Infectious Diseases

New cases of COVID-19 in children climbed for the seventh consecutive week, but the latest increase was the smallest of the seven, according to the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Children’s Hospital Association.

There were 112,496 new child COVID cases reported during the week of May 20-26, an increase of 5.0% from the previous week. Since the weekly total bottomed out at just under 26,000 in early April, the new-case count has risen by 28.0%, 11.8%, 43.5%, 17.4%, 50%, 14.6%, and 5.0%, based on data from the AAP/CHA weekly COVID-19 report.

The cumulative number of pediatric cases is almost 13.4 million since the pandemic began, and those infected children represent 18.9% of all cases, the AAP and CHA said based on data from 49 states, New York City, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and Guam.

That 18.9% is noteworthy because it marks the first decline in that particular measure since the AAP and CHA started keeping track in April of 2020. Children’s share of the overall COVID burden had been holding at 19.0% for 14 straight weeks, the AAP/CHA data show.

Regionally, new cases were up in the South and the West, where recent rising trends continued, and down in the Midwest and Northeast, where the recent rising trends were reversed for the first time. At the state/territory level, Puerto Rico had the largest percent increase over the last 2 weeks, followed by Maryland and Delaware, the organizations noted in their joint report.

Hospital admissions in children aged 0-17 have changed little in the last week, with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reporting rates of 0.25 per 100,000 population on May 23 and 0.25 per 100,000 on May 29, the latest date available. There was, however, a move up to 0.26 per 100,000 from May 24 to May 28, and the CDC acknowledges a possible reporting delay over the most recent 7-day period.

Emergency department visits have dipped slightly in recent days, with children aged 0-11 years at a 7-day average of 2.0% of ED visits with diagnosed COVID on May 28, down from a 5-day stretch at 2.2% from May 19 to May 23. Children aged 12-15 years were at 1.8% on May 28, compared with 2.0% on May 23-24, and 15- to 17-year-olds were at 2.0% on May 28, down from the 2.1% reached over the previous 2 days, the CDC reported on its COVID Data Tracker.

rfranki@mdedge.com

New cases of COVID-19 in children climbed for the seventh consecutive week, but the latest increase was the smallest of the seven, according to the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Children’s Hospital Association.

There were 112,496 new child COVID cases reported during the week of May 20-26, an increase of 5.0% from the previous week. Since the weekly total bottomed out at just under 26,000 in early April, the new-case count has risen by 28.0%, 11.8%, 43.5%, 17.4%, 50%, 14.6%, and 5.0%, based on data from the AAP/CHA weekly COVID-19 report.

The cumulative number of pediatric cases is almost 13.4 million since the pandemic began, and those infected children represent 18.9% of all cases, the AAP and CHA said based on data from 49 states, New York City, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and Guam.

That 18.9% is noteworthy because it marks the first decline in that particular measure since the AAP and CHA started keeping track in April of 2020. Children’s share of the overall COVID burden had been holding at 19.0% for 14 straight weeks, the AAP/CHA data show.

Regionally, new cases were up in the South and the West, where recent rising trends continued, and down in the Midwest and Northeast, where the recent rising trends were reversed for the first time. At the state/territory level, Puerto Rico had the largest percent increase over the last 2 weeks, followed by Maryland and Delaware, the organizations noted in their joint report.

Hospital admissions in children aged 0-17 have changed little in the last week, with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reporting rates of 0.25 per 100,000 population on May 23 and 0.25 per 100,000 on May 29, the latest date available. There was, however, a move up to 0.26 per 100,000 from May 24 to May 28, and the CDC acknowledges a possible reporting delay over the most recent 7-day period.

Emergency department visits have dipped slightly in recent days, with children aged 0-11 years at a 7-day average of 2.0% of ED visits with diagnosed COVID on May 28, down from a 5-day stretch at 2.2% from May 19 to May 23. Children aged 12-15 years were at 1.8% on May 28, compared with 2.0% on May 23-24, and 15- to 17-year-olds were at 2.0% on May 28, down from the 2.1% reached over the previous 2 days, the CDC reported on its COVID Data Tracker.

rfranki@mdedge.com

New cases of COVID-19 in children climbed for the seventh consecutive week, but the latest increase was the smallest of the seven, according to the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Children’s Hospital Association.

There were 112,496 new child COVID cases reported during the week of May 20-26, an increase of 5.0% from the previous week. Since the weekly total bottomed out at just under 26,000 in early April, the new-case count has risen by 28.0%, 11.8%, 43.5%, 17.4%, 50%, 14.6%, and 5.0%, based on data from the AAP/CHA weekly COVID-19 report.

The cumulative number of pediatric cases is almost 13.4 million since the pandemic began, and those infected children represent 18.9% of all cases, the AAP and CHA said based on data from 49 states, New York City, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and Guam.

That 18.9% is noteworthy because it marks the first decline in that particular measure since the AAP and CHA started keeping track in April of 2020. Children’s share of the overall COVID burden had been holding at 19.0% for 14 straight weeks, the AAP/CHA data show.

Regionally, new cases were up in the South and the West, where recent rising trends continued, and down in the Midwest and Northeast, where the recent rising trends were reversed for the first time. At the state/territory level, Puerto Rico had the largest percent increase over the last 2 weeks, followed by Maryland and Delaware, the organizations noted in their joint report.

Hospital admissions in children aged 0-17 have changed little in the last week, with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reporting rates of 0.25 per 100,000 population on May 23 and 0.25 per 100,000 on May 29, the latest date available. There was, however, a move up to 0.26 per 100,000 from May 24 to May 28, and the CDC acknowledges a possible reporting delay over the most recent 7-day period.

Emergency department visits have dipped slightly in recent days, with children aged 0-11 years at a 7-day average of 2.0% of ED visits with diagnosed COVID on May 28, down from a 5-day stretch at 2.2% from May 19 to May 23. Children aged 12-15 years were at 1.8% on May 28, compared with 2.0% on May 23-24, and 15- to 17-year-olds were at 2.0% on May 28, down from the 2.1% reached over the previous 2 days, the CDC reported on its COVID Data Tracker.

rfranki@mdedge.com

Teamwork by a wide range of professional staff, coupled with support from leadership, enabled one academic community hospital to cut its rate of hospital-onset Clostridioides difficile infections (HO-CDIs) by almost two-thirds in 1 year and by over three-quarters in 3 years, a study published in the American Journal of Infection Control reports.

C. diff. is a major health threat. According to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, CDIs, mainly linked with hospitals, caused an estimated 223,900 cases in hospitalized patients and 12,800 deaths in the United States in 2017.

“The interventions and outcomes of the project improved patient care by ensuring early testing, diagnosis, treatment if warranted, and proper isolation, which helped reduce C. diff. transmission to staff and other patients,” lead study author Cherith Walter, MSN, RN, a clinical nurse specialist at Emory Saint Joseph’s Hospital, Atlanta, told this news organization. “Had we not worked together as a team, we would not have had the ability to carry out such a robust project,” she added in an email.

Each HO-CDI case costs a health care system an estimated $12,313, and high rates of HO-CDIs incur fines from the Hospital-Acquired Condition Reduction Program of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), the authors write.
 

A diverse staff team collaborated

Emory Saint Joseph’s, a 410-bed hospital in Atlanta, had a history of being above the national CMS benchmark for HO-CDIs. To reduce these infections, comply with CMS requirements, and avoid fines, Ms. Walter and colleagues launched a quality improvement project between 2015 and 2020.

With the approval of the chief nursing officer, chief quality officer, and hospital board, researchers mobilized a diverse team of professionals: a clinical nurse specialist, a physician champion, unit nurse champions, a hospital epidemiologist, an infection preventionist, a clinical microbiologist, an antimicrobial stewardship pharmacist, and an environmental services representative.

The team investigated what caused their hospital’s HO-CDIs from 2014 through 2016 and developed appropriate, evidence-based infection prevention interventions. The integrated approach involved:

• Diagnostic stewardship, including a diarrhea decision-tree algorithm that enabled nurses to order tests of any loose or unformed stool for C. diff. during the first 3 days of admission.
• Enhanced environmental cleaning, which involved switching from sporicidal disinfectant only in isolation rooms to using a more effective Environmental Protection Agency–approved sporicidal disinfectant containing hydrogen peroxide and peracetic acid in all patient rooms for daily cleaning and after discharge. Every day, high-touch surfaces in C. diff. isolation rooms were cleaned and shared equipment was disinfected with bleach wipes. After patient discharge, staff cleaned mattresses on all sides, wiped walls with disinfectant, and used ultraviolet light.
• Antimicrobial stewardship. Formulary fluoroquinolones were removed as standalone orders and made available only through order sets with built-in clinical decision support.
• Education of staff on best practices, through emails, flyers, meetings, and training sessions. Two nurses needed to approve the appropriateness of testing specific specimens for CDI. All HO-CDIs were reviewed and findings presented at CDI team meetings.
• Accountability. Staff on the team and units received emailed notices about compliance issues and held meetings to discuss how to improve compliance.

After 1 year, HO-CDI incidence dropped 63% from baseline, from above 12 cases per 10,000 patient-days to 4.72 per 10,000 patient-days. And after 3 years, infections dropped 77% to 2.80 per 10,000 patient-days.

The hospital’s HO-CDI standardized infection ratio – the total number of infections divided by the National Healthcare Safety Network’s risk-adjusted predicted number of infections – dropped below the national benchmark, from 1.11 in 2015 to 0.43 in 2020.

The hospital also increased testing of appropriate patients for CDI within the first 3 days of admission, from 54% in 2014 to 81% in late 2019.

“By testing patients within 3 days of admission, we discovered that many had acquired C. diff. before admission,” Ms. Walter said. “I don’t think we realized how prevalent C. diff. was in the community.”

Benjamin D. Galvan, MLS(ASCP), CIC, an infection preventionist at Tampa General Hospital and a member of the Association for Professionals in Infection Control and Epidemiology, welcomed the study’s results.  

“Effective collaboration within the health care setting is a highly effective way to implement and sustain evidence-based practices related to infection reduction. When buy-in is obtained from the top, and pertinent stakeholders are engaged for their expertise, we can see sustainable change and improved patient outcomes,” Mr. Galvan, who was not involved in the study, said in an email.

“The researchers did a fantastic job,” he added. “I am grateful to see this important work addressed in the literature, as it will only improve buy-in for improvement efforts aimed at reducing infections moving forward across the health care continuum.”

Douglas S. Paauw, MD, a professor of medicine and chair for patient-centered clinical education at the University of Washington School of Medicine, Seattle, said that the team’s most important interventions were changing the environmental cleaning protocol and using agents that kill C. diff. spores.

“We know that as many as 10%-20% of hospitalized patients carry C. diff. Cleaning only the rooms where you know you have C. diff. (isolation rooms) will miss most of it,” said Dr. Paauw, who was also not involved in the study. “Cleaning every room with cleaners that actually work is very important but costs money.”
 

Handwashing with soap and water works, alcohol hand gels do not

“We know that handwashing with soap and water is the most important way to prevent hospital C. diff. transmission,” Dr. Paauw noted. “Handwashing protocols implemented prior to the study were probably a big part of the team’s success.”

Handwashing with soap and water works but alcohol hand gels do not, he cautioned.

“C. diff. rates in hospitals went up years ago when we started putting alcohol gels outside patients’ rooms,” Dr. Paauw explained. “Now, instead of washing their hands, staff quickly pump gel before they see patients. Applying gel is easy, but gel does not eliminate C. diff. spores. Handwashing is such a simple way to fix the C. diff. problem, but doctors don’t take the time.”

“We need to take the C. diff. problem seriously. We have enough information, and we know the right things to do. We need to wash our hands. We need to clean the rooms. We need to stop cutting corners if we want to give good care,” he said.

The authors plan to conduct further related research.

The study was not funded. All study authors, as well as Mr. Galvan and Dr. Paauw, have reported no relevant financial interests.

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

Teamwork by a wide range of professional staff, coupled with support from leadership, enabled one academic community hospital to cut its rate of hospital-onset Clostridioides difficile infections (HO-CDIs) by almost two-thirds in 1 year and by over three-quarters in 3 years, a study published in the American Journal of Infection Control reports.

C. diff. is a major health threat. According to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, CDIs, mainly linked with hospitals, caused an estimated 223,900 cases in hospitalized patients and 12,800 deaths in the United States in 2017.

“The interventions and outcomes of the project improved patient care by ensuring early testing, diagnosis, treatment if warranted, and proper isolation, which helped reduce C. diff. transmission to staff and other patients,” lead study author Cherith Walter, MSN, RN, a clinical nurse specialist at Emory Saint Joseph’s Hospital, Atlanta, told this news organization. “Had we not worked together as a team, we would not have had the ability to carry out such a robust project,” she added in an email.

Each HO-CDI case costs a health care system an estimated $12,313, and high rates of HO-CDIs incur fines from the Hospital-Acquired Condition Reduction Program of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), the authors write.
 

A diverse staff team collaborated

Emory Saint Joseph’s, a 410-bed hospital in Atlanta, had a history of being above the national CMS benchmark for HO-CDIs. To reduce these infections, comply with CMS requirements, and avoid fines, Ms. Walter and colleagues launched a quality improvement project between 2015 and 2020.

With the approval of the chief nursing officer, chief quality officer, and hospital board, researchers mobilized a diverse team of professionals: a clinical nurse specialist, a physician champion, unit nurse champions, a hospital epidemiologist, an infection preventionist, a clinical microbiologist, an antimicrobial stewardship pharmacist, and an environmental services representative.

The team investigated what caused their hospital’s HO-CDIs from 2014 through 2016 and developed appropriate, evidence-based infection prevention interventions. The integrated approach involved:

• Diagnostic stewardship, including a diarrhea decision-tree algorithm that enabled nurses to order tests of any loose or unformed stool for C. diff. during the first 3 days of admission.
• Enhanced environmental cleaning, which involved switching from sporicidal disinfectant only in isolation rooms to using a more effective Environmental Protection Agency–approved sporicidal disinfectant containing hydrogen peroxide and peracetic acid in all patient rooms for daily cleaning and after discharge. Every day, high-touch surfaces in C. diff. isolation rooms were cleaned and shared equipment was disinfected with bleach wipes. After patient discharge, staff cleaned mattresses on all sides, wiped walls with disinfectant, and used ultraviolet light.
• Antimicrobial stewardship. Formulary fluoroquinolones were removed as standalone orders and made available only through order sets with built-in clinical decision support.
• Education of staff on best practices, through emails, flyers, meetings, and training sessions. Two nurses needed to approve the appropriateness of testing specific specimens for CDI. All HO-CDIs were reviewed and findings presented at CDI team meetings.
• Accountability. Staff on the team and units received emailed notices about compliance issues and held meetings to discuss how to improve compliance.

After 1 year, HO-CDI incidence dropped 63% from baseline, from above 12 cases per 10,000 patient-days to 4.72 per 10,000 patient-days. And after 3 years, infections dropped 77% to 2.80 per 10,000 patient-days.

The hospital’s HO-CDI standardized infection ratio – the total number of infections divided by the National Healthcare Safety Network’s risk-adjusted predicted number of infections – dropped below the national benchmark, from 1.11 in 2015 to 0.43 in 2020.

The hospital also increased testing of appropriate patients for CDI within the first 3 days of admission, from 54% in 2014 to 81% in late 2019.

“By testing patients within 3 days of admission, we discovered that many had acquired C. diff. before admission,” Ms. Walter said. “I don’t think we realized how prevalent C. diff. was in the community.”

Benjamin D. Galvan, MLS(ASCP), CIC, an infection preventionist at Tampa General Hospital and a member of the Association for Professionals in Infection Control and Epidemiology, welcomed the study’s results.  

“Effective collaboration within the health care setting is a highly effective way to implement and sustain evidence-based practices related to infection reduction. When buy-in is obtained from the top, and pertinent stakeholders are engaged for their expertise, we can see sustainable change and improved patient outcomes,” Mr. Galvan, who was not involved in the study, said in an email.

“The researchers did a fantastic job,” he added. “I am grateful to see this important work addressed in the literature, as it will only improve buy-in for improvement efforts aimed at reducing infections moving forward across the health care continuum.”

Douglas S. Paauw, MD, a professor of medicine and chair for patient-centered clinical education at the University of Washington School of Medicine, Seattle, said that the team’s most important interventions were changing the environmental cleaning protocol and using agents that kill C. diff. spores.

“We know that as many as 10%-20% of hospitalized patients carry C. diff. Cleaning only the rooms where you know you have C. diff. (isolation rooms) will miss most of it,” said Dr. Paauw, who was also not involved in the study. “Cleaning every room with cleaners that actually work is very important but costs money.”
 

Handwashing with soap and water works, alcohol hand gels do not

“We know that handwashing with soap and water is the most important way to prevent hospital C. diff. transmission,” Dr. Paauw noted. “Handwashing protocols implemented prior to the study were probably a big part of the team’s success.”

Handwashing with soap and water works but alcohol hand gels do not, he cautioned.

“C. diff. rates in hospitals went up years ago when we started putting alcohol gels outside patients’ rooms,” Dr. Paauw explained. “Now, instead of washing their hands, staff quickly pump gel before they see patients. Applying gel is easy, but gel does not eliminate C. diff. spores. Handwashing is such a simple way to fix the C. diff. problem, but doctors don’t take the time.”

“We need to take the C. diff. problem seriously. We have enough information, and we know the right things to do. We need to wash our hands. We need to clean the rooms. We need to stop cutting corners if we want to give good care,” he said.

The authors plan to conduct further related research.

The study was not funded. All study authors, as well as Mr. Galvan and Dr. Paauw, have reported no relevant financial interests.

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

Teamwork by a wide range of professional staff, coupled with support from leadership, enabled one academic community hospital to cut its rate of hospital-onset Clostridioides difficile infections (HO-CDIs) by almost two-thirds in 1 year and by over three-quarters in 3 years, a study published in the American Journal of Infection Control reports.

C. diff. is a major health threat. According to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, CDIs, mainly linked with hospitals, caused an estimated 223,900 cases in hospitalized patients and 12,800 deaths in the United States in 2017.

“The interventions and outcomes of the project improved patient care by ensuring early testing, diagnosis, treatment if warranted, and proper isolation, which helped reduce C. diff. transmission to staff and other patients,” lead study author Cherith Walter, MSN, RN, a clinical nurse specialist at Emory Saint Joseph’s Hospital, Atlanta, told this news organization. “Had we not worked together as a team, we would not have had the ability to carry out such a robust project,” she added in an email.

Each HO-CDI case costs a health care system an estimated $12,313, and high rates of HO-CDIs incur fines from the Hospital-Acquired Condition Reduction Program of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), the authors write.
 

A diverse staff team collaborated

Emory Saint Joseph’s, a 410-bed hospital in Atlanta, had a history of being above the national CMS benchmark for HO-CDIs. To reduce these infections, comply with CMS requirements, and avoid fines, Ms. Walter and colleagues launched a quality improvement project between 2015 and 2020.

With the approval of the chief nursing officer, chief quality officer, and hospital board, researchers mobilized a diverse team of professionals: a clinical nurse specialist, a physician champion, unit nurse champions, a hospital epidemiologist, an infection preventionist, a clinical microbiologist, an antimicrobial stewardship pharmacist, and an environmental services representative.

The team investigated what caused their hospital’s HO-CDIs from 2014 through 2016 and developed appropriate, evidence-based infection prevention interventions. The integrated approach involved:

• Diagnostic stewardship, including a diarrhea decision-tree algorithm that enabled nurses to order tests of any loose or unformed stool for C. diff. during the first 3 days of admission.
• Enhanced environmental cleaning, which involved switching from sporicidal disinfectant only in isolation rooms to using a more effective Environmental Protection Agency–approved sporicidal disinfectant containing hydrogen peroxide and peracetic acid in all patient rooms for daily cleaning and after discharge. Every day, high-touch surfaces in C. diff. isolation rooms were cleaned and shared equipment was disinfected with bleach wipes. After patient discharge, staff cleaned mattresses on all sides, wiped walls with disinfectant, and used ultraviolet light.
• Antimicrobial stewardship. Formulary fluoroquinolones were removed as standalone orders and made available only through order sets with built-in clinical decision support.
• Education of staff on best practices, through emails, flyers, meetings, and training sessions. Two nurses needed to approve the appropriateness of testing specific specimens for CDI. All HO-CDIs were reviewed and findings presented at CDI team meetings.
• Accountability. Staff on the team and units received emailed notices about compliance issues and held meetings to discuss how to improve compliance.

