Do pediatricians manage influenza differently than internists?

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Little is known about how pediatricians or internists manage influenza symptoms. Recent guidelines on antiviral prescribing by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) make almost no distinction between adults and children. Our objective was to describe how pediatricians in two large academic medical institutions manage influenza and compare them to internists.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>At the end of the 2003–4 influenza season, we conducted a cross sectional on-line survey of physician knowledge, attitudes and practices regarding rapid diagnostic testing and use of antiviral therapy for influenza at two large academic medical centers, one in Massachusetts and the other in Texas. We collected data on self-reported demographics, test use, prescribing practices, and beliefs about influenza and anti-influenza drugs.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>A total of 107 pediatricians and 103 internists completed the survey (response rate of 53%). Compared to internists, pediatricians were more likely to perform rapid testing (74% vs. 47%, p < 0.0001), to use amantadine (88% vs. 48%, p < 0.0001), to restrict their prescribing to high-risk patients (86% vs. 53%, p < 0.0001), and to believe that antiviral therapy could decrease mortality (38% vs. 22%, p = 0.01). Other beliefs about antiviral therapy did not differ statistically between the specialties. Internists were more likely to be unfamiliar with rapid testing or not to have it available.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>Pediatricians and internists manage influenza differently. Evidence-based guidelines addressing the specific concerns of each group would be helpful.</p

Multidrug resistance, inappropriate empiric treatment and hospital mortality in Acinetobacter baumannii pneumonia and sepsis

Background: The relationship between multidrug resistance (MDR), inappropriate empiric therapy (IET), and mortality among patients with Acinetobacter baumannii (AB) remains unclear. We examined it using a large U.S. database. Methods: We conducted a retrospective cohort study using the Premier Research database (2009–2013) of 175 U.S. hospitals. We included all adult patients admitted with pneumonia or sepsis as their principal diagnosis, or as a secondary diagnosis in the setting of respiratory failure, along with antibiotic administration within 2 days of admission. Only culture-confirmed infections were included. Resistance to at least three classes of antibiotics defined multidrug-resistant AB (MDR-AB). We used logistic regression to compute the adjusted relative risk ratio (RRR) of patients with MDR-AB receiving IET and IET’s impact on mortality. Results: Among 1423 patients with AB infection, 1171 (82.3 %) had MDR-AB. Those with MDR-AB were older (63.7 ± 15.4 vs. 61.0 ± 16.9 years, p = 0.014). Although chronic disease burden did not differ between groups, the MDR-AB group had higher illness severity than those in the non-MDR-AB group (intensive care unit 68.0 % vs. 59. 5 %, p < 0.001; mechanical ventilation 56.2 % vs. 42.1 %, p < 0.001). Patients with MDR-AB were more likely to receive IET than those in the non-MDR-AB group (76.2 % MDR-AB vs. 13.8 % non-MDR-AB, p < 0.001). In a regression model, MDR-AB strongly predicted receipt of IET (adjusted RRR 5.5, 95 % CI 4.0–7.7, p < 0.001). IET exposure was associated with higher hospital mortality (adjusted RRR 1.8, 95 % CI 1.4–2.3, p < 0.001). Conclusions: In this large U.S. database, the prevalence of MDR-AB among patients with AB infection was > 80 %. Harboring MDR-AB increased the risk of receiving IET more than fivefold, and IET nearly doubled hospital mortality

Influenza Outbreak during Sydney World Youth Day 2008: The Utility of Laboratory Testing and Case Definitions on Mass Gathering Outbreak Containment

