Oral amoxicillin challenges for low-risk penicillin-allergic patients at a large Veterans Affairs facility: a retrospective feasibility analysis.

We retrospectively reviewed the records of 136 veterans with a penicillin allergy label during a quality improvement initiative. We identified 82 inpatients eligible for removal of penicillin allergy by oral amoxicillin challenge, including 40 out of 82 (48%) still eligible after accounting for other limiting factors.

Challenges and opportunities related to penicillin allergy in the Veterans Health Administration: a narrative review.

The presence of a penicillin allergy label in a patient's medical chart is associated with negative clinical and economic outcomes. Given that less than 10% of reported reactions are truly immunoglobulin E-mediated, removal of unverified penicillin allergy labels is a public health priority and an area of ongoing implementation research. The Veterans Health Administration (VHA) is the largest integrated healthcare system in the United States, with almost 9 million veterans currently enrolled. However, studies analyzing the impact of the penicillin allergy label in this population are limited to single facilities and largely focus on short-term outcomes of allergy documentation correction, usage of ß-lactams, and avoidance of antibiotic-related side effects. Broader, national VHA studies focusing on health outcomes and costs are lacking. As with non-VHA facilities, penicillin allergy evaluations are limited owing to the absence of formal allergy/immunology services at most VHA facilities. Pharmacy-driven screening and referral for clinic-based penicillin skin testing is a promising and frequently discussed modality in the literature, but its scalability within the VHA is not yet proven. Broader, evidence-based strategies that can be adapted to the available resources of individual VHA facilities, including those without on-site access to allergy providers, are needed.

We'll take it from here: Veterans Affairs OPAT management of home IV therapy initiated at community hospitals.

An outpatient parenteral antimicrobial therapy team from a Veterans Affairs facility managed patients discharged from their own facility and neighboring community hospitals. There were no significant differences in adverse outcomes between the groups, but a majority of regimens were modified from those initially proposed by community providers.

Impact of an Educational and Laboratory Stewardship Intervention on Inpatient COVID-19 Therapeutics at a Veterans Affairs Medical Center.

Background: Accurate and timely prescriptions of COVID-19 therapeutics, laboratory testing, and antimicrobial stewardship have been a challenge throughout the pandemic as new evidence emerges. While universal consultation with infectious disease specialists on patients admitted with COVID-19 is desirable, it is not always feasible due to limited resources. Observations: In this single-center study, we implemented a combined educational and laboratory stewardship intervention geared toward hospitalist practitioners resulting in improved accuracy of remdesivir and dexamethasone prescriptions, reduced laboratory use of blood cultures, interleukin 6 assay, and Legionella sputum cultures, and a decrease in antibiotic use for patients with mild-to-moderate oxygen requirements over 6 months. These improvements were seen in tandem with decreased reliance on infectious disease consultation. Conclusions: These efforts support proof of the principle of combined educational and laboratory stewardship interventions to improve the care of COVID-19 patients, especially where infectious disease consultation may not be available or is accessed remotely.

Public perception of COVID-19 vaccines through analysis of Twitter content and users.

BACKGROUND: With the global continuation of the COVID-19 pandemic, the large-scale administration of a SARS-CoV-2 vaccine is crucial to achieve herd immunity and curtail further spread of the virus, but success is contingent on public understanding and vaccine uptake. We aim to understand public perception about vaccines for COVID-19 through the wide-scale, organic discussion on Twitter. METHODS: This cross-sectional observational study included Twitter posts matching the search criteria (('covid*' OR 'coronavirus') AND 'vaccine') posted during vaccine development from February 1st through December 11th, 2020. These COVID-19 vaccine related posts were analyzed with topic modeling, sentiment and emotion analysis, and demographic inference of users to provide insight into the evolution of public attitudes throughout the study period. FINDINGS: We evaluated 2,287,344 English tweets from 948,666 user accounts. Individuals represented 87.9 % (n = 834,224) of user accounts. Of individuals, men (n = 560,824) outnumbered women (n = 273,400) by 2:1 and 39.5 % (n = 329,776) of individuals were ≥40 years old. Daily mean sentiment fluctuated congruent with news events, but overall trended positively. Trust, anticipation, and fear were the three most predominant emotions; while fear was the most predominant emotion early in the study period, trust outpaced fear from April 2020 onward. Fear was more prevalent in tweets by individuals (26.3 % vs. organizations 19.4 %; p < 0.001), specifically among women (28.4 % vs. males 25.4 %; p < 0.001). Multiple topics had a monthly trend towards more positive sentiment. Tweets comparing COVID-19 to the influenza vaccine had strongly negative early sentiment but improved over time. INTERPRETATION: This study successfully explores sentiment, emotion, topics, and user demographics to elucidate important trends in public perception about COVID-19 vaccines. While public perception trended positively over the study period, some trends, especially within certain topic and demographic clusters, are concerning for COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy. These insights can provide targets for educational interventions and opportunity for continued real-time monitoring.

