MDedge Dermatology

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s director Rochelle Walensky, MD, signed off on an advisory panel’s recommendation May 12 endorsing the use of the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine in adolescents aged 12-15 years.

Earlier in the day the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices voted 14-0 in favor of the safety and effectiveness of the vaccine in younger teens.

“CDC now recommends that this vaccine be used among this population, and providers may begin vaccinating them right away,” Dr. Walensky said in an official statement.

The Food and Drug Administration on May 10 issued an emergency use authorization (EUA) for the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine for the prevention of COVID-19 in individuals 12-15 years old. The FDA first cleared the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine through an EUA in December 2020 for those ages 16 and older. Pfizer this month also initiated steps with the FDA toward a full approval of its vaccine.

Dr. Walenksy urged parents to seriously consider vaccinating their children.

“Understandably, some parents want more information before their children receive a vaccine,” she said. “I encourage parents with questions to talk to your child’s healthcare provider or your family doctor to learn more about the vaccine.”
 

Vaccine “safe and effective”

Separately, the American Academy of Pediatrics issued a statement May 12 in support of vaccinating all children ages 12 and older who are eligible for the federally authorized COVID-19 vaccine.

“As a pediatrician and a parent, I have looked forward to getting my own children and patients vaccinated, and I am thrilled that those ages 12 and older can now be protected,” said AAP President Lee Savio Beers, MD, in a statement. “The data continue to show that this vaccine is safe and effective. I urge all parents to call their pediatrician to learn more about how to get their children and teens vaccinated.”

The expanded clearance for the Pfizer vaccine is seen as a critical step for allowing teens to resume activities on which they missed out during the pandemic.

“We’ve seen the harm done to children’s mental and emotional health as they’ve missed out on so many experiences during the pandemic,” Dr. Beers said. “Vaccinating children will protect them and allow them to fully engage in all of the activities – school, sports, socializing with friends and family – that are so important to their health and development.”

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

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s director Rochelle Walensky, MD, signed off on an advisory panel’s recommendation May 12 endorsing the use of the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine in adolescents aged 12-15 years.

Earlier in the day the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices voted 14-0 in favor of the safety and effectiveness of the vaccine in younger teens.

“CDC now recommends that this vaccine be used among this population, and providers may begin vaccinating them right away,” Dr. Walensky said in an official statement.

The Food and Drug Administration on May 10 issued an emergency use authorization (EUA) for the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine for the prevention of COVID-19 in individuals 12-15 years old. The FDA first cleared the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine through an EUA in December 2020 for those ages 16 and older. Pfizer this month also initiated steps with the FDA toward a full approval of its vaccine.

Dr. Walenksy urged parents to seriously consider vaccinating their children.

“Understandably, some parents want more information before their children receive a vaccine,” she said. “I encourage parents with questions to talk to your child’s healthcare provider or your family doctor to learn more about the vaccine.”
 

Vaccine “safe and effective”

Separately, the American Academy of Pediatrics issued a statement May 12 in support of vaccinating all children ages 12 and older who are eligible for the federally authorized COVID-19 vaccine.

“As a pediatrician and a parent, I have looked forward to getting my own children and patients vaccinated, and I am thrilled that those ages 12 and older can now be protected,” said AAP President Lee Savio Beers, MD, in a statement. “The data continue to show that this vaccine is safe and effective. I urge all parents to call their pediatrician to learn more about how to get their children and teens vaccinated.”

The expanded clearance for the Pfizer vaccine is seen as a critical step for allowing teens to resume activities on which they missed out during the pandemic.

“We’ve seen the harm done to children’s mental and emotional health as they’ve missed out on so many experiences during the pandemic,” Dr. Beers said. “Vaccinating children will protect them and allow them to fully engage in all of the activities – school, sports, socializing with friends and family – that are so important to their health and development.”

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

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s director Rochelle Walensky, MD, signed off on an advisory panel’s recommendation May 12 endorsing the use of the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine in adolescents aged 12-15 years.

Earlier in the day the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices voted 14-0 in favor of the safety and effectiveness of the vaccine in younger teens.

“CDC now recommends that this vaccine be used among this population, and providers may begin vaccinating them right away,” Dr. Walensky said in an official statement.

The Food and Drug Administration on May 10 issued an emergency use authorization (EUA) for the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine for the prevention of COVID-19 in individuals 12-15 years old. The FDA first cleared the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine through an EUA in December 2020 for those ages 16 and older. Pfizer this month also initiated steps with the FDA toward a full approval of its vaccine.

Dr. Walenksy urged parents to seriously consider vaccinating their children.

“Understandably, some parents want more information before their children receive a vaccine,” she said. “I encourage parents with questions to talk to your child’s healthcare provider or your family doctor to learn more about the vaccine.”
 

Vaccine “safe and effective”

Separately, the American Academy of Pediatrics issued a statement May 12 in support of vaccinating all children ages 12 and older who are eligible for the federally authorized COVID-19 vaccine.

“As a pediatrician and a parent, I have looked forward to getting my own children and patients vaccinated, and I am thrilled that those ages 12 and older can now be protected,” said AAP President Lee Savio Beers, MD, in a statement. “The data continue to show that this vaccine is safe and effective. I urge all parents to call their pediatrician to learn more about how to get their children and teens vaccinated.”

The expanded clearance for the Pfizer vaccine is seen as a critical step for allowing teens to resume activities on which they missed out during the pandemic.

“We’ve seen the harm done to children’s mental and emotional health as they’ve missed out on so many experiences during the pandemic,” Dr. Beers said. “Vaccinating children will protect them and allow them to fully engage in all of the activities – school, sports, socializing with friends and family – that are so important to their health and development.”

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

Six months after mild SARS-CoV-2 infection in a representative health care workforce, no long-term cardiovascular sequelae were detected, compared with a matched SARS-CoV-2 seronegative group.

“Mild COVID-19 left no measurable cardiovascular impact on LV structure, function, scar burden, aortic stiffness, or serum biomarkers,” the researchers reported in an article published online May 8 in JACC: Cardiovascular Imaging.

“We provide societal reassurance and support for the position that screening in asymptomatic individuals following mild disease is not indicated,” first author George Joy, MBBS, University College London, said in presenting the results at EuroCMR, the annual CMR congress of the European Association of Cardiovascular Imaging (EACVI).

Briefing comoderator Leyla Elif Sade, MD, University of Baskent, Ankara, Turkey, said, “This is the hot topic of our time because of obvious reasons and I think [this] study is quite important to avoid unnecessary further testing, surveillance testing, and to avoid a significant burden of health care costs.”
 

‘Alarming’ early data

Early cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) studies in patients recovered from mild COVID-19 were “alarming,” Dr. Joy said.

As previously reported, one study showed cardiac abnormalities after mild COVID-19 in up to 78% of patients, with evidence of ongoing myocardial inflammation in 60%. The CMR findings correlated with elevations in troponin T by high-sensitivity assay (hs-TnT).

To investigate further, Dr. Joy and colleagues did a nested case-control study within the COVIDsortium, a prospective study of 731 health care workers from three London hospitals who underwent weekly symptom, polymerase chain reaction, and serology assessment over 4 months during the first wave of the pandemic.

A total of 157 (21.5%) participants seroconverted during the study period.

Six months after infection, 74 seropositive (median age, 39; 62% women) and 75 age-, sex-, and ethnicity-matched seronegative controls underwent cardiovascular phenotyping (comprehensive phantom-calibrated CMR and blood biomarkers). The analysis was blinded, using objective artificial intelligence analytics when available.

The results showed no statistically significant differences between seropositive and seronegative participants in cardiac structure (left ventricular volumes, mass, atrial area), function (ejection fraction, global longitudinal shortening, aortic distensibility), tissue characterization (T1, T2, extracellular volume fraction mapping, late gadolinium enhancement) or biomarkers (troponin, N-terminal pro–B-type natriuretic peptide).

Cardiovascular abnormalities were no more common in seropositive than seronegative otherwise healthy health care workers 6 months post mild SARS-CoV-2 infection. Measured abnormalities were “evenly distributed between both groups,” Dr. Joy said.

Therefore, it’s “important to reassure patients with mild SARS-CoV-2 infection regarding its cardiovascular effects,” Dr. Joy and colleagues concluded.
 

Limitations and caveats

They caution, however, that the study provides insight only into the short- to medium-term sequelae of patients aged 18-69 with mild COVID-19 who did not require hospitalization and had low numbers of comorbidities.

The study does not address the cardiovascular effects after severe COVID-19 infection requiring hospitalization or in those with multiple comorbid conditions, they noted. It also does not prove that apparently mild SARS-CoV-2 never causes chronic myocarditis.

“The study design would not distinguish between people who had sustained completely healed myocarditis and pericarditis and those in whom the heart had never been affected,” the researchers noted.

They pointed to a recent cross-sectional study of athletes 1-month post mild COVID-19 that found significant pericardial involvement (late enhancement and/or pericardial effusion), although no baseline pre-COVID-19 imaging was performed. In the current study at 6 months post infection the pericardium was normal.

The coauthors of a linked editorial say this study provides “welcome, reassuring information that in healthy individuals who experience mild infection with COVID-19, persisting evidence of cardiovascular complications is very uncommon. The results do not support cardiovascular screening in individuals with mild or asymptomatic infection with COVID-19.”  

Colin Berry, PhD, and Kenneth Mangion, PhD, both from University of Glasgow, cautioned that the population is restricted to health care workers; therefore, the findings may not necessarily be generalized to a community population .

“Healthcare workers do not reflect the population of individuals most clinically affected by COVID-19 illness. The severity of acute COVID-19 infection is greatest in older individuals and those with preexisting health problems. Healthcare workers are not representative of the wider, unselected, at-risk, community population,” they pointed out.

Cardiovascular risk factors and concomitant health problems (heart and respiratory disease) may be more common in the community than in health care workers, and prior studies have highlighted their potential impact for disease pathogenesis in COVID-19.

Dr. Berry and Dr. Mangion also noted that women made up nearly two-thirds of the seropositive group. This may reflect a selection bias or may naturally reflect the fact that proportionately more women are asymptomatic or have milder forms of illness, whereas severe SARS-CoV-2 infection requiring hospitalization affects men to a greater degree.

COVIDsortium funding was donated by individuals, charitable trusts, and corporations including Goldman Sachs, Citadel and Citadel Securities, The Guy Foundation, GW Pharmaceuticals, Kusuma Trust, and Jagclif Charitable Trust, and enabled by Barts Charity with support from UCLH Charity. The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Six months after mild SARS-CoV-2 infection in a representative health care workforce, no long-term cardiovascular sequelae were detected, compared with a matched SARS-CoV-2 seronegative group.

“Mild COVID-19 left no measurable cardiovascular impact on LV structure, function, scar burden, aortic stiffness, or serum biomarkers,” the researchers reported in an article published online May 8 in JACC: Cardiovascular Imaging.

“We provide societal reassurance and support for the position that screening in asymptomatic individuals following mild disease is not indicated,” first author George Joy, MBBS, University College London, said in presenting the results at EuroCMR, the annual CMR congress of the European Association of Cardiovascular Imaging (EACVI).

Briefing comoderator Leyla Elif Sade, MD, University of Baskent, Ankara, Turkey, said, “This is the hot topic of our time because of obvious reasons and I think [this] study is quite important to avoid unnecessary further testing, surveillance testing, and to avoid a significant burden of health care costs.”
 

‘Alarming’ early data

Early cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) studies in patients recovered from mild COVID-19 were “alarming,” Dr. Joy said.

As previously reported, one study showed cardiac abnormalities after mild COVID-19 in up to 78% of patients, with evidence of ongoing myocardial inflammation in 60%. The CMR findings correlated with elevations in troponin T by high-sensitivity assay (hs-TnT).

To investigate further, Dr. Joy and colleagues did a nested case-control study within the COVIDsortium, a prospective study of 731 health care workers from three London hospitals who underwent weekly symptom, polymerase chain reaction, and serology assessment over 4 months during the first wave of the pandemic.

A total of 157 (21.5%) participants seroconverted during the study period.

Six months after infection, 74 seropositive (median age, 39; 62% women) and 75 age-, sex-, and ethnicity-matched seronegative controls underwent cardiovascular phenotyping (comprehensive phantom-calibrated CMR and blood biomarkers). The analysis was blinded, using objective artificial intelligence analytics when available.

The results showed no statistically significant differences between seropositive and seronegative participants in cardiac structure (left ventricular volumes, mass, atrial area), function (ejection fraction, global longitudinal shortening, aortic distensibility), tissue characterization (T1, T2, extracellular volume fraction mapping, late gadolinium enhancement) or biomarkers (troponin, N-terminal pro–B-type natriuretic peptide).

Cardiovascular abnormalities were no more common in seropositive than seronegative otherwise healthy health care workers 6 months post mild SARS-CoV-2 infection. Measured abnormalities were “evenly distributed between both groups,” Dr. Joy said.

Therefore, it’s “important to reassure patients with mild SARS-CoV-2 infection regarding its cardiovascular effects,” Dr. Joy and colleagues concluded.
 

Limitations and caveats

They caution, however, that the study provides insight only into the short- to medium-term sequelae of patients aged 18-69 with mild COVID-19 who did not require hospitalization and had low numbers of comorbidities.

The study does not address the cardiovascular effects after severe COVID-19 infection requiring hospitalization or in those with multiple comorbid conditions, they noted. It also does not prove that apparently mild SARS-CoV-2 never causes chronic myocarditis.

“The study design would not distinguish between people who had sustained completely healed myocarditis and pericarditis and those in whom the heart had never been affected,” the researchers noted.

They pointed to a recent cross-sectional study of athletes 1-month post mild COVID-19 that found significant pericardial involvement (late enhancement and/or pericardial effusion), although no baseline pre-COVID-19 imaging was performed. In the current study at 6 months post infection the pericardium was normal.

The coauthors of a linked editorial say this study provides “welcome, reassuring information that in healthy individuals who experience mild infection with COVID-19, persisting evidence of cardiovascular complications is very uncommon. The results do not support cardiovascular screening in individuals with mild or asymptomatic infection with COVID-19.”  

Colin Berry, PhD, and Kenneth Mangion, PhD, both from University of Glasgow, cautioned that the population is restricted to health care workers; therefore, the findings may not necessarily be generalized to a community population .

“Healthcare workers do not reflect the population of individuals most clinically affected by COVID-19 illness. The severity of acute COVID-19 infection is greatest in older individuals and those with preexisting health problems. Healthcare workers are not representative of the wider, unselected, at-risk, community population,” they pointed out.

Cardiovascular risk factors and concomitant health problems (heart and respiratory disease) may be more common in the community than in health care workers, and prior studies have highlighted their potential impact for disease pathogenesis in COVID-19.

Dr. Berry and Dr. Mangion also noted that women made up nearly two-thirds of the seropositive group. This may reflect a selection bias or may naturally reflect the fact that proportionately more women are asymptomatic or have milder forms of illness, whereas severe SARS-CoV-2 infection requiring hospitalization affects men to a greater degree.

COVIDsortium funding was donated by individuals, charitable trusts, and corporations including Goldman Sachs, Citadel and Citadel Securities, The Guy Foundation, GW Pharmaceuticals, Kusuma Trust, and Jagclif Charitable Trust, and enabled by Barts Charity with support from UCLH Charity. The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Six months after mild SARS-CoV-2 infection in a representative health care workforce, no long-term cardiovascular sequelae were detected, compared with a matched SARS-CoV-2 seronegative group.

“Mild COVID-19 left no measurable cardiovascular impact on LV structure, function, scar burden, aortic stiffness, or serum biomarkers,” the researchers reported in an article published online May 8 in JACC: Cardiovascular Imaging.

“We provide societal reassurance and support for the position that screening in asymptomatic individuals following mild disease is not indicated,” first author George Joy, MBBS, University College London, said in presenting the results at EuroCMR, the annual CMR congress of the European Association of Cardiovascular Imaging (EACVI).

Briefing comoderator Leyla Elif Sade, MD, University of Baskent, Ankara, Turkey, said, “This is the hot topic of our time because of obvious reasons and I think [this] study is quite important to avoid unnecessary further testing, surveillance testing, and to avoid a significant burden of health care costs.”
 

‘Alarming’ early data

Early cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) studies in patients recovered from mild COVID-19 were “alarming,” Dr. Joy said.

As previously reported, one study showed cardiac abnormalities after mild COVID-19 in up to 78% of patients, with evidence of ongoing myocardial inflammation in 60%. The CMR findings correlated with elevations in troponin T by high-sensitivity assay (hs-TnT).

To investigate further, Dr. Joy and colleagues did a nested case-control study within the COVIDsortium, a prospective study of 731 health care workers from three London hospitals who underwent weekly symptom, polymerase chain reaction, and serology assessment over 4 months during the first wave of the pandemic.

A total of 157 (21.5%) participants seroconverted during the study period.

Six months after infection, 74 seropositive (median age, 39; 62% women) and 75 age-, sex-, and ethnicity-matched seronegative controls underwent cardiovascular phenotyping (comprehensive phantom-calibrated CMR and blood biomarkers). The analysis was blinded, using objective artificial intelligence analytics when available.

The results showed no statistically significant differences between seropositive and seronegative participants in cardiac structure (left ventricular volumes, mass, atrial area), function (ejection fraction, global longitudinal shortening, aortic distensibility), tissue characterization (T1, T2, extracellular volume fraction mapping, late gadolinium enhancement) or biomarkers (troponin, N-terminal pro–B-type natriuretic peptide).

Cardiovascular abnormalities were no more common in seropositive than seronegative otherwise healthy health care workers 6 months post mild SARS-CoV-2 infection. Measured abnormalities were “evenly distributed between both groups,” Dr. Joy said.

Therefore, it’s “important to reassure patients with mild SARS-CoV-2 infection regarding its cardiovascular effects,” Dr. Joy and colleagues concluded.
 

Limitations and caveats

They caution, however, that the study provides insight only into the short- to medium-term sequelae of patients aged 18-69 with mild COVID-19 who did not require hospitalization and had low numbers of comorbidities.

The study does not address the cardiovascular effects after severe COVID-19 infection requiring hospitalization or in those with multiple comorbid conditions, they noted. It also does not prove that apparently mild SARS-CoV-2 never causes chronic myocarditis.

“The study design would not distinguish between people who had sustained completely healed myocarditis and pericarditis and those in whom the heart had never been affected,” the researchers noted.

They pointed to a recent cross-sectional study of athletes 1-month post mild COVID-19 that found significant pericardial involvement (late enhancement and/or pericardial effusion), although no baseline pre-COVID-19 imaging was performed. In the current study at 6 months post infection the pericardium was normal.

The coauthors of a linked editorial say this study provides “welcome, reassuring information that in healthy individuals who experience mild infection with COVID-19, persisting evidence of cardiovascular complications is very uncommon. The results do not support cardiovascular screening in individuals with mild or asymptomatic infection with COVID-19.”  

Colin Berry, PhD, and Kenneth Mangion, PhD, both from University of Glasgow, cautioned that the population is restricted to health care workers; therefore, the findings may not necessarily be generalized to a community population .

“Healthcare workers do not reflect the population of individuals most clinically affected by COVID-19 illness. The severity of acute COVID-19 infection is greatest in older individuals and those with preexisting health problems. Healthcare workers are not representative of the wider, unselected, at-risk, community population,” they pointed out.

