COVID-19 Updates

Acne vulgaris is an extremely common dermatologic disease affecting 40 to 50 million individuals in the United States each year, with a prevalence of 85% in adolescents and young adults aged 12 to 24 years. For some patients, the disease may persist well into adulthood, affecting 8% of adults aged 25 and 34 years.¹ Acne negatively impacts patients’ quality of life and productivity, with an estimated direct and indirect cost of over $3 billion per year.²

Oral isotretinoin, a vitamin A derivative, is approved by the US Food and Drug Administration for the treatment of severe nodulocystic acne. Isotretinoin reduces the size and secretions of sebaceous glands, inhibits growth and resulting inflammation of Cutibacterium acnes, and normalizes the differentiation of follicular keratinocytes, resulting in permanent changes in the pathogenesis of acne that may lead to remission.³ The use of oral isotretinoin in the active-duty US Military population may cause service members to be nondeployable or limit their ability to function in special roles (eg, pilot, submariner).⁴ Treatment regimens that minimize the course duration of isotretinoin and reduce the risk for relapse that requires a retrial of isotretinoin may, in turn, increase a service member’s readiness, deployment availability, and ability to perform unique occupational roles.

Additionally, teledermatology has been increasingly utilized to maintain treatment continuity for patients on isotretinoin during the COVID-19 pandemic.⁵ Application of this technology in the military also may be used to facilitate timely isotretinoin treatment regimens in active-duty service members to minimize course duration and increase readiness.

In this article, we discuss an accelerated course of oral isotretinoin as a safe and effective option for military service members bound by duty restrictions and operational timelines and explore the role of teledermatology for the treatment of acne in military service members.

Isotretinoin for Acne

Isotretinoin typically is initiated at a dosage of 0.5 mg/kg daily, increasing to 1 mg/kg daily with a goal cumulative dose between 120 and 150 mg/kg. Relapse may occur after completing a treatment course and is associated with cumulative dosing less than 120 mg/kg.⁶ The average duration of acne treatment with oral isotretinoin is approximately 6 months.⁷ At therapeutic doses, nearly all patients experience side effects, most commonly dryness and desquamation of the skin and mucous membranes, as well as possible involvement of the lips, eyes, and nose. Notable extracutaneous side effects include headache, visual disturbances at night, idiopathic intracranial hypertension, and myalgia. Serum cholesterol, triglycerides, and transaminases may be increased in patients taking isotretinoin, which requires routine monitoring using serum lipid profiles and liver function studies. A potential association between isotretinoin and inflammatory bowel disease and changes in mood have been reported, but current data do not suggest an evidence-based link.^6,8 Isotretinoin is a potent teratogen, and in the United States, all patients are required to enroll in iPLEDGE, a US Food and Drug Administration–approved pregnancy prevention program that monitors prescribing and dispensing of the medication. For patients who can become pregnant, iPLEDGE requires use of 2 forms of contraception as well as monthly pregnancy tests prior to dispensing the medication.

Acne in Military Service Members

Acne is exceedingly common in the active-duty military population. In 2018, more than 40% of soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines were 25 years or younger, and 75% of all US service members were 35 years or younger, corresponding to acne peak incidences.^1,9 Management of acne in this population requires unique treatment considerations due to distinctive occupational requirements of and hazards faced by military personnel. Use of personal protective equipment, including gas masks, safety restraints, parachute rigging, and flak jackets, may be limiting in individuals with moderate to severe acne.¹⁰ For example, severe nodulocystic acne on the chin and jawline can interfere with proper wear of the chin strap on a Kevlar helmet. The severity of acne often necessitates the use of oral isotretinoin therapy, which is considered disqualifying for many special military assignments, including submarine duty, nuclear field duty, and diving duty.¹¹ In military aviation communities, oral isotretinoin requires grounding for the duration of therapy plus 3 months after cessation. Slit-lamp examination, triglycerides, and transaminase levels must be normal prior to returning to unrestricted duty.¹² Furthermore, use of oral isotretinoin may limit overseas assignments or deployment eligibility.⁴

The high prevalence of acne and the operationally limiting consequences of isotretinoin therapy present a unique challenge for dermatologists treating military personnel. The average duration of isotretinoin treatment is approximately 6 months,⁷ which represents a considerable amount of time during an average 4-year enlistment contract. Therapeutic treatment strategies that (1) reduce the duration of oral isotretinoin therapy, (2) reduce the risk for relapse, and (3) increase medication compliance can reduce the operational impact of this acne treatment. Such treatment strategies are discussed below.

An optimal isotretinoin dosing regimen would achieve swift resolution of acne lesions and reduce the overall relapse rate requiring retrial of isotretinoin, thereby minimizing the operational- and duty-limiting impacts of the medication. Cyrulnik et al¹³ studied treatment outcomes of high-dose isotretinoin for acne vulgaris using a mean dosage of 1.6 mg/kg daily with an average cumulative dosage of 290 mg/kg. They demonstrated 100% clearance of lesions over 6 months, with a 12.5% relapse rate at 3 years. Aside from an increased rate of elevated transaminases, incidence of adverse effects and laboratory abnormalities were not significantly increased compared to conventional dosing regimens.¹³ The goal cumulative dosing of 120 to 150 mg/kg can be achieved 1 to 2 months earlier using a dosage of 1.6 mg/kg daily vs a conventional dosage of 1 mg/kg daily.

It has been hypothesized that higher cumulative doses of oral isotretinoin reduce the risk for relapse of acne and retrial of oral isotretinoin.¹⁴ Blasiak et al¹⁵ studied relapse and retrial of oral isotretinoin in acne patients who received cumulative dosing higher or lower than 220 mg/kg. A clinically but not statistically significant reduced relapse rate was observed in the cohort that received cumulative dosing higher than 220 mg/kg. No statistically significant difference in rates of adverse advents was observed aside from an increase in retinoid dermatitis in the cohort that received cumulative dosing higher than 220 mg/kg. Higher but not statistically significant rates of adverse events were seen in the group that received dosing higher than 220 mg/kg.¹⁵ Cumulative doses of oral isotretinoin higher than the 120 to 150 mg/kg range may decrease the risk for acne relapse and the need for an additional course of oral isotretinoin, which would reduce a service member’s total time away from deployment and full duty.

Relapse requiring a retrial of oral isotretinoin not only increases the operational cost of acne treatment but also considerably increases the monetary cost to the health care system. In a cost-analysis model, cumulative doses of oral isotretinoin higher than 230 mg/kg have a decreased overall cost compared to traditional cumulative dosing of less than 150 mg/kg due to the cost of relapse.¹⁶

Limitations of high daily and cumulative dosing regimens of oral isotretinoin are chiefly the dose-dependent rate of adverse effects. Low-dose regimens are associated with a reduced risk of isotretinoin-related side effects.^6,17 Acute acne flares may be seen following initial administration of oral isotretinoin and are aggravated by increases in dosage.¹⁸ Isotretinoin-induced acne fulminans is a rare but devastating complication observed with high initial doses of oral isotretinoin in patients with severe acne.¹⁹ The risks and benefits of high daily and cumulatively dosed isotretinoin must be carefully considered in patients with severe acne.

Teledermatology: A Force for Readiness

The COVID-19 pandemic drastically changed the dermatology practice landscape with recommendations to cancel all elective outpatient visits in favor of teledermatology encounters.²⁰ This decreased access to care, which resulted in an increase in drug interruption for dermatology patients, including patients on oral isotretinoin.²¹ Teledermatology has been increasingly utilized to maintain continuity of care for the management of patients taking isotretinoin.⁵ Routine utilization of teledermatology evaluation in military practices could expedite care, decrease patient travel time, and allow for in-clinic visits to be utilized for higher-acuity concerns.²²

The use of teledermatology for uncomplicated oral isotretinoin management has the potential to increase medication compliance and decrease the amount of travel time for active-duty service members; for example, consider a military dermatology practice based in San Diego, California, that accepts referrals from military bases 3 hours away by car. After an initial consultation for consideration and initiation of oral isotretinoin, teledermatology appointments can save the active-duty service member 3 hours of travel time for each follow-up visit per month. This ultimately increases operational productivity, reduces barriers to accessing care, and improves patient satisfaction.²³

Although military personnel usually are located at duty stations for 2 to 4 years, training exercises and military vocational schools often temporarily take personnel away from their home station. These temporary-duty assignments have the potential to interrupt medical follow-up appointments and may cause delays in treatment for individuals who miss monthly isotretinoin visits. When deemed appropriate by the prescribing dermatologist, teledermatology allows for increased continuity of care for active-duty service members and maintenance of a therapeutic isotretinoin course despite temporary geographic displacement.

By facilitating regular follow-up appointments, teledermatology can minimize the amount of time an active-duty service member is on a course of oral isotretinoin, thereby reducing the operational and duty-limiting implications of the medication.

Final Thoughts

Acne is a common dermatologic concern within the active-duty military population. Oral isotretinoin is indicated for treatment-resistant moderate or severe acne; however, it limits the ability of service members to deploy and is disqualifying for special military assignments. High daily- and cumulative-dose isotretinoin treatment strategies can reduce the duration of therapy and may be associated with a decrease in acne relapse and the need for retrial. Teledermatology can increase access to care and facilitate the completion of oral isotretinoin courses in a timely manner. These treatment strategies may help mitigate the duty-limiting impact of oral isotretinoin therapy in military service members.

Acne vulgaris is an extremely common dermatologic disease affecting 40 to 50 million individuals in the United States each year, with a prevalence of 85% in adolescents and young adults aged 12 to 24 years. For some patients, the disease may persist well into adulthood, affecting 8% of adults aged 25 and 34 years.¹ Acne negatively impacts patients’ quality of life and productivity, with an estimated direct and indirect cost of over $3 billion per year.²

Oral isotretinoin, a vitamin A derivative, is approved by the US Food and Drug Administration for the treatment of severe nodulocystic acne. Isotretinoin reduces the size and secretions of sebaceous glands, inhibits growth and resulting inflammation of Cutibacterium acnes, and normalizes the differentiation of follicular keratinocytes, resulting in permanent changes in the pathogenesis of acne that may lead to remission.³ The use of oral isotretinoin in the active-duty US Military population may cause service members to be nondeployable or limit their ability to function in special roles (eg, pilot, submariner).⁴ Treatment regimens that minimize the course duration of isotretinoin and reduce the risk for relapse that requires a retrial of isotretinoin may, in turn, increase a service member’s readiness, deployment availability, and ability to perform unique occupational roles.

Additionally, teledermatology has been increasingly utilized to maintain treatment continuity for patients on isotretinoin during the COVID-19 pandemic.⁵ Application of this technology in the military also may be used to facilitate timely isotretinoin treatment regimens in active-duty service members to minimize course duration and increase readiness.

In this article, we discuss an accelerated course of oral isotretinoin as a safe and effective option for military service members bound by duty restrictions and operational timelines and explore the role of teledermatology for the treatment of acne in military service members.

Isotretinoin for Acne

Isotretinoin typically is initiated at a dosage of 0.5 mg/kg daily, increasing to 1 mg/kg daily with a goal cumulative dose between 120 and 150 mg/kg. Relapse may occur after completing a treatment course and is associated with cumulative dosing less than 120 mg/kg.⁶ The average duration of acne treatment with oral isotretinoin is approximately 6 months.⁷ At therapeutic doses, nearly all patients experience side effects, most commonly dryness and desquamation of the skin and mucous membranes, as well as possible involvement of the lips, eyes, and nose. Notable extracutaneous side effects include headache, visual disturbances at night, idiopathic intracranial hypertension, and myalgia. Serum cholesterol, triglycerides, and transaminases may be increased in patients taking isotretinoin, which requires routine monitoring using serum lipid profiles and liver function studies. A potential association between isotretinoin and inflammatory bowel disease and changes in mood have been reported, but current data do not suggest an evidence-based link.^6,8 Isotretinoin is a potent teratogen, and in the United States, all patients are required to enroll in iPLEDGE, a US Food and Drug Administration–approved pregnancy prevention program that monitors prescribing and dispensing of the medication. For patients who can become pregnant, iPLEDGE requires use of 2 forms of contraception as well as monthly pregnancy tests prior to dispensing the medication.

Acne in Military Service Members

Acne is exceedingly common in the active-duty military population. In 2018, more than 40% of soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines were 25 years or younger, and 75% of all US service members were 35 years or younger, corresponding to acne peak incidences.^1,9 Management of acne in this population requires unique treatment considerations due to distinctive occupational requirements of and hazards faced by military personnel. Use of personal protective equipment, including gas masks, safety restraints, parachute rigging, and flak jackets, may be limiting in individuals with moderate to severe acne.¹⁰ For example, severe nodulocystic acne on the chin and jawline can interfere with proper wear of the chin strap on a Kevlar helmet. The severity of acne often necessitates the use of oral isotretinoin therapy, which is considered disqualifying for many special military assignments, including submarine duty, nuclear field duty, and diving duty.¹¹ In military aviation communities, oral isotretinoin requires grounding for the duration of therapy plus 3 months after cessation. Slit-lamp examination, triglycerides, and transaminase levels must be normal prior to returning to unrestricted duty.¹² Furthermore, use of oral isotretinoin may limit overseas assignments or deployment eligibility.⁴

The high prevalence of acne and the operationally limiting consequences of isotretinoin therapy present a unique challenge for dermatologists treating military personnel. The average duration of isotretinoin treatment is approximately 6 months,⁷ which represents a considerable amount of time during an average 4-year enlistment contract. Therapeutic treatment strategies that (1) reduce the duration of oral isotretinoin therapy, (2) reduce the risk for relapse, and (3) increase medication compliance can reduce the operational impact of this acne treatment. Such treatment strategies are discussed below.

An optimal isotretinoin dosing regimen would achieve swift resolution of acne lesions and reduce the overall relapse rate requiring retrial of isotretinoin, thereby minimizing the operational- and duty-limiting impacts of the medication. Cyrulnik et al¹³ studied treatment outcomes of high-dose isotretinoin for acne vulgaris using a mean dosage of 1.6 mg/kg daily with an average cumulative dosage of 290 mg/kg. They demonstrated 100% clearance of lesions over 6 months, with a 12.5% relapse rate at 3 years. Aside from an increased rate of elevated transaminases, incidence of adverse effects and laboratory abnormalities were not significantly increased compared to conventional dosing regimens.¹³ The goal cumulative dosing of 120 to 150 mg/kg can be achieved 1 to 2 months earlier using a dosage of 1.6 mg/kg daily vs a conventional dosage of 1 mg/kg daily.

It has been hypothesized that higher cumulative doses of oral isotretinoin reduce the risk for relapse of acne and retrial of oral isotretinoin.¹⁴ Blasiak et al¹⁵ studied relapse and retrial of oral isotretinoin in acne patients who received cumulative dosing higher or lower than 220 mg/kg. A clinically but not statistically significant reduced relapse rate was observed in the cohort that received cumulative dosing higher than 220 mg/kg. No statistically significant difference in rates of adverse advents was observed aside from an increase in retinoid dermatitis in the cohort that received cumulative dosing higher than 220 mg/kg. Higher but not statistically significant rates of adverse events were seen in the group that received dosing higher than 220 mg/kg.¹⁵ Cumulative doses of oral isotretinoin higher than the 120 to 150 mg/kg range may decrease the risk for acne relapse and the need for an additional course of oral isotretinoin, which would reduce a service member’s total time away from deployment and full duty.

Relapse requiring a retrial of oral isotretinoin not only increases the operational cost of acne treatment but also considerably increases the monetary cost to the health care system. In a cost-analysis model, cumulative doses of oral isotretinoin higher than 230 mg/kg have a decreased overall cost compared to traditional cumulative dosing of less than 150 mg/kg due to the cost of relapse.¹⁶

Limitations of high daily and cumulative dosing regimens of oral isotretinoin are chiefly the dose-dependent rate of adverse effects. Low-dose regimens are associated with a reduced risk of isotretinoin-related side effects.^6,17 Acute acne flares may be seen following initial administration of oral isotretinoin and are aggravated by increases in dosage.¹⁸ Isotretinoin-induced acne fulminans is a rare but devastating complication observed with high initial doses of oral isotretinoin in patients with severe acne.¹⁹ The risks and benefits of high daily and cumulatively dosed isotretinoin must be carefully considered in patients with severe acne.

Teledermatology: A Force for Readiness

The COVID-19 pandemic drastically changed the dermatology practice landscape with recommendations to cancel all elective outpatient visits in favor of teledermatology encounters.²⁰ This decreased access to care, which resulted in an increase in drug interruption for dermatology patients, including patients on oral isotretinoin.²¹ Teledermatology has been increasingly utilized to maintain continuity of care for the management of patients taking isotretinoin.⁵ Routine utilization of teledermatology evaluation in military practices could expedite care, decrease patient travel time, and allow for in-clinic visits to be utilized for higher-acuity concerns.²²

The use of teledermatology for uncomplicated oral isotretinoin management has the potential to increase medication compliance and decrease the amount of travel time for active-duty service members; for example, consider a military dermatology practice based in San Diego, California, that accepts referrals from military bases 3 hours away by car. After an initial consultation for consideration and initiation of oral isotretinoin, teledermatology appointments can save the active-duty service member 3 hours of travel time for each follow-up visit per month. This ultimately increases operational productivity, reduces barriers to accessing care, and improves patient satisfaction.²³

Although military personnel usually are located at duty stations for 2 to 4 years, training exercises and military vocational schools often temporarily take personnel away from their home station. These temporary-duty assignments have the potential to interrupt medical follow-up appointments and may cause delays in treatment for individuals who miss monthly isotretinoin visits. When deemed appropriate by the prescribing dermatologist, teledermatology allows for increased continuity of care for active-duty service members and maintenance of a therapeutic isotretinoin course despite temporary geographic displacement.

By facilitating regular follow-up appointments, teledermatology can minimize the amount of time an active-duty service member is on a course of oral isotretinoin, thereby reducing the operational and duty-limiting implications of the medication.

Final Thoughts

Acne is a common dermatologic concern within the active-duty military population. Oral isotretinoin is indicated for treatment-resistant moderate or severe acne; however, it limits the ability of service members to deploy and is disqualifying for special military assignments. High daily- and cumulative-dose isotretinoin treatment strategies can reduce the duration of therapy and may be associated with a decrease in acne relapse and the need for retrial. Teledermatology can increase access to care and facilitate the completion of oral isotretinoin courses in a timely manner. These treatment strategies may help mitigate the duty-limiting impact of oral isotretinoin therapy in military service members.

Acne vulgaris is an extremely common dermatologic disease affecting 40 to 50 million individuals in the United States each year, with a prevalence of 85% in adolescents and young adults aged 12 to 24 years. For some patients, the disease may persist well into adulthood, affecting 8% of adults aged 25 and 34 years.¹ Acne negatively impacts patients’ quality of life and productivity, with an estimated direct and indirect cost of over $3 billion per year.²

Oral isotretinoin, a vitamin A derivative, is approved by the US Food and Drug Administration for the treatment of severe nodulocystic acne. Isotretinoin reduces the size and secretions of sebaceous glands, inhibits growth and resulting inflammation of Cutibacterium acnes, and normalizes the differentiation of follicular keratinocytes, resulting in permanent changes in the pathogenesis of acne that may lead to remission.³ The use of oral isotretinoin in the active-duty US Military population may cause service members to be nondeployable or limit their ability to function in special roles (eg, pilot, submariner).⁴ Treatment regimens that minimize the course duration of isotretinoin and reduce the risk for relapse that requires a retrial of isotretinoin may, in turn, increase a service member’s readiness, deployment availability, and ability to perform unique occupational roles.

Additionally, teledermatology has been increasingly utilized to maintain treatment continuity for patients on isotretinoin during the COVID-19 pandemic.⁵ Application of this technology in the military also may be used to facilitate timely isotretinoin treatment regimens in active-duty service members to minimize course duration and increase readiness.

In this article, we discuss an accelerated course of oral isotretinoin as a safe and effective option for military service members bound by duty restrictions and operational timelines and explore the role of teledermatology for the treatment of acne in military service members.

Isotretinoin for Acne

Isotretinoin typically is initiated at a dosage of 0.5 mg/kg daily, increasing to 1 mg/kg daily with a goal cumulative dose between 120 and 150 mg/kg. Relapse may occur after completing a treatment course and is associated with cumulative dosing less than 120 mg/kg.⁶ The average duration of acne treatment with oral isotretinoin is approximately 6 months.⁷ At therapeutic doses, nearly all patients experience side effects, most commonly dryness and desquamation of the skin and mucous membranes, as well as possible involvement of the lips, eyes, and nose. Notable extracutaneous side effects include headache, visual disturbances at night, idiopathic intracranial hypertension, and myalgia. Serum cholesterol, triglycerides, and transaminases may be increased in patients taking isotretinoin, which requires routine monitoring using serum lipid profiles and liver function studies. A potential association between isotretinoin and inflammatory bowel disease and changes in mood have been reported, but current data do not suggest an evidence-based link.^6,8 Isotretinoin is a potent teratogen, and in the United States, all patients are required to enroll in iPLEDGE, a US Food and Drug Administration–approved pregnancy prevention program that monitors prescribing and dispensing of the medication. For patients who can become pregnant, iPLEDGE requires use of 2 forms of contraception as well as monthly pregnancy tests prior to dispensing the medication.

Acne in Military Service Members

Acne is exceedingly common in the active-duty military population. In 2018, more than 40% of soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines were 25 years or younger, and 75% of all US service members were 35 years or younger, corresponding to acne peak incidences.^1,9 Management of acne in this population requires unique treatment considerations due to distinctive occupational requirements of and hazards faced by military personnel. Use of personal protective equipment, including gas masks, safety restraints, parachute rigging, and flak jackets, may be limiting in individuals with moderate to severe acne.¹⁰ For example, severe nodulocystic acne on the chin and jawline can interfere with proper wear of the chin strap on a Kevlar helmet. The severity of acne often necessitates the use of oral isotretinoin therapy, which is considered disqualifying for many special military assignments, including submarine duty, nuclear field duty, and diving duty.¹¹ In military aviation communities, oral isotretinoin requires grounding for the duration of therapy plus 3 months after cessation. Slit-lamp examination, triglycerides, and transaminase levels must be normal prior to returning to unrestricted duty.¹² Furthermore, use of oral isotretinoin may limit overseas assignments or deployment eligibility.⁴

The high prevalence of acne and the operationally limiting consequences of isotretinoin therapy present a unique challenge for dermatologists treating military personnel. The average duration of isotretinoin treatment is approximately 6 months,⁷ which represents a considerable amount of time during an average 4-year enlistment contract. Therapeutic treatment strategies that (1) reduce the duration of oral isotretinoin therapy, (2) reduce the risk for relapse, and (3) increase medication compliance can reduce the operational impact of this acne treatment. Such treatment strategies are discussed below.

