was accessed using the buttonhole technique for his home HD sessions, which involves cannulating the same site along the fistula until an epithelialized track has formed from scar tissue. At later HD sessions, duller needles can then be used to cannulate this same track. In contrast, the rope-ladder technique involves cannulating a different site along the fistula until the entire length of the fistula has been used. Patients report higher levels of satisfaction with the buttonhole technique, citing decreased pain, decreased oozing, and the perception of easier cannulation by HD nurses.14 However, the buttonhole technique also appears to confer a higher risk of vascular access-related bloodstream infection when compared with the rope-ladder technique.13,15,16

 

 

The buttonhole technique is hypothesized to increase infection risk due to the repeated use of the same site for needle entry. Skin flora, including CoNS, may colonize the scab that forms after dialysis access. If proper sterilization techniques are not rigorously followed, the bacteria colonizing the scab and adjacent skin may be introduced into a patient’s bloodstream during needle puncture. Loss of skin integrity due to frequent cannulation of the same site may also contribute to this increased infection risk. It is relevant to recall that our patient received HD 5 times weekly using the buttonhole technique. The use of the buttonhole technique, frequency of his HD sessions, unclear sterilization methods, and immune dysfunction related to his uncontrolled T2DM and renal disease all likely contributed to our patient’s bacteremia.

Using topical mupirocin for prophylaxis at the intended buttonhole puncture site has shown promising results in decreasing rates of S aureus bacteremia.17 It is unclear whether this intervention also would be effective against S lugdunensis. Increasing rates of mupirocin resistance have been reported among S lugdunensis isolates in dialysis settings, but further research in this area is warranted.18

There are no established treatment guidelines for S lugdunensis infections. In vitro studies suggest that S lugdunensis is susceptible to a wide variety of antibiotics. The mecA gene is a major determinant of methicillin resistance that is commonly observed among CoNS but is uncommonly seen with S lugdunensis.5 In a study by Tan and colleagues of 106 S lugdunensis isolates, they found that only 5 (4.7%) were mecA positive.19

Vancomycin is generally reasonable for empiric antibiotic coverage of staphylococci while speciation is pending. However, if S lugdunensis is isolated, its favorable susceptibility pattern typically allows for de-escalation to an antistaphylococcal β-lactam, such as oxacillin or nafcillin. In cases of bloodstream infections caused by methicillin-sensitive S aureus, treatment with a β-lactam has demonstrated superiority over vancomycin due to the lower rates of treatment failure and mortality with β-lactams.20,21 It is unknown whether β-lactams is superior for treating bacteremia with methicillin-sensitive S lugdunensis.

Our patient’s isolate of S lugdunensis was pansensitive to all antibiotics tested, including penicillin. These susceptibility data were used to guide the de-escalation of his empiric vancomycin and ceftriaxone to oxacillin on hospital day 1.
figure
Interestingly, our patient’s bacteremia persisted for the first 8 days of his hospitalization despite appropriate dosing of oxacillin (Figure). This phenomenon of prolonged bacteremia has been well described with S aureus.22,23 To our knowledge, only 1 other case report has been published detailing such high-grade bacteremia with S lugdunensis. Duhon and colleagues described a case of persistent S lugdunensis bacteremia that lasted 7 days and was complicated by native aortic valve endocarditis.24 Their patient was initially started on empiric vancomycin and ceftriaxone but later switched to cefazolin on hospital day 4. The authors proposed that the persistent bacteremia may have been from an “inoculum effect,” which is seen when cefazolin loses efficacy against S aureus in vitro when there is a relatively high bacterial burden. However, our patient was not switched to cefazolin until the day of discharge, when his bacteremia had already cleared. We hypothesize instead that continued use of AVF for HD during hospitalization was likely a major contributing factor to our patient’s persistent bacteremia. As his AVF was the suspected source for bacteremia, there was concern that repeated cannulation of the fistula intermittently introduced additional bacteria into the bloodstream between antibiotic doses.
 

 

Due to their virulence, bloodstream infections caused by S aureus and S lugdunensis often require more than timely antimicrobial treatment to ensure eradication. Consultation with an infectious disease specialist to manage patients with S aureus bacteremia has been proven to reduce mortality.25 A similar mortality benefit is seen when infectious disease specialists are consulted for S lugdunensis bacteremia.26 This mortality benefit is likely explained by S lugdunensis’ propensity to cause aggressive, metastatic infections. In such cases, infectious disease consultants may recommend additional imaging (eg, transthoracic echocardiogram) to evaluate for occult sources of infection, advocate for appropriate source control, and guide the selection of an appropriate antibiotic course to ensure resolution of the bacteremia.

Conclusions

S lugdunensis is an increasingly recognized cause of nosocomial bloodstream infections. Given the commonalities in virulence that S lugdunensis shares with S aureus, treatment of bacteremia caused by either species should follow similar management principles: prompt initiation of IV antistaphylococcal therapy, a thorough evaluation for the source(s) of bacteremia as well as metastatic complications, and consultation with an infectious disease specialist. This case report also highlights the importance of considering a patient’s AVF as a potential source for infection even in the absence of localized signs of infection. The buttonhole method of AVF cannulation was thought to be a major contributor to the development and persistence of our patient’s bacteremia. This risk should be discussed with patients using a shared decision-making approach when developing a dialysis treatment plan.

Staphylococcus lugdunensis (S lugdunensis) is a species of coagulase-negative Staphylococcus (CoNS) and a constituent of human skin flora. Unlike other strains of CoNS, however, S lugdunensis has gained notoriety for virulence that resembles Staphylococcus aureus (S aureus). S lugdunensis is now recognized as an important nosocomial pathogen and cause of prosthetic device infections, including vascular catheter infections. We present a case of persistent S lugdunensis bacteremia occurring in a patient on hemodialysis (HD) without any implanted prosthetic materials.

Case Presentation

A 60-year-old man with a history of uncontrolled type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) and end-stage renal disease on home HD via arteriovenous fistula (AVF) presented to the emergency department (ED) for evaluation of subacute progressive low back pain. His symptoms began abruptly 2 weeks prior to presentation without any identifiable trigger or trauma. His pain localized to the lower thoracic spine, radiating anteriorly into his abdomen. He reported tactile fever for several days before presentation but no chills, night sweats, paresthesia, weakness, or bowel/bladder incontinence. He had no recent surgeries, implanted hardware, or invasive procedures involving the spine. HD was performed 5 times a week at home with a family member cannulating his AVF via buttonhole technique. He initially sought evaluation in a community hospital several days prior, where he underwent magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) of the thoracic spine. He was discharged from the community ED with oral opioids prior to the MRI results. He presented to West Los Angeles Veterans Affairs Medical Center (WLAVAMC) ED when MRI results came back indicating abnormalities and he reported recalcitrant pain.

On arrival at WLAVAMC, the patient was afebrile with a heart rate of 107 bpm and blood pressure of 152/97 mm Hg. The remainder of his vital signs were normal. The physical examination revealed midline tenderness on palpation of the distal thoracic and proximal lumbar spine. Muscle strength was 4 of 5 in the bilateral hip flexors, though this was limited by pain. The remainder of his neurologic examination was nonfocal. The cardiac examination was unremarkable with no murmurs auscultated. His left upper extremity AVF had an audible bruit and palpable thrill. The skin examination was notable for acanthosis nigricans but no areas of skin erythema or induration and no obvious stigmata of infective endocarditis.

The initial laboratory workup was remarkable for a white blood cell (WBC) count of 10.0 × 103/µL with left shift, blood urea nitrogen level of 59 mg/dL, and creatinine level of 9.3 mg/dL. The patient’s erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR) was 45 mm/h (reference range, ≤ 20 mm/h) and C-reactive protein level was > 8.0 mg/L (reference range, ≤ 0.74 mg/L). Two months prior the hemoglobin A1c had been recorded at 9.9%.

Given his intractable low back pain and elevated inflammatory markers, the patient underwent an MRI of the thoracic and lumbar spine with contrast while in the ED. This MRI revealed abnormal marrow edema in the T11-T12 vertebrae with abnormal fluid signal in the T11-T12 disc space. Subjacent paravertebral edema also was noted. There was no well-defined fluid collection or abnormal signal in the spinal cord. Taken together, these findings were concerning for T11-T12 discitis with osteomyelitis.

 

 

Two sets of blood cultures were obtained, and empiric IV vancomycin and ceftriaxone were started. Interventional radiology was consulted for consideration of vertebral biopsy but deferred while awaiting blood culture data. Neurosurgery also was consulted and recommended nonoperative management given his nonfocal neurologic examination and imaging without evidence of abscess. Both sets of blood cultures collected on admission later grew methicillin-sensitive S lugdunensis, a species of CoNS. A transthoracic and later transesophageal echocardiogram did not show any valvular vegetations. The patient’s antibiotic regimen was narrowed to IV oxacillin based on susceptibility data. It was later discovered that both blood cultures obtained during his outside ED encounter were also growing S lugdunensis.

The patient’s S lugdunensis bacteremia persisted for the first 8 days of his admission despite appropriate dosing of oxacillin. During this time, the patient remained afebrile with stable vital signs and a normal WBC count. Positron emission tomography was obtained to evaluate for potential sources of his persistent bacteremia. Aside from tracer uptake in the T11-T12 vertebral bodies and intervertebral disc space, no other areas showed suspicious uptake. Neurosurgery reevaluated the patient and again recommended nonoperative management. Blood cultures cleared and based on recommendations from an infectious disease specialist, the patient was transitioned to IV cefazolin dosed 3 times weekly after HD, which was transitioned to an outpatient dialysis center. The patient continued taking cefazolin for 6 weeks with subsequent improvement in back pain and normalization of inflammatory markers at outpatient follow-up.

Discussion

CoNS are a major contributor to human skin flora, a common contaminant of blood cultures, and an important cause of nosocomial bloodstream infections.1,2 These species have a predilection for forming biofilms, making CoNS a major cause of prosthetic device infections.3S lugdunensis is a CoNS species that was first described in 1988.4 In addition to foreign body–related infections, S lugdunensis has been implicated in bone/joint infections, native valve endocarditis, toxic shock syndrome, and brain abscesses.5-8 Infections due to S lugdunensis are notorious for their aggressive and fulminant courses. With its increased virulence that is atypical of other CoNS, S lugdunensis has understandably been likened more to S aureus.

Prior cases have been reported of S lugdunensis bacteremia in patients using HD. However, the suspected source of bacteremia in these cases has generally been central venous catheters.9-12

table
Only 2 cases reported in the medical literature suspected the patient’s AVF to be the source of bacteremia (Table).10,11 Both our patient and the Conner and colleagues case report received HD at home.11 In a retrospective study of dialysis patients with AVFs, bacteremia may be attributable to the AVF even in the absence of localized erythema or induration if no alternative source for the bacteremia is found.13 Our patient lacked any central venous catheters, and after a thorough investigation, the only remaining source for bacteremia was his left upper extremity AVF.

Notably, our patient’s AVF was accessed using the buttonhole technique for his home HD sessions, which involves cannulating the same site along the fistula until an epithelialized track has formed from scar tissue. At later HD sessions, duller needles can then be used to cannulate this same track. In contrast, the rope-ladder technique involves cannulating a different site along the fistula until the entire length of the fistula has been used. Patients report higher levels of satisfaction with the buttonhole technique, citing decreased pain, decreased oozing, and the perception of easier cannulation by HD nurses.14 However, the buttonhole technique also appears to confer a higher risk of vascular access-related bloodstream infection when compared with the rope-ladder technique.13,15,16

 

 

The buttonhole technique is hypothesized to increase infection risk due to the repeated use of the same site for needle entry. Skin flora, including CoNS, may colonize the scab that forms after dialysis access. If proper sterilization techniques are not rigorously followed, the bacteria colonizing the scab and adjacent skin may be introduced into a patient’s bloodstream during needle puncture. Loss of skin integrity due to frequent cannulation of the same site may also contribute to this increased infection risk. It is relevant to recall that our patient received HD 5 times weekly using the buttonhole technique. The use of the buttonhole technique, frequency of his HD sessions, unclear sterilization methods, and immune dysfunction related to his uncontrolled T2DM and renal disease all likely contributed to our patient’s bacteremia.

Using topical mupirocin for prophylaxis at the intended buttonhole puncture site has shown promising results in decreasing rates of S aureus bacteremia.17 It is unclear whether this intervention also would be effective against S lugdunensis. Increasing rates of mupirocin resistance have been reported among S lugdunensis isolates in dialysis settings, but further research in this area is warranted.18

There are no established treatment guidelines for S lugdunensis infections. In vitro studies suggest that S lugdunensis is susceptible to a wide variety of antibiotics. The mecA gene is a major determinant of methicillin resistance that is commonly observed among CoNS but is uncommonly seen with S lugdunensis.5 In a study by Tan and colleagues of 106 S lugdunensis isolates, they found that only 5 (4.7%) were mecA positive.19

Vancomycin is generally reasonable for empiric antibiotic coverage of staphylococci while speciation is pending. However, if S lugdunensis is isolated, its favorable susceptibility pattern typically allows for de-escalation to an antistaphylococcal β-lactam, such as oxacillin or nafcillin. In cases of bloodstream infections caused by methicillin-sensitive S aureus, treatment with a β-lactam has demonstrated superiority over vancomycin due to the lower rates of treatment failure and mortality with β-lactams.20,21 It is unknown whether β-lactams is superior for treating bacteremia with methicillin-sensitive S lugdunensis.

Our patient’s isolate of S lugdunensis was pansensitive to all antibiotics tested, including penicillin. These susceptibility data were used to guide the de-escalation of his empiric vancomycin and ceftriaxone to oxacillin on hospital day 1.
figure
Interestingly, our patient’s bacteremia persisted for the first 8 days of his hospitalization despite appropriate dosing of oxacillin (Figure). This phenomenon of prolonged bacteremia has been well described with S aureus.22,23 To our knowledge, only 1 other case report has been published detailing such high-grade bacteremia with S lugdunensis. Duhon and colleagues described a case of persistent S lugdunensis bacteremia that lasted 7 days and was complicated by native aortic valve endocarditis.24 Their patient was initially started on empiric vancomycin and ceftriaxone but later switched to cefazolin on hospital day 4. The authors proposed that the persistent bacteremia may have been from an “inoculum effect,” which is seen when cefazolin loses efficacy against S aureus in vitro when there is a relatively high bacterial burden. However, our patient was not switched to cefazolin until the day of discharge, when his bacteremia had already cleared. We hypothesize instead that continued use of AVF for HD during hospitalization was likely a major contributing factor to our patient’s persistent bacteremia. As his AVF was the suspected source for bacteremia, there was concern that repeated cannulation of the fistula intermittently introduced additional bacteria into the bloodstream between antibiotic doses.
 

 

Due to their virulence, bloodstream infections caused by S aureus and S lugdunensis often require more than timely antimicrobial treatment to ensure eradication. Consultation with an infectious disease specialist to manage patients with S aureus bacteremia has been proven to reduce mortality.25 A similar mortality benefit is seen when infectious disease specialists are consulted for S lugdunensis bacteremia.26 This mortality benefit is likely explained by S lugdunensis’ propensity to cause aggressive, metastatic infections. In such cases, infectious disease consultants may recommend additional imaging (eg, transthoracic echocardiogram) to evaluate for occult sources of infection, advocate for appropriate source control, and guide the selection of an appropriate antibiotic course to ensure resolution of the bacteremia.

