Last data update: May 20, 2024. (Total: 46824 publications since 2009)
Records 1-14 (of 14 Records) |
Query Trace: Baden D[original query] |
---|
Neuroinvasive bacillus cereus infection in immunocompromised hosts: Epidemiologic investigation of 5 patients with acute myeloid leukemia
Little JS , Coughlin C , Hsieh C , Lanza M , Huang WY , Kumar A , Dandawate T , Tucker R , Gable P , Vazquez Deida AA , Moulton-Meissner H , Stevens V , McAllister G , Ewing T , Diaz M , Glowicz J , Winkler ML , Pecora N , Kubiak DW , Pearson JC , Luskin MR , Sherman AC , Woolley AE , Brandeburg C , Bolstorff B , McHale E , Fortes E , Doucette M , Smole S , Bunnell C , Gross A , Platt D , Desai S , Fiumara K , Issa NC , Baden LR , Rhee C , Klompas M , Baker MA . Open Forum Infect Dis 2024 11 (3) ofae048 BACKGROUND: Bacillus cereus is a ubiquitous gram-positive rod-shaped bacterium that can cause sepsis and neuroinvasive disease in patients with acute leukemia or neutropenia. METHODS: A single-center retrospective review was conducted to evaluate patients with acute leukemia, positive blood or cerebrospinal fluid test results for B cereus, and abnormal neuroradiographic findings between January 2018 and October 2022. Infection control practices were observed, environmental samples obtained, a dietary case-control study completed, and whole genome sequencing performed on environmental and clinical Bacillus isolates. RESULTS: Five patients with B cereus neuroinvasive disease were identified. All patients had acute myeloid leukemia (AML), were receiving induction chemotherapy, and were neutropenic. Neurologic involvement included subarachnoid or intraparenchymal hemorrhage or brain abscess. All patients were treated with ciprofloxacin and survived with limited or no neurologic sequelae. B cereus was identified in 7 of 61 environmental samples and 1 of 19 dietary protein samples-these were unrelated to clinical isolates via sequencing. No point source was identified. Ciprofloxacin was added to the empiric antimicrobial regimen for patients with AML and prolonged or recurrent neutropenic fevers; no new cases were identified in the ensuing year. CONCLUSIONS: B cereus is ubiquitous in the hospital environment, at times leading to clusters with unrelated isolates. Fastidious infection control practices addressing a range of possible exposures are warranted, but their efficacy is unknown and they may not be sufficient to prevent all infections. Thus, including B cereus coverage in empiric regimens for patients with AML and persistent neutropenic fever may limit the morbidity of this pathogen. |
American College of Rheumatology Guidance for COVID-19 vaccination in patients with rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases: Version 5
Curtis JR , Johnson SR , Anthony DD , Arasaratnam RJ , Baden LR , Bass AR , Calabrese C , Gravallese EM , Harpaz R , Kroger A , Sadun RE , Turner AS , Williams EA , Mikuls TR . Arthritis Rheumatol 2023 75 (1) E1-e16 OBJECTIVE: To provide guidance to rheumatology providers on the use of COVID-19 vaccines for patients with rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases (RMDs). METHODS: A task force was assembled that included 9 rheumatologists/immunologists, 2 infectious diseases specialists, and 2 public health physicians. After agreeing on scoping questions, an evidence report was created that summarized the published literature and publicly available data regarding COVID-19 vaccine efficacy and safety, as well as literature for other vaccines in RMD patients. Task force members rated their agreement with draft consensus statements on a 9-point numerical scoring system, using a modified Delphi process and the RAND/University of California Los Angeles Appropriateness Method, with refinement and iteration over 2 sessions. Consensus was determined based on the distribution of ratings. RESULTS: Despite a paucity of direct evidence, statements were developed by the task force and agreed upon with consensus to provide guidance for use of the COVID-19 vaccines, including supplemental/booster dosing, in RMD patients and to offer recommendations regarding the use and timing of immunomodulatory therapies around the time of vaccination. CONCLUSION: These guidance statements are intended to provide direction to rheumatology health care providers on how to best use COVID-19 vaccines and to facilitate implementation of vaccination strategies for RMD patients. |
Reply.
