The Journal of Family Practice

THE COMPARISON

Severe longstanding hidradenitis suppurativa (Hurley stage III) with architectural changes, ropy scarring, granulation tissue, and purulent discharge in the axilla of

A A 35-year-old Black man.

B A 42-year-old Hispanic woman with a light skin tone.

Hidradenitis suppurativa (HS) is a chronic inflammatory condition of the follicular epithelium that most commonly is found in the axillae and buttocks, as well as the inguinal, perianal, and submammary areas. It is characterized by firm and tender chronic nodules, abscesses complicated by sinus tracts, fistulae, and scarring thought to be related to follicular occlusion. Double-open comedones also may be seen.

The Hurley staging system is widely used to characterize the extent of disease in patients with HS:

• Stage I (mild): nodule(s) and abscess(es) without sinus tracts (tunnels) or scarring;
• Stage II (moderate): recurrent nodule(s) and abscess(es) with a limited number of sinus tracts and/or scarring; and
• Stage III (severe): multiple or extensive sinus tracts, abscesses, and/or scarring across the entire area.

Epidemiology

HS is most common in adults and African American patients. It has a prevalence of 1.3% in African Americans.¹ When it occurs in children, it generally develops after the onset of puberty. The incidence is higher in females as well as individuals with a history of smoking and obesity (a higher body mass index).^2-5

Key clinical features in people with darker skin tones

The erythema associated with HS may be difficult to see in darker skin tones, but violaceous, dark brown, and gray lesions may be present. When active HS lesions subside, intense hyperpigmentation may be left behind, and in some skin tones a pink or violaceous lesion may be apparent.

Worth noting

HS is disfiguring and has a negative impact on quality of life, including social relationships. Mental health support and screening tools are useful. Pain also is a common concern and may warrant referral to a pain specialist.⁶ In early disease, HS lesions can be misdiagnosed as an infection that recurs in the same location.

Treatments for HS include oral antibiotics (ie, tetracyclines, rifampin, clindamycin), topical antibiotics, immunosuppressing biologics, metformin, and spironolactone.⁷ Surgical interventions may be considered earlier in HS management and vary based on the location and severity of the lesions.⁸

Patients with HS are at risk for developing squamous cell carcinoma in scars, even many years later⁹; therefore, patients should perform skin checks and be referred to a dermatologist. Squamous cell carcinoma is most commonly found on the buttocks of men with HS and has a poor prognosis.

Health disparity highlight

Although those of African American and African descent have the highest rates of HS,¹ the clinical trials for adalimumab (the only biologic approved for HS) enrolled a low number of Black patients.

Thirty HS comorbidities have been identified. Garg et al¹⁰ recommended that dermatologists perform examinations for comorbid conditions involving the skin and conduct a simple review of systems for extracutaneous comorbidities. Access to medical care is essential, and health care system barriers affect the ability of some patients to receive adequate continuity of care.

The diagnosis of HS often is delayed due to a lack of knowledge about the condition in the medical community at large and delayed presentation to a dermatologist.

THE COMPARISON

Severe longstanding hidradenitis suppurativa (Hurley stage III) with architectural changes, ropy scarring, granulation tissue, and purulent discharge in the axilla of

A A 35-year-old Black man.

B A 42-year-old Hispanic woman with a light skin tone.

Hidradenitis suppurativa (HS) is a chronic inflammatory condition of the follicular epithelium that most commonly is found in the axillae and buttocks, as well as the inguinal, perianal, and submammary areas. It is characterized by firm and tender chronic nodules, abscesses complicated by sinus tracts, fistulae, and scarring thought to be related to follicular occlusion. Double-open comedones also may be seen.

The Hurley staging system is widely used to characterize the extent of disease in patients with HS:

• Stage I (mild): nodule(s) and abscess(es) without sinus tracts (tunnels) or scarring;
• Stage II (moderate): recurrent nodule(s) and abscess(es) with a limited number of sinus tracts and/or scarring; and
• Stage III (severe): multiple or extensive sinus tracts, abscesses, and/or scarring across the entire area.

Epidemiology

HS is most common in adults and African American patients. It has a prevalence of 1.3% in African Americans.¹ When it occurs in children, it generally develops after the onset of puberty. The incidence is higher in females as well as individuals with a history of smoking and obesity (a higher body mass index).^2-5

Key clinical features in people with darker skin tones

The erythema associated with HS may be difficult to see in darker skin tones, but violaceous, dark brown, and gray lesions may be present. When active HS lesions subside, intense hyperpigmentation may be left behind, and in some skin tones a pink or violaceous lesion may be apparent.

Worth noting

HS is disfiguring and has a negative impact on quality of life, including social relationships. Mental health support and screening tools are useful. Pain also is a common concern and may warrant referral to a pain specialist.⁶ In early disease, HS lesions can be misdiagnosed as an infection that recurs in the same location.

Treatments for HS include oral antibiotics (ie, tetracyclines, rifampin, clindamycin), topical antibiotics, immunosuppressing biologics, metformin, and spironolactone.⁷ Surgical interventions may be considered earlier in HS management and vary based on the location and severity of the lesions.⁸

Patients with HS are at risk for developing squamous cell carcinoma in scars, even many years later⁹; therefore, patients should perform skin checks and be referred to a dermatologist. Squamous cell carcinoma is most commonly found on the buttocks of men with HS and has a poor prognosis.

Health disparity highlight

Although those of African American and African descent have the highest rates of HS,¹ the clinical trials for adalimumab (the only biologic approved for HS) enrolled a low number of Black patients.

Thirty HS comorbidities have been identified. Garg et al¹⁰ recommended that dermatologists perform examinations for comorbid conditions involving the skin and conduct a simple review of systems for extracutaneous comorbidities. Access to medical care is essential, and health care system barriers affect the ability of some patients to receive adequate continuity of care.

The diagnosis of HS often is delayed due to a lack of knowledge about the condition in the medical community at large and delayed presentation to a dermatologist.

THE COMPARISON

Severe longstanding hidradenitis suppurativa (Hurley stage III) with architectural changes, ropy scarring, granulation tissue, and purulent discharge in the axilla of

A A 35-year-old Black man.

B A 42-year-old Hispanic woman with a light skin tone.

Hidradenitis suppurativa (HS) is a chronic inflammatory condition of the follicular epithelium that most commonly is found in the axillae and buttocks, as well as the inguinal, perianal, and submammary areas. It is characterized by firm and tender chronic nodules, abscesses complicated by sinus tracts, fistulae, and scarring thought to be related to follicular occlusion. Double-open comedones also may be seen.

The Hurley staging system is widely used to characterize the extent of disease in patients with HS:

• Stage I (mild): nodule(s) and abscess(es) without sinus tracts (tunnels) or scarring;
• Stage II (moderate): recurrent nodule(s) and abscess(es) with a limited number of sinus tracts and/or scarring; and
• Stage III (severe): multiple or extensive sinus tracts, abscesses, and/or scarring across the entire area.

Epidemiology

HS is most common in adults and African American patients. It has a prevalence of 1.3% in African Americans.¹ When it occurs in children, it generally develops after the onset of puberty. The incidence is higher in females as well as individuals with a history of smoking and obesity (a higher body mass index).^2-5

Key clinical features in people with darker skin tones

The erythema associated with HS may be difficult to see in darker skin tones, but violaceous, dark brown, and gray lesions may be present. When active HS lesions subside, intense hyperpigmentation may be left behind, and in some skin tones a pink or violaceous lesion may be apparent.

Worth noting

HS is disfiguring and has a negative impact on quality of life, including social relationships. Mental health support and screening tools are useful. Pain also is a common concern and may warrant referral to a pain specialist.⁶ In early disease, HS lesions can be misdiagnosed as an infection that recurs in the same location.

Treatments for HS include oral antibiotics (ie, tetracyclines, rifampin, clindamycin), topical antibiotics, immunosuppressing biologics, metformin, and spironolactone.⁷ Surgical interventions may be considered earlier in HS management and vary based on the location and severity of the lesions.⁸

Patients with HS are at risk for developing squamous cell carcinoma in scars, even many years later⁹; therefore, patients should perform skin checks and be referred to a dermatologist. Squamous cell carcinoma is most commonly found on the buttocks of men with HS and has a poor prognosis.

Health disparity highlight

Although those of African American and African descent have the highest rates of HS,¹ the clinical trials for adalimumab (the only biologic approved for HS) enrolled a low number of Black patients.

Thirty HS comorbidities have been identified. Garg et al¹⁰ recommended that dermatologists perform examinations for comorbid conditions involving the skin and conduct a simple review of systems for extracutaneous comorbidities. Access to medical care is essential, and health care system barriers affect the ability of some patients to receive adequate continuity of care.

The diagnosis of HS often is delayed due to a lack of knowledge about the condition in the medical community at large and delayed presentation to a dermatologist.

This patient was given a diagnosis of confluent and reticulated papillomatosis (CRP) based on the clinical presentation.

CRP is characterized by centrally confluent and peripherally reticulated scaly brown plaques and papules that are cosmetically disfiguring.¹ CRP is usually asymptomatic and primarily impacts young adults—especially teenagers.^2,3 It affects both males and females and commonly occurs on the trunk.^1-3 CRP is believed to be a disorder of keratinization. Malassezia furfur may induce CRP’s hyperproliferative epidermal changes, but systemic treatment that eliminates this organism does not clear CRP.³

A CRP diagnosis is made based on clinical presentation. The eruption usually begins as verrucous papules in the inframammary or epigastric region that enlarge to 4 to 5 mm in diameter and coalesce to form a confluent plaque with a peripheral reticulated pattern. CRP can extend over the back, chest, and abdomen to the neck, shoulders, and gluteal cleft. CRP does not affect the oral mucosa, and rarely involves flexural areas, which differentiates it from the similar looking acanthosis nigricans.² Although most cases are asymptomatic, mild pruritus may occur.^1,2

A skin biopsy is rarely necessary for making a CRP diagnosis, but histopathologic findings include papillomatosis, hyperkeratosis, variable acanthosis, follicular plugging, and sparse dermal inflammation.^1,3

Systemic antibiotics, most commonly minocycline 100 mg bid for 30 days or doxycycline 100 mg bid for 30 days, are safe and effective for CRP.^1,4 Sometimes treatment is extended for as long as 6 months. Although CRP usually responds to minocycline or doxycycline, it is believed that this is the result of these drugs’ anti-inflammatory—rather than antibiotic—properties.^1,2,4 Azithromycin is an effective alternative therapy.^2,4 There is a high rate of recurrence of CRP in patients after systemic antibiotics are discontinued.² Uniform responses to treatment and retreatment of flares have solidified the belief that antibiotics are an effective suppressive (if not curative) therapy despite a lack of randomized controlled trials.⁴

This patient was treated with minocycline 100 mg bid. After 1 month, the rash had improved by 70%. At 3 months, it was completely clear, and treatment was discontinued.

‌

This case was adapted from: Sessums MT, Ward KMH, Brodell R. Cutaneous eruption on chest and back. J Fam Pract. 2014;63:467-468.

This patient was given a diagnosis of confluent and reticulated papillomatosis (CRP) based on the clinical presentation.

