The Journal of Family Practice

Several years into the pandemic, COVID-19 continues to deeply impact our society; at the time of publication of this review, 98.8 million cases in the United States have been reported to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).¹ Although many people recover well from infection, there is mounting concern regarding long-term sequelae of COVID-19. These long-term symptoms have been termed long COVID, among other names.

What exactly is long COVID?

The CDC and National Institutes of Health define long COVID as new or ongoing health problems experienced ≥ 4 weeks after initial infection.² Evidence suggests that even people who have mild initial COVID-19 symptoms are at risk for long COVID.

Available data about long COVID are imperfect, however; much about the condition remains poorly understood. For example, there is little evidence regarding the effect of vaccination and viral variants on the prevalence of long ­COVID. A recent study of more than 13 million people from the US Department of Veterans Affairs database did demonstrate that vaccination against SARS-CoV-2 lowered the risk for long ­COVID by only about 15%.³

Persistent symptoms associated with long COVID often lead to disability and decreased quality of life. Furthermore, long COVID is a challenge to treat because there is a paucity of evidence to guide COVID-19 treatment beyond initial infection.

The prevalence of long COVID symptoms appears to increase with age.

Because many patients who have ongoing COVID-19 symptoms will be seen in primary care, it is important to understand how to manage and support them. In this article, we discuss current understanding of long COVID epidemiology, symptoms that can persist 4 weeks after initial infection, and potential treatment options.

Prevalence and diagnosis

The prevalence of long COVID is not well defined because many epidemiologic studies rely on self-reporting. The CDC reports that 20% to 25% of COVID-19 survivors experience a new condition that might be attributable to their initial infection.⁴ Other studies variously cite 5% to 85% of people who have had a diagnosis of COVID-19 as experiencing long COVID, although that rate more consistently appears to be 10% to 30%.⁵

Copyright Brian Stauffer

A study of adult patients in France found that self-reported symptoms of long COVID, 10 to 12 months after the first wave of the pandemic (May through November 2020), were associated with the belief of having had COVID-19 but not necessarily with having tested positive for anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies,⁶ which indicates prior COVID-19. This complicates research on long COVID because, first, there is no specific test to confirm a diagnosis of long COVID and, second, studies often rely on self-reporting of earlier COVID-19.

Continue to: As such, long COVID...

As such, long COVID is diagnosed primarily through a medical history and physical examination. The medical history provides a guide as to whether additional testing is warranted to evaluate for known complications of COVID-19, such as deep vein thrombosis, pulmonary embolism, myocarditis, and pulmonary fibrosis. As of October 1, 2021, a new International Classification of Disease (10th Revision) code went into effect for post ­COVID condition, unspecified (U09.9).⁷

The prevalence of long COVID symptoms appears to increase with age. Among patients whose disease was diagnosed using code U09.9, most were 36 to 64 years of age; children and adults ages 22 years or younger constituted only 10.5% of diagnoses.⁷ Long COVID symptoms might also be more prevalent among women and in people with a preexisting chronic comorbidity.^2,7

Symptoms can be numerous, severe or mild, and lasting

Initially, there was no widely accepted definition of long COVID; follow-up in early studies ranged from 21 days to 2 years after initial infection (or from discharge, for hospitalized patients).⁸ Differences in descriptions that have been used on surveys to self-report symptoms make it a challenge to clearly summarize the frequency of each aspect of long COVID.

Long COVID can be mild or debilitating; severity can fluctuate. Common symptoms include fatigue, dyspnea or other breathing difficulties, headache, and cognitive dysfunction, but as many as 203 lasting symptoms have been reported.^2,8-12 From October 1, 2021, through January 31, 2022, the most common accompanying manifestations of long COVID were difficulty breathing, cough, and fatigue.⁷ Long COVID can affect multiple organ systems,^13,14 with symptoms varying by organ system affected. Regardless of the need for hospitalization initially, having had COVID-19 significantly increases the risk for subsequent death at 30 days and at 6 months after initial infection.¹⁵

The CDC reports that 20% to 25% of COVID-19 survivors experience a new condition that might be attributable to their initial infection.

Symptoms of long COVID have been reported as long as 2 years after initial infection.⁸ When Davis and colleagues studied the onset and progression of reported symptoms of long COVID,⁹ they determined that, among patients who reported recovery from COVID-19 in < 90 days, symptoms peaked at approximately Week 2 of infection. In comparison, patients who reported not having recovered in < 90 days had (1) symptoms that peaked later (2 months) and (2) on average, more symptoms (mean, 17 reported symptoms, compared to 11 in recovered ­patients).⁹

Continue to: Fatigue

Fatigue, including postexertion malaise and impaired daily function and mobility, is the most common symptom of long COVID,^8-10,14 reported in 28% to 98%¹⁴ of patients after initial COVID-19. This fatigue is more than simply being tired: Patients describe profound exhaustion, in which fatigue is out of proportion to exertion. Fatigue and myalgia are commonly reported among patients with impaired hepatic and pulmonary function as a consequence of long COVID.¹³ Patients often report that even minor activities result in decreased attention, focus, and energy, for many hours or days afterward. Fatigue has been reported to persist from 2.5 months to as long as 6 months after initial infection or hospitalization.^9,16

Postviral fatigue has been seen in other viral outbreaks and seems to share characteristics with myalgic encephalomyelitis/­chronic fatigue syndrome, or ME/CFS, which itself has historically been stigmatized and poorly understood.¹⁷ Long COVID fatigue might be more common among women and patients who have an existing diagnosis of depression and antidepressant use,^10,11,16,18 although the mechanism of this relationship is unclear. Potential mechanisms include damage from systemic inflammation to metabolism in the frontal lobe and cerebellum¹⁹ and direct infection by SARS-CoV-2 in skeletal muscle.²⁰ Townsend and colleagues¹⁶ found no relationship between long COVID fatigue and markers of inflammation (leukocyte, neutrophil, and lymphocyte counts; the neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio; lactate dehydrogenase; C-reactive protein; serum interleukin-6; and soluble CD25).

Neuropsychiatric symptoms are also common in long COVID and can have a significant impact on patients’ quality of life. Studies have reported poor sleep quality or insomnia (38% to 90%), headache (17% to 91.2%), speech and language problems (48% to 50%), confusion (20%), dementia (28.6%), difficulty concentrating (1.9% to 27%), and memory loss or cognitive impairment (5.4% to 73%).^9,10,14,15 For some patients, these symptoms persisted for ≥ 6 months, making it difficult for those affected to return to work.⁹

Isolation and loneliness, a common situation for patients with COVID-19, can have long-term effects on mental health.²¹ The COVID-19 pandemic itself has had a negative effect on behavioral health, including depression (4.3% to 25% of patients), anxiety (1.9% to 46%), obsessive compulsive disorder (4.9% to 20%), and posttraumatic stress disorder (29%).²² The persistence of symptoms of long COVID has resulted in a great deal of frustration, fear, and confusion for those affected—some of whom report a loss of trust in their community health care providers to address their ongoing struggles.²³ Such loss can be accompanied by a reported increase in feelings of anxiety and changes to perceptions of self (ie, “how I used to be” in contrast to “how I am now”).²³ These neuropsychiatric symptoms, including mental health conditions, appear to be more common among older adults.⁴

Other neurologic deficits found in long COVID include olfactory disorders (9% to 27% of patients), altered taste (5% to 18%), numbness or tingling sensations (6%), blurred vision (17.1%), and tinnitus (16.%).¹⁴ Dizziness (2.6% to 6%) and lightheadedness or presyncope (7%) have also been reported, although these symptoms appear to be less common than other neurocognitive effects.¹⁴

Continue to: The mechanism of action...

The mechanism of action of damage to the nervous system in long COVID is likely multifactorial. COVID-19 can directly infect the central nervous system through a hematogenous route, which can result in direct cytolytic damage to neurons. Infection can also affect the blood–brain barrier.²⁴ Additionally, COVID-19 can invade the central nervous system through peripheral nerves, including the olfactory and vagus nerves.²⁵ Many human respiratory viruses, including SARS-CoV-2, result in an increase in pro-inflammatory and anti-inflammatory cytokines; this so-called cytokine storm is an exaggerated response to infection and can trigger neurodegenerative and psychiatric syndromes.²⁶ It is unclear whether the cytokine storm is different for people with COVID-19, compared to other respiratory viruses.

Respiratory symptoms are very common after COVID-19¹⁵: In studies, as many as 87.1% of patients continued to have shortness of breath ≥ 140 days after initial symptom onset, including breathlessness (48% to 60%), wheezing (5.3%), cough (10.5% to 46%), and congestion (32%),^14,18 any of which can persist for as long as 6 months.⁹ Among a sample of previously hospitalized COVID-19 patients in Wuhan, China, 22% to 56% displayed a pulmonary diffusion abnormality 6 months later, with those who required supplemental oxygen during initial COVID-19 having a greater risk for these abnormalities at follow-up, compared to those who did not require supplemental oxygen (odds ratio = 2.42; 95% CI, 1.15-5.08).¹¹

Cardiovascular symptoms. New-onset autonomic dysfunction has been described in multiple case reports and in some larger cohort studies of patients post COVID-19.²⁷ Many common long COVID symptoms, including fatigue and orthostatic intolerance, are commonly seen in postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome. Emerging evidence indicates that there are likely similar underlying mechanisms and a significant amount of overlap between long COVID and postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome.²⁷

The high rate of cardiac complications post COVID-19 highlights the importance of a thorough evaluation and work-up of chest pain in patients who have had COVID-19.

A study of patients within the US Department of Veterans Affairs population found that, regardless of disease severity, patients who had a positive COVID-19 test had a higher rate of cardiac disease 30 days after diagnosis,²⁸ including stroke, transient ischemic attack, dysrhythmia, inflammatory heart disease, acute coronary disease, myocardial infarction, ischemic cardiopathy, angina, heart failure, nonischemic cardiomyopathy, and cardiac arrest. Patients with COVID-19 were at increased risk for major adverse cardiovascular events (myocardial infarction, stroke, and all-cause mortality).²⁸ Demographics of the VA population (ie, most are White men) might limit the generalizability of these data, but similar findings have been found elsewhere.^5,10,15Given that, in general, chest pain is common after the acute phase of an infection and the causes of chest pain are broad, the high rate of cardiac complications post COVID-19 nevertheless highlights the importance of a thorough evaluation and work-up of chest pain in patients who have had COVID-19.

Other symptoms. Body aches and generalized joint pain are another common symptom group of long COVID.⁹ These include body aches (20%), joint pain (78%), and muscle aches (87.7%).^14,18

Continue to: Commonly reported...

Commonly reported gastrointestinal symptoms include diarrhea, loss of appetite, nausea, and abdominal pain.^9,15

Other symptoms reported less commonly include dermatologic conditions, such as pruritus and rash; reproductive and endocrine symptoms, including extreme thirst, irregular menstruation, and sexual dysfunction; and new or exacerbated allergic response.⁹

Does severity of initial disease play a role?

