Background: Studies have assessed mortality effect from ED crowding on high-acuity patients, but limited evidence exists for how this affects lower-acuity patients who are discharged home.

The study demonstrated an increased 10-day mortality for mean ED length of stay of 8 hours or more vs. less than 2 hours (adjusted odds ratio, 5.86; 95% CI, 2.15-15.94). It also found an increased mortality rate for occupancy ratio quartiles with an aOR for quartiles 2, 3, and 4 vs. quartile 1 of 1.48 (95% CI, 1.14-1.92), 1.63 (95% CI, 1.24-2.14), and 1.53 (95% CI, 1.15-2.03), respectively.

While this suggests increased 10-day mortality in this patient population, additional studies should be conducted to determine if this risk is caused by ED crowding and length of stay or by current limitations in triage scoring.

Bottom line: There is an increased 10-day mortality rate for lower-acuity triaged patients who were discharged from the ED without hospitalization experiencing increased ED length of stay and during times of ED crowding.

Citation: Berg L et al. Associations between crowding and 10-day mortality among patients allocated lower triage acuity levels without need of acute hospital care on departure from the emergency department. Ann Emerg Med. 2019 Sep;74(3):345-56.

Dr. Merando is a hospitalist and assistant professor of internal medicine at St. Louis University School of Medicine.

Background: Studies have assessed mortality effect from ED crowding on high-acuity patients, but limited evidence exists for how this affects lower-acuity patients who are discharged home.

The study demonstrated an increased 10-day mortality for mean ED length of stay of 8 hours or more vs. less than 2 hours (adjusted odds ratio, 5.86; 95% CI, 2.15-15.94). It also found an increased mortality rate for occupancy ratio quartiles with an aOR for quartiles 2, 3, and 4 vs. quartile 1 of 1.48 (95% CI, 1.14-1.92), 1.63 (95% CI, 1.24-2.14), and 1.53 (95% CI, 1.15-2.03), respectively.

While this suggests increased 10-day mortality in this patient population, additional studies should be conducted to determine if this risk is caused by ED crowding and length of stay or by current limitations in triage scoring.

Bottom line: There is an increased 10-day mortality rate for lower-acuity triaged patients who were discharged from the ED without hospitalization experiencing increased ED length of stay and during times of ED crowding.

Citation: Berg L et al. Associations between crowding and 10-day mortality among patients allocated lower triage acuity levels without need of acute hospital care on departure from the emergency department. Ann Emerg Med. 2019 Sep;74(3):345-56.

Dr. Merando is a hospitalist and assistant professor of internal medicine at St. Louis University School of Medicine.

Background: Studies have assessed mortality effect from ED crowding on high-acuity patients, but limited evidence exists for how this affects lower-acuity patients who are discharged home.

The study demonstrated an increased 10-day mortality for mean ED length of stay of 8 hours or more vs. less than 2 hours (adjusted odds ratio, 5.86; 95% CI, 2.15-15.94). It also found an increased mortality rate for occupancy ratio quartiles with an aOR for quartiles 2, 3, and 4 vs. quartile 1 of 1.48 (95% CI, 1.14-1.92), 1.63 (95% CI, 1.24-2.14), and 1.53 (95% CI, 1.15-2.03), respectively.

While this suggests increased 10-day mortality in this patient population, additional studies should be conducted to determine if this risk is caused by ED crowding and length of stay or by current limitations in triage scoring.

Bottom line: There is an increased 10-day mortality rate for lower-acuity triaged patients who were discharged from the ED without hospitalization experiencing increased ED length of stay and during times of ED crowding.

Citation: Berg L et al. Associations between crowding and 10-day mortality among patients allocated lower triage acuity levels without need of acute hospital care on departure from the emergency department. Ann Emerg Med. 2019 Sep;74(3):345-56.

Dr. Merando is a hospitalist and assistant professor of internal medicine at St. Louis University School of Medicine.

Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is the most recently identified member of the zoonotic pathogens of coronaviruses. It caused an outbreak of pneumonia in December 2019 in Wuhan, China.¹ Among all related acute respiratory syndromes (SARS-CoV, Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus), SARS-CoV-2 remains to be the most infectious, has the highest potential for human transmission, and can eventually result in acute respiratory distress syndrome.^2,3

Only 15% of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) cases progress to pneumonia, and approximately 5% of these cases develop acute respiratory distress syndrome, septic shock, and/or multiple organ failure. The majority of cases only exhibit mild to moderate symptoms.^4,5 A wide array of skin manifestations in COVID-19 infection have been reported, including maculopapular eruptions, morbilliform rashes, urticaria, chickenpoxlike lesions, livedo reticularis, COVID toes, erythema multiforme, pityriasis rosea, and several other patterns.⁶ We report a case of herpes zoster (HZ) complication in a COVID-19–positive woman who was 27 weeks pregnant.

Case Report

A 36-year-old woman who was 27 weeks pregnant was referred by her obstetrician to the dermatology clinic. She presented with a low-grade fever and a vesicular painful rash. Physical examination revealed painful, itchy, dysesthetic papules and vesicles on the left side of the forehead along with mild edema of the left upper eyelid but no watering of the eye or photophobia. She reported episodes of fever (temperature, 38.9°C), fatigue, and myalgia over the last week. She had bouts of dyspnea and tachycardia that she thought were related to being in the late second trimester of pregnancy. The area surrounding the vesicular eruption was tender to touch. No dry cough or any gastrointestinal or urinary tract symptoms were noted. She reported a burning sensation when splashing water on the face or when exposed to air currents. One week following the initial symptoms, she experienced a painful vesicular rash along the upper left forehead (Figure) associated with eyelid edema. Oral and ocular mucosae were free of any presentations. She had no relevant history and had not experienced any complications during pregnancy. A diagnosis of HZ was made, and she was prescribed valacyclovir 1 g 3 times daily for 7 days, acetaminophen for the fever, and calamine lotion. We recommended COVID-19 testing based on her symptoms. A chest radiograph and a positive nasopharyngeal smear were consistent with COVID-19 infection. She reported via telephone follow-up 1 week after presentation that her skin condition had improved following the treatment course and that the vesicles eventually dried, leaving a crusting appearance after 5 to 7 days. Regarding her SARS-CoV-2 condition, her oxygen saturation was 95% at presentation; she self-quarantined at home; and she was treated with oseltamivir 75 mg orally every 12 hours for 5 days, azithromycin 500 mg orally daily, acetaminophen, and vitamin C. Electronic fetal heart rate monitoring and ultrasound examinations were performed to assess the condition of the fetus and were reported normal. At the time of writing this article, she was 32 weeks pregnant and tested negative to 2 consecutive nasopharyngeal swabs for COVID-19 and was in good general condition. She continued her pregnancy according to her obstetrician’s recommendations.

Comment

The incubation time of COVID-19 can be up to 14 days. Fever, dry cough, fatigue, and diarrhea have been speculated to be clinical symptoms; however, many cases may be asymptomatic. Aside from a medical or travel history at risk for COVID-19, diagnosis can be confirmed by detection of viral RNA by reverse transcriptase–polymerase chain reaction for nasopharyngeal swabs or bronchoalveolar fluid. Patients who are immunocompromised, older, or male or who have a history of cardiovascular conditions or debilitating chronic conditions are at an increased risk for severe disease and poor outcome compared to younger healthy individuals.⁷

The vesicular rash of COVID-19 has been reported to have different forms of presentation. A diffuse widespread pattern resembling hand-foot-and-mouth disease and a localized monomorphic pattern resembling chickenpox but with predilection to the trunk has been described.⁸

Physiologic changes in the immune and cardiopulmonary systems during pregnancy (eg, diaphragm elevation, increased oxygen consumption, edema of the respiratory tract mucosae) make pregnant women intolerant to hypoxia. The mortality rate of the 1918 influenza pandemic was 2.6% in the overall population but 37% among pregnant women.⁹ In 2009, pregnant women were reported to be at an increased risk for complications from the H1N1 influenza virus pandemic, with a higher estimated rate of hospital admission than the general population.¹⁰ In 2003, approximately 50% of pregnant women who received a diagnosis of SARS-CoV were admitted to the intensive care unit, approximately 33% of pregnant women with SARS-CoV required mechanical ventilation, and the mortality rate was as high as 25% for these women.¹¹ To date, data on the effects of COVID-19 in pregnancy are limited to small case series.^12-15

It was confirmed that COVID-19 infection is accompanied by a reduction in lymphocytes, monocytes, and eosinophils, along with a notable reduction of CD4/CD8 T cells, B cells, and natural killer cells. It was further revealed that nonsurvivor COVID-19 patients continued to show a decrease in lymphocyte counts along the course of their disease until death.^16-18

Different mechanisms for lymphocyte depletion and deficiency were speculated among COVID-19 patients and include direct lymphocyte death through coronavirus angiotensin-converting enzyme 2–lymphocyte-expressed receptors; direct damage to lymphatic organs, such as the thymus and spleen, but this theory needs to be further investigated; direct lymphocyte apoptosis mediated by tumor necrosis factor α, IL-6, and other proinflammatory cytokines; and direct inhibition of lymphocytes by metabolic upset, such as acidosis.^19,20

These causes may precipitate lymphopenia and impaired antiviral responses.²¹ It also has been postulated that the functional damage of CD4⁺ T cells may predispose patients with COVID-19 to severe disease.²² Such immune changes can render a patient more susceptible to developing shingles by reactivating varicella-zoster virus, which could be a sign of undiagnosed COVID-19 infection in younger age groups.

Two earlier reports discussed HZ among COVID-19–diagnosed patients. Shors²³ presented a case of a patient who developed varicella-zoster virus reactivation of the V2 dermatome during the course of COVID-19 infection. In addition, the patient developed severe acute herpetic neuralgia despite the early initiation of antiviral therapy.²³ Elsaie et al²⁴ described 2 cases of patients during the pandemic who first presented with HZ before later being diagnosed with COVID-19 infection.

New information and cutaneous manifestations possibly related to COVID-19 are emerging every day. We report a pregnant female presenting with HZ during the course of COVID-19 infection, which suggests that the clinical presentation of HZ at the time of the current pandemic, especially if associated with other signs of COVID-19 infection, should be carefully monitored and reported for further assessment.

Acknowledgment
The authors would like to thank all the health care workers who have been fighting COVID-19 in Egypt and worldwide.

Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is the most recently identified member of the zoonotic pathogens of coronaviruses. It caused an outbreak of pneumonia in December 2019 in Wuhan, China.¹ Among all related acute respiratory syndromes (SARS-CoV, Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus), SARS-CoV-2 remains to be the most infectious, has the highest potential for human transmission, and can eventually result in acute respiratory distress syndrome.^2,3

Only 15% of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) cases progress to pneumonia, and approximately 5% of these cases develop acute respiratory distress syndrome, septic shock, and/or multiple organ failure. The majority of cases only exhibit mild to moderate symptoms.^4,5 A wide array of skin manifestations in COVID-19 infection have been reported, including maculopapular eruptions, morbilliform rashes, urticaria, chickenpoxlike lesions, livedo reticularis, COVID toes, erythema multiforme, pityriasis rosea, and several other patterns.⁶ We report a case of herpes zoster (HZ) complication in a COVID-19–positive woman who was 27 weeks pregnant.

Case Report

A 36-year-old woman who was 27 weeks pregnant was referred by her obstetrician to the dermatology clinic. She presented with a low-grade fever and a vesicular painful rash. Physical examination revealed painful, itchy, dysesthetic papules and vesicles on the left side of the forehead along with mild edema of the left upper eyelid but no watering of the eye or photophobia. She reported episodes of fever (temperature, 38.9°C), fatigue, and myalgia over the last week. She had bouts of dyspnea and tachycardia that she thought were related to being in the late second trimester of pregnancy. The area surrounding the vesicular eruption was tender to touch. No dry cough or any gastrointestinal or urinary tract symptoms were noted. She reported a burning sensation when splashing water on the face or when exposed to air currents. One week following the initial symptoms, she experienced a painful vesicular rash along the upper left forehead (Figure) associated with eyelid edema. Oral and ocular mucosae were free of any presentations. She had no relevant history and had not experienced any complications during pregnancy. A diagnosis of HZ was made, and she was prescribed valacyclovir 1 g 3 times daily for 7 days, acetaminophen for the fever, and calamine lotion. We recommended COVID-19 testing based on her symptoms. A chest radiograph and a positive nasopharyngeal smear were consistent with COVID-19 infection. She reported via telephone follow-up 1 week after presentation that her skin condition had improved following the treatment course and that the vesicles eventually dried, leaving a crusting appearance after 5 to 7 days. Regarding her SARS-CoV-2 condition, her oxygen saturation was 95% at presentation; she self-quarantined at home; and she was treated with oseltamivir 75 mg orally every 12 hours for 5 days, azithromycin 500 mg orally daily, acetaminophen, and vitamin C. Electronic fetal heart rate monitoring and ultrasound examinations were performed to assess the condition of the fetus and were reported normal. At the time of writing this article, she was 32 weeks pregnant and tested negative to 2 consecutive nasopharyngeal swabs for COVID-19 and was in good general condition. She continued her pregnancy according to her obstetrician’s recommendations.

Comment

The incubation time of COVID-19 can be up to 14 days. Fever, dry cough, fatigue, and diarrhea have been speculated to be clinical symptoms; however, many cases may be asymptomatic. Aside from a medical or travel history at risk for COVID-19, diagnosis can be confirmed by detection of viral RNA by reverse transcriptase–polymerase chain reaction for nasopharyngeal swabs or bronchoalveolar fluid. Patients who are immunocompromised, older, or male or who have a history of cardiovascular conditions or debilitating chronic conditions are at an increased risk for severe disease and poor outcome compared to younger healthy individuals.⁷

The vesicular rash of COVID-19 has been reported to have different forms of presentation. A diffuse widespread pattern resembling hand-foot-and-mouth disease and a localized monomorphic pattern resembling chickenpox but with predilection to the trunk has been described.⁸

Physiologic changes in the immune and cardiopulmonary systems during pregnancy (eg, diaphragm elevation, increased oxygen consumption, edema of the respiratory tract mucosae) make pregnant women intolerant to hypoxia. The mortality rate of the 1918 influenza pandemic was 2.6% in the overall population but 37% among pregnant women.⁹ In 2009, pregnant women were reported to be at an increased risk for complications from the H1N1 influenza virus pandemic, with a higher estimated rate of hospital admission than the general population.¹⁰ In 2003, approximately 50% of pregnant women who received a diagnosis of SARS-CoV were admitted to the intensive care unit, approximately 33% of pregnant women with SARS-CoV required mechanical ventilation, and the mortality rate was as high as 25% for these women.¹¹ To date, data on the effects of COVID-19 in pregnancy are limited to small case series.^12-15

It was confirmed that COVID-19 infection is accompanied by a reduction in lymphocytes, monocytes, and eosinophils, along with a notable reduction of CD4/CD8 T cells, B cells, and natural killer cells. It was further revealed that nonsurvivor COVID-19 patients continued to show a decrease in lymphocyte counts along the course of their disease until death.^16-18

Different mechanisms for lymphocyte depletion and deficiency were speculated among COVID-19 patients and include direct lymphocyte death through coronavirus angiotensin-converting enzyme 2–lymphocyte-expressed receptors; direct damage to lymphatic organs, such as the thymus and spleen, but this theory needs to be further investigated; direct lymphocyte apoptosis mediated by tumor necrosis factor α, IL-6, and other proinflammatory cytokines; and direct inhibition of lymphocytes by metabolic upset, such as acidosis.^19,20

These causes may precipitate lymphopenia and impaired antiviral responses.²¹ It also has been postulated that the functional damage of CD4⁺ T cells may predispose patients with COVID-19 to severe disease.²² Such immune changes can render a patient more susceptible to developing shingles by reactivating varicella-zoster virus, which could be a sign of undiagnosed COVID-19 infection in younger age groups.

Two earlier reports discussed HZ among COVID-19–diagnosed patients. Shors²³ presented a case of a patient who developed varicella-zoster virus reactivation of the V2 dermatome during the course of COVID-19 infection. In addition, the patient developed severe acute herpetic neuralgia despite the early initiation of antiviral therapy.²³ Elsaie et al²⁴ described 2 cases of patients during the pandemic who first presented with HZ before later being diagnosed with COVID-19 infection.

New information and cutaneous manifestations possibly related to COVID-19 are emerging every day. We report a pregnant female presenting with HZ during the course of COVID-19 infection, which suggests that the clinical presentation of HZ at the time of the current pandemic, especially if associated with other signs of COVID-19 infection, should be carefully monitored and reported for further assessment.

Acknowledgment
The authors would like to thank all the health care workers who have been fighting COVID-19 in Egypt and worldwide.

Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is the most recently identified member of the zoonotic pathogens of coronaviruses. It caused an outbreak of pneumonia in December 2019 in Wuhan, China.¹ Among all related acute respiratory syndromes (SARS-CoV, Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus), SARS-CoV-2 remains to be the most infectious, has the highest potential for human transmission, and can eventually result in acute respiratory distress syndrome.^2,3

Only 15% of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) cases progress to pneumonia, and approximately 5% of these cases develop acute respiratory distress syndrome, septic shock, and/or multiple organ failure. The majority of cases only exhibit mild to moderate symptoms.^4,5 A wide array of skin manifestations in COVID-19 infection have been reported, including maculopapular eruptions, morbilliform rashes, urticaria, chickenpoxlike lesions, livedo reticularis, COVID toes, erythema multiforme, pityriasis rosea, and several other patterns.⁶ We report a case of herpes zoster (HZ) complication in a COVID-19–positive woman who was 27 weeks pregnant.

Case Report

A 36-year-old woman who was 27 weeks pregnant was referred by her obstetrician to the dermatology clinic. She presented with a low-grade fever and a vesicular painful rash. Physical examination revealed painful, itchy, dysesthetic papules and vesicles on the left side of the forehead along with mild edema of the left upper eyelid but no watering of the eye or photophobia. She reported episodes of fever (temperature, 38.9°C), fatigue, and myalgia over the last week. She had bouts of dyspnea and tachycardia that she thought were related to being in the late second trimester of pregnancy. The area surrounding the vesicular eruption was tender to touch. No dry cough or any gastrointestinal or urinary tract symptoms were noted. She reported a burning sensation when splashing water on the face or when exposed to air currents. One week following the initial symptoms, she experienced a painful vesicular rash along the upper left forehead (Figure) associated with eyelid edema. Oral and ocular mucosae were free of any presentations. She had no relevant history and had not experienced any complications during pregnancy. A diagnosis of HZ was made, and she was prescribed valacyclovir 1 g 3 times daily for 7 days, acetaminophen for the fever, and calamine lotion. We recommended COVID-19 testing based on her symptoms. A chest radiograph and a positive nasopharyngeal smear were consistent with COVID-19 infection. She reported via telephone follow-up 1 week after presentation that her skin condition had improved following the treatment course and that the vesicles eventually dried, leaving a crusting appearance after 5 to 7 days. Regarding her SARS-CoV-2 condition, her oxygen saturation was 95% at presentation; she self-quarantined at home; and she was treated with oseltamivir 75 mg orally every 12 hours for 5 days, azithromycin 500 mg orally daily, acetaminophen, and vitamin C. Electronic fetal heart rate monitoring and ultrasound examinations were performed to assess the condition of the fetus and were reported normal. At the time of writing this article, she was 32 weeks pregnant and tested negative to 2 consecutive nasopharyngeal swabs for COVID-19 and was in good general condition. She continued her pregnancy according to her obstetrician’s recommendations.

