Infectious Diseases

The Diagnosis: Vibrio vulnificus Infection

At the initial presentation, the differential diagnosis included infectious processes such as bacterial or angioinvasive fungal infections or an inflammatory process such as pyoderma gangrenosum. Blood cultures were found to be positive for pansensitive Vibrio vulnificus. He initially was treated with piperacillin-tazobactam and received surgical debridement of the affected tissues. Pathologic interpretation of the wound tissues revealed a diagnosis of necrotizing softtissue infection and positive Candida albicans growth. He received topical bacitracin on discharge as well as a 7-day course of amoxicillin-clavulanate and fluconazole. He continued to receive debridement procedures and skin grafts, followed by topical mupirocin treatment and silver sulfadiazine. He was seen 6 weeks after discharge with healing wounds and healthy-appearing granulation tissue at the base.

Our patient’s presentation of retiform purpura with stellate necrosis was consistent with a wide range of serious pathologies ranging from medium-vessel vasculitis to thromboembolic phenomena and angioinvasive fungal infections.¹ Although Vibrio infection rarely is the first explanation that comes to mind when observing necrotic retiform purpura, the chronic nonhealing injury on the leg combined with the recent history of ocean swimming made V vulnificus stand out as a likely culprit. Although V vulnificus infection traditionally presents with cellulitis, edema, and hemorrhagic bulla,² necrosis also has been observed.³ Vibrio vulnificus produces multiple virulence factors, and it is believed that these severe cutaneous symptoms are attributable to the production of a specific metalloprotease that enhances vascular permeability, thereby inducing hemorrhage within the vascular basement membrane zone.²

Vibrio vulnificus is an opportunistic bacterial pathogen associated with consumption of contaminated seafood or swimming in ocean waters with open wounds. Infections are rare, with only approximately 100 cases reported annually in the United States.4 However, V vulnificus infections have demonstrated increasing incidence in recent years, especially infections of pre-existing wounds.^4,5 Risk factors for their development include age over 40 years and underlying conditions including liver disease, diabetes mellitus, and immune dysfunction.⁴ Vibrio vulnificus infections also demonstrate a strong male predilection, with almost 90% of infections occurring in males.⁴ Although the precise etiology of this sex discrepancy remains unknown, estrogen has been suggested to be a protective factor.⁶ Alternatively, behavioral differences also have been proposed as possible explanations for this discrepancy, with women less likely to consume seafood or go swimming. However, epidemiologic data reveal strong correlations between male sex and liver cirrhosis, a primary risk factor for V vulnificus infections, suggesting that male sex may simply be a confounding variable.⁷

Infections with V vulnificus are notable for their short incubation periods, with onset of symptoms occurring within 24 hours of exposure, making prompt diagnosis and treatment of high importance.⁸ Although rare, V vulnificus infections are associated with high mortality rates. From 1988 to 2010, nearly 600 deaths were reported secondary to V vulnificus infections.⁴ Wound infections carry a 17.6% fatality rate,⁴ while bloodborne V vulnificus infections exceed 50% fatality.⁸ Although sepsis secondary to V vulnificus usually is caused by ingestion of raw or undercooked shellfish, primarily oysters,⁴ our case highlights a rarer instance of both sepsis and localized infection stemming from ocean water exposure.

Vibrio vulnificus is an obligate halophile and therefore is found in marine environments rather than freshwater bodies. However, it rarely is isolated from bodies of water with salinities over 25 parts per thousand, such as the Mediterranean Sea; it usually is found in warmer waters, making it more common in the summer months from May to October.⁴ Given this proclivity for warmer environments, climate change has contributed to both a greater incidence and global distribution of V vulnificus. ^9,10

Treatment of V vulnificus infections centers on antibiotic treatment, with Vibrio species generally demonstrating susceptibility to most antibiotics of human significance.¹¹ However, some Vibrio isolates within the United States have demonstrated antibiotic resistance; 45% of a variety of clinical and environmental samples from South Carolina and Georgia demonstrated resistance to at least 3 antibiotic classes, and 17.3% resisted 8 or more classes of antibiotics.¹² These included medications such as doxycycline, tetracycline, aminoglycosides, and cephalosporins—agents that normally are prescribed for V vulnificus infections. Although tetracyclines have long been touted as the preferred treatment of V vulnificus infections, the spread of antibiotic resistance may require greater reliance on alternative regimens such as combinations of cephalosporins and doxycycline or a single fluoroquinolone.¹³ Although rare, Vibrio infections can have rapidly fatal consequences and should be given serious consideration when evaluating patients with relevant risk factors.

The differential diagnosis included angioinvasive mucormycosis, calciphylaxis, pyoderma gangrenosum, and Stevens-Johnson syndrome/toxic epidermal necrolysis. Mucormycosis is a fungal infection caused by Mucorales fungi that most commonly is seen in patients with diabetes mellitus, hematologic malignancies, neutropenia, and immunocompromise.¹⁴ Calciphylaxis is a condition involving microvascular occlusion due to diffuse calcium deposition in cutaneous blood vessels. It typically presents as violaceous retiform patches and plaques commonly seen on areas such as the thighs, buttocks, or abdomen and usually is associated with chronic renal failure, hemodialysis, and/or secondary hyperparathyroidism.¹⁵ Pyoderma gangrenosum is an inflammatory condition involving neutrophilic ulceration of the skin that typically presents as ulceration with a classically undermined border. It frequently is considered a diagnosis of exclusion and therefore requires that providers rule out other causes of ulceration prior to diagnosis.¹⁶ Stevens-Johnson syndrome/toxic epidermal necrolysis is a rare drug reaction involving mucosal erosions and cutaneous detachment.¹⁷ This diagnosis is less likely given that our patient lacked mucosal involvement and did not have any notable medication exposures prior to symptom onset.

The Diagnosis: Vibrio vulnificus Infection

At the initial presentation, the differential diagnosis included infectious processes such as bacterial or angioinvasive fungal infections or an inflammatory process such as pyoderma gangrenosum. Blood cultures were found to be positive for pansensitive Vibrio vulnificus. He initially was treated with piperacillin-tazobactam and received surgical debridement of the affected tissues. Pathologic interpretation of the wound tissues revealed a diagnosis of necrotizing softtissue infection and positive Candida albicans growth. He received topical bacitracin on discharge as well as a 7-day course of amoxicillin-clavulanate and fluconazole. He continued to receive debridement procedures and skin grafts, followed by topical mupirocin treatment and silver sulfadiazine. He was seen 6 weeks after discharge with healing wounds and healthy-appearing granulation tissue at the base.

Our patient’s presentation of retiform purpura with stellate necrosis was consistent with a wide range of serious pathologies ranging from medium-vessel vasculitis to thromboembolic phenomena and angioinvasive fungal infections.¹ Although Vibrio infection rarely is the first explanation that comes to mind when observing necrotic retiform purpura, the chronic nonhealing injury on the leg combined with the recent history of ocean swimming made V vulnificus stand out as a likely culprit. Although V vulnificus infection traditionally presents with cellulitis, edema, and hemorrhagic bulla,² necrosis also has been observed.³ Vibrio vulnificus produces multiple virulence factors, and it is believed that these severe cutaneous symptoms are attributable to the production of a specific metalloprotease that enhances vascular permeability, thereby inducing hemorrhage within the vascular basement membrane zone.²

Vibrio vulnificus is an opportunistic bacterial pathogen associated with consumption of contaminated seafood or swimming in ocean waters with open wounds. Infections are rare, with only approximately 100 cases reported annually in the United States.4 However, V vulnificus infections have demonstrated increasing incidence in recent years, especially infections of pre-existing wounds.^4,5 Risk factors for their development include age over 40 years and underlying conditions including liver disease, diabetes mellitus, and immune dysfunction.⁴ Vibrio vulnificus infections also demonstrate a strong male predilection, with almost 90% of infections occurring in males.⁴ Although the precise etiology of this sex discrepancy remains unknown, estrogen has been suggested to be a protective factor.⁶ Alternatively, behavioral differences also have been proposed as possible explanations for this discrepancy, with women less likely to consume seafood or go swimming. However, epidemiologic data reveal strong correlations between male sex and liver cirrhosis, a primary risk factor for V vulnificus infections, suggesting that male sex may simply be a confounding variable.⁷

Infections with V vulnificus are notable for their short incubation periods, with onset of symptoms occurring within 24 hours of exposure, making prompt diagnosis and treatment of high importance.⁸ Although rare, V vulnificus infections are associated with high mortality rates. From 1988 to 2010, nearly 600 deaths were reported secondary to V vulnificus infections.⁴ Wound infections carry a 17.6% fatality rate,⁴ while bloodborne V vulnificus infections exceed 50% fatality.⁸ Although sepsis secondary to V vulnificus usually is caused by ingestion of raw or undercooked shellfish, primarily oysters,⁴ our case highlights a rarer instance of both sepsis and localized infection stemming from ocean water exposure.

Vibrio vulnificus is an obligate halophile and therefore is found in marine environments rather than freshwater bodies. However, it rarely is isolated from bodies of water with salinities over 25 parts per thousand, such as the Mediterranean Sea; it usually is found in warmer waters, making it more common in the summer months from May to October.⁴ Given this proclivity for warmer environments, climate change has contributed to both a greater incidence and global distribution of V vulnificus. ^9,10

Treatment of V vulnificus infections centers on antibiotic treatment, with Vibrio species generally demonstrating susceptibility to most antibiotics of human significance.¹¹ However, some Vibrio isolates within the United States have demonstrated antibiotic resistance; 45% of a variety of clinical and environmental samples from South Carolina and Georgia demonstrated resistance to at least 3 antibiotic classes, and 17.3% resisted 8 or more classes of antibiotics.¹² These included medications such as doxycycline, tetracycline, aminoglycosides, and cephalosporins—agents that normally are prescribed for V vulnificus infections. Although tetracyclines have long been touted as the preferred treatment of V vulnificus infections, the spread of antibiotic resistance may require greater reliance on alternative regimens such as combinations of cephalosporins and doxycycline or a single fluoroquinolone.¹³ Although rare, Vibrio infections can have rapidly fatal consequences and should be given serious consideration when evaluating patients with relevant risk factors.

The differential diagnosis included angioinvasive mucormycosis, calciphylaxis, pyoderma gangrenosum, and Stevens-Johnson syndrome/toxic epidermal necrolysis. Mucormycosis is a fungal infection caused by Mucorales fungi that most commonly is seen in patients with diabetes mellitus, hematologic malignancies, neutropenia, and immunocompromise.¹⁴ Calciphylaxis is a condition involving microvascular occlusion due to diffuse calcium deposition in cutaneous blood vessels. It typically presents as violaceous retiform patches and plaques commonly seen on areas such as the thighs, buttocks, or abdomen and usually is associated with chronic renal failure, hemodialysis, and/or secondary hyperparathyroidism.¹⁵ Pyoderma gangrenosum is an inflammatory condition involving neutrophilic ulceration of the skin that typically presents as ulceration with a classically undermined border. It frequently is considered a diagnosis of exclusion and therefore requires that providers rule out other causes of ulceration prior to diagnosis.¹⁶ Stevens-Johnson syndrome/toxic epidermal necrolysis is a rare drug reaction involving mucosal erosions and cutaneous detachment.¹⁷ This diagnosis is less likely given that our patient lacked mucosal involvement and did not have any notable medication exposures prior to symptom onset.

The Diagnosis: Vibrio vulnificus Infection

At the initial presentation, the differential diagnosis included infectious processes such as bacterial or angioinvasive fungal infections or an inflammatory process such as pyoderma gangrenosum. Blood cultures were found to be positive for pansensitive Vibrio vulnificus. He initially was treated with piperacillin-tazobactam and received surgical debridement of the affected tissues. Pathologic interpretation of the wound tissues revealed a diagnosis of necrotizing softtissue infection and positive Candida albicans growth. He received topical bacitracin on discharge as well as a 7-day course of amoxicillin-clavulanate and fluconazole. He continued to receive debridement procedures and skin grafts, followed by topical mupirocin treatment and silver sulfadiazine. He was seen 6 weeks after discharge with healing wounds and healthy-appearing granulation tissue at the base.

Our patient’s presentation of retiform purpura with stellate necrosis was consistent with a wide range of serious pathologies ranging from medium-vessel vasculitis to thromboembolic phenomena and angioinvasive fungal infections.¹ Although Vibrio infection rarely is the first explanation that comes to mind when observing necrotic retiform purpura, the chronic nonhealing injury on the leg combined with the recent history of ocean swimming made V vulnificus stand out as a likely culprit. Although V vulnificus infection traditionally presents with cellulitis, edema, and hemorrhagic bulla,² necrosis also has been observed.³ Vibrio vulnificus produces multiple virulence factors, and it is believed that these severe cutaneous symptoms are attributable to the production of a specific metalloprotease that enhances vascular permeability, thereby inducing hemorrhage within the vascular basement membrane zone.²

Vibrio vulnificus is an opportunistic bacterial pathogen associated with consumption of contaminated seafood or swimming in ocean waters with open wounds. Infections are rare, with only approximately 100 cases reported annually in the United States.4 However, V vulnificus infections have demonstrated increasing incidence in recent years, especially infections of pre-existing wounds.^4,5 Risk factors for their development include age over 40 years and underlying conditions including liver disease, diabetes mellitus, and immune dysfunction.⁴ Vibrio vulnificus infections also demonstrate a strong male predilection, with almost 90% of infections occurring in males.⁴ Although the precise etiology of this sex discrepancy remains unknown, estrogen has been suggested to be a protective factor.⁶ Alternatively, behavioral differences also have been proposed as possible explanations for this discrepancy, with women less likely to consume seafood or go swimming. However, epidemiologic data reveal strong correlations between male sex and liver cirrhosis, a primary risk factor for V vulnificus infections, suggesting that male sex may simply be a confounding variable.⁷

Infections with V vulnificus are notable for their short incubation periods, with onset of symptoms occurring within 24 hours of exposure, making prompt diagnosis and treatment of high importance.⁸ Although rare, V vulnificus infections are associated with high mortality rates. From 1988 to 2010, nearly 600 deaths were reported secondary to V vulnificus infections.⁴ Wound infections carry a 17.6% fatality rate,⁴ while bloodborne V vulnificus infections exceed 50% fatality.⁸ Although sepsis secondary to V vulnificus usually is caused by ingestion of raw or undercooked shellfish, primarily oysters,⁴ our case highlights a rarer instance of both sepsis and localized infection stemming from ocean water exposure.

Vibrio vulnificus is an obligate halophile and therefore is found in marine environments rather than freshwater bodies. However, it rarely is isolated from bodies of water with salinities over 25 parts per thousand, such as the Mediterranean Sea; it usually is found in warmer waters, making it more common in the summer months from May to October.⁴ Given this proclivity for warmer environments, climate change has contributed to both a greater incidence and global distribution of V vulnificus. ^9,10

Treatment of V vulnificus infections centers on antibiotic treatment, with Vibrio species generally demonstrating susceptibility to most antibiotics of human significance.¹¹ However, some Vibrio isolates within the United States have demonstrated antibiotic resistance; 45% of a variety of clinical and environmental samples from South Carolina and Georgia demonstrated resistance to at least 3 antibiotic classes, and 17.3% resisted 8 or more classes of antibiotics.¹² These included medications such as doxycycline, tetracycline, aminoglycosides, and cephalosporins—agents that normally are prescribed for V vulnificus infections. Although tetracyclines have long been touted as the preferred treatment of V vulnificus infections, the spread of antibiotic resistance may require greater reliance on alternative regimens such as combinations of cephalosporins and doxycycline or a single fluoroquinolone.¹³ Although rare, Vibrio infections can have rapidly fatal consequences and should be given serious consideration when evaluating patients with relevant risk factors.

The differential diagnosis included angioinvasive mucormycosis, calciphylaxis, pyoderma gangrenosum, and Stevens-Johnson syndrome/toxic epidermal necrolysis. Mucormycosis is a fungal infection caused by Mucorales fungi that most commonly is seen in patients with diabetes mellitus, hematologic malignancies, neutropenia, and immunocompromise.¹⁴ Calciphylaxis is a condition involving microvascular occlusion due to diffuse calcium deposition in cutaneous blood vessels. It typically presents as violaceous retiform patches and plaques commonly seen on areas such as the thighs, buttocks, or abdomen and usually is associated with chronic renal failure, hemodialysis, and/or secondary hyperparathyroidism.¹⁵ Pyoderma gangrenosum is an inflammatory condition involving neutrophilic ulceration of the skin that typically presents as ulceration with a classically undermined border. It frequently is considered a diagnosis of exclusion and therefore requires that providers rule out other causes of ulceration prior to diagnosis.¹⁶ Stevens-Johnson syndrome/toxic epidermal necrolysis is a rare drug reaction involving mucosal erosions and cutaneous detachment.¹⁷ This diagnosis is less likely given that our patient lacked mucosal involvement and did not have any notable medication exposures prior to symptom onset.

