Infectious Diseases

In less than a year, COVID-19 has infected nearly 100 million people worldwide and caused more than 2 million deaths and counting. Although the infection fatality rate is estimated to be 1% and the case fatality rate between 2% and 3%, COVID-19 has had a disproportionate effect on the older population and those with comorbidities. Some of these findings are mirrored in the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) population, which has seen a higher case fatality rate.^1-4

As a respiratory tract infection, the most dreaded presentation is severe pneumonia with acute hypoxemia, which may rapidly deteriorate to acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) and respiratory failure.^5-7 This possibility has led to early intubation strategies aimed at preempting this rapid deterioration and minimizing viral exposure to health care workers. Intubation rates have varied widely with extremes of 6 to 88%.^8,9

However, this early intubation strategy has waned as some of the rationale behind its endorsement has been called into question. Early intubation bypasses alternatives to intubation; high-flow nasal cannula oxygen, noninvasive ventilation, and awake proning are all effective maneuvers in the appropriate patient.^10,11 The use of first-line high-flow nasal cannula oxygen and noninvasive ventilation has been widely reported. Reports of first-line use of high-flow nasal cannula oxygen has not demonstrated inferior outcomes, nor has the timing of intubation, suggesting a significant portion of patients could benefit from a trial of therapy and eventually avoid intubation.^11-14 Other therapies, such as systemic corticosteroids, confer a mortality benefit in those patients with COVID-19 who require oxygen or mechanical ventilation, but their impact on the progression of respiratory failure and need for intubation are undetermined.

There also are reports of patients who report no signs of respiratory distress or dyspnea with their COVID-19 pneumonia despite profound hypoxemia or high oxygen requirements. Various terms, including silent hypoxemia or happy hypoxia, are descriptive of the demeanor of these patients, and treatment has invariably included oxygen.^15,16 Nevertheless, low oxygen measurements have generally prompted higher levels of supplemental oxygen or more invasive therapies.

Treatment rendered may obscure the trajectory of response, which is important to understand to better position options for invasive therapies and other therapeutics. We recently encountered a patient with a course of illness that represented the natural history of COVID-19 pneumonia with low oxygen levels (referred to as hypoxemia for consistency) that highlighted several issues of management.

Case Presentation

A 62-year-old undomiciled woman with morbid obesity, prediabetes mellitus, long-standing schizophrenia, and bipolar disorder presented to our facility for evaluation of dry cough and need for tuberculosis clearance for admittance to a shelter. She appeared comfortable and was afebrile with blood pressure 111/74 mm Hg, heart rate 82 beats per minute. Her respiratory rate was 18 breaths per minute, but the pulse oximetry showed oxygen saturation of 70 to 75% on room air at rest. A chest X-ray showed bibasilar infiltrates (Figure 1), and a rapid COVID-19 nasopharyngeal polymerase chain reaction (PCR) test returned positive, confirmed by a second PCR test. Baseline inflammatory markers were elevated (Figure 2). In addition, the serum interleukin-6 also was elevated to 66.1 pg/mL (normal < 5.0), erythrocyte sedimentation rate elevated to 69 mm/h, but serum procalcitonin was essentially normal (0.22 ng/mL; normal < 20 ng/mL) as was the serum lactate (1.4 mmol/L).

The patient was admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU) for close monitoring in anticipation of the possibility of decompensation based on her age, hypoxia, and elevated inflammatory markers.¹⁷ Besides a subsequent low-grade fever (100.4 oF) and lymphopenia (manual count 550/uL), she remained clinically unchanged. Throughout her hospitalization, she maintained a persistent psychotic delusion that she did not have COVID-19, refusing all medical interventions, including a peripheral IV line and supplemental oxygen for the entire duration. Extensive efforts to identify family or a surrogate decision maker were unsuccessful. After consultation with Psychiatry, Bio-Ethics, and hospital leadership, the patient was deemed to lack decision-making capacity regarding treatment or disposition and was placed on a psychiatric hold. However, since any interventions against her will would require sedation, IV access, and potentially increase the risk of nosocomial COVID-19 transmission, she was allowed to remain untreated and was closely monitored for symptoms of worsening respiratory failure.

Discussion

The initial reports of COVID-19 pneumonia focused on ARDS and respiratory failure requiring mechanical ventilation with less emphasis on those with lower severity of illness. This was heightened by health care systems that were overwhelmed with large number of patients while faced with limited supplies and equipment. Given the risk to patients and providers of crash intubations, some recommended early intubation strategies.³ However, the natural history of COVID-19 pneumonia and the threshold for intubation of these patients remain poorly defined despite the creation of prognostic tools.¹⁷ This patient’s persistent hypoxemia and elevated inflammatory markers certainly met markers of disease associated with a high risk of progression.

The greatest concern would have been her level of hypoxemia. Acceptable thresholds of hypoxemia vary, but general consensus would classify pulse oximetry < 90% as hypoxemia and a threshold for administering supplemental oxygen. It is important to recognize how pulse oximetry readings translate to partial pressure of oxygen (PaO₂) measurements (Table 1). Pulse oximetry readings of 90% corresponds to a PaO₂ readings of 60 mm Hg in ideal conditions without the influence of acidosis, PaCO₂, or temperature. While lower readings are of concern, these do not represent absolute indications for assisted ventilatory support as lower levels are well tolerated in a variety of conditions. A common example are patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Long-term mortality benefits of continuous supplemental oxygen are well established in specific populations, but the threshold for correction in the acute setting remains a case-by-case decision. This decision is complex and is based on more than an absolute number or the amount of oxygen required to achieve a threshold level of oxygenation.

The severity of hypoxemia manifested by this patient may have elicited additional findings of respiratory distress, such as dyspnea and tachypnea. However, in patients with severe COVID-19 pneumonia, dyspnea was not a universal finding, reported in the 20 to 60% range of cohorts, higher in those with ARDS and mechanical ventilation, although some report near universal dyspnea in their series.^1,4,8,22,23 Tachypnea is another symptom of interest. Using a threshold of > 24 breaths/min, tachypnea was noted in 16 to 29% of patients with a much greater proportion (63%) in nonsurvivors.^6,24 Several explanations have been proposed for the discordance between the presence and severity of hypoxemia and lack of symptoms of dyspnea and tachypnea. It is important to recognize that misclassification of the severity of hypoxemia can occur due to technical issues and potential errors involving pulse oximetry measurement and shifts in the oxyhemoglobin dissociation curve. However, this is more pertinent for those with mild disease as the severity of hypoxemia in severe pneumonia is beyond what can be attributed to technical issues.

More important, the ventilatory response curve to hypoxemia may not be normal for some patients, blunted by as much as 50% in older patients, especially in those with diabetes mellitus.^7,25,26 In addition, the ventilatory response varies widely even among normal individuals. This would translate to lower levels of minute ventilation (less tachypnea or respiratory effort) with hypoxemia. Hypocapnic hypoxemia also blunts the ventilatory response to hypoxemia. Subjects do not increase their minute ventilation if the PaCO₂ remains low despite oxygen desaturation to < 70%, especially if PaCO₂ < 30 mm Hg or alternatively, increases in minute ventilation are not seen until the PaCO₂ exceeds 39 mm Hg.²⁷ Both scenarios occur in those with COVID-19 pneumonia and provide another explanation for the absence of respiratory symptoms or signs of respiratory distress in some patients.

The observation of more compliant lungs may help in the understanding of the variable presentation of these patients. Compliant lungs do not require the increased pressure needed to achieve a specific tidal volume that, in turn, may increase the work of breathing. This may add to the explanation of seemingly paradoxical silent hypoxemia in those patients where the combination of a blunted ventilatory response, hypocapnia, shunt physiology, and normal respiratory system compliance is represented by the absence of increased breathing effort despite severe hypoxemia.

If not for the patient’s refusal of medical services, this patient quite possibly would have been intubated due to hypoxemia and health care providers’ concern for her risk of deterioration. Reported intubation and mechanical ventilation rates have varied widely from extremes of from < 5 to 88% in severely ill patients.^9,22 About 75% will need oxygen, but many can be treated and recover without the need for intubation and mechanical ventilation.

As previously mentioned, options for treatment include standard and high-flow oxygen delivery, noninvasive ventilation, and awake prone ventilation. Their role in patient management has been recently outlined, and instead of an early intubation strategy, represents gradual escalation of support that may be sufficient to treat hypoxemia and avoid the need for intubation and mechanical ventilation (Table 2).

Conclusions

Since the emergence of the COVID-19, evidence has accumulated for the benefit of several adjunctive therapies in the treatment of this type of pneumonia, with corticosteroids providing a mortality benefit. Although unknown whether this patient’s experience can be generalized to others or whether it represents her unique response, this case provides another perspective for comparison of treatments and reinforces the need for prospective, randomized clinical trials to establish treatment efficacy. The exact nature of silent hypoxemia of COVID-19 remains incompletely understood; however, this case highlights the importance of treating the individual instead of clinical markers and provides a time course for recovery from pneumonia and severe hypoxemia that occurs without oxygen or any other treatment over about 2 weeks.

In less than a year, COVID-19 has infected nearly 100 million people worldwide and caused more than 2 million deaths and counting. Although the infection fatality rate is estimated to be 1% and the case fatality rate between 2% and 3%, COVID-19 has had a disproportionate effect on the older population and those with comorbidities. Some of these findings are mirrored in the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) population, which has seen a higher case fatality rate.^1-4

As a respiratory tract infection, the most dreaded presentation is severe pneumonia with acute hypoxemia, which may rapidly deteriorate to acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) and respiratory failure.^5-7 This possibility has led to early intubation strategies aimed at preempting this rapid deterioration and minimizing viral exposure to health care workers. Intubation rates have varied widely with extremes of 6 to 88%.^8,9

However, this early intubation strategy has waned as some of the rationale behind its endorsement has been called into question. Early intubation bypasses alternatives to intubation; high-flow nasal cannula oxygen, noninvasive ventilation, and awake proning are all effective maneuvers in the appropriate patient.^10,11 The use of first-line high-flow nasal cannula oxygen and noninvasive ventilation has been widely reported. Reports of first-line use of high-flow nasal cannula oxygen has not demonstrated inferior outcomes, nor has the timing of intubation, suggesting a significant portion of patients could benefit from a trial of therapy and eventually avoid intubation.^11-14 Other therapies, such as systemic corticosteroids, confer a mortality benefit in those patients with COVID-19 who require oxygen or mechanical ventilation, but their impact on the progression of respiratory failure and need for intubation are undetermined.

There also are reports of patients who report no signs of respiratory distress or dyspnea with their COVID-19 pneumonia despite profound hypoxemia or high oxygen requirements. Various terms, including silent hypoxemia or happy hypoxia, are descriptive of the demeanor of these patients, and treatment has invariably included oxygen.^15,16 Nevertheless, low oxygen measurements have generally prompted higher levels of supplemental oxygen or more invasive therapies.

Treatment rendered may obscure the trajectory of response, which is important to understand to better position options for invasive therapies and other therapeutics. We recently encountered a patient with a course of illness that represented the natural history of COVID-19 pneumonia with low oxygen levels (referred to as hypoxemia for consistency) that highlighted several issues of management.

Case Presentation

A 62-year-old undomiciled woman with morbid obesity, prediabetes mellitus, long-standing schizophrenia, and bipolar disorder presented to our facility for evaluation of dry cough and need for tuberculosis clearance for admittance to a shelter. She appeared comfortable and was afebrile with blood pressure 111/74 mm Hg, heart rate 82 beats per minute. Her respiratory rate was 18 breaths per minute, but the pulse oximetry showed oxygen saturation of 70 to 75% on room air at rest. A chest X-ray showed bibasilar infiltrates (Figure 1), and a rapid COVID-19 nasopharyngeal polymerase chain reaction (PCR) test returned positive, confirmed by a second PCR test. Baseline inflammatory markers were elevated (Figure 2). In addition, the serum interleukin-6 also was elevated to 66.1 pg/mL (normal < 5.0), erythrocyte sedimentation rate elevated to 69 mm/h, but serum procalcitonin was essentially normal (0.22 ng/mL; normal < 20 ng/mL) as was the serum lactate (1.4 mmol/L).

The patient was admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU) for close monitoring in anticipation of the possibility of decompensation based on her age, hypoxia, and elevated inflammatory markers.¹⁷ Besides a subsequent low-grade fever (100.4 oF) and lymphopenia (manual count 550/uL), she remained clinically unchanged. Throughout her hospitalization, she maintained a persistent psychotic delusion that she did not have COVID-19, refusing all medical interventions, including a peripheral IV line and supplemental oxygen for the entire duration. Extensive efforts to identify family or a surrogate decision maker were unsuccessful. After consultation with Psychiatry, Bio-Ethics, and hospital leadership, the patient was deemed to lack decision-making capacity regarding treatment or disposition and was placed on a psychiatric hold. However, since any interventions against her will would require sedation, IV access, and potentially increase the risk of nosocomial COVID-19 transmission, she was allowed to remain untreated and was closely monitored for symptoms of worsening respiratory failure.

Discussion

The initial reports of COVID-19 pneumonia focused on ARDS and respiratory failure requiring mechanical ventilation with less emphasis on those with lower severity of illness. This was heightened by health care systems that were overwhelmed with large number of patients while faced with limited supplies and equipment. Given the risk to patients and providers of crash intubations, some recommended early intubation strategies.³ However, the natural history of COVID-19 pneumonia and the threshold for intubation of these patients remain poorly defined despite the creation of prognostic tools.¹⁷ This patient’s persistent hypoxemia and elevated inflammatory markers certainly met markers of disease associated with a high risk of progression.

The greatest concern would have been her level of hypoxemia. Acceptable thresholds of hypoxemia vary, but general consensus would classify pulse oximetry < 90% as hypoxemia and a threshold for administering supplemental oxygen. It is important to recognize how pulse oximetry readings translate to partial pressure of oxygen (PaO₂) measurements (Table 1). Pulse oximetry readings of 90% corresponds to a PaO₂ readings of 60 mm Hg in ideal conditions without the influence of acidosis, PaCO₂, or temperature. While lower readings are of concern, these do not represent absolute indications for assisted ventilatory support as lower levels are well tolerated in a variety of conditions. A common example are patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Long-term mortality benefits of continuous supplemental oxygen are well established in specific populations, but the threshold for correction in the acute setting remains a case-by-case decision. This decision is complex and is based on more than an absolute number or the amount of oxygen required to achieve a threshold level of oxygenation.

The severity of hypoxemia manifested by this patient may have elicited additional findings of respiratory distress, such as dyspnea and tachypnea. However, in patients with severe COVID-19 pneumonia, dyspnea was not a universal finding, reported in the 20 to 60% range of cohorts, higher in those with ARDS and mechanical ventilation, although some report near universal dyspnea in their series.^1,4,8,22,23 Tachypnea is another symptom of interest. Using a threshold of > 24 breaths/min, tachypnea was noted in 16 to 29% of patients with a much greater proportion (63%) in nonsurvivors.^6,24 Several explanations have been proposed for the discordance between the presence and severity of hypoxemia and lack of symptoms of dyspnea and tachypnea. It is important to recognize that misclassification of the severity of hypoxemia can occur due to technical issues and potential errors involving pulse oximetry measurement and shifts in the oxyhemoglobin dissociation curve. However, this is more pertinent for those with mild disease as the severity of hypoxemia in severe pneumonia is beyond what can be attributed to technical issues.

More important, the ventilatory response curve to hypoxemia may not be normal for some patients, blunted by as much as 50% in older patients, especially in those with diabetes mellitus.^7,25,26 In addition, the ventilatory response varies widely even among normal individuals. This would translate to lower levels of minute ventilation (less tachypnea or respiratory effort) with hypoxemia. Hypocapnic hypoxemia also blunts the ventilatory response to hypoxemia. Subjects do not increase their minute ventilation if the PaCO₂ remains low despite oxygen desaturation to < 70%, especially if PaCO₂ < 30 mm Hg or alternatively, increases in minute ventilation are not seen until the PaCO₂ exceeds 39 mm Hg.²⁷ Both scenarios occur in those with COVID-19 pneumonia and provide another explanation for the absence of respiratory symptoms or signs of respiratory distress in some patients.

The observation of more compliant lungs may help in the understanding of the variable presentation of these patients. Compliant lungs do not require the increased pressure needed to achieve a specific tidal volume that, in turn, may increase the work of breathing. This may add to the explanation of seemingly paradoxical silent hypoxemia in those patients where the combination of a blunted ventilatory response, hypocapnia, shunt physiology, and normal respiratory system compliance is represented by the absence of increased breathing effort despite severe hypoxemia.

If not for the patient’s refusal of medical services, this patient quite possibly would have been intubated due to hypoxemia and health care providers’ concern for her risk of deterioration. Reported intubation and mechanical ventilation rates have varied widely from extremes of from < 5 to 88% in severely ill patients.^9,22 About 75% will need oxygen, but many can be treated and recover without the need for intubation and mechanical ventilation.

As previously mentioned, options for treatment include standard and high-flow oxygen delivery, noninvasive ventilation, and awake prone ventilation. Their role in patient management has been recently outlined, and instead of an early intubation strategy, represents gradual escalation of support that may be sufficient to treat hypoxemia and avoid the need for intubation and mechanical ventilation (Table 2).

Conclusions

Since the emergence of the COVID-19, evidence has accumulated for the benefit of several adjunctive therapies in the treatment of this type of pneumonia, with corticosteroids providing a mortality benefit. Although unknown whether this patient’s experience can be generalized to others or whether it represents her unique response, this case provides another perspective for comparison of treatments and reinforces the need for prospective, randomized clinical trials to establish treatment efficacy. The exact nature of silent hypoxemia of COVID-19 remains incompletely understood; however, this case highlights the importance of treating the individual instead of clinical markers and provides a time course for recovery from pneumonia and severe hypoxemia that occurs without oxygen or any other treatment over about 2 weeks.

In less than a year, COVID-19 has infected nearly 100 million people worldwide and caused more than 2 million deaths and counting. Although the infection fatality rate is estimated to be 1% and the case fatality rate between 2% and 3%, COVID-19 has had a disproportionate effect on the older population and those with comorbidities. Some of these findings are mirrored in the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) population, which has seen a higher case fatality rate.^1-4

As a respiratory tract infection, the most dreaded presentation is severe pneumonia with acute hypoxemia, which may rapidly deteriorate to acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) and respiratory failure.^5-7 This possibility has led to early intubation strategies aimed at preempting this rapid deterioration and minimizing viral exposure to health care workers. Intubation rates have varied widely with extremes of 6 to 88%.^8,9

However, this early intubation strategy has waned as some of the rationale behind its endorsement has been called into question. Early intubation bypasses alternatives to intubation; high-flow nasal cannula oxygen, noninvasive ventilation, and awake proning are all effective maneuvers in the appropriate patient.^10,11 The use of first-line high-flow nasal cannula oxygen and noninvasive ventilation has been widely reported. Reports of first-line use of high-flow nasal cannula oxygen has not demonstrated inferior outcomes, nor has the timing of intubation, suggesting a significant portion of patients could benefit from a trial of therapy and eventually avoid intubation.^11-14 Other therapies, such as systemic corticosteroids, confer a mortality benefit in those patients with COVID-19 who require oxygen or mechanical ventilation, but their impact on the progression of respiratory failure and need for intubation are undetermined.

There also are reports of patients who report no signs of respiratory distress or dyspnea with their COVID-19 pneumonia despite profound hypoxemia or high oxygen requirements. Various terms, including silent hypoxemia or happy hypoxia, are descriptive of the demeanor of these patients, and treatment has invariably included oxygen.^15,16 Nevertheless, low oxygen measurements have generally prompted higher levels of supplemental oxygen or more invasive therapies.

Treatment rendered may obscure the trajectory of response, which is important to understand to better position options for invasive therapies and other therapeutics. We recently encountered a patient with a course of illness that represented the natural history of COVID-19 pneumonia with low oxygen levels (referred to as hypoxemia for consistency) that highlighted several issues of management.

Case Presentation

A 62-year-old undomiciled woman with morbid obesity, prediabetes mellitus, long-standing schizophrenia, and bipolar disorder presented to our facility for evaluation of dry cough and need for tuberculosis clearance for admittance to a shelter. She appeared comfortable and was afebrile with blood pressure 111/74 mm Hg, heart rate 82 beats per minute. Her respiratory rate was 18 breaths per minute, but the pulse oximetry showed oxygen saturation of 70 to 75% on room air at rest. A chest X-ray showed bibasilar infiltrates (Figure 1), and a rapid COVID-19 nasopharyngeal polymerase chain reaction (PCR) test returned positive, confirmed by a second PCR test. Baseline inflammatory markers were elevated (Figure 2). In addition, the serum interleukin-6 also was elevated to 66.1 pg/mL (normal < 5.0), erythrocyte sedimentation rate elevated to 69 mm/h, but serum procalcitonin was essentially normal (0.22 ng/mL; normal < 20 ng/mL) as was the serum lactate (1.4 mmol/L).

The patient was admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU) for close monitoring in anticipation of the possibility of decompensation based on her age, hypoxia, and elevated inflammatory markers.¹⁷ Besides a subsequent low-grade fever (100.4 oF) and lymphopenia (manual count 550/uL), she remained clinically unchanged. Throughout her hospitalization, she maintained a persistent psychotic delusion that she did not have COVID-19, refusing all medical interventions, including a peripheral IV line and supplemental oxygen for the entire duration. Extensive efforts to identify family or a surrogate decision maker were unsuccessful. After consultation with Psychiatry, Bio-Ethics, and hospital leadership, the patient was deemed to lack decision-making capacity regarding treatment or disposition and was placed on a psychiatric hold. However, since any interventions against her will would require sedation, IV access, and potentially increase the risk of nosocomial COVID-19 transmission, she was allowed to remain untreated and was closely monitored for symptoms of worsening respiratory failure.

Discussion

The initial reports of COVID-19 pneumonia focused on ARDS and respiratory failure requiring mechanical ventilation with less emphasis on those with lower severity of illness. This was heightened by health care systems that were overwhelmed with large number of patients while faced with limited supplies and equipment. Given the risk to patients and providers of crash intubations, some recommended early intubation strategies.³ However, the natural history of COVID-19 pneumonia and the threshold for intubation of these patients remain poorly defined despite the creation of prognostic tools.¹⁷ This patient’s persistent hypoxemia and elevated inflammatory markers certainly met markers of disease associated with a high risk of progression.

The greatest concern would have been her level of hypoxemia. Acceptable thresholds of hypoxemia vary, but general consensus would classify pulse oximetry < 90% as hypoxemia and a threshold for administering supplemental oxygen. It is important to recognize how pulse oximetry readings translate to partial pressure of oxygen (PaO₂) measurements (Table 1). Pulse oximetry readings of 90% corresponds to a PaO₂ readings of 60 mm Hg in ideal conditions without the influence of acidosis, PaCO₂, or temperature. While lower readings are of concern, these do not represent absolute indications for assisted ventilatory support as lower levels are well tolerated in a variety of conditions. A common example are patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Long-term mortality benefits of continuous supplemental oxygen are well established in specific populations, but the threshold for correction in the acute setting remains a case-by-case decision. This decision is complex and is based on more than an absolute number or the amount of oxygen required to achieve a threshold level of oxygenation.

