Commentary

Many individuals infected with SARS-CoV-2 never become symptomatic. In a South Korean study, these infected individuals remained asymptomatic for a prolonged period while maintaining the same viral load as symptomatic patients, suggesting that they are just as infectious.¹ A narrative review found high rates of asymptomatic disease in several younger populations, including women in an obstetric ward (88%), the crew of an aircraft carrier (58%), and prisoners (96%).² However, there is no published research on the percentage of university students who are asymptomatic.

Methods 

The University of Georgia (UGA) began classes on August 20, 2020. Shortly before the beginning of classes, UGA implemented a surveillance program for asymptomatic students, faculty, and staff, testing 300 to 450 people per day. Initially, during Weeks 1 and 2 of data collection, anyone could choose to be tested. In Weeks 3 and 4, students, faculty, and staff were randomly invited to participate.

The estimated percentage of asymptomatic students infected with SARS-CoV-2 ranged from 73% to 92.5% by week and was 81.1% overall.

Over the 4-week period beginning on August 17, we calculated the percent of positive cases in surveillance testing and applied this percentage to the entire UGA student population (n = 38,920) to estimate the total number of asymptomatic COVID-19 students each week.³ Data for symptomatic cases were also reported by the university on a weekly basis. This included positive tests from the University Health Center, as well as voluntary reporting using a smartphone app from other sites.

Positive tests in symptomatic individuals were not stratified by student vs nonstudent until Week 3; students comprised 95% of positive symptomatic reports in Week 3 and 99% in Week 4, so we conservatively estimated that 95% of symptomatic cases in Weeks 1 and 2 were students. These data were used to estimate the percentage of SARS-CoV-2–positive students who were asymptomatic. 

Results

Our results are summarized in the table. The percentage of asymptomatic students testing positive in surveillance testing was 3.4% in Week 1 and rose steadily to 9% by Week 4. We estimated that there were 1303 asymptomatic cases among students in Week 1, increasing to 3487 asymptomatic positive students on campus by Week 4. The estimated percentage of asymptomatic students infected with SARS-CoV-2 ranged from 73% to 92.5% by week and was 81.1% overall.

Discussion

During the reporting period from August 17 to September 13, the 7-day moving average of new cases in Clarke County (home of UGA) increased from 30 to 83 per 100,000 persons/day (https://dph.georgia.gov/covid-19-daily-status-report). During this period, there were large increases in the number of infected students, more than 80% of whom were asymptomatic. With the assumption that anyone could be infected even if asymptomatic, these numbers highlight the importance for infection control to prevent potential spread within a community by taking universal precautions such as wearing a mask, following physical distancing guidelines, and handwashing.

Limitations. First, reporting of positive tests in symptomatic individuals is highly encouraged but not required. The large drop in symptomatic positive test reports between Weeks 3 and 4, with no change in test positivity in surveillance of asymptomatic students (8.9% vs 9%), suggests that students may have chosen to be tested elsewhere in conjunction with evaluation of their symptoms and/or not reported positive tests, possibly to avoid mandatory isolation and other restrictions on their activities. Further evidence to support no change in actual infection rates comes from testing for virus in wastewater, which also remained unchanged.⁴

Continue to: Second, each week's surveillance...

Second, each week’s surveillance population is not a true random sample, so extrapolating this estimate to the full student population could over- or undercount asymptomatic cases depending on the direction of bias (ie, healthy volunteer bias vs test avoidance by those with high-risk behaviors).

Finally, some students who were positive in surveillance testing may have been presymptomatic, rather than asymptomatic.

In conclusion, we estimate that approximately 80% of students infected with SARS-CoV-2 are asymptomatic. This is consistent with other studies in young adult populations.²

Mark H. Ebell, MD, MS
Cassie Chupp, MPH
Michelle Bentivegna, MPH
Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, College of Public Health, University of Georgia, Athens
ebell@uga.edu

The authors reported no potential conflict of interest relevant to this article.

Many individuals infected with SARS-CoV-2 never become symptomatic. In a South Korean study, these infected individuals remained asymptomatic for a prolonged period while maintaining the same viral load as symptomatic patients, suggesting that they are just as infectious.¹ A narrative review found high rates of asymptomatic disease in several younger populations, including women in an obstetric ward (88%), the crew of an aircraft carrier (58%), and prisoners (96%).² However, there is no published research on the percentage of university students who are asymptomatic.

Methods 

The University of Georgia (UGA) began classes on August 20, 2020. Shortly before the beginning of classes, UGA implemented a surveillance program for asymptomatic students, faculty, and staff, testing 300 to 450 people per day. Initially, during Weeks 1 and 2 of data collection, anyone could choose to be tested. In Weeks 3 and 4, students, faculty, and staff were randomly invited to participate.

The estimated percentage of asymptomatic students infected with SARS-CoV-2 ranged from 73% to 92.5% by week and was 81.1% overall.

Over the 4-week period beginning on August 17, we calculated the percent of positive cases in surveillance testing and applied this percentage to the entire UGA student population (n = 38,920) to estimate the total number of asymptomatic COVID-19 students each week.³ Data for symptomatic cases were also reported by the university on a weekly basis. This included positive tests from the University Health Center, as well as voluntary reporting using a smartphone app from other sites.

Positive tests in symptomatic individuals were not stratified by student vs nonstudent until Week 3; students comprised 95% of positive symptomatic reports in Week 3 and 99% in Week 4, so we conservatively estimated that 95% of symptomatic cases in Weeks 1 and 2 were students. These data were used to estimate the percentage of SARS-CoV-2–positive students who were asymptomatic. 

Results

Our results are summarized in the table. The percentage of asymptomatic students testing positive in surveillance testing was 3.4% in Week 1 and rose steadily to 9% by Week 4. We estimated that there were 1303 asymptomatic cases among students in Week 1, increasing to 3487 asymptomatic positive students on campus by Week 4. The estimated percentage of asymptomatic students infected with SARS-CoV-2 ranged from 73% to 92.5% by week and was 81.1% overall.

Discussion

During the reporting period from August 17 to September 13, the 7-day moving average of new cases in Clarke County (home of UGA) increased from 30 to 83 per 100,000 persons/day (https://dph.georgia.gov/covid-19-daily-status-report). During this period, there were large increases in the number of infected students, more than 80% of whom were asymptomatic. With the assumption that anyone could be infected even if asymptomatic, these numbers highlight the importance for infection control to prevent potential spread within a community by taking universal precautions such as wearing a mask, following physical distancing guidelines, and handwashing.

Limitations. First, reporting of positive tests in symptomatic individuals is highly encouraged but not required. The large drop in symptomatic positive test reports between Weeks 3 and 4, with no change in test positivity in surveillance of asymptomatic students (8.9% vs 9%), suggests that students may have chosen to be tested elsewhere in conjunction with evaluation of their symptoms and/or not reported positive tests, possibly to avoid mandatory isolation and other restrictions on their activities. Further evidence to support no change in actual infection rates comes from testing for virus in wastewater, which also remained unchanged.⁴

Continue to: Second, each week's surveillance...

Second, each week’s surveillance population is not a true random sample, so extrapolating this estimate to the full student population could over- or undercount asymptomatic cases depending on the direction of bias (ie, healthy volunteer bias vs test avoidance by those with high-risk behaviors).

Finally, some students who were positive in surveillance testing may have been presymptomatic, rather than asymptomatic.

In conclusion, we estimate that approximately 80% of students infected with SARS-CoV-2 are asymptomatic. This is consistent with other studies in young adult populations.²

Mark H. Ebell, MD, MS
Cassie Chupp, MPH
Michelle Bentivegna, MPH
Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, College of Public Health, University of Georgia, Athens
ebell@uga.edu

The authors reported no potential conflict of interest relevant to this article.

Many individuals infected with SARS-CoV-2 never become symptomatic. In a South Korean study, these infected individuals remained asymptomatic for a prolonged period while maintaining the same viral load as symptomatic patients, suggesting that they are just as infectious.¹ A narrative review found high rates of asymptomatic disease in several younger populations, including women in an obstetric ward (88%), the crew of an aircraft carrier (58%), and prisoners (96%).² However, there is no published research on the percentage of university students who are asymptomatic.

Methods 

The University of Georgia (UGA) began classes on August 20, 2020. Shortly before the beginning of classes, UGA implemented a surveillance program for asymptomatic students, faculty, and staff, testing 300 to 450 people per day. Initially, during Weeks 1 and 2 of data collection, anyone could choose to be tested. In Weeks 3 and 4, students, faculty, and staff were randomly invited to participate.

The estimated percentage of asymptomatic students infected with SARS-CoV-2 ranged from 73% to 92.5% by week and was 81.1% overall.

Over the 4-week period beginning on August 17, we calculated the percent of positive cases in surveillance testing and applied this percentage to the entire UGA student population (n = 38,920) to estimate the total number of asymptomatic COVID-19 students each week.³ Data for symptomatic cases were also reported by the university on a weekly basis. This included positive tests from the University Health Center, as well as voluntary reporting using a smartphone app from other sites.

Positive tests in symptomatic individuals were not stratified by student vs nonstudent until Week 3; students comprised 95% of positive symptomatic reports in Week 3 and 99% in Week 4, so we conservatively estimated that 95% of symptomatic cases in Weeks 1 and 2 were students. These data were used to estimate the percentage of SARS-CoV-2–positive students who were asymptomatic. 

Results

Our results are summarized in the table. The percentage of asymptomatic students testing positive in surveillance testing was 3.4% in Week 1 and rose steadily to 9% by Week 4. We estimated that there were 1303 asymptomatic cases among students in Week 1, increasing to 3487 asymptomatic positive students on campus by Week 4. The estimated percentage of asymptomatic students infected with SARS-CoV-2 ranged from 73% to 92.5% by week and was 81.1% overall.

Discussion

During the reporting period from August 17 to September 13, the 7-day moving average of new cases in Clarke County (home of UGA) increased from 30 to 83 per 100,000 persons/day (https://dph.georgia.gov/covid-19-daily-status-report). During this period, there were large increases in the number of infected students, more than 80% of whom were asymptomatic. With the assumption that anyone could be infected even if asymptomatic, these numbers highlight the importance for infection control to prevent potential spread within a community by taking universal precautions such as wearing a mask, following physical distancing guidelines, and handwashing.

Limitations. First, reporting of positive tests in symptomatic individuals is highly encouraged but not required. The large drop in symptomatic positive test reports between Weeks 3 and 4, with no change in test positivity in surveillance of asymptomatic students (8.9% vs 9%), suggests that students may have chosen to be tested elsewhere in conjunction with evaluation of their symptoms and/or not reported positive tests, possibly to avoid mandatory isolation and other restrictions on their activities. Further evidence to support no change in actual infection rates comes from testing for virus in wastewater, which also remained unchanged.⁴

Continue to: Second, each week's surveillance...

Second, each week’s surveillance population is not a true random sample, so extrapolating this estimate to the full student population could over- or undercount asymptomatic cases depending on the direction of bias (ie, healthy volunteer bias vs test avoidance by those with high-risk behaviors).

Finally, some students who were positive in surveillance testing may have been presymptomatic, rather than asymptomatic.

In conclusion, we estimate that approximately 80% of students infected with SARS-CoV-2 are asymptomatic. This is consistent with other studies in young adult populations.²

Mark H. Ebell, MD, MS
Cassie Chupp, MPH
Michelle Bentivegna, MPH
Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, College of Public Health, University of Georgia, Athens
ebell@uga.edu

The authors reported no potential conflict of interest relevant to this article.

Medication adherence remains a truly challenging issue. For most chronic diseases, up to 20%-30% of the pills that are prescribed are not taken. In the case of inhalers for asthma and COPD, patients miss over half of the prescribed doses.

There are many things that contribute to the problem of poor adherence, but people often just simply forget. Thankfully, there are tools designed to help remind patients of what they need to take and when. A survey of apps developed to help patients remember to take their medicines found more than 700 available in Apple and Android app stores.¹ Most apps focus on medication alerts, reminders, and medication logs.² A recent review showed that apps have some – yet limited – effectiveness in increasing adherence, with patient self-reported improvements of 7%-40%.³

Another perhaps more promising area of improving adherence involves high-tech advances in the way medications can be taken. Inhalers are a primary target as they are complicated devices. A patient has to breathe in at the correct time after the inhaler is actuated, and the inhaler works optimally only if the rate of inhalation is sufficient to carry the medication into the lungs.

A number of companies have developed attachments for inhalers (and even inhalers themselves) that can record when the medication is taken through a Bluetooth connection to a patient’s smartphone. These can also assess inspiratory flow. Reminders to take the medication are built into the app, and those reminders disappear if the medication is taken. Patients can receive feedback about the quality of their timing and inspiratory rate to maximize medication delivery to the lungs.⁴

We learned long ago that it is difficult to take medications three to four times a day, so extended-release tablets were developed to reduce the frequency to once or twice a day. A great deal of work is now being done behind the scenes to develop medications that decrease the need for patients to remember to take their medications. The best examples of this are the long-acting reversible contraception (LARC) devices, specifically IUDs and Nexplanon. Compared with traditional oral contraceptives that need to be taken daily, LARCs reduce the rate of pregnancy by five- to tenfold.

We also now have medications for osteoporosis that can be taken monthly, or even annually. When bisphosphonates were first developed for osteoporosis prevention, they needed to be taken daily. Then a weekly bisphosphonate was developed. Now there is a once-monthly oral bisphosphonate, Ibandronate, and even a once yearly IV bisphosphonate.

Exciting developments have also occurred in the management of diabetes. We may be tempted to take for granted how once-daily long-acting insulin, which releases insulin slowly over the course of a day, has revolutionized the diabetic treatment since its Food and Drug Administration approval in 2000. Yet progress did not end there. The first GLP-1 receptor agonist for diabetes was approved in 2005 and was a twice-a-day medicine. Shortly afterward, a daily GLP-1 was approved, and now there are three once-weekly GLP-1 receptor agonists.

Several pharmaceutical manufacturers are now working on a once-weekly insulin,⁵ as well as an implantable GLP-1 receptor agonist that will need to be replaced every 6-12 months.⁶ Imagine your patient coming in once a year to replace his or her potent glucose lowering medication – one that offers a low incidence of hypoglycemia, maintains glucose control all year long, and requires no adherence to a complicated medication regimen.

