Infectious Diseases

Rotavirus vaccination was not associated with the incidence of type 1 diabetes in a study of more than 385,000 children published in JAMA Pediatrics.

Previous findings from a number of studies have indicated a possible association between rotavirus and type 1 diabetes, according to Jason M. Glanz, PhD, and colleagues. “Epidemiologic data suggest an association between gastrointestinal infection and incidence of type 1 diabetes in children followed from birth to age 10 years. Given these findings, it is biologically plausible that live, attenuated rotavirus vaccine could either increase or decrease the risk for type 1 diabetes in early childhood,” they wrote.

To examine the association between rotavirus vaccination and the incidence of type 1 diabetes in a cohort of U.S. children, Dr. Glanz, a senior investigator at the Kaiser Permanente Colorado Institute for Health Research in Aurora, and colleagues retrospectively analyzed data from seven health care organizations that participate in the Vaccine Safety Datalink.

The researchers identified children born between 2006 and 2014 who had continuous enrollment from age 6 weeks to 2 years. They excluded children with a medical contraindication to vaccination or fewer than two well-child visits by age 12 months. They followed children until a type 1 diabetes diagnosis, disenrollment, or Dec. 31, 2017. The researchers adjusted for sex, birth year, mother’s age, birth weight, gestational age, and race or ethnicity.

The cohort included 386,937 children who were followed up a median of 5.4 years for a total person-time follow-up of 2,253,879 years. In all, 386,937 children (93.1%) were fully exposed to rotavirus vaccination; 15,765 (4.1%) were partially exposed to rotavirus vaccination, meaning that they received some, but not all, vaccine doses; and 11,003 (2.8%) were unexposed to rotavirus vaccination but had received all other recommended vaccines.

There were 464 cases of type 1 diabetes in the cohort, with an incidence rate of 20 cases per 100,000 person-years in the fully exposed group, 31.2 cases per 100,000 person-years in the partially exposed group, and 22.4 cases per 100,000 person-years in the unexposed group.

The incidence of type 1 diabetes was not significantly different across the rotavirus vaccine–exposure groups. The researchers reported that, compared with children unexposed to rotavirus vaccination, the adjusted hazard ratio for children fully exposed to rotavirus vaccination was 1.03 (95% confidence interval, 0.62-1.72), and for those partially exposed to the vaccination, it was 1.50 (95% CI, 0.81-2.77).

“Since licensure, rotavirus vaccination has been associated with a reduction in morbidity and mortality due to rotavirus infection in the United States and worldwide. ... Although rotavirus vaccination may not prevent type 1 diabetes, these results should provide additional reassurance to the public that rotavirus vaccination can be safely administered to infants,” they wrote.

The limited follow-up duration and relatively small proportion of patients unexposed to rotavirus vaccination are limitations of the study, the authors noted.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention funded the study. Several authors reported having received grants from the CDC. One author received grants from the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases, and another from pharmaceutical companies not involved in the study.

SOURCE: Glanz JM et al. JAMA Pediatr. 2020 Mar 9. doi: 10.1001/jamapediatrics.2019.6324.

Rotavirus vaccination was not associated with the incidence of type 1 diabetes in a study of more than 385,000 children published in JAMA Pediatrics.

Previous findings from a number of studies have indicated a possible association between rotavirus and type 1 diabetes, according to Jason M. Glanz, PhD, and colleagues. “Epidemiologic data suggest an association between gastrointestinal infection and incidence of type 1 diabetes in children followed from birth to age 10 years. Given these findings, it is biologically plausible that live, attenuated rotavirus vaccine could either increase or decrease the risk for type 1 diabetes in early childhood,” they wrote.

To examine the association between rotavirus vaccination and the incidence of type 1 diabetes in a cohort of U.S. children, Dr. Glanz, a senior investigator at the Kaiser Permanente Colorado Institute for Health Research in Aurora, and colleagues retrospectively analyzed data from seven health care organizations that participate in the Vaccine Safety Datalink.

The researchers identified children born between 2006 and 2014 who had continuous enrollment from age 6 weeks to 2 years. They excluded children with a medical contraindication to vaccination or fewer than two well-child visits by age 12 months. They followed children until a type 1 diabetes diagnosis, disenrollment, or Dec. 31, 2017. The researchers adjusted for sex, birth year, mother’s age, birth weight, gestational age, and race or ethnicity.

The cohort included 386,937 children who were followed up a median of 5.4 years for a total person-time follow-up of 2,253,879 years. In all, 386,937 children (93.1%) were fully exposed to rotavirus vaccination; 15,765 (4.1%) were partially exposed to rotavirus vaccination, meaning that they received some, but not all, vaccine doses; and 11,003 (2.8%) were unexposed to rotavirus vaccination but had received all other recommended vaccines.

There were 464 cases of type 1 diabetes in the cohort, with an incidence rate of 20 cases per 100,000 person-years in the fully exposed group, 31.2 cases per 100,000 person-years in the partially exposed group, and 22.4 cases per 100,000 person-years in the unexposed group.

The incidence of type 1 diabetes was not significantly different across the rotavirus vaccine–exposure groups. The researchers reported that, compared with children unexposed to rotavirus vaccination, the adjusted hazard ratio for children fully exposed to rotavirus vaccination was 1.03 (95% confidence interval, 0.62-1.72), and for those partially exposed to the vaccination, it was 1.50 (95% CI, 0.81-2.77).

“Since licensure, rotavirus vaccination has been associated with a reduction in morbidity and mortality due to rotavirus infection in the United States and worldwide. ... Although rotavirus vaccination may not prevent type 1 diabetes, these results should provide additional reassurance to the public that rotavirus vaccination can be safely administered to infants,” they wrote.

The limited follow-up duration and relatively small proportion of patients unexposed to rotavirus vaccination are limitations of the study, the authors noted.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention funded the study. Several authors reported having received grants from the CDC. One author received grants from the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases, and another from pharmaceutical companies not involved in the study.

SOURCE: Glanz JM et al. JAMA Pediatr. 2020 Mar 9. doi: 10.1001/jamapediatrics.2019.6324.

Rotavirus vaccination was not associated with the incidence of type 1 diabetes in a study of more than 385,000 children published in JAMA Pediatrics.

Previous findings from a number of studies have indicated a possible association between rotavirus and type 1 diabetes, according to Jason M. Glanz, PhD, and colleagues. “Epidemiologic data suggest an association between gastrointestinal infection and incidence of type 1 diabetes in children followed from birth to age 10 years. Given these findings, it is biologically plausible that live, attenuated rotavirus vaccine could either increase or decrease the risk for type 1 diabetes in early childhood,” they wrote.

To examine the association between rotavirus vaccination and the incidence of type 1 diabetes in a cohort of U.S. children, Dr. Glanz, a senior investigator at the Kaiser Permanente Colorado Institute for Health Research in Aurora, and colleagues retrospectively analyzed data from seven health care organizations that participate in the Vaccine Safety Datalink.

The researchers identified children born between 2006 and 2014 who had continuous enrollment from age 6 weeks to 2 years. They excluded children with a medical contraindication to vaccination or fewer than two well-child visits by age 12 months. They followed children until a type 1 diabetes diagnosis, disenrollment, or Dec. 31, 2017. The researchers adjusted for sex, birth year, mother’s age, birth weight, gestational age, and race or ethnicity.

The cohort included 386,937 children who were followed up a median of 5.4 years for a total person-time follow-up of 2,253,879 years. In all, 386,937 children (93.1%) were fully exposed to rotavirus vaccination; 15,765 (4.1%) were partially exposed to rotavirus vaccination, meaning that they received some, but not all, vaccine doses; and 11,003 (2.8%) were unexposed to rotavirus vaccination but had received all other recommended vaccines.

There were 464 cases of type 1 diabetes in the cohort, with an incidence rate of 20 cases per 100,000 person-years in the fully exposed group, 31.2 cases per 100,000 person-years in the partially exposed group, and 22.4 cases per 100,000 person-years in the unexposed group.

The incidence of type 1 diabetes was not significantly different across the rotavirus vaccine–exposure groups. The researchers reported that, compared with children unexposed to rotavirus vaccination, the adjusted hazard ratio for children fully exposed to rotavirus vaccination was 1.03 (95% confidence interval, 0.62-1.72), and for those partially exposed to the vaccination, it was 1.50 (95% CI, 0.81-2.77).

“Since licensure, rotavirus vaccination has been associated with a reduction in morbidity and mortality due to rotavirus infection in the United States and worldwide. ... Although rotavirus vaccination may not prevent type 1 diabetes, these results should provide additional reassurance to the public that rotavirus vaccination can be safely administered to infants,” they wrote.

The limited follow-up duration and relatively small proportion of patients unexposed to rotavirus vaccination are limitations of the study, the authors noted.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention funded the study. Several authors reported having received grants from the CDC. One author received grants from the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases, and another from pharmaceutical companies not involved in the study.

SOURCE: Glanz JM et al. JAMA Pediatr. 2020 Mar 9. doi: 10.1001/jamapediatrics.2019.6324.

Nationwide influenza activity declined for the third consecutive week, but the 2019-2020 season is on pace to be the longest in more than a decade.

Outpatient visits to health care providers for influenza-like illness dropped from 5.5% the previous week to 5.3% of all visits for the week ending Feb. 29, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention said on March 6.

The national baseline rate of 2.4% was first reached during the week of Nov. 9, 2019 – marking the start of flu season – and has remained at or above that level for 17 consecutive weeks. Last year’s season, which also was the longest in a decade, lasted 21 consecutive weeks but started 2 weeks later than the current season and had a lower outpatient-visit rate (4.5%) for the last week of February, CDC data show.

This season’s earlier start could mean that even a somewhat steep decline in visits to below the baseline rate – marking the end of the season – might take 5 or 6 weeks and would make 2019-2020 even longer than 2018-2019.

The activity situation on the state level reflects the small national decline. For the week ending Feb. 29, there were 33 states at level 10 on the CDC’s 1-10 activity scale, compared with 37 the week before, and a total of 40 in the “high” range of 8-10, compared with 43 the week before, the CDC’s influenza division reported.

The other main measure of influenza activity, percentage of respiratory specimens testing positive, also declined for the third week in a row and is now at 24.3% after reaching a high of 30.3% during the week of Feb. 2-8, the influenza division said.

The overall cumulative hospitalization rate continues to remain at a fairly typical 57.9 per 100,000 population, but rates for school-aged children (84.9 per 100,000) and young adults (31.2 per 100,000) are among the highest ever recorded at this point in the season. Mortality among children – now at 136 for 2019-2020 – is higher than for any season since reporting began in 2004, with the exception of the 2009 pandemic, the CDC said.
 

[email protected]

Nationwide influenza activity declined for the third consecutive week, but the 2019-2020 season is on pace to be the longest in more than a decade.

Outpatient visits to health care providers for influenza-like illness dropped from 5.5% the previous week to 5.3% of all visits for the week ending Feb. 29, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention said on March 6.

The national baseline rate of 2.4% was first reached during the week of Nov. 9, 2019 – marking the start of flu season – and has remained at or above that level for 17 consecutive weeks. Last year’s season, which also was the longest in a decade, lasted 21 consecutive weeks but started 2 weeks later than the current season and had a lower outpatient-visit rate (4.5%) for the last week of February, CDC data show.

This season’s earlier start could mean that even a somewhat steep decline in visits to below the baseline rate – marking the end of the season – might take 5 or 6 weeks and would make 2019-2020 even longer than 2018-2019.

The activity situation on the state level reflects the small national decline. For the week ending Feb. 29, there were 33 states at level 10 on the CDC’s 1-10 activity scale, compared with 37 the week before, and a total of 40 in the “high” range of 8-10, compared with 43 the week before, the CDC’s influenza division reported.

The other main measure of influenza activity, percentage of respiratory specimens testing positive, also declined for the third week in a row and is now at 24.3% after reaching a high of 30.3% during the week of Feb. 2-8, the influenza division said.

The overall cumulative hospitalization rate continues to remain at a fairly typical 57.9 per 100,000 population, but rates for school-aged children (84.9 per 100,000) and young adults (31.2 per 100,000) are among the highest ever recorded at this point in the season. Mortality among children – now at 136 for 2019-2020 – is higher than for any season since reporting began in 2004, with the exception of the 2009 pandemic, the CDC said.
 

[email protected]

Nationwide influenza activity declined for the third consecutive week, but the 2019-2020 season is on pace to be the longest in more than a decade.

Outpatient visits to health care providers for influenza-like illness dropped from 5.5% the previous week to 5.3% of all visits for the week ending Feb. 29, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention said on March 6.

The national baseline rate of 2.4% was first reached during the week of Nov. 9, 2019 – marking the start of flu season – and has remained at or above that level for 17 consecutive weeks. Last year’s season, which also was the longest in a decade, lasted 21 consecutive weeks but started 2 weeks later than the current season and had a lower outpatient-visit rate (4.5%) for the last week of February, CDC data show.

This season’s earlier start could mean that even a somewhat steep decline in visits to below the baseline rate – marking the end of the season – might take 5 or 6 weeks and would make 2019-2020 even longer than 2018-2019.

The activity situation on the state level reflects the small national decline. For the week ending Feb. 29, there were 33 states at level 10 on the CDC’s 1-10 activity scale, compared with 37 the week before, and a total of 40 in the “high” range of 8-10, compared with 43 the week before, the CDC’s influenza division reported.

The other main measure of influenza activity, percentage of respiratory specimens testing positive, also declined for the third week in a row and is now at 24.3% after reaching a high of 30.3% during the week of Feb. 2-8, the influenza division said.

The overall cumulative hospitalization rate continues to remain at a fairly typical 57.9 per 100,000 population, but rates for school-aged children (84.9 per 100,000) and young adults (31.2 per 100,000) are among the highest ever recorded at this point in the season. Mortality among children – now at 136 for 2019-2020 – is higher than for any season since reporting began in 2004, with the exception of the 2009 pandemic, the CDC said.
 

[email protected]

The toilet bowl, sink, and bathroom door handle of an isolation room housing a patient with the novel coronavirus tested positive for the virus, raising the possibility that viral shedding in the stool could represent another route of transmission, investigators reported.

CDC/ Dr. Fred Murphy; Sylvia Whitfield

Air outlet fans and other room sites also tested positive for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), though an anteroom, a corridor, and most personal protective equipment (PPE) worn by health care providers tested negative, according to the researchers, led by Sean Wei Xiang Ong, MBBS, of the National Centre for Infectious Diseases, Singapore.

Taken together, these findings suggest a “need for strict adherence to environmental and hand hygiene” to combat significant environmental contamination through respiratory droplets and fecal shedding, Dr. Ong and colleagues wrote in JAMA.

Aaron Eli Glatt, MD, chair of medicine at Mount Sinai South Nassau in New York, said these results demonstrate that SARS-CoV-2 is “clearly capable” of contaminating bathroom sinks and toilets.

“That wouldn’t have been the first place I would have thought of, before this study,” he said in an interview. “You need to pay attention to cleaning the bathrooms, which we obviously do, but that’s an important reminder.”

The report by Dr. Ong and coauthors included a total of three patients housed in airborne infection isolation rooms in a dedicated SARS-CoV-2 outbreak center in Singapore. For each patient, surface samples were taken from 26 sites in the isolation room, an anteroom, and a bathroom. Samples were also taken from PPE on physicians as they left the patient rooms.

Samples for the first patient, taken right after routine cleaning, were all negative, according to researchers. That room was sampled twice, on days 4 and 10 of the illness, while the patient was still symptomatic. Likewise, for the second patient, postcleaning samples were negative; those samples were taken 2 days after cleaning.

However, for the third patient, samples were taken before routine cleaning. In this case, Dr. Ong and colleagues said 13 of 15 room sites (87%) were positive, including air outlet fans, while 3 of 5 toilet sites (60%) were positive as well, though no contamination was found in the anteroom, corridor, or in air samples.

That patient had two stool samples that were positive for SARS-CoV-2, but no diarrhea, authors said, and had upper respiratory tract involvement without pneumonia.

The fact that swabs of the air exhaust outlets tested positive suggests that virus-laden droplets could be “displaced by airflows” and end up on vents or other equipment, Dr. Ong and coauthors reported.

All PPE samples tested negative, except for the front of one shoe.

“The risk of transmission from contaminated footwear is likely low, as evidenced by negative results in the anteroom and corridor,” they wrote.

While this study included only a small number of patients, Dr. Glatt said the findings represent an important and useful contribution to the literature on coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19).

“Every day we’re getting more information, and each little piece of the puzzle helps us in the overall management of individuals with COVID-19,” he said in the interview. “They’re adding to our ability to manage, control, and mitigate further spread of the disease.”

Funding for the study came from the National Medical Research Council in Singapore and DSO National Laboratories. Dr. Ong and colleagues reported no conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Ong SWX et al. JAMA. 2020 Mar 4. doi: 10.1001/jama.2020.3227.

The toilet bowl, sink, and bathroom door handle of an isolation room housing a patient with the novel coronavirus tested positive for the virus, raising the possibility that viral shedding in the stool could represent another route of transmission, investigators reported.

CDC/ Dr. Fred Murphy; Sylvia Whitfield

Air outlet fans and other room sites also tested positive for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), though an anteroom, a corridor, and most personal protective equipment (PPE) worn by health care providers tested negative, according to the researchers, led by Sean Wei Xiang Ong, MBBS, of the National Centre for Infectious Diseases, Singapore.

Taken together, these findings suggest a “need for strict adherence to environmental and hand hygiene” to combat significant environmental contamination through respiratory droplets and fecal shedding, Dr. Ong and colleagues wrote in JAMA.

Aaron Eli Glatt, MD, chair of medicine at Mount Sinai South Nassau in New York, said these results demonstrate that SARS-CoV-2 is “clearly capable” of contaminating bathroom sinks and toilets.

“That wouldn’t have been the first place I would have thought of, before this study,” he said in an interview. “You need to pay attention to cleaning the bathrooms, which we obviously do, but that’s an important reminder.”

The report by Dr. Ong and coauthors included a total of three patients housed in airborne infection isolation rooms in a dedicated SARS-CoV-2 outbreak center in Singapore. For each patient, surface samples were taken from 26 sites in the isolation room, an anteroom, and a bathroom. Samples were also taken from PPE on physicians as they left the patient rooms.

Samples for the first patient, taken right after routine cleaning, were all negative, according to researchers. That room was sampled twice, on days 4 and 10 of the illness, while the patient was still symptomatic. Likewise, for the second patient, postcleaning samples were negative; those samples were taken 2 days after cleaning.

However, for the third patient, samples were taken before routine cleaning. In this case, Dr. Ong and colleagues said 13 of 15 room sites (87%) were positive, including air outlet fans, while 3 of 5 toilet sites (60%) were positive as well, though no contamination was found in the anteroom, corridor, or in air samples.