Conclusions

S lugdunensis is an increasingly recognized cause of nosocomial bloodstream infections. Given the commonalities in virulence that S lugdunensis shares with S aureus, treatment of bacteremia caused by either species should follow similar management principles: prompt initiation of IV antistaphylococcal therapy, a thorough evaluation for the source(s) of bacteremia as well as metastatic complications, and consultation with an infectious disease specialist. This case report also highlights the importance of considering a patient’s AVF as a potential source for infection even in the absence of localized signs of infection. The buttonhole method of AVF cannulation was thought to be a major contributor to the development and persistence of our patient’s bacteremia. This risk should be discussed with patients using a shared decision-making approach when developing a dialysis treatment plan.

References

1. Huebner J, Goldmann DA. Coagulase-negative staphylococci: role as pathogens. Annu Rev Med. 1999;50(1):223-236. doi:10.1146/annurev.med.50.1.223

2. Beekmann SE, Diekema DJ, Doern GV. Determining the clinical significance of coagulase-negative staphylococci isolated from blood cultures. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2005;26(6):559-566. doi:10.1086/502584

3. Arrecubieta C, Toba FA, von Bayern M, et al. SdrF, a Staphylococcus epidermidis surface protein, contributes to the initiation of ventricular assist device driveline–related infections. PLoS Pathog. 2009;5(5):e1000411. doi.10.1371/journal.ppat.1000411

4. Freney J, Brun Y, Bes M, et al. Staphylococcus lugdunensis sp. nov. and Staphylococcus schleiferi sp. nov., two species from human clinical specimens. Int J Syst Bacteriol. 1988;38(2):168-172. doi:10.1099/00207713-38-2-168

5. Frank KL, del Pozo JL, Patel R. From clinical microbiology to infection pathogenesis: how daring to be different works for Staphylococcus lugdunensis. Clin Microbiol Rev. 2008;21(1):111-133. doi:10.1128/CMR.00036-07

6. Anguera I, Del Río A, Miró JM; Hospital Clinic Endocarditis Study Group. Staphylococcus lugdunensis infective endocarditis: description of 10 cases and analysis of native valve, prosthetic valve, and pacemaker lead endocarditis clinical profiles. Heart. 2005;91(2):e10. doi:10.1136/hrt.2004.040659

7. Pareja J, Gupta K, Koziel H. The toxic shock syndrome and Staphylococcus lugdunensis bacteremia. Ann Intern Med. 1998;128(7):603-604. doi:10.7326/0003-4819-128-7-199804010-00029

8. Woznowski M, Quack I, Bölke E, et al. Fulminant Staphylococcus lugdunensis septicaemia following a pelvic varicella-zoster virus infection in an immune-deficient patient: a case report. Eur J Med Res. 201;15(9):410-414. doi:10.1186/2047-783x-15-9-410

9. Mallappallil M, Salifu M, Woredekal Y, et al. Staphylococcus lugdunensis bacteremia in hemodialysis patients. Int J Microbiol Res. 2012;4(2):178-181. doi:10.9735/0975-5276.4.2.178-181

10. Shuttleworth R, Colby W. Staphylococcus lugdunensis endocarditis. J Clin Microbiol. 1992;30(8):5. doi:10.1128/jcm.30.8.1948-1952.1992

11. Conner RC, Byrnes TJ, Clough LA, Myers JP. Staphylococcus lugdunensis tricuspid valve endocarditis associated with home hemodialysis therapy: report of a case and review of the literature. Infect Dis Clin Pract. 2012;20(3):182-183. doi:1097/IPC.0b013e318245d4f1

12. Kamaraju S, Nelson K, Williams D, Ayenew W, Modi K. Staphylococcus lugdunensis pulmonary valve endocarditis in a patient on chronic hemodialysis. Am J Nephrol. 1999;19(5):605-608. doi:1097/IPC.0b013e318245d4f1

13. Lok C, Sontrop J, Faratro R, Chan C, Zimmerman DL. Frequent hemodialysis fistula infectious complications. Nephron Extra. 2014;4(3):159-167. doi:10.1159/000366477

14. Hashmi A, Cheema MQ, Moss AH. Hemodialysis patients’ experience with and attitudes toward the buttonhole technique for arteriovenous fistula cannulation. Clin Nephrol. 2010;74(5):346-350. doi:10.5414/cnp74346

15. Lyman M, Nguyen DB, Shugart A, Gruhler H, Lines C, Patel PR. Risk of vascular access infection associated with buttonhole cannulation of fistulas: data from the National Healthcare Safety Network. Am J Kidney Dis. 2020;76(1):82-89. doi:10.1053/j.ajkd.2019.11.006

16. MacRae JM, Ahmed SB, Atkar R, Hemmelgarn BR. A randomized trial comparing buttonhole with rope ladder needling in conventional hemodialysis patients. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol. 2012;7(10):1632-1638. doi:10.2215/CJN.02730312

17. Nesrallah GE, Cuerden M, Wong JHS, Pierratos A. Staphylococcus aureus bacteremia and buttonhole cannulation: long-term safety and efficacy of mupirocin prophylaxis. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol. 2010;5(6):1047-1053. doi:10.2215/CJN.00280110

18. Ho PL, Liu MCJ, Chow KH, et al. Emergence of ileS2 -carrying, multidrug-resistant plasmids in Staphylococcus lugdunensis. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2016;60(10):6411-6414. doi:10.1128/AAC.00948-16

19. Tan TY, Ng SY, He J. Microbiological characteristics, presumptive identification, and antibiotic susceptibilities of Staphylococcus lugdunensis. J Clin Microbiol. 2008;46(7):2393-2395. doi:10.1128/JCM.00740-08

20. Chang FY, Peacock JE, Musher DM, et al. Staphylococcus aureus bacteremia: recurrence and the impact of antibiotic treatment in a prospective multicenter study. Medicine (Baltimore). 2003;82(5):333-339. doi:10.1097/01.md.0000091184.93122.09

21. Shurland S, Zhan M, Bradham DD, Roghmann MC. Comparison of mortality risk associated with bacteremia due to methicillin-resistant and methicillin-susceptible Staphylococcus aureus. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2007;28(3):273-279. doi:10.1086/512627

22. Levine DP, Fromm BS, Reddy BR. Slow response to vancomycin or vancomycin plus rifampin in methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus endocarditis. Ann Intern Med. 1991;115(9):674. doi:10.7326/0003-4819-115-9-674

23. Fowler VG, Karchmer AW, Tally FP, et al; S. aureus Endocarditis and Bacteremia Study Group. Daptomycin versus standard therapy for bacteremia and endocarditis caused by Staphylococcus aureus. N Engl J Med. 2006;355(7):653-665 . doi:10.1056/NEJMoa053783

24. Duhon B, Dallas S, Velasquez ST, Hand E. Staphylococcus lugdunensis bacteremia and endocarditis treated with cefazolin and rifampin. Am J Health Syst Pharm. 2015;72(13):1114-1118. doi:10.2146/ajhp140498

25. Lahey T, Shah R, Gittzus J, Schwartzman J, Kirkland K. Infectious diseases consultation lowers mortality from Staphylococcus aureus bacteremia. Medicine (Baltimore). 2009;88(5):263-267. doi:10.1097/MD.0b013e3181b8fccb

26. Forsblom E, Högnäs E, Syrjänen J, Järvinen A. Infectious diseases specialist consultation in Staphylococcus lugdunensis bacteremia. PLoS ONE. 2021;16(10):e0258511. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0258511

References

1. Huebner J, Goldmann DA. Coagulase-negative staphylococci: role as pathogens. Annu Rev Med. 1999;50(1):223-236. doi:10.1146/annurev.med.50.1.223

2. Beekmann SE, Diekema DJ, Doern GV. Determining the clinical significance of coagulase-negative staphylococci isolated from blood cultures. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2005;26(6):559-566. doi:10.1086/502584

3. Arrecubieta C, Toba FA, von Bayern M, et al. SdrF, a Staphylococcus epidermidis surface protein, contributes to the initiation of ventricular assist device driveline–related infections. PLoS Pathog. 2009;5(5):e1000411. doi.10.1371/journal.ppat.1000411

4. Freney J, Brun Y, Bes M, et al. Staphylococcus lugdunensis sp. nov. and Staphylococcus schleiferi sp. nov., two species from human clinical specimens. Int J Syst Bacteriol. 1988;38(2):168-172. doi:10.1099/00207713-38-2-168

5. Frank KL, del Pozo JL, Patel R. From clinical microbiology to infection pathogenesis: how daring to be different works for Staphylococcus lugdunensis. Clin Microbiol Rev. 2008;21(1):111-133. doi:10.1128/CMR.00036-07

6. Anguera I, Del Río A, Miró JM; Hospital Clinic Endocarditis Study Group. Staphylococcus lugdunensis infective endocarditis: description of 10 cases and analysis of native valve, prosthetic valve, and pacemaker lead endocarditis clinical profiles. Heart. 2005;91(2):e10. doi:10.1136/hrt.2004.040659

7. Pareja J, Gupta K, Koziel H. The toxic shock syndrome and Staphylococcus lugdunensis bacteremia. Ann Intern Med. 1998;128(7):603-604. doi:10.7326/0003-4819-128-7-199804010-00029

8. Woznowski M, Quack I, Bölke E, et al. Fulminant Staphylococcus lugdunensis septicaemia following a pelvic varicella-zoster virus infection in an immune-deficient patient: a case report. Eur J Med Res. 201;15(9):410-414. doi:10.1186/2047-783x-15-9-410

9. Mallappallil M, Salifu M, Woredekal Y, et al. Staphylococcus lugdunensis bacteremia in hemodialysis patients. Int J Microbiol Res. 2012;4(2):178-181. doi:10.9735/0975-5276.4.2.178-181

10. Shuttleworth R, Colby W. Staphylococcus lugdunensis endocarditis. J Clin Microbiol. 1992;30(8):5. doi:10.1128/jcm.30.8.1948-1952.1992

11. Conner RC, Byrnes TJ, Clough LA, Myers JP. Staphylococcus lugdunensis tricuspid valve endocarditis associated with home hemodialysis therapy: report of a case and review of the literature. Infect Dis Clin Pract. 2012;20(3):182-183. doi:1097/IPC.0b013e318245d4f1

12. Kamaraju S, Nelson K, Williams D, Ayenew W, Modi K. Staphylococcus lugdunensis pulmonary valve endocarditis in a patient on chronic hemodialysis. Am J Nephrol. 1999;19(5):605-608. doi:1097/IPC.0b013e318245d4f1

13. Lok C, Sontrop J, Faratro R, Chan C, Zimmerman DL. Frequent hemodialysis fistula infectious complications. Nephron Extra. 2014;4(3):159-167. doi:10.1159/000366477

14. Hashmi A, Cheema MQ, Moss AH. Hemodialysis patients’ experience with and attitudes toward the buttonhole technique for arteriovenous fistula cannulation. Clin Nephrol. 2010;74(5):346-350. doi:10.5414/cnp74346

15. Lyman M, Nguyen DB, Shugart A, Gruhler H, Lines C, Patel PR. Risk of vascular access infection associated with buttonhole cannulation of fistulas: data from the National Healthcare Safety Network. Am J Kidney Dis. 2020;76(1):82-89. doi:10.1053/j.ajkd.2019.11.006

16. MacRae JM, Ahmed SB, Atkar R, Hemmelgarn BR. A randomized trial comparing buttonhole with rope ladder needling in conventional hemodialysis patients. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol. 2012;7(10):1632-1638. doi:10.2215/CJN.02730312

17. Nesrallah GE, Cuerden M, Wong JHS, Pierratos A. Staphylococcus aureus bacteremia and buttonhole cannulation: long-term safety and efficacy of mupirocin prophylaxis. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol. 2010;5(6):1047-1053. doi:10.2215/CJN.00280110

18. Ho PL, Liu MCJ, Chow KH, et al. Emergence of ileS2 -carrying, multidrug-resistant plasmids in Staphylococcus lugdunensis. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2016;60(10):6411-6414. doi:10.1128/AAC.00948-16

19. Tan TY, Ng SY, He J. Microbiological characteristics, presumptive identification, and antibiotic susceptibilities of Staphylococcus lugdunensis. J Clin Microbiol. 2008;46(7):2393-2395. doi:10.1128/JCM.00740-08

20. Chang FY, Peacock JE, Musher DM, et al. Staphylococcus aureus bacteremia: recurrence and the impact of antibiotic treatment in a prospective multicenter study. Medicine (Baltimore). 2003;82(5):333-339. doi:10.1097/01.md.0000091184.93122.09

21. Shurland S, Zhan M, Bradham DD, Roghmann MC. Comparison of mortality risk associated with bacteremia due to methicillin-resistant and methicillin-susceptible Staphylococcus aureus. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2007;28(3):273-279. doi:10.1086/512627

22. Levine DP, Fromm BS, Reddy BR. Slow response to vancomycin or vancomycin plus rifampin in methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus endocarditis. Ann Intern Med. 1991;115(9):674. doi:10.7326/0003-4819-115-9-674

23. Fowler VG, Karchmer AW, Tally FP, et al; S. aureus Endocarditis and Bacteremia Study Group. Daptomycin versus standard therapy for bacteremia and endocarditis caused by Staphylococcus aureus. N Engl J Med. 2006;355(7):653-665 . doi:10.1056/NEJMoa053783

24. Duhon B, Dallas S, Velasquez ST, Hand E. Staphylococcus lugdunensis bacteremia and endocarditis treated with cefazolin and rifampin. Am J Health Syst Pharm. 2015;72(13):1114-1118. doi:10.2146/ajhp140498

25. Lahey T, Shah R, Gittzus J, Schwartzman J, Kirkland K. Infectious diseases consultation lowers mortality from Staphylococcus aureus bacteremia. Medicine (Baltimore). 2009;88(5):263-267. doi:10.1097/MD.0b013e3181b8fccb

26. Forsblom E, Högnäs E, Syrjänen J, Järvinen A. Infectious diseases specialist consultation in Staphylococcus lugdunensis bacteremia. PLoS ONE. 2021;16(10):e0258511. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0258511

Issue
Federal Practitioner - 40(4)a
Issue
Federal Practitioner - 40(4)a
Page Number
123-127
Page Number
123-127
Publications
Publications
Topics
Article Type
Sections
Disallow All Ads
Content Gating
No Gating (article Unlocked/Free)
Alternative CME
Disqus Comments
Default
Use ProPublica
Hide sidebar & use full width
render the right sidebar.
Conference Recap Checkbox
Not Conference Recap
Clinical Edge
Display the Slideshow in this Article
Medscape Article
Display survey writer
Reuters content
Disable Inline Native ads
WebMD Article
Article PDF Media

Antimicrobial resistance requires a manifold response

Article Type
Changed
Wed, 04/12/2023 - 09:52

– 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.

Publications
Topics
Sections

– 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.

– 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.