Keep in mind that long COVID is not specific to patients who were hospitalized or had severe initial infection. In fact, 75% of patients who have a diagnosis of a post–COVID-19 condition were not hospitalized for their initial infection.⁷ However, the severity of initial COVID-19 infection might contribute to the presence or severity of long COVID symptoms²—although findings in current literature are mixed. For example:

• In reporting from Wuhan, China, higher position on a disease severity scale during a hospital stay for COVID-19 was associated with:
  • greater likelihood of reporting ≥ 1 symptoms at a 6-month ­follow-up
  • increased risk for pulmonary diffusion abnormalities, fatigue, and mood disorders.¹¹
• After 2 years’ follow-up of the same cohort, 55% of patients continued to report ≥ 1 symptoms of long COVID, and those who had been hospitalized with COVID-19 continued to report reduced health-related quality of life, compared to the control group.⁸
• Similarly, patients initially hospitalized with COVID-19 were more likely to experience impairment of ≥ 2 organs—in particular, the liver and pancreas—compared to nonhospitalized patients after a median 5 months post initial infection, among a sample in the United Kingdom.¹³
• In an international cohort, patients who reported a greater number of symptoms during initial COVID-19 were more likely to experience long COVID.¹²
• Last, long COVID fatigue did not vary by severity of initial COVID-19 infection among a sample of hospitalized and nonhospitalized participants in Dublin, Ireland.¹⁶

No specific treatments yet available

There are no specific treatments for long ­COVID; overall, the emphasis is on providing supportive care and managing preexisting chronic conditions.⁵ This is where expertise in primary care, relationships with patients and the community, and psychosocial knowledge can help patients recover from ongoing ­COVID-19 symptoms.

Long COVID–associated fatigue is more than simply being tired. Patients describe profound exhaustion, in which fatigue is out of proportion to exertion.

Clinicians should continue to perform a thorough physical assessment of patients with previous or ongoing COVID-19 to identify and monitor new or recurring symptoms after hospital discharge or initial resolution of symptoms.²⁹ This approach includes developing an individualized plan for care and rehabilitation that is specific to presenting symptoms, including psychological support. We encourage family physicians to familiarize themselves with the work of Vance and colleagues,³⁰ who have created a comprehensive table^a to guide treatment and referral for the gamut of long COVID symptoms, including cardiovascular issues (eg, palpitations, edema), chronic cough, headache, pain, and insomnia.

Continue to: This new clinical entity is a formidable challenge

Long COVID is a new condition that requires comprehensive evaluation to understand the full, often long-term, effects of COVID-19. Our review of this condition substantiated that symptoms of long COVID often affect a variety of organs^13,14 and have been observed to persist for ≥ 2 years.⁸

Some studies that have examined the long-term effects of COVID-19 included only participants who were not hospitalized; others include hospitalized patients exclusively. The literature is mixed in regard to including severity of initial infection as it relates to long COVID. Available research demonstrates that it is common for people with COVID-19 to experience persistent symptoms that can significantly impact daily life and well-being.

Likely, it will be several years before we even begin to understand the full extent of COVID-19. Until research elucidates the relationship between the disease and short- and long-term health outcomes, clinicians should:

• acknowledge and address the reality of long COVID when meeting with persistently symptomatic patients,
• provide support, therapeutic listening, and referral to rehabilitation as appropriate, and
• offer information on the potential for long-term effects of COVID-19 to vaccine-hesitant patients.

^a “Systems, symptoms, and treatments for post-COVID patients,” pages 1231-1234 in the source article (www.jabfm.org/content/jabfp/34/6/1229.full.pdf).³⁰

CORRESPONDENCE
Nicole Mayo, PhD, 46 Prince Street, Rochester, NY 14607; [email protected]

Several years into the pandemic, COVID-19 continues to deeply impact our society; at the time of publication of this review, 98.8 million cases in the United States have been reported to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).¹ Although many people recover well from infection, there is mounting concern regarding long-term sequelae of COVID-19. These long-term symptoms have been termed long COVID, among other names.

What exactly is long COVID?

The CDC and National Institutes of Health define long COVID as new or ongoing health problems experienced ≥ 4 weeks after initial infection.² Evidence suggests that even people who have mild initial COVID-19 symptoms are at risk for long COVID.

Available data about long COVID are imperfect, however; much about the condition remains poorly understood. For example, there is little evidence regarding the effect of vaccination and viral variants on the prevalence of long ­COVID. A recent study of more than 13 million people from the US Department of Veterans Affairs database did demonstrate that vaccination against SARS-CoV-2 lowered the risk for long ­COVID by only about 15%.³

Persistent symptoms associated with long COVID often lead to disability and decreased quality of life. Furthermore, long COVID is a challenge to treat because there is a paucity of evidence to guide COVID-19 treatment beyond initial infection.

The prevalence of long COVID symptoms appears to increase with age.

Because many patients who have ongoing COVID-19 symptoms will be seen in primary care, it is important to understand how to manage and support them. In this article, we discuss current understanding of long COVID epidemiology, symptoms that can persist 4 weeks after initial infection, and potential treatment options.

Prevalence and diagnosis

The prevalence of long COVID is not well defined because many epidemiologic studies rely on self-reporting. The CDC reports that 20% to 25% of COVID-19 survivors experience a new condition that might be attributable to their initial infection.⁴ Other studies variously cite 5% to 85% of people who have had a diagnosis of COVID-19 as experiencing long COVID, although that rate more consistently appears to be 10% to 30%.⁵

Copyright Brian Stauffer

A study of adult patients in France found that self-reported symptoms of long COVID, 10 to 12 months after the first wave of the pandemic (May through November 2020), were associated with the belief of having had COVID-19 but not necessarily with having tested positive for anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies,⁶ which indicates prior COVID-19. This complicates research on long COVID because, first, there is no specific test to confirm a diagnosis of long COVID and, second, studies often rely on self-reporting of earlier COVID-19.

Continue to: As such, long COVID...

As such, long COVID is diagnosed primarily through a medical history and physical examination. The medical history provides a guide as to whether additional testing is warranted to evaluate for known complications of COVID-19, such as deep vein thrombosis, pulmonary embolism, myocarditis, and pulmonary fibrosis. As of October 1, 2021, a new International Classification of Disease (10th Revision) code went into effect for post ­COVID condition, unspecified (U09.9).⁷

The prevalence of long COVID symptoms appears to increase with age. Among patients whose disease was diagnosed using code U09.9, most were 36 to 64 years of age; children and adults ages 22 years or younger constituted only 10.5% of diagnoses.⁷ Long COVID symptoms might also be more prevalent among women and in people with a preexisting chronic comorbidity.^2,7

Symptoms can be numerous, severe or mild, and lasting

Initially, there was no widely accepted definition of long COVID; follow-up in early studies ranged from 21 days to 2 years after initial infection (or from discharge, for hospitalized patients).⁸ Differences in descriptions that have been used on surveys to self-report symptoms make it a challenge to clearly summarize the frequency of each aspect of long COVID.

Long COVID can be mild or debilitating; severity can fluctuate. Common symptoms include fatigue, dyspnea or other breathing difficulties, headache, and cognitive dysfunction, but as many as 203 lasting symptoms have been reported.^2,8-12 From October 1, 2021, through January 31, 2022, the most common accompanying manifestations of long COVID were difficulty breathing, cough, and fatigue.⁷ Long COVID can affect multiple organ systems,^13,14 with symptoms varying by organ system affected. Regardless of the need for hospitalization initially, having had COVID-19 significantly increases the risk for subsequent death at 30 days and at 6 months after initial infection.¹⁵

The CDC reports that 20% to 25% of COVID-19 survivors experience a new condition that might be attributable to their initial infection.

Symptoms of long COVID have been reported as long as 2 years after initial infection.⁸ When Davis and colleagues studied the onset and progression of reported symptoms of long COVID,⁹ they determined that, among patients who reported recovery from COVID-19 in < 90 days, symptoms peaked at approximately Week 2 of infection. In comparison, patients who reported not having recovered in < 90 days had (1) symptoms that peaked later (2 months) and (2) on average, more symptoms (mean, 17 reported symptoms, compared to 11 in recovered ­patients).⁹

Continue to: Fatigue

Fatigue, including postexertion malaise and impaired daily function and mobility, is the most common symptom of long COVID,^8-10,14 reported in 28% to 98%¹⁴ of patients after initial COVID-19. This fatigue is more than simply being tired: Patients describe profound exhaustion, in which fatigue is out of proportion to exertion. Fatigue and myalgia are commonly reported among patients with impaired hepatic and pulmonary function as a consequence of long COVID.¹³ Patients often report that even minor activities result in decreased attention, focus, and energy, for many hours or days afterward. Fatigue has been reported to persist from 2.5 months to as long as 6 months after initial infection or hospitalization.^9,16

Postviral fatigue has been seen in other viral outbreaks and seems to share characteristics with myalgic encephalomyelitis/­chronic fatigue syndrome, or ME/CFS, which itself has historically been stigmatized and poorly understood.¹⁷ Long COVID fatigue might be more common among women and patients who have an existing diagnosis of depression and antidepressant use,^10,11,16,18 although the mechanism of this relationship is unclear. Potential mechanisms include damage from systemic inflammation to metabolism in the frontal lobe and cerebellum¹⁹ and direct infection by SARS-CoV-2 in skeletal muscle.²⁰ Townsend and colleagues¹⁶ found no relationship between long COVID fatigue and markers of inflammation (leukocyte, neutrophil, and lymphocyte counts; the neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio; lactate dehydrogenase; C-reactive protein; serum interleukin-6; and soluble CD25).

Neuropsychiatric symptoms are also common in long COVID and can have a significant impact on patients’ quality of life. Studies have reported poor sleep quality or insomnia (38% to 90%), headache (17% to 91.2%), speech and language problems (48% to 50%), confusion (20%), dementia (28.6%), difficulty concentrating (1.9% to 27%), and memory loss or cognitive impairment (5.4% to 73%).^9,10,14,15 For some patients, these symptoms persisted for ≥ 6 months, making it difficult for those affected to return to work.⁹

Isolation and loneliness, a common situation for patients with COVID-19, can have long-term effects on mental health.²¹ The COVID-19 pandemic itself has had a negative effect on behavioral health, including depression (4.3% to 25% of patients), anxiety (1.9% to 46%), obsessive compulsive disorder (4.9% to 20%), and posttraumatic stress disorder (29%).²² The persistence of symptoms of long COVID has resulted in a great deal of frustration, fear, and confusion for those affected—some of whom report a loss of trust in their community health care providers to address their ongoing struggles.²³ Such loss can be accompanied by a reported increase in feelings of anxiety and changes to perceptions of self (ie, “how I used to be” in contrast to “how I am now”).²³ These neuropsychiatric symptoms, including mental health conditions, appear to be more common among older adults.⁴

Other neurologic deficits found in long COVID include olfactory disorders (9% to 27% of patients), altered taste (5% to 18%), numbness or tingling sensations (6%), blurred vision (17.1%), and tinnitus (16.%).¹⁴ Dizziness (2.6% to 6%) and lightheadedness or presyncope (7%) have also been reported, although these symptoms appear to be less common than other neurocognitive effects.¹⁴

Continue to: The mechanism of action...

The mechanism of action of damage to the nervous system in long COVID is likely multifactorial. COVID-19 can directly infect the central nervous system through a hematogenous route, which can result in direct cytolytic damage to neurons. Infection can also affect the blood–brain barrier.²⁴ Additionally, COVID-19 can invade the central nervous system through peripheral nerves, including the olfactory and vagus nerves.²⁵ Many human respiratory viruses, including SARS-CoV-2, result in an increase in pro-inflammatory and anti-inflammatory cytokines; this so-called cytokine storm is an exaggerated response to infection and can trigger neurodegenerative and psychiatric syndromes.²⁶ It is unclear whether the cytokine storm is different for people with COVID-19, compared to other respiratory viruses.