Over the past 2 years, the COVID-19 pandemic has caused numerous disruptions in health care, including in global HIV/AIDS services. But new data presented at the Association of Nurses in AIDS Care (ANAC) 2021 Annual Meeting suggest that practitioners quickly adapted to challenges posed by the pandemic, and care and prevention services around the world have begun to return to prepandemic levels.

These rebounding numbers “show how resilient the HIV system can be,” Jennifer Kates, PhD, senior vice president and director of global health and HIV policy at the Kaiser Family Foundation (KFF), said in an interview. She presented the data during her ANAC plenary talk on Nov. 11. Dr. Kates noted that continued recovery relies on improving global access to and delivery of COVID-19 vaccines. “If we do not have control of COVID, we are going to see endless cycles of impact,” she said during her talk.
 

COVID-19 and HIV services

Although there was concern that the pandemic could disrupt access to antiretrovirals, the Global Fund previously reported a nearly 9% increase in people receiving antiretroviral therapy (ART) from 2019 to 2020. HIV prevention and testing did take a hit: There was a 22% decrease in testing for HIV and an 11% decline in the number of people receiving HIV prevention services over that period.

New data from the President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR) showed similar trends. Consistent with the Global Fund’s findings, a KFF analysis of PEPFAR data found that the number of people receiving ART grew in 2020, climbing from 16.0 million in the first quarter (Q1) of 2020 to 17.4 million by the end of the year. The most recent data from PEPFAR suggest that the number had climbed to 18.4 million by September 2021.

However, there was a 24% decrease in the number of newly enrolled individuals receiving ART from Q2 to Q3 in 2020. It dipped from 669,436 to 509,509. There was a similar decrease in the number of people being tested for HIV, dropping 25% from an estimated 16,700 to 12,500 from Q2 to Q3. But by the end of the year, both measurements had rebounded: New enrollments in ART grew 31%, and HIV testing grew nearly 41% compared to Q3.

The DREAMS (Determined, Resilient, Empowered, AIDS-free, Mentored, and Safe) program, which is focused on adolescent girls and young women, saw a dip in preexposure prophylaxis (PrEP) and other preventive services in Q4 2020, but numbers surpassed prepandemic levels by June 2021.

PEPFAR helped speed recovery, Dr. Kates said, by providing guidance on COVID-19 protocols to the field and implementing innovations, such as accelerated 3- and 6-month medication dispensing, virtual platforms, and decentralized drug delivery. In addition, the U.S. Congress allocated $3.8 billion in emergency funding in fiscal year 2021 to help mitigate the effects of COVID-19 on HIV and AIDS care.
 

Longer-term outcomes still unclear

Although these numbers are encouraging, some of the effects of COVID-19 on the HIV epidemic are still unknown – in particular, whether these documented dips in preventive services will translate to an increase in new infections. This will not be clear until a year or 2 from now, Dr. Kates noted. Increased use of ART as well as an increase in some behaviors associated with the pandemic, such as decreased social contact, are factors that mitigate an increase in the rate of infections, she said, but “how that all is going to play out we don’t know for sure.”

Other conference attendees expressed anxiety about the possibility of an increase in the rate of infections. “I’m waiting for the other shoe to drop, as it were,” Barb Cardell, training and technical assistance director at Positive Women’s Network–USA, in Oakland, Calif., said in an interview. The Positive Women’s Network is a national organization of women living with HIV. “Starting late in 2019, we have been cautioning public health officials in states and federally that there will likely be an uptick in HIV diagnosis as we return to whatever ‘normal’ looks like these days,” Ms. Cardell noted, adding, “We have all heard stories of folks that had an exposure and weren’t able to access PrEP during the pandemic and hence seroconverted.”

Kara McGee, associate clinical professor at Duke University School of Nursing, Durham, N.C., shared similar sentiments. “Many people at risk of acquiring HIV had trouble accessing testing and prevention prior to the pandemic, and service interruptions due to the COVID-19 pandemic have only worsened access – especially in rural areas,” she told this news organization.

Need for equitable vaccine access

For HIV services to continue to rebound, COVID-19 vaccination needs to be made a priority globally, Dr. Kates said. But data suggest lower-income countries are being left behind. In high-income countries, 65% of the population has been fully vaccinated, compared to 2% of people in the lowest-income countries. A KFF analysis projected that at the current rates of vaccination, these disparities will widen over time. COVID-19 testing rates in lower-income countries also lag. In high-income countries, 740 tests per 100,000 individuals are conducted daily; in low-income countries, that rate is 13 daily tests per 100,000 people. Until we can achieve more equitable access globally, the documented recovery of HIV is “precarious,” Dr. Kates said.

Ms. McGee agreed with Dr. Kates and was surprised by the extent of global inequities in the COVID-19 response. She said these issues should be a focus for the HIV health care community moving forward. “I think there are lot of us who have worked in the HIV field for many years – both domestically and internationally – who did not fully grasp the global disparities and need to consider how we can advocate for more equal access and distribution,” she said.

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

Over the past 2 years, the COVID-19 pandemic has caused numerous disruptions in health care, including in global HIV/AIDS services. But new data presented at the Association of Nurses in AIDS Care (ANAC) 2021 Annual Meeting suggest that practitioners quickly adapted to challenges posed by the pandemic, and care and prevention services around the world have begun to return to prepandemic levels.

These rebounding numbers “show how resilient the HIV system can be,” Jennifer Kates, PhD, senior vice president and director of global health and HIV policy at the Kaiser Family Foundation (KFF), said in an interview. She presented the data during her ANAC plenary talk on Nov. 11. Dr. Kates noted that continued recovery relies on improving global access to and delivery of COVID-19 vaccines. “If we do not have control of COVID, we are going to see endless cycles of impact,” she said during her talk.
 

COVID-19 and HIV services

Although there was concern that the pandemic could disrupt access to antiretrovirals, the Global Fund previously reported a nearly 9% increase in people receiving antiretroviral therapy (ART) from 2019 to 2020. HIV prevention and testing did take a hit: There was a 22% decrease in testing for HIV and an 11% decline in the number of people receiving HIV prevention services over that period.

New data from the President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR) showed similar trends. Consistent with the Global Fund’s findings, a KFF analysis of PEPFAR data found that the number of people receiving ART grew in 2020, climbing from 16.0 million in the first quarter (Q1) of 2020 to 17.4 million by the end of the year. The most recent data from PEPFAR suggest that the number had climbed to 18.4 million by September 2021.

However, there was a 24% decrease in the number of newly enrolled individuals receiving ART from Q2 to Q3 in 2020. It dipped from 669,436 to 509,509. There was a similar decrease in the number of people being tested for HIV, dropping 25% from an estimated 16,700 to 12,500 from Q2 to Q3. But by the end of the year, both measurements had rebounded: New enrollments in ART grew 31%, and HIV testing grew nearly 41% compared to Q3.

The DREAMS (Determined, Resilient, Empowered, AIDS-free, Mentored, and Safe) program, which is focused on adolescent girls and young women, saw a dip in preexposure prophylaxis (PrEP) and other preventive services in Q4 2020, but numbers surpassed prepandemic levels by June 2021.

PEPFAR helped speed recovery, Dr. Kates said, by providing guidance on COVID-19 protocols to the field and implementing innovations, such as accelerated 3- and 6-month medication dispensing, virtual platforms, and decentralized drug delivery. In addition, the U.S. Congress allocated $3.8 billion in emergency funding in fiscal year 2021 to help mitigate the effects of COVID-19 on HIV and AIDS care.
 

Longer-term outcomes still unclear

Although these numbers are encouraging, some of the effects of COVID-19 on the HIV epidemic are still unknown – in particular, whether these documented dips in preventive services will translate to an increase in new infections. This will not be clear until a year or 2 from now, Dr. Kates noted. Increased use of ART as well as an increase in some behaviors associated with the pandemic, such as decreased social contact, are factors that mitigate an increase in the rate of infections, she said, but “how that all is going to play out we don’t know for sure.”

Other conference attendees expressed anxiety about the possibility of an increase in the rate of infections. “I’m waiting for the other shoe to drop, as it were,” Barb Cardell, training and technical assistance director at Positive Women’s Network–USA, in Oakland, Calif., said in an interview. The Positive Women’s Network is a national organization of women living with HIV. “Starting late in 2019, we have been cautioning public health officials in states and federally that there will likely be an uptick in HIV diagnosis as we return to whatever ‘normal’ looks like these days,” Ms. Cardell noted, adding, “We have all heard stories of folks that had an exposure and weren’t able to access PrEP during the pandemic and hence seroconverted.”

Kara McGee, associate clinical professor at Duke University School of Nursing, Durham, N.C., shared similar sentiments. “Many people at risk of acquiring HIV had trouble accessing testing and prevention prior to the pandemic, and service interruptions due to the COVID-19 pandemic have only worsened access – especially in rural areas,” she told this news organization.

Need for equitable vaccine access

For HIV services to continue to rebound, COVID-19 vaccination needs to be made a priority globally, Dr. Kates said. But data suggest lower-income countries are being left behind. In high-income countries, 65% of the population has been fully vaccinated, compared to 2% of people in the lowest-income countries. A KFF analysis projected that at the current rates of vaccination, these disparities will widen over time. COVID-19 testing rates in lower-income countries also lag. In high-income countries, 740 tests per 100,000 individuals are conducted daily; in low-income countries, that rate is 13 daily tests per 100,000 people. Until we can achieve more equitable access globally, the documented recovery of HIV is “precarious,” Dr. Kates said.

Ms. McGee agreed with Dr. Kates and was surprised by the extent of global inequities in the COVID-19 response. She said these issues should be a focus for the HIV health care community moving forward. “I think there are lot of us who have worked in the HIV field for many years – both domestically and internationally – who did not fully grasp the global disparities and need to consider how we can advocate for more equal access and distribution,” she said.

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

Over the past 2 years, the COVID-19 pandemic has caused numerous disruptions in health care, including in global HIV/AIDS services. But new data presented at the Association of Nurses in AIDS Care (ANAC) 2021 Annual Meeting suggest that practitioners quickly adapted to challenges posed by the pandemic, and care and prevention services around the world have begun to return to prepandemic levels.

These rebounding numbers “show how resilient the HIV system can be,” Jennifer Kates, PhD, senior vice president and director of global health and HIV policy at the Kaiser Family Foundation (KFF), said in an interview. She presented the data during her ANAC plenary talk on Nov. 11. Dr. Kates noted that continued recovery relies on improving global access to and delivery of COVID-19 vaccines. “If we do not have control of COVID, we are going to see endless cycles of impact,” she said during her talk.
 

COVID-19 and HIV services

Although there was concern that the pandemic could disrupt access to antiretrovirals, the Global Fund previously reported a nearly 9% increase in people receiving antiretroviral therapy (ART) from 2019 to 2020. HIV prevention and testing did take a hit: There was a 22% decrease in testing for HIV and an 11% decline in the number of people receiving HIV prevention services over that period.

New data from the President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR) showed similar trends. Consistent with the Global Fund’s findings, a KFF analysis of PEPFAR data found that the number of people receiving ART grew in 2020, climbing from 16.0 million in the first quarter (Q1) of 2020 to 17.4 million by the end of the year. The most recent data from PEPFAR suggest that the number had climbed to 18.4 million by September 2021.

However, there was a 24% decrease in the number of newly enrolled individuals receiving ART from Q2 to Q3 in 2020. It dipped from 669,436 to 509,509. There was a similar decrease in the number of people being tested for HIV, dropping 25% from an estimated 16,700 to 12,500 from Q2 to Q3. But by the end of the year, both measurements had rebounded: New enrollments in ART grew 31%, and HIV testing grew nearly 41% compared to Q3.

The DREAMS (Determined, Resilient, Empowered, AIDS-free, Mentored, and Safe) program, which is focused on adolescent girls and young women, saw a dip in preexposure prophylaxis (PrEP) and other preventive services in Q4 2020, but numbers surpassed prepandemic levels by June 2021.

PEPFAR helped speed recovery, Dr. Kates said, by providing guidance on COVID-19 protocols to the field and implementing innovations, such as accelerated 3- and 6-month medication dispensing, virtual platforms, and decentralized drug delivery. In addition, the U.S. Congress allocated $3.8 billion in emergency funding in fiscal year 2021 to help mitigate the effects of COVID-19 on HIV and AIDS care.
 

Longer-term outcomes still unclear

Although these numbers are encouraging, some of the effects of COVID-19 on the HIV epidemic are still unknown – in particular, whether these documented dips in preventive services will translate to an increase in new infections. This will not be clear until a year or 2 from now, Dr. Kates noted. Increased use of ART as well as an increase in some behaviors associated with the pandemic, such as decreased social contact, are factors that mitigate an increase in the rate of infections, she said, but “how that all is going to play out we don’t know for sure.”

Other conference attendees expressed anxiety about the possibility of an increase in the rate of infections. “I’m waiting for the other shoe to drop, as it were,” Barb Cardell, training and technical assistance director at Positive Women’s Network–USA, in Oakland, Calif., said in an interview. The Positive Women’s Network is a national organization of women living with HIV. “Starting late in 2019, we have been cautioning public health officials in states and federally that there will likely be an uptick in HIV diagnosis as we return to whatever ‘normal’ looks like these days,” Ms. Cardell noted, adding, “We have all heard stories of folks that had an exposure and weren’t able to access PrEP during the pandemic and hence seroconverted.”

Kara McGee, associate clinical professor at Duke University School of Nursing, Durham, N.C., shared similar sentiments. “Many people at risk of acquiring HIV had trouble accessing testing and prevention prior to the pandemic, and service interruptions due to the COVID-19 pandemic have only worsened access – especially in rural areas,” she told this news organization.

Need for equitable vaccine access

For HIV services to continue to rebound, COVID-19 vaccination needs to be made a priority globally, Dr. Kates said. But data suggest lower-income countries are being left behind. In high-income countries, 65% of the population has been fully vaccinated, compared to 2% of people in the lowest-income countries. A KFF analysis projected that at the current rates of vaccination, these disparities will widen over time. COVID-19 testing rates in lower-income countries also lag. In high-income countries, 740 tests per 100,000 individuals are conducted daily; in low-income countries, that rate is 13 daily tests per 100,000 people. Until we can achieve more equitable access globally, the documented recovery of HIV is “precarious,” Dr. Kates said.

Ms. McGee agreed with Dr. Kates and was surprised by the extent of global inequities in the COVID-19 response. She said these issues should be a focus for the HIV health care community moving forward. “I think there are lot of us who have worked in the HIV field for many years – both domestically and internationally – who did not fully grasp the global disparities and need to consider how we can advocate for more equal access and distribution,” she said.

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

The Food and Drug Administration has given the green light to third, or booster doses of the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines for everyone over the age of 18, ahead of the busy winter holiday season.

“Authorizing the use of a single booster dose of either the Moderna or Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine for individuals 18 years of age and older helps to provide continued protection against COVID-19, including the serious consequences that can occur, such as hospitalization and death,” said acting FDA Commissioner Janet Woodcock, MD, in an FDA press statement.

The Center for Disease Control and Prevention’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices will meet on Nov. 19 to review the science supporting a more widespread need for booster doses, and is expected to vote on official recommendations for their use in the United States. The CDC director must then sign off on the panel’s recommendations.

“As soon as the FDA reviews those data and provides an authorization, we at CDC will act swiftly,” Rochelle P. Walensky, MD, MPH, said at a recent White House briefing.

Several states – including Louisiana, Maine, and Colorado – have already authorized boosters for all adults as cases rise in Europe and across the Western and Northeastern regions of the United States.

FDA officials said they hoped that widening eligibility for boosters would cut down on confusion for people and hopefully speed uptake of the shots.

“Streamlining the eligibility criteria and making booster doses available to all individuals 18 years of age and older will also help to eliminate confusion about who may receive a booster dose and ensure booster doses are available to all who may need one,” said Peter Marks, MD, PhD, who heads the FDA’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research.

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

The Food and Drug Administration has given the green light to third, or booster doses of the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines for everyone over the age of 18, ahead of the busy winter holiday season.

“Authorizing the use of a single booster dose of either the Moderna or Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine for individuals 18 years of age and older helps to provide continued protection against COVID-19, including the serious consequences that can occur, such as hospitalization and death,” said acting FDA Commissioner Janet Woodcock, MD, in an FDA press statement.

