Infectious Diseases

In July 2021, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) published its updated guidelines on the diagnosis, treatment, and prevention of sexually transmitted infections (STIs).¹ These guidelines were last published in 2015.² Family physicians should be familiar with these guidelines as they are considered the standard of care for the treatment and prevention of STIs.

To revise the guidelines, the CDC convened a large panel that included CDC staff and subject matter experts from around the country. Using methodology borrowed from the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF),³ the panel developed key questions and completed systematic reviews using a standard approach. The evidence behind key recommendations was ranked as high, medium, or low. However, the specific recommendations presented in the published guidelines appear without strength-of-recommendation descriptions or rankings of the levels of evidence supporting them.

The CDC approach to STI control involves 5 strategies (TABLE 1),¹ which family physicians can implement as follows:

• Elicit an accurate sexual history.
• Discuss with patients and advise them on preventive interventions including barrier methods, microbicides, vaccines, and HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis.
• Order recommended screening tests for specific STIs from all sites of potential infection.
• Recognize the signs and symptoms of STIs and order recommended tests for confirmation.
• Treat confirmed infections using current recommended medications.
• Seek to advise, evaluate, and treat sex partners of those with documented STIs, and offer expedited partner therapy if allowed by state law.
• Perform recommended follow-up services for treated individuals.

Details on each of these strategies can be found in the new guidelines and are described for each specific pathogen and for specific demographic groups. Recommendations on screening for asymptomatic STIs can be found on the USPSTF website.⁴

The first step leading to targeted prevention strategies such as behavioral counseling, vaccination, and screening involves taking an accurate and complete sexual history. The CDC offers a 5-step process it calls the “5 Ps approach” to gathering needed information (TABLE 2).¹

Major updates on the treatment of specific infections

Gonorrhea

The current recommendation for treating uncomplicated gonococcal infections of the cervix, urethra, pharynx, and rectum in adults and adolescents weighing < 150 kg is ceftriaxone 500 mg intramuscularly (IM) as a single dose; give 1 g for those weighing ≥ 150 kg.¹ If co-infection with chlamydia has not been ruled out, co-treatment with doxycycline 100 mg po twice a day for 7 days is also recommended.¹

This differs from the first-line treatment recommended in the previous guideline, which was dual therapy with ceftriaxone 250 mg IM and azithromycin 1 g po as a single dose, regardless of testing results for chlamydia.² The higher dose for ceftriaxone now recommended is due to a gradual decrease in gonorrhea susceptibility to cephalosporins in recent years, although complete resistance remains rare. The move away from universal dual therapy reflects a concern about antibiotic stewardship and the potential effects of antibiotics on the microbiome. The elimination of azithromycin from recommended first-line therapies is due to a 10-fold increase in the proportion of bacterium isolates demonstrating reduced susceptibility, as measured by minimal inhibitory concentrations in the past few years.

Continue to: If ceftriaxone...

If ceftriaxone is unavailable, there are 2 alternative regimens: gentamicin 240 mg IM in a single dose, plus azithromycin 2 g po in a single dose; or cefixime 800 mg po in a single dose.¹ However, these alternatives are not recommended for gonococcal infection of the pharynx, for which ceftriaxone should be used.

Counsel those treated for gonorrhea to avoid sexual activity for 7 days after treatment and until all sex partners have been treated. Because of the high rates of asymptomatic infections, tell patients to refer those with whom they have had sexual contact during the previous 60 days for evaluation, testing, and presumptive treatment.

Following treatment with the recommended dose of ceftriaxone, performing a test of cure is not recommended, with 1 exception: those with confirmed pharyngeal infection should be tested to confirm treatment success 7 to 14 days after being treated. However, all those treated for gonorrhea should be seen again in 3 months and retested to rule out reinfection, regardless of whether they think their sex partners have been adequately treated.

Chlamydia

The recommended first-line therapy for chlamydia is now doxycycline 100 mg twice a day for 7 days, which has proven to be superior to azithromycin (which was recommended as first-line therapy in 2015) for urogenital chlamydia in men and anal chlamydia in both men and women.^1,2 Alternatives to doxycycline include azithromycin 1 g po as a single dose or levofloxacin 500 mg po once a day for 7 days.¹ No test of cure is recommended; but as with gonorrhea, retesting at 3 months is recommended because of the risk for re-infection.

No test of cure is needed following gonococcal infection treated with a recommended dose of ceftriaxone, except in those with confirmed pharyngeal infection.

Instruct patients treated for chlamydia to avoid sexual intercourse for 7 days after therapy is initiated or until symptoms, if present, have resolved. To reduce the chances of reinfection, advise treated individuals to abstain from sexual intercourse until all of their sex partners have been treated.

Continue to: Sex partners...

Sex partners in the 60 days prior to the patient’s onset of symptoms or diagnosis should be advised to seek evaluation, testing, and presumptive treatment.

Trichomonas

The recommended first-line treatment for trichomonas now differs for men and women: metronidazole 2 g po as a single dose for men, and metronidazole 500 mg po twice a day for 7 days for women.¹ Tinidazole 2 g po as a single dose is an alternative for both men and women. Previously, the single metronidazole dose was recommended for men and women,² but there is now evidence that the 7-day course is markedly superior in achieving a cure in women.

No test of cure is recommended, but women should be retested at 3 months because of a high rate of re-infection. Current sex partners should be treated presumptively, and treated patients and their partners should avoid sex until all current sex partners have been treated. Consider expedited partner therapy if allowed by state law.

Bacterial vaginosis

First-line treatment recommendations for bacterial vaginosis (BV) have not changed: metronidazole 500 mg po twice a day for 7 days, or metronidazole gel 0.75% intravaginally daily for 5 days, or clindamycin cream 2% intravaginally at bedtime for 7 days. Advise women to avoid sexual activity or to use condoms for the duration of the treatment regimen.

A test of cure is not recommended if symptoms resolve, and no treatment or evaluation of sex partners is recommended. The guidelines describe several treatment options for women who have frequent, recurrent BV. To help prevent recurrences, they additionally suggest treating male partners with metronidazole 400 mg po twice a day and with 2% clindamycin cream applied to the penis twice a day, both for 7 days.

Continue to: Pelvic inflammatory disease

 

 

Pelvic inflammatory disease

Recommended regimens for treating pelvic inflammatory disease (PID) have changed (TABLES 3 and 4).¹ Women with mild or moderate PID can be treated with intramuscular or oral regimens, as outcomes with these regimens are equivalent to those seen with intravenous treatments. The nonintravenous options all include 3 antibiotics: a cephalosporin, doxycycline, and metronidazole.

To minimize disease transmission, instruct women to avoid sex until therapy is complete, their symptoms have resolved, and sex partners have been treated. Sex partners of those with PID in the 60 days prior to the onset of symptoms should be evaluated, tested, and presumptively treated for chlamydia and gonorrhea.

Follow through on public health procedures

STIs are an important set of diseases from a public health perspective. Family physicians have the opportunity to assist with the prevention and control of these infections through screening, making accurate diagnoses, and applying recommended treatments. When you suspect that a patient has an STI, test for the most common ones: gonorrhea, chlamydia, HIV, and syphilis. Report all confirmed diagnoses to the local public health department and be prepared to refer patients’ sexual contacts to the local public health department or to provide contact evaluation and treatment.

Vaccines against STIs include hepatitis B vaccine, human papillomavirus vaccine, and hepatitis A vaccine. Offer these vaccines to all previously unvaccinated adolescents and young adults as per recommendations from the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices.⁵

In July 2021, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) published its updated guidelines on the diagnosis, treatment, and prevention of sexually transmitted infections (STIs).¹ These guidelines were last published in 2015.² Family physicians should be familiar with these guidelines as they are considered the standard of care for the treatment and prevention of STIs.

To revise the guidelines, the CDC convened a large panel that included CDC staff and subject matter experts from around the country. Using methodology borrowed from the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF),³ the panel developed key questions and completed systematic reviews using a standard approach. The evidence behind key recommendations was ranked as high, medium, or low. However, the specific recommendations presented in the published guidelines appear without strength-of-recommendation descriptions or rankings of the levels of evidence supporting them.

The CDC approach to STI control involves 5 strategies (TABLE 1),¹ which family physicians can implement as follows:

• Elicit an accurate sexual history.
• Discuss with patients and advise them on preventive interventions including barrier methods, microbicides, vaccines, and HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis.
• Order recommended screening tests for specific STIs from all sites of potential infection.
• Recognize the signs and symptoms of STIs and order recommended tests for confirmation.
• Treat confirmed infections using current recommended medications.
• Seek to advise, evaluate, and treat sex partners of those with documented STIs, and offer expedited partner therapy if allowed by state law.
• Perform recommended follow-up services for treated individuals.

Details on each of these strategies can be found in the new guidelines and are described for each specific pathogen and for specific demographic groups. Recommendations on screening for asymptomatic STIs can be found on the USPSTF website.⁴

The first step leading to targeted prevention strategies such as behavioral counseling, vaccination, and screening involves taking an accurate and complete sexual history. The CDC offers a 5-step process it calls the “5 Ps approach” to gathering needed information (TABLE 2).¹

Major updates on the treatment of specific infections

Gonorrhea

The current recommendation for treating uncomplicated gonococcal infections of the cervix, urethra, pharynx, and rectum in adults and adolescents weighing < 150 kg is ceftriaxone 500 mg intramuscularly (IM) as a single dose; give 1 g for those weighing ≥ 150 kg.¹ If co-infection with chlamydia has not been ruled out, co-treatment with doxycycline 100 mg po twice a day for 7 days is also recommended.¹

This differs from the first-line treatment recommended in the previous guideline, which was dual therapy with ceftriaxone 250 mg IM and azithromycin 1 g po as a single dose, regardless of testing results for chlamydia.² The higher dose for ceftriaxone now recommended is due to a gradual decrease in gonorrhea susceptibility to cephalosporins in recent years, although complete resistance remains rare. The move away from universal dual therapy reflects a concern about antibiotic stewardship and the potential effects of antibiotics on the microbiome. The elimination of azithromycin from recommended first-line therapies is due to a 10-fold increase in the proportion of bacterium isolates demonstrating reduced susceptibility, as measured by minimal inhibitory concentrations in the past few years.

Continue to: If ceftriaxone...

If ceftriaxone is unavailable, there are 2 alternative regimens: gentamicin 240 mg IM in a single dose, plus azithromycin 2 g po in a single dose; or cefixime 800 mg po in a single dose.¹ However, these alternatives are not recommended for gonococcal infection of the pharynx, for which ceftriaxone should be used.

Counsel those treated for gonorrhea to avoid sexual activity for 7 days after treatment and until all sex partners have been treated. Because of the high rates of asymptomatic infections, tell patients to refer those with whom they have had sexual contact during the previous 60 days for evaluation, testing, and presumptive treatment.

Following treatment with the recommended dose of ceftriaxone, performing a test of cure is not recommended, with 1 exception: those with confirmed pharyngeal infection should be tested to confirm treatment success 7 to 14 days after being treated. However, all those treated for gonorrhea should be seen again in 3 months and retested to rule out reinfection, regardless of whether they think their sex partners have been adequately treated.

Chlamydia

The recommended first-line therapy for chlamydia is now doxycycline 100 mg twice a day for 7 days, which has proven to be superior to azithromycin (which was recommended as first-line therapy in 2015) for urogenital chlamydia in men and anal chlamydia in both men and women.^1,2 Alternatives to doxycycline include azithromycin 1 g po as a single dose or levofloxacin 500 mg po once a day for 7 days.¹ No test of cure is recommended; but as with gonorrhea, retesting at 3 months is recommended because of the risk for re-infection.

No test of cure is needed following gonococcal infection treated with a recommended dose of ceftriaxone, except in those with confirmed pharyngeal infection.

Instruct patients treated for chlamydia to avoid sexual intercourse for 7 days after therapy is initiated or until symptoms, if present, have resolved. To reduce the chances of reinfection, advise treated individuals to abstain from sexual intercourse until all of their sex partners have been treated.

Continue to: Sex partners...

Sex partners in the 60 days prior to the patient’s onset of symptoms or diagnosis should be advised to seek evaluation, testing, and presumptive treatment.

Trichomonas

The recommended first-line treatment for trichomonas now differs for men and women: metronidazole 2 g po as a single dose for men, and metronidazole 500 mg po twice a day for 7 days for women.¹ Tinidazole 2 g po as a single dose is an alternative for both men and women. Previously, the single metronidazole dose was recommended for men and women,² but there is now evidence that the 7-day course is markedly superior in achieving a cure in women.

No test of cure is recommended, but women should be retested at 3 months because of a high rate of re-infection. Current sex partners should be treated presumptively, and treated patients and their partners should avoid sex until all current sex partners have been treated. Consider expedited partner therapy if allowed by state law.

Bacterial vaginosis

First-line treatment recommendations for bacterial vaginosis (BV) have not changed: metronidazole 500 mg po twice a day for 7 days, or metronidazole gel 0.75% intravaginally daily for 5 days, or clindamycin cream 2% intravaginally at bedtime for 7 days. Advise women to avoid sexual activity or to use condoms for the duration of the treatment regimen.

A test of cure is not recommended if symptoms resolve, and no treatment or evaluation of sex partners is recommended. The guidelines describe several treatment options for women who have frequent, recurrent BV. To help prevent recurrences, they additionally suggest treating male partners with metronidazole 400 mg po twice a day and with 2% clindamycin cream applied to the penis twice a day, both for 7 days.

Continue to: Pelvic inflammatory disease

 

 

Pelvic inflammatory disease

Recommended regimens for treating pelvic inflammatory disease (PID) have changed (TABLES 3 and 4).¹ Women with mild or moderate PID can be treated with intramuscular or oral regimens, as outcomes with these regimens are equivalent to those seen with intravenous treatments. The nonintravenous options all include 3 antibiotics: a cephalosporin, doxycycline, and metronidazole.

To minimize disease transmission, instruct women to avoid sex until therapy is complete, their symptoms have resolved, and sex partners have been treated. Sex partners of those with PID in the 60 days prior to the onset of symptoms should be evaluated, tested, and presumptively treated for chlamydia and gonorrhea.

Follow through on public health procedures

STIs are an important set of diseases from a public health perspective. Family physicians have the opportunity to assist with the prevention and control of these infections through screening, making accurate diagnoses, and applying recommended treatments. When you suspect that a patient has an STI, test for the most common ones: gonorrhea, chlamydia, HIV, and syphilis. Report all confirmed diagnoses to the local public health department and be prepared to refer patients’ sexual contacts to the local public health department or to provide contact evaluation and treatment.

Vaccines against STIs include hepatitis B vaccine, human papillomavirus vaccine, and hepatitis A vaccine. Offer these vaccines to all previously unvaccinated adolescents and young adults as per recommendations from the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices.⁵

In July 2021, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) published its updated guidelines on the diagnosis, treatment, and prevention of sexually transmitted infections (STIs).¹ These guidelines were last published in 2015.² Family physicians should be familiar with these guidelines as they are considered the standard of care for the treatment and prevention of STIs.

To revise the guidelines, the CDC convened a large panel that included CDC staff and subject matter experts from around the country. Using methodology borrowed from the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF),³ the panel developed key questions and completed systematic reviews using a standard approach. The evidence behind key recommendations was ranked as high, medium, or low. However, the specific recommendations presented in the published guidelines appear without strength-of-recommendation descriptions or rankings of the levels of evidence supporting them.

The CDC approach to STI control involves 5 strategies (TABLE 1),¹ which family physicians can implement as follows:

• Elicit an accurate sexual history.
• Discuss with patients and advise them on preventive interventions including barrier methods, microbicides, vaccines, and HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis.
• Order recommended screening tests for specific STIs from all sites of potential infection.
• Recognize the signs and symptoms of STIs and order recommended tests for confirmation.
• Treat confirmed infections using current recommended medications.
• Seek to advise, evaluate, and treat sex partners of those with documented STIs, and offer expedited partner therapy if allowed by state law.
• Perform recommended follow-up services for treated individuals.