That patient had two stool samples that were positive for SARS-CoV-2, but no diarrhea, authors said, and had upper respiratory tract involvement without pneumonia.

The fact that swabs of the air exhaust outlets tested positive suggests that virus-laden droplets could be “displaced by airflows” and end up on vents or other equipment, Dr. Ong and coauthors reported.

All PPE samples tested negative, except for the front of one shoe.

“The risk of transmission from contaminated footwear is likely low, as evidenced by negative results in the anteroom and corridor,” they wrote.

While this study included only a small number of patients, Dr. Glatt said the findings represent an important and useful contribution to the literature on coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19).

“Every day we’re getting more information, and each little piece of the puzzle helps us in the overall management of individuals with COVID-19,” he said in the interview. “They’re adding to our ability to manage, control, and mitigate further spread of the disease.”

Funding for the study came from the National Medical Research Council in Singapore and DSO National Laboratories. Dr. Ong and colleagues reported no conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Ong SWX et al. JAMA. 2020 Mar 4. doi: 10.1001/jama.2020.3227.

The toilet bowl, sink, and bathroom door handle of an isolation room housing a patient with the novel coronavirus tested positive for the virus, raising the possibility that viral shedding in the stool could represent another route of transmission, investigators reported.

CDC/ Dr. Fred Murphy; Sylvia Whitfield

Air outlet fans and other room sites also tested positive for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), though an anteroom, a corridor, and most personal protective equipment (PPE) worn by health care providers tested negative, according to the researchers, led by Sean Wei Xiang Ong, MBBS, of the National Centre for Infectious Diseases, Singapore.

Taken together, these findings suggest a “need for strict adherence to environmental and hand hygiene” to combat significant environmental contamination through respiratory droplets and fecal shedding, Dr. Ong and colleagues wrote in JAMA.

Aaron Eli Glatt, MD, chair of medicine at Mount Sinai South Nassau in New York, said these results demonstrate that SARS-CoV-2 is “clearly capable” of contaminating bathroom sinks and toilets.

“That wouldn’t have been the first place I would have thought of, before this study,” he said in an interview. “You need to pay attention to cleaning the bathrooms, which we obviously do, but that’s an important reminder.”

The report by Dr. Ong and coauthors included a total of three patients housed in airborne infection isolation rooms in a dedicated SARS-CoV-2 outbreak center in Singapore. For each patient, surface samples were taken from 26 sites in the isolation room, an anteroom, and a bathroom. Samples were also taken from PPE on physicians as they left the patient rooms.

Samples for the first patient, taken right after routine cleaning, were all negative, according to researchers. That room was sampled twice, on days 4 and 10 of the illness, while the patient was still symptomatic. Likewise, for the second patient, postcleaning samples were negative; those samples were taken 2 days after cleaning.

However, for the third patient, samples were taken before routine cleaning. In this case, Dr. Ong and colleagues said 13 of 15 room sites (87%) were positive, including air outlet fans, while 3 of 5 toilet sites (60%) were positive as well, though no contamination was found in the anteroom, corridor, or in air samples.

That patient had two stool samples that were positive for SARS-CoV-2, but no diarrhea, authors said, and had upper respiratory tract involvement without pneumonia.

The fact that swabs of the air exhaust outlets tested positive suggests that virus-laden droplets could be “displaced by airflows” and end up on vents or other equipment, Dr. Ong and coauthors reported.

All PPE samples tested negative, except for the front of one shoe.

“The risk of transmission from contaminated footwear is likely low, as evidenced by negative results in the anteroom and corridor,” they wrote.

While this study included only a small number of patients, Dr. Glatt said the findings represent an important and useful contribution to the literature on coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19).

“Every day we’re getting more information, and each little piece of the puzzle helps us in the overall management of individuals with COVID-19,” he said in the interview. “They’re adding to our ability to manage, control, and mitigate further spread of the disease.”

Funding for the study came from the National Medical Research Council in Singapore and DSO National Laboratories. Dr. Ong and colleagues reported no conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Ong SWX et al. JAMA. 2020 Mar 4. doi: 10.1001/jama.2020.3227.

Telehealth is increasingly being viewed as a key way to help fight the COVID-19 outbreak in the United States. Recognizing the potential of this technology to slow the spread of the disease, the House of Representatives included a provision in an $8.3 billion emergency response bill it approved today that would temporarily lift restrictions on Medicare telehealth coverage to assist in the efforts to contain the virus.

Nancy Messonnier, MD, director of the National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), said that hospitals should be prepared to use telehealth as one of their tools in fighting the outbreak, according to a recent news release from the American Hospital Association (AHA).

Congress is responding to that need by including the service in the new coronavirus legislation now headed to the Senate, after the funding bill was approved in a 415-2 vote by the House.

The bill empowers the Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS) to “waive or modify application of certain Medicare requirements with respect to telehealth services furnished during certain emergency periods.”

While the measure adds telehealth to the waiver authority that the HHS secretary currently has during national emergencies, it’s only for the coronavirus crisis in this case, Krista Drobac, executive director of the Alliance for Connected Care, told Medscape Medical News.

The waiver would apply to originating sites of telehealth visits, she noted. Thus Medicare coverage of telemedicine would be expanded beyond rural areas.

In addition, the waiver would allow coverage of virtual visits conducted on smartphones with audio and video capabilities. A “qualified provider,” as defined by the legislation, would be a practitioner who has an established relationship with the patient or who is in the same practice as the provider who has that relationship.

An advantage of telehealth, proponents say, is that it can enable people who believe they have COVID-19 to be seen at home rather than visit offices or emergency departments (EDs) where they might spread the disease or be in proximity to others who have it.

In an editorial published March 2 in Modern Healthcare, medical directors from Stanford Medicine, MedStar Health, and Intermountain Healthcare also noted that telehealth can give patients 24/7 access to care, allow surveillance of patients at risk while keeping them at home, ensure that treatment in hospitals is reserved for high-need patients, and enable providers to triage and screen more patients than can be handled in brick-and-mortar care settings.

However, telehealth screening would allow physicians only to judge whether a patient’s symptoms might be indicative of COVID-19, the Alliance for Connected Care, a telehealth advocacy group, noted in a letter to Congressional leaders. Patients would still have to be seen in person to be tested for the disease.

The group, which represents technology companies, health insurers, pharmacies, and other healthcare players, has been lobbying Congress to include telehealth in federal funds to combat the outbreak.

The American Telemedicine Association (ATA) also supports this goal, ATA President Joseph Kvedar, MD, told Medscape Medical News. And the authors of the Modern Healthcare editorial also advocated for this legislative solution. Because the fatality rate for COVID-19 is significantly higher for older people than for other age groups, they noted, telehealth should be an economically viable option for all seniors.

The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) long covered telemedicine only in rural areas and only when initiated in healthcare settings. Recently, however, CMS loosened its approach to some extent. Virtual “check-in visits” can now be initiated from any location, including home, to determine whether a Medicare patient needs to be seen in the office. In addition, CMS allows Medicare Advantage plans to offer telemedicine as a core benefit.

Are healthcare systems prepared?

Some large healthcare systems such as Stanford, MedStar, and Intermountain are already using telehealth to diagnose and treat patients who have traditional influenza. Telehealth providers at Stanford estimate that almost 50% of these patients are being prescribed the antiviral drug Tamiflu.

It’s unclear whether other healthcare systems are this well prepared to offer telehealth on a large scale. But, according to an AHA survey, Kvedar noted, three quarters of AHA members are engaged in some form of telehealth.

Drobac said “it wouldn’t require too much effort” to ramp up a wide-scale telehealth program that could help reduce the impact of the outbreak. “The technology is there,” she noted. “You need a HIPAA-compliant telehealth platform, but there are so many out there.”

Kvedar agreed. To begin with, he said, hospitals might sequester patients who visit the ED with COVID-19 symptoms in a video-equipped “isolation room.” Staff members could then do the patient intake from a different location in the hospital.

He admitted that this approach would be infeasible if a lot of patients arrived in EDs with coronavirus symptoms. However, Kvedar noted, “All the tools are in place to go well beyond that. American Well, Teladoc, and others are all offering ways to get out in front of this. There are plenty of vendors out there, and most people have a connected cell phone that you can do a video call on.”

Hospital leaders would have to decide whether to embrace telehealth, which would mean less use of services in their institutions, he said. “But it would be for the greater good of the public.”

Kvedar recalled that there was some use of telehealth in the New York area after 9/11. Telehealth was also used in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina in 2005. But the ATA president, who is also vice president of connected health at Partners HealthCare in Boston, noted that the COVID-19 outbreak is the first public health emergency to occur in the era of Skype and smartphones.

If Congress does ultimately authorize CMS to cover telehealth across the board during this emergency, might that lead to a permanent change in Medicare coverage policy? Kvedar wouldn’t venture an opinion. “However, the current CMS leadership has been incredibly telehealth friendly,” he said. “So it’s possible they would [embrace a lifting of restrictions]. As patients get a sense of this modality of care and how convenient it is for them, they’ll start asking for more.”

Meanwhile, he said, the telehealth opportunity goes beyond video visits with doctors to mitigate the outbreak. Telehealth data could also be used to track disease spread, similar to how researchers have studied Google searches to predict the spread of the flu, he noted.

Teladoc, a major telehealth vendor, recently told stock analysts it’s already working with the CDC on disease surveillance, according to a report in FierceHealthcare.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Telehealth is increasingly being viewed as a key way to help fight the COVID-19 outbreak in the United States. Recognizing the potential of this technology to slow the spread of the disease, the House of Representatives included a provision in an $8.3 billion emergency response bill it approved today that would temporarily lift restrictions on Medicare telehealth coverage to assist in the efforts to contain the virus.

Nancy Messonnier, MD, director of the National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), said that hospitals should be prepared to use telehealth as one of their tools in fighting the outbreak, according to a recent news release from the American Hospital Association (AHA).

Congress is responding to that need by including the service in the new coronavirus legislation now headed to the Senate, after the funding bill was approved in a 415-2 vote by the House.

The bill empowers the Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS) to “waive or modify application of certain Medicare requirements with respect to telehealth services furnished during certain emergency periods.”

While the measure adds telehealth to the waiver authority that the HHS secretary currently has during national emergencies, it’s only for the coronavirus crisis in this case, Krista Drobac, executive director of the Alliance for Connected Care, told Medscape Medical News.

The waiver would apply to originating sites of telehealth visits, she noted. Thus Medicare coverage of telemedicine would be expanded beyond rural areas.

In addition, the waiver would allow coverage of virtual visits conducted on smartphones with audio and video capabilities. A “qualified provider,” as defined by the legislation, would be a practitioner who has an established relationship with the patient or who is in the same practice as the provider who has that relationship.

An advantage of telehealth, proponents say, is that it can enable people who believe they have COVID-19 to be seen at home rather than visit offices or emergency departments (EDs) where they might spread the disease or be in proximity to others who have it.

In an editorial published March 2 in Modern Healthcare, medical directors from Stanford Medicine, MedStar Health, and Intermountain Healthcare also noted that telehealth can give patients 24/7 access to care, allow surveillance of patients at risk while keeping them at home, ensure that treatment in hospitals is reserved for high-need patients, and enable providers to triage and screen more patients than can be handled in brick-and-mortar care settings.

However, telehealth screening would allow physicians only to judge whether a patient’s symptoms might be indicative of COVID-19, the Alliance for Connected Care, a telehealth advocacy group, noted in a letter to Congressional leaders. Patients would still have to be seen in person to be tested for the disease.

The group, which represents technology companies, health insurers, pharmacies, and other healthcare players, has been lobbying Congress to include telehealth in federal funds to combat the outbreak.

The American Telemedicine Association (ATA) also supports this goal, ATA President Joseph Kvedar, MD, told Medscape Medical News. And the authors of the Modern Healthcare editorial also advocated for this legislative solution. Because the fatality rate for COVID-19 is significantly higher for older people than for other age groups, they noted, telehealth should be an economically viable option for all seniors.

The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) long covered telemedicine only in rural areas and only when initiated in healthcare settings. Recently, however, CMS loosened its approach to some extent. Virtual “check-in visits” can now be initiated from any location, including home, to determine whether a Medicare patient needs to be seen in the office. In addition, CMS allows Medicare Advantage plans to offer telemedicine as a core benefit.

Are healthcare systems prepared?

Some large healthcare systems such as Stanford, MedStar, and Intermountain are already using telehealth to diagnose and treat patients who have traditional influenza. Telehealth providers at Stanford estimate that almost 50% of these patients are being prescribed the antiviral drug Tamiflu.

It’s unclear whether other healthcare systems are this well prepared to offer telehealth on a large scale. But, according to an AHA survey, Kvedar noted, three quarters of AHA members are engaged in some form of telehealth.

Drobac said “it wouldn’t require too much effort” to ramp up a wide-scale telehealth program that could help reduce the impact of the outbreak. “The technology is there,” she noted. “You need a HIPAA-compliant telehealth platform, but there are so many out there.”

Kvedar agreed. To begin with, he said, hospitals might sequester patients who visit the ED with COVID-19 symptoms in a video-equipped “isolation room.” Staff members could then do the patient intake from a different location in the hospital.

He admitted that this approach would be infeasible if a lot of patients arrived in EDs with coronavirus symptoms. However, Kvedar noted, “All the tools are in place to go well beyond that. American Well, Teladoc, and others are all offering ways to get out in front of this. There are plenty of vendors out there, and most people have a connected cell phone that you can do a video call on.”

Hospital leaders would have to decide whether to embrace telehealth, which would mean less use of services in their institutions, he said. “But it would be for the greater good of the public.”

Kvedar recalled that there was some use of telehealth in the New York area after 9/11. Telehealth was also used in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina in 2005. But the ATA president, who is also vice president of connected health at Partners HealthCare in Boston, noted that the COVID-19 outbreak is the first public health emergency to occur in the era of Skype and smartphones.

If Congress does ultimately authorize CMS to cover telehealth across the board during this emergency, might that lead to a permanent change in Medicare coverage policy? Kvedar wouldn’t venture an opinion. “However, the current CMS leadership has been incredibly telehealth friendly,” he said. “So it’s possible they would [embrace a lifting of restrictions]. As patients get a sense of this modality of care and how convenient it is for them, they’ll start asking for more.”

Meanwhile, he said, the telehealth opportunity goes beyond video visits with doctors to mitigate the outbreak. Telehealth data could also be used to track disease spread, similar to how researchers have studied Google searches to predict the spread of the flu, he noted.

Teladoc, a major telehealth vendor, recently told stock analysts it’s already working with the CDC on disease surveillance, according to a report in FierceHealthcare.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Telehealth is increasingly being viewed as a key way to help fight the COVID-19 outbreak in the United States. Recognizing the potential of this technology to slow the spread of the disease, the House of Representatives included a provision in an $8.3 billion emergency response bill it approved today that would temporarily lift restrictions on Medicare telehealth coverage to assist in the efforts to contain the virus.

Nancy Messonnier, MD, director of the National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), said that hospitals should be prepared to use telehealth as one of their tools in fighting the outbreak, according to a recent news release from the American Hospital Association (AHA).

Congress is responding to that need by including the service in the new coronavirus legislation now headed to the Senate, after the funding bill was approved in a 415-2 vote by the House.

The bill empowers the Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS) to “waive or modify application of certain Medicare requirements with respect to telehealth services furnished during certain emergency periods.”

While the measure adds telehealth to the waiver authority that the HHS secretary currently has during national emergencies, it’s only for the coronavirus crisis in this case, Krista Drobac, executive director of the Alliance for Connected Care, told Medscape Medical News.

The waiver would apply to originating sites of telehealth visits, she noted. Thus Medicare coverage of telemedicine would be expanded beyond rural areas.

In addition, the waiver would allow coverage of virtual visits conducted on smartphones with audio and video capabilities. A “qualified provider,” as defined by the legislation, would be a practitioner who has an established relationship with the patient or who is in the same practice as the provider who has that relationship.

An advantage of telehealth, proponents say, is that it can enable people who believe they have COVID-19 to be seen at home rather than visit offices or emergency departments (EDs) where they might spread the disease or be in proximity to others who have it.

In an editorial published March 2 in Modern Healthcare, medical directors from Stanford Medicine, MedStar Health, and Intermountain Healthcare also noted that telehealth can give patients 24/7 access to care, allow surveillance of patients at risk while keeping them at home, ensure that treatment in hospitals is reserved for high-need patients, and enable providers to triage and screen more patients than can be handled in brick-and-mortar care settings.

However, telehealth screening would allow physicians only to judge whether a patient’s symptoms might be indicative of COVID-19, the Alliance for Connected Care, a telehealth advocacy group, noted in a letter to Congressional leaders. Patients would still have to be seen in person to be tested for the disease.

The group, which represents technology companies, health insurers, pharmacies, and other healthcare players, has been lobbying Congress to include telehealth in federal funds to combat the outbreak.

The American Telemedicine Association (ATA) also supports this goal, ATA President Joseph Kvedar, MD, told Medscape Medical News. And the authors of the Modern Healthcare editorial also advocated for this legislative solution. Because the fatality rate for COVID-19 is significantly higher for older people than for other age groups, they noted, telehealth should be an economically viable option for all seniors.

The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) long covered telemedicine only in rural areas and only when initiated in healthcare settings. Recently, however, CMS loosened its approach to some extent. Virtual “check-in visits” can now be initiated from any location, including home, to determine whether a Medicare patient needs to be seen in the office. In addition, CMS allows Medicare Advantage plans to offer telemedicine as a core benefit.

Are healthcare systems prepared?

Some large healthcare systems such as Stanford, MedStar, and Intermountain are already using telehealth to diagnose and treat patients who have traditional influenza. Telehealth providers at Stanford estimate that almost 50% of these patients are being prescribed the antiviral drug Tamiflu.

It’s unclear whether other healthcare systems are this well prepared to offer telehealth on a large scale. But, according to an AHA survey, Kvedar noted, three quarters of AHA members are engaged in some form of telehealth.

Drobac said “it wouldn’t require too much effort” to ramp up a wide-scale telehealth program that could help reduce the impact of the outbreak. “The technology is there,” she noted. “You need a HIPAA-compliant telehealth platform, but there are so many out there.”

Kvedar agreed. To begin with, he said, hospitals might sequester patients who visit the ED with COVID-19 symptoms in a video-equipped “isolation room.” Staff members could then do the patient intake from a different location in the hospital.

He admitted that this approach would be infeasible if a lot of patients arrived in EDs with coronavirus symptoms. However, Kvedar noted, “All the tools are in place to go well beyond that. American Well, Teladoc, and others are all offering ways to get out in front of this. There are plenty of vendors out there, and most people have a connected cell phone that you can do a video call on.”

Hospital leaders would have to decide whether to embrace telehealth, which would mean less use of services in their institutions, he said. “But it would be for the greater good of the public.”

