Pediatrics

Three investigations that had been scheduled for presentation at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Neurology provide further detail about the efficacy and safety of onasemnogene abeparvovec-xioi in patients with spinal muscular atrophy (SMA). The research was presented online as part of the 2020 AAN Science Highlights.

SMA results from a mutation in SMN1, which encodes the SMN protein necessary for motor function. Deficiency of this protein causes motor neurons to die, resulting in severe muscle weakness. At 2 years of age, untreated patients with SMA type 1 generally die or require permanent ventilation.

The Food and Drug Administration approved onasemnogene abeparvovec-xioi under the brand name Zolgensma in May 2019. The gene-replacement therapy, which is administered once intravenously, delivers a fully functional copy of human SMN1 into the target motor neuron cells. It is indicated as treatment for SMA in infants younger than 2 years of age.
 

Preliminary STR1VE data

Preliminary data from the phase 3 STR1VE study were scheduled to be presented at the meeting. The open-label, single-arm, single-dose study enrolled symptomatic patients with SMA type 1 (SMA1) at multiple US sites. Enrollment was completed in May 2019.

The study included 10 male patients and 12 female patients. Participants’ mean age at dosing was 3.7 months. Of 19 patients who could have reached age 13.6 months at data cutoff, 17 (89.5%) were surviving without permanent ventilation, compared with a 25% survival rate among untreated patients. One of the 19 patients died, and the event was judged to be unrelated to treatment. Another of the 19 reached a respiratory endpoint or withdrew consent.

The population’s mean baseline Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia Infant Test of Neuromuscular Disorders (CHOP INTEND) score was 32. This score increased by 6.9, 11.7, and 14.3 points at months 1, 3, and 5, respectively. Half of the 22 infants sat independently for 30 or more seconds, and this milestone was achieved at a mean of 8.2 months after treatment. Five of six (83%) patients age 18 months or older sat independently for 30 or more seconds, which was one of the study’s primary endpoints. As of March 8, 2019, treatment-emergent adverse events of special interest were transient and not associated with any sequelae.

The STR1VE study was sponsored by AveXis, the maker of onasemnogene abeparvovec-xioi. Several of the investigators are employees of AveXis, and others received funding from the company.
 

Long-term follow-up in START

Long-term follow-up data for participants in the phase 1/2a START study also were scheduled to be presented. Patients who completed START were eligible to participate, and the trial’s primary aim was to evaluate the long-term safety of onasemnogene abeparvovec-xioi. Patients are intended to have five annual visits, followed by 10 annual phone calls, and the investigators request local physicians or neurologists to transfer patient records. Safety assessments include medical history and record review, physical examination, clinical laboratory evaluation, and pulmonary assessments. Efficacy assessments include evaluation of the maintenance of developmental milestones.

As of May 31, 2019, 13 patients in two cohorts had been enrolled and had had a baseline visit. For patients in Cohort 2, the mean age and time since dosing were 4.2 years and 3.9 years, respectively. All patients in Cohort 2 were alive and did not require permanent ventilation. Participants did not lose any developmental milestones that they had achieved at the end of START. Two patients were able to walk, and two could stand with assistance during long-term follow-up. This result suggests the durability of the treatment’s effect. No new treatment-related serious adverse events or adverse events of special interest had occurred as of March 8, 2019.

“We know from accumulating experience that treating infants by gene therapy is safe,” said Jerry R. Mendell, MD, the principal investigator and an attending neurologist at Nationwide Children’s Hospital in Columbus, Ohio. “Of the 15 patients we had in our first trial, only four adverse events related to the gene delivery were encountered, and only two of these were considered serious adverse events [i.e., liver enzymes that were 10 times greater than normal laboratory levels]. These laboratory tests occurred without accompanying clinical symptoms or signs. All were suppressed by corticosteroids and related to the liver inflammation. This pattern of safety has been seen in our very large gene therapy experience. No long-term surprises were encountered.”

The START study was sponsored by AveXis. Several of the investigators are employees of AveXis, and others received funding from the company.
 

Update on the SPR1NT study

Interim safety and efficacy data from the ongoing SPR1NT study, which includes presymptomatic patients, also were scheduled to be presented. The trial “was built on the basic premise that spinal motor neuron degeneration associated with SMN protein deficiency begins in utero, continues to progress rapidly during the first months of life, and is irreversible,” said Kevin Strauss, MD, medical director of the Clinic for Special Children in Strasburg, Pennsylvania. “SPR1NT leveraged the advantages conferred by carrier testing and newborn screening programs for SMA, which allowed the first 22 children enrolled to have a confirmed molecular diagnosis between 1 and 26 days of postnatal life, before the onset of dysphagia, respiratory compromise, or overt weakness.”

In this multicenter, open-label, phase 3 trial, presymptomatic patients age 6 weeks or younger who are expected to develop SMA receive onasemnogene abeparvovec-xioi once and are evaluated during 18 or 24 months. The primary outcomes are sitting for 30 or more seconds for infants with two copies of SMN2 and standing unassisted for infants with three copies of SMN2.

As of December 31, 2019, 29 infants had been treated in the efficacy group at a mean age of 20.6 days among infants with two copies of SMN2 and 28.7 days among infants with three copies of SMN2. All patients are alive, and no patient in SPR1NT required ventilation support at last visit. Among 14 patients with two copies of SMN2, all achieved CHOP INTEND scores of 50 or greater, which exceeds the maximal score observed in untreated patients. Eight have achieved sitting, seven of whom achieved it within the World Health Organization sitting age range of 3.8-9.2 months. The other six patients have not yet passed the WHO developmental window. Among 15 patients with three copies of SMN2, four stood independently and three walked independently, all within the WHO developmental windows of 6.9-16.9 months and 8.2-17.6 months, respectively. The other patients have not yet passed the WHO developmental window. No patient in either cohort required a feeding tube, and most remained within the normal weight range. Treatment-emergent adverse events of special interest were reported in 16 patients. The study is ongoing, and patients continue to meet primary endpoints.

“Comparing functional and motor indices between these two groups [i.e., patients with two copies of SMN2 and those with three copies] should contribute to our understanding of how motor neuron loss during fetal development may impact long-term neurological outcomes over the arc of life and could even form a basis for considering antenatal gene therapy for severe forms of SMA,” said Dr. Strauss.

SPR1NT was funded by AveXis. Several of the investigators are employees of AveXis, and others received funding from the company.
 

Combination therapy may be a possibility

A benefit of onasemnogene abeparvovec-xioi is that the adeno-associated virus that delivers it does not integrate itself into the genome, said Darryl C. De Vivo, MD, Sidney Carter professor of neurology and professor of pediatrics at Columbia University in New York. “The bad news is that every time the cell divides, the gene therapy goes to one of the two daughter cells, but not to both. ... That means the effectiveness, in theory, would be reduced by 50% with each cell division, possibly affecting the durability of treatment.” The fact that brain and spinal cord neurons are presumed to be fully populated around the time of birth partly mitigates this concern, he added. “There isn’t too much additional cell division going on in neurons after birth at a time when the gene therapy would be administered.”

Furthermore, the cellular distribution of the gene therapy within the nervous system, which is unclear, might affect the therapy’s effect. “These are largely unanswered questions,” said Dr. De Vivo. “The answers to these questions only will come with continued observation of patients who have been treated.”

Considering that nusinersen, the antisense oligonucleotide also approved for SMA, targets SMN2, and the gene therapy replaces SMN1, “there may be some wisdom in thinking about combination therapy,” said Dr. De Vivo. “There’s no doubt that these therapeutic agents are effective,” and continued follow-up will clarify their comparative efficacy, he concluded.

[email protected]

SOURCES: Day JW, et al. AAN 2020. Abstract S27.001. Mendell JR, et al. AAN 2020. Abstract S27.002. Strauss KA, et al. AAN 2020. Abstract S27.003.

Three investigations that had been scheduled for presentation at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Neurology provide further detail about the efficacy and safety of onasemnogene abeparvovec-xioi in patients with spinal muscular atrophy (SMA). The research was presented online as part of the 2020 AAN Science Highlights.

SMA results from a mutation in SMN1, which encodes the SMN protein necessary for motor function. Deficiency of this protein causes motor neurons to die, resulting in severe muscle weakness. At 2 years of age, untreated patients with SMA type 1 generally die or require permanent ventilation.

The Food and Drug Administration approved onasemnogene abeparvovec-xioi under the brand name Zolgensma in May 2019. The gene-replacement therapy, which is administered once intravenously, delivers a fully functional copy of human SMN1 into the target motor neuron cells. It is indicated as treatment for SMA in infants younger than 2 years of age.
 

Preliminary STR1VE data

Preliminary data from the phase 3 STR1VE study were scheduled to be presented at the meeting. The open-label, single-arm, single-dose study enrolled symptomatic patients with SMA type 1 (SMA1) at multiple US sites. Enrollment was completed in May 2019.

The study included 10 male patients and 12 female patients. Participants’ mean age at dosing was 3.7 months. Of 19 patients who could have reached age 13.6 months at data cutoff, 17 (89.5%) were surviving without permanent ventilation, compared with a 25% survival rate among untreated patients. One of the 19 patients died, and the event was judged to be unrelated to treatment. Another of the 19 reached a respiratory endpoint or withdrew consent.

The population’s mean baseline Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia Infant Test of Neuromuscular Disorders (CHOP INTEND) score was 32. This score increased by 6.9, 11.7, and 14.3 points at months 1, 3, and 5, respectively. Half of the 22 infants sat independently for 30 or more seconds, and this milestone was achieved at a mean of 8.2 months after treatment. Five of six (83%) patients age 18 months or older sat independently for 30 or more seconds, which was one of the study’s primary endpoints. As of March 8, 2019, treatment-emergent adverse events of special interest were transient and not associated with any sequelae.

The STR1VE study was sponsored by AveXis, the maker of onasemnogene abeparvovec-xioi. Several of the investigators are employees of AveXis, and others received funding from the company.
 

Long-term follow-up in START

Long-term follow-up data for participants in the phase 1/2a START study also were scheduled to be presented. Patients who completed START were eligible to participate, and the trial’s primary aim was to evaluate the long-term safety of onasemnogene abeparvovec-xioi. Patients are intended to have five annual visits, followed by 10 annual phone calls, and the investigators request local physicians or neurologists to transfer patient records. Safety assessments include medical history and record review, physical examination, clinical laboratory evaluation, and pulmonary assessments. Efficacy assessments include evaluation of the maintenance of developmental milestones.

As of May 31, 2019, 13 patients in two cohorts had been enrolled and had had a baseline visit. For patients in Cohort 2, the mean age and time since dosing were 4.2 years and 3.9 years, respectively. All patients in Cohort 2 were alive and did not require permanent ventilation. Participants did not lose any developmental milestones that they had achieved at the end of START. Two patients were able to walk, and two could stand with assistance during long-term follow-up. This result suggests the durability of the treatment’s effect. No new treatment-related serious adverse events or adverse events of special interest had occurred as of March 8, 2019.

“We know from accumulating experience that treating infants by gene therapy is safe,” said Jerry R. Mendell, MD, the principal investigator and an attending neurologist at Nationwide Children’s Hospital in Columbus, Ohio. “Of the 15 patients we had in our first trial, only four adverse events related to the gene delivery were encountered, and only two of these were considered serious adverse events [i.e., liver enzymes that were 10 times greater than normal laboratory levels]. These laboratory tests occurred without accompanying clinical symptoms or signs. All were suppressed by corticosteroids and related to the liver inflammation. This pattern of safety has been seen in our very large gene therapy experience. No long-term surprises were encountered.”

The START study was sponsored by AveXis. Several of the investigators are employees of AveXis, and others received funding from the company.
 

Update on the SPR1NT study

Interim safety and efficacy data from the ongoing SPR1NT study, which includes presymptomatic patients, also were scheduled to be presented. The trial “was built on the basic premise that spinal motor neuron degeneration associated with SMN protein deficiency begins in utero, continues to progress rapidly during the first months of life, and is irreversible,” said Kevin Strauss, MD, medical director of the Clinic for Special Children in Strasburg, Pennsylvania. “SPR1NT leveraged the advantages conferred by carrier testing and newborn screening programs for SMA, which allowed the first 22 children enrolled to have a confirmed molecular diagnosis between 1 and 26 days of postnatal life, before the onset of dysphagia, respiratory compromise, or overt weakness.”

In this multicenter, open-label, phase 3 trial, presymptomatic patients age 6 weeks or younger who are expected to develop SMA receive onasemnogene abeparvovec-xioi once and are evaluated during 18 or 24 months. The primary outcomes are sitting for 30 or more seconds for infants with two copies of SMN2 and standing unassisted for infants with three copies of SMN2.

As of December 31, 2019, 29 infants had been treated in the efficacy group at a mean age of 20.6 days among infants with two copies of SMN2 and 28.7 days among infants with three copies of SMN2. All patients are alive, and no patient in SPR1NT required ventilation support at last visit. Among 14 patients with two copies of SMN2, all achieved CHOP INTEND scores of 50 or greater, which exceeds the maximal score observed in untreated patients. Eight have achieved sitting, seven of whom achieved it within the World Health Organization sitting age range of 3.8-9.2 months. The other six patients have not yet passed the WHO developmental window. Among 15 patients with three copies of SMN2, four stood independently and three walked independently, all within the WHO developmental windows of 6.9-16.9 months and 8.2-17.6 months, respectively. The other patients have not yet passed the WHO developmental window. No patient in either cohort required a feeding tube, and most remained within the normal weight range. Treatment-emergent adverse events of special interest were reported in 16 patients. The study is ongoing, and patients continue to meet primary endpoints.

“Comparing functional and motor indices between these two groups [i.e., patients with two copies of SMN2 and those with three copies] should contribute to our understanding of how motor neuron loss during fetal development may impact long-term neurological outcomes over the arc of life and could even form a basis for considering antenatal gene therapy for severe forms of SMA,” said Dr. Strauss.

SPR1NT was funded by AveXis. Several of the investigators are employees of AveXis, and others received funding from the company.
 

Combination therapy may be a possibility

A benefit of onasemnogene abeparvovec-xioi is that the adeno-associated virus that delivers it does not integrate itself into the genome, said Darryl C. De Vivo, MD, Sidney Carter professor of neurology and professor of pediatrics at Columbia University in New York. “The bad news is that every time the cell divides, the gene therapy goes to one of the two daughter cells, but not to both. ... That means the effectiveness, in theory, would be reduced by 50% with each cell division, possibly affecting the durability of treatment.” The fact that brain and spinal cord neurons are presumed to be fully populated around the time of birth partly mitigates this concern, he added. “There isn’t too much additional cell division going on in neurons after birth at a time when the gene therapy would be administered.”

Furthermore, the cellular distribution of the gene therapy within the nervous system, which is unclear, might affect the therapy’s effect. “These are largely unanswered questions,” said Dr. De Vivo. “The answers to these questions only will come with continued observation of patients who have been treated.”

Considering that nusinersen, the antisense oligonucleotide also approved for SMA, targets SMN2, and the gene therapy replaces SMN1, “there may be some wisdom in thinking about combination therapy,” said Dr. De Vivo. “There’s no doubt that these therapeutic agents are effective,” and continued follow-up will clarify their comparative efficacy, he concluded.

[email protected]

SOURCES: Day JW, et al. AAN 2020. Abstract S27.001. Mendell JR, et al. AAN 2020. Abstract S27.002. Strauss KA, et al. AAN 2020. Abstract S27.003.

Three investigations that had been scheduled for presentation at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Neurology provide further detail about the efficacy and safety of onasemnogene abeparvovec-xioi in patients with spinal muscular atrophy (SMA). The research was presented online as part of the 2020 AAN Science Highlights.

SMA results from a mutation in SMN1, which encodes the SMN protein necessary for motor function. Deficiency of this protein causes motor neurons to die, resulting in severe muscle weakness. At 2 years of age, untreated patients with SMA type 1 generally die or require permanent ventilation.

The Food and Drug Administration approved onasemnogene abeparvovec-xioi under the brand name Zolgensma in May 2019. The gene-replacement therapy, which is administered once intravenously, delivers a fully functional copy of human SMN1 into the target motor neuron cells. It is indicated as treatment for SMA in infants younger than 2 years of age.
 

Preliminary STR1VE data

Preliminary data from the phase 3 STR1VE study were scheduled to be presented at the meeting. The open-label, single-arm, single-dose study enrolled symptomatic patients with SMA type 1 (SMA1) at multiple US sites. Enrollment was completed in May 2019.

The study included 10 male patients and 12 female patients. Participants’ mean age at dosing was 3.7 months. Of 19 patients who could have reached age 13.6 months at data cutoff, 17 (89.5%) were surviving without permanent ventilation, compared with a 25% survival rate among untreated patients. One of the 19 patients died, and the event was judged to be unrelated to treatment. Another of the 19 reached a respiratory endpoint or withdrew consent.

The population’s mean baseline Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia Infant Test of Neuromuscular Disorders (CHOP INTEND) score was 32. This score increased by 6.9, 11.7, and 14.3 points at months 1, 3, and 5, respectively. Half of the 22 infants sat independently for 30 or more seconds, and this milestone was achieved at a mean of 8.2 months after treatment. Five of six (83%) patients age 18 months or older sat independently for 30 or more seconds, which was one of the study’s primary endpoints. As of March 8, 2019, treatment-emergent adverse events of special interest were transient and not associated with any sequelae.

The STR1VE study was sponsored by AveXis, the maker of onasemnogene abeparvovec-xioi. Several of the investigators are employees of AveXis, and others received funding from the company.
 

Long-term follow-up in START

Long-term follow-up data for participants in the phase 1/2a START study also were scheduled to be presented. Patients who completed START were eligible to participate, and the trial’s primary aim was to evaluate the long-term safety of onasemnogene abeparvovec-xioi. Patients are intended to have five annual visits, followed by 10 annual phone calls, and the investigators request local physicians or neurologists to transfer patient records. Safety assessments include medical history and record review, physical examination, clinical laboratory evaluation, and pulmonary assessments. Efficacy assessments include evaluation of the maintenance of developmental milestones.

As of May 31, 2019, 13 patients in two cohorts had been enrolled and had had a baseline visit. For patients in Cohort 2, the mean age and time since dosing were 4.2 years and 3.9 years, respectively. All patients in Cohort 2 were alive and did not require permanent ventilation. Participants did not lose any developmental milestones that they had achieved at the end of START. Two patients were able to walk, and two could stand with assistance during long-term follow-up. This result suggests the durability of the treatment’s effect. No new treatment-related serious adverse events or adverse events of special interest had occurred as of March 8, 2019.

“We know from accumulating experience that treating infants by gene therapy is safe,” said Jerry R. Mendell, MD, the principal investigator and an attending neurologist at Nationwide Children’s Hospital in Columbus, Ohio. “Of the 15 patients we had in our first trial, only four adverse events related to the gene delivery were encountered, and only two of these were considered serious adverse events [i.e., liver enzymes that were 10 times greater than normal laboratory levels]. These laboratory tests occurred without accompanying clinical symptoms or signs. All were suppressed by corticosteroids and related to the liver inflammation. This pattern of safety has been seen in our very large gene therapy experience. No long-term surprises were encountered.”

The START study was sponsored by AveXis. Several of the investigators are employees of AveXis, and others received funding from the company.
 

Update on the SPR1NT study

Interim safety and efficacy data from the ongoing SPR1NT study, which includes presymptomatic patients, also were scheduled to be presented. The trial “was built on the basic premise that spinal motor neuron degeneration associated with SMN protein deficiency begins in utero, continues to progress rapidly during the first months of life, and is irreversible,” said Kevin Strauss, MD, medical director of the Clinic for Special Children in Strasburg, Pennsylvania. “SPR1NT leveraged the advantages conferred by carrier testing and newborn screening programs for SMA, which allowed the first 22 children enrolled to have a confirmed molecular diagnosis between 1 and 26 days of postnatal life, before the onset of dysphagia, respiratory compromise, or overt weakness.”

In this multicenter, open-label, phase 3 trial, presymptomatic patients age 6 weeks or younger who are expected to develop SMA receive onasemnogene abeparvovec-xioi once and are evaluated during 18 or 24 months. The primary outcomes are sitting for 30 or more seconds for infants with two copies of SMN2 and standing unassisted for infants with three copies of SMN2.

As of December 31, 2019, 29 infants had been treated in the efficacy group at a mean age of 20.6 days among infants with two copies of SMN2 and 28.7 days among infants with three copies of SMN2. All patients are alive, and no patient in SPR1NT required ventilation support at last visit. Among 14 patients with two copies of SMN2, all achieved CHOP INTEND scores of 50 or greater, which exceeds the maximal score observed in untreated patients. Eight have achieved sitting, seven of whom achieved it within the World Health Organization sitting age range of 3.8-9.2 months. The other six patients have not yet passed the WHO developmental window. Among 15 patients with three copies of SMN2, four stood independently and three walked independently, all within the WHO developmental windows of 6.9-16.9 months and 8.2-17.6 months, respectively. The other patients have not yet passed the WHO developmental window. No patient in either cohort required a feeding tube, and most remained within the normal weight range. Treatment-emergent adverse events of special interest were reported in 16 patients. The study is ongoing, and patients continue to meet primary endpoints.

“Comparing functional and motor indices between these two groups [i.e., patients with two copies of SMN2 and those with three copies] should contribute to our understanding of how motor neuron loss during fetal development may impact long-term neurological outcomes over the arc of life and could even form a basis for considering antenatal gene therapy for severe forms of SMA,” said Dr. Strauss.

SPR1NT was funded by AveXis. Several of the investigators are employees of AveXis, and others received funding from the company.
 

Combination therapy may be a possibility

A benefit of onasemnogene abeparvovec-xioi is that the adeno-associated virus that delivers it does not integrate itself into the genome, said Darryl C. De Vivo, MD, Sidney Carter professor of neurology and professor of pediatrics at Columbia University in New York. “The bad news is that every time the cell divides, the gene therapy goes to one of the two daughter cells, but not to both. ... That means the effectiveness, in theory, would be reduced by 50% with each cell division, possibly affecting the durability of treatment.” The fact that brain and spinal cord neurons are presumed to be fully populated around the time of birth partly mitigates this concern, he added. “There isn’t too much additional cell division going on in neurons after birth at a time when the gene therapy would be administered.”

Furthermore, the cellular distribution of the gene therapy within the nervous system, which is unclear, might affect the therapy’s effect. “These are largely unanswered questions,” said Dr. De Vivo. “The answers to these questions only will come with continued observation of patients who have been treated.”

Considering that nusinersen, the antisense oligonucleotide also approved for SMA, targets SMN2, and the gene therapy replaces SMN1, “there may be some wisdom in thinking about combination therapy,” said Dr. De Vivo. “There’s no doubt that these therapeutic agents are effective,” and continued follow-up will clarify their comparative efficacy, he concluded.

[email protected]

SOURCES: Day JW, et al. AAN 2020. Abstract S27.001. Mendell JR, et al. AAN 2020. Abstract S27.002. Strauss KA, et al. AAN 2020. Abstract S27.003.

The dermatologic manifestations associated with SARS-CoV-2 are many and varied, with new information virtually daily. Graeme Lipper, MD, a member of the Medscape Dermatology advisory board, discussed what we know and what is still to be learned with Lindy Fox, MD, a professor of dermatology at University of California, San Francisco (UCSF) and a member of the American Academy of Dermatology’s COVID-19 Registry task force.

Graeme M. Lipper, MD

Earlier this spring, before there was any real talk about skin manifestations of COVID, my partner called me in to see an unusual case. His patient was a healthy 20-year-old who had just come back from college and had tender, purple discoloration and swelling on his toes. I shrugged and said “looks like chilblains,” but there was something weird about the case. It seemed more severe, with areas of blistering and erosions, and the discomfort was unusual for run-of-the-mill pernio. This young man had experienced a cough and shortness of breath a few weeks earlier but those symptoms had resolved when we saw him.