Respiratory symptoms are very common after COVID-19¹⁵: In studies, as many as 87.1% of patients continued to have shortness of breath ≥ 140 days after initial symptom onset, including breathlessness (48% to 60%), wheezing (5.3%), cough (10.5% to 46%), and congestion (32%),^14,18 any of which can persist for as long as 6 months.⁹ Among a sample of previously hospitalized COVID-19 patients in Wuhan, China, 22% to 56% displayed a pulmonary diffusion abnormality 6 months later, with those who required supplemental oxygen during initial COVID-19 having a greater risk for these abnormalities at follow-up, compared to those who did not require supplemental oxygen (odds ratio = 2.42; 95% CI, 1.15-5.08).¹¹

Cardiovascular symptoms. New-onset autonomic dysfunction has been described in multiple case reports and in some larger cohort studies of patients post COVID-19.²⁷ Many common long COVID symptoms, including fatigue and orthostatic intolerance, are commonly seen in postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome. Emerging evidence indicates that there are likely similar underlying mechanisms and a significant amount of overlap between long COVID and postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome.²⁷

The high rate of cardiac complications post COVID-19 highlights the importance of a thorough evaluation and work-up of chest pain in patients who have had COVID-19.

A study of patients within the US Department of Veterans Affairs population found that, regardless of disease severity, patients who had a positive COVID-19 test had a higher rate of cardiac disease 30 days after diagnosis,²⁸ including stroke, transient ischemic attack, dysrhythmia, inflammatory heart disease, acute coronary disease, myocardial infarction, ischemic cardiopathy, angina, heart failure, nonischemic cardiomyopathy, and cardiac arrest. Patients with COVID-19 were at increased risk for major adverse cardiovascular events (myocardial infarction, stroke, and all-cause mortality).²⁸ Demographics of the VA population (ie, most are White men) might limit the generalizability of these data, but similar findings have been found elsewhere.^5,10,15Given that, in general, chest pain is common after the acute phase of an infection and the causes of chest pain are broad, the high rate of cardiac complications post COVID-19 nevertheless highlights the importance of a thorough evaluation and work-up of chest pain in patients who have had COVID-19.

Other symptoms. Body aches and generalized joint pain are another common symptom group of long COVID.⁹ These include body aches (20%), joint pain (78%), and muscle aches (87.7%).^14,18

Continue to: Commonly reported...

Commonly reported gastrointestinal symptoms include diarrhea, loss of appetite, nausea, and abdominal pain.^9,15

Other symptoms reported less commonly include dermatologic conditions, such as pruritus and rash; reproductive and endocrine symptoms, including extreme thirst, irregular menstruation, and sexual dysfunction; and new or exacerbated allergic response.⁹

Does severity of initial disease play a role?

Keep in mind that long COVID is not specific to patients who were hospitalized or had severe initial infection. In fact, 75% of patients who have a diagnosis of a post–COVID-19 condition were not hospitalized for their initial infection.⁷ However, the severity of initial COVID-19 infection might contribute to the presence or severity of long COVID symptoms²—although findings in current literature are mixed. For example:

• In reporting from Wuhan, China, higher position on a disease severity scale during a hospital stay for COVID-19 was associated with:
  • greater likelihood of reporting ≥ 1 symptoms at a 6-month ­follow-up
  • increased risk for pulmonary diffusion abnormalities, fatigue, and mood disorders.¹¹
• After 2 years’ follow-up of the same cohort, 55% of patients continued to report ≥ 1 symptoms of long COVID, and those who had been hospitalized with COVID-19 continued to report reduced health-related quality of life, compared to the control group.⁸
• Similarly, patients initially hospitalized with COVID-19 were more likely to experience impairment of ≥ 2 organs—in particular, the liver and pancreas—compared to nonhospitalized patients after a median 5 months post initial infection, among a sample in the United Kingdom.¹³
• In an international cohort, patients who reported a greater number of symptoms during initial COVID-19 were more likely to experience long COVID.¹²
• Last, long COVID fatigue did not vary by severity of initial COVID-19 infection among a sample of hospitalized and nonhospitalized participants in Dublin, Ireland.¹⁶

No specific treatments yet available

There are no specific treatments for long ­COVID; overall, the emphasis is on providing supportive care and managing preexisting chronic conditions.⁵ This is where expertise in primary care, relationships with patients and the community, and psychosocial knowledge can help patients recover from ongoing ­COVID-19 symptoms.

Long COVID–associated fatigue is more than simply being tired. Patients describe profound exhaustion, in which fatigue is out of proportion to exertion.

Clinicians should continue to perform a thorough physical assessment of patients with previous or ongoing COVID-19 to identify and monitor new or recurring symptoms after hospital discharge or initial resolution of symptoms.²⁹ This approach includes developing an individualized plan for care and rehabilitation that is specific to presenting symptoms, including psychological support. We encourage family physicians to familiarize themselves with the work of Vance and colleagues,³⁰ who have created a comprehensive table^a to guide treatment and referral for the gamut of long COVID symptoms, including cardiovascular issues (eg, palpitations, edema), chronic cough, headache, pain, and insomnia.

Continue to: This new clinical entity is a formidable challenge

Long COVID is a new condition that requires comprehensive evaluation to understand the full, often long-term, effects of COVID-19. Our review of this condition substantiated that symptoms of long COVID often affect a variety of organs^13,14 and have been observed to persist for ≥ 2 years.⁸

Some studies that have examined the long-term effects of COVID-19 included only participants who were not hospitalized; others include hospitalized patients exclusively. The literature is mixed in regard to including severity of initial infection as it relates to long COVID. Available research demonstrates that it is common for people with COVID-19 to experience persistent symptoms that can significantly impact daily life and well-being.

Likely, it will be several years before we even begin to understand the full extent of COVID-19. Until research elucidates the relationship between the disease and short- and long-term health outcomes, clinicians should:

• acknowledge and address the reality of long COVID when meeting with persistently symptomatic patients,
• provide support, therapeutic listening, and referral to rehabilitation as appropriate, and
• offer information on the potential for long-term effects of COVID-19 to vaccine-hesitant patients.

^a “Systems, symptoms, and treatments for post-COVID patients,” pages 1231-1234 in the source article (www.jabfm.org/content/jabfp/34/6/1229.full.pdf).³⁰

CORRESPONDENCE
Nicole Mayo, PhD, 46 Prince Street, Rochester, NY 14607; [email protected]

Several years into the pandemic, COVID-19 continues to deeply impact our society; at the time of publication of this review, 98.8 million cases in the United States have been reported to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).¹ Although many people recover well from infection, there is mounting concern regarding long-term sequelae of COVID-19. These long-term symptoms have been termed long COVID, among other names.

What exactly is long COVID?

The CDC and National Institutes of Health define long COVID as new or ongoing health problems experienced ≥ 4 weeks after initial infection.² Evidence suggests that even people who have mild initial COVID-19 symptoms are at risk for long COVID.

Available data about long COVID are imperfect, however; much about the condition remains poorly understood. For example, there is little evidence regarding the effect of vaccination and viral variants on the prevalence of long ­COVID. A recent study of more than 13 million people from the US Department of Veterans Affairs database did demonstrate that vaccination against SARS-CoV-2 lowered the risk for long ­COVID by only about 15%.³

Persistent symptoms associated with long COVID often lead to disability and decreased quality of life. Furthermore, long COVID is a challenge to treat because there is a paucity of evidence to guide COVID-19 treatment beyond initial infection.

The prevalence of long COVID symptoms appears to increase with age.

Because many patients who have ongoing COVID-19 symptoms will be seen in primary care, it is important to understand how to manage and support them. In this article, we discuss current understanding of long COVID epidemiology, symptoms that can persist 4 weeks after initial infection, and potential treatment options.

Prevalence and diagnosis

The prevalence of long COVID is not well defined because many epidemiologic studies rely on self-reporting. The CDC reports that 20% to 25% of COVID-19 survivors experience a new condition that might be attributable to their initial infection.⁴ Other studies variously cite 5% to 85% of people who have had a diagnosis of COVID-19 as experiencing long COVID, although that rate more consistently appears to be 10% to 30%.⁵

Copyright Brian Stauffer

A study of adult patients in France found that self-reported symptoms of long COVID, 10 to 12 months after the first wave of the pandemic (May through November 2020), were associated with the belief of having had COVID-19 but not necessarily with having tested positive for anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies,⁶ which indicates prior COVID-19. This complicates research on long COVID because, first, there is no specific test to confirm a diagnosis of long COVID and, second, studies often rely on self-reporting of earlier COVID-19.

Continue to: As such, long COVID...

As such, long COVID is diagnosed primarily through a medical history and physical examination. The medical history provides a guide as to whether additional testing is warranted to evaluate for known complications of COVID-19, such as deep vein thrombosis, pulmonary embolism, myocarditis, and pulmonary fibrosis. As of October 1, 2021, a new International Classification of Disease (10th Revision) code went into effect for post ­COVID condition, unspecified (U09.9).⁷

The prevalence of long COVID symptoms appears to increase with age. Among patients whose disease was diagnosed using code U09.9, most were 36 to 64 years of age; children and adults ages 22 years or younger constituted only 10.5% of diagnoses.⁷ Long COVID symptoms might also be more prevalent among women and in people with a preexisting chronic comorbidity.^2,7

Symptoms can be numerous, severe or mild, and lasting

Initially, there was no widely accepted definition of long COVID; follow-up in early studies ranged from 21 days to 2 years after initial infection (or from discharge, for hospitalized patients).⁸ Differences in descriptions that have been used on surveys to self-report symptoms make it a challenge to clearly summarize the frequency of each aspect of long COVID.

Long COVID can be mild or debilitating; severity can fluctuate. Common symptoms include fatigue, dyspnea or other breathing difficulties, headache, and cognitive dysfunction, but as many as 203 lasting symptoms have been reported.^2,8-12 From October 1, 2021, through January 31, 2022, the most common accompanying manifestations of long COVID were difficulty breathing, cough, and fatigue.⁷ Long COVID can affect multiple organ systems,^13,14 with symptoms varying by organ system affected. Regardless of the need for hospitalization initially, having had COVID-19 significantly increases the risk for subsequent death at 30 days and at 6 months after initial infection.¹⁵

The CDC reports that 20% to 25% of COVID-19 survivors experience a new condition that might be attributable to their initial infection.

Symptoms of long COVID have been reported as long as 2 years after initial infection.⁸ When Davis and colleagues studied the onset and progression of reported symptoms of long COVID,⁹ they determined that, among patients who reported recovery from COVID-19 in < 90 days, symptoms peaked at approximately Week 2 of infection. In comparison, patients who reported not having recovered in < 90 days had (1) symptoms that peaked later (2 months) and (2) on average, more symptoms (mean, 17 reported symptoms, compared to 11 in recovered ­patients).⁹

Continue to: Fatigue

Fatigue, including postexertion malaise and impaired daily function and mobility, is the most common symptom of long COVID,^8-10,14 reported in 28% to 98%¹⁴ of patients after initial COVID-19. This fatigue is more than simply being tired: Patients describe profound exhaustion, in which fatigue is out of proportion to exertion. Fatigue and myalgia are commonly reported among patients with impaired hepatic and pulmonary function as a consequence of long COVID.¹³ Patients often report that even minor activities result in decreased attention, focus, and energy, for many hours or days afterward. Fatigue has been reported to persist from 2.5 months to as long as 6 months after initial infection or hospitalization.^9,16

Postviral fatigue has been seen in other viral outbreaks and seems to share characteristics with myalgic encephalomyelitis/­chronic fatigue syndrome, or ME/CFS, which itself has historically been stigmatized and poorly understood.¹⁷ Long COVID fatigue might be more common among women and patients who have an existing diagnosis of depression and antidepressant use,^10,11,16,18 although the mechanism of this relationship is unclear. Potential mechanisms include damage from systemic inflammation to metabolism in the frontal lobe and cerebellum¹⁹ and direct infection by SARS-CoV-2 in skeletal muscle.²⁰ Townsend and colleagues¹⁶ found no relationship between long COVID fatigue and markers of inflammation (leukocyte, neutrophil, and lymphocyte counts; the neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio; lactate dehydrogenase; C-reactive protein; serum interleukin-6; and soluble CD25).