Comment

The incubation time of COVID-19 can be up to 14 days. Fever, dry cough, fatigue, and diarrhea have been speculated to be clinical symptoms; however, many cases may be asymptomatic. Aside from a medical or travel history at risk for COVID-19, diagnosis can be confirmed by detection of viral RNA by reverse transcriptase–polymerase chain reaction for nasopharyngeal swabs or bronchoalveolar fluid. Patients who are immunocompromised, older, or male or who have a history of cardiovascular conditions or debilitating chronic conditions are at an increased risk for severe disease and poor outcome compared to younger healthy individuals.⁷

The vesicular rash of COVID-19 has been reported to have different forms of presentation. A diffuse widespread pattern resembling hand-foot-and-mouth disease and a localized monomorphic pattern resembling chickenpox but with predilection to the trunk has been described.⁸

Physiologic changes in the immune and cardiopulmonary systems during pregnancy (eg, diaphragm elevation, increased oxygen consumption, edema of the respiratory tract mucosae) make pregnant women intolerant to hypoxia. The mortality rate of the 1918 influenza pandemic was 2.6% in the overall population but 37% among pregnant women.⁹ In 2009, pregnant women were reported to be at an increased risk for complications from the H1N1 influenza virus pandemic, with a higher estimated rate of hospital admission than the general population.¹⁰ In 2003, approximately 50% of pregnant women who received a diagnosis of SARS-CoV were admitted to the intensive care unit, approximately 33% of pregnant women with SARS-CoV required mechanical ventilation, and the mortality rate was as high as 25% for these women.¹¹ To date, data on the effects of COVID-19 in pregnancy are limited to small case series.^12-15

It was confirmed that COVID-19 infection is accompanied by a reduction in lymphocytes, monocytes, and eosinophils, along with a notable reduction of CD4/CD8 T cells, B cells, and natural killer cells. It was further revealed that nonsurvivor COVID-19 patients continued to show a decrease in lymphocyte counts along the course of their disease until death.^16-18

Different mechanisms for lymphocyte depletion and deficiency were speculated among COVID-19 patients and include direct lymphocyte death through coronavirus angiotensin-converting enzyme 2–lymphocyte-expressed receptors; direct damage to lymphatic organs, such as the thymus and spleen, but this theory needs to be further investigated; direct lymphocyte apoptosis mediated by tumor necrosis factor α, IL-6, and other proinflammatory cytokines; and direct inhibition of lymphocytes by metabolic upset, such as acidosis.^19,20

These causes may precipitate lymphopenia and impaired antiviral responses.²¹ It also has been postulated that the functional damage of CD4⁺ T cells may predispose patients with COVID-19 to severe disease.²² Such immune changes can render a patient more susceptible to developing shingles by reactivating varicella-zoster virus, which could be a sign of undiagnosed COVID-19 infection in younger age groups.

Two earlier reports discussed HZ among COVID-19–diagnosed patients. Shors²³ presented a case of a patient who developed varicella-zoster virus reactivation of the V2 dermatome during the course of COVID-19 infection. In addition, the patient developed severe acute herpetic neuralgia despite the early initiation of antiviral therapy.²³ Elsaie et al²⁴ described 2 cases of patients during the pandemic who first presented with HZ before later being diagnosed with COVID-19 infection.

New information and cutaneous manifestations possibly related to COVID-19 are emerging every day. We report a pregnant female presenting with HZ during the course of COVID-19 infection, which suggests that the clinical presentation of HZ at the time of the current pandemic, especially if associated with other signs of COVID-19 infection, should be carefully monitored and reported for further assessment.

Acknowledgment
The authors would like to thank all the health care workers who have been fighting COVID-19 in Egypt and worldwide.

Although physicians commit themselves to providing equitable treatment to all patients, significant disparities remain in the dermatologic care of Black patients, who constitute 13% of the US population, which continues to grow increasingly diverse.¹ Despite these changes in the population, the literature demonstrates that dermatologic training does not adequately focus on unique presentations of cutaneous pathology in the Black population.^2,3 Accordingly, medical students lack proper training in how skin disorders manifest in people of color. Compounding the problem, only 3% of dermatologists are Black, creating a cultural barrier that can compromise care for Black patients.^2,4 Racial disparities in dermatology training can compromise treatment, patient satisfaction, and outcomes.³

Issues in Medical Education Training and Resources

Lack of diversity in the resources used for dermatology training in medical schools affects diagnosis and treatment, as skin manifestations such as hypersensitivity reactions, rashes, and cancer can appear differently on different skin tones.⁵ A study of medical students’ ability to diagnose common dermatologic pathologies found that when trainees were presented with photographs of dark skin, their accuracy in identifying urticaria, squamous cell carcinoma, and even atopic dermatitis was reduced, despite these diseases being more prevalent in children of African American ancestry.^4,6

Dermatologic diseases also can have different distributions in different races; for example, on non–sun-exposed sites, squamous cell carcinoma in Black patients occurs at 8.5 times the frequency of White patients.⁷ Failure to identify diseases accurately due to insufficient training can have grave consequences for patients. Although skin cancer is less common in individuals with skin of color, it is associated with greater morbidity and mortality, in part due to delayed diagnosis.⁷

Inadequate research, reporting, and instruction on dermatologic findings in patients with darker complexions further compound racial disparities in dermatology. A 2006 study of the representation of darker skin in major dermatology educational resources found that only 2% of teaching events at American Academy of Dermatology annual meetings focused on skin of color. Furthermore, the study determined that many common diseases in patients with dark skin, such as acne vulgaris and pityriasis rosea, were completely absent or limited in dermatology textbooks.⁸

Impact on the Black Patient Experience

Patients’ therapeutic relationship with their physician also is damaged by limitations in training in diverse skin color. A study that assessed Black patients seen in a skin of color clinic (SOCC) compared to Black patients seen in a non-SOCC found that non-SOCC patients reported a lower degree of respect, dignity, understanding, and trust compared to the patients seen in a SOCC. Black patients expressed specific concerns about non-SOCC dermatologists’ knowledge of abnormalities that present in darker skin and Black hair.³ These findings are compounded by reports suggesting that, independent of care, structural racism contributes to dermatologic disease severity by influencing patient education level, household income, and degree of exposure to harmful environmental irritants.⁶

Racial disparities continue to be seen in the makeup of the universe of dermatologists and skin researchers. As of 2016, only 3% of dermatologists were Black, making dermatology one of the least diverse medical specialties.² Increasing the diversity of the dermatology workforce is important to improve patient satisfaction and treatment, both for minority and nonminority patients. Compared to race-discordant medical visits, race-concordant visits were shown to have a higher rate of satisfaction and better shared decision-making.⁹ Also, minority physicians are more likely to practice health care in areas that are traditionally underserved and to care for patients who do not have health insurance, making their participation essential in addressing some of the baseline disparities Black patients face in securing quality dermatologic care.¹

Structural Racism in Medicine

Changing dermatology training to ensure improved treatment of Black patients requires not only increased attention to differences in disease presentation but also heightened awareness of underlying genetic, environmental, and structural factors that contribute to the disease course.⁶ For example, there is evidence suggesting that structural racism in the form of residential segregation, lower socioeconomic status, and lower educational attainment contribute to disease severity in conditions such as atopic dermatitis. There is additional evidence suggesting that White patients are more readily offered therapeutic options than Black patients. A study of racial disparities in psoriasis treatment found that Black patients with moderate to severe psoriasis were 70% less likely to receive treatment with a biologic than White patients, independent of socioeconomic factors, comorbidities, and insurance plans.¹⁰

Moving Forward

Although research continues to underscore racial disparities in dermatology, some leaders in the field are actively combating these problems. A recent study that looked at representations of dark skin images in medical educational resources found far greater representation of dark pigmented skin in web-based resources than in traditional printed texts. Specifically, the online resource VisualDx (https://www.visualdx.com/) features 28.5% dark skin images compared to 10.3% (on average) in printed dermatology books.¹¹ There also is increasing public awareness of these issues, with organizations such as the Skin of Color Society (http://skinofcolorsociety.org/) helping to promote interest in racial disparities in dermatology. Physicians also have created textbooks and social media accounts focused on dermatologic manifestations in skin of color.¹² The Instagram account Brown Skin Matters (@brownskinmatters) has created a publicly accessible online resource where physicians and patients can see and post dermatologic diseases in skin of color.⁵

Final Thoughts

It is critical that physicians be trained to identify skin and hair manifestations of disease and disorders in Black patients. Training can be improved by including more images of skin manifestations in dark skin, both in medical school curricula and in new editions of dermatology textbooks. Training also must teach students about hair in Black individuals and how to properly treat it as well as related conditions of the hair and scalp.¹³ More research also is needed to better understand how dermatologists can improve the patient experience for Black patients. Residency programs must work to increase diversity among dermatology trainees.

Lastly, dermatology education should increasingly be supplemented with newer, web-based resources that show dermatologic manifestations across the spectrum of skin tones. Dermatology training must be adapted to better account for diverse patient populations and increase its focus on the systems that produce baseline disparities in disease morbidity and mortality.

Although physicians commit themselves to providing equitable treatment to all patients, significant disparities remain in the dermatologic care of Black patients, who constitute 13% of the US population, which continues to grow increasingly diverse.¹ Despite these changes in the population, the literature demonstrates that dermatologic training does not adequately focus on unique presentations of cutaneous pathology in the Black population.^2,3 Accordingly, medical students lack proper training in how skin disorders manifest in people of color. Compounding the problem, only 3% of dermatologists are Black, creating a cultural barrier that can compromise care for Black patients.^2,4 Racial disparities in dermatology training can compromise treatment, patient satisfaction, and outcomes.³

Issues in Medical Education Training and Resources

Lack of diversity in the resources used for dermatology training in medical schools affects diagnosis and treatment, as skin manifestations such as hypersensitivity reactions, rashes, and cancer can appear differently on different skin tones.⁵ A study of medical students’ ability to diagnose common dermatologic pathologies found that when trainees were presented with photographs of dark skin, their accuracy in identifying urticaria, squamous cell carcinoma, and even atopic dermatitis was reduced, despite these diseases being more prevalent in children of African American ancestry.^4,6

Dermatologic diseases also can have different distributions in different races; for example, on non–sun-exposed sites, squamous cell carcinoma in Black patients occurs at 8.5 times the frequency of White patients.⁷ Failure to identify diseases accurately due to insufficient training can have grave consequences for patients. Although skin cancer is less common in individuals with skin of color, it is associated with greater morbidity and mortality, in part due to delayed diagnosis.⁷

Inadequate research, reporting, and instruction on dermatologic findings in patients with darker complexions further compound racial disparities in dermatology. A 2006 study of the representation of darker skin in major dermatology educational resources found that only 2% of teaching events at American Academy of Dermatology annual meetings focused on skin of color. Furthermore, the study determined that many common diseases in patients with dark skin, such as acne vulgaris and pityriasis rosea, were completely absent or limited in dermatology textbooks.⁸

Impact on the Black Patient Experience

Patients’ therapeutic relationship with their physician also is damaged by limitations in training in diverse skin color. A study that assessed Black patients seen in a skin of color clinic (SOCC) compared to Black patients seen in a non-SOCC found that non-SOCC patients reported a lower degree of respect, dignity, understanding, and trust compared to the patients seen in a SOCC. Black patients expressed specific concerns about non-SOCC dermatologists’ knowledge of abnormalities that present in darker skin and Black hair.³ These findings are compounded by reports suggesting that, independent of care, structural racism contributes to dermatologic disease severity by influencing patient education level, household income, and degree of exposure to harmful environmental irritants.⁶