An optimal isotretinoin dosing regimen would achieve swift resolution of acne lesions and reduce the overall relapse rate requiring retrial of isotretinoin, thereby minimizing the operational- and duty-limiting impacts of the medication. Cyrulnik et al¹³ studied treatment outcomes of high-dose isotretinoin for acne vulgaris using a mean dosage of 1.6 mg/kg daily with an average cumulative dosage of 290 mg/kg. They demonstrated 100% clearance of lesions over 6 months, with a 12.5% relapse rate at 3 years. Aside from an increased rate of elevated transaminases, incidence of adverse effects and laboratory abnormalities were not significantly increased compared to conventional dosing regimens.¹³ The goal cumulative dosing of 120 to 150 mg/kg can be achieved 1 to 2 months earlier using a dosage of 1.6 mg/kg daily vs a conventional dosage of 1 mg/kg daily.

It has been hypothesized that higher cumulative doses of oral isotretinoin reduce the risk for relapse of acne and retrial of oral isotretinoin.¹⁴ Blasiak et al¹⁵ studied relapse and retrial of oral isotretinoin in acne patients who received cumulative dosing higher or lower than 220 mg/kg. A clinically but not statistically significant reduced relapse rate was observed in the cohort that received cumulative dosing higher than 220 mg/kg. No statistically significant difference in rates of adverse advents was observed aside from an increase in retinoid dermatitis in the cohort that received cumulative dosing higher than 220 mg/kg. Higher but not statistically significant rates of adverse events were seen in the group that received dosing higher than 220 mg/kg.¹⁵ Cumulative doses of oral isotretinoin higher than the 120 to 150 mg/kg range may decrease the risk for acne relapse and the need for an additional course of oral isotretinoin, which would reduce a service member’s total time away from deployment and full duty.

Relapse requiring a retrial of oral isotretinoin not only increases the operational cost of acne treatment but also considerably increases the monetary cost to the health care system. In a cost-analysis model, cumulative doses of oral isotretinoin higher than 230 mg/kg have a decreased overall cost compared to traditional cumulative dosing of less than 150 mg/kg due to the cost of relapse.¹⁶

Limitations of high daily and cumulative dosing regimens of oral isotretinoin are chiefly the dose-dependent rate of adverse effects. Low-dose regimens are associated with a reduced risk of isotretinoin-related side effects.^6,17 Acute acne flares may be seen following initial administration of oral isotretinoin and are aggravated by increases in dosage.¹⁸ Isotretinoin-induced acne fulminans is a rare but devastating complication observed with high initial doses of oral isotretinoin in patients with severe acne.¹⁹ The risks and benefits of high daily and cumulatively dosed isotretinoin must be carefully considered in patients with severe acne.

Teledermatology: A Force for Readiness

The COVID-19 pandemic drastically changed the dermatology practice landscape with recommendations to cancel all elective outpatient visits in favor of teledermatology encounters.²⁰ This decreased access to care, which resulted in an increase in drug interruption for dermatology patients, including patients on oral isotretinoin.²¹ Teledermatology has been increasingly utilized to maintain continuity of care for the management of patients taking isotretinoin.⁵ Routine utilization of teledermatology evaluation in military practices could expedite care, decrease patient travel time, and allow for in-clinic visits to be utilized for higher-acuity concerns.²²

The use of teledermatology for uncomplicated oral isotretinoin management has the potential to increase medication compliance and decrease the amount of travel time for active-duty service members; for example, consider a military dermatology practice based in San Diego, California, that accepts referrals from military bases 3 hours away by car. After an initial consultation for consideration and initiation of oral isotretinoin, teledermatology appointments can save the active-duty service member 3 hours of travel time for each follow-up visit per month. This ultimately increases operational productivity, reduces barriers to accessing care, and improves patient satisfaction.²³

Although military personnel usually are located at duty stations for 2 to 4 years, training exercises and military vocational schools often temporarily take personnel away from their home station. These temporary-duty assignments have the potential to interrupt medical follow-up appointments and may cause delays in treatment for individuals who miss monthly isotretinoin visits. When deemed appropriate by the prescribing dermatologist, teledermatology allows for increased continuity of care for active-duty service members and maintenance of a therapeutic isotretinoin course despite temporary geographic displacement.

By facilitating regular follow-up appointments, teledermatology can minimize the amount of time an active-duty service member is on a course of oral isotretinoin, thereby reducing the operational and duty-limiting implications of the medication.

Final Thoughts

Acne is a common dermatologic concern within the active-duty military population. Oral isotretinoin is indicated for treatment-resistant moderate or severe acne; however, it limits the ability of service members to deploy and is disqualifying for special military assignments. High daily- and cumulative-dose isotretinoin treatment strategies can reduce the duration of therapy and may be associated with a decrease in acne relapse and the need for retrial. Teledermatology can increase access to care and facilitate the completion of oral isotretinoin courses in a timely manner. These treatment strategies may help mitigate the duty-limiting impact of oral isotretinoin therapy in military service members.

Right now, more than 106,600 people in the United States are on the national transplant waiting list, each hoping to hear soon that a lung, kidney, heart, or other vital organ has been found for them. It’s the promise not just of a new organ, but a new life.

Well before they are placed on that list, transplant candidates, as they’re known, are evaluated with a battery of tests and exams to be sure they are infection free, their other organs are healthy, and that all their vaccinations are up to date.

Now, COVID vaccinations – and some people’s resistance to them – have turned what used to be routine preparation controversial.

In January, a 31-year-old Boston father of two declined to get the COVID-19 vaccine, and Brigham and Women’s Hospital officials removed him from the heart transplant waiting list. And in North Carolina, a 38-year-old man in need of a kidney transplant said he, too, was denied the organ when he declined to get the vaccination.

Those are just two of the most recent cases. The decisions by the transplant centers to remove the candidates from the waiting list have set off a national debate among ethicists, family members, doctors, patients, and others.

On social media and in conversation, the question persists: Is removing them from the list unfair and cruel, or simply business as usual to keep the patient as healthy as possible and the transplant as successful as possible?

Two recent tweets sum up the debate.

“The people responsible for this should be charged with attempted homicide,” one Twitter user said, while another suggested that the more accurate way to headline the news about a transplant candidate refusing the COVID-19 vaccine would be: “Patient voluntarily forfeits donor organ.”

Doctors and ethics experts, as well as other patients on the waiting list, say it’s simply good medicine to require the COVID vaccine, along with a host of other pretransplant requirements.
 

Transplant protocols

“Transplant medicine has always been a strong promoter of vaccination,” said Silas Prescod Norman, MD, a clinical associate professor of nephrology and internal medicine at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. He is a kidney specialist who works in the university’s transplant clinic.

Requiring the COVID vaccine is in line with requirements to get numerous other vaccines, he said.“Promoting the COVID vaccine among our transplant candidates and recipients is just an extension of our usual practice.

“In transplantation, first and foremost is patient safety,” Dr. Norman said. “And we know that solid organ transplant patients are at substantially higher risk of contracting COVID than nontransplant patients.”

After the transplant, they are placed on immunosuppressant drugs, that weaken the immune system while also decreasing the body’s ability to reject the new organ.

“We know now, because there is good data about the vaccine to show that people who are on transplant medications are less likely to make detectable antibodies after vaccination,” said Dr. Norman, who’s also a medical adviser for the American Kidney Fund, a nonprofit that provides kidney health information and financial assistance for dialysis.

And this is not a surprise because of the immunosuppressive effects, he said. “So it only makes sense to get people vaccinated before transplantation.”

Researchers compared the cases of more than 17,000 people who had received organ transplants and were hospitalized from April to November 2020, either for COVID (1,682 of them) or other health issues. Those who had COVID were more likely to have complications and to die in the hospital than those who did not have it.
 

Vaccination guidelines, policies

Federal COVID-19 treatment guidelines from the National Institutes of Health state that transplant patients on immunosuppressant drugs used after the procedure should be considered at a higher risk of getting severe COVID if infected.

In a joint statement from the American Society of Transplant Surgeons, the American Society of Transplantation, and the International Society for Heart and Lung Transplantation, the organizations say they “strongly recommend that all eligible children and adult transplant candidates and recipients be vaccinated with a COVID-19 vaccine [and booster] that is approved or authorized in their jurisdiction. Whenever possible, vaccination should occur prior to transplantation.” Ideally, it should be completed at least 2 weeks before the transplant.

The organizations also “support the development of institutional policies regarding pretransplant vaccination. We believe that this is in the best interest of the transplant candidate, optimizing their chances of getting through the perioperative and posttransplant periods without severe COVID-19 disease, especially at times of greater infection prevalence.”

Officials at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, where the 31-year-old father was removed from the list, issued a statement that reads, in part: “Our Mass General Brigham health care system requires several [Centers for Disease Control and Prevention]-recommended vaccines, including the COVID-19 vaccine, and lifestyle behaviors for transplant candidates to create both the best chance for a successful operation and to optimize the patient’s survival after transplantation, given that their immune system is drastically suppressed. Patients are not active on the wait list without this.”
 

Ethics amid organ shortage

“Organs are scarce,” said Arthur L. Caplan, PhD, director of the division of medical ethics at New York University Langone Medical Center. That makes the goal of choosing the very best candidates for success even more crucial.

“You try to maximize the chance the organ will work,” he said. Pretransplant vaccination is one way.

The shortage is most severe for kidney transplants. In 2020, according to federal statistics, more than 91,000 kidney transplants were needed, but fewer than 23,000 were received. During 2021, 41,354 transplants were done, an increase of nearly 6% over the previous year. The total includes kidneys, hearts, lungs, and other organs, with kidneys accounting for more than 24,000 of the total.

Even with the rise in transplant numbers, supply does not meet demand. According to federal statistics, 17 people in the United States die each day waiting for an organ transplant. Every 9 minutes, someone is added to the waiting list.

“This isn’t and it shouldn’t be a fight about the COVID vaccine,” Dr. Caplan said. “This isn’t an issue about punishing non-COVID vaccinators. It’s deciding who is going to get a scarce organ.”

“A lot of people [opposed to removing the nonvaccinated from the list] think: ‘Oh, they are just killing those people who won’t take a COVID vaccine.’ That’s not what is going on.”

The transplant candidate must be in the best possible shape overall, Dr. Caplan and doctors agreed. Someone who is smoking, drinking heavily, or abusing drugs isn’t going to the top of the list either. And for other procedures, such as bariatric surgery or knee surgery, some patients are told first to lose weight before a surgeon will operate.

The worry about side effects from the vaccine, which some patients have cited as a concern, is misplaced, Dr. Caplan said. What transplant candidates who refuse the COVID vaccine may not be thinking about is that they are facing a serious operation and will be on numerous anti-rejection drugs, with side effects, after the surgery.

“So to be worried about the side effects of a COVID vaccine is irrational,” he said.
 

Transplants: The process

The patients who were recently removed from the transplant list could seek care and a transplant at an alternate center, said Anne Paschke, a spokesperson for the United Network for Organ Sharing, a nonprofit group that is under contract with the federal government and operates the national Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network (OPTN).

“Transplant hospitals decide which patients to add to the wait list based on their own criteria and medical judgment to create the best chance for a positive transplant outcome,” she said. That’s done with the understanding that patients will help with their medical care.

So, if one program won’t accept a patient, another may. But, if a patient turned down at one center due to refusing to get the COVID vaccine tries another center, the requirements at that hospital may be the same, she said.

OPTN maintains a list of transplant centers. As of Jan. 28, there were 251 transplant centers, according to UNOS, which manages the waiting list, matches donors and recipients, and strives for equity, among other duties.
 

Pretransplant refusers not typical

“The cases we are seeing are outliers,” Dr. Caplan said of the handful of known candidates who have refused the vaccine. Most ask their doctor exactly what they need to do to live and follow those instructions.

Dr. Norman agreed. Most of the kidney patients he cares for who are hoping for a transplant have been on dialysis, “which they do not like. They are doing whatever they can to make sure they don’t go back on dialysis. As a group, they tend to be very adherent, very safety conscious because they understand their risk and they understand the gift they have received [or will receive] through transplantation. They want to do everything they can to respect and protect that gift.”

Not surprisingly, some on the transplant list who are vaccinated have strong opinions about those who refuse to get the vaccine. Dana J. Ufkes, 61, a Seattle realtor, has been on the kidney transplant list – this time – since 2003, hoping for her third transplant. When asked if potential recipients should be removed from the list if they refuse the COVID vaccine, her answer was immediate: “Absolutely.”

At age 17, Ms. Ufkes got a serious kidney infection that went undiagnosed and untreated. Her kidney health worsened, and she needed a transplant. She got her first one in 1986, then again in 1992.

“They last longer than they used to,” she said. But not forever. (According to the American Kidney Fund, transplants from a living kidney donor last about 15-20 years; from a deceased donor, 10-15.)

The decision to decline the vaccine is, of course, each person’s choice, Ms. Ufkes said. But “if they don’t want to be vaccinated [and still want to be on the list], I think that’s BS.”

Citing the lack of organs, “it’s not like they are handing these out like jellybeans.”

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

Right now, more than 106,600 people in the United States are on the national transplant waiting list, each hoping to hear soon that a lung, kidney, heart, or other vital organ has been found for them. It’s the promise not just of a new organ, but a new life.

Well before they are placed on that list, transplant candidates, as they’re known, are evaluated with a battery of tests and exams to be sure they are infection free, their other organs are healthy, and that all their vaccinations are up to date.

Now, COVID vaccinations – and some people’s resistance to them – have turned what used to be routine preparation controversial.

In January, a 31-year-old Boston father of two declined to get the COVID-19 vaccine, and Brigham and Women’s Hospital officials removed him from the heart transplant waiting list. And in North Carolina, a 38-year-old man in need of a kidney transplant said he, too, was denied the organ when he declined to get the vaccination.

Those are just two of the most recent cases. The decisions by the transplant centers to remove the candidates from the waiting list have set off a national debate among ethicists, family members, doctors, patients, and others.

On social media and in conversation, the question persists: Is removing them from the list unfair and cruel, or simply business as usual to keep the patient as healthy as possible and the transplant as successful as possible?

Two recent tweets sum up the debate.

“The people responsible for this should be charged with attempted homicide,” one Twitter user said, while another suggested that the more accurate way to headline the news about a transplant candidate refusing the COVID-19 vaccine would be: “Patient voluntarily forfeits donor organ.”

Doctors and ethics experts, as well as other patients on the waiting list, say it’s simply good medicine to require the COVID vaccine, along with a host of other pretransplant requirements.
 

Transplant protocols

“Transplant medicine has always been a strong promoter of vaccination,” said Silas Prescod Norman, MD, a clinical associate professor of nephrology and internal medicine at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. He is a kidney specialist who works in the university’s transplant clinic.

Requiring the COVID vaccine is in line with requirements to get numerous other vaccines, he said.“Promoting the COVID vaccine among our transplant candidates and recipients is just an extension of our usual practice.

“In transplantation, first and foremost is patient safety,” Dr. Norman said. “And we know that solid organ transplant patients are at substantially higher risk of contracting COVID than nontransplant patients.”

After the transplant, they are placed on immunosuppressant drugs, that weaken the immune system while also decreasing the body’s ability to reject the new organ.

“We know now, because there is good data about the vaccine to show that people who are on transplant medications are less likely to make detectable antibodies after vaccination,” said Dr. Norman, who’s also a medical adviser for the American Kidney Fund, a nonprofit that provides kidney health information and financial assistance for dialysis.

And this is not a surprise because of the immunosuppressive effects, he said. “So it only makes sense to get people vaccinated before transplantation.”

Researchers compared the cases of more than 17,000 people who had received organ transplants and were hospitalized from April to November 2020, either for COVID (1,682 of them) or other health issues. Those who had COVID were more likely to have complications and to die in the hospital than those who did not have it.
 

Vaccination guidelines, policies

Federal COVID-19 treatment guidelines from the National Institutes of Health state that transplant patients on immunosuppressant drugs used after the procedure should be considered at a higher risk of getting severe COVID if infected.

In a joint statement from the American Society of Transplant Surgeons, the American Society of Transplantation, and the International Society for Heart and Lung Transplantation, the organizations say they “strongly recommend that all eligible children and adult transplant candidates and recipients be vaccinated with a COVID-19 vaccine [and booster] that is approved or authorized in their jurisdiction. Whenever possible, vaccination should occur prior to transplantation.” Ideally, it should be completed at least 2 weeks before the transplant.

The organizations also “support the development of institutional policies regarding pretransplant vaccination. We believe that this is in the best interest of the transplant candidate, optimizing their chances of getting through the perioperative and posttransplant periods without severe COVID-19 disease, especially at times of greater infection prevalence.”

Officials at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, where the 31-year-old father was removed from the list, issued a statement that reads, in part: “Our Mass General Brigham health care system requires several [Centers for Disease Control and Prevention]-recommended vaccines, including the COVID-19 vaccine, and lifestyle behaviors for transplant candidates to create both the best chance for a successful operation and to optimize the patient’s survival after transplantation, given that their immune system is drastically suppressed. Patients are not active on the wait list without this.”
 

Ethics amid organ shortage

“Organs are scarce,” said Arthur L. Caplan, PhD, director of the division of medical ethics at New York University Langone Medical Center. That makes the goal of choosing the very best candidates for success even more crucial.

“You try to maximize the chance the organ will work,” he said. Pretransplant vaccination is one way.

The shortage is most severe for kidney transplants. In 2020, according to federal statistics, more than 91,000 kidney transplants were needed, but fewer than 23,000 were received. During 2021, 41,354 transplants were done, an increase of nearly 6% over the previous year. The total includes kidneys, hearts, lungs, and other organs, with kidneys accounting for more than 24,000 of the total.

Even with the rise in transplant numbers, supply does not meet demand. According to federal statistics, 17 people in the United States die each day waiting for an organ transplant. Every 9 minutes, someone is added to the waiting list.

“This isn’t and it shouldn’t be a fight about the COVID vaccine,” Dr. Caplan said. “This isn’t an issue about punishing non-COVID vaccinators. It’s deciding who is going to get a scarce organ.”

“A lot of people [opposed to removing the nonvaccinated from the list] think: ‘Oh, they are just killing those people who won’t take a COVID vaccine.’ That’s not what is going on.”

The transplant candidate must be in the best possible shape overall, Dr. Caplan and doctors agreed. Someone who is smoking, drinking heavily, or abusing drugs isn’t going to the top of the list either. And for other procedures, such as bariatric surgery or knee surgery, some patients are told first to lose weight before a surgeon will operate.

The worry about side effects from the vaccine, which some patients have cited as a concern, is misplaced, Dr. Caplan said. What transplant candidates who refuse the COVID vaccine may not be thinking about is that they are facing a serious operation and will be on numerous anti-rejection drugs, with side effects, after the surgery.

“So to be worried about the side effects of a COVID vaccine is irrational,” he said.
 

Transplants: The process

The patients who were recently removed from the transplant list could seek care and a transplant at an alternate center, said Anne Paschke, a spokesperson for the United Network for Organ Sharing, a nonprofit group that is under contract with the federal government and operates the national Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network (OPTN).

“Transplant hospitals decide which patients to add to the wait list based on their own criteria and medical judgment to create the best chance for a positive transplant outcome,” she said. That’s done with the understanding that patients will help with their medical care.

So, if one program won’t accept a patient, another may. But, if a patient turned down at one center due to refusing to get the COVID vaccine tries another center, the requirements at that hospital may be the same, she said.

OPTN maintains a list of transplant centers. As of Jan. 28, there were 251 transplant centers, according to UNOS, which manages the waiting list, matches donors and recipients, and strives for equity, among other duties.
 

Pretransplant refusers not typical

“The cases we are seeing are outliers,” Dr. Caplan said of the handful of known candidates who have refused the vaccine. Most ask their doctor exactly what they need to do to live and follow those instructions.

Dr. Norman agreed. Most of the kidney patients he cares for who are hoping for a transplant have been on dialysis, “which they do not like. They are doing whatever they can to make sure they don’t go back on dialysis. As a group, they tend to be very adherent, very safety conscious because they understand their risk and they understand the gift they have received [or will receive] through transplantation. They want to do everything they can to respect and protect that gift.”

Not surprisingly, some on the transplant list who are vaccinated have strong opinions about those who refuse to get the vaccine. Dana J. Ufkes, 61, a Seattle realtor, has been on the kidney transplant list – this time – since 2003, hoping for her third transplant. When asked if potential recipients should be removed from the list if they refuse the COVID vaccine, her answer was immediate: “Absolutely.”

At age 17, Ms. Ufkes got a serious kidney infection that went undiagnosed and untreated. Her kidney health worsened, and she needed a transplant. She got her first one in 1986, then again in 1992.

“They last longer than they used to,” she said. But not forever. (According to the American Kidney Fund, transplants from a living kidney donor last about 15-20 years; from a deceased donor, 10-15.)

The decision to decline the vaccine is, of course, each person’s choice, Ms. Ufkes said. But “if they don’t want to be vaccinated [and still want to be on the list], I think that’s BS.”

Citing the lack of organs, “it’s not like they are handing these out like jellybeans.”

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

Right now, more than 106,600 people in the United States are on the national transplant waiting list, each hoping to hear soon that a lung, kidney, heart, or other vital organ has been found for them. It’s the promise not just of a new organ, but a new life.

Well before they are placed on that list, transplant candidates, as they’re known, are evaluated with a battery of tests and exams to be sure they are infection free, their other organs are healthy, and that all their vaccinations are up to date.

Now, COVID vaccinations – and some people’s resistance to them – have turned what used to be routine preparation controversial.

In January, a 31-year-old Boston father of two declined to get the COVID-19 vaccine, and Brigham and Women’s Hospital officials removed him from the heart transplant waiting list. And in North Carolina, a 38-year-old man in need of a kidney transplant said he, too, was denied the organ when he declined to get the vaccination.

Those are just two of the most recent cases. The decisions by the transplant centers to remove the candidates from the waiting list have set off a national debate among ethicists, family members, doctors, patients, and others.

On social media and in conversation, the question persists: Is removing them from the list unfair and cruel, or simply business as usual to keep the patient as healthy as possible and the transplant as successful as possible?

Two recent tweets sum up the debate.

“The people responsible for this should be charged with attempted homicide,” one Twitter user said, while another suggested that the more accurate way to headline the news about a transplant candidate refusing the COVID-19 vaccine would be: “Patient voluntarily forfeits donor organ.”

Doctors and ethics experts, as well as other patients on the waiting list, say it’s simply good medicine to require the COVID vaccine, along with a host of other pretransplant requirements.
 