Neuropsychiatric symptoms are also common in long COVID and can have a significant impact on patients’ quality of life. Studies have reported poor sleep quality or insomnia (38% to 90%), headache (17% to 91.2%), speech and language problems (48% to 50%), confusion (20%), dementia (28.6%), difficulty concentrating (1.9% to 27%), and memory loss or cognitive impairment (5.4% to 73%).^9,10,14,15 For some patients, these symptoms persisted for ≥ 6 months, making it difficult for those affected to return to work.⁹

Isolation and loneliness, a common situation for patients with COVID-19, can have long-term effects on mental health.²¹ The COVID-19 pandemic itself has had a negative effect on behavioral health, including depression (4.3% to 25% of patients), anxiety (1.9% to 46%), obsessive compulsive disorder (4.9% to 20%), and posttraumatic stress disorder (29%).²² The persistence of symptoms of long COVID has resulted in a great deal of frustration, fear, and confusion for those affected—some of whom report a loss of trust in their community health care providers to address their ongoing struggles.²³ Such loss can be accompanied by a reported increase in feelings of anxiety and changes to perceptions of self (ie, “how I used to be” in contrast to “how I am now”).²³ These neuropsychiatric symptoms, including mental health conditions, appear to be more common among older adults.⁴

Other neurologic deficits found in long COVID include olfactory disorders (9% to 27% of patients), altered taste (5% to 18%), numbness or tingling sensations (6%), blurred vision (17.1%), and tinnitus (16.%).¹⁴ Dizziness (2.6% to 6%) and lightheadedness or presyncope (7%) have also been reported, although these symptoms appear to be less common than other neurocognitive effects.¹⁴

Continue to: The mechanism of action...

The mechanism of action of damage to the nervous system in long COVID is likely multifactorial. COVID-19 can directly infect the central nervous system through a hematogenous route, which can result in direct cytolytic damage to neurons. Infection can also affect the blood–brain barrier.²⁴ Additionally, COVID-19 can invade the central nervous system through peripheral nerves, including the olfactory and vagus nerves.²⁵ Many human respiratory viruses, including SARS-CoV-2, result in an increase in pro-inflammatory and anti-inflammatory cytokines; this so-called cytokine storm is an exaggerated response to infection and can trigger neurodegenerative and psychiatric syndromes.²⁶ It is unclear whether the cytokine storm is different for people with COVID-19, compared to other respiratory viruses.

Respiratory symptoms are very common after COVID-19¹⁵: In studies, as many as 87.1% of patients continued to have shortness of breath ≥ 140 days after initial symptom onset, including breathlessness (48% to 60%), wheezing (5.3%), cough (10.5% to 46%), and congestion (32%),^14,18 any of which can persist for as long as 6 months.⁹ Among a sample of previously hospitalized COVID-19 patients in Wuhan, China, 22% to 56% displayed a pulmonary diffusion abnormality 6 months later, with those who required supplemental oxygen during initial COVID-19 having a greater risk for these abnormalities at follow-up, compared to those who did not require supplemental oxygen (odds ratio = 2.42; 95% CI, 1.15-5.08).¹¹

Cardiovascular symptoms. New-onset autonomic dysfunction has been described in multiple case reports and in some larger cohort studies of patients post COVID-19.²⁷ Many common long COVID symptoms, including fatigue and orthostatic intolerance, are commonly seen in postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome. Emerging evidence indicates that there are likely similar underlying mechanisms and a significant amount of overlap between long COVID and postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome.²⁷

The high rate of cardiac complications post COVID-19 highlights the importance of a thorough evaluation and work-up of chest pain in patients who have had COVID-19.

A study of patients within the US Department of Veterans Affairs population found that, regardless of disease severity, patients who had a positive COVID-19 test had a higher rate of cardiac disease 30 days after diagnosis,²⁸ including stroke, transient ischemic attack, dysrhythmia, inflammatory heart disease, acute coronary disease, myocardial infarction, ischemic cardiopathy, angina, heart failure, nonischemic cardiomyopathy, and cardiac arrest. Patients with COVID-19 were at increased risk for major adverse cardiovascular events (myocardial infarction, stroke, and all-cause mortality).²⁸ Demographics of the VA population (ie, most are White men) might limit the generalizability of these data, but similar findings have been found elsewhere.^5,10,15Given that, in general, chest pain is common after the acute phase of an infection and the causes of chest pain are broad, the high rate of cardiac complications post COVID-19 nevertheless highlights the importance of a thorough evaluation and work-up of chest pain in patients who have had COVID-19.

Other symptoms. Body aches and generalized joint pain are another common symptom group of long COVID.⁹ These include body aches (20%), joint pain (78%), and muscle aches (87.7%).^14,18

Continue to: Commonly reported...

Commonly reported gastrointestinal symptoms include diarrhea, loss of appetite, nausea, and abdominal pain.^9,15

Other symptoms reported less commonly include dermatologic conditions, such as pruritus and rash; reproductive and endocrine symptoms, including extreme thirst, irregular menstruation, and sexual dysfunction; and new or exacerbated allergic response.⁹

Does severity of initial disease play a role?

Keep in mind that long COVID is not specific to patients who were hospitalized or had severe initial infection. In fact, 75% of patients who have a diagnosis of a post–COVID-19 condition were not hospitalized for their initial infection.⁷ However, the severity of initial COVID-19 infection might contribute to the presence or severity of long COVID symptoms²—although findings in current literature are mixed. For example:

• In reporting from Wuhan, China, higher position on a disease severity scale during a hospital stay for COVID-19 was associated with:
  • greater likelihood of reporting ≥ 1 symptoms at a 6-month ­follow-up
  • increased risk for pulmonary diffusion abnormalities, fatigue, and mood disorders.¹¹
• After 2 years’ follow-up of the same cohort, 55% of patients continued to report ≥ 1 symptoms of long COVID, and those who had been hospitalized with COVID-19 continued to report reduced health-related quality of life, compared to the control group.⁸
• Similarly, patients initially hospitalized with COVID-19 were more likely to experience impairment of ≥ 2 organs—in particular, the liver and pancreas—compared to nonhospitalized patients after a median 5 months post initial infection, among a sample in the United Kingdom.¹³
• In an international cohort, patients who reported a greater number of symptoms during initial COVID-19 were more likely to experience long COVID.¹²
• Last, long COVID fatigue did not vary by severity of initial COVID-19 infection among a sample of hospitalized and nonhospitalized participants in Dublin, Ireland.¹⁶

No specific treatments yet available

There are no specific treatments for long ­COVID; overall, the emphasis is on providing supportive care and managing preexisting chronic conditions.⁵ This is where expertise in primary care, relationships with patients and the community, and psychosocial knowledge can help patients recover from ongoing ­COVID-19 symptoms.

Long COVID–associated fatigue is more than simply being tired. Patients describe profound exhaustion, in which fatigue is out of proportion to exertion.

Clinicians should continue to perform a thorough physical assessment of patients with previous or ongoing COVID-19 to identify and monitor new or recurring symptoms after hospital discharge or initial resolution of symptoms.²⁹ This approach includes developing an individualized plan for care and rehabilitation that is specific to presenting symptoms, including psychological support. We encourage family physicians to familiarize themselves with the work of Vance and colleagues,³⁰ who have created a comprehensive table^a to guide treatment and referral for the gamut of long COVID symptoms, including cardiovascular issues (eg, palpitations, edema), chronic cough, headache, pain, and insomnia.

Continue to: This new clinical entity is a formidable challenge

Long COVID is a new condition that requires comprehensive evaluation to understand the full, often long-term, effects of COVID-19. Our review of this condition substantiated that symptoms of long COVID often affect a variety of organs^13,14 and have been observed to persist for ≥ 2 years.⁸

Some studies that have examined the long-term effects of COVID-19 included only participants who were not hospitalized; others include hospitalized patients exclusively. The literature is mixed in regard to including severity of initial infection as it relates to long COVID. Available research demonstrates that it is common for people with COVID-19 to experience persistent symptoms that can significantly impact daily life and well-being.

Likely, it will be several years before we even begin to understand the full extent of COVID-19. Until research elucidates the relationship between the disease and short- and long-term health outcomes, clinicians should:

• acknowledge and address the reality of long COVID when meeting with persistently symptomatic patients,
• provide support, therapeutic listening, and referral to rehabilitation as appropriate, and
• offer information on the potential for long-term effects of COVID-19 to vaccine-hesitant patients.

^a “Systems, symptoms, and treatments for post-COVID patients,” pages 1231-1234 in the source article (www.jabfm.org/content/jabfp/34/6/1229.full.pdf).³⁰

CORRESPONDENCE
Nicole Mayo, PhD, 46 Prince Street, Rochester, NY 14607; [email protected]

This combination of vascular features with excess keratin fit perfectly with the name of the diagnosis: angiokeratoma. The dark color of the lesion on magnification, or in this case with dermoscopy, showed the lacunar pattern of dilated vessels. The overlying keratin was likely accentuated because it was on an extensor surface; the rim of hyperpigmentation is common for these lesions.

Angiokeratomas result from dilation of the blood vessels underneath the epidermis. There are different inciting events that lead to the 5 different types of angiokeratomas. The overlying epidermal changes are secondary to the underlying process of capillary ectasia.¹ This lesion was not part of a cluster, so it was characterized as a solitary angiokeratoma. Smaller lesions are usually less keratinized and are commonly seen on the scrotum and vulva, where there are usually multiple lesions (referred to as angiokeratoma of Fordyce).

Zaballos² studied the dermoscopic characteristics of 32 solitary angiokeratomas and reported 6 findings in at least half of the solitary lesions. The most common features were dark lacunae in 94% of the lesions, white veil in 91%, and erythema in 69%. Peripheral erythema, red lacunae, and hemorrhagic crusts were all seen at a rate of 53%. The most common location was the lower extremities.

This patient’s previous pathology report from a shave biopsy was found, confirming that the original diagnosis was angiokeratoma. Since the patient’s lesion had not resolved and was symptomatic from minor trauma, he was scheduled to come back in for an elliptical excision to remove the lesion.

‌

Image and text courtesy of Daniel Stulberg, MD, FAAFP, Professor and Chair, Department of Family and Community Medicine, Western Michigan University Homer Stryker, MD School of Medicine, Kalamazoo.

This combination of vascular features with excess keratin fit perfectly with the name of the diagnosis: angiokeratoma. The dark color of the lesion on magnification, or in this case with dermoscopy, showed the lacunar pattern of dilated vessels. The overlying keratin was likely accentuated because it was on an extensor surface; the rim of hyperpigmentation is common for these lesions.