2022 American College of Rheumatology Guideline for Vaccinations in Patients With Rheumatic and Musculoskeletal Diseases.

OBJECTIVE: To provide evidence-based recommendations on the use of vaccinations in children and adults with rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases (RMDs). METHODS: This guideline follows American College of Rheumatology (ACR) policy guiding management of conflicts of interest and disclosures and the ACR guideline development process, which includes the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology. It also adheres to the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation (AGREE) criteria. A core leadership team consisting of adult and pediatric rheumatologists and a guideline methodologist drafted clinical population, intervention, comparator, outcomes (PICO) questions. A review team performed a systematic literature review for the PICO questions, graded the quality of evidence, and produced an evidence report. An expert Voting Panel reviewed the evidence and formulated recommendations. The panel included adult and pediatric rheumatology providers, infectious diseases specialists, and patient representatives. Consensus required ≥70% agreement on both the direction and strength of each recommendation. RESULTS: This guideline includes expanded indications for some vaccines in patients with RMDs, as well as guidance on whether to hold immunosuppressive medications or delay vaccination to maximize vaccine immunogenicity and efficacy. Safe approaches to the use of live attenuated vaccines in patients taking immunosuppressive medications are also addressed. Most recommendations are conditional and had low quality of supporting evidence. CONCLUSION: Application of these recommendations should consider patients' individual risk for vaccine-preventable illness and for disease flares, particularly if immunosuppressive medications are held for vaccination. Shared decision-making with patients is encouraged in clinical settings.

2022 American College of Rheumatology Guideline for Vaccinations in Patients With Rheumatic and Musculoskeletal Diseases.

OBJECTIVE: To provide evidence-based recommendations on the use of vaccinations in children and adults with rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases (RMDs). METHODS: This guideline follows American College of Rheumatology (ACR) policy guiding management of conflicts of interest and disclosures and the ACR guideline development process, which includes the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology. It also adheres to the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation (AGREE) criteria. A core leadership team consisting of adult and pediatric rheumatologists and a guideline methodologist drafted clinical population, intervention, comparator, outcomes (PICO) questions. A review team performed a systematic literature review for the PICO questions, graded the quality of evidence, and produced an evidence report. An expert Voting Panel reviewed the evidence and formulated recommendations. The panel included adult and pediatric rheumatology providers, infectious diseases specialists, and patient representatives. Consensus required ≥70% agreement on both the direction and strength of each recommendation. RESULTS: This guideline includes expanded indications for some vaccines in patients with RMDs, as well as guidance on whether to hold immunosuppressive medications or delay vaccination to maximize vaccine immunogenicity and efficacy. Safe approaches to the use of live attenuated vaccines in patients taking immunosuppressive medications are also addressed. Most recommendations are conditional and had low quality of supporting evidence. CONCLUSION: Application of these recommendations should consider patients' individual risk for vaccine-preventable illness and for disease flares, particularly if immunosuppressive medications are held for vaccination. Shared decision-making with patients is encouraged in clinical settings.

Penicillin Allergy Evaluation and Health Equity: A Call to Action.