Transplant protocols

“Transplant medicine has always been a strong promoter of vaccination,” said Silas Prescod Norman, MD, a clinical associate professor of nephrology and internal medicine at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. He is a kidney specialist who works in the university’s transplant clinic.

Requiring the COVID vaccine is in line with requirements to get numerous other vaccines, he said.“Promoting the COVID vaccine among our transplant candidates and recipients is just an extension of our usual practice.

“In transplantation, first and foremost is patient safety,” Dr. Norman said. “And we know that solid organ transplant patients are at substantially higher risk of contracting COVID than nontransplant patients.”

After the transplant, they are placed on immunosuppressant drugs, that weaken the immune system while also decreasing the body’s ability to reject the new organ.

“We know now, because there is good data about the vaccine to show that people who are on transplant medications are less likely to make detectable antibodies after vaccination,” said Dr. Norman, who’s also a medical adviser for the American Kidney Fund, a nonprofit that provides kidney health information and financial assistance for dialysis.

And this is not a surprise because of the immunosuppressive effects, he said. “So it only makes sense to get people vaccinated before transplantation.”

Researchers compared the cases of more than 17,000 people who had received organ transplants and were hospitalized from April to November 2020, either for COVID (1,682 of them) or other health issues. Those who had COVID were more likely to have complications and to die in the hospital than those who did not have it.
 

Vaccination guidelines, policies

Federal COVID-19 treatment guidelines from the National Institutes of Health state that transplant patients on immunosuppressant drugs used after the procedure should be considered at a higher risk of getting severe COVID if infected.

In a joint statement from the American Society of Transplant Surgeons, the American Society of Transplantation, and the International Society for Heart and Lung Transplantation, the organizations say they “strongly recommend that all eligible children and adult transplant candidates and recipients be vaccinated with a COVID-19 vaccine [and booster] that is approved or authorized in their jurisdiction. Whenever possible, vaccination should occur prior to transplantation.” Ideally, it should be completed at least 2 weeks before the transplant.

The organizations also “support the development of institutional policies regarding pretransplant vaccination. We believe that this is in the best interest of the transplant candidate, optimizing their chances of getting through the perioperative and posttransplant periods without severe COVID-19 disease, especially at times of greater infection prevalence.”

Officials at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, where the 31-year-old father was removed from the list, issued a statement that reads, in part: “Our Mass General Brigham health care system requires several [Centers for Disease Control and Prevention]-recommended vaccines, including the COVID-19 vaccine, and lifestyle behaviors for transplant candidates to create both the best chance for a successful operation and to optimize the patient’s survival after transplantation, given that their immune system is drastically suppressed. Patients are not active on the wait list without this.”
 

Ethics amid organ shortage

“Organs are scarce,” said Arthur L. Caplan, PhD, director of the division of medical ethics at New York University Langone Medical Center. That makes the goal of choosing the very best candidates for success even more crucial.

“You try to maximize the chance the organ will work,” he said. Pretransplant vaccination is one way.

The shortage is most severe for kidney transplants. In 2020, according to federal statistics, more than 91,000 kidney transplants were needed, but fewer than 23,000 were received. During 2021, 41,354 transplants were done, an increase of nearly 6% over the previous year. The total includes kidneys, hearts, lungs, and other organs, with kidneys accounting for more than 24,000 of the total.

Even with the rise in transplant numbers, supply does not meet demand. According to federal statistics, 17 people in the United States die each day waiting for an organ transplant. Every 9 minutes, someone is added to the waiting list.

“This isn’t and it shouldn’t be a fight about the COVID vaccine,” Dr. Caplan said. “This isn’t an issue about punishing non-COVID vaccinators. It’s deciding who is going to get a scarce organ.”

“A lot of people [opposed to removing the nonvaccinated from the list] think: ‘Oh, they are just killing those people who won’t take a COVID vaccine.’ That’s not what is going on.”

The transplant candidate must be in the best possible shape overall, Dr. Caplan and doctors agreed. Someone who is smoking, drinking heavily, or abusing drugs isn’t going to the top of the list either. And for other procedures, such as bariatric surgery or knee surgery, some patients are told first to lose weight before a surgeon will operate.

The worry about side effects from the vaccine, which some patients have cited as a concern, is misplaced, Dr. Caplan said. What transplant candidates who refuse the COVID vaccine may not be thinking about is that they are facing a serious operation and will be on numerous anti-rejection drugs, with side effects, after the surgery.

“So to be worried about the side effects of a COVID vaccine is irrational,” he said.
 

Transplants: The process

The patients who were recently removed from the transplant list could seek care and a transplant at an alternate center, said Anne Paschke, a spokesperson for the United Network for Organ Sharing, a nonprofit group that is under contract with the federal government and operates the national Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network (OPTN).

“Transplant hospitals decide which patients to add to the wait list based on their own criteria and medical judgment to create the best chance for a positive transplant outcome,” she said. That’s done with the understanding that patients will help with their medical care.

So, if one program won’t accept a patient, another may. But, if a patient turned down at one center due to refusing to get the COVID vaccine tries another center, the requirements at that hospital may be the same, she said.

OPTN maintains a list of transplant centers. As of Jan. 28, there were 251 transplant centers, according to UNOS, which manages the waiting list, matches donors and recipients, and strives for equity, among other duties.
 

Pretransplant refusers not typical

“The cases we are seeing are outliers,” Dr. Caplan said of the handful of known candidates who have refused the vaccine. Most ask their doctor exactly what they need to do to live and follow those instructions.

Dr. Norman agreed. Most of the kidney patients he cares for who are hoping for a transplant have been on dialysis, “which they do not like. They are doing whatever they can to make sure they don’t go back on dialysis. As a group, they tend to be very adherent, very safety conscious because they understand their risk and they understand the gift they have received [or will receive] through transplantation. They want to do everything they can to respect and protect that gift.”

Not surprisingly, some on the transplant list who are vaccinated have strong opinions about those who refuse to get the vaccine. Dana J. Ufkes, 61, a Seattle realtor, has been on the kidney transplant list – this time – since 2003, hoping for her third transplant. When asked if potential recipients should be removed from the list if they refuse the COVID vaccine, her answer was immediate: “Absolutely.”

At age 17, Ms. Ufkes got a serious kidney infection that went undiagnosed and untreated. Her kidney health worsened, and she needed a transplant. She got her first one in 1986, then again in 1992.

“They last longer than they used to,” she said. But not forever. (According to the American Kidney Fund, transplants from a living kidney donor last about 15-20 years; from a deceased donor, 10-15.)

The decision to decline the vaccine is, of course, each person’s choice, Ms. Ufkes said. But “if they don’t want to be vaccinated [and still want to be on the list], I think that’s BS.”

Citing the lack of organs, “it’s not like they are handing these out like jellybeans.”

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

As rheumatologists contend with vaccine hesitancy among certain subsets of patients, the American College of Rheumatology has released updated clinical guidelines on COVID-19 vaccination for patients with rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases (RMDs), including new recommendations on supplemental and booster doses.

The revised guidance from this fifth version of the ACR guidelines includes strongly recommending that all RMD patients receive a booster after their primary vaccine series, regardless of whether they have been naturally infected with COVID-19. In addition, they strongly recommend third supplemental doses for patients with autoimmune inflammatory rheumatic diseases (AIIRDs) who likely mounted an inadequate vaccine response, which would then be followed by a fourth booster dose as advised by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention for immunocompromised individuals.

South_agency/Getty Images

Other recommendations include pre-exposure prophylaxis monoclonal antibody treatment for high-risk AIIRD patients, defined as those with moderate to severely compromised immune systems who may not mount an adequate immune response to COVID-19 vaccination, when it is available and authorized for emergency use by the Food and Drug Administration, as well as monoclonal antibody therapy for postexposure prophylaxis of asymptomatic, recently exposed high-risk AIIRD patients or as treatment for newly symptomatic, high-risk AIIRD patients. The ACR guidance notes that, currently, neither the monoclonal antibodies bamlanivimab and etesevimab (administered together) nor casirivimab and imdevimab (REGEN-COV), are licensed or available under an emergency use authorization given their lack of activity against the Omicron variant, the dominant strain of SARS-CoV-2 circulating in the United States.

Finally, the guidance clarified that the timing of intravenous immunoglobulin doses does not need to be modified around the administration of COVID vaccine doses, based on moderate consensus among task force members.

Vaccine hesitancy in community rheumatology practices

The revised guidelines were released just as Arthritis & Rheumatology published a new study that assessed vaccine hesitancy among rheumatology patients on immunomodulatory therapies. A three-item electronic survey was conducted at 101 offices within a community practice–based rheumatology research network and ultimately collected responses from 58,529 patients, 20,987 of whom had an AIIRD and were receiving targeted therapies like biologics or Janus kinase inhibitors.

Of the total respondents, 77% (n = 43,675) had been vaccinated, 16.9% were not vaccinated and did not plan to be, and 6.1% were not vaccinated but planned to be. However, AIIRD patients were 16% less likely to be vaccinated, compared with the other patients, such as those with osteoarthritis or osteoporosis who were not receiving disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (76.9% vs. 87%; odds ratio, 0.84; 95% confidence interval, 0.77-0.92; P < .001). Multivariable analysis also found that older patients (OR, 1.49 per 10 years) and Asians (OR, 2.42; 95% CI, 1.77-3.33) were more likely to be vaccinated.

Courtesy UAB Photo

“Rheumatologists need to be asking their patients more than just: ‘Are you vaccinated?’ ” Jeffrey Curtis, MD, MPH, head of the ACR COVID-19 vaccine task force and a coauthor of the vaccine hesitancy study, said in an interview. “A year ago, that was a fine approach, but now they need to be asking whether you’ve been vaccinated, and with what, and how many times, and how recently. There are a whole lot of subtleties there; ‘vaccinated: yes or no’ is just the tip of the iceberg.”

His research into the vaccine hesitant includes recent anecdotal data from thousands of patients treated in local rheumatology community practices, many of whom cited long-term safety data and potential side effects as reasons why they were unwilling to get vaccinated. But despite their on-paper responses, he cautioned rheumatologists to think critically when determining which patients may truly be open to vaccination.

“If you’re designing strategies to affect vaccine hesitancy, you may be wasting your time with some people,” said Dr. Curtis, professor of medicine at the University of Alabama at Birmingham. “A critical need is to figure out who are the patients who may be amendable to more information or an intervention or a little bit more time and care, and who are the people where you know, this is a lost cause: You don’t get a flu shot, you haven’t been vaccinated for shingles, [and] you’re not going to get this one either.

“In terms of a research agenda, how do we develop efficient, simple, short screening tools?” he added. “Something with a few helpful questions, on a patient portal or an iPad, that will do a good job identifying your patients at risk who haven’t had vaccination but that you might be able to spend time with, intervene, and actually change their mind. If you spend gobs of time with everyone, you’ll help some people, but clinicians don’t have an infinite amount of time.”

One of the authors of the vaccine hesitancy study acknowledged being employed by the rheumatology research network that hosted the survey. Several others, including Dr. Curtis, reported receiving grants and consulting fees from various pharmaceutical companies.

As rheumatologists contend with vaccine hesitancy among certain subsets of patients, the American College of Rheumatology has released updated clinical guidelines on COVID-19 vaccination for patients with rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases (RMDs), including new recommendations on supplemental and booster doses.

The revised guidance from this fifth version of the ACR guidelines includes strongly recommending that all RMD patients receive a booster after their primary vaccine series, regardless of whether they have been naturally infected with COVID-19. In addition, they strongly recommend third supplemental doses for patients with autoimmune inflammatory rheumatic diseases (AIIRDs) who likely mounted an inadequate vaccine response, which would then be followed by a fourth booster dose as advised by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention for immunocompromised individuals.

South_agency/Getty Images

Other recommendations include pre-exposure prophylaxis monoclonal antibody treatment for high-risk AIIRD patients, defined as those with moderate to severely compromised immune systems who may not mount an adequate immune response to COVID-19 vaccination, when it is available and authorized for emergency use by the Food and Drug Administration, as well as monoclonal antibody therapy for postexposure prophylaxis of asymptomatic, recently exposed high-risk AIIRD patients or as treatment for newly symptomatic, high-risk AIIRD patients. The ACR guidance notes that, currently, neither the monoclonal antibodies bamlanivimab and etesevimab (administered together) nor casirivimab and imdevimab (REGEN-COV), are licensed or available under an emergency use authorization given their lack of activity against the Omicron variant, the dominant strain of SARS-CoV-2 circulating in the United States.

Finally, the guidance clarified that the timing of intravenous immunoglobulin doses does not need to be modified around the administration of COVID vaccine doses, based on moderate consensus among task force members.

Vaccine hesitancy in community rheumatology practices

The revised guidelines were released just as Arthritis & Rheumatology published a new study that assessed vaccine hesitancy among rheumatology patients on immunomodulatory therapies. A three-item electronic survey was conducted at 101 offices within a community practice–based rheumatology research network and ultimately collected responses from 58,529 patients, 20,987 of whom had an AIIRD and were receiving targeted therapies like biologics or Janus kinase inhibitors.

Of the total respondents, 77% (n = 43,675) had been vaccinated, 16.9% were not vaccinated and did not plan to be, and 6.1% were not vaccinated but planned to be. However, AIIRD patients were 16% less likely to be vaccinated, compared with the other patients, such as those with osteoarthritis or osteoporosis who were not receiving disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (76.9% vs. 87%; odds ratio, 0.84; 95% confidence interval, 0.77-0.92; P < .001). Multivariable analysis also found that older patients (OR, 1.49 per 10 years) and Asians (OR, 2.42; 95% CI, 1.77-3.33) were more likely to be vaccinated.

Courtesy UAB Photo

“Rheumatologists need to be asking their patients more than just: ‘Are you vaccinated?’ ” Jeffrey Curtis, MD, MPH, head of the ACR COVID-19 vaccine task force and a coauthor of the vaccine hesitancy study, said in an interview. “A year ago, that was a fine approach, but now they need to be asking whether you’ve been vaccinated, and with what, and how many times, and how recently. There are a whole lot of subtleties there; ‘vaccinated: yes or no’ is just the tip of the iceberg.”

His research into the vaccine hesitant includes recent anecdotal data from thousands of patients treated in local rheumatology community practices, many of whom cited long-term safety data and potential side effects as reasons why they were unwilling to get vaccinated. But despite their on-paper responses, he cautioned rheumatologists to think critically when determining which patients may truly be open to vaccination.

“If you’re designing strategies to affect vaccine hesitancy, you may be wasting your time with some people,” said Dr. Curtis, professor of medicine at the University of Alabama at Birmingham. “A critical need is to figure out who are the patients who may be amendable to more information or an intervention or a little bit more time and care, and who are the people where you know, this is a lost cause: You don’t get a flu shot, you haven’t been vaccinated for shingles, [and] you’re not going to get this one either.

“In terms of a research agenda, how do we develop efficient, simple, short screening tools?” he added. “Something with a few helpful questions, on a patient portal or an iPad, that will do a good job identifying your patients at risk who haven’t had vaccination but that you might be able to spend time with, intervene, and actually change their mind. If you spend gobs of time with everyone, you’ll help some people, but clinicians don’t have an infinite amount of time.”

One of the authors of the vaccine hesitancy study acknowledged being employed by the rheumatology research network that hosted the survey. Several others, including Dr. Curtis, reported receiving grants and consulting fees from various pharmaceutical companies.

As rheumatologists contend with vaccine hesitancy among certain subsets of patients, the American College of Rheumatology has released updated clinical guidelines on COVID-19 vaccination for patients with rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases (RMDs), including new recommendations on supplemental and booster doses.

The revised guidance from this fifth version of the ACR guidelines includes strongly recommending that all RMD patients receive a booster after their primary vaccine series, regardless of whether they have been naturally infected with COVID-19. In addition, they strongly recommend third supplemental doses for patients with autoimmune inflammatory rheumatic diseases (AIIRDs) who likely mounted an inadequate vaccine response, which would then be followed by a fourth booster dose as advised by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention for immunocompromised individuals.

South_agency/Getty Images

Other recommendations include pre-exposure prophylaxis monoclonal antibody treatment for high-risk AIIRD patients, defined as those with moderate to severely compromised immune systems who may not mount an adequate immune response to COVID-19 vaccination, when it is available and authorized for emergency use by the Food and Drug Administration, as well as monoclonal antibody therapy for postexposure prophylaxis of asymptomatic, recently exposed high-risk AIIRD patients or as treatment for newly symptomatic, high-risk AIIRD patients. The ACR guidance notes that, currently, neither the monoclonal antibodies bamlanivimab and etesevimab (administered together) nor casirivimab and imdevimab (REGEN-COV), are licensed or available under an emergency use authorization given their lack of activity against the Omicron variant, the dominant strain of SARS-CoV-2 circulating in the United States.

Finally, the guidance clarified that the timing of intravenous immunoglobulin doses does not need to be modified around the administration of COVID vaccine doses, based on moderate consensus among task force members.

Vaccine hesitancy in community rheumatology practices

The revised guidelines were released just as Arthritis & Rheumatology published a new study that assessed vaccine hesitancy among rheumatology patients on immunomodulatory therapies. A three-item electronic survey was conducted at 101 offices within a community practice–based rheumatology research network and ultimately collected responses from 58,529 patients, 20,987 of whom had an AIIRD and were receiving targeted therapies like biologics or Janus kinase inhibitors.

Of the total respondents, 77% (n = 43,675) had been vaccinated, 16.9% were not vaccinated and did not plan to be, and 6.1% were not vaccinated but planned to be. However, AIIRD patients were 16% less likely to be vaccinated, compared with the other patients, such as those with osteoarthritis or osteoporosis who were not receiving disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (76.9% vs. 87%; odds ratio, 0.84; 95% confidence interval, 0.77-0.92; P < .001). Multivariable analysis also found that older patients (OR, 1.49 per 10 years) and Asians (OR, 2.42; 95% CI, 1.77-3.33) were more likely to be vaccinated.

Courtesy UAB Photo

“Rheumatologists need to be asking their patients more than just: ‘Are you vaccinated?’ ” Jeffrey Curtis, MD, MPH, head of the ACR COVID-19 vaccine task force and a coauthor of the vaccine hesitancy study, said in an interview. “A year ago, that was a fine approach, but now they need to be asking whether you’ve been vaccinated, and with what, and how many times, and how recently. There are a whole lot of subtleties there; ‘vaccinated: yes or no’ is just the tip of the iceberg.”

His research into the vaccine hesitant includes recent anecdotal data from thousands of patients treated in local rheumatology community practices, many of whom cited long-term safety data and potential side effects as reasons why they were unwilling to get vaccinated. But despite their on-paper responses, he cautioned rheumatologists to think critically when determining which patients may truly be open to vaccination.

“If you’re designing strategies to affect vaccine hesitancy, you may be wasting your time with some people,” said Dr. Curtis, professor of medicine at the University of Alabama at Birmingham. “A critical need is to figure out who are the patients who may be amendable to more information or an intervention or a little bit more time and care, and who are the people where you know, this is a lost cause: You don’t get a flu shot, you haven’t been vaccinated for shingles, [and] you’re not going to get this one either.

“In terms of a research agenda, how do we develop efficient, simple, short screening tools?” he added. “Something with a few helpful questions, on a patient portal or an iPad, that will do a good job identifying your patients at risk who haven’t had vaccination but that you might be able to spend time with, intervene, and actually change their mind. If you spend gobs of time with everyone, you’ll help some people, but clinicians don’t have an infinite amount of time.”

One of the authors of the vaccine hesitancy study acknowledged being employed by the rheumatology research network that hosted the survey. Several others, including Dr. Curtis, reported receiving grants and consulting fees from various pharmaceutical companies.

Americans who have received a COVID-19 booster shot are 97 times less likely to die from the coronavirus than those who aren’t vaccinated, according to a new update from the CDC.

In addition, fully vaccinated Americans — meaning those with up to two doses, but no booster — are 14 times less likely to die from COVID-19 than unvaccinated people.

“These data confirm that vaccination and boosting continues to protect against severe illness and hospitalization, even during the Omicron surge,” Rochelle Walensky, MD, director of the CDC, said during a briefing by the White House COVID-19 Response Team.

“If you are not up to date on your COVID-19 vaccinations, you have not optimized your protection against severe disease and death, and you should get vaccinated and boosted if you are eligible,” she said.

Dr. Walensky presented the latest numbers on Feb. 2 based on reports from 25 jurisdictions in early December. The number of average weekly deaths for those who were unvaccinated was 9.7 per 100,000 people, as compared with 0.7 of those who were vaccinated and 0.1 of those who had received a booster.

“The data are really stunningly obvious why a booster is really very important,” Anthony Fauci, MD, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, said during the briefing.

Dr. Fauci also encouraged vaccination for those who are pregnant and couples who may want to conceive in the near feature. He highlighted two recent studies that found vaccination in either partner didn’t affect fertility, including in vitro fertilization.

Meanwhile, fertility fell temporarily among men who were infected with the coronavirus. Couples were 18% less likely to conceive if the male partner had contracted the coronavirus within 60 days before a menstrual cycle.

“New data adds to previous studies that indicate that COVID-19 vaccination does not negatively impact fertility,” Dr. Fauci said. “Vaccination is recommended for people who are trying to get pregnant now or might become pregnant in the future, as well as their partners.”

About 80% of eligible Americans have received at least one vaccine dose, and 68% are fully vaccinated, according to the latest CDC data. About 51% of those who are eligible for a booster dose have received one.

The FDA could authorize the Pfizer vaccine for children under age 5 later this month. When that happens, about 18 million children will qualify for a shot, Jeff Zients, coordinator of the White House COVID-19 Response Team, said during the briefing. The Biden administration is already working on distribution plans for the shot for young kids, he added.

“We’ll be ready to start getting shots in arms soon after FDA and CDC make their decisions,” he said.

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

Americans who have received a COVID-19 booster shot are 97 times less likely to die from the coronavirus than those who aren’t vaccinated, according to a new update from the CDC.

In addition, fully vaccinated Americans — meaning those with up to two doses, but no booster — are 14 times less likely to die from COVID-19 than unvaccinated people.

“These data confirm that vaccination and boosting continues to protect against severe illness and hospitalization, even during the Omicron surge,” Rochelle Walensky, MD, director of the CDC, said during a briefing by the White House COVID-19 Response Team.

“If you are not up to date on your COVID-19 vaccinations, you have not optimized your protection against severe disease and death, and you should get vaccinated and boosted if you are eligible,” she said.

Dr. Walensky presented the latest numbers on Feb. 2 based on reports from 25 jurisdictions in early December. The number of average weekly deaths for those who were unvaccinated was 9.7 per 100,000 people, as compared with 0.7 of those who were vaccinated and 0.1 of those who had received a booster.