Details on each of these strategies can be found in the new guidelines and are described for each specific pathogen and for specific demographic groups. Recommendations on screening for asymptomatic STIs can be found on the USPSTF website.⁴

The first step leading to targeted prevention strategies such as behavioral counseling, vaccination, and screening involves taking an accurate and complete sexual history. The CDC offers a 5-step process it calls the “5 Ps approach” to gathering needed information (TABLE 2).¹

Major updates on the treatment of specific infections

Gonorrhea

The current recommendation for treating uncomplicated gonococcal infections of the cervix, urethra, pharynx, and rectum in adults and adolescents weighing < 150 kg is ceftriaxone 500 mg intramuscularly (IM) as a single dose; give 1 g for those weighing ≥ 150 kg.¹ If co-infection with chlamydia has not been ruled out, co-treatment with doxycycline 100 mg po twice a day for 7 days is also recommended.¹

This differs from the first-line treatment recommended in the previous guideline, which was dual therapy with ceftriaxone 250 mg IM and azithromycin 1 g po as a single dose, regardless of testing results for chlamydia.² The higher dose for ceftriaxone now recommended is due to a gradual decrease in gonorrhea susceptibility to cephalosporins in recent years, although complete resistance remains rare. The move away from universal dual therapy reflects a concern about antibiotic stewardship and the potential effects of antibiotics on the microbiome. The elimination of azithromycin from recommended first-line therapies is due to a 10-fold increase in the proportion of bacterium isolates demonstrating reduced susceptibility, as measured by minimal inhibitory concentrations in the past few years.

Continue to: If ceftriaxone...

If ceftriaxone is unavailable, there are 2 alternative regimens: gentamicin 240 mg IM in a single dose, plus azithromycin 2 g po in a single dose; or cefixime 800 mg po in a single dose.¹ However, these alternatives are not recommended for gonococcal infection of the pharynx, for which ceftriaxone should be used.

Counsel those treated for gonorrhea to avoid sexual activity for 7 days after treatment and until all sex partners have been treated. Because of the high rates of asymptomatic infections, tell patients to refer those with whom they have had sexual contact during the previous 60 days for evaluation, testing, and presumptive treatment.

Following treatment with the recommended dose of ceftriaxone, performing a test of cure is not recommended, with 1 exception: those with confirmed pharyngeal infection should be tested to confirm treatment success 7 to 14 days after being treated. However, all those treated for gonorrhea should be seen again in 3 months and retested to rule out reinfection, regardless of whether they think their sex partners have been adequately treated.

Chlamydia

The recommended first-line therapy for chlamydia is now doxycycline 100 mg twice a day for 7 days, which has proven to be superior to azithromycin (which was recommended as first-line therapy in 2015) for urogenital chlamydia in men and anal chlamydia in both men and women.^1,2 Alternatives to doxycycline include azithromycin 1 g po as a single dose or levofloxacin 500 mg po once a day for 7 days.¹ No test of cure is recommended; but as with gonorrhea, retesting at 3 months is recommended because of the risk for re-infection.

No test of cure is needed following gonococcal infection treated with a recommended dose of ceftriaxone, except in those with confirmed pharyngeal infection.

Instruct patients treated for chlamydia to avoid sexual intercourse for 7 days after therapy is initiated or until symptoms, if present, have resolved. To reduce the chances of reinfection, advise treated individuals to abstain from sexual intercourse until all of their sex partners have been treated.

Continue to: Sex partners...

Sex partners in the 60 days prior to the patient’s onset of symptoms or diagnosis should be advised to seek evaluation, testing, and presumptive treatment.

Trichomonas

The recommended first-line treatment for trichomonas now differs for men and women: metronidazole 2 g po as a single dose for men, and metronidazole 500 mg po twice a day for 7 days for women.¹ Tinidazole 2 g po as a single dose is an alternative for both men and women. Previously, the single metronidazole dose was recommended for men and women,² but there is now evidence that the 7-day course is markedly superior in achieving a cure in women.

No test of cure is recommended, but women should be retested at 3 months because of a high rate of re-infection. Current sex partners should be treated presumptively, and treated patients and their partners should avoid sex until all current sex partners have been treated. Consider expedited partner therapy if allowed by state law.

Bacterial vaginosis

First-line treatment recommendations for bacterial vaginosis (BV) have not changed: metronidazole 500 mg po twice a day for 7 days, or metronidazole gel 0.75% intravaginally daily for 5 days, or clindamycin cream 2% intravaginally at bedtime for 7 days. Advise women to avoid sexual activity or to use condoms for the duration of the treatment regimen.

A test of cure is not recommended if symptoms resolve, and no treatment or evaluation of sex partners is recommended. The guidelines describe several treatment options for women who have frequent, recurrent BV. To help prevent recurrences, they additionally suggest treating male partners with metronidazole 400 mg po twice a day and with 2% clindamycin cream applied to the penis twice a day, both for 7 days.

Continue to: Pelvic inflammatory disease

 

 

Pelvic inflammatory disease

Recommended regimens for treating pelvic inflammatory disease (PID) have changed (TABLES 3 and 4).¹ Women with mild or moderate PID can be treated with intramuscular or oral regimens, as outcomes with these regimens are equivalent to those seen with intravenous treatments. The nonintravenous options all include 3 antibiotics: a cephalosporin, doxycycline, and metronidazole.

To minimize disease transmission, instruct women to avoid sex until therapy is complete, their symptoms have resolved, and sex partners have been treated. Sex partners of those with PID in the 60 days prior to the onset of symptoms should be evaluated, tested, and presumptively treated for chlamydia and gonorrhea.

Follow through on public health procedures

STIs are an important set of diseases from a public health perspective. Family physicians have the opportunity to assist with the prevention and control of these infections through screening, making accurate diagnoses, and applying recommended treatments. When you suspect that a patient has an STI, test for the most common ones: gonorrhea, chlamydia, HIV, and syphilis. Report all confirmed diagnoses to the local public health department and be prepared to refer patients’ sexual contacts to the local public health department or to provide contact evaluation and treatment.

Vaccines against STIs include hepatitis B vaccine, human papillomavirus vaccine, and hepatitis A vaccine. Offer these vaccines to all previously unvaccinated adolescents and young adults as per recommendations from the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices.⁵

Adolescents and adults younger than age 21 who develop myocarditis after mRNA COVID-19 vaccination frequently have abnormal findings on cardiac MRI (cMRI) but most have a mild clinical course with rapid resolution of symptoms, a new study concludes.

• Most patients were male (90.6%), White (66.2%) and with a median age of 15.8 years.
• Suspected myocarditis occurred in 136 patients (97.8%) following mRNA vaccine, with 131 (94.2%) following the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine; 128 cases (91.4%) occurred after the second dose.
• Symptoms started a median of 2 days (range 0 to 22 days) following vaccination administration.
• Chest pain was the most common symptom (99.3%), with fever present in 30.9% of patients and shortness of breath in 27.3%.
• Patients were treated with nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (81.3%), intravenous immunoglobulin (21.6%), glucocorticoids (21.6%), colchicine (7.9%) or no anti-inflammatory therapies (8.6%).
• Twenty-six patients (18.7%) were admitted to the intensive care unit; 2 received inotropic/vasoactive support; none required extracorporeal membrane oxygenation or died.
• Median time spent in the hospital was 2 days.
• A total of 111 patients had elevated troponin I (8.12 ng/mL) and 28 had elevated troponin T (0.61 ng/mL).
• More than two-thirds (69.8%) had abnormal electrocardiograms and/or arrhythmias (7 with nonsustained ventricular tachycardia).
• Twenty-six patients (18.7%) had left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) less than 55% on echocardiogram; LVEF had returned to normal in the 25 who returned for follow-up.
• 75 of 97 patients (77.3%) who underwent cMRI at a median of 5 days from symptom onset had abnormal findings; 74 (76.3%) had late gadolinium enhancement, 54 (55.7%) had myocardial edema, and 49 (50.5%) met Lake Louise criteria for myocarditis.

“These data suggest that most cases of suspected COVID-19 vaccine–related myocarditis in people younger than 21 are mild and resolve quickly,” corresponding author Dongngan Truong, MD, Division of Pediatric Cardiology, University of Utah and Primary Children’s Hospital, Salt Lake City, said in a statement.

“We were very happy to see that type of recovery. However, we are awaiting further studies to better understand the long-term outcomes of patients who have had COVID-19 vaccination-related myocarditis. We also need to study the risk factors and mechanisms for this rare complication,” Dr. Truong added.

Dr. Lloyd-Jones said these findings support the AHA’s position that COVID-19 vaccines are “safe, highly effective, and fundamental to saving lives, protecting our families and communities against COVID-19, and ending the pandemic.”

The study received no funding. Dr. Truong consults for Pfizer on vaccine-associated myocarditis. A complete list of author disclosures is available with the original article.

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

Adolescents and adults younger than age 21 who develop myocarditis after mRNA COVID-19 vaccination frequently have abnormal findings on cardiac MRI (cMRI) but most have a mild clinical course with rapid resolution of symptoms, a new study concludes.

• Most patients were male (90.6%), White (66.2%) and with a median age of 15.8 years.
• Suspected myocarditis occurred in 136 patients (97.8%) following mRNA vaccine, with 131 (94.2%) following the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine; 128 cases (91.4%) occurred after the second dose.
• Symptoms started a median of 2 days (range 0 to 22 days) following vaccination administration.
• Chest pain was the most common symptom (99.3%), with fever present in 30.9% of patients and shortness of breath in 27.3%.
• Patients were treated with nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (81.3%), intravenous immunoglobulin (21.6%), glucocorticoids (21.6%), colchicine (7.9%) or no anti-inflammatory therapies (8.6%).
• Twenty-six patients (18.7%) were admitted to the intensive care unit; 2 received inotropic/vasoactive support; none required extracorporeal membrane oxygenation or died.
• Median time spent in the hospital was 2 days.
• A total of 111 patients had elevated troponin I (8.12 ng/mL) and 28 had elevated troponin T (0.61 ng/mL).
• More than two-thirds (69.8%) had abnormal electrocardiograms and/or arrhythmias (7 with nonsustained ventricular tachycardia).
• Twenty-six patients (18.7%) had left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) less than 55% on echocardiogram; LVEF had returned to normal in the 25 who returned for follow-up.
• 75 of 97 patients (77.3%) who underwent cMRI at a median of 5 days from symptom onset had abnormal findings; 74 (76.3%) had late gadolinium enhancement, 54 (55.7%) had myocardial edema, and 49 (50.5%) met Lake Louise criteria for myocarditis.

“These data suggest that most cases of suspected COVID-19 vaccine–related myocarditis in people younger than 21 are mild and resolve quickly,” corresponding author Dongngan Truong, MD, Division of Pediatric Cardiology, University of Utah and Primary Children’s Hospital, Salt Lake City, said in a statement.

“We were very happy to see that type of recovery. However, we are awaiting further studies to better understand the long-term outcomes of patients who have had COVID-19 vaccination-related myocarditis. We also need to study the risk factors and mechanisms for this rare complication,” Dr. Truong added.

Dr. Lloyd-Jones said these findings support the AHA’s position that COVID-19 vaccines are “safe, highly effective, and fundamental to saving lives, protecting our families and communities against COVID-19, and ending the pandemic.”

The study received no funding. Dr. Truong consults for Pfizer on vaccine-associated myocarditis. A complete list of author disclosures is available with the original article.

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

Adolescents and adults younger than age 21 who develop myocarditis after mRNA COVID-19 vaccination frequently have abnormal findings on cardiac MRI (cMRI) but most have a mild clinical course with rapid resolution of symptoms, a new study concludes.

• Most patients were male (90.6%), White (66.2%) and with a median age of 15.8 years.
• Suspected myocarditis occurred in 136 patients (97.8%) following mRNA vaccine, with 131 (94.2%) following the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine; 128 cases (91.4%) occurred after the second dose.
• Symptoms started a median of 2 days (range 0 to 22 days) following vaccination administration.
• Chest pain was the most common symptom (99.3%), with fever present in 30.9% of patients and shortness of breath in 27.3%.
• Patients were treated with nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (81.3%), intravenous immunoglobulin (21.6%), glucocorticoids (21.6%), colchicine (7.9%) or no anti-inflammatory therapies (8.6%).
• Twenty-six patients (18.7%) were admitted to the intensive care unit; 2 received inotropic/vasoactive support; none required extracorporeal membrane oxygenation or died.
• Median time spent in the hospital was 2 days.
• A total of 111 patients had elevated troponin I (8.12 ng/mL) and 28 had elevated troponin T (0.61 ng/mL).
• More than two-thirds (69.8%) had abnormal electrocardiograms and/or arrhythmias (7 with nonsustained ventricular tachycardia).
• Twenty-six patients (18.7%) had left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) less than 55% on echocardiogram; LVEF had returned to normal in the 25 who returned for follow-up.
• 75 of 97 patients (77.3%) who underwent cMRI at a median of 5 days from symptom onset had abnormal findings; 74 (76.3%) had late gadolinium enhancement, 54 (55.7%) had myocardial edema, and 49 (50.5%) met Lake Louise criteria for myocarditis.

“These data suggest that most cases of suspected COVID-19 vaccine–related myocarditis in people younger than 21 are mild and resolve quickly,” corresponding author Dongngan Truong, MD, Division of Pediatric Cardiology, University of Utah and Primary Children’s Hospital, Salt Lake City, said in a statement.

“We were very happy to see that type of recovery. However, we are awaiting further studies to better understand the long-term outcomes of patients who have had COVID-19 vaccination-related myocarditis. We also need to study the risk factors and mechanisms for this rare complication,” Dr. Truong added.

Dr. Lloyd-Jones said these findings support the AHA’s position that COVID-19 vaccines are “safe, highly effective, and fundamental to saving lives, protecting our families and communities against COVID-19, and ending the pandemic.”

The study received no funding. Dr. Truong consults for Pfizer on vaccine-associated myocarditis. A complete list of author disclosures is available with the original article.

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

An abstract and poster presentation questioning the safety of mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccines, embraced by some and lambasted by others, has drawn an “expression of concern” from the American Heart Association, along with a bid for correction.

The abstract in question concludes that COVID vaccines “dramatically increase” levels of certain inflammatory biomarkers, and therefore, the 5-year risk of acute coronary syndromes (ACS), based on pre- and post-vaccination results of an obscure blood panel called the PULS Cardiac Test (GD Biosciences). The findings were presented at the AHA’s 2021 Scientific Sessionsas, an uncontrolled observational study of 566 patients in a preventive cardiology practice.

Some on social media have seized on the abstract as evidence of serious potential harm from the two available mRNA-based SARS-CoV-2 vaccines, BNT162b2 (Pfizer-BioNTech) and mRNA-1273 (Moderna). But others contend that the study’s described design and findings are specious and its conclusions overstated.

They also point to the notoriety of its one listed author, Steven R. Gundry, MD, who promotes his diet books and supplements as well as fringe, highly criticized theories about diet and disease on several websites, including drgundry.com. Dr. Gundry has not responded to requests for an interview.

Dr. Gundry’s abstract from the AHA Scientific Sessions 2021, available on the meeting’s program planner, was marked with an “expression of concern” by the AHA that is to stand “until a suitable correction is published, to indicate that the abstract in its current version may not be reliable.”

The expression of concern statement, also published online Nov. 24 in Circulation, says “potential errors in the abstract” were brought to the attention of the meeting planners. “Specifically, there are several typographical errors, there is no data in the abstract regarding myocardial T-cell infiltration, there are no statistical analyses for significance provided, and the author is not clear that only anecdotal data was used.”

The biomarker elevations on which the abstract’s conclusions are based included hepatocyte growth factor, “which serves as a marker for chemotaxis of T-cells into epithelium and cardiac tissue,” it states.

“The expression of concern about the abstract will remain in place until a correction is accepted and published” in Circulation, AHA spokesperson Suzanne Grant told this news organization by email.

“The specific data needed will be up to the abstract author to determine and supply,” she said, noting that Dr. Gundry “has been in communication with the journal throughout this process.”

Submitting researchers “must always attest to the validity of the abstract,” Ms. Grant said. “Abstracts are then curated by independent review panels, blinded to the identities of the abstract authors, and are considered based on the potential to add to the diversity of scientific issues and views discussed at the meeting.”

Regarding the AHA’s system for vetting abstracts vying for acceptance to the scientific sessions, she said it is not primarily intended to “evaluate scientific validity” and that the organization is “currently reviewing its existing abstract submission processes.”

A recent Reuters report reviews the controversy and provides links to criticisms of the study on social media.