Kvedar recalled that there was some use of telehealth in the New York area after 9/11. Telehealth was also used in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina in 2005. But the ATA president, who is also vice president of connected health at Partners HealthCare in Boston, noted that the COVID-19 outbreak is the first public health emergency to occur in the era of Skype and smartphones.

If Congress does ultimately authorize CMS to cover telehealth across the board during this emergency, might that lead to a permanent change in Medicare coverage policy? Kvedar wouldn’t venture an opinion. “However, the current CMS leadership has been incredibly telehealth friendly,” he said. “So it’s possible they would [embrace a lifting of restrictions]. As patients get a sense of this modality of care and how convenient it is for them, they’ll start asking for more.”

Meanwhile, he said, the telehealth opportunity goes beyond video visits with doctors to mitigate the outbreak. Telehealth data could also be used to track disease spread, similar to how researchers have studied Google searches to predict the spread of the flu, he noted.

Teladoc, a major telehealth vendor, recently told stock analysts it’s already working with the CDC on disease surveillance, according to a report in FierceHealthcare.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Background

On Dec. 31, 2019, the Chinese city of Wuhan reported an outbreak of pneumonia from an unknown cause. The outbreak was found to be linked to the Hunan seafood market because of a shared history of exposure by many patients. After a full-scale investigation, China’s Center for Disease Control activated a level 2 emergency response on Jan. 4, 2020. A novel coronavirus was officially identified as a causative pathogen for the outbreak.¹

Coronavirus, first discovered in the 1960s, is a respiratory RNA virus, most commonly associated with the “common cold.” However, we have had two highly pathogenic forms of coronavirus that originated from animal reservoirs, leading to global epidemics. This includes SARS-CoV in 2002-2004 and MERS-CoV in 2012 with more than 10,000 combined cases. The primary host has been bats, but mammals like camels, cattle, cats, and palm civets have been intermediate hosts in previous epidemics.²

The International Committee on Taxonomy of Viruses named the 2019-nCoV officially as severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), which causes the coronavirus disease, COVID-19, on Feb. 11, 2020.³ Currently, the presentation includes fever, cough, trouble breathing, fatigue, and, rarely, watery diarrhea. More severe presentations include respiratory failure and death. Based on the incubation period of illness for Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS) and severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) coronaviruses, as well as observational data from reports of travel-related COVID-19, CDC estimates that symptoms of COVID-19 occur within 2-14 days after exposure. Asymptomatic transmission is also documented in some cases.⁴

On Jan. 13, the first case of COVID-19 outside of China was identified in Thailand. On Jan. 21, the first case of COVID-19 was identified in the United States. On Jan. 23, Chinese authorities suspended travel in and out of Wuhan, followed by other cities in the Hubei Province, leading to a quarantine of 50 million people. By Jan. 30, the World Health Organization had identified COVID-19 as the highest level of an epidemic alert referred to as a PHEIC: Public Health Emergency of International Concern. On Feb. 2, the first death outside China from coronavirus was reported in the Philippines. As of March 4 there have been 95,000 confirmed cases and 3,246 deaths globally. Within China, there have been 80,200 cases with 2,981 deaths.⁵

Cases have now been diagnosed in increasing numbers in Italy, Japan, South Korea, Iran, and 76 countries. Of note, the fatalities were of patients already in critical condition, who were typically older (more than 60 years old, especially more than 80) and immunocompromised with comorbid conditions (cardiovascular disease, diabetes, chronic respiratory disease, cancer).⁶ To put this in perspective, since 2010, CDC reports 140,000-810,000 hospitalizations and 12,000-61,000 deaths from the influenza virus annually in the US.⁷
 

The current situation in the United States

In the United States, as of March 4, 2020, there are currently 152 confirmed cases in 16 states. The first U.S. case of coronavirus without any of the travel-related and exposure risk factors was identified on Feb. 27 in California, indicating the first instance of community spread.⁸ The first death was reported in Washington state on Feb. 28, after which the state’s governor declared a state of emergency.⁹ On March 1, Washington state health officials investigated an outbreak of coronavirus at a long-term nursing facility in which two people tested positive for the disease, heralding the probable first nosocomial transmission of the virus in the United States. Since then, there have been 10 deaths in Washington state related to the coronavirus.

Current interventions in the United States

The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention is leading a multiagency effort to combat the COVID-19 potential pandemic. A Feb. 24 report in Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report revealed that 1,336 CDC staff members have been involved in the COVID-19 response.¹⁰ CDC staff members have been deployed to 39 locations in the United States and internationally. CDC staff members are working with state and local health departments and other public health authorities to assist with case identification, contact tracing, evaluation of persons under investigation (PUI) for COVID-19, and medical management of cases, as well as with research and academic institutions to understand the virulence, risk for transmission, and other characteristics of this novel virus. The CDC is also working with other agencies of the U.S. government including the U.S. Department of Defense, Department of Health & Human Services and the U.S. Department of State to safely evacuate U.S. citizens, residents, and their families from international locations with high incidence and transmission of COVID-19.

Specific real-time updated guidance has been developed and posted online for health care settings for patient management, infection control and prevention, laboratory testing, environmental cleaning, worker safety, and international travel. The CDC has developed communications materials in English and Spanish for communities and guidance for health care settings, public health, laboratories, schools, and businesses to prepare for a potential pandemic. Travel advisories to countries affected by the epidemic are regularly updated to inform travelers and clinicians about current health issues that need to be considered before travel.¹¹ A level 3 travel notice (avoid all nonessential travel) for China has been in effect since Jan. 27, and on Feb. 29 this was upgraded to a level 4 travel notice.¹² Airport screening has been implemented in the 11 U.S. international airports to which flights from China have been diverted, and a total of 46,016 air travelers had been screened by Feb. 23. Incoming passengers are screened for fever, cough, and shortness of breath.

Currently, the CDC has a comprehensive algorithm for further investigation of a PUI – fever, cough, shortness of breath, and a history of travel to areas with increased coronavirus circulation within 14 days of onset of symptoms, OR a close household contact of a confirmed case. When there is a PUI, the current protocol indicates health care providers should alert a local or state health department official. After the health department completes a case investigation, the CDC will help transport specimens (upper respiratory and lower respiratory specimens, and sometimes stool or urine) as soon as possible to the centralized lab for polymerase chain reaction (PCR) testing.¹³ CDC laboratories are currently using real-time reverse transcription–PCR (RT-PCR). The CDC is also developing a serologic test to assist with surveillance for SARS-CoV-2 circulation in the U.S. population. There is also a safe repository of viral isolates set up to help with sharing of isolates with academic institutions for research purposes.¹⁴

At hospitals and outpatient offices in the United States, we are preparing for potential cases by reminding frontline health care workers to routinely ask about travel history in addition to relevant symptoms. By eliciting the history early, they should be able to identify and isolate PUIs, appropriately minimizing exposure. Some facilities are displaying signage in waiting rooms to alert patients to provide relevant history, helping to improve triage. COVID-19 symptoms are like those of influenza (e.g., fever, cough, and shortness of breath), and the current outbreak is occurring during a time of year when respiratory illnesses from influenza and other viruses are highly prevalent. To prevent influenza and possible unnecessary evaluation for COVID-19, all persons aged 6 months and older are strongly encouraged to receive an annual influenza vaccine.

To decrease the risk for respiratory disease, persons can practice recommended preventive measures. Persons ill with symptoms of COVID-19 who have had contact with a person with COVID-19, or recent travel to countries with apparent community spread, should proactively communicate with their health care provider before showing up at the health care facility to help make arrangements to prevent possible transmission in the health care setting. In a medical emergency, they should inform emergency medical personnel about possible COVID-19 exposure. If found positive, the current recommendation is to place patients on airborne isolation. N95 masks are being recommended for health care professionals. Hospitals are reinforcing effective infection control procedures, updating pandemic preparedness protocols, and ensuring adequate supplies in the case of an enormous influx of patients.¹⁵

Challenges and opportunities

Many challenges present in the process of getting prepared for a potential outbreak. Personal protective equipment such as N-95 masks are in short supply, as they are in high demand in the general public.¹⁶ The CDC currently does not recommend that members of the general public use face masks, given low levels of circulation of SARS-CoV-2 currently in the United States. The CDC has developed several documents regarding infection control, hospital preparedness assessments, personal protective equipment (PPE) supply planning, clinical evaluation and management, and respirator conservation strategies.

The RT-PCR test developed by the CDC has had some setbacks, with recent testing kits showing “inconclusive results.” The testing was initially available only through the CDC lab in Atlanta, with a 48-hour turnaround. This led to potential delays in diagnosis and the timely isolation and treatment of infected patients. On March 3, the CDC broadened the guidelines for coronavirus testing, allowing clinicians to order a test for any patients who have symptoms of COVID-19 infection. The greatest need is for decentralized testing in local and state labs, as well as validated testing in local hospitals and commercial labs. The ability to develop and scale-up diagnostic abilities is critically important.

There is also concern about overwhelming hospitals with a strain on the availability of beds, ventilators, and airborne isolation rooms. The CDC is recommending leveraging telehealth tools to direct people to the right level of health care for their medical needs. Hospitalization should only be for the sickest patients.¹⁷

Funding for a pandemic response is of paramount importance. Proposed 2021 federal budget cuts include $2.9 billion in cuts to the National Institutes of Health, and $708 million in cuts to the CDC, which makes the situation look especially worrisome as we face a potentially severe pandemic. The Infectious Diseases Society of America identifies antimicrobial resistance, NIH research, global health security, global HIV epidemic, and CDC vaccine programs as five “deeply underfunded” areas in the federal budget.¹⁸

The NIH has recently begun the first randomized clinical trial, treating patients at the University of Nebraska with laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 with a broad-spectrum antiviral drug called remdesivir. Patients from the Diamond Princess Cruise ship are also participating in this clinical trial. This study will hopefully shed light on potential treatments for coronavirus to stop or alleviate the consequences in real time. Similar clinical trials are also occurring in China.¹⁹

Vaccine development is underway in many public and private research facilities, but it will take approximately 6-18 months before they will be available for use. In the absence of a vaccine or therapeutic, community mitigation measures are the primary method to respond to the widespread transmission, and supportive care is the current medical treatment. In the case of a pandemic, the mitigation measures might include school dismissals and social distancing in other settings, like suspension of mass gatherings, telework and remote-meeting options in workplaces.

Many respected medical journals in the United States have made access to SARS-CoV-2 articles and literature readily and freely available, which is a remarkable step. Multiple societies and journals have made information available in real time and have used media effectively (e.g., podcasts, e-learning) to disseminate information to the general public. Articles have been made available in other languages, including Chinese.
 

Conclusions

In summary, there have been 3,280 total deaths attributable to SARS-CoV-2 to date globally, mostly among geriatric patients with comorbidities. To provide some perspective on the statistics, influenza has killed almost 14,000 patients this season alone (much more than coronavirus). COVID-19 is undoubtedly a global public health threat. We in the U.S. health care system are taking swift public health actions, including isolation of patients and contacts to prevent secondary spread, but it is unclear if this is enough to stop an outbreak from becoming a pandemic.

The CDC is warning of significant social and economic disruption in the coming weeks, with more expected community spread and confirmed cases. It is challenging to prepare for a pandemic when the transmission dynamics are not clearly known, the duration of infectiousness is not well defined, and asymptomatic transmission is a possibility. It is time for the public to be informed from trusted sources and avoid unverified information, especially on social media which can lead to confusion and panic. The spread of COVID-19 infection in the United States is inevitable, and there must be sufficient, well-coordinated planning that can curtail the spread and reduce the impact.
 

Dr. Tirupathi is the medical director of Keystone Infectious Diseases/HIV in Chambersburg, Pa., and currently chair of infection prevention at Wellspan Chambersburg and Waynesboro (Pa.) Hospitals. He also is the lead physician for antibiotic stewardship at these hospitals. Dr. Palabindala is hospital medicine division chief at the University of Mississippi Medical Center, Jackson. Ms. Sathya Areti is a 3rd-year medical student at the Virginia Commonwealth University School of Medicine (class of 2021), planning to apply into Internal Medicine-Pediatrics. Dr. Swetha Areti is currently working as a hospitalist at Wellspan Chambersburg Hospital and is also a member of the Wellspan Pharmacy and Therapeutics committee.

References

1. Phelan AL et al. The novel coronavirus originating in Wuhan, China: Challenges for global health governance. JAMA. 2020;323(8):709-10. doi: 10.1001/jama.2020.1097.

2. del Rio C, Malani PN. 2019 Novel coronavirus – Important information for clinicians. JAMA. Published online Feb. 5, 2020. doi: 10.1001/jama.2020.1490.

3. Gorbalenya AE et al. Severe acute respiratory syndrome-related coronavirus: The species and its viruses – a statement of the Coronavirus Study Group. bioRxiv. Published Jan. 1, 2020. doi: 10.1101/2020.02.07.937862.

4. Jernigan DB. CDC COVID-19 response team. Update: Public health response to the coronavirus disease 2019 outbreak – United States, Feb 24, 2020. MMWR Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report 2020;69:216-19. doi: 10.15585/mmwr.mm6908e1.

5. Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Situation Report – 40. Published Feb. 29, 2020.

6. Kaiyuan Sun, et al. Early epidemiological analysis of the coronavirus disease 2019 outbreak based on crowdsourced data: a population level observational study, Feb. 20, 2020. Lancet Digital Health 2020. doi: 10.1016/S2589-7500(20)30026-1.

7. Rolfes MA et al. Annual estimates of the burden of seasonal influenza in the United States: A tool for strengthening influenza surveillance and preparedness. Influenza Other Respir Viruses. 2018;12(1):132-7. doi: 10.1111/irv.12486.

8. Jernigan DB. CDC COVID-19 response team. Update: Public health response to the coronavirus disease 2019 outbreak – United States, Feb. 24, 2020. MMWR Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report 2020;69:216-19. doi: 10.15585/mmwr.mm6908e1.

9. Jablon R, Baumann L. Washington governor declares state of emergency over virus. AP News. Published Feb. 29, 2020.

10. Jernigan DB, CDC COVID-19 response team. Update: Public health response to the coronavirus disease 2019 outbreak – United States, Feb. 24, 2020. MMWR Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report 2020; 69:216-219. doi: 10.15585/mmwr.mm6908e1.

11. Information for health departments on reporting a person under investigation (PUI) or laboratory-confirmed case for COVID-19. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Published Feb 24, 2020.

12. Hines M. Coronavirus: Travel advisory for Italy, South Korea raised to level 4, ‘Do Not Travel’. USA Today. Published Feb. 29, 2020.

13. Information for health departments on reporting a person under investigation (PUI) or laboratory-confirmed case for COVID-19. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Published Feb. 24, 2020.

14. CDC Tests for COVID-19. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Published Feb. 25, 2020.

15. Jernigan DB. CDC COVID-19 response team. Update: Public health response to the coronavirus disease 2019 outbreak – United States, Feb. 24, 2020. MMWR Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report 2020; 69:216-19. doi: 10.15585/mmwr.mm6908e1.

16. Gunia A. The global shortage of medical masks won’t be easing soon. Time. Published Feb. 27, 2020.

17. CDC in action: Preparing communities for potential spread of COVID-19. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Published Feb. 23, 2020.

18. Kadets L. White House budget cuts vital domestic and global public health programs. IDSA Home. Published 2020.

19. NIH clinical trial of remdesivir to treat COVID-19 begins. National Institutes of Health. Feb. 25, 2020.

Background

On Dec. 31, 2019, the Chinese city of Wuhan reported an outbreak of pneumonia from an unknown cause. The outbreak was found to be linked to the Hunan seafood market because of a shared history of exposure by many patients. After a full-scale investigation, China’s Center for Disease Control activated a level 2 emergency response on Jan. 4, 2020. A novel coronavirus was officially identified as a causative pathogen for the outbreak.¹

Coronavirus, first discovered in the 1960s, is a respiratory RNA virus, most commonly associated with the “common cold.” However, we have had two highly pathogenic forms of coronavirus that originated from animal reservoirs, leading to global epidemics. This includes SARS-CoV in 2002-2004 and MERS-CoV in 2012 with more than 10,000 combined cases. The primary host has been bats, but mammals like camels, cattle, cats, and palm civets have been intermediate hosts in previous epidemics.²

The International Committee on Taxonomy of Viruses named the 2019-nCoV officially as severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), which causes the coronavirus disease, COVID-19, on Feb. 11, 2020.³ Currently, the presentation includes fever, cough, trouble breathing, fatigue, and, rarely, watery diarrhea. More severe presentations include respiratory failure and death. Based on the incubation period of illness for Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS) and severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) coronaviruses, as well as observational data from reports of travel-related COVID-19, CDC estimates that symptoms of COVID-19 occur within 2-14 days after exposure. Asymptomatic transmission is also documented in some cases.⁴

On Jan. 13, the first case of COVID-19 outside of China was identified in Thailand. On Jan. 21, the first case of COVID-19 was identified in the United States. On Jan. 23, Chinese authorities suspended travel in and out of Wuhan, followed by other cities in the Hubei Province, leading to a quarantine of 50 million people. By Jan. 30, the World Health Organization had identified COVID-19 as the highest level of an epidemic alert referred to as a PHEIC: Public Health Emergency of International Concern. On Feb. 2, the first death outside China from coronavirus was reported in the Philippines. As of March 4 there have been 95,000 confirmed cases and 3,246 deaths globally. Within China, there have been 80,200 cases with 2,981 deaths.⁵

Cases have now been diagnosed in increasing numbers in Italy, Japan, South Korea, Iran, and 76 countries. Of note, the fatalities were of patients already in critical condition, who were typically older (more than 60 years old, especially more than 80) and immunocompromised with comorbid conditions (cardiovascular disease, diabetes, chronic respiratory disease, cancer).⁶ To put this in perspective, since 2010, CDC reports 140,000-810,000 hospitalizations and 12,000-61,000 deaths from the influenza virus annually in the US.⁷
 

The current situation in the United States

In the United States, as of March 4, 2020, there are currently 152 confirmed cases in 16 states. The first U.S. case of coronavirus without any of the travel-related and exposure risk factors was identified on Feb. 27 in California, indicating the first instance of community spread.⁸ The first death was reported in Washington state on Feb. 28, after which the state’s governor declared a state of emergency.⁹ On March 1, Washington state health officials investigated an outbreak of coronavirus at a long-term nursing facility in which two people tested positive for the disease, heralding the probable first nosocomial transmission of the virus in the United States. Since then, there have been 10 deaths in Washington state related to the coronavirus.