After 1 year, HO-CDI incidence dropped 63% from baseline, from above 12 cases per 10,000 patient-days to 4.72 per 10,000 patient-days. And after 3 years, infections dropped 77% to 2.80 per 10,000 patient-days.

The hospital’s HO-CDI standardized infection ratio – the total number of infections divided by the National Healthcare Safety Network’s risk-adjusted predicted number of infections – dropped below the national benchmark, from 1.11 in 2015 to 0.43 in 2020.

The hospital also increased testing of appropriate patients for CDI within the first 3 days of admission, from 54% in 2014 to 81% in late 2019.

“By testing patients within 3 days of admission, we discovered that many had acquired C. diff. before admission,” Ms. Walter said. “I don’t think we realized how prevalent C. diff. was in the community.”

Benjamin D. Galvan, MLS(ASCP), CIC, an infection preventionist at Tampa General Hospital and a member of the Association for Professionals in Infection Control and Epidemiology, welcomed the study’s results.  

“Effective collaboration within the health care setting is a highly effective way to implement and sustain evidence-based practices related to infection reduction. When buy-in is obtained from the top, and pertinent stakeholders are engaged for their expertise, we can see sustainable change and improved patient outcomes,” Mr. Galvan, who was not involved in the study, said in an email.

“The researchers did a fantastic job,” he added. “I am grateful to see this important work addressed in the literature, as it will only improve buy-in for improvement efforts aimed at reducing infections moving forward across the health care continuum.”

Douglas S. Paauw, MD, a professor of medicine and chair for patient-centered clinical education at the University of Washington School of Medicine, Seattle, said that the team’s most important interventions were changing the environmental cleaning protocol and using agents that kill C. diff. spores.

“We know that as many as 10%-20% of hospitalized patients carry C. diff. Cleaning only the rooms where you know you have C. diff. (isolation rooms) will miss most of it,” said Dr. Paauw, who was also not involved in the study. “Cleaning every room with cleaners that actually work is very important but costs money.”
 

Handwashing with soap and water works, alcohol hand gels do not

“We know that handwashing with soap and water is the most important way to prevent hospital C. diff. transmission,” Dr. Paauw noted. “Handwashing protocols implemented prior to the study were probably a big part of the team’s success.”

Handwashing with soap and water works but alcohol hand gels do not, he cautioned.

“C. diff. rates in hospitals went up years ago when we started putting alcohol gels outside patients’ rooms,” Dr. Paauw explained. “Now, instead of washing their hands, staff quickly pump gel before they see patients. Applying gel is easy, but gel does not eliminate C. diff. spores. Handwashing is such a simple way to fix the C. diff. problem, but doctors don’t take the time.”

“We need to take the C. diff. problem seriously. We have enough information, and we know the right things to do. We need to wash our hands. We need to clean the rooms. We need to stop cutting corners if we want to give good care,” he said.

The authors plan to conduct further related research.

The study was not funded. All study authors, as well as Mr. Galvan and Dr. Paauw, have reported no relevant financial interests.

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

Since the first case of monkeypox on May 6, reports of outbreaks have come from multiple countries, with the United Kingdom, Spain, and Portugal in the lead, followed by Canada, Israel, and Australia, among others. The United States has reported cases in Boston and New York, and presumed cases have occurred in Utah and Florida. As of May 25, close to 350 cases, either suspected (83) or confirmed (265), have been reported globally.

Monkeypox outbreaks have previously been confined to Central and West Africa, except for an impressively large outbreak in the United States in 2003, during which 47 people were infected across six states. The epidemic was traced to a Gambian rat, rope squirrels, and dormice that had been imported from Ghana as pets and that had infected prairie dogs at a large wholesale pet store.

“It’s amazing how many of these viruses – COVID, now monkeypox and others – [exist]. They’re out there in the wild in the animal reservoir,” said Dennis Hruby, PhD, executive VP/chief scientific officer and scientific founder of SIGA Technologies.

“When it comes to the human population, they sometimes behave in ways we’re not expecting. That and a few mutations change those strains and pathogenicity and can be pandemic,” he told this news organization.

Now that the virus is pandemic, there is an urgent interest in medicines and vaccines that might halt its spread.
 

Smallpox drug tecovirimat

SIGA’s drug is tecovirimat, initially known as ST-246 and now branded as TPOXX. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved an oral formulation to treat smallpox in 2018. While smallpox was eradicated by 1980, there have been ongoing concerns about its potential use in a bioterrorism attack.

Tecovirimat is also approved for smallpox in Canada. In Europe, the approval includes treatment of monkeypox, cowpox, and complications from immunization with vaccinia. On May 19, the FDA approved an IV formulation of tecovirimat for those unable to tolerate oral medications.

In a press release, SIGA notes that tecovirimat was “developed through funding and collaboration with the Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority (BARDA) at the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services, as well as early-stage development supported by the National Institutes of Health, US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and the Department of Defense. Tecovirimat is stockpiled by the U.S. Government to mitigate the impact of a potential outbreak or bioterror attack.”

SIGA adds that, under Project Bioshield, “the United States maintains a stockpile of 1.7 million courses in the Strategic National Stockpile.” The drug is only available through the government’s stockpile.

Tecovirimat works by preventing the viruses from reproducing by interfering with a protein, VP37. The virus cannot escape the cell and so cannot infect other cells, Dr. Hruby explained.

Tecovirimat was developed under the FDA’s so-called Animal Rule, which allows approval on the basis of animal studies when human efficacy studies are unethical or impractical.

In a placebo-controlled human pharmacokinetic and safety study, only 2% of the 359 who received TPOXX had to have treatment stopped because of adverse reactions, a rate similar to placebo. The most common reactions (≥2%) were headache, nausea, and abdominal pain. Significant drug interactions were found with the coadministration of repaglinide and midazolam.

Of note is that tecovirimat’s efficacy may be reduced in immunocompromised patients. The smallpox vaccine is contraindicated for those who are immunocompromised. Those people should be offered vaccinia immune globulin.

With monkeypox, “the earlier the disease is recognized and you start treating, [the] more effective,” said Dr. Hruby. “In a monkey model which, much like humans, if we treat early on as the first lesions emerged or even several days after the lesions emerged, we see close to 100% protection.”

The other alternative drug for smallpox and (likely) monkeypox is Chimerix’s brincidofovir (BCV, Tembexa), a lipid conjugate of cidofovir, a drug for cytomegalovirus. Brincidofovir has a better safety profile than cidofovir and was also approved under the Animal Rule.

UpToDate suggests that tecovirimat is the drug of choice for monkeypox. They note that for severely infected patients, it can be combined with brincidofovir after consultation with the CDC or state health department officials.
 

Two vaccines available

Two vaccines are currently available. The oldest is ACAM2000, a replication-competent vaccine that replaced Dryvax, whose use was stopped in 1977, the last year in which naturally occurring cases of smallpox occurred. ACAM2000 is used to immunize military recruits. It was produced by Sanofi and is now produced by Emergent Biosolutions. Being a live vaccinia vaccine, it is contraindicated for people who are immunocompromised or pregnant, as well as for children and those with eczema, because serious and occasionally fatal reactions have occurred. Because of unexpected cardiac complications in first responders who received Dryvax, having a history of cardiac disease or significant risk factors is considered a contraindication to replication-competent (live) vaccination except in the setting of a bioterrorism event.

ACAM2000 is not FDA approved for monkeypox, but it is readily available. The United States stockpile has more than 100 million doses, according to the CDC.

“ACAM is not very different from Dryvax in terms of safety profile,” Melvin Sanicas, MD, a vaccinologist and health educator, told this news organization.

The newest option is a replication-deficient modified vaccinia Ankara vaccine called Jynneos in the United States (Imvanex in Europe; Imvamune in Canada). The vaccine is made by Denmark-based Bavarian Nordic. The FDA approved Jynneos in 2019. It, too, is available through BARDA’s stockpiles; 1,000 doses are available now and more are on order.

In the current monkeypox outbreak, Jynneos has been offered to higher-risk contacts in the United Kingdom. The CDC is planning to provide it to high-risk contacts of infected persons in the United States. This strategy is called “ring vaccination,” through which only close contacts are immunized initially. The rings are then enlarged to include more people as needed. Ring vaccination works well for easily identified diseases such as monkeypox and in situations in which there are few cases. It has been used very effectively for smallpox and Ebola.

Jynneos is not associated with the same risks as the live vaccine. In solicited reactions, injection-site reactions were common. Other reported systemic symptoms were muscle pain (42.8%), headache (34.8%), fatigue (30.4%), nausea (17.3%), and chills (10.4%).

Other vaccines are expected to be developed. Moderna has just thrown its hat into the ring, announcing it is beginning preclinical trials for monkeypox.
 

Prolonged close contact

Monkeypox is spread by large droplets or contact with infected lesions or body fluids. It’s thought to require prolonged close contact. In an email interview, Dr. Sanicas told this news organization that the “contact can be with (1) skin lesions of an infected person, (2) respiratory droplets in prolonged face-to-face contact, (3) fomites. The cases in the United Kingdom are in men having sex with men, but it does not mean the disease is now sexually transmitted. People do not need to have sex to be infected, but of course, sexual contact means there is prolonged contact.” The household transmission rate is less than 10%.

Dr. Sanicas confirmed that, as with smallpox, monkeypox could be transmitted by contact with clothing or bedding that has been contaminated through contact with the infected lesions, as smallpox was transmitted to Native Americans by colonizers. Airborne transmission is a theoretical possibility but is not considered likely. Being a DNA virus, monkeypox is less likely to mutate than COVID. “If it were as infectious as flu or coronavirus, there would be more infections and outbreaks in countries where MPX [monkeypox] is endemic in Western Africa or Congo Basin,” said Dr. Sanicas.

Fortunately, this clade of monkeypox, which appears to have originated in West Africa, is estimated to have a mortality rate of about 1%. In contrast, the Congo Basin clade has a death rate of up to 10%.

Dr. Sanicas concluded, “Be cautious, but there’s no need for further fear and panic on top of what we have for COVID-19. Monkeypox is not COVID and will not cause the same devastation/death/lockdowns as COVID-19.”

Dr. Hruby is an employee and stockholder of SIGA. Dr. Sanicas reports no relevant financial relationships.

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

Since the first case of monkeypox on May 6, reports of outbreaks have come from multiple countries, with the United Kingdom, Spain, and Portugal in the lead, followed by Canada, Israel, and Australia, among others. The United States has reported cases in Boston and New York, and presumed cases have occurred in Utah and Florida. As of May 25, close to 350 cases, either suspected (83) or confirmed (265), have been reported globally.

Monkeypox outbreaks have previously been confined to Central and West Africa, except for an impressively large outbreak in the United States in 2003, during which 47 people were infected across six states. The epidemic was traced to a Gambian rat, rope squirrels, and dormice that had been imported from Ghana as pets and that had infected prairie dogs at a large wholesale pet store.

“It’s amazing how many of these viruses – COVID, now monkeypox and others – [exist]. They’re out there in the wild in the animal reservoir,” said Dennis Hruby, PhD, executive VP/chief scientific officer and scientific founder of SIGA Technologies.

“When it comes to the human population, they sometimes behave in ways we’re not expecting. That and a few mutations change those strains and pathogenicity and can be pandemic,” he told this news organization.

Now that the virus is pandemic, there is an urgent interest in medicines and vaccines that might halt its spread.
 

Smallpox drug tecovirimat

SIGA’s drug is tecovirimat, initially known as ST-246 and now branded as TPOXX. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved an oral formulation to treat smallpox in 2018. While smallpox was eradicated by 1980, there have been ongoing concerns about its potential use in a bioterrorism attack.

Tecovirimat is also approved for smallpox in Canada. In Europe, the approval includes treatment of monkeypox, cowpox, and complications from immunization with vaccinia. On May 19, the FDA approved an IV formulation of tecovirimat for those unable to tolerate oral medications.

In a press release, SIGA notes that tecovirimat was “developed through funding and collaboration with the Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority (BARDA) at the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services, as well as early-stage development supported by the National Institutes of Health, US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and the Department of Defense. Tecovirimat is stockpiled by the U.S. Government to mitigate the impact of a potential outbreak or bioterror attack.”

SIGA adds that, under Project Bioshield, “the United States maintains a stockpile of 1.7 million courses in the Strategic National Stockpile.” The drug is only available through the government’s stockpile.

Tecovirimat works by preventing the viruses from reproducing by interfering with a protein, VP37. The virus cannot escape the cell and so cannot infect other cells, Dr. Hruby explained.

Tecovirimat was developed under the FDA’s so-called Animal Rule, which allows approval on the basis of animal studies when human efficacy studies are unethical or impractical.

In a placebo-controlled human pharmacokinetic and safety study, only 2% of the 359 who received TPOXX had to have treatment stopped because of adverse reactions, a rate similar to placebo. The most common reactions (≥2%) were headache, nausea, and abdominal pain. Significant drug interactions were found with the coadministration of repaglinide and midazolam.

Of note is that tecovirimat’s efficacy may be reduced in immunocompromised patients. The smallpox vaccine is contraindicated for those who are immunocompromised. Those people should be offered vaccinia immune globulin.

With monkeypox, “the earlier the disease is recognized and you start treating, [the] more effective,” said Dr. Hruby. “In a monkey model which, much like humans, if we treat early on as the first lesions emerged or even several days after the lesions emerged, we see close to 100% protection.”

The other alternative drug for smallpox and (likely) monkeypox is Chimerix’s brincidofovir (BCV, Tembexa), a lipid conjugate of cidofovir, a drug for cytomegalovirus. Brincidofovir has a better safety profile than cidofovir and was also approved under the Animal Rule.

UpToDate suggests that tecovirimat is the drug of choice for monkeypox. They note that for severely infected patients, it can be combined with brincidofovir after consultation with the CDC or state health department officials.
 

Two vaccines available

Two vaccines are currently available. The oldest is ACAM2000, a replication-competent vaccine that replaced Dryvax, whose use was stopped in 1977, the last year in which naturally occurring cases of smallpox occurred. ACAM2000 is used to immunize military recruits. It was produced by Sanofi and is now produced by Emergent Biosolutions. Being a live vaccinia vaccine, it is contraindicated for people who are immunocompromised or pregnant, as well as for children and those with eczema, because serious and occasionally fatal reactions have occurred. Because of unexpected cardiac complications in first responders who received Dryvax, having a history of cardiac disease or significant risk factors is considered a contraindication to replication-competent (live) vaccination except in the setting of a bioterrorism event.

ACAM2000 is not FDA approved for monkeypox, but it is readily available. The United States stockpile has more than 100 million doses, according to the CDC.

“ACAM is not very different from Dryvax in terms of safety profile,” Melvin Sanicas, MD, a vaccinologist and health educator, told this news organization.

The newest option is a replication-deficient modified vaccinia Ankara vaccine called Jynneos in the United States (Imvanex in Europe; Imvamune in Canada). The vaccine is made by Denmark-based Bavarian Nordic. The FDA approved Jynneos in 2019. It, too, is available through BARDA’s stockpiles; 1,000 doses are available now and more are on order.

In the current monkeypox outbreak, Jynneos has been offered to higher-risk contacts in the United Kingdom. The CDC is planning to provide it to high-risk contacts of infected persons in the United States. This strategy is called “ring vaccination,” through which only close contacts are immunized initially. The rings are then enlarged to include more people as needed. Ring vaccination works well for easily identified diseases such as monkeypox and in situations in which there are few cases. It has been used very effectively for smallpox and Ebola.

Jynneos is not associated with the same risks as the live vaccine. In solicited reactions, injection-site reactions were common. Other reported systemic symptoms were muscle pain (42.8%), headache (34.8%), fatigue (30.4%), nausea (17.3%), and chills (10.4%).

Other vaccines are expected to be developed. Moderna has just thrown its hat into the ring, announcing it is beginning preclinical trials for monkeypox.
 

Prolonged close contact

Monkeypox is spread by large droplets or contact with infected lesions or body fluids. It’s thought to require prolonged close contact. In an email interview, Dr. Sanicas told this news organization that the “contact can be with (1) skin lesions of an infected person, (2) respiratory droplets in prolonged face-to-face contact, (3) fomites. The cases in the United Kingdom are in men having sex with men, but it does not mean the disease is now sexually transmitted. People do not need to have sex to be infected, but of course, sexual contact means there is prolonged contact.” The household transmission rate is less than 10%.

Dr. Sanicas confirmed that, as with smallpox, monkeypox could be transmitted by contact with clothing or bedding that has been contaminated through contact with the infected lesions, as smallpox was transmitted to Native Americans by colonizers. Airborne transmission is a theoretical possibility but is not considered likely. Being a DNA virus, monkeypox is less likely to mutate than COVID. “If it were as infectious as flu or coronavirus, there would be more infections and outbreaks in countries where MPX [monkeypox] is endemic in Western Africa or Congo Basin,” said Dr. Sanicas.

Fortunately, this clade of monkeypox, which appears to have originated in West Africa, is estimated to have a mortality rate of about 1%. In contrast, the Congo Basin clade has a death rate of up to 10%.

Dr. Sanicas concluded, “Be cautious, but there’s no need for further fear and panic on top of what we have for COVID-19. Monkeypox is not COVID and will not cause the same devastation/death/lockdowns as COVID-19.”

Dr. Hruby is an employee and stockholder of SIGA. Dr. Sanicas reports no relevant financial relationships.

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

Since the first case of monkeypox on May 6, reports of outbreaks have come from multiple countries, with the United Kingdom, Spain, and Portugal in the lead, followed by Canada, Israel, and Australia, among others. The United States has reported cases in Boston and New York, and presumed cases have occurred in Utah and Florida. As of May 25, close to 350 cases, either suspected (83) or confirmed (265), have been reported globally.

Monkeypox outbreaks have previously been confined to Central and West Africa, except for an impressively large outbreak in the United States in 2003, during which 47 people were infected across six states. The epidemic was traced to a Gambian rat, rope squirrels, and dormice that had been imported from Ghana as pets and that had infected prairie dogs at a large wholesale pet store.

“It’s amazing how many of these viruses – COVID, now monkeypox and others – [exist]. They’re out there in the wild in the animal reservoir,” said Dennis Hruby, PhD, executive VP/chief scientific officer and scientific founder of SIGA Technologies.

“When it comes to the human population, they sometimes behave in ways we’re not expecting. That and a few mutations change those strains and pathogenicity and can be pandemic,” he told this news organization.

Now that the virus is pandemic, there is an urgent interest in medicines and vaccines that might halt its spread.
 

Smallpox drug tecovirimat

SIGA’s drug is tecovirimat, initially known as ST-246 and now branded as TPOXX. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved an oral formulation to treat smallpox in 2018. While smallpox was eradicated by 1980, there have been ongoing concerns about its potential use in a bioterrorism attack.

Tecovirimat is also approved for smallpox in Canada. In Europe, the approval includes treatment of monkeypox, cowpox, and complications from immunization with vaccinia. On May 19, the FDA approved an IV formulation of tecovirimat for those unable to tolerate oral medications.

In a press release, SIGA notes that tecovirimat was “developed through funding and collaboration with the Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority (BARDA) at the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services, as well as early-stage development supported by the National Institutes of Health, US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and the Department of Defense. Tecovirimat is stockpiled by the U.S. Government to mitigate the impact of a potential outbreak or bioterror attack.”

SIGA adds that, under Project Bioshield, “the United States maintains a stockpile of 1.7 million courses in the Strategic National Stockpile.” The drug is only available through the government’s stockpile.

Tecovirimat works by preventing the viruses from reproducing by interfering with a protein, VP37. The virus cannot escape the cell and so cannot infect other cells, Dr. Hruby explained.

Tecovirimat was developed under the FDA’s so-called Animal Rule, which allows approval on the basis of animal studies when human efficacy studies are unethical or impractical.

In a placebo-controlled human pharmacokinetic and safety study, only 2% of the 359 who received TPOXX had to have treatment stopped because of adverse reactions, a rate similar to placebo. The most common reactions (≥2%) were headache, nausea, and abdominal pain. Significant drug interactions were found with the coadministration of repaglinide and midazolam.