That evening, I was on a derm social media site and saw a series of pictures from Italy that blew me away. All of these pictures looked just like this kid’s toes. That’s the first I heard of “COVID toes,” but now they seem to be everywhere. How would you describe this presentation, and how does it differ from typical chilblains?

Lindy P. Fox, MD

I am so proud of dermatologists around the world who have really jumped into action to examine the pathophysiology and immunology behind these findings.

Your experience matches mine. Like you, I first heard about these pernio- or chilblains-like lesions when Europe was experiencing its surge in cases. And while it does indeed look like chilblains, I think the reality is that it is more severe and symptomatic than we would expect. I think your observation is exactly right. There are certainly clinicians who do not believe that this is an association with COVID-19 because the testing is often negative. But to my mind, there are just too many cases at the wrong time of year, all happening concomitantly, and simultaneous with a new virus for me to accept that they are not somehow related.
 

Dr. Lipper: Some have referred to this as “quarantine toes,” the result of more people at home and walking around barefoot. That doesn’t seem to make a whole lot of sense because it’s happening in both warm and cold climates.

Others have speculated that there is another, unrelated circulating virus causing these pernio cases, but that seems far-fetched.

But the idea of a reporting bias – more patients paying attention to these lesions because they’ve read something in the mass media or seen a report on television and are concerned, and thus present with mild lesions they might otherwise have ignored – may be contributing somewhat. But even that cannot be the sole reason behind the increase.

Dr. Fox: Agree.

Evaluation of the patient with chilblains – then and now

Dr. Lipper: In the past, how did you perform a workup for someone with chilblains?

Dr. Fox: Pre-COVID – and I think we all have divided our world into pre- and post-COVID – the most common thing that I’d be looking for would be a clotting disorder or an autoimmune disease, typically lupus. So I take a good history, review of systems, and look at the skin for signs of lupus or other autoimmune connective tissue diseases. My lab workup is probably limited to an antinuclear antibody (ANA). If the findings are severe and recurrent, I might check for hypercoagulability with an antiphospholipid antibody panel. But that was usually it unless there was something in the history or physical exam that would lead me to look for something less common – for example, cryoglobulins or an underlying hematologic disease that would lead to a predominance of lesions in acral sites.

My approach was the same. In New England, where I practice, I also always look at environmental factors. We would sometimes see chilblains in someone from a warmer climate who came home to the Northeast to ski.
 

Dr. Lipper: Now, in the post-COVID world, how do you assess these patients? What has changed?

Dr. Fox: That’s a great question. To be frank, our focus now is on not missing a secondary consequence of COVID infection that we might not have picked up before. I’m the first to admit that the workup that we have been doing at UCSF is extremely comprehensive. We may be ordering tests that don’t need to be done. But until we know better what might and might not be affected by COVID, we don’t actually have a sense of whether they’re worth looking for or not.

Right now, my workup includes nasal swab polymerase chain reaction (PCR) for COVID, as well as IgG and IgM serology if available. We have IgG easily available to us. IgM needs approval; at UCSF, it is primarily done in neonates as of now. I also do a workup for autoimmunity and cold-associated disease, which includes an ANA, rheumatoid factor, cryoglobulin, and cold agglutinins.

Because of reported concerns about hypercoagulability in COVID patients, particularly in those who are doing poorly in the hospital, we look for elevations in d-dimers and fibrinogen. We check antiphospholipid antibodies, anticardiolipin antibodies, erythrocyte sedimentation rate, and C-reactive protein. That is probably too much of a workup for the healthy young person, but as of yet, we are just unable to say that those things are universally normal.

There has also been concern that complement may be involved in patients who do poorly and tend to clot a lot. So we are also checking C3, C4, and CH50.

To date, in my patients who have had this workup, I have found one with a positive ANA that was significant (1:320) who also had low complements.

There have been a couple of patients at my institution, not my own patients, who are otherwise fine but have some slight elevation in d-dimers.
 

Dr. Lipper: Is COVID toes more than one condition?

Some of the initial reports of finger/toe cyanosis out of China were very alarming, with many patients developing skin necrosis or even gangrene. These were critically ill adults with pneumonia and blood markers of disseminated intravascular coagulation, and five out of seven died. In contrast, the cases of pseudo-pernio reported in Europe, and now the United States, seem to be much milder, usually occurring late in the illness or in asymptomatic young people. Do you think these are two different conditions?

Dr. Fox: I believe you have hit the nail on the head. I think it is really important that we don’t confuse those two things. In the inpatient setting, we are clearly seeing patients with a prothrombotic state with associated retiform purpura. For nondermatologists, that usually means star-like, stellate-like, or even lacy purpuric changes with potential for necrosis of the skin. In hospitalized patients, the fingers and toes are usually affected but, interestingly, also the buttocks. When these lesions are biopsied, as has been done by our colleague at Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, Joanna Harp, MD, we tend to find thrombosis.

A study of endothelial cell function in patients with COVID-19, published in the Lancet tried to determine whether viral particles could be found in endothelial cells. And the investigators did indeed find these particles. So it appears that the virus is endothelially active, and this might provide some insight into the thromboses seen in hospitalized patients. These patients can develop purple necrotic toes that may progress to gangrene. But that is completely different from what we’re seeing when we say pernio-like or chilblains-like lesions.

The chilblains-like lesions come in several forms. They may be purple, red bumps, often involving the tops of the toes and sometimes the bottom of the feet. Some have been described as target-like or erythema multiforme–like. In others, there may not be individual discrete lesions but rather a redness or bluish, purplish discoloration accompanied by edema of the entire toe or several toes.

Biopsies that I am aware of have identified features consistent with an inflammatory process, all of which can be seen in a typical biopsy of pernio. You can sometimes see lymphocytes surrounding a vessel (called lymphocytic vasculitis) that may damage a vessel and cause a small clot, but the primary process is an inflammatory rather than thrombotic one. You may get a clot in a little tiny vessel secondary to inflammation, and that may lead to some blisters or little areas of necrosis. But you’re not going to see digital necrosis and gangrene. I think that’s an important distinction.

The patients who get the pernio-like lesions are typically children or young adults and are otherwise healthy. Half of them didn’t even have COVID symptoms. If they did have COVID symptoms they were typically mild. So we think the pernio-like lesions are most often occurring in the late stage of the disease and now represent a secondary inflammatory response.
 

Managing COVID toes

Dr. Lipper: One question I’ve been struggling with is, what do we tell these otherwise healthy patients with purple toes, especially those with no other symptoms? Many of them are testing SARS-CoV-2 negative, both with viral swabs and serologies. Some have suggestive histories like known COVID exposure, recent cough, or travel to high-risk areas. Do we tell them they’re at risk of transmitting the virus? Should they self-quarantine, and for how long? Is there any consensus emerging?

Dr. Fox: This is a good opportunity to plug the American Academy of Dermatology’s COVID-19 Registry, which is run by Esther Freeman, MD, at Massachusetts General Hospital. She has done a phenomenal job in helping us figure out the answers to these exact questions.

I’d encourage any clinicians who have a suspected COVID patient with a skin finding, whether or not infection is confirmed with testing, to enter information about that patient into the registry. That is the only way we will figure out evidence-based answers to a lot of the questions that we’re talking about today.

Based on working with the registry, we know that, rarely, patients who develop pernio-like changes will do so before they get COVID symptoms or at the same time as more typical symptoms. Some patients with these findings are PCR positive, and it is therefore theoretically possible that you could be shedding virus while you’re having the pernio toes. However, more commonly – and this is the experience of most of my colleagues and what we’re seeing at UCSF – pernio is a later finding and most patients are no longer shedding the virus. It appears that pseudo-pernio is an immune reaction and most people are not actively infectious at that point.

The only way to know for sure is to send patients for both PCR testing and antibody testing. If the PCR is negative, the most likely interpretation is that the person is no longer shedding virus, though there can be some false negatives. Therefore, these patients do not need to isolate outside of what I call their COVID pod – family or roommates who have probably been with them the whole time. Any transmission likely would have already occurred.

I tell people who call me concerned about their toes that I do think they should be given a workup for COVID. However, I reassure them that it is usually a good prognostic sign.

What is puzzling is that even in patients with pseudo-chilblains who have a clinical history consistent with COVID or exposure to a COVID-positive family member, antibody testing is often – in fact, most often – negative. There are many hypotheses as to why this is. Maybe the tests just aren’t good. Maybe people with mild disease don’t generate enough antibodies to be detected, Maybe we’re testing at the wrong time. Those are all things that we’re trying to figure out.

But currently, I tell patients that they do not need to strictly isolate. They should still practice social distancing, wear a mask, practice good hand hygiene, and do all of the careful things that we should all be doing. However, they can live within their home environment and be reassured that most likely they are in the convalescent stage.

Dr. Lipper: I find the antibody issue both fascinating and confusing.

In my practice, we’ve noticed a range of symptoms associated with pseudo-pernio. Some people barely realize it’s there and only called because they saw a headline in the news. Others complain of severe burning, throbbing, or itching that keeps them up at night and can sometimes last for weeks. Are there any treatments that seem to help?

Dr. Fox: We can start by saying, as you note, that a lot of patients don’t need interventions. They want reassurance that their toes aren’t going to fall off, that nothing terrible is going to happen to them, and often that’s enough. So far, many patients have contacted us just because they heard about the link between what they were seeing on their feet and COVID. They were likely toward the end of any other symptoms they may have had. But moving forward, I think we’re going to be seeing patients at the more active stage as the public is more aware of this finding.

Most of the time we can manage with clobetasol ointment and low-dose aspirin. I wouldn’t give aspirin to a young child with a high fever, but otherwise I think aspirin is not harmful. A paper published in Mayo Clinic Proceedings in 2014, before COVID, by Jonathan Cappel, MD, and David Wetter, MD, provides a nice therapeutic algorithm. Assuming that the findings we are seeing now are inflammatory, then I think that algorithm should apply. Nifedipine 20-60 mg/day is an option. Hydroxychloroquine, a maximum of 5 mg/kg per day, is an option. I have used hydroxychloroquine most commonly, pre-COVID, in patients who have symptomatic pernio.

I also use pentoxifylline 400 mg three times a day, which has a slight anti-inflammatory effect, when I think a blood vessel is incidentally involved or the patient has a predisposition to clotting. Nicotinamide 500 mg three times a day can be used, though I have not used it.

Some topical options are nitroglycerin, tacrolimus, and minoxidil.

However, during this post-COVID period, I have not come across many with pseudo-pernio who needed anything more than a topical steroid and some aspirin. But I do know of other physicians who have been taking care of patients with much more symptomatic disease.

Dr. Lipper: That is a comprehensive list. You’ve mentioned some options that I’ve wondered about, especially pentoxifylline, which I have found to be very helpful for livedoid vasculopathy. I should note that these are all off-label uses.

Let’s talk about some other suspected skin manifestations of COVID. A prospective nationwide study in Spain of 375 patients reported on a number of different skin manifestations of COVID.

You’re part of a team doing critically important work with the American Academy of Dermatology COVID-19 Dermatology Registry. I know it’s early going, but what are some of the other common skin presentations you’re finding?

Dr. Fox: I’m glad you brought up that paper out of Spain. I think it is really good and does highlight the difference in acute versus convalescent cutaneous manifestations and prognosis. It confirms what we’re seeing. Retiform purpura is an early finding associated with ill patients in the hospital. Pseudo pernio-like lesions tend to be later-stage and in younger, healthier patients.

Interestingly, the vesicular eruption that those investigators describe – monomorphic vesicles on the trunk and extremity – can occur in the more acute phase. That’s fascinating to me because widespread vesicular eruptions are not a thing that we commonly see. If it is not an autoimmune blistering disease, and not a drug-induced blistering process, then you’re really left with viral. Rickettsialpox can do that, as can primary varicella, disseminated herpes, disseminated zoster, and now COVID. So that’s intriguing.

I got called to see a patient yesterday who had symptoms of COVID about a month ago. She was not PCR tested at the time but she is now negative. She has a widespread eruption of tiny vesicles on an erythematous base. An IgG for COVID is positive. How do we decide whether her skin lesions have active virus in them?
 

The many dermatologic manifestations of COVID-19

Dr. Lipper: In the series in Spain, almost 1 out of 10 patients were found to have a widespread vesicular rash. And just under half had maculopapular exanthems. The information arising from the AAD registry will be of great interest and build on this paper.

In England, the National Health Service and the Paediatric Intensive Care Society recently put out a warning about an alarming number of children with COVID-19 who developed symptoms mimicking Kawasaki disease (high fever, abdominal pain, rash, swollen lymph nodes, mucositis, and conjunctivitis). These kids have systemic inflammation and vasculitis and are critically ill. That was followed by an alert from the New York City Health Department about cases there, which as of May 6 numbered 64. Another 25 children with similar findings have been identified in France.

This is such a scary development, especially because children were supposed to be relatively “safe” from this virus. Any thoughts on who is at risk or why?

Dr. Fox: It’s very alarming. It appears that these cases look just like Kawasaki disease.

It was once hypothesized that Coronaviridae was the cause of Kawasaki disease. Then that got debunked. But these cases now raise the question of whether Kawasaki disease may be virally mediated. Is it an immune reaction to an infectious trigger? Is it actually Coronaviridae that triggers it?

As with these pernio cases, I think we’re going to learn about the pathophysiology of these diseases that we currently look at as secondary responses or immune reactions to unknown triggers. We’re going to learn a lot about them and about the immune system because of how this virus is acting on the immune system.
 

Dr. Lipper: As is the case with patients with pernio-like lesions, some of these children with Kawasaki-like disease are PCR negative for SARS-CoV-2. It will be interesting to see what happens with antibody testing in this population.

Dr. Fox: Agree. While some of the manufacturers of serology tests have claimed that they have very high sensitivity and specificity, that has not been my experience.

Dr. Lipper: I’ve had a number of patients with a clinical picture that strongly suggests COVID whose serology tests have been negative.

Dr. Fox: As have I. While this could be the result of faulty tests, my biggest worry is that it means that people with mild disease do not mount an antibody response. And if people who have disease can’t make antibodies, then there’s no herd immunity. If there’s no herd immunity, we’re stuck in lockdown until there’s a vaccine.

Dr. Lipper: That is a scary but real possibility. We need evidence – evidence like that provided by the AAD registry.

Dr. Fox: Agree. I look forward to sharing those results with you when we have them.
 

Dr. Lipper is a clinical assistant professor at the University of Vermont, Burlington, and a partner at Advanced DermCare in Danbury, Conn.

Dr. Fox is a professor in the department of dermatology at the University of California, San Francisco. She is a hospital-based dermatologist who specializes in the care of patients with complex skin conditions. She is immediate past president of the Medical Dermatology Society and current president of the Society of Dermatology Hospitalists.

This article was first published on Medscape.com.

The dermatologic manifestations associated with SARS-CoV-2 are many and varied, with new information virtually daily. Graeme Lipper, MD, a member of the Medscape Dermatology advisory board, discussed what we know and what is still to be learned with Lindy Fox, MD, a professor of dermatology at University of California, San Francisco (UCSF) and a member of the American Academy of Dermatology’s COVID-19 Registry task force.

Graeme M. Lipper, MD

Earlier this spring, before there was any real talk about skin manifestations of COVID, my partner called me in to see an unusual case. His patient was a healthy 20-year-old who had just come back from college and had tender, purple discoloration and swelling on his toes. I shrugged and said “looks like chilblains,” but there was something weird about the case. It seemed more severe, with areas of blistering and erosions, and the discomfort was unusual for run-of-the-mill pernio. This young man had experienced a cough and shortness of breath a few weeks earlier but those symptoms had resolved when we saw him.

That evening, I was on a derm social media site and saw a series of pictures from Italy that blew me away. All of these pictures looked just like this kid’s toes. That’s the first I heard of “COVID toes,” but now they seem to be everywhere. How would you describe this presentation, and how does it differ from typical chilblains?

Lindy P. Fox, MD

I am so proud of dermatologists around the world who have really jumped into action to examine the pathophysiology and immunology behind these findings.

Your experience matches mine. Like you, I first heard about these pernio- or chilblains-like lesions when Europe was experiencing its surge in cases. And while it does indeed look like chilblains, I think the reality is that it is more severe and symptomatic than we would expect. I think your observation is exactly right. There are certainly clinicians who do not believe that this is an association with COVID-19 because the testing is often negative. But to my mind, there are just too many cases at the wrong time of year, all happening concomitantly, and simultaneous with a new virus for me to accept that they are not somehow related.
 

Dr. Lipper: Some have referred to this as “quarantine toes,” the result of more people at home and walking around barefoot. That doesn’t seem to make a whole lot of sense because it’s happening in both warm and cold climates.

Others have speculated that there is another, unrelated circulating virus causing these pernio cases, but that seems far-fetched.

But the idea of a reporting bias – more patients paying attention to these lesions because they’ve read something in the mass media or seen a report on television and are concerned, and thus present with mild lesions they might otherwise have ignored – may be contributing somewhat. But even that cannot be the sole reason behind the increase.

Dr. Fox: Agree.

Evaluation of the patient with chilblains – then and now

Dr. Lipper: In the past, how did you perform a workup for someone with chilblains?

Dr. Fox: Pre-COVID – and I think we all have divided our world into pre- and post-COVID – the most common thing that I’d be looking for would be a clotting disorder or an autoimmune disease, typically lupus. So I take a good history, review of systems, and look at the skin for signs of lupus or other autoimmune connective tissue diseases. My lab workup is probably limited to an antinuclear antibody (ANA). If the findings are severe and recurrent, I might check for hypercoagulability with an antiphospholipid antibody panel. But that was usually it unless there was something in the history or physical exam that would lead me to look for something less common – for example, cryoglobulins or an underlying hematologic disease that would lead to a predominance of lesions in acral sites.

My approach was the same. In New England, where I practice, I also always look at environmental factors. We would sometimes see chilblains in someone from a warmer climate who came home to the Northeast to ski.
 

Dr. Lipper: Now, in the post-COVID world, how do you assess these patients? What has changed?

Dr. Fox: That’s a great question. To be frank, our focus now is on not missing a secondary consequence of COVID infection that we might not have picked up before. I’m the first to admit that the workup that we have been doing at UCSF is extremely comprehensive. We may be ordering tests that don’t need to be done. But until we know better what might and might not be affected by COVID, we don’t actually have a sense of whether they’re worth looking for or not.

Right now, my workup includes nasal swab polymerase chain reaction (PCR) for COVID, as well as IgG and IgM serology if available. We have IgG easily available to us. IgM needs approval; at UCSF, it is primarily done in neonates as of now. I also do a workup for autoimmunity and cold-associated disease, which includes an ANA, rheumatoid factor, cryoglobulin, and cold agglutinins.

Because of reported concerns about hypercoagulability in COVID patients, particularly in those who are doing poorly in the hospital, we look for elevations in d-dimers and fibrinogen. We check antiphospholipid antibodies, anticardiolipin antibodies, erythrocyte sedimentation rate, and C-reactive protein. That is probably too much of a workup for the healthy young person, but as of yet, we are just unable to say that those things are universally normal.

There has also been concern that complement may be involved in patients who do poorly and tend to clot a lot. So we are also checking C3, C4, and CH50.

To date, in my patients who have had this workup, I have found one with a positive ANA that was significant (1:320) who also had low complements.

There have been a couple of patients at my institution, not my own patients, who are otherwise fine but have some slight elevation in d-dimers.
 

Dr. Lipper: Is COVID toes more than one condition?

Some of the initial reports of finger/toe cyanosis out of China were very alarming, with many patients developing skin necrosis or even gangrene. These were critically ill adults with pneumonia and blood markers of disseminated intravascular coagulation, and five out of seven died. In contrast, the cases of pseudo-pernio reported in Europe, and now the United States, seem to be much milder, usually occurring late in the illness or in asymptomatic young people. Do you think these are two different conditions?

Dr. Fox: I believe you have hit the nail on the head. I think it is really important that we don’t confuse those two things. In the inpatient setting, we are clearly seeing patients with a prothrombotic state with associated retiform purpura. For nondermatologists, that usually means star-like, stellate-like, or even lacy purpuric changes with potential for necrosis of the skin. In hospitalized patients, the fingers and toes are usually affected but, interestingly, also the buttocks. When these lesions are biopsied, as has been done by our colleague at Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, Joanna Harp, MD, we tend to find thrombosis.

A study of endothelial cell function in patients with COVID-19, published in the Lancet tried to determine whether viral particles could be found in endothelial cells. And the investigators did indeed find these particles. So it appears that the virus is endothelially active, and this might provide some insight into the thromboses seen in hospitalized patients. These patients can develop purple necrotic toes that may progress to gangrene. But that is completely different from what we’re seeing when we say pernio-like or chilblains-like lesions.

The chilblains-like lesions come in several forms. They may be purple, red bumps, often involving the tops of the toes and sometimes the bottom of the feet. Some have been described as target-like or erythema multiforme–like. In others, there may not be individual discrete lesions but rather a redness or bluish, purplish discoloration accompanied by edema of the entire toe or several toes.

Biopsies that I am aware of have identified features consistent with an inflammatory process, all of which can be seen in a typical biopsy of pernio. You can sometimes see lymphocytes surrounding a vessel (called lymphocytic vasculitis) that may damage a vessel and cause a small clot, but the primary process is an inflammatory rather than thrombotic one. You may get a clot in a little tiny vessel secondary to inflammation, and that may lead to some blisters or little areas of necrosis. But you’re not going to see digital necrosis and gangrene. I think that’s an important distinction.

The patients who get the pernio-like lesions are typically children or young adults and are otherwise healthy. Half of them didn’t even have COVID symptoms. If they did have COVID symptoms they were typically mild. So we think the pernio-like lesions are most often occurring in the late stage of the disease and now represent a secondary inflammatory response.
 

Managing COVID toes

Dr. Lipper: One question I’ve been struggling with is, what do we tell these otherwise healthy patients with purple toes, especially those with no other symptoms? Many of them are testing SARS-CoV-2 negative, both with viral swabs and serologies. Some have suggestive histories like known COVID exposure, recent cough, or travel to high-risk areas. Do we tell them they’re at risk of transmitting the virus? Should they self-quarantine, and for how long? Is there any consensus emerging?

Dr. Fox: This is a good opportunity to plug the American Academy of Dermatology’s COVID-19 Registry, which is run by Esther Freeman, MD, at Massachusetts General Hospital. She has done a phenomenal job in helping us figure out the answers to these exact questions.

I’d encourage any clinicians who have a suspected COVID patient with a skin finding, whether or not infection is confirmed with testing, to enter information about that patient into the registry. That is the only way we will figure out evidence-based answers to a lot of the questions that we’re talking about today.

Based on working with the registry, we know that, rarely, patients who develop pernio-like changes will do so before they get COVID symptoms or at the same time as more typical symptoms. Some patients with these findings are PCR positive, and it is therefore theoretically possible that you could be shedding virus while you’re having the pernio toes. However, more commonly – and this is the experience of most of my colleagues and what we’re seeing at UCSF – pernio is a later finding and most patients are no longer shedding the virus. It appears that pseudo-pernio is an immune reaction and most people are not actively infectious at that point.

The only way to know for sure is to send patients for both PCR testing and antibody testing. If the PCR is negative, the most likely interpretation is that the person is no longer shedding virus, though there can be some false negatives. Therefore, these patients do not need to isolate outside of what I call their COVID pod – family or roommates who have probably been with them the whole time. Any transmission likely would have already occurred.

I tell people who call me concerned about their toes that I do think they should be given a workup for COVID. However, I reassure them that it is usually a good prognostic sign.

