Infectious Diseases

From the University of Missouri School of Medicine, Columbia, MO (Haley Crosby); Department of Clinical Family and Community Medicine, University of Missouri, Columbia, MO (Dr. Pierce); and Department of Medicine, Divisions of Infectious Diseases and Pulmonary, Critical Care and Environmental Medicine, University of Missouri, Columbia, MO, and Divisions of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine and Infectious Diseases, University of Maryland Baltimore Washington Medical Center, Glen Burnie, MD (Dr. Regunath).

ABSTRACT

Objective: Multidisciplinary teams (MDTs) improve outcomes for patients with infective endocarditis (IE), but methods of implementation vary. In our academic medical center, we developed an MDT approach guided by a clinical care pathway and assessed outcomes of patients with IE.

Methods: We compared outcomes of patients with IE and indications for surgery between December 2018 and June 2020 with our prior published data for the period January to December 2016. MDT interventions involved recurring conferences with infectious diseases physicians in team meetings and promoting a clinical care pathway to guide providers on steps in management. Primary outcomes were surgery and in-hospital death.

Results: Prior to the intervention, 6 of 21 (28.6%) patients with indications for surgery underwent surgery or were transferred to higher centers for surgery, and 6 (28.6%) patients died. Post intervention, 17 of 31 (54.8%) patients underwent or were transferred for surgery, and 5 (16.1%) died. After adjusting for age and gender, the odds of surgery or transfer for surgery for patients in the postintervention period were 4.88 (95% CI, 1.20-19.79; P = .027) compared with the pre-intervention period. The odds ratio for death among patients in the postintervention period was 0.40 (95% CI, 0.09-1.69; P = .21).

Conclusion: An MDT team approach using a clinical pathway was associated with an increased number of surgeries performed for IE and may lower rates of in-hospital mortality.

Keywords: infective endocarditis, clinical pathway, quality improvement, multidisciplinary team, valve surgery.

Infective endocarditis (IE) is associated with significant morbidity and mortality.¹ Rates of IE due to Staphylococcus aureus are increasing in the United States.² Reported in-hospital mortality from IE ranges from 15% to 20%.³Optimal management of IE requires input from a number of specialties, including infectious diseases (ID), cardiology, cardiothoracic surgery (CTS), oromaxillofacial surgery, radiology (eg, nuclear medicine), and neurology, among others, depending on the site of complications. Guidelines from the United States and Europe recommend incorporating multidisciplinary teams (MDTs) in the management of IE.^1,3-5 These recommendations are based on quasi-experimental before-and-after studies that have consistently demonstrated that MDTs reduce in-hospital and 1-year mortality.^6-11 However, implementation of MDTs can be challenging. Successful MDTs require good team dynamics, unified participation, and seamless communication among team members.

Clinical pathways are defined as “structured, multidisciplinary plans of care used by health services to detail essential steps in the care of patients with a specific clinical problem.”¹² In the modern era, these pathways are often developed and implemented via the electronic health record (EHR) system. Studies of clinical pathways generally demonstrate improvements in patient outcomes, quality of care, or resource utilization.^13,14 Clinical pathways represent 1 possible approach to the implementation of a MDT in the care of patients with IE.¹⁵

In our earlier work, we used quality improvement principles in the design of an MDT approach to IE care at our institution.¹⁶ Despite having indications for surgery, 12 of 21 (57.1%) patients with IE did not undergo surgery, and we identified these missed opportunities for surgery as a leverage point for improvement of outcomes. With input from the various specialties and stakeholders, we developed a clinical pathway (algorithm) for the institutional management of IE that guides next steps in clinical care and their timelines, aiming to reduce by 50% (from 57.1% to 28.6%) the number of patients with IE who do not undergo surgery despite guideline indications for early surgical intervention. In this report, we describe the implementation of this clinical pathway as our MDT approach to the care of patients with IE at our institution.

Methods

The University of Missouri, Columbia, is a tertiary care academic health system with 5 hospitals and more than 60 clinic locations across central Missouri. In the spring of 2018, an MDT was developed, with support from administrative leaders, to improve the care of patients with IE at our institution. The work group prioritized one leverage point to improve IE outcomes, which was improving the number of surgeries performed on those IE patients who had guideline indications for surgery. A clinical pathway was developed around this leverage point (Figure 1). The pathway leveraged the 6 T’s (Table 1) to guide providers through the evaluation and management of IE.¹⁷ The pathway focused on improving adherence to standards of care and reduction in practice variation by defining indications for referrals and diagnostic interventions, helping to reduce delays in consultation and diagnosis. The pathway also clearly outlined the surgical indications and timing for patients with IE and provided the basis for decisions to proceed with surgery.

Starting in late 2018, in collaboration with cardiology and CTS teams, ID specialists socialized the clinical pathway to inpatient services that cared for patients with IE. Infectious diseases physicians also provided recurring conferences on the effectiveness of MDTs in IE management and participated in heart-valve team case discussions. Finally, in May 2019, an electronic version of the pathway was embedded in the EHR system using a Cerner PowerChart feature known as Care Pathways. The feature presents the user with algorithm questions in the EHR and provides recommendations, relevant orders, timelines, and other decision support in the clinical pathway. The feature is available to all providers in the health system.

To evaluate the effectiveness of our intervention, we recorded outcomes for patients with IE with surgical indications between December 2018 and June 2020 and compared them with our prior published data from January to December 2016. Cases of IE for the current study period were identified via retrospective chart review. Records from December 2018 to June 2020 were searched using International Statistical Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision (ICD-10) discharge codes for IE (I33, I33.0, I33.9, I38, I39, M32.11). To select those patients with definitive IE and indications for surgery, the following criteria were applied: age ≥ 18 years; fulfilled modified Duke criteria for definite IE¹⁸; and met ≥ 1 American Heart Association (AHA)/Infection Diseases Society of America criteria for recommendation for surgery. Indications for surgery were ≥ 1 of the following: left-sided endocarditis caused by S aureus, fungal, or highly resistant organism; new heart block; annular or aortic abscess; persistent bacteremia or fever despite 5 days of appropriate antimicrobials; vegetation size ≥ 10 mm and evidence of embolic phenomena; recurrence of prosthetic valve infection; recurrent emboli and persistent vegetation despite antimicrobials; and increase in vegetation size despite antimicrobials.¹⁶

Age was treated as a categorical variable, using the age groups 18 to 44 years, 45 to 64 years, and 65 years and older. Gender was self-reported. Primary outcomes were surgery or transfer to a higher center for surgery and in-hospital death. Secondary outcomes included consults to teams involved in multidisciplinary care of patients with IE, including ID, cardiology, and CTS. Bivariate analyses were performed using Pearson χ² tests. Odds ratios for surgery and death were calculated using a multivariate logistic regression model including age and gender covariates. Statistical significance was defined at α = 0.05, and statistical analysis was performed using Stata/IC v16.1 (StataCorp LLC). Our university institutional review board (IRB) reviewed the project (#2010858-QI) and determined that the project was quality-improvement activity, not human subject research, and therefore did not require additional IRB review.

Results

We identified 21 patients in the pre-intervention period and 31 patients in the postintervention period with definitive IE who had guideline indications for surgery. The postintervention cohort was older and had more male patients; this difference was not statistically significant. No differences were noted between the groups for race, gender, or intravenous (IV) drug use (Table 2). Chi-square tests of independence were performed to assess the relationship between age and our primary outcomes. There was a significant relationship between age and the likelihood of receiving or being transferred for surgery (59.3% vs 50% vs 7.7% for 18-44 y, 45-64 y, and ≥ 65 y, respectively; χ² [2, N = 52] = 9.67; P = .008), but not between age and mortality (14.8% vs 25.0% vs 30.8% for 18-44 y, 45-64 y, and ≥ 65 y, respectively; χ²  = 1.48 [2, N = 52; P = .478]. The electronic version of the clinical pathway was activated and used in only 3 of the 31 patients in the postintervention period. Consultations to ID, cardiology, and CTS teams were compared between the study periods (Table 2). Although more consultations were seen in the postintervention period, differences were not statistically significant.

The unadjusted primary outcomes are shown in Table 2. More surgeries were performed per guideline indications, and fewer deaths were noted in the postintervention period than in the pre-intervention period, but the differences were not statistically significant (Table 2).

Because the postintervention period had more male patients and older patients, we evaluated the outcomes using a logistic regression model controlling for both age and gender. The odds of surgery or transfer for surgery for patients in the postintervention period were 4.88 (95% CI, 1.20-19.79; P = .027) as compared with the pre-intervention period, and the odds ratio for death among patients in the postintervention period compared with the pre-intervention period was 0.40 (95% CI, 0.09-1.69; P = .21) (Figure 2).

Discussion

In our study, patients with IE with guideline indications for surgery had significantly higher rates of surgery in the postintervention period than in the pre-intervention period. The implementation of an MDT, recurring educational sessions, and efforts to implement and familiarize team members with the clinical pathway approach are the most likely reasons for this change. The increased rates of surgery in the postintervention period were the likely proximate cause of the 60% reduction in in-hospital mortality. This improvement in mortality, while not statistically significant, is very likely to be clinically significant and helps reinforce the value of the MDT intervention used.

Our findings are consistent with existing and mounting literature on the use of MDTs to improve outcomes for patients with IE, including 2 studies that noted an increased rate of surgery for patients with indications.^8,19 Several other studies in both Europe and North America have found significant decreases in mortality,^6-11,20,21 rates of complications,⁹ time to diagnosis and treatment,¹¹ and length of stay^9,20 for patients with IE managed with an MDT strategy. Although current AHA guidelines for care of patients with IE do suggest an MDT approach, the strategy for this approach is not well established.²² Only 1 study that has implemented a new MDT protocol for care of IE has been conducted in the United States.⁸

While effective MDTs certainly improve outcomes in patients with IE, there are reported differences in implementation of such an approach. With the MDT model as the core, various implementations included regular case conferences,^{10,11,19,21,23} formation of a consulting team,^6,8 or establishment of a new protocol or algorithm for care.^8,9,20 Our approach used a clinical pathway as a basis for improved communication among consulting services, education of learning providers via regular case conferences, and implementation of an electronic clinical care pathway to guide them step by step. Our pathway followed the institutionally standardized algorithm (Figure 1), using what we called the 6 T’s approach (Table 1), that guides providers to evaluate critical cases in a fast track.¹⁷

To the best of our knowledge, ours is the first report of an MDT that used an electronic clinical care pathway embedded within the EHR. The electronic version of our clinical pathway went live for only the second half of the postintervention study period, which is the most likely reason for its limited utilization. It is also possible that educational efforts in the first half of the intervention period were sufficient to familiarize providers with the care pathway such that the electronic version was seldom needed. We are exploring other possible ways of improving electronic pathway utilization, such as improving the feature usability and further systemwide educational efforts.

Our study has other limitations. Quasi-experimental before-and-after comparisons are subject to confounding from concurrent interventions. We had a substantial change in cardiothoracic faculty soon after the commencement of our efforts to form the MDT, and thus cannot rule out differences related to their comfort level in considering or offering surgery. We also cannot rule out a Hawthorne effect, where knowledge of the ongoing quality-improvement project changed provider behavior, making surgery more likely. We did not evaluate rates of right- versus left-sided endocarditis, which have been linked to mortality.²⁴ Our study also was performed across a single academic institution, which may limit its generalizability. Finally, our study may not have been adequately powered to detect differences in mortality due to implementation of the MDT approach.

Conclusion

Our work suggests that an MDT for IE can be successfully designed and implemented with a clinical pathway using quality-improvement tools in centers where subspecialty services are available. Our approach was associated with a higher rate of surgery among patients with guideline indications for surgery and may reduce in-hospital mortality. An electronic clinical care pathway embedded in the EHR is feasible and may have a role in MDT implementation.

These data were also accepted as a poster at IDWeek 2022, Washington, DC. The poster abstract is published in an online supplement of Open Forum Infectious Diseases as an abstract publication.

Corresponding author: Haley Crosby; [email protected]

Disclosures: None reported.

From the University of Missouri School of Medicine, Columbia, MO (Haley Crosby); Department of Clinical Family and Community Medicine, University of Missouri, Columbia, MO (Dr. Pierce); and Department of Medicine, Divisions of Infectious Diseases and Pulmonary, Critical Care and Environmental Medicine, University of Missouri, Columbia, MO, and Divisions of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine and Infectious Diseases, University of Maryland Baltimore Washington Medical Center, Glen Burnie, MD (Dr. Regunath).

ABSTRACT

Objective: Multidisciplinary teams (MDTs) improve outcomes for patients with infective endocarditis (IE), but methods of implementation vary. In our academic medical center, we developed an MDT approach guided by a clinical care pathway and assessed outcomes of patients with IE.

Methods: We compared outcomes of patients with IE and indications for surgery between December 2018 and June 2020 with our prior published data for the period January to December 2016. MDT interventions involved recurring conferences with infectious diseases physicians in team meetings and promoting a clinical care pathway to guide providers on steps in management. Primary outcomes were surgery and in-hospital death.

Results: Prior to the intervention, 6 of 21 (28.6%) patients with indications for surgery underwent surgery or were transferred to higher centers for surgery, and 6 (28.6%) patients died. Post intervention, 17 of 31 (54.8%) patients underwent or were transferred for surgery, and 5 (16.1%) died. After adjusting for age and gender, the odds of surgery or transfer for surgery for patients in the postintervention period were 4.88 (95% CI, 1.20-19.79; P = .027) compared with the pre-intervention period. The odds ratio for death among patients in the postintervention period was 0.40 (95% CI, 0.09-1.69; P = .21).

Conclusion: An MDT team approach using a clinical pathway was associated with an increased number of surgeries performed for IE and may lower rates of in-hospital mortality.

Keywords: infective endocarditis, clinical pathway, quality improvement, multidisciplinary team, valve surgery.

Infective endocarditis (IE) is associated with significant morbidity and mortality.¹ Rates of IE due to Staphylococcus aureus are increasing in the United States.² Reported in-hospital mortality from IE ranges from 15% to 20%.³Optimal management of IE requires input from a number of specialties, including infectious diseases (ID), cardiology, cardiothoracic surgery (CTS), oromaxillofacial surgery, radiology (eg, nuclear medicine), and neurology, among others, depending on the site of complications. Guidelines from the United States and Europe recommend incorporating multidisciplinary teams (MDTs) in the management of IE.^1,3-5 These recommendations are based on quasi-experimental before-and-after studies that have consistently demonstrated that MDTs reduce in-hospital and 1-year mortality.^6-11 However, implementation of MDTs can be challenging. Successful MDTs require good team dynamics, unified participation, and seamless communication among team members.

Clinical pathways are defined as “structured, multidisciplinary plans of care used by health services to detail essential steps in the care of patients with a specific clinical problem.”¹² In the modern era, these pathways are often developed and implemented via the electronic health record (EHR) system. Studies of clinical pathways generally demonstrate improvements in patient outcomes, quality of care, or resource utilization.^13,14 Clinical pathways represent 1 possible approach to the implementation of a MDT in the care of patients with IE.¹⁵

In our earlier work, we used quality improvement principles in the design of an MDT approach to IE care at our institution.¹⁶ Despite having indications for surgery, 12 of 21 (57.1%) patients with IE did not undergo surgery, and we identified these missed opportunities for surgery as a leverage point for improvement of outcomes. With input from the various specialties and stakeholders, we developed a clinical pathway (algorithm) for the institutional management of IE that guides next steps in clinical care and their timelines, aiming to reduce by 50% (from 57.1% to 28.6%) the number of patients with IE who do not undergo surgery despite guideline indications for early surgical intervention. In this report, we describe the implementation of this clinical pathway as our MDT approach to the care of patients with IE at our institution.

Methods

The University of Missouri, Columbia, is a tertiary care academic health system with 5 hospitals and more than 60 clinic locations across central Missouri. In the spring of 2018, an MDT was developed, with support from administrative leaders, to improve the care of patients with IE at our institution. The work group prioritized one leverage point to improve IE outcomes, which was improving the number of surgeries performed on those IE patients who had guideline indications for surgery. A clinical pathway was developed around this leverage point (Figure 1). The pathway leveraged the 6 T’s (Table 1) to guide providers through the evaluation and management of IE.¹⁷ The pathway focused on improving adherence to standards of care and reduction in practice variation by defining indications for referrals and diagnostic interventions, helping to reduce delays in consultation and diagnosis. The pathway also clearly outlined the surgical indications and timing for patients with IE and provided the basis for decisions to proceed with surgery.

Starting in late 2018, in collaboration with cardiology and CTS teams, ID specialists socialized the clinical pathway to inpatient services that cared for patients with IE. Infectious diseases physicians also provided recurring conferences on the effectiveness of MDTs in IE management and participated in heart-valve team case discussions. Finally, in May 2019, an electronic version of the pathway was embedded in the EHR system using a Cerner PowerChart feature known as Care Pathways. The feature presents the user with algorithm questions in the EHR and provides recommendations, relevant orders, timelines, and other decision support in the clinical pathway. The feature is available to all providers in the health system.

To evaluate the effectiveness of our intervention, we recorded outcomes for patients with IE with surgical indications between December 2018 and June 2020 and compared them with our prior published data from January to December 2016. Cases of IE for the current study period were identified via retrospective chart review. Records from December 2018 to June 2020 were searched using International Statistical Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision (ICD-10) discharge codes for IE (I33, I33.0, I33.9, I38, I39, M32.11). To select those patients with definitive IE and indications for surgery, the following criteria were applied: age ≥ 18 years; fulfilled modified Duke criteria for definite IE¹⁸; and met ≥ 1 American Heart Association (AHA)/Infection Diseases Society of America criteria for recommendation for surgery. Indications for surgery were ≥ 1 of the following: left-sided endocarditis caused by S aureus, fungal, or highly resistant organism; new heart block; annular or aortic abscess; persistent bacteremia or fever despite 5 days of appropriate antimicrobials; vegetation size ≥ 10 mm and evidence of embolic phenomena; recurrence of prosthetic valve infection; recurrent emboli and persistent vegetation despite antimicrobials; and increase in vegetation size despite antimicrobials.¹⁶

Age was treated as a categorical variable, using the age groups 18 to 44 years, 45 to 64 years, and 65 years and older. Gender was self-reported. Primary outcomes were surgery or transfer to a higher center for surgery and in-hospital death. Secondary outcomes included consults to teams involved in multidisciplinary care of patients with IE, including ID, cardiology, and CTS. Bivariate analyses were performed using Pearson χ² tests. Odds ratios for surgery and death were calculated using a multivariate logistic regression model including age and gender covariates. Statistical significance was defined at α = 0.05, and statistical analysis was performed using Stata/IC v16.1 (StataCorp LLC). Our university institutional review board (IRB) reviewed the project (#2010858-QI) and determined that the project was quality-improvement activity, not human subject research, and therefore did not require additional IRB review.