Angiokeratomas result from dilation of the blood vessels underneath the epidermis. There are different inciting events that lead to the 5 different types of angiokeratomas. The overlying epidermal changes are secondary to the underlying process of capillary ectasia.¹ This lesion was not part of a cluster, so it was characterized as a solitary angiokeratoma. Smaller lesions are usually less keratinized and are commonly seen on the scrotum and vulva, where there are usually multiple lesions (referred to as angiokeratoma of Fordyce).

Zaballos² studied the dermoscopic characteristics of 32 solitary angiokeratomas and reported 6 findings in at least half of the solitary lesions. The most common features were dark lacunae in 94% of the lesions, white veil in 91%, and erythema in 69%. Peripheral erythema, red lacunae, and hemorrhagic crusts were all seen at a rate of 53%. The most common location was the lower extremities.

This patient’s previous pathology report from a shave biopsy was found, confirming that the original diagnosis was angiokeratoma. Since the patient’s lesion had not resolved and was symptomatic from minor trauma, he was scheduled to come back in for an elliptical excision to remove the lesion.

‌

Image and text courtesy of Daniel Stulberg, MD, FAAFP, Professor and Chair, Department of Family and Community Medicine, Western Michigan University Homer Stryker, MD School of Medicine, Kalamazoo.

This combination of vascular features with excess keratin fit perfectly with the name of the diagnosis: angiokeratoma. The dark color of the lesion on magnification, or in this case with dermoscopy, showed the lacunar pattern of dilated vessels. The overlying keratin was likely accentuated because it was on an extensor surface; the rim of hyperpigmentation is common for these lesions.

Angiokeratomas result from dilation of the blood vessels underneath the epidermis. There are different inciting events that lead to the 5 different types of angiokeratomas. The overlying epidermal changes are secondary to the underlying process of capillary ectasia.¹ This lesion was not part of a cluster, so it was characterized as a solitary angiokeratoma. Smaller lesions are usually less keratinized and are commonly seen on the scrotum and vulva, where there are usually multiple lesions (referred to as angiokeratoma of Fordyce).

Zaballos² studied the dermoscopic characteristics of 32 solitary angiokeratomas and reported 6 findings in at least half of the solitary lesions. The most common features were dark lacunae in 94% of the lesions, white veil in 91%, and erythema in 69%. Peripheral erythema, red lacunae, and hemorrhagic crusts were all seen at a rate of 53%. The most common location was the lower extremities.

This patient’s previous pathology report from a shave biopsy was found, confirming that the original diagnosis was angiokeratoma. Since the patient’s lesion had not resolved and was symptomatic from minor trauma, he was scheduled to come back in for an elliptical excision to remove the lesion.

‌

Image and text courtesy of Daniel Stulberg, MD, FAAFP, Professor and Chair, Department of Family and Community Medicine, Western Michigan University Homer Stryker, MD School of Medicine, Kalamazoo.

Stable slate gray to blue lesions that are asymptomatic raise the possibility of a blue nevus, also known as dermal dendritic melanocytic proliferations. In this case, dermoscopy confirmed a uniform dark color with no signs suggestive of melanoma or pigmented basal cell carcinoma (BCC).

Blue nevi are the result of a benign localized proliferation of dermal dendritic melanocytes. The blue color is due to the increased pigment deep in the dermis that reflects the blue shorter wavelength light while absorbing longer wavelengths.¹ In this author’s experience, these “blue” lesions usually appear to be more gray (as was the case with this individual). Dermoscopy shows a steel blue homogenous pigmentation.²

It is helpful to use dermoscopy to screen for an atypical pigment network, regression of pigmentation, or abnormal pigmentation; these are signs of atypical nevi and melanoma. It is also important to look for arborizing blood vessels and leaf-like structures that can be seen in pigmented BCCs. Both melanoma and pigmented BCCs can appear as circumscribed dark lesions.

Reassuring factors for blue nevi are lesions that are stable in size and color over time, asymptomatic, and have not bled nor shown signs of erosion. If the diagnosis is in doubt, excise the lesion in its entirety for definitive pathology. Since the melanocytes are typically deeper in blue nevi than in most other nevi, a deep shave technique may not remove the lesion in its entirety. A deeper than usual shave (or, if feasible, a full-thickness excision) may return better results with quicker healing.

This patient was advised of the benign nature of a blue nevus. He was counseled to watch for any changes in the lesion and to return for reevaluation if symptoms or changes occurred.

‌

Image and text courtesy of Daniel Stulberg, MD, FAAFP, Professor and Chair, Department of Family and Community Medicine, Western Michigan University Homer Stryker, MD School of Medicine, Kalamazoo.

Stable slate gray to blue lesions that are asymptomatic raise the possibility of a blue nevus, also known as dermal dendritic melanocytic proliferations. In this case, dermoscopy confirmed a uniform dark color with no signs suggestive of melanoma or pigmented basal cell carcinoma (BCC).

Blue nevi are the result of a benign localized proliferation of dermal dendritic melanocytes. The blue color is due to the increased pigment deep in the dermis that reflects the blue shorter wavelength light while absorbing longer wavelengths.¹ In this author’s experience, these “blue” lesions usually appear to be more gray (as was the case with this individual). Dermoscopy shows a steel blue homogenous pigmentation.²

It is helpful to use dermoscopy to screen for an atypical pigment network, regression of pigmentation, or abnormal pigmentation; these are signs of atypical nevi and melanoma. It is also important to look for arborizing blood vessels and leaf-like structures that can be seen in pigmented BCCs. Both melanoma and pigmented BCCs can appear as circumscribed dark lesions.

Reassuring factors for blue nevi are lesions that are stable in size and color over time, asymptomatic, and have not bled nor shown signs of erosion. If the diagnosis is in doubt, excise the lesion in its entirety for definitive pathology. Since the melanocytes are typically deeper in blue nevi than in most other nevi, a deep shave technique may not remove the lesion in its entirety. A deeper than usual shave (or, if feasible, a full-thickness excision) may return better results with quicker healing.

This patient was advised of the benign nature of a blue nevus. He was counseled to watch for any changes in the lesion and to return for reevaluation if symptoms or changes occurred.

‌

Image and text courtesy of Daniel Stulberg, MD, FAAFP, Professor and Chair, Department of Family and Community Medicine, Western Michigan University Homer Stryker, MD School of Medicine, Kalamazoo.

Stable slate gray to blue lesions that are asymptomatic raise the possibility of a blue nevus, also known as dermal dendritic melanocytic proliferations. In this case, dermoscopy confirmed a uniform dark color with no signs suggestive of melanoma or pigmented basal cell carcinoma (BCC).

Blue nevi are the result of a benign localized proliferation of dermal dendritic melanocytes. The blue color is due to the increased pigment deep in the dermis that reflects the blue shorter wavelength light while absorbing longer wavelengths.¹ In this author’s experience, these “blue” lesions usually appear to be more gray (as was the case with this individual). Dermoscopy shows a steel blue homogenous pigmentation.²

It is helpful to use dermoscopy to screen for an atypical pigment network, regression of pigmentation, or abnormal pigmentation; these are signs of atypical nevi and melanoma. It is also important to look for arborizing blood vessels and leaf-like structures that can be seen in pigmented BCCs. Both melanoma and pigmented BCCs can appear as circumscribed dark lesions.

Reassuring factors for blue nevi are lesions that are stable in size and color over time, asymptomatic, and have not bled nor shown signs of erosion. If the diagnosis is in doubt, excise the lesion in its entirety for definitive pathology. Since the melanocytes are typically deeper in blue nevi than in most other nevi, a deep shave technique may not remove the lesion in its entirety. A deeper than usual shave (or, if feasible, a full-thickness excision) may return better results with quicker healing.

This patient was advised of the benign nature of a blue nevus. He was counseled to watch for any changes in the lesion and to return for reevaluation if symptoms or changes occurred.

‌

Image and text courtesy of Daniel Stulberg, MD, FAAFP, Professor and Chair, Department of Family and Community Medicine, Western Michigan University Homer Stryker, MD School of Medicine, Kalamazoo.

On November 1, the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) published updated recommendations (and a supporting evidence report) for the use of hormone therapy in postmenopausal women for the prevention of chronic medical conditions, such as heart disease, cancer, and osteoporosis.^1,2 The USPSTF continues to recommend against the use of either estrogen or combined estrogen plus progesterone for this purpose.

A bit of context. These recommendations apply to asymptomatic postmenopausal women and do not apply to those who are unable to manage menopausal symptoms (eg, hot flashes or vaginal dryness) with other interventions, or to those who have premature or surgically caused menopause.

This update is a reconfirmation of USPSTF’s 2017 recommendations on this topic. These recommendations are consistent with those of multiple other organizations, including the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, the American Academy of Family Physicians, the American College of Physicians, and the American Heart Association.

A look at the evidence. The evidence report included data from 20 randomized clinical trials and 3 cohort studies that examined the use of oral or transdermal hormone therapy. The most commonly used therapy was oral conjugated equine estrogen 0.625 mg/d, with or without medroxyprogesterone acetate 2.5 mg/d. The strongest evidence is from the Women’s Health Initiative, which included postmenopausal women ages 50 to 79 years and had follow-up of 7.2 years for the estrogen-only trial, 5.6 years for the estrogen plus progestin trial, and a long-term follow-up of up to 20.7 years.^2,3

Benefits and harms of hormone therapy. Among postmenopausal women, use of estrogen alone was associated with absolute reduction in risk for fractures (–388 per 10,000 women), diabetes (–134), and breast cancer (–52) and an absolute increase in risk for urinary incontinence (+ 885 per 10,000 women), gallbladder disease (+ 377), stroke (+ 79), and venous thromboembolism (+ 77). Use of estrogen plus progestin was associated with reduced risk for fractures (–230 per 10,000 women), diabetes (–78), and colorectal cancer (–34) and an increased risk for urinary incontinence ( + 562 per 10,000 women), gallbladder disease (+ 260), venous thromboembolism (+ 120), dementia (+ 88), stroke (+ 52), and breast cancer (+ 51).^2,3

Lingering questions. The USPSTF felt that the evidence is too limited to answer the following: (1) Are the potential benefits and harms of hormone therapy affected by participants’ age or by the timing of therapy initiation in relation to menopause onset? and (2) Do different types, doses, or delivery modes of hormone therapy affect benefits and harms?¹

The bottom line. In asymptomatic, healthy, postmenopausal women, do not prescribe hormone therapy to try to prevent chronic conditions.

On November 1, the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) published updated recommendations (and a supporting evidence report) for the use of hormone therapy in postmenopausal women for the prevention of chronic medical conditions, such as heart disease, cancer, and osteoporosis.^1,2 The USPSTF continues to recommend against the use of either estrogen or combined estrogen plus progesterone for this purpose.

A bit of context. These recommendations apply to asymptomatic postmenopausal women and do not apply to those who are unable to manage menopausal symptoms (eg, hot flashes or vaginal dryness) with other interventions, or to those who have premature or surgically caused menopause.

This update is a reconfirmation of USPSTF’s 2017 recommendations on this topic. These recommendations are consistent with those of multiple other organizations, including the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, the American Academy of Family Physicians, the American College of Physicians, and the American Heart Association.