The severity of hypoxemia manifested by this patient may have elicited additional findings of respiratory distress, such as dyspnea and tachypnea. However, in patients with severe COVID-19 pneumonia, dyspnea was not a universal finding, reported in the 20 to 60% range of cohorts, higher in those with ARDS and mechanical ventilation, although some report near universal dyspnea in their series.^1,4,8,22,23 Tachypnea is another symptom of interest. Using a threshold of > 24 breaths/min, tachypnea was noted in 16 to 29% of patients with a much greater proportion (63%) in nonsurvivors.^6,24 Several explanations have been proposed for the discordance between the presence and severity of hypoxemia and lack of symptoms of dyspnea and tachypnea. It is important to recognize that misclassification of the severity of hypoxemia can occur due to technical issues and potential errors involving pulse oximetry measurement and shifts in the oxyhemoglobin dissociation curve. However, this is more pertinent for those with mild disease as the severity of hypoxemia in severe pneumonia is beyond what can be attributed to technical issues.

More important, the ventilatory response curve to hypoxemia may not be normal for some patients, blunted by as much as 50% in older patients, especially in those with diabetes mellitus.^7,25,26 In addition, the ventilatory response varies widely even among normal individuals. This would translate to lower levels of minute ventilation (less tachypnea or respiratory effort) with hypoxemia. Hypocapnic hypoxemia also blunts the ventilatory response to hypoxemia. Subjects do not increase their minute ventilation if the PaCO₂ remains low despite oxygen desaturation to < 70%, especially if PaCO₂ < 30 mm Hg or alternatively, increases in minute ventilation are not seen until the PaCO₂ exceeds 39 mm Hg.²⁷ Both scenarios occur in those with COVID-19 pneumonia and provide another explanation for the absence of respiratory symptoms or signs of respiratory distress in some patients.

The observation of more compliant lungs may help in the understanding of the variable presentation of these patients. Compliant lungs do not require the increased pressure needed to achieve a specific tidal volume that, in turn, may increase the work of breathing. This may add to the explanation of seemingly paradoxical silent hypoxemia in those patients where the combination of a blunted ventilatory response, hypocapnia, shunt physiology, and normal respiratory system compliance is represented by the absence of increased breathing effort despite severe hypoxemia.

If not for the patient’s refusal of medical services, this patient quite possibly would have been intubated due to hypoxemia and health care providers’ concern for her risk of deterioration. Reported intubation and mechanical ventilation rates have varied widely from extremes of from < 5 to 88% in severely ill patients.^9,22 About 75% will need oxygen, but many can be treated and recover without the need for intubation and mechanical ventilation.

As previously mentioned, options for treatment include standard and high-flow oxygen delivery, noninvasive ventilation, and awake prone ventilation. Their role in patient management has been recently outlined, and instead of an early intubation strategy, represents gradual escalation of support that may be sufficient to treat hypoxemia and avoid the need for intubation and mechanical ventilation (Table 2).

Conclusions

Since the emergence of the COVID-19, evidence has accumulated for the benefit of several adjunctive therapies in the treatment of this type of pneumonia, with corticosteroids providing a mortality benefit. Although unknown whether this patient’s experience can be generalized to others or whether it represents her unique response, this case provides another perspective for comparison of treatments and reinforces the need for prospective, randomized clinical trials to establish treatment efficacy. The exact nature of silent hypoxemia of COVID-19 remains incompletely understood; however, this case highlights the importance of treating the individual instead of clinical markers and provides a time course for recovery from pneumonia and severe hypoxemia that occurs without oxygen or any other treatment over about 2 weeks.

In April 2020, I pledged to focus my editorials on the pandemic. In subsequent editorials I renewed that intention. And it is a promise I have kept during the long plague year for all my editorials. When I announced my plan to write solely on COVID-19, my astute editor asked me, “How are you going to know when to stop?” I reminded myself of his question as I sat down to write each month and never arrived at a satisfactory answer. Nor do I have an answer now for why I am asking readers to release me from my vow—except for the somewhat trivial reason that a year seems enough. Is there more to say about the pandemic? Yes, there is so much more that needs to be discovered and unraveled, contemplated and analyzed; no doubt oceans of print and electronic pages will wash over us in the coming decade from thousands of scientists and journalists commenting on the topic of this public health crisis.²

Nevertheless, I have run the gauntlet of salient subjects within my wheelhouse: The plague year of editorials opened with a primer on public health ethics; the May column studied the duty to care for health care professionals in the midst of the first surge of virus; June examined the controversy around remdesivir and hydroxcholoroquine as medicine frantically sought some way to treat the sick; in July, I took a lighter look at the “Dog Days” of COVID-19 staring my Labrador Retriever mix, Reed, snoozing on his couch on the patio; August celebrated the amazing outreach of the US Department of Defense, US Public Health Service, and US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) in service to the community; September discussed the adverse effects of the prolonged pandemic on the human psyche and some positive ways of handling the stress; October lamented the exponential rise in substance misuse as human beings struggled to manage the emotional toll of the pandemic; in December, COVID-19 was the sole subject of my annual Best and Worst ethics column; the new year saw the emergency use authorizations of the first and second vaccines and the editorial laid out the critical challenges for vaccination; in February my esteemed colleague Anita Tarzian joined me in an article explaining the ethical approach to vaccine allocation developed by the VA.^3-12

A reader might aptly ask whether I am laying down the COVID-19 gauntlet because I believe the pandemic is over and done with us. The news is full of pundits opining when things will return to normal (if that ever existed or will again) and soothsayers divining the signs of the plague’s end.¹³ What I think is that we are more than done with the pandemic and unfortunately that may be the central cause of its perpetuation; which brings me to Daniel Defoe’s A Journal of the Plague Year.¹

Defoe is better known to most of us if at all from modern films of his best-seller Robinson Crusoe. Yet A Journal of the Plague Year and other books about epidemics have become popular reading as we seek clues to the mystery of how to affirm life amid a death-dealing infectious disease.¹⁴ There is even an emerging lockdown literature genre. (Before anyone asks, I am in no way so pretentious as to suggest my columns should be included in that scholarly body of work).

Defoe’s book chronicles the last episode of the bubonic plague that afflicted London in 1665 and claimed 100,000 lives. Defoe was only 5 years old when the epidemic devastated one of the greatest cities in Europe. In 1772 he published what one recent reviewer called “a fascinating record of trying to cope with the capital’s last plague.”¹⁵ Defoe presciently documented the central reason I think the pandemic may not end anytime soon despite the increasing success of vaccination, at least in the United States. “But the Case was this...that the infection was propagated insensibly, and by such Persons, as were not visibly infected, who neither knew who they infected, or who they were infected by.”¹

Ignorance and apathy are not confined to the streets of 17th century England: We see state after state lift restrictions prematurely, guaranteeing the scientists prediction that the wave now hitting Europe could again breach our shores. Defoe wrote long before germ theory and the ascendancy of public health, yet he knew that the inability or unwillingness to stick close to home kept the plague circulating. “And here I must observe again, that this Necessity of going out of our Houses to buy Provisions, was in a Great Measure the Ruin of the whole City, for the people catch’d the Distemper, on those Occasions, one of another...”¹ While provisions may equate to food for many, for others necessities include going to bars, dining inside restaurants, and working out at gyms—all are natural laboratories for the spread and mutation of COVID-19 into variants against which physicians warn that the vaccine may not offer protection.

Defoe’s insights were at least in part due to his distance from the horror of the plague, which enabled him to study it with both empathy and objectivity, critical thinking, and creative observation. Similarly, it is time to take a brief breathing space from the pandemic as the central preoccupation of our existence: not just for me but for all of us to the extent possible given that unlike Defoe’s epoch it is still very much our reality. Even a few moments imagining a world without COVID-19 or more accurately one where it is under some reasonable control can help us reconceive how we want to live in it.

Can we use that luminal period to reenvision society along the lines Defoe idealistically drew even while we contribute to the collective search for the Holy Grail of herd immunity? During this second plague year, in coming editorials and in my own small circle of concern I will try to take a different less frustrated, embittered view of our lives scarred as they may be. It is only such a reorientation of perspectives in the shadow of so much death and suffering that can give us the energy and empathy to wear masks, go only where we must, follow public health measures and direction, and persuade the hesitant to be vaccinated so this truly is the last plague year at least for a long, quiet while.

In April 2020, I pledged to focus my editorials on the pandemic. In subsequent editorials I renewed that intention. And it is a promise I have kept during the long plague year for all my editorials. When I announced my plan to write solely on COVID-19, my astute editor asked me, “How are you going to know when to stop?” I reminded myself of his question as I sat down to write each month and never arrived at a satisfactory answer. Nor do I have an answer now for why I am asking readers to release me from my vow—except for the somewhat trivial reason that a year seems enough. Is there more to say about the pandemic? Yes, there is so much more that needs to be discovered and unraveled, contemplated and analyzed; no doubt oceans of print and electronic pages will wash over us in the coming decade from thousands of scientists and journalists commenting on the topic of this public health crisis.²

Nevertheless, I have run the gauntlet of salient subjects within my wheelhouse: The plague year of editorials opened with a primer on public health ethics; the May column studied the duty to care for health care professionals in the midst of the first surge of virus; June examined the controversy around remdesivir and hydroxcholoroquine as medicine frantically sought some way to treat the sick; in July, I took a lighter look at the “Dog Days” of COVID-19 staring my Labrador Retriever mix, Reed, snoozing on his couch on the patio; August celebrated the amazing outreach of the US Department of Defense, US Public Health Service, and US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) in service to the community; September discussed the adverse effects of the prolonged pandemic on the human psyche and some positive ways of handling the stress; October lamented the exponential rise in substance misuse as human beings struggled to manage the emotional toll of the pandemic; in December, COVID-19 was the sole subject of my annual Best and Worst ethics column; the new year saw the emergency use authorizations of the first and second vaccines and the editorial laid out the critical challenges for vaccination; in February my esteemed colleague Anita Tarzian joined me in an article explaining the ethical approach to vaccine allocation developed by the VA.^3-12

A reader might aptly ask whether I am laying down the COVID-19 gauntlet because I believe the pandemic is over and done with us. The news is full of pundits opining when things will return to normal (if that ever existed or will again) and soothsayers divining the signs of the plague’s end.¹³ What I think is that we are more than done with the pandemic and unfortunately that may be the central cause of its perpetuation; which brings me to Daniel Defoe’s A Journal of the Plague Year.¹

Defoe is better known to most of us if at all from modern films of his best-seller Robinson Crusoe. Yet A Journal of the Plague Year and other books about epidemics have become popular reading as we seek clues to the mystery of how to affirm life amid a death-dealing infectious disease.¹⁴ There is even an emerging lockdown literature genre. (Before anyone asks, I am in no way so pretentious as to suggest my columns should be included in that scholarly body of work).

Defoe’s book chronicles the last episode of the bubonic plague that afflicted London in 1665 and claimed 100,000 lives. Defoe was only 5 years old when the epidemic devastated one of the greatest cities in Europe. In 1772 he published what one recent reviewer called “a fascinating record of trying to cope with the capital’s last plague.”¹⁵ Defoe presciently documented the central reason I think the pandemic may not end anytime soon despite the increasing success of vaccination, at least in the United States. “But the Case was this...that the infection was propagated insensibly, and by such Persons, as were not visibly infected, who neither knew who they infected, or who they were infected by.”¹

Ignorance and apathy are not confined to the streets of 17th century England: We see state after state lift restrictions prematurely, guaranteeing the scientists prediction that the wave now hitting Europe could again breach our shores. Defoe wrote long before germ theory and the ascendancy of public health, yet he knew that the inability or unwillingness to stick close to home kept the plague circulating. “And here I must observe again, that this Necessity of going out of our Houses to buy Provisions, was in a Great Measure the Ruin of the whole City, for the people catch’d the Distemper, on those Occasions, one of another...”¹ While provisions may equate to food for many, for others necessities include going to bars, dining inside restaurants, and working out at gyms—all are natural laboratories for the spread and mutation of COVID-19 into variants against which physicians warn that the vaccine may not offer protection.

Defoe’s insights were at least in part due to his distance from the horror of the plague, which enabled him to study it with both empathy and objectivity, critical thinking, and creative observation. Similarly, it is time to take a brief breathing space from the pandemic as the central preoccupation of our existence: not just for me but for all of us to the extent possible given that unlike Defoe’s epoch it is still very much our reality. Even a few moments imagining a world without COVID-19 or more accurately one where it is under some reasonable control can help us reconceive how we want to live in it.

Can we use that luminal period to reenvision society along the lines Defoe idealistically drew even while we contribute to the collective search for the Holy Grail of herd immunity? During this second plague year, in coming editorials and in my own small circle of concern I will try to take a different less frustrated, embittered view of our lives scarred as they may be. It is only such a reorientation of perspectives in the shadow of so much death and suffering that can give us the energy and empathy to wear masks, go only where we must, follow public health measures and direction, and persuade the hesitant to be vaccinated so this truly is the last plague year at least for a long, quiet while.

In April 2020, I pledged to focus my editorials on the pandemic. In subsequent editorials I renewed that intention. And it is a promise I have kept during the long plague year for all my editorials. When I announced my plan to write solely on COVID-19, my astute editor asked me, “How are you going to know when to stop?” I reminded myself of his question as I sat down to write each month and never arrived at a satisfactory answer. Nor do I have an answer now for why I am asking readers to release me from my vow—except for the somewhat trivial reason that a year seems enough. Is there more to say about the pandemic? Yes, there is so much more that needs to be discovered and unraveled, contemplated and analyzed; no doubt oceans of print and electronic pages will wash over us in the coming decade from thousands of scientists and journalists commenting on the topic of this public health crisis.²

Nevertheless, I have run the gauntlet of salient subjects within my wheelhouse: The plague year of editorials opened with a primer on public health ethics; the May column studied the duty to care for health care professionals in the midst of the first surge of virus; June examined the controversy around remdesivir and hydroxcholoroquine as medicine frantically sought some way to treat the sick; in July, I took a lighter look at the “Dog Days” of COVID-19 staring my Labrador Retriever mix, Reed, snoozing on his couch on the patio; August celebrated the amazing outreach of the US Department of Defense, US Public Health Service, and US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) in service to the community; September discussed the adverse effects of the prolonged pandemic on the human psyche and some positive ways of handling the stress; October lamented the exponential rise in substance misuse as human beings struggled to manage the emotional toll of the pandemic; in December, COVID-19 was the sole subject of my annual Best and Worst ethics column; the new year saw the emergency use authorizations of the first and second vaccines and the editorial laid out the critical challenges for vaccination; in February my esteemed colleague Anita Tarzian joined me in an article explaining the ethical approach to vaccine allocation developed by the VA.^3-12

A reader might aptly ask whether I am laying down the COVID-19 gauntlet because I believe the pandemic is over and done with us. The news is full of pundits opining when things will return to normal (if that ever existed or will again) and soothsayers divining the signs of the plague’s end.¹³ What I think is that we are more than done with the pandemic and unfortunately that may be the central cause of its perpetuation; which brings me to Daniel Defoe’s A Journal of the Plague Year.¹

Defoe is better known to most of us if at all from modern films of his best-seller Robinson Crusoe. Yet A Journal of the Plague Year and other books about epidemics have become popular reading as we seek clues to the mystery of how to affirm life amid a death-dealing infectious disease.¹⁴ There is even an emerging lockdown literature genre. (Before anyone asks, I am in no way so pretentious as to suggest my columns should be included in that scholarly body of work).

Defoe’s book chronicles the last episode of the bubonic plague that afflicted London in 1665 and claimed 100,000 lives. Defoe was only 5 years old when the epidemic devastated one of the greatest cities in Europe. In 1772 he published what one recent reviewer called “a fascinating record of trying to cope with the capital’s last plague.”¹⁵ Defoe presciently documented the central reason I think the pandemic may not end anytime soon despite the increasing success of vaccination, at least in the United States. “But the Case was this...that the infection was propagated insensibly, and by such Persons, as were not visibly infected, who neither knew who they infected, or who they were infected by.”¹

Ignorance and apathy are not confined to the streets of 17th century England: We see state after state lift restrictions prematurely, guaranteeing the scientists prediction that the wave now hitting Europe could again breach our shores. Defoe wrote long before germ theory and the ascendancy of public health, yet he knew that the inability or unwillingness to stick close to home kept the plague circulating. “And here I must observe again, that this Necessity of going out of our Houses to buy Provisions, was in a Great Measure the Ruin of the whole City, for the people catch’d the Distemper, on those Occasions, one of another...”¹ While provisions may equate to food for many, for others necessities include going to bars, dining inside restaurants, and working out at gyms—all are natural laboratories for the spread and mutation of COVID-19 into variants against which physicians warn that the vaccine may not offer protection.

Defoe’s insights were at least in part due to his distance from the horror of the plague, which enabled him to study it with both empathy and objectivity, critical thinking, and creative observation. Similarly, it is time to take a brief breathing space from the pandemic as the central preoccupation of our existence: not just for me but for all of us to the extent possible given that unlike Defoe’s epoch it is still very much our reality. Even a few moments imagining a world without COVID-19 or more accurately one where it is under some reasonable control can help us reconceive how we want to live in it.

Can we use that luminal period to reenvision society along the lines Defoe idealistically drew even while we contribute to the collective search for the Holy Grail of herd immunity? During this second plague year, in coming editorials and in my own small circle of concern I will try to take a different less frustrated, embittered view of our lives scarred as they may be. It is only such a reorientation of perspectives in the shadow of so much death and suffering that can give us the energy and empathy to wear masks, go only where we must, follow public health measures and direction, and persuade the hesitant to be vaccinated so this truly is the last plague year at least for a long, quiet while.

ILLUSTRATIVE CASE

An otherwise healthy 56-year-old woman presents to the emergency department (ED) with a productive cough of 4 days’ duration. A review of her history is negative for recurrent upper respiratory infections, smoking, or environmental exposures. Her physical exam is unremarkable and, more specifically, her pulmonary exam and vital signs (temperature, respiratory rate, and heart rate) are within normal limits. The patient states that last year her friend had similar symptoms and was given a diagnosis of pneumonia. Is it necessary to order a chest x-ray in this patient to rule out community-acquired pneumonia (CAP)?

CAP is a common pulmonary condition seen in the outpatient setting in the United States, representing more than 4.5 million outpatient visits in the years 2009 to 2010.² Historically, a diagnosis of CAP has been based on clinical findings in conjunction with infiltrates seen on chest x-ray.

In 2017, more than 5 million visits to the ED were due to a cough.³ The use of radiographic imaging in EDs has been increasing. There were 49 million x-rays and 2.7 million noncardiac chest computed tomography (CT) scans performed in 2016, many of which were for patients with cough.^3,4 Although imaging is an extremely useful tool and indicated in many instances, the ability to rule out CAP in an adult who presents with a cough by using a set of simple, clinically based heuristics without requiring imaging would help to increase efficiency, limit cost, and decrease exposure of patients to unnecessary and potentially harmful diagnostic studies.

Clinical decision rules (CDRs) are simple heuristics that can stratify patients as either high risk or low risk for specific diseases. Two older large, prospective cross-­sectional studies developed CDRs to determine the probability of CAP based on symptoms (eg, night sweats, myalgias, and sputum production) and clinical findings (eg, temperature > 37.8 °C [100 °F], tachypnea, tachycardia, rales, and decreased breath sounds).^5,6 This meta-analysis includes these studies and more recent studies^7-9 used to develop a CDR that focuses solely on a few specific signs and symptoms that can reliably rule out CAP without imaging, and so prove highly useful for busy primary care clinicians.

STUDY SUMMARY

This simple approach rules out CAP in outpatients 99.6% of the time

This systematic review and meta-analysis included studies that used 2 or more signs, symptoms, or point-of-care tests to determine the patient’s risk for CAP.¹ Twelve studies (N = 10,254) met inclusion criteria by applying a CDR to adults or adolescents presenting with respiratory signs or symptoms potentially suggestive of CAP to either an outpatient setting or an ED. Prospective cohort, cross-sectional, and case-control studies were included when a chest x-ray or CT was utilized as the primary reference standard. Exclusion criteria included studies of military or nursing home populations and studies in which the majority of patients had hospital- or ventilator-associated pneumonia or were immunocompromised.

For adult outpatients who present with acute cough, this clinical decision rule can quickly and accurately rule out CAP without the need for diagnostic imaging.

A simple, highly useful CDR emerged from 3 of the studies (N = 1865).^7-9 Two of these studies were described as case-control studies with prospective enrollment of patients older than 17 years in both outpatient and ED settings.^7,8 One study was conducted in the United States (mean age, 65 years) and the other in Iran (mean age, 60 years). The third was a Chilean prospective cohort study of ED patients older than 15 years (mean age, 53 years).⁹ In each of these studies, the outpatient or ED physicians collected all clinical data and documented their physical exam prior to receiving the chest radiograph results. The radiologists were masked to the clinical findings at the time of their interpretation.

Results. From the meta-analysis, a simple CDR emerged for patients with normal vital signs (temperature, respiratory rate, and heart rate) and a normal pulmonary exam that virtually ruled out CAP (sensitivity = 96%; 95% CI, 92%–98%; and negative likelihood ratio = 0.10; 95% CI, 0.07–0.13). In patients presenting to an outpatient clinic with acute cough with a 4% baseline prevalence rate of pneumonia, this CDR ruled out CAP 99.6% of the time.

Continue to: WHAT'S NEW

A clinical decision rule validated for accuracy

This is the first validated CDR that accurately rules out CAP in the outpatient or ED setting using parameters easily obtainable during a clinical exam.

CAVEATS

Proceed with caution in the young and the very old

Two of the 3 studies in this CDR had an overall moderate risk of bias, whereas the third study was determined to be at low risk of bias, based on appraisal with the Quality Assessment Tool for Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (QUADAS-2) framework.¹⁰

The mean age range in these 3 studies was 53 to 66 years (without further data such as standard deviation), suggesting that application of the CDR to adults who fall at extremes of age should be done with a modicum of caution.

Additionally, although the symptom complex of COVID-19 pneumonia would suggest that this CDR would likely remain accurate today, it has not been validated in patients with COVID-19 infection.

CHALLENGES TO IMPLEMENTATION

Potential reluctance to forgo imaging

Beyond the caveats regarding COVID-19, the use of a simple CDR to reliably exclude pneumonia should have no barrier to implementation in an outpatient primary care setting or ED, although there could be reluctance on the part of both providers and patients to fully embrace this simple tool without a confirmatory chest x-ray.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

The PURLs Surveillance System was supported in part by Grant Number UL1RR024999 from the National Center for Research Resources, a Clinical Translational Science Award to the University of Chicago. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Center for Research Resources or the National Institutes of Health.

ILLUSTRATIVE CASE

An otherwise healthy 56-year-old woman presents to the emergency department (ED) with a productive cough of 4 days’ duration. A review of her history is negative for recurrent upper respiratory infections, smoking, or environmental exposures. Her physical exam is unremarkable and, more specifically, her pulmonary exam and vital signs (temperature, respiratory rate, and heart rate) are within normal limits. The patient states that last year her friend had similar symptoms and was given a diagnosis of pneumonia. Is it necessary to order a chest x-ray in this patient to rule out community-acquired pneumonia (CAP)?