The Center for Disease Control and Prevention’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices will meet on Nov. 19 to review the science supporting a more widespread need for booster doses, and is expected to vote on official recommendations for their use in the United States. The CDC director must then sign off on the panel’s recommendations.

“As soon as the FDA reviews those data and provides an authorization, we at CDC will act swiftly,” Rochelle P. Walensky, MD, MPH, said at a recent White House briefing.

Several states – including Louisiana, Maine, and Colorado – have already authorized boosters for all adults as cases rise in Europe and across the Western and Northeastern regions of the United States.

FDA officials said they hoped that widening eligibility for boosters would cut down on confusion for people and hopefully speed uptake of the shots.

“Streamlining the eligibility criteria and making booster doses available to all individuals 18 years of age and older will also help to eliminate confusion about who may receive a booster dose and ensure booster doses are available to all who may need one,” said Peter Marks, MD, PhD, who heads the FDA’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research.

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

The Food and Drug Administration has given the green light to third, or booster doses of the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines for everyone over the age of 18, ahead of the busy winter holiday season.

“Authorizing the use of a single booster dose of either the Moderna or Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine for individuals 18 years of age and older helps to provide continued protection against COVID-19, including the serious consequences that can occur, such as hospitalization and death,” said acting FDA Commissioner Janet Woodcock, MD, in an FDA press statement.

The Center for Disease Control and Prevention’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices will meet on Nov. 19 to review the science supporting a more widespread need for booster doses, and is expected to vote on official recommendations for their use in the United States. The CDC director must then sign off on the panel’s recommendations.

“As soon as the FDA reviews those data and provides an authorization, we at CDC will act swiftly,” Rochelle P. Walensky, MD, MPH, said at a recent White House briefing.

Several states – including Louisiana, Maine, and Colorado – have already authorized boosters for all adults as cases rise in Europe and across the Western and Northeastern regions of the United States.

FDA officials said they hoped that widening eligibility for boosters would cut down on confusion for people and hopefully speed uptake of the shots.

“Streamlining the eligibility criteria and making booster doses available to all individuals 18 years of age and older will also help to eliminate confusion about who may receive a booster dose and ensure booster doses are available to all who may need one,” said Peter Marks, MD, PhD, who heads the FDA’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research.

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

When people wear face masks to reduce the spread of the coronavirus, the number of new COVID-19 infections drops by 53%, according to a new study published Nov. 18 in the British Medical Journal.

Social distancing and handwashing were also effective at lowering the number of cases, but wearing masks was the most effective tool against the coronavirus.

“Personal and social measures, including handwashing, mask wearing, and physical distancing are effective at reducing the incidence of COVID-19,” the study authors wrote.

The research team, which included public health and infectious disease specialists in Australia, China, and the U.K., evaluated 72 studies of COVID-19 precautions during the pandemic. They later looked at eight studies that focused on handwashing, mask wearing, and physical distancing.

Among six studies that looked at mask wearing, the researchers found a 53% reduction in COVID-19 cases. In the broader analysis with additional studies, wearing a mask reduced coronavirus transmission, cases, and deaths.

In one study across 200 countries, mandatory mask wearing resulted in nearly 46% fewer negative outcomes from COVID-19. In another study in the U.S., coronavirus transmission was reduced 29% in states where masks were mandatory.

But the research team couldn’t analyze the impact of the type of face mask used, the frequency of mask wearing, or the overall compliance with wearing face masks.

Among five studies that looked at physical distancing, the researchers found a 25% reduction in the rate of COVID-19. A study in the U.S. showed a 12% decrease in coronavirus transmission, while another study in Iran reported a reduction in COVID-19 mortality.

Handwashing interventions also suggested a substantial reduction of COVID-19 cases up to 53%, the researchers wrote. But in adjusted models, the results weren’t statistically significant due to the small number of studies included.

Other studies found significant decreases related to other public health measures, such as quarantines, broad lockdowns, border closures, school closures, business closures, and travel restrictions. Still, the research team couldn’t analyze the overall effectiveness of these measures due to the different ways the studies were conducted.

The study lines up with other research conducted so far during the pandemic, the research team wrote, which indicates that wearing masks and physical distancing can reduce transmission, cases, and deaths.

That said, more studies are needed, particularly now that vaccinations are available and contagious coronavirus variants have become prevalent.

“Further research is needed to assess the effectiveness of public health measures after adequate vaccination coverage has been achieved,” they wrote.

“It is likely that further control of the COVID-19 pandemic depends not only on high vaccination coverage and its effectiveness but also on ongoing adherence to effective and sustainable public health measures,” they concluded.

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

When people wear face masks to reduce the spread of the coronavirus, the number of new COVID-19 infections drops by 53%, according to a new study published Nov. 18 in the British Medical Journal.

Social distancing and handwashing were also effective at lowering the number of cases, but wearing masks was the most effective tool against the coronavirus.

“Personal and social measures, including handwashing, mask wearing, and physical distancing are effective at reducing the incidence of COVID-19,” the study authors wrote.

The research team, which included public health and infectious disease specialists in Australia, China, and the U.K., evaluated 72 studies of COVID-19 precautions during the pandemic. They later looked at eight studies that focused on handwashing, mask wearing, and physical distancing.

Among six studies that looked at mask wearing, the researchers found a 53% reduction in COVID-19 cases. In the broader analysis with additional studies, wearing a mask reduced coronavirus transmission, cases, and deaths.

In one study across 200 countries, mandatory mask wearing resulted in nearly 46% fewer negative outcomes from COVID-19. In another study in the U.S., coronavirus transmission was reduced 29% in states where masks were mandatory.

But the research team couldn’t analyze the impact of the type of face mask used, the frequency of mask wearing, or the overall compliance with wearing face masks.

Among five studies that looked at physical distancing, the researchers found a 25% reduction in the rate of COVID-19. A study in the U.S. showed a 12% decrease in coronavirus transmission, while another study in Iran reported a reduction in COVID-19 mortality.

Handwashing interventions also suggested a substantial reduction of COVID-19 cases up to 53%, the researchers wrote. But in adjusted models, the results weren’t statistically significant due to the small number of studies included.

Other studies found significant decreases related to other public health measures, such as quarantines, broad lockdowns, border closures, school closures, business closures, and travel restrictions. Still, the research team couldn’t analyze the overall effectiveness of these measures due to the different ways the studies were conducted.

The study lines up with other research conducted so far during the pandemic, the research team wrote, which indicates that wearing masks and physical distancing can reduce transmission, cases, and deaths.

That said, more studies are needed, particularly now that vaccinations are available and contagious coronavirus variants have become prevalent.

“Further research is needed to assess the effectiveness of public health measures after adequate vaccination coverage has been achieved,” they wrote.

“It is likely that further control of the COVID-19 pandemic depends not only on high vaccination coverage and its effectiveness but also on ongoing adherence to effective and sustainable public health measures,” they concluded.

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

When people wear face masks to reduce the spread of the coronavirus, the number of new COVID-19 infections drops by 53%, according to a new study published Nov. 18 in the British Medical Journal.

Social distancing and handwashing were also effective at lowering the number of cases, but wearing masks was the most effective tool against the coronavirus.

“Personal and social measures, including handwashing, mask wearing, and physical distancing are effective at reducing the incidence of COVID-19,” the study authors wrote.

The research team, which included public health and infectious disease specialists in Australia, China, and the U.K., evaluated 72 studies of COVID-19 precautions during the pandemic. They later looked at eight studies that focused on handwashing, mask wearing, and physical distancing.

Among six studies that looked at mask wearing, the researchers found a 53% reduction in COVID-19 cases. In the broader analysis with additional studies, wearing a mask reduced coronavirus transmission, cases, and deaths.

In one study across 200 countries, mandatory mask wearing resulted in nearly 46% fewer negative outcomes from COVID-19. In another study in the U.S., coronavirus transmission was reduced 29% in states where masks were mandatory.

But the research team couldn’t analyze the impact of the type of face mask used, the frequency of mask wearing, or the overall compliance with wearing face masks.

Among five studies that looked at physical distancing, the researchers found a 25% reduction in the rate of COVID-19. A study in the U.S. showed a 12% decrease in coronavirus transmission, while another study in Iran reported a reduction in COVID-19 mortality.

Handwashing interventions also suggested a substantial reduction of COVID-19 cases up to 53%, the researchers wrote. But in adjusted models, the results weren’t statistically significant due to the small number of studies included.

Other studies found significant decreases related to other public health measures, such as quarantines, broad lockdowns, border closures, school closures, business closures, and travel restrictions. Still, the research team couldn’t analyze the overall effectiveness of these measures due to the different ways the studies were conducted.

The study lines up with other research conducted so far during the pandemic, the research team wrote, which indicates that wearing masks and physical distancing can reduce transmission, cases, and deaths.

That said, more studies are needed, particularly now that vaccinations are available and contagious coronavirus variants have become prevalent.

“Further research is needed to assess the effectiveness of public health measures after adequate vaccination coverage has been achieved,” they wrote.

“It is likely that further control of the COVID-19 pandemic depends not only on high vaccination coverage and its effectiveness but also on ongoing adherence to effective and sustainable public health measures,” they concluded.

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

Mounting evidence suggests selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRI) are associated with lower COVID-19 severity.

A large analysis of health records shows patients with COVID-19 taking an SSRI were significantly less likely to die of COVID-19 than a matched control group.

Data-driven approach

Investigators analyzed data from the Cerner Real World Data COVID-19 deidentified electronic health records database of 490,373 patients with COVID-19 across 87 health centers, including 3,401 patients who were prescribed SSRIs.

When compared with matched patients with COVID-19 taking SSRIs, patients taking fluoxetine were 28% less likely to die (relative risk, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.54-0.97; adjusted P = .03) and those taking either fluoxetine or fluvoxamine were 26% less likely to die (RR, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.55-0.99; adjusted P = .04) versus those not on these medications.

Patients with COVID-19 taking any kind of SSRI were 8% less likely to die than the matched controls (RR, 0.92; 95% CI, 0.85-0.99; adjusted P = .03).

“We observed a statistically significant reduction in mortality of COVID-19 patients who were already taking SSRIs. This is a demonstration of a data-driven approach for identifying new uses for existing drugs,” Dr. Sirota said in an interview.

“Our study simply shows an association between SSRIs and COVID-19 outcomes and doesn’t investigate the mechanism of action of why the drugs might work. Additional clinical trials need to be carried out before these drugs can be used in patients going forward,” she cautioned.

“There is currently an open-label trial investigating fluoxetine to reduce intubation and death after COVID-19. To our knowledge, there are no phase 3 randomized controlled trials taking place or planned,” study investigator Tomiko Oskotsky, MD, with UCSF, told this news organization.

Urgent need

The current results “confirm and expand on prior findings from observational, preclinical, and clinical studies suggesting that certain SSRI antidepressants, including fluoxetine or fluvoxamine, could be beneficial against COVID-19,” Nicolas Hoertel, MD, PhD, MPH, with Paris University and Corentin-Celton Hospital, France, writes in a linked editorial.

Dr. Hoertel notes that the anti-inflammatory properties of SSRIs may underlie their potential action against COVID-19, and other potential mechanisms may include reduction in platelet aggregation, decreased mast cell degranulation, increased melatonin levels, interference with endolysosomal viral trafficking, and antioxidant activities.

“Because most of the world’s population is currently unvaccinated and the COVID-19 pandemic is still active, effective treatments of COVID-19 – especially those that are easy to use, show good tolerability, can be administered orally, and have widespread availability at low cost to allow their use in resource-poor countries – are urgently needed to reduce COVID-19-related mortality and morbidity,” Dr. Hoertel points out.

“In this context, short-term use of fluoxetine or fluvoxamine, if proven effective, should be considered as a potential means of reaching this goal,” he adds.

The study was supported by the Christopher Hess Research Fund and, in part, by UCSF and the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Sirota has reported serving as a scientific advisor at Aria Pharmaceuticals. Dr. Hoertel has reported being listed as an inventor on a patent application related to methods of treating COVID-19, filed by Assistance Publique-Hopitaux de Paris, and receiving consulting fees and nonfinancial support from Lundbeck.

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

Mounting evidence suggests selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRI) are associated with lower COVID-19 severity.

A large analysis of health records shows patients with COVID-19 taking an SSRI were significantly less likely to die of COVID-19 than a matched control group.

Data-driven approach

Investigators analyzed data from the Cerner Real World Data COVID-19 deidentified electronic health records database of 490,373 patients with COVID-19 across 87 health centers, including 3,401 patients who were prescribed SSRIs.

When compared with matched patients with COVID-19 taking SSRIs, patients taking fluoxetine were 28% less likely to die (relative risk, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.54-0.97; adjusted P = .03) and those taking either fluoxetine or fluvoxamine were 26% less likely to die (RR, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.55-0.99; adjusted P = .04) versus those not on these medications.

Patients with COVID-19 taking any kind of SSRI were 8% less likely to die than the matched controls (RR, 0.92; 95% CI, 0.85-0.99; adjusted P = .03).

“We observed a statistically significant reduction in mortality of COVID-19 patients who were already taking SSRIs. This is a demonstration of a data-driven approach for identifying new uses for existing drugs,” Dr. Sirota said in an interview.

“Our study simply shows an association between SSRIs and COVID-19 outcomes and doesn’t investigate the mechanism of action of why the drugs might work. Additional clinical trials need to be carried out before these drugs can be used in patients going forward,” she cautioned.

“There is currently an open-label trial investigating fluoxetine to reduce intubation and death after COVID-19. To our knowledge, there are no phase 3 randomized controlled trials taking place or planned,” study investigator Tomiko Oskotsky, MD, with UCSF, told this news organization.

Urgent need

The current results “confirm and expand on prior findings from observational, preclinical, and clinical studies suggesting that certain SSRI antidepressants, including fluoxetine or fluvoxamine, could be beneficial against COVID-19,” Nicolas Hoertel, MD, PhD, MPH, with Paris University and Corentin-Celton Hospital, France, writes in a linked editorial.

Dr. Hoertel notes that the anti-inflammatory properties of SSRIs may underlie their potential action against COVID-19, and other potential mechanisms may include reduction in platelet aggregation, decreased mast cell degranulation, increased melatonin levels, interference with endolysosomal viral trafficking, and antioxidant activities.

“Because most of the world’s population is currently unvaccinated and the COVID-19 pandemic is still active, effective treatments of COVID-19 – especially those that are easy to use, show good tolerability, can be administered orally, and have widespread availability at low cost to allow their use in resource-poor countries – are urgently needed to reduce COVID-19-related mortality and morbidity,” Dr. Hoertel points out.

“In this context, short-term use of fluoxetine or fluvoxamine, if proven effective, should be considered as a potential means of reaching this goal,” he adds.

The study was supported by the Christopher Hess Research Fund and, in part, by UCSF and the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Sirota has reported serving as a scientific advisor at Aria Pharmaceuticals. Dr. Hoertel has reported being listed as an inventor on a patent application related to methods of treating COVID-19, filed by Assistance Publique-Hopitaux de Paris, and receiving consulting fees and nonfinancial support from Lundbeck.

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

Mounting evidence suggests selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRI) are associated with lower COVID-19 severity.

A large analysis of health records shows patients with COVID-19 taking an SSRI were significantly less likely to die of COVID-19 than a matched control group.

Data-driven approach

Investigators analyzed data from the Cerner Real World Data COVID-19 deidentified electronic health records database of 490,373 patients with COVID-19 across 87 health centers, including 3,401 patients who were prescribed SSRIs.

When compared with matched patients with COVID-19 taking SSRIs, patients taking fluoxetine were 28% less likely to die (relative risk, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.54-0.97; adjusted P = .03) and those taking either fluoxetine or fluvoxamine were 26% less likely to die (RR, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.55-0.99; adjusted P = .04) versus those not on these medications.

Patients with COVID-19 taking any kind of SSRI were 8% less likely to die than the matched controls (RR, 0.92; 95% CI, 0.85-0.99; adjusted P = .03).

“We observed a statistically significant reduction in mortality of COVID-19 patients who were already taking SSRIs. This is a demonstration of a data-driven approach for identifying new uses for existing drugs,” Dr. Sirota said in an interview.

“Our study simply shows an association between SSRIs and COVID-19 outcomes and doesn’t investigate the mechanism of action of why the drugs might work. Additional clinical trials need to be carried out before these drugs can be used in patients going forward,” she cautioned.

