Faculty Bibliography

The Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA) has set clear priorities in recent years to promote inclusion, diversity, access, and equity (IDA&E) in infectious disease (ID) clinical practice, medical education, and research. The IDSA IDA&E Task Force was launched in 2018 to ensure implementation of these principles. The IDSA Training Program Directors Committee met in 2021 and discussed IDA&E best practices as they pertain to the education of ID fellows. Committee members sought to develop specific goals and strategies related to recruitment, clinical training, didactics, and faculty development. This article represents a presentation of ideas brought forth at the meeting in those spheres and is meant to serve as a reference document for ID training program directors seeking guidance in this area.

We report a case of Streptococcus mutans multivalvular infective endocarditis complicated by aortic root abscess and septic emboli in a 19-year-old male with a bicuspid aortic valve. This case illustrates the progression of untreated subacute bacterial endocarditis and highlights the importance of ongoing clinical suspicion for infective endocarditis in patients with underlying valvular defects.

BACKGROUND:Variation in clinicians' diagnostic test utilization is incompletely explained by demographics and likely relates to cognitive characteristics. We explored clinician factors associated with diagnostic test utilization METHODS: We used a self-administered survey of attitudes, cognitive characteristics, and reported likelihood of test ordering in common scenarios; frequency of lipid and liver testing in patients on statin therapy. Participants were 552 primary care physicians, nurse practitioners, and physician assistants from practices in 8 US states across 3 regions, from June 1, 2018 to November 26, 2019. We measured Testing Likelihood Score: the mean of 4 responses to testing frequency and self-reported testing frequency in patients on statins. RESULTS:Respondents were 52.4% residents, 36.6% attendings, and 11.0% nurse practitioners/physician assistants; most were white (53.6%) or Asian (25.5%). Median age was 32 years; 53.1% were female. Participants reported ordering tests for a median of 20% (stress tests) to 90% (mammograms) of patients; Testing Likelihood Scores varied widely (median 54%, interquartile range 43%-69%). Higher scores were associated with geography, training type, low numeracy, high malpractice fear, high medical maximizer score, high stress from uncertainty, high concern about bad outcomes, and low acknowledgment of medical uncertainty. More frequent testing of lipids and liver tests was associated with low numeracy, high medical maximizer score, high malpractice fear, and low acknowledgment of uncertainty. CONCLUSIONS:Clinician variation in testing was common, with more aggressive testing consistently associated with low numeracy, being a medical maximizer, and low acknowledgment of uncertainty. Efforts to reduce undue variations in testing should consider clinician cognitive drivers.

Background/UNASSIGNED:Patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU) have poor outcomes and frequently develop comorbid conditions, including cytomegalovirus (CMV) reactivation. The implications of CMV reactivation in this setting are unknown. We aimed to investigate if treatment of CMV viremia improved in-hospital mortality in ICU patients with COVID-19. Methods/UNASSIGNED:In this single-center retrospective study, we analyzed clinical outcomes in patients diagnosed with COVID-19 pneumonia and CMV viremia admitted to an ICU from March 1, 2020, to April 30, 2021, who either received treatment (ganciclovir and/or valganciclovir) or received no treatment. The primary outcome was all-cause in-hospital mortality. Secondary outcomes were total hospital length of stay (LOS), ICU LOS, requirement for extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) support, duration of mechanical ventilation (MV), and predictors of in-hospital mortality. Results/UNASSIGNED: = .749). There was no significant difference in hospital LOS, though CMV-treated patients had a longer ICU LOS. Conclusions/UNASSIGNED:Treatment of CMV viremia did not decrease in-hospital mortality in ICU patients with COVID-19, but the sample size was limited. CMV viremia was significantly associated with total steroid dose received and longer ICU stay.