Allergists have been at the forefront of addressing the burden of unverified penicillin allergy labels. Coordinated national efforts with infectious diseases, antimicrobial stewardship experts, and pharmacy societies to advocate for formal evaluation of patient-reported penicillin allergy have resulted in improvements in delabeling efforts. Given the poorer health outcomes associated with the penicillin allergy label and the potential health benefits that can be gained with delabeling, improving access to penicillin allergy evaluation is of the utmost importance. Health disparities are widely recognized to impact all aspects of health care, and multilevel interventions at the patient, clinician, and systems level are required to ensure equitable care delivery. Structural racism underpins many social determinants of health and is a key driver of racial and ethnic health disparities. In this Rostrum, we use a conceptual framework from the 2015 National Academy of Medicine report Improving Diagnosis in Health Care to explore how inequities are related to the evaluation of penicillin allergy. We use the National Institute on Minority Health and Health Disparities Strategies to Advance Health Disparities to elucidate areas of important study. Building upon existing efforts to address disparities in Allergy/Immunology, we highlight the urgent importance of understanding and eliminating health disparities in penicillin allergy evaluation and delabeling.

American College of Rheumatology Guidance for COVID-19 Vaccination in Patients With Rheumatic and Musculoskeletal Diseases: Version 5.

OBJECTIVE: To provide guidance to rheumatology providers on the use of COVID-19 vaccines for patients with rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases (RMDs). METHODS: A task force was assembled that included 9 rheumatologists/immunologists, 2 infectious diseases specialists, and 2 public health physicians. After agreeing on scoping questions, an evidence report was created that summarized the published literature and publicly available data regarding COVID-19 vaccine efficacy and safety, as well as literature for other vaccines in RMD patients. Task force members rated their agreement with draft consensus statements on a 9-point numerical scoring system, using a modified Delphi process and the RAND/University of California Los Angeles Appropriateness Method, with refinement and iteration over 2 sessions. Consensus was determined based on the distribution of ratings. RESULTS: Despite a paucity of direct evidence, statements were developed by the task force and agreed upon with consensus to provide guidance for use of the COVID-19 vaccines, including supplemental/booster dosing, in RMD patients and to offer recommendations regarding the use and timing of immunomodulatory therapies around the time of vaccination. CONCLUSION: These guidance statements are intended to provide direction to rheumatology health care providers on how to best use COVID-19 vaccines and to facilitate implementation of vaccination strategies for RMD patients.

Blastomycosis Presenting With Acute Airway Obstruction From a Retropharyngeal Abscess and Complicated by Severe Hypokalemia During Posaconazole Therapy: A Case Report and Review of Literature.

We report a case of cervical blastomycosis with associated paravertebral involvement and severe spinal canal stenosis in a 48-year-old patient presenting with acute airway obstruction from a retropharyngeal abscess. Our case was also complicated by severe hypokalemia that developed during the blastomycosis treatment course with posaconazole and which improved after discontinuation and replacement therapy. After 12 months of blastomycosis-targeted therapy, our patient had complete resolution of clinical, laboratory, and radiological findings of blastomycosis.

American College of Rheumatology Guidance for COVID-19 Vaccination in Patients With Rheumatic and Musculoskeletal Diseases: Version 4.

OBJECTIVE: To provide guidance to rheumatology providers on the use of COVID-19 vaccines for patients with rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases (RMDs). METHODS: A task force was assembled that included 9 rheumatologists/immunologists, 2 infectious disease specialists, and 2 public health physicians. After agreeing on scoping questions, an evidence report was created that summarized the published literature and publicly available data regarding COVID-19 vaccine efficacy and safety, as well as literature for other vaccines in RMD patients. Task force members rated their agreement with draft consensus statements on a 9-point numerical scoring system, using a modified Delphi process and the RAND/University of California Los Angeles Appropriateness Method, with refinement and iteration over 2 sessions. Consensus was determined based on the distribution of ratings. RESULTS: Despite a paucity of direct evidence, statements were developed by the task force and agreed upon with consensus to provide guidance for use of the COVID-19 vaccines, including supplemental/booster dosing, in RMD patients and to offer recommendations regarding the use and timing of immunomodulatory therapies around the time of vaccination. CONCLUSION: These guidance statements are intended to provide direction to rheumatology health care providers on how to best use COVID-19 vaccines and to facilitate implementation of vaccination strategies for RMD patients.

