Charles P. Vega, MD

We recently shared a clinical case drawn from a family medicine practice about the effect of adverse childhood experiences (ACEs) on health. The widespread epidemiology and significant health consequences require a focus on the prevention and management of ACEs. 
 

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention published an important monograph on ACEs in 2019. Although it is evidence based, most of the interventions recommended to reduce ACEs and their sequelae are larger policy and public health efforts that go well beyond the clinician’s office. Important highlights from these recommended strategies to reduce ACEs include:

• Strengthen economic support for families through policies such as the earned income tax credit and child tax credit.
• Establish routine parental work/shift times to optimize cognitive outcomes in children.
• Promote social norms for healthy families through public health campaigns and legislative efforts to reduce corporal punishment of children. Bystander training that targets boys and men has also proven effective in reducing sexual violence.
• Facilitate early in-home visitation for at-risk families as well as high-quality childcare.
• Employ social-emotional learning approaches for children and adolescents, which can improve aggressive or violent behavior, rates of substance use, and academic success.
• Connect youth to after-school programs featuring caring adults.

But clinicians still play a vital role in the prevention and management of ACEs among their patients. Akin to gathering a patient’s past medical history or family history is initiating universal ACE screening in practice and exploring related topics in conversation.

The ACEs Aware initiative in California provides a comprehensive ACE screening clinical workflow to help implement these conversations in practice, including the assessment of associated health conditions and their appropriate clinical follow-up. While it is encouraged to universally screen patients, the key screenings to prioritize for the pediatric population are “parental depression, severe stress, unhealthy drug use, domestic violence, harsh punishment, [and] food insecurity.” Moreover, a systematic review by Steen and colleagues shared insight into newer interpretations of ACE screening which relate trauma to “[...] community violence, poverty, housing instability, structural racism, environmental blight, and climate change.” 

These exposures are now being investigated for a connection to the toxic stress response. In the long term, this genetic regulatory mechanism can be affected by “high doses of cumulative adversity experienced during critical and sensitive periods of early life development — without the buffering protections of trusted, nurturing caregivers and safe, stable environments.” This micro and macro lens fosters a deeper clinician understanding of a patient’s trauma origin and can better guide appropriate clinical follow-up. 

ACE-associated health conditions can be neurologic, endocrine, metabolic, or immune system–related. Early diagnosis and treatment of these conditions can help prevent long-term health care complications, costly for both patient and the health care system. 

After the initial clinical assessment, physicians can educate patients about the ways that ACE-associated health conditions are a consequence of toxic stress exposure. From there, physicians should rely on a broader integrated health team, within the health system and the community, to offer clinical interventions and services to mitigate patients’ toxic stress. The ACEs Aware Stress Buster wheel highlights seven targets to strategize stress regulation. This wheel can be used to identify existing protective factors for patients and track treatment progress, which may buffer the negative impact of stressors and contribute to health and resilience. 

The burden of universal screenings in primary care is high. Without ACE screening, however, the opportunity to address downstream health effects from toxic stress may be lost. Dubowitz and colleagues suggest ways to successfully incorporate ACE screenings in clinical workflow:

• Utilize technology to implement a streamlined referral processing/tracking system.
• Train clinicians to respond competently to positive ACE screens.
• Gather in-network and community-based resources for patients.

In addition, prioritize screening for families with children younger than 6 years of age to begin interventions as early as possible. Primary care clinicians have the unique opportunity to provide appropriate intervention over continual care. An intervention as simple as encouraging pediatric patient involvement in after-school programs may mitigate toxic stress and prevent the development of an ACE-associated health condition. 

Dr. Vega, Health Sciences Clinical Professor, Family Medicine, University of California, Irvine, disclosed ties with McNeil Pharmaceuticals. Alejandra Hurtado, MD candidate, University of California, Irvine School of Medicine, has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

We recently shared a clinical case drawn from a family medicine practice about the effect of adverse childhood experiences (ACEs) on health. The widespread epidemiology and significant health consequences require a focus on the prevention and management of ACEs. 
 

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention published an important monograph on ACEs in 2019. Although it is evidence based, most of the interventions recommended to reduce ACEs and their sequelae are larger policy and public health efforts that go well beyond the clinician’s office. Important highlights from these recommended strategies to reduce ACEs include:

• Strengthen economic support for families through policies such as the earned income tax credit and child tax credit.
• Establish routine parental work/shift times to optimize cognitive outcomes in children.
• Promote social norms for healthy families through public health campaigns and legislative efforts to reduce corporal punishment of children. Bystander training that targets boys and men has also proven effective in reducing sexual violence.
• Facilitate early in-home visitation for at-risk families as well as high-quality childcare.
• Employ social-emotional learning approaches for children and adolescents, which can improve aggressive or violent behavior, rates of substance use, and academic success.
• Connect youth to after-school programs featuring caring adults.

But clinicians still play a vital role in the prevention and management of ACEs among their patients. Akin to gathering a patient’s past medical history or family history is initiating universal ACE screening in practice and exploring related topics in conversation.

The ACEs Aware initiative in California provides a comprehensive ACE screening clinical workflow to help implement these conversations in practice, including the assessment of associated health conditions and their appropriate clinical follow-up. While it is encouraged to universally screen patients, the key screenings to prioritize for the pediatric population are “parental depression, severe stress, unhealthy drug use, domestic violence, harsh punishment, [and] food insecurity.” Moreover, a systematic review by Steen and colleagues shared insight into newer interpretations of ACE screening which relate trauma to “[...] community violence, poverty, housing instability, structural racism, environmental blight, and climate change.” 

These exposures are now being investigated for a connection to the toxic stress response. In the long term, this genetic regulatory mechanism can be affected by “high doses of cumulative adversity experienced during critical and sensitive periods of early life development — without the buffering protections of trusted, nurturing caregivers and safe, stable environments.” This micro and macro lens fosters a deeper clinician understanding of a patient’s trauma origin and can better guide appropriate clinical follow-up. 

ACE-associated health conditions can be neurologic, endocrine, metabolic, or immune system–related. Early diagnosis and treatment of these conditions can help prevent long-term health care complications, costly for both patient and the health care system. 

After the initial clinical assessment, physicians can educate patients about the ways that ACE-associated health conditions are a consequence of toxic stress exposure. From there, physicians should rely on a broader integrated health team, within the health system and the community, to offer clinical interventions and services to mitigate patients’ toxic stress. The ACEs Aware Stress Buster wheel highlights seven targets to strategize stress regulation. This wheel can be used to identify existing protective factors for patients and track treatment progress, which may buffer the negative impact of stressors and contribute to health and resilience. 

The burden of universal screenings in primary care is high. Without ACE screening, however, the opportunity to address downstream health effects from toxic stress may be lost. Dubowitz and colleagues suggest ways to successfully incorporate ACE screenings in clinical workflow:

• Utilize technology to implement a streamlined referral processing/tracking system.
• Train clinicians to respond competently to positive ACE screens.
• Gather in-network and community-based resources for patients.

In addition, prioritize screening for families with children younger than 6 years of age to begin interventions as early as possible. Primary care clinicians have the unique opportunity to provide appropriate intervention over continual care. An intervention as simple as encouraging pediatric patient involvement in after-school programs may mitigate toxic stress and prevent the development of an ACE-associated health condition. 

Dr. Vega, Health Sciences Clinical Professor, Family Medicine, University of California, Irvine, disclosed ties with McNeil Pharmaceuticals. Alejandra Hurtado, MD candidate, University of California, Irvine School of Medicine, has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

We recently shared a clinical case drawn from a family medicine practice about the effect of adverse childhood experiences (ACEs) on health. The widespread epidemiology and significant health consequences require a focus on the prevention and management of ACEs. 
 

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention published an important monograph on ACEs in 2019. Although it is evidence based, most of the interventions recommended to reduce ACEs and their sequelae are larger policy and public health efforts that go well beyond the clinician’s office. Important highlights from these recommended strategies to reduce ACEs include:

• Strengthen economic support for families through policies such as the earned income tax credit and child tax credit.
• Establish routine parental work/shift times to optimize cognitive outcomes in children.
• Promote social norms for healthy families through public health campaigns and legislative efforts to reduce corporal punishment of children. Bystander training that targets boys and men has also proven effective in reducing sexual violence.
• Facilitate early in-home visitation for at-risk families as well as high-quality childcare.
• Employ social-emotional learning approaches for children and adolescents, which can improve aggressive or violent behavior, rates of substance use, and academic success.
• Connect youth to after-school programs featuring caring adults.

But clinicians still play a vital role in the prevention and management of ACEs among their patients. Akin to gathering a patient’s past medical history or family history is initiating universal ACE screening in practice and exploring related topics in conversation.

The ACEs Aware initiative in California provides a comprehensive ACE screening clinical workflow to help implement these conversations in practice, including the assessment of associated health conditions and their appropriate clinical follow-up. While it is encouraged to universally screen patients, the key screenings to prioritize for the pediatric population are “parental depression, severe stress, unhealthy drug use, domestic violence, harsh punishment, [and] food insecurity.” Moreover, a systematic review by Steen and colleagues shared insight into newer interpretations of ACE screening which relate trauma to “[...] community violence, poverty, housing instability, structural racism, environmental blight, and climate change.” 

These exposures are now being investigated for a connection to the toxic stress response. In the long term, this genetic regulatory mechanism can be affected by “high doses of cumulative adversity experienced during critical and sensitive periods of early life development — without the buffering protections of trusted, nurturing caregivers and safe, stable environments.” This micro and macro lens fosters a deeper clinician understanding of a patient’s trauma origin and can better guide appropriate clinical follow-up. 

ACE-associated health conditions can be neurologic, endocrine, metabolic, or immune system–related. Early diagnosis and treatment of these conditions can help prevent long-term health care complications, costly for both patient and the health care system. 

After the initial clinical assessment, physicians can educate patients about the ways that ACE-associated health conditions are a consequence of toxic stress exposure. From there, physicians should rely on a broader integrated health team, within the health system and the community, to offer clinical interventions and services to mitigate patients’ toxic stress. The ACEs Aware Stress Buster wheel highlights seven targets to strategize stress regulation. This wheel can be used to identify existing protective factors for patients and track treatment progress, which may buffer the negative impact of stressors and contribute to health and resilience. 

The burden of universal screenings in primary care is high. Without ACE screening, however, the opportunity to address downstream health effects from toxic stress may be lost. Dubowitz and colleagues suggest ways to successfully incorporate ACE screenings in clinical workflow:

• Utilize technology to implement a streamlined referral processing/tracking system.
• Train clinicians to respond competently to positive ACE screens.
• Gather in-network and community-based resources for patients.

In addition, prioritize screening for families with children younger than 6 years of age to begin interventions as early as possible. Primary care clinicians have the unique opportunity to provide appropriate intervention over continual care. An intervention as simple as encouraging pediatric patient involvement in after-school programs may mitigate toxic stress and prevent the development of an ACE-associated health condition. 

Dr. Vega, Health Sciences Clinical Professor, Family Medicine, University of California, Irvine, disclosed ties with McNeil Pharmaceuticals. Alejandra Hurtado, MD candidate, University of California, Irvine School of Medicine, has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

This case is a little out of the ordinary, but we would love to find out how readers would handle it.

Diana is a 51-year-old woman with a history of depression, obesity, hypertension, type 2 diabetes, and coronary artery disease. She has come in for a routine visit for her chronic illnesses. She seems very distant and has a flat affect during the initial interview. When you ask about any recent stressful events, she begins crying and explains that her daughter was just deported, leaving behind a child and boyfriend.