Cardiovascular risk factors and concomitant health problems (heart and respiratory disease) may be more common in the community than in health care workers, and prior studies have highlighted their potential impact for disease pathogenesis in COVID-19.

Dr. Berry and Dr. Mangion also noted that women made up nearly two-thirds of the seropositive group. This may reflect a selection bias or may naturally reflect the fact that proportionately more women are asymptomatic or have milder forms of illness, whereas severe SARS-CoV-2 infection requiring hospitalization affects men to a greater degree.

COVIDsortium funding was donated by individuals, charitable trusts, and corporations including Goldman Sachs, Citadel and Citadel Securities, The Guy Foundation, GW Pharmaceuticals, Kusuma Trust, and Jagclif Charitable Trust, and enabled by Barts Charity with support from UCLH Charity. The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Patients who receive the mRNA COVID-19 vaccines are experiencing a variety of skin rashes, a dermatologist told colleagues, and some lesions don’t appear until several days after an injection. The good news is that these side effects tend to be minor and vanish within a few days, Esther Freeman, MD, PhD, said in a presentation at the American Academy of Dermatology Virtual Meeting Experience.

“The reality is actually very reassuring,” Dr. Freeman said, especially in light of what is currently known about when the rashes occur and how anaphylaxis is extremely uncommon. Now, she added, dermatologists can tell patients who had reactions to their initial vaccination that “we know you had this big reaction, and we know that it was upsetting and uncomfortable. But it may not happen the second time around. And if it does, [the reaction is] probably going to be smaller.”

Dr. Freeman, associate professor of dermatology at Harvard Medical School, Boston, highlighted a study published in the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology that she coauthored with dermatologists across the United States. The researchers tracked 414 cutaneous reactions to the Moderna (83%) and Pfizer (17%) COVID-19 vaccines in a group of patients, which was 90% female, 78% White, and mostly from the United States. Their average age was 44 years. The cases were reported to the AAD–International League of Dermatological Societies registry of COVID-19 cutaneous manifestations.

While most were women, “it’s a little hard to know if this is really going to end up being a true finding,” said Dr. Freeman, the registry’s principal investigator and a member of the AAD’s COVID-19 Ad Hoc Task Force. “If you think about who got vaccinated early, it was health care providers, and the American health care workforce is over 70% female. So I think there’s a little bit of bias here. There may also be a bias because women may be slightly more likely to report or go to their health care provider for a rash.”

Delayed large local reactions were the most common, accounting for 66% (175 cases) of the 267 skin reactions reported after the first Moderna vaccine dose and 30% (31 cases) of the 102 reactions reported after the second dose. These reactions represented 15% (5 cases) of the 34 skin reactions reported after the first Pfizer vaccine dose and 18% (7 cases) of the 40 reactions after the second dose.

There are two peaks with that first dose, Dr. Freeman said. “There’s a peak around day 2 or 3. And there’s another peak around day 7 or 8 with some of these reactions. Only 27% who had a reaction with the first dose had the same reaction with the second.” She added that these reactions “are not cellulitis and don’t require antibiotics.”

Other more common reactions included local injection-site reactions (swelling, erythema, and pain), urticaria (after 24 hours in almost all cases, occurring at a higher rate in patients who received the Pfizer vaccine), and morbilliform eruptions.

Dr. Freeman said that patients may experience redness and swelling in the hands and feet that can be “very uncomfortable.” She described one patient “who was having a hard time actually closing his fist, just because of the amount of swelling and redness in his hand. It did resolve, and it’s important to reassure your patients it will go away.”

According to this study, less common reports of other cutaneous findings with both vaccines included 9 reports of swelling at the site of cosmetic fillers, 8 reports of pernio/chilblains, 10 reports of varicella zoster, 4 reports of herpes simplex flares, 4 pityriasis rosea–like reactions, and 4 rashes in infants of vaccinated breastfeeding mothers.

The study noted that “patients responded well to topical corticosteroids, oral antihistamines, and/or pain-relieving medications. These reactions resolved after a median of 3-4 days.”

It’s important to understand that none of the patients developed anaphylaxis after the second dose even if they’d had a reaction to the first dose, Dr. Freeman said. “But I should point out that we’re talking about reactions that have started more than 4 hours after the vaccine. If a rash such as a urticaria specifically starts within 4 hours of vaccination, that’s in a different category. Those are considered more immediate allergic reactions, and those patients need to be seen by allergy before a second dose.”

Dr. Freeman added that “it’s really interesting to think about how our bodies are really reacting to the vaccine in a way that’s mimicking our body’s reactions to COVID-19.” For example, some patients who got vaccinated developed chilblains similar to the “COVID toes” described in infected patients, apparently as part of the body’s immune response to the virus. “We’ve seen this in patients who actually had COVID and had prior COVID toes and then actually got a flare with their vaccine. And then we’ve also seen it in patients who never had COVID.”

In regard to general advice for patients, she said, “I do still encourage my patients who previously had COVID to go ahead and get the vaccine even if they had a skin manifestation with COVID.”

Shari Lipner, MD, PhD, associate professor of clinical dermatology, Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, said she has have seen only a handful of cases of delayed large local reactions and local injection site reactions after COVID-19 vaccination. “I have seen a significant number of cases of acute urticaria following the first and second doses,” she said in an interview. “However, it is important to keep in mind that we cannot determine cause and effect for the cases of acute urticaria. They may or may not be vaccine related.”

Fortunately, none of the adverse effects she’s seen have been severe. “It is important that dermatologists educate the public and their patients that most people do not develop any skin reaction in response to the vaccine,” she said. In the minority who do, “reactions tend to be mild and are not life-threatening. Many of these skin reactions resolve on their own without treatment.”

She added that “patients with pernio/chilblains or herpes zoster following vaccination should be referred by a board-certified dermatologist for prompt treatment and to avoid sequelae.”


 

‘COVID vaccine arm’

Delayed local reactions to the Moderna vaccine were also described in a report published online on May 12, 2021, in JAMA Dermatology, after the AAD meeting, in 16 patients referred to the Yale New Haven (Conn.) Hospital Dermatology service who experienced delayed localized cutaneous hypersensitivity reactions a median of 7 days after receiving the vaccine (range, 2-12 days), from Jan. 20 to Feb. 12, 2021. No such cases were reported in Pfizer vaccine recipients.

Of the 16 patients, whose median age was 38 years and who were mostly women, 15 developed the reaction after the first dose, described as “pruritic and variably painful erythematous reactions near the injection site,” which lasted a median of 5 days (range, 1-21 days). After the second dose, 12 of the 16 patients developed injection-site reactions (including one patient who had no reaction after dose 1), a median of 2 days after the vaccine was administered (range, 0-5 days). Histologic results of a biopsy in one patient with a reaction to the second dose “ demonstrated mild predominantly perivascular and focal interstitial mixed infiltrate with lymphocytes and eosinophils consistent with a dermal hypersensitivity reaction,” wrote Alicia J. Little, MD, PhD, of the department of dermatology, Yale University, New Haven, and coauthors.

Compared with immediate hypersensitivity reactions, occurring within 4 hours of vaccination, such as anaphylaxis and urticaria, they concluded that “these delayed localized hypersensitivity reactions are not a contraindication to subsequent vaccination,” and they proposed that they be named “COVID vaccine arm.”

Dr. Freeman reported no disclosures. Dr. Lipner also had no relevant disclosures. Dr. Little reported receiving a grant from the National Center for Advancing Translational Science and a Women’s Health Career Development Award from the Dermatology Foundation while the study was conducted; another author reported equity in Johnson & Johnson in his spouse’s retirement fund outside the submitted work.
 

Patients who receive the mRNA COVID-19 vaccines are experiencing a variety of skin rashes, a dermatologist told colleagues, and some lesions don’t appear until several days after an injection. The good news is that these side effects tend to be minor and vanish within a few days, Esther Freeman, MD, PhD, said in a presentation at the American Academy of Dermatology Virtual Meeting Experience.

“The reality is actually very reassuring,” Dr. Freeman said, especially in light of what is currently known about when the rashes occur and how anaphylaxis is extremely uncommon. Now, she added, dermatologists can tell patients who had reactions to their initial vaccination that “we know you had this big reaction, and we know that it was upsetting and uncomfortable. But it may not happen the second time around. And if it does, [the reaction is] probably going to be smaller.”

Dr. Freeman, associate professor of dermatology at Harvard Medical School, Boston, highlighted a study published in the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology that she coauthored with dermatologists across the United States. The researchers tracked 414 cutaneous reactions to the Moderna (83%) and Pfizer (17%) COVID-19 vaccines in a group of patients, which was 90% female, 78% White, and mostly from the United States. Their average age was 44 years. The cases were reported to the AAD–International League of Dermatological Societies registry of COVID-19 cutaneous manifestations.

While most were women, “it’s a little hard to know if this is really going to end up being a true finding,” said Dr. Freeman, the registry’s principal investigator and a member of the AAD’s COVID-19 Ad Hoc Task Force. “If you think about who got vaccinated early, it was health care providers, and the American health care workforce is over 70% female. So I think there’s a little bit of bias here. There may also be a bias because women may be slightly more likely to report or go to their health care provider for a rash.”

Delayed large local reactions were the most common, accounting for 66% (175 cases) of the 267 skin reactions reported after the first Moderna vaccine dose and 30% (31 cases) of the 102 reactions reported after the second dose. These reactions represented 15% (5 cases) of the 34 skin reactions reported after the first Pfizer vaccine dose and 18% (7 cases) of the 40 reactions after the second dose.

There are two peaks with that first dose, Dr. Freeman said. “There’s a peak around day 2 or 3. And there’s another peak around day 7 or 8 with some of these reactions. Only 27% who had a reaction with the first dose had the same reaction with the second.” She added that these reactions “are not cellulitis and don’t require antibiotics.”

Other more common reactions included local injection-site reactions (swelling, erythema, and pain), urticaria (after 24 hours in almost all cases, occurring at a higher rate in patients who received the Pfizer vaccine), and morbilliform eruptions.

Dr. Freeman said that patients may experience redness and swelling in the hands and feet that can be “very uncomfortable.” She described one patient “who was having a hard time actually closing his fist, just because of the amount of swelling and redness in his hand. It did resolve, and it’s important to reassure your patients it will go away.”

According to this study, less common reports of other cutaneous findings with both vaccines included 9 reports of swelling at the site of cosmetic fillers, 8 reports of pernio/chilblains, 10 reports of varicella zoster, 4 reports of herpes simplex flares, 4 pityriasis rosea–like reactions, and 4 rashes in infants of vaccinated breastfeeding mothers.

The study noted that “patients responded well to topical corticosteroids, oral antihistamines, and/or pain-relieving medications. These reactions resolved after a median of 3-4 days.”

It’s important to understand that none of the patients developed anaphylaxis after the second dose even if they’d had a reaction to the first dose, Dr. Freeman said. “But I should point out that we’re talking about reactions that have started more than 4 hours after the vaccine. If a rash such as a urticaria specifically starts within 4 hours of vaccination, that’s in a different category. Those are considered more immediate allergic reactions, and those patients need to be seen by allergy before a second dose.”

Dr. Freeman added that “it’s really interesting to think about how our bodies are really reacting to the vaccine in a way that’s mimicking our body’s reactions to COVID-19.” For example, some patients who got vaccinated developed chilblains similar to the “COVID toes” described in infected patients, apparently as part of the body’s immune response to the virus. “We’ve seen this in patients who actually had COVID and had prior COVID toes and then actually got a flare with their vaccine. And then we’ve also seen it in patients who never had COVID.”

In regard to general advice for patients, she said, “I do still encourage my patients who previously had COVID to go ahead and get the vaccine even if they had a skin manifestation with COVID.”

Shari Lipner, MD, PhD, associate professor of clinical dermatology, Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, said she has have seen only a handful of cases of delayed large local reactions and local injection site reactions after COVID-19 vaccination. “I have seen a significant number of cases of acute urticaria following the first and second doses,” she said in an interview. “However, it is important to keep in mind that we cannot determine cause and effect for the cases of acute urticaria. They may or may not be vaccine related.”

Fortunately, none of the adverse effects she’s seen have been severe. “It is important that dermatologists educate the public and their patients that most people do not develop any skin reaction in response to the vaccine,” she said. In the minority who do, “reactions tend to be mild and are not life-threatening. Many of these skin reactions resolve on their own without treatment.”

She added that “patients with pernio/chilblains or herpes zoster following vaccination should be referred by a board-certified dermatologist for prompt treatment and to avoid sequelae.”


 

‘COVID vaccine arm’

Delayed local reactions to the Moderna vaccine were also described in a report published online on May 12, 2021, in JAMA Dermatology, after the AAD meeting, in 16 patients referred to the Yale New Haven (Conn.) Hospital Dermatology service who experienced delayed localized cutaneous hypersensitivity reactions a median of 7 days after receiving the vaccine (range, 2-12 days), from Jan. 20 to Feb. 12, 2021. No such cases were reported in Pfizer vaccine recipients.

Of the 16 patients, whose median age was 38 years and who were mostly women, 15 developed the reaction after the first dose, described as “pruritic and variably painful erythematous reactions near the injection site,” which lasted a median of 5 days (range, 1-21 days). After the second dose, 12 of the 16 patients developed injection-site reactions (including one patient who had no reaction after dose 1), a median of 2 days after the vaccine was administered (range, 0-5 days). Histologic results of a biopsy in one patient with a reaction to the second dose “ demonstrated mild predominantly perivascular and focal interstitial mixed infiltrate with lymphocytes and eosinophils consistent with a dermal hypersensitivity reaction,” wrote Alicia J. Little, MD, PhD, of the department of dermatology, Yale University, New Haven, and coauthors.

Compared with immediate hypersensitivity reactions, occurring within 4 hours of vaccination, such as anaphylaxis and urticaria, they concluded that “these delayed localized hypersensitivity reactions are not a contraindication to subsequent vaccination,” and they proposed that they be named “COVID vaccine arm.”

Dr. Freeman reported no disclosures. Dr. Lipner also had no relevant disclosures. Dr. Little reported receiving a grant from the National Center for Advancing Translational Science and a Women’s Health Career Development Award from the Dermatology Foundation while the study was conducted; another author reported equity in Johnson & Johnson in his spouse’s retirement fund outside the submitted work.
 

Patients who receive the mRNA COVID-19 vaccines are experiencing a variety of skin rashes, a dermatologist told colleagues, and some lesions don’t appear until several days after an injection. The good news is that these side effects tend to be minor and vanish within a few days, Esther Freeman, MD, PhD, said in a presentation at the American Academy of Dermatology Virtual Meeting Experience.

“The reality is actually very reassuring,” Dr. Freeman said, especially in light of what is currently known about when the rashes occur and how anaphylaxis is extremely uncommon. Now, she added, dermatologists can tell patients who had reactions to their initial vaccination that “we know you had this big reaction, and we know that it was upsetting and uncomfortable. But it may not happen the second time around. And if it does, [the reaction is] probably going to be smaller.”

Dr. Freeman, associate professor of dermatology at Harvard Medical School, Boston, highlighted a study published in the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology that she coauthored with dermatologists across the United States. The researchers tracked 414 cutaneous reactions to the Moderna (83%) and Pfizer (17%) COVID-19 vaccines in a group of patients, which was 90% female, 78% White, and mostly from the United States. Their average age was 44 years. The cases were reported to the AAD–International League of Dermatological Societies registry of COVID-19 cutaneous manifestations.

While most were women, “it’s a little hard to know if this is really going to end up being a true finding,” said Dr. Freeman, the registry’s principal investigator and a member of the AAD’s COVID-19 Ad Hoc Task Force. “If you think about who got vaccinated early, it was health care providers, and the American health care workforce is over 70% female. So I think there’s a little bit of bias here. There may also be a bias because women may be slightly more likely to report or go to their health care provider for a rash.”

Delayed large local reactions were the most common, accounting for 66% (175 cases) of the 267 skin reactions reported after the first Moderna vaccine dose and 30% (31 cases) of the 102 reactions reported after the second dose. These reactions represented 15% (5 cases) of the 34 skin reactions reported after the first Pfizer vaccine dose and 18% (7 cases) of the 40 reactions after the second dose.

There are two peaks with that first dose, Dr. Freeman said. “There’s a peak around day 2 or 3. And there’s another peak around day 7 or 8 with some of these reactions. Only 27% who had a reaction with the first dose had the same reaction with the second.” She added that these reactions “are not cellulitis and don’t require antibiotics.”

Other more common reactions included local injection-site reactions (swelling, erythema, and pain), urticaria (after 24 hours in almost all cases, occurring at a higher rate in patients who received the Pfizer vaccine), and morbilliform eruptions.

Dr. Freeman said that patients may experience redness and swelling in the hands and feet that can be “very uncomfortable.” She described one patient “who was having a hard time actually closing his fist, just because of the amount of swelling and redness in his hand. It did resolve, and it’s important to reassure your patients it will go away.”

According to this study, less common reports of other cutaneous findings with both vaccines included 9 reports of swelling at the site of cosmetic fillers, 8 reports of pernio/chilblains, 10 reports of varicella zoster, 4 reports of herpes simplex flares, 4 pityriasis rosea–like reactions, and 4 rashes in infants of vaccinated breastfeeding mothers.

The study noted that “patients responded well to topical corticosteroids, oral antihistamines, and/or pain-relieving medications. These reactions resolved after a median of 3-4 days.”

It’s important to understand that none of the patients developed anaphylaxis after the second dose even if they’d had a reaction to the first dose, Dr. Freeman said. “But I should point out that we’re talking about reactions that have started more than 4 hours after the vaccine. If a rash such as a urticaria specifically starts within 4 hours of vaccination, that’s in a different category. Those are considered more immediate allergic reactions, and those patients need to be seen by allergy before a second dose.”

Dr. Freeman added that “it’s really interesting to think about how our bodies are really reacting to the vaccine in a way that’s mimicking our body’s reactions to COVID-19.” For example, some patients who got vaccinated developed chilblains similar to the “COVID toes” described in infected patients, apparently as part of the body’s immune response to the virus. “We’ve seen this in patients who actually had COVID and had prior COVID toes and then actually got a flare with their vaccine. And then we’ve also seen it in patients who never had COVID.”

In regard to general advice for patients, she said, “I do still encourage my patients who previously had COVID to go ahead and get the vaccine even if they had a skin manifestation with COVID.”

Shari Lipner, MD, PhD, associate professor of clinical dermatology, Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, said she has have seen only a handful of cases of delayed large local reactions and local injection site reactions after COVID-19 vaccination. “I have seen a significant number of cases of acute urticaria following the first and second doses,” she said in an interview. “However, it is important to keep in mind that we cannot determine cause and effect for the cases of acute urticaria. They may or may not be vaccine related.”

Fortunately, none of the adverse effects she’s seen have been severe. “It is important that dermatologists educate the public and their patients that most people do not develop any skin reaction in response to the vaccine,” she said. In the minority who do, “reactions tend to be mild and are not life-threatening. Many of these skin reactions resolve on their own without treatment.”

She added that “patients with pernio/chilblains or herpes zoster following vaccination should be referred by a board-certified dermatologist for prompt treatment and to avoid sequelae.”