Importance/UNASSIGNED:Knowing the expected effect of treatment on an individual patient is essential for patient care. Objective/UNASSIGNED:To explore clinicians' conceptualizations of the chance that treatments will decrease the risk of disease outcomes. Design, Setting, and Participants/UNASSIGNED:This survey study of attending and resident physicians, nurse practitioners, and physician assistants was conducted in outpatient clinical settings in 8 US states from June 2018 to November 2019. The survey was an in-person, paper, 26-item survey in which clinicians were asked to estimate the probability of adverse disease outcomes and expected effects of therapies for diseases common in primary care. Main Outcomes and Measures/UNASSIGNED:Estimated chance that treatments would benefit an individual patient. Results/UNASSIGNED:Of 723 clinicians, 585 (81%) responded, and 542 completed all the questions necessary for analysis, with a median (interquartile range [IQR]) age of 32 (29-44) years, 287 (53%) women, and 294 (54%) White participants. Clinicians consistently overestimated the chance that treatments would benefit an individual patient. The median (IQR) estimated chance that warfarin would prevent a stroke in the next year was 50% (5%-80%) compared with scientific evidence, which indicates an absolute risk reduction (ARR) of 0.2% to 1.0% based on a relative risk reduction (RRR) of 39% to 50%. The median (IQR) estimated chance that antihypertensive therapy would prevent a cardiovascular event within 5 years was 30% (10%-70%) vs evidence of an ARR of 0% to 3% based on an RRR of 0% to 28%. The median (IQR) estimated chance that bisphosphonate therapy would prevent a hip fracture in the next 5 years was 40% (10%-60%) vs evidence of ARR of 0.1% to 0.4% based on an RRR of 20% to 40%. The median (IQR) estimated chance that moderate-intensity statin therapy would prevent a cardiovascular event in the next 5 years was 20% (IQR 5%-50%) vs evidence of an ARR of 0.3% to 2% based on an RRR of 19% to 33%. Estimates of the chance that a treatment would prevent an adverse outcome exceeded estimates of the absolute chance of that outcome for 60% to 70% of clinicians. Clinicians whose overestimations were greater were more likely to report using that treatment for patients in their practice (eg, use of warfarin: correlation coefficient, 0.46; 95% CI, 0.40-0.53; P < .001). Conclusions and Relevance/UNASSIGNED:In this survey study, clinicians significantly overestimated the benefits of treatment to individual patients. Clinicians with greater overestimates were more likely to report using treatments in actual patients.

Importance/UNASSIGNED:Accurate diagnosis is essential to proper patient care. Objective/UNASSIGNED:To explore practitioner understanding of diagnostic reasoning. Design, Setting, and Participants/UNASSIGNED:In this survey study, 723 practitioners at outpatient clinics in 8 US states were asked to estimate the probability of disease for 4 scenarios common in primary care (pneumonia, cardiac ischemia, breast cancer screening, and urinary tract infection) and the association of positive and negative test results with disease probability from June 1, 2018, to November 26, 2019. Of these practitioners, 585 responded to the survey, and 553 answered all of the questions. An expert panel developed the survey and determined correct responses based on literature review. Results/UNASSIGNED:A total of 553 (290 resident physicians, 202 attending physicians, and 61 nurse practitioners and physician assistants) of 723 practitioners (76.5%) fully completed the survey (median age, 32 years; interquartile range, 29-44 years; 293 female [53.0%]; 296 [53.5%] White). Pretest probability was overestimated in all scenarios. Probabilities of disease after positive results were overestimated as follows: pneumonia after positive radiology results, 95% (evidence range, 46%-65%; comparison P < .001); breast cancer after positive mammography results, 50% (evidence range, 3%-9%; P < .001); cardiac ischemia after positive stress test result, 70% (evidence range, 2%-11%; P < .001); and urinary tract infection after positive urine culture result, 80% (evidence range, 0%-8.3%; P < .001). Overestimates of probability of disease with negative results were also observed as follows: pneumonia after negative radiography results, 50% (evidence range, 10%-19%; P < .001); breast cancer after negative mammography results, 5% (evidence range, <0.05%; P < .001); cardiac ischemia after negative stress test result, 5% (evidence range, 0.43%-2.5%; P < .001); and urinary tract infection after negative urine culture result, 5% (evidence range, 0%-0.11%; P < .001). Probability adjustments in response to test results varied from accurate to overestimates of risk by type of test (imputed median positive and negative likelihood ratios [LRs] for practitioners for chest radiography for pneumonia: positive LR, 4.8; evidence, 2.6; negative LR, 0.3; evidence, 0.3; mammography for breast cancer: positive LR, 44.3; evidence range, 13.0-33.0; negative LR, 1.0; evidence range, 0.05-0.24; exercise stress test for cardiac ischemia: positive LR, 21.0; evidence range, 2.0-2.7; negative LR, 0.6; evidence range, 0.5-0.6; urine culture for urinary tract infection: positive LR, 9.0; evidence, 9.0; negative LR, 0.1; evidence, 0.1). Conclusions and Relevance/UNASSIGNED:This survey study suggests that for common diseases and tests, practitioners overestimate the probability of disease before and after testing. Pretest probability was overestimated in all scenarios, whereas adjustment in probability after a positive or negative result varied by test. Widespread overestimates of the probability of disease likely contribute to overdiagnosis and overuse.