Curtis JR , Johnson SR , Anthony DD , Arasaratnam RJ , Baden LR , Gravallese EM , Bass AR , Calabrese C , Harpaz R , Kroger A , Sadun RE , Turner AS , Williams EA , Mikuls TR . Arthritis Rheumatol 2021 73 (9) 1769-1770 We appreciate the comment by Dr. Mortezavi and colleagues describing COVID‐19 vaccine response and the frequency of disease worsening in patients receiving tofacitinib. The ACR COVID‐19 Vaccine Clinical Guidance Task Force was aware of the 2 studies cited and appreciate their summary of the results. We would point out that in the rheumatoid arthritis study by Winthrop et al (1), patients receiving tofacitinib in Study A had a lower likelihood of a satisfactory response to pneumococcal vaccination (45.1%) compared to placebo‐treated patients (68.4%), a difference of 23.3% (95% confidence interval [95% CI] −36.6, −9.6%). The differences were numerically even larger for patients receiving concomitant tofacitinib and methotrexate (31.6% of patients with a satisfactory response, difference of −30.2% [95% CI] −47.3, −11.4%) compared to methotrexate monotherapy. Our challenge was in considering the appropriateness of extrapolating results from vaccine studies of influenza, pneumococcal, and tetanus toxoid vaccines to make inferences regarding the anticipated response to vaccination against SARS–CoV‐2, a novel antigen to which most individuals have not previously been exposed. | | The Task Force recognized that infection rates, and perhaps response to vaccinations against those infections, might be heterogeneous according to pathogen. For example, JAK inhibitors approximately double the incidence of herpes zoster compared to biologics such as tumor necrosis factor inhibitors, yet they do not meaningfully increase rates of other infections (e.g., pneumonia) (1, 2, 3). We noted that in the Oral Strategy study, adalimumab‐treated patients receiving vaccination with the live herpes zoster vaccine had lower incidence rates of herpes zoster (0.0 per 100 patient‐years) compared to non‐vaccinated patients (incidence rate 2.1 per 100 patient‐years) (4). In contrast, and recognizing that numbers were small, tofacitinib‐treated patients had similar rates of herpes zoster regardless of vaccination (incidence rate 3.0 per 100 patient‐years in vaccinated versus 2.2 per 100 patient‐years in unvaccinated patients). | | We also appreciate the data provided by Dr. Mortezavi and colleagues regarding the rate of disease worsening in patients whose treatment with tofacitinib was briefly interrupted. At ~ 2 weeks, the mean worsening in the 4‐variable DAS28 of 0.7 units was of smaller magnitude than typically considered the minimum clinically important difference (MCID) for the DAS28 (i.e., >1.2 units) (5). The MCID for defining disease worsening using the CDAI in patients who had moderate disease activity at the start of treatment is undefined, although a 1‐unit change in each of the 4 CDAI components (tender joint count, swollen joint count, patient global, and physician global) is often considered to be the measurement error for each of these (6). Taken together, the mean amount of disease worsening associated with brief interruptions in therapy seems small and likely not of clinical importance for most patients, especially in light of the guidance recommending that JAK inhibitors be withheld for 1 week at the time of each vaccine administration, rather than for 2 consecutive weeks. | | Ultimately, we await prospective data regarding the influence of JAK inhibitors and other immunomodulatory therapies used at the time of COVID‐19 vaccination on immunogenicity and correlates of serologic protection. Since the ACR COVID‐19 Vaccine Guidance is a living document, our plan is to rapidly update it and incorporate new evidence as it accumulates. |
American College of Rheumatology Guidance for COVID-19 Vaccination in Patients With Rheumatic and Musculoskeletal Diseases: Version 3.