CRP is characterized by centrally confluent and peripherally reticulated scaly brown plaques and papules that are cosmetically disfiguring.¹ CRP is usually asymptomatic and primarily impacts young adults—especially teenagers.^2,3 It affects both males and females and commonly occurs on the trunk.^1-3 CRP is believed to be a disorder of keratinization. Malassezia furfur may induce CRP’s hyperproliferative epidermal changes, but systemic treatment that eliminates this organism does not clear CRP.³

A CRP diagnosis is made based on clinical presentation. The eruption usually begins as verrucous papules in the inframammary or epigastric region that enlarge to 4 to 5 mm in diameter and coalesce to form a confluent plaque with a peripheral reticulated pattern. CRP can extend over the back, chest, and abdomen to the neck, shoulders, and gluteal cleft. CRP does not affect the oral mucosa, and rarely involves flexural areas, which differentiates it from the similar looking acanthosis nigricans.² Although most cases are asymptomatic, mild pruritus may occur.^1,2

A skin biopsy is rarely necessary for making a CRP diagnosis, but histopathologic findings include papillomatosis, hyperkeratosis, variable acanthosis, follicular plugging, and sparse dermal inflammation.^1,3

Systemic antibiotics, most commonly minocycline 100 mg bid for 30 days or doxycycline 100 mg bid for 30 days, are safe and effective for CRP.^1,4 Sometimes treatment is extended for as long as 6 months. Although CRP usually responds to minocycline or doxycycline, it is believed that this is the result of these drugs’ anti-inflammatory—rather than antibiotic—properties.^1,2,4 Azithromycin is an effective alternative therapy.^2,4 There is a high rate of recurrence of CRP in patients after systemic antibiotics are discontinued.² Uniform responses to treatment and retreatment of flares have solidified the belief that antibiotics are an effective suppressive (if not curative) therapy despite a lack of randomized controlled trials.⁴

This patient was treated with minocycline 100 mg bid. After 1 month, the rash had improved by 70%. At 3 months, it was completely clear, and treatment was discontinued.

‌

This case was adapted from: Sessums MT, Ward KMH, Brodell R. Cutaneous eruption on chest and back. J Fam Pract. 2014;63:467-468.

This patient was given a diagnosis of confluent and reticulated papillomatosis (CRP) based on the clinical presentation.

CRP is characterized by centrally confluent and peripherally reticulated scaly brown plaques and papules that are cosmetically disfiguring.¹ CRP is usually asymptomatic and primarily impacts young adults—especially teenagers.^2,3 It affects both males and females and commonly occurs on the trunk.^1-3 CRP is believed to be a disorder of keratinization. Malassezia furfur may induce CRP’s hyperproliferative epidermal changes, but systemic treatment that eliminates this organism does not clear CRP.³

A CRP diagnosis is made based on clinical presentation. The eruption usually begins as verrucous papules in the inframammary or epigastric region that enlarge to 4 to 5 mm in diameter and coalesce to form a confluent plaque with a peripheral reticulated pattern. CRP can extend over the back, chest, and abdomen to the neck, shoulders, and gluteal cleft. CRP does not affect the oral mucosa, and rarely involves flexural areas, which differentiates it from the similar looking acanthosis nigricans.² Although most cases are asymptomatic, mild pruritus may occur.^1,2

A skin biopsy is rarely necessary for making a CRP diagnosis, but histopathologic findings include papillomatosis, hyperkeratosis, variable acanthosis, follicular plugging, and sparse dermal inflammation.^1,3

Systemic antibiotics, most commonly minocycline 100 mg bid for 30 days or doxycycline 100 mg bid for 30 days, are safe and effective for CRP.^1,4 Sometimes treatment is extended for as long as 6 months. Although CRP usually responds to minocycline or doxycycline, it is believed that this is the result of these drugs’ anti-inflammatory—rather than antibiotic—properties.^1,2,4 Azithromycin is an effective alternative therapy.^2,4 There is a high rate of recurrence of CRP in patients after systemic antibiotics are discontinued.² Uniform responses to treatment and retreatment of flares have solidified the belief that antibiotics are an effective suppressive (if not curative) therapy despite a lack of randomized controlled trials.⁴

This patient was treated with minocycline 100 mg bid. After 1 month, the rash had improved by 70%. At 3 months, it was completely clear, and treatment was discontinued.

‌

This case was adapted from: Sessums MT, Ward KMH, Brodell R. Cutaneous eruption on chest and back. J Fam Pract. 2014;63:467-468.

EVIDENCE SUMMARY

Race, gender, and other factors are associated with lack of HCV Tx

A retrospective study (N = 894) assessed factors associated with direct-acting antiviral (DAA) initiation.¹ Patients who were HCV+ with at least 1 clinical visit during the study period completed a survey of psychological, behavioral, and social life assessments. The final cohort (57% male; 64% ≥ 61 years old) was divided into patients who initiated DAA treatment (n = 690) and those who did not (n = 204).

In an adjusted multivariable analysis, factors associated with lower odds of DAA initiation included Black race (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] = 0.59 vs White race; 95% CI, 0.36-0.98); perceived difficulty accessing medical care (aOR = 0.48 vs no difficulty; 95% CI, 0.27-0.83); recent intravenous (IV) drug use (aOR = 0.11 vs no use; 95% CI, 0.02-0.54); alcohol use disorder (AUD; aOR = 0.58 vs no AUD; 95% CI, 0.38-0.90); severe depression (aOR = 0.42 vs no depression; 95% CI, 0.2-0.9); recent homelessness (aOR = 0.36 vs no homelessness; 95% CI, 0.14-0.94); and recent incarceration (aOR = 0.34 vs no incarceration; 95% CI, 0.12-0.94).¹

A multicenter, observational prospective cohort study (N = 3075) evaluated receipt of HCV treatment for patients co-infected with HCV and HIV.² The primary outcome was initiation of HCV treatment with DAAs; 1957 patients initiated therapy, while 1118 did not. Significant independent risk factors for noninitiation of treatment included age younger than 50 years, a history of IV drug use, and use of opioid substitution therapy (OST). Other factors included psychiatric comorbidity (odds ratio [OR] = 0.45; 95% CI, 0.27-0.75), incarceration (OR = 0.6; 95% CI, 0.43-0.87), and female gender (OR = 0.80; 95% CI, 0.66-0.98). In a multivariate analysis limited to those with a history of IV drug use, both use of OST (aOR = 0.55; 95% CI, 0.40-0.75) and recent IV drug use (aOR = 0.019; 95% CI, 0.004-0.087) were identified as factors with low odds of treatment implementation.²

A retrospective cohort study (N = 1024) of medical charts examined the barriers to treatment in adults with chronic HCV infection.³ Of the patient population, 208 were treated and 816 were untreated. Patients not receiving DAAs were associated with poor adherence to/loss to follow-up (n = 548; OR = 36.6; 95% CI, 19.6-68.4); significant psychiatric illness (n = 103; OR = 2.02; 95% CI, 1.13-3.71); and coinfection with HIV (n = 188; OR = 4.5; 95% CI, 2.5-8.2).³

A German multicenter retrospective case-control study (N = 793) identified factors in patient and physician decisions to initiate treatment for HCV.⁴ Patients were ≥ 18 years old, confirmed to be HCV+, and had visited their physician at least 1 time during the observation period. A total of 573 patients received treatment and 220 did not. Patients and clinicians of those who chose not to receive treatment completed a survey that collected reasons for not treating. The most prevalent reason for not initiating treatment was patient wish (42%). This was further delineated to reveal that 17.3% attributed their decision to fear of treatment and 13.2% to fear of adverse events. Other factors associated with nontreatment included IV drug use (aOR = 0.31; 95% CI, 0.16-0.62); HIV coinfection (aOR = 0.19; 95% CI, 0.09-0.40); and use of OST (aOR = 0.37; 95% CI, 0.21-0.68). Patient demographics associated with wish not to be treated included older age (20.2% of those ≥ 40 years old vs 6.4% of those < 40 years old; P = .03) and female gender (51.0% of females vs 35.2% of males; P = .019).⁴

An analysis of a French insurance database (N = 22,545) evaluated the incidence of HCV treatment with DAAs in patients who inject drugs (PWID) with a diagnosis of alcohol use disorder (AUD).⁵ All participants (78% male; median age, 49 years) were chronically HCV-infected and covered by national health insurance. Individuals were grouped by AUD status: untreated (n = 5176), treated (n = 3020), and no AUD (n = 14349). After multivariate adjustment, those with untreated AUD had lower uptake of DAAs than those who did not have AUD (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] = 0.86; 95% CI, 0.78-0.94) and those with treated AUD (aHR = 0.83; 95% CI, 0.74-0.94). There were no differences between those with treated AUD and those who did not have AUD. Other factors associated with lower DAA uptake were access to care (aHR = 0.90; 95% CI, 0.83-0.98) and female gender (aHR = 0.83; 95% CI, 0.76-0.9).⁵

A 2017 retrospective cohort study evaluated predictors and barriers to follow-up and treatment with DAAs among veterans who were HCV+.⁶ Patients (94% > 50 years old; 97% male; 48% white) had established HCV care within the US Department of Veterans Affairs system. Of those who followed up with at least 1 visit to an HCV specialty clinic (n = 47,165), 29% received DAAs. Factors associated with lack of treatment included race (Black vs White: OR = 0.77; 95% CI, 0.72-0.82; Hispanic vs White: OR = 0.88; 95% CI, 0.79-0.97); IV drug use (OR = 0.84; 95% CI, 0.80-0.88); AUD (OR = 0.73; 95% CI, 0.70-0.77); medical comorbidities (OR = 0.71; 95% CI, 0.66-0.77); and hepatocellular carcinoma (OR = 0.73; 95% CI, 0.65-0.83).⁶

Continue to: Providers identify similar barriers to treatment of HCV

Providers identify similar barriers to treatment of HCV

A 2017 prospective qualitative study (N = 24) from a Veterans Affairs health care system analyzed provider-perceived barriers to initiation of and adherence to HCV treatment.⁷ The analysis focused on differences by provider specialty. Primary care providers (PCPs; n = 12; 17% with > 40 patients with HCV) and hepatology providers (HPs; n = 12; 83% with > 40 patients with HCV) participated in a semi-structured telephone-based interview, providing their perceptions of patient-level barriers to HCV treatment. Eight patient-­level barrier themes were identified; these are outlined in the TABLE⁷ along with data for both PCPs and HPs.

Editor’s takeaway

These 7 cohort studies show us the factors we consider and the reasons we give to not initiate HCV treatment. Some of the factors seem reasonable, but many do not. We might use this list to remind and challenge ourselves to work through barriers to provide the best possible treatment.

EVIDENCE SUMMARY

Race, gender, and other factors are associated with lack of HCV Tx

A retrospective study (N = 894) assessed factors associated with direct-acting antiviral (DAA) initiation.¹ Patients who were HCV+ with at least 1 clinical visit during the study period completed a survey of psychological, behavioral, and social life assessments. The final cohort (57% male; 64% ≥ 61 years old) was divided into patients who initiated DAA treatment (n = 690) and those who did not (n = 204).