 

‘COVID vaccine arm’

Delayed local reactions to the Moderna vaccine were also described in a report published online on May 12, 2021, in JAMA Dermatology, after the AAD meeting, in 16 patients referred to the Yale New Haven (Conn.) Hospital Dermatology service who experienced delayed localized cutaneous hypersensitivity reactions a median of 7 days after receiving the vaccine (range, 2-12 days), from Jan. 20 to Feb. 12, 2021. No such cases were reported in Pfizer vaccine recipients.

Of the 16 patients, whose median age was 38 years and who were mostly women, 15 developed the reaction after the first dose, described as “pruritic and variably painful erythematous reactions near the injection site,” which lasted a median of 5 days (range, 1-21 days). After the second dose, 12 of the 16 patients developed injection-site reactions (including one patient who had no reaction after dose 1), a median of 2 days after the vaccine was administered (range, 0-5 days). Histologic results of a biopsy in one patient with a reaction to the second dose “ demonstrated mild predominantly perivascular and focal interstitial mixed infiltrate with lymphocytes and eosinophils consistent with a dermal hypersensitivity reaction,” wrote Alicia J. Little, MD, PhD, of the department of dermatology, Yale University, New Haven, and coauthors.

Compared with immediate hypersensitivity reactions, occurring within 4 hours of vaccination, such as anaphylaxis and urticaria, they concluded that “these delayed localized hypersensitivity reactions are not a contraindication to subsequent vaccination,” and they proposed that they be named “COVID vaccine arm.”

Dr. Freeman reported no disclosures. Dr. Lipner also had no relevant disclosures. Dr. Little reported receiving a grant from the National Center for Advancing Translational Science and a Women’s Health Career Development Award from the Dermatology Foundation while the study was conducted; another author reported equity in Johnson & Johnson in his spouse’s retirement fund outside the submitted work.
 

Federal guidance on indoor mask use may change soon, Anthony S. Fauci, MD, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, said on May 9.

He was asked whether it’s time to start relaxing indoor mask requirements.

“I think so, and I think you’re going to probably be seeing that as we go along and as more people get vaccinated,” Dr. Fauci said on ABC News’s This Week.Nearly 150 million adults in the United States – or about 58% of the adult population – have received at least one COVID-19 vaccine dose, according to the latest CDC tally. About 113 million adults, or 44%, are considered fully vaccinated.

“The CDC will be, you know, almost in real time … updating their recommendations and their guidelines,” Dr. Fauci said.

In April, the CDC relaxed its guidance for those who have been vaccinated against COVID-19. Those who have gotten a shot don’t need to wear a mask outdoors or in small indoor gatherings with other vaccinated people, but both vaccinated and unvaccinated people are still advised to wear masks in indoor public spaces.

“We do need to start being more liberal as we get more people vaccinated,” Dr. Fauci said. “As you get more people vaccinated, the number of cases per day will absolutely go down.”

The United States is averaging about 43,000 cases per day, he said, adding that the cases need to be “much, much lower.” When the case numbers drop and vaccination numbers increase, the risk of infection will fall dramatically indoors and outdoors, he said.

Even after the pandemic, though, wearing masks could become a seasonal habit, Dr. Fauci said May 9 on NBC News’s Meet the Press.“I think people have gotten used to the fact that wearing masks, clearly if you look at the data, it diminishes respiratory diseases. We’ve had practically a nonexistent flu season this year,” he said.

“So it is conceivable that as we go on, a year or 2 or more from now, that during certain seasonal periods when you have respiratory-borne viruses like the flu, people might actually elect to wear masks to diminish the likelihood that you’ll spread these respiratory-borne diseases,” he said.

Dr. Fauci was asked about indoor mask guidelines on May 9 after former FDA Commissioner Scott Gottlieb, MD, said face mask requirements should be relaxed.

“Certainly outdoors, we shouldn’t be putting limits on gatherings anymore,” Dr. Gottlieb said on CBS News’s Face the Nation.“The states where prevalence is low, vaccination rates are high, we have good testing in place, and we’re identifying infections, I think we could start lifting these restrictions indoors as well, on a broad basis,” he said.

Lifting pandemic-related restrictions in areas where they’re no longer necessary could also encourage people to implement them again if cases increase during future surges, such as this fall or winter, Dr. Gottlieb said.

At the same time, Americans should continue to follow CDC guidance and wait for new guidelines before changing their indoor mask use, Jeffrey Zients, the White House COVID-19 response coordinator, said on CNN’s State of the Union on May 9.

“We all want to get back to a normal lifestyle,” he said. “I think we’re on the path to do that, but stay disciplined, and let’s take advantage of the new privilege of being vaccinated and not wearing masks outdoors, for example, unless you’re in a crowded place.”

Mr. Zients pointed to President Joe Biden’s goal for 70% of adults to receive at least one vaccine dose by July 4.

“As we all move toward that 70% goal, there will be more and more advantages to being vaccinated,” he said. “And if you’re not vaccinated, you’re not protected.”

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

Federal guidance on indoor mask use may change soon, Anthony S. Fauci, MD, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, said on May 9.

He was asked whether it’s time to start relaxing indoor mask requirements.

“I think so, and I think you’re going to probably be seeing that as we go along and as more people get vaccinated,” Dr. Fauci said on ABC News’s This Week.Nearly 150 million adults in the United States – or about 58% of the adult population – have received at least one COVID-19 vaccine dose, according to the latest CDC tally. About 113 million adults, or 44%, are considered fully vaccinated.

“The CDC will be, you know, almost in real time … updating their recommendations and their guidelines,” Dr. Fauci said.

In April, the CDC relaxed its guidance for those who have been vaccinated against COVID-19. Those who have gotten a shot don’t need to wear a mask outdoors or in small indoor gatherings with other vaccinated people, but both vaccinated and unvaccinated people are still advised to wear masks in indoor public spaces.

“We do need to start being more liberal as we get more people vaccinated,” Dr. Fauci said. “As you get more people vaccinated, the number of cases per day will absolutely go down.”

The United States is averaging about 43,000 cases per day, he said, adding that the cases need to be “much, much lower.” When the case numbers drop and vaccination numbers increase, the risk of infection will fall dramatically indoors and outdoors, he said.

Even after the pandemic, though, wearing masks could become a seasonal habit, Dr. Fauci said May 9 on NBC News’s Meet the Press.“I think people have gotten used to the fact that wearing masks, clearly if you look at the data, it diminishes respiratory diseases. We’ve had practically a nonexistent flu season this year,” he said.

“So it is conceivable that as we go on, a year or 2 or more from now, that during certain seasonal periods when you have respiratory-borne viruses like the flu, people might actually elect to wear masks to diminish the likelihood that you’ll spread these respiratory-borne diseases,” he said.

Dr. Fauci was asked about indoor mask guidelines on May 9 after former FDA Commissioner Scott Gottlieb, MD, said face mask requirements should be relaxed.

“Certainly outdoors, we shouldn’t be putting limits on gatherings anymore,” Dr. Gottlieb said on CBS News’s Face the Nation.“The states where prevalence is low, vaccination rates are high, we have good testing in place, and we’re identifying infections, I think we could start lifting these restrictions indoors as well, on a broad basis,” he said.

Lifting pandemic-related restrictions in areas where they’re no longer necessary could also encourage people to implement them again if cases increase during future surges, such as this fall or winter, Dr. Gottlieb said.

At the same time, Americans should continue to follow CDC guidance and wait for new guidelines before changing their indoor mask use, Jeffrey Zients, the White House COVID-19 response coordinator, said on CNN’s State of the Union on May 9.

“We all want to get back to a normal lifestyle,” he said. “I think we’re on the path to do that, but stay disciplined, and let’s take advantage of the new privilege of being vaccinated and not wearing masks outdoors, for example, unless you’re in a crowded place.”

Mr. Zients pointed to President Joe Biden’s goal for 70% of adults to receive at least one vaccine dose by July 4.

“As we all move toward that 70% goal, there will be more and more advantages to being vaccinated,” he said. “And if you’re not vaccinated, you’re not protected.”

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

Federal guidance on indoor mask use may change soon, Anthony S. Fauci, MD, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, said on May 9.

He was asked whether it’s time to start relaxing indoor mask requirements.

“I think so, and I think you’re going to probably be seeing that as we go along and as more people get vaccinated,” Dr. Fauci said on ABC News’s This Week.Nearly 150 million adults in the United States – or about 58% of the adult population – have received at least one COVID-19 vaccine dose, according to the latest CDC tally. About 113 million adults, or 44%, are considered fully vaccinated.

“The CDC will be, you know, almost in real time … updating their recommendations and their guidelines,” Dr. Fauci said.

In April, the CDC relaxed its guidance for those who have been vaccinated against COVID-19. Those who have gotten a shot don’t need to wear a mask outdoors or in small indoor gatherings with other vaccinated people, but both vaccinated and unvaccinated people are still advised to wear masks in indoor public spaces.

“We do need to start being more liberal as we get more people vaccinated,” Dr. Fauci said. “As you get more people vaccinated, the number of cases per day will absolutely go down.”

The United States is averaging about 43,000 cases per day, he said, adding that the cases need to be “much, much lower.” When the case numbers drop and vaccination numbers increase, the risk of infection will fall dramatically indoors and outdoors, he said.

Even after the pandemic, though, wearing masks could become a seasonal habit, Dr. Fauci said May 9 on NBC News’s Meet the Press.“I think people have gotten used to the fact that wearing masks, clearly if you look at the data, it diminishes respiratory diseases. We’ve had practically a nonexistent flu season this year,” he said.

“So it is conceivable that as we go on, a year or 2 or more from now, that during certain seasonal periods when you have respiratory-borne viruses like the flu, people might actually elect to wear masks to diminish the likelihood that you’ll spread these respiratory-borne diseases,” he said.

Dr. Fauci was asked about indoor mask guidelines on May 9 after former FDA Commissioner Scott Gottlieb, MD, said face mask requirements should be relaxed.

“Certainly outdoors, we shouldn’t be putting limits on gatherings anymore,” Dr. Gottlieb said on CBS News’s Face the Nation.“The states where prevalence is low, vaccination rates are high, we have good testing in place, and we’re identifying infections, I think we could start lifting these restrictions indoors as well, on a broad basis,” he said.

Lifting pandemic-related restrictions in areas where they’re no longer necessary could also encourage people to implement them again if cases increase during future surges, such as this fall or winter, Dr. Gottlieb said.

At the same time, Americans should continue to follow CDC guidance and wait for new guidelines before changing their indoor mask use, Jeffrey Zients, the White House COVID-19 response coordinator, said on CNN’s State of the Union on May 9.

“We all want to get back to a normal lifestyle,” he said. “I think we’re on the path to do that, but stay disciplined, and let’s take advantage of the new privilege of being vaccinated and not wearing masks outdoors, for example, unless you’re in a crowded place.”

Mr. Zients pointed to President Joe Biden’s goal for 70% of adults to receive at least one vaccine dose by July 4.

“As we all move toward that 70% goal, there will be more and more advantages to being vaccinated,” he said. “And if you’re not vaccinated, you’re not protected.”

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

The Food and Drug Administration on May 10 granted emergency use authorization (EUA) for the Pfizer coronavirus vaccine to be given to children 12-15 years old.  

The much-expected decision increases the likelihood that schools in the United States will fully reopen in the fall – a goal of both the Biden and Trump administrations.

Acting FDA Commissioner Janet Woodcock, MD, called the decision “a significant step” in “returning to a sense of normalcy.”

“Today’s action allows for a younger population to be protected from COVID-19, bringing us closer to returning to a sense of normalcy and to ending the pandemic,” she said in a statement. “Parents and guardians can rest assured that the agency undertook a rigorous and thorough review of all available data, as we have with all of our COVID-19 vaccine emergency use authorizations.”

The Pfizer adolescent vaccine is not yet a done deal, though.

Next, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices will decide on May 12 whether to recommend use of the vaccine in this age group. After that, CDC Director Rochelle Walensky, MD, will decide whether to give the green light for the vaccine to be administered to that age group.

The FDA action on May 10 amends the Dec. 11, 2020, emergency use authorization that allowed the Pfizer vaccine to be given to people 16 and older. Pfizer was the first company to receive an EUA for its adult vaccine and is the first to receive authorization for its adolescent vaccine. Pfizer is conducting clinical trials on much younger children, too.

The Moderna and Johnson & Johnson vaccines are authorized for people 18 and up. Moderna also has launched clinical trials in children.

Most health experts have said the United States needs to vaccinate children before the COVID-19 pandemic can truly be brought under control. The 12- to 15-year-old group represents 17 million people, about 5% of the population. Thus far, 58% of U.S. adults have had at least one dose of a vaccine and 34.8% of all Americans are fully vaccinated.

American Academy of Pediatrics President Lee Savio Beers, MD, praised the agency’s decision, calling it a “critically important step in bringing life-saving vaccines to children and adolescents. Our youngest generations have shouldered heavy burdens over the past year, and the vaccine is a hopeful sign that they will be able to begin to experience all the activities that are so important for their health and development.”

President Joe Biden recently announced a new strategy for expanding vaccinations in which vaccinating 12- to 15-year-olds was a key component. He said the administration was ready to ship the adolescent vaccine directly to pharmacies and pediatricians to speed up the vaccination rate.

In March, Anthony S. Fauci, MD, told a Senate committee, “We don’t really know what that magical point of herd immunity is, but we do know that if we get the overwhelming population vaccinated, we’re going to be in good shape. … We ultimately would like to get and have to get children into that mix.” 

Pfizer submitted data to the FDA in late March showing its mRNA vaccine was 100% effective at preventing COVID-19 infection in children ages 12-15 in clinical trials.

Though most children have milder symptoms when infected with the coronavirus, about 1.5 million cases in children aged 11-17 were reported to the CDC between March 1, 2020, and April 30 of this year, the FDA news release said.

Albert Bourla, CEO of Pfizer, tweeted that “today brings very encouraging news for families and adolescents across the United States.

“While this is a meaningful step forward, we are still in a critical period of combating #COVID19 around the world. In the coming weeks, we hope to continue to receive authorizations from global regulators to support worldwide vaccination efforts,” he said. 

“It’s essential for children to be vaccinated against COVID-19. According to data compiled by the AAP and Children’s Hospital Association, more than 3.8 million children have tested positive for COVID-19 in the United States since the start of the pandemic,” said Dr. Savio Beers. “While fewer children than adults have suffered the most severe disease, this is not a benign disease in children. Thousands of children have been hospitalized, and hundreds have died. We will soon have a very safe, highly effective vaccine that can prevent so much suffering. I encourage parents to talk with their pediatricians about how to get the vaccine for their adolescents as soon as they are eligible.”

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

The Food and Drug Administration on May 10 granted emergency use authorization (EUA) for the Pfizer coronavirus vaccine to be given to children 12-15 years old.  

The much-expected decision increases the likelihood that schools in the United States will fully reopen in the fall – a goal of both the Biden and Trump administrations.

Acting FDA Commissioner Janet Woodcock, MD, called the decision “a significant step” in “returning to a sense of normalcy.”

“Today’s action allows for a younger population to be protected from COVID-19, bringing us closer to returning to a sense of normalcy and to ending the pandemic,” she said in a statement. “Parents and guardians can rest assured that the agency undertook a rigorous and thorough review of all available data, as we have with all of our COVID-19 vaccine emergency use authorizations.”

The Pfizer adolescent vaccine is not yet a done deal, though.

Next, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices will decide on May 12 whether to recommend use of the vaccine in this age group. After that, CDC Director Rochelle Walensky, MD, will decide whether to give the green light for the vaccine to be administered to that age group.

The FDA action on May 10 amends the Dec. 11, 2020, emergency use authorization that allowed the Pfizer vaccine to be given to people 16 and older. Pfizer was the first company to receive an EUA for its adult vaccine and is the first to receive authorization for its adolescent vaccine. Pfizer is conducting clinical trials on much younger children, too.

The Moderna and Johnson & Johnson vaccines are authorized for people 18 and up. Moderna also has launched clinical trials in children.

Most health experts have said the United States needs to vaccinate children before the COVID-19 pandemic can truly be brought under control. The 12- to 15-year-old group represents 17 million people, about 5% of the population. Thus far, 58% of U.S. adults have had at least one dose of a vaccine and 34.8% of all Americans are fully vaccinated.

American Academy of Pediatrics President Lee Savio Beers, MD, praised the agency’s decision, calling it a “critically important step in bringing life-saving vaccines to children and adolescents. Our youngest generations have shouldered heavy burdens over the past year, and the vaccine is a hopeful sign that they will be able to begin to experience all the activities that are so important for their health and development.”

President Joe Biden recently announced a new strategy for expanding vaccinations in which vaccinating 12- to 15-year-olds was a key component. He said the administration was ready to ship the adolescent vaccine directly to pharmacies and pediatricians to speed up the vaccination rate.

In March, Anthony S. Fauci, MD, told a Senate committee, “We don’t really know what that magical point of herd immunity is, but we do know that if we get the overwhelming population vaccinated, we’re going to be in good shape. … We ultimately would like to get and have to get children into that mix.” 

Pfizer submitted data to the FDA in late March showing its mRNA vaccine was 100% effective at preventing COVID-19 infection in children ages 12-15 in clinical trials.

Though most children have milder symptoms when infected with the coronavirus, about 1.5 million cases in children aged 11-17 were reported to the CDC between March 1, 2020, and April 30 of this year, the FDA news release said.

Albert Bourla, CEO of Pfizer, tweeted that “today brings very encouraging news for families and adolescents across the United States.

“While this is a meaningful step forward, we are still in a critical period of combating #COVID19 around the world. In the coming weeks, we hope to continue to receive authorizations from global regulators to support worldwide vaccination efforts,” he said. 

“It’s essential for children to be vaccinated against COVID-19. According to data compiled by the AAP and Children’s Hospital Association, more than 3.8 million children have tested positive for COVID-19 in the United States since the start of the pandemic,” said Dr. Savio Beers. “While fewer children than adults have suffered the most severe disease, this is not a benign disease in children. Thousands of children have been hospitalized, and hundreds have died. We will soon have a very safe, highly effective vaccine that can prevent so much suffering. I encourage parents to talk with their pediatricians about how to get the vaccine for their adolescents as soon as they are eligible.”

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

The Food and Drug Administration on May 10 granted emergency use authorization (EUA) for the Pfizer coronavirus vaccine to be given to children 12-15 years old.  

The much-expected decision increases the likelihood that schools in the United States will fully reopen in the fall – a goal of both the Biden and Trump administrations.

Acting FDA Commissioner Janet Woodcock, MD, called the decision “a significant step” in “returning to a sense of normalcy.”

“Today’s action allows for a younger population to be protected from COVID-19, bringing us closer to returning to a sense of normalcy and to ending the pandemic,” she said in a statement. “Parents and guardians can rest assured that the agency undertook a rigorous and thorough review of all available data, as we have with all of our COVID-19 vaccine emergency use authorizations.”

The Pfizer adolescent vaccine is not yet a done deal, though.

Next, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices will decide on May 12 whether to recommend use of the vaccine in this age group. After that, CDC Director Rochelle Walensky, MD, will decide whether to give the green light for the vaccine to be administered to that age group.

The FDA action on May 10 amends the Dec. 11, 2020, emergency use authorization that allowed the Pfizer vaccine to be given to people 16 and older. Pfizer was the first company to receive an EUA for its adult vaccine and is the first to receive authorization for its adolescent vaccine. Pfizer is conducting clinical trials on much younger children, too.

The Moderna and Johnson & Johnson vaccines are authorized for people 18 and up. Moderna also has launched clinical trials in children.

