Infectious Diseases

No Food and Drug Administration–approved treatment currently exists for molluscum contagiosum, which affects an estimated 6 million people in the United States, but that could soon change, according to Leon H. Kircik, MD.

“The treatment of molluscum is still an unmet need,” Dr. Kircik, clinical professor of dermatology at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, said at the Orlando Dermatology Aesthetic and Clinical Conference. However, a proprietary drug-device combination of cantharidin 0.7% administered through a single-use precision applicator, which has been tested in phase 3 studies, is currently under FDA review. The manufacturer, Verrica Pharmaceuticals resubmitted a new drug application for the product, VP-102, in December 2020.

“VP-102 features a visualization agent so the injector can see which lesions have been treated, as well as a bittering agent to mitigate oral ingestion by children. Complete clearance at 12 weeks ranged from 46% to 54% of patients, while lesion count reduction compared with baseline ranged from 69% to 82%.”
 

Acne

In August, 2020, clascoterone 1% cream was approved for the treatment of acne in patients 12 years and older, a development that Dr. Kircik said “can be a game changer in acne treatment.” Clascoterone cream 1% exhibits strong, selective anti-androgen activity by targeting androgen receptors in the skin, not systemically. “It limits or blocks transcription of androgen responsive genes, but it also has an anti-inflammatory effect and an anti-sebum effect,” he explained.

According to results from two phase 3 trials of the product, a response of clear or almost clear on the IGA scale at week 12 was achieved in 18.4% of those on treatment vs. 9% of those on vehicle in one study (P less than .001) and 20.3% vs. 6.5%, respectively, in the second study (P less than .001). Clascoterone is also being evaluated for treating androgenetic alopecia.

In Dr. Kircik’s clinical experience, retinoids can be helpful for patients with moderate to severe acne. “We always use them for anticomedogenic effects, but we also know that they have anti-inflammatory effects,” he said. “They actually inhibit toll-like receptor activity. They also inhibit the AP-1 pathway by causing a reduction in inflammatory signaling associated with collagen degradation and scarring.”

The most recent retinoid to be approved for the topical treatment of acne was 0.005% trifarotene cream, in 2019, for patients aged 9 years and older. “But when we got the results, it was not that exciting,” a difference of about 3.6 (mean) inflammatory lesion reduction between the active and the vehicle arm, said Dr. Kircik, medical director of Physicians Skin Care in Louisville, Ky. “According to the package insert, treatment side effects included mild to moderate erythema in 59% of patients, scaling in 65%, dryness in 69%, and stinging/burning in 56%, which makes it difficult to use in our clinical practice.”

The drug was also tested for treating truncal acne. However, one comparative study showed that tazarotene 0.045% lotion spread an average of 36.7 square centimeters farther than the trifarotene cream, which makes the tazarotene lotion easier to use on the chest and back, he said.

Dr. Kircik also discussed 4% minocycline, a hydrophobic, topical foam formulation of minocycline that was approved by the FDA in 2019 for the treatment of moderate to severe acne, for patients aged 9 and older. In a 12-week study that involved 1,488 patients (mean age was about 20 years), investigators observed a 56% reduction in inflammatory lesion count among those treated with minocycline 4%, compared with 43% in the vehicle group.

Dr. Kircik, one of the authors of the study, noted that the hydrophobic composition of minocycline 4% allows for stable and efficient delivery of an inherently unstable active pharmaceutical ingredient such as minocycline. “It’s free of primary irritants such as surfactants and short chain alcohols, which makes it much more tolerable,” he said. “The unique physical foam characteristics facilitate ease of application and absorption at target sites.”

Dr. Kircik reported that he serves as a consultant and/or adviser to numerous pharmaceutical companies, including Galderma, the manufacturer of trifarotene cream.

[email protected]

No Food and Drug Administration–approved treatment currently exists for molluscum contagiosum, which affects an estimated 6 million people in the United States, but that could soon change, according to Leon H. Kircik, MD.

“The treatment of molluscum is still an unmet need,” Dr. Kircik, clinical professor of dermatology at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, said at the Orlando Dermatology Aesthetic and Clinical Conference. However, a proprietary drug-device combination of cantharidin 0.7% administered through a single-use precision applicator, which has been tested in phase 3 studies, is currently under FDA review. The manufacturer, Verrica Pharmaceuticals resubmitted a new drug application for the product, VP-102, in December 2020.

“VP-102 features a visualization agent so the injector can see which lesions have been treated, as well as a bittering agent to mitigate oral ingestion by children. Complete clearance at 12 weeks ranged from 46% to 54% of patients, while lesion count reduction compared with baseline ranged from 69% to 82%.”
 

Acne

In August, 2020, clascoterone 1% cream was approved for the treatment of acne in patients 12 years and older, a development that Dr. Kircik said “can be a game changer in acne treatment.” Clascoterone cream 1% exhibits strong, selective anti-androgen activity by targeting androgen receptors in the skin, not systemically. “It limits or blocks transcription of androgen responsive genes, but it also has an anti-inflammatory effect and an anti-sebum effect,” he explained.

According to results from two phase 3 trials of the product, a response of clear or almost clear on the IGA scale at week 12 was achieved in 18.4% of those on treatment vs. 9% of those on vehicle in one study (P less than .001) and 20.3% vs. 6.5%, respectively, in the second study (P less than .001). Clascoterone is also being evaluated for treating androgenetic alopecia.

In Dr. Kircik’s clinical experience, retinoids can be helpful for patients with moderate to severe acne. “We always use them for anticomedogenic effects, but we also know that they have anti-inflammatory effects,” he said. “They actually inhibit toll-like receptor activity. They also inhibit the AP-1 pathway by causing a reduction in inflammatory signaling associated with collagen degradation and scarring.”

The most recent retinoid to be approved for the topical treatment of acne was 0.005% trifarotene cream, in 2019, for patients aged 9 years and older. “But when we got the results, it was not that exciting,” a difference of about 3.6 (mean) inflammatory lesion reduction between the active and the vehicle arm, said Dr. Kircik, medical director of Physicians Skin Care in Louisville, Ky. “According to the package insert, treatment side effects included mild to moderate erythema in 59% of patients, scaling in 65%, dryness in 69%, and stinging/burning in 56%, which makes it difficult to use in our clinical practice.”

The drug was also tested for treating truncal acne. However, one comparative study showed that tazarotene 0.045% lotion spread an average of 36.7 square centimeters farther than the trifarotene cream, which makes the tazarotene lotion easier to use on the chest and back, he said.

Dr. Kircik also discussed 4% minocycline, a hydrophobic, topical foam formulation of minocycline that was approved by the FDA in 2019 for the treatment of moderate to severe acne, for patients aged 9 and older. In a 12-week study that involved 1,488 patients (mean age was about 20 years), investigators observed a 56% reduction in inflammatory lesion count among those treated with minocycline 4%, compared with 43% in the vehicle group.

Dr. Kircik, one of the authors of the study, noted that the hydrophobic composition of minocycline 4% allows for stable and efficient delivery of an inherently unstable active pharmaceutical ingredient such as minocycline. “It’s free of primary irritants such as surfactants and short chain alcohols, which makes it much more tolerable,” he said. “The unique physical foam characteristics facilitate ease of application and absorption at target sites.”

Dr. Kircik reported that he serves as a consultant and/or adviser to numerous pharmaceutical companies, including Galderma, the manufacturer of trifarotene cream.

[email protected]

No Food and Drug Administration–approved treatment currently exists for molluscum contagiosum, which affects an estimated 6 million people in the United States, but that could soon change, according to Leon H. Kircik, MD.

“The treatment of molluscum is still an unmet need,” Dr. Kircik, clinical professor of dermatology at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, said at the Orlando Dermatology Aesthetic and Clinical Conference. However, a proprietary drug-device combination of cantharidin 0.7% administered through a single-use precision applicator, which has been tested in phase 3 studies, is currently under FDA review. The manufacturer, Verrica Pharmaceuticals resubmitted a new drug application for the product, VP-102, in December 2020.

“VP-102 features a visualization agent so the injector can see which lesions have been treated, as well as a bittering agent to mitigate oral ingestion by children. Complete clearance at 12 weeks ranged from 46% to 54% of patients, while lesion count reduction compared with baseline ranged from 69% to 82%.”
 

Acne

In August, 2020, clascoterone 1% cream was approved for the treatment of acne in patients 12 years and older, a development that Dr. Kircik said “can be a game changer in acne treatment.” Clascoterone cream 1% exhibits strong, selective anti-androgen activity by targeting androgen receptors in the skin, not systemically. “It limits or blocks transcription of androgen responsive genes, but it also has an anti-inflammatory effect and an anti-sebum effect,” he explained.

According to results from two phase 3 trials of the product, a response of clear or almost clear on the IGA scale at week 12 was achieved in 18.4% of those on treatment vs. 9% of those on vehicle in one study (P less than .001) and 20.3% vs. 6.5%, respectively, in the second study (P less than .001). Clascoterone is also being evaluated for treating androgenetic alopecia.

In Dr. Kircik’s clinical experience, retinoids can be helpful for patients with moderate to severe acne. “We always use them for anticomedogenic effects, but we also know that they have anti-inflammatory effects,” he said. “They actually inhibit toll-like receptor activity. They also inhibit the AP-1 pathway by causing a reduction in inflammatory signaling associated with collagen degradation and scarring.”

The most recent retinoid to be approved for the topical treatment of acne was 0.005% trifarotene cream, in 2019, for patients aged 9 years and older. “But when we got the results, it was not that exciting,” a difference of about 3.6 (mean) inflammatory lesion reduction between the active and the vehicle arm, said Dr. Kircik, medical director of Physicians Skin Care in Louisville, Ky. “According to the package insert, treatment side effects included mild to moderate erythema in 59% of patients, scaling in 65%, dryness in 69%, and stinging/burning in 56%, which makes it difficult to use in our clinical practice.”

The drug was also tested for treating truncal acne. However, one comparative study showed that tazarotene 0.045% lotion spread an average of 36.7 square centimeters farther than the trifarotene cream, which makes the tazarotene lotion easier to use on the chest and back, he said.

Dr. Kircik also discussed 4% minocycline, a hydrophobic, topical foam formulation of minocycline that was approved by the FDA in 2019 for the treatment of moderate to severe acne, for patients aged 9 and older. In a 12-week study that involved 1,488 patients (mean age was about 20 years), investigators observed a 56% reduction in inflammatory lesion count among those treated with minocycline 4%, compared with 43% in the vehicle group.

Dr. Kircik, one of the authors of the study, noted that the hydrophobic composition of minocycline 4% allows for stable and efficient delivery of an inherently unstable active pharmaceutical ingredient such as minocycline. “It’s free of primary irritants such as surfactants and short chain alcohols, which makes it much more tolerable,” he said. “The unique physical foam characteristics facilitate ease of application and absorption at target sites.”

Dr. Kircik reported that he serves as a consultant and/or adviser to numerous pharmaceutical companies, including Galderma, the manufacturer of trifarotene cream.

[email protected]

Exposure to Group A streptococcus (GAS) does not appear to worsen symptoms of Tourette syndrome and other chronic tic disorders (CTDs) in children and adolescents, new research suggests.

Investigators studied over 700 children and teenagers with CTDs, one-third of whom also had attention deficit hyperactivity disorder and one-third who had obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD).

The youngsters were followed for an average of 16 months and evaluated at 4-month intervals to see if they were infected with GAS. Tic severity was monitored through telephone interviews, in-person visits, and parental reports.

A little less than half the children experienced worsening of tics during the study period, but the researchers found no association between these exacerbations and GAS exposure.

There was also no link between GAS and worsening OCD. However, researchers did find an association between GAS exposure and an increase in hyperactivity and impulsivity in patients with ADHD.

“This study does not support GAS exposures as contributing factors for tic exacerbations in children with CTD,” the authors note.

“Specific work-up or active management of GAS infections is unlikely to help modifying the course of tics in CTD and is therefore not recommended,” they conclude.

The study was published online in Neurology.
 

‘Intense debate’

The association between GAS and CTD stems from the description of Pediatric Autoimmune Neuropsychiatric Disorders Associated with Streptococcal infection (PANDAS) – a condition that is now incorporated in the pediatric acute neuropsychiatric syndromes (PANS), the authors note. Tics constitute an “accompanying feature” of this condition.

However, neither population-based nor longitudinal clinical studies “could definitely establish if tic exacerbations in CTD are associated with GAS infections,” they note.  

“The link between streptococcus and tics in children is still a matter of intense debate,” said study author Davide Martino, MD, PhD, director of the Movement Disorders Program at the University of Calgary (Alta.), in a press release.

“We wanted to look at that question, as well as a possible link between strep and behavioral symptoms like obsessive-compulsive disorder and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder,” he said.

The researchers followed 715 children with CTD (mean age 10.7 years, 76.8% male) who were drawn from 16 specialist clinics in nine countries. Almost all (90.8%) had a diagnosis of Tourette syndrome (TS); 31.7% had OCD, and 36.1% had ADHD.

Participants received a throat swab at baseline, and of these, 8.4% tested positive for GAS.

Participants were evaluated over a 16- to 18-month period, consisting of:

• Face-to-face interviews and collection of throat swabs and serum at 4-month intervals.
• Telephone interviews at 4-month intervals, which took place at 2 months between study visit.
• Weekly diaries: Parents were asked to indicate any worsening of tics and focus on detecting the earliest possible tic exacerbation.

Beyond the regularly scheduled visits, parents were instructed to report, by phone or email, any noticeable increase in tic severity and then attend an in-person visit.

Tic exacerbations were defined as an increase of greater than or equal to 6 points on the Yale Global Tic Severity Scale-Total Tic Severity Score (YGTSS-TTS), compared with the previous assessment.

OCD and ADHD symptoms were assessed according to the Yale-Brown Obsessive-Compulsive Scale and the parent-reported Swanson, Nolan, and Pelham-IV (SNAP-IV) questionnaire.

The researchers divided GAS exposures into four categories: new definite exposure; new possible exposure; ongoing definite exposure; and ongoing possible exposure.
 

Unlikely trigger

During the follow-up period, 43.1% (n = 308) of participants experienced tic exacerbations. Of these, 218 participants experienced one exacerbation, while 90 participants experienced two, three, or four exacerbations.

The researchers did not find a significant association between GAS exposure status and tic exacerbation.

Participants who did develop a GAS-associated exacerbation (n = 49) were younger at study exit (9.63 vs. 11.4 years, P < .0001) and were more likely to be male (46/49 vs. 210/259, Fisher’s = .035), compared with participants who developed a non-GAS-associated tic exacerbation (n = 259).

Additional analyses were adjusted for sex, age at onset, exposure to psychotropic medications, exposures to antibiotics, geographical regions, and number of visits in the time interval of interest. These analyses continued to yield no significant association between new or ongoing concurrent GAS exposure episodes and tic exacerbation events.

Of the children in the study, 103 had a positive throat swab, indicating a new definite GAS exposure, whereas 46 had a positive throat swab indicating an ongoing definite exposure (n = 149 visits). Of these visits, only 20 corresponded to tic exacerbations.

There was also no association between GAS exposure and OCD symptom severity. However, it was associated with longitudinal changes (between 17% and 21%, depending on GAS exposure definition) in the severity of hyperactivity-impulsivity symptoms in children with ADHD.

“It is known that immune activation may concur with tic severity in youth with CTDs and that psychosocial stress levels may predict short-term future tic severity in these patients,” the authors write.

“Our findings suggest that GAS is unlikely to be the main trigger for immune activation in these patients,” they add.
 

Brick or cornerstone?

Commenting on the study for this news organization, Margo Thienemann, MD, clinical professor of psychiatry, Stanford (Calif.) University, said that in the clinic population they treat, GAS, other pathogens, and other stresses can “each be associated with PANS symptom exacerbations.”

However, these “would not be likely to cause PANS symptoms exacerbations in the vast majority of individuals, only individuals with genetic backgrounds and immunologic dysfunctions creating susceptibility,” said Dr. Thienemann, who also directs the Pediatric Acute-Onset Neuropsychiatric Syndrome (PANS) Clinic at Stanford Children’s Health. She was not involved with the study.

In an accompanying editorial, Andrea Cavanna, MD, PhD, honorary reader in neuropsychiatry, Birmingham (England) Medical School and Keith Coffman, MD, director, Tourette Syndrome Center of Excellence, Children’s Mercy Hospital, Kansas City, Mo., suggest that perhaps the “interaction of psychosocial stress and GAS infections contributes more to tic exacerbation than psychosocial stress alone.”

“Time will tell whether this study stands as another brick – a cornerstone? – in the wall that separates streptococcus from tics,” they write.

The study was supported by the European Union’s Seventh Framework Program. Dr. Martino has received honoraria for lecturing from the Movement Disorders Society, Tourette Syndrome Association of America, and Dystonia Medical Research Foundation Canada; research funding support from Dystonia Medical Research Foundation Canada, the University of Calgary (Alta.), the Michael P. Smith Family, the Owerko Foundation, Ipsen Corporate, the Parkinson Association of Alberta, and the Canadian Institutes for Health Research; and royalties from Springer-Verlag. The other authors’ disclosures are listed in the original article. Dr. Cavanna, Dr. Coffman, and Dr. Thienemann have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Exposure to Group A streptococcus (GAS) does not appear to worsen symptoms of Tourette syndrome and other chronic tic disorders (CTDs) in children and adolescents, new research suggests.

Investigators studied over 700 children and teenagers with CTDs, one-third of whom also had attention deficit hyperactivity disorder and one-third who had obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD).

The youngsters were followed for an average of 16 months and evaluated at 4-month intervals to see if they were infected with GAS. Tic severity was monitored through telephone interviews, in-person visits, and parental reports.

A little less than half the children experienced worsening of tics during the study period, but the researchers found no association between these exacerbations and GAS exposure.

There was also no link between GAS and worsening OCD. However, researchers did find an association between GAS exposure and an increase in hyperactivity and impulsivity in patients with ADHD.

“This study does not support GAS exposures as contributing factors for tic exacerbations in children with CTD,” the authors note.

“Specific work-up or active management of GAS infections is unlikely to help modifying the course of tics in CTD and is therefore not recommended,” they conclude.

The study was published online in Neurology.
 

‘Intense debate’

The association between GAS and CTD stems from the description of Pediatric Autoimmune Neuropsychiatric Disorders Associated with Streptococcal infection (PANDAS) – a condition that is now incorporated in the pediatric acute neuropsychiatric syndromes (PANS), the authors note. Tics constitute an “accompanying feature” of this condition.

However, neither population-based nor longitudinal clinical studies “could definitely establish if tic exacerbations in CTD are associated with GAS infections,” they note.  

“The link between streptococcus and tics in children is still a matter of intense debate,” said study author Davide Martino, MD, PhD, director of the Movement Disorders Program at the University of Calgary (Alta.), in a press release.

“We wanted to look at that question, as well as a possible link between strep and behavioral symptoms like obsessive-compulsive disorder and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder,” he said.

The researchers followed 715 children with CTD (mean age 10.7 years, 76.8% male) who were drawn from 16 specialist clinics in nine countries. Almost all (90.8%) had a diagnosis of Tourette syndrome (TS); 31.7% had OCD, and 36.1% had ADHD.

Participants received a throat swab at baseline, and of these, 8.4% tested positive for GAS.

Participants were evaluated over a 16- to 18-month period, consisting of:

• Face-to-face interviews and collection of throat swabs and serum at 4-month intervals.
• Telephone interviews at 4-month intervals, which took place at 2 months between study visit.
• Weekly diaries: Parents were asked to indicate any worsening of tics and focus on detecting the earliest possible tic exacerbation.