“There is currently an open-label trial investigating fluoxetine to reduce intubation and death after COVID-19. To our knowledge, there are no phase 3 randomized controlled trials taking place or planned,” study investigator Tomiko Oskotsky, MD, with UCSF, told this news organization.

Urgent need

The current results “confirm and expand on prior findings from observational, preclinical, and clinical studies suggesting that certain SSRI antidepressants, including fluoxetine or fluvoxamine, could be beneficial against COVID-19,” Nicolas Hoertel, MD, PhD, MPH, with Paris University and Corentin-Celton Hospital, France, writes in a linked editorial.

Dr. Hoertel notes that the anti-inflammatory properties of SSRIs may underlie their potential action against COVID-19, and other potential mechanisms may include reduction in platelet aggregation, decreased mast cell degranulation, increased melatonin levels, interference with endolysosomal viral trafficking, and antioxidant activities.

“Because most of the world’s population is currently unvaccinated and the COVID-19 pandemic is still active, effective treatments of COVID-19 – especially those that are easy to use, show good tolerability, can be administered orally, and have widespread availability at low cost to allow their use in resource-poor countries – are urgently needed to reduce COVID-19-related mortality and morbidity,” Dr. Hoertel points out.

“In this context, short-term use of fluoxetine or fluvoxamine, if proven effective, should be considered as a potential means of reaching this goal,” he adds.

The study was supported by the Christopher Hess Research Fund and, in part, by UCSF and the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Sirota has reported serving as a scientific advisor at Aria Pharmaceuticals. Dr. Hoertel has reported being listed as an inventor on a patent application related to methods of treating COVID-19, filed by Assistance Publique-Hopitaux de Paris, and receiving consulting fees and nonfinancial support from Lundbeck.

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

The SARS-CoV-2 pandemic has given added impetus for metagenomic testing using nanopore sequencing to progress from a research tool to routine clinical application. A study led by researchers from Guy’s and St. Thomas’ NHS Foundation Trust has shown the potential for clinical metagenomics to become a same-day test for identifying secondary infection in ventilated ICU patients. Getting results in hours rather than days would help to ensure rapid treatment with the correct antibiotic, minimize unnecessary prescriptions, and thus reduce the growing menace of antimicrobial resistance.

‘SARS-CoV-2 has put considerable strain on ICUs’

The researchers point out that the setting of an intensive care unit involves frequent staff-patient contact that imparts a risk of secondary or nosocomial infection. In addition, invasive ventilation may introduce organisms into the lungs and lead to ventilator-acquired pneumonia. This carries a high mortality and is responsible for up to 70% of antimicrobial prescribing, with current guidelines requiring empiric antibiotics pending culture results, which typically takes 2-4 days.

Many of these infection problems worsened during SARS-CoV-2. Expanded critical care capacity raised the risk of nosocomial infections, with attendant increased antimicrobial prescriptions and the threat of antimicrobial resistance. In addition, treatment of COVID-19 patients with steroid therapy potentially exacerbates bacterial or fungal infections.

The researchers, from the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Biomedical Research Centre at Guy’s and St. Thomas’ NHS Foundation Trust and King’s College London, in collaboration with the Quadram Institute in Norwich, Oxford Nanopore Technologies, and Viapath, the U.K.’s largest independent pathology service provider, noted that the pandemic thus reinforced “a need for rapid comprehensive diagnostics to improve antimicrobial stewardship and help prevent emergence and transmission of multi-drug-resistant organisms.”

“As soon as the pandemic started, our scientists realized there would be a benefit to sequencing genomes of all bacteria and fungi causing infection in COVID-19 patients while on ICU,” said Professor Jonathan Edgeworth, who led the research team.

“Within a few weeks we showed it can diagnose secondary infection, target antibiotic treatment, and detect outbreaks much earlier than current technologies – all from a single sample.”
 

Proof-of-concept study

The team performed a proof-of-concept study of nanopore metagenomics sequencing – a type of DNA sequencing that allows direct rapid unbiased detection of all organisms present in a clinical sample – on 43 surplus respiratory samples from 34 intubated COVID-19 patients with suspected secondary bacterial or fungal pneumonia. Patients were drawn from seven ICUs at St. Thomas’ Hospital, London over a 9-week period between April 11 and June 15 2020, during the first wave of COVID-19.

Their median age was 52, 70% were male, 47% White, and 44% Black or minority ethnicities. Median length of stay was 32 days and mortality 24%. Samples sent for metagenomic analysis and culture included 10 bronchoalveolar lavages, 6 tracheal aspirates, and 27 non-direct bronchoalveolar lavages.

The study, published in Genome Medicine, showed that an 8-hour metagenomics workflow was 92% sensitive (95% CI, 75% to 99%) and 82% specific (95% CI, 57% to 96%) for bacterial identification, based on culture-positive and culture-negative samples, respectively.

The main Gram-negative bacteria identified were Klebsiella spp. (53%), Citrobacter spp. (15%), and E coli (9%). The main Gram-positive bacteria were S aureus (9%), C striatum (24%) and Enterococcus spp. (12%). In addition, C albicans, other Candida spp. and Aspergillus spp. were cultured from 38%, 15%, and 9% of patients, respectively.

In every case, the initial antibiotics prescribed according to prevailing guideline recommendations would have been modified by metagenomic sequencing demonstrating the presence or absence of β-lactam-resistant genes carried by Enterobacterales.

Next day results of sequencing also detected Aspergillus fumigatus in four samples, with results 100% concordant with quantitative PCR for both the four positive and 39 negative samples. It identified two multi-drug–resistant outbreaks, one involving K pneumoniae ST307 affecting four patients and one a C striatum outbreak involving 14 patients across three ICUs.

Thus, a single sample can provide enough genetic sequence data to compare pathogen genomes with a database and accurately identify patients carrying the same strain, enabling early detection of outbreaks. This is the first time this combined benefit of a single test has been demonstrated, the team say.

Gordon Sanghera, CEO of Oxford Nanopore commented that “rapidly characterizing co-infections for precision prescribing is a vital next step for both COVID-19 patients and respiratory disease in general.”

Dr. Andrew Page of the Quadram Institute said: “We have been working on metagenomics technology for the last 7 years. It is great to see it applied to patient care during the COVID-19 pandemic.”

He said in an interview: “The pandemic has accelerated the transition from using sequencing purely in research labs to using it in the clinic to rapidly provide clinicians with information they can use to improve outcomes for patients.”
 

Potential to inform antimicrobial prescribing and infection control

“Clinical metagenomic testing provides accurate pathogen detection and antibiotic resistance prediction in a same-day laboratory workflow, with assembled genomes available the next day for genomic surveillance,” the researchers say.

The technology “could fundamentally change the multi-disciplinary team approach to managing ICU infections.” It has the potential to improve initial targeted antimicrobial treatment and infection control decisions, as well as help rapidly detect unsuspected outbreaks of multi-drug–resistant pathogens.

Professor Edgeworth told this news organization that since the study, “secondary bacterial and fungal infections have increased, perhaps due to immunomodulatory treatments or just the length of time patients spend on ICU recovering from COVID-19. This makes rapid diagnosis even more important to ensure patients get more targeted antibiotics earlier, rather than relying on generic guidelines.”

The team “are planning to move respiratory metagenomics into pilot service under our Trust’s quality improvement framework,” he revealed. This will enable them to gather data on patient benefits.  

“We also need to see how clinicians use these tests to improve antibiotic treatment, to stop antibiotics when not needed or to identify outbreaks earlier, and then how that translates into tangible benefits for individual patients and the wider NHS.”

He predicts that the technique will revolutionize the approach to prevention and treatment of serious infection in ICUs, and it is now planned to offer it as a clinical service for COVID-19 and influenza patients during the coming winter.

In addition, he said: “It can be equally applied to other samples such as tissue fluids and biopsies, including those removed at operation. It therefore has potential to impact on diagnostics for many clinical services, particularly if the progress is maintained at the current pace.”

This article first appeared on Medscape UK/Univadis.

The SARS-CoV-2 pandemic has given added impetus for metagenomic testing using nanopore sequencing to progress from a research tool to routine clinical application. A study led by researchers from Guy’s and St. Thomas’ NHS Foundation Trust has shown the potential for clinical metagenomics to become a same-day test for identifying secondary infection in ventilated ICU patients. Getting results in hours rather than days would help to ensure rapid treatment with the correct antibiotic, minimize unnecessary prescriptions, and thus reduce the growing menace of antimicrobial resistance.

‘SARS-CoV-2 has put considerable strain on ICUs’

The researchers point out that the setting of an intensive care unit involves frequent staff-patient contact that imparts a risk of secondary or nosocomial infection. In addition, invasive ventilation may introduce organisms into the lungs and lead to ventilator-acquired pneumonia. This carries a high mortality and is responsible for up to 70% of antimicrobial prescribing, with current guidelines requiring empiric antibiotics pending culture results, which typically takes 2-4 days.

Many of these infection problems worsened during SARS-CoV-2. Expanded critical care capacity raised the risk of nosocomial infections, with attendant increased antimicrobial prescriptions and the threat of antimicrobial resistance. In addition, treatment of COVID-19 patients with steroid therapy potentially exacerbates bacterial or fungal infections.

The researchers, from the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Biomedical Research Centre at Guy’s and St. Thomas’ NHS Foundation Trust and King’s College London, in collaboration with the Quadram Institute in Norwich, Oxford Nanopore Technologies, and Viapath, the U.K.’s largest independent pathology service provider, noted that the pandemic thus reinforced “a need for rapid comprehensive diagnostics to improve antimicrobial stewardship and help prevent emergence and transmission of multi-drug-resistant organisms.”

“As soon as the pandemic started, our scientists realized there would be a benefit to sequencing genomes of all bacteria and fungi causing infection in COVID-19 patients while on ICU,” said Professor Jonathan Edgeworth, who led the research team.

“Within a few weeks we showed it can diagnose secondary infection, target antibiotic treatment, and detect outbreaks much earlier than current technologies – all from a single sample.”
 

Proof-of-concept study

The team performed a proof-of-concept study of nanopore metagenomics sequencing – a type of DNA sequencing that allows direct rapid unbiased detection of all organisms present in a clinical sample – on 43 surplus respiratory samples from 34 intubated COVID-19 patients with suspected secondary bacterial or fungal pneumonia. Patients were drawn from seven ICUs at St. Thomas’ Hospital, London over a 9-week period between April 11 and June 15 2020, during the first wave of COVID-19.

Their median age was 52, 70% were male, 47% White, and 44% Black or minority ethnicities. Median length of stay was 32 days and mortality 24%. Samples sent for metagenomic analysis and culture included 10 bronchoalveolar lavages, 6 tracheal aspirates, and 27 non-direct bronchoalveolar lavages.

The study, published in Genome Medicine, showed that an 8-hour metagenomics workflow was 92% sensitive (95% CI, 75% to 99%) and 82% specific (95% CI, 57% to 96%) for bacterial identification, based on culture-positive and culture-negative samples, respectively.

The main Gram-negative bacteria identified were Klebsiella spp. (53%), Citrobacter spp. (15%), and E coli (9%). The main Gram-positive bacteria were S aureus (9%), C striatum (24%) and Enterococcus spp. (12%). In addition, C albicans, other Candida spp. and Aspergillus spp. were cultured from 38%, 15%, and 9% of patients, respectively.

In every case, the initial antibiotics prescribed according to prevailing guideline recommendations would have been modified by metagenomic sequencing demonstrating the presence or absence of β-lactam-resistant genes carried by Enterobacterales.

Next day results of sequencing also detected Aspergillus fumigatus in four samples, with results 100% concordant with quantitative PCR for both the four positive and 39 negative samples. It identified two multi-drug–resistant outbreaks, one involving K pneumoniae ST307 affecting four patients and one a C striatum outbreak involving 14 patients across three ICUs.

Thus, a single sample can provide enough genetic sequence data to compare pathogen genomes with a database and accurately identify patients carrying the same strain, enabling early detection of outbreaks. This is the first time this combined benefit of a single test has been demonstrated, the team say.

Gordon Sanghera, CEO of Oxford Nanopore commented that “rapidly characterizing co-infections for precision prescribing is a vital next step for both COVID-19 patients and respiratory disease in general.”

Dr. Andrew Page of the Quadram Institute said: “We have been working on metagenomics technology for the last 7 years. It is great to see it applied to patient care during the COVID-19 pandemic.”

He said in an interview: “The pandemic has accelerated the transition from using sequencing purely in research labs to using it in the clinic to rapidly provide clinicians with information they can use to improve outcomes for patients.”
 

Potential to inform antimicrobial prescribing and infection control

“Clinical metagenomic testing provides accurate pathogen detection and antibiotic resistance prediction in a same-day laboratory workflow, with assembled genomes available the next day for genomic surveillance,” the researchers say.

The technology “could fundamentally change the multi-disciplinary team approach to managing ICU infections.” It has the potential to improve initial targeted antimicrobial treatment and infection control decisions, as well as help rapidly detect unsuspected outbreaks of multi-drug–resistant pathogens.

Professor Edgeworth told this news organization that since the study, “secondary bacterial and fungal infections have increased, perhaps due to immunomodulatory treatments or just the length of time patients spend on ICU recovering from COVID-19. This makes rapid diagnosis even more important to ensure patients get more targeted antibiotics earlier, rather than relying on generic guidelines.”

The team “are planning to move respiratory metagenomics into pilot service under our Trust’s quality improvement framework,” he revealed. This will enable them to gather data on patient benefits.  

“We also need to see how clinicians use these tests to improve antibiotic treatment, to stop antibiotics when not needed or to identify outbreaks earlier, and then how that translates into tangible benefits for individual patients and the wider NHS.”

He predicts that the technique will revolutionize the approach to prevention and treatment of serious infection in ICUs, and it is now planned to offer it as a clinical service for COVID-19 and influenza patients during the coming winter.

In addition, he said: “It can be equally applied to other samples such as tissue fluids and biopsies, including those removed at operation. It therefore has potential to impact on diagnostics for many clinical services, particularly if the progress is maintained at the current pace.”

This article first appeared on Medscape UK/Univadis.

The SARS-CoV-2 pandemic has given added impetus for metagenomic testing using nanopore sequencing to progress from a research tool to routine clinical application. A study led by researchers from Guy’s and St. Thomas’ NHS Foundation Trust has shown the potential for clinical metagenomics to become a same-day test for identifying secondary infection in ventilated ICU patients. Getting results in hours rather than days would help to ensure rapid treatment with the correct antibiotic, minimize unnecessary prescriptions, and thus reduce the growing menace of antimicrobial resistance.

‘SARS-CoV-2 has put considerable strain on ICUs’

The researchers point out that the setting of an intensive care unit involves frequent staff-patient contact that imparts a risk of secondary or nosocomial infection. In addition, invasive ventilation may introduce organisms into the lungs and lead to ventilator-acquired pneumonia. This carries a high mortality and is responsible for up to 70% of antimicrobial prescribing, with current guidelines requiring empiric antibiotics pending culture results, which typically takes 2-4 days.

Many of these infection problems worsened during SARS-CoV-2. Expanded critical care capacity raised the risk of nosocomial infections, with attendant increased antimicrobial prescriptions and the threat of antimicrobial resistance. In addition, treatment of COVID-19 patients with steroid therapy potentially exacerbates bacterial or fungal infections.

The researchers, from the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Biomedical Research Centre at Guy’s and St. Thomas’ NHS Foundation Trust and King’s College London, in collaboration with the Quadram Institute in Norwich, Oxford Nanopore Technologies, and Viapath, the U.K.’s largest independent pathology service provider, noted that the pandemic thus reinforced “a need for rapid comprehensive diagnostics to improve antimicrobial stewardship and help prevent emergence and transmission of multi-drug-resistant organisms.”

“As soon as the pandemic started, our scientists realized there would be a benefit to sequencing genomes of all bacteria and fungi causing infection in COVID-19 patients while on ICU,” said Professor Jonathan Edgeworth, who led the research team.

“Within a few weeks we showed it can diagnose secondary infection, target antibiotic treatment, and detect outbreaks much earlier than current technologies – all from a single sample.”
 

Proof-of-concept study

The team performed a proof-of-concept study of nanopore metagenomics sequencing – a type of DNA sequencing that allows direct rapid unbiased detection of all organisms present in a clinical sample – on 43 surplus respiratory samples from 34 intubated COVID-19 patients with suspected secondary bacterial or fungal pneumonia. Patients were drawn from seven ICUs at St. Thomas’ Hospital, London over a 9-week period between April 11 and June 15 2020, during the first wave of COVID-19.