Racial disparities continue to be seen in the makeup of the universe of dermatologists and skin researchers. As of 2016, only 3% of dermatologists were Black, making dermatology one of the least diverse medical specialties.² Increasing the diversity of the dermatology workforce is important to improve patient satisfaction and treatment, both for minority and nonminority patients. Compared to race-discordant medical visits, race-concordant visits were shown to have a higher rate of satisfaction and better shared decision-making.⁹ Also, minority physicians are more likely to practice health care in areas that are traditionally underserved and to care for patients who do not have health insurance, making their participation essential in addressing some of the baseline disparities Black patients face in securing quality dermatologic care.¹

Structural Racism in Medicine

Changing dermatology training to ensure improved treatment of Black patients requires not only increased attention to differences in disease presentation but also heightened awareness of underlying genetic, environmental, and structural factors that contribute to the disease course.⁶ For example, there is evidence suggesting that structural racism in the form of residential segregation, lower socioeconomic status, and lower educational attainment contribute to disease severity in conditions such as atopic dermatitis. There is additional evidence suggesting that White patients are more readily offered therapeutic options than Black patients. A study of racial disparities in psoriasis treatment found that Black patients with moderate to severe psoriasis were 70% less likely to receive treatment with a biologic than White patients, independent of socioeconomic factors, comorbidities, and insurance plans.¹⁰

Moving Forward

Although research continues to underscore racial disparities in dermatology, some leaders in the field are actively combating these problems. A recent study that looked at representations of dark skin images in medical educational resources found far greater representation of dark pigmented skin in web-based resources than in traditional printed texts. Specifically, the online resource VisualDx (https://www.visualdx.com/) features 28.5% dark skin images compared to 10.3% (on average) in printed dermatology books.¹¹ There also is increasing public awareness of these issues, with organizations such as the Skin of Color Society (http://skinofcolorsociety.org/) helping to promote interest in racial disparities in dermatology. Physicians also have created textbooks and social media accounts focused on dermatologic manifestations in skin of color.¹² The Instagram account Brown Skin Matters (@brownskinmatters) has created a publicly accessible online resource where physicians and patients can see and post dermatologic diseases in skin of color.⁵

Final Thoughts

It is critical that physicians be trained to identify skin and hair manifestations of disease and disorders in Black patients. Training can be improved by including more images of skin manifestations in dark skin, both in medical school curricula and in new editions of dermatology textbooks. Training also must teach students about hair in Black individuals and how to properly treat it as well as related conditions of the hair and scalp.¹³ More research also is needed to better understand how dermatologists can improve the patient experience for Black patients. Residency programs must work to increase diversity among dermatology trainees.

Lastly, dermatology education should increasingly be supplemented with newer, web-based resources that show dermatologic manifestations across the spectrum of skin tones. Dermatology training must be adapted to better account for diverse patient populations and increase its focus on the systems that produce baseline disparities in disease morbidity and mortality.

Although physicians commit themselves to providing equitable treatment to all patients, significant disparities remain in the dermatologic care of Black patients, who constitute 13% of the US population, which continues to grow increasingly diverse.¹ Despite these changes in the population, the literature demonstrates that dermatologic training does not adequately focus on unique presentations of cutaneous pathology in the Black population.^2,3 Accordingly, medical students lack proper training in how skin disorders manifest in people of color. Compounding the problem, only 3% of dermatologists are Black, creating a cultural barrier that can compromise care for Black patients.^2,4 Racial disparities in dermatology training can compromise treatment, patient satisfaction, and outcomes.³

Issues in Medical Education Training and Resources

Lack of diversity in the resources used for dermatology training in medical schools affects diagnosis and treatment, as skin manifestations such as hypersensitivity reactions, rashes, and cancer can appear differently on different skin tones.⁵ A study of medical students’ ability to diagnose common dermatologic pathologies found that when trainees were presented with photographs of dark skin, their accuracy in identifying urticaria, squamous cell carcinoma, and even atopic dermatitis was reduced, despite these diseases being more prevalent in children of African American ancestry.^4,6

Dermatologic diseases also can have different distributions in different races; for example, on non–sun-exposed sites, squamous cell carcinoma in Black patients occurs at 8.5 times the frequency of White patients.⁷ Failure to identify diseases accurately due to insufficient training can have grave consequences for patients. Although skin cancer is less common in individuals with skin of color, it is associated with greater morbidity and mortality, in part due to delayed diagnosis.⁷

Inadequate research, reporting, and instruction on dermatologic findings in patients with darker complexions further compound racial disparities in dermatology. A 2006 study of the representation of darker skin in major dermatology educational resources found that only 2% of teaching events at American Academy of Dermatology annual meetings focused on skin of color. Furthermore, the study determined that many common diseases in patients with dark skin, such as acne vulgaris and pityriasis rosea, were completely absent or limited in dermatology textbooks.⁸

Impact on the Black Patient Experience

Patients’ therapeutic relationship with their physician also is damaged by limitations in training in diverse skin color. A study that assessed Black patients seen in a skin of color clinic (SOCC) compared to Black patients seen in a non-SOCC found that non-SOCC patients reported a lower degree of respect, dignity, understanding, and trust compared to the patients seen in a SOCC. Black patients expressed specific concerns about non-SOCC dermatologists’ knowledge of abnormalities that present in darker skin and Black hair.³ These findings are compounded by reports suggesting that, independent of care, structural racism contributes to dermatologic disease severity by influencing patient education level, household income, and degree of exposure to harmful environmental irritants.⁶

Racial disparities continue to be seen in the makeup of the universe of dermatologists and skin researchers. As of 2016, only 3% of dermatologists were Black, making dermatology one of the least diverse medical specialties.² Increasing the diversity of the dermatology workforce is important to improve patient satisfaction and treatment, both for minority and nonminority patients. Compared to race-discordant medical visits, race-concordant visits were shown to have a higher rate of satisfaction and better shared decision-making.⁹ Also, minority physicians are more likely to practice health care in areas that are traditionally underserved and to care for patients who do not have health insurance, making their participation essential in addressing some of the baseline disparities Black patients face in securing quality dermatologic care.¹

Structural Racism in Medicine

Changing dermatology training to ensure improved treatment of Black patients requires not only increased attention to differences in disease presentation but also heightened awareness of underlying genetic, environmental, and structural factors that contribute to the disease course.⁶ For example, there is evidence suggesting that structural racism in the form of residential segregation, lower socioeconomic status, and lower educational attainment contribute to disease severity in conditions such as atopic dermatitis. There is additional evidence suggesting that White patients are more readily offered therapeutic options than Black patients. A study of racial disparities in psoriasis treatment found that Black patients with moderate to severe psoriasis were 70% less likely to receive treatment with a biologic than White patients, independent of socioeconomic factors, comorbidities, and insurance plans.¹⁰

Moving Forward

Although research continues to underscore racial disparities in dermatology, some leaders in the field are actively combating these problems. A recent study that looked at representations of dark skin images in medical educational resources found far greater representation of dark pigmented skin in web-based resources than in traditional printed texts. Specifically, the online resource VisualDx (https://www.visualdx.com/) features 28.5% dark skin images compared to 10.3% (on average) in printed dermatology books.¹¹ There also is increasing public awareness of these issues, with organizations such as the Skin of Color Society (http://skinofcolorsociety.org/) helping to promote interest in racial disparities in dermatology. Physicians also have created textbooks and social media accounts focused on dermatologic manifestations in skin of color.¹² The Instagram account Brown Skin Matters (@brownskinmatters) has created a publicly accessible online resource where physicians and patients can see and post dermatologic diseases in skin of color.⁵

Final Thoughts

It is critical that physicians be trained to identify skin and hair manifestations of disease and disorders in Black patients. Training can be improved by including more images of skin manifestations in dark skin, both in medical school curricula and in new editions of dermatology textbooks. Training also must teach students about hair in Black individuals and how to properly treat it as well as related conditions of the hair and scalp.¹³ More research also is needed to better understand how dermatologists can improve the patient experience for Black patients. Residency programs must work to increase diversity among dermatology trainees.

Lastly, dermatology education should increasingly be supplemented with newer, web-based resources that show dermatologic manifestations across the spectrum of skin tones. Dermatology training must be adapted to better account for diverse patient populations and increase its focus on the systems that produce baseline disparities in disease morbidity and mortality.

Key clinical point: This study found significant increases in blood pressure (BP) during alemtuzumab infusions in patients with multiple sclerosis (MS).

Major finding: For cycle 1, systolic BP (SBP) increased by 19.2 ± 9.4 mmHg during first infusion, with comparable percentage over the next 5 infusions (16%, 22%, 17%, 11%, and 13%), respectively. Diastolic BP (DBP) increased by 6.2 ± 3.8 mmHg with similar percentage increase as well (8.4%, 11.5%, 5.5%, 7%, and 3%). Second cycle (12 months later) showed similar increases in SBP and DBP as the first cycle. Third cycle (at variable follow-up times) showed similar trends with increased SBP and DBP. Overall, 54.8% of patients had increasing BP reading by 20% or more from baseline, while 29% had increased by at least 20 mmHg from baseline.

Study details: The data come from a retrospective study of SBP and DBP in MS patients treated with alemtuzumab at the London MS Clinic (n = 31; 64.5% females; mean age, 35.2 years).

Disclosures: No study sponsor was identified. Eslam Shosha and Christine Tomkinson reported no disclosures. Sarah Morrow and Courtney Casserly reported relationships with multiple pharmaceutical companies.

Source: Shosha E et al. Eur J Neurol. 2020 Nov 11. doi: 10.1111/ene.14633.

Key clinical point: This study found significant increases in blood pressure (BP) during alemtuzumab infusions in patients with multiple sclerosis (MS).

Major finding: For cycle 1, systolic BP (SBP) increased by 19.2 ± 9.4 mmHg during first infusion, with comparable percentage over the next 5 infusions (16%, 22%, 17%, 11%, and 13%), respectively. Diastolic BP (DBP) increased by 6.2 ± 3.8 mmHg with similar percentage increase as well (8.4%, 11.5%, 5.5%, 7%, and 3%). Second cycle (12 months later) showed similar increases in SBP and DBP as the first cycle. Third cycle (at variable follow-up times) showed similar trends with increased SBP and DBP. Overall, 54.8% of patients had increasing BP reading by 20% or more from baseline, while 29% had increased by at least 20 mmHg from baseline.