Publications
Publications
Topics
Article Type
Sections
Disallow All Ads
Content Gating
No Gating (article Unlocked/Free)
Alternative CME
Disqus Comments
Default
Use ProPublica
Hide sidebar & use full width
render the right sidebar.
Conference Recap Checkbox
Not Conference Recap
Clinical Edge
Display the Slideshow in this Article
Medscape Article
Display survey writer
Reuters content
Disable Inline Native ads
WebMD Article

Lack of food for thought: Starve a bacterium, feed an infection

Article Type
Changed
Thu, 04/06/2023 - 09:16

 

A whole new, tiny level of hangry

Ever been so hungry that everything just got on your nerves? Maybe you feel a little snappy right now? Like you’ll just lash out unless you get something to eat? Been there. And so have bacteria.

New research shows that some bacteria go into a full-on Hulk smash if they’re not getting the nutrients they need by releasing toxins into the body. Sounds like a bacterial temper tantrum.

Rosenthal et al.
Can you spot the hangry cell?

Even though two cells may be genetically identical, they don’t always behave the same in a bacterial community. Some do their job and stay in line, but some evil twins rage out and make people sick by releasing toxins into the environment, Adam Rosenthal, PhD, of the University of North Carolina and his colleagues discovered.

To figure out why some cells were all business as usual while others were not, the investigators looked at Clostridium perfringens, a bacterium found in the intestines of humans and other vertebrates. When the C. perfringens cells were fed a little acetate to munch on, the hangry cells calmed down faster than a kid with a bag of fruit snacks, reducing toxin levels. Some cells even disappeared, falling in line with their model-citizen counterparts.

So what does this really mean? More research, duh. Now that we know nutrients play a role in toxicity, it may open the door to finding a way to fight against antibiotic resistance in humans and reduce antibiotic use in the food industry.

So think to yourself. Are you bothered for no reason? Getting a little testy with your friends and coworkers? Maybe you just haven’t eaten in a while. You’re literally not alone. Even a single-cell organism can behave based on its hunger levels.

Now go have a snack. Your bacteria are getting restless.
 

The very hangry iguana?

Imagine yourself on a warm, sunny tropical beach. You are enjoying a piece of cake as you take in the slow beat of the waves lapping against the shore. Life is as good as it could be.

Then you feel a presence nearby. Hostility. Hunger. A set of feral, covetous eyes in the nearby jungle. A reptilian beast stalks you, and its all-encompassing sweet tooth desires your cake.

Wait, hold on, what?

As an unfortunate 3-year-old on vacation in Costa Rica found out, there’s at least one iguana in the world out there with a taste for sugar (better than a taste for blood, we suppose).

Ulrike Mai/Pixabay

While out on the beach, the lizard darted out of nowhere, bit the girl on the back of the hand, and stole her cake. Still not the worst party guest ever. The child was taken to a local clinic, where the wound was cleaned and a 5-day antibiotic treatment (lizards carry salmonella) was provided. Things seemed fine, and the girl returned home without incident.

But of course, that’s not the end of the story. Five months later, the girl’s parents noticed a red bump at the wound site. Over the next 3 months, the surrounding skin grew red and painful. A trip to the hospital in California revealed that she had a ganglion cyst and a discharge of pus. Turns out our cake-obsessed lizard friend did give the little girl a gift: the first known human case of Mycobacterium marinum infection following an iguana bite on record.

M. marinum, which causes a disease similar to tuberculosis, typically infects fish but can infect humans if skin wounds are exposed to contaminated water. It’s also resistant to most antibiotics, which is why the first round didn’t clear up the infection. A second round of more-potent antibiotics seems to be working well.

So, to sum up, this poor child got bitten by a lizard, had her cake stolen, and contracted a rare illness in exchange. For a 3-year-old, that’s gotta be in the top-10 worst days ever. Unless, of course, we’re actually living in the Marvel universe (sorry, multiverse at this point). Then we’re totally going to see the emergence of the new superhero Iguana Girl in 15 years or so. Keep your eyes open.
 

 

 

No allergies? Let them give up cake

Allergy season is already here – starting earlier every year, it seems – and many people are not happy about it. So unhappy, actually, that there’s a list of things they would be willing to give up for a year to get rid of their of allergies, according to a survey conducted by OnePoll on behalf of Flonase.

nicoletaionescu/Getty Images

Nearly 40% of 2,000 respondents with allergies would go a year without eating cake or chocolate or playing video games in exchange for allergy-free status, the survey results show. Almost as many would forgo coffee (38%) or pizza (37%) for a year, while 36% would stay off social media and 31% would take a pay cut or give up their smartphones, the Independent reported.

More than half of the allergic Americans – 54%, to be exact – who were polled this past winter – Feb. 24 to March 1, to be exact – consider allergy symptoms to be the most frustrating part of the spring. Annoying things that were less frustrating to the group included mosquitoes (41%), filing tax returns (38%), and daylight savings time (37%).

The Trump arraignment circus, of course, occurred too late to make the list, as did the big “We’re going back to the office! No wait, we’re closing the office forever!” email extravaganza and emotional roller coaster. That second one, however, did not get nearly as much media coverage.

Publications
Topics
Sections

 

A whole new, tiny level of hangry

Ever been so hungry that everything just got on your nerves? Maybe you feel a little snappy right now? Like you’ll just lash out unless you get something to eat? Been there. And so have bacteria.

New research shows that some bacteria go into a full-on Hulk smash if they’re not getting the nutrients they need by releasing toxins into the body. Sounds like a bacterial temper tantrum.

Rosenthal et al.
Can you spot the hangry cell?

Even though two cells may be genetically identical, they don’t always behave the same in a bacterial community. Some do their job and stay in line, but some evil twins rage out and make people sick by releasing toxins into the environment, Adam Rosenthal, PhD, of the University of North Carolina and his colleagues discovered.

To figure out why some cells were all business as usual while others were not, the investigators looked at Clostridium perfringens, a bacterium found in the intestines of humans and other vertebrates. When the C. perfringens cells were fed a little acetate to munch on, the hangry cells calmed down faster than a kid with a bag of fruit snacks, reducing toxin levels. Some cells even disappeared, falling in line with their model-citizen counterparts.

So what does this really mean? More research, duh. Now that we know nutrients play a role in toxicity, it may open the door to finding a way to fight against antibiotic resistance in humans and reduce antibiotic use in the food industry.

So think to yourself. Are you bothered for no reason? Getting a little testy with your friends and coworkers? Maybe you just haven’t eaten in a while. You’re literally not alone. Even a single-cell organism can behave based on its hunger levels.

Now go have a snack. Your bacteria are getting restless.
 

The very hangry iguana?

Imagine yourself on a warm, sunny tropical beach. You are enjoying a piece of cake as you take in the slow beat of the waves lapping against the shore. Life is as good as it could be.

Then you feel a presence nearby. Hostility. Hunger. A set of feral, covetous eyes in the nearby jungle. A reptilian beast stalks you, and its all-encompassing sweet tooth desires your cake.

Wait, hold on, what?

As an unfortunate 3-year-old on vacation in Costa Rica found out, there’s at least one iguana in the world out there with a taste for sugar (better than a taste for blood, we suppose).

Ulrike Mai/Pixabay

While out on the beach, the lizard darted out of nowhere, bit the girl on the back of the hand, and stole her cake. Still not the worst party guest ever. The child was taken to a local clinic, where the wound was cleaned and a 5-day antibiotic treatment (lizards carry salmonella) was provided. Things seemed fine, and the girl returned home without incident.

But of course, that’s not the end of the story. Five months later, the girl’s parents noticed a red bump at the wound site. Over the next 3 months, the surrounding skin grew red and painful. A trip to the hospital in California revealed that she had a ganglion cyst and a discharge of pus. Turns out our cake-obsessed lizard friend did give the little girl a gift: the first known human case of Mycobacterium marinum infection following an iguana bite on record.

M. marinum, which causes a disease similar to tuberculosis, typically infects fish but can infect humans if skin wounds are exposed to contaminated water. It’s also resistant to most antibiotics, which is why the first round didn’t clear up the infection. A second round of more-potent antibiotics seems to be working well.

So, to sum up, this poor child got bitten by a lizard, had her cake stolen, and contracted a rare illness in exchange. For a 3-year-old, that’s gotta be in the top-10 worst days ever. Unless, of course, we’re actually living in the Marvel universe (sorry, multiverse at this point). Then we’re totally going to see the emergence of the new superhero Iguana Girl in 15 years or so. Keep your eyes open.
 

 

 

No allergies? Let them give up cake

Allergy season is already here – starting earlier every year, it seems – and many people are not happy about it. So unhappy, actually, that there’s a list of things they would be willing to give up for a year to get rid of their of allergies, according to a survey conducted by OnePoll on behalf of Flonase.

nicoletaionescu/Getty Images

Nearly 40% of 2,000 respondents with allergies would go a year without eating cake or chocolate or playing video games in exchange for allergy-free status, the survey results show. Almost as many would forgo coffee (38%) or pizza (37%) for a year, while 36% would stay off social media and 31% would take a pay cut or give up their smartphones, the Independent reported.

More than half of the allergic Americans – 54%, to be exact – who were polled this past winter – Feb. 24 to March 1, to be exact – consider allergy symptoms to be the most frustrating part of the spring. Annoying things that were less frustrating to the group included mosquitoes (41%), filing tax returns (38%), and daylight savings time (37%).

The Trump arraignment circus, of course, occurred too late to make the list, as did the big “We’re going back to the office! No wait, we’re closing the office forever!” email extravaganza and emotional roller coaster. That second one, however, did not get nearly as much media coverage.

 

A whole new, tiny level of hangry

Ever been so hungry that everything just got on your nerves? Maybe you feel a little snappy right now? Like you’ll just lash out unless you get something to eat? Been there. And so have bacteria.

New research shows that some bacteria go into a full-on Hulk smash if they’re not getting the nutrients they need by releasing toxins into the body. Sounds like a bacterial temper tantrum.

Rosenthal et al.
Can you spot the hangry cell?

Even though two cells may be genetically identical, they don’t always behave the same in a bacterial community. Some do their job and stay in line, but some evil twins rage out and make people sick by releasing toxins into the environment, Adam Rosenthal, PhD, of the University of North Carolina and his colleagues discovered.

To figure out why some cells were all business as usual while others were not, the investigators looked at Clostridium perfringens, a bacterium found in the intestines of humans and other vertebrates. When the C. perfringens cells were fed a little acetate to munch on, the hangry cells calmed down faster than a kid with a bag of fruit snacks, reducing toxin levels. Some cells even disappeared, falling in line with their model-citizen counterparts.

So what does this really mean? More research, duh. Now that we know nutrients play a role in toxicity, it may open the door to finding a way to fight against antibiotic resistance in humans and reduce antibiotic use in the food industry.

So think to yourself. Are you bothered for no reason? Getting a little testy with your friends and coworkers? Maybe you just haven’t eaten in a while. You’re literally not alone. Even a single-cell organism can behave based on its hunger levels.

Now go have a snack. Your bacteria are getting restless.
 

The very hangry iguana?

Imagine yourself on a warm, sunny tropical beach. You are enjoying a piece of cake as you take in the slow beat of the waves lapping against the shore. Life is as good as it could be.

Then you feel a presence nearby. Hostility. Hunger. A set of feral, covetous eyes in the nearby jungle. A reptilian beast stalks you, and its all-encompassing sweet tooth desires your cake.

Wait, hold on, what?

As an unfortunate 3-year-old on vacation in Costa Rica found out, there’s at least one iguana in the world out there with a taste for sugar (better than a taste for blood, we suppose).

Ulrike Mai/Pixabay

While out on the beach, the lizard darted out of nowhere, bit the girl on the back of the hand, and stole her cake. Still not the worst party guest ever. The child was taken to a local clinic, where the wound was cleaned and a 5-day antibiotic treatment (lizards carry salmonella) was provided. Things seemed fine, and the girl returned home without incident.

But of course, that’s not the end of the story. Five months later, the girl’s parents noticed a red bump at the wound site. Over the next 3 months, the surrounding skin grew red and painful. A trip to the hospital in California revealed that she had a ganglion cyst and a discharge of pus. Turns out our cake-obsessed lizard friend did give the little girl a gift: the first known human case of Mycobacterium marinum infection following an iguana bite on record.

M. marinum, which causes a disease similar to tuberculosis, typically infects fish but can infect humans if skin wounds are exposed to contaminated water. It’s also resistant to most antibiotics, which is why the first round didn’t clear up the infection. A second round of more-potent antibiotics seems to be working well.

So, to sum up, this poor child got bitten by a lizard, had her cake stolen, and contracted a rare illness in exchange. For a 3-year-old, that’s gotta be in the top-10 worst days ever. Unless, of course, we’re actually living in the Marvel universe (sorry, multiverse at this point). Then we’re totally going to see the emergence of the new superhero Iguana Girl in 15 years or so. Keep your eyes open.
 

 

 

No allergies? Let them give up cake

Allergy season is already here – starting earlier every year, it seems – and many people are not happy about it. So unhappy, actually, that there’s a list of things they would be willing to give up for a year to get rid of their of allergies, according to a survey conducted by OnePoll on behalf of Flonase.

nicoletaionescu/Getty Images

Nearly 40% of 2,000 respondents with allergies would go a year without eating cake or chocolate or playing video games in exchange for allergy-free status, the survey results show. Almost as many would forgo coffee (38%) or pizza (37%) for a year, while 36% would stay off social media and 31% would take a pay cut or give up their smartphones, the Independent reported.

More than half of the allergic Americans – 54%, to be exact – who were polled this past winter – Feb. 24 to March 1, to be exact – consider allergy symptoms to be the most frustrating part of the spring. Annoying things that were less frustrating to the group included mosquitoes (41%), filing tax returns (38%), and daylight savings time (37%).

The Trump arraignment circus, of course, occurred too late to make the list, as did the big “We’re going back to the office! No wait, we’re closing the office forever!” email extravaganza and emotional roller coaster. That second one, however, did not get nearly as much media coverage.

Publications
Publications
Topics
Article Type
Sections
Disallow All Ads
Content Gating
No Gating (article Unlocked/Free)
Alternative CME
Disqus Comments
Default
Use ProPublica
Hide sidebar & use full width
render the right sidebar.
Conference Recap Checkbox
Not Conference Recap
Clinical Edge
Display the Slideshow in this Article
Medscape Article
Display survey writer
Reuters content
Disable Inline Native ads
WebMD Article

SARS-CoV-2 crosses placenta and infects brains of two infants: ‘This is a first’

Article Type
Changed
Mon, 04/10/2023 - 10:39

Researchers have found for the first time that COVID infection has crossed the placenta and caused brain damage in two newborns, according to a study published online today in Pediatrics .

One of the infants died at 13 months and the other remained in hospice care at time of manuscript submission.

Lead author Merline Benny, MD, with the division of neonatology, department of pediatrics at University of Miami, and colleagues briefed reporters today ahead of the release.

Zelda Calvert
Dr. Shahnaz Duara

This is a first,” said senior author Shahnaz Duara, MD, medical director of the Neonatal Intensive Care Unit at Holtz Children’s Hospital, Miami, explaining it is the first study to confirm cross-placental SARS-CoV-2 transmission leading to brain injury in a newborn.
 

Both infants negative for the virus at birth

The two infants were admitted in the early days of the pandemic in the Delta wave to the neonatal ICU at Holtz Children’s Hospital at University of Miami/Jackson Memorial Medical Center.