Current interventions in the United States

The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention is leading a multiagency effort to combat the COVID-19 potential pandemic. A Feb. 24 report in Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report revealed that 1,336 CDC staff members have been involved in the COVID-19 response.¹⁰ CDC staff members have been deployed to 39 locations in the United States and internationally. CDC staff members are working with state and local health departments and other public health authorities to assist with case identification, contact tracing, evaluation of persons under investigation (PUI) for COVID-19, and medical management of cases, as well as with research and academic institutions to understand the virulence, risk for transmission, and other characteristics of this novel virus. The CDC is also working with other agencies of the U.S. government including the U.S. Department of Defense, Department of Health & Human Services and the U.S. Department of State to safely evacuate U.S. citizens, residents, and their families from international locations with high incidence and transmission of COVID-19.

Specific real-time updated guidance has been developed and posted online for health care settings for patient management, infection control and prevention, laboratory testing, environmental cleaning, worker safety, and international travel. The CDC has developed communications materials in English and Spanish for communities and guidance for health care settings, public health, laboratories, schools, and businesses to prepare for a potential pandemic. Travel advisories to countries affected by the epidemic are regularly updated to inform travelers and clinicians about current health issues that need to be considered before travel.¹¹ A level 3 travel notice (avoid all nonessential travel) for China has been in effect since Jan. 27, and on Feb. 29 this was upgraded to a level 4 travel notice.¹² Airport screening has been implemented in the 11 U.S. international airports to which flights from China have been diverted, and a total of 46,016 air travelers had been screened by Feb. 23. Incoming passengers are screened for fever, cough, and shortness of breath.

Currently, the CDC has a comprehensive algorithm for further investigation of a PUI – fever, cough, shortness of breath, and a history of travel to areas with increased coronavirus circulation within 14 days of onset of symptoms, OR a close household contact of a confirmed case. When there is a PUI, the current protocol indicates health care providers should alert a local or state health department official. After the health department completes a case investigation, the CDC will help transport specimens (upper respiratory and lower respiratory specimens, and sometimes stool or urine) as soon as possible to the centralized lab for polymerase chain reaction (PCR) testing.¹³ CDC laboratories are currently using real-time reverse transcription–PCR (RT-PCR). The CDC is also developing a serologic test to assist with surveillance for SARS-CoV-2 circulation in the U.S. population. There is also a safe repository of viral isolates set up to help with sharing of isolates with academic institutions for research purposes.¹⁴

At hospitals and outpatient offices in the United States, we are preparing for potential cases by reminding frontline health care workers to routinely ask about travel history in addition to relevant symptoms. By eliciting the history early, they should be able to identify and isolate PUIs, appropriately minimizing exposure. Some facilities are displaying signage in waiting rooms to alert patients to provide relevant history, helping to improve triage. COVID-19 symptoms are like those of influenza (e.g., fever, cough, and shortness of breath), and the current outbreak is occurring during a time of year when respiratory illnesses from influenza and other viruses are highly prevalent. To prevent influenza and possible unnecessary evaluation for COVID-19, all persons aged 6 months and older are strongly encouraged to receive an annual influenza vaccine.

To decrease the risk for respiratory disease, persons can practice recommended preventive measures. Persons ill with symptoms of COVID-19 who have had contact with a person with COVID-19, or recent travel to countries with apparent community spread, should proactively communicate with their health care provider before showing up at the health care facility to help make arrangements to prevent possible transmission in the health care setting. In a medical emergency, they should inform emergency medical personnel about possible COVID-19 exposure. If found positive, the current recommendation is to place patients on airborne isolation. N95 masks are being recommended for health care professionals. Hospitals are reinforcing effective infection control procedures, updating pandemic preparedness protocols, and ensuring adequate supplies in the case of an enormous influx of patients.¹⁵

Challenges and opportunities

Many challenges present in the process of getting prepared for a potential outbreak. Personal protective equipment such as N-95 masks are in short supply, as they are in high demand in the general public.¹⁶ The CDC currently does not recommend that members of the general public use face masks, given low levels of circulation of SARS-CoV-2 currently in the United States. The CDC has developed several documents regarding infection control, hospital preparedness assessments, personal protective equipment (PPE) supply planning, clinical evaluation and management, and respirator conservation strategies.

The RT-PCR test developed by the CDC has had some setbacks, with recent testing kits showing “inconclusive results.” The testing was initially available only through the CDC lab in Atlanta, with a 48-hour turnaround. This led to potential delays in diagnosis and the timely isolation and treatment of infected patients. On March 3, the CDC broadened the guidelines for coronavirus testing, allowing clinicians to order a test for any patients who have symptoms of COVID-19 infection. The greatest need is for decentralized testing in local and state labs, as well as validated testing in local hospitals and commercial labs. The ability to develop and scale-up diagnostic abilities is critically important.

There is also concern about overwhelming hospitals with a strain on the availability of beds, ventilators, and airborne isolation rooms. The CDC is recommending leveraging telehealth tools to direct people to the right level of health care for their medical needs. Hospitalization should only be for the sickest patients.¹⁷

Funding for a pandemic response is of paramount importance. Proposed 2021 federal budget cuts include $2.9 billion in cuts to the National Institutes of Health, and $708 million in cuts to the CDC, which makes the situation look especially worrisome as we face a potentially severe pandemic. The Infectious Diseases Society of America identifies antimicrobial resistance, NIH research, global health security, global HIV epidemic, and CDC vaccine programs as five “deeply underfunded” areas in the federal budget.¹⁸

The NIH has recently begun the first randomized clinical trial, treating patients at the University of Nebraska with laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 with a broad-spectrum antiviral drug called remdesivir. Patients from the Diamond Princess Cruise ship are also participating in this clinical trial. This study will hopefully shed light on potential treatments for coronavirus to stop or alleviate the consequences in real time. Similar clinical trials are also occurring in China.¹⁹

Vaccine development is underway in many public and private research facilities, but it will take approximately 6-18 months before they will be available for use. In the absence of a vaccine or therapeutic, community mitigation measures are the primary method to respond to the widespread transmission, and supportive care is the current medical treatment. In the case of a pandemic, the mitigation measures might include school dismissals and social distancing in other settings, like suspension of mass gatherings, telework and remote-meeting options in workplaces.

Many respected medical journals in the United States have made access to SARS-CoV-2 articles and literature readily and freely available, which is a remarkable step. Multiple societies and journals have made information available in real time and have used media effectively (e.g., podcasts, e-learning) to disseminate information to the general public. Articles have been made available in other languages, including Chinese.
 

Conclusions

In summary, there have been 3,280 total deaths attributable to SARS-CoV-2 to date globally, mostly among geriatric patients with comorbidities. To provide some perspective on the statistics, influenza has killed almost 14,000 patients this season alone (much more than coronavirus). COVID-19 is undoubtedly a global public health threat. We in the U.S. health care system are taking swift public health actions, including isolation of patients and contacts to prevent secondary spread, but it is unclear if this is enough to stop an outbreak from becoming a pandemic.

The CDC is warning of significant social and economic disruption in the coming weeks, with more expected community spread and confirmed cases. It is challenging to prepare for a pandemic when the transmission dynamics are not clearly known, the duration of infectiousness is not well defined, and asymptomatic transmission is a possibility. It is time for the public to be informed from trusted sources and avoid unverified information, especially on social media which can lead to confusion and panic. The spread of COVID-19 infection in the United States is inevitable, and there must be sufficient, well-coordinated planning that can curtail the spread and reduce the impact.
 

Dr. Tirupathi is the medical director of Keystone Infectious Diseases/HIV in Chambersburg, Pa., and currently chair of infection prevention at Wellspan Chambersburg and Waynesboro (Pa.) Hospitals. He also is the lead physician for antibiotic stewardship at these hospitals. Dr. Palabindala is hospital medicine division chief at the University of Mississippi Medical Center, Jackson. Ms. Sathya Areti is a 3rd-year medical student at the Virginia Commonwealth University School of Medicine (class of 2021), planning to apply into Internal Medicine-Pediatrics. Dr. Swetha Areti is currently working as a hospitalist at Wellspan Chambersburg Hospital and is also a member of the Wellspan Pharmacy and Therapeutics committee.

References

1. Phelan AL et al. The novel coronavirus originating in Wuhan, China: Challenges for global health governance. JAMA. 2020;323(8):709-10. doi: 10.1001/jama.2020.1097.

2. del Rio C, Malani PN. 2019 Novel coronavirus – Important information for clinicians. JAMA. Published online Feb. 5, 2020. doi: 10.1001/jama.2020.1490.

3. Gorbalenya AE et al. Severe acute respiratory syndrome-related coronavirus: The species and its viruses – a statement of the Coronavirus Study Group. bioRxiv. Published Jan. 1, 2020. doi: 10.1101/2020.02.07.937862.

4. Jernigan DB. CDC COVID-19 response team. Update: Public health response to the coronavirus disease 2019 outbreak – United States, Feb 24, 2020. MMWR Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report 2020;69:216-19. doi: 10.15585/mmwr.mm6908e1.

5. Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Situation Report – 40. Published Feb. 29, 2020.

6. Kaiyuan Sun, et al. Early epidemiological analysis of the coronavirus disease 2019 outbreak based on crowdsourced data: a population level observational study, Feb. 20, 2020. Lancet Digital Health 2020. doi: 10.1016/S2589-7500(20)30026-1.

7. Rolfes MA et al. Annual estimates of the burden of seasonal influenza in the United States: A tool for strengthening influenza surveillance and preparedness. Influenza Other Respir Viruses. 2018;12(1):132-7. doi: 10.1111/irv.12486.

8. Jernigan DB. CDC COVID-19 response team. Update: Public health response to the coronavirus disease 2019 outbreak – United States, Feb. 24, 2020. MMWR Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report 2020;69:216-19. doi: 10.15585/mmwr.mm6908e1.

9. Jablon R, Baumann L. Washington governor declares state of emergency over virus. AP News. Published Feb. 29, 2020.

10. Jernigan DB, CDC COVID-19 response team. Update: Public health response to the coronavirus disease 2019 outbreak – United States, Feb. 24, 2020. MMWR Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report 2020; 69:216-219. doi: 10.15585/mmwr.mm6908e1.

11. Information for health departments on reporting a person under investigation (PUI) or laboratory-confirmed case for COVID-19. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Published Feb 24, 2020.

12. Hines M. Coronavirus: Travel advisory for Italy, South Korea raised to level 4, ‘Do Not Travel’. USA Today. Published Feb. 29, 2020.

13. Information for health departments on reporting a person under investigation (PUI) or laboratory-confirmed case for COVID-19. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Published Feb. 24, 2020.

14. CDC Tests for COVID-19. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Published Feb. 25, 2020.

15. Jernigan DB. CDC COVID-19 response team. Update: Public health response to the coronavirus disease 2019 outbreak – United States, Feb. 24, 2020. MMWR Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report 2020; 69:216-19. doi: 10.15585/mmwr.mm6908e1.

16. Gunia A. The global shortage of medical masks won’t be easing soon. Time. Published Feb. 27, 2020.

17. CDC in action: Preparing communities for potential spread of COVID-19. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Published Feb. 23, 2020.

18. Kadets L. White House budget cuts vital domestic and global public health programs. IDSA Home. Published 2020.

19. NIH clinical trial of remdesivir to treat COVID-19 begins. National Institutes of Health. Feb. 25, 2020.

Background

On Dec. 31, 2019, the Chinese city of Wuhan reported an outbreak of pneumonia from an unknown cause. The outbreak was found to be linked to the Hunan seafood market because of a shared history of exposure by many patients. After a full-scale investigation, China’s Center for Disease Control activated a level 2 emergency response on Jan. 4, 2020. A novel coronavirus was officially identified as a causative pathogen for the outbreak.¹

Coronavirus, first discovered in the 1960s, is a respiratory RNA virus, most commonly associated with the “common cold.” However, we have had two highly pathogenic forms of coronavirus that originated from animal reservoirs, leading to global epidemics. This includes SARS-CoV in 2002-2004 and MERS-CoV in 2012 with more than 10,000 combined cases. The primary host has been bats, but mammals like camels, cattle, cats, and palm civets have been intermediate hosts in previous epidemics.²

The International Committee on Taxonomy of Viruses named the 2019-nCoV officially as severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), which causes the coronavirus disease, COVID-19, on Feb. 11, 2020.³ Currently, the presentation includes fever, cough, trouble breathing, fatigue, and, rarely, watery diarrhea. More severe presentations include respiratory failure and death. Based on the incubation period of illness for Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS) and severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) coronaviruses, as well as observational data from reports of travel-related COVID-19, CDC estimates that symptoms of COVID-19 occur within 2-14 days after exposure. Asymptomatic transmission is also documented in some cases.⁴

On Jan. 13, the first case of COVID-19 outside of China was identified in Thailand. On Jan. 21, the first case of COVID-19 was identified in the United States. On Jan. 23, Chinese authorities suspended travel in and out of Wuhan, followed by other cities in the Hubei Province, leading to a quarantine of 50 million people. By Jan. 30, the World Health Organization had identified COVID-19 as the highest level of an epidemic alert referred to as a PHEIC: Public Health Emergency of International Concern. On Feb. 2, the first death outside China from coronavirus was reported in the Philippines. As of March 4 there have been 95,000 confirmed cases and 3,246 deaths globally. Within China, there have been 80,200 cases with 2,981 deaths.⁵

Cases have now been diagnosed in increasing numbers in Italy, Japan, South Korea, Iran, and 76 countries. Of note, the fatalities were of patients already in critical condition, who were typically older (more than 60 years old, especially more than 80) and immunocompromised with comorbid conditions (cardiovascular disease, diabetes, chronic respiratory disease, cancer).⁶ To put this in perspective, since 2010, CDC reports 140,000-810,000 hospitalizations and 12,000-61,000 deaths from the influenza virus annually in the US.⁷
 

The current situation in the United States

In the United States, as of March 4, 2020, there are currently 152 confirmed cases in 16 states. The first U.S. case of coronavirus without any of the travel-related and exposure risk factors was identified on Feb. 27 in California, indicating the first instance of community spread.⁸ The first death was reported in Washington state on Feb. 28, after which the state’s governor declared a state of emergency.⁹ On March 1, Washington state health officials investigated an outbreak of coronavirus at a long-term nursing facility in which two people tested positive for the disease, heralding the probable first nosocomial transmission of the virus in the United States. Since then, there have been 10 deaths in Washington state related to the coronavirus.

Current interventions in the United States

The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention is leading a multiagency effort to combat the COVID-19 potential pandemic. A Feb. 24 report in Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report revealed that 1,336 CDC staff members have been involved in the COVID-19 response.¹⁰ CDC staff members have been deployed to 39 locations in the United States and internationally. CDC staff members are working with state and local health departments and other public health authorities to assist with case identification, contact tracing, evaluation of persons under investigation (PUI) for COVID-19, and medical management of cases, as well as with research and academic institutions to understand the virulence, risk for transmission, and other characteristics of this novel virus. The CDC is also working with other agencies of the U.S. government including the U.S. Department of Defense, Department of Health & Human Services and the U.S. Department of State to safely evacuate U.S. citizens, residents, and their families from international locations with high incidence and transmission of COVID-19.

Specific real-time updated guidance has been developed and posted online for health care settings for patient management, infection control and prevention, laboratory testing, environmental cleaning, worker safety, and international travel. The CDC has developed communications materials in English and Spanish for communities and guidance for health care settings, public health, laboratories, schools, and businesses to prepare for a potential pandemic. Travel advisories to countries affected by the epidemic are regularly updated to inform travelers and clinicians about current health issues that need to be considered before travel.¹¹ A level 3 travel notice (avoid all nonessential travel) for China has been in effect since Jan. 27, and on Feb. 29 this was upgraded to a level 4 travel notice.¹² Airport screening has been implemented in the 11 U.S. international airports to which flights from China have been diverted, and a total of 46,016 air travelers had been screened by Feb. 23. Incoming passengers are screened for fever, cough, and shortness of breath.

Currently, the CDC has a comprehensive algorithm for further investigation of a PUI – fever, cough, shortness of breath, and a history of travel to areas with increased coronavirus circulation within 14 days of onset of symptoms, OR a close household contact of a confirmed case. When there is a PUI, the current protocol indicates health care providers should alert a local or state health department official. After the health department completes a case investigation, the CDC will help transport specimens (upper respiratory and lower respiratory specimens, and sometimes stool or urine) as soon as possible to the centralized lab for polymerase chain reaction (PCR) testing.¹³ CDC laboratories are currently using real-time reverse transcription–PCR (RT-PCR). The CDC is also developing a serologic test to assist with surveillance for SARS-CoV-2 circulation in the U.S. population. There is also a safe repository of viral isolates set up to help with sharing of isolates with academic institutions for research purposes.¹⁴

At hospitals and outpatient offices in the United States, we are preparing for potential cases by reminding frontline health care workers to routinely ask about travel history in addition to relevant symptoms. By eliciting the history early, they should be able to identify and isolate PUIs, appropriately minimizing exposure. Some facilities are displaying signage in waiting rooms to alert patients to provide relevant history, helping to improve triage. COVID-19 symptoms are like those of influenza (e.g., fever, cough, and shortness of breath), and the current outbreak is occurring during a time of year when respiratory illnesses from influenza and other viruses are highly prevalent. To prevent influenza and possible unnecessary evaluation for COVID-19, all persons aged 6 months and older are strongly encouraged to receive an annual influenza vaccine.

To decrease the risk for respiratory disease, persons can practice recommended preventive measures. Persons ill with symptoms of COVID-19 who have had contact with a person with COVID-19, or recent travel to countries with apparent community spread, should proactively communicate with their health care provider before showing up at the health care facility to help make arrangements to prevent possible transmission in the health care setting. In a medical emergency, they should inform emergency medical personnel about possible COVID-19 exposure. If found positive, the current recommendation is to place patients on airborne isolation. N95 masks are being recommended for health care professionals. Hospitals are reinforcing effective infection control procedures, updating pandemic preparedness protocols, and ensuring adequate supplies in the case of an enormous influx of patients.¹⁵

Challenges and opportunities

Many challenges present in the process of getting prepared for a potential outbreak. Personal protective equipment such as N-95 masks are in short supply, as they are in high demand in the general public.¹⁶ The CDC currently does not recommend that members of the general public use face masks, given low levels of circulation of SARS-CoV-2 currently in the United States. The CDC has developed several documents regarding infection control, hospital preparedness assessments, personal protective equipment (PPE) supply planning, clinical evaluation and management, and respirator conservation strategies.

The RT-PCR test developed by the CDC has had some setbacks, with recent testing kits showing “inconclusive results.” The testing was initially available only through the CDC lab in Atlanta, with a 48-hour turnaround. This led to potential delays in diagnosis and the timely isolation and treatment of infected patients. On March 3, the CDC broadened the guidelines for coronavirus testing, allowing clinicians to order a test for any patients who have symptoms of COVID-19 infection. The greatest need is for decentralized testing in local and state labs, as well as validated testing in local hospitals and commercial labs. The ability to develop and scale-up diagnostic abilities is critically important.