CAP is a common pulmonary condition seen in the outpatient setting in the United States, representing more than 4.5 million outpatient visits in the years 2009 to 2010.² Historically, a diagnosis of CAP has been based on clinical findings in conjunction with infiltrates seen on chest x-ray.

In 2017, more than 5 million visits to the ED were due to a cough.³ The use of radiographic imaging in EDs has been increasing. There were 49 million x-rays and 2.7 million noncardiac chest computed tomography (CT) scans performed in 2016, many of which were for patients with cough.^3,4 Although imaging is an extremely useful tool and indicated in many instances, the ability to rule out CAP in an adult who presents with a cough by using a set of simple, clinically based heuristics without requiring imaging would help to increase efficiency, limit cost, and decrease exposure of patients to unnecessary and potentially harmful diagnostic studies.

Clinical decision rules (CDRs) are simple heuristics that can stratify patients as either high risk or low risk for specific diseases. Two older large, prospective cross-­sectional studies developed CDRs to determine the probability of CAP based on symptoms (eg, night sweats, myalgias, and sputum production) and clinical findings (eg, temperature > 37.8 °C [100 °F], tachypnea, tachycardia, rales, and decreased breath sounds).^5,6 This meta-analysis includes these studies and more recent studies^7-9 used to develop a CDR that focuses solely on a few specific signs and symptoms that can reliably rule out CAP without imaging, and so prove highly useful for busy primary care clinicians.

STUDY SUMMARY

This simple approach rules out CAP in outpatients 99.6% of the time

This systematic review and meta-analysis included studies that used 2 or more signs, symptoms, or point-of-care tests to determine the patient’s risk for CAP.¹ Twelve studies (N = 10,254) met inclusion criteria by applying a CDR to adults or adolescents presenting with respiratory signs or symptoms potentially suggestive of CAP to either an outpatient setting or an ED. Prospective cohort, cross-sectional, and case-control studies were included when a chest x-ray or CT was utilized as the primary reference standard. Exclusion criteria included studies of military or nursing home populations and studies in which the majority of patients had hospital- or ventilator-associated pneumonia or were immunocompromised.

For adult outpatients who present with acute cough, this clinical decision rule can quickly and accurately rule out CAP without the need for diagnostic imaging.

A simple, highly useful CDR emerged from 3 of the studies (N = 1865).^7-9 Two of these studies were described as case-control studies with prospective enrollment of patients older than 17 years in both outpatient and ED settings.^7,8 One study was conducted in the United States (mean age, 65 years) and the other in Iran (mean age, 60 years). The third was a Chilean prospective cohort study of ED patients older than 15 years (mean age, 53 years).⁹ In each of these studies, the outpatient or ED physicians collected all clinical data and documented their physical exam prior to receiving the chest radiograph results. The radiologists were masked to the clinical findings at the time of their interpretation.

Results. From the meta-analysis, a simple CDR emerged for patients with normal vital signs (temperature, respiratory rate, and heart rate) and a normal pulmonary exam that virtually ruled out CAP (sensitivity = 96%; 95% CI, 92%–98%; and negative likelihood ratio = 0.10; 95% CI, 0.07–0.13). In patients presenting to an outpatient clinic with acute cough with a 4% baseline prevalence rate of pneumonia, this CDR ruled out CAP 99.6% of the time.

Continue to: WHAT'S NEW

A clinical decision rule validated for accuracy

This is the first validated CDR that accurately rules out CAP in the outpatient or ED setting using parameters easily obtainable during a clinical exam.

CAVEATS

Proceed with caution in the young and the very old

Two of the 3 studies in this CDR had an overall moderate risk of bias, whereas the third study was determined to be at low risk of bias, based on appraisal with the Quality Assessment Tool for Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (QUADAS-2) framework.¹⁰

The mean age range in these 3 studies was 53 to 66 years (without further data such as standard deviation), suggesting that application of the CDR to adults who fall at extremes of age should be done with a modicum of caution.

Additionally, although the symptom complex of COVID-19 pneumonia would suggest that this CDR would likely remain accurate today, it has not been validated in patients with COVID-19 infection.

CHALLENGES TO IMPLEMENTATION

Potential reluctance to forgo imaging

Beyond the caveats regarding COVID-19, the use of a simple CDR to reliably exclude pneumonia should have no barrier to implementation in an outpatient primary care setting or ED, although there could be reluctance on the part of both providers and patients to fully embrace this simple tool without a confirmatory chest x-ray.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

The PURLs Surveillance System was supported in part by Grant Number UL1RR024999 from the National Center for Research Resources, a Clinical Translational Science Award to the University of Chicago. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Center for Research Resources or the National Institutes of Health.

ILLUSTRATIVE CASE

An otherwise healthy 56-year-old woman presents to the emergency department (ED) with a productive cough of 4 days’ duration. A review of her history is negative for recurrent upper respiratory infections, smoking, or environmental exposures. Her physical exam is unremarkable and, more specifically, her pulmonary exam and vital signs (temperature, respiratory rate, and heart rate) are within normal limits. The patient states that last year her friend had similar symptoms and was given a diagnosis of pneumonia. Is it necessary to order a chest x-ray in this patient to rule out community-acquired pneumonia (CAP)?

CAP is a common pulmonary condition seen in the outpatient setting in the United States, representing more than 4.5 million outpatient visits in the years 2009 to 2010.² Historically, a diagnosis of CAP has been based on clinical findings in conjunction with infiltrates seen on chest x-ray.

In 2017, more than 5 million visits to the ED were due to a cough.³ The use of radiographic imaging in EDs has been increasing. There were 49 million x-rays and 2.7 million noncardiac chest computed tomography (CT) scans performed in 2016, many of which were for patients with cough.^3,4 Although imaging is an extremely useful tool and indicated in many instances, the ability to rule out CAP in an adult who presents with a cough by using a set of simple, clinically based heuristics without requiring imaging would help to increase efficiency, limit cost, and decrease exposure of patients to unnecessary and potentially harmful diagnostic studies.

Clinical decision rules (CDRs) are simple heuristics that can stratify patients as either high risk or low risk for specific diseases. Two older large, prospective cross-­sectional studies developed CDRs to determine the probability of CAP based on symptoms (eg, night sweats, myalgias, and sputum production) and clinical findings (eg, temperature > 37.8 °C [100 °F], tachypnea, tachycardia, rales, and decreased breath sounds).^5,6 This meta-analysis includes these studies and more recent studies^7-9 used to develop a CDR that focuses solely on a few specific signs and symptoms that can reliably rule out CAP without imaging, and so prove highly useful for busy primary care clinicians.

STUDY SUMMARY

This simple approach rules out CAP in outpatients 99.6% of the time

This systematic review and meta-analysis included studies that used 2 or more signs, symptoms, or point-of-care tests to determine the patient’s risk for CAP.¹ Twelve studies (N = 10,254) met inclusion criteria by applying a CDR to adults or adolescents presenting with respiratory signs or symptoms potentially suggestive of CAP to either an outpatient setting or an ED. Prospective cohort, cross-sectional, and case-control studies were included when a chest x-ray or CT was utilized as the primary reference standard. Exclusion criteria included studies of military or nursing home populations and studies in which the majority of patients had hospital- or ventilator-associated pneumonia or were immunocompromised.

For adult outpatients who present with acute cough, this clinical decision rule can quickly and accurately rule out CAP without the need for diagnostic imaging.

A simple, highly useful CDR emerged from 3 of the studies (N = 1865).^7-9 Two of these studies were described as case-control studies with prospective enrollment of patients older than 17 years in both outpatient and ED settings.^7,8 One study was conducted in the United States (mean age, 65 years) and the other in Iran (mean age, 60 years). The third was a Chilean prospective cohort study of ED patients older than 15 years (mean age, 53 years).⁹ In each of these studies, the outpatient or ED physicians collected all clinical data and documented their physical exam prior to receiving the chest radiograph results. The radiologists were masked to the clinical findings at the time of their interpretation.

Results. From the meta-analysis, a simple CDR emerged for patients with normal vital signs (temperature, respiratory rate, and heart rate) and a normal pulmonary exam that virtually ruled out CAP (sensitivity = 96%; 95% CI, 92%–98%; and negative likelihood ratio = 0.10; 95% CI, 0.07–0.13). In patients presenting to an outpatient clinic with acute cough with a 4% baseline prevalence rate of pneumonia, this CDR ruled out CAP 99.6% of the time.

Continue to: WHAT'S NEW

A clinical decision rule validated for accuracy

This is the first validated CDR that accurately rules out CAP in the outpatient or ED setting using parameters easily obtainable during a clinical exam.

CAVEATS

Proceed with caution in the young and the very old

Two of the 3 studies in this CDR had an overall moderate risk of bias, whereas the third study was determined to be at low risk of bias, based on appraisal with the Quality Assessment Tool for Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (QUADAS-2) framework.¹⁰

The mean age range in these 3 studies was 53 to 66 years (without further data such as standard deviation), suggesting that application of the CDR to adults who fall at extremes of age should be done with a modicum of caution.

Additionally, although the symptom complex of COVID-19 pneumonia would suggest that this CDR would likely remain accurate today, it has not been validated in patients with COVID-19 infection.

CHALLENGES TO IMPLEMENTATION

Potential reluctance to forgo imaging

Beyond the caveats regarding COVID-19, the use of a simple CDR to reliably exclude pneumonia should have no barrier to implementation in an outpatient primary care setting or ED, although there could be reluctance on the part of both providers and patients to fully embrace this simple tool without a confirmatory chest x-ray.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

The PURLs Surveillance System was supported in part by Grant Number UL1RR024999 from the National Center for Research Resources, a Clinical Translational Science Award to the University of Chicago. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Center for Research Resources or the National Institutes of Health.

Although recent months have seen the arrival of several promising vaccines to combat COVID-19, many researchers have been concerned about the shortage of Black and Latinx volunteers in their pivotal trials.

Sean Warren/iStockphoto.com

Minority groups have long been underrepresented in clinical research. The pandemic’s inequitable fallout has heightened the need for more inclusive COVID-19 trials. By one estimate, Black Americans are three times more likely to become infected with SARS-Cov-2 and twice as likely to die from it, compared with their White counterparts.

It was therefore welcome news this past November when the Maryland-based biotech company Novavax unveiled their plans to boost participation among specific minority groups during the phase 3 trial of their COVID-19 vaccine candidate NVX-CoV2373. To help them in their efforts, the company tapped Howard University, in Washington, D.C., to be a clinical test site. The goal was to enroll 300 Black and Latinx volunteers through a recruitment registry at the Coronavirus Prevention Network.

“We have seen quite a good number of participants in the registry, and many are African American, who are the ones we are trying to reach in the trial,” explained Siham Mahgoub, MD, medical director of the Center of Infectious Diseases Management and Research and principal investigator for the Novavax trial at Howard University, Washington. “It’s very important for people of color to participate in the trial because we want to make sure these vaccines work in people of color,” Dr. Mahgoub said.

Over the years, Howard University has hosted several important clinical trials and studies, and its participation in the multi-institutional Georgetown–Howard Universities Center for Clinical and Translational Science consortium brings crucial infrastructural value. By bringing this vaccine trial to one of the most esteemed historically Black colleges or universities (HBCUs), researchers hoped to address a sense of hesitancy among possible participants that is prompted in part by the tragic history of medical testing in the Black community.

“The community trusts Howard,” said Dr. Mahgoub. “I think it’s great having Howard and an HBCU host this trial, because these are people who look like them.”

Novavax deliberately sought an HBCU to work with on this trial to help people of color feel more at ease and increase minority participation. Lisa M. Dunkle, MD, vice president and global medical lead for coronavirus vaccine at Novavax, explained that, in addition to Howard being located close to the company’s headquarters, the university seemed like a great fit for the overall mission.

“As part of our goal to achieve a representative trial population that includes communities who are disproportionately impacted by the pandemic, we sought out some of the HBCUs to include in our trial sites. We hoped that this might encourage people of color to enroll and to increase their comfort level with vaccines in general,” Dr. Dunkle said.
 

Building more representative clinical trials

For decades, research on some of the most groundbreaking vaccines and treatments have been based on the results of studies conducted with predominately White participants, despite the fact that a much more demographically varied general population would ultimately receive them. This has led to calls to include people of different races and ethnic backgrounds in trials.

Homogeneity in clinical trials is discouraged, but trials are not heavily regulated in this regard. In 1993, Congress passed the Revitalization Act, which requires that trials that are conducted by the National Institutes of Health include women and members of minority groups among their cohorts. However, the number or proportion of such participants is not specified.

Underrepresentation in clinical trials also reflects a general unwillingness by members of ethnic minorities to volunteer because of the deeply unsettling history of such trials in minority communities. Among some Black persons, it is not uncommon for names like Tuskegee, Henrietta Lacks, and J. Marion Simms to be mentioned when giving reasons for not participating.

“There is certainly some dark history in how minorities have been treated by our health care system, and it’s not surprising that there is some fear and distrust,” said Dr. Dunkle. “By recruiting people of color into clinical trials that are governed with strict standards, we can begin to change perceptions and attitudes.”

Vaccine hesitancy is not only rooted in the past. The current state of medical care also has some potential trial participants worried. Misinformation, inequity in health care access, and low health literacy contribute to the current fears of scientific development.
 

A trial designed to engender trust

Having information about the vaccine come from trusted voices in the community is a key means of overcoming hesitancy. Howard University President Wayne Frederick, MD, reached out to a pastor of a local Black church to have more participants enroll in the trial. One who answered the call to action was Stephanie Williams, an elementary school teacher in Montgomery County, Maryland. When she saw that her pastor was participating in the Novavax trial and when she considered the devastation she had seen from COVID-19, she was on board.

“We had about three sessions where he shared his experiences. He also shared some links to read about it more,” Ms. Williams said. “When I saw that he took it, that gave me a lot of confidence. Since I’m going be going into the classroom, I wanted to be sure that I was well protected.”

Transparency is key to gaining more participation, explained Dr. Maghoub. Webinar-based information sessions have proven particularly important in achieving this.

“We do a lot of explaining in very simple language to make sure everyone understands about the vaccine. The participants have time to ask questions during the webinar, and at any time [during the trial], if a participant feels that it is not right for them, they can stop. They have time to learn about the trial and give consent. People often think they are like guinea pigs in trials, but they are not. They must give consent.”

There are signs that the approach has been successful. Over a period of 4-5 weeks, the Howard site enrolled 150 participants, of whom 30% were Black and 20% were Latinx.

Novavax has been in business for more than 3 decades but hasn’t seen the booming success that their competitors have. The company has noted progress in developing vaccines against Middle East respiratory syndrome and severe acute respiratory syndrome. However, they missed the mark in clinical trials, failing twice in 3 years to develop a respiratory syncytial virus vaccine administered through maternal immunizations.

From being on the verge of closing, Novavax has since made a dramatic turnaround after former President Trump awarded the company $1.6 billion dollars in July 2020 as part of Operation Warp Speed. If trial results are promising, the Novavax vaccine could enter the market in a few months, representing not only a new therapeutic option but perhaps a new model for building inclusivity in clinical trials.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Although recent months have seen the arrival of several promising vaccines to combat COVID-19, many researchers have been concerned about the shortage of Black and Latinx volunteers in their pivotal trials.

Sean Warren/iStockphoto.com

Minority groups have long been underrepresented in clinical research. The pandemic’s inequitable fallout has heightened the need for more inclusive COVID-19 trials. By one estimate, Black Americans are three times more likely to become infected with SARS-Cov-2 and twice as likely to die from it, compared with their White counterparts.

It was therefore welcome news this past November when the Maryland-based biotech company Novavax unveiled their plans to boost participation among specific minority groups during the phase 3 trial of their COVID-19 vaccine candidate NVX-CoV2373. To help them in their efforts, the company tapped Howard University, in Washington, D.C., to be a clinical test site. The goal was to enroll 300 Black and Latinx volunteers through a recruitment registry at the Coronavirus Prevention Network.

“We have seen quite a good number of participants in the registry, and many are African American, who are the ones we are trying to reach in the trial,” explained Siham Mahgoub, MD, medical director of the Center of Infectious Diseases Management and Research and principal investigator for the Novavax trial at Howard University, Washington. “It’s very important for people of color to participate in the trial because we want to make sure these vaccines work in people of color,” Dr. Mahgoub said.

Over the years, Howard University has hosted several important clinical trials and studies, and its participation in the multi-institutional Georgetown–Howard Universities Center for Clinical and Translational Science consortium brings crucial infrastructural value. By bringing this vaccine trial to one of the most esteemed historically Black colleges or universities (HBCUs), researchers hoped to address a sense of hesitancy among possible participants that is prompted in part by the tragic history of medical testing in the Black community.

“The community trusts Howard,” said Dr. Mahgoub. “I think it’s great having Howard and an HBCU host this trial, because these are people who look like them.”

Novavax deliberately sought an HBCU to work with on this trial to help people of color feel more at ease and increase minority participation. Lisa M. Dunkle, MD, vice president and global medical lead for coronavirus vaccine at Novavax, explained that, in addition to Howard being located close to the company’s headquarters, the university seemed like a great fit for the overall mission.

“As part of our goal to achieve a representative trial population that includes communities who are disproportionately impacted by the pandemic, we sought out some of the HBCUs to include in our trial sites. We hoped that this might encourage people of color to enroll and to increase their comfort level with vaccines in general,” Dr. Dunkle said.
 

Building more representative clinical trials

For decades, research on some of the most groundbreaking vaccines and treatments have been based on the results of studies conducted with predominately White participants, despite the fact that a much more demographically varied general population would ultimately receive them. This has led to calls to include people of different races and ethnic backgrounds in trials.

Homogeneity in clinical trials is discouraged, but trials are not heavily regulated in this regard. In 1993, Congress passed the Revitalization Act, which requires that trials that are conducted by the National Institutes of Health include women and members of minority groups among their cohorts. However, the number or proportion of such participants is not specified.

Underrepresentation in clinical trials also reflects a general unwillingness by members of ethnic minorities to volunteer because of the deeply unsettling history of such trials in minority communities. Among some Black persons, it is not uncommon for names like Tuskegee, Henrietta Lacks, and J. Marion Simms to be mentioned when giving reasons for not participating.

“There is certainly some dark history in how minorities have been treated by our health care system, and it’s not surprising that there is some fear and distrust,” said Dr. Dunkle. “By recruiting people of color into clinical trials that are governed with strict standards, we can begin to change perceptions and attitudes.”

Vaccine hesitancy is not only rooted in the past. The current state of medical care also has some potential trial participants worried. Misinformation, inequity in health care access, and low health literacy contribute to the current fears of scientific development.
 

A trial designed to engender trust

Having information about the vaccine come from trusted voices in the community is a key means of overcoming hesitancy. Howard University President Wayne Frederick, MD, reached out to a pastor of a local Black church to have more participants enroll in the trial. One who answered the call to action was Stephanie Williams, an elementary school teacher in Montgomery County, Maryland. When she saw that her pastor was participating in the Novavax trial and when she considered the devastation she had seen from COVID-19, she was on board.

“We had about three sessions where he shared his experiences. He also shared some links to read about it more,” Ms. Williams said. “When I saw that he took it, that gave me a lot of confidence. Since I’m going be going into the classroom, I wanted to be sure that I was well protected.”

Transparency is key to gaining more participation, explained Dr. Maghoub. Webinar-based information sessions have proven particularly important in achieving this.

“We do a lot of explaining in very simple language to make sure everyone understands about the vaccine. The participants have time to ask questions during the webinar, and at any time [during the trial], if a participant feels that it is not right for them, they can stop. They have time to learn about the trial and give consent. People often think they are like guinea pigs in trials, but they are not. They must give consent.”

There are signs that the approach has been successful. Over a period of 4-5 weeks, the Howard site enrolled 150 participants, of whom 30% were Black and 20% were Latinx.

Novavax has been in business for more than 3 decades but hasn’t seen the booming success that their competitors have. The company has noted progress in developing vaccines against Middle East respiratory syndrome and severe acute respiratory syndrome. However, they missed the mark in clinical trials, failing twice in 3 years to develop a respiratory syncytial virus vaccine administered through maternal immunizations.

From being on the verge of closing, Novavax has since made a dramatic turnaround after former President Trump awarded the company $1.6 billion dollars in July 2020 as part of Operation Warp Speed. If trial results are promising, the Novavax vaccine could enter the market in a few months, representing not only a new therapeutic option but perhaps a new model for building inclusivity in clinical trials.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Although recent months have seen the arrival of several promising vaccines to combat COVID-19, many researchers have been concerned about the shortage of Black and Latinx volunteers in their pivotal trials.

Sean Warren/iStockphoto.com

Minority groups have long been underrepresented in clinical research. The pandemic’s inequitable fallout has heightened the need for more inclusive COVID-19 trials. By one estimate, Black Americans are three times more likely to become infected with SARS-Cov-2 and twice as likely to die from it, compared with their White counterparts.

It was therefore welcome news this past November when the Maryland-based biotech company Novavax unveiled their plans to boost participation among specific minority groups during the phase 3 trial of their COVID-19 vaccine candidate NVX-CoV2373. To help them in their efforts, the company tapped Howard University, in Washington, D.C., to be a clinical test site. The goal was to enroll 300 Black and Latinx volunteers through a recruitment registry at the Coronavirus Prevention Network.

“We have seen quite a good number of participants in the registry, and many are African American, who are the ones we are trying to reach in the trial,” explained Siham Mahgoub, MD, medical director of the Center of Infectious Diseases Management and Research and principal investigator for the Novavax trial at Howard University, Washington. “It’s very important for people of color to participate in the trial because we want to make sure these vaccines work in people of color,” Dr. Mahgoub said.

Over the years, Howard University has hosted several important clinical trials and studies, and its participation in the multi-institutional Georgetown–Howard Universities Center for Clinical and Translational Science consortium brings crucial infrastructural value. By bringing this vaccine trial to one of the most esteemed historically Black colleges or universities (HBCUs), researchers hoped to address a sense of hesitancy among possible participants that is prompted in part by the tragic history of medical testing in the Black community.

“The community trusts Howard,” said Dr. Mahgoub. “I think it’s great having Howard and an HBCU host this trial, because these are people who look like them.”

Novavax deliberately sought an HBCU to work with on this trial to help people of color feel more at ease and increase minority participation. Lisa M. Dunkle, MD, vice president and global medical lead for coronavirus vaccine at Novavax, explained that, in addition to Howard being located close to the company’s headquarters, the university seemed like a great fit for the overall mission.

“As part of our goal to achieve a representative trial population that includes communities who are disproportionately impacted by the pandemic, we sought out some of the HBCUs to include in our trial sites. We hoped that this might encourage people of color to enroll and to increase their comfort level with vaccines in general,” Dr. Dunkle said.
 

Building more representative clinical trials

For decades, research on some of the most groundbreaking vaccines and treatments have been based on the results of studies conducted with predominately White participants, despite the fact that a much more demographically varied general population would ultimately receive them. This has led to calls to include people of different races and ethnic backgrounds in trials.

Homogeneity in clinical trials is discouraged, but trials are not heavily regulated in this regard. In 1993, Congress passed the Revitalization Act, which requires that trials that are conducted by the National Institutes of Health include women and members of minority groups among their cohorts. However, the number or proportion of such participants is not specified.