“The data are really stunningly obvious why a booster is really very important,” Anthony Fauci, MD, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, said during the briefing.

Dr. Fauci also encouraged vaccination for those who are pregnant and couples who may want to conceive in the near feature. He highlighted two recent studies that found vaccination in either partner didn’t affect fertility, including in vitro fertilization.

Meanwhile, fertility fell temporarily among men who were infected with the coronavirus. Couples were 18% less likely to conceive if the male partner had contracted the coronavirus within 60 days before a menstrual cycle.

“New data adds to previous studies that indicate that COVID-19 vaccination does not negatively impact fertility,” Dr. Fauci said. “Vaccination is recommended for people who are trying to get pregnant now or might become pregnant in the future, as well as their partners.”

About 80% of eligible Americans have received at least one vaccine dose, and 68% are fully vaccinated, according to the latest CDC data. About 51% of those who are eligible for a booster dose have received one.

The FDA could authorize the Pfizer vaccine for children under age 5 later this month. When that happens, about 18 million children will qualify for a shot, Jeff Zients, coordinator of the White House COVID-19 Response Team, said during the briefing. The Biden administration is already working on distribution plans for the shot for young kids, he added.

“We’ll be ready to start getting shots in arms soon after FDA and CDC make their decisions,” he said.

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

Americans who have received a COVID-19 booster shot are 97 times less likely to die from the coronavirus than those who aren’t vaccinated, according to a new update from the CDC.

In addition, fully vaccinated Americans — meaning those with up to two doses, but no booster — are 14 times less likely to die from COVID-19 than unvaccinated people.

“These data confirm that vaccination and boosting continues to protect against severe illness and hospitalization, even during the Omicron surge,” Rochelle Walensky, MD, director of the CDC, said during a briefing by the White House COVID-19 Response Team.

“If you are not up to date on your COVID-19 vaccinations, you have not optimized your protection against severe disease and death, and you should get vaccinated and boosted if you are eligible,” she said.

Dr. Walensky presented the latest numbers on Feb. 2 based on reports from 25 jurisdictions in early December. The number of average weekly deaths for those who were unvaccinated was 9.7 per 100,000 people, as compared with 0.7 of those who were vaccinated and 0.1 of those who had received a booster.

“The data are really stunningly obvious why a booster is really very important,” Anthony Fauci, MD, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, said during the briefing.

Dr. Fauci also encouraged vaccination for those who are pregnant and couples who may want to conceive in the near feature. He highlighted two recent studies that found vaccination in either partner didn’t affect fertility, including in vitro fertilization.

Meanwhile, fertility fell temporarily among men who were infected with the coronavirus. Couples were 18% less likely to conceive if the male partner had contracted the coronavirus within 60 days before a menstrual cycle.

“New data adds to previous studies that indicate that COVID-19 vaccination does not negatively impact fertility,” Dr. Fauci said. “Vaccination is recommended for people who are trying to get pregnant now or might become pregnant in the future, as well as their partners.”

About 80% of eligible Americans have received at least one vaccine dose, and 68% are fully vaccinated, according to the latest CDC data. About 51% of those who are eligible for a booster dose have received one.

The FDA could authorize the Pfizer vaccine for children under age 5 later this month. When that happens, about 18 million children will qualify for a shot, Jeff Zients, coordinator of the White House COVID-19 Response Team, said during the briefing. The Biden administration is already working on distribution plans for the shot for young kids, he added.

“We’ll be ready to start getting shots in arms soon after FDA and CDC make their decisions,” he said.

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

Psoriasis is an inflammatory skin condition affecting 1% to 5% of the world population. ¹ Guttate psoriasis is a subgroup of psoriasis that most commonly presents as raindroplike, erythematous, silvery, scaly papules. There have been limited reports of guttate psoriasis caused by rhinovirus and COVID-19 infection, but a PubMed search of articles indexed for MEDLINE using the term COVID-19 guttate psoriasis yielded only 3 documented cases of a psoriatic flare secondary to SARS-CoV-2 infection. ^1-4 Herein, we detail a case in which a patient with mild SARS-CoV-2 infection who did not have a personal or family history of psoriasis experienced a moderate psoriatic flare 3 weeks after diagnosis of COVID-19.

Case Report

A 55-year-old woman was diagnosed with COVID-19 after SARS-CoV-2 RNA was detected from a nasopharyngeal swab. She reported moderate fatigue but no other symptoms. At the time of infection, she was not taking medications and reported neither a personal nor family history of psoriasis.

Three weeks after the COVID-19 diagnosis, she reported erythematous scaly papules only on the trunk and backs of the legs. Two months after the COVID-19 diagnosis, she was evaluated in our practice and diagnosed with guttate psoriasis. The patient refused biopsy. Physical examination revealed that the affected body surface area had increased to 5%; erythematous, silvery, scaly papules were found on the trunk, anterior and posterior legs, and lateral thighs (Figure). At the time of evaluation, she did not report joint pain or nail changes.

The patient was treated with triamcinolone acetonide cream 0.1% twice daily for 2 to 4 weeks. The guttate psoriasis resolved.

Comment

A sudden psoriatic flare can be linked to dysregulation of the innate immune response. Guttate psoriasis and generalized plaque-type psoriasis are postulated to have similar pathogenetic mechanisms, but guttate psoriasis is the only type of psoriasis that originates from viral infection. Initially, viral RNA will stimulate the toll-like receptor 3 protein, leading to increased production of the pathogenic cytokine IL-36γ and pathogenic chemokine CXCL8 (also known as IL-8), both of which are biomarkers for psoriasis.¹ Specifically, IL-36γ and CXCL8 are known to further stimulate the proinflammatory cascade during the innate immune response displayed in guttate psoriasis.^5,6

Our patient had a mild case of COVID-19, and she first reported the erythematous and scaly papules 3 weeks after infection. Dysregulation of proinflammatory cytokines must have started in the initial stages—within 7 days—of the viral infection. Guttate psoriasis arises within 3 weeks of infection with other viral and bacterial triggers, most commonly with streptococcal infections.¹

Rodríguez et al⁷ described a phenomenon in which both SARS-CoV-2 and Middle East respiratory syndrome, both caused by a coronavirus, can lead to a reduction of type I interferon, which in turn leads to failure of control of viral replication during initial stages of a viral infection. This triggers an increase in proinflammatory cytokines and chemokines, including IL‐36γ and CXCL8. This pathologic mechanism might apply to SARS-CoV-2, as demonstrated in our patient’s sudden psoriatic flare 3 weeks after the COVID-19 diagnosis. However, further investigation and quantification of the putatively involved cytokines is necessary for confirmation.

Psoriasis, a chronic inflammatory skin condition, has been linked predominantly to genetic and environmental factors. Guttate psoriasis as a secondary reaction after streptococcal tonsillar and respiratory infections has been reported.¹

Our case is the fourth documented case of guttate psoriasis secondary to COVID-19 infection.^2-4 However, it is the second documented case of a patient with a diagnosis of guttate psoriasis secondary to COVID-19 infection who had neither a personal nor family history of psoriasis.

Because SARS-CoV-2 is a novel virus, the long-term effects of COVID-19 remain unclear. We report this case and its findings to introduce a novel clinical manifestation of SARS-CoV-2 infection. 

Psoriasis is an inflammatory skin condition affecting 1% to 5% of the world population. ¹ Guttate psoriasis is a subgroup of psoriasis that most commonly presents as raindroplike, erythematous, silvery, scaly papules. There have been limited reports of guttate psoriasis caused by rhinovirus and COVID-19 infection, but a PubMed search of articles indexed for MEDLINE using the term COVID-19 guttate psoriasis yielded only 3 documented cases of a psoriatic flare secondary to SARS-CoV-2 infection. ^1-4 Herein, we detail a case in which a patient with mild SARS-CoV-2 infection who did not have a personal or family history of psoriasis experienced a moderate psoriatic flare 3 weeks after diagnosis of COVID-19.

Case Report

A 55-year-old woman was diagnosed with COVID-19 after SARS-CoV-2 RNA was detected from a nasopharyngeal swab. She reported moderate fatigue but no other symptoms. At the time of infection, she was not taking medications and reported neither a personal nor family history of psoriasis.

Three weeks after the COVID-19 diagnosis, she reported erythematous scaly papules only on the trunk and backs of the legs. Two months after the COVID-19 diagnosis, she was evaluated in our practice and diagnosed with guttate psoriasis. The patient refused biopsy. Physical examination revealed that the affected body surface area had increased to 5%; erythematous, silvery, scaly papules were found on the trunk, anterior and posterior legs, and lateral thighs (Figure). At the time of evaluation, she did not report joint pain or nail changes.

The patient was treated with triamcinolone acetonide cream 0.1% twice daily for 2 to 4 weeks. The guttate psoriasis resolved.

Comment

A sudden psoriatic flare can be linked to dysregulation of the innate immune response. Guttate psoriasis and generalized plaque-type psoriasis are postulated to have similar pathogenetic mechanisms, but guttate psoriasis is the only type of psoriasis that originates from viral infection. Initially, viral RNA will stimulate the toll-like receptor 3 protein, leading to increased production of the pathogenic cytokine IL-36γ and pathogenic chemokine CXCL8 (also known as IL-8), both of which are biomarkers for psoriasis.¹ Specifically, IL-36γ and CXCL8 are known to further stimulate the proinflammatory cascade during the innate immune response displayed in guttate psoriasis.^5,6

Our patient had a mild case of COVID-19, and she first reported the erythematous and scaly papules 3 weeks after infection. Dysregulation of proinflammatory cytokines must have started in the initial stages—within 7 days—of the viral infection. Guttate psoriasis arises within 3 weeks of infection with other viral and bacterial triggers, most commonly with streptococcal infections.¹

Rodríguez et al⁷ described a phenomenon in which both SARS-CoV-2 and Middle East respiratory syndrome, both caused by a coronavirus, can lead to a reduction of type I interferon, which in turn leads to failure of control of viral replication during initial stages of a viral infection. This triggers an increase in proinflammatory cytokines and chemokines, including IL‐36γ and CXCL8. This pathologic mechanism might apply to SARS-CoV-2, as demonstrated in our patient’s sudden psoriatic flare 3 weeks after the COVID-19 diagnosis. However, further investigation and quantification of the putatively involved cytokines is necessary for confirmation.

Psoriasis, a chronic inflammatory skin condition, has been linked predominantly to genetic and environmental factors. Guttate psoriasis as a secondary reaction after streptococcal tonsillar and respiratory infections has been reported.¹

Our case is the fourth documented case of guttate psoriasis secondary to COVID-19 infection.^2-4 However, it is the second documented case of a patient with a diagnosis of guttate psoriasis secondary to COVID-19 infection who had neither a personal nor family history of psoriasis.

Because SARS-CoV-2 is a novel virus, the long-term effects of COVID-19 remain unclear. We report this case and its findings to introduce a novel clinical manifestation of SARS-CoV-2 infection. 

Psoriasis is an inflammatory skin condition affecting 1% to 5% of the world population. ¹ Guttate psoriasis is a subgroup of psoriasis that most commonly presents as raindroplike, erythematous, silvery, scaly papules. There have been limited reports of guttate psoriasis caused by rhinovirus and COVID-19 infection, but a PubMed search of articles indexed for MEDLINE using the term COVID-19 guttate psoriasis yielded only 3 documented cases of a psoriatic flare secondary to SARS-CoV-2 infection. ^1-4 Herein, we detail a case in which a patient with mild SARS-CoV-2 infection who did not have a personal or family history of psoriasis experienced a moderate psoriatic flare 3 weeks after diagnosis of COVID-19.

Case Report

A 55-year-old woman was diagnosed with COVID-19 after SARS-CoV-2 RNA was detected from a nasopharyngeal swab. She reported moderate fatigue but no other symptoms. At the time of infection, she was not taking medications and reported neither a personal nor family history of psoriasis.

Three weeks after the COVID-19 diagnosis, she reported erythematous scaly papules only on the trunk and backs of the legs. Two months after the COVID-19 diagnosis, she was evaluated in our practice and diagnosed with guttate psoriasis. The patient refused biopsy. Physical examination revealed that the affected body surface area had increased to 5%; erythematous, silvery, scaly papules were found on the trunk, anterior and posterior legs, and lateral thighs (Figure). At the time of evaluation, she did not report joint pain or nail changes.

The patient was treated with triamcinolone acetonide cream 0.1% twice daily for 2 to 4 weeks. The guttate psoriasis resolved.

Comment

A sudden psoriatic flare can be linked to dysregulation of the innate immune response. Guttate psoriasis and generalized plaque-type psoriasis are postulated to have similar pathogenetic mechanisms, but guttate psoriasis is the only type of psoriasis that originates from viral infection. Initially, viral RNA will stimulate the toll-like receptor 3 protein, leading to increased production of the pathogenic cytokine IL-36γ and pathogenic chemokine CXCL8 (also known as IL-8), both of which are biomarkers for psoriasis.¹ Specifically, IL-36γ and CXCL8 are known to further stimulate the proinflammatory cascade during the innate immune response displayed in guttate psoriasis.^5,6

Our patient had a mild case of COVID-19, and she first reported the erythematous and scaly papules 3 weeks after infection. Dysregulation of proinflammatory cytokines must have started in the initial stages—within 7 days—of the viral infection. Guttate psoriasis arises within 3 weeks of infection with other viral and bacterial triggers, most commonly with streptococcal infections.¹

Rodríguez et al⁷ described a phenomenon in which both SARS-CoV-2 and Middle East respiratory syndrome, both caused by a coronavirus, can lead to a reduction of type I interferon, which in turn leads to failure of control of viral replication during initial stages of a viral infection. This triggers an increase in proinflammatory cytokines and chemokines, including IL‐36γ and CXCL8. This pathologic mechanism might apply to SARS-CoV-2, as demonstrated in our patient’s sudden psoriatic flare 3 weeks after the COVID-19 diagnosis. However, further investigation and quantification of the putatively involved cytokines is necessary for confirmation.

Psoriasis, a chronic inflammatory skin condition, has been linked predominantly to genetic and environmental factors. Guttate psoriasis as a secondary reaction after streptococcal tonsillar and respiratory infections has been reported.¹

Our case is the fourth documented case of guttate psoriasis secondary to COVID-19 infection.^2-4 However, it is the second documented case of a patient with a diagnosis of guttate psoriasis secondary to COVID-19 infection who had neither a personal nor family history of psoriasis.

Because SARS-CoV-2 is a novel virus, the long-term effects of COVID-19 remain unclear. We report this case and its findings to introduce a novel clinical manifestation of SARS-CoV-2 infection. 

The pediatric oncology workforce has faced a host of financial, physical, and psychological obstacles during the COVID-19 pandemic, according to a study that surveyed workers from more than 200 institutions in 79 countries.

A snapshot of the extensive findings reveals that half of participating institutions experienced staffing shortages that had a “major impact” on pediatric cancer care. On the financial front, many respondents pointed to instances of unpaid leave and diminished salary, and others highlighted the psychological toll of providing care, including high rates of burnout and stress. The challenges were evident across high- and low-income countries.

Despite these barriers, pediatric oncology clinicians demonstrated incredible perseverance.

Health care professionals “caring for children with cancer across the world were shown to be incredibly resilient, coming together to continue to provide care even in the direst circumstances,” Elizabeth R. Sniderman, MSN, APRN, of St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital, Memphis, and colleagues concluded.

The findings, published online Jan. 24, 2022, in Cancer, highlight the global impact of COVID-19 on pediatric oncology clinicians early in the pandemic.

The survey, conducted in summer 2020, included responses from 311 pediatric oncology clinicians who completed a 60-item questionnaire about their experiences of clinical care, resources, and support. The investigators also convened 19 multidisciplinary focus groups who answered questions related to teamwork, communication, and changes to care. Respondents practiced in low- to high-income countries, and included pediatric hematologists and oncologists, nurses, and infectious disease physicians.

Overall, the investigators found that just over half of institutions experienced “major” shortages of clinical staff (108 of 213), and two-thirds experienced reductions in staffing availability (141 of 213). Notably, national income was not associated with this reduction; rather, staffing shortages were more likely to occur in countries with greater COVID-19 incidence and mortality rates.

Respondents reported experiencing threats to their physical health, with half pointing to a lack of necessary personal protective equipment. The financial and psychological toll of the pandemic represented another major stressor, with the effects described across all income levels.

One respondent from Belarus commented on financial concerns, noting that “people don’t really want to admit that they don’t feel well ... they know, that if infected, unpaid self-isolation is waiting for them. Either you don’t go to work for 2 weeks, unpaid, or you go to work for 2 weeks, paid, and endanger all of your colleagues with your infection.”

A respondent from Mexico described the psychological stress: “Honestly, I think that sometimes we put aside the mental health of all of us involved, myself included. I think we were all on the verge of collapse ... practically all the residents who were rotating here told us that they had anxiety attacks, panic attacks, they could not sleep, [and] many of them needed psychiatric medicine.”

Others highlighted feelings of guilt about their ability to provide the highest level of care. An oncologist in the United States noted: “This was a major stress for many providers because [we are] feeling unable to provide the same level of care which we used to provide. And this is what eventually takes a toll.”

And despite these pandemic-related challenges, the study authors found that only 46% of institutions (99 of 213) made psychological support available to staff.


 

Rays of hope

But it was not all bad news.

Participants also described a greater sense of teamwork, communication, and collegiality throughout the pandemic – “stabilizing elements,” which helped mitigate the many physical, psychological, and financial stressors.

An infection-control physician in Belarus highlighted the importance of receiving “support and encouragement” from colleagues: “When a person gets tired and they have no more enthusiasm, it’s easy to give up and say: ‘I can’t do this anymore.’ But when you see a colleague who tries ... to share the work, and help each other, then you get extra strength.”

An oncologist in South Africa agreed, noting that “everyone has got their sleeves rolled up and are doing the work ... and that’s a testament to everyone that we work with. There was no one that shied away from work or used this as an excuse to do less work.”

An oncologist in Spain described practicing during the pandemic being “one of the best experiences I have had,” explaining that “I have been working in this hospital for ... 25 years, [and] I have never had the feeling of being so informed at all levels.”

Overall, the findings paint a picture of a resilient workforce, and offer lessons about preparedness for future crises, the investigators concluded.

“To protect pediatric oncology providers and their patients, organizations must pay attention to interventions that increase physical, psychological, and financial safety,” the authors stressed. For instance, providing adequate personal protective equipment and vaccines, allowing for time off and rest, and setting up professional psychology services as well as access to peer-support programs can help protect staff.

Although this survey took place relatively early in the pandemic, organizations should take heed of the findings, Lorena V. Baroni, MD, of Hospital J P Garrahan, Buenos Aires, and Eric Bouffet, MD, of The Hospital for Sick Children, Toronto, wrote in an accompanying editorial.

“The results presented in this study should not be taken lightly,” Dr. Baroni and Dr. Bouffet wrote. “The most concerning findings are the physical and psychological impact experienced by pediatric oncology providers.” And perhaps most surprisingly, “the survey did not identify any difference based on country income groups. Participants in both low- and high-income countries described similar oncologic care limitations.”

Overall, these findings “reflect a serious risk that can ultimately affect the care of children and compromise the success of their treatment,” Dr. Baroni and Dr. Bouffet wrote.

This study was supported by the American Lebanese Syrian Associated Charities. The study authors and editorialists have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

The pediatric oncology workforce has faced a host of financial, physical, and psychological obstacles during the COVID-19 pandemic, according to a study that surveyed workers from more than 200 institutions in 79 countries.

A snapshot of the extensive findings reveals that half of participating institutions experienced staffing shortages that had a “major impact” on pediatric cancer care. On the financial front, many respondents pointed to instances of unpaid leave and diminished salary, and others highlighted the psychological toll of providing care, including high rates of burnout and stress. The challenges were evident across high- and low-income countries.

Despite these barriers, pediatric oncology clinicians demonstrated incredible perseverance.

Health care professionals “caring for children with cancer across the world were shown to be incredibly resilient, coming together to continue to provide care even in the direst circumstances,” Elizabeth R. Sniderman, MSN, APRN, of St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital, Memphis, and colleagues concluded.

The findings, published online Jan. 24, 2022, in Cancer, highlight the global impact of COVID-19 on pediatric oncology clinicians early in the pandemic.

The survey, conducted in summer 2020, included responses from 311 pediatric oncology clinicians who completed a 60-item questionnaire about their experiences of clinical care, resources, and support. The investigators also convened 19 multidisciplinary focus groups who answered questions related to teamwork, communication, and changes to care. Respondents practiced in low- to high-income countries, and included pediatric hematologists and oncologists, nurses, and infectious disease physicians.

Overall, the investigators found that just over half of institutions experienced “major” shortages of clinical staff (108 of 213), and two-thirds experienced reductions in staffing availability (141 of 213). Notably, national income was not associated with this reduction; rather, staffing shortages were more likely to occur in countries with greater COVID-19 incidence and mortality rates.

Respondents reported experiencing threats to their physical health, with half pointing to a lack of necessary personal protective equipment. The financial and psychological toll of the pandemic represented another major stressor, with the effects described across all income levels.

One respondent from Belarus commented on financial concerns, noting that “people don’t really want to admit that they don’t feel well ... they know, that if infected, unpaid self-isolation is waiting for them. Either you don’t go to work for 2 weeks, unpaid, or you go to work for 2 weeks, paid, and endanger all of your colleagues with your infection.”

A respondent from Mexico described the psychological stress: “Honestly, I think that sometimes we put aside the mental health of all of us involved, myself included. I think we were all on the verge of collapse ... practically all the residents who were rotating here told us that they had anxiety attacks, panic attacks, they could not sleep, [and] many of them needed psychiatric medicine.”

Others highlighted feelings of guilt about their ability to provide the highest level of care. An oncologist in the United States noted: “This was a major stress for many providers because [we are] feeling unable to provide the same level of care which we used to provide. And this is what eventually takes a toll.”

And despite these pandemic-related challenges, the study authors found that only 46% of institutions (99 of 213) made psychological support available to staff.


 

Rays of hope

But it was not all bad news.

Participants also described a greater sense of teamwork, communication, and collegiality throughout the pandemic – “stabilizing elements,” which helped mitigate the many physical, psychological, and financial stressors.

An infection-control physician in Belarus highlighted the importance of receiving “support and encouragement” from colleagues: “When a person gets tired and they have no more enthusiasm, it’s easy to give up and say: ‘I can’t do this anymore.’ But when you see a colleague who tries ... to share the work, and help each other, then you get extra strength.”