Similar technology is being used to develop a once-yearly anti-HIV prophylactic medication delivery system.⁷ This could help prevent the spread of HIV in areas of the world where it may be difficult for people to take daily medications.⁷

The many technological advances we have described may help us reduce our likelihood of missing a dose of a medication. We are hopeful that progress in this area will continue, and that one day medication adherence will require even less effort from patients than it does today.
 

Dr. Notte is a family physician and chief medical officer of Abington (Pa.) Hospital–Jefferson Health. Follow him on Twitter (@doctornotte). Dr. Skolnik is professor of family and community medicine at Sidney Kimmel Medical College, Philadelphia, and associate director of the family medicine residency program at Abington Hospital–Jefferson Health. They have no conflicts related to the content of this piece.

References

1. Tabi K et al. Mobile apps for medication management: Review and analysis. JMIR Mhealth Uhealth. 2019 Sep 7(9):13608.

2. Park JYE et al. Mobile phone apps targeting medication adherence: Quality assessment and content analysis of user reviews. JMIR Mhealth Uhealth. 2019 Jan 31;7(1):e11919.

3. Pérez-Jover V et al. Mobile apps for increasing treatment adherence: Systematic review. J Med Internet Res. 2019;21(6):e12505. doi: 10.2196/12505.

4. 4 Smart inhalers that could be lifesaving for people living with asthma & COPD. MyTherapy, July 11, 2019.

5. Rosenstock J et al. Once-weekly insulin for type 2 diabetes without previous insulin treatment. N Engl J Med. 2020 Sep 22. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa2022474.

6. GLP-1 agonists: From 2 daily injections to 1 per week and beyond. DiaTribe, Jan. 10, 2018.

7. Long-acting HIV prevention tools. Hiv.gov, July 20, 2019.

Medication adherence remains a truly challenging issue. For most chronic diseases, up to 20%-30% of the pills that are prescribed are not taken. In the case of inhalers for asthma and COPD, patients miss over half of the prescribed doses.

There are many things that contribute to the problem of poor adherence, but people often just simply forget. Thankfully, there are tools designed to help remind patients of what they need to take and when. A survey of apps developed to help patients remember to take their medicines found more than 700 available in Apple and Android app stores.¹ Most apps focus on medication alerts, reminders, and medication logs.² A recent review showed that apps have some – yet limited – effectiveness in increasing adherence, with patient self-reported improvements of 7%-40%.³

Another perhaps more promising area of improving adherence involves high-tech advances in the way medications can be taken. Inhalers are a primary target as they are complicated devices. A patient has to breathe in at the correct time after the inhaler is actuated, and the inhaler works optimally only if the rate of inhalation is sufficient to carry the medication into the lungs.

A number of companies have developed attachments for inhalers (and even inhalers themselves) that can record when the medication is taken through a Bluetooth connection to a patient’s smartphone. These can also assess inspiratory flow. Reminders to take the medication are built into the app, and those reminders disappear if the medication is taken. Patients can receive feedback about the quality of their timing and inspiratory rate to maximize medication delivery to the lungs.⁴

We learned long ago that it is difficult to take medications three to four times a day, so extended-release tablets were developed to reduce the frequency to once or twice a day. A great deal of work is now being done behind the scenes to develop medications that decrease the need for patients to remember to take their medications. The best examples of this are the long-acting reversible contraception (LARC) devices, specifically IUDs and Nexplanon. Compared with traditional oral contraceptives that need to be taken daily, LARCs reduce the rate of pregnancy by five- to tenfold.

We also now have medications for osteoporosis that can be taken monthly, or even annually. When bisphosphonates were first developed for osteoporosis prevention, they needed to be taken daily. Then a weekly bisphosphonate was developed. Now there is a once-monthly oral bisphosphonate, Ibandronate, and even a once yearly IV bisphosphonate.

Exciting developments have also occurred in the management of diabetes. We may be tempted to take for granted how once-daily long-acting insulin, which releases insulin slowly over the course of a day, has revolutionized the diabetic treatment since its Food and Drug Administration approval in 2000. Yet progress did not end there. The first GLP-1 receptor agonist for diabetes was approved in 2005 and was a twice-a-day medicine. Shortly afterward, a daily GLP-1 was approved, and now there are three once-weekly GLP-1 receptor agonists.

Several pharmaceutical manufacturers are now working on a once-weekly insulin,⁵ as well as an implantable GLP-1 receptor agonist that will need to be replaced every 6-12 months.⁶ Imagine your patient coming in once a year to replace his or her potent glucose lowering medication – one that offers a low incidence of hypoglycemia, maintains glucose control all year long, and requires no adherence to a complicated medication regimen.

Similar technology is being used to develop a once-yearly anti-HIV prophylactic medication delivery system.⁷ This could help prevent the spread of HIV in areas of the world where it may be difficult for people to take daily medications.⁷

The many technological advances we have described may help us reduce our likelihood of missing a dose of a medication. We are hopeful that progress in this area will continue, and that one day medication adherence will require even less effort from patients than it does today.
 

Dr. Notte is a family physician and chief medical officer of Abington (Pa.) Hospital–Jefferson Health. Follow him on Twitter (@doctornotte). Dr. Skolnik is professor of family and community medicine at Sidney Kimmel Medical College, Philadelphia, and associate director of the family medicine residency program at Abington Hospital–Jefferson Health. They have no conflicts related to the content of this piece.

References

1. Tabi K et al. Mobile apps for medication management: Review and analysis. JMIR Mhealth Uhealth. 2019 Sep 7(9):13608.

2. Park JYE et al. Mobile phone apps targeting medication adherence: Quality assessment and content analysis of user reviews. JMIR Mhealth Uhealth. 2019 Jan 31;7(1):e11919.

3. Pérez-Jover V et al. Mobile apps for increasing treatment adherence: Systematic review. J Med Internet Res. 2019;21(6):e12505. doi: 10.2196/12505.

4. 4 Smart inhalers that could be lifesaving for people living with asthma & COPD. MyTherapy, July 11, 2019.

5. Rosenstock J et al. Once-weekly insulin for type 2 diabetes without previous insulin treatment. N Engl J Med. 2020 Sep 22. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa2022474.

6. GLP-1 agonists: From 2 daily injections to 1 per week and beyond. DiaTribe, Jan. 10, 2018.

7. Long-acting HIV prevention tools. Hiv.gov, July 20, 2019.

Medication adherence remains a truly challenging issue. For most chronic diseases, up to 20%-30% of the pills that are prescribed are not taken. In the case of inhalers for asthma and COPD, patients miss over half of the prescribed doses.

There are many things that contribute to the problem of poor adherence, but people often just simply forget. Thankfully, there are tools designed to help remind patients of what they need to take and when. A survey of apps developed to help patients remember to take their medicines found more than 700 available in Apple and Android app stores.¹ Most apps focus on medication alerts, reminders, and medication logs.² A recent review showed that apps have some – yet limited – effectiveness in increasing adherence, with patient self-reported improvements of 7%-40%.³

Another perhaps more promising area of improving adherence involves high-tech advances in the way medications can be taken. Inhalers are a primary target as they are complicated devices. A patient has to breathe in at the correct time after the inhaler is actuated, and the inhaler works optimally only if the rate of inhalation is sufficient to carry the medication into the lungs.

A number of companies have developed attachments for inhalers (and even inhalers themselves) that can record when the medication is taken through a Bluetooth connection to a patient’s smartphone. These can also assess inspiratory flow. Reminders to take the medication are built into the app, and those reminders disappear if the medication is taken. Patients can receive feedback about the quality of their timing and inspiratory rate to maximize medication delivery to the lungs.⁴

We learned long ago that it is difficult to take medications three to four times a day, so extended-release tablets were developed to reduce the frequency to once or twice a day. A great deal of work is now being done behind the scenes to develop medications that decrease the need for patients to remember to take their medications. The best examples of this are the long-acting reversible contraception (LARC) devices, specifically IUDs and Nexplanon. Compared with traditional oral contraceptives that need to be taken daily, LARCs reduce the rate of pregnancy by five- to tenfold.

We also now have medications for osteoporosis that can be taken monthly, or even annually. When bisphosphonates were first developed for osteoporosis prevention, they needed to be taken daily. Then a weekly bisphosphonate was developed. Now there is a once-monthly oral bisphosphonate, Ibandronate, and even a once yearly IV bisphosphonate.

Exciting developments have also occurred in the management of diabetes. We may be tempted to take for granted how once-daily long-acting insulin, which releases insulin slowly over the course of a day, has revolutionized the diabetic treatment since its Food and Drug Administration approval in 2000. Yet progress did not end there. The first GLP-1 receptor agonist for diabetes was approved in 2005 and was a twice-a-day medicine. Shortly afterward, a daily GLP-1 was approved, and now there are three once-weekly GLP-1 receptor agonists.

Several pharmaceutical manufacturers are now working on a once-weekly insulin,⁵ as well as an implantable GLP-1 receptor agonist that will need to be replaced every 6-12 months.⁶ Imagine your patient coming in once a year to replace his or her potent glucose lowering medication – one that offers a low incidence of hypoglycemia, maintains glucose control all year long, and requires no adherence to a complicated medication regimen.

Similar technology is being used to develop a once-yearly anti-HIV prophylactic medication delivery system.⁷ This could help prevent the spread of HIV in areas of the world where it may be difficult for people to take daily medications.⁷

The many technological advances we have described may help us reduce our likelihood of missing a dose of a medication. We are hopeful that progress in this area will continue, and that one day medication adherence will require even less effort from patients than it does today.
 

Dr. Notte is a family physician and chief medical officer of Abington (Pa.) Hospital–Jefferson Health. Follow him on Twitter (@doctornotte). Dr. Skolnik is professor of family and community medicine at Sidney Kimmel Medical College, Philadelphia, and associate director of the family medicine residency program at Abington Hospital–Jefferson Health. They have no conflicts related to the content of this piece.

References

1. Tabi K et al. Mobile apps for medication management: Review and analysis. JMIR Mhealth Uhealth. 2019 Sep 7(9):13608.

2. Park JYE et al. Mobile phone apps targeting medication adherence: Quality assessment and content analysis of user reviews. JMIR Mhealth Uhealth. 2019 Jan 31;7(1):e11919.

3. Pérez-Jover V et al. Mobile apps for increasing treatment adherence: Systematic review. J Med Internet Res. 2019;21(6):e12505. doi: 10.2196/12505.

4. 4 Smart inhalers that could be lifesaving for people living with asthma & COPD. MyTherapy, July 11, 2019.

5. Rosenstock J et al. Once-weekly insulin for type 2 diabetes without previous insulin treatment. N Engl J Med. 2020 Sep 22. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa2022474.

6. GLP-1 agonists: From 2 daily injections to 1 per week and beyond. DiaTribe, Jan. 10, 2018.

7. Long-acting HIV prevention tools. Hiv.gov, July 20, 2019.

To the Editor: Normally I would skip the editorial; however, the title “The Other Pandemic: Addiction” caught my eye (Fed Pract. 2020;37[10]:440-441). This will, of course, require me going in for eye care in the next couple of days, but my concerns are low. After all, the hook you used wasn’t that big.

Bravo! Your choice to focus on the effects of isolation was a masterful touch. I started skimming with the assumption that you would say something along the lines of ‘COVID bad, everybody depressed, blah, blah.’ But you cut into the abscess of the issue cleanly, exposing the core—isolation “amplifies negative thoughts, dysphoria, and fearful emotions.” A deadly combination for our patients and ourselves.

I have been a physician assistant in the US Army, and as a civilian at Brooke Army Medical Center and US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Puget Sound Health Care System. One thing I have seen throughout that time was the effects of isolation on the active duty enlisted young, and even more so on retired older warriors. Throughout the time of our military service, we transfer to many places and make a lot of friends, but more so, we lose track of them over time.

I have cared for many older warriors who cannot get something as simple as a colonoscopy because they do not have someone to drive them home after they have been sedated. Family and friends were scattered over the country, or the world. At the VA, many older warriors come not just for an appointment, but also as a time to socialize and ‘BS’ with those who understand them.

One goal I set for myself many years ago was to have the warrior laughing before they left my office. If I did that, I knew I had made a difference. Thank you for your editorial.

Anthony J Passaniti, PA, USA (ret) ajp78232@gmail.com

To the Editor: Normally I would skip the editorial; however, the title “The Other Pandemic: Addiction” caught my eye (Fed Pract. 2020;37[10]:440-441). This will, of course, require me going in for eye care in the next couple of days, but my concerns are low. After all, the hook you used wasn’t that big.

Bravo! Your choice to focus on the effects of isolation was a masterful touch. I started skimming with the assumption that you would say something along the lines of ‘COVID bad, everybody depressed, blah, blah.’ But you cut into the abscess of the issue cleanly, exposing the core—isolation “amplifies negative thoughts, dysphoria, and fearful emotions.” A deadly combination for our patients and ourselves.

I have been a physician assistant in the US Army, and as a civilian at Brooke Army Medical Center and US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Puget Sound Health Care System. One thing I have seen throughout that time was the effects of isolation on the active duty enlisted young, and even more so on retired older warriors. Throughout the time of our military service, we transfer to many places and make a lot of friends, but more so, we lose track of them over time.

I have cared for many older warriors who cannot get something as simple as a colonoscopy because they do not have someone to drive them home after they have been sedated. Family and friends were scattered over the country, or the world. At the VA, many older warriors come not just for an appointment, but also as a time to socialize and ‘BS’ with those who understand them.

One goal I set for myself many years ago was to have the warrior laughing before they left my office. If I did that, I knew I had made a difference. Thank you for your editorial.

Anthony J Passaniti, PA, USA (ret) ajp78232@gmail.com

To the Editor: Normally I would skip the editorial; however, the title “The Other Pandemic: Addiction” caught my eye (Fed Pract. 2020;37[10]:440-441). This will, of course, require me going in for eye care in the next couple of days, but my concerns are low. After all, the hook you used wasn’t that big.

Bravo! Your choice to focus on the effects of isolation was a masterful touch. I started skimming with the assumption that you would say something along the lines of ‘COVID bad, everybody depressed, blah, blah.’ But you cut into the abscess of the issue cleanly, exposing the core—isolation “amplifies negative thoughts, dysphoria, and fearful emotions.” A deadly combination for our patients and ourselves.

I have been a physician assistant in the US Army, and as a civilian at Brooke Army Medical Center and US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Puget Sound Health Care System. One thing I have seen throughout that time was the effects of isolation on the active duty enlisted young, and even more so on retired older warriors. Throughout the time of our military service, we transfer to many places and make a lot of friends, but more so, we lose track of them over time.