Underrepresentation in clinical trials also reflects a general unwillingness by members of ethnic minorities to volunteer because of the deeply unsettling history of such trials in minority communities. Among some Black persons, it is not uncommon for names like Tuskegee, Henrietta Lacks, and J. Marion Simms to be mentioned when giving reasons for not participating.

“There is certainly some dark history in how minorities have been treated by our health care system, and it’s not surprising that there is some fear and distrust,” said Dr. Dunkle. “By recruiting people of color into clinical trials that are governed with strict standards, we can begin to change perceptions and attitudes.”

Vaccine hesitancy is not only rooted in the past. The current state of medical care also has some potential trial participants worried. Misinformation, inequity in health care access, and low health literacy contribute to the current fears of scientific development.
 

A trial designed to engender trust

Having information about the vaccine come from trusted voices in the community is a key means of overcoming hesitancy. Howard University President Wayne Frederick, MD, reached out to a pastor of a local Black church to have more participants enroll in the trial. One who answered the call to action was Stephanie Williams, an elementary school teacher in Montgomery County, Maryland. When she saw that her pastor was participating in the Novavax trial and when she considered the devastation she had seen from COVID-19, she was on board.

“We had about three sessions where he shared his experiences. He also shared some links to read about it more,” Ms. Williams said. “When I saw that he took it, that gave me a lot of confidence. Since I’m going be going into the classroom, I wanted to be sure that I was well protected.”

Transparency is key to gaining more participation, explained Dr. Maghoub. Webinar-based information sessions have proven particularly important in achieving this.

“We do a lot of explaining in very simple language to make sure everyone understands about the vaccine. The participants have time to ask questions during the webinar, and at any time [during the trial], if a participant feels that it is not right for them, they can stop. They have time to learn about the trial and give consent. People often think they are like guinea pigs in trials, but they are not. They must give consent.”

There are signs that the approach has been successful. Over a period of 4-5 weeks, the Howard site enrolled 150 participants, of whom 30% were Black and 20% were Latinx.

Novavax has been in business for more than 3 decades but hasn’t seen the booming success that their competitors have. The company has noted progress in developing vaccines against Middle East respiratory syndrome and severe acute respiratory syndrome. However, they missed the mark in clinical trials, failing twice in 3 years to develop a respiratory syncytial virus vaccine administered through maternal immunizations.

From being on the verge of closing, Novavax has since made a dramatic turnaround after former President Trump awarded the company $1.6 billion dollars in July 2020 as part of Operation Warp Speed. If trial results are promising, the Novavax vaccine could enter the market in a few months, representing not only a new therapeutic option but perhaps a new model for building inclusivity in clinical trials.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

An investigational vaginal gel significantly reduced urogenital chlamydia and gonorrhea in women at high risk for infection, compared with placebo, opening up new possibilities for an on-demand prevention option. Investigators of a randomized trial reported these findings in the American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology.

Rates of Chlamydia trachomatis (CT) and Neisseria gonorrhoeae (GC) are on the rise in the United States, despite wide availability of male and female condoms to prevent sexually transmitted infections. This suggests that women need a more discrete method that they can better control. Other vaginal microbicides developed over the last few decades haven’t performed well in protecting against STIs or HIV in clinical trials.

The slightly alkaline nature of human semen has the potential to neutralize vaginal pH after intercourse, creating a more vulnerable environment for STIs. EVO100 is an investigational antimicrobial, bioadhesive vaginal gel that contains L-lactic acid, citric acid, and potassium bitartrate. In preclinical studies, it was highly effective at buffering the alkaline properties of human semen and maintaining vaginal pH levels. Patients generally tolerated it well, aside from some reports of vaginal itching and burning.

An investigational vaginal gel significantly reduced urogenital chlamydia and gonorrhea in women at high risk for infection, compared with placebo, opening up new possibilities for an on-demand prevention option. Investigators of a randomized trial reported these findings in the American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology.

Rates of Chlamydia trachomatis (CT) and Neisseria gonorrhoeae (GC) are on the rise in the United States, despite wide availability of male and female condoms to prevent sexually transmitted infections. This suggests that women need a more discrete method that they can better control. Other vaginal microbicides developed over the last few decades haven’t performed well in protecting against STIs or HIV in clinical trials.

The slightly alkaline nature of human semen has the potential to neutralize vaginal pH after intercourse, creating a more vulnerable environment for STIs. EVO100 is an investigational antimicrobial, bioadhesive vaginal gel that contains L-lactic acid, citric acid, and potassium bitartrate. In preclinical studies, it was highly effective at buffering the alkaline properties of human semen and maintaining vaginal pH levels. Patients generally tolerated it well, aside from some reports of vaginal itching and burning.

An investigational vaginal gel significantly reduced urogenital chlamydia and gonorrhea in women at high risk for infection, compared with placebo, opening up new possibilities for an on-demand prevention option. Investigators of a randomized trial reported these findings in the American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology.

Rates of Chlamydia trachomatis (CT) and Neisseria gonorrhoeae (GC) are on the rise in the United States, despite wide availability of male and female condoms to prevent sexually transmitted infections. This suggests that women need a more discrete method that they can better control. Other vaginal microbicides developed over the last few decades haven’t performed well in protecting against STIs or HIV in clinical trials.

The slightly alkaline nature of human semen has the potential to neutralize vaginal pH after intercourse, creating a more vulnerable environment for STIs. EVO100 is an investigational antimicrobial, bioadhesive vaginal gel that contains L-lactic acid, citric acid, and potassium bitartrate. In preclinical studies, it was highly effective at buffering the alkaline properties of human semen and maintaining vaginal pH levels. Patients generally tolerated it well, aside from some reports of vaginal itching and burning.

The virus that causes COVID-19—SARS-CoV-2—has infected more than 128 million individuals, resulting in more than 2.8 million deaths worldwide between December 2019 and April 2021. Disease mortality primarily is driven by hypoxemic respiratory failure and systemic hypercoagulability, resulting in multisystem organ failure.¹ With more than 17 million Americans infected, the virus is estimated to have impacted someone within the social circle of nearly every American.²

The COVID-19 pandemic has highlighted resource limitations, delayed elective and preventive care, and rapidly increased the adoption of telemedicine, presenting a host of new challenges to providers in every medical specialty, including dermatology. Although COVID-19 primarily is a respiratory disease, clinical manifestations have been observed in nearly every organ, including the skin. The cutaneous manifestations of COVID-19 provide insight into disease diagnosis, prognosis, and pathophysiology. In this article, we review the cutaneous manifestations of COVID-19 and explore the state of knowledge regarding their pathophysiology and clinical significance. Finally, we discuss the role of dermatology consultants in the care of patients with COVID-19, and the impact of the pandemic on the field of dermatology. 

Prevalence of Cutaneous Findings in COVID-19

Early reports characterizing the clinical presentation of patients hospitalized with COVID-19 suggested skin findings associated with the disease were rare. Cohort studies from Europe, China, and New York City in January through March 2020 reported a low prevalence or made no mention of rash.^3-7 However, reports from dermatologists in Italy that emerged in May 2020 indicated a substantially higher proportion of cutaneous disease: 18 of 88 (20.4%) hospitalized patients were found to have cutaneous involvement, primarily consisting of erythematous rash, along with some cases of urticarial and vesicular lesions.⁸ In October 2020, a retrospective cohort study from Spain examining 2761 patients presenting to the emergency department or admitted to the hospital for COVID-19 found that 58 (2.1%) patients had skin lesions attributed to COVID-19.⁹

The wide range in reported prevalence of skin lesions may be due to variable involvement of dermatologic specialists in patient care, particularly in China.¹⁰ Some variation also may be due to variability in the timing of clinical examination, as well as demographic and clinical differences in patient populations. Of note, a multisystem inflammatory disease seen in US children subsequent to infection with COVID-19 has been associated with rash in as many as 74% of cases.¹¹ Although COVID-19 disproportionately impacts people with skin of color, there are few reports of cutaneous manifestations in that population,¹² highlighting the challenges of the dermatologic examination in individuals with darker skin and suggesting the prevalence of dermatologic disease in COVID-19 may be greater than reported. 

Morphologic Patterns of Cutaneous Involvement in COVID-19

Researchers in Europe and the United States have attempted to classify the cutaneous manifestations of COVID-19. A registry established through the American Academy of Dermatology published a compilation of reports from 31 countries, totaling 716 patient profiles.¹³ A prospective Spanish study detailed the cutaneous involvement of 375 patients with suspected or confirmed COVID-19.¹⁴ Together, these efforts have revealed several distinct patterns of cutaneous involvement associated with COVID-19 (Table).^9,15-18 

Vesicular Rash
Vesicular rash associated with COVID-19 has been described in several studies and case series^8,13,14 and is considered, along with the pseudopernio (or pseudochilblains) morphology, to be one of the more disease-specific patterns in COVID-19.^14,18 Vesicular rash appears to comprise roughly one-tenth of all COVID-19–associated rashes.^13,14 It usually is described as pruritic, with 72% to 83% of patients reporting itch.^13,16 

Small monomorphic or polymorphic vesicles predominantly on the trunk and to a lesser extent the extremities and head have been described by multiple authors.^14,16 Vesicular rash is most common among middle-aged individuals, with studies reporting median and mean ages ranging from 40.5 to 55 years.^9,13,14,16

Vesicular rash develops concurrent with or after other presenting symptoms of COVID-19; in 2 studies, vesicular rash preceded development of other symptoms in only 15% and 5.6% of cases, respectively.^13,14 Prognostically, vesicular rash is associated with moderate disease severity.^14,16 It may persist for an average of 8 to 10 days.^14,16,18

Histopathologic examination reveals basal layer vacuolar degeneration, hyperchromatic keratinocytes, acantholysis, and dyskeratosis.^9,16,18 

Urticarial Rash
Urticarial lesions represent approximately 7% to 19% of reported COVID-19–associated rashes.^9,13,14 Urticarial rashes in patients testing positive for SARS-CoV-2 primarily occur on the trunk.¹⁴ The urticaria, which typically last about 1 week,¹⁴ are seen most frequently in middle-aged patients (mean/median age, 42–48 years)^13,14 and are associated with pruritus, which has been reported in 74% to 92% of patients.^13,14 Urticarial lesions typically do not precede other symptoms of COVID-19 and are nonspecific, making them less useful diagnostically.¹⁴

Urticaria appears to be associated with more severe COVID-19 illness in several studies, but this finding may be confounded by several factors, including older age, increased tobacco use, and polypharmacy. Of 104 patients with reported urticarial rash and suspected or confirmed COVID-19 across 3 studies, only 1 death was reported.^9,13,14 

The histopathologic appearance is that of typical hives, demonstrating a perivascular infiltrate of lymphocytes and eosinophils with edema of the upper dermis.^9,19

Morbilliform Eruption
Morbilliform eruption is a commonly reported morphology associated with COVID-19, accounting for 20% to 47% of rashes.^9,13,14 This categorization may have limited utility from a diagnostic and prognostic perspective, given that morbilliform eruptions are common, nonspecific, and heterogenous and can arise from many causes.^9,13,14 Onset of morbilliform eruption appears to coincide with¹⁴ or follow^13,20,21 the development of other COVID-19–related symptoms, with 5% of patients reporting morbilliform rash as the initial manifestation of infection.^13,14 Morbilliform eruptions have been observed to occur in patients with more severe disease.^9,13,14

Certain morphologic subtypes, such as erythema multiforme–like, erythema elevatum diutinum–like, or pseudovesicular, may be more specific to COVID-19 infection.¹⁴ A small case series highlighted 4 patients with erythema multiforme–like eruptions, 3 of whom also were found to have petechial enanthem occurring after COVID-19 diagnosis; however, the investigators were unable to exclude drug reaction as a potential cause of rash in these patients.²² Another case series of 21 patients with COVID-19 and skin rash described a (primarily) petechial enanthem on the palate in 6 (28.5%) patients.²³ It is unclear to what extent oral enanthem may be underrecognized given that some physicians may be disinclined to remove the masks of known COVID-19–positive patients to examine the oral cavity.

The histologic appearance of morbilliform rash seen in association with COVID-19 has been described as spongiotic with interface dermatitis with perivascular lymphocytic inflammation.^9,21

COVID Toes, Pseudochilblains Rash, Perniolike Rash, and Acral Erythema/Edema
Of all the rashes associated with COVID-19, COVID toes, or pseudochilblains rash, has perhaps attracted the most attention. The characteristic violaceous erythema on the fingers and/or toes may be itchy or painful, presenting similar to idiopathic cases of pernio (Figure 1).¹⁴ The entity has been controversial because of an absence of a clear correlation with a positive SARS-CoV-2 polymerase chain reaction test or antibodies to the virus in a subset of reported cases.^24,25 Onset of the rash late in the disease course, generally after symptom resolution in mild or asymptomatic cases, may explain the absence of viral DNA in the nasopharynx by the time of lesion appearance.^14,26 Seronegative patients may have cleared SARS-CoV-2 infection before humoral immunity could occur via a strong type 1 interferon response.²⁵

Across 3 studies, perniolike skin lesions constituted 18% to 29% of COVID-19–associated skin findings^9,13,14 and persisted for an average of 12 to 14 days.^13,14 Perniolike lesions portend a favorable outcome; patients with COVID toes rarely present with systemic symptoms or laboratory or imaging abnormalities⁹ and less commonly require hospitalization for severe illness. Perniolike lesions have been reported most frequently in younger patients, with a median or mean age of 32 to 35 years.^13,14

Histology demonstrates lichenoid dermatitis with perivascular and periadnexal lymphocytic infiltrates.⁹ Notably, one study observed interface dermatitis of the intraepidermal portion of the acrosyringium, a rare finding in chilblain lupus, in 83% of patients (N=40).²⁵ Direct immunofluorescence demonstrates a vasculopathic pattern, with some patients showing deposition of IgM or IgG, C3, and fibrinogen in dermal blood vessels. Vascular C9 deposits also have been demonstrated on immunohistochemistry.⁹ Biopsies of perniolike lesions in COVID-19 patients have demonstrated the presence of SARS-CoV-2 RNA,²⁷ have identified SARS-CoV-2 spike protein in endothelial cells on immunohistochemistry, and have visualized intracytoplasmic viral particles in vascular endothelium on electron microscopy.²⁸

Livedoid Rash/Retiform Purpura
Netlike purpuric or violaceous patches signifying vessel damage or occlusion have been seen in association with COVID-19, constituting approximately 6% of COVID-19–associated skin findings in 2 studies.^13,14 Livedoid rash (Figure 2) and retiform purpura (Figure 3) are associated with older age and occur primarily in severely ill patients, including those requiring intensive care. In a registry of 716 patients with COVID-19, 100% of patients with retiform purpura were hospitalized, and 82% had acute respiratory distress syndrome.¹³ In another study, 33% (7/21) of patients with livedoid and necrotic lesions required intensive care, and 10% (2/21) died.¹⁴

Multisystem Inflammatory Disease in Children

A hyperinflammatory syndrome similar to Kawasaki disease and toxic shock syndrome associated with mucocutaneous, cardiac, and gastrointestinal manifestations has been reported following COVID-19 infection.³¹ This syndrome, known as multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children (MIS-C), predominantly affects adolescents and children older than 5 years,¹¹ typically occurs 2 to 4 weeks after infection, and appears to be at least 100-times less common than COVID-19 infection among the same age group.³¹ Sixty percent³¹ to 74%¹¹ of affected patients have mucocutaneous involvement, with the most common clinical findings being conjunctival injection, palmoplantar erythema, lip hyperemia, periorbital erythema and edema, strawberry tongue, and malar erythema, respectively.³²

Because this condition appears to reflect an immune response to the virus, the majority of cases demonstrate negative SARS-CoV-2 polymerase chain reaction and positive antibody testing.³³ Although cutaneous findings are similar to those seen in Kawasaki disease, certain findings have been noted in MIS-C that are not typical of Kawasaki disease, including heliotrope rash–like periorbital edema and erythema as well as erythema infectiosum–like malar erythema and reticulated erythematous eruptions.³²

The course of MIS-C can be severe; in one case series of patients presenting with MIS-C, 80% (79/99) required intensive care unit admission, with 10% requiring mechanical ventilation and 2% of patients dying during admission.³¹ Cardiac dysfunction, coagulopathy, and gastrointestinal symptoms are common.^11,31 It has been postulated that a superantigenlike region of the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein, similar to that of staphylococcal enterotoxin B, may underlie MIS-C and account for its similarities to toxic shock syndrome.³⁴ Of note, a similar multisystem inflammatory syndrome associated with COVID-19 also has been described in adults, and it too may present with rash as a cardinal feature.³⁵

Pathophysiology of COVID-19: What the Skin May Reveal About the Disease

The diverse range of cutaneous manifestations in COVID-19 reflects a spectrum of host immunologicresponses to SARS-CoV-2 and may inform the pathophysiology of the disease as well as potential treatment modalities.

Host Response to SARS-CoV-2
The body’s response to viral infection is 2-pronged, involving activation of cellular antiviral defenses mediated by type I and III interferons, as well as recruitment of leukocytes, mobilized by cytokines and chemokines.^36,37 Infection with SARS-CoV-2 results in a unique inflammatory response characterized by suppression of interferons, juxtaposed with a rampant proinflammatory cytokine and chemokine response, reminiscent of a cytokine storm. Reflective of this imbalance, a study of 50 COVID-19 patients and 20 healthy controls found decreased natural killer cells and CD3⁺ T cells in COVID-19 patients, particularly severely or critically ill patients, with an increase in B cells and monocytes.³⁸ This distinctive immune imbalance positions SARS-CoV-2 to thrive in the absence of inhibitory interferon activity while submitting the host to the deleterious effects of a cytokine surge.³⁶

Type I Interferons
The perniolike lesions associated with mild COVID-19 disease¹⁴ may represent a robust immune response via effective stimulation of type I interferons (IFN-1). Similar perniolike lesions are observed in Aicardi-Goutières syndrome³⁷ and familial chilblain lupus, hereditary interferonopathies associated with mutations in the TREX1 (three prime repair exonuclease 1) gene and characterized by inappropriate upregulation of IFN-1,³⁹ resulting in chilblains. It has been suggested that perniolike lesions in COVID-19 result from IFN-1 activation—a robust effective immunologic response to the virus.^14,26,40

On the other end of the spectrum, patients with severe COVID-19 may have a blunted IFN-1 response and reduced IFN-1–stimulated gene expression.^36,38 Notably, low IFN-1 response preceded clinical deterioration and was associated with increased risk for evolution to critical illness.³⁸ Severe disease from COVID-19 also is more commonly observed in older patients and those with comorbidities,¹ both of which are known factors associated with depressed IFN-1 function.^38,41 Reflective of this disparate IFN-1 response, biopsies of COVID-19 perniosis have demonstrated striking expression of myxovirus resistance protein A (MXA), a marker for IFN-1 signaling in tissue, whereas its expression is absent in COVID-19 livedo/retiform purpura.²⁷

Familial chilblain lupus may be effectively treated by the Janus kinase inhibitor baricitinib,³⁹ which inhibits IFN-1 signaling. Baricitinib recently received emergency use authorization by the US Food and Drug Administration for treatment of severe COVID-19 pneumonia,^42,43 hinting to disordered IFN-1 signaling in the COVID-19 pathophysiology.

The impaired IFN-1 response in COVID-19 patients may be due to a unique characteristic of SARS-CoV-2: its ORF3b gene is a potent IFN-1 antagonist. In a series of experiments comparing SARS-CoV-2 to the related virus severe acute respiratory disease coronavirus (which was responsible for an epidemic in 2002), Konno et al⁴⁴ found that SARS-CoV-2 is more effectively able to downregulate host IFN-1, likely due to premature stop codons on ORF3b that produce a truncated version of the gene with amplified anti–IFN-1 activity.

 Cytokine Storm and Coagulation Cascade
This dulled interferon response is juxtaposed with a surge of inflammatory chemokines and cytokines, including IL-6, IL-8, IL-10, and tumor necrosis factor α, impairing innate immunity and leading to end-organ damage. This inflammatory response is associated with the influx of innate immune cells, specifically neutrophils and monocytes, which likely contribute to lung injury in COVID-19 acute respiratory distress syndrome.³⁸ It also is thought to lead to downstream activation of coagulation, with a high incidence of thrombotic events observed in patients with severe COVID-19.¹ In a retrospective study of 184 intensive care patients with COVID-19 receiving at least standard doses of thromboprophylaxis, venous thromboembolism occurred in 27% and arterial thrombotic events occurred in 3.7%.⁴⁵

Livedo racemosa and retiform purpura are cutaneous markers of hypercoagulability, which indicate an increased risk for systemic clotting in COVID-19. A positive feedback loop between the complement and coagulation cascades appears to be important.^{13,14,29,46-48} In addition, a few studies have reported antiphospholipid antibody positivity in hospitalized COVID-19 patients.^49,50

The high incidence of coagulopathy in severe COVID-19 has prompted many institutions to develop aggressive prophylactic anticoagulation protocols. Elevation of proinflammatory cytokines and observation of terminal complement activation in the skin and other organs has led to therapeutic trials of IL-6 inhibitors such as tocilizumab,⁵¹ complement inhibitors such as eculizumab, and Janus kinase inhibitors such as ruxolitinib and baricitinib.^42,48

COVID Long-Haulers
The long-term effects of immune dysregulation in COVID-19 patients remain to be seen. Viral triggering of autoimmune disease is a well-established phenomenon, seen in DRESS (drug reaction with eosinophilia and systemic symptoms) syndrome and other dermatologic diseases, raising the possibility that dermatologists will see a rising incidence of cutaneous autoimmune disease in the aftermath of the pandemic. Disordered interferon stimulation could lead to increased incidence of interferon-mediated disorders, such as sarcoidosis and other granulomatous diseases. Vasculitislike skin lesions could persist beyond the acute infectious period. Recent data from a registry of 990 COVID-19 cases from 39 countries suggest that COVID-19 perniolike lesions may persist as long as 150 days.⁵² In a time of many unknowns, these questions serve as a call to action for rigorous data collection, contribution to existing registries for dermatologic manifestations of COVID-19, and long-term follow-up of COVID-19 patients by the dermatology community. 

Pandemic Dermatology

The pandemic has posed unprecedented challenges for patient care. The use of hydroxychloroquine as a popular but unproven treatment for COVID-19, ⁵³ particularly early in the pandemic, has resulted in drug shortages for patients with lupus and other autoimmune skin diseases. Meanwhile, the need for patients with complex dermatologic conditions to receive systemic immunosuppression has had to be balanced against the associated risks during a global pandemic. To help dermatologists navigate this dilemma, various subspecialty groups have issued guidelines, including the COVID-19 Task Force of the Medical Dermatology Society and Society of Dermatology Hospitalists, which recommends a stepwise approach to shared decision-making with the goal of minimizing both the risk for disease flare and that of infection. The use of systemic steroids and rituximab, as well as the dose of immunosuppression—particularly broad-acting immunosuppression—should be limited where permitted. ⁵⁴

Rapid adoption of telemedicine and remote monitoring strategies has enabled dermatologists to provide safe and timely care when in-person visits have not been possible, including for patients with confirmed or suspected COVID-19, as well as for hospitalized patients. ^55-57 Use of telemedicine has facilitated preservation of personal protective equipment at a time when these important resources have been scarce. For patients with transportation or scheduling barriers, telemedicine has even expanded access to care. 