Most health experts have said the United States needs to vaccinate children before the COVID-19 pandemic can truly be brought under control. The 12- to 15-year-old group represents 17 million people, about 5% of the population. Thus far, 58% of U.S. adults have had at least one dose of a vaccine and 34.8% of all Americans are fully vaccinated.

American Academy of Pediatrics President Lee Savio Beers, MD, praised the agency’s decision, calling it a “critically important step in bringing life-saving vaccines to children and adolescents. Our youngest generations have shouldered heavy burdens over the past year, and the vaccine is a hopeful sign that they will be able to begin to experience all the activities that are so important for their health and development.”

President Joe Biden recently announced a new strategy for expanding vaccinations in which vaccinating 12- to 15-year-olds was a key component. He said the administration was ready to ship the adolescent vaccine directly to pharmacies and pediatricians to speed up the vaccination rate.

In March, Anthony S. Fauci, MD, told a Senate committee, “We don’t really know what that magical point of herd immunity is, but we do know that if we get the overwhelming population vaccinated, we’re going to be in good shape. … We ultimately would like to get and have to get children into that mix.” 

Pfizer submitted data to the FDA in late March showing its mRNA vaccine was 100% effective at preventing COVID-19 infection in children ages 12-15 in clinical trials.

Though most children have milder symptoms when infected with the coronavirus, about 1.5 million cases in children aged 11-17 were reported to the CDC between March 1, 2020, and April 30 of this year, the FDA news release said.

Albert Bourla, CEO of Pfizer, tweeted that “today brings very encouraging news for families and adolescents across the United States.

“While this is a meaningful step forward, we are still in a critical period of combating #COVID19 around the world. In the coming weeks, we hope to continue to receive authorizations from global regulators to support worldwide vaccination efforts,” he said. 

“It’s essential for children to be vaccinated against COVID-19. According to data compiled by the AAP and Children’s Hospital Association, more than 3.8 million children have tested positive for COVID-19 in the United States since the start of the pandemic,” said Dr. Savio Beers. “While fewer children than adults have suffered the most severe disease, this is not a benign disease in children. Thousands of children have been hospitalized, and hundreds have died. We will soon have a very safe, highly effective vaccine that can prevent so much suffering. I encourage parents to talk with their pediatricians about how to get the vaccine for their adolescents as soon as they are eligible.”

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

NSAIDs don’t boost the risk of more severe disease or death in hospitalized patients with COVID-19, a new study finds.

Denise Fulton/MDedge News

“To our knowledge, our prospective study includes the largest number of patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19 to date, and adds to the literature on the safety of NSAIDs and in-hospital outcomes. NSAIDs do not appear to increase the risk of worse in-hospital outcomes ...” the study authors wrote. “NSAIDs are an important analgesic modality and have a vital opioid-sparing role in pain management. Patients and clinicians should be reassured by these findings that NSAIDs are safe in the context of the pandemic.”

The report was published online May 7 in The Lancet Rheumatology and led by clinical research fellow Thomas M. Drake, MBChB, of the University of Edinburgh’s Usher Institute.

For more than a year, researchers worldwide have debated about whether NSAIDs spell trouble for people at risk of COVID-19. In March 2020, French health officials announced that use of the painkillers such as NSAIDs may increase the severity of the disease, and they recommended that patients take acetaminophen instead. The National Health Service in the United Kingdom made a similar recommendation. But other agencies didn’t believe there was enough evidence to support ditching NSAIDs, and recent research studies published in Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases and PLoS Medicine suggested they may be right.

For the new study, researchers identified 72,179 patients who were treated for COVID-19 in British hospitals during January-August 2020. About 56% were men, 74% were White, and 6% took NSAIDs on a regular basis before they entered the hospital. The average age was 70.

The researchers examined whether the patients in either group were more or less likely to die in the hospital, be admitted into a critical care unit, need oxygen treatment, need a ventilator, or suffer kidney injury.

In terms of outcomes, there weren’t any major gaps between the groups overall. The differences in most comparisons were statistically insignificant. For example, 31% of those who didn’t take NSAIDs died vs. 30% of those who did (P = .227). In both groups, 14% required critical care admission (P = .476).

The researchers then focused on two matched groups of 4,205 patients: One group used NSAIDs regularly, and the other group didn’t. The difference in risk of death in those who took NSAIDs vs. those who didn’t was statistically insignificant (odds ratio, 0.95; 95% confidence interval, 0.84-1.07; P = .35). Other comparisons were also statistically insignificant.

The findings offer insight into whether the use of NSAIDs might actually be helpful for patients who develop COVID-19. Scientists believe that COVID-19 is linked to inflammation in the body, and NSAIDs, of course, reduce inflammation. But the researchers didn’t turn up any sign of a benefit.

The new study has some weaknesses: It doesn’t say anything about whether NSAIDs have an impact on whether people get COVID-19 in the first place. Researchers don’t know if high use of NSAIDs may affect the severity of the disease. And it doesn’t examine the potential effect of acetaminophen, although other research suggests the drug also may not cause harm in patients with COVID-19.

Still, the researchers say the study is the largest of its kind to look at the use of NSAIDs by patients who are admitted to the hospital with COVID-19. “Considering all the evidence, if there was an extreme effect of NSAIDs on COVID-19 outcomes or severity, this would have been observed in one or more of the studies that have been done, including the present study,” they wrote.

In a commentary that accompanied the study, three physicians from hospitals in Denmark, led by Kristian Kragholm, MD, of Aalborg University Hospital, praised the research and wrote that it adds to “a growing body of evidence” that NSAIDs don’t make things worse for patients with COVID-19.

The study was funded by the U.K. National Institute for Health Research and the U.K. Medical Research Council. The study and commentary authors reported no relevant disclosures.

NSAIDs don’t boost the risk of more severe disease or death in hospitalized patients with COVID-19, a new study finds.

Denise Fulton/MDedge News

“To our knowledge, our prospective study includes the largest number of patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19 to date, and adds to the literature on the safety of NSAIDs and in-hospital outcomes. NSAIDs do not appear to increase the risk of worse in-hospital outcomes ...” the study authors wrote. “NSAIDs are an important analgesic modality and have a vital opioid-sparing role in pain management. Patients and clinicians should be reassured by these findings that NSAIDs are safe in the context of the pandemic.”

The report was published online May 7 in The Lancet Rheumatology and led by clinical research fellow Thomas M. Drake, MBChB, of the University of Edinburgh’s Usher Institute.

For more than a year, researchers worldwide have debated about whether NSAIDs spell trouble for people at risk of COVID-19. In March 2020, French health officials announced that use of the painkillers such as NSAIDs may increase the severity of the disease, and they recommended that patients take acetaminophen instead. The National Health Service in the United Kingdom made a similar recommendation. But other agencies didn’t believe there was enough evidence to support ditching NSAIDs, and recent research studies published in Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases and PLoS Medicine suggested they may be right.

For the new study, researchers identified 72,179 patients who were treated for COVID-19 in British hospitals during January-August 2020. About 56% were men, 74% were White, and 6% took NSAIDs on a regular basis before they entered the hospital. The average age was 70.

The researchers examined whether the patients in either group were more or less likely to die in the hospital, be admitted into a critical care unit, need oxygen treatment, need a ventilator, or suffer kidney injury.

In terms of outcomes, there weren’t any major gaps between the groups overall. The differences in most comparisons were statistically insignificant. For example, 31% of those who didn’t take NSAIDs died vs. 30% of those who did (P = .227). In both groups, 14% required critical care admission (P = .476).

The researchers then focused on two matched groups of 4,205 patients: One group used NSAIDs regularly, and the other group didn’t. The difference in risk of death in those who took NSAIDs vs. those who didn’t was statistically insignificant (odds ratio, 0.95; 95% confidence interval, 0.84-1.07; P = .35). Other comparisons were also statistically insignificant.

The findings offer insight into whether the use of NSAIDs might actually be helpful for patients who develop COVID-19. Scientists believe that COVID-19 is linked to inflammation in the body, and NSAIDs, of course, reduce inflammation. But the researchers didn’t turn up any sign of a benefit.

The new study has some weaknesses: It doesn’t say anything about whether NSAIDs have an impact on whether people get COVID-19 in the first place. Researchers don’t know if high use of NSAIDs may affect the severity of the disease. And it doesn’t examine the potential effect of acetaminophen, although other research suggests the drug also may not cause harm in patients with COVID-19.

Still, the researchers say the study is the largest of its kind to look at the use of NSAIDs by patients who are admitted to the hospital with COVID-19. “Considering all the evidence, if there was an extreme effect of NSAIDs on COVID-19 outcomes or severity, this would have been observed in one or more of the studies that have been done, including the present study,” they wrote.

In a commentary that accompanied the study, three physicians from hospitals in Denmark, led by Kristian Kragholm, MD, of Aalborg University Hospital, praised the research and wrote that it adds to “a growing body of evidence” that NSAIDs don’t make things worse for patients with COVID-19.

The study was funded by the U.K. National Institute for Health Research and the U.K. Medical Research Council. The study and commentary authors reported no relevant disclosures.

NSAIDs don’t boost the risk of more severe disease or death in hospitalized patients with COVID-19, a new study finds.

Denise Fulton/MDedge News

“To our knowledge, our prospective study includes the largest number of patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19 to date, and adds to the literature on the safety of NSAIDs and in-hospital outcomes. NSAIDs do not appear to increase the risk of worse in-hospital outcomes ...” the study authors wrote. “NSAIDs are an important analgesic modality and have a vital opioid-sparing role in pain management. Patients and clinicians should be reassured by these findings that NSAIDs are safe in the context of the pandemic.”

The report was published online May 7 in The Lancet Rheumatology and led by clinical research fellow Thomas M. Drake, MBChB, of the University of Edinburgh’s Usher Institute.

For more than a year, researchers worldwide have debated about whether NSAIDs spell trouble for people at risk of COVID-19. In March 2020, French health officials announced that use of the painkillers such as NSAIDs may increase the severity of the disease, and they recommended that patients take acetaminophen instead. The National Health Service in the United Kingdom made a similar recommendation. But other agencies didn’t believe there was enough evidence to support ditching NSAIDs, and recent research studies published in Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases and PLoS Medicine suggested they may be right.

For the new study, researchers identified 72,179 patients who were treated for COVID-19 in British hospitals during January-August 2020. About 56% were men, 74% were White, and 6% took NSAIDs on a regular basis before they entered the hospital. The average age was 70.

The researchers examined whether the patients in either group were more or less likely to die in the hospital, be admitted into a critical care unit, need oxygen treatment, need a ventilator, or suffer kidney injury.

In terms of outcomes, there weren’t any major gaps between the groups overall. The differences in most comparisons were statistically insignificant. For example, 31% of those who didn’t take NSAIDs died vs. 30% of those who did (P = .227). In both groups, 14% required critical care admission (P = .476).

The researchers then focused on two matched groups of 4,205 patients: One group used NSAIDs regularly, and the other group didn’t. The difference in risk of death in those who took NSAIDs vs. those who didn’t was statistically insignificant (odds ratio, 0.95; 95% confidence interval, 0.84-1.07; P = .35). Other comparisons were also statistically insignificant.

The findings offer insight into whether the use of NSAIDs might actually be helpful for patients who develop COVID-19. Scientists believe that COVID-19 is linked to inflammation in the body, and NSAIDs, of course, reduce inflammation. But the researchers didn’t turn up any sign of a benefit.

The new study has some weaknesses: It doesn’t say anything about whether NSAIDs have an impact on whether people get COVID-19 in the first place. Researchers don’t know if high use of NSAIDs may affect the severity of the disease. And it doesn’t examine the potential effect of acetaminophen, although other research suggests the drug also may not cause harm in patients with COVID-19.

Still, the researchers say the study is the largest of its kind to look at the use of NSAIDs by patients who are admitted to the hospital with COVID-19. “Considering all the evidence, if there was an extreme effect of NSAIDs on COVID-19 outcomes or severity, this would have been observed in one or more of the studies that have been done, including the present study,” they wrote.

In a commentary that accompanied the study, three physicians from hospitals in Denmark, led by Kristian Kragholm, MD, of Aalborg University Hospital, praised the research and wrote that it adds to “a growing body of evidence” that NSAIDs don’t make things worse for patients with COVID-19.

The study was funded by the U.K. National Institute for Health Research and the U.K. Medical Research Council. The study and commentary authors reported no relevant disclosures.

Information is scarce regarding the impact of COVID-19 on pregnant women and newborns; health care workers (HCWs), particularly pregnant women,¹ who are caring for patients during the pandemic might experience concern and uncertainty. The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) released recommendations, based on expert consensus, regarding pregnant HCWs on December 14, 2020.² We propose an appropriation of the ACOG recommendations for dermatologists and their teams caring for patients during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Risks to Pregnant HCWs

Worldwide, viral pneumonia is a leading cause of death during pregnancy,³ with higher mortality documented among pregnant patients during the 1918 influenza pandemic and the 2003 severe acute respiratory syndrome–associated coronavirus pandemic,³ and an increased rate of hospital admission documented among these patients compared to the general population during the 2009 H1N1 influenza pandemic.⁴

Data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) suggest that pregnant women with symptomatic COVID-19 (n=30,415) are at increased risk for the following (compared to nonpregnant women with symptomatic COVID-19 [n=431,410])⁵:

• Admission to the intensive care unit (10.5 of every 1000 cases vs 3.9 of every 1000 cases; adjusted risk ratio [aRR]=3.0; 95% CI, 2.6-3.4)

• Receipt of invasive ventilation (2.9 of every 1000 cases vs 1.1 of every 1000 cases; aRR=2.9; 95% CI, 2.2-3.8)

• Receipt of extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (0.7 of every 1000 cases vs 0.3 of every 1000 cases; aRR=2.4; 95% CI, 1.5-4.0)

• Death (1.5 of every 1000 cases vs 1.2 of every 1000 cases; aRR=1.7; 95% CI, 1.2-2.4).

Although the absolute risk of severe COVID-19–related outcomes is low, the CDC includes pregnant women in its increased risk category for COVID-19. Furthermore, in a systematic review of 61 studies comprising 790 COVID-19–positive pregnant women and 548 newborns, the rates of cesarean delivery, premature birth, low birth weight, and adverse pregnancy events (the latter comprising preterm birth, death or stillbirth, and early termination of pregnancy) were estimated to be 72%, 23%, 7%, and 27%, respectively.⁶ In a systematic review of 39 studies (case series and cohort studies), comprising 936 SARS-CoV-2–tested newborns of mothers with COVID-19, mother-to-fetus transmission of SARS-CoV-2 occurred during the third trimester in approximately 3.2% of infected mothers.⁷

In pregnant women with COVID-19 who develop cytokine storm syndrome, a fetal inflammatory response syndrome can ensue, which has been shown to cause ventricular expansion and bleeding in animal models.⁸ In addition, underlying conditions, such as cardiovascular disease, diabetes mellitus, pre-existing lung disease, and obesity, which are well-established risks factors for severe COVID-19 in nonpregnant patients, can increase the severity of COVID-19 in pregnant women.^5,9-11

Recommendations From ACOG for Pregnant HCWs

The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists recommends that health care facilities consider limiting the exposure of pregnant HCWs to patients with confirmed or suspected COVID-19. They also recommend that pregnant women continue to work in patient-facing roles if they want to, if recommended personal protective equipment (PPE) is available for them to wear.² The US Food and Drug Administration issued an Emergency Use Authorization for 2 messenger RNA COVID-19 vaccines. Although these vaccines have not been tested in pregnant women, ACOG recommends that COVID-19 vaccines not be withheld from pregnant women who fulfill the criteria for vaccination; pregnant women who decline vaccination should be supported in their decision.¹² In dermatology, telemedicine is an effective alternative to face-to-face visits, reducing the risk of transmitting SARS-CoV-2 to physicians and patients.

Ideally, pregnant dermatology attending physicians and residents can continue to provide care through teledermatology. They also can continue to provide in-person care, if they choose to; however, higher-risk procedures should be avoided.¹² In dermatology, that might include ablative laser procedures to the face, prolonged surgery, such as hair transplantation, and intraoral or intranasal procedures. Alternatively, pregnant dermatology residents can be allocated to clinical rotations in which face-to-face contact with patients is not required such as dermatopathology and a research rotation. Likewise, telework options can be encouraged for other pregnant members of dermatology teams, including front-desk staff, nurses, medical assistants, and remaining ancillary staff.

Guidance on Face Masks for Pregnant HCWs

Universal masking of HCWs has been shown to reduce the rate of health care–related acquisition of SARS-CoV-2.¹³ However, extended use or reuse of N95 respirators might contribute to SARS-CoV-2 transmission.¹⁴ The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists recommends that all HCWs wear a face mask at all times while working in a health care facility, even if patients are wearing a face covering or face mask.² Based on CDC guidelines,¹⁵ HCWs in regions where community transmission is moderate or substantial should wear eye protection in addition to a face mask, and they should wear an N95, N95-equivalent, or higher-level respirator instead of a face mask when performing aerosol-generating procedures and surgical procedures. If working in a patient-facing role caring for patients with suspected or confirmed COVID-19, HCWs should wear an N95, N95-equivalent, or higher-level respirator; gown; gloves; and eye protection (goggles or a disposable face shield).¹⁵

Final Thoughts

COVID-19 has brought about acute and likely permanent changes to the US health care system. Dermatologists are integral members of that system and are essential to the treatment of patients with skin, hair, and nail disorders. Pregnant dermatologists and residents should refrain from patient-facing roles when feasible; however, when all recommended PPE are available, they may continue to work in patient-facing roles until they give birth if they desire to do so. Alternatively, teledermatology and non–face-to-face rotations should be encouraged. Higher-risk and aerosol-generating procedures are of particular concern regarding the risk for transmitting SARS-CoV-2 and should be avoided. Correct and universal use of PPE is paramount; when all recommended PPE is not available, pregnant HCWs should avoid exposure to patients with suspected or confirmed COVID-19. These recommendations will help safeguard pregnant members of dermatology teams during the COVID-19 pandemic while maximizing patient care.

Information is scarce regarding the impact of COVID-19 on pregnant women and newborns; health care workers (HCWs), particularly pregnant women,¹ who are caring for patients during the pandemic might experience concern and uncertainty. The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) released recommendations, based on expert consensus, regarding pregnant HCWs on December 14, 2020.² We propose an appropriation of the ACOG recommendations for dermatologists and their teams caring for patients during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Risks to Pregnant HCWs

Worldwide, viral pneumonia is a leading cause of death during pregnancy,³ with higher mortality documented among pregnant patients during the 1918 influenza pandemic and the 2003 severe acute respiratory syndrome–associated coronavirus pandemic,³ and an increased rate of hospital admission documented among these patients compared to the general population during the 2009 H1N1 influenza pandemic.⁴

Data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) suggest that pregnant women with symptomatic COVID-19 (n=30,415) are at increased risk for the following (compared to nonpregnant women with symptomatic COVID-19 [n=431,410])⁵:

• Admission to the intensive care unit (10.5 of every 1000 cases vs 3.9 of every 1000 cases; adjusted risk ratio [aRR]=3.0; 95% CI, 2.6-3.4)

• Receipt of invasive ventilation (2.9 of every 1000 cases vs 1.1 of every 1000 cases; aRR=2.9; 95% CI, 2.2-3.8)

• Receipt of extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (0.7 of every 1000 cases vs 0.3 of every 1000 cases; aRR=2.4; 95% CI, 1.5-4.0)

• Death (1.5 of every 1000 cases vs 1.2 of every 1000 cases; aRR=1.7; 95% CI, 1.2-2.4).