Beyond the regularly scheduled visits, parents were instructed to report, by phone or email, any noticeable increase in tic severity and then attend an in-person visit.

Tic exacerbations were defined as an increase of greater than or equal to 6 points on the Yale Global Tic Severity Scale-Total Tic Severity Score (YGTSS-TTS), compared with the previous assessment.

OCD and ADHD symptoms were assessed according to the Yale-Brown Obsessive-Compulsive Scale and the parent-reported Swanson, Nolan, and Pelham-IV (SNAP-IV) questionnaire.

The researchers divided GAS exposures into four categories: new definite exposure; new possible exposure; ongoing definite exposure; and ongoing possible exposure.
 

Unlikely trigger

During the follow-up period, 43.1% (n = 308) of participants experienced tic exacerbations. Of these, 218 participants experienced one exacerbation, while 90 participants experienced two, three, or four exacerbations.

The researchers did not find a significant association between GAS exposure status and tic exacerbation.

Participants who did develop a GAS-associated exacerbation (n = 49) were younger at study exit (9.63 vs. 11.4 years, P < .0001) and were more likely to be male (46/49 vs. 210/259, Fisher’s = .035), compared with participants who developed a non-GAS-associated tic exacerbation (n = 259).

Additional analyses were adjusted for sex, age at onset, exposure to psychotropic medications, exposures to antibiotics, geographical regions, and number of visits in the time interval of interest. These analyses continued to yield no significant association between new or ongoing concurrent GAS exposure episodes and tic exacerbation events.

Of the children in the study, 103 had a positive throat swab, indicating a new definite GAS exposure, whereas 46 had a positive throat swab indicating an ongoing definite exposure (n = 149 visits). Of these visits, only 20 corresponded to tic exacerbations.

There was also no association between GAS exposure and OCD symptom severity. However, it was associated with longitudinal changes (between 17% and 21%, depending on GAS exposure definition) in the severity of hyperactivity-impulsivity symptoms in children with ADHD.

“It is known that immune activation may concur with tic severity in youth with CTDs and that psychosocial stress levels may predict short-term future tic severity in these patients,” the authors write.

“Our findings suggest that GAS is unlikely to be the main trigger for immune activation in these patients,” they add.
 

Brick or cornerstone?

Commenting on the study for this news organization, Margo Thienemann, MD, clinical professor of psychiatry, Stanford (Calif.) University, said that in the clinic population they treat, GAS, other pathogens, and other stresses can “each be associated with PANS symptom exacerbations.”

However, these “would not be likely to cause PANS symptoms exacerbations in the vast majority of individuals, only individuals with genetic backgrounds and immunologic dysfunctions creating susceptibility,” said Dr. Thienemann, who also directs the Pediatric Acute-Onset Neuropsychiatric Syndrome (PANS) Clinic at Stanford Children’s Health. She was not involved with the study.

In an accompanying editorial, Andrea Cavanna, MD, PhD, honorary reader in neuropsychiatry, Birmingham (England) Medical School and Keith Coffman, MD, director, Tourette Syndrome Center of Excellence, Children’s Mercy Hospital, Kansas City, Mo., suggest that perhaps the “interaction of psychosocial stress and GAS infections contributes more to tic exacerbation than psychosocial stress alone.”

“Time will tell whether this study stands as another brick – a cornerstone? – in the wall that separates streptococcus from tics,” they write.

The study was supported by the European Union’s Seventh Framework Program. Dr. Martino has received honoraria for lecturing from the Movement Disorders Society, Tourette Syndrome Association of America, and Dystonia Medical Research Foundation Canada; research funding support from Dystonia Medical Research Foundation Canada, the University of Calgary (Alta.), the Michael P. Smith Family, the Owerko Foundation, Ipsen Corporate, the Parkinson Association of Alberta, and the Canadian Institutes for Health Research; and royalties from Springer-Verlag. The other authors’ disclosures are listed in the original article. Dr. Cavanna, Dr. Coffman, and Dr. Thienemann have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Exposure to Group A streptococcus (GAS) does not appear to worsen symptoms of Tourette syndrome and other chronic tic disorders (CTDs) in children and adolescents, new research suggests.

Investigators studied over 700 children and teenagers with CTDs, one-third of whom also had attention deficit hyperactivity disorder and one-third who had obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD).

The youngsters were followed for an average of 16 months and evaluated at 4-month intervals to see if they were infected with GAS. Tic severity was monitored through telephone interviews, in-person visits, and parental reports.

A little less than half the children experienced worsening of tics during the study period, but the researchers found no association between these exacerbations and GAS exposure.

There was also no link between GAS and worsening OCD. However, researchers did find an association between GAS exposure and an increase in hyperactivity and impulsivity in patients with ADHD.

“This study does not support GAS exposures as contributing factors for tic exacerbations in children with CTD,” the authors note.

“Specific work-up or active management of GAS infections is unlikely to help modifying the course of tics in CTD and is therefore not recommended,” they conclude.

The study was published online in Neurology.
 

‘Intense debate’

The association between GAS and CTD stems from the description of Pediatric Autoimmune Neuropsychiatric Disorders Associated with Streptococcal infection (PANDAS) – a condition that is now incorporated in the pediatric acute neuropsychiatric syndromes (PANS), the authors note. Tics constitute an “accompanying feature” of this condition.

However, neither population-based nor longitudinal clinical studies “could definitely establish if tic exacerbations in CTD are associated with GAS infections,” they note.  

“The link between streptococcus and tics in children is still a matter of intense debate,” said study author Davide Martino, MD, PhD, director of the Movement Disorders Program at the University of Calgary (Alta.), in a press release.

“We wanted to look at that question, as well as a possible link between strep and behavioral symptoms like obsessive-compulsive disorder and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder,” he said.

The researchers followed 715 children with CTD (mean age 10.7 years, 76.8% male) who were drawn from 16 specialist clinics in nine countries. Almost all (90.8%) had a diagnosis of Tourette syndrome (TS); 31.7% had OCD, and 36.1% had ADHD.

Participants received a throat swab at baseline, and of these, 8.4% tested positive for GAS.

Participants were evaluated over a 16- to 18-month period, consisting of:

• Face-to-face interviews and collection of throat swabs and serum at 4-month intervals.
• Telephone interviews at 4-month intervals, which took place at 2 months between study visit.
• Weekly diaries: Parents were asked to indicate any worsening of tics and focus on detecting the earliest possible tic exacerbation.

Beyond the regularly scheduled visits, parents were instructed to report, by phone or email, any noticeable increase in tic severity and then attend an in-person visit.

Tic exacerbations were defined as an increase of greater than or equal to 6 points on the Yale Global Tic Severity Scale-Total Tic Severity Score (YGTSS-TTS), compared with the previous assessment.

OCD and ADHD symptoms were assessed according to the Yale-Brown Obsessive-Compulsive Scale and the parent-reported Swanson, Nolan, and Pelham-IV (SNAP-IV) questionnaire.

The researchers divided GAS exposures into four categories: new definite exposure; new possible exposure; ongoing definite exposure; and ongoing possible exposure.
 

Unlikely trigger

During the follow-up period, 43.1% (n = 308) of participants experienced tic exacerbations. Of these, 218 participants experienced one exacerbation, while 90 participants experienced two, three, or four exacerbations.

The researchers did not find a significant association between GAS exposure status and tic exacerbation.

Participants who did develop a GAS-associated exacerbation (n = 49) were younger at study exit (9.63 vs. 11.4 years, P < .0001) and were more likely to be male (46/49 vs. 210/259, Fisher’s = .035), compared with participants who developed a non-GAS-associated tic exacerbation (n = 259).

Additional analyses were adjusted for sex, age at onset, exposure to psychotropic medications, exposures to antibiotics, geographical regions, and number of visits in the time interval of interest. These analyses continued to yield no significant association between new or ongoing concurrent GAS exposure episodes and tic exacerbation events.

Of the children in the study, 103 had a positive throat swab, indicating a new definite GAS exposure, whereas 46 had a positive throat swab indicating an ongoing definite exposure (n = 149 visits). Of these visits, only 20 corresponded to tic exacerbations.

There was also no association between GAS exposure and OCD symptom severity. However, it was associated with longitudinal changes (between 17% and 21%, depending on GAS exposure definition) in the severity of hyperactivity-impulsivity symptoms in children with ADHD.

“It is known that immune activation may concur with tic severity in youth with CTDs and that psychosocial stress levels may predict short-term future tic severity in these patients,” the authors write.

“Our findings suggest that GAS is unlikely to be the main trigger for immune activation in these patients,” they add.
 

Brick or cornerstone?

Commenting on the study for this news organization, Margo Thienemann, MD, clinical professor of psychiatry, Stanford (Calif.) University, said that in the clinic population they treat, GAS, other pathogens, and other stresses can “each be associated with PANS symptom exacerbations.”

However, these “would not be likely to cause PANS symptoms exacerbations in the vast majority of individuals, only individuals with genetic backgrounds and immunologic dysfunctions creating susceptibility,” said Dr. Thienemann, who also directs the Pediatric Acute-Onset Neuropsychiatric Syndrome (PANS) Clinic at Stanford Children’s Health. She was not involved with the study.

In an accompanying editorial, Andrea Cavanna, MD, PhD, honorary reader in neuropsychiatry, Birmingham (England) Medical School and Keith Coffman, MD, director, Tourette Syndrome Center of Excellence, Children’s Mercy Hospital, Kansas City, Mo., suggest that perhaps the “interaction of psychosocial stress and GAS infections contributes more to tic exacerbation than psychosocial stress alone.”

“Time will tell whether this study stands as another brick – a cornerstone? – in the wall that separates streptococcus from tics,” they write.

The study was supported by the European Union’s Seventh Framework Program. Dr. Martino has received honoraria for lecturing from the Movement Disorders Society, Tourette Syndrome Association of America, and Dystonia Medical Research Foundation Canada; research funding support from Dystonia Medical Research Foundation Canada, the University of Calgary (Alta.), the Michael P. Smith Family, the Owerko Foundation, Ipsen Corporate, the Parkinson Association of Alberta, and the Canadian Institutes for Health Research; and royalties from Springer-Verlag. The other authors’ disclosures are listed in the original article. Dr. Cavanna, Dr. Coffman, and Dr. Thienemann have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

To the Editor:

We report the case of an 83-year-old male nursing home resident with a history of end-stage renal disease who presented with multiple small white islands on the surface of the nail plate, similar to those seen in white superficial onychomycosis (Figure 1). Minimal subungual hyperkeratosis of the fingernails also was observed. Three digits were affected with no toenail involvement. Wet mount examination with potassium hydroxide 20% showed a mite (Figure 2A) and multiple eggs (Figure 2B). Treatment consisted of oral ivermectin 3 mg immediately and permethrin solution 5% applied under occlusion to each of the affected nails for 5 consecutive nights, which resulted in complete clearance of the lesion on the nail plate after 2 weeks.

Crusted scabies was first described as Norwegian scabies in 1848 by Danielsen and Boeck,¹ and the name was later changed to crusted scabies in 1976 by Parish and Lumholt² because there was no inherent connection between Norway and Norwegian scabies. It is a skin infestation of Sarcoptes scabiei var hominis and more commonly is seen in immunocompromised individuals such as the elderly and malnourished patients as well as those with diabetes mellitus and alcoholism.^3,4 Patients typically present with widespread hyperkeratosis, mostly involving the palms and soles. Subungual hyperkeratosis and nail dystrophy also can be seen when nail involvement is present, and the scalp rarely is involved.⁵ Unlike common scabies, skin burrows and pruritus may be minimal or absent, thus making the diagnosis of crusted scabies more difficult than normal scabies.⁶ Diagnosis of crusted scabies is confirmed by direct microscopy, which demonstrates mites, eggs, or feces. Strict isolation of the patient is necessary, as the disease is very contagious. Treatment with oral ivermectin (1–3 doses of 3 mg at 14-day intervals) in combination with topical permethrin is effective.⁷

We present a case of crusted scabies with nail involvement that presented with white superficial onychomycosislike lesions. The patient’s nails were successfully treated with a combination of oral ivermectin and topical permethrin occlusion of the nails. In cases with subungual hyperkeratosis, nonsurgical nail avulsion with 40% urea cream or ointment has been used to improve the penetration of permethrin. Partial nail avulsion may be necessary if subungual hyperkeratosis or nail dystrophy becomes extreme.⁸

To the Editor:

We report the case of an 83-year-old male nursing home resident with a history of end-stage renal disease who presented with multiple small white islands on the surface of the nail plate, similar to those seen in white superficial onychomycosis (Figure 1). Minimal subungual hyperkeratosis of the fingernails also was observed. Three digits were affected with no toenail involvement. Wet mount examination with potassium hydroxide 20% showed a mite (Figure 2A) and multiple eggs (Figure 2B). Treatment consisted of oral ivermectin 3 mg immediately and permethrin solution 5% applied under occlusion to each of the affected nails for 5 consecutive nights, which resulted in complete clearance of the lesion on the nail plate after 2 weeks.

Crusted scabies was first described as Norwegian scabies in 1848 by Danielsen and Boeck,¹ and the name was later changed to crusted scabies in 1976 by Parish and Lumholt² because there was no inherent connection between Norway and Norwegian scabies. It is a skin infestation of Sarcoptes scabiei var hominis and more commonly is seen in immunocompromised individuals such as the elderly and malnourished patients as well as those with diabetes mellitus and alcoholism.^3,4 Patients typically present with widespread hyperkeratosis, mostly involving the palms and soles. Subungual hyperkeratosis and nail dystrophy also can be seen when nail involvement is present, and the scalp rarely is involved.⁵ Unlike common scabies, skin burrows and pruritus may be minimal or absent, thus making the diagnosis of crusted scabies more difficult than normal scabies.⁶ Diagnosis of crusted scabies is confirmed by direct microscopy, which demonstrates mites, eggs, or feces. Strict isolation of the patient is necessary, as the disease is very contagious. Treatment with oral ivermectin (1–3 doses of 3 mg at 14-day intervals) in combination with topical permethrin is effective.⁷

We present a case of crusted scabies with nail involvement that presented with white superficial onychomycosislike lesions. The patient’s nails were successfully treated with a combination of oral ivermectin and topical permethrin occlusion of the nails. In cases with subungual hyperkeratosis, nonsurgical nail avulsion with 40% urea cream or ointment has been used to improve the penetration of permethrin. Partial nail avulsion may be necessary if subungual hyperkeratosis or nail dystrophy becomes extreme.⁸

To the Editor:

We report the case of an 83-year-old male nursing home resident with a history of end-stage renal disease who presented with multiple small white islands on the surface of the nail plate, similar to those seen in white superficial onychomycosis (Figure 1). Minimal subungual hyperkeratosis of the fingernails also was observed. Three digits were affected with no toenail involvement. Wet mount examination with potassium hydroxide 20% showed a mite (Figure 2A) and multiple eggs (Figure 2B). Treatment consisted of oral ivermectin 3 mg immediately and permethrin solution 5% applied under occlusion to each of the affected nails for 5 consecutive nights, which resulted in complete clearance of the lesion on the nail plate after 2 weeks.

Crusted scabies was first described as Norwegian scabies in 1848 by Danielsen and Boeck,¹ and the name was later changed to crusted scabies in 1976 by Parish and Lumholt² because there was no inherent connection between Norway and Norwegian scabies. It is a skin infestation of Sarcoptes scabiei var hominis and more commonly is seen in immunocompromised individuals such as the elderly and malnourished patients as well as those with diabetes mellitus and alcoholism.^3,4 Patients typically present with widespread hyperkeratosis, mostly involving the palms and soles. Subungual hyperkeratosis and nail dystrophy also can be seen when nail involvement is present, and the scalp rarely is involved.⁵ Unlike common scabies, skin burrows and pruritus may be minimal or absent, thus making the diagnosis of crusted scabies more difficult than normal scabies.⁶ Diagnosis of crusted scabies is confirmed by direct microscopy, which demonstrates mites, eggs, or feces. Strict isolation of the patient is necessary, as the disease is very contagious. Treatment with oral ivermectin (1–3 doses of 3 mg at 14-day intervals) in combination with topical permethrin is effective.⁷

We present a case of crusted scabies with nail involvement that presented with white superficial onychomycosislike lesions. The patient’s nails were successfully treated with a combination of oral ivermectin and topical permethrin occlusion of the nails. In cases with subungual hyperkeratosis, nonsurgical nail avulsion with 40% urea cream or ointment has been used to improve the penetration of permethrin. Partial nail avulsion may be necessary if subungual hyperkeratosis or nail dystrophy becomes extreme.⁸

Each February, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, along with multiple professional organizations, releases an updated Recommended Child and Adolescent Immunization Schedule.

Recent years have seen fewer changes in the vaccine schedule, mostly with adjustments based on products coming on or off the market, and sometimes with slight changes in recommendations. This year is no different, with mostly minor changes in store. As most practitioners know, having quick access to the tables that accompany the recommendations is always handy. Table 1 contains the typical, recommended immunization schedule. Table 2 contains the catch-up provisions, and Table 3 provides guidance on vaccines for special circumstances and for children with specific medical conditions.
 

2021 childhood and adolescent immunization schedule

One update is a recommendation that patients with egg allergies who had symptoms more extensive than hives should receive the influenza vaccine in a medical setting where severe allergic reactions or anaphylaxis can be recognized and treated, with the exclusion of two specific preparations, Flublok and Flucelvax.

In regard to the live attenuated influenza vaccine (LAIV), there are several points of reinforcement. First, the nomenclature has generally been changed to “LAIV4” throughout the document because only quadrivalent preparations are available. There are specific recommendations that patients should not receive LAIV4 if they recently took antiviral medication for influenza, with “lockout” periods lasting from 2 days to 17 days, depending on the antiviral preparation used. In addition, there is an emphasis on not using LAIV4 for children younger than 2 years.

Two updates to the meningococcal group B vaccine are worth reviewing. The first is that children aged 10 years or older with complement deficiency, complement inhibitor use, or asplenia should receive a meningitis B booster dose beginning 1 year after completion of the primary series, with boosters thereafter every 2 or 3 years as long as that patient remains at greater risk. Another recommendation for patients 10 years or older is that, even if they have received a primary series of meningitis B vaccines, they should receive a booster dose in the setting of an outbreak if it has been 1 year or more since completion of their primary series.

Recommendations have generally been relaxed for tetanus prophylaxis in older children, indicating that individuals requiring tetanus prophylaxis or their 10-year tetanus booster after receipt of at least one Tdap vaccine can receive either tetanus-diphtheria toxoid or Tdap.
 

COVID-19 vaccines

Although childhood vaccination against COVID-19 is still currently limited to adolescents involved in clinical trials, pediatricians surely are getting peppered with questions from parents about whether they should be vaccinated and what to make of the recent reports about allergic reactions. Fortunately, there are several resources for pediatricians. First, two reports point out that true anaphylactic reactions to COVID-19 vaccines appear quite rare. The reported data on Pfizer-developed mRNA vaccine demonstrated an anaphylaxis rate of approximately 2 cases per 1 million doses administered. Among the 21 recipients who experienced anaphylaxis (out of over 11 million total doses administered), fully one third had a history of anaphylaxis episodes. The report also reviews vaccine reactions that were reported but were not classified as anaphylaxis, pointing out that when reporting vaccine reactions, we should be very careful in the nomenclature we use.