Results

We identified 21 patients in the pre-intervention period and 31 patients in the postintervention period with definitive IE who had guideline indications for surgery. The postintervention cohort was older and had more male patients; this difference was not statistically significant. No differences were noted between the groups for race, gender, or intravenous (IV) drug use (Table 2). Chi-square tests of independence were performed to assess the relationship between age and our primary outcomes. There was a significant relationship between age and the likelihood of receiving or being transferred for surgery (59.3% vs 50% vs 7.7% for 18-44 y, 45-64 y, and ≥ 65 y, respectively; χ² [2, N = 52] = 9.67; P = .008), but not between age and mortality (14.8% vs 25.0% vs 30.8% for 18-44 y, 45-64 y, and ≥ 65 y, respectively; χ²  = 1.48 [2, N = 52; P = .478]. The electronic version of the clinical pathway was activated and used in only 3 of the 31 patients in the postintervention period. Consultations to ID, cardiology, and CTS teams were compared between the study periods (Table 2). Although more consultations were seen in the postintervention period, differences were not statistically significant.

The unadjusted primary outcomes are shown in Table 2. More surgeries were performed per guideline indications, and fewer deaths were noted in the postintervention period than in the pre-intervention period, but the differences were not statistically significant (Table 2).

Because the postintervention period had more male patients and older patients, we evaluated the outcomes using a logistic regression model controlling for both age and gender. The odds of surgery or transfer for surgery for patients in the postintervention period were 4.88 (95% CI, 1.20-19.79; P = .027) as compared with the pre-intervention period, and the odds ratio for death among patients in the postintervention period compared with the pre-intervention period was 0.40 (95% CI, 0.09-1.69; P = .21) (Figure 2).

Discussion

In our study, patients with IE with guideline indications for surgery had significantly higher rates of surgery in the postintervention period than in the pre-intervention period. The implementation of an MDT, recurring educational sessions, and efforts to implement and familiarize team members with the clinical pathway approach are the most likely reasons for this change. The increased rates of surgery in the postintervention period were the likely proximate cause of the 60% reduction in in-hospital mortality. This improvement in mortality, while not statistically significant, is very likely to be clinically significant and helps reinforce the value of the MDT intervention used.

Our findings are consistent with existing and mounting literature on the use of MDTs to improve outcomes for patients with IE, including 2 studies that noted an increased rate of surgery for patients with indications.^8,19 Several other studies in both Europe and North America have found significant decreases in mortality,^6-11,20,21 rates of complications,⁹ time to diagnosis and treatment,¹¹ and length of stay^9,20 for patients with IE managed with an MDT strategy. Although current AHA guidelines for care of patients with IE do suggest an MDT approach, the strategy for this approach is not well established.²² Only 1 study that has implemented a new MDT protocol for care of IE has been conducted in the United States.⁸

While effective MDTs certainly improve outcomes in patients with IE, there are reported differences in implementation of such an approach. With the MDT model as the core, various implementations included regular case conferences,^{10,11,19,21,23} formation of a consulting team,^6,8 or establishment of a new protocol or algorithm for care.^8,9,20 Our approach used a clinical pathway as a basis for improved communication among consulting services, education of learning providers via regular case conferences, and implementation of an electronic clinical care pathway to guide them step by step. Our pathway followed the institutionally standardized algorithm (Figure 1), using what we called the 6 T’s approach (Table 1), that guides providers to evaluate critical cases in a fast track.¹⁷

To the best of our knowledge, ours is the first report of an MDT that used an electronic clinical care pathway embedded within the EHR. The electronic version of our clinical pathway went live for only the second half of the postintervention study period, which is the most likely reason for its limited utilization. It is also possible that educational efforts in the first half of the intervention period were sufficient to familiarize providers with the care pathway such that the electronic version was seldom needed. We are exploring other possible ways of improving electronic pathway utilization, such as improving the feature usability and further systemwide educational efforts.

Our study has other limitations. Quasi-experimental before-and-after comparisons are subject to confounding from concurrent interventions. We had a substantial change in cardiothoracic faculty soon after the commencement of our efforts to form the MDT, and thus cannot rule out differences related to their comfort level in considering or offering surgery. We also cannot rule out a Hawthorne effect, where knowledge of the ongoing quality-improvement project changed provider behavior, making surgery more likely. We did not evaluate rates of right- versus left-sided endocarditis, which have been linked to mortality.²⁴ Our study also was performed across a single academic institution, which may limit its generalizability. Finally, our study may not have been adequately powered to detect differences in mortality due to implementation of the MDT approach.

Conclusion

Our work suggests that an MDT for IE can be successfully designed and implemented with a clinical pathway using quality-improvement tools in centers where subspecialty services are available. Our approach was associated with a higher rate of surgery among patients with guideline indications for surgery and may reduce in-hospital mortality. An electronic clinical care pathway embedded in the EHR is feasible and may have a role in MDT implementation.

These data were also accepted as a poster at IDWeek 2022, Washington, DC. The poster abstract is published in an online supplement of Open Forum Infectious Diseases as an abstract publication.

Corresponding author: Haley Crosby; [email protected]

Disclosures: None reported.

From the University of Missouri School of Medicine, Columbia, MO (Haley Crosby); Department of Clinical Family and Community Medicine, University of Missouri, Columbia, MO (Dr. Pierce); and Department of Medicine, Divisions of Infectious Diseases and Pulmonary, Critical Care and Environmental Medicine, University of Missouri, Columbia, MO, and Divisions of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine and Infectious Diseases, University of Maryland Baltimore Washington Medical Center, Glen Burnie, MD (Dr. Regunath).

ABSTRACT

Objective: Multidisciplinary teams (MDTs) improve outcomes for patients with infective endocarditis (IE), but methods of implementation vary. In our academic medical center, we developed an MDT approach guided by a clinical care pathway and assessed outcomes of patients with IE.

Methods: We compared outcomes of patients with IE and indications for surgery between December 2018 and June 2020 with our prior published data for the period January to December 2016. MDT interventions involved recurring conferences with infectious diseases physicians in team meetings and promoting a clinical care pathway to guide providers on steps in management. Primary outcomes were surgery and in-hospital death.

Results: Prior to the intervention, 6 of 21 (28.6%) patients with indications for surgery underwent surgery or were transferred to higher centers for surgery, and 6 (28.6%) patients died. Post intervention, 17 of 31 (54.8%) patients underwent or were transferred for surgery, and 5 (16.1%) died. After adjusting for age and gender, the odds of surgery or transfer for surgery for patients in the postintervention period were 4.88 (95% CI, 1.20-19.79; P = .027) compared with the pre-intervention period. The odds ratio for death among patients in the postintervention period was 0.40 (95% CI, 0.09-1.69; P = .21).

Conclusion: An MDT team approach using a clinical pathway was associated with an increased number of surgeries performed for IE and may lower rates of in-hospital mortality.

Keywords: infective endocarditis, clinical pathway, quality improvement, multidisciplinary team, valve surgery.

Infective endocarditis (IE) is associated with significant morbidity and mortality.¹ Rates of IE due to Staphylococcus aureus are increasing in the United States.² Reported in-hospital mortality from IE ranges from 15% to 20%.³Optimal management of IE requires input from a number of specialties, including infectious diseases (ID), cardiology, cardiothoracic surgery (CTS), oromaxillofacial surgery, radiology (eg, nuclear medicine), and neurology, among others, depending on the site of complications. Guidelines from the United States and Europe recommend incorporating multidisciplinary teams (MDTs) in the management of IE.^1,3-5 These recommendations are based on quasi-experimental before-and-after studies that have consistently demonstrated that MDTs reduce in-hospital and 1-year mortality.^6-11 However, implementation of MDTs can be challenging. Successful MDTs require good team dynamics, unified participation, and seamless communication among team members.

Clinical pathways are defined as “structured, multidisciplinary plans of care used by health services to detail essential steps in the care of patients with a specific clinical problem.”¹² In the modern era, these pathways are often developed and implemented via the electronic health record (EHR) system. Studies of clinical pathways generally demonstrate improvements in patient outcomes, quality of care, or resource utilization.^13,14 Clinical pathways represent 1 possible approach to the implementation of a MDT in the care of patients with IE.¹⁵

In our earlier work, we used quality improvement principles in the design of an MDT approach to IE care at our institution.¹⁶ Despite having indications for surgery, 12 of 21 (57.1%) patients with IE did not undergo surgery, and we identified these missed opportunities for surgery as a leverage point for improvement of outcomes. With input from the various specialties and stakeholders, we developed a clinical pathway (algorithm) for the institutional management of IE that guides next steps in clinical care and their timelines, aiming to reduce by 50% (from 57.1% to 28.6%) the number of patients with IE who do not undergo surgery despite guideline indications for early surgical intervention. In this report, we describe the implementation of this clinical pathway as our MDT approach to the care of patients with IE at our institution.

Methods

The University of Missouri, Columbia, is a tertiary care academic health system with 5 hospitals and more than 60 clinic locations across central Missouri. In the spring of 2018, an MDT was developed, with support from administrative leaders, to improve the care of patients with IE at our institution. The work group prioritized one leverage point to improve IE outcomes, which was improving the number of surgeries performed on those IE patients who had guideline indications for surgery. A clinical pathway was developed around this leverage point (Figure 1). The pathway leveraged the 6 T’s (Table 1) to guide providers through the evaluation and management of IE.¹⁷ The pathway focused on improving adherence to standards of care and reduction in practice variation by defining indications for referrals and diagnostic interventions, helping to reduce delays in consultation and diagnosis. The pathway also clearly outlined the surgical indications and timing for patients with IE and provided the basis for decisions to proceed with surgery.

Starting in late 2018, in collaboration with cardiology and CTS teams, ID specialists socialized the clinical pathway to inpatient services that cared for patients with IE. Infectious diseases physicians also provided recurring conferences on the effectiveness of MDTs in IE management and participated in heart-valve team case discussions. Finally, in May 2019, an electronic version of the pathway was embedded in the EHR system using a Cerner PowerChart feature known as Care Pathways. The feature presents the user with algorithm questions in the EHR and provides recommendations, relevant orders, timelines, and other decision support in the clinical pathway. The feature is available to all providers in the health system.

To evaluate the effectiveness of our intervention, we recorded outcomes for patients with IE with surgical indications between December 2018 and June 2020 and compared them with our prior published data from January to December 2016. Cases of IE for the current study period were identified via retrospective chart review. Records from December 2018 to June 2020 were searched using International Statistical Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision (ICD-10) discharge codes for IE (I33, I33.0, I33.9, I38, I39, M32.11). To select those patients with definitive IE and indications for surgery, the following criteria were applied: age ≥ 18 years; fulfilled modified Duke criteria for definite IE¹⁸; and met ≥ 1 American Heart Association (AHA)/Infection Diseases Society of America criteria for recommendation for surgery. Indications for surgery were ≥ 1 of the following: left-sided endocarditis caused by S aureus, fungal, or highly resistant organism; new heart block; annular or aortic abscess; persistent bacteremia or fever despite 5 days of appropriate antimicrobials; vegetation size ≥ 10 mm and evidence of embolic phenomena; recurrence of prosthetic valve infection; recurrent emboli and persistent vegetation despite antimicrobials; and increase in vegetation size despite antimicrobials.¹⁶

Age was treated as a categorical variable, using the age groups 18 to 44 years, 45 to 64 years, and 65 years and older. Gender was self-reported. Primary outcomes were surgery or transfer to a higher center for surgery and in-hospital death. Secondary outcomes included consults to teams involved in multidisciplinary care of patients with IE, including ID, cardiology, and CTS. Bivariate analyses were performed using Pearson χ² tests. Odds ratios for surgery and death were calculated using a multivariate logistic regression model including age and gender covariates. Statistical significance was defined at α = 0.05, and statistical analysis was performed using Stata/IC v16.1 (StataCorp LLC). Our university institutional review board (IRB) reviewed the project (#2010858-QI) and determined that the project was quality-improvement activity, not human subject research, and therefore did not require additional IRB review.

Results

We identified 21 patients in the pre-intervention period and 31 patients in the postintervention period with definitive IE who had guideline indications for surgery. The postintervention cohort was older and had more male patients; this difference was not statistically significant. No differences were noted between the groups for race, gender, or intravenous (IV) drug use (Table 2). Chi-square tests of independence were performed to assess the relationship between age and our primary outcomes. There was a significant relationship between age and the likelihood of receiving or being transferred for surgery (59.3% vs 50% vs 7.7% for 18-44 y, 45-64 y, and ≥ 65 y, respectively; χ² [2, N = 52] = 9.67; P = .008), but not between age and mortality (14.8% vs 25.0% vs 30.8% for 18-44 y, 45-64 y, and ≥ 65 y, respectively; χ²  = 1.48 [2, N = 52; P = .478]. The electronic version of the clinical pathway was activated and used in only 3 of the 31 patients in the postintervention period. Consultations to ID, cardiology, and CTS teams were compared between the study periods (Table 2). Although more consultations were seen in the postintervention period, differences were not statistically significant.

The unadjusted primary outcomes are shown in Table 2. More surgeries were performed per guideline indications, and fewer deaths were noted in the postintervention period than in the pre-intervention period, but the differences were not statistically significant (Table 2).

Because the postintervention period had more male patients and older patients, we evaluated the outcomes using a logistic regression model controlling for both age and gender. The odds of surgery or transfer for surgery for patients in the postintervention period were 4.88 (95% CI, 1.20-19.79; P = .027) as compared with the pre-intervention period, and the odds ratio for death among patients in the postintervention period compared with the pre-intervention period was 0.40 (95% CI, 0.09-1.69; P = .21) (Figure 2).

Discussion

In our study, patients with IE with guideline indications for surgery had significantly higher rates of surgery in the postintervention period than in the pre-intervention period. The implementation of an MDT, recurring educational sessions, and efforts to implement and familiarize team members with the clinical pathway approach are the most likely reasons for this change. The increased rates of surgery in the postintervention period were the likely proximate cause of the 60% reduction in in-hospital mortality. This improvement in mortality, while not statistically significant, is very likely to be clinically significant and helps reinforce the value of the MDT intervention used.

Our findings are consistent with existing and mounting literature on the use of MDTs to improve outcomes for patients with IE, including 2 studies that noted an increased rate of surgery for patients with indications.^8,19 Several other studies in both Europe and North America have found significant decreases in mortality,^6-11,20,21 rates of complications,⁹ time to diagnosis and treatment,¹¹ and length of stay^9,20 for patients with IE managed with an MDT strategy. Although current AHA guidelines for care of patients with IE do suggest an MDT approach, the strategy for this approach is not well established.²² Only 1 study that has implemented a new MDT protocol for care of IE has been conducted in the United States.⁸

While effective MDTs certainly improve outcomes in patients with IE, there are reported differences in implementation of such an approach. With the MDT model as the core, various implementations included regular case conferences,^{10,11,19,21,23} formation of a consulting team,^6,8 or establishment of a new protocol or algorithm for care.^8,9,20 Our approach used a clinical pathway as a basis for improved communication among consulting services, education of learning providers via regular case conferences, and implementation of an electronic clinical care pathway to guide them step by step. Our pathway followed the institutionally standardized algorithm (Figure 1), using what we called the 6 T’s approach (Table 1), that guides providers to evaluate critical cases in a fast track.¹⁷

To the best of our knowledge, ours is the first report of an MDT that used an electronic clinical care pathway embedded within the EHR. The electronic version of our clinical pathway went live for only the second half of the postintervention study period, which is the most likely reason for its limited utilization. It is also possible that educational efforts in the first half of the intervention period were sufficient to familiarize providers with the care pathway such that the electronic version was seldom needed. We are exploring other possible ways of improving electronic pathway utilization, such as improving the feature usability and further systemwide educational efforts.

Our study has other limitations. Quasi-experimental before-and-after comparisons are subject to confounding from concurrent interventions. We had a substantial change in cardiothoracic faculty soon after the commencement of our efforts to form the MDT, and thus cannot rule out differences related to their comfort level in considering or offering surgery. We also cannot rule out a Hawthorne effect, where knowledge of the ongoing quality-improvement project changed provider behavior, making surgery more likely. We did not evaluate rates of right- versus left-sided endocarditis, which have been linked to mortality.²⁴ Our study also was performed across a single academic institution, which may limit its generalizability. Finally, our study may not have been adequately powered to detect differences in mortality due to implementation of the MDT approach.

Conclusion

Our work suggests that an MDT for IE can be successfully designed and implemented with a clinical pathway using quality-improvement tools in centers where subspecialty services are available. Our approach was associated with a higher rate of surgery among patients with guideline indications for surgery and may reduce in-hospital mortality. An electronic clinical care pathway embedded in the EHR is feasible and may have a role in MDT implementation.

These data were also accepted as a poster at IDWeek 2022, Washington, DC. The poster abstract is published in an online supplement of Open Forum Infectious Diseases as an abstract publication.

Corresponding author: Haley Crosby; [email protected]

Disclosures: None reported.

NEW ORLEANS – Don’t treat suspected cases of onychomycosis before confirming the diagnosis with a laboratory test, Boni E. Elewski, MD, advises.

“The PAS [periodic acid-Schiff] stain is very popular because it can identify the presence or absence of fungal elements, but a fungal culture will identify the organism living in the nail,” Dr. Elewski, professor and chair of dermatology at the University of Alabama, Birmingham, said at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology. “You also could do a PCR to identify the organism, with or without a KOH or PAS stain. It is often helpful to know what organism is causing the infection.”

University of Alabama, Birmingham

While waiting for lab results, there are three clinical clues to look for – the first being that an infection likely resides in the toenail. “You almost never see dermatophyte onychomycosis in the fingernails without it being in the toenails, too,” Dr. Elewski said.