I have cared for many older warriors who cannot get something as simple as a colonoscopy because they do not have someone to drive them home after they have been sedated. Family and friends were scattered over the country, or the world. At the VA, many older warriors come not just for an appointment, but also as a time to socialize and ‘BS’ with those who understand them.

One goal I set for myself many years ago was to have the warrior laughing before they left my office. If I did that, I knew I had made a difference. Thank you for your editorial.

Anthony J Passaniti, PA, USA (ret) ajp78232@gmail.com

In the Veterans Health Administration (VHA), there are frequent e-mails and requests for employees to accept a detail or short-term assignment across a wide range of positions from administrative to executive leadership. These opportunities afford an employee and the service line valuable benefits and growth opportunities; however, there are reasons why some may be reluctant to pursue these opportunities. In this article, we discuss the barriers to applying for and accepting detail positions and the benefits for the employee and the service lines during periods of standard operations as well as during emergencies requiring alternative staffing strategies.

Details are short-term assignments used to fill a vacant position while hiring for the permanent position or to fill a short-term need (eg, during a pandemic). Details usually last 30 to 120 days, though they may be extended, depending on the position, the number of people willing to serve in the detailed role, and the time to select a candidate for the permanent position. Details can be created for any skill level or type of position to meet an identified need, but they are most often needed for supervisory or leadership roles.

The COVID-19 pandemic has shed light on the importance of individuals’ flexibility and adaptability both within and between roles. Many US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) facilities stood up Incident Command structures to support the changes required to adapt to the needs created by the pandemic. Establishing an Incident Command means that people within the organization must take on new responsibilities, and in many cases, they are detailed to new positions that were not needed or prioritized before the pandemic.

Barriers

An employee may be reluctant to apply for or accept a detail because he or she has little to no experience; feels uncomfortable stepping into an unfamiliar role; is concerned about making a leap from a clinical to administrative role; has uncertainty whether the job is a good professional fit; dislikes the lack of a pay increase during the detail period even if the new role has more responsibility; and has concern that serving in the detail may make them ineligible to apply for the permanent position due to a perception of being preselected. Additionally, the employee may recognize the added stress on colleagues because the same amount of work must be completed.

Benefits

Although leaving a position for a period of months can be stressful, serving in a detail position provides significant opportunities for professional growth. An employee can gain knowledge and experience in an unfamiliar role before applying for or committing to a permanent position. Those serving in temporary details are often given more support as colleagues and supervisors understand that the role was accepted on short notice with little time to prepare. Other benefits include expanding professional contacts, gaining perspective on a different part of the VHA, and working on skills, such as flexibility, time management, and perseverance. By succeeding in a detail, employees build professional acumen. After taking on additional challenges they become more competitive for future jobs. The VHA Executive Candidate Development Program requires a 120-day detail, serving as either assistant or associate director, chief of staff, or associate director for patient care services/nurse executive as part of the program.¹

Temporarily leaving a service line to detail in a different service line has an impact on the home service because of the restrictions imposed. These restrictions guarantee that the employee can return to the original position at the end of a detail, thus providing a sense of job security; however, the home service line is down an employee.

Given these considerations, the following are key points to establish before undertaking the detail: (1) length of assignment; (2) once started, potential for the assignment to be extended; (3) will the employee be doing any of their prior job or just the new job or a blend of both; (4) possible changes in hours and site of work of the employee; (5) who will supervise the employee; (6) who will write the employee’s review; (7) training or skills needed prior to starting; (8) necessary paperwork; (9) how will the new assignment be communicated to others; (10) what happens if the detail ends sooner than planned; and (11) approval and support of all involved parties.

The employee’s home service may need a temporary plan to cover the employee’s workload, especially if the employee will be detailed to a different service line. The temporary plan may require creativity and flexibility and can be a way to trial the contingency plans for staffing the home service. One benefit to the home service is that the employee will have additional skills on returning that may benefit the home service, and the service will gain a potential leader.

When an employee goes to a different service, that service gains an employee who may bring a new perspective to help solve existing conflicts or problems. This can serve as a time to reset expectations or set new goals prior to the arrival of new leadership. If the detail is a good fit, then there is the chance that the employee may return in the future or refer others to it as a professional opportunity.

Conclusions

A detail can benefit the employee and the home and host services if planned in advance, and all parties support the process. A short-term leadership or administrative assignment can help an employee gain valuable experience for the future.

In the Veterans Health Administration (VHA), there are frequent e-mails and requests for employees to accept a detail or short-term assignment across a wide range of positions from administrative to executive leadership. These opportunities afford an employee and the service line valuable benefits and growth opportunities; however, there are reasons why some may be reluctant to pursue these opportunities. In this article, we discuss the barriers to applying for and accepting detail positions and the benefits for the employee and the service lines during periods of standard operations as well as during emergencies requiring alternative staffing strategies.

Details are short-term assignments used to fill a vacant position while hiring for the permanent position or to fill a short-term need (eg, during a pandemic). Details usually last 30 to 120 days, though they may be extended, depending on the position, the number of people willing to serve in the detailed role, and the time to select a candidate for the permanent position. Details can be created for any skill level or type of position to meet an identified need, but they are most often needed for supervisory or leadership roles.

The COVID-19 pandemic has shed light on the importance of individuals’ flexibility and adaptability both within and between roles. Many US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) facilities stood up Incident Command structures to support the changes required to adapt to the needs created by the pandemic. Establishing an Incident Command means that people within the organization must take on new responsibilities, and in many cases, they are detailed to new positions that were not needed or prioritized before the pandemic.

Barriers

An employee may be reluctant to apply for or accept a detail because he or she has little to no experience; feels uncomfortable stepping into an unfamiliar role; is concerned about making a leap from a clinical to administrative role; has uncertainty whether the job is a good professional fit; dislikes the lack of a pay increase during the detail period even if the new role has more responsibility; and has concern that serving in the detail may make them ineligible to apply for the permanent position due to a perception of being preselected. Additionally, the employee may recognize the added stress on colleagues because the same amount of work must be completed.

Benefits

Although leaving a position for a period of months can be stressful, serving in a detail position provides significant opportunities for professional growth. An employee can gain knowledge and experience in an unfamiliar role before applying for or committing to a permanent position. Those serving in temporary details are often given more support as colleagues and supervisors understand that the role was accepted on short notice with little time to prepare. Other benefits include expanding professional contacts, gaining perspective on a different part of the VHA, and working on skills, such as flexibility, time management, and perseverance. By succeeding in a detail, employees build professional acumen. After taking on additional challenges they become more competitive for future jobs. The VHA Executive Candidate Development Program requires a 120-day detail, serving as either assistant or associate director, chief of staff, or associate director for patient care services/nurse executive as part of the program.¹

Temporarily leaving a service line to detail in a different service line has an impact on the home service because of the restrictions imposed. These restrictions guarantee that the employee can return to the original position at the end of a detail, thus providing a sense of job security; however, the home service line is down an employee.

Given these considerations, the following are key points to establish before undertaking the detail: (1) length of assignment; (2) once started, potential for the assignment to be extended; (3) will the employee be doing any of their prior job or just the new job or a blend of both; (4) possible changes in hours and site of work of the employee; (5) who will supervise the employee; (6) who will write the employee’s review; (7) training or skills needed prior to starting; (8) necessary paperwork; (9) how will the new assignment be communicated to others; (10) what happens if the detail ends sooner than planned; and (11) approval and support of all involved parties.

The employee’s home service may need a temporary plan to cover the employee’s workload, especially if the employee will be detailed to a different service line. The temporary plan may require creativity and flexibility and can be a way to trial the contingency plans for staffing the home service. One benefit to the home service is that the employee will have additional skills on returning that may benefit the home service, and the service will gain a potential leader.

When an employee goes to a different service, that service gains an employee who may bring a new perspective to help solve existing conflicts or problems. This can serve as a time to reset expectations or set new goals prior to the arrival of new leadership. If the detail is a good fit, then there is the chance that the employee may return in the future or refer others to it as a professional opportunity.

Conclusions

A detail can benefit the employee and the home and host services if planned in advance, and all parties support the process. A short-term leadership or administrative assignment can help an employee gain valuable experience for the future.

In the Veterans Health Administration (VHA), there are frequent e-mails and requests for employees to accept a detail or short-term assignment across a wide range of positions from administrative to executive leadership. These opportunities afford an employee and the service line valuable benefits and growth opportunities; however, there are reasons why some may be reluctant to pursue these opportunities. In this article, we discuss the barriers to applying for and accepting detail positions and the benefits for the employee and the service lines during periods of standard operations as well as during emergencies requiring alternative staffing strategies.

Details are short-term assignments used to fill a vacant position while hiring for the permanent position or to fill a short-term need (eg, during a pandemic). Details usually last 30 to 120 days, though they may be extended, depending on the position, the number of people willing to serve in the detailed role, and the time to select a candidate for the permanent position. Details can be created for any skill level or type of position to meet an identified need, but they are most often needed for supervisory or leadership roles.

The COVID-19 pandemic has shed light on the importance of individuals’ flexibility and adaptability both within and between roles. Many US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) facilities stood up Incident Command structures to support the changes required to adapt to the needs created by the pandemic. Establishing an Incident Command means that people within the organization must take on new responsibilities, and in many cases, they are detailed to new positions that were not needed or prioritized before the pandemic.

Barriers

An employee may be reluctant to apply for or accept a detail because he or she has little to no experience; feels uncomfortable stepping into an unfamiliar role; is concerned about making a leap from a clinical to administrative role; has uncertainty whether the job is a good professional fit; dislikes the lack of a pay increase during the detail period even if the new role has more responsibility; and has concern that serving in the detail may make them ineligible to apply for the permanent position due to a perception of being preselected. Additionally, the employee may recognize the added stress on colleagues because the same amount of work must be completed.

Benefits

Although leaving a position for a period of months can be stressful, serving in a detail position provides significant opportunities for professional growth. An employee can gain knowledge and experience in an unfamiliar role before applying for or committing to a permanent position. Those serving in temporary details are often given more support as colleagues and supervisors understand that the role was accepted on short notice with little time to prepare. Other benefits include expanding professional contacts, gaining perspective on a different part of the VHA, and working on skills, such as flexibility, time management, and perseverance. By succeeding in a detail, employees build professional acumen. After taking on additional challenges they become more competitive for future jobs. The VHA Executive Candidate Development Program requires a 120-day detail, serving as either assistant or associate director, chief of staff, or associate director for patient care services/nurse executive as part of the program.¹

Temporarily leaving a service line to detail in a different service line has an impact on the home service because of the restrictions imposed. These restrictions guarantee that the employee can return to the original position at the end of a detail, thus providing a sense of job security; however, the home service line is down an employee.

Given these considerations, the following are key points to establish before undertaking the detail: (1) length of assignment; (2) once started, potential for the assignment to be extended; (3) will the employee be doing any of their prior job or just the new job or a blend of both; (4) possible changes in hours and site of work of the employee; (5) who will supervise the employee; (6) who will write the employee’s review; (7) training or skills needed prior to starting; (8) necessary paperwork; (9) how will the new assignment be communicated to others; (10) what happens if the detail ends sooner than planned; and (11) approval and support of all involved parties.

The employee’s home service may need a temporary plan to cover the employee’s workload, especially if the employee will be detailed to a different service line. The temporary plan may require creativity and flexibility and can be a way to trial the contingency plans for staffing the home service. One benefit to the home service is that the employee will have additional skills on returning that may benefit the home service, and the service will gain a potential leader.

When an employee goes to a different service, that service gains an employee who may bring a new perspective to help solve existing conflicts or problems. This can serve as a time to reset expectations or set new goals prior to the arrival of new leadership. If the detail is a good fit, then there is the chance that the employee may return in the future or refer others to it as a professional opportunity.

Conclusions

A detail can benefit the employee and the home and host services if planned in advance, and all parties support the process. A short-term leadership or administrative assignment can help an employee gain valuable experience for the future.

On April 4, 2021, a rule implementing the federal regulations of the Information Blocking 21st Century Cures Act will be enacted. This Act furthers the seamless release of medical records to promote improved outcomes, access to medical information, and transparency of costs. These regulations, although important, may impact the ability to offer confidentiality to adolescents seeking care for sensitive issues. Each state will need to be thoughtful balancing the action or inaction of allowing access to confidential or sensitive progress notes, as interference with access may be considered information blocking and subject to penalties and fines.

belchonock/Thinkstock

With adolescent confidential notes, protection rules may not apply under the information blocking regulations. These regulations will release progress notes, imaging narratives, procedure notes, and labs to parents via their EHR portals. The release of information is not limited, and both inpatient and outpatient records will be released. These regulations are written for adults with the assumption that all information is released to the individual receiving the care and shared with outside providers.

Ms. Thew is medical director of the department of adolescent medicine at Children’s Wisconsin in Milwaukee. She is a member of the Pediatric News editorial advisory board. She had no relevant financial disclosures. Email Ms. Thew at pdnews@mdedge.com.

On April 4, 2021, a rule implementing the federal regulations of the Information Blocking 21st Century Cures Act will be enacted. This Act furthers the seamless release of medical records to promote improved outcomes, access to medical information, and transparency of costs. These regulations, although important, may impact the ability to offer confidentiality to adolescents seeking care for sensitive issues. Each state will need to be thoughtful balancing the action or inaction of allowing access to confidential or sensitive progress notes, as interference with access may be considered information blocking and subject to penalties and fines.

belchonock/Thinkstock

With adolescent confidential notes, protection rules may not apply under the information blocking regulations. These regulations will release progress notes, imaging narratives, procedure notes, and labs to parents via their EHR portals. The release of information is not limited, and both inpatient and outpatient records will be released. These regulations are written for adults with the assumption that all information is released to the individual receiving the care and shared with outside providers.

Ms. Thew is medical director of the department of adolescent medicine at Children’s Wisconsin in Milwaukee. She is a member of the Pediatric News editorial advisory board. She had no relevant financial disclosures. Email Ms. Thew at pdnews@mdedge.com.