BACKGROUND:Influenza causes annual epidemics and often results in extensive outbreaks in closed communities. To minimize transmission, a range of interventions have been suggested. For these to be effective, an accurate and timely diagnosis of influenza is required. This is confirmed by a positive laboratory test result in an individual whose symptoms are consistent with a predefined clinical case definition. However, the utility of these clinical case definitions and laboratory testing in mass gathering outbreaks remains unknown. METHODS AND RESULTS:An influenza outbreak was identified during World Youth Day 2008 in Sydney. From the data collected on pilgrims presenting to a single clinic, a Markov model was developed and validated against the actual epidemic curve. Simulations were performed to examine the utility of different clinical case definitions and laboratory testing strategies for containment of influenza outbreaks. Clinical case definitions were found to have the greatest impact on averting further cases with no added benefit when combined with any laboratory test. Although nucleic acid testing (NAT) demonstrated higher utility than indirect immunofluorescence antigen or on-site point-of-care testing, this effect was lost when laboratory NAT turnaround times was included. The main benefit of laboratory confirmation was limited to identification of true influenza cases amenable to interventions such as antiviral therapy. CONCLUSIONS:Continuous re-evaluation of case definitions and laboratory testing strategies are essential for effective management of influenza outbreaks during mass gatherings

To Test or to Treat? An Analysis of Influenza Testing and Antiviral Treatment Strategies Using Economic Computer Modeling

BACKGROUND: Due to the unpredictable burden of pandemic influenza, the best strategy to manage testing, such as rapid or polymerase chain reaction (PCR), and antiviral medications for patients who present with influenza-like illness (ILI) is unknown.\ud \ud METHODOLOGY/PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: We developed a set of computer simulation models to evaluate the potential economic value of seven strategies under seasonal and pandemic influenza conditions: (1) using clinical judgment alone to guide antiviral use, (2) using PCR to determine whether to initiate antivirals, (3) using a rapid (point-of-care) test to determine antiviral use, (4) using a combination of a point-of-care test and clinical judgment, (5) using clinical judgment and confirming the diagnosis with PCR testing, (6) treating all with antivirals, and (7) not treating anyone with antivirals. For healthy younger adults (<65 years old) presenting with ILI in a seasonal influenza scenario, strategies were only cost-effective from the societal perspective. Clinical judgment, followed by PCR and point-of-care testing, was found to be cost-effective given a high influenza probability. Doubling hospitalization risk and mortality (representing either higher risk individuals or more virulent strains) made using clinical judgment to guide antiviral decision-making cost-effective, as well as PCR testing, point-of-care testing, and point-of-care testing used in conjunction with clinical judgment. For older adults (> or = 65 years old), in both seasonal and pandemic influenza scenarios, employing PCR was the most cost-effective option, with the closest competitor being clinical judgment (when judgment accuracy > or = 50%). Point-of-care testing plus clinical judgment was cost-effective with higher probabilities of influenza. Treating all symptomatic ILI patients with antivirals was cost-effective only in older adults.\ud \ud CONCLUSIONS/SIGNIFICANCE: Our study delineated the conditions under which different testing and antiviral strategies may be cost-effective, showing the importance of accuracy, as seen with PCR or highly sensitive clinical judgment.\ud \u

Lessons from a one-year hospital-based surveillance of acute respiratory infections in Berlin- comparing case definitions to monitor influenza