The presence of tinea pedis is a second clinical clue. “Sometimes it’s subtle, so I will ask the patient, ‘Have you been treating yourself for athlete’s foot?’ If they say ‘no, I’ve never had it,’ put down on your list that it’s unlikely they have onychomycosis. How is the fungus going to jump from the floor into the nail without taking a little vacation on the bottom of the foot? It just isn’t going to happen.”

The presence of dermatophytoma is the third clinical clue. “These are dermatophyte abscesses encased in a biofilm, and they’re really hard to treat,” she said.

Treatments

Clinicians typically turn to one of three oral drugs for treating onychomycosis: terbinafine, itraconazole, and fluconazole, Dr. Elewski noted. Referring to terbinafine as “the gold standard,” she said that she typically writes a prescription for 90 250-mg pills. “When I give terbinafine, I often do baseline liver profiling, depending on the patient’s age, their state of health, their comorbidities, and other medications they’re taking,” she said. “If they’re 18 years old and otherwise healthy, I probably don’t.” While she generally prescribes 90 pills, she added, “keep in mind that 90 pills are not going to cure everybody. I see the patient 4 months later because the drug should stay in the nail for 30 days or more at therapeutic levels after you take that 90-day course.”

Another option is itraconazole, which can be taken at a dose of 200 mg a day for 12 weeks, or at a pulse dose, where patients take 400 mg every day for 1 week, 1 week a month, for 4 consecutive months. “I’ll often do a baseline liver profile with itraconazole, too,” Dr. Elewski said. “I don’t think you have to, but it makes sense if it’s feasible for you. Decide that based on each patient.”

Itraconazole can’t be given concomitantly with statins because of the potential for rhabdomyolysis. For patients taking statins, she consults with their physicians to make sure it’s safe to stop the statin a couple of days before and after their scheduled pulse dose of itraconazole. “This involves 1 week per month of taking itraconazole without the statin,” she said. “Or they could stop statins for the time you treat, if cleared by their doctor.”

As for fluconazole, Dr. Elewski usually prescribes 200 mg once or twice per week until the nail is normal. She offers patients the mnemonic for “Fungal Fridays” or Toesdays” as a way for them to remember which day to take the fluconazole.

According to data in the package inserts, rates of complete and mycologic cures are 38% and 70% for terbinafine, respectively, 14% and 54% for itraconazole, and 37% to 48% and 47% to 62% for fluconazole. “These cures are not 100% based on the standard course [of the drug],” Dr. Elewski noted. “I don’t use the standard course. I believe in treating to terminate. You want to kill the fungus.”
 

Resistant dermatophytes ‘are coming’

Halting treatment with an oral drug at a particular time point instead of when the nail is fungal-free likely contributes to resistant strains, she added, noting that she has at least two dozen patients in her practice with dermatophyte resistance documented in labs. “We need to be antifungal stewards, because resistant dermatophytes are coming to us,” she said. “They’re here already, and we don’t want it to be endemic in the U.S.”

In a published study from 2020, researchers from India enrolled 200 patients with relapsing tinea corporis, tinea cruris, and tinea faciei and allocated 50 each to treatment with either fluconazole, griseofulvin, itraconazole, or terbinafine. At week 4, all treatment arms had cure rates of less than 8%. At week 8, the cure rates were 42% for fluconazole, 16% for griseofulvin, 28% for terbinafine, and 66% for itraconazole.

Based in part on these study findings, Dr. Elewski said that she has become more aggressive in her therapeutic approach, including treating some of her patients on terbinafine for a minimum of 6 months. “If that’s not enough, I keep treating,” she said. “But, patients may not respond to terbinafine; we see resistance. So, itraconazole may be our best drug going forward for treating onychomycosis. You just have to watch out for side effects of itraconazole, mainly drug-drug interactions.”

Dr. Elewski reported having no relevant financial disclosures related to her presentation.

NEW ORLEANS – Don’t treat suspected cases of onychomycosis before confirming the diagnosis with a laboratory test, Boni E. Elewski, MD, advises.

“The PAS [periodic acid-Schiff] stain is very popular because it can identify the presence or absence of fungal elements, but a fungal culture will identify the organism living in the nail,” Dr. Elewski, professor and chair of dermatology at the University of Alabama, Birmingham, said at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology. “You also could do a PCR to identify the organism, with or without a KOH or PAS stain. It is often helpful to know what organism is causing the infection.”

University of Alabama, Birmingham

While waiting for lab results, there are three clinical clues to look for – the first being that an infection likely resides in the toenail. “You almost never see dermatophyte onychomycosis in the fingernails without it being in the toenails, too,” Dr. Elewski said.

The presence of tinea pedis is a second clinical clue. “Sometimes it’s subtle, so I will ask the patient, ‘Have you been treating yourself for athlete’s foot?’ If they say ‘no, I’ve never had it,’ put down on your list that it’s unlikely they have onychomycosis. How is the fungus going to jump from the floor into the nail without taking a little vacation on the bottom of the foot? It just isn’t going to happen.”

The presence of dermatophytoma is the third clinical clue. “These are dermatophyte abscesses encased in a biofilm, and they’re really hard to treat,” she said.

Treatments

Clinicians typically turn to one of three oral drugs for treating onychomycosis: terbinafine, itraconazole, and fluconazole, Dr. Elewski noted. Referring to terbinafine as “the gold standard,” she said that she typically writes a prescription for 90 250-mg pills. “When I give terbinafine, I often do baseline liver profiling, depending on the patient’s age, their state of health, their comorbidities, and other medications they’re taking,” she said. “If they’re 18 years old and otherwise healthy, I probably don’t.” While she generally prescribes 90 pills, she added, “keep in mind that 90 pills are not going to cure everybody. I see the patient 4 months later because the drug should stay in the nail for 30 days or more at therapeutic levels after you take that 90-day course.”

Another option is itraconazole, which can be taken at a dose of 200 mg a day for 12 weeks, or at a pulse dose, where patients take 400 mg every day for 1 week, 1 week a month, for 4 consecutive months. “I’ll often do a baseline liver profile with itraconazole, too,” Dr. Elewski said. “I don’t think you have to, but it makes sense if it’s feasible for you. Decide that based on each patient.”

Itraconazole can’t be given concomitantly with statins because of the potential for rhabdomyolysis. For patients taking statins, she consults with their physicians to make sure it’s safe to stop the statin a couple of days before and after their scheduled pulse dose of itraconazole. “This involves 1 week per month of taking itraconazole without the statin,” she said. “Or they could stop statins for the time you treat, if cleared by their doctor.”

As for fluconazole, Dr. Elewski usually prescribes 200 mg once or twice per week until the nail is normal. She offers patients the mnemonic for “Fungal Fridays” or Toesdays” as a way for them to remember which day to take the fluconazole.

According to data in the package inserts, rates of complete and mycologic cures are 38% and 70% for terbinafine, respectively, 14% and 54% for itraconazole, and 37% to 48% and 47% to 62% for fluconazole. “These cures are not 100% based on the standard course [of the drug],” Dr. Elewski noted. “I don’t use the standard course. I believe in treating to terminate. You want to kill the fungus.”
 

Resistant dermatophytes ‘are coming’

Halting treatment with an oral drug at a particular time point instead of when the nail is fungal-free likely contributes to resistant strains, she added, noting that she has at least two dozen patients in her practice with dermatophyte resistance documented in labs. “We need to be antifungal stewards, because resistant dermatophytes are coming to us,” she said. “They’re here already, and we don’t want it to be endemic in the U.S.”

In a published study from 2020, researchers from India enrolled 200 patients with relapsing tinea corporis, tinea cruris, and tinea faciei and allocated 50 each to treatment with either fluconazole, griseofulvin, itraconazole, or terbinafine. At week 4, all treatment arms had cure rates of less than 8%. At week 8, the cure rates were 42% for fluconazole, 16% for griseofulvin, 28% for terbinafine, and 66% for itraconazole.

Based in part on these study findings, Dr. Elewski said that she has become more aggressive in her therapeutic approach, including treating some of her patients on terbinafine for a minimum of 6 months. “If that’s not enough, I keep treating,” she said. “But, patients may not respond to terbinafine; we see resistance. So, itraconazole may be our best drug going forward for treating onychomycosis. You just have to watch out for side effects of itraconazole, mainly drug-drug interactions.”

Dr. Elewski reported having no relevant financial disclosures related to her presentation.

NEW ORLEANS – Don’t treat suspected cases of onychomycosis before confirming the diagnosis with a laboratory test, Boni E. Elewski, MD, advises.

“The PAS [periodic acid-Schiff] stain is very popular because it can identify the presence or absence of fungal elements, but a fungal culture will identify the organism living in the nail,” Dr. Elewski, professor and chair of dermatology at the University of Alabama, Birmingham, said at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology. “You also could do a PCR to identify the organism, with or without a KOH or PAS stain. It is often helpful to know what organism is causing the infection.”

University of Alabama, Birmingham

While waiting for lab results, there are three clinical clues to look for – the first being that an infection likely resides in the toenail. “You almost never see dermatophyte onychomycosis in the fingernails without it being in the toenails, too,” Dr. Elewski said.

The presence of tinea pedis is a second clinical clue. “Sometimes it’s subtle, so I will ask the patient, ‘Have you been treating yourself for athlete’s foot?’ If they say ‘no, I’ve never had it,’ put down on your list that it’s unlikely they have onychomycosis. How is the fungus going to jump from the floor into the nail without taking a little vacation on the bottom of the foot? It just isn’t going to happen.”

The presence of dermatophytoma is the third clinical clue. “These are dermatophyte abscesses encased in a biofilm, and they’re really hard to treat,” she said.

Treatments

Clinicians typically turn to one of three oral drugs for treating onychomycosis: terbinafine, itraconazole, and fluconazole, Dr. Elewski noted. Referring to terbinafine as “the gold standard,” she said that she typically writes a prescription for 90 250-mg pills. “When I give terbinafine, I often do baseline liver profiling, depending on the patient’s age, their state of health, their comorbidities, and other medications they’re taking,” she said. “If they’re 18 years old and otherwise healthy, I probably don’t.” While she generally prescribes 90 pills, she added, “keep in mind that 90 pills are not going to cure everybody. I see the patient 4 months later because the drug should stay in the nail for 30 days or more at therapeutic levels after you take that 90-day course.”

Another option is itraconazole, which can be taken at a dose of 200 mg a day for 12 weeks, or at a pulse dose, where patients take 400 mg every day for 1 week, 1 week a month, for 4 consecutive months. “I’ll often do a baseline liver profile with itraconazole, too,” Dr. Elewski said. “I don’t think you have to, but it makes sense if it’s feasible for you. Decide that based on each patient.”

Itraconazole can’t be given concomitantly with statins because of the potential for rhabdomyolysis. For patients taking statins, she consults with their physicians to make sure it’s safe to stop the statin a couple of days before and after their scheduled pulse dose of itraconazole. “This involves 1 week per month of taking itraconazole without the statin,” she said. “Or they could stop statins for the time you treat, if cleared by their doctor.”

As for fluconazole, Dr. Elewski usually prescribes 200 mg once or twice per week until the nail is normal. She offers patients the mnemonic for “Fungal Fridays” or Toesdays” as a way for them to remember which day to take the fluconazole.

According to data in the package inserts, rates of complete and mycologic cures are 38% and 70% for terbinafine, respectively, 14% and 54% for itraconazole, and 37% to 48% and 47% to 62% for fluconazole. “These cures are not 100% based on the standard course [of the drug],” Dr. Elewski noted. “I don’t use the standard course. I believe in treating to terminate. You want to kill the fungus.”
 

Resistant dermatophytes ‘are coming’

Halting treatment with an oral drug at a particular time point instead of when the nail is fungal-free likely contributes to resistant strains, she added, noting that she has at least two dozen patients in her practice with dermatophyte resistance documented in labs. “We need to be antifungal stewards, because resistant dermatophytes are coming to us,” she said. “They’re here already, and we don’t want it to be endemic in the U.S.”

In a published study from 2020, researchers from India enrolled 200 patients with relapsing tinea corporis, tinea cruris, and tinea faciei and allocated 50 each to treatment with either fluconazole, griseofulvin, itraconazole, or terbinafine. At week 4, all treatment arms had cure rates of less than 8%. At week 8, the cure rates were 42% for fluconazole, 16% for griseofulvin, 28% for terbinafine, and 66% for itraconazole.

Based in part on these study findings, Dr. Elewski said that she has become more aggressive in her therapeutic approach, including treating some of her patients on terbinafine for a minimum of 6 months. “If that’s not enough, I keep treating,” she said. “But, patients may not respond to terbinafine; we see resistance. So, itraconazole may be our best drug going forward for treating onychomycosis. You just have to watch out for side effects of itraconazole, mainly drug-drug interactions.”

Dr. Elewski reported having no relevant financial disclosures related to her presentation.

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

I’m going to open this week with a case.

A 56-year-old musician presents with diffuse abdominal pain, cramping, and jaundice. His medical history is notable for years of diffuse abdominal complaints, characterized by disabling bouts of diarrhea.

In addition to the jaundice, this acute illness was accompanied by fever as well as diffuse edema and ascites. The patient underwent several abdominal paracenteses to drain excess fluid. One consulting physician administered alcohol to relieve pain, to little avail.

The patient succumbed to his illness. An autopsy showed diffuse liver injury, as well as papillary necrosis of the kidneys. Notably, the nerves of his auditory canal were noted to be thickened, along with the bony part of the skull, consistent with Paget disease of the bone and explaining, potentially, why the talented musician had gone deaf at such a young age.

An interesting note on social history: The patient had apparently developed some feelings for the niece of that doctor who prescribed alcohol. Her name was Therese, perhaps mistranscribed as Elise, and it seems that he may have written this song for her.

This week, we unravel the curious case of Ludwig van Beethoven, thanks to modern DNA extraction techniques, genome-wide association studies, and eight locks of hair.

Beethoven-Haus Bonn

We’re talking about this paper in Current Biology, by Tristan Begg and colleagues, which gives us a look into the very genome of what some would argue is the world’s greatest composer.

The ability to extract DNA from older specimens has transformed the fields of anthropology, archaeology, and history, and now, perhaps, musicology as well.

The researchers identified eight locks of hair in private and public collections, all attributed to the maestro.

Kevin Brown

Current Biology

Ira F. Brilliant Center for Beethoven Studies, San Jose State University

Current Biology

Current Biology

Dr. Wilson is associate professor, department of medicine, and director, Clinical and Translational Research Accelerator, at Yale University, New Haven, Conn. He reported no conflicts of interest.

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

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

I’m going to open this week with a case.

A 56-year-old musician presents with diffuse abdominal pain, cramping, and jaundice. His medical history is notable for years of diffuse abdominal complaints, characterized by disabling bouts of diarrhea.

In addition to the jaundice, this acute illness was accompanied by fever as well as diffuse edema and ascites. The patient underwent several abdominal paracenteses to drain excess fluid. One consulting physician administered alcohol to relieve pain, to little avail.

The patient succumbed to his illness. An autopsy showed diffuse liver injury, as well as papillary necrosis of the kidneys. Notably, the nerves of his auditory canal were noted to be thickened, along with the bony part of the skull, consistent with Paget disease of the bone and explaining, potentially, why the talented musician had gone deaf at such a young age.

An interesting note on social history: The patient had apparently developed some feelings for the niece of that doctor who prescribed alcohol. Her name was Therese, perhaps mistranscribed as Elise, and it seems that he may have written this song for her.

This week, we unravel the curious case of Ludwig van Beethoven, thanks to modern DNA extraction techniques, genome-wide association studies, and eight locks of hair.

Beethoven-Haus Bonn

We’re talking about this paper in Current Biology, by Tristan Begg and colleagues, which gives us a look into the very genome of what some would argue is the world’s greatest composer.

The ability to extract DNA from older specimens has transformed the fields of anthropology, archaeology, and history, and now, perhaps, musicology as well.

The researchers identified eight locks of hair in private and public collections, all attributed to the maestro.

Kevin Brown

Current Biology

Ira F. Brilliant Center for Beethoven Studies, San Jose State University

Current Biology

Current Biology

Dr. Wilson is associate professor, department of medicine, and director, Clinical and Translational Research Accelerator, at Yale University, New Haven, Conn. He reported no conflicts of interest.

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

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

I’m going to open this week with a case.

A 56-year-old musician presents with diffuse abdominal pain, cramping, and jaundice. His medical history is notable for years of diffuse abdominal complaints, characterized by disabling bouts of diarrhea.

In addition to the jaundice, this acute illness was accompanied by fever as well as diffuse edema and ascites. The patient underwent several abdominal paracenteses to drain excess fluid. One consulting physician administered alcohol to relieve pain, to little avail.

The patient succumbed to his illness. An autopsy showed diffuse liver injury, as well as papillary necrosis of the kidneys. Notably, the nerves of his auditory canal were noted to be thickened, along with the bony part of the skull, consistent with Paget disease of the bone and explaining, potentially, why the talented musician had gone deaf at such a young age.

An interesting note on social history: The patient had apparently developed some feelings for the niece of that doctor who prescribed alcohol. Her name was Therese, perhaps mistranscribed as Elise, and it seems that he may have written this song for her.

This week, we unravel the curious case of Ludwig van Beethoven, thanks to modern DNA extraction techniques, genome-wide association studies, and eight locks of hair.

Beethoven-Haus Bonn

We’re talking about this paper in Current Biology, by Tristan Begg and colleagues, which gives us a look into the very genome of what some would argue is the world’s greatest composer.

The ability to extract DNA from older specimens has transformed the fields of anthropology, archaeology, and history, and now, perhaps, musicology as well.

The researchers identified eight locks of hair in private and public collections, all attributed to the maestro.

Kevin Brown

Current Biology

Ira F. Brilliant Center for Beethoven Studies, San Jose State University

Current Biology

Current Biology

Dr. Wilson is associate professor, department of medicine, and director, Clinical and Translational Research Accelerator, at Yale University, New Haven, Conn. He reported no conflicts of interest.

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

Five different nonreceptor tyrosine kinase inhibitors were effective against viral replication of pandemic viruses and seasonal influenza viruses in an ex vivo lung model.

Influenza viruses remain a high cause of morbidity and mortality worldwide as viral mutations outwit vaccine efficacy, Robert Meineke, PhD, of the University of Veterinary Medicine in Hannover, Germany, and colleagues wrote.

“As with previous influenza pandemics and the current SARS-CoV-2 pandemic, effective vaccines are not readily available at early stages of a pandemic,” they noted. To help manage the limitations of timing and effectiveness of current vaccines, the researchers proposed repurposing nonreceptor tyrosine kinase inhibitors (NRTKIs) to block seasonal flu and COVID-19 viral replication.