There is also concern about overwhelming hospitals with a strain on the availability of beds, ventilators, and airborne isolation rooms. The CDC is recommending leveraging telehealth tools to direct people to the right level of health care for their medical needs. Hospitalization should only be for the sickest patients.¹⁷

Funding for a pandemic response is of paramount importance. Proposed 2021 federal budget cuts include $2.9 billion in cuts to the National Institutes of Health, and $708 million in cuts to the CDC, which makes the situation look especially worrisome as we face a potentially severe pandemic. The Infectious Diseases Society of America identifies antimicrobial resistance, NIH research, global health security, global HIV epidemic, and CDC vaccine programs as five “deeply underfunded” areas in the federal budget.¹⁸

The NIH has recently begun the first randomized clinical trial, treating patients at the University of Nebraska with laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 with a broad-spectrum antiviral drug called remdesivir. Patients from the Diamond Princess Cruise ship are also participating in this clinical trial. This study will hopefully shed light on potential treatments for coronavirus to stop or alleviate the consequences in real time. Similar clinical trials are also occurring in China.¹⁹

Vaccine development is underway in many public and private research facilities, but it will take approximately 6-18 months before they will be available for use. In the absence of a vaccine or therapeutic, community mitigation measures are the primary method to respond to the widespread transmission, and supportive care is the current medical treatment. In the case of a pandemic, the mitigation measures might include school dismissals and social distancing in other settings, like suspension of mass gatherings, telework and remote-meeting options in workplaces.

Many respected medical journals in the United States have made access to SARS-CoV-2 articles and literature readily and freely available, which is a remarkable step. Multiple societies and journals have made information available in real time and have used media effectively (e.g., podcasts, e-learning) to disseminate information to the general public. Articles have been made available in other languages, including Chinese.
 

Conclusions

In summary, there have been 3,280 total deaths attributable to SARS-CoV-2 to date globally, mostly among geriatric patients with comorbidities. To provide some perspective on the statistics, influenza has killed almost 14,000 patients this season alone (much more than coronavirus). COVID-19 is undoubtedly a global public health threat. We in the U.S. health care system are taking swift public health actions, including isolation of patients and contacts to prevent secondary spread, but it is unclear if this is enough to stop an outbreak from becoming a pandemic.

The CDC is warning of significant social and economic disruption in the coming weeks, with more expected community spread and confirmed cases. It is challenging to prepare for a pandemic when the transmission dynamics are not clearly known, the duration of infectiousness is not well defined, and asymptomatic transmission is a possibility. It is time for the public to be informed from trusted sources and avoid unverified information, especially on social media which can lead to confusion and panic. The spread of COVID-19 infection in the United States is inevitable, and there must be sufficient, well-coordinated planning that can curtail the spread and reduce the impact.
 

Dr. Tirupathi is the medical director of Keystone Infectious Diseases/HIV in Chambersburg, Pa., and currently chair of infection prevention at Wellspan Chambersburg and Waynesboro (Pa.) Hospitals. He also is the lead physician for antibiotic stewardship at these hospitals. Dr. Palabindala is hospital medicine division chief at the University of Mississippi Medical Center, Jackson. Ms. Sathya Areti is a 3rd-year medical student at the Virginia Commonwealth University School of Medicine (class of 2021), planning to apply into Internal Medicine-Pediatrics. Dr. Swetha Areti is currently working as a hospitalist at Wellspan Chambersburg Hospital and is also a member of the Wellspan Pharmacy and Therapeutics committee.

References

1. Phelan AL et al. The novel coronavirus originating in Wuhan, China: Challenges for global health governance. JAMA. 2020;323(8):709-10. doi: 10.1001/jama.2020.1097.

2. del Rio C, Malani PN. 2019 Novel coronavirus – Important information for clinicians. JAMA. Published online Feb. 5, 2020. doi: 10.1001/jama.2020.1490.

3. Gorbalenya AE et al. Severe acute respiratory syndrome-related coronavirus: The species and its viruses – a statement of the Coronavirus Study Group. bioRxiv. Published Jan. 1, 2020. doi: 10.1101/2020.02.07.937862.

4. Jernigan DB. CDC COVID-19 response team. Update: Public health response to the coronavirus disease 2019 outbreak – United States, Feb 24, 2020. MMWR Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report 2020;69:216-19. doi: 10.15585/mmwr.mm6908e1.

5. Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Situation Report – 40. Published Feb. 29, 2020.

6. Kaiyuan Sun, et al. Early epidemiological analysis of the coronavirus disease 2019 outbreak based on crowdsourced data: a population level observational study, Feb. 20, 2020. Lancet Digital Health 2020. doi: 10.1016/S2589-7500(20)30026-1.

7. Rolfes MA et al. Annual estimates of the burden of seasonal influenza in the United States: A tool for strengthening influenza surveillance and preparedness. Influenza Other Respir Viruses. 2018;12(1):132-7. doi: 10.1111/irv.12486.

8. Jernigan DB. CDC COVID-19 response team. Update: Public health response to the coronavirus disease 2019 outbreak – United States, Feb. 24, 2020. MMWR Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report 2020;69:216-19. doi: 10.15585/mmwr.mm6908e1.

9. Jablon R, Baumann L. Washington governor declares state of emergency over virus. AP News. Published Feb. 29, 2020.

10. Jernigan DB, CDC COVID-19 response team. Update: Public health response to the coronavirus disease 2019 outbreak – United States, Feb. 24, 2020. MMWR Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report 2020; 69:216-219. doi: 10.15585/mmwr.mm6908e1.

11. Information for health departments on reporting a person under investigation (PUI) or laboratory-confirmed case for COVID-19. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Published Feb 24, 2020.

12. Hines M. Coronavirus: Travel advisory for Italy, South Korea raised to level 4, ‘Do Not Travel’. USA Today. Published Feb. 29, 2020.

13. Information for health departments on reporting a person under investigation (PUI) or laboratory-confirmed case for COVID-19. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Published Feb. 24, 2020.

14. CDC Tests for COVID-19. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Published Feb. 25, 2020.

15. Jernigan DB. CDC COVID-19 response team. Update: Public health response to the coronavirus disease 2019 outbreak – United States, Feb. 24, 2020. MMWR Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report 2020; 69:216-19. doi: 10.15585/mmwr.mm6908e1.

16. Gunia A. The global shortage of medical masks won’t be easing soon. Time. Published Feb. 27, 2020.

17. CDC in action: Preparing communities for potential spread of COVID-19. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Published Feb. 23, 2020.

18. Kadets L. White House budget cuts vital domestic and global public health programs. IDSA Home. Published 2020.

19. NIH clinical trial of remdesivir to treat COVID-19 begins. National Institutes of Health. Feb. 25, 2020.

Hospital-related infections have been widely reported during the ongoing coronavirus outbreak, with healthcare professionals bearing a disproportionate risk. However, a proactive response in Hong Kong’s public hospital system appears to have bucked this trend and successfully protected both patients and staff from SARS-CoV-2, according to a study published online today in Infection Control & Hospital Epidemiology.

During the first 42 days of the outbreak, the 43 hospitals in the network tested 1275 suspected cases and treated 42 patients with confirmed COVID-19, the disease caused by SARS-CoV-2 infection. Yet, there were no nosocomial infections or infections among healthcare personnel, report Vincent C.C. Cheng, MD, FRCPath, the hospital’s infection control officer, and colleagues.

Cheng and colleagues note that 11 out of 413 healthcare workers who treat patients with confirmed infections had unprotected exposure and were in quarantine for 14 days, but none became ill.

In comparison, they note, the 2003 SARS outbreak saw almost 60% of nosocomial cases occurring in healthcare workers.

Proactive bundle

The Hong Kong success story may be due to a stepped-up proactive bundle of measures that included enhanced laboratory surveillance, early airborne infection isolation, and rapid-turnaround molecular diagnostics. Other strategies included staff forums and one-on-one discussions about infection control, employee training in protective equipment use, hand-hygiene compliance enforcement, and contact tracing for workers with unprotected exposure.

In addition, surgical masks were provided for all healthcare workers, patients, and visitors to clinical areas, a practice previously associated with reduced in-hospital transmission during influenza outbreaks, the authors note.

Hospitals also mandated use of personal protective equipment (PPE) for aerosol-generating procedures (AGPs), such as endotracheal intubation, open suctioning, and high-flow oxygen use, as AGPs had been linked to nosocomial transmission to healthcare workers during the 2003 SARS outbreak.

The infection control measures, which were part of a preparedness plan developed after the SARS outbreak, were initiated on December 31, when the first reports of a cluster of infections came from Wuhan, China.

As the outbreak evolved, the Hong Kong hospitals quickly widened the epidemiologic criteria for screening, from initially including only those who had been to a wet market in Wuhan within 14 days of symptom onset, to eventually including anyone who had been to Hubei province, been in a medical facility in mainland China, or in contact with a known case.  

All suspected cases were sent to an airborne-infection isolation room (AIIR) or a ward with at least a meter of space between patients.

“Appropriate hospital infection control measures could prevent nosocomial transmission of SARS-CoV-2,” the authors write. “Vigilance in hand hygiene practice, wearing of surgical mask in the hospital, and appropriate use of PPE in patient care, especially [when] performing AGPs, are the key infection control measures to prevent nosocomial transmission of SARS-CoV-2 even before the availability of effective antiviral agents and vaccine.”

Asked for his perspective on the report, Aaron E. Glatt, MD, chairman of the department of medicine and chief of infectious diseases at Mount Sinai South Nassau in Oceanside, New York, said that apart from the widespread issuing of surgical masks to workers, patients, and visitors, the measures taken in Hong Kong are not different from standard infection-control practices in American hospitals. Glatt, who is also a hospital epidemiologist, said it was unclear how much impact the masks would have.

“Although the infection control was impressive, I don’t see any evidence of a difference in care,” he told Medscape Medical News.

Could zero infection transmission be achieved in the more far-flung and variable settings of hospitals across the United States? “The ability to get zero transmission is only possible if people adhere to the strictest infection-control guidelines,” Glatt said. “That is clearly the goal, and it will take time to see if our existing strict guidelines are sufficient to maintain zero or close to zero contamination and transmission rates in our hospitals.”

Rather than looking to change US practices, he stressed adherence to widely established tenets of care. “It’s critically important to keep paying close attention to the basics, to the simple blocking and tackling, and to identify which patients are at risk, and therefore, when workers need protective equipment,” he said.

“Follow the recommended standards,” continued Glatt, who is also a spokesperson for the Infectious Diseases Society of America and did not participate in this study.

In a finding from an ancillary pilot experiment, the Hong Kong researchers found exhaled air from a patient with a moderate coronavirus load showed no evidence of the virus, whether the patient was breathing normally or heavily, speaking, or coughing. And spot tests around the room detected the virus in just one location.

“We may not be able to make a definite conclusion based on the analysis of a single patient,” the authors write. “However, it may help to reassure our staff that the exhaled air may be rapidly diluted inside the AIIR with 12 air changes per hour, or probably the SARS-CoV-2 may not be predominantly transmitted by [the] airborne route.”

However, a recent Singapore study showed widespread environmental contamination by SARS-CoV-2 through respiratory droplets and fecal shedding, underlining the need for strict adherence to environmental and hand hygiene. Post-cleaning samples tested negative, suggesting that standard decontamination practices are effective. 

This work was partly supported by the Consultancy Service for Enhancing Laboratory Surveillance of Emerging Infectious Diseases of the Department of Health, Hong Kong Special Administrative Region; and the Collaborative Innovation Center for Diagnosis and Treatment of Infectious Diseases, Ministry of Education of China. The authors and Glatt have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
 

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Hospital-related infections have been widely reported during the ongoing coronavirus outbreak, with healthcare professionals bearing a disproportionate risk. However, a proactive response in Hong Kong’s public hospital system appears to have bucked this trend and successfully protected both patients and staff from SARS-CoV-2, according to a study published online today in Infection Control & Hospital Epidemiology.

During the first 42 days of the outbreak, the 43 hospitals in the network tested 1275 suspected cases and treated 42 patients with confirmed COVID-19, the disease caused by SARS-CoV-2 infection. Yet, there were no nosocomial infections or infections among healthcare personnel, report Vincent C.C. Cheng, MD, FRCPath, the hospital’s infection control officer, and colleagues.

Cheng and colleagues note that 11 out of 413 healthcare workers who treat patients with confirmed infections had unprotected exposure and were in quarantine for 14 days, but none became ill.

In comparison, they note, the 2003 SARS outbreak saw almost 60% of nosocomial cases occurring in healthcare workers.

Proactive bundle

The Hong Kong success story may be due to a stepped-up proactive bundle of measures that included enhanced laboratory surveillance, early airborne infection isolation, and rapid-turnaround molecular diagnostics. Other strategies included staff forums and one-on-one discussions about infection control, employee training in protective equipment use, hand-hygiene compliance enforcement, and contact tracing for workers with unprotected exposure.

In addition, surgical masks were provided for all healthcare workers, patients, and visitors to clinical areas, a practice previously associated with reduced in-hospital transmission during influenza outbreaks, the authors note.

Hospitals also mandated use of personal protective equipment (PPE) for aerosol-generating procedures (AGPs), such as endotracheal intubation, open suctioning, and high-flow oxygen use, as AGPs had been linked to nosocomial transmission to healthcare workers during the 2003 SARS outbreak.

The infection control measures, which were part of a preparedness plan developed after the SARS outbreak, were initiated on December 31, when the first reports of a cluster of infections came from Wuhan, China.

As the outbreak evolved, the Hong Kong hospitals quickly widened the epidemiologic criteria for screening, from initially including only those who had been to a wet market in Wuhan within 14 days of symptom onset, to eventually including anyone who had been to Hubei province, been in a medical facility in mainland China, or in contact with a known case.  

All suspected cases were sent to an airborne-infection isolation room (AIIR) or a ward with at least a meter of space between patients.

“Appropriate hospital infection control measures could prevent nosocomial transmission of SARS-CoV-2,” the authors write. “Vigilance in hand hygiene practice, wearing of surgical mask in the hospital, and appropriate use of PPE in patient care, especially [when] performing AGPs, are the key infection control measures to prevent nosocomial transmission of SARS-CoV-2 even before the availability of effective antiviral agents and vaccine.”

Asked for his perspective on the report, Aaron E. Glatt, MD, chairman of the department of medicine and chief of infectious diseases at Mount Sinai South Nassau in Oceanside, New York, said that apart from the widespread issuing of surgical masks to workers, patients, and visitors, the measures taken in Hong Kong are not different from standard infection-control practices in American hospitals. Glatt, who is also a hospital epidemiologist, said it was unclear how much impact the masks would have.

“Although the infection control was impressive, I don’t see any evidence of a difference in care,” he told Medscape Medical News.

Could zero infection transmission be achieved in the more far-flung and variable settings of hospitals across the United States? “The ability to get zero transmission is only possible if people adhere to the strictest infection-control guidelines,” Glatt said. “That is clearly the goal, and it will take time to see if our existing strict guidelines are sufficient to maintain zero or close to zero contamination and transmission rates in our hospitals.”

Rather than looking to change US practices, he stressed adherence to widely established tenets of care. “It’s critically important to keep paying close attention to the basics, to the simple blocking and tackling, and to identify which patients are at risk, and therefore, when workers need protective equipment,” he said.

“Follow the recommended standards,” continued Glatt, who is also a spokesperson for the Infectious Diseases Society of America and did not participate in this study.

In a finding from an ancillary pilot experiment, the Hong Kong researchers found exhaled air from a patient with a moderate coronavirus load showed no evidence of the virus, whether the patient was breathing normally or heavily, speaking, or coughing. And spot tests around the room detected the virus in just one location.

“We may not be able to make a definite conclusion based on the analysis of a single patient,” the authors write. “However, it may help to reassure our staff that the exhaled air may be rapidly diluted inside the AIIR with 12 air changes per hour, or probably the SARS-CoV-2 may not be predominantly transmitted by [the] airborne route.”

However, a recent Singapore study showed widespread environmental contamination by SARS-CoV-2 through respiratory droplets and fecal shedding, underlining the need for strict adherence to environmental and hand hygiene. Post-cleaning samples tested negative, suggesting that standard decontamination practices are effective. 

This work was partly supported by the Consultancy Service for Enhancing Laboratory Surveillance of Emerging Infectious Diseases of the Department of Health, Hong Kong Special Administrative Region; and the Collaborative Innovation Center for Diagnosis and Treatment of Infectious Diseases, Ministry of Education of China. The authors and Glatt have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
 

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Hospital-related infections have been widely reported during the ongoing coronavirus outbreak, with healthcare professionals bearing a disproportionate risk. However, a proactive response in Hong Kong’s public hospital system appears to have bucked this trend and successfully protected both patients and staff from SARS-CoV-2, according to a study published online today in Infection Control & Hospital Epidemiology.

During the first 42 days of the outbreak, the 43 hospitals in the network tested 1275 suspected cases and treated 42 patients with confirmed COVID-19, the disease caused by SARS-CoV-2 infection. Yet, there were no nosocomial infections or infections among healthcare personnel, report Vincent C.C. Cheng, MD, FRCPath, the hospital’s infection control officer, and colleagues.

Cheng and colleagues note that 11 out of 413 healthcare workers who treat patients with confirmed infections had unprotected exposure and were in quarantine for 14 days, but none became ill.

In comparison, they note, the 2003 SARS outbreak saw almost 60% of nosocomial cases occurring in healthcare workers.

Proactive bundle

The Hong Kong success story may be due to a stepped-up proactive bundle of measures that included enhanced laboratory surveillance, early airborne infection isolation, and rapid-turnaround molecular diagnostics. Other strategies included staff forums and one-on-one discussions about infection control, employee training in protective equipment use, hand-hygiene compliance enforcement, and contact tracing for workers with unprotected exposure.

In addition, surgical masks were provided for all healthcare workers, patients, and visitors to clinical areas, a practice previously associated with reduced in-hospital transmission during influenza outbreaks, the authors note.

Hospitals also mandated use of personal protective equipment (PPE) for aerosol-generating procedures (AGPs), such as endotracheal intubation, open suctioning, and high-flow oxygen use, as AGPs had been linked to nosocomial transmission to healthcare workers during the 2003 SARS outbreak.

The infection control measures, which were part of a preparedness plan developed after the SARS outbreak, were initiated on December 31, when the first reports of a cluster of infections came from Wuhan, China.

As the outbreak evolved, the Hong Kong hospitals quickly widened the epidemiologic criteria for screening, from initially including only those who had been to a wet market in Wuhan within 14 days of symptom onset, to eventually including anyone who had been to Hubei province, been in a medical facility in mainland China, or in contact with a known case.  

All suspected cases were sent to an airborne-infection isolation room (AIIR) or a ward with at least a meter of space between patients.