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Surveillance of severe acute respiratory infections (SARI) in sentinel hospitals is recommended to estimate the burden of severe influenza-cases. Therefore, we monitored patients admitted with respiratory infections (RI) in 9 Berlin hospitals from 7.12.2009 to 12.12.2010 according to different case definitions (CD) and determined the proportion of cases with influenza A(H1N1)pdm09 (pH1N1). We compared the sensitivity and specificity of CD for capturing pandemic pH1N1 cases.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>We established an RI-surveillance restricted to adults aged ≤ 65 years within the framework of a pH1N1 vaccine effectiveness study, which required active identification of RI-cases. The hospital information-system was screened daily for newly admitted RI-patients. Nasopharyngeal swabs from consenting patients were tested by PCR for influenza-virus subtypes. Four clinical CD were compared in terms of capturing pH1N1-positives among hospitalized RI-patients by applying sensitivity and specificity analyses. The broadest case definition (CD1) was used for inclusion of RI-cases; the narrowest case definition (CD4) was identical to the SARI case definition recommended by ECDC/WHO.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Over the study period, we identified 1,025 RI-cases, of which 283 (28%) met the ECDC/WHO SARI case definition. The percentage of SARI-cases among internal medicine admissions decreased from 3.2% (calendar-week 50-2009) to 0.2% (week 25-2010). Of 354 patients tested by PCR, 20 (6%) were pH1N1-positive. Two case definitions narrower than CD1 but -in contrast to SARI- not requiring shortness of breath yielded the largest areas under the Receiver-Operator-Curve. Heterogeneity of proportions of patients admitted with RI between hospitals was significant.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>Comprehensive surveillance of RI cases was feasible in a network of community hospitals. In most settings, several hospitals should be included to ensure representativeness. Although misclassification resulting from failure to obtain symptoms in the hospital information-system cannot be ruled out, a high proportion of hospitalized PCR-positive pH1N1-patients (45%) did not fulfil the SARI case-definition that included shortness of breath or difficulty breathing. Thus, to assess influenza-related disease burden in hospitals, broader, alternative case definitions should be considered.</p

Evaluating the Quality of Research into a Single Prognostic Biomarker: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of 83 Studies of C-Reactive Protein in Stable Coronary Artery Disease

Background Systematic evaluations of the quality of research on a single prognostic biomarker are rare. We sought to evaluate the quality of prognostic research evidence for the association of C-reactive protein (CRP) with fatal and nonfatal events among patients with stable coronary disease. Methods and Findings We searched MEDLINE (1966 to 2009) and EMBASE (1980 to 2009) and selected prospective studies of patients with stable coronary disease, reporting a relative risk for the association of CRP with death and nonfatal cardiovascular events. We included 83 studies, reporting 61,684 patients and 6,485 outcome events. No study reported a prespecified statistical analysis protocol; only two studies reported the time elapsed (in months or years) between initial presentation of symptomatic coronary disease and inclusion in the study. Studies reported a median of seven items (of 17) from the REMARK reporting guidelines, with no evidence of change over time. The pooled relative risk for the top versus bottom third of CRP distribution was 1.97 (95% confidence interval [CI] 1.78–2.17), with substantial heterogeneity (I2 = 79.5). Only 13 studies adjusted for conventional risk factors (age, sex, smoking, obesity, diabetes, and low-density lipoprotein [LDL] cholesterol) and these had a relative risk of 1.65 (95% CI 1.39–1.96), I2 = 33.7. Studies reported ten different ways of comparing CRP values, with weaker relative risks for those based on continuous measures. Adjusting for publication bias (for which there was strong evidence, Egger's p<0.001) using a validated method reduced the relative risk to 1.19 (95% CI 1.13–1.25). Only two studies reported a measure of discrimination (c-statistic). In 20 studies the detection rate for subsequent events could be calculated and was 31% for a 10% false positive rate, and the calculated pooled c-statistic was 0.61 (0.57–0.66). Conclusion Multiple types of reporting bias, and publication bias, make the magnitude of any independent association between CRP and prognosis among patients with stable coronary disease sufficiently uncertain that no clinical practice recommendations can be made. Publication of prespecified statistical analytic protocols and prospective registration of studies, among other measures, might help improve the quality of prognostic biomarker research

Performance of the QuickVue Influenza A+B Rapid Test for Pandemic H1N1 (2009) Virus Infection in Adults

To investigate the diagnostic accuracy of the QuickVue® Influenza A+B rapid test we conducted a prospective observational study in which this rapid test was compared with a real-time reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) for pandemic influenza A H1N1 (2009) infection in Austrian adults. The sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values of the QuickVue test compared with the RT-PCR were 26% (95% CI 18–35), 98% (95% CI 92–100), 94% (95% CI 80–99) and 50% (95% CI 42–58), respectively. The prevalence of pandemic H1N1 (2009) virus infection among the 209 patients included in the study was 57%. Our data suggest that a positive QuickVue test provides considerable information for the diagnosis of pandemic influenza A H1N1 (2009) virus infection in young adults but that a negative QuickVue test result should, if relevant for patient management or public health measures, be verified using PCR