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

An abstract and poster presentation questioning the safety of mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccines, embraced by some and lambasted by others, has drawn an “expression of concern” from the American Heart Association, along with a bid for correction.

The abstract in question concludes that COVID vaccines “dramatically increase” levels of certain inflammatory biomarkers, and therefore, the 5-year risk of acute coronary syndromes (ACS), based on pre- and post-vaccination results of an obscure blood panel called the PULS Cardiac Test (GD Biosciences). The findings were presented at the AHA’s 2021 Scientific Sessionsas, an uncontrolled observational study of 566 patients in a preventive cardiology practice.

Some on social media have seized on the abstract as evidence of serious potential harm from the two available mRNA-based SARS-CoV-2 vaccines, BNT162b2 (Pfizer-BioNTech) and mRNA-1273 (Moderna). But others contend that the study’s described design and findings are specious and its conclusions overstated.

They also point to the notoriety of its one listed author, Steven R. Gundry, MD, who promotes his diet books and supplements as well as fringe, highly criticized theories about diet and disease on several websites, including drgundry.com. Dr. Gundry has not responded to requests for an interview.

Dr. Gundry’s abstract from the AHA Scientific Sessions 2021, available on the meeting’s program planner, was marked with an “expression of concern” by the AHA that is to stand “until a suitable correction is published, to indicate that the abstract in its current version may not be reliable.”

The expression of concern statement, also published online Nov. 24 in Circulation, says “potential errors in the abstract” were brought to the attention of the meeting planners. “Specifically, there are several typographical errors, there is no data in the abstract regarding myocardial T-cell infiltration, there are no statistical analyses for significance provided, and the author is not clear that only anecdotal data was used.”

The biomarker elevations on which the abstract’s conclusions are based included hepatocyte growth factor, “which serves as a marker for chemotaxis of T-cells into epithelium and cardiac tissue,” it states.

“The expression of concern about the abstract will remain in place until a correction is accepted and published” in Circulation, AHA spokesperson Suzanne Grant told this news organization by email.

“The specific data needed will be up to the abstract author to determine and supply,” she said, noting that Dr. Gundry “has been in communication with the journal throughout this process.”

Submitting researchers “must always attest to the validity of the abstract,” Ms. Grant said. “Abstracts are then curated by independent review panels, blinded to the identities of the abstract authors, and are considered based on the potential to add to the diversity of scientific issues and views discussed at the meeting.”

Regarding the AHA’s system for vetting abstracts vying for acceptance to the scientific sessions, she said it is not primarily intended to “evaluate scientific validity” and that the organization is “currently reviewing its existing abstract submission processes.”

A recent Reuters report reviews the controversy and provides links to criticisms of the study on social media.

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

An abstract and poster presentation questioning the safety of mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccines, embraced by some and lambasted by others, has drawn an “expression of concern” from the American Heart Association, along with a bid for correction.

The abstract in question concludes that COVID vaccines “dramatically increase” levels of certain inflammatory biomarkers, and therefore, the 5-year risk of acute coronary syndromes (ACS), based on pre- and post-vaccination results of an obscure blood panel called the PULS Cardiac Test (GD Biosciences). The findings were presented at the AHA’s 2021 Scientific Sessionsas, an uncontrolled observational study of 566 patients in a preventive cardiology practice.

Some on social media have seized on the abstract as evidence of serious potential harm from the two available mRNA-based SARS-CoV-2 vaccines, BNT162b2 (Pfizer-BioNTech) and mRNA-1273 (Moderna). But others contend that the study’s described design and findings are specious and its conclusions overstated.

They also point to the notoriety of its one listed author, Steven R. Gundry, MD, who promotes his diet books and supplements as well as fringe, highly criticized theories about diet and disease on several websites, including drgundry.com. Dr. Gundry has not responded to requests for an interview.

Dr. Gundry’s abstract from the AHA Scientific Sessions 2021, available on the meeting’s program planner, was marked with an “expression of concern” by the AHA that is to stand “until a suitable correction is published, to indicate that the abstract in its current version may not be reliable.”

The expression of concern statement, also published online Nov. 24 in Circulation, says “potential errors in the abstract” were brought to the attention of the meeting planners. “Specifically, there are several typographical errors, there is no data in the abstract regarding myocardial T-cell infiltration, there are no statistical analyses for significance provided, and the author is not clear that only anecdotal data was used.”

The biomarker elevations on which the abstract’s conclusions are based included hepatocyte growth factor, “which serves as a marker for chemotaxis of T-cells into epithelium and cardiac tissue,” it states.

“The expression of concern about the abstract will remain in place until a correction is accepted and published” in Circulation, AHA spokesperson Suzanne Grant told this news organization by email.

“The specific data needed will be up to the abstract author to determine and supply,” she said, noting that Dr. Gundry “has been in communication with the journal throughout this process.”

Submitting researchers “must always attest to the validity of the abstract,” Ms. Grant said. “Abstracts are then curated by independent review panels, blinded to the identities of the abstract authors, and are considered based on the potential to add to the diversity of scientific issues and views discussed at the meeting.”

Regarding the AHA’s system for vetting abstracts vying for acceptance to the scientific sessions, she said it is not primarily intended to “evaluate scientific validity” and that the organization is “currently reviewing its existing abstract submission processes.”

A recent Reuters report reviews the controversy and provides links to criticisms of the study on social media.

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

The intention to vaccinate children against COVID-19 was lower among vaccine-hesitant parents when compared with parents who were willing to or had already received the COVID vaccine, a new survey finds.

“Parental vaccine hesitancy is a major issue for schools resuming in-person instruction, potentially requiring regular testing, strict mask wearing, and physical distancing for safe operation,” wrote lead author Madhura S. Rane, PhD, from the City University of New York in New York City, and colleagues in their paper, published online in JAMA Pediatrics.

The survey was conducted in June 2021 of 1,162 parents with children ranging in age from 2 to 17 years. The majority of parents (74.4%) were already vaccinated/vaccine-willing ,while 25.6% were vaccine hesitant. The study cohort, including both 1,652 children and their parents, was part of the nationwide CHASING COVID.

Vaccinated parents overall were more willing to vaccinate or had already vaccinated their eligible children when compared with vaccine-hesitant parents: 64.9% vs. 8.3% for children 2-4 years of age; 77.6% vs. 12.1% for children 5-11 years of age; 81.3% vs. 13.9% for children 12-15 years of age; and 86.4% vs. 12.7% for children 16-17 years of age; P < .001.

The researchers found greater hesitancy among Black and Hispanic parents, compared with parents who were non-Hispanic White, women, younger, and did not have a college education. Parents of children who were currently attending school remotely or only partially, were found to be more willing to vaccinate their children when compared to parents of children who were attending school fully in person.

The authors also found that parents who knew someone who had died of COVID-19 or had experienced a prior COVID-19 infection, were more willing to vaccinate their children.

Hesitance in vaccinated parents

Interestingly, 10% of COVID-vaccinated parents said they were still hesitant to vaccinate their kids because of concern for long-term adverse effects of the vaccine.

“These data point out that vaccine concerns may exist even among vaccinated or vaccine-favorable parents, so we should ask any parent who has not vaccinated their child whether we can discuss their concerns and perhaps move their opinions,” said William T. Basco Jr, MD, MS, a professor of pediatrics at the Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, and director of the division of general pediatrics.

In an interview, when asked whether recent approval of the vaccine for children aged 5-11 will likely aid in overcoming parental hesitancy, Dr. Basco replied: “Absolutely. As more children get the vaccine and people know a neighbor or nephew or cousin, etc., who received the vaccine and did fine, it will engender greater comfort and allow parents to feel better about having their own child receive the vaccine.”

Advice for clinicians from outside expert

“We can always start by asking parents if we can help them understand the vaccine and the need for it. The tidal wave of disinformation is huge, but we can, on a daily basis, offer to help families navigate this decision,” concluded Dr. Basco, who was not involved with the new paper.

Funding for this study was provided through grants from the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, the CUNY Institute of Implementation Science in Population Health, and the COVID-19 Grant Program of the CUNY Graduate School of Public Health and Health Policy. The authors and Dr. Basco have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

The intention to vaccinate children against COVID-19 was lower among vaccine-hesitant parents when compared with parents who were willing to or had already received the COVID vaccine, a new survey finds.

“Parental vaccine hesitancy is a major issue for schools resuming in-person instruction, potentially requiring regular testing, strict mask wearing, and physical distancing for safe operation,” wrote lead author Madhura S. Rane, PhD, from the City University of New York in New York City, and colleagues in their paper, published online in JAMA Pediatrics.

The survey was conducted in June 2021 of 1,162 parents with children ranging in age from 2 to 17 years. The majority of parents (74.4%) were already vaccinated/vaccine-willing ,while 25.6% were vaccine hesitant. The study cohort, including both 1,652 children and their parents, was part of the nationwide CHASING COVID.

Vaccinated parents overall were more willing to vaccinate or had already vaccinated their eligible children when compared with vaccine-hesitant parents: 64.9% vs. 8.3% for children 2-4 years of age; 77.6% vs. 12.1% for children 5-11 years of age; 81.3% vs. 13.9% for children 12-15 years of age; and 86.4% vs. 12.7% for children 16-17 years of age; P < .001.

The researchers found greater hesitancy among Black and Hispanic parents, compared with parents who were non-Hispanic White, women, younger, and did not have a college education. Parents of children who were currently attending school remotely or only partially, were found to be more willing to vaccinate their children when compared to parents of children who were attending school fully in person.

The authors also found that parents who knew someone who had died of COVID-19 or had experienced a prior COVID-19 infection, were more willing to vaccinate their children.

Hesitance in vaccinated parents

Interestingly, 10% of COVID-vaccinated parents said they were still hesitant to vaccinate their kids because of concern for long-term adverse effects of the vaccine.

“These data point out that vaccine concerns may exist even among vaccinated or vaccine-favorable parents, so we should ask any parent who has not vaccinated their child whether we can discuss their concerns and perhaps move their opinions,” said William T. Basco Jr, MD, MS, a professor of pediatrics at the Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, and director of the division of general pediatrics.

In an interview, when asked whether recent approval of the vaccine for children aged 5-11 will likely aid in overcoming parental hesitancy, Dr. Basco replied: “Absolutely. As more children get the vaccine and people know a neighbor or nephew or cousin, etc., who received the vaccine and did fine, it will engender greater comfort and allow parents to feel better about having their own child receive the vaccine.”

Advice for clinicians from outside expert

“We can always start by asking parents if we can help them understand the vaccine and the need for it. The tidal wave of disinformation is huge, but we can, on a daily basis, offer to help families navigate this decision,” concluded Dr. Basco, who was not involved with the new paper.

Funding for this study was provided through grants from the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, the CUNY Institute of Implementation Science in Population Health, and the COVID-19 Grant Program of the CUNY Graduate School of Public Health and Health Policy. The authors and Dr. Basco have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

The intention to vaccinate children against COVID-19 was lower among vaccine-hesitant parents when compared with parents who were willing to or had already received the COVID vaccine, a new survey finds.

“Parental vaccine hesitancy is a major issue for schools resuming in-person instruction, potentially requiring regular testing, strict mask wearing, and physical distancing for safe operation,” wrote lead author Madhura S. Rane, PhD, from the City University of New York in New York City, and colleagues in their paper, published online in JAMA Pediatrics.

The survey was conducted in June 2021 of 1,162 parents with children ranging in age from 2 to 17 years. The majority of parents (74.4%) were already vaccinated/vaccine-willing ,while 25.6% were vaccine hesitant. The study cohort, including both 1,652 children and their parents, was part of the nationwide CHASING COVID.

Vaccinated parents overall were more willing to vaccinate or had already vaccinated their eligible children when compared with vaccine-hesitant parents: 64.9% vs. 8.3% for children 2-4 years of age; 77.6% vs. 12.1% for children 5-11 years of age; 81.3% vs. 13.9% for children 12-15 years of age; and 86.4% vs. 12.7% for children 16-17 years of age; P < .001.

The researchers found greater hesitancy among Black and Hispanic parents, compared with parents who were non-Hispanic White, women, younger, and did not have a college education. Parents of children who were currently attending school remotely or only partially, were found to be more willing to vaccinate their children when compared to parents of children who were attending school fully in person.

The authors also found that parents who knew someone who had died of COVID-19 or had experienced a prior COVID-19 infection, were more willing to vaccinate their children.

Hesitance in vaccinated parents

Interestingly, 10% of COVID-vaccinated parents said they were still hesitant to vaccinate their kids because of concern for long-term adverse effects of the vaccine.

“These data point out that vaccine concerns may exist even among vaccinated or vaccine-favorable parents, so we should ask any parent who has not vaccinated their child whether we can discuss their concerns and perhaps move their opinions,” said William T. Basco Jr, MD, MS, a professor of pediatrics at the Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, and director of the division of general pediatrics.

In an interview, when asked whether recent approval of the vaccine for children aged 5-11 will likely aid in overcoming parental hesitancy, Dr. Basco replied: “Absolutely. As more children get the vaccine and people know a neighbor or nephew or cousin, etc., who received the vaccine and did fine, it will engender greater comfort and allow parents to feel better about having their own child receive the vaccine.”

Advice for clinicians from outside expert

“We can always start by asking parents if we can help them understand the vaccine and the need for it. The tidal wave of disinformation is huge, but we can, on a daily basis, offer to help families navigate this decision,” concluded Dr. Basco, who was not involved with the new paper.

Funding for this study was provided through grants from the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, the CUNY Institute of Implementation Science in Population Health, and the COVID-19 Grant Program of the CUNY Graduate School of Public Health and Health Policy. The authors and Dr. Basco have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

Total COVID-19 cases in children surpassed the 7-million mark as new cases rose slightly after the previous week’s decline, according to the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Children’s Hospital Association.

The 133,000 new cases reported for the week ending Dec. 2 mark the 17th consecutive week that the count has exceeded 100,000 and brought the cumulative national count to 7.03 million since the start of the pandemic, the AAP and CHA said in their weekly COVID-19 report. New cases had dropped the previous week after 3 straight weeks of increases since late October.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention puts the total number of child COVID-19 cases at 6.2 million, but both estimates are based on all-age totals – 40 million for the CDC and 41 million for the AAP/CHA – that are well short of the CDC’s latest cumulative figure, which is now just over 49 million, so the actual figures are undoubtedly higher.

Meanwhile, the 1-month anniversary of 5- to 11-year-olds’ vaccine eligibility brought many completions: 923,000 received their second dose during the week ending Dec. 6, compared with 405,000 the previous week. About 16.9% (4.9 million) of children aged 5-11 have gotten at least one dose of the COVID-19 vaccine thus far, of whom almost 1.5 million children (5.1% of the age group) are now fully vaccinated, the CDC said on its COVID-19 Data Tracker.

The pace of vaccinations, however, is much lower for older children. Weekly numbers for all COVID-19 vaccinations, both first and second doses, dropped from 84,000 (Nov. 23-29) to 70,000 (Nov. 30 to Dec. 6), for those aged 12-17 years. In that group, 61.6% have received at least one dose and 51.8% are fully vaccinated, the CDC said.

The pace of vaccinations varies for younger children as well, when geography is considered. The AAP analyzed the CDC’s data and found that 42% of all 5- to 11-year-olds in Vermont had received at least one dose as of Dec. 1, followed by Massachusetts (33%), Maine (30%), and Rhode Island (28%). At the other end of the vaccination scale are Alabama, Louisiana, Mississippi, and West Virginia, all with 4%, the AAP reported.

As the United States puts 7 million children infected with COVID-19 in its rear view mirror, another milestone is looming ahead: The CDC’s current count of deaths in children is 974.

rfranki@mdedge.com

Total COVID-19 cases in children surpassed the 7-million mark as new cases rose slightly after the previous week’s decline, according to the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Children’s Hospital Association.

The 133,000 new cases reported for the week ending Dec. 2 mark the 17th consecutive week that the count has exceeded 100,000 and brought the cumulative national count to 7.03 million since the start of the pandemic, the AAP and CHA said in their weekly COVID-19 report. New cases had dropped the previous week after 3 straight weeks of increases since late October.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention puts the total number of child COVID-19 cases at 6.2 million, but both estimates are based on all-age totals – 40 million for the CDC and 41 million for the AAP/CHA – that are well short of the CDC’s latest cumulative figure, which is now just over 49 million, so the actual figures are undoubtedly higher.