An oncologist in South Africa agreed, noting that “everyone has got their sleeves rolled up and are doing the work ... and that’s a testament to everyone that we work with. There was no one that shied away from work or used this as an excuse to do less work.”

An oncologist in Spain described practicing during the pandemic being “one of the best experiences I have had,” explaining that “I have been working in this hospital for ... 25 years, [and] I have never had the feeling of being so informed at all levels.”

Overall, the findings paint a picture of a resilient workforce, and offer lessons about preparedness for future crises, the investigators concluded.

“To protect pediatric oncology providers and their patients, organizations must pay attention to interventions that increase physical, psychological, and financial safety,” the authors stressed. For instance, providing adequate personal protective equipment and vaccines, allowing for time off and rest, and setting up professional psychology services as well as access to peer-support programs can help protect staff.

Although this survey took place relatively early in the pandemic, organizations should take heed of the findings, Lorena V. Baroni, MD, of Hospital J P Garrahan, Buenos Aires, and Eric Bouffet, MD, of The Hospital for Sick Children, Toronto, wrote in an accompanying editorial.

“The results presented in this study should not be taken lightly,” Dr. Baroni and Dr. Bouffet wrote. “The most concerning findings are the physical and psychological impact experienced by pediatric oncology providers.” And perhaps most surprisingly, “the survey did not identify any difference based on country income groups. Participants in both low- and high-income countries described similar oncologic care limitations.”

Overall, these findings “reflect a serious risk that can ultimately affect the care of children and compromise the success of their treatment,” Dr. Baroni and Dr. Bouffet wrote.

This study was supported by the American Lebanese Syrian Associated Charities. The study authors and editorialists have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

The pediatric oncology workforce has faced a host of financial, physical, and psychological obstacles during the COVID-19 pandemic, according to a study that surveyed workers from more than 200 institutions in 79 countries.

A snapshot of the extensive findings reveals that half of participating institutions experienced staffing shortages that had a “major impact” on pediatric cancer care. On the financial front, many respondents pointed to instances of unpaid leave and diminished salary, and others highlighted the psychological toll of providing care, including high rates of burnout and stress. The challenges were evident across high- and low-income countries.

Despite these barriers, pediatric oncology clinicians demonstrated incredible perseverance.

Health care professionals “caring for children with cancer across the world were shown to be incredibly resilient, coming together to continue to provide care even in the direst circumstances,” Elizabeth R. Sniderman, MSN, APRN, of St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital, Memphis, and colleagues concluded.

The findings, published online Jan. 24, 2022, in Cancer, highlight the global impact of COVID-19 on pediatric oncology clinicians early in the pandemic.

The survey, conducted in summer 2020, included responses from 311 pediatric oncology clinicians who completed a 60-item questionnaire about their experiences of clinical care, resources, and support. The investigators also convened 19 multidisciplinary focus groups who answered questions related to teamwork, communication, and changes to care. Respondents practiced in low- to high-income countries, and included pediatric hematologists and oncologists, nurses, and infectious disease physicians.

Overall, the investigators found that just over half of institutions experienced “major” shortages of clinical staff (108 of 213), and two-thirds experienced reductions in staffing availability (141 of 213). Notably, national income was not associated with this reduction; rather, staffing shortages were more likely to occur in countries with greater COVID-19 incidence and mortality rates.

Respondents reported experiencing threats to their physical health, with half pointing to a lack of necessary personal protective equipment. The financial and psychological toll of the pandemic represented another major stressor, with the effects described across all income levels.

One respondent from Belarus commented on financial concerns, noting that “people don’t really want to admit that they don’t feel well ... they know, that if infected, unpaid self-isolation is waiting for them. Either you don’t go to work for 2 weeks, unpaid, or you go to work for 2 weeks, paid, and endanger all of your colleagues with your infection.”

A respondent from Mexico described the psychological stress: “Honestly, I think that sometimes we put aside the mental health of all of us involved, myself included. I think we were all on the verge of collapse ... practically all the residents who were rotating here told us that they had anxiety attacks, panic attacks, they could not sleep, [and] many of them needed psychiatric medicine.”

Others highlighted feelings of guilt about their ability to provide the highest level of care. An oncologist in the United States noted: “This was a major stress for many providers because [we are] feeling unable to provide the same level of care which we used to provide. And this is what eventually takes a toll.”

And despite these pandemic-related challenges, the study authors found that only 46% of institutions (99 of 213) made psychological support available to staff.


 

Rays of hope

But it was not all bad news.

Participants also described a greater sense of teamwork, communication, and collegiality throughout the pandemic – “stabilizing elements,” which helped mitigate the many physical, psychological, and financial stressors.

An infection-control physician in Belarus highlighted the importance of receiving “support and encouragement” from colleagues: “When a person gets tired and they have no more enthusiasm, it’s easy to give up and say: ‘I can’t do this anymore.’ But when you see a colleague who tries ... to share the work, and help each other, then you get extra strength.”

An oncologist in South Africa agreed, noting that “everyone has got their sleeves rolled up and are doing the work ... and that’s a testament to everyone that we work with. There was no one that shied away from work or used this as an excuse to do less work.”

An oncologist in Spain described practicing during the pandemic being “one of the best experiences I have had,” explaining that “I have been working in this hospital for ... 25 years, [and] I have never had the feeling of being so informed at all levels.”

Overall, the findings paint a picture of a resilient workforce, and offer lessons about preparedness for future crises, the investigators concluded.

“To protect pediatric oncology providers and their patients, organizations must pay attention to interventions that increase physical, psychological, and financial safety,” the authors stressed. For instance, providing adequate personal protective equipment and vaccines, allowing for time off and rest, and setting up professional psychology services as well as access to peer-support programs can help protect staff.

Although this survey took place relatively early in the pandemic, organizations should take heed of the findings, Lorena V. Baroni, MD, of Hospital J P Garrahan, Buenos Aires, and Eric Bouffet, MD, of The Hospital for Sick Children, Toronto, wrote in an accompanying editorial.

“The results presented in this study should not be taken lightly,” Dr. Baroni and Dr. Bouffet wrote. “The most concerning findings are the physical and psychological impact experienced by pediatric oncology providers.” And perhaps most surprisingly, “the survey did not identify any difference based on country income groups. Participants in both low- and high-income countries described similar oncologic care limitations.”

Overall, these findings “reflect a serious risk that can ultimately affect the care of children and compromise the success of their treatment,” Dr. Baroni and Dr. Bouffet wrote.

This study was supported by the American Lebanese Syrian Associated Charities. The study authors and editorialists have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

A subcutaneous antibody combination of casirivimab and imdevimab given to asymptomatic people who tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 significantly lowered the incidence of symptomatic COVID-19 over 28 days, new research shows.

Results of the study by Meagan P. O’Brien, MD, from Regeneron Pharmaceuticals and one of the study’s funders, and coauthors were published online Jan. 14, 2022, in an original investigation in JAMA.

The results suggest new potential for monoclonal antibodies currently used for postexposure prophylaxis and treatment of symptomatic SARS-CoV-2. It has not been clear whether monoclonal antibodies can benefit people with asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection.

The trial included 314 participants (mean age, 41 years; 51.6% women). Of the participants, 310 (99.7%) completed the efficacy assessment period, and 204 were asymptomatic and tested negative at baseline and were included in the primary efficacy analysis.

The subcutaneous combination of casirivimab and imdevimab, 1,200 mg (600 mg each), significantly prevented progression to symptomatic disease (29/100 [29.0%] vs. 44/104 [42.3%] with placebo; odds ratio, 0.54 [95% confidence interval, 0.30-0.97]; P = .04; absolute risk difference, −13.3% [95% CI, −26.3% to −0.3%]).

These results were part of a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial of close household contacts of a SARS-CoV-2–infected person at 112 sites in the United States, Romania, and Moldova. They were enrolled between July 13, 2020, and Jan. 28, 2021; follow-up ended March 11, 2021.

Asymptomatic people at least 12 years old were eligible if identified within 96 hours of index case positive test collection and were randomly assigned 1:1 to receive one dose of subcutaneous casirivimab and imdevimab (n = 158), or placebo (n = 156).

COVID-19 vaccination was prohibited before enrollment but was allowed after completing the 28-day efficacy assessment period.
 

Caution warranted

In an accompanying editorial, however, Jonathan Z. Li, MD, Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School, both in Boston, and Rajesh T. Gandhi, MD, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, and Harvard Medical School, urged caution in interpreting the results.

They wrote that, although monoclonal antibodies are generally used in individuals at high risk for severe COVID-19, this study population was less vulnerable, with an average age of 41, and 30% had no risk for the disease.

“Of the remainder, the most common risk factor was being overweight (which confers less risk than other factors),” the editorialists wrote.

They pointed out, as did the study authors, that enrollment came before the emergence of the Delta and Omicron variants, and that both casirivimab and imdevimab maintain their activity against Delta but not against Omicron.

“While prevention of symptomatic infection has benefits,” they wrote, “the primary goal of monoclonal antibody therapy is to prevent progression to severe disease; however, this trial was unable to assess this outcome because there were only three hospitalizations (all in the placebo group). Also, this study was conducted prior to widespread COVID-19 vaccination; whether monoclonal antibodies have the same benefit in people who have breakthrough infection after vaccination is not known.”

The editorialists highlighted the subcutaneous delivery in this study.

They wrote that Dr. O’Brien and coauthors provide evidence that subcutaneous administration is effective in infected individuals. “However, high serum monoclonal antibody levels are achieved more quickly after intravenous administration than following subcutaneous injection; it is unknown whether intravenous administration might have led to even greater efficacy for individuals with asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection.”

The authors of the study also add that, despite efforts to recruit non-White participants, relatively few non-White people were enrolled. Additionally, few adolescents were enrolled.

The sample size was also relatively small, they acknowledge, because of a study design in which the infection status of asymptomatic participants was not confirmed at inclusion.

Several of the authors are employees/stockholders of Regeneron, and have a patent pending, which has been licensed and is receiving royalties. The study was supported by Regeneron and F. Hoffmann–La Roche. This trial was conducted jointly with the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases and the National Institutes of Health. The CoVPN (COVID-19 Prevention Network) is supported by cooperative agreement awards from the NIAID and NIH.

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

A subcutaneous antibody combination of casirivimab and imdevimab given to asymptomatic people who tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 significantly lowered the incidence of symptomatic COVID-19 over 28 days, new research shows.

Results of the study by Meagan P. O’Brien, MD, from Regeneron Pharmaceuticals and one of the study’s funders, and coauthors were published online Jan. 14, 2022, in an original investigation in JAMA.

The results suggest new potential for monoclonal antibodies currently used for postexposure prophylaxis and treatment of symptomatic SARS-CoV-2. It has not been clear whether monoclonal antibodies can benefit people with asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection.

The trial included 314 participants (mean age, 41 years; 51.6% women). Of the participants, 310 (99.7%) completed the efficacy assessment period, and 204 were asymptomatic and tested negative at baseline and were included in the primary efficacy analysis.

The subcutaneous combination of casirivimab and imdevimab, 1,200 mg (600 mg each), significantly prevented progression to symptomatic disease (29/100 [29.0%] vs. 44/104 [42.3%] with placebo; odds ratio, 0.54 [95% confidence interval, 0.30-0.97]; P = .04; absolute risk difference, −13.3% [95% CI, −26.3% to −0.3%]).

These results were part of a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial of close household contacts of a SARS-CoV-2–infected person at 112 sites in the United States, Romania, and Moldova. They were enrolled between July 13, 2020, and Jan. 28, 2021; follow-up ended March 11, 2021.

Asymptomatic people at least 12 years old were eligible if identified within 96 hours of index case positive test collection and were randomly assigned 1:1 to receive one dose of subcutaneous casirivimab and imdevimab (n = 158), or placebo (n = 156).

COVID-19 vaccination was prohibited before enrollment but was allowed after completing the 28-day efficacy assessment period.
 

Caution warranted

In an accompanying editorial, however, Jonathan Z. Li, MD, Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School, both in Boston, and Rajesh T. Gandhi, MD, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, and Harvard Medical School, urged caution in interpreting the results.

They wrote that, although monoclonal antibodies are generally used in individuals at high risk for severe COVID-19, this study population was less vulnerable, with an average age of 41, and 30% had no risk for the disease.

“Of the remainder, the most common risk factor was being overweight (which confers less risk than other factors),” the editorialists wrote.

They pointed out, as did the study authors, that enrollment came before the emergence of the Delta and Omicron variants, and that both casirivimab and imdevimab maintain their activity against Delta but not against Omicron.

“While prevention of symptomatic infection has benefits,” they wrote, “the primary goal of monoclonal antibody therapy is to prevent progression to severe disease; however, this trial was unable to assess this outcome because there were only three hospitalizations (all in the placebo group). Also, this study was conducted prior to widespread COVID-19 vaccination; whether monoclonal antibodies have the same benefit in people who have breakthrough infection after vaccination is not known.”

The editorialists highlighted the subcutaneous delivery in this study.

They wrote that Dr. O’Brien and coauthors provide evidence that subcutaneous administration is effective in infected individuals. “However, high serum monoclonal antibody levels are achieved more quickly after intravenous administration than following subcutaneous injection; it is unknown whether intravenous administration might have led to even greater efficacy for individuals with asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection.”

The authors of the study also add that, despite efforts to recruit non-White participants, relatively few non-White people were enrolled. Additionally, few adolescents were enrolled.

The sample size was also relatively small, they acknowledge, because of a study design in which the infection status of asymptomatic participants was not confirmed at inclusion.

Several of the authors are employees/stockholders of Regeneron, and have a patent pending, which has been licensed and is receiving royalties. The study was supported by Regeneron and F. Hoffmann–La Roche. This trial was conducted jointly with the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases and the National Institutes of Health. The CoVPN (COVID-19 Prevention Network) is supported by cooperative agreement awards from the NIAID and NIH.

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

A subcutaneous antibody combination of casirivimab and imdevimab given to asymptomatic people who tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 significantly lowered the incidence of symptomatic COVID-19 over 28 days, new research shows.

Results of the study by Meagan P. O’Brien, MD, from Regeneron Pharmaceuticals and one of the study’s funders, and coauthors were published online Jan. 14, 2022, in an original investigation in JAMA.

The results suggest new potential for monoclonal antibodies currently used for postexposure prophylaxis and treatment of symptomatic SARS-CoV-2. It has not been clear whether monoclonal antibodies can benefit people with asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection.

The trial included 314 participants (mean age, 41 years; 51.6% women). Of the participants, 310 (99.7%) completed the efficacy assessment period, and 204 were asymptomatic and tested negative at baseline and were included in the primary efficacy analysis.

The subcutaneous combination of casirivimab and imdevimab, 1,200 mg (600 mg each), significantly prevented progression to symptomatic disease (29/100 [29.0%] vs. 44/104 [42.3%] with placebo; odds ratio, 0.54 [95% confidence interval, 0.30-0.97]; P = .04; absolute risk difference, −13.3% [95% CI, −26.3% to −0.3%]).

These results were part of a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial of close household contacts of a SARS-CoV-2–infected person at 112 sites in the United States, Romania, and Moldova. They were enrolled between July 13, 2020, and Jan. 28, 2021; follow-up ended March 11, 2021.

Asymptomatic people at least 12 years old were eligible if identified within 96 hours of index case positive test collection and were randomly assigned 1:1 to receive one dose of subcutaneous casirivimab and imdevimab (n = 158), or placebo (n = 156).

COVID-19 vaccination was prohibited before enrollment but was allowed after completing the 28-day efficacy assessment period.
 

Caution warranted

In an accompanying editorial, however, Jonathan Z. Li, MD, Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School, both in Boston, and Rajesh T. Gandhi, MD, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, and Harvard Medical School, urged caution in interpreting the results.

They wrote that, although monoclonal antibodies are generally used in individuals at high risk for severe COVID-19, this study population was less vulnerable, with an average age of 41, and 30% had no risk for the disease.

“Of the remainder, the most common risk factor was being overweight (which confers less risk than other factors),” the editorialists wrote.

They pointed out, as did the study authors, that enrollment came before the emergence of the Delta and Omicron variants, and that both casirivimab and imdevimab maintain their activity against Delta but not against Omicron.

“While prevention of symptomatic infection has benefits,” they wrote, “the primary goal of monoclonal antibody therapy is to prevent progression to severe disease; however, this trial was unable to assess this outcome because there were only three hospitalizations (all in the placebo group). Also, this study was conducted prior to widespread COVID-19 vaccination; whether monoclonal antibodies have the same benefit in people who have breakthrough infection after vaccination is not known.”

The editorialists highlighted the subcutaneous delivery in this study.

They wrote that Dr. O’Brien and coauthors provide evidence that subcutaneous administration is effective in infected individuals. “However, high serum monoclonal antibody levels are achieved more quickly after intravenous administration than following subcutaneous injection; it is unknown whether intravenous administration might have led to even greater efficacy for individuals with asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection.”

The authors of the study also add that, despite efforts to recruit non-White participants, relatively few non-White people were enrolled. Additionally, few adolescents were enrolled.

The sample size was also relatively small, they acknowledge, because of a study design in which the infection status of asymptomatic participants was not confirmed at inclusion.

Several of the authors are employees/stockholders of Regeneron, and have a patent pending, which has been licensed and is receiving royalties. The study was supported by Regeneron and F. Hoffmann–La Roche. This trial was conducted jointly with the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases and the National Institutes of Health. The CoVPN (COVID-19 Prevention Network) is supported by cooperative agreement awards from the NIAID and NIH.

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

An otherwise healthy 55-year-old male, with no previous psychiatric or medical history, sought care with a family medicine physician for the first time in decades.

Medical symptoms began Oct. 9, 2021, with “some leg weakness and mild sniffles.” Since he was going to be at a public event, he decided to take a PCR test for the SARS-CoV-2 virus on Oct. 13. The patient tested positive.

His symptoms continued to worsen, and he experienced severe body fatigue, sleep disturbance, and lethargy. “A few days after my positive test, the cognitive and physical symptoms dramatically ramped up,” the patient recalled.

Because of those worsening symptoms, on Oct. 20, the patient obtained a new patient appointment with a family medicine physician. After a telemedicine evaluation, the family medicine physician began a multifaceted early outpatient COVID-19 treatment protocol,¹ as I (C.M.W.) and colleagues wrote about late last year. However, this treatment began late in the course because of the patient’s initial resistance to seek care.

This early outpatient treatment protocol for COVID-19 included vitamin D3 125 mcg (5,000 ICU), N-acetylcysteine (NAC) 600 mg every day x 30 days; acetylsalicylic acid 325 mg every day x 30 days; azithromycin 250 mg b.i.d. before every meal x 10 days; hydroxychloroquine sulfate 200 mg b.i.d. x 10 days; ivermectin 3 mg, 5 pills daily x 10 days; zinc sulfate 220 mg (50 mg elemental) every day x 30 days; and a prednisone taper (30 mg daily x 3 days, tapering down 5 mg every 3 days). Hydroxyzine 50 mg at bedtime as needed was added for sleep. The patient did not comment to the family physician on any of the psychological or psychiatric symptoms and responded appropriately to questions during the Oct. 20 initial evaluation.

However, he later described that around the time the PCR was positive, “COVID twisted my brain. I could not think straight. Every thought required 50 times the effort.” For example, he was watching a simple YouTube video for work and “everything was confusing me ... it rattled me, and I couldn’t understand it.” He described his COVID-19 mind as: “The words in my head would come out in a jumbled order, like the message from the words in my brain to my mouth would get crossed. I had trouble spelling and texting. Total cognitive breakdown. I couldn’t do simple mathematics.”

Despite his physical exhaustion, he endured a 3-day period of sleep deprivation. During this time, he recalled looking up at the roof and thinking, “I need to jump off the roof” or thinking, “I might want to throw myself under a bus.” He did not initially reveal his suicidal thoughts to his family medicine physician. After beginning COVID-19 treatment, the patient had two nights of sleep and felt notably improved, and his physical symptoms began to remit. However, the sleeplessness quickly returned “with a vengeance” along with “silly suicidal thoughts.” The thoughts took on a more obsessional quality. For example, he repeatedly thought of jumping out of his second-story bedroom to the living room below and was preoccupied by continually looking at people’s roofs and thinking about jumping. Those thoughts intensified and culminated in his “going missing,” leading his wife to call the police. It was discovered that he had driven to a local bridge and was contemplating jumping off.

After that “going missing” incident, the patient and his wife reached out to their family medicine physician. He reevaluated the patient and, given the new information about the psychiatric symptoms, strongly recommended stat crisis and psychiatric consultation. After discussing the case on the same day, both the family medicine physician and the psychiatrist recommended stat hospital emergency department (ED) assessment on Oct. 29. In the ED, a head CT without contrast at the recommendation of both psychiatrist and family physician, routine electrolytes, CBC with differential, and EKG all were within normal limits. The ED initially discharged him home after crisis evaluation, deciding he was not an imminent risk to himself or others.

The next day, the psychiatrist spoke on the phone with the patient, family medicine physician, and the patient’s wife to arrange an initial assessment. At that time, it remained unclear to all whether the obsessional thoughts had resolved to such a degree that the patient could resist acting upon them. Further, the patient’s sleep architecture had not returned to normal. All agreed another emergency ED assessment was indicated. Ultimately, after voluntary re-evaluation and a difficult hold in the crisis unit, the patient was admitted for psychiatric hospitalization on Oct. 29 and discharged on Nov. 4.

In the psychiatric hospital, venlafaxine XR was started and titrated to 75 mg. The patient was discovered to be hypertensive, and hydrochlorothiazide was started. The discharge diagnosis was major depressive disorder, single episode, severe, without psychotic features.
 

Posthospitalization course

The patient’s clinical course cleared remarkably. He was seen for his initial psychiatric outpatient assessment postpsychiatric hospitalization on Nov. 9, as he had not yet been formally evaluated by the psychiatrist because of the emergency situation.

Gabapentin 300 mg by mouth at bedtime was started, and his sleep architecture was restored. The initial plan to titrate venlafaxine XR into dual selective norepinephrine reuptake inhibitor dose range was terminated, and his psychiatrist considered tapering and discontinuing the venlafaxine XR. A clinical examination, additional history, and collateral data no longer necessarily pointed to an active major depressive disorder or even unspecified depressive disorder, though to be sure, the patient was taking 75 mg of venlafaxine XR. While there were seasonal stressors, historically, nothing had risen to the level of MDD.