Of note is that tecovirimat’s efficacy may be reduced in immunocompromised patients. The smallpox vaccine is contraindicated for those who are immunocompromised. Those people should be offered vaccinia immune globulin.

With monkeypox, “the earlier the disease is recognized and you start treating, [the] more effective,” said Dr. Hruby. “In a monkey model which, much like humans, if we treat early on as the first lesions emerged or even several days after the lesions emerged, we see close to 100% protection.”

The other alternative drug for smallpox and (likely) monkeypox is Chimerix’s brincidofovir (BCV, Tembexa), a lipid conjugate of cidofovir, a drug for cytomegalovirus. Brincidofovir has a better safety profile than cidofovir and was also approved under the Animal Rule.

UpToDate suggests that tecovirimat is the drug of choice for monkeypox. They note that for severely infected patients, it can be combined with brincidofovir after consultation with the CDC or state health department officials.
 

Two vaccines available

Two vaccines are currently available. The oldest is ACAM2000, a replication-competent vaccine that replaced Dryvax, whose use was stopped in 1977, the last year in which naturally occurring cases of smallpox occurred. ACAM2000 is used to immunize military recruits. It was produced by Sanofi and is now produced by Emergent Biosolutions. Being a live vaccinia vaccine, it is contraindicated for people who are immunocompromised or pregnant, as well as for children and those with eczema, because serious and occasionally fatal reactions have occurred. Because of unexpected cardiac complications in first responders who received Dryvax, having a history of cardiac disease or significant risk factors is considered a contraindication to replication-competent (live) vaccination except in the setting of a bioterrorism event.

ACAM2000 is not FDA approved for monkeypox, but it is readily available. The United States stockpile has more than 100 million doses, according to the CDC.

“ACAM is not very different from Dryvax in terms of safety profile,” Melvin Sanicas, MD, a vaccinologist and health educator, told this news organization.

The newest option is a replication-deficient modified vaccinia Ankara vaccine called Jynneos in the United States (Imvanex in Europe; Imvamune in Canada). The vaccine is made by Denmark-based Bavarian Nordic. The FDA approved Jynneos in 2019. It, too, is available through BARDA’s stockpiles; 1,000 doses are available now and more are on order.

In the current monkeypox outbreak, Jynneos has been offered to higher-risk contacts in the United Kingdom. The CDC is planning to provide it to high-risk contacts of infected persons in the United States. This strategy is called “ring vaccination,” through which only close contacts are immunized initially. The rings are then enlarged to include more people as needed. Ring vaccination works well for easily identified diseases such as monkeypox and in situations in which there are few cases. It has been used very effectively for smallpox and Ebola.

Jynneos is not associated with the same risks as the live vaccine. In solicited reactions, injection-site reactions were common. Other reported systemic symptoms were muscle pain (42.8%), headache (34.8%), fatigue (30.4%), nausea (17.3%), and chills (10.4%).

Other vaccines are expected to be developed. Moderna has just thrown its hat into the ring, announcing it is beginning preclinical trials for monkeypox.
 

Prolonged close contact

Monkeypox is spread by large droplets or contact with infected lesions or body fluids. It’s thought to require prolonged close contact. In an email interview, Dr. Sanicas told this news organization that the “contact can be with (1) skin lesions of an infected person, (2) respiratory droplets in prolonged face-to-face contact, (3) fomites. The cases in the United Kingdom are in men having sex with men, but it does not mean the disease is now sexually transmitted. People do not need to have sex to be infected, but of course, sexual contact means there is prolonged contact.” The household transmission rate is less than 10%.

Dr. Sanicas confirmed that, as with smallpox, monkeypox could be transmitted by contact with clothing or bedding that has been contaminated through contact with the infected lesions, as smallpox was transmitted to Native Americans by colonizers. Airborne transmission is a theoretical possibility but is not considered likely. Being a DNA virus, monkeypox is less likely to mutate than COVID. “If it were as infectious as flu or coronavirus, there would be more infections and outbreaks in countries where MPX [monkeypox] is endemic in Western Africa or Congo Basin,” said Dr. Sanicas.

Fortunately, this clade of monkeypox, which appears to have originated in West Africa, is estimated to have a mortality rate of about 1%. In contrast, the Congo Basin clade has a death rate of up to 10%.

Dr. Sanicas concluded, “Be cautious, but there’s no need for further fear and panic on top of what we have for COVID-19. Monkeypox is not COVID and will not cause the same devastation/death/lockdowns as COVID-19.”

Dr. Hruby is an employee and stockholder of SIGA. Dr. Sanicas reports no relevant financial relationships.

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

From Sharp Memorial Hospital, San Diego, CA (Drs. Poremba, Dehner, Perreiter, Semma, and Mills), Sharp Rees-Stealy Medical Group, San Diego, CA (Dr. Sakoulas), and Collaborative to Halt Antibiotic-Resistant Microbes (CHARM), Department of Pediatrics, University of California San Diego School of Medicine, La Jolla, CA (Dr. Sakoulas).

Abstract

Objective: To compare the costs of hospitalization of patients with moderate-to-severe COVID-19 who received intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIG) with those of patients of similar comorbidity and illness severity who did not.

Design: Analysis 1 was a case-control study of 10 nonventilated, moderately to severely hypoxic patients with COVID-19 who received IVIG (Privigen [CSL Behring]) matched 1:2 with 20 control patients of similar age, body mass index, degree of hypoxemia, and comorbidities. Analysis 2 consisted of patients enrolled in a previously published, randomized, open-label prospective study of 14 patients with COVID-19 receiving standard of care vs 13 patients who received standard of care plus IVIG (Octagam 10% [Octapharma]).

Setting and participants: Patients with COVID-19 with moderate-to-severe hypoxemia hospitalized at a single site located in San Diego, California.

Measurements: Direct cost of hospitalization.

Results: In the first (case-control) population, mean total direct costs, including IVIG, for the treatment group were $21,982 per IVIG-treated case vs $42,431 per case for matched non-IVIG-receiving controls, representing a net cost reduction of $20,449 (48%) per case. For the second (randomized) group, mean total direct costs, including IVIG, for the treatment group were $28,268 per case vs $62,707 per case for untreated controls, representing a net cost reduction of $34,439 (55%) per case. Of the patients who did not receive IVIG, 24% had hospital costs exceeding $80,000; none of the IVIG-treated patients had costs exceeding this amount (P = .016, Fisher exact test).

Conclusion: If allocated early to the appropriate patient type (moderate-to-severe illness without end-organ comorbidities and age <70 years), IVIG can significantly reduce hospital costs in COVID-19 care. More important, in our study it reduced the demand for scarce critical care resources during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Keywords: IVIG, SARS-CoV-2, cost saving, direct hospital costs.

Intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIG) has been available in most hospitals for 4 decades, with broad therapeutic applications in the treatment of Kawasaki disease and a variety of inflammatory, infectious, autoimmune, and viral diseases, via multifactorial mechanisms of immune modulation.¹ Reports of COVID-19−associated multisystem inflammatory syndrome in adults and children have supported the use of IVIG in treatment.^2,3 Previous studies of IVIG treatment for COVID-19 have produced mixed results. Although retrospective studies have largely been positive,^4-8 prospective clinical trials have been mixed, with some favorable results^9-11 and another, more recent study showing no benefit.¹² However, there is still considerable debate regarding whether some subgroups of patients with COVID-19 may benefit from IVIG; the studies that support this argument, however, have been diluted by broad clinical trials that lack granularity among the heterogeneity of patient characteristics and the timing of IVIG administration.^13,14 One study suggests that patients with COVID-19 who may be particularly poised to benefit from IVIG are those who are younger, have fewer comorbidities, and are treated early.⁸

At our institution, we selectively utilized IVIG to treat patients within 48 hours of rapidly increasing oxygen requirements due to COVID-19, targeting those younger than 70 years, with no previous irreversible end-organ damage, no significant comorbidities (renal failure, heart failure, dementia, active cancer malignancies), and no active treatment for cancer. We analyzed the costs of care of these IVIG (Privigen) recipients and compared them to costs for patients with COVID-19 matched by comorbidities, age, and illness severity who did not receive IVIG. To look for consistency, we examined the cost of care of COVID-19 patients who received IVIG (Octagam) as compared to controls from a previously published pilot trial.¹⁰

Methods

Setting and Treatment

All patients in this study were hospitalized at a single site located in San Diego, California. Treatment patients in both cohorts received IVIG 0.5 g/kg adjusted for body weight daily for 3 consecutive days.

Patient Cohort #1: Retrospective Case-Control Trial

Intravenous immunoglobulin (Privigen 10%, CSL Behring) was utilized off-label to treat moderately to severely ill non-intensive care unit (ICU) patients with COVID-19 requiring ≥3 L of oxygen by nasal cannula who were not mechanically ventilated but were considered at high risk for respiratory failure. Preset exclusion criteria for off-label use of IVIG in the treatment of COVID-19 were age >70 years, active malignancy, organ transplant recipient, renal failure, heart failure, or dementia. Controls were obtained from a list of all admitted patients with COVID-19, matched to cases 2:1 on the basis of age (±10 years), body mass index (±1), gender, comorbidities present at admission (eg, hypertension, diabetes mellitus, lung disease, or history of tobacco use), and maximum oxygen requirements within the first 48 hours of admission. In situations where more than 2 potential matched controls were identified for a patient, the 2 controls closest in age to the treatment patient were selected. One IVIG patient was excluded because only 1 matched-age control could be found. Pregnant patients who otherwise fulfilled the criteria for IVIG administration were also excluded from this analysis.

Patient Cohort #2: Prospective, Randomized, Open-Label Trial

Use of IVIG (Octagam 10%, Octapharma) in COVID-19 was studied in a previously published, prospective, open-label randomized trial.¹⁰ This pilot trial included 16 IVIG-treated patients and 17 control patients, of which 13 and 14 patients, respectively, had hospital cost data available for analysis.¹⁰ Most notably, COVID-19 patients in this study were required to have ≥4 L of oxygen via nasal cannula to maintain arterial oxygen saturationof ≤96%.

Outcomes

Cost data were independently obtained from our finance team, which provided us with the total direct cost and the total pharmaceutical cost associated with each admission. We also compared total length of stay (LOS) and ICU LOS between treatment arms, as these were presumed to be the major drivers of cost difference.

Statistics

Nonparametric comparisons of medians were performed with the Mann-Whitney U test. Comparison of means was done by Student t test. Categorical data were analyzed by Fisher exact test.

This analysis was initiated as an internal quality assessment. It received approval from the Sharp Healthcare Institutional Review Board (research@sharp.com), and was granted a waiver of subject authorization and consent given the retrospective nature of the study.

Results

Case-Control Analysis

A total of 10 hypoxic patients with COVID-19 received Privigen IVIG outside of clinical trial settings. None of the patients was vaccinated against SARS-CoV-2, as hospitalization occurred prior to vaccine availability. In addition, the original SARS-CoV-2 strain was circulating while these patients were hospitalized, preceding subsequent emerging variants. Oxygen requirements within the first 48 hours ranged from 3 L via nasal cannula to requiring bi-level positive pressure airway therapy with 100% oxygen; median age was 56 years and median Charlson comorbidity index was 1. These 10 patients were each matched to 2 control patients hospitalized during a comparable time period and who, based on oxygen requirements, did not receive IVIG. The 20 control patients had a median age of 58.5 years and a Charlson comorbidity index of 1 (Table 1). Rates of comorbidities, such as hypertension, diabetes mellitus, and obesity, were identical in the 2 groups. None of the patients in either group died during the index hospitalization. Fewer control patients received glucocorticoids, which was reflective of lower illness severity/degree of hypoxia in some controls.

Health care utilization in terms of costs and hospital LOS between the 2 groups are shown in Table 2. The mean total direct hospital cost per case, including IVIG and other drug costs, for the 10 IVIG-treated COVID-19 patients was $21,982 vs $42,431 for the matched controls, a reduction of $20,449 (48%) per case (P = .6187) with IVIG. This difference was heavily driven by 4 control patients (20%) with hospital costs >$80,000, marked by need for ICU transfer, mechanical ventilation during admission, and longer hospital stays. This reduction in progression to mechanical ventilation was consistent with our previously published, open-label, randomized prospective IVIG study, the financial assessment of which is reviewed below. While total direct costs were lower in the treatment arm, the mean drug cost for the treatment arm was $3122 greater than the mean drug cost in the control arm (P = .001622), consistent with the high cost of IVIG therapy (Table 2).

LOS information was obtained, as this was thought to be a primary driver of direct costs. The average LOS in the IVIG arm was 8.4 days, and the average LOS in the control arm was 13.6 days (P = NS). The average ICU LOS in the IVIG arm was 0 days, while the average ICU LOS in the control arm was 5.3 days (P = .04). As with the differences in cost, the differences in LOS were primarily driven by the 4 outlier cases in our control arm, who each had a LOS >25 days, as well as an ICU LOS >20 days.

Randomized, Open-Label, Patient Cohort Analysis

Patient characteristics, LOS, and rates of mechanical ventilation for the IVIG and control patients were previously published and showed a reduction in mechanical ventilation and hospital LOS with IVIG treatment.¹⁰ In this group of patients, 1 patient treated with IVIG (6%) and 3 patients not treated with IVIG (18%) died. To determine the consistency of these results from the case-control patients with a set of patients obtained from clinical trial randomization, we examined the health care costs of patients from the prior study.¹⁰ As with the case-control group, patients in this portion of the analysis were hospitalized before vaccines were available and prior to any identified variants.

Comparing the hospital cost of the IVIG-treated patients to the control patients from this trial revealed results similar to the matched case-control analysis discussed earlier. Average total direct cost per case, including IVIG, for the IVIG treatment group was $28,268, vs $62,707 per case for non-IVIG controls. This represented a net cost reduction of $34,439 (55%) per case, very similar to that of the prior cohort.

IVIG Reduces Costly Outlier Cases

The case-control and randomized trial groups, yielding a combined 23 IVIG and 34 control patients, showed a median cost per case of $22,578 (range $10,115-$70,929) and $22,645 (range $4723-$279,797) for the IVIG and control groups, respectively. Cases with a cost >$80,000 were 0/23 (0%) vs 8/34 (24%) in the IVIG and control groups, respectively (P = .016, Fisher exact test).

Improving care while simultaneously keeping care costs below reimbursement payment levels received from third-party payers is paramount to the financial survival of health care systems. IVIG appears to do this by reducing the number of patients with COVID-19 who progress to ICU care. We compared the costs of care of our combined case-control and randomized trial cohorts to published data on average reimbursements hospitals receive for COVID-19 care from Medicaid, Medicare, and private insurance (Figure).¹⁵ IVIG demonstrated a reduction in cases where costs exceed reimbursement. Indeed, a comparison of net revenue per case of the case-control group showed significantly higher revenue for the IVIG group compared to controls ($52,704 vs $34,712, P = .0338, Table 2).

Discussion

As reflected in at least 1 other study,¹⁶ our hospital had been successfully utilizing IVIG in the treatment of viral acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) prior to COVID-19. Therefore, we moved quickly to perform a randomized, open-label pilot study of IVIG (Octagam 10%) in COVID-19, and noted significant clinical benefit that might translate into hospital cost savings.¹⁰ Over the course of the pandemic, evidence has accumulated that IVIG may play an important role in COVID-19 therapeutics, as summarized in a recent review.¹⁷ However, despite promising but inconsistent results, the relatively high acquisition costs of IVIG raised questions as to its pharmacoeconomic value, particularly with such a high volume of COVID-19 patients with hypoxia, in light of limited clinical data.

COVID-19 therapeutics data can be categorized into either high-quality trials showing marginal benefit for some agents or low-quality trials showing greater benefit for other agents, with IVIG studies falling into the latter category.¹⁸ This phenomenon may speak to the pathophysiological heterogeneity of the COVID-19 patient population. High-quality trials enrolling broad patient types lack the granularity to capture and single out relevant patient subsets who would derive maximal therapeutic benefit, with those subsets diluted by other patient types for which no benefit is seen. Meanwhile, the more granular low-quality trials are criticized as underpowered and lacking in translatability to practice.

Positive results from our pilot trial allowed the use of IVIG (Privigen) off-label in hospitalized COVID-19 patients restricted to specific criteria. Patients had to be moderately to severely ill, requiring >3 L of oxygen via nasal cannula; show high risk of clinical deterioration based on respiratory rate and decline in respiratory status; and have underlying comorbidities (such as hypertension, obesity, or diabetes mellitus). However, older patients (>age 70 years) and those with underlying comorbidities marked by organ failure (such as heart failure, renal failure, dementia, or receipt of organ transplant) and active malignancy were excluded, as their clinical outcome in COVID-19 may be considered less modifiable by therapeutics, while simultaneously carrying potentially a higher risk of adverse events from IVIG (volume overload, renal failure). These exclusions are reflected in the overall low Charlson comorbidity index (mean of 1) of the patients in the case-control study arm. As anticipated, we found a net cost reduction: $20,449 (48%) per case among the 10 IVIG-treated patients compared to the 20 matched controls.

We then went back to the patients from the randomized prospective trial and compared costs for the 13 of 16 IVIG patients and 14 of 17 of the control patients for whom data were available. Among untreated controls, we found a net cost reduction of $34,439 (55%) per case. The higher costs seen in the randomized patient cohort compared to the latter case-control group may be due to a combination of the fact that the treated patients had slightly higher comorbidity indices than the case-control group (median Charlson comorbidity index of 2 in both groups) and the fact that they were treated earlier in the pandemic (May/June 2020), as opposed to the case-control group patients, who were treated in November/December 2020.

It was notable that the cost savings across both groups were derived largely from the reduction in the approximately 20% to 25% of control patients who went on to critical illness, including mechanical ventilation, extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO), and prolonged ICU stays. Indeed, 8 of 34 of the control patients—but none of the 23 IVIG-treated patients—generated hospital costs in excess of $80,000, a difference that was statistically significant even for such a small sample size. Therefore, reducing these very costly outlier events translated into net savings across the board.

In addition to lowering costs, reducing progression to critical illness is extremely important during heavy waves of COVID-19, when the sheer volume of patients results in severe strain due to the relative scarcity of ICU beds, mechanical ventilators, and ECMO. Therefore, reducing the need for these resources would have a vital role that cannot be measured economically.

The major limitations of this study include the small sample size and the potential lack of generalizability of these results to all hospital centers and treating providers. Our group has considerable experience in IVIG utilization in COVID-19 and, as a result, has identified a “sweet spot,” where benefits were seen clinically and economically. However, it remains to be determined whether IVIG will benefit patients with greater illness severity, such as those in the ICU, on mechanical ventilation, or ECMO. Furthermore, while a significant morbidity and mortality burden of COVID-19 rests in extremely elderly patients and those with end-organ comorbidities such as renal failure and heart failure, it is uncertain whether their COVID-19 adverse outcomes can be improved with IVIG or other therapies. We believe such patients may limit the pharmacoeconomic value of IVIG due to their generally poorer prognosis, regardless of intervention. On the other hand, COVID-19 patients who are not that severely ill, with minimal to no hypoxia, generally will do well regardless of therapy. Therefore, IVIG intervention may be an unnecessary treatment expense. Evidence for this was suggested in our pilot trial¹⁰ and supported in a recent meta-analysis of IVIG therapy in COVID-19.¹⁹

Several other therapeutic options with high acquisition costs have seen an increase in use during the COVID-19 pandemic despite relatively lukewarm data. Remdesivir, the first drug found to have a beneficial effect on hospitalized patients with COVID-19, is priced at $3120 for a complete 5-day treatment course in the United States. This was in line with initial pricing models from the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review (ICER) in May 2020, assuming a mortality benefit with remdesivir use. After the SOLIDARITY trial was published, which showed no mortality benefit associated with remdesivir, ICER updated their pricing models in June 2020 and released a statement that the price of remdesivir was too high to align with demonstrated benefits.^20,21 More recent data demonstrate that remdesivir may be beneficial, but only if administered to patients with fewer than 6 days of symptoms.²² However, only a minority of patients present to the hospital early enough in their illness for remdesivir to be beneficial.²²

Tocilizumab, an interleukin-6 inhibitor, saw an increase in use during the pandemic. An 800-mg treatment course for COVID-19 costs $3584. The efficacy of this treatment option came into question after the COVACTA trial failed to show a difference in clinical status or mortality in COVID-19 patients who received tocilizumab vs placebo.^23,24 A more recent study pointed to a survival benefit of tocilizumab in COVID-19, driven by a very large sample size (>4000), yielding statistically significant, but perhaps clinically less significant, effects on survival.²⁵ This latter study points to the extremely large sample sizes required to capture statistically significant benefits of expensive interventions in COVID-19, which our data demonstrate may benefit only a fraction of patients (20%-25% of patients in the case of IVIG). A more granular clinical assessment of these other interventions is needed to be able to capture the patient subtypes where tocilizumab, remdesivir, and other therapies will be cost effective in the treatment of COVID-19 or other virally mediated cases of ARDS.