Reporting on the Moderna mRNA vaccine showed anaphylaxis rates of about 2.5 per 1 million doses, with 50% of the recipients who experienced true anaphylaxis having a history of anaphylaxis. Most of those who experienced anaphylaxis (90% in the Moderna group and 86% in the Pfizer group) exhibited symptoms of anaphylaxis within 30 minutes of receiving the vaccine. The take-home point, and the current CDC recommendation, is that many individuals, even those with a history of anaphylaxis, can still receive COVID-19 vaccines. The rates of observed anaphylaxis after COVID vaccination are far below population rates of a history of allergy or severe allergic reactions. When coupled with an estimated mortality rate of 0.5%-1% for SARS-CoV-2 disease, that CDC recommends that we encourage people, even those with severe allergies, to get vaccinated.

One clear caveat is that individuals with a history of severe anaphylaxis, and even those concerned about allergies, should be observed for a longer period after vaccination (at least 30 minutes) than the 15 minutes recommended for the general population. In addition, individuals with a specific anaphylactic reaction or severe allergic reaction to any injectable vaccine should confer with an immunologist before considering vaccination.

Another useful resource is a column published by the American Medical Association that walks through some talking points for providers when discussing whether a patient should receive COVID-19 vaccination. Advice is offered on answering patient questions about which preparation to get, what side effects to watch for, and how to report an adverse reaction. Providers are reminded to urge patients to complete whichever series they begin (get that second dose!), and that they currently should not have to pay for a vaccine. FAQ resource pages are available for patients and health care providers.
 

More vaccine news: HPV and influenza

Meanwhile, published vaccine reports provide evidence from the field to demonstrate the benefits of vaccination. A study published in the New England Journal of Medicine reported on the effectiveness of human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine in a Swedish cohort. The report evaluated females aged between 10 and 30 years beginning in 2006 and followed them through 2017, comparing rates of invasive cervical cancer among the group who received one or more HPV vaccine doses with the group who receive none. Even without adjustment, the raw rate of invasive cervical cancer in the vaccinated group was half of that in the unvaccinated group. After full adjustment, some populations experienced incident rate ratios that were greater than 80% reduced. The largest reduction, and therefore the biggest benefit, was among those who received the HPV vaccine before age 17.

A report from the United States looking at the 2018-2019 influenza season demonstrated a vaccine effectiveness rate against hospitalization of 41% and 51% against any ED visit related to influenza. The authors note that there was considerable drift in the influenza A type that appeared late in the influenza season, reducing the overall effectiveness, but that the vaccine was still largely effective.

William T. Basco Jr, MD, MS, is a professor of pediatrics at the Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, and director of the division of general pediatrics. He is an active health services researcher and has published more than 60 manuscripts in the peer-reviewed literature.

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

Each February, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, along with multiple professional organizations, releases an updated Recommended Child and Adolescent Immunization Schedule.

Recent years have seen fewer changes in the vaccine schedule, mostly with adjustments based on products coming on or off the market, and sometimes with slight changes in recommendations. This year is no different, with mostly minor changes in store. As most practitioners know, having quick access to the tables that accompany the recommendations is always handy. Table 1 contains the typical, recommended immunization schedule. Table 2 contains the catch-up provisions, and Table 3 provides guidance on vaccines for special circumstances and for children with specific medical conditions.
 

2021 childhood and adolescent immunization schedule

One update is a recommendation that patients with egg allergies who had symptoms more extensive than hives should receive the influenza vaccine in a medical setting where severe allergic reactions or anaphylaxis can be recognized and treated, with the exclusion of two specific preparations, Flublok and Flucelvax.

In regard to the live attenuated influenza vaccine (LAIV), there are several points of reinforcement. First, the nomenclature has generally been changed to “LAIV4” throughout the document because only quadrivalent preparations are available. There are specific recommendations that patients should not receive LAIV4 if they recently took antiviral medication for influenza, with “lockout” periods lasting from 2 days to 17 days, depending on the antiviral preparation used. In addition, there is an emphasis on not using LAIV4 for children younger than 2 years.

Two updates to the meningococcal group B vaccine are worth reviewing. The first is that children aged 10 years or older with complement deficiency, complement inhibitor use, or asplenia should receive a meningitis B booster dose beginning 1 year after completion of the primary series, with boosters thereafter every 2 or 3 years as long as that patient remains at greater risk. Another recommendation for patients 10 years or older is that, even if they have received a primary series of meningitis B vaccines, they should receive a booster dose in the setting of an outbreak if it has been 1 year or more since completion of their primary series.

Recommendations have generally been relaxed for tetanus prophylaxis in older children, indicating that individuals requiring tetanus prophylaxis or their 10-year tetanus booster after receipt of at least one Tdap vaccine can receive either tetanus-diphtheria toxoid or Tdap.
 

COVID-19 vaccines

Although childhood vaccination against COVID-19 is still currently limited to adolescents involved in clinical trials, pediatricians surely are getting peppered with questions from parents about whether they should be vaccinated and what to make of the recent reports about allergic reactions. Fortunately, there are several resources for pediatricians. First, two reports point out that true anaphylactic reactions to COVID-19 vaccines appear quite rare. The reported data on Pfizer-developed mRNA vaccine demonstrated an anaphylaxis rate of approximately 2 cases per 1 million doses administered. Among the 21 recipients who experienced anaphylaxis (out of over 11 million total doses administered), fully one third had a history of anaphylaxis episodes. The report also reviews vaccine reactions that were reported but were not classified as anaphylaxis, pointing out that when reporting vaccine reactions, we should be very careful in the nomenclature we use.

Reporting on the Moderna mRNA vaccine showed anaphylaxis rates of about 2.5 per 1 million doses, with 50% of the recipients who experienced true anaphylaxis having a history of anaphylaxis. Most of those who experienced anaphylaxis (90% in the Moderna group and 86% in the Pfizer group) exhibited symptoms of anaphylaxis within 30 minutes of receiving the vaccine. The take-home point, and the current CDC recommendation, is that many individuals, even those with a history of anaphylaxis, can still receive COVID-19 vaccines. The rates of observed anaphylaxis after COVID vaccination are far below population rates of a history of allergy or severe allergic reactions. When coupled with an estimated mortality rate of 0.5%-1% for SARS-CoV-2 disease, that CDC recommends that we encourage people, even those with severe allergies, to get vaccinated.

One clear caveat is that individuals with a history of severe anaphylaxis, and even those concerned about allergies, should be observed for a longer period after vaccination (at least 30 minutes) than the 15 minutes recommended for the general population. In addition, individuals with a specific anaphylactic reaction or severe allergic reaction to any injectable vaccine should confer with an immunologist before considering vaccination.

Another useful resource is a column published by the American Medical Association that walks through some talking points for providers when discussing whether a patient should receive COVID-19 vaccination. Advice is offered on answering patient questions about which preparation to get, what side effects to watch for, and how to report an adverse reaction. Providers are reminded to urge patients to complete whichever series they begin (get that second dose!), and that they currently should not have to pay for a vaccine. FAQ resource pages are available for patients and health care providers.
 

More vaccine news: HPV and influenza

Meanwhile, published vaccine reports provide evidence from the field to demonstrate the benefits of vaccination. A study published in the New England Journal of Medicine reported on the effectiveness of human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine in a Swedish cohort. The report evaluated females aged between 10 and 30 years beginning in 2006 and followed them through 2017, comparing rates of invasive cervical cancer among the group who received one or more HPV vaccine doses with the group who receive none. Even without adjustment, the raw rate of invasive cervical cancer in the vaccinated group was half of that in the unvaccinated group. After full adjustment, some populations experienced incident rate ratios that were greater than 80% reduced. The largest reduction, and therefore the biggest benefit, was among those who received the HPV vaccine before age 17.

A report from the United States looking at the 2018-2019 influenza season demonstrated a vaccine effectiveness rate against hospitalization of 41% and 51% against any ED visit related to influenza. The authors note that there was considerable drift in the influenza A type that appeared late in the influenza season, reducing the overall effectiveness, but that the vaccine was still largely effective.

William T. Basco Jr, MD, MS, is a professor of pediatrics at the Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, and director of the division of general pediatrics. He is an active health services researcher and has published more than 60 manuscripts in the peer-reviewed literature.

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

Each February, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, along with multiple professional organizations, releases an updated Recommended Child and Adolescent Immunization Schedule.

Recent years have seen fewer changes in the vaccine schedule, mostly with adjustments based on products coming on or off the market, and sometimes with slight changes in recommendations. This year is no different, with mostly minor changes in store. As most practitioners know, having quick access to the tables that accompany the recommendations is always handy. Table 1 contains the typical, recommended immunization schedule. Table 2 contains the catch-up provisions, and Table 3 provides guidance on vaccines for special circumstances and for children with specific medical conditions.
 

2021 childhood and adolescent immunization schedule

One update is a recommendation that patients with egg allergies who had symptoms more extensive than hives should receive the influenza vaccine in a medical setting where severe allergic reactions or anaphylaxis can be recognized and treated, with the exclusion of two specific preparations, Flublok and Flucelvax.

In regard to the live attenuated influenza vaccine (LAIV), there are several points of reinforcement. First, the nomenclature has generally been changed to “LAIV4” throughout the document because only quadrivalent preparations are available. There are specific recommendations that patients should not receive LAIV4 if they recently took antiviral medication for influenza, with “lockout” periods lasting from 2 days to 17 days, depending on the antiviral preparation used. In addition, there is an emphasis on not using LAIV4 for children younger than 2 years.

Two updates to the meningococcal group B vaccine are worth reviewing. The first is that children aged 10 years or older with complement deficiency, complement inhibitor use, or asplenia should receive a meningitis B booster dose beginning 1 year after completion of the primary series, with boosters thereafter every 2 or 3 years as long as that patient remains at greater risk. Another recommendation for patients 10 years or older is that, even if they have received a primary series of meningitis B vaccines, they should receive a booster dose in the setting of an outbreak if it has been 1 year or more since completion of their primary series.

Recommendations have generally been relaxed for tetanus prophylaxis in older children, indicating that individuals requiring tetanus prophylaxis or their 10-year tetanus booster after receipt of at least one Tdap vaccine can receive either tetanus-diphtheria toxoid or Tdap.
 

COVID-19 vaccines

Although childhood vaccination against COVID-19 is still currently limited to adolescents involved in clinical trials, pediatricians surely are getting peppered with questions from parents about whether they should be vaccinated and what to make of the recent reports about allergic reactions. Fortunately, there are several resources for pediatricians. First, two reports point out that true anaphylactic reactions to COVID-19 vaccines appear quite rare. The reported data on Pfizer-developed mRNA vaccine demonstrated an anaphylaxis rate of approximately 2 cases per 1 million doses administered. Among the 21 recipients who experienced anaphylaxis (out of over 11 million total doses administered), fully one third had a history of anaphylaxis episodes. The report also reviews vaccine reactions that were reported but were not classified as anaphylaxis, pointing out that when reporting vaccine reactions, we should be very careful in the nomenclature we use.

Reporting on the Moderna mRNA vaccine showed anaphylaxis rates of about 2.5 per 1 million doses, with 50% of the recipients who experienced true anaphylaxis having a history of anaphylaxis. Most of those who experienced anaphylaxis (90% in the Moderna group and 86% in the Pfizer group) exhibited symptoms of anaphylaxis within 30 minutes of receiving the vaccine. The take-home point, and the current CDC recommendation, is that many individuals, even those with a history of anaphylaxis, can still receive COVID-19 vaccines. The rates of observed anaphylaxis after COVID vaccination are far below population rates of a history of allergy or severe allergic reactions. When coupled with an estimated mortality rate of 0.5%-1% for SARS-CoV-2 disease, that CDC recommends that we encourage people, even those with severe allergies, to get vaccinated.

One clear caveat is that individuals with a history of severe anaphylaxis, and even those concerned about allergies, should be observed for a longer period after vaccination (at least 30 minutes) than the 15 minutes recommended for the general population. In addition, individuals with a specific anaphylactic reaction or severe allergic reaction to any injectable vaccine should confer with an immunologist before considering vaccination.

Another useful resource is a column published by the American Medical Association that walks through some talking points for providers when discussing whether a patient should receive COVID-19 vaccination. Advice is offered on answering patient questions about which preparation to get, what side effects to watch for, and how to report an adverse reaction. Providers are reminded to urge patients to complete whichever series they begin (get that second dose!), and that they currently should not have to pay for a vaccine. FAQ resource pages are available for patients and health care providers.
 

More vaccine news: HPV and influenza

Meanwhile, published vaccine reports provide evidence from the field to demonstrate the benefits of vaccination. A study published in the New England Journal of Medicine reported on the effectiveness of human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine in a Swedish cohort. The report evaluated females aged between 10 and 30 years beginning in 2006 and followed them through 2017, comparing rates of invasive cervical cancer among the group who received one or more HPV vaccine doses with the group who receive none. Even without adjustment, the raw rate of invasive cervical cancer in the vaccinated group was half of that in the unvaccinated group. After full adjustment, some populations experienced incident rate ratios that were greater than 80% reduced. The largest reduction, and therefore the biggest benefit, was among those who received the HPV vaccine before age 17.

A report from the United States looking at the 2018-2019 influenza season demonstrated a vaccine effectiveness rate against hospitalization of 41% and 51% against any ED visit related to influenza. The authors note that there was considerable drift in the influenza A type that appeared late in the influenza season, reducing the overall effectiveness, but that the vaccine was still largely effective.

William T. Basco Jr, MD, MS, is a professor of pediatrics at the Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, and director of the division of general pediatrics. He is an active health services researcher and has published more than 60 manuscripts in the peer-reviewed literature.

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

The fifth consecutive week with a decline has the number of new COVID-19 cases in children at its lowest level since late October, according to a report from the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Children’s Hospital Association.

New child cases totaled 70,640 for the week of Feb. 12-18, down from 99,000 the previous week, making for the lowest count since the week of Oct. 23-29, when 61,000 cases were reported, the AAP and CHA said in their weekly COVID-19 report.

The cumulative number of COVID-19 cases in children is now just over 3.1 million, which represents 13.1% of cases among all ages in the United States, based on data gathered from the health departments of 49 states (excluding New York), the District of Columbia, New York City, Puerto Rico, and Guam.

More children in California (439,000) have been infected than in any other state, while Illinois (176,000), Florida (145,000), Tennessee (137,000), Arizona (127,000), Ohio (121,000), and Pennsylvania (111,000) are the only other states with more than 100,000 cases, the AAP/CHA report shows.

Proportionally, the children of Wyoming have been hardest hit: Pediatric cases represent 19.4% of all cases in the state. The other four states with proportions of 18% or more are Alaska, Vermont, South Carolina, and Tennessee. Cumulative rates, however, tell a somewhat different story, as North Dakota leads with just over 8,500 cases per 100,000 children, followed by Tennessee (7,700 per 100,000) and Rhode Island (7,000 per 100,000), the AAP and CHA said.

Deaths in children, which had not been following the trend of fewer new cases over the last few weeks, dropped below double digits for the first time in a month. The six deaths that occurred during the week of Feb. 12-18 bring the total to 247 since the start of the pandemic in the 43 states, along with New York City and Guam, that are reporting such data, according to the report.

[email protected]

The fifth consecutive week with a decline has the number of new COVID-19 cases in children at its lowest level since late October, according to a report from the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Children’s Hospital Association.

New child cases totaled 70,640 for the week of Feb. 12-18, down from 99,000 the previous week, making for the lowest count since the week of Oct. 23-29, when 61,000 cases were reported, the AAP and CHA said in their weekly COVID-19 report.

The cumulative number of COVID-19 cases in children is now just over 3.1 million, which represents 13.1% of cases among all ages in the United States, based on data gathered from the health departments of 49 states (excluding New York), the District of Columbia, New York City, Puerto Rico, and Guam.

More children in California (439,000) have been infected than in any other state, while Illinois (176,000), Florida (145,000), Tennessee (137,000), Arizona (127,000), Ohio (121,000), and Pennsylvania (111,000) are the only other states with more than 100,000 cases, the AAP/CHA report shows.

Proportionally, the children of Wyoming have been hardest hit: Pediatric cases represent 19.4% of all cases in the state. The other four states with proportions of 18% or more are Alaska, Vermont, South Carolina, and Tennessee. Cumulative rates, however, tell a somewhat different story, as North Dakota leads with just over 8,500 cases per 100,000 children, followed by Tennessee (7,700 per 100,000) and Rhode Island (7,000 per 100,000), the AAP and CHA said.

Deaths in children, which had not been following the trend of fewer new cases over the last few weeks, dropped below double digits for the first time in a month. The six deaths that occurred during the week of Feb. 12-18 bring the total to 247 since the start of the pandemic in the 43 states, along with New York City and Guam, that are reporting such data, according to the report.

[email protected]

The fifth consecutive week with a decline has the number of new COVID-19 cases in children at its lowest level since late October, according to a report from the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Children’s Hospital Association.

New child cases totaled 70,640 for the week of Feb. 12-18, down from 99,000 the previous week, making for the lowest count since the week of Oct. 23-29, when 61,000 cases were reported, the AAP and CHA said in their weekly COVID-19 report.

The cumulative number of COVID-19 cases in children is now just over 3.1 million, which represents 13.1% of cases among all ages in the United States, based on data gathered from the health departments of 49 states (excluding New York), the District of Columbia, New York City, Puerto Rico, and Guam.

More children in California (439,000) have been infected than in any other state, while Illinois (176,000), Florida (145,000), Tennessee (137,000), Arizona (127,000), Ohio (121,000), and Pennsylvania (111,000) are the only other states with more than 100,000 cases, the AAP/CHA report shows.

Proportionally, the children of Wyoming have been hardest hit: Pediatric cases represent 19.4% of all cases in the state. The other four states with proportions of 18% or more are Alaska, Vermont, South Carolina, and Tennessee. Cumulative rates, however, tell a somewhat different story, as North Dakota leads with just over 8,500 cases per 100,000 children, followed by Tennessee (7,700 per 100,000) and Rhode Island (7,000 per 100,000), the AAP and CHA said.

Deaths in children, which had not been following the trend of fewer new cases over the last few weeks, dropped below double digits for the first time in a month. The six deaths that occurred during the week of Feb. 12-18 bring the total to 247 since the start of the pandemic in the 43 states, along with New York City and Guam, that are reporting such data, according to the report.

[email protected]

An obese 64-year-old man with type 2 diabetes presents with redness and warmth of his lower left leg.

He noticed discomfort today and saw that his left lower leg had redness and was warm. He does not recall scratches or injury to his leg. He has not had fever or chills. He has no other symptoms. His diabetes has been well controlled with diet and metformin.

On exam, his blood pressure is 120/70, pulse is 80, temperature is 37 degrees Celsius.

In the left lower extremity, the patient had 1+ edema at the ankle, with a 14-cm x 20-cm warm, erythematous area just above the ankle and extending proximally.

His labs found an HCT of 44 and a WBC of 12,000. What do you recommend?
 

A) Vascular duplex exam

B) 1st generation cephalosporin

C) 1st generation cephalosporin + TMP/Sulfa

D) Oral clindamycin

E) IV vancomycin

This patient has cellulitis and should receive a beta lactam antibiotic, which will have the best coverage and lowest minimal inhibitory concentration for the likely organism, beta hemolytic streptococci. Clindamycin would likely work, but it has greater side effects. This patient does not need coverage for methicillin-resistant staphylococcus aureus (MRSA). I know many of you, if not most, know this, but I want to go through relevant data and formal recommendations, because of a recent call I received from a patient.