Curtis JR , Johnson SR , Anthony DD , Arasaratnam RJ , Baden LR , Bass AR , Calabrese C , Gravallese EM , Harpaz R , Kroger A , Sadun RE , Turner AS , Williams EA , Mikuls TR . Arthritis Rheumatol 2021 73 (10) e60-e75 OBJECTIVE: To provide guidance to rheumatology providers on the use of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccines for patients with rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases (RMDs). METHODS: A task force was assembled that included 9 rheumatologists/immunologists, 2 infectious disease specialists, and 2 public health physicians. After agreeing on scoping questions, an evidence report was created that summarized the published literature and publicly available data regarding COVID-19 vaccine efficacy and safety, as well as literature for other vaccines in RMD patients. Task force members rated their agreement with draft consensus statements on a 9-point numerical scoring system, using a modified Delphi process and the RAND/University of California Los Angeles Appropriateness Method, with refinement and iteration over 2 sessions. Consensus was determined based on the distribution of ratings. RESULTS: Despite a paucity of direct evidence, 74 draft guidance statements were developed by the task force and agreed upon with consensus to provide guidance for use of the COVID-19 vaccines in RMD patients and to offer recommendations regarding the use and timing of immunomodulatory therapies around the time of vaccination. CONCLUSION: These guidance statements, made in the context of limited clinical data, are intended to provide direction to rheumatology health care providers on how to best use COVID-19 vaccines and to facilitate implementation of vaccination strategies for RMD patients. |
American College of Rheumatology Guidance for COVID-19 Vaccination in Patients With Rheumatic and Musculoskeletal Diseases: Version 4.
Curtis JR , Johnson SR , Anthony DD , Arasaratnam RJ , Baden LR , Bass AR , Calabrese C , Gravallese EM , Harpaz R , Kroger A , Sadun RE , Turner AS , Williams EA , Mikuls TR . Arthritis Rheumatol 2022 74 (5) e21-e36 OBJECTIVE: To provide guidance to rheumatology providers on the use of COVID-19 vaccines for patients with rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases (RMDs). METHODS: A task force was assembled that included 9 rheumatologists/immunologists, 2 infectious disease specialists, and 2 public health physicians. After agreeing on scoping questions, an evidence report was created that summarized the published literature and publicly available data regarding COVID-19 vaccine efficacy and safety, as well as literature for other vaccines in RMD patients. Task force members rated their agreement with draft consensus statements on a 9-point numerical scoring system, using a modified Delphi process and the RAND/University of California Los Angeles Appropriateness Method, with refinement and iteration over 2 sessions. Consensus was determined based on the distribution of ratings. RESULTS: Despite a paucity of direct evidence, statements were developed by the task force and agreed upon with consensus to provide guidance for use of the COVID-19 vaccines, including supplemental/booster dosing, in RMD patients and to offer recommendations regarding the use and timing of immunomodulatory therapies around the time of vaccination. CONCLUSION: These guidance statements are intended to provide direction to rheumatology health care providers on how to best use COVID-19 vaccines and to facilitate implementation of vaccination strategies for RMD patients. |
American College of Rheumatology Guidance for COVID-19 Vaccination in Patients With Rheumatic and Musculoskeletal Diseases: Version 2.
Curtis JR , Johnson SR , Anthony DD , Arasaratnam RJ , Baden LR , Bass AR , Calabrese C , Gravallese EM , Harpaz R , Kroger A , Sadun RE , Turner AS , Williams EA , Mikuls TR . Arthritis Rheumatol 2021 73 (8) e30-e45 OBJECTIVE: To provide guidance to rheumatology providers on the use of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccines for patients with rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases (RMDs). METHODS: A task force was assembled that included 9 rheumatologists/immunologists, 2 infectious disease specialists, and 2 public health physicians. After agreeing on scoping questions, an evidence report was created that summarized the published literature and publicly available data regarding COVID-19 vaccine efficacy and safety, as well as literature for other vaccines in RMD patients. Task force members rated their agreement with draft consensus statements on a 9-point numerical scoring system, using a modified Delphi process and the RAND/University of California Los Angeles Appropriateness Method, with refinement and iteration over 2 sessions. Consensus was determined based on the distribution of ratings. RESULTS: Despite a paucity of direct evidence, 74 draft guidance statements were developed by the task force and agreed upon with consensus to provide guidance for use of the COVID-19 vaccines in RMD patients and to offer recommendations regarding the use and timing of immunomodulatory therapies around the time of vaccination. CONCLUSION: These guidance statements, made in the context of limited clinical data, are intended to provide direction to rheumatology health care providers on how to best use COVID-19 vaccines and to facilitate implementation of vaccination strategies for RMD patients. |
American College of Rheumatology Guidance for COVID-19 Vaccination in Patients with Rheumatic and Musculoskeletal Diseases - Version 1.