Study details: The data come from a retrospective study of SBP and DBP in MS patients treated with alemtuzumab at the London MS Clinic (n = 31; 64.5% females; mean age, 35.2 years).

Disclosures: No study sponsor was identified. Eslam Shosha and Christine Tomkinson reported no disclosures. Sarah Morrow and Courtney Casserly reported relationships with multiple pharmaceutical companies.

Source: Shosha E et al. Eur J Neurol. 2020 Nov 11. doi: 10.1111/ene.14633.

Key clinical point: This study found significant increases in blood pressure (BP) during alemtuzumab infusions in patients with multiple sclerosis (MS).

Major finding: For cycle 1, systolic BP (SBP) increased by 19.2 ± 9.4 mmHg during first infusion, with comparable percentage over the next 5 infusions (16%, 22%, 17%, 11%, and 13%), respectively. Diastolic BP (DBP) increased by 6.2 ± 3.8 mmHg with similar percentage increase as well (8.4%, 11.5%, 5.5%, 7%, and 3%). Second cycle (12 months later) showed similar increases in SBP and DBP as the first cycle. Third cycle (at variable follow-up times) showed similar trends with increased SBP and DBP. Overall, 54.8% of patients had increasing BP reading by 20% or more from baseline, while 29% had increased by at least 20 mmHg from baseline.

Study details: The data come from a retrospective study of SBP and DBP in MS patients treated with alemtuzumab at the London MS Clinic (n = 31; 64.5% females; mean age, 35.2 years).

Disclosures: No study sponsor was identified. Eslam Shosha and Christine Tomkinson reported no disclosures. Sarah Morrow and Courtney Casserly reported relationships with multiple pharmaceutical companies.

Source: Shosha E et al. Eur J Neurol. 2020 Nov 11. doi: 10.1111/ene.14633.

To the Editor:

Onychomycosis is the most common nail disorder, affecting approximately 5.5% of the world’s population.¹ There are a limited number of topical and systemic therapies approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), but no consensus guidelines exist for the management of onychomycosis. Therefore, we hypothesized that prescribing patterns would vary among different groups.

We examined data from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services’ Part D Prescriber Public Use Files for 2013 to 2016.² Prescribing patterns were assessed for dermatologists, nurse practitioners, physician assistants, and podiatrists prescribing systemic (ie, terbinafine, itraconazole) or topical (ie, efinaconazole, tavaborole, ciclopirox) therapies. A cut-off of systemic therapy lasting 84 days or more (reflecting FDA-approved treatment regimens for toenail onychomycosis) was used to exclude prescriptions for other fungal conditions that require shorter treatment courses. Statistical analysis with χ² tests identified differences among specialties’ prescribing patterns.

Overall, onychomycosis medications accounted for $85.4 million in expenditures from 2013 to 2016, with spending increasing at a rate of 21.2% annually (Table 1). The greatest single-year increase was observed from 2014 to 2015, with a 40.6% surge in overall expenditures for onychomycosis medications—increasing from $17.8 million to $25.0 million in spending. Dermatologists’ prescriptions accounted for 14.8% of all claims for onychomycosis medications and 18.3% of total expenditures during the study period, totaling $15.7 million in costs. Dermatologists’ claims increased at a rate of 7.4% annually, while expenditures increased at 15.4% annually. A greater proportion of dermatologists (96.4%) prescribed topicals for onychomycosis relative to nurse practitioners (90.2%) and podiatrists (91.3%)(P<.01)(Table 2). No significant difference was observed in the prescribing patterns of dermatologists and physician assistants (P=.99).

Ciclopirox is the most commonly prescribed therapy for onychomycosis across all groups, prescribed by more than 88% of prescribers in all studied specialties. Although ciclopirox is one of the least expensive treatment options available for onychomycosis, it has the lowest relative cure rate.⁵ Onychomycosis management requires understanding of drug efficacy and disease severity.⁶ Inappropriate treatment selection may result in prolonged treatment courses and increased costs. Consensus guidelines for onychomycosis therapies across specialties may yield more cost-effective treatment for this common nail condition.

Acknowledgment
The authors thank Paul J. Christos, DrPH, MS (New York, New York), for his advisement regarding statistical analysis for this manuscript.

To the Editor:

Onychomycosis is the most common nail disorder, affecting approximately 5.5% of the world’s population.¹ There are a limited number of topical and systemic therapies approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), but no consensus guidelines exist for the management of onychomycosis. Therefore, we hypothesized that prescribing patterns would vary among different groups.

We examined data from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services’ Part D Prescriber Public Use Files for 2013 to 2016.² Prescribing patterns were assessed for dermatologists, nurse practitioners, physician assistants, and podiatrists prescribing systemic (ie, terbinafine, itraconazole) or topical (ie, efinaconazole, tavaborole, ciclopirox) therapies. A cut-off of systemic therapy lasting 84 days or more (reflecting FDA-approved treatment regimens for toenail onychomycosis) was used to exclude prescriptions for other fungal conditions that require shorter treatment courses. Statistical analysis with χ² tests identified differences among specialties’ prescribing patterns.

Overall, onychomycosis medications accounted for $85.4 million in expenditures from 2013 to 2016, with spending increasing at a rate of 21.2% annually (Table 1). The greatest single-year increase was observed from 2014 to 2015, with a 40.6% surge in overall expenditures for onychomycosis medications—increasing from $17.8 million to $25.0 million in spending. Dermatologists’ prescriptions accounted for 14.8% of all claims for onychomycosis medications and 18.3% of total expenditures during the study period, totaling $15.7 million in costs. Dermatologists’ claims increased at a rate of 7.4% annually, while expenditures increased at 15.4% annually. A greater proportion of dermatologists (96.4%) prescribed topicals for onychomycosis relative to nurse practitioners (90.2%) and podiatrists (91.3%)(P<.01)(Table 2). No significant difference was observed in the prescribing patterns of dermatologists and physician assistants (P=.99).

Ciclopirox is the most commonly prescribed therapy for onychomycosis across all groups, prescribed by more than 88% of prescribers in all studied specialties. Although ciclopirox is one of the least expensive treatment options available for onychomycosis, it has the lowest relative cure rate.⁵ Onychomycosis management requires understanding of drug efficacy and disease severity.⁶ Inappropriate treatment selection may result in prolonged treatment courses and increased costs. Consensus guidelines for onychomycosis therapies across specialties may yield more cost-effective treatment for this common nail condition.

Acknowledgment
The authors thank Paul J. Christos, DrPH, MS (New York, New York), for his advisement regarding statistical analysis for this manuscript.

To the Editor:

Onychomycosis is the most common nail disorder, affecting approximately 5.5% of the world’s population.¹ There are a limited number of topical and systemic therapies approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), but no consensus guidelines exist for the management of onychomycosis. Therefore, we hypothesized that prescribing patterns would vary among different groups.

We examined data from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services’ Part D Prescriber Public Use Files for 2013 to 2016.² Prescribing patterns were assessed for dermatologists, nurse practitioners, physician assistants, and podiatrists prescribing systemic (ie, terbinafine, itraconazole) or topical (ie, efinaconazole, tavaborole, ciclopirox) therapies. A cut-off of systemic therapy lasting 84 days or more (reflecting FDA-approved treatment regimens for toenail onychomycosis) was used to exclude prescriptions for other fungal conditions that require shorter treatment courses. Statistical analysis with χ² tests identified differences among specialties’ prescribing patterns.

Overall, onychomycosis medications accounted for $85.4 million in expenditures from 2013 to 2016, with spending increasing at a rate of 21.2% annually (Table 1). The greatest single-year increase was observed from 2014 to 2015, with a 40.6% surge in overall expenditures for onychomycosis medications—increasing from $17.8 million to $25.0 million in spending. Dermatologists’ prescriptions accounted for 14.8% of all claims for onychomycosis medications and 18.3% of total expenditures during the study period, totaling $15.7 million in costs. Dermatologists’ claims increased at a rate of 7.4% annually, while expenditures increased at 15.4% annually. A greater proportion of dermatologists (96.4%) prescribed topicals for onychomycosis relative to nurse practitioners (90.2%) and podiatrists (91.3%)(P<.01)(Table 2). No significant difference was observed in the prescribing patterns of dermatologists and physician assistants (P=.99).

Ciclopirox is the most commonly prescribed therapy for onychomycosis across all groups, prescribed by more than 88% of prescribers in all studied specialties. Although ciclopirox is one of the least expensive treatment options available for onychomycosis, it has the lowest relative cure rate.⁵ Onychomycosis management requires understanding of drug efficacy and disease severity.⁶ Inappropriate treatment selection may result in prolonged treatment courses and increased costs. Consensus guidelines for onychomycosis therapies across specialties may yield more cost-effective treatment for this common nail condition.

Acknowledgment
The authors thank Paul J. Christos, DrPH, MS (New York, New York), for his advisement regarding statistical analysis for this manuscript.

Key clinical point: The proportion of patients with active relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis (MS) reaching “no evidence of disease activity” (NEDA) was greater with natalizumab (NTZ) vs. fingolimod (FTY) after a year of treatment.

Major finding: At 12 months, 47.8% of NTZ-treated patients reached NEDA vs. 30.4% of FTY-treated patients. The risk of relapse was lower with NTZ vs. FTY after 6 months of treatment (annualized relapse rate, 0.02 vs. 0.09; P = .05). MRI outcomes revealed a higher NTZ effectiveness regarding the number of new T2 (0.44 vs. 1.14; P = .03) and gadolinium-enhancing (0.03 vs. 0.48; P = .03) lesions.

Study details: BEST-MS was a multicentric, prospective study with a 12-month follow-up period that compared the efficacy of NTZ and FTY in active relapsing-remitting MS. A total of 223 patients were included (109 patients were treated with NTZ and 114 with FTY).

Disclosures: The study has received funding from FP7 Health Innovation-1 in 2012. Pierre Labauge received grants from Biogen and Novartis. Kevin Bigaut received grant travel by Biogen Idec and Sanofi-Genzyme. No other disclosures were reported.

Source: Cohen M et al. Mult Scler. 2020 Oct 30. doi: 10.1177/1352458520969145.