Conclusion

While IVIG has a high acquisition cost, the drug’s use in hypoxic COVID-19 patients resulted in reduced costs per COVID-19 case of approximately 50% and use of less critical care resources. The difference was consistent between 2 cohorts (randomized trial vs off-label use in prespecified COVID-19 patient types), IVIG products used (Octagam 10% and Privigen), and time period in the pandemic (waves 1 and 2 in May/June 2020 vs wave 3 in November/December 2020), thereby adjusting for potential differences in circulating viral strains. Furthermore, patients from both groups predated SARS-CoV-2 vaccine availability and major circulating viral variants (eg, delta, omicron), thereby eliminating confounding on outcomes posed by these factors. Control patients’ higher costs of care were driven largely by the approximately 25% of patients who required costly hospital critical care resources, a group mitigated by IVIG. When allocated to the appropriate patient type (patients with moderate-to-severe but not critical illness, <age 70 without preexisting comorbidities of end-organ failure or active cancer), IVIG can reduce hospital costs for COVID-19 care. Identification of specific patient populations where IVIG has the most anticipated benefits in viral illness is needed.

Corresponding author: George Sakoulas, MD, Sharp Rees-Stealy Medical Group, 2020 Genesee Avenue, 2nd Floor, San Diego, CA 92123; gsakoulas@health.ucsd.edu

Disclosures: Dr Sakoulas has worked as a consultant for Abbvie, Paratek, and Octapharma, has served as a speaker for Abbvie and Paratek, and has received research funding from Octapharma. The other authors did not report any disclosures.

From Sharp Memorial Hospital, San Diego, CA (Drs. Poremba, Dehner, Perreiter, Semma, and Mills), Sharp Rees-Stealy Medical Group, San Diego, CA (Dr. Sakoulas), and Collaborative to Halt Antibiotic-Resistant Microbes (CHARM), Department of Pediatrics, University of California San Diego School of Medicine, La Jolla, CA (Dr. Sakoulas).

Abstract

Objective: To compare the costs of hospitalization of patients with moderate-to-severe COVID-19 who received intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIG) with those of patients of similar comorbidity and illness severity who did not.

Design: Analysis 1 was a case-control study of 10 nonventilated, moderately to severely hypoxic patients with COVID-19 who received IVIG (Privigen [CSL Behring]) matched 1:2 with 20 control patients of similar age, body mass index, degree of hypoxemia, and comorbidities. Analysis 2 consisted of patients enrolled in a previously published, randomized, open-label prospective study of 14 patients with COVID-19 receiving standard of care vs 13 patients who received standard of care plus IVIG (Octagam 10% [Octapharma]).

Setting and participants: Patients with COVID-19 with moderate-to-severe hypoxemia hospitalized at a single site located in San Diego, California.

Measurements: Direct cost of hospitalization.

Results: In the first (case-control) population, mean total direct costs, including IVIG, for the treatment group were $21,982 per IVIG-treated case vs $42,431 per case for matched non-IVIG-receiving controls, representing a net cost reduction of $20,449 (48%) per case. For the second (randomized) group, mean total direct costs, including IVIG, for the treatment group were $28,268 per case vs $62,707 per case for untreated controls, representing a net cost reduction of $34,439 (55%) per case. Of the patients who did not receive IVIG, 24% had hospital costs exceeding $80,000; none of the IVIG-treated patients had costs exceeding this amount (P = .016, Fisher exact test).

Conclusion: If allocated early to the appropriate patient type (moderate-to-severe illness without end-organ comorbidities and age <70 years), IVIG can significantly reduce hospital costs in COVID-19 care. More important, in our study it reduced the demand for scarce critical care resources during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Keywords: IVIG, SARS-CoV-2, cost saving, direct hospital costs.

Intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIG) has been available in most hospitals for 4 decades, with broad therapeutic applications in the treatment of Kawasaki disease and a variety of inflammatory, infectious, autoimmune, and viral diseases, via multifactorial mechanisms of immune modulation.¹ Reports of COVID-19−associated multisystem inflammatory syndrome in adults and children have supported the use of IVIG in treatment.^2,3 Previous studies of IVIG treatment for COVID-19 have produced mixed results. Although retrospective studies have largely been positive,^4-8 prospective clinical trials have been mixed, with some favorable results^9-11 and another, more recent study showing no benefit.¹² However, there is still considerable debate regarding whether some subgroups of patients with COVID-19 may benefit from IVIG; the studies that support this argument, however, have been diluted by broad clinical trials that lack granularity among the heterogeneity of patient characteristics and the timing of IVIG administration.^13,14 One study suggests that patients with COVID-19 who may be particularly poised to benefit from IVIG are those who are younger, have fewer comorbidities, and are treated early.⁸

At our institution, we selectively utilized IVIG to treat patients within 48 hours of rapidly increasing oxygen requirements due to COVID-19, targeting those younger than 70 years, with no previous irreversible end-organ damage, no significant comorbidities (renal failure, heart failure, dementia, active cancer malignancies), and no active treatment for cancer. We analyzed the costs of care of these IVIG (Privigen) recipients and compared them to costs for patients with COVID-19 matched by comorbidities, age, and illness severity who did not receive IVIG. To look for consistency, we examined the cost of care of COVID-19 patients who received IVIG (Octagam) as compared to controls from a previously published pilot trial.¹⁰

Methods

Setting and Treatment

All patients in this study were hospitalized at a single site located in San Diego, California. Treatment patients in both cohorts received IVIG 0.5 g/kg adjusted for body weight daily for 3 consecutive days.

Patient Cohort #1: Retrospective Case-Control Trial

Intravenous immunoglobulin (Privigen 10%, CSL Behring) was utilized off-label to treat moderately to severely ill non-intensive care unit (ICU) patients with COVID-19 requiring ≥3 L of oxygen by nasal cannula who were not mechanically ventilated but were considered at high risk for respiratory failure. Preset exclusion criteria for off-label use of IVIG in the treatment of COVID-19 were age >70 years, active malignancy, organ transplant recipient, renal failure, heart failure, or dementia. Controls were obtained from a list of all admitted patients with COVID-19, matched to cases 2:1 on the basis of age (±10 years), body mass index (±1), gender, comorbidities present at admission (eg, hypertension, diabetes mellitus, lung disease, or history of tobacco use), and maximum oxygen requirements within the first 48 hours of admission. In situations where more than 2 potential matched controls were identified for a patient, the 2 controls closest in age to the treatment patient were selected. One IVIG patient was excluded because only 1 matched-age control could be found. Pregnant patients who otherwise fulfilled the criteria for IVIG administration were also excluded from this analysis.

Patient Cohort #2: Prospective, Randomized, Open-Label Trial

Use of IVIG (Octagam 10%, Octapharma) in COVID-19 was studied in a previously published, prospective, open-label randomized trial.¹⁰ This pilot trial included 16 IVIG-treated patients and 17 control patients, of which 13 and 14 patients, respectively, had hospital cost data available for analysis.¹⁰ Most notably, COVID-19 patients in this study were required to have ≥4 L of oxygen via nasal cannula to maintain arterial oxygen saturationof ≤96%.

Outcomes

Cost data were independently obtained from our finance team, which provided us with the total direct cost and the total pharmaceutical cost associated with each admission. We also compared total length of stay (LOS) and ICU LOS between treatment arms, as these were presumed to be the major drivers of cost difference.

Statistics

Nonparametric comparisons of medians were performed with the Mann-Whitney U test. Comparison of means was done by Student t test. Categorical data were analyzed by Fisher exact test.

This analysis was initiated as an internal quality assessment. It received approval from the Sharp Healthcare Institutional Review Board (research@sharp.com), and was granted a waiver of subject authorization and consent given the retrospective nature of the study.

Results

Case-Control Analysis

A total of 10 hypoxic patients with COVID-19 received Privigen IVIG outside of clinical trial settings. None of the patients was vaccinated against SARS-CoV-2, as hospitalization occurred prior to vaccine availability. In addition, the original SARS-CoV-2 strain was circulating while these patients were hospitalized, preceding subsequent emerging variants. Oxygen requirements within the first 48 hours ranged from 3 L via nasal cannula to requiring bi-level positive pressure airway therapy with 100% oxygen; median age was 56 years and median Charlson comorbidity index was 1. These 10 patients were each matched to 2 control patients hospitalized during a comparable time period and who, based on oxygen requirements, did not receive IVIG. The 20 control patients had a median age of 58.5 years and a Charlson comorbidity index of 1 (Table 1). Rates of comorbidities, such as hypertension, diabetes mellitus, and obesity, were identical in the 2 groups. None of the patients in either group died during the index hospitalization. Fewer control patients received glucocorticoids, which was reflective of lower illness severity/degree of hypoxia in some controls.

Health care utilization in terms of costs and hospital LOS between the 2 groups are shown in Table 2. The mean total direct hospital cost per case, including IVIG and other drug costs, for the 10 IVIG-treated COVID-19 patients was $21,982 vs $42,431 for the matched controls, a reduction of $20,449 (48%) per case (P = .6187) with IVIG. This difference was heavily driven by 4 control patients (20%) with hospital costs >$80,000, marked by need for ICU transfer, mechanical ventilation during admission, and longer hospital stays. This reduction in progression to mechanical ventilation was consistent with our previously published, open-label, randomized prospective IVIG study, the financial assessment of which is reviewed below. While total direct costs were lower in the treatment arm, the mean drug cost for the treatment arm was $3122 greater than the mean drug cost in the control arm (P = .001622), consistent with the high cost of IVIG therapy (Table 2).

LOS information was obtained, as this was thought to be a primary driver of direct costs. The average LOS in the IVIG arm was 8.4 days, and the average LOS in the control arm was 13.6 days (P = NS). The average ICU LOS in the IVIG arm was 0 days, while the average ICU LOS in the control arm was 5.3 days (P = .04). As with the differences in cost, the differences in LOS were primarily driven by the 4 outlier cases in our control arm, who each had a LOS >25 days, as well as an ICU LOS >20 days.

Randomized, Open-Label, Patient Cohort Analysis

Patient characteristics, LOS, and rates of mechanical ventilation for the IVIG and control patients were previously published and showed a reduction in mechanical ventilation and hospital LOS with IVIG treatment.¹⁰ In this group of patients, 1 patient treated with IVIG (6%) and 3 patients not treated with IVIG (18%) died. To determine the consistency of these results from the case-control patients with a set of patients obtained from clinical trial randomization, we examined the health care costs of patients from the prior study.¹⁰ As with the case-control group, patients in this portion of the analysis were hospitalized before vaccines were available and prior to any identified variants.

Comparing the hospital cost of the IVIG-treated patients to the control patients from this trial revealed results similar to the matched case-control analysis discussed earlier. Average total direct cost per case, including IVIG, for the IVIG treatment group was $28,268, vs $62,707 per case for non-IVIG controls. This represented a net cost reduction of $34,439 (55%) per case, very similar to that of the prior cohort.

IVIG Reduces Costly Outlier Cases

The case-control and randomized trial groups, yielding a combined 23 IVIG and 34 control patients, showed a median cost per case of $22,578 (range $10,115-$70,929) and $22,645 (range $4723-$279,797) for the IVIG and control groups, respectively. Cases with a cost >$80,000 were 0/23 (0%) vs 8/34 (24%) in the IVIG and control groups, respectively (P = .016, Fisher exact test).

Improving care while simultaneously keeping care costs below reimbursement payment levels received from third-party payers is paramount to the financial survival of health care systems. IVIG appears to do this by reducing the number of patients with COVID-19 who progress to ICU care. We compared the costs of care of our combined case-control and randomized trial cohorts to published data on average reimbursements hospitals receive for COVID-19 care from Medicaid, Medicare, and private insurance (Figure).¹⁵ IVIG demonstrated a reduction in cases where costs exceed reimbursement. Indeed, a comparison of net revenue per case of the case-control group showed significantly higher revenue for the IVIG group compared to controls ($52,704 vs $34,712, P = .0338, Table 2).

Discussion

As reflected in at least 1 other study,¹⁶ our hospital had been successfully utilizing IVIG in the treatment of viral acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) prior to COVID-19. Therefore, we moved quickly to perform a randomized, open-label pilot study of IVIG (Octagam 10%) in COVID-19, and noted significant clinical benefit that might translate into hospital cost savings.¹⁰ Over the course of the pandemic, evidence has accumulated that IVIG may play an important role in COVID-19 therapeutics, as summarized in a recent review.¹⁷ However, despite promising but inconsistent results, the relatively high acquisition costs of IVIG raised questions as to its pharmacoeconomic value, particularly with such a high volume of COVID-19 patients with hypoxia, in light of limited clinical data.

COVID-19 therapeutics data can be categorized into either high-quality trials showing marginal benefit for some agents or low-quality trials showing greater benefit for other agents, with IVIG studies falling into the latter category.¹⁸ This phenomenon may speak to the pathophysiological heterogeneity of the COVID-19 patient population. High-quality trials enrolling broad patient types lack the granularity to capture and single out relevant patient subsets who would derive maximal therapeutic benefit, with those subsets diluted by other patient types for which no benefit is seen. Meanwhile, the more granular low-quality trials are criticized as underpowered and lacking in translatability to practice.

Positive results from our pilot trial allowed the use of IVIG (Privigen) off-label in hospitalized COVID-19 patients restricted to specific criteria. Patients had to be moderately to severely ill, requiring >3 L of oxygen via nasal cannula; show high risk of clinical deterioration based on respiratory rate and decline in respiratory status; and have underlying comorbidities (such as hypertension, obesity, or diabetes mellitus). However, older patients (>age 70 years) and those with underlying comorbidities marked by organ failure (such as heart failure, renal failure, dementia, or receipt of organ transplant) and active malignancy were excluded, as their clinical outcome in COVID-19 may be considered less modifiable by therapeutics, while simultaneously carrying potentially a higher risk of adverse events from IVIG (volume overload, renal failure). These exclusions are reflected in the overall low Charlson comorbidity index (mean of 1) of the patients in the case-control study arm. As anticipated, we found a net cost reduction: $20,449 (48%) per case among the 10 IVIG-treated patients compared to the 20 matched controls.

We then went back to the patients from the randomized prospective trial and compared costs for the 13 of 16 IVIG patients and 14 of 17 of the control patients for whom data were available. Among untreated controls, we found a net cost reduction of $34,439 (55%) per case. The higher costs seen in the randomized patient cohort compared to the latter case-control group may be due to a combination of the fact that the treated patients had slightly higher comorbidity indices than the case-control group (median Charlson comorbidity index of 2 in both groups) and the fact that they were treated earlier in the pandemic (May/June 2020), as opposed to the case-control group patients, who were treated in November/December 2020.

It was notable that the cost savings across both groups were derived largely from the reduction in the approximately 20% to 25% of control patients who went on to critical illness, including mechanical ventilation, extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO), and prolonged ICU stays. Indeed, 8 of 34 of the control patients—but none of the 23 IVIG-treated patients—generated hospital costs in excess of $80,000, a difference that was statistically significant even for such a small sample size. Therefore, reducing these very costly outlier events translated into net savings across the board.

In addition to lowering costs, reducing progression to critical illness is extremely important during heavy waves of COVID-19, when the sheer volume of patients results in severe strain due to the relative scarcity of ICU beds, mechanical ventilators, and ECMO. Therefore, reducing the need for these resources would have a vital role that cannot be measured economically.

The major limitations of this study include the small sample size and the potential lack of generalizability of these results to all hospital centers and treating providers. Our group has considerable experience in IVIG utilization in COVID-19 and, as a result, has identified a “sweet spot,” where benefits were seen clinically and economically. However, it remains to be determined whether IVIG will benefit patients with greater illness severity, such as those in the ICU, on mechanical ventilation, or ECMO. Furthermore, while a significant morbidity and mortality burden of COVID-19 rests in extremely elderly patients and those with end-organ comorbidities such as renal failure and heart failure, it is uncertain whether their COVID-19 adverse outcomes can be improved with IVIG or other therapies. We believe such patients may limit the pharmacoeconomic value of IVIG due to their generally poorer prognosis, regardless of intervention. On the other hand, COVID-19 patients who are not that severely ill, with minimal to no hypoxia, generally will do well regardless of therapy. Therefore, IVIG intervention may be an unnecessary treatment expense. Evidence for this was suggested in our pilot trial¹⁰ and supported in a recent meta-analysis of IVIG therapy in COVID-19.¹⁹

Several other therapeutic options with high acquisition costs have seen an increase in use during the COVID-19 pandemic despite relatively lukewarm data. Remdesivir, the first drug found to have a beneficial effect on hospitalized patients with COVID-19, is priced at $3120 for a complete 5-day treatment course in the United States. This was in line with initial pricing models from the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review (ICER) in May 2020, assuming a mortality benefit with remdesivir use. After the SOLIDARITY trial was published, which showed no mortality benefit associated with remdesivir, ICER updated their pricing models in June 2020 and released a statement that the price of remdesivir was too high to align with demonstrated benefits.^20,21 More recent data demonstrate that remdesivir may be beneficial, but only if administered to patients with fewer than 6 days of symptoms.²² However, only a minority of patients present to the hospital early enough in their illness for remdesivir to be beneficial.²²

Tocilizumab, an interleukin-6 inhibitor, saw an increase in use during the pandemic. An 800-mg treatment course for COVID-19 costs $3584. The efficacy of this treatment option came into question after the COVACTA trial failed to show a difference in clinical status or mortality in COVID-19 patients who received tocilizumab vs placebo.^23,24 A more recent study pointed to a survival benefit of tocilizumab in COVID-19, driven by a very large sample size (>4000), yielding statistically significant, but perhaps clinically less significant, effects on survival.²⁵ This latter study points to the extremely large sample sizes required to capture statistically significant benefits of expensive interventions in COVID-19, which our data demonstrate may benefit only a fraction of patients (20%-25% of patients in the case of IVIG). A more granular clinical assessment of these other interventions is needed to be able to capture the patient subtypes where tocilizumab, remdesivir, and other therapies will be cost effective in the treatment of COVID-19 or other virally mediated cases of ARDS.

Conclusion

While IVIG has a high acquisition cost, the drug’s use in hypoxic COVID-19 patients resulted in reduced costs per COVID-19 case of approximately 50% and use of less critical care resources. The difference was consistent between 2 cohorts (randomized trial vs off-label use in prespecified COVID-19 patient types), IVIG products used (Octagam 10% and Privigen), and time period in the pandemic (waves 1 and 2 in May/June 2020 vs wave 3 in November/December 2020), thereby adjusting for potential differences in circulating viral strains. Furthermore, patients from both groups predated SARS-CoV-2 vaccine availability and major circulating viral variants (eg, delta, omicron), thereby eliminating confounding on outcomes posed by these factors. Control patients’ higher costs of care were driven largely by the approximately 25% of patients who required costly hospital critical care resources, a group mitigated by IVIG. When allocated to the appropriate patient type (patients with moderate-to-severe but not critical illness, <age 70 without preexisting comorbidities of end-organ failure or active cancer), IVIG can reduce hospital costs for COVID-19 care. Identification of specific patient populations where IVIG has the most anticipated benefits in viral illness is needed.

Corresponding author: George Sakoulas, MD, Sharp Rees-Stealy Medical Group, 2020 Genesee Avenue, 2nd Floor, San Diego, CA 92123; gsakoulas@health.ucsd.edu

Disclosures: Dr Sakoulas has worked as a consultant for Abbvie, Paratek, and Octapharma, has served as a speaker for Abbvie and Paratek, and has received research funding from Octapharma. The other authors did not report any disclosures.

