Search

Background: Given the negative consequences associated with a penicillin allergy label, broader penicillin allergy delabeling initiatives are highly desirable but hindered by the shortage of allergists in the United States. To address this problem at our facility, the infectious diseases section introduced a quality improvement initiative to evaluate and remove allergy labels among inpatient veterans., Methods: Between 15 November 2022 and 15 December 2023, we identified inpatients with a penicillin allergy label. We subsequently interviewed eligible candidates to stratify penicillin allergy risk and attempt to remove the allergy label directly via chart review, following inpatient oral amoxicillin challenge or outpatient community care allergy referral. Delabeling outcomes, subsequent penicillin-class prescriptions, and relabeling were tracked after successful allergy label removal., Results: We screened 272 veterans, of whom 154 were interviewed for this intervention. A total of 53 patients were delabeled: 26 directly, 23 following oral amoxicillin challenge, and 4 following outpatient allergy referrals. Of the patients who were delabeled, 25 received subsequent penicillin-class prescriptions. No adverse reactions occurred following inpatient oral amoxicillin challenges. Patients with a low-risk penicillin allergy history were more likely to undergo a challenge if admitted with an infectious diseases-related condition. Only 1 inappropriate relabeling event occurred during the study period, which was subsequently corrected., Conclusions: An infectious diseases provider-led initiative resulted in penicillin allergy label removal in more than one third of inpatients evaluated using direct removal or oral amoxicillin challenge. Efforts focused on patients who had been admitted for infections were particularly successful., Competing Interests: Potential conflicts of interest. All authors report no conflicts of interest relevant to this article., (© The Author(s) 2024. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of Infectious Diseases Society of America.)

We retrospectively reviewed the records of 136 veterans with a penicillin allergy label during a quality improvement initiative. We identified 82 inpatients eligible for removal of penicillin allergy by oral amoxicillin challenge, including 40 out of 82 (48%) still eligible after accounting for other limiting factors., Competing Interests: All authors report no conflicts of interest relevant to this article., (© The Author(s) 2024.)

The presence of a penicillin allergy label in a patient's medical chart is associated with negative clinical and economic outcomes. Given that less than 10% of reported reactions are truly immunoglobulin E-mediated, removal of unverified penicillin allergy labels is a public health priority and an area of ongoing implementation research. The Veterans Health Administration (VHA) is the largest integrated healthcare system in the United States, with almost 9 million veterans currently enrolled. However, studies analyzing the impact of the penicillin allergy label in this population are limited to single facilities and largely focus on short-term outcomes of allergy documentation correction, usage of β-lactams, and avoidance of antibiotic-related side effects. Broader, national VHA studies focusing on health outcomes and costs are lacking. As with non-VHA facilities, penicillin allergy evaluations are limited owing to the absence of formal allergy/immunology services at most VHA facilities. Pharmacy-driven screening and referral for clinic-based penicillin skin testing is a promising and frequently discussed modality in the literature, but its scalability within the VHA is not yet proven. Broader, evidence-based strategies that can be adapted to the available resources of individual VHA facilities, including those without on-site access to allergy providers, are needed., Competing Interests: All authors report no conflicts of interest relevant to this article., (© The Author(s) 2023.)