Both infants tested negative for the virus at birth, but had significantly elevated SARS-CoV-2 antibodies in their blood, indicating that either antibodies crossed the placenta, or the virus crossed and the immune response was the baby’s.

Dr. Benny explained that the researchers have seen, to this point, more than 700 mother/infant pairs in whom the mother tested positive for COVID in Jackson hospital.

Most who tested positive for COVID were asymptomatic and most of the mothers and infants left the hospital without complications.

However, (these) two babies had a very unusual clinical picture,” Dr. Benny said.

Those infants were born to mothers who became COVID positive in the second trimester and delivered a few weeks later.

Seizures started on day 1 of life

The babies began to seize from the first day of life. They had profound low tone (hypotonia) in their clinical exam, Dr. Benny explained.

“We had absolutely no good explanation for the early seizures and the degree of brain injury we saw,” Dr. Duara said.

Dr. Benny said that as their bodies grew, they had very small head circumference. Unlike some babies born with the Zika virus, these babies were not microcephalic at birth. Brain imaging on the two babies indicated significant brain atrophy, and neurodevelopment exams showed significant delay.

Discussions began with the center’s multidisciplinary team including neurologists, pathologists, neuroradiologists, and obstetricians who cared for both the mothers and the babies.

The experts examined the placentas and found some characteristic COVID changes and presence of the COVID virus. This was accompanied by increased markers for inflammation and a severe reduction in a hormone critical for placental health and brain development.

Examining the infant’s autopsy findings further raised suspicions of maternal transmission, something that had not been documented before.

Coauthor Ali G. Saad, MD, pediatric and perinatal pathology director at Miami, said, “I have seen literally thousands of brains in autopsies over the last 14 years, and this was the most dramatic case of leukoencephalopathy or loss of white matter in a patient with no significant reason. That’s what triggered the investigation.”
 

 

 

Mothers had very different presentations

Coauthor Michael J. Paidas, MD, with the department of obstetrics, gynecology, and reproductive sciences at Miami, pointed out that the circumstances of the two mothers, who were in their 20s, were very different.

One mother delivered at 32 weeks and had a very severe COVID presentation and spent a month in the intensive care unit. The team decided to deliver the child to save the mother, Dr. Paidas said.

In contrast, the other mother had asymptomatic COVID infection in the second trimester and delivered at full term.

He said one of the early suspicions in the babies’ presentations was hypoxic ischemic encephalopathy. “But it wasn’t lack of blood flow to the placenta that caused this,” he said. “As best we can tell, it was the viral infection.”
 

Instances are rare

The researchers emphasized that these instances are rare and have not been seen before or since the period of this study to their knowledge.

Dr. Duara said, “This is something we want to alert the medical community to more than the general public. We do not want the lay public to be panicked. We’re trying to understand what made these two pregnancies different, so we can direct research towards protecting vulnerable babies.”

Previous data have indicated a relatively benign status in infants who test negative for the COVID virus after birth. Dr. Benny added that COVID vaccination has been found safe in pregnancy and both vaccination and breastfeeding can help passage of antibodies to the infant and help protect the baby. Because these cases happened in the early days of the pandemic, no vaccines were available.

Dr. Paidas received funding from BioIncept to study hypoxic-ischemic encephalopathy with Preimplantation Factor, is a scientific advisory board member, and has stock options. Dr. Paidas and coauthor Dr. Jayakumar are coinventors of SPIKENET, University of Miami, patent pending 2023. The other authors have no conflicts of interest to disclose.

Publications
Topics
Sections

Researchers have found for the first time that COVID infection has crossed the placenta and caused brain damage in two newborns, according to a study published online today in Pediatrics .

One of the infants died at 13 months and the other remained in hospice care at time of manuscript submission.

Lead author Merline Benny, MD, with the division of neonatology, department of pediatrics at University of Miami, and colleagues briefed reporters today ahead of the release.

Zelda Calvert
Dr. Shahnaz Duara

This is a first,” said senior author Shahnaz Duara, MD, medical director of the Neonatal Intensive Care Unit at Holtz Children’s Hospital, Miami, explaining it is the first study to confirm cross-placental SARS-CoV-2 transmission leading to brain injury in a newborn.
 

Both infants negative for the virus at birth

The two infants were admitted in the early days of the pandemic in the Delta wave to the neonatal ICU at Holtz Children’s Hospital at University of Miami/Jackson Memorial Medical Center.

Both infants tested negative for the virus at birth, but had significantly elevated SARS-CoV-2 antibodies in their blood, indicating that either antibodies crossed the placenta, or the virus crossed and the immune response was the baby’s.

Dr. Benny explained that the researchers have seen, to this point, more than 700 mother/infant pairs in whom the mother tested positive for COVID in Jackson hospital.

Most who tested positive for COVID were asymptomatic and most of the mothers and infants left the hospital without complications.

However, (these) two babies had a very unusual clinical picture,” Dr. Benny said.

Those infants were born to mothers who became COVID positive in the second trimester and delivered a few weeks later.

Seizures started on day 1 of life

The babies began to seize from the first day of life. They had profound low tone (hypotonia) in their clinical exam, Dr. Benny explained.

“We had absolutely no good explanation for the early seizures and the degree of brain injury we saw,” Dr. Duara said.

Dr. Benny said that as their bodies grew, they had very small head circumference. Unlike some babies born with the Zika virus, these babies were not microcephalic at birth. Brain imaging on the two babies indicated significant brain atrophy, and neurodevelopment exams showed significant delay.

Discussions began with the center’s multidisciplinary team including neurologists, pathologists, neuroradiologists, and obstetricians who cared for both the mothers and the babies.

The experts examined the placentas and found some characteristic COVID changes and presence of the COVID virus. This was accompanied by increased markers for inflammation and a severe reduction in a hormone critical for placental health and brain development.

Examining the infant’s autopsy findings further raised suspicions of maternal transmission, something that had not been documented before.

Coauthor Ali G. Saad, MD, pediatric and perinatal pathology director at Miami, said, “I have seen literally thousands of brains in autopsies over the last 14 years, and this was the most dramatic case of leukoencephalopathy or loss of white matter in a patient with no significant reason. That’s what triggered the investigation.”
 

 

 

Mothers had very different presentations

Coauthor Michael J. Paidas, MD, with the department of obstetrics, gynecology, and reproductive sciences at Miami, pointed out that the circumstances of the two mothers, who were in their 20s, were very different.

One mother delivered at 32 weeks and had a very severe COVID presentation and spent a month in the intensive care unit. The team decided to deliver the child to save the mother, Dr. Paidas said.

In contrast, the other mother had asymptomatic COVID infection in the second trimester and delivered at full term.

He said one of the early suspicions in the babies’ presentations was hypoxic ischemic encephalopathy. “But it wasn’t lack of blood flow to the placenta that caused this,” he said. “As best we can tell, it was the viral infection.”
 

Instances are rare

The researchers emphasized that these instances are rare and have not been seen before or since the period of this study to their knowledge.

Dr. Duara said, “This is something we want to alert the medical community to more than the general public. We do not want the lay public to be panicked. We’re trying to understand what made these two pregnancies different, so we can direct research towards protecting vulnerable babies.”

Previous data have indicated a relatively benign status in infants who test negative for the COVID virus after birth. Dr. Benny added that COVID vaccination has been found safe in pregnancy and both vaccination and breastfeeding can help passage of antibodies to the infant and help protect the baby. Because these cases happened in the early days of the pandemic, no vaccines were available.

Dr. Paidas received funding from BioIncept to study hypoxic-ischemic encephalopathy with Preimplantation Factor, is a scientific advisory board member, and has stock options. Dr. Paidas and coauthor Dr. Jayakumar are coinventors of SPIKENET, University of Miami, patent pending 2023. The other authors have no conflicts of interest to disclose.

Researchers have found for the first time that COVID infection has crossed the placenta and caused brain damage in two newborns, according to a study published online today in Pediatrics .

One of the infants died at 13 months and the other remained in hospice care at time of manuscript submission.

Lead author Merline Benny, MD, with the division of neonatology, department of pediatrics at University of Miami, and colleagues briefed reporters today ahead of the release.

Zelda Calvert
Dr. Shahnaz Duara

This is a first,” said senior author Shahnaz Duara, MD, medical director of the Neonatal Intensive Care Unit at Holtz Children’s Hospital, Miami, explaining it is the first study to confirm cross-placental SARS-CoV-2 transmission leading to brain injury in a newborn.
 

Both infants negative for the virus at birth

The two infants were admitted in the early days of the pandemic in the Delta wave to the neonatal ICU at Holtz Children’s Hospital at University of Miami/Jackson Memorial Medical Center.

Both infants tested negative for the virus at birth, but had significantly elevated SARS-CoV-2 antibodies in their blood, indicating that either antibodies crossed the placenta, or the virus crossed and the immune response was the baby’s.

Dr. Benny explained that the researchers have seen, to this point, more than 700 mother/infant pairs in whom the mother tested positive for COVID in Jackson hospital.

Most who tested positive for COVID were asymptomatic and most of the mothers and infants left the hospital without complications.

However, (these) two babies had a very unusual clinical picture,” Dr. Benny said.

Those infants were born to mothers who became COVID positive in the second trimester and delivered a few weeks later.

Seizures started on day 1 of life

The babies began to seize from the first day of life. They had profound low tone (hypotonia) in their clinical exam, Dr. Benny explained.

“We had absolutely no good explanation for the early seizures and the degree of brain injury we saw,” Dr. Duara said.

Dr. Benny said that as their bodies grew, they had very small head circumference. Unlike some babies born with the Zika virus, these babies were not microcephalic at birth. Brain imaging on the two babies indicated significant brain atrophy, and neurodevelopment exams showed significant delay.

Discussions began with the center’s multidisciplinary team including neurologists, pathologists, neuroradiologists, and obstetricians who cared for both the mothers and the babies.

The experts examined the placentas and found some characteristic COVID changes and presence of the COVID virus. This was accompanied by increased markers for inflammation and a severe reduction in a hormone critical for placental health and brain development.

Examining the infant’s autopsy findings further raised suspicions of maternal transmission, something that had not been documented before.

Coauthor Ali G. Saad, MD, pediatric and perinatal pathology director at Miami, said, “I have seen literally thousands of brains in autopsies over the last 14 years, and this was the most dramatic case of leukoencephalopathy or loss of white matter in a patient with no significant reason. That’s what triggered the investigation.”
 

 

 

Mothers had very different presentations

Coauthor Michael J. Paidas, MD, with the department of obstetrics, gynecology, and reproductive sciences at Miami, pointed out that the circumstances of the two mothers, who were in their 20s, were very different.

One mother delivered at 32 weeks and had a very severe COVID presentation and spent a month in the intensive care unit. The team decided to deliver the child to save the mother, Dr. Paidas said.

In contrast, the other mother had asymptomatic COVID infection in the second trimester and delivered at full term.

He said one of the early suspicions in the babies’ presentations was hypoxic ischemic encephalopathy. “But it wasn’t lack of blood flow to the placenta that caused this,” he said. “As best we can tell, it was the viral infection.”
 

Instances are rare

The researchers emphasized that these instances are rare and have not been seen before or since the period of this study to their knowledge.

Dr. Duara said, “This is something we want to alert the medical community to more than the general public. We do not want the lay public to be panicked. We’re trying to understand what made these two pregnancies different, so we can direct research towards protecting vulnerable babies.”

Previous data have indicated a relatively benign status in infants who test negative for the COVID virus after birth. Dr. Benny added that COVID vaccination has been found safe in pregnancy and both vaccination and breastfeeding can help passage of antibodies to the infant and help protect the baby. Because these cases happened in the early days of the pandemic, no vaccines were available.

Dr. Paidas received funding from BioIncept to study hypoxic-ischemic encephalopathy with Preimplantation Factor, is a scientific advisory board member, and has stock options. Dr. Paidas and coauthor Dr. Jayakumar are coinventors of SPIKENET, University of Miami, patent pending 2023. The other authors have no conflicts of interest to disclose.

Publications
Publications
Topics
Article Type
Sections
Article Source

FROM PEDIATRICS

Disallow All Ads
Content Gating
No Gating (article Unlocked/Free)
Alternative CME
Disqus Comments
Default
Use ProPublica
Hide sidebar & use full width
render the right sidebar.
Conference Recap Checkbox
Not Conference Recap
Clinical Edge
Display the Slideshow in this Article
Medscape Article
Display survey writer
Reuters content
Disable Inline Native ads
WebMD Article

Likely cause of mysterious hepatitis outbreak in children identified

Article Type
Changed
Fri, 04/07/2023 - 08:11

 

Investigators found that simultaneous infection with adeno-associated virus type 2 (AAV2) and certain other viruses is associated with the outbreak of mysterious pediatric hepatitis cases worldwide.

Coinfection with AAV2 and a human adenovirus (HAdV), in particular, appears to leave some children more vulnerable to this acute hepatitis of unknown origin, researchers reported in three studies published online in Nature. Coinfection with Epstein-Barr virus (EBV), herpes, and enterovirus also were found. Adeno-associated viruses are not considered pathogenic on their own and require a “helper” virus for productive infection.

“I am quite confident that we have identified the key viruses involved because we used a comprehensive metagenomic sequencing approach to look for potential infections from any virus or non-viral pathogen,” Charles Chiu, MD, PhD, senior author and professor of laboratory medicine and medicine/infectious diseases at the University of California, San Francisco, said in an interview.

Dr. Chiu and colleagues propose that lockdowns and social isolation during the COVID-19 pandemic left more children susceptible. A major aspect of immunity in childhood is the adaptive immune response – both cell-mediated and humoral – shaped in part by exposure to viruses and other pathogens early in life, Dr. Chiu said.

“Due to COVID-19, a large population of children did not experience this, so it is possible once restrictions were lifted, they were suddenly exposed over a short period of time to multiple viruses that, in a poorly trained immune system, would have increased their risk of developing severe disease,” he said.

This theory has been popular, especially because cases of unexplained acute hepatitis peaked during the height of the COVID-19 pandemic when isolation was common, William F. Balistreri, MD, who was not affiliated with the study, told this news organization. Dr. Balistreri is professor of pediatrics and director emeritus of the Pediatric Liver Care Center at Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center.
 

Identifying the culprits

Determining what factors might be involved was the main aim of the etiology study by Dr. Chiu and colleagues published online  in Nature.

The journal simultaneously published a genomic study confirming the presence of AAV2 and other suspected viruses and a genomic and laboratory study further corroborating the results.

More than 1,000 children worldwide had been diagnosed with unexplained acute pediatric hepatitis as of August 2022. In the United States, there have been 358 cases, including 22 in which the child required a liver transplant and 13 in which the child died.

This new form of hepatitis, first detected in October 2021, does not fit into existing classifications of types A through E, so some researchers refer to the condition as acute non–A-E hepatitis of unknown etiology.

The investigators started with an important clue based on previous research: the role adenovirus might play. Dr. Chiu and colleagues assessed 27 blood, stool, and other samples from 16 affected children who each previously tested positive for adenoviruses. The researchers included cases of the condition identified up until May 22, 2022. The median age was 3 years, and approximately half were boys.