From Sharp Memorial Hospital, San Diego, CA (Drs. Poremba, Dehner, Perreiter, Semma, and Mills), Sharp Rees-Stealy Medical Group, San Diego, CA (Dr. Sakoulas), and Collaborative to Halt Antibiotic-Resistant Microbes (CHARM), Department of Pediatrics, University of California San Diego School of Medicine, La Jolla, CA (Dr. Sakoulas).

Abstract

Objective: To compare the costs of hospitalization of patients with moderate-to-severe COVID-19 who received intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIG) with those of patients of similar comorbidity and illness severity who did not.

Design: Analysis 1 was a case-control study of 10 nonventilated, moderately to severely hypoxic patients with COVID-19 who received IVIG (Privigen [CSL Behring]) matched 1:2 with 20 control patients of similar age, body mass index, degree of hypoxemia, and comorbidities. Analysis 2 consisted of patients enrolled in a previously published, randomized, open-label prospective study of 14 patients with COVID-19 receiving standard of care vs 13 patients who received standard of care plus IVIG (Octagam 10% [Octapharma]).

Setting and participants: Patients with COVID-19 with moderate-to-severe hypoxemia hospitalized at a single site located in San Diego, California.

Measurements: Direct cost of hospitalization.

Results: In the first (case-control) population, mean total direct costs, including IVIG, for the treatment group were $21,982 per IVIG-treated case vs $42,431 per case for matched non-IVIG-receiving controls, representing a net cost reduction of $20,449 (48%) per case. For the second (randomized) group, mean total direct costs, including IVIG, for the treatment group were $28,268 per case vs $62,707 per case for untreated controls, representing a net cost reduction of $34,439 (55%) per case. Of the patients who did not receive IVIG, 24% had hospital costs exceeding $80,000; none of the IVIG-treated patients had costs exceeding this amount (P = .016, Fisher exact test).

Conclusion: If allocated early to the appropriate patient type (moderate-to-severe illness without end-organ comorbidities and age <70 years), IVIG can significantly reduce hospital costs in COVID-19 care. More important, in our study it reduced the demand for scarce critical care resources during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Keywords: IVIG, SARS-CoV-2, cost saving, direct hospital costs.

Intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIG) has been available in most hospitals for 4 decades, with broad therapeutic applications in the treatment of Kawasaki disease and a variety of inflammatory, infectious, autoimmune, and viral diseases, via multifactorial mechanisms of immune modulation.¹ Reports of COVID-19−associated multisystem inflammatory syndrome in adults and children have supported the use of IVIG in treatment.^2,3 Previous studies of IVIG treatment for COVID-19 have produced mixed results. Although retrospective studies have largely been positive,^4-8 prospective clinical trials have been mixed, with some favorable results^9-11 and another, more recent study showing no benefit.¹² However, there is still considerable debate regarding whether some subgroups of patients with COVID-19 may benefit from IVIG; the studies that support this argument, however, have been diluted by broad clinical trials that lack granularity among the heterogeneity of patient characteristics and the timing of IVIG administration.^13,14 One study suggests that patients with COVID-19 who may be particularly poised to benefit from IVIG are those who are younger, have fewer comorbidities, and are treated early.⁸

At our institution, we selectively utilized IVIG to treat patients within 48 hours of rapidly increasing oxygen requirements due to COVID-19, targeting those younger than 70 years, with no previous irreversible end-organ damage, no significant comorbidities (renal failure, heart failure, dementia, active cancer malignancies), and no active treatment for cancer. We analyzed the costs of care of these IVIG (Privigen) recipients and compared them to costs for patients with COVID-19 matched by comorbidities, age, and illness severity who did not receive IVIG. To look for consistency, we examined the cost of care of COVID-19 patients who received IVIG (Octagam) as compared to controls from a previously published pilot trial.¹⁰

Methods

Setting and Treatment

All patients in this study were hospitalized at a single site located in San Diego, California. Treatment patients in both cohorts received IVIG 0.5 g/kg adjusted for body weight daily for 3 consecutive days.

Patient Cohort #1: Retrospective Case-Control Trial

Intravenous immunoglobulin (Privigen 10%, CSL Behring) was utilized off-label to treat moderately to severely ill non-intensive care unit (ICU) patients with COVID-19 requiring ≥3 L of oxygen by nasal cannula who were not mechanically ventilated but were considered at high risk for respiratory failure. Preset exclusion criteria for off-label use of IVIG in the treatment of COVID-19 were age >70 years, active malignancy, organ transplant recipient, renal failure, heart failure, or dementia. Controls were obtained from a list of all admitted patients with COVID-19, matched to cases 2:1 on the basis of age (±10 years), body mass index (±1), gender, comorbidities present at admission (eg, hypertension, diabetes mellitus, lung disease, or history of tobacco use), and maximum oxygen requirements within the first 48 hours of admission. In situations where more than 2 potential matched controls were identified for a patient, the 2 controls closest in age to the treatment patient were selected. One IVIG patient was excluded because only 1 matched-age control could be found. Pregnant patients who otherwise fulfilled the criteria for IVIG administration were also excluded from this analysis.

Patient Cohort #2: Prospective, Randomized, Open-Label Trial

Use of IVIG (Octagam 10%, Octapharma) in COVID-19 was studied in a previously published, prospective, open-label randomized trial.¹⁰ This pilot trial included 16 IVIG-treated patients and 17 control patients, of which 13 and 14 patients, respectively, had hospital cost data available for analysis.¹⁰ Most notably, COVID-19 patients in this study were required to have ≥4 L of oxygen via nasal cannula to maintain arterial oxygen saturationof ≤96%.

Outcomes

Cost data were independently obtained from our finance team, which provided us with the total direct cost and the total pharmaceutical cost associated with each admission. We also compared total length of stay (LOS) and ICU LOS between treatment arms, as these were presumed to be the major drivers of cost difference.

Statistics

Nonparametric comparisons of medians were performed with the Mann-Whitney U test. Comparison of means was done by Student t test. Categorical data were analyzed by Fisher exact test.

This analysis was initiated as an internal quality assessment. It received approval from the Sharp Healthcare Institutional Review Board (research@sharp.com), and was granted a waiver of subject authorization and consent given the retrospective nature of the study.

Results

Case-Control Analysis

A total of 10 hypoxic patients with COVID-19 received Privigen IVIG outside of clinical trial settings. None of the patients was vaccinated against SARS-CoV-2, as hospitalization occurred prior to vaccine availability. In addition, the original SARS-CoV-2 strain was circulating while these patients were hospitalized, preceding subsequent emerging variants. Oxygen requirements within the first 48 hours ranged from 3 L via nasal cannula to requiring bi-level positive pressure airway therapy with 100% oxygen; median age was 56 years and median Charlson comorbidity index was 1. These 10 patients were each matched to 2 control patients hospitalized during a comparable time period and who, based on oxygen requirements, did not receive IVIG. The 20 control patients had a median age of 58.5 years and a Charlson comorbidity index of 1 (Table 1). Rates of comorbidities, such as hypertension, diabetes mellitus, and obesity, were identical in the 2 groups. None of the patients in either group died during the index hospitalization. Fewer control patients received glucocorticoids, which was reflective of lower illness severity/degree of hypoxia in some controls.

Health care utilization in terms of costs and hospital LOS between the 2 groups are shown in Table 2. The mean total direct hospital cost per case, including IVIG and other drug costs, for the 10 IVIG-treated COVID-19 patients was $21,982 vs $42,431 for the matched controls, a reduction of $20,449 (48%) per case (P = .6187) with IVIG. This difference was heavily driven by 4 control patients (20%) with hospital costs >$80,000, marked by need for ICU transfer, mechanical ventilation during admission, and longer hospital stays. This reduction in progression to mechanical ventilation was consistent with our previously published, open-label, randomized prospective IVIG study, the financial assessment of which is reviewed below. While total direct costs were lower in the treatment arm, the mean drug cost for the treatment arm was $3122 greater than the mean drug cost in the control arm (P = .001622), consistent with the high cost of IVIG therapy (Table 2).

LOS information was obtained, as this was thought to be a primary driver of direct costs. The average LOS in the IVIG arm was 8.4 days, and the average LOS in the control arm was 13.6 days (P = NS). The average ICU LOS in the IVIG arm was 0 days, while the average ICU LOS in the control arm was 5.3 days (P = .04). As with the differences in cost, the differences in LOS were primarily driven by the 4 outlier cases in our control arm, who each had a LOS >25 days, as well as an ICU LOS >20 days.

Randomized, Open-Label, Patient Cohort Analysis

Patient characteristics, LOS, and rates of mechanical ventilation for the IVIG and control patients were previously published and showed a reduction in mechanical ventilation and hospital LOS with IVIG treatment.¹⁰ In this group of patients, 1 patient treated with IVIG (6%) and 3 patients not treated with IVIG (18%) died. To determine the consistency of these results from the case-control patients with a set of patients obtained from clinical trial randomization, we examined the health care costs of patients from the prior study.¹⁰ As with the case-control group, patients in this portion of the analysis were hospitalized before vaccines were available and prior to any identified variants.

Comparing the hospital cost of the IVIG-treated patients to the control patients from this trial revealed results similar to the matched case-control analysis discussed earlier. Average total direct cost per case, including IVIG, for the IVIG treatment group was $28,268, vs $62,707 per case for non-IVIG controls. This represented a net cost reduction of $34,439 (55%) per case, very similar to that of the prior cohort.

IVIG Reduces Costly Outlier Cases

The case-control and randomized trial groups, yielding a combined 23 IVIG and 34 control patients, showed a median cost per case of $22,578 (range $10,115-$70,929) and $22,645 (range $4723-$279,797) for the IVIG and control groups, respectively. Cases with a cost >$80,000 were 0/23 (0%) vs 8/34 (24%) in the IVIG and control groups, respectively (P = .016, Fisher exact test).

Improving care while simultaneously keeping care costs below reimbursement payment levels received from third-party payers is paramount to the financial survival of health care systems. IVIG appears to do this by reducing the number of patients with COVID-19 who progress to ICU care. We compared the costs of care of our combined case-control and randomized trial cohorts to published data on average reimbursements hospitals receive for COVID-19 care from Medicaid, Medicare, and private insurance (Figure).¹⁵ IVIG demonstrated a reduction in cases where costs exceed reimbursement. Indeed, a comparison of net revenue per case of the case-control group showed significantly higher revenue for the IVIG group compared to controls ($52,704 vs $34,712, P = .0338, Table 2).

Discussion

As reflected in at least 1 other study,¹⁶ our hospital had been successfully utilizing IVIG in the treatment of viral acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) prior to COVID-19. Therefore, we moved quickly to perform a randomized, open-label pilot study of IVIG (Octagam 10%) in COVID-19, and noted significant clinical benefit that might translate into hospital cost savings.¹⁰ Over the course of the pandemic, evidence has accumulated that IVIG may play an important role in COVID-19 therapeutics, as summarized in a recent review.¹⁷ However, despite promising but inconsistent results, the relatively high acquisition costs of IVIG raised questions as to its pharmacoeconomic value, particularly with such a high volume of COVID-19 patients with hypoxia, in light of limited clinical data.

COVID-19 therapeutics data can be categorized into either high-quality trials showing marginal benefit for some agents or low-quality trials showing greater benefit for other agents, with IVIG studies falling into the latter category.¹⁸ This phenomenon may speak to the pathophysiological heterogeneity of the COVID-19 patient population. High-quality trials enrolling broad patient types lack the granularity to capture and single out relevant patient subsets who would derive maximal therapeutic benefit, with those subsets diluted by other patient types for which no benefit is seen. Meanwhile, the more granular low-quality trials are criticized as underpowered and lacking in translatability to practice.

Positive results from our pilot trial allowed the use of IVIG (Privigen) off-label in hospitalized COVID-19 patients restricted to specific criteria. Patients had to be moderately to severely ill, requiring >3 L of oxygen via nasal cannula; show high risk of clinical deterioration based on respiratory rate and decline in respiratory status; and have underlying comorbidities (such as hypertension, obesity, or diabetes mellitus). However, older patients (>age 70 years) and those with underlying comorbidities marked by organ failure (such as heart failure, renal failure, dementia, or receipt of organ transplant) and active malignancy were excluded, as their clinical outcome in COVID-19 may be considered less modifiable by therapeutics, while simultaneously carrying potentially a higher risk of adverse events from IVIG (volume overload, renal failure). These exclusions are reflected in the overall low Charlson comorbidity index (mean of 1) of the patients in the case-control study arm. As anticipated, we found a net cost reduction: $20,449 (48%) per case among the 10 IVIG-treated patients compared to the 20 matched controls.

We then went back to the patients from the randomized prospective trial and compared costs for the 13 of 16 IVIG patients and 14 of 17 of the control patients for whom data were available. Among untreated controls, we found a net cost reduction of $34,439 (55%) per case. The higher costs seen in the randomized patient cohort compared to the latter case-control group may be due to a combination of the fact that the treated patients had slightly higher comorbidity indices than the case-control group (median Charlson comorbidity index of 2 in both groups) and the fact that they were treated earlier in the pandemic (May/June 2020), as opposed to the case-control group patients, who were treated in November/December 2020.

It was notable that the cost savings across both groups were derived largely from the reduction in the approximately 20% to 25% of control patients who went on to critical illness, including mechanical ventilation, extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO), and prolonged ICU stays. Indeed, 8 of 34 of the control patients—but none of the 23 IVIG-treated patients—generated hospital costs in excess of $80,000, a difference that was statistically significant even for such a small sample size. Therefore, reducing these very costly outlier events translated into net savings across the board.

In addition to lowering costs, reducing progression to critical illness is extremely important during heavy waves of COVID-19, when the sheer volume of patients results in severe strain due to the relative scarcity of ICU beds, mechanical ventilators, and ECMO. Therefore, reducing the need for these resources would have a vital role that cannot be measured economically.

The major limitations of this study include the small sample size and the potential lack of generalizability of these results to all hospital centers and treating providers. Our group has considerable experience in IVIG utilization in COVID-19 and, as a result, has identified a “sweet spot,” where benefits were seen clinically and economically. However, it remains to be determined whether IVIG will benefit patients with greater illness severity, such as those in the ICU, on mechanical ventilation, or ECMO. Furthermore, while a significant morbidity and mortality burden of COVID-19 rests in extremely elderly patients and those with end-organ comorbidities such as renal failure and heart failure, it is uncertain whether their COVID-19 adverse outcomes can be improved with IVIG or other therapies. We believe such patients may limit the pharmacoeconomic value of IVIG due to their generally poorer prognosis, regardless of intervention. On the other hand, COVID-19 patients who are not that severely ill, with minimal to no hypoxia, generally will do well regardless of therapy. Therefore, IVIG intervention may be an unnecessary treatment expense. Evidence for this was suggested in our pilot trial¹⁰ and supported in a recent meta-analysis of IVIG therapy in COVID-19.¹⁹

Several other therapeutic options with high acquisition costs have seen an increase in use during the COVID-19 pandemic despite relatively lukewarm data. Remdesivir, the first drug found to have a beneficial effect on hospitalized patients with COVID-19, is priced at $3120 for a complete 5-day treatment course in the United States. This was in line with initial pricing models from the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review (ICER) in May 2020, assuming a mortality benefit with remdesivir use. After the SOLIDARITY trial was published, which showed no mortality benefit associated with remdesivir, ICER updated their pricing models in June 2020 and released a statement that the price of remdesivir was too high to align with demonstrated benefits.^20,21 More recent data demonstrate that remdesivir may be beneficial, but only if administered to patients with fewer than 6 days of symptoms.²² However, only a minority of patients present to the hospital early enough in their illness for remdesivir to be beneficial.²²

Tocilizumab, an interleukin-6 inhibitor, saw an increase in use during the pandemic. An 800-mg treatment course for COVID-19 costs $3584. The efficacy of this treatment option came into question after the COVACTA trial failed to show a difference in clinical status or mortality in COVID-19 patients who received tocilizumab vs placebo.^23,24 A more recent study pointed to a survival benefit of tocilizumab in COVID-19, driven by a very large sample size (>4000), yielding statistically significant, but perhaps clinically less significant, effects on survival.²⁵ This latter study points to the extremely large sample sizes required to capture statistically significant benefits of expensive interventions in COVID-19, which our data demonstrate may benefit only a fraction of patients (20%-25% of patients in the case of IVIG). A more granular clinical assessment of these other interventions is needed to be able to capture the patient subtypes where tocilizumab, remdesivir, and other therapies will be cost effective in the treatment of COVID-19 or other virally mediated cases of ARDS.

Conclusion

While IVIG has a high acquisition cost, the drug’s use in hypoxic COVID-19 patients resulted in reduced costs per COVID-19 case of approximately 50% and use of less critical care resources. The difference was consistent between 2 cohorts (randomized trial vs off-label use in prespecified COVID-19 patient types), IVIG products used (Octagam 10% and Privigen), and time period in the pandemic (waves 1 and 2 in May/June 2020 vs wave 3 in November/December 2020), thereby adjusting for potential differences in circulating viral strains. Furthermore, patients from both groups predated SARS-CoV-2 vaccine availability and major circulating viral variants (eg, delta, omicron), thereby eliminating confounding on outcomes posed by these factors. Control patients’ higher costs of care were driven largely by the approximately 25% of patients who required costly hospital critical care resources, a group mitigated by IVIG. When allocated to the appropriate patient type (patients with moderate-to-severe but not critical illness, <age 70 without preexisting comorbidities of end-organ failure or active cancer), IVIG can reduce hospital costs for COVID-19 care. Identification of specific patient populations where IVIG has the most anticipated benefits in viral illness is needed.

Corresponding author: George Sakoulas, MD, Sharp Rees-Stealy Medical Group, 2020 Genesee Avenue, 2nd Floor, San Diego, CA 92123; gsakoulas@health.ucsd.edu

Disclosures: Dr Sakoulas has worked as a consultant for Abbvie, Paratek, and Octapharma, has served as a speaker for Abbvie and Paratek, and has received research funding from Octapharma. The other authors did not report any disclosures.

The anticipated U.S. Food and Drug Administration approval of VP-102 for the treatment of molluscum contagiosum has been delayed because of deficiencies identified at a contract manufacturing organization, according to Verrica Pharmaceuticals, which is developing the product.

VP-102 is a proprietary drug-device combination of cantharidin 0.7% administered through a single-use precision applicator, which has been evaluated in phase 3 studies of patients with molluscum aged 2 years and older. It features a visualization agent so the person applying the drug can see which lesions have been treated. It also contains a bittering agent to mitigate oral ingestion by children.

According to a press release from Verrica, the only deficiency listed in the FDA’s complete response letter stemmed from a general reinspection of Sterling Pharmaceuticals Services, which manufactures Verrica’s bulk solution drug product. Although none of the issues identified by the FDA during the reinspection were specific to the manufacturing of VP-102, FDA policy prevents approval of a new drug application when a contract manufacturing organization has an unresolved classification status or is placed on “official action indicated” status.

According to the press release, Verrica will “continue to work collaboratively” with the FDA to bring VP-102 to the market as soon as possible. The company has completed phase 2 studies of VP-102 for the treatment of common warts and for the treatment of external genital warts, the release said.

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

The anticipated U.S. Food and Drug Administration approval of VP-102 for the treatment of molluscum contagiosum has been delayed because of deficiencies identified at a contract manufacturing organization, according to Verrica Pharmaceuticals, which is developing the product.

VP-102 is a proprietary drug-device combination of cantharidin 0.7% administered through a single-use precision applicator, which has been evaluated in phase 3 studies of patients with molluscum aged 2 years and older. It features a visualization agent so the person applying the drug can see which lesions have been treated. It also contains a bittering agent to mitigate oral ingestion by children.

According to a press release from Verrica, the only deficiency listed in the FDA’s complete response letter stemmed from a general reinspection of Sterling Pharmaceuticals Services, which manufactures Verrica’s bulk solution drug product. Although none of the issues identified by the FDA during the reinspection were specific to the manufacturing of VP-102, FDA policy prevents approval of a new drug application when a contract manufacturing organization has an unresolved classification status or is placed on “official action indicated” status.

According to the press release, Verrica will “continue to work collaboratively” with the FDA to bring VP-102 to the market as soon as possible. The company has completed phase 2 studies of VP-102 for the treatment of common warts and for the treatment of external genital warts, the release said.