A Medical Records Review Study Assessing Safety of Zoster Vaccine Recombinant, Adjuvanted in Patients With Rheumatic Disease.

OBJECTIVE: Patients with rheumatic disease are at increased risk for herpes zoster infection. Because of limited safety data in this population and concerns over vaccine-precipitated flares, there are no guidelines for vaccination with the zoster vaccine recombinant, adjuvanted (ZRA). We evaluated self-reported adverse events (AEs) and disease activity after ZRA administration in adults with rheumatic disease. METHODS: In this medical records review study at our large academic center, patients who had received at least 1 dose of ZRA from January 1, 2018 to March 11, 2020 were assessed. Self-reported AEs and disease activity were monitored 3 months after each ZRA administration. Measures of disease activity were reviewed 6 months before ZRA in those who received both doses, or 3 months before ZRA in those who received 1 dose. RESULTS: We identified 65 patients, of whom 34 (52.3%) received both doses of ZRA. Four patients (6.2%) self-reported AEs after receiving ZRA, all of which were minor and systemic. Three patients (9.2%) developed a flare after receiving ZRA, compared with 8 (12.3%) who experienced a flare in the baseline period. There was no significant change in flare incidence or disease activity after vaccination. Subgroup analysis of those on biologic and nonbiologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs revealed no differences in frequency of postvaccination AEs, flares, or disease activity. CONCLUSIONS: In our cohort, disease activity seemed stable when comparing disease markers before and after ZRA administration. In addition, ZRA was well-tolerated with minor AEs. Further studies are needed to guide formal vaccination recommendations.

Contributions of Animal Studies to the Understanding of Infectious Diseases.

Experiments in animals have played an integral role in furthering basic understanding of the pathophysiology, host immune response, diagnosis, and treatment of infectious diseases. However, competing demands of modern-day clinical training and increasingly stringent requirements to perform animal research have reduced the exposure of infectious disease physicians to animal studies. For practitioners of infectious diseases and, especially, for contemporary trainees in infectious diseases, it is important to appreciate this historical body of work and its impact on current clinical practice. In this article, we provide an overview of some major contributions of animal studies to the field of infectious diseases. Areas covered include transmission of infection, elucidation of innate and adaptive host immune responses, testing of antimicrobials, pathogenesis and treatment of endocarditis, osteomyelitis, intra-abdominal and urinary tract infection, treatment of infection associated with a foreign body or in the presence of neutropenia, and toxin-mediated disease.

American College of Rheumatology Guidance for COVID-19 Vaccination in Patients With Rheumatic and Musculoskeletal Diseases: Version 3.

OBJECTIVE: To provide guidance to rheumatology providers on the use of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccines for patients with rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases (RMDs). METHODS: A task force was assembled that included 9 rheumatologists/immunologists, 2 infectious disease specialists, and 2 public health physicians. After agreeing on scoping questions, an evidence report was created that summarized the published literature and publicly available data regarding COVID-19 vaccine efficacy and safety, as well as literature for other vaccines in RMD patients. Task force members rated their agreement with draft consensus statements on a 9-point numerical scoring system, using a modified Delphi process and the RAND/University of California Los Angeles Appropriateness Method, with refinement and iteration over 2 sessions. Consensus was determined based on the distribution of ratings. RESULTS: Despite a paucity of direct evidence, 74 draft guidance statements were developed by the task force and agreed upon with consensus to provide guidance for use of the COVID-19 vaccines in RMD patients and to offer recommendations regarding the use and timing of immunomodulatory therapies around the time of vaccination. CONCLUSION: These guidance statements, made in the context of limited clinical data, are intended to provide direction to rheumatology health care providers on how to best use COVID-19 vaccines and to facilitate implementation of vaccination strategies for RMD patients.