What is puzzling is that even in patients with pseudo-chilblains who have a clinical history consistent with COVID or exposure to a COVID-positive family member, antibody testing is often – in fact, most often – negative. There are many hypotheses as to why this is. Maybe the tests just aren’t good. Maybe people with mild disease don’t generate enough antibodies to be detected, Maybe we’re testing at the wrong time. Those are all things that we’re trying to figure out.

But currently, I tell patients that they do not need to strictly isolate. They should still practice social distancing, wear a mask, practice good hand hygiene, and do all of the careful things that we should all be doing. However, they can live within their home environment and be reassured that most likely they are in the convalescent stage.

Dr. Lipper: I find the antibody issue both fascinating and confusing.

In my practice, we’ve noticed a range of symptoms associated with pseudo-pernio. Some people barely realize it’s there and only called because they saw a headline in the news. Others complain of severe burning, throbbing, or itching that keeps them up at night and can sometimes last for weeks. Are there any treatments that seem to help?

Dr. Fox: We can start by saying, as you note, that a lot of patients don’t need interventions. They want reassurance that their toes aren’t going to fall off, that nothing terrible is going to happen to them, and often that’s enough. So far, many patients have contacted us just because they heard about the link between what they were seeing on their feet and COVID. They were likely toward the end of any other symptoms they may have had. But moving forward, I think we’re going to be seeing patients at the more active stage as the public is more aware of this finding.

Most of the time we can manage with clobetasol ointment and low-dose aspirin. I wouldn’t give aspirin to a young child with a high fever, but otherwise I think aspirin is not harmful. A paper published in Mayo Clinic Proceedings in 2014, before COVID, by Jonathan Cappel, MD, and David Wetter, MD, provides a nice therapeutic algorithm. Assuming that the findings we are seeing now are inflammatory, then I think that algorithm should apply. Nifedipine 20-60 mg/day is an option. Hydroxychloroquine, a maximum of 5 mg/kg per day, is an option. I have used hydroxychloroquine most commonly, pre-COVID, in patients who have symptomatic pernio.

I also use pentoxifylline 400 mg three times a day, which has a slight anti-inflammatory effect, when I think a blood vessel is incidentally involved or the patient has a predisposition to clotting. Nicotinamide 500 mg three times a day can be used, though I have not used it.

Some topical options are nitroglycerin, tacrolimus, and minoxidil.

However, during this post-COVID period, I have not come across many with pseudo-pernio who needed anything more than a topical steroid and some aspirin. But I do know of other physicians who have been taking care of patients with much more symptomatic disease.

Dr. Lipper: That is a comprehensive list. You’ve mentioned some options that I’ve wondered about, especially pentoxifylline, which I have found to be very helpful for livedoid vasculopathy. I should note that these are all off-label uses.

Let’s talk about some other suspected skin manifestations of COVID. A prospective nationwide study in Spain of 375 patients reported on a number of different skin manifestations of COVID.

You’re part of a team doing critically important work with the American Academy of Dermatology COVID-19 Dermatology Registry. I know it’s early going, but what are some of the other common skin presentations you’re finding?

Dr. Fox: I’m glad you brought up that paper out of Spain. I think it is really good and does highlight the difference in acute versus convalescent cutaneous manifestations and prognosis. It confirms what we’re seeing. Retiform purpura is an early finding associated with ill patients in the hospital. Pseudo pernio-like lesions tend to be later-stage and in younger, healthier patients.

Interestingly, the vesicular eruption that those investigators describe – monomorphic vesicles on the trunk and extremity – can occur in the more acute phase. That’s fascinating to me because widespread vesicular eruptions are not a thing that we commonly see. If it is not an autoimmune blistering disease, and not a drug-induced blistering process, then you’re really left with viral. Rickettsialpox can do that, as can primary varicella, disseminated herpes, disseminated zoster, and now COVID. So that’s intriguing.

I got called to see a patient yesterday who had symptoms of COVID about a month ago. She was not PCR tested at the time but she is now negative. She has a widespread eruption of tiny vesicles on an erythematous base. An IgG for COVID is positive. How do we decide whether her skin lesions have active virus in them?
 

The many dermatologic manifestations of COVID-19

Dr. Lipper: In the series in Spain, almost 1 out of 10 patients were found to have a widespread vesicular rash. And just under half had maculopapular exanthems. The information arising from the AAD registry will be of great interest and build on this paper.

In England, the National Health Service and the Paediatric Intensive Care Society recently put out a warning about an alarming number of children with COVID-19 who developed symptoms mimicking Kawasaki disease (high fever, abdominal pain, rash, swollen lymph nodes, mucositis, and conjunctivitis). These kids have systemic inflammation and vasculitis and are critically ill. That was followed by an alert from the New York City Health Department about cases there, which as of May 6 numbered 64. Another 25 children with similar findings have been identified in France.

This is such a scary development, especially because children were supposed to be relatively “safe” from this virus. Any thoughts on who is at risk or why?

Dr. Fox: It’s very alarming. It appears that these cases look just like Kawasaki disease.

It was once hypothesized that Coronaviridae was the cause of Kawasaki disease. Then that got debunked. But these cases now raise the question of whether Kawasaki disease may be virally mediated. Is it an immune reaction to an infectious trigger? Is it actually Coronaviridae that triggers it?

As with these pernio cases, I think we’re going to learn about the pathophysiology of these diseases that we currently look at as secondary responses or immune reactions to unknown triggers. We’re going to learn a lot about them and about the immune system because of how this virus is acting on the immune system.
 

Dr. Lipper: As is the case with patients with pernio-like lesions, some of these children with Kawasaki-like disease are PCR negative for SARS-CoV-2. It will be interesting to see what happens with antibody testing in this population.

Dr. Fox: Agree. While some of the manufacturers of serology tests have claimed that they have very high sensitivity and specificity, that has not been my experience.

Dr. Lipper: I’ve had a number of patients with a clinical picture that strongly suggests COVID whose serology tests have been negative.

Dr. Fox: As have I. While this could be the result of faulty tests, my biggest worry is that it means that people with mild disease do not mount an antibody response. And if people who have disease can’t make antibodies, then there’s no herd immunity. If there’s no herd immunity, we’re stuck in lockdown until there’s a vaccine.

Dr. Lipper: That is a scary but real possibility. We need evidence – evidence like that provided by the AAD registry.

Dr. Fox: Agree. I look forward to sharing those results with you when we have them.
 

Dr. Lipper is a clinical assistant professor at the University of Vermont, Burlington, and a partner at Advanced DermCare in Danbury, Conn.

Dr. Fox is a professor in the department of dermatology at the University of California, San Francisco. She is a hospital-based dermatologist who specializes in the care of patients with complex skin conditions. She is immediate past president of the Medical Dermatology Society and current president of the Society of Dermatology Hospitalists.

This article was first published on Medscape.com.

The dermatologic manifestations associated with SARS-CoV-2 are many and varied, with new information virtually daily. Graeme Lipper, MD, a member of the Medscape Dermatology advisory board, discussed what we know and what is still to be learned with Lindy Fox, MD, a professor of dermatology at University of California, San Francisco (UCSF) and a member of the American Academy of Dermatology’s COVID-19 Registry task force.

Graeme M. Lipper, MD

Earlier this spring, before there was any real talk about skin manifestations of COVID, my partner called me in to see an unusual case. His patient was a healthy 20-year-old who had just come back from college and had tender, purple discoloration and swelling on his toes. I shrugged and said “looks like chilblains,” but there was something weird about the case. It seemed more severe, with areas of blistering and erosions, and the discomfort was unusual for run-of-the-mill pernio. This young man had experienced a cough and shortness of breath a few weeks earlier but those symptoms had resolved when we saw him.

That evening, I was on a derm social media site and saw a series of pictures from Italy that blew me away. All of these pictures looked just like this kid’s toes. That’s the first I heard of “COVID toes,” but now they seem to be everywhere. How would you describe this presentation, and how does it differ from typical chilblains?

Lindy P. Fox, MD

I am so proud of dermatologists around the world who have really jumped into action to examine the pathophysiology and immunology behind these findings.

Your experience matches mine. Like you, I first heard about these pernio- or chilblains-like lesions when Europe was experiencing its surge in cases. And while it does indeed look like chilblains, I think the reality is that it is more severe and symptomatic than we would expect. I think your observation is exactly right. There are certainly clinicians who do not believe that this is an association with COVID-19 because the testing is often negative. But to my mind, there are just too many cases at the wrong time of year, all happening concomitantly, and simultaneous with a new virus for me to accept that they are not somehow related.
 

Dr. Lipper: Some have referred to this as “quarantine toes,” the result of more people at home and walking around barefoot. That doesn’t seem to make a whole lot of sense because it’s happening in both warm and cold climates.

Others have speculated that there is another, unrelated circulating virus causing these pernio cases, but that seems far-fetched.

But the idea of a reporting bias – more patients paying attention to these lesions because they’ve read something in the mass media or seen a report on television and are concerned, and thus present with mild lesions they might otherwise have ignored – may be contributing somewhat. But even that cannot be the sole reason behind the increase.

Dr. Fox: Agree.

Evaluation of the patient with chilblains – then and now

Dr. Lipper: In the past, how did you perform a workup for someone with chilblains?

Dr. Fox: Pre-COVID – and I think we all have divided our world into pre- and post-COVID – the most common thing that I’d be looking for would be a clotting disorder or an autoimmune disease, typically lupus. So I take a good history, review of systems, and look at the skin for signs of lupus or other autoimmune connective tissue diseases. My lab workup is probably limited to an antinuclear antibody (ANA). If the findings are severe and recurrent, I might check for hypercoagulability with an antiphospholipid antibody panel. But that was usually it unless there was something in the history or physical exam that would lead me to look for something less common – for example, cryoglobulins or an underlying hematologic disease that would lead to a predominance of lesions in acral sites.

My approach was the same. In New England, where I practice, I also always look at environmental factors. We would sometimes see chilblains in someone from a warmer climate who came home to the Northeast to ski.
 

Dr. Lipper: Now, in the post-COVID world, how do you assess these patients? What has changed?

Dr. Fox: That’s a great question. To be frank, our focus now is on not missing a secondary consequence of COVID infection that we might not have picked up before. I’m the first to admit that the workup that we have been doing at UCSF is extremely comprehensive. We may be ordering tests that don’t need to be done. But until we know better what might and might not be affected by COVID, we don’t actually have a sense of whether they’re worth looking for or not.

Right now, my workup includes nasal swab polymerase chain reaction (PCR) for COVID, as well as IgG and IgM serology if available. We have IgG easily available to us. IgM needs approval; at UCSF, it is primarily done in neonates as of now. I also do a workup for autoimmunity and cold-associated disease, which includes an ANA, rheumatoid factor, cryoglobulin, and cold agglutinins.

Because of reported concerns about hypercoagulability in COVID patients, particularly in those who are doing poorly in the hospital, we look for elevations in d-dimers and fibrinogen. We check antiphospholipid antibodies, anticardiolipin antibodies, erythrocyte sedimentation rate, and C-reactive protein. That is probably too much of a workup for the healthy young person, but as of yet, we are just unable to say that those things are universally normal.

There has also been concern that complement may be involved in patients who do poorly and tend to clot a lot. So we are also checking C3, C4, and CH50.

To date, in my patients who have had this workup, I have found one with a positive ANA that was significant (1:320) who also had low complements.

There have been a couple of patients at my institution, not my own patients, who are otherwise fine but have some slight elevation in d-dimers.
 

Dr. Lipper: Is COVID toes more than one condition?

Some of the initial reports of finger/toe cyanosis out of China were very alarming, with many patients developing skin necrosis or even gangrene. These were critically ill adults with pneumonia and blood markers of disseminated intravascular coagulation, and five out of seven died. In contrast, the cases of pseudo-pernio reported in Europe, and now the United States, seem to be much milder, usually occurring late in the illness or in asymptomatic young people. Do you think these are two different conditions?

Dr. Fox: I believe you have hit the nail on the head. I think it is really important that we don’t confuse those two things. In the inpatient setting, we are clearly seeing patients with a prothrombotic state with associated retiform purpura. For nondermatologists, that usually means star-like, stellate-like, or even lacy purpuric changes with potential for necrosis of the skin. In hospitalized patients, the fingers and toes are usually affected but, interestingly, also the buttocks. When these lesions are biopsied, as has been done by our colleague at Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, Joanna Harp, MD, we tend to find thrombosis.

A study of endothelial cell function in patients with COVID-19, published in the Lancet tried to determine whether viral particles could be found in endothelial cells. And the investigators did indeed find these particles. So it appears that the virus is endothelially active, and this might provide some insight into the thromboses seen in hospitalized patients. These patients can develop purple necrotic toes that may progress to gangrene. But that is completely different from what we’re seeing when we say pernio-like or chilblains-like lesions.

The chilblains-like lesions come in several forms. They may be purple, red bumps, often involving the tops of the toes and sometimes the bottom of the feet. Some have been described as target-like or erythema multiforme–like. In others, there may not be individual discrete lesions but rather a redness or bluish, purplish discoloration accompanied by edema of the entire toe or several toes.

Biopsies that I am aware of have identified features consistent with an inflammatory process, all of which can be seen in a typical biopsy of pernio. You can sometimes see lymphocytes surrounding a vessel (called lymphocytic vasculitis) that may damage a vessel and cause a small clot, but the primary process is an inflammatory rather than thrombotic one. You may get a clot in a little tiny vessel secondary to inflammation, and that may lead to some blisters or little areas of necrosis. But you’re not going to see digital necrosis and gangrene. I think that’s an important distinction.

The patients who get the pernio-like lesions are typically children or young adults and are otherwise healthy. Half of them didn’t even have COVID symptoms. If they did have COVID symptoms they were typically mild. So we think the pernio-like lesions are most often occurring in the late stage of the disease and now represent a secondary inflammatory response.
 

Managing COVID toes

Dr. Lipper: One question I’ve been struggling with is, what do we tell these otherwise healthy patients with purple toes, especially those with no other symptoms? Many of them are testing SARS-CoV-2 negative, both with viral swabs and serologies. Some have suggestive histories like known COVID exposure, recent cough, or travel to high-risk areas. Do we tell them they’re at risk of transmitting the virus? Should they self-quarantine, and for how long? Is there any consensus emerging?

Dr. Fox: This is a good opportunity to plug the American Academy of Dermatology’s COVID-19 Registry, which is run by Esther Freeman, MD, at Massachusetts General Hospital. She has done a phenomenal job in helping us figure out the answers to these exact questions.

I’d encourage any clinicians who have a suspected COVID patient with a skin finding, whether or not infection is confirmed with testing, to enter information about that patient into the registry. That is the only way we will figure out evidence-based answers to a lot of the questions that we’re talking about today.

Based on working with the registry, we know that, rarely, patients who develop pernio-like changes will do so before they get COVID symptoms or at the same time as more typical symptoms. Some patients with these findings are PCR positive, and it is therefore theoretically possible that you could be shedding virus while you’re having the pernio toes. However, more commonly – and this is the experience of most of my colleagues and what we’re seeing at UCSF – pernio is a later finding and most patients are no longer shedding the virus. It appears that pseudo-pernio is an immune reaction and most people are not actively infectious at that point.

The only way to know for sure is to send patients for both PCR testing and antibody testing. If the PCR is negative, the most likely interpretation is that the person is no longer shedding virus, though there can be some false negatives. Therefore, these patients do not need to isolate outside of what I call their COVID pod – family or roommates who have probably been with them the whole time. Any transmission likely would have already occurred.

I tell people who call me concerned about their toes that I do think they should be given a workup for COVID. However, I reassure them that it is usually a good prognostic sign.

What is puzzling is that even in patients with pseudo-chilblains who have a clinical history consistent with COVID or exposure to a COVID-positive family member, antibody testing is often – in fact, most often – negative. There are many hypotheses as to why this is. Maybe the tests just aren’t good. Maybe people with mild disease don’t generate enough antibodies to be detected, Maybe we’re testing at the wrong time. Those are all things that we’re trying to figure out.

But currently, I tell patients that they do not need to strictly isolate. They should still practice social distancing, wear a mask, practice good hand hygiene, and do all of the careful things that we should all be doing. However, they can live within their home environment and be reassured that most likely they are in the convalescent stage.

Dr. Lipper: I find the antibody issue both fascinating and confusing.

In my practice, we’ve noticed a range of symptoms associated with pseudo-pernio. Some people barely realize it’s there and only called because they saw a headline in the news. Others complain of severe burning, throbbing, or itching that keeps them up at night and can sometimes last for weeks. Are there any treatments that seem to help?

Dr. Fox: We can start by saying, as you note, that a lot of patients don’t need interventions. They want reassurance that their toes aren’t going to fall off, that nothing terrible is going to happen to them, and often that’s enough. So far, many patients have contacted us just because they heard about the link between what they were seeing on their feet and COVID. They were likely toward the end of any other symptoms they may have had. But moving forward, I think we’re going to be seeing patients at the more active stage as the public is more aware of this finding.

Most of the time we can manage with clobetasol ointment and low-dose aspirin. I wouldn’t give aspirin to a young child with a high fever, but otherwise I think aspirin is not harmful. A paper published in Mayo Clinic Proceedings in 2014, before COVID, by Jonathan Cappel, MD, and David Wetter, MD, provides a nice therapeutic algorithm. Assuming that the findings we are seeing now are inflammatory, then I think that algorithm should apply. Nifedipine 20-60 mg/day is an option. Hydroxychloroquine, a maximum of 5 mg/kg per day, is an option. I have used hydroxychloroquine most commonly, pre-COVID, in patients who have symptomatic pernio.

I also use pentoxifylline 400 mg three times a day, which has a slight anti-inflammatory effect, when I think a blood vessel is incidentally involved or the patient has a predisposition to clotting. Nicotinamide 500 mg three times a day can be used, though I have not used it.

Some topical options are nitroglycerin, tacrolimus, and minoxidil.

However, during this post-COVID period, I have not come across many with pseudo-pernio who needed anything more than a topical steroid and some aspirin. But I do know of other physicians who have been taking care of patients with much more symptomatic disease.

Dr. Lipper: That is a comprehensive list. You’ve mentioned some options that I’ve wondered about, especially pentoxifylline, which I have found to be very helpful for livedoid vasculopathy. I should note that these are all off-label uses.

Let’s talk about some other suspected skin manifestations of COVID. A prospective nationwide study in Spain of 375 patients reported on a number of different skin manifestations of COVID.

You’re part of a team doing critically important work with the American Academy of Dermatology COVID-19 Dermatology Registry. I know it’s early going, but what are some of the other common skin presentations you’re finding?

Dr. Fox: I’m glad you brought up that paper out of Spain. I think it is really good and does highlight the difference in acute versus convalescent cutaneous manifestations and prognosis. It confirms what we’re seeing. Retiform purpura is an early finding associated with ill patients in the hospital. Pseudo pernio-like lesions tend to be later-stage and in younger, healthier patients.

Interestingly, the vesicular eruption that those investigators describe – monomorphic vesicles on the trunk and extremity – can occur in the more acute phase. That’s fascinating to me because widespread vesicular eruptions are not a thing that we commonly see. If it is not an autoimmune blistering disease, and not a drug-induced blistering process, then you’re really left with viral. Rickettsialpox can do that, as can primary varicella, disseminated herpes, disseminated zoster, and now COVID. So that’s intriguing.

I got called to see a patient yesterday who had symptoms of COVID about a month ago. She was not PCR tested at the time but she is now negative. She has a widespread eruption of tiny vesicles on an erythematous base. An IgG for COVID is positive. How do we decide whether her skin lesions have active virus in them?
 

The many dermatologic manifestations of COVID-19

Dr. Lipper: In the series in Spain, almost 1 out of 10 patients were found to have a widespread vesicular rash. And just under half had maculopapular exanthems. The information arising from the AAD registry will be of great interest and build on this paper.

In England, the National Health Service and the Paediatric Intensive Care Society recently put out a warning about an alarming number of children with COVID-19 who developed symptoms mimicking Kawasaki disease (high fever, abdominal pain, rash, swollen lymph nodes, mucositis, and conjunctivitis). These kids have systemic inflammation and vasculitis and are critically ill. That was followed by an alert from the New York City Health Department about cases there, which as of May 6 numbered 64. Another 25 children with similar findings have been identified in France.

This is such a scary development, especially because children were supposed to be relatively “safe” from this virus. Any thoughts on who is at risk or why?

Dr. Fox: It’s very alarming. It appears that these cases look just like Kawasaki disease.

It was once hypothesized that Coronaviridae was the cause of Kawasaki disease. Then that got debunked. But these cases now raise the question of whether Kawasaki disease may be virally mediated. Is it an immune reaction to an infectious trigger? Is it actually Coronaviridae that triggers it?

As with these pernio cases, I think we’re going to learn about the pathophysiology of these diseases that we currently look at as secondary responses or immune reactions to unknown triggers. We’re going to learn a lot about them and about the immune system because of how this virus is acting on the immune system.
 

Dr. Lipper: As is the case with patients with pernio-like lesions, some of these children with Kawasaki-like disease are PCR negative for SARS-CoV-2. It will be interesting to see what happens with antibody testing in this population.

Dr. Fox: Agree. While some of the manufacturers of serology tests have claimed that they have very high sensitivity and specificity, that has not been my experience.

Dr. Lipper: I’ve had a number of patients with a clinical picture that strongly suggests COVID whose serology tests have been negative.

Dr. Fox: As have I. While this could be the result of faulty tests, my biggest worry is that it means that people with mild disease do not mount an antibody response. And if people who have disease can’t make antibodies, then there’s no herd immunity. If there’s no herd immunity, we’re stuck in lockdown until there’s a vaccine.

Dr. Lipper: That is a scary but real possibility. We need evidence – evidence like that provided by the AAD registry.

Dr. Fox: Agree. I look forward to sharing those results with you when we have them.
 

Dr. Lipper is a clinical assistant professor at the University of Vermont, Burlington, and a partner at Advanced DermCare in Danbury, Conn.

Dr. Fox is a professor in the department of dermatology at the University of California, San Francisco. She is a hospital-based dermatologist who specializes in the care of patients with complex skin conditions. She is immediate past president of the Medical Dermatology Society and current president of the Society of Dermatology Hospitalists.

This article was first published on Medscape.com.

While car crashes are still the leading cause of death among adolescents in the United States, the expansion of state laws restricting cell phone use or texting while driving has pushed down death rates for teen drivers, a study has found.

alanpoulson/iStock/Getty Images

However, the researchers wrote that the type of law and the manner of enforcement bear on how much teen road deaths are reduced.

In an article published in Pediatrics, Michael R. Flaherty, DO, of Harvard Medical School and Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston, and colleagues used data from the Fatality Analysis Reporting System, a national database of motor vehicle deaths in the United States, to identify 38,215 fatal crashes nationwide involving teen drivers from 2007 to 2017.

During that same time period, in which a majority of states began to adopt some form of “distracted driving” legislation prohibiting texting or all handheld cell phone use, fatal crashes involving 16- to 19-year-old drivers decreased from 30 in 100,000 persons to 19 in 100,000.

Under primarily enforced laws – those that make texting an offense for which police can stop and cite a driver – 16- to 19-year-old drivers saw a 29% lower driver fatality rate, compared with those living in states with no texting laws (adjusted incidence rate ratio, 0.71; 95% confidence interval, 0.67-0.76).

Under secondarily enforced bans, deaths of drivers aged 16-19 were reduced 15%, compared with no restrictions (aIRR, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.77-0.95).

Importantly, state laws limiting texting and cell phone use had to apply to drivers of all ages to be protective, the investigators found. Laws banning cell phone use only among novice drivers, which have been adopted in many states, were not seen lowering teen driver fatality rates. At the time of this study in 2017, “40 states had primary enforcement texting bans, 6 states had secondary enforcement texting bans, 34 states banned all cellphone use for novice drivers, and 12 banned handheld cellphones for all drivers, they reported.