Key clinical point: The proportion of patients with active relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis (MS) reaching “no evidence of disease activity” (NEDA) was greater with natalizumab (NTZ) vs. fingolimod (FTY) after a year of treatment.

Major finding: At 12 months, 47.8% of NTZ-treated patients reached NEDA vs. 30.4% of FTY-treated patients. The risk of relapse was lower with NTZ vs. FTY after 6 months of treatment (annualized relapse rate, 0.02 vs. 0.09; P = .05). MRI outcomes revealed a higher NTZ effectiveness regarding the number of new T2 (0.44 vs. 1.14; P = .03) and gadolinium-enhancing (0.03 vs. 0.48; P = .03) lesions.

Study details: BEST-MS was a multicentric, prospective study with a 12-month follow-up period that compared the efficacy of NTZ and FTY in active relapsing-remitting MS. A total of 223 patients were included (109 patients were treated with NTZ and 114 with FTY).

Disclosures: The study has received funding from FP7 Health Innovation-1 in 2012. Pierre Labauge received grants from Biogen and Novartis. Kevin Bigaut received grant travel by Biogen Idec and Sanofi-Genzyme. No other disclosures were reported.

Source: Cohen M et al. Mult Scler. 2020 Oct 30. doi: 10.1177/1352458520969145.

Key clinical point: The proportion of patients with active relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis (MS) reaching “no evidence of disease activity” (NEDA) was greater with natalizumab (NTZ) vs. fingolimod (FTY) after a year of treatment.

Major finding: At 12 months, 47.8% of NTZ-treated patients reached NEDA vs. 30.4% of FTY-treated patients. The risk of relapse was lower with NTZ vs. FTY after 6 months of treatment (annualized relapse rate, 0.02 vs. 0.09; P = .05). MRI outcomes revealed a higher NTZ effectiveness regarding the number of new T2 (0.44 vs. 1.14; P = .03) and gadolinium-enhancing (0.03 vs. 0.48; P = .03) lesions.

Study details: BEST-MS was a multicentric, prospective study with a 12-month follow-up period that compared the efficacy of NTZ and FTY in active relapsing-remitting MS. A total of 223 patients were included (109 patients were treated with NTZ and 114 with FTY).

Disclosures: The study has received funding from FP7 Health Innovation-1 in 2012. Pierre Labauge received grants from Biogen and Novartis. Kevin Bigaut received grant travel by Biogen Idec and Sanofi-Genzyme. No other disclosures were reported.

Source: Cohen M et al. Mult Scler. 2020 Oct 30. doi: 10.1177/1352458520969145.

Key clinical point: Earlier and continuous ocrelizumab treatment provided sustained benefits on measures of disease progression in patients with primary progressive multiple sclerosis (PPMS).

Major finding: Over a period of 6.5 study years, the proportion of patients with progression on disability measures at 24 weeks was lower in those who started ocrelizumab early vs. those who started with placebo: Expanded Disability Status Scale Score (51.7% vs. 64.8%; P = .0018), 9-Hole Peg Test (30.6% vs. 43.1%; P = .0035), Timed 25-Foot Walk (63.2% vs. 70.7%; P = .058), and composite progression (73.2% vs. 83.3%; P = .0023). No new safety signals emerged compared with the double-blind phase of ORATORIO.

Study details: The findings are based on a long-term follow-up from the phase 3 ORATORIO extension study. 732 patients with PPMS were randomly assigned (2:1) to receive ocrelizumab or placebo every 24 weeks for at least 120 weeks. Overall, 544 participants completed the double-blind period and 527 people entered the open-label extension phase, during which they continued ocrelizumab or switched from placebo to ocrelizumab.

Disclosures: The study was funded by F Hoffmann-La Roche. The presenting author received personal fees for consulting, serving on a scientific advisory board, speaking, or other activities with AbbVie, Actelion, Alkermes, Brainstorm Cell Therapeutics, Celgene, EMD Serono, GeNeuro, GW Pharma, MedDay Pharmaceuticals, NervGen Pharma, Novartis, Otsuka, PTC Therapeutics, Roche/Genentech, and Sanofi Genzyme; and royalties for out licensed monoclonal antibodies through UTHealth from Millipore Corporation.

Source: Wolinsky JS et al. Lancet Neurol. 2020 Oct 29. doi: 10.1016/S1474-4422(20)30342-2.

Key clinical point: Earlier and continuous ocrelizumab treatment provided sustained benefits on measures of disease progression in patients with primary progressive multiple sclerosis (PPMS).

Major finding: Over a period of 6.5 study years, the proportion of patients with progression on disability measures at 24 weeks was lower in those who started ocrelizumab early vs. those who started with placebo: Expanded Disability Status Scale Score (51.7% vs. 64.8%; P = .0018), 9-Hole Peg Test (30.6% vs. 43.1%; P = .0035), Timed 25-Foot Walk (63.2% vs. 70.7%; P = .058), and composite progression (73.2% vs. 83.3%; P = .0023). No new safety signals emerged compared with the double-blind phase of ORATORIO.

Study details: The findings are based on a long-term follow-up from the phase 3 ORATORIO extension study. 732 patients with PPMS were randomly assigned (2:1) to receive ocrelizumab or placebo every 24 weeks for at least 120 weeks. Overall, 544 participants completed the double-blind period and 527 people entered the open-label extension phase, during which they continued ocrelizumab or switched from placebo to ocrelizumab.

Disclosures: The study was funded by F Hoffmann-La Roche. The presenting author received personal fees for consulting, serving on a scientific advisory board, speaking, or other activities with AbbVie, Actelion, Alkermes, Brainstorm Cell Therapeutics, Celgene, EMD Serono, GeNeuro, GW Pharma, MedDay Pharmaceuticals, NervGen Pharma, Novartis, Otsuka, PTC Therapeutics, Roche/Genentech, and Sanofi Genzyme; and royalties for out licensed monoclonal antibodies through UTHealth from Millipore Corporation.

Source: Wolinsky JS et al. Lancet Neurol. 2020 Oct 29. doi: 10.1016/S1474-4422(20)30342-2.

Key clinical point: Earlier and continuous ocrelizumab treatment provided sustained benefits on measures of disease progression in patients with primary progressive multiple sclerosis (PPMS).

Major finding: Over a period of 6.5 study years, the proportion of patients with progression on disability measures at 24 weeks was lower in those who started ocrelizumab early vs. those who started with placebo: Expanded Disability Status Scale Score (51.7% vs. 64.8%; P = .0018), 9-Hole Peg Test (30.6% vs. 43.1%; P = .0035), Timed 25-Foot Walk (63.2% vs. 70.7%; P = .058), and composite progression (73.2% vs. 83.3%; P = .0023). No new safety signals emerged compared with the double-blind phase of ORATORIO.

Study details: The findings are based on a long-term follow-up from the phase 3 ORATORIO extension study. 732 patients with PPMS were randomly assigned (2:1) to receive ocrelizumab or placebo every 24 weeks for at least 120 weeks. Overall, 544 participants completed the double-blind period and 527 people entered the open-label extension phase, during which they continued ocrelizumab or switched from placebo to ocrelizumab.

Disclosures: The study was funded by F Hoffmann-La Roche. The presenting author received personal fees for consulting, serving on a scientific advisory board, speaking, or other activities with AbbVie, Actelion, Alkermes, Brainstorm Cell Therapeutics, Celgene, EMD Serono, GeNeuro, GW Pharma, MedDay Pharmaceuticals, NervGen Pharma, Novartis, Otsuka, PTC Therapeutics, Roche/Genentech, and Sanofi Genzyme; and royalties for out licensed monoclonal antibodies through UTHealth from Millipore Corporation.

Source: Wolinsky JS et al. Lancet Neurol. 2020 Oct 29. doi: 10.1016/S1474-4422(20)30342-2.

We are in unprecedented times. Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is attacking our communities and, as with any battle, we face unexpected challenges from the global pandemic. What can dermatologists, as highly skilled health care experts, do to support the fight against coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)?

In early 2020, I became involved in a fulfilling and stimulating opportunity to contribute as a US Navy reservist, having just returned from a 3-month deployment. I served in the Medical Operations Center aboard the hospital ship USNS Comfort, which was docked in New York Harbor, as liaison to surrounding New York City hospitals. I also served as sole dermatologist on the ship, caring for the dermatologic needs of our team and consulting on numerous COVID-19 inpatients.

In May 2020, upon return to Virginia from New York City, I served as senior medical officer to medically clear other Navy Reserve health care workers returning from the field hospital at the Jacob K. Javits Convention Center of New York and from serving as embedded caregivers in existing New York City hospitals. I share 2 very important observations from my work there: First, COVID-19 is devastatingly real; second, we dermatologists can be valuable team members in the fight against this disease.

It is normal for us to feel scared, confused, and helpless; as 1% of the physician population, dermatologists represent a small focused fraction of the health care force. Nevertheless, we are all well-trained medical professionals who have taken the same Hippocratic Oath as other physicians. As members of the global health care team, we can each play a role in defeating COVID-19: We can be a trusted voice of reason, set an example, implement safe and effective distancing and hygiene precautions, and assist our local overburdened medical teams.

The magnitude and severity of COVID-19 can create a mass casualty–type phenomenon, overwhelming health care systems if the disease curve is not flattened. We can help flatten that curve by lengthening the pulse duration (to use dermatology jargon): that is, slowing the abrupt impact of cases to allow health care systems to triage, treat, and discharge in a more controlled manner.

How We Can Make a Difference

Despite representing a fraction of the health care team, we see a larger percentage of the population. On the Comfort, for example, dermatology visits accounted for approximately 20% of outpatient crew visits. We have an opportunity and a voice to reach a large percentage of the population directly. Whether we are now seeing patients face-to-face or virtually, we can spread the public health message and set an example. Wearing masks and social distancing do help to slow and markedly decrease the spread of SARS-CoV-2.

When you see patients in your office, consider the following:

• Have patients wait outside the office in their car and call the receptionist upon arrival.

• Have the receptionist call back the patient when the office is ready.

• Prescreen the patient before having him/her enter the clinic.

• Do not allow handshaking.

• Require everyone to wear a mask.

• Wear gloves.

• Have ample hand sanitizer openly available for all.

• Thoroughly clean or disinfect surfaces between patients.