Their country of origin suffers from chronic instability and violence. Diana’s father was murdered there, and Diana was the victim of sexual assault. “I escaped when I was 18, and I tried to never look back. Until now.” Diana is very worried about her daughter’s return to that country. “I don’t want her to have to endure what I have endured.”

You spend some time discussing the patient’s mental health burden and identify a counselor and online resources that might help. You wonder if Diana’s adverse childhood experiences (ACEs) might have contributed to some of her physical illnesses.

ACEs and Adult Health

The effects of trauma run long and deep. ACEs have been associated with higher risks for multiple chronic conditions, even among adults aged 60 years or older. Therefore, clinicians should consider a patient’s history of ACEs as part of their evaluation of risk for chronic illness.

One of the most pronounced and straightforward links is that between ACEs and depression. In the Southern Community Cohort Study of more than 38,200 US adults, the highest odds ratio between ACEs and chronic disease was for depression. Persons who reported more than three ACEs had about a twofold increase in the risk for depression compared with persons without ACEs. There was a monotonic increase in the risk for depression and other chronic illnesses as the burden of ACEs increased.

In another study from the United Kingdom, each additional ACE was associated with a significant 11% increase in the risk for incident diabetes during adulthood. Researchers found that both depression symptoms and cardiometabolic dysfunction mediated the effects of ACEs in promoting higher rates of diabetes.

Depression and diabetes are significant risk factors for coronary artery disease, so it is not surprising that ACEs are also associated with a higher risk for coronary events. A review by Godoy and colleagues described how ACEs promote neuroendocrine, autonomic, and inflammatory dysfunction, which in turn leads to higher rates of traditional cardiovascular risk factors such as diabetes and obesity. Ultimately, the presence of four or more ACEs is associated with more than a twofold higher risk for cardiovascular disease compared with no ACEs.

Many of the pathologic processes that promote cardiovascular disease also increase the risk for dementia. Could the reach of ACEs span decades to promote a higher risk for dementia among older adults? A study by Yuan and colleagues of 7222 Chinese adults suggests that the answer is yes. This study divided the cohort into persons with a history of no ACEs, household dysfunction during childhood, or mistreatment during childhood. Child mistreatment was associated with higher rates of diabetes, depression, and cardiovascular disease, as well as an odds ratio of 1.37 (95% CI, 1.12 to 1.68) for cognitive impairment.

The magnitude of the effects ACEs can have on well-being is reinforced by epidemiologic data surrounding ACEs. According to the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), 64% of US adults report at least one ACE and 17% experienced at least four ACEs. Risk factors for ACEs include being female, American Indian or Alaska Native, or unemployed.

How do we reduce the impact of ACEs? Prevention is key. The CDC estimates that nearly 2 million cases of adult heart disease and more than 20 million cases of adult depression could be avoided if ACEs were eliminated.

But what is the best means to pragmatically reduce ACEs in our current practice models? How do we discover a history of ACEs in patients, and what are the best practices in managing persons with a positive history? We will cover these critical subjects in a future article, but for now, please provide your own comments and pearls regarding the prevention and management of ACEs.

Dr. Vega, health sciences clinical professor, family medicine, University of California, Irvine, disclosed ties with GlaxoSmithKline and Johnson and Johnson. Ms. Hurtado, MD candidate, University of California, Irvine School of Medicine, has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

This case is a little out of the ordinary, but we would love to find out how readers would handle it.

Diana is a 51-year-old woman with a history of depression, obesity, hypertension, type 2 diabetes, and coronary artery disease. She has come in for a routine visit for her chronic illnesses. She seems very distant and has a flat affect during the initial interview. When you ask about any recent stressful events, she begins crying and explains that her daughter was just deported, leaving behind a child and boyfriend.

Their country of origin suffers from chronic instability and violence. Diana’s father was murdered there, and Diana was the victim of sexual assault. “I escaped when I was 18, and I tried to never look back. Until now.” Diana is very worried about her daughter’s return to that country. “I don’t want her to have to endure what I have endured.”

You spend some time discussing the patient’s mental health burden and identify a counselor and online resources that might help. You wonder if Diana’s adverse childhood experiences (ACEs) might have contributed to some of her physical illnesses.

ACEs and Adult Health

The effects of trauma run long and deep. ACEs have been associated with higher risks for multiple chronic conditions, even among adults aged 60 years or older. Therefore, clinicians should consider a patient’s history of ACEs as part of their evaluation of risk for chronic illness.

One of the most pronounced and straightforward links is that between ACEs and depression. In the Southern Community Cohort Study of more than 38,200 US adults, the highest odds ratio between ACEs and chronic disease was for depression. Persons who reported more than three ACEs had about a twofold increase in the risk for depression compared with persons without ACEs. There was a monotonic increase in the risk for depression and other chronic illnesses as the burden of ACEs increased.

In another study from the United Kingdom, each additional ACE was associated with a significant 11% increase in the risk for incident diabetes during adulthood. Researchers found that both depression symptoms and cardiometabolic dysfunction mediated the effects of ACEs in promoting higher rates of diabetes.

Depression and diabetes are significant risk factors for coronary artery disease, so it is not surprising that ACEs are also associated with a higher risk for coronary events. A review by Godoy and colleagues described how ACEs promote neuroendocrine, autonomic, and inflammatory dysfunction, which in turn leads to higher rates of traditional cardiovascular risk factors such as diabetes and obesity. Ultimately, the presence of four or more ACEs is associated with more than a twofold higher risk for cardiovascular disease compared with no ACEs.

Many of the pathologic processes that promote cardiovascular disease also increase the risk for dementia. Could the reach of ACEs span decades to promote a higher risk for dementia among older adults? A study by Yuan and colleagues of 7222 Chinese adults suggests that the answer is yes. This study divided the cohort into persons with a history of no ACEs, household dysfunction during childhood, or mistreatment during childhood. Child mistreatment was associated with higher rates of diabetes, depression, and cardiovascular disease, as well as an odds ratio of 1.37 (95% CI, 1.12 to 1.68) for cognitive impairment.

The magnitude of the effects ACEs can have on well-being is reinforced by epidemiologic data surrounding ACEs. According to the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), 64% of US adults report at least one ACE and 17% experienced at least four ACEs. Risk factors for ACEs include being female, American Indian or Alaska Native, or unemployed.

How do we reduce the impact of ACEs? Prevention is key. The CDC estimates that nearly 2 million cases of adult heart disease and more than 20 million cases of adult depression could be avoided if ACEs were eliminated.

But what is the best means to pragmatically reduce ACEs in our current practice models? How do we discover a history of ACEs in patients, and what are the best practices in managing persons with a positive history? We will cover these critical subjects in a future article, but for now, please provide your own comments and pearls regarding the prevention and management of ACEs.

Dr. Vega, health sciences clinical professor, family medicine, University of California, Irvine, disclosed ties with GlaxoSmithKline and Johnson and Johnson. Ms. Hurtado, MD candidate, University of California, Irvine School of Medicine, has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

This case is a little out of the ordinary, but we would love to find out how readers would handle it.

Diana is a 51-year-old woman with a history of depression, obesity, hypertension, type 2 diabetes, and coronary artery disease. She has come in for a routine visit for her chronic illnesses. She seems very distant and has a flat affect during the initial interview. When you ask about any recent stressful events, she begins crying and explains that her daughter was just deported, leaving behind a child and boyfriend.

Their country of origin suffers from chronic instability and violence. Diana’s father was murdered there, and Diana was the victim of sexual assault. “I escaped when I was 18, and I tried to never look back. Until now.” Diana is very worried about her daughter’s return to that country. “I don’t want her to have to endure what I have endured.”

You spend some time discussing the patient’s mental health burden and identify a counselor and online resources that might help. You wonder if Diana’s adverse childhood experiences (ACEs) might have contributed to some of her physical illnesses.

ACEs and Adult Health

The effects of trauma run long and deep. ACEs have been associated with higher risks for multiple chronic conditions, even among adults aged 60 years or older. Therefore, clinicians should consider a patient’s history of ACEs as part of their evaluation of risk for chronic illness.

One of the most pronounced and straightforward links is that between ACEs and depression. In the Southern Community Cohort Study of more than 38,200 US adults, the highest odds ratio between ACEs and chronic disease was for depression. Persons who reported more than three ACEs had about a twofold increase in the risk for depression compared with persons without ACEs. There was a monotonic increase in the risk for depression and other chronic illnesses as the burden of ACEs increased.

In another study from the United Kingdom, each additional ACE was associated with a significant 11% increase in the risk for incident diabetes during adulthood. Researchers found that both depression symptoms and cardiometabolic dysfunction mediated the effects of ACEs in promoting higher rates of diabetes.

Depression and diabetes are significant risk factors for coronary artery disease, so it is not surprising that ACEs are also associated with a higher risk for coronary events. A review by Godoy and colleagues described how ACEs promote neuroendocrine, autonomic, and inflammatory dysfunction, which in turn leads to higher rates of traditional cardiovascular risk factors such as diabetes and obesity. Ultimately, the presence of four or more ACEs is associated with more than a twofold higher risk for cardiovascular disease compared with no ACEs.

Many of the pathologic processes that promote cardiovascular disease also increase the risk for dementia. Could the reach of ACEs span decades to promote a higher risk for dementia among older adults? A study by Yuan and colleagues of 7222 Chinese adults suggests that the answer is yes. This study divided the cohort into persons with a history of no ACEs, household dysfunction during childhood, or mistreatment during childhood. Child mistreatment was associated with higher rates of diabetes, depression, and cardiovascular disease, as well as an odds ratio of 1.37 (95% CI, 1.12 to 1.68) for cognitive impairment.

The magnitude of the effects ACEs can have on well-being is reinforced by epidemiologic data surrounding ACEs. According to the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), 64% of US adults report at least one ACE and 17% experienced at least four ACEs. Risk factors for ACEs include being female, American Indian or Alaska Native, or unemployed.

How do we reduce the impact of ACEs? Prevention is key. The CDC estimates that nearly 2 million cases of adult heart disease and more than 20 million cases of adult depression could be avoided if ACEs were eliminated.

But what is the best means to pragmatically reduce ACEs in our current practice models? How do we discover a history of ACEs in patients, and what are the best practices in managing persons with a positive history? We will cover these critical subjects in a future article, but for now, please provide your own comments and pearls regarding the prevention and management of ACEs.

Dr. Vega, health sciences clinical professor, family medicine, University of California, Irvine, disclosed ties with GlaxoSmithKline and Johnson and Johnson. Ms. Hurtado, MD candidate, University of California, Irvine School of Medicine, has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

It’s upper respiratory infection (URI) season. The following is a clinical scenario drawn from my own practice. I’ll tell you what I plan to do, but I’m most interested in crowdsourcing a response from all of you to collectively determine best practice. So please answer the polling questions and contribute your thoughts in the comments, whether you agree or disagree with me.

The patient

The patient is a 69-year-old woman with a 3-day history of cough, nasal congestion, malaise, tactile fever, and poor appetite. She has no sick contacts. She denies dyspnea, presyncope, and chest pain. She has tried guaifenesin and ibuprofen for her symptoms, which helped a little.

She is up to date on immunizations, including four doses of COVID-19 vaccine and the influenza vaccine, which she received 2 months ago.