They compared viruses present in these children with those in 113 controls without the mysterious hepatitis. The control group consisted of 15 children who were hospitalized with a nonhepatitis inflammatory condition, 27 with a noninflammatory condition, 30 with acute hepatitis of known origin, 12 with acute gastroenteritis and an HAdV-positive stool sample, and 11 with acute gastroenteritis and an HAdV-negative stool sample, as well as 18 blood donors. The median age was 7 years.

The researchers assessed samples using multiple technologies, including metagenomic sequencing, tiling multiplex polymerase chain reaction (PCR) amplicon sequencing, metagenomic sequencing with probe capture viral enrichment, and virus-specific PCR. Many of these advanced techniques were not even available 5-10 years ago, Dr. Chiu said.
 

 

 

Key findings

Blood samples were available for 14 of the 16 children with acute hepatitis of unknown origin. Among this study group, AAV2 was found in 13 (93%). No other adeno-associated viruses were found. HAdV was detected in all 14 children: HAdV-41 in 11 children and HAdV-40, HAdV-2, and an untypeable strain in one child each. This finding was not intuitive because HAdVs are not commonly associated with hepatitis, according to the study.

AAV2 was much less common in the control group. For example, it was found in none of the children with hepatitis of known origin and in only four children (3.5%) with acute gastroenteritis and HAdV-positive stool. Of note, neither AAV2 nor HAdV-41 was detected among the 30 pediatric controls with acute hepatitis of defined etiology nor 42 of the hospitalized children without hepatitis, the researchers wrote.

In the search for other viruses in the study group, metagenomic sequencing detected EBV, also known as human herpesvirus (HHV)–4, in two children, cytomegalovirus (CMV) in one child, and HAdV type C in one child.

Analysis of whole blood revealed enterovirus A71 in one patient. HAdV type C also was detected in one child on the basis of a nasopharyngeal swab, and picobirnavirus was found in a stool sample from another patient.

Researchers conducted virus-specific PCR tests on both patient groups to identify additional viruses that may be associated with the unexplained acute hepatitis. EBV/HHV-4 was detected in 11 children (79%) in the study group vs. in 1 child (0.88%) in the control group. HHV-6 was detected in seven children (50%) in the study group, compared with one case in the control group. CMV was not detected in any of the children in the study group versus vs. two children (1.8%) in the control group.

“Although we found significant differences in the relative proportions of EBV and HHV-6 in cases compared to controls, we do not believe that these viruses are the primary cause of acute severe hepatitis,” the researchers wrote. The viral load of the two herpes viruses were very low, so the positive results could represent integrated proviral DNA rather than bona fide low-level herpesvirus. In addition, herpesvirus can be reactivated by an inflammatory condition.

“Nevertheless, it is striking that among the 16 cases (in the study group), dual, triple, or quadruple infections with AAV2, adenovirus, and one or both herpesviruses were detected in whole blood from at least 12 cases (75%),” the researchers wrote.
 

Management of suspected hepatitis

The study’s key messages for parents and health care providers “are awareness and reassurance,” Dr. Balistreri said in an interview.

Vigilance also is warranted if a child develops prodromal symptoms including respiratory and/or gastrointestinal signs such as nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, and abdomen pain, he said. If jaundice or scleral icterus is noted, then hepatitis should be suspected.

Some patients need hospitalization and quickly recover. In very rare instances, the inflammation may progress to liver failure and transplantation, Dr. Balistreri said.

“Reassurance is based on the good news that most children with acute hepatitis get better. If a case arises, it is good practice to keep the child well hydrated, offer a normal diet, and avoid medications that may be cleared by the liver,” Dr. Balistreri added.

“Of course, COVID-19 vaccination is strongly suggested,” he said.

Some existing treatments could help against unexplained acute hepatitis, Dr. Chiu said. “The findings suggest that antiviral therapy might be effective in these cases.”

Cidofovir can be effective against adenovirus, according to a report in The Lancet . Similarly, ganciclovir or valganciclovir may have activity against EBV/HHV-4 or HHV-6, Dr. Chiu said. “However, antiviral therapy is not available for AAV2.”

The three studies published in Nature “offer compelling evidence, from disparate centers, of a linkage of outbreak cases to infection by AAV2,” Dr. Balistreri said. The studies also suggest that liver injury was related to abnormal immune responses. This is an important clinical distinction, indicating a potential therapeutic approach to future cases – immunosuppression rather than anti-adenoviral agents, he said.

“We await further studies of this important concept,” Dr. Balistreri said.

Many unanswered questions remain about the condition’s etiology, he added. Is there a synergy or shared susceptibility related to SARS-CoV-2? Is the COVID-19 virus helping to trigger these infections, or does it increase the risk once infected? Also, are other epigenetic factors or viruses involved?
 

 

 

Moving forward

The next steps in the research could go beyond identifying presence of these different viruses and determining which one(s) are contributing the most to the acute pediatric hepatitis, Dr. Chiu said.

The researchers also would like to test early results from the United Kingdom that identified a potential association of acute severe hepatitis with the presence of human leukocyte antigen genotype DRB1*04:01, he added.

They also might investigate other unintended potential clinical consequences of the COVID-19 pandemic, including long COVID and resurgence of infections from other viruses, such as respiratory syncytial virus, influenza, and enterovirus D68.

The study was supported by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the National Institutes of Health, the Department of Homeland Security, and other grants. Dr. Chiu is a founder of Delve Bio and on the scientific advisory board for Delve Bio, Mammoth Biosciences, BiomeSense, and Poppy Health. Dr. Balistreri had no relevant disclosures.
 

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

Publications
Topics
Sections

 

Investigators found that simultaneous infection with adeno-associated virus type 2 (AAV2) and certain other viruses is associated with the outbreak of mysterious pediatric hepatitis cases worldwide.

Coinfection with AAV2 and a human adenovirus (HAdV), in particular, appears to leave some children more vulnerable to this acute hepatitis of unknown origin, researchers reported in three studies published online in Nature. Coinfection with Epstein-Barr virus (EBV), herpes, and enterovirus also were found. Adeno-associated viruses are not considered pathogenic on their own and require a “helper” virus for productive infection.

“I am quite confident that we have identified the key viruses involved because we used a comprehensive metagenomic sequencing approach to look for potential infections from any virus or non-viral pathogen,” Charles Chiu, MD, PhD, senior author and professor of laboratory medicine and medicine/infectious diseases at the University of California, San Francisco, said in an interview.

Dr. Chiu and colleagues propose that lockdowns and social isolation during the COVID-19 pandemic left more children susceptible. A major aspect of immunity in childhood is the adaptive immune response – both cell-mediated and humoral – shaped in part by exposure to viruses and other pathogens early in life, Dr. Chiu said.

“Due to COVID-19, a large population of children did not experience this, so it is possible once restrictions were lifted, they were suddenly exposed over a short period of time to multiple viruses that, in a poorly trained immune system, would have increased their risk of developing severe disease,” he said.

This theory has been popular, especially because cases of unexplained acute hepatitis peaked during the height of the COVID-19 pandemic when isolation was common, William F. Balistreri, MD, who was not affiliated with the study, told this news organization. Dr. Balistreri is professor of pediatrics and director emeritus of the Pediatric Liver Care Center at Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center.
 

Identifying the culprits

Determining what factors might be involved was the main aim of the etiology study by Dr. Chiu and colleagues published online  in Nature.

The journal simultaneously published a genomic study confirming the presence of AAV2 and other suspected viruses and a genomic and laboratory study further corroborating the results.

More than 1,000 children worldwide had been diagnosed with unexplained acute pediatric hepatitis as of August 2022. In the United States, there have been 358 cases, including 22 in which the child required a liver transplant and 13 in which the child died.

This new form of hepatitis, first detected in October 2021, does not fit into existing classifications of types A through E, so some researchers refer to the condition as acute non–A-E hepatitis of unknown etiology.

The investigators started with an important clue based on previous research: the role adenovirus might play. Dr. Chiu and colleagues assessed 27 blood, stool, and other samples from 16 affected children who each previously tested positive for adenoviruses. The researchers included cases of the condition identified up until May 22, 2022. The median age was 3 years, and approximately half were boys.

They compared viruses present in these children with those in 113 controls without the mysterious hepatitis. The control group consisted of 15 children who were hospitalized with a nonhepatitis inflammatory condition, 27 with a noninflammatory condition, 30 with acute hepatitis of known origin, 12 with acute gastroenteritis and an HAdV-positive stool sample, and 11 with acute gastroenteritis and an HAdV-negative stool sample, as well as 18 blood donors. The median age was 7 years.

The researchers assessed samples using multiple technologies, including metagenomic sequencing, tiling multiplex polymerase chain reaction (PCR) amplicon sequencing, metagenomic sequencing with probe capture viral enrichment, and virus-specific PCR. Many of these advanced techniques were not even available 5-10 years ago, Dr. Chiu said.
 

 

 

Key findings

Blood samples were available for 14 of the 16 children with acute hepatitis of unknown origin. Among this study group, AAV2 was found in 13 (93%). No other adeno-associated viruses were found. HAdV was detected in all 14 children: HAdV-41 in 11 children and HAdV-40, HAdV-2, and an untypeable strain in one child each. This finding was not intuitive because HAdVs are not commonly associated with hepatitis, according to the study.

AAV2 was much less common in the control group. For example, it was found in none of the children with hepatitis of known origin and in only four children (3.5%) with acute gastroenteritis and HAdV-positive stool. Of note, neither AAV2 nor HAdV-41 was detected among the 30 pediatric controls with acute hepatitis of defined etiology nor 42 of the hospitalized children without hepatitis, the researchers wrote.

In the search for other viruses in the study group, metagenomic sequencing detected EBV, also known as human herpesvirus (HHV)–4, in two children, cytomegalovirus (CMV) in one child, and HAdV type C in one child.

Analysis of whole blood revealed enterovirus A71 in one patient. HAdV type C also was detected in one child on the basis of a nasopharyngeal swab, and picobirnavirus was found in a stool sample from another patient.

Researchers conducted virus-specific PCR tests on both patient groups to identify additional viruses that may be associated with the unexplained acute hepatitis. EBV/HHV-4 was detected in 11 children (79%) in the study group vs. in 1 child (0.88%) in the control group. HHV-6 was detected in seven children (50%) in the study group, compared with one case in the control group. CMV was not detected in any of the children in the study group versus vs. two children (1.8%) in the control group.

“Although we found significant differences in the relative proportions of EBV and HHV-6 in cases compared to controls, we do not believe that these viruses are the primary cause of acute severe hepatitis,” the researchers wrote. The viral load of the two herpes viruses were very low, so the positive results could represent integrated proviral DNA rather than bona fide low-level herpesvirus. In addition, herpesvirus can be reactivated by an inflammatory condition.

“Nevertheless, it is striking that among the 16 cases (in the study group), dual, triple, or quadruple infections with AAV2, adenovirus, and one or both herpesviruses were detected in whole blood from at least 12 cases (75%),” the researchers wrote.
 

Management of suspected hepatitis

The study’s key messages for parents and health care providers “are awareness and reassurance,” Dr. Balistreri said in an interview.

Vigilance also is warranted if a child develops prodromal symptoms including respiratory and/or gastrointestinal signs such as nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, and abdomen pain, he said. If jaundice or scleral icterus is noted, then hepatitis should be suspected.

Some patients need hospitalization and quickly recover. In very rare instances, the inflammation may progress to liver failure and transplantation, Dr. Balistreri said.

“Reassurance is based on the good news that most children with acute hepatitis get better. If a case arises, it is good practice to keep the child well hydrated, offer a normal diet, and avoid medications that may be cleared by the liver,” Dr. Balistreri added.

“Of course, COVID-19 vaccination is strongly suggested,” he said.

Some existing treatments could help against unexplained acute hepatitis, Dr. Chiu said. “The findings suggest that antiviral therapy might be effective in these cases.”

Cidofovir can be effective against adenovirus, according to a report in The Lancet . Similarly, ganciclovir or valganciclovir may have activity against EBV/HHV-4 or HHV-6, Dr. Chiu said. “However, antiviral therapy is not available for AAV2.”

The three studies published in Nature “offer compelling evidence, from disparate centers, of a linkage of outbreak cases to infection by AAV2,” Dr. Balistreri said. The studies also suggest that liver injury was related to abnormal immune responses. This is an important clinical distinction, indicating a potential therapeutic approach to future cases – immunosuppression rather than anti-adenoviral agents, he said.

“We await further studies of this important concept,” Dr. Balistreri said.

Many unanswered questions remain about the condition’s etiology, he added. Is there a synergy or shared susceptibility related to SARS-CoV-2? Is the COVID-19 virus helping to trigger these infections, or does it increase the risk once infected? Also, are other epigenetic factors or viruses involved?
 

 

 

Moving forward

The next steps in the research could go beyond identifying presence of these different viruses and determining which one(s) are contributing the most to the acute pediatric hepatitis, Dr. Chiu said.

The researchers also would like to test early results from the United Kingdom that identified a potential association of acute severe hepatitis with the presence of human leukocyte antigen genotype DRB1*04:01, he added.

They also might investigate other unintended potential clinical consequences of the COVID-19 pandemic, including long COVID and resurgence of infections from other viruses, such as respiratory syncytial virus, influenza, and enterovirus D68.

The study was supported by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the National Institutes of Health, the Department of Homeland Security, and other grants. Dr. Chiu is a founder of Delve Bio and on the scientific advisory board for Delve Bio, Mammoth Biosciences, BiomeSense, and Poppy Health. Dr. Balistreri had no relevant disclosures.
 

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

 

Investigators found that simultaneous infection with adeno-associated virus type 2 (AAV2) and certain other viruses is associated with the outbreak of mysterious pediatric hepatitis cases worldwide.

Coinfection with AAV2 and a human adenovirus (HAdV), in particular, appears to leave some children more vulnerable to this acute hepatitis of unknown origin, researchers reported in three studies published online in Nature. Coinfection with Epstein-Barr virus (EBV), herpes, and enterovirus also were found. Adeno-associated viruses are not considered pathogenic on their own and require a “helper” virus for productive infection.

“I am quite confident that we have identified the key viruses involved because we used a comprehensive metagenomic sequencing approach to look for potential infections from any virus or non-viral pathogen,” Charles Chiu, MD, PhD, senior author and professor of laboratory medicine and medicine/infectious diseases at the University of California, San Francisco, said in an interview.

Dr. Chiu and colleagues propose that lockdowns and social isolation during the COVID-19 pandemic left more children susceptible. A major aspect of immunity in childhood is the adaptive immune response – both cell-mediated and humoral – shaped in part by exposure to viruses and other pathogens early in life, Dr. Chiu said.

“Due to COVID-19, a large population of children did not experience this, so it is possible once restrictions were lifted, they were suddenly exposed over a short period of time to multiple viruses that, in a poorly trained immune system, would have increased their risk of developing severe disease,” he said.

This theory has been popular, especially because cases of unexplained acute hepatitis peaked during the height of the COVID-19 pandemic when isolation was common, William F. Balistreri, MD, who was not affiliated with the study, told this news organization. Dr. Balistreri is professor of pediatrics and director emeritus of the Pediatric Liver Care Center at Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center.
 

Identifying the culprits

Determining what factors might be involved was the main aim of the etiology study by Dr. Chiu and colleagues published online  in Nature.