My patient had a full body rash after receiving cephalexin + TMP/sulfa [trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole] treatment for cellulitis. In recent years the addition of TMP/sulfa to strep treatment to also cover MRSA has become popular, especially in emergency department and urgent care settings.

Moran and colleagues studied cephalexin + TMP/sulfa vs. cephalexin and placebo in patients with uncomplicated cellulitis.¹ The outcome measured was clinical cure, and there was no difference between groups; clinical cure occurred in 182 (83.5%) of 218 participants in the cephalexin plus TMP/sulfa group vs. 165 (85.5%) of 193 in the cephalexin group (difference, −2.0%; 95% confidence interval, −9.7% to 5.7%; P = .50).

Jeng and colleagues studied patients admitted for a cellulitis, and evaluated the patients’ response to beta-lactam antibiotics.² Patients had acute and convalescent serologies for beta hemolytic strep. Almost all evaluable patients with positive strep studies (97%) responded to beta-lactams, and 21 of 23 (91%) with negative studies responded to beta-lactams (overall response rate 95%). This study was done during a time of high MRSA prevalence.

The most recent Infectious Diseases Society of America guidelines for skin and soft tissue infections, recommend oral penicillin, cephalexin, dicloxacillin, or clindamycin for mild cellulitis, and IV equivalent if patients have moderate cellulitis.³ If abscesses are present, then drainage is recommended and MRSA coverage. Kamath and colleagues reported on how closely guidelines for skin and soft tissue infections were followed.⁴ In patients with mild cellulitis, only 36% received guideline-suggested antibiotics. The most common antibiotic prescribed that was outside the guidelines was trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole.
 

Myth: Cellulitis treatment should include MRSA coverage.

My advice: Stick with beta-lactam antibiotics, unless an abscess is present. There is no need to add MRSA coverage for initial treatment of mild to moderate cellulitis.

Dr. Paauw is professor of medicine in the division of general internal medicine at the University of Washington, Seattle, and he serves as third-year medical student clerkship director at the University of Washington. He is a member of the editorial advisory board of Internal Medicine News. Dr. Paauw has no conflicts to disclose. Contact him at [email protected].

References

1. Moran GJ et al. Effect of cephalexin plus trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole vs. cephalexin alone on clinical cure of uncomplicated cellulitis: A randomized clinical trial. JAMA 2017 May 23;317(20):2088-96.

2. Jeng Arthur et al. The role of beta-hemolytic streptococci in causing diffuse, nonculturable cellulitis. Medicine. 2010;July;89(4):217-26.

3. Stevens DL et al. Practice guidelines for the diagnosis and management of skin and soft tissue infections: 2014 update by the Infectious Diseases Society of America. Clin Infect Dis. 2014;59(2):e10-e52.

4. Kamath RS et al. Guidelines vs. actual management of skin and soft tissue infections in the emergency department. Open Forum Infect Dis. 2018 Jan 12;5(1):ofx188.
 

An obese 64-year-old man with type 2 diabetes presents with redness and warmth of his lower left leg.

He noticed discomfort today and saw that his left lower leg had redness and was warm. He does not recall scratches or injury to his leg. He has not had fever or chills. He has no other symptoms. His diabetes has been well controlled with diet and metformin.

On exam, his blood pressure is 120/70, pulse is 80, temperature is 37 degrees Celsius.

In the left lower extremity, the patient had 1+ edema at the ankle, with a 14-cm x 20-cm warm, erythematous area just above the ankle and extending proximally.

His labs found an HCT of 44 and a WBC of 12,000. What do you recommend?
 

A) Vascular duplex exam

B) 1st generation cephalosporin

C) 1st generation cephalosporin + TMP/Sulfa

D) Oral clindamycin

E) IV vancomycin

This patient has cellulitis and should receive a beta lactam antibiotic, which will have the best coverage and lowest minimal inhibitory concentration for the likely organism, beta hemolytic streptococci. Clindamycin would likely work, but it has greater side effects. This patient does not need coverage for methicillin-resistant staphylococcus aureus (MRSA). I know many of you, if not most, know this, but I want to go through relevant data and formal recommendations, because of a recent call I received from a patient.

My patient had a full body rash after receiving cephalexin + TMP/sulfa [trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole] treatment for cellulitis. In recent years the addition of TMP/sulfa to strep treatment to also cover MRSA has become popular, especially in emergency department and urgent care settings.

Moran and colleagues studied cephalexin + TMP/sulfa vs. cephalexin and placebo in patients with uncomplicated cellulitis.¹ The outcome measured was clinical cure, and there was no difference between groups; clinical cure occurred in 182 (83.5%) of 218 participants in the cephalexin plus TMP/sulfa group vs. 165 (85.5%) of 193 in the cephalexin group (difference, −2.0%; 95% confidence interval, −9.7% to 5.7%; P = .50).

Jeng and colleagues studied patients admitted for a cellulitis, and evaluated the patients’ response to beta-lactam antibiotics.² Patients had acute and convalescent serologies for beta hemolytic strep. Almost all evaluable patients with positive strep studies (97%) responded to beta-lactams, and 21 of 23 (91%) with negative studies responded to beta-lactams (overall response rate 95%). This study was done during a time of high MRSA prevalence.

The most recent Infectious Diseases Society of America guidelines for skin and soft tissue infections, recommend oral penicillin, cephalexin, dicloxacillin, or clindamycin for mild cellulitis, and IV equivalent if patients have moderate cellulitis.³ If abscesses are present, then drainage is recommended and MRSA coverage. Kamath and colleagues reported on how closely guidelines for skin and soft tissue infections were followed.⁴ In patients with mild cellulitis, only 36% received guideline-suggested antibiotics. The most common antibiotic prescribed that was outside the guidelines was trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole.
 

Myth: Cellulitis treatment should include MRSA coverage.

My advice: Stick with beta-lactam antibiotics, unless an abscess is present. There is no need to add MRSA coverage for initial treatment of mild to moderate cellulitis.

Dr. Paauw is professor of medicine in the division of general internal medicine at the University of Washington, Seattle, and he serves as third-year medical student clerkship director at the University of Washington. He is a member of the editorial advisory board of Internal Medicine News. Dr. Paauw has no conflicts to disclose. Contact him at [email protected].

References

1. Moran GJ et al. Effect of cephalexin plus trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole vs. cephalexin alone on clinical cure of uncomplicated cellulitis: A randomized clinical trial. JAMA 2017 May 23;317(20):2088-96.

2. Jeng Arthur et al. The role of beta-hemolytic streptococci in causing diffuse, nonculturable cellulitis. Medicine. 2010;July;89(4):217-26.

3. Stevens DL et al. Practice guidelines for the diagnosis and management of skin and soft tissue infections: 2014 update by the Infectious Diseases Society of America. Clin Infect Dis. 2014;59(2):e10-e52.

4. Kamath RS et al. Guidelines vs. actual management of skin and soft tissue infections in the emergency department. Open Forum Infect Dis. 2018 Jan 12;5(1):ofx188.
 

An obese 64-year-old man with type 2 diabetes presents with redness and warmth of his lower left leg.

He noticed discomfort today and saw that his left lower leg had redness and was warm. He does not recall scratches or injury to his leg. He has not had fever or chills. He has no other symptoms. His diabetes has been well controlled with diet and metformin.

On exam, his blood pressure is 120/70, pulse is 80, temperature is 37 degrees Celsius.

In the left lower extremity, the patient had 1+ edema at the ankle, with a 14-cm x 20-cm warm, erythematous area just above the ankle and extending proximally.

His labs found an HCT of 44 and a WBC of 12,000. What do you recommend?
 

A) Vascular duplex exam

B) 1st generation cephalosporin

C) 1st generation cephalosporin + TMP/Sulfa

D) Oral clindamycin

E) IV vancomycin

This patient has cellulitis and should receive a beta lactam antibiotic, which will have the best coverage and lowest minimal inhibitory concentration for the likely organism, beta hemolytic streptococci. Clindamycin would likely work, but it has greater side effects. This patient does not need coverage for methicillin-resistant staphylococcus aureus (MRSA). I know many of you, if not most, know this, but I want to go through relevant data and formal recommendations, because of a recent call I received from a patient.

My patient had a full body rash after receiving cephalexin + TMP/sulfa [trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole] treatment for cellulitis. In recent years the addition of TMP/sulfa to strep treatment to also cover MRSA has become popular, especially in emergency department and urgent care settings.

Moran and colleagues studied cephalexin + TMP/sulfa vs. cephalexin and placebo in patients with uncomplicated cellulitis.¹ The outcome measured was clinical cure, and there was no difference between groups; clinical cure occurred in 182 (83.5%) of 218 participants in the cephalexin plus TMP/sulfa group vs. 165 (85.5%) of 193 in the cephalexin group (difference, −2.0%; 95% confidence interval, −9.7% to 5.7%; P = .50).

Jeng and colleagues studied patients admitted for a cellulitis, and evaluated the patients’ response to beta-lactam antibiotics.² Patients had acute and convalescent serologies for beta hemolytic strep. Almost all evaluable patients with positive strep studies (97%) responded to beta-lactams, and 21 of 23 (91%) with negative studies responded to beta-lactams (overall response rate 95%). This study was done during a time of high MRSA prevalence.

The most recent Infectious Diseases Society of America guidelines for skin and soft tissue infections, recommend oral penicillin, cephalexin, dicloxacillin, or clindamycin for mild cellulitis, and IV equivalent if patients have moderate cellulitis.³ If abscesses are present, then drainage is recommended and MRSA coverage. Kamath and colleagues reported on how closely guidelines for skin and soft tissue infections were followed.⁴ In patients with mild cellulitis, only 36% received guideline-suggested antibiotics. The most common antibiotic prescribed that was outside the guidelines was trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole.
 

Myth: Cellulitis treatment should include MRSA coverage.

My advice: Stick with beta-lactam antibiotics, unless an abscess is present. There is no need to add MRSA coverage for initial treatment of mild to moderate cellulitis.

Dr. Paauw is professor of medicine in the division of general internal medicine at the University of Washington, Seattle, and he serves as third-year medical student clerkship director at the University of Washington. He is a member of the editorial advisory board of Internal Medicine News. Dr. Paauw has no conflicts to disclose. Contact him at [email protected].

References

1. Moran GJ et al. Effect of cephalexin plus trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole vs. cephalexin alone on clinical cure of uncomplicated cellulitis: A randomized clinical trial. JAMA 2017 May 23;317(20):2088-96.

2. Jeng Arthur et al. The role of beta-hemolytic streptococci in causing diffuse, nonculturable cellulitis. Medicine. 2010;July;89(4):217-26.

3. Stevens DL et al. Practice guidelines for the diagnosis and management of skin and soft tissue infections: 2014 update by the Infectious Diseases Society of America. Clin Infect Dis. 2014;59(2):e10-e52.

4. Kamath RS et al. Guidelines vs. actual management of skin and soft tissue infections in the emergency department. Open Forum Infect Dis. 2018 Jan 12;5(1):ofx188.
 

REFERENCES

1. CDC. COVID-19 vaccination. Accessed February 22, 2021.
2. CDC. COVID data tracker. Accessed February 22, 2021.
3. Oliver SE, Gargano JW, Marin M, et al. The Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices’ interim recommendation for use of Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine—United States, December 2020. MMWR Morbid Mortal Wkly Rep. 2020;69:1922-1924. Accessed February 22, 2021.
4. Oliver SE, Gargano JW, Marin M, et al. The Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices’ interim recommendation for use of Moderna COVID-19 vaccine—United States, December 2020. MMWR Morbid Mortal Wkly Rep. 2021;69:1653-1656. Accessed February 22, 2021.
5. Gee J, Marquez P, Su J, et al. First month of COVID-19 vaccine safety monitoring—United States, December 14, 2020–January 13, 2021. MMWR Morbid Mortal Wkly Rep. ePub: February 19, 2021. Accessed February 22, 2021.
6. CDC COVID-19 Response Team; Food and Drug Administration. Allergic reactions including anaphylaxis after receipt of the first dose of Moderna COVID-19 vaccine—United States, December 21, 2020–January 10, 2021. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2021;70:125-129. Accessed February 25, 2021.

REFERENCES

1. CDC. COVID-19 vaccination. Accessed February 22, 2021.
2. CDC. COVID data tracker. Accessed February 22, 2021.
3. Oliver SE, Gargano JW, Marin M, et al. The Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices’ interim recommendation for use of Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine—United States, December 2020. MMWR Morbid Mortal Wkly Rep. 2020;69:1922-1924. Accessed February 22, 2021.
4. Oliver SE, Gargano JW, Marin M, et al. The Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices’ interim recommendation for use of Moderna COVID-19 vaccine—United States, December 2020. MMWR Morbid Mortal Wkly Rep. 2021;69:1653-1656. Accessed February 22, 2021.
5. Gee J, Marquez P, Su J, et al. First month of COVID-19 vaccine safety monitoring—United States, December 14, 2020–January 13, 2021. MMWR Morbid Mortal Wkly Rep. ePub: February 19, 2021. Accessed February 22, 2021.
6. CDC COVID-19 Response Team; Food and Drug Administration. Allergic reactions including anaphylaxis after receipt of the first dose of Moderna COVID-19 vaccine—United States, December 21, 2020–January 10, 2021. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2021;70:125-129. Accessed February 25, 2021.

REFERENCES

1. CDC. COVID-19 vaccination. Accessed February 22, 2021.
2. CDC. COVID data tracker. Accessed February 22, 2021.
3. Oliver SE, Gargano JW, Marin M, et al. The Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices’ interim recommendation for use of Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine—United States, December 2020. MMWR Morbid Mortal Wkly Rep. 2020;69:1922-1924. Accessed February 22, 2021.
4. Oliver SE, Gargano JW, Marin M, et al. The Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices’ interim recommendation for use of Moderna COVID-19 vaccine—United States, December 2020. MMWR Morbid Mortal Wkly Rep. 2021;69:1653-1656. Accessed February 22, 2021.
5. Gee J, Marquez P, Su J, et al. First month of COVID-19 vaccine safety monitoring—United States, December 14, 2020–January 13, 2021. MMWR Morbid Mortal Wkly Rep. ePub: February 19, 2021. Accessed February 22, 2021.
6. CDC COVID-19 Response Team; Food and Drug Administration. Allergic reactions including anaphylaxis after receipt of the first dose of Moderna COVID-19 vaccine—United States, December 21, 2020–January 10, 2021. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2021;70:125-129. Accessed February 25, 2021.

The Diagnosis: Epidermodysplasia Verruciformis 

Histopathologic examination of our patient's biopsy specimen revealed mild acanthosis with prominent hypergranulosis and enlarged keratinocytes with blue-gray cytoplasm (Figure). A diagnosis of acquired epidermodysplasia verruciformis (EV) was rendered. The patient was treated with photodynamic therapy utilizing 5-aminolevulinic acid. 

Epidermodysplasia verruciformis is characterized by susceptibility to human papillomavirus (HPV) infections via a defect in cellular immunity. Epidermodysplasia verruciformis was first described as an autosomal-recessive genodermatosis, but it can be acquired in immunosuppressed states with an atypical clinical appearance.¹ There are few case reports in skin of color. Acquired EV appears in patients with acquired immunodeficiencies that are susceptible to EV-causing HPVs via a similar mechanism found in inherited EV.² The most common HPV serotypes involved in EV are HPV-5 and HPV-8. The duration of immunosuppression has been found to be positively correlated with the risk for EV development, with the majority of patients developing lesions after 5 years of immunosuppression.³ There is an approximately 60% risk of malignant transformation of EV lesions into nonmelanoma skin cancer.² This risk is believed to be lower in patients with darker skin.⁴  

Preventative measures including sun protection and annual surveillance are crucial in EV patients given the high rate of malignant transformation in sun-exposed lesions.⁵ Treatment options for EV are anecdotal and have variable results, ranging from topicals including 5-fluorouracil and imiquimod to systemic medications including acitretin and interferon.³ Photodynamic therapy can be used for extensive EV. Surgical modalities and other destructive methods also have been tried.⁶ 

Epidermodysplasia verruciformis often can be confused with similar dermatoses. Porokeratosis appears as annular pink papules with waferlike peripheral scales. Tinea versicolor is a dermatophyte infection caused by Malassezia furfur and presents as multiple dyspigmented, finely scaling, thin papules and plaques. Subacute cutaneous lupus erythematosus presents as pink, scaly, annular or psoriasiform papules and plaques most commonly on the trunk. Discoid lupus erythematosus presents as pink, hypopigmented or depigmented, atrophic plaques with a peripheral rim of erythema that indicates activity. Secondary syphilis, commonly denoted as the "great mimicker," presents as psoriasiform papules and plaques among other variable morphologies. 

The Diagnosis: Epidermodysplasia Verruciformis 

Histopathologic examination of our patient's biopsy specimen revealed mild acanthosis with prominent hypergranulosis and enlarged keratinocytes with blue-gray cytoplasm (Figure). A diagnosis of acquired epidermodysplasia verruciformis (EV) was rendered. The patient was treated with photodynamic therapy utilizing 5-aminolevulinic acid. 

Epidermodysplasia verruciformis is characterized by susceptibility to human papillomavirus (HPV) infections via a defect in cellular immunity. Epidermodysplasia verruciformis was first described as an autosomal-recessive genodermatosis, but it can be acquired in immunosuppressed states with an atypical clinical appearance.¹ There are few case reports in skin of color. Acquired EV appears in patients with acquired immunodeficiencies that are susceptible to EV-causing HPVs via a similar mechanism found in inherited EV.² The most common HPV serotypes involved in EV are HPV-5 and HPV-8. The duration of immunosuppression has been found to be positively correlated with the risk for EV development, with the majority of patients developing lesions after 5 years of immunosuppression.³ There is an approximately 60% risk of malignant transformation of EV lesions into nonmelanoma skin cancer.² This risk is believed to be lower in patients with darker skin.⁴  

Preventative measures including sun protection and annual surveillance are crucial in EV patients given the high rate of malignant transformation in sun-exposed lesions.⁵ Treatment options for EV are anecdotal and have variable results, ranging from topicals including 5-fluorouracil and imiquimod to systemic medications including acitretin and interferon.³ Photodynamic therapy can be used for extensive EV. Surgical modalities and other destructive methods also have been tried.⁶ 

Epidermodysplasia verruciformis often can be confused with similar dermatoses. Porokeratosis appears as annular pink papules with waferlike peripheral scales. Tinea versicolor is a dermatophyte infection caused by Malassezia furfur and presents as multiple dyspigmented, finely scaling, thin papules and plaques. Subacute cutaneous lupus erythematosus presents as pink, scaly, annular or psoriasiform papules and plaques most commonly on the trunk. Discoid lupus erythematosus presents as pink, hypopigmented or depigmented, atrophic plaques with a peripheral rim of erythema that indicates activity. Secondary syphilis, commonly denoted as the "great mimicker," presents as psoriasiform papules and plaques among other variable morphologies. 

The Diagnosis: Epidermodysplasia Verruciformis 

Histopathologic examination of our patient's biopsy specimen revealed mild acanthosis with prominent hypergranulosis and enlarged keratinocytes with blue-gray cytoplasm (Figure). A diagnosis of acquired epidermodysplasia verruciformis (EV) was rendered. The patient was treated with photodynamic therapy utilizing 5-aminolevulinic acid. 