In a study published in iScience, the researchers identified six NRTKIs currently approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration that showed in vitro inhibition of both pandemic viruses (H1N1) and seasonal influenza viruses (H3N2). These included defactinib, acalabrutinib, saracatinib, and bosutinib, all of which reduced hPCLS infectivity by approximately 50%. In addition, ibrutinib and bosutinib had the largest impact on viral titers. The antiviral effects of NRTKIs appeared to be independent of multiplicity of infection.

The researchers then tested the NRIKIs on an ex vivo model of human precision-cut lung slices to validate the effects of NRTKIs as antivirals against influenza A viruses (IAVs).

In this model, the highest peak titers were achieved at 48 hpi following infection with virus strains NL09 and NL11. The hPCLS models also showed consistent tolerability to 1x concentrations. “Our cytotoxicity cut-off was 20% of the positive control treatment; none of the NRTKIs surpassed this cutoff at [1x] max,” the researchers wrote.

Five of the six identified NRTKIs were validated in the ex vivo setting. All five reduced viral titers by at least 10-fold to more than 1,000-fold. Of these, ibrutinib, bosutinib, and bosutinib showed a significant effect at all concentrations, while treatments with acalabrutinib and defactinib were significant at 24 hpi and 48 hpi. The NRTKs also showed a high genetic barrier against emerging resistant virus mutations.

The study demonstrates the ability of NRTKIs to target kinases required for replication of IAV, the researchers wrote, and that NRTKIs “represent promising drugs for the development of the next generation of antivirals.”

More research is needed to determine the therapeutic window given that NRTKIs are targeting host factors versus virus-targeted antivirals, but the advantages of NRTKIs include localized delivery that can limit possible cytotoxic effects, and their safety and bioavailability are well established, they said.

The findings were limited by several factors including the use of lung tissue mainly from older donors with lung cancer, the researchers noted. However, this population could be considered at increased risk for IAVs and therefore the data are more clinically applicable.

In addition, “because many viruses utilize the same (or related) host kinases to facilitate replication and transmission, our studies have broader implications for the potential use of these SMKIs to treat infections by other viruses,” they concluded.

The study received no outside funding. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Five different nonreceptor tyrosine kinase inhibitors were effective against viral replication of pandemic viruses and seasonal influenza viruses in an ex vivo lung model.

Influenza viruses remain a high cause of morbidity and mortality worldwide as viral mutations outwit vaccine efficacy, Robert Meineke, PhD, of the University of Veterinary Medicine in Hannover, Germany, and colleagues wrote.

“As with previous influenza pandemics and the current SARS-CoV-2 pandemic, effective vaccines are not readily available at early stages of a pandemic,” they noted. To help manage the limitations of timing and effectiveness of current vaccines, the researchers proposed repurposing nonreceptor tyrosine kinase inhibitors (NRTKIs) to block seasonal flu and COVID-19 viral replication.

In a study published in iScience, the researchers identified six NRTKIs currently approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration that showed in vitro inhibition of both pandemic viruses (H1N1) and seasonal influenza viruses (H3N2). These included defactinib, acalabrutinib, saracatinib, and bosutinib, all of which reduced hPCLS infectivity by approximately 50%. In addition, ibrutinib and bosutinib had the largest impact on viral titers. The antiviral effects of NRTKIs appeared to be independent of multiplicity of infection.

The researchers then tested the NRIKIs on an ex vivo model of human precision-cut lung slices to validate the effects of NRTKIs as antivirals against influenza A viruses (IAVs).

In this model, the highest peak titers were achieved at 48 hpi following infection with virus strains NL09 and NL11. The hPCLS models also showed consistent tolerability to 1x concentrations. “Our cytotoxicity cut-off was 20% of the positive control treatment; none of the NRTKIs surpassed this cutoff at [1x] max,” the researchers wrote.

Five of the six identified NRTKIs were validated in the ex vivo setting. All five reduced viral titers by at least 10-fold to more than 1,000-fold. Of these, ibrutinib, bosutinib, and bosutinib showed a significant effect at all concentrations, while treatments with acalabrutinib and defactinib were significant at 24 hpi and 48 hpi. The NRTKs also showed a high genetic barrier against emerging resistant virus mutations.

The study demonstrates the ability of NRTKIs to target kinases required for replication of IAV, the researchers wrote, and that NRTKIs “represent promising drugs for the development of the next generation of antivirals.”

More research is needed to determine the therapeutic window given that NRTKIs are targeting host factors versus virus-targeted antivirals, but the advantages of NRTKIs include localized delivery that can limit possible cytotoxic effects, and their safety and bioavailability are well established, they said.

The findings were limited by several factors including the use of lung tissue mainly from older donors with lung cancer, the researchers noted. However, this population could be considered at increased risk for IAVs and therefore the data are more clinically applicable.

In addition, “because many viruses utilize the same (or related) host kinases to facilitate replication and transmission, our studies have broader implications for the potential use of these SMKIs to treat infections by other viruses,” they concluded.

The study received no outside funding. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Five different nonreceptor tyrosine kinase inhibitors were effective against viral replication of pandemic viruses and seasonal influenza viruses in an ex vivo lung model.

Influenza viruses remain a high cause of morbidity and mortality worldwide as viral mutations outwit vaccine efficacy, Robert Meineke, PhD, of the University of Veterinary Medicine in Hannover, Germany, and colleagues wrote.

“As with previous influenza pandemics and the current SARS-CoV-2 pandemic, effective vaccines are not readily available at early stages of a pandemic,” they noted. To help manage the limitations of timing and effectiveness of current vaccines, the researchers proposed repurposing nonreceptor tyrosine kinase inhibitors (NRTKIs) to block seasonal flu and COVID-19 viral replication.

In a study published in iScience, the researchers identified six NRTKIs currently approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration that showed in vitro inhibition of both pandemic viruses (H1N1) and seasonal influenza viruses (H3N2). These included defactinib, acalabrutinib, saracatinib, and bosutinib, all of which reduced hPCLS infectivity by approximately 50%. In addition, ibrutinib and bosutinib had the largest impact on viral titers. The antiviral effects of NRTKIs appeared to be independent of multiplicity of infection.

The researchers then tested the NRIKIs on an ex vivo model of human precision-cut lung slices to validate the effects of NRTKIs as antivirals against influenza A viruses (IAVs).

In this model, the highest peak titers were achieved at 48 hpi following infection with virus strains NL09 and NL11. The hPCLS models also showed consistent tolerability to 1x concentrations. “Our cytotoxicity cut-off was 20% of the positive control treatment; none of the NRTKIs surpassed this cutoff at [1x] max,” the researchers wrote.

Five of the six identified NRTKIs were validated in the ex vivo setting. All five reduced viral titers by at least 10-fold to more than 1,000-fold. Of these, ibrutinib, bosutinib, and bosutinib showed a significant effect at all concentrations, while treatments with acalabrutinib and defactinib were significant at 24 hpi and 48 hpi. The NRTKs also showed a high genetic barrier against emerging resistant virus mutations.

The study demonstrates the ability of NRTKIs to target kinases required for replication of IAV, the researchers wrote, and that NRTKIs “represent promising drugs for the development of the next generation of antivirals.”

More research is needed to determine the therapeutic window given that NRTKIs are targeting host factors versus virus-targeted antivirals, but the advantages of NRTKIs include localized delivery that can limit possible cytotoxic effects, and their safety and bioavailability are well established, they said.

The findings were limited by several factors including the use of lung tissue mainly from older donors with lung cancer, the researchers noted. However, this population could be considered at increased risk for IAVs and therefore the data are more clinically applicable.

In addition, “because many viruses utilize the same (or related) host kinases to facilitate replication and transmission, our studies have broader implications for the potential use of these SMKIs to treat infections by other viruses,” they concluded.

The study received no outside funding. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

When a bacterial infection reaches the bloodstream, every second is critical. The person’s life is on the line. Yet blood tests to identify bacteria take hours to days. While waiting, doctors often prescribe broad-spectrum antibiotics in hopes of killing whatever bug may be at fault.

Someday soon, that wait time could shrink significantly, allowing health care providers to more quickly zero in on the best antibiotic for each infection – thanks to an innovation from Stanford (Calif.) University that identifies bacteria in seconds.

The cutting-edge method relies on old-school tech: an inkjet printer similar the kind you might have at home – except this one has been modified to print blood instead of ink.

This “bioprinter” spits out tiny drops of blood quickly – more than 1,000 per second. Shine a laser on the drops – using a light-based imaging technique called Raman spectroscopy – and the bacteria’s unique cellular “fingerprint” is revealed.

The very small sample size – each drop is two trillionths of a liter, or about a billion times smaller than a raindrop – make spotting bacteria easier. Smaller samples mean fewer cells, so lab techs can more swiftly separate the bacterial spectra from other components, like red blood cells and white blood cells.

To boost efficiency even more, the researchers added gold nanoparticles, which attach to the bacteria, serving like antennas to focus the light. Machine learning – a type of artificial intelligence – helps interpret the spectrum of light and identify which fingerprint goes with which bacteria.

“It kind of wound up being this really interesting historical period where we could put the pieces together from different technologies, including nanophotonics, printing, and artificial intelligence, to help accelerate identification of bacteria in these complex samples,” says study author Jennifer Dionne, PhD, associate professor of materials science and engineering at Stanford.

Compare that to blood culture testing in hospitals, where it takes days for bacterial cells to grow and multiply inside a large machine that looks like a refrigerator. For some bacteria, like the kinds that cause tuberculosis, cultures take weeks.

Then further testing is needed to identify which antibiotics will quell the infection. The new technology from Stanford could accelerate this process, too.

“The promise of our technique is that you don’t need to have a culture of cells to put the antibiotic on top,” says Dr. Dionne. “What we’re finding is that from the Raman scattering, we can use that to identify – even without incubating with antibiotics – which drug the bacteria would respond to, and that’s really exciting.”

If patients can receive the antibiotic best suited for their infection, they will likely have better outcomes.

“Blood cultures can typically take 48-72 hours to come back, and then you base your clinical decisions and adjusting antibiotics based on those blood cultures,” says Richard Watkins, MD, an infectious disease physician and professor of medicine at the Northeastern Ohio Universities, Rootstown. Dr. Watkins was not involved in the study.

“Sometimes, despite your best guess, you’re wrong,” Dr. Watkins says, “and obviously, the patient could have an adverse outcome. So, if you can diagnose the pathogen sooner, that is ideal. Whatever technology enables clinicians to do that is definitely progress and a step forward.”

On a global scale, this technology could help reduce the overuse of broad-spectrum antibiotics, which contributes to antimicrobial resistance, an emerging health threat, says Dr. Dionne.

The team is working to develop the technology further into an instrument the size of a shoebox and, with further testing, commercialize the product. That could take a few years.

This technology has potential beyond bloodstream infections, too. It could be used to identify bacteria in other fluids, such as in wastewater or contaminated food.

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

When a bacterial infection reaches the bloodstream, every second is critical. The person’s life is on the line. Yet blood tests to identify bacteria take hours to days. While waiting, doctors often prescribe broad-spectrum antibiotics in hopes of killing whatever bug may be at fault.

Someday soon, that wait time could shrink significantly, allowing health care providers to more quickly zero in on the best antibiotic for each infection – thanks to an innovation from Stanford (Calif.) University that identifies bacteria in seconds.

The cutting-edge method relies on old-school tech: an inkjet printer similar the kind you might have at home – except this one has been modified to print blood instead of ink.

This “bioprinter” spits out tiny drops of blood quickly – more than 1,000 per second. Shine a laser on the drops – using a light-based imaging technique called Raman spectroscopy – and the bacteria’s unique cellular “fingerprint” is revealed.

The very small sample size – each drop is two trillionths of a liter, or about a billion times smaller than a raindrop – make spotting bacteria easier. Smaller samples mean fewer cells, so lab techs can more swiftly separate the bacterial spectra from other components, like red blood cells and white blood cells.

To boost efficiency even more, the researchers added gold nanoparticles, which attach to the bacteria, serving like antennas to focus the light. Machine learning – a type of artificial intelligence – helps interpret the spectrum of light and identify which fingerprint goes with which bacteria.

“It kind of wound up being this really interesting historical period where we could put the pieces together from different technologies, including nanophotonics, printing, and artificial intelligence, to help accelerate identification of bacteria in these complex samples,” says study author Jennifer Dionne, PhD, associate professor of materials science and engineering at Stanford.

Compare that to blood culture testing in hospitals, where it takes days for bacterial cells to grow and multiply inside a large machine that looks like a refrigerator. For some bacteria, like the kinds that cause tuberculosis, cultures take weeks.

Then further testing is needed to identify which antibiotics will quell the infection. The new technology from Stanford could accelerate this process, too.

“The promise of our technique is that you don’t need to have a culture of cells to put the antibiotic on top,” says Dr. Dionne. “What we’re finding is that from the Raman scattering, we can use that to identify – even without incubating with antibiotics – which drug the bacteria would respond to, and that’s really exciting.”

If patients can receive the antibiotic best suited for their infection, they will likely have better outcomes.

“Blood cultures can typically take 48-72 hours to come back, and then you base your clinical decisions and adjusting antibiotics based on those blood cultures,” says Richard Watkins, MD, an infectious disease physician and professor of medicine at the Northeastern Ohio Universities, Rootstown. Dr. Watkins was not involved in the study.

“Sometimes, despite your best guess, you’re wrong,” Dr. Watkins says, “and obviously, the patient could have an adverse outcome. So, if you can diagnose the pathogen sooner, that is ideal. Whatever technology enables clinicians to do that is definitely progress and a step forward.”

On a global scale, this technology could help reduce the overuse of broad-spectrum antibiotics, which contributes to antimicrobial resistance, an emerging health threat, says Dr. Dionne.

The team is working to develop the technology further into an instrument the size of a shoebox and, with further testing, commercialize the product. That could take a few years.

This technology has potential beyond bloodstream infections, too. It could be used to identify bacteria in other fluids, such as in wastewater or contaminated food.

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

When a bacterial infection reaches the bloodstream, every second is critical. The person’s life is on the line. Yet blood tests to identify bacteria take hours to days. While waiting, doctors often prescribe broad-spectrum antibiotics in hopes of killing whatever bug may be at fault.

Someday soon, that wait time could shrink significantly, allowing health care providers to more quickly zero in on the best antibiotic for each infection – thanks to an innovation from Stanford (Calif.) University that identifies bacteria in seconds.

The cutting-edge method relies on old-school tech: an inkjet printer similar the kind you might have at home – except this one has been modified to print blood instead of ink.

This “bioprinter” spits out tiny drops of blood quickly – more than 1,000 per second. Shine a laser on the drops – using a light-based imaging technique called Raman spectroscopy – and the bacteria’s unique cellular “fingerprint” is revealed.

The very small sample size – each drop is two trillionths of a liter, or about a billion times smaller than a raindrop – make spotting bacteria easier. Smaller samples mean fewer cells, so lab techs can more swiftly separate the bacterial spectra from other components, like red blood cells and white blood cells.

To boost efficiency even more, the researchers added gold nanoparticles, which attach to the bacteria, serving like antennas to focus the light. Machine learning – a type of artificial intelligence – helps interpret the spectrum of light and identify which fingerprint goes with which bacteria.

“It kind of wound up being this really interesting historical period where we could put the pieces together from different technologies, including nanophotonics, printing, and artificial intelligence, to help accelerate identification of bacteria in these complex samples,” says study author Jennifer Dionne, PhD, associate professor of materials science and engineering at Stanford.

Compare that to blood culture testing in hospitals, where it takes days for bacterial cells to grow and multiply inside a large machine that looks like a refrigerator. For some bacteria, like the kinds that cause tuberculosis, cultures take weeks.

Then further testing is needed to identify which antibiotics will quell the infection. The new technology from Stanford could accelerate this process, too.

“The promise of our technique is that you don’t need to have a culture of cells to put the antibiotic on top,” says Dr. Dionne. “What we’re finding is that from the Raman scattering, we can use that to identify – even without incubating with antibiotics – which drug the bacteria would respond to, and that’s really exciting.”

If patients can receive the antibiotic best suited for their infection, they will likely have better outcomes.

“Blood cultures can typically take 48-72 hours to come back, and then you base your clinical decisions and adjusting antibiotics based on those blood cultures,” says Richard Watkins, MD, an infectious disease physician and professor of medicine at the Northeastern Ohio Universities, Rootstown. Dr. Watkins was not involved in the study.

“Sometimes, despite your best guess, you’re wrong,” Dr. Watkins says, “and obviously, the patient could have an adverse outcome. So, if you can diagnose the pathogen sooner, that is ideal. Whatever technology enables clinicians to do that is definitely progress and a step forward.”

On a global scale, this technology could help reduce the overuse of broad-spectrum antibiotics, which contributes to antimicrobial resistance, an emerging health threat, says Dr. Dionne.

The team is working to develop the technology further into an instrument the size of a shoebox and, with further testing, commercialize the product. That could take a few years.

This technology has potential beyond bloodstream infections, too. It could be used to identify bacteria in other fluids, such as in wastewater or contaminated food.

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

If a patient’s prostate-specific antigen (PSA) spikes 2 points in just 90 days, what is your first thought? This patient has a strong likelihood of aggressive prostate cancer, right? If that same patient also presents with severe, burning bone pain with no precipitating trauma to the area and rest and over-the-counter  painkillers are not helping, you’d think, “check for metastases,” right?

That patient was me in late January 2023.

As a research scientist member of the American Urological Association, I knew enough to know I had to consult my urologist ASAP.

With the above symptoms, I’ll admit I was scared. Fortunately, if that’s the right word, I was no stranger to a rapid, dramatic spike in PSA. In 2021 I was temporarily living in a new city, and I wanted to form a relationship with a good local urologist. The urologist that I was referred to gave me a thorough consultation, including a vigorous digital rectal exam (DRE) and sent me across the street for a blood draw.

To my shock, my PSA had spiked over 2 points, to 9.9 from 7.8 a few months earlier. I freaked. Had my 3-cm tumor burst out into an aggressive cancer? Research on PubMed provided an array of studies showing what could cause PSA to suddenly rise, including a DRE performed 72 hours before the blood draw.1 A week later, my PSA was back down to its normal 7.6. 