Recalling the Difficult Experience of a Colleague-Patient

I think back to a crew member of Comfort who presented with new-onset pruritus and erythematous papules on the arms, legs, and torso. She was an intensive care unit nurse working 13-hour days, every day, for weeks on a COVID-positive unit—double-masked, gowned, wearing eye protection, in a warmer than usual intensive care unit, managing the most critically ill patients she’s ever cared for. Outside work, her life consisted of a commute on a government-chartered bus between Comfort and a contracted hotel while eating boxed meals. For 6 hours daily, she would—unsuccessfully—attempt to sleep with raging pruritus. Treating this routine case of eczema had a domino effect, improving her quality of life and thus allowing her to provide better care for the critically ill.

Let Us All Join in the Fight

As well-educated medical experts, we have the ability and the opportunity to reach outside our comfort zone and assist our medical colleagues. As I saw in New York City, the spectrum of specialists bravely worked together to meet overwhelming demand on the health care system and care for thousands of critically ill and dying patients. Dermatologists treated extensive eczema, ulcers, and other dermatoses on caretakers; triaged patients for appropriate allocation of care; and delivered care outside their comfort zone as physician extenders on inpatient and critical care units.

We are all in this together. I encourage all dermatologists who are in an area of need to ask your health care system how you can join the fight against SARS-CoV-2. Let’s step forward to help, in recognition of the oath we took to “prevent disease whenever we can.”

We are in unprecedented times. Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is attacking our communities and, as with any battle, we face unexpected challenges from the global pandemic. What can dermatologists, as highly skilled health care experts, do to support the fight against coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)?

In early 2020, I became involved in a fulfilling and stimulating opportunity to contribute as a US Navy reservist, having just returned from a 3-month deployment. I served in the Medical Operations Center aboard the hospital ship USNS Comfort, which was docked in New York Harbor, as liaison to surrounding New York City hospitals. I also served as sole dermatologist on the ship, caring for the dermatologic needs of our team and consulting on numerous COVID-19 inpatients.

In May 2020, upon return to Virginia from New York City, I served as senior medical officer to medically clear other Navy Reserve health care workers returning from the field hospital at the Jacob K. Javits Convention Center of New York and from serving as embedded caregivers in existing New York City hospitals. I share 2 very important observations from my work there: First, COVID-19 is devastatingly real; second, we dermatologists can be valuable team members in the fight against this disease.

It is normal for us to feel scared, confused, and helpless; as 1% of the physician population, dermatologists represent a small focused fraction of the health care force. Nevertheless, we are all well-trained medical professionals who have taken the same Hippocratic Oath as other physicians. As members of the global health care team, we can each play a role in defeating COVID-19: We can be a trusted voice of reason, set an example, implement safe and effective distancing and hygiene precautions, and assist our local overburdened medical teams.

The magnitude and severity of COVID-19 can create a mass casualty–type phenomenon, overwhelming health care systems if the disease curve is not flattened. We can help flatten that curve by lengthening the pulse duration (to use dermatology jargon): that is, slowing the abrupt impact of cases to allow health care systems to triage, treat, and discharge in a more controlled manner.

How We Can Make a Difference

Despite representing a fraction of the health care team, we see a larger percentage of the population. On the Comfort, for example, dermatology visits accounted for approximately 20% of outpatient crew visits. We have an opportunity and a voice to reach a large percentage of the population directly. Whether we are now seeing patients face-to-face or virtually, we can spread the public health message and set an example. Wearing masks and social distancing do help to slow and markedly decrease the spread of SARS-CoV-2.

When you see patients in your office, consider the following:

• Have patients wait outside the office in their car and call the receptionist upon arrival.

• Have the receptionist call back the patient when the office is ready.

• Prescreen the patient before having him/her enter the clinic.

• Do not allow handshaking.

• Require everyone to wear a mask.

• Wear gloves.

• Have ample hand sanitizer openly available for all.

• Thoroughly clean or disinfect surfaces between patients.

Recalling the Difficult Experience of a Colleague-Patient

I think back to a crew member of Comfort who presented with new-onset pruritus and erythematous papules on the arms, legs, and torso. She was an intensive care unit nurse working 13-hour days, every day, for weeks on a COVID-positive unit—double-masked, gowned, wearing eye protection, in a warmer than usual intensive care unit, managing the most critically ill patients she’s ever cared for. Outside work, her life consisted of a commute on a government-chartered bus between Comfort and a contracted hotel while eating boxed meals. For 6 hours daily, she would—unsuccessfully—attempt to sleep with raging pruritus. Treating this routine case of eczema had a domino effect, improving her quality of life and thus allowing her to provide better care for the critically ill.

Let Us All Join in the Fight

As well-educated medical experts, we have the ability and the opportunity to reach outside our comfort zone and assist our medical colleagues. As I saw in New York City, the spectrum of specialists bravely worked together to meet overwhelming demand on the health care system and care for thousands of critically ill and dying patients. Dermatologists treated extensive eczema, ulcers, and other dermatoses on caretakers; triaged patients for appropriate allocation of care; and delivered care outside their comfort zone as physician extenders on inpatient and critical care units.

We are all in this together. I encourage all dermatologists who are in an area of need to ask your health care system how you can join the fight against SARS-CoV-2. Let’s step forward to help, in recognition of the oath we took to “prevent disease whenever we can.”

We are in unprecedented times. Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is attacking our communities and, as with any battle, we face unexpected challenges from the global pandemic. What can dermatologists, as highly skilled health care experts, do to support the fight against coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)?

In early 2020, I became involved in a fulfilling and stimulating opportunity to contribute as a US Navy reservist, having just returned from a 3-month deployment. I served in the Medical Operations Center aboard the hospital ship USNS Comfort, which was docked in New York Harbor, as liaison to surrounding New York City hospitals. I also served as sole dermatologist on the ship, caring for the dermatologic needs of our team and consulting on numerous COVID-19 inpatients.

In May 2020, upon return to Virginia from New York City, I served as senior medical officer to medically clear other Navy Reserve health care workers returning from the field hospital at the Jacob K. Javits Convention Center of New York and from serving as embedded caregivers in existing New York City hospitals. I share 2 very important observations from my work there: First, COVID-19 is devastatingly real; second, we dermatologists can be valuable team members in the fight against this disease.

It is normal for us to feel scared, confused, and helpless; as 1% of the physician population, dermatologists represent a small focused fraction of the health care force. Nevertheless, we are all well-trained medical professionals who have taken the same Hippocratic Oath as other physicians. As members of the global health care team, we can each play a role in defeating COVID-19: We can be a trusted voice of reason, set an example, implement safe and effective distancing and hygiene precautions, and assist our local overburdened medical teams.

The magnitude and severity of COVID-19 can create a mass casualty–type phenomenon, overwhelming health care systems if the disease curve is not flattened. We can help flatten that curve by lengthening the pulse duration (to use dermatology jargon): that is, slowing the abrupt impact of cases to allow health care systems to triage, treat, and discharge in a more controlled manner.

How We Can Make a Difference

Despite representing a fraction of the health care team, we see a larger percentage of the population. On the Comfort, for example, dermatology visits accounted for approximately 20% of outpatient crew visits. We have an opportunity and a voice to reach a large percentage of the population directly. Whether we are now seeing patients face-to-face or virtually, we can spread the public health message and set an example. Wearing masks and social distancing do help to slow and markedly decrease the spread of SARS-CoV-2.

When you see patients in your office, consider the following:

• Have patients wait outside the office in their car and call the receptionist upon arrival.

• Have the receptionist call back the patient when the office is ready.

• Prescreen the patient before having him/her enter the clinic.

• Do not allow handshaking.

• Require everyone to wear a mask.

• Wear gloves.

• Have ample hand sanitizer openly available for all.

• Thoroughly clean or disinfect surfaces between patients.

Recalling the Difficult Experience of a Colleague-Patient

I think back to a crew member of Comfort who presented with new-onset pruritus and erythematous papules on the arms, legs, and torso. She was an intensive care unit nurse working 13-hour days, every day, for weeks on a COVID-positive unit—double-masked, gowned, wearing eye protection, in a warmer than usual intensive care unit, managing the most critically ill patients she’s ever cared for. Outside work, her life consisted of a commute on a government-chartered bus between Comfort and a contracted hotel while eating boxed meals. For 6 hours daily, she would—unsuccessfully—attempt to sleep with raging pruritus. Treating this routine case of eczema had a domino effect, improving her quality of life and thus allowing her to provide better care for the critically ill.

Let Us All Join in the Fight

As well-educated medical experts, we have the ability and the opportunity to reach outside our comfort zone and assist our medical colleagues. As I saw in New York City, the spectrum of specialists bravely worked together to meet overwhelming demand on the health care system and care for thousands of critically ill and dying patients. Dermatologists treated extensive eczema, ulcers, and other dermatoses on caretakers; triaged patients for appropriate allocation of care; and delivered care outside their comfort zone as physician extenders on inpatient and critical care units.

We are all in this together. I encourage all dermatologists who are in an area of need to ask your health care system how you can join the fight against SARS-CoV-2. Let’s step forward to help, in recognition of the oath we took to “prevent disease whenever we can.”

In December 2019, severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) started an outbreak of respiratory illnesses in Wuhan, China. The respiratory disease was termed coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and rapidly spread worldwide, resulting in a pandemic classification on March 11, 2020. ¹ Recently, several cutaneous manifestations of COVID-19 have been reported. Skin manifestations have been reported to be similar to other common viral infections. ² However, there is a paucity of published clinical images of more atypical presentations.

Case Report

A 52-year-old black man presented via urgent store-and-forward teledermatology consultation from his primary care provider with a self-described “vesicular,” highly pruritic rash of both arms and legs of 1 week’s duration without involvement of the trunk, axillae, groin, face, genitalia, or any mucous membranes. He noted nausea, loss of appetite, and nonbloody diarrhea 4 days later. He denied fever, chills, dry cough, shortness of breath, or dyspnea. He had a history of hypertension and type 2 diabetes mellitus. There were no changes in medications; no outdoor activities, gardening, or yard work; no exposure to plants or metals; and no use of new personal care products.

The digital images showed zones of flesh-colored to slightly erythematous, somewhat “juicy” papules with some coalescence into ill-defined plaques. There were scattered foci of scale and hemorrhagic crust that involved both palms, forearms (Figure, A), and legs (Figure, B). There were no intact vesicles, and a herald patch was not identified. Vital signs at the time of imaging were normal, with the exception of a low-grade fever (temperature, 37.3°C). Basic laboratory testing showed only mild leukocytosis with mild neutropenia and mild aspartate aminotransaminase elevation. A skin biopsy was not performed. Pulmonary imaging and workup were not performed because of the lack of respiratory symptoms.

