Neuroinvasive West Nile Virus Infection in Immunosuppressed and Immunocompetent Adults.

Importance: West Nile virus (WNV) is the leading cause of human arboviral disease in the US, peaking during summer. The incidence of WNV, including its neuroinvasive form (NWNV), is increasing, largely due to the expanding distribution of its vector, the Culex mosquito, and climatic changes causing heavy monsoon rains. However, the distinct characteristics and outcomes of NWNV in individuals who are immunosuppressed (IS) and individuals who are not IS remain underexplored. Objective: To describe and compare clinical and radiographic features, treatment responses, and outcomes of NWNV infection in individuals who are IS and those who are not IS. Design, Setting, and Participants: This retrospective cohort study used data from the Mayo Clinic Hospital system collected from July 2006 to December 2021. Participants were adult patients (age ≥18 years) with established diagnosis of NWNV infection. Data were analyzed from May 12, 2020, to July 20, 2023. Exposure: Immunosuppresion. Main Outcomes and Measures: Outcomes of interest were clinical and radiographic features and 90-day mortality among patients with and without IS. Results: Of 115 participants with NWNV infection (mean [SD] age, 64 [16] years; 75 [66%] male) enrolled, 72 (63%) were not IS and 43 (37%) were IS. Neurologic manifestations were meningoencephalitis (98 patients [85%]), encephalitis (10 patients [9%]), and myeloradiculitis (7 patients [6%]). Patients without IS, compared with those with IS, more frequently reported headache (45 patients [63%] vs 18 patients [42%]) and myalgias (32 patients [44%] vs 9 patients [21%]). In contrast, patients with IS, compared with those without, had higher rates of altered mental status (33 patients [77%] vs 41 patients [57%]) and myoclonus (8 patients [19%] vs 8 patients [4%]). Magnetic resonance imaging revealed more frequent thalamic T2 fluid-attenuated inversion recovery hyperintensities in individuals with IS than those without (4 patients [11%] vs 0 patients). Individuals with IS had more severe disease requiring higher rates of intensive care unit admission (26 patients [61%] vs 24 patients [33%]) and mechanical ventilation (24 patients [56%] vs 22 patients [31%]). The 90-day all-cause mortality rate was higher in the patients with IS compared with patients without IS (12 patients [28%] vs 5 patients [7%]), and this difference in mortality persisted after adjusting for Glasgow Coma Scale score (adjusted hazard ratio, 2.22; 95% CI, 1.07-4.27; P = .03). Individuals with IS were more likely to receive intravenous immunoglobulin than individuals without IS (12 individuals [17%] vs 24 individuals [56%]), but its use was not associated with survival (hazard ratio, 1.24; 95% CI, 0.50-3.09; P = .64). Conclusions and Relevance: In this cohort study of individuals with NWNV infection, individuals with IS had a higher risk of disease complications and poor outcomes than individuals without IS, highlighting the need for innovative and effective therapies to improve outcomes in this high-risk population.

Exploring Perceptions of Biologic Therapies: A Qualitative Study Among Canadians Living with Severe Asthma.

INTRODUCTION: Biologic therapies have demonstrated benefits for individuals with severe asthma, including reduced daily symptoms and severe exacerbations. However, data describing patient perspectives on these treatments are limited. This study sought to understand the preferences and priorities of Canadians with severe asthma in the context of novel biologic treatment options. METHODS: Semi-structured, qualitative interviews were conducted among Canadians with severe asthma from July to August 2022. Purposeful sampling included individuals with and without biologic therapy experience. All participants described daily life with severe asthma, experiences and priorities related to asthma treatment and their impressions of biologics. Reflexive thematic analysis was used to explore patterns in the data. RESULTS: Among 18 individuals included, 10 were currently taking or had prior experience with biologic treatment for asthma. Those who had never been treated with biologics were unfamiliar with them, considering treatment, or believed that they may not be eligible. Four themes were developed to convey the perspectives of participants on biologics: (1) life-changing benefits, but not for all; (2) navigating barriers to being prescribed and remaining adherent to biologic treatments; (3) treatment administration preferences are not only about convenience; (4) concerns about safety and the unknown as a source of treatment hesitancy. CONCLUSIONS: Findings suggest that the clinical benefits of biologics align with patient perceptions of achieving good asthma control. However, treatment gaps persist among individuals who do not experience a meaningful improvement in their asthma symptoms and those who face barriers accessing biologics. People with severe asthma attributed importance to greater availability of at-home treatment options, improved access to financial support to cover treatment costs and support to address safety concerns. This research provides insight into patient-based treatment priorities and preferences for biologics, which may help inform decision-making related to emerging therapies for severe asthma.