Curtis JR , Johnson SR , Anthony DD , Arasaratnam RJ , Baden LR , Bass AR , Calabrese C , Gravallese EM , Harpaz R , Kroger A , Sadun RE , Turner AS , Anderson Williams E , Mikuls TR . Arthritis Rheumatol 2021 73 (7) 1093-1107 OBJECTIVE: To provide guidance to rheumatology providers on the use of COVID-19 vaccines for patients with rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases (RMDs). METHODS: A task force was assembled that included 9 rheumatologists/immunologists, 2 infectious disease specialists, and 2 public health physicians. After agreeing on scoping questions, an evidence report was created that summarized the published literature and publicly available data regarding COVID-19 vaccine efficacy and safety, as well as literature for other vaccines in RMD patients. Task force members rated their agreement with draft consensus statements on a 1 to 9 point numerical rating scale using a modified Delphi process and the RAND/UCLA appropriateness method, with refinement and iteration over two sessions. Consensus was determined based on the distribution of ratings. RESULTS: Despite a paucity of direct evidence, seventy-four draft guidance statements were developed by the task force and agreed upon with consensus to provide guidance for use of the COVID-19 vaccines in RMD patients and to offer recommendations regarding the use and timing of immunomodulatory therapies around the time of vaccination. CONCLUSION: These guidance statements, made in the context of limited clinical data, are intended to provide direction to rheumatology healthcare providers on how to best use COVID-19 vaccines and to facilitate implementation of vaccination strategies for RMD patients. |
On the "take" as a biomarker
Baden LR , Damon IK . N Engl J Med 2019 381 (20) 1962-1963 Arguably the best biomarker in the world for vaccine efficacy is the “take.” The take, the reaction observed after an inoculation of smallpox vaccine, is typically a small pustular lesion that occurs approximately 1 week after inoculation and often leaves a poxlike scar at the vaccination site. This reaction allows health care personnel to know that a person is immune to variola and that the immunity is long-lasting. |
Ghana's HIV epidemic and PEPFAR's contribution towards epidemic control
Ali H , Amoyaw F , Baden D , Durand L , Bronson M , Kim A , Grant-Greene Y , Imtiaz R , Swaminathan M . Ghana Med J 2019 53 (1) 59-62 Background: The aim of this review was to summarize the data on HIV/AIDS epidemiology and affected populations in Ghana and to describe the United States President's Emergency Plan for Emergency Relief's (PEPFAR) response to the epidemic. Design: We conducted a literature review focusing on PEPFAR's contribution to the HIV response in Ghana. Additionally, we summarized the epidemiology of HIV. We searched both peer-reviewed and grey literature. Setting: Ghana. Results: Overall, HIV prevalence in Ghana is 1.6% with regional variation. Key populations (KPs) are disproportionately affected by HIV in the country. FSW and their clients, and MSM, account for 28% of all new infections. PEPFAR provides technical assistance (TA) to Ghana to maximize the quality, coverage and impact of the national HIV/AIDS response. To ensure adequate supply of antiretrovirals (ARVs), in 2016-2017, PEPFAR invested $23.7 million as a onetime supplemental funding to support Ghana's ARV treatment program. In addition, the National AIDS Control Programme in collaboration with PEPFAR is implementing a scale up of viral load testing. PEPFAR is also implementing a comprehensive package of prevention services in five regions to help reach MSM and FSW and to expand HIV testing services for KPs. Conclusions: Ghana is making changes at both policy and program level in the fight against HIV/AIDS and is working towards achieving the UNAIDS' 90-90-90 targets. PEPFAR is providing TA to ensure these goals can be achieved. Funding: This manuscript has been supported by the U.S. President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR) through the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). |
Risks associated with lentiviral vector exposures and prevention strategies