A look at the evidence. The evidence report included data from 20 randomized clinical trials and 3 cohort studies that examined the use of oral or transdermal hormone therapy. The most commonly used therapy was oral conjugated equine estrogen 0.625 mg/d, with or without medroxyprogesterone acetate 2.5 mg/d. The strongest evidence is from the Women’s Health Initiative, which included postmenopausal women ages 50 to 79 years and had follow-up of 7.2 years for the estrogen-only trial, 5.6 years for the estrogen plus progestin trial, and a long-term follow-up of up to 20.7 years.^2,3

Benefits and harms of hormone therapy. Among postmenopausal women, use of estrogen alone was associated with absolute reduction in risk for fractures (–388 per 10,000 women), diabetes (–134), and breast cancer (–52) and an absolute increase in risk for urinary incontinence (+ 885 per 10,000 women), gallbladder disease (+ 377), stroke (+ 79), and venous thromboembolism (+ 77). Use of estrogen plus progestin was associated with reduced risk for fractures (–230 per 10,000 women), diabetes (–78), and colorectal cancer (–34) and an increased risk for urinary incontinence ( + 562 per 10,000 women), gallbladder disease (+ 260), venous thromboembolism (+ 120), dementia (+ 88), stroke (+ 52), and breast cancer (+ 51).^2,3

Lingering questions. The USPSTF felt that the evidence is too limited to answer the following: (1) Are the potential benefits and harms of hormone therapy affected by participants’ age or by the timing of therapy initiation in relation to menopause onset? and (2) Do different types, doses, or delivery modes of hormone therapy affect benefits and harms?¹

The bottom line. In asymptomatic, healthy, postmenopausal women, do not prescribe hormone therapy to try to prevent chronic conditions.

On November 1, the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) published updated recommendations (and a supporting evidence report) for the use of hormone therapy in postmenopausal women for the prevention of chronic medical conditions, such as heart disease, cancer, and osteoporosis.^1,2 The USPSTF continues to recommend against the use of either estrogen or combined estrogen plus progesterone for this purpose.

A bit of context. These recommendations apply to asymptomatic postmenopausal women and do not apply to those who are unable to manage menopausal symptoms (eg, hot flashes or vaginal dryness) with other interventions, or to those who have premature or surgically caused menopause.

This update is a reconfirmation of USPSTF’s 2017 recommendations on this topic. These recommendations are consistent with those of multiple other organizations, including the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, the American Academy of Family Physicians, the American College of Physicians, and the American Heart Association.

A look at the evidence. The evidence report included data from 20 randomized clinical trials and 3 cohort studies that examined the use of oral or transdermal hormone therapy. The most commonly used therapy was oral conjugated equine estrogen 0.625 mg/d, with or without medroxyprogesterone acetate 2.5 mg/d. The strongest evidence is from the Women’s Health Initiative, which included postmenopausal women ages 50 to 79 years and had follow-up of 7.2 years for the estrogen-only trial, 5.6 years for the estrogen plus progestin trial, and a long-term follow-up of up to 20.7 years.^2,3

Benefits and harms of hormone therapy. Among postmenopausal women, use of estrogen alone was associated with absolute reduction in risk for fractures (–388 per 10,000 women), diabetes (–134), and breast cancer (–52) and an absolute increase in risk for urinary incontinence (+ 885 per 10,000 women), gallbladder disease (+ 377), stroke (+ 79), and venous thromboembolism (+ 77). Use of estrogen plus progestin was associated with reduced risk for fractures (–230 per 10,000 women), diabetes (–78), and colorectal cancer (–34) and an increased risk for urinary incontinence ( + 562 per 10,000 women), gallbladder disease (+ 260), venous thromboembolism (+ 120), dementia (+ 88), stroke (+ 52), and breast cancer (+ 51).^2,3

Lingering questions. The USPSTF felt that the evidence is too limited to answer the following: (1) Are the potential benefits and harms of hormone therapy affected by participants’ age or by the timing of therapy initiation in relation to menopause onset? and (2) Do different types, doses, or delivery modes of hormone therapy affect benefits and harms?¹

The bottom line. In asymptomatic, healthy, postmenopausal women, do not prescribe hormone therapy to try to prevent chronic conditions.

What are the hallmarks of adult ADHD?

Read More

‌

‌

‌

What are the hallmarks of adult ADHD?

Read More

‌

‌

‌

What are the hallmarks of adult ADHD?

Read More

‌

‌

‌

EVIDENCE SUMMARY

Some evidence suggests overestimation in all skin tones

In a prospective diagnostic cohort study of 1553 infants in Nigeria, the accuracy of TcB measurement with 2 transcutaneous bilirubinometers (Konica Minolta/Air Shields JM- 103 and Respironics BiliChek) was analyzed. 1 The study population was derived from neonates delivered in a single maternity hospital in Lagos who were ≥ 35 weeks gestational age or ≥ 2.2 kg.

Using a color scale generated for this population, researchers stratified neonates into 1 of 3 skin tone groups: light brown, medium brown, or dark brown. TcB and TSB paired samples were collected in the first 120 hours of life in all patients. JM-103 recordings comprised 71.9% of TcB readings.

Overall, TcB testing overestimated the TSB by ≥ 2 mg/dL in 64.5% of infants, ≥ 3 mg/dL in 42.7%, and > 4 mg/dL in 25.7%. TcB testing underestimated the TSB by ≥ 2 mg/dL in 1.1% of infants, ≥ 3 mg/dL in 0.5%, and > 4 mg/dL in 0.3%.¹

Local variation in skin tone was not associated with changes in overestimation, although the researchers noted that a key limitation of the study was a lack of lighttoned infants for comparison.¹

A prospective diagnostic cohort study of 1359 infants in Spain compared TcB measurements to TSB levels using the Dräger Jaundice Meter JM-105.2 Patients included all neonates (gestational age, 36.6 to 41.1 weeks) born at a single hospital in Barcelona.

Using a validated skin tone scale, researchers stratified neonates at 24 hours of life to 1 of 4 skin tones: light (n = 337), medium light (n = 750), medium dark (n = 249), and dark (n = 23). They then obtained TSB samples at 48 to 72 hours of life, along with other routine screening labs and midsternal TcB measurements.

TcB testing tended to overestimate TSB (when < 15 mg/dL) for all skin tones, although to a larger degree for neonates with dark skin tones (mean overestimation, 0.7 mg/dL for light; 1.08 mg/dL for medium light; 1.89 mg/dL for medium dark; and 1.86 mg/dL for dark; P < .001 for light vs medium dark or dark).²

Continue to: Stated limitations...

Stated limitations of the study included relatively low numbers of neonates with dark skin tone, no test of interobserver reliability in skin tone assignment, and enrollment of exclusively healthy neonates with low bilirubin levels.²

Other studies report overestimation in infants with darker skin tone

Two Canadian diagnostic cohort studies also found evidence that TcB testing overestimated TSB in infants with darker skin tones, although TcB test characteristics proved stable over a wide range of bilirubin levels.

The first study enrolled 451 neonates ≥ 35 weeks gestational age at a hospital in Ottawa and assessed TcB using the JM-103 meter.3 The neonates were stratified into light (n = 51), medium (n = 326), and dark (n = 74) skin tones using cosmetic reference color swatches. All had a TcB and TSB obtained within 30 minutes of each other.

The research reinforces the need for review and adjustment of transcutaneous bilirubin cut-off levels based on the local population.

TcB testing underestimated TSB in infants with light and medium skin tones and overestimated TSB in infants with darker skin tone (mean difference, –0.88 mg/dL for light; –1.1 mg/dL for medium; and 0.68 mg/dL for dark; P not given). The mean area under the curve (AUC) was ≥ 0.94 for all receiver–operator characteristic (ROC) curves across all skin tones and bilirubin thresholds (AUC range, 0-1, with > 0.8 indicating strong modeling).³

Limitations of the study included failure to check interrater reliability for skin tone assessment, low numbers of infants with elevated bilirubin (≥ 13.5 mg/dL), and very few infants in either the dark or light skin tone groups.³

Continue to: The second Canadian study...

The second Canadian study enrolled 774 infants born at ≥ 37 weeks gestational age in Calgary and assessed TcB with the JM-103.⁴ Infants were categorized as having light (n = 347), medium (n = 412), and dark (n = 15) skin tones by study nurses, based on reference cosmetic colors. All infants had paired TcB and TSB measurements within 60 minutes of each other and before 120 hours of life.

Multivariate linear regression analysis using medium skin tone as the reference group found a tendency toward low TcB levels in infants with light skin tone and a tendency toward high TcB levels in infants with dark skin tone (adjusted R² = 0.86). The AUC was ≥ 0.95 for all ROC curves for lightand medium-toned infants at key TSB cutoff points; the study included too few infants with dark skin tone to generate ROC curves for that group.⁴

Recommendations from others

In 2009, the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) recommended universal predischarge screening for hyperbilirubinemia in newborns using either TcB testing or TSB. The AAP statement did not address the effect of skin tone on TcB levels, but did advise regular calibration of TcB and TSB results at the hospital level.⁵

In 2016, the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) updated their guideline on jaundice in newborns younger than 28 days old. NICE recommended visual inspection of all babies for jaundice by examining them in bright natural light and looking for jaundice on blanched skin; it specifically advised checking sclera and gums in infants with darker skin tones.⁶

The Nigerian researchers noted earlier have published an updated TcB nomogram for their patient population.⁷

Editor’s takeaway

Even with the small variation of 2 mg/dL or less between transcutaneous and serum bilirubin, and the SOR of C due to lab values being labeled disease-oriented evidence, TcB proves to be useful. In practice, concerning TcB values should lead to serum bilirubin confirmation. This evidence indicates we might be ordering TSB measurements more or less often depending on skin tone, reinforcing the need for review and adjustment of TcB cut-off levels based on the local population.

EVIDENCE SUMMARY

Some evidence suggests overestimation in all skin tones

In a prospective diagnostic cohort study of 1553 infants in Nigeria, the accuracy of TcB measurement with 2 transcutaneous bilirubinometers (Konica Minolta/Air Shields JM- 103 and Respironics BiliChek) was analyzed. 1 The study population was derived from neonates delivered in a single maternity hospital in Lagos who were ≥ 35 weeks gestational age or ≥ 2.2 kg.

Using a color scale generated for this population, researchers stratified neonates into 1 of 3 skin tone groups: light brown, medium brown, or dark brown. TcB and TSB paired samples were collected in the first 120 hours of life in all patients. JM-103 recordings comprised 71.9% of TcB readings.

Overall, TcB testing overestimated the TSB by ≥ 2 mg/dL in 64.5% of infants, ≥ 3 mg/dL in 42.7%, and > 4 mg/dL in 25.7%. TcB testing underestimated the TSB by ≥ 2 mg/dL in 1.1% of infants, ≥ 3 mg/dL in 0.5%, and > 4 mg/dL in 0.3%.¹

Local variation in skin tone was not associated with changes in overestimation, although the researchers noted that a key limitation of the study was a lack of lighttoned infants for comparison.¹

A prospective diagnostic cohort study of 1359 infants in Spain compared TcB measurements to TSB levels using the Dräger Jaundice Meter JM-105.2 Patients included all neonates (gestational age, 36.6 to 41.1 weeks) born at a single hospital in Barcelona.

Using a validated skin tone scale, researchers stratified neonates at 24 hours of life to 1 of 4 skin tones: light (n = 337), medium light (n = 750), medium dark (n = 249), and dark (n = 23). They then obtained TSB samples at 48 to 72 hours of life, along with other routine screening labs and midsternal TcB measurements.