Dr. Flaherty and colleagues noted that their study was the first to look in detail at the effects of anti–distracted driving laws on teen drivers specifically. They noted among the study’s limitations that the database used did not capture nonfatal accidents, and that the findings could not be adjusted for social or technological changes such as alcohol use trends among teens or safety improvements to cars.

In an accompanying editorial, Catherine C. McDonald, PhD, RN, and M. Kit Delgado, MD, of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, along with Mark R. Zonfrillo, MD, of Brown University, Providence, R.I., wrote that the findings show “reducing adolescent [crash] fatalities is not just about targeting laws to the adolescent drivers who are at elevated crash risk but also the other drivers who share the road with them.”

“The basic concepts related to eyes on the road, hands on the wheel, and mind on the task of driving are fundamental to driver safety. There is no one cause to pinpoint for adolescent motor vehicle crashes because there are multiple contributing factors, including inexperience, maturational development, and risk-taking.” they wrote.

Noting that nearly half of high school–aged drivers acknowledge texting while driving, the editorialists argued that most states still had room to “refine existing laws or implement new laws” to help reduce fatalities associated with adolescent drivers. “In the meantime, other technological and behavioral approaches may be needed to encourage adolescent drivers to act in their own and society’s best interests and comply with the law.”

Dr. Flaherty and colleagues declared no external funding for their study or financial conflicts of interest. Dr. McDonald, Dr. Delgado, and Dr. Zonfrillo declared funding from the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development related to their editorial and no relevant financial disclosures.

SOURCE: Flaherty M et al. Pediatrics. 2020;145(6):e20193621; McDonald CC et al. Pediatrics. 2020;145(6):e20200419.

While car crashes are still the leading cause of death among adolescents in the United States, the expansion of state laws restricting cell phone use or texting while driving has pushed down death rates for teen drivers, a study has found.

alanpoulson/iStock/Getty Images

However, the researchers wrote that the type of law and the manner of enforcement bear on how much teen road deaths are reduced.

In an article published in Pediatrics, Michael R. Flaherty, DO, of Harvard Medical School and Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston, and colleagues used data from the Fatality Analysis Reporting System, a national database of motor vehicle deaths in the United States, to identify 38,215 fatal crashes nationwide involving teen drivers from 2007 to 2017.

During that same time period, in which a majority of states began to adopt some form of “distracted driving” legislation prohibiting texting or all handheld cell phone use, fatal crashes involving 16- to 19-year-old drivers decreased from 30 in 100,000 persons to 19 in 100,000.

Under primarily enforced laws – those that make texting an offense for which police can stop and cite a driver – 16- to 19-year-old drivers saw a 29% lower driver fatality rate, compared with those living in states with no texting laws (adjusted incidence rate ratio, 0.71; 95% confidence interval, 0.67-0.76).

Under secondarily enforced bans, deaths of drivers aged 16-19 were reduced 15%, compared with no restrictions (aIRR, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.77-0.95).

Importantly, state laws limiting texting and cell phone use had to apply to drivers of all ages to be protective, the investigators found. Laws banning cell phone use only among novice drivers, which have been adopted in many states, were not seen lowering teen driver fatality rates. At the time of this study in 2017, “40 states had primary enforcement texting bans, 6 states had secondary enforcement texting bans, 34 states banned all cellphone use for novice drivers, and 12 banned handheld cellphones for all drivers, they reported.

Dr. Flaherty and colleagues noted that their study was the first to look in detail at the effects of anti–distracted driving laws on teen drivers specifically. They noted among the study’s limitations that the database used did not capture nonfatal accidents, and that the findings could not be adjusted for social or technological changes such as alcohol use trends among teens or safety improvements to cars.

In an accompanying editorial, Catherine C. McDonald, PhD, RN, and M. Kit Delgado, MD, of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, along with Mark R. Zonfrillo, MD, of Brown University, Providence, R.I., wrote that the findings show “reducing adolescent [crash] fatalities is not just about targeting laws to the adolescent drivers who are at elevated crash risk but also the other drivers who share the road with them.”

“The basic concepts related to eyes on the road, hands on the wheel, and mind on the task of driving are fundamental to driver safety. There is no one cause to pinpoint for adolescent motor vehicle crashes because there are multiple contributing factors, including inexperience, maturational development, and risk-taking.” they wrote.

Noting that nearly half of high school–aged drivers acknowledge texting while driving, the editorialists argued that most states still had room to “refine existing laws or implement new laws” to help reduce fatalities associated with adolescent drivers. “In the meantime, other technological and behavioral approaches may be needed to encourage adolescent drivers to act in their own and society’s best interests and comply with the law.”

Dr. Flaherty and colleagues declared no external funding for their study or financial conflicts of interest. Dr. McDonald, Dr. Delgado, and Dr. Zonfrillo declared funding from the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development related to their editorial and no relevant financial disclosures.

SOURCE: Flaherty M et al. Pediatrics. 2020;145(6):e20193621; McDonald CC et al. Pediatrics. 2020;145(6):e20200419.

While car crashes are still the leading cause of death among adolescents in the United States, the expansion of state laws restricting cell phone use or texting while driving has pushed down death rates for teen drivers, a study has found.

alanpoulson/iStock/Getty Images

However, the researchers wrote that the type of law and the manner of enforcement bear on how much teen road deaths are reduced.

In an article published in Pediatrics, Michael R. Flaherty, DO, of Harvard Medical School and Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston, and colleagues used data from the Fatality Analysis Reporting System, a national database of motor vehicle deaths in the United States, to identify 38,215 fatal crashes nationwide involving teen drivers from 2007 to 2017.

During that same time period, in which a majority of states began to adopt some form of “distracted driving” legislation prohibiting texting or all handheld cell phone use, fatal crashes involving 16- to 19-year-old drivers decreased from 30 in 100,000 persons to 19 in 100,000.

Under primarily enforced laws – those that make texting an offense for which police can stop and cite a driver – 16- to 19-year-old drivers saw a 29% lower driver fatality rate, compared with those living in states with no texting laws (adjusted incidence rate ratio, 0.71; 95% confidence interval, 0.67-0.76).

Under secondarily enforced bans, deaths of drivers aged 16-19 were reduced 15%, compared with no restrictions (aIRR, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.77-0.95).

Importantly, state laws limiting texting and cell phone use had to apply to drivers of all ages to be protective, the investigators found. Laws banning cell phone use only among novice drivers, which have been adopted in many states, were not seen lowering teen driver fatality rates. At the time of this study in 2017, “40 states had primary enforcement texting bans, 6 states had secondary enforcement texting bans, 34 states banned all cellphone use for novice drivers, and 12 banned handheld cellphones for all drivers, they reported.

Dr. Flaherty and colleagues noted that their study was the first to look in detail at the effects of anti–distracted driving laws on teen drivers specifically. They noted among the study’s limitations that the database used did not capture nonfatal accidents, and that the findings could not be adjusted for social or technological changes such as alcohol use trends among teens or safety improvements to cars.

In an accompanying editorial, Catherine C. McDonald, PhD, RN, and M. Kit Delgado, MD, of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, along with Mark R. Zonfrillo, MD, of Brown University, Providence, R.I., wrote that the findings show “reducing adolescent [crash] fatalities is not just about targeting laws to the adolescent drivers who are at elevated crash risk but also the other drivers who share the road with them.”

“The basic concepts related to eyes on the road, hands on the wheel, and mind on the task of driving are fundamental to driver safety. There is no one cause to pinpoint for adolescent motor vehicle crashes because there are multiple contributing factors, including inexperience, maturational development, and risk-taking.” they wrote.

Noting that nearly half of high school–aged drivers acknowledge texting while driving, the editorialists argued that most states still had room to “refine existing laws or implement new laws” to help reduce fatalities associated with adolescent drivers. “In the meantime, other technological and behavioral approaches may be needed to encourage adolescent drivers to act in their own and society’s best interests and comply with the law.”

Dr. Flaherty and colleagues declared no external funding for their study or financial conflicts of interest. Dr. McDonald, Dr. Delgado, and Dr. Zonfrillo declared funding from the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development related to their editorial and no relevant financial disclosures.

SOURCE: Flaherty M et al. Pediatrics. 2020;145(6):e20193621; McDonald CC et al. Pediatrics. 2020;145(6):e20200419.

Pityriasis rubra pilaris (PRP) is the name given to a heterogeneous group of rare inflammatory papulosquamous dermatoses. There are six sub-types that can present with various skin findings, however, the cardinal features across sub-types include well-defined, red-orange hued plaques with varying scale, palmoplantar keratoderma, and follicular keratosis. In the more generalized subtypes, there is a characteristic feature of intervening areas of unaffected skin often referred to as “islands of sparing.” The plaques may cover the entire body or just parts of the body such as the elbows and knees, palms and soles. Lesions are generally asymptomatic; occasionally patients complain of mild pruritus. 

Photos courtesy of Robert Silverman, MD

The etiology and pathophysiology of this group of disorders is not well understood. However, there are several hypotheses including dysfunction in vitamin A metabolism, autoimmune dysregulation, as well as environmental and immunologic triggers such as infection and ultraviolet exposure. Although most cases are sporadic, genetics do seem to play a role in the development of some cases. Caspase recruitment domain-containing protein 14 (CARD14) mutations are seen in familial PRP, and occasionally in patients with sporadic PRP, with gain of function mutations. Interestingly, CARD14 mutations are also associated with psoriasis in some individuals.¹ The type-VI PRP variant has been associated with HIV, although this is incredibly rare in pediatrics.²

PRP shows significant clinical diversity, with six subtypes defined by age of onset, distribution, and appearance of lesions, and presence of HIV. This includes type I (classical adult onset), type II (atypical adult onset), type III (classical juvenile onset), type IV (circumscribed juvenile onset), type V (atypical juvenile onset), and type VI (HIV-associated). As mentioned earlier, shared features that appear across subtypes in variable degrees include red-orange papules and plaques, hyperkeratotic follicular papules, and palmoplantar hyperkeratosis.

Of the six subtypes, type III, IV, and V occur in the pediatric population. Type III, classic juvenile PRP, typically occurs within the first 2 years of life or in adolescence. Only 10% of cases fall into this category. It shares similar features to type I PRP including red-orange plaques; islands of sparing, perifollicular hyperkeratotic papules; waxy palmoplantar keratoderma; and the distribution of affected skin is more diffuse overall. While some children clear within a few years, more recent studies stress a more prolonged course similar to the type IV variant.²

Type-IV PRP, also known as circumscribed juvenile PRP, is a focal variant, usually seen in prepubertal children and making up 25% of total cases. Clinically, these patients tend to have sharply demarcated grouped erythematous, follicular papules on the elbows, knees and over bony prominences.²

Type-V PRP is an atypical generalized juvenile variant which affects 5% of patients. It is a non-remitting hereditary condition with classic characteristics similar to type III with additional scleroderma-like changes involving the palms and soles.²

Diagnosis of PRP is based on clinical recognition and biopsy can be important to secure a diagnosis.

PRP, in many cases is self-limited and asymptomatic, and therefore does not necessarily require treatment. In other patients treatment can be challenging, and referral to a pediatric dermatology specialist is reasonable. Most practitioners recommend combination therapy with topical agents (emollients, topical corticosteroids, tazarotene, topical calcineurin inhibitors, and keratolytic agents such as urea, salicylic acid, or alpha-hydroxy acids) for symptomatic management and systemic therapies (methotrexate, isotretinoin) aimed at reducing inflammation. There is some data that CARD14-associated PRP can respond well to targeted biologic therapies.¹

The subtypes of PRP can present in a myriad of ways and often the disease is misdiagnosed. Depending on the particular subtype and findings present, the differential can vary considerably. Commonly, physicians need to consider: psoriasis, seborrheic dermatitis, atopic dermatitis, ichthyoses, and other conditions which can cause erythroderma.³ The characteristic red-orange color and variable associated edema helps to distinguish keratoderma of PRP from psoriasis, atopic dermatitis, ichthyosis, and hereditary palmoplantar keratoderma. Scalp involvement of PRP should be differentiated from the waxy scale of seborrheic dermatitis and the well demarcated silvery scale of psoriasis. History alone may assist in distinguishing PRP from other major causes of generalized erythroderma, although biopsy is warranted in these cases.
 

Dr. Eichenfield is chief of pediatric and adolescent dermatology at Rady Children’s Hospital–San Diego. He is vice chair of the department of dermatology and professor of dermatology and pediatrics at the University of California, San Diego. Dr. Tracy is a research fellow in pediatric dermatology at Rady Children’s Hospital-San Diego and the University of California, San Diego. They have no relevant financial disclosures. Email them at [email protected].

References

1. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2018 Sep;79(3):487-94.

2. “Pityriasis Rubra Pilaris” (Treasure Island, Fla.: StatPearls Publishing, July 20, 2019). 3. JAMA Dermatol. 2016 Jun 1;152(6):670-5.

Pityriasis rubra pilaris (PRP) is the name given to a heterogeneous group of rare inflammatory papulosquamous dermatoses. There are six sub-types that can present with various skin findings, however, the cardinal features across sub-types include well-defined, red-orange hued plaques with varying scale, palmoplantar keratoderma, and follicular keratosis. In the more generalized subtypes, there is a characteristic feature of intervening areas of unaffected skin often referred to as “islands of sparing.” The plaques may cover the entire body or just parts of the body such as the elbows and knees, palms and soles. Lesions are generally asymptomatic; occasionally patients complain of mild pruritus. 

Photos courtesy of Robert Silverman, MD

The etiology and pathophysiology of this group of disorders is not well understood. However, there are several hypotheses including dysfunction in vitamin A metabolism, autoimmune dysregulation, as well as environmental and immunologic triggers such as infection and ultraviolet exposure. Although most cases are sporadic, genetics do seem to play a role in the development of some cases. Caspase recruitment domain-containing protein 14 (CARD14) mutations are seen in familial PRP, and occasionally in patients with sporadic PRP, with gain of function mutations. Interestingly, CARD14 mutations are also associated with psoriasis in some individuals.¹ The type-VI PRP variant has been associated with HIV, although this is incredibly rare in pediatrics.²

PRP shows significant clinical diversity, with six subtypes defined by age of onset, distribution, and appearance of lesions, and presence of HIV. This includes type I (classical adult onset), type II (atypical adult onset), type III (classical juvenile onset), type IV (circumscribed juvenile onset), type V (atypical juvenile onset), and type VI (HIV-associated). As mentioned earlier, shared features that appear across subtypes in variable degrees include red-orange papules and plaques, hyperkeratotic follicular papules, and palmoplantar hyperkeratosis.

Of the six subtypes, type III, IV, and V occur in the pediatric population. Type III, classic juvenile PRP, typically occurs within the first 2 years of life or in adolescence. Only 10% of cases fall into this category. It shares similar features to type I PRP including red-orange plaques; islands of sparing, perifollicular hyperkeratotic papules; waxy palmoplantar keratoderma; and the distribution of affected skin is more diffuse overall. While some children clear within a few years, more recent studies stress a more prolonged course similar to the type IV variant.²

Type-IV PRP, also known as circumscribed juvenile PRP, is a focal variant, usually seen in prepubertal children and making up 25% of total cases. Clinically, these patients tend to have sharply demarcated grouped erythematous, follicular papules on the elbows, knees and over bony prominences.²

Type-V PRP is an atypical generalized juvenile variant which affects 5% of patients. It is a non-remitting hereditary condition with classic characteristics similar to type III with additional scleroderma-like changes involving the palms and soles.²

Diagnosis of PRP is based on clinical recognition and biopsy can be important to secure a diagnosis.

PRP, in many cases is self-limited and asymptomatic, and therefore does not necessarily require treatment. In other patients treatment can be challenging, and referral to a pediatric dermatology specialist is reasonable. Most practitioners recommend combination therapy with topical agents (emollients, topical corticosteroids, tazarotene, topical calcineurin inhibitors, and keratolytic agents such as urea, salicylic acid, or alpha-hydroxy acids) for symptomatic management and systemic therapies (methotrexate, isotretinoin) aimed at reducing inflammation. There is some data that CARD14-associated PRP can respond well to targeted biologic therapies.¹

The subtypes of PRP can present in a myriad of ways and often the disease is misdiagnosed. Depending on the particular subtype and findings present, the differential can vary considerably. Commonly, physicians need to consider: psoriasis, seborrheic dermatitis, atopic dermatitis, ichthyoses, and other conditions which can cause erythroderma.³ The characteristic red-orange color and variable associated edema helps to distinguish keratoderma of PRP from psoriasis, atopic dermatitis, ichthyosis, and hereditary palmoplantar keratoderma. Scalp involvement of PRP should be differentiated from the waxy scale of seborrheic dermatitis and the well demarcated silvery scale of psoriasis. History alone may assist in distinguishing PRP from other major causes of generalized erythroderma, although biopsy is warranted in these cases.
 

Dr. Eichenfield is chief of pediatric and adolescent dermatology at Rady Children’s Hospital–San Diego. He is vice chair of the department of dermatology and professor of dermatology and pediatrics at the University of California, San Diego. Dr. Tracy is a research fellow in pediatric dermatology at Rady Children’s Hospital-San Diego and the University of California, San Diego. They have no relevant financial disclosures. Email them at [email protected].

References

1. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2018 Sep;79(3):487-94.

2. “Pityriasis Rubra Pilaris” (Treasure Island, Fla.: StatPearls Publishing, July 20, 2019). 3. JAMA Dermatol. 2016 Jun 1;152(6):670-5.

Pityriasis rubra pilaris (PRP) is the name given to a heterogeneous group of rare inflammatory papulosquamous dermatoses. There are six sub-types that can present with various skin findings, however, the cardinal features across sub-types include well-defined, red-orange hued plaques with varying scale, palmoplantar keratoderma, and follicular keratosis. In the more generalized subtypes, there is a characteristic feature of intervening areas of unaffected skin often referred to as “islands of sparing.” The plaques may cover the entire body or just parts of the body such as the elbows and knees, palms and soles. Lesions are generally asymptomatic; occasionally patients complain of mild pruritus. 

Photos courtesy of Robert Silverman, MD

The etiology and pathophysiology of this group of disorders is not well understood. However, there are several hypotheses including dysfunction in vitamin A metabolism, autoimmune dysregulation, as well as environmental and immunologic triggers such as infection and ultraviolet exposure. Although most cases are sporadic, genetics do seem to play a role in the development of some cases. Caspase recruitment domain-containing protein 14 (CARD14) mutations are seen in familial PRP, and occasionally in patients with sporadic PRP, with gain of function mutations. Interestingly, CARD14 mutations are also associated with psoriasis in some individuals.¹ The type-VI PRP variant has been associated with HIV, although this is incredibly rare in pediatrics.²

PRP shows significant clinical diversity, with six subtypes defined by age of onset, distribution, and appearance of lesions, and presence of HIV. This includes type I (classical adult onset), type II (atypical adult onset), type III (classical juvenile onset), type IV (circumscribed juvenile onset), type V (atypical juvenile onset), and type VI (HIV-associated). As mentioned earlier, shared features that appear across subtypes in variable degrees include red-orange papules and plaques, hyperkeratotic follicular papules, and palmoplantar hyperkeratosis.

Of the six subtypes, type III, IV, and V occur in the pediatric population. Type III, classic juvenile PRP, typically occurs within the first 2 years of life or in adolescence. Only 10% of cases fall into this category. It shares similar features to type I PRP including red-orange plaques; islands of sparing, perifollicular hyperkeratotic papules; waxy palmoplantar keratoderma; and the distribution of affected skin is more diffuse overall. While some children clear within a few years, more recent studies stress a more prolonged course similar to the type IV variant.²

Type-IV PRP, also known as circumscribed juvenile PRP, is a focal variant, usually seen in prepubertal children and making up 25% of total cases. Clinically, these patients tend to have sharply demarcated grouped erythematous, follicular papules on the elbows, knees and over bony prominences.²

Type-V PRP is an atypical generalized juvenile variant which affects 5% of patients. It is a non-remitting hereditary condition with classic characteristics similar to type III with additional scleroderma-like changes involving the palms and soles.²

Diagnosis of PRP is based on clinical recognition and biopsy can be important to secure a diagnosis.

PRP, in many cases is self-limited and asymptomatic, and therefore does not necessarily require treatment. In other patients treatment can be challenging, and referral to a pediatric dermatology specialist is reasonable. Most practitioners recommend combination therapy with topical agents (emollients, topical corticosteroids, tazarotene, topical calcineurin inhibitors, and keratolytic agents such as urea, salicylic acid, or alpha-hydroxy acids) for symptomatic management and systemic therapies (methotrexate, isotretinoin) aimed at reducing inflammation. There is some data that CARD14-associated PRP can respond well to targeted biologic therapies.¹

The subtypes of PRP can present in a myriad of ways and often the disease is misdiagnosed. Depending on the particular subtype and findings present, the differential can vary considerably. Commonly, physicians need to consider: psoriasis, seborrheic dermatitis, atopic dermatitis, ichthyoses, and other conditions which can cause erythroderma.³ The characteristic red-orange color and variable associated edema helps to distinguish keratoderma of PRP from psoriasis, atopic dermatitis, ichthyosis, and hereditary palmoplantar keratoderma. Scalp involvement of PRP should be differentiated from the waxy scale of seborrheic dermatitis and the well demarcated silvery scale of psoriasis. History alone may assist in distinguishing PRP from other major causes of generalized erythroderma, although biopsy is warranted in these cases.
 

Dr. Eichenfield is chief of pediatric and adolescent dermatology at Rady Children’s Hospital–San Diego. He is vice chair of the department of dermatology and professor of dermatology and pediatrics at the University of California, San Diego. Dr. Tracy is a research fellow in pediatric dermatology at Rady Children’s Hospital-San Diego and the University of California, San Diego. They have no relevant financial disclosures. Email them at [email protected].

References

1. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2018 Sep;79(3):487-94.

2. “Pityriasis Rubra Pilaris” (Treasure Island, Fla.: StatPearls Publishing, July 20, 2019). 3. JAMA Dermatol. 2016 Jun 1;152(6):670-5.

Kawasaki disease

Given the presentation of persistent fever, nonpurulent conjunctivitis, cracked lips, erythematous tongue, desquamating perianal rash, and acral edema and erythema, suspicion was high for Kawasaki disease (KD). An echocardiogram revealed diffuse dilation of the left anterior descending artery without evidence of an aneurysm. The patient was promptly started on 2 g/kg IVIG and high-dose aspirin. She was later transitioned to low-dose aspirin. Long-term follow-up thus far has revealed no cardiac sequelae.

KD, or mucocutaneous lymph node syndrome, is a multisystem vasculitis with predilection for the coronary arteries that most commonly affects children between 6 months and 5 years of age.¹ While the etiology remains unclear, the pathogenesis is thought to be the result of an immune response to an infection in the setting of genetic susceptibility.¹ Approximately 90% of patients have mucocutaneous manifestations, highlighting the important role dermatologists play in the diagnosis and early intervention to prevent cardiovascular morbidity.

The diagnostic criteria include fever for at least 5 days accompanied by at least four of the following:

• Bilateral bulbar conjunctival injection without exudate that is classically limbal sparing.
• Oral mucosal changes with cracked fissured lips, “strawberry tongue,” or erythema of the lips and mucosa.
• Changes in the extremities: erythema, swelling, or periungual peeling.
• Polymorphous exanthem.
• Cervical lymphadenopathy, often unilateral (greater than 1.5 cm).

Courtesy Dr. Elizabeth H. Cusick and Dr. Molly E. Plovanich, department of dermatology at the University of Rochester (N.Y.)