However, this strategy cannot completely replace comprehensive in-person evaluation. Variability in video and photographic quality limits evaluation, while in-person physical examination can reveal subtle morphologic clues necessary for diagnosis. ^{5 8} Additionally, unequal access to technology may disadvantage some patients. For dermatologists to provide optimal care and continue to contribute accurate and insightful observations into COVID-19, it is essential to be physically present in the clinic and in the hospital when necessary, caring for patients in need of dermatologic expertise. Creative management strategies developed during this time will benefit patients and expand the reach of the specialty . ^{5 8}

Final Thoughts

The COVID-19 pandemic has profoundly challenged the medical community and dermatology is no exception. By documenting and characterizing the diverse cutaneous manifestations of this novel disease, dermatologists have furthered understanding of its pathophysiology and management. By adapting quickly and developing creative ways to deliver care, dermatologists have found ways to contribute, both large and small. As we take stock at this juncture of the pandemic, it is clear there remains much to learn. We hope dermatologists will continue to take an active role in meeting the challenges of this time.

The virus that causes COVID-19—SARS-CoV-2—has infected more than 128 million individuals, resulting in more than 2.8 million deaths worldwide between December 2019 and April 2021. Disease mortality primarily is driven by hypoxemic respiratory failure and systemic hypercoagulability, resulting in multisystem organ failure.¹ With more than 17 million Americans infected, the virus is estimated to have impacted someone within the social circle of nearly every American.²

The COVID-19 pandemic has highlighted resource limitations, delayed elective and preventive care, and rapidly increased the adoption of telemedicine, presenting a host of new challenges to providers in every medical specialty, including dermatology. Although COVID-19 primarily is a respiratory disease, clinical manifestations have been observed in nearly every organ, including the skin. The cutaneous manifestations of COVID-19 provide insight into disease diagnosis, prognosis, and pathophysiology. In this article, we review the cutaneous manifestations of COVID-19 and explore the state of knowledge regarding their pathophysiology and clinical significance. Finally, we discuss the role of dermatology consultants in the care of patients with COVID-19, and the impact of the pandemic on the field of dermatology. 

Prevalence of Cutaneous Findings in COVID-19

Early reports characterizing the clinical presentation of patients hospitalized with COVID-19 suggested skin findings associated with the disease were rare. Cohort studies from Europe, China, and New York City in January through March 2020 reported a low prevalence or made no mention of rash.^3-7 However, reports from dermatologists in Italy that emerged in May 2020 indicated a substantially higher proportion of cutaneous disease: 18 of 88 (20.4%) hospitalized patients were found to have cutaneous involvement, primarily consisting of erythematous rash, along with some cases of urticarial and vesicular lesions.⁸ In October 2020, a retrospective cohort study from Spain examining 2761 patients presenting to the emergency department or admitted to the hospital for COVID-19 found that 58 (2.1%) patients had skin lesions attributed to COVID-19.⁹

The wide range in reported prevalence of skin lesions may be due to variable involvement of dermatologic specialists in patient care, particularly in China.¹⁰ Some variation also may be due to variability in the timing of clinical examination, as well as demographic and clinical differences in patient populations. Of note, a multisystem inflammatory disease seen in US children subsequent to infection with COVID-19 has been associated with rash in as many as 74% of cases.¹¹ Although COVID-19 disproportionately impacts people with skin of color, there are few reports of cutaneous manifestations in that population,¹² highlighting the challenges of the dermatologic examination in individuals with darker skin and suggesting the prevalence of dermatologic disease in COVID-19 may be greater than reported. 

Morphologic Patterns of Cutaneous Involvement in COVID-19

Researchers in Europe and the United States have attempted to classify the cutaneous manifestations of COVID-19. A registry established through the American Academy of Dermatology published a compilation of reports from 31 countries, totaling 716 patient profiles.¹³ A prospective Spanish study detailed the cutaneous involvement of 375 patients with suspected or confirmed COVID-19.¹⁴ Together, these efforts have revealed several distinct patterns of cutaneous involvement associated with COVID-19 (Table).^9,15-18 

Vesicular Rash
Vesicular rash associated with COVID-19 has been described in several studies and case series^8,13,14 and is considered, along with the pseudopernio (or pseudochilblains) morphology, to be one of the more disease-specific patterns in COVID-19.^14,18 Vesicular rash appears to comprise roughly one-tenth of all COVID-19–associated rashes.^13,14 It usually is described as pruritic, with 72% to 83% of patients reporting itch.^13,16 

Small monomorphic or polymorphic vesicles predominantly on the trunk and to a lesser extent the extremities and head have been described by multiple authors.^14,16 Vesicular rash is most common among middle-aged individuals, with studies reporting median and mean ages ranging from 40.5 to 55 years.^9,13,14,16

Vesicular rash develops concurrent with or after other presenting symptoms of COVID-19; in 2 studies, vesicular rash preceded development of other symptoms in only 15% and 5.6% of cases, respectively.^13,14 Prognostically, vesicular rash is associated with moderate disease severity.^14,16 It may persist for an average of 8 to 10 days.^14,16,18

Histopathologic examination reveals basal layer vacuolar degeneration, hyperchromatic keratinocytes, acantholysis, and dyskeratosis.^9,16,18 

Urticarial Rash
Urticarial lesions represent approximately 7% to 19% of reported COVID-19–associated rashes.^9,13,14 Urticarial rashes in patients testing positive for SARS-CoV-2 primarily occur on the trunk.¹⁴ The urticaria, which typically last about 1 week,¹⁴ are seen most frequently in middle-aged patients (mean/median age, 42–48 years)^13,14 and are associated with pruritus, which has been reported in 74% to 92% of patients.^13,14 Urticarial lesions typically do not precede other symptoms of COVID-19 and are nonspecific, making them less useful diagnostically.¹⁴

Urticaria appears to be associated with more severe COVID-19 illness in several studies, but this finding may be confounded by several factors, including older age, increased tobacco use, and polypharmacy. Of 104 patients with reported urticarial rash and suspected or confirmed COVID-19 across 3 studies, only 1 death was reported.^9,13,14 

The histopathologic appearance is that of typical hives, demonstrating a perivascular infiltrate of lymphocytes and eosinophils with edema of the upper dermis.^9,19

Morbilliform Eruption
Morbilliform eruption is a commonly reported morphology associated with COVID-19, accounting for 20% to 47% of rashes.^9,13,14 This categorization may have limited utility from a diagnostic and prognostic perspective, given that morbilliform eruptions are common, nonspecific, and heterogenous and can arise from many causes.^9,13,14 Onset of morbilliform eruption appears to coincide with¹⁴ or follow^13,20,21 the development of other COVID-19–related symptoms, with 5% of patients reporting morbilliform rash as the initial manifestation of infection.^13,14 Morbilliform eruptions have been observed to occur in patients with more severe disease.^9,13,14

Certain morphologic subtypes, such as erythema multiforme–like, erythema elevatum diutinum–like, or pseudovesicular, may be more specific to COVID-19 infection.¹⁴ A small case series highlighted 4 patients with erythema multiforme–like eruptions, 3 of whom also were found to have petechial enanthem occurring after COVID-19 diagnosis; however, the investigators were unable to exclude drug reaction as a potential cause of rash in these patients.²² Another case series of 21 patients with COVID-19 and skin rash described a (primarily) petechial enanthem on the palate in 6 (28.5%) patients.²³ It is unclear to what extent oral enanthem may be underrecognized given that some physicians may be disinclined to remove the masks of known COVID-19–positive patients to examine the oral cavity.

The histologic appearance of morbilliform rash seen in association with COVID-19 has been described as spongiotic with interface dermatitis with perivascular lymphocytic inflammation.^9,21

COVID Toes, Pseudochilblains Rash, Perniolike Rash, and Acral Erythema/Edema
Of all the rashes associated with COVID-19, COVID toes, or pseudochilblains rash, has perhaps attracted the most attention. The characteristic violaceous erythema on the fingers and/or toes may be itchy or painful, presenting similar to idiopathic cases of pernio (Figure 1).¹⁴ The entity has been controversial because of an absence of a clear correlation with a positive SARS-CoV-2 polymerase chain reaction test or antibodies to the virus in a subset of reported cases.^24,25 Onset of the rash late in the disease course, generally after symptom resolution in mild or asymptomatic cases, may explain the absence of viral DNA in the nasopharynx by the time of lesion appearance.^14,26 Seronegative patients may have cleared SARS-CoV-2 infection before humoral immunity could occur via a strong type 1 interferon response.²⁵

Across 3 studies, perniolike skin lesions constituted 18% to 29% of COVID-19–associated skin findings^9,13,14 and persisted for an average of 12 to 14 days.^13,14 Perniolike lesions portend a favorable outcome; patients with COVID toes rarely present with systemic symptoms or laboratory or imaging abnormalities⁹ and less commonly require hospitalization for severe illness. Perniolike lesions have been reported most frequently in younger patients, with a median or mean age of 32 to 35 years.^13,14

Histology demonstrates lichenoid dermatitis with perivascular and periadnexal lymphocytic infiltrates.⁹ Notably, one study observed interface dermatitis of the intraepidermal portion of the acrosyringium, a rare finding in chilblain lupus, in 83% of patients (N=40).²⁵ Direct immunofluorescence demonstrates a vasculopathic pattern, with some patients showing deposition of IgM or IgG, C3, and fibrinogen in dermal blood vessels. Vascular C9 deposits also have been demonstrated on immunohistochemistry.⁹ Biopsies of perniolike lesions in COVID-19 patients have demonstrated the presence of SARS-CoV-2 RNA,²⁷ have identified SARS-CoV-2 spike protein in endothelial cells on immunohistochemistry, and have visualized intracytoplasmic viral particles in vascular endothelium on electron microscopy.²⁸

Livedoid Rash/Retiform Purpura
Netlike purpuric or violaceous patches signifying vessel damage or occlusion have been seen in association with COVID-19, constituting approximately 6% of COVID-19–associated skin findings in 2 studies.^13,14 Livedoid rash (Figure 2) and retiform purpura (Figure 3) are associated with older age and occur primarily in severely ill patients, including those requiring intensive care. In a registry of 716 patients with COVID-19, 100% of patients with retiform purpura were hospitalized, and 82% had acute respiratory distress syndrome.¹³ In another study, 33% (7/21) of patients with livedoid and necrotic lesions required intensive care, and 10% (2/21) died.¹⁴

Multisystem Inflammatory Disease in Children

A hyperinflammatory syndrome similar to Kawasaki disease and toxic shock syndrome associated with mucocutaneous, cardiac, and gastrointestinal manifestations has been reported following COVID-19 infection.³¹ This syndrome, known as multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children (MIS-C), predominantly affects adolescents and children older than 5 years,¹¹ typically occurs 2 to 4 weeks after infection, and appears to be at least 100-times less common than COVID-19 infection among the same age group.³¹ Sixty percent³¹ to 74%¹¹ of affected patients have mucocutaneous involvement, with the most common clinical findings being conjunctival injection, palmoplantar erythema, lip hyperemia, periorbital erythema and edema, strawberry tongue, and malar erythema, respectively.³²

Because this condition appears to reflect an immune response to the virus, the majority of cases demonstrate negative SARS-CoV-2 polymerase chain reaction and positive antibody testing.³³ Although cutaneous findings are similar to those seen in Kawasaki disease, certain findings have been noted in MIS-C that are not typical of Kawasaki disease, including heliotrope rash–like periorbital edema and erythema as well as erythema infectiosum–like malar erythema and reticulated erythematous eruptions.³²

The course of MIS-C can be severe; in one case series of patients presenting with MIS-C, 80% (79/99) required intensive care unit admission, with 10% requiring mechanical ventilation and 2% of patients dying during admission.³¹ Cardiac dysfunction, coagulopathy, and gastrointestinal symptoms are common.^11,31 It has been postulated that a superantigenlike region of the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein, similar to that of staphylococcal enterotoxin B, may underlie MIS-C and account for its similarities to toxic shock syndrome.³⁴ Of note, a similar multisystem inflammatory syndrome associated with COVID-19 also has been described in adults, and it too may present with rash as a cardinal feature.³⁵

Pathophysiology of COVID-19: What the Skin May Reveal About the Disease

The diverse range of cutaneous manifestations in COVID-19 reflects a spectrum of host immunologicresponses to SARS-CoV-2 and may inform the pathophysiology of the disease as well as potential treatment modalities.

Host Response to SARS-CoV-2
The body’s response to viral infection is 2-pronged, involving activation of cellular antiviral defenses mediated by type I and III interferons, as well as recruitment of leukocytes, mobilized by cytokines and chemokines.^36,37 Infection with SARS-CoV-2 results in a unique inflammatory response characterized by suppression of interferons, juxtaposed with a rampant proinflammatory cytokine and chemokine response, reminiscent of a cytokine storm. Reflective of this imbalance, a study of 50 COVID-19 patients and 20 healthy controls found decreased natural killer cells and CD3⁺ T cells in COVID-19 patients, particularly severely or critically ill patients, with an increase in B cells and monocytes.³⁸ This distinctive immune imbalance positions SARS-CoV-2 to thrive in the absence of inhibitory interferon activity while submitting the host to the deleterious effects of a cytokine surge.³⁶

Type I Interferons
The perniolike lesions associated with mild COVID-19 disease¹⁴ may represent a robust immune response via effective stimulation of type I interferons (IFN-1). Similar perniolike lesions are observed in Aicardi-Goutières syndrome³⁷ and familial chilblain lupus, hereditary interferonopathies associated with mutations in the TREX1 (three prime repair exonuclease 1) gene and characterized by inappropriate upregulation of IFN-1,³⁹ resulting in chilblains. It has been suggested that perniolike lesions in COVID-19 result from IFN-1 activation—a robust effective immunologic response to the virus.^14,26,40

On the other end of the spectrum, patients with severe COVID-19 may have a blunted IFN-1 response and reduced IFN-1–stimulated gene expression.^36,38 Notably, low IFN-1 response preceded clinical deterioration and was associated with increased risk for evolution to critical illness.³⁸ Severe disease from COVID-19 also is more commonly observed in older patients and those with comorbidities,¹ both of which are known factors associated with depressed IFN-1 function.^38,41 Reflective of this disparate IFN-1 response, biopsies of COVID-19 perniosis have demonstrated striking expression of myxovirus resistance protein A (MXA), a marker for IFN-1 signaling in tissue, whereas its expression is absent in COVID-19 livedo/retiform purpura.²⁷

Familial chilblain lupus may be effectively treated by the Janus kinase inhibitor baricitinib,³⁹ which inhibits IFN-1 signaling. Baricitinib recently received emergency use authorization by the US Food and Drug Administration for treatment of severe COVID-19 pneumonia,^42,43 hinting to disordered IFN-1 signaling in the COVID-19 pathophysiology.

The impaired IFN-1 response in COVID-19 patients may be due to a unique characteristic of SARS-CoV-2: its ORF3b gene is a potent IFN-1 antagonist. In a series of experiments comparing SARS-CoV-2 to the related virus severe acute respiratory disease coronavirus (which was responsible for an epidemic in 2002), Konno et al⁴⁴ found that SARS-CoV-2 is more effectively able to downregulate host IFN-1, likely due to premature stop codons on ORF3b that produce a truncated version of the gene with amplified anti–IFN-1 activity.

 Cytokine Storm and Coagulation Cascade
This dulled interferon response is juxtaposed with a surge of inflammatory chemokines and cytokines, including IL-6, IL-8, IL-10, and tumor necrosis factor α, impairing innate immunity and leading to end-organ damage. This inflammatory response is associated with the influx of innate immune cells, specifically neutrophils and monocytes, which likely contribute to lung injury in COVID-19 acute respiratory distress syndrome.³⁸ It also is thought to lead to downstream activation of coagulation, with a high incidence of thrombotic events observed in patients with severe COVID-19.¹ In a retrospective study of 184 intensive care patients with COVID-19 receiving at least standard doses of thromboprophylaxis, venous thromboembolism occurred in 27% and arterial thrombotic events occurred in 3.7%.⁴⁵

Livedo racemosa and retiform purpura are cutaneous markers of hypercoagulability, which indicate an increased risk for systemic clotting in COVID-19. A positive feedback loop between the complement and coagulation cascades appears to be important.^{13,14,29,46-48} In addition, a few studies have reported antiphospholipid antibody positivity in hospitalized COVID-19 patients.^49,50

The high incidence of coagulopathy in severe COVID-19 has prompted many institutions to develop aggressive prophylactic anticoagulation protocols. Elevation of proinflammatory cytokines and observation of terminal complement activation in the skin and other organs has led to therapeutic trials of IL-6 inhibitors such as tocilizumab,⁵¹ complement inhibitors such as eculizumab, and Janus kinase inhibitors such as ruxolitinib and baricitinib.^42,48

COVID Long-Haulers
The long-term effects of immune dysregulation in COVID-19 patients remain to be seen. Viral triggering of autoimmune disease is a well-established phenomenon, seen in DRESS (drug reaction with eosinophilia and systemic symptoms) syndrome and other dermatologic diseases, raising the possibility that dermatologists will see a rising incidence of cutaneous autoimmune disease in the aftermath of the pandemic. Disordered interferon stimulation could lead to increased incidence of interferon-mediated disorders, such as sarcoidosis and other granulomatous diseases. Vasculitislike skin lesions could persist beyond the acute infectious period. Recent data from a registry of 990 COVID-19 cases from 39 countries suggest that COVID-19 perniolike lesions may persist as long as 150 days.⁵² In a time of many unknowns, these questions serve as a call to action for rigorous data collection, contribution to existing registries for dermatologic manifestations of COVID-19, and long-term follow-up of COVID-19 patients by the dermatology community. 

Pandemic Dermatology

The pandemic has posed unprecedented challenges for patient care. The use of hydroxychloroquine as a popular but unproven treatment for COVID-19, ⁵³ particularly early in the pandemic, has resulted in drug shortages for patients with lupus and other autoimmune skin diseases. Meanwhile, the need for patients with complex dermatologic conditions to receive systemic immunosuppression has had to be balanced against the associated risks during a global pandemic. To help dermatologists navigate this dilemma, various subspecialty groups have issued guidelines, including the COVID-19 Task Force of the Medical Dermatology Society and Society of Dermatology Hospitalists, which recommends a stepwise approach to shared decision-making with the goal of minimizing both the risk for disease flare and that of infection. The use of systemic steroids and rituximab, as well as the dose of immunosuppression—particularly broad-acting immunosuppression—should be limited where permitted. ⁵⁴

Rapid adoption of telemedicine and remote monitoring strategies has enabled dermatologists to provide safe and timely care when in-person visits have not been possible, including for patients with confirmed or suspected COVID-19, as well as for hospitalized patients. ^55-57 Use of telemedicine has facilitated preservation of personal protective equipment at a time when these important resources have been scarce. For patients with transportation or scheduling barriers, telemedicine has even expanded access to care. 

However, this strategy cannot completely replace comprehensive in-person evaluation. Variability in video and photographic quality limits evaluation, while in-person physical examination can reveal subtle morphologic clues necessary for diagnosis. ^{5 8} Additionally, unequal access to technology may disadvantage some patients. For dermatologists to provide optimal care and continue to contribute accurate and insightful observations into COVID-19, it is essential to be physically present in the clinic and in the hospital when necessary, caring for patients in need of dermatologic expertise. Creative management strategies developed during this time will benefit patients and expand the reach of the specialty . ^{5 8}

Final Thoughts

The COVID-19 pandemic has profoundly challenged the medical community and dermatology is no exception. By documenting and characterizing the diverse cutaneous manifestations of this novel disease, dermatologists have furthered understanding of its pathophysiology and management. By adapting quickly and developing creative ways to deliver care, dermatologists have found ways to contribute, both large and small. As we take stock at this juncture of the pandemic, it is clear there remains much to learn. We hope dermatologists will continue to take an active role in meeting the challenges of this time.

The virus that causes COVID-19—SARS-CoV-2—has infected more than 128 million individuals, resulting in more than 2.8 million deaths worldwide between December 2019 and April 2021. Disease mortality primarily is driven by hypoxemic respiratory failure and systemic hypercoagulability, resulting in multisystem organ failure.¹ With more than 17 million Americans infected, the virus is estimated to have impacted someone within the social circle of nearly every American.²

The COVID-19 pandemic has highlighted resource limitations, delayed elective and preventive care, and rapidly increased the adoption of telemedicine, presenting a host of new challenges to providers in every medical specialty, including dermatology. Although COVID-19 primarily is a respiratory disease, clinical manifestations have been observed in nearly every organ, including the skin. The cutaneous manifestations of COVID-19 provide insight into disease diagnosis, prognosis, and pathophysiology. In this article, we review the cutaneous manifestations of COVID-19 and explore the state of knowledge regarding their pathophysiology and clinical significance. Finally, we discuss the role of dermatology consultants in the care of patients with COVID-19, and the impact of the pandemic on the field of dermatology. 

Prevalence of Cutaneous Findings in COVID-19

Early reports characterizing the clinical presentation of patients hospitalized with COVID-19 suggested skin findings associated with the disease were rare. Cohort studies from Europe, China, and New York City in January through March 2020 reported a low prevalence or made no mention of rash.^3-7 However, reports from dermatologists in Italy that emerged in May 2020 indicated a substantially higher proportion of cutaneous disease: 18 of 88 (20.4%) hospitalized patients were found to have cutaneous involvement, primarily consisting of erythematous rash, along with some cases of urticarial and vesicular lesions.⁸ In October 2020, a retrospective cohort study from Spain examining 2761 patients presenting to the emergency department or admitted to the hospital for COVID-19 found that 58 (2.1%) patients had skin lesions attributed to COVID-19.⁹

The wide range in reported prevalence of skin lesions may be due to variable involvement of dermatologic specialists in patient care, particularly in China.¹⁰ Some variation also may be due to variability in the timing of clinical examination, as well as demographic and clinical differences in patient populations. Of note, a multisystem inflammatory disease seen in US children subsequent to infection with COVID-19 has been associated with rash in as many as 74% of cases.¹¹ Although COVID-19 disproportionately impacts people with skin of color, there are few reports of cutaneous manifestations in that population,¹² highlighting the challenges of the dermatologic examination in individuals with darker skin and suggesting the prevalence of dermatologic disease in COVID-19 may be greater than reported. 