TcB testing tended to overestimate TSB (when < 15 mg/dL) for all skin tones, although to a larger degree for neonates with dark skin tones (mean overestimation, 0.7 mg/dL for light; 1.08 mg/dL for medium light; 1.89 mg/dL for medium dark; and 1.86 mg/dL for dark; P < .001 for light vs medium dark or dark).²

Continue to: Stated limitations...

Stated limitations of the study included relatively low numbers of neonates with dark skin tone, no test of interobserver reliability in skin tone assignment, and enrollment of exclusively healthy neonates with low bilirubin levels.²

Other studies report overestimation in infants with darker skin tone

Two Canadian diagnostic cohort studies also found evidence that TcB testing overestimated TSB in infants with darker skin tones, although TcB test characteristics proved stable over a wide range of bilirubin levels.

The first study enrolled 451 neonates ≥ 35 weeks gestational age at a hospital in Ottawa and assessed TcB using the JM-103 meter.3 The neonates were stratified into light (n = 51), medium (n = 326), and dark (n = 74) skin tones using cosmetic reference color swatches. All had a TcB and TSB obtained within 30 minutes of each other.

The research reinforces the need for review and adjustment of transcutaneous bilirubin cut-off levels based on the local population.

TcB testing underestimated TSB in infants with light and medium skin tones and overestimated TSB in infants with darker skin tone (mean difference, –0.88 mg/dL for light; –1.1 mg/dL for medium; and 0.68 mg/dL for dark; P not given). The mean area under the curve (AUC) was ≥ 0.94 for all receiver–operator characteristic (ROC) curves across all skin tones and bilirubin thresholds (AUC range, 0-1, with > 0.8 indicating strong modeling).³

Limitations of the study included failure to check interrater reliability for skin tone assessment, low numbers of infants with elevated bilirubin (≥ 13.5 mg/dL), and very few infants in either the dark or light skin tone groups.³

Continue to: The second Canadian study...

The second Canadian study enrolled 774 infants born at ≥ 37 weeks gestational age in Calgary and assessed TcB with the JM-103.⁴ Infants were categorized as having light (n = 347), medium (n = 412), and dark (n = 15) skin tones by study nurses, based on reference cosmetic colors. All infants had paired TcB and TSB measurements within 60 minutes of each other and before 120 hours of life.

Multivariate linear regression analysis using medium skin tone as the reference group found a tendency toward low TcB levels in infants with light skin tone and a tendency toward high TcB levels in infants with dark skin tone (adjusted R² = 0.86). The AUC was ≥ 0.95 for all ROC curves for lightand medium-toned infants at key TSB cutoff points; the study included too few infants with dark skin tone to generate ROC curves for that group.⁴

Recommendations from others

In 2009, the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) recommended universal predischarge screening for hyperbilirubinemia in newborns using either TcB testing or TSB. The AAP statement did not address the effect of skin tone on TcB levels, but did advise regular calibration of TcB and TSB results at the hospital level.⁵

In 2016, the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) updated their guideline on jaundice in newborns younger than 28 days old. NICE recommended visual inspection of all babies for jaundice by examining them in bright natural light and looking for jaundice on blanched skin; it specifically advised checking sclera and gums in infants with darker skin tones.⁶

The Nigerian researchers noted earlier have published an updated TcB nomogram for their patient population.⁷

Editor’s takeaway

Even with the small variation of 2 mg/dL or less between transcutaneous and serum bilirubin, and the SOR of C due to lab values being labeled disease-oriented evidence, TcB proves to be useful. In practice, concerning TcB values should lead to serum bilirubin confirmation. This evidence indicates we might be ordering TSB measurements more or less often depending on skin tone, reinforcing the need for review and adjustment of TcB cut-off levels based on the local population.

EVIDENCE SUMMARY

Some evidence suggests overestimation in all skin tones

In a prospective diagnostic cohort study of 1553 infants in Nigeria, the accuracy of TcB measurement with 2 transcutaneous bilirubinometers (Konica Minolta/Air Shields JM- 103 and Respironics BiliChek) was analyzed. 1 The study population was derived from neonates delivered in a single maternity hospital in Lagos who were ≥ 35 weeks gestational age or ≥ 2.2 kg.

Using a color scale generated for this population, researchers stratified neonates into 1 of 3 skin tone groups: light brown, medium brown, or dark brown. TcB and TSB paired samples were collected in the first 120 hours of life in all patients. JM-103 recordings comprised 71.9% of TcB readings.

Overall, TcB testing overestimated the TSB by ≥ 2 mg/dL in 64.5% of infants, ≥ 3 mg/dL in 42.7%, and > 4 mg/dL in 25.7%. TcB testing underestimated the TSB by ≥ 2 mg/dL in 1.1% of infants, ≥ 3 mg/dL in 0.5%, and > 4 mg/dL in 0.3%.¹

Local variation in skin tone was not associated with changes in overestimation, although the researchers noted that a key limitation of the study was a lack of lighttoned infants for comparison.¹

A prospective diagnostic cohort study of 1359 infants in Spain compared TcB measurements to TSB levels using the Dräger Jaundice Meter JM-105.2 Patients included all neonates (gestational age, 36.6 to 41.1 weeks) born at a single hospital in Barcelona.

Using a validated skin tone scale, researchers stratified neonates at 24 hours of life to 1 of 4 skin tones: light (n = 337), medium light (n = 750), medium dark (n = 249), and dark (n = 23). They then obtained TSB samples at 48 to 72 hours of life, along with other routine screening labs and midsternal TcB measurements.

TcB testing tended to overestimate TSB (when < 15 mg/dL) for all skin tones, although to a larger degree for neonates with dark skin tones (mean overestimation, 0.7 mg/dL for light; 1.08 mg/dL for medium light; 1.89 mg/dL for medium dark; and 1.86 mg/dL for dark; P < .001 for light vs medium dark or dark).²

Continue to: Stated limitations...

Stated limitations of the study included relatively low numbers of neonates with dark skin tone, no test of interobserver reliability in skin tone assignment, and enrollment of exclusively healthy neonates with low bilirubin levels.²

Other studies report overestimation in infants with darker skin tone

Two Canadian diagnostic cohort studies also found evidence that TcB testing overestimated TSB in infants with darker skin tones, although TcB test characteristics proved stable over a wide range of bilirubin levels.

The first study enrolled 451 neonates ≥ 35 weeks gestational age at a hospital in Ottawa and assessed TcB using the JM-103 meter.3 The neonates were stratified into light (n = 51), medium (n = 326), and dark (n = 74) skin tones using cosmetic reference color swatches. All had a TcB and TSB obtained within 30 minutes of each other.

The research reinforces the need for review and adjustment of transcutaneous bilirubin cut-off levels based on the local population.

TcB testing underestimated TSB in infants with light and medium skin tones and overestimated TSB in infants with darker skin tone (mean difference, –0.88 mg/dL for light; –1.1 mg/dL for medium; and 0.68 mg/dL for dark; P not given). The mean area under the curve (AUC) was ≥ 0.94 for all receiver–operator characteristic (ROC) curves across all skin tones and bilirubin thresholds (AUC range, 0-1, with > 0.8 indicating strong modeling).³

Limitations of the study included failure to check interrater reliability for skin tone assessment, low numbers of infants with elevated bilirubin (≥ 13.5 mg/dL), and very few infants in either the dark or light skin tone groups.³

Continue to: The second Canadian study...

The second Canadian study enrolled 774 infants born at ≥ 37 weeks gestational age in Calgary and assessed TcB with the JM-103.⁴ Infants were categorized as having light (n = 347), medium (n = 412), and dark (n = 15) skin tones by study nurses, based on reference cosmetic colors. All infants had paired TcB and TSB measurements within 60 minutes of each other and before 120 hours of life.

Multivariate linear regression analysis using medium skin tone as the reference group found a tendency toward low TcB levels in infants with light skin tone and a tendency toward high TcB levels in infants with dark skin tone (adjusted R² = 0.86). The AUC was ≥ 0.95 for all ROC curves for lightand medium-toned infants at key TSB cutoff points; the study included too few infants with dark skin tone to generate ROC curves for that group.⁴

Recommendations from others

In 2009, the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) recommended universal predischarge screening for hyperbilirubinemia in newborns using either TcB testing or TSB. The AAP statement did not address the effect of skin tone on TcB levels, but did advise regular calibration of TcB and TSB results at the hospital level.⁵

In 2016, the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) updated their guideline on jaundice in newborns younger than 28 days old. NICE recommended visual inspection of all babies for jaundice by examining them in bright natural light and looking for jaundice on blanched skin; it specifically advised checking sclera and gums in infants with darker skin tones.⁶

The Nigerian researchers noted earlier have published an updated TcB nomogram for their patient population.⁷

Editor’s takeaway

Even with the small variation of 2 mg/dL or less between transcutaneous and serum bilirubin, and the SOR of C due to lab values being labeled disease-oriented evidence, TcB proves to be useful. In practice, concerning TcB values should lead to serum bilirubin confirmation. This evidence indicates we might be ordering TSB measurements more or less often depending on skin tone, reinforcing the need for review and adjustment of TcB cut-off levels based on the local population.

THE CASE

A 26-year-old woman presented to the emergency department (ED) with a history of nausea and vomiting for more than 24 hours. The vomiting began when she awoke to breastfeed her 3-month-old infant. She had been unable to eat or drink anything for about 16 hours.

She’d seen her primary care provider earlier in the day. Antiemetics were prescribed, but they did not provide relief. So 10 hours later, when her symptoms worsened, she presented to the ED.

Her medical history was notable for a body mass index of 26. The patient also reported positional back pain, but the review of systems was otherwise negative. The patient indicated that she’d been on a ketogenic diet for about 1 month, but she denied use of supplements.

Upon presentation to the ED, the patient was found to have a metabolic acidosis with a pH of 7.02 and an anion gap of 25. Her glucose level was 132 mg/dL, and she had a positive serum acetone and a beta-hydroxybutyrate level of 75 mg/dL (reference range, 0-2.8 mg/dL). Her salicylate testing was negative, and her lactate level was 1.4 mmol/L (reference range, 0.4-2.0 mmol/L).

THE DIAGNOSIS

This patient, with severe acidosis and an elevated anion gap, received a diagnosis of starvation ketoacidosis—specifically, lactation ketoacidosis. Other causes of elevated anion gap metabolic acidosis were ruled out, including salicylate overdose, lactic acidosis, diabetic ketoacidosis, and other ingestions. The elevated acetone and beta-hydroxybutyrate levels confirmed the diagnosis. The patient was treated with a bolus of 1 L normal saline with 5% dextrose (D5NS) in the ED and admitted.

DISCUSSION

Lactation ketoacidosis is a relatively uncommon condition, but reports have increased with the growing popularity of low-carbohydrate diets. The treatment approach has differed in previous reports in regard to insulin and bicarbonate use.^1-9

The use of bicarbonate is controversial in diabetic ketoacidosis and unlikely to be helpful in lactation ketoacidosis, but it is something to consider when the patient’s pH is < 6.9. Insulin use is likely unnecessary for lactation ketoacidosis, as metabolic derangements have been corrected without intervention.

Continue to: With an increasing prevalence of cases...

With an increasing prevalence of cases, we suggest a conservative approach for treatment based on this case presentation and review of other presentations. Our patient responded rapidly to conservative treatment with intravenous (IV) fluids (D5NS), a liberalized diet, and electrolyte repletion (described in detail later).