In an adjusted multivariable analysis, factors associated with lower odds of DAA initiation included Black race (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] = 0.59 vs White race; 95% CI, 0.36-0.98); perceived difficulty accessing medical care (aOR = 0.48 vs no difficulty; 95% CI, 0.27-0.83); recent intravenous (IV) drug use (aOR = 0.11 vs no use; 95% CI, 0.02-0.54); alcohol use disorder (AUD; aOR = 0.58 vs no AUD; 95% CI, 0.38-0.90); severe depression (aOR = 0.42 vs no depression; 95% CI, 0.2-0.9); recent homelessness (aOR = 0.36 vs no homelessness; 95% CI, 0.14-0.94); and recent incarceration (aOR = 0.34 vs no incarceration; 95% CI, 0.12-0.94).¹

A multicenter, observational prospective cohort study (N = 3075) evaluated receipt of HCV treatment for patients co-infected with HCV and HIV.² The primary outcome was initiation of HCV treatment with DAAs; 1957 patients initiated therapy, while 1118 did not. Significant independent risk factors for noninitiation of treatment included age younger than 50 years, a history of IV drug use, and use of opioid substitution therapy (OST). Other factors included psychiatric comorbidity (odds ratio [OR] = 0.45; 95% CI, 0.27-0.75), incarceration (OR = 0.6; 95% CI, 0.43-0.87), and female gender (OR = 0.80; 95% CI, 0.66-0.98). In a multivariate analysis limited to those with a history of IV drug use, both use of OST (aOR = 0.55; 95% CI, 0.40-0.75) and recent IV drug use (aOR = 0.019; 95% CI, 0.004-0.087) were identified as factors with low odds of treatment implementation.²

A retrospective cohort study (N = 1024) of medical charts examined the barriers to treatment in adults with chronic HCV infection.³ Of the patient population, 208 were treated and 816 were untreated. Patients not receiving DAAs were associated with poor adherence to/loss to follow-up (n = 548; OR = 36.6; 95% CI, 19.6-68.4); significant psychiatric illness (n = 103; OR = 2.02; 95% CI, 1.13-3.71); and coinfection with HIV (n = 188; OR = 4.5; 95% CI, 2.5-8.2).³

A German multicenter retrospective case-control study (N = 793) identified factors in patient and physician decisions to initiate treatment for HCV.⁴ Patients were ≥ 18 years old, confirmed to be HCV+, and had visited their physician at least 1 time during the observation period. A total of 573 patients received treatment and 220 did not. Patients and clinicians of those who chose not to receive treatment completed a survey that collected reasons for not treating. The most prevalent reason for not initiating treatment was patient wish (42%). This was further delineated to reveal that 17.3% attributed their decision to fear of treatment and 13.2% to fear of adverse events. Other factors associated with nontreatment included IV drug use (aOR = 0.31; 95% CI, 0.16-0.62); HIV coinfection (aOR = 0.19; 95% CI, 0.09-0.40); and use of OST (aOR = 0.37; 95% CI, 0.21-0.68). Patient demographics associated with wish not to be treated included older age (20.2% of those ≥ 40 years old vs 6.4% of those < 40 years old; P = .03) and female gender (51.0% of females vs 35.2% of males; P = .019).⁴

An analysis of a French insurance database (N = 22,545) evaluated the incidence of HCV treatment with DAAs in patients who inject drugs (PWID) with a diagnosis of alcohol use disorder (AUD).⁵ All participants (78% male; median age, 49 years) were chronically HCV-infected and covered by national health insurance. Individuals were grouped by AUD status: untreated (n = 5176), treated (n = 3020), and no AUD (n = 14349). After multivariate adjustment, those with untreated AUD had lower uptake of DAAs than those who did not have AUD (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] = 0.86; 95% CI, 0.78-0.94) and those with treated AUD (aHR = 0.83; 95% CI, 0.74-0.94). There were no differences between those with treated AUD and those who did not have AUD. Other factors associated with lower DAA uptake were access to care (aHR = 0.90; 95% CI, 0.83-0.98) and female gender (aHR = 0.83; 95% CI, 0.76-0.9).⁵

A 2017 retrospective cohort study evaluated predictors and barriers to follow-up and treatment with DAAs among veterans who were HCV+.⁶ Patients (94% > 50 years old; 97% male; 48% white) had established HCV care within the US Department of Veterans Affairs system. Of those who followed up with at least 1 visit to an HCV specialty clinic (n = 47,165), 29% received DAAs. Factors associated with lack of treatment included race (Black vs White: OR = 0.77; 95% CI, 0.72-0.82; Hispanic vs White: OR = 0.88; 95% CI, 0.79-0.97); IV drug use (OR = 0.84; 95% CI, 0.80-0.88); AUD (OR = 0.73; 95% CI, 0.70-0.77); medical comorbidities (OR = 0.71; 95% CI, 0.66-0.77); and hepatocellular carcinoma (OR = 0.73; 95% CI, 0.65-0.83).⁶

Continue to: Providers identify similar barriers to treatment of HCV

Providers identify similar barriers to treatment of HCV

A 2017 prospective qualitative study (N = 24) from a Veterans Affairs health care system analyzed provider-perceived barriers to initiation of and adherence to HCV treatment.⁷ The analysis focused on differences by provider specialty. Primary care providers (PCPs; n = 12; 17% with > 40 patients with HCV) and hepatology providers (HPs; n = 12; 83% with > 40 patients with HCV) participated in a semi-structured telephone-based interview, providing their perceptions of patient-level barriers to HCV treatment. Eight patient-­level barrier themes were identified; these are outlined in the TABLE⁷ along with data for both PCPs and HPs.

Editor’s takeaway

These 7 cohort studies show us the factors we consider and the reasons we give to not initiate HCV treatment. Some of the factors seem reasonable, but many do not. We might use this list to remind and challenge ourselves to work through barriers to provide the best possible treatment.

EVIDENCE SUMMARY

Race, gender, and other factors are associated with lack of HCV Tx

A retrospective study (N = 894) assessed factors associated with direct-acting antiviral (DAA) initiation.¹ Patients who were HCV+ with at least 1 clinical visit during the study period completed a survey of psychological, behavioral, and social life assessments. The final cohort (57% male; 64% ≥ 61 years old) was divided into patients who initiated DAA treatment (n = 690) and those who did not (n = 204).

In an adjusted multivariable analysis, factors associated with lower odds of DAA initiation included Black race (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] = 0.59 vs White race; 95% CI, 0.36-0.98); perceived difficulty accessing medical care (aOR = 0.48 vs no difficulty; 95% CI, 0.27-0.83); recent intravenous (IV) drug use (aOR = 0.11 vs no use; 95% CI, 0.02-0.54); alcohol use disorder (AUD; aOR = 0.58 vs no AUD; 95% CI, 0.38-0.90); severe depression (aOR = 0.42 vs no depression; 95% CI, 0.2-0.9); recent homelessness (aOR = 0.36 vs no homelessness; 95% CI, 0.14-0.94); and recent incarceration (aOR = 0.34 vs no incarceration; 95% CI, 0.12-0.94).¹

A multicenter, observational prospective cohort study (N = 3075) evaluated receipt of HCV treatment for patients co-infected with HCV and HIV.² The primary outcome was initiation of HCV treatment with DAAs; 1957 patients initiated therapy, while 1118 did not. Significant independent risk factors for noninitiation of treatment included age younger than 50 years, a history of IV drug use, and use of opioid substitution therapy (OST). Other factors included psychiatric comorbidity (odds ratio [OR] = 0.45; 95% CI, 0.27-0.75), incarceration (OR = 0.6; 95% CI, 0.43-0.87), and female gender (OR = 0.80; 95% CI, 0.66-0.98). In a multivariate analysis limited to those with a history of IV drug use, both use of OST (aOR = 0.55; 95% CI, 0.40-0.75) and recent IV drug use (aOR = 0.019; 95% CI, 0.004-0.087) were identified as factors with low odds of treatment implementation.²

A retrospective cohort study (N = 1024) of medical charts examined the barriers to treatment in adults with chronic HCV infection.³ Of the patient population, 208 were treated and 816 were untreated. Patients not receiving DAAs were associated with poor adherence to/loss to follow-up (n = 548; OR = 36.6; 95% CI, 19.6-68.4); significant psychiatric illness (n = 103; OR = 2.02; 95% CI, 1.13-3.71); and coinfection with HIV (n = 188; OR = 4.5; 95% CI, 2.5-8.2).³

A German multicenter retrospective case-control study (N = 793) identified factors in patient and physician decisions to initiate treatment for HCV.⁴ Patients were ≥ 18 years old, confirmed to be HCV+, and had visited their physician at least 1 time during the observation period. A total of 573 patients received treatment and 220 did not. Patients and clinicians of those who chose not to receive treatment completed a survey that collected reasons for not treating. The most prevalent reason for not initiating treatment was patient wish (42%). This was further delineated to reveal that 17.3% attributed their decision to fear of treatment and 13.2% to fear of adverse events. Other factors associated with nontreatment included IV drug use (aOR = 0.31; 95% CI, 0.16-0.62); HIV coinfection (aOR = 0.19; 95% CI, 0.09-0.40); and use of OST (aOR = 0.37; 95% CI, 0.21-0.68). Patient demographics associated with wish not to be treated included older age (20.2% of those ≥ 40 years old vs 6.4% of those < 40 years old; P = .03) and female gender (51.0% of females vs 35.2% of males; P = .019).⁴

An analysis of a French insurance database (N = 22,545) evaluated the incidence of HCV treatment with DAAs in patients who inject drugs (PWID) with a diagnosis of alcohol use disorder (AUD).⁵ All participants (78% male; median age, 49 years) were chronically HCV-infected and covered by national health insurance. Individuals were grouped by AUD status: untreated (n = 5176), treated (n = 3020), and no AUD (n = 14349). After multivariate adjustment, those with untreated AUD had lower uptake of DAAs than those who did not have AUD (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] = 0.86; 95% CI, 0.78-0.94) and those with treated AUD (aHR = 0.83; 95% CI, 0.74-0.94). There were no differences between those with treated AUD and those who did not have AUD. Other factors associated with lower DAA uptake were access to care (aHR = 0.90; 95% CI, 0.83-0.98) and female gender (aHR = 0.83; 95% CI, 0.76-0.9).⁵

A 2017 retrospective cohort study evaluated predictors and barriers to follow-up and treatment with DAAs among veterans who were HCV+.⁶ Patients (94% > 50 years old; 97% male; 48% white) had established HCV care within the US Department of Veterans Affairs system. Of those who followed up with at least 1 visit to an HCV specialty clinic (n = 47,165), 29% received DAAs. Factors associated with lack of treatment included race (Black vs White: OR = 0.77; 95% CI, 0.72-0.82; Hispanic vs White: OR = 0.88; 95% CI, 0.79-0.97); IV drug use (OR = 0.84; 95% CI, 0.80-0.88); AUD (OR = 0.73; 95% CI, 0.70-0.77); medical comorbidities (OR = 0.71; 95% CI, 0.66-0.77); and hepatocellular carcinoma (OR = 0.73; 95% CI, 0.65-0.83).⁶

Continue to: Providers identify similar barriers to treatment of HCV

Providers identify similar barriers to treatment of HCV

A 2017 prospective qualitative study (N = 24) from a Veterans Affairs health care system analyzed provider-perceived barriers to initiation of and adherence to HCV treatment.⁷ The analysis focused on differences by provider specialty. Primary care providers (PCPs; n = 12; 17% with > 40 patients with HCV) and hepatology providers (HPs; n = 12; 83% with > 40 patients with HCV) participated in a semi-structured telephone-based interview, providing their perceptions of patient-level barriers to HCV treatment. Eight patient-­level barrier themes were identified; these are outlined in the TABLE⁷ along with data for both PCPs and HPs.

Editor’s takeaway

These 7 cohort studies show us the factors we consider and the reasons we give to not initiate HCV treatment. Some of the factors seem reasonable, but many do not. We might use this list to remind and challenge ourselves to work through barriers to provide the best possible treatment.

THE CASE

A 57-year-old man with type 2 diabetes, hyperlipidemia, and obesity presented to the emergency department (ED) for bilateral foot blisters, both of which appeared 1 day prior to evaluation. The patient’s history also included right-side Charcot foot diagnosed 4 years earlier and right foot osteomyelitis diagnosed 2 years prior. He had ongoing neuropathy in both feet but denied any significant pain.

The patient wore orthotics daily and he’d had new orthotics made 6 months prior; however, a recent COVID-19 diagnosis and prolonged hospital stay resulted in a 30-pound weight loss and decreased swelling in his ankles. He acquired new shoes 2 weeks prior to ED presentation.