For people with severe asthma, biologics are a treatment option that can be taken in addition to their regular medication. In this study, we asked 18 Canadians with severe asthma about how having severe asthma affects their lives, their current and previous asthma treatments, and their views on biologics. Ten people in this study were currently taking or had previously taken biologics for severe asthma. We found that biologics can be life changing. Also, people with severe asthma can find it difficult to get on and stay on biologics. They would like financial and educational support when considering biologics and prefer to take biologics at home, if possible. This study helps us understand the priorities and preferences related to biologics of patients with severe asthma.

Impact of a vancomycin-resistant Enterococcus (VRE) screening result on appropriateness of antibiotic therapy.

Objective: Vancomycin-resistant Enterococcus (VRE) infections have been associated with increased mortality and poor outcomes. VRE screening has been used to identify colonized patients to prevent transmission; however, little is known about the utility of screening results to guide antibiotic therapy. Design and setting: A retrospective review was performed at a tertiary-care center between June 1, 2015, and May 31, 2018. Patients: All patients who underwent VRE polymerase chain reaction assay (PCR) screening and had a bacterial culture from 7 days before to 90 days after the screening test were included. In total, 1,374 patients who had a VRE screening test met inclusion criteria. Methods: Sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values of VRE screening for VRE infection were calculated. The appropriateness of the antibiotic therapy for each patient based on screening results was also assessed. Results: We detected no difference in the appropriateness of antibiotic therapy between patients with a positive screen and those with a negative screen (59.3% vs 61.0%; P = .8657). The VRE PCR demonstrated 54% sensitivity, 89% specificity, a positive predictive value (PPV) of 13% and a negative predictive value (NPV) of 98%. Conclusions: The high NPV and specificity indicate that patients with a negative VRE screening results may not require empiric antibiotic coverage for VRE. Although VRE screening may have utility to detect colonization in high-risk patients, a positive VRE screen is of limited value in determining the need for an antibiotic with VRE culture-directed coverage.

Calcitonin Gene-Related Peptide Antagonists for the Prevention of Migraine: Highlights From Pivotal Studies and the Clinical Relevance of This New Drug Class.

Objective: To review the new drug class of calcitonin gene-related peptide antagonists (monoclonal antibodies) and their clinical relevance in migraine prophylaxis. Data Sources: A literature search was performed in PubMed (January 2009 to November 2019) using the terms migraine, calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP), erenumab, fremanezumab, and galcanezumab for clinical trials and studies. Study Selection and Data Extraction: Reports from human studies in English were evaluated for clinical evidence supporting pharmacology, efficacy, and adverse events. Initial pharmacokinetic and preclinical studies were excluded. Data Synthesis: In chronic and episodic migraine, prophylaxis with injections of monoclonal antibodies antagonizing CGRP reduced monthly migraine days with minimal clinically significant adverse events. In addition, there is evidence supporting efficacy in refractory migraine despite optimal prophylaxis. Relevance to Patient Care and Clinical Practice: This is the first target-specific migraine prophylaxis treatment to show efficacy with minimal adverse effects. A higher drug cost is a barrier but is balanced by improved quality of life. Current therapies have limited efficacy and tolerability because of poor side effect profiles. CGRP antagonists represent a shift to more precise migraine treatments. Conclusions: Monoclonal antibodies inhibiting CGRP are effective in migraine prophylaxis with minimal adverse effects. Targeting CGRP is a novel clinical strategy in managing migraine.

Improving Clinical Decision Support in Pharmacy: Toward the Perfect DUR Alert.

The cornerstone of every health care profession is decision making. Historically, the decisions made by pharmacists have focused on ensuring the accuracy and physical integrity of the pharmaceutical product delivered to the patient in strict compliance with the prescriber's order. As the role of the pharmacist evolved over the past half century, the focus of decision making progressively shifted from a product-centric orientation to optimizing the interaction that occurs between the pharmaceutical product and the patient. Toward that end, prospective drug utilization review (pro-DUR) represents, perhaps, the quintessential expression of the pharmacist's contemporary clinical role. Fueled by evolving practice standards, innovations in information technology, and legal mandates such as The Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990, computer-assisted pro-DUR systems have become a ubiquitous component of pharmacy practice. While these data-driven clinical decision support systems have clearly demonstrated their ability to improve the quality and safety of medication delivery and use, they have yet to fully achieve their promised potential. Doing so will require recognition of continuing shortcomings and a shared commitment by all stakeholders to develop and adhere to best practice guidelines that will better ensure that alerts received by practitioners are valid, interpretable, clinically significant, and actionable. DISCLOSURES: The authors received no funding for this article. Rupp discloses consultancy fees from Surescripts unrelated to this manuscript. Both authors contributed equally to concept, analysis, and manuscript preparation.