Suggested management

Once other causes of a patient’s signs and symptoms are excluded and the diagnosis of lactation ketoacidosis is made, you’ll want to follow the initial set of lab work with the following: a venous blood gas, basic metabolic panel, and testing of magnesium and phosphorous levels every 8 hours after initial presentation, with repletion as indicated. Some patients may require more frequent monitoring based on repletion of electrolytes.

The patient will initially require IV fluid resuscitation; the initial fluid of choice would be D5NS. Patients will likely need no more than 2 L, but this will depend on the degree of hypovolemia.

Lactation ketoacidosis is a relatively uncommon condition, but reports have increased with the growing popularity of low-carbohydrate diets.

Diet should be advanced as tolerated and include no restriction of carbohydrates.

Previous reports have varied regarding continuation of breastfeeding and pumping. In this case, the patient continued to breastfeed without any adverse effects. Continuation of breastfeeding is unlikely to cause harm in these circumstances, but severity of symptoms (pain, nausea, vomiting) or unresolved acidosis may require discontinuation.

Continue to: Discharge should be determined...

Discharge should be determined by resolution of symptoms and correction of metabolic derangements. In previous reports, discharge time varied from 48 hours up to 144 hours, with most patients discharged on Day 2 or 3. Pending clinical factors, discharge is likely appropriate between 36 to 72 hours from time of admission.

Our patient received an additional 1 L of D5NS for continued signs of dehydration during admission. Her pH and electrolyte levels were monitored every 8 hours, with repletion of electrolytes as needed. Her acidosis, nausea, vomiting, and pain resolved within 36 hours. The patient continued to breastfeed her infant throughout her stay. With resolution of symptoms and metabolic derangements, the patient was discharged about 36 hours after admission. She was advised to follow up with her primary care provider within 1 week after discharge.

THE TAKEAWAY

As the popularity of low-carbohydrate diets increases, patients should be educated about the warning signs of clinically significant ketoacidosis. This information is especially important for those who are lactating, as this metabolic state increases predilection to ketoacidosis. When cases do present, conservative management with IV fluids and a liberalized diet is likely to be an appropriate course of care for most patients.

CORRESPONDENCE
C.W. Ferguson, DO, Navy Medicine Readiness and Training Command, Camp Lejeune Family Medicine Residency, 100 Brewster Boulevard, Camp Lejeune, NC 28547; [email protected]

THE CASE

A 26-year-old woman presented to the emergency department (ED) with a history of nausea and vomiting for more than 24 hours. The vomiting began when she awoke to breastfeed her 3-month-old infant. She had been unable to eat or drink anything for about 16 hours.

She’d seen her primary care provider earlier in the day. Antiemetics were prescribed, but they did not provide relief. So 10 hours later, when her symptoms worsened, she presented to the ED.

Her medical history was notable for a body mass index of 26. The patient also reported positional back pain, but the review of systems was otherwise negative. The patient indicated that she’d been on a ketogenic diet for about 1 month, but she denied use of supplements.

Upon presentation to the ED, the patient was found to have a metabolic acidosis with a pH of 7.02 and an anion gap of 25. Her glucose level was 132 mg/dL, and she had a positive serum acetone and a beta-hydroxybutyrate level of 75 mg/dL (reference range, 0-2.8 mg/dL). Her salicylate testing was negative, and her lactate level was 1.4 mmol/L (reference range, 0.4-2.0 mmol/L).

THE DIAGNOSIS

This patient, with severe acidosis and an elevated anion gap, received a diagnosis of starvation ketoacidosis—specifically, lactation ketoacidosis. Other causes of elevated anion gap metabolic acidosis were ruled out, including salicylate overdose, lactic acidosis, diabetic ketoacidosis, and other ingestions. The elevated acetone and beta-hydroxybutyrate levels confirmed the diagnosis. The patient was treated with a bolus of 1 L normal saline with 5% dextrose (D5NS) in the ED and admitted.

DISCUSSION

Lactation ketoacidosis is a relatively uncommon condition, but reports have increased with the growing popularity of low-carbohydrate diets. The treatment approach has differed in previous reports in regard to insulin and bicarbonate use.^1-9

The use of bicarbonate is controversial in diabetic ketoacidosis and unlikely to be helpful in lactation ketoacidosis, but it is something to consider when the patient’s pH is < 6.9. Insulin use is likely unnecessary for lactation ketoacidosis, as metabolic derangements have been corrected without intervention.

Continue to: With an increasing prevalence of cases...

With an increasing prevalence of cases, we suggest a conservative approach for treatment based on this case presentation and review of other presentations. Our patient responded rapidly to conservative treatment with intravenous (IV) fluids (D5NS), a liberalized diet, and electrolyte repletion (described in detail later).

Suggested management

Once other causes of a patient’s signs and symptoms are excluded and the diagnosis of lactation ketoacidosis is made, you’ll want to follow the initial set of lab work with the following: a venous blood gas, basic metabolic panel, and testing of magnesium and phosphorous levels every 8 hours after initial presentation, with repletion as indicated. Some patients may require more frequent monitoring based on repletion of electrolytes.

The patient will initially require IV fluid resuscitation; the initial fluid of choice would be D5NS. Patients will likely need no more than 2 L, but this will depend on the degree of hypovolemia.

Lactation ketoacidosis is a relatively uncommon condition, but reports have increased with the growing popularity of low-carbohydrate diets.

Diet should be advanced as tolerated and include no restriction of carbohydrates.

Previous reports have varied regarding continuation of breastfeeding and pumping. In this case, the patient continued to breastfeed without any adverse effects. Continuation of breastfeeding is unlikely to cause harm in these circumstances, but severity of symptoms (pain, nausea, vomiting) or unresolved acidosis may require discontinuation.

Continue to: Discharge should be determined...

Discharge should be determined by resolution of symptoms and correction of metabolic derangements. In previous reports, discharge time varied from 48 hours up to 144 hours, with most patients discharged on Day 2 or 3. Pending clinical factors, discharge is likely appropriate between 36 to 72 hours from time of admission.

Our patient received an additional 1 L of D5NS for continued signs of dehydration during admission. Her pH and electrolyte levels were monitored every 8 hours, with repletion of electrolytes as needed. Her acidosis, nausea, vomiting, and pain resolved within 36 hours. The patient continued to breastfeed her infant throughout her stay. With resolution of symptoms and metabolic derangements, the patient was discharged about 36 hours after admission. She was advised to follow up with her primary care provider within 1 week after discharge.

THE TAKEAWAY

As the popularity of low-carbohydrate diets increases, patients should be educated about the warning signs of clinically significant ketoacidosis. This information is especially important for those who are lactating, as this metabolic state increases predilection to ketoacidosis. When cases do present, conservative management with IV fluids and a liberalized diet is likely to be an appropriate course of care for most patients.

CORRESPONDENCE
C.W. Ferguson, DO, Navy Medicine Readiness and Training Command, Camp Lejeune Family Medicine Residency, 100 Brewster Boulevard, Camp Lejeune, NC 28547; [email protected]

THE CASE

A 26-year-old woman presented to the emergency department (ED) with a history of nausea and vomiting for more than 24 hours. The vomiting began when she awoke to breastfeed her 3-month-old infant. She had been unable to eat or drink anything for about 16 hours.

She’d seen her primary care provider earlier in the day. Antiemetics were prescribed, but they did not provide relief. So 10 hours later, when her symptoms worsened, she presented to the ED.

Her medical history was notable for a body mass index of 26. The patient also reported positional back pain, but the review of systems was otherwise negative. The patient indicated that she’d been on a ketogenic diet for about 1 month, but she denied use of supplements.

Upon presentation to the ED, the patient was found to have a metabolic acidosis with a pH of 7.02 and an anion gap of 25. Her glucose level was 132 mg/dL, and she had a positive serum acetone and a beta-hydroxybutyrate level of 75 mg/dL (reference range, 0-2.8 mg/dL). Her salicylate testing was negative, and her lactate level was 1.4 mmol/L (reference range, 0.4-2.0 mmol/L).

THE DIAGNOSIS

This patient, with severe acidosis and an elevated anion gap, received a diagnosis of starvation ketoacidosis—specifically, lactation ketoacidosis. Other causes of elevated anion gap metabolic acidosis were ruled out, including salicylate overdose, lactic acidosis, diabetic ketoacidosis, and other ingestions. The elevated acetone and beta-hydroxybutyrate levels confirmed the diagnosis. The patient was treated with a bolus of 1 L normal saline with 5% dextrose (D5NS) in the ED and admitted.

DISCUSSION

Lactation ketoacidosis is a relatively uncommon condition, but reports have increased with the growing popularity of low-carbohydrate diets. The treatment approach has differed in previous reports in regard to insulin and bicarbonate use.^1-9

The use of bicarbonate is controversial in diabetic ketoacidosis and unlikely to be helpful in lactation ketoacidosis, but it is something to consider when the patient’s pH is < 6.9. Insulin use is likely unnecessary for lactation ketoacidosis, as metabolic derangements have been corrected without intervention.

Continue to: With an increasing prevalence of cases...

With an increasing prevalence of cases, we suggest a conservative approach for treatment based on this case presentation and review of other presentations. Our patient responded rapidly to conservative treatment with intravenous (IV) fluids (D5NS), a liberalized diet, and electrolyte repletion (described in detail later).

Suggested management

Once other causes of a patient’s signs and symptoms are excluded and the diagnosis of lactation ketoacidosis is made, you’ll want to follow the initial set of lab work with the following: a venous blood gas, basic metabolic panel, and testing of magnesium and phosphorous levels every 8 hours after initial presentation, with repletion as indicated. Some patients may require more frequent monitoring based on repletion of electrolytes.

The patient will initially require IV fluid resuscitation; the initial fluid of choice would be D5NS. Patients will likely need no more than 2 L, but this will depend on the degree of hypovolemia.

Lactation ketoacidosis is a relatively uncommon condition, but reports have increased with the growing popularity of low-carbohydrate diets.

Diet should be advanced as tolerated and include no restriction of carbohydrates.

Previous reports have varied regarding continuation of breastfeeding and pumping. In this case, the patient continued to breastfeed without any adverse effects. Continuation of breastfeeding is unlikely to cause harm in these circumstances, but severity of symptoms (pain, nausea, vomiting) or unresolved acidosis may require discontinuation.

Continue to: Discharge should be determined...

Discharge should be determined by resolution of symptoms and correction of metabolic derangements. In previous reports, discharge time varied from 48 hours up to 144 hours, with most patients discharged on Day 2 or 3. Pending clinical factors, discharge is likely appropriate between 36 to 72 hours from time of admission.

Our patient received an additional 1 L of D5NS for continued signs of dehydration during admission. Her pH and electrolyte levels were monitored every 8 hours, with repletion of electrolytes as needed. Her acidosis, nausea, vomiting, and pain resolved within 36 hours. The patient continued to breastfeed her infant throughout her stay. With resolution of symptoms and metabolic derangements, the patient was discharged about 36 hours after admission. She was advised to follow up with her primary care provider within 1 week after discharge.

THE TAKEAWAY

As the popularity of low-carbohydrate diets increases, patients should be educated about the warning signs of clinically significant ketoacidosis. This information is especially important for those who are lactating, as this metabolic state increases predilection to ketoacidosis. When cases do present, conservative management with IV fluids and a liberalized diet is likely to be an appropriate course of care for most patients.

CORRESPONDENCE
C.W. Ferguson, DO, Navy Medicine Readiness and Training Command, Camp Lejeune Family Medicine Residency, 100 Brewster Boulevard, Camp Lejeune, NC 28547; [email protected]