Epidermodysplasia verruciformis is characterized by susceptibility to human papillomavirus (HPV) infections via a defect in cellular immunity. Epidermodysplasia verruciformis was first described as an autosomal-recessive genodermatosis, but it can be acquired in immunosuppressed states with an atypical clinical appearance.¹ There are few case reports in skin of color. Acquired EV appears in patients with acquired immunodeficiencies that are susceptible to EV-causing HPVs via a similar mechanism found in inherited EV.² The most common HPV serotypes involved in EV are HPV-5 and HPV-8. The duration of immunosuppression has been found to be positively correlated with the risk for EV development, with the majority of patients developing lesions after 5 years of immunosuppression.³ There is an approximately 60% risk of malignant transformation of EV lesions into nonmelanoma skin cancer.² This risk is believed to be lower in patients with darker skin.⁴  

Preventative measures including sun protection and annual surveillance are crucial in EV patients given the high rate of malignant transformation in sun-exposed lesions.⁵ Treatment options for EV are anecdotal and have variable results, ranging from topicals including 5-fluorouracil and imiquimod to systemic medications including acitretin and interferon.³ Photodynamic therapy can be used for extensive EV. Surgical modalities and other destructive methods also have been tried.⁶ 

Epidermodysplasia verruciformis often can be confused with similar dermatoses. Porokeratosis appears as annular pink papules with waferlike peripheral scales. Tinea versicolor is a dermatophyte infection caused by Malassezia furfur and presents as multiple dyspigmented, finely scaling, thin papules and plaques. Subacute cutaneous lupus erythematosus presents as pink, scaly, annular or psoriasiform papules and plaques most commonly on the trunk. Discoid lupus erythematosus presents as pink, hypopigmented or depigmented, atrophic plaques with a peripheral rim of erythema that indicates activity. Secondary syphilis, commonly denoted as the "great mimicker," presents as psoriasiform papules and plaques among other variable morphologies. 

Despite slightly decreasing numbers of pregnant women hospitalized with influenza, the rate of morbidity among those who do have influenza has substantially increased from 2000 to 2015, likely due in part to an increase in comorbidities.

Maternal patients who have influenza while hospitalized for delivery are twice as likely to develop severe maternal morbidity than are those without influenza, according to findings from a new study presented at the Pregnancy Meeting, sponsored by the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine.

Pregnant women were also at substantially greater risk of sepsis or shock, needing mechanical ventilation, and acute respiratory distress syndrome. In fact, rates of overall severe maternal morbidity and of influenza-related complications have increased in maternal patients with influenza by more than 200% from 2000 to 2015.

“It was striking to see how the rate of delivery hospitalizations complicated by influenza has remained relatively stable with a small decline, but the rates of severe maternal morbidity were increasing and so markedly among those with influenza,” Timothy Wen, MD, MPH, a maternal-fetal medicine clinical fellow at the University of California, San Francisco, said in an interview. “The findings suggest that influenza may either be a contributor to rising rates of severe maternal morbidity or synergistically amplifying existing comorbidities to worsen outcomes,” he said during his presentation.

The increased risk of influenza complications in pregnant women became particularly apparent during the 2009-2010 H1N1 influenza pandemic. “Physiologic and immunologic changes predispose pregnant patients to higher risk for complications such as pneumonia, intensive care unit admission, and inpatient mortality,” Dr. Wen told attendees. But data have been scarce since H1N1.

The researchers conducted a cross-sectional analysis of delivery hospitalizations from 2000 to 2015 using the Nationwide Inpatient Sample, which includes about 20% of all U.S. inpatient hospitalizations from all payers. They looked at all maternal patients aged 15-54 who had a diagnosis of influenza. In looking at potential associations between influenza and morbidity, they adjusted their calculations for maternal age, payer status, median income, and race/ethnicity as well as the hospital factors of location, teaching status, and region. They also adjusted for a dozen clinical factors.

Of 62.7 million hospitalizations, 0.67% involved severe maternal mortality, including the following influenza complications:

• 0.02% with shock/sepsis.
• 0.01% needing mechanical ventilation.
• 0.04% with acute respiratory distress syndrome.

The 182,228 patients with influenza represented a rate of 29 cases per 10,000 deliveries, and 2.09% of them involved severe maternal morbidity, compared to severe maternal morbidity in just 0.66% of deliveries without influenza.

When looking specifically at rates of shock/sepsis, mechanical ventilation, and acute respiratory distress syndrome, the data revealed similar trends, with substantially higher proportions of patients with influenza experiencing these complications compared to maternal patients without influenza. For example, 0.3% of patients with influenza developed shock/sepsis whereas only 0.04% of patients without influenza did. Acute respiratory distress syndrome was similarly more common in patients with flu (0.45% vs. 0.04%), as was the need for mechanical ventilation (0.09% vs. 0.01%).

During the 15-year study period, the rate of maternal hospitalizations with influenza infections declined about 1.5%, from 30 to 24 per 10,000 deliveries. But trends with severe maternal morbidity in patients with influenza went in the other direction, increasing more than 200% over 15 years, from 100 to 342 cases of severe maternal morbidity per 10,000 patients with influenza. An increase also occurred in patients without influenza, but it was more modest, a nearly 50% increase, from 53 to 79 cases per 10,000 hospitalizations.

From year to year, severe maternal morbidity increased 5.3% annually among hospitalizations with influenza – more than twice the rate of a 2.4% annual increase among hospitalizations without influenza.

The researchers found that influenza is linked to twice the risk of severe maternal morbidity (adjusted risk ratio [aRR] = 2.08, P < .01). There were similarly higher risks with influenza of sepsis/shock (aRR = 3.23), mechanical ventilation (aRR = 6.04), and acute respiratory distress syndrome (aRR = 5.76; all P < .01).

Among the possible reasons for the increase in influenza morbidity – despite a decrease in influenza infections in this population – is the increase in the medical complexity of the patient population, Dr. Wen said.

“Patients who are getting pregnant today likely have more comorbid conditions (chronic hypertension, obesity, pregestational diabetes mellitus, etc.) than they did decades prior,” Dr. Wen said. “Clinically, it means that we have a baseline patient population at a higher risk of susceptibility for influenza and its complications.”

Maternal influenza immunization rates have meanwhile stagnated, Dr. Wen added. Influenza “is something that we know is preventable, or at least mitigated, by a vaccine,” he said. “Our results serve as a reminder for clinicians to continue counseling on the importance of influenza vaccination among pregnant patients, and even in those who are planning to become pregnant.”

He said these findings suggest the need for a low threshold for treating pregnant patients who have influenza symptoms with over-the-counter therapies or closely monitoring them.

Adetola Louis-Jacques, MD, of the University of South Florida, Tampa, found the increase in morbidity in those with flu particularly unexpected and concerning.

Despite slightly decreasing numbers of pregnant women hospitalized with influenza, the rate of morbidity among those who do have influenza has substantially increased from 2000 to 2015, likely due in part to an increase in comorbidities.

Maternal patients who have influenza while hospitalized for delivery are twice as likely to develop severe maternal morbidity than are those without influenza, according to findings from a new study presented at the Pregnancy Meeting, sponsored by the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine.

Pregnant women were also at substantially greater risk of sepsis or shock, needing mechanical ventilation, and acute respiratory distress syndrome. In fact, rates of overall severe maternal morbidity and of influenza-related complications have increased in maternal patients with influenza by more than 200% from 2000 to 2015.

“It was striking to see how the rate of delivery hospitalizations complicated by influenza has remained relatively stable with a small decline, but the rates of severe maternal morbidity were increasing and so markedly among those with influenza,” Timothy Wen, MD, MPH, a maternal-fetal medicine clinical fellow at the University of California, San Francisco, said in an interview. “The findings suggest that influenza may either be a contributor to rising rates of severe maternal morbidity or synergistically amplifying existing comorbidities to worsen outcomes,” he said during his presentation.

The increased risk of influenza complications in pregnant women became particularly apparent during the 2009-2010 H1N1 influenza pandemic. “Physiologic and immunologic changes predispose pregnant patients to higher risk for complications such as pneumonia, intensive care unit admission, and inpatient mortality,” Dr. Wen told attendees. But data have been scarce since H1N1.

The researchers conducted a cross-sectional analysis of delivery hospitalizations from 2000 to 2015 using the Nationwide Inpatient Sample, which includes about 20% of all U.S. inpatient hospitalizations from all payers. They looked at all maternal patients aged 15-54 who had a diagnosis of influenza. In looking at potential associations between influenza and morbidity, they adjusted their calculations for maternal age, payer status, median income, and race/ethnicity as well as the hospital factors of location, teaching status, and region. They also adjusted for a dozen clinical factors.

Of 62.7 million hospitalizations, 0.67% involved severe maternal mortality, including the following influenza complications:

• 0.02% with shock/sepsis.
• 0.01% needing mechanical ventilation.
• 0.04% with acute respiratory distress syndrome.

The 182,228 patients with influenza represented a rate of 29 cases per 10,000 deliveries, and 2.09% of them involved severe maternal morbidity, compared to severe maternal morbidity in just 0.66% of deliveries without influenza.

When looking specifically at rates of shock/sepsis, mechanical ventilation, and acute respiratory distress syndrome, the data revealed similar trends, with substantially higher proportions of patients with influenza experiencing these complications compared to maternal patients without influenza. For example, 0.3% of patients with influenza developed shock/sepsis whereas only 0.04% of patients without influenza did. Acute respiratory distress syndrome was similarly more common in patients with flu (0.45% vs. 0.04%), as was the need for mechanical ventilation (0.09% vs. 0.01%).

During the 15-year study period, the rate of maternal hospitalizations with influenza infections declined about 1.5%, from 30 to 24 per 10,000 deliveries. But trends with severe maternal morbidity in patients with influenza went in the other direction, increasing more than 200% over 15 years, from 100 to 342 cases of severe maternal morbidity per 10,000 patients with influenza. An increase also occurred in patients without influenza, but it was more modest, a nearly 50% increase, from 53 to 79 cases per 10,000 hospitalizations.

From year to year, severe maternal morbidity increased 5.3% annually among hospitalizations with influenza – more than twice the rate of a 2.4% annual increase among hospitalizations without influenza.

The researchers found that influenza is linked to twice the risk of severe maternal morbidity (adjusted risk ratio [aRR] = 2.08, P < .01). There were similarly higher risks with influenza of sepsis/shock (aRR = 3.23), mechanical ventilation (aRR = 6.04), and acute respiratory distress syndrome (aRR = 5.76; all P < .01).

Among the possible reasons for the increase in influenza morbidity – despite a decrease in influenza infections in this population – is the increase in the medical complexity of the patient population, Dr. Wen said.

“Patients who are getting pregnant today likely have more comorbid conditions (chronic hypertension, obesity, pregestational diabetes mellitus, etc.) than they did decades prior,” Dr. Wen said. “Clinically, it means that we have a baseline patient population at a higher risk of susceptibility for influenza and its complications.”

Maternal influenza immunization rates have meanwhile stagnated, Dr. Wen added. Influenza “is something that we know is preventable, or at least mitigated, by a vaccine,” he said. “Our results serve as a reminder for clinicians to continue counseling on the importance of influenza vaccination among pregnant patients, and even in those who are planning to become pregnant.”

He said these findings suggest the need for a low threshold for treating pregnant patients who have influenza symptoms with over-the-counter therapies or closely monitoring them.

Adetola Louis-Jacques, MD, of the University of South Florida, Tampa, found the increase in morbidity in those with flu particularly unexpected and concerning.

Despite slightly decreasing numbers of pregnant women hospitalized with influenza, the rate of morbidity among those who do have influenza has substantially increased from 2000 to 2015, likely due in part to an increase in comorbidities.

Maternal patients who have influenza while hospitalized for delivery are twice as likely to develop severe maternal morbidity than are those without influenza, according to findings from a new study presented at the Pregnancy Meeting, sponsored by the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine.

Pregnant women were also at substantially greater risk of sepsis or shock, needing mechanical ventilation, and acute respiratory distress syndrome. In fact, rates of overall severe maternal morbidity and of influenza-related complications have increased in maternal patients with influenza by more than 200% from 2000 to 2015.

“It was striking to see how the rate of delivery hospitalizations complicated by influenza has remained relatively stable with a small decline, but the rates of severe maternal morbidity were increasing and so markedly among those with influenza,” Timothy Wen, MD, MPH, a maternal-fetal medicine clinical fellow at the University of California, San Francisco, said in an interview. “The findings suggest that influenza may either be a contributor to rising rates of severe maternal morbidity or synergistically amplifying existing comorbidities to worsen outcomes,” he said during his presentation.

The increased risk of influenza complications in pregnant women became particularly apparent during the 2009-2010 H1N1 influenza pandemic. “Physiologic and immunologic changes predispose pregnant patients to higher risk for complications such as pneumonia, intensive care unit admission, and inpatient mortality,” Dr. Wen told attendees. But data have been scarce since H1N1.

The researchers conducted a cross-sectional analysis of delivery hospitalizations from 2000 to 2015 using the Nationwide Inpatient Sample, which includes about 20% of all U.S. inpatient hospitalizations from all payers. They looked at all maternal patients aged 15-54 who had a diagnosis of influenza. In looking at potential associations between influenza and morbidity, they adjusted their calculations for maternal age, payer status, median income, and race/ethnicity as well as the hospital factors of location, teaching status, and region. They also adjusted for a dozen clinical factors.

Of 62.7 million hospitalizations, 0.67% involved severe maternal mortality, including the following influenza complications:

• 0.02% with shock/sepsis.
• 0.01% needing mechanical ventilation.
• 0.04% with acute respiratory distress syndrome.

The 182,228 patients with influenza represented a rate of 29 cases per 10,000 deliveries, and 2.09% of them involved severe maternal morbidity, compared to severe maternal morbidity in just 0.66% of deliveries without influenza.

When looking specifically at rates of shock/sepsis, mechanical ventilation, and acute respiratory distress syndrome, the data revealed similar trends, with substantially higher proportions of patients with influenza experiencing these complications compared to maternal patients without influenza. For example, 0.3% of patients with influenza developed shock/sepsis whereas only 0.04% of patients without influenza did. Acute respiratory distress syndrome was similarly more common in patients with flu (0.45% vs. 0.04%), as was the need for mechanical ventilation (0.09% vs. 0.01%).

During the 15-year study period, the rate of maternal hospitalizations with influenza infections declined about 1.5%, from 30 to 24 per 10,000 deliveries. But trends with severe maternal morbidity in patients with influenza went in the other direction, increasing more than 200% over 15 years, from 100 to 342 cases of severe maternal morbidity per 10,000 patients with influenza. An increase also occurred in patients without influenza, but it was more modest, a nearly 50% increase, from 53 to 79 cases per 10,000 hospitalizations.

From year to year, severe maternal morbidity increased 5.3% annually among hospitalizations with influenza – more than twice the rate of a 2.4% annual increase among hospitalizations without influenza.

The researchers found that influenza is linked to twice the risk of severe maternal morbidity (adjusted risk ratio [aRR] = 2.08, P < .01). There were similarly higher risks with influenza of sepsis/shock (aRR = 3.23), mechanical ventilation (aRR = 6.04), and acute respiratory distress syndrome (aRR = 5.76; all P < .01).

Among the possible reasons for the increase in influenza morbidity – despite a decrease in influenza infections in this population – is the increase in the medical complexity of the patient population, Dr. Wen said.

“Patients who are getting pregnant today likely have more comorbid conditions (chronic hypertension, obesity, pregestational diabetes mellitus, etc.) than they did decades prior,” Dr. Wen said. “Clinically, it means that we have a baseline patient population at a higher risk of susceptibility for influenza and its complications.”

Maternal influenza immunization rates have meanwhile stagnated, Dr. Wen added. Influenza “is something that we know is preventable, or at least mitigated, by a vaccine,” he said. “Our results serve as a reminder for clinicians to continue counseling on the importance of influenza vaccination among pregnant patients, and even in those who are planning to become pregnant.”

He said these findings suggest the need for a low threshold for treating pregnant patients who have influenza symptoms with over-the-counter therapies or closely monitoring them.

Adetola Louis-Jacques, MD, of the University of South Florida, Tampa, found the increase in morbidity in those with flu particularly unexpected and concerning.

Vibrio vulnificus is a member of the Vibrio genus. Most Vibrio species are nonpathogenic in humans; however, V vulnificus is one of the pathogenic strains.¹ In Latin, the term vulnificus means “wounding,” and V vulnificus can cause life-threatening infections in patients. The mortality rate of V vulnificus infections is approximately 33% in the United States.²Vibrio vulnificus is a gram-negative bacterium that was first isolated by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in 1964 and was given its current name in 1979.^3-6 It has been found in numerous organisms, including oysters, crabs, clams, shrimp, mussels, mullets, and sea bass.⁴ The vast majority of infections in the United States are due to oyster exposure and consumption.^2,7Vibrio vulnificus is responsible for more than 95% of seafood-related deaths in the United States and has the highest mortality rate of all food-borne illness in the United States.^2,5 It also has the highest per-case economic impact of all food-related diseases in the United States.¹

What distinguishes a pathogenic vs nonpathogenic Vibrio isolate remains unknown; Vibrio species rapidly undergo horizontal gene transfer, making DNA isolation difficult.¹ Some characteristics of V vulnificus that may confer virulence are the capsular polysaccharide, lipopolysaccharide, binding proteins, and tissue-degrading enzymes.^1,5 First, encapsulated strains are more virulent and invasive than unencapsulated strains.¹ The mucopolysaccharide capsule protects the bacterium from the immune system, allowing it to evade immune surveillance, cause more severe infection, and invade into the subcutaneous tissue.^3,5 Second, production of sialic acid–like molecules alter the lipopolysaccharide, allowing for motility and biofilm formation.¹ This allows the bacterium to survive in marine waters and within the bloodstream, the latter leading to sepsis in humans. Third, production of N-acetylglucosamine–binding protein A allows for adhesion to chitin. Shellfish consume chitin, and chitin accumulates in shellfish. N-acetylglucosamine–binding protein A also binds mucin; this may be how V vulnificus binds to mucin in the gastrointestinal tract in humans, causing gastroenteritis.¹ Binding to the human mucosae also may allow the bacteria to gain access to the blood supply, leading to septicemia.⁴ Finally, tissue-degrading enzymes such as proteases are responsible for necrotizing wound infections associated with V vulnificus, as the enzymes allow for invasion into the skin and subcutaneous tissues. Proteases also increase vascular permeability and lead to edema.³ Hence, these virulence factors may provide V vulnificus the pathogenicity to cause infection in humans.