Although the absolute risk of severe COVID-19–related outcomes is low, the CDC includes pregnant women in its increased risk category for COVID-19. Furthermore, in a systematic review of 61 studies comprising 790 COVID-19–positive pregnant women and 548 newborns, the rates of cesarean delivery, premature birth, low birth weight, and adverse pregnancy events (the latter comprising preterm birth, death or stillbirth, and early termination of pregnancy) were estimated to be 72%, 23%, 7%, and 27%, respectively.⁶ In a systematic review of 39 studies (case series and cohort studies), comprising 936 SARS-CoV-2–tested newborns of mothers with COVID-19, mother-to-fetus transmission of SARS-CoV-2 occurred during the third trimester in approximately 3.2% of infected mothers.⁷

In pregnant women with COVID-19 who develop cytokine storm syndrome, a fetal inflammatory response syndrome can ensue, which has been shown to cause ventricular expansion and bleeding in animal models.⁸ In addition, underlying conditions, such as cardiovascular disease, diabetes mellitus, pre-existing lung disease, and obesity, which are well-established risks factors for severe COVID-19 in nonpregnant patients, can increase the severity of COVID-19 in pregnant women.^5,9-11

Recommendations From ACOG for Pregnant HCWs

The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists recommends that health care facilities consider limiting the exposure of pregnant HCWs to patients with confirmed or suspected COVID-19. They also recommend that pregnant women continue to work in patient-facing roles if they want to, if recommended personal protective equipment (PPE) is available for them to wear.² The US Food and Drug Administration issued an Emergency Use Authorization for 2 messenger RNA COVID-19 vaccines. Although these vaccines have not been tested in pregnant women, ACOG recommends that COVID-19 vaccines not be withheld from pregnant women who fulfill the criteria for vaccination; pregnant women who decline vaccination should be supported in their decision.¹² In dermatology, telemedicine is an effective alternative to face-to-face visits, reducing the risk of transmitting SARS-CoV-2 to physicians and patients.

Ideally, pregnant dermatology attending physicians and residents can continue to provide care through teledermatology. They also can continue to provide in-person care, if they choose to; however, higher-risk procedures should be avoided.¹² In dermatology, that might include ablative laser procedures to the face, prolonged surgery, such as hair transplantation, and intraoral or intranasal procedures. Alternatively, pregnant dermatology residents can be allocated to clinical rotations in which face-to-face contact with patients is not required such as dermatopathology and a research rotation. Likewise, telework options can be encouraged for other pregnant members of dermatology teams, including front-desk staff, nurses, medical assistants, and remaining ancillary staff.

Guidance on Face Masks for Pregnant HCWs

Universal masking of HCWs has been shown to reduce the rate of health care–related acquisition of SARS-CoV-2.¹³ However, extended use or reuse of N95 respirators might contribute to SARS-CoV-2 transmission.¹⁴ The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists recommends that all HCWs wear a face mask at all times while working in a health care facility, even if patients are wearing a face covering or face mask.² Based on CDC guidelines,¹⁵ HCWs in regions where community transmission is moderate or substantial should wear eye protection in addition to a face mask, and they should wear an N95, N95-equivalent, or higher-level respirator instead of a face mask when performing aerosol-generating procedures and surgical procedures. If working in a patient-facing role caring for patients with suspected or confirmed COVID-19, HCWs should wear an N95, N95-equivalent, or higher-level respirator; gown; gloves; and eye protection (goggles or a disposable face shield).¹⁵

Final Thoughts

COVID-19 has brought about acute and likely permanent changes to the US health care system. Dermatologists are integral members of that system and are essential to the treatment of patients with skin, hair, and nail disorders. Pregnant dermatologists and residents should refrain from patient-facing roles when feasible; however, when all recommended PPE are available, they may continue to work in patient-facing roles until they give birth if they desire to do so. Alternatively, teledermatology and non–face-to-face rotations should be encouraged. Higher-risk and aerosol-generating procedures are of particular concern regarding the risk for transmitting SARS-CoV-2 and should be avoided. Correct and universal use of PPE is paramount; when all recommended PPE is not available, pregnant HCWs should avoid exposure to patients with suspected or confirmed COVID-19. These recommendations will help safeguard pregnant members of dermatology teams during the COVID-19 pandemic while maximizing patient care.

Information is scarce regarding the impact of COVID-19 on pregnant women and newborns; health care workers (HCWs), particularly pregnant women,¹ who are caring for patients during the pandemic might experience concern and uncertainty. The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) released recommendations, based on expert consensus, regarding pregnant HCWs on December 14, 2020.² We propose an appropriation of the ACOG recommendations for dermatologists and their teams caring for patients during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Risks to Pregnant HCWs

Worldwide, viral pneumonia is a leading cause of death during pregnancy,³ with higher mortality documented among pregnant patients during the 1918 influenza pandemic and the 2003 severe acute respiratory syndrome–associated coronavirus pandemic,³ and an increased rate of hospital admission documented among these patients compared to the general population during the 2009 H1N1 influenza pandemic.⁴

Data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) suggest that pregnant women with symptomatic COVID-19 (n=30,415) are at increased risk for the following (compared to nonpregnant women with symptomatic COVID-19 [n=431,410])⁵:

• Admission to the intensive care unit (10.5 of every 1000 cases vs 3.9 of every 1000 cases; adjusted risk ratio [aRR]=3.0; 95% CI, 2.6-3.4)

• Receipt of invasive ventilation (2.9 of every 1000 cases vs 1.1 of every 1000 cases; aRR=2.9; 95% CI, 2.2-3.8)

• Receipt of extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (0.7 of every 1000 cases vs 0.3 of every 1000 cases; aRR=2.4; 95% CI, 1.5-4.0)

• Death (1.5 of every 1000 cases vs 1.2 of every 1000 cases; aRR=1.7; 95% CI, 1.2-2.4).

Although the absolute risk of severe COVID-19–related outcomes is low, the CDC includes pregnant women in its increased risk category for COVID-19. Furthermore, in a systematic review of 61 studies comprising 790 COVID-19–positive pregnant women and 548 newborns, the rates of cesarean delivery, premature birth, low birth weight, and adverse pregnancy events (the latter comprising preterm birth, death or stillbirth, and early termination of pregnancy) were estimated to be 72%, 23%, 7%, and 27%, respectively.⁶ In a systematic review of 39 studies (case series and cohort studies), comprising 936 SARS-CoV-2–tested newborns of mothers with COVID-19, mother-to-fetus transmission of SARS-CoV-2 occurred during the third trimester in approximately 3.2% of infected mothers.⁷

In pregnant women with COVID-19 who develop cytokine storm syndrome, a fetal inflammatory response syndrome can ensue, which has been shown to cause ventricular expansion and bleeding in animal models.⁸ In addition, underlying conditions, such as cardiovascular disease, diabetes mellitus, pre-existing lung disease, and obesity, which are well-established risks factors for severe COVID-19 in nonpregnant patients, can increase the severity of COVID-19 in pregnant women.^5,9-11

Recommendations From ACOG for Pregnant HCWs

The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists recommends that health care facilities consider limiting the exposure of pregnant HCWs to patients with confirmed or suspected COVID-19. They also recommend that pregnant women continue to work in patient-facing roles if they want to, if recommended personal protective equipment (PPE) is available for them to wear.² The US Food and Drug Administration issued an Emergency Use Authorization for 2 messenger RNA COVID-19 vaccines. Although these vaccines have not been tested in pregnant women, ACOG recommends that COVID-19 vaccines not be withheld from pregnant women who fulfill the criteria for vaccination; pregnant women who decline vaccination should be supported in their decision.¹² In dermatology, telemedicine is an effective alternative to face-to-face visits, reducing the risk of transmitting SARS-CoV-2 to physicians and patients.

Ideally, pregnant dermatology attending physicians and residents can continue to provide care through teledermatology. They also can continue to provide in-person care, if they choose to; however, higher-risk procedures should be avoided.¹² In dermatology, that might include ablative laser procedures to the face, prolonged surgery, such as hair transplantation, and intraoral or intranasal procedures. Alternatively, pregnant dermatology residents can be allocated to clinical rotations in which face-to-face contact with patients is not required such as dermatopathology and a research rotation. Likewise, telework options can be encouraged for other pregnant members of dermatology teams, including front-desk staff, nurses, medical assistants, and remaining ancillary staff.

Guidance on Face Masks for Pregnant HCWs

Universal masking of HCWs has been shown to reduce the rate of health care–related acquisition of SARS-CoV-2.¹³ However, extended use or reuse of N95 respirators might contribute to SARS-CoV-2 transmission.¹⁴ The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists recommends that all HCWs wear a face mask at all times while working in a health care facility, even if patients are wearing a face covering or face mask.² Based on CDC guidelines,¹⁵ HCWs in regions where community transmission is moderate or substantial should wear eye protection in addition to a face mask, and they should wear an N95, N95-equivalent, or higher-level respirator instead of a face mask when performing aerosol-generating procedures and surgical procedures. If working in a patient-facing role caring for patients with suspected or confirmed COVID-19, HCWs should wear an N95, N95-equivalent, or higher-level respirator; gown; gloves; and eye protection (goggles or a disposable face shield).¹⁵

Final Thoughts

COVID-19 has brought about acute and likely permanent changes to the US health care system. Dermatologists are integral members of that system and are essential to the treatment of patients with skin, hair, and nail disorders. Pregnant dermatologists and residents should refrain from patient-facing roles when feasible; however, when all recommended PPE are available, they may continue to work in patient-facing roles until they give birth if they desire to do so. Alternatively, teledermatology and non–face-to-face rotations should be encouraged. Higher-risk and aerosol-generating procedures are of particular concern regarding the risk for transmitting SARS-CoV-2 and should be avoided. Correct and universal use of PPE is paramount; when all recommended PPE is not available, pregnant HCWs should avoid exposure to patients with suspected or confirmed COVID-19. These recommendations will help safeguard pregnant members of dermatology teams during the COVID-19 pandemic while maximizing patient care.

It’s time for the American Contact Dermatitis Society (ACDS) Allergen of the Year! For 2021, the esteemed award goes to acetophenone azine (AA). If you have never heard of this chemical, you are not alone. Acetophenone azine has been identified in foam materials made of the copolymer ethyl-vinyl acetate (EVA). Contact allergy to AA initially was reported in 2016.¹ There are only a few European and Canadian case reports and one case series of AA contact allergy in the literature, all of which are associated with foam shin pads or shin guards, shoe insoles, and/or flip-flops.^2-6 Acetophenone azine is an important emerging allergen, and in this column, we will introduce you to AA and the sneaky places it can lurk and cause allergic contact dermatitis (ACD). We also highlight diagnosis, management, and patch testing for AA contact allergy.

AA Contact Allergy in the Literature

The first case of AA contact allergy was reported in Europe in 2016 when a 13-year-old male soccer player developed severe lower leg dermatitis and later generalized dermatitis associated with wearing foam shin guards.¹ Patch testing to standard and supplemental trays was negative or not relevant; however, the patient exhibited strong reactions when patch tested directly to a piece of the shin guard soaked in acetone, water, and ethanol. Additional testing with AA diluted in acetone, water, and petrolatum resulted in positive patch test reactions to acetone dilutions of 1%, 0.1%, 0.01%, and 0.001% and aqueous solutions of 1% and 0.1%. Chromatographic analyses with high-performance liquid chromatography (HPLC) of shin guard extracts confirmed the culprit allergen to be AA.¹

In the following months, the same clinic saw 2 more cases of AA contact allergy.² An 11-year-old male soccer player developed lower leg dermatitis and later generalized dermatitis from wearing shin guards. Months later, he also developed dermatitis on the soles of the feet, which was attributed to wearing flip-flops. Patch tests to pieces of the shin guards and flip-flops were positive; AA in acetone 0.1% and 0.01% also was positive. As you might expect, HPLC again confirmed the presence of AA in the shin guards and flip-flops. The third patient was a 12-year-old boy with dermatitis on the soles of both feet; later he also developed a generalized dermatitis. Patch testing to pieces of the insoles of his sneakers and AA in acetone 0.1% and 0.01% was positive. Again, HPLC was positive for the presence of AA in the insoles of his sneakers.²

Several more cases of AA contact allergy have been reported in the literature. A 29-year-old European male hockey player demonstrated contact allergy to the gray foam of his shin pads as well as localized leg dermatitis followed by generalized dermatitis (are you noticing a trend yet?), and later dermatitis on the soles of the feet with positive patch-test reactions to pieces of his shin pads and shoe insoles as well as AA 0.1% and 0.01% in acetone.³ A 6-year-old Canadian male soccer player presented with leg dermatitis and later generalized dermatitis and dermatitis on the soles of the feet with positive reactions to pieces of his shin pads and shoe insoles as well as to AA 1% and 0.1% in petrolatum.⁴ A 17-year-old British male (another trend, all males so far!) hockey player developed dermatitis localized to the legs and positive patch tests to the worn foam inner lining of his shin pads as well as to AA 0.1%, 0.01%, and 0.001% in acetone.⁵Finally, Darrigade et al⁶ published a case series of 6 European children with AA contact allergy associated with shin pads and shoes; all had localized leg dermatitis, and some had generalized dermatitis. Patch testing to pieces of shin pads and shoe parts as well as to AA 0.1% in petrolatum and/or acetone showed with positive reactions to the foam pieces and AA in all 6 patients.

What’s the Deal With AA?

Acetophenone azine (also known as methylphenylketazine or bis[1-phenylethylidene]hydrazine) is composed of 2 acetophenone structures and a hydrazine moiety. It has been identified in EVA foam, which can be found in sports equipment such as shin pads or shin guards, shoes, and flip-flops. Raison-Peyron et al¹ confirmed the presence of AA in EVA foam but reported that they did not know the exact reason for its presence. The authors theorized that AA might be a catalyst during EVA polymerization and also noted that it has antimicrobial and antihelminthic activity.¹ Several authors noted that AA could be a by-product of EVA synthesis and that sports equipment manufacturers might not be aware of its presence in EVA.^2,4-6 Some noted that AA concentration was higher in shin guards than in shoe insoles; they thought this explained why patients reacted first to their shin guards and were perhaps even initially sensitized to the shin guards, as well as why shoe insole contact allergy commonly was reported later or only after allergy to shin guards had already developed.^4,6

Differential Diagnosis of Shin Pad or Shin Guard Dermatitis

We would be remiss if we did not mention the appropriate differential diagnosis when shin pad or shin guard dermatitis is identified. In fact, in most cases, shin guard dermatitis results from irritant contact dermatitis from friction, heat, and/or perspiration. Acetophenone azine contact allergy is not the most likely diagnosis when your sports-savvy, shin guard–wearing patient presents with anterior lower leg dermatitis. However, when conservative therapy (eg, barrier between the shin guard and the skin, control or management of perspiration, topical corticosteroid therapy) fails, patch testing to evaluate for ACD is indicated.

Management of AA Contact Allergy

As astute readers of this column are already aware, treatment of ACD requires strict allergen avoidance. You will find that we have the same recommendations for AA contact allergy. Given that there are only a handful of cases in the literature, there are limited recommendations on practical allergen avoidance other than “don’t wear the problem shin guards, shoe insoles, or flip-flops.” However, Darrigade et al⁶ recommended wearing polyurethane shin guards and leather insoles as alternatives when AA contact allergy is suspected or confirmed. They also made it clear that thick socks worn between shin guards and the skin often are not good enough to avoid ACD because the relevant allergens may achieve skin contact despite the barrier.⁶

Patch Testing for AA Contact Allergy

Historically, ACD to shin guards or shin pads, insoles of shoes, and even flip-flops has been associated with rubber-related chemicals such as mercapto mix, thiuram mix, N-isopropyl-N’-phenyl-p-phenylenediamine, thioureas, and carbamates, as well as dyes, benzoyl peroxide, and urea formaldehyde or phenol formaldehyde resins.¹ Most of these chemicals can be tested with standard screening series or supplemental series. Patients with contact allergy to AA may have negative patch testing to screening series and/or supplemental series and may have strong positive reactions to pieces of suspected foam shin pads or shin guards, shoes, and/or flip-flops. Although Koumaki et al⁵ recommended patch testing for AA contact allergy with AA 0.1% in acetone, Besner Morin et al⁴ mentioned that petrolatum may be a more desirable vehicle because it could maintain stability for a longer period of time. In fact, a 2021 article highlighting the American Contact Dermatitis Society Allergen of the Year recommends testing with either AA 0.1% in acetone or AA 0.1% in petrolatum.⁷ Unfortunately, AA is not commercially available for purchase at the time of publication. We are hopeful that this will change in the near future.

Final Interpretation

Acetophenone azine is an emerging allergen commonly identified in EVA foam and attributed to contact allergy to shin guards or pads, soles of shoes, and flip-flops. Most cases have been reported in Europe and Canada and have been identified in young male athletes. In addition to standard patch testing, athletes with lower leg dermatitis and/or dermatitis of the soles of the feet should undergo patch testing with AA 0.1% in acetone or petrolatum and pieces of the equipment and/or footwear.

It’s time for the American Contact Dermatitis Society (ACDS) Allergen of the Year! For 2021, the esteemed award goes to acetophenone azine (AA). If you have never heard of this chemical, you are not alone. Acetophenone azine has been identified in foam materials made of the copolymer ethyl-vinyl acetate (EVA). Contact allergy to AA initially was reported in 2016.¹ There are only a few European and Canadian case reports and one case series of AA contact allergy in the literature, all of which are associated with foam shin pads or shin guards, shoe insoles, and/or flip-flops.^2-6 Acetophenone azine is an important emerging allergen, and in this column, we will introduce you to AA and the sneaky places it can lurk and cause allergic contact dermatitis (ACD). We also highlight diagnosis, management, and patch testing for AA contact allergy.

AA Contact Allergy in the Literature

The first case of AA contact allergy was reported in Europe in 2016 when a 13-year-old male soccer player developed severe lower leg dermatitis and later generalized dermatitis associated with wearing foam shin guards.¹ Patch testing to standard and supplemental trays was negative or not relevant; however, the patient exhibited strong reactions when patch tested directly to a piece of the shin guard soaked in acetone, water, and ethanol. Additional testing with AA diluted in acetone, water, and petrolatum resulted in positive patch test reactions to acetone dilutions of 1%, 0.1%, 0.01%, and 0.001% and aqueous solutions of 1% and 0.1%. Chromatographic analyses with high-performance liquid chromatography (HPLC) of shin guard extracts confirmed the culprit allergen to be AA.¹

In the following months, the same clinic saw 2 more cases of AA contact allergy.² An 11-year-old male soccer player developed lower leg dermatitis and later generalized dermatitis from wearing shin guards. Months later, he also developed dermatitis on the soles of the feet, which was attributed to wearing flip-flops. Patch tests to pieces of the shin guards and flip-flops were positive; AA in acetone 0.1% and 0.01% also was positive. As you might expect, HPLC again confirmed the presence of AA in the shin guards and flip-flops. The third patient was a 12-year-old boy with dermatitis on the soles of both feet; later he also developed a generalized dermatitis. Patch testing to pieces of the insoles of his sneakers and AA in acetone 0.1% and 0.01% was positive. Again, HPLC was positive for the presence of AA in the insoles of his sneakers.²

Several more cases of AA contact allergy have been reported in the literature. A 29-year-old European male hockey player demonstrated contact allergy to the gray foam of his shin pads as well as localized leg dermatitis followed by generalized dermatitis (are you noticing a trend yet?), and later dermatitis on the soles of the feet with positive patch-test reactions to pieces of his shin pads and shoe insoles as well as AA 0.1% and 0.01% in acetone.³ A 6-year-old Canadian male soccer player presented with leg dermatitis and later generalized dermatitis and dermatitis on the soles of the feet with positive reactions to pieces of his shin pads and shoe insoles as well as to AA 1% and 0.1% in petrolatum.⁴ A 17-year-old British male (another trend, all males so far!) hockey player developed dermatitis localized to the legs and positive patch tests to the worn foam inner lining of his shin pads as well as to AA 0.1%, 0.01%, and 0.001% in acetone.⁵Finally, Darrigade et al⁶ published a case series of 6 European children with AA contact allergy associated with shin pads and shoes; all had localized leg dermatitis, and some had generalized dermatitis. Patch testing to pieces of shin pads and shoe parts as well as to AA 0.1% in petrolatum and/or acetone showed with positive reactions to the foam pieces and AA in all 6 patients.