The patient has a history of heart failure with reduced ejection fraction, coronary artery disease, hypertension, chronic kidney disease stage 3aA2, obesity, and osteoarthritis. Current medications include atorvastatin, losartan, metoprolol, and aspirin.

Her weight is stable at 212 lb, and her vital signs today are:

• Temperature: 37.5° C
• Pulse: 60 beats/min
• Blood pressure: 150/88 mm Hg
• Respiration rate: 14 breaths/min
• SpO₂: 93% on room air

What information is most critical before deciding on management?

Your peers chose: 

• The patient’s history of viral URIs

 14%

 

• Whether her cough is productive and the color of the sputum

 38%

 

• How well this season’s flu vaccine matches circulating influenza viruses

 8%

 

• Local epidemiology of major viral pathogens (e.g., SARS-CoV-2, influenza, RSV)

 40%
 

Dr. Vega’s take

To provide the best care for our patients when they are threatened with multiple viral upper respiratory pathogens, it is imperative that clinicians have some idea regarding the epidemiology of viral infections, with as much local data as possible. This knowledge will help direct appropriate testing and treatment.

Modern viral molecular testing platforms are highly accurate, but they are not infallible. Small flaws in specificity and sensitivity of testing are magnified when community viral circulation is low. In a U.K. study conducted during a period of low COVID-19 prevalence, the positive predictive value of reverse-transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) testing was just 16%. Although the negative predictive value was much higher, the false-positive rate of testing was still 0.5%. The authors of the study describe important potential consequences of false-positive results, such as being temporarily removed from an organ transplant list and unnecessary contact tracing.
 

Testing and treatment

Your county public health department maintains a website describing local activity of SARS-CoV-2 and influenza. Both viruses are in heavy circulation now.

What is the next best step in this patient’s management?

Your peers chose: 

• Treat empirically with ritonavir-boosted nirmatrelvir

 7%

 

• Treat empirically with oseltamivir or baloxavir

 14%

 

• Perform lab-based multiplex RT-PCR testing and wait to treat on the basis of results

 34%

 

• Perform rapid nucleic acid amplification testing (NAAT) and treat on the basis of results

 45%

Every practice has different resources and should use the best means available to treat patients. Ideally, this patient would undergo rapid NAAT with results available within 30 minutes. Test results will help guide not only treatment decisions but also infection-control measures.

The Infectious Diseases Society of America has provided updates for testing for URIs since the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic. Both laboratory-based and point-of-care rapid NAATs are recommended for testing. Rapid NAATs have been demonstrated to have a sensitivity of 96% and specificity of 100% in the detection of SARS-CoV-2. Obviously, they also offer a highly efficient means to make treatment and isolation decisions.

There are multiple platforms for molecular testing available. Laboratory-based platforms can test for dozens of potential pathogens, including bacteria. Rapid NAATs often have the ability to test for SARS-CoV-2, influenza, and respiratory syncytial virus (RSV). This functionality is important, because these infections generally are difficult to discriminate on the basis of clinical information alone.

The IDSA clearly recognizes the challenges of trying to manage cases of URI. For example, they state that testing of the anterior nares (AN) or oropharynx (OP) is acceptable, even though testing from the nasopharynx offers increased sensitivity. However, testing at the AN/OP allows for patient self-collection of samples, which is also recommended as an option by the IDSA. In an analysis of six cohort studies, the pooled sensitivity of patient-collected nasopharyngeal samples from the AN/OP was 88%, whereas the respective value for samples taken by health care providers was 95%.

The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention also provides recommendations for the management of patients with acute upper respiratory illness. Patients who are sick enough to be hospitalized should be tested at least for SARS-CoV-2 and influenza using molecular assays. Outpatients should be tested for SARS-CoV-2 with either molecular or antigen testing, and influenza testing should be offered if the findings will change decisions regarding treatment or isolation. Practically speaking, the recommendations for influenza testing mean that most individuals should be tested, including patients at high risk for complications of influenza and those who might have exposure to individuals at high risk.

Treatment of COVID-19 should only be provided in cases of a positive test within 5 days of symptom onset. However, clinicians may treat patients with anti-influenza medications presumptively if test results are not immediately available and the patient has worsening symptoms or is in a group at high risk for complications.

What are some of the challenges that you have faced during the COVID-19 pandemic regarding the management of patients with acute URIs? What have you found in terms of solutions, and where do gaps in quality of care persist? Please add your comments. I will review and circle back with a response. Thank you!

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

It’s upper respiratory infection (URI) season. The following is a clinical scenario drawn from my own practice. I’ll tell you what I plan to do, but I’m most interested in crowdsourcing a response from all of you to collectively determine best practice. So please answer the polling questions and contribute your thoughts in the comments, whether you agree or disagree with me.

The patient

The patient is a 69-year-old woman with a 3-day history of cough, nasal congestion, malaise, tactile fever, and poor appetite. She has no sick contacts. She denies dyspnea, presyncope, and chest pain. She has tried guaifenesin and ibuprofen for her symptoms, which helped a little.

She is up to date on immunizations, including four doses of COVID-19 vaccine and the influenza vaccine, which she received 2 months ago.

The patient has a history of heart failure with reduced ejection fraction, coronary artery disease, hypertension, chronic kidney disease stage 3aA2, obesity, and osteoarthritis. Current medications include atorvastatin, losartan, metoprolol, and aspirin.

Her weight is stable at 212 lb, and her vital signs today are:

• Temperature: 37.5° C
• Pulse: 60 beats/min
• Blood pressure: 150/88 mm Hg
• Respiration rate: 14 breaths/min
• SpO₂: 93% on room air

What information is most critical before deciding on management?

Your peers chose: 

• The patient’s history of viral URIs

 14%

 

• Whether her cough is productive and the color of the sputum

 38%

 

• How well this season’s flu vaccine matches circulating influenza viruses

 8%

 

• Local epidemiology of major viral pathogens (e.g., SARS-CoV-2, influenza, RSV)

 40%
 

Dr. Vega’s take

To provide the best care for our patients when they are threatened with multiple viral upper respiratory pathogens, it is imperative that clinicians have some idea regarding the epidemiology of viral infections, with as much local data as possible. This knowledge will help direct appropriate testing and treatment.

Modern viral molecular testing platforms are highly accurate, but they are not infallible. Small flaws in specificity and sensitivity of testing are magnified when community viral circulation is low. In a U.K. study conducted during a period of low COVID-19 prevalence, the positive predictive value of reverse-transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) testing was just 16%. Although the negative predictive value was much higher, the false-positive rate of testing was still 0.5%. The authors of the study describe important potential consequences of false-positive results, such as being temporarily removed from an organ transplant list and unnecessary contact tracing.
 

Testing and treatment

Your county public health department maintains a website describing local activity of SARS-CoV-2 and influenza. Both viruses are in heavy circulation now.

What is the next best step in this patient’s management?

Your peers chose: 

• Treat empirically with ritonavir-boosted nirmatrelvir

 7%

 

• Treat empirically with oseltamivir or baloxavir

 14%

 

• Perform lab-based multiplex RT-PCR testing and wait to treat on the basis of results

 34%

 

• Perform rapid nucleic acid amplification testing (NAAT) and treat on the basis of results

 45%

Every practice has different resources and should use the best means available to treat patients. Ideally, this patient would undergo rapid NAAT with results available within 30 minutes. Test results will help guide not only treatment decisions but also infection-control measures.

The Infectious Diseases Society of America has provided updates for testing for URIs since the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic. Both laboratory-based and point-of-care rapid NAATs are recommended for testing. Rapid NAATs have been demonstrated to have a sensitivity of 96% and specificity of 100% in the detection of SARS-CoV-2. Obviously, they also offer a highly efficient means to make treatment and isolation decisions.

There are multiple platforms for molecular testing available. Laboratory-based platforms can test for dozens of potential pathogens, including bacteria. Rapid NAATs often have the ability to test for SARS-CoV-2, influenza, and respiratory syncytial virus (RSV). This functionality is important, because these infections generally are difficult to discriminate on the basis of clinical information alone.

The IDSA clearly recognizes the challenges of trying to manage cases of URI. For example, they state that testing of the anterior nares (AN) or oropharynx (OP) is acceptable, even though testing from the nasopharynx offers increased sensitivity. However, testing at the AN/OP allows for patient self-collection of samples, which is also recommended as an option by the IDSA. In an analysis of six cohort studies, the pooled sensitivity of patient-collected nasopharyngeal samples from the AN/OP was 88%, whereas the respective value for samples taken by health care providers was 95%.

The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention also provides recommendations for the management of patients with acute upper respiratory illness. Patients who are sick enough to be hospitalized should be tested at least for SARS-CoV-2 and influenza using molecular assays. Outpatients should be tested for SARS-CoV-2 with either molecular or antigen testing, and influenza testing should be offered if the findings will change decisions regarding treatment or isolation. Practically speaking, the recommendations for influenza testing mean that most individuals should be tested, including patients at high risk for complications of influenza and those who might have exposure to individuals at high risk.

Treatment of COVID-19 should only be provided in cases of a positive test within 5 days of symptom onset. However, clinicians may treat patients with anti-influenza medications presumptively if test results are not immediately available and the patient has worsening symptoms or is in a group at high risk for complications.

What are some of the challenges that you have faced during the COVID-19 pandemic regarding the management of patients with acute URIs? What have you found in terms of solutions, and where do gaps in quality of care persist? Please add your comments. I will review and circle back with a response. Thank you!

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

It’s upper respiratory infection (URI) season. The following is a clinical scenario drawn from my own practice. I’ll tell you what I plan to do, but I’m most interested in crowdsourcing a response from all of you to collectively determine best practice. So please answer the polling questions and contribute your thoughts in the comments, whether you agree or disagree with me.

The patient

The patient is a 69-year-old woman with a 3-day history of cough, nasal congestion, malaise, tactile fever, and poor appetite. She has no sick contacts. She denies dyspnea, presyncope, and chest pain. She has tried guaifenesin and ibuprofen for her symptoms, which helped a little.

She is up to date on immunizations, including four doses of COVID-19 vaccine and the influenza vaccine, which she received 2 months ago.

The patient has a history of heart failure with reduced ejection fraction, coronary artery disease, hypertension, chronic kidney disease stage 3aA2, obesity, and osteoarthritis. Current medications include atorvastatin, losartan, metoprolol, and aspirin.

Her weight is stable at 212 lb, and her vital signs today are:

• Temperature: 37.5° C
• Pulse: 60 beats/min
• Blood pressure: 150/88 mm Hg
• Respiration rate: 14 breaths/min
• SpO₂: 93% on room air

What information is most critical before deciding on management?

Your peers chose: 

• The patient’s history of viral URIs

 14%

 

• Whether her cough is productive and the color of the sputum

 38%

 

• How well this season’s flu vaccine matches circulating influenza viruses

 8%

 

• Local epidemiology of major viral pathogens (e.g., SARS-CoV-2, influenza, RSV)

 40%
 

Dr. Vega’s take

To provide the best care for our patients when they are threatened with multiple viral upper respiratory pathogens, it is imperative that clinicians have some idea regarding the epidemiology of viral infections, with as much local data as possible. This knowledge will help direct appropriate testing and treatment.

