A Case of Sustained Viral Shedding of Mpox With Ocular Involvement Resulting in Vision Loss.

Mpox, caused by infection with Monkeypox virus, usually presents as a mild, self-limited illness in immunocompetent persons that resolves within 2-4 weeks. Serious complications have been reported when mpox lesions involve vulnerable anatomic sites, such as the eye, and in those with substantial immunosuppression. We describe a patient with advanced human immunodeficiency virus infection and sustained viral shedding of mpox with ocular involvement, which resulted in vision loss.

Ocular Monkeypox - United States, July-September 2022.

As of October 11, 2022, a total of 26,577 monkeypox cases had been reported in the United States.* Although most cases of monkeypox are self-limited, lesions that involve anatomically vulnerable sites can cause complications. Ocular monkeypox can occur when Monkeypox virus (MPXV) is introduced into the eye (e.g., from autoinoculation), potentially causing conjunctivitis, blepharitis, keratitis, and loss of vision (1). This report describes five patients who acquired ocular monkeypox during July-September 2022. All patients received treatment with tecovirimat (Tpoxx)†; four also received topical trifluridine (Viroptic).§ Two patients had HIV-associated immunocompromise and experienced delays between clinical presentation with monkeypox and initiation of monkeypox-directed treatment. Four patients were hospitalized, and one experienced marked vision impairment. To decrease the risk for autoinoculation, persons with monkeypox should be advised to practice hand hygiene and to avoid touching their eyes, which includes refraining from using contact lenses (2). Health care providers and public health practitioners should be aware that ocular monkeypox, although rare, is a sight-threatening condition. Patients with signs and symptoms compatible with ocular monkeypox should be considered for urgent ophthalmologic evaluation and initiation of monkeypox-directed treatment. Public health officials should be promptly notified of cases of ocular monkeypox. Increased clinician awareness of ocular monkeypox and of approaches to prevention, diagnosis, and treatment might reduce associated morbidity.

Use of Industrial Filters by Health Care Workers During Shortages of N95 Respirators in Pandemic Times.

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has led to a significant shortage of personal protective equipment in multiple health care facilities around the world, with the highest impact on N95 respirator masks. The N95 respirator is a mask that blocks at least 95% of very small (0.3 µm) particles and is considered a standard for enhanced respiratory precautions. The N95 mask shortage has created a need for other options for nasal and oral respiratory protection with similar filtration efficiency and "medical-grade" clearance, which can be used in health care settings. However, the literature around various filter types, their filtration capabilities, and the organizations certifying their use is dense, confusing, and not easily accessible to the public. Here, we synthesize relevant literature to analyze and disseminate information on (1) alternative viable filter options to N95s, (2) the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health certification process, (3) the relationship of National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health certification to Food and Drug Administration certification of filtration devices and surgical masks, and (4) how this relationship may affect future filtration usage in the medical community during a pandemic. Analysis of these standards is meant to inform regarding evidence of respirator efficacy but does not imply any official endorsement of these alternatives. With this article, we illuminate viable alternative respirator options during the COVID-19 pandemic to help alleviate the dependency on N95 face masks.

Cefiderocol Pharmacokinetics in a Patient Receiving Continuous Venovenous Hemodiafiltration.

Antimicrobial dosing in patients receiving continuous renal replacement therapy is a continued clinical challenge. We describe a case of a patient receiving cefiderocol 2 g intravenously every 8 hours as a 3-hour infusion for a multidrug-resistant Pseudomonas aeruginosa pneumonia and bacteremia while undergoing continuous venovenous hemodiafiltration. The clinical course and cefiderocol pharmacokinetics are described.

Community-acquired methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus: an emerging cause of acute bacterial parotitis.

Staphylococcus aureus has long been recognized as a cause of acute bacterial parotitis. A case of community-acquired methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (CA-MRSA) parotitis is presented, highlighting the emergence of this increasingly important pathogen to cause a wide variety of infections. Also reviewed are the salient clinical and microbiologic features of this novel infection.

Infectious disease emergencies.

This article reviews principles of recognition and management of a selection of commonly encountered infectious disease emergencies, including sepsis, necrotizing soft tissue infections, acute meningitis, and the emerging issue of severe Clostridium difficile colitis. Less common but potentially deadly environmentally acquired or zoonotic pathogens are discussed, as are special patient populations, including the febrile returning traveler and the asplenic patient.

If asked, hospitalized patients will choose whether to receive life-sustaining therapies.

BACKGROUND: No national policy requires health care providers to discuss with hospitalized patients whether the latter would want cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) or mechanical ventilation (MV) in the event of cardiopulmonary failure. OBJECTIVE: To determine whether hospitalized patients are willing to discuss end-of-life issues and choose whether to receive CPR and MV. DESIGN: Prospective randomized trial. PARTICIPANTS: 297 patients admitted to the medicine service of a 350-bed community teaching hospital. INTERVENTION: Patients were randomized to receive routine care or a scripted intervention, delivered by research physicians, that included detailed information about CPR, MV, and advance directives. MEASUREMENTS: Number of patients who welcomed the scripted intervention, number who chose to receive or reject CPR/MV, and number of advance directives created during hospitalization. RESULTS: Of the 297 patients studied, 136 were in the intervention group and 161 were in the control group. Baseline characteristics and severity of illness were similar in the 2 groups. Of the 136 patients in the intervention group, 133 (98%) willingly discussed CPR and mechanical ventilation, and 112 (82%) found the information useful. One hundred and twenty-five (92%) clarified their preferences regarding CPR and MV after receiving the intervention; of the 48 patients who were initially documented as wanting CPR/MV, 3 requested no CPR/MV after the intervention. Of the 87 patients in the intervention group who had no documentation of code status on admission, 5 asked for no CPR/MV. Of the 161 patients in the control group, 55 had documentation of their code status on admission. Of the 106 patients without documentation, 6 were later documented to receive no CPR/MV. Thirteen of the 102 patients who had no advance directive on admission created one after the intervention, whereas only 1 of the 128 patients in the control group did so (P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: Patients are willing to discuss and give informed consent for CPR and mechanical ventilation early in hospitalization. Only a minority drafted advance directives during hospitalization. Larger studies that include patients at other centers are required to determine whether these findings are reproducible and whether this approach is clinically feasible.