“Appropriate hospital infection control measures could prevent nosocomial transmission of SARS-CoV-2,” the authors write. “Vigilance in hand hygiene practice, wearing of surgical mask in the hospital, and appropriate use of PPE in patient care, especially [when] performing AGPs, are the key infection control measures to prevent nosocomial transmission of SARS-CoV-2 even before the availability of effective antiviral agents and vaccine.”

Asked for his perspective on the report, Aaron E. Glatt, MD, chairman of the department of medicine and chief of infectious diseases at Mount Sinai South Nassau in Oceanside, New York, said that apart from the widespread issuing of surgical masks to workers, patients, and visitors, the measures taken in Hong Kong are not different from standard infection-control practices in American hospitals. Glatt, who is also a hospital epidemiologist, said it was unclear how much impact the masks would have.

“Although the infection control was impressive, I don’t see any evidence of a difference in care,” he told Medscape Medical News.

Could zero infection transmission be achieved in the more far-flung and variable settings of hospitals across the United States? “The ability to get zero transmission is only possible if people adhere to the strictest infection-control guidelines,” Glatt said. “That is clearly the goal, and it will take time to see if our existing strict guidelines are sufficient to maintain zero or close to zero contamination and transmission rates in our hospitals.”

Rather than looking to change US practices, he stressed adherence to widely established tenets of care. “It’s critically important to keep paying close attention to the basics, to the simple blocking and tackling, and to identify which patients are at risk, and therefore, when workers need protective equipment,” he said.

“Follow the recommended standards,” continued Glatt, who is also a spokesperson for the Infectious Diseases Society of America and did not participate in this study.

In a finding from an ancillary pilot experiment, the Hong Kong researchers found exhaled air from a patient with a moderate coronavirus load showed no evidence of the virus, whether the patient was breathing normally or heavily, speaking, or coughing. And spot tests around the room detected the virus in just one location.

“We may not be able to make a definite conclusion based on the analysis of a single patient,” the authors write. “However, it may help to reassure our staff that the exhaled air may be rapidly diluted inside the AIIR with 12 air changes per hour, or probably the SARS-CoV-2 may not be predominantly transmitted by [the] airborne route.”

However, a recent Singapore study showed widespread environmental contamination by SARS-CoV-2 through respiratory droplets and fecal shedding, underlining the need for strict adherence to environmental and hand hygiene. Post-cleaning samples tested negative, suggesting that standard decontamination practices are effective. 

This work was partly supported by the Consultancy Service for Enhancing Laboratory Surveillance of Emerging Infectious Diseases of the Department of Health, Hong Kong Special Administrative Region; and the Collaborative Innovation Center for Diagnosis and Treatment of Infectious Diseases, Ministry of Education of China. The authors and Glatt have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
 

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Two international phase 3 randomized trials of injections of long-acting suspensions of cabotegravir and rilpivirine show promise for the control of HIV, according to reports published in the New England Journal of Medicine.

© Dr. A. Harrison; Dr. P. Feorino / CDC

The Long-Acting Cabotegravir and Rilpivirine after Oral Induction for HIV-1 Infection (FLAIR) study and the Long-Acting Cabotegravir and Rilpivirine for Maintenance of HIV-1 Suppression (ATLAS) study looked at a separate facet of the use of a monthly therapeutic injection as a replacement for daily oral HIV therapy.

The FLAIR trial (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02938520) was a phase 3, randomized, open-label study in which adults with HIV-1 infection who had not previously received antiretroviral therapy were given 20 weeks of daily oral induction therapy with dolutegravir–abacavir–lamivudine. Those patients with an HIV-1 RNA level of less than 50 copies per milliliter after 16 weeks were then randomly assigned (1:1) to continue their current oral therapy or switch to oral cabotegravir plus rilpivirine for 1 month followed by monthly intramuscular injections of long-acting cabotegravir, an HIV-1 integrase strand-transfer inhibitor, and rilpivirine, a nonnucleoside reverse-transcriptase inhibitor.

At week 48, an HIV-1 RNA level of 50 copies per milliliter or higher was found in 6 of 283 patients (2.1%) who received the long-acting therapy and in 7 of 283 (2.5%) who received oral therapy, which met the criterion for noninferiority for the primary endpoint. An HIV-1 RNA level of less than 50 copies per milliliter at week 48 was found in 93.6% of patients who received long-acting therapy and in 93.3% who received oral therapy, which also met the criterion for noninferiority, according to the study published in the New England Journal of Medicine.

Injection site reactions were reported in 86% of the long-acting therapy patients, 4 of whom withdrew from the trial for injection-related reasons. Grade 3 or higher adverse events and events that met liver-related stopping criteria occurred in 11% and 2%, respectively, of those who received long-acting therapy and in 4% and 1% of those who received oral therapy.

An assessment of treatment satisfaction at 48 weeks showed that 91% of the patients who switched to long-acting therapy preferred it to their daily oral therapy.

The ATLAS trial (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02951052) was a phase 3, open-label, multicenter, noninferiority trial involving patients who had plasma HIV-1 RNA levels of less than 50 copies per milliliter for at least 6 months while taking standard oral antiretroviral therapy. These patients were randomized (308 in each group) to the long-acting cabotegravir plus rilpivirine injection therapy or daily oral therapy.

At 48 weeks, HIV-1 RNA levels of 50 copies per milliliter or higher were found in five participants (1.6%) receiving long-acting therapy and in three (1.0%) receiving oral therapy, which met the criterion for noninferiority for the primary endpoint, according to a study reported in the New England Journal of Medicine.

HIV-1 RNA levels of less than 50 copies per milliliter at week 48 occurred in 92.5% of patients on long-acting therapy and in 95.5% of those receiving oral therapy, which also met the criterion for noninferiority for this endpoint. Three patients in the long-acting therapy group had virologic failure, compared with four participants who received oral therapy.

Adverse events were more common in the long-acting–therapy group and included injection-site pain, which occurred in 231 recipients (75%) of long-acting therapy. This was mild or moderate in most cases, according to the authors. However, 1% of the participants in this group withdrew because of it. Overall, serious adverse events were reported in no more than 5% of participants in each group.

Together, the ATLAS and the FLAIR trials show that long-acting intramuscular injection therapy is noninferior to oral therapy as both an early regimen for HIV treatment, as well as for later, maintenance dosing. The use of long-acting therapy may improve patient adherence to treatment, according to both sets of study authors.

The ATLAS and FLAIR trials were funded by ViiV Healthcare and Janssen. The authors of both studies reported ties to pharmaceutical associations, and some authors are employees of the two funding sources.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Orkin C et al. N Engl J Med. 2020 Mar 4. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1909512 and Swindells S et al. N Engl J Med. 2020 Mar 4. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1904398.

Two international phase 3 randomized trials of injections of long-acting suspensions of cabotegravir and rilpivirine show promise for the control of HIV, according to reports published in the New England Journal of Medicine.

© Dr. A. Harrison; Dr. P. Feorino / CDC

The Long-Acting Cabotegravir and Rilpivirine after Oral Induction for HIV-1 Infection (FLAIR) study and the Long-Acting Cabotegravir and Rilpivirine for Maintenance of HIV-1 Suppression (ATLAS) study looked at a separate facet of the use of a monthly therapeutic injection as a replacement for daily oral HIV therapy.

The FLAIR trial (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02938520) was a phase 3, randomized, open-label study in which adults with HIV-1 infection who had not previously received antiretroviral therapy were given 20 weeks of daily oral induction therapy with dolutegravir–abacavir–lamivudine. Those patients with an HIV-1 RNA level of less than 50 copies per milliliter after 16 weeks were then randomly assigned (1:1) to continue their current oral therapy or switch to oral cabotegravir plus rilpivirine for 1 month followed by monthly intramuscular injections of long-acting cabotegravir, an HIV-1 integrase strand-transfer inhibitor, and rilpivirine, a nonnucleoside reverse-transcriptase inhibitor.

At week 48, an HIV-1 RNA level of 50 copies per milliliter or higher was found in 6 of 283 patients (2.1%) who received the long-acting therapy and in 7 of 283 (2.5%) who received oral therapy, which met the criterion for noninferiority for the primary endpoint. An HIV-1 RNA level of less than 50 copies per milliliter at week 48 was found in 93.6% of patients who received long-acting therapy and in 93.3% who received oral therapy, which also met the criterion for noninferiority, according to the study published in the New England Journal of Medicine.

Injection site reactions were reported in 86% of the long-acting therapy patients, 4 of whom withdrew from the trial for injection-related reasons. Grade 3 or higher adverse events and events that met liver-related stopping criteria occurred in 11% and 2%, respectively, of those who received long-acting therapy and in 4% and 1% of those who received oral therapy.

An assessment of treatment satisfaction at 48 weeks showed that 91% of the patients who switched to long-acting therapy preferred it to their daily oral therapy.

The ATLAS trial (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02951052) was a phase 3, open-label, multicenter, noninferiority trial involving patients who had plasma HIV-1 RNA levels of less than 50 copies per milliliter for at least 6 months while taking standard oral antiretroviral therapy. These patients were randomized (308 in each group) to the long-acting cabotegravir plus rilpivirine injection therapy or daily oral therapy.

At 48 weeks, HIV-1 RNA levels of 50 copies per milliliter or higher were found in five participants (1.6%) receiving long-acting therapy and in three (1.0%) receiving oral therapy, which met the criterion for noninferiority for the primary endpoint, according to a study reported in the New England Journal of Medicine.

HIV-1 RNA levels of less than 50 copies per milliliter at week 48 occurred in 92.5% of patients on long-acting therapy and in 95.5% of those receiving oral therapy, which also met the criterion for noninferiority for this endpoint. Three patients in the long-acting therapy group had virologic failure, compared with four participants who received oral therapy.

Adverse events were more common in the long-acting–therapy group and included injection-site pain, which occurred in 231 recipients (75%) of long-acting therapy. This was mild or moderate in most cases, according to the authors. However, 1% of the participants in this group withdrew because of it. Overall, serious adverse events were reported in no more than 5% of participants in each group.

Together, the ATLAS and the FLAIR trials show that long-acting intramuscular injection therapy is noninferior to oral therapy as both an early regimen for HIV treatment, as well as for later, maintenance dosing. The use of long-acting therapy may improve patient adherence to treatment, according to both sets of study authors.

The ATLAS and FLAIR trials were funded by ViiV Healthcare and Janssen. The authors of both studies reported ties to pharmaceutical associations, and some authors are employees of the two funding sources.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Orkin C et al. N Engl J Med. 2020 Mar 4. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1909512 and Swindells S et al. N Engl J Med. 2020 Mar 4. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1904398.

Two international phase 3 randomized trials of injections of long-acting suspensions of cabotegravir and rilpivirine show promise for the control of HIV, according to reports published in the New England Journal of Medicine.

© Dr. A. Harrison; Dr. P. Feorino / CDC

The Long-Acting Cabotegravir and Rilpivirine after Oral Induction for HIV-1 Infection (FLAIR) study and the Long-Acting Cabotegravir and Rilpivirine for Maintenance of HIV-1 Suppression (ATLAS) study looked at a separate facet of the use of a monthly therapeutic injection as a replacement for daily oral HIV therapy.

The FLAIR trial (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02938520) was a phase 3, randomized, open-label study in which adults with HIV-1 infection who had not previously received antiretroviral therapy were given 20 weeks of daily oral induction therapy with dolutegravir–abacavir–lamivudine. Those patients with an HIV-1 RNA level of less than 50 copies per milliliter after 16 weeks were then randomly assigned (1:1) to continue their current oral therapy or switch to oral cabotegravir plus rilpivirine for 1 month followed by monthly intramuscular injections of long-acting cabotegravir, an HIV-1 integrase strand-transfer inhibitor, and rilpivirine, a nonnucleoside reverse-transcriptase inhibitor.

At week 48, an HIV-1 RNA level of 50 copies per milliliter or higher was found in 6 of 283 patients (2.1%) who received the long-acting therapy and in 7 of 283 (2.5%) who received oral therapy, which met the criterion for noninferiority for the primary endpoint. An HIV-1 RNA level of less than 50 copies per milliliter at week 48 was found in 93.6% of patients who received long-acting therapy and in 93.3% who received oral therapy, which also met the criterion for noninferiority, according to the study published in the New England Journal of Medicine.

Injection site reactions were reported in 86% of the long-acting therapy patients, 4 of whom withdrew from the trial for injection-related reasons. Grade 3 or higher adverse events and events that met liver-related stopping criteria occurred in 11% and 2%, respectively, of those who received long-acting therapy and in 4% and 1% of those who received oral therapy.

An assessment of treatment satisfaction at 48 weeks showed that 91% of the patients who switched to long-acting therapy preferred it to their daily oral therapy.

The ATLAS trial (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02951052) was a phase 3, open-label, multicenter, noninferiority trial involving patients who had plasma HIV-1 RNA levels of less than 50 copies per milliliter for at least 6 months while taking standard oral antiretroviral therapy. These patients were randomized (308 in each group) to the long-acting cabotegravir plus rilpivirine injection therapy or daily oral therapy.

At 48 weeks, HIV-1 RNA levels of 50 copies per milliliter or higher were found in five participants (1.6%) receiving long-acting therapy and in three (1.0%) receiving oral therapy, which met the criterion for noninferiority for the primary endpoint, according to a study reported in the New England Journal of Medicine.

HIV-1 RNA levels of less than 50 copies per milliliter at week 48 occurred in 92.5% of patients on long-acting therapy and in 95.5% of those receiving oral therapy, which also met the criterion for noninferiority for this endpoint. Three patients in the long-acting therapy group had virologic failure, compared with four participants who received oral therapy.

Adverse events were more common in the long-acting–therapy group and included injection-site pain, which occurred in 231 recipients (75%) of long-acting therapy. This was mild or moderate in most cases, according to the authors. However, 1% of the participants in this group withdrew because of it. Overall, serious adverse events were reported in no more than 5% of participants in each group.

Together, the ATLAS and the FLAIR trials show that long-acting intramuscular injection therapy is noninferior to oral therapy as both an early regimen for HIV treatment, as well as for later, maintenance dosing. The use of long-acting therapy may improve patient adherence to treatment, according to both sets of study authors.

The ATLAS and FLAIR trials were funded by ViiV Healthcare and Janssen. The authors of both studies reported ties to pharmaceutical associations, and some authors are employees of the two funding sources.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Orkin C et al. N Engl J Med. 2020 Mar 4. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1909512 and Swindells S et al. N Engl J Med. 2020 Mar 4. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1904398.

Epidemiology and Transmission

Pediculus humanus corporis, commonly known as the human body louse, is one in a family of 3 ectoparasites of the same suborder that also encompasses pubic lice (Phthirus pubis) and head lice (Pediculus humanus capitis). Adults are approximately 2 mm in size, with the same life cycle as head lice (Figure 1). They require blood meals roughly 5 times per day and cannot survive longer than 2 days without feeding.¹ Although similar in structure to head lice, body lice differ behaviorally in that they do not reside on their human host’s body; instead, they infest the host’s clothing, localizing to seams (Figure 2), and migrate to the host for blood meals. In fact, based on this behavior, genetic analysis of early human body lice has been used to postulate when clothing was first used by humans as well as to determine early human migration patterns.^2,3

Although clinicians in developed countries may be less familiar with body lice compared to their counterparts, body lice nevertheless remain a global health concern in impoverished, densely populated areas, as well as in homeless populations due to poor hygiene. Transmission frequently occurs via physical contact with an affected individual and his/her personal items (eg, linens) via fomites.^4,5 Body louse infestation is more prevalent in homeless individuals who sleep outside vs in shelters; a history of pubic lice and lack of regular bathing have been reported as additional risk factors.⁶ Outbreaks have been noted in the wake of natural disasters, in the setting of political upheavals, and in refugee camps, as well as in individuals seeking political asylum.⁷ Unlike head and pubic lice, body lice can serve as vectors for infectious diseases including Rickettsia prowazekii (epidemic typhus), Borrelia recurrentis (louse-borne relapsing fever), Bartonella quintana (trench fever), and Yersinia pestis (plague).^5,8,9 Several Acinetobacter species were isolated from nearly one-third of collected body louse specimens in a French study.¹⁰ Additionally, serology for B quintana was found to be positive in up to 30% of cases in one United States urban homeless population.⁴

Clinical Manifestations

Patients often present with generalized pruritus, usually considerably more severe than with P humanus capitis, with lesions concentrated on the trunk.¹¹ In addition to often impetiginized, self-inflicted excoriations, feeding sites may present as erythematous macules (Figure 3), papules, or papular urticaria with a central hemorrhagic punctum. Extensive infestation also can manifest as the colloquial vagabond disease, characterized by postinflammatory hyperpigmentation and thickening of the involved skin. Remarkably, patients also may present with considerable iron-deficiency anemia secondary to high parasite load and large volume blood feeding. Multiple case reports have demonstrated associated morbidity.^12-14 The differential diagnosis for pediculosis may include scabies, lichen simplex chronicus, and eczematous dermatitis, though the clinician should prudently consider whether both scabies and pediculosis may be present, as coexistence is possible.^4,15

Diagnosis

Diagnosis can be reached by visualizing adult lice, nymphs, or viable nits on the body or more commonly within inner clothing seams; nits also fluoresce under Wood light.¹⁵ Although dermoscopy has proven useful for increased sensitivity and differentiation between viable and hatched nits, the insects also can be viewed with the unaided eye.¹⁶

Treatment: New Concerns and Strategies

The mainstay of treatment for body lice has long consisted of thorough washing and drying of all clothing and linens in a hot dryer. Treatment can be augmented with the addition of pharmacotherapy, plus antibiotics as warranted for louse-borne disease. Pharmacologic intervention often is used in cases of mass infestation and is similar to head lice.