Their median age was 52, 70% were male, 47% White, and 44% Black or minority ethnicities. Median length of stay was 32 days and mortality 24%. Samples sent for metagenomic analysis and culture included 10 bronchoalveolar lavages, 6 tracheal aspirates, and 27 non-direct bronchoalveolar lavages.

The study, published in Genome Medicine, showed that an 8-hour metagenomics workflow was 92% sensitive (95% CI, 75% to 99%) and 82% specific (95% CI, 57% to 96%) for bacterial identification, based on culture-positive and culture-negative samples, respectively.

The main Gram-negative bacteria identified were Klebsiella spp. (53%), Citrobacter spp. (15%), and E coli (9%). The main Gram-positive bacteria were S aureus (9%), C striatum (24%) and Enterococcus spp. (12%). In addition, C albicans, other Candida spp. and Aspergillus spp. were cultured from 38%, 15%, and 9% of patients, respectively.

In every case, the initial antibiotics prescribed according to prevailing guideline recommendations would have been modified by metagenomic sequencing demonstrating the presence or absence of β-lactam-resistant genes carried by Enterobacterales.

Next day results of sequencing also detected Aspergillus fumigatus in four samples, with results 100% concordant with quantitative PCR for both the four positive and 39 negative samples. It identified two multi-drug–resistant outbreaks, one involving K pneumoniae ST307 affecting four patients and one a C striatum outbreak involving 14 patients across three ICUs.

Thus, a single sample can provide enough genetic sequence data to compare pathogen genomes with a database and accurately identify patients carrying the same strain, enabling early detection of outbreaks. This is the first time this combined benefit of a single test has been demonstrated, the team say.

Gordon Sanghera, CEO of Oxford Nanopore commented that “rapidly characterizing co-infections for precision prescribing is a vital next step for both COVID-19 patients and respiratory disease in general.”

Dr. Andrew Page of the Quadram Institute said: “We have been working on metagenomics technology for the last 7 years. It is great to see it applied to patient care during the COVID-19 pandemic.”

He said in an interview: “The pandemic has accelerated the transition from using sequencing purely in research labs to using it in the clinic to rapidly provide clinicians with information they can use to improve outcomes for patients.”
 

Potential to inform antimicrobial prescribing and infection control

“Clinical metagenomic testing provides accurate pathogen detection and antibiotic resistance prediction in a same-day laboratory workflow, with assembled genomes available the next day for genomic surveillance,” the researchers say.

The technology “could fundamentally change the multi-disciplinary team approach to managing ICU infections.” It has the potential to improve initial targeted antimicrobial treatment and infection control decisions, as well as help rapidly detect unsuspected outbreaks of multi-drug–resistant pathogens.

Professor Edgeworth told this news organization that since the study, “secondary bacterial and fungal infections have increased, perhaps due to immunomodulatory treatments or just the length of time patients spend on ICU recovering from COVID-19. This makes rapid diagnosis even more important to ensure patients get more targeted antibiotics earlier, rather than relying on generic guidelines.”

The team “are planning to move respiratory metagenomics into pilot service under our Trust’s quality improvement framework,” he revealed. This will enable them to gather data on patient benefits.  

“We also need to see how clinicians use these tests to improve antibiotic treatment, to stop antibiotics when not needed or to identify outbreaks earlier, and then how that translates into tangible benefits for individual patients and the wider NHS.”

He predicts that the technique will revolutionize the approach to prevention and treatment of serious infection in ICUs, and it is now planned to offer it as a clinical service for COVID-19 and influenza patients during the coming winter.

In addition, he said: “It can be equally applied to other samples such as tissue fluids and biopsies, including those removed at operation. It therefore has potential to impact on diagnostics for many clinical services, particularly if the progress is maintained at the current pace.”

This article first appeared on Medscape UK/Univadis.

A systematic review of studies of infections found no evidence of airborne transmission of respiratory or enteric pathogens in public washrooms, but some experts disagree with the study’s conclusions. The study was published in Science of the Total Environment.

Sotiris Vardoulakis, PhD, of the Australian National University, Canberra, and colleagues reviewed studies of infections associated with public washrooms.

The researchers used keywords to identify potential articles. After screening study abstracts to ensure that only publicly available washrooms with toilets, sinks, and hand dryers were included, 65 studies remained. The investigators excluded washrooms on public transportation (ships, planes, trains, and buses).

“What most of the studies concluded was that what’s really important is to have good hand hygiene and proper maintenance and ventilation of washrooms,” Dr. Vardoulakis said in an interview. “So if the hand washing and drying is effective in the first place, it’s unlikely that the bathroom air or surfaces will pose an infectious disease transmission risk.”

There has been ongoing debate on whether electric hand dryers or paper towels are better. Some studies focused on hygiene. Others focused on the environmental cost of paper towels. One concern is that air dryers might spread germs further.

One study focused on the idea that the air recirculation from electric dryers may spread infective aerosols. Another study determined that the Airblade filters in some electric dryers clean more than 99% of the bacteria. The first study, published in Mayo Clinic Proceedings by Cunrui Huang, MMed, MSPH, and colleagues, concluded that “drying hands thoroughly with single-use, disposable paper towels is the preferred method of hand drying in terms of hand hygiene.” Many people prefer to use paper towels because they can be used as a barrier when opening the washroom door.

Dr. Vardoulakis dismissed the air-versus-paper debate, saying, “If the hand washing and drying is effective in the first place, it’s unlikely that the bathroom air or surfaces will pose an infectious disease transmission risk.”

Although Dr. Vardoulakis’ review did not find that public washrooms pose a risk for infection, other researchers have shown that some settings do pose problems. For example, toilet plumes are thought to have contributed to the 2003 outbreak of severe acute respiratory syndrome at the Amoy Gardens housing complex in Hong Kong and nearby buildings by aerosolization of fecal waste. Also, norovirus has long been shown to be transmitted by aerosolized particles in vomitus or stool.

Rodney E. Rohde, PhD, professor and chair, clinical lab science program, Texas State University, San Marcos, expressed concern about this systematic review in an interview with this news organization. “I believe one of the major limitations is that studies which involved restrooms on planes, hotels, camping (those camp kids are nasty), and other similar public-access restrooms MUST be included in this type of review. I also believe they excluded restrooms from low-income/rural areas. WHAT? Their ultimate conclusions seem to be in line with the most current understanding about hand hygiene (including drying without devices that create strong air currents, which may create widespread emission of microbes).”

In an interview, Emanuel Goldman, PhD, professor of microbiology, biochemistry, and molecular genetics, New Jersey Medical School, Newark, focused on the COVID-specific aspects of the review. “The chances are less than 1 in 10,000 of getting COVID from a fomite, and that’s very conservative,” he said. “I think it’s a lot lower than that. The virus is fragile. It dies very quickly outside of a human host.” He emphasized, “virtually no infectious virus has been found on fomites over the last 2 years. ... A big mistake in a lot of papers is they confuse viral RNA with the virus. It’s not the same. Viral RNA is the genetic material of the virus, but it also is the ghost of the virus after the virus is dead, and that’s what people are finding. They’re finding the ghost of the virus.”

Because “studies show that the transfer from a surface to fingers is in the neighborhood of 10% efficiency” and one’s fingers also kill the virus, “transmission through your fingers is not easy,” Dr. Goldman said. “You’ve got to really work at it to deliberately infect yourself” with COVID from a fomite.

Dr. Rohde’s conclusion about Dr. Vardoulakis’s review? “So, the question may be, have there been enough studies, in general, of these other areas to include in a review? Otherwise, can we really generalize from this study? I don’t think so.”

Dr. Goldman is not worried about COVID transmission in public bathrooms. His summation: “I think indoor dining is more risky than anything else right now.”

The study was funded by Dyson Technology. Dr. Vardoulakis is a member of the Dyson scientific advisory board.

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

A systematic review of studies of infections found no evidence of airborne transmission of respiratory or enteric pathogens in public washrooms, but some experts disagree with the study’s conclusions. The study was published in Science of the Total Environment.

Sotiris Vardoulakis, PhD, of the Australian National University, Canberra, and colleagues reviewed studies of infections associated with public washrooms.

The researchers used keywords to identify potential articles. After screening study abstracts to ensure that only publicly available washrooms with toilets, sinks, and hand dryers were included, 65 studies remained. The investigators excluded washrooms on public transportation (ships, planes, trains, and buses).

“What most of the studies concluded was that what’s really important is to have good hand hygiene and proper maintenance and ventilation of washrooms,” Dr. Vardoulakis said in an interview. “So if the hand washing and drying is effective in the first place, it’s unlikely that the bathroom air or surfaces will pose an infectious disease transmission risk.”

There has been ongoing debate on whether electric hand dryers or paper towels are better. Some studies focused on hygiene. Others focused on the environmental cost of paper towels. One concern is that air dryers might spread germs further.

One study focused on the idea that the air recirculation from electric dryers may spread infective aerosols. Another study determined that the Airblade filters in some electric dryers clean more than 99% of the bacteria. The first study, published in Mayo Clinic Proceedings by Cunrui Huang, MMed, MSPH, and colleagues, concluded that “drying hands thoroughly with single-use, disposable paper towels is the preferred method of hand drying in terms of hand hygiene.” Many people prefer to use paper towels because they can be used as a barrier when opening the washroom door.

Dr. Vardoulakis dismissed the air-versus-paper debate, saying, “If the hand washing and drying is effective in the first place, it’s unlikely that the bathroom air or surfaces will pose an infectious disease transmission risk.”

Although Dr. Vardoulakis’ review did not find that public washrooms pose a risk for infection, other researchers have shown that some settings do pose problems. For example, toilet plumes are thought to have contributed to the 2003 outbreak of severe acute respiratory syndrome at the Amoy Gardens housing complex in Hong Kong and nearby buildings by aerosolization of fecal waste. Also, norovirus has long been shown to be transmitted by aerosolized particles in vomitus or stool.

Rodney E. Rohde, PhD, professor and chair, clinical lab science program, Texas State University, San Marcos, expressed concern about this systematic review in an interview with this news organization. “I believe one of the major limitations is that studies which involved restrooms on planes, hotels, camping (those camp kids are nasty), and other similar public-access restrooms MUST be included in this type of review. I also believe they excluded restrooms from low-income/rural areas. WHAT? Their ultimate conclusions seem to be in line with the most current understanding about hand hygiene (including drying without devices that create strong air currents, which may create widespread emission of microbes).”

In an interview, Emanuel Goldman, PhD, professor of microbiology, biochemistry, and molecular genetics, New Jersey Medical School, Newark, focused on the COVID-specific aspects of the review. “The chances are less than 1 in 10,000 of getting COVID from a fomite, and that’s very conservative,” he said. “I think it’s a lot lower than that. The virus is fragile. It dies very quickly outside of a human host.” He emphasized, “virtually no infectious virus has been found on fomites over the last 2 years. ... A big mistake in a lot of papers is they confuse viral RNA with the virus. It’s not the same. Viral RNA is the genetic material of the virus, but it also is the ghost of the virus after the virus is dead, and that’s what people are finding. They’re finding the ghost of the virus.”

Because “studies show that the transfer from a surface to fingers is in the neighborhood of 10% efficiency” and one’s fingers also kill the virus, “transmission through your fingers is not easy,” Dr. Goldman said. “You’ve got to really work at it to deliberately infect yourself” with COVID from a fomite.

Dr. Rohde’s conclusion about Dr. Vardoulakis’s review? “So, the question may be, have there been enough studies, in general, of these other areas to include in a review? Otherwise, can we really generalize from this study? I don’t think so.”

Dr. Goldman is not worried about COVID transmission in public bathrooms. His summation: “I think indoor dining is more risky than anything else right now.”

The study was funded by Dyson Technology. Dr. Vardoulakis is a member of the Dyson scientific advisory board.

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

A systematic review of studies of infections found no evidence of airborne transmission of respiratory or enteric pathogens in public washrooms, but some experts disagree with the study’s conclusions. The study was published in Science of the Total Environment.

Sotiris Vardoulakis, PhD, of the Australian National University, Canberra, and colleagues reviewed studies of infections associated with public washrooms.

The researchers used keywords to identify potential articles. After screening study abstracts to ensure that only publicly available washrooms with toilets, sinks, and hand dryers were included, 65 studies remained. The investigators excluded washrooms on public transportation (ships, planes, trains, and buses).

“What most of the studies concluded was that what’s really important is to have good hand hygiene and proper maintenance and ventilation of washrooms,” Dr. Vardoulakis said in an interview. “So if the hand washing and drying is effective in the first place, it’s unlikely that the bathroom air or surfaces will pose an infectious disease transmission risk.”

There has been ongoing debate on whether electric hand dryers or paper towels are better. Some studies focused on hygiene. Others focused on the environmental cost of paper towels. One concern is that air dryers might spread germs further.

One study focused on the idea that the air recirculation from electric dryers may spread infective aerosols. Another study determined that the Airblade filters in some electric dryers clean more than 99% of the bacteria. The first study, published in Mayo Clinic Proceedings by Cunrui Huang, MMed, MSPH, and colleagues, concluded that “drying hands thoroughly with single-use, disposable paper towels is the preferred method of hand drying in terms of hand hygiene.” Many people prefer to use paper towels because they can be used as a barrier when opening the washroom door.

Dr. Vardoulakis dismissed the air-versus-paper debate, saying, “If the hand washing and drying is effective in the first place, it’s unlikely that the bathroom air or surfaces will pose an infectious disease transmission risk.”

Although Dr. Vardoulakis’ review did not find that public washrooms pose a risk for infection, other researchers have shown that some settings do pose problems. For example, toilet plumes are thought to have contributed to the 2003 outbreak of severe acute respiratory syndrome at the Amoy Gardens housing complex in Hong Kong and nearby buildings by aerosolization of fecal waste. Also, norovirus has long been shown to be transmitted by aerosolized particles in vomitus or stool.

Rodney E. Rohde, PhD, professor and chair, clinical lab science program, Texas State University, San Marcos, expressed concern about this systematic review in an interview with this news organization. “I believe one of the major limitations is that studies which involved restrooms on planes, hotels, camping (those camp kids are nasty), and other similar public-access restrooms MUST be included in this type of review. I also believe they excluded restrooms from low-income/rural areas. WHAT? Their ultimate conclusions seem to be in line with the most current understanding about hand hygiene (including drying without devices that create strong air currents, which may create widespread emission of microbes).”

In an interview, Emanuel Goldman, PhD, professor of microbiology, biochemistry, and molecular genetics, New Jersey Medical School, Newark, focused on the COVID-specific aspects of the review. “The chances are less than 1 in 10,000 of getting COVID from a fomite, and that’s very conservative,” he said. “I think it’s a lot lower than that. The virus is fragile. It dies very quickly outside of a human host.” He emphasized, “virtually no infectious virus has been found on fomites over the last 2 years. ... A big mistake in a lot of papers is they confuse viral RNA with the virus. It’s not the same. Viral RNA is the genetic material of the virus, but it also is the ghost of the virus after the virus is dead, and that’s what people are finding. They’re finding the ghost of the virus.”

Because “studies show that the transfer from a surface to fingers is in the neighborhood of 10% efficiency” and one’s fingers also kill the virus, “transmission through your fingers is not easy,” Dr. Goldman said. “You’ve got to really work at it to deliberately infect yourself” with COVID from a fomite.

Dr. Rohde’s conclusion about Dr. Vardoulakis’s review? “So, the question may be, have there been enough studies, in general, of these other areas to include in a review? Otherwise, can we really generalize from this study? I don’t think so.”

Dr. Goldman is not worried about COVID transmission in public bathrooms. His summation: “I think indoor dining is more risky than anything else right now.”

The study was funded by Dyson Technology. Dr. Vardoulakis is a member of the Dyson scientific advisory board.

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

To the Editor:

There is emerging evidence of skin findings in patients with COVID-19, including perniolike changes of the toes as well as urticarial and vesicular eruptions.¹ Magro et al² reported 3 cases of livedoid and purpuric skin eruptions in critically ill COVID-19 patients with evidence of thrombotic vasculopathy on skin biopsy, including a 32-year-old man with striking buttocks retiform purpura. Histopathologic analysis revealed thrombotic vasculopathy and pressure-induced ischemic necrosis. Since that patient was first evaluated (March 2020), we identified 6 more cases of critically ill COVID-19 patients from a single academic hospital in New York City with essentially identical clinical findings. Herein, we report those 6 cases of critically ill and intubated patients with COVID-19 who developed retiform purpura on the buttocks only, approximately 11 to 21 days after onset of COVID-19 symptoms.