Morphologic Patterns of Cutaneous Involvement in COVID-19

Researchers in Europe and the United States have attempted to classify the cutaneous manifestations of COVID-19. A registry established through the American Academy of Dermatology published a compilation of reports from 31 countries, totaling 716 patient profiles.¹³ A prospective Spanish study detailed the cutaneous involvement of 375 patients with suspected or confirmed COVID-19.¹⁴ Together, these efforts have revealed several distinct patterns of cutaneous involvement associated with COVID-19 (Table).^9,15-18 

Vesicular Rash
Vesicular rash associated with COVID-19 has been described in several studies and case series^8,13,14 and is considered, along with the pseudopernio (or pseudochilblains) morphology, to be one of the more disease-specific patterns in COVID-19.^14,18 Vesicular rash appears to comprise roughly one-tenth of all COVID-19–associated rashes.^13,14 It usually is described as pruritic, with 72% to 83% of patients reporting itch.^13,16 

Small monomorphic or polymorphic vesicles predominantly on the trunk and to a lesser extent the extremities and head have been described by multiple authors.^14,16 Vesicular rash is most common among middle-aged individuals, with studies reporting median and mean ages ranging from 40.5 to 55 years.^9,13,14,16

Vesicular rash develops concurrent with or after other presenting symptoms of COVID-19; in 2 studies, vesicular rash preceded development of other symptoms in only 15% and 5.6% of cases, respectively.^13,14 Prognostically, vesicular rash is associated with moderate disease severity.^14,16 It may persist for an average of 8 to 10 days.^14,16,18

Histopathologic examination reveals basal layer vacuolar degeneration, hyperchromatic keratinocytes, acantholysis, and dyskeratosis.^9,16,18 

Urticarial Rash
Urticarial lesions represent approximately 7% to 19% of reported COVID-19–associated rashes.^9,13,14 Urticarial rashes in patients testing positive for SARS-CoV-2 primarily occur on the trunk.¹⁴ The urticaria, which typically last about 1 week,¹⁴ are seen most frequently in middle-aged patients (mean/median age, 42–48 years)^13,14 and are associated with pruritus, which has been reported in 74% to 92% of patients.^13,14 Urticarial lesions typically do not precede other symptoms of COVID-19 and are nonspecific, making them less useful diagnostically.¹⁴

Urticaria appears to be associated with more severe COVID-19 illness in several studies, but this finding may be confounded by several factors, including older age, increased tobacco use, and polypharmacy. Of 104 patients with reported urticarial rash and suspected or confirmed COVID-19 across 3 studies, only 1 death was reported.^9,13,14 

The histopathologic appearance is that of typical hives, demonstrating a perivascular infiltrate of lymphocytes and eosinophils with edema of the upper dermis.^9,19

Morbilliform Eruption
Morbilliform eruption is a commonly reported morphology associated with COVID-19, accounting for 20% to 47% of rashes.^9,13,14 This categorization may have limited utility from a diagnostic and prognostic perspective, given that morbilliform eruptions are common, nonspecific, and heterogenous and can arise from many causes.^9,13,14 Onset of morbilliform eruption appears to coincide with¹⁴ or follow^13,20,21 the development of other COVID-19–related symptoms, with 5% of patients reporting morbilliform rash as the initial manifestation of infection.^13,14 Morbilliform eruptions have been observed to occur in patients with more severe disease.^9,13,14

Certain morphologic subtypes, such as erythema multiforme–like, erythema elevatum diutinum–like, or pseudovesicular, may be more specific to COVID-19 infection.¹⁴ A small case series highlighted 4 patients with erythema multiforme–like eruptions, 3 of whom also were found to have petechial enanthem occurring after COVID-19 diagnosis; however, the investigators were unable to exclude drug reaction as a potential cause of rash in these patients.²² Another case series of 21 patients with COVID-19 and skin rash described a (primarily) petechial enanthem on the palate in 6 (28.5%) patients.²³ It is unclear to what extent oral enanthem may be underrecognized given that some physicians may be disinclined to remove the masks of known COVID-19–positive patients to examine the oral cavity.

The histologic appearance of morbilliform rash seen in association with COVID-19 has been described as spongiotic with interface dermatitis with perivascular lymphocytic inflammation.^9,21

COVID Toes, Pseudochilblains Rash, Perniolike Rash, and Acral Erythema/Edema
Of all the rashes associated with COVID-19, COVID toes, or pseudochilblains rash, has perhaps attracted the most attention. The characteristic violaceous erythema on the fingers and/or toes may be itchy or painful, presenting similar to idiopathic cases of pernio (Figure 1).¹⁴ The entity has been controversial because of an absence of a clear correlation with a positive SARS-CoV-2 polymerase chain reaction test or antibodies to the virus in a subset of reported cases.^24,25 Onset of the rash late in the disease course, generally after symptom resolution in mild or asymptomatic cases, may explain the absence of viral DNA in the nasopharynx by the time of lesion appearance.^14,26 Seronegative patients may have cleared SARS-CoV-2 infection before humoral immunity could occur via a strong type 1 interferon response.²⁵

Across 3 studies, perniolike skin lesions constituted 18% to 29% of COVID-19–associated skin findings^9,13,14 and persisted for an average of 12 to 14 days.^13,14 Perniolike lesions portend a favorable outcome; patients with COVID toes rarely present with systemic symptoms or laboratory or imaging abnormalities⁹ and less commonly require hospitalization for severe illness. Perniolike lesions have been reported most frequently in younger patients, with a median or mean age of 32 to 35 years.^13,14

Histology demonstrates lichenoid dermatitis with perivascular and periadnexal lymphocytic infiltrates.⁹ Notably, one study observed interface dermatitis of the intraepidermal portion of the acrosyringium, a rare finding in chilblain lupus, in 83% of patients (N=40).²⁵ Direct immunofluorescence demonstrates a vasculopathic pattern, with some patients showing deposition of IgM or IgG, C3, and fibrinogen in dermal blood vessels. Vascular C9 deposits also have been demonstrated on immunohistochemistry.⁹ Biopsies of perniolike lesions in COVID-19 patients have demonstrated the presence of SARS-CoV-2 RNA,²⁷ have identified SARS-CoV-2 spike protein in endothelial cells on immunohistochemistry, and have visualized intracytoplasmic viral particles in vascular endothelium on electron microscopy.²⁸

Livedoid Rash/Retiform Purpura
Netlike purpuric or violaceous patches signifying vessel damage or occlusion have been seen in association with COVID-19, constituting approximately 6% of COVID-19–associated skin findings in 2 studies.^13,14 Livedoid rash (Figure 2) and retiform purpura (Figure 3) are associated with older age and occur primarily in severely ill patients, including those requiring intensive care. In a registry of 716 patients with COVID-19, 100% of patients with retiform purpura were hospitalized, and 82% had acute respiratory distress syndrome.¹³ In another study, 33% (7/21) of patients with livedoid and necrotic lesions required intensive care, and 10% (2/21) died.¹⁴

Multisystem Inflammatory Disease in Children

A hyperinflammatory syndrome similar to Kawasaki disease and toxic shock syndrome associated with mucocutaneous, cardiac, and gastrointestinal manifestations has been reported following COVID-19 infection.³¹ This syndrome, known as multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children (MIS-C), predominantly affects adolescents and children older than 5 years,¹¹ typically occurs 2 to 4 weeks after infection, and appears to be at least 100-times less common than COVID-19 infection among the same age group.³¹ Sixty percent³¹ to 74%¹¹ of affected patients have mucocutaneous involvement, with the most common clinical findings being conjunctival injection, palmoplantar erythema, lip hyperemia, periorbital erythema and edema, strawberry tongue, and malar erythema, respectively.³²

Because this condition appears to reflect an immune response to the virus, the majority of cases demonstrate negative SARS-CoV-2 polymerase chain reaction and positive antibody testing.³³ Although cutaneous findings are similar to those seen in Kawasaki disease, certain findings have been noted in MIS-C that are not typical of Kawasaki disease, including heliotrope rash–like periorbital edema and erythema as well as erythema infectiosum–like malar erythema and reticulated erythematous eruptions.³²

The course of MIS-C can be severe; in one case series of patients presenting with MIS-C, 80% (79/99) required intensive care unit admission, with 10% requiring mechanical ventilation and 2% of patients dying during admission.³¹ Cardiac dysfunction, coagulopathy, and gastrointestinal symptoms are common.^11,31 It has been postulated that a superantigenlike region of the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein, similar to that of staphylococcal enterotoxin B, may underlie MIS-C and account for its similarities to toxic shock syndrome.³⁴ Of note, a similar multisystem inflammatory syndrome associated with COVID-19 also has been described in adults, and it too may present with rash as a cardinal feature.³⁵

Pathophysiology of COVID-19: What the Skin May Reveal About the Disease

The diverse range of cutaneous manifestations in COVID-19 reflects a spectrum of host immunologicresponses to SARS-CoV-2 and may inform the pathophysiology of the disease as well as potential treatment modalities.

Host Response to SARS-CoV-2
The body’s response to viral infection is 2-pronged, involving activation of cellular antiviral defenses mediated by type I and III interferons, as well as recruitment of leukocytes, mobilized by cytokines and chemokines.^36,37 Infection with SARS-CoV-2 results in a unique inflammatory response characterized by suppression of interferons, juxtaposed with a rampant proinflammatory cytokine and chemokine response, reminiscent of a cytokine storm. Reflective of this imbalance, a study of 50 COVID-19 patients and 20 healthy controls found decreased natural killer cells and CD3⁺ T cells in COVID-19 patients, particularly severely or critically ill patients, with an increase in B cells and monocytes.³⁸ This distinctive immune imbalance positions SARS-CoV-2 to thrive in the absence of inhibitory interferon activity while submitting the host to the deleterious effects of a cytokine surge.³⁶

Type I Interferons
The perniolike lesions associated with mild COVID-19 disease¹⁴ may represent a robust immune response via effective stimulation of type I interferons (IFN-1). Similar perniolike lesions are observed in Aicardi-Goutières syndrome³⁷ and familial chilblain lupus, hereditary interferonopathies associated with mutations in the TREX1 (three prime repair exonuclease 1) gene and characterized by inappropriate upregulation of IFN-1,³⁹ resulting in chilblains. It has been suggested that perniolike lesions in COVID-19 result from IFN-1 activation—a robust effective immunologic response to the virus.^14,26,40

On the other end of the spectrum, patients with severe COVID-19 may have a blunted IFN-1 response and reduced IFN-1–stimulated gene expression.^36,38 Notably, low IFN-1 response preceded clinical deterioration and was associated with increased risk for evolution to critical illness.³⁸ Severe disease from COVID-19 also is more commonly observed in older patients and those with comorbidities,¹ both of which are known factors associated with depressed IFN-1 function.^38,41 Reflective of this disparate IFN-1 response, biopsies of COVID-19 perniosis have demonstrated striking expression of myxovirus resistance protein A (MXA), a marker for IFN-1 signaling in tissue, whereas its expression is absent in COVID-19 livedo/retiform purpura.²⁷

Familial chilblain lupus may be effectively treated by the Janus kinase inhibitor baricitinib,³⁹ which inhibits IFN-1 signaling. Baricitinib recently received emergency use authorization by the US Food and Drug Administration for treatment of severe COVID-19 pneumonia,^42,43 hinting to disordered IFN-1 signaling in the COVID-19 pathophysiology.

The impaired IFN-1 response in COVID-19 patients may be due to a unique characteristic of SARS-CoV-2: its ORF3b gene is a potent IFN-1 antagonist. In a series of experiments comparing SARS-CoV-2 to the related virus severe acute respiratory disease coronavirus (which was responsible for an epidemic in 2002), Konno et al⁴⁴ found that SARS-CoV-2 is more effectively able to downregulate host IFN-1, likely due to premature stop codons on ORF3b that produce a truncated version of the gene with amplified anti–IFN-1 activity.

 Cytokine Storm and Coagulation Cascade
This dulled interferon response is juxtaposed with a surge of inflammatory chemokines and cytokines, including IL-6, IL-8, IL-10, and tumor necrosis factor α, impairing innate immunity and leading to end-organ damage. This inflammatory response is associated with the influx of innate immune cells, specifically neutrophils and monocytes, which likely contribute to lung injury in COVID-19 acute respiratory distress syndrome.³⁸ It also is thought to lead to downstream activation of coagulation, with a high incidence of thrombotic events observed in patients with severe COVID-19.¹ In a retrospective study of 184 intensive care patients with COVID-19 receiving at least standard doses of thromboprophylaxis, venous thromboembolism occurred in 27% and arterial thrombotic events occurred in 3.7%.⁴⁵

Livedo racemosa and retiform purpura are cutaneous markers of hypercoagulability, which indicate an increased risk for systemic clotting in COVID-19. A positive feedback loop between the complement and coagulation cascades appears to be important.^{13,14,29,46-48} In addition, a few studies have reported antiphospholipid antibody positivity in hospitalized COVID-19 patients.^49,50

The high incidence of coagulopathy in severe COVID-19 has prompted many institutions to develop aggressive prophylactic anticoagulation protocols. Elevation of proinflammatory cytokines and observation of terminal complement activation in the skin and other organs has led to therapeutic trials of IL-6 inhibitors such as tocilizumab,⁵¹ complement inhibitors such as eculizumab, and Janus kinase inhibitors such as ruxolitinib and baricitinib.^42,48

COVID Long-Haulers
The long-term effects of immune dysregulation in COVID-19 patients remain to be seen. Viral triggering of autoimmune disease is a well-established phenomenon, seen in DRESS (drug reaction with eosinophilia and systemic symptoms) syndrome and other dermatologic diseases, raising the possibility that dermatologists will see a rising incidence of cutaneous autoimmune disease in the aftermath of the pandemic. Disordered interferon stimulation could lead to increased incidence of interferon-mediated disorders, such as sarcoidosis and other granulomatous diseases. Vasculitislike skin lesions could persist beyond the acute infectious period. Recent data from a registry of 990 COVID-19 cases from 39 countries suggest that COVID-19 perniolike lesions may persist as long as 150 days.⁵² In a time of many unknowns, these questions serve as a call to action for rigorous data collection, contribution to existing registries for dermatologic manifestations of COVID-19, and long-term follow-up of COVID-19 patients by the dermatology community. 

Pandemic Dermatology

The pandemic has posed unprecedented challenges for patient care. The use of hydroxychloroquine as a popular but unproven treatment for COVID-19, ⁵³ particularly early in the pandemic, has resulted in drug shortages for patients with lupus and other autoimmune skin diseases. Meanwhile, the need for patients with complex dermatologic conditions to receive systemic immunosuppression has had to be balanced against the associated risks during a global pandemic. To help dermatologists navigate this dilemma, various subspecialty groups have issued guidelines, including the COVID-19 Task Force of the Medical Dermatology Society and Society of Dermatology Hospitalists, which recommends a stepwise approach to shared decision-making with the goal of minimizing both the risk for disease flare and that of infection. The use of systemic steroids and rituximab, as well as the dose of immunosuppression—particularly broad-acting immunosuppression—should be limited where permitted. ⁵⁴

Rapid adoption of telemedicine and remote monitoring strategies has enabled dermatologists to provide safe and timely care when in-person visits have not been possible, including for patients with confirmed or suspected COVID-19, as well as for hospitalized patients. ^55-57 Use of telemedicine has facilitated preservation of personal protective equipment at a time when these important resources have been scarce. For patients with transportation or scheduling barriers, telemedicine has even expanded access to care. 

However, this strategy cannot completely replace comprehensive in-person evaluation. Variability in video and photographic quality limits evaluation, while in-person physical examination can reveal subtle morphologic clues necessary for diagnosis. ^{5 8} Additionally, unequal access to technology may disadvantage some patients. For dermatologists to provide optimal care and continue to contribute accurate and insightful observations into COVID-19, it is essential to be physically present in the clinic and in the hospital when necessary, caring for patients in need of dermatologic expertise. Creative management strategies developed during this time will benefit patients and expand the reach of the specialty . ^{5 8}

Final Thoughts

The COVID-19 pandemic has profoundly challenged the medical community and dermatology is no exception. By documenting and characterizing the diverse cutaneous manifestations of this novel disease, dermatologists have furthered understanding of its pathophysiology and management. By adapting quickly and developing creative ways to deliver care, dermatologists have found ways to contribute, both large and small. As we take stock at this juncture of the pandemic, it is clear there remains much to learn. We hope dermatologists will continue to take an active role in meeting the challenges of this time.

An antibiotic course of 5 days is usually just as effective as longer courses but with fewer side effects and decreased overall antibiotic exposure for a number of common bacterial conditions, according to new clinical guidelines published by the American College of Physicians.

The guidelines focus on treatment of uncomplicated cases involving pneumonia, urinary tract infections (UTIs), cellulitis, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) exacerbations, and acute bronchitis. The goal of the guidelines is to continue improving antibiotic stewardship given the increasing threat of antibiotic resistance and the adverse effects of antibiotics.

“Any use of antibiotics (including necessary use) has downstream effects outside of treating infection,” Dawn Nolt, MD, MPH, a professor of pediatric infection disease at Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, said in an interview. Dr. Nolt was not involved in developing these guidelines. “Undesirable outcomes include allergic reactions, diarrhea, and antibiotic-resistant bacteria. When we reduce unnecessary antibiotic, we reduce undesirable outcomes,” she said.

According to background information in the paper, 1 in 10 patients receives an antibiotic prescription during visits, yet nearly a third of these (30%) are unnecessary and last too long, especially for sinusitis and bronchitis. Meanwhile, overuse of antibiotics, particularly broad-spectrum ones, leads to resistance and adverse effects in up to 20% of patients.

“Prescribing practices can vary based on the type of provider, the setting where the antibiotic is being prescribed, what geographic area you are looking at, the medical reason for which the antibiotic is being prescribed, the actual germ being targeted, and the type of patient,” Dr. Nolt said. “But this variability can be reduced when prescribing providers are aware and follow best practice standards as through this article.”

The new ACP guidelines are a distillation of recommendations from preexisting infectious disease organizations, Dr. Nolt said, but aimed specifically at those practicing internal medicine.

“We define appropriate antibiotic use as prescribing the right antibiotic at the right dose for the right duration for a specific condition,” Rachael A. Lee, MD, MSPH, of the University of Alabama at Birmingham, and colleagues wrote in the article detailing the new guidelines. “Despite evidence and guidelines supporting shorter durations of antibiotic use, many physicians do not prescribe short-course therapy, frequently defaulting to 10-day courses regardless of the condition.”

The reasons for this default response vary. Though some clinicians prescribe longer courses specifically to prevent antibiotic resistance, no evidence shows that continuing to take antibiotics after symptoms have resolved actually reduces likelihood of resistance, the authors noted.

“In fact, resistance is a documented side effect of prolonged antibiotic use due to natural selection pressure,” they wrote.

Another common reason is habit.

“This was the ‘conventional wisdom’ for so long, just trying to make sure all bacteria causing the infection were completely eradicated, with no stragglers that had been exposed to the antibiotic but were not gone and now could evolve into resistant organisms,” Jacqueline W. Fincher, MD, a primary care physician and president of the ACP, said in an interview. “While antibiotic stewardship has been very important for over a decade, we now have more recent head-to-head studies/data showing that, in these four conditions, shorter courses of treatment are just as efficacious with less side effects and adverse events.”

The researchers reviewed all existing clinical guidelines related to bronchitis with COPD exacerbations, community-acquired pneumonia, UTIs, and cellulitis, as well as any other relevant studies in the literature. Although they did not conduct a formal systematic review, they compiled the guidelines specifically for all internists, family physicians and other clinicians caring for patients with these conditions.

“Although most patients with these infections will be seen in the outpatient setting, these best-practice advice statements also apply to patients who present in the inpatient setting,” the authors wrote. They also note the importance of ensuring the patient has the correct diagnosis and appropriate corresponding antibiotic prescription. “If a patient is not improving with appropriate antibiotics, it is important for the clinician to reassess for other causes of symptoms rather than defaulting to a longer duration of antibiotic therapy,” they wrote, calling a longer course “the exception and not the rule.”
 

Acute bronchitis with COPD exacerbations

Antibiotic treatment for COPD exacerbations and acute uncomplicated bronchitis with signs of a bacterial infection should last no longer than 5 days. The authors define this condition as an acute respiratory infection with a normal chest x-ray, most often caused by a virus. Although patients with bronchitis do not automatically need antibiotics if there’s no evidence of pneumonia, the authors did advise antibiotics in cases involving COPD and a high likelihood of bacterial infection. Clinicians should base their choice of antibiotics on the most common bacterial etiology: Haemophilus influenzae, Streptococcus pneumoniae, and Moraxella catarrhalis. Ideal candidates for therapy may include aminopenicillin with clavulanic acid, a macrolide, or a tetracycline.

Community-acquired pneumonia

The initial course of antibiotics should be at least 5 days for pneumonia and only extended after considering validated evidence of the patient’s clinical stability, such as resuming normal vital signs, mental activity, and the ability to eat. Multiple randomized, controlled trials have shown no improved benefit from longer courses, though longer courses are linked to increased adverse events and mortality.

Again, antibiotics used should “cover common pathogens, such as S. pneumoniae, H. influenzae, Mycoplasma pneumoniae, and Staphylococcus aureus, and atypical pathogens, such as Legionella species,” the authors wrote. Options include “amoxicillin, doxycycline, or a macrolide for healthy adults or a beta-lactam with a macrolide or a respiratory fluoroquinolone in patients with comorbidities.”
 

UTIs: Uncomplicated cystitis and pyelonephritis

For women’s bacterial cystitis – 75% of which is caused by Escherichia coli – the guidelines recommend nitrofurantoin for 5 days, trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole for 3 days, or fosfomycin as a single dose. For uncomplicated pyelonephritis in both men and women, clinicians can consider fluoroquinolones for 5-7 days or trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole for 14 days, depending on antibiotic susceptibility.

This recommendation does not include UTIs in women who are pregnant or UTIs with other functional abnormalities present, such as obstruction. The authors also intentionally left out acute bacterial prostatitis because of its complexity and how long it can take to treat.
 

Cellulitis

MRSA, which has been increasing in prevalence, is a leading cause of skin and soft-tissue infections, such as necrotizing infections, cellulitis, and erysipelas. Unless the patient has penetrating trauma, evidence of MRSA infection elsewhere, injection drug use, nasal colonization of MRSA, or systemic inflammatory response syndrome, the guidelines recommend a 5- to 6-day course of cephalosporin, penicillin, or clindamycin, extended only if the infection has not improved in 5 days. Further research can narrow down the most appropriate treatment course.

This guidance does not apply to purulent cellulitis, such as conditions with abscesses, furuncles, or carbuncles that typically require incision and drainage.
 

Continuing to get the message out

Dr. Fincher emphasized the importance of continuing to disseminate messaging for clinicians about reducing unnecessary antibiotic use.

“In medicine we are constantly bombarded with new information. It is those patients and disease states that we see and treat every day that are especially important for us as physicians and other clinicians to keep our skills and knowledge base up to date when it comes to use of antibiotics,” Dr. Fincher said in an interview. “We just need to continue to educate and push out the data, guidelines, and recommendations.”

Dr. Nolt added that it’s important to emphasize how to translate these national recommendations into local practices since local guidance can also raise awareness and encourage local compliance.

Other strategies for reducing overuse of antibiotics “include restriction on antibiotics available at health care systems (formulary restriction), not allowing use of antibiotics unless there is discussion about the patient’s case (preauthorization), and reviewing cases of patients on antibiotics and advising on next steps (prospective audit and feedback),” she said.

The research was funded by the ACP. Dr. Lee has received personal fees from this news organization and Prime Education. Dr. Fincher owns stock in Johnson & Johnson and Procter and Gamble. Dr. Nolt and the article’s coauthors disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

An antibiotic course of 5 days is usually just as effective as longer courses but with fewer side effects and decreased overall antibiotic exposure for a number of common bacterial conditions, according to new clinical guidelines published by the American College of Physicians.