Schlimgen R , Howard J , Wooley D , Thompson M , Baden LR , Yang OO , Christiani DC , Mostoslavsky G , Diamond DV , Duane EG , Byers K , Winters T , Gelfand JA , Fujimoto G , Hudson TW , Vyas JM . J Occup Environ Med 2016 58 (12) 1159-1166 Lentiviral vectors (LVVs) are powerful genetic tools that are being used with greater frequency in biomedical laboratories and clinical trials. Adverse events reported from initial clinical studies provide a basis for risk assessment of occupational exposures, yet many questions remain about the potential harm that LVVs may cause. We review those risks and provide a framework for principal investigators, Institutional Biosafety Committees, and occupational health professionals to assess and communicate the risks of exposure to staff. We also provide recommendations to federal research and regulatory agencies for tracking LVV exposures to evaluate long-term outcomes. U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved antiviral drugs for HIV have theoretical benefits in LVV exposures, although evidence to support their use is currently limited. If treatment is appropriate, we recommend a 7-day treatment with an integrase inhibitor with or without a reverse transcriptase inhibitor within 72 hours of exposure. |
Randomized controlled field trial to assess the immunogenicity and safety of Rift Valley fever clone 13 vaccine in livestock
Njenga MK , Njagi L , Thumbi SM , Kahariri S , Githinji J , Omondi E , Baden A , Murithi M , Paweska J , Ithondeka PM , Ngeiywa KJ , Dungu B , Donadeu M , Munyua PM . PLoS Negl Trop Dis 2015 9 (3) e0003550 BACKGROUND: Although livestock vaccination is effective in preventing Rift Valley fever (RVF) epidemics, there are concerns about safety and effectiveness of the only commercially available RVF Smithburn vaccine. We conducted a randomized controlled field trial to evaluate the immunogenicity and safety of the new RVF Clone 13 vaccine, recently registered in South Africa. METHODS: In a blinded randomized controlled field trial, 404 animals (85 cattle, 168 sheep, and 151 goats) in three farms in Kenya were divided into three groups. Group A included males and non-pregnant females that were randomized and assigned to two groups; one vaccinated with RVF Clone 13 and the other given placebo. Groups B included animals in 1st half of pregnancy, and group C animals in 2nd half of pregnancy, which were also randomized and either vaccinated and given placebo. Animals were monitored for one year and virus antibodies titers assessed on days 14, 28, 56, 183 and 365. RESULTS: In vaccinated goats (N = 72), 72% developed anti-RVF virus IgM antibodies and 97% neutralizing IgG antibodies. In vaccinated sheep (N = 77), 84% developed IgM and 91% neutralizing IgG antibodies. Vaccinated cattle (N = 42) did not develop IgM antibodies but 67% developed neutralizing IgG antibodies. At day 14 post-vaccination, the odds of being seropositive for IgG in the vaccine group was 3.6 (95% CI, 1.5 - 9.2) in cattle, 90.0 (95% CI, 25.1 - 579.2) in goats, and 40.0 (95% CI, 16.5 - 110.5) in sheep. Abortion was observed in one vaccinated goat but histopathologic analysis did not indicate RVF virus infection. There was no evidence of teratogenicity in vaccinated or placebo animals. CONCLUSIONS: The results suggest RVF Clone 13 vaccine is safe to use and has high (>90%) immunogenicity in sheep and goats but moderate (> 65%) immunogenicity in cattle. |
Training public health advisors
Meyer PA , Brusuelas KM , Baden DJ , Duncan HL . J Public Health Manag Pract 2015 21 (6) E19-22 Federal public health advisors provide guidance and assistance to health departments to improve public health program work. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) prepares them with specialized training in administering public health programs. This article describes the evolving training and is based on internal CDC documents and interviews. The first federal public health advisors worked in health departments to assist with controlling syphilis after World War II. Over time, more CDC prevention programs hired them. To meet emerging needs, 3 major changes occurred: the Public Health Prevention Service, a fellowship program, in 1999; the Public Health Associate Program in 2007; and integration of those programs. Key components of the updated training are competency-based training, field experience, supervision, recruitment and retention, and stakeholder support. The enduring strength of the training has been the experience in a public health agency developing practical skills for program implementation and management. |