Background: With the global continuation of the COVID-19 pandemic, the large-scale administration of a SARS-CoV-2 vaccine is crucial to achieve herd immunity and curtail further spread of the virus, but success is contingent on public understanding and vaccine uptake. We aim to understand public perception about vaccines for COVID-19 through the wide-scale, organic discussion on Twitter., Methods: This cross-sectional observational study included Twitter posts matching the search criteria (('covid*' OR 'coronavirus') AND 'vaccine') posted during vaccine development from February 1st through December 11th, 2020. These COVID-19 vaccine related posts were analyzed with topic modeling, sentiment and emotion analysis, and demographic inference of users to provide insight into the evolution of public attitudes throughout the study period., Findings: We evaluated 2,287,344 English tweets from 948,666 user accounts. Individuals represented 87.9 % (n = 834,224) of user accounts. Of individuals, men (n = 560,824) outnumbered women (n = 273,400) by 2:1 and 39.5 % (n = 329,776) of individuals were ≥40 years old. Daily mean sentiment fluctuated congruent with news events, but overall trended positively. Trust, anticipation, and fear were the three most predominant emotions; while fear was the most predominant emotion early in the study period, trust outpaced fear from April 2020 onward. Fear was more prevalent in tweets by individuals (26.3 % vs. organizations 19.4 %; p < 0.001), specifically among women (28.4 % vs. males 25.4 %; p < 0.001). Multiple topics had a monthly trend towards more positive sentiment. Tweets comparing COVID-19 to the influenza vaccine had strongly negative early sentiment but improved over time., Interpretation: This study successfully explores sentiment, emotion, topics, and user demographics to elucidate important trends in public perception about COVID-19 vaccines. While public perception trended positively over the study period, some trends, especially within certain topic and demographic clusters, are concerning for COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy. These insights can provide targets for educational interventions and opportunity for continued real-time monitoring., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest The authors declare the following financial interests/personal relationships which may be considered as potential competing interests: Christoph Lehmann reports a financial relationship with Celanese Corporation and Colfax Corp., (Copyright © 2023 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

An outpatient parenteral antimicrobial therapy team from a Veterans Affairs facility managed patients discharged from their own facility and neighboring community hospitals. There were no significant differences in adverse outcomes between the groups, but a majority of regimens were modified from those initially proposed by community providers., Competing Interests: All authors report no conflicts of interest. The contents do not represent the views of the Department of Veterans Affairs or the United States government., (© The Author(s) 2023.)

Background: Accurate and timely prescriptions of COVID-19 therapeutics, laboratory testing, and antimicrobial stewardship have been a challenge throughout the pandemic as new evidence emerges. While universal consultation with infectious disease specialists on patients admitted with COVID-19 is desirable, it is not always feasible due to limited resources., Observations: In this single-center study, we implemented a combined educational and laboratory stewardship intervention geared toward hospitalist practitioners resulting in improved accuracy of remdesivir and dexamethasone prescriptions, reduced laboratory use of blood cultures, interleukin 6 assay, and Legionella sputum cultures, and a decrease in antibiotic use for patients with mild-to-moderate oxygen requirements over 6 months. These improvements were seen in tandem with decreased reliance on infectious disease consultation., Conclusions: These efforts support proof of the principle of combined educational and laboratory stewardship interventions to improve the care of COVID-19 patients, especially where infectious disease consultation may not be available or is accessed remotely., (Copyright © 2023 Frontline Medical Communications Inc., Parsippany, NJ, USA.)

Objective: To provide evidence-based recommendations on the use of vaccinations in children and adults with rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases (RMDs)., Methods: This guideline follows American College of Rheumatology (ACR) policy guiding management of conflicts of interest and disclosures and the ACR guideline development process, which includes the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology. It also adheres to the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation (AGREE) criteria. A core leadership team consisting of adult and pediatric rheumatologists and a guideline methodologist drafted clinical population, intervention, comparator, outcomes (PICO) questions. A review team performed a systematic literature review for the PICO questions, graded the quality of evidence, and produced an evidence report. An expert Voting Panel reviewed the evidence and formulated recommendations. The panel included adult and pediatric rheumatology providers, infectious diseases specialists, and patient representatives. Consensus required ≥70% agreement on both the direction and strength of each recommendation., Results: This guideline includes expanded indications for some vaccines in patients with RMDs, as well as guidance on whether to hold immunosuppressive medications or delay vaccination to maximize vaccine immunogenicity and efficacy. Safe approaches to the use of live attenuated vaccines in patients taking immunosuppressive medications are also addressed. Most recommendations are conditional and had low quality of supporting evidence., Conclusion: Application of these recommendations should consider patients' individual risk for vaccine-preventable illness and for disease flares, particularly if immunosuppressive medications are held for vaccination. Shared decision-making with patients is encouraged in clinical settings., (© 2023 American College of Rheumatology.)