What’s the Deal With AA?

Acetophenone azine (also known as methylphenylketazine or bis[1-phenylethylidene]hydrazine) is composed of 2 acetophenone structures and a hydrazine moiety. It has been identified in EVA foam, which can be found in sports equipment such as shin pads or shin guards, shoes, and flip-flops. Raison-Peyron et al¹ confirmed the presence of AA in EVA foam but reported that they did not know the exact reason for its presence. The authors theorized that AA might be a catalyst during EVA polymerization and also noted that it has antimicrobial and antihelminthic activity.¹ Several authors noted that AA could be a by-product of EVA synthesis and that sports equipment manufacturers might not be aware of its presence in EVA.^2,4-6 Some noted that AA concentration was higher in shin guards than in shoe insoles; they thought this explained why patients reacted first to their shin guards and were perhaps even initially sensitized to the shin guards, as well as why shoe insole contact allergy commonly was reported later or only after allergy to shin guards had already developed.^4,6

Differential Diagnosis of Shin Pad or Shin Guard Dermatitis

We would be remiss if we did not mention the appropriate differential diagnosis when shin pad or shin guard dermatitis is identified. In fact, in most cases, shin guard dermatitis results from irritant contact dermatitis from friction, heat, and/or perspiration. Acetophenone azine contact allergy is not the most likely diagnosis when your sports-savvy, shin guard–wearing patient presents with anterior lower leg dermatitis. However, when conservative therapy (eg, barrier between the shin guard and the skin, control or management of perspiration, topical corticosteroid therapy) fails, patch testing to evaluate for ACD is indicated.

Management of AA Contact Allergy

As astute readers of this column are already aware, treatment of ACD requires strict allergen avoidance. You will find that we have the same recommendations for AA contact allergy. Given that there are only a handful of cases in the literature, there are limited recommendations on practical allergen avoidance other than “don’t wear the problem shin guards, shoe insoles, or flip-flops.” However, Darrigade et al⁶ recommended wearing polyurethane shin guards and leather insoles as alternatives when AA contact allergy is suspected or confirmed. They also made it clear that thick socks worn between shin guards and the skin often are not good enough to avoid ACD because the relevant allergens may achieve skin contact despite the barrier.⁶

Patch Testing for AA Contact Allergy

Historically, ACD to shin guards or shin pads, insoles of shoes, and even flip-flops has been associated with rubber-related chemicals such as mercapto mix, thiuram mix, N-isopropyl-N’-phenyl-p-phenylenediamine, thioureas, and carbamates, as well as dyes, benzoyl peroxide, and urea formaldehyde or phenol formaldehyde resins.¹ Most of these chemicals can be tested with standard screening series or supplemental series. Patients with contact allergy to AA may have negative patch testing to screening series and/or supplemental series and may have strong positive reactions to pieces of suspected foam shin pads or shin guards, shoes, and/or flip-flops. Although Koumaki et al⁵ recommended patch testing for AA contact allergy with AA 0.1% in acetone, Besner Morin et al⁴ mentioned that petrolatum may be a more desirable vehicle because it could maintain stability for a longer period of time. In fact, a 2021 article highlighting the American Contact Dermatitis Society Allergen of the Year recommends testing with either AA 0.1% in acetone or AA 0.1% in petrolatum.⁷ Unfortunately, AA is not commercially available for purchase at the time of publication. We are hopeful that this will change in the near future.

Final Interpretation

Acetophenone azine is an emerging allergen commonly identified in EVA foam and attributed to contact allergy to shin guards or pads, soles of shoes, and flip-flops. Most cases have been reported in Europe and Canada and have been identified in young male athletes. In addition to standard patch testing, athletes with lower leg dermatitis and/or dermatitis of the soles of the feet should undergo patch testing with AA 0.1% in acetone or petrolatum and pieces of the equipment and/or footwear.

It’s time for the American Contact Dermatitis Society (ACDS) Allergen of the Year! For 2021, the esteemed award goes to acetophenone azine (AA). If you have never heard of this chemical, you are not alone. Acetophenone azine has been identified in foam materials made of the copolymer ethyl-vinyl acetate (EVA). Contact allergy to AA initially was reported in 2016.¹ There are only a few European and Canadian case reports and one case series of AA contact allergy in the literature, all of which are associated with foam shin pads or shin guards, shoe insoles, and/or flip-flops.^2-6 Acetophenone azine is an important emerging allergen, and in this column, we will introduce you to AA and the sneaky places it can lurk and cause allergic contact dermatitis (ACD). We also highlight diagnosis, management, and patch testing for AA contact allergy.

AA Contact Allergy in the Literature

The first case of AA contact allergy was reported in Europe in 2016 when a 13-year-old male soccer player developed severe lower leg dermatitis and later generalized dermatitis associated with wearing foam shin guards.¹ Patch testing to standard and supplemental trays was negative or not relevant; however, the patient exhibited strong reactions when patch tested directly to a piece of the shin guard soaked in acetone, water, and ethanol. Additional testing with AA diluted in acetone, water, and petrolatum resulted in positive patch test reactions to acetone dilutions of 1%, 0.1%, 0.01%, and 0.001% and aqueous solutions of 1% and 0.1%. Chromatographic analyses with high-performance liquid chromatography (HPLC) of shin guard extracts confirmed the culprit allergen to be AA.¹

In the following months, the same clinic saw 2 more cases of AA contact allergy.² An 11-year-old male soccer player developed lower leg dermatitis and later generalized dermatitis from wearing shin guards. Months later, he also developed dermatitis on the soles of the feet, which was attributed to wearing flip-flops. Patch tests to pieces of the shin guards and flip-flops were positive; AA in acetone 0.1% and 0.01% also was positive. As you might expect, HPLC again confirmed the presence of AA in the shin guards and flip-flops. The third patient was a 12-year-old boy with dermatitis on the soles of both feet; later he also developed a generalized dermatitis. Patch testing to pieces of the insoles of his sneakers and AA in acetone 0.1% and 0.01% was positive. Again, HPLC was positive for the presence of AA in the insoles of his sneakers.²

Several more cases of AA contact allergy have been reported in the literature. A 29-year-old European male hockey player demonstrated contact allergy to the gray foam of his shin pads as well as localized leg dermatitis followed by generalized dermatitis (are you noticing a trend yet?), and later dermatitis on the soles of the feet with positive patch-test reactions to pieces of his shin pads and shoe insoles as well as AA 0.1% and 0.01% in acetone.³ A 6-year-old Canadian male soccer player presented with leg dermatitis and later generalized dermatitis and dermatitis on the soles of the feet with positive reactions to pieces of his shin pads and shoe insoles as well as to AA 1% and 0.1% in petrolatum.⁴ A 17-year-old British male (another trend, all males so far!) hockey player developed dermatitis localized to the legs and positive patch tests to the worn foam inner lining of his shin pads as well as to AA 0.1%, 0.01%, and 0.001% in acetone.⁵Finally, Darrigade et al⁶ published a case series of 6 European children with AA contact allergy associated with shin pads and shoes; all had localized leg dermatitis, and some had generalized dermatitis. Patch testing to pieces of shin pads and shoe parts as well as to AA 0.1% in petrolatum and/or acetone showed with positive reactions to the foam pieces and AA in all 6 patients.

What’s the Deal With AA?

Acetophenone azine (also known as methylphenylketazine or bis[1-phenylethylidene]hydrazine) is composed of 2 acetophenone structures and a hydrazine moiety. It has been identified in EVA foam, which can be found in sports equipment such as shin pads or shin guards, shoes, and flip-flops. Raison-Peyron et al¹ confirmed the presence of AA in EVA foam but reported that they did not know the exact reason for its presence. The authors theorized that AA might be a catalyst during EVA polymerization and also noted that it has antimicrobial and antihelminthic activity.¹ Several authors noted that AA could be a by-product of EVA synthesis and that sports equipment manufacturers might not be aware of its presence in EVA.^2,4-6 Some noted that AA concentration was higher in shin guards than in shoe insoles; they thought this explained why patients reacted first to their shin guards and were perhaps even initially sensitized to the shin guards, as well as why shoe insole contact allergy commonly was reported later or only after allergy to shin guards had already developed.^4,6

Differential Diagnosis of Shin Pad or Shin Guard Dermatitis

We would be remiss if we did not mention the appropriate differential diagnosis when shin pad or shin guard dermatitis is identified. In fact, in most cases, shin guard dermatitis results from irritant contact dermatitis from friction, heat, and/or perspiration. Acetophenone azine contact allergy is not the most likely diagnosis when your sports-savvy, shin guard–wearing patient presents with anterior lower leg dermatitis. However, when conservative therapy (eg, barrier between the shin guard and the skin, control or management of perspiration, topical corticosteroid therapy) fails, patch testing to evaluate for ACD is indicated.

Management of AA Contact Allergy

As astute readers of this column are already aware, treatment of ACD requires strict allergen avoidance. You will find that we have the same recommendations for AA contact allergy. Given that there are only a handful of cases in the literature, there are limited recommendations on practical allergen avoidance other than “don’t wear the problem shin guards, shoe insoles, or flip-flops.” However, Darrigade et al⁶ recommended wearing polyurethane shin guards and leather insoles as alternatives when AA contact allergy is suspected or confirmed. They also made it clear that thick socks worn between shin guards and the skin often are not good enough to avoid ACD because the relevant allergens may achieve skin contact despite the barrier.⁶

Patch Testing for AA Contact Allergy

Historically, ACD to shin guards or shin pads, insoles of shoes, and even flip-flops has been associated with rubber-related chemicals such as mercapto mix, thiuram mix, N-isopropyl-N’-phenyl-p-phenylenediamine, thioureas, and carbamates, as well as dyes, benzoyl peroxide, and urea formaldehyde or phenol formaldehyde resins.¹ Most of these chemicals can be tested with standard screening series or supplemental series. Patients with contact allergy to AA may have negative patch testing to screening series and/or supplemental series and may have strong positive reactions to pieces of suspected foam shin pads or shin guards, shoes, and/or flip-flops. Although Koumaki et al⁵ recommended patch testing for AA contact allergy with AA 0.1% in acetone, Besner Morin et al⁴ mentioned that petrolatum may be a more desirable vehicle because it could maintain stability for a longer period of time. In fact, a 2021 article highlighting the American Contact Dermatitis Society Allergen of the Year recommends testing with either AA 0.1% in acetone or AA 0.1% in petrolatum.⁷ Unfortunately, AA is not commercially available for purchase at the time of publication. We are hopeful that this will change in the near future.

Final Interpretation

Acetophenone azine is an emerging allergen commonly identified in EVA foam and attributed to contact allergy to shin guards or pads, soles of shoes, and flip-flops. Most cases have been reported in Europe and Canada and have been identified in young male athletes. In addition to standard patch testing, athletes with lower leg dermatitis and/or dermatitis of the soles of the feet should undergo patch testing with AA 0.1% in acetone or petrolatum and pieces of the equipment and/or footwear.

Desmoplastic melanoma (DMM) is a rare variant of melanoma that presents major challenges to both clinicians and pathologists.¹ Clinically, the lesions may appear as subtle bland papules, nodules, or plaques. They can be easily mistaken for benign growths, leading to a delayed diagnosis. Consequently, most DMMs at the time of diagnosis tend to be thick, with a mean Breslow depth ranging from 2.0 to 6.5 mm.² Histopathologic evaluation has its difficulties. At scanning magnification, these tumors may show low cellularity, mimicking a benign proliferation. It is well recognized that S-100 and other tumor markers lack specificity for DMM, which can be positive in a range of neural tumors and other cell types.² In some amelanotic tumors, DMM becomes virtually indistinguishable from benign peripheral sheath tumors such as neurofribroma.³

Desmoplastic melanoma is exceedingly uncommon in the United States, with an estimated annual incidence rate of 2.0 cases per million.² Typical locations of presentation include sun-exposed skin, with the head and neck regions representing more than half of reported cases.² Desmoplastic melanoma largely is a disease of fair-skinned patients, with 95.5% of cases in the United States occurring in white non-Hispanic individuals. Advancing age, male gender, and head and neck location are associated with an increased risk for DMM-specific death.² It is important that new or changing lesions in the correct cohort and location are biopsied promptly. We present this case to highlight the ongoing challenges of diagnosing DMM both clinically and histologically and to review the salient features of this often benign-appearing tumor.

Case Report

A 51-year-old White man with a history of prostate cancer, a personal and family history of melanoma, and benign neurofibromas presented with a 6-mm, pink, well-demarcated, soft papule on the left lateral neck (Figure 1). The lesion had been stable for many years but began growing more rapidly 1 to 2 years prior to presentation. The lesion was asymptomatic, and he denied changes in color or texture. There also was no bleeding or ulceration. A review of systems was unremarkable. A shave biopsy of the lesion revealed a nodular spindle cell tumor in the dermis resembling a neurofibroma on low power (Figure 2). However, overlying the tumor was a confluent proliferation positive for MART-1 and S-100, which was consistent with a diagnosis of melanoma in situ (Figure 3). Higher-power evaluation of the dermal proliferation showed both bland and hyperchromatic spindled and epithelioid cells (Figure 4), with rare mitotic figures highlighted by PHH3, an uncommon finding in neurofibromas (Figure 5). The dermal spindle cells were positive for S-100 and p75 and negative for Melan-A. Epithelial membrane antigen highlighted a faint sheath surrounding the dermal component. Ki-67 revealed a mildly increased proliferative index in the dermal component. The diagnosis of DMM was made after outside dermatopathology consultation was in agreement. However, the possibility of a melanoma in situ growing in association with an underlying neurofibroma remained a diagnostic consideration histologically. The lesion was widely excised.

Comment

Differential for DMM
Early DMMs may not show sufficient cytologic atypia to permit obvious distinction from neurofibromas, which becomes problematic when encountering a spindle cell proliferation within severely sun-damaged skin, or even more so when an intraepidermal population of melanocytes is situated above a dermal population of slender, spindled, S-100–positive cells, as seen in our patient.⁴ For these challenging scenarios, Yeh and McCalmont⁴ have proposed evaluating for a CD34 “fingerprint” pattern. This pattern typically is widespread in neurofibroma but absent or limited in DMM, and it is a useful adjunct in the differential diagnosis when conventional immunohistochemistry has little contribution.

There are several case reports in the literature of DMM mimicking other benign or malignant proliferations. In 2012, Jou et al⁵ described a case of a 62-year-old White man who presented with an oral nodule consistent with fibrous inflammatory hyperplasia clinically. Incisional biopsy later confirmed the diagnosis of amelanotic DMM.⁵ Similar case reports have been described in which the diagnosis of DMM was later found to resemble a sarcoma and malignant peripheral nerve sheath tumor.^6,7

Diagnosis of DMM
The prototypical DMM is an asymmetrical and deeply infiltrative spindle cell lesion in severely sun-damaged skin. By definition, the individual melanocytes are separated by connective tissue components, giving the tumor a paucicellular appearance.¹ Although the low cellularity can give a deceptively bland scanning aspect, on high-power examination there usually are identifiable atypical spindled cells with enlarged, elongated, and hyperchromatic nuclei. S-100 typically is diffusely positive in DMM, though occasional cases show more limited staining.⁸ Other commonly used and more specific markers of melanocytic differentiation, including HMB45 and Melan-A, typically are negative in the paucicellular spindle cell components.⁹ Desmoplastic melanoma can be further categorized by the degree of fibrosis within a particular tumor. If fibrosis is prominent throughout the entire tumor, it is named pure DMM. On the other hand, fibrosis may only represent a portion of an otherwise nondesmoplastic melanoma, which is known as combined DMM.¹⁰

Conclusion

We present this case to highlight the ongoing challenges of diagnosing DMM both clinically and histologically. Although a bland-appearing lesion, key clinical features prompting a biopsy in our patient included recent growth of the lesion, a personal history of melanoma, the patient’s fair skin type, a history of heavy sun exposure, and the location of the lesion. According to Busam,¹¹ an associated melanoma in situ component is identified in 80% to 85% of DMM cases. Detection of a melanoma in situ component associated with a malignant spindle cell tumor can help establish the diagnosis of DMM. In the absence of melanoma in situ, a strong diffuse immunoreactivity for S-100 and lack of epithelial markers support the diagnosis.¹¹ After review of the literature, our case likely represents DMM as opposed to a melanoma in situ developing within a neurofibroma.

Desmoplastic melanoma (DMM) is a rare variant of melanoma that presents major challenges to both clinicians and pathologists.¹ Clinically, the lesions may appear as subtle bland papules, nodules, or plaques. They can be easily mistaken for benign growths, leading to a delayed diagnosis. Consequently, most DMMs at the time of diagnosis tend to be thick, with a mean Breslow depth ranging from 2.0 to 6.5 mm.² Histopathologic evaluation has its difficulties. At scanning magnification, these tumors may show low cellularity, mimicking a benign proliferation. It is well recognized that S-100 and other tumor markers lack specificity for DMM, which can be positive in a range of neural tumors and other cell types.² In some amelanotic tumors, DMM becomes virtually indistinguishable from benign peripheral sheath tumors such as neurofribroma.³

Desmoplastic melanoma is exceedingly uncommon in the United States, with an estimated annual incidence rate of 2.0 cases per million.² Typical locations of presentation include sun-exposed skin, with the head and neck regions representing more than half of reported cases.² Desmoplastic melanoma largely is a disease of fair-skinned patients, with 95.5% of cases in the United States occurring in white non-Hispanic individuals. Advancing age, male gender, and head and neck location are associated with an increased risk for DMM-specific death.² It is important that new or changing lesions in the correct cohort and location are biopsied promptly. We present this case to highlight the ongoing challenges of diagnosing DMM both clinically and histologically and to review the salient features of this often benign-appearing tumor.