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

The anticipated U.S. Food and Drug Administration approval of VP-102 for the treatment of molluscum contagiosum has been delayed because of deficiencies identified at a contract manufacturing organization, according to Verrica Pharmaceuticals, which is developing the product.

VP-102 is a proprietary drug-device combination of cantharidin 0.7% administered through a single-use precision applicator, which has been evaluated in phase 3 studies of patients with molluscum aged 2 years and older. It features a visualization agent so the person applying the drug can see which lesions have been treated. It also contains a bittering agent to mitigate oral ingestion by children.

According to a press release from Verrica, the only deficiency listed in the FDA’s complete response letter stemmed from a general reinspection of Sterling Pharmaceuticals Services, which manufactures Verrica’s bulk solution drug product. Although none of the issues identified by the FDA during the reinspection were specific to the manufacturing of VP-102, FDA policy prevents approval of a new drug application when a contract manufacturing organization has an unresolved classification status or is placed on “official action indicated” status.

According to the press release, Verrica will “continue to work collaboratively” with the FDA to bring VP-102 to the market as soon as possible. The company has completed phase 2 studies of VP-102 for the treatment of common warts and for the treatment of external genital warts, the release said.

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

Weekly COVID-19 cases in children passed 100,000 in the United States for the first time since late February as pediatric incidence rose for the 6th consecutive week, according to the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Children’s Hospital Association.

New cases were up by 14.6% over the previous week to just over 107,000 reported during May 13-16, marking the sixth straight increase since April 1-7, when the count was almost 26,000. Over that period, weekly cases rose 313%, based on data in the latest weekly COVID report from the AAP and CHA.

Rates reported by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention show the same trend. Weekly cases per 100,000 population, which were down to 34.9 in children aged 0-4 years and 43.1 for those aged 5-11 on March 26, were up to 49.5 and 52.2, respectively, by April 16. The pace picked up right after that, and as of May 14, the rates of new cases were 125.4 per 100,000 in children aged 0-4 years and 143.1 in those aged 5-11, the CDC said.

Hospital admissions continue to rise as well. The rate of new admissions in children aged 0-17 was up to 0.25 per 100,000 population on May 18, nearly double the 0.13 per 100,000 recorded as late as April 13. The latest 7-day average count for new admissions, 163 per day from May 15-21, is down from the previous week’s 175 per day, but the CDC also acknowledges potential reporting delays in the most recent 7-day period.

Both of those weekly averages, however, are far below the peak rate for the pandemic, 914 per day, which occurred Jan. 10-16, 2022, during the Omicron surge. Since the CDC began keeping count at the beginning of August 2020, more than 125,000 children aged 0-17 years have been admitted with confirmed COVID-19, which is about 2.7% of all admissions over that period, the CDC’s data show.
 

Booster gets the green light

The week brought some positive news on the prevention side, though, as the CDC officially approved a COVID vaccine booster dose for children aged 5-11 years.

Even that good news came with a caveat, however. The vote by the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices was 11:1 in favor, with the negative vote cast by Helen Keipp Talbot, MD, of Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tenn., who said that “boosters are great once we’ve gotten everyone their first round. That needs to be our priority in this.”

Nationally, in fact, just 35.7% of children aged 5-11 years have received at least one dose of the vaccine and only 29.0% are fully vaccinated. Those figures are nearly doubled among 12- to 17-year-olds: 69.3% have received at least one dose and 59.4% are fully vaccinated, the CDC said on its COVID Data Tracker.

Some states, meanwhile, are well below those national rates. In Wyoming, only 40% of children aged 12-17 have received an initial vaccine dose, and eight other states are below 50%. Among children aged 5-12, there are still five states below 20% in that measure, while the states on the other end of the spectrum – Vermont and Massachusetts – are above 60%, the AAP said in its separate vaccination report.

Weekly COVID-19 cases in children passed 100,000 in the United States for the first time since late February as pediatric incidence rose for the 6th consecutive week, according to the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Children’s Hospital Association.

New cases were up by 14.6% over the previous week to just over 107,000 reported during May 13-16, marking the sixth straight increase since April 1-7, when the count was almost 26,000. Over that period, weekly cases rose 313%, based on data in the latest weekly COVID report from the AAP and CHA.

Rates reported by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention show the same trend. Weekly cases per 100,000 population, which were down to 34.9 in children aged 0-4 years and 43.1 for those aged 5-11 on March 26, were up to 49.5 and 52.2, respectively, by April 16. The pace picked up right after that, and as of May 14, the rates of new cases were 125.4 per 100,000 in children aged 0-4 years and 143.1 in those aged 5-11, the CDC said.

Hospital admissions continue to rise as well. The rate of new admissions in children aged 0-17 was up to 0.25 per 100,000 population on May 18, nearly double the 0.13 per 100,000 recorded as late as April 13. The latest 7-day average count for new admissions, 163 per day from May 15-21, is down from the previous week’s 175 per day, but the CDC also acknowledges potential reporting delays in the most recent 7-day period.

Both of those weekly averages, however, are far below the peak rate for the pandemic, 914 per day, which occurred Jan. 10-16, 2022, during the Omicron surge. Since the CDC began keeping count at the beginning of August 2020, more than 125,000 children aged 0-17 years have been admitted with confirmed COVID-19, which is about 2.7% of all admissions over that period, the CDC’s data show.
 

Booster gets the green light

The week brought some positive news on the prevention side, though, as the CDC officially approved a COVID vaccine booster dose for children aged 5-11 years.

Even that good news came with a caveat, however. The vote by the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices was 11:1 in favor, with the negative vote cast by Helen Keipp Talbot, MD, of Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tenn., who said that “boosters are great once we’ve gotten everyone their first round. That needs to be our priority in this.”

Nationally, in fact, just 35.7% of children aged 5-11 years have received at least one dose of the vaccine and only 29.0% are fully vaccinated. Those figures are nearly doubled among 12- to 17-year-olds: 69.3% have received at least one dose and 59.4% are fully vaccinated, the CDC said on its COVID Data Tracker.

Some states, meanwhile, are well below those national rates. In Wyoming, only 40% of children aged 12-17 have received an initial vaccine dose, and eight other states are below 50%. Among children aged 5-12, there are still five states below 20% in that measure, while the states on the other end of the spectrum – Vermont and Massachusetts – are above 60%, the AAP said in its separate vaccination report.

Weekly COVID-19 cases in children passed 100,000 in the United States for the first time since late February as pediatric incidence rose for the 6th consecutive week, according to the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Children’s Hospital Association.

New cases were up by 14.6% over the previous week to just over 107,000 reported during May 13-16, marking the sixth straight increase since April 1-7, when the count was almost 26,000. Over that period, weekly cases rose 313%, based on data in the latest weekly COVID report from the AAP and CHA.

Rates reported by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention show the same trend. Weekly cases per 100,000 population, which were down to 34.9 in children aged 0-4 years and 43.1 for those aged 5-11 on March 26, were up to 49.5 and 52.2, respectively, by April 16. The pace picked up right after that, and as of May 14, the rates of new cases were 125.4 per 100,000 in children aged 0-4 years and 143.1 in those aged 5-11, the CDC said.

Hospital admissions continue to rise as well. The rate of new admissions in children aged 0-17 was up to 0.25 per 100,000 population on May 18, nearly double the 0.13 per 100,000 recorded as late as April 13. The latest 7-day average count for new admissions, 163 per day from May 15-21, is down from the previous week’s 175 per day, but the CDC also acknowledges potential reporting delays in the most recent 7-day period.

Both of those weekly averages, however, are far below the peak rate for the pandemic, 914 per day, which occurred Jan. 10-16, 2022, during the Omicron surge. Since the CDC began keeping count at the beginning of August 2020, more than 125,000 children aged 0-17 years have been admitted with confirmed COVID-19, which is about 2.7% of all admissions over that period, the CDC’s data show.
 

Booster gets the green light

The week brought some positive news on the prevention side, though, as the CDC officially approved a COVID vaccine booster dose for children aged 5-11 years.

Even that good news came with a caveat, however. The vote by the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices was 11:1 in favor, with the negative vote cast by Helen Keipp Talbot, MD, of Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tenn., who said that “boosters are great once we’ve gotten everyone their first round. That needs to be our priority in this.”

Nationally, in fact, just 35.7% of children aged 5-11 years have received at least one dose of the vaccine and only 29.0% are fully vaccinated. Those figures are nearly doubled among 12- to 17-year-olds: 69.3% have received at least one dose and 59.4% are fully vaccinated, the CDC said on its COVID Data Tracker.

Some states, meanwhile, are well below those national rates. In Wyoming, only 40% of children aged 12-17 have received an initial vaccine dose, and eight other states are below 50%. Among children aged 5-12, there are still five states below 20% in that measure, while the states on the other end of the spectrum – Vermont and Massachusetts – are above 60%, the AAP said in its separate vaccination report.

To the Editor:

Wolf isotopic response describes the development of a skin disorder at the site of another healed and unrelated skin disease. Skin disorders presenting as isotopic responses have included inflammatory, malignant, granulomatous, and infectious processes. Discoid lupus erythematosus (DLE) is a rare isotopic response. We report a cutaneous lupus erythematosus–like isotopic response that presented at the site of a recent herpes zoster infection in a liver transplant recipient.

A 74-year-old immunocompromised woman was referred to the dermatology clinic for evaluation of a rash on the right leg. She was being treated with maintenance valganciclovir due to cytomegalovirus viremia, as well as tacrolimus, azathioprine, and prednisone following liver transplantation due to autoimmune hepatitis for 8 months prior to presentation. Eighteen days prior to the current presentation, she was clinically diagnosed with herpes zoster. As the grouped vesicles from the herpes zoster resolved, she developed pink scaly papules in the same distribution as the original vesicular eruption.

Physical examination revealed numerous erythematous, 2- to 3-mm, scaly papules that coalesced into small plaques with serous crusts; they originated above the supragluteal cleft and extended rightward in the L3 and L4 dermatomes to the right knee (Figure 1). A 3-mm punch biopsy specimen was obtained from the right anterior thigh. Histologic analysis revealed interface lymphocytic inflammation with squamatization of basal keratinocytes, basement membrane thickening, and follicular plugging by keratin (Figure 2). There was a moderately intense perivascular and periadnexal inflammatory infiltrate of mature lymphocytes with rare eosinophils within the papillary and superficial reticular dermis. There was no evidence of a viral cytopathic effect, and an immunohistochemical stain for varicella-zoster virus protein was negative. The histologic findings were suggestive of cutaneous involvement by DLE. A diagnosis of a cutaneous lupus erythematosus–like Wolf isotopic response was made, and the patient’s rash resolved with the use of triamcinolone cream 0.1% applied twice daily for 2 weeks. At 6-week follow-up, there were postinflammatory pigmentation changes at the sites of the prior rash and persistent postherpetic neuralgia. Recent antinuclear antibody screening was negative, coupled with the patient’s lack of systemic symptoms and quick resolution of rash, indicating that additional testing for systemic lupus was not warranted.

Wolf isotopic response describes the occurrence of a new skin disorder at the site of a previously healed and unrelated skin disorder. The second disease may appear within days to years after the primary disease subsides and is clearly differentiated from the isomorphic response of the Koebner phenomenon, which describes an established skin disorder appearing at a previously uninvolved anatomic site following trauma.¹ As in our case, the initial cutaneous eruption resulting in a subsequent Wolf isotopic response frequently is herpes zoster and less commonly is herpes simplex virus.² The most common reported isotopic response is a granulomatous reaction.² Rare reports of leukemic infiltration, lymphoma, lichen planus, morphea, reactive perforating collagenosis, psoriasis, discoid lupus, lichen simplex chronicus, contact dermatitis, xanthomatous changes, malignant tumors, cutaneous graft-vs-host disease, pityriasis rosea, erythema annulare centrifugum, and other infectious-based isotopic responses exist.^2-6

Our patient presented with Wolf isotopic response that histologically mimicked DLE. A PubMed search of articles indexed for MEDLINE using the terms isotopic response and lupus revealed only 3 cases of cutaneous lupus erythematosus presenting as an isotopic response in the English-language literature. One of those cases occurred in a patient with preexisting systemic lupus erythematosus, making a diagnosis of Koebner isomorphic phenomenon more appropriate than an isotopic response at the site of prior herpes zoster infection.⁷ The remaining 2 cases were clinically defined DLE lesions occurring at sites of prior infection—cutaneous leishmaniasis and herpes zoster—in patients without a prior history of cutaneous or systemic lupus erythematosus.^8,9 The latter case of DLE-like isotopic response occurring after herpes zoster infection was further complicated by local injections at the zoster site for herpes-related local pain. Injection sites are reported as a distinct nidus for Wolf isotopic response.⁹

The pathogenesis of Wolf isotopic response is unclear. Possible explanations include local interactions between persistent viral particles at prior herpes infection sites, vascular injury, neural injury, and an altered immune response.^1,5,6,10 The destruction of sensory nerve fibers by herpesviruses cause the release of neuropeptides that then modulate the local immune system and angiogenic responses.^5,6 Our patient’s immunocompromised state may have further propagated a local altered immune cell infiltrate at the site of the isotopic response. Despite its unclear etiology, Wolf isotopic response should be considered in the differential diagnosis for any patient who presents with a dermatomal eruption at the site of a prior cutaneous infection, particularly after infection with herpes zoster. Treatment with topical or intralesional corticosteroids usually suffices for inflammatory-based isotopic responses with an excellent prognosis.¹¹

We present a case of a cutaneous lupus erythematosus–like isotopic response that occurred at the site of a recent herpes zoster eruption in an immunocompromised patient without prior history of systemic or cutaneous lupus erythematosus. Clinical recognition of Wolf isotopic response is important for accurate histopathologic diagnosis and management. Continued investigation into the underlying pathogenesis should be performed to fully understand and better treat this process.

To the Editor:

Wolf isotopic response describes the development of a skin disorder at the site of another healed and unrelated skin disease. Skin disorders presenting as isotopic responses have included inflammatory, malignant, granulomatous, and infectious processes. Discoid lupus erythematosus (DLE) is a rare isotopic response. We report a cutaneous lupus erythematosus–like isotopic response that presented at the site of a recent herpes zoster infection in a liver transplant recipient.

A 74-year-old immunocompromised woman was referred to the dermatology clinic for evaluation of a rash on the right leg. She was being treated with maintenance valganciclovir due to cytomegalovirus viremia, as well as tacrolimus, azathioprine, and prednisone following liver transplantation due to autoimmune hepatitis for 8 months prior to presentation. Eighteen days prior to the current presentation, she was clinically diagnosed with herpes zoster. As the grouped vesicles from the herpes zoster resolved, she developed pink scaly papules in the same distribution as the original vesicular eruption.

Physical examination revealed numerous erythematous, 2- to 3-mm, scaly papules that coalesced into small plaques with serous crusts; they originated above the supragluteal cleft and extended rightward in the L3 and L4 dermatomes to the right knee (Figure 1). A 3-mm punch biopsy specimen was obtained from the right anterior thigh. Histologic analysis revealed interface lymphocytic inflammation with squamatization of basal keratinocytes, basement membrane thickening, and follicular plugging by keratin (Figure 2). There was a moderately intense perivascular and periadnexal inflammatory infiltrate of mature lymphocytes with rare eosinophils within the papillary and superficial reticular dermis. There was no evidence of a viral cytopathic effect, and an immunohistochemical stain for varicella-zoster virus protein was negative. The histologic findings were suggestive of cutaneous involvement by DLE. A diagnosis of a cutaneous lupus erythematosus–like Wolf isotopic response was made, and the patient’s rash resolved with the use of triamcinolone cream 0.1% applied twice daily for 2 weeks. At 6-week follow-up, there were postinflammatory pigmentation changes at the sites of the prior rash and persistent postherpetic neuralgia. Recent antinuclear antibody screening was negative, coupled with the patient’s lack of systemic symptoms and quick resolution of rash, indicating that additional testing for systemic lupus was not warranted.

Wolf isotopic response describes the occurrence of a new skin disorder at the site of a previously healed and unrelated skin disorder. The second disease may appear within days to years after the primary disease subsides and is clearly differentiated from the isomorphic response of the Koebner phenomenon, which describes an established skin disorder appearing at a previously uninvolved anatomic site following trauma.¹ As in our case, the initial cutaneous eruption resulting in a subsequent Wolf isotopic response frequently is herpes zoster and less commonly is herpes simplex virus.² The most common reported isotopic response is a granulomatous reaction.² Rare reports of leukemic infiltration, lymphoma, lichen planus, morphea, reactive perforating collagenosis, psoriasis, discoid lupus, lichen simplex chronicus, contact dermatitis, xanthomatous changes, malignant tumors, cutaneous graft-vs-host disease, pityriasis rosea, erythema annulare centrifugum, and other infectious-based isotopic responses exist.^2-6

Our patient presented with Wolf isotopic response that histologically mimicked DLE. A PubMed search of articles indexed for MEDLINE using the terms isotopic response and lupus revealed only 3 cases of cutaneous lupus erythematosus presenting as an isotopic response in the English-language literature. One of those cases occurred in a patient with preexisting systemic lupus erythematosus, making a diagnosis of Koebner isomorphic phenomenon more appropriate than an isotopic response at the site of prior herpes zoster infection.⁷ The remaining 2 cases were clinically defined DLE lesions occurring at sites of prior infection—cutaneous leishmaniasis and herpes zoster—in patients without a prior history of cutaneous or systemic lupus erythematosus.^8,9 The latter case of DLE-like isotopic response occurring after herpes zoster infection was further complicated by local injections at the zoster site for herpes-related local pain. Injection sites are reported as a distinct nidus for Wolf isotopic response.⁹

The pathogenesis of Wolf isotopic response is unclear. Possible explanations include local interactions between persistent viral particles at prior herpes infection sites, vascular injury, neural injury, and an altered immune response.^1,5,6,10 The destruction of sensory nerve fibers by herpesviruses cause the release of neuropeptides that then modulate the local immune system and angiogenic responses.^5,6 Our patient’s immunocompromised state may have further propagated a local altered immune cell infiltrate at the site of the isotopic response. Despite its unclear etiology, Wolf isotopic response should be considered in the differential diagnosis for any patient who presents with a dermatomal eruption at the site of a prior cutaneous infection, particularly after infection with herpes zoster. Treatment with topical or intralesional corticosteroids usually suffices for inflammatory-based isotopic responses with an excellent prognosis.¹¹

We present a case of a cutaneous lupus erythematosus–like isotopic response that occurred at the site of a recent herpes zoster eruption in an immunocompromised patient without prior history of systemic or cutaneous lupus erythematosus. Clinical recognition of Wolf isotopic response is important for accurate histopathologic diagnosis and management. Continued investigation into the underlying pathogenesis should be performed to fully understand and better treat this process.

To the Editor:

Wolf isotopic response describes the development of a skin disorder at the site of another healed and unrelated skin disease. Skin disorders presenting as isotopic responses have included inflammatory, malignant, granulomatous, and infectious processes. Discoid lupus erythematosus (DLE) is a rare isotopic response. We report a cutaneous lupus erythematosus–like isotopic response that presented at the site of a recent herpes zoster infection in a liver transplant recipient.

A 74-year-old immunocompromised woman was referred to the dermatology clinic for evaluation of a rash on the right leg. She was being treated with maintenance valganciclovir due to cytomegalovirus viremia, as well as tacrolimus, azathioprine, and prednisone following liver transplantation due to autoimmune hepatitis for 8 months prior to presentation. Eighteen days prior to the current presentation, she was clinically diagnosed with herpes zoster. As the grouped vesicles from the herpes zoster resolved, she developed pink scaly papules in the same distribution as the original vesicular eruption.