The guidelines focus on treatment of uncomplicated cases involving pneumonia, urinary tract infections (UTIs), cellulitis, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) exacerbations, and acute bronchitis. The goal of the guidelines is to continue improving antibiotic stewardship given the increasing threat of antibiotic resistance and the adverse effects of antibiotics.

“Any use of antibiotics (including necessary use) has downstream effects outside of treating infection,” Dawn Nolt, MD, MPH, a professor of pediatric infection disease at Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, said in an interview. Dr. Nolt was not involved in developing these guidelines. “Undesirable outcomes include allergic reactions, diarrhea, and antibiotic-resistant bacteria. When we reduce unnecessary antibiotic, we reduce undesirable outcomes,” she said.

According to background information in the paper, 1 in 10 patients receives an antibiotic prescription during visits, yet nearly a third of these (30%) are unnecessary and last too long, especially for sinusitis and bronchitis. Meanwhile, overuse of antibiotics, particularly broad-spectrum ones, leads to resistance and adverse effects in up to 20% of patients.

“Prescribing practices can vary based on the type of provider, the setting where the antibiotic is being prescribed, what geographic area you are looking at, the medical reason for which the antibiotic is being prescribed, the actual germ being targeted, and the type of patient,” Dr. Nolt said. “But this variability can be reduced when prescribing providers are aware and follow best practice standards as through this article.”

The new ACP guidelines are a distillation of recommendations from preexisting infectious disease organizations, Dr. Nolt said, but aimed specifically at those practicing internal medicine.

“We define appropriate antibiotic use as prescribing the right antibiotic at the right dose for the right duration for a specific condition,” Rachael A. Lee, MD, MSPH, of the University of Alabama at Birmingham, and colleagues wrote in the article detailing the new guidelines. “Despite evidence and guidelines supporting shorter durations of antibiotic use, many physicians do not prescribe short-course therapy, frequently defaulting to 10-day courses regardless of the condition.”

The reasons for this default response vary. Though some clinicians prescribe longer courses specifically to prevent antibiotic resistance, no evidence shows that continuing to take antibiotics after symptoms have resolved actually reduces likelihood of resistance, the authors noted.

“In fact, resistance is a documented side effect of prolonged antibiotic use due to natural selection pressure,” they wrote.

Another common reason is habit.

“This was the ‘conventional wisdom’ for so long, just trying to make sure all bacteria causing the infection were completely eradicated, with no stragglers that had been exposed to the antibiotic but were not gone and now could evolve into resistant organisms,” Jacqueline W. Fincher, MD, a primary care physician and president of the ACP, said in an interview. “While antibiotic stewardship has been very important for over a decade, we now have more recent head-to-head studies/data showing that, in these four conditions, shorter courses of treatment are just as efficacious with less side effects and adverse events.”

The researchers reviewed all existing clinical guidelines related to bronchitis with COPD exacerbations, community-acquired pneumonia, UTIs, and cellulitis, as well as any other relevant studies in the literature. Although they did not conduct a formal systematic review, they compiled the guidelines specifically for all internists, family physicians and other clinicians caring for patients with these conditions.

“Although most patients with these infections will be seen in the outpatient setting, these best-practice advice statements also apply to patients who present in the inpatient setting,” the authors wrote. They also note the importance of ensuring the patient has the correct diagnosis and appropriate corresponding antibiotic prescription. “If a patient is not improving with appropriate antibiotics, it is important for the clinician to reassess for other causes of symptoms rather than defaulting to a longer duration of antibiotic therapy,” they wrote, calling a longer course “the exception and not the rule.”
 

Acute bronchitis with COPD exacerbations

Antibiotic treatment for COPD exacerbations and acute uncomplicated bronchitis with signs of a bacterial infection should last no longer than 5 days. The authors define this condition as an acute respiratory infection with a normal chest x-ray, most often caused by a virus. Although patients with bronchitis do not automatically need antibiotics if there’s no evidence of pneumonia, the authors did advise antibiotics in cases involving COPD and a high likelihood of bacterial infection. Clinicians should base their choice of antibiotics on the most common bacterial etiology: Haemophilus influenzae, Streptococcus pneumoniae, and Moraxella catarrhalis. Ideal candidates for therapy may include aminopenicillin with clavulanic acid, a macrolide, or a tetracycline.

Community-acquired pneumonia

The initial course of antibiotics should be at least 5 days for pneumonia and only extended after considering validated evidence of the patient’s clinical stability, such as resuming normal vital signs, mental activity, and the ability to eat. Multiple randomized, controlled trials have shown no improved benefit from longer courses, though longer courses are linked to increased adverse events and mortality.

Again, antibiotics used should “cover common pathogens, such as S. pneumoniae, H. influenzae, Mycoplasma pneumoniae, and Staphylococcus aureus, and atypical pathogens, such as Legionella species,” the authors wrote. Options include “amoxicillin, doxycycline, or a macrolide for healthy adults or a beta-lactam with a macrolide or a respiratory fluoroquinolone in patients with comorbidities.”
 

UTIs: Uncomplicated cystitis and pyelonephritis

For women’s bacterial cystitis – 75% of which is caused by Escherichia coli – the guidelines recommend nitrofurantoin for 5 days, trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole for 3 days, or fosfomycin as a single dose. For uncomplicated pyelonephritis in both men and women, clinicians can consider fluoroquinolones for 5-7 days or trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole for 14 days, depending on antibiotic susceptibility.

This recommendation does not include UTIs in women who are pregnant or UTIs with other functional abnormalities present, such as obstruction. The authors also intentionally left out acute bacterial prostatitis because of its complexity and how long it can take to treat.
 

Cellulitis

MRSA, which has been increasing in prevalence, is a leading cause of skin and soft-tissue infections, such as necrotizing infections, cellulitis, and erysipelas. Unless the patient has penetrating trauma, evidence of MRSA infection elsewhere, injection drug use, nasal colonization of MRSA, or systemic inflammatory response syndrome, the guidelines recommend a 5- to 6-day course of cephalosporin, penicillin, or clindamycin, extended only if the infection has not improved in 5 days. Further research can narrow down the most appropriate treatment course.

This guidance does not apply to purulent cellulitis, such as conditions with abscesses, furuncles, or carbuncles that typically require incision and drainage.
 

Continuing to get the message out

Dr. Fincher emphasized the importance of continuing to disseminate messaging for clinicians about reducing unnecessary antibiotic use.

“In medicine we are constantly bombarded with new information. It is those patients and disease states that we see and treat every day that are especially important for us as physicians and other clinicians to keep our skills and knowledge base up to date when it comes to use of antibiotics,” Dr. Fincher said in an interview. “We just need to continue to educate and push out the data, guidelines, and recommendations.”

Dr. Nolt added that it’s important to emphasize how to translate these national recommendations into local practices since local guidance can also raise awareness and encourage local compliance.

Other strategies for reducing overuse of antibiotics “include restriction on antibiotics available at health care systems (formulary restriction), not allowing use of antibiotics unless there is discussion about the patient’s case (preauthorization), and reviewing cases of patients on antibiotics and advising on next steps (prospective audit and feedback),” she said.

The research was funded by the ACP. Dr. Lee has received personal fees from this news organization and Prime Education. Dr. Fincher owns stock in Johnson & Johnson and Procter and Gamble. Dr. Nolt and the article’s coauthors disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

An antibiotic course of 5 days is usually just as effective as longer courses but with fewer side effects and decreased overall antibiotic exposure for a number of common bacterial conditions, according to new clinical guidelines published by the American College of Physicians.

The guidelines focus on treatment of uncomplicated cases involving pneumonia, urinary tract infections (UTIs), cellulitis, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) exacerbations, and acute bronchitis. The goal of the guidelines is to continue improving antibiotic stewardship given the increasing threat of antibiotic resistance and the adverse effects of antibiotics.

“Any use of antibiotics (including necessary use) has downstream effects outside of treating infection,” Dawn Nolt, MD, MPH, a professor of pediatric infection disease at Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, said in an interview. Dr. Nolt was not involved in developing these guidelines. “Undesirable outcomes include allergic reactions, diarrhea, and antibiotic-resistant bacteria. When we reduce unnecessary antibiotic, we reduce undesirable outcomes,” she said.

According to background information in the paper, 1 in 10 patients receives an antibiotic prescription during visits, yet nearly a third of these (30%) are unnecessary and last too long, especially for sinusitis and bronchitis. Meanwhile, overuse of antibiotics, particularly broad-spectrum ones, leads to resistance and adverse effects in up to 20% of patients.

“Prescribing practices can vary based on the type of provider, the setting where the antibiotic is being prescribed, what geographic area you are looking at, the medical reason for which the antibiotic is being prescribed, the actual germ being targeted, and the type of patient,” Dr. Nolt said. “But this variability can be reduced when prescribing providers are aware and follow best practice standards as through this article.”

The new ACP guidelines are a distillation of recommendations from preexisting infectious disease organizations, Dr. Nolt said, but aimed specifically at those practicing internal medicine.

“We define appropriate antibiotic use as prescribing the right antibiotic at the right dose for the right duration for a specific condition,” Rachael A. Lee, MD, MSPH, of the University of Alabama at Birmingham, and colleagues wrote in the article detailing the new guidelines. “Despite evidence and guidelines supporting shorter durations of antibiotic use, many physicians do not prescribe short-course therapy, frequently defaulting to 10-day courses regardless of the condition.”

The reasons for this default response vary. Though some clinicians prescribe longer courses specifically to prevent antibiotic resistance, no evidence shows that continuing to take antibiotics after symptoms have resolved actually reduces likelihood of resistance, the authors noted.

“In fact, resistance is a documented side effect of prolonged antibiotic use due to natural selection pressure,” they wrote.

Another common reason is habit.

“This was the ‘conventional wisdom’ for so long, just trying to make sure all bacteria causing the infection were completely eradicated, with no stragglers that had been exposed to the antibiotic but were not gone and now could evolve into resistant organisms,” Jacqueline W. Fincher, MD, a primary care physician and president of the ACP, said in an interview. “While antibiotic stewardship has been very important for over a decade, we now have more recent head-to-head studies/data showing that, in these four conditions, shorter courses of treatment are just as efficacious with less side effects and adverse events.”

The researchers reviewed all existing clinical guidelines related to bronchitis with COPD exacerbations, community-acquired pneumonia, UTIs, and cellulitis, as well as any other relevant studies in the literature. Although they did not conduct a formal systematic review, they compiled the guidelines specifically for all internists, family physicians and other clinicians caring for patients with these conditions.

“Although most patients with these infections will be seen in the outpatient setting, these best-practice advice statements also apply to patients who present in the inpatient setting,” the authors wrote. They also note the importance of ensuring the patient has the correct diagnosis and appropriate corresponding antibiotic prescription. “If a patient is not improving with appropriate antibiotics, it is important for the clinician to reassess for other causes of symptoms rather than defaulting to a longer duration of antibiotic therapy,” they wrote, calling a longer course “the exception and not the rule.”
 

Acute bronchitis with COPD exacerbations

Antibiotic treatment for COPD exacerbations and acute uncomplicated bronchitis with signs of a bacterial infection should last no longer than 5 days. The authors define this condition as an acute respiratory infection with a normal chest x-ray, most often caused by a virus. Although patients with bronchitis do not automatically need antibiotics if there’s no evidence of pneumonia, the authors did advise antibiotics in cases involving COPD and a high likelihood of bacterial infection. Clinicians should base their choice of antibiotics on the most common bacterial etiology: Haemophilus influenzae, Streptococcus pneumoniae, and Moraxella catarrhalis. Ideal candidates for therapy may include aminopenicillin with clavulanic acid, a macrolide, or a tetracycline.

Community-acquired pneumonia

The initial course of antibiotics should be at least 5 days for pneumonia and only extended after considering validated evidence of the patient’s clinical stability, such as resuming normal vital signs, mental activity, and the ability to eat. Multiple randomized, controlled trials have shown no improved benefit from longer courses, though longer courses are linked to increased adverse events and mortality.

Again, antibiotics used should “cover common pathogens, such as S. pneumoniae, H. influenzae, Mycoplasma pneumoniae, and Staphylococcus aureus, and atypical pathogens, such as Legionella species,” the authors wrote. Options include “amoxicillin, doxycycline, or a macrolide for healthy adults or a beta-lactam with a macrolide or a respiratory fluoroquinolone in patients with comorbidities.”
 

UTIs: Uncomplicated cystitis and pyelonephritis

For women’s bacterial cystitis – 75% of which is caused by Escherichia coli – the guidelines recommend nitrofurantoin for 5 days, trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole for 3 days, or fosfomycin as a single dose. For uncomplicated pyelonephritis in both men and women, clinicians can consider fluoroquinolones for 5-7 days or trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole for 14 days, depending on antibiotic susceptibility.

This recommendation does not include UTIs in women who are pregnant or UTIs with other functional abnormalities present, such as obstruction. The authors also intentionally left out acute bacterial prostatitis because of its complexity and how long it can take to treat.
 

Cellulitis

MRSA, which has been increasing in prevalence, is a leading cause of skin and soft-tissue infections, such as necrotizing infections, cellulitis, and erysipelas. Unless the patient has penetrating trauma, evidence of MRSA infection elsewhere, injection drug use, nasal colonization of MRSA, or systemic inflammatory response syndrome, the guidelines recommend a 5- to 6-day course of cephalosporin, penicillin, or clindamycin, extended only if the infection has not improved in 5 days. Further research can narrow down the most appropriate treatment course.

This guidance does not apply to purulent cellulitis, such as conditions with abscesses, furuncles, or carbuncles that typically require incision and drainage.
 

Continuing to get the message out

Dr. Fincher emphasized the importance of continuing to disseminate messaging for clinicians about reducing unnecessary antibiotic use.

“In medicine we are constantly bombarded with new information. It is those patients and disease states that we see and treat every day that are especially important for us as physicians and other clinicians to keep our skills and knowledge base up to date when it comes to use of antibiotics,” Dr. Fincher said in an interview. “We just need to continue to educate and push out the data, guidelines, and recommendations.”

Dr. Nolt added that it’s important to emphasize how to translate these national recommendations into local practices since local guidance can also raise awareness and encourage local compliance.

Other strategies for reducing overuse of antibiotics “include restriction on antibiotics available at health care systems (formulary restriction), not allowing use of antibiotics unless there is discussion about the patient’s case (preauthorization), and reviewing cases of patients on antibiotics and advising on next steps (prospective audit and feedback),” she said.

The research was funded by the ACP. Dr. Lee has received personal fees from this news organization and Prime Education. Dr. Fincher owns stock in Johnson & Johnson and Procter and Gamble. Dr. Nolt and the article’s coauthors disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

New cases of COVID-19 in children in the United States fell slightly, but even that small dip was enough to reverse 2 straight weeks of increases, according to a report from the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Children’s Hospital Association.

New cases totaled 63,862 for the latest reporting week, March 26 to April 1, compared with 64,029 for the previous week, the AAP and the CHA said in their weekly COVID-19 report. For the week ending April 1, children represented 18.1% of all new cases reported in the United States, down from a pandemic-high 19.1% the week before.

COVID-19 cases in children now total just under 3.47 million, which works out to 13.4% of reported cases for all ages and 4,610 cases per 100,000 children since the beginning of the pandemic, the AAP and the CHA said based on data from 49 states (excluding New York), the District of Columbia, New York City, Puerto Rico, and Guam.

Among those jurisdictions, Vermont has the highest proportion of its cases occurring in children at 21.0%, and North Dakota has the highest cumulative rate at 8,958 cases per 100,000 children. Looking at those states from the bottoms of their respective lists are Florida, where children aged 0-14 years represent 8.4% of all cases, and Hawaii, with 1,133 cases per 100,000 children aged 0-17 years, the AAP/CHA report shows.

The data on more serious illness show that Minnesota has the highest proportion of hospitalizations occurring in children at 3.1%, while New York City has the highest hospitalization rate among infected children, 2.0%. Among the other 23 states reporting on such admissions, children make up only 1.3% of hospitalizations in Florida and in New Hampshire, which also has the lowest hospitalization rate at 0.1%, the AAP and CHA said.

Five more deaths were reported in children during the week ending April 1, bringing the total to 284 in the 43 states, along with New York City, Puerto Rico, and Guam, that are sharing age-distribution data on mortality.

[email protected]

New cases of COVID-19 in children in the United States fell slightly, but even that small dip was enough to reverse 2 straight weeks of increases, according to a report from the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Children’s Hospital Association.

New cases totaled 63,862 for the latest reporting week, March 26 to April 1, compared with 64,029 for the previous week, the AAP and the CHA said in their weekly COVID-19 report. For the week ending April 1, children represented 18.1% of all new cases reported in the United States, down from a pandemic-high 19.1% the week before.

COVID-19 cases in children now total just under 3.47 million, which works out to 13.4% of reported cases for all ages and 4,610 cases per 100,000 children since the beginning of the pandemic, the AAP and the CHA said based on data from 49 states (excluding New York), the District of Columbia, New York City, Puerto Rico, and Guam.

Among those jurisdictions, Vermont has the highest proportion of its cases occurring in children at 21.0%, and North Dakota has the highest cumulative rate at 8,958 cases per 100,000 children. Looking at those states from the bottoms of their respective lists are Florida, where children aged 0-14 years represent 8.4% of all cases, and Hawaii, with 1,133 cases per 100,000 children aged 0-17 years, the AAP/CHA report shows.

The data on more serious illness show that Minnesota has the highest proportion of hospitalizations occurring in children at 3.1%, while New York City has the highest hospitalization rate among infected children, 2.0%. Among the other 23 states reporting on such admissions, children make up only 1.3% of hospitalizations in Florida and in New Hampshire, which also has the lowest hospitalization rate at 0.1%, the AAP and CHA said.

Five more deaths were reported in children during the week ending April 1, bringing the total to 284 in the 43 states, along with New York City, Puerto Rico, and Guam, that are sharing age-distribution data on mortality.

[email protected]

New cases of COVID-19 in children in the United States fell slightly, but even that small dip was enough to reverse 2 straight weeks of increases, according to a report from the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Children’s Hospital Association.

New cases totaled 63,862 for the latest reporting week, March 26 to April 1, compared with 64,029 for the previous week, the AAP and the CHA said in their weekly COVID-19 report. For the week ending April 1, children represented 18.1% of all new cases reported in the United States, down from a pandemic-high 19.1% the week before.

COVID-19 cases in children now total just under 3.47 million, which works out to 13.4% of reported cases for all ages and 4,610 cases per 100,000 children since the beginning of the pandemic, the AAP and the CHA said based on data from 49 states (excluding New York), the District of Columbia, New York City, Puerto Rico, and Guam.

Among those jurisdictions, Vermont has the highest proportion of its cases occurring in children at 21.0%, and North Dakota has the highest cumulative rate at 8,958 cases per 100,000 children. Looking at those states from the bottoms of their respective lists are Florida, where children aged 0-14 years represent 8.4% of all cases, and Hawaii, with 1,133 cases per 100,000 children aged 0-17 years, the AAP/CHA report shows.

The data on more serious illness show that Minnesota has the highest proportion of hospitalizations occurring in children at 3.1%, while New York City has the highest hospitalization rate among infected children, 2.0%. Among the other 23 states reporting on such admissions, children make up only 1.3% of hospitalizations in Florida and in New Hampshire, which also has the lowest hospitalization rate at 0.1%, the AAP and CHA said.

Five more deaths were reported in children during the week ending April 1, bringing the total to 284 in the 43 states, along with New York City, Puerto Rico, and Guam, that are sharing age-distribution data on mortality.

[email protected]

Public health officials in the Midwest and Northeast are sounding the alarm about steep new increases in COVID-19 cases in children.
 

South_agency/Getty Images

The increases seem to be driven by greater circulation of more contagious variants, just as children and teens have returned to in-person activities such as sports, parties, and classes.

“I can just tell you from my 46 years in the business, I’ve never seen dynamic transmission in kids like we’re seeing right now, younger kids,” said Michael Osterholm, PhD, who directs the Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy at the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis.

In earlier surges, children – especially younger children – played only minor roles in transmitting the infection. When they were diagnosed with COVID-19, their symptoms tended to be mild or even absent, and for reasons that aren’t well understood, they haven’t usually been the first cases in households or clusters. 

Now, as more SARS-CoV-2 variants have begun to dominate, and seniors gain protection from vaccines, that pattern may be changing. Infectious disease experts are watching to see if COVID-19 will start to spread in a pattern more similar to influenza, with children becoming infected first and bringing the infection home to their parents.
 

Michigan sees jump in cases

Governors in some hard-hit states are pleading with a pandemic-weary public to keep up mask-wearing and social distancing and avoid unnecessary travel and large gatherings in order to protect in-person classes. 

In Michigan, many schools reopened and youth sports resumed just as the more contagious B.1.1.7 variant spread widely. There, cases are rising among all age groups, but the largest number of new COVID-19 cases is among children aged 10-19, the first time that’s happened since the start of the pandemic.

Over the month of March, incidence in this age group had more than doubled in the state. Cases among younger children – infants through 9-year-olds – are also going up, increasing by more than 230% since Feb. 19, according to data from the Michigan Department of Health and Human Services. 

The increases have prompted some schools to pause in-person learning for a time after spring break to slow transmission, according to Natasha Bagdasarian, MD, senior public health physician with the Michigan health department in Ann Arbor.

In Minnesota, on a recent call with reporters, Ruth Lynfield, MD, state epidemiologist, said the B.1.1.7 variant, which has rapidly risen in the state, has a higher attack rate among children than that of earlier versions of the virus, meaning they’re more likely to be infected when exposed.

“We certainly get the sense that youth are what we might refer to as the leading edge of the spread of variants,” she said.

Dr. Lynfield said they were tracking cases spreading through youth sports, classrooms, and daycare centers.

In Massachusetts, the largest number of new COVID-19 infections in the last 2 weeks of March was among children and teens. Massachusetts has the fifth-highest number of recorded B.1.1.7 cases in the United States, according to CDC data.

Although most COVID-19 cases in children and teens are mild, the disease can be severe for those who have underlying medical conditions. Even in healthy children, it can trigger a serious postviral syndrome called MIS-C that requires hospitalization. 

Emerging studies show that children, like adults, can develop the lingering symptoms of long COVID-19. Recent data from the United Kingdom show 10%-15% of children younger than 16 infected with COVID-19 still had at least one symptom 5 weeks later.

Dr. Osterholm said it remains to be seen whether more cases in children will also mean a rise in more serious outcomes for children, as it has in Europe and Israel.

In Israel, the B.1.1.7 variant arrived at the end of December and became dominant in January. By the end of January, Hadassah Ein Kerem Medical Center in Jerusalem had four patients in its newly opened pediatric COVID-19 ICU unit. They ranged in age from 13 days to 2 years.

By early February, the Ministry of Health warned the country’s doctors to prepare for an “imminent upward trend” in pediatric COVID-19 cases. They notified hospitals to be ready to open more ICU beds for children with COVID-19, according to Cyrille Cohen, PhD, head of the laboratory of immunotherapy at Bar-Ilan University in Ramat Gan, Israel.

On March 31, French President Emmanuel Macron ordered France into its third national lockdown and closed schools for 3 weeks to try to hold off a third wave of COVID-19. President Macron had been a staunch defender of keeping schools open, but said the closure was necessary. 