Modern viral molecular testing platforms are highly accurate, but they are not infallible. Small flaws in specificity and sensitivity of testing are magnified when community viral circulation is low. In a U.K. study conducted during a period of low COVID-19 prevalence, the positive predictive value of reverse-transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) testing was just 16%. Although the negative predictive value was much higher, the false-positive rate of testing was still 0.5%. The authors of the study describe important potential consequences of false-positive results, such as being temporarily removed from an organ transplant list and unnecessary contact tracing.
 

Testing and treatment

Your county public health department maintains a website describing local activity of SARS-CoV-2 and influenza. Both viruses are in heavy circulation now.

What is the next best step in this patient’s management?

Your peers chose: 

• Treat empirically with ritonavir-boosted nirmatrelvir

 7%

 

• Treat empirically with oseltamivir or baloxavir

 14%

 

• Perform lab-based multiplex RT-PCR testing and wait to treat on the basis of results

 34%

 

• Perform rapid nucleic acid amplification testing (NAAT) and treat on the basis of results

 45%

Every practice has different resources and should use the best means available to treat patients. Ideally, this patient would undergo rapid NAAT with results available within 30 minutes. Test results will help guide not only treatment decisions but also infection-control measures.

The Infectious Diseases Society of America has provided updates for testing for URIs since the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic. Both laboratory-based and point-of-care rapid NAATs are recommended for testing. Rapid NAATs have been demonstrated to have a sensitivity of 96% and specificity of 100% in the detection of SARS-CoV-2. Obviously, they also offer a highly efficient means to make treatment and isolation decisions.

There are multiple platforms for molecular testing available. Laboratory-based platforms can test for dozens of potential pathogens, including bacteria. Rapid NAATs often have the ability to test for SARS-CoV-2, influenza, and respiratory syncytial virus (RSV). This functionality is important, because these infections generally are difficult to discriminate on the basis of clinical information alone.

The IDSA clearly recognizes the challenges of trying to manage cases of URI. For example, they state that testing of the anterior nares (AN) or oropharynx (OP) is acceptable, even though testing from the nasopharynx offers increased sensitivity. However, testing at the AN/OP allows for patient self-collection of samples, which is also recommended as an option by the IDSA. In an analysis of six cohort studies, the pooled sensitivity of patient-collected nasopharyngeal samples from the AN/OP was 88%, whereas the respective value for samples taken by health care providers was 95%.

The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention also provides recommendations for the management of patients with acute upper respiratory illness. Patients who are sick enough to be hospitalized should be tested at least for SARS-CoV-2 and influenza using molecular assays. Outpatients should be tested for SARS-CoV-2 with either molecular or antigen testing, and influenza testing should be offered if the findings will change decisions regarding treatment or isolation. Practically speaking, the recommendations for influenza testing mean that most individuals should be tested, including patients at high risk for complications of influenza and those who might have exposure to individuals at high risk.

Treatment of COVID-19 should only be provided in cases of a positive test within 5 days of symptom onset. However, clinicians may treat patients with anti-influenza medications presumptively if test results are not immediately available and the patient has worsening symptoms or is in a group at high risk for complications.

What are some of the challenges that you have faced during the COVID-19 pandemic regarding the management of patients with acute URIs? What have you found in terms of solutions, and where do gaps in quality of care persist? Please add your comments. I will review and circle back with a response. Thank you!

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

Last month, I described a 28-year-old patient with a history of injection drug use who presented with pain in his left forearm. His history showed that, within the past 2 years, he’d been seen for cutaneous infections multiple times as an outpatient and in the emergency department. His records indicated that he was diagnosed with a penicillin allergy as a child when he developed a rash after receiving amoxicillin. I believed the next course of action should be to test for a penicillin allergy with an oral amoxicillin challenge.
 

Thank you for your excellent questions regarding this case. Great to hear the enthusiasm for testing for penicillin allergy!

One question focused on the course of action in the case of a mild or moderate IgE-mediated reaction after a single dose test with amoxicillin. Treatment for these reactions should include an antihistamine. I would reserve intravenous antihistamines for more severe cases, which also require treatment with a course of corticosteroids. However, the risk for a moderate to severe reaction to amoxicillin on retesting is quite low.

Clinicians need to exercise caution in the use of systemic corticosteroids. These drugs can be lifesaving, but even short courses of corticosteroids are associated with potentially serious adverse events. In a review of adverse events associated with short-course systemic corticosteroids among children, the rate of vomiting was 5.4%; behavioral change, 4.7%; and sleep disturbance, 4.3%. One child died after contracting herpes zoster, more than one-third of children developed elevated blood pressure, and 81.1% had evidence of suppression of the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis.

Among adults, short courses of systemic corticosteroids are associated with acute increases in the risks for gastrointestinal bleeding and hypertension. Cumulative exposure to short courses of corticosteroids over time results in higher risks for obesity, type 2 diabetes, and osteoporosis.

Another question prompted by this young man’s case focused on the durability of IgE reactions against penicillin. The IgE response to penicillin does indeed wane over time; 80% of patients with a previous true penicillin allergy can tolerate the antibiotic after 10 years. Thus, about 95% of patients with a remote history of penicillin allergy are tolerant of penicillin, and testing can be performed using the algorithm described.

Clinicians should avoid applying current guidelines for the evaluation of patients with penicillin allergy to other common drug allergies. The overall prevalence of sulfonamide allergy is 3%-8%, and the vast majority of these reactions follow treatment with trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole. Sulfa allergy is even more common among persons living with HIV infection. The natural history of sulfa allergy is not as well established as penicillin allergy. Allergy testing is encouraged in these cases. Graded oral challenge testing is best reserved for patients who are unlikely to have a true sulfa allergy based on their history.

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

Last month, I described a 28-year-old patient with a history of injection drug use who presented with pain in his left forearm. His history showed that, within the past 2 years, he’d been seen for cutaneous infections multiple times as an outpatient and in the emergency department. His records indicated that he was diagnosed with a penicillin allergy as a child when he developed a rash after receiving amoxicillin. I believed the next course of action should be to test for a penicillin allergy with an oral amoxicillin challenge.
 

Thank you for your excellent questions regarding this case. Great to hear the enthusiasm for testing for penicillin allergy!

One question focused on the course of action in the case of a mild or moderate IgE-mediated reaction after a single dose test with amoxicillin. Treatment for these reactions should include an antihistamine. I would reserve intravenous antihistamines for more severe cases, which also require treatment with a course of corticosteroids. However, the risk for a moderate to severe reaction to amoxicillin on retesting is quite low.

Clinicians need to exercise caution in the use of systemic corticosteroids. These drugs can be lifesaving, but even short courses of corticosteroids are associated with potentially serious adverse events. In a review of adverse events associated with short-course systemic corticosteroids among children, the rate of vomiting was 5.4%; behavioral change, 4.7%; and sleep disturbance, 4.3%. One child died after contracting herpes zoster, more than one-third of children developed elevated blood pressure, and 81.1% had evidence of suppression of the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis.

Among adults, short courses of systemic corticosteroids are associated with acute increases in the risks for gastrointestinal bleeding and hypertension. Cumulative exposure to short courses of corticosteroids over time results in higher risks for obesity, type 2 diabetes, and osteoporosis.

Another question prompted by this young man’s case focused on the durability of IgE reactions against penicillin. The IgE response to penicillin does indeed wane over time; 80% of patients with a previous true penicillin allergy can tolerate the antibiotic after 10 years. Thus, about 95% of patients with a remote history of penicillin allergy are tolerant of penicillin, and testing can be performed using the algorithm described.

Clinicians should avoid applying current guidelines for the evaluation of patients with penicillin allergy to other common drug allergies. The overall prevalence of sulfonamide allergy is 3%-8%, and the vast majority of these reactions follow treatment with trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole. Sulfa allergy is even more common among persons living with HIV infection. The natural history of sulfa allergy is not as well established as penicillin allergy. Allergy testing is encouraged in these cases. Graded oral challenge testing is best reserved for patients who are unlikely to have a true sulfa allergy based on their history.

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

Last month, I described a 28-year-old patient with a history of injection drug use who presented with pain in his left forearm. His history showed that, within the past 2 years, he’d been seen for cutaneous infections multiple times as an outpatient and in the emergency department. His records indicated that he was diagnosed with a penicillin allergy as a child when he developed a rash after receiving amoxicillin. I believed the next course of action should be to test for a penicillin allergy with an oral amoxicillin challenge.
 

Thank you for your excellent questions regarding this case. Great to hear the enthusiasm for testing for penicillin allergy!

One question focused on the course of action in the case of a mild or moderate IgE-mediated reaction after a single dose test with amoxicillin. Treatment for these reactions should include an antihistamine. I would reserve intravenous antihistamines for more severe cases, which also require treatment with a course of corticosteroids. However, the risk for a moderate to severe reaction to amoxicillin on retesting is quite low.

Clinicians need to exercise caution in the use of systemic corticosteroids. These drugs can be lifesaving, but even short courses of corticosteroids are associated with potentially serious adverse events. In a review of adverse events associated with short-course systemic corticosteroids among children, the rate of vomiting was 5.4%; behavioral change, 4.7%; and sleep disturbance, 4.3%. One child died after contracting herpes zoster, more than one-third of children developed elevated blood pressure, and 81.1% had evidence of suppression of the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis.

Among adults, short courses of systemic corticosteroids are associated with acute increases in the risks for gastrointestinal bleeding and hypertension. Cumulative exposure to short courses of corticosteroids over time results in higher risks for obesity, type 2 diabetes, and osteoporosis.

Another question prompted by this young man’s case focused on the durability of IgE reactions against penicillin. The IgE response to penicillin does indeed wane over time; 80% of patients with a previous true penicillin allergy can tolerate the antibiotic after 10 years. Thus, about 95% of patients with a remote history of penicillin allergy are tolerant of penicillin, and testing can be performed using the algorithm described.

Clinicians should avoid applying current guidelines for the evaluation of patients with penicillin allergy to other common drug allergies. The overall prevalence of sulfonamide allergy is 3%-8%, and the vast majority of these reactions follow treatment with trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole. Sulfa allergy is even more common among persons living with HIV infection. The natural history of sulfa allergy is not as well established as penicillin allergy. Allergy testing is encouraged in these cases. Graded oral challenge testing is best reserved for patients who are unlikely to have a true sulfa allergy based on their history.

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

I recently posted a case about a smoker who became angry when I hesitated to prescribe antibiotics for his self-diagnosed bronchitis. He even threatened to retaliate by posting negative online reviews of my practice. In the end, I decided to use the strategy of a delayed prescription for antibiotics, instructing him to fill the prescription only if his symptoms worsened. I asked whether readers agreed with this approach. Thank you for the thoughtful comments regarding a case that certainly seemed familiar to many of you. I very much appreciate the chance to interact and share perspectives in a challenging clinical dilemma.
 

One theme that emerged through several comments was the perceived futility of the delayed prescriptions for antibiotics. To summarize, the collective logic stated that there is no point in delaying a prescription, because the patient will be very likely to fill that prescription right away despite counseling from the health care provider (HCP).

However, studies of delayed antibiotic prescriptions show that patients generally honor the advice to only fill the prescription if they are not improving clinically. In a study comparing immediate, delayed, or no antibiotic prescriptions among a cohort of children with uncomplicated respiratory infections, the overall rates of use of antibiotics in the three respective groups were 96%, 25.3%, and 12.0%. In another randomized trial exploring different strategies for delayed prescriptions among adults with upper respiratory infections, the rate of antibiotic use was 37% with delayed prescription strategies vs. 97% of patients prescribed antibiotics immediately. Neither of these prospective studies found a significant difference in clinical symptoms or complications in comparing the delayed and immediate antibiotic prescription groups.