Allergists have been at the forefront of addressing the burden of unverified penicillin allergy labels. Coordinated national efforts with infectious diseases, antimicrobial stewardship experts, and pharmacy societies to advocate for formal evaluation of patient-reported penicillin allergy have resulted in improvements in delabeling efforts. Given the poorer health outcomes associated with the penicillin allergy label and the potential health benefits that can be gained with delabeling, improving access to penicillin allergy evaluation is of the utmost importance. Health disparities are widely recognized to impact all aspects of health care, and multilevel interventions at the patient, clinician, and systems level are required to ensure equitable care delivery. Structural racism underpins many social determinants of health and is a key driver of racial and ethnic health disparities. In this Rostrum, we use a conceptual framework from the 2015 National Academy of Medicine report Improving Diagnosis in Health Care to explore how inequities are related to the evaluation of penicillin allergy. We use the National Institute on Minority Health and Health Disparities Strategies to Advance Health Disparities to elucidate areas of important study. Building upon existing efforts to address disparities in Allergy/Immunology, we highlight the urgent importance of understanding and eliminating health disparities in penicillin allergy evaluation and delabeling., (Published by Elsevier Inc.)

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., (© 2022 American College of Rheumatology.)

Competing Interests: Author disclosures The authors report no actual or potential conflicts of interest or outside sources of funding with regard to this article.

Competing Interests: Potential conflicts of interest. The authors: No reported conflicts of interest. All authors have submitted the ICMJE Form for Disclosure of Potential Conflicts of Interest. Conflicts that the editors consider relevant to the content of the manuscript have been disclosed.

Experiments in animals have played an integral role in furthering basic understanding of the pathophysiology, host immune response, diagnosis, and treatment of infectious diseases. However, competing demands of modern-day clinical training and increasingly stringent requirements to perform animal research have reduced the exposure of infectious disease physicians to animal studies. For practitioners of infectious diseases and, especially, for contemporary trainees in infectious diseases, it is important to appreciate this historical body of work and its impact on current clinical practice. In this article, we provide an overview of some major contributions of animal studies to the field of infectious diseases. Areas covered include transmission of infection, elucidation of innate and adaptive host immune responses, testing of antimicrobials, pathogenesis and treatment of endocarditis, osteomyelitis, intra-abdominal and urinary tract infection, treatment of infection associated with a foreign body or in the presence of neutropenia, and toxin-mediated disease., (© The Author(s) 2021. Published by Oxford University Press for the Infectious Diseases Society of America. All rights reserved. For permissions, e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

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., (© 2022 American College of Rheumatology.)

Objective: Patients with rheumatic disease are at increased risk for herpes zoster infection. Because of limited safety data in this population and concerns over vaccine-precipitated flares, there are no guidelines for vaccination with the zoster vaccine recombinant, adjuvanted (ZRA). We evaluated self-reported adverse events (AEs) and disease activity after ZRA administration in adults with rheumatic disease., Methods: In this medical records review study at our large academic center, patients who had received at least 1 dose of ZRA from January 1, 2018 to March 11, 2020 were assessed. Self-reported AEs and disease activity were monitored 3 months after each ZRA administration. Measures of disease activity were reviewed 6 months before ZRA in those who received both doses, or 3 months before ZRA in those who received 1 dose., Results: We identified 65 patients, of whom 34 (52.3%) received both doses of ZRA. Four patients (6.2%) self-reported AEs after receiving ZRA, all of which were minor and systemic. Three patients (9.2%) developed a flare after receiving ZRA, compared with 8 (12.3%) who experienced a flare in the baseline period. There was no significant change in flare incidence or disease activity after vaccination. Subgroup analysis of those on biologic and nonbiologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs revealed no differences in frequency of postvaccination AEs, flares, or disease activity., Conclusions: In our cohort, disease activity seemed stable when comparing disease markers before and after ZRA administration. In addition, ZRA was well-tolerated with minor AEs. Further studies are needed to guide formal vaccination recommendations., Competing Interests: The authors declare no conflict of interest., (Copyright © 2021 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)

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., (© 2021, American College of Rheumatology.)