The journal simultaneously published a genomic study confirming the presence of AAV2 and other suspected viruses and a genomic and laboratory study further corroborating the results.

More than 1,000 children worldwide had been diagnosed with unexplained acute pediatric hepatitis as of August 2022. In the United States, there have been 358 cases, including 22 in which the child required a liver transplant and 13 in which the child died.

This new form of hepatitis, first detected in October 2021, does not fit into existing classifications of types A through E, so some researchers refer to the condition as acute non–A-E hepatitis of unknown etiology.

The investigators started with an important clue based on previous research: the role adenovirus might play. Dr. Chiu and colleagues assessed 27 blood, stool, and other samples from 16 affected children who each previously tested positive for adenoviruses. The researchers included cases of the condition identified up until May 22, 2022. The median age was 3 years, and approximately half were boys.

They compared viruses present in these children with those in 113 controls without the mysterious hepatitis. The control group consisted of 15 children who were hospitalized with a nonhepatitis inflammatory condition, 27 with a noninflammatory condition, 30 with acute hepatitis of known origin, 12 with acute gastroenteritis and an HAdV-positive stool sample, and 11 with acute gastroenteritis and an HAdV-negative stool sample, as well as 18 blood donors. The median age was 7 years.

The researchers assessed samples using multiple technologies, including metagenomic sequencing, tiling multiplex polymerase chain reaction (PCR) amplicon sequencing, metagenomic sequencing with probe capture viral enrichment, and virus-specific PCR. Many of these advanced techniques were not even available 5-10 years ago, Dr. Chiu said.
 

 

 

Key findings

Blood samples were available for 14 of the 16 children with acute hepatitis of unknown origin. Among this study group, AAV2 was found in 13 (93%). No other adeno-associated viruses were found. HAdV was detected in all 14 children: HAdV-41 in 11 children and HAdV-40, HAdV-2, and an untypeable strain in one child each. This finding was not intuitive because HAdVs are not commonly associated with hepatitis, according to the study.

AAV2 was much less common in the control group. For example, it was found in none of the children with hepatitis of known origin and in only four children (3.5%) with acute gastroenteritis and HAdV-positive stool. Of note, neither AAV2 nor HAdV-41 was detected among the 30 pediatric controls with acute hepatitis of defined etiology nor 42 of the hospitalized children without hepatitis, the researchers wrote.

In the search for other viruses in the study group, metagenomic sequencing detected EBV, also known as human herpesvirus (HHV)–4, in two children, cytomegalovirus (CMV) in one child, and HAdV type C in one child.

Analysis of whole blood revealed enterovirus A71 in one patient. HAdV type C also was detected in one child on the basis of a nasopharyngeal swab, and picobirnavirus was found in a stool sample from another patient.

Researchers conducted virus-specific PCR tests on both patient groups to identify additional viruses that may be associated with the unexplained acute hepatitis. EBV/HHV-4 was detected in 11 children (79%) in the study group vs. in 1 child (0.88%) in the control group. HHV-6 was detected in seven children (50%) in the study group, compared with one case in the control group. CMV was not detected in any of the children in the study group versus vs. two children (1.8%) in the control group.

“Although we found significant differences in the relative proportions of EBV and HHV-6 in cases compared to controls, we do not believe that these viruses are the primary cause of acute severe hepatitis,” the researchers wrote. The viral load of the two herpes viruses were very low, so the positive results could represent integrated proviral DNA rather than bona fide low-level herpesvirus. In addition, herpesvirus can be reactivated by an inflammatory condition.

“Nevertheless, it is striking that among the 16 cases (in the study group), dual, triple, or quadruple infections with AAV2, adenovirus, and one or both herpesviruses were detected in whole blood from at least 12 cases (75%),” the researchers wrote.
 

Management of suspected hepatitis

The study’s key messages for parents and health care providers “are awareness and reassurance,” Dr. Balistreri said in an interview.

Vigilance also is warranted if a child develops prodromal symptoms including respiratory and/or gastrointestinal signs such as nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, and abdomen pain, he said. If jaundice or scleral icterus is noted, then hepatitis should be suspected.

Some patients need hospitalization and quickly recover. In very rare instances, the inflammation may progress to liver failure and transplantation, Dr. Balistreri said.

“Reassurance is based on the good news that most children with acute hepatitis get better. If a case arises, it is good practice to keep the child well hydrated, offer a normal diet, and avoid medications that may be cleared by the liver,” Dr. Balistreri added.

“Of course, COVID-19 vaccination is strongly suggested,” he said.

Some existing treatments could help against unexplained acute hepatitis, Dr. Chiu said. “The findings suggest that antiviral therapy might be effective in these cases.”

Cidofovir can be effective against adenovirus, according to a report in The Lancet . Similarly, ganciclovir or valganciclovir may have activity against EBV/HHV-4 or HHV-6, Dr. Chiu said. “However, antiviral therapy is not available for AAV2.”

The three studies published in Nature “offer compelling evidence, from disparate centers, of a linkage of outbreak cases to infection by AAV2,” Dr. Balistreri said. The studies also suggest that liver injury was related to abnormal immune responses. This is an important clinical distinction, indicating a potential therapeutic approach to future cases – immunosuppression rather than anti-adenoviral agents, he said.

“We await further studies of this important concept,” Dr. Balistreri said.

Many unanswered questions remain about the condition’s etiology, he added. Is there a synergy or shared susceptibility related to SARS-CoV-2? Is the COVID-19 virus helping to trigger these infections, or does it increase the risk once infected? Also, are other epigenetic factors or viruses involved?
 

 

 

Moving forward

The next steps in the research could go beyond identifying presence of these different viruses and determining which one(s) are contributing the most to the acute pediatric hepatitis, Dr. Chiu said.

The researchers also would like to test early results from the United Kingdom that identified a potential association of acute severe hepatitis with the presence of human leukocyte antigen genotype DRB1*04:01, he added.

They also might investigate other unintended potential clinical consequences of the COVID-19 pandemic, including long COVID and resurgence of infections from other viruses, such as respiratory syncytial virus, influenza, and enterovirus D68.

The study was supported by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the National Institutes of Health, the Department of Homeland Security, and other grants. Dr. Chiu is a founder of Delve Bio and on the scientific advisory board for Delve Bio, Mammoth Biosciences, BiomeSense, and Poppy Health. Dr. Balistreri had no relevant disclosures.
 

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

Publications
Publications
Topics
Article Type
Sections
Article Source

FROM NATURE

Disallow All Ads
Content Gating
No Gating (article Unlocked/Free)
Alternative CME
Disqus Comments
Default
Use ProPublica
Hide sidebar & use full width
render the right sidebar.
Conference Recap Checkbox
Not Conference Recap
Clinical Edge
Display the Slideshow in this Article
Medscape Article
Display survey writer
Reuters content
Disable Inline Native ads
WebMD Article

Deadly bacteria in recalled eye drops can spread person-to-person

Article Type
Changed
Wed, 04/05/2023 - 13:56

Contaminated, deadly, and blindness-causing eyedrops that were recalled earlier this year were made in India at a factory not inspected by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, according to a new report. 

Scientists are concerned that the once-rare treatment-resistant bacteria found in the eyedrops can spread person-to-person, posing a risk of becoming a recurrent problem in the United States, The New York Times reported.

In January, EzriCare and Delsam Pharma artificial tears and ointment products were recalled after being linked to the bacterium P. aeruginosa. The bacteria have caused at least 68 infections, including three deaths and at least eight cases of blindness. The eyedrops were imported to the United States from India, and many of the cases occurred after the bacteria spread person-to-person at a long-term care facility in Connecticut, according to the Times, which cited FDA and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention lead investigator Maroya Walters, PhD.

Dr. Walters said the cases that caused death or blindness were traced to the EzriCare artificial tears product.

“It’s very hard to get rid of,” University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill infectious disease specialist David van Duin, MD, PhD, told the Times, noting that the bacteria cling to sink drains, water faucets, and other moist places. 

The FDA said it had halted the import of the recalled products and has since visited the plant in India where they were made, which is owned by Global Pharma Healthcare. In a citation to the company dated March 2, the FDA listed nearly a dozen problems, such as dirty equipment and the absence of safety procedures and tests. 

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

Publications
Topics
Sections

Contaminated, deadly, and blindness-causing eyedrops that were recalled earlier this year were made in India at a factory not inspected by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, according to a new report. 

Scientists are concerned that the once-rare treatment-resistant bacteria found in the eyedrops can spread person-to-person, posing a risk of becoming a recurrent problem in the United States, The New York Times reported.

In January, EzriCare and Delsam Pharma artificial tears and ointment products were recalled after being linked to the bacterium P. aeruginosa. The bacteria have caused at least 68 infections, including three deaths and at least eight cases of blindness. The eyedrops were imported to the United States from India, and many of the cases occurred after the bacteria spread person-to-person at a long-term care facility in Connecticut, according to the Times, which cited FDA and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention lead investigator Maroya Walters, PhD.

Dr. Walters said the cases that caused death or blindness were traced to the EzriCare artificial tears product.

“It’s very hard to get rid of,” University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill infectious disease specialist David van Duin, MD, PhD, told the Times, noting that the bacteria cling to sink drains, water faucets, and other moist places. 

The FDA said it had halted the import of the recalled products and has since visited the plant in India where they were made, which is owned by Global Pharma Healthcare. In a citation to the company dated March 2, the FDA listed nearly a dozen problems, such as dirty equipment and the absence of safety procedures and tests. 

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

Contaminated, deadly, and blindness-causing eyedrops that were recalled earlier this year were made in India at a factory not inspected by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, according to a new report. 

Scientists are concerned that the once-rare treatment-resistant bacteria found in the eyedrops can spread person-to-person, posing a risk of becoming a recurrent problem in the United States, The New York Times reported.

In January, EzriCare and Delsam Pharma artificial tears and ointment products were recalled after being linked to the bacterium P. aeruginosa. The bacteria have caused at least 68 infections, including three deaths and at least eight cases of blindness. The eyedrops were imported to the United States from India, and many of the cases occurred after the bacteria spread person-to-person at a long-term care facility in Connecticut, according to the Times, which cited FDA and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention lead investigator Maroya Walters, PhD.

Dr. Walters said the cases that caused death or blindness were traced to the EzriCare artificial tears product.

“It’s very hard to get rid of,” University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill infectious disease specialist David van Duin, MD, PhD, told the Times, noting that the bacteria cling to sink drains, water faucets, and other moist places. 

The FDA said it had halted the import of the recalled products and has since visited the plant in India where they were made, which is owned by Global Pharma Healthcare. In a citation to the company dated March 2, the FDA listed nearly a dozen problems, such as dirty equipment and the absence of safety procedures and tests. 

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

Publications
Publications
Topics
Article Type
Sections
Disallow All Ads
Content Gating
No Gating (article Unlocked/Free)
Alternative CME
Disqus Comments
Default
Use ProPublica
Hide sidebar & use full width
render the right sidebar.
Conference Recap Checkbox
Not Conference Recap
Clinical Edge
Display the Slideshow in this Article
Medscape Article
Display survey writer
Reuters content
Disable Inline Native ads
WebMD Article

Mpox (Monkeypox) Clinical Pearls

Article Type
Changed
Wed, 04/05/2023 - 11:26
Display Headline
Mpox (Monkeypox) Clinical Pearls

The 2022 mpox (monkeypox) virus outbreak represents the latest example of how infectious diseases with previously limited reach can spread in a globalized society. More than 86,000 cases have been reported worldwide, with more than 30,000 cases in the United States as of March 15, 2023.1 Herein, we summarize the key features of mpox infection for the dermatologist.

Mpox Transmission

The mpox virus is a double-stranded DNA virus of the Orthopoxvirus genus and Poxviridae family.2,3 There are 2 types of the mpox virus: clade I (formerly the Congo Basin clade) and clade II (formerly the West African clade). Clade I causes more severe disease (10% mortality rate), while clade II is associated with lower mortality (1%–3%) and has been split into subclades of IIa (exhibits zoonotic transmission) and IIb (exhibits human-to-human spread).3,4 The current outbreak is caused by clade IIb, and patients typically have no travel history to classic endemic regions.5,6

In endemic countries, mpox transmission is zoonotic from small forest animals. In nonendemic countries, sporadic cases rarely have been reported, including a cluster in the United States in 2003 related to pet prairie dogs. In stark contrast, human-to-human transmission is occurring in the current epidemic mainly via intimate skin-to-skin contact and possibly via sexual fluids, meeting the criteria for a sexually transmitted infection. However, nonsexual transmission does still occur, though it is less common.7 Many of the reported cases so far are in young to middle-aged men who have sex with men (MSM).2,8 However, it is crucial to understand that mpox is not exclusive to the MSM population; the virus has been transmitted to heterosexual males, females, children, and even household pets of infected individuals.2,9,10 Labeling mpox as exclusive to the MSM community is both inaccurate and inappropriately stigmatizing.

Cutaneous Presentation and Diagnosis of Mpox

Mpox has an incubation time of approximately 9 days (range, 7–21 days), after which affected persons develop macular lesions that evolve over 2 to 4 weeks into papules, vesicles, and deep-seated pustules before crusting over and resolving with possible residual scarring.2,3,5,9,11,12 Palmoplantar involvement is a key feature.11 Although in some cases there will be multiple lesions with centrifugal progression, the lesions also may be few in number, with some patients presenting with a single lesion in the anogenital region or on the face, hand, or foot (Figure).6,9 Systemic symptoms such as prodromal fever, lymphadenopathy, and headache are common but not universal.9,13 Potential complications include penile edema, proctitis, bacterial superinfection, tonsillitis, conjunctivitis, encephalitis, and pneumonia.5,9,13

Clinical images from the 2022 mpox (monkeypox) outbreak. A, A pink papule with overlying pustules and crusting on the forehead. B, A cluster of large pustules, each with a rim of erythema, on the forearm
Images used with permission from Roneet Lev, MD (San Diego, California), and VisualDx.
Clinical images from the 2022 mpox (monkeypox) outbreak. A, A pink papule with overlying pustules and crusting on the forehead. B, A cluster of large pustules, each with a rim of erythema, on the forearm.