Although nonspecific for diagnosis, laboratory abnormalities are common, including anemia, thrombocytosis, leukocytosis, elevated inflammatory markers, elevated alanine aminotransferase (ALT), hypoalbuminemia, and sterile pyuria on urine analysis.¹

Notably, a classic finding of KD is perineal dermatitis with desquamation occurring in the acute phase of disease in 80%-90% of patients.^2-5 In a retrospective review, up to 67% of patients with KD developed a perineal rash in the first week, most often beginning in the diaper area.² The perineal rash classically desquamates early during the acute phase of the disease.¹

While most individuals with KD follow a benign disease course, it is the most common cause of acquired heart disease in the United States.¹ Treatment is aimed at decreasing the risk of developing coronary abnormalities through the prompt administration of IVIG and high-dose aspirin initiated early in the acute phase.⁶ A second dose of IVIG may be given to patients who remain febrile within 24-48 hours after treatment.⁶ Infliximab has been used safely and effectively in patients with refractory KD.⁷ Long-term cardiac follow-up of KD patients is recommended.

Recently, there has been an emerging association between COVID-19 and pediatric multi-system inflammatory syndrome, which shares features with KD. Patients with pediatric multi-system inflammatory syndrome who meet clinical criteria for KD should be promptly treated with IVIG and aspirin to avoid long-term cardiac sequelae.

This case and the photos were submitted by Dr. Elizabeth H. Cusick and Dr. Molly E. Plovanich, both with the department of dermatology at the University of Rochester (N.Y.). Dr. Donna Bilu Martin edited the case.

Dr. Bilu Martin is a board-certified dermatologist in private practice at Premier Dermatology, MD, in Aventura, Fla. More diagnostic cases are available at mdedge.com/dermatology. To submit a case for possible publication, send an email to [email protected].

References

1. Bayers S et al. (2013). J Am Acad Dermatol. 2013 Oct;69(4):501.e1-11.

2. Friter BS and Lucky AW. Arch Dermatol. 1988 Dec;124(12):1805-10.

3. Urbach AH et al. Am J Dis Child. 1988 Nov;142(11):1174-6.

4. Fink CW. Pediatr Infect Dis. 1983 Mar-Apr; 2(2):140-1.

5. Aballi A J and Bisken LC. Pediatr Infect Dis. 1984 Mar-Apr;3(2):187.

6. McCrindle BW et al. Circulation. 2017 Apr 25;135(17):e927-e99.

7.Sauvaget E et al. J Pediatr. 2012 May; 160(5),875-6.


 

Kawasaki disease

Given the presentation of persistent fever, nonpurulent conjunctivitis, cracked lips, erythematous tongue, desquamating perianal rash, and acral edema and erythema, suspicion was high for Kawasaki disease (KD). An echocardiogram revealed diffuse dilation of the left anterior descending artery without evidence of an aneurysm. The patient was promptly started on 2 g/kg IVIG and high-dose aspirin. She was later transitioned to low-dose aspirin. Long-term follow-up thus far has revealed no cardiac sequelae.

KD, or mucocutaneous lymph node syndrome, is a multisystem vasculitis with predilection for the coronary arteries that most commonly affects children between 6 months and 5 years of age.¹ While the etiology remains unclear, the pathogenesis is thought to be the result of an immune response to an infection in the setting of genetic susceptibility.¹ Approximately 90% of patients have mucocutaneous manifestations, highlighting the important role dermatologists play in the diagnosis and early intervention to prevent cardiovascular morbidity.

The diagnostic criteria include fever for at least 5 days accompanied by at least four of the following:

• Bilateral bulbar conjunctival injection without exudate that is classically limbal sparing.
• Oral mucosal changes with cracked fissured lips, “strawberry tongue,” or erythema of the lips and mucosa.
• Changes in the extremities: erythema, swelling, or periungual peeling.
• Polymorphous exanthem.
• Cervical lymphadenopathy, often unilateral (greater than 1.5 cm).

Courtesy Dr. Elizabeth H. Cusick and Dr. Molly E. Plovanich, department of dermatology at the University of Rochester (N.Y.)

Although nonspecific for diagnosis, laboratory abnormalities are common, including anemia, thrombocytosis, leukocytosis, elevated inflammatory markers, elevated alanine aminotransferase (ALT), hypoalbuminemia, and sterile pyuria on urine analysis.¹

Notably, a classic finding of KD is perineal dermatitis with desquamation occurring in the acute phase of disease in 80%-90% of patients.^2-5 In a retrospective review, up to 67% of patients with KD developed a perineal rash in the first week, most often beginning in the diaper area.² The perineal rash classically desquamates early during the acute phase of the disease.¹

While most individuals with KD follow a benign disease course, it is the most common cause of acquired heart disease in the United States.¹ Treatment is aimed at decreasing the risk of developing coronary abnormalities through the prompt administration of IVIG and high-dose aspirin initiated early in the acute phase.⁶ A second dose of IVIG may be given to patients who remain febrile within 24-48 hours after treatment.⁶ Infliximab has been used safely and effectively in patients with refractory KD.⁷ Long-term cardiac follow-up of KD patients is recommended.

Recently, there has been an emerging association between COVID-19 and pediatric multi-system inflammatory syndrome, which shares features with KD. Patients with pediatric multi-system inflammatory syndrome who meet clinical criteria for KD should be promptly treated with IVIG and aspirin to avoid long-term cardiac sequelae.

This case and the photos were submitted by Dr. Elizabeth H. Cusick and Dr. Molly E. Plovanich, both with the department of dermatology at the University of Rochester (N.Y.). Dr. Donna Bilu Martin edited the case.

Dr. Bilu Martin is a board-certified dermatologist in private practice at Premier Dermatology, MD, in Aventura, Fla. More diagnostic cases are available at mdedge.com/dermatology. To submit a case for possible publication, send an email to [email protected].

References

1. Bayers S et al. (2013). J Am Acad Dermatol. 2013 Oct;69(4):501.e1-11.

2. Friter BS and Lucky AW. Arch Dermatol. 1988 Dec;124(12):1805-10.

3. Urbach AH et al. Am J Dis Child. 1988 Nov;142(11):1174-6.

4. Fink CW. Pediatr Infect Dis. 1983 Mar-Apr; 2(2):140-1.

5. Aballi A J and Bisken LC. Pediatr Infect Dis. 1984 Mar-Apr;3(2):187.

6. McCrindle BW et al. Circulation. 2017 Apr 25;135(17):e927-e99.

7.Sauvaget E et al. J Pediatr. 2012 May; 160(5),875-6.


 

Kawasaki disease

Given the presentation of persistent fever, nonpurulent conjunctivitis, cracked lips, erythematous tongue, desquamating perianal rash, and acral edema and erythema, suspicion was high for Kawasaki disease (KD). An echocardiogram revealed diffuse dilation of the left anterior descending artery without evidence of an aneurysm. The patient was promptly started on 2 g/kg IVIG and high-dose aspirin. She was later transitioned to low-dose aspirin. Long-term follow-up thus far has revealed no cardiac sequelae.

KD, or mucocutaneous lymph node syndrome, is a multisystem vasculitis with predilection for the coronary arteries that most commonly affects children between 6 months and 5 years of age.¹ While the etiology remains unclear, the pathogenesis is thought to be the result of an immune response to an infection in the setting of genetic susceptibility.¹ Approximately 90% of patients have mucocutaneous manifestations, highlighting the important role dermatologists play in the diagnosis and early intervention to prevent cardiovascular morbidity.

The diagnostic criteria include fever for at least 5 days accompanied by at least four of the following:

• Bilateral bulbar conjunctival injection without exudate that is classically limbal sparing.
• Oral mucosal changes with cracked fissured lips, “strawberry tongue,” or erythema of the lips and mucosa.
• Changes in the extremities: erythema, swelling, or periungual peeling.
• Polymorphous exanthem.
• Cervical lymphadenopathy, often unilateral (greater than 1.5 cm).

Courtesy Dr. Elizabeth H. Cusick and Dr. Molly E. Plovanich, department of dermatology at the University of Rochester (N.Y.)

Although nonspecific for diagnosis, laboratory abnormalities are common, including anemia, thrombocytosis, leukocytosis, elevated inflammatory markers, elevated alanine aminotransferase (ALT), hypoalbuminemia, and sterile pyuria on urine analysis.¹

Notably, a classic finding of KD is perineal dermatitis with desquamation occurring in the acute phase of disease in 80%-90% of patients.^2-5 In a retrospective review, up to 67% of patients with KD developed a perineal rash in the first week, most often beginning in the diaper area.² The perineal rash classically desquamates early during the acute phase of the disease.¹

While most individuals with KD follow a benign disease course, it is the most common cause of acquired heart disease in the United States.¹ Treatment is aimed at decreasing the risk of developing coronary abnormalities through the prompt administration of IVIG and high-dose aspirin initiated early in the acute phase.⁶ A second dose of IVIG may be given to patients who remain febrile within 24-48 hours after treatment.⁶ Infliximab has been used safely and effectively in patients with refractory KD.⁷ Long-term cardiac follow-up of KD patients is recommended.

Recently, there has been an emerging association between COVID-19 and pediatric multi-system inflammatory syndrome, which shares features with KD. Patients with pediatric multi-system inflammatory syndrome who meet clinical criteria for KD should be promptly treated with IVIG and aspirin to avoid long-term cardiac sequelae.

This case and the photos were submitted by Dr. Elizabeth H. Cusick and Dr. Molly E. Plovanich, both with the department of dermatology at the University of Rochester (N.Y.). Dr. Donna Bilu Martin edited the case.

Dr. Bilu Martin is a board-certified dermatologist in private practice at Premier Dermatology, MD, in Aventura, Fla. More diagnostic cases are available at mdedge.com/dermatology. To submit a case for possible publication, send an email to [email protected].

References

1. Bayers S et al. (2013). J Am Acad Dermatol. 2013 Oct;69(4):501.e1-11.

2. Friter BS and Lucky AW. Arch Dermatol. 1988 Dec;124(12):1805-10.

3. Urbach AH et al. Am J Dis Child. 1988 Nov;142(11):1174-6.

4. Fink CW. Pediatr Infect Dis. 1983 Mar-Apr; 2(2):140-1.

5. Aballi A J and Bisken LC. Pediatr Infect Dis. 1984 Mar-Apr;3(2):187.

6. McCrindle BW et al. Circulation. 2017 Apr 25;135(17):e927-e99.

7.Sauvaget E et al. J Pediatr. 2012 May; 160(5),875-6.


 

A 21-year-old young adult presented to the ED with a 1-week history of high fever, vomiting, diarrhea, and abdominal pain. His mother was SARS-CoV-2 positive by polymerase chain reaction approximately 3 weeks prior; his PCR was negative for SARS-CoV-2.

EyeMark/thinkstockphotos.com

Following admission, he became hypotensive and tachycardic with evidence of myocarditis. His chest x-ray was normal and his O₂ saturation was 100% on room air. His clinical presentation was initially suggestive of toxic shock syndrome without a rash, but despite aggressive fluid resuscitation and broad-spectrum antibiotics, he continued to clinically deteriorate with persistent high fever and increasing cardiac stress. Echocardiography revealed biventricular dysfunction. His laboratory abnormalities included rising inflammatory markers and troponin I and B-type natriuretic peptide (BNP). A repeat PCR for SARS-CoV-2 was negative on day 2 of illness. He was diagnosed as likely having macrophage-activation syndrome (MAS) despite the atypical features (myocarditis), and he received Anakinra with no apparent response. He also was given intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIg) for his myocarditis and subsequently high-dose steroids. He became afebrile, his blood pressure stabilized, his inflammatory markers declined, and over several days he returned to normal. His COVID-19 antibody test IgG was positive on day 4 of illness.

This case challenged us for several reasons. First, the PCR from his nasopharynx was negative on two occasions, which raises the issue of how sensitive and accurate these PCR tests are for SARS-CoV-2 or are patients with COVID-19–associated hyperinflammatory syndrome still PCR positive? Second, although we have seen many adult cases with a cytokine storm picture similar to this patient, nearly all of the prior cases had chest x-ray abnormalities and hypoxia. Third, the severity of the myocardial dysfunction and rising troponin and BNP also was unusual in our experience with COVID-19 infection. Lastly, the use of antibody detection to SARS-CoV-2 enabled us to confirm recent COIVD-19 disease and see his illness as part of the likely spectrum of clinical syndromes seen with this virus.

The Lancet reported eight children, aged 4-14 years, with a hyperinflammatory shock-like syndrome in early May.¹ The cases had features similar to atypical Kawasaki disease, KD shock syndrome, and toxic shock syndrome. Each case had high fever for multiple days; diarrhea and abdominal pain was present in even children; elevated ferritin, C-reactive protein, d-dimer, increased troponins, and ventricular dysfunction also was present in seven. Most patients had no pulmonary involvement, and most tested negative for SARS-CoV-2 despite four of the eight having direct contact with a COVID-positive family member. All received IVIg and antibiotics; six received aspirin. Seven of the eight made a full recovery; one child died from a large cerebrovascular infarct.

Also in early May, the New York Times described a “mysterious” hyperinflammatory syndrome in children thought to be linked to COVID-19. A total of 76 suspected cases in children had been reported in New York state, three of whom died. The syndrome has been given the name pediatric multisystem inflammatory syndrome. The syndrome can resemble KD shock syndrome with rash; fever; conjunctivitis; hypotension; and redness in the lips, tongue and mucous membranes . It also can resemble toxic shock syndrome with abdominal pain, vomiting, and diarrhea. However, the degree of cardiac inflammation and dysfunction is substantial in many cases and usually beyond that seen in KD or toxic shock.

The syndrome is not limited to the United States. The Royal College of Pediatrics and Child Health has created a case definition:²

• A child presenting with persistent fever, inflammation (elevated C-reactive protein, neutrophilia, and lymphopenia) and evidence of single or multiorgan dysfunction (shock, cardiac, respiratory, renal, gastrointestinal, or neurologic) with additional features.
• Exclusion of any other microbial causes such as bacterial sepsis or staphylococcal or streptococcal shock syndromes, infections known to be associated with myocarditis (such as enterovirus).
• SARS-CoV-2 testing may or may not be positive.

As with our young adult, treatment is supportive, nonspecific, and aimed at quieting the inflammatory response. The current thinking is the syndrome is seen as antibody to SARS-CoV-2 appears and frequently the nasopharyngeal PCR is negative. It is hypothesized that the syndrome occurs in genetically predisposed hosts and potentially is a late-onset inflammatory process or potentially an antibody-triggered inflammatory process. The negative PCR from nasopharyngeal specimens reflects that the onset is later in the course of disease; whether fecal samples would be COVID positive is unknown. As with our case, antibody testing for IgG against SARS-CoV-2 is appropriate to confirm COVID-19 disease and may be positive as early as day 7.

The approach needs to be team oriented and include cardiology, rheumatology, infectious diseases, and intensive care specialists working collaboratively. Such cases should be considered COVID positive despite negative PCR tests, and full personal protective equipment should be used as we do not as yet know if live virus could be found in stool. We initiated treatment with Anakinra (an interleukin-1 type-1 receptor inhibitor) as part of our treatment protocol for MAS; we did not appreciate a response. He then received IVIg and high-dose steroids, and he recovered over several days with improved cardiac function and stable blood pressure.

Clearly, we have a steep learning curve about the multisystem hyperinflammatory syndrome emerging in association with SARS-CoV-2 infection. What is the pathogenesis? Is SARS-CoV-2 causative or just an associated finding? Who are the at-risk children, adolescents, and adults? Is there a genetic predisposition? What therapies work best? The eight cases described in London all received IVIg, as did our case, and all but one improved and survived. In adults we have seen substantial inflammation with elevated C-reactive protein (often as high as 300), ferritin, lactate dehydrogenase, triglycerides, fibrinogen, and d-dimers, but nearly all have extensive pulmonary disease, hypoxia, and are SARS-CoV-2 positive by PCR. Influenza is also associated with a cytokine storm syndrome in adolescents and young adults.³ The mechanisms influenza virus uses to initiate a cytokine storm and strategies for immunomodulatory treatment may provide insights into COVID-19–associated multisystem hyperinflammatory syndrome.

Dr. Pelton is professor of pediatrics and epidemiology at Boston University and public health and senior attending physician in pediatric infectious diseases at Boston Medical Center. Dr. Camelo is a senior fellow in pediatric infectious diseases at Boston Medical Center. They have no relevant financial disclosures. Email them at [email protected].

References

1. Riphagen S et al. Lancet. 2020 May 6. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(20)31094-1.

2. Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health Guidance: Paediatric multisystem inflammatory syndrome temporally associated with COVID-19.

3. Liu Q et al.Cell Mol Immunol. 2016 Jan;13(1):3-10.

A 21-year-old young adult presented to the ED with a 1-week history of high fever, vomiting, diarrhea, and abdominal pain. His mother was SARS-CoV-2 positive by polymerase chain reaction approximately 3 weeks prior; his PCR was negative for SARS-CoV-2.

EyeMark/thinkstockphotos.com

Following admission, he became hypotensive and tachycardic with evidence of myocarditis. His chest x-ray was normal and his O₂ saturation was 100% on room air. His clinical presentation was initially suggestive of toxic shock syndrome without a rash, but despite aggressive fluid resuscitation and broad-spectrum antibiotics, he continued to clinically deteriorate with persistent high fever and increasing cardiac stress. Echocardiography revealed biventricular dysfunction. His laboratory abnormalities included rising inflammatory markers and troponin I and B-type natriuretic peptide (BNP). A repeat PCR for SARS-CoV-2 was negative on day 2 of illness. He was diagnosed as likely having macrophage-activation syndrome (MAS) despite the atypical features (myocarditis), and he received Anakinra with no apparent response. He also was given intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIg) for his myocarditis and subsequently high-dose steroids. He became afebrile, his blood pressure stabilized, his inflammatory markers declined, and over several days he returned to normal. His COVID-19 antibody test IgG was positive on day 4 of illness.

This case challenged us for several reasons. First, the PCR from his nasopharynx was negative on two occasions, which raises the issue of how sensitive and accurate these PCR tests are for SARS-CoV-2 or are patients with COVID-19–associated hyperinflammatory syndrome still PCR positive? Second, although we have seen many adult cases with a cytokine storm picture similar to this patient, nearly all of the prior cases had chest x-ray abnormalities and hypoxia. Third, the severity of the myocardial dysfunction and rising troponin and BNP also was unusual in our experience with COVID-19 infection. Lastly, the use of antibody detection to SARS-CoV-2 enabled us to confirm recent COIVD-19 disease and see his illness as part of the likely spectrum of clinical syndromes seen with this virus.

The Lancet reported eight children, aged 4-14 years, with a hyperinflammatory shock-like syndrome in early May.¹ The cases had features similar to atypical Kawasaki disease, KD shock syndrome, and toxic shock syndrome. Each case had high fever for multiple days; diarrhea and abdominal pain was present in even children; elevated ferritin, C-reactive protein, d-dimer, increased troponins, and ventricular dysfunction also was present in seven. Most patients had no pulmonary involvement, and most tested negative for SARS-CoV-2 despite four of the eight having direct contact with a COVID-positive family member. All received IVIg and antibiotics; six received aspirin. Seven of the eight made a full recovery; one child died from a large cerebrovascular infarct.

Also in early May, the New York Times described a “mysterious” hyperinflammatory syndrome in children thought to be linked to COVID-19. A total of 76 suspected cases in children had been reported in New York state, three of whom died. The syndrome has been given the name pediatric multisystem inflammatory syndrome. The syndrome can resemble KD shock syndrome with rash; fever; conjunctivitis; hypotension; and redness in the lips, tongue and mucous membranes . It also can resemble toxic shock syndrome with abdominal pain, vomiting, and diarrhea. However, the degree of cardiac inflammation and dysfunction is substantial in many cases and usually beyond that seen in KD or toxic shock.

The syndrome is not limited to the United States. The Royal College of Pediatrics and Child Health has created a case definition:²

• A child presenting with persistent fever, inflammation (elevated C-reactive protein, neutrophilia, and lymphopenia) and evidence of single or multiorgan dysfunction (shock, cardiac, respiratory, renal, gastrointestinal, or neurologic) with additional features.
• Exclusion of any other microbial causes such as bacterial sepsis or staphylococcal or streptococcal shock syndromes, infections known to be associated with myocarditis (such as enterovirus).
• SARS-CoV-2 testing may or may not be positive.

As with our young adult, treatment is supportive, nonspecific, and aimed at quieting the inflammatory response. The current thinking is the syndrome is seen as antibody to SARS-CoV-2 appears and frequently the nasopharyngeal PCR is negative. It is hypothesized that the syndrome occurs in genetically predisposed hosts and potentially is a late-onset inflammatory process or potentially an antibody-triggered inflammatory process. The negative PCR from nasopharyngeal specimens reflects that the onset is later in the course of disease; whether fecal samples would be COVID positive is unknown. As with our case, antibody testing for IgG against SARS-CoV-2 is appropriate to confirm COVID-19 disease and may be positive as early as day 7.

The approach needs to be team oriented and include cardiology, rheumatology, infectious diseases, and intensive care specialists working collaboratively. Such cases should be considered COVID positive despite negative PCR tests, and full personal protective equipment should be used as we do not as yet know if live virus could be found in stool. We initiated treatment with Anakinra (an interleukin-1 type-1 receptor inhibitor) as part of our treatment protocol for MAS; we did not appreciate a response. He then received IVIg and high-dose steroids, and he recovered over several days with improved cardiac function and stable blood pressure.

Clearly, we have a steep learning curve about the multisystem hyperinflammatory syndrome emerging in association with SARS-CoV-2 infection. What is the pathogenesis? Is SARS-CoV-2 causative or just an associated finding? Who are the at-risk children, adolescents, and adults? Is there a genetic predisposition? What therapies work best? The eight cases described in London all received IVIg, as did our case, and all but one improved and survived. In adults we have seen substantial inflammation with elevated C-reactive protein (often as high as 300), ferritin, lactate dehydrogenase, triglycerides, fibrinogen, and d-dimers, but nearly all have extensive pulmonary disease, hypoxia, and are SARS-CoV-2 positive by PCR. Influenza is also associated with a cytokine storm syndrome in adolescents and young adults.³ The mechanisms influenza virus uses to initiate a cytokine storm and strategies for immunomodulatory treatment may provide insights into COVID-19–associated multisystem hyperinflammatory syndrome.

Dr. Pelton is professor of pediatrics and epidemiology at Boston University and public health and senior attending physician in pediatric infectious diseases at Boston Medical Center. Dr. Camelo is a senior fellow in pediatric infectious diseases at Boston Medical Center. They have no relevant financial disclosures. Email them at [email protected].

References

1. Riphagen S et al. Lancet. 2020 May 6. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(20)31094-1.

2. Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health Guidance: Paediatric multisystem inflammatory syndrome temporally associated with COVID-19.

3. Liu Q et al.Cell Mol Immunol. 2016 Jan;13(1):3-10.

A 21-year-old young adult presented to the ED with a 1-week history of high fever, vomiting, diarrhea, and abdominal pain. His mother was SARS-CoV-2 positive by polymerase chain reaction approximately 3 weeks prior; his PCR was negative for SARS-CoV-2.

EyeMark/thinkstockphotos.com

Following admission, he became hypotensive and tachycardic with evidence of myocarditis. His chest x-ray was normal and his O₂ saturation was 100% on room air. His clinical presentation was initially suggestive of toxic shock syndrome without a rash, but despite aggressive fluid resuscitation and broad-spectrum antibiotics, he continued to clinically deteriorate with persistent high fever and increasing cardiac stress. Echocardiography revealed biventricular dysfunction. His laboratory abnormalities included rising inflammatory markers and troponin I and B-type natriuretic peptide (BNP). A repeat PCR for SARS-CoV-2 was negative on day 2 of illness. He was diagnosed as likely having macrophage-activation syndrome (MAS) despite the atypical features (myocarditis), and he received Anakinra with no apparent response. He also was given intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIg) for his myocarditis and subsequently high-dose steroids. He became afebrile, his blood pressure stabilized, his inflammatory markers declined, and over several days he returned to normal. His COVID-19 antibody test IgG was positive on day 4 of illness.