Meanwhile, the 1-month anniversary of 5- to 11-year-olds’ vaccine eligibility brought many completions: 923,000 received their second dose during the week ending Dec. 6, compared with 405,000 the previous week. About 16.9% (4.9 million) of children aged 5-11 have gotten at least one dose of the COVID-19 vaccine thus far, of whom almost 1.5 million children (5.1% of the age group) are now fully vaccinated, the CDC said on its COVID-19 Data Tracker.

The pace of vaccinations, however, is much lower for older children. Weekly numbers for all COVID-19 vaccinations, both first and second doses, dropped from 84,000 (Nov. 23-29) to 70,000 (Nov. 30 to Dec. 6), for those aged 12-17 years. In that group, 61.6% have received at least one dose and 51.8% are fully vaccinated, the CDC said.

The pace of vaccinations varies for younger children as well, when geography is considered. The AAP analyzed the CDC’s data and found that 42% of all 5- to 11-year-olds in Vermont had received at least one dose as of Dec. 1, followed by Massachusetts (33%), Maine (30%), and Rhode Island (28%). At the other end of the vaccination scale are Alabama, Louisiana, Mississippi, and West Virginia, all with 4%, the AAP reported.

As the United States puts 7 million children infected with COVID-19 in its rear view mirror, another milestone is looming ahead: The CDC’s current count of deaths in children is 974.

rfranki@mdedge.com

Total COVID-19 cases in children surpassed the 7-million mark as new cases rose slightly after the previous week’s decline, according to the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Children’s Hospital Association.

The 133,000 new cases reported for the week ending Dec. 2 mark the 17th consecutive week that the count has exceeded 100,000 and brought the cumulative national count to 7.03 million since the start of the pandemic, the AAP and CHA said in their weekly COVID-19 report. New cases had dropped the previous week after 3 straight weeks of increases since late October.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention puts the total number of child COVID-19 cases at 6.2 million, but both estimates are based on all-age totals – 40 million for the CDC and 41 million for the AAP/CHA – that are well short of the CDC’s latest cumulative figure, which is now just over 49 million, so the actual figures are undoubtedly higher.

Meanwhile, the 1-month anniversary of 5- to 11-year-olds’ vaccine eligibility brought many completions: 923,000 received their second dose during the week ending Dec. 6, compared with 405,000 the previous week. About 16.9% (4.9 million) of children aged 5-11 have gotten at least one dose of the COVID-19 vaccine thus far, of whom almost 1.5 million children (5.1% of the age group) are now fully vaccinated, the CDC said on its COVID-19 Data Tracker.

The pace of vaccinations, however, is much lower for older children. Weekly numbers for all COVID-19 vaccinations, both first and second doses, dropped from 84,000 (Nov. 23-29) to 70,000 (Nov. 30 to Dec. 6), for those aged 12-17 years. In that group, 61.6% have received at least one dose and 51.8% are fully vaccinated, the CDC said.

The pace of vaccinations varies for younger children as well, when geography is considered. The AAP analyzed the CDC’s data and found that 42% of all 5- to 11-year-olds in Vermont had received at least one dose as of Dec. 1, followed by Massachusetts (33%), Maine (30%), and Rhode Island (28%). At the other end of the vaccination scale are Alabama, Louisiana, Mississippi, and West Virginia, all with 4%, the AAP reported.

As the United States puts 7 million children infected with COVID-19 in its rear view mirror, another milestone is looming ahead: The CDC’s current count of deaths in children is 974.

rfranki@mdedge.com

A new survey from the National Foundation for Infectious Diseases shows that, despite the recommendation that patients who have chronic illnesses receive annual flu vaccines, only 45% of these patients do get them. People with chronic diseases are at increased risk for serious flu-related complications, including hospitalization and death.

MarianVejcik/Getty Images

The survey looked at physicians’ practices toward flu vaccination and communication between health care providers (HCP) and their adult patients with chronic health conditions.

Overall, less than a third of HCPs (31%) said they recommend annual flu vaccination to all of their patients with chronic health conditions. There were some surprising differences between subspecialists. For example, 72% of patients with a heart problem who saw a cardiologist said that physician recommended the flu vaccine. The recommendation rate dropped to 32% of lung patients seeing a pulmonary physician and only 10% of people with diabetes who saw an endocrinologist.

There is quite a large gap between what physicians and patients say about their interactions. Fully 77% of HCPs who recommend annual flu vaccination say they tell patients when they are at higher risk of complications from influenza. Yet only 48% of patients say they have been given such information.

Although it is critically important information for patients to learn, their risk of influenza is often missing from the discussion. For example, patients with heart disease are six times more likely to have a heart attack within 7 days of flu infection. People with diabetes are six times more likely to be hospitalized from flu and three times more likely to die. Similarly, those with asthma or chronic obstructive pulmonary disorder are at a much higher risk of complications.

One problem is that more than half of specialist physicians who do not offer flu vaccinations report that it is because they believe that immunizations are the responsibility of the primary care physician. Yet only 65% of patients with one of these chronic illnesses report seeing their primary care physician at least annually.

Much of the disparity between the patient’s perception of what they were told and the physician’s is “how the ‘recommendation’ is actually made,” William Schaffner, MD, NFID’s medical director and professor of medicine at Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tenn., told this news organization. Dr. Schaffner offered the following example: At the end of the visit, the doctor might say: “It’s that time of the year again – you want to think about getting your flu shot.”

“The doctor thinks they’ve recommended that, but the doctor really has opened the door for you to think about it and leave [yourself] unvaccinated.”

Dr. Schaffner’s alternative? Tell the patient: “‘You’ll get your flu vaccine on the way out. Tom or Sally will give it to you.’ That’s a very different kind of recommendation. And it’s a much greater assurance of providing the vaccine.”

Another major problem, Dr. Schaffner said, is that many specialists “don’t think of vaccination as something that’s included with their routine care” even though they do direct much of the patient’s care. He said that physicians should be more “directive” in their care and that immunizations should be better integrated into routine practice.

Jody Lanard, MD, a retired risk communication consultant who spent many years working with the World Health Organization on disease outbreak communications, said in an interview that this disconnect between physician and patient reports “was really jarring. And it’s actionable!”

She offered several practical suggestions. For one, she said, “the messaging to the specialists has to be very, very empathic. We know you’re already overburdened. And here we’re asking you to do something that you think of as somebody else’s job.” But if your patient gets flu, then your job as the cardiologist or endocrinologist will become more complicated and time-consuming. So getting the patients vaccinated will be a good investment and will make your job easier.

Because of the disparity in patient and physician reports, Dr. Lanard suggested implementing a “feedback mechanism where they [the health care providers] give out the prescription, and then the office calls [the patient] to see if they’ve gotten the shot or not. Because that way it will help correct the mismatch between them thinking that they told the patient and the patient not hearing it.”

Asked about why there might be a big gap between what physicians report they said and what patients heard, Dr. Lanard explained that “physicians often communicate in [a manner] sort of like a checklist. And the patients are focused on one or two things that are high in their minds. And the physician was mentioning some things that are on a separate topic that are not on a patient’s list and it goes right past them.”

Dr. Lanard recommended brief storytelling instead of checklists. For example: “I’ve been treating your diabetes for 10 years. During this last flu season, several of my diabetic patients had a really hard time when they caught the flu. So now I’m trying harder to remember to remind you to get your flu shots.”

She urged HCPs to “make it more personal ... but it can still be scripted in advance as part of something that [you’re] remembering to do during the check.” She added that their professional associations may be able to send them suggested language they can adapt.

Finally, Dr. Lanard cautioned about vaccine myths. “The word myth is so insulting. It’s basically a word that sends the signal that you’re an idiot.”

She advised specialists to avoid the word “myth,” which will make the person defensive. Instead, say something like, “A lot of people, even some of my own family members, think the flu vaccine gives you the flu. ... But it doesn’t. And then you go into the reality.”

Dr. Lanard suggested that specialists implement the follow-up calls and close the feedback loop, saying: “If they did the survey a few years later, I bet that gap would narrow.”

Dr. Schaffner and Dr. Lanard disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

A new survey from the National Foundation for Infectious Diseases shows that, despite the recommendation that patients who have chronic illnesses receive annual flu vaccines, only 45% of these patients do get them. People with chronic diseases are at increased risk for serious flu-related complications, including hospitalization and death.

MarianVejcik/Getty Images

The survey looked at physicians’ practices toward flu vaccination and communication between health care providers (HCP) and their adult patients with chronic health conditions.

Overall, less than a third of HCPs (31%) said they recommend annual flu vaccination to all of their patients with chronic health conditions. There were some surprising differences between subspecialists. For example, 72% of patients with a heart problem who saw a cardiologist said that physician recommended the flu vaccine. The recommendation rate dropped to 32% of lung patients seeing a pulmonary physician and only 10% of people with diabetes who saw an endocrinologist.

There is quite a large gap between what physicians and patients say about their interactions. Fully 77% of HCPs who recommend annual flu vaccination say they tell patients when they are at higher risk of complications from influenza. Yet only 48% of patients say they have been given such information.

Although it is critically important information for patients to learn, their risk of influenza is often missing from the discussion. For example, patients with heart disease are six times more likely to have a heart attack within 7 days of flu infection. People with diabetes are six times more likely to be hospitalized from flu and three times more likely to die. Similarly, those with asthma or chronic obstructive pulmonary disorder are at a much higher risk of complications.

One problem is that more than half of specialist physicians who do not offer flu vaccinations report that it is because they believe that immunizations are the responsibility of the primary care physician. Yet only 65% of patients with one of these chronic illnesses report seeing their primary care physician at least annually.

Much of the disparity between the patient’s perception of what they were told and the physician’s is “how the ‘recommendation’ is actually made,” William Schaffner, MD, NFID’s medical director and professor of medicine at Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tenn., told this news organization. Dr. Schaffner offered the following example: At the end of the visit, the doctor might say: “It’s that time of the year again – you want to think about getting your flu shot.”

“The doctor thinks they’ve recommended that, but the doctor really has opened the door for you to think about it and leave [yourself] unvaccinated.”

Dr. Schaffner’s alternative? Tell the patient: “‘You’ll get your flu vaccine on the way out. Tom or Sally will give it to you.’ That’s a very different kind of recommendation. And it’s a much greater assurance of providing the vaccine.”

Another major problem, Dr. Schaffner said, is that many specialists “don’t think of vaccination as something that’s included with their routine care” even though they do direct much of the patient’s care. He said that physicians should be more “directive” in their care and that immunizations should be better integrated into routine practice.

Jody Lanard, MD, a retired risk communication consultant who spent many years working with the World Health Organization on disease outbreak communications, said in an interview that this disconnect between physician and patient reports “was really jarring. And it’s actionable!”

She offered several practical suggestions. For one, she said, “the messaging to the specialists has to be very, very empathic. We know you’re already overburdened. And here we’re asking you to do something that you think of as somebody else’s job.” But if your patient gets flu, then your job as the cardiologist or endocrinologist will become more complicated and time-consuming. So getting the patients vaccinated will be a good investment and will make your job easier.

Because of the disparity in patient and physician reports, Dr. Lanard suggested implementing a “feedback mechanism where they [the health care providers] give out the prescription, and then the office calls [the patient] to see if they’ve gotten the shot or not. Because that way it will help correct the mismatch between them thinking that they told the patient and the patient not hearing it.”

Asked about why there might be a big gap between what physicians report they said and what patients heard, Dr. Lanard explained that “physicians often communicate in [a manner] sort of like a checklist. And the patients are focused on one or two things that are high in their minds. And the physician was mentioning some things that are on a separate topic that are not on a patient’s list and it goes right past them.”

Dr. Lanard recommended brief storytelling instead of checklists. For example: “I’ve been treating your diabetes for 10 years. During this last flu season, several of my diabetic patients had a really hard time when they caught the flu. So now I’m trying harder to remember to remind you to get your flu shots.”

She urged HCPs to “make it more personal ... but it can still be scripted in advance as part of something that [you’re] remembering to do during the check.” She added that their professional associations may be able to send them suggested language they can adapt.

Finally, Dr. Lanard cautioned about vaccine myths. “The word myth is so insulting. It’s basically a word that sends the signal that you’re an idiot.”

She advised specialists to avoid the word “myth,” which will make the person defensive. Instead, say something like, “A lot of people, even some of my own family members, think the flu vaccine gives you the flu. ... But it doesn’t. And then you go into the reality.”

Dr. Lanard suggested that specialists implement the follow-up calls and close the feedback loop, saying: “If they did the survey a few years later, I bet that gap would narrow.”

Dr. Schaffner and Dr. Lanard disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

A new survey from the National Foundation for Infectious Diseases shows that, despite the recommendation that patients who have chronic illnesses receive annual flu vaccines, only 45% of these patients do get them. People with chronic diseases are at increased risk for serious flu-related complications, including hospitalization and death.

MarianVejcik/Getty Images

The survey looked at physicians’ practices toward flu vaccination and communication between health care providers (HCP) and their adult patients with chronic health conditions.

Overall, less than a third of HCPs (31%) said they recommend annual flu vaccination to all of their patients with chronic health conditions. There were some surprising differences between subspecialists. For example, 72% of patients with a heart problem who saw a cardiologist said that physician recommended the flu vaccine. The recommendation rate dropped to 32% of lung patients seeing a pulmonary physician and only 10% of people with diabetes who saw an endocrinologist.

There is quite a large gap between what physicians and patients say about their interactions. Fully 77% of HCPs who recommend annual flu vaccination say they tell patients when they are at higher risk of complications from influenza. Yet only 48% of patients say they have been given such information.

Although it is critically important information for patients to learn, their risk of influenza is often missing from the discussion. For example, patients with heart disease are six times more likely to have a heart attack within 7 days of flu infection. People with diabetes are six times more likely to be hospitalized from flu and three times more likely to die. Similarly, those with asthma or chronic obstructive pulmonary disorder are at a much higher risk of complications.

One problem is that more than half of specialist physicians who do not offer flu vaccinations report that it is because they believe that immunizations are the responsibility of the primary care physician. Yet only 65% of patients with one of these chronic illnesses report seeing their primary care physician at least annually.

Much of the disparity between the patient’s perception of what they were told and the physician’s is “how the ‘recommendation’ is actually made,” William Schaffner, MD, NFID’s medical director and professor of medicine at Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tenn., told this news organization. Dr. Schaffner offered the following example: At the end of the visit, the doctor might say: “It’s that time of the year again – you want to think about getting your flu shot.”

“The doctor thinks they’ve recommended that, but the doctor really has opened the door for you to think about it and leave [yourself] unvaccinated.”

Dr. Schaffner’s alternative? Tell the patient: “‘You’ll get your flu vaccine on the way out. Tom or Sally will give it to you.’ That’s a very different kind of recommendation. And it’s a much greater assurance of providing the vaccine.”

Another major problem, Dr. Schaffner said, is that many specialists “don’t think of vaccination as something that’s included with their routine care” even though they do direct much of the patient’s care. He said that physicians should be more “directive” in their care and that immunizations should be better integrated into routine practice.

Jody Lanard, MD, a retired risk communication consultant who spent many years working with the World Health Organization on disease outbreak communications, said in an interview that this disconnect between physician and patient reports “was really jarring. And it’s actionable!”

She offered several practical suggestions. For one, she said, “the messaging to the specialists has to be very, very empathic. We know you’re already overburdened. And here we’re asking you to do something that you think of as somebody else’s job.” But if your patient gets flu, then your job as the cardiologist or endocrinologist will become more complicated and time-consuming. So getting the patients vaccinated will be a good investment and will make your job easier.

Because of the disparity in patient and physician reports, Dr. Lanard suggested implementing a “feedback mechanism where they [the health care providers] give out the prescription, and then the office calls [the patient] to see if they’ve gotten the shot or not. Because that way it will help correct the mismatch between them thinking that they told the patient and the patient not hearing it.”

Asked about why there might be a big gap between what physicians report they said and what patients heard, Dr. Lanard explained that “physicians often communicate in [a manner] sort of like a checklist. And the patients are focused on one or two things that are high in their minds. And the physician was mentioning some things that are on a separate topic that are not on a patient’s list and it goes right past them.”