We provided consultation for 5 men and 1 woman (age range, 42–78 years) who were critically ill with COVID-19 and developed retiform purpura on the buttocks (Figures 1 and 2). All had an elevated D-dimer concentration: 2 patients, >700 ng/mL; 2 patients, >2000 ng/mL; 2 patients, >6000 ng/mL (reference, 229 ng/mL). Three patients experienced a peak D-dimer concentration on the day retiform purpura was reported.

Further evidence of coagulopathy in these patients included 1 patient with a newly diagnosed left popliteal deep vein thrombosis and 1 patient with a known history of protein C deficiency and deep vein thromboses. Five patients were receiving anticoagulation on the day the skin changes were documented; anticoagulation was contraindicated in the sixth patient because of oropharyngeal bleeding. Anticoagulation was continued at the treatment dosage (enoxaparin 80 mg twice daily) in 3 patients, and in 2 patients receiving a prophylactic dose (enoxaparin 40 mg daily), anticoagulation was escalated to treatment dose due to rising D-dimer levels and newly diagnosed retiform purpura. Skin biopsy was deferred for all patients due to positional and ventilatory restrictions. At that point in their care, 3 patients remained admitted on medicine floors, 2 were in the intensive care unit, and 1 had died.

Although the differential diagnosis for retiform purpura is broad and should be fully considered in any patient with this finding, based on the elevated D-dimer concentration, critical illness secondary to COVID-19, and striking similarity to earlier reported case of buttocks retiform purpura with thrombotic vasculopathy and pressure injury noted histopathologically,² we suspect the buttocks retiform purpura in our 6 cases also represent a combination of cutaneous thrombosis and pressure injury. In addition to acral livedoid eruptions (also reported by Magro and colleagues²), we suspect that this cutaneous manifestation might be associated with a hypercoagulable state in some patients, especially in the setting of a rising D-dimer concentration. One study found that 31% of 184 patients with severe COVID-19 had thrombotic complications,³ a clinical picture that portends a poor prognosis.⁴

COVID-19 patients presenting with retiform purpura should be fully evaluated based on the broad differential for this morphology. We present 6 cases of buttocks retiform purpura in critically ill COVID-19 patients—all with strikingly similar morphologic findings, an elevated D-dimer concentration, and critical illness due to COVID-19—to alert clinicians to this constellation of findings and propose that this cutaneous manifestation could indicate an associated hypercoaguable state and should prompt a hematology consultation. Additionally, biopsy of this skin finding should be considered, especially if biopsy results might serve to guide management; however, obtaining a biopsy specimen can be technically difficult because of ventilatory requirements.

Given the magnitude of the COVID-19 pandemic and the propensity of these patients to experience thrombotic events, recognition of this skin finding in COVID-19 is important and might allow timely intervention.

To the Editor:

There is emerging evidence of skin findings in patients with COVID-19, including perniolike changes of the toes as well as urticarial and vesicular eruptions.¹ Magro et al² reported 3 cases of livedoid and purpuric skin eruptions in critically ill COVID-19 patients with evidence of thrombotic vasculopathy on skin biopsy, including a 32-year-old man with striking buttocks retiform purpura. Histopathologic analysis revealed thrombotic vasculopathy and pressure-induced ischemic necrosis. Since that patient was first evaluated (March 2020), we identified 6 more cases of critically ill COVID-19 patients from a single academic hospital in New York City with essentially identical clinical findings. Herein, we report those 6 cases of critically ill and intubated patients with COVID-19 who developed retiform purpura on the buttocks only, approximately 11 to 21 days after onset of COVID-19 symptoms.

We provided consultation for 5 men and 1 woman (age range, 42–78 years) who were critically ill with COVID-19 and developed retiform purpura on the buttocks (Figures 1 and 2). All had an elevated D-dimer concentration: 2 patients, >700 ng/mL; 2 patients, >2000 ng/mL; 2 patients, >6000 ng/mL (reference, 229 ng/mL). Three patients experienced a peak D-dimer concentration on the day retiform purpura was reported.

Further evidence of coagulopathy in these patients included 1 patient with a newly diagnosed left popliteal deep vein thrombosis and 1 patient with a known history of protein C deficiency and deep vein thromboses. Five patients were receiving anticoagulation on the day the skin changes were documented; anticoagulation was contraindicated in the sixth patient because of oropharyngeal bleeding. Anticoagulation was continued at the treatment dosage (enoxaparin 80 mg twice daily) in 3 patients, and in 2 patients receiving a prophylactic dose (enoxaparin 40 mg daily), anticoagulation was escalated to treatment dose due to rising D-dimer levels and newly diagnosed retiform purpura. Skin biopsy was deferred for all patients due to positional and ventilatory restrictions. At that point in their care, 3 patients remained admitted on medicine floors, 2 were in the intensive care unit, and 1 had died.

Although the differential diagnosis for retiform purpura is broad and should be fully considered in any patient with this finding, based on the elevated D-dimer concentration, critical illness secondary to COVID-19, and striking similarity to earlier reported case of buttocks retiform purpura with thrombotic vasculopathy and pressure injury noted histopathologically,² we suspect the buttocks retiform purpura in our 6 cases also represent a combination of cutaneous thrombosis and pressure injury. In addition to acral livedoid eruptions (also reported by Magro and colleagues²), we suspect that this cutaneous manifestation might be associated with a hypercoagulable state in some patients, especially in the setting of a rising D-dimer concentration. One study found that 31% of 184 patients with severe COVID-19 had thrombotic complications,³ a clinical picture that portends a poor prognosis.⁴

COVID-19 patients presenting with retiform purpura should be fully evaluated based on the broad differential for this morphology. We present 6 cases of buttocks retiform purpura in critically ill COVID-19 patients—all with strikingly similar morphologic findings, an elevated D-dimer concentration, and critical illness due to COVID-19—to alert clinicians to this constellation of findings and propose that this cutaneous manifestation could indicate an associated hypercoaguable state and should prompt a hematology consultation. Additionally, biopsy of this skin finding should be considered, especially if biopsy results might serve to guide management; however, obtaining a biopsy specimen can be technically difficult because of ventilatory requirements.

Given the magnitude of the COVID-19 pandemic and the propensity of these patients to experience thrombotic events, recognition of this skin finding in COVID-19 is important and might allow timely intervention.

To the Editor:

There is emerging evidence of skin findings in patients with COVID-19, including perniolike changes of the toes as well as urticarial and vesicular eruptions.¹ Magro et al² reported 3 cases of livedoid and purpuric skin eruptions in critically ill COVID-19 patients with evidence of thrombotic vasculopathy on skin biopsy, including a 32-year-old man with striking buttocks retiform purpura. Histopathologic analysis revealed thrombotic vasculopathy and pressure-induced ischemic necrosis. Since that patient was first evaluated (March 2020), we identified 6 more cases of critically ill COVID-19 patients from a single academic hospital in New York City with essentially identical clinical findings. Herein, we report those 6 cases of critically ill and intubated patients with COVID-19 who developed retiform purpura on the buttocks only, approximately 11 to 21 days after onset of COVID-19 symptoms.

We provided consultation for 5 men and 1 woman (age range, 42–78 years) who were critically ill with COVID-19 and developed retiform purpura on the buttocks (Figures 1 and 2). All had an elevated D-dimer concentration: 2 patients, >700 ng/mL; 2 patients, >2000 ng/mL; 2 patients, >6000 ng/mL (reference, 229 ng/mL). Three patients experienced a peak D-dimer concentration on the day retiform purpura was reported.

Further evidence of coagulopathy in these patients included 1 patient with a newly diagnosed left popliteal deep vein thrombosis and 1 patient with a known history of protein C deficiency and deep vein thromboses. Five patients were receiving anticoagulation on the day the skin changes were documented; anticoagulation was contraindicated in the sixth patient because of oropharyngeal bleeding. Anticoagulation was continued at the treatment dosage (enoxaparin 80 mg twice daily) in 3 patients, and in 2 patients receiving a prophylactic dose (enoxaparin 40 mg daily), anticoagulation was escalated to treatment dose due to rising D-dimer levels and newly diagnosed retiform purpura. Skin biopsy was deferred for all patients due to positional and ventilatory restrictions. At that point in their care, 3 patients remained admitted on medicine floors, 2 were in the intensive care unit, and 1 had died.

Although the differential diagnosis for retiform purpura is broad and should be fully considered in any patient with this finding, based on the elevated D-dimer concentration, critical illness secondary to COVID-19, and striking similarity to earlier reported case of buttocks retiform purpura with thrombotic vasculopathy and pressure injury noted histopathologically,² we suspect the buttocks retiform purpura in our 6 cases also represent a combination of cutaneous thrombosis and pressure injury. In addition to acral livedoid eruptions (also reported by Magro and colleagues²), we suspect that this cutaneous manifestation might be associated with a hypercoagulable state in some patients, especially in the setting of a rising D-dimer concentration. One study found that 31% of 184 patients with severe COVID-19 had thrombotic complications,³ a clinical picture that portends a poor prognosis.⁴

COVID-19 patients presenting with retiform purpura should be fully evaluated based on the broad differential for this morphology. We present 6 cases of buttocks retiform purpura in critically ill COVID-19 patients—all with strikingly similar morphologic findings, an elevated D-dimer concentration, and critical illness due to COVID-19—to alert clinicians to this constellation of findings and propose that this cutaneous manifestation could indicate an associated hypercoaguable state and should prompt a hematology consultation. Additionally, biopsy of this skin finding should be considered, especially if biopsy results might serve to guide management; however, obtaining a biopsy specimen can be technically difficult because of ventilatory requirements.

Given the magnitude of the COVID-19 pandemic and the propensity of these patients to experience thrombotic events, recognition of this skin finding in COVID-19 is important and might allow timely intervention.

To the Editor:

A 56-year-old man with a history of opioid abuse and splenectomy decades prior due to a motor vehicle accident was brought to an outside emergency department with confusion, slurred speech, and difficulty breathing. Over the next few days, he became febrile and hypotensive, requiring vasopressors. Clinical laboratory testing revealed a urine drug screen positive for opioids and a low platelet count in the setting of a rapidly evolving retiform purpuric rash.

The patient was transferred to our institution 6 days after initial presentation with primary diagnoses of septic shock with multiorgan failure and disseminated intravascular coagulation (DIC). Blood cultures were positive for gram-negative rods. After several days of broad-spectrum antibiotics and supportive care, cultures were reported as positive for Capnocytophaga canimorsus. Upon further questioning, the patient’s wife reported that the couple had a new puppy and that the patient often allowed the dog to bite him playfully and lick abrasions on his hands and legs. He had not received medical treatment for any of the dog’s bites.

On initial examination at the time of transfer, the patient’s skin was remarkable for diffuse areas of stellate and retiform purpura with dusky centers and necrosis of the nasal tip and earlobes. Both hands were purpuric, with necrosis of the fingertips (Figure 1A). The flank was marked by large areas of full-thickness sloughing of the skin (Figure 1B). The lower extremities were edematous, with some areas of stellate purpura and numerous large bullae that drained straw-colored fluid (Figure 1C). Lower extremity pulses were found with Doppler ultrasonography.

Given the presence of rapidly developing retiform purpura in the clinical context of severe sepsis, purpura fulminans (PF) was the primary consideration in the differential diagnosis. Levamisole-induced necrosis syndrome also was considered because of necrosis of the ears and nose as well as the history of substance use; however, the patient was not known to have a history of cocaine abuse, and a test of antineutrophil cytoplasmic antibody was negative.

A punch biopsy of the abdomen revealed intravascular thrombi with epidermal and sweat gland necrosis, consistent with PF (Figure 2). Gram, Giemsa, and Gomori methenamine-silver stains were negative for organisms. Tissue culture remained negative. Repeat blood cultures demonstrated Candida parapsilosis fungemia. Respiratory culture was positive for budding yeast.

The patient was treated with antimicrobials, intravenous argatroban, and subcutaneous heparin. Purpura and bullae on the trunk slowly resolved with systemic therapy and wound care with petrolatum and nonadherent dressings. However, lesions on the nasal tip, all fingers of both hands, and several toes evolved into dry gangrene. The hospital course was complicated by renal failure requiring continuous renal replacement therapy; respiratory failure requiring ventilator support; and elevated levels of liver enzymes, consistent with involvement of the hepatic microvasculature.

The patient was in the medical intensive care unit at our institution for 2 weeks and was transferred to a burn center for specialized wound care. At transfer, he was still on a ventilator and receiving continuous renal replacement therapy. Subsequently, the patient required a left above-the-knee amputation, right below-the-knee amputation, and amputation of several digits of the upper extremities. In the months after the amputations, he required multiple stump revisions and experienced surgical site infections that complicated healing.

Purpura fulminans is an uncommon syndrome characterized by intravascular thrombosis and hemorrhagic infarction of the skin. The condition commonly is associated with septic shock, causing vascular collapse and DIC. It often develops rapidly.

Because of associated high mortality, it is important to differentiate PF from other causes of cutaneous retiform purpura, including other causes of thrombosis and large vessel vasculitis. Leading causes of PF include infection and hereditary or acquired deficiency of protein C, protein S, or antithrombin III. Regardless of cause, biopsy results demonstrate vascular thrombosis out of proportion to vasculitis. The mortality rate is 42% to 50%. The incidence of postinfectious sepsis sequelae in PF is higher than in survivors of sepsis only, especially amputation.^1-3 Most patients do not die from complications of sepsis but from sequelae of the hypercoagulable and prothrombotic state associated with PF.⁴ Hemorrhagic infarction can affect the kidneys, brain, lungs, heart, eyes, and adrenal glands (ie, necrosis, namely Waterhouse-Friderichsen syndrome).⁵

The most common infectious cause of PF is sepsis secondary to Neisseria meningitidis, with as many as 25% of infected patients developing PF.⁶Streptococcus pneumoniae is another common cause. Other important causative organisms include Streptococcus pyogenes; Staphylococcus aureus (in the setting of intravenous substance use); Klebsiella oxytoca; Klebsiella aerogenes; rickettsial organisms; and viruses, including cytomegalovirus and varicella-zoster virus.^2,7-13 Two earlier cases associated with Capnocytophaga were characterized by concomitant renal failure, metabolic acidosis, hemolytic anemia, and DIC.¹⁴

It is estimated that Capnocytophaga causes 11% to 46% of all cases of sepsis¹⁵; sepsis resulting from Capnocytophaga has extremely poor outcomes, with mortality reaching as high as 60%. The organism is part of the normal oral flora of cats and dogs, and a bite (less often, a scratch) is the cause of most Capnocytophaga infections. The clinical spectrum of C canimorsus infection associated with dog saliva exposure more commonly includes cellulitis at or around the site of inoculation, meningitis, and endocarditis.¹⁶

Although patients affected by PF can be young and healthy, several risk factors for PF have been identified^2,6,16: asplenia, an immunocompromised state, systemic corticosteroid use, cirrhosis, and alcoholism. Asplenic patients have been shown to be particularly susceptible to systemic Capnocytophaga infection; when bitten by a dog, they should be treated with prophylactic antibiotics to cover Capnocytophaga.¹⁷ Immunocompetent patients rarely develop severe infection with Capnocytophaga.^16,18,19 The complement system in particular is critically important in defending against C canimorsus.²⁰

The underlying pathophysiology of acute infectious PF is multifactorial, encompassing increased expression of procoagulant tissue factor by monocytes and endothelial cells in the presence of bacterial pathogens. Dysfunction of protein C, an anticoagulant component of the coagulation cascade, often is cited as a crucial derangement leading to the development of a prothrombotic state in acute infectious PF.²¹ Serum protein S and antithrombin deficiency also can play a role.²² Specific in vitro examination of C canimorsus has revealed a protease that catalyzes N-terminal cleavage of procoagulant factor X, resulting in loss of function.¹⁵

Retiform purpura is a hallmark feature of PF, often beginning as nonblanching erythema with localized edema and petechiae before evolving into the characteristic stellate lesions with hemorrhagic bullae and subsequent necrosis.²³ Pathologic examination reveals microthrombi involving arterioles and smaller vessels.²⁴ There typically is laboratory evidence of DIC in PF, including elevated prothrombin time and partial thromboplastin time, thrombocytopenia, elevated D-dimer, and a decreased fibrinogen level.^6,23

Capnocytophaga bacteria are challenging to grow on standard culture media. Optimal media for growth include 5% sheep’s blood and chocolate agar.¹⁶ Polymerase chain reaction can identify Capnocytophaga; in cases in which blood culture does not produce growth, 16S ribosomal RNA gene sequencing of tissue from skin biopsy has identified the pathogen.²⁵

Some Capnocytophaga isolates have been shown to produce beta-lactamase; individual strains can be resistant to penicillins, cephalosporins, and imipenem.²⁶ Factors associated with an increased risk for death include decreased leukocyte and platelet counts and an increased level of arterial lactate.²⁷

Empiric antibiotic therapy for Capnocytophaga sepsis should include a beta-lactam and beta-lactamase inhibitor, such as piperacillin-tazobactam. Management of DIC can include therapeutic heparin or low-molecular-weight heparin and prophylactic platelet transfusion to maintain a pre-established value.^28-30 Debridement should be conservative; it is important to wait for definite delineation between viable and necrotic tissue,³¹ which might take several months.³² Human skin allografts, in addition to artificial skin, are utilized as supplemental therapy for more rapid wound closure after removal of necrotic tissue.^33,34 Hyperoxygenated fatty acids have been noted to aid in more rapid wound healing in infants with PF.³⁵

Fresh frozen plasma is one method to replace missing factors, but it contains little protein C.³⁶ Outcomes with recombinant human activated protein C (drotrecogin alfa) are mixed, and studies have shown no benefit in reducing the risk for death.^37,38 Protein C concentrate has shown therapeutic benefit in some case reports and small retrospective studies.⁴ In one case report, protein C concentrate and heparin were utilized in combination with antithrombin III.²¹

Hyperbaric O₂ might be of benefit when initiated within 5 days after onset of PF. However, hyperbaric O₂ does carry risk; O₂ toxicity, barotrauma, and barriers to timely resuscitation when the patient is inside the pressurized chamber can occur.²

There is a single report of successful use of the vasodilator iloprost for meningococcal PF without need for surgical intervention; the team also utilized topical nitroglycerin patches on the fingers to avoid digital amputation.³⁹ Epoprostenol, tissue plasminogen activator, and antithrombin have been utilized in cases of extensive PF. Fibrinolytic therapy might have some utility, but only in a setting of malignancy-associated DIC.⁴⁰

Treatment of acute infectious PF lacks a high level of evidence. Options include replacement of anticoagulant factors, anticoagulant therapy, hyperbaric O₂, topical and systemic vasodilators, and, in the setting of underlying cancer, fibrinolytics. Even with therapy, prognosis is guarded.