On April 4, 2021, a rule implementing the federal regulations of the Information Blocking 21st Century Cures Act will be enacted. This Act furthers the seamless release of medical records to promote improved outcomes, access to medical information, and transparency of costs. These regulations, although important, may impact the ability to offer confidentiality to adolescents seeking care for sensitive issues. Each state will need to be thoughtful balancing the action or inaction of allowing access to confidential or sensitive progress notes, as interference with access may be considered information blocking and subject to penalties and fines.

belchonock/Thinkstock

With adolescent confidential notes, protection rules may not apply under the information blocking regulations. These regulations will release progress notes, imaging narratives, procedure notes, and labs to parents via their EHR portals. The release of information is not limited, and both inpatient and outpatient records will be released. These regulations are written for adults with the assumption that all information is released to the individual receiving the care and shared with outside providers.

Ms. Thew is medical director of the department of adolescent medicine at Children’s Wisconsin in Milwaukee. She is a member of the Pediatric News editorial advisory board. She had no relevant financial disclosures. Email Ms. Thew at pdnews@mdedge.com.

Psoriasis and atopic dermatitis (AD) can impact quality of life (QOL) in pediatric patients, warranting early recognition and treatment.¹ Topical agents often are inadequate to treat moderate to severe disease, but the potential toxicity of systemic agents, which largely include immunosuppressives, limit their use in this population despite their effectiveness. Our expanding knowledge of the pathogenesis of psoriasis (tumor necrosis factor [TNF] α and IL-23/T_H17 pathways) and AD has led to targeted interventions, particularly monoclonal antibody biologics, which have revolutionized treatment for affected adults and more recently children. Several agents are approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for pediatric psoriasis, and dupilumab is approved for pediatric AD. Herein, we discuss the latest developments in the treatment landscape for pediatric psoriasis and AD.

Pediatric Psoriasis

Methotrexate (MTX) and cyclosporine have been FDA approved for psoriasis in adults since 1972 and 1997, respectively.² Before biologics, MTX was the primary systemic agent used to treat pediatric psoriasis, given its lower toxicity vs cyclosporine. The TNF-α inhibitor etanercept became the first FDA-approved biologic for pediatric psoriasis in 2016. Adalimumab has been available in Europe for children since 2015 but is not FDA approved. Certolizumab, a pegylated TNF-α inhibitor that distinctly fails to cross the placental barrier currently is in clinical trials (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT04123795). Tumor necrosis factor α inhibitors have shown more rapid onset and greater efficacy during the first 16 weeks of use than MTX, including a head-to-head trial comparing MTX to adalimumab.³ A recent real-world study showed that pediatric patients receiving biologics, primarily TNF-α inhibitors, were more likely to achieve psoriasis area and severity index (PASI) 75 or clear/almost clear status (similar to PASI 90) than MTX and had higher drug survival rates.⁴

Ustekinumab targets both IL-12 and IL-23, which share the IL-23 receptor p40 subunit. It was the first biologic to target IL-23, which promotes the proliferation and survival of helper T cells (T_H17). Ustekinumab has led to greater reductions in PASI scores than TNF-α inhibitors.^5,6 Pediatric trials of guselkumab, risankizumab, and tildrakizumab, all targeting the IL-23 receptor–specific p19 subunit, are completed or currently recruiting (NCT03451851, NCT03997786, NCT04435600). Ixekizumab is the first IL-17A–targeting biologic approved for children.⁷ Secukinumab and the IL-17 receptor inhibitor brodalumab are in pediatric trials (NCT03668613, NCT04305327, NCT03240809). One potential issue with T_H17 pathway inhibitors is their association with inflammatory bowel disease, a contraindication when considering if a patient is a potential candidate for treatment.

Skin disease can profoundly affect QOL during childhood and adolescence, a critical time for psychosocial development. In psoriasis, improvement in QOL is proportional to clearance and is greater when PASI 90 is achieved vs PASI 75.⁸ The high efficacy of IL-23 and IL-17A pathway inhibitors now makes achieving at least PASI 90 the new standard, which can be reached in most patients.

Pediatric AD

For AD in the pediatric population, systemic treatments primarily include corticosteroids, mycophenolate mofetil, azathioprine, cyclosporine, and MTX. Although cyclosporine was the favored systemic agent among pediatric dermatologists in one study,⁹ claims data analyses show that systemic corticosteroids are used much more often overall, prescribed in 24.4% (116,635 total cases) of children with AD vs nonsteroidal immunosuppressants in less than 0.5%.¹⁰ Systemic steroids are impractical given their side effects and risk for disease rebound; however, no immunosuppressants are safe for long-term use, and all require frequent laboratory monitoring. The development of biologics for AD largely involves targeting T_H2-driven inflammation.¹¹ Dupilumab is the only FDA-approved biologic for moderate to severe pediatric AD, including in patients as young as 6 years of age. Dupilumab inhibits activation of the IL-4Rα subunit, thereby blocking responses to its ligands, IL-4 and IL-13. Phase 3 trials are now underway in children aged 6 months to 5 years (NCT02612454, NCT03346434). The concomitant ameliorative effects of dupilumab on asthma and other allergic disorders, occurring in approximately 90% of children with moderate to severe AD, is an added benefit.¹² Although dupilumab does not appear to modify the disease course in children with AD, the possibility that early introduction could reduce the risk for later developing allergic disease is intriguing.

Adolescent trials have been started for lebrikizumab (NCT04392154) and have been completed for tralokinumab (NCT03160885). Both agents selectively target IL-13 to block T_H2 pathway inflammation. The only reported adverse effects of IL-4Rα and IL-13 inhibitors have been injection-site pain/reactions and increased conjunctivitis.¹³

The only other biologic for AD currently in clinical trials for adolescents is nemolizumab, targeting the receptor for IL-31, a predominantly T_H2 cytokine that causes pruritus (NCT03989349). In adults, nemolizumab has shown rapid and potent suppression of itch (but not inflammation) without adding topical corticosteroids.¹⁴

Advantages of Biologics and Laboratory Monitoring

By targeting specific cytokines, biologics have greater and more rapid efficacy, fewer side effects, fewer drug interactions, less frequent dosing, and less immunosuppression compared to other systemic agents.^3,4,15,16

Recent pediatric-specific guidelines for psoriasis recommend baseline monitoring for tuberculosis for all biologics but yearly tuberculosis testing only for TNF-α inhibitors unless the individual patient is at increased risk.² No tuberculosis testing is needed for dupilumab, and no other laboratory monitoring is recommended for any biologic in children unless warranted by risk. This difference in recommended monitoring suggests the safety of biologics and is advantageous in managing pediatric therapy.

Unanswered Questions: Vaccines and Antidrug Antibodies

Although administration of killed vaccines is considered safe with all approved biologics, questions remain about the safety of administering live vaccines while on biologics, a particularly pertinent issue in younger children treated with dupilumab and other biologics for AD. Another unanswered question is the potential reduction in clinical response and drug durability with intermittent use of biologics due to the potential development of neutralizing antidrug antibodies (ADAs). The ability to discontinue medication intermittently is desirable, both to determine the natural course of the underlying disease and give a holiday as tolerated. Newer biologics are thought to have lower immunogenicity and less frequent ADA development.^17-19 Even with TNF-α inhibitors, the presence of anti-ADAs is not temporally related to response in children with psoriasis.²⁰ Long-term outcomes of the use of biologics in adults have been reassuring, and safety profiles of biologics studied thus far appear to be similar in children.^21,22 However, understanding the potential long-term effects from the use of newly approved and emerging biologics in the pediatric population will require decades of study to ensure safety, including nonrandomized studies and postmarketing reports from regulatory agencies.

Cost Considerations

Biologics are disease and QOL altering for children with moderate to severe psoriasis or AD; however, access to biologics often is an obstacle for patients and practitioners. Biologics cost $30,000 to $60,000 annually, while conventional systemic treatments such as MTX, cyclosporine, and acitretin cost $100 to $3000 annually, raising the question of cost effectiveness. In 2016, the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review concluded that biologics for psoriasis had reasonably good value based on improved QOL and concluded in 2017 that dupilumab had a benefit that outweighed its cost.^23,24 Prior authorizations and multiple appeals have been necessary to obtain approval, especially in the pediatric population.²⁵ This difficulty highlights the need for programs to cover the cost of biologics for all children, as well as registries to further assess effectiveness and long-term safety, especially compared to traditional systemic agents.

On the Horizon

Clinical trials for other therapies for children and adolescents are ongoing. Details on recommended dosing, approval status, and efficacy in trials are provided in the eTable. Given their high efficacy in adults with psoriasis, IL-23–specific and T_H17 pathway biologics likely are similarly efficacious and raise the bar for the expectation of achieving PASI 90 and PASI 100 responses. The long-term safety, durability of responses, and ability to modify disease, particularly when started early in life (eg, preadolescence) and early in the disease course, remains to be determined.

Psoriasis and atopic dermatitis (AD) can impact quality of life (QOL) in pediatric patients, warranting early recognition and treatment.¹ Topical agents often are inadequate to treat moderate to severe disease, but the potential toxicity of systemic agents, which largely include immunosuppressives, limit their use in this population despite their effectiveness. Our expanding knowledge of the pathogenesis of psoriasis (tumor necrosis factor [TNF] α and IL-23/T_H17 pathways) and AD has led to targeted interventions, particularly monoclonal antibody biologics, which have revolutionized treatment for affected adults and more recently children. Several agents are approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for pediatric psoriasis, and dupilumab is approved for pediatric AD. Herein, we discuss the latest developments in the treatment landscape for pediatric psoriasis and AD.

Pediatric Psoriasis

Methotrexate (MTX) and cyclosporine have been FDA approved for psoriasis in adults since 1972 and 1997, respectively.² Before biologics, MTX was the primary systemic agent used to treat pediatric psoriasis, given its lower toxicity vs cyclosporine. The TNF-α inhibitor etanercept became the first FDA-approved biologic for pediatric psoriasis in 2016. Adalimumab has been available in Europe for children since 2015 but is not FDA approved. Certolizumab, a pegylated TNF-α inhibitor that distinctly fails to cross the placental barrier currently is in clinical trials (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT04123795). Tumor necrosis factor α inhibitors have shown more rapid onset and greater efficacy during the first 16 weeks of use than MTX, including a head-to-head trial comparing MTX to adalimumab.³ A recent real-world study showed that pediatric patients receiving biologics, primarily TNF-α inhibitors, were more likely to achieve psoriasis area and severity index (PASI) 75 or clear/almost clear status (similar to PASI 90) than MTX and had higher drug survival rates.⁴

Ustekinumab targets both IL-12 and IL-23, which share the IL-23 receptor p40 subunit. It was the first biologic to target IL-23, which promotes the proliferation and survival of helper T cells (T_H17). Ustekinumab has led to greater reductions in PASI scores than TNF-α inhibitors.^5,6 Pediatric trials of guselkumab, risankizumab, and tildrakizumab, all targeting the IL-23 receptor–specific p19 subunit, are completed or currently recruiting (NCT03451851, NCT03997786, NCT04435600). Ixekizumab is the first IL-17A–targeting biologic approved for children.⁷ Secukinumab and the IL-17 receptor inhibitor brodalumab are in pediatric trials (NCT03668613, NCT04305327, NCT03240809). One potential issue with T_H17 pathway inhibitors is their association with inflammatory bowel disease, a contraindication when considering if a patient is a potential candidate for treatment.

Skin disease can profoundly affect QOL during childhood and adolescence, a critical time for psychosocial development. In psoriasis, improvement in QOL is proportional to clearance and is greater when PASI 90 is achieved vs PASI 75.⁸ The high efficacy of IL-23 and IL-17A pathway inhibitors now makes achieving at least PASI 90 the new standard, which can be reached in most patients.

Pediatric AD

For AD in the pediatric population, systemic treatments primarily include corticosteroids, mycophenolate mofetil, azathioprine, cyclosporine, and MTX. Although cyclosporine was the favored systemic agent among pediatric dermatologists in one study,⁹ claims data analyses show that systemic corticosteroids are used much more often overall, prescribed in 24.4% (116,635 total cases) of children with AD vs nonsteroidal immunosuppressants in less than 0.5%.¹⁰ Systemic steroids are impractical given their side effects and risk for disease rebound; however, no immunosuppressants are safe for long-term use, and all require frequent laboratory monitoring. The development of biologics for AD largely involves targeting T_H2-driven inflammation.¹¹ Dupilumab is the only FDA-approved biologic for moderate to severe pediatric AD, including in patients as young as 6 years of age. Dupilumab inhibits activation of the IL-4Rα subunit, thereby blocking responses to its ligands, IL-4 and IL-13. Phase 3 trials are now underway in children aged 6 months to 5 years (NCT02612454, NCT03346434). The concomitant ameliorative effects of dupilumab on asthma and other allergic disorders, occurring in approximately 90% of children with moderate to severe AD, is an added benefit.¹² Although dupilumab does not appear to modify the disease course in children with AD, the possibility that early introduction could reduce the risk for later developing allergic disease is intriguing.

Adolescent trials have been started for lebrikizumab (NCT04392154) and have been completed for tralokinumab (NCT03160885). Both agents selectively target IL-13 to block T_H2 pathway inflammation. The only reported adverse effects of IL-4Rα and IL-13 inhibitors have been injection-site pain/reactions and increased conjunctivitis.¹³

The only other biologic for AD currently in clinical trials for adolescents is nemolizumab, targeting the receptor for IL-31, a predominantly T_H2 cytokine that causes pruritus (NCT03989349). In adults, nemolizumab has shown rapid and potent suppression of itch (but not inflammation) without adding topical corticosteroids.¹⁴

Advantages of Biologics and Laboratory Monitoring

By targeting specific cytokines, biologics have greater and more rapid efficacy, fewer side effects, fewer drug interactions, less frequent dosing, and less immunosuppression compared to other systemic agents.^3,4,15,16

Recent pediatric-specific guidelines for psoriasis recommend baseline monitoring for tuberculosis for all biologics but yearly tuberculosis testing only for TNF-α inhibitors unless the individual patient is at increased risk.² No tuberculosis testing is needed for dupilumab, and no other laboratory monitoring is recommended for any biologic in children unless warranted by risk. This difference in recommended monitoring suggests the safety of biologics and is advantageous in managing pediatric therapy.