Comment

Coronavirus disease 2019 is caused by SARS-CoV2, an enveloped, nonsegmented, positive-sense RNA virus of the coronavirus family. It is currently believed that SARS-CoV-2 uses the angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 receptor to gain entry into human cells, leading to infection primarily affecting the lower respiratory tract.³ Patients suspected of COVID-19 infection most often present with fever, dry cough, dyspnea, and fatigue, while GI symptoms such as nausea, vomiting, and diarrhea are uncommon.⁴ More recently, several reports describe a variety of skin findings associated with COVID-19. A current theory suggests that the virus does not directly target keratinocytes but triggers a systemic immune response, leading to a diversity of skin morphologies.⁵ The main types of described cutaneous findings include pseudochilblains, overtly vesicular, urticarial, maculopapular, and livedo/necrosis.⁶ Others have described petechial⁷ and papulosquamous eruptions.⁸ Most of these patients initially presented with typical COVID-19 symptoms and frequently represented more severe cases of the disease. Additionally, the vesicular and papulosquamous eruptions reportedly occurred on the trunk and not the limbs, as in our case.

This confirmed COVID-19–positive patient presented with an ill-defined vesicular and papulosquamous-type eruption on the arms and legs and later developed only mild GI symptoms. By sharing this case, we report yet another skin manifestation of COVID-19 and propose the possible expansion of testing for SARS-CoV-2 in patients presenting with rash and GI symptoms, which holds the potential to increase the identification of COVID-19 in the population, thereby increasing strict contact tracing and slowing the spread of this pandemic.

In December 2019, severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) started an outbreak of respiratory illnesses in Wuhan, China. The respiratory disease was termed coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and rapidly spread worldwide, resulting in a pandemic classification on March 11, 2020. ¹ Recently, several cutaneous manifestations of COVID-19 have been reported. Skin manifestations have been reported to be similar to other common viral infections. ² However, there is a paucity of published clinical images of more atypical presentations.

Case Report

A 52-year-old black man presented via urgent store-and-forward teledermatology consultation from his primary care provider with a self-described “vesicular,” highly pruritic rash of both arms and legs of 1 week’s duration without involvement of the trunk, axillae, groin, face, genitalia, or any mucous membranes. He noted nausea, loss of appetite, and nonbloody diarrhea 4 days later. He denied fever, chills, dry cough, shortness of breath, or dyspnea. He had a history of hypertension and type 2 diabetes mellitus. There were no changes in medications; no outdoor activities, gardening, or yard work; no exposure to plants or metals; and no use of new personal care products.

The digital images showed zones of flesh-colored to slightly erythematous, somewhat “juicy” papules with some coalescence into ill-defined plaques. There were scattered foci of scale and hemorrhagic crust that involved both palms, forearms (Figure, A), and legs (Figure, B). There were no intact vesicles, and a herald patch was not identified. Vital signs at the time of imaging were normal, with the exception of a low-grade fever (temperature, 37.3°C). Basic laboratory testing showed only mild leukocytosis with mild neutropenia and mild aspartate aminotransaminase elevation. A skin biopsy was not performed. Pulmonary imaging and workup were not performed because of the lack of respiratory symptoms.

Comment

Coronavirus disease 2019 is caused by SARS-CoV2, an enveloped, nonsegmented, positive-sense RNA virus of the coronavirus family. It is currently believed that SARS-CoV-2 uses the angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 receptor to gain entry into human cells, leading to infection primarily affecting the lower respiratory tract.³ Patients suspected of COVID-19 infection most often present with fever, dry cough, dyspnea, and fatigue, while GI symptoms such as nausea, vomiting, and diarrhea are uncommon.⁴ More recently, several reports describe a variety of skin findings associated with COVID-19. A current theory suggests that the virus does not directly target keratinocytes but triggers a systemic immune response, leading to a diversity of skin morphologies.⁵ The main types of described cutaneous findings include pseudochilblains, overtly vesicular, urticarial, maculopapular, and livedo/necrosis.⁶ Others have described petechial⁷ and papulosquamous eruptions.⁸ Most of these patients initially presented with typical COVID-19 symptoms and frequently represented more severe cases of the disease. Additionally, the vesicular and papulosquamous eruptions reportedly occurred on the trunk and not the limbs, as in our case.

This confirmed COVID-19–positive patient presented with an ill-defined vesicular and papulosquamous-type eruption on the arms and legs and later developed only mild GI symptoms. By sharing this case, we report yet another skin manifestation of COVID-19 and propose the possible expansion of testing for SARS-CoV-2 in patients presenting with rash and GI symptoms, which holds the potential to increase the identification of COVID-19 in the population, thereby increasing strict contact tracing and slowing the spread of this pandemic.

In December 2019, severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) started an outbreak of respiratory illnesses in Wuhan, China. The respiratory disease was termed coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and rapidly spread worldwide, resulting in a pandemic classification on March 11, 2020. ¹ Recently, several cutaneous manifestations of COVID-19 have been reported. Skin manifestations have been reported to be similar to other common viral infections. ² However, there is a paucity of published clinical images of more atypical presentations.

Case Report

A 52-year-old black man presented via urgent store-and-forward teledermatology consultation from his primary care provider with a self-described “vesicular,” highly pruritic rash of both arms and legs of 1 week’s duration without involvement of the trunk, axillae, groin, face, genitalia, or any mucous membranes. He noted nausea, loss of appetite, and nonbloody diarrhea 4 days later. He denied fever, chills, dry cough, shortness of breath, or dyspnea. He had a history of hypertension and type 2 diabetes mellitus. There were no changes in medications; no outdoor activities, gardening, or yard work; no exposure to plants or metals; and no use of new personal care products.

The digital images showed zones of flesh-colored to slightly erythematous, somewhat “juicy” papules with some coalescence into ill-defined plaques. There were scattered foci of scale and hemorrhagic crust that involved both palms, forearms (Figure, A), and legs (Figure, B). There were no intact vesicles, and a herald patch was not identified. Vital signs at the time of imaging were normal, with the exception of a low-grade fever (temperature, 37.3°C). Basic laboratory testing showed only mild leukocytosis with mild neutropenia and mild aspartate aminotransaminase elevation. A skin biopsy was not performed. Pulmonary imaging and workup were not performed because of the lack of respiratory symptoms.

Comment

Coronavirus disease 2019 is caused by SARS-CoV2, an enveloped, nonsegmented, positive-sense RNA virus of the coronavirus family. It is currently believed that SARS-CoV-2 uses the angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 receptor to gain entry into human cells, leading to infection primarily affecting the lower respiratory tract.³ Patients suspected of COVID-19 infection most often present with fever, dry cough, dyspnea, and fatigue, while GI symptoms such as nausea, vomiting, and diarrhea are uncommon.⁴ More recently, several reports describe a variety of skin findings associated with COVID-19. A current theory suggests that the virus does not directly target keratinocytes but triggers a systemic immune response, leading to a diversity of skin morphologies.⁵ The main types of described cutaneous findings include pseudochilblains, overtly vesicular, urticarial, maculopapular, and livedo/necrosis.⁶ Others have described petechial⁷ and papulosquamous eruptions.⁸ Most of these patients initially presented with typical COVID-19 symptoms and frequently represented more severe cases of the disease. Additionally, the vesicular and papulosquamous eruptions reportedly occurred on the trunk and not the limbs, as in our case.

This confirmed COVID-19–positive patient presented with an ill-defined vesicular and papulosquamous-type eruption on the arms and legs and later developed only mild GI symptoms. By sharing this case, we report yet another skin manifestation of COVID-19 and propose the possible expansion of testing for SARS-CoV-2 in patients presenting with rash and GI symptoms, which holds the potential to increase the identification of COVID-19 in the population, thereby increasing strict contact tracing and slowing the spread of this pandemic.

Key clinical point: Toxoplasma gondii (T. gondii) is negatively associated with multiple sclerosis (MS), suggesting a possible protective role of the parasite in MS.

Major finding: Anti-T. gondii antibodies were detected in 38 MS patients (29.5%) and 130 healthy controls (45.4%). After adjustment, T. gondii seropositivity was significantly associated with a reduced risk of MS (adjusted odds ratio, 0.56; P = .02).

Study details: The data come from an Italian population‑based case-control study of 129 patients with MS and 287 age- and sex-matched controls.

Disclosures: This research was funded by the Department of Medical and Surgical Sciences and Advanced Technologies “G.F. Ingrassia,” University of Catania, Italy. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Nicoletti A et al. Sci Rep. 2020 Nov 2. doi: 10.1038/s41598-020-75830-y.

Key clinical point: Toxoplasma gondii (T. gondii) is negatively associated with multiple sclerosis (MS), suggesting a possible protective role of the parasite in MS.

Major finding: Anti-T. gondii antibodies were detected in 38 MS patients (29.5%) and 130 healthy controls (45.4%). After adjustment, T. gondii seropositivity was significantly associated with a reduced risk of MS (adjusted odds ratio, 0.56; P = .02).

Study details: The data come from an Italian population‑based case-control study of 129 patients with MS and 287 age- and sex-matched controls.

Disclosures: This research was funded by the Department of Medical and Surgical Sciences and Advanced Technologies “G.F. Ingrassia,” University of Catania, Italy. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Nicoletti A et al. Sci Rep. 2020 Nov 2. doi: 10.1038/s41598-020-75830-y.

Key clinical point: Toxoplasma gondii (T. gondii) is negatively associated with multiple sclerosis (MS), suggesting a possible protective role of the parasite in MS.

Major finding: Anti-T. gondii antibodies were detected in 38 MS patients (29.5%) and 130 healthy controls (45.4%). After adjustment, T. gondii seropositivity was significantly associated with a reduced risk of MS (adjusted odds ratio, 0.56; P = .02).

Study details: The data come from an Italian population‑based case-control study of 129 patients with MS and 287 age- and sex-matched controls.

Disclosures: This research was funded by the Department of Medical and Surgical Sciences and Advanced Technologies “G.F. Ingrassia,” University of Catania, Italy. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Nicoletti A et al. Sci Rep. 2020 Nov 2. doi: 10.1038/s41598-020-75830-y.