To the Editor:

A 56-year-old man with a history of opioid abuse and splenectomy decades prior due to a motor vehicle accident was brought to an outside emergency department with confusion, slurred speech, and difficulty breathing. Over the next few days, he became febrile and hypotensive, requiring vasopressors. Clinical laboratory testing revealed a urine drug screen positive for opioids and a low platelet count in the setting of a rapidly evolving retiform purpuric rash.

The patient was transferred to our institution 6 days after initial presentation with primary diagnoses of septic shock with multiorgan failure and disseminated intravascular coagulation (DIC). Blood cultures were positive for gram-negative rods. After several days of broad-spectrum antibiotics and supportive care, cultures were reported as positive for Capnocytophaga canimorsus. Upon further questioning, the patient’s wife reported that the couple had a new puppy and that the patient often allowed the dog to bite him playfully and lick abrasions on his hands and legs. He had not received medical treatment for any of the dog’s bites.

On initial examination at the time of transfer, the patient’s skin was remarkable for diffuse areas of stellate and retiform purpura with dusky centers and necrosis of the nasal tip and earlobes. Both hands were purpuric, with necrosis of the fingertips (Figure 1A). The flank was marked by large areas of full-thickness sloughing of the skin (Figure 1B). The lower extremities were edematous, with some areas of stellate purpura and numerous large bullae that drained straw-colored fluid (Figure 1C). Lower extremity pulses were found with Doppler ultrasonography.

Given the presence of rapidly developing retiform purpura in the clinical context of severe sepsis, purpura fulminans (PF) was the primary consideration in the differential diagnosis. Levamisole-induced necrosis syndrome also was considered because of necrosis of the ears and nose as well as the history of substance use; however, the patient was not known to have a history of cocaine abuse, and a test of antineutrophil cytoplasmic antibody was negative.

A punch biopsy of the abdomen revealed intravascular thrombi with epidermal and sweat gland necrosis, consistent with PF (Figure 2). Gram, Giemsa, and Gomori methenamine-silver stains were negative for organisms. Tissue culture remained negative. Repeat blood cultures demonstrated Candida parapsilosis fungemia. Respiratory culture was positive for budding yeast.

The patient was treated with antimicrobials, intravenous argatroban, and subcutaneous heparin. Purpura and bullae on the trunk slowly resolved with systemic therapy and wound care with petrolatum and nonadherent dressings. However, lesions on the nasal tip, all fingers of both hands, and several toes evolved into dry gangrene. The hospital course was complicated by renal failure requiring continuous renal replacement therapy; respiratory failure requiring ventilator support; and elevated levels of liver enzymes, consistent with involvement of the hepatic microvasculature.

The patient was in the medical intensive care unit at our institution for 2 weeks and was transferred to a burn center for specialized wound care. At transfer, he was still on a ventilator and receiving continuous renal replacement therapy. Subsequently, the patient required a left above-the-knee amputation, right below-the-knee amputation, and amputation of several digits of the upper extremities. In the months after the amputations, he required multiple stump revisions and experienced surgical site infections that complicated healing.

Purpura fulminans is an uncommon syndrome characterized by intravascular thrombosis and hemorrhagic infarction of the skin. The condition commonly is associated with septic shock, causing vascular collapse and DIC. It often develops rapidly.

Because of associated high mortality, it is important to differentiate PF from other causes of cutaneous retiform purpura, including other causes of thrombosis and large vessel vasculitis. Leading causes of PF include infection and hereditary or acquired deficiency of protein C, protein S, or antithrombin III. Regardless of cause, biopsy results demonstrate vascular thrombosis out of proportion to vasculitis. The mortality rate is 42% to 50%. The incidence of postinfectious sepsis sequelae in PF is higher than in survivors of sepsis only, especially amputation.^1-3 Most patients do not die from complications of sepsis but from sequelae of the hypercoagulable and prothrombotic state associated with PF.⁴ Hemorrhagic infarction can affect the kidneys, brain, lungs, heart, eyes, and adrenal glands (ie, necrosis, namely Waterhouse-Friderichsen syndrome).⁵

The most common infectious cause of PF is sepsis secondary to Neisseria meningitidis, with as many as 25% of infected patients developing PF.⁶Streptococcus pneumoniae is another common cause. Other important causative organisms include Streptococcus pyogenes; Staphylococcus aureus (in the setting of intravenous substance use); Klebsiella oxytoca; Klebsiella aerogenes; rickettsial organisms; and viruses, including cytomegalovirus and varicella-zoster virus.^2,7-13 Two earlier cases associated with Capnocytophaga were characterized by concomitant renal failure, metabolic acidosis, hemolytic anemia, and DIC.¹⁴

It is estimated that Capnocytophaga causes 11% to 46% of all cases of sepsis¹⁵; sepsis resulting from Capnocytophaga has extremely poor outcomes, with mortality reaching as high as 60%. The organism is part of the normal oral flora of cats and dogs, and a bite (less often, a scratch) is the cause of most Capnocytophaga infections. The clinical spectrum of C canimorsus infection associated with dog saliva exposure more commonly includes cellulitis at or around the site of inoculation, meningitis, and endocarditis.¹⁶

Although patients affected by PF can be young and healthy, several risk factors for PF have been identified^2,6,16: asplenia, an immunocompromised state, systemic corticosteroid use, cirrhosis, and alcoholism. Asplenic patients have been shown to be particularly susceptible to systemic Capnocytophaga infection; when bitten by a dog, they should be treated with prophylactic antibiotics to cover Capnocytophaga.¹⁷ Immunocompetent patients rarely develop severe infection with Capnocytophaga.^16,18,19 The complement system in particular is critically important in defending against C canimorsus.²⁰

The underlying pathophysiology of acute infectious PF is multifactorial, encompassing increased expression of procoagulant tissue factor by monocytes and endothelial cells in the presence of bacterial pathogens. Dysfunction of protein C, an anticoagulant component of the coagulation cascade, often is cited as a crucial derangement leading to the development of a prothrombotic state in acute infectious PF.²¹ Serum protein S and antithrombin deficiency also can play a role.²² Specific in vitro examination of C canimorsus has revealed a protease that catalyzes N-terminal cleavage of procoagulant factor X, resulting in loss of function.¹⁵

Retiform purpura is a hallmark feature of PF, often beginning as nonblanching erythema with localized edema and petechiae before evolving into the characteristic stellate lesions with hemorrhagic bullae and subsequent necrosis.²³ Pathologic examination reveals microthrombi involving arterioles and smaller vessels.²⁴ There typically is laboratory evidence of DIC in PF, including elevated prothrombin time and partial thromboplastin time, thrombocytopenia, elevated D-dimer, and a decreased fibrinogen level.^6,23

Capnocytophaga bacteria are challenging to grow on standard culture media. Optimal media for growth include 5% sheep’s blood and chocolate agar.¹⁶ Polymerase chain reaction can identify Capnocytophaga; in cases in which blood culture does not produce growth, 16S ribosomal RNA gene sequencing of tissue from skin biopsy has identified the pathogen.²⁵

Some Capnocytophaga isolates have been shown to produce beta-lactamase; individual strains can be resistant to penicillins, cephalosporins, and imipenem.²⁶ Factors associated with an increased risk for death include decreased leukocyte and platelet counts and an increased level of arterial lactate.²⁷

Empiric antibiotic therapy for Capnocytophaga sepsis should include a beta-lactam and beta-lactamase inhibitor, such as piperacillin-tazobactam. Management of DIC can include therapeutic heparin or low-molecular-weight heparin and prophylactic platelet transfusion to maintain a pre-established value.^28-30 Debridement should be conservative; it is important to wait for definite delineation between viable and necrotic tissue,³¹ which might take several months.³² Human skin allografts, in addition to artificial skin, are utilized as supplemental therapy for more rapid wound closure after removal of necrotic tissue.^33,34 Hyperoxygenated fatty acids have been noted to aid in more rapid wound healing in infants with PF.³⁵

Fresh frozen plasma is one method to replace missing factors, but it contains little protein C.³⁶ Outcomes with recombinant human activated protein C (drotrecogin alfa) are mixed, and studies have shown no benefit in reducing the risk for death.^37,38 Protein C concentrate has shown therapeutic benefit in some case reports and small retrospective studies.⁴ In one case report, protein C concentrate and heparin were utilized in combination with antithrombin III.²¹

Hyperbaric O₂ might be of benefit when initiated within 5 days after onset of PF. However, hyperbaric O₂ does carry risk; O₂ toxicity, barotrauma, and barriers to timely resuscitation when the patient is inside the pressurized chamber can occur.²

There is a single report of successful use of the vasodilator iloprost for meningococcal PF without need for surgical intervention; the team also utilized topical nitroglycerin patches on the fingers to avoid digital amputation.³⁹ Epoprostenol, tissue plasminogen activator, and antithrombin have been utilized in cases of extensive PF. Fibrinolytic therapy might have some utility, but only in a setting of malignancy-associated DIC.⁴⁰

Treatment of acute infectious PF lacks a high level of evidence. Options include replacement of anticoagulant factors, anticoagulant therapy, hyperbaric O₂, topical and systemic vasodilators, and, in the setting of underlying cancer, fibrinolytics. Even with therapy, prognosis is guarded.

To the Editor:

A 56-year-old man with a history of opioid abuse and splenectomy decades prior due to a motor vehicle accident was brought to an outside emergency department with confusion, slurred speech, and difficulty breathing. Over the next few days, he became febrile and hypotensive, requiring vasopressors. Clinical laboratory testing revealed a urine drug screen positive for opioids and a low platelet count in the setting of a rapidly evolving retiform purpuric rash.

The patient was transferred to our institution 6 days after initial presentation with primary diagnoses of septic shock with multiorgan failure and disseminated intravascular coagulation (DIC). Blood cultures were positive for gram-negative rods. After several days of broad-spectrum antibiotics and supportive care, cultures were reported as positive for Capnocytophaga canimorsus. Upon further questioning, the patient’s wife reported that the couple had a new puppy and that the patient often allowed the dog to bite him playfully and lick abrasions on his hands and legs. He had not received medical treatment for any of the dog’s bites.

On initial examination at the time of transfer, the patient’s skin was remarkable for diffuse areas of stellate and retiform purpura with dusky centers and necrosis of the nasal tip and earlobes. Both hands were purpuric, with necrosis of the fingertips (Figure 1A). The flank was marked by large areas of full-thickness sloughing of the skin (Figure 1B). The lower extremities were edematous, with some areas of stellate purpura and numerous large bullae that drained straw-colored fluid (Figure 1C). Lower extremity pulses were found with Doppler ultrasonography.

Given the presence of rapidly developing retiform purpura in the clinical context of severe sepsis, purpura fulminans (PF) was the primary consideration in the differential diagnosis. Levamisole-induced necrosis syndrome also was considered because of necrosis of the ears and nose as well as the history of substance use; however, the patient was not known to have a history of cocaine abuse, and a test of antineutrophil cytoplasmic antibody was negative.

A punch biopsy of the abdomen revealed intravascular thrombi with epidermal and sweat gland necrosis, consistent with PF (Figure 2). Gram, Giemsa, and Gomori methenamine-silver stains were negative for organisms. Tissue culture remained negative. Repeat blood cultures demonstrated Candida parapsilosis fungemia. Respiratory culture was positive for budding yeast.

The patient was treated with antimicrobials, intravenous argatroban, and subcutaneous heparin. Purpura and bullae on the trunk slowly resolved with systemic therapy and wound care with petrolatum and nonadherent dressings. However, lesions on the nasal tip, all fingers of both hands, and several toes evolved into dry gangrene. The hospital course was complicated by renal failure requiring continuous renal replacement therapy; respiratory failure requiring ventilator support; and elevated levels of liver enzymes, consistent with involvement of the hepatic microvasculature.

The patient was in the medical intensive care unit at our institution for 2 weeks and was transferred to a burn center for specialized wound care. At transfer, he was still on a ventilator and receiving continuous renal replacement therapy. Subsequently, the patient required a left above-the-knee amputation, right below-the-knee amputation, and amputation of several digits of the upper extremities. In the months after the amputations, he required multiple stump revisions and experienced surgical site infections that complicated healing.

Purpura fulminans is an uncommon syndrome characterized by intravascular thrombosis and hemorrhagic infarction of the skin. The condition commonly is associated with septic shock, causing vascular collapse and DIC. It often develops rapidly.