Physical examination revealed large blisters along the medial aspect of the patient’s feet, with both hemorrhagic and serous fluid-filled bullae. The lesions were flaccid but intact, without drainage or surrounding erythema, warmth, or tenderness. The blister on the left foot measured 8 x 5 cm and extended from the great toe to mid-arch (FIGURE), while the one on the right foot measured 8 x 3 cm and extended from the great toe to the base of the proximal arch. Sensation was decreased in the bilateral first and second digits but unchanged from prior documented exams. Bilateral dorsalis pedis pulses were normal.

Work-up included imaging and lab work. The patient’s complete blood count was normal, as were his erythrocyte sedimentation rate and C-reactive protein level. Radiographs of the right foot were normal, but those of the left foot were concerning, although inconclusive, for osteomyelitis. Further evaluation with magnetic resonance imaging of his left foot revealed a deformity of the first digit with some subchondral signal change that was thought to be posttraumatic or degenerative, but unlikely osteomyelitis.

THE DIAGNOSIS

Podiatry was consulted for blister management. Based on atraumatic history, rapid appearance, location of blisters, unremarkable lab work and imaging, and concurrent diabetes, the patient received a diagnosis of bilateral bullous diabeticorum (BD).

DISCUSSION

Roughly one-third of patients with diabetes will experience some cutaneous adverse effect because of the disease.¹ Common iterations include acanthosis nigricans, rash, or even infection.² BD is a rare bullous skin lesion that occurs in patients with diabetes; it has a reported annual incidence of 0.16% and may be underdiagnosed.¹

Although A1C values do not correlate with blister formation, patients with hypoglycemic episodes and highly varying blood glucose values seem to have higher rates of bullous diabeticorum occurrence.

Cases of BD have been described both in patients with longstanding diabetes and in those newly diagnosed, although the former group is more often affected.¹ BD is reported more frequently in males than females, at a ratio of 2:1.^1,3 Patients ages 17 to 80 years (average age, 55 years) have received a diagnosis of BD.¹ Most affected patients will have a concomitant peripheral neuropathy and sometimes nephropathy or retinopathy.¹

Continue to: The etiology of BD...

The etiology of BD is unclear but appears to be multifactorial. Hypotheses suggest that there’s a link to neuropathy/nephropathy, excessive exposure to ultraviolet light, or a vascular cause secondary to hyaline deposition in the capillary walls.^4,5

What you’ll see at presentation

The typical manifestation of BD is the rapid appearance of tense blisters, which may occur overnight or even within hours.¹ They are usually painless; common locations include the feet, distal legs, hands, and forearms.^1,5 The bullae can be serous or hemorrhagic.¹

Most notable in the patient’s history will be a lack of trauma or injury to the area.¹ Although A1C values do not correlate with blister formation, patients with hypoglycemic episodes and highly varying blood glucose values seem to have higher rates of occurrence.¹

Other sources of blistering must be ruled out

The diagnosis of BD is clinical and based on history, exam, and exclusion of other bullous diagnoses.⁶ A key clue in the history is the spontaneous and rapid onset without associated trauma in a patient with diabetes.⁶ Direct immunofluorescence, although nonspecific, can be helpful to rule out other disorders (such as porphyria cutanea tarda and bullous pemphigoid) if the history and exam are inconclusive. Direct and indirect immunofluorescence is typically negative in BD.^4,6

The differential diagnosis includes other conditions that involve bullae—such as frictional bullae, bullous pemphigoid, and bullous systemic lupus erythematosus—as well as porphyria, erythema multiforme, insect bites, or even fixed drug eruption.^2,7

Continue to: Porphyria

Porphyria tends to develop on the hands, whereas BD most commonly occurs on the feet.⁵

Erythema multiforme typically includes inflammatory skin changes.⁵

Trauma or fixed drug eruption as a cause of blistering lesions would be revealed during history taking.

Considerations for treatment and follow-up

Without treatment, blisters often self-resolve in 2 to 6 weeks, but there is high likelihood of recurrence.^6,8 There is no consensus on treatment, although a typical course of action is to deroof the blister and examine the area to rule out infection.⁶ The wound is then covered with wet-to-dry gauze that is changed regularly. If there is suspicion for or signs of underlying infection, such as an ulcer or skin necrosis, antibiotics should be included in the treatment plan.⁷

Additional considerations. Patients will often need therapeutic footwear if the blisters are located on the feet. Given the higher prevalence of microvascular complications in patients with diabetes who develop BD, routine ophthalmologic examination and renal function testing to monitor for microalbuminuria are recommended.⁵

Our patient underwent bedside incision and drainage and was discharged home with appropriate wound care and follow-up. 

THE TAKEAWAY

BD cases may be underdiagnosed in clinical practice, perhaps due to patients not seeking help for a seemingly nonthreatening condition or lack of clinician recognition that bullae are related to a patient’s diabetes status. Prompt recognition and proper wound care are important to prevent poor outcomes, such as ulceration or necrosis.

CORRESPONDENCE
Kathleen S. Kinderwater, MD, 101 Heart Drive, Greenville, NC 27834; [email protected]

THE CASE

A 57-year-old man with type 2 diabetes, hyperlipidemia, and obesity presented to the emergency department (ED) for bilateral foot blisters, both of which appeared 1 day prior to evaluation. The patient’s history also included right-side Charcot foot diagnosed 4 years earlier and right foot osteomyelitis diagnosed 2 years prior. He had ongoing neuropathy in both feet but denied any significant pain.

The patient wore orthotics daily and he’d had new orthotics made 6 months prior; however, a recent COVID-19 diagnosis and prolonged hospital stay resulted in a 30-pound weight loss and decreased swelling in his ankles. He acquired new shoes 2 weeks prior to ED presentation.

Physical examination revealed large blisters along the medial aspect of the patient’s feet, with both hemorrhagic and serous fluid-filled bullae. The lesions were flaccid but intact, without drainage or surrounding erythema, warmth, or tenderness. The blister on the left foot measured 8 x 5 cm and extended from the great toe to mid-arch (FIGURE), while the one on the right foot measured 8 x 3 cm and extended from the great toe to the base of the proximal arch. Sensation was decreased in the bilateral first and second digits but unchanged from prior documented exams. Bilateral dorsalis pedis pulses were normal.

Work-up included imaging and lab work. The patient’s complete blood count was normal, as were his erythrocyte sedimentation rate and C-reactive protein level. Radiographs of the right foot were normal, but those of the left foot were concerning, although inconclusive, for osteomyelitis. Further evaluation with magnetic resonance imaging of his left foot revealed a deformity of the first digit with some subchondral signal change that was thought to be posttraumatic or degenerative, but unlikely osteomyelitis.

THE DIAGNOSIS

Podiatry was consulted for blister management. Based on atraumatic history, rapid appearance, location of blisters, unremarkable lab work and imaging, and concurrent diabetes, the patient received a diagnosis of bilateral bullous diabeticorum (BD).

DISCUSSION

Roughly one-third of patients with diabetes will experience some cutaneous adverse effect because of the disease.¹ Common iterations include acanthosis nigricans, rash, or even infection.² BD is a rare bullous skin lesion that occurs in patients with diabetes; it has a reported annual incidence of 0.16% and may be underdiagnosed.¹

Although A1C values do not correlate with blister formation, patients with hypoglycemic episodes and highly varying blood glucose values seem to have higher rates of bullous diabeticorum occurrence.

Cases of BD have been described both in patients with longstanding diabetes and in those newly diagnosed, although the former group is more often affected.¹ BD is reported more frequently in males than females, at a ratio of 2:1.^1,3 Patients ages 17 to 80 years (average age, 55 years) have received a diagnosis of BD.¹ Most affected patients will have a concomitant peripheral neuropathy and sometimes nephropathy or retinopathy.¹

Continue to: The etiology of BD...

The etiology of BD is unclear but appears to be multifactorial. Hypotheses suggest that there’s a link to neuropathy/nephropathy, excessive exposure to ultraviolet light, or a vascular cause secondary to hyaline deposition in the capillary walls.^4,5

What you’ll see at presentation

The typical manifestation of BD is the rapid appearance of tense blisters, which may occur overnight or even within hours.¹ They are usually painless; common locations include the feet, distal legs, hands, and forearms.^1,5 The bullae can be serous or hemorrhagic.¹

Most notable in the patient’s history will be a lack of trauma or injury to the area.¹ Although A1C values do not correlate with blister formation, patients with hypoglycemic episodes and highly varying blood glucose values seem to have higher rates of occurrence.¹

Other sources of blistering must be ruled out

The diagnosis of BD is clinical and based on history, exam, and exclusion of other bullous diagnoses.⁶ A key clue in the history is the spontaneous and rapid onset without associated trauma in a patient with diabetes.⁶ Direct immunofluorescence, although nonspecific, can be helpful to rule out other disorders (such as porphyria cutanea tarda and bullous pemphigoid) if the history and exam are inconclusive. Direct and indirect immunofluorescence is typically negative in BD.^4,6

The differential diagnosis includes other conditions that involve bullae—such as frictional bullae, bullous pemphigoid, and bullous systemic lupus erythematosus—as well as porphyria, erythema multiforme, insect bites, or even fixed drug eruption.^2,7

Continue to: Porphyria

Porphyria tends to develop on the hands, whereas BD most commonly occurs on the feet.⁵

Erythema multiforme typically includes inflammatory skin changes.⁵

Trauma or fixed drug eruption as a cause of blistering lesions would be revealed during history taking.

Considerations for treatment and follow-up

Without treatment, blisters often self-resolve in 2 to 6 weeks, but there is high likelihood of recurrence.^6,8 There is no consensus on treatment, although a typical course of action is to deroof the blister and examine the area to rule out infection.⁶ The wound is then covered with wet-to-dry gauze that is changed regularly. If there is suspicion for or signs of underlying infection, such as an ulcer or skin necrosis, antibiotics should be included in the treatment plan.⁷

Additional considerations. Patients will often need therapeutic footwear if the blisters are located on the feet. Given the higher prevalence of microvascular complications in patients with diabetes who develop BD, routine ophthalmologic examination and renal function testing to monitor for microalbuminuria are recommended.⁵

Our patient underwent bedside incision and drainage and was discharged home with appropriate wound care and follow-up. 

THE TAKEAWAY

BD cases may be underdiagnosed in clinical practice, perhaps due to patients not seeking help for a seemingly nonthreatening condition or lack of clinician recognition that bullae are related to a patient’s diabetes status. Prompt recognition and proper wound care are important to prevent poor outcomes, such as ulceration or necrosis.

CORRESPONDENCE
Kathleen S. Kinderwater, MD, 101 Heart Drive, Greenville, NC 27834; [email protected]

THE CASE

A 57-year-old man with type 2 diabetes, hyperlipidemia, and obesity presented to the emergency department (ED) for bilateral foot blisters, both of which appeared 1 day prior to evaluation. The patient’s history also included right-side Charcot foot diagnosed 4 years earlier and right foot osteomyelitis diagnosed 2 years prior. He had ongoing neuropathy in both feet but denied any significant pain.

The patient wore orthotics daily and he’d had new orthotics made 6 months prior; however, a recent COVID-19 diagnosis and prolonged hospital stay resulted in a 30-pound weight loss and decreased swelling in his ankles. He acquired new shoes 2 weeks prior to ED presentation.