This case challenged us for several reasons. First, the PCR from his nasopharynx was negative on two occasions, which raises the issue of how sensitive and accurate these PCR tests are for SARS-CoV-2 or are patients with COVID-19–associated hyperinflammatory syndrome still PCR positive? Second, although we have seen many adult cases with a cytokine storm picture similar to this patient, nearly all of the prior cases had chest x-ray abnormalities and hypoxia. Third, the severity of the myocardial dysfunction and rising troponin and BNP also was unusual in our experience with COVID-19 infection. Lastly, the use of antibody detection to SARS-CoV-2 enabled us to confirm recent COIVD-19 disease and see his illness as part of the likely spectrum of clinical syndromes seen with this virus.

The Lancet reported eight children, aged 4-14 years, with a hyperinflammatory shock-like syndrome in early May.¹ The cases had features similar to atypical Kawasaki disease, KD shock syndrome, and toxic shock syndrome. Each case had high fever for multiple days; diarrhea and abdominal pain was present in even children; elevated ferritin, C-reactive protein, d-dimer, increased troponins, and ventricular dysfunction also was present in seven. Most patients had no pulmonary involvement, and most tested negative for SARS-CoV-2 despite four of the eight having direct contact with a COVID-positive family member. All received IVIg and antibiotics; six received aspirin. Seven of the eight made a full recovery; one child died from a large cerebrovascular infarct.

Also in early May, the New York Times described a “mysterious” hyperinflammatory syndrome in children thought to be linked to COVID-19. A total of 76 suspected cases in children had been reported in New York state, three of whom died. The syndrome has been given the name pediatric multisystem inflammatory syndrome. The syndrome can resemble KD shock syndrome with rash; fever; conjunctivitis; hypotension; and redness in the lips, tongue and mucous membranes . It also can resemble toxic shock syndrome with abdominal pain, vomiting, and diarrhea. However, the degree of cardiac inflammation and dysfunction is substantial in many cases and usually beyond that seen in KD or toxic shock.

The syndrome is not limited to the United States. The Royal College of Pediatrics and Child Health has created a case definition:²

• A child presenting with persistent fever, inflammation (elevated C-reactive protein, neutrophilia, and lymphopenia) and evidence of single or multiorgan dysfunction (shock, cardiac, respiratory, renal, gastrointestinal, or neurologic) with additional features.
• Exclusion of any other microbial causes such as bacterial sepsis or staphylococcal or streptococcal shock syndromes, infections known to be associated with myocarditis (such as enterovirus).
• SARS-CoV-2 testing may or may not be positive.

As with our young adult, treatment is supportive, nonspecific, and aimed at quieting the inflammatory response. The current thinking is the syndrome is seen as antibody to SARS-CoV-2 appears and frequently the nasopharyngeal PCR is negative. It is hypothesized that the syndrome occurs in genetically predisposed hosts and potentially is a late-onset inflammatory process or potentially an antibody-triggered inflammatory process. The negative PCR from nasopharyngeal specimens reflects that the onset is later in the course of disease; whether fecal samples would be COVID positive is unknown. As with our case, antibody testing for IgG against SARS-CoV-2 is appropriate to confirm COVID-19 disease and may be positive as early as day 7.

The approach needs to be team oriented and include cardiology, rheumatology, infectious diseases, and intensive care specialists working collaboratively. Such cases should be considered COVID positive despite negative PCR tests, and full personal protective equipment should be used as we do not as yet know if live virus could be found in stool. We initiated treatment with Anakinra (an interleukin-1 type-1 receptor inhibitor) as part of our treatment protocol for MAS; we did not appreciate a response. He then received IVIg and high-dose steroids, and he recovered over several days with improved cardiac function and stable blood pressure.

Clearly, we have a steep learning curve about the multisystem hyperinflammatory syndrome emerging in association with SARS-CoV-2 infection. What is the pathogenesis? Is SARS-CoV-2 causative or just an associated finding? Who are the at-risk children, adolescents, and adults? Is there a genetic predisposition? What therapies work best? The eight cases described in London all received IVIg, as did our case, and all but one improved and survived. In adults we have seen substantial inflammation with elevated C-reactive protein (often as high as 300), ferritin, lactate dehydrogenase, triglycerides, fibrinogen, and d-dimers, but nearly all have extensive pulmonary disease, hypoxia, and are SARS-CoV-2 positive by PCR. Influenza is also associated with a cytokine storm syndrome in adolescents and young adults.³ The mechanisms influenza virus uses to initiate a cytokine storm and strategies for immunomodulatory treatment may provide insights into COVID-19–associated multisystem hyperinflammatory syndrome.

Dr. Pelton is professor of pediatrics and epidemiology at Boston University and public health and senior attending physician in pediatric infectious diseases at Boston Medical Center. Dr. Camelo is a senior fellow in pediatric infectious diseases at Boston Medical Center. They have no relevant financial disclosures. Email them at [email protected].

References

1. Riphagen S et al. Lancet. 2020 May 6. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(20)31094-1.

2. Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health Guidance: Paediatric multisystem inflammatory syndrome temporally associated with COVID-19.

3. Liu Q et al.Cell Mol Immunol. 2016 Jan;13(1):3-10.

The social distancing and sheltering in place mandated because of the COVID-19 pandemic are keeping parents and kids out of their doctors’ offices, and that has prompted a steep decline in recommended routine vaccinations for U.S. children, according to Centers for Disease Control and Prevention researchers.

Pediatric vaccinations dropped sharply after the national emergency was declared on March 13, suggesting that some children may be at increased risk for other serious infectious diseases, such as measles.

The researchers compared weekly orders for federally funded vaccines from Jan. 6 to April 19, 2020, with those during the same period in 2019.

They noted that, by the end of the study period, there was a cumulative COVID-19–related decline of 2.5 million doses in orders for routine noninfluenza pediatric childhood vaccines recommended by the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, as well as a cumulative decline in orders of 250,000 doses of measles vaccines.

Although the overall decrease in vaccinations during the study period was larger, according to CDC spokesperson Richard Quartarone, the above figures represent declines clearly associated with the pandemic.

The weekly number of measles vaccines ordered for children aged 24 months or older fell dramatically to about 500 during the week beginning March 16, 2020, and fell further to approximately 250 during the week beginning March 23. It stayed at that level until the week beginning April 13. By comparison, more than 2,500 were ordered during the week starting March 2, before the emergency was declared.

The decline was notably less for children younger than 2 years. For those children, orders dropped to about 750 during the week starting March 23 and climbed slightly for 3 weeks. By comparison, during the week of March 2, about 2,000 vaccines were ordered.

The findings, which were published in the CDC’s Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, stem from an analysis of ordering data from the federal Vaccines for Children (VFC) Program, as well as from vaccine administration data from the CDC’s Vaccine Tracking System and the collaborative Vaccine Safety Datalink (VSD).

The VFC provides federally purchased vaccines at no cost to about half of persons aged 18 years or younger. The VSD collaborates on vaccine coverage with the CDC’s Immunization Safety Office and eight large health care organizations across the country. Vaccination coverage is the usual metric for assessing vaccine usage; providers’ orders and the number of doses administered are two proxy measures, the authors explained.

“The substantial reduction in VFC-funded pediatric vaccine ordering after the COVID-19 emergency declaration is consistent with changes in vaccine administration among children in the VSD population receiving care through eight large U.S. health care organizations,” wrote Jeanne M. Santoli, MD, and colleagues, of the immunization services division at the National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases. “The smaller decline in measles-containing vaccine administration among children aged ≤24 months suggests that system-level strategies to prioritize well child care and immunization for this age group are being implemented.”

Dr. Santoli, who is an Atlanta-based pediatrician, and associates stressed the importance of maintaining regular vaccinations during the pandemic. “The identified declines in routine pediatric vaccine ordering and doses administered might indicate that U.S. children and their communities face increased risks for outbreaks of vaccine-preventable diseases,” they wrote. “Parental concerns about potentially exposing their children to COVID-19 during well child visits might contribute to the declines observed.” Parents should therefore be reminded of the necessity of protecting their children against vaccine-preventable diseases.

In 2019, a Gallup survey reported that overall support for vaccination continued to decline in the United States.

The researchers predicted that, as social distancing relaxes, unvaccinated children will be more susceptible to other serious diseases. “In response, continued coordinated efforts between health care providers and public health officials at the local, state, and federal levels will be necessary to achieve rapid catch-up vaccination,” they concluded.

The authors disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

The social distancing and sheltering in place mandated because of the COVID-19 pandemic are keeping parents and kids out of their doctors’ offices, and that has prompted a steep decline in recommended routine vaccinations for U.S. children, according to Centers for Disease Control and Prevention researchers.

Pediatric vaccinations dropped sharply after the national emergency was declared on March 13, suggesting that some children may be at increased risk for other serious infectious diseases, such as measles.

The researchers compared weekly orders for federally funded vaccines from Jan. 6 to April 19, 2020, with those during the same period in 2019.

They noted that, by the end of the study period, there was a cumulative COVID-19–related decline of 2.5 million doses in orders for routine noninfluenza pediatric childhood vaccines recommended by the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, as well as a cumulative decline in orders of 250,000 doses of measles vaccines.

Although the overall decrease in vaccinations during the study period was larger, according to CDC spokesperson Richard Quartarone, the above figures represent declines clearly associated with the pandemic.

The weekly number of measles vaccines ordered for children aged 24 months or older fell dramatically to about 500 during the week beginning March 16, 2020, and fell further to approximately 250 during the week beginning March 23. It stayed at that level until the week beginning April 13. By comparison, more than 2,500 were ordered during the week starting March 2, before the emergency was declared.

The decline was notably less for children younger than 2 years. For those children, orders dropped to about 750 during the week starting March 23 and climbed slightly for 3 weeks. By comparison, during the week of March 2, about 2,000 vaccines were ordered.

The findings, which were published in the CDC’s Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, stem from an analysis of ordering data from the federal Vaccines for Children (VFC) Program, as well as from vaccine administration data from the CDC’s Vaccine Tracking System and the collaborative Vaccine Safety Datalink (VSD).

The VFC provides federally purchased vaccines at no cost to about half of persons aged 18 years or younger. The VSD collaborates on vaccine coverage with the CDC’s Immunization Safety Office and eight large health care organizations across the country. Vaccination coverage is the usual metric for assessing vaccine usage; providers’ orders and the number of doses administered are two proxy measures, the authors explained.

“The substantial reduction in VFC-funded pediatric vaccine ordering after the COVID-19 emergency declaration is consistent with changes in vaccine administration among children in the VSD population receiving care through eight large U.S. health care organizations,” wrote Jeanne M. Santoli, MD, and colleagues, of the immunization services division at the National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases. “The smaller decline in measles-containing vaccine administration among children aged ≤24 months suggests that system-level strategies to prioritize well child care and immunization for this age group are being implemented.”

Dr. Santoli, who is an Atlanta-based pediatrician, and associates stressed the importance of maintaining regular vaccinations during the pandemic. “The identified declines in routine pediatric vaccine ordering and doses administered might indicate that U.S. children and their communities face increased risks for outbreaks of vaccine-preventable diseases,” they wrote. “Parental concerns about potentially exposing their children to COVID-19 during well child visits might contribute to the declines observed.” Parents should therefore be reminded of the necessity of protecting their children against vaccine-preventable diseases.

In 2019, a Gallup survey reported that overall support for vaccination continued to decline in the United States.

The researchers predicted that, as social distancing relaxes, unvaccinated children will be more susceptible to other serious diseases. “In response, continued coordinated efforts between health care providers and public health officials at the local, state, and federal levels will be necessary to achieve rapid catch-up vaccination,” they concluded.

The authors disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

The social distancing and sheltering in place mandated because of the COVID-19 pandemic are keeping parents and kids out of their doctors’ offices, and that has prompted a steep decline in recommended routine vaccinations for U.S. children, according to Centers for Disease Control and Prevention researchers.

Pediatric vaccinations dropped sharply after the national emergency was declared on March 13, suggesting that some children may be at increased risk for other serious infectious diseases, such as measles.

The researchers compared weekly orders for federally funded vaccines from Jan. 6 to April 19, 2020, with those during the same period in 2019.

They noted that, by the end of the study period, there was a cumulative COVID-19–related decline of 2.5 million doses in orders for routine noninfluenza pediatric childhood vaccines recommended by the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, as well as a cumulative decline in orders of 250,000 doses of measles vaccines.

Although the overall decrease in vaccinations during the study period was larger, according to CDC spokesperson Richard Quartarone, the above figures represent declines clearly associated with the pandemic.

The weekly number of measles vaccines ordered for children aged 24 months or older fell dramatically to about 500 during the week beginning March 16, 2020, and fell further to approximately 250 during the week beginning March 23. It stayed at that level until the week beginning April 13. By comparison, more than 2,500 were ordered during the week starting March 2, before the emergency was declared.

The decline was notably less for children younger than 2 years. For those children, orders dropped to about 750 during the week starting March 23 and climbed slightly for 3 weeks. By comparison, during the week of March 2, about 2,000 vaccines were ordered.

The findings, which were published in the CDC’s Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, stem from an analysis of ordering data from the federal Vaccines for Children (VFC) Program, as well as from vaccine administration data from the CDC’s Vaccine Tracking System and the collaborative Vaccine Safety Datalink (VSD).

The VFC provides federally purchased vaccines at no cost to about half of persons aged 18 years or younger. The VSD collaborates on vaccine coverage with the CDC’s Immunization Safety Office and eight large health care organizations across the country. Vaccination coverage is the usual metric for assessing vaccine usage; providers’ orders and the number of doses administered are two proxy measures, the authors explained.

“The substantial reduction in VFC-funded pediatric vaccine ordering after the COVID-19 emergency declaration is consistent with changes in vaccine administration among children in the VSD population receiving care through eight large U.S. health care organizations,” wrote Jeanne M. Santoli, MD, and colleagues, of the immunization services division at the National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases. “The smaller decline in measles-containing vaccine administration among children aged ≤24 months suggests that system-level strategies to prioritize well child care and immunization for this age group are being implemented.”

Dr. Santoli, who is an Atlanta-based pediatrician, and associates stressed the importance of maintaining regular vaccinations during the pandemic. “The identified declines in routine pediatric vaccine ordering and doses administered might indicate that U.S. children and their communities face increased risks for outbreaks of vaccine-preventable diseases,” they wrote. “Parental concerns about potentially exposing their children to COVID-19 during well child visits might contribute to the declines observed.” Parents should therefore be reminded of the necessity of protecting their children against vaccine-preventable diseases.

In 2019, a Gallup survey reported that overall support for vaccination continued to decline in the United States.

The researchers predicted that, as social distancing relaxes, unvaccinated children will be more susceptible to other serious diseases. “In response, continued coordinated efforts between health care providers and public health officials at the local, state, and federal levels will be necessary to achieve rapid catch-up vaccination,” they concluded.

The authors disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Max is an 8-year-old boy in the third grade, and you have been his pediatrician since birth. Described as “emotional” and “particular” since his early years, Max is prone to prolonged tantrums that have not improved with age. Parents have described a tic that involves repeatedly touching his ear, but this has not been observed in the office setting. Max has struggled with some attention issues at school, and often needs help finishing assignments. The family is feeling increasingly desperate for ways to manage his near-daily meltdowns at home, and parenting strategies you’ve discussed thus far don’t seem to be helping much. Should obsessive-compulsive disorder be in your differential? And at what point do you seek outside evaluation?

miodrag ignjatovic/E+

OCD is a condition characterized by recurrent, intrusive, and unwanted thoughts, images, and urges (obsessions), and repetitive behaviors or mental acts performed in a particular way to reduce anxiety (compulsions). It affects 1%-3% of children, and onset can be as early as age 3-4 years. While the average age of onset in children is approximately 10 years old, average age of diagnosis is at least several years later.¹ A primary care physician’s ability to recognize OCD symptoms in children, perform an initial assessment, and connect the child to appropriate clinical care is key to reducing the years of difficulty that children and families often endure prior to beginning treatment.

Common obsessions in children include contamination, fear of harm to self or others, symmetry, and the belief that bad things will occur if rituals are performed incorrectly. Common compulsions include checking, washing, ordering, and mental acts such as praying or counting to one’s self.^1,2 In addition to the fact that OCD presentations are highly heterogeneous, early diagnosis is challenging due to significant overlap of OCD symptoms with developmentally normal behaviors. For example, magical or superstitious thinking is common among school-age children who avoid stepping on cracks or utilize lucky numbers. What differentiates OCD is the presence of obsessions and/or compulsions that are time consuming and cause subjective distress or functional impairment. Children often are adept at keeping OCD symptoms secret. At time of diagnosis, the child may have a complex array of discreet behaviors to manage distress and minimize shame. Children may not have insight into the irrationality of their thoughts or behaviors, but they are certainly aware of how terrible and confused they feel inside, and how it affects their relationship with their parents. Rituals, such as those that delay bedtime or cause school tardiness, may look like oppositional behaviors and cause immense frustration for parents.

Comorbidities are common and include ADHD, oppositional defiant disorder, depression, and Tourette syndrome.³ Nearly 60% of children with OCD meet criteria for a tic disorder at some point in their lifetime.⁴ Compulsions designed to ease a feeling of internal discomfort, such as touching or tapping, are particularly typical of patients with OCD and comorbid tics. Often these children will express a need for things to be “just right,” with lasting relief from such a feeling rarely found. While sensory intolerances are not part of OCD’s diagnostic criteria, clinical experiences and growing research point to a high prevalence in affected children.^5,6 Sensory intolerances may even be the primary presenting problem. Examples include clothing feeling uncomfortable, or inability to tolerate certain smells or innocuous sounds.

The preferred method for assessment of OCD in children is the Children’s Yale–Brown Obsessive Compulsive Scale (CY-BOCS), a semi-structured, clinician-rated interview designed to elicit symptoms, severity, and distress. While time constraints may prevent use of the CY-BOCS in the primary care setting, a handful of screening questions instead can go a long way. These might include:

• Do you have to do things in a certain way, such as washing or making things “just right?”
• What happens if you can’t do things in a certain way?
• Do you have unwanted thoughts that keep coming back and are hard to get rid of?

Equally as important as understanding a child’s OCD symptoms is understanding how the family has, often unwittingly, become intertwined in a web of OCD-driven behaviors. In an effort to soothe the child, prevent emotional outbursts, or simply get through the day, parents may find themselves accommodating behaviors that seem irrational. Despite parents’ best intentions, this is likely reinforcing OCD patterns. Parents may be asked by the child to repeat a reassuring phrase in a certain way, arrange furniture “just so,” or drive a certain route to school. In the case of contamination fears, a child may be taking several showers per day, using two bottles of shampoo per week, and demanding that his or her clothes be washed separately before a parent begins to realize the cumulative impact of these unusual behaviors on the household. In addition to exploring concerns, primary care physicians can provide a sounding board for exhausted parents wondering if other families face the same thing. While connecting the family to treatment, they also can provide reassurances that treatment can dramatically shift the trajectory of the illness.

Treatment of pediatric OCD begins with a specific form of cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) called Exposure and Response Prevention therapy (ERP). ERP requires a skilled therapist, and a strong alliance with a child and family because the child will be asked to gradually challenge compulsions head-on and tolerate the accompanied distress. CBT/ERP is associated with a 40%-65% reduction in symptoms, but combination with SSRI therapy improves outcomes in more severe cases.³ Despite limited mental health resources and long wait lists in many parts of the country, connection to OCD-specific treatment is increasingly feasible in virtual format via online support groups and telemedicine.

“Max” may experience any number of OCD-related symptoms that a primary care physician could deftly uncover. He may become “stuck” at school because his handwriting accidentally strayed below the line. He may have hours-long meltdowns because his hair never feels right. He may touch his ear to prevent tragic harm coming to his mother. Whatever further exploration reveals, Max and his family stand to benefit immensely from early detection and intervention.
 

Dr. McGowan is assistant professor of psychiatry and pediatrics at the Vermont Center for Children, Youth, and Families, University of Vermont Medical Center, Burlington. She had no relevant financial disclosures. Email Dr. McGowan at [email protected].

Resources for providers and families*

UNSTUCK: An OCD Kids Movie. Featuring a 23-minute documentary film about children living with OCD, this website also is rich in OCD-related resources.

International OCD Foundation. Has information for families about OCD. Also has a resource directory for therapists, clinics, support groups, and other organizations specializing in OCD and related disorders in different geographic areas.

*Of note, both resources above include COVID-19-specific resources for those struggling with worsening OCD symptoms as a result of the pandemic.

References

1. Lewis’s Child and Adolescent Psychiatry: A Comprehensive Textbook, 4th ed. (Baltimore: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, 2020, pp. 518-27).

2. J Amer Acad Child Adol Psychiatry. 2012;51(1):98-113.

3. J Clin. Invest. 2009;119(4):737-46.

4. Arch Dis Child. 2015;100(5):495-9.

5. J Develop Behav Pediatr. 2019 Jun;40(5):377-82.

6. Ann Clin Psychiatry. 2008 Oct-Dec;20(4):199-203.

Max is an 8-year-old boy in the third grade, and you have been his pediatrician since birth. Described as “emotional” and “particular” since his early years, Max is prone to prolonged tantrums that have not improved with age. Parents have described a tic that involves repeatedly touching his ear, but this has not been observed in the office setting. Max has struggled with some attention issues at school, and often needs help finishing assignments. The family is feeling increasingly desperate for ways to manage his near-daily meltdowns at home, and parenting strategies you’ve discussed thus far don’t seem to be helping much. Should obsessive-compulsive disorder be in your differential? And at what point do you seek outside evaluation?

miodrag ignjatovic/E+

OCD is a condition characterized by recurrent, intrusive, and unwanted thoughts, images, and urges (obsessions), and repetitive behaviors or mental acts performed in a particular way to reduce anxiety (compulsions). It affects 1%-3% of children, and onset can be as early as age 3-4 years. While the average age of onset in children is approximately 10 years old, average age of diagnosis is at least several years later.¹ A primary care physician’s ability to recognize OCD symptoms in children, perform an initial assessment, and connect the child to appropriate clinical care is key to reducing the years of difficulty that children and families often endure prior to beginning treatment.

Common obsessions in children include contamination, fear of harm to self or others, symmetry, and the belief that bad things will occur if rituals are performed incorrectly. Common compulsions include checking, washing, ordering, and mental acts such as praying or counting to one’s self.^1,2 In addition to the fact that OCD presentations are highly heterogeneous, early diagnosis is challenging due to significant overlap of OCD symptoms with developmentally normal behaviors. For example, magical or superstitious thinking is common among school-age children who avoid stepping on cracks or utilize lucky numbers. What differentiates OCD is the presence of obsessions and/or compulsions that are time consuming and cause subjective distress or functional impairment. Children often are adept at keeping OCD symptoms secret. At time of diagnosis, the child may have a complex array of discreet behaviors to manage distress and minimize shame. Children may not have insight into the irrationality of their thoughts or behaviors, but they are certainly aware of how terrible and confused they feel inside, and how it affects their relationship with their parents. Rituals, such as those that delay bedtime or cause school tardiness, may look like oppositional behaviors and cause immense frustration for parents.

Comorbidities are common and include ADHD, oppositional defiant disorder, depression, and Tourette syndrome.³ Nearly 60% of children with OCD meet criteria for a tic disorder at some point in their lifetime.⁴ Compulsions designed to ease a feeling of internal discomfort, such as touching or tapping, are particularly typical of patients with OCD and comorbid tics. Often these children will express a need for things to be “just right,” with lasting relief from such a feeling rarely found. While sensory intolerances are not part of OCD’s diagnostic criteria, clinical experiences and growing research point to a high prevalence in affected children.^5,6 Sensory intolerances may even be the primary presenting problem. Examples include clothing feeling uncomfortable, or inability to tolerate certain smells or innocuous sounds.