The obsessions driving his thoughts to jump off buildings and bridges had completely remitted. His cognitive ability returned to baseline with an ability to focus and perform the complicated tasks of his high-intensity work by the Dec. 8 psychiatric examination, where he was accompanied by his wife. He described feeling like, “I snapped back to like I was before this crazy stuff happened.” His mood was reported as, “Very good; like my old self” and this was confirmed by his wife. His affect was calmer and less tense. He was now using gabapentin sparingly for sleep. We continued to entertain discontinuing the venlafaxine XR, considering this recent severe episode likely driven by the COVID-19 virus. The decision was made to continue venlafaxine XR through the winter rather than discontinuing, remaining on the conservative side of treatment. The patient’s diagnosis was changed from “MDD, single episode,” to “mood disorder due to known physiologic condition (COVID-19) (F06.31) with depressive features; resolving.” At the patient’s follow-up examination on Jan. 5, 2022, he was continuing to do well, stating, “The whole series of crazy events happened to someone else.” The hydrochlorothiazide had been discontinued, and the patient’s blood pressure and pulse were normal at 119/81 and 69, respectively. He had made strategic changes at work to lessen stressors during the typically difficult months.
 

Discussion

Literature has discussed neuropsychiatric sequelae of COVID-19.² The cited example questions whether psychiatric symptoms are tied directly to the viral infection or to the “host’s immune response.” We believe our case represents a direct neurocognitive/neuropsychiatric insult due to the COVID-19 infection.

This case presents a 55-year-old male with no previous psychiatric or medical history with new onset significant and debilitating cognitive impairment and obsessive thoughts of throwing himself from his bedroom balcony ending up at a bridge struggling with an irrational thought of jumping; ultimately requiring psychiatric hospitalization for acute suicidal thoughts. The patient’s psychiatric symptoms arose prior to any and all medication treatment. The obsessive thoughts correlated both with the onset of SARS-CoV-2 infection and a period of sleep deprivation subsequent to the infection. A course of steroid treatment and taper were started after the onset of neurocognitive-psychiatric symptoms, though there is close timing. We submit that the patient experienced, as part of the initial neurocognitive psychiatric initiating cascade, a COVID-19–induced sleep deprivation that was not etiologic but part of the process; since, even when sleep returned to normal, it was still several weeks before full cognitive function returned to baseline.

An argument could be made for possible MDD or unspecified depressive disorder, as historically there had been work-related stressors for the patient at this time of year because of the chronological nature of his work; though previously nothing presented with obsessional suicidal thinking and nothing with any cognitive impairment – let alone to this incapacitating degree.

The patient describes his seasonal work much like an accountant’s work at the beginning of each year. In the patient’s case, the months of September and October are historically “nonstop, working days,” which then slow down in the winter months for a period of recuperation. In gathering his past history of symptoms, he denied neurovegetative symptoms to meet full diagnostic criteria for MDD or unspecified depressive disorder, absent this episode in the presence of SARS-CoV-2 infection.

We could also consider a contributory negative “organic push” by the viral load and prednisone helping to express an underlying unspecified depression or MDD, but for the profound and unusual presentation. There was little prodrome of depressive symptoms (again, he reported his “typical” extraordinary work burden for this time of year, which is common in his industry).

In this patient, the symptoms have remitted completely. However, the patient is currently taking venlafaxine XR 75 mg. We have considered tapering and discontinuing the venlafaxine – since it is not entirely clear that he needs to be on this medication – so this question remains an open one. We did decide, however, to continue the venlafaxine until after the winter months and to reassess at that time.
 

Conclusion

The patient presented with new onset psychological and psychiatric symptoms in addition to physiologic symptoms; the former symptoms were not revealed prior to initial family medicine evaluation. As the symptoms worsened, he and his wife sought additional consultation with family physician, psychiatrists, and ED. Steroid treatment may have played a part in exacerbation of symptoms, but the neuropsychiatric cognitive symptoms were present prior to initiation of all pharmacologic and medical treatment. The successful outcome of this case was based upon quick action and collaboration between the family medicine physician, the psychiatrist, and the ED physician. The value of communication, assessment, and action via phone call and text cannot be overstated. Future considerations include further large-scale evaluation of multifaceted early treatment of patients with COVID-19 within the first 72 hours of symptoms to prevent not only hospitalization, morbidity, and mortality, but newly recognized psychological and psychiatric syndromes.^3,4

Lastly, fluvoxamine might have been a better choice for adjunctive early treatment of COVID-19.⁵ As a matter of distinction, if a lingering mood disorder or obsessive-compulsive disorder remain a result of SARS-CoV-2 or if one were to start an antidepressant during the course of illness, it would be reasonable to consider fluvoxamine as a potential first-line agent.

Dr. Kohanski is a fellowship trained forensic psychiatrist and a diplomate of the American Board of Psychiatry & Neurology. She maintains a private practice in Somerset, N.J., and is a frequent media commentator and medical podcaster. Dr. Kohanski has no conflicts of interest. Dr. Wax is a residency-trained osteopathic family medicine physician in independent private practice in Mullica Hill, N.J. He has authored multiple papers over 2 decades on topics such as SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19 early treatment. He has been a speaker and media host over 2 decades and served on the National Physicians Council on Healthcare Policy’s congressional subcommittee. Dr. Wax has no conflicts of interest.

References

1. Rev Cardiovasc Med. 2020 Dec 30;21(4):517-30.

2. Brain Behav Immun. 2020 Jul;87:34-9.

3. Trav Med Infect Dis. 2020 May-Jun 35;10738.

4. Kirsch S. “Early treatment for COVID is key to better outcomes.” Times of India. 2021 May 21.

5. Lancet. 2022 Jan 1;10(1):E42-E51.

An otherwise healthy 55-year-old male, with no previous psychiatric or medical history, sought care with a family medicine physician for the first time in decades.

Medical symptoms began Oct. 9, 2021, with “some leg weakness and mild sniffles.” Since he was going to be at a public event, he decided to take a PCR test for the SARS-CoV-2 virus on Oct. 13. The patient tested positive.

His symptoms continued to worsen, and he experienced severe body fatigue, sleep disturbance, and lethargy. “A few days after my positive test, the cognitive and physical symptoms dramatically ramped up,” the patient recalled.

Because of those worsening symptoms, on Oct. 20, the patient obtained a new patient appointment with a family medicine physician. After a telemedicine evaluation, the family medicine physician began a multifaceted early outpatient COVID-19 treatment protocol,¹ as I (C.M.W.) and colleagues wrote about late last year. However, this treatment began late in the course because of the patient’s initial resistance to seek care.

This early outpatient treatment protocol for COVID-19 included vitamin D3 125 mcg (5,000 ICU), N-acetylcysteine (NAC) 600 mg every day x 30 days; acetylsalicylic acid 325 mg every day x 30 days; azithromycin 250 mg b.i.d. before every meal x 10 days; hydroxychloroquine sulfate 200 mg b.i.d. x 10 days; ivermectin 3 mg, 5 pills daily x 10 days; zinc sulfate 220 mg (50 mg elemental) every day x 30 days; and a prednisone taper (30 mg daily x 3 days, tapering down 5 mg every 3 days). Hydroxyzine 50 mg at bedtime as needed was added for sleep. The patient did not comment to the family physician on any of the psychological or psychiatric symptoms and responded appropriately to questions during the Oct. 20 initial evaluation.

However, he later described that around the time the PCR was positive, “COVID twisted my brain. I could not think straight. Every thought required 50 times the effort.” For example, he was watching a simple YouTube video for work and “everything was confusing me ... it rattled me, and I couldn’t understand it.” He described his COVID-19 mind as: “The words in my head would come out in a jumbled order, like the message from the words in my brain to my mouth would get crossed. I had trouble spelling and texting. Total cognitive breakdown. I couldn’t do simple mathematics.”

Despite his physical exhaustion, he endured a 3-day period of sleep deprivation. During this time, he recalled looking up at the roof and thinking, “I need to jump off the roof” or thinking, “I might want to throw myself under a bus.” He did not initially reveal his suicidal thoughts to his family medicine physician. After beginning COVID-19 treatment, the patient had two nights of sleep and felt notably improved, and his physical symptoms began to remit. However, the sleeplessness quickly returned “with a vengeance” along with “silly suicidal thoughts.” The thoughts took on a more obsessional quality. For example, he repeatedly thought of jumping out of his second-story bedroom to the living room below and was preoccupied by continually looking at people’s roofs and thinking about jumping. Those thoughts intensified and culminated in his “going missing,” leading his wife to call the police. It was discovered that he had driven to a local bridge and was contemplating jumping off.

After that “going missing” incident, the patient and his wife reached out to their family medicine physician. He reevaluated the patient and, given the new information about the psychiatric symptoms, strongly recommended stat crisis and psychiatric consultation. After discussing the case on the same day, both the family medicine physician and the psychiatrist recommended stat hospital emergency department (ED) assessment on Oct. 29. In the ED, a head CT without contrast at the recommendation of both psychiatrist and family physician, routine electrolytes, CBC with differential, and EKG all were within normal limits. The ED initially discharged him home after crisis evaluation, deciding he was not an imminent risk to himself or others.

The next day, the psychiatrist spoke on the phone with the patient, family medicine physician, and the patient’s wife to arrange an initial assessment. At that time, it remained unclear to all whether the obsessional thoughts had resolved to such a degree that the patient could resist acting upon them. Further, the patient’s sleep architecture had not returned to normal. All agreed another emergency ED assessment was indicated. Ultimately, after voluntary re-evaluation and a difficult hold in the crisis unit, the patient was admitted for psychiatric hospitalization on Oct. 29 and discharged on Nov. 4.

In the psychiatric hospital, venlafaxine XR was started and titrated to 75 mg. The patient was discovered to be hypertensive, and hydrochlorothiazide was started. The discharge diagnosis was major depressive disorder, single episode, severe, without psychotic features.
 

Posthospitalization course

The patient’s clinical course cleared remarkably. He was seen for his initial psychiatric outpatient assessment postpsychiatric hospitalization on Nov. 9, as he had not yet been formally evaluated by the psychiatrist because of the emergency situation.

Gabapentin 300 mg by mouth at bedtime was started, and his sleep architecture was restored. The initial plan to titrate venlafaxine XR into dual selective norepinephrine reuptake inhibitor dose range was terminated, and his psychiatrist considered tapering and discontinuing the venlafaxine XR. A clinical examination, additional history, and collateral data no longer necessarily pointed to an active major depressive disorder or even unspecified depressive disorder, though to be sure, the patient was taking 75 mg of venlafaxine XR. While there were seasonal stressors, historically, nothing had risen to the level of MDD.

The obsessions driving his thoughts to jump off buildings and bridges had completely remitted. His cognitive ability returned to baseline with an ability to focus and perform the complicated tasks of his high-intensity work by the Dec. 8 psychiatric examination, where he was accompanied by his wife. He described feeling like, “I snapped back to like I was before this crazy stuff happened.” His mood was reported as, “Very good; like my old self” and this was confirmed by his wife. His affect was calmer and less tense. He was now using gabapentin sparingly for sleep. We continued to entertain discontinuing the venlafaxine XR, considering this recent severe episode likely driven by the COVID-19 virus. The decision was made to continue venlafaxine XR through the winter rather than discontinuing, remaining on the conservative side of treatment. The patient’s diagnosis was changed from “MDD, single episode,” to “mood disorder due to known physiologic condition (COVID-19) (F06.31) with depressive features; resolving.” At the patient’s follow-up examination on Jan. 5, 2022, he was continuing to do well, stating, “The whole series of crazy events happened to someone else.” The hydrochlorothiazide had been discontinued, and the patient’s blood pressure and pulse were normal at 119/81 and 69, respectively. He had made strategic changes at work to lessen stressors during the typically difficult months.
 

Discussion

Literature has discussed neuropsychiatric sequelae of COVID-19.² The cited example questions whether psychiatric symptoms are tied directly to the viral infection or to the “host’s immune response.” We believe our case represents a direct neurocognitive/neuropsychiatric insult due to the COVID-19 infection.

This case presents a 55-year-old male with no previous psychiatric or medical history with new onset significant and debilitating cognitive impairment and obsessive thoughts of throwing himself from his bedroom balcony ending up at a bridge struggling with an irrational thought of jumping; ultimately requiring psychiatric hospitalization for acute suicidal thoughts. The patient’s psychiatric symptoms arose prior to any and all medication treatment. The obsessive thoughts correlated both with the onset of SARS-CoV-2 infection and a period of sleep deprivation subsequent to the infection. A course of steroid treatment and taper were started after the onset of neurocognitive-psychiatric symptoms, though there is close timing. We submit that the patient experienced, as part of the initial neurocognitive psychiatric initiating cascade, a COVID-19–induced sleep deprivation that was not etiologic but part of the process; since, even when sleep returned to normal, it was still several weeks before full cognitive function returned to baseline.

An argument could be made for possible MDD or unspecified depressive disorder, as historically there had been work-related stressors for the patient at this time of year because of the chronological nature of his work; though previously nothing presented with obsessional suicidal thinking and nothing with any cognitive impairment – let alone to this incapacitating degree.

The patient describes his seasonal work much like an accountant’s work at the beginning of each year. In the patient’s case, the months of September and October are historically “nonstop, working days,” which then slow down in the winter months for a period of recuperation. In gathering his past history of symptoms, he denied neurovegetative symptoms to meet full diagnostic criteria for MDD or unspecified depressive disorder, absent this episode in the presence of SARS-CoV-2 infection.

We could also consider a contributory negative “organic push” by the viral load and prednisone helping to express an underlying unspecified depression or MDD, but for the profound and unusual presentation. There was little prodrome of depressive symptoms (again, he reported his “typical” extraordinary work burden for this time of year, which is common in his industry).

In this patient, the symptoms have remitted completely. However, the patient is currently taking venlafaxine XR 75 mg. We have considered tapering and discontinuing the venlafaxine – since it is not entirely clear that he needs to be on this medication – so this question remains an open one. We did decide, however, to continue the venlafaxine until after the winter months and to reassess at that time.
 

Conclusion

The patient presented with new onset psychological and psychiatric symptoms in addition to physiologic symptoms; the former symptoms were not revealed prior to initial family medicine evaluation. As the symptoms worsened, he and his wife sought additional consultation with family physician, psychiatrists, and ED. Steroid treatment may have played a part in exacerbation of symptoms, but the neuropsychiatric cognitive symptoms were present prior to initiation of all pharmacologic and medical treatment. The successful outcome of this case was based upon quick action and collaboration between the family medicine physician, the psychiatrist, and the ED physician. The value of communication, assessment, and action via phone call and text cannot be overstated. Future considerations include further large-scale evaluation of multifaceted early treatment of patients with COVID-19 within the first 72 hours of symptoms to prevent not only hospitalization, morbidity, and mortality, but newly recognized psychological and psychiatric syndromes.^3,4

Lastly, fluvoxamine might have been a better choice for adjunctive early treatment of COVID-19.⁵ As a matter of distinction, if a lingering mood disorder or obsessive-compulsive disorder remain a result of SARS-CoV-2 or if one were to start an antidepressant during the course of illness, it would be reasonable to consider fluvoxamine as a potential first-line agent.

Dr. Kohanski is a fellowship trained forensic psychiatrist and a diplomate of the American Board of Psychiatry & Neurology. She maintains a private practice in Somerset, N.J., and is a frequent media commentator and medical podcaster. Dr. Kohanski has no conflicts of interest. Dr. Wax is a residency-trained osteopathic family medicine physician in independent private practice in Mullica Hill, N.J. He has authored multiple papers over 2 decades on topics such as SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19 early treatment. He has been a speaker and media host over 2 decades and served on the National Physicians Council on Healthcare Policy’s congressional subcommittee. Dr. Wax has no conflicts of interest.

References

1. Rev Cardiovasc Med. 2020 Dec 30;21(4):517-30.

2. Brain Behav Immun. 2020 Jul;87:34-9.

3. Trav Med Infect Dis. 2020 May-Jun 35;10738.

4. Kirsch S. “Early treatment for COVID is key to better outcomes.” Times of India. 2021 May 21.

5. Lancet. 2022 Jan 1;10(1):E42-E51.

An otherwise healthy 55-year-old male, with no previous psychiatric or medical history, sought care with a family medicine physician for the first time in decades.

Medical symptoms began Oct. 9, 2021, with “some leg weakness and mild sniffles.” Since he was going to be at a public event, he decided to take a PCR test for the SARS-CoV-2 virus on Oct. 13. The patient tested positive.

His symptoms continued to worsen, and he experienced severe body fatigue, sleep disturbance, and lethargy. “A few days after my positive test, the cognitive and physical symptoms dramatically ramped up,” the patient recalled.

Because of those worsening symptoms, on Oct. 20, the patient obtained a new patient appointment with a family medicine physician. After a telemedicine evaluation, the family medicine physician began a multifaceted early outpatient COVID-19 treatment protocol,¹ as I (C.M.W.) and colleagues wrote about late last year. However, this treatment began late in the course because of the patient’s initial resistance to seek care.

This early outpatient treatment protocol for COVID-19 included vitamin D3 125 mcg (5,000 ICU), N-acetylcysteine (NAC) 600 mg every day x 30 days; acetylsalicylic acid 325 mg every day x 30 days; azithromycin 250 mg b.i.d. before every meal x 10 days; hydroxychloroquine sulfate 200 mg b.i.d. x 10 days; ivermectin 3 mg, 5 pills daily x 10 days; zinc sulfate 220 mg (50 mg elemental) every day x 30 days; and a prednisone taper (30 mg daily x 3 days, tapering down 5 mg every 3 days). Hydroxyzine 50 mg at bedtime as needed was added for sleep. The patient did not comment to the family physician on any of the psychological or psychiatric symptoms and responded appropriately to questions during the Oct. 20 initial evaluation.

However, he later described that around the time the PCR was positive, “COVID twisted my brain. I could not think straight. Every thought required 50 times the effort.” For example, he was watching a simple YouTube video for work and “everything was confusing me ... it rattled me, and I couldn’t understand it.” He described his COVID-19 mind as: “The words in my head would come out in a jumbled order, like the message from the words in my brain to my mouth would get crossed. I had trouble spelling and texting. Total cognitive breakdown. I couldn’t do simple mathematics.”

Despite his physical exhaustion, he endured a 3-day period of sleep deprivation. During this time, he recalled looking up at the roof and thinking, “I need to jump off the roof” or thinking, “I might want to throw myself under a bus.” He did not initially reveal his suicidal thoughts to his family medicine physician. After beginning COVID-19 treatment, the patient had two nights of sleep and felt notably improved, and his physical symptoms began to remit. However, the sleeplessness quickly returned “with a vengeance” along with “silly suicidal thoughts.” The thoughts took on a more obsessional quality. For example, he repeatedly thought of jumping out of his second-story bedroom to the living room below and was preoccupied by continually looking at people’s roofs and thinking about jumping. Those thoughts intensified and culminated in his “going missing,” leading his wife to call the police. It was discovered that he had driven to a local bridge and was contemplating jumping off.

After that “going missing” incident, the patient and his wife reached out to their family medicine physician. He reevaluated the patient and, given the new information about the psychiatric symptoms, strongly recommended stat crisis and psychiatric consultation. After discussing the case on the same day, both the family medicine physician and the psychiatrist recommended stat hospital emergency department (ED) assessment on Oct. 29. In the ED, a head CT without contrast at the recommendation of both psychiatrist and family physician, routine electrolytes, CBC with differential, and EKG all were within normal limits. The ED initially discharged him home after crisis evaluation, deciding he was not an imminent risk to himself or others.

The next day, the psychiatrist spoke on the phone with the patient, family medicine physician, and the patient’s wife to arrange an initial assessment. At that time, it remained unclear to all whether the obsessional thoughts had resolved to such a degree that the patient could resist acting upon them. Further, the patient’s sleep architecture had not returned to normal. All agreed another emergency ED assessment was indicated. Ultimately, after voluntary re-evaluation and a difficult hold in the crisis unit, the patient was admitted for psychiatric hospitalization on Oct. 29 and discharged on Nov. 4.

In the psychiatric hospital, venlafaxine XR was started and titrated to 75 mg. The patient was discovered to be hypertensive, and hydrochlorothiazide was started. The discharge diagnosis was major depressive disorder, single episode, severe, without psychotic features.
 

Posthospitalization course

The patient’s clinical course cleared remarkably. He was seen for his initial psychiatric outpatient assessment postpsychiatric hospitalization on Nov. 9, as he had not yet been formally evaluated by the psychiatrist because of the emergency situation.

Gabapentin 300 mg by mouth at bedtime was started, and his sleep architecture was restored. The initial plan to titrate venlafaxine XR into dual selective norepinephrine reuptake inhibitor dose range was terminated, and his psychiatrist considered tapering and discontinuing the venlafaxine XR. A clinical examination, additional history, and collateral data no longer necessarily pointed to an active major depressive disorder or even unspecified depressive disorder, though to be sure, the patient was taking 75 mg of venlafaxine XR. While there were seasonal stressors, historically, nothing had risen to the level of MDD.

The obsessions driving his thoughts to jump off buildings and bridges had completely remitted. His cognitive ability returned to baseline with an ability to focus and perform the complicated tasks of his high-intensity work by the Dec. 8 psychiatric examination, where he was accompanied by his wife. He described feeling like, “I snapped back to like I was before this crazy stuff happened.” His mood was reported as, “Very good; like my old self” and this was confirmed by his wife. His affect was calmer and less tense. He was now using gabapentin sparingly for sleep. We continued to entertain discontinuing the venlafaxine XR, considering this recent severe episode likely driven by the COVID-19 virus. The decision was made to continue venlafaxine XR through the winter rather than discontinuing, remaining on the conservative side of treatment. The patient’s diagnosis was changed from “MDD, single episode,” to “mood disorder due to known physiologic condition (COVID-19) (F06.31) with depressive features; resolving.” At the patient’s follow-up examination on Jan. 5, 2022, he was continuing to do well, stating, “The whole series of crazy events happened to someone else.” The hydrochlorothiazide had been discontinued, and the patient’s blood pressure and pulse were normal at 119/81 and 69, respectively. He had made strategic changes at work to lessen stressors during the typically difficult months.
 

Discussion

Literature has discussed neuropsychiatric sequelae of COVID-19.² The cited example questions whether psychiatric symptoms are tied directly to the viral infection or to the “host’s immune response.” We believe our case represents a direct neurocognitive/neuropsychiatric insult due to the COVID-19 infection.

This case presents a 55-year-old male with no previous psychiatric or medical history with new onset significant and debilitating cognitive impairment and obsessive thoughts of throwing himself from his bedroom balcony ending up at a bridge struggling with an irrational thought of jumping; ultimately requiring psychiatric hospitalization for acute suicidal thoughts. The patient’s psychiatric symptoms arose prior to any and all medication treatment. The obsessive thoughts correlated both with the onset of SARS-CoV-2 infection and a period of sleep deprivation subsequent to the infection. A course of steroid treatment and taper were started after the onset of neurocognitive-psychiatric symptoms, though there is close timing. We submit that the patient experienced, as part of the initial neurocognitive psychiatric initiating cascade, a COVID-19–induced sleep deprivation that was not etiologic but part of the process; since, even when sleep returned to normal, it was still several weeks before full cognitive function returned to baseline.