“It is the best solution to slow down the virus,” he said, according to Reuters.

German Chancellor Angela Merkel recently announced a new lockdown for Germany as the spread of the variants has led to rising cases there.

“I think what we’re seeing here is this is going to play out over the country,” said Dr. Osterholm. “Before this time, we didn’t see major transmission in younger kids particularly K through eighth grade, and now we’re seeing that happening with many school outbreaks, particularly in the Northeast and in the Midwest.” He added that it will spread through southern states as well.
 

Fall surge all over again

“It’s starting to feel an awful lot like déjà vu, where the hospitalization numbers, the positivity rate, all of the metrics that we track are trending up significantly, and it’s feeling like the fall surge,” said Brian Peters, CEO of the Michigan Hospital Association. “It’s feeling in many ways like the initial surge a year ago.”

Mr. Peters said that in January and February, COVID-19 hospitalizations in Michigan were less than 1,000 a day. Recently, he said, there were 2,558 people hospitalized with COVID-19 in Michigan.

About half of adults aged 65 and older have been fully vaccinated in Michigan. That’s led to a dramatic drop in cases and hospitalizations among seniors, who are at highest risk of death. At the same time, Gov. Gretchen Whitmer and health officials with the Biden administration have encouraged schools to reopen for in-person learning, and extracurricular activities have largely resumed.

The same circumstances – students in classrooms, combined with the arrival of the variants – resulted in COVID-19 cases caused by the B.1.1.7 variant increasing  among younger age groups in the United Kingdom. 

When schools were locked down again, however, cases caused by variant and wild type viruses both dropped in children, suggesting that there wasn’t anything that made B.1.1.7 extra risky for children, but that the strain is more contagious for everyone. Sports, extracurricular activities, and classrooms offered the virus plenty of opportunities to spread.

In Michigan, Dr. Bagdasarian said the outbreaks in children started with winter sports.

“Not necessarily transmission on the field, but we’re really talking about social gatherings that were happening in and around sports,” like the pizza party to celebrate a team win, she said, “and I think those social gatherings were a big driver.”

“Outbreaks are trickling over into teams and trickling over into schools, which is exactly what we want to avoid,” she added.

Thus far, Michigan has been reserving vaccine doses for older adults but will open eligibility to anyone age 16 and older starting on April 6.

Until younger age groups can be vaccinated, Mr. Peters said people need to continue to be careful.

“We see people letting their guard down and it’s to be expected,” Mr. Peters said. “People have COVID fatigue, and they are eager to get together with their friends. We’re not out of the woods yet.”
 

Children ‘heavily impacted’

In Nebraska, Alice Sato, MD, PhD, hospital epidemiologist at Children’s Hospital and Medical Center in Omaha, said they saw an increase in MIS-C cases after the winter surges, and she’s watching the data carefully as COVID-19 cases tick up in other midwestern states.

Dr. Sato got so tired of hearing people compare COVID-19 to the flu that she pulled some numbers on pediatric deaths.

While COVID-19 fatality rates in children are much lower than they are for adults, at least 279 children have died across the United States since the start of the pandemic. The highest number of confirmed pediatric deaths recorded during any of the previous 10 flu seasons was 188, according to the CDC.

“So while children are relatively spared, they’re still heavily impacted,” said Dr. Sato.

She was thrilled to hear the recent news that the Pfizer vaccine works well in children aged 12-15, but because Pfizer’s cold-chain requirements make it one the trickiest to store, the Food and Drug Administration hasn’t given the go-ahead yet. She said it will be months before she has any to offer to teens in her state. 

In the meantime, genetic testing has shown that the variants are already circulating there.

“We really want parents and family members who are eligible to be vaccinated because that is a great way to protect children that I cannot vaccinate yet,” Dr. Sato said. “The best way for me to protect children is to prevent the adults around them from being infected.”

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Public health officials in the Midwest and Northeast are sounding the alarm about steep new increases in COVID-19 cases in children.
 

South_agency/Getty Images

The increases seem to be driven by greater circulation of more contagious variants, just as children and teens have returned to in-person activities such as sports, parties, and classes.

“I can just tell you from my 46 years in the business, I’ve never seen dynamic transmission in kids like we’re seeing right now, younger kids,” said Michael Osterholm, PhD, who directs the Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy at the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis.

In earlier surges, children – especially younger children – played only minor roles in transmitting the infection. When they were diagnosed with COVID-19, their symptoms tended to be mild or even absent, and for reasons that aren’t well understood, they haven’t usually been the first cases in households or clusters. 

Now, as more SARS-CoV-2 variants have begun to dominate, and seniors gain protection from vaccines, that pattern may be changing. Infectious disease experts are watching to see if COVID-19 will start to spread in a pattern more similar to influenza, with children becoming infected first and bringing the infection home to their parents.
 

Michigan sees jump in cases

Governors in some hard-hit states are pleading with a pandemic-weary public to keep up mask-wearing and social distancing and avoid unnecessary travel and large gatherings in order to protect in-person classes. 

In Michigan, many schools reopened and youth sports resumed just as the more contagious B.1.1.7 variant spread widely. There, cases are rising among all age groups, but the largest number of new COVID-19 cases is among children aged 10-19, the first time that’s happened since the start of the pandemic.

Over the month of March, incidence in this age group had more than doubled in the state. Cases among younger children – infants through 9-year-olds – are also going up, increasing by more than 230% since Feb. 19, according to data from the Michigan Department of Health and Human Services. 

The increases have prompted some schools to pause in-person learning for a time after spring break to slow transmission, according to Natasha Bagdasarian, MD, senior public health physician with the Michigan health department in Ann Arbor.

In Minnesota, on a recent call with reporters, Ruth Lynfield, MD, state epidemiologist, said the B.1.1.7 variant, which has rapidly risen in the state, has a higher attack rate among children than that of earlier versions of the virus, meaning they’re more likely to be infected when exposed.

“We certainly get the sense that youth are what we might refer to as the leading edge of the spread of variants,” she said.

Dr. Lynfield said they were tracking cases spreading through youth sports, classrooms, and daycare centers.

In Massachusetts, the largest number of new COVID-19 infections in the last 2 weeks of March was among children and teens. Massachusetts has the fifth-highest number of recorded B.1.1.7 cases in the United States, according to CDC data.

Although most COVID-19 cases in children and teens are mild, the disease can be severe for those who have underlying medical conditions. Even in healthy children, it can trigger a serious postviral syndrome called MIS-C that requires hospitalization. 

Emerging studies show that children, like adults, can develop the lingering symptoms of long COVID-19. Recent data from the United Kingdom show 10%-15% of children younger than 16 infected with COVID-19 still had at least one symptom 5 weeks later.

Dr. Osterholm said it remains to be seen whether more cases in children will also mean a rise in more serious outcomes for children, as it has in Europe and Israel.

In Israel, the B.1.1.7 variant arrived at the end of December and became dominant in January. By the end of January, Hadassah Ein Kerem Medical Center in Jerusalem had four patients in its newly opened pediatric COVID-19 ICU unit. They ranged in age from 13 days to 2 years.

By early February, the Ministry of Health warned the country’s doctors to prepare for an “imminent upward trend” in pediatric COVID-19 cases. They notified hospitals to be ready to open more ICU beds for children with COVID-19, according to Cyrille Cohen, PhD, head of the laboratory of immunotherapy at Bar-Ilan University in Ramat Gan, Israel.

On March 31, French President Emmanuel Macron ordered France into its third national lockdown and closed schools for 3 weeks to try to hold off a third wave of COVID-19. President Macron had been a staunch defender of keeping schools open, but said the closure was necessary. 

“It is the best solution to slow down the virus,” he said, according to Reuters.

German Chancellor Angela Merkel recently announced a new lockdown for Germany as the spread of the variants has led to rising cases there.

“I think what we’re seeing here is this is going to play out over the country,” said Dr. Osterholm. “Before this time, we didn’t see major transmission in younger kids particularly K through eighth grade, and now we’re seeing that happening with many school outbreaks, particularly in the Northeast and in the Midwest.” He added that it will spread through southern states as well.
 

Fall surge all over again

“It’s starting to feel an awful lot like déjà vu, where the hospitalization numbers, the positivity rate, all of the metrics that we track are trending up significantly, and it’s feeling like the fall surge,” said Brian Peters, CEO of the Michigan Hospital Association. “It’s feeling in many ways like the initial surge a year ago.”

Mr. Peters said that in January and February, COVID-19 hospitalizations in Michigan were less than 1,000 a day. Recently, he said, there were 2,558 people hospitalized with COVID-19 in Michigan.

About half of adults aged 65 and older have been fully vaccinated in Michigan. That’s led to a dramatic drop in cases and hospitalizations among seniors, who are at highest risk of death. At the same time, Gov. Gretchen Whitmer and health officials with the Biden administration have encouraged schools to reopen for in-person learning, and extracurricular activities have largely resumed.

The same circumstances – students in classrooms, combined with the arrival of the variants – resulted in COVID-19 cases caused by the B.1.1.7 variant increasing  among younger age groups in the United Kingdom. 

When schools were locked down again, however, cases caused by variant and wild type viruses both dropped in children, suggesting that there wasn’t anything that made B.1.1.7 extra risky for children, but that the strain is more contagious for everyone. Sports, extracurricular activities, and classrooms offered the virus plenty of opportunities to spread.

In Michigan, Dr. Bagdasarian said the outbreaks in children started with winter sports.

“Not necessarily transmission on the field, but we’re really talking about social gatherings that were happening in and around sports,” like the pizza party to celebrate a team win, she said, “and I think those social gatherings were a big driver.”

“Outbreaks are trickling over into teams and trickling over into schools, which is exactly what we want to avoid,” she added.

Thus far, Michigan has been reserving vaccine doses for older adults but will open eligibility to anyone age 16 and older starting on April 6.

Until younger age groups can be vaccinated, Mr. Peters said people need to continue to be careful.

“We see people letting their guard down and it’s to be expected,” Mr. Peters said. “People have COVID fatigue, and they are eager to get together with their friends. We’re not out of the woods yet.”
 

Children ‘heavily impacted’

In Nebraska, Alice Sato, MD, PhD, hospital epidemiologist at Children’s Hospital and Medical Center in Omaha, said they saw an increase in MIS-C cases after the winter surges, and she’s watching the data carefully as COVID-19 cases tick up in other midwestern states.

Dr. Sato got so tired of hearing people compare COVID-19 to the flu that she pulled some numbers on pediatric deaths.

While COVID-19 fatality rates in children are much lower than they are for adults, at least 279 children have died across the United States since the start of the pandemic. The highest number of confirmed pediatric deaths recorded during any of the previous 10 flu seasons was 188, according to the CDC.

“So while children are relatively spared, they’re still heavily impacted,” said Dr. Sato.

She was thrilled to hear the recent news that the Pfizer vaccine works well in children aged 12-15, but because Pfizer’s cold-chain requirements make it one the trickiest to store, the Food and Drug Administration hasn’t given the go-ahead yet. She said it will be months before she has any to offer to teens in her state. 

In the meantime, genetic testing has shown that the variants are already circulating there.

“We really want parents and family members who are eligible to be vaccinated because that is a great way to protect children that I cannot vaccinate yet,” Dr. Sato said. “The best way for me to protect children is to prevent the adults around them from being infected.”

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Public health officials in the Midwest and Northeast are sounding the alarm about steep new increases in COVID-19 cases in children.
 

South_agency/Getty Images

The increases seem to be driven by greater circulation of more contagious variants, just as children and teens have returned to in-person activities such as sports, parties, and classes.

“I can just tell you from my 46 years in the business, I’ve never seen dynamic transmission in kids like we’re seeing right now, younger kids,” said Michael Osterholm, PhD, who directs the Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy at the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis.

In earlier surges, children – especially younger children – played only minor roles in transmitting the infection. When they were diagnosed with COVID-19, their symptoms tended to be mild or even absent, and for reasons that aren’t well understood, they haven’t usually been the first cases in households or clusters. 

Now, as more SARS-CoV-2 variants have begun to dominate, and seniors gain protection from vaccines, that pattern may be changing. Infectious disease experts are watching to see if COVID-19 will start to spread in a pattern more similar to influenza, with children becoming infected first and bringing the infection home to their parents.
 

Michigan sees jump in cases

Governors in some hard-hit states are pleading with a pandemic-weary public to keep up mask-wearing and social distancing and avoid unnecessary travel and large gatherings in order to protect in-person classes. 

In Michigan, many schools reopened and youth sports resumed just as the more contagious B.1.1.7 variant spread widely. There, cases are rising among all age groups, but the largest number of new COVID-19 cases is among children aged 10-19, the first time that’s happened since the start of the pandemic.

Over the month of March, incidence in this age group had more than doubled in the state. Cases among younger children – infants through 9-year-olds – are also going up, increasing by more than 230% since Feb. 19, according to data from the Michigan Department of Health and Human Services. 

The increases have prompted some schools to pause in-person learning for a time after spring break to slow transmission, according to Natasha Bagdasarian, MD, senior public health physician with the Michigan health department in Ann Arbor.

In Minnesota, on a recent call with reporters, Ruth Lynfield, MD, state epidemiologist, said the B.1.1.7 variant, which has rapidly risen in the state, has a higher attack rate among children than that of earlier versions of the virus, meaning they’re more likely to be infected when exposed.

“We certainly get the sense that youth are what we might refer to as the leading edge of the spread of variants,” she said.

Dr. Lynfield said they were tracking cases spreading through youth sports, classrooms, and daycare centers.

In Massachusetts, the largest number of new COVID-19 infections in the last 2 weeks of March was among children and teens. Massachusetts has the fifth-highest number of recorded B.1.1.7 cases in the United States, according to CDC data.

Although most COVID-19 cases in children and teens are mild, the disease can be severe for those who have underlying medical conditions. Even in healthy children, it can trigger a serious postviral syndrome called MIS-C that requires hospitalization. 

Emerging studies show that children, like adults, can develop the lingering symptoms of long COVID-19. Recent data from the United Kingdom show 10%-15% of children younger than 16 infected with COVID-19 still had at least one symptom 5 weeks later.

Dr. Osterholm said it remains to be seen whether more cases in children will also mean a rise in more serious outcomes for children, as it has in Europe and Israel.

In Israel, the B.1.1.7 variant arrived at the end of December and became dominant in January. By the end of January, Hadassah Ein Kerem Medical Center in Jerusalem had four patients in its newly opened pediatric COVID-19 ICU unit. They ranged in age from 13 days to 2 years.

By early February, the Ministry of Health warned the country’s doctors to prepare for an “imminent upward trend” in pediatric COVID-19 cases. They notified hospitals to be ready to open more ICU beds for children with COVID-19, according to Cyrille Cohen, PhD, head of the laboratory of immunotherapy at Bar-Ilan University in Ramat Gan, Israel.

On March 31, French President Emmanuel Macron ordered France into its third national lockdown and closed schools for 3 weeks to try to hold off a third wave of COVID-19. President Macron had been a staunch defender of keeping schools open, but said the closure was necessary. 

“It is the best solution to slow down the virus,” he said, according to Reuters.

German Chancellor Angela Merkel recently announced a new lockdown for Germany as the spread of the variants has led to rising cases there.

“I think what we’re seeing here is this is going to play out over the country,” said Dr. Osterholm. “Before this time, we didn’t see major transmission in younger kids particularly K through eighth grade, and now we’re seeing that happening with many school outbreaks, particularly in the Northeast and in the Midwest.” He added that it will spread through southern states as well.
 

Fall surge all over again

“It’s starting to feel an awful lot like déjà vu, where the hospitalization numbers, the positivity rate, all of the metrics that we track are trending up significantly, and it’s feeling like the fall surge,” said Brian Peters, CEO of the Michigan Hospital Association. “It’s feeling in many ways like the initial surge a year ago.”

Mr. Peters said that in January and February, COVID-19 hospitalizations in Michigan were less than 1,000 a day. Recently, he said, there were 2,558 people hospitalized with COVID-19 in Michigan.

About half of adults aged 65 and older have been fully vaccinated in Michigan. That’s led to a dramatic drop in cases and hospitalizations among seniors, who are at highest risk of death. At the same time, Gov. Gretchen Whitmer and health officials with the Biden administration have encouraged schools to reopen for in-person learning, and extracurricular activities have largely resumed.

The same circumstances – students in classrooms, combined with the arrival of the variants – resulted in COVID-19 cases caused by the B.1.1.7 variant increasing  among younger age groups in the United Kingdom. 

When schools were locked down again, however, cases caused by variant and wild type viruses both dropped in children, suggesting that there wasn’t anything that made B.1.1.7 extra risky for children, but that the strain is more contagious for everyone. Sports, extracurricular activities, and classrooms offered the virus plenty of opportunities to spread.

In Michigan, Dr. Bagdasarian said the outbreaks in children started with winter sports.

“Not necessarily transmission on the field, but we’re really talking about social gatherings that were happening in and around sports,” like the pizza party to celebrate a team win, she said, “and I think those social gatherings were a big driver.”

“Outbreaks are trickling over into teams and trickling over into schools, which is exactly what we want to avoid,” she added.

Thus far, Michigan has been reserving vaccine doses for older adults but will open eligibility to anyone age 16 and older starting on April 6.

Until younger age groups can be vaccinated, Mr. Peters said people need to continue to be careful.

“We see people letting their guard down and it’s to be expected,” Mr. Peters said. “People have COVID fatigue, and they are eager to get together with their friends. We’re not out of the woods yet.”
 

Children ‘heavily impacted’

In Nebraska, Alice Sato, MD, PhD, hospital epidemiologist at Children’s Hospital and Medical Center in Omaha, said they saw an increase in MIS-C cases after the winter surges, and she’s watching the data carefully as COVID-19 cases tick up in other midwestern states.

Dr. Sato got so tired of hearing people compare COVID-19 to the flu that she pulled some numbers on pediatric deaths.

While COVID-19 fatality rates in children are much lower than they are for adults, at least 279 children have died across the United States since the start of the pandemic. The highest number of confirmed pediatric deaths recorded during any of the previous 10 flu seasons was 188, according to the CDC.

“So while children are relatively spared, they’re still heavily impacted,” said Dr. Sato.

She was thrilled to hear the recent news that the Pfizer vaccine works well in children aged 12-15, but because Pfizer’s cold-chain requirements make it one the trickiest to store, the Food and Drug Administration hasn’t given the go-ahead yet. She said it will be months before she has any to offer to teens in her state. 

In the meantime, genetic testing has shown that the variants are already circulating there.

“We really want parents and family members who are eligible to be vaccinated because that is a great way to protect children that I cannot vaccinate yet,” Dr. Sato said. “The best way for me to protect children is to prevent the adults around them from being infected.”

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

COVID-19 was the third-leading cause of death in the United States in 2020, but that mortality burden did not fall evenly along racial/ethnic lines, according to a provisional report from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Only heart disease and cancer caused more deaths than SARS-CoV-2, which took the lives of almost 378,000 Americans last year, Farida B. Ahmad, MPH, and associates at the National Center for Health Statistics noted March 31 in the Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report.

That represents 11.2% of the almost 3.36 million total deaths recorded in 2020. The racial/ethnics demographics, however, show that 22.4% of all deaths among Hispanic Americans were COVID-19–related, as were 18.6% of deaths in American Indians/Alaska Natives. Deaths among Asian persons, at 14.7%, and African Americans, at 13.5%, were closer but still above the national figure, while Whites (9.3%) were the only major subgroup below it, based on data from the National Vital Statistics System.

Age-adjusted death rates tell a somewhat different story: American Indian/Alaska native persons were highest with a rate of 187.8 COVID-19–associated deaths per 100,000 standard population, with Hispanic persons second at 164.3 per 100,000. Blacks were next at 151.1 deaths per 100,000, but Whites had a higher rate (72.5) than did Asian Americans (66.7), the CDC investigators reported.

“During January-December 2020, the estimated 2020 age-adjusted death rate increased for the first time since 2017, with an increase of 15.9% compared with 2019, from 715.2 to 828.7 deaths per 100,000 population,” they wrote, noting that “certain categories of race (i.e., AI/AN and Asian) and Hispanic ethnicity reported on death certificates might have been misclassified, possibly resulting in underestimates of death rates for some groups.”

[email protected]

COVID-19 was the third-leading cause of death in the United States in 2020, but that mortality burden did not fall evenly along racial/ethnic lines, according to a provisional report from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Only heart disease and cancer caused more deaths than SARS-CoV-2, which took the lives of almost 378,000 Americans last year, Farida B. Ahmad, MPH, and associates at the National Center for Health Statistics noted March 31 in the Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report.

That represents 11.2% of the almost 3.36 million total deaths recorded in 2020. The racial/ethnics demographics, however, show that 22.4% of all deaths among Hispanic Americans were COVID-19–related, as were 18.6% of deaths in American Indians/Alaska Natives. Deaths among Asian persons, at 14.7%, and African Americans, at 13.5%, were closer but still above the national figure, while Whites (9.3%) were the only major subgroup below it, based on data from the National Vital Statistics System.

Age-adjusted death rates tell a somewhat different story: American Indian/Alaska native persons were highest with a rate of 187.8 COVID-19–associated deaths per 100,000 standard population, with Hispanic persons second at 164.3 per 100,000. Blacks were next at 151.1 deaths per 100,000, but Whites had a higher rate (72.5) than did Asian Americans (66.7), the CDC investigators reported.

“During January-December 2020, the estimated 2020 age-adjusted death rate increased for the first time since 2017, with an increase of 15.9% compared with 2019, from 715.2 to 828.7 deaths per 100,000 population,” they wrote, noting that “certain categories of race (i.e., AI/AN and Asian) and Hispanic ethnicity reported on death certificates might have been misclassified, possibly resulting in underestimates of death rates for some groups.”

[email protected]

COVID-19 was the third-leading cause of death in the United States in 2020, but that mortality burden did not fall evenly along racial/ethnic lines, according to a provisional report from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Only heart disease and cancer caused more deaths than SARS-CoV-2, which took the lives of almost 378,000 Americans last year, Farida B. Ahmad, MPH, and associates at the National Center for Health Statistics noted March 31 in the Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report.

That represents 11.2% of the almost 3.36 million total deaths recorded in 2020. The racial/ethnics demographics, however, show that 22.4% of all deaths among Hispanic Americans were COVID-19–related, as were 18.6% of deaths in American Indians/Alaska Natives. Deaths among Asian persons, at 14.7%, and African Americans, at 13.5%, were closer but still above the national figure, while Whites (9.3%) were the only major subgroup below it, based on data from the National Vital Statistics System.

Age-adjusted death rates tell a somewhat different story: American Indian/Alaska native persons were highest with a rate of 187.8 COVID-19–associated deaths per 100,000 standard population, with Hispanic persons second at 164.3 per 100,000. Blacks were next at 151.1 deaths per 100,000, but Whites had a higher rate (72.5) than did Asian Americans (66.7), the CDC investigators reported.

“During January-December 2020, the estimated 2020 age-adjusted death rate increased for the first time since 2017, with an increase of 15.9% compared with 2019, from 715.2 to 828.7 deaths per 100,000 population,” they wrote, noting that “certain categories of race (i.e., AI/AN and Asian) and Hispanic ethnicity reported on death certificates might have been misclassified, possibly resulting in underestimates of death rates for some groups.”

[email protected]