Dr. Lanard recommended brief storytelling instead of checklists. For example: “I’ve been treating your diabetes for 10 years. During this last flu season, several of my diabetic patients had a really hard time when they caught the flu. So now I’m trying harder to remember to remind you to get your flu shots.”

She urged HCPs to “make it more personal ... but it can still be scripted in advance as part of something that [you’re] remembering to do during the check.” She added that their professional associations may be able to send them suggested language they can adapt.

Finally, Dr. Lanard cautioned about vaccine myths. “The word myth is so insulting. It’s basically a word that sends the signal that you’re an idiot.”

She advised specialists to avoid the word “myth,” which will make the person defensive. Instead, say something like, “A lot of people, even some of my own family members, think the flu vaccine gives you the flu. ... But it doesn’t. And then you go into the reality.”

Dr. Lanard suggested that specialists implement the follow-up calls and close the feedback loop, saying: “If they did the survey a few years later, I bet that gap would narrow.”

Dr. Schaffner and Dr. Lanard disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Background: Recurrent cellulitis is a common condition in patients with lower-extremity edema. Although some clinicians recommend compression garments as a preventative treatment, there are no data evaluating their efficacy for this purpose.

Dr. Herscher is a hospitalist in the Division of Hospital Medicine, Mount Sinai Health System, New York.

Background: Recurrent cellulitis is a common condition in patients with lower-extremity edema. Although some clinicians recommend compression garments as a preventative treatment, there are no data evaluating their efficacy for this purpose.

Dr. Herscher is a hospitalist in the Division of Hospital Medicine, Mount Sinai Health System, New York.

Background: Recurrent cellulitis is a common condition in patients with lower-extremity edema. Although some clinicians recommend compression garments as a preventative treatment, there are no data evaluating their efficacy for this purpose.

Dr. Herscher is a hospitalist in the Division of Hospital Medicine, Mount Sinai Health System, New York.

Decades before becoming the go-to authority in the United States on the COVID-19 global pandemic, Anthony S. Fauci, MD, found himself witnessing the earliest perplexing cases of what would become another devastating global pandemic – HIV/AIDS. And while extraordinary advances have transformed treatment and prevention, glaring treatment gaps and challenges remain after 40 years.

“I certainly remember those initial MMWRs [the Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Reports] in the summer of 1981 that introduced us to what would turn out to be the most extraordinary and devastating pandemic of an infectious disease up until that time in the modern era,” said Dr. Fauci when addressing the 2021 United States Conference on HIV/AIDS.

“Now, 40 years into it, we are still in the middle of a global pandemic despite the fact that there have been extraordinary advances,” said Dr. Fauci, who is director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases and chief medical advisor to the President of the United States.

Specifically, it was on June 5, 1981, that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention issued its fateful report on the first five cases of what would soon become known as Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome.

By 2020, the 5 cases had grown to 79.3 million HIV infections since the start of the HIV/AIDS pandemic, claiming 36.3 million lives, according to the NAIDS Global AIDS update, Dr. Fauci reported.

At the end of 2020, there were 1.5 million new infections, as many as 37.7 million people living with HIV, and 680,000 deaths, according to the report.

The fact that so many people are living with HIV – and not dying from it – is largely attributable to “breathtaking” advances in treatment, Dr. Fauci said, underscoring the fact that there are now 13 single-tablet, once-daily, antiretroviral (ART) regimens approved in the United States to replace the multidrug cocktail that has long been necessary with HIV treatment.

“I can remember when the combination therapies were first made available, we were giving patients literally dozens of pills of different types each day, but that is no longer the case,” Dr. Fauci said.

“We can say, without hyperbole, that highly effective antiretroviral therapy for HIV is indeed one of the most important biomedical research advances of our era.”

Furthermore, HIV prevention using pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP), when used optimally and consistently, has further transformed the HIV landscape with 99% efficacy in preventing sexual HIV acquisition.
 

Troubling treatment gaps

Despite the advances, disparities and challenges are abundant, Dr. Fauci said.

Notably, the majority of those infected globally – 65% – are concentrated among key populations, including gay men and other men who have sex with men (23%), clients of sex workers (20%), sex workers (11%), people who inject drugs (9%), and transgender people (2%), according to the Joint United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS.

According to UNAIDS, among the 37.7 million people living with HIV at the end of 2020, 27.5 million were being treated with life-saving ART, leaving a gap of 10.2 million people with HIV who are not receiving the treatment, Dr. Fauci pointed out.

And of those who do receive treatment, retention is suboptimal, with only about 65% of patients in low- and middle-income countries being retained in care at 48 months following ART initiation.

Dr. Fauci underscored encouraging developments that could address some of those problems, notably long-acting ART therapies that, in requiring administration only every 6 months or so, could negate the need for adherence to daily ART therapy.

Likewise, long-acting PrEP provided intermittently over longer periods could prevent transmission.

“We’re looking at [long-acting PrEP] with a great deal of enthusiasm as providing protection with longer durations between doses to get people to essentially have close to 99% protection against HIV acquisition,” Dr. Fauci said.

While several efforts to develop vaccines for HIV in long-term clinical trials have had disappointing results, Dr. Fauci says he stops short of calling them failures.

“We don’t consider the trials to be failures because, in fact, they tell us the way we need to go – which direction,” he said.

“In fact, COVID-19 itself has given us new enthusiasm about the use of vaccine platforms such as mRNA that are now being applied in the vaccine quest for HIV,” Dr. Fauci noted.

Ultimately, “we must steadily and steadfastly move forward to address critical research gaps and unanswered questions [regarding HIV],” Dr. Fauci said. “The scientific advances have been breathtaking and it is up to us to [achieve] greater scientific advances, but also to translate them into something that can be implemented.”

USCHA Executive Director Paul Kawata, MD, commented that he shares Dr. Fauci’s optimism — and his concerns.

“NMAC [formerly the National Minority AIDS Council, which runs USCHA] is very excited about the science,” he said in an interview. “Our ability to make treatment easier should be a pathway to success.”

“Our concern is that we need more implementation science to know if long-acting ART will be used by the communities hardest hit by HIV,” he said.

Dr. Kawata noted that NMAC agrees that vaccine trial “failures” can offer important lessons, “but we are getting impatient,” he said. “Back in the 80s, Secretary Margret Heckler said we would have a vaccine in 5 years.”

Furthermore, ongoing racial disparities, left unaddressed, will hold back meaningful progress in the fight against HIV, he noted. “We are always hopeful, [but] the reality is that race and racism play an outsized role in health outcome in America. Unless we address these inequalities, we will never end HIV.”

NMAC receives funding from Gilead, Viiv, Merck, and Janssen.

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

Decades before becoming the go-to authority in the United States on the COVID-19 global pandemic, Anthony S. Fauci, MD, found himself witnessing the earliest perplexing cases of what would become another devastating global pandemic – HIV/AIDS. And while extraordinary advances have transformed treatment and prevention, glaring treatment gaps and challenges remain after 40 years.

“I certainly remember those initial MMWRs [the Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Reports] in the summer of 1981 that introduced us to what would turn out to be the most extraordinary and devastating pandemic of an infectious disease up until that time in the modern era,” said Dr. Fauci when addressing the 2021 United States Conference on HIV/AIDS.

“Now, 40 years into it, we are still in the middle of a global pandemic despite the fact that there have been extraordinary advances,” said Dr. Fauci, who is director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases and chief medical advisor to the President of the United States.

Specifically, it was on June 5, 1981, that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention issued its fateful report on the first five cases of what would soon become known as Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome.

By 2020, the 5 cases had grown to 79.3 million HIV infections since the start of the HIV/AIDS pandemic, claiming 36.3 million lives, according to the NAIDS Global AIDS update, Dr. Fauci reported.

At the end of 2020, there were 1.5 million new infections, as many as 37.7 million people living with HIV, and 680,000 deaths, according to the report.

The fact that so many people are living with HIV – and not dying from it – is largely attributable to “breathtaking” advances in treatment, Dr. Fauci said, underscoring the fact that there are now 13 single-tablet, once-daily, antiretroviral (ART) regimens approved in the United States to replace the multidrug cocktail that has long been necessary with HIV treatment.

“I can remember when the combination therapies were first made available, we were giving patients literally dozens of pills of different types each day, but that is no longer the case,” Dr. Fauci said.

“We can say, without hyperbole, that highly effective antiretroviral therapy for HIV is indeed one of the most important biomedical research advances of our era.”

Furthermore, HIV prevention using pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP), when used optimally and consistently, has further transformed the HIV landscape with 99% efficacy in preventing sexual HIV acquisition.
 

Troubling treatment gaps

Despite the advances, disparities and challenges are abundant, Dr. Fauci said.

Notably, the majority of those infected globally – 65% – are concentrated among key populations, including gay men and other men who have sex with men (23%), clients of sex workers (20%), sex workers (11%), people who inject drugs (9%), and transgender people (2%), according to the Joint United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS.

According to UNAIDS, among the 37.7 million people living with HIV at the end of 2020, 27.5 million were being treated with life-saving ART, leaving a gap of 10.2 million people with HIV who are not receiving the treatment, Dr. Fauci pointed out.

And of those who do receive treatment, retention is suboptimal, with only about 65% of patients in low- and middle-income countries being retained in care at 48 months following ART initiation.

Dr. Fauci underscored encouraging developments that could address some of those problems, notably long-acting ART therapies that, in requiring administration only every 6 months or so, could negate the need for adherence to daily ART therapy.

Likewise, long-acting PrEP provided intermittently over longer periods could prevent transmission.

“We’re looking at [long-acting PrEP] with a great deal of enthusiasm as providing protection with longer durations between doses to get people to essentially have close to 99% protection against HIV acquisition,” Dr. Fauci said.

While several efforts to develop vaccines for HIV in long-term clinical trials have had disappointing results, Dr. Fauci says he stops short of calling them failures.

“We don’t consider the trials to be failures because, in fact, they tell us the way we need to go – which direction,” he said.

“In fact, COVID-19 itself has given us new enthusiasm about the use of vaccine platforms such as mRNA that are now being applied in the vaccine quest for HIV,” Dr. Fauci noted.

Ultimately, “we must steadily and steadfastly move forward to address critical research gaps and unanswered questions [regarding HIV],” Dr. Fauci said. “The scientific advances have been breathtaking and it is up to us to [achieve] greater scientific advances, but also to translate them into something that can be implemented.”

USCHA Executive Director Paul Kawata, MD, commented that he shares Dr. Fauci’s optimism — and his concerns.

“NMAC [formerly the National Minority AIDS Council, which runs USCHA] is very excited about the science,” he said in an interview. “Our ability to make treatment easier should be a pathway to success.”

“Our concern is that we need more implementation science to know if long-acting ART will be used by the communities hardest hit by HIV,” he said.

Dr. Kawata noted that NMAC agrees that vaccine trial “failures” can offer important lessons, “but we are getting impatient,” he said. “Back in the 80s, Secretary Margret Heckler said we would have a vaccine in 5 years.”

Furthermore, ongoing racial disparities, left unaddressed, will hold back meaningful progress in the fight against HIV, he noted. “We are always hopeful, [but] the reality is that race and racism play an outsized role in health outcome in America. Unless we address these inequalities, we will never end HIV.”

NMAC receives funding from Gilead, Viiv, Merck, and Janssen.

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

Decades before becoming the go-to authority in the United States on the COVID-19 global pandemic, Anthony S. Fauci, MD, found himself witnessing the earliest perplexing cases of what would become another devastating global pandemic – HIV/AIDS. And while extraordinary advances have transformed treatment and prevention, glaring treatment gaps and challenges remain after 40 years.

“I certainly remember those initial MMWRs [the Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Reports] in the summer of 1981 that introduced us to what would turn out to be the most extraordinary and devastating pandemic of an infectious disease up until that time in the modern era,” said Dr. Fauci when addressing the 2021 United States Conference on HIV/AIDS.

“Now, 40 years into it, we are still in the middle of a global pandemic despite the fact that there have been extraordinary advances,” said Dr. Fauci, who is director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases and chief medical advisor to the President of the United States.

Specifically, it was on June 5, 1981, that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention issued its fateful report on the first five cases of what would soon become known as Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome.

By 2020, the 5 cases had grown to 79.3 million HIV infections since the start of the HIV/AIDS pandemic, claiming 36.3 million lives, according to the NAIDS Global AIDS update, Dr. Fauci reported.

At the end of 2020, there were 1.5 million new infections, as many as 37.7 million people living with HIV, and 680,000 deaths, according to the report.

The fact that so many people are living with HIV – and not dying from it – is largely attributable to “breathtaking” advances in treatment, Dr. Fauci said, underscoring the fact that there are now 13 single-tablet, once-daily, antiretroviral (ART) regimens approved in the United States to replace the multidrug cocktail that has long been necessary with HIV treatment.

“I can remember when the combination therapies were first made available, we were giving patients literally dozens of pills of different types each day, but that is no longer the case,” Dr. Fauci said.

“We can say, without hyperbole, that highly effective antiretroviral therapy for HIV is indeed one of the most important biomedical research advances of our era.”

Furthermore, HIV prevention using pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP), when used optimally and consistently, has further transformed the HIV landscape with 99% efficacy in preventing sexual HIV acquisition.
 

Troubling treatment gaps

Despite the advances, disparities and challenges are abundant, Dr. Fauci said.

Notably, the majority of those infected globally – 65% – are concentrated among key populations, including gay men and other men who have sex with men (23%), clients of sex workers (20%), sex workers (11%), people who inject drugs (9%), and transgender people (2%), according to the Joint United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS.

According to UNAIDS, among the 37.7 million people living with HIV at the end of 2020, 27.5 million were being treated with life-saving ART, leaving a gap of 10.2 million people with HIV who are not receiving the treatment, Dr. Fauci pointed out.

And of those who do receive treatment, retention is suboptimal, with only about 65% of patients in low- and middle-income countries being retained in care at 48 months following ART initiation.

Dr. Fauci underscored encouraging developments that could address some of those problems, notably long-acting ART therapies that, in requiring administration only every 6 months or so, could negate the need for adherence to daily ART therapy.

Likewise, long-acting PrEP provided intermittently over longer periods could prevent transmission.

“We’re looking at [long-acting PrEP] with a great deal of enthusiasm as providing protection with longer durations between doses to get people to essentially have close to 99% protection against HIV acquisition,” Dr. Fauci said.

While several efforts to develop vaccines for HIV in long-term clinical trials have had disappointing results, Dr. Fauci says he stops short of calling them failures.

“We don’t consider the trials to be failures because, in fact, they tell us the way we need to go – which direction,” he said.

“In fact, COVID-19 itself has given us new enthusiasm about the use of vaccine platforms such as mRNA that are now being applied in the vaccine quest for HIV,” Dr. Fauci noted.

Ultimately, “we must steadily and steadfastly move forward to address critical research gaps and unanswered questions [regarding HIV],” Dr. Fauci said. “The scientific advances have been breathtaking and it is up to us to [achieve] greater scientific advances, but also to translate them into something that can be implemented.”

USCHA Executive Director Paul Kawata, MD, commented that he shares Dr. Fauci’s optimism — and his concerns.

“NMAC [formerly the National Minority AIDS Council, which runs USCHA] is very excited about the science,” he said in an interview. “Our ability to make treatment easier should be a pathway to success.”

“Our concern is that we need more implementation science to know if long-acting ART will be used by the communities hardest hit by HIV,” he said.

Dr. Kawata noted that NMAC agrees that vaccine trial “failures” can offer important lessons, “but we are getting impatient,” he said. “Back in the 80s, Secretary Margret Heckler said we would have a vaccine in 5 years.”

Furthermore, ongoing racial disparities, left unaddressed, will hold back meaningful progress in the fight against HIV, he noted. “We are always hopeful, [but] the reality is that race and racism play an outsized role in health outcome in America. Unless we address these inequalities, we will never end HIV.”

NMAC receives funding from Gilead, Viiv, Merck, and Janssen.