Background: SARS-CoV-2, the cause of COVID-19 pneumonia, is associated with heterogenous presentations ranging from asymptomatic infection to severe respiratory failure. We explored the association of SARS-CoV-2 genomic load as a risk factor for adverse patient outcomes.
Method(s): We included adult patients admitted to the hospital with clinical and radiographic findings of pneumonia and a confirmatory polymerase chain reaction (PCR) test of SARS-CoV-2 within 24 hours of admission. We segregated patients into 3 genomic load status groups: low (Cycle threshold (Ct) >=35) intermediate (25< Ct< 35) and high (Ct <=25) using real-time PCR. The primary outcome was a composite outcome of death, intubation and/or use of extracorporeal membrane oxygenation. Secondary outcomes included severity of pneumonia on admission, as measured by the Pneumonia Severity Index (PSI). Sensitivity analyses were performed to include Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome (ARDS) in the composite outcome and varying Ct classification breakpoints.
Result(s): Of 457 patients positive for SARS-CoV-2 assay from March 31st to April 10th 2020, 316 met inclusion criteria and were included in the final analysis. Included patients were followed for a median of 25 days (IQR 21-28). High genomic load at presentation was associated with higher Charlson Comorbidity Index scores (p=0.005), transplant recipient status (p< 0.001) and duration of illness less than 7 days (p=0.005). Importantly, patients with high genomic load were more likely to reach the primary endpoint (p=0.001), and had higher PSI scores on admission (p=0.03). In multivariate analysis, high genomic load remained an independent predictor of primary outcome. Results remained significant in sensitivity analyses.
Conclusion(s): High genomic load of SARS-CoV-2 in nasopharyngeal samples at the time of admission is independently associated with mortality and intubation. This finding should prompt further research on the role of viral load as a clinical predictor and possible modifiable risk factor for adverse outcomes as treatment strategies evolve in this global pandemic. (Table Presented)

Background: The Infectious Diseases Society of America has identified the potential use of SARS-CoV-2 genomic load for prognostication purposes as a key research question.
Method(s): We designed a retrospective cohort study that included adult patients with COVID-19 pneumonia who had at least 2 positive nasopharyngeal tests at least 24 hours apart to study the correlation between the change in the genomic load of SARS-CoV-2 in nasopharyngeal samples, as reflected by the Cycle threshold (Ct) value of the real-time Polymerase Chain Reaction (PCR) assay, with change in clinical status. The Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) score was used as a surrogate for patients' clinical status. A linear mixed-effects regression analysis was performed.
Result(s): Among 457 patients who presented to the emergency department between 3/31/2020- 4/10/2020, we identified 42 patients who met the inclusion criteria. The median initial SOFA score was 2 (IQR 2-3). 20 out of 42 patients had a lower SOFA score on their subsequent tests. We identified a statistically significant inverse correlation between the change in SOFA score and change in the Ct value with a decrease in SOFA score by 0.05 (SE 0.02; p < 0.05) for an increase in Ct values by 1. This correlation was independent of the duration of symptoms.
Conclusion(s): Our findings suggest that an increasing Ct value in sequential tests may be of prognostic value for patients diagnosed with COVID-19 pneumonia. Before repeat testing can be recommended routinely in clinical practice as a predictor of disease outcomes, prospective studies with a standardized interval between repeat tests should confirm our findings. (Table Presented)