Physical examination revealed numerous erythematous, 2- to 3-mm, scaly papules that coalesced into small plaques with serous crusts; they originated above the supragluteal cleft and extended rightward in the L3 and L4 dermatomes to the right knee (Figure 1). A 3-mm punch biopsy specimen was obtained from the right anterior thigh. Histologic analysis revealed interface lymphocytic inflammation with squamatization of basal keratinocytes, basement membrane thickening, and follicular plugging by keratin (Figure 2). There was a moderately intense perivascular and periadnexal inflammatory infiltrate of mature lymphocytes with rare eosinophils within the papillary and superficial reticular dermis. There was no evidence of a viral cytopathic effect, and an immunohistochemical stain for varicella-zoster virus protein was negative. The histologic findings were suggestive of cutaneous involvement by DLE. A diagnosis of a cutaneous lupus erythematosus–like Wolf isotopic response was made, and the patient’s rash resolved with the use of triamcinolone cream 0.1% applied twice daily for 2 weeks. At 6-week follow-up, there were postinflammatory pigmentation changes at the sites of the prior rash and persistent postherpetic neuralgia. Recent antinuclear antibody screening was negative, coupled with the patient’s lack of systemic symptoms and quick resolution of rash, indicating that additional testing for systemic lupus was not warranted.

Wolf isotopic response describes the occurrence of a new skin disorder at the site of a previously healed and unrelated skin disorder. The second disease may appear within days to years after the primary disease subsides and is clearly differentiated from the isomorphic response of the Koebner phenomenon, which describes an established skin disorder appearing at a previously uninvolved anatomic site following trauma.¹ As in our case, the initial cutaneous eruption resulting in a subsequent Wolf isotopic response frequently is herpes zoster and less commonly is herpes simplex virus.² The most common reported isotopic response is a granulomatous reaction.² Rare reports of leukemic infiltration, lymphoma, lichen planus, morphea, reactive perforating collagenosis, psoriasis, discoid lupus, lichen simplex chronicus, contact dermatitis, xanthomatous changes, malignant tumors, cutaneous graft-vs-host disease, pityriasis rosea, erythema annulare centrifugum, and other infectious-based isotopic responses exist.^2-6

Our patient presented with Wolf isotopic response that histologically mimicked DLE. A PubMed search of articles indexed for MEDLINE using the terms isotopic response and lupus revealed only 3 cases of cutaneous lupus erythematosus presenting as an isotopic response in the English-language literature. One of those cases occurred in a patient with preexisting systemic lupus erythematosus, making a diagnosis of Koebner isomorphic phenomenon more appropriate than an isotopic response at the site of prior herpes zoster infection.⁷ The remaining 2 cases were clinically defined DLE lesions occurring at sites of prior infection—cutaneous leishmaniasis and herpes zoster—in patients without a prior history of cutaneous or systemic lupus erythematosus.^8,9 The latter case of DLE-like isotopic response occurring after herpes zoster infection was further complicated by local injections at the zoster site for herpes-related local pain. Injection sites are reported as a distinct nidus for Wolf isotopic response.⁹

The pathogenesis of Wolf isotopic response is unclear. Possible explanations include local interactions between persistent viral particles at prior herpes infection sites, vascular injury, neural injury, and an altered immune response.^1,5,6,10 The destruction of sensory nerve fibers by herpesviruses cause the release of neuropeptides that then modulate the local immune system and angiogenic responses.^5,6 Our patient’s immunocompromised state may have further propagated a local altered immune cell infiltrate at the site of the isotopic response. Despite its unclear etiology, Wolf isotopic response should be considered in the differential diagnosis for any patient who presents with a dermatomal eruption at the site of a prior cutaneous infection, particularly after infection with herpes zoster. Treatment with topical or intralesional corticosteroids usually suffices for inflammatory-based isotopic responses with an excellent prognosis.¹¹

We present a case of a cutaneous lupus erythematosus–like isotopic response that occurred at the site of a recent herpes zoster eruption in an immunocompromised patient without prior history of systemic or cutaneous lupus erythematosus. Clinical recognition of Wolf isotopic response is important for accurate histopathologic diagnosis and management. Continued investigation into the underlying pathogenesis should be performed to fully understand and better treat this process.

Regulators and the nation’s largest physician organization took separate steps in recent days to prepare for expected authorization of use of COVID-19 vaccines in children younger than age 6.

The Food and Drug Administration on May 23 announced its Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee will meet June 15 to discuss expanding the use of COVID vaccines from Pfizer and Moderna.

The panel will examine a request from Pfizer and its partner BioNTech for an emergency use authorization (EUA) of its vaccine to cover children ages 6 months through 4 years. The EUA expansion for the Moderna shot would cover children ages 6 months through 5 years, the FDA said.

Many parents and physicians have been urging regulators to clear COVID shots for young children, among whom rates of infection are high.

The American Medical Association in February announced an update of its Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) to prepare for an eventual FDA clearance of the Pfizer-BioNTech shot for children aged 6 months to younger than 5 years. On May 19, the association announced a new CPT update to prepare for FDA clearance for use of the Moderna COVID-19 vaccine for children 6 months through 5 years.

“Extending COVID-19 vaccination protection to approximately 18 million young children will significantly reduce their risk of COVID-19 infection, hospitalization, and death, and give their parents incredible peace of mind,” Gerald Harmon, MD, AMA’s president, said in a statement. “We strongly urge all parents to get their infants and toddlers vaccinated as soon as they are eligible for a COVID-19 vaccine.”

Both the Moderna and the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID vaccines would be given to these young children in low doses.

On May 23, Pfizer announced results from a phase 2/3 trial evaluating a series of three shots of its vaccine in children ages 6 months to younger than 5 years.

Vaccine efficacy, which was a secondary endpoint in this study, was 80.3% in this age group, Pfizer said. The analysis was based on 10 symptomatic cases of COVID-19. The trial’s protocol specifies a formal analysis will be performed when at least 21 cases have accrued from 7 days after the third dose. The company said it would share final data on the effectiveness of the vaccine once the results are available.

Moderna on April 28 issued a statement with details about testing of its vaccine in young children. Vaccine efficacy was estimated at about 51% for children aged 6 months to younger than 2 years and 37% for the children aged 2 years to younger than 6. Paul Burton, MD, Moderna’s chief medical officer, spoke about this rate during a May 1 appearance on CBS’ Face the Nation.

“What it means for parents, for caregivers, is that if they give the Moderna vaccine to these little kids, they would basically cut in half the risk of that child getting symptomatic COVID,” Dr. Burton said in the interview. “Now, the number, 50%, I know is often lower than we are used to seeing with our vaccine, but it’s because this study was conducted during a time of Omicron.”

The FDA’s vaccine advisory committee also will meet on June 14 discuss potential use under an EUA of Moderna’s COVID vaccine for children and teenagers aged 6-17 years. The Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine already is authorized under an EUA for people aged 5 years and older.

The FDA has to date granted both conditional clearances, or EUAs, and regular approvals for COVID vaccines.

EUAs are meant to be temporary, allowing for rapid introduction of medicines in response to public health crises such as the pandemic. The FDA also uses EUAs to provide initial clearances of additional indications for products, as would be the case with the authorizations Moderna and Pfizer-BioNTech are seeking for their COVID vaccines.

Companies that want to continue to sell EUA-cleared products or promote EUA-cleared indications beyond the time of the public health crisis must seek regular approvals.

The FDA cleared the Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna COVID vaccines under EUAs in December 2020. The agency then granted a regular approval for the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine for people ages 16 and older in August 2021 based on more robust data. Regular approval for the Moderna vaccine for people ages 18 and older followed in January 2022.
 

Varied reactions among parents

Attitudes in the United States about pediatric COVID vaccines are far from uniform.

The initial uptake has disappointed physicians and researchers, who have been urging wider use of the COVID vaccination among children and teens for whom the FDA already has granted a clearance. Many parents are hesitating to bring their children for the COVID vaccines, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Only 35.4% of children ages 5-11 had received at least one dose of a COVID vaccine, CDC staff said during a meeting.

Yet many other parents are demanding this medicine for their young children, urging the FDA to move quickly to clear COVID shots.

A private Facebook group called “Protect Their Future: A Call to Action for COVID Vaccines in Kids <5” boasts about 6,200 members. Many parents and physicians have used Twitter in recent months to press for a speedy review of COVID vaccines for the youngest children, often using the hashtag #immunizeunder5s. A group called Protect Their Future, which uses @ImmunizeUnder5s as its Twitter handle, had 5,288 followers as of the afternoon of May 23.

A special panel of the House of Representatives, the Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Crisis, on May 23 joined those tweeting about the need to soon authorize COVID vaccines for very young children.

“Parents have been waiting many months for vaccines for their young children,” the subcommittee tweeted. “They deserve to hear from @US_FDA why this lengthy process has been in children’s best interests.”

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

Regulators and the nation’s largest physician organization took separate steps in recent days to prepare for expected authorization of use of COVID-19 vaccines in children younger than age 6.

The Food and Drug Administration on May 23 announced its Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee will meet June 15 to discuss expanding the use of COVID vaccines from Pfizer and Moderna.

The panel will examine a request from Pfizer and its partner BioNTech for an emergency use authorization (EUA) of its vaccine to cover children ages 6 months through 4 years. The EUA expansion for the Moderna shot would cover children ages 6 months through 5 years, the FDA said.

Many parents and physicians have been urging regulators to clear COVID shots for young children, among whom rates of infection are high.

The American Medical Association in February announced an update of its Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) to prepare for an eventual FDA clearance of the Pfizer-BioNTech shot for children aged 6 months to younger than 5 years. On May 19, the association announced a new CPT update to prepare for FDA clearance for use of the Moderna COVID-19 vaccine for children 6 months through 5 years.

“Extending COVID-19 vaccination protection to approximately 18 million young children will significantly reduce their risk of COVID-19 infection, hospitalization, and death, and give their parents incredible peace of mind,” Gerald Harmon, MD, AMA’s president, said in a statement. “We strongly urge all parents to get their infants and toddlers vaccinated as soon as they are eligible for a COVID-19 vaccine.”

Both the Moderna and the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID vaccines would be given to these young children in low doses.

On May 23, Pfizer announced results from a phase 2/3 trial evaluating a series of three shots of its vaccine in children ages 6 months to younger than 5 years.

Vaccine efficacy, which was a secondary endpoint in this study, was 80.3% in this age group, Pfizer said. The analysis was based on 10 symptomatic cases of COVID-19. The trial’s protocol specifies a formal analysis will be performed when at least 21 cases have accrued from 7 days after the third dose. The company said it would share final data on the effectiveness of the vaccine once the results are available.

Moderna on April 28 issued a statement with details about testing of its vaccine in young children. Vaccine efficacy was estimated at about 51% for children aged 6 months to younger than 2 years and 37% for the children aged 2 years to younger than 6. Paul Burton, MD, Moderna’s chief medical officer, spoke about this rate during a May 1 appearance on CBS’ Face the Nation.

“What it means for parents, for caregivers, is that if they give the Moderna vaccine to these little kids, they would basically cut in half the risk of that child getting symptomatic COVID,” Dr. Burton said in the interview. “Now, the number, 50%, I know is often lower than we are used to seeing with our vaccine, but it’s because this study was conducted during a time of Omicron.”

The FDA’s vaccine advisory committee also will meet on June 14 discuss potential use under an EUA of Moderna’s COVID vaccine for children and teenagers aged 6-17 years. The Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine already is authorized under an EUA for people aged 5 years and older.

The FDA has to date granted both conditional clearances, or EUAs, and regular approvals for COVID vaccines.

EUAs are meant to be temporary, allowing for rapid introduction of medicines in response to public health crises such as the pandemic. The FDA also uses EUAs to provide initial clearances of additional indications for products, as would be the case with the authorizations Moderna and Pfizer-BioNTech are seeking for their COVID vaccines.

Companies that want to continue to sell EUA-cleared products or promote EUA-cleared indications beyond the time of the public health crisis must seek regular approvals.

The FDA cleared the Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna COVID vaccines under EUAs in December 2020. The agency then granted a regular approval for the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine for people ages 16 and older in August 2021 based on more robust data. Regular approval for the Moderna vaccine for people ages 18 and older followed in January 2022.
 

Varied reactions among parents

Attitudes in the United States about pediatric COVID vaccines are far from uniform.

The initial uptake has disappointed physicians and researchers, who have been urging wider use of the COVID vaccination among children and teens for whom the FDA already has granted a clearance. Many parents are hesitating to bring their children for the COVID vaccines, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Only 35.4% of children ages 5-11 had received at least one dose of a COVID vaccine, CDC staff said during a meeting.

Yet many other parents are demanding this medicine for their young children, urging the FDA to move quickly to clear COVID shots.

A private Facebook group called “Protect Their Future: A Call to Action for COVID Vaccines in Kids <5” boasts about 6,200 members. Many parents and physicians have used Twitter in recent months to press for a speedy review of COVID vaccines for the youngest children, often using the hashtag #immunizeunder5s. A group called Protect Their Future, which uses @ImmunizeUnder5s as its Twitter handle, had 5,288 followers as of the afternoon of May 23.

A special panel of the House of Representatives, the Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Crisis, on May 23 joined those tweeting about the need to soon authorize COVID vaccines for very young children.

“Parents have been waiting many months for vaccines for their young children,” the subcommittee tweeted. “They deserve to hear from @US_FDA why this lengthy process has been in children’s best interests.”

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

Regulators and the nation’s largest physician organization took separate steps in recent days to prepare for expected authorization of use of COVID-19 vaccines in children younger than age 6.

The Food and Drug Administration on May 23 announced its Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee will meet June 15 to discuss expanding the use of COVID vaccines from Pfizer and Moderna.

The panel will examine a request from Pfizer and its partner BioNTech for an emergency use authorization (EUA) of its vaccine to cover children ages 6 months through 4 years. The EUA expansion for the Moderna shot would cover children ages 6 months through 5 years, the FDA said.

Many parents and physicians have been urging regulators to clear COVID shots for young children, among whom rates of infection are high.

The American Medical Association in February announced an update of its Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) to prepare for an eventual FDA clearance of the Pfizer-BioNTech shot for children aged 6 months to younger than 5 years. On May 19, the association announced a new CPT update to prepare for FDA clearance for use of the Moderna COVID-19 vaccine for children 6 months through 5 years.

“Extending COVID-19 vaccination protection to approximately 18 million young children will significantly reduce their risk of COVID-19 infection, hospitalization, and death, and give their parents incredible peace of mind,” Gerald Harmon, MD, AMA’s president, said in a statement. “We strongly urge all parents to get their infants and toddlers vaccinated as soon as they are eligible for a COVID-19 vaccine.”

Both the Moderna and the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID vaccines would be given to these young children in low doses.

On May 23, Pfizer announced results from a phase 2/3 trial evaluating a series of three shots of its vaccine in children ages 6 months to younger than 5 years.

Vaccine efficacy, which was a secondary endpoint in this study, was 80.3% in this age group, Pfizer said. The analysis was based on 10 symptomatic cases of COVID-19. The trial’s protocol specifies a formal analysis will be performed when at least 21 cases have accrued from 7 days after the third dose. The company said it would share final data on the effectiveness of the vaccine once the results are available.

Moderna on April 28 issued a statement with details about testing of its vaccine in young children. Vaccine efficacy was estimated at about 51% for children aged 6 months to younger than 2 years and 37% for the children aged 2 years to younger than 6. Paul Burton, MD, Moderna’s chief medical officer, spoke about this rate during a May 1 appearance on CBS’ Face the Nation.

“What it means for parents, for caregivers, is that if they give the Moderna vaccine to these little kids, they would basically cut in half the risk of that child getting symptomatic COVID,” Dr. Burton said in the interview. “Now, the number, 50%, I know is often lower than we are used to seeing with our vaccine, but it’s because this study was conducted during a time of Omicron.”

The FDA’s vaccine advisory committee also will meet on June 14 discuss potential use under an EUA of Moderna’s COVID vaccine for children and teenagers aged 6-17 years. The Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine already is authorized under an EUA for people aged 5 years and older.

The FDA has to date granted both conditional clearances, or EUAs, and regular approvals for COVID vaccines.

EUAs are meant to be temporary, allowing for rapid introduction of medicines in response to public health crises such as the pandemic. The FDA also uses EUAs to provide initial clearances of additional indications for products, as would be the case with the authorizations Moderna and Pfizer-BioNTech are seeking for their COVID vaccines.

Companies that want to continue to sell EUA-cleared products or promote EUA-cleared indications beyond the time of the public health crisis must seek regular approvals.

The FDA cleared the Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna COVID vaccines under EUAs in December 2020. The agency then granted a regular approval for the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine for people ages 16 and older in August 2021 based on more robust data. Regular approval for the Moderna vaccine for people ages 18 and older followed in January 2022.
 

Varied reactions among parents

Attitudes in the United States about pediatric COVID vaccines are far from uniform.

The initial uptake has disappointed physicians and researchers, who have been urging wider use of the COVID vaccination among children and teens for whom the FDA already has granted a clearance. Many parents are hesitating to bring their children for the COVID vaccines, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Only 35.4% of children ages 5-11 had received at least one dose of a COVID vaccine, CDC staff said during a meeting.

Yet many other parents are demanding this medicine for their young children, urging the FDA to move quickly to clear COVID shots.

A private Facebook group called “Protect Their Future: A Call to Action for COVID Vaccines in Kids <5” boasts about 6,200 members. Many parents and physicians have used Twitter in recent months to press for a speedy review of COVID vaccines for the youngest children, often using the hashtag #immunizeunder5s. A group called Protect Their Future, which uses @ImmunizeUnder5s as its Twitter handle, had 5,288 followers as of the afternoon of May 23.

A special panel of the House of Representatives, the Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Crisis, on May 23 joined those tweeting about the need to soon authorize COVID vaccines for very young children.

“Parents have been waiting many months for vaccines for their young children,” the subcommittee tweeted. “They deserve to hear from @US_FDA why this lengthy process has been in children’s best interests.”

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

President Joe Biden said Monday that he didn’t believe quarantines to prevent the spread of monkeypox in the United States would be necessary.

He said the United States has enough vaccine doses available to stop any serious outbreaks and to “deal with the likelihood of the problem,” according to The Washington Post .

“I just don’t think it rises to the level of the kind of concern that existed with COVID-19, and the smallpox vaccine works for it,” Biden said during a news conference in Japan.

The World Health Organization has identified monkeypox cases in at least a dozen countries where the disease isn’t typically considered endemic. Generally found in Central and West Africa, the illness has been reported in several European countries, as well as the United States, Canada, and Australia.

On Sunday, Biden told reporters that monkeypox is a “concern in that if it were to spread, it would be consequential.” Administration officials have said the president has been briefed on the disease, the newspaper reported.

Monkeypox spreads through droplets and bodily fluids but doesn’t pass easily between humans and is less contagious than the coronavirus, the Post reported. The CDC has reported that the smallpox vaccine is 85% effective against monkeypox, and the U.S. has licensed two smallpox vaccines that could help in potential outbreaks, including one that specifically targets monkeypox.

Mandatory monkeypox quarantine in Belgium

Belgium is the first country to put a mandatory 21-day quarantine in place for monkeypox patients as cases spread globally, according to CNBC. Health authorities announced the quarantine on Friday after the country recorded its third case.

The quarantine only applies to patients with a confirmed infection. Close contacts aren’t required to self-isolate but are encouraged to be careful and watch for symptoms, especially if they spend time with vulnerable people who could contract a serious illness, CNBC reported.

The United Kingdom has published guidelines to assess risks of monkeypox infection and provide guidance on self-isolation and monitoring. Health officials have said that those who have high exposure risks should self-isolate for 21 days, which includes household contacts or medical professionals who have worked with infected patients.

As of Saturday, the WHO has received reports of 92 confirmed monkeypox cases and 28 suspected cases across 12 countries where the virus isn’t typically found. No deaths linked to the cases have been reported so far.

The outbreaks have caused concern among health officials because most cases don’t have travel links to endemic countries. So far, many cases have spread between men who have sex with men, and the cases have been identified as patients seek care in primary care and sexual health clinics, the WHO reported.

“The identification of confirmed and suspected cases of monkeypox with no direct travel links to an endemic area represents a highly unusual event,” the WHO said. “Available information suggests that human-to-human transmission is occurring among people in close physical contact with cases who are symptomatic.”

White House health official doesn’t foresee major outbreak

Ashish Jha, MD, a top Biden administration health official who serves as the White House COVID-19 response coordinator, said Sunday that he doesn’t expect monkeypox to have widespread effects in the U.S.

“I feel like this is a virus we understand,” he said on ABC News’s This Week.

The virus has been monitored for decades, and there are treatments for it, Dr. Jha said.

“We have vaccines against it. We have treatments against it,” he said. “It’s not as contagious as COVID. So, I am confident we’re going to be able to keep our arms around it.”