Unanswered Questions: Vaccines and Antidrug Antibodies

Although administration of killed vaccines is considered safe with all approved biologics, questions remain about the safety of administering live vaccines while on biologics, a particularly pertinent issue in younger children treated with dupilumab and other biologics for AD. Another unanswered question is the potential reduction in clinical response and drug durability with intermittent use of biologics due to the potential development of neutralizing antidrug antibodies (ADAs). The ability to discontinue medication intermittently is desirable, both to determine the natural course of the underlying disease and give a holiday as tolerated. Newer biologics are thought to have lower immunogenicity and less frequent ADA development.^17-19 Even with TNF-α inhibitors, the presence of anti-ADAs is not temporally related to response in children with psoriasis.²⁰ Long-term outcomes of the use of biologics in adults have been reassuring, and safety profiles of biologics studied thus far appear to be similar in children.^21,22 However, understanding the potential long-term effects from the use of newly approved and emerging biologics in the pediatric population will require decades of study to ensure safety, including nonrandomized studies and postmarketing reports from regulatory agencies.

Cost Considerations

Biologics are disease and QOL altering for children with moderate to severe psoriasis or AD; however, access to biologics often is an obstacle for patients and practitioners. Biologics cost $30,000 to $60,000 annually, while conventional systemic treatments such as MTX, cyclosporine, and acitretin cost $100 to $3000 annually, raising the question of cost effectiveness. In 2016, the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review concluded that biologics for psoriasis had reasonably good value based on improved QOL and concluded in 2017 that dupilumab had a benefit that outweighed its cost.^23,24 Prior authorizations and multiple appeals have been necessary to obtain approval, especially in the pediatric population.²⁵ This difficulty highlights the need for programs to cover the cost of biologics for all children, as well as registries to further assess effectiveness and long-term safety, especially compared to traditional systemic agents.

On the Horizon

Clinical trials for other therapies for children and adolescents are ongoing. Details on recommended dosing, approval status, and efficacy in trials are provided in the eTable. Given their high efficacy in adults with psoriasis, IL-23–specific and T_H17 pathway biologics likely are similarly efficacious and raise the bar for the expectation of achieving PASI 90 and PASI 100 responses. The long-term safety, durability of responses, and ability to modify disease, particularly when started early in life (eg, preadolescence) and early in the disease course, remains to be determined.

Psoriasis and atopic dermatitis (AD) can impact quality of life (QOL) in pediatric patients, warranting early recognition and treatment.¹ Topical agents often are inadequate to treat moderate to severe disease, but the potential toxicity of systemic agents, which largely include immunosuppressives, limit their use in this population despite their effectiveness. Our expanding knowledge of the pathogenesis of psoriasis (tumor necrosis factor [TNF] α and IL-23/T_H17 pathways) and AD has led to targeted interventions, particularly monoclonal antibody biologics, which have revolutionized treatment for affected adults and more recently children. Several agents are approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for pediatric psoriasis, and dupilumab is approved for pediatric AD. Herein, we discuss the latest developments in the treatment landscape for pediatric psoriasis and AD.

Pediatric Psoriasis

Methotrexate (MTX) and cyclosporine have been FDA approved for psoriasis in adults since 1972 and 1997, respectively.² Before biologics, MTX was the primary systemic agent used to treat pediatric psoriasis, given its lower toxicity vs cyclosporine. The TNF-α inhibitor etanercept became the first FDA-approved biologic for pediatric psoriasis in 2016. Adalimumab has been available in Europe for children since 2015 but is not FDA approved. Certolizumab, a pegylated TNF-α inhibitor that distinctly fails to cross the placental barrier currently is in clinical trials (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT04123795). Tumor necrosis factor α inhibitors have shown more rapid onset and greater efficacy during the first 16 weeks of use than MTX, including a head-to-head trial comparing MTX to adalimumab.³ A recent real-world study showed that pediatric patients receiving biologics, primarily TNF-α inhibitors, were more likely to achieve psoriasis area and severity index (PASI) 75 or clear/almost clear status (similar to PASI 90) than MTX and had higher drug survival rates.⁴

Ustekinumab targets both IL-12 and IL-23, which share the IL-23 receptor p40 subunit. It was the first biologic to target IL-23, which promotes the proliferation and survival of helper T cells (T_H17). Ustekinumab has led to greater reductions in PASI scores than TNF-α inhibitors.^5,6 Pediatric trials of guselkumab, risankizumab, and tildrakizumab, all targeting the IL-23 receptor–specific p19 subunit, are completed or currently recruiting (NCT03451851, NCT03997786, NCT04435600). Ixekizumab is the first IL-17A–targeting biologic approved for children.⁷ Secukinumab and the IL-17 receptor inhibitor brodalumab are in pediatric trials (NCT03668613, NCT04305327, NCT03240809). One potential issue with T_H17 pathway inhibitors is their association with inflammatory bowel disease, a contraindication when considering if a patient is a potential candidate for treatment.

Skin disease can profoundly affect QOL during childhood and adolescence, a critical time for psychosocial development. In psoriasis, improvement in QOL is proportional to clearance and is greater when PASI 90 is achieved vs PASI 75.⁸ The high efficacy of IL-23 and IL-17A pathway inhibitors now makes achieving at least PASI 90 the new standard, which can be reached in most patients.

Pediatric AD

For AD in the pediatric population, systemic treatments primarily include corticosteroids, mycophenolate mofetil, azathioprine, cyclosporine, and MTX. Although cyclosporine was the favored systemic agent among pediatric dermatologists in one study,⁹ claims data analyses show that systemic corticosteroids are used much more often overall, prescribed in 24.4% (116,635 total cases) of children with AD vs nonsteroidal immunosuppressants in less than 0.5%.¹⁰ Systemic steroids are impractical given their side effects and risk for disease rebound; however, no immunosuppressants are safe for long-term use, and all require frequent laboratory monitoring. The development of biologics for AD largely involves targeting T_H2-driven inflammation.¹¹ Dupilumab is the only FDA-approved biologic for moderate to severe pediatric AD, including in patients as young as 6 years of age. Dupilumab inhibits activation of the IL-4Rα subunit, thereby blocking responses to its ligands, IL-4 and IL-13. Phase 3 trials are now underway in children aged 6 months to 5 years (NCT02612454, NCT03346434). The concomitant ameliorative effects of dupilumab on asthma and other allergic disorders, occurring in approximately 90% of children with moderate to severe AD, is an added benefit.¹² Although dupilumab does not appear to modify the disease course in children with AD, the possibility that early introduction could reduce the risk for later developing allergic disease is intriguing.

Adolescent trials have been started for lebrikizumab (NCT04392154) and have been completed for tralokinumab (NCT03160885). Both agents selectively target IL-13 to block T_H2 pathway inflammation. The only reported adverse effects of IL-4Rα and IL-13 inhibitors have been injection-site pain/reactions and increased conjunctivitis.¹³

The only other biologic for AD currently in clinical trials for adolescents is nemolizumab, targeting the receptor for IL-31, a predominantly T_H2 cytokine that causes pruritus (NCT03989349). In adults, nemolizumab has shown rapid and potent suppression of itch (but not inflammation) without adding topical corticosteroids.¹⁴

Advantages of Biologics and Laboratory Monitoring

By targeting specific cytokines, biologics have greater and more rapid efficacy, fewer side effects, fewer drug interactions, less frequent dosing, and less immunosuppression compared to other systemic agents.^3,4,15,16

Recent pediatric-specific guidelines for psoriasis recommend baseline monitoring for tuberculosis for all biologics but yearly tuberculosis testing only for TNF-α inhibitors unless the individual patient is at increased risk.² No tuberculosis testing is needed for dupilumab, and no other laboratory monitoring is recommended for any biologic in children unless warranted by risk. This difference in recommended monitoring suggests the safety of biologics and is advantageous in managing pediatric therapy.

Unanswered Questions: Vaccines and Antidrug Antibodies

Although administration of killed vaccines is considered safe with all approved biologics, questions remain about the safety of administering live vaccines while on biologics, a particularly pertinent issue in younger children treated with dupilumab and other biologics for AD. Another unanswered question is the potential reduction in clinical response and drug durability with intermittent use of biologics due to the potential development of neutralizing antidrug antibodies (ADAs). The ability to discontinue medication intermittently is desirable, both to determine the natural course of the underlying disease and give a holiday as tolerated. Newer biologics are thought to have lower immunogenicity and less frequent ADA development.^17-19 Even with TNF-α inhibitors, the presence of anti-ADAs is not temporally related to response in children with psoriasis.²⁰ Long-term outcomes of the use of biologics in adults have been reassuring, and safety profiles of biologics studied thus far appear to be similar in children.^21,22 However, understanding the potential long-term effects from the use of newly approved and emerging biologics in the pediatric population will require decades of study to ensure safety, including nonrandomized studies and postmarketing reports from regulatory agencies.

Cost Considerations

Biologics are disease and QOL altering for children with moderate to severe psoriasis or AD; however, access to biologics often is an obstacle for patients and practitioners. Biologics cost $30,000 to $60,000 annually, while conventional systemic treatments such as MTX, cyclosporine, and acitretin cost $100 to $3000 annually, raising the question of cost effectiveness. In 2016, the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review concluded that biologics for psoriasis had reasonably good value based on improved QOL and concluded in 2017 that dupilumab had a benefit that outweighed its cost.^23,24 Prior authorizations and multiple appeals have been necessary to obtain approval, especially in the pediatric population.²⁵ This difficulty highlights the need for programs to cover the cost of biologics for all children, as well as registries to further assess effectiveness and long-term safety, especially compared to traditional systemic agents.

On the Horizon

Clinical trials for other therapies for children and adolescents are ongoing. Details on recommended dosing, approval status, and efficacy in trials are provided in the eTable. Given their high efficacy in adults with psoriasis, IL-23–specific and T_H17 pathway biologics likely are similarly efficacious and raise the bar for the expectation of achieving PASI 90 and PASI 100 responses. The long-term safety, durability of responses, and ability to modify disease, particularly when started early in life (eg, preadolescence) and early in the disease course, remains to be determined.

On December 31, 2019, cases of a severe pneumonia in patients in Wuhan, Hubei Province, China, were reported to the World Health Organization.^1,2 The novel coronavirus—severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2—was identified, and the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) became a public health emergency of international concern.¹ In March 2020, the World Health Organization officially characterized COVID-19 as a pandemic.³ As of October 2020, more than 42.3 million cases and 1.1 million deaths from COVID-19 have been confirmed worldwide.⁴

As more understanding of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 develops, various cutaneous manifestations of COVID-19 are being uncovered.⁵ The most common cutaneous manifestations of COVID-19 reported in the literature are maculopapular or morbilliform exanthem (36.1% of cutaneous manifestations), papulovesicular rash (34.7%), painful acral red purple papules (15.3%), urticaria (9.7%), livedo reticularis lesions (2.8%), and petechiae (1.4%).⁵

Interestingly, a series of unique cases was identified in April 2020 by a group of dermatologists in Spain. Most patients were children (median age, 13 years) or young adults (median age, 31 years; average age, 36 years; adult age range, 18–91 years).¹ Reporting on a representative sample of 6 patients in that series, the group noted that lesions, initially reddish, papular, and resembling chilblains (pernio), progressively became purpuric and flattened in the course of 1 week. Although the lesions presented with some referred discomfort or pain with palpation, they were not highly symptomatic, and no signs of ischemia or Raynaud syndrome were identified. Over time, lesions self-resolved without intervention. Most patients also did not present with what are considered classic COVID-19 signs or symptoms. Only the oldest patient (aged 91 years) presented with a notable respiratory condition; the remaining patients generally were in good health.¹ Dermatologists in Italy, France, and the United States also have witnessed these COVID-19–associated cutaneous manifestations.

Scientific understanding of COVID-19 and its associated dermatologic symptoms is evolving. Attention has turned to social media to inform and provide possible health solutions during this unprecedented medical crisis.⁶ Strict physical distancing measures have made patients and providers alike reliant on global digital social networks, such as Instagram, Twitter, and Facebook, to facilitate information sharing about COVID-19.⁷ The abundance of nonexpert advice and misinformation on social media makes communication of unbiased expert information difficult.^8,9 Furthermore, there is a need for dermatologists to provide medical information to patients regarding COVID-19, such as dermatologic manifestations, and clear guidance on immunobiologic or systemic medications during this unprecedented time.⁹

In recent years, dermatologists have established a growing presence on social media, with many recognized as social media influencers with the ability to affect patients’ health-related behavior.¹⁰ Social media frequently has been used by patients to solicit advice regarding skin concerns.^9,10 Many individuals, in fact, never see a physician after consulting social media for medical concerns or professional advice.⁹

In addition, as of March 2020, more than 61% of health care workers were found to use social media as a source of COVID-19–related information.¹¹ Therefore, dermatologists should utilize social media as a platform to share evidence-based information with the public and other health care workers.

Through social media, dermatologists can post high-quality images with clear descriptions to fully characterize skin manifestations in patients with COVID-19. The process of capturing and posting images to the virtual world using a smartphone allows practitioners to gain advice from peers and consultants, share findings with colleagues, and inform the public.¹² Social media posts of many deidentified clinical images of rashes in COVID-19–infected patients already have enabled rapid recognition of skin signs by dermatologists.¹³

Social media sites also are resources where organizations can post updated, evidence-based findings from academic journals. For example, the American Academy of Dermatology and its official journal, the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology, had more than 22,000 and 27,000 Instagram followers, respectively, as of a March 2020 analysis.¹⁴ Recent online forums and social media posts contain accessible, graphical, patient-friendly images and information on evidence-based treatments for skin disease during the COVID-19 pandemic.¹³

We should consider initiatives that empower dermatologists to use social media to post unbiased, evidence-based information regarding manifestations of COVID-19 and guidelines for treatment of skin disease during this medical crisis. We hope that dermatologists will help lead the global response to the COVID-19 pandemic and contribute to the evolving knowledge base by characterizing COVID-19–related rashes, understanding their implications, and determining the best evidence for treatment.