Another common theme in the comments on this case focused on the challenge of online reviews of HCPs by patients. Multiple popular websites are devoted to patients’ unedited comments on HCPs and their practices, but there are still certain patterns to the comments. Some reviews describe the professionalism or empathy of the HCP, but others might focus more attention on the overall practice or office. These latter comments might emphasize issues such as timeliness of appointments, interactions with staff, or even parking and traffic. These are issues over which the HCP usually has little control.

HCPs are quite human, and therefore we might feel great about positive comments and dispirited or even angry with negative comments. So what is the best practice for HCPs in managing these online comments? A review by Dr Rebekah Bernard, which was published in the Sept. 25, 2018, issue of Medical Economics, offered some pragmatic advice:

Do not perseverate on one or two negative reviews. In fact, they might help! Dr. Bernard describes the psychological theory of the “pratfall effect,” in which people are more likely to prefer someone who is generally very good but not perfect to someone with nothing but exceptional reviews. HCPs with perfect reviews every time may be seen as intimidating or unapproachable.

Satisfied patients will frequently rally to support an HCP with an unfavorable review. This group may not be very motivated to complete online reviews until they see a comment which does at all match their own experience with the HCP.

Most importantly, HCPs can take an active role in minimizing the impact of negative online reviews while also enhancing their business model. Increasing your presence on the Internet and social media can help dilute negative reviews and push them down the list when someone performs a search on your name or practice. Creating a website for your practice is an effective means to be first on search engine lists, and HCPs should seek search-engine optimization features that promote this outcome. Adding social media contacts for yourself and/or your practice, as many as you can tolerate and maintain, allows HCPs to further control the narrative regarding their practice and central messaging to patients and the community.

In conclusion, delayed antibiotic prescriptions can reduce the use of unnecessary antibiotics for upper respiratory infections among children and adults, and they are not associated with worse clinical outcomes vs. immediate antibiotic prescriptions. They can also improve patient satisfaction for these visits, which can minimize the challenging issue of negative reviews of HCPs. HCPs should therefore consider delayed prescriptions as a strong option among patients without an indication for an antibiotic prescription.

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

I recently posted a case about a smoker who became angry when I hesitated to prescribe antibiotics for his self-diagnosed bronchitis. He even threatened to retaliate by posting negative online reviews of my practice. In the end, I decided to use the strategy of a delayed prescription for antibiotics, instructing him to fill the prescription only if his symptoms worsened. I asked whether readers agreed with this approach. Thank you for the thoughtful comments regarding a case that certainly seemed familiar to many of you. I very much appreciate the chance to interact and share perspectives in a challenging clinical dilemma.
 

One theme that emerged through several comments was the perceived futility of the delayed prescriptions for antibiotics. To summarize, the collective logic stated that there is no point in delaying a prescription, because the patient will be very likely to fill that prescription right away despite counseling from the health care provider (HCP).

However, studies of delayed antibiotic prescriptions show that patients generally honor the advice to only fill the prescription if they are not improving clinically. In a study comparing immediate, delayed, or no antibiotic prescriptions among a cohort of children with uncomplicated respiratory infections, the overall rates of use of antibiotics in the three respective groups were 96%, 25.3%, and 12.0%. In another randomized trial exploring different strategies for delayed prescriptions among adults with upper respiratory infections, the rate of antibiotic use was 37% with delayed prescription strategies vs. 97% of patients prescribed antibiotics immediately. Neither of these prospective studies found a significant difference in clinical symptoms or complications in comparing the delayed and immediate antibiotic prescription groups.

Another common theme in the comments on this case focused on the challenge of online reviews of HCPs by patients. Multiple popular websites are devoted to patients’ unedited comments on HCPs and their practices, but there are still certain patterns to the comments. Some reviews describe the professionalism or empathy of the HCP, but others might focus more attention on the overall practice or office. These latter comments might emphasize issues such as timeliness of appointments, interactions with staff, or even parking and traffic. These are issues over which the HCP usually has little control.

HCPs are quite human, and therefore we might feel great about positive comments and dispirited or even angry with negative comments. So what is the best practice for HCPs in managing these online comments? A review by Dr Rebekah Bernard, which was published in the Sept. 25, 2018, issue of Medical Economics, offered some pragmatic advice:

Do not perseverate on one or two negative reviews. In fact, they might help! Dr. Bernard describes the psychological theory of the “pratfall effect,” in which people are more likely to prefer someone who is generally very good but not perfect to someone with nothing but exceptional reviews. HCPs with perfect reviews every time may be seen as intimidating or unapproachable.

Satisfied patients will frequently rally to support an HCP with an unfavorable review. This group may not be very motivated to complete online reviews until they see a comment which does at all match their own experience with the HCP.

Most importantly, HCPs can take an active role in minimizing the impact of negative online reviews while also enhancing their business model. Increasing your presence on the Internet and social media can help dilute negative reviews and push them down the list when someone performs a search on your name or practice. Creating a website for your practice is an effective means to be first on search engine lists, and HCPs should seek search-engine optimization features that promote this outcome. Adding social media contacts for yourself and/or your practice, as many as you can tolerate and maintain, allows HCPs to further control the narrative regarding their practice and central messaging to patients and the community.

In conclusion, delayed antibiotic prescriptions can reduce the use of unnecessary antibiotics for upper respiratory infections among children and adults, and they are not associated with worse clinical outcomes vs. immediate antibiotic prescriptions. They can also improve patient satisfaction for these visits, which can minimize the challenging issue of negative reviews of HCPs. HCPs should therefore consider delayed prescriptions as a strong option among patients without an indication for an antibiotic prescription.

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

I recently posted a case about a smoker who became angry when I hesitated to prescribe antibiotics for his self-diagnosed bronchitis. He even threatened to retaliate by posting negative online reviews of my practice. In the end, I decided to use the strategy of a delayed prescription for antibiotics, instructing him to fill the prescription only if his symptoms worsened. I asked whether readers agreed with this approach. Thank you for the thoughtful comments regarding a case that certainly seemed familiar to many of you. I very much appreciate the chance to interact and share perspectives in a challenging clinical dilemma.
 

One theme that emerged through several comments was the perceived futility of the delayed prescriptions for antibiotics. To summarize, the collective logic stated that there is no point in delaying a prescription, because the patient will be very likely to fill that prescription right away despite counseling from the health care provider (HCP).

However, studies of delayed antibiotic prescriptions show that patients generally honor the advice to only fill the prescription if they are not improving clinically. In a study comparing immediate, delayed, or no antibiotic prescriptions among a cohort of children with uncomplicated respiratory infections, the overall rates of use of antibiotics in the three respective groups were 96%, 25.3%, and 12.0%. In another randomized trial exploring different strategies for delayed prescriptions among adults with upper respiratory infections, the rate of antibiotic use was 37% with delayed prescription strategies vs. 97% of patients prescribed antibiotics immediately. Neither of these prospective studies found a significant difference in clinical symptoms or complications in comparing the delayed and immediate antibiotic prescription groups.

Another common theme in the comments on this case focused on the challenge of online reviews of HCPs by patients. Multiple popular websites are devoted to patients’ unedited comments on HCPs and their practices, but there are still certain patterns to the comments. Some reviews describe the professionalism or empathy of the HCP, but others might focus more attention on the overall practice or office. These latter comments might emphasize issues such as timeliness of appointments, interactions with staff, or even parking and traffic. These are issues over which the HCP usually has little control.

HCPs are quite human, and therefore we might feel great about positive comments and dispirited or even angry with negative comments. So what is the best practice for HCPs in managing these online comments? A review by Dr Rebekah Bernard, which was published in the Sept. 25, 2018, issue of Medical Economics, offered some pragmatic advice:

Do not perseverate on one or two negative reviews. In fact, they might help! Dr. Bernard describes the psychological theory of the “pratfall effect,” in which people are more likely to prefer someone who is generally very good but not perfect to someone with nothing but exceptional reviews. HCPs with perfect reviews every time may be seen as intimidating or unapproachable.

Satisfied patients will frequently rally to support an HCP with an unfavorable review. This group may not be very motivated to complete online reviews until they see a comment which does at all match their own experience with the HCP.

Most importantly, HCPs can take an active role in minimizing the impact of negative online reviews while also enhancing their business model. Increasing your presence on the Internet and social media can help dilute negative reviews and push them down the list when someone performs a search on your name or practice. Creating a website for your practice is an effective means to be first on search engine lists, and HCPs should seek search-engine optimization features that promote this outcome. Adding social media contacts for yourself and/or your practice, as many as you can tolerate and maintain, allows HCPs to further control the narrative regarding their practice and central messaging to patients and the community.

In conclusion, delayed antibiotic prescriptions can reduce the use of unnecessary antibiotics for upper respiratory infections among children and adults, and they are not associated with worse clinical outcomes vs. immediate antibiotic prescriptions. They can also improve patient satisfaction for these visits, which can minimize the challenging issue of negative reviews of HCPs. HCPs should therefore consider delayed prescriptions as a strong option among patients without an indication for an antibiotic prescription.

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

You are seeing a 28-year-old man for a same-day appointment. He has a history of opioid use disorder and chronic hepatitis C virus infection. He has been using injections of heroin and fentanyl for more than 6 years, and you can see in his medical record that he has had four outpatient appointments for cutaneous infections along with three emergency department visits for same in the past 2 years. His chief complaint today is pain over his left forearm for the past 3 days. He does not report fever or other constitutional symptoms.

Examination of the left forearm reveals 8 cm of erythema with induration and calor but no fluctuance. The area is moderately tender to palpation. He has no other abnormal findings on exam.

What’s your course of action?
 

Dr. Vega’s take

You want to treat this patient with antibiotics and close follow-up, and you note that he has a history of penicillin allergy. A note in his record states that he had a rash after receiving amoxicillin as a child.

Sometimes, we have to take the most expedient action in health care. But most of the time, we should do the right thing, even if it’s harder. I would gather more history of this reaction to penicillin and consider an oral challenge, hoping that the work that we put in to testing him for penicillin allergy pays dividends for him now and for years to come.

Penicillin allergy is very commonly listed in patient health records. In a retrospective analysis of the charts of 11,761 patients seen at a single U.S. urban outpatient system in 2012, 11.5% had documentation of penicillin allergy. Rash was the most common manifestation listed for allergy (37% of cases), followed by unknown symptoms (20%), hives (19%), swelling/angioedema (12%), and anaphylaxis (7%). Women were nearly twice as likely as men were to report a history of penicillin allergy, and patients of Asian descent had half the reported prevalence of penicillin allergy, compared with White patients.

Only 6% of the patients reporting penicillin allergy in this study had been referred to an allergy specialist. Given the consequences of true penicillin allergy, this rate is far too low. Patients with a history of penicillin allergy have higher risks for mortality from coexisting hematologic malignancies and penicillin-sensitive infections such as Staphylococcus species. They more frequently develop resistance to multiple antimicrobials and have longer average lengths of stay in the hospital.

Getting a good history for penicillin allergy can be challenging. Approximately three-quarters of penicillin allergies are diagnosed prior to age 3 years. Some children with a family history of penicillin allergy are mislabeled as having an active allergy, even though family history is not a significant contributor to penicillin allergy. Most rashes blamed on penicillin among children are actually not immunoglobulin (Ig) E–mediated and instead represent viral exanthems.