A high index of suspicion is needed to diagnose mpox infection. The differential diagnosis includes smallpox; varicella-zoster virus (primary or reactivation); secondary syphilis; measles; herpes simplex virus; molluscum contagiosum; hand, foot, and mouth disease; and disseminated gonococcal infection.2,3 For lesions confined to the genital area, sexually transmitted infections (eg, chancroid, lymphogranuloma venereum) as well as non–sexually related acute genital ulcers (Lipschütz ulcers) should be considered.2

Certain clinical features may help in distinguishing mpox from other diseases. Mpox exhibits synchronous progression and centrifugal distribution when multiple lesions are present; in contrast, the lesions of primary varicella (chickenpox) appear in multiple different stages, and those of localized herpes zoster (shingles) exhibit a dermatomal distribution. When these features are present, mpox causes a greater degree of lymphadenopathy and systemic symptoms than primary varicella.3Clinical diagnosis of mpox is more than 90% sensitive but only 9% to 26% specific.3 To confirm the diagnosis, a viral swab vigorously obtained from active skin lesions should be sent in viral transport media for mpox DNA-specific polymerase chain reaction testing, which is available from major laboratories.2,3 Other supportive tests include serum studies for anti–mpox virus immunoglobulins and immunohistochemical staining for viral antigens on skin biopsy specimens.2 When evaluating suspected and confirmed mpox cases, dermatologists should wear a gown, gloves, a fitted N95 mask, and eye protection to prevent infection.5

Treating Mpox

Symptomatic mpox infection can last for up to 2 to 5 weeks.3 The patient is no longer infectious once the lesions have crusted over.3,11 The majority of cases require supportive care only.2,3,5,14 However, mpox remains a potentially fatal disease, with 38 deaths to date in the current outbreak.1 High-risk populations include children younger than 8 years, pregnant women, and individuals who are immunocompromised.15 Tecovirimat, an antiviral medication approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for smallpox, is available via the expanded access Investigational New Drug (EA-IND) protocol to treat severe mpox cases but is not widely available in the United States.6,16-18 Brincidofovir, a prodrug of the antiviral cidofovir, possesses single-patient emergency use Investigational New Drug (e-IND) status for treatment of mpox but also is not widely available in the United States.17 Intravenous vaccinia immune globulin is under consideration for high-risk individuals, but little is known regarding its efficacy against mpox.5,16,17

Two smallpox vaccines—JYNNEOS (Bavarian Nordic) and ACAM2000 (Emergent Bio Solutions)—are available for both preexposure and postexposure prophylaxis against mpox virus.19 At this time, only JYNNEOS is FDA approved for the prevention of mpox; ACAM2000 can be used against mpox under the FDA’s EA-IND protocol, which involves additional requirements, including informed consent from the patient.20 ACAM2000 is a live, replication-competent vaccine that carries a warning of increased risk for side effects in patients with cardiac disease, pregnancy, immunocompromise, and a history or presence of eczema and other skin conditions.3,21,22 JYNNEOS is a live but replication-deficient virus and therefore does not carry these warnings.3,21,22

Final Thoughts

Mpox is no longer an obscure illness occurring in limited geographic areas. Dermatologists must remain highly vigilant when evaluating any patient for new-onset vesicular or pustular eruptions to combat this ongoing public health threat. This issue of Cutis® also features a thorough mpox update on the clinical presentation, vaccine guidance, and management.23

References
  1. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Mpox: 2022 Outbreak Cases and Data. Updated March 15, 2023. Accessed March 121, 2023. https://www.cdc.gov/poxvirus/monkeypox/response/2022/
  2. Srivastava G. Human monkeypox disease [published online August 10, 2022]. Clin Dermatol. doi:10.1016/j.clindermatol.2022.08.009
  3. Bryer J, Freeman EE, Rosenbach M. Monkeypox emerges on a global scale: a historical review and dermatologic primer [published online July 8, 2022]. J Am Acad Dermatol. doi:10.1016/j.jaad.2022.07.007
  4. Americo JL, Earl PL, Moss B. Virulence differences of mpox (monkeypox) virus clades I, IIa, and IIb.1 in a small animal model. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2023;120:E2220415120. doi:10.1073 /pnas.2220415120
  5. Guarner J, Del Rio C, Malani PN. Monkeypox in 2022—what clinicians need to know. JAMA. 2022;328:139-140. doi:10.1001/jama.2022.10802
  6. Looi MK. Monkeypox: what we know about the 2022 outbreak so far [published online August 23, 2022]. BMJ. doi:10.1136/bmj.o2058
  7. Allan-Blitz LT, Gandhi M, Adamson P, et al. A position statement on mpox as a sexually transmitted disease [published online December 22, 2022]. Clin Infect Dis. doi:10.1093/cid/ciac960
  8. Cabanillas B, Murdaca G, Guemari A, et al. A compilation answering 50 questions on monkeypox virus and the current monkeypox outbreak. Allergy. 2023;78:639-662. doi:10.1111/all.15633
  9. Tarín-Vicente EJ, Alemany A, Agud-Dios M, et al. Clinical presentation and virological assessment of confirmed human monkeypox virus cases in Spain: a prospective observational cohort study [published online August 8, 2022]. Lancet. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(22)01436-2
  10. Seang S, Burrel S, Todesco E, et al. Evidence of human-to-dog transmission of monkeypox virus. Lancet. 2022;400:658-659. doi:10.1016 /s0140-6736(22)01487-8
  11. Ramdass P, Mullick S, Farber HF. Viral skin diseases. Prim Care. 2015;42:517-67. doi:10.1016/j.pop.2015.08.006
  12. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Mpox: Clinical Recognition. Updated August 23, 2022. Accessed March 21, 2023. https://www.cdc .gov/poxvirus/monkeypox/clinicians/clinical-recognition.html
  13. Mpox Cases by Age and Gender, Race/Ethnicity, and Symptoms. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Updated March 15, 2023. Accessed March 21, 2023. https://www.cdc.gov/poxvirus/monkeypox /response/2022/demographics.html
  14. Kawsar A, Hussain K, Roberts N. The return of monkeypox: key pointers for dermatologists [published online July 29, 2022]. Clin Exp Dermatol. doi:10.1111/ced.15357
  15. Khanna U, Bishnoi A, Vinay K. Current outbreak of monkeypox— essentials for the dermatologist [published online June 23, 2022]. J Am Acad Dermatol. doi:10.1016/j.jaad.2022.06.1170
  16. Fox T, Gould S, Princy N, et al. Therapeutics for treating mpox in humans. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2023;3:CD015769. doi:10.1002/14651858 .CD015769
  17. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Treatment information for healthcare professionals. Updated March 3, 2023. Accessed March 24, 2023. https://www.cdc.gov/poxvirus/mpox/clinicians /treatment.html#anchor_1666886364947
  18. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Guidance for tecovirimat use. Updated February 23, 2023. Accessed March 24, 2023. https://www .cdc.gov/poxvirus/mpox/clinicians/Tecovirimat.html
  19. Interim Clinical Considerations for Use of JYNNEOS and ACAM2000 Vaccines During the 2022 U.S. Monkeypox Outbreak. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Updated October 19, 2022. Accessed March 21, 2023. https://www.cdc.gov/poxvirus/monkeypox/health-departments/vaccine-considerations.html
  20. Key Facts About Vaccines to Prevent Monkeypox Disease. US Food and Drug Administration. Updated August 18, 2022. Accessed March 21, 2023. https://www.fda.gov/vaccines-blood-biologics/vaccines/key-facts-aboutvaccines-prevent-monkeypox-disease
  21. Smallpox: Vaccines. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Updated August 8, 2022. Accessed March 21, 2023. https://www.cdc.gov/smallpox/clinicians/vaccines.html
  22. ACAM2000. Package insert. Emergent Product Development Gaithersburg Inc; 2019.
  23. Cices A, Prasad S, Akselrad M, et al. Mpox update: clinical presentation, vaccination guidance, and management. Cutis. 2023;111:197-202. doi:10.12788/cutis.0745
Article PDF
Author and Disclosure Information

Ms. Peterson is from the Loma Linda University School of Medicine, California. Drs. Adler and Ochoa are from the Department of Dermatology, Keck School of Medicine, University of Southern California, Los Angeles.

The authors report no conflict of interest.

Correspondence: Maria T. Ochoa, MD, 1520 San Pablo St, Health Sciences Campus, Los Angeles, CA 90033 ([email protected]).

Issue
Cutis - 111(4)
Publications
Topics
Page Number
170-171
Sections
Author and Disclosure Information

Ms. Peterson is from the Loma Linda University School of Medicine, California. Drs. Adler and Ochoa are from the Department of Dermatology, Keck School of Medicine, University of Southern California, Los Angeles.

The authors report no conflict of interest.

Correspondence: Maria T. Ochoa, MD, 1520 San Pablo St, Health Sciences Campus, Los Angeles, CA 90033 ([email protected]).

Author and Disclosure Information

Ms. Peterson is from the Loma Linda University School of Medicine, California. Drs. Adler and Ochoa are from the Department of Dermatology, Keck School of Medicine, University of Southern California, Los Angeles.

The authors report no conflict of interest.

Correspondence: Maria T. Ochoa, MD, 1520 San Pablo St, Health Sciences Campus, Los Angeles, CA 90033 ([email protected]).

Article PDF
Article PDF

The 2022 mpox (monkeypox) virus outbreak represents the latest example of how infectious diseases with previously limited reach can spread in a globalized society. More than 86,000 cases have been reported worldwide, with more than 30,000 cases in the United States as of March 15, 2023.1 Herein, we summarize the key features of mpox infection for the dermatologist.

Mpox Transmission

The mpox virus is a double-stranded DNA virus of the Orthopoxvirus genus and Poxviridae family.2,3 There are 2 types of the mpox virus: clade I (formerly the Congo Basin clade) and clade II (formerly the West African clade). Clade I causes more severe disease (10% mortality rate), while clade II is associated with lower mortality (1%–3%) and has been split into subclades of IIa (exhibits zoonotic transmission) and IIb (exhibits human-to-human spread).3,4 The current outbreak is caused by clade IIb, and patients typically have no travel history to classic endemic regions.5,6

In endemic countries, mpox transmission is zoonotic from small forest animals. In nonendemic countries, sporadic cases rarely have been reported, including a cluster in the United States in 2003 related to pet prairie dogs. In stark contrast, human-to-human transmission is occurring in the current epidemic mainly via intimate skin-to-skin contact and possibly via sexual fluids, meeting the criteria for a sexually transmitted infection. However, nonsexual transmission does still occur, though it is less common.7 Many of the reported cases so far are in young to middle-aged men who have sex with men (MSM).2,8 However, it is crucial to understand that mpox is not exclusive to the MSM population; the virus has been transmitted to heterosexual males, females, children, and even household pets of infected individuals.2,9,10 Labeling mpox as exclusive to the MSM community is both inaccurate and inappropriately stigmatizing.

Cutaneous Presentation and Diagnosis of Mpox

Mpox has an incubation time of approximately 9 days (range, 7–21 days), after which affected persons develop macular lesions that evolve over 2 to 4 weeks into papules, vesicles, and deep-seated pustules before crusting over and resolving with possible residual scarring.2,3,5,9,11,12 Palmoplantar involvement is a key feature.11 Although in some cases there will be multiple lesions with centrifugal progression, the lesions also may be few in number, with some patients presenting with a single lesion in the anogenital region or on the face, hand, or foot (Figure).6,9 Systemic symptoms such as prodromal fever, lymphadenopathy, and headache are common but not universal.9,13 Potential complications include penile edema, proctitis, bacterial superinfection, tonsillitis, conjunctivitis, encephalitis, and pneumonia.5,9,13

Clinical images from the 2022 mpox (monkeypox) outbreak. A, A pink papule with overlying pustules and crusting on the forehead. B, A cluster of large pustules, each with a rim of erythema, on the forearm
Images used with permission from Roneet Lev, MD (San Diego, California), and VisualDx.
Clinical images from the 2022 mpox (monkeypox) outbreak. A, A pink papule with overlying pustules and crusting on the forehead. B, A cluster of large pustules, each with a rim of erythema, on the forearm.

A high index of suspicion is needed to diagnose mpox infection. The differential diagnosis includes smallpox; varicella-zoster virus (primary or reactivation); secondary syphilis; measles; herpes simplex virus; molluscum contagiosum; hand, foot, and mouth disease; and disseminated gonococcal infection.2,3 For lesions confined to the genital area, sexually transmitted infections (eg, chancroid, lymphogranuloma venereum) as well as non–sexually related acute genital ulcers (Lipschütz ulcers) should be considered.2

Certain clinical features may help in distinguishing mpox from other diseases. Mpox exhibits synchronous progression and centrifugal distribution when multiple lesions are present; in contrast, the lesions of primary varicella (chickenpox) appear in multiple different stages, and those of localized herpes zoster (shingles) exhibit a dermatomal distribution. When these features are present, mpox causes a greater degree of lymphadenopathy and systemic symptoms than primary varicella.3Clinical diagnosis of mpox is more than 90% sensitive but only 9% to 26% specific.3 To confirm the diagnosis, a viral swab vigorously obtained from active skin lesions should be sent in viral transport media for mpox DNA-specific polymerase chain reaction testing, which is available from major laboratories.2,3 Other supportive tests include serum studies for anti–mpox virus immunoglobulins and immunohistochemical staining for viral antigens on skin biopsy specimens.2 When evaluating suspected and confirmed mpox cases, dermatologists should wear a gown, gloves, a fitted N95 mask, and eye protection to prevent infection.5

Treating Mpox

Symptomatic mpox infection can last for up to 2 to 5 weeks.3 The patient is no longer infectious once the lesions have crusted over.3,11 The majority of cases require supportive care only.2,3,5,14 However, mpox remains a potentially fatal disease, with 38 deaths to date in the current outbreak.1 High-risk populations include children younger than 8 years, pregnant women, and individuals who are immunocompromised.15 Tecovirimat, an antiviral medication approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for smallpox, is available via the expanded access Investigational New Drug (EA-IND) protocol to treat severe mpox cases but is not widely available in the United States.6,16-18 Brincidofovir, a prodrug of the antiviral cidofovir, possesses single-patient emergency use Investigational New Drug (e-IND) status for treatment of mpox but also is not widely available in the United States.17 Intravenous vaccinia immune globulin is under consideration for high-risk individuals, but little is known regarding its efficacy against mpox.5,16,17

Two smallpox vaccines—JYNNEOS (Bavarian Nordic) and ACAM2000 (Emergent Bio Solutions)—are available for both preexposure and postexposure prophylaxis against mpox virus.19 At this time, only JYNNEOS is FDA approved for the prevention of mpox; ACAM2000 can be used against mpox under the FDA’s EA-IND protocol, which involves additional requirements, including informed consent from the patient.20 ACAM2000 is a live, replication-competent vaccine that carries a warning of increased risk for side effects in patients with cardiac disease, pregnancy, immunocompromise, and a history or presence of eczema and other skin conditions.3,21,22 JYNNEOS is a live but replication-deficient virus and therefore does not carry these warnings.3,21,22

Final Thoughts

Mpox is no longer an obscure illness occurring in limited geographic areas. Dermatologists must remain highly vigilant when evaluating any patient for new-onset vesicular or pustular eruptions to combat this ongoing public health threat. This issue of Cutis® also features a thorough mpox update on the clinical presentation, vaccine guidance, and management.23

The 2022 mpox (monkeypox) virus outbreak represents the latest example of how infectious diseases with previously limited reach can spread in a globalized society. More than 86,000 cases have been reported worldwide, with more than 30,000 cases in the United States as of March 15, 2023.1 Herein, we summarize the key features of mpox infection for the dermatologist.