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

Although the universal use of masks by both health care professionals and the general public now appears routine, widely differing recommendations were distributed by different health organizations early in the pandemic. In April 2020, the World Health Organization (WHO) stated that there was no evidence that healthy individuals wearing a medical mask in the community prevented COVID-19 infection.¹ However, these recommendations must be placed in the context of a national shortage of personal protective equipment early in the pandemic. The WHO guidance released on June 5, 2020, recommended continuous use of masks for health care workers in the clinical setting.² Additional recommendations included mask replacement when wet, soiled, or damaged, and when the wearer touched the mask. The WHO also recommended mask usage by those with underlying medical comorbidities and those living in high population–density areas and in settings where physical distancing was not possible.²

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) officially recommended the use of face coverings for the general public to prevent COVID-19 transmission on April 3, 2020.³ The CDC highlighted that masks should not be worn by children younger than 2 years; individuals with respiratory compromise; and patients who are unconscious, incapacitated, or unable to remove a mask without assistance.⁴ Medical masks and respirators were only recommended for health care workers. Importantly, masks with valves/vents were not recommended, as respiratory droplets can be emitted, defeating the purpose of source control.⁴ New York State mandated mask usage in public places starting on April 15, 2020.

These recommendations were based on the hypothesis that COVID-19 transmission occurs primarily via droplets and contact. In reality, SARS-CoV-2 transmission more likely occurs in a continuum from larger droplets to miniscule aerosols expelled from an infected person when talking, coughing, or sneezing.^5,6 It should be noted that there was a formal suggestion of the potential for airborne transmission of SARS-CoV-2 by the CDC in a statement on September 18, 2020, that was subsequently retracted 3 days later.^7,8 The CDC, reversing their prior recommendations, updated their guidance on October 5, 2020, endorsing prior reports that SARS-CoV-2 can be spread through aerosol transmission.⁸

Mask usage helps prevent viral spread by all individuals, especially those who are presymptomatic and asymptomatic. Presymptomatic individuals account for approximately 40% to 60% of transmissions, and asymptomatic individuals account for approximately 4% to 30% of infections by some models, which suggest these individuals are the drivers of the pandemic, more so than symptomatic individuals.^9-15 Additionally, masking also may in effect reduce the amount of SARS-CoV-2 to which individuals are being exposed in the community.¹⁴ Universal masking is a relatively low-cost, low-risk intervention that may provide moderate benefit to the individual but substantial benefit to communities at large.^10-13 Universal masking in other countries also has clearly demonstrated major benefits during the pandemic. Implementation of universal masking in Taiwan resulted in only approximately 440 COVID-19 cases and less than 10 deaths, despite a population of 23 million.¹⁶ South Korea, having experience with Middle East respiratory syndrome, also was able to quickly institute a mask policy for its citizens, resulting in approximately 94% compliance.¹⁷ Moreover, several mathematical models have shown that even imperfect use of masks on a population level can prevent disease transmission and should be instituted.¹⁸

Given the importance and potential benefits of mask usage, we investigated compliance and proper utilization of facial masks in New York City (NYC), once the epicenter of the pandemic in the United States. New York City and the rest of New York State experienced more than 1.13 million and 1.46 million cases of COVID-19, respectively, as of early November 2021.¹⁹ Nationwide, NYC had the greatest absolute death count of more than 34,634 and the greatest rate of death per 100,000 individuals of 412. In contrast, New York State, excluding NYC, had an absolute death count of more than 21,646 and a death rate per 100,000 individuals of 195 as of early November 2021.¹⁹ Now entering 20 months since the first case of COVID-19 in NYC, it continues to be vital for facial mask protocols to be emphasized as part of a comprehensive infection prevention protocol, especially in light of continued vaccine resistance, to help stall continued spread of SARS-CoV-2.²⁰

We seek to show that despite months of policies for universal masking in NYC, there is still considerable mask noncompliance by the general public in health care settings where the use of masks is particularly imperative. We conducted an observational study investigating proper use of face masks of adults entering the main entrance of 4 hospitals located in NYC.

Methods

We observed mask usage in adults entering 4 hospitals in September 2020 (postsurge in NYC and prior to the availability of COVID-19 vaccinations). Hospitals were chosen to represent several types of health care delivery systems available in the United States and included a city, state, federal, and private hospital. Data collection was completed during peak traffic hours (8:00 am to 12:00 pm) on a weekday and continued until a total of 100 unique patients were observed at each site. Each hospital entrance was barricaded, and hospital staff were stationed at these entry points to take each individual’s temperature, screen for symptoms and exposure risk, verify patients’ appointments, and ensure proper mask wearing (in optimal circumstances). Data collectors (J.L. and N.M.) were stationed just past the barricade of each hospital’s entrance and observed those who entered. Individuals were not approached about the study, demographics, or the use and/or views about usage of facial masks. Children and hospital employees were excluded from data collection, with the exception of 1 hospital with a dedicated employee entrance where employees were observed for mask compliance. Except for vented/valved masks or makeshift masks fashioned out of scarfs, bandanas, or similar materials, the type of mask an individual wore was not distinguished (medical masks, cotton masks, or respirator-type masks were not differentiated).

Mask usage was observed and classified into several categories: correctly fitting mask over the nose and mouth, no face mask, mask usage with nose exposed, mask usage with mouth exposed, mask usage with both nose and mouth exposed (ie, mask on the chin/neck area), loosely fitting mask, vented/valved mask, or other form of face covering (eg, bandana, scarf).

Results

We observed a consistent rate of mask compliance between 72% and 85%, with an average of 78% of the 600 individuals observed wearing correctly fitting masks across the 4 hospitals included in this study (Table). The employee entrance included in this study had the highest compliance rate of 85%. An overall low rate of complete mask noncompliance was observed, with only 9 individuals (1.5%) in the entire study not wearing any mask. The federal hospital had the highest rate of mask noncompliance. We also observed a low rate of nose and mouth exposure, with 1.8% of individuals wearing a mask with the nose and mouth exposed (ie, mask tucked under the chin). No individuals were observed with the mouth exposed but with the nose covered by a mask. Additionally, only 3 individuals (0.5%) wore a mask with a vent/valve. The most common way that masks were worn incorrectly was with the nose exposed, accounting for 9.5% of individuals observed. Overall, only 9 individuals (1.5%) wore a nontraditional face covering, with a bandana being the most commonly observed makeshift mask.

Signage regarding the requirement to wear masks and to social distance was universally instituted at all hospital entry points (both inside and outside the hospital) in this study. However, there were no illustrations demonstrating correct and incorrect forms of mask usage. All signage merely displayed a graphic of a facial mask noting the requirement to wear a mask prior to entering the building. Hospital staff also had face masks available for patients who failed to bring a mask or who wore an inappropriate mask (ie, vented/valved masks).

Comment

Mask Effectiveness—Masks reduce the spread of SARS-CoV-2 by preventing both droplets and potentially virus-bearing aerosols.^6,21,22 It has been demonstrated that well-fitted cotton homemade masks and medical masks provide the most effective method of reducing droplet dispersion. Loosely fitted masks as well as bandana-style facial coverings minimally reduce small aerosolized droplets, and an uncovered mouth and nose can disperse particles at a distance much greater than 6 feet.²²

Mask Compliance—We report an overall high compliance rate with mask wearing among individuals visiting a hospital; however, compliance was still imperfect. Overall, 78% of observed individuals wore a correctly fitting mask when entering a hospital, even with hospital staff positioned at entry points to ensure proper mask usage. With all the resources available at health care centers, we anticipated a much higher compliance rate for correctly fitting masks at hospital entrances. We hypothesize that given only 78% of individuals showed proper mask compliance in a setting with enforcement by health care personnel, the mask compliance rate in the larger community is likely much lower. It is imperative to enforce continued mask compliance in medical centers and other public areas given notable vaccine noncompliance in certain parts of the country.

Tools to Prevent Disease Transmission—Mask usage by the general public in NYC helped in its response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Yang et al²³ demonstrated through mathematical modeling that mask usage in NYC was associated with a 6.6% reduction in transmission overall and a 20% decrease in transmission for individuals 65 years and older during the first month of the universal mask policy going into effect. The authors extrapolated these data during the NYC reopening and found that universal masking reduced transmission by approximately 9% to 11%, accounting for the increase in hours spent outside home quarantine. The authors also hypothesized that if universal masking was as effective in its reduction of transmission for everyone in NYC as it was for older adults, the potential reduction in transmission of SARS-CoV-2 could be as high as 28% to 32%.²³

Temperature checks at entrance barricades were standard protocol during the observation period. Although the main purpose of this study was to investigate compliance with and proper use of facial masks in a health care setting, it should be mentioned that, although temperature checks were being done on almost every person entering a hospital, the uniformity and practicality of this intervention has not been backed by substantial evidence. Although many nontouch thermometers are intended to capture a forehead temperature for the most accurate reading, the authors will share that in their observation, medical personnel screening individuals at hospital entrances were observed checking temperatures at any easily accessible body part, such as the forearm, hand, or neck. Furthermore, it has been reported that only approximately 40% of individuals with COVID-19 present with a fever.²⁴ Many hospitals, including the 4 that were included in this investigation, have formal protocols for patients presenting with a fever, especially those presenting to an ambulatory center. Patients are usually instructed to call ahead if they have a fever, and a decision regarding next steps will be discussed with a health care provider. In addition, 1 meta-analysis on the symptoms of COVID-19 suggested that approximately 12% of infected patients are asymptomatic, likely a conservative estimate.²⁵ Although we do not suggest that hospitals stop temperature checks, consistent temperature checks in anatomic locations intended for the specific thermometer used must be employed. Alternatively, a thermographic camera system that could detect heat signatures may be a way to screen faster, only necessitating that those above a threshold be assessed further.

The results of this study suggest that much greater effort is being placed on these temperature checks than on other equally important components of the entrance health assessment. This initial encounter at hospital entrances should serve as an opportunity for education on proper choice and use of masks with clear instructions that masks should not be removed unless directed by a health care provider and in a designated area, such as an examination room. The COVID-19 pandemic in the United States is likely the first time an individual is wearing these types of masks. Reiterating when and how often a mask should be changed (eg, when wet or soiled), how a soiled mask is not an effective mask, how a used mask should be discarded, ways to prevent self-contamination (ie, proper donning and doffing), and the importance of other infection-prevention behaviors—hand hygiene; social distancing; avoidance of touching the eyes, nose, and mouth with unwashed hands; and regular disinfecting of surfaces—should be practiced.^11,26-29 Extended use and reuse of masks also can result in transmission of infection.³⁰

Throughout the pandemic, our personal experience is that some patients often overtly refuse to wear a mask, citing underlying respiratory issues. The implications of patients not wearing a mask in a medical office and endangering other patients and staff are beyond the scope of this analysis. We will, however, comment briefly on the evidence behind this common concern. Matuschek et al³¹ found substantial adverse changes in respiratory rate, oxygen saturation, and CO₂ levels in patients with severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease who were wearing N95 respirators during a 6-minute walk test. Another study by Chan et al³² showed that nonmedical masks in healthy older adults in the community setting had no impact on oxygen saturation. Ultimately, the most effective mask a patient can wear is a mask that will be worn consistently.³²

Populations With Limited Access to Masks—The COVID-19 pandemic disproportionately impacted disadvantaged populations, both in socioeconomic status and minority status. A disproportionate number of COVID-19 hospitalizations and deaths occurred in lower-income and minority populations.¹⁰ In fact, Lamb et al³³ reported that NYC neighborhoods with a larger proportion of uninsured individuals with limited access to health care and overall lower socioeconomic status had a higher rate of SARS-CoV-2 positivity. A retrospective study in Louisiana showed that Black individuals accounted for 77% of hospitalizations and 71% of deaths due to COVID-19 in a population where only 31% of individuals identified as Black.¹⁰ Chu et al⁶ even asserted that policies should be put into place to address equity issues for populations with limited access to masks. We agree that policies should be put into action to ensure that individuals lacking the means to obtain appropriate masks or unable to obtain an adequate supply of masks be provided this new necessity. It has been calculated that the impact of masks in reducing virus transmission would be greatest if mask availability to disadvantaged populations is ensured.¹⁸ We support a plan for masks to be covered by government-sponsored health plans.

Study Limitations—Several limitations exist in our study that should be discussed. Although the data collectors observed a large number of individuals, each hospital entrance was only observed for 1 half-day morning session. There may be variations in the number of people wearing a mask at different times of day and different days of the week with fluctuations in hospital traffic. Although data were collected at a variety of hospitals representing the diverse health care delivery models available in the United States, the NYC hospitals included in this study may have different resources available for infection-prevention strategies than hospitals across the country, given NYC’s unique population density and demographics.

Study Strengths—The generalizability of the study should be recognized. Data were collected by all major health care delivery models available in the United States—private, state, city, and federal hospital systems. This study can be easily replicated in other health care delivery systems to further investigate potential gaps in mask usage and infection prevention. Repeating this study in areas where a large portion of the population does not believe in the virus also will likely show lower levels of mask use.

Conclusion

As the country grapples with vaccine hesitancy and with the new variants of SARS-CoV-2, continued universal masking is still imperative. The effectiveness of universal masking has been demonstrated, and with the combination of vaccinations, we can be assured that the world will continue to emerge from the pandemic.

Although the universal use of masks by both health care professionals and the general public now appears routine, widely differing recommendations were distributed by different health organizations early in the pandemic. In April 2020, the World Health Organization (WHO) stated that there was no evidence that healthy individuals wearing a medical mask in the community prevented COVID-19 infection.¹ However, these recommendations must be placed in the context of a national shortage of personal protective equipment early in the pandemic. The WHO guidance released on June 5, 2020, recommended continuous use of masks for health care workers in the clinical setting.² Additional recommendations included mask replacement when wet, soiled, or damaged, and when the wearer touched the mask. The WHO also recommended mask usage by those with underlying medical comorbidities and those living in high population–density areas and in settings where physical distancing was not possible.²

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) officially recommended the use of face coverings for the general public to prevent COVID-19 transmission on April 3, 2020.³ The CDC highlighted that masks should not be worn by children younger than 2 years; individuals with respiratory compromise; and patients who are unconscious, incapacitated, or unable to remove a mask without assistance.⁴ Medical masks and respirators were only recommended for health care workers. Importantly, masks with valves/vents were not recommended, as respiratory droplets can be emitted, defeating the purpose of source control.⁴ New York State mandated mask usage in public places starting on April 15, 2020.

These recommendations were based on the hypothesis that COVID-19 transmission occurs primarily via droplets and contact. In reality, SARS-CoV-2 transmission more likely occurs in a continuum from larger droplets to miniscule aerosols expelled from an infected person when talking, coughing, or sneezing.^5,6 It should be noted that there was a formal suggestion of the potential for airborne transmission of SARS-CoV-2 by the CDC in a statement on September 18, 2020, that was subsequently retracted 3 days later.^7,8 The CDC, reversing their prior recommendations, updated their guidance on October 5, 2020, endorsing prior reports that SARS-CoV-2 can be spread through aerosol transmission.⁸

Mask usage helps prevent viral spread by all individuals, especially those who are presymptomatic and asymptomatic. Presymptomatic individuals account for approximately 40% to 60% of transmissions, and asymptomatic individuals account for approximately 4% to 30% of infections by some models, which suggest these individuals are the drivers of the pandemic, more so than symptomatic individuals.^9-15 Additionally, masking also may in effect reduce the amount of SARS-CoV-2 to which individuals are being exposed in the community.¹⁴ Universal masking is a relatively low-cost, low-risk intervention that may provide moderate benefit to the individual but substantial benefit to communities at large.^10-13 Universal masking in other countries also has clearly demonstrated major benefits during the pandemic. Implementation of universal masking in Taiwan resulted in only approximately 440 COVID-19 cases and less than 10 deaths, despite a population of 23 million.¹⁶ South Korea, having experience with Middle East respiratory syndrome, also was able to quickly institute a mask policy for its citizens, resulting in approximately 94% compliance.¹⁷ Moreover, several mathematical models have shown that even imperfect use of masks on a population level can prevent disease transmission and should be instituted.¹⁸

Given the importance and potential benefits of mask usage, we investigated compliance and proper utilization of facial masks in New York City (NYC), once the epicenter of the pandemic in the United States. New York City and the rest of New York State experienced more than 1.13 million and 1.46 million cases of COVID-19, respectively, as of early November 2021.¹⁹ Nationwide, NYC had the greatest absolute death count of more than 34,634 and the greatest rate of death per 100,000 individuals of 412. In contrast, New York State, excluding NYC, had an absolute death count of more than 21,646 and a death rate per 100,000 individuals of 195 as of early November 2021.¹⁹ Now entering 20 months since the first case of COVID-19 in NYC, it continues to be vital for facial mask protocols to be emphasized as part of a comprehensive infection prevention protocol, especially in light of continued vaccine resistance, to help stall continued spread of SARS-CoV-2.²⁰

We seek to show that despite months of policies for universal masking in NYC, there is still considerable mask noncompliance by the general public in health care settings where the use of masks is particularly imperative. We conducted an observational study investigating proper use of face masks of adults entering the main entrance of 4 hospitals located in NYC.