Personal exposure to aerosolized red tide toxins (brevetoxins)
Cheng YS , Zhou Y , Naar J , Irvin CM , Su WC , Fleming LE , Kirkpatrick B , Pierce RH , Backer LC , Baden DG . J Occup Environ Hyg 2010 7 (6) 326-31 Florida red tides occur annually in the Gulf of Mexico from blooms of the marine dinoflagellate, Karenia brevis, which produces highly potent natural polyether toxins, brevetoxins. Several epidemiologic studies have demonstrated that human exposure to red tide aerosol could result in increased respiratory symptoms. Environmental monitoring of aerosolized brevetoxins was performed using a high-volume sampler taken hourly at fixed locations on Siesta Beach, Florida. Personal exposure was monitored using personal air samplers and taking nasal swab samples from the subjects who were instructed to spend 1 hr on Sarasota Beach during two sampling periods of an active Florida red tide event in March 2005, and in May 2008 when there was no red tide. Results showed that the aerosolized brevetoxins from the personal sampler were in modest agreement with the environmental concentration taken from a high-volume sampler. Analysis of nasal swab samples for brevetoxins demonstrated 68% positive samples in the March 2005 sampling period when air concentrations of brevetoxins were between 50 to 120 ng/m(3) measured with the high-volume sampler. No swab samples showed detectable levels of brevetoxins in the May 2008 study, when all personal samples were below the limit of detection. However, there were no statistical correlations between the amounts of brevetoxins detected in the swab samples with either the environmental or personal concentration. Results showed that the personal sample might provide an estimate of individual exposure level. Nasal swab samples showed that brevetoxins indeed were inhaled and deposited in the nasal passage during the March 2005 red tide event. |
Exposure and effect assessment of aerosolized red tide toxins (brevetoxins) and asthma
Fleming LE , Bean JA , Kirkpatrick B , Cheng YS , Pierce R , Naar J , Nierenberg K , Backer LC , Wanner A , Reich A , Zhou Y , Watkins S , Henry M , Zaias J , Abraham WM , Benson J , Cassedy A , Hollenbeck J , Kirkpatrick G , Clarke T , Baden DG . Environ Health Perspect 2009 117 (7) 1095-100 BACKGROUND: In previous studies we demonstrated statistically significant changes in reported symptoms for lifeguards, general beach goers, and persons with asthma, as well as statistically significant changes in pulmonary function tests (PFTs) in asthmatics, after exposure to brevetoxins in Florida red tide (Karenia brevis bloom) aerosols. OBJECTIVES: In this study we explored the use of different methods of intensive ambient and personal air monitoring to characterize these exposures to predict self-reported health effects in our asthmatic study population. METHODS: We evaluated health effects in 87 subjects with asthma before and after 1 hr of exposure to Florida red tide aerosols and assessed for aerosolized brevetoxin exposure using personal and ambient samplers. RESULTS: After only 1 hr of exposure to Florida red tide aerosols containing brevetoxin concentrations > 57 ng/m(3), asthmatics had statistically significant increases in self-reported respiratory symptoms and total symptom scores. However, we did not see the expected corresponding changes in PFT results. Significant increases in self-reported symptoms were also observed for those not using asthma medication and those living ≥ 1 mile from the coast. CONCLUSIONS: These results provide additional evidence of health effects in asthmatics from ambient exposure to aerosols containing very low concentrations of brevetoxins, possibly at the lower threshold for inducing a biologic response (i.e., toxicity). Consistent with the literature describing self-reported symptoms as an accurate measure of asthmatic distress, our results suggest that self-reported symptoms are a valuable measure of the extent of health effects from exposure to aerosolized brevetoxins in asthmatic populations. |
- Page last reviewed:Feb 1, 2024
- Page last updated:May 20, 2024
- Content source:
- Powered by CDC PHGKB Infrastructure