Physical examination revealed large blisters along the medial aspect of the patient’s feet, with both hemorrhagic and serous fluid-filled bullae. The lesions were flaccid but intact, without drainage or surrounding erythema, warmth, or tenderness. The blister on the left foot measured 8 x 5 cm and extended from the great toe to mid-arch (FIGURE), while the one on the right foot measured 8 x 3 cm and extended from the great toe to the base of the proximal arch. Sensation was decreased in the bilateral first and second digits but unchanged from prior documented exams. Bilateral dorsalis pedis pulses were normal.

Work-up included imaging and lab work. The patient’s complete blood count was normal, as were his erythrocyte sedimentation rate and C-reactive protein level. Radiographs of the right foot were normal, but those of the left foot were concerning, although inconclusive, for osteomyelitis. Further evaluation with magnetic resonance imaging of his left foot revealed a deformity of the first digit with some subchondral signal change that was thought to be posttraumatic or degenerative, but unlikely osteomyelitis.

THE DIAGNOSIS

Podiatry was consulted for blister management. Based on atraumatic history, rapid appearance, location of blisters, unremarkable lab work and imaging, and concurrent diabetes, the patient received a diagnosis of bilateral bullous diabeticorum (BD).

DISCUSSION

Roughly one-third of patients with diabetes will experience some cutaneous adverse effect because of the disease.¹ Common iterations include acanthosis nigricans, rash, or even infection.² BD is a rare bullous skin lesion that occurs in patients with diabetes; it has a reported annual incidence of 0.16% and may be underdiagnosed.¹

Although A1C values do not correlate with blister formation, patients with hypoglycemic episodes and highly varying blood glucose values seem to have higher rates of bullous diabeticorum occurrence.

Cases of BD have been described both in patients with longstanding diabetes and in those newly diagnosed, although the former group is more often affected.¹ BD is reported more frequently in males than females, at a ratio of 2:1.^1,3 Patients ages 17 to 80 years (average age, 55 years) have received a diagnosis of BD.¹ Most affected patients will have a concomitant peripheral neuropathy and sometimes nephropathy or retinopathy.¹

Continue to: The etiology of BD...

The etiology of BD is unclear but appears to be multifactorial. Hypotheses suggest that there’s a link to neuropathy/nephropathy, excessive exposure to ultraviolet light, or a vascular cause secondary to hyaline deposition in the capillary walls.^4,5

What you’ll see at presentation

The typical manifestation of BD is the rapid appearance of tense blisters, which may occur overnight or even within hours.¹ They are usually painless; common locations include the feet, distal legs, hands, and forearms.^1,5 The bullae can be serous or hemorrhagic.¹

Most notable in the patient’s history will be a lack of trauma or injury to the area.¹ Although A1C values do not correlate with blister formation, patients with hypoglycemic episodes and highly varying blood glucose values seem to have higher rates of occurrence.¹

Other sources of blistering must be ruled out

The diagnosis of BD is clinical and based on history, exam, and exclusion of other bullous diagnoses.⁶ A key clue in the history is the spontaneous and rapid onset without associated trauma in a patient with diabetes.⁶ Direct immunofluorescence, although nonspecific, can be helpful to rule out other disorders (such as porphyria cutanea tarda and bullous pemphigoid) if the history and exam are inconclusive. Direct and indirect immunofluorescence is typically negative in BD.^4,6

The differential diagnosis includes other conditions that involve bullae—such as frictional bullae, bullous pemphigoid, and bullous systemic lupus erythematosus—as well as porphyria, erythema multiforme, insect bites, or even fixed drug eruption.^2,7

Continue to: Porphyria

Porphyria tends to develop on the hands, whereas BD most commonly occurs on the feet.⁵

Erythema multiforme typically includes inflammatory skin changes.⁵

Trauma or fixed drug eruption as a cause of blistering lesions would be revealed during history taking.

Considerations for treatment and follow-up

Without treatment, blisters often self-resolve in 2 to 6 weeks, but there is high likelihood of recurrence.^6,8 There is no consensus on treatment, although a typical course of action is to deroof the blister and examine the area to rule out infection.⁶ The wound is then covered with wet-to-dry gauze that is changed regularly. If there is suspicion for or signs of underlying infection, such as an ulcer or skin necrosis, antibiotics should be included in the treatment plan.⁷

Additional considerations. Patients will often need therapeutic footwear if the blisters are located on the feet. Given the higher prevalence of microvascular complications in patients with diabetes who develop BD, routine ophthalmologic examination and renal function testing to monitor for microalbuminuria are recommended.⁵

Our patient underwent bedside incision and drainage and was discharged home with appropriate wound care and follow-up. 

THE TAKEAWAY

BD cases may be underdiagnosed in clinical practice, perhaps due to patients not seeking help for a seemingly nonthreatening condition or lack of clinician recognition that bullae are related to a patient’s diabetes status. Prompt recognition and proper wound care are important to prevent poor outcomes, such as ulceration or necrosis.

CORRESPONDENCE
Kathleen S. Kinderwater, MD, 101 Heart Drive, Greenville, NC 27834; [email protected]

The ongoing COVID-19 pandemic has caused more than 1 million deaths in the United States and continues to be a major public health challenge. Cases can be asymptomatic, or symptoms can range from a mild respiratory tract infection to acute respiratory distress and multiorgan failure.

Three strategies can successfully contain the pandemic and its consequences:

• Public health measures, such as masking and social distancing
• Prophylactic vaccines to reduce transmission
• Safe and effective drugs for reducing morbidity and mortality among infected patients.

Optimal treatment strategies for patients in ambulatory and hospital settings continue to evolve as new studies are reported and new strains of the virus arise. Many medical and scientific organizations, including the National Institutes of Health (NIH) COVID-19 treatment panel,¹ Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA),² World Health Organization (WHO),³ and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention,⁴ provide recommendations for managing patients with ­COVID-19. Their guidance is based on the strongest research available and is updated intermittently; nevertheless, a plethora of new data emerges weekly and controversies surround several treatments.

In this article, we summarize evidence for the efficacy of treatments for COVID-19. We present data based on the severity of illness, and review special considerations for some patient populations, including pregnant women and children. We focus on practical therapeutic information for primary care providers practicing in a variety of settings, including outpatient and inpatient care.

We encourage clinicians, in planning treatment, to consider:

• The availability of medications (ie, use the COVID-19 Public Therapeutic Locator^a)
• The local COVID-19 situation
• Patient factors and preferences
• Evolving evidence regarding new and existing treatments.

When planning treatment, consider the availability of medications; the local COVID-19 situation; patient factors and preferences; and evolving evidence about treatments.

Most evidence about the treatment of COVID-19 comes from studies conducted when the Omicron variant of SARS-CoV-2 was not the dominant variant, as it is today in the United States. As such, drugs authorized or approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to treat COVID-19 or used off-label for that purpose might not be as efficacious today as they were almost a year ago. Furthermore, many trials of potential therapies against new viral variants are ongoing; if your patient is interested in enrolling in a clinical trial of an investigational COVID-19 treatment, refer them to www.clinicaltrials.gov.

General managementof COVID-19

Patients with COVID-19 experience a range of illness severity—from asymptomatic to mild symptoms, such as fever and myalgia, to critical illness requiring intensive care (TABLE 1^1,2). Patients with COVID-19 should therefore be monitored for progression, remotely or in person, until full recovery is achieved. Key concepts of general management include:

Assess and monitor patients’ oxygenation status by pulse oximetry; identify those with low or declining oxygen saturation before further clinical deterioration.

Continue to: Consider the patient's age and general health

Consider the patient’s age and general health. Patients are at higher risk of severe disease if they are > 65 years or have an underlying comorbidity.⁴

Emphasize self-isolation and supportive care, including rest, hydration, and over-the-counter medications to relieve cough, reduce fever, and alleviate other symptoms.

Drugs: Few approved, some under study

The antiviral remdesivir is the only drug fully approved for clinical use by the FDA to treat COVID-19 in patients > 12 years.^5,6

In addition, the FDA has issued an emergency use authorization (EUA) for several monoclonal antibodies as prophylaxis and treatment: tixagevimab packaged with cilgavimab (Evusheld) is the first antibody combination for pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) against COVID-19; the separately packaged injectables are recommended for patients who have a history of severe allergy that prevents them from being vaccinated or those with moderate or severe immune-compromising disorders.⁷

In the pipeline. Several treatments are being tested in clinical trials to evaluate their effectiveness and safety in combating COVID-19, including:

• Antivirals, which prevent viruses from multiplying
• Immunomodulators, which reduce the body’s immune reaction to the virus
• Antibody therapies, which are manufactured antibodies against the virus
• Anti-inflammatory drugs, which reduce systemic inflammation and prevent organ dysfunction
• Cell therapies and gene therapies, which alter the expression of cells and genes.

Continue to: Outpatient treatment

Several assessment tools that take into account patients’ age, respiratory status, and comorbidities are available for triage of patients infected with COVID-19.⁸

Most (> 80%) patients with COVID-19 have mild infection and are safely managed as outpatients or at home.^9,10 For patients at high risk of severe disease, a few options are recommended for patients who do not require hospitalization or supplemental oxygen; guidelines on treatment of COVID-19 in outpatient settings that have been developed by various organizations are summarized in TABLE 2.^7,11-25

Antiviral drugs target different stages of the SARS-CoV-2 replication cycle. They should be used early in the course of infection, particularly in patients at high risk of severe disease.

IDSA recommends antiviral therapy with molnupiravir, nirmatrelvir + ritonavir packaged together (Paxlovid), or remdesivir.^11,12,26,27 Remdesivir requires intravenous (IV) infusion on 3 consecutive days, which can be difficult in some clinic settings.^13,28 Nirmatrelvir + ritonavir should be initiated within 5 days after symptom onset. Overall, for most patients, nirmatrelvir + ritonavir is preferred because of oral dosing and higher efficacy in comparison to other antivirals. With nirmatrelvir + ritonavir, carefully consider drug–drug interactions and the need to adjust dosing in the presence of renal disease.^28,29 There are no data on the efficacy of any combination treatments with these agents (other than co-packaged Paxlovid).

Monoclonal antibodies for COVID-19 are given primarily intravenously. They bind to the viral spike protein, thus preventing SARS-CoV-2 from attaching to and entering cells. Bamlanivimab + etesevimab and bebtelovimab are available under an EUA for outpatient treatment.^14b Treatment should be initiated as early as possible in the course of infection—ideally, within 7 to 10 days after onset of symptoms.

Continue to: Bebtelovimab was recently given...

Bebtelovimab was recently given an EUA. It is a next-generation antibody that neutralizes all currently known variants and is the most potent monoclonal antibody against the Omicron variant, including its BA.2 subvariant.³¹ However, data about its activity against the BA.2 subvariant are based on laboratory testing and have not been confirmed in clinical trials. Clinical data were similar for this agent alone and for its use in combination with other monoclonal antibodies, but those trials were conducted before the emergence of Omicron.

In your decision-making about the most appropriate therapy, consider (1) the requirement that monoclonal antibodies be administered parenterally and (2) the susceptibility of the locally predominating viral variant.

Other monoclonal antibody agents are in the investigative pipeline; however, data about them have been largely presented through press releases or selectively reported in applications to the FDA for EUA. For example, preliminary reports show cilgavimab coverage against the Omicron variant¹⁴; so far, cilgavimab is not approved for treatment but is used in combination with tixagevimab for PreP—reportedly providing as long as 12 months of protection for patients who are less likely to respond to a vaccine.³²

Corticosteroids. Guidelines recommend against dexamethasone and other systemic corticosteroids in outpatient settings. For patients with moderate-to-severe symptoms but for whom hospitalization is not possible (eg, beds are unavailable), the NIH panel recommends dexamethasone, 6 mg/d, for the duration of supplemental oxygen, not to exceed 10 days of treatment.¹

Patients who were recently discharged after COVID-19 hospitalization should not continue remdesivir, dexamethasone, or baricitinib at home, even if they still require supplemental oxygen.