But in January 2023, I had none of those previously reported experiences that could suddenly trigger a spike in PSA, like a DRE or riding on a thin bicycle seat for a few hours before the lab visit. 
 

The COVID effect

I went back to PubMed and found a new circumstance that could cause a surge in PSA: COVID-19. A recent study² of 91 men with benign prostatic hypertrophy by researchers in Turkey found that PSA spiked from 0 to 5 points during the COVID infection period and up to 2 points higher 3 months after the infection had cleared. I had tested positive for COVID-19 in mid-December 2022, 4 weeks before my 9.9 PSA reading.

Using Google translate, I communicated with the team in Turkey and found out that the PSA spike can last up to 6 months.

That study helps explain why my PSA dropped over 1.5 points to 8.5 just 2 weeks after the 9.9 reading, with the expectation that it would return to its previous normal of 7.8 within 6 months of infection with SARS-CoV-2. To be safe, my urologist scheduled another PSA test in May, along with an updated multiparametric MRI, which may be followed by an in-bore MRI-guided biopsy of the 3-cm tumor if the mass has enlarged.
 

COVID-19 pain

What about my burning bone pain in my upper right humerus and right rotator cuff that was not precipitated by trauma or strain? A radiograph found no evidence of metastasis, thank goodness. And my research showed that several studies³ have found that COVID-19 can cause burning musculoskeletal pain, including enthesopathy, which is what I had per the radiology report. So my PSA spike and searing pain were likely consequences of the infection.

To avoid the risk for a gross misdiagnosis after a radical spike in PSA, the informed urologist should ask the patient if he has had COVID-19 in the previous 6 months. Overlooking that question could lead to the wrong diagnostic decisions about a rapid jump in PSA or unexplained bone pain.

References

1. Bossens MM et al. Eur J Cancer. 1995;31A:682-5.

2. Cinislioglu AE et al. Urology. 2022;159:16-21.

3. Ciaffi J et al. Joint Bone Spine. 2021;88:105158.

Dr. Keller is founder of the Keller Research Institute, Jacksonville, Fla. He reported serving as a research scientist for the American Urological Association, serving on the advisory board of Active Surveillance Patient’s International, and serving on the boards of numerous nonprofit organizations.

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

If a patient’s prostate-specific antigen (PSA) spikes 2 points in just 90 days, what is your first thought? This patient has a strong likelihood of aggressive prostate cancer, right? If that same patient also presents with severe, burning bone pain with no precipitating trauma to the area and rest and over-the-counter  painkillers are not helping, you’d think, “check for metastases,” right?

That patient was me in late January 2023.

As a research scientist member of the American Urological Association, I knew enough to know I had to consult my urologist ASAP.

With the above symptoms, I’ll admit I was scared. Fortunately, if that’s the right word, I was no stranger to a rapid, dramatic spike in PSA. In 2021 I was temporarily living in a new city, and I wanted to form a relationship with a good local urologist. The urologist that I was referred to gave me a thorough consultation, including a vigorous digital rectal exam (DRE) and sent me across the street for a blood draw.

To my shock, my PSA had spiked over 2 points, to 9.9 from 7.8 a few months earlier. I freaked. Had my 3-cm tumor burst out into an aggressive cancer? Research on PubMed provided an array of studies showing what could cause PSA to suddenly rise, including a DRE performed 72 hours before the blood draw.1 A week later, my PSA was back down to its normal 7.6. 

But in January 2023, I had none of those previously reported experiences that could suddenly trigger a spike in PSA, like a DRE or riding on a thin bicycle seat for a few hours before the lab visit. 
 

The COVID effect

I went back to PubMed and found a new circumstance that could cause a surge in PSA: COVID-19. A recent study² of 91 men with benign prostatic hypertrophy by researchers in Turkey found that PSA spiked from 0 to 5 points during the COVID infection period and up to 2 points higher 3 months after the infection had cleared. I had tested positive for COVID-19 in mid-December 2022, 4 weeks before my 9.9 PSA reading.

Using Google translate, I communicated with the team in Turkey and found out that the PSA spike can last up to 6 months.

That study helps explain why my PSA dropped over 1.5 points to 8.5 just 2 weeks after the 9.9 reading, with the expectation that it would return to its previous normal of 7.8 within 6 months of infection with SARS-CoV-2. To be safe, my urologist scheduled another PSA test in May, along with an updated multiparametric MRI, which may be followed by an in-bore MRI-guided biopsy of the 3-cm tumor if the mass has enlarged.
 

COVID-19 pain

What about my burning bone pain in my upper right humerus and right rotator cuff that was not precipitated by trauma or strain? A radiograph found no evidence of metastasis, thank goodness. And my research showed that several studies³ have found that COVID-19 can cause burning musculoskeletal pain, including enthesopathy, which is what I had per the radiology report. So my PSA spike and searing pain were likely consequences of the infection.

To avoid the risk for a gross misdiagnosis after a radical spike in PSA, the informed urologist should ask the patient if he has had COVID-19 in the previous 6 months. Overlooking that question could lead to the wrong diagnostic decisions about a rapid jump in PSA or unexplained bone pain.

References

1. Bossens MM et al. Eur J Cancer. 1995;31A:682-5.

2. Cinislioglu AE et al. Urology. 2022;159:16-21.

3. Ciaffi J et al. Joint Bone Spine. 2021;88:105158.

Dr. Keller is founder of the Keller Research Institute, Jacksonville, Fla. He reported serving as a research scientist for the American Urological Association, serving on the advisory board of Active Surveillance Patient’s International, and serving on the boards of numerous nonprofit organizations.

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

If a patient’s prostate-specific antigen (PSA) spikes 2 points in just 90 days, what is your first thought? This patient has a strong likelihood of aggressive prostate cancer, right? If that same patient also presents with severe, burning bone pain with no precipitating trauma to the area and rest and over-the-counter  painkillers are not helping, you’d think, “check for metastases,” right?

That patient was me in late January 2023.

As a research scientist member of the American Urological Association, I knew enough to know I had to consult my urologist ASAP.

With the above symptoms, I’ll admit I was scared. Fortunately, if that’s the right word, I was no stranger to a rapid, dramatic spike in PSA. In 2021 I was temporarily living in a new city, and I wanted to form a relationship with a good local urologist. The urologist that I was referred to gave me a thorough consultation, including a vigorous digital rectal exam (DRE) and sent me across the street for a blood draw.

To my shock, my PSA had spiked over 2 points, to 9.9 from 7.8 a few months earlier. I freaked. Had my 3-cm tumor burst out into an aggressive cancer? Research on PubMed provided an array of studies showing what could cause PSA to suddenly rise, including a DRE performed 72 hours before the blood draw.1 A week later, my PSA was back down to its normal 7.6. 

But in January 2023, I had none of those previously reported experiences that could suddenly trigger a spike in PSA, like a DRE or riding on a thin bicycle seat for a few hours before the lab visit. 
 

The COVID effect

I went back to PubMed and found a new circumstance that could cause a surge in PSA: COVID-19. A recent study² of 91 men with benign prostatic hypertrophy by researchers in Turkey found that PSA spiked from 0 to 5 points during the COVID infection period and up to 2 points higher 3 months after the infection had cleared. I had tested positive for COVID-19 in mid-December 2022, 4 weeks before my 9.9 PSA reading.

Using Google translate, I communicated with the team in Turkey and found out that the PSA spike can last up to 6 months.

That study helps explain why my PSA dropped over 1.5 points to 8.5 just 2 weeks after the 9.9 reading, with the expectation that it would return to its previous normal of 7.8 within 6 months of infection with SARS-CoV-2. To be safe, my urologist scheduled another PSA test in May, along with an updated multiparametric MRI, which may be followed by an in-bore MRI-guided biopsy of the 3-cm tumor if the mass has enlarged.
 

COVID-19 pain

What about my burning bone pain in my upper right humerus and right rotator cuff that was not precipitated by trauma or strain? A radiograph found no evidence of metastasis, thank goodness. And my research showed that several studies³ have found that COVID-19 can cause burning musculoskeletal pain, including enthesopathy, which is what I had per the radiology report. So my PSA spike and searing pain were likely consequences of the infection.

To avoid the risk for a gross misdiagnosis after a radical spike in PSA, the informed urologist should ask the patient if he has had COVID-19 in the previous 6 months. Overlooking that question could lead to the wrong diagnostic decisions about a rapid jump in PSA or unexplained bone pain.

References

1. Bossens MM et al. Eur J Cancer. 1995;31A:682-5.

2. Cinislioglu AE et al. Urology. 2022;159:16-21.

3. Ciaffi J et al. Joint Bone Spine. 2021;88:105158.

Dr. Keller is founder of the Keller Research Institute, Jacksonville, Fla. He reported serving as a research scientist for the American Urological Association, serving on the advisory board of Active Surveillance Patient’s International, and serving on the boards of numerous nonprofit organizations.

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

Almost three-quarters of adults living in the United States report having never tested for HIV according to a newly published study from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The reasons are complex and could jeopardize goals of ending the AIDS epidemic by 2030.

Patients and doctors alike face system challenges, including stigma, confidentiality concerns, racism, and inequitable access. Yet doctors, public health authorities, and even some patients agree that testing does work: In 2022, 81% of people diagnosed with HIV were linked to care within 30 days. Moreover, many patients are aware of where and how they wish to be tested. So, what would it take to achieve what ostensibly should be the lowest hanging fruit in the HIV care continuum?

“We didn’t look at the reasons for not testing,” Marc Pitasi, MPH, CDC epidemiologist and coauthor of the CDC study said in an interview. But “we found that the majority of people prefer the test in a clinical setting, so that’s a huge important piece of the puzzle,” he said.

The “never-tested” populations (4,334 of 6,072) in the study were predominantly aged 18-29 years (79.7%) and 50 years plus (78.1%). A total of 48% of never-tested adults also indicated that they had engaged in past-year risky behaviors (that is, injection drug use, treated for a sexually transmitted disease, exchanged sex/drugs for money, engaged in condomless anal sex, or had more than four sex partners). However, the difference between never-tested adults who live in EHE (Ending the HIV Epidemic in the U.S.)–designated jurisdictions (comprising 50 areas and 7 U.S. states responsible for more than 50% of new HIV infections) and those residing in non-EHE areas was only about 5 percentage points (69.1% vs. 74.5%, respectively), underscoring the need for broader engagement.

“There’s definitely a lack of testing across the board,” explained Lina Rosengren-Hovee, MD, MPH, MS, an infectious disease epidemiologist at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. “There are all sorts of biases on how we make decisions and how we stratify … and these heuristics that we have in our minds to identify who is at risk and who needs testing,” she said.

“If we just look at the need for HIV testing based on who is at risk, I think that we are always going to fall short.”
 

Conflicting priorities

Seventeen years have passed since the CDC recommended that HIV testing and screening be offered at least once to all people aged 13-64 years in a routine clinical setting, with an opt-out option and without a separate written consent. People at higher risk (sexually active gay, bisexual, and other men who have sex with men) should be rescreened at least annually.

These recommendations were subsequently reinforced by numerous organizations, including the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force in 2013 and again in 2019, and the American Academy of Pediatrics in 2021.

But Dr. Rosengren-Hovee said that some clinicians remain unaware of the guidelines; for others, they’re usually not top-of-mind because of conflicting priorities.

This is especially true of pediatricians, who, despite data demonstrating that adolescents account for roughly 21% of new HIV diagnoses, rarely recognize or take advantage of HIV-testing opportunities during routine clinical visits.

“Pediatricians want to do the right thing for their patients but at the same time, they want to do the right thing on so many different fronts,” said Sarah Wood, MD, of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, and attending physician of adolescent medicine at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia.

Dr. Wood is coauthor of a study published in Implementation Science Communicationsexamining pediatrician perspectives on implementing HIV testing and prevention. Participants identified confidentiality and time constraints as the most important challenges across every step of their workflow, which in turn, influenced perceptions about patients’ perceived risks for acquiring HIV – perceptions that Dr. Wood believes can be overcome.

“We need to really push pediatricians (through guideline-making societies like AAP and USPSTF) that screening should be universal and not linked to sexual activity or pinned to behavior, so the offer of testing is a universal opt-out,” she said. Additionally, “we need to make it easier for pediatricians to order the test,” for example, “through an office rapid test … and a redesigned workflow that moves the conversation away from physicians and nurse practitioners to medical assistants.”

Dr. Wood also pointed out that any effort would require pediatricians and other types of providers to overcome discomfort around sexual health conversations, noting that, while pediatricians are ideally positioned to work with parents to do education around sexual health, training and impetus are needed.
 

A fractured system

A fractured, often ill-funded U.S. health care system might also be at play according to Scott Harris, MD, MPH, state health officer of the Alabama Department of Public Health in Montgomery, and Association of State and Territorial Health Officials’ Infectious Disease Policy Committee chair.

“There’s a general consensus among everyone in public health that [HIV testing] is an important issue that we’re not addressing as well as we’d like to,” he said.

Dr. Harris acknowledged that, while COVID diverted attention away from HIV, some states have prioritized HIV more than others.

“We don’t have a national public health program; we have a nationwide public health program,” he said. “Everyone’s different and has different responsibilities and authorities ... depending on where their funding streams come from.”

The White House recently announced that it proposed a measure in its Fiscal Year 2023 budget to increase funding for HIV a further $313 million to accelerate efforts to end HIV by 2030, also adding a mandatory program to increase preexposure prophylaxis (PrEP) access. Without congressional approval, the measures are doomed to fail, leaving many states without the proper tools to enhance existing programs, and further painting overworked clinicians into a corner.

For patients, the ramifications are even greater.

“The majority of folks [in the CDC study] that were not tested said that if they were to get tested, they’d prefer to do that within the context of their primary care setting,” said Justin C. Smith, MS, MPH, director of the Campaign to End AIDS, Positive Impact Health Centers; a behavioral scientist at Emory University’s Rollins School of Public Health in Atlanta; and a member of the Presidential Advisory Council on HIV/AIDS.

“When you create a more responsive system that really speaks to the needs that people are expressing, that can provide better outcomes,” Dr. Smith said.

“It’s vital that we create health care and public health interventions that change the dynamics ... and make sure that we’re designing systems with the people that we’re trying to serve at the center.”

Mr. Pitasi, Dr. Rosengren-Hovee, Dr. Wood, Dr. Harris, and Dr. Smith have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Almost three-quarters of adults living in the United States report having never tested for HIV according to a newly published study from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The reasons are complex and could jeopardize goals of ending the AIDS epidemic by 2030.

Patients and doctors alike face system challenges, including stigma, confidentiality concerns, racism, and inequitable access. Yet doctors, public health authorities, and even some patients agree that testing does work: In 2022, 81% of people diagnosed with HIV were linked to care within 30 days. Moreover, many patients are aware of where and how they wish to be tested. So, what would it take to achieve what ostensibly should be the lowest hanging fruit in the HIV care continuum?

“We didn’t look at the reasons for not testing,” Marc Pitasi, MPH, CDC epidemiologist and coauthor of the CDC study said in an interview. But “we found that the majority of people prefer the test in a clinical setting, so that’s a huge important piece of the puzzle,” he said.

The “never-tested” populations (4,334 of 6,072) in the study were predominantly aged 18-29 years (79.7%) and 50 years plus (78.1%). A total of 48% of never-tested adults also indicated that they had engaged in past-year risky behaviors (that is, injection drug use, treated for a sexually transmitted disease, exchanged sex/drugs for money, engaged in condomless anal sex, or had more than four sex partners). However, the difference between never-tested adults who live in EHE (Ending the HIV Epidemic in the U.S.)–designated jurisdictions (comprising 50 areas and 7 U.S. states responsible for more than 50% of new HIV infections) and those residing in non-EHE areas was only about 5 percentage points (69.1% vs. 74.5%, respectively), underscoring the need for broader engagement.

“There’s definitely a lack of testing across the board,” explained Lina Rosengren-Hovee, MD, MPH, MS, an infectious disease epidemiologist at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. “There are all sorts of biases on how we make decisions and how we stratify … and these heuristics that we have in our minds to identify who is at risk and who needs testing,” she said.

“If we just look at the need for HIV testing based on who is at risk, I think that we are always going to fall short.”
 

Conflicting priorities

Seventeen years have passed since the CDC recommended that HIV testing and screening be offered at least once to all people aged 13-64 years in a routine clinical setting, with an opt-out option and without a separate written consent. People at higher risk (sexually active gay, bisexual, and other men who have sex with men) should be rescreened at least annually.

These recommendations were subsequently reinforced by numerous organizations, including the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force in 2013 and again in 2019, and the American Academy of Pediatrics in 2021.

But Dr. Rosengren-Hovee said that some clinicians remain unaware of the guidelines; for others, they’re usually not top-of-mind because of conflicting priorities.

This is especially true of pediatricians, who, despite data demonstrating that adolescents account for roughly 21% of new HIV diagnoses, rarely recognize or take advantage of HIV-testing opportunities during routine clinical visits.

“Pediatricians want to do the right thing for their patients but at the same time, they want to do the right thing on so many different fronts,” said Sarah Wood, MD, of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, and attending physician of adolescent medicine at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia.

Dr. Wood is coauthor of a study published in Implementation Science Communicationsexamining pediatrician perspectives on implementing HIV testing and prevention. Participants identified confidentiality and time constraints as the most important challenges across every step of their workflow, which in turn, influenced perceptions about patients’ perceived risks for acquiring HIV – perceptions that Dr. Wood believes can be overcome.

“We need to really push pediatricians (through guideline-making societies like AAP and USPSTF) that screening should be universal and not linked to sexual activity or pinned to behavior, so the offer of testing is a universal opt-out,” she said. Additionally, “we need to make it easier for pediatricians to order the test,” for example, “through an office rapid test … and a redesigned workflow that moves the conversation away from physicians and nurse practitioners to medical assistants.”

Dr. Wood also pointed out that any effort would require pediatricians and other types of providers to overcome discomfort around sexual health conversations, noting that, while pediatricians are ideally positioned to work with parents to do education around sexual health, training and impetus are needed.
 

A fractured system

A fractured, often ill-funded U.S. health care system might also be at play according to Scott Harris, MD, MPH, state health officer of the Alabama Department of Public Health in Montgomery, and Association of State and Territorial Health Officials’ Infectious Disease Policy Committee chair.

“There’s a general consensus among everyone in public health that [HIV testing] is an important issue that we’re not addressing as well as we’d like to,” he said.