Options for head lice include topical permethrin, malathion, lindane, spinosad, benzyl alcohol, and ivermectin. Pyrethroids, derived from the chrysanthemum, generally are considered safe for human use with a side-effect profile limited to irritation and allergy¹⁷; however, neurotoxicity and leukemia are clinical concerns, with an association more recently shown between large-volume use of pyrethroids and acute lymphoblastic leukemia.^18,19 Use of lindane is not recommended due to a greater potential for central nervous system neurotoxicity, manifested by seizures, with repeated large surface application. Malathion is problematic due to the risk for mucosal irritation, flammability of some formulations, and theoretical organophosphate poisoning, as its mechanism of action involves inhibition of acetylcholinesterase.¹⁵ However, in the context of head lice treatment, a randomized controlled trial reported no incidence of acetylcholinesterase inhibition.²⁰ Spinosad, manufactured from the soil bacterium Saccharopolyspora spinosa, functions similarly by interfering with the nicotinic acetylcholine receptor and also carries a risk for skin irritation.²¹ Among all the treatment options, we prefer benzyl alcohol, particularly in the context of resistance, as it is effective via a physical mechanism of action and lacks notable neurotoxic effects to the host. Use of benzyl alcohol is approved for patients as young as 6 months; it functions by asphyxiating the lice via paralysis of the respiratory spiracle with occlusion by inert ingredients. Itching, episodic numbness, and scalp or mucosal irritation are possible complications of treatment.²²

Treatment resistance of body lice has increased in recent years, warranting exploration of additional management strategies. Moreover, developing resistance to lindane and malathion has been reported.²³ Resistance to pyrethroids has been attributed to mutations in a voltage-gated sodium channel, one of which was universally present in the sampling of a single population.²⁴ A randomized controlled trial showed that off-label oral ivermectin 400 μg/kg was superior to malathion lotion 0.5% in difficult-to-treat cases of head lice²⁵; utility of oral ivermectin also has been reported in body lice.²⁶ In vitro studies also have shown promise for pursuing synergistic treatment of body lice with both ivermectin and antibiotics.²⁷

A novel primary prophylaxis approach for at-risk homeless individuals recently utilized permethrin-impregnated underwear. Although the intervention provided short-term infestation improvement, longer-term use did not show improvement from placebo and also increased prevalence of permethrin-resistant haplotypes.²

Epidemiology and Transmission

Pediculus humanus corporis, commonly known as the human body louse, is one in a family of 3 ectoparasites of the same suborder that also encompasses pubic lice (Phthirus pubis) and head lice (Pediculus humanus capitis). Adults are approximately 2 mm in size, with the same life cycle as head lice (Figure 1). They require blood meals roughly 5 times per day and cannot survive longer than 2 days without feeding.¹ Although similar in structure to head lice, body lice differ behaviorally in that they do not reside on their human host’s body; instead, they infest the host’s clothing, localizing to seams (Figure 2), and migrate to the host for blood meals. In fact, based on this behavior, genetic analysis of early human body lice has been used to postulate when clothing was first used by humans as well as to determine early human migration patterns.^2,3

Although clinicians in developed countries may be less familiar with body lice compared to their counterparts, body lice nevertheless remain a global health concern in impoverished, densely populated areas, as well as in homeless populations due to poor hygiene. Transmission frequently occurs via physical contact with an affected individual and his/her personal items (eg, linens) via fomites.^4,5 Body louse infestation is more prevalent in homeless individuals who sleep outside vs in shelters; a history of pubic lice and lack of regular bathing have been reported as additional risk factors.⁶ Outbreaks have been noted in the wake of natural disasters, in the setting of political upheavals, and in refugee camps, as well as in individuals seeking political asylum.⁷ Unlike head and pubic lice, body lice can serve as vectors for infectious diseases including Rickettsia prowazekii (epidemic typhus), Borrelia recurrentis (louse-borne relapsing fever), Bartonella quintana (trench fever), and Yersinia pestis (plague).^5,8,9 Several Acinetobacter species were isolated from nearly one-third of collected body louse specimens in a French study.¹⁰ Additionally, serology for B quintana was found to be positive in up to 30% of cases in one United States urban homeless population.⁴

Clinical Manifestations

Patients often present with generalized pruritus, usually considerably more severe than with P humanus capitis, with lesions concentrated on the trunk.¹¹ In addition to often impetiginized, self-inflicted excoriations, feeding sites may present as erythematous macules (Figure 3), papules, or papular urticaria with a central hemorrhagic punctum. Extensive infestation also can manifest as the colloquial vagabond disease, characterized by postinflammatory hyperpigmentation and thickening of the involved skin. Remarkably, patients also may present with considerable iron-deficiency anemia secondary to high parasite load and large volume blood feeding. Multiple case reports have demonstrated associated morbidity.^12-14 The differential diagnosis for pediculosis may include scabies, lichen simplex chronicus, and eczematous dermatitis, though the clinician should prudently consider whether both scabies and pediculosis may be present, as coexistence is possible.^4,15

Diagnosis

Diagnosis can be reached by visualizing adult lice, nymphs, or viable nits on the body or more commonly within inner clothing seams; nits also fluoresce under Wood light.¹⁵ Although dermoscopy has proven useful for increased sensitivity and differentiation between viable and hatched nits, the insects also can be viewed with the unaided eye.¹⁶

Treatment: New Concerns and Strategies

The mainstay of treatment for body lice has long consisted of thorough washing and drying of all clothing and linens in a hot dryer. Treatment can be augmented with the addition of pharmacotherapy, plus antibiotics as warranted for louse-borne disease. Pharmacologic intervention often is used in cases of mass infestation and is similar to head lice.

Options for head lice include topical permethrin, malathion, lindane, spinosad, benzyl alcohol, and ivermectin. Pyrethroids, derived from the chrysanthemum, generally are considered safe for human use with a side-effect profile limited to irritation and allergy¹⁷; however, neurotoxicity and leukemia are clinical concerns, with an association more recently shown between large-volume use of pyrethroids and acute lymphoblastic leukemia.^18,19 Use of lindane is not recommended due to a greater potential for central nervous system neurotoxicity, manifested by seizures, with repeated large surface application. Malathion is problematic due to the risk for mucosal irritation, flammability of some formulations, and theoretical organophosphate poisoning, as its mechanism of action involves inhibition of acetylcholinesterase.¹⁵ However, in the context of head lice treatment, a randomized controlled trial reported no incidence of acetylcholinesterase inhibition.²⁰ Spinosad, manufactured from the soil bacterium Saccharopolyspora spinosa, functions similarly by interfering with the nicotinic acetylcholine receptor and also carries a risk for skin irritation.²¹ Among all the treatment options, we prefer benzyl alcohol, particularly in the context of resistance, as it is effective via a physical mechanism of action and lacks notable neurotoxic effects to the host. Use of benzyl alcohol is approved for patients as young as 6 months; it functions by asphyxiating the lice via paralysis of the respiratory spiracle with occlusion by inert ingredients. Itching, episodic numbness, and scalp or mucosal irritation are possible complications of treatment.²²

Treatment resistance of body lice has increased in recent years, warranting exploration of additional management strategies. Moreover, developing resistance to lindane and malathion has been reported.²³ Resistance to pyrethroids has been attributed to mutations in a voltage-gated sodium channel, one of which was universally present in the sampling of a single population.²⁴ A randomized controlled trial showed that off-label oral ivermectin 400 μg/kg was superior to malathion lotion 0.5% in difficult-to-treat cases of head lice²⁵; utility of oral ivermectin also has been reported in body lice.²⁶ In vitro studies also have shown promise for pursuing synergistic treatment of body lice with both ivermectin and antibiotics.²⁷

A novel primary prophylaxis approach for at-risk homeless individuals recently utilized permethrin-impregnated underwear. Although the intervention provided short-term infestation improvement, longer-term use did not show improvement from placebo and also increased prevalence of permethrin-resistant haplotypes.²

Epidemiology and Transmission

Pediculus humanus corporis, commonly known as the human body louse, is one in a family of 3 ectoparasites of the same suborder that also encompasses pubic lice (Phthirus pubis) and head lice (Pediculus humanus capitis). Adults are approximately 2 mm in size, with the same life cycle as head lice (Figure 1). They require blood meals roughly 5 times per day and cannot survive longer than 2 days without feeding.¹ Although similar in structure to head lice, body lice differ behaviorally in that they do not reside on their human host’s body; instead, they infest the host’s clothing, localizing to seams (Figure 2), and migrate to the host for blood meals. In fact, based on this behavior, genetic analysis of early human body lice has been used to postulate when clothing was first used by humans as well as to determine early human migration patterns.^2,3

Although clinicians in developed countries may be less familiar with body lice compared to their counterparts, body lice nevertheless remain a global health concern in impoverished, densely populated areas, as well as in homeless populations due to poor hygiene. Transmission frequently occurs via physical contact with an affected individual and his/her personal items (eg, linens) via fomites.^4,5 Body louse infestation is more prevalent in homeless individuals who sleep outside vs in shelters; a history of pubic lice and lack of regular bathing have been reported as additional risk factors.⁶ Outbreaks have been noted in the wake of natural disasters, in the setting of political upheavals, and in refugee camps, as well as in individuals seeking political asylum.⁷ Unlike head and pubic lice, body lice can serve as vectors for infectious diseases including Rickettsia prowazekii (epidemic typhus), Borrelia recurrentis (louse-borne relapsing fever), Bartonella quintana (trench fever), and Yersinia pestis (plague).^5,8,9 Several Acinetobacter species were isolated from nearly one-third of collected body louse specimens in a French study.¹⁰ Additionally, serology for B quintana was found to be positive in up to 30% of cases in one United States urban homeless population.⁴

Clinical Manifestations

Patients often present with generalized pruritus, usually considerably more severe than with P humanus capitis, with lesions concentrated on the trunk.¹¹ In addition to often impetiginized, self-inflicted excoriations, feeding sites may present as erythematous macules (Figure 3), papules, or papular urticaria with a central hemorrhagic punctum. Extensive infestation also can manifest as the colloquial vagabond disease, characterized by postinflammatory hyperpigmentation and thickening of the involved skin. Remarkably, patients also may present with considerable iron-deficiency anemia secondary to high parasite load and large volume blood feeding. Multiple case reports have demonstrated associated morbidity.^12-14 The differential diagnosis for pediculosis may include scabies, lichen simplex chronicus, and eczematous dermatitis, though the clinician should prudently consider whether both scabies and pediculosis may be present, as coexistence is possible.^4,15

Diagnosis

Diagnosis can be reached by visualizing adult lice, nymphs, or viable nits on the body or more commonly within inner clothing seams; nits also fluoresce under Wood light.¹⁵ Although dermoscopy has proven useful for increased sensitivity and differentiation between viable and hatched nits, the insects also can be viewed with the unaided eye.¹⁶

Treatment: New Concerns and Strategies

The mainstay of treatment for body lice has long consisted of thorough washing and drying of all clothing and linens in a hot dryer. Treatment can be augmented with the addition of pharmacotherapy, plus antibiotics as warranted for louse-borne disease. Pharmacologic intervention often is used in cases of mass infestation and is similar to head lice.

Options for head lice include topical permethrin, malathion, lindane, spinosad, benzyl alcohol, and ivermectin. Pyrethroids, derived from the chrysanthemum, generally are considered safe for human use with a side-effect profile limited to irritation and allergy¹⁷; however, neurotoxicity and leukemia are clinical concerns, with an association more recently shown between large-volume use of pyrethroids and acute lymphoblastic leukemia.^18,19 Use of lindane is not recommended due to a greater potential for central nervous system neurotoxicity, manifested by seizures, with repeated large surface application. Malathion is problematic due to the risk for mucosal irritation, flammability of some formulations, and theoretical organophosphate poisoning, as its mechanism of action involves inhibition of acetylcholinesterase.¹⁵ However, in the context of head lice treatment, a randomized controlled trial reported no incidence of acetylcholinesterase inhibition.²⁰ Spinosad, manufactured from the soil bacterium Saccharopolyspora spinosa, functions similarly by interfering with the nicotinic acetylcholine receptor and also carries a risk for skin irritation.²¹ Among all the treatment options, we prefer benzyl alcohol, particularly in the context of resistance, as it is effective via a physical mechanism of action and lacks notable neurotoxic effects to the host. Use of benzyl alcohol is approved for patients as young as 6 months; it functions by asphyxiating the lice via paralysis of the respiratory spiracle with occlusion by inert ingredients. Itching, episodic numbness, and scalp or mucosal irritation are possible complications of treatment.²²

Treatment resistance of body lice has increased in recent years, warranting exploration of additional management strategies. Moreover, developing resistance to lindane and malathion has been reported.²³ Resistance to pyrethroids has been attributed to mutations in a voltage-gated sodium channel, one of which was universally present in the sampling of a single population.²⁴ A randomized controlled trial showed that off-label oral ivermectin 400 μg/kg was superior to malathion lotion 0.5% in difficult-to-treat cases of head lice²⁵; utility of oral ivermectin also has been reported in body lice.²⁶ In vitro studies also have shown promise for pursuing synergistic treatment of body lice with both ivermectin and antibiotics.²⁷

A novel primary prophylaxis approach for at-risk homeless individuals recently utilized permethrin-impregnated underwear. Although the intervention provided short-term infestation improvement, longer-term use did not show improvement from placebo and also increased prevalence of permethrin-resistant haplotypes.²

With the novel coronavirus (COVID-19) monopolizing the news cycle, fear and misinformation are at an all-time high. Public health officials and physicians are accelerating education outreach to the public to address misinformation, and identify and care for patients who may have been exposed to the virus.

In times of public health crises, pregnant women have unique and pressing concerns about their personal health and the health of their unborn children. While not often mentioned in major news coverage, obstetricians play a critical role during health crises because of their uniquely personal role with patients during all stages of pregnancy, providing this vulnerable population with the most up-to-date information and following the latest guidelines for recommended care.

Unfortunately, COVID-19 is breaking unfamiliar new ground. We know that pregnant women are at higher risk for viral infection – annually, influenza is a grim reminder that pregnant women are more immunocompromised than the general public – but we do not yet have data to confirm or refute that pregnant women have a higher susceptibility to COVID-19 than the rest of the adult population. We also do not know enough about COVID-19 transmission, including whether the virus can cross the transplacental barrier to affect a fetus, or whether it can be transmitted through breast milk. 

As private practice community obstetricians work to protect their patients during this public health crisis, Ob hospitalists can play an important role in supporting them in the provision of patient care. 

First, Ob hospitalists are highly-trained specialists who can help ensure that pregnant patients who seek care at the hospital – either with viral symptoms or with separate pregnancy-related concerns – are protected during triage until the treating community obstetrician can take the reins.

When a pregnant woman presents at a hospital, in most cases she will bypass the ED and instead be sent directly to the labor and delivery (L&D) unit. During a viral outbreak, there are two major concerns with this approach. For one thing, it means an immunocompromised woman is being sent through the hospital to get to L&D, and along the path, is exposed to every airborne pathogen in the facility (and, if she is already infected, exposes others along the way). In addition, in hospitals without an Ob hospitalist on site, the patient generally is not immediately triaged by a physician, physician’s assistant, or nurse practitioner upon arrival because those clinicians are not consistently on site in L&D.

In times of viral pandemics, new approaches are warranted. For hospitals with contracted L&D management with hospitalists, hospitalists work closely with department heads to implement protocols loosely based on the Emergency Severity Index (ESI) model established by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. Just as the ESI algorithm guides clinical stratification of patients, in times of reported viral outbreaks, L&D should consider triage of all pregnant women at higher levels of acuity, regardless of presentation status. In particular, if they show clinical symptoms, they should be masked, accompanied to the L&D unit by protected personnel, separated from other patients in areas of forced proximity such as hallways and elevators, and triaged in a secure single-patient room with a closed door (ideally at negative pressure relative to the surrounding areas). 

If the patient has traveled to an area of outbreak, reports exposure to travelers who have visited high-risk areas, has had contact with individuals who tested positive for COVID-19, or exhibits any clinical symptoms of COVID-19 (fever, dry cough, fatigue, etc.), her care management should adhere to standing hospital emergency protocols. Following consultation with the assigned community obstetrician, the Ob hospitalist and hospital staff should contact their local/state health departments immediately for all cases of patients who show symptoms to determine if the patient meets requirements for a person under investigation (PUI) for COVID-19. The state/local health department will work with clinicians to collect, store, and ship clinical specimens appropriately. Very ill patients may need to be treated in an intensive care setting where respiratory status can be closely monitored.

At Ob Hospitalist Group, our body of evidence from our large national footprint has informed the development of standard sets of protocols for delivery complications such as preeclampsia and postpartum hemorrhage, as well as a cesarean section reduction toolkit to combat medically unnecessary cesarean sections. OB hospitalists therefore can assist with refining COVID-19 protocols specifically for the L&D setting, using evidence-based data to tailor protocols to address public health emergencies as they evolve.

The second way that Ob hospitalists can support their colleagues is by covering L&D 24/7 so that community obstetricians can focus on other pressing medical needs. From our experience with other outbreaks such as severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) and influenza, we anticipate that obstetricians in private practice likely will have their hands full juggling a regular patient load, fielding calls from concerned patients, and caring for infected or ill patients who are being treated in an outpatient setting. Adding to that plate the need to rush to the hospital to clinically assess a patient for COVID-19 or for a delivery only compounds stress and exhaustion. At Ob Hospitalist Group, our hospitalist programs provide coverage and support to community obstetricians until they can arrive at the hospital or when the woman has no assigned obstetrician, reducing the pressure on community obstetricians to rush through their schedules.

Diagnostic and pharmaceutical companies are collaborating with public health officials to expedite diagnostic testing staff, hospital treatment capacity, vaccines, and even early therapies that may help to minimize severity. But right now, as clinicians work to protect their vulnerable patients, a close collaboration between community obstetricians and Ob hospitalists will help to keep patients and health care personnel safe and healthy – a goal that should apply not only to public health crises, but to the provision of maternal care every day.
 

Dr. Simon is chief medical officer at Ob Hospitalist Group (OBHG), is a board-certified ob.gyn., and former head of the department of obstetrics and gynecology for a U.S. hospital. He has no relevant conflicts of interest or financial disclosures. Email him at [email protected].

With the novel coronavirus (COVID-19) monopolizing the news cycle, fear and misinformation are at an all-time high. Public health officials and physicians are accelerating education outreach to the public to address misinformation, and identify and care for patients who may have been exposed to the virus.

In times of public health crises, pregnant women have unique and pressing concerns about their personal health and the health of their unborn children. While not often mentioned in major news coverage, obstetricians play a critical role during health crises because of their uniquely personal role with patients during all stages of pregnancy, providing this vulnerable population with the most up-to-date information and following the latest guidelines for recommended care.

Unfortunately, COVID-19 is breaking unfamiliar new ground. We know that pregnant women are at higher risk for viral infection – annually, influenza is a grim reminder that pregnant women are more immunocompromised than the general public – but we do not yet have data to confirm or refute that pregnant women have a higher susceptibility to COVID-19 than the rest of the adult population. We also do not know enough about COVID-19 transmission, including whether the virus can cross the transplacental barrier to affect a fetus, or whether it can be transmitted through breast milk. 

As private practice community obstetricians work to protect their patients during this public health crisis, Ob hospitalists can play an important role in supporting them in the provision of patient care. 

First, Ob hospitalists are highly-trained specialists who can help ensure that pregnant patients who seek care at the hospital – either with viral symptoms or with separate pregnancy-related concerns – are protected during triage until the treating community obstetrician can take the reins.