On December 31, 2019, cases of a severe pneumonia in patients in Wuhan, Hubei Province, China, were reported to the World Health Organization.^1,2 The novel coronavirus—severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2—was identified, and the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) became a public health emergency of international concern.¹ In March 2020, the World Health Organization officially characterized COVID-19 as a pandemic.³ As of October 2020, more than 42.3 million cases and 1.1 million deaths from COVID-19 have been confirmed worldwide.⁴

As more understanding of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 develops, various cutaneous manifestations of COVID-19 are being uncovered.⁵ The most common cutaneous manifestations of COVID-19 reported in the literature are maculopapular or morbilliform exanthem (36.1% of cutaneous manifestations), papulovesicular rash (34.7%), painful acral red purple papules (15.3%), urticaria (9.7%), livedo reticularis lesions (2.8%), and petechiae (1.4%).⁵

Interestingly, a series of unique cases was identified in April 2020 by a group of dermatologists in Spain. Most patients were children (median age, 13 years) or young adults (median age, 31 years; average age, 36 years; adult age range, 18–91 years).¹ Reporting on a representative sample of 6 patients in that series, the group noted that lesions, initially reddish, papular, and resembling chilblains (pernio), progressively became purpuric and flattened in the course of 1 week. Although the lesions presented with some referred discomfort or pain with palpation, they were not highly symptomatic, and no signs of ischemia or Raynaud syndrome were identified. Over time, lesions self-resolved without intervention. Most patients also did not present with what are considered classic COVID-19 signs or symptoms. Only the oldest patient (aged 91 years) presented with a notable respiratory condition; the remaining patients generally were in good health.¹ Dermatologists in Italy, France, and the United States also have witnessed these COVID-19–associated cutaneous manifestations.

Scientific understanding of COVID-19 and its associated dermatologic symptoms is evolving. Attention has turned to social media to inform and provide possible health solutions during this unprecedented medical crisis.⁶ Strict physical distancing measures have made patients and providers alike reliant on global digital social networks, such as Instagram, Twitter, and Facebook, to facilitate information sharing about COVID-19.⁷ The abundance of nonexpert advice and misinformation on social media makes communication of unbiased expert information difficult.^8,9 Furthermore, there is a need for dermatologists to provide medical information to patients regarding COVID-19, such as dermatologic manifestations, and clear guidance on immunobiologic or systemic medications during this unprecedented time.⁹

In recent years, dermatologists have established a growing presence on social media, with many recognized as social media influencers with the ability to affect patients’ health-related behavior.¹⁰ Social media frequently has been used by patients to solicit advice regarding skin concerns.^9,10 Many individuals, in fact, never see a physician after consulting social media for medical concerns or professional advice.⁹

In addition, as of March 2020, more than 61% of health care workers were found to use social media as a source of COVID-19–related information.¹¹ Therefore, dermatologists should utilize social media as a platform to share evidence-based information with the public and other health care workers.

Through social media, dermatologists can post high-quality images with clear descriptions to fully characterize skin manifestations in patients with COVID-19. The process of capturing and posting images to the virtual world using a smartphone allows practitioners to gain advice from peers and consultants, share findings with colleagues, and inform the public.¹² Social media posts of many deidentified clinical images of rashes in COVID-19–infected patients already have enabled rapid recognition of skin signs by dermatologists.¹³

Social media sites also are resources where organizations can post updated, evidence-based findings from academic journals. For example, the American Academy of Dermatology and its official journal, the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology, had more than 22,000 and 27,000 Instagram followers, respectively, as of a March 2020 analysis.¹⁴ Recent online forums and social media posts contain accessible, graphical, patient-friendly images and information on evidence-based treatments for skin disease during the COVID-19 pandemic.¹³

We should consider initiatives that empower dermatologists to use social media to post unbiased, evidence-based information regarding manifestations of COVID-19 and guidelines for treatment of skin disease during this medical crisis. We hope that dermatologists will help lead the global response to the COVID-19 pandemic and contribute to the evolving knowledge base by characterizing COVID-19–related rashes, understanding their implications, and determining the best evidence for treatment.

On December 31, 2019, cases of a severe pneumonia in patients in Wuhan, Hubei Province, China, were reported to the World Health Organization.^1,2 The novel coronavirus—severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2—was identified, and the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) became a public health emergency of international concern.¹ In March 2020, the World Health Organization officially characterized COVID-19 as a pandemic.³ As of October 2020, more than 42.3 million cases and 1.1 million deaths from COVID-19 have been confirmed worldwide.⁴

As more understanding of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 develops, various cutaneous manifestations of COVID-19 are being uncovered.⁵ The most common cutaneous manifestations of COVID-19 reported in the literature are maculopapular or morbilliform exanthem (36.1% of cutaneous manifestations), papulovesicular rash (34.7%), painful acral red purple papules (15.3%), urticaria (9.7%), livedo reticularis lesions (2.8%), and petechiae (1.4%).⁵

Interestingly, a series of unique cases was identified in April 2020 by a group of dermatologists in Spain. Most patients were children (median age, 13 years) or young adults (median age, 31 years; average age, 36 years; adult age range, 18–91 years).¹ Reporting on a representative sample of 6 patients in that series, the group noted that lesions, initially reddish, papular, and resembling chilblains (pernio), progressively became purpuric and flattened in the course of 1 week. Although the lesions presented with some referred discomfort or pain with palpation, they were not highly symptomatic, and no signs of ischemia or Raynaud syndrome were identified. Over time, lesions self-resolved without intervention. Most patients also did not present with what are considered classic COVID-19 signs or symptoms. Only the oldest patient (aged 91 years) presented with a notable respiratory condition; the remaining patients generally were in good health.¹ Dermatologists in Italy, France, and the United States also have witnessed these COVID-19–associated cutaneous manifestations.

Scientific understanding of COVID-19 and its associated dermatologic symptoms is evolving. Attention has turned to social media to inform and provide possible health solutions during this unprecedented medical crisis.⁶ Strict physical distancing measures have made patients and providers alike reliant on global digital social networks, such as Instagram, Twitter, and Facebook, to facilitate information sharing about COVID-19.⁷ The abundance of nonexpert advice and misinformation on social media makes communication of unbiased expert information difficult.^8,9 Furthermore, there is a need for dermatologists to provide medical information to patients regarding COVID-19, such as dermatologic manifestations, and clear guidance on immunobiologic or systemic medications during this unprecedented time.⁹

In recent years, dermatologists have established a growing presence on social media, with many recognized as social media influencers with the ability to affect patients’ health-related behavior.¹⁰ Social media frequently has been used by patients to solicit advice regarding skin concerns.^9,10 Many individuals, in fact, never see a physician after consulting social media for medical concerns or professional advice.⁹

In addition, as of March 2020, more than 61% of health care workers were found to use social media as a source of COVID-19–related information.¹¹ Therefore, dermatologists should utilize social media as a platform to share evidence-based information with the public and other health care workers.

Through social media, dermatologists can post high-quality images with clear descriptions to fully characterize skin manifestations in patients with COVID-19. The process of capturing and posting images to the virtual world using a smartphone allows practitioners to gain advice from peers and consultants, share findings with colleagues, and inform the public.¹² Social media posts of many deidentified clinical images of rashes in COVID-19–infected patients already have enabled rapid recognition of skin signs by dermatologists.¹³

Social media sites also are resources where organizations can post updated, evidence-based findings from academic journals. For example, the American Academy of Dermatology and its official journal, the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology, had more than 22,000 and 27,000 Instagram followers, respectively, as of a March 2020 analysis.¹⁴ Recent online forums and social media posts contain accessible, graphical, patient-friendly images and information on evidence-based treatments for skin disease during the COVID-19 pandemic.¹³

We should consider initiatives that empower dermatologists to use social media to post unbiased, evidence-based information regarding manifestations of COVID-19 and guidelines for treatment of skin disease during this medical crisis. We hope that dermatologists will help lead the global response to the COVID-19 pandemic and contribute to the evolving knowledge base by characterizing COVID-19–related rashes, understanding their implications, and determining the best evidence for treatment.

CASE Heart rate tracing suggests fetal distress

Ms. M. presents for elective induction of labor at 39 weeks’ gestation. During the course of her labor, a Category II fetal heart rate (FHR) tracing is noted, and maternal oxygen is administered as part of the intrauterine resuscitative efforts. Her infant ultimately was delivered vaginally with an arterial cord blood pH of 7.1 and Apgar scores of 5 and 7.

Should intrauterine resuscitation include maternal oxygen administration?

It is a common sight on labor and delivery: An FHR monitoring strip is noted to be a Category II tracing. There may be fetal tachycardia, late decelerations, or perhaps decreased variability. The nurse or physician goes to the laboring mother’s room, checks cervical dilation, changes the patient’s position, and puts an oxygen mask over her face.

The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) lists maternal oxygen administration, most commonly at 10 L/min via a nonrebreather face mask, as an intrauterine resuscitative measure for Category II or Category III FHR tracings.¹ Maternal oxygen is used to treat abnormal FHR tracings in approximately half of all births in the United States.² Despite these recommendations and the frequency of its use, however, evidence is limited that maternal oxygenation improves neonatal outcome. In fact, there is emerging evidence of potential harm.

Why use oxygen?

The use of maternal oxygen supplementation intuitively makes sense. We know that certain abnormalities in FHR tracings can signal fetal hypoxia. Left untreated, the hypoxia could lead to fetal acidemia and associated neonatal sequelae. Theoretically, the administration of maternal oxygen should lead to improved fetal oxygenation and improved fetal outcome. This is supported by studies from the 1960s that demonstrate improved FHR tracings after maternal oxygen administration.³

This idea was further supported by studies that demonstrated an increase in fetal oxygen levels when maternal oxygen is administered. Haydon and colleagues evaluated the administration of maternal oxygen in women with nonreassuring FHR tracings.⁴ Their data showed that maternal oxygen administration increased fetal oxygen as measured by fetal pulse oximetry. The lower the initial fetal oxygen levels prior to oxygen administration, the greater the increase.

Despite these findings, evidence for improved neonatal outcomes is lacking.⁵ While heart rate tracings and fetal oxygen saturation may be improved with maternal oxygen supplementation, neonatal morbidity appears to remain unchanged (FIGURE). In fact, newer research suggests potential harm. Although an improved FHR tracing may be comforting to the clinician, the end result may be less so. Given these findings on maternal oxygen supplementation, it is time to break this practice habit.

Maternal cardiovascular effects

Most of the literature on maternal hyperoxygenation focuses on fetal response. Before examining the effects on the fetus, however, we must consider the effect on the mother. Cardiovascular changes occur during and after maternal oxygen administration that should be taken into account.

McHugh and colleagues measured the hemodynamic changes in 46 pregnant and 20 nonpregnant women before, immediately, and 10 minutes after a 30-minute period of high-flow oxygen administration.⁶ While there were no changes in the nonpregnant women’s parameters, in the pregnant women heart rate and stroke volume were decreased after oxygen administration. Additionally, systemic vascular resistance increased and did not return to baseline by 10 minutes postadministration.

Since the purpose of the maternal oxygen administration is to increase oxygen to the fetus, this decrease in cardiac output and increase in systemic vascular resistance is concerning. These results may negate the intended effect of increased oxygen delivery to the fetus.

Continue to: Maternal and fetal oxidative stress...

Maternal and fetal oxidative stress

Assuming that the abnormal FHR tracing in our case patient is actually due to fetal hypoxia, it would seem prudent to increase fetal oxygenation. However, fetal hyperoxygenation may lead to free radical damage that could worsen neonatal outcomes. Oxidative stress, which can be caused by both hypoxia and hyperoxia, can lead to endothelial and cell receptor damage. This is known to contribute to the cerebral damage of hypoxic-ischemic encephalopathy.

In a randomized trial, Khaw and colleagues measured lipid peroxidases as a “free radical footprint” in women undergoing elective cesarean delivery who were administered oxygen or room air.⁷ Maternal and fetal oxygen levels were higher in the oxygen-supplementation group, but lipid peroxidases also were elevated. This finding suggests that the excess oxygen results in free radical formation and potentially negative effects on the neonate.

Although maternal oxygen supplementation frequently is viewed as harmless, this research shows that free radical damage may occur in the mother as well.

Additional research shows that longer durations of oxygen administration are correlated with worsening neonatal outcomes. In a study of liberal versus indicated oxygen use, the average time was approximately 90 minutes.⁸ Use for longer than 176 minutes was associated with lower oxygen levels in fetal blood. A proposed mechanism for this response is placental vasoconstriction thought to protect the fetus from free radical damage.

Again, if the goal is to increase oxygenation, prolonged maternal oxygen supplementation appears to produce the opposite effect.

Fetal acidemia and neonatal morbidity

If a fetus with an abnormal FHR tracing is thought to be hypoxic or acidemic, adding the potentially harmful effects of free radicals could worsen this condition. This is exactly what Raghuraman and colleagues demonstrated in a large prospective cohort analysis.⁹ While there was no difference in neonatal morbidity between those receiving oxygen and those on room air, there was a significant difference among infants with acidemia and hyperoxia. Composite morbidity (mechanical ventilation, hypothermic therapy, meconium aspiration, and death) was significantly increased in neonates with both hyperoxia and acidemia compared with nonacidemic hyperoxic infants.⁹ This is further supported by reports of an increased need for neonatal resuscitation and a fourfold increase in umbilical cord pH of less than 7.2.¹⁰

While intrauterine and extrauterine life certainly differ, these findings align with the pediatric literature that supports neonatal resuscitation with room air rather than 100% oxygen.¹¹ Additionally, the intrauterine environment is relatively hypoxic, which may make free radical damage more severe.

Continue to: Oxygen use during the COVID-19 pandemic...

 

 

Oxygen use during the COVID-19 pandemic

While high-flow oxygen by mask is not considered an aerosol-generating procedure according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, data are limited regarding the cleaning and filtering of oxygen. It is unknown if high-flow oxygen by mask increases the risk of infectious disease transmission to care providers. Therefore, in the midst of the COVID-19 pandemic, ACOG currently recommends against using supplemental oxygen for Category II and Category III tracings, since the benefits are not well established and the possibility of harm to providers may be increased.¹² Oxygen supplementation still should be used in mothers with hypoxia.

Other intrauterine resuscitation options

Maternal oxygen administration does not appear beneficial for neonatal outcomes, but other methods can be used. An intravenous fluid bolus and lateral positioning of the mother, for example, are both associated with increased fetal oxygenation. Reducing uterine activity by discontinuing oxytocin or cervical ripening agents or by administering a tocolytic also can improve FHR abnormalities. Oxygen use should be reserved for patients with maternal hypoxia.

The bottom line

The liberal use of maternal oxygenation for the management of abnormal FHR tracings should be stopped. Clear evidence of its benefit is lacking, and the real possibility of fetal and maternal harm remains. This may be especially true during the COVID-19 pandemic. ●

CASE Heart rate tracing suggests fetal distress

Ms. M. presents for elective induction of labor at 39 weeks’ gestation. During the course of her labor, a Category II fetal heart rate (FHR) tracing is noted, and maternal oxygen is administered as part of the intrauterine resuscitative efforts. Her infant ultimately was delivered vaginally with an arterial cord blood pH of 7.1 and Apgar scores of 5 and 7.