Dr. Harris acknowledged that, while COVID diverted attention away from HIV, some states have prioritized HIV more than others.

“We don’t have a national public health program; we have a nationwide public health program,” he said. “Everyone’s different and has different responsibilities and authorities ... depending on where their funding streams come from.”

The White House recently announced that it proposed a measure in its Fiscal Year 2023 budget to increase funding for HIV a further $313 million to accelerate efforts to end HIV by 2030, also adding a mandatory program to increase preexposure prophylaxis (PrEP) access. Without congressional approval, the measures are doomed to fail, leaving many states without the proper tools to enhance existing programs, and further painting overworked clinicians into a corner.

For patients, the ramifications are even greater.

“The majority of folks [in the CDC study] that were not tested said that if they were to get tested, they’d prefer to do that within the context of their primary care setting,” said Justin C. Smith, MS, MPH, director of the Campaign to End AIDS, Positive Impact Health Centers; a behavioral scientist at Emory University’s Rollins School of Public Health in Atlanta; and a member of the Presidential Advisory Council on HIV/AIDS.

“When you create a more responsive system that really speaks to the needs that people are expressing, that can provide better outcomes,” Dr. Smith said.

“It’s vital that we create health care and public health interventions that change the dynamics ... and make sure that we’re designing systems with the people that we’re trying to serve at the center.”

Mr. Pitasi, Dr. Rosengren-Hovee, Dr. Wood, Dr. Harris, and Dr. Smith have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Almost three-quarters of adults living in the United States report having never tested for HIV according to a newly published study from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The reasons are complex and could jeopardize goals of ending the AIDS epidemic by 2030.

Patients and doctors alike face system challenges, including stigma, confidentiality concerns, racism, and inequitable access. Yet doctors, public health authorities, and even some patients agree that testing does work: In 2022, 81% of people diagnosed with HIV were linked to care within 30 days. Moreover, many patients are aware of where and how they wish to be tested. So, what would it take to achieve what ostensibly should be the lowest hanging fruit in the HIV care continuum?

“We didn’t look at the reasons for not testing,” Marc Pitasi, MPH, CDC epidemiologist and coauthor of the CDC study said in an interview. But “we found that the majority of people prefer the test in a clinical setting, so that’s a huge important piece of the puzzle,” he said.

The “never-tested” populations (4,334 of 6,072) in the study were predominantly aged 18-29 years (79.7%) and 50 years plus (78.1%). A total of 48% of never-tested adults also indicated that they had engaged in past-year risky behaviors (that is, injection drug use, treated for a sexually transmitted disease, exchanged sex/drugs for money, engaged in condomless anal sex, or had more than four sex partners). However, the difference between never-tested adults who live in EHE (Ending the HIV Epidemic in the U.S.)–designated jurisdictions (comprising 50 areas and 7 U.S. states responsible for more than 50% of new HIV infections) and those residing in non-EHE areas was only about 5 percentage points (69.1% vs. 74.5%, respectively), underscoring the need for broader engagement.

“There’s definitely a lack of testing across the board,” explained Lina Rosengren-Hovee, MD, MPH, MS, an infectious disease epidemiologist at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. “There are all sorts of biases on how we make decisions and how we stratify … and these heuristics that we have in our minds to identify who is at risk and who needs testing,” she said.

“If we just look at the need for HIV testing based on who is at risk, I think that we are always going to fall short.”
 

Conflicting priorities

Seventeen years have passed since the CDC recommended that HIV testing and screening be offered at least once to all people aged 13-64 years in a routine clinical setting, with an opt-out option and without a separate written consent. People at higher risk (sexually active gay, bisexual, and other men who have sex with men) should be rescreened at least annually.

These recommendations were subsequently reinforced by numerous organizations, including the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force in 2013 and again in 2019, and the American Academy of Pediatrics in 2021.

But Dr. Rosengren-Hovee said that some clinicians remain unaware of the guidelines; for others, they’re usually not top-of-mind because of conflicting priorities.

This is especially true of pediatricians, who, despite data demonstrating that adolescents account for roughly 21% of new HIV diagnoses, rarely recognize or take advantage of HIV-testing opportunities during routine clinical visits.

“Pediatricians want to do the right thing for their patients but at the same time, they want to do the right thing on so many different fronts,” said Sarah Wood, MD, of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, and attending physician of adolescent medicine at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia.

Dr. Wood is coauthor of a study published in Implementation Science Communicationsexamining pediatrician perspectives on implementing HIV testing and prevention. Participants identified confidentiality and time constraints as the most important challenges across every step of their workflow, which in turn, influenced perceptions about patients’ perceived risks for acquiring HIV – perceptions that Dr. Wood believes can be overcome.

“We need to really push pediatricians (through guideline-making societies like AAP and USPSTF) that screening should be universal and not linked to sexual activity or pinned to behavior, so the offer of testing is a universal opt-out,” she said. Additionally, “we need to make it easier for pediatricians to order the test,” for example, “through an office rapid test … and a redesigned workflow that moves the conversation away from physicians and nurse practitioners to medical assistants.”

Dr. Wood also pointed out that any effort would require pediatricians and other types of providers to overcome discomfort around sexual health conversations, noting that, while pediatricians are ideally positioned to work with parents to do education around sexual health, training and impetus are needed.
 

A fractured system

A fractured, often ill-funded U.S. health care system might also be at play according to Scott Harris, MD, MPH, state health officer of the Alabama Department of Public Health in Montgomery, and Association of State and Territorial Health Officials’ Infectious Disease Policy Committee chair.

“There’s a general consensus among everyone in public health that [HIV testing] is an important issue that we’re not addressing as well as we’d like to,” he said.

Dr. Harris acknowledged that, while COVID diverted attention away from HIV, some states have prioritized HIV more than others.

“We don’t have a national public health program; we have a nationwide public health program,” he said. “Everyone’s different and has different responsibilities and authorities ... depending on where their funding streams come from.”

The White House recently announced that it proposed a measure in its Fiscal Year 2023 budget to increase funding for HIV a further $313 million to accelerate efforts to end HIV by 2030, also adding a mandatory program to increase preexposure prophylaxis (PrEP) access. Without congressional approval, the measures are doomed to fail, leaving many states without the proper tools to enhance existing programs, and further painting overworked clinicians into a corner.

For patients, the ramifications are even greater.

“The majority of folks [in the CDC study] that were not tested said that if they were to get tested, they’d prefer to do that within the context of their primary care setting,” said Justin C. Smith, MS, MPH, director of the Campaign to End AIDS, Positive Impact Health Centers; a behavioral scientist at Emory University’s Rollins School of Public Health in Atlanta; and a member of the Presidential Advisory Council on HIV/AIDS.

“When you create a more responsive system that really speaks to the needs that people are expressing, that can provide better outcomes,” Dr. Smith said.

“It’s vital that we create health care and public health interventions that change the dynamics ... and make sure that we’re designing systems with the people that we’re trying to serve at the center.”

Mr. Pitasi, Dr. Rosengren-Hovee, Dr. Wood, Dr. Harris, and Dr. Smith have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Case: A 3-year-old girl presented to the emergency department after a brief seizure at home. She looked well on physical exam except for a fever of 103° F and thick rhinorrhea.

The intern on duty methodically worked through the standard list of questions. “Immunizations up to date?” she asked.

“Absolutely,” the child’s mom responded. “She’s had everything that’s recommended.”

“Including COVID-19 vaccine?” the intern prompted.

“No.” The mom responded with a shake of her head. “We don’t do that vaccine.”

That mom is not alone. 

COVID-19 vaccines for children as young as 6 months were given emergency-use authorization by the Food and Drug Administration in June 2022 and in February 2023, the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices included COVID-19 vaccine on the routine childhood immunization schedule.

COVID-19 vaccines are safe in young children, and they prevent the most severe outcomes associated with infection, including hospitalization. Newly released data confirm that the COVID-19 vaccines produced by Moderna and Pfizer also provide protection against symptomatic infection for at least 4 months after completion of the monovalent primary series. 

In a Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report released on Feb. 17, 2023, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reported the results of a test-negative design case-control study that enrolled symptomatic children tested for SARS-CoV-2 infection through Feb. 5, 2023, as part of the Increasing Community Access to Testing (ICATT) program.¹ ICATT provides SARS-CoV-2 testing to persons aged at least 3 years at pharmacy and community-based testing sites nationwide.

Two doses of monovalent Moderna vaccine (complete primary series) was 60% effective against symptomatic infection (95% confidence interval, 49%-68%) 2 weeks to 2 months after receipt of the second dose. Vaccine effectiveness dropped to 36% (95% CI, 15%-52%) 3-4 months after the second dose. Three doses of monovalent Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine (complete primary series) was 31% effective (95% CI, 7%-49%) at preventing symptomatic infection 2 weeks to 4 months after receipt of the third dose. A bivalent vaccine dose for eligible children is expected to provide more protection against currently circulating SARS-CoV-2 variants. 

Despite evidence of vaccine efficacy, very few parents are opting to protect their young children with the COVID-19 vaccine. The CDC reports that, as of March 1, 2023, only 8% of children under 2 years and 10.5% of children aged 2-4 years have initiated a COVID vaccine series. The American Academy of Pediatrics has emphasized that 15.0 million children between the ages of 6 months and 4 years have not yet received their first COVID-19 vaccine dose.

While the reasons underlying low COVID-19 vaccination rates in young children are complex, themes emerge. Socioeconomic disparities contributing to low vaccination rates in young children were highlighted in another recent MMWR article.² Through Dec. 1, 2022, vaccination coverage was lower in rural counties (3.4%) than in urban counties (10.5%). Rates were lower in Black and Hispanic children than in White and Asian children. 

According to the CDC, high rates of poverty in Black and Hispanic communities may affect vaccination coverage by affecting caregivers’ access to vaccination sites or ability to leave work to take their child to be vaccinated. Pediatric care providers have repeatedly been identified by parents as a source of trusted vaccine information and a strong provider recommendation is associated with vaccination, but not all families are receiving vaccine advice. In a 2022 Kaiser Family Foundation survey, parents of young children with annual household incomes above $90,000 were more likely to talk to their pediatrician about a COVID-19 vaccine than families with lower incomes.³Vaccine hesitancy, fueled by general confusion and skepticism, is another factor contributing to low vaccination rates. Admittedly, the recommendations are complex and on March 14, 2023, the FDA again revised the emergency-use authorization for young children. Some caregivers continue to express concerns about vaccine side effects as well as the belief that the vaccine won’t prevent their child from getting sick. 

Kendall Purcell, MD, a pediatrician with Norton Children’s Medical Group in Louisville, Ky., recommends COVID-19 vaccination for her patients because it reduces the risk of severe disease. That factored into her own decision to vaccinate her 4-year-old son and 1-year-old daughter, but she hasn’t been able to convince the parents of all her patients. “Some feel that COVID-19 is not as severe for children, so the risks don’t outweigh the benefits when it comes to vaccinating their children.” Back to our case: In the ED the intern reviewed the laboratory testing she had ordered. She then sat down with the mother of the 3-year-old girl to discuss the diagnosis: febrile seizure associated with COVID-19 infection. Febrile seizures are a well-recognized but uncommon complication of COVID-19 in children. In a retrospective cohort study using electronic health record data, febrile seizures occurred in 0.5% of 8,854 children aged 0-5 years with COVID-19 infection.⁴ About 9% of these children required critical care services. In another cohort of hospitalized children, neurologic complications occurred in 7% of children hospitalized with COVID-19.⁵ Febrile and nonfebrile seizures were most commonly observed.

“I really thought COVID-19 was no big deal in young kids,” the mom said. “Parents need the facts.”

The facts are these: Through Dec. 2, 2022, more than 3 million cases of COVID-19 have been reported in children aged younger than 5 years. While COVID is generally less severe in young children than older adults, it is difficult to predict which children will become seriously ill. When children are hospitalized, one in four requires intensive care. COVID-19 is now a vaccine-preventable disease, but too many children remain unprotected.

Dr. Bryant is a pediatrician specializing in infectious diseases at the University of Louisville (Ky.) and Norton Children’s Hospital, also in Louisville. She is a member of the AAP’s Committee on Infectious Diseases and one of the lead authors of the AAP’s Recommendations for Prevention and Control of Influenza in Children, 2022-2023. The opinions expressed in this article are her own. Dr. Bryant discloses that she has served as an investigator on clinical trials funded by Pfizer, Enanta, and Gilead. Email her at [email protected]. Ms. Ezell is a recent graduate from Indiana University Southeast with a Bachelor of Arts in English. They have no conflicts of interest.

References

1. Fleming-Dutra KE et al. Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2023;72:177-182.

2. Murthy BP et al. Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2023;72:183-9.

3. Lopes L et al. KFF COVID-19 vaccine monitor: July 2022. San Francisco: Kaiser Family Foundation, 2022.

4. Cadet K et al. J Child Neurol. 2022 Apr;37(5):410-5.

5. Antoon JW et al. Pediatrics. 2022 Nov 1;150(5):e2022058167.

Case: A 3-year-old girl presented to the emergency department after a brief seizure at home. She looked well on physical exam except for a fever of 103° F and thick rhinorrhea.

The intern on duty methodically worked through the standard list of questions. “Immunizations up to date?” she asked.

“Absolutely,” the child’s mom responded. “She’s had everything that’s recommended.”

“Including COVID-19 vaccine?” the intern prompted.

“No.” The mom responded with a shake of her head. “We don’t do that vaccine.”

That mom is not alone. 

COVID-19 vaccines for children as young as 6 months were given emergency-use authorization by the Food and Drug Administration in June 2022 and in February 2023, the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices included COVID-19 vaccine on the routine childhood immunization schedule.

COVID-19 vaccines are safe in young children, and they prevent the most severe outcomes associated with infection, including hospitalization. Newly released data confirm that the COVID-19 vaccines produced by Moderna and Pfizer also provide protection against symptomatic infection for at least 4 months after completion of the monovalent primary series. 

In a Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report released on Feb. 17, 2023, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reported the results of a test-negative design case-control study that enrolled symptomatic children tested for SARS-CoV-2 infection through Feb. 5, 2023, as part of the Increasing Community Access to Testing (ICATT) program.¹ ICATT provides SARS-CoV-2 testing to persons aged at least 3 years at pharmacy and community-based testing sites nationwide.

Two doses of monovalent Moderna vaccine (complete primary series) was 60% effective against symptomatic infection (95% confidence interval, 49%-68%) 2 weeks to 2 months after receipt of the second dose. Vaccine effectiveness dropped to 36% (95% CI, 15%-52%) 3-4 months after the second dose. Three doses of monovalent Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine (complete primary series) was 31% effective (95% CI, 7%-49%) at preventing symptomatic infection 2 weeks to 4 months after receipt of the third dose. A bivalent vaccine dose for eligible children is expected to provide more protection against currently circulating SARS-CoV-2 variants. 

Despite evidence of vaccine efficacy, very few parents are opting to protect their young children with the COVID-19 vaccine. The CDC reports that, as of March 1, 2023, only 8% of children under 2 years and 10.5% of children aged 2-4 years have initiated a COVID vaccine series. The American Academy of Pediatrics has emphasized that 15.0 million children between the ages of 6 months and 4 years have not yet received their first COVID-19 vaccine dose.

While the reasons underlying low COVID-19 vaccination rates in young children are complex, themes emerge. Socioeconomic disparities contributing to low vaccination rates in young children were highlighted in another recent MMWR article.² Through Dec. 1, 2022, vaccination coverage was lower in rural counties (3.4%) than in urban counties (10.5%). Rates were lower in Black and Hispanic children than in White and Asian children. 

According to the CDC, high rates of poverty in Black and Hispanic communities may affect vaccination coverage by affecting caregivers’ access to vaccination sites or ability to leave work to take their child to be vaccinated. Pediatric care providers have repeatedly been identified by parents as a source of trusted vaccine information and a strong provider recommendation is associated with vaccination, but not all families are receiving vaccine advice. In a 2022 Kaiser Family Foundation survey, parents of young children with annual household incomes above $90,000 were more likely to talk to their pediatrician about a COVID-19 vaccine than families with lower incomes.³Vaccine hesitancy, fueled by general confusion and skepticism, is another factor contributing to low vaccination rates. Admittedly, the recommendations are complex and on March 14, 2023, the FDA again revised the emergency-use authorization for young children. Some caregivers continue to express concerns about vaccine side effects as well as the belief that the vaccine won’t prevent their child from getting sick. 

Kendall Purcell, MD, a pediatrician with Norton Children’s Medical Group in Louisville, Ky., recommends COVID-19 vaccination for her patients because it reduces the risk of severe disease. That factored into her own decision to vaccinate her 4-year-old son and 1-year-old daughter, but she hasn’t been able to convince the parents of all her patients. “Some feel that COVID-19 is not as severe for children, so the risks don’t outweigh the benefits when it comes to vaccinating their children.” Back to our case: In the ED the intern reviewed the laboratory testing she had ordered. She then sat down with the mother of the 3-year-old girl to discuss the diagnosis: febrile seizure associated with COVID-19 infection. Febrile seizures are a well-recognized but uncommon complication of COVID-19 in children. In a retrospective cohort study using electronic health record data, febrile seizures occurred in 0.5% of 8,854 children aged 0-5 years with COVID-19 infection.⁴ About 9% of these children required critical care services. In another cohort of hospitalized children, neurologic complications occurred in 7% of children hospitalized with COVID-19.⁵ Febrile and nonfebrile seizures were most commonly observed.

“I really thought COVID-19 was no big deal in young kids,” the mom said. “Parents need the facts.”

The facts are these: Through Dec. 2, 2022, more than 3 million cases of COVID-19 have been reported in children aged younger than 5 years. While COVID is generally less severe in young children than older adults, it is difficult to predict which children will become seriously ill. When children are hospitalized, one in four requires intensive care. COVID-19 is now a vaccine-preventable disease, but too many children remain unprotected.

Dr. Bryant is a pediatrician specializing in infectious diseases at the University of Louisville (Ky.) and Norton Children’s Hospital, also in Louisville. She is a member of the AAP’s Committee on Infectious Diseases and one of the lead authors of the AAP’s Recommendations for Prevention and Control of Influenza in Children, 2022-2023. The opinions expressed in this article are her own. Dr. Bryant discloses that she has served as an investigator on clinical trials funded by Pfizer, Enanta, and Gilead. Email her at [email protected]. Ms. Ezell is a recent graduate from Indiana University Southeast with a Bachelor of Arts in English. They have no conflicts of interest.