At the same time, Dr. Jha agreed that health officials should keep an eye on the situation. Cases have been confirmed in recent days in several countries, as well as the United States.

“I would not be surprised if we see a few more cases in the upcoming days,” he said. “Any time we have an infectious outbreak like this, we should all be paying attention.”

Dr. Jha also stressed ongoing caution amid the COVID-19 pandemic as cases once again surpass 100,000 daily infections. Variants will continue to evolve, he said, and ongoing outbreaks will reinfect people who have been vaccinated or had a previous infection.

“What we know is that this virus is evolving very quickly, and every iteration of it has more and more immune escape,” he said. “That makes it harder for this virus to be contained unless we continue vaccinating people and keeping people up to date.”

Third possible U.S. monkeypox case found in Florida

The CDC said Sunday that it may have found a third monkeypox case in the United States and is running tests on a patient in South Florida, according to Reuters.

The person is in Broward County and remains isolated. The case appears to be related to international travel, the CDC told Reuters.

Health officials are doing tests to confirm if the patient has the disease, with results expected “soon.” No other cases have been identified in Florida so far.

The first monkeypox case in the United States was reported in Massachusetts last week. The patient had recently traveled to Canada.

The second U.S. case was reported in a New York City resident who tested positive on Friday.

The disease, which is like human smallpox but milder, is a viral infection that was first found in the Democratic Republic of Congo in the 1970s. Symptoms include fever, headaches, and a skin rash across the body.


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

President Joe Biden said Monday that he didn’t believe quarantines to prevent the spread of monkeypox in the United States would be necessary.

He said the United States has enough vaccine doses available to stop any serious outbreaks and to “deal with the likelihood of the problem,” according to The Washington Post .

“I just don’t think it rises to the level of the kind of concern that existed with COVID-19, and the smallpox vaccine works for it,” Biden said during a news conference in Japan.

The World Health Organization has identified monkeypox cases in at least a dozen countries where the disease isn’t typically considered endemic. Generally found in Central and West Africa, the illness has been reported in several European countries, as well as the United States, Canada, and Australia.

On Sunday, Biden told reporters that monkeypox is a “concern in that if it were to spread, it would be consequential.” Administration officials have said the president has been briefed on the disease, the newspaper reported.

Monkeypox spreads through droplets and bodily fluids but doesn’t pass easily between humans and is less contagious than the coronavirus, the Post reported. The CDC has reported that the smallpox vaccine is 85% effective against monkeypox, and the U.S. has licensed two smallpox vaccines that could help in potential outbreaks, including one that specifically targets monkeypox.

Mandatory monkeypox quarantine in Belgium

Belgium is the first country to put a mandatory 21-day quarantine in place for monkeypox patients as cases spread globally, according to CNBC. Health authorities announced the quarantine on Friday after the country recorded its third case.

The quarantine only applies to patients with a confirmed infection. Close contacts aren’t required to self-isolate but are encouraged to be careful and watch for symptoms, especially if they spend time with vulnerable people who could contract a serious illness, CNBC reported.

The United Kingdom has published guidelines to assess risks of monkeypox infection and provide guidance on self-isolation and monitoring. Health officials have said that those who have high exposure risks should self-isolate for 21 days, which includes household contacts or medical professionals who have worked with infected patients.

As of Saturday, the WHO has received reports of 92 confirmed monkeypox cases and 28 suspected cases across 12 countries where the virus isn’t typically found. No deaths linked to the cases have been reported so far.

The outbreaks have caused concern among health officials because most cases don’t have travel links to endemic countries. So far, many cases have spread between men who have sex with men, and the cases have been identified as patients seek care in primary care and sexual health clinics, the WHO reported.

“The identification of confirmed and suspected cases of monkeypox with no direct travel links to an endemic area represents a highly unusual event,” the WHO said. “Available information suggests that human-to-human transmission is occurring among people in close physical contact with cases who are symptomatic.”

White House health official doesn’t foresee major outbreak

Ashish Jha, MD, a top Biden administration health official who serves as the White House COVID-19 response coordinator, said Sunday that he doesn’t expect monkeypox to have widespread effects in the U.S.

“I feel like this is a virus we understand,” he said on ABC News’s This Week.

The virus has been monitored for decades, and there are treatments for it, Dr. Jha said.

“We have vaccines against it. We have treatments against it,” he said. “It’s not as contagious as COVID. So, I am confident we’re going to be able to keep our arms around it.”

At the same time, Dr. Jha agreed that health officials should keep an eye on the situation. Cases have been confirmed in recent days in several countries, as well as the United States.

“I would not be surprised if we see a few more cases in the upcoming days,” he said. “Any time we have an infectious outbreak like this, we should all be paying attention.”

Dr. Jha also stressed ongoing caution amid the COVID-19 pandemic as cases once again surpass 100,000 daily infections. Variants will continue to evolve, he said, and ongoing outbreaks will reinfect people who have been vaccinated or had a previous infection.

“What we know is that this virus is evolving very quickly, and every iteration of it has more and more immune escape,” he said. “That makes it harder for this virus to be contained unless we continue vaccinating people and keeping people up to date.”

Third possible U.S. monkeypox case found in Florida

The CDC said Sunday that it may have found a third monkeypox case in the United States and is running tests on a patient in South Florida, according to Reuters.

The person is in Broward County and remains isolated. The case appears to be related to international travel, the CDC told Reuters.

Health officials are doing tests to confirm if the patient has the disease, with results expected “soon.” No other cases have been identified in Florida so far.

The first monkeypox case in the United States was reported in Massachusetts last week. The patient had recently traveled to Canada.

The second U.S. case was reported in a New York City resident who tested positive on Friday.

The disease, which is like human smallpox but milder, is a viral infection that was first found in the Democratic Republic of Congo in the 1970s. Symptoms include fever, headaches, and a skin rash across the body.


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

President Joe Biden said Monday that he didn’t believe quarantines to prevent the spread of monkeypox in the United States would be necessary.

He said the United States has enough vaccine doses available to stop any serious outbreaks and to “deal with the likelihood of the problem,” according to The Washington Post .

“I just don’t think it rises to the level of the kind of concern that existed with COVID-19, and the smallpox vaccine works for it,” Biden said during a news conference in Japan.

The World Health Organization has identified monkeypox cases in at least a dozen countries where the disease isn’t typically considered endemic. Generally found in Central and West Africa, the illness has been reported in several European countries, as well as the United States, Canada, and Australia.

On Sunday, Biden told reporters that monkeypox is a “concern in that if it were to spread, it would be consequential.” Administration officials have said the president has been briefed on the disease, the newspaper reported.

Monkeypox spreads through droplets and bodily fluids but doesn’t pass easily between humans and is less contagious than the coronavirus, the Post reported. The CDC has reported that the smallpox vaccine is 85% effective against monkeypox, and the U.S. has licensed two smallpox vaccines that could help in potential outbreaks, including one that specifically targets monkeypox.

Mandatory monkeypox quarantine in Belgium

Belgium is the first country to put a mandatory 21-day quarantine in place for monkeypox patients as cases spread globally, according to CNBC. Health authorities announced the quarantine on Friday after the country recorded its third case.

The quarantine only applies to patients with a confirmed infection. Close contacts aren’t required to self-isolate but are encouraged to be careful and watch for symptoms, especially if they spend time with vulnerable people who could contract a serious illness, CNBC reported.

The United Kingdom has published guidelines to assess risks of monkeypox infection and provide guidance on self-isolation and monitoring. Health officials have said that those who have high exposure risks should self-isolate for 21 days, which includes household contacts or medical professionals who have worked with infected patients.

As of Saturday, the WHO has received reports of 92 confirmed monkeypox cases and 28 suspected cases across 12 countries where the virus isn’t typically found. No deaths linked to the cases have been reported so far.

The outbreaks have caused concern among health officials because most cases don’t have travel links to endemic countries. So far, many cases have spread between men who have sex with men, and the cases have been identified as patients seek care in primary care and sexual health clinics, the WHO reported.

“The identification of confirmed and suspected cases of monkeypox with no direct travel links to an endemic area represents a highly unusual event,” the WHO said. “Available information suggests that human-to-human transmission is occurring among people in close physical contact with cases who are symptomatic.”

White House health official doesn’t foresee major outbreak

Ashish Jha, MD, a top Biden administration health official who serves as the White House COVID-19 response coordinator, said Sunday that he doesn’t expect monkeypox to have widespread effects in the U.S.

“I feel like this is a virus we understand,” he said on ABC News’s This Week.

The virus has been monitored for decades, and there are treatments for it, Dr. Jha said.

“We have vaccines against it. We have treatments against it,” he said. “It’s not as contagious as COVID. So, I am confident we’re going to be able to keep our arms around it.”

At the same time, Dr. Jha agreed that health officials should keep an eye on the situation. Cases have been confirmed in recent days in several countries, as well as the United States.

“I would not be surprised if we see a few more cases in the upcoming days,” he said. “Any time we have an infectious outbreak like this, we should all be paying attention.”

Dr. Jha also stressed ongoing caution amid the COVID-19 pandemic as cases once again surpass 100,000 daily infections. Variants will continue to evolve, he said, and ongoing outbreaks will reinfect people who have been vaccinated or had a previous infection.

“What we know is that this virus is evolving very quickly, and every iteration of it has more and more immune escape,” he said. “That makes it harder for this virus to be contained unless we continue vaccinating people and keeping people up to date.”

Third possible U.S. monkeypox case found in Florida

The CDC said Sunday that it may have found a third monkeypox case in the United States and is running tests on a patient in South Florida, according to Reuters.

The person is in Broward County and remains isolated. The case appears to be related to international travel, the CDC told Reuters.

Health officials are doing tests to confirm if the patient has the disease, with results expected “soon.” No other cases have been identified in Florida so far.

The first monkeypox case in the United States was reported in Massachusetts last week. The patient had recently traveled to Canada.

The second U.S. case was reported in a New York City resident who tested positive on Friday.

The disease, which is like human smallpox but milder, is a viral infection that was first found in the Democratic Republic of Congo in the 1970s. Symptoms include fever, headaches, and a skin rash across the body.


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

NEW YORK (Reuters) – A one-week course of doxycycline was superior to a single dose of azithromycin in women with concurrent vaginal and anorectal chlamydia infection in an unblinded randomized controlled trial, mirroring previous results in men.

Researchers suggest that doxycycline should be the first-line therapy for chlamydia infection in women.

“It is clear we must consider that any woman with a urogenital infection must have an effective treatment for the anal infection, since nearly 80% of women have an anal infection concomitant with the vaginal infection,” Dr. Bertille de Barbeyrac of the University of Bordeaux, France, told Reuters Health by email.

However, she noted that “even [though] the study shows that doxycycline is more effective than azithromycin on anal infection, other studies are needed to prove that residual anal infection after treatment with azithromycin can be a source of vaginal contamination and therefore justify changing practices and eliminating azithromycin as a treatment for lower urogenital chlamydial infection in women.”

“There are other reasons [to make] this change,” she added, “such as the acquisition of macrolide resistance by M. genitalium following heavy use of azithromycin.”

As reported in The Lancet Infectious Diseases, Dr. Barbeyrac and colleagues randomly assigned 460 women (median age, 21) to either doxycycline or azithromycin in a multicenter, open-label superiority trial.

Participants received either azithromycin (a single 1-g dose, with or without food) or doxycycline (100 mg in the morning and evening at mealtimes for 7 days – that is, 100 mg of doxycycline twice daily).

The primary outcome was that the microbiological anorectal cure rate, defined as a C. trachomatis-negative nucleic acid amplification test (NAAT), resulted in anorectal specimens six weeks after treatment initiation among women who had a baseline positive result (about half the women in each treatment group).

Ninety-four percent of the doxycycline group versus 85% of the azithromycin group had an anorectal cure (adjusted odds ratio with imputation of missing values, 0.43).

Adverse events possibly related to treatment occurred in 11% of the doxycycline group versus 13% of the azithromycin group. Gastrointestinal disorders were most frequent, occurring in 8% of the doxycycline and 11% of the azithromycin groups.

Summing up, the authors write, “The microbiological anorectal cure rate was significantly lower among women who received a single dose of azithromycin than among those who received a 1-week course of doxycycline. This finding suggests that doxycycline should be the first-line therapy for C trachomatis infection in women.”

Dr. Meleen Chuang, medical director of women’s health at the Family Health Centers at NYU Langone, Brooklyn, commented in an email to Reuters Health that after reviewing this study “as well as CDC and WHO recommendations updated as of 2022, health care providers should be treating C. trachomatis infections with doxycycline 100 mg twice a day for seven days as first-line therapy rather than azithromycin, [given] concerns of increasing macrolide drug resistance against Mycoplasma genitalium and Neisseria gonorrhea.”

“Our clinicians also see the growing uptick of syphilis, gonorrhea, and chlamydia infections in our population, similarly to the rest of the United States since 2020,” she noted. “With the increase in STD infection ... treatment with doxycycline therapy with an important caveat to the patient to complete the one-week treatment regimen is extremely important.”

Dr. Latasha Murphy of the Gynecologic Care Institute at Mercy, Baltimore, also commented in an email to Reuters Health. She noted, “this study does not mirror my clinical experience. More patients have side effects from doxycycline than azithromycin in my experience. Also, anorectal screening is not routine in STD screening.”

“If any major changes to clinical care are made,” she said, “it may be for more consistent screening for anorectal disease. This may ultimately lead to doxycycline being the first line-treatment. More research is needed before making any definitive changes.”
 

Reuters Health Information © 2022

NEW YORK (Reuters) – A one-week course of doxycycline was superior to a single dose of azithromycin in women with concurrent vaginal and anorectal chlamydia infection in an unblinded randomized controlled trial, mirroring previous results in men.

Researchers suggest that doxycycline should be the first-line therapy for chlamydia infection in women.

“It is clear we must consider that any woman with a urogenital infection must have an effective treatment for the anal infection, since nearly 80% of women have an anal infection concomitant with the vaginal infection,” Dr. Bertille de Barbeyrac of the University of Bordeaux, France, told Reuters Health by email.

However, she noted that “even [though] the study shows that doxycycline is more effective than azithromycin on anal infection, other studies are needed to prove that residual anal infection after treatment with azithromycin can be a source of vaginal contamination and therefore justify changing practices and eliminating azithromycin as a treatment for lower urogenital chlamydial infection in women.”

“There are other reasons [to make] this change,” she added, “such as the acquisition of macrolide resistance by M. genitalium following heavy use of azithromycin.”

As reported in The Lancet Infectious Diseases, Dr. Barbeyrac and colleagues randomly assigned 460 women (median age, 21) to either doxycycline or azithromycin in a multicenter, open-label superiority trial.

Participants received either azithromycin (a single 1-g dose, with or without food) or doxycycline (100 mg in the morning and evening at mealtimes for 7 days – that is, 100 mg of doxycycline twice daily).

The primary outcome was that the microbiological anorectal cure rate, defined as a C. trachomatis-negative nucleic acid amplification test (NAAT), resulted in anorectal specimens six weeks after treatment initiation among women who had a baseline positive result (about half the women in each treatment group).

Ninety-four percent of the doxycycline group versus 85% of the azithromycin group had an anorectal cure (adjusted odds ratio with imputation of missing values, 0.43).

Adverse events possibly related to treatment occurred in 11% of the doxycycline group versus 13% of the azithromycin group. Gastrointestinal disorders were most frequent, occurring in 8% of the doxycycline and 11% of the azithromycin groups.

Summing up, the authors write, “The microbiological anorectal cure rate was significantly lower among women who received a single dose of azithromycin than among those who received a 1-week course of doxycycline. This finding suggests that doxycycline should be the first-line therapy for C trachomatis infection in women.”

Dr. Meleen Chuang, medical director of women’s health at the Family Health Centers at NYU Langone, Brooklyn, commented in an email to Reuters Health that after reviewing this study “as well as CDC and WHO recommendations updated as of 2022, health care providers should be treating C. trachomatis infections with doxycycline 100 mg twice a day for seven days as first-line therapy rather than azithromycin, [given] concerns of increasing macrolide drug resistance against Mycoplasma genitalium and Neisseria gonorrhea.”

“Our clinicians also see the growing uptick of syphilis, gonorrhea, and chlamydia infections in our population, similarly to the rest of the United States since 2020,” she noted. “With the increase in STD infection ... treatment with doxycycline therapy with an important caveat to the patient to complete the one-week treatment regimen is extremely important.”

Dr. Latasha Murphy of the Gynecologic Care Institute at Mercy, Baltimore, also commented in an email to Reuters Health. She noted, “this study does not mirror my clinical experience. More patients have side effects from doxycycline than azithromycin in my experience. Also, anorectal screening is not routine in STD screening.”

“If any major changes to clinical care are made,” she said, “it may be for more consistent screening for anorectal disease. This may ultimately lead to doxycycline being the first line-treatment. More research is needed before making any definitive changes.”
 

Reuters Health Information © 2022

NEW YORK (Reuters) – A one-week course of doxycycline was superior to a single dose of azithromycin in women with concurrent vaginal and anorectal chlamydia infection in an unblinded randomized controlled trial, mirroring previous results in men.

Researchers suggest that doxycycline should be the first-line therapy for chlamydia infection in women.

“It is clear we must consider that any woman with a urogenital infection must have an effective treatment for the anal infection, since nearly 80% of women have an anal infection concomitant with the vaginal infection,” Dr. Bertille de Barbeyrac of the University of Bordeaux, France, told Reuters Health by email.

However, she noted that “even [though] the study shows that doxycycline is more effective than azithromycin on anal infection, other studies are needed to prove that residual anal infection after treatment with azithromycin can be a source of vaginal contamination and therefore justify changing practices and eliminating azithromycin as a treatment for lower urogenital chlamydial infection in women.”

“There are other reasons [to make] this change,” she added, “such as the acquisition of macrolide resistance by M. genitalium following heavy use of azithromycin.”

As reported in The Lancet Infectious Diseases, Dr. Barbeyrac and colleagues randomly assigned 460 women (median age, 21) to either doxycycline or azithromycin in a multicenter, open-label superiority trial.

Participants received either azithromycin (a single 1-g dose, with or without food) or doxycycline (100 mg in the morning and evening at mealtimes for 7 days – that is, 100 mg of doxycycline twice daily).

The primary outcome was that the microbiological anorectal cure rate, defined as a C. trachomatis-negative nucleic acid amplification test (NAAT), resulted in anorectal specimens six weeks after treatment initiation among women who had a baseline positive result (about half the women in each treatment group).

Ninety-four percent of the doxycycline group versus 85% of the azithromycin group had an anorectal cure (adjusted odds ratio with imputation of missing values, 0.43).

Adverse events possibly related to treatment occurred in 11% of the doxycycline group versus 13% of the azithromycin group. Gastrointestinal disorders were most frequent, occurring in 8% of the doxycycline and 11% of the azithromycin groups.

Summing up, the authors write, “The microbiological anorectal cure rate was significantly lower among women who received a single dose of azithromycin than among those who received a 1-week course of doxycycline. This finding suggests that doxycycline should be the first-line therapy for C trachomatis infection in women.”

Dr. Meleen Chuang, medical director of women’s health at the Family Health Centers at NYU Langone, Brooklyn, commented in an email to Reuters Health that after reviewing this study “as well as CDC and WHO recommendations updated as of 2022, health care providers should be treating C. trachomatis infections with doxycycline 100 mg twice a day for seven days as first-line therapy rather than azithromycin, [given] concerns of increasing macrolide drug resistance against Mycoplasma genitalium and Neisseria gonorrhea.”

“Our clinicians also see the growing uptick of syphilis, gonorrhea, and chlamydia infections in our population, similarly to the rest of the United States since 2020,” she noted. “With the increase in STD infection ... treatment with doxycycline therapy with an important caveat to the patient to complete the one-week treatment regimen is extremely important.”

Dr. Latasha Murphy of the Gynecologic Care Institute at Mercy, Baltimore, also commented in an email to Reuters Health. She noted, “this study does not mirror my clinical experience. More patients have side effects from doxycycline than azithromycin in my experience. Also, anorectal screening is not routine in STD screening.”

“If any major changes to clinical care are made,” she said, “it may be for more consistent screening for anorectal disease. This may ultimately lead to doxycycline being the first line-treatment. More research is needed before making any definitive changes.”
 

Reuters Health Information © 2022