Three biotypes of V vulnificus have been discovered. Biotype 1 is the most common and is found worldwide in brackish water.⁸ It can cause the entire spectrum of illnesses, and it has a case fatality rate of 50% in humans. Biotype 1 is presumably responsible for all infections in the United States. Biotype 2 is found in the Far East and Western Europe; it inhabits a unique niche—saltwater used for eel farming. It typically causes infection in eels, but rarely it can cause wound infections in humans. Biotype 3 is found in freshwater fish farming in Israel, and it is a hybrid of biotypes 1 and 2.It can cause severe soft tissue infections in humans, sometimes requiring amputation.⁸

Epidemiology

Vibrio vulnificus is a motile, gram-negative, halophilic, aquatic bacterium.^1,4,5,8,9 It is part of the normal estuarine microbiome and typically is found in warm coastal waters.^1,5,10 The ideal conditions for growth and survival of V vulnificus are water temperatures at 18 °C (64.4 °F) and water salinities between 15 to 25 parts per thousand.^2,8,9 These conditions are found in tropical and subtropical regions.²Vibrio vulnificus is found all over the world, including Denmark, Italy, Japan, Australia, Brazil, and the United States,² where most infections come from oyster exposure and consumption in the Gulf of Mexico.^2,8,11 The incidence of infection in the United States is highest between April and October.^8,11

Some populations are at a higher risk of infection. Risk factors include male sex, liver cirrhosis, hemochromatosis, end-stage renal disease, immunosuppression, and diabetes mellitus.^1,8,11 Healthy patients with no risk factors account for less than 5% of US V vulnificus infections.⁸

Male Predilection
Men are 6 times more likely to be affected by V vulnificus than women.Some hypotheses for this discrepancy are that estrogen is protective againstV vulnificus and that women may be less likely to engage in risky water activities and seafood handling.⁵ Additionally, older males (aged >60 years) are most often affected,^1,8 likely due to the association between increasing age with number of comorbidities, such as diabetes mellitus, heart disease, and chronic disease.⁸

Iron Levels
Iron appears to play an important role in V vulnificus infection. Iron is essential for bacterial growth, and the ability to obtain iron from a host increases the organism’s pathogenicity.³Vibrio vulnificus rapidly grows when transferrin saturation exceeds 70%.⁸ Additionally, iron overload decreases the inoculum needed to cause sepsis in animal studies, which could play a role in human pathogenesis.⁴ Iron levels are elevated in patients with hemochromatosis due to increased iron absorption, cirrhosis and chronic liver disease due to impaired iron metabolism, and end-stage renal disease, especially in patients receiving parenteral iron.⁸

Immunosuppression
Patients who are immunocompromised and those with chronic liver disease are at an increased risk of infection because of neutrophils having decreased phagocytic activity.⁴

Diabetes Mellitus
Patients with diabetes mellitus may have peripheral neuropathy and may be unaware of pre-existing wounds that serve as entry points for V vulnificus.¹²

Etiology

Vibrio vulnificus infects humans via seafood consumption and handling as well as exposure to contaminated water.^2,5 With respect to seafood consumption, raw shellfish are the primary type of seafood that harbor high levels of V vulnificus.⁵ Oysters are the most common etiology, but consumption of crabs, clams, and shrimp also can lead to infection.^5,7Vibrio vulnificus contamination does not change the appearance, taste, or odor of shellfish, making it hard to detect.⁸ An inoculate of 1 million bacteria typically is necessary for infection after consumption.⁵ Contaminated seawater is another primary cause of V vulnificus infection. When open wounds are exposed to seawater harboring the bacteria, wound infections can arise.⁷ Infections can be acquired when swimming, fishing, or participating in water sports. Wound infections also occur while handling contaminated seafood, such as oyster shucking.⁵ There is a short incubation period for V vulnificus infections; the onset of symptoms and clinical outcome typically occur within 24 hours.⁵

Clinical Presentation

Vibrio vulnificus infections can have numerous clinical presentations, including gastroenteritis, wound infections, necrotizing fasciitis, and sepsis.^1,8 There also is a spectrum of clinical outcomes; for instance, gastroenteritis typically is self-limited, whereas necrotizing fasciitis or sepsis can be fatal.²

Gastroenteritis
Vibrio vulnificus gastroenteritis is due to ingestion of contaminated shellfish.^2,9 Symptoms typically are mild to moderate and include nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, fever, chills, abdominal pain, and cramping.^2,4,8 Cases likely are underreported in the United States because gastroenteritis is self-limited, and many patients do not seek treatment.^2,11

Wound Infections
Wound infections with V vulnificus have a cutaneous port of entry. Exposure to contaminated seawater or seafood can inoculate an open wound, leading to infection.^7,8 Wound infections usually stem from 1 of 2 routes: (1) a pre-existing open wound gets infected while the patient is swimming in contaminated water, or (2) a traumatic injury occurs while the patient is handling contaminated shellfish, knives, or fishhooks. Many shellfish, such as oysters, have sharp points on their shells that can lacerate the skin.⁸ A wound on the hand can be contaminated by V vulnificus while handling contaminated seafood (eg, oyster shucking).¹³ Minor abrasions should not be dismissed; in fact, a small puncture or skin break often acts as the port of entry.^9,11 Wound infections tend to arise within 7 days of exposure, though they can manifest up to 12 days after exposure.⁸ Wound infections can present as cellulitis, bullae, or ecchymoses.⁷ Lesions are exquisitely tender, and the skin is erythematous with marked surrounding soft tissue edema.^3,4,8 Cellulitis typically arises first, with hemorrhagic bullae rapidly following.¹⁴ Lesions are limited to the affected extremity or area of inoculation.⁸ Systemic symptoms are rare, but fever and chills may accompany the infection.^8,14 Unfortunately, lesions can become necrotic and progress rapidly to necrotizing fasciitis if left untreated.^4,7,11 In these cases, secondary sepsis can occur.⁸

Necrotizing Fasciitis
Wound infections caused by V vulnificus can progress to necrotizing skin and soft tissue infections, such as necrotizing fasciitis and gangrene.⁵ Necrotizing fasciitis accounts for approximately one-third of V vulnificus infections.⁹ It usually stems from an open wound that is inoculated by contact with contaminated seafood or seawater.^2,9 The wound infection begins as cellulitis with extreme tenderness, erythematous skin, and marked soft tissue edema, then rapidly progresses, becoming necrotic. These necrotic lesions present as black and purple eschars as the skin, blood supply, and subcutaneous tissues are infiltrated by the bacteria and destroyed. Lesions may have blistering or exudation. Many patients have accompanying systemic symptoms, including fever, chills, abdominal pain, diarrhea, hypotension, and sepsis.^11,14 However, some patients may not present with systemic symptoms, so it is important to maintain a high index of suspicion even in the absence of these symptoms. The infection typically is limited to the affected extremity; necrotizing infections can lead to amputation and even death, depending on the extent of destruction and spread of the bacteria.^11,13 The infection may spread beyond the inoculated extremity if the bacteria gains access to the bloodstream.^8,9 In these cases, fulminant purpura or secondary septicemia can occur.^8,15 Fatalityrates in the United States for necrotizing V vulnificus infections approach 30%.² Necrotizing fasciitis accounts for approximately 8% of deaths associated with the pathogen in the United States.⁹

Interestingly, one reported case of necrotizing fasciitis associated with V vulnificus infection was triggered by acupuncture.¹⁶ The patient worked in a fish hatchery, where he was exposed to V vulnificus, and subsequent acupuncture led to the inoculation of bacteria into his bloodstream. This case raises the important point that we typically sequence the pathogenesis of V vulnificus infection as a patient having an open wound that is subsequently exposed to contaminated water; however, it also can follow the reverse sequence. Thus, proper cleansing of the skin after swimming in brackish water or handling shellfish is important to prevent V vulnificus infection.¹⁶ Additionally, dermatologists should be sure to cleanse patients’ skin thoroughly before performing procedures that could cause breaks in the skin.

Septicemia
Primary septicemia is the most common presentation of V vulnificus infection.^2,8 Septicemia accounts for approximately 58% of V vulnificus infections in the United States.⁹ Infection typically occurs after ingestion of contaminated oysters, with subsequent absorption into the bloodstream through the ileum or cecum.^2,8,9 Patients with chronic liver disease are 80 times more likely to develop primary sepsis than healthy individuals.⁸ Patients typically present with sudden-onset fever and chills, vomiting, diarrhea, and pain in the abdomen and/or extremities within hours to days of ingestion.^4,8,9 The median time from ingestion to symptom onset is 18 hours.^4,16 However, symptoms can be delayed up to 14 days.² Progression is rapid; secondary lesions such as bullae, ecchymoses, cellulitis, purpura, macular or maculopapular eruptions, pustules, vasculitis, urticaria, and erythema multiforme–like lesions appear on the extremities within 24 hours of symptom onset. ^2,3,4,8,17 Hemorrhagic bullae are the most common cutaneous manifestation of sepsis.⁴ Lesions are extremely tender to palpation.³ Cutaneous lesions can progress to necrotic ulcers, necrotizing fasciitis, gangrene, necrotizing vasculitis, or myonecrosis.^4,8 Evidence of petechiae may indicate progression to disseminated intravascular coagulation (DIC). Elevated D-dimer and fibrin split products also may indicate DIC, and elevated creatine kinase may signify rhabdomyolysis.³ Unfortunately, septicemia has the worst outcomes of all V vulnificus presentations, with morality rates greater than 50% in the United States.^1,2,4Vibrio vulnificus septicemia has a similar case-fatality rate to pathogens such as anthrax, Ebola virus disease, and the bubonic plague.⁵ Septicemia accounts for approximately 80% of the deaths associated with V vulnificus in the United States.^8,9

Septicemia due to V vulnificus progresses to septic shock in two-thirds of cases.⁸ Septic shock presents with hypotension, mental status changes, and thrombocytopenia.^2,8,17 Patients can become tachycardic, tachypneic, and hypoxic. Intubation may be required for resuscitation. In cases of septic shock secondary to V vulnificus infection, mortality rates reach 92%.³ Hypotension with a systolic blood pressure less than 90 mm Hg is a poor prognostic factor; patients presenting with hypotension secondary to V vulnificus infection have a fatality rate approaching 75% within 12 hours.²

Atypical Presentations
Rare atypical presentations of V vulnificus infection that have been reported in the literature include meningitis, corneal ulcers, epiglottitis, tonsillitis, spontaneous bacterial peritonitis, pneumonia, endometritis, septic arthritis, osteomyelitis, rhabdomyolysis endophthalmitis, and keratitis.^{2,4,6,13,18,19}

Diagnosis

When diagnosing V vulnificus, providers need to obtain a thorough patient history, including any history of consumption or handling of raw seafood and recent water activities. Providers practicing in tropical climates or in warm summer months should keep V vulnificus in mind, as it is the ideal climate for the pathogen.⁹ Vital signs can range from unremarkable to fever, hypotension, tachycardia, and/or hypoxia. Skin examination may show exquisitely tender, erythematous skin with marked soft tissue edema, hemorrhagic bullae, ecchymoses, and/or necrosis. As physical examination findings can be nonspecific, wound cultures, blood cultures, and skin biopsies should be taken.

A wound culture and blood culture should be taken immediately if V vulnificus is suspected.^8,11 A wound culture using discharge or fluid from necrotic or bullous lesions should be analyzed via gram stain.^8,9 Gram stains of V vulnificus show short, slim, curved gram-negative rods under light microscopy.^9,20 Special stains also can be done on cultures; V vulnificus is an oxidase-positive, lactose-positive, lysine-positive, salicin-positive, and arginine-negative organism. This knowledge can help differentiate V vulnificus from other gram-negative rods.¹³ Blood cultures will be positive in approximately 97% of patients with primary septicemia and 30% of patients with septicemia secondary to V vulnificus wound infections.^3,9

Histologically, perilesional skin biopsies show epidermal necrosis with dermal and subcutaneous inflammation.^12,17 There typically is an inflammatory infiltrate with neutrophilic abscesses and extensive tissue destruction in the subcutaneous tissue extending into the deep dermis.^12,17 The superficial dermis is edematous but can lack the inflammatory infiltrate found in the subcutaneous tissue.¹⁷ Subepidermal bullae can form with numerous organisms within the fluid of the bullae. There also may be evidence of leukocytoclastic vasculitis with accompanying vessel wall necrosis. Fibrin clot formation and extravasated red blood cells may be visualized with few inflammatory cells but numerous organisms around the involved vessels.¹⁷

Management

Early diagnosis and treatment are vital.^5,17 Cultures should be taken before aggressive treatment is started.³ Treatment is multifaceted; it requires antibiotics and wound care, except in cases of self-limited gastroenteritis.^2,11 Aggressive debridement, fasciotomy, amputation, and supportive measures also may be necessary depending on the patient’s presentation.^2,3,8,9 Establishing 2 peripheral intravenous lines is important in case rapid resuscitation becomes necessary.

Antibiotics
Primary cellulitis wound infections should be treated with doxycycline or a quinolone. If untreated, the wound can rapidly progress to necrotizing fasciitis.¹¹ For necrotizing fasciitis and septicemia, broader-spectrum antibiotics are needed. For adults, ceftazidime plus doxycycline is the mainstay of antibiotic treatment for V vulnificus.^2,9,11 For children, trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole plus an aminoglycoside is preferred (Table).^2,11

Antibiotic treatment has become more difficult as resistance arises. Antibiotic resistance likely is due to extensive antibiotic use in health care along with the agriculture and aquaculture industries using prophylactic and therapeutic antibiotics that wash into or are directly added to marine waters, where V vulnificus resides. Thus, antibiotic treatment should be tailored to the resistance profile of V vulnificus in various regions; for example, ceftazidime has an intermediate resistance profile in the United States, so cefotaxime and ceftriaxone may be better options.²

Wound Care
Wound infections must be extensively irrigated.^9,21 For mild wound infections, proper wound care and oral antibiotics are appropriate (Table).²¹ Mild wounds should be irrigated thoroughly and followed by wound coverage to prevent progression, secondary infection, and necrosis. The dressing of choice will depend on the presenting lesion and provider preference; nonadherent, occlusive, or wet-to-dry dressings often are the best choices.²² Nonadherent dressings, such as petrolatum-covered gauze, do not pull off the newly formed epithelium when removed, making them beneficial to the skin’s healing process. Another option is occlusive dressings, which maintain a moist environment to hasten healing. They also enhance the autodigestion of necrotic tissue, which can be beneficial for necrotizing V vulnificus infections. Wet-to-dry dressings also may be used; these typically are comprised of gauze soaked with water, an astringent, and an antimicrobial or antiseptic solution. These dressings help to treat acute inflammation and also remove any exudate from the wound.²²

Soft tissue and necrotizing infections require debridement.^2,8 Early debridement decreases mortality rates.^2,8,9 Necrotizing fasciitis often requires serial debridement to clear all the dead tissue and reduce the bacterial burden.^8,9 Debridement prevents contiguous spread and metastatic seeding of the bacteria; it is important to prevent spread to the blood vessels, as vasculitis can necrose vessels, preventing antibiotics from reaching the dead tissue.¹⁷ Providers also should monitor for compartment syndrome, which should be treated with fasciotomy to decrease mortality.^9,23 Many physicians leave V vulnificus–infected wounds open in order to heal by secondary intention.⁹ Hyperbaric oxygen therapy may be helpful as an adjunct to aggressive antimicrobial treatment for wound healing.⁸

Supportive Measures
Supportive care for dehydration, sepsis, DIC, and septic shock may be necessary, depending on the patient’s course. Treatment for severe V vulnificus infection includes intravenous fluids, crystalloids, oxygen, and/or intubation. Furthermore, if DIC develops, fresh frozen plasma, cryoprecipitate, a packed red blood cell transfusion, and/or anticoagulation may be required for resuscitation.³

Timing
Time to treatment and fatality rate are directly proportional in V vulnificus infection; the greater the delay in treatment, the higher the fatality rate.² A 24-hour delay in antibiotic treatment is associated with a 33% case-fatality rate, and a 72-hour delay is associated with a 100% case-fatality rate.⁹ Even with early, appropriate treatment, mortality rates remain high.⁴

Prevention

Prevention of V vulnificus infections is an important consideration, especially for patients with chronic liver disease, immunosuppression, and hemochromatosis. Public education about the risks of eating raw shellfish is important.⁴ Oysters need to be treated properly to prevent growth and survival of V vulnificus.² The most reliable method for destroying the bacteria is cooking shellfish.^8,13 Only 15% of high-risk patients in the United States are aware of the risks associated with raw oyster consumption.³ High-risk patients should avoid eating raw oysters and shellfish and should cook seafood thoroughly before consumption.^2,8 They also should wear protective clothing (ie, gloves) and eye protection when handling seafood and protective footwear (ie, wading shoes) while in seawater.^2,8,13 It also is important to avoid contact with brackish water if one has any open wounds and to cleanse properly after exposure to brackish water or shellfish.^2,8,16 Because severe V vulnificus infections can lead to death, prevention should be strongly encouraged by providers.²

Conclusion

Vibrio vulnificus infection typically occurs due to consumption of contaminated seafood or exposure to contaminated seawater. It most frequently affects older male patients with chronic liver disease, immunosuppression, hemochromatosis, or diabetes mellitus. Vibrio vulnificus can cause a vast spectrum of diseases, including gastroenteritis, wound infections, necrotizing fasciitis, and sepsis. Septicemia is the most common presentation of V vulnificus infection and accounts for the most fatalities from the bacteria. Septicemia often presents with fever, chills, vomiting, diarrhea, and hemorrhagic bullae. Vibrio vulnificus also commonly causes necrotizing fasciitis, which initially presents as cellulitis and rapidly progresses to hemorrhagic bullae or necrosis with accompanying systemic symptoms. Prompt diagnosis and treatment are vital to prevent mortality.

Interestingly, regions impacted by V vulnificus are expanding because of global warming.^5,7Vibrio vulnificus thrives in warm waters, and increasing water temperatures are enhancing V vulnificus growth and survival.^1,9 As global warming continues, the incidence of V vulnificus infections may rise. In fact, the number of infections increased by 78% between 1996 and 2006 in the United States.⁵ This rise likely was due to a combination of factors, including an aging population with more comorbidities, improvements in diagnosis, and climate change. Thus, as the number of V vulnificus infections rises, so too must providers’ suspicion for the pathogen.

Vibrio vulnificus is a member of the Vibrio genus. Most Vibrio species are nonpathogenic in humans; however, V vulnificus is one of the pathogenic strains.¹ In Latin, the term vulnificus means “wounding,” and V vulnificus can cause life-threatening infections in patients. The mortality rate of V vulnificus infections is approximately 33% in the United States.²Vibrio vulnificus is a gram-negative bacterium that was first isolated by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in 1964 and was given its current name in 1979.^3-6 It has been found in numerous organisms, including oysters, crabs, clams, shrimp, mussels, mullets, and sea bass.⁴ The vast majority of infections in the United States are due to oyster exposure and consumption.^2,7Vibrio vulnificus is responsible for more than 95% of seafood-related deaths in the United States and has the highest mortality rate of all food-borne illness in the United States.^2,5 It also has the highest per-case economic impact of all food-related diseases in the United States.¹

What distinguishes a pathogenic vs nonpathogenic Vibrio isolate remains unknown; Vibrio species rapidly undergo horizontal gene transfer, making DNA isolation difficult.¹ Some characteristics of V vulnificus that may confer virulence are the capsular polysaccharide, lipopolysaccharide, binding proteins, and tissue-degrading enzymes.^1,5 First, encapsulated strains are more virulent and invasive than unencapsulated strains.¹ The mucopolysaccharide capsule protects the bacterium from the immune system, allowing it to evade immune surveillance, cause more severe infection, and invade into the subcutaneous tissue.^3,5 Second, production of sialic acid–like molecules alter the lipopolysaccharide, allowing for motility and biofilm formation.¹ This allows the bacterium to survive in marine waters and within the bloodstream, the latter leading to sepsis in humans. Third, production of N-acetylglucosamine–binding protein A allows for adhesion to chitin. Shellfish consume chitin, and chitin accumulates in shellfish. N-acetylglucosamine–binding protein A also binds mucin; this may be how V vulnificus binds to mucin in the gastrointestinal tract in humans, causing gastroenteritis.¹ Binding to the human mucosae also may allow the bacteria to gain access to the blood supply, leading to septicemia.⁴ Finally, tissue-degrading enzymes such as proteases are responsible for necrotizing wound infections associated with V vulnificus, as the enzymes allow for invasion into the skin and subcutaneous tissues. Proteases also increase vascular permeability and lead to edema.³ Hence, these virulence factors may provide V vulnificus the pathogenicity to cause infection in humans.