In response to these challenges, at the end of 2022, the American Academy of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology along with the American College of Allergy, Asthma and Immunology published new recommendations for the management of drug allergy. These recommendations provide an algorithm for the active reassessment of penicillin allergy. Like other recommendations in recent years, they call for a proactive approach in questioning the potential clinical consequences of the penicillin allergy listed in the health record.

First, the guidelines recommend against needing any testing for previous adverse reactions to penicillin, such as headache, nausea/vomiting, or diarrhea, that are not IgE-mediated. However, patients who have experienced these adverse reactions may still be reticent to take penicillin. For them and for adults with a history of mild to moderate reactions to penicillin more than 5 years ago, a single oral challenge test with amoxicillin is practical and can be used to exclude penicillin allergy.
 

The oral amoxicillin challenge

After patients take a treatment dose of oral amoxicillin, they should be observed for 1 hour for any objective reaction. The clinical setting should be able to support patients in the rare case of a more severe reaction to penicillin. Subjective symptoms such as pruritus without objective findings such as rash may be considered a successful challenge, and penicillin may be taken off the list of allergies. The treating team can bill CPT codes for drug challenge testing.

Some research has supported multidose testing with amoxicillin to assess for late reactions to a penicillin oral challenge, but the current guidelines recommend against this approach based on the very limited yield in finding additional cases of true allergy with extra doses of antibiotics. One method to address this issue is to have patients advise the practice if symptoms develop within 10 days of the oral challenge, with photos or prompt clinical evaluation to assess for an IgE-mediated reaction.

Many patients, and certainly some clinicians, will have significant trepidation regarding an oral challenge, despite the low risk for complications. For these patients, as well as children with a history of penicillin allergy and patients with a history of anaphylaxis to penicillin or probable IgE-mediated reaction to penicillin in the past several years, skin testing is recommended. Lower-risk patients might feel reassured to complete an oral challenge test after a negative skin test.

Penicillin skin testing is more reliable than a radioallergosorbent test or an enzyme-linked immunoassay and carries a high specificity. However, skin testing requires the specialized care of an allergy clinic, and this resource is limited in many communities.

Many patients will have negative oral challenge or skin testing for penicillin allergy, but there are still some critical responsibilities for the clinician after testing is complete. First, the label of penicillin allergy should be expunged from all available health records. Second, the clinician should communicate clearly and with empathy to the patient that they can take penicillin-based antibiotics safely and with confidence. Repeat testing is unnecessary unless new symptoms develop.

Given the millions of U.S. residents with penicillin allergy documented in the health record but limited resources for allergy testing, we all need to be engaged in proactively delabeling this allergy from patients who can take penicillin antibiotics without problems. But the application of this policy to clinical practice is challenging on several levels, from patient and clinician fear to practical constraints on time.

Dr. Vega is health sciences clinical professor, family medicine, University of California, Irvine. He has disclosed ties with McNeil Pharmaceuticals.

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

You are seeing a 28-year-old man for a same-day appointment. He has a history of opioid use disorder and chronic hepatitis C virus infection. He has been using injections of heroin and fentanyl for more than 6 years, and you can see in his medical record that he has had four outpatient appointments for cutaneous infections along with three emergency department visits for same in the past 2 years. His chief complaint today is pain over his left forearm for the past 3 days. He does not report fever or other constitutional symptoms.

Examination of the left forearm reveals 8 cm of erythema with induration and calor but no fluctuance. The area is moderately tender to palpation. He has no other abnormal findings on exam.

What’s your course of action?
 

Dr. Vega’s take

You want to treat this patient with antibiotics and close follow-up, and you note that he has a history of penicillin allergy. A note in his record states that he had a rash after receiving amoxicillin as a child.

Sometimes, we have to take the most expedient action in health care. But most of the time, we should do the right thing, even if it’s harder. I would gather more history of this reaction to penicillin and consider an oral challenge, hoping that the work that we put in to testing him for penicillin allergy pays dividends for him now and for years to come.

Penicillin allergy is very commonly listed in patient health records. In a retrospective analysis of the charts of 11,761 patients seen at a single U.S. urban outpatient system in 2012, 11.5% had documentation of penicillin allergy. Rash was the most common manifestation listed for allergy (37% of cases), followed by unknown symptoms (20%), hives (19%), swelling/angioedema (12%), and anaphylaxis (7%). Women were nearly twice as likely as men were to report a history of penicillin allergy, and patients of Asian descent had half the reported prevalence of penicillin allergy, compared with White patients.

Only 6% of the patients reporting penicillin allergy in this study had been referred to an allergy specialist. Given the consequences of true penicillin allergy, this rate is far too low. Patients with a history of penicillin allergy have higher risks for mortality from coexisting hematologic malignancies and penicillin-sensitive infections such as Staphylococcus species. They more frequently develop resistance to multiple antimicrobials and have longer average lengths of stay in the hospital.

Getting a good history for penicillin allergy can be challenging. Approximately three-quarters of penicillin allergies are diagnosed prior to age 3 years. Some children with a family history of penicillin allergy are mislabeled as having an active allergy, even though family history is not a significant contributor to penicillin allergy. Most rashes blamed on penicillin among children are actually not immunoglobulin (Ig) E–mediated and instead represent viral exanthems.

In response to these challenges, at the end of 2022, the American Academy of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology along with the American College of Allergy, Asthma and Immunology published new recommendations for the management of drug allergy. These recommendations provide an algorithm for the active reassessment of penicillin allergy. Like other recommendations in recent years, they call for a proactive approach in questioning the potential clinical consequences of the penicillin allergy listed in the health record.

First, the guidelines recommend against needing any testing for previous adverse reactions to penicillin, such as headache, nausea/vomiting, or diarrhea, that are not IgE-mediated. However, patients who have experienced these adverse reactions may still be reticent to take penicillin. For them and for adults with a history of mild to moderate reactions to penicillin more than 5 years ago, a single oral challenge test with amoxicillin is practical and can be used to exclude penicillin allergy.
 

The oral amoxicillin challenge

After patients take a treatment dose of oral amoxicillin, they should be observed for 1 hour for any objective reaction. The clinical setting should be able to support patients in the rare case of a more severe reaction to penicillin. Subjective symptoms such as pruritus without objective findings such as rash may be considered a successful challenge, and penicillin may be taken off the list of allergies. The treating team can bill CPT codes for drug challenge testing.

Some research has supported multidose testing with amoxicillin to assess for late reactions to a penicillin oral challenge, but the current guidelines recommend against this approach based on the very limited yield in finding additional cases of true allergy with extra doses of antibiotics. One method to address this issue is to have patients advise the practice if symptoms develop within 10 days of the oral challenge, with photos or prompt clinical evaluation to assess for an IgE-mediated reaction.

Many patients, and certainly some clinicians, will have significant trepidation regarding an oral challenge, despite the low risk for complications. For these patients, as well as children with a history of penicillin allergy and patients with a history of anaphylaxis to penicillin or probable IgE-mediated reaction to penicillin in the past several years, skin testing is recommended. Lower-risk patients might feel reassured to complete an oral challenge test after a negative skin test.

Penicillin skin testing is more reliable than a radioallergosorbent test or an enzyme-linked immunoassay and carries a high specificity. However, skin testing requires the specialized care of an allergy clinic, and this resource is limited in many communities.

Many patients will have negative oral challenge or skin testing for penicillin allergy, but there are still some critical responsibilities for the clinician after testing is complete. First, the label of penicillin allergy should be expunged from all available health records. Second, the clinician should communicate clearly and with empathy to the patient that they can take penicillin-based antibiotics safely and with confidence. Repeat testing is unnecessary unless new symptoms develop.

Given the millions of U.S. residents with penicillin allergy documented in the health record but limited resources for allergy testing, we all need to be engaged in proactively delabeling this allergy from patients who can take penicillin antibiotics without problems. But the application of this policy to clinical practice is challenging on several levels, from patient and clinician fear to practical constraints on time.

Dr. Vega is health sciences clinical professor, family medicine, University of California, Irvine. He has disclosed ties with McNeil Pharmaceuticals.

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

You are seeing a 28-year-old man for a same-day appointment. He has a history of opioid use disorder and chronic hepatitis C virus infection. He has been using injections of heroin and fentanyl for more than 6 years, and you can see in his medical record that he has had four outpatient appointments for cutaneous infections along with three emergency department visits for same in the past 2 years. His chief complaint today is pain over his left forearm for the past 3 days. He does not report fever or other constitutional symptoms.

Examination of the left forearm reveals 8 cm of erythema with induration and calor but no fluctuance. The area is moderately tender to palpation. He has no other abnormal findings on exam.

What’s your course of action?
 

Dr. Vega’s take

You want to treat this patient with antibiotics and close follow-up, and you note that he has a history of penicillin allergy. A note in his record states that he had a rash after receiving amoxicillin as a child.

Sometimes, we have to take the most expedient action in health care. But most of the time, we should do the right thing, even if it’s harder. I would gather more history of this reaction to penicillin and consider an oral challenge, hoping that the work that we put in to testing him for penicillin allergy pays dividends for him now and for years to come.

Penicillin allergy is very commonly listed in patient health records. In a retrospective analysis of the charts of 11,761 patients seen at a single U.S. urban outpatient system in 2012, 11.5% had documentation of penicillin allergy. Rash was the most common manifestation listed for allergy (37% of cases), followed by unknown symptoms (20%), hives (19%), swelling/angioedema (12%), and anaphylaxis (7%). Women were nearly twice as likely as men were to report a history of penicillin allergy, and patients of Asian descent had half the reported prevalence of penicillin allergy, compared with White patients.

Only 6% of the patients reporting penicillin allergy in this study had been referred to an allergy specialist. Given the consequences of true penicillin allergy, this rate is far too low. Patients with a history of penicillin allergy have higher risks for mortality from coexisting hematologic malignancies and penicillin-sensitive infections such as Staphylococcus species. They more frequently develop resistance to multiple antimicrobials and have longer average lengths of stay in the hospital.

Getting a good history for penicillin allergy can be challenging. Approximately three-quarters of penicillin allergies are diagnosed prior to age 3 years. Some children with a family history of penicillin allergy are mislabeled as having an active allergy, even though family history is not a significant contributor to penicillin allergy. Most rashes blamed on penicillin among children are actually not immunoglobulin (Ig) E–mediated and instead represent viral exanthems.

In response to these challenges, at the end of 2022, the American Academy of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology along with the American College of Allergy, Asthma and Immunology published new recommendations for the management of drug allergy. These recommendations provide an algorithm for the active reassessment of penicillin allergy. Like other recommendations in recent years, they call for a proactive approach in questioning the potential clinical consequences of the penicillin allergy listed in the health record.

First, the guidelines recommend against needing any testing for previous adverse reactions to penicillin, such as headache, nausea/vomiting, or diarrhea, that are not IgE-mediated. However, patients who have experienced these adverse reactions may still be reticent to take penicillin. For them and for adults with a history of mild to moderate reactions to penicillin more than 5 years ago, a single oral challenge test with amoxicillin is practical and can be used to exclude penicillin allergy.
 

The oral amoxicillin challenge

After patients take a treatment dose of oral amoxicillin, they should be observed for 1 hour for any objective reaction. The clinical setting should be able to support patients in the rare case of a more severe reaction to penicillin. Subjective symptoms such as pruritus without objective findings such as rash may be considered a successful challenge, and penicillin may be taken off the list of allergies. The treating team can bill CPT codes for drug challenge testing.

