Improving Sepsis Outcomes in the Era of Pay-for-Performance and Electronic Quality Measures: A Joint IDSA/ACEP/PIDS/SHEA/SHM/SIDP Position Paper.

The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) introduced the Severe Sepsis/Septic Shock Management Bundle (SEP-1) as a pay-for-reporting measure in 2015 and is now planning to make it a pay-for-performance measure by incorporating it into the Hospital Value-Based Purchasing Program. This joint IDSA/ACEP/PIDS/SHEA/SHM/SIPD position paper highlights concerns with this change. Multiple studies indicate that SEP-1 implementation was associated with increased broad-spectrum antibiotic use, lactate measurements, and aggressive fluid resuscitation for patients with suspected sepsis but not with decreased mortality rates. Increased focus on SEP-1 risks further diverting attention and resources from more effective measures and comprehensive sepsis care. We recommend retiring SEP-1 rather than using it in a payment model and shifting instead to new sepsis metrics that focus on patient outcomes. CMS is developing a community-onset sepsis 30-day mortality electronic clinical quality measure (eCQM) that is an important step in this direction. The eCQM preliminarily identifies sepsis using systemic inflammatory response syndrome (SIRS) criteria, antibiotic administrations or diagnosis codes for infection or sepsis, and clinical indicators of acute organ dysfunction. We support the eCQM but recommend removing SIRS criteria and diagnosis codes to streamline implementation, decrease variability between hospitals, maintain vigilance for patients with sepsis but without SIRS, and avoid promoting antibiotic use in uninfected patients with SIRS. We further advocate for CMS to harmonize the eCQM with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's (CDC) Adult Sepsis Event surveillance metric to promote unity in federal measures, decrease reporting burden for hospitals, and facilitate shared prevention initiatives. These steps will result in a more robust measure that will encourage hospitals to pay more attention to the full breadth of sepsis care, stimulate new innovations in diagnosis and treatment, and ultimately bring us closer to our shared goal of improving outcomes for patients.

SARS-CoV-2 outbreak among staff and evacuees at Operation Allies Welcome Safe Havens.

We report on five SARS-CoV-2 congregate setting outbreaks at U.S. Operation Allies Welcome Safe Havens/military facilities. Outbreak data were collected, and attack rates were calculated for various populations. Even in vaccinated populations, there was rapid spread, illustrating the importance of institutional prevention and mitigation policies in congregate settings.

Infectious Diseases Society of America Position Paper: Recommended Revisions to the National Severe Sepsis and Septic Shock Early Management Bundle (SEP-1) Sepsis Quality Measure.

The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services' Severe Sepsis and Septic Shock Early Management Bundle (SEP-1) measure has appropriately established sepsis as a national priority. However, the Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA and five additional endorsing societies) is concerned about SEP-1's potential to drive antibiotic overuse because it does not account for the high rate of sepsis overdiagnosis and encourages aggressive antibiotics for all patients with possible sepsis, regardless of the certainty of diagnosis or severity of illness. IDSA is also concerned that SEP-1's complex "time zero" definition is not evidence-based and is prone to inter-observer variation. In this position paper, IDSA outlines several recommendations aimed at reducing the risk of unintended consequences of SEP-1 while maintaining focus on its evidence-based elements. IDSA's core recommendation is to limit SEP-1 to septic shock, for which the evidence supporting the benefit of immediate antibiotics is greatest. Prompt empiric antibiotics are often appropriate for suspected sepsis without shock, but IDSA believes there is too much heterogeneity and difficulty defining this population, uncertainty about the presence of infection, and insufficient data on the necessity of immediate antibiotics to support a mandatory treatment standard for all patients in this category. IDSA believes guidance on managing possible sepsis without shock is more appropriate for guidelines that can delineate the strengths and limitations of supporting evidence and allow clinicians discretion in applying specific recommendations to individual patients. Removing sepsis without shock from SEP-1 will mitigate the risk of unnecessary antibiotic prescribing for noninfectious syndromes, simplify data abstraction, increase measure reliability, and focus attention on the population most likely to benefit from immediate empiric broad-spectrum antibiotics.

Impact of Sepsis Mandates on Sepsis Care: Unintended Consequences.

The creation of dedicated sepsis guidelines and their broad dissemination over the past 2 decades have contributed to significant improvements in sepsis care. These successes have spurred the creation of bundled care mandates by major healthcare payers, such as the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services. However, despite the likely benefits of guideline-directed sepsis bundles, mandated treatments in sepsis may lead to unintended consequences as the standard of care in sepsis improves. In particular, the heterogeneous spectrum of presentation and disease severity in sepsis, as well as the complexity surrounding the benefits of specific interventions in sepsis, argues for an individualized and titrated approach to interventions: an approach generally not afforded by care mandates. In this review, we review the risks and benefits of mandated care for sepsis, with particular emphasis on the potential adverse consequences of common bundle components such as early empiric antibiotics, weight-based fluid administration, and serum lactate monitoring. Unlike guideline-directed care, mandated care in sepsis precludes providers from tailoring treatments to heterogeneous clinical scenarios and may lead to unintended harms for individual patients.

Efavirenz plasma concentrations and cytochrome 2B6 polymorphisms.