Case Report

A 51-year-old White man with a history of prostate cancer, a personal and family history of melanoma, and benign neurofibromas presented with a 6-mm, pink, well-demarcated, soft papule on the left lateral neck (Figure 1). The lesion had been stable for many years but began growing more rapidly 1 to 2 years prior to presentation. The lesion was asymptomatic, and he denied changes in color or texture. There also was no bleeding or ulceration. A review of systems was unremarkable. A shave biopsy of the lesion revealed a nodular spindle cell tumor in the dermis resembling a neurofibroma on low power (Figure 2). However, overlying the tumor was a confluent proliferation positive for MART-1 and S-100, which was consistent with a diagnosis of melanoma in situ (Figure 3). Higher-power evaluation of the dermal proliferation showed both bland and hyperchromatic spindled and epithelioid cells (Figure 4), with rare mitotic figures highlighted by PHH3, an uncommon finding in neurofibromas (Figure 5). The dermal spindle cells were positive for S-100 and p75 and negative for Melan-A. Epithelial membrane antigen highlighted a faint sheath surrounding the dermal component. Ki-67 revealed a mildly increased proliferative index in the dermal component. The diagnosis of DMM was made after outside dermatopathology consultation was in agreement. However, the possibility of a melanoma in situ growing in association with an underlying neurofibroma remained a diagnostic consideration histologically. The lesion was widely excised.

Comment

Differential for DMM
Early DMMs may not show sufficient cytologic atypia to permit obvious distinction from neurofibromas, which becomes problematic when encountering a spindle cell proliferation within severely sun-damaged skin, or even more so when an intraepidermal population of melanocytes is situated above a dermal population of slender, spindled, S-100–positive cells, as seen in our patient.⁴ For these challenging scenarios, Yeh and McCalmont⁴ have proposed evaluating for a CD34 “fingerprint” pattern. This pattern typically is widespread in neurofibroma but absent or limited in DMM, and it is a useful adjunct in the differential diagnosis when conventional immunohistochemistry has little contribution.

There are several case reports in the literature of DMM mimicking other benign or malignant proliferations. In 2012, Jou et al⁵ described a case of a 62-year-old White man who presented with an oral nodule consistent with fibrous inflammatory hyperplasia clinically. Incisional biopsy later confirmed the diagnosis of amelanotic DMM.⁵ Similar case reports have been described in which the diagnosis of DMM was later found to resemble a sarcoma and malignant peripheral nerve sheath tumor.^6,7

Diagnosis of DMM
The prototypical DMM is an asymmetrical and deeply infiltrative spindle cell lesion in severely sun-damaged skin. By definition, the individual melanocytes are separated by connective tissue components, giving the tumor a paucicellular appearance.¹ Although the low cellularity can give a deceptively bland scanning aspect, on high-power examination there usually are identifiable atypical spindled cells with enlarged, elongated, and hyperchromatic nuclei. S-100 typically is diffusely positive in DMM, though occasional cases show more limited staining.⁸ Other commonly used and more specific markers of melanocytic differentiation, including HMB45 and Melan-A, typically are negative in the paucicellular spindle cell components.⁹ Desmoplastic melanoma can be further categorized by the degree of fibrosis within a particular tumor. If fibrosis is prominent throughout the entire tumor, it is named pure DMM. On the other hand, fibrosis may only represent a portion of an otherwise nondesmoplastic melanoma, which is known as combined DMM.¹⁰

Conclusion

We present this case to highlight the ongoing challenges of diagnosing DMM both clinically and histologically. Although a bland-appearing lesion, key clinical features prompting a biopsy in our patient included recent growth of the lesion, a personal history of melanoma, the patient’s fair skin type, a history of heavy sun exposure, and the location of the lesion. According to Busam,¹¹ an associated melanoma in situ component is identified in 80% to 85% of DMM cases. Detection of a melanoma in situ component associated with a malignant spindle cell tumor can help establish the diagnosis of DMM. In the absence of melanoma in situ, a strong diffuse immunoreactivity for S-100 and lack of epithelial markers support the diagnosis.¹¹ After review of the literature, our case likely represents DMM as opposed to a melanoma in situ developing within a neurofibroma.

Desmoplastic melanoma (DMM) is a rare variant of melanoma that presents major challenges to both clinicians and pathologists.¹ Clinically, the lesions may appear as subtle bland papules, nodules, or plaques. They can be easily mistaken for benign growths, leading to a delayed diagnosis. Consequently, most DMMs at the time of diagnosis tend to be thick, with a mean Breslow depth ranging from 2.0 to 6.5 mm.² Histopathologic evaluation has its difficulties. At scanning magnification, these tumors may show low cellularity, mimicking a benign proliferation. It is well recognized that S-100 and other tumor markers lack specificity for DMM, which can be positive in a range of neural tumors and other cell types.² In some amelanotic tumors, DMM becomes virtually indistinguishable from benign peripheral sheath tumors such as neurofribroma.³

Desmoplastic melanoma is exceedingly uncommon in the United States, with an estimated annual incidence rate of 2.0 cases per million.² Typical locations of presentation include sun-exposed skin, with the head and neck regions representing more than half of reported cases.² Desmoplastic melanoma largely is a disease of fair-skinned patients, with 95.5% of cases in the United States occurring in white non-Hispanic individuals. Advancing age, male gender, and head and neck location are associated with an increased risk for DMM-specific death.² It is important that new or changing lesions in the correct cohort and location are biopsied promptly. We present this case to highlight the ongoing challenges of diagnosing DMM both clinically and histologically and to review the salient features of this often benign-appearing tumor.

Case Report

A 51-year-old White man with a history of prostate cancer, a personal and family history of melanoma, and benign neurofibromas presented with a 6-mm, pink, well-demarcated, soft papule on the left lateral neck (Figure 1). The lesion had been stable for many years but began growing more rapidly 1 to 2 years prior to presentation. The lesion was asymptomatic, and he denied changes in color or texture. There also was no bleeding or ulceration. A review of systems was unremarkable. A shave biopsy of the lesion revealed a nodular spindle cell tumor in the dermis resembling a neurofibroma on low power (Figure 2). However, overlying the tumor was a confluent proliferation positive for MART-1 and S-100, which was consistent with a diagnosis of melanoma in situ (Figure 3). Higher-power evaluation of the dermal proliferation showed both bland and hyperchromatic spindled and epithelioid cells (Figure 4), with rare mitotic figures highlighted by PHH3, an uncommon finding in neurofibromas (Figure 5). The dermal spindle cells were positive for S-100 and p75 and negative for Melan-A. Epithelial membrane antigen highlighted a faint sheath surrounding the dermal component. Ki-67 revealed a mildly increased proliferative index in the dermal component. The diagnosis of DMM was made after outside dermatopathology consultation was in agreement. However, the possibility of a melanoma in situ growing in association with an underlying neurofibroma remained a diagnostic consideration histologically. The lesion was widely excised.

Comment

Differential for DMM
Early DMMs may not show sufficient cytologic atypia to permit obvious distinction from neurofibromas, which becomes problematic when encountering a spindle cell proliferation within severely sun-damaged skin, or even more so when an intraepidermal population of melanocytes is situated above a dermal population of slender, spindled, S-100–positive cells, as seen in our patient.⁴ For these challenging scenarios, Yeh and McCalmont⁴ have proposed evaluating for a CD34 “fingerprint” pattern. This pattern typically is widespread in neurofibroma but absent or limited in DMM, and it is a useful adjunct in the differential diagnosis when conventional immunohistochemistry has little contribution.

There are several case reports in the literature of DMM mimicking other benign or malignant proliferations. In 2012, Jou et al⁵ described a case of a 62-year-old White man who presented with an oral nodule consistent with fibrous inflammatory hyperplasia clinically. Incisional biopsy later confirmed the diagnosis of amelanotic DMM.⁵ Similar case reports have been described in which the diagnosis of DMM was later found to resemble a sarcoma and malignant peripheral nerve sheath tumor.^6,7

Diagnosis of DMM
The prototypical DMM is an asymmetrical and deeply infiltrative spindle cell lesion in severely sun-damaged skin. By definition, the individual melanocytes are separated by connective tissue components, giving the tumor a paucicellular appearance.¹ Although the low cellularity can give a deceptively bland scanning aspect, on high-power examination there usually are identifiable atypical spindled cells with enlarged, elongated, and hyperchromatic nuclei. S-100 typically is diffusely positive in DMM, though occasional cases show more limited staining.⁸ Other commonly used and more specific markers of melanocytic differentiation, including HMB45 and Melan-A, typically are negative in the paucicellular spindle cell components.⁹ Desmoplastic melanoma can be further categorized by the degree of fibrosis within a particular tumor. If fibrosis is prominent throughout the entire tumor, it is named pure DMM. On the other hand, fibrosis may only represent a portion of an otherwise nondesmoplastic melanoma, which is known as combined DMM.¹⁰

Conclusion

We present this case to highlight the ongoing challenges of diagnosing DMM both clinically and histologically. Although a bland-appearing lesion, key clinical features prompting a biopsy in our patient included recent growth of the lesion, a personal history of melanoma, the patient’s fair skin type, a history of heavy sun exposure, and the location of the lesion. According to Busam,¹¹ an associated melanoma in situ component is identified in 80% to 85% of DMM cases. Detection of a melanoma in situ component associated with a malignant spindle cell tumor can help establish the diagnosis of DMM. In the absence of melanoma in situ, a strong diffuse immunoreactivity for S-100 and lack of epithelial markers support the diagnosis.¹¹ After review of the literature, our case likely represents DMM as opposed to a melanoma in situ developing within a neurofibroma.

What is West Nile virus? How is it contracted, and who can become infected?

West Nile virus (WNV) is a single-stranded RNA virus of the Flaviviridae family and Flavivirus genus, a lineage that also includes the yellow fever, dengue, Zika, Japanese encephalitis, and Saint Louis encephalitis viruses.¹ Birds serve as the reservoir hosts of WNV, and mosquitoes acquire the virus during feeding.² West Nile virus then is transmitted to humans primarily by bites from Culex mosquitoes, which are especially prevalent in wooded areas during peak mosquito season (summer through early fall in North America).¹ Mosquitoes also can infect horses; however, humans and horses are dead-end hosts, meaning they do not pass the virus on to other biting mosquitoes.³ There also have been rare reports of transmission of WNV through blood and donation as well as mother-to-baby transmission.²

What is the epidemiology of WNV in the United States?

Since the introduction of WNV to the United States in 1999, it has become an important public health concern, with 48,183 cases and 2163 deaths reported since 1999.^2,3 In 2018, Nebraska had the highest number of cases of WNV (n=251), followed by California (n=217), North Dakota (n=204), Illinois (n=176), and South Dakota (n=169).³ West Nile virus is endemic to all 48 contiguous states and Canada, though the Great Plains region is especially affected by WNV due to several factors, such as a greater percentage of rural land, forests, and irrigated areas.⁴ The Great Plains region also has been thought to be an ecological niche for a more virulent species (Culex tarsalis) compared to other regions in the United States.⁵

The annual incidence of WNV in the United States peaked in 2003 at 9862 cases (up from 62 cases in 1999), then declined gradually until 2008 to 2011, during which the incidence was stable at 700 to 1100 new cases per year. However, there was a resurgence of cases (n=5674) in 2012 that steadied at around 2200 cases annually in subsequent years.⁶ Although there likely are several factors affecting WNV incidence trends in the United States, interannual changes in temperature and precipitation have been described. An increased mean annual temperature (from September through October, the end of peak mosquito season) and an increased temperature in winter months (from January through March, prior to peak mosquito season) have both been associated with an increased incidence of WNV.⁷ An increased temperature is thought to increase population numbers of mosquitoes both by increasing reproductive rates and creating ideal breeding environments via pooled water areas.⁸ Depending on the region, both above average and below average precipitation levels in the United States can increase WNV incidence the following year.^7,9

What are the signs and symptoms of WNV infection?

Up to 80% of those infected with WNV are asymptomatic.³ After an incubation period of roughly 2 to 14 days, the remaining 20% may develop symptoms of West Nile fever (WNF), typically a self-limited illness that consists of 3 to 10 days of nonspecific symptoms such as fever, headache, fatigue, muscle pain and/or weakness, eye pain, gastrointestinal tract upset, and a macular rash that usually presents on the trunk or extremities.^1,3 Less than 1% of patients affected by WNV develop neuroinvasive disease, including meningitis, encephalitis, and/or acute flaccid paralysis.¹⁰ West Nile virus neuroinvasive disease can cause permanent neurologic sequelae such as muscle weakness, confusion, memory loss, and fatigue; it carries a mortality rate of 10% to 30%, which is mainly dependent on older age and immunosuppression status.^1,10

What is the reported spectrum of cutaneous findings in WNV?

Of the roughly 20% of patients infected with WNV that develop WNF, approximately 25% to 50% will develop an associated rash.¹ It most commonly is described as a morbilliform or maculopapular rash located on the chest, back, and arms, usually sparing the palms and soles, though 1 case report noted involvement with these areas (Figure).^11,12 It typically appears 5 days after symptom onset, can be associated with defervescence, and lasts less than a week.^1,13 Pruritus and dysesthesia are sometimes present.¹³ Other rare presentations that have been reported include an ill-defined pseudovesicular rash with erythematous papules on the palms and pink, scaly, psoriasiform papules on the feet and thighs, as well as neuroinvasive WNV leading to purpura fulminans.^14,15 A diffuse, erythematous, petechial rash on the face, neck, trunk, and extremities was reported in a pediatric patient, but there have been no reports of a petechial rash associated with WNV in adult patients.¹⁶ These findings suggest some potential variability in the presentation of the WNV rash.

What role does the presence of rash play diagnostically and prognostically?

The rash of WNV has been implicated as a potential prognostic factor in predicting more favorable outcomes.¹⁷ Using 2002 data from the Illinois Department of Public Health and 2003 data from the Colorado Department of Public Health, Huhn and Dworkin¹⁷ found the age-adjusted risk of encephalitis and death to be decreased in WNV patients with a rash (relative risk, 0.44; 95% CI, 0.21-0.92). The reasons for this are not definitively known, but we hypothesize that the rash may prompt patients to seek earlier medical attention or indicate a more robust immune response. Additionally, a rash in WNV more commonly is seen in younger patients, whereas WNV neuroinvasive disease is more common in older patients, who also tend to have worse outcomes.¹⁰ One study found rash to be the only symptom that demonstrated a significant association with seropositivity (overall risk=6.35; P<.05; 95% CI, 3.75-10.80) by multivariate analysis.¹⁸

How is WNV diagnosed? What are the downsides to WNV testing?

Given that the presenting symptoms of WNV and WNF are nonspecific, it becomes challenging to arrive at the diagnosis based solely on physical examination. As such, the patient’s clinical and epidemiologic history, such as timing, pattern, and appearance of the rash or recent history of mosquito bites, is key to arriving at the correct diagnosis. With clinical suspicion, possible diagnostic tests include an IgM enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) for WNV, a plaque reduction neutralization test (PNRT), and blood polymerase chain reaction (PCR).

An ELISA is a confirmatory test to detect IgM antibodies to WNV in the serum. Because IgM seroconversion typically occurs between days 4 and 10 of symptom onset, there is a high probability of initial false-negative testing within the first 8 days after symptom onset.^19,20 Clinical understanding of this fact is imperative, as an initial negative ELISA does not rule out WNV, and a retest is warranted if clinical suspicion is high. In addition to a high initial false-negative rate with ELISA, there are several other limitations to note. IgM antibodies remain elevated for 1 to 3 months or possibly up to a year in immunocompromised patients.¹ Due to this, false positives may be present if there was a recent prior infection. Enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay may not distinguish from different flaviviruses, including the yellow fever, dengue, Zika, Japanese encephalitis, and Saint Louis encephalitis viruses. Seropositivity has been estimated in some states, including 1999 data from New York (2.6%), 2003 data from Nebraska (9.5%), and 2012-2014 data from Connecticut (8.5%).^21-23 Regional variance may be expected, as there also were significant differences in WNV seropositivity between different regions in Nebraska (P<.001).²³

Because ELISA testing for WNV has readily apparent flaws, other tests have been utilized in its diagnosis. The PNRT is the most specific test, and it works by measuring neutralizing antibody titers for different flaviviruses. It has the ability to determine cross-reactivity with other flaviviruses; however, it does not discriminate between a current infection and a prior infection or prior flavivirus vaccine (ie, yellow fever vaccine). Despite this, a positive PNRT can lend credibility to a positive ELISA test and determine specificity for WNV for those with no prior flavivirus exposure.²⁴ According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), this test can be performed by the CDC or in reference laboratories designated by the CDC.³ Additionally, some state health laboratories may perform PRNTs.

Viral detection with PCR currently is used to screen blood donations and may be beneficial for immunocompromised patients that lack the ability to form a robust antibody response or if a patient presents early, as PCR works best within the first week of symptom onset.¹ Tilley et al²⁵ showed that a combination of PCR and ELISA were able to accurately predict 94.2% of patients (180/191) with documented WNV on a first blood sample compared to 45% and 58.1% for only viral detection or ELISA, respectively. Based on costs from a Midwest academic center, antibody detection tests are around $100 while PCR may range from $500 to $1000 and is only performed in reference laboratories. Although these tests remain in the repertoire for WNV diagnosis, financial stewardship is important.

If there are symptoms of photophobia, phonophobia, nuchal rigidity, loss of consciousness, or marked personality changes, a lumbar puncture for WNV IgM in the cerebrospinal fluid can be performed. As with most viral infections, cerebrospinal fluid findings normally include an elevated protein and lymphocyte count, but neutrophils may be predominantly elevated if the infection is early in its course.²⁶

What are the management options?

To date, there is no curative treatment for WNV, and management is largely supportive. For WNF, over-the-counter pain medications may be helpful to reduce fever and pain. If more severe disease develops, hospitalization for further supportive care may be needed.²⁷ If meningitis or encephalitis is suspected, broad-spectrum antibiotics may need to be started until other common etiologies are ruled out.²⁸

How can you prevent WNV infection?

Disease prevention largely consists of educating the public to avoid heavily wooded areas, especially in areas of high prevalence and during peak months, and to use protective clothing and insect repellant that has been approved by the Environmental Protection Agency.³ Insect repellants approved by the Environmental Protection Agency contain ingredients such as DEET (N, N-diethyl-meta-toluamide), picaridin, IR3535 (ethyl butylacetylaminopropionate), and oil of lemon eucalyptus, which have been proven safe and effective.²⁹ Patients also can protect their homes by using window screens and promptly repairing screens with holes.³

What is the differential diagnosis for WNV?

The differential diagnosis for fever with generalized maculopapular rash broadly ranges from viral etiologies (eg, WNV, Zika, measles), to tick bites (eg, Rocky Mountain spotted fever, ehrlichiosis), to drug-induced rashes. A detailed patient history inquiring on recent sick contacts, travel (WNV in the Midwest, ehrlichiosis in the Southeast), environmental exposures (ticks, mosquitoes), and new medications (typically 7–10 days after starting) is imperative to narrow the differential.³⁰ In addition, the distribution, timing, and clinical characteristics of the rash may aid in diagnosis, along with an appropriately correlated clinical picture. West Nile virus likely will present in the summer in mid central geographic locations and often develops on the trunk and extremities as a blanching, generalized, maculopapular rash around 5 days after symptom onset or with defervescence.¹

What is West Nile virus? How is it contracted, and who can become infected?