The preferred method for assessment of OCD in children is the Children’s Yale–Brown Obsessive Compulsive Scale (CY-BOCS), a semi-structured, clinician-rated interview designed to elicit symptoms, severity, and distress. While time constraints may prevent use of the CY-BOCS in the primary care setting, a handful of screening questions instead can go a long way. These might include:

• Do you have to do things in a certain way, such as washing or making things “just right?”
• What happens if you can’t do things in a certain way?
• Do you have unwanted thoughts that keep coming back and are hard to get rid of?

Equally as important as understanding a child’s OCD symptoms is understanding how the family has, often unwittingly, become intertwined in a web of OCD-driven behaviors. In an effort to soothe the child, prevent emotional outbursts, or simply get through the day, parents may find themselves accommodating behaviors that seem irrational. Despite parents’ best intentions, this is likely reinforcing OCD patterns. Parents may be asked by the child to repeat a reassuring phrase in a certain way, arrange furniture “just so,” or drive a certain route to school. In the case of contamination fears, a child may be taking several showers per day, using two bottles of shampoo per week, and demanding that his or her clothes be washed separately before a parent begins to realize the cumulative impact of these unusual behaviors on the household. In addition to exploring concerns, primary care physicians can provide a sounding board for exhausted parents wondering if other families face the same thing. While connecting the family to treatment, they also can provide reassurances that treatment can dramatically shift the trajectory of the illness.

Treatment of pediatric OCD begins with a specific form of cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) called Exposure and Response Prevention therapy (ERP). ERP requires a skilled therapist, and a strong alliance with a child and family because the child will be asked to gradually challenge compulsions head-on and tolerate the accompanied distress. CBT/ERP is associated with a 40%-65% reduction in symptoms, but combination with SSRI therapy improves outcomes in more severe cases.³ Despite limited mental health resources and long wait lists in many parts of the country, connection to OCD-specific treatment is increasingly feasible in virtual format via online support groups and telemedicine.

“Max” may experience any number of OCD-related symptoms that a primary care physician could deftly uncover. He may become “stuck” at school because his handwriting accidentally strayed below the line. He may have hours-long meltdowns because his hair never feels right. He may touch his ear to prevent tragic harm coming to his mother. Whatever further exploration reveals, Max and his family stand to benefit immensely from early detection and intervention.
 

Dr. McGowan is assistant professor of psychiatry and pediatrics at the Vermont Center for Children, Youth, and Families, University of Vermont Medical Center, Burlington. She had no relevant financial disclosures. Email Dr. McGowan at [email protected].

Resources for providers and families*

UNSTUCK: An OCD Kids Movie. Featuring a 23-minute documentary film about children living with OCD, this website also is rich in OCD-related resources.

International OCD Foundation. Has information for families about OCD. Also has a resource directory for therapists, clinics, support groups, and other organizations specializing in OCD and related disorders in different geographic areas.

*Of note, both resources above include COVID-19-specific resources for those struggling with worsening OCD symptoms as a result of the pandemic.

References

1. Lewis’s Child and Adolescent Psychiatry: A Comprehensive Textbook, 4th ed. (Baltimore: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, 2020, pp. 518-27).

2. J Amer Acad Child Adol Psychiatry. 2012;51(1):98-113.

3. J Clin. Invest. 2009;119(4):737-46.

4. Arch Dis Child. 2015;100(5):495-9.

5. J Develop Behav Pediatr. 2019 Jun;40(5):377-82.

6. Ann Clin Psychiatry. 2008 Oct-Dec;20(4):199-203.

Max is an 8-year-old boy in the third grade, and you have been his pediatrician since birth. Described as “emotional” and “particular” since his early years, Max is prone to prolonged tantrums that have not improved with age. Parents have described a tic that involves repeatedly touching his ear, but this has not been observed in the office setting. Max has struggled with some attention issues at school, and often needs help finishing assignments. The family is feeling increasingly desperate for ways to manage his near-daily meltdowns at home, and parenting strategies you’ve discussed thus far don’t seem to be helping much. Should obsessive-compulsive disorder be in your differential? And at what point do you seek outside evaluation?

miodrag ignjatovic/E+

OCD is a condition characterized by recurrent, intrusive, and unwanted thoughts, images, and urges (obsessions), and repetitive behaviors or mental acts performed in a particular way to reduce anxiety (compulsions). It affects 1%-3% of children, and onset can be as early as age 3-4 years. While the average age of onset in children is approximately 10 years old, average age of diagnosis is at least several years later.¹ A primary care physician’s ability to recognize OCD symptoms in children, perform an initial assessment, and connect the child to appropriate clinical care is key to reducing the years of difficulty that children and families often endure prior to beginning treatment.

Common obsessions in children include contamination, fear of harm to self or others, symmetry, and the belief that bad things will occur if rituals are performed incorrectly. Common compulsions include checking, washing, ordering, and mental acts such as praying or counting to one’s self.^1,2 In addition to the fact that OCD presentations are highly heterogeneous, early diagnosis is challenging due to significant overlap of OCD symptoms with developmentally normal behaviors. For example, magical or superstitious thinking is common among school-age children who avoid stepping on cracks or utilize lucky numbers. What differentiates OCD is the presence of obsessions and/or compulsions that are time consuming and cause subjective distress or functional impairment. Children often are adept at keeping OCD symptoms secret. At time of diagnosis, the child may have a complex array of discreet behaviors to manage distress and minimize shame. Children may not have insight into the irrationality of their thoughts or behaviors, but they are certainly aware of how terrible and confused they feel inside, and how it affects their relationship with their parents. Rituals, such as those that delay bedtime or cause school tardiness, may look like oppositional behaviors and cause immense frustration for parents.

Comorbidities are common and include ADHD, oppositional defiant disorder, depression, and Tourette syndrome.³ Nearly 60% of children with OCD meet criteria for a tic disorder at some point in their lifetime.⁴ Compulsions designed to ease a feeling of internal discomfort, such as touching or tapping, are particularly typical of patients with OCD and comorbid tics. Often these children will express a need for things to be “just right,” with lasting relief from such a feeling rarely found. While sensory intolerances are not part of OCD’s diagnostic criteria, clinical experiences and growing research point to a high prevalence in affected children.^5,6 Sensory intolerances may even be the primary presenting problem. Examples include clothing feeling uncomfortable, or inability to tolerate certain smells or innocuous sounds.

The preferred method for assessment of OCD in children is the Children’s Yale–Brown Obsessive Compulsive Scale (CY-BOCS), a semi-structured, clinician-rated interview designed to elicit symptoms, severity, and distress. While time constraints may prevent use of the CY-BOCS in the primary care setting, a handful of screening questions instead can go a long way. These might include:

• Do you have to do things in a certain way, such as washing or making things “just right?”
• What happens if you can’t do things in a certain way?
• Do you have unwanted thoughts that keep coming back and are hard to get rid of?

Equally as important as understanding a child’s OCD symptoms is understanding how the family has, often unwittingly, become intertwined in a web of OCD-driven behaviors. In an effort to soothe the child, prevent emotional outbursts, or simply get through the day, parents may find themselves accommodating behaviors that seem irrational. Despite parents’ best intentions, this is likely reinforcing OCD patterns. Parents may be asked by the child to repeat a reassuring phrase in a certain way, arrange furniture “just so,” or drive a certain route to school. In the case of contamination fears, a child may be taking several showers per day, using two bottles of shampoo per week, and demanding that his or her clothes be washed separately before a parent begins to realize the cumulative impact of these unusual behaviors on the household. In addition to exploring concerns, primary care physicians can provide a sounding board for exhausted parents wondering if other families face the same thing. While connecting the family to treatment, they also can provide reassurances that treatment can dramatically shift the trajectory of the illness.

Treatment of pediatric OCD begins with a specific form of cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) called Exposure and Response Prevention therapy (ERP). ERP requires a skilled therapist, and a strong alliance with a child and family because the child will be asked to gradually challenge compulsions head-on and tolerate the accompanied distress. CBT/ERP is associated with a 40%-65% reduction in symptoms, but combination with SSRI therapy improves outcomes in more severe cases.³ Despite limited mental health resources and long wait lists in many parts of the country, connection to OCD-specific treatment is increasingly feasible in virtual format via online support groups and telemedicine.

“Max” may experience any number of OCD-related symptoms that a primary care physician could deftly uncover. He may become “stuck” at school because his handwriting accidentally strayed below the line. He may have hours-long meltdowns because his hair never feels right. He may touch his ear to prevent tragic harm coming to his mother. Whatever further exploration reveals, Max and his family stand to benefit immensely from early detection and intervention.
 

Dr. McGowan is assistant professor of psychiatry and pediatrics at the Vermont Center for Children, Youth, and Families, University of Vermont Medical Center, Burlington. She had no relevant financial disclosures. Email Dr. McGowan at [email protected].

Resources for providers and families*

UNSTUCK: An OCD Kids Movie. Featuring a 23-minute documentary film about children living with OCD, this website also is rich in OCD-related resources.

International OCD Foundation. Has information for families about OCD. Also has a resource directory for therapists, clinics, support groups, and other organizations specializing in OCD and related disorders in different geographic areas.

*Of note, both resources above include COVID-19-specific resources for those struggling with worsening OCD symptoms as a result of the pandemic.

References

1. Lewis’s Child and Adolescent Psychiatry: A Comprehensive Textbook, 4th ed. (Baltimore: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, 2020, pp. 518-27).

2. J Amer Acad Child Adol Psychiatry. 2012;51(1):98-113.

3. J Clin. Invest. 2009;119(4):737-46.

4. Arch Dis Child. 2015;100(5):495-9.

5. J Develop Behav Pediatr. 2019 Jun;40(5):377-82.

6. Ann Clin Psychiatry. 2008 Oct-Dec;20(4):199-203.

As the COVID-19 pandemic continues to spread across the United States, several members of the Pediatric News Editorial Advisory Board shared how practices have been adapting to the pandemic, especially in terms of immunization.

Karalyn Kinsella, MD, a member of a four-pediatrician private practice in Cheshire, Conn., said in an interview that “we have been seeing only children under age 2 years for their well visits to keep them up to date on their vaccinations” as recommended by infectious disease departments at nearby hospitals such as Connecticut Children’s Medical Center. “We also are seeing the 4- and 5-year-old children for vaccinations.”

Dr. Kinsella explained that, in case parents don’t want to bring their children into the office, her staff is offering to give the vaccinations in the parking lot. But most families are coming into the office.

“We are only seeing well babies and take the parent and child back to a room as soon as they come in the office to avoid having patients sit in the waiting room. At this point, both parents and office staff are wearing masks; we are cleaning the rooms between patients,” Dr. Kinsella said.

“Most of our patients are coming in for their vaccines, so I don’t anticipate a lot of kids being behind. However, we will have a surge of all the physicals that need to be done prior to school in the fall. We have thought about opening up for the weekends for physicals to accommodate this. We also may need to start the day earlier and end later. I have heard some schools may be postponing the date the physicals are due.”

Because of a lack of full personal protective equipment, the practice has not been seeing sick visits in the office, but they have been doing a lot of telehealth visits. “We have been using doxy.me for that, which is free, incredibly easy to use, and Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA)–compliant,” she said. “I am finding some visits, such as ADHD follow-ups and mental health follow-ups, very amenable to telehealth.”

“The hardest part – as I am sure is for most pediatricians – is the financial strain to a small business,” Dr. Kinsella noted. “We are down about 70% in revenue from this time last year. We have had to lay-off half our staff, and those who are working have much-reduced hours. We did not get the first round of funding for the paycheck protection program loan from the government and are waiting on the second round. We are trying to recoup some business by doing telehealth, but [the insurance companies] are only paying about 75%-80%. We also are charging for phone calls over 5 minutes. It will take a long time once we are up and running to recoup the losses.

“When this is all over, I’m hoping that we will be able to continue to incorporate telehealth into our schedules as I think it is convenient for families. I also am hoping that pediatricians continue to bill for phone calls as we have been giving out a lot of free care prior to this. I hope the American Academy of Pediatrics and all pediatricians work together to advocate for payment of these modalities,” she said.

J. Howard Smart, MD, who is chairman of the department of pediatrics at Sharp Rees-Stealy Medical Group in San Diego, said in an interview, “We have been bringing all of the infants and toddlers in for checkups and vaccines up to age 18 months.” These visits are scheduled in the morning, and sick patients are scheduled in the afternoon. “Well-child visits for older ages are being done by video, and the kindergarten and adolescent vaccines can be done by quick nurse visits. We will have some catching up to do once restrictions are lifted.”

“A fair amount of discussion went into these decisions. Is a video checkup better than no checkup? There is no clear-cut answer. Important things can be addressed by video: lifestyle, diet, exercise, family coping with stay-at-home orders, maintaining healthy childhood relationships, Internet use, ongoing education, among others. We know that we may miss things that can only be picked up by physical examination: hypertension, heart murmurs, abnormal growth, sexual development, abdominal masses, subtle strabismus. This is why we need to bring these children back for the physical exam later,” Dr. Smart emphasized.

“One possible negative result of doing the ‘well-child check’ by video would be if the parent assumed that the ‘checkup’ was done, never brought the child back for the exam, and something was missed that needed intervention. It will be important to get the message across that the return visit is needed. The American Academy of Pediatrics made this a part of their recommendations. It is going to be important for payers to realize that we need to do both visits – and to pay accordingly,” he concluded.

Francis E. Rushton Jr., MD, of Birmingham, Ala., described in an interview how the pediatricians in his former practice are looking for new ways to encourage shot administration in a timely manner during the COVID-19 pandemic, as well as exploring ways to partner with home visitors in encouraging timely infant and toddler vaccinations.

At South Carolina’s Beaufort Pediatrics, Joseph Floyd, MD, described a multipronged initiative. The practice’s well-child visit reminder system is being reprogrammed to check for lapses in vaccinations rather than just well-child visit attendance. For the most part, Dr. Floyd stated parents appreciate the reminders and accept the need for vaccination: “In the absence of immunizations for coronavirus, families seem to be more cognizant of the value of the vaccines we do have.” Beaufort Pediatrics is also partnering with their local hospital on a publicity campaign stressing the importance of staying up to date with currently available and recommended vaccines.

Other child-service organizations are concerned as well. Dr. Francis E. Rushton Jr., as faculty with the Education Development Center’s Health Resources and Services Administration–funded home-visiting quality improvement collaborative (HV CoIIN 2.0), described efforts with home visitors in Alabama and other states. “Home visitors understand the importance of immunizations to the health and welfare of the infants they care for. They’re looking for opportunities to improve compliance with vaccination regimens.” Some of these home-visiting agencies are employing quality improvement technique to improve compliance. One idea they are working on is documenting annual training on updated vaccines for the home visitors. They are working on protocols for linking their clients with primary health care providers, referral relations, and relationship development with local pediatric offices. Motivational interviewing techniques for home visitors focused on immunizations are being considered. For families who are hesitant, home visitors are considering accompanying the family when they come to the doctor’s office while paying attention to COVID-19 social distancing policies at medical facilities.

As the COVID-19 pandemic continues to spread across the United States, several members of the Pediatric News Editorial Advisory Board shared how practices have been adapting to the pandemic, especially in terms of immunization.

Karalyn Kinsella, MD, a member of a four-pediatrician private practice in Cheshire, Conn., said in an interview that “we have been seeing only children under age 2 years for their well visits to keep them up to date on their vaccinations” as recommended by infectious disease departments at nearby hospitals such as Connecticut Children’s Medical Center. “We also are seeing the 4- and 5-year-old children for vaccinations.”

Dr. Kinsella explained that, in case parents don’t want to bring their children into the office, her staff is offering to give the vaccinations in the parking lot. But most families are coming into the office.

“We are only seeing well babies and take the parent and child back to a room as soon as they come in the office to avoid having patients sit in the waiting room. At this point, both parents and office staff are wearing masks; we are cleaning the rooms between patients,” Dr. Kinsella said.

“Most of our patients are coming in for their vaccines, so I don’t anticipate a lot of kids being behind. However, we will have a surge of all the physicals that need to be done prior to school in the fall. We have thought about opening up for the weekends for physicals to accommodate this. We also may need to start the day earlier and end later. I have heard some schools may be postponing the date the physicals are due.”

Because of a lack of full personal protective equipment, the practice has not been seeing sick visits in the office, but they have been doing a lot of telehealth visits. “We have been using doxy.me for that, which is free, incredibly easy to use, and Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA)–compliant,” she said. “I am finding some visits, such as ADHD follow-ups and mental health follow-ups, very amenable to telehealth.”

“The hardest part – as I am sure is for most pediatricians – is the financial strain to a small business,” Dr. Kinsella noted. “We are down about 70% in revenue from this time last year. We have had to lay-off half our staff, and those who are working have much-reduced hours. We did not get the first round of funding for the paycheck protection program loan from the government and are waiting on the second round. We are trying to recoup some business by doing telehealth, but [the insurance companies] are only paying about 75%-80%. We also are charging for phone calls over 5 minutes. It will take a long time once we are up and running to recoup the losses.

“When this is all over, I’m hoping that we will be able to continue to incorporate telehealth into our schedules as I think it is convenient for families. I also am hoping that pediatricians continue to bill for phone calls as we have been giving out a lot of free care prior to this. I hope the American Academy of Pediatrics and all pediatricians work together to advocate for payment of these modalities,” she said.

J. Howard Smart, MD, who is chairman of the department of pediatrics at Sharp Rees-Stealy Medical Group in San Diego, said in an interview, “We have been bringing all of the infants and toddlers in for checkups and vaccines up to age 18 months.” These visits are scheduled in the morning, and sick patients are scheduled in the afternoon. “Well-child visits for older ages are being done by video, and the kindergarten and adolescent vaccines can be done by quick nurse visits. We will have some catching up to do once restrictions are lifted.”

“A fair amount of discussion went into these decisions. Is a video checkup better than no checkup? There is no clear-cut answer. Important things can be addressed by video: lifestyle, diet, exercise, family coping with stay-at-home orders, maintaining healthy childhood relationships, Internet use, ongoing education, among others. We know that we may miss things that can only be picked up by physical examination: hypertension, heart murmurs, abnormal growth, sexual development, abdominal masses, subtle strabismus. This is why we need to bring these children back for the physical exam later,” Dr. Smart emphasized.

“One possible negative result of doing the ‘well-child check’ by video would be if the parent assumed that the ‘checkup’ was done, never brought the child back for the exam, and something was missed that needed intervention. It will be important to get the message across that the return visit is needed. The American Academy of Pediatrics made this a part of their recommendations. It is going to be important for payers to realize that we need to do both visits – and to pay accordingly,” he concluded.

Francis E. Rushton Jr., MD, of Birmingham, Ala., described in an interview how the pediatricians in his former practice are looking for new ways to encourage shot administration in a timely manner during the COVID-19 pandemic, as well as exploring ways to partner with home visitors in encouraging timely infant and toddler vaccinations.

At South Carolina’s Beaufort Pediatrics, Joseph Floyd, MD, described a multipronged initiative. The practice’s well-child visit reminder system is being reprogrammed to check for lapses in vaccinations rather than just well-child visit attendance. For the most part, Dr. Floyd stated parents appreciate the reminders and accept the need for vaccination: “In the absence of immunizations for coronavirus, families seem to be more cognizant of the value of the vaccines we do have.” Beaufort Pediatrics is also partnering with their local hospital on a publicity campaign stressing the importance of staying up to date with currently available and recommended vaccines.

Other child-service organizations are concerned as well. Dr. Francis E. Rushton Jr., as faculty with the Education Development Center’s Health Resources and Services Administration–funded home-visiting quality improvement collaborative (HV CoIIN 2.0), described efforts with home visitors in Alabama and other states. “Home visitors understand the importance of immunizations to the health and welfare of the infants they care for. They’re looking for opportunities to improve compliance with vaccination regimens.” Some of these home-visiting agencies are employing quality improvement technique to improve compliance. One idea they are working on is documenting annual training on updated vaccines for the home visitors. They are working on protocols for linking their clients with primary health care providers, referral relations, and relationship development with local pediatric offices. Motivational interviewing techniques for home visitors focused on immunizations are being considered. For families who are hesitant, home visitors are considering accompanying the family when they come to the doctor’s office while paying attention to COVID-19 social distancing policies at medical facilities.

As the COVID-19 pandemic continues to spread across the United States, several members of the Pediatric News Editorial Advisory Board shared how practices have been adapting to the pandemic, especially in terms of immunization.

Karalyn Kinsella, MD, a member of a four-pediatrician private practice in Cheshire, Conn., said in an interview that “we have been seeing only children under age 2 years for their well visits to keep them up to date on their vaccinations” as recommended by infectious disease departments at nearby hospitals such as Connecticut Children’s Medical Center. “We also are seeing the 4- and 5-year-old children for vaccinations.”

Dr. Kinsella explained that, in case parents don’t want to bring their children into the office, her staff is offering to give the vaccinations in the parking lot. But most families are coming into the office.

“We are only seeing well babies and take the parent and child back to a room as soon as they come in the office to avoid having patients sit in the waiting room. At this point, both parents and office staff are wearing masks; we are cleaning the rooms between patients,” Dr. Kinsella said.

“Most of our patients are coming in for their vaccines, so I don’t anticipate a lot of kids being behind. However, we will have a surge of all the physicals that need to be done prior to school in the fall. We have thought about opening up for the weekends for physicals to accommodate this. We also may need to start the day earlier and end later. I have heard some schools may be postponing the date the physicals are due.”

Because of a lack of full personal protective equipment, the practice has not been seeing sick visits in the office, but they have been doing a lot of telehealth visits. “We have been using doxy.me for that, which is free, incredibly easy to use, and Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA)–compliant,” she said. “I am finding some visits, such as ADHD follow-ups and mental health follow-ups, very amenable to telehealth.”

“The hardest part – as I am sure is for most pediatricians – is the financial strain to a small business,” Dr. Kinsella noted. “We are down about 70% in revenue from this time last year. We have had to lay-off half our staff, and those who are working have much-reduced hours. We did not get the first round of funding for the paycheck protection program loan from the government and are waiting on the second round. We are trying to recoup some business by doing telehealth, but [the insurance companies] are only paying about 75%-80%. We also are charging for phone calls over 5 minutes. It will take a long time once we are up and running to recoup the losses.

“When this is all over, I’m hoping that we will be able to continue to incorporate telehealth into our schedules as I think it is convenient for families. I also am hoping that pediatricians continue to bill for phone calls as we have been giving out a lot of free care prior to this. I hope the American Academy of Pediatrics and all pediatricians work together to advocate for payment of these modalities,” she said.

J. Howard Smart, MD, who is chairman of the department of pediatrics at Sharp Rees-Stealy Medical Group in San Diego, said in an interview, “We have been bringing all of the infants and toddlers in for checkups and vaccines up to age 18 months.” These visits are scheduled in the morning, and sick patients are scheduled in the afternoon. “Well-child visits for older ages are being done by video, and the kindergarten and adolescent vaccines can be done by quick nurse visits. We will have some catching up to do once restrictions are lifted.”

“A fair amount of discussion went into these decisions. Is a video checkup better than no checkup? There is no clear-cut answer. Important things can be addressed by video: lifestyle, diet, exercise, family coping with stay-at-home orders, maintaining healthy childhood relationships, Internet use, ongoing education, among others. We know that we may miss things that can only be picked up by physical examination: hypertension, heart murmurs, abnormal growth, sexual development, abdominal masses, subtle strabismus. This is why we need to bring these children back for the physical exam later,” Dr. Smart emphasized.