Some research has supported multidose testing with amoxicillin to assess for late reactions to a penicillin oral challenge, but the current guidelines recommend against this approach based on the very limited yield in finding additional cases of true allergy with extra doses of antibiotics. One method to address this issue is to have patients advise the practice if symptoms develop within 10 days of the oral challenge, with photos or prompt clinical evaluation to assess for an IgE-mediated reaction.

Many patients, and certainly some clinicians, will have significant trepidation regarding an oral challenge, despite the low risk for complications. For these patients, as well as children with a history of penicillin allergy and patients with a history of anaphylaxis to penicillin or probable IgE-mediated reaction to penicillin in the past several years, skin testing is recommended. Lower-risk patients might feel reassured to complete an oral challenge test after a negative skin test.

Penicillin skin testing is more reliable than a radioallergosorbent test or an enzyme-linked immunoassay and carries a high specificity. However, skin testing requires the specialized care of an allergy clinic, and this resource is limited in many communities.

Many patients will have negative oral challenge or skin testing for penicillin allergy, but there are still some critical responsibilities for the clinician after testing is complete. First, the label of penicillin allergy should be expunged from all available health records. Second, the clinician should communicate clearly and with empathy to the patient that they can take penicillin-based antibiotics safely and with confidence. Repeat testing is unnecessary unless new symptoms develop.

Given the millions of U.S. residents with penicillin allergy documented in the health record but limited resources for allergy testing, we all need to be engaged in proactively delabeling this allergy from patients who can take penicillin antibiotics without problems. But the application of this policy to clinical practice is challenging on several levels, from patient and clinician fear to practical constraints on time.

Dr. Vega is health sciences clinical professor, family medicine, University of California, Irvine. He has disclosed ties with McNeil Pharmaceuticals.

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

It’s a common scenario. A patient, Agnes, with symptoms of an upper respiratory infection (URI), but what’s the cause? Is it COVID-19, flu, or even RSV? I recently described just such a patient, an obese woman with type 2 diabetes, presenting with fever, cough, myalgia, and fatigue. I asked readers whether they agreed with my management of this patient.

Thank you for your comments as we continue to react to high rates of URIs. Your comments highlight the importance of local resources and practice habits when managing patients with URI.

It was clear that readers value testing to distinguish between infections. However, access to testing is highly variable around the world and is likely to be routinely used only in high-income countries. The Kaiser Family Foundation performed a cost analysis of testing for SARS-CoV-2 in 2020 and found, not surprisingly, wide variability in the cost of testing. Medicare covers tests at rates of $36-$143 per test; a study of list prices for SARS-CoV-2 tests at 93 hospitals found a median cost of $148 per test. And this does not include collection or facility fees. About 20% of tests cost more than $300.

These costs are prohibitive for many health systems. However, more devices have been introduced since that analysis, and competition and evolving technology should drive down prices. Generally, multiplex polymerase chain reaction (PCR) testing for multiple pathogens is less expensive than ordering two or three separate molecular tests and is more convenient for patients and practices alike.

Other reader comments focused on the challenges of getting accurate data on viral epidemiology, and there is certainly a time lag between infection trends and public health reports. This is exacerbated by underreporting of symptoms and more testing at home using antigen tests.

But please do not give up on epidemiology! If a test such as PCR is 90% sensitive for identifying infection, the yield in terms of the number of individuals infected with a particular virus should be high, and that is true when infection is in broad circulation. If 20% of a population of 1,000 has an infection and the test sensitivity is 90%, the yield of testing is 180 true cases versus 20 false positives.

However, if just 2% of the population of 1,000 has the infection in this same scenario, then only 18 true cases are identified. The effect on public health is certainly less, and a lower prevalence rate means that confounding variables, such as how long an individual might shed viral particles and the method of sample collection, have an outsized effect on results. This reduces the validity of diagnostic tests.

Even trends on a national level can provide some insight regarding whom to test. Traditionally, our practice has been to not routinely test patients for influenza or RSV from late spring to early fall unless there was a compelling reason, such as recent travel to an area where these infections were more prevalent. The loss of temporality for these infections since 2020 has altered this approach and made us pay more attention to reports from public health organizations.

I also appreciate the discussion of how to treat Agnes’s symptoms as she waits to improve, and anyone who suffers with or treats a viral URI knows that there are few interventions effective for such symptoms as cough and congestion. A systematic review of 29 randomized controlled trials of over-the-counter medications for cough yielded mixed and largely negative results.

Antihistamines alone do not seem to work, and guaifenesin was successful in only one of three trials. Combinations of different drug classes appeared to be slightly more effective.

My personal favorite for the management of acute cough is something that kids generally love: honey. In a review of 14 studies, 9 of which were limited to pediatric patients, honey was associated with significant reductions in cough frequency, cough severity, and total symptom score. However, there was a moderate risk of bias in the included research, and evidence of honey’s benefit in placebo-controlled trials was limited. Honey used in this research came in a variety of forms, so the best dosage is uncertain.

Clearly, advancements are needed. Better symptom management in viral URI will almost certainly improve productivity across the population and will probably reduce the inappropriate use of antibiotics as well. I have said for years that the scientists who can solve the Gordian knot of pediatric mucus deserve three Nobel prizes. I look forward to that golden day.

Dr. Vega is a clinical professor of family medicine at the University of California, Irvine. He reported a conflict of interest with McNeil Pharmaceuticals.

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

It’s a common scenario. A patient, Agnes, with symptoms of an upper respiratory infection (URI), but what’s the cause? Is it COVID-19, flu, or even RSV? I recently described just such a patient, an obese woman with type 2 diabetes, presenting with fever, cough, myalgia, and fatigue. I asked readers whether they agreed with my management of this patient.

Thank you for your comments as we continue to react to high rates of URIs. Your comments highlight the importance of local resources and practice habits when managing patients with URI.

It was clear that readers value testing to distinguish between infections. However, access to testing is highly variable around the world and is likely to be routinely used only in high-income countries. The Kaiser Family Foundation performed a cost analysis of testing for SARS-CoV-2 in 2020 and found, not surprisingly, wide variability in the cost of testing. Medicare covers tests at rates of $36-$143 per test; a study of list prices for SARS-CoV-2 tests at 93 hospitals found a median cost of $148 per test. And this does not include collection or facility fees. About 20% of tests cost more than $300.

These costs are prohibitive for many health systems. However, more devices have been introduced since that analysis, and competition and evolving technology should drive down prices. Generally, multiplex polymerase chain reaction (PCR) testing for multiple pathogens is less expensive than ordering two or three separate molecular tests and is more convenient for patients and practices alike.

Other reader comments focused on the challenges of getting accurate data on viral epidemiology, and there is certainly a time lag between infection trends and public health reports. This is exacerbated by underreporting of symptoms and more testing at home using antigen tests.

But please do not give up on epidemiology! If a test such as PCR is 90% sensitive for identifying infection, the yield in terms of the number of individuals infected with a particular virus should be high, and that is true when infection is in broad circulation. If 20% of a population of 1,000 has an infection and the test sensitivity is 90%, the yield of testing is 180 true cases versus 20 false positives.

However, if just 2% of the population of 1,000 has the infection in this same scenario, then only 18 true cases are identified. The effect on public health is certainly less, and a lower prevalence rate means that confounding variables, such as how long an individual might shed viral particles and the method of sample collection, have an outsized effect on results. This reduces the validity of diagnostic tests.

Even trends on a national level can provide some insight regarding whom to test. Traditionally, our practice has been to not routinely test patients for influenza or RSV from late spring to early fall unless there was a compelling reason, such as recent travel to an area where these infections were more prevalent. The loss of temporality for these infections since 2020 has altered this approach and made us pay more attention to reports from public health organizations.

I also appreciate the discussion of how to treat Agnes’s symptoms as she waits to improve, and anyone who suffers with or treats a viral URI knows that there are few interventions effective for such symptoms as cough and congestion. A systematic review of 29 randomized controlled trials of over-the-counter medications for cough yielded mixed and largely negative results.

Antihistamines alone do not seem to work, and guaifenesin was successful in only one of three trials. Combinations of different drug classes appeared to be slightly more effective.

My personal favorite for the management of acute cough is something that kids generally love: honey. In a review of 14 studies, 9 of which were limited to pediatric patients, honey was associated with significant reductions in cough frequency, cough severity, and total symptom score. However, there was a moderate risk of bias in the included research, and evidence of honey’s benefit in placebo-controlled trials was limited. Honey used in this research came in a variety of forms, so the best dosage is uncertain.

Clearly, advancements are needed. Better symptom management in viral URI will almost certainly improve productivity across the population and will probably reduce the inappropriate use of antibiotics as well. I have said for years that the scientists who can solve the Gordian knot of pediatric mucus deserve three Nobel prizes. I look forward to that golden day.

Dr. Vega is a clinical professor of family medicine at the University of California, Irvine. He reported a conflict of interest with McNeil Pharmaceuticals.

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

It’s a common scenario. A patient, Agnes, with symptoms of an upper respiratory infection (URI), but what’s the cause? Is it COVID-19, flu, or even RSV? I recently described just such a patient, an obese woman with type 2 diabetes, presenting with fever, cough, myalgia, and fatigue. I asked readers whether they agreed with my management of this patient.

Thank you for your comments as we continue to react to high rates of URIs. Your comments highlight the importance of local resources and practice habits when managing patients with URI.

It was clear that readers value testing to distinguish between infections. However, access to testing is highly variable around the world and is likely to be routinely used only in high-income countries. The Kaiser Family Foundation performed a cost analysis of testing for SARS-CoV-2 in 2020 and found, not surprisingly, wide variability in the cost of testing. Medicare covers tests at rates of $36-$143 per test; a study of list prices for SARS-CoV-2 tests at 93 hospitals found a median cost of $148 per test. And this does not include collection or facility fees. About 20% of tests cost more than $300.

These costs are prohibitive for many health systems. However, more devices have been introduced since that analysis, and competition and evolving technology should drive down prices. Generally, multiplex polymerase chain reaction (PCR) testing for multiple pathogens is less expensive than ordering two or three separate molecular tests and is more convenient for patients and practices alike.

Other reader comments focused on the challenges of getting accurate data on viral epidemiology, and there is certainly a time lag between infection trends and public health reports. This is exacerbated by underreporting of symptoms and more testing at home using antigen tests.

But please do not give up on epidemiology! If a test such as PCR is 90% sensitive for identifying infection, the yield in terms of the number of individuals infected with a particular virus should be high, and that is true when infection is in broad circulation. If 20% of a population of 1,000 has an infection and the test sensitivity is 90%, the yield of testing is 180 true cases versus 20 false positives.

However, if just 2% of the population of 1,000 has the infection in this same scenario, then only 18 true cases are identified. The effect on public health is certainly less, and a lower prevalence rate means that confounding variables, such as how long an individual might shed viral particles and the method of sample collection, have an outsized effect on results. This reduces the validity of diagnostic tests.

Even trends on a national level can provide some insight regarding whom to test. Traditionally, our practice has been to not routinely test patients for influenza or RSV from late spring to early fall unless there was a compelling reason, such as recent travel to an area where these infections were more prevalent. The loss of temporality for these infections since 2020 has altered this approach and made us pay more attention to reports from public health organizations.