Should intrauterine resuscitation include maternal oxygen administration?

It is a common sight on labor and delivery: An FHR monitoring strip is noted to be a Category II tracing. There may be fetal tachycardia, late decelerations, or perhaps decreased variability. The nurse or physician goes to the laboring mother’s room, checks cervical dilation, changes the patient’s position, and puts an oxygen mask over her face.

The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) lists maternal oxygen administration, most commonly at 10 L/min via a nonrebreather face mask, as an intrauterine resuscitative measure for Category II or Category III FHR tracings.¹ Maternal oxygen is used to treat abnormal FHR tracings in approximately half of all births in the United States.² Despite these recommendations and the frequency of its use, however, evidence is limited that maternal oxygenation improves neonatal outcome. In fact, there is emerging evidence of potential harm.

Why use oxygen?

The use of maternal oxygen supplementation intuitively makes sense. We know that certain abnormalities in FHR tracings can signal fetal hypoxia. Left untreated, the hypoxia could lead to fetal acidemia and associated neonatal sequelae. Theoretically, the administration of maternal oxygen should lead to improved fetal oxygenation and improved fetal outcome. This is supported by studies from the 1960s that demonstrate improved FHR tracings after maternal oxygen administration.³

This idea was further supported by studies that demonstrated an increase in fetal oxygen levels when maternal oxygen is administered. Haydon and colleagues evaluated the administration of maternal oxygen in women with nonreassuring FHR tracings.⁴ Their data showed that maternal oxygen administration increased fetal oxygen as measured by fetal pulse oximetry. The lower the initial fetal oxygen levels prior to oxygen administration, the greater the increase.

Despite these findings, evidence for improved neonatal outcomes is lacking.⁵ While heart rate tracings and fetal oxygen saturation may be improved with maternal oxygen supplementation, neonatal morbidity appears to remain unchanged (FIGURE). In fact, newer research suggests potential harm. Although an improved FHR tracing may be comforting to the clinician, the end result may be less so. Given these findings on maternal oxygen supplementation, it is time to break this practice habit.

Maternal cardiovascular effects

Most of the literature on maternal hyperoxygenation focuses on fetal response. Before examining the effects on the fetus, however, we must consider the effect on the mother. Cardiovascular changes occur during and after maternal oxygen administration that should be taken into account.

McHugh and colleagues measured the hemodynamic changes in 46 pregnant and 20 nonpregnant women before, immediately, and 10 minutes after a 30-minute period of high-flow oxygen administration.⁶ While there were no changes in the nonpregnant women’s parameters, in the pregnant women heart rate and stroke volume were decreased after oxygen administration. Additionally, systemic vascular resistance increased and did not return to baseline by 10 minutes postadministration.

Since the purpose of the maternal oxygen administration is to increase oxygen to the fetus, this decrease in cardiac output and increase in systemic vascular resistance is concerning. These results may negate the intended effect of increased oxygen delivery to the fetus.

Continue to: Maternal and fetal oxidative stress...

Maternal and fetal oxidative stress

Assuming that the abnormal FHR tracing in our case patient is actually due to fetal hypoxia, it would seem prudent to increase fetal oxygenation. However, fetal hyperoxygenation may lead to free radical damage that could worsen neonatal outcomes. Oxidative stress, which can be caused by both hypoxia and hyperoxia, can lead to endothelial and cell receptor damage. This is known to contribute to the cerebral damage of hypoxic-ischemic encephalopathy.

In a randomized trial, Khaw and colleagues measured lipid peroxidases as a “free radical footprint” in women undergoing elective cesarean delivery who were administered oxygen or room air.⁷ Maternal and fetal oxygen levels were higher in the oxygen-supplementation group, but lipid peroxidases also were elevated. This finding suggests that the excess oxygen results in free radical formation and potentially negative effects on the neonate.

Although maternal oxygen supplementation frequently is viewed as harmless, this research shows that free radical damage may occur in the mother as well.

Additional research shows that longer durations of oxygen administration are correlated with worsening neonatal outcomes. In a study of liberal versus indicated oxygen use, the average time was approximately 90 minutes.⁸ Use for longer than 176 minutes was associated with lower oxygen levels in fetal blood. A proposed mechanism for this response is placental vasoconstriction thought to protect the fetus from free radical damage.

Again, if the goal is to increase oxygenation, prolonged maternal oxygen supplementation appears to produce the opposite effect.

Fetal acidemia and neonatal morbidity

If a fetus with an abnormal FHR tracing is thought to be hypoxic or acidemic, adding the potentially harmful effects of free radicals could worsen this condition. This is exactly what Raghuraman and colleagues demonstrated in a large prospective cohort analysis.⁹ While there was no difference in neonatal morbidity between those receiving oxygen and those on room air, there was a significant difference among infants with acidemia and hyperoxia. Composite morbidity (mechanical ventilation, hypothermic therapy, meconium aspiration, and death) was significantly increased in neonates with both hyperoxia and acidemia compared with nonacidemic hyperoxic infants.⁹ This is further supported by reports of an increased need for neonatal resuscitation and a fourfold increase in umbilical cord pH of less than 7.2.¹⁰

While intrauterine and extrauterine life certainly differ, these findings align with the pediatric literature that supports neonatal resuscitation with room air rather than 100% oxygen.¹¹ Additionally, the intrauterine environment is relatively hypoxic, which may make free radical damage more severe.

Continue to: Oxygen use during the COVID-19 pandemic...

 

 

Oxygen use during the COVID-19 pandemic

While high-flow oxygen by mask is not considered an aerosol-generating procedure according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, data are limited regarding the cleaning and filtering of oxygen. It is unknown if high-flow oxygen by mask increases the risk of infectious disease transmission to care providers. Therefore, in the midst of the COVID-19 pandemic, ACOG currently recommends against using supplemental oxygen for Category II and Category III tracings, since the benefits are not well established and the possibility of harm to providers may be increased.¹² Oxygen supplementation still should be used in mothers with hypoxia.

Other intrauterine resuscitation options

Maternal oxygen administration does not appear beneficial for neonatal outcomes, but other methods can be used. An intravenous fluid bolus and lateral positioning of the mother, for example, are both associated with increased fetal oxygenation. Reducing uterine activity by discontinuing oxytocin or cervical ripening agents or by administering a tocolytic also can improve FHR abnormalities. Oxygen use should be reserved for patients with maternal hypoxia.

The bottom line

The liberal use of maternal oxygenation for the management of abnormal FHR tracings should be stopped. Clear evidence of its benefit is lacking, and the real possibility of fetal and maternal harm remains. This may be especially true during the COVID-19 pandemic. ●

CASE Heart rate tracing suggests fetal distress

Ms. M. presents for elective induction of labor at 39 weeks’ gestation. During the course of her labor, a Category II fetal heart rate (FHR) tracing is noted, and maternal oxygen is administered as part of the intrauterine resuscitative efforts. Her infant ultimately was delivered vaginally with an arterial cord blood pH of 7.1 and Apgar scores of 5 and 7.

Should intrauterine resuscitation include maternal oxygen administration?

It is a common sight on labor and delivery: An FHR monitoring strip is noted to be a Category II tracing. There may be fetal tachycardia, late decelerations, or perhaps decreased variability. The nurse or physician goes to the laboring mother’s room, checks cervical dilation, changes the patient’s position, and puts an oxygen mask over her face.

The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) lists maternal oxygen administration, most commonly at 10 L/min via a nonrebreather face mask, as an intrauterine resuscitative measure for Category II or Category III FHR tracings.¹ Maternal oxygen is used to treat abnormal FHR tracings in approximately half of all births in the United States.² Despite these recommendations and the frequency of its use, however, evidence is limited that maternal oxygenation improves neonatal outcome. In fact, there is emerging evidence of potential harm.

Why use oxygen?

The use of maternal oxygen supplementation intuitively makes sense. We know that certain abnormalities in FHR tracings can signal fetal hypoxia. Left untreated, the hypoxia could lead to fetal acidemia and associated neonatal sequelae. Theoretically, the administration of maternal oxygen should lead to improved fetal oxygenation and improved fetal outcome. This is supported by studies from the 1960s that demonstrate improved FHR tracings after maternal oxygen administration.³

This idea was further supported by studies that demonstrated an increase in fetal oxygen levels when maternal oxygen is administered. Haydon and colleagues evaluated the administration of maternal oxygen in women with nonreassuring FHR tracings.⁴ Their data showed that maternal oxygen administration increased fetal oxygen as measured by fetal pulse oximetry. The lower the initial fetal oxygen levels prior to oxygen administration, the greater the increase.

Despite these findings, evidence for improved neonatal outcomes is lacking.⁵ While heart rate tracings and fetal oxygen saturation may be improved with maternal oxygen supplementation, neonatal morbidity appears to remain unchanged (FIGURE). In fact, newer research suggests potential harm. Although an improved FHR tracing may be comforting to the clinician, the end result may be less so. Given these findings on maternal oxygen supplementation, it is time to break this practice habit.

Maternal cardiovascular effects

Most of the literature on maternal hyperoxygenation focuses on fetal response. Before examining the effects on the fetus, however, we must consider the effect on the mother. Cardiovascular changes occur during and after maternal oxygen administration that should be taken into account.

McHugh and colleagues measured the hemodynamic changes in 46 pregnant and 20 nonpregnant women before, immediately, and 10 minutes after a 30-minute period of high-flow oxygen administration.⁶ While there were no changes in the nonpregnant women’s parameters, in the pregnant women heart rate and stroke volume were decreased after oxygen administration. Additionally, systemic vascular resistance increased and did not return to baseline by 10 minutes postadministration.

Since the purpose of the maternal oxygen administration is to increase oxygen to the fetus, this decrease in cardiac output and increase in systemic vascular resistance is concerning. These results may negate the intended effect of increased oxygen delivery to the fetus.

Continue to: Maternal and fetal oxidative stress...

Maternal and fetal oxidative stress

Assuming that the abnormal FHR tracing in our case patient is actually due to fetal hypoxia, it would seem prudent to increase fetal oxygenation. However, fetal hyperoxygenation may lead to free radical damage that could worsen neonatal outcomes. Oxidative stress, which can be caused by both hypoxia and hyperoxia, can lead to endothelial and cell receptor damage. This is known to contribute to the cerebral damage of hypoxic-ischemic encephalopathy.

In a randomized trial, Khaw and colleagues measured lipid peroxidases as a “free radical footprint” in women undergoing elective cesarean delivery who were administered oxygen or room air.⁷ Maternal and fetal oxygen levels were higher in the oxygen-supplementation group, but lipid peroxidases also were elevated. This finding suggests that the excess oxygen results in free radical formation and potentially negative effects on the neonate.

Although maternal oxygen supplementation frequently is viewed as harmless, this research shows that free radical damage may occur in the mother as well.

Additional research shows that longer durations of oxygen administration are correlated with worsening neonatal outcomes. In a study of liberal versus indicated oxygen use, the average time was approximately 90 minutes.⁸ Use for longer than 176 minutes was associated with lower oxygen levels in fetal blood. A proposed mechanism for this response is placental vasoconstriction thought to protect the fetus from free radical damage.

Again, if the goal is to increase oxygenation, prolonged maternal oxygen supplementation appears to produce the opposite effect.

Fetal acidemia and neonatal morbidity

If a fetus with an abnormal FHR tracing is thought to be hypoxic or acidemic, adding the potentially harmful effects of free radicals could worsen this condition. This is exactly what Raghuraman and colleagues demonstrated in a large prospective cohort analysis.⁹ While there was no difference in neonatal morbidity between those receiving oxygen and those on room air, there was a significant difference among infants with acidemia and hyperoxia. Composite morbidity (mechanical ventilation, hypothermic therapy, meconium aspiration, and death) was significantly increased in neonates with both hyperoxia and acidemia compared with nonacidemic hyperoxic infants.⁹ This is further supported by reports of an increased need for neonatal resuscitation and a fourfold increase in umbilical cord pH of less than 7.2.¹⁰

While intrauterine and extrauterine life certainly differ, these findings align with the pediatric literature that supports neonatal resuscitation with room air rather than 100% oxygen.¹¹ Additionally, the intrauterine environment is relatively hypoxic, which may make free radical damage more severe.

Continue to: Oxygen use during the COVID-19 pandemic...

 

 

Oxygen use during the COVID-19 pandemic

While high-flow oxygen by mask is not considered an aerosol-generating procedure according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, data are limited regarding the cleaning and filtering of oxygen. It is unknown if high-flow oxygen by mask increases the risk of infectious disease transmission to care providers. Therefore, in the midst of the COVID-19 pandemic, ACOG currently recommends against using supplemental oxygen for Category II and Category III tracings, since the benefits are not well established and the possibility of harm to providers may be increased.¹² Oxygen supplementation still should be used in mothers with hypoxia.

Other intrauterine resuscitation options

Maternal oxygen administration does not appear beneficial for neonatal outcomes, but other methods can be used. An intravenous fluid bolus and lateral positioning of the mother, for example, are both associated with increased fetal oxygenation. Reducing uterine activity by discontinuing oxytocin or cervical ripening agents or by administering a tocolytic also can improve FHR abnormalities. Oxygen use should be reserved for patients with maternal hypoxia.

The bottom line

The liberal use of maternal oxygenation for the management of abnormal FHR tracings should be stopped. Clear evidence of its benefit is lacking, and the real possibility of fetal and maternal harm remains. This may be especially true during the COVID-19 pandemic. ●

Surprisingly, in the United States, the most common cancer associated with human papillomavirus (HPV) is oropharyngeal squamous cell cancer (SCC), with one study reporting 15,479 cases among men and 3,428 cases among women in 2015.¹ In the same year, the investigators reported 11,788 cases of cervical cancer.¹ A public health concern is that cases of oropharyngeal SCC are increasing, while cases of cervical cancer are decreasing. From 1999 to 2015, the rate of oropharyngeal SCC increased annually among both men and women, at rates of 2.7% and 0.8% per year, respectively. By contrast, the rate of cervical cancer decreased by 1.6% per year.¹

Although the incidence of HPV-negative oropharyngeal SCC (cases associated with cigarette smoking) has declined by 50% from 1988 to 2004, the incidence of HPV-positive oropharyngeal SCC has increased by 225%, with much of the increase occurring among young, white men.² HPV infection is a major cause of oropharyngeal SCC at the base of the tongue and tonsils, but not in the soft palate or oropharyngeal walls.³

Most physicians and parents recognize that the 9-valent (9v)HPV vaccine prevents the majority of cervical cancers and precancers in women. Far fewer people realize that there is an important opportunity to prevent a large number of oropharyngeal cancers by improving 9vHPV vaccination in men and women.