“One possible negative result of doing the ‘well-child check’ by video would be if the parent assumed that the ‘checkup’ was done, never brought the child back for the exam, and something was missed that needed intervention. It will be important to get the message across that the return visit is needed. The American Academy of Pediatrics made this a part of their recommendations. It is going to be important for payers to realize that we need to do both visits – and to pay accordingly,” he concluded.

Francis E. Rushton Jr., MD, of Birmingham, Ala., described in an interview how the pediatricians in his former practice are looking for new ways to encourage shot administration in a timely manner during the COVID-19 pandemic, as well as exploring ways to partner with home visitors in encouraging timely infant and toddler vaccinations.

At South Carolina’s Beaufort Pediatrics, Joseph Floyd, MD, described a multipronged initiative. The practice’s well-child visit reminder system is being reprogrammed to check for lapses in vaccinations rather than just well-child visit attendance. For the most part, Dr. Floyd stated parents appreciate the reminders and accept the need for vaccination: “In the absence of immunizations for coronavirus, families seem to be more cognizant of the value of the vaccines we do have.” Beaufort Pediatrics is also partnering with their local hospital on a publicity campaign stressing the importance of staying up to date with currently available and recommended vaccines.

Other child-service organizations are concerned as well. Dr. Francis E. Rushton Jr., as faculty with the Education Development Center’s Health Resources and Services Administration–funded home-visiting quality improvement collaborative (HV CoIIN 2.0), described efforts with home visitors in Alabama and other states. “Home visitors understand the importance of immunizations to the health and welfare of the infants they care for. They’re looking for opportunities to improve compliance with vaccination regimens.” Some of these home-visiting agencies are employing quality improvement technique to improve compliance. One idea they are working on is documenting annual training on updated vaccines for the home visitors. They are working on protocols for linking their clients with primary health care providers, referral relations, and relationship development with local pediatric offices. Motivational interviewing techniques for home visitors focused on immunizations are being considered. For families who are hesitant, home visitors are considering accompanying the family when they come to the doctor’s office while paying attention to COVID-19 social distancing policies at medical facilities.

The COVID-19 pandemic continues to pose an unprecedented challenge to health care systems worldwide. In addition to the direct impact of the disease itself, there is a growing concern related to ensuring adequate health care utilization and addressing the needs of vulnerable populations, such as those with chronic illness.

Emanuel et al. have advocated a framework of fair allocation of resources, led by the principles of equity, maximizing benefits, and prioritizing the vulnerable. In these uncertain times, patients with rheumatic diseases represent a vulnerable population whose health and wellness are particularly threatened, not only by the risk of COVID-19, but also by reduced access to usual medical care (e.g., in-person clinic visits), potential treatment interruptions (e.g., planned infusion therapies), and the ongoing shortage of hydroxychloroquine, to name a few.

As rheumatologists, we are now tasked with the development of best practices for caring for patients with rheumatic conditions in this uncertain, evolving, and nearly data-free landscape. We also must maintain an active role as advocates for our patients to help them navigate this pandemic. Herein, we discuss our approach to caring for patients with rheumatic diseases within our practice in New York City, an epicenter of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Communication with patients

Maintaining an open line of communication with our patients (by phone, patient portal, telemedicine, and so on) has become more essential than ever. It is through these communications that we best understand our patients’ concerns and provide support and personalized treatment decisions. The most common questions we have received during recent weeks are:

• Should I stop my medication to lower my risk for infection?
• Are my current symptoms caused by coronavirus, and what should I do next?
• Where can I fill my hydroxychloroquine prescription?

The American College of Rheumatology has deployed a number of task forces aimed at advocating for rheumatologists and patients with rheumatic diseases and is doing an exemplary job guiding us. For patients, several other organizations (e.g., CreakyJoints, Arthritis Foundation, Lupus Research Alliance, Vasculitis Foundation, and Scleroderma Foundation) are also providing accurate information regarding hygiene practices, social distancing, management of medications, and other guidance related to specific rheumatic diseases. In line with ACR recommendations, we encourage a personalized, shared decision-making process with each of our patients.

Patients with rheumatic disease at risk for COVID-19 infection

First, for rheumatology patients who have no COVID-19 symptoms, our management approach is individualized. For patients who are able to maintain social distancing, we have not routinely stopped immunosuppressive medications, including disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) and biologic agents. However, we discuss the risks and benefits of continuing immunosuppressive therapy during this time with all of our patients.

In certain cases of stable, non–life-threatening disease, we may consider spacing or temporarily interrupting immunosuppressive therapy, using individualized, shared decision making. Yet, it is important to recognize that, for some patients, achieving adequate disease control can require a substantial amount of time.

Furthermore, it is important to acknowledge that disease flares requiring steroid therapy may increase the risk for infection even more, keeping in mind that, in some rheumatic diseases, high disease activity itself can increase infection risk. We advise patients who are continuing therapy to maintain at least a 1-month supply of their medications.

Decisions regarding infusions in the hospital and outpatient settings are similarly made on an individual basis, weighing the risk for virus exposure against that of disease flare. The more limited availability of appropriately distanced infusion chairs in some already overburdened systems must be considered in this discussion. We agree with the ACR, whose infusion guidance recommends that “possible changes might include temporary interruption of therapy, temporary initiation of a bridge therapy such as a less potent anti-inflammatory or immune-modulating agent, or temporary change to an alternative therapy.”

We also reinforce recommended behaviors for preventing infection, including social distancing, frequent handwashing, and avoiding touching one’s face.

Patients with rheumatic disease and confirmed or suspected COVID-19 infection

With the worldwide spread of COVID-19, patients with rheumatic diseases will undoubtedly be among those exposed and infected. Though current data are limited, within a cohort from China, 1% had an autoimmune disease. Testing recommendations to confirm COVID-19 and decision guidelines for outpatient versus inpatient management are evolving, and we consult the most up-to-date, local information regarding testing as individual potential cases arise.

For patients who develop COVID-19 and are currently taking DMARDs and biologics, we recommend that they discontinue these medications, with the exception of hydroxychloroquine (HCQ). HCQ may be continued because its mechanism is not expected to worsen infection, and it plays a key role in the management of patients with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE). In addition, in vitro antiviral effects have been reported and there is growing interest for its use in the management of COVID-19. However, there are conflicting data and methodological concerns about the nonrandomized human studies that suggest a benefit of HCQ against COVID-19.

The decision regarding management of glucocorticoids in the setting of new COVID-19 infection is challenging and should be individualized. At present, expert panels recommend against the use of glucocorticoids among individuals with COVID-19 who do not have acute respiratory distress syndrome. However, adrenal insufficiency must be considered among patients with COVID-19 who are treated with chronic glucocorticoids. Again, these decisions should be made on an individual, case-by-case basis.

Implications of a hydroxychloroquine shortage

The use of HCQ in rheumatology is supported by years of research. Particularly in SLE, HCQ has been shown to reduce disease activity and damage and to improve survival. Furthermore, for pregnant patients with SLE, numerous studies have demonstrated the safety and benefit of HCQ for both the mother and fetus; thus, it is strongly recommended. By contrast, despite the growing interest for HCQ in patients with COVID-19, the evidence is inconclusive and limited.

The ACR suggests that decisions regarding HCQ dose reductions to extend individual patients supplies should be tailored to each patient’s need and risk in the unfortunate setting of medication shortages. Even in patients with stable SLE, however, disease flares at 6 months are more common among individuals who discontinue HCQ. Of note, these flares may incorporate novel and severe disease manifestations.

Unfortunately, other therapeutic options for SLE are associated with more adverse effects (including increased susceptibility to infection) or are largely unavailable (e.g., quinacrine). Thus, we strive to continue standard dosing of HCQ for patients who are currently flaring or recently flared, and we make shared, individualized decisions for those patients with stable disease as the HCQ shortage evolves.

Future research on COVID-19 and rheumatic disease

While we might expect that an underlying rheumatic disease and associated treatments may predispose individuals to developing COVID-19, current data do not indicate which, if any, rheumatic diseases and associated therapies convey the greatest risk.

To address this uncertainty, the rheumatology community created the COVID-19 Global Rheumatology Alliance, an international effort to initiate and maintain a deidentified patient registry for individuals with rheumatic disease who develop COVID-19. These efforts will allow us to gain essential insights regarding which patient demographics, underlying diseases, and medications are most common among patients who develop COVID-19.

This alliance encourages rheumatologists and those caring for patients with rheumatic diseases to report their patient cases to this registry. As we are confronted with making management decisions with a scarcity of supporting data, efforts like these will improve our ability to make individualized treatment recommendations.

The COVID-19 pandemic has presented us all with unprecedented challenges. As rheumatologists, it is our duty to lead our patients through this uncharted territory with close communication, information, advocacy, and personalized treatment decisions. Each of these is central to the management of rheumatology patients during the COVID-19 pandemic.

With the growing interest in immunomodulatory therapies for the complications of this infection, we have the unique opportunity to share our expertise, recommendations, and caution with our colleagues. As clinicians and scientists, we must advocate for data collection and studies that will allow us to develop novel, data-driven disease management approaches while providing the best care possible for our patients.

Stephen Paget, MD, is physician in chief emeritus for the Center for Rheumatology at Hospital for Special Surgery in New York. Kimberly Showalter, MD, is a third-year rheumatology fellow at Hospital for Special Surgery. Sebastian E. Sattui, MD, is a third-year rheumatology and 1-year vasculitis fellow at Hospital for Special Surgery.

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

The COVID-19 pandemic continues to pose an unprecedented challenge to health care systems worldwide. In addition to the direct impact of the disease itself, there is a growing concern related to ensuring adequate health care utilization and addressing the needs of vulnerable populations, such as those with chronic illness.

Emanuel et al. have advocated a framework of fair allocation of resources, led by the principles of equity, maximizing benefits, and prioritizing the vulnerable. In these uncertain times, patients with rheumatic diseases represent a vulnerable population whose health and wellness are particularly threatened, not only by the risk of COVID-19, but also by reduced access to usual medical care (e.g., in-person clinic visits), potential treatment interruptions (e.g., planned infusion therapies), and the ongoing shortage of hydroxychloroquine, to name a few.

As rheumatologists, we are now tasked with the development of best practices for caring for patients with rheumatic conditions in this uncertain, evolving, and nearly data-free landscape. We also must maintain an active role as advocates for our patients to help them navigate this pandemic. Herein, we discuss our approach to caring for patients with rheumatic diseases within our practice in New York City, an epicenter of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Communication with patients

Maintaining an open line of communication with our patients (by phone, patient portal, telemedicine, and so on) has become more essential than ever. It is through these communications that we best understand our patients’ concerns and provide support and personalized treatment decisions. The most common questions we have received during recent weeks are:

• Should I stop my medication to lower my risk for infection?
• Are my current symptoms caused by coronavirus, and what should I do next?
• Where can I fill my hydroxychloroquine prescription?

The American College of Rheumatology has deployed a number of task forces aimed at advocating for rheumatologists and patients with rheumatic diseases and is doing an exemplary job guiding us. For patients, several other organizations (e.g., CreakyJoints, Arthritis Foundation, Lupus Research Alliance, Vasculitis Foundation, and Scleroderma Foundation) are also providing accurate information regarding hygiene practices, social distancing, management of medications, and other guidance related to specific rheumatic diseases. In line with ACR recommendations, we encourage a personalized, shared decision-making process with each of our patients.

Patients with rheumatic disease at risk for COVID-19 infection

First, for rheumatology patients who have no COVID-19 symptoms, our management approach is individualized. For patients who are able to maintain social distancing, we have not routinely stopped immunosuppressive medications, including disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) and biologic agents. However, we discuss the risks and benefits of continuing immunosuppressive therapy during this time with all of our patients.

In certain cases of stable, non–life-threatening disease, we may consider spacing or temporarily interrupting immunosuppressive therapy, using individualized, shared decision making. Yet, it is important to recognize that, for some patients, achieving adequate disease control can require a substantial amount of time.

Furthermore, it is important to acknowledge that disease flares requiring steroid therapy may increase the risk for infection even more, keeping in mind that, in some rheumatic diseases, high disease activity itself can increase infection risk. We advise patients who are continuing therapy to maintain at least a 1-month supply of their medications.

Decisions regarding infusions in the hospital and outpatient settings are similarly made on an individual basis, weighing the risk for virus exposure against that of disease flare. The more limited availability of appropriately distanced infusion chairs in some already overburdened systems must be considered in this discussion. We agree with the ACR, whose infusion guidance recommends that “possible changes might include temporary interruption of therapy, temporary initiation of a bridge therapy such as a less potent anti-inflammatory or immune-modulating agent, or temporary change to an alternative therapy.”

We also reinforce recommended behaviors for preventing infection, including social distancing, frequent handwashing, and avoiding touching one’s face.

Patients with rheumatic disease and confirmed or suspected COVID-19 infection

With the worldwide spread of COVID-19, patients with rheumatic diseases will undoubtedly be among those exposed and infected. Though current data are limited, within a cohort from China, 1% had an autoimmune disease. Testing recommendations to confirm COVID-19 and decision guidelines for outpatient versus inpatient management are evolving, and we consult the most up-to-date, local information regarding testing as individual potential cases arise.

For patients who develop COVID-19 and are currently taking DMARDs and biologics, we recommend that they discontinue these medications, with the exception of hydroxychloroquine (HCQ). HCQ may be continued because its mechanism is not expected to worsen infection, and it plays a key role in the management of patients with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE). In addition, in vitro antiviral effects have been reported and there is growing interest for its use in the management of COVID-19. However, there are conflicting data and methodological concerns about the nonrandomized human studies that suggest a benefit of HCQ against COVID-19.

The decision regarding management of glucocorticoids in the setting of new COVID-19 infection is challenging and should be individualized. At present, expert panels recommend against the use of glucocorticoids among individuals with COVID-19 who do not have acute respiratory distress syndrome. However, adrenal insufficiency must be considered among patients with COVID-19 who are treated with chronic glucocorticoids. Again, these decisions should be made on an individual, case-by-case basis.

Implications of a hydroxychloroquine shortage

The use of HCQ in rheumatology is supported by years of research. Particularly in SLE, HCQ has been shown to reduce disease activity and damage and to improve survival. Furthermore, for pregnant patients with SLE, numerous studies have demonstrated the safety and benefit of HCQ for both the mother and fetus; thus, it is strongly recommended. By contrast, despite the growing interest for HCQ in patients with COVID-19, the evidence is inconclusive and limited.

The ACR suggests that decisions regarding HCQ dose reductions to extend individual patients supplies should be tailored to each patient’s need and risk in the unfortunate setting of medication shortages. Even in patients with stable SLE, however, disease flares at 6 months are more common among individuals who discontinue HCQ. Of note, these flares may incorporate novel and severe disease manifestations.

Unfortunately, other therapeutic options for SLE are associated with more adverse effects (including increased susceptibility to infection) or are largely unavailable (e.g., quinacrine). Thus, we strive to continue standard dosing of HCQ for patients who are currently flaring or recently flared, and we make shared, individualized decisions for those patients with stable disease as the HCQ shortage evolves.

Future research on COVID-19 and rheumatic disease

While we might expect that an underlying rheumatic disease and associated treatments may predispose individuals to developing COVID-19, current data do not indicate which, if any, rheumatic diseases and associated therapies convey the greatest risk.

To address this uncertainty, the rheumatology community created the COVID-19 Global Rheumatology Alliance, an international effort to initiate and maintain a deidentified patient registry for individuals with rheumatic disease who develop COVID-19. These efforts will allow us to gain essential insights regarding which patient demographics, underlying diseases, and medications are most common among patients who develop COVID-19.

This alliance encourages rheumatologists and those caring for patients with rheumatic diseases to report their patient cases to this registry. As we are confronted with making management decisions with a scarcity of supporting data, efforts like these will improve our ability to make individualized treatment recommendations.

The COVID-19 pandemic has presented us all with unprecedented challenges. As rheumatologists, it is our duty to lead our patients through this uncharted territory with close communication, information, advocacy, and personalized treatment decisions. Each of these is central to the management of rheumatology patients during the COVID-19 pandemic.

With the growing interest in immunomodulatory therapies for the complications of this infection, we have the unique opportunity to share our expertise, recommendations, and caution with our colleagues. As clinicians and scientists, we must advocate for data collection and studies that will allow us to develop novel, data-driven disease management approaches while providing the best care possible for our patients.

Stephen Paget, MD, is physician in chief emeritus for the Center for Rheumatology at Hospital for Special Surgery in New York. Kimberly Showalter, MD, is a third-year rheumatology fellow at Hospital for Special Surgery. Sebastian E. Sattui, MD, is a third-year rheumatology and 1-year vasculitis fellow at Hospital for Special Surgery.

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

The COVID-19 pandemic continues to pose an unprecedented challenge to health care systems worldwide. In addition to the direct impact of the disease itself, there is a growing concern related to ensuring adequate health care utilization and addressing the needs of vulnerable populations, such as those with chronic illness.

Emanuel et al. have advocated a framework of fair allocation of resources, led by the principles of equity, maximizing benefits, and prioritizing the vulnerable. In these uncertain times, patients with rheumatic diseases represent a vulnerable population whose health and wellness are particularly threatened, not only by the risk of COVID-19, but also by reduced access to usual medical care (e.g., in-person clinic visits), potential treatment interruptions (e.g., planned infusion therapies), and the ongoing shortage of hydroxychloroquine, to name a few.

As rheumatologists, we are now tasked with the development of best practices for caring for patients with rheumatic conditions in this uncertain, evolving, and nearly data-free landscape. We also must maintain an active role as advocates for our patients to help them navigate this pandemic. Herein, we discuss our approach to caring for patients with rheumatic diseases within our practice in New York City, an epicenter of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Communication with patients

Maintaining an open line of communication with our patients (by phone, patient portal, telemedicine, and so on) has become more essential than ever. It is through these communications that we best understand our patients’ concerns and provide support and personalized treatment decisions. The most common questions we have received during recent weeks are:

• Should I stop my medication to lower my risk for infection?
• Are my current symptoms caused by coronavirus, and what should I do next?
• Where can I fill my hydroxychloroquine prescription?

The American College of Rheumatology has deployed a number of task forces aimed at advocating for rheumatologists and patients with rheumatic diseases and is doing an exemplary job guiding us. For patients, several other organizations (e.g., CreakyJoints, Arthritis Foundation, Lupus Research Alliance, Vasculitis Foundation, and Scleroderma Foundation) are also providing accurate information regarding hygiene practices, social distancing, management of medications, and other guidance related to specific rheumatic diseases. In line with ACR recommendations, we encourage a personalized, shared decision-making process with each of our patients.

Patients with rheumatic disease at risk for COVID-19 infection

First, for rheumatology patients who have no COVID-19 symptoms, our management approach is individualized. For patients who are able to maintain social distancing, we have not routinely stopped immunosuppressive medications, including disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) and biologic agents. However, we discuss the risks and benefits of continuing immunosuppressive therapy during this time with all of our patients.

In certain cases of stable, non–life-threatening disease, we may consider spacing or temporarily interrupting immunosuppressive therapy, using individualized, shared decision making. Yet, it is important to recognize that, for some patients, achieving adequate disease control can require a substantial amount of time.

Furthermore, it is important to acknowledge that disease flares requiring steroid therapy may increase the risk for infection even more, keeping in mind that, in some rheumatic diseases, high disease activity itself can increase infection risk. We advise patients who are continuing therapy to maintain at least a 1-month supply of their medications.

Decisions regarding infusions in the hospital and outpatient settings are similarly made on an individual basis, weighing the risk for virus exposure against that of disease flare. The more limited availability of appropriately distanced infusion chairs in some already overburdened systems must be considered in this discussion. We agree with the ACR, whose infusion guidance recommends that “possible changes might include temporary interruption of therapy, temporary initiation of a bridge therapy such as a less potent anti-inflammatory or immune-modulating agent, or temporary change to an alternative therapy.”

We also reinforce recommended behaviors for preventing infection, including social distancing, frequent handwashing, and avoiding touching one’s face.

Patients with rheumatic disease and confirmed or suspected COVID-19 infection

With the worldwide spread of COVID-19, patients with rheumatic diseases will undoubtedly be among those exposed and infected. Though current data are limited, within a cohort from China, 1% had an autoimmune disease. Testing recommendations to confirm COVID-19 and decision guidelines for outpatient versus inpatient management are evolving, and we consult the most up-to-date, local information regarding testing as individual potential cases arise.

For patients who develop COVID-19 and are currently taking DMARDs and biologics, we recommend that they discontinue these medications, with the exception of hydroxychloroquine (HCQ). HCQ may be continued because its mechanism is not expected to worsen infection, and it plays a key role in the management of patients with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE). In addition, in vitro antiviral effects have been reported and there is growing interest for its use in the management of COVID-19. However, there are conflicting data and methodological concerns about the nonrandomized human studies that suggest a benefit of HCQ against COVID-19.

The decision regarding management of glucocorticoids in the setting of new COVID-19 infection is challenging and should be individualized. At present, expert panels recommend against the use of glucocorticoids among individuals with COVID-19 who do not have acute respiratory distress syndrome. However, adrenal insufficiency must be considered among patients with COVID-19 who are treated with chronic glucocorticoids. Again, these decisions should be made on an individual, case-by-case basis.

Implications of a hydroxychloroquine shortage

The use of HCQ in rheumatology is supported by years of research. Particularly in SLE, HCQ has been shown to reduce disease activity and damage and to improve survival. Furthermore, for pregnant patients with SLE, numerous studies have demonstrated the safety and benefit of HCQ for both the mother and fetus; thus, it is strongly recommended. By contrast, despite the growing interest for HCQ in patients with COVID-19, the evidence is inconclusive and limited.

The ACR suggests that decisions regarding HCQ dose reductions to extend individual patients supplies should be tailored to each patient’s need and risk in the unfortunate setting of medication shortages. Even in patients with stable SLE, however, disease flares at 6 months are more common among individuals who discontinue HCQ. Of note, these flares may incorporate novel and severe disease manifestations.

Unfortunately, other therapeutic options for SLE are associated with more adverse effects (including increased susceptibility to infection) or are largely unavailable (e.g., quinacrine). Thus, we strive to continue standard dosing of HCQ for patients who are currently flaring or recently flared, and we make shared, individualized decisions for those patients with stable disease as the HCQ shortage evolves.

Future research on COVID-19 and rheumatic disease

While we might expect that an underlying rheumatic disease and associated treatments may predispose individuals to developing COVID-19, current data do not indicate which, if any, rheumatic diseases and associated therapies convey the greatest risk.

To address this uncertainty, the rheumatology community created the COVID-19 Global Rheumatology Alliance, an international effort to initiate and maintain a deidentified patient registry for individuals with rheumatic disease who develop COVID-19. These efforts will allow us to gain essential insights regarding which patient demographics, underlying diseases, and medications are most common among patients who develop COVID-19.

This alliance encourages rheumatologists and those caring for patients with rheumatic diseases to report their patient cases to this registry. As we are confronted with making management decisions with a scarcity of supporting data, efforts like these will improve our ability to make individualized treatment recommendations.

The COVID-19 pandemic has presented us all with unprecedented challenges. As rheumatologists, it is our duty to lead our patients through this uncharted territory with close communication, information, advocacy, and personalized treatment decisions. Each of these is central to the management of rheumatology patients during the COVID-19 pandemic.

With the growing interest in immunomodulatory therapies for the complications of this infection, we have the unique opportunity to share our expertise, recommendations, and caution with our colleagues. As clinicians and scientists, we must advocate for data collection and studies that will allow us to develop novel, data-driven disease management approaches while providing the best care possible for our patients.

Stephen Paget, MD, is physician in chief emeritus for the Center for Rheumatology at Hospital for Special Surgery in New York. Kimberly Showalter, MD, is a third-year rheumatology fellow at Hospital for Special Surgery. Sebastian E. Sattui, MD, is a third-year rheumatology and 1-year vasculitis fellow at Hospital for Special Surgery.

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