Objectives: The primary endpoint was to determine the sensitivity and specificity of the bronchoalveolar lavage Gram stain in predicting culture results. Secondary endpoints included determining the proportion of Gram stains from bronchoalveolar lavages that accurately identify culture isolates and the duration of antibiotic treatment before bronchoalveolar lavage collection., Design: Retrospective, observational study., Setting: Four ICUs at a single academic medical center., Subjects: Patients at least 18 years old admitted to an ICU with a diagnosis of pneumonia, collection of a bronchoalveolar lavage sample, and receipt of antibiotics., Measurements and Main Results: Two-hundred five isolates were included. Gram stains for Gram-positive and Gram-negative isolates showed high specificity, 97.3% and 100%, respectively, but lower sensitivity at 61.9% and 54.2%, respectively. The positive predictive value and negative predictive value were 77.2% and 95.7% for Gram-positive isolates and 100% and 84.4% for Gram-negative isolates, respectively. Gram stains correctly identified isolates on the bronchoalveolar lavage culture in 61.9% of Gram-positive organisms and in 54.2% of Gram-negative organisms., Conclusions: Gram stains accurately identified causative organisms in a limited number of patients making the utility of the Gram stain an uncertain modality for predicting causative respiratory pathogens from bronchoalveolar lavage samples., Competing Interests: The authors have disclosed that they do not have any conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2021 The Authors. Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. on behalf of the Society of Critical Care Medicine.)

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., (© 2021, American College of Rheumatology.)

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., (© 2021, American College of Rheumatology.)

Objective: To provide guidance to rheumatology providers on the management of adult rheumatic disease in the context of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic., Methods: A task force, including 10 rheumatologists and 4 infectious disease specialists from North America, was convened. Clinical questions were collated, and an evidence report was rapidly generated and disseminated. Questions and drafted statements were reviewed and assessed using a modified Delphi process. This included asynchronous anonymous voting by email and webinars with the entire panel. Task force members voted on agreement with draft statements using a 1-9-point numerical scoring system, and consensus was determined to be low, moderate, or high based on the dispersion of votes. For approval, median votes were required to meet predefined levels of agreement (median values of 7-9, 4-6, and 1-3 defined as agreement, uncertainty, or disagreement, respectively) with either moderate or high levels of consensus., Results: Draft guidance statements approved by the task force have been combined to form final guidance., Conclusion: These guidance statements are provided to promote optimal care during the current pandemic. However, given the low level of available evidence and the rapidly evolving literature, this guidance is presented as a "living document," and future updates are anticipated., (© 2020, American College of Rheumatology.)

Objective: To provide guidance to rheumatology providers on the management of adult rheumatic disease in the context of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic., Methods: A task force, including 10 rheumatologists and 4 infectious disease specialists from North America, was convened. Clinical questions were collated, and an evidence report was rapidly generated and disseminated. Questions and drafted statements were reviewed and assessed using a modified Delphi process. This included asynchronous anonymous voting by e-mail and webinars with the entire panel. Task force members voted on agreement with draft statements using a 1-9-point numerical scoring system, and consensus was determined to be low, moderate, or high based on the dispersion of votes. For approval, median votes were required to meet predefined levels of agreement (median values of 7-9, 4-6, and 1-3 defined as agreement, uncertainty, or disagreement, respectively) with either moderate or high levels of consensus., Results: To date, the task force has approved 80 guidance statements: 36 with moderate and 44 with high consensus. These were combined, resulting in 27 final guidance statements., Conclusion: These guidance statements are provided to promote optimal care during the current pandemic. However, given the low level of available evidence and the rapidly evolving literature, this guidance is presented as a "living document," and future updates are anticipated., (© 2020, American College of Rheumatology.)