Which HPV types are associated with oropharyngeal cancer?

HPV16 is the most common HPV type associated with oropharyngeal SCC. Among these cancer types, greater than 80% harbor HPV16, with greater than 90% harboring HPV16 or 18 and less than 10% of tumors associated with HPV types 31, 33, 45, 52, or 58.^4-7

The high prevalence of HPV16 in patients with oropharyngeal cancer raises the question of the HPV status of the intimate partner of the index patient. In one study of 164 people with HPV detected in their oropharyngeal, the partner of the index patient had a low prevalence of high-risk HPV types (1.2%) in oral rinse and gargle samples, similar to the rate in the general population (1.3%).⁷ This finding is reassuring and suggests that intimate partners of patients with HPV-positive oropharyngeal cancer effectively clear high-risk HPV virus from the oropharynx. The HPV status of the genital tissue of the intimate partner of an index patient with oropharyngeal SCC has not been adequately studied.

Men are more likely than women to harbor oral HPV

Among a sample of 5,501 men and women aged 14 to 69 years from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, oral rinses were obtained and analyzed for the presence of HPV.⁸ The prevalence of any oral HPV and any oral high-risk HPV was 6.9% and 3.7%, respectively. Oral HPV-16 was detected in 1.6% of men and 0.3% of women. The prevalence of HPV was higher among current smokers, heavy alcohol drinkers, and people with a history of a greater number of sexual partners. In men and women reporting more than 20 lifetime sexual partners, the prevalence of oral HPV was 20%.

In a study of 2,627 men and women aged 18 to 33 years, the prevalence of oral HPV 16/18/6/11 was lower among those vaccinated versus those unvaccinated (0.11% and 1.6%, respectively; P = .008).⁹ Among men, oral HPV 16/18/6/11 was lower among those vaccinated versus unvaccinated (0.0% and 2.13%, respectively; P = .007).⁹ The results of this observational study support the important role of vaccination in reducing oral HPV infection.

Continue to: Vaccinate boys and girls to prevent cancer...

Vaccinate boys and girls to prevent cancer

Most population studies report that males are less likely to receive an HPV vaccine than females. For example, based on the National Health Interview Survey of people aged 18 to 26, the percentage of women who self-reported receiving at least one dose of HPV vaccine was 37% in 2013 and 54% in 2018.¹⁰ By contrast, among men, the rates of self-reported vaccination were much lower—8% in 2013 and 27% in 2018.¹⁰

The percentage of women who received the recommended number of doses of HPV vaccine (see “9vHPV vaccine: Indications and immunization schedule”) was 26% in 2013 and 35% in 2018.¹⁰ For men, these percentages were 2% in 2013 and 9% in 2018.¹⁰ These data indicate that, compared with women, men are less likely to receive an HPV vaccination and far less likely to have received the recommended number of doses.

It is heartening that there has been a slow and steady increase in the prevalence of HPV vaccination. In fact, increasing the HPV vaccination rate among both boys and girls has the potential to markedly reduce the incidence of oropharyngeal cancer.

The reasons for the female-male gap in vaccination rates are not fully characterized. For one, parental awareness of the importance of HPV vaccination to prevent cancer among men is limited, and represents an important opportunity for additional public health education. In a qualitative interview study of mothers with children aged 11 to 19, the investigators reported that most mothers were aware that HPV vaccination could prevent cervical cancer in women, but most mothers did not know that HPV causes cancer of the mouth and that vaccination could prevent oropharyngeal cancer in boys and girls.¹¹ Because of this lack of knowledge, the mothers did not think their sons needed to have an HPV vaccine. The research report is aptly titled, “I don’t think he needs the HPV vaccine cause boys can’t have cervical cancer.”¹¹

Clinicians are highly influential in guiding parents to accept HPV vaccination of their children. Offering consistent messaging to parents that HPV vaccination prevents cancer in both women and men, and reducing the out-of-pocket cost of vaccination surely will result in an increase in the vaccination rate of boys and girls. ●

Surprisingly, in the United States, the most common cancer associated with human papillomavirus (HPV) is oropharyngeal squamous cell cancer (SCC), with one study reporting 15,479 cases among men and 3,428 cases among women in 2015.¹ In the same year, the investigators reported 11,788 cases of cervical cancer.¹ A public health concern is that cases of oropharyngeal SCC are increasing, while cases of cervical cancer are decreasing. From 1999 to 2015, the rate of oropharyngeal SCC increased annually among both men and women, at rates of 2.7% and 0.8% per year, respectively. By contrast, the rate of cervical cancer decreased by 1.6% per year.¹

Although the incidence of HPV-negative oropharyngeal SCC (cases associated with cigarette smoking) has declined by 50% from 1988 to 2004, the incidence of HPV-positive oropharyngeal SCC has increased by 225%, with much of the increase occurring among young, white men.² HPV infection is a major cause of oropharyngeal SCC at the base of the tongue and tonsils, but not in the soft palate or oropharyngeal walls.³

Most physicians and parents recognize that the 9-valent (9v)HPV vaccine prevents the majority of cervical cancers and precancers in women. Far fewer people realize that there is an important opportunity to prevent a large number of oropharyngeal cancers by improving 9vHPV vaccination in men and women.

Which HPV types are associated with oropharyngeal cancer?

HPV16 is the most common HPV type associated with oropharyngeal SCC. Among these cancer types, greater than 80% harbor HPV16, with greater than 90% harboring HPV16 or 18 and less than 10% of tumors associated with HPV types 31, 33, 45, 52, or 58.^4-7

The high prevalence of HPV16 in patients with oropharyngeal cancer raises the question of the HPV status of the intimate partner of the index patient. In one study of 164 people with HPV detected in their oropharyngeal, the partner of the index patient had a low prevalence of high-risk HPV types (1.2%) in oral rinse and gargle samples, similar to the rate in the general population (1.3%).⁷ This finding is reassuring and suggests that intimate partners of patients with HPV-positive oropharyngeal cancer effectively clear high-risk HPV virus from the oropharynx. The HPV status of the genital tissue of the intimate partner of an index patient with oropharyngeal SCC has not been adequately studied.

Men are more likely than women to harbor oral HPV

Among a sample of 5,501 men and women aged 14 to 69 years from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, oral rinses were obtained and analyzed for the presence of HPV.⁸ The prevalence of any oral HPV and any oral high-risk HPV was 6.9% and 3.7%, respectively. Oral HPV-16 was detected in 1.6% of men and 0.3% of women. The prevalence of HPV was higher among current smokers, heavy alcohol drinkers, and people with a history of a greater number of sexual partners. In men and women reporting more than 20 lifetime sexual partners, the prevalence of oral HPV was 20%.

In a study of 2,627 men and women aged 18 to 33 years, the prevalence of oral HPV 16/18/6/11 was lower among those vaccinated versus those unvaccinated (0.11% and 1.6%, respectively; P = .008).⁹ Among men, oral HPV 16/18/6/11 was lower among those vaccinated versus unvaccinated (0.0% and 2.13%, respectively; P = .007).⁹ The results of this observational study support the important role of vaccination in reducing oral HPV infection.

Continue to: Vaccinate boys and girls to prevent cancer...

Vaccinate boys and girls to prevent cancer

Most population studies report that males are less likely to receive an HPV vaccine than females. For example, based on the National Health Interview Survey of people aged 18 to 26, the percentage of women who self-reported receiving at least one dose of HPV vaccine was 37% in 2013 and 54% in 2018.¹⁰ By contrast, among men, the rates of self-reported vaccination were much lower—8% in 2013 and 27% in 2018.¹⁰

The percentage of women who received the recommended number of doses of HPV vaccine (see “9vHPV vaccine: Indications and immunization schedule”) was 26% in 2013 and 35% in 2018.¹⁰ For men, these percentages were 2% in 2013 and 9% in 2018.¹⁰ These data indicate that, compared with women, men are less likely to receive an HPV vaccination and far less likely to have received the recommended number of doses.

It is heartening that there has been a slow and steady increase in the prevalence of HPV vaccination. In fact, increasing the HPV vaccination rate among both boys and girls has the potential to markedly reduce the incidence of oropharyngeal cancer.

The reasons for the female-male gap in vaccination rates are not fully characterized. For one, parental awareness of the importance of HPV vaccination to prevent cancer among men is limited, and represents an important opportunity for additional public health education. In a qualitative interview study of mothers with children aged 11 to 19, the investigators reported that most mothers were aware that HPV vaccination could prevent cervical cancer in women, but most mothers did not know that HPV causes cancer of the mouth and that vaccination could prevent oropharyngeal cancer in boys and girls.¹¹ Because of this lack of knowledge, the mothers did not think their sons needed to have an HPV vaccine. The research report is aptly titled, “I don’t think he needs the HPV vaccine cause boys can’t have cervical cancer.”¹¹

Clinicians are highly influential in guiding parents to accept HPV vaccination of their children. Offering consistent messaging to parents that HPV vaccination prevents cancer in both women and men, and reducing the out-of-pocket cost of vaccination surely will result in an increase in the vaccination rate of boys and girls. ●

Surprisingly, in the United States, the most common cancer associated with human papillomavirus (HPV) is oropharyngeal squamous cell cancer (SCC), with one study reporting 15,479 cases among men and 3,428 cases among women in 2015.¹ In the same year, the investigators reported 11,788 cases of cervical cancer.¹ A public health concern is that cases of oropharyngeal SCC are increasing, while cases of cervical cancer are decreasing. From 1999 to 2015, the rate of oropharyngeal SCC increased annually among both men and women, at rates of 2.7% and 0.8% per year, respectively. By contrast, the rate of cervical cancer decreased by 1.6% per year.¹

Although the incidence of HPV-negative oropharyngeal SCC (cases associated with cigarette smoking) has declined by 50% from 1988 to 2004, the incidence of HPV-positive oropharyngeal SCC has increased by 225%, with much of the increase occurring among young, white men.² HPV infection is a major cause of oropharyngeal SCC at the base of the tongue and tonsils, but not in the soft palate or oropharyngeal walls.³

Most physicians and parents recognize that the 9-valent (9v)HPV vaccine prevents the majority of cervical cancers and precancers in women. Far fewer people realize that there is an important opportunity to prevent a large number of oropharyngeal cancers by improving 9vHPV vaccination in men and women.

Which HPV types are associated with oropharyngeal cancer?

HPV16 is the most common HPV type associated with oropharyngeal SCC. Among these cancer types, greater than 80% harbor HPV16, with greater than 90% harboring HPV16 or 18 and less than 10% of tumors associated with HPV types 31, 33, 45, 52, or 58.^4-7

The high prevalence of HPV16 in patients with oropharyngeal cancer raises the question of the HPV status of the intimate partner of the index patient. In one study of 164 people with HPV detected in their oropharyngeal, the partner of the index patient had a low prevalence of high-risk HPV types (1.2%) in oral rinse and gargle samples, similar to the rate in the general population (1.3%).⁷ This finding is reassuring and suggests that intimate partners of patients with HPV-positive oropharyngeal cancer effectively clear high-risk HPV virus from the oropharynx. The HPV status of the genital tissue of the intimate partner of an index patient with oropharyngeal SCC has not been adequately studied.

Men are more likely than women to harbor oral HPV

Among a sample of 5,501 men and women aged 14 to 69 years from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, oral rinses were obtained and analyzed for the presence of HPV.⁸ The prevalence of any oral HPV and any oral high-risk HPV was 6.9% and 3.7%, respectively. Oral HPV-16 was detected in 1.6% of men and 0.3% of women. The prevalence of HPV was higher among current smokers, heavy alcohol drinkers, and people with a history of a greater number of sexual partners. In men and women reporting more than 20 lifetime sexual partners, the prevalence of oral HPV was 20%.

In a study of 2,627 men and women aged 18 to 33 years, the prevalence of oral HPV 16/18/6/11 was lower among those vaccinated versus those unvaccinated (0.11% and 1.6%, respectively; P = .008).⁹ Among men, oral HPV 16/18/6/11 was lower among those vaccinated versus unvaccinated (0.0% and 2.13%, respectively; P = .007).⁹ The results of this observational study support the important role of vaccination in reducing oral HPV infection.

Continue to: Vaccinate boys and girls to prevent cancer...

Vaccinate boys and girls to prevent cancer

Most population studies report that males are less likely to receive an HPV vaccine than females. For example, based on the National Health Interview Survey of people aged 18 to 26, the percentage of women who self-reported receiving at least one dose of HPV vaccine was 37% in 2013 and 54% in 2018.¹⁰ By contrast, among men, the rates of self-reported vaccination were much lower—8% in 2013 and 27% in 2018.¹⁰

The percentage of women who received the recommended number of doses of HPV vaccine (see “9vHPV vaccine: Indications and immunization schedule”) was 26% in 2013 and 35% in 2018.¹⁰ For men, these percentages were 2% in 2013 and 9% in 2018.¹⁰ These data indicate that, compared with women, men are less likely to receive an HPV vaccination and far less likely to have received the recommended number of doses.

It is heartening that there has been a slow and steady increase in the prevalence of HPV vaccination. In fact, increasing the HPV vaccination rate among both boys and girls has the potential to markedly reduce the incidence of oropharyngeal cancer.

The reasons for the female-male gap in vaccination rates are not fully characterized. For one, parental awareness of the importance of HPV vaccination to prevent cancer among men is limited, and represents an important opportunity for additional public health education. In a qualitative interview study of mothers with children aged 11 to 19, the investigators reported that most mothers were aware that HPV vaccination could prevent cervical cancer in women, but most mothers did not know that HPV causes cancer of the mouth and that vaccination could prevent oropharyngeal cancer in boys and girls.¹¹ Because of this lack of knowledge, the mothers did not think their sons needed to have an HPV vaccine. The research report is aptly titled, “I don’t think he needs the HPV vaccine cause boys can’t have cervical cancer.”¹¹

Clinicians are highly influential in guiding parents to accept HPV vaccination of their children. Offering consistent messaging to parents that HPV vaccination prevents cancer in both women and men, and reducing the out-of-pocket cost of vaccination surely will result in an increase in the vaccination rate of boys and girls. ●