BACKGROUND: Interpatient variability in efavirenz concentrations may be due to CYP2B6 genetic polymorphisms. Efavirenz concentration and pharmacogenomic data are scarce in Latino patients. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the difference in trough and midpoint efavirenz plasma concentrations between HIV-positive Latino and white patients. In addition, this study evaluated the association between efavirenz concentrations and CYP2B6 polymorphisms in Latino and white HIV-positive subjects. METHODS: This pilot study included 10 Latinos and 10 whites. Two efavirenz blood concentrations were determined: a trough and a midpoint. CYP2B6 genetic polymorphisms were analyzed at the 516 (G to T) and 785 (A to G) codons. The Mann-Whitney test was used to determine whether efavirenz concentrations varied with ethnicity. The Kruskal-Wallis test was used to determine whether efavirenz concentrations varied with CYP2B6 genetic polymorphisms. Efavirenz concentrations were expressed as medians (minimum, maximum). RESULTS: Midpoint concentrations were 1.58 µg/mL (1.36, 6.02) and 3.14 µg/mL (1.74, 7.72) for whites and Latinos, respectively (p < 0.05). Trough concentrations did not vary as a function of ethnicity. Ten percent of Latinos and whites tested positive for homozygous variants of CYP2B6-516 and CYP2B6-785. One white subject tested positive for the homozygous variant of CYP2B6-1459. Trough concentrations for 516TT, 516GT, and 516GG (wild type) were 5.13 µg/mL (4.13, 6.12), 2.13 µg/mL (1.33, 3.37), and 1.44 µg/mL (0.59, 2.92), respectively (p < 0.05). Trough concentrations for 785GG, 785AG, and 785AA (wild type) were 5.12 µg/mL (4.13, 6.12), 1.98 µg/mL (1.33, 3.37), and 1.27 µg/mL (0.59, 2.92), respectively (p < 0.05). None of the patients took concomitant medications that impacted CYP2B6 metabolism. CONCLUSIONS: Trough efavirenz concentrations were significantly higher in patients with the 785 (A to G) and 516 (G to T) variants. Midpoint efavirenz concentrations in Latinos were significantly higher than those of whites.

Suppurative lymphadenitis caused by hypermucoid-variant Klebsiella in a Polynesian woman: a case report.

Hypermucoid Klebsiella pneumoniae, known for its association with multiple-organ infection, has gradually increased in prevalence beyond where it was first characterized in East Asia. Here we describe a unique presentation of suppurative lymphadenitis due to hypermucoid Klebsiella in a patient from Tonga, a country with few reported cases.

Better than nothing: keeping pts on failing regimen has benefits.

In a retrospective study of HIV-infected patients, those with CD4+ lymphocyte count 50-200, and < 50 who had detectable HIV RNA levels on combination antiretroviral therapy (cART), a 34% and 22% reduction, respectively, in new AIDS-defining events (ADE) was observed in patients who continued cART compared to patients who stopped cART.

Efavirenz-induced hypersensitivity reaction manifesting in rash and hepatitis in a Latino male.

OBJECTIVE: To report a case of hypersensitivity manifesting in a rash, fever, and life-threatening hepatitis in a patient initiated on efavirenz therapy. CASE SUMMARY: A 30-year-old Latino male newly diagnosed with HIV was started on efavirenz-based highly active antiretroviral therapy (HAART) using tenofovir 300 mg, emtricitabine 200 mg, and efavirenz 600 mg once daily. Eleven days after beginning therapy, he developed a hypersensitivity reaction manifesting in rash and fever preceding severe drug-induced hepatitis. Liver enzyme peak values were aspartate transaminase 3410 U/L and alanine transaminase 2132 U/L. Hepatitis resolved with discontinuation of the HAART. The patient was rechallenged with tenofovir and emtricitabine one year later; no adverse reactions occurred. DISCUSSION: The Naranjo probability scale demonstrated a probable relationship between this adverse reaction and efavirenz. A MEDLINE search (2004 to September 2007) revealed 2 cases of rash preceding hepatitis with the initiation of efavirenz. Both cases were in women; there were no prior reported cases of efavirenz hypersensitivity in men. Although the mechanism of this reaction is unknown, a few factors may have contributed to this reaction. The half-life and the auto-induction of efavirenz may explain the continued rise in liver enzymes and severe hepatitis that continued to occur once the drug was discontinued. Another cause that may have contributed is the metabolism of the medication. CYP2B6 is responsible for almost 90% of the clearance of efavirenz. Data from a recent pharmacokinetic study showed that efavirenz concentrations were higher in both black and Latino patients when compared with those of white patients. In addition, it is highly probable that this patient's liver function was impaired when transaminase levels peaked, resulting in decreased clearance of efavirenz. CONCLUSIONS: Although such a hypersensitivity reaction is rare, efavirenz is the most probable cause of the erythematous maculopapular rash and acute hepatitis in this patient. Monitoring of liver function in patients who present with a rash following initiation of efavirenz-based HAART is recommended. In addition, clinicians should exercise caution in patients presenting with rash, fever, and increased liver enzymes (> 3 times the upper limit of normal or patient baseline). It is strongly recommended that efavirenz therapy be withheld in such cases and reevaluated once liver enzyme levels stabilize.

Hepatocyte apoptosis in hepatitis C/HIV co-infection.

Hepatocytes exposed in vitro to hepatitis C virus (HCV) and human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) envelope proteins and undergo apoptosis as a result of cell surface binding of the proteins. The studies indicate that HCV/HIV envelope proteins induce hepatocyte apoptosis by activating a novel downstream STAT1 signaling pathway.