Because of associated high mortality, it is important to differentiate PF from other causes of cutaneous retiform purpura, including other causes of thrombosis and large vessel vasculitis. Leading causes of PF include infection and hereditary or acquired deficiency of protein C, protein S, or antithrombin III. Regardless of cause, biopsy results demonstrate vascular thrombosis out of proportion to vasculitis. The mortality rate is 42% to 50%. The incidence of postinfectious sepsis sequelae in PF is higher than in survivors of sepsis only, especially amputation.^1-3 Most patients do not die from complications of sepsis but from sequelae of the hypercoagulable and prothrombotic state associated with PF.⁴ Hemorrhagic infarction can affect the kidneys, brain, lungs, heart, eyes, and adrenal glands (ie, necrosis, namely Waterhouse-Friderichsen syndrome).⁵

The most common infectious cause of PF is sepsis secondary to Neisseria meningitidis, with as many as 25% of infected patients developing PF.⁶Streptococcus pneumoniae is another common cause. Other important causative organisms include Streptococcus pyogenes; Staphylococcus aureus (in the setting of intravenous substance use); Klebsiella oxytoca; Klebsiella aerogenes; rickettsial organisms; and viruses, including cytomegalovirus and varicella-zoster virus.^2,7-13 Two earlier cases associated with Capnocytophaga were characterized by concomitant renal failure, metabolic acidosis, hemolytic anemia, and DIC.¹⁴

It is estimated that Capnocytophaga causes 11% to 46% of all cases of sepsis¹⁵; sepsis resulting from Capnocytophaga has extremely poor outcomes, with mortality reaching as high as 60%. The organism is part of the normal oral flora of cats and dogs, and a bite (less often, a scratch) is the cause of most Capnocytophaga infections. The clinical spectrum of C canimorsus infection associated with dog saliva exposure more commonly includes cellulitis at or around the site of inoculation, meningitis, and endocarditis.¹⁶

Although patients affected by PF can be young and healthy, several risk factors for PF have been identified^2,6,16: asplenia, an immunocompromised state, systemic corticosteroid use, cirrhosis, and alcoholism. Asplenic patients have been shown to be particularly susceptible to systemic Capnocytophaga infection; when bitten by a dog, they should be treated with prophylactic antibiotics to cover Capnocytophaga.¹⁷ Immunocompetent patients rarely develop severe infection with Capnocytophaga.^16,18,19 The complement system in particular is critically important in defending against C canimorsus.²⁰

The underlying pathophysiology of acute infectious PF is multifactorial, encompassing increased expression of procoagulant tissue factor by monocytes and endothelial cells in the presence of bacterial pathogens. Dysfunction of protein C, an anticoagulant component of the coagulation cascade, often is cited as a crucial derangement leading to the development of a prothrombotic state in acute infectious PF.²¹ Serum protein S and antithrombin deficiency also can play a role.²² Specific in vitro examination of C canimorsus has revealed a protease that catalyzes N-terminal cleavage of procoagulant factor X, resulting in loss of function.¹⁵

Retiform purpura is a hallmark feature of PF, often beginning as nonblanching erythema with localized edema and petechiae before evolving into the characteristic stellate lesions with hemorrhagic bullae and subsequent necrosis.²³ Pathologic examination reveals microthrombi involving arterioles and smaller vessels.²⁴ There typically is laboratory evidence of DIC in PF, including elevated prothrombin time and partial thromboplastin time, thrombocytopenia, elevated D-dimer, and a decreased fibrinogen level.^6,23

Capnocytophaga bacteria are challenging to grow on standard culture media. Optimal media for growth include 5% sheep’s blood and chocolate agar.¹⁶ Polymerase chain reaction can identify Capnocytophaga; in cases in which blood culture does not produce growth, 16S ribosomal RNA gene sequencing of tissue from skin biopsy has identified the pathogen.²⁵

Some Capnocytophaga isolates have been shown to produce beta-lactamase; individual strains can be resistant to penicillins, cephalosporins, and imipenem.²⁶ Factors associated with an increased risk for death include decreased leukocyte and platelet counts and an increased level of arterial lactate.²⁷

Empiric antibiotic therapy for Capnocytophaga sepsis should include a beta-lactam and beta-lactamase inhibitor, such as piperacillin-tazobactam. Management of DIC can include therapeutic heparin or low-molecular-weight heparin and prophylactic platelet transfusion to maintain a pre-established value.^28-30 Debridement should be conservative; it is important to wait for definite delineation between viable and necrotic tissue,³¹ which might take several months.³² Human skin allografts, in addition to artificial skin, are utilized as supplemental therapy for more rapid wound closure after removal of necrotic tissue.^33,34 Hyperoxygenated fatty acids have been noted to aid in more rapid wound healing in infants with PF.³⁵

Fresh frozen plasma is one method to replace missing factors, but it contains little protein C.³⁶ Outcomes with recombinant human activated protein C (drotrecogin alfa) are mixed, and studies have shown no benefit in reducing the risk for death.^37,38 Protein C concentrate has shown therapeutic benefit in some case reports and small retrospective studies.⁴ In one case report, protein C concentrate and heparin were utilized in combination with antithrombin III.²¹

Hyperbaric O₂ might be of benefit when initiated within 5 days after onset of PF. However, hyperbaric O₂ does carry risk; O₂ toxicity, barotrauma, and barriers to timely resuscitation when the patient is inside the pressurized chamber can occur.²

There is a single report of successful use of the vasodilator iloprost for meningococcal PF without need for surgical intervention; the team also utilized topical nitroglycerin patches on the fingers to avoid digital amputation.³⁹ Epoprostenol, tissue plasminogen activator, and antithrombin have been utilized in cases of extensive PF. Fibrinolytic therapy might have some utility, but only in a setting of malignancy-associated DIC.⁴⁰

Treatment of acute infectious PF lacks a high level of evidence. Options include replacement of anticoagulant factors, anticoagulant therapy, hyperbaric O₂, topical and systemic vasodilators, and, in the setting of underlying cancer, fibrinolytics. Even with therapy, prognosis is guarded.

To the Editor:

Purpura fulminans (PF) is an acute, life-threatening condition characterized by intravascular thrombosis and hemorrhagic necrosis of the skin. It classically presents as retiform purpura with branched or angular purpuric lesions. Purpura fulminans often occurs in the setting of disseminated intravascular coagulation, secondary to sepsis, trauma, malignancy, autoimmune disease, and congenital or acquired protein C or S deficiency, among other abnormalities.¹ Rapid identification and treatment of the underlying cause are mainstays of management. We report a case of PF secondary to Vibrio vulnificus infection and highlight the importance of timely consideration of this etiologic agent due to the high mortality rate and specific treatment required.

A 58-year-old man with liver cirrhosis and hepatitis B virus presented with pain, swelling, and localized erythema affecting both legs as well as a fever. He reported vomiting blood and an episode of bloody diarrhea over the preceding 24 hours. He denied exposure to sick contacts or a history of autoimmune disease. At initial presentation to the emergency department, physical examination revealed few scattered, sharply demarcated, erythematous to violaceous patches that rapidly progressed overnight to hemorrhagic bullae and widespread retiform purpuric patches on both legs (Figure 1). As the patient’s skin condition worsened, he had a blood pressure of 80/50 mm Hg and a pulse rate of 110/min. Serum analysis was notable for mild leukocytosis (10.74×10⁹/L [reference range, 4.8–10.8×10⁹/L), thrombocytopenia (39×10⁹/L [reference range, 150–450×10⁹/L]), and decreased C3 (25 mg/dL [reference range, 81–157 mg/dL]) and C4 (8 mg/dL [reference range, 13–39 mg/dL]). Laboratory findings also were remarkable for prothrombin time (23.3 seconds [reference range, 8.8–12.3 seconds]), partial thromboplastin time (52.5 seconds [reference range, 23.6–35.8 seconds]), and international normalized ratio (2.01 [reference range, 0.8–1.13]). Aspartate transaminase (237 U/L [reference range, 11–39 U/L]) and alanine transaminase (80 U/L [reference range, 11–35 U/L]) were elevated, while antineutrophil cytoplasmic antibodies, serum immunoglobulin, and cryoglobulins were unremarkable. Punch biopsies of the left thigh were performed, and histopathology revealed small vessel thrombosis and ischemic changes consistent with PF (Figure 2). Vancomycin, clindamycin, cefepime injection, and piperacillin-tazobactam were administered intravenously for empiric broad-spectrum sepsis coverage. Within hours, the patient experienced refractory septic shock with disseminated intravascular coagulation and died from pulmonary embolism and subsequent cardiac arrest. Tissue and blood cultures grew V vulnificus.

Vibrio vulnificus is a gram-negative bacillus and a rare cause of primary septicemia following consumption of shellfish, especially oysters. Wounds exposed to saltwater or brackish water contaminated with the microorganism can produce soft-tissue infections. Individuals with chronic liver disease are at greater risk for V vulnificus infection.² The clinical presentation of V vulnificus includes early cellulitislike patches, late purpura with hemorrhagic bullae, and rapidly progressing shock.³

Mortality rates from V vulnificus infection are high.⁴ Therefore, it is recommended to presumptively diagnose V vulnificus septicemia in any individual at risk for infection who presents with the characteristic history in the setting of hypotension, fever, or septic shock. It is crucial for providers to be aware that broad-spectrum antibiotics commonly used for sepsis are inadequate for the treatment of V vulnificus. Immediate treatment with tetracycline (minocycline or doxycycline) and a third-generation cephalosporin (cefotaxime or ceftriaxone injection) or in combination with ciprofloxacin has been proven effective.^4,5

Vibrio vulnificus rarely is described in the literature as inducing PF. In one previously reported case, the patient was otherwise healthy and managed to recover following antibiotic therapy and wound debridement,⁶ whereas in another case the patient had undiagnosed liver cirrhosis and died from the infection.^6,7 In the latter case, the patient presented to the emergency department in a coma. Our patient did not have the clinical signs of sepsis upon initial presentation to the emergency department. It is possible the infection rapidly progressed because of his underlying liver disease. Genotyping analysis of V vulnificus has shown that strains with low pathogenicity can cause primary septicemia in humans.⁷

Our case reinforces the need to quickly recognize V vulnificus as a rare underlying cause of PF and administer the appropriate treatment.

To the Editor:

Purpura fulminans (PF) is an acute, life-threatening condition characterized by intravascular thrombosis and hemorrhagic necrosis of the skin. It classically presents as retiform purpura with branched or angular purpuric lesions. Purpura fulminans often occurs in the setting of disseminated intravascular coagulation, secondary to sepsis, trauma, malignancy, autoimmune disease, and congenital or acquired protein C or S deficiency, among other abnormalities.¹ Rapid identification and treatment of the underlying cause are mainstays of management. We report a case of PF secondary to Vibrio vulnificus infection and highlight the importance of timely consideration of this etiologic agent due to the high mortality rate and specific treatment required.

A 58-year-old man with liver cirrhosis and hepatitis B virus presented with pain, swelling, and localized erythema affecting both legs as well as a fever. He reported vomiting blood and an episode of bloody diarrhea over the preceding 24 hours. He denied exposure to sick contacts or a history of autoimmune disease. At initial presentation to the emergency department, physical examination revealed few scattered, sharply demarcated, erythematous to violaceous patches that rapidly progressed overnight to hemorrhagic bullae and widespread retiform purpuric patches on both legs (Figure 1). As the patient’s skin condition worsened, he had a blood pressure of 80/50 mm Hg and a pulse rate of 110/min. Serum analysis was notable for mild leukocytosis (10.74×10⁹/L [reference range, 4.8–10.8×10⁹/L), thrombocytopenia (39×10⁹/L [reference range, 150–450×10⁹/L]), and decreased C3 (25 mg/dL [reference range, 81–157 mg/dL]) and C4 (8 mg/dL [reference range, 13–39 mg/dL]). Laboratory findings also were remarkable for prothrombin time (23.3 seconds [reference range, 8.8–12.3 seconds]), partial thromboplastin time (52.5 seconds [reference range, 23.6–35.8 seconds]), and international normalized ratio (2.01 [reference range, 0.8–1.13]). Aspartate transaminase (237 U/L [reference range, 11–39 U/L]) and alanine transaminase (80 U/L [reference range, 11–35 U/L]) were elevated, while antineutrophil cytoplasmic antibodies, serum immunoglobulin, and cryoglobulins were unremarkable. Punch biopsies of the left thigh were performed, and histopathology revealed small vessel thrombosis and ischemic changes consistent with PF (Figure 2). Vancomycin, clindamycin, cefepime injection, and piperacillin-tazobactam were administered intravenously for empiric broad-spectrum sepsis coverage. Within hours, the patient experienced refractory septic shock with disseminated intravascular coagulation and died from pulmonary embolism and subsequent cardiac arrest. Tissue and blood cultures grew V vulnificus.

Vibrio vulnificus is a gram-negative bacillus and a rare cause of primary septicemia following consumption of shellfish, especially oysters. Wounds exposed to saltwater or brackish water contaminated with the microorganism can produce soft-tissue infections. Individuals with chronic liver disease are at greater risk for V vulnificus infection.² The clinical presentation of V vulnificus includes early cellulitislike patches, late purpura with hemorrhagic bullae, and rapidly progressing shock.³

Mortality rates from V vulnificus infection are high.⁴ Therefore, it is recommended to presumptively diagnose V vulnificus septicemia in any individual at risk for infection who presents with the characteristic history in the setting of hypotension, fever, or septic shock. It is crucial for providers to be aware that broad-spectrum antibiotics commonly used for sepsis are inadequate for the treatment of V vulnificus. Immediate treatment with tetracycline (minocycline or doxycycline) and a third-generation cephalosporin (cefotaxime or ceftriaxone injection) or in combination with ciprofloxacin has been proven effective.^4,5

Vibrio vulnificus rarely is described in the literature as inducing PF. In one previously reported case, the patient was otherwise healthy and managed to recover following antibiotic therapy and wound debridement,⁶ whereas in another case the patient had undiagnosed liver cirrhosis and died from the infection.^6,7 In the latter case, the patient presented to the emergency department in a coma. Our patient did not have the clinical signs of sepsis upon initial presentation to the emergency department. It is possible the infection rapidly progressed because of his underlying liver disease. Genotyping analysis of V vulnificus has shown that strains with low pathogenicity can cause primary septicemia in humans.⁷

Our case reinforces the need to quickly recognize V vulnificus as a rare underlying cause of PF and administer the appropriate treatment.

To the Editor:

Purpura fulminans (PF) is an acute, life-threatening condition characterized by intravascular thrombosis and hemorrhagic necrosis of the skin. It classically presents as retiform purpura with branched or angular purpuric lesions. Purpura fulminans often occurs in the setting of disseminated intravascular coagulation, secondary to sepsis, trauma, malignancy, autoimmune disease, and congenital or acquired protein C or S deficiency, among other abnormalities.¹ Rapid identification and treatment of the underlying cause are mainstays of management. We report a case of PF secondary to Vibrio vulnificus infection and highlight the importance of timely consideration of this etiologic agent due to the high mortality rate and specific treatment required.

A 58-year-old man with liver cirrhosis and hepatitis B virus presented with pain, swelling, and localized erythema affecting both legs as well as a fever. He reported vomiting blood and an episode of bloody diarrhea over the preceding 24 hours. He denied exposure to sick contacts or a history of autoimmune disease. At initial presentation to the emergency department, physical examination revealed few scattered, sharply demarcated, erythematous to violaceous patches that rapidly progressed overnight to hemorrhagic bullae and widespread retiform purpuric patches on both legs (Figure 1). As the patient’s skin condition worsened, he had a blood pressure of 80/50 mm Hg and a pulse rate of 110/min. Serum analysis was notable for mild leukocytosis (10.74×10⁹/L [reference range, 4.8–10.8×10⁹/L), thrombocytopenia (39×10⁹/L [reference range, 150–450×10⁹/L]), and decreased C3 (25 mg/dL [reference range, 81–157 mg/dL]) and C4 (8 mg/dL [reference range, 13–39 mg/dL]). Laboratory findings also were remarkable for prothrombin time (23.3 seconds [reference range, 8.8–12.3 seconds]), partial thromboplastin time (52.5 seconds [reference range, 23.6–35.8 seconds]), and international normalized ratio (2.01 [reference range, 0.8–1.13]). Aspartate transaminase (237 U/L [reference range, 11–39 U/L]) and alanine transaminase (80 U/L [reference range, 11–35 U/L]) were elevated, while antineutrophil cytoplasmic antibodies, serum immunoglobulin, and cryoglobulins were unremarkable. Punch biopsies of the left thigh were performed, and histopathology revealed small vessel thrombosis and ischemic changes consistent with PF (Figure 2). Vancomycin, clindamycin, cefepime injection, and piperacillin-tazobactam were administered intravenously for empiric broad-spectrum sepsis coverage. Within hours, the patient experienced refractory septic shock with disseminated intravascular coagulation and died from pulmonary embolism and subsequent cardiac arrest. Tissue and blood cultures grew V vulnificus.

Vibrio vulnificus is a gram-negative bacillus and a rare cause of primary septicemia following consumption of shellfish, especially oysters. Wounds exposed to saltwater or brackish water contaminated with the microorganism can produce soft-tissue infections. Individuals with chronic liver disease are at greater risk for V vulnificus infection.² The clinical presentation of V vulnificus includes early cellulitislike patches, late purpura with hemorrhagic bullae, and rapidly progressing shock.³

Mortality rates from V vulnificus infection are high.⁴ Therefore, it is recommended to presumptively diagnose V vulnificus septicemia in any individual at risk for infection who presents with the characteristic history in the setting of hypotension, fever, or septic shock. It is crucial for providers to be aware that broad-spectrum antibiotics commonly used for sepsis are inadequate for the treatment of V vulnificus. Immediate treatment with tetracycline (minocycline or doxycycline) and a third-generation cephalosporin (cefotaxime or ceftriaxone injection) or in combination with ciprofloxacin has been proven effective.^4,5

Vibrio vulnificus rarely is described in the literature as inducing PF. In one previously reported case, the patient was otherwise healthy and managed to recover following antibiotic therapy and wound debridement,⁶ whereas in another case the patient had undiagnosed liver cirrhosis and died from the infection.^6,7 In the latter case, the patient presented to the emergency department in a coma. Our patient did not have the clinical signs of sepsis upon initial presentation to the emergency department. It is possible the infection rapidly progressed because of his underlying liver disease. Genotyping analysis of V vulnificus has shown that strains with low pathogenicity can cause primary septicemia in humans.⁷

Our case reinforces the need to quickly recognize V vulnificus as a rare underlying cause of PF and administer the appropriate treatment.