References

1. Fleming-Dutra KE et al. Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2023;72:177-182.

2. Murthy BP et al. Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2023;72:183-9.

3. Lopes L et al. KFF COVID-19 vaccine monitor: July 2022. San Francisco: Kaiser Family Foundation, 2022.

4. Cadet K et al. J Child Neurol. 2022 Apr;37(5):410-5.

5. Antoon JW et al. Pediatrics. 2022 Nov 1;150(5):e2022058167.

Case: A 3-year-old girl presented to the emergency department after a brief seizure at home. She looked well on physical exam except for a fever of 103° F and thick rhinorrhea.

The intern on duty methodically worked through the standard list of questions. “Immunizations up to date?” she asked.

“Absolutely,” the child’s mom responded. “She’s had everything that’s recommended.”

“Including COVID-19 vaccine?” the intern prompted.

“No.” The mom responded with a shake of her head. “We don’t do that vaccine.”

That mom is not alone. 

COVID-19 vaccines for children as young as 6 months were given emergency-use authorization by the Food and Drug Administration in June 2022 and in February 2023, the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices included COVID-19 vaccine on the routine childhood immunization schedule.

COVID-19 vaccines are safe in young children, and they prevent the most severe outcomes associated with infection, including hospitalization. Newly released data confirm that the COVID-19 vaccines produced by Moderna and Pfizer also provide protection against symptomatic infection for at least 4 months after completion of the monovalent primary series. 

In a Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report released on Feb. 17, 2023, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reported the results of a test-negative design case-control study that enrolled symptomatic children tested for SARS-CoV-2 infection through Feb. 5, 2023, as part of the Increasing Community Access to Testing (ICATT) program.¹ ICATT provides SARS-CoV-2 testing to persons aged at least 3 years at pharmacy and community-based testing sites nationwide.

Two doses of monovalent Moderna vaccine (complete primary series) was 60% effective against symptomatic infection (95% confidence interval, 49%-68%) 2 weeks to 2 months after receipt of the second dose. Vaccine effectiveness dropped to 36% (95% CI, 15%-52%) 3-4 months after the second dose. Three doses of monovalent Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine (complete primary series) was 31% effective (95% CI, 7%-49%) at preventing symptomatic infection 2 weeks to 4 months after receipt of the third dose. A bivalent vaccine dose for eligible children is expected to provide more protection against currently circulating SARS-CoV-2 variants. 

Despite evidence of vaccine efficacy, very few parents are opting to protect their young children with the COVID-19 vaccine. The CDC reports that, as of March 1, 2023, only 8% of children under 2 years and 10.5% of children aged 2-4 years have initiated a COVID vaccine series. The American Academy of Pediatrics has emphasized that 15.0 million children between the ages of 6 months and 4 years have not yet received their first COVID-19 vaccine dose.

While the reasons underlying low COVID-19 vaccination rates in young children are complex, themes emerge. Socioeconomic disparities contributing to low vaccination rates in young children were highlighted in another recent MMWR article.² Through Dec. 1, 2022, vaccination coverage was lower in rural counties (3.4%) than in urban counties (10.5%). Rates were lower in Black and Hispanic children than in White and Asian children. 

According to the CDC, high rates of poverty in Black and Hispanic communities may affect vaccination coverage by affecting caregivers’ access to vaccination sites or ability to leave work to take their child to be vaccinated. Pediatric care providers have repeatedly been identified by parents as a source of trusted vaccine information and a strong provider recommendation is associated with vaccination, but not all families are receiving vaccine advice. In a 2022 Kaiser Family Foundation survey, parents of young children with annual household incomes above $90,000 were more likely to talk to their pediatrician about a COVID-19 vaccine than families with lower incomes.³Vaccine hesitancy, fueled by general confusion and skepticism, is another factor contributing to low vaccination rates. Admittedly, the recommendations are complex and on March 14, 2023, the FDA again revised the emergency-use authorization for young children. Some caregivers continue to express concerns about vaccine side effects as well as the belief that the vaccine won’t prevent their child from getting sick. 

Kendall Purcell, MD, a pediatrician with Norton Children’s Medical Group in Louisville, Ky., recommends COVID-19 vaccination for her patients because it reduces the risk of severe disease. That factored into her own decision to vaccinate her 4-year-old son and 1-year-old daughter, but she hasn’t been able to convince the parents of all her patients. “Some feel that COVID-19 is not as severe for children, so the risks don’t outweigh the benefits when it comes to vaccinating their children.” Back to our case: In the ED the intern reviewed the laboratory testing she had ordered. She then sat down with the mother of the 3-year-old girl to discuss the diagnosis: febrile seizure associated with COVID-19 infection. Febrile seizures are a well-recognized but uncommon complication of COVID-19 in children. In a retrospective cohort study using electronic health record data, febrile seizures occurred in 0.5% of 8,854 children aged 0-5 years with COVID-19 infection.⁴ About 9% of these children required critical care services. In another cohort of hospitalized children, neurologic complications occurred in 7% of children hospitalized with COVID-19.⁵ Febrile and nonfebrile seizures were most commonly observed.

“I really thought COVID-19 was no big deal in young kids,” the mom said. “Parents need the facts.”

The facts are these: Through Dec. 2, 2022, more than 3 million cases of COVID-19 have been reported in children aged younger than 5 years. While COVID is generally less severe in young children than older adults, it is difficult to predict which children will become seriously ill. When children are hospitalized, one in four requires intensive care. COVID-19 is now a vaccine-preventable disease, but too many children remain unprotected.

Dr. Bryant is a pediatrician specializing in infectious diseases at the University of Louisville (Ky.) and Norton Children’s Hospital, also in Louisville. She is a member of the AAP’s Committee on Infectious Diseases and one of the lead authors of the AAP’s Recommendations for Prevention and Control of Influenza in Children, 2022-2023. The opinions expressed in this article are her own. Dr. Bryant discloses that she has served as an investigator on clinical trials funded by Pfizer, Enanta, and Gilead. Email her at [email protected]. Ms. Ezell is a recent graduate from Indiana University Southeast with a Bachelor of Arts in English. They have no conflicts of interest.

References

1. Fleming-Dutra KE et al. Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2023;72:177-182.

2. Murthy BP et al. Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2023;72:183-9.

3. Lopes L et al. KFF COVID-19 vaccine monitor: July 2022. San Francisco: Kaiser Family Foundation, 2022.

4. Cadet K et al. J Child Neurol. 2022 Apr;37(5):410-5.

5. Antoon JW et al. Pediatrics. 2022 Nov 1;150(5):e2022058167.

As a field service representative for a slot machine company, Ryan Alexander, 37, of Louisville, Ky., spends his working hours in casinos, covering a large territory including Norfolk, Va., Indianapolis, and Charlotte. Social distancing in the casinos is not the norm. Despite all this up-close contact with people, he said he is still COVID-free, 3 years into the pandemic.

There was one nervous night when his temperature rose to 101° F, and he figured the virus had caught up with him. “I took a test and was fine,” he said, relieved that the result was negative. The fever disappeared, and he was back to normal soon. “Maybe it was just an exhausting day.”

Mr. Alexander is one of those people who have managed – or at least think they have managed – to avoid getting COVID-19.

He is, some say, a NOVID. While some scientists cringe at the term, it’s caught on to describe these virus super-dodgers. Online entrepreneurs offer NOVID-19 T-shirts, masks, and stickers, in case these super-healthy or super-lucky folks want to publicize their good luck. On Twitter, NOVIDs share stories of how they’ve done it.
 

How many NOVIDs?

As of March 16, according to the CDC, almost 104 million cases of COVID – about one-third of the U.S. population – have been reported, but many cases are known to go unreported. About half of American adults surveyed said they have had COVID, according to a December report by the COVID States Project, a multiuniversity effort to supply pandemic data.

As the numbers settle over time, though, it becomes clearer that some in the U.S. have apparently managed to avoid the virus.

While the exact number of people who have remained uninfected isn’t known with certainty, a review of comprehensive serologic data shows about 15% of Americans may not have gotten infected with COVID, Eric Topol, MD, editor-in-chief of Medscape (WebMD’s sister site for medical professionals) wrote in his substack Ground Truths.

But some scientists bristle at the term NOVIDs. They prefer the term “resisters,” according to Elena Hsieh, MD, associate professor of pediatrics and immunology at the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora. Currently, she said, there is much more information on who is more susceptible to contracting severe COVID than who is resistant.

Dr. Hsieh is one of the regional coordinators for the COVID Human Genetic Effort, an international consortium of more than 250 researchers and doctors dedicated to discovering the genetic and immunological bases of the forms of SARS-CoV-2 infection. These researchers and others are looking for explanations for why some people get severe COVID while others seem resistant despite repeated exposure.
 

Resistance research

In determining explanations for resistance to infection, “the needle in the haystack that we are looking for is a change in the genetic code that would allow for you to avoid entry of the virus into the cell,” Dr. Hsieh said. “That is what being resistant to infection is.”

Part of the reason it’s so difficult to study resistance is defining a resister, she said. While many people consider themselves among that group because they’re been exposed multiple times – even with close family members infected and sick, yet they still felt fine – that doesn’t necessarily make them a resister, she said.

Those people could have been infected but remained without symptoms. “Resistance means the virus was inside you, it was near your cell and it did not infect your cell,” Dr. Hsieh said.

“I don’t think we know a lot so far,” Dr. Hsieh said about resisters. “I do believe that, just like there are genetic defects that make someone more susceptible, there are likely to be genetic defects that make somebody less susceptible.’’

“To identify genetic variants that are protective is a really challenging thing to do,” agreed Peter K. Gregersen, MD, professor of genetics at the Feinstein Institutes for Medical Research at Northwell Health in Manhasset, N.Y. Dr. Gregersen is also a regional coordinator for the COVID Human Genetic Effort.

He suspects the number found to be truly resistant to COVID – versus dodging it so far – is going to be very small or not found at all.

“It may exist for COVID or it may not,” he said. Some people may simply have what he calls a robust immune response in the upper part of the throat, perhaps killing off the virus quickly as soon as it enters, so they don’t get a positive test.

Genetic resistance has been found for other diseases, such as HIV.

“For HIV, scientists have been able to identify a specific gene that codes for a protein that can prevent individuals from getting infected,” said Sabrina Assoumou, MD, MPH, professor of medicine at Boston University, who researches HIV.

However, she said, “we haven’t yet found a similar gene or protein that can prevent people from getting infected with SARS-CoV-2.”

What has been found “is that some people might have a mutation in a gene that encodes for what’s called human leukocyte antigen (HLA),” Dr. Assoumou said. HLA, a molecule found on the surface of most cells, has a crucial role in the immune response to foreign substances. “A mutation in HLA can make people less likely to have symptoms if they get infected. Individuals still get infected, but they are less likely to have symptoms.”

Other research has found that those with food allergies are also less likely to be infected. The researchers have speculated that the inflammation characteristic of allergic conditions may reduce levels of a protein called the ACE2 receptor on the surface of airway cells. The SARS-CoV-2 virus uses the receptor to enter the cells, so if levels are low, that could reduce the ability of the virus to infect people.

The COVID Human Genetic Effort continues to search for participants, both those who were admitted to a hospital or repeatedly seen at a hospital because of COVID, as well as those who did not get infected, even after “intense and repeated” exposure.

The number of people likely to be resistant is much smaller, Dr. Hsieh said, than the number of people susceptible to severe disease.
 

The testing ... or lack thereof factor

The timing of testing and a person’s “infection profile” may be factors in people incorrectly declaring themselves NOVIDs, said Anne Wyllie, PhD, a research scientist in epidemiology at the Yale School of Public Health in New Haven, Conn., and a codeveloper of a saliva PCR test for COVID.

“Infection profiles can vary between individuals,” she said. For some, the infection may start in the lower respiratory tract, others in the higher respiratory tract. “Depending on where the virus takes up residence, that can affect test results.”

Then there’s the following-instructions factor. “It’s very likely that due to tests not being done at the right time, with the right sample, or not repeated if there is ongoing evidence of symptoms, that there are individuals out there who believe they are NOVIDs but just missed catching their infection at the window of opportunity.” Dr. Wyllie said.
 

Susceptibility research

“The part we have proven is the genetic defect that would make you more susceptible to having severe disease,” Dr. Hsieh said.

Many published papers report that inherited and/or autoimmune deficiencies of type I interferon immunity, important for combating viral infections and modulating the immune response, can be a significant cause of life-threatening COVID pneumonia.

More recently, researchers, including Jean-Laurent Casanova, MD, PhD, professor at Rockefeller University, New York, and cofounder of the COVID Human Genome Effort, reported that deficiencies in a gene that plays a role in built-in immunity (the early response), and a gene involved in signaling within the immune cells, impair interferon production and may be the basis of severe COVID pneumonia.
 

NOVIDs’ habits run the gamut

As scientists continue their research, the NOVIDs have their own ideas about why they’ve dodged the pandemic bullet, and they have a variety of approaches to handling the pandemic now.

Ryan Alexander, the field rep who travels to casinos, is up to date on his vaccinations and has gotten all the recommended COVID shots. “I was wearing a mask when told to wear masks,” he said.

He still observes the social distance habit but lives life. “I’ve been to three or four concerts in the past couple of years.”

And does he worry his number will eventually be up? “Not at this point, no,” he said.

Joe Asher, 46, said he has not gotten COVID despite being in contact with about 100 people a day, on average. He works as a bartender at an Evansville, Ind., brewery.

“On a Friday night, we can get 500 people,” he said. “I feel like almost everyone at the brewery got it. There’s no way I wasn’t exposed to it all the time.”

However, he said, his coworkers who did get sick were very cautious about not infecting others, partly to help protect a coworker’s family with newborn twins, so that may have helped him stay uninfected, too.

Mr. Asher said he’s in good physical shape, and he’s worked around the public for a long time, so figures maybe that has strengthened his immune system. He’s always been careful about handwashing and said he’s perhaps a bit more conscious of germs than others might be.

Roselyn Mena, 68, a retired teacher in Richmond, Calif., about 16 miles northeast of San Francisco, said she’s managed to avoid the virus even though her husband, Jesus Mena, got infected, as did her two adult children. Now, she remains vigilant about wearing a mask. She tries not to eat inside at restaurants. “I’m super careful,” she said.

Besides her teacher training, Ms. Mena had training as a medical assistant and learned a lot about sanitizing methods. She gets an annual flu shot, washes her hands often, and uses hand sanitizer.

When she shops, she will ask salespeople not wearing masks to please mask. “Only one refused, and she got someone else [to wait on her].”

One reason she is always careful about hygiene, Ms. Mena said, is that “when I get a cold, I get really sick. It last and lasts.” Now, she does worry she might still get it, she said, with the prospect of getting long COVID driving that worry.

In the beginning of the pandemic, Rhonda Fleming, 68, of Los Angeles, lived in a “COVID bubble,” interacting with just a few close family members. As cases went down, she enlarged the bubble. Her two grown daughters got infected, but her granddaughter did not.

She has been vigilant about masking, she said, “and I do still mask in public places.” She has a mask wardrobe, including basic black as well as glittery masks for dressier occasions. “I always carry a mask because inevitably, a cougher surrounds me.”

Now, she will bypass restaurants if she doesn’t feel comfortable with the environment, choosing ones with good air flow. When she flew to Mexico recently, she masked on the plane.

At this point, she said she doesn’t worry about getting infected but remains careful.

Recently, two friends, who have been as diligent as she has about precautions, got infected, “and they don’t know how they got it.”
 

Bragging rights?

Until researchers separate out the true resisters from those who claim to be, some NOVIDs are simply quietly grateful for their luck, while others mention their COVID-free status to anyone who asks or who will listen, and are proud of it. 

And what about those who wear a “NOVID” T-shirt?

“I would think they have a need to convey to the world they are different, perhaps special, because they beat COVID,” said Richard B. Joelson, a New York–based doctor of social work, a psychotherapist, and the author of Help Me! A Psychotherapist’s Tried-and-True Techniques for a Happier Relationship with Yourself and the People You Love. “They didn’t beat COVID, they just didn’t get it.”

Or they may be relieved they didn’t get sick, he said, because they feel defeated when they do. So “it’s a source of pride.” It might be the same people who tell anyone who will listen they never need a doctor or take no medicines, he said.

Even though science may prove many NOVIDs are inaccurate when they call themselves resisters, Dr. Hsieh understands the temptation to talk about it. “It’s kind of cool to think you are supernatural,” she said. “It’s much more attractive than being susceptible. It’s a lot sexier.” ■

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

As a field service representative for a slot machine company, Ryan Alexander, 37, of Louisville, Ky., spends his working hours in casinos, covering a large territory including Norfolk, Va., Indianapolis, and Charlotte. Social distancing in the casinos is not the norm. Despite all this up-close contact with people, he said he is still COVID-free, 3 years into the pandemic.

There was one nervous night when his temperature rose to 101° F, and he figured the virus had caught up with him. “I took a test and was fine,” he said, relieved that the result was negative. The fever disappeared, and he was back to normal soon. “Maybe it was just an exhausting day.”

Mr. Alexander is one of those people who have managed – or at least think they have managed – to avoid getting COVID-19.

He is, some say, a NOVID. While some scientists cringe at the term, it’s caught on to describe these virus super-dodgers. Online entrepreneurs offer NOVID-19 T-shirts, masks, and stickers, in case these super-healthy or super-lucky folks want to publicize their good luck. On Twitter, NOVIDs share stories of how they’ve done it.
 

How many NOVIDs?

As of March 16, according to the CDC, almost 104 million cases of COVID – about one-third of the U.S. population – have been reported, but many cases are known to go unreported. About half of American adults surveyed said they have had COVID, according to a December report by the COVID States Project, a multiuniversity effort to supply pandemic data.

As the numbers settle over time, though, it becomes clearer that some in the U.S. have apparently managed to avoid the virus.

While the exact number of people who have remained uninfected isn’t known with certainty, a review of comprehensive serologic data shows about 15% of Americans may not have gotten infected with COVID, Eric Topol, MD, editor-in-chief of Medscape (WebMD’s sister site for medical professionals) wrote in his substack Ground Truths.