Mpox Transmission

The mpox virus is a double-stranded DNA virus of the Orthopoxvirus genus and Poxviridae family.2,3 There are 2 types of the mpox virus: clade I (formerly the Congo Basin clade) and clade II (formerly the West African clade). Clade I causes more severe disease (10% mortality rate), while clade II is associated with lower mortality (1%–3%) and has been split into subclades of IIa (exhibits zoonotic transmission) and IIb (exhibits human-to-human spread).3,4 The current outbreak is caused by clade IIb, and patients typically have no travel history to classic endemic regions.5,6

In endemic countries, mpox transmission is zoonotic from small forest animals. In nonendemic countries, sporadic cases rarely have been reported, including a cluster in the United States in 2003 related to pet prairie dogs. In stark contrast, human-to-human transmission is occurring in the current epidemic mainly via intimate skin-to-skin contact and possibly via sexual fluids, meeting the criteria for a sexually transmitted infection. However, nonsexual transmission does still occur, though it is less common.7 Many of the reported cases so far are in young to middle-aged men who have sex with men (MSM).2,8 However, it is crucial to understand that mpox is not exclusive to the MSM population; the virus has been transmitted to heterosexual males, females, children, and even household pets of infected individuals.2,9,10 Labeling mpox as exclusive to the MSM community is both inaccurate and inappropriately stigmatizing.

Cutaneous Presentation and Diagnosis of Mpox

Mpox has an incubation time of approximately 9 days (range, 7–21 days), after which affected persons develop macular lesions that evolve over 2 to 4 weeks into papules, vesicles, and deep-seated pustules before crusting over and resolving with possible residual scarring.2,3,5,9,11,12 Palmoplantar involvement is a key feature.11 Although in some cases there will be multiple lesions with centrifugal progression, the lesions also may be few in number, with some patients presenting with a single lesion in the anogenital region or on the face, hand, or foot (Figure).6,9 Systemic symptoms such as prodromal fever, lymphadenopathy, and headache are common but not universal.9,13 Potential complications include penile edema, proctitis, bacterial superinfection, tonsillitis, conjunctivitis, encephalitis, and pneumonia.5,9,13

Clinical images from the 2022 mpox (monkeypox) outbreak. A, A pink papule with overlying pustules and crusting on the forehead. B, A cluster of large pustules, each with a rim of erythema, on the forearm
Images used with permission from Roneet Lev, MD (San Diego, California), and VisualDx.
Clinical images from the 2022 mpox (monkeypox) outbreak. A, A pink papule with overlying pustules and crusting on the forehead. B, A cluster of large pustules, each with a rim of erythema, on the forearm.

A high index of suspicion is needed to diagnose mpox infection. The differential diagnosis includes smallpox; varicella-zoster virus (primary or reactivation); secondary syphilis; measles; herpes simplex virus; molluscum contagiosum; hand, foot, and mouth disease; and disseminated gonococcal infection.2,3 For lesions confined to the genital area, sexually transmitted infections (eg, chancroid, lymphogranuloma venereum) as well as non–sexually related acute genital ulcers (Lipschütz ulcers) should be considered.2

Certain clinical features may help in distinguishing mpox from other diseases. Mpox exhibits synchronous progression and centrifugal distribution when multiple lesions are present; in contrast, the lesions of primary varicella (chickenpox) appear in multiple different stages, and those of localized herpes zoster (shingles) exhibit a dermatomal distribution. When these features are present, mpox causes a greater degree of lymphadenopathy and systemic symptoms than primary varicella.3Clinical diagnosis of mpox is more than 90% sensitive but only 9% to 26% specific.3 To confirm the diagnosis, a viral swab vigorously obtained from active skin lesions should be sent in viral transport media for mpox DNA-specific polymerase chain reaction testing, which is available from major laboratories.2,3 Other supportive tests include serum studies for anti–mpox virus immunoglobulins and immunohistochemical staining for viral antigens on skin biopsy specimens.2 When evaluating suspected and confirmed mpox cases, dermatologists should wear a gown, gloves, a fitted N95 mask, and eye protection to prevent infection.5

Treating Mpox

Symptomatic mpox infection can last for up to 2 to 5 weeks.3 The patient is no longer infectious once the lesions have crusted over.3,11 The majority of cases require supportive care only.2,3,5,14 However, mpox remains a potentially fatal disease, with 38 deaths to date in the current outbreak.1 High-risk populations include children younger than 8 years, pregnant women, and individuals who are immunocompromised.15 Tecovirimat, an antiviral medication approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for smallpox, is available via the expanded access Investigational New Drug (EA-IND) protocol to treat severe mpox cases but is not widely available in the United States.6,16-18 Brincidofovir, a prodrug of the antiviral cidofovir, possesses single-patient emergency use Investigational New Drug (e-IND) status for treatment of mpox but also is not widely available in the United States.17 Intravenous vaccinia immune globulin is under consideration for high-risk individuals, but little is known regarding its efficacy against mpox.5,16,17

Two smallpox vaccines—JYNNEOS (Bavarian Nordic) and ACAM2000 (Emergent Bio Solutions)—are available for both preexposure and postexposure prophylaxis against mpox virus.19 At this time, only JYNNEOS is FDA approved for the prevention of mpox; ACAM2000 can be used against mpox under the FDA’s EA-IND protocol, which involves additional requirements, including informed consent from the patient.20 ACAM2000 is a live, replication-competent vaccine that carries a warning of increased risk for side effects in patients with cardiac disease, pregnancy, immunocompromise, and a history or presence of eczema and other skin conditions.3,21,22 JYNNEOS is a live but replication-deficient virus and therefore does not carry these warnings.3,21,22

Final Thoughts

Mpox is no longer an obscure illness occurring in limited geographic areas. Dermatologists must remain highly vigilant when evaluating any patient for new-onset vesicular or pustular eruptions to combat this ongoing public health threat. This issue of Cutis® also features a thorough mpox update on the clinical presentation, vaccine guidance, and management.23

References
  1. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Mpox: 2022 Outbreak Cases and Data. Updated March 15, 2023. Accessed March 121, 2023. https://www.cdc.gov/poxvirus/monkeypox/response/2022/
  2. Srivastava G. Human monkeypox disease [published online August 10, 2022]. Clin Dermatol. doi:10.1016/j.clindermatol.2022.08.009
  3. Bryer J, Freeman EE, Rosenbach M. Monkeypox emerges on a global scale: a historical review and dermatologic primer [published online July 8, 2022]. J Am Acad Dermatol. doi:10.1016/j.jaad.2022.07.007
  4. Americo JL, Earl PL, Moss B. Virulence differences of mpox (monkeypox) virus clades I, IIa, and IIb.1 in a small animal model. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2023;120:E2220415120. doi:10.1073 /pnas.2220415120
  5. Guarner J, Del Rio C, Malani PN. Monkeypox in 2022—what clinicians need to know. JAMA. 2022;328:139-140. doi:10.1001/jama.2022.10802
  6. Looi MK. Monkeypox: what we know about the 2022 outbreak so far [published online August 23, 2022]. BMJ. doi:10.1136/bmj.o2058
  7. Allan-Blitz LT, Gandhi M, Adamson P, et al. A position statement on mpox as a sexually transmitted disease [published online December 22, 2022]. Clin Infect Dis. doi:10.1093/cid/ciac960
  8. Cabanillas B, Murdaca G, Guemari A, et al. A compilation answering 50 questions on monkeypox virus and the current monkeypox outbreak. Allergy. 2023;78:639-662. doi:10.1111/all.15633
  9. Tarín-Vicente EJ, Alemany A, Agud-Dios M, et al. Clinical presentation and virological assessment of confirmed human monkeypox virus cases in Spain: a prospective observational cohort study [published online August 8, 2022]. Lancet. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(22)01436-2
  10. Seang S, Burrel S, Todesco E, et al. Evidence of human-to-dog transmission of monkeypox virus. Lancet. 2022;400:658-659. doi:10.1016 /s0140-6736(22)01487-8
  11. Ramdass P, Mullick S, Farber HF. Viral skin diseases. Prim Care. 2015;42:517-67. doi:10.1016/j.pop.2015.08.006
  12. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Mpox: Clinical Recognition. Updated August 23, 2022. Accessed March 21, 2023. https://www.cdc .gov/poxvirus/monkeypox/clinicians/clinical-recognition.html
  13. Mpox Cases by Age and Gender, Race/Ethnicity, and Symptoms. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Updated March 15, 2023. Accessed March 21, 2023. https://www.cdc.gov/poxvirus/monkeypox /response/2022/demographics.html
  14. Kawsar A, Hussain K, Roberts N. The return of monkeypox: key pointers for dermatologists [published online July 29, 2022]. Clin Exp Dermatol. doi:10.1111/ced.15357
  15. Khanna U, Bishnoi A, Vinay K. Current outbreak of monkeypox— essentials for the dermatologist [published online June 23, 2022]. J Am Acad Dermatol. doi:10.1016/j.jaad.2022.06.1170
  16. Fox T, Gould S, Princy N, et al. Therapeutics for treating mpox in humans. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2023;3:CD015769. doi:10.1002/14651858 .CD015769
  17. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Treatment information for healthcare professionals. Updated March 3, 2023. Accessed March 24, 2023. https://www.cdc.gov/poxvirus/mpox/clinicians /treatment.html#anchor_1666886364947
  18. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Guidance for tecovirimat use. Updated February 23, 2023. Accessed March 24, 2023. https://www .cdc.gov/poxvirus/mpox/clinicians/Tecovirimat.html
  19. Interim Clinical Considerations for Use of JYNNEOS and ACAM2000 Vaccines During the 2022 U.S. Monkeypox Outbreak. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Updated October 19, 2022. Accessed March 21, 2023. https://www.cdc.gov/poxvirus/monkeypox/health-departments/vaccine-considerations.html
  20. Key Facts About Vaccines to Prevent Monkeypox Disease. US Food and Drug Administration. Updated August 18, 2022. Accessed March 21, 2023. https://www.fda.gov/vaccines-blood-biologics/vaccines/key-facts-aboutvaccines-prevent-monkeypox-disease
  21. Smallpox: Vaccines. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Updated August 8, 2022. Accessed March 21, 2023. https://www.cdc.gov/smallpox/clinicians/vaccines.html
  22. ACAM2000. Package insert. Emergent Product Development Gaithersburg Inc; 2019.
  23. Cices A, Prasad S, Akselrad M, et al. Mpox update: clinical presentation, vaccination guidance, and management. Cutis. 2023;111:197-202. doi:10.12788/cutis.0745
References
  1. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Mpox: 2022 Outbreak Cases and Data. Updated March 15, 2023. Accessed March 121, 2023. https://www.cdc.gov/poxvirus/monkeypox/response/2022/
  2. Srivastava G. Human monkeypox disease [published online August 10, 2022]. Clin Dermatol. doi:10.1016/j.clindermatol.2022.08.009
  3. Bryer J, Freeman EE, Rosenbach M. Monkeypox emerges on a global scale: a historical review and dermatologic primer [published online July 8, 2022]. J Am Acad Dermatol. doi:10.1016/j.jaad.2022.07.007
  4. Americo JL, Earl PL, Moss B. Virulence differences of mpox (monkeypox) virus clades I, IIa, and IIb.1 in a small animal model. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2023;120:E2220415120. doi:10.1073 /pnas.2220415120
  5. Guarner J, Del Rio C, Malani PN. Monkeypox in 2022—what clinicians need to know. JAMA. 2022;328:139-140. doi:10.1001/jama.2022.10802
  6. Looi MK. Monkeypox: what we know about the 2022 outbreak so far [published online August 23, 2022]. BMJ. doi:10.1136/bmj.o2058
  7. Allan-Blitz LT, Gandhi M, Adamson P, et al. A position statement on mpox as a sexually transmitted disease [published online December 22, 2022]. Clin Infect Dis. doi:10.1093/cid/ciac960
  8. Cabanillas B, Murdaca G, Guemari A, et al. A compilation answering 50 questions on monkeypox virus and the current monkeypox outbreak. Allergy. 2023;78:639-662. doi:10.1111/all.15633
  9. Tarín-Vicente EJ, Alemany A, Agud-Dios M, et al. Clinical presentation and virological assessment of confirmed human monkeypox virus cases in Spain: a prospective observational cohort study [published online August 8, 2022]. Lancet. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(22)01436-2
  10. Seang S, Burrel S, Todesco E, et al. Evidence of human-to-dog transmission of monkeypox virus. Lancet. 2022;400:658-659. doi:10.1016 /s0140-6736(22)01487-8
  11. Ramdass P, Mullick S, Farber HF. Viral skin diseases. Prim Care. 2015;42:517-67. doi:10.1016/j.pop.2015.08.006
  12. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Mpox: Clinical Recognition. Updated August 23, 2022. Accessed March 21, 2023. https://www.cdc .gov/poxvirus/monkeypox/clinicians/clinical-recognition.html
  13. Mpox Cases by Age and Gender, Race/Ethnicity, and Symptoms. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Updated March 15, 2023. Accessed March 21, 2023. https://www.cdc.gov/poxvirus/monkeypox /response/2022/demographics.html
  14. Kawsar A, Hussain K, Roberts N. The return of monkeypox: key pointers for dermatologists [published online July 29, 2022]. Clin Exp Dermatol. doi:10.1111/ced.15357
  15. Khanna U, Bishnoi A, Vinay K. Current outbreak of monkeypox— essentials for the dermatologist [published online June 23, 2022]. J Am Acad Dermatol. doi:10.1016/j.jaad.2022.06.1170
  16. Fox T, Gould S, Princy N, et al. Therapeutics for treating mpox in humans. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2023;3:CD015769. doi:10.1002/14651858 .CD015769
  17. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Treatment information for healthcare professionals. Updated March 3, 2023. Accessed March 24, 2023. https://www.cdc.gov/poxvirus/mpox/clinicians /treatment.html#anchor_1666886364947
  18. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Guidance for tecovirimat use. Updated February 23, 2023. Accessed March 24, 2023. https://www .cdc.gov/poxvirus/mpox/clinicians/Tecovirimat.html
  19. Interim Clinical Considerations for Use of JYNNEOS and ACAM2000 Vaccines During the 2022 U.S. Monkeypox Outbreak. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Updated October 19, 2022. Accessed March 21, 2023. https://www.cdc.gov/poxvirus/monkeypox/health-departments/vaccine-considerations.html
  20. Key Facts About Vaccines to Prevent Monkeypox Disease. US Food and Drug Administration. Updated August 18, 2022. Accessed March 21, 2023. https://www.fda.gov/vaccines-blood-biologics/vaccines/key-facts-aboutvaccines-prevent-monkeypox-disease
  21. Smallpox: Vaccines. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Updated August 8, 2022. Accessed March 21, 2023. https://www.cdc.gov/smallpox/clinicians/vaccines.html
  22. ACAM2000. Package insert. Emergent Product Development Gaithersburg Inc; 2019.
  23. Cices A, Prasad S, Akselrad M, et al. Mpox update: clinical presentation, vaccination guidance, and management. Cutis. 2023;111:197-202. doi:10.12788/cutis.0745
Issue
Cutis - 111(4)
Issue
Cutis - 111(4)
Page Number
170-171
Page Number
170-171
Publications
Publications
Topics
Article Type
Display Headline
Mpox (Monkeypox) Clinical Pearls
Display Headline
Mpox (Monkeypox) Clinical Pearls
Sections
Disallow All Ads
Content Gating
No Gating (article Unlocked/Free)
Alternative CME
Disqus Comments
Default
Use ProPublica
Hide sidebar & use full width
render the right sidebar.
Conference Recap Checkbox
Not Conference Recap
Clinical Edge
Display the Slideshow in this Article
Medscape Article
Display survey writer
Reuters content
Disable Inline Native ads
WebMD Article
Article PDF Media