Continue to: Some treatments should not be in your COVID-19 toolbox

Some treatments should not be in your COVID-19 toolbox

High-quality studies are lacking for several other potential COVID-19 treatments. Some of these drugs are under investigation, with unclear benefit and with the potential risk of toxicity—and therefore should not be prescribed or used outside a clinical trial. See “Treatments not recommended for COVID-19,” page E14. ^{1-4,15-19,33-41}

Treatment during hospitalization

The NIH COVID-19 treatment panel recommends hospitalization for patients who have any of the following findings¹:

• Oxygen saturation < 94% while breathing room air
• Respiratory rate > 30 breaths/min
• A ratio of partial pressure of arterial O₂ to fraction of inspired O₂ (PaO₂/FiO₂) < 300 mm Hg
• Lung infiltrates > 50%.

General guidance for the care of hospitalized patients:

• Treatments that target the virus have the greatest efficacy when given early in the course of disease.
• Anti-inflammatory and immunosuppressive agents help prevent tissue damage from a dysregulated immune system. (See TABLE 3^26,42-46)
• The NIH panel,¹ IDSA,² and WHO³ recommend against dexamethasone and other corticosteroids for hospitalized patients who do not require supplemental oxygen.
• Prone positioning distributes oxygen more evenly in the lungs and improves overall oxygenation, thus reducing the need for mechanical ventilation.

Remdesivir. Once a hospitalized patient does require supplemental oxygen, the NIH panel,¹ IDSA,² and WHO³ recommend remdesivir; however, remdesivir is not recommended in many other countries because WHO has noted its limited efficacy.⁴² Dexamethasone is recommended alone, or in combination with remdesivir for patients who require increasing supplemental oxygen and those on mechanical ventilation.

Baricitinib. For patients with rapidly increasing oxygen requirements, invasive mechanical ventilation, and systemic inflammation, baricitinib, a Janus kinase inhibitor, can be administered, in addition to dexamethasone, with or without remdesivir.⁴⁷

Continue to: Tocilizumab

Tocilizumab. A monoclonal antibody and interleukin (IL)-6 inhibitor, tocilizumab is also recommended in addition to dexamethasone, with or without remdesivir.⁴⁸ Tocilizumab should be given only in combination with dexamethasone.⁴⁹ Patients should receive baricitinib or tocilizumab—not both. IDSA recommends tofacitinib, with a prophylactic dose of an anticoagulant, for patients who are hospitalized with severe COVID-19 but who are not on any form of ventilation.⁵⁰

Care of special populations

Special patient populations often seek primary care. Although many questions remain regarding the appropriate care of these populations, it is useful to summarize existing evidence and recommendations from current guidelines. 

Children. COVID-19 is generally milder in children than in adults; many infected children are asymptomatic. However, infants and children who have an underlying medical condition are at risk of severe disease, including multisystem inflammatory syndrome.⁵¹

Because patients with COVID-19 experience a range of illness severity, they should be monitored for progression, remotely or in person, until fully recovered.

The NIH panel recommends supportive care alone for most children with mild-to-moderate disease.¹ Remdesivir is recommended for hospitalized children ≥ 12 years who weigh ≥ 40 kg, have risk factors for severe disease, and have an emergent or increasing need for supplemental oxygen. Dexamethasone is recommended for hospitalized children requiring high-flow oxygen, noninvasive ventilation, invasive mechanical ventilation, or extracorporeal membrane oxygenation. Molnupiravir is not authorized for patients < 18 years because it can impede bone and cartilage growth.

There is insufficient evidence for or against the use of monoclonal antibody products for children with COVID-19 in an ambulatory setting. For hospitalized children, there is insufficient evidence for or against use of baricitinib and tocilizumab. 

Continue to: Patients who are pregnant

Patients who are pregnant are at increased risk of severe COVID-19.^52,53 The NIH states that, in general, treatment and vaccination of pregnant patients with COVID-19 should be the same as for nonpregnant patients.¹

Pregnant subjects were excluded from several trials of COVID-19 treatments.⁵⁴ Because Janus kinase inhibitors, such as baricitinib, are associated with an increased risk of thromboembolism, they are not recommended in pregnant patients who are already at risk of thromboembolic complications. Molnupiravir is not recommended for pregnant patients because of its potential for teratogenic effects.

The Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine states that there are no absolute contraindications to the use of monoclonal antibodies in appropriate pregnant patients with COVID-19.⁵⁵ Remdesivir has no known fetal toxicity and is recommended as a treatment that can be offered to pregnant patients. Dexamethasone can also be administered to pregnant patients who require oxygen; however, if dexamethasone is also being used to accelerate fetal lung maturity, more frequent initial dosing is needed.

Older people. COVID-19 treatments for older patients are the same as for the general adult population. However, because older people are more likely to have impaired renal function, renal function should be monitored when an older patient is being treated with COVID-19 medications that are eliminated renally (eg, remdesivir, baricitinib). Furthermore, drug–drug interactions have been reported in older patients treated with nirmatrelvir + ritonavir, primarily because of the effects of ritonavir. Review all of a patient’s medications, including over-the-counter drugs and herbal supplements, when prescribing treatment for COVID-19, and adjust the dosage by following guidance in FDA-approved prescribing information—ideally, in consultation with a pharmacist.

Immunocompromised patients. The combination product tixagevimab + cilgavimab [Evusheld] is FDA approved for COVID-19 PrEP, under an EUA, in patients who are not infected with SARS-CoV-2 who have an immune-compromising condition, who are unlikely to mount an adequate immune response to the COVID-19 vaccine, or those in whom vaccination is not recommended because of their history of a severe adverse reaction to a COVID-19 vaccine or one of its components.⁷

Continue to: Summing up

Summing up

With a growing need for effective and readily available COVID-19 treatments, there are an unprecedented number of clinical trials in process. Besides antivirals, immunomodulators, and antibody therapies, some novel mechanisms being tested include Janus kinase inhibitors, IL-6-receptor blockers, and drugs that target adult respiratory distress syndrome and cytokine release.

Guidelines recommend against using dexamethasone and other systemic corticosteroids in COVID-19 outpatient settings.

Once larger trials are completed, we can expect stronger evidence of potential treatment options and of safety and efficacy in children, pregnant women, and vulnerable populations. During the pandemic, the FDA’s EUA program has brought emerging treatments rapidly to clinicians; nevertheless, high-quality evidence, with thorough peer review, remains critical to inform COVID-19 treatment guidelines.

^ahttps://healthdata.gov/Health/COVID-19-PublicTherapeutic-Locator/rxn6-qnx8/data

^b Sotrovimab was effective against the Omicron variant of SARS-CoV-2—the dominant variant in early 2022— but is currently not FDA authorized in any region of the United States because of the prevalence of the Omicron BA.2 subvariant.30

CORRESPONDENCE
Ambar Kulshreshtha, MD, PhD, Department of Epidemiology, Emory Rollins School of Public Health, 4500 North Shallowford Road, Suite 134, Atlanta, GA 30338; [email protected]

The ongoing COVID-19 pandemic has caused more than 1 million deaths in the United States and continues to be a major public health challenge. Cases can be asymptomatic, or symptoms can range from a mild respiratory tract infection to acute respiratory distress and multiorgan failure.

Three strategies can successfully contain the pandemic and its consequences:

• Public health measures, such as masking and social distancing
• Prophylactic vaccines to reduce transmission
• Safe and effective drugs for reducing morbidity and mortality among infected patients.

Optimal treatment strategies for patients in ambulatory and hospital settings continue to evolve as new studies are reported and new strains of the virus arise. Many medical and scientific organizations, including the National Institutes of Health (NIH) COVID-19 treatment panel,¹ Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA),² World Health Organization (WHO),³ and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention,⁴ provide recommendations for managing patients with ­COVID-19. Their guidance is based on the strongest research available and is updated intermittently; nevertheless, a plethora of new data emerges weekly and controversies surround several treatments.

In this article, we summarize evidence for the efficacy of treatments for COVID-19. We present data based on the severity of illness, and review special considerations for some patient populations, including pregnant women and children. We focus on practical therapeutic information for primary care providers practicing in a variety of settings, including outpatient and inpatient care.

We encourage clinicians, in planning treatment, to consider:

• The availability of medications (ie, use the COVID-19 Public Therapeutic Locator^a)
• The local COVID-19 situation
• Patient factors and preferences
• Evolving evidence regarding new and existing treatments.

When planning treatment, consider the availability of medications; the local COVID-19 situation; patient factors and preferences; and evolving evidence about treatments.

Most evidence about the treatment of COVID-19 comes from studies conducted when the Omicron variant of SARS-CoV-2 was not the dominant variant, as it is today in the United States. As such, drugs authorized or approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to treat COVID-19 or used off-label for that purpose might not be as efficacious today as they were almost a year ago. Furthermore, many trials of potential therapies against new viral variants are ongoing; if your patient is interested in enrolling in a clinical trial of an investigational COVID-19 treatment, refer them to www.clinicaltrials.gov.

General managementof COVID-19

Patients with COVID-19 experience a range of illness severity—from asymptomatic to mild symptoms, such as fever and myalgia, to critical illness requiring intensive care (TABLE 1^1,2). Patients with COVID-19 should therefore be monitored for progression, remotely or in person, until full recovery is achieved. Key concepts of general management include:

Assess and monitor patients’ oxygenation status by pulse oximetry; identify those with low or declining oxygen saturation before further clinical deterioration.

Continue to: Consider the patient's age and general health

Consider the patient’s age and general health. Patients are at higher risk of severe disease if they are > 65 years or have an underlying comorbidity.⁴

Emphasize self-isolation and supportive care, including rest, hydration, and over-the-counter medications to relieve cough, reduce fever, and alleviate other symptoms.

Drugs: Few approved, some under study

The antiviral remdesivir is the only drug fully approved for clinical use by the FDA to treat COVID-19 in patients > 12 years.^5,6

In addition, the FDA has issued an emergency use authorization (EUA) for several monoclonal antibodies as prophylaxis and treatment: tixagevimab packaged with cilgavimab (Evusheld) is the first antibody combination for pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) against COVID-19; the separately packaged injectables are recommended for patients who have a history of severe allergy that prevents them from being vaccinated or those with moderate or severe immune-compromising disorders.⁷

In the pipeline. Several treatments are being tested in clinical trials to evaluate their effectiveness and safety in combating COVID-19, including:

• Antivirals, which prevent viruses from multiplying
• Immunomodulators, which reduce the body’s immune reaction to the virus
• Antibody therapies, which are manufactured antibodies against the virus
• Anti-inflammatory drugs, which reduce systemic inflammation and prevent organ dysfunction
• Cell therapies and gene therapies, which alter the expression of cells and genes.

Continue to: Outpatient treatment

Several assessment tools that take into account patients’ age, respiratory status, and comorbidities are available for triage of patients infected with COVID-19.⁸

Most (> 80%) patients with COVID-19 have mild infection and are safely managed as outpatients or at home.^9,10 For patients at high risk of severe disease, a few options are recommended for patients who do not require hospitalization or supplemental oxygen; guidelines on treatment of COVID-19 in outpatient settings that have been developed by various organizations are summarized in TABLE 2.^7,11-25

Antiviral drugs target different stages of the SARS-CoV-2 replication cycle. They should be used early in the course of infection, particularly in patients at high risk of severe disease.