Methods

We observed mask usage in adults entering 4 hospitals in September 2020 (postsurge in NYC and prior to the availability of COVID-19 vaccinations). Hospitals were chosen to represent several types of health care delivery systems available in the United States and included a city, state, federal, and private hospital. Data collection was completed during peak traffic hours (8:00 am to 12:00 pm) on a weekday and continued until a total of 100 unique patients were observed at each site. Each hospital entrance was barricaded, and hospital staff were stationed at these entry points to take each individual’s temperature, screen for symptoms and exposure risk, verify patients’ appointments, and ensure proper mask wearing (in optimal circumstances). Data collectors (J.L. and N.M.) were stationed just past the barricade of each hospital’s entrance and observed those who entered. Individuals were not approached about the study, demographics, or the use and/or views about usage of facial masks. Children and hospital employees were excluded from data collection, with the exception of 1 hospital with a dedicated employee entrance where employees were observed for mask compliance. Except for vented/valved masks or makeshift masks fashioned out of scarfs, bandanas, or similar materials, the type of mask an individual wore was not distinguished (medical masks, cotton masks, or respirator-type masks were not differentiated).

Mask usage was observed and classified into several categories: correctly fitting mask over the nose and mouth, no face mask, mask usage with nose exposed, mask usage with mouth exposed, mask usage with both nose and mouth exposed (ie, mask on the chin/neck area), loosely fitting mask, vented/valved mask, or other form of face covering (eg, bandana, scarf).

Results

We observed a consistent rate of mask compliance between 72% and 85%, with an average of 78% of the 600 individuals observed wearing correctly fitting masks across the 4 hospitals included in this study (Table). The employee entrance included in this study had the highest compliance rate of 85%. An overall low rate of complete mask noncompliance was observed, with only 9 individuals (1.5%) in the entire study not wearing any mask. The federal hospital had the highest rate of mask noncompliance. We also observed a low rate of nose and mouth exposure, with 1.8% of individuals wearing a mask with the nose and mouth exposed (ie, mask tucked under the chin). No individuals were observed with the mouth exposed but with the nose covered by a mask. Additionally, only 3 individuals (0.5%) wore a mask with a vent/valve. The most common way that masks were worn incorrectly was with the nose exposed, accounting for 9.5% of individuals observed. Overall, only 9 individuals (1.5%) wore a nontraditional face covering, with a bandana being the most commonly observed makeshift mask.

Signage regarding the requirement to wear masks and to social distance was universally instituted at all hospital entry points (both inside and outside the hospital) in this study. However, there were no illustrations demonstrating correct and incorrect forms of mask usage. All signage merely displayed a graphic of a facial mask noting the requirement to wear a mask prior to entering the building. Hospital staff also had face masks available for patients who failed to bring a mask or who wore an inappropriate mask (ie, vented/valved masks).

Comment

Mask Effectiveness—Masks reduce the spread of SARS-CoV-2 by preventing both droplets and potentially virus-bearing aerosols.^6,21,22 It has been demonstrated that well-fitted cotton homemade masks and medical masks provide the most effective method of reducing droplet dispersion. Loosely fitted masks as well as bandana-style facial coverings minimally reduce small aerosolized droplets, and an uncovered mouth and nose can disperse particles at a distance much greater than 6 feet.²²

Mask Compliance—We report an overall high compliance rate with mask wearing among individuals visiting a hospital; however, compliance was still imperfect. Overall, 78% of observed individuals wore a correctly fitting mask when entering a hospital, even with hospital staff positioned at entry points to ensure proper mask usage. With all the resources available at health care centers, we anticipated a much higher compliance rate for correctly fitting masks at hospital entrances. We hypothesize that given only 78% of individuals showed proper mask compliance in a setting with enforcement by health care personnel, the mask compliance rate in the larger community is likely much lower. It is imperative to enforce continued mask compliance in medical centers and other public areas given notable vaccine noncompliance in certain parts of the country.

Tools to Prevent Disease Transmission—Mask usage by the general public in NYC helped in its response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Yang et al²³ demonstrated through mathematical modeling that mask usage in NYC was associated with a 6.6% reduction in transmission overall and a 20% decrease in transmission for individuals 65 years and older during the first month of the universal mask policy going into effect. The authors extrapolated these data during the NYC reopening and found that universal masking reduced transmission by approximately 9% to 11%, accounting for the increase in hours spent outside home quarantine. The authors also hypothesized that if universal masking was as effective in its reduction of transmission for everyone in NYC as it was for older adults, the potential reduction in transmission of SARS-CoV-2 could be as high as 28% to 32%.²³

Temperature checks at entrance barricades were standard protocol during the observation period. Although the main purpose of this study was to investigate compliance with and proper use of facial masks in a health care setting, it should be mentioned that, although temperature checks were being done on almost every person entering a hospital, the uniformity and practicality of this intervention has not been backed by substantial evidence. Although many nontouch thermometers are intended to capture a forehead temperature for the most accurate reading, the authors will share that in their observation, medical personnel screening individuals at hospital entrances were observed checking temperatures at any easily accessible body part, such as the forearm, hand, or neck. Furthermore, it has been reported that only approximately 40% of individuals with COVID-19 present with a fever.²⁴ Many hospitals, including the 4 that were included in this investigation, have formal protocols for patients presenting with a fever, especially those presenting to an ambulatory center. Patients are usually instructed to call ahead if they have a fever, and a decision regarding next steps will be discussed with a health care provider. In addition, 1 meta-analysis on the symptoms of COVID-19 suggested that approximately 12% of infected patients are asymptomatic, likely a conservative estimate.²⁵ Although we do not suggest that hospitals stop temperature checks, consistent temperature checks in anatomic locations intended for the specific thermometer used must be employed. Alternatively, a thermographic camera system that could detect heat signatures may be a way to screen faster, only necessitating that those above a threshold be assessed further.

The results of this study suggest that much greater effort is being placed on these temperature checks than on other equally important components of the entrance health assessment. This initial encounter at hospital entrances should serve as an opportunity for education on proper choice and use of masks with clear instructions that masks should not be removed unless directed by a health care provider and in a designated area, such as an examination room. The COVID-19 pandemic in the United States is likely the first time an individual is wearing these types of masks. Reiterating when and how often a mask should be changed (eg, when wet or soiled), how a soiled mask is not an effective mask, how a used mask should be discarded, ways to prevent self-contamination (ie, proper donning and doffing), and the importance of other infection-prevention behaviors—hand hygiene; social distancing; avoidance of touching the eyes, nose, and mouth with unwashed hands; and regular disinfecting of surfaces—should be practiced.^11,26-29 Extended use and reuse of masks also can result in transmission of infection.³⁰

Throughout the pandemic, our personal experience is that some patients often overtly refuse to wear a mask, citing underlying respiratory issues. The implications of patients not wearing a mask in a medical office and endangering other patients and staff are beyond the scope of this analysis. We will, however, comment briefly on the evidence behind this common concern. Matuschek et al³¹ found substantial adverse changes in respiratory rate, oxygen saturation, and CO₂ levels in patients with severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease who were wearing N95 respirators during a 6-minute walk test. Another study by Chan et al³² showed that nonmedical masks in healthy older adults in the community setting had no impact on oxygen saturation. Ultimately, the most effective mask a patient can wear is a mask that will be worn consistently.³²

Populations With Limited Access to Masks—The COVID-19 pandemic disproportionately impacted disadvantaged populations, both in socioeconomic status and minority status. A disproportionate number of COVID-19 hospitalizations and deaths occurred in lower-income and minority populations.¹⁰ In fact, Lamb et al³³ reported that NYC neighborhoods with a larger proportion of uninsured individuals with limited access to health care and overall lower socioeconomic status had a higher rate of SARS-CoV-2 positivity. A retrospective study in Louisiana showed that Black individuals accounted for 77% of hospitalizations and 71% of deaths due to COVID-19 in a population where only 31% of individuals identified as Black.¹⁰ Chu et al⁶ even asserted that policies should be put into place to address equity issues for populations with limited access to masks. We agree that policies should be put into action to ensure that individuals lacking the means to obtain appropriate masks or unable to obtain an adequate supply of masks be provided this new necessity. It has been calculated that the impact of masks in reducing virus transmission would be greatest if mask availability to disadvantaged populations is ensured.¹⁸ We support a plan for masks to be covered by government-sponsored health plans.

Study Limitations—Several limitations exist in our study that should be discussed. Although the data collectors observed a large number of individuals, each hospital entrance was only observed for 1 half-day morning session. There may be variations in the number of people wearing a mask at different times of day and different days of the week with fluctuations in hospital traffic. Although data were collected at a variety of hospitals representing the diverse health care delivery models available in the United States, the NYC hospitals included in this study may have different resources available for infection-prevention strategies than hospitals across the country, given NYC’s unique population density and demographics.

Study Strengths—The generalizability of the study should be recognized. Data were collected by all major health care delivery models available in the United States—private, state, city, and federal hospital systems. This study can be easily replicated in other health care delivery systems to further investigate potential gaps in mask usage and infection prevention. Repeating this study in areas where a large portion of the population does not believe in the virus also will likely show lower levels of mask use.

Conclusion

As the country grapples with vaccine hesitancy and with the new variants of SARS-CoV-2, continued universal masking is still imperative. The effectiveness of universal masking has been demonstrated, and with the combination of vaccinations, we can be assured that the world will continue to emerge from the pandemic.

Although the universal use of masks by both health care professionals and the general public now appears routine, widely differing recommendations were distributed by different health organizations early in the pandemic. In April 2020, the World Health Organization (WHO) stated that there was no evidence that healthy individuals wearing a medical mask in the community prevented COVID-19 infection.¹ However, these recommendations must be placed in the context of a national shortage of personal protective equipment early in the pandemic. The WHO guidance released on June 5, 2020, recommended continuous use of masks for health care workers in the clinical setting.² Additional recommendations included mask replacement when wet, soiled, or damaged, and when the wearer touched the mask. The WHO also recommended mask usage by those with underlying medical comorbidities and those living in high population–density areas and in settings where physical distancing was not possible.²

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) officially recommended the use of face coverings for the general public to prevent COVID-19 transmission on April 3, 2020.³ The CDC highlighted that masks should not be worn by children younger than 2 years; individuals with respiratory compromise; and patients who are unconscious, incapacitated, or unable to remove a mask without assistance.⁴ Medical masks and respirators were only recommended for health care workers. Importantly, masks with valves/vents were not recommended, as respiratory droplets can be emitted, defeating the purpose of source control.⁴ New York State mandated mask usage in public places starting on April 15, 2020.

These recommendations were based on the hypothesis that COVID-19 transmission occurs primarily via droplets and contact. In reality, SARS-CoV-2 transmission more likely occurs in a continuum from larger droplets to miniscule aerosols expelled from an infected person when talking, coughing, or sneezing.^5,6 It should be noted that there was a formal suggestion of the potential for airborne transmission of SARS-CoV-2 by the CDC in a statement on September 18, 2020, that was subsequently retracted 3 days later.^7,8 The CDC, reversing their prior recommendations, updated their guidance on October 5, 2020, endorsing prior reports that SARS-CoV-2 can be spread through aerosol transmission.⁸

Mask usage helps prevent viral spread by all individuals, especially those who are presymptomatic and asymptomatic. Presymptomatic individuals account for approximately 40% to 60% of transmissions, and asymptomatic individuals account for approximately 4% to 30% of infections by some models, which suggest these individuals are the drivers of the pandemic, more so than symptomatic individuals.^9-15 Additionally, masking also may in effect reduce the amount of SARS-CoV-2 to which individuals are being exposed in the community.¹⁴ Universal masking is a relatively low-cost, low-risk intervention that may provide moderate benefit to the individual but substantial benefit to communities at large.^10-13 Universal masking in other countries also has clearly demonstrated major benefits during the pandemic. Implementation of universal masking in Taiwan resulted in only approximately 440 COVID-19 cases and less than 10 deaths, despite a population of 23 million.¹⁶ South Korea, having experience with Middle East respiratory syndrome, also was able to quickly institute a mask policy for its citizens, resulting in approximately 94% compliance.¹⁷ Moreover, several mathematical models have shown that even imperfect use of masks on a population level can prevent disease transmission and should be instituted.¹⁸

Given the importance and potential benefits of mask usage, we investigated compliance and proper utilization of facial masks in New York City (NYC), once the epicenter of the pandemic in the United States. New York City and the rest of New York State experienced more than 1.13 million and 1.46 million cases of COVID-19, respectively, as of early November 2021.¹⁹ Nationwide, NYC had the greatest absolute death count of more than 34,634 and the greatest rate of death per 100,000 individuals of 412. In contrast, New York State, excluding NYC, had an absolute death count of more than 21,646 and a death rate per 100,000 individuals of 195 as of early November 2021.¹⁹ Now entering 20 months since the first case of COVID-19 in NYC, it continues to be vital for facial mask protocols to be emphasized as part of a comprehensive infection prevention protocol, especially in light of continued vaccine resistance, to help stall continued spread of SARS-CoV-2.²⁰

We seek to show that despite months of policies for universal masking in NYC, there is still considerable mask noncompliance by the general public in health care settings where the use of masks is particularly imperative. We conducted an observational study investigating proper use of face masks of adults entering the main entrance of 4 hospitals located in NYC.

Methods

We observed mask usage in adults entering 4 hospitals in September 2020 (postsurge in NYC and prior to the availability of COVID-19 vaccinations). Hospitals were chosen to represent several types of health care delivery systems available in the United States and included a city, state, federal, and private hospital. Data collection was completed during peak traffic hours (8:00 am to 12:00 pm) on a weekday and continued until a total of 100 unique patients were observed at each site. Each hospital entrance was barricaded, and hospital staff were stationed at these entry points to take each individual’s temperature, screen for symptoms and exposure risk, verify patients’ appointments, and ensure proper mask wearing (in optimal circumstances). Data collectors (J.L. and N.M.) were stationed just past the barricade of each hospital’s entrance and observed those who entered. Individuals were not approached about the study, demographics, or the use and/or views about usage of facial masks. Children and hospital employees were excluded from data collection, with the exception of 1 hospital with a dedicated employee entrance where employees were observed for mask compliance. Except for vented/valved masks or makeshift masks fashioned out of scarfs, bandanas, or similar materials, the type of mask an individual wore was not distinguished (medical masks, cotton masks, or respirator-type masks were not differentiated).

Mask usage was observed and classified into several categories: correctly fitting mask over the nose and mouth, no face mask, mask usage with nose exposed, mask usage with mouth exposed, mask usage with both nose and mouth exposed (ie, mask on the chin/neck area), loosely fitting mask, vented/valved mask, or other form of face covering (eg, bandana, scarf).

Results

We observed a consistent rate of mask compliance between 72% and 85%, with an average of 78% of the 600 individuals observed wearing correctly fitting masks across the 4 hospitals included in this study (Table). The employee entrance included in this study had the highest compliance rate of 85%. An overall low rate of complete mask noncompliance was observed, with only 9 individuals (1.5%) in the entire study not wearing any mask. The federal hospital had the highest rate of mask noncompliance. We also observed a low rate of nose and mouth exposure, with 1.8% of individuals wearing a mask with the nose and mouth exposed (ie, mask tucked under the chin). No individuals were observed with the mouth exposed but with the nose covered by a mask. Additionally, only 3 individuals (0.5%) wore a mask with a vent/valve. The most common way that masks were worn incorrectly was with the nose exposed, accounting for 9.5% of individuals observed. Overall, only 9 individuals (1.5%) wore a nontraditional face covering, with a bandana being the most commonly observed makeshift mask.

Signage regarding the requirement to wear masks and to social distance was universally instituted at all hospital entry points (both inside and outside the hospital) in this study. However, there were no illustrations demonstrating correct and incorrect forms of mask usage. All signage merely displayed a graphic of a facial mask noting the requirement to wear a mask prior to entering the building. Hospital staff also had face masks available for patients who failed to bring a mask or who wore an inappropriate mask (ie, vented/valved masks).