But some scientists bristle at the term NOVIDs. They prefer the term “resisters,” according to Elena Hsieh, MD, associate professor of pediatrics and immunology at the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora. Currently, she said, there is much more information on who is more susceptible to contracting severe COVID than who is resistant.

Dr. Hsieh is one of the regional coordinators for the COVID Human Genetic Effort, an international consortium of more than 250 researchers and doctors dedicated to discovering the genetic and immunological bases of the forms of SARS-CoV-2 infection. These researchers and others are looking for explanations for why some people get severe COVID while others seem resistant despite repeated exposure.
 

Resistance research

In determining explanations for resistance to infection, “the needle in the haystack that we are looking for is a change in the genetic code that would allow for you to avoid entry of the virus into the cell,” Dr. Hsieh said. “That is what being resistant to infection is.”

Part of the reason it’s so difficult to study resistance is defining a resister, she said. While many people consider themselves among that group because they’re been exposed multiple times – even with close family members infected and sick, yet they still felt fine – that doesn’t necessarily make them a resister, she said.

Those people could have been infected but remained without symptoms. “Resistance means the virus was inside you, it was near your cell and it did not infect your cell,” Dr. Hsieh said.

“I don’t think we know a lot so far,” Dr. Hsieh said about resisters. “I do believe that, just like there are genetic defects that make someone more susceptible, there are likely to be genetic defects that make somebody less susceptible.’’

“To identify genetic variants that are protective is a really challenging thing to do,” agreed Peter K. Gregersen, MD, professor of genetics at the Feinstein Institutes for Medical Research at Northwell Health in Manhasset, N.Y. Dr. Gregersen is also a regional coordinator for the COVID Human Genetic Effort.

He suspects the number found to be truly resistant to COVID – versus dodging it so far – is going to be very small or not found at all.

“It may exist for COVID or it may not,” he said. Some people may simply have what he calls a robust immune response in the upper part of the throat, perhaps killing off the virus quickly as soon as it enters, so they don’t get a positive test.

Genetic resistance has been found for other diseases, such as HIV.

“For HIV, scientists have been able to identify a specific gene that codes for a protein that can prevent individuals from getting infected,” said Sabrina Assoumou, MD, MPH, professor of medicine at Boston University, who researches HIV.

However, she said, “we haven’t yet found a similar gene or protein that can prevent people from getting infected with SARS-CoV-2.”

What has been found “is that some people might have a mutation in a gene that encodes for what’s called human leukocyte antigen (HLA),” Dr. Assoumou said. HLA, a molecule found on the surface of most cells, has a crucial role in the immune response to foreign substances. “A mutation in HLA can make people less likely to have symptoms if they get infected. Individuals still get infected, but they are less likely to have symptoms.”

Other research has found that those with food allergies are also less likely to be infected. The researchers have speculated that the inflammation characteristic of allergic conditions may reduce levels of a protein called the ACE2 receptor on the surface of airway cells. The SARS-CoV-2 virus uses the receptor to enter the cells, so if levels are low, that could reduce the ability of the virus to infect people.

The COVID Human Genetic Effort continues to search for participants, both those who were admitted to a hospital or repeatedly seen at a hospital because of COVID, as well as those who did not get infected, even after “intense and repeated” exposure.

The number of people likely to be resistant is much smaller, Dr. Hsieh said, than the number of people susceptible to severe disease.
 

The testing ... or lack thereof factor

The timing of testing and a person’s “infection profile” may be factors in people incorrectly declaring themselves NOVIDs, said Anne Wyllie, PhD, a research scientist in epidemiology at the Yale School of Public Health in New Haven, Conn., and a codeveloper of a saliva PCR test for COVID.

“Infection profiles can vary between individuals,” she said. For some, the infection may start in the lower respiratory tract, others in the higher respiratory tract. “Depending on where the virus takes up residence, that can affect test results.”

Then there’s the following-instructions factor. “It’s very likely that due to tests not being done at the right time, with the right sample, or not repeated if there is ongoing evidence of symptoms, that there are individuals out there who believe they are NOVIDs but just missed catching their infection at the window of opportunity.” Dr. Wyllie said.
 

Susceptibility research

“The part we have proven is the genetic defect that would make you more susceptible to having severe disease,” Dr. Hsieh said.

Many published papers report that inherited and/or autoimmune deficiencies of type I interferon immunity, important for combating viral infections and modulating the immune response, can be a significant cause of life-threatening COVID pneumonia.

More recently, researchers, including Jean-Laurent Casanova, MD, PhD, professor at Rockefeller University, New York, and cofounder of the COVID Human Genome Effort, reported that deficiencies in a gene that plays a role in built-in immunity (the early response), and a gene involved in signaling within the immune cells, impair interferon production and may be the basis of severe COVID pneumonia.
 

NOVIDs’ habits run the gamut

As scientists continue their research, the NOVIDs have their own ideas about why they’ve dodged the pandemic bullet, and they have a variety of approaches to handling the pandemic now.

Ryan Alexander, the field rep who travels to casinos, is up to date on his vaccinations and has gotten all the recommended COVID shots. “I was wearing a mask when told to wear masks,” he said.

He still observes the social distance habit but lives life. “I’ve been to three or four concerts in the past couple of years.”

And does he worry his number will eventually be up? “Not at this point, no,” he said.

Joe Asher, 46, said he has not gotten COVID despite being in contact with about 100 people a day, on average. He works as a bartender at an Evansville, Ind., brewery.

“On a Friday night, we can get 500 people,” he said. “I feel like almost everyone at the brewery got it. There’s no way I wasn’t exposed to it all the time.”

However, he said, his coworkers who did get sick were very cautious about not infecting others, partly to help protect a coworker’s family with newborn twins, so that may have helped him stay uninfected, too.

Mr. Asher said he’s in good physical shape, and he’s worked around the public for a long time, so figures maybe that has strengthened his immune system. He’s always been careful about handwashing and said he’s perhaps a bit more conscious of germs than others might be.

Roselyn Mena, 68, a retired teacher in Richmond, Calif., about 16 miles northeast of San Francisco, said she’s managed to avoid the virus even though her husband, Jesus Mena, got infected, as did her two adult children. Now, she remains vigilant about wearing a mask. She tries not to eat inside at restaurants. “I’m super careful,” she said.

Besides her teacher training, Ms. Mena had training as a medical assistant and learned a lot about sanitizing methods. She gets an annual flu shot, washes her hands often, and uses hand sanitizer.

When she shops, she will ask salespeople not wearing masks to please mask. “Only one refused, and she got someone else [to wait on her].”

One reason she is always careful about hygiene, Ms. Mena said, is that “when I get a cold, I get really sick. It last and lasts.” Now, she does worry she might still get it, she said, with the prospect of getting long COVID driving that worry.

In the beginning of the pandemic, Rhonda Fleming, 68, of Los Angeles, lived in a “COVID bubble,” interacting with just a few close family members. As cases went down, she enlarged the bubble. Her two grown daughters got infected, but her granddaughter did not.

She has been vigilant about masking, she said, “and I do still mask in public places.” She has a mask wardrobe, including basic black as well as glittery masks for dressier occasions. “I always carry a mask because inevitably, a cougher surrounds me.”

Now, she will bypass restaurants if she doesn’t feel comfortable with the environment, choosing ones with good air flow. When she flew to Mexico recently, she masked on the plane.

At this point, she said she doesn’t worry about getting infected but remains careful.

Recently, two friends, who have been as diligent as she has about precautions, got infected, “and they don’t know how they got it.”
 

Bragging rights?

Until researchers separate out the true resisters from those who claim to be, some NOVIDs are simply quietly grateful for their luck, while others mention their COVID-free status to anyone who asks or who will listen, and are proud of it. 

And what about those who wear a “NOVID” T-shirt?

“I would think they have a need to convey to the world they are different, perhaps special, because they beat COVID,” said Richard B. Joelson, a New York–based doctor of social work, a psychotherapist, and the author of Help Me! A Psychotherapist’s Tried-and-True Techniques for a Happier Relationship with Yourself and the People You Love. “They didn’t beat COVID, they just didn’t get it.”

Or they may be relieved they didn’t get sick, he said, because they feel defeated when they do. So “it’s a source of pride.” It might be the same people who tell anyone who will listen they never need a doctor or take no medicines, he said.

Even though science may prove many NOVIDs are inaccurate when they call themselves resisters, Dr. Hsieh understands the temptation to talk about it. “It’s kind of cool to think you are supernatural,” she said. “It’s much more attractive than being susceptible. It’s a lot sexier.” ■

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

As a field service representative for a slot machine company, Ryan Alexander, 37, of Louisville, Ky., spends his working hours in casinos, covering a large territory including Norfolk, Va., Indianapolis, and Charlotte. Social distancing in the casinos is not the norm. Despite all this up-close contact with people, he said he is still COVID-free, 3 years into the pandemic.

There was one nervous night when his temperature rose to 101° F, and he figured the virus had caught up with him. “I took a test and was fine,” he said, relieved that the result was negative. The fever disappeared, and he was back to normal soon. “Maybe it was just an exhausting day.”

Mr. Alexander is one of those people who have managed – or at least think they have managed – to avoid getting COVID-19.

He is, some say, a NOVID. While some scientists cringe at the term, it’s caught on to describe these virus super-dodgers. Online entrepreneurs offer NOVID-19 T-shirts, masks, and stickers, in case these super-healthy or super-lucky folks want to publicize their good luck. On Twitter, NOVIDs share stories of how they’ve done it.
 

How many NOVIDs?

As of March 16, according to the CDC, almost 104 million cases of COVID – about one-third of the U.S. population – have been reported, but many cases are known to go unreported. About half of American adults surveyed said they have had COVID, according to a December report by the COVID States Project, a multiuniversity effort to supply pandemic data.

As the numbers settle over time, though, it becomes clearer that some in the U.S. have apparently managed to avoid the virus.

While the exact number of people who have remained uninfected isn’t known with certainty, a review of comprehensive serologic data shows about 15% of Americans may not have gotten infected with COVID, Eric Topol, MD, editor-in-chief of Medscape (WebMD’s sister site for medical professionals) wrote in his substack Ground Truths.

But some scientists bristle at the term NOVIDs. They prefer the term “resisters,” according to Elena Hsieh, MD, associate professor of pediatrics and immunology at the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora. Currently, she said, there is much more information on who is more susceptible to contracting severe COVID than who is resistant.

Dr. Hsieh is one of the regional coordinators for the COVID Human Genetic Effort, an international consortium of more than 250 researchers and doctors dedicated to discovering the genetic and immunological bases of the forms of SARS-CoV-2 infection. These researchers and others are looking for explanations for why some people get severe COVID while others seem resistant despite repeated exposure.
 

Resistance research

In determining explanations for resistance to infection, “the needle in the haystack that we are looking for is a change in the genetic code that would allow for you to avoid entry of the virus into the cell,” Dr. Hsieh said. “That is what being resistant to infection is.”

Part of the reason it’s so difficult to study resistance is defining a resister, she said. While many people consider themselves among that group because they’re been exposed multiple times – even with close family members infected and sick, yet they still felt fine – that doesn’t necessarily make them a resister, she said.

Those people could have been infected but remained without symptoms. “Resistance means the virus was inside you, it was near your cell and it did not infect your cell,” Dr. Hsieh said.

“I don’t think we know a lot so far,” Dr. Hsieh said about resisters. “I do believe that, just like there are genetic defects that make someone more susceptible, there are likely to be genetic defects that make somebody less susceptible.’’

“To identify genetic variants that are protective is a really challenging thing to do,” agreed Peter K. Gregersen, MD, professor of genetics at the Feinstein Institutes for Medical Research at Northwell Health in Manhasset, N.Y. Dr. Gregersen is also a regional coordinator for the COVID Human Genetic Effort.

He suspects the number found to be truly resistant to COVID – versus dodging it so far – is going to be very small or not found at all.

“It may exist for COVID or it may not,” he said. Some people may simply have what he calls a robust immune response in the upper part of the throat, perhaps killing off the virus quickly as soon as it enters, so they don’t get a positive test.

Genetic resistance has been found for other diseases, such as HIV.

“For HIV, scientists have been able to identify a specific gene that codes for a protein that can prevent individuals from getting infected,” said Sabrina Assoumou, MD, MPH, professor of medicine at Boston University, who researches HIV.

However, she said, “we haven’t yet found a similar gene or protein that can prevent people from getting infected with SARS-CoV-2.”

What has been found “is that some people might have a mutation in a gene that encodes for what’s called human leukocyte antigen (HLA),” Dr. Assoumou said. HLA, a molecule found on the surface of most cells, has a crucial role in the immune response to foreign substances. “A mutation in HLA can make people less likely to have symptoms if they get infected. Individuals still get infected, but they are less likely to have symptoms.”

Other research has found that those with food allergies are also less likely to be infected. The researchers have speculated that the inflammation characteristic of allergic conditions may reduce levels of a protein called the ACE2 receptor on the surface of airway cells. The SARS-CoV-2 virus uses the receptor to enter the cells, so if levels are low, that could reduce the ability of the virus to infect people.

The COVID Human Genetic Effort continues to search for participants, both those who were admitted to a hospital or repeatedly seen at a hospital because of COVID, as well as those who did not get infected, even after “intense and repeated” exposure.

The number of people likely to be resistant is much smaller, Dr. Hsieh said, than the number of people susceptible to severe disease.
 

The testing ... or lack thereof factor

The timing of testing and a person’s “infection profile” may be factors in people incorrectly declaring themselves NOVIDs, said Anne Wyllie, PhD, a research scientist in epidemiology at the Yale School of Public Health in New Haven, Conn., and a codeveloper of a saliva PCR test for COVID.

“Infection profiles can vary between individuals,” she said. For some, the infection may start in the lower respiratory tract, others in the higher respiratory tract. “Depending on where the virus takes up residence, that can affect test results.”

Then there’s the following-instructions factor. “It’s very likely that due to tests not being done at the right time, with the right sample, or not repeated if there is ongoing evidence of symptoms, that there are individuals out there who believe they are NOVIDs but just missed catching their infection at the window of opportunity.” Dr. Wyllie said.
 

Susceptibility research

“The part we have proven is the genetic defect that would make you more susceptible to having severe disease,” Dr. Hsieh said.

Many published papers report that inherited and/or autoimmune deficiencies of type I interferon immunity, important for combating viral infections and modulating the immune response, can be a significant cause of life-threatening COVID pneumonia.

More recently, researchers, including Jean-Laurent Casanova, MD, PhD, professor at Rockefeller University, New York, and cofounder of the COVID Human Genome Effort, reported that deficiencies in a gene that plays a role in built-in immunity (the early response), and a gene involved in signaling within the immune cells, impair interferon production and may be the basis of severe COVID pneumonia.
 

NOVIDs’ habits run the gamut

As scientists continue their research, the NOVIDs have their own ideas about why they’ve dodged the pandemic bullet, and they have a variety of approaches to handling the pandemic now.

Ryan Alexander, the field rep who travels to casinos, is up to date on his vaccinations and has gotten all the recommended COVID shots. “I was wearing a mask when told to wear masks,” he said.

He still observes the social distance habit but lives life. “I’ve been to three or four concerts in the past couple of years.”

And does he worry his number will eventually be up? “Not at this point, no,” he said.

Joe Asher, 46, said he has not gotten COVID despite being in contact with about 100 people a day, on average. He works as a bartender at an Evansville, Ind., brewery.

“On a Friday night, we can get 500 people,” he said. “I feel like almost everyone at the brewery got it. There’s no way I wasn’t exposed to it all the time.”

However, he said, his coworkers who did get sick were very cautious about not infecting others, partly to help protect a coworker’s family with newborn twins, so that may have helped him stay uninfected, too.

Mr. Asher said he’s in good physical shape, and he’s worked around the public for a long time, so figures maybe that has strengthened his immune system. He’s always been careful about handwashing and said he’s perhaps a bit more conscious of germs than others might be.

Roselyn Mena, 68, a retired teacher in Richmond, Calif., about 16 miles northeast of San Francisco, said she’s managed to avoid the virus even though her husband, Jesus Mena, got infected, as did her two adult children. Now, she remains vigilant about wearing a mask. She tries not to eat inside at restaurants. “I’m super careful,” she said.

Besides her teacher training, Ms. Mena had training as a medical assistant and learned a lot about sanitizing methods. She gets an annual flu shot, washes her hands often, and uses hand sanitizer.

When she shops, she will ask salespeople not wearing masks to please mask. “Only one refused, and she got someone else [to wait on her].”

One reason she is always careful about hygiene, Ms. Mena said, is that “when I get a cold, I get really sick. It last and lasts.” Now, she does worry she might still get it, she said, with the prospect of getting long COVID driving that worry.

In the beginning of the pandemic, Rhonda Fleming, 68, of Los Angeles, lived in a “COVID bubble,” interacting with just a few close family members. As cases went down, she enlarged the bubble. Her two grown daughters got infected, but her granddaughter did not.

She has been vigilant about masking, she said, “and I do still mask in public places.” She has a mask wardrobe, including basic black as well as glittery masks for dressier occasions. “I always carry a mask because inevitably, a cougher surrounds me.”

Now, she will bypass restaurants if she doesn’t feel comfortable with the environment, choosing ones with good air flow. When she flew to Mexico recently, she masked on the plane.

At this point, she said she doesn’t worry about getting infected but remains careful.

Recently, two friends, who have been as diligent as she has about precautions, got infected, “and they don’t know how they got it.”
 

Bragging rights?

Until researchers separate out the true resisters from those who claim to be, some NOVIDs are simply quietly grateful for their luck, while others mention their COVID-free status to anyone who asks or who will listen, and are proud of it. 

And what about those who wear a “NOVID” T-shirt?

“I would think they have a need to convey to the world they are different, perhaps special, because they beat COVID,” said Richard B. Joelson, a New York–based doctor of social work, a psychotherapist, and the author of Help Me! A Psychotherapist’s Tried-and-True Techniques for a Happier Relationship with Yourself and the People You Love. “They didn’t beat COVID, they just didn’t get it.”

Or they may be relieved they didn’t get sick, he said, because they feel defeated when they do. So “it’s a source of pride.” It might be the same people who tell anyone who will listen they never need a doctor or take no medicines, he said.

Even though science may prove many NOVIDs are inaccurate when they call themselves resisters, Dr. Hsieh understands the temptation to talk about it. “It’s kind of cool to think you are supernatural,” she said. “It’s much more attractive than being susceptible. It’s a lot sexier.” ■

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