IDSA recommends antiviral therapy with molnupiravir, nirmatrelvir + ritonavir packaged together (Paxlovid), or remdesivir.^11,12,26,27 Remdesivir requires intravenous (IV) infusion on 3 consecutive days, which can be difficult in some clinic settings.^13,28 Nirmatrelvir + ritonavir should be initiated within 5 days after symptom onset. Overall, for most patients, nirmatrelvir + ritonavir is preferred because of oral dosing and higher efficacy in comparison to other antivirals. With nirmatrelvir + ritonavir, carefully consider drug–drug interactions and the need to adjust dosing in the presence of renal disease.^28,29 There are no data on the efficacy of any combination treatments with these agents (other than co-packaged Paxlovid).

Monoclonal antibodies for COVID-19 are given primarily intravenously. They bind to the viral spike protein, thus preventing SARS-CoV-2 from attaching to and entering cells. Bamlanivimab + etesevimab and bebtelovimab are available under an EUA for outpatient treatment.^14b Treatment should be initiated as early as possible in the course of infection—ideally, within 7 to 10 days after onset of symptoms.

Continue to: Bebtelovimab was recently given...

Bebtelovimab was recently given an EUA. It is a next-generation antibody that neutralizes all currently known variants and is the most potent monoclonal antibody against the Omicron variant, including its BA.2 subvariant.³¹ However, data about its activity against the BA.2 subvariant are based on laboratory testing and have not been confirmed in clinical trials. Clinical data were similar for this agent alone and for its use in combination with other monoclonal antibodies, but those trials were conducted before the emergence of Omicron.

In your decision-making about the most appropriate therapy, consider (1) the requirement that monoclonal antibodies be administered parenterally and (2) the susceptibility of the locally predominating viral variant.

Other monoclonal antibody agents are in the investigative pipeline; however, data about them have been largely presented through press releases or selectively reported in applications to the FDA for EUA. For example, preliminary reports show cilgavimab coverage against the Omicron variant¹⁴; so far, cilgavimab is not approved for treatment but is used in combination with tixagevimab for PreP—reportedly providing as long as 12 months of protection for patients who are less likely to respond to a vaccine.³²

Corticosteroids. Guidelines recommend against dexamethasone and other systemic corticosteroids in outpatient settings. For patients with moderate-to-severe symptoms but for whom hospitalization is not possible (eg, beds are unavailable), the NIH panel recommends dexamethasone, 6 mg/d, for the duration of supplemental oxygen, not to exceed 10 days of treatment.¹

Patients who were recently discharged after COVID-19 hospitalization should not continue remdesivir, dexamethasone, or baricitinib at home, even if they still require supplemental oxygen.

Continue to: Some treatments should not be in your COVID-19 toolbox

Some treatments should not be in your COVID-19 toolbox

High-quality studies are lacking for several other potential COVID-19 treatments. Some of these drugs are under investigation, with unclear benefit and with the potential risk of toxicity—and therefore should not be prescribed or used outside a clinical trial. See “Treatments not recommended for COVID-19,” page E14. ^{1-4,15-19,33-41}

Treatment during hospitalization

The NIH COVID-19 treatment panel recommends hospitalization for patients who have any of the following findings¹:

• Oxygen saturation < 94% while breathing room air
• Respiratory rate > 30 breaths/min
• A ratio of partial pressure of arterial O₂ to fraction of inspired O₂ (PaO₂/FiO₂) < 300 mm Hg
• Lung infiltrates > 50%.

General guidance for the care of hospitalized patients:

• Treatments that target the virus have the greatest efficacy when given early in the course of disease.
• Anti-inflammatory and immunosuppressive agents help prevent tissue damage from a dysregulated immune system. (See TABLE 3^26,42-46)
• The NIH panel,¹ IDSA,² and WHO³ recommend against dexamethasone and other corticosteroids for hospitalized patients who do not require supplemental oxygen.
• Prone positioning distributes oxygen more evenly in the lungs and improves overall oxygenation, thus reducing the need for mechanical ventilation.

Remdesivir. Once a hospitalized patient does require supplemental oxygen, the NIH panel,¹ IDSA,² and WHO³ recommend remdesivir; however, remdesivir is not recommended in many other countries because WHO has noted its limited efficacy.⁴² Dexamethasone is recommended alone, or in combination with remdesivir for patients who require increasing supplemental oxygen and those on mechanical ventilation.

Baricitinib. For patients with rapidly increasing oxygen requirements, invasive mechanical ventilation, and systemic inflammation, baricitinib, a Janus kinase inhibitor, can be administered, in addition to dexamethasone, with or without remdesivir.⁴⁷

Continue to: Tocilizumab

Tocilizumab. A monoclonal antibody and interleukin (IL)-6 inhibitor, tocilizumab is also recommended in addition to dexamethasone, with or without remdesivir.⁴⁸ Tocilizumab should be given only in combination with dexamethasone.⁴⁹ Patients should receive baricitinib or tocilizumab—not both. IDSA recommends tofacitinib, with a prophylactic dose of an anticoagulant, for patients who are hospitalized with severe COVID-19 but who are not on any form of ventilation.⁵⁰

Care of special populations

Special patient populations often seek primary care. Although many questions remain regarding the appropriate care of these populations, it is useful to summarize existing evidence and recommendations from current guidelines. 

Children. COVID-19 is generally milder in children than in adults; many infected children are asymptomatic. However, infants and children who have an underlying medical condition are at risk of severe disease, including multisystem inflammatory syndrome.⁵¹

Because patients with COVID-19 experience a range of illness severity, they should be monitored for progression, remotely or in person, until fully recovered.

The NIH panel recommends supportive care alone for most children with mild-to-moderate disease.¹ Remdesivir is recommended for hospitalized children ≥ 12 years who weigh ≥ 40 kg, have risk factors for severe disease, and have an emergent or increasing need for supplemental oxygen. Dexamethasone is recommended for hospitalized children requiring high-flow oxygen, noninvasive ventilation, invasive mechanical ventilation, or extracorporeal membrane oxygenation. Molnupiravir is not authorized for patients < 18 years because it can impede bone and cartilage growth.

There is insufficient evidence for or against the use of monoclonal antibody products for children with COVID-19 in an ambulatory setting. For hospitalized children, there is insufficient evidence for or against use of baricitinib and tocilizumab. 

Continue to: Patients who are pregnant

Patients who are pregnant are at increased risk of severe COVID-19.^52,53 The NIH states that, in general, treatment and vaccination of pregnant patients with COVID-19 should be the same as for nonpregnant patients.¹

Pregnant subjects were excluded from several trials of COVID-19 treatments.⁵⁴ Because Janus kinase inhibitors, such as baricitinib, are associated with an increased risk of thromboembolism, they are not recommended in pregnant patients who are already at risk of thromboembolic complications. Molnupiravir is not recommended for pregnant patients because of its potential for teratogenic effects.

The Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine states that there are no absolute contraindications to the use of monoclonal antibodies in appropriate pregnant patients with COVID-19.⁵⁵ Remdesivir has no known fetal toxicity and is recommended as a treatment that can be offered to pregnant patients. Dexamethasone can also be administered to pregnant patients who require oxygen; however, if dexamethasone is also being used to accelerate fetal lung maturity, more frequent initial dosing is needed.

Older people. COVID-19 treatments for older patients are the same as for the general adult population. However, because older people are more likely to have impaired renal function, renal function should be monitored when an older patient is being treated with COVID-19 medications that are eliminated renally (eg, remdesivir, baricitinib). Furthermore, drug–drug interactions have been reported in older patients treated with nirmatrelvir + ritonavir, primarily because of the effects of ritonavir. Review all of a patient’s medications, including over-the-counter drugs and herbal supplements, when prescribing treatment for COVID-19, and adjust the dosage by following guidance in FDA-approved prescribing information—ideally, in consultation with a pharmacist.

Immunocompromised patients. The combination product tixagevimab + cilgavimab [Evusheld] is FDA approved for COVID-19 PrEP, under an EUA, in patients who are not infected with SARS-CoV-2 who have an immune-compromising condition, who are unlikely to mount an adequate immune response to the COVID-19 vaccine, or those in whom vaccination is not recommended because of their history of a severe adverse reaction to a COVID-19 vaccine or one of its components.⁷

Continue to: Summing up

Summing up

With a growing need for effective and readily available COVID-19 treatments, there are an unprecedented number of clinical trials in process. Besides antivirals, immunomodulators, and antibody therapies, some novel mechanisms being tested include Janus kinase inhibitors, IL-6-receptor blockers, and drugs that target adult respiratory distress syndrome and cytokine release.

Guidelines recommend against using dexamethasone and other systemic corticosteroids in COVID-19 outpatient settings.

Once larger trials are completed, we can expect stronger evidence of potential treatment options and of safety and efficacy in children, pregnant women, and vulnerable populations. During the pandemic, the FDA’s EUA program has brought emerging treatments rapidly to clinicians; nevertheless, high-quality evidence, with thorough peer review, remains critical to inform COVID-19 treatment guidelines.

^ahttps://healthdata.gov/Health/COVID-19-PublicTherapeutic-Locator/rxn6-qnx8/data

^b Sotrovimab was effective against the Omicron variant of SARS-CoV-2—the dominant variant in early 2022— but is currently not FDA authorized in any region of the United States because of the prevalence of the Omicron BA.2 subvariant.30

CORRESPONDENCE
Ambar Kulshreshtha, MD, PhD, Department of Epidemiology, Emory Rollins School of Public Health, 4500 North Shallowford Road, Suite 134, Atlanta, GA 30338; [email protected]

The ongoing COVID-19 pandemic has caused more than 1 million deaths in the United States and continues to be a major public health challenge. Cases can be asymptomatic, or symptoms can range from a mild respiratory tract infection to acute respiratory distress and multiorgan failure.

Three strategies can successfully contain the pandemic and its consequences:

• Public health measures, such as masking and social distancing
• Prophylactic vaccines to reduce transmission
• Safe and effective drugs for reducing morbidity and mortality among infected patients.

Optimal treatment strategies for patients in ambulatory and hospital settings continue to evolve as new studies are reported and new strains of the virus arise. Many medical and scientific organizations, including the National Institutes of Health (NIH) COVID-19 treatment panel,¹ Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA),² World Health Organization (WHO),³ and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention,⁴ provide recommendations for managing patients with ­COVID-19. Their guidance is based on the strongest research available and is updated intermittently; nevertheless, a plethora of new data emerges weekly and controversies surround several treatments.

In this article, we summarize evidence for the efficacy of treatments for COVID-19. We present data based on the severity of illness, and review special considerations for some patient populations, including pregnant women and children. We focus on practical therapeutic information for primary care providers practicing in a variety of settings, including outpatient and inpatient care.

We encourage clinicians, in planning treatment, to consider:

• The availability of medications (ie, use the COVID-19 Public Therapeutic Locator^a)
• The local COVID-19 situation
• Patient factors and preferences
• Evolving evidence regarding new and existing treatments.

When planning treatment, consider the availability of medications; the local COVID-19 situation; patient factors and preferences; and evolving evidence about treatments.

Most evidence about the treatment of COVID-19 comes from studies conducted when the Omicron variant of SARS-CoV-2 was not the dominant variant, as it is today in the United States. As such, drugs authorized or approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to treat COVID-19 or used off-label for that purpose might not be as efficacious today as they were almost a year ago. Furthermore, many trials of potential therapies against new viral variants are ongoing; if your patient is interested in enrolling in a clinical trial of an investigational COVID-19 treatment, refer them to www.clinicaltrials.gov.

General managementof COVID-19

Patients with COVID-19 experience a range of illness severity—from asymptomatic to mild symptoms, such as fever and myalgia, to critical illness requiring intensive care (TABLE 1^1,2). Patients with COVID-19 should therefore be monitored for progression, remotely or in person, until full recovery is achieved. Key concepts of general management include:

Assess and monitor patients’ oxygenation status by pulse oximetry; identify those with low or declining oxygen saturation before further clinical deterioration.