West Nile virus (WNV) is a single-stranded RNA virus of the Flaviviridae family and Flavivirus genus, a lineage that also includes the yellow fever, dengue, Zika, Japanese encephalitis, and Saint Louis encephalitis viruses.¹ Birds serve as the reservoir hosts of WNV, and mosquitoes acquire the virus during feeding.² West Nile virus then is transmitted to humans primarily by bites from Culex mosquitoes, which are especially prevalent in wooded areas during peak mosquito season (summer through early fall in North America).¹ Mosquitoes also can infect horses; however, humans and horses are dead-end hosts, meaning they do not pass the virus on to other biting mosquitoes.³ There also have been rare reports of transmission of WNV through blood and donation as well as mother-to-baby transmission.²

What is the epidemiology of WNV in the United States?

Since the introduction of WNV to the United States in 1999, it has become an important public health concern, with 48,183 cases and 2163 deaths reported since 1999.^2,3 In 2018, Nebraska had the highest number of cases of WNV (n=251), followed by California (n=217), North Dakota (n=204), Illinois (n=176), and South Dakota (n=169).³ West Nile virus is endemic to all 48 contiguous states and Canada, though the Great Plains region is especially affected by WNV due to several factors, such as a greater percentage of rural land, forests, and irrigated areas.⁴ The Great Plains region also has been thought to be an ecological niche for a more virulent species (Culex tarsalis) compared to other regions in the United States.⁵

The annual incidence of WNV in the United States peaked in 2003 at 9862 cases (up from 62 cases in 1999), then declined gradually until 2008 to 2011, during which the incidence was stable at 700 to 1100 new cases per year. However, there was a resurgence of cases (n=5674) in 2012 that steadied at around 2200 cases annually in subsequent years.⁶ Although there likely are several factors affecting WNV incidence trends in the United States, interannual changes in temperature and precipitation have been described. An increased mean annual temperature (from September through October, the end of peak mosquito season) and an increased temperature in winter months (from January through March, prior to peak mosquito season) have both been associated with an increased incidence of WNV.⁷ An increased temperature is thought to increase population numbers of mosquitoes both by increasing reproductive rates and creating ideal breeding environments via pooled water areas.⁸ Depending on the region, both above average and below average precipitation levels in the United States can increase WNV incidence the following year.^7,9

What are the signs and symptoms of WNV infection?

Up to 80% of those infected with WNV are asymptomatic.³ After an incubation period of roughly 2 to 14 days, the remaining 20% may develop symptoms of West Nile fever (WNF), typically a self-limited illness that consists of 3 to 10 days of nonspecific symptoms such as fever, headache, fatigue, muscle pain and/or weakness, eye pain, gastrointestinal tract upset, and a macular rash that usually presents on the trunk or extremities.^1,3 Less than 1% of patients affected by WNV develop neuroinvasive disease, including meningitis, encephalitis, and/or acute flaccid paralysis.¹⁰ West Nile virus neuroinvasive disease can cause permanent neurologic sequelae such as muscle weakness, confusion, memory loss, and fatigue; it carries a mortality rate of 10% to 30%, which is mainly dependent on older age and immunosuppression status.^1,10

What is the reported spectrum of cutaneous findings in WNV?

Of the roughly 20% of patients infected with WNV that develop WNF, approximately 25% to 50% will develop an associated rash.¹ It most commonly is described as a morbilliform or maculopapular rash located on the chest, back, and arms, usually sparing the palms and soles, though 1 case report noted involvement with these areas (Figure).^11,12 It typically appears 5 days after symptom onset, can be associated with defervescence, and lasts less than a week.^1,13 Pruritus and dysesthesia are sometimes present.¹³ Other rare presentations that have been reported include an ill-defined pseudovesicular rash with erythematous papules on the palms and pink, scaly, psoriasiform papules on the feet and thighs, as well as neuroinvasive WNV leading to purpura fulminans.^14,15 A diffuse, erythematous, petechial rash on the face, neck, trunk, and extremities was reported in a pediatric patient, but there have been no reports of a petechial rash associated with WNV in adult patients.¹⁶ These findings suggest some potential variability in the presentation of the WNV rash.

What role does the presence of rash play diagnostically and prognostically?

The rash of WNV has been implicated as a potential prognostic factor in predicting more favorable outcomes.¹⁷ Using 2002 data from the Illinois Department of Public Health and 2003 data from the Colorado Department of Public Health, Huhn and Dworkin¹⁷ found the age-adjusted risk of encephalitis and death to be decreased in WNV patients with a rash (relative risk, 0.44; 95% CI, 0.21-0.92). The reasons for this are not definitively known, but we hypothesize that the rash may prompt patients to seek earlier medical attention or indicate a more robust immune response. Additionally, a rash in WNV more commonly is seen in younger patients, whereas WNV neuroinvasive disease is more common in older patients, who also tend to have worse outcomes.¹⁰ One study found rash to be the only symptom that demonstrated a significant association with seropositivity (overall risk=6.35; P<.05; 95% CI, 3.75-10.80) by multivariate analysis.¹⁸

How is WNV diagnosed? What are the downsides to WNV testing?

Given that the presenting symptoms of WNV and WNF are nonspecific, it becomes challenging to arrive at the diagnosis based solely on physical examination. As such, the patient’s clinical and epidemiologic history, such as timing, pattern, and appearance of the rash or recent history of mosquito bites, is key to arriving at the correct diagnosis. With clinical suspicion, possible diagnostic tests include an IgM enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) for WNV, a plaque reduction neutralization test (PNRT), and blood polymerase chain reaction (PCR).

An ELISA is a confirmatory test to detect IgM antibodies to WNV in the serum. Because IgM seroconversion typically occurs between days 4 and 10 of symptom onset, there is a high probability of initial false-negative testing within the first 8 days after symptom onset.^19,20 Clinical understanding of this fact is imperative, as an initial negative ELISA does not rule out WNV, and a retest is warranted if clinical suspicion is high. In addition to a high initial false-negative rate with ELISA, there are several other limitations to note. IgM antibodies remain elevated for 1 to 3 months or possibly up to a year in immunocompromised patients.¹ Due to this, false positives may be present if there was a recent prior infection. Enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay may not distinguish from different flaviviruses, including the yellow fever, dengue, Zika, Japanese encephalitis, and Saint Louis encephalitis viruses. Seropositivity has been estimated in some states, including 1999 data from New York (2.6%), 2003 data from Nebraska (9.5%), and 2012-2014 data from Connecticut (8.5%).^21-23 Regional variance may be expected, as there also were significant differences in WNV seropositivity between different regions in Nebraska (P<.001).²³

Because ELISA testing for WNV has readily apparent flaws, other tests have been utilized in its diagnosis. The PNRT is the most specific test, and it works by measuring neutralizing antibody titers for different flaviviruses. It has the ability to determine cross-reactivity with other flaviviruses; however, it does not discriminate between a current infection and a prior infection or prior flavivirus vaccine (ie, yellow fever vaccine). Despite this, a positive PNRT can lend credibility to a positive ELISA test and determine specificity for WNV for those with no prior flavivirus exposure.²⁴ According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), this test can be performed by the CDC or in reference laboratories designated by the CDC.³ Additionally, some state health laboratories may perform PRNTs.

Viral detection with PCR currently is used to screen blood donations and may be beneficial for immunocompromised patients that lack the ability to form a robust antibody response or if a patient presents early, as PCR works best within the first week of symptom onset.¹ Tilley et al²⁵ showed that a combination of PCR and ELISA were able to accurately predict 94.2% of patients (180/191) with documented WNV on a first blood sample compared to 45% and 58.1% for only viral detection or ELISA, respectively. Based on costs from a Midwest academic center, antibody detection tests are around $100 while PCR may range from $500 to $1000 and is only performed in reference laboratories. Although these tests remain in the repertoire for WNV diagnosis, financial stewardship is important.

If there are symptoms of photophobia, phonophobia, nuchal rigidity, loss of consciousness, or marked personality changes, a lumbar puncture for WNV IgM in the cerebrospinal fluid can be performed. As with most viral infections, cerebrospinal fluid findings normally include an elevated protein and lymphocyte count, but neutrophils may be predominantly elevated if the infection is early in its course.²⁶

What are the management options?

To date, there is no curative treatment for WNV, and management is largely supportive. For WNF, over-the-counter pain medications may be helpful to reduce fever and pain. If more severe disease develops, hospitalization for further supportive care may be needed.²⁷ If meningitis or encephalitis is suspected, broad-spectrum antibiotics may need to be started until other common etiologies are ruled out.²⁸

How can you prevent WNV infection?

Disease prevention largely consists of educating the public to avoid heavily wooded areas, especially in areas of high prevalence and during peak months, and to use protective clothing and insect repellant that has been approved by the Environmental Protection Agency.³ Insect repellants approved by the Environmental Protection Agency contain ingredients such as DEET (N, N-diethyl-meta-toluamide), picaridin, IR3535 (ethyl butylacetylaminopropionate), and oil of lemon eucalyptus, which have been proven safe and effective.²⁹ Patients also can protect their homes by using window screens and promptly repairing screens with holes.³

What is the differential diagnosis for WNV?

The differential diagnosis for fever with generalized maculopapular rash broadly ranges from viral etiologies (eg, WNV, Zika, measles), to tick bites (eg, Rocky Mountain spotted fever, ehrlichiosis), to drug-induced rashes. A detailed patient history inquiring on recent sick contacts, travel (WNV in the Midwest, ehrlichiosis in the Southeast), environmental exposures (ticks, mosquitoes), and new medications (typically 7–10 days after starting) is imperative to narrow the differential.³⁰ In addition, the distribution, timing, and clinical characteristics of the rash may aid in diagnosis, along with an appropriately correlated clinical picture. West Nile virus likely will present in the summer in mid central geographic locations and often develops on the trunk and extremities as a blanching, generalized, maculopapular rash around 5 days after symptom onset or with defervescence.¹

What is West Nile virus? How is it contracted, and who can become infected?

West Nile virus (WNV) is a single-stranded RNA virus of the Flaviviridae family and Flavivirus genus, a lineage that also includes the yellow fever, dengue, Zika, Japanese encephalitis, and Saint Louis encephalitis viruses.¹ Birds serve as the reservoir hosts of WNV, and mosquitoes acquire the virus during feeding.² West Nile virus then is transmitted to humans primarily by bites from Culex mosquitoes, which are especially prevalent in wooded areas during peak mosquito season (summer through early fall in North America).¹ Mosquitoes also can infect horses; however, humans and horses are dead-end hosts, meaning they do not pass the virus on to other biting mosquitoes.³ There also have been rare reports of transmission of WNV through blood and donation as well as mother-to-baby transmission.²

What is the epidemiology of WNV in the United States?

Since the introduction of WNV to the United States in 1999, it has become an important public health concern, with 48,183 cases and 2163 deaths reported since 1999.^2,3 In 2018, Nebraska had the highest number of cases of WNV (n=251), followed by California (n=217), North Dakota (n=204), Illinois (n=176), and South Dakota (n=169).³ West Nile virus is endemic to all 48 contiguous states and Canada, though the Great Plains region is especially affected by WNV due to several factors, such as a greater percentage of rural land, forests, and irrigated areas.⁴ The Great Plains region also has been thought to be an ecological niche for a more virulent species (Culex tarsalis) compared to other regions in the United States.⁵

The annual incidence of WNV in the United States peaked in 2003 at 9862 cases (up from 62 cases in 1999), then declined gradually until 2008 to 2011, during which the incidence was stable at 700 to 1100 new cases per year. However, there was a resurgence of cases (n=5674) in 2012 that steadied at around 2200 cases annually in subsequent years.⁶ Although there likely are several factors affecting WNV incidence trends in the United States, interannual changes in temperature and precipitation have been described. An increased mean annual temperature (from September through October, the end of peak mosquito season) and an increased temperature in winter months (from January through March, prior to peak mosquito season) have both been associated with an increased incidence of WNV.⁷ An increased temperature is thought to increase population numbers of mosquitoes both by increasing reproductive rates and creating ideal breeding environments via pooled water areas.⁸ Depending on the region, both above average and below average precipitation levels in the United States can increase WNV incidence the following year.^7,9

What are the signs and symptoms of WNV infection?

Up to 80% of those infected with WNV are asymptomatic.³ After an incubation period of roughly 2 to 14 days, the remaining 20% may develop symptoms of West Nile fever (WNF), typically a self-limited illness that consists of 3 to 10 days of nonspecific symptoms such as fever, headache, fatigue, muscle pain and/or weakness, eye pain, gastrointestinal tract upset, and a macular rash that usually presents on the trunk or extremities.^1,3 Less than 1% of patients affected by WNV develop neuroinvasive disease, including meningitis, encephalitis, and/or acute flaccid paralysis.¹⁰ West Nile virus neuroinvasive disease can cause permanent neurologic sequelae such as muscle weakness, confusion, memory loss, and fatigue; it carries a mortality rate of 10% to 30%, which is mainly dependent on older age and immunosuppression status.^1,10

What is the reported spectrum of cutaneous findings in WNV?

Of the roughly 20% of patients infected with WNV that develop WNF, approximately 25% to 50% will develop an associated rash.¹ It most commonly is described as a morbilliform or maculopapular rash located on the chest, back, and arms, usually sparing the palms and soles, though 1 case report noted involvement with these areas (Figure).^11,12 It typically appears 5 days after symptom onset, can be associated with defervescence, and lasts less than a week.^1,13 Pruritus and dysesthesia are sometimes present.¹³ Other rare presentations that have been reported include an ill-defined pseudovesicular rash with erythematous papules on the palms and pink, scaly, psoriasiform papules on the feet and thighs, as well as neuroinvasive WNV leading to purpura fulminans.^14,15 A diffuse, erythematous, petechial rash on the face, neck, trunk, and extremities was reported in a pediatric patient, but there have been no reports of a petechial rash associated with WNV in adult patients.¹⁶ These findings suggest some potential variability in the presentation of the WNV rash.

What role does the presence of rash play diagnostically and prognostically?

The rash of WNV has been implicated as a potential prognostic factor in predicting more favorable outcomes.¹⁷ Using 2002 data from the Illinois Department of Public Health and 2003 data from the Colorado Department of Public Health, Huhn and Dworkin¹⁷ found the age-adjusted risk of encephalitis and death to be decreased in WNV patients with a rash (relative risk, 0.44; 95% CI, 0.21-0.92). The reasons for this are not definitively known, but we hypothesize that the rash may prompt patients to seek earlier medical attention or indicate a more robust immune response. Additionally, a rash in WNV more commonly is seen in younger patients, whereas WNV neuroinvasive disease is more common in older patients, who also tend to have worse outcomes.¹⁰ One study found rash to be the only symptom that demonstrated a significant association with seropositivity (overall risk=6.35; P<.05; 95% CI, 3.75-10.80) by multivariate analysis.¹⁸

How is WNV diagnosed? What are the downsides to WNV testing?

Given that the presenting symptoms of WNV and WNF are nonspecific, it becomes challenging to arrive at the diagnosis based solely on physical examination. As such, the patient’s clinical and epidemiologic history, such as timing, pattern, and appearance of the rash or recent history of mosquito bites, is key to arriving at the correct diagnosis. With clinical suspicion, possible diagnostic tests include an IgM enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) for WNV, a plaque reduction neutralization test (PNRT), and blood polymerase chain reaction (PCR).

An ELISA is a confirmatory test to detect IgM antibodies to WNV in the serum. Because IgM seroconversion typically occurs between days 4 and 10 of symptom onset, there is a high probability of initial false-negative testing within the first 8 days after symptom onset.^19,20 Clinical understanding of this fact is imperative, as an initial negative ELISA does not rule out WNV, and a retest is warranted if clinical suspicion is high. In addition to a high initial false-negative rate with ELISA, there are several other limitations to note. IgM antibodies remain elevated for 1 to 3 months or possibly up to a year in immunocompromised patients.¹ Due to this, false positives may be present if there was a recent prior infection. Enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay may not distinguish from different flaviviruses, including the yellow fever, dengue, Zika, Japanese encephalitis, and Saint Louis encephalitis viruses. Seropositivity has been estimated in some states, including 1999 data from New York (2.6%), 2003 data from Nebraska (9.5%), and 2012-2014 data from Connecticut (8.5%).^21-23 Regional variance may be expected, as there also were significant differences in WNV seropositivity between different regions in Nebraska (P<.001).²³

Because ELISA testing for WNV has readily apparent flaws, other tests have been utilized in its diagnosis. The PNRT is the most specific test, and it works by measuring neutralizing antibody titers for different flaviviruses. It has the ability to determine cross-reactivity with other flaviviruses; however, it does not discriminate between a current infection and a prior infection or prior flavivirus vaccine (ie, yellow fever vaccine). Despite this, a positive PNRT can lend credibility to a positive ELISA test and determine specificity for WNV for those with no prior flavivirus exposure.²⁴ According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), this test can be performed by the CDC or in reference laboratories designated by the CDC.³ Additionally, some state health laboratories may perform PRNTs.

Viral detection with PCR currently is used to screen blood donations and may be beneficial for immunocompromised patients that lack the ability to form a robust antibody response or if a patient presents early, as PCR works best within the first week of symptom onset.¹ Tilley et al²⁵ showed that a combination of PCR and ELISA were able to accurately predict 94.2% of patients (180/191) with documented WNV on a first blood sample compared to 45% and 58.1% for only viral detection or ELISA, respectively. Based on costs from a Midwest academic center, antibody detection tests are around $100 while PCR may range from $500 to $1000 and is only performed in reference laboratories. Although these tests remain in the repertoire for WNV diagnosis, financial stewardship is important.

If there are symptoms of photophobia, phonophobia, nuchal rigidity, loss of consciousness, or marked personality changes, a lumbar puncture for WNV IgM in the cerebrospinal fluid can be performed. As with most viral infections, cerebrospinal fluid findings normally include an elevated protein and lymphocyte count, but neutrophils may be predominantly elevated if the infection is early in its course.²⁶

What are the management options?

To date, there is no curative treatment for WNV, and management is largely supportive. For WNF, over-the-counter pain medications may be helpful to reduce fever and pain. If more severe disease develops, hospitalization for further supportive care may be needed.²⁷ If meningitis or encephalitis is suspected, broad-spectrum antibiotics may need to be started until other common etiologies are ruled out.²⁸

How can you prevent WNV infection?

Disease prevention largely consists of educating the public to avoid heavily wooded areas, especially in areas of high prevalence and during peak months, and to use protective clothing and insect repellant that has been approved by the Environmental Protection Agency.³ Insect repellants approved by the Environmental Protection Agency contain ingredients such as DEET (N, N-diethyl-meta-toluamide), picaridin, IR3535 (ethyl butylacetylaminopropionate), and oil of lemon eucalyptus, which have been proven safe and effective.²⁹ Patients also can protect their homes by using window screens and promptly repairing screens with holes.³

What is the differential diagnosis for WNV?

The differential diagnosis for fever with generalized maculopapular rash broadly ranges from viral etiologies (eg, WNV, Zika, measles), to tick bites (eg, Rocky Mountain spotted fever, ehrlichiosis), to drug-induced rashes. A detailed patient history inquiring on recent sick contacts, travel (WNV in the Midwest, ehrlichiosis in the Southeast), environmental exposures (ticks, mosquitoes), and new medications (typically 7–10 days after starting) is imperative to narrow the differential.³⁰ In addition, the distribution, timing, and clinical characteristics of the rash may aid in diagnosis, along with an appropriately correlated clinical picture. West Nile virus likely will present in the summer in mid central geographic locations and often develops on the trunk and extremities as a blanching, generalized, maculopapular rash around 5 days after symptom onset or with defervescence.¹