Three biotypes of V vulnificus have been discovered. Biotype 1 is the most common and is found worldwide in brackish water.⁸ It can cause the entire spectrum of illnesses, and it has a case fatality rate of 50% in humans. Biotype 1 is presumably responsible for all infections in the United States. Biotype 2 is found in the Far East and Western Europe; it inhabits a unique niche—saltwater used for eel farming. It typically causes infection in eels, but rarely it can cause wound infections in humans. Biotype 3 is found in freshwater fish farming in Israel, and it is a hybrid of biotypes 1 and 2.It can cause severe soft tissue infections in humans, sometimes requiring amputation.⁸

Epidemiology

Vibrio vulnificus is a motile, gram-negative, halophilic, aquatic bacterium.^1,4,5,8,9 It is part of the normal estuarine microbiome and typically is found in warm coastal waters.^1,5,10 The ideal conditions for growth and survival of V vulnificus are water temperatures at 18 °C (64.4 °F) and water salinities between 15 to 25 parts per thousand.^2,8,9 These conditions are found in tropical and subtropical regions.²Vibrio vulnificus is found all over the world, including Denmark, Italy, Japan, Australia, Brazil, and the United States,² where most infections come from oyster exposure and consumption in the Gulf of Mexico.^2,8,11 The incidence of infection in the United States is highest between April and October.^8,11

Some populations are at a higher risk of infection. Risk factors include male sex, liver cirrhosis, hemochromatosis, end-stage renal disease, immunosuppression, and diabetes mellitus.^1,8,11 Healthy patients with no risk factors account for less than 5% of US V vulnificus infections.⁸

Male Predilection
Men are 6 times more likely to be affected by V vulnificus than women.Some hypotheses for this discrepancy are that estrogen is protective againstV vulnificus and that women may be less likely to engage in risky water activities and seafood handling.⁵ Additionally, older males (aged >60 years) are most often affected,^1,8 likely due to the association between increasing age with number of comorbidities, such as diabetes mellitus, heart disease, and chronic disease.⁸

Iron Levels
Iron appears to play an important role in V vulnificus infection. Iron is essential for bacterial growth, and the ability to obtain iron from a host increases the organism’s pathogenicity.³Vibrio vulnificus rapidly grows when transferrin saturation exceeds 70%.⁸ Additionally, iron overload decreases the inoculum needed to cause sepsis in animal studies, which could play a role in human pathogenesis.⁴ Iron levels are elevated in patients with hemochromatosis due to increased iron absorption, cirrhosis and chronic liver disease due to impaired iron metabolism, and end-stage renal disease, especially in patients receiving parenteral iron.⁸

Immunosuppression
Patients who are immunocompromised and those with chronic liver disease are at an increased risk of infection because of neutrophils having decreased phagocytic activity.⁴

Diabetes Mellitus
Patients with diabetes mellitus may have peripheral neuropathy and may be unaware of pre-existing wounds that serve as entry points for V vulnificus.¹²

Etiology

Vibrio vulnificus infects humans via seafood consumption and handling as well as exposure to contaminated water.^2,5 With respect to seafood consumption, raw shellfish are the primary type of seafood that harbor high levels of V vulnificus.⁵ Oysters are the most common etiology, but consumption of crabs, clams, and shrimp also can lead to infection.^5,7Vibrio vulnificus contamination does not change the appearance, taste, or odor of shellfish, making it hard to detect.⁸ An inoculate of 1 million bacteria typically is necessary for infection after consumption.⁵ Contaminated seawater is another primary cause of V vulnificus infection. When open wounds are exposed to seawater harboring the bacteria, wound infections can arise.⁷ Infections can be acquired when swimming, fishing, or participating in water sports. Wound infections also occur while handling contaminated seafood, such as oyster shucking.⁵ There is a short incubation period for V vulnificus infections; the onset of symptoms and clinical outcome typically occur within 24 hours.⁵

Clinical Presentation

Vibrio vulnificus infections can have numerous clinical presentations, including gastroenteritis, wound infections, necrotizing fasciitis, and sepsis.^1,8 There also is a spectrum of clinical outcomes; for instance, gastroenteritis typically is self-limited, whereas necrotizing fasciitis or sepsis can be fatal.²

Gastroenteritis
Vibrio vulnificus gastroenteritis is due to ingestion of contaminated shellfish.^2,9 Symptoms typically are mild to moderate and include nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, fever, chills, abdominal pain, and cramping.^2,4,8 Cases likely are underreported in the United States because gastroenteritis is self-limited, and many patients do not seek treatment.^2,11

Wound Infections
Wound infections with V vulnificus have a cutaneous port of entry. Exposure to contaminated seawater or seafood can inoculate an open wound, leading to infection.^7,8 Wound infections usually stem from 1 of 2 routes: (1) a pre-existing open wound gets infected while the patient is swimming in contaminated water, or (2) a traumatic injury occurs while the patient is handling contaminated shellfish, knives, or fishhooks. Many shellfish, such as oysters, have sharp points on their shells that can lacerate the skin.⁸ A wound on the hand can be contaminated by V vulnificus while handling contaminated seafood (eg, oyster shucking).¹³ Minor abrasions should not be dismissed; in fact, a small puncture or skin break often acts as the port of entry.^9,11 Wound infections tend to arise within 7 days of exposure, though they can manifest up to 12 days after exposure.⁸ Wound infections can present as cellulitis, bullae, or ecchymoses.⁷ Lesions are exquisitely tender, and the skin is erythematous with marked surrounding soft tissue edema.^3,4,8 Cellulitis typically arises first, with hemorrhagic bullae rapidly following.¹⁴ Lesions are limited to the affected extremity or area of inoculation.⁸ Systemic symptoms are rare, but fever and chills may accompany the infection.^8,14 Unfortunately, lesions can become necrotic and progress rapidly to necrotizing fasciitis if left untreated.^4,7,11 In these cases, secondary sepsis can occur.⁸

Necrotizing Fasciitis
Wound infections caused by V vulnificus can progress to necrotizing skin and soft tissue infections, such as necrotizing fasciitis and gangrene.⁵ Necrotizing fasciitis accounts for approximately one-third of V vulnificus infections.⁹ It usually stems from an open wound that is inoculated by contact with contaminated seafood or seawater.^2,9 The wound infection begins as cellulitis with extreme tenderness, erythematous skin, and marked soft tissue edema, then rapidly progresses, becoming necrotic. These necrotic lesions present as black and purple eschars as the skin, blood supply, and subcutaneous tissues are infiltrated by the bacteria and destroyed. Lesions may have blistering or exudation. Many patients have accompanying systemic symptoms, including fever, chills, abdominal pain, diarrhea, hypotension, and sepsis.^11,14 However, some patients may not present with systemic symptoms, so it is important to maintain a high index of suspicion even in the absence of these symptoms. The infection typically is limited to the affected extremity; necrotizing infections can lead to amputation and even death, depending on the extent of destruction and spread of the bacteria.^11,13 The infection may spread beyond the inoculated extremity if the bacteria gains access to the bloodstream.^8,9 In these cases, fulminant purpura or secondary septicemia can occur.^8,15 Fatalityrates in the United States for necrotizing V vulnificus infections approach 30%.² Necrotizing fasciitis accounts for approximately 8% of deaths associated with the pathogen in the United States.⁹

Interestingly, one reported case of necrotizing fasciitis associated with V vulnificus infection was triggered by acupuncture.¹⁶ The patient worked in a fish hatchery, where he was exposed to V vulnificus, and subsequent acupuncture led to the inoculation of bacteria into his bloodstream. This case raises the important point that we typically sequence the pathogenesis of V vulnificus infection as a patient having an open wound that is subsequently exposed to contaminated water; however, it also can follow the reverse sequence. Thus, proper cleansing of the skin after swimming in brackish water or handling shellfish is important to prevent V vulnificus infection.¹⁶ Additionally, dermatologists should be sure to cleanse patients’ skin thoroughly before performing procedures that could cause breaks in the skin.

Septicemia
Primary septicemia is the most common presentation of V vulnificus infection.^2,8 Septicemia accounts for approximately 58% of V vulnificus infections in the United States.⁹ Infection typically occurs after ingestion of contaminated oysters, with subsequent absorption into the bloodstream through the ileum or cecum.^2,8,9 Patients with chronic liver disease are 80 times more likely to develop primary sepsis than healthy individuals.⁸ Patients typically present with sudden-onset fever and chills, vomiting, diarrhea, and pain in the abdomen and/or extremities within hours to days of ingestion.^4,8,9 The median time from ingestion to symptom onset is 18 hours.^4,16 However, symptoms can be delayed up to 14 days.² Progression is rapid; secondary lesions such as bullae, ecchymoses, cellulitis, purpura, macular or maculopapular eruptions, pustules, vasculitis, urticaria, and erythema multiforme–like lesions appear on the extremities within 24 hours of symptom onset. ^2,3,4,8,17 Hemorrhagic bullae are the most common cutaneous manifestation of sepsis.⁴ Lesions are extremely tender to palpation.³ Cutaneous lesions can progress to necrotic ulcers, necrotizing fasciitis, gangrene, necrotizing vasculitis, or myonecrosis.^4,8 Evidence of petechiae may indicate progression to disseminated intravascular coagulation (DIC). Elevated D-dimer and fibrin split products also may indicate DIC, and elevated creatine kinase may signify rhabdomyolysis.³ Unfortunately, septicemia has the worst outcomes of all V vulnificus presentations, with morality rates greater than 50% in the United States.^1,2,4Vibrio vulnificus septicemia has a similar case-fatality rate to pathogens such as anthrax, Ebola virus disease, and the bubonic plague.⁵ Septicemia accounts for approximately 80% of the deaths associated with V vulnificus in the United States.^8,9

Septicemia due to V vulnificus progresses to septic shock in two-thirds of cases.⁸ Septic shock presents with hypotension, mental status changes, and thrombocytopenia.^2,8,17 Patients can become tachycardic, tachypneic, and hypoxic. Intubation may be required for resuscitation. In cases of septic shock secondary to V vulnificus infection, mortality rates reach 92%.³ Hypotension with a systolic blood pressure less than 90 mm Hg is a poor prognostic factor; patients presenting with hypotension secondary to V vulnificus infection have a fatality rate approaching 75% within 12 hours.²

Atypical Presentations
Rare atypical presentations of V vulnificus infection that have been reported in the literature include meningitis, corneal ulcers, epiglottitis, tonsillitis, spontaneous bacterial peritonitis, pneumonia, endometritis, septic arthritis, osteomyelitis, rhabdomyolysis endophthalmitis, and keratitis.^{2,4,6,13,18,19}

Diagnosis

When diagnosing V vulnificus, providers need to obtain a thorough patient history, including any history of consumption or handling of raw seafood and recent water activities. Providers practicing in tropical climates or in warm summer months should keep V vulnificus in mind, as it is the ideal climate for the pathogen.⁹ Vital signs can range from unremarkable to fever, hypotension, tachycardia, and/or hypoxia. Skin examination may show exquisitely tender, erythematous skin with marked soft tissue edema, hemorrhagic bullae, ecchymoses, and/or necrosis. As physical examination findings can be nonspecific, wound cultures, blood cultures, and skin biopsies should be taken.

A wound culture and blood culture should be taken immediately if V vulnificus is suspected.^8,11 A wound culture using discharge or fluid from necrotic or bullous lesions should be analyzed via gram stain.^8,9 Gram stains of V vulnificus show short, slim, curved gram-negative rods under light microscopy.^9,20 Special stains also can be done on cultures; V vulnificus is an oxidase-positive, lactose-positive, lysine-positive, salicin-positive, and arginine-negative organism. This knowledge can help differentiate V vulnificus from other gram-negative rods.¹³ Blood cultures will be positive in approximately 97% of patients with primary septicemia and 30% of patients with septicemia secondary to V vulnificus wound infections.^3,9

Histologically, perilesional skin biopsies show epidermal necrosis with dermal and subcutaneous inflammation.^12,17 There typically is an inflammatory infiltrate with neutrophilic abscesses and extensive tissue destruction in the subcutaneous tissue extending into the deep dermis.^12,17 The superficial dermis is edematous but can lack the inflammatory infiltrate found in the subcutaneous tissue.¹⁷ Subepidermal bullae can form with numerous organisms within the fluid of the bullae. There also may be evidence of leukocytoclastic vasculitis with accompanying vessel wall necrosis. Fibrin clot formation and extravasated red blood cells may be visualized with few inflammatory cells but numerous organisms around the involved vessels.¹⁷

Management

Early diagnosis and treatment are vital.^5,17 Cultures should be taken before aggressive treatment is started.³ Treatment is multifaceted; it requires antibiotics and wound care, except in cases of self-limited gastroenteritis.^2,11 Aggressive debridement, fasciotomy, amputation, and supportive measures also may be necessary depending on the patient’s presentation.^2,3,8,9 Establishing 2 peripheral intravenous lines is important in case rapid resuscitation becomes necessary.

Antibiotics
Primary cellulitis wound infections should be treated with doxycycline or a quinolone. If untreated, the wound can rapidly progress to necrotizing fasciitis.¹¹ For necrotizing fasciitis and septicemia, broader-spectrum antibiotics are needed. For adults, ceftazidime plus doxycycline is the mainstay of antibiotic treatment for V vulnificus.^2,9,11 For children, trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole plus an aminoglycoside is preferred (Table).^2,11

Antibiotic treatment has become more difficult as resistance arises. Antibiotic resistance likely is due to extensive antibiotic use in health care along with the agriculture and aquaculture industries using prophylactic and therapeutic antibiotics that wash into or are directly added to marine waters, where V vulnificus resides. Thus, antibiotic treatment should be tailored to the resistance profile of V vulnificus in various regions; for example, ceftazidime has an intermediate resistance profile in the United States, so cefotaxime and ceftriaxone may be better options.²

Wound Care
Wound infections must be extensively irrigated.^9,21 For mild wound infections, proper wound care and oral antibiotics are appropriate (Table).²¹ Mild wounds should be irrigated thoroughly and followed by wound coverage to prevent progression, secondary infection, and necrosis. The dressing of choice will depend on the presenting lesion and provider preference; nonadherent, occlusive, or wet-to-dry dressings often are the best choices.²² Nonadherent dressings, such as petrolatum-covered gauze, do not pull off the newly formed epithelium when removed, making them beneficial to the skin’s healing process. Another option is occlusive dressings, which maintain a moist environment to hasten healing. They also enhance the autodigestion of necrotic tissue, which can be beneficial for necrotizing V vulnificus infections. Wet-to-dry dressings also may be used; these typically are comprised of gauze soaked with water, an astringent, and an antimicrobial or antiseptic solution. These dressings help to treat acute inflammation and also remove any exudate from the wound.²²

Soft tissue and necrotizing infections require debridement.^2,8 Early debridement decreases mortality rates.^2,8,9 Necrotizing fasciitis often requires serial debridement to clear all the dead tissue and reduce the bacterial burden.^8,9 Debridement prevents contiguous spread and metastatic seeding of the bacteria; it is important to prevent spread to the blood vessels, as vasculitis can necrose vessels, preventing antibiotics from reaching the dead tissue.¹⁷ Providers also should monitor for compartment syndrome, which should be treated with fasciotomy to decrease mortality.^9,23 Many physicians leave V vulnificus–infected wounds open in order to heal by secondary intention.⁹ Hyperbaric oxygen therapy may be helpful as an adjunct to aggressive antimicrobial treatment for wound healing.⁸

Supportive Measures
Supportive care for dehydration, sepsis, DIC, and septic shock may be necessary, depending on the patient’s course. Treatment for severe V vulnificus infection includes intravenous fluids, crystalloids, oxygen, and/or intubation. Furthermore, if DIC develops, fresh frozen plasma, cryoprecipitate, a packed red blood cell transfusion, and/or anticoagulation may be required for resuscitation.³

Timing
Time to treatment and fatality rate are directly proportional in V vulnificus infection; the greater the delay in treatment, the higher the fatality rate.² A 24-hour delay in antibiotic treatment is associated with a 33% case-fatality rate, and a 72-hour delay is associated with a 100% case-fatality rate.⁹ Even with early, appropriate treatment, mortality rates remain high.⁴

Prevention

Prevention of V vulnificus infections is an important consideration, especially for patients with chronic liver disease, immunosuppression, and hemochromatosis. Public education about the risks of eating raw shellfish is important.⁴ Oysters need to be treated properly to prevent growth and survival of V vulnificus.² The most reliable method for destroying the bacteria is cooking shellfish.^8,13 Only 15% of high-risk patients in the United States are aware of the risks associated with raw oyster consumption.³ High-risk patients should avoid eating raw oysters and shellfish and should cook seafood thoroughly before consumption.^2,8 They also should wear protective clothing (ie, gloves) and eye protection when handling seafood and protective footwear (ie, wading shoes) while in seawater.^2,8,13 It also is important to avoid contact with brackish water if one has any open wounds and to cleanse properly after exposure to brackish water or shellfish.^2,8,16 Because severe V vulnificus infections can lead to death, prevention should be strongly encouraged by providers.²

Conclusion

Vibrio vulnificus infection typically occurs due to consumption of contaminated seafood or exposure to contaminated seawater. It most frequently affects older male patients with chronic liver disease, immunosuppression, hemochromatosis, or diabetes mellitus. Vibrio vulnificus can cause a vast spectrum of diseases, including gastroenteritis, wound infections, necrotizing fasciitis, and sepsis. Septicemia is the most common presentation of V vulnificus infection and accounts for the most fatalities from the bacteria. Septicemia often presents with fever, chills, vomiting, diarrhea, and hemorrhagic bullae. Vibrio vulnificus also commonly causes necrotizing fasciitis, which initially presents as cellulitis and rapidly progresses to hemorrhagic bullae or necrosis with accompanying systemic symptoms. Prompt diagnosis and treatment are vital to prevent mortality.

Interestingly, regions impacted by V vulnificus are expanding because of global warming.^5,7Vibrio vulnificus thrives in warm waters, and increasing water temperatures are enhancing V vulnificus growth and survival.^1,9 As global warming continues, the incidence of V vulnificus infections may rise. In fact, the number of infections increased by 78% between 1996 and 2006 in the United States.⁵ This rise likely was due to a combination of factors, including an aging population with more comorbidities, improvements in diagnosis, and climate change. Thus, as the number of V vulnificus infections rises, so too must providers’ suspicion for the pathogen.

Vibrio vulnificus is a member of the Vibrio genus. Most Vibrio species are nonpathogenic in humans; however, V vulnificus is one of the pathogenic strains.¹ In Latin, the term vulnificus means “wounding,” and V vulnificus can cause life-threatening infections in patients. The mortality rate of V vulnificus infections is approximately 33% in the United States.²Vibrio vulnificus is a gram-negative bacterium that was first isolated by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in 1964 and was given its current name in 1979.^3-6 It has been found in numerous organisms, including oysters, crabs, clams, shrimp, mussels, mullets, and sea bass.⁴ The vast majority of infections in the United States are due to oyster exposure and consumption.^2,7Vibrio vulnificus is responsible for more than 95% of seafood-related deaths in the United States and has the highest mortality rate of all food-borne illness in the United States.^2,5 It also has the highest per-case economic impact of all food-related diseases in the United States.¹

What distinguishes a pathogenic vs nonpathogenic Vibrio isolate remains unknown; Vibrio species rapidly undergo horizontal gene transfer, making DNA isolation difficult.¹ Some characteristics of V vulnificus that may confer virulence are the capsular polysaccharide, lipopolysaccharide, binding proteins, and tissue-degrading enzymes.^1,5 First, encapsulated strains are more virulent and invasive than unencapsulated strains.¹ The mucopolysaccharide capsule protects the bacterium from the immune system, allowing it to evade immune surveillance, cause more severe infection, and invade into the subcutaneous tissue.^3,5 Second, production of sialic acid–like molecules alter the lipopolysaccharide, allowing for motility and biofilm formation.¹ This allows the bacterium to survive in marine waters and within the bloodstream, the latter leading to sepsis in humans. Third, production of N-acetylglucosamine–binding protein A allows for adhesion to chitin. Shellfish consume chitin, and chitin accumulates in shellfish. N-acetylglucosamine–binding protein A also binds mucin; this may be how V vulnificus binds to mucin in the gastrointestinal tract in humans, causing gastroenteritis.¹ Binding to the human mucosae also may allow the bacteria to gain access to the blood supply, leading to septicemia.⁴ Finally, tissue-degrading enzymes such as proteases are responsible for necrotizing wound infections associated with V vulnificus, as the enzymes allow for invasion into the skin and subcutaneous tissues. Proteases also increase vascular permeability and lead to edema.³ Hence, these virulence factors may provide V vulnificus the pathogenicity to cause infection in humans.