Continue to: Consider the patient's age and general health

Consider the patient’s age and general health. Patients are at higher risk of severe disease if they are > 65 years or have an underlying comorbidity.⁴

Emphasize self-isolation and supportive care, including rest, hydration, and over-the-counter medications to relieve cough, reduce fever, and alleviate other symptoms.

Drugs: Few approved, some under study

The antiviral remdesivir is the only drug fully approved for clinical use by the FDA to treat COVID-19 in patients > 12 years.^5,6

In addition, the FDA has issued an emergency use authorization (EUA) for several monoclonal antibodies as prophylaxis and treatment: tixagevimab packaged with cilgavimab (Evusheld) is the first antibody combination for pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) against COVID-19; the separately packaged injectables are recommended for patients who have a history of severe allergy that prevents them from being vaccinated or those with moderate or severe immune-compromising disorders.⁷

In the pipeline. Several treatments are being tested in clinical trials to evaluate their effectiveness and safety in combating COVID-19, including:

• Antivirals, which prevent viruses from multiplying
• Immunomodulators, which reduce the body’s immune reaction to the virus
• Antibody therapies, which are manufactured antibodies against the virus
• Anti-inflammatory drugs, which reduce systemic inflammation and prevent organ dysfunction
• Cell therapies and gene therapies, which alter the expression of cells and genes.

Continue to: Outpatient treatment

Several assessment tools that take into account patients’ age, respiratory status, and comorbidities are available for triage of patients infected with COVID-19.⁸

Most (> 80%) patients with COVID-19 have mild infection and are safely managed as outpatients or at home.^9,10 For patients at high risk of severe disease, a few options are recommended for patients who do not require hospitalization or supplemental oxygen; guidelines on treatment of COVID-19 in outpatient settings that have been developed by various organizations are summarized in TABLE 2.^7,11-25

Antiviral drugs target different stages of the SARS-CoV-2 replication cycle. They should be used early in the course of infection, particularly in patients at high risk of severe disease.

IDSA recommends antiviral therapy with molnupiravir, nirmatrelvir + ritonavir packaged together (Paxlovid), or remdesivir.^11,12,26,27 Remdesivir requires intravenous (IV) infusion on 3 consecutive days, which can be difficult in some clinic settings.^13,28 Nirmatrelvir + ritonavir should be initiated within 5 days after symptom onset. Overall, for most patients, nirmatrelvir + ritonavir is preferred because of oral dosing and higher efficacy in comparison to other antivirals. With nirmatrelvir + ritonavir, carefully consider drug–drug interactions and the need to adjust dosing in the presence of renal disease.^28,29 There are no data on the efficacy of any combination treatments with these agents (other than co-packaged Paxlovid).

Monoclonal antibodies for COVID-19 are given primarily intravenously. They bind to the viral spike protein, thus preventing SARS-CoV-2 from attaching to and entering cells. Bamlanivimab + etesevimab and bebtelovimab are available under an EUA for outpatient treatment.^14b Treatment should be initiated as early as possible in the course of infection—ideally, within 7 to 10 days after onset of symptoms.

Continue to: Bebtelovimab was recently given...

Bebtelovimab was recently given an EUA. It is a next-generation antibody that neutralizes all currently known variants and is the most potent monoclonal antibody against the Omicron variant, including its BA.2 subvariant.³¹ However, data about its activity against the BA.2 subvariant are based on laboratory testing and have not been confirmed in clinical trials. Clinical data were similar for this agent alone and for its use in combination with other monoclonal antibodies, but those trials were conducted before the emergence of Omicron.

In your decision-making about the most appropriate therapy, consider (1) the requirement that monoclonal antibodies be administered parenterally and (2) the susceptibility of the locally predominating viral variant.

Other monoclonal antibody agents are in the investigative pipeline; however, data about them have been largely presented through press releases or selectively reported in applications to the FDA for EUA. For example, preliminary reports show cilgavimab coverage against the Omicron variant¹⁴; so far, cilgavimab is not approved for treatment but is used in combination with tixagevimab for PreP—reportedly providing as long as 12 months of protection for patients who are less likely to respond to a vaccine.³²

Corticosteroids. Guidelines recommend against dexamethasone and other systemic corticosteroids in outpatient settings. For patients with moderate-to-severe symptoms but for whom hospitalization is not possible (eg, beds are unavailable), the NIH panel recommends dexamethasone, 6 mg/d, for the duration of supplemental oxygen, not to exceed 10 days of treatment.¹

Patients who were recently discharged after COVID-19 hospitalization should not continue remdesivir, dexamethasone, or baricitinib at home, even if they still require supplemental oxygen.

Continue to: Some treatments should not be in your COVID-19 toolbox

Some treatments should not be in your COVID-19 toolbox

High-quality studies are lacking for several other potential COVID-19 treatments. Some of these drugs are under investigation, with unclear benefit and with the potential risk of toxicity—and therefore should not be prescribed or used outside a clinical trial. See “Treatments not recommended for COVID-19,” page E14. ^{1-4,15-19,33-41}

Treatment during hospitalization

The NIH COVID-19 treatment panel recommends hospitalization for patients who have any of the following findings¹:

• Oxygen saturation < 94% while breathing room air
• Respiratory rate > 30 breaths/min
• A ratio of partial pressure of arterial O₂ to fraction of inspired O₂ (PaO₂/FiO₂) < 300 mm Hg
• Lung infiltrates > 50%.

General guidance for the care of hospitalized patients:

• Treatments that target the virus have the greatest efficacy when given early in the course of disease.
• Anti-inflammatory and immunosuppressive agents help prevent tissue damage from a dysregulated immune system. (See TABLE 3^26,42-46)
• The NIH panel,¹ IDSA,² and WHO³ recommend against dexamethasone and other corticosteroids for hospitalized patients who do not require supplemental oxygen.
• Prone positioning distributes oxygen more evenly in the lungs and improves overall oxygenation, thus reducing the need for mechanical ventilation.

Remdesivir. Once a hospitalized patient does require supplemental oxygen, the NIH panel,¹ IDSA,² and WHO³ recommend remdesivir; however, remdesivir is not recommended in many other countries because WHO has noted its limited efficacy.⁴² Dexamethasone is recommended alone, or in combination with remdesivir for patients who require increasing supplemental oxygen and those on mechanical ventilation.

Baricitinib. For patients with rapidly increasing oxygen requirements, invasive mechanical ventilation, and systemic inflammation, baricitinib, a Janus kinase inhibitor, can be administered, in addition to dexamethasone, with or without remdesivir.⁴⁷

Continue to: Tocilizumab

Tocilizumab. A monoclonal antibody and interleukin (IL)-6 inhibitor, tocilizumab is also recommended in addition to dexamethasone, with or without remdesivir.⁴⁸ Tocilizumab should be given only in combination with dexamethasone.⁴⁹ Patients should receive baricitinib or tocilizumab—not both. IDSA recommends tofacitinib, with a prophylactic dose of an anticoagulant, for patients who are hospitalized with severe COVID-19 but who are not on any form of ventilation.⁵⁰

Care of special populations

Special patient populations often seek primary care. Although many questions remain regarding the appropriate care of these populations, it is useful to summarize existing evidence and recommendations from current guidelines. 

Children. COVID-19 is generally milder in children than in adults; many infected children are asymptomatic. However, infants and children who have an underlying medical condition are at risk of severe disease, including multisystem inflammatory syndrome.⁵¹

Because patients with COVID-19 experience a range of illness severity, they should be monitored for progression, remotely or in person, until fully recovered.

The NIH panel recommends supportive care alone for most children with mild-to-moderate disease.¹ Remdesivir is recommended for hospitalized children ≥ 12 years who weigh ≥ 40 kg, have risk factors for severe disease, and have an emergent or increasing need for supplemental oxygen. Dexamethasone is recommended for hospitalized children requiring high-flow oxygen, noninvasive ventilation, invasive mechanical ventilation, or extracorporeal membrane oxygenation. Molnupiravir is not authorized for patients < 18 years because it can impede bone and cartilage growth.

There is insufficient evidence for or against the use of monoclonal antibody products for children with COVID-19 in an ambulatory setting. For hospitalized children, there is insufficient evidence for or against use of baricitinib and tocilizumab. 

Continue to: Patients who are pregnant

Patients who are pregnant are at increased risk of severe COVID-19.^52,53 The NIH states that, in general, treatment and vaccination of pregnant patients with COVID-19 should be the same as for nonpregnant patients.¹

Pregnant subjects were excluded from several trials of COVID-19 treatments.⁵⁴ Because Janus kinase inhibitors, such as baricitinib, are associated with an increased risk of thromboembolism, they are not recommended in pregnant patients who are already at risk of thromboembolic complications. Molnupiravir is not recommended for pregnant patients because of its potential for teratogenic effects.

The Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine states that there are no absolute contraindications to the use of monoclonal antibodies in appropriate pregnant patients with COVID-19.⁵⁵ Remdesivir has no known fetal toxicity and is recommended as a treatment that can be offered to pregnant patients. Dexamethasone can also be administered to pregnant patients who require oxygen; however, if dexamethasone is also being used to accelerate fetal lung maturity, more frequent initial dosing is needed.

Older people. COVID-19 treatments for older patients are the same as for the general adult population. However, because older people are more likely to have impaired renal function, renal function should be monitored when an older patient is being treated with COVID-19 medications that are eliminated renally (eg, remdesivir, baricitinib). Furthermore, drug–drug interactions have been reported in older patients treated with nirmatrelvir + ritonavir, primarily because of the effects of ritonavir. Review all of a patient’s medications, including over-the-counter drugs and herbal supplements, when prescribing treatment for COVID-19, and adjust the dosage by following guidance in FDA-approved prescribing information—ideally, in consultation with a pharmacist.

Immunocompromised patients. The combination product tixagevimab + cilgavimab [Evusheld] is FDA approved for COVID-19 PrEP, under an EUA, in patients who are not infected with SARS-CoV-2 who have an immune-compromising condition, who are unlikely to mount an adequate immune response to the COVID-19 vaccine, or those in whom vaccination is not recommended because of their history of a severe adverse reaction to a COVID-19 vaccine or one of its components.⁷

Continue to: Summing up

Summing up

With a growing need for effective and readily available COVID-19 treatments, there are an unprecedented number of clinical trials in process. Besides antivirals, immunomodulators, and antibody therapies, some novel mechanisms being tested include Janus kinase inhibitors, IL-6-receptor blockers, and drugs that target adult respiratory distress syndrome and cytokine release.

Guidelines recommend against using dexamethasone and other systemic corticosteroids in COVID-19 outpatient settings.

Once larger trials are completed, we can expect stronger evidence of potential treatment options and of safety and efficacy in children, pregnant women, and vulnerable populations. During the pandemic, the FDA’s EUA program has brought emerging treatments rapidly to clinicians; nevertheless, high-quality evidence, with thorough peer review, remains critical to inform COVID-19 treatment guidelines.

^ahttps://healthdata.gov/Health/COVID-19-PublicTherapeutic-Locator/rxn6-qnx8/data

^b Sotrovimab was effective against the Omicron variant of SARS-CoV-2—the dominant variant in early 2022— but is currently not FDA authorized in any region of the United States because of the prevalence of the Omicron BA.2 subvariant.30

CORRESPONDENCE
Ambar Kulshreshtha, MD, PhD, Department of Epidemiology, Emory Rollins School of Public Health, 4500 North Shallowford Road, Suite 134, Atlanta, GA 30338; [email protected]