Objective: To provide guidance to rheumatology providers on the management of adult rheumatic disease in the context of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic., Methods: A task force, including 10 rheumatologists and 4 infectious disease specialists from North America, was convened. Clinical questions were collated, and an evidence report was rapidly generated and disseminated. Questions and drafted statements were reviewed and assessed using a modified Delphi process. This included 2 rounds of asynchronous anonymous voting by e-mail and 3 webinars with the entire panel. Task force members voted on agreement with draft statements using a 1-9-point numerical scoring system, and consensus was determined to be low, moderate, or high based on the dispersion of votes. For approval, median votes were required to meet predefined levels of agreement (median values of 7-9, 4-6, and 1-3 defined as agreement, uncertainty, or disagreement, respectively) with either moderate or high levels of consensus., Results: The task force approved 77 initial guidance statements: 36 with moderate and 41 with high consensus. These were combined, resulting in 25 final guidance statements., Conclusion: These guidance statements are provided to promote optimal care during the current pandemic. However, given the low level of available evidence and the rapidly evolving literature, this guidance is presented as a "living document," and future updates are anticipated., (© 2020, American College of Rheumatology.)

Letermovir was approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in November 2017 for use in adult cytomegalovirus (CMV)-seropositive allogeneic stem cell transplant (SCT) recipients for primary prophylaxis of CMV infection and disease. We report off-label use of letermovir for secondary prophylaxis of genotype-confirmed ganciclovir-resistant cytomegalovirus (CMV) syndrome (UL 97 mutation [C603W]) in a heart transplant recipient initially treated with intravenous cidofovir followed by foscarnet, both discontinued due to unacceptable toxicities., (© 2018 John Wiley & Sons A/S. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Immunosuppression following solid organ transplantation (SOT) has a deleterious effect on cellular immunity leading to frequent and prolonged viral infections. To better understand the relationship between posttransplant immunosuppression and circulating virus-specific T cells, we prospectively monitored the frequency and function of T cells directed to a range of latent (CMV, EBV, HHV6, BK) and lytic (AdV) viruses in 16 children undergoing liver transplantation for up to 1 year posttransplant. Following transplant, there was an immediate decline in circulating virus-specific T cells, which recovered posttransplant, coincident with the introduction and subsequent routine tapering of immunosuppression. Furthermore, 12 of 14 infections/reactivations that occurred posttransplant were successfully controlled with immunosuppression reduction (and/or antiviral use) and in all cases we detected a temporal increase in the circulating frequency of virus-specific T cells directed against the infecting virus, which was absent in 2 cases where infections remained uncontrolled by the end of follow-up. Our study illustrates the dynamic changes in virus-specific T cells that occur in children following liver transplantation, driven both by active viral replication and modulation of immunosuppression., (© 2018 The American Society of Transplantation and the American Society of Transplant Surgeons.)

Parainfluenza virus type 3 (PIV3) infections are a major cause of morbidity and mortality in immunocompromised individuals, with no approved therapies. Our group has demonstrated the safety and efficacy of adoptively transferred virus-specific T cells for the prevention and treatment of a broad range of viral infections including BK virus, cytomegalovirus, adenovirus, human herpesvirus 6, and Epstein-Barr virus. However, this approach is restricted to well-characterized viruses with known immunogenic/protective T-cell target antigens, precluding extension to PIV3. We now characterize the cellular immune response to all 7 PIV3-encoded antigens in 17 healthy donors and define a hierarchy of immunogenicity based on the frequency of responding donors and the magnitude of specific cells. We show that reactive populations of both CD4+ and CD8+ T cells are capable of producing Th1-polarized effector cytokines and killing PIV3-expressing targets. Furthermore, we confirm the clinical relevance of these cells by demonstrating a direct correlation between the presence of PIV3-specific T cells and viral control in allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplant recipients. Taken together, our findings support the clinical use of PIV3-specific T cells produced with our Good Manufacturing Practice-compliant manufacturing process, in immunocompromised patients with uncontrolled infections., (© The Author 2017. Published by Oxford University Press for the Infectious Diseases Society of America. All rights reserved. For permissions, e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com.)