Three biotypes of V vulnificus have been discovered. Biotype 1 is the most common and is found worldwide in brackish water.⁸ It can cause the entire spectrum of illnesses, and it has a case fatality rate of 50% in humans. Biotype 1 is presumably responsible for all infections in the United States. Biotype 2 is found in the Far East and Western Europe; it inhabits a unique niche—saltwater used for eel farming. It typically causes infection in eels, but rarely it can cause wound infections in humans. Biotype 3 is found in freshwater fish farming in Israel, and it is a hybrid of biotypes 1 and 2.It can cause severe soft tissue infections in humans, sometimes requiring amputation.⁸

Epidemiology

Vibrio vulnificus is a motile, gram-negative, halophilic, aquatic bacterium.^1,4,5,8,9 It is part of the normal estuarine microbiome and typically is found in warm coastal waters.^1,5,10 The ideal conditions for growth and survival of V vulnificus are water temperatures at 18 °C (64.4 °F) and water salinities between 15 to 25 parts per thousand.^2,8,9 These conditions are found in tropical and subtropical regions.²Vibrio vulnificus is found all over the world, including Denmark, Italy, Japan, Australia, Brazil, and the United States,² where most infections come from oyster exposure and consumption in the Gulf of Mexico.^2,8,11 The incidence of infection in the United States is highest between April and October.^8,11

Some populations are at a higher risk of infection. Risk factors include male sex, liver cirrhosis, hemochromatosis, end-stage renal disease, immunosuppression, and diabetes mellitus.^1,8,11 Healthy patients with no risk factors account for less than 5% of US V vulnificus infections.⁸

Male Predilection
Men are 6 times more likely to be affected by V vulnificus than women.Some hypotheses for this discrepancy are that estrogen is protective againstV vulnificus and that women may be less likely to engage in risky water activities and seafood handling.⁵ Additionally, older males (aged >60 years) are most often affected,^1,8 likely due to the association between increasing age with number of comorbidities, such as diabetes mellitus, heart disease, and chronic disease.⁸

Iron Levels
Iron appears to play an important role in V vulnificus infection. Iron is essential for bacterial growth, and the ability to obtain iron from a host increases the organism’s pathogenicity.³Vibrio vulnificus rapidly grows when transferrin saturation exceeds 70%.⁸ Additionally, iron overload decreases the inoculum needed to cause sepsis in animal studies, which could play a role in human pathogenesis.⁴ Iron levels are elevated in patients with hemochromatosis due to increased iron absorption, cirrhosis and chronic liver disease due to impaired iron metabolism, and end-stage renal disease, especially in patients receiving parenteral iron.⁸

Immunosuppression
Patients who are immunocompromised and those with chronic liver disease are at an increased risk of infection because of neutrophils having decreased phagocytic activity.⁴

Diabetes Mellitus
Patients with diabetes mellitus may have peripheral neuropathy and may be unaware of pre-existing wounds that serve as entry points for V vulnificus.¹²

Etiology

Vibrio vulnificus infects humans via seafood consumption and handling as well as exposure to contaminated water.^2,5 With respect to seafood consumption, raw shellfish are the primary type of seafood that harbor high levels of V vulnificus.⁵ Oysters are the most common etiology, but consumption of crabs, clams, and shrimp also can lead to infection.^5,7Vibrio vulnificus contamination does not change the appearance, taste, or odor of shellfish, making it hard to detect.⁸ An inoculate of 1 million bacteria typically is necessary for infection after consumption.⁵ Contaminated seawater is another primary cause of V vulnificus infection. When open wounds are exposed to seawater harboring the bacteria, wound infections can arise.⁷ Infections can be acquired when swimming, fishing, or participating in water sports. Wound infections also occur while handling contaminated seafood, such as oyster shucking.⁵ There is a short incubation period for V vulnificus infections; the onset of symptoms and clinical outcome typically occur within 24 hours.⁵

Clinical Presentation

Vibrio vulnificus infections can have numerous clinical presentations, including gastroenteritis, wound infections, necrotizing fasciitis, and sepsis.^1,8 There also is a spectrum of clinical outcomes; for instance, gastroenteritis typically is self-limited, whereas necrotizing fasciitis or sepsis can be fatal.²

Gastroenteritis
Vibrio vulnificus gastroenteritis is due to ingestion of contaminated shellfish.^2,9 Symptoms typically are mild to moderate and include nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, fever, chills, abdominal pain, and cramping.^2,4,8 Cases likely are underreported in the United States because gastroenteritis is self-limited, and many patients do not seek treatment.^2,11

Wound Infections
Wound infections with V vulnificus have a cutaneous port of entry. Exposure to contaminated seawater or seafood can inoculate an open wound, leading to infection.^7,8 Wound infections usually stem from 1 of 2 routes: (1) a pre-existing open wound gets infected while the patient is swimming in contaminated water, or (2) a traumatic injury occurs while the patient is handling contaminated shellfish, knives, or fishhooks. Many shellfish, such as oysters, have sharp points on their shells that can lacerate the skin.⁸ A wound on the hand can be contaminated by V vulnificus while handling contaminated seafood (eg, oyster shucking).¹³ Minor abrasions should not be dismissed; in fact, a small puncture or skin break often acts as the port of entry.^9,11 Wound infections tend to arise within 7 days of exposure, though they can manifest up to 12 days after exposure.⁸ Wound infections can present as cellulitis, bullae, or ecchymoses.⁷ Lesions are exquisitely tender, and the skin is erythematous with marked surrounding soft tissue edema.^3,4,8 Cellulitis typically arises first, with hemorrhagic bullae rapidly following.¹⁴ Lesions are limited to the affected extremity or area of inoculation.⁸ Systemic symptoms are rare, but fever and chills may accompany the infection.^8,14 Unfortunately, lesions can become necrotic and progress rapidly to necrotizing fasciitis if left untreated.^4,7,11 In these cases, secondary sepsis can occur.⁸

Necrotizing Fasciitis
Wound infections caused by V vulnificus can progress to necrotizing skin and soft tissue infections, such as necrotizing fasciitis and gangrene.⁵ Necrotizing fasciitis accounts for approximately one-third of V vulnificus infections.⁹ It usually stems from an open wound that is inoculated by contact with contaminated seafood or seawater.^2,9 The wound infection begins as cellulitis with extreme tenderness, erythematous skin, and marked soft tissue edema, then rapidly progresses, becoming necrotic. These necrotic lesions present as black and purple eschars as the skin, blood supply, and subcutaneous tissues are infiltrated by the bacteria and destroyed. Lesions may have blistering or exudation. Many patients have accompanying systemic symptoms, including fever, chills, abdominal pain, diarrhea, hypotension, and sepsis.^11,14 However, some patients may not present with systemic symptoms, so it is important to maintain a high index of suspicion even in the absence of these symptoms. The infection typically is limited to the affected extremity; necrotizing infections can lead to amputation and even death, depending on the extent of destruction and spread of the bacteria.^11,13 The infection may spread beyond the inoculated extremity if the bacteria gains access to the bloodstream.^8,9 In these cases, fulminant purpura or secondary septicemia can occur.^8,15 Fatalityrates in the United States for necrotizing V vulnificus infections approach 30%.² Necrotizing fasciitis accounts for approximately 8% of deaths associated with the pathogen in the United States.⁹

Interestingly, one reported case of necrotizing fasciitis associated with V vulnificus infection was triggered by acupuncture.¹⁶ The patient worked in a fish hatchery, where he was exposed to V vulnificus, and subsequent acupuncture led to the inoculation of bacteria into his bloodstream. This case raises the important point that we typically sequence the pathogenesis of V vulnificus infection as a patient having an open wound that is subsequently exposed to contaminated water; however, it also can follow the reverse sequence. Thus, proper cleansing of the skin after swimming in brackish water or handling shellfish is important to prevent V vulnificus infection.¹⁶ Additionally, dermatologists should be sure to cleanse patients’ skin thoroughly before performing procedures that could cause breaks in the skin.

Septicemia
Primary septicemia is the most common presentation of V vulnificus infection.^2,8 Septicemia accounts for approximately 58% of V vulnificus infections in the United States.⁹ Infection typically occurs after ingestion of contaminated oysters, with subsequent absorption into the bloodstream through the ileum or cecum.^2,8,9 Patients with chronic liver disease are 80 times more likely to develop primary sepsis than healthy individuals.⁸ Patients typically present with sudden-onset fever and chills, vomiting, diarrhea, and pain in the abdomen and/or extremities within hours to days of ingestion.^4,8,9 The median time from ingestion to symptom onset is 18 hours.^4,16 However, symptoms can be delayed up to 14 days.² Progression is rapid; secondary lesions such as bullae, ecchymoses, cellulitis, purpura, macular or maculopapular eruptions, pustules, vasculitis, urticaria, and erythema multiforme–like lesions appear on the extremities within 24 hours of symptom onset. ^2,3,4,8,17 Hemorrhagic bullae are the most common cutaneous manifestation of sepsis.⁴ Lesions are extremely tender to palpation.³ Cutaneous lesions can progress to necrotic ulcers, necrotizing fasciitis, gangrene, necrotizing vasculitis, or myonecrosis.^4,8 Evidence of petechiae may indicate progression to disseminated intravascular coagulation (DIC). Elevated D-dimer and fibrin split products also may indicate DIC, and elevated creatine kinase may signify rhabdomyolysis.³ Unfortunately, septicemia has the worst outcomes of all V vulnificus presentations, with morality rates greater than 50% in the United States.^1,2,4Vibrio vulnificus septicemia has a similar case-fatality rate to pathogens such as anthrax, Ebola virus disease, and the bubonic plague.⁵ Septicemia accounts for approximately 80% of the deaths associated with V vulnificus in the United States.^8,9

Septicemia due to V vulnificus progresses to septic shock in two-thirds of cases.⁸ Septic shock presents with hypotension, mental status changes, and thrombocytopenia.^2,8,17 Patients can become tachycardic, tachypneic, and hypoxic. Intubation may be required for resuscitation. In cases of septic shock secondary to V vulnificus infection, mortality rates reach 92%.³ Hypotension with a systolic blood pressure less than 90 mm Hg is a poor prognostic factor; patients presenting with hypotension secondary to V vulnificus infection have a fatality rate approaching 75% within 12 hours.²

Atypical Presentations
Rare atypical presentations of V vulnificus infection that have been reported in the literature include meningitis, corneal ulcers, epiglottitis, tonsillitis, spontaneous bacterial peritonitis, pneumonia, endometritis, septic arthritis, osteomyelitis, rhabdomyolysis endophthalmitis, and keratitis.^{2,4,6,13,18,19}

Diagnosis

When diagnosing V vulnificus, providers need to obtain a thorough patient history, including any history of consumption or handling of raw seafood and recent water activities. Providers practicing in tropical climates or in warm summer months should keep V vulnificus in mind, as it is the ideal climate for the pathogen.⁹ Vital signs can range from unremarkable to fever, hypotension, tachycardia, and/or hypoxia. Skin examination may show exquisitely tender, erythematous skin with marked soft tissue edema, hemorrhagic bullae, ecchymoses, and/or necrosis. As physical examination findings can be nonspecific, wound cultures, blood cultures, and skin biopsies should be taken.

A wound culture and blood culture should be taken immediately if V vulnificus is suspected.^8,11 A wound culture using discharge or fluid from necrotic or bullous lesions should be analyzed via gram stain.^8,9 Gram stains of V vulnificus show short, slim, curved gram-negative rods under light microscopy.^9,20 Special stains also can be done on cultures; V vulnificus is an oxidase-positive, lactose-positive, lysine-positive, salicin-positive, and arginine-negative organism. This knowledge can help differentiate V vulnificus from other gram-negative rods.¹³ Blood cultures will be positive in approximately 97% of patients with primary septicemia and 30% of patients with septicemia secondary to V vulnificus wound infections.^3,9

Histologically, perilesional skin biopsies show epidermal necrosis with dermal and subcutaneous inflammation.^12,17 There typically is an inflammatory infiltrate with neutrophilic abscesses and extensive tissue destruction in the subcutaneous tissue extending into the deep dermis.^12,17 The superficial dermis is edematous but can lack the inflammatory infiltrate found in the subcutaneous tissue.¹⁷ Subepidermal bullae can form with numerous organisms within the fluid of the bullae. There also may be evidence of leukocytoclastic vasculitis with accompanying vessel wall necrosis. Fibrin clot formation and extravasated red blood cells may be visualized with few inflammatory cells but numerous organisms around the involved vessels.¹⁷

Management

Early diagnosis and treatment are vital.^5,17 Cultures should be taken before aggressive treatment is started.³ Treatment is multifaceted; it requires antibiotics and wound care, except in cases of self-limited gastroenteritis.^2,11 Aggressive debridement, fasciotomy, amputation, and supportive measures also may be necessary depending on the patient’s presentation.^2,3,8,9 Establishing 2 peripheral intravenous lines is important in case rapid resuscitation becomes necessary.

Antibiotics
Primary cellulitis wound infections should be treated with doxycycline or a quinolone. If untreated, the wound can rapidly progress to necrotizing fasciitis.¹¹ For necrotizing fasciitis and septicemia, broader-spectrum antibiotics are needed. For adults, ceftazidime plus doxycycline is the mainstay of antibiotic treatment for V vulnificus.^2,9,11 For children, trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole plus an aminoglycoside is preferred (Table).^2,11

Antibiotic treatment has become more difficult as resistance arises. Antibiotic resistance likely is due to extensive antibiotic use in health care along with the agriculture and aquaculture industries using prophylactic and therapeutic antibiotics that wash into or are directly added to marine waters, where V vulnificus resides. Thus, antibiotic treatment should be tailored to the resistance profile of V vulnificus in various regions; for example, ceftazidime has an intermediate resistance profile in the United States, so cefotaxime and ceftriaxone may be better options.²

Wound Care
Wound infections must be extensively irrigated.^9,21 For mild wound infections, proper wound care and oral antibiotics are appropriate (Table).²¹ Mild wounds should be irrigated thoroughly and followed by wound coverage to prevent progression, secondary infection, and necrosis. The dressing of choice will depend on the presenting lesion and provider preference; nonadherent, occlusive, or wet-to-dry dressings often are the best choices.²² Nonadherent dressings, such as petrolatum-covered gauze, do not pull off the newly formed epithelium when removed, making them beneficial to the skin’s healing process. Another option is occlusive dressings, which maintain a moist environment to hasten healing. They also enhance the autodigestion of necrotic tissue, which can be beneficial for necrotizing V vulnificus infections. Wet-to-dry dressings also may be used; these typically are comprised of gauze soaked with water, an astringent, and an antimicrobial or antiseptic solution. These dressings help to treat acute inflammation and also remove any exudate from the wound.²²

Soft tissue and necrotizing infections require debridement.^2,8 Early debridement decreases mortality rates.^2,8,9 Necrotizing fasciitis often requires serial debridement to clear all the dead tissue and reduce the bacterial burden.^8,9 Debridement prevents contiguous spread and metastatic seeding of the bacteria; it is important to prevent spread to the blood vessels, as vasculitis can necrose vessels, preventing antibiotics from reaching the dead tissue.¹⁷ Providers also should monitor for compartment syndrome, which should be treated with fasciotomy to decrease mortality.^9,23 Many physicians leave V vulnificus–infected wounds open in order to heal by secondary intention.⁹ Hyperbaric oxygen therapy may be helpful as an adjunct to aggressive antimicrobial treatment for wound healing.⁸

Supportive Measures
Supportive care for dehydration, sepsis, DIC, and septic shock may be necessary, depending on the patient’s course. Treatment for severe V vulnificus infection includes intravenous fluids, crystalloids, oxygen, and/or intubation. Furthermore, if DIC develops, fresh frozen plasma, cryoprecipitate, a packed red blood cell transfusion, and/or anticoagulation may be required for resuscitation.³

Timing
Time to treatment and fatality rate are directly proportional in V vulnificus infection; the greater the delay in treatment, the higher the fatality rate.² A 24-hour delay in antibiotic treatment is associated with a 33% case-fatality rate, and a 72-hour delay is associated with a 100% case-fatality rate.⁹ Even with early, appropriate treatment, mortality rates remain high.⁴

Prevention

Prevention of V vulnificus infections is an important consideration, especially for patients with chronic liver disease, immunosuppression, and hemochromatosis. Public education about the risks of eating raw shellfish is important.⁴ Oysters need to be treated properly to prevent growth and survival of V vulnificus.² The most reliable method for destroying the bacteria is cooking shellfish.^8,13 Only 15% of high-risk patients in the United States are aware of the risks associated with raw oyster consumption.³ High-risk patients should avoid eating raw oysters and shellfish and should cook seafood thoroughly before consumption.^2,8 They also should wear protective clothing (ie, gloves) and eye protection when handling seafood and protective footwear (ie, wading shoes) while in seawater.^2,8,13 It also is important to avoid contact with brackish water if one has any open wounds and to cleanse properly after exposure to brackish water or shellfish.^2,8,16 Because severe V vulnificus infections can lead to death, prevention should be strongly encouraged by providers.²

Conclusion

Vibrio vulnificus infection typically occurs due to consumption of contaminated seafood or exposure to contaminated seawater. It most frequently affects older male patients with chronic liver disease, immunosuppression, hemochromatosis, or diabetes mellitus. Vibrio vulnificus can cause a vast spectrum of diseases, including gastroenteritis, wound infections, necrotizing fasciitis, and sepsis. Septicemia is the most common presentation of V vulnificus infection and accounts for the most fatalities from the bacteria. Septicemia often presents with fever, chills, vomiting, diarrhea, and hemorrhagic bullae. Vibrio vulnificus also commonly causes necrotizing fasciitis, which initially presents as cellulitis and rapidly progresses to hemorrhagic bullae or necrosis with accompanying systemic symptoms. Prompt diagnosis and treatment are vital to prevent mortality.

Interestingly, regions impacted by V vulnificus are expanding because of global warming.^5,7Vibrio vulnificus thrives in warm waters, and increasing water temperatures are enhancing V vulnificus growth and survival.^1,9 As global warming continues, the incidence of V vulnificus infections may rise. In fact, the number of infections increased by 78% between 1996 and 2006 in the United States.⁵ This rise likely was due to a combination of factors, including an aging population with more comorbidities, improvements in diagnosis, and climate change. Thus, as the number of V vulnificus infections rises, so too must providers’ suspicion for the pathogen.