Bronchoalveolar Lavage Gram Stains for Early Bacterial Identification in Pneumonia: Should They Stay or Should They Go?

OBJECTIVES: The primary endpoint was to determine the sensitivity and specificity of the bronchoalveolar lavage Gram stain in predicting culture results. Secondary endpoints included determining the proportion of Gram stains from bronchoalveolar lavages that accurately identify culture isolates and the duration of antibiotic treatment before bronchoalveolar lavage collection. DESIGN: Retrospective, observational study. SETTING: Four ICUs at a single academic medical center. SUBJECTS: Patients at least 18 years old admitted to an ICU with a diagnosis of pneumonia, collection of a bronchoalveolar lavage sample, and receipt of antibiotics. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Two-hundred five isolates were included. Gram stains for Gram-positive and Gram-negative isolates showed high specificity, 97.3% and 100%, respectively, but lower sensitivity at 61.9% and 54.2%, respectively. The positive predictive value and negative predictive value were 77.2% and 95.7% for Gram-positive isolates and 100% and 84.4% for Gram-negative isolates, respectively. Gram stains correctly identified isolates on the bronchoalveolar lavage culture in 61.9% of Gram-positive organisms and in 54.2% of Gram-negative organisms. CONCLUSIONS: Gram stains accurately identified causative organisms in a limited number of patients making the utility of the Gram stain an uncertain modality for predicting causative respiratory pathogens from bronchoalveolar lavage samples.

American College of Rheumatology Guidance for COVID-19 Vaccination in Patients With Rheumatic and Musculoskeletal Diseases: Version 2.

OBJECTIVE: To provide guidance to rheumatology providers on the use of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccines for patients with rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases (RMDs). METHODS: A task force was assembled that included 9 rheumatologists/immunologists, 2 infectious disease specialists, and 2 public health physicians. After agreeing on scoping questions, an evidence report was created that summarized the published literature and publicly available data regarding COVID-19 vaccine efficacy and safety, as well as literature for other vaccines in RMD patients. Task force members rated their agreement with draft consensus statements on a 9-point numerical scoring system, using a modified Delphi process and the RAND/University of California Los Angeles Appropriateness Method, with refinement and iteration over 2 sessions. Consensus was determined based on the distribution of ratings. RESULTS: Despite a paucity of direct evidence, 74 draft guidance statements were developed by the task force and agreed upon with consensus to provide guidance for use of the COVID-19 vaccines in RMD patients and to offer recommendations regarding the use and timing of immunomodulatory therapies around the time of vaccination. CONCLUSION: These guidance statements, made in the context of limited clinical data, are intended to provide direction to rheumatology health care providers on how to best use COVID-19 vaccines and to facilitate implementation of vaccination strategies for RMD patients.

American College of Rheumatology Guidance for COVID-19 Vaccination in Patients With Rheumatic and Musculoskeletal Diseases: Version 1.

OBJECTIVE: To provide guidance to rheumatology providers on the use of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccines for patients with rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases (RMDs). METHODS: A task force was assembled that included 9 rheumatologists/immunologists, 2 infectious disease specialists, and 2 public health physicians. After agreeing on scoping questions, an evidence report was created that summarized the published literature and publicly available data regarding COVID-19 vaccine efficacy and safety, as well as literature for other vaccines in RMD patients. Task force members rated their agreement with draft consensus statements on a 9-point numerical scoring system, using a modified Delphi process and the RAND/University of California Los Angeles Appropriateness Method, with refinement and iteration over 2 sessions. Consensus was determined based on the distribution of ratings. RESULTS: Despite a paucity of direct evidence, 74 draft guidance statements were developed by the task force and agreed upon with consensus to provide guidance for use of the COVID-19 vaccines in RMD patients and to offer recommendations regarding the use and timing of immunomodulatory therapies around the time of vaccination. CONCLUSION: These guidance statements, made in the context of limited clinical data, are intended to provide direction to rheumatology health care providers on how to best use COVID-19 vaccines and to facilitate implementation of vaccination strategies for RMD patients.