An argument could be made for possible MDD or unspecified depressive disorder, as historically there had been work-related stressors for the patient at this time of year because of the chronological nature of his work; though previously nothing presented with obsessional suicidal thinking and nothing with any cognitive impairment – let alone to this incapacitating degree.

The patient describes his seasonal work much like an accountant’s work at the beginning of each year. In the patient’s case, the months of September and October are historically “nonstop, working days,” which then slow down in the winter months for a period of recuperation. In gathering his past history of symptoms, he denied neurovegetative symptoms to meet full diagnostic criteria for MDD or unspecified depressive disorder, absent this episode in the presence of SARS-CoV-2 infection.

We could also consider a contributory negative “organic push” by the viral load and prednisone helping to express an underlying unspecified depression or MDD, but for the profound and unusual presentation. There was little prodrome of depressive symptoms (again, he reported his “typical” extraordinary work burden for this time of year, which is common in his industry).

In this patient, the symptoms have remitted completely. However, the patient is currently taking venlafaxine XR 75 mg. We have considered tapering and discontinuing the venlafaxine – since it is not entirely clear that he needs to be on this medication – so this question remains an open one. We did decide, however, to continue the venlafaxine until after the winter months and to reassess at that time.
 

Conclusion

The patient presented with new onset psychological and psychiatric symptoms in addition to physiologic symptoms; the former symptoms were not revealed prior to initial family medicine evaluation. As the symptoms worsened, he and his wife sought additional consultation with family physician, psychiatrists, and ED. Steroid treatment may have played a part in exacerbation of symptoms, but the neuropsychiatric cognitive symptoms were present prior to initiation of all pharmacologic and medical treatment. The successful outcome of this case was based upon quick action and collaboration between the family medicine physician, the psychiatrist, and the ED physician. The value of communication, assessment, and action via phone call and text cannot be overstated. Future considerations include further large-scale evaluation of multifaceted early treatment of patients with COVID-19 within the first 72 hours of symptoms to prevent not only hospitalization, morbidity, and mortality, but newly recognized psychological and psychiatric syndromes.^3,4

Lastly, fluvoxamine might have been a better choice for adjunctive early treatment of COVID-19.⁵ As a matter of distinction, if a lingering mood disorder or obsessive-compulsive disorder remain a result of SARS-CoV-2 or if one were to start an antidepressant during the course of illness, it would be reasonable to consider fluvoxamine as a potential first-line agent.

Dr. Kohanski is a fellowship trained forensic psychiatrist and a diplomate of the American Board of Psychiatry & Neurology. She maintains a private practice in Somerset, N.J., and is a frequent media commentator and medical podcaster. Dr. Kohanski has no conflicts of interest. Dr. Wax is a residency-trained osteopathic family medicine physician in independent private practice in Mullica Hill, N.J. He has authored multiple papers over 2 decades on topics such as SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19 early treatment. He has been a speaker and media host over 2 decades and served on the National Physicians Council on Healthcare Policy’s congressional subcommittee. Dr. Wax has no conflicts of interest.

References

1. Rev Cardiovasc Med. 2020 Dec 30;21(4):517-30.

2. Brain Behav Immun. 2020 Jul;87:34-9.

3. Trav Med Infect Dis. 2020 May-Jun 35;10738.

4. Kirsch S. “Early treatment for COVID is key to better outcomes.” Times of India. 2021 May 21.

5. Lancet. 2022 Jan 1;10(1):E42-E51.

COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy may be associated with traumatic events in childhood that undermine trust, including domestic violence, substance abuse in the home, or neglect, data published Feb. 1 suggest.

The findings by Mark A. Bellis, DSc, College of Human Sciences, Bangor (Wales) University, and colleagues were published online in BMJ Open.

The results are especially significant, the authors say, because of the prevalence of adverse childhood experiences (ACEs) globally, with proportions of people having multiple traumas in some countries at 10% or more of the population.

The authors wrote that hesitancy or refusal to get the vaccine increased with the number of traumas reported.

For example, hesitancy was three times higher among people who had experienced four or more types of childhood trauma than among those who did not report any traumatic events.

Dr. Bellis told this news organization that though their work suggests that higher levels of ACEs are linked with higher vaccine hesitancy, it is by no means the only reason people choose not to get vaccinated.

However, he said, the association they found may have key messages for clinicians.

“For clinicians, simply being trauma informed can help,” Dr. Bellis said. “Understanding how such childhood adversity can affect people may help them when discussing vaccines, and in understanding resistance to what is a complex medical issue and one that requires considerable trust. What can appear routine to a clinician may be a difficult leap of faith especially for those who have poorer experiences of trusting even within family settings.”
 

More trauma, less trust

The authors used responses to a nationally representative telephone survey of adults in Wales taken between December 2020 and March 2021, when COVID-19 restrictions were in force. Out of 6,763 people contacted, 2,285 met all criteria and answered all the questions and were included in the final analysis.

The survey asked about nine types of ACEs before the age of 18, including: parental separation; physical, verbal, and sexual abuse; exposure to domestic violence; and living with a household member who has mental illness, misuses alcohol and/or drugs, or who was incarcerated.

It also included personal details and long-term health information.

About half of the respondents said they hadn’t experienced any childhood trauma. Of those who did, one in five said they had experienced one type, 17% reported two to three types, and 10% reported four or more.

According to the authors, prevalence of ACEs reported was consistent with other comparable population surveys, including those conducted face to face.

They also investigated measures of trust and preference for different health regulations.

People with more ACEs were more likely to have low trust in National Health Service COVID-19 information.

“Other sociodemographics and a history of either chronic disease or COVID-19 infection were not significantly associated with low trust,” the authors pointed out.

People reporting higher ACEs also were more likely to report that they felt they were unfairly restricted by the government. People with four or more ACEs were twice as likely than were those with no ACEs to say they felt unfairly restricted and wanted rules such as mandatory masking to stop.

People with four or more types of trauma were almost twice as likely to ignore the restrictions as were those who hadn’t experienced any – 38% versus 21% – to ignore the restrictions, even after the researchers accounted for associations with sociodemographic factors and previous COVID-19 infection or a history of long-term conditions. 

“Clinicians can be a powerful voice to counter more alarmist or even conspiratorial messages that might otherwise resonate with those who find trust difficult,” Dr. Bellis said.

He said that the effect of childhood adversity needs to be considered at all levels in health systems. Overarching public health strategists should include ways to earn trust to counter resistance in some of the most vulnerable communities where ACEs can be higher.

It will also be important in the short-term to “provide reassurance, build community champions, and understand the low base from which trust needs to be built,” he said.
 

Loss of control

“Past traumatic experiences can predispose someone to avoid things that remind them of that trauma. This avoidance protects them from re-experiencing the negative symptoms and behaviors that come with it. Whether this results into hesitancy of something that would benefit their health is not well known,” Consuelo Cagande, MD, senior associate program director and fellowship adviser in the department of child and adolescent psychiatry and behavioral sciences, Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, told this news organization.

She pointed out a limitation the authors mention that is common when using ACEs as a measure linking to future negative behaviors – that people self-report them and may misremember or misreport them.

Another limitation is the potential for self-selection bias, as participation level was 36.4%, though the authors noted that is not unusual for unsolicited telephone surveys.

Dr. Cagande said that fearing loss of control may be another factor at play in having to follow restrictions, such as quarantining and masking, social distancing, or mandated vaccinations.

She said it’s important to understand a person’s reason for hesitancy to vaccines and work with the person with the help of the community, to help them trust and feel safe.
 

Young adults of particular concern

The 18- to 29-year-old age group is of particular concern, Dr. Bellis said.

The researchers estimated the likely rates of vaccine hesitancy according to childhood trauma and age, and the numbers ranged from around 3.5% among those aged 70 and older with no experience of childhood adversity to 38% among 18- to 29-year-olds who had experienced four or more types of childhood trauma.

“Childhood adversity can be an especially raw issue in this group,” he explained. “Some have already been obliged to sacrifice substantial proportions of their teenage lives and some will have suffered greater exposure to adverse childhood experiences as a result of being isolated during the pandemic, sometimes in difficult home environments. Our results suggest that this age group and especially those with high levels of ACEs are some of the most likely to be vaccine hesitant.”

This work was supported by Public Health Wales. The study authors and Dr. Cagande reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy may be associated with traumatic events in childhood that undermine trust, including domestic violence, substance abuse in the home, or neglect, data published Feb. 1 suggest.

The findings by Mark A. Bellis, DSc, College of Human Sciences, Bangor (Wales) University, and colleagues were published online in BMJ Open.

The results are especially significant, the authors say, because of the prevalence of adverse childhood experiences (ACEs) globally, with proportions of people having multiple traumas in some countries at 10% or more of the population.

The authors wrote that hesitancy or refusal to get the vaccine increased with the number of traumas reported.

For example, hesitancy was three times higher among people who had experienced four or more types of childhood trauma than among those who did not report any traumatic events.

Dr. Bellis told this news organization that though their work suggests that higher levels of ACEs are linked with higher vaccine hesitancy, it is by no means the only reason people choose not to get vaccinated.

However, he said, the association they found may have key messages for clinicians.

“For clinicians, simply being trauma informed can help,” Dr. Bellis said. “Understanding how such childhood adversity can affect people may help them when discussing vaccines, and in understanding resistance to what is a complex medical issue and one that requires considerable trust. What can appear routine to a clinician may be a difficult leap of faith especially for those who have poorer experiences of trusting even within family settings.”
 

More trauma, less trust

The authors used responses to a nationally representative telephone survey of adults in Wales taken between December 2020 and March 2021, when COVID-19 restrictions were in force. Out of 6,763 people contacted, 2,285 met all criteria and answered all the questions and were included in the final analysis.

The survey asked about nine types of ACEs before the age of 18, including: parental separation; physical, verbal, and sexual abuse; exposure to domestic violence; and living with a household member who has mental illness, misuses alcohol and/or drugs, or who was incarcerated.

It also included personal details and long-term health information.

About half of the respondents said they hadn’t experienced any childhood trauma. Of those who did, one in five said they had experienced one type, 17% reported two to three types, and 10% reported four or more.

According to the authors, prevalence of ACEs reported was consistent with other comparable population surveys, including those conducted face to face.

They also investigated measures of trust and preference for different health regulations.

People with more ACEs were more likely to have low trust in National Health Service COVID-19 information.

“Other sociodemographics and a history of either chronic disease or COVID-19 infection were not significantly associated with low trust,” the authors pointed out.

People reporting higher ACEs also were more likely to report that they felt they were unfairly restricted by the government. People with four or more ACEs were twice as likely than were those with no ACEs to say they felt unfairly restricted and wanted rules such as mandatory masking to stop.

People with four or more types of trauma were almost twice as likely to ignore the restrictions as were those who hadn’t experienced any – 38% versus 21% – to ignore the restrictions, even after the researchers accounted for associations with sociodemographic factors and previous COVID-19 infection or a history of long-term conditions. 

“Clinicians can be a powerful voice to counter more alarmist or even conspiratorial messages that might otherwise resonate with those who find trust difficult,” Dr. Bellis said.

He said that the effect of childhood adversity needs to be considered at all levels in health systems. Overarching public health strategists should include ways to earn trust to counter resistance in some of the most vulnerable communities where ACEs can be higher.

It will also be important in the short-term to “provide reassurance, build community champions, and understand the low base from which trust needs to be built,” he said.
 

Loss of control

“Past traumatic experiences can predispose someone to avoid things that remind them of that trauma. This avoidance protects them from re-experiencing the negative symptoms and behaviors that come with it. Whether this results into hesitancy of something that would benefit their health is not well known,” Consuelo Cagande, MD, senior associate program director and fellowship adviser in the department of child and adolescent psychiatry and behavioral sciences, Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, told this news organization.

She pointed out a limitation the authors mention that is common when using ACEs as a measure linking to future negative behaviors – that people self-report them and may misremember or misreport them.

Another limitation is the potential for self-selection bias, as participation level was 36.4%, though the authors noted that is not unusual for unsolicited telephone surveys.

Dr. Cagande said that fearing loss of control may be another factor at play in having to follow restrictions, such as quarantining and masking, social distancing, or mandated vaccinations.

She said it’s important to understand a person’s reason for hesitancy to vaccines and work with the person with the help of the community, to help them trust and feel safe.
 

Young adults of particular concern

The 18- to 29-year-old age group is of particular concern, Dr. Bellis said.

The researchers estimated the likely rates of vaccine hesitancy according to childhood trauma and age, and the numbers ranged from around 3.5% among those aged 70 and older with no experience of childhood adversity to 38% among 18- to 29-year-olds who had experienced four or more types of childhood trauma.

“Childhood adversity can be an especially raw issue in this group,” he explained. “Some have already been obliged to sacrifice substantial proportions of their teenage lives and some will have suffered greater exposure to adverse childhood experiences as a result of being isolated during the pandemic, sometimes in difficult home environments. Our results suggest that this age group and especially those with high levels of ACEs are some of the most likely to be vaccine hesitant.”

This work was supported by Public Health Wales. The study authors and Dr. Cagande reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy may be associated with traumatic events in childhood that undermine trust, including domestic violence, substance abuse in the home, or neglect, data published Feb. 1 suggest.

The findings by Mark A. Bellis, DSc, College of Human Sciences, Bangor (Wales) University, and colleagues were published online in BMJ Open.

The results are especially significant, the authors say, because of the prevalence of adverse childhood experiences (ACEs) globally, with proportions of people having multiple traumas in some countries at 10% or more of the population.

The authors wrote that hesitancy or refusal to get the vaccine increased with the number of traumas reported.

For example, hesitancy was three times higher among people who had experienced four or more types of childhood trauma than among those who did not report any traumatic events.

Dr. Bellis told this news organization that though their work suggests that higher levels of ACEs are linked with higher vaccine hesitancy, it is by no means the only reason people choose not to get vaccinated.

However, he said, the association they found may have key messages for clinicians.

“For clinicians, simply being trauma informed can help,” Dr. Bellis said. “Understanding how such childhood adversity can affect people may help them when discussing vaccines, and in understanding resistance to what is a complex medical issue and one that requires considerable trust. What can appear routine to a clinician may be a difficult leap of faith especially for those who have poorer experiences of trusting even within family settings.”
 

More trauma, less trust

The authors used responses to a nationally representative telephone survey of adults in Wales taken between December 2020 and March 2021, when COVID-19 restrictions were in force. Out of 6,763 people contacted, 2,285 met all criteria and answered all the questions and were included in the final analysis.

The survey asked about nine types of ACEs before the age of 18, including: parental separation; physical, verbal, and sexual abuse; exposure to domestic violence; and living with a household member who has mental illness, misuses alcohol and/or drugs, or who was incarcerated.

It also included personal details and long-term health information.

About half of the respondents said they hadn’t experienced any childhood trauma. Of those who did, one in five said they had experienced one type, 17% reported two to three types, and 10% reported four or more.

According to the authors, prevalence of ACEs reported was consistent with other comparable population surveys, including those conducted face to face.

They also investigated measures of trust and preference for different health regulations.

People with more ACEs were more likely to have low trust in National Health Service COVID-19 information.

“Other sociodemographics and a history of either chronic disease or COVID-19 infection were not significantly associated with low trust,” the authors pointed out.

People reporting higher ACEs also were more likely to report that they felt they were unfairly restricted by the government. People with four or more ACEs were twice as likely than were those with no ACEs to say they felt unfairly restricted and wanted rules such as mandatory masking to stop.

People with four or more types of trauma were almost twice as likely to ignore the restrictions as were those who hadn’t experienced any – 38% versus 21% – to ignore the restrictions, even after the researchers accounted for associations with sociodemographic factors and previous COVID-19 infection or a history of long-term conditions. 

“Clinicians can be a powerful voice to counter more alarmist or even conspiratorial messages that might otherwise resonate with those who find trust difficult,” Dr. Bellis said.

He said that the effect of childhood adversity needs to be considered at all levels in health systems. Overarching public health strategists should include ways to earn trust to counter resistance in some of the most vulnerable communities where ACEs can be higher.

It will also be important in the short-term to “provide reassurance, build community champions, and understand the low base from which trust needs to be built,” he said.
 

Loss of control

“Past traumatic experiences can predispose someone to avoid things that remind them of that trauma. This avoidance protects them from re-experiencing the negative symptoms and behaviors that come with it. Whether this results into hesitancy of something that would benefit their health is not well known,” Consuelo Cagande, MD, senior associate program director and fellowship adviser in the department of child and adolescent psychiatry and behavioral sciences, Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, told this news organization.

She pointed out a limitation the authors mention that is common when using ACEs as a measure linking to future negative behaviors – that people self-report them and may misremember or misreport them.

Another limitation is the potential for self-selection bias, as participation level was 36.4%, though the authors noted that is not unusual for unsolicited telephone surveys.

Dr. Cagande said that fearing loss of control may be another factor at play in having to follow restrictions, such as quarantining and masking, social distancing, or mandated vaccinations.

She said it’s important to understand a person’s reason for hesitancy to vaccines and work with the person with the help of the community, to help them trust and feel safe.
 

Young adults of particular concern

The 18- to 29-year-old age group is of particular concern, Dr. Bellis said.

The researchers estimated the likely rates of vaccine hesitancy according to childhood trauma and age, and the numbers ranged from around 3.5% among those aged 70 and older with no experience of childhood adversity to 38% among 18- to 29-year-olds who had experienced four or more types of childhood trauma.

“Childhood adversity can be an especially raw issue in this group,” he explained. “Some have already been obliged to sacrifice substantial proportions of their teenage lives and some will have suffered greater exposure to adverse childhood experiences as a result of being isolated during the pandemic, sometimes in difficult home environments. Our results suggest that this age group and especially those with high levels of ACEs are some of the most likely to be vaccine hesitant.”

This work was supported by Public Health Wales. The study authors and Dr. Cagande reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

From Hassenfeld Children’s Hospital at NYU Langone Health, New York, NY (Dr Gallagher), T1D Exchange, Boston, MA (Saketh Rompicherla; Drs Ebekozien, Noor, Odugbesan, and Mungmode; Nicole Rioles, Emma Ospelt), University of Mississippi School of Population Health, Jackson, MS (Dr. Ebekozien), Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, NY (Drs. Wilkes, O’Malley, and Rapaport), Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, NY (Drs. Antal and Feuer), NYU Long Island School of Medicine, Mineola, NY (Dr. Gabriel), NYU Langone Health, New York, NY (Dr. Golden), Barbara Davis Center, Aurora, CO (Dr. Alonso), Texas Children’s Hospital/Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX (Dr. Lyons), Stanford University, Stanford, CA (Dr. Prahalad), Children Mercy Kansas City, MO (Dr. Clements), Indiana University School of Medicine, IN (Dr. Neyman), Rady Children’s Hospital, University of California, San Diego, CA (Dr. Demeterco-Berggren).

Background: Patient outcomes of COVID-19 have improved throughout the pandemic. However, because it is not known whether outcomes of COVID-19 in the type 1 diabetes (T1D) population improved over time, we investigated differences in COVID-19 outcomes for patients with T1D in the United States.

Methods: We analyzed data collected via a registry of patients with T1D and COVID-19 from 56 sites between April 2020 and January 2021. We grouped cases into first surge (April 9, 2020, to July 31, 2020, n = 188) and late surge (August 1, 2020, to January 31, 2021, n = 410), and then compared outcomes between both groups using descriptive statistics and logistic regression models.

Results: Adverse outcomes were more frequent during the first surge, including diabetic ketoacidosis (32% vs 15%, P < .001), severe hypoglycemia (4% vs 1%, P = .04), and hospitalization (52% vs 22%, P < .001). Patients in the first surge were older (28 [SD,18.8] years vs 18.0 [SD, 11.1] years, P < .001), had higher median hemoglobin A1c levels (9.3 [interquartile range {IQR}, 4.0] vs 8.4 (IQR, 2.8), P < .001), and were more likely to use public insurance (107 [57%] vs 154 [38%], P < .001). The odds of hospitalization for adults in the first surge were 5 times higher compared to the late surge (odds ratio, 5.01; 95% CI, 2.11-12.63).

Conclusion: Patients with T1D who presented with COVID-19 during the first surge had a higher proportion of adverse outcomes than those who presented in a later surge.

Keywords: TD1, diabetic ketoacidosis, hypoglycemia.

After the World Health Organization declared the disease caused by the novel coronavirus SARS-CoV-2, COVID-19, a pandemic on March 11, 2020, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention identified patients with diabetes as high risk for severe illness.^1-7 The case-fatality rate for COVID-19 has significantly improved over the past 2 years. Public health measures, less severe COVID-19 variants, increased access to testing, and new treatments for COVID-19 have contributed to improved outcomes.

The T1D Exchange has previously published findings on COVID-19 outcomes for patients with type 1 diabetes (T1D) using data from the T1D COVID-19 Surveillance Registry.^8-12 Given improved outcomes in COVID-19 in the general population, we sought to determine if outcomes for cases of COVID-19 reported to this registry changed over time.

Methods

This study was coordinated by the T1D Exchange and approved as nonhuman subject research by the Western Institutional Review Board. All participating centers also obtained local institutional review board approval. No identifiable patient information was collected as part of this noninterventional, cross-sectional study.

The T1D Exchange Multi-center COVID-19 Surveillance Study collected data from endocrinology clinics that completed a retrospective chart review and submitted information to T1D Exchange via an online questionnaire for all patients with T1D at their sites who tested positive for COVID-19.^13,14 The questionnaire was administered using the Qualtrics survey platform (www.qualtrics.com version XM) and contained 33 pre-coded and free-text response fields to collect patient and clinical attributes.

Each participating center identified 1 team member for reporting to avoid duplicate case submission. Each submitted case was reviewed for potential errors and incomplete information. The coordinating center verified the number of cases per site for data quality assurance.

Quantitative data were represented as mean (standard deviation) or median (interquartile range). Categorical data were described as the number (percentage) of patients. Summary statistics, including frequency and percentage for categorical variables, were calculated for all patient-related and clinical characteristics. The date August 1, 2021, was selected as the end of the first surge based on a review of national COVID-19 surges.

We used the Fisher’s exact test to assess associations between hospitalization and demographics, HbA1c, diabetes duration, symptoms, and adverse outcomes. In addition, multivariate logistic regression was used to calculate odds ratios (OR). Logistic regression models were used to determine the association between time of surge and hospitalization separately for both the pediatric and adult populations. Each model was adjusted for potential sociodemographic confounders, specifically age, sex, race, insurance, and HbA1c.