When a pregnant woman presents at a hospital, in most cases she will bypass the ED and instead be sent directly to the labor and delivery (L&D) unit. During a viral outbreak, there are two major concerns with this approach. For one thing, it means an immunocompromised woman is being sent through the hospital to get to L&D, and along the path, is exposed to every airborne pathogen in the facility (and, if she is already infected, exposes others along the way). In addition, in hospitals without an Ob hospitalist on site, the patient generally is not immediately triaged by a physician, physician’s assistant, or nurse practitioner upon arrival because those clinicians are not consistently on site in L&D.

In times of viral pandemics, new approaches are warranted. For hospitals with contracted L&D management with hospitalists, hospitalists work closely with department heads to implement protocols loosely based on the Emergency Severity Index (ESI) model established by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. Just as the ESI algorithm guides clinical stratification of patients, in times of reported viral outbreaks, L&D should consider triage of all pregnant women at higher levels of acuity, regardless of presentation status. In particular, if they show clinical symptoms, they should be masked, accompanied to the L&D unit by protected personnel, separated from other patients in areas of forced proximity such as hallways and elevators, and triaged in a secure single-patient room with a closed door (ideally at negative pressure relative to the surrounding areas). 

If the patient has traveled to an area of outbreak, reports exposure to travelers who have visited high-risk areas, has had contact with individuals who tested positive for COVID-19, or exhibits any clinical symptoms of COVID-19 (fever, dry cough, fatigue, etc.), her care management should adhere to standing hospital emergency protocols. Following consultation with the assigned community obstetrician, the Ob hospitalist and hospital staff should contact their local/state health departments immediately for all cases of patients who show symptoms to determine if the patient meets requirements for a person under investigation (PUI) for COVID-19. The state/local health department will work with clinicians to collect, store, and ship clinical specimens appropriately. Very ill patients may need to be treated in an intensive care setting where respiratory status can be closely monitored.

At Ob Hospitalist Group, our body of evidence from our large national footprint has informed the development of standard sets of protocols for delivery complications such as preeclampsia and postpartum hemorrhage, as well as a cesarean section reduction toolkit to combat medically unnecessary cesarean sections. OB hospitalists therefore can assist with refining COVID-19 protocols specifically for the L&D setting, using evidence-based data to tailor protocols to address public health emergencies as they evolve.

The second way that Ob hospitalists can support their colleagues is by covering L&D 24/7 so that community obstetricians can focus on other pressing medical needs. From our experience with other outbreaks such as severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) and influenza, we anticipate that obstetricians in private practice likely will have their hands full juggling a regular patient load, fielding calls from concerned patients, and caring for infected or ill patients who are being treated in an outpatient setting. Adding to that plate the need to rush to the hospital to clinically assess a patient for COVID-19 or for a delivery only compounds stress and exhaustion. At Ob Hospitalist Group, our hospitalist programs provide coverage and support to community obstetricians until they can arrive at the hospital or when the woman has no assigned obstetrician, reducing the pressure on community obstetricians to rush through their schedules.

Diagnostic and pharmaceutical companies are collaborating with public health officials to expedite diagnostic testing staff, hospital treatment capacity, vaccines, and even early therapies that may help to minimize severity. But right now, as clinicians work to protect their vulnerable patients, a close collaboration between community obstetricians and Ob hospitalists will help to keep patients and health care personnel safe and healthy – a goal that should apply not only to public health crises, but to the provision of maternal care every day.
 

Dr. Simon is chief medical officer at Ob Hospitalist Group (OBHG), is a board-certified ob.gyn., and former head of the department of obstetrics and gynecology for a U.S. hospital. He has no relevant conflicts of interest or financial disclosures. Email him at [email protected].

With the novel coronavirus (COVID-19) monopolizing the news cycle, fear and misinformation are at an all-time high. Public health officials and physicians are accelerating education outreach to the public to address misinformation, and identify and care for patients who may have been exposed to the virus.

In times of public health crises, pregnant women have unique and pressing concerns about their personal health and the health of their unborn children. While not often mentioned in major news coverage, obstetricians play a critical role during health crises because of their uniquely personal role with patients during all stages of pregnancy, providing this vulnerable population with the most up-to-date information and following the latest guidelines for recommended care.

Unfortunately, COVID-19 is breaking unfamiliar new ground. We know that pregnant women are at higher risk for viral infection – annually, influenza is a grim reminder that pregnant women are more immunocompromised than the general public – but we do not yet have data to confirm or refute that pregnant women have a higher susceptibility to COVID-19 than the rest of the adult population. We also do not know enough about COVID-19 transmission, including whether the virus can cross the transplacental barrier to affect a fetus, or whether it can be transmitted through breast milk. 

As private practice community obstetricians work to protect their patients during this public health crisis, Ob hospitalists can play an important role in supporting them in the provision of patient care. 

First, Ob hospitalists are highly-trained specialists who can help ensure that pregnant patients who seek care at the hospital – either with viral symptoms or with separate pregnancy-related concerns – are protected during triage until the treating community obstetrician can take the reins.

When a pregnant woman presents at a hospital, in most cases she will bypass the ED and instead be sent directly to the labor and delivery (L&D) unit. During a viral outbreak, there are two major concerns with this approach. For one thing, it means an immunocompromised woman is being sent through the hospital to get to L&D, and along the path, is exposed to every airborne pathogen in the facility (and, if she is already infected, exposes others along the way). In addition, in hospitals without an Ob hospitalist on site, the patient generally is not immediately triaged by a physician, physician’s assistant, or nurse practitioner upon arrival because those clinicians are not consistently on site in L&D.

In times of viral pandemics, new approaches are warranted. For hospitals with contracted L&D management with hospitalists, hospitalists work closely with department heads to implement protocols loosely based on the Emergency Severity Index (ESI) model established by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. Just as the ESI algorithm guides clinical stratification of patients, in times of reported viral outbreaks, L&D should consider triage of all pregnant women at higher levels of acuity, regardless of presentation status. In particular, if they show clinical symptoms, they should be masked, accompanied to the L&D unit by protected personnel, separated from other patients in areas of forced proximity such as hallways and elevators, and triaged in a secure single-patient room with a closed door (ideally at negative pressure relative to the surrounding areas). 

If the patient has traveled to an area of outbreak, reports exposure to travelers who have visited high-risk areas, has had contact with individuals who tested positive for COVID-19, or exhibits any clinical symptoms of COVID-19 (fever, dry cough, fatigue, etc.), her care management should adhere to standing hospital emergency protocols. Following consultation with the assigned community obstetrician, the Ob hospitalist and hospital staff should contact their local/state health departments immediately for all cases of patients who show symptoms to determine if the patient meets requirements for a person under investigation (PUI) for COVID-19. The state/local health department will work with clinicians to collect, store, and ship clinical specimens appropriately. Very ill patients may need to be treated in an intensive care setting where respiratory status can be closely monitored.

At Ob Hospitalist Group, our body of evidence from our large national footprint has informed the development of standard sets of protocols for delivery complications such as preeclampsia and postpartum hemorrhage, as well as a cesarean section reduction toolkit to combat medically unnecessary cesarean sections. OB hospitalists therefore can assist with refining COVID-19 protocols specifically for the L&D setting, using evidence-based data to tailor protocols to address public health emergencies as they evolve.

The second way that Ob hospitalists can support their colleagues is by covering L&D 24/7 so that community obstetricians can focus on other pressing medical needs. From our experience with other outbreaks such as severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) and influenza, we anticipate that obstetricians in private practice likely will have their hands full juggling a regular patient load, fielding calls from concerned patients, and caring for infected or ill patients who are being treated in an outpatient setting. Adding to that plate the need to rush to the hospital to clinically assess a patient for COVID-19 or for a delivery only compounds stress and exhaustion. At Ob Hospitalist Group, our hospitalist programs provide coverage and support to community obstetricians until they can arrive at the hospital or when the woman has no assigned obstetrician, reducing the pressure on community obstetricians to rush through their schedules.

Diagnostic and pharmaceutical companies are collaborating with public health officials to expedite diagnostic testing staff, hospital treatment capacity, vaccines, and even early therapies that may help to minimize severity. But right now, as clinicians work to protect their vulnerable patients, a close collaboration between community obstetricians and Ob hospitalists will help to keep patients and health care personnel safe and healthy – a goal that should apply not only to public health crises, but to the provision of maternal care every day.
 

Dr. Simon is chief medical officer at Ob Hospitalist Group (OBHG), is a board-certified ob.gyn., and former head of the department of obstetrics and gynecology for a U.S. hospital. He has no relevant conflicts of interest or financial disclosures. Email him at [email protected].

The Diagnosis: Herpes Simplex Virus Dermatitis 

A swab of the lesions yielded negative varicella-zoster virus and herpes simplex virus (HSV) cultures, but polymerase chain reaction (PCR) was positive for HSV DNA. The patient was started on acyclovir, which resulted in resolution of the lesions. 

Recurrent HSV dermatitis most frequently is encountered in the orolabial or genital regions. After primary infection, HSV is retrogradely taken up into the dorsal root ganglion and may be reactivated in the same dermatome upon stress induction, forming clustered vesicles that rupture to form painful erosions.¹ Our patient's history of numerous recurrent episodes in the same area of the palm in the distribution of the median nerve suggests viral latency in the C5 through T1 dorsal root ganglia with reactivation rather than autoinoculation or external infection from another source. The incidence of HSV involving the hand has been estimated at 2.4 cases per 100,000 individuals per year, with finger, thumb, or palm/wrist involvement accounting for 67%, 22%, and 11% of cases, respectively.² Of the palmar cases that have been reported, most have a positive history for genital or orolabial HSV infection.^2-5  

In cases of suspected HSV dermatitis with atypical presentations, diagnostic studies are of importance. Although viral culture is the diagnostic gold standard in active lesions, it has lower sensitivity in improperly handled specimens; cases of recurrent disease; and specimens from dried, crusted, or aged lesions,¹ which helps to explain the negative culture result in our patient. Viral culture has been largely replaced in clinical practice by nucleic acid amplification tests using PCR, which is fast and type specific.^6,7 The sensitivity of PCR approaches 100% when vesicles or wet ulcers are sampled, and PCR has better yields from dry ulcers or crusts compared to viral culture.⁶ However, because viral shedding is intermittent, a negative PCR result does not rule out HSV infection.⁸ Additional bedside diagnostic techniques include Tzanck smear, a rapid and inexpensive test in which lesions are scraped and stained with Giemsa, Wright, or Papanicolaou stains. Under light microscopy, multinucleated giant cells are seen in 60% to 75% of cases.⁹ This method, however, cannot distinguish HSV from varicella-zoster virus and must be followed by direct fluorescent antibody testing or immunohistochemistry for viral typing.^1,9 Serologic testing also may be useful in patients who have a suspicious history for HSV infection but do not have lesions on physical examination to diagnose clinically or sample for PCR. Enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay testing can detect IgG starting 3 weeks after infection, and newer type-specific assays can distinguish between HSV types 1 and 2.⁶ In low-incidence populations, false positives from enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay can be seen and should be confirmed by western blot.^6,7 

Preferred treatment of HSV includes antiviral medications such as acyclovir, valacyclovir, and famciclovir. Regimens vary based on the site of infection, primary or recurrent nature of the infection, immune status of the patient, and whether or not viral suppression is desired to prevent recurrent outbreaks.^7,10 

Tinea manuum also may present with unilateral vesicles and erosions involving the palms¹¹; however, it was less likely than HSV dermatitis in this patient presenting with a history of numerous recurrent episodes and without scaling on physical examination. Dyshidrotic eczema, contact dermatitis, and scabies are more characteristically pruritic rather than painful. Additionally, dyshidrotic eczema and scabies would be more likely to have symmetric involvement of the arms. Although vesicles are seen in both dyshidrotic eczema and HSV dermatitis, the vesicles of dyshidrotic eczema usually are noninflammatory compared to the painful vesicles on an erythematous base classically seen in HSV dermatitis. 
 
Acknowledgment
The authors thank Elizabeth Ergen, MD (Knoxville, Tennessee), for her assistance with this case. 

The Diagnosis: Herpes Simplex Virus Dermatitis 

A swab of the lesions yielded negative varicella-zoster virus and herpes simplex virus (HSV) cultures, but polymerase chain reaction (PCR) was positive for HSV DNA. The patient was started on acyclovir, which resulted in resolution of the lesions. 

Recurrent HSV dermatitis most frequently is encountered in the orolabial or genital regions. After primary infection, HSV is retrogradely taken up into the dorsal root ganglion and may be reactivated in the same dermatome upon stress induction, forming clustered vesicles that rupture to form painful erosions.¹ Our patient's history of numerous recurrent episodes in the same area of the palm in the distribution of the median nerve suggests viral latency in the C5 through T1 dorsal root ganglia with reactivation rather than autoinoculation or external infection from another source. The incidence of HSV involving the hand has been estimated at 2.4 cases per 100,000 individuals per year, with finger, thumb, or palm/wrist involvement accounting for 67%, 22%, and 11% of cases, respectively.² Of the palmar cases that have been reported, most have a positive history for genital or orolabial HSV infection.^2-5  

In cases of suspected HSV dermatitis with atypical presentations, diagnostic studies are of importance. Although viral culture is the diagnostic gold standard in active lesions, it has lower sensitivity in improperly handled specimens; cases of recurrent disease; and specimens from dried, crusted, or aged lesions,¹ which helps to explain the negative culture result in our patient. Viral culture has been largely replaced in clinical practice by nucleic acid amplification tests using PCR, which is fast and type specific.^6,7 The sensitivity of PCR approaches 100% when vesicles or wet ulcers are sampled, and PCR has better yields from dry ulcers or crusts compared to viral culture.⁶ However, because viral shedding is intermittent, a negative PCR result does not rule out HSV infection.⁸ Additional bedside diagnostic techniques include Tzanck smear, a rapid and inexpensive test in which lesions are scraped and stained with Giemsa, Wright, or Papanicolaou stains. Under light microscopy, multinucleated giant cells are seen in 60% to 75% of cases.⁹ This method, however, cannot distinguish HSV from varicella-zoster virus and must be followed by direct fluorescent antibody testing or immunohistochemistry for viral typing.^1,9 Serologic testing also may be useful in patients who have a suspicious history for HSV infection but do not have lesions on physical examination to diagnose clinically or sample for PCR. Enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay testing can detect IgG starting 3 weeks after infection, and newer type-specific assays can distinguish between HSV types 1 and 2.⁶ In low-incidence populations, false positives from enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay can be seen and should be confirmed by western blot.^6,7 

Preferred treatment of HSV includes antiviral medications such as acyclovir, valacyclovir, and famciclovir. Regimens vary based on the site of infection, primary or recurrent nature of the infection, immune status of the patient, and whether or not viral suppression is desired to prevent recurrent outbreaks.^7,10 

Tinea manuum also may present with unilateral vesicles and erosions involving the palms¹¹; however, it was less likely than HSV dermatitis in this patient presenting with a history of numerous recurrent episodes and without scaling on physical examination. Dyshidrotic eczema, contact dermatitis, and scabies are more characteristically pruritic rather than painful. Additionally, dyshidrotic eczema and scabies would be more likely to have symmetric involvement of the arms. Although vesicles are seen in both dyshidrotic eczema and HSV dermatitis, the vesicles of dyshidrotic eczema usually are noninflammatory compared to the painful vesicles on an erythematous base classically seen in HSV dermatitis. 
 
Acknowledgment
The authors thank Elizabeth Ergen, MD (Knoxville, Tennessee), for her assistance with this case. 

The Diagnosis: Herpes Simplex Virus Dermatitis 

A swab of the lesions yielded negative varicella-zoster virus and herpes simplex virus (HSV) cultures, but polymerase chain reaction (PCR) was positive for HSV DNA. The patient was started on acyclovir, which resulted in resolution of the lesions. 

Recurrent HSV dermatitis most frequently is encountered in the orolabial or genital regions. After primary infection, HSV is retrogradely taken up into the dorsal root ganglion and may be reactivated in the same dermatome upon stress induction, forming clustered vesicles that rupture to form painful erosions.¹ Our patient's history of numerous recurrent episodes in the same area of the palm in the distribution of the median nerve suggests viral latency in the C5 through T1 dorsal root ganglia with reactivation rather than autoinoculation or external infection from another source. The incidence of HSV involving the hand has been estimated at 2.4 cases per 100,000 individuals per year, with finger, thumb, or palm/wrist involvement accounting for 67%, 22%, and 11% of cases, respectively.² Of the palmar cases that have been reported, most have a positive history for genital or orolabial HSV infection.^2-5  

In cases of suspected HSV dermatitis with atypical presentations, diagnostic studies are of importance. Although viral culture is the diagnostic gold standard in active lesions, it has lower sensitivity in improperly handled specimens; cases of recurrent disease; and specimens from dried, crusted, or aged lesions,¹ which helps to explain the negative culture result in our patient. Viral culture has been largely replaced in clinical practice by nucleic acid amplification tests using PCR, which is fast and type specific.^6,7 The sensitivity of PCR approaches 100% when vesicles or wet ulcers are sampled, and PCR has better yields from dry ulcers or crusts compared to viral culture.⁶ However, because viral shedding is intermittent, a negative PCR result does not rule out HSV infection.⁸ Additional bedside diagnostic techniques include Tzanck smear, a rapid and inexpensive test in which lesions are scraped and stained with Giemsa, Wright, or Papanicolaou stains. Under light microscopy, multinucleated giant cells are seen in 60% to 75% of cases.⁹ This method, however, cannot distinguish HSV from varicella-zoster virus and must be followed by direct fluorescent antibody testing or immunohistochemistry for viral typing.^1,9 Serologic testing also may be useful in patients who have a suspicious history for HSV infection but do not have lesions on physical examination to diagnose clinically or sample for PCR. Enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay testing can detect IgG starting 3 weeks after infection, and newer type-specific assays can distinguish between HSV types 1 and 2.⁶ In low-incidence populations, false positives from enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay can be seen and should be confirmed by western blot.^6,7 

Preferred treatment of HSV includes antiviral medications such as acyclovir, valacyclovir, and famciclovir. Regimens vary based on the site of infection, primary or recurrent nature of the infection, immune status of the patient, and whether or not viral suppression is desired to prevent recurrent outbreaks.^7,10 

Tinea manuum also may present with unilateral vesicles and erosions involving the palms¹¹; however, it was less likely than HSV dermatitis in this patient presenting with a history of numerous recurrent episodes and without scaling on physical examination. Dyshidrotic eczema, contact dermatitis, and scabies are more characteristically pruritic rather than painful. Additionally, dyshidrotic eczema and scabies would be more likely to have symmetric involvement of the arms. Although vesicles are seen in both dyshidrotic eczema and HSV dermatitis, the vesicles of dyshidrotic eczema usually are noninflammatory compared to the painful vesicles on an erythematous base classically seen in HSV dermatitis. 
 
Acknowledgment
The authors thank Elizabeth Ergen, MD (Knoxville, Tennessee), for her assistance with this case.