Co-infection of Influenza B and Streptococci causing severe pneumonia and septic shock in healthy women

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Since the Influenza A pandemic in 1819, the association between the influenza virus and <it>Streptococcus pneumoniae </it>has been well described in literature. While a leading role has been so far attributed solely to Influenza A as the primary infective pathogen, Influenza B is generally considered to be less pathogenic with little impact on morbidity and mortality of otherwise healthy adults. This report documents the severe synergistic pathogenesis of Influenza B infection and bacterial pneumonia in previously healthy persons not belonging to a special risk population and outlines therapeutic options in this clinical setting.</p> <p>Case Presentation</p> <p>During the seasonal influenza epidemic 2007/2008, three previously healthy women presented to our hospital with influenza-like symptoms and rapid clinical deterioration. Subsequent septic shock due to severe bilateral pneumonia necessitated intensive resuscitative measures including the use of an interventional lung assist device. Microbiological analysis identified severe dual infections of Influenza B with <it>Streptococcus pyogenes </it>in two cases and <it>Streptococcus pneumoniae </it>in one case. The patients presented with no evidence of underlying disease or other known risk factors for dual infection such as age (< one year, > 65 years), pregnancy or comorbidity.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>Influenza B infection can pose a risk for severe secondary infection in previously healthy persons. As patients admitted to hospital due to severe pneumonia are rarely tested for Influenza B, the incidence of admission due to this virus might be greatly underestimated, therefore, a more aggressive search for influenza virus and empirical treatment might be warranted. While the use of an interventional lung assist device offers a potential treatment strategy for refractory respiratory acidosis in addition to protective lung ventilation, the combined empiric use of a neuraminidase-inhibitor and antibiotics in septic patients with pulmonary manifestations during an epidemic season should be considered.</p

A Seven-Marker Signature and Clinical Outcome in Malignant Melanoma: A Large-Scale Tissue-Microarray Study with Two Independent Patient Cohorts

Current staging methods such as tumor thickness, ulceration and invasion of the sentinel node are known to be prognostic parameters in patients with malignant melanoma (MM). However, predictive molecular marker profiles for risk stratification and therapy optimization are not yet available for routine clinical assessment.; Using tissue microarrays, we retrospectively analyzed samples from 364 patients with primary MM. We investigated a panel of 70 immunohistochemical (IHC) antibodies for cell cycle, apoptosis, DNA mismatch repair, differentiation, proliferation, cell adhesion, signaling and metabolism. A marker selection procedure based on univariate Cox regression and multiple testing correction was employed to correlate the IHC expression data with the clinical follow-up (overall and recurrence-free survival). The model was thoroughly evaluated with two different cross validation experiments, a permutation test and a multivariate Cox regression analysis. In addition, the predictive power of the identified marker signature was validated on a second independent external test cohort (n?=?225). A signature of seven biomarkers (Bax, Bcl-X, PTEN, COX-2, loss of ?-Catenin, loss of MTAP, and presence of CD20 positive B-lymphocytes) was found to be an independent negative predictor for overall and recurrence-free survival in patients with MM. The seven-marker signature could also predict a high risk of disease recurrence in patients with localized primary MM stage pT1-2 (tumor thickness ?2.00 mm). In particular, three of these markers (MTAP, COX-2, Bcl-X) were shown to offer direct therapeutic implications.; The seven-marker signature might serve as a prognostic tool enabling physicians to selectively triage, at the time of diagnosis, the subset of high recurrence risk stage I-II patients for adjuvant therapy. Selective treatment of those patients that are more likely to develop distant metastatic disease could potentially lower the burden of untreatable metastatic melanoma and revolutionize the therapeutic management of MM