All tests were 2-sided, with type 1 error set at 5%. Fisher’s exact test and logistic regression were performed using statistical software R, version 3.6.2 (R Foundation for Statistical Computing).

Results

The characteristics of COVID-19 cases in patients with T1D that were reported early in the pandemic, before August 1, 2020 (first surge), compared with those of cases reported on and after August 1, 2020 (later surges) are shown in Table 1.

Patients with T1D who presented with COVID-19 during the first surge as compared to the later surges were older (mean age 28 [SD, 18.0] years vs 18.8 [SD, 11.1] years; P < .001) and had a longer duration of diabetes (P < .001). The first-surge group also had more patients with >20 years’ diabetes duration (20% vs 9%, P < .001). Obesity, hypertension, and chronic kidney disease were also more commonly reported in first-surge cases (all P < .001).

There was a significant difference in race and ethnicity reported in the first surge vs the later surge cases, with fewer patients identifying as non-Hispanic White (39% vs, 63%, P < .001) and more patients identifying as non-Hispanic Black (29% vs 12%, P < .001). The groups also differed significantly in terms of insurance type, with more people on public insurance in the first-surge group (57% vs 38%, P < .001). In addition, median HbA1c was higher (9.3% vs 8.4%, P < .001) and continuous glucose monitor and insulin pump use were less common (P = .02 and <.001, respectively) in the early surge.

All symptoms and adverse outcomes were reported more often in the first surge, including diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA; 32% vs 15%; P < .001) and severe hypoglycemia (4% vs 1%, P = .04). Hospitalization (52% vs 13%, P < .001) and ICU admission (24% vs 9%, P < .001) were reported more often in the first-surge group.

Regression Analyses

Table 2 shows the results of logistic regression analyses for hospitalization in the pediatric (≤19 years of age) and adult (>19 years of age) groups, along with the odds of hospitalization during the first vs late surge among COVID-positive people with T1D. Adult patients who tested positive in the first surge were about 5 times more likely to be hospitalized than adults who tested positive for infection in the late surge after adjusting for age, insurance type, sex, race, and HbA1c levels. Pediatric patients also had an increased odds for hospitalization during the first surge, but this increase was not statistically significant.

Discussion

Our analysis of COVID-19 cases in patients with T1D reported by diabetes providers across the United States found that adverse outcomes were more prevalent early in the pandemic. There may be a number of reasons for this difference in outcomes between patients who presented in the first surge vs a later surge. First, because testing for COVID-19 was extremely limited and reserved for hospitalized patients early in the pandemic, the first-surge patients with confirmed COVID-19 likely represent a skewed population of higher-acuity patients. This may also explain the relative paucity of cases in younger patients reported early in the pandemic. Second, worse outcomes in the early surge may also have been associated with overwhelmed hospitals in New York City at the start of the outbreak. According to Cummings et al, the abrupt surge of critically ill patients hospitalized with severe acute respiratory distress syndrome initially outpaced their capacity to provide prone-positioning ventilation, which has been expanded since then.¹⁵ While there was very little hypertension, cardiovascular disease, or kidney disease reported in the pediatric groups, there was a higher prevalence of obesity in the pediatric group from the mid-Atlantic region. Obesity has been associated with a worse prognosis for COVID-19 illness in children.¹⁶ Finally, there were 5 deaths reported in this study, all of which were reported during the first surge. Older age and increased rates of cardiovascular disease and chronic kidney disease in the first surge cases likely contributed to worse outcomes for adults in mid-Atlantic region relative to the other regions. Minority race and the use of public insurance, risk factors for more severe outcomes in all regions, were also more common in cases reported from the mid-Atlantic region.

This study has several limitations. First, it is a cross-sectional study that relies upon voluntary provider reports. Second, availability of COVID-19 testing was limited in all regions in spring 2020. Third, different regions of the country experienced subsequent surges at different times within the reported timeframes in this analysis. Fourth, this report time period does not include the impact of the newer COVID-19 variants. Finally, trends in COVID-19 outcomes were affected by the evolution of care that developed throughout 2020.

Conclusion

Adult patients with T1D and COVID-19 who reported during the first surge had about 5 times higher hospitalization odds than those who presented in a later surge.

Corresponding author: Osagie Ebekozien, MD, MPH, 11 Avenue de Lafayette, Boston, MA 02111; [email protected]

Disclosures: Dr Ebekozien reports receiving research grants from Medtronic Diabetes, Eli Lilly, and Dexcom, and receiving honoraria from Medtronic Diabetes.

From Hassenfeld Children’s Hospital at NYU Langone Health, New York, NY (Dr Gallagher), T1D Exchange, Boston, MA (Saketh Rompicherla; Drs Ebekozien, Noor, Odugbesan, and Mungmode; Nicole Rioles, Emma Ospelt), University of Mississippi School of Population Health, Jackson, MS (Dr. Ebekozien), Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, NY (Drs. Wilkes, O’Malley, and Rapaport), Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, NY (Drs. Antal and Feuer), NYU Long Island School of Medicine, Mineola, NY (Dr. Gabriel), NYU Langone Health, New York, NY (Dr. Golden), Barbara Davis Center, Aurora, CO (Dr. Alonso), Texas Children’s Hospital/Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX (Dr. Lyons), Stanford University, Stanford, CA (Dr. Prahalad), Children Mercy Kansas City, MO (Dr. Clements), Indiana University School of Medicine, IN (Dr. Neyman), Rady Children’s Hospital, University of California, San Diego, CA (Dr. Demeterco-Berggren).

Background: Patient outcomes of COVID-19 have improved throughout the pandemic. However, because it is not known whether outcomes of COVID-19 in the type 1 diabetes (T1D) population improved over time, we investigated differences in COVID-19 outcomes for patients with T1D in the United States.

Methods: We analyzed data collected via a registry of patients with T1D and COVID-19 from 56 sites between April 2020 and January 2021. We grouped cases into first surge (April 9, 2020, to July 31, 2020, n = 188) and late surge (August 1, 2020, to January 31, 2021, n = 410), and then compared outcomes between both groups using descriptive statistics and logistic regression models.

Results: Adverse outcomes were more frequent during the first surge, including diabetic ketoacidosis (32% vs 15%, P < .001), severe hypoglycemia (4% vs 1%, P = .04), and hospitalization (52% vs 22%, P < .001). Patients in the first surge were older (28 [SD,18.8] years vs 18.0 [SD, 11.1] years, P < .001), had higher median hemoglobin A1c levels (9.3 [interquartile range {IQR}, 4.0] vs 8.4 (IQR, 2.8), P < .001), and were more likely to use public insurance (107 [57%] vs 154 [38%], P < .001). The odds of hospitalization for adults in the first surge were 5 times higher compared to the late surge (odds ratio, 5.01; 95% CI, 2.11-12.63).

Conclusion: Patients with T1D who presented with COVID-19 during the first surge had a higher proportion of adverse outcomes than those who presented in a later surge.

Keywords: TD1, diabetic ketoacidosis, hypoglycemia.

After the World Health Organization declared the disease caused by the novel coronavirus SARS-CoV-2, COVID-19, a pandemic on March 11, 2020, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention identified patients with diabetes as high risk for severe illness.^1-7 The case-fatality rate for COVID-19 has significantly improved over the past 2 years. Public health measures, less severe COVID-19 variants, increased access to testing, and new treatments for COVID-19 have contributed to improved outcomes.

The T1D Exchange has previously published findings on COVID-19 outcomes for patients with type 1 diabetes (T1D) using data from the T1D COVID-19 Surveillance Registry.^8-12 Given improved outcomes in COVID-19 in the general population, we sought to determine if outcomes for cases of COVID-19 reported to this registry changed over time.

Methods

This study was coordinated by the T1D Exchange and approved as nonhuman subject research by the Western Institutional Review Board. All participating centers also obtained local institutional review board approval. No identifiable patient information was collected as part of this noninterventional, cross-sectional study.

The T1D Exchange Multi-center COVID-19 Surveillance Study collected data from endocrinology clinics that completed a retrospective chart review and submitted information to T1D Exchange via an online questionnaire for all patients with T1D at their sites who tested positive for COVID-19.^13,14 The questionnaire was administered using the Qualtrics survey platform (www.qualtrics.com version XM) and contained 33 pre-coded and free-text response fields to collect patient and clinical attributes.

Each participating center identified 1 team member for reporting to avoid duplicate case submission. Each submitted case was reviewed for potential errors and incomplete information. The coordinating center verified the number of cases per site for data quality assurance.

Quantitative data were represented as mean (standard deviation) or median (interquartile range). Categorical data were described as the number (percentage) of patients. Summary statistics, including frequency and percentage for categorical variables, were calculated for all patient-related and clinical characteristics. The date August 1, 2021, was selected as the end of the first surge based on a review of national COVID-19 surges.

We used the Fisher’s exact test to assess associations between hospitalization and demographics, HbA1c, diabetes duration, symptoms, and adverse outcomes. In addition, multivariate logistic regression was used to calculate odds ratios (OR). Logistic regression models were used to determine the association between time of surge and hospitalization separately for both the pediatric and adult populations. Each model was adjusted for potential sociodemographic confounders, specifically age, sex, race, insurance, and HbA1c.

All tests were 2-sided, with type 1 error set at 5%. Fisher’s exact test and logistic regression were performed using statistical software R, version 3.6.2 (R Foundation for Statistical Computing).

Results

The characteristics of COVID-19 cases in patients with T1D that were reported early in the pandemic, before August 1, 2020 (first surge), compared with those of cases reported on and after August 1, 2020 (later surges) are shown in Table 1.

Patients with T1D who presented with COVID-19 during the first surge as compared to the later surges were older (mean age 28 [SD, 18.0] years vs 18.8 [SD, 11.1] years; P < .001) and had a longer duration of diabetes (P < .001). The first-surge group also had more patients with >20 years’ diabetes duration (20% vs 9%, P < .001). Obesity, hypertension, and chronic kidney disease were also more commonly reported in first-surge cases (all P < .001).

There was a significant difference in race and ethnicity reported in the first surge vs the later surge cases, with fewer patients identifying as non-Hispanic White (39% vs, 63%, P < .001) and more patients identifying as non-Hispanic Black (29% vs 12%, P < .001). The groups also differed significantly in terms of insurance type, with more people on public insurance in the first-surge group (57% vs 38%, P < .001). In addition, median HbA1c was higher (9.3% vs 8.4%, P < .001) and continuous glucose monitor and insulin pump use were less common (P = .02 and <.001, respectively) in the early surge.

All symptoms and adverse outcomes were reported more often in the first surge, including diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA; 32% vs 15%; P < .001) and severe hypoglycemia (4% vs 1%, P = .04). Hospitalization (52% vs 13%, P < .001) and ICU admission (24% vs 9%, P < .001) were reported more often in the first-surge group.

Regression Analyses

Table 2 shows the results of logistic regression analyses for hospitalization in the pediatric (≤19 years of age) and adult (>19 years of age) groups, along with the odds of hospitalization during the first vs late surge among COVID-positive people with T1D. Adult patients who tested positive in the first surge were about 5 times more likely to be hospitalized than adults who tested positive for infection in the late surge after adjusting for age, insurance type, sex, race, and HbA1c levels. Pediatric patients also had an increased odds for hospitalization during the first surge, but this increase was not statistically significant.

Discussion

Our analysis of COVID-19 cases in patients with T1D reported by diabetes providers across the United States found that adverse outcomes were more prevalent early in the pandemic. There may be a number of reasons for this difference in outcomes between patients who presented in the first surge vs a later surge. First, because testing for COVID-19 was extremely limited and reserved for hospitalized patients early in the pandemic, the first-surge patients with confirmed COVID-19 likely represent a skewed population of higher-acuity patients. This may also explain the relative paucity of cases in younger patients reported early in the pandemic. Second, worse outcomes in the early surge may also have been associated with overwhelmed hospitals in New York City at the start of the outbreak. According to Cummings et al, the abrupt surge of critically ill patients hospitalized with severe acute respiratory distress syndrome initially outpaced their capacity to provide prone-positioning ventilation, which has been expanded since then.¹⁵ While there was very little hypertension, cardiovascular disease, or kidney disease reported in the pediatric groups, there was a higher prevalence of obesity in the pediatric group from the mid-Atlantic region. Obesity has been associated with a worse prognosis for COVID-19 illness in children.¹⁶ Finally, there were 5 deaths reported in this study, all of which were reported during the first surge. Older age and increased rates of cardiovascular disease and chronic kidney disease in the first surge cases likely contributed to worse outcomes for adults in mid-Atlantic region relative to the other regions. Minority race and the use of public insurance, risk factors for more severe outcomes in all regions, were also more common in cases reported from the mid-Atlantic region.

This study has several limitations. First, it is a cross-sectional study that relies upon voluntary provider reports. Second, availability of COVID-19 testing was limited in all regions in spring 2020. Third, different regions of the country experienced subsequent surges at different times within the reported timeframes in this analysis. Fourth, this report time period does not include the impact of the newer COVID-19 variants. Finally, trends in COVID-19 outcomes were affected by the evolution of care that developed throughout 2020.

Conclusion

Adult patients with T1D and COVID-19 who reported during the first surge had about 5 times higher hospitalization odds than those who presented in a later surge.

Corresponding author: Osagie Ebekozien, MD, MPH, 11 Avenue de Lafayette, Boston, MA 02111; [email protected]

Disclosures: Dr Ebekozien reports receiving research grants from Medtronic Diabetes, Eli Lilly, and Dexcom, and receiving honoraria from Medtronic Diabetes.

From Hassenfeld Children’s Hospital at NYU Langone Health, New York, NY (Dr Gallagher), T1D Exchange, Boston, MA (Saketh Rompicherla; Drs Ebekozien, Noor, Odugbesan, and Mungmode; Nicole Rioles, Emma Ospelt), University of Mississippi School of Population Health, Jackson, MS (Dr. Ebekozien), Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, NY (Drs. Wilkes, O’Malley, and Rapaport), Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, NY (Drs. Antal and Feuer), NYU Long Island School of Medicine, Mineola, NY (Dr. Gabriel), NYU Langone Health, New York, NY (Dr. Golden), Barbara Davis Center, Aurora, CO (Dr. Alonso), Texas Children’s Hospital/Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX (Dr. Lyons), Stanford University, Stanford, CA (Dr. Prahalad), Children Mercy Kansas City, MO (Dr. Clements), Indiana University School of Medicine, IN (Dr. Neyman), Rady Children’s Hospital, University of California, San Diego, CA (Dr. Demeterco-Berggren).

Background: Patient outcomes of COVID-19 have improved throughout the pandemic. However, because it is not known whether outcomes of COVID-19 in the type 1 diabetes (T1D) population improved over time, we investigated differences in COVID-19 outcomes for patients with T1D in the United States.

Methods: We analyzed data collected via a registry of patients with T1D and COVID-19 from 56 sites between April 2020 and January 2021. We grouped cases into first surge (April 9, 2020, to July 31, 2020, n = 188) and late surge (August 1, 2020, to January 31, 2021, n = 410), and then compared outcomes between both groups using descriptive statistics and logistic regression models.

Results: Adverse outcomes were more frequent during the first surge, including diabetic ketoacidosis (32% vs 15%, P < .001), severe hypoglycemia (4% vs 1%, P = .04), and hospitalization (52% vs 22%, P < .001). Patients in the first surge were older (28 [SD,18.8] years vs 18.0 [SD, 11.1] years, P < .001), had higher median hemoglobin A1c levels (9.3 [interquartile range {IQR}, 4.0] vs 8.4 (IQR, 2.8), P < .001), and were more likely to use public insurance (107 [57%] vs 154 [38%], P < .001). The odds of hospitalization for adults in the first surge were 5 times higher compared to the late surge (odds ratio, 5.01; 95% CI, 2.11-12.63).

Conclusion: Patients with T1D who presented with COVID-19 during the first surge had a higher proportion of adverse outcomes than those who presented in a later surge.

Keywords: TD1, diabetic ketoacidosis, hypoglycemia.

After the World Health Organization declared the disease caused by the novel coronavirus SARS-CoV-2, COVID-19, a pandemic on March 11, 2020, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention identified patients with diabetes as high risk for severe illness.^1-7 The case-fatality rate for COVID-19 has significantly improved over the past 2 years. Public health measures, less severe COVID-19 variants, increased access to testing, and new treatments for COVID-19 have contributed to improved outcomes.

The T1D Exchange has previously published findings on COVID-19 outcomes for patients with type 1 diabetes (T1D) using data from the T1D COVID-19 Surveillance Registry.^8-12 Given improved outcomes in COVID-19 in the general population, we sought to determine if outcomes for cases of COVID-19 reported to this registry changed over time.

Methods

This study was coordinated by the T1D Exchange and approved as nonhuman subject research by the Western Institutional Review Board. All participating centers also obtained local institutional review board approval. No identifiable patient information was collected as part of this noninterventional, cross-sectional study.

The T1D Exchange Multi-center COVID-19 Surveillance Study collected data from endocrinology clinics that completed a retrospective chart review and submitted information to T1D Exchange via an online questionnaire for all patients with T1D at their sites who tested positive for COVID-19.^13,14 The questionnaire was administered using the Qualtrics survey platform (www.qualtrics.com version XM) and contained 33 pre-coded and free-text response fields to collect patient and clinical attributes.

Each participating center identified 1 team member for reporting to avoid duplicate case submission. Each submitted case was reviewed for potential errors and incomplete information. The coordinating center verified the number of cases per site for data quality assurance.

Quantitative data were represented as mean (standard deviation) or median (interquartile range). Categorical data were described as the number (percentage) of patients. Summary statistics, including frequency and percentage for categorical variables, were calculated for all patient-related and clinical characteristics. The date August 1, 2021, was selected as the end of the first surge based on a review of national COVID-19 surges.

We used the Fisher’s exact test to assess associations between hospitalization and demographics, HbA1c, diabetes duration, symptoms, and adverse outcomes. In addition, multivariate logistic regression was used to calculate odds ratios (OR). Logistic regression models were used to determine the association between time of surge and hospitalization separately for both the pediatric and adult populations. Each model was adjusted for potential sociodemographic confounders, specifically age, sex, race, insurance, and HbA1c.

All tests were 2-sided, with type 1 error set at 5%. Fisher’s exact test and logistic regression were performed using statistical software R, version 3.6.2 (R Foundation for Statistical Computing).

Results

The characteristics of COVID-19 cases in patients with T1D that were reported early in the pandemic, before August 1, 2020 (first surge), compared with those of cases reported on and after August 1, 2020 (later surges) are shown in Table 1.

Patients with T1D who presented with COVID-19 during the first surge as compared to the later surges were older (mean age 28 [SD, 18.0] years vs 18.8 [SD, 11.1] years; P < .001) and had a longer duration of diabetes (P < .001). The first-surge group also had more patients with >20 years’ diabetes duration (20% vs 9%, P < .001). Obesity, hypertension, and chronic kidney disease were also more commonly reported in first-surge cases (all P < .001).

There was a significant difference in race and ethnicity reported in the first surge vs the later surge cases, with fewer patients identifying as non-Hispanic White (39% vs, 63%, P < .001) and more patients identifying as non-Hispanic Black (29% vs 12%, P < .001). The groups also differed significantly in terms of insurance type, with more people on public insurance in the first-surge group (57% vs 38%, P < .001). In addition, median HbA1c was higher (9.3% vs 8.4%, P < .001) and continuous glucose monitor and insulin pump use were less common (P = .02 and <.001, respectively) in the early surge.

All symptoms and adverse outcomes were reported more often in the first surge, including diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA; 32% vs 15%; P < .001) and severe hypoglycemia (4% vs 1%, P = .04). Hospitalization (52% vs 13%, P < .001) and ICU admission (24% vs 9%, P < .001) were reported more often in the first-surge group.

Regression Analyses

Table 2 shows the results of logistic regression analyses for hospitalization in the pediatric (≤19 years of age) and adult (>19 years of age) groups, along with the odds of hospitalization during the first vs late surge among COVID-positive people with T1D. Adult patients who tested positive in the first surge were about 5 times more likely to be hospitalized than adults who tested positive for infection in the late surge after adjusting for age, insurance type, sex, race, and HbA1c levels. Pediatric patients also had an increased odds for hospitalization during the first surge, but this increase was not statistically significant.

Discussion

Our analysis of COVID-19 cases in patients with T1D reported by diabetes providers across the United States found that adverse outcomes were more prevalent early in the pandemic. There may be a number of reasons for this difference in outcomes between patients who presented in the first surge vs a later surge. First, because testing for COVID-19 was extremely limited and reserved for hospitalized patients early in the pandemic, the first-surge patients with confirmed COVID-19 likely represent a skewed population of higher-acuity patients. This may also explain the relative paucity of cases in younger patients reported early in the pandemic. Second, worse outcomes in the early surge may also have been associated with overwhelmed hospitals in New York City at the start of the outbreak. According to Cummings et al, the abrupt surge of critically ill patients hospitalized with severe acute respiratory distress syndrome initially outpaced their capacity to provide prone-positioning ventilation, which has been expanded since then.¹⁵ While there was very little hypertension, cardiovascular disease, or kidney disease reported in the pediatric groups, there was a higher prevalence of obesity in the pediatric group from the mid-Atlantic region. Obesity has been associated with a worse prognosis for COVID-19 illness in children.¹⁶ Finally, there were 5 deaths reported in this study, all of which were reported during the first surge. Older age and increased rates of cardiovascular disease and chronic kidney disease in the first surge cases likely contributed to worse outcomes for adults in mid-Atlantic region relative to the other regions. Minority race and the use of public insurance, risk factors for more severe outcomes in all regions, were also more common in cases reported from the mid-Atlantic region.

This study has several limitations. First, it is a cross-sectional study that relies upon voluntary provider reports. Second, availability of COVID-19 testing was limited in all regions in spring 2020. Third, different regions of the country experienced subsequent surges at different times within the reported timeframes in this analysis. Fourth, this report time period does not include the impact of the newer COVID-19 variants. Finally, trends in COVID-19 outcomes were affected by the evolution of care that developed throughout 2020.

Conclusion

Adult patients with T1D and COVID-19 who reported during the first surge had about 5 times higher hospitalization odds than those who presented in a later surge.

Corresponding author: Osagie Ebekozien, MD, MPH, 11 Avenue de Lafayette, Boston, MA 02111; [email protected]

Disclosures: Dr Ebekozien reports receiving research grants from Medtronic Diabetes, Eli Lilly, and Dexcom, and receiving honoraria from Medtronic Diabetes.