Comment

Mask Effectiveness—Masks reduce the spread of SARS-CoV-2 by preventing both droplets and potentially virus-bearing aerosols.^6,21,22 It has been demonstrated that well-fitted cotton homemade masks and medical masks provide the most effective method of reducing droplet dispersion. Loosely fitted masks as well as bandana-style facial coverings minimally reduce small aerosolized droplets, and an uncovered mouth and nose can disperse particles at a distance much greater than 6 feet.²²

Mask Compliance—We report an overall high compliance rate with mask wearing among individuals visiting a hospital; however, compliance was still imperfect. Overall, 78% of observed individuals wore a correctly fitting mask when entering a hospital, even with hospital staff positioned at entry points to ensure proper mask usage. With all the resources available at health care centers, we anticipated a much higher compliance rate for correctly fitting masks at hospital entrances. We hypothesize that given only 78% of individuals showed proper mask compliance in a setting with enforcement by health care personnel, the mask compliance rate in the larger community is likely much lower. It is imperative to enforce continued mask compliance in medical centers and other public areas given notable vaccine noncompliance in certain parts of the country.

Tools to Prevent Disease Transmission—Mask usage by the general public in NYC helped in its response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Yang et al²³ demonstrated through mathematical modeling that mask usage in NYC was associated with a 6.6% reduction in transmission overall and a 20% decrease in transmission for individuals 65 years and older during the first month of the universal mask policy going into effect. The authors extrapolated these data during the NYC reopening and found that universal masking reduced transmission by approximately 9% to 11%, accounting for the increase in hours spent outside home quarantine. The authors also hypothesized that if universal masking was as effective in its reduction of transmission for everyone in NYC as it was for older adults, the potential reduction in transmission of SARS-CoV-2 could be as high as 28% to 32%.²³

Temperature checks at entrance barricades were standard protocol during the observation period. Although the main purpose of this study was to investigate compliance with and proper use of facial masks in a health care setting, it should be mentioned that, although temperature checks were being done on almost every person entering a hospital, the uniformity and practicality of this intervention has not been backed by substantial evidence. Although many nontouch thermometers are intended to capture a forehead temperature for the most accurate reading, the authors will share that in their observation, medical personnel screening individuals at hospital entrances were observed checking temperatures at any easily accessible body part, such as the forearm, hand, or neck. Furthermore, it has been reported that only approximately 40% of individuals with COVID-19 present with a fever.²⁴ Many hospitals, including the 4 that were included in this investigation, have formal protocols for patients presenting with a fever, especially those presenting to an ambulatory center. Patients are usually instructed to call ahead if they have a fever, and a decision regarding next steps will be discussed with a health care provider. In addition, 1 meta-analysis on the symptoms of COVID-19 suggested that approximately 12% of infected patients are asymptomatic, likely a conservative estimate.²⁵ Although we do not suggest that hospitals stop temperature checks, consistent temperature checks in anatomic locations intended for the specific thermometer used must be employed. Alternatively, a thermographic camera system that could detect heat signatures may be a way to screen faster, only necessitating that those above a threshold be assessed further.

The results of this study suggest that much greater effort is being placed on these temperature checks than on other equally important components of the entrance health assessment. This initial encounter at hospital entrances should serve as an opportunity for education on proper choice and use of masks with clear instructions that masks should not be removed unless directed by a health care provider and in a designated area, such as an examination room. The COVID-19 pandemic in the United States is likely the first time an individual is wearing these types of masks. Reiterating when and how often a mask should be changed (eg, when wet or soiled), how a soiled mask is not an effective mask, how a used mask should be discarded, ways to prevent self-contamination (ie, proper donning and doffing), and the importance of other infection-prevention behaviors—hand hygiene; social distancing; avoidance of touching the eyes, nose, and mouth with unwashed hands; and regular disinfecting of surfaces—should be practiced.^11,26-29 Extended use and reuse of masks also can result in transmission of infection.³⁰

Throughout the pandemic, our personal experience is that some patients often overtly refuse to wear a mask, citing underlying respiratory issues. The implications of patients not wearing a mask in a medical office and endangering other patients and staff are beyond the scope of this analysis. We will, however, comment briefly on the evidence behind this common concern. Matuschek et al³¹ found substantial adverse changes in respiratory rate, oxygen saturation, and CO₂ levels in patients with severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease who were wearing N95 respirators during a 6-minute walk test. Another study by Chan et al³² showed that nonmedical masks in healthy older adults in the community setting had no impact on oxygen saturation. Ultimately, the most effective mask a patient can wear is a mask that will be worn consistently.³²

Populations With Limited Access to Masks—The COVID-19 pandemic disproportionately impacted disadvantaged populations, both in socioeconomic status and minority status. A disproportionate number of COVID-19 hospitalizations and deaths occurred in lower-income and minority populations.¹⁰ In fact, Lamb et al³³ reported that NYC neighborhoods with a larger proportion of uninsured individuals with limited access to health care and overall lower socioeconomic status had a higher rate of SARS-CoV-2 positivity. A retrospective study in Louisiana showed that Black individuals accounted for 77% of hospitalizations and 71% of deaths due to COVID-19 in a population where only 31% of individuals identified as Black.¹⁰ Chu et al⁶ even asserted that policies should be put into place to address equity issues for populations with limited access to masks. We agree that policies should be put into action to ensure that individuals lacking the means to obtain appropriate masks or unable to obtain an adequate supply of masks be provided this new necessity. It has been calculated that the impact of masks in reducing virus transmission would be greatest if mask availability to disadvantaged populations is ensured.¹⁸ We support a plan for masks to be covered by government-sponsored health plans.

Study Limitations—Several limitations exist in our study that should be discussed. Although the data collectors observed a large number of individuals, each hospital entrance was only observed for 1 half-day morning session. There may be variations in the number of people wearing a mask at different times of day and different days of the week with fluctuations in hospital traffic. Although data were collected at a variety of hospitals representing the diverse health care delivery models available in the United States, the NYC hospitals included in this study may have different resources available for infection-prevention strategies than hospitals across the country, given NYC’s unique population density and demographics.

Study Strengths—The generalizability of the study should be recognized. Data were collected by all major health care delivery models available in the United States—private, state, city, and federal hospital systems. This study can be easily replicated in other health care delivery systems to further investigate potential gaps in mask usage and infection prevention. Repeating this study in areas where a large portion of the population does not believe in the virus also will likely show lower levels of mask use.

Conclusion

As the country grapples with vaccine hesitancy and with the new variants of SARS-CoV-2, continued universal masking is still imperative. The effectiveness of universal masking has been demonstrated, and with the combination of vaccinations, we can be assured that the world will continue to emerge from the pandemic.

Pityriasis rosea is a papulosquamous eruption that favors the trunk and proximal extremities. It occurs most commonly in adolescents and young adults.¹ The rash typically presents with a solitary lesion, known as a “herald patch,” which is followed by a scaly erythematous eruption along the cleavage lines of the skin. The condition is self-limited and often resolves in 6 to 8 weeks. Recent evidence suggests that viral reactivation of human herpesvirus 6 and human herpesvirus 7 may play a role in the development of skin lesions.² Pityriasis rosea also has been reported following the administration of new medications and vaccinations.^1-3 We report a case of a 30-year-old woman who developed pityriasis rosea 3 days after receiving the second dose of the COVID-19 vaccine.

Case Report

A 30-year-old woman presented to the dermatology office for evaluation of a rash on the trunk and upper extremities that had been present for 5 days. She reported an initial solitary lesion on the left upper back, subsequently followed by the appearance of a mildly pruritic rash on the trunk and upper extremities. The rash first appeared 3 days after she received the second dose of the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine. She was otherwise asymptomatic after vaccination and denied fever, chills, headache, and myalgia. She denied any rash following her first dose of the COVID-19 vaccine, history of known COVID-19 infection or exposures, or new medications. Notably, the patient worked in health care.

Physical examination revealed a 2-cm, erythematous, thin, scaly plaque over the left side of the upper back (Figure, A). Erythematous, scaly, thin papules of varying sizes were distributed along the cleavage lines of the trunk and upper extremities (Figure, B). No biopsy was performed because of the classic clinical presentation of this self-limited condition and the patient’s history of hypertrophic scarring. No additional laboratory workup was performed. She was prescribed triamcinolone cream 0.1% as needed for pruritus and was reassured about the benign nature of this cutaneous eruption.

Comment

A broad spectrum of cutaneous manifestations has been reported in association with acute COVID-19 infection, including a papulovesicular rash, perniolike eruptions, urticaria, livedo reticularis, and petechiae.⁴ Several cases of pityriasis rosea in association with acute COVID-19 infection also have been reported.⁵ COVID-19 infection has been linked to reactivation of the herpesvirus, which may explain the connection between acute COVID-19 infection and the development of pityriasis rosea.⁶ Pityriasis rosea associated with administration of the COVID-19 vaccine is a rare complication with few reports in the literature.⁷ Similar to our patient, there are reports of pityriasis rosea developing after the second dose of the vaccine, with some patients reporting a reactivation of skin lesions.⁸ There is a paucity of reports describing pityriasis rosea associated with the influenza vaccine, hepatitis B vaccine, and human papillomavirus vaccine.³ In such cases, the onset of skin lesions was thought to be related to vaccine-induced stimulation of the immune system or a component of the vaccine.

Conclusion

We presented a unique case of pityriasis rosea following COVID-19 vaccination. Because additional laboratory workup and a skin biopsy were not performed, we are unable to infer causation. However, the classic clinical presentation, rash development within 3 days of vaccination, and prior reports of vaccine-associated pityriasis rosea strengthen the aforementioned association. We hope this case adds to the growing understanding of the novel COVID-19 vaccine. As more individuals become vaccinated, both clinicians and patients should be aware of this benign cutaneous eruption that can develop following COVID-19 vaccination.

Pityriasis rosea is a papulosquamous eruption that favors the trunk and proximal extremities. It occurs most commonly in adolescents and young adults.¹ The rash typically presents with a solitary lesion, known as a “herald patch,” which is followed by a scaly erythematous eruption along the cleavage lines of the skin. The condition is self-limited and often resolves in 6 to 8 weeks. Recent evidence suggests that viral reactivation of human herpesvirus 6 and human herpesvirus 7 may play a role in the development of skin lesions.² Pityriasis rosea also has been reported following the administration of new medications and vaccinations.^1-3 We report a case of a 30-year-old woman who developed pityriasis rosea 3 days after receiving the second dose of the COVID-19 vaccine.

Case Report

A 30-year-old woman presented to the dermatology office for evaluation of a rash on the trunk and upper extremities that had been present for 5 days. She reported an initial solitary lesion on the left upper back, subsequently followed by the appearance of a mildly pruritic rash on the trunk and upper extremities. The rash first appeared 3 days after she received the second dose of the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine. She was otherwise asymptomatic after vaccination and denied fever, chills, headache, and myalgia. She denied any rash following her first dose of the COVID-19 vaccine, history of known COVID-19 infection or exposures, or new medications. Notably, the patient worked in health care.

Physical examination revealed a 2-cm, erythematous, thin, scaly plaque over the left side of the upper back (Figure, A). Erythematous, scaly, thin papules of varying sizes were distributed along the cleavage lines of the trunk and upper extremities (Figure, B). No biopsy was performed because of the classic clinical presentation of this self-limited condition and the patient’s history of hypertrophic scarring. No additional laboratory workup was performed. She was prescribed triamcinolone cream 0.1% as needed for pruritus and was reassured about the benign nature of this cutaneous eruption.

Comment

A broad spectrum of cutaneous manifestations has been reported in association with acute COVID-19 infection, including a papulovesicular rash, perniolike eruptions, urticaria, livedo reticularis, and petechiae.⁴ Several cases of pityriasis rosea in association with acute COVID-19 infection also have been reported.⁵ COVID-19 infection has been linked to reactivation of the herpesvirus, which may explain the connection between acute COVID-19 infection and the development of pityriasis rosea.⁶ Pityriasis rosea associated with administration of the COVID-19 vaccine is a rare complication with few reports in the literature.⁷ Similar to our patient, there are reports of pityriasis rosea developing after the second dose of the vaccine, with some patients reporting a reactivation of skin lesions.⁸ There is a paucity of reports describing pityriasis rosea associated with the influenza vaccine, hepatitis B vaccine, and human papillomavirus vaccine.³ In such cases, the onset of skin lesions was thought to be related to vaccine-induced stimulation of the immune system or a component of the vaccine.

Conclusion

We presented a unique case of pityriasis rosea following COVID-19 vaccination. Because additional laboratory workup and a skin biopsy were not performed, we are unable to infer causation. However, the classic clinical presentation, rash development within 3 days of vaccination, and prior reports of vaccine-associated pityriasis rosea strengthen the aforementioned association. We hope this case adds to the growing understanding of the novel COVID-19 vaccine. As more individuals become vaccinated, both clinicians and patients should be aware of this benign cutaneous eruption that can develop following COVID-19 vaccination.

Pityriasis rosea is a papulosquamous eruption that favors the trunk and proximal extremities. It occurs most commonly in adolescents and young adults.¹ The rash typically presents with a solitary lesion, known as a “herald patch,” which is followed by a scaly erythematous eruption along the cleavage lines of the skin. The condition is self-limited and often resolves in 6 to 8 weeks. Recent evidence suggests that viral reactivation of human herpesvirus 6 and human herpesvirus 7 may play a role in the development of skin lesions.² Pityriasis rosea also has been reported following the administration of new medications and vaccinations.^1-3 We report a case of a 30-year-old woman who developed pityriasis rosea 3 days after receiving the second dose of the COVID-19 vaccine.

Case Report

A 30-year-old woman presented to the dermatology office for evaluation of a rash on the trunk and upper extremities that had been present for 5 days. She reported an initial solitary lesion on the left upper back, subsequently followed by the appearance of a mildly pruritic rash on the trunk and upper extremities. The rash first appeared 3 days after she received the second dose of the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine. She was otherwise asymptomatic after vaccination and denied fever, chills, headache, and myalgia. She denied any rash following her first dose of the COVID-19 vaccine, history of known COVID-19 infection or exposures, or new medications. Notably, the patient worked in health care.

Physical examination revealed a 2-cm, erythematous, thin, scaly plaque over the left side of the upper back (Figure, A). Erythematous, scaly, thin papules of varying sizes were distributed along the cleavage lines of the trunk and upper extremities (Figure, B). No biopsy was performed because of the classic clinical presentation of this self-limited condition and the patient’s history of hypertrophic scarring. No additional laboratory workup was performed. She was prescribed triamcinolone cream 0.1% as needed for pruritus and was reassured about the benign nature of this cutaneous eruption.

Comment

A broad spectrum of cutaneous manifestations has been reported in association with acute COVID-19 infection, including a papulovesicular rash, perniolike eruptions, urticaria, livedo reticularis, and petechiae.⁴ Several cases of pityriasis rosea in association with acute COVID-19 infection also have been reported.⁵ COVID-19 infection has been linked to reactivation of the herpesvirus, which may explain the connection between acute COVID-19 infection and the development of pityriasis rosea.⁶ Pityriasis rosea associated with administration of the COVID-19 vaccine is a rare complication with few reports in the literature.⁷ Similar to our patient, there are reports of pityriasis rosea developing after the second dose of the vaccine, with some patients reporting a reactivation of skin lesions.⁸ There is a paucity of reports describing pityriasis rosea associated with the influenza vaccine, hepatitis B vaccine, and human papillomavirus vaccine.³ In such cases, the onset of skin lesions was thought to be related to vaccine-induced stimulation of the immune system or a component of the vaccine.

Conclusion

We presented a unique case of pityriasis rosea following COVID-19 vaccination. Because additional laboratory workup and a skin biopsy were not performed, we are unable to infer causation. However, the classic clinical presentation, rash development within 3 days of vaccination, and prior reports of vaccine-associated pityriasis rosea strengthen the aforementioned association. We hope this case adds to the growing understanding of the novel COVID-19 vaccine. As more individuals become vaccinated, both clinicians and patients should be aware of this benign cutaneous eruption that can develop following COVID-19 vaccination.