I also appreciate the discussion of how to treat Agnes’s symptoms as she waits to improve, and anyone who suffers with or treats a viral URI knows that there are few interventions effective for such symptoms as cough and congestion. A systematic review of 29 randomized controlled trials of over-the-counter medications for cough yielded mixed and largely negative results.

Antihistamines alone do not seem to work, and guaifenesin was successful in only one of three trials. Combinations of different drug classes appeared to be slightly more effective.

My personal favorite for the management of acute cough is something that kids generally love: honey. In a review of 14 studies, 9 of which were limited to pediatric patients, honey was associated with significant reductions in cough frequency, cough severity, and total symptom score. However, there was a moderate risk of bias in the included research, and evidence of honey’s benefit in placebo-controlled trials was limited. Honey used in this research came in a variety of forms, so the best dosage is uncertain.

Clearly, advancements are needed. Better symptom management in viral URI will almost certainly improve productivity across the population and will probably reduce the inappropriate use of antibiotics as well. I have said for years that the scientists who can solve the Gordian knot of pediatric mucus deserve three Nobel prizes. I look forward to that golden day.

Dr. Vega is a clinical professor of family medicine at the University of California, Irvine. He reported a conflict of interest with McNeil Pharmaceuticals.

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

I recently presented a clinical scenario about a patient of mine named Brenda. This 35-year-old woman came to me with symptoms that had been going on for a year already. I asked for readers’ comments about my management of Brenda.

I appreciate the comments I received regarding this case. The most common suggestion was to encourage Brenda to exercise, and a systematic review of randomized clinical trials published in 2019 supports this recommendation. This review included nine studies with a total of 680 participants, and the overall effect of exercise was a twofold improvement in symptoms associated with constipation. Walking was the most common exercise intervention, and along with qigong (which combines body position, breathing, and meditation), these two modes of exercise were effective in improving constipation. However, the one study evaluating resistance training failed to demonstrate a significant effect. Importantly, the reviewers considered the collective research to be at a high risk of bias.

Exercise will probably help Brenda, although some brainstorming might be necessary to help her fit exercise into her busy schedule. Another suggestion focused on her risk for colorectal cancer, and Dr. Cooke and Dr. Boboc both astutely noted that colorectal cancer is increasingly common among adults at early middle age. This stands in contrast to a steady decline in the prevalence of colorectal cancer among U.S. adults at age 65 years or older. Whereas colorectal cancer declined by 3.3% annually among U.S. older adults from 2011 to 2016, there was a reversal of this favorable trend among individuals between 50 and 64 years of age, with rates increasing by 1% annually.

The increase in the incidence of colorectal cancer among adults 50-64 years of age has been outpaced by the increase among adults younger than 50 years, who have experienced a 2.2% increase in the incidence of colorectal cancer annually between 2012 and 2016. Previously, the increase in colorectal cancer among early middle-aged adults was driven by higher rates of rectal cancer, but more recently this trend has included higher rates of proximal and distal colon tumors. In 2020, 12% of new cases of colorectal cancer were expected to be among individuals younger than 50 years.

So how do we act on this context in the case of Brenda? Her history suggests no overt warning signs for cancer. The history did not address a family history of gastrointestinal symptoms or colorectal cancer, which is an important omission.

Although the number of cases of cancer among persons younger than 50 years may be rising, the overall prevalence of colorectal cancer among younger adults is well under 1%. At 35 years of age, it is not necessary to evaluate Brenda for colorectal cancer. However, persistent or worsening symptoms could prompt a referral for colonoscopy at a later time.

Finally, let’s address how to practically manage Brenda’s case, because many options are available. I would begin with recommendations regarding her lifestyle, including regular exercise, adequate sleep, and whatever she can achieve in the FODMAP diet. I would also recommend psyllium as a soluble fiber and expect that these changes would help her constipation. But they might be less effective for abdominal cramping, so I would also recommend peppermint oil at this time.

If Brenda commits to these recommendations, she will very likely improve. If she does not, I will be more concerned regarding anxiety and depression complicating her illness. Treating those disorders can make a big difference.

In addition, if there is an inadequate response to initial therapy, I will initiate linaclotide or lubiprostone. Plecanatide is another reasonable option. At this point, I will also consider referral to a gastroenterologist for a recalcitrant case and will certainly refer if one of these specific treatments fails in Brenda. Conditions such as pelvic floor dysfunction can mimic irritable bowel syndrome with constipation and merit consideration.

However, I really believe that Brenda will feel better. Thanks for all of the insightful and interesting comments. It is easy to see how we are all invested in improving patients’ lives.
 

Dr. Vega is a clinical professor of family medicine at the University of California, Irvine. He reported disclosures with McNeil Pharmaceuticals. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

I recently presented a clinical scenario about a patient of mine named Brenda. This 35-year-old woman came to me with symptoms that had been going on for a year already. I asked for readers’ comments about my management of Brenda.

I appreciate the comments I received regarding this case. The most common suggestion was to encourage Brenda to exercise, and a systematic review of randomized clinical trials published in 2019 supports this recommendation. This review included nine studies with a total of 680 participants, and the overall effect of exercise was a twofold improvement in symptoms associated with constipation. Walking was the most common exercise intervention, and along with qigong (which combines body position, breathing, and meditation), these two modes of exercise were effective in improving constipation. However, the one study evaluating resistance training failed to demonstrate a significant effect. Importantly, the reviewers considered the collective research to be at a high risk of bias.

Exercise will probably help Brenda, although some brainstorming might be necessary to help her fit exercise into her busy schedule. Another suggestion focused on her risk for colorectal cancer, and Dr. Cooke and Dr. Boboc both astutely noted that colorectal cancer is increasingly common among adults at early middle age. This stands in contrast to a steady decline in the prevalence of colorectal cancer among U.S. adults at age 65 years or older. Whereas colorectal cancer declined by 3.3% annually among U.S. older adults from 2011 to 2016, there was a reversal of this favorable trend among individuals between 50 and 64 years of age, with rates increasing by 1% annually.

The increase in the incidence of colorectal cancer among adults 50-64 years of age has been outpaced by the increase among adults younger than 50 years, who have experienced a 2.2% increase in the incidence of colorectal cancer annually between 2012 and 2016. Previously, the increase in colorectal cancer among early middle-aged adults was driven by higher rates of rectal cancer, but more recently this trend has included higher rates of proximal and distal colon tumors. In 2020, 12% of new cases of colorectal cancer were expected to be among individuals younger than 50 years.

So how do we act on this context in the case of Brenda? Her history suggests no overt warning signs for cancer. The history did not address a family history of gastrointestinal symptoms or colorectal cancer, which is an important omission.

Although the number of cases of cancer among persons younger than 50 years may be rising, the overall prevalence of colorectal cancer among younger adults is well under 1%. At 35 years of age, it is not necessary to evaluate Brenda for colorectal cancer. However, persistent or worsening symptoms could prompt a referral for colonoscopy at a later time.

Finally, let’s address how to practically manage Brenda’s case, because many options are available. I would begin with recommendations regarding her lifestyle, including regular exercise, adequate sleep, and whatever she can achieve in the FODMAP diet. I would also recommend psyllium as a soluble fiber and expect that these changes would help her constipation. But they might be less effective for abdominal cramping, so I would also recommend peppermint oil at this time.

If Brenda commits to these recommendations, she will very likely improve. If she does not, I will be more concerned regarding anxiety and depression complicating her illness. Treating those disorders can make a big difference.

In addition, if there is an inadequate response to initial therapy, I will initiate linaclotide or lubiprostone. Plecanatide is another reasonable option. At this point, I will also consider referral to a gastroenterologist for a recalcitrant case and will certainly refer if one of these specific treatments fails in Brenda. Conditions such as pelvic floor dysfunction can mimic irritable bowel syndrome with constipation and merit consideration.

However, I really believe that Brenda will feel better. Thanks for all of the insightful and interesting comments. It is easy to see how we are all invested in improving patients’ lives.
 

Dr. Vega is a clinical professor of family medicine at the University of California, Irvine. He reported disclosures with McNeil Pharmaceuticals. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

I recently presented a clinical scenario about a patient of mine named Brenda. This 35-year-old woman came to me with symptoms that had been going on for a year already. I asked for readers’ comments about my management of Brenda.

I appreciate the comments I received regarding this case. The most common suggestion was to encourage Brenda to exercise, and a systematic review of randomized clinical trials published in 2019 supports this recommendation. This review included nine studies with a total of 680 participants, and the overall effect of exercise was a twofold improvement in symptoms associated with constipation. Walking was the most common exercise intervention, and along with qigong (which combines body position, breathing, and meditation), these two modes of exercise were effective in improving constipation. However, the one study evaluating resistance training failed to demonstrate a significant effect. Importantly, the reviewers considered the collective research to be at a high risk of bias.

Exercise will probably help Brenda, although some brainstorming might be necessary to help her fit exercise into her busy schedule. Another suggestion focused on her risk for colorectal cancer, and Dr. Cooke and Dr. Boboc both astutely noted that colorectal cancer is increasingly common among adults at early middle age. This stands in contrast to a steady decline in the prevalence of colorectal cancer among U.S. adults at age 65 years or older. Whereas colorectal cancer declined by 3.3% annually among U.S. older adults from 2011 to 2016, there was a reversal of this favorable trend among individuals between 50 and 64 years of age, with rates increasing by 1% annually.

The increase in the incidence of colorectal cancer among adults 50-64 years of age has been outpaced by the increase among adults younger than 50 years, who have experienced a 2.2% increase in the incidence of colorectal cancer annually between 2012 and 2016. Previously, the increase in colorectal cancer among early middle-aged adults was driven by higher rates of rectal cancer, but more recently this trend has included higher rates of proximal and distal colon tumors. In 2020, 12% of new cases of colorectal cancer were expected to be among individuals younger than 50 years.

So how do we act on this context in the case of Brenda? Her history suggests no overt warning signs for cancer. The history did not address a family history of gastrointestinal symptoms or colorectal cancer, which is an important omission.

Although the number of cases of cancer among persons younger than 50 years may be rising, the overall prevalence of colorectal cancer among younger adults is well under 1%. At 35 years of age, it is not necessary to evaluate Brenda for colorectal cancer. However, persistent or worsening symptoms could prompt a referral for colonoscopy at a later time.

Finally, let’s address how to practically manage Brenda’s case, because many options are available. I would begin with recommendations regarding her lifestyle, including regular exercise, adequate sleep, and whatever she can achieve in the FODMAP diet. I would also recommend psyllium as a soluble fiber and expect that these changes would help her constipation. But they might be less effective for abdominal cramping, so I would also recommend peppermint oil at this time.

If Brenda commits to these recommendations, she will very likely improve. If she does not, I will be more concerned regarding anxiety and depression complicating her illness. Treating those disorders can make a big difference.

In addition, if there is an inadequate response to initial therapy, I will initiate linaclotide or lubiprostone. Plecanatide is another reasonable option. At this point, I will also consider referral to a gastroenterologist for a recalcitrant case and will certainly refer if one of these specific treatments fails in Brenda. Conditions such as pelvic floor dysfunction can mimic irritable bowel syndrome with constipation and merit consideration.

However, I really believe that Brenda will feel better. Thanks for all of the insightful and interesting comments. It is easy to see how we are all invested in improving patients’ lives.
 

Dr. Vega is a clinical professor of family medicine at the University of California, Irvine. He